Young: When will secularism be allowed in the public square?

Cathy Young writes in Reason Online about how difficult it is for American politicians to play the religion card:

Given the liberal intelligentsia’s high tolerance for the use of traditional religion in progressive causes, it’s not surprising that hardly anyone questions the political influence of Earth-worshipping environmentalism, which novelist Michael Crichton has called "the religion of choice for urban atheists." This environmentalist "spirituality" pervades Gore’s 1992 book Earth in the Balance...

...Yet the faith-based presidency is genuinely troubling. This is not only because of the public policies justified by invoking God’s name. No less important is the symbolic message that one must be religious in order to be a part of the body politic -- in order, perhaps, to be a "real" American. It’s a message that goes hand in hand with a good deal of secularist bashing and particularly atheist bashing: In some of the Republican attacks on Democratic financier George Soros, atheist was used as a term of opprobrium.

The public’s views on this subject are more complex than the champions of religion in the public square often make them out to be. For instance, a recent Time poll found likely voters evenly divided on the question of whether the president should allow his personal faith to be his guide in making political decisions. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves religious, but about a third do not consider religion very important in their lives and attend religious services once a month or less. That’s a pretty large segment of the population to reduce to the status of political pariahs.

Ritchie: The sky is always falling

David Ritchie has published an interesting piece in the New York Press about doomsday traditions and our own end-times culture.

As impressive as the scope of world-enders' thinking these days is its overwhelming detail. Everything from events in the Middle East to the technology of cloning has been worked into one end-times commentary or another.

As one might expect, 9/11 has acquired apocalyptic dimensions of its own, explained at Boston University's Center for Millennial Studies website. In that specific context, the level of detail may extend even to the frequency of individual words in the book of Revelation. A pious acquaintance, apparently aware of Manhattan's equation with mystery Babylon, tried to relate the fall of the WTC's two towers to the repetition of the two words "is fallen" in Revelation 14:8:

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

Being no biblical scholar, and certainly no eschatologist, I can only make a guess (albeit uninformed) that the words are repeated for emphasis and not to represent a specific number of buildings destroyed.

The detail of these scenarios reflects more than just zeal and fascination. It also serves two important purposes. One, to overwhelm the reader or listener with information. Presented with countless particulars and tiny specifics, one simply cannot investigate, much less evaluate, all of them one by one. Potential critics are swamped. That effect accounts, at least in part, for the success of many end-times models. Doomsday artists are well aware of this principle: The more detail, the better, for the same reason that a hurricane is more powerful than a single raindrop.

Now for the second, less evident but equally important purpose of abundant detail: It provides a doomsday scenario such as a conspiracy hypothesis about the "last days" with countless points of attachment to other scenarios. Together, they support and reinforce one another in the same manner as the interconnected girders of a building.

Future human forms

I received an interesting email today asking for my perspective on the future of human forms:

"The main argument in my dissertation though, is whether Human beings will use mechanical augmentation to move further away from the Human blueprint (as designers re-interpret the Human form), or try to achieve a new level of cosmetic beauty? - If you could offer your current opinions on this specific statement it would benefit my investigation immensely.

"I am a perfectly healthy Human being, but I would personally choose to move further away from the Human form - having never really felt 'complete' as a mere Human being. Maybe for me this would be a more spiritual transformation - something of self discovery - allowing me to challenge the form I was born into - and the subsequent understanding of the world created by that form."

My response:

I believe the answer to your question is largely yes. Our relationship with our bodies is about to change dramatically. The two major factors driving this change are 1) greater control over our morphology and its processes, and 2) the potential for the extended mind.

What this means is that our bodies are about to become our canvases. Given that human cognition may be supplemented by external devices, and given the potential for living in virtual environments, the body will become less and less important from a purely functional perspective. Supplementing this is increased control over its physical and functional characteristics. Consequently, we'll be able to modify the body based on both utilitarian and non-utilitarian imperatives.

From a functional perspective, the potential for genetic, cybernetic and nano augmentation is significant. Enhancements to existing traits are a given, but so will be the advent of new characteristics, like different senses and capabilities altogether (whether they be physical or cognitive). How this will change bodily morphology is anybody's guess, but I'm certain it won't be subtle.

When it comes to non-utilitarian modifications, there are a number of potential avenues. One idea is the "perfection" of the human body, which is an idea explored by Natasha Vita-More (and to a lesser degree by pop icons like Michael Jackson, Cher, David Bowie, etc). Others alter or utilize their bodies to make artistic statements, like Orlan or Stelarc. And still others are interested in non-conformism and self-actualization, which leads to radical body modification in the form of tattoos, piercings, gender change, etc. I also know of a person who suffers from a kind of bodily dysmorphia where she believes that she is a cybernetic creature born into a biological body; she feels "wrong" much like a transgendered person feels like they're in the wrong body, and she eagerly awaits the opportunity to become a mechanical/synthetic being. Some prospective body modifiers speculate about transgenic modifications (horns, tails, glow-in-the-dark skin and hair, etc). Others want to become another organism altogether (i.e. dolphins).

What's unknown at this point is how much of this will/can be done in the real world, and how much of this can be achieved virtually in the form of simulations and/or online avatars.

Taken further, body modification and transhumanism will ultimately result in human speciation. Different people will follow different paths, all converging from a common human ancestry. Writer Greg Egan speculates about this in his book Diaspora, which involves posthumans of different sorts: genetically modified surface dwellers, uploaded minds living in supercomputers, cyborgs, deliberately devolved primitive hominids, and so on. I believe Egan is largely correct.

As for modifications that are about achieving "cosmic beauty," you could be right, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, like you suggest, the human form may be radically rejected altogether and the future person will barely resemble a biological species. Transhumanism is for many a means to become postbiological.

Hope that helps.

Best,
George

Cybercity radio interview

This coming Saturday Sep. 25 at 9:00PM EST I will be Jack Landman's guest on Cybercity Radio, to be broadcast on IBC Radio Network Worldwide. We will be discussing transhumanism and the future of human evolution.

Caplan: voting rights for the aging

Given the potential for radically extended lifespans, this issue is sure to become more and more important over the coming decades:

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan wonders, "at what point is someone too impaired to cast a ballot? Many Americans with dementia or other mental impairments, says Caplan, are not given the right to vote even if their impairment does not interfere with their ability to understand the positions of candidates and to make a choice.

"Many people believe that those who plan to vote for President Bush in the upcoming election are crazy, while a large number of other people think those who plan to vote for Sen. John Kerry are nuts. Whichever view best describes your position, it's all too easy to dismiss those who disagree with you as unfit to vote.

While Americans may joke that the voting preferences of those on the other side of the political spectrum are indicative of mental illness — humor aside — has our country actually come to grips with the question of cognitive impairment and the right to vote?

We all remember stories from Palm Beach County and other areas of Florida during the last presidential election in which older voters complained that the ballots were too confusing to use. Do the current methods used for voting block access for those with mental or cognitive impairments? And do those living in institutions, particularly the elderly in nursing homes, always get to exercise their right to vote even if they have a bit of memory loss or suffer from depression? And what are the standards for disqualifying someone from voting because of cognitive impairment?"

Yes, now you too can survive hyperterrorism. Here's how.

The RAND corporation has released the pocket edition survival guide to surviving terrorism: "What You Should Do to Prepare for and Respond to Chemical, Radiological, Nuclear, and Biological Terrorist Attacks."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[looking at the cover of the pocket guide, what the hell do you suppose those people are supposed to be looking at?....]

Eco: science the cure to fundamentalism

Writer and philosopher Umberto Eco argues in his latest OpEd that the scientific method is a suitable counterbalance to fundamentalism:

"Many readers probably don't know exactly what black holes are and, frankly, the best I can do is to imagine them like the pike in Yellow Submarine that devours everything around it until it finally swallows itself. But in order to understand the news item from which I am taking my cue, all you need to know about black holes is that they are one of the most controversial and absorbing problems in contemporary astrophysics.

Recently I read in the papers that the celebrated scientist Stephen Hawking has made a statement that is sensational, to say the least. He maintains that he made an error in his theory of black holes (published back in the 70s) and proposed the necessary corrections before an audience of fellow scientists.

For those involved in the sciences there is nothing exceptional about this, apart from Hawking's exceptional standing, but I feel that the episode should be brought to the attention of young people in every nonfundamentalist or nonconfessional school so that they may reflect upon the principles of modern science."

Entire article

Beer may be as healthy as wine

Nothing against wine, but this is possibly the best news I've heard in weeks:

Researchers at the University of Western Ontario (how cool is it that this finding emerges from my old school?) believe that beer may have the same antioxidizing effects as red wine. According to the press release, "[O]ne drink of beer or wine provides equivalent increases in plasma antioxidant activity, which helps prevent the oxidization of blood plasma by toxic free radicals that trigger many aging diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and cataracts."

The report continues:

Polyphenols are the compounds in plants that help prevent UV damage from the sun and make the plant cell wall strong. They are believed to have antioxidant benefits when consumed by the human body. Even though red wine contains more polyphenols than beer, this study showed the body absorbs about equally effective amounts of bioactive molecules such as polyphenols from beer and wine. Beer, wine, stout, and matured spirits (rum, whisky, sherry and port), which extract tannins from the oak casks they are matured or stored in, all contain significant amounts of polyphenols.

But before you all go rushing out to become alcoholics, realize that while studies have shown one daily drink of almost any alcoholic beverage can help reduce the risk of many aging diseases, larger daily intakes (three drinks per day) actually increases the risk of these diseases. This particular study suggests the risk is increased because three drinks result in the blood becoming pro-oxidant -- a phenomenon known as “hormesis”, the concept that small doses of a toxic substance can have beneficial effects while a large amount is harmful.

By the way, as I'm writing this I'm downing a glass of Konig Pilsner. And I feel good about this. Mmmmm, life *hic* extension...

Something's tugging at Pioneer probes

Man, I love news like this.

As bizarre as this may sound, it appears as though the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes are having a hard time leaving the outer extremes of our solar system. Launched over 30 years ago, at looks as if some kind of mysterious force is holding them back as they try to sweep out of the solar system.

Some scientists believe that the unseen "dark matter" which may permeate the universe is what is influencing the Pioneers' passage. Others say flaws in our understanding of the laws of gravity best explain the crafts' wayward behavior.

Hold on to your Newtonian dynamics and Einsteinian relativity caps before they blow off....

Ben Goertzel's kinds of minds

Artificial intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel -- the guy who I'd give the vote for "most likely to develop artificial general intelligence" -- recently published an article in FrontierNumber4 titled "Kinds of Minds."

Goertzel is part of the Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute, a "small nonprofit organization, whose overall mission is to work toward the creation of powerful, ethically positive Artificial General Intelligence." Specifically, the group is working on the Novamente AI Engine, an in-development software system aimed at the lofty goal of true artificial general intelligence -- "at the human level and beyond."

In the FN4 article, Goertzel describes the various ways in which intelligence and consciousness can plausibly exist -- their embodied nature, the kinds of social interactions involved, telepathy, and so on. He even tackles some interesting quantum consciousness issues.

Describing humans versus conjectured future Novamentes, Goertzel writes,

Given all these ontological categories, we may now position the human mind as being: singly-embodied, singly-body-centered, tool and socially dependent and language-enabled, and conservatively-structured. Furthermore, while it may possibly utilize quantum effects in some way, it is clearly very limited in its ability to do quantum-based reasoning.

The Novamente AI system, is intended to be a somewhat different kind of mind: flexibly embodied, flexibly body-centered, tool and socially dependent, language and telepathy enabled, and radically self-modifying, and potentially fully quantum-enabled. Also, Novamentes are explicitly designed to be formed into a community structured according to the "telepathic BOA mindplex" arrangement.

It might seem wiser, to some, to begin one’s adventures in the AI domain by sticking more closely to the nature of human intelligence. But my view is that some of the limitations imposed by the nature of humans’ physical embodiment pose significant impediments to the development of intelligence, as well as to the development of positive ethics. Single embodiment and the lack of any form of telepathy are profound shortcomings, and there seems absolutely no need to build these shortcomings into our AI systems. Rather, the path to creating highly intelligent software will be shorter and simpler if we make use of the capability digital technology presents for overcoming these limitations of human-style embodiment. And the minds created in this way will lack some of the self-centeredness and parochialism displayed by humans -- much of which, I believe, is rooted precisely in our single-bodiedness and our lack of telepathic interaction.

The article is quite fascinating--one that reminds me of Barry Dainton's "Innocence Lost: Simulation Scenarios: Prospects and Consequences" in which he speculates about different kinds of simulations. I strongly recommend both articles for those with an interest in such futurist speculations.

Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale

The prolific Richard Dawkins has released yet another book, this one on the heels of "A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science and Love." His latest book, titled "The Ancestor's Tale : A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," chronicles the remarkable diversity of Earth's organisms throughout time.

Dawkins recently allowed the Guardian to publish an excerpt from his book. Here's a taste:

But how about things that have evolved only once, or not at all? The wheel, with a true, freely rotating bearing, seems to have evolved only once, in bacteria, before being finally invented in human technology. Language, too, has apparently evolved only in us: that is to say at least 40 times less often than the eye. It is surprisingly hard to think of "good ideas" that have evolved only once.

I put the challenge to my Oxford colleague the entomologist and naturalist George McGavin, and he came up with a nice list, but still a short one compared with the list of things that have evolved many times. Bombardier beetles of the genus Brachinus are unique in Dr McGavin's experience in mixing chemicals to make an explosion. The ingredients are made and held in separate (obviously!) glands. When danger threatens, they are squirted into a chamber near the rear end of the beetle, where they explode, forcing noxious (caustic and boiling-hot) liquid out through a directed nozzle at the enemy. The case is well known to creationists, who love it. They think it is self-evidently impossible to evolve by gradual degrees because the intermediate stages would all explode. What they don't understand is that the explosive reaction requires a catalyst: gradually increase the dose of catalyst, and you gradually escalate the explosion, from nothing to lethal.

Next in the McGavin list is the archer fish, which may be unique in shooting a missile to knock prey down from a distance. It comes to the surface of the water and spits a mouthful at a perched insect, knocking it down into the water, where it eats it. The other possible candidate for a "knocking down" predator might be an ant lion. Ant lions are insect larvae of the order Neuroptera. Like many larvae, they look nothing like their adults. With their huge jaws, they would be good casting for a horror film. Each ant lion lurks in sand, just below the surface at the base of a conical pit trap which it digs itself. It digs by flicking sand vigorously outwards from the centre - this causes miniature landslides down the sides of the pit, and the laws of physics do the rest, neatly shaping the cone. Prey, usually ants, fall into the pit and slide down the steep sides into the ant lion's jaws. The possible point of resemblance to the archer fish is that prey don't fall only passively. They are sometimes knocked down into the pit by the particles of sand. These are not, however, aimed with the precision of an archer fish's spit, which is guided, with devastating accuracy, by binocularly focused eyes.

Somerville: children have a right to know their genetic heritage

Conservative bioethicist Margaret Somerville (she hates it when you call her that, but that's what she is), has published an OpEd in the Globe & Mail in which she argues that children have an access right to their genetic heritage. My eyes tend to roll to the back of my head when I read Somerville (this case no exception), but I believe that in this case she may be right--but her reasons for so are utterly wrong and offensive.

Somerville, who adamantly denies being homophobic, argues that gays and lesbians make for lousy parents. Says Somerville, "As we learn that men and women parent differently and children need both, whenever possible we must try to ensure that children have both a mother and a father involved in rearing them..."

In the case of lesbian parents, for example, she argues that children should have the right to know who their biological father is. "We have obligations not to create genetic orphans deliberately, obligations not to impose the suffering and loss of identity that result from loss of a sense of connection to those through whom life traveled to us," says Somerville. "It is paradoxical that in an era of sensitivity to individual human rights and intense individualism, we are prepared to wipe out for others one of the important bases on which we found a sense of individual identity, and experience a sense of connection through which we find meaning in life."

I believe Somerville is making a mistake when she says that one finds a sense of "individual identity" and "meaning in life" by knowing one's biological parent. I scarcely believe that adopted children who have never met their biological parents feel quite this lost. Somerville is doing her usual job of re-enforcing heterocentric views and pushing the conservative "traditional family values" agenda.

As for my support of genetic knowledge for offspring, I support it from the perspective of individual health. One of the first things a doctor asks you when working on a diagnosis is: "Does x run in the family?" Obviously, this is for good reason. When it comes to understanding our health and predispositions, one of the best indicators is our genetic makeup. It's through our biological parents that a significant amount of information about ourselves can be known.

Consequently, biological parents should be prepared to forgo anonymity when they have children. To do otherwise could be potentially harmful to the child, whether they raise them or not.

Wired reviews Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

Jason Silverman of Wired reviews filmmaker Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, a cyberpunk movie that takes place in an elaborate, claustrophobic world circa 2032:

With its heady dialog and intricately detailed 3-D animation, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is dense -- the kind of film you can spread with a putty knife.

That's no criticism -- great films come in a range of viscosities, from light-as-air comedies to experiments thick with symbolism. But the denser a film is, the more likely it is to alienate a substantial chunk of any audience.

Will the density of this film drive away viewers? Who knows? But the style of Ghost in the Shell 2, which is packed with textual and visual information, is certainly intended to reflect its content.

Filmmaker Mamoru Oshii has built an elaborate, claustrophobic world, circa 2032. A thick web of technology has engulfed the earth, and those who have installed the latest version of mechanical "brain" -- they retain just a "ghost" of organic material -- are left to cope with the remnants of humanity, which exist only as faint neurological impulses.

Hughes's "Citizen Cyborg" available for pre-sale

WTA executive director James Hughes's book, "Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future," is weeks away from release and now available for pre-sale on Amazon.

Description from the publisher:

In the next fifty years, life spans will extend well beyond a century. Our senses and cognition will be enhanced. We will have greater control over our emotions and memory. Our bodies and brains will be surrounded by and merged with computer power. The limits of the human body will be transcended as technologies such as artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering converge and accelerate. With them, we will redesign ourselves and our children into varieties of posthumanity.

This prospect is understandably terrifying to many. A loose coalition of groups-including religious conservatives, disability rights and environmental activists-has emerged to oppose the use of genetics to enhance human beings. And with the appointment of conservative philosopher Leon Kass, an opponent of in-vitro fertilization, stem cell research and life extension, to head the President's Council on Bioethics, and with the recent high-profile writings by authors like Francis Fukuyama and Bill McKibben, this stance has become more visible-and more infamous-than ever before.

In the opposite corner a loose transhumanist coalition is mobilizing in defense of human enhancement, embracing the ideological diversity of their intellectual forebears in the democratic and humanist movements. Transhumanists argue that human beings should be guaranteed freedom to control their own bodies and brains, and to use technology to transcend human limitations.

Identifying the groups, thinkers and arguments in each corner of this debate, bioethicist and futurist James Hughes argues for a third way, which he calls democratic transhumanism. This approach argues that we will achieve the best possible posthuman future when we ensure technologies are safe, make them available to everyone, and respect the right of individuals to control their own bodies.

Hughes offers fresh and controversial answers for many other pressing biopolitical issues-including cloning, genetic patents, human genetic engineering, sex selection, drugs, and assisted suicide-and concludes with a concrete political agenda for pro-technology progressives, including expanding and deepening human rights, reforming genetic patent laws, and providing everyone with healthcare and a basic guaranteed income.

A groundbreaking work of social commentary, Citizen Cyborg illuminates the technologies that are pushing the boundaries of humanness-and the debate that may determine the future of the human race itself.

Here aresome interesting editorial reviews:

"A challenging and provocative look at the intersection of human self-modification and political governance. Everyone wondering how society will be able to handle the coming possibilities of AI and Genomics should read Citizen Cyborg." (Dr. Gregory Stock, author of Redesigning Humans)

"A powerful indictment of the anti-rationalist attitudes that are dominating our national policy today. Hughes brings together ideas from religion, history, science, bioethics, and politics in a unique way. The book sparkles with insights, challenges, and new ways of looking at the problems our society is facing today. He is a worthy guide to a more humane future." (John Lantos M.D., author of Do We Still Need Doctors)

"James Hughes is a sober, insightful, useful and optimistic thinker about the astonishing changes in store for human nature. Citizen Cyborg is an important contribution to the rapidly moving debate on human enhancement." (Joel Garreau, author of While God Wasn't Watching: The Future of Human Nature)

"A fascinating tour of the coming intersection of politics, nanotechnology, and biology, by the leading champion of Transhumanism. Anyone who wants to understand the tumultuous bio-politics of the next decade should read this book." (Gregory Pence, author of Who's Afraid of Human Cloning, Professor, Philosophy and School of Medicine, University of Alabama Medical School.)

Burger: how unique are we?

Another book to put on my "to read" list. This one falls into the "Rare Earth" camp in regards to the Fermi question.

"Perfect Planet, Clever Species: How Unique Are We?"
by William C. Burger

Description from publisher:

For many years the federal government funded the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), later popularized by Carl Sagan's novel Contact and the movie starring Jodie Foster. Though in actuality SETI never did make contact with signals from an alien civilization, the search continues to this day through privately funded endeavors. How likely is it that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe? This is the intriguing question that has prompted William Burger's illuminating and absorbing exploration of the unusual circumstances surrounding life on earth.

Examining the critical episodes in our planetÆs early history and the peculiar trajectory of life on our world, Burger shows that the long odyssey of planet Earth may be utterly unique in our galaxy. For example, he describes features of the sun that are far from average. By some estimates, 95 percent of the other stars in the Milky Way galaxy are smaller, and it is unlikely that any of them could supply the energy requirements for a life-sustaining planet such as our own. Earth, as the third planet from the sun, sits within the Goldilocks orbit: it is in the perfect position to receive not too much heat (like Mercury and Venus) and not too little (like more distant planets of the solar system) but just the right amount to foster the development of life.

Turning to the evolution of life itself, Burger points out a host of amazing accidents (for example, the extinction of dinosaurs and the proliferation of flowering plants) that make the steps along the way to Homo sapiens seem like very rare events indeed. He also calls attention to the curious fact that the early hominid brain tripled in size over the relatively short time period leading to the appearance of modern human beings. Finally, he notes aspects of humanity's cultural evolution that seem unlikely to have been duplicated anywhere else.

Health tip: eat your Omega-3 fatty acids

Omega-3 fatty acids are good for you.

Actually, they are very good for you. Omega-3 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fatty acids found in certain fish tissues. Some people believe that many modern health problems are the result of too little Omega-3's in our diet.

Recent findings indicate that Omega-3's:
- delay Alzheimer's in mice and may lower the risk of dementia in old age
- may act as a mood stabilizer, opening the possibility of their use as a treatment for depression and bipolar disorder
- have possible beneficial cardiovascular effects
- are important precursors of anti-inflammatory prostaglandins

It's recommended that people eat fish at least twice a week. In particular, albacore tuna and salmon are high in two kinds of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). It's also a good idea to eat tofu and other forms of soybeans, canola, walnut and flaxseed, and their oils, which contain alpha-linolenic acid (LNA), which can become omega-3 fatty acid in the body.

FuturePundit has more to say about the benefits of Omega-3's.

Oh, Canada

[allow me to indulge in a fleeting moment of unabashed nationalism] Canada once again reaffirms its hockey supremacy as it wins the 2004 World Cup of Hockey, defeating Finland 3-2 in a hard fought game. Kudos to Wayne Gretzky for putting together an amazing team.

Six sci-fi writers consider our social future

[via Gravity Lens] John Shirley of Locus Magazine recently asked 6 science fiction writers to speculate about our social future. These writers were Cory Doctorow, Pat Murphy, Kim Stanley Robinson, Norman Spinrad, Bruce Sterling and Ken Wharton. Some of the issues addressed include the environment, copyright, social trends, terrorism, war, world government, and the upcoming Presidential election.

Some questions are hard to formulate — but you carry them around inside you, like Confucius overlong in the womb, waiting for a way to ask them. I wanted to know about the quality of life in the future. I wanted to know about our political life; the scope of our freedom. I wanted to know what it was going to be like on a daily basis for my son and my grandson — I wanted to know if perhaps my son would do better to have no children at all. Those are general yearnings, more than specific questions. The questions I came up with still seem too general, and approximate. “I think it helps to use Raymond Williams' concept of 'residual and emergent,'” Kim Stanley Robinson told me, “...and consider the present as a zone of conflict between residual and emergent social elements, not making residual and emergent code words for 'bad and good' either.” Residual and emergent: yes. But what will reside and what emerge? From here, the future is just that unfocused. So I simply I asked the only questions I had... and six science fiction writers answered.

Cornel West says democracy still matters

Afro-American intellectual and Princeton scholar Cornel West has published his latest book, "Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism." This is a follow-up to his acclaimed 1993 book, "Race Matters."

West, an unorthodox academic (he recorded a hip-hop album in 2001 and appeared as Councillor West in The Matrix II and III), describes himself as a "non-Marxist socialist" (due to Marx's opposition to religion), and serves as honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which he has described as "the first multiracial, socialist organization close enough to my politics that I could join." He has was involved with the Million Man March and Russell Simmons's Hip-Hop Summit, and has worked with such controversial figures as Louis Farrakhan (whom he has actively criticized), and Al Sharpton, whose 2004 presidential campaign West advised.

In "Democracy Matters," West worries that nihilism has now spread to Americans of all races. "Many have given up even being heard," he writes, and have succumbed to "sour cynicism, political apathy and cultural escapism." Writing a review in the New York Times, Caleb Crain writes:

American democracy, he feels, is threatened by "free-market fundamentalism," "aggressive militarism" and "escalating authoritarianism." It will be saved, if it can be, by recourse to "the Socratic commitment to questioning," "the prophetic commitment to justice" and "tragicomic hope." West believes that in the fight against imperialism, the black experience may be a crucial resource, because blacks relied on tragicomic hope in their struggle for freedom, and it remains legible in their history and audible in black music, from the blues to hip-hop.

He also believes that the political nihilism of the nation's elite also comes in three varieties, namely "evangelical nihilism," "paternalistic nihilism," and "sentimental nihilism."

West's solution is tied in closely with his religious inclinations. As Craine notes,

He offers to remind readers of democratic resources in America's cultural heritage, assess the obstacles and contributions to democracy of Judaism, Islam and Christianity and suggest ways of reaching young people. But he doesn't subject the concept of nihilism to further analysis. If you accept his descriptions, the argument is won. But he makes no effort to persuade anyone not yet a believer.

In closing the review, Craine writes,

West's intellectual catchment area is enormous -- he touches on topics as disparate as rap history, the Islamic novel in the 20th century and the latest thinking on postmodern Christian theology and the public sphere. But if he wants to address the people, he needs to give them more than just unfamiliar facts. He needs to give them reason to believe him, even if they don't really want to. At the perilous task of disillusionment, journalists, however sentimental, have been doing a better job.

Nick Bostrom's rebuttal to Francis Fukuyama

Nick Bostrom, the Chair of the World Transhumanist Association, has penned a rebuttal in response to Francis Fukuyama's assertion that transhumanism is among the greatest threats currently facing humanity.

Published in the September/October edition of Foreign Policy, Fukuyama describes transhumanism as "a strange liberation movement" that wants "nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints." He goes on to state his usual argument, which is that suffering and other negative aspects of humanity is necessary in order for us to retain our human "essence" and properly function as individuals in society. He believes that without aggression, for example, that people wouldn't be able to fend for themselves, or that without jealousy there could be no love.

It's exactly this kind of flowery mumbo-jumbo that is emanating from the bioconservative camp these days, and Fukuyama, in my opinion, has put together a very weak and unconvincing article for FP. At one point Fukuyama attempts to demean the transhumanists by noting that, "The plans of some transhumanists to freeze themselves cryogenically in hopes of being revived in a future age seem only to confirm the movement's place on the intellectual fringe." [btw, Fukuyama has his terminology wrong: there's no such word as "cryogenically," as cryogenics is the study of low temperatures, as opposed to cryonics which is the practice of preserving frozen organisms; leave it to Fukuyama to botch-up these kinds of technological details while pooh-poohing it altogether] And lastly, he resorts to some rather juvenile ad hominem by noting in an aside that, "transhumanists are just about the last group I'd like to see live forever."

To set the record straight, Nick Bostrom recently wrote a letter to the editor of Foreign Policy. Mike LaTorra, Dale Carrico, and myself contributed to the piece.

Here's the letter in its unedited entirety:

Transhumanism: The World’s Most Dangerous Idea?

Nick Bostrom (2004)

“What idea, if embraced, would pose the greatest threat to the welfare of humanity?” This was the question posed by the editors of Foreign Policy in the September/October issue to eight prominent policy intellectuals, among them Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.

And Fukuyama’s answer? Transhumanism, “a strange liberation movement” whose “crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates.” This movement, he says, wants “nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints.”

More accurately, transhumanists advocate increased funding for research to radically extend healthy lifespan and favor the development of medical and technological means to improve memory, concentration, and other human capacities. Transhumanists propose that everybody should have the option to use such means to enhance various dimensions of their cognitive, emotional, and physical well-being. Not only is this a natural extension of the traditional aims of medicine and technology, but it is also a great humanitarian opportunity to genuinely improve the human condition.

According to transhumanists, however, the choice whether to avail oneself of such enhancement options should generally reside with the individual. Transhumanists are concerned that the prestige of the President’s Council on Bioethics is being used to push a limiting bioconservative agenda that is directly hostile to the goal of allowing people to improve their lives by enhancing their biological capacities.

So why does Fukuyama nominate this transhumanist ideal, of working towards making enhancement options universally available, as the most dangerous idea in the world? His animus against the transhumanist position is so strong that he even wishes for the death of his adversaries: “transhumanists,” he writes, “are just about the last group that I’d like to see live forever”. Why exactly is it so disturbing for Fukuyama to contemplate the suggestion that people might use technology to become smarter, or to live longer and healthier lives?

Fierce resistance has often accompanied technological or medical breakthroughs that force us to reconsider some aspects of our worldview. Just as anesthesia, antibiotics, and global communication networks transformed our sense of the human condition in fundamental ways, so too we can anticipate that our capacities, hopes, and problems will change if the more speculative technologies that transhumanists discuss come to fruition. But apart from vague feelings of disquiet, which we may all share to varying degrees, what specific argument does Fukuyama advance that would justify foregoing the many benefits of allowing people to improve their basic capacities?

Fukuyama’s objection is that the defense of equal legal and political rights is incompatible with embracing human enhancement: “Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project.”

His argument thus depends on three assumptions: (1) there is a unique “human essence”; (2) only those individuals who have this mysterious essence can have intrinsic value and deserve equal rights; and (3) the enhancements that transhumanists advocate would eliminate this essence. From this, he infers that the transhumanist project would destroy the basis of equal rights.

The concept of such a “human essence” is, of course, deeply problematic. Evolutionary biologists note that the human gene pool is in constant flux and talk of our genes as giving rise to an “extended phenotype” that includes not only our bodies but also our artifacts and institutions. Ethologists have over the past couple of decades revealed just how similar we are to our great primate relatives. A thick concept of human essence has arguably become an anachronism. But we can set these difficulties aside and focus on the other two premises of Fukuyama’s argument.

The claim that only individuals who possess the human essence could have intrinsic value is mistaken. Only the most callous would deny that the welfare of some non-human animals matters at least to some degree. If a visitor from outer space arrived on our doorstep, and she had consciousness and moral agency just like we humans do, surely we would not deny her moral status or intrinsic value just because she lacked some undefined “human essence”. Similarly, if some persons were to modify their own biology in a way that alters whatever Fukuyama judges to be their “essence,” would we really want to deprive them of their moral standing and legal rights? Excluding people from the moral circle merely because they have a different “essence” from “the rest of us” is, of course, akin to excluding people on basis of their gender or the color of their skin.

Moral progress in the last two millennia has consisted largely in our gradually learning to overcome our tendency to make moral discriminations on such fundamentally irrelevant grounds. We should bear this hard-earned lesson in mind when we approach the prospect of technologically modified people. Liberal democracies speak to “human equality” not in the literal sense that all humans are equal in their various capacities, but that they are equal under the law. There is no reason why humans with altered or augmented capacities should not likewise be equal under the law, nor is there any ground for assuming that the existence of such people must undermine centuries of legal, political, and moral refinement.

The only defensible way of basing moral status on human essence is by giving “essence” a very broad definition; say as “possessing the capacity for moral agency”. But if we use such an interpretation, then Fukuyama’s third premise fails. The enhancements that transhumanists advocate – longer healthy lifespan, better memory, more control over emotions, etc. – would not deprive people of the capacity for moral agency. If anything, these enhancements would safeguard and expand the reach of moral agency.

Fukuyama’s argument against transhumanism is therefore flawed. Nevertheless, he is right to draw attention to the social and political implications of the increasing use of technology to transform human capacities. We will indeed need to worry about the possibility of stigmatization and discrimination, either against or on behalf of technologically enhanced individuals. Social justice is also at stake and we need to ensure that enhancement options are made available as widely and as affordably as possible. This is a primary reason why transhumanist movements have emerged. On a grassroots level, transhumanists are already working to promote the ideas of morphological, cognitive, and procreative freedoms with wide access to enhancement options. Despite the occasional rhetorical overreaches by some of its supporters, transhumanism has a positive and inclusive vision for how we can ethically embrace new technological possibilities to lead lives that are better than well.

The only real danger posed by transhumanism, it seems, is that people on both the left and the right may find it much more attractive than the reactionary bioconservatism proffered by Fukuyama, Leon Kass, and the other members of the President’s Council.