January 18, 2007

Bjork's colonization simulation does not explain Fermi's Paradox

A number of science sites are proclaiming that the Fermi Paradox may have been solved by Rasmus Bjork, a physicist at the Niels Bohr institute in Copenhagen. Unfortunately, his claim does not withstand scrutiny; the Fermi conundrum is still far from being answered.

Bjork is making a point that many others have made before, that ETI's have not had enough time to colonize the Milky Way. What makes his claim different, however, is that he used a computer to simulate the migrational spread of intergalactic probes.

In his simulation, Bjork had a single civilization launch 8 intergalactic probes to search for intelligent life. Once on their way, each probe would send out eight more mini-probes to search for the nearest stars and look for habitable planets. He was careful to set the parameters such that the probes would only investigate the galactic habitable zone of the Galaxy. Bjork also set it up such that the probes could travel at 30,000km/second, or a tenth of the speed of light.

Based on these settings, Bjork discovered that it would take these probes 10Gyr to explore a measly 4% the Galaxy -- roughly half the age of the Universe. This data would indicate that there most certainly has not been enough time for ETI's to thoroughly explore the Milky Way.

His analysis, however, fails to take into account the likely nature of intergalactic exploration and colonization. In Bjork's simulation, he tracks the progress of a mere 72 probes. Given this ludicrously limited strategy, it would take these 8 primary probes and 64 sub-probes 100,000 years to explore a region of space containing 40,000 stars. Such an effort would almost certainly be considered futile by any civilization, and it's doubtful any ETI would embark on such a project.

Instead, what Bjork should have considered is the potential for ETI's to proliferate Von Neumann replicating probes. Advanced civilizations with access to molecular assembling nanotechnology would be capable of launching self-replicating probes. Initially, the spread of Von Neumann probes would be slow, but like any exponential process, progress would eventually explode. It's been estimated that these types of probes could reach all four corners of the Galaxy anywhere from 5 to 50 million years. That's a far cry from Bjork's projected 250Gyr.

So, no, the Fermi Paradox has not been solved. Far from. And it's high time that cosmologists and astrobiologists stopped using technology from Star Trek to inform their research.

Scott Draves and the evolution of art

I admire artists who use technology in unique ways, which is why I'm a big fan of Scott Draves. He is the inventor of Fractal Flames and the leader of the distributed computing project Electric Sheep. He is also a video artist and an accomplished VJ who goes by the name, "Spot."

Fractal flames is a form of art that utilizes iterated function systems (IFSs) for constructing fractals, but it differs from traditional IFS in several ways. For example it selects color by structure instead of monochrome or by density. The results are quite original and differ significantly from conventional fractal art.


As an aside, if you use GIMP, an open source program along the lines of Photoshop, you can create your own fractal flames.

The Electric Sheep project is a free, open source screen-saver that is run by thousands of people over the Internet. When the screen-saver turns on it communicates with other computers running the same program. The result is a shared collaboration in which animations known as "sheep" twist and morph on the screen. As Draves says, "The result is a collective "android dream", an homage to Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep."


Recently, Draves installed his innovative "Dreams in High Fidelity"display into Google's main lobby, near the model of SpaceShipOne. He describes it as a painting that evolves. It was designed and rendered with the Electric Sheep screen-saver (at triple resolution), and is driven by a "cyborg mind" composed of 40,000 computers and people mediated by a genetic algorithm. Physically it consists of a small computer driving a large hi-def display while creating a continuously morphing, non-repeating, abstract animation.


For those of you living in the NYC area, this coming Saturday January 20, Draves will be having a public conversation along with Alex Grey at his Chelsea gallery, the Chapel of Sacred Mirrors. In addition there will be live painting by Alex and dance music. The HifiDreams will be projected, and Draves will be doing some up-tempo and Spotworks-style, live-mixed VJ sets. More information about this event can be found on Drave's blog.

January 17, 2007

Doomsday clock moved ahead due to climate and biotech

Now that even an enviroskeptic like Ronald Bailey is convinced that climate change is happening, it should come as no surprise that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) has turned their attention to global warming. For the first time in history the infamous Doomsday Clock was moved ahead for environmental reasons; climate change now joins nuclear annihilation as one of the greatest threats to face humanity.

The clock was incremented by 2 minutes and now stands at 5 minutes to midnight.

The decision to do so was reached by a number of experts, including BAS directors and affiliated scientists such as Sir Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking. Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Chicago-based BAS, noted that "When we think about what technologies besides nuclear weapons could produce such devastation to the planet, we quickly came to carbon-emitting technologies." Rees added that "Humankind's collective impacts on the biosphere, climate and oceans are unprecedented." Stephen Hawking released a video statement in which he makes similar warnings.

Specific fears included rising sea levels, heat waves and desertification. It is also feared that there will be new disease outbreaks and wars over arable land and water.

The BAS Board notes,
Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second only to nuclear weapons. The most authoritative scientific group on these issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has concluded, “Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Carbon dioxide, principally from fossil fuel burning, has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up its surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.
Also added to the list of threats are those posed by the emerging life science technologies, such as synthetic biology and genetic modification.

While the risks associated with global warming are severe, I am unconvinced that they qualify as extinction risks. More problematic would be a feedback and runaway greenhouse gas effect in which rising temperatures would move beyond human control. It is feared that such a catastrophe would convert the Earth into a Venus-like planet where temperatures would exceed 400°C. And indeed, the BAS did note this grim possibility in their review.

Historic and unprecedented as it is to include climate and biotech, it is my opinion that the BAS is still ignoring or underestimating a number of potential catastrophic risks. While I can understand their reluctance to include technologies that do not yet exist, the mere theoretical possibility and burgeoning development of such things as molecular nanotechnology, anti-matter weapons, and artificial superintelligence should at the very least be acknowledged.

It's never too early to start planning and formulating potential prescriptions for threats that may result in the extinction of the human species.

My rebuttal to Cameron on Beliefnet

Several weeks ago Beliefnet interviewed ethicist Nigel Cameron to get his opinion on such things as nanotech and enhancement technologies. He basically argued that these future technologies will diminish what it means to be human and even usher in a neo-feudalist society.

Beliefnet recently offered me the opportunity to respond to Cameron's concerns. In the interview, titled "Nanotechnology Will Reshape Humanity," I discuss such things as security, privacy, nanotech and the ethics of enhancement.

Here's an excerpt:
Q: Will art really be art if the artist’s brain is enhanced by technology? For example, a painter or musician?

A: Art will be art so long as there are artists who claim that they are making art.

Art and technology are indelibly linked; all artists employ technique in their work and/or use tools to assist with their creations or performances.

Cognitively gifted individuals have created some of our most cherished works of art. Leonardo DaVinci may have been the most brilliant person who has ever lived (among his many talents, he could write two different sentences simultaneously with both hands). Most of the great composers, including Mozart and Beethoven, had perfect pitch and other cognitive endowments.

Enhancement technologies will not only give future artists unprecedented skills, they will also allow everyday people like you and me to engage as deeply into art as any of history’s greatest artists. Augmentation technologies will democratize and better distribute talent.
You can read more here.

Transhumanism as a threat to democracy?

Bioconservative Nigel Cameron reacted to my 'must-know terms for the 21st Century' article by proclaiming that transhuman technologies pose the gravest challenge to democracy in the 21st Century. This is interesting because James Hughes believes that transhumanism will deepen democracy.

Transhumanist jobs of the future

Ever wonder what jobs will be like 40 years from now? Roma Luciw takes a stab at predicting future vocations in her article, Job prospects charting new territory.

But before we get to her list, here's a breakdown of mid 19th century jobs in London, England:
  • 168,701 domestic servants
  • 29,780 dressmakers and milliners
  • 28,574 boot and shoemakers
  • 21,517 tailors and breechesmakers
  • 20,417 commercial clerks
  • 18,321 carpenters and joiners
  • 16,220 laundrykeepers, washers, and manglers
  • 13,103 private messengers and errand boys
  • 11,507 painters, plumbers, and glaziers
  • 9,110 bakers
  • 7,973 cabinetmakers and upholsterers.
  • 7,151 silk manufacturers, (all branches)
  • 7,002 seamen
  • 6,741 bricklayers
  • 6,716 blacksmiths
  • 6,618 printers
  • 6,450 butchers
  • 5,499 booksellers, bookbinders, and publishers
  • 4,980 grocers and teadealers
  • 4,861 tavernkeepers, publicans, and victuallers
  • 4,290 clock and watchmakers
  • Yes, jobs change over time. And with accelerating change in effect, vocations will change quicker than ever before.

    To help her come up with her list, Luciw contacted a number of futurists, including Joyce Gioia, a futurist who consults on workplace issues and is president of Herman Group, in Greensboro, N.C, and Richard Samson, a director at New Jersey management consultant EraNova Institute.

    Among other changes in the professional landscape, these futurists predict the onset of "hyperjobs" that will focus on "enhancing the human body by keeping it well, reversing the signs of aging, or implanting tiny computers that extend the brain's memory and expand cognitive powers." Human bio-enhancement, they argue, promises to be a big field with fascinating opportunities like bioaesthetic coaching, somaelectronic integration, experience design, and personal genome optimization.

    Mmmmmm, personal genome optimization.

    Among the various job descriptions listed, Luciw offers a job description for "Transhumanist designer/technician" who "will work with people who have suffered such disabilities as amputation, loss of hearing or eyesight, speech impediments, and/or lack of physical mobility."

    Other job descriptions include, Director of Influence, Corporate alumni director, Personalized entertainment programmer, Manager of diversity, Offshore outsourcing co-ordinator, Corporate historian, and Chief health officer. More,
  • Bioaesthetic coach
  • Experience designer
  • Health-enhancement mentor
  • Intercommunity farmer
  • Personal genome optimizer
  • Chief health officer
  • Manager of faith-based relations and initiatives
  • Chief innovation officer
  • Executive chef, space airline
  • Global work process co-ordinator
  • Skycar mechanic
  • Underwater hotel manager
  • Vice-president of experiences
  • While interesting, and even quite possibly prophetic, these projections should be taken with a grain of salt.

    First, many of these jobs will arrive much sooner than 40 years from now, particularly those the health care fields.

    Second, what these projections fail to take into account is how enhancement and computer technologies will empower individuals to be their own coaches and self-managers. Future tech, including personal AI assistants, ubiquitous access to authoritative information, and expert systems, will enable people to better manage their own affairs, activities, minds and bodies.

    January 16, 2007

    Trying to catch my breath

    Only 15 days into the new year and I'm struggling to catch my breath. The past two weeks have been unbelievably eventful for me. If this pace keeps up for the rest of 2007 I may not survive the year.

    First, the Ashley X story broke on January 3. Since I was the only ethicist cited by Ashley's parents at their blog, I (along with James Hughes) received a barrage of interview requests, highlighted by my appearance on the BBC news the next night.

    Later that day my Future of Humanity segment aired nationally on the CBC's The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos.

    Then, on January 11 I posted my revised list of must-know terms for the 21st Century. Thanks to a link on KurzweilAI and other sites it received a considerable amount of attention. It was also picked up by The Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance, of which I am now apparently an observer member, and the Lifeboat Foundation. I've also been asked to join BlogCritics.

    Finally, just when I thought things couldn't pick up any further, my ST: Prime Directive post went completely viral yesterday receiving over 10,000 hits during a 24 hour span. Looks like I've made a bunch of Trekkies angry.

    And it doesn't look like things are going to let up soon. Beliefnet is about to publish my rebuttal to Nigel Cameron and I'm continuing to discuss the Ashley Treatment with The Hour over at their blog. As usual, I'll keep you posted; thanks to everyone for their ongoing encouragement and support.

    January 15, 2007

    New podcast: An interview with Michael Anissimov

    My latest audiocast has been posted here. You can subscribe to this feed.

    This past Sunday January 14 I interviewed Michael Anissimov, the fund raising director for the Lifeboat Foundation, a member of the World Transhumanist Association, and a founding director of the Immortality Institute. Michael is also a prolific blogger at Accelerating Future who writes and speaks about such topics as existential risks, the promise and peril of advanced AI, nanotechnology and transhumanism. In this epsidoe, I ask Michael about the Lifeboat Foundation, various risks facing the human species and some potential solutions.

    Tags: , , , , , , .

    YouTube version of my 'Hour' appearance

    Someone was kind enough to upload my 'Hour' appearance to YouTube, but it suffers from the typical sync problems associated with that site. You can find another version here.

    January 14, 2007

    Fight Club and the modern male

    David Fincher's Fight Club is one of my all-time favorite movies. And like any great film it is open to a wide spectrum of interpretation and analysis. Various themes that run throughout Fight Club include anti-modernism, Buddhism, societal alienation, nihilism, and non-conformism just to name a few.

    There's one theme in particular I'd like to flesh out, and that is Fincher's interpretation of the modern male condition. If you've seen Fight Club you know he doesn't paint a rosy picture, largely portraying men as fish out of water. Very violent fish out of water. The film suggests that men no longer have a proper outlet to vent their latent aggression, and to make matters worse, they have been conditioned by society to suppress their instincts.

    Fincher goes on to assert that men have become feminized by society. This idea shouldn't be of any great surprise to anyone; it's a commonly held in-joke that women work to domesticate their wild men. And given the propensity for male aggression and violence, this shouldn't be unexpected. It's been said that testosterone kills.

    This domestication and feminization of men is conveyed by Fincher a number of ways. The main character, as portrayed by Ed Norton, obsesses about the decor of his condo and religiously pours over the latest Ikea catalogue. Men are no longer hunters, says Tyler, they have become gatherers. Society has made them into consumers where their sense of self-identity is wrapped around their possessions. As Tyler says, "the things you own end up owning you." Men have become the bi-products of the life style obsession.

    Our protagonist starts to suffer from insomnia and eventually discovers a cure: support meetings. He finds that letting out his emotions helps him sleep like a baby. In one memorable scene, he attends a support group for men recovering from testicular cancer. One of the attendees, Bob, has developed large breasts as a result of the treatment. Tyler buries his face in Bob's breasts and has a good cry; the room is filled with men who have had their testicles removed, some have breasts, and they hug and cry. They've been completely stripped of their masculinity.

    Eventually all this repression leads to a rather extreme bi-polar counter-reaction: the ultra violent Fight Club where two men battle it out with their fists in the basement of a bar. It's an opportunity to return to the jungle where men can enjoy a cathartic, testosterone delivered release. Males have been stunted by society, and it is through the Fight Club that they can retain their physicality and feel alive. It may be a negative sensation, but at least it's something.

    The Fight Club also provides an outlet for non-conformism. Men are the middle children of history, says Tyler, with no purpose and no place. "Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives," he says. Men, raised by television to believe they'll be great superstars, have seen through the myth and have become "very, very pissed off."

    At the same time the Fight Club showcases the insanity of male aggression. The fights, while highly romanticized, are violent and bloody. The viewer is completely detached from the pain, titillated by the action while utterly immune to the consequences.

    The homoerotic element to the Fight Club is also undeniable. Men and women have sex, while men fight with other men. It's still two bodies coming together in physical union, the bringing together of flesh for the purpose of deriving pleasure. Rule #3 of Fight Club: only 2 men to a fight.

    And what would a film about male alienation be without commentary about women? There's a palpable misogynistic tone in Fight Club. It was Marla Singer, after all, who "ruined everything." She came between the two friends and created jealousy and unrest. It was Marla who invaded the support groups and their home. "We're a generation raised by women," says Tyler, "I wonder if another woman is what we really need." Moreover, when Tyler said that "the things you own end up owning you," he could very well have been referring to women.

    In the end, we realize that we're watching a man struggle with his own inner dualism. Tyler is literally a man of two minds and he's being ripped apart. On the one hand he is driven by his atavistic and reactionary urges, and on the other he seeks calm and rationality. He is tortured by his restraint and repression, while at the same time seeks a life of freedom and careless abandon. Ultimately it's a futile struggle that leads to his self-destruction. The bombs, the destruction of buildings, the nihilism -- these are all projections of male aggression, a violent backlash against society.

    But it's through this nihilism that there's hope for Tyler. He is admonished by his inner self that "it's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." Man has to "stop trying to control everything and let go." It's only through mature acceptance that the inner struggle can be quelled.

    Which reminds me of an old Buddhist lesson about how to catch a monkey. What you do is attach a box with a coconut inside to the base of a coconut tree. The box has a hole in it the size of a monkey’s hand. When the monkey comes along he will put his hand through the hole and grab the coconut. When you come out the monkey screams because he sees that he’s trapped; he will refuse to let go of the coconut! He’s a prisoner. All he has to do is let go of the coconut and run, but he can't do that because he wants both the coconut and his freedom.

    Tyler needs to let go of the coconut. And the Ikea catalogue.

    Great film.

    Digg!

    Tags: , , , , .

    Snow, beautiful snow

    It's snowing outside. Beautiful white crystal flakes are falling from the sky and settling on to the grass and trees. In a few hours I'll have to pull out my winter coat and shovel the driveway.

    Thank goodness.

    The weather here in southern Ontario has been nothing less than eerie this winter. It's beem unseasonably warm and no snow to speak of. I've been going to work in short sleeved collared shirts. I don't even know where my winter boots are.

    And it's mid January. Normally at this time of year I've already hit the slopes at least once and taken the kids tobogganing. I should be sick of all the snow by now. But for the moment I'm going to enjoy the falling snow and temporarily delude myself into thinking that everything's alright with the planet.

    Global warming is just a theory, right? Like evolution and all that weird inconvenient stuff....

    January 13, 2007

    Around the Web

  • Who needs a digital avatar when you can...uh...have a real person be your avatar? I'm confused.

  • Wondering what you might look like with a new face? Try Modiface.

  • View the latest collection of accessories for augmented animals.

  • Don't believe in accelerating change? Well, the U.S. issued a record number of patents last year.

  • I'd like to read this study about procrastination, but I think I'll do it tomorrow.
  • Star Trek's 'Prime Directive' is stupid

    Fiction often reflects reality and nowhere is this more true than in Star Trek. The franchise is one giant phantasmagoric projection of human hopes and longings. It's also a glimpse into a our societal norms and commonly held inhibitions, fears and inconsistencies.

    Take the Star Trek Prime Directive (PD) for example, a non-interference policy that applies to civilizations who have yet to develop the capacity for warp speed. The policy dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society. No pre-warp culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or alien races, nor should the United Federation of Planets improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept completely secret.

    The Federation contends that great harm would be inflicted upon a civilization if first contact is made prematurely. It is my opinion, however, that if anything like a PD was put into practice it would introduce a slew of ethical problems.

    The PD is a science fictional projection of the naturalistic fallacy and injunctions against playing God. It's also a disturbing application of social Darwinism. The underlying assumption of the PD is that a civilization must attain space faring capabilities and advanced technologies through their own means (civilizational uplift is not an option, I suppose). It's survival of the fittest as decreed by the Federation, and those who cannot progress to an advanced developmental stage or who destroy themselves first simply didn't deserve to be in the Federation in the first place.

    The PD was the focus of many Star Trek episodes, but there's one in particular that stands out in my mind as a blatant example of how negligent and unfair the Prime Directive can be.

    The episode in question comes from the first season of Star Trek: Enterprise called "Dear Doctor" in which the crew must decide where their morals lie about letting a species live or die from a pandemic. Technically speaking, the PD hadn't been implemented yet, but this episode was intended to show some of the events leading to its development.

    In "Dear Doctor" the Enterprise crew encounters a pre-warp civilization that is being decimated by a pandemic -- over 12 million people were killed during the previous year. Needless to say these people are eager to find a cure and are hopeful that the Enterprise crew will be willing and able to help them with their advanced medical technology.

    The crew soon discovers that that the alien society is comprised of two distinct species, the Valakians and Menks -- but for some unknown reason the Menks are completely immune to the disease.

    Phlox, the ship's doctor, is asked to develop medication to ease the symptoms of the disease. In so doing he discovers that the illness has a genetic basis and has been ongoing for thousands of years, accelerating only in recent generations. Shockingly, Dr. Phlox projects that the Valakians will be extinct in less than 200 years.

    The doctor eventually finds a cure but comes to the conclusion that it wouldn't be ethical to administer it for fears of interfering in an evolutionary process. Apparently, the Valakians are dying out and the Menks are undergoing an "awakening process". The "disease" the Valakians are suffering from isn't caused by any pathogen, but is because their gene pool has reached a "dead end."

    The doctor convinces Captain Archer that they should not interfere, they pack their bags, and boldly return to space leaving the Valakians and Malks to fend for themselves.

    It was at this point during the episode when I frantically reached for any and all objects I could find to throw at the television. I started foaming and frothing at the mouth while spewing profanities at the screen. Unbelievable. In the course of one single episode the Star Trek writers committed a slew of ethics sin and bought into a number of fallacies associated with evolutionary theory and genetics.

    First of all, the 'natural course' of things, while certainly flowery and noble sounding, is another way of describing cruel, indifferent and unconscious processes. The entire thrust of secular humanism, to which Star Trek is supposedly partial to, is all about putting a stop to such things.

    Second, it is sheer nonsense from an ethical perspective to favour one sentient species over another based solely on the quality of their genetic constitution and any fallacious preconception as to their evolutionary potential. Nor does it make any sense to allow a genetic disorder to "run its course." It would be like refusing to "interfere" with cystic fibrosis or spina bifida. A doctor's first and foremost directive, if I may use that term, is to treat his or her patient to the best of their abilities and do no harm. Phlox violated the Hippocratic Oath and acted with dangerous negligence.

    I could go on and on about the problems in this episode but I am somewhat straying off course. This is one example of many in which the PD is used as an excuse for inaction. What's worse is that it's a reflection of many current prohibitions and taboos. Today, at the dawn of the genetics revolution, we are confronted with fear and apprehension. And as the world modernizes and globalizes, we are stunted by cultural relativism and social pandering.

    In the Star Trek universe it is assumed that only Darwinian processes can enable a civilization to reach an advanced stage. It is likely that this is believed because of previous failures and a misguided reverence for evolutionary processes. Instead of giving up on uplift and helping a civilization integrate into advanced society, the Federation should keep trying to find an effective strategy. Leaving a primitive culture to their own devices could lead to their destruction -- a result that is quite obviously far worse than awkward socialization.

    While the ethics of obligations is a very tricky thing, it is often through our inaction that we cause the most harm. Injunctions against playing God begs the question: if we don't play God, who will? It is through our good intentions and resultant actions that we are humane. Further, we have to get over our inferiority complex and our fear of making a bad situation worse. And if our actions do make things worse, then we have to refine our strategies and ourselves in hopes of eventually achieving success.

    Humanity's Prime Directive should not be avoidance, but instead compassionate action.

    Digg!

    Tags: , , , , , .

    January 11, 2007

    Must-know terms for the 21st Century intellectual: Redux

    Blog posts can be strange and unpredictable things. There are times when I pour a ton of energy and creativity into a post only to have it largely ignored. Other times I quickly and haphazardly put something together and it ends up attracting thousands of hits. Such was the case with my recent post, Must-know terms for today's intelligentsia.

    Owing to all the interest, feedback and requests, I've decided to revise the list and provide greater detail and links. I apologize for not providing this in the first place.

    Before I get into the list, however, I'd like to clarify the purpose of this exercise.

    First, I am trying to come up with a list of the most fundamental and crucial terms that are coming to define and will soon re-define the human condition, and that subsequently should be known by anyone who thinks of themselves as an intellectual. I admit that there's an elitist and even pompous aspect to this exercise, but the fact of the matter is that the zeitgeist is quickly changing. It's not enough anymore to be able to quote Dostoevsky, Freud and Darwin. This said, while my list of terms is 'required' knowledge, I am not suggesting that it is sufficient.

    My definition of an 'intellectual' also requires explanation. To me an intellectual in this context is an expert generalist -- a polymath or jack-of-all-trades who sees and understands the Big Picture both past, present and future. While I value and respect the work of specialists, they can be frustratingly out of touch with other disciplines and some of the more broader applications of science, technology and philosophy. Given the obvious truism that nobody can know everything, there is still great value in having individuals understand a diverse set of key principles.

    Also, I admit that my list is biased in favour of my own personal specialties and interests, but I have made a conscious effort to be as cross-disciplinary as possible. There are terms from computer science, cosmology, neuroscience, environmentalism, sociology, biotechnology, philosophy, astrobiology, political science, and many other fields.

    Finally, I tried to be as generalized as possible and keep the number of terms down to a minimum; I made an effort to include other integral concepts in the descriptions.

    With that lengthy preamble complete, here is my revised list:
  • Accelerating Change: That the pace of technological development is accelerating is now undeniable. The steady onslaught of Moore's Law and its eerie regularity is the most profound example. As thinkers like Ray Kurzweil and others have shown, the onslaught of accelerating change throws commonly held time-frames out the window. And that this rate of change is exponential implies radical social disruption around the mid-point of the 21st Century.

  • Anthropic Principle: Once considered a philosophical lark, the anthropic principle has become an integral methodological tool with which to best analyze the extreme unarbitrariness of the Universe's parameters. The AP, which suggests that our Universe's qualities are unavoidable in consideration of the presence of observers, has helped cosmologists, astrobiologists and quantum physicists as they work with such related concepts as the fine-tuning hypothesis, string theory, and various multiverse theories.

  • Artificial General Intelligence: This ain't your daddy's AI. Rather, AGI describes the kind of intelligence that you and I have -- the commonsense knowhow we have when we're put into unfamiliar situations. Once developed, artificial agents endowed with AGI will be non-specialized intelligent entities that will come to represent the bona fide synthetic equivalent to human intelligence, and then move beyond.

  • Augmented Reality: AR describes the fusion of the real world with the virtual. By using eyetaps, eartaps and implants, individuals will be able to filter unwanted information from their sensory fields (such as annoying advertising and sounds). Alternately, users will have new information virtually inserted into their environment, including descriptions of landmarks, maps, or even an alert notification that a familiar person is approaching. Imagine the gaming possibilities...

  • Bayesian Rationality: Bayesian rationality is a probabilistic approach to reasoning. Bayesian rationalists describe probability as the degree to which a person should believe a proposition. They also apply Bayes' theorem when inferring or updating their degree of belief when given new information. Some scientists and epistemologists hope to replace the Popperian view of proof with a Bayesian view.

  • Cosmological Eschatology (aka physical eschatology): CE is the study of how the Universe develops, ages, and ultimately comes to an end. While hardly a new concept, what is new is the suggestion that advanced intelligence may play a role in the universe's life cycle. Given the radical potential for postbiological superintelligence, a number of thinkers have suggested that universe engineering is a likely activity for advanced civilizations. This has given rise to a number of theories, including the developmental singularity hypothesis and the selfish biocosm hypothesis.

  • Engineered Negligible Senescence: Aging is increasingly coming to be regarded as a disease, and as such it is privy to treatment and therapies leading to outright eradication. Indefinite lifespans may be as little as 50 years away.

  • Existential Risks: The development of nuclear weapons marked a disturbing turning point for the human species: we are increasingly coming into the possession of apocalyptic technologies. Soon to join the list are such problems as a malevolent superintelligence, deliberate or accidental misuse of nanotech, runaway global warming, a killer artificial virus, an antimatter holocaust, or a particle accelerator disaster. Read more here and here. Adding insult to injury is the Doomsday Argument.

  • Extended Identity: Human activity is increasingly migrating to the digital realm. The rise in popularity of MMORPGs such as Second Life and World of Warcraft show that the self can, to a non-trivial degree, be transfered to an alternative medium. With the maturation of these technologies will come distributed personhood and new legal protections to guarantee safe and ubiquitous online activity.

  • Fermi Paradox: The FP is the disturbing realization that, given the extreme age of the galaxy and the radical potential for post-Singularity intelligences (including their ability to disseminate Von Neumann replicators), our galaxy should be saturated with advanced civilizations and megaprojects by now. Yet, we see no signs of ETI's. Consequently, any predictions about the future of human intelligence must seek to reconcile this observation. Key theories to date include the Great Filter hypothesis, the migration hypothesis (pdf), and the transcension hypothesis (the idea of inward migration into increasingly sophisticated and complex MEST space (Matter, Energy, Space, and Time)).

  • Friendly AI: If we are going to survive the Singularity and the onset of greater-than-human AI, it had better be friendly. And if it turns out to be friendly, it won't be by accident. Computer science theorists such as Eliezer Yudkowsky and Ben Goertzel are already working on what may ultimately prove to be an intractable problem. A poorly programmed, malevolent, or misguided SAI could destroy all of humanity with a mere thought. Asimov's Three Laws will do little against incomprehensibly powerful autopotent entities (a term coined by Nick Bostrom indicating total self-awareness and ability to self-modify).

  • Human Enhancement: Humans are about to decommission natural selection in favour of guided evolution. Darwinian processes gave humanity a good start, but Homo sapiens can be improved. Owing to advances in genetics, cybernetics, nanotechnology, computer science, and cognitive science, humans are set to redefine the human condition. Future humans can look forward to longer lives, enhanced intelligence, memory, communication and physical skills, and improved emotional control. Humans may eventually cease to be biological and gendered organisms altogether, giving rise to the posthuman entity. Human enhancement will irrevocably alter social arrangements, interpersonal relationships, and society itself. And there's also the added potential for nonhuman enhancement.

  • Human Exceptionalism (aka human racism): Not everyone is in favour of human enhancement and the prospect of greater-than-human intelligence. Nor is everyone in favour of extending personhood outside the human sphere. These 'human exceptionalists', a group that includes anti-transhumanist Wesley Smith, argue that being human is what matters, and that to give equal moral currency to non-humans is a violation of human dignity and worth. The opposing viewpoint to this is that of Non-Anthropocentric Personhood -- the notion that nonhumans, be they animals, robots, or uploaded minds, have the potential for personhood status, and by consequence, are worthy of moral consideration.

  • Information Theoretic Death: New technologies will soon demand that we redefine what we mean by death. It is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory to declare death when the heart stops. As long as the information within the brain can be preserved and restored, a person should not be considered irrevocably dead. Given the potential for molecular nanotechnology and other future biotechnological advances, it is reasonable to suggest that most cognitive impairment will someday be repairable. Consequently, we will need to reconsider the status of persons frozen in cyronic stasis or hooked up to life support systems.

  • Mass Automation: The robotic revolution has only just begun. Robots, AI and automated systems are poised to dramatically reduce the amount of manual labor performed by humans. For example, we are less than 10 years away from the advent of self-driving cars. What will that mean for taxi and bus drivers? Checkouts at grocery stores are already becoming automated as are a significant number of factory jobs. The good news is that a lot of demeaning, difficult and dangerous work is about to be eliminated, the bad news is that it will likely cause serious employment issues.

  • Memetic Engineering: This is the radical and controversial idea that the propagation and quality of information should be monitored and managed. Memetic engineering is a term coined by Richard Dawkins, and has been elaborated upon by such thinkers as James Gardner, Robert Wright, Daniel Dennett (who calls for increased cultural health) and William Sims Bainbridge (to enhance group and societal outcomes). For example, advocates of ME would argue that some religious memes are viral and and need to curbed. I have also argued along these lines. On a related note, a burgeoning movement is afoot to help people overcome their biases.

  • Mind Transfer (aka 'uploading'): Uploading is the theoretical prospect of transferring cognition and consciousness to a digital medium, namely supercomputers. Recent advances in neuroscience are increasingly coming to re-enforce functionalist interpretations of mind. Given the Church-Turing theory of universal computational compatibility, there is strong reason to suspect that the mind's processes can be duplicated in computers. This has led to speculation about massive societal uploads, entire civilizations living within massive supercomputers, extreme life extension, and entire lifespans lived in open-ended virtual reality environments and simulations. A number of thinkers, including roboticist Hans Moravec, have outlined various uploading techniques. Personally, I believe the jury is still out on whether or not we will be able to code an algorithm for consciousness.

  • Molecular Assembler: If you're familiar with a Star Trek replicator you know about molecular assemblers. These devices could take a clump of matter and reconstitute it into anything we desire, so long we have the molecular schematics. The device would work in a similar manner to the way in which genes and ribosomes function to produce protein. Needless to say, the impacts of an assembler would be monumental. The humanitarian impact would be great, creating unprecedented material wealth and access to resources. At the same time however, it would be the most dangerous invention ever devised, capable of creating any kind of apocalyptic device and even self-replicating entities that could cause global ecophagy.

  • Neurodiversity: Pending biotechnologies will create a multiplicity of psychological modes of being. Today, recreational drug users and the autistic rights community contend that the obsession with maintaining 'neurotypicality' is a form of oppression. In the future, technologies such as neuropharmaceuticals, cybernetics and other cognotech will offer individuals an unprecedented opportunity to experience alternative subjective mental states. Like anything, however, neuroenablement and cognitive liberty are rights that will have to be fought for.

  • Neural Interface Device: An NID is any device that enables the brain to interface with a computer. Today, paraplegics use NID's to move computer cursors with their thoughts alone. Eventually this will lead to advanced prostheses, novel remote control concepts, and even the almighty brain-jack as portrayed in such sci-fi films as The Matrix.

  • Noosphere (aka metaconsciousness): Human communication and interaction may eventually advance to the stage where even conscious thought may be globalized and massively shared. This will lead to the rise of the so-called noosphere.

  • Open Source: This is a term that most people are familiar with, but it's worth re-stating. The open source revolution, where information is freely distributed and editable, is already reshaping a number of industries and upsetting traditional economic and intellectual property models. Wikipedia has very quickly become the world's largest repository of encyclopedic information. Linux and other open source software continue to rival the big players. And looking further down the line, there's the potential for open source science, culture, and the disturbing potential for open source warfare.

  • Participatory Panopticon: An offshoot of David Brin's transparent society, Steve Mann's sousveillance, and Charlie Stross's panopticon Singularity, the Participatory Panopticon is a proposed strategy for dealing with the onset of ubiquitous surveillance. Coined by environmentalist and forward thinker Jamais Cascio, the PP is the suggestion that all citizens will soon have the tools with which they can watch each other and keep themselves accountable for their actions.

  • Political Globalization: Though it lags behind economic and cultural globalization, political globalization and the thrust towards world federalism is happening nonetheless. While it may be a while before borders completely dissolve, nations and institutions are already developing co-operative and positive-sum arrangements. This process may unfold quicker than expected. It was only 60 years ago that Europe tore itself apart; today Europe forms the world's most powerful economic and political union.

  • Post-Scarcity Economy: A post-scarcity economy is a hypothetical form of economy or society in which things such as goods, services and information are free, or practically free. Such a future could come about due to abundance of fundamental resources (think nano, AI, alternative energy, etc.), in conjunction with sophisticated automated systems capable of converting raw materials into finished goods (namely by molecular assemblers). In such a world, manufacturing would be as easy as duplicating software.

  • Quantum Computation: Today's computers run on what's called a Von Neumann architecture. This basic idea has existed for decades, but there is a new concept under development -- an idea for computation in which bits (or qbits) are stolen from alternate universes. Seriously. The basic principle is that the quantum properties of particles can be used to represent and structure data, and that quantum mechanisms can be devised and built to perform operations with this data. The long-and-the-short of this means that future computers running on such a platform would be ludicrously powerful and fast. As an example, some modern simulations that are taking IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer years would take a quantum computer only a matter of seconds. The prospect of quantum computers throws projections of an upper bound on computation out the window. Thinkers like David Deutsch have suggested that our universe may be a kind of quantum computer, while Stuart Hameroff notes that brains may also be a type of quantum machine.

  • Radical Luddism: Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski may have been the first of a new breed of radical anti-technology terrorists. In his manifesto, titled Industrial Society and Its Future, he argued that his actions were a necessary (although extreme) ruse by which to attract attention to what he believed were the dangers of modern technology. Given the extreme and disruptive potential for biotechnology, AI, nanotechnology and cybernetics, it is safe to assume that a fringe segment of society will take it upon themselves to prevent their development by any means necessary.

  • Remedial Ecology: Humans have really messed up this planet, but that doesn't mean we can't fix what we've broke. Remedial ecology is the notion that with the right tools and knowhow we can repair the damage that's been done. By using bioremediative processes, for example, we can use genetically engineered microorganisms to remove toxic or unwanted chemicals from the environment, or break down hazardous substances into less toxic or nontoxic substances in soil, groundwater, sludge and sediment. And looking further into the future there's the added potential for not just repair but also redesign. Bruce Sterling's Viridian movement is a step in this direction.

  • Simulation Argument: The SA, which suggests that we may be living inside a computer simulation, is important from metaphysical, cosmological, and philosophical perspectives in that it sweepingly upsets conventional notions of existence and our place in the Universe. It also gives us a potential glimpse into the activities of superintelligences. The SA, aside from its Cartesian epistemological implications, gives rise to a host of ethical issues, including the ethics of simulating conscious beings and their potential moral worth. This has already given rise to the reactionary concept of substrate chauvinism, which is the conviction that only biological matter can carry moral worth. Substrate chauvinism is also used to dismiss the idea that self-aware robots could ever be regarded as persons.

  • Soft Paternalism (aka Libertarian Paternalism): States are increasingly working to protect their citizens from themselves. People have bad habits, are prone to ignorance, and are often capable of self-destruction. Instead of using coercion, however, states are softly encouraging their citizens to take better care of themselves and their affairs. For example, in such an "avuncular state" employees would be signed up for company pension schemes by default. Freedom of choice is maintained, but default policies protect the ignorant and lazy from the consequences of their mistakes.

  • Technological Singularity: Accelerating change may lead to an existential paradigm shift for the human species. How this will look like and how it will come about is still a mystery, giving rise to a social event horizon known as the Technological Singularity. In all likelihood it will come about through the advent of superintelligence. It has also been referred to as a potential 'intelligence explosion,' or a time when the speed of technological development reaches maximal levels. Such an event could lead to human extinction or the advent of posthuman existence.

  • Digg!

    Delurk yourself

    You know what to do.

    January 8, 2007

    Latest audiocast posted

    My latest audiocast has been posted here. You can subscribe to this feed.

    In this episode I discuss the Ashley Treatment, why the disabled will inherit the earth and whether there can be awareness in the vegetative state.

    January 7, 2007

    Double standards in male-female power relations

    There is a very strange television commercial running these days that very much highlights the double-standard that exists today in male-female relations. In this ad a couple is seen making-out in the front seat of a car. After a few seconds of this the woman leaves the car at which point it is revealed that she is a police officer who has pulled over this fellow for the purpose of making-out with him owing to his fabulous choice in automobiles.

    Cute, eh?

    Well, not if you consider what the commercial would be like if you swapped genders and had a male officer pull over a woman for the same reason. Could you imagine the outcry? But with a woman pulling over a man, this is somehow considered acceptable.

    Why is that? Well, men have different sexual needs and expectations, right? Was this a sexual victory for the guy? The commercial certainly made it look that way as the last shot shows him smirking. I wonder, why wouldn't a woman perceive this is a victory of sorts? Or would she? Are women simply afraid to admit it? Or, would a woman be left absolutely mortified by such an incident?

    Or, is it acceptable to show a woman dominating over a man because her power is merely illusory? Since men can still physically dominate a woman, her power is in her sexuality. I have to wonder about that gun of hers, though.

    Perhaps this a genuine expression of female dominance and it appears acceptable because women have been subjugated for so long. We men have had this coming for some time now. This is the advertising media's manifestation of the male guilt complex.

    Maybe men live in a matriarchal society, but we just haven't realized it yet....

    Comments welcome.

    January 5, 2007

    Video clip of my segment on 'The Hour'

    For those of you who missed it, here is the video clip of my segment on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos in which I discuss the future of humans.

    Defending Ashley's parents on the BBC

    Check out this BBC video where I defend Ashley's parents. This was shot inside the CBC newsroom amid a flurry of activity. We were also racing against the clock in hopes of making the 10 o'clock news in England. We finished shooting with 30 minutes to spare. Very tense.