Buddhism vs Transhumanism?

Here's my response to The Contrarian's article, "Buddhism vs Transhumanism."

Hey Casey, great post.

Regarding your statement, "Buddhism seeks to improve conditions not through transcendence, but rather acceptance," one must acknowledge the need to accept things when they are beyond our control.

Consequently, as compassionate Buddhists who are concerned about not just the suffering of all sentient life, but the optimization of subjective experience as well, we are motivated to work to find solutions that put as much control into our hands as possible. Buddhism does not imply passivity.

Also, transhumanism, as a form of applied science and technology, is an epistemological tool whose proponents seek to find the true nature (and alternate modes) of being and existence. That's also the goal of Buddhism -- the seeking of the true nature of reality.

And finally, one of my favourite Dalai Lama quotes (which I'm sure you've already read): "My Tibetan goals are the same as those of Western science: to serve humanity and to make better human beings."

Cheers!
George

I am the very model of a...

Geek bliss found on YouTube:

Singularitarian:



Psychopharmacologist:



Modern Major Googler (audio only):

Immortality Institute chat on Sunday 17-Nov

I've been invited as a featured guest for this coming Sunday's Immortality Institute chat. It'll all get started tomorrow (Sunday 18-Nov) at 7:30 EST.

I'll be talking about my recent appointment as the editor-in-chief of Betterhumans and the next phase of the site. I'll also be addressing various ethical components of radical life extension. Hope to see you in the chat room.

Sign into the chat here.

Toronto Transhumanist Association appoints Justin Trottier as acting Executive Director

The Toronto Transhumanist Association is proud to announce the appointment of Justin Trottier to the position of acting Executive Director as of November 12, 2007.

Mr. Trottier will work closely with George Dvorsky, the President of the TTA, as he works to manage its operations and oversee its growth. He will also engage in public outreach and collaborate with Mr. Dvorsky to establish a strong leadership base. With the addition of Mr. Trottier, the TTA is in a better position to support transhumanists in the Greater Toronto Area and work to be a powerful, rational, pro-technology force for effecting positive change.

The TTA is an official chapter of the World Transhumanist Association and was founded by Dvorsky and Simon Smith in 2002.

A graduate of Engineering Science (nanoengineering option) from the University of Toronto, Trottier is a long-time organizer and activist whose passion for science and technology has led him to transhumanism and the TTA.

He is the founder and executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, Canada's first venue promoting reason, science, free inquiry and secular humanism, through which he has had television appearances on CBC, CTS, OMNI, CH and CityTV, as well as dozens of radio appearances and coverage in campus, metropolitan and national newspapers, including The Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Star.

Mr. Trottier is a contributor to Humanist Perspective and Free Inquiry magazines and is on the editorial board of the Canadian Freethinker.

Additionally, as a long-time space sciences and engineering enthusiast, he is External Director of the Canadian Space Society and Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Space Gazette.

For more information about the Toronto Transhumanist Association, please contact Justin Trottier or George Dvorsky.

Symptom of the modern age

The fact that this type of software exists and that I could actually benefit from it is very disturbing to me. How about you guys? Is this a symptom of the modern age where every minute of our lives is accounted for? And then some?

Announcing the next phase of Betterhumans

[Cross-posted from my blog at BH]


We’ve made some changes at Betterhumans.

Some have already happened, while others are still in the works. More importantly, despite our varied and (at times) inconsistent past, it’s fair to say that the best is yet to come; we are about to embark on an exciting next phase for Betterhumans. And this time, we have the resources to bring some of our wildest ideas to life.

To this end, I have taken on the role of editor-in-chief of Betterhumans. Many of you know me from previous contributions, and from my work with the World Transhumanist Association, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and Sentient Developments blog. I am now also responsible for the day-to-day management of Betterhumans, working to ensure that we produce quality content that reflects its mission.

As for Simon Smith, Betterhumans' former editor-in-chief, he has moved into the role of publisher. Here, he's working to grow the site, set direction, build partnerships and sponsorships, and generally ensure that we create and achieve long-term goals.

These changes were made possible by the advent of Commune Media, of which Betterhumans is now a wholly owned publication. Commune is a communications agency that helps companies use science and technology for positive change. Simon is the company's principal and I manage its operations. We decided recently that it made sense to bring Betterhumans under Commune, as this would provide greater resources for Betterhumans while in turn helping promote Commune's expertise. And now we have some big plans for Betterhumans over the coming months.

But before I get into the future of Betterhumans, let’s take a quick look at its past.

Simon founded Betterhumans in 2001 and I joined him less than a year later as deputy editor. We quickly developed the site and attracted a loyal following. Regular content featured editorials from key movers and shakers in the various futurist and progressive movements. We regularly published book reviews, interviews, encyclopedic articles and the latest news in human biotechnology and progress.

It was a thing of beauty, but given our volunteer workforce, it couldn't last.

This model, while very effective, proved difficult to manage given limited resources. Consequently, our next focus was on creating a community centered site to which members could contribute a good share of the content, namely through the development of user forums and member blogs. This strategy had its pluses and minuses, and we eventually recalibrated and re-worked the site such that it combined more traditional editorial practices with community driven material.

Which is where we find Betterhumans today. Admittedly, it's less than ideal. We recognize that the site is lacking in dynamic, exciting and cutting-edge content and services. But that's going to change soon in a very big way.

We're proud to announce that we are already working on the next phase of Betterhumans, which we hope to launch in January 2008.

While we’re not ready to give away too many details just quite yet, I can say that the changes aren’t going to be subtle. We’re re-inventing Betterhumans once again. And this time, we have the resources to make and sustain changes that honestly make us howl with excitement.

Stay tuned for more information over the coming weeks.

Aubrey mentioned on SNL

What does transhumanism mean to you?

I like the going definition of transhumanism which proclaims that human beings can and should seek biological enhancement, whether it be physical or cognitive traits, and/or the advent of new capacities all together.

I find this definition inadequate, however, in that it does not hint at the developmental inevitability of human enhancement. This is where I and many other thinkers diverge -- and that's fine; it's a locus point for debate. For me, being a transhumanist is not so much about promoting an enhanced or post-biological existence -- it's about raising awareness and working to manage the process such that the outcomes will be both predictable and desirable.

So, what does transhumanism mean to you?

Please use the comments section to share your thoughts.

My sci-fi DVD collection is coming along nicely

Here's a list of my science fiction film collection (all on DVD):

2001: A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
A Scanner Darkly
Akira
Alien
Andromeda Strain
Animatrix
Appleseed
Artificial Intelligence
Avalon
Battle Star Galactica (2005-06)
Blade Runner
Castle in the Sky
Children of Dune
Children of Men
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Code 46
Contact
Dark City
Donnie Darko
Forbidden Planet
Frank Herbert's Dune (2000)
Futurama (Seasons 1-4)
Gattaca
Ghost in the Shell
Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence
Johnny Mnemonic
Logan's Run
Matrix
Matrix: Reloaded
Metropolis (1927)
Metropolis (2002)
Minority Report
Planet of the Apes
Return of the Jedi
Robocop
Serial Experiments: Lain
Silent Running
Solaris (1972)
Star Wars
Stargate
Strange Days
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
The Day the Earth Stood Still
The Empire Strikes Back
The Fifth Element
The Thing (From Another World!)
The Thirteenth Floor
THX 1138
Titan AE
Tron
Vanilla Sky
War of the Worlds
Wizards

Any glaring omissions?

Using Jott for hands-free messaging

I am now using Jott for mobile note taking and hands-free messaging. I can now send 30 seconds of speech as text or audio recordings via the Internet to myself, friends and even distribution lists. The service also supports the transmission of messages to Twitter and Blogger.

Brin's position on the METI issue clarified

Science fiction author and futurist David Brin recently contacted me about what he feels was my very poor interpretation of his stance on the METI issue.

David and I have since cleared things up via email, but for the sake of furthering this discussion I thought I'd reproduce parts of our conversation here.

From David,

[RE: Brin's article, "Shouting at the Cosmos: ...Or How SETI has Taken a Worrisome Turn Into Dangerous Territory."]

... you wrote: "Brin is vehemently opposed to this idea, as he believes it could put humanity in great peril. For all we know, he argues, some malevolent ETI is lurking in the neighborhood waiting for less advanced civilizations to draw attention to themselves."

I would be very interested in the provenance of this lurid and somewhat demeaning quasi-quotation.

My position is simply that narrowly dogmatic communities should not plunge into activities that commit humanity down paths that have low probability but high potential impact outcomes, without at least first engaging the wider world scientific community in eclectic discussion.

The only "vehemence" has been to ask for open discussions, which should be enjoyable and illuminating to all.

There is a general principle here. It is simply wrong to arrogate peremptory moves that bet human posterity, based upon cult-like and unchallenged assumptions.

It appears, much to my surprise, that I made incorrect inferences about his particular position as it pertains to the Active SETI approach and his motives for wanting to generate discussion. In my response to Brin I asked him to be more explicit in the future about what he is and is not saying. To which he responded,

The Lifeboat article, I thought, was clear enough, never once mentioning alien badguys, in any way shape or form, and repeatedly stating the goal of open discussion -- something that the small and increasingly cult-like SETI/METI community has strenuously avoided.

Comments welcome. I'd be curious to know how my readers have interpreted Brin's writings on the subject.

Survival Mosque

Brilliant and scathing commentary-as-art by Azra Akšamija:

Survival Mosque addresses issues of Muslims living in the contemporary USA. The survival kit contains elements for self protection such as the American-flag façade that communicates patriotism, gas-masque, nose filters and an umbrella that surveys one’s back. The mosque is self-sufficient; the prayer rug is supplying its own energy source via photo-voltaic solar cells. It also carries different liturgical and practical features such as washing solution for ablution and for cleaning when a Muslim get spit on, ear plugs against insults, American constitution proofing rights of American Muslims, weapons and amulets, a loud-speaker with speech on tolerance held by President George W. Bush, ablution slippers, Quran, educative books and diverse communication devices. The Survival Mosque can be transformed and camouflaged into interactive bags, which communicate with each other via blue-tooth technology. The bag-speakers reflect paranoia spreading messages regarding terrorism, but they can also function as muezzins; calling for prayer at particular prayer times. Informed by problems many Muslim communities in the USA have been facing after September 11, as well as inspired by the existing flag-burkas developed during protests in France, the design of the Survival Mosque is intended as protective infrastructure. However, the overload of defensive mechanisms transforms the image of a worshiper into a militant figure. Survival Mosque challenges the way how diverse prejudices and fears to Muslims could be reversed.

More.

J.K. Rowling’s pathetic and disingenuous attempt to retroactively introduce a gay character in Harry Potter

I can’t believe I’m blogging about this now-lingering Harry Potter story, but I suppose anything is possible in an infinite Universe. I’m motivated to write about this because I’m pissed off at what J.K. Rowling has done and how the news of a gay character has been received in some quarters.

Shame on Rowling for “outing” the character of Dumbledore after the completion of the series. While some are heralding this as a step forward in terms of the growing acceptance of gays and gay characters, it is in reality a step in the opposite direction.

By outing the character in this way -- without any serious intimations in the books that Dumbledore was in fact homosexual (come on, Rowling, who do you think you’re fooling?) -- it comes across as a pathetic attempt to look progressive and tolerant after the fact. By doing this, Rowling has instead created a token gay character for which she can now pretend to herself and lie to her readers that they should have known it all along.

Here's a novel idea: how about having an openly gay character from start to finish? Perhaps Rowling is experiencing an acute case of heterosexual woman's guilt by not doing so. Whatever the reason, this back-peddling is really quite sad and is not helping the cause.

Shame also goes out to all the homophobes who have reacted negatively because it is now known that there is a gay character in this so-called children’s series, or because of their unease with the suggestion that a gay man was permitted to routinely interact with children. The squeamishness that some people have over the idea of gays interacting with kids is abhorrent and unfair; it belies the many misconceptions and unfounded fears that a number of people have about homosexuality.

Thankfully, in my household, where these topics are discussed openly and matter-of-factly, my Harry Potter obsessed children took no issue with the revelation that Dumbledore was gay, nor could they understand what all the fuss was about.

It all starts at home.

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence - Scene 4: Coroner Haraway

Transcribed by James Skemp

[4 Coroner Haraway]

(A lab.)

The technician: "You can come here all you want, I'm not sharing this investigation. And if you're too persistent, I'll have you detained."

"I'm Togusa, Public Safety Section 9. This scary-looking fellow ..."

"Blew her apart with double-0 buckshot. A 50 caliber hollow point would've left her easier to reconstruct."

"She wasted 3 people, two of 'em cops."

"She was trying to commit suicide before you shot her. Isn't that right?"

(Long pause amongst them all.)

Togusa: "'Commit suicide' meaning ... Miss ..."

"Haraway."

"Miss Haraway, how exactly would a robot kill itself?"

"By intentionally malfunctioning, these gynoids are capable of self-authorizing attacks against humans. This liberates them from Moral Code #3."

"Which stipulates, 'Maintain existence without injuring humans.' Isn't 'self-destruction' more accurate?"

"If you assume differences between humans and machines are obvious."

"Are such 'suicides' confined to a particular model?"

"Not necessarily. In recent years we've seen a surge of robot related problems, especially among the 'pets'."

"The cause?"

"E-brain contamination from microbes and viruses, human production errors, functional defects from wear-and-tear. Take your pick, but ..."

"But?"

"I say it's because humans discard their robots once they're redundant. When owners trade up to newer models, some of those abandoned become vagrants, and degenerate. Perhaps it's a protest against their own obsolescence."

"Absurd."

"Humans are different from robots. That's an article of faith, like black isn't white. It's no more helpful than the basic fact that humans aren't machines.

"Unlike industrial robots, the androids and gynoids designed as 'pets,' weren't designed along utilitarian or practical models. Instead, we model them on a human image, an idealized one at that. Why are humans so obsessed with recreating themselves?

"Do you have children?"

Togusa: "A daughter."

"Children have always been excluded from the customary standards of human behavior, if you define humans as beings who possess a conventional identify and act out of free will. Then what are children who endure in the chaos preceding maturity? They differ profoundly from 'humans,' but they obviously have human form. The dolls that little girls mother, are not surrogates for real babies. Little girls aren't so much imitating child rearing, as they are experiencing something deeply akin to child rearing."

"What on earth are you talking about?"

"Raising children is the simplest way to achieve the ancient dream of artificial life. At least, that's my hypothesis."

"Children aren't dolls!"

Batou: "Descartes didn't differentitate man from machine, animate from inanimate. He lost his beloved five-year-old daughter and then named a doll after her, Francine. He doted on her. At least that's what they say."

Togusa: "Can we get back to reality here? I'd like your observations with respect to the Hadaly robot, model #2502, manufactured by Locus Solus."

"Right.

"It's very well designed. I understand it's a prototype, but it's intended for particular functions."

"Particular functions?"

"It's equipped with organs unnecessary in service robots."

"Meaning?"

"It's a sexaroid. Nothing to brag about to your neighbors, but hardly illegal."

"I get it. Scandal. No wonder those families settled out of court."

"When it's systems shut down, the electronic brain reformats. That's standard protection for manufacturer's proprietary software. But ..."

"But, what?"

"We found a file in the audio buffer. Care to hear it?"

(She plays the file.)

"Help me." (It repeats 12 and a half times before Batou stops it.)

Batou: "Thanks for your help."

Togusa: "One last question. It's none of my business, but ..."

"No, I've never raised a child. Nothing registered at the ovum bank."

"Thank you, Miss ..."

"Haraway. No need for Miss or Mrs."

(Togusa walks away, and her eyes and part of her face raise out and up from her head.)

Kamen's next-gen prosthetic arm

Scott Kirsner has penned an article for The Boston Globe about the latest work being done by DARPA's Dean Kamen to develop the next generation of prosthetic limbs. Excerpt:

When Kamen, one of America's best-known inventors, first spoke with officers at the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, they told him they were looking for a research and development group that could build a prototype of a new prosthetic arm. Kamen was expecting to hear a list of technical specifications, such as how much the arm would need to lift and how many moving joints it would require. Instead, Kamen says, the Pentagon officials told him they wanted to create an arm that could "pick up a raisin or a grape from a table, know the difference without looking at it, and be able to manipulate it into the person's mouth without breaking it or dropping it."

"Wow," Kamen thought, "that is pretty much beyond the capability of current engineering."

Several hundred US soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan missing an arm, and several dozen have lost both arms, according to Kamen. The numbers are tragic - yet too small to motivate some of the largest makers of medical devices. But Kamen says, "You don't say no to DARPA, and you don't say no to a challenge that can be that much of a life-changer for people who need it."

Read the entire article and be sure to check out the video.

Should SETI break the Great Silence?

Centauri Dreams has more on the SETI/METI controversy: SETI’s Dilemma: Break the Great Silence? Excerpt:

When Alexander Zaitsev presented his recent paper at the International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad (India) recently, he spoke from the center of a widening controversy. The question is straightforward: Should we broadcast messages intentionally designed to be received by extraterrestrial civilizations, thereby notifying them of our existence? Zaitzev, chief scientist at the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, addressed the question by seeing a necessary relationship between SETI (the search for ETI) and METI (messaging to other civilizations).

Indeed, the Russian scientist, working at the Evpatoria Deep Space Center in the Ukraine, has the experience to discuss METI from a practical standpoint. Evpatoria has already transmitted a number of messages, the so-called ‘Cosmic Call’ signal (1999) being made up of various audio, video, image and data files submitted by people around the world. The later ‘Teen-Age Message,’ aimed at six Sun-like stars, was sent in 2001; another ‘Cosmic Call’ followed in 2003.

Zaitzev has in the interim emerged as a leading spokesman for direct messaging to extraterrestrial civilizations, an idea now hotly debated by a relatively small group of researchers concerned about its implications. I note the size of the debate pointedly — it is remarkable to me that an issue that has the potential of involving the entire human species in what could become a first contact scenario is known only to a limited number of professionals, within whose ranks there is by no means agreement.

Entire article.

My thoughts on the issue.

Greenpeace: Eat kangaroos to combat global warming

More kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this.

You either get it or you don't

When it comes to anticipating the future, you either get it or you don't.

Existential risks: You either acknowledge the strong possibility that humanity could go extinct in the coming decades, or you don't.

Singularity: You either recognize the radical potential for greater-than-human artificial superintelligence and its disruptive capacity, or you don't.

Molecular Assembling Nanotechnology: You either subscribe to the Drexlerian vision of nanoscale engineering and its potential to revolutionize society and biology, or you don't.

Global Warming: You either accept the substantive threat of anthropogenic climate change and the dangers of runaway global warming, or you don't.

Transhumanism: You either accept the notion that our species has the capacity to become a self-modifying posthuman and post-corporeal species, or you don't.

Radical Life Extension: You either agree that aging is a disease that can be defeated, or you don't.

So, do you get it?

CBC's The Nature of Things episode on 'Living Forever'

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's The Nature of Things will be airing a documentary on Thursday October 18 called "Living Forever: The Longevity Revolution." The episode will feature gerontologist Michael Rose and Edmontonian life extensionist Kevin Perrott.

You can watch the one minute promo video here.

Blurbage:

Immortality. Life Extension. The Fountain of Youth. Real science or simply wishful thinking? Is it hope or is it hype?

Find out in Living Forever: The Longevity Revolution. Scientists from around the world are racing to answer one of humanity's chief questions: can we turn back the human clock? Hitch a ride on this controversial roller-coaster with charismatic gerontologist Michael Rose as he leads us to where the cutting-edge science in life extension is happening: biotechnology, genetic research, therapeutic cloning and stem-cell research – fields which have moved to the outer reaches of our wildest imagination.

In Living Forever we also meet the “believers” among us: the colourful characters who refuse to succumb to the grim reaper. And let's not forget the specialists who predict whether their clients have what it takes to live past 100.

Just to be clear, Living Forever is not a documentary about 60-year-olds who want to look like young and sexy 25-year-olds. This is a film about stopping, slowing down – even reversing – human aging. It is about the modern quest to create a longer, healthier old age, or – the Holy Grail – eliminating old age altogether.

So, what happens if humans are able to live for another 100 or 500 years? Should we create a race of immortals, just because we have the know-how? At what evolutionary cost? What about the ethical issues? Given humanity's trajectory thus far, it's likely that most people will say ethics be damned: let The Longevity Revolution begin.

Ashley X doctor commits suicide

Shocking news today: Daniel Gunther, the doctor at the center of the Ashley X controversy, has committed suicide. From MSNBC:

Dr. Daniel F. Gunther died from toxic asphyxia from inhaling car exhaust, said Greg Hewett of the King County Medical Examiner's Office. His time of death was listed as 9:30 p.m. on Sept. 30. The 49-year-old was a pediatric endocrinologist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle and an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington.

In 2004, Gunther and his colleague Dr. Douglas S. Diekema performed a hysterectomy, removed the breast tissue and started hormone treatment to permanently halt the growth of a 6-year-old disabled girl so her parents could continue to care for her at home. The doctors wrote about the procedure, which was performed at Children's Hospital, in the October 2006 issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

News of the procedure last fall sparked debate about the ethics of the treatment both online and in the medical community. One poster on MSNBC.com's message boards called the procedure "offensive if not perverse." Others supported the decision: " I feel like everything [the parents] are doing is intended to be in the best interest of their child."

This is particularly upsetting for me, not just because I supported Gunther during the controversy, but because of the possibility that his suicide was wrought by undue pressure exacted on him by overzealous and vocal disability groups.

Back in January when the Ashley controversy was at its peak, Dr. Gunther joined the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies site. In reference to my article, "Helping Families Care for the Helpless," he wrote to us:

[T]he article on the IEET site was one of the first sane and rational responses I came across. All of us here appreciate your support. I am hoping that in time more rational voices will increasingly make themselves heard, while the more reactionary ones fade away.

Evidently this didn't happen. What a shame.

**ADDENDUM: 12-Oct-07
According to this Seattle Times article, friends and family of Dr. Gunther insist that the suicide was not fueled by the Ashley controversy.