He is right, the media has exaggerated on her emotional states and exploited her to heighten reader sensationalism: "But we in the press have to be smarter too. We were wildly stupid in the days before the New Hampshire primary, citing Clinton meltdown after Clinton meltdown — the tears, the flash of anger in the debate — that never really happened. We really need to calm down, become more spin-resistant, even if our sleep-deprived sources tend to overreact to every slip and poll dip in the campaign. If we are lucky, this will be a long and complicated race — which is exactly what this country deserves right now — and we need to watch it with our very best, most patient eyes, just as the public seems to be doing."
Thank you Mr. Klein for that excellent article, even if you don't completely support her, but still recognize what the savagely wrong nature of media coverage of the elections.
Another article in the same January 21, 2008 edition of Time I read even took this further to state that the media, "fourth branch," was the loser of the elections and the common people were the winners because the voters ignored the "pompous punditry" of the media who claimed Hillary was finished and voted on their own beliefs.
Yes America. It's time for us to get our own opinions. The media should be giving us news. It's called news for a reason. While I love good analysis, I don't want to know a future that only materializes because of a self-fulfilling nature crated by apathetic and ignorant population who takes what the media says as the golden truth.
Thank you America. It's time for a real race.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
On your marks, get set, Go!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Kuomintang's landslide victory in Taiwan
It was predicted by political analysts that the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party, in Taiwan would do well in the January 13, 2008 parliamentary elections over the incumbent party, the Democratic Progressive Party. However, the landslide victory with which the Kuomintang won astounded even most liberal forecasters. According to the National Post, the Kuomintang won almost 75% of seats in the 113-member body, compared with only 27 for the Democratic Progressive Party. As a result of this shocking political defeat to the Democratic Progressive Party, the current president of Taiwain, Chen Shui-Bian, has resigned as the head of the Democratic Party; however, he will still carry out the remainder of his term as president. There are three primary reasons why the Kuomintang did so well.
First, one reason why the Kuomintang did so well was because of Taiwanese people believe that the Democratic Progressive Party has lost touch with the people of the island. According to the Asia Times of January 15, 2008, many Taiwanese felt that that Democratic Progressive Party no longer served the needs of the people. The New York Times of January 14, 2008 attributes this feeling of discontentment partially to the corruption scandals involving President Chen-Shui-bian and his advisors. Furthermore, the Financial Times of January 15, 2008 adds that many Taiwanese people felt that the very campaign strategies of the Democratic Progressive party showed that it had lost touch with the people. The Democratic Progressive Party’s strategy worked in the 2004 presidential election when Chen Shui-Bian attacked the Kuomintang as a Chinese puppet and to rally for more moves towards eventual Taiwanese independence. However, it did not work this time because most voters felt that there were more important issues to address. In an interview with the Financial Times, Sandy Chow, a Taipei student, stated "I need to worry about whether I will find a job after I graduate. I really do [love Taiwan], and of course Taiwan must be independent but, meanwhile, let's move on and get some work done." In fact, Hsu Yung-ming, a professor of political science at Soochow University, stated that the election results reflect the fact that "the DPP [is] losing touch with the voters". Although the Kuomintang has not held majority power in the parliament for eight years, many Taiwanese in this election voted for the Kuomintang because of its appeal to the “common man.”
Second, the economic policies of the Democratic Progressive Party have upset the Taiwanese. A major reason why many Taiwanese voted against the Democratic Progressive Party in this election is because of the failing economy. Although Taiwan’s economy is growing, it is much slower than was previously expected. Part of this reason, as the Houston Chronicle of January 14, 2008 reports is that current president Chen limited “the size and type of Taiwanese investments on the mainland” and reduced trade between Taiwan and China by preventing direct trade between the two. As of right now, China and Taiwan can only trade through intermediaries, like Hong Kong or the likewise. As a result, economic growth has slowed down under Mr. Chen’s rule, which many voters link to the Democratic Party’s unfavorable economic policies. The Houston Chronicle further elaborates that “Taiwan's economic growth averaged 3.8 percent annually during Chen's years in office… The rate [for the past decade]… was 6.5 percent.” The Kuomintang is an exact opposite to this policy. The Kuomintang wants to reopen direct trade between the two countries and reverse the economic policies of the Democratic Progressive Party. Therefore, another major reason why the Kuomintang won was because of the Democratic Progressive Party’s unfavorable economic policies.
Lastly and perhaps more importantly, Taiwan wants to make reconciliatory moves towards mainland China. The main stance that separates the Democratic Progressive Party and the Kuomintang is their stances towards mainland China. The Democratic Progressive Party favors independence whereas the Kuomintang, according to the National Post of January 15, 2008, supports “close economic and cultural ties with China and [is] not ruling out eventual reunification.” Many people voted in favor of the Kuomintang because they want to see better ties with China, especially since China has a booming economy. It is clear that the issue of China is big because immediately after Chen Shui-bian resigned, the new leader of the Democratic Progressive Party, Frank Hsieh, even conceded to tone down his anti-China stance and promised to be less confrontational to China to try to appeal to voters. Jing-dong Yuan of the Monterey Institute of International Studies noted that the results of the Taiwanese parliamentary elections indicate that "after 60 years of hostility and alienation, a new era of reconciliation and rapprochement between the mainland and Taiwan may be in the offing;" and this peace is exactly what the Taiwanese want and have voted for in this past election.
Monday, January 14, 2008
5433 Hits!
I wanted to thank everyone who takes their time to actually read this blog.
Apparently, I currently have 5433 visitors total come to this blog. I wonder how many of those are me just constantly checking out my site though...
The Minx Mandate + I'm In your Manger Killing Your Savior
Perhaps the best online comedy clip for transhumanist nerds... since... ever.
Speaking of which... another nerd video I have been itching to share.... (more for RPG'ers though)
Response to Brint Montgomery's Transhumanism and the so-called "future good" of humanity.
Bravo to this article: Brint Montgomery's Transhumanism and the so-called "future good" of humanity
Brilliant point about the so called "paradox" of transhumanism.
If I gathered so correctly, here is the basic premise Mr. Montgomery is making. Human morality is not relative; however, the values that the human race embraces as an ethics system at any given time is subject to change, and therefore relative. Our values that compose the ethics system we abide by are subject to biological constraints to environmental constraints. As a result, as the human species continues to exist, values may change based on present conditions.
Therefore, what may be considered good, or moral today may not be so within 100 years. Thus, transhumanists are faced with a problem. What if what transhumanists deemed a moral imperative- the modification, enhancement, and growth of human beings into something greater- is seen as bad, or evil to the post humans created by the transhumanists now.
This is clearly a problem because the transhumanist would have created a self-destructive transhuman (or at least self-hating).
Let's go back to the part where we assume that "This is clearly a problem because the transhumanist would have created a self-destructive transhuman." This statement is a paradox in a paradox. Is it really a problem that we've created a self-destructive transhuman? Based on our current ethics system yes, a contradiction of a moral system, even if its a moral system that will be used in the future, is considered bad. But...is what we define a good and bad subject to change? Yes it is. So, it could very well be that it is "good " to have a self-destructive transhuman or good that the value systems of the humans vs. the transhuman are different. The point is that even though moral values may change, we don't know what impact it will ultimately have on a posthuman entity.
It should be important to note that many transhumanist believe in a morally superior posthuman, in addition to the other enhanced aspects of the posthuman; and therefore, a posthuman would have a moral system that is above that of the evolutionary and biological constraints of before. As such, it doesn't matter if the moral system clashes, the post human maintains its own. For example, Taiwan and China might have different political and moral systems (let's just pretend they do for the sake of argument), just because Taiwan branched off from China (like a posthuman will branch from humanity), does it matter that they have different moral systems? Not really, they both function independent of each other.
By the way, when I read this blog, I thought of Mary Percy Shelly's Frankenstein. The monster created by Frankenstein clearly was greater than human, being able to posses great intelligence, reasoning, and strength, but hated its existence. It was consumed by its self-destructive nature because what Frankenstein deemed good at first, the monster detested later. The monster loathed its creation and as a result, only destruction follows. Whooo, tangent.
Now, this is the not the best example of what Mr. Montgomery is trying to describe; nevertheless, it still touches on the important fact that transhumanists really have no clue how to be transhuman.
So I take from this blog article the important point that transhumanism is really a hit and miss philosophy. We are trying to philosophize on something that is not constant and bound to change. We are blindly trying to predict the future without even knowing the future.
In my opinion, a huge flaw within the thinking of many transhumanists is that they believe there is only one ultimate path to be transhuman. Unknown, but predefined. However, I hold that being transhuman is a umbrella term for varying human modifications and enhancements. Maybe all of these different transhuman will merge into one superior posthuman, but there is no one way to be transhuman- and if there is, there is no way in hell we know what that is.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Irked by media coverage of the elections
Media coverage of the 2008 elections are seriously flawed.
My main issues with the coverage are these:
1. What happened to the other candidates? After the Iowa Caucus, the only news I can find are on Romney, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. What ever happened to the other candidates? Let us not forget that Richardson is still a candidate (even if he might not win). And what about Edwards? HE only won second at Iowa. What about McCain and Guliani? There are not too many articles on them as well. And how about Mr. Libertarian as Republican Ron Paul? The disproportionate coverage on the elections is extremely disturbing and skews bias as well as reader knowledge of the elections.
2. Deceptive nature of media- The media can be a vicious hound dog in some instances. I find it highly annoying that articles like these exist. Watch the video for yourself, I do not sense anything wrong with her tone in that rebuttal. In fact, I found that there WAS much sense in that argument she was making. Obama is only riding on a word, change, and an empty paper trail. I understand the appeal he has as a "fresh page" in politics. But unfortunately, that kind of wide-eyed idealism doesn't usually work out too well in the real world. I'm not saying I hate Obama. I think he's a great candidate and has good stances. However, I find that when you boil it down, to a large degree, Clinton and Obama have similar stances (though Obama has more liberal economic policies). However, Obama does have some troublesome contradictions in his rhetoric- such as promoting bipartisanship but also the largest tax increase in a while- and doesn't have the experience and know-how like Clinton. Certainly, it doesn't mean that Obama can't do the job, but I'd rather be more conservative when it comes experience. Wooo, tangent.
3. Superficial nature of media coverage- when you look at the news articles around, most of them talk about matters like "Hilary making a last ditch attempt" or "Huckabee makes a surprise victory." Ok, that's important. But when every article I find is about the logistics of their strategy, the small, pithy issues surrounding their candidacy, and their bickering amongst each other, the media makes politics look like a insult-fest. What is more important is to actually consider what these candidates stand for. I would like to see the media continuously consider the politician's stances and write about the feasibility and effects of their policy. I would also like the media to give better coverage and break downs of the debates. I understand you can watch them. But seriously, who has the time to watch all of it? I would like the media to cover salient points, not over which candidate looks the angriest and thus deserves to lose or which looks the most "presidential" and thus deserves to win.
Thank god for blogs, where would the media be without people like us to give them real feedback.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Effects of Bhuttos' death
First, the death of Benazir Bhutto has greatly weakened President Musharraf and his administration. According to the Forbes of January 4, 2008, the death of Bhutto has weakened Musharraf because many protesters in Pakistan have blamed him for her death. The Financial Times of January 4, 2008 reports that while the “Western media were virtually unanimous in blaming al-Qaeda for Bhutto's murder… Pakistan's protesters generally blame Musharraf.” The Associated Press quoted a Pakistani man in December 29, 2007 saying “I don't know who killed Benazir Bhutto. But I do know that it is the result of Musharraf's wrong and bad policies." While some Pakistanis believe in a conspiracy by Musharraf to have Bhutto killed, most Pakistanis blame Musharraf for not providing her enough state protection. In fact, in the initial days of the assassination riots broke out throughout Pakistan in outrage. The Associated Press of the same date notes that in three days, protests have left “more than 40 dead and tens of millions of dollars in damage.” These riots are another reason that Musharraf’s government has been weakened. As a result of the increasingly unpopular status of Musharraf and the riots that broke out from the assassination, his administration has been severely weakened and his credibility reduced.
Second, Bhutto’s death in Pakistan has forced the United States to rethink its Pakistan policy. The New Statesman of January 3, 2007 reports that the United State’s policy in Pakistan was centrally based on their prediction that Bhutto would win the January 8 elections. However, with her death, the United States has been forced back to the drawing board. The SF Gate of January 5, 2008 states that the assassination of Bhutto has forced the United States to completely rethink its Pakistan policy. The Kansas City Star of January 4, 2008 notes that “the assassination of Benazir Bhutto killed the Bush administration’s last hope that President Pervez Musharraf could simultaneously defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban and return Pakistan to democratic rule.” The Philadelphia Inquirer of January 4, 2008 reports that the death of Bhutto has severely destabilized the region and allowed for terrorists to gain a stronghold in the country. Considering the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapon capabilities, it is crucial for the United States to think of a new plan to ensure peace and stability in the region.
Lastly, the assassination of Bhutto will hurt the economy of Pakistan. This is a less reported fact that still has an important bearing on the issue. According to the Australian Market of December 28, 2007, the death of Bhutto is a sign that Pakistan could be becoming more unstable and thus cause many investors to pull their money out of the region of fear that instability will hurt economic growth. This fear has already partly manifested in the riots of last week. Bryan Collings, a managing partner at an investing firm in Pakistan stated that "My main concern is direct investment in the area” because the “people in the Gulf who are putting money into this equity market will have to have a rethink." Perhaps even more damaging to Pakistan’s economy is the fact that the assassination could hurt the country's credit ratings as well. The Forbes of December 28, 2007 notes that the Standard & Poor's ratings director stated that this recent development in Pakistan potentially could result in the S&P reducing its grade for Pakistan’s sovereign credit rating. One of the major services that the S&P does is rate countries with a letter grade to determine how safe it is for an investor in invest in that particular country. Pakistan’s grade is already a B-; however, the death of Bhutto has caused concern in the S&P that the grade should be lower. A lower grade for Pakistan’s sovereign credit rating would mean reduced investor confidence in the investment environment of the country and thus further hurt Pakistan’s economy. Thus, Bhutto’s death will hurt Pakistan’s economy.
Why Huckabee and Obama did so well in Iowa
Although Huckabee and Obama are politically two very different people when it comes to platforms and stances, they are very similar when considering the turn of events post-Iowa caucus. Both are “rookies” in their respective parties, but both have won the first state in a series of upcoming primaries and caucuses to decide who will be the presidential candidate for the two major American parties, the Democratic and Republican Party. With the next state New Hampshire’s primaries coming in four days on Tuesday, it is important consider why these two “underdogs” won .
First, it is important to consider the support Huckabee won from the Christian right. According to the Associated Press of January 5, 2008, Huckabee’s social policies and religious past as a Southern Baptist minister have greatly helped him in the Iowa caucus. In fact, the Washington Post of the same date notes that as of right now, Huckabee is the only candidate who has the support of the religious right. The BBC of December 20, 2007 notes that whereas McCain, Romney, and Guliani are strong fiscal conservatives and have some socially conservative policies, none of them have the religious background that appeals to the evangelicals like Huckabee does. The Wall Street Journal of January 4, 2008 reports that in Iowa, evangelicals represented 60% of all the Republican votes. As a result, Huckabee was able to win because he had a strong voter base in Iowa.
Second, Clinton’s flawed campaign strategy helped Obama win the Democratic votes in Iowa. Many magazines in the fall claimed that Hillary Clinton was the “inevitable” Democratic nominee. However, with the surprise victory of Obama in Iowa, it would appear that she is doing something wrong. The Wall Street Journal of January 5, 2008 reports that the reason for this loss in Iowa is because of her flawed campaign theme, which has hurt her more than it has helped. While Obama’s theme is “Change,” Clinton’s primary theme is that of experience. However, Obama’s win in Iowa is a sign that most Democrats want to separate themselves from the Clinton era. Even Bill Clinton described his wife Hillary's campaign as one of going "back to the future;" however, Obama’s theme of turning a fresh page clearly has won voters. The SF Gate of January 5, 2008 reports that “entrance polls in Iowa found that 52 percent of Democratic caucusgoers said a candidate's ability to bring change was the most important factor in their decision.” Of those people who said change was the most important, an overwhelming majority of them choose Obama. Only 20 percent told polls that experience was the most important factor in their decision. Clearly, Clinton’s theme of experience was flawed and helped give Obama the win in Iowa.
Lastly, the vast number of young people who attended the Iowa caucus helped Obama win. According to the Los Angeles Time of January 4, 2008, Iowa's results showed that “young people were more ready to take a chance on a fresh face.” Young people from 18-the late twenties came in larger numbers than ever. It is estimated that three times as many young voters participated in the Iowa caucus than before, making yong voters 23% of the caucusgoers in thie year’s Iowa caucus. The New York Times of the same date reports that “Obama drew support from 57% of voters in the 17-24 and 25-29 age categories. Clinton scored heavily among voters 60 and older.” It is therefore apparent that Obama’s appeal to the younger generation coupled with their activism is another major factor in why Obama was able to win Iowa.
While the New Hampshire state has a population quite different from that of Iowa and well-known as a “maverick state” when it comes to primaries, it is clear that Huckabee and Obama have the political momentum they need to continue to do well in the preliminaries.
Will violence in Kenya end?
On December 27th, 2007, Kenya held presidential elections between current incumbent Mwai Kabaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga, who leads the Orange Democratic Movement Party. Although Kabaki barely won re-election as president, international observers have criticized abnormalities in the vote-count process. As a result, the Wall Street Journal of January 4, 2070 notes that both sides have accused the other of voter fraud and rigging the elections in their favor. Even worse, the Associated Press of December 30, 2007 reports that hundreds have died as violent protests destroyed homes and killed many innocent bystanders. In an attempt to quell the riots, diplomats from Africa, Europe and the United States have pushed for peace and negotiations between the two parties. Unfortunately, not even this will end the violence. Why?
First, it is important to examine how the riots in Kenya have affected its economy. The violence in Kenya has had a ripple effect that hit the Kenyan economy. The Business Week of January 4, 2008 notes that due to the riots in Kenya, the stock market in the country has plummeted and the country’s economy is in shambles. The New York Times of the same day further elaborates on this point by noting that “Before last week’s election, a head of cabbage in Mathare, an enormous slum, cost 15 shillings, or about 20 cents. After the much-debated results were announced on Sunday and the country exploded into chaos, cabbage prices doubled. By Thursday, as the police tear-gassed protesters in the streets and gangs from opposing tribes hacked one another to death… cabbage prices shot up to 100 shillings.” This deterioration of what was once heralded as a great model for other African economies caused more and more people to protest the poor conditions of the country, turning what used to be a purely political matter into a political and economic issue. As a result, many of the riots currently occurring in Kenya are also over the poor economic condition of the country, thereby creating a vicious cycle of violence that is self-perpetuating. Thus, the deterioration of Kenya’s economy is one reason why the violence in Kenya will not be ending anytime soon.
Second, the riots in Kenya have reopened racial wounds in the country. The Washington Post of January 4, 2008 notes that this election has stirred up “strong undercurrents of ethnic-based hatred that will not recede any time soon.” Since Kibaki is a Kikuyu, a tribe known as Kenya’s privileged tribe, and opposition leader Odinga is a Luo, a tribal ethnicity that has long felt marginalized, many Kenyans have felt subtle undercurrents of racial tension over this election. In fact, exit polls found that most voters voted based on ethnic associations. As a result of the current conflict over elections, a sub-group of violent acts in Kenya stem from racial tensions. As the Wall Street Journal of the same day reports, in one city, mobs swept through towns across the country, looting Kikuyu stores, attacking Kikuyus and in one case burning to death up to 50 Kikuyu women and children who were taking refuge in a church. Furthermore, tribal gangs have gained power in some regions in Kenya, making the issue of race an important factor for why the violence in Kenya is so strong. As a result, the violence in Kenya won’t end anytime soon because this political conflict has opened a racial conflict between the Kikuyus and Luos. Thus, even if the two parties agree to compromise, racial tensions between the two will still exist.
Finally, it is important to consider the how both parties have refused to compromise on this issue. The BBC of January 4, 2008 notes that while the two parties have finally met, they have not agreed to anything as of yet. The Financial Time of January 4, 2008 primarily attributes this inability to resolve the conflict to the current incumbent president’s refusal to compromise: “President Mwai Kibaki, the declared winner of a flawed election last Sunday, has adopted a hardline stance and blocked international intervention in the bloody stand-off.” However, this stance is not entirely true. The opposition Orange Democratic Movement Party is also to blame. As the BBC of January 4, 2008 notes, the European Union offered to conduct an independent investigation, a step that could lead to a recount of the ballots. However, the opposition party refused to take this offer responding that a recount would be pointless because the ballots would already be lost or forged. Then, the incumbent government stated it would allow a rerun if the court system demanded one. However, the opposition party stated that the courts were at the whims of the government and would not only take too long to make a decision, but would also be under the control of Kibaki. Therefore, it is apparent that neither side of the conflict is willing to compromise; since no compromise can be made, the violence will not be resolved.
Given the current situation in Kenya, it seems that this country, which was previously proclaimed the “most stable democracy in Africa,” will not be so stable anymore.
Friday, January 4, 2008
How to be a transhuman
Here's a great blog article I wanted to share:
Top 10 Transhumanist Technologies
Thursday, Jul 12 2007
8:00 am
Transhumanists advocate the improvement of human capacities through advanced technology. Not just technology as in gadgets you get from Best Buy, but technology in the grander sense of strategies for eliminating disease, providing cheap but high-quality products to the world’s poorest, improving quality of life and social interconnectedness, and so on. Technology we don’t notice because it’s blended in with the fabric of the world, but would immediately take note of its absence if it became unavailable. (Ever tried to travel to another country on foot?) Technology needn’t be expensive - indeed, if a technology is truly effective it will pay for itself many times over.
Transhumanists tend to take a longer-than-average view of technological progress, looking not just five or ten years into the future but twenty years, thirty years, and beyond. We realize that the longer you look forward, the more uncertain the predictions get, but one thing is quite certain: if a technology is physically possible and obviously useful, human (or transhuman!) ingenuity will see to it that it gets built eventually. As we gain ever greater control over the atomic structure of matter, our technological goals become increasingly ambitious, and their payoffs more and more generous. Sometimes new technologies even make us happier in a long-lasting way: the Internet would be a prime example. In the following list I take a look at what I consider the top ten transhumanist technologies.
10. Cryonics. (Not cryogenics, that’s something else.)
Cryonics is the high-fidelity preservation of the human body, and particularly the brain, after what we would call death, in anticipation of possible future revival. Cryonics is an important transhumanist technology not only because it is already available today, but because the technology is relatively mature - we can reliably stop cells from decaying. In vitrification, the brain is not frozen in the conventional manner but with a cryoprotectant (antifreeze) mixture, which effectively prevents the formation of crystals, causing the water to freeze smoothly, like glass. Maintenance of a cryo-patient is not difficult - it requires no electricity, but merely the replenishment of liquid nitrogen about every three weeks. As cryonics becomes more popular, this process could become automated and extremely reliable. Further improvements in dewar technology will continue to increase safety and reduce costs. The Cryonics Institute in Michigan, for example, has operated since 1976 without a single mishap.
Financed by the interest of the payout of a life insurance policy (which for people under 40 may cost as little as $100 a year to own), patients can be securely cryopreserved for as long as the cryonics company stays afloat and the dewar stays in one piece. Eventual revival does not require the technology to become available tomorrow, or next year… as long as the liquid nitrogen keeps replenished, you can stay on ice for as long as it takes. For an existence proof of cryonic revival, there are frogs that can freeze solid and revive later, though reviving a human from freezing would likely require molecular nanotechnology (MNT). When we will be able to revive a cryo-patient will be strongly related to when we develop sophisticated MNT. Once we do develop MNT, the prospect of successful revival is extremely likely - it would involve slowly melting the ice and rebooting the metabolism by kickstarting the appropriate chemical reactions within cells.
9. Virtual reality.
The above image may look like a photo, but it’s actually a screenshot from the game Crysis, a first-person shooter which will be released later this year. Look at screenshots from the game and you’ll see that computer graphics are already beginning to approach photorealism. Sometime in the 2020s, reality simulations will become so high-resolution and immersive that they’ll start to get indistinguishable from the real thing. Simulations will become the preferred environments for work and play. Pretty soon the main obstacle to truly immersive VR will not be the visuals but the haptics - our sense of touch. To fool our senses into believing haptic technologies are conveying the real thing, the “frame rate” needs to be significantly higher than for visual technologies, a few hundred updates per second rather than a few dozen - which is why development could take another decade or two. But many millions of dollars are currently going into efforts to develop advanced VR.
Clearly, World of Warcraft’s eight million subscribers and SecondLife’s five million subscribers are onto something. At least 1% of all broadband Internet users play in virtual worlds, and this number is increasing rapidly. These worlds typically outclass the real world in terms of customizability, but still have yet to catch up in terms of sensory richness or social fulfillment. But it’s only a matter of time. In the mid-to-late 2020s, I expect full-body, high quality haptic VR suits to be affordable to the average person in developed countries, obtained either from your local WalMart or perhaps printed right out of a desktop nanofactory after payment of a fee. For more on this, here is one scientific paper, “Towards full-body haptic feedback”.
8. Gene therapy/RNA interference.
Gene therapy replaces bad genes with good genes, and RNA interference can selectively knock out gene expression. Together, they give us an unprecedented ability to manipulate our own genetic code. By knocking out genes that code for certain metabolic proteins, scientists have been able to make mice that stay slim no matter how much junk food they eat. Lou Gehrig’s disease has been cured in mice, and it could only be a few years before we develop a therapy that can cure it for humans too. Aubrey de Grey’s SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) research program contains various prescriptions for the use of gene therapy. Within a couple decades or so, progress in anti-aging therapies will improve to the point where we are gaining more than an extra year of lifespan per year, reaching so-called “longevity escape velocity” eventually culminating in indefinite lifespans.
Like many transhumanist technologies, gene therapy is really exciting because it’s just beginning. No scientist has yet performed gene therapy on germline cells (sexual cells in the gonads) due to the ethical controversy of producing genetic changes which are heritable, but, as with many of these things, it’s only a matter of time. Regulations in any given country will only be capable of slowing the overall progress of the field by a few years at most. The money will go where the research is permitted. In its mature form, gene therapy and genetic engineering will become extremely cheap and powerful, letting humans live comfortably in a wider range of environments and gain immunity to most, if not all diseases. Supercomputers of the future, with thousands or millions of times the crunch power of today’s best, will let us simulate the changes in extreme detail before we attempt them with actual human beings. This will make ill side effects quite unlikely for the typical case, much to the dismay of the authors of “genetic engineering turned daddy into a bloodthirsty zombie!” trash novels and films.
7. Space colonization.
Space colonies will become necessary to house the many billions of individuals that will be born in the future as our population continues to expand at a lazy exponential. In his book, The Millennial Project, Marshall T. Savage estimates that the Asteroid Belt could hold 7,500 trillion people, if thoroughly reshaped into O’Neill colonies. At a typical population growth rate for developed countries at 1% per annum (doubling every 72 years), it would take us 1,440 years to fill that space. Siphoning light gases off Jupiter and Saturn and fusing them into heavier elements for construction of further colonies seems plausible in the longer term as well.
Why expand into space? For many, the answers are blatantly obvious, but the easiest is that the alternatives are limiting the human freedom to reproduce, or mass murder, both of which are morally unacceptable. Population growth is not inherently antithetical to a love of the environment - in fact, by expanding outwards into the cosmos in all directions, we’ll be able to seed every star system with every species of plant and animal imaginable. The genetic diversity of the embryonic home planet will seem tiny by comparison.
Space colonization is closely related to transhumanism through the mutual association of futurist philosophy, but also more directly because the embrace of transhumanism will be necessary to colonize space. Human beings aren’t designed to live in space. Our physiological issues with it are manifold, from deteriorating muscle mass to uncontrollable flatulence. On the surface of Venus, we would melt, on the surface of Mars, we’d freeze. The only reasonable solution is to upgrade our bodies. Not terraform the cosmos, but cosmosform ourselves.
6. Cybernetics.
Can you spot the cyborg in this picture? You’re looking right at him! It’s Michael Chorost, the man who was born almost deaf but now can hear, thanks to a cochlear implant. Most of the cyborgs in fiction fit certain stereotypes - Übermensch wannabes, cyborg assassins, and supercops. But cyborgs already walk among us, and they look just like normal people. This trend will continue in the future. Many cyborg upgrades which will become available in the 20s and 30s, such as hearing and vision enhancement, metabolic enhancement, artificial bones, muscles, and organs, and even brain-computer interfaces will be invisible to the casual observer, implanted beneath the skin. Cybernetic features on the surface, such as dermal enhancements or technological actuators like retractable wings, will be carefully camouflaged. No one will want to shock the rest of society by looking like the tin man in public.
The process of cyborgization has already been happening for centuries if not millennia, since the advent of clothing and piercings. For many generations, but especially in the last couple decades, our technological gadgets have been getting smaller, more functional, and more closely integrated with our natural activity. Recently, Microsoft announced Microsoft Surface, a mouseless, keyboardless form of desktop computing which takes input from finger tracing and hand gestures. The sophistication of biotechnology and the availability of better materials and precision manufacturing will let us make systems so small and effective that even everyday people elect to implant them. These cybernetic systems will greatly improve our everyday experience, from letting us hear a wider range of ambient sounds, to viewing millions of stars rather than just a few thousand, to making us more resistant to accidents. They will improve the overall economy by enabling us do more work in less time for better pay. In the long term, enhanced humans may get a bigger portion of the economic pie than un-augmented humans, but the pie itself will become so much larger than even the poorest humans of tomorrow will be better off than the wealthiest of today.
Here’s a good cyborg blog I found while doing research for this article, and the Power Jacket, a 4-pound jacket that enhances strength and is used by people recovering from paralysis. For more, see the cybernetics category of my del.ic.ious links, or my top ten list of cybernetic enhancements.
5. Autonomous self-replicating robotics.
Why do manual labor when the robots can do it for you? Self-replication might be considered the Holy Grail of robotics. A landmark NASA study, “Advanced Automation for Space Missions”, found that robotic self-replication is just a matter of engineering, and that no fundamental theoretical breakthroughs are needed. The study proposed sending a 100-ton package to the Moon, with a self-replication time of 1 year, and letting it self-replicate until the desired level of development is attained. The design - which was fleshed out in great detail - was based on electric carts running on rails within the factory, “paving machines” that direct sunlight to melt lunar regolith, robotic strip miners for obtaining raw materials, and a solar cell “canopy” for powering it all. After 10 years, over 100,000 tons of lunar factory could be produced autonomously. The factory’s functions could then be hijacked for the benefit of human colonists, used to produce housing, products, and provide large quantities of solar power.
If similar self-replicating systems could be constructed on Earth, there would be little limit to the material plenty they could provide. Self-replicating factories could turn the vast empty badlands of Australia into lush gardens by pumping water from the oceans, self-replicating factories in the high Arctic could melt snow and create gigantic transparent domes suitable for habitation, and submersible automata in the seas could dredge sand from abiotic regions of the ocean floor and process it into gigantic platforms for human colonization. By opening up such vast new regions of the Earth’s surface, talk of overpopulation and crowding would fall by the wayside for quite a few decades, with people realizing how much space there actually was all along. And once things really do get too crowded here on Earth, we can move to the Moon, Mars, and the asteroid belt, using the power of self-replicating robotics to create rotating space colonies suitable for housing trillions of people.
Self-replicating factories could reduce the costs of material goods close to that of food - the primary expenses would consist of raw materials, energy, and whatever small quantity of human oversight is necessary to keep an eye on the overall structure of things. By utilizing special, man-made “nutrients” for top-level functions (rare or exotic molecules such as custom-synthesized proteins) and the broadcast architecture - whereby derivative factories must receive affirmations from a central parent factory to continue self-replicating - such factories could be made safe by design. With such abundance, humanity might actually shift from having a zero-sum perspective on a world to a positive-sum perspective. With medical tools and basic goods in ample supply, no one in the world would need to suffer from poverty or curable disease. The nature of human work would shift from manual drudgery and mind-numbing routine to more creative and personally fulfilling endeavors, like art, music, math, science, literature, and exploration.
For more details on the state of the art in self-replicating machines, see the Wikipedia entry, or the magnum opus on the topic, Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines.
4. Molecular manufacturing.
If self-replication is the Holy Grail of robotics, then molecular nanotechnology (MNT) is the Holy Grail of manufacturing. Molecular nanotechnology would use massive arrays of nanometer-scale actuators (produced initially through self-replication) to manufacture macroscale products with atomic precision. This concept is known as the nanofactory. In practical terms, the creation of nanofactories would mean that practically everything could be made out of diamond, motors would become so powerful that a cubic centimeter would provide enough torque to propel a car, medical nanodevices could heal wounds and repair organs without the need for surgery, and air-suspended nanodevices (“utility fog”) could be configured to simulate practically any desired object on demand. On the downside of things, it could become easy to manufacture mite-sized robots with a payload of poison sufficient to kill thousands, or a laptop-sized device capable of separating U-235 from U-238 in a worrisomely simple and rapid fashion, or self-replicating synthetic algae capable of clogging up our oceans with grey goo. Enabling widespread use of the positive applications while cleanly and completely suppressing the nasty applications is a first-order challenge. Incidentally, you can make a difference right now by donating to the Lifeboat Foundation or Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, two of very few organizations focusing on this area.
To some, molecular nanotechnology sounds like science fiction, and based on the grandiose applications I discussed in the previous paragraph, you can’t blame them. But many of the prerequisites of molecular manufacturing have already been demonstrated - “molecular surgery” has been used to snip off and replace individual hydrogen atoms, various functional nanoscale devices have been built, scanning tunneling microscopy has been used to mechnically manipulate individual atoms, and so on. The challenge is to create a nanoscale manipulator arm capable of placing individual atoms with angstrom-level precision, avoiding undesired reactions, and serving as a universal constructor that can build a copy of itself. There are numerous technical challenges still outstanding, but when these are overcome, manufacturing will be granted the power that nature has had for hundreds of millions of years - the ability to fabricate large objects with molecular precision. The numerous potential applications of the techology to human enhancement are obvious; with molecular manufacturing, we could orchestrate elegant improvements to every single body component, achieving all of the upgrades described on my top ten list, and many more.
3. Megascale engineering.
Most people are familiar with megascale engineering because it is seen throughout fiction - the Death Star, for instance. Typically, megascale engineering refers to building structures at least 1,000 km in length in one dimension, such as a space elevator, Globus Cassus, or Dyson sphere. With the self-replicating robotics described above, the production of such large structures could be done largely by autonomous drones, with intelligent agents only managing the highest top-level functions and architecture. Considering that mankind’s long-term future is in space, and that space right now is pretty devoid of any structure useful or habitable to humans, we have a lot of work to do, and if you can make the projects megascale, why not?
Like some of the other items on this list, megascale engineering is only indirectly transhumanist - but is still very relevant to the long-term future of intelligent life. Megascale engineering goes hand-in-hand with the grandiose transhumanist vision: intelligent beings spreading across the cosmos, and eventually shaping the very structure of the universe itself. The fact that these vast expanses of colonizable space are currently neglected imposes on us a vast opportunity cost - if we hurried up a bit and colonized them, we could give rise to tremendous numbers of people leading worthwhile lives. What experiences would they have, and what stories would they tell? We’ll never find out, unless we make it happen.
2. Mind uploading.
Mind uploading, sometimes referred to as nonbiological intelligence, centers around the controversial proposition that cognitive processing can be implemented on substrates other than our current neurons. Considering decades of successful results in neurophysiology, and the recent construction of the world’s first brain prosthesis - an artificial copy of the hippocampus - this seems very likely. It appears that our minds are defined more by the information pattern they embody than the particular hardware they are implemented on. Numerous philosophers of mind have long recognized this, but acceptance among the wider public has been a long time in coming: people don’t want to think that they’re “just” data structures being implemented as computational automata on biological neurons. But it is hard to think of it any other way: once we dismiss the possibility of an immaterial soul, we must acknowledge the mind as a material pattern implemented in physical configurations, and if other substances aside from our current neurons can meet the requirements for these configurations, then there is no reason why intelligence and consciousness could not exist on another substrate. For a humorous look at this complex philosophical argument, see “They’re Made Out of Meat” by Terry Bisson.
If our brains really don’t have to be made out of meat, then we can transfer them to other substrates. By incrementally replacing each neuron with a synthetic neuron-equivalent, the whole process could go down painlessly and seamlessly. The transfer could be as slow or as fast as we want: from the information-processing perspective of the brain itself, nothing ever changes. Light still comes in through the eye’s lens, hits the retina, is transformed into nerve impulses which travel down the optic nerve, receives further processing in the visual cortex at the back of the brain, the highlights of which are sent to the prefrontal cortex for integration with information from the other senses. The brain can’t tell if it’s made out of traditional meat, or accelerated biological neurons, or entirely nonbiological neuron-equivalents: the computation is the same. Sometimes this notion is also referred to as an application of the Church-Turing thesis.
If entirely synthetic brains are possible, then there’s nothing stopping such persons from inhabiting computer networks - not indirectly, sitting in chairs as we currently do, but directly, engaging in computer worlds as a sentient program of tremendous complexity. With molecular manufacturing on hand, reversing the process would be as simple as printing out a hundred or so kilograms of flesh and bone again, complete with memories from the networked experience. This is probably among the transhumanist visions that most reliably elicits the “yuck!” reaction, but if functionalism is true, then virtual experience will be indistinguishable from physical experience. Not only that, but even more enjoyable, due to the manifold degrees of freedom which would become newly accessible. In a virtual world, there are no laws of physics except those we choose.
For a bit more on simulations, see this primer, and remember: be careful not to generalize from fictional evidence.
1. Artificial General Intelligence.
As argued in the previous section, functionalism seems likely. If so, then strong AI is possible. Thinking, feeling, imagining, creating, communicating, thoughtful synthetic intelligences with conscious experiences. Whether serial computing is sufficient, or parallel computing is necessary, both are within technological reach, and present-day computing speeds are fast approaching the computing power of the human brain. In fact, according to many estimates, the fastest present-day supercomputer, Blue Gene/P, has already exceeded it. Blue Gene/P operates continuously at speeds of over a petaflop, which is a million billion operations per second. For strong AI skeptics, no computer - even one operating at trillions of trillions of trillions of operations per second, is sufficient to implement true intelligence, but to functionalists like myself, such a meat-centric perspective is unjustified.
Distinct from artificial intelligence in general, which has come to refer to any sophisticated software program, artificial general intelligence refers to AIs that display open-ended learning and similar competency levels to human beings. A handful of researchers are working diligently towards artificial general intelligence, informed by the mathematics of inference and probability theory: Jürgen Schmidhuber, whose “main scientific ambition has been to build an optimal scientist, then retire”; Marcus Hutter, author of the landmark book Universal Artificial Intelligence; Ben Goertzel, who recently presented his AI design in a talk to Google; and Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is developing a reflective decision theory from first principles. Whether or not others believe in the feasibility of general AI, these individuals will keep working, and one will eventually succeed.
The way the world would be impacted by the arrival of general AI is too extreme to discuss in much detail here. If raw materials such as sand can be converted into computer chips and then into intelligent minds, eventually the majority of material in the solar system could be made intelligent and conscious. The result would be a “noetic Renaissance”: the expansion of intelligence and experience beyond our wildest dreams. Conversely, if not given empathic values, artificial intelligence could lead to the doom of all. It’s up to us to set the initial conditions appropriately: if not, we might not be around to regret it.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to my feed for updates on related topics.
Featured resources:
With the advent of wireless broadband, using the net has become so easy. Be it downloading graphic design templates, or doing an online spyware removal, everything is much more speedy and user-friendly. Although on an individual basis it also depends on a sites own web server.This is because a lot of sites are using cheap web hosting and not all hosting companies are effective. In this context , the web name is often a give-away of the hosting company employed by the site.
From the blog:
Accelerating Future
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Huckabee and Obama win Iowa
Well, Huckabee and Obama won the Iowa Caucus for their respective parties. It was actually quite interesting that Huckabee won, seeing as how he operated on a "show-string budget" and is by all means, one of the underdogs in the Republican Party.
Obviously, Huckabee's success to a large degree is the fact that he is a religious (and a Protesant) and is not only a fiscally conservative politician, but also socially conservative and religious in the conventional sense (sorry Romney) of religious with regards to the Republican Party. This aspect of Huckabee makes him strong since there is no other candidate that appeals to the religious right (For example, Guliani is hated by many Christians for his pro-choice stance, which is now something in the middle of pro-choice and pro-life...).
Will Huckabee be another Howard Dean though? I predict much so. Huckabee's popularity will be strong in the "Bible Belt" so to say, because of his affinity amongst the religious conservatives of the party. However, as he gets to the larger and more important coastal cities, where religion is not as large an issue (there was a demographics study done by the Times that substantiates this, I'm too lazy to link it), he will lose votes.
Now, don't get me wrong, Huckabee has some good policy stances. I give hive HEAVY kudos for his anti-IRS and anti-tax code stance. I like his idea of a national sales tax (or Fair Tax). I do not like his overly socially conservative stance though. I don't like the fact that he believes people with ADIS should be "quarantined."
In any regards, I predict that Huckabee won't be presidential candidate if he continues to be so socially-conservative. Then again, maybe America wants someone this socially-conservative. I sure don't.
In 1992, Huckabee wrote, "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."
"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."