admin's blog

Paul Marks, a technology correspondent wrote the article, Packs of robots will hunt down uncooperative humans. He is concerned about how this technology will end up, and rightfully so. The Pentagon looking for contractors able to deliver a "Multi-Robot Pursuit System", should raise some eyebrows.

Future technologies on how to "search for and detect a non-cooperative human” at the present time in the research and development stage, might outdo any of our imaginary ideas. However, it is easy to envision how non-human lifeforms with humanlike intelligence can be used for police operations.

The human race has always sought rational and irrational ways to become well fitted for the purpose as responsible and progressive intellectual beings. Always strived to improve it's living conditions and heighten the survival rate. Research and development of connecting technologies has become a big resource of benefit. Big money is involved in the shared vision of where the industry is heading and the complementary roles each company may want to play or fight for market control. This means that some people unwillingly have to pay a high price for progress to become reality- a progress that is withheld from general circulation or full disclosure.

Lack of factual information creates a naive conception of the development process of technologies sanctioned as safe to use, clouding the public debate and undermining sufficient grounds for government decision making. Securing human rights and safety when testing and implementing safe-to-use technologies demands access to more specialized and accurate knowledge than today's global political, military and industrial climate permits.

Rigorous monitoring by government ministries and committees, human rights organizations, and the public is an essential tool to secure against abuse and violation of human rights. Brain and body (non) invasive technologies represents new opportunities for manipulation and control and should be addressed in proper foras.

"The euthanasia debate requires us to confront the most basic of human concerns- the mortality of self and loved ones - and to balance the interest in preserving human life against the desire to die peacefully and with dignity ... This controversy may touch more people more profoundly than any other issue the court will face in the forseeable future." - Ninth Circuit Court judge Stephen Reinhardt. 1996 decision on the right-to-die-case: Compassion in dying et al. v. State of Washington.

Imagine, yourself or a loved one suffering from an incurable degenerative or disabling condition, terminal or non-terminal, requesting help to end life. A situation we all hope to never experience, but many of us will have to face. Personal references to belief systems, and life experience might guide us in the process leading to the final decision making of ending or prolonging life. What feels right for one person, might seem unacceptable to another.

Along with the concept of man-in-the-computer loop, the difficulty that crops up most often for the practicing engineer, is that of converting a given problem or subsystem into a mathematical model.

Along with the concept of man-in-the-computer loop, the difficulty that crops up most often for the practicing engineer, is that of converting a given problem or subsystem into a mathematical model. One may appreciate the mathematical significance, but the translation of the actual system into an abstract system can be troublesome. A system approach where needless ambiguities have been discarded or thoroughly weeded is a means of solving the difficulty. It is far too easy to formulate lengthy and complicated, resulting in lost excitement and value of the experience. An inquiry with optimum approach related to short-type-problems, the most difficult to devise, may produce the most economical and effective true information.

The danger this shortage of skilled scientific engineering and mathematical talent poses to the industry, and to the U.S. space prowess in general, is second only to a weapon of mass destruction in a U.S. city. - Joanne Maguire, Executive Vice President Lookheed Martin Space Systems.

Scientific knowledge is a power equally for good and evil. In peace and in war our survival as independent countries of the West rests on our ability to keep pace with changing circumstances. It is now certain that China is training more scientists and engineers than all the Western countries put together. It is equally certain from the appearance of the space race that the quality of the work being done in China is such as to ensure success in fields where we supposed we were supreme.

by Michael LaTorra

Introduction

Transhumanism is often misrepresented. By accident or design, this movement—a movement that aims at improving the lot of humanity through longer lifespans, greater material abundance, enhanced abilities, new powers, and a wealth of opportunities extending beyond current biological limits—has often been depicted as a villain without redeeming qualities. Rather than considering transhumanism on its own terms, we are often given a false choice: Is transhumanism a threat or a menace? Upon first reading Prof. Pickering's papers,1, 2 I was delighted to find that he is opposed to the "freezing and narrowing" of the definition of what it means to be human. Soon, however, I became discouraged when I encountered his claim that the expansive, liberating goals that I know to be the essence of transhumanism were, according to his ill-informed view, actually just the sort of freezing and narrowing he decried. I was at first puzzled as to how he could have so badly misunderstood actual existing transhumanism. Read the whole article

by Mark Walker Transhumanism is the thesis that we can and ought to use technology to alter and improve human biology.1 Some likely targets for the technological makeover of human nature include making ourselves smarter, happier, longer-lived and more virtuous. The operative assumption here of course is that intelligence, moods, longevity and virtues each have deep roots in our biology. By altering biology transhumanists propose to improve human nature to the point of creating a new genus: such as posthumans.2,3 Notice that transhumanism encompasses a moral thesis. Transhumanism does not say that we will create posthumans, rather, it makes a moral claim: we ought to create posthumans.4 The hint of an argument based on the accrual of moral benefits is perhaps obvious from what has been said: to the extent that we value the development of intellectual, emotional and moral virtue5, becoming posthuman is imperative. I won’t pursue this line of argument here directly. Rather, I want to explore the objection that transhumanism is an ill-advised experiment because it puts us at unnecessary risk. My reply will be that creating posthumans is our best bet for avoiding harm. In a nutshell, the argument is that even though creating posthumans may be a very dangerous social experiment, it is even more dangerous not to attempt it: technological advances mean that there is a high probability that a human-only future will end in extinction.

Read the whole article

By Martine Rothblatt

Introduction

A central concern of the pro/anti transhumanist debate is whether to restrict our human bodies to a biological form or to expand our personal existence onto non-biological platforms.  The anti-transhumanist position is that we are our DNA-birthed bodies.  I suggest that cybernetics may very well offer a means for expanding the human being.

In Jean-Pierre Dupuy’s essay “Cybernetics Is An Antihumanism: Advanced Technologies and the Rebellion Against the Human Condition”, Dupuy misstates the cybernetics premise.  Dupuy suggests that cybernetics in its quest for control is something anti-human.  Alternatively, I suggest that cybernetics is simply an extension of life, much like a modern primate digging stick or insectoid behavioral pattern all of which quests for control over the environment.  Failure to exert control over one's environment is tantamount to extinction, for no environment provides all the requisites for life at all times without manipulation.  Even bacteria control their environment by movement through it and linking together metabolic excretions.  To control is not only to be human, it is to survive.

There has been a longstanding tug-of-war between those wanting to make leadership more scientific and those who want to make it more practical. We could restrict the scope to establish a regulatory policy ad hoc. However, a better solution would be to have a public debate first, reach a consensus, and then institute the regulatory process through the legislative branches of our governments.

The way to balance conflicts of interest is to include proponents of all major interest groups in the debate, which is desirable if not mandatory, before the regulatory policy is cast in concrete. Governments should use scientifically sound recommendations and establish a bipartisan law.