by David Lewin

Should we expect the schools of the future to be saturated with technology? It has been widely reported (e.g. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/319288) that some leaders within major Silicon Valley tech companies have, rather hypocritically, chosen to limit the influence of their products on their own children, by restricting access to screen time and social media. Take the following report:

You cant put your face in a device and expect to develop a long-term attention span, [said] Taewoo Kim, chief AI engineer at the machine-learning startup One Smart Lab A practicing Buddhist, Kim is teaching his nieces and nephews, ages 4 to 11, to meditate and appreciate screen-free games and puzzles. Once a year he takes them on tech-free silent retreats at nearby Buddhist temples. (https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-parents-raising-their-kids-tech-free-red-flag-2018-2)

Other educational spaces also appear to provide shelter from technology saturation, for instance Waldorf schools, which prioritise outdoor learning and low-tech play. This concern to shelter students reflects certain perceived risks of technology saturation: distractedness and diminished attention span, heightened depression and anxiety, poor health and obesity and, in extreme cases, suicide. Limiting access to technology has become newsworthy because of the prevailing assumption that technology enhances education. Whatever the truth of the matter, we currently know little about the long-term impact of many technologies on the educational formation of young people: the influence of technology seems widespread, indeterminate, and seldom given sufficient justification. This knowledge gap is by no means unique to modern technologys educational interventions, but is at the foundation of education itself: there is an interpretive gap between what educators intend and what students learn.

This raises two general questions: First, how do we justify influencing others? If the answer to this question is basically consequentialist (because the outcomes of influence are good), then we are presented with a second question which problematizes this response: namely, what are we to make of the gap between our intentions to influence or enhance, and the outcomes of these intentions?

I would argue that human enhancements have existed as long as education itself. Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg (https://nickbostrom.com/cognitive.pdf) have suggested that education may be usefully labelled as a conventional means of human enhancement, as distinct from nominally unconventional means of enhancement, such as nootropic drugs, gene therapy, or neural implants. This distinction has its place, though Bostrom and Sandberg acknowledge the continuum between enhancements that are conventional (working through education) and unconventional (drawing upon recent technologies), making the distinction fluid, indeterminate and contextual. Caffeine is one thing, but gene editing for purposes of non-therapeutic interventions (e.g. selecting or removing traits in reproduction) remains controversial. Of course, convention is a rather unstable form of justification. In general, the question of the justification of unconventional enhancement parallels that of conventional enhancement. It is one of the key questions that shapes education theory: namely, how are our intentions to influence justified?

The gap between the intentions and the outcomes could be understood as a weakness or risk intrinsic to education. Gert Biesta speaks of the beautiful risk of education (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMqFcVoXnTI), arguing that it is a misconception to see education as a stable relation between inputs and outputs in which we can eliminate the unexpected or the risky. To construe education without risk is to miss something of its beauty. Education can make use of, or better, relies on this gap in order to create spaces that are essentially open to something unbidden, an opening that involves, as Hannah Arendt puts it, the coming of the new and young. By contrast, the sciences of learning have worked to eliminate this gap through the development of what is known as the behavioural objectives model in which measurable educational objectives and outcomes are made explicit and become the sole target of education. The behavioural objectives model can be interpreted as the expression of technical subjectivity in which all forms of insecurity are eliminated in favor of pure transmission, and the risks of exposure to the unbidden are minimised. The idea that behavioural objectives ensure control of the educational process is seductive but, illusory and ultimately corrosive since, as Arendt, Biesta and others have argued, the educational event itself depends upon the introduction of something radically new. What makes the new radical here is that there is a discontinuity between the conditions in which newness may arrive, and the very arrival itself. Something about the new is necessarily unanticipated. Without the new, education becomes the reproduction of the old which, echoing Adornos critiques of Halbbildung (half-education), is only ever half the educational story.

This gap between educational intention and what actually takes place demands something of those involved: speculative, or interpretive judgements. We might say that interpretation constitutes the pedagogical relation between educator and student: the educator speculates that the student is educable, projecting ideas about what capacities the student could realise through certain educational influences; the student speculates about what the educator intends and is capable of, e.g. that they are (or are not) both interested in and able to support the students growth. Then there is speculation about the outcomes of the educational event: the enhancement of a capacity may not be immediately obvious to the student or educator, taking days, months or even years to be properly realised or recognised. In short, there is a great deal of faith in pedagogical structures, processes and relations. This is significant because unconventional means of enhancement likewise involve speculation, risk, and judgement. Just as writing may enhance or diminish human memory, so ubiquitous access to google may extend and undermine certain cognitive capacities; at least an ambivalence should be noted. Unconventional means of enhancement through, for instance, drugs like Ritalin or Modafinil, might be thought to involve unacceptable risks in comparison to conventional schooling, but risks are part of any effort to influence because they are defined by the gap described between intention and outcome.

In her essay The Crisis in Education, Arendt says that hope always hangs on the new which every generation brings; but precisely because we can base our hope only on this, we destroy everything if we so try to control the new that we, the old, can dictate how it will look. Indeed, the older generation cannot fully anticipate changes brought on by the young but can, indeed must, show the world and let go, hoping that in doing so conditions are created in which the new may arrive. Education involves creating conditions in which it is possible for the new to come in to the world, conditions that might also be described in terms of openness: openness to the mystery, the unbidden, the Other, or as self-transcendence.

I would not be the first to challenge the view that the technologically defined immortality of transhumanism would be an enhancement, though my challenge is based on educational insights. Specifically, the transhuman quest for immortality, in which the old seeks to sustain itself indefinitely, seems to oppose the radical renewal of education described by Arendt and others. There is the basic problem of resources: the old must make space for the new by the renewal of life through death, which perhaps could be solved by extraterrestrial colonization or through digitization and uploading. However, the educational principle that life is constituted by a creative tension between those coming in to the world (the young) and those going out (the old) is a basic condition for life itself. The necessity of education correlates with the necessity of the renewal of the world.

Rather than being regarded as revolutionary or radical, transhumanism is, then, fundamentally and ruinously conservative: it seeks to sustain what is, as it is. Transhumanists sometimes berate those who are hesitant about the scale and scope of technological change as bio-conservative, though maybe the transhuman community itself that is the most conservative of all: it fails to see how the preservation of the old world is an affront to the ongoing renewal that sustains the world.

This renewal is not a case of the new entirely replacing or displacing the old, as a cult of youth might have it. By no means does this jettison tradition and the past. In order for children to arrive in the world, they must, says Arendt, be introduced to it. Herein lies the legitimate but limited authority of educators: that, by showing the world, they are able to take responsibility for it, while letting the forces of renewal remake it. Arendt ends her Crisis in Education essay with the following appeal to love:

Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world.

For Arendt, this renewal is not realised in a techno-utopia in which we may exist indefinitely, but a common world in which the old order is in constant transformative renewal. This means convention and tradition provide the ground for representing the world to the young, who then are able to introduce something new through invention and transformation. This balance between old and new, past and future, makes education both necessary and possible.

My concerns are less that transhuman prospects for extended or unending life are real possibilities than what these prospects indicate about contemporary attitudes to human formation and education: namely, the current technologisation of education disregards the interpretive gap which makes education more than a mechanical process of construction. Bringing to view the interpretive gap reminds us that renewal is both possible and essential in order to exceed the conservative forces that seek only to recreate the patterns of the past.

Every parent, educator and transhumanist has an idea of the good and a belief or hope in the possibility of realising it; what might be called a faith in the future. Faith is necessary because of the gap between our intentions to make change, and the outcomes of those intentions. There is a twofold problem: we often dont know whether change is good, and even if we did know this, we often dont know if change can, or has, been realised. It is the human condition to live in this gap, a gap that requires us to live between the conventions and traditions that ground us, and the inventions and transformations that develop us. This gap ensures that, thankfully, the influences of the old on the young are not entirely mechanical or predictable, and that our humanity is staked upon a wager to affirm the world without hanging on to it indefinitely. Because of this gap, it is incumbent upon us to reflect upon the judgements that we must inevitably make, and the possible futures in which we put our faith, hope and love.

Read the rest here:

Education and Enhancement in a Transhuman Future - Patheos

Transhumanist politics constitutes a group of political ideologies that generally express the belief in improving human individuals through science and technology.

The term "transhumanism" with its present meaning was popularised by Julian Huxley's 1957 essay of that name.[1]

Natasha Vita-More was elected as a Councilperson for the 28th Senatorial District of Los Angeles in 1992. She ran with the Green Party, but on a personal platform of "transhumanism". She quit after a year, saying her party was "too neurotically geared toward environmentalism".[2][3]

James Hughes identifies the "neoliberal" Extropy Institute, founded by philosopher Max More and developed in the 1990s, as the first organized advocates for transhumanism. And he identifies the late-1990s formation of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), a European organization which later was renamed to Humanity+ (H+), as partly a reaction to the free market perspective of the "Extropians". Per Hughes, "[t]he WTA included both social democrats and neoliberals around a liberal democratic definition of transhumanism, codified in the Transhumanist Declaration."[4][5] Hughes has also detailed the political currents in transhumanism, particularly the shift around 2009 from socialist transhumanism to libertarian and anarcho-capitalist transhumanism.[5] He claims that the left was pushed out of the World Transhumanist Association Board of Directors, and that libertarians and Singularitarians have secured a hegemony in the transhumanism community with help from Peter Thiel, but Hughes remains optimistic about a techno-progressive future.[5]

In 2012, the Longevity Party, a movement described as "100% transhumanist" by cofounder Maria Konovalenko,[6] began to organize in Russia for building a balloted political party.[7] Another Russian programme, the 2045 Initiative was founded in 2012 by billionaire Dmitry Itskov with its own "Evolution 2045" political party advocating life extension and android avatars.[8][9]

Writing for H+ Magazine in July 2014, futurist Peter Rothman called Gabriel Rothblatt "very possibly the first openly transhumanist political candidate in the United States" when he ran as a candidate for the United States Congress.[10]

In October 2014, Zoltan Istvan announced that he would be running in the 2016 United States presidential election under the banner of the "Transhumanist Party."[11] By May 2018, the Party had nearly 880 members, and chairmanship had been given to Gennady Stolyarov II.[12] Other groups using the name "Transhumanist Party" exist in the United Kingdom[13][14][15] and Germany.[16]

According to a 2006 study by the European Parliament, transhumanism is the political expression of the ideology that technology should be used to enhance human abilities.[17]

According to Amon Twyman of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), political philosophies which support transhumanism include social futurism, techno-progressivism, techno-libertarianism, and anarcho-transhumanism.[18] Twyman considers such philosophies to collectively constitute political transhumanism.[18]

Techno-progressives also known as Democratic transhumanists,[19][20] support equal access to human enhancement technologies in order to promote social equality and prevent technologies from furthering the divide among socioeconomic classes.[21] However, libertarian transhumanist Ronald Bailey is critical of the democratic transhumanism described by James Hughes.[22][23] Jeffrey Bishop wrote that the disagreements among transhumanists regarding individual and community rights is "precisely the tension that philosophical liberalism historically tried to negotiate," but that disagreeing entirely with a posthuman future is a disagreement with the right to choose what humanity will become.[24] Woody Evans has supported placing posthuman rights in a continuum with animal rights and human rights.[25]

Riccardo Campa wrote that transhumanism can be coupled with many different political, philosophical, and religious views, and that this diversity can be an asset so long as transhumanists do not give priority to existing affiliations over membership with organized transhumanism.[26]

Some transhumanists question the use of politicizing transhumanism.[who?] Truman Chen of the Stanford Political Journal considers many transhumanist ideals to be anti-political.[27]

Democratic transhumanism, a term coined by James Hughes in 2002, refers to the stance of transhumanists (advocates for the development and use of human enhancement technologies) who espouse liberal, social, and/or radical democratic political views.[28][29][30][31]

According to Hughes, the ideology "stems from the assertion that human beings will generally be happier when they take rational control of the natural and social forces that control their lives."[29][32]The ethical foundation of democratic transhumanism rests upon rule utilitarianism and non-anthropocentric personhood theory.[33] Democratic transhumanist support equal access to human enhancement technologies in order to promote social equality and to prevent technologies from furthering the divide among the socioeconomic classes.[34]While raising objections both to right-wing and left-wing bioconservatism, and libertarian transhumanism, Hughes aims to encourage democratic transhumanists and their potential progressive allies to unite as a new social movement and influence biopolitical public policy.[29][31]

An attempt to expand the middle ground between technorealism and techno-utopianism, democratic transhumanism can be seen as a radical form of techno-progressivism.[35] Appearing several times in Hughes' work, the term "radical" (from Latin rdx, rdc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. His central thesis is that emerging technologies and radical democracy can help citizens overcome some of the root causes of inequalities of power.[29]

According to Hughes, the terms techno-progressivism and democratic transhumanism both refer to the same set of Enlightenment values and principles; however, the term technoprogressive has replaced the use of the word democratic transhumanism.[36][37]

Hughes has identified 15 "left futurist" or "left techno-utopian" trends and projects that could be incorporated into democratic transhumanism:

These are notable individuals who have identified themselves, or have been identified by Hughes, as advocates of democratic transhumanism:[38]

Science journalist Ronald Bailey wrote a review of Citizen Cyborg in his online column for Reason magazine in which he offered a critique of democratic transhumanism and a defense of libertarian transhumanism.[22][23]

Critical theorist Dale Carrico defended democratic transhumanism from Bailey's criticism.[39] However, he would later criticize democratic transhumanism himself on technoprogressive grounds.[40]

Libertarian transhumanism is a political ideology synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.[28][41][42]Self-identified libertarian transhumanists, such as Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, are advocates of the asserted "right to human enhancement" who argue that the free market is the best guarantor of this right, claiming that it produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems.[43][44]

Libertarian transhumanists believe that the principle of self-ownership is the most fundamental idea from which both libertarianism and transhumanism stem. They are rational egoists and ethical egoists who embrace the prospect of using emerging technologies to enhance human capacities, which they believe stems from the self-interested application of reason and will in the context of the individual freedom to achieve a posthuman state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. They extend this rational and ethical egoism to advocate a form of "biolibertarianism".[43]

As strong civil libertarians, libertarian transhumanists hold that any attempt to limit or suppress the asserted right to human enhancement is a violation of civil rights and civil liberties. However, as strong economic libertarians, they also reject proposed public policies of government-regulated and -insured human enhancement technologies, which are advocated by democratic transhumanists, because they fear that any state intervention will steer or limit their choices.[45][46][23]

Extropianism, the earliest current of transhumanist thought defined in 1988 by philosopher Max More, initially included an anarcho-capitalist interpretation of the concept of "spontaneous order" in its principles, which states that a free market economy achieves a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any planned or mixed economy could achieve. In 2000, while revising the principles of Extropy, More seemed to be abandoning libertarianism in favor of modern liberalism and anticipatory democracy. However, many Extropians remained libertarian transhumanists.[28]

Critiques of the techno-utopianism of libertarian transhumanists from progressive cultural critics include Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron's 1995 essay The Californian Ideology; Mark Dery's 1996 book Escape Velocity: Cyberculture at the End of the Century; and Paulina Borsook's 2000 book Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High-Tech.

Barbrook argues that libertarian transhumanists are proponents of the Californian Ideology who embrace the goal of reactionary modernism: economic growth without social mobility.[47] According to Barbrook, libertarian transhumanists are unwittingly appropriating the theoretical legacy of Stalinist communism by substituting, among other concepts, the "vanguard party" with the "digerati", and the "new Soviet man" with the "posthuman".[48] Dery coined the dismissive phrase "body-loathing" to describe the attitude of libertarian transhumanists and those in the cyberculture who want to escape from their "meat puppet" through mind uploading into cyberspace.[49] Borsook asserts that libertarian transhumanists indulge in a subculture of selfishness, elitism, and escapism.[50]

Sociologist James Hughes is the most militant critic of libertarian transhumanism. While articulating "democratic transhumanism" as a sociopolitical program in his 2004 book Citizen Cyborg,[31] Hughes sought to convince libertarian transhumanists to embrace social democracy by arguing that:

Klaus-Gerd Giesen, a German political scientist specializing in the philosophy of technology, wrote a critique of the libertarianism he imputes to all transhumanists. While pointing out that the works of Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek figure in practically all of the recommended reading lists of Extropians, he argues that transhumanists, convinced of the sole virtues of the free market, advocate an unabashed inegalitarianism and merciless meritocracy which can be reduced in reality to a biological fetish. He is especially critical of their promotion of a science-fictional liberal eugenics, virulently opposed to any political regulation of human genetics, where the consumerist model presides over their ideology. Giesen concludes that the despair of finding social and political solutions to today's sociopolitical problems incites transhumanists to reduce everything to the hereditary gene, as a fantasy of omnipotence to be found within the individual, even if it means transforming the subject (human) to a new draft (posthuman).[51]

See the rest here:

Transhumanist politics - Wikipedia

Frank Sulloway once said: Ninety-nine per cent of what Darwinian theory says about human behavior is so obviously true that we dont give Darwin credit for it. Ironically, psychoanalysis has it over Darwinism precisely because its predictions are so outlandish and its explanations are so counterintuitive that we think, Is that really true? How radical! Freuds ideas are so intriguing that people are willing to pay for them, while one of the great disadvantages of Darwinism is that we feel we know it already, because, in a sense, we do.

Suppose you find an unconscious six-year-old girl lying on the train tracks of an active railroad. What, morally speaking, ought you to do in this situation? Would it be better to leave her there to get run over, or to try to save her? How about if a 45-year-old man has a debilitating but nonfatal illness that will severely reduce his quality of life is it better to cure him, or not cure him?

Oh, and by the way: This is not a trick question.

I answer that I would save them if I had the power to do so both the six-year-old on the train tracks, and the sick 45-year-old. The obvious answer isnt always the best choice, but sometimes it is.

I wont be lauded as a brilliant ethicist for my judgments in these two ethical dilemmas. My answers are not surprising enough that people would pay me for them. If you go around proclaiming What does two plus two equal? Four! you will not gain a reputation as a deep thinker. But it is still the correct answer.

If a young child falls on the train tracks, it is good to save them, and if a 45-year-old suffers from a debilitating disease, it is good to cure them. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle which says Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad. If so and here we enter into controversial territory we can follow this general principle to a surprising new conclusion: If a 95-year-old is threatened by death from old age, it would be good to drag them from those train tracks, if possible. And if a 120-year-old is starting to feel slightly sickly, it would be good to restore them to full vigor, if possible. With current technology it is not possible. But if the technology became available in some future year given sufficiently advanced medical nanotechnology, or such other contrivances as future minds may devise would you judge it a good thing, to save that life, and stay that debility?

The important thing to remember, which I think all too many people forget, is that it is not a trick question.

Transhumanism is simpler requires fewer bits to specify because it has no special cases. If you believe professional bioethicists (people who get paid to explain ethical judgments) then the rule Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad holds only until some critical age, and then flips polarity. Why should it flip? Why not just keep on with life-is-good? It would seem that it is good to save a six-year-old girl, but bad to extend the life and health of a 150-year-old. Then at what exact age does the term in the utility function go from positive to negative? Why?

As far as a transhumanist is concerned, if you see someone in danger of dying, you should save them; if you can improve someones health, you should. There, youre done. No special cases. You dont have to ask anyones age.

You also dont ask whether the remedy will involve only primitive technologies (like a stretcher to lift the six-year-old off the railroad tracks); or technologies invented less than a hundred years ago (like penicillin) which nonetheless seem ordinary because they were around when you were a kid; or technologies that seem scary and sexy and futuristic (like gene therapy) because they were invented after you turned 18; or technologies that seem absurd and implausible and sacrilegious (like nanotech) because they havent been invented yet. Your ethical dilemma report form doesnt have a line where you write down the invention year of the technology. Can you save lives? Yes? Okay, go ahead. There, youre done.

Suppose a boy of 9 years, who has tested at IQ 120 on the Wechsler-Bellvue, is threatened by a lead-heavy environment or a brain disease which will, if unchecked, gradually reduce his IQ to 110. I reply that it is a good thing to save him from this threat. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle saying that intelligence is precious. Now the boys sister, as it happens, currently has an IQ of 110. If the technology were available to gradually raise her IQ to 120, without negative side effects, would you judge it good to do so?

Well, of course. Why not? Its not a trick question. Either its better to have an IQ of 110 than 120, in which case we should strive to decrease IQs of 120 to 110. Or its better to have an IQ of 120 than 110, in which case we should raise the sisters IQ if possible. As far as I can see, the obvious answer is the correct one.

But you ask where does it end? It may seem well and good to talk about extending life and health out to 150 years but what about 200 years, or 300 years, or 500 years, or more? What about when in the course of properly integrating all these new life experiences and expanding ones mind accordingly over time the equivalent of IQ must go to 140, or 180, or beyond human ranges?

Where does it end? It doesnt. Why should it? Life is good, health is good, beauty and happiness and fun and laughter and challenge and learning are good. This does not change for arbitrarily large amounts of life and beauty. If there were an upper bound, it would be a special case, and that would be inelegant.

Ultimate physical limits may or may not permit a lifespan of at least length X for some X just as the medical technology of a particular century may or may not permit it. But physical limitations are questions of simple fact, to be settled strictly by experiment. Transhumanism, as a moral philosophy, deals only with the question of whether a healthy lifespan of length X is desirable if it is physically possible. Transhumanism answers yes for all X. Because, you see, its not a trick question.

So that is transhumanism loving life without special exceptions and without upper bound.

Can transhumanism really be that simple? Doesnt that make the philosophy trivial, if it has no extra ingredients, just common sense? Yes, in the same way that the scientific method is nothing but common sense.

Then why have a complicated special name like transhumanism ? For the same reason that scientific method or secular humanism have complicated special names. If you take common sense and rigorously apply it, through multiple inferential steps, to areas outside everyday experience, successfully avoiding many possible distractions and tempting mistakes along the way, then it often ends up as a minority position and people give it a special name.

But a moral philosophy should not have special ingredients. The purpose of a moral philosophy is not to look delightfully strange and counterintuitive, or to provide employment to bioethicists. The purpose is to guide our choices toward life, health, beauty, happiness, fun, laughter, challenge, and learning. If the judgments are simple, that is no black mark against them morality doesnt always have to be complicated.

There is nothing in transhumanism but the same common sense that underlies standard humanism, rigorously applied to cases outside our modern-day experience. A million-year lifespan? If its possible, why not? The prospect may seem very foreign and strange, relative to our current everyday experience. It may create a sensation of future shock. And yet is life a bad thing?

Could the moral question really be just that simple?

Yes.

Read the original here:

Yudkowsky - Simplified Humanism

The human microchipping agenda has a new face: Nanochips & Smart Dust. What are they? Are you being set up to be a node on the grid? What can you do?

are the new technological means for the advancement of the human microchipping agenda. Due to their incredibly tiny size, both nanochips and Smart dust have the capacity to infiltrate the human body, become lodged within, and begin to set up a synthetic network on the inside which can be remotely controlled from the outside. Needless to say, this has grave freedom, privacy and health implications, because it means the New World Order would be moving from controlling the outside world (environment/society) to controlling the inside world (your body). This article explores what the advent of nanochips and Smart dust could mean for you.

Humanitys history is filled with examples of societies where the people were sharply divided into 2 categories: rulers and slaves.In the distant past, the slaves have usually been kept in place because the rulers had access to and control over the resources, such as money, food, water, weapons or other necessities of life (control of the environment).In our more recent history, control was implemented not only by monopolizing resources but also via propaganda (control of the mind). This has manifested itself in many ways, e.g. the caste system in India (you must remain in your position on the hierarchical ladder for life), the royal bloodlines in Rome, the Middle East and Europe (who claimed an inherent and divine right to rule), the centralization of power in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia during the 1930s (where a single autocrat or a small committee decided the fate of millions), and finally in the West (especially in the US) with the advent of specialized PR and mind control techniques that were refined by the CIA. Projects like MKUltra gave the NWO controllers unheard of power to remotely and subconsciously influence people without them ever knowing, including the ability to create sex slaves and sleeper assassins.

Project MKUltra was at its height 60+ years ago, and things have moved on a lot since then. We are now entering an era where technological advancements are giving the NWO conspirators influence over a new realm control of the emotions, or more accurately, control over the entire mind-emotion nexus in the human body. I am talking about microchips, tiny electronic devices which can be embedded under your skin, and which receive and transmit information. Although microchips have been around awhile, they are now outdated. What we are facing is something much tinier than a microchip, and therefore much more of a threat: nanochips and smart dust.

The components of a Smart dust sensor or mote. Image credit: CatchUpdates.com

So what is ananochip? The word nano is 3 orders of magnitude smaller than micro. Nano means one billionth while micro means one millionth. While microchips are about the size of a grain of rice and measured in millimeters, nanochips are completely invisible to the human eye. Some nanochips are far smaller than human hair (e.g. the -chip that is 0.4 x 0.4 mm). In 2015, IBM announced thatthey had developed functional nanochips measuring just 7 nm or nanometers (7 billionths of 1 meter). In comparison, a strand of human DNA is about 2.5 nm and the diameter of a single red blood cell is about 7500 nm! These nanochips power themselves from their environment (they dont need batteries) and have a 100 year life span. They are slated to be rolled out first on products (so the corporatocracy can have total knowledge of consumer behavior in real time) before they can be used inside peoples bodies. Did you know that nerve cells grow onto/meld with the chip?

In this Leak Project video, the presenter claims that the NWO aimto introduce 100 trillion nanochips into the world, so that literally every single thing in the world is tagged, including you. He includes many patents and other docs as proof of this agenda. He singles out the company HP (Hewlett Packard) as being the executor of the plan to construct a synthetic central nervous system for the Earth linking all resources and people in real time.

Smart dust. Image credit: Waking Times

You may already be familiar with the Smart agenda or better put the Smart Deception. For those new to this, the Smart agenda is to create a giant electromagnetic grid or network that encompasses the entire Earth. Everything that moves is to be made or injected with some kind of sensor or motethat connects it to the grid including household products, appliances, food/drink items, animals, plants and humans too. Smart dust is another name for these motes which will act as mini computers, broadcasting and receiving. They aresmall wireless microelectromechanical sensors (MEMS). As of 2013, a mote was about the size of a grain of rice, but with technology advancing all the time, these will keep on reducing in size. Motes can be ingested through food (as will be discussed below).

The Smart agenda is basically synonymous with the UN Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030, and the Smart grid is synonymous with the IoT (Internet of Things) which is also going to use the new 5G network to achieve its desired saturation levels.

While this kind of technology can be used for the benefit of mankind, like many things today, it has been weaponized. The existence of smart dust forms a massive threat against the sovereignty of every human being alive. What we are up against is nothing less than the attempted technological possession of humanity.

In a fundamental way, vaccines, GMOs, bioengineered food and geoengineering/chemtrails are all connected, as they are delivery systems whereby this miniature technology of nanochips and Smart dust is planned to be inserted into our bodies. Some chemtrails contain Smart dust motes which readily infiltrate the body, communicate with other motes in your body, set up their own network and which can, unfortunately, be remotely controlled.Even if you are fastidious about what you eat and what you expose yourself to, it is difficult to see how you can avoid breathing in a mote of smart dust that was dropped on you by a plane spraying chemtrails.

With nanochips and motes inside your body, the NWO criminals can combine the IoT smart grid with brain mapping and other technological information in their attempt to pull off their ultimate endgame: to remotely influence and control an entire population by overriding (and programming) the thoughts, feelings and actions of the masses.

(The rabbit hole definitely does not stop at nanochips and Smart dust. An entire new category of lifeforms are being forged via synthetic biology.Morgellons fibers are self-aware, self-replicating and are likely assisting the dark agenda to remotely control the thoughts, feelings and bodily functions of the entire population. This will be explored in other articles.)

Naturally, the full scope and goal of this agenda will not be revealed to the public as the technology is rolled out. Instead, we will continue to be told how wonderful, cool, trendy and efficient it all is. Note especially how all of this will be promoted under the banner of speed and convenience (while people unwittingly flush their freedom, health and privacy down the toilet). Yes, being surrounded by fields of manmade EM radiation everywhere you go will be disastrous for your health too.

The nanochips will also be pushed using peer pressure, encouraging people to get in the game out of social conformity. Like many governmental programs, the chips may initially be voluntary before they become mandatory. There is already a segment of society that is willingly chipping itself using tattoo ink. Recently, a company in Wisconsin (Three Square Market or 32M) introduced such an internal system and began encouraging its employees to get chipped. Although it was not mandatory, reportedly about half of them (41 out of 85) stepped forward and chose to get chipped!

So what can you do about this? Firstly, get informed and make sure you understand the true nature and danger of nanochip and smart technology. Secondly, make sure you never acquiesce to getting chipped, no matter what reason youre given. Doing so is tantamount to opening yourself to being remotely controlled without your knowledge. Thirdly, if you do discover a chip inside your body, get it removed. There are various ways to do. Some people crudely cut the chips out if they are large enough (i.e. a microchip instead of a nanochip). Other people claim you can used magnets such as neodymium magnets to render the nanochips useless. Hopefully, there will be intelligent inventors to step forward with new technologies that we can use to deactivate, disable and remove nanochips inside of our bodies.

The human microchipping agenda is really the same thing as the transhumanist agenda to turn mankind into machine which will ultimately mean becoming not superhuman but subhuman.

We need to be very careful and think critically as we go forward into a world of fantastic technology. Like the surgeons knife, it can heal or it can kill. Given everything we know, it would be nave to believe that nanochips will only be used for good. If were not aware, this technology will be used by the power-hungry to enslave us by tricking us with promises of utopia. Nanobots are already being used in Western medicine for all sorts of diseases. Once the smart grid is established, how will you avoid being monitored, tracked and influenced 24/7 every day of the year?

No matter how good the technology becomes, it can never replace the spirit of consciousness inside of you, which is your true power.

*****

Want the latest commentaryand analysis on Conspiracy, Health, Geopolitics, Sovereignty, Consciousness and more? Sign up forfree blog updates!

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative news / independent media siteThe Freedom Articlesand senior researcher atToolsForFreedom.com(FaceBookhere), writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwideconspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.

Sources:

*http://www.newsweek.com/nano-chipnanochips7nm-chipnanotechnologymacbookiphone-6ibmmoore039s-law-602458

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5OeZWfRhhs

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/smart-deception/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/agenda-21-human-habitat/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/5g-iot-technological-control-grid/

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-svcCIDvvk

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/people-voluntarily-chipping-themselves/

*http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-wisconsin-company-microchips-workers-20170801-story.html

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FEWrnPHFPw

*http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2014/11/11/how-to-remove-an-rfid-implant/comment-page-1/

Read this article:

Nanochips & Smart Dust: New Face of the Human ...

The Space Fence is not just to track and catalog space debris. Its an overarching program that connects the geoengineering, surveillance and transhumanist and AI agendas.

is a massive, planetary-wide, space surveillance system currently being constructed that aims to monitor you all the way down to your DNA. Officially, the Space Fenceis, according to Wikipedia, a 2nd generation space surveillance system being built (started in 2014) by the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin to track artificial satellites and space debris. Itsbudget is US$1.594 billion, its expected to be operational in 2019and the Space Fence facility will be located in the MarshallIslands along with an option for another radar site in Western Australia. The Space Fence is a resurrection of a program started by Reagan in the 1980s called SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), commonly known by its nickname Star Wars.However, like many exotic weapons of the New World Order, it has a cover purpose and a real purpose. This article exposes the grander implications of the Space Fence and how it connects to other technology that could be used to enslave you.

Although the USAF and Lockheed Martin tell us that the purpose of the Space Fence is to detect, track and catalog space debris, we must acknowledge that the MIC (Military Intelligence Complex) is at the helm of the New World Order and is routinely engaged in psychological operations against the rest of the population. The Space Fence is the answer to the prayers of a control-freak conspiratorial class. It will have the capacityto surveil everything on Earth. Like Skynet in the fictional Terminator films, it could becomesurveillance beyond comprehension. How?The Space Fence is designed to operate inLEO (Low Earth Orbit). It isdesigned to be one big interconnected machine, run by AI and joined to current (weaponized) technology by interacting with cell phone towers, Gwen Towers, Nexrad Towers, metal particulates and more to create a giant wireless network that manipulates us through the ionization of our atmosphere.

According to Elena Freeland, author ofChemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earthwho is soon to release a book on the topic, the Space Fence will eventually develop into a conductive Saturnian ring around the Earths equator. From there, it could be used to facilitate a complete lockdown on planetary communications (including our DNA communications, since we are electrical creatures), in line with the MICs C4 objectives (Command, Control, Communications and Computers). Freeland states that the Space Fence will have the power to totally transform the entire environment of the planet. It thus is a tool of the AI/Transhumanist agenda to merge man into machine.

Everyone loves the acronym of HAARP but it was just one installation/project. These days its more accurate to call these weapons ionospheric heaters. According to HAARP insider Billy Hayes, there are 200+ of them worldwide.

The Space Fence seems to tie many aspects of the worldwide conspiracy together. Two aspects to pay attention to are ionization and conductivity. To ionize is to create polarity within a substrate. Some things are naturally non-ionized, so to ionize them is take them out of their natural state. To make something conductive is to change it so that it can conduct electricity. The NWO controllers have been unleashing a torrent of light and heavy metals (aluminum, barium, strontium and more) into our environment and thus into our bodies for decades via industrial output, chemical-laden products, vaccines and chemtrails.

Ionization and conductivity crop up again and again when investigating the Space Fence. Thereason the NWO conspirators are so obsessed with these concepts is because they have weaponized them. Ionization is linked to weather control. Ionospheric heaters (the most famous of which is HAARP) are now deployed around the world to heat and ionize layers of the atmosphere. Once ionized, it can be directed in line with geopolitical goals of the controllers, which can equate to earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and droughts. In 2014, we were told that HAARP was being shut down, however since HAARP-like technology is the ultimate weapon of the globalists, does anyone in their right mind really think they are just going to give it away due to lack of funding or because they are supposedly finished with it? Former HAARP insider Billy Hayes (who worked on constructing the original installation in Gakona, Alaska) claims there are over 200 HAARP-like facilities around the world which are fully operational.

Conductivity is linked to both mind control and holographic manipulation (a la Project Bluebeam). It is theorized that, with nano metal particulates everywhere including inside of peoples bodies, the masses are easier to mind control, since the metals act as receivers of wireless transmissions. There is evidence that the more metal particulates in the air, the easier it is to projectholograms onto it (e.g. see the 36:30 minute mark of this Elena Freeland presentation). As this Leak Project video revealed, HP (Hewlett Packard) is literally releasing billions if not trillions of nano sensors (smart dust) into the environment. Is one of the purposes to prepare for a Project Bluebeam scenario?

A close up of a plasma ball, showing electrified plasma gas.

The ionization of our skies means that the air is transformed into plasma,the 4th state of matter. Plasma is defined as an ionized gas consisting of positive ions and free electrons in proportions resulting in more or less no overall electric charge, typically at low pressures (as in the upper atmosphere and in fluorescent lamps) or at very high temperatures (as in stars and nuclear fusion reactors). In simple terms, it isionized air. Plasma keeps our atmosphere thick. It is a medium where electrons can be moved around. Altered plasma means dramatic earth changes via the troposphere and magnetosphere.According to Freeland, the Space Fence will also ionize the outer part of our planet.

Was the SDI only put on hold until they worked how to ionize the atmosphere (see Bernard Eastlands patents for HAARP), then re-activated?

In this context, you can look at Space Fence as the controlling hub which is designed to capitalize upon and control the tremendous transforming and terraforming of our planet which is happening right before our eyes. How can inundating our world with billions of metal particulates, nano chips and smart dustpossibly be a good idea?

Chemtrails: one of several delivery systems. Fancy some black heavy metals for dinner?

The Space Fence is not only connected to HAARP; its also connected to geoengineering / chemtrails, GMOs and vaccines. How? Because all of these things are delivery systems by whichmetal nanoparticles are injected into our atmosphere, water, food, air and, in the end, our bodies. Look at chemtrails now coming out of ships as well as planes infusing the air with all sorts of toxic metals like aluminum, barium and strontium, as well as synthetic biological lifeforms. Look at GMOs all sprayed with toxic metallic and synthetic pesticides which invades our bodies. Look at vaccines the injection of aluminum, mercury and more straight into our bloodstreams.The net effect of all of this is to create one huge wireless metallicized network to surround, engulf and permeate us.

In conclusion, its vital to look just beyond the Space Fence project and see the bigger picture. The Space Fence involves absolute control over space, chemtrails, nanotechnology, terraforming, genetic alteration, transhumanism and AI. The endgame is to control our nervous systems and our very DNA. The question for an awakened humanity is now: what can we do to thwart this agenda?

*****

Want the latest commentaryand analysis on Conspiracy, Health, Geopolitics, Sovereignty, Consciousness and more? Sign up forfree blog updates!

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative news / independent media siteThe Freedom Articlesand senior researcher atToolsForFreedom.com(FaceBookhere), writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwideconspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.

Sources:

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX3IOHpe6sY

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/geoengineering-haarp-and-chemtrails-ultimate-weapon-globalists/

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kQ_s_usST8

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSgZPwArtpk

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5OeZWfRhhs

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/nanochips-smart-dust-microchipping/

Read the original post:

Space Fence: Connecting the Surveillance and Transhumanist ...

Just when you thought the transhumanist craze had died down and was a "passing" fad of science fiction prognostication, this article from the U.K.'s Daily Mail comes along to dispel all the calm (shared by Mr. V.T.):

Bodies kept alive in plastic bags and lifeless 'blank' humans ready for a new consciousness to be uploaded: Controversial booth at CES claims to offer IMMORTALITY - but is all as it seems?

Now, the article is clear: this is all just a "marketing gimick" to promote a "new television show":

Murmurs of I dont like this, and no, this is too much for me, could be heard as CES attendees crowded around the Psychasec setup, greeted by what appeared to be lifeless human forms on display in large glass cases.

During a brief tour through the booth, exhibitors dressed in all white sold the idea of immortality, through a plan to upload human consciousness to human sleeves of whatever design you desire before concluding around the display of Joel, a fresh sleeve' in a vacuum sealed bag, breathing and eating through a tube.

All is well, however, since the whole exhibit and booth was nothing but a marketing scheme for a new series on Netflix:

It may be one of the most bizarre Netflix marketing schemes yet, going as far as plastering posters with Boycott #Psychasec and Immortality is Immoral along the outside of the booth (though an exhibitor insisted to Dailymail.com that this had been done by anti-Psychasec protestors).

The dystopian sci-fi Altered Carbon is set to premier on Netflix February 2.

But I have to wonder, is it really the case that all is well? Frankly, I find the idea of such a "marketing scheme" to be almost as abhorrent as the reality.

Why?

Because notice what is being done: downloading and uploading of "consciousness" is now being promoted as a service to be performed: it is being made a commodity which, to be downloaded and uploaded, means ultimately that it can be bought and sold. Similarly with the "sleeves," the "genetically engineered bodies", are reduced to so much material to be bought and sold - perhaps organ-by-organ. And with these possibilities comes another: that one enters into contractual arrangements with a mega-corporation encompassing all physical and non-physical (or spiritual if you will) aspects of human existence itself.

In other words, the meme is being planted, and given the nature of such television shows, a platform is being created not only to explore all these implications and speculations but more importantly to drive the conversations in a certain way toward the goal of making humanity itself, in all its parts, a commodity to be bought and sold and "serviced" by the corporate world.

So in other words, folks, transhumanism is no longer a rarefied academic or hypothetical discussion. It is now going to be promoted and driven into the public consciousness. I've pointed out several times, beginning with my very first book in this strange world of "alternative research," The Giza Death Star, that virtual immortality, or even a drastic improvement of human longevity to, say, hundreds of years, has a moral implication, for long ago, the Christian Church Father, St. John Chrysostom, pointed out that death, really, is an antidote to endless progress in evil. His point was, as I observed in that book, and as I have observed in prior blogs about this and related subjects, is that one can imagine an Albert Schweitzer or a Mother Teresa, having not decades, but perhaps centuries, to do their good works. But similarly, one can imagine a Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin, or other genocidal mass murders having a similar opportunity to "perfect" their particular "inclinations."

See you on the flip side...

About Joseph P. FarrellJoseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".

Go here to read the rest:

THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: ARTIFICIAL BODIES WAITING FOR ...

Officers

Gennady Stolyarov II ChairmanBobby Ridge SecretaryB.J. Murphy Director of Social MediaFranco Cortese Director of ScholarshipDinorah Delfin Director of Admissions and Public RelationsArin Vahanian Director of MarketingSean Singh Director of Applied InnovationKenneth Alum Director of PublicationEmanuel Iral Director of Visual Art

Foreign Ambassadors

Keoma Ferreira Antonio BrazilAngel Marchev, Sr. BulgariaAria Cheng CanadaAiken Nen Iavarrone ChileAbdul-Rahman Essam Saleh EgyptChris Monteiro EnglandPam Keefe Hong KongPalak Madan IndiaDenisa Rensen JapanOjochogwu Abdul NigeriaBobby Pembleton ScotlandJos Luis Cordeiro Spain

Representatives of the Worldwide Transhumanist Movement

Alexandr Putyatinskiy Representative of the Transhumanist Movement in Kazakhstan

Officers

Gennady Stolyarov II (G. Stolyarov II) became the second Chairman in the history of the Transhumanist Party in November 2016. Mr. Stolyarovis an actuary, independent philosophical essayist, science-fiction novelist, poet, amateur mathematician, composer, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles of reason, rights, and progress. Mr. Stolyarov regularly produces YouTube Videos discussing life extension, politics, philosophy, and related subjects.

In December 2013, Mr. Stolyarov published Death is Wrong, an ambitious childrens book on life extension. Death is Wrongcan be found on Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats, and can also be freely downloaded in PDF format in the English, Russian, French,Spanish, and Portuguese languages.

Mr. Stolyarov is the Chief Executive and one of the founding members of the Nevada Transhumanist Party, established in August 2015.

Mr. Stolyarov has contributed articles to the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), The Wave Chronicle, Le Qubcois Libre, Brighter Brains Institute, Immortal Life, Enter Stage Right, Rebirth of Reason, The Liberal Institute, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Mr. Stolyarov holds the professional insurance designations of Fellowof the Society of Actuaries (FSA), Associate of the Casualty Actuarial Society (ACAS), Member of the American Academy of Actuaries (MAAA), Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter (CPCU), Associate in Reinsurance (ARe), Associate in Regulation and Compliance (ARC), Associate in Personal Insurance (API), Associate in Insurance Services (AIS), Accredited Insurance Examiner (AIE), and Associate in Insurance Accounting and Finance (AIAF).He is the author of numerous actuarial study guides, including, most recently, the 473-page Practice Problems in Advanced Topics in General Insurance, published by ACTEX Learning.

Mr. Stolyarov has written a science-fiction novel, Eden against the Colossus, a philosophical treatise, A Rational Cosmology, a play, Implied Consent, and a free self-help treatise, The Best Self-Help is Free.

In an effort to assist the spread of rational ideas, Mr. Stolyarov published his articles on Associated Content (subsequently the Yahoo! Contributor Network and Yahoo! Voices) from 2007 until Yahoo! closed this venue in 2014. Mr. Stolyarov held the highest Clout Level (10) possible on the Yahoo! Contributor Network and was one of its Page View Millionaires, with over 3,191,000 views. Mr. Stolyarovs selected writings from that era have been preserved on this page.

Mr. Stolyarov can be contacted here.

Bobby Ridgehas a Bachelors Degree in Biomedical Science from California State University of Sacramento (CSUS) and is striving to achieve his PhD in Neuroscience. He only recently found transhumanism and became a Transhumanist. He conducted research for CSUSs Psychology Department and his own personal research on the epistemology and Scientiometrics of the Scientific Method. He also co-owns Togos in Citrus Heights, CA. Mr. Ridge considers transhumanism to describe the future of humanity taking its next steps in evolution, which are both puissant and daunting. With the exponential increase in information technology, Mr. Ridge considers it important for us to become a science-based species to prevent a dystopian-type future from occurring.

Mr. Ridge can be contacted here.

B.J. Murphy is a writer, author, futurist, and activist. He has done work as a Technology Adviser for short films and television and is an Ambassador for both the A.I. company Persona and robotics company BodAi. Hes an Editor and Social Media Manager for Serious Wonder, Affiliate Scholar for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and is a co-author of both The Future of Business: Critical Insights Into a Rapidly Changing World From 60 Future Thinkers and 50:50 Scenarios for the Next 50 Years.

Mr. Murphy can be contacted here.

Franco Cortese is the Deputy Director of the Biogerontology Research Foundation and a member of its Board of Trustees. He believes that the most effective and economical approach to the treatment of age-related diseases which represent, from both a quantitative and qualitative standpoint, some of the most significant diseases afflicting humanity today is through the extension of healthspan via biomedical interventions focusing on the prevention, negation, and/or slowing of accumulated age-related phenotypic deviation. In addition to his administrative and research activities, Cortese has also written extensively on the ethical, socioeconomic, political, logistical, and philosophical implications of biomedical gerontology.

He is also active as a research scholar in the field of the philosophy of technology, focusing on the ethical, sociological, philosophical, and political issues surrounding emerging technologies in general and human enhancement technology in particular through his work as an Affiliate Scholar of the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (IEET), a technoprogressive policy institute focusing on the social implications of emerging technologies. His most recent research in this area has involved articulating a novel variant of technological determinism titled technic self-determination (Cortese, F. A. B. (2014). Technic Self-Determination. In Stephen John Thompson (Ed.), Global Issues and Ethical Considerations in Human Enhancement Technologies (pp. 203-224). Hershey, PA: IGI Global; Cortese, F. A. B. (2016). The Technoethical Ethos of Technic Self-Determination. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT), 7(2), 1-27), which posits a reciprocally causative relationship between technology and society, construing technology to be a crucial and reciprocally causative ontological fundament of human nature.

Among other broader research topics relating to the ethical, philosophical, and sociopolitical implications of emerging technologies in general, his current research involves defending the development and proliferation of human enhancement technologies (HET) as a viable means of increasing the capacity for self-determination, autonomy, and sovereignty at the level of both society and the individual and of reducing unnecessary suffering in the world at large by increasing the capacity for individuals to determine the controlling circumstances of their selves and lives. Contrary to many critics of HET, Cortese argues that the use of HET exemplifies and indeed even intensifies our most human capacity and faculty namely, the desire for increased self-determination, which he refers to as the will toward self-determination. Furthermore, he argues that the use of HET bears fundamental ontological continuity with the human condition in general and the historically ubiquitous will toward self-determination in particular, and that, as such, the development and proliferation of HET need not be a dehumanizing force, but rather could very well serve to increase the very capacity that characterizes us as human more accurately than anything else, provided that it is developed and proliferated democratically and ethically.

Corteses other current positions and affiliations include Associate at Deep Knowledge Life Sciences, Research Scientist at ELPIs Foundation for Indefinite Lifespans, Scientific Advisor for Lifeboat Foundation (Life Extension Advisory Board and Futurists Advisory Board), Honorary Fellow of Brighter Brains Institute, Chief Operating Officer of the Center for Interdisciplinary Philosophic Studies, International Coordinator of Cryonics Switzerland, Ambassador for the Seasteading Institute, Assistant Editor at Ria University Press, Member of the International Longevity Alliance, Chair and Co-Founder of the Canadian Longevity Alliance, and Reviewer for the Global Futures Intelligence System at The Millennium Project.

Mr. Cortese can be contacted here.

Dinorah Delfin is a Multi-Media New York Artist and Futurist with a clear mission: to advocate for the ethical use of emerging technologies to help steer humanity into a thriving metahumanity. She is the owner of ArtDimensional Studios, Inc., in New York and has a degree in Business Management. Ms. Delfins artworks and activism are aimed to raise critical questions about emerging techno-social structures as they become more embedded in our lives, and our evolving definition of humanity, individual sovereignty, and general happiness and sense of purpose. Ms. Delfins artworks can be seen on her Instagram page.

Ms. Delfin has been designing a grass-roots campaign to advocate for the ethical use of emerging technologies including a manifesto and a series of propaganda-like posters that raise questions about emerging technologies and how they affect our everyday life. With the assistance of like-minded artists, she is planning to carry on a guerrilla-type campaign both online and in public spaces such schools. She has been involved in organizing educational events as well as fundraisers for charitable relief efforts.

Ms. Delfin can be contacted here.

Arin Vahanian is a project manager, author, entrepreneur, musician, blogger, startup advisor, and aspiring electrical engineer. Having worked for three Fortune 100 companies and several technology startups, Mr. Vahanian helps organizations build high-performance teams and create and launch products/services that delight the customer.

Being deeply devoted to the promise of Transhumanism and the concept of continuous improvement, Mr. Vahanian is the author of Kaizen for Men, a book that combines self-help with Lean Manufacturing and Toyota Production System principles, helping men boost their health, career, and relationships.

Mr. Vahanian became interested in the Transhumanist movement after coming across various life-changing technologies and breakthroughs in the medical field. His personal vision is to live and love deeply, being dedicated to building and spreading technologies that allow human beings to live more fulfilling, joyful, and enhanced lives. Specifically, he has a special interest in curing mental health disorders such as depression and social anxiety disorder, as well as reversing aging and curing dementia and other neurological disorders.

Mr. Vahanian holds a Bachelors degree in Journalism (Public Relations) and a Master of Business Administration (Management) degree from California State University, Northridge. Additionally, he holds several professional certifications in the information technology (IT) industry, and is an Enrolled Agent.

A seasoned traveler and expatriate, Mr. Vahanian has lived and worked on three continents, and speaks six languages. Mr. Vahanian is an ENTJ personality type according to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Mr. Vahanian can be contacted here.

Sean Singh is a dedicated supporter of human rights and environmental justice, an expert in strategy, quality control, and lateral thinking, with a life-long passion for open-source technologies. He is the founder of SolarFi Networks, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that designs and deploys metro-scale wireless networks that are disaster-resilient. He has owned and operated several commercial data centers, having worked in every role from tech support to network administrator to infrastructure design and implementation beforehand. Mr. Singhs passion also extends to education. He takes an open-source view that education should be free to anyone interested, and to that end he works with the Open Source Temple, one the worlds first Transhumanist churches. Mr. Singh worked closely with Todd Freeman to develop the ranking system for consciousness that appears at the beginning of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights Version 2.0, and which reflects his familiarity with bridging the gap between neuroscience and digital intelligence.

Mr. Singh can be contacted here.

Kenneth Alum has an Advanced Diploma in Business Management, with technical skills in Computer Hardware and Software maintenance (A+). His work experience spans 15 years, 12 years being in lower to senior-level management. Mr. Alum has worked in the industries of Graphic Design, Print Advertising, Insurance, and Finance, and has spent 10 years in the micro-finance industry. He has accrued skills in policy and procedure writing and implementation, credit appraisal, loan marketing, budgeting, financial forecasting, credit control, staff training, graphic design, report writing, business planning, customer service, and branding.

Mr. Alum has taken keen interest in science and technology recently. He now considers himself a Transhumanist, Futurist and a Space Ager an advocate for space and for new worlds exploration, habitation, and colonization. Mr. Alum just began private studies in biotechnology and hopes to do the same with nanotechnology and various space technologies. He will eventually proceed to acquire formal education on these disciplines. Mr. Alum has created the Facebook group Transhumanism Africa and started a business in Kenya named Transhumanism Technologies. The purpose of the business is to import to Africa and trade in new technology products in the future.

Mr. Alum can be contacted here.

Emanuel Iral is a design freelancer who has provided clients with work ranging from typical advertisements, flyers, and logos, to filming and editing videos. Mr. Iral has interned as a studio assistant to a prominent artist in New York, Laetitia Soulier. He has participated in one art show, Young Artist Initiative, in Miami, where he exhibited his series of 70+ pencil drawings of carved bodies. Mr. Irals artwork ranges from traditional paint and pencil work to 3D digital work. Currently he is working on his VFX and animation skills, as he is producing short films for his music.

Mr. Irals work can be found on Behance.net, Instagram, and Patreon. Heencompasses his art under the term Prismatis Latin for prism. A prismrefracts white light into the three primary colors: yellow, magenta, and cyan. Prismatis is all about the aesthetic of human expression, which can be separated into the art, audience, and artist.

Mr. Iral can be contacted here.

Foreign Ambassadors

Keoma Ferreira Antonio is a philosopher, musician, and lover of science fiction and Japanese art production. Graduated in Philosophy from UFRN (Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil), he was a laureate of his class. He currently holds a masters degree in philosophy from the same university, and his research area is Transhumanism.

He researches and writes about the Promethean-Faustian Oscillations of Transhumanism, which come from the demiurgic character of modern sciences (which will be published as an introductory book on transhumanism). He is also a member of the research group on Immortality, an activist of the Transhumanist cause (being an active voice within the movement, which is still small in Brazil) and works with the dissemination of philosophical thought through anime (Japanese animation).

Keoma can be contacted here.

Prof. Angel Marchev, Ph.D. has graduated as automation control engineer at the Technical University of Sofia. Later he worked closely with A. Ivahnenko, one of the originators of the concept of Self-organization.

Prof. Marchev is one of the pioneers of implementing cybernetics and system theory in the fields of business management in Bulgaria. Over the last 40 years he has published more than two hundred papers on various topics in the field. He considers as his life-time achievement the implementation of Multi-stage selection procedures for wide range of business challenges such as system identification, forecasting, modeling economic and business systems among others.

Angel Marchev, Sr. is one of the pioneers of implementing computer business games and active methods in education for adults in Bulgaria. Over the last 40 years he has educated more than thirty thousand students and managers using over hundred and twenty CMG and other active methods in his courses. He teaches courses such as Simulation and gaming in management, Business games, Computer simulation and forecasting, Financial modeling in management and Fundamentals of Management I: Cybernetics and systems theory at the University for National and World Economy and Burgas Free University among several others business schools and collages in Bulgaria and at University of Hasselt, University of Slough, and London Guildhall University among others abroad.

By using games he has trained a spectrum of Bulgarian business leaders starting with his assignment at the Center for training management resources throughout the 1970s. In the last 20 years he has started his own consultancy business providing training for various private and public organizations.

Prof. Marchev has been among the first members of ISAGA since it was founded and was member of the steering committee of ISAGA almost until 1990. He was also a member of EESAGA. Now he is establishing BASAGA in Bulgaria.

Professor Marchev can be contacted here.

Aria Chengis a Wholistic Transhumanist Artist, Designer, Community Builder, Advocate, and Entrepreneur. As an unprotected visible intersectional minority with invisible disabilities, Aria has spent 6 years engaged in building inclusive queer and feminist communities and spaces, and an additional 10 years serving her local community in many capacities.

Since her departure from the queer-feminist activist sphere in 2013, Aria remains a passionate Transhumanist, with a distinct progressive vision for Canadas future which includes: a focus on Innovation and Research; extending Universal Care to encompass Basic Income, Advanced Education, and extended Health & Dental coverage for longevity; an actionable plan for Native Reparations; Voting Reform; and making use of Blockchain technology and Artificial Intelligence for true democratic participation as well as the distribution of both private and public services; among others.

Aria is currently working on finishing her Associate Degree of Arts in Social Sciences, as well as her Diploma of Fine Arts. She also serves as Lead Designer for the non-profit humanitarian AI organization, Robots Without Borders, and is Founder of The Transhumanist Party of Canada.

In her personal life, Aria is giant fan of Star Trek, loves her two cats, and identifies her gender to be Transhumanist.

Aiken Nen Iavarrone graduated in Electronics in high school and participates in the maker movement in Chile. He is a student of automation and industrial control and is interested in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. He is also an entrepreneur who has formed a company called Carmona Robotics. He created an invention, motivated by the work of several thinkers a smartglass with a brain-computer interface that integrates imaging studies, logistics, daily life, and social experiences. Mr. Iavarrones dream is to study biomedical engineering and, specifically, neuronal engineering, and to collaborate with others in improving the effectiveness of biological sensors in prostheses and computational devices. Mr. Iavarrone believes in a world of neurodiversity and existential freedom, where the identity of each person is defended. In addition, he takes an interest in economics and energy and is a member of the Facebook group Transhumanismo, whose focus is on spreading transhumanist ideas in countries throughout the Spanish-speaking world.

Abdul-Rahman Essam Saleh holds a Bachelors degree in Biotechnology and is aiming to establish the biotechnology industry as a major industrial sector in Egypt, where potentials are at a peak and chances seem limitless. For that dream to come true, Abdul is taking steps and planning on doing his Masters degree in Biotechnology Business Management.

Abdul started the Arabian Longevity Alliance initiative to spread awareness of the longevity research field and its results among researchers and science-loving laymen. Also, to spark the interests of people who arent that much into science, Abdul used his stance to start intriguing peoples thoughts about how the Transhumanistic era might look like and how longevity is going to affect the shapes of our lives.

Abdul has held multiple talks, lectures, and YouTube videos on various topics, including longevity, to help get the word out in the Arab world, which is why he pays great regard to translating research papers into Arabic and posting them with the hope that they reach Arabic-speaking audiences interested in the field or in science in general.

Abdul hopes that his efforts result in a possible core of the first small community of Transhumanists in Egypt.

Abdul-Rahman can be contacted via his Facebook pageand his YouTube channel.

Chris Monteiro has been involved in the transhumanist movement for a number of years. He is a co-founder and officer with the Transhumanist Party UK, an organization seeking to tackle a range of contemporary political challenges facing the transhumanist movement in British, European, and international contexts.

Since 2015 he has led the H+Pedia project from Humanity+, a transhumanist edited wiki helping to better map, understand and promote transhumanist ideas within the entire movement.

He works as a systems administrator and studies contemporary cybercrime trends and their intersections with computer security, privacy, and our rapidly developing internet-connected society.

Personal site: https://pirate.london/Twitter: https://twitter.com/Deku_shrub

Chris can be contacted here.

Pam Keefe is the Asia Pacific Vice President for HNI International.

Based in Hong Kong, Pam is responsible for Sales and Distribution of HNIs 8 brands of office furniture, including Allsteel, Gunlocke, Paoli, Lamex, and HNI India. Originally from the USA, she has been working and living in Asia since 2008. Prior to joining HNI in 2015, Pam was based in Singapore and was the Vice-President of Asia Pacific for Teknion Office Furniture for two years and spent 12 years with Haworth Office Furniture, leading Sales Strategy and Global Accounts for Asia Pacific, Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.

In addition to the office furniture business, Pam has a passion for biotechnology, health, fitness, and life extension.

Pam is spearheading an effort to raise awareness and educate people in Asia on the possibilities of life extension and the critical medical research that is needed to cure aging and death. The organizations in which she is involved give her access to people, events, knowledge, and activities that the U.S. Transhumanist Party can leverage. Pam is organizing RAADfest Bangkok, which takes place in February 2018 and will be the first event of its kind in Asia.

Pam can be contacted here.

Palak Madan is a Research Analyst at Blackbox AI. Her work involves evaluating AI marketplace, finding best practices for various operational needs, business development, UI designing, gathering resources for in-house research lab, maintaining internal wiki, etc. Previously, she has participated in diverse challenges and collaborative projects with various tech-startups in India, U.S., and Europe.

Besides AI forecasting, her research work revolves around Future of Machine Intelligence, long-term ethical problems of robust and beneficial Artificial Intelligence, simulation theory, ethical reasoning, rationality, mathematics, and design thinking. She likes to focus on big picture questions facing humanity and maintains a web presence at futuretunnel.com, where she shares her views, thoughts and vision for far future.

Palak can be contacted here.

Dr.Denisa Rensen B.Sc., B.A., N.D. FAARM A4Mis an avid academic/researcher, holding Honors Degrees in Philosophy, in Biology, in Psychology and a Medical Degree in Naturopathic Medicine. She holds a Fellowship in Anti-Aging & Regenerative Medicine from the American Academy of Anti-Aging & Regenerative Medicine A4M.

Denisa is passionate about exponential medicine, conscious transhumanism, and the future of unlimited lifespans. She is a speaker and MC of the RAADFest a yearly conference on ending aging and expanding human lifespans in the most healthy and conscious way possible.

She is a writer, a poet, a photographer,cinematographer, and conscious media producer always bridging art and science in all she does.

Denisa can be contacted here.

Ojochogwu Abdul is a resident of Nigeria and deeply involved in the countrys transhumanist community under the personal philosophies of deep naturalism, transhumanism, and cosmism. Hes the founder of the Transhumanist Enlightenment Caf (TEC) and is the co-founder of the Transhumanist Forum of Nigeria (H+Forum-NG).

Ojochogwu currently holds a B.A. in Philosophy & Religious Studies and an M.A. in Philosophy, and is a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Lagos, Nigeria. Hes a researcher, philosophy tutor, private consultant, speaker, social worker, and NGO program and planning officer.

Ojochogwu can be contacted here.

See original here:

Leadership U.S. Transhumanist Party Official Website

http://2045.com http://gf2045.comIn February of 2012 the first Global Future 2045 Congress was held in Moscow. There, over 50 world leading scientists from multiple disciplines met to develop a strategy for the future development of humankind. One of the main goals of the Congress was to construct a global network of scientists to further research on the development of cybernetic technology, with the ultimate goal of transferring a human's individual consciousness to an artificial carrier.

2012-2013. The global economic and social crises are exacerbated. The debates on the global paradigm of future development intensifies.

New transhumanist movements and parties emerge. Russia 2045 transforms into World 2045.

Simultaneously, the 2045.com international social network for open innovation is expanding. Here anyone interested may propose a project, take part in working on it, or fund it, or both. In the network, there are scientists, scholars, researchers, financiers and managers.

2013-2014. New centers working on cybernetic technologies for the development of radical life extension rise. The 'race for immortality' starts.

2015-2020. The Avatar is created -- A robotic human copy controlled by thought via 'brain-computer' interface. It becomes as popular as a car.

2020. In Russia and in the world appear -- in testing mode -- several breakthrough projects:Android robots replace people in manufacturing tasks; android robot servants for every home; thought-controlled Avatars to provide telepresence in any place of the world and abolish the need business trips; flying cars; thought driven mobile communications built into the body or sprayed onto the skin.

2020-2025. An autonomous system providing life support for the brain and allowing it interaction with the environment is created. The brain is transplanted into an Avatar B. With Avatar B man receives new, expanded life.

2025. The new generation of Avatars provides complete transmission of sensations from all five sensory robot organs to the operator.

2030-2035. ReBrain -- The colossal project of brain reverse engineering is implemented. World science comes very close to understanding the principles of consciousness.

2035. The first successful attempt to transfer one's personality to an alternative carrier. The epoch of cybernetic immortality begins.

2040-2050. Bodies made of nanorobots that can take any shape arise alongside hologram bodies.

2045-2050. Drastic changes in social structure, and in scientific and technological development. All the for space expansion are established.For the man of the future, war and violence are unacceptable. The main priority of his development is spiritual self-improvement.

A new era dawns: The era of neohumanity.

Excerpt from:

2045: A New Era for Humanity - YouTube

The Lifeboat Foundation has a special report detailing their view of the top ten transhumanist technologies that have some probability of 25 to 30-year availability. Transhumanism is a movement devoted to using technologies to transcend biology and enhance human capabilities.

I am going to list out each of the ten technologies described in the report, provide my own assessment of high, medium, or low probability or mass-market availability by a given time horizon, and link to prior articles written on The Futurist about the subject.

10. Cryonics : 2025 - Low, 2050 - Moderate

I can see the value in someone who is severely maimed or crippled opting to freeze themselves until better technologies become available for full restoration. But outside of that, the problem with cryonics is that very few young people will opt to risk missing their present lives to go into freezing, and elderly people can only benefit after revival when or if age-reversal technologies become available. Since going into cryonic freezing requires someone else to decide when to revive you, and any cryonic 'will' may not anticipate numerous future variables that could complicate execution of your instructions, this is a bit too risky, even if it were possible.

9. Virtual Reality : 2012 - Moderate, 2020 - High

The Technological Progression of Video Games

The Next Big Thing in Entertainment, Part I, II, and III

The Mainstreaming of Virtual Reality

8. Gene Therapy : 2015 - Moderate, 2025 - High

The good news here is that gene sequencing techniques continue to become faster due to the computers used in the process themselves benefiting from Moore's Law. In the late 1980s, it was thought that the human genome would take decades to sequence. It ended up taking only years by the late 1990s, and today, would take only months. Soon, it will be cost-effective for every middle-class person to get their own personal genome sequenced, and get customized medicines made just for them.

Are you Prepared to Live to 100?

7. Space Colonization : 2025 - Low, 2050 - Moderate

While this is a staple premise of most science fiction, I do not think that space colonization may ever take the form that is popularly imagined. Technology #2 on this list, mind uploading, and technology #5, self-replicating robots, will probably appear sooner than any capability to build cities on Mars. Thus, a large spaceship and human crew becomes far less efficient than entire human minds loaded into tiny or even microscopic robots that can self-replicate. A human body may never visit another star system, but copies of human minds could very well do so.

Nonetheless, if other transhumanist technologies do not happen, advances in transportation speed may enable space exploration in upcoming centuries.

6. Cybernetics : 2015 - High

Artificial limbs, ears, and organs are already available, and continue to improve. Artificial and enhanced muscle, skin, and eyes are not far.

5. Autonomous Self-Replicating Robots : 2030 - Moderate

This is a technology that is frightening, due to the ease at which humans could be quickly driven to extinction through a malfunction that replicates rouge robots. Assuming a disaster does not occur, this is the most practical means of space exploration and colonization, particular if the robots contain uploads of human minds, as per #2.

4. Molecular Manufacturing : 2020 - Moderate, 2030 - High

This is entirely predictable through the Milli, Micro, Nano, Pico curves.

3. Megascale Engineering (in space) : 2040 - Moderate

From the Great Wall of China in ancient times to Dubai's Palm Islands today, man-made structures are already visible from space. But to achieve transhumanism, the same must be done in space. Eventually, elevators extending hundreds of miles into space, space stations much larger than the current ISS (240 feet), and vast orbital solar reflectors will be built. But, as stated in item #7, I don't think true megascale projects (over 1000 km in width) will happen before other transhumanist technologies render the need for them obsolete.

2. Mind Uploading : 2050 - Moderate

This is what I believe to be the most important technology on this list. Today, when a person's hardware dies, their software in the form of their thoughts, memories, and humor, necessarily must also die. This is impractical in a world where software files in the form of video, music, spreadsheets, documents, etc. can be copied to an indefinite number of hardware objects.

If human thoughts can reside on a substrate other than human brain matter, then the 'files' can be backed up. That is all there is to it.

1. Artificial General Intelligence : 2050 - Moderate

This is too vast of a subject to discuss here. Some evidence of progress appears in unexpected places, such as when, in 1997, IBM's Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov in a chess game. Ray Kurzweil believes that an artificial intelligence will pass the Turing Test (a bellwether test of AI) by 2029. We will have to wait and see, but expect the unexpected, when you least expect it.

Original post:

The Futurist: The Top Ten Transhumanist Technologies

Man vs. machine, cryonics, mind uploading...a science fiction book that's Amazon's #1 book under the category Philosophy is The Transhumanist Wager. Istvan says religious people are challenged by transhumanists."-Fox News Channel

An unwieldy novel of ideas about a freelance philosopher named Jethro Knights who sails around the world to promote the need for life-extension research and winds up establishing a floating libertarian city-state called Transhumania--a regulation-free utopia of tech billionaires and rationalists--from which he wages an atheist holy war on a theocratic United States.-The New York Times

"The novel has been described as a modern version ofAtlas Shrugged."-Yahoo News

"The biggest novel on the transhumanist scene is Istvan's. 'The Transhumanist Wager' reads like Dan Brown's undergradudate thesis -- a rollicking plot setting out futurist thought, manifesto style." -The Spectator

"Protagonist Jethro Knights may become one of the grand characters of modern fiction." -Psychology Today

"Transhumanism is snowballing into an international movement. The current wave of debate surrounding the concept began withThe Transhumanist Wager."-Breitbart

"This book is an edgy riveting masterpiece that will long linger with anyone who reads it."-Serious Wonder

"An Ayn Rand-esque manifesto." -The New Yorker

"Best-selling and award-winning novel." -Reason

"The Transhumanist Wager tells the story of Jethro Knights, a philosopher who rails against democratic politics and becomes a revolutionary that seizes control of the world in order to enforce a global authoritarian transhuman regime."-BBC

"Istvan, a prominent transhumanist writer...enlightens me. In The Transhumanist Wager, transhumanists manage to launch the third world war."-The Telegraph

"The Transhumanist Wager envisions a radical future." -CBS News

"It's a dystopian story that imagines a Christian nation outlawing transhumanism prompting all the billionaires to retreat to an offshore sea-stead where they can work on their advances undisturbed."-The Times Magazine

"Many sayThe Transhumanist Wageris the newAtlas Shrugged."-Marin Magazine

"It's a page turner. Istvan knows how to tell a compelling story." -io9 / Gizmodo

"IenjoyedThe Transhumanist Wager...an adventurous suspense-filled semi-sci-fi about sailing, love, and life extension." -The Huffington Post

"About a man's quest to live forever using science, medicine, and technology."Popular Science

Thrilling...an important literary work that everyone should read."-Guardian Liberty Voice

"Bestselling The Transhumanist Wager& famous transhumanist Zoltan Istvan...a new philosophy, a new psychology, a new metaphysics...the concept of people taking a Transhumanist Wager is making a strong impact." -RT Television

"It's set in a dystopian near-future America in which transhumanists are on the verge of huge technological breakthroughs but are under attack from conservative politicians and radical Christian fundamentalist terrorists."-Vox

"A gripping story...it's my new favorite novel."-Brighter Brains

"Istvan demonstrates great adeptness at crafting complex characters."-San Francisco Book Review

"The story is brilliant. It will challenge your thinking." -33voices

"Fascinating. It'smaking waves."-Good Day Sacramento, CBS TV

"Istvan's novel has the potential to become a cult book. I hope it will be widely read and discussed." -Kurzweil AI

"A philosophical manifesto...the world becomes ruled by scientists." -Vice (Italy)

"Strongly libertarian...a radical version of transhumanism."-Patheos

"The action sequences in the book are top notch."-New York Journal of Books

"The book asks a simple question: how far would you go to fight an anti-science world in order to live indefinitely through transhumanism? Protagonist Jethro Knights would start a world war - and does so in the book"-Wired UK

"The Transhumanist Wagerpromises to become a cult classic among futurists."-SASM Institute

Read this article:

The Transhumanist Wager: Zoltan Istvan: 9780988616110 ...

George P. Dvorsky (born May 11, 1970) is a Canadian bioethicist, transhumanist and futurist. He is a contributing editor at io9[citation needed] and producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast. He was Chair of the Board for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET)[1][2] and is the founder and chair of the IEET's Rights of Non-Human Persons Program,[3] a group that is working to secure human-equivalent rights and protections for highly sapient animals.

Dvorsky is a secular Buddhist,[4][5] progressive environmentalist,[6] ancestral health advocate,[7] and animal rights activist.[8][non-primary source needed] Primarily concerned with the ethical and sociological impacts of emerging technologies, specifically, "human enhancement" technologies; he seeks to promote open discussion for the purposes of education and foresight.[citation needed] He writes and speaks on a wide range of topics, including technoscience, ethics, existential risks, artificial intelligence, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and futurology, from a democratic transhumanist perspective.[1][2]

Dvorsky presented an argument for non-human animal biological uplift at the IEET Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights conference at Stanford University in May 2006;[9][10] and wrote the first published article in defence of the Ashley Treatment in November 2006,[11][non-primary source needed] and subsequently the only bioethicist cited by Ashley X's parents in their defense.[12]

Dvorsky also presented an argument warning of the decline of democratic values and institutions in the face of existential and catastrophic risks at the Global Catastrophic Risks: Building a Resilient Civilization conference in November 2008.[13][non-primary source needed]

Dvorsky, along with Milan M. irkovi and Robert Bradbury, published a critique of SETI in the May 2012 Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS) arguing that SETI techniques and practices have become outdated. In its place, Dvorsky, irkovi, and Bradbury advocated for what they called Dysonian SETI, namely the search for those signatures and artefacts indicative of highly advanced extraterrestrial life.[14][non-primary source needed]

Dvorsky has written extensively in favor of space exploration and has both promoted and criticized various Megascale engineering concepts.[15][16][17][18][non-primary source needed]

Dvorsky gained some notoriety in 2012 after writing about Dyson spheres, hypothetical structures intended to collect the entire energetic output of a star with solar power collectors. While Dvorsky presented it as a solution to humanity's resource needs including power and living space,[16][19] Forbes blogger Alex Knapp and astronomer Phil Plait, among others, have criticized Dvorsky's article.

Dismantling Mercury, just to start, will take 2 x 1030 joules,[note 1] or an amount of energy 100 billion times the US annual energy consumption ... [Dvorsky] kinda glosses over that point. And how long until his solar collectors gather that much energy back, and were in the black?

At one AU which is the distance of the orbit of the Earth, the Sun emits 1.4 x 103 J/sec per square meter.[note 2] Thats 1.4 x 109 J/sec per square kilometer. At one-third efficiency, thats 4.67 x 108 J/sec for the entire Dyson sphere. That sounds like a lot, right? But heres the thing if you work it out, it will take 4.28 x 1028 seconds [1.35 sextillion years] for the solar collectors to obtain the energy needed to dismantle Mercury. Thats about 120 trillion years.[note 3]

Other publications including Popular Science, Vice, and skeptical blog Weird Things followed up on this exchange.[21][22][23] None of them note the above numerical inaccuracies, although Weird Things does point out Plait's misunderstanding regarding bootstrapping, which Knapp agreed with in an update to his post.[20][23] James Nicoll noted in his blog that Knapp seriously underestimated the area of a sphere. An anonymous commenter claiming to be Knapp indicated in response that a unit conversion error (kilograms instead of grams while trying to backtrack from Dvorsky's figures) had been made.[24]

Originally posted here:

George Dvorsky - Wikipedia

The following post is from the Institute for Social Futurism (ISF). Although its concerns are essentially philosophical, they inform many practical realities for organisations in our network over the coming year and beyond.

If youre looking for a quick punchline, this is perhaps not the article for you, but you could try skipping to section 1: The Jewel and the Lotus.

0. The Desert of the Real

Over the last few years, we have been developing a network of organisations which share a positive attitude toward technological change while being mindful of the serious challenges the world faces today. The idea is for that network to develop connections with like-minded others who wish to usher in a new paradigm for our society, based on a combination of science, technology, positive values and principles. During that time there has been a natural process of weaving together the ideas and views of many people, and that process has been driving the emergence of a worldview which we call Social Futurism.

Aside from the usual logistical issues of a growing movement, I have become aware of a strong need to reach beyond the complicated tangle of inspirations and concerns which have brought us together, and clearly articulate a single core idea underlying this nascent movement. To momentarily put aside our many assumptions and preconceptions, and examine the deepest ideological nexus which ties them all together. Having done that, we will be able to move forward sure in the knowledge that we are all working toward a common goal, no matter any differences in our philosophies, affiliations, or methods. In short, I have recently felt the need to cast a radically skeptical eye over everything we collectively believe and are committed to, throwing out all unnecessary assumptions in the hope of discerning a single common axiom. It seems to me that any such axiom must be extremely simple and incisive, akin to Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum.

The key to this inquiry is to put aside every claim or belief which may not be true, or which can in any conceivable way be countered or argued against. We are of course very much in support of science and greatly value its utility, but no scientific fact can ever be our central axiom, as scientific facts must by definition be potentially disprovable by new evidence. Our common focus must be more akin to a steadfast attitude or conviction than a mere observation that could change at any time. Chinese and Indian philosophy traditionally saw the observed world as composed of myriad relative facts, apparent phenomena and distinctions which could change just as easily as a viewers perspective, and such schools of thought (particularly Taoism and Buddhism) consistently warned against identifying too closely with ephemera. The traditional Eastern view is that all identification with any apparent fact (perspective, observation, expectation, philosophy or ideal) would cast a shadow consisting of everything contrary to that position. Like Descartes, initiates of these religions were urged to let go of every conviction that could be doubted (both the Buddhists and Descartes conclusion was that everything could be doubted except the existence of Mind), and simply live in the world as they found it. We could learn a lot from the minimalism of this stance, encouraging activists to use the myriad facts of science and the world as necessary, but to embrace a common identity rooted only in a single, fundamental, undeniable axiom. That kind of strong shared identity would enable us to rest assured that we are all on the same team, no matter what disagreements we may have over any details, which would be a thing of great practical and strategic value to the movement as a whole.

A recent Western echo of these ancient Eastern ideas is particularly relevant to techno-social concerns in the early 21st Century, and to the future of our movement. In 1999, The Matrix presented such philosophical concerns about the nature of reality, along with issues involving technology and social control, in a very popular action-adventure entertainment format. The movie drew not only upon traditional Eastern thought, but among a great many other things the writings of French Postmodernist philosopher Jean Baudrillard. Baudrillard said that we are surrounded by simulacra or simulations which no longer refer to any underlying reality, such as news stories which reflect consumer demand and media manipulation rather than any deep truth. He further claimed that in this ultra-mediated environment, actual reality (i.e. unmediated, unmanipulated things-as-they-actually-are) is now extremely hard to find. We see things almost entirely through the lens of culture and technology, now. This notion of reality as an increasingly hidden, deserted place was summed up in Baudrillards phrase the desert of the real. The idea that we live in some kind of mediated bubble of false reality while an authentic reality exists outside is the central theme of Gnosticism, found today in the work of people such as Science Fiction writer Philip K Dick (both Gnosticism and Dicks ideas were also prominent in The Matrix).

At this point you may well be asking what all these wild and wonderful ideas have to do with advancing technology, social progress, or indeed the real world. It all boils down to the intrinsic nature of the Transhumanist urge; to go beyond all that we have known in order to become more than human. To transcend the traditional limitations of the human condition. It is no accident that Transhumanists are regularly accused of being neo-Gnostics, because the idea of extending human life and health beyond current limitations is indeed reminiscent of the ancient heresy, albeit expressed in a very new way. This is a touchy issue, as Transhumanists are generally at pains to distinguish their technological hopes from ancient religious dreams, despite their clear common origin in simple human yearnings for a greater or happier existence. We should note that it is not as simple a matter as some people calling Transhumanists Gnostics and Transhumanists themselves uniformly rejecting the idea. Not only are many Transhumanists open to spirituality of various types, even including nuanced (usually secular) interpretations of Gnosticism, but the accusers are often sympathetic to both (neo-)Gnosticism and Transhumanism (and therefore presumably trying to draw attention to what they see as a good thing). Perhaps the best example of this is Erik Davis, in his 1998 book TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in the Age of Information (to show the close interrelatedness of all these ideas, we may note that Davis is a scholar professionally interested in the works of Philip K Dick).

The thing that Transhumanists, Gnostics, and the heroes of The Matrix have in common is a pointed and total disrespect for the limitations of a world which pretends to be the whole of reality, but which is in fact only a subset of all that is truly possible. In other words, we Transhumanists are inherently driven to reject any convention or ideology that tells us to be content within our limits, to know our place. Instead, we seek to venture beyond those limits into the desert of the real, and in doing so take responsibility for directing our own evolution. I must stress that this need not imply a hedonistic, individualistic flight from communitarian responsibilities, when the very act of transcending limits makes it possible for others to follow our example; and for the whole of society to thus evolve and progress beyond its former limits.

In short, we feel that we could be more, that we could help others in the process, and that no-one has the right to impose their arbitrary limitations upon us. We would explore beyond the safe havens of the world as we know it, and out into the desert of the real into the darkness of possibilities. This rejection of the worlds distinctions and limitations is the one and only thing that can unite our diverse movement. That movement already includes many people who do not consider themselves to be Transhumanists, and that will only become more true over time, but the common impulse that unites us is clear: To sweep away the old world that stands between us and a much better future. A person might oppose this impulse for whatever reason, but they cannot argue it to be false in any way. It simply is.

1. The Jewel and the Lotus

We have discerned the idea that lies at the heart of our movements many manifestations (i.e. not just Transhumanism and other forms of Futurism but all truly modern and progressive activism, and any number of related philosophies, arts, and sciences): That our salvation lies beyond the limits of the world as we currently understand it and that by transforming ourselves we can transcend those limits. In short, that we can and should remake the world and our place within it. Paradoxically, this idea is truly ancient, and yet its combination with technology makes a powerful new revolution in human affairs possible.

At this point, we should take a moment to note a parallel between the advice offered for individual living by religions such as Taoism and Buddhism on the one hand, and the necessary way forward for any modern activist movement on the other. Followers of the ancient Eastern ways are encouraged to live in the present moment, rather than dwelling unduly on the past or future. This reduces identification with transient things, and thus reduces the suffering caused by regret over the past or anxiety over the future. Interestingly, any truly revolutionary movement would do well to heed the same advice, since the act of relinquishing the past and future (i.e. memories and expectations) is tantamount to rejecting limitation by those things. In other words, to focus on the present and to reject all unnecessary limitations are two sides of the same coin.

Having identified this central idea, our next question is of course how to simplify and condense its expression, to maintain its clarity for ourselves and communicate it easily to others. Traditionally this is the realm of symbols, or simple signs that stand for (and easily summon) complex sets of ideas. In keeping with the ancient Eastern philosophies mentioned earlier, I have settled upon two key symbols with a somewhat oriental flavour: The Jewel and the Lotus. In this section I will explain these two symbols, and their potential value.

It is common to depict an incisive axiom as a blade or sword, as in the cases of Occams Razor or Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot (indeed the very word incisive implies both clear, rational analysis and the act of cutting). In ancient Indian writings there is mention of a sword known as the Jewel of the Desert, and that strikes me as a particularly apt name for an axiom which refers to the Desert of the Real. This Jewel is our central idea an article of faith which unites our emerging movement and it can be expressed as follows:

Act Now and Be Free

(Nunc Agere et Liberi)

The only reality is action in the moment, and the bonds of the unreal demand to be cut. In other words, the individual and any movement for positive change must always focus on what they can be or do now, and all apparent limitations conjured by tradition, convention, history, hope or expectation with no solid basis in the reality of the present must be cast aside without hesitation. If an obstacle can be overcome, it should be. If a limitation can be transcended, then transcend it. This is a point of view which should come naturally to Transhumanists, Gnostics, all opponents of arbitrary and unwanted limitation, and all those who would sweep away the old to make way for a better future. It is often said that you can best know a thing by looking at what it opposes, and in this case we are utterly opposed to entrenched limitations which only exist out of a sense of history, social convention, or natural order rather than having something clearly positive to contribute to the future of humanity. We must tear down all such false limitations in our bid to remake civilization.

Beyond this central philosophical matter, as mentioned earlier I have become acutely aware of logistical issues that naturally arise with the growth of any movement. I wont go into the details of these issues, except to say that they boil down to a question of resources: How to get the resources we need, and how to use the ones we have well. Perhaps the most pressing resource issue has been the question of time and communications. A lot of people have something to say or ask, but we simply cannot respond to every such contact in a centralised way. Instead, the network must scale up in such a way that local groups can handle initial contact in most cases, and important messages can be passed through the network as appropriate, meaning that no single part of the network is overloaded with messages from everybody. In order to make my own part of the network more manageable and to set an example, I will be restricting my personal engagement to the activity in eight official channels. I can no longer guarantee any response to any communication outside those channels, which are outlined briefly below.

If every part of the network were to operate in a similar manner, maintaining a small number of recognised and well-maintained collaboration/communication channels, then the result would be something like a mosaic of decentralised activity, a fractal heterarchy or holarchy. A symbol for the network (and any given node within it) which I find to be appropriate and appealing is the lotus flower. The lotus is essentially a memorable image which represents a centre connecting multiple channels or aspects. The lotus is also a symbol common to the various Eastern philosophies mentioned earlier, although a rose would be the equally appropriate counterpart traditional in the West.

Others are free to organise themselves as they see fit, of course, but the specific eight channels which I will personally be focussed upon, going forward, are as listed below. In each case I will only be working with a relatively small core team, rather than attempting to manage all functions of these wider organisations directly. Such functions represent my close neighbours within the network, that I collaborate with but am not directly responsible for. If we all operate in this way with clear cooperative links but limited personal workloads then we will be maximally effective as a network.

I am currently in the process of reorganising the core teams and preferred communications channels for these groups, and will link to further information and full contact details for all eight channels from here on Friday January 22nd, 2016. In the meantime you can still contact these groups as before.

This post has covered a number of complex and subtle ideas with an unfortunate but necessary brevity, where any of these could be the departure point for long conversations in and of themselves. My objective will have been met, however, if you remember the symbols of the Jewel and the Lotus. That the Jewel of the Desert is simply a determination to stand squarely in the reality of the moment and cut through the proliferation of illusions, distractions, and false limitations which we are constantly told to embrace and respect (or at least take seriously). And that the Lotus is merely a reminder that while remaining focussed and effective, you always have the option of being connected with others in a movement toward something greater.

Visit link:

Transhumanist Party

HAARP-Chemtrails weapons system Locations worldwide

Proposed Legislation Banning New Physics Torture Weapons in the European Union

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

REGULATION

Council Regulation (EC) No _________________ of _________, 201_ concerning weapons systems operating on new physics principles used to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment including electronic weapons, electromagnetic weapons, magnetic weapons, directed energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, frequency weapons, genetic weapons, scalar weapons, psychotronic weapons, chemtrail aerosol weapons, implant weapons, vaccine-based weapons, nanotechnology weapons, high frequency active aural high altitude ultra low frequency weapons, information technology weapons.

There are three basic types of EU legislation:

regulations, directives and decisions.A regulation is similar to a national law

with the difference that it is applicable in all EU countries.

European Commission ec.europa.eu

The European Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. However, the Council and Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so. Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU citizens are also able to request the Commission to legislate in an area via a petition carrying one million signatures, but this is not binding.

August 29, 2013

Council Regulation (EC) No _________________ of _________, 201_

Council Regulation (EC) No _________________ of _________, 201_ concerning weapons systems operating on new physics principles used to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment including but not limited to electronic weapons, electromagnetic weapons, magnetic weapons, directed energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, frequency weapons, genetic weapons, scalar weapons, psychotronic weapons, chemtrail aerosol weapons, implant weapons, vaccine-based weapons, nanotechnology weapons, high frequency active aural high altitude ultra low frequency weapons, information technology weapons.

Official Journal _______________________________________

Council Regulation (EC) ________________________________

of ______________ 201_

concerning weapons systems operating on new physics principles used to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment including but not limited to electronic weapons, electromagnetic weapons, magnetic weapons, directed energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, frequency weapons, genetic weapons, scalar weapons, psychotronic weapons, chemtrail aerosol weapons, implant weapons, vaccine-based weapons, nanotechnology weapons, high frequency active aural high altitude ultra low frequency weapons, information technology weapons.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as new physics torture weapons).

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) Pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes one of the principles common to the Member States. In view of this, the Community resolved in 1995 to make respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms an essential element of its relations with third countries.

(2) Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms all lay down an unconditional, comprehensive prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Other provisions, in particular the United Nations Declaration Against Torture and the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, place an obligation on States to prevent torture.

(3) Article 2(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that no one shall be condemned to the death penalty or executed. On 29 June 1998, the Council approved Guidelines on EU policy towards third countries on the death penalty and resolved that the European Union would work towards the universal abolition of the death penalty.

(4) Article 4 of the said Charter states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. On 9 April 2001, the Council approved Guidelines to the EU policy toward third countries, on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment . These guidelines refer to both the adoption of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports in 1998 and the ongoing work to introduce EU-wide controls on the exports of paramilitary equipment as examples of measures to work effectively towards the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the Common Foreign and Security Policy. These guidelines also provide for third countries to be urged to prevent the use and production of, and trade in, equipment that is designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and prevent the abuse of any other equipment to these ends.

(5) It is therefore appropriate to lay down Community rules on use and on trade with third countries in new physics torture weapons. These rules are instrumental in promoting respect for human life and for fundamental human rights and thus serve the purpose of protecting public morals. Such rules should ensure that Community economic operators do not derive any benefits from trade that either promotes or otherwise facilitates the implementation of policies on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which are not compatible with the relevant EU Guidelines, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and international conventions and treaties.

(6) For the purpose of this Regulation, it is considered appropriate to apply the definitions of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment laid down in the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and in Resolution 3452 (XXX) of the General Assembly of the United Nations. These definitions should be interpreted taking into account the case law on the interpretation of the corresponding terms in the European Convention on Human Rights and in relevant texts adopted by the EU or its Member States.

(7) The Guidelines to the EU Policy toward third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment provide, inter alia, that the Heads of Mission in third countries will include in their periodic reports an analysis of the occurrence of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the State of their accreditation, and the measures taken to combat it. It is appropriate for the competent authorities to take these and similar reports made by relevant international and civil society organisations into account when deciding on requests for authorisations. Such reports should also describe any new physics torture weapons used in third countries for the purpose of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

(8) In order to contribute to the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, it is considered necessary to prohibit the supply to third countries of technical assistance related to goods which have no practical use other than for the purpose of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by new physics torture weapons.

(9) The aforementioned Guidelines state that, in order to meet the objective of taking effective measures against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, measures should be taken to prevent the use, production and trade of new physics torture weapons, including parts and equipment thereof, which are designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is up to the Member States to impose and enforce the necessary restrictions on the use and production of such equipment.

(10) In order to take into account new data and technological developments, the lists of new physics torture weapons and parts and equipment thereof covered by this Regulation should be kept under review and provision should be made for a specific procedure to amend these lists.

(11) The Commission and the Member States should inform each other of the measures taken under this Regulation and of other relevant information at their disposal in connection with this Regulation.

(12) Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

(13) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

CHAPTER I

Subject matter, scope and definitions

Article 1

Subject matter and scope

1. This Regulation lays down Community rules governing new physics torture weapons.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation:

(a) new physics torture weapons means weapons or weapons systems operating on new physics principles used to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment including but not limited to electronic weapons, electromagnetic weapons, magnetic weapons, directed energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, frequency weapons, genetic weapons, scalar weapons, psychotronic weapons, chemtrail aerosol weapons, implant weapons, vaccine-based weapons, nanotechnology weapons, high frequency active aural high altitude ultra low frequency weapons, information technology weapons.

(b) torture means the use of new physics torture weapons to commit any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes including but not limited to intentional psychological programming, experimentation, voice to skull communication, artificial telepathy, remote influencing, remote inducement of physical or mental illness, mood management, mind control of persons or populations, remote virtual sexual assault, remote virtual rape, forced reproductive sterilization by means of chemtrails aerosol weapons, forced reproductive sterilization by means of vaccinations, (RHIC- EDOM) radio hypnotic intracerebral control and electronic dissolution of memory, remote transmission of images or films to brain, remote reading and controlling of thoughts, subliminal thought control, tinnitus, remote introduction of implants into body via vaccination, remote introduction of implants into body via chemtrails aerosol weapon, remote introduction of implants into body via food, water or potable liquid, remote introduction of implants into body via nanobot, remote scarring of body, remote introduction of inorganic particles into body, telephone terror including remotely induced epilepsy, muscle pains and cramps in neck and legs, headaches, severe toothaches, sudden falling off of healthy teeth while talking on the phone, remotely induced backaches, vibrations in various parts of the body, itching, ear tumors, brain tumors, respiratory diseases, asthma, immediate diarrhea and vomiting, remote deformation of victims body parts and organs including deformed bloated abdomen, deformed neck, lumps and channels on the head, shoulders widened, blown up arms and legs, deformed genitals and other deformations, remote inducement of extreme weight gain or abnormal weight loss endangering the victims health, genetically engineered vaccines that alter DNA, or GE vaccines with certain characteristics or inclusions of nanoparticles or RFID chips or other materials, remote inducement of blindness, cataracts or eye cancer, remote control of gangstalking or gangstalkers, gangstalking, commission of the following crimes in conjunction with the use of new physics torture weapons: harassment, breaking and entering of private property, ransacking of private property.

(c) assassination means the intentional use of new physics torture weapons to cause the death of a person by means including but not limited to heart attack; strangulation; suffocation; fast-acting cancer; diabetes; myocardial infarction; hemorrhage in brain; thrombosis in lungs; infectious disease.

CHAPTER II

Weapons systems operating on new physics principles used to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

Article 3

Use prohibition

1. Any use of a new energy torture weapon to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on any individual in the European Union or on any European Union citizen shall be prohibited, irrespective of the geographical location of such weapon, inside or outside of the European Union.

Article 4

Export prohibition

1. Any export of a new energy torture weapon shall be prohibited, irrespective of the origin of such weapon.

2. The supply of technical assistance related to a new energy torture weapon, whether for consideration or not, from the customs territory of the Community, to any person, entity or body in a third country shall be prohibited.

Article 5

Import prohibition

1. Any import of a new energy torture weapon shall be prohibited, irrespective of the origin of such weapon.

2. The acceptance by a person, entity or body in the customs territory of the Community of technical assistance related to a new energy torture weapon, supplied from a third country, whether for consideration or not, by any person, entity or body shall be prohibited.

Article 6

Absolute prohibition

1. High frequency active aural high altitude ultra low frequency weapon The manufacture, deployment, or operation of any new physics torture weapon known as a high frequency active aural high altitude ultra low frequency weapon that uses high frequency (HF) electromagnetic or scalar wave transmission to excite the ionosphere or any other part of the Earths atmosphere over the territory of the Community in order to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on any individual, weather modification in the European Union or on any European Union citizen, irrespective of the geographical location of the ground component of such weapon, inside or outside of the Community shall be absolutely prohibited. The combination of those weapons from different locations is also forbidden.

2. Chemtrail aerosol weapon The manufacture, deployment, operation, or dispersal of any new physics torture weapon known as a chemtrail aerosol weapon in or over any part of the Earths atmosphere over the territory of the Community in order to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on any individual in the European Union or on any European Union citizen shall be absolutely prohibited.

CHAPTER III

General and final provisions

Article 6

National Security

In any case where an individual, organisation or Member State charged with violation of this Regulation shall plead national security or other reasons for secrecy as a legal defense to its actions, that individual, organisation or Member State shall be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that its actions were in fact directly related to national security or other reasons for secrecy and not to an intention or negligence to torture or inflict other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 7

Penalties and Compensation for Victims

1. Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation imposing a minimum criminal penalty of twenty (20) years without possibility of parole to a maximum of life in prison without possibility of parole plus a fine of 1,000,000 Euros for each individual infringement and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

2. Compensation for Victims Member States shall lay down rules on compensation to victims of any infringement of this Regulation which shall include:

(a) the costs of any surgery and physical or psychological therapy to fully restore the physical and mental health of the victim;

(b) financial compensation to the victims family for pain and suffering endured as a result of any infringement of this Regulation;

(c) financial compensation to the victim for loss of income and loss of property due to any infringement of this Regulation.

Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that such rules are implemented. The compensation provided for must be effective, proportionate and fair to the victim and the victims family. Wherever possible, the individual or organisation committing the infringement shall be held financially responsible for paying compensation, except that the victims and their families shall be entitled to compensation hereunder regardless of the ability of the individual or organisation committing the infringement to pay.

3. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules by _____________201_ and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.

Article 8

Territorial scope

1. This Regulation shall apply to the customs territory of the Community.

Article 9

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on ____________ 201_.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at _____________________, ______________ 201_

For the Council

The President

Go here to read the rest:

Transhumanist Agenda War Crimes Tribunal

Transhumanism is not entirely the same thing as adopting other technologies. We are biological beings, and our personalities, decisions, what we are, is totally dependent on us staying biological. A simple example is hormone levels in your blood.

For example if you feel you won an argument online, your serum testosterone level will go up. You will instinctively know that any success, however meager it is (and winning an online argument is, well, not the greatest of successes), will lead to such an increase. On the other hand, losing an argument (or any other kind of failure, however small) will lead to a decrease in your T-levels.

This will actually motivate you to try your best to strive to achieve success and avoid failures. (However small.) By the way, this wont work on females so much: this is one of the reasons males behavior is so different from females.

Now if you upload yourself to a computer right after death (or if half your brain is already a computer before death), you wont have any hormones any more affecting your decisions. This will outright change your personality. Even if hormones could (and would) be totally simulated, you (or at least some of the people uploading themselves) will eventually change yourself in some ways. For example even biologically we use drugs which change our behavior. Why wont we use something (enhancements etc.) which change our behavior once were effectively computer programs? These computer programs will then further change themselves. Then the already changed programs will decide to change themselves even further. At one point it wont resemble the original biological being at all even assuming the simulation and upload were both perfect to begin with, which is a question. (And even assuming the uploaded program will be you in a philosophical sense my instinct says it would only be a copy and not me myself.)

Now you are quite correct probably that those super-enhanced computer software things could easily turn out to be much more efficient at conquering and ruling the world than biological humans. The question is, in what sense could those transhuman beings be considered humans at all? My suggestion is they wont be humans at all. Not only that: they wont have anything in common with biological humans, or any biological beings at all. Please remember that we have a lot in common with apes, so the statement well, the change from human to transhuman will just be the same as ape to human is definitely false.

In other words, transhumans (especially the versions uploaded to a computer to there live forever) will essentially be cyborgs or T-800s or AIs which will be stronger and smarter than us. Endorsing it as well, theyre more efficient is stupid: the same stupid as inviting extraterrestrials to the Earth with the slogan theyre better, so they deserve Earth more than us. We dont know what theyll be up to, but they will have the ability to destroy us, and its foolish to expect these things to be benevolent. Over time, they (some of them, at any rate and probably those will be the strongest and smartest ones) could change beyond anything we can imagine, and might decide to get rid of us.

Why is this in our interest to encourage this? AIs (if possible to create them) might eventually destroy us anyway, why hasten the process?

Continue reading here:

Virgin Primitivist vs. Chad Transhumanist, by Anatoly ...

Star Trek and Dune came out in the late 1960s. Transhumanism, as we think of it in a modern sense of a utopian ideology, only really get real traction in the 1980s or thereabouts.

Click to expand...

We are only now even starting to scratch the surface of what might even reasonably be considered transhumanism with our personal data networks and the very beginnings of even rudimentary MMI technology being released to the public.

None of the Star Trek series, for example, were released by the time that transhumanism 'became a thing', if it even has now. When Star Trek was big, people tied- and still do, in many respects- genetic engineering to eugenics and the Nazis; look at the debate going on over, say, sex-selective abortion.

In the respect that transhumanism has made it big in Sci-Fi, I think that was probably a product of the information revolution in the late 80s and early 90s. To that end, however, I think that its proponents vastly underrated the difficulties of creating a useful MMI and vastly overrated the potential utility of practical mechanical augmentation, while underrating the growth patterns and effects of our information networking society. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in 15-20 years we've passed what originally was conceptualized as transhumanism by, in many ways, simply due to a different understanding of technological growth patterns. Just like how sci-fi from the early 20th century shows colonies on the moon, humanoid robots, and video phones but no email.

Continue reading here:

The most anti-transhumanist popular SF | Page 2 ...

Humanity+ is dedicated to elevating the human condition. We aim to deeply influence a new generation of thinkers who dare to envision humanity's next steps. Our programs combine unique insights into the developments of emerging and speculative technologies that focus on the well-being of our species and the changes that we are and will be facing. Our programs are designed to produce outcomes that can be helpful to individuals and institutions.

Humanity+ is an international nonprofit membership organization which advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. In other words, we want people to be better than well.

Mission Statement: Humanity+ is an international nonprofit membership organization which advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. In other words, we want people to be better than well.

Where does Humanity+ advocate the ethical use of technology? What are the human capacities to be expanded? How does Humanity+ foster people being better than well? The following is written by Natasha Vita-More:

Humanity+adopted theTranshumanist Declaration.The Transhumanist Declaration was a a joint effort between members of Extropy Institute, World Transhumanist Association, and other transhumanist groups worldwide. TheTranshumanist Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ) is located at Humanity+'s website and is a collection of contributions by numerous authors, later edited by Nick Bostrom, and is updated as necessary by others. There are other FAQs on transhumanism, such asThe Transhumanist FAQwas developed by ExI and members of Humanity+ and earlier WTA.

Approximately 6000 people follow Humanity+ (including members and newsletter subscribers). Humanity+ followers come from more than 100 countries, from Afghanistan to Brazil to Egypt to the Philippines.Supporting and sustaining memberselect the Board, and participate in Humanity+ leadership and decision-making. Humanity+ members also participate in more than four dozenchaptersaround the world.

First, join Humanity+, and subscribe to the Humanity+ newsletter.

You may also enroll in one of our discussion lists and join one of our local H+ chapters, which can be found in countries and languages all over the world.

Mailing Address: Humanity+, Inc. 5042 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 14334 Los Angeles, California 90036

Read the original post:

Humanity+ Mission

Tuesday August 22, 2017

If there werea pill that made yousmarter without studying, stronger without exercising, and happier without trying, would you take it?

That's the premiseof the 2011movie, Limitless,in which actor BradleyCooper plays astruggling writer who is offered a drug that promises him access to the full capacities of his brain.

Soon enough Cooper's character hasfinished writinghis book, acquired a wide range of newof skills, and is on his way to becoming one of the richest and most powerfulpeople in the country.

The fictitious scenario isfarfetched, but the idea of using drugs for self-enhancement is completely grounded in reality and it's possible you're participating in self-enhancement without even knowing it.

When thinking about LSD, your mind probably conjuresup images of the Beatles oruntethered hallucinations.

But there are also people some of them prestigious jobs with high stakeswho are using LSD to boost their performance at work.Microdosinginvolves taking small doses of LSD far less than you would use to have a full on hallucinatory trip in order to boost productivity and focus.

PJVogt, host of the hitpodcastReply All, and show producer PhiaBennindecided to put microdosing to the test, all while hiding their social experiment from their colleagues to see whether anyone would notice.

Thetales of the paranoia, accidental 'macrodosing,' and the very mixed results that ensued are all documented in a hilarious Reply All episode thatyou can listen to here.

Caffeine has been shown to boost athletic performance. (Unsplash/Kyle Meck)

Of course, regular LSD doses, however small, may not be everyone's cup of tea.

But there's also a legal, relatively safe drug that has been proven to make athletes perform better. It can also make you more alert and focused,and there's a pretty good chance some of it is already in your system right now.

If you haven't guessed yet it's caffeine.

Terry Graham,professor emeritusat the University of Guelph, spent years studying the effects of caffeine. After Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was disqualified fordoping at the 1988 Olympic games in Seoul, Graham asked for funding to study whether caffeineaffects athletic performance with the hypothesis that its positive effects would be inconsequential.

"I was absolutely, 100 per cent wrong," he said. "Caffeine was a tremendous stimulant to exercise endurance and performance."

The boost provided by caffeine occurs within the muscle itself. Muscles are made up of motor units groups of muscle cells that contract all at once. When caffeine is present, each of those units produces a little more tension than usual, making the entiremuscle contractionstronger.

"Many of the substances that athletes can use to promote a better performance only act within acertain window, it could be strength, sprinting, or a prolonged activity. Butcaffeine seems to be able to influence all of these types of activities, so it's quite universal," he explained.

If tiny doses ofLSD, and big doses of coffee don't appeal to you as means of self-enhancement, there's always transhumanism abroad movement that aims to overcome our human limitations.

People involved with transhumanism believe that humans can be improved through things like smart drugs and gene editing. The three major strands aresuperintelligence, superlongevity, and superhappiness.

As explained by David Pearce, a philosopher and prominent figure in the transhumanist movement, this re-alignment of the basic human conditionshinges on something called the hedonistic imperative.

"Each of us has this approximate hedonic set point, some people are very, by today's standards, fortunate. They're pretty cheerful and they vacillate with a relatively high hedonic set point. Other people are more depressive and gloomy, and seem to fluctuate around gradients of ill-being."

"Nature didn't intend us to be happy, at least permanently happy, And we're just starting to decipher the particular genes and alleles associated with having either a high or low hedonic set point. Iwouldvery much hope that every future civilization would be based on everyone enjoying a high hedonic set point."

If you're trying to figure out your hedonic set point, Pearcesays toimagine a time in your life where you were happier than usual then imagine if you could feel that way all the time.

"If suffering were a recipe for nobility of character perhaps there would be some kind of case for obtaining it, but ... typically prolonged suffering tends to embitter. So we can argue what it actually means to be human. If we abolish suffering, would it have taken away our essential humanity?"

"Nature is exceptionally miserly with pleasure, an I see the challenge ahead isdelivering an extremely rich quality of life for everyone, but doing so in ways that don't compromise social responsibility or intellectual progress."

To subscribe to the podcastand hear more episodes of CBC On Drugs, follow the linkhere.

Read the original here:

Stronger, smarter, happier - what if a drug could make you a better version of yourself? - CBC.ca

The study is reminiscent of Robert Boyles 17th-century suggestion to replace the blood of the old with the blood of the young. Photograph: Science Photo Library/Getty Images

What we now call intergenerational fairness has suffered a lot lately, and its not about to be improved by the news that the Baby Boomers are sucking the blood of the young. Although, in fairness, they are only after the plasma.

In Monterey, California, a new startup has emerged, offering transfusions of human plasma: 1.5 litres a time, pumped in across two days, harvested uniquely from young adults.

Ambrosia, the vampiric startup concerned, is run by a 32-year-old doctor called Jesse Karmazin, who bills $8,000 (6,200) a pop for participation in what he has dubbed a study. So far, he has 600 clients, with a median age of 60. The blood is collected from local blood banks, then separated and combined it takes multiple donors to make one package.

Its no coincidence his scheme is based near San Francisco. The idea has become faddish in tech circles. While anti-ageing products usually hold more appeal with women, two-thirds of the more than 65 participants who have signed up for this trial are men. Mike Judges Silicon Valley sitcom recently parodied the notion, with arch-tech guru Gavin Belson relying on a blood boy following him around to donate pints of sticky red at inopportune moments.

That fictionalised account may well be based on the real-life adventures of Peter Thiel, the PayPal founder, who has expressed interest in having transfusions (Gawker even reported that he was spending $40,000 (31,000) a quarter on regular transfusions from 18-year-olds).He, and various other thinkers who radiate out towards the death-evading transhumanist movement, are fascinated by heterochronic parabiosis the sewing together of two animals in order to create a living chimera. Studies going back decades show the regenerative effects of one organism being joined to another. In the 17th century, Robert Boyle he of Boyles Law suggested replacing the blood of the old with the blood of the young.

In 2012, the University of Cambridges Dr Robin Franklin led a group that showed blood from young mice could replace myelin sheaths crucial for combatting MS in older mice. But it was a 2014 Harvard report that seems to have kickstarted the present revival of interest in transfusions. There, scientists injecting old mice with the plasma of a younger generation found it improved their memory and their ability to learn. Conversely, injecting old blood into young seemed to knobble the young rodents.

The scientific community has rolled its eyes at the trial element of Ambrosia. There is no control group and, with participation costing so much, no one involved is very randomised. Despite these criticisms of the science, Dr Karmazin is still reporting positive results. His team has found that levels of carcino-embryonic antigens fell by around 20%, as did the level of amyloids proteins involved in cancer and Alzheimers disease respectively.

Improvements in sleep seem to be the most glittering prize to emerge so far: As people get older, they have much more difficulty sleeping, Dr Karmazin noted. Improve that and you get benefits in mood, immune system, weight management and much else.

It answers the question: how do you sleep at night after leeching the blood out of busboys and students? Just fine, thanks.

See the article here:

Ambrosia: the startup harvesting the blood of the young - The Guardian

August 16, 2017 By Hal Ostrander and Daryl Smith

Watching my grandkids laugh, explore and have fun, I shake my head and wonder where this culture of ours will take them. Do we realize how fast the future is rushing to meet our posterity, and us? In the days ahead, the contours of civilization likely will radically alter, sacred and secular alike, and in ways staggering to think about.

Consider the past: In 1790, 90 percent of people worked on farms; 1870, 50 percent; today, less than 1 percent. In 1900, 90 percent of the population was rural; today 90 percent is urban. Folks worked 60 hours a week over six days with a life expectancy of 47 years. Three percent of homes had electricity, and 15 percent had flush toilets.

Only one in five households owned a horse, and an eighth-grade education was the norm with college graduates numbering a scant 7 percent. Halfway through 2017, its hard to fathom the scale of change weve undergone and harder still to grasp whats yet to take place.

Just look at computing

In 1965, Gordon Moore, Intels co-founder, predicted transistors on circuits would double roughly every two years. His estimate has held true, but he couldnt have foreseen 2017 as the 10th anniversary of the iPhone. Now we can contact anyone around the world instantly from our pockets!

Remarkably, smart phone circuitry is 150 million times more powerful than the computer NASA used to navigate Apollo 11 safely to the moon in July 1969. At the time, NASA computers stored only a megabyte of memory each, were car-sized, and cost $3.5 million apiece.

If the trend continues

Today theres no stopping things! Forgive the technicality, but the development of carbon-based transistors in hand with quantum/nano-biological computing will take whats listed below and advance things to ever higher levels:

If the trend continues, artificial intelligence (AI) could emerge exponentially, with no turning back! Processing power exceeding the human brain may suddenly slap an unsuspecting public in the face. The brightest minds in the industry are alleging that one day, hopefully soon, machines and robots will simulate human intelligence successfully, solving challenges previously reserved only for conscious thinking.

Weak and strong AI

There are three waves of weak AI. The first solves problems very fast and works very well in video games, Excel sheets, TurboTax, etc. The second is where machines seem to learn via millions of pieces of data Siri, Cortana, Watson, AlphaGo, Microsofts Tay, Twitter, Chatbox and self-driving cars. But none of these can explain the why of things.

Whether third-wave, weak AI is achievable is an open question. Because humans can abstract things based on small amounts of data, third-wave AI tries for the same, operating on minimal information.

The stuff of sci-fi for now, strong AI is what cognitive science is really striving for machines that function with human-like minds, crossing the threshold into self-awareness/consciousness. Eventually downloading human consciousness to a computer is part of the game plan as well.

Whos charting our future?

Some of the smartest and wealthiest people in Silicon Valley, the venture techno-capitalists, are teaming up to invest billions to make strong AI happen. Even Google and NASA are cooperating to this end.

Sanctioning the likes of Ray Kurzweils think-tank, Singularity University, and Zoltan Istvans Transhumanist Party, futurist investors are siding, paradoxically, with an inelegant duo a hyper-optimistic form of scientism (only science can get at truth) and a transhumanist vision striving to achieve omnipotence (as if achieving divinity).

One dissenting voice, Elon Musk, warns his colleagues optimism about AI isnt justified: If our intelligence is exceeded, its unlikely well remain in charge of the planet. Bill Gates himself comments about AI, I dont understand why some people are not concerned.

What is lacking

Coming too fast, Christians must begin thinking soundly about the implications of futurity ASAP! Most techno-futurists assume as true the rationale lying behind philosophical naturalism, which popularizes the universe as a closed system into which nothing god-like can intervene to impose its will.

In the beginning, only particles and impersonal laws of physics reigned, and human beings are just bio-chemical machines without souls. Put crassly, were meat machines. Christians, of course, recognize immediately how short-sighted this is.

It doesnt mean, however, believers wont be influenced or charmed by futurist agendas. Some will! While we know futurists lack an adequately Christian sense of reality, their impact on society may well create a sense of uneasiness about our next cultural steps as followers of Christ.

A google of questions

So, how far will God allow things to go? Theologizing about techno-futures is imperative if were to remain comprehensively Christian throughout. Responding to bizarre worlds in the making is paramount. The choices well make individually when faced with techno-options unavailable to earlier generations will be weighty. The church must push for answers to questions raised by the techno-future, however alarming:

Will Christians:

Brief conclusion

Answering questions related to future shock comes down to the worldview on the table, with profound implications about how individual lives and corporate society should conduct themselves considering the techno-futurist demands coming our way.

Too few Christians and church traditions ask the question, Just because we can, should we? The simple answer is no, but the issues require sophisticated reasoning. According to Scripture, what you see in the mirror is a uniquely ensouled eternal being, created in Gods image and likeness and more than sufficient for the purposes he grants us.

Hal Ostrander is online professor of religion and philosophy at Wayland Baptist University. Daryl Smith is former adjunct professor of religion at Dallas Baptist University and currently an information technology corporate manager.

View post:

Analysis: Future Shock - Baptist Standard

Hey there tech fiends, it's that time of the week again. Once again, there's an exclusive premiere for you here today that's well worth your time. Before we dive into it, here's the usual weekly reminder that if you're looking for more shred jams, all prior editions of this series can be perused here.

At this point, Arkaik doesn't need much in the way of a lengthy introduction. They're a well-known staple in the tech-death world, and fans of the genre by and large already know them. While I'm of the opinion that their prior full-length, Lucid Dawn, was a rare dip in quality for the group, I'm quite pleased with what their upcoming album, Nemethia, has to offer. From what I've heard so far, Nemethia is everything I was hoping the follow up to 2012's Metamorphigntion would be, and then some. Since the new one shows the band not merely content to construct material that will please prior fans, but sees them actively branching out across the board with a stylistic evolution I did not anticipate. So for fans of Arkaik old and new, I'm proud to premiere a new song and music video for "Futile State".

The song itself kicks off with a deathly groove peppered with audible elastic bass guitar lines, quickly spiraling towards an overload of killer lead guitar work,paired with an endless array of back and forth growls and screams, and made complete by an onslaught of maniacal and spidery rhythm riffs and machine-like drumming. To call "Futile State" a pummelling effort would be an understatement, this is a war zone and your ears will either embrace its rage or become overwhelmed amidst the chaos within it. I love the push and pull dynamic at work here between groove and shred that "Futile State" expertly exploits and finds comfort in.

As for the vibe and themes the music video that accompanies's "Futile State" seeks to explore, I'll leave it to a statement from the band to explain what's going on. Arkaik had this to say about it: "The song is about the feeling of existential futility and the catharsis it can create. The video is a blend of ideas. I took inspiration from Plato's Allegory of the Cave, mixed with neo-shamanism and put a transhumanist spin on it. Nikko DeLuna is great at taking my ideas and bringing them to life. It was a pleasure to work with him again, and the rest of our team. Enjoy!"

So jam out to "Futile State", and if you're digging the music, you can pre-order Nemethia through Unique Leader Records here and here. The album drops on September 29th. Be sure to follow the group over on the Arkaik Facebook Page if you aren't already doing so.

Here is the original post:

Tech-Death Tuesday: Join ARKAIK In Embracing The Joys Of Living In A "Futile State" - Metal Injection.net