Page 1,892«..1020..1,8911,8921,8931,894..1,9001,910..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

Taxation Isn’t Theft & That Hashtag Doesn’t Make You Edgy – Being Libertarian

Posted: April 19, 2017 at 9:31 am

For a very long time (far too long, frankly), I completely accepted the phrase taxation is theft as an axiom. Despite the fact that I had never really thought the whole process of taxation through, I trusted the reasoning given by many people I respected: if its your money, and its taken from you involuntarily via threat of force, its theft. I mean, what else could it be?

Anyone who realizes that the social contract postulation didnt end with Hobbes, and that modern interpretations of the concept do in fact allow for classical liberalism to still make sense alongside it, already realize that this issue is up for interpretation. The world (as well as the processes within it that make societies sustainable, functioning places) is far more nuanced than libertarians give it credit for, and the liberty movement suffers as a result.

What interpretation is out there that takes this aforementioned nuance into account? Lets work up to it by examining what the actual process of taxation entails:

You work your ass off, then the government forces you through laws enforced by government agents to cough up a certain percentage and give it to Uncle Sam. Now, heres the interesting part: you do get a return on your investment. Granted, its a forced investment, and the returns you get back may not always be what you particularly endorsed or asked for, but you do get something back. Therefore, by definition, taxation is not theft. And when libertarians go around claiming that it is all the time, it harms the movement. Why? Because as a growing activist movement we wantneedintellectuals on our side. People who are smart, eloquent, savvy, and educated. People with influence. People with respected professions and public visibility (the good kind, of course). And the cold, hard truth of the matter is that smart people already know that taxation is not theft, and calling it theft (especially going so far as to compare it to outright armed robbery) will only continue to deter those who actually know how taxation works.

But thats okay, because what taxation actually amounts to is something much worse when put under the microscope: extortion. Extortion as a buzzword has an enormous advantage over theft, not only because it is actually true, but because extortion is equally unpleasant to all political stripes, even the most tax-loving, free-college-seeking, entitled liberals. Who wants to be threatened into paying into something inefficient and wasteful that only benefits you some of the time? Who wants to be coerced into financially supporting what one might see as an unjust cause? Nobody. How many liberals would leap at the chance to shout taxation is extortion! right alongside a libertarian? Quite a few. Such a common cause could really help convert some to our side and help grow the movement.

Also, from a sheer rhetorical standpoint, misguided libertarians sticking to the theft claim is just not a very exciting rallying cry. Complaining about taxation for selfish-sounding reasons (its theft; the government stole my money!) vs. altruistic-sounding reasons (its extortion; we are all being forced to pay into a system that gives dismal returns and funds a lot of harmful policies!) is not a good strategy if what we are after is growth.

But instead, as usual, many libertarians choose to dig in their heels and stay stuck in their ways. Calling taxation theft probably seems a lot edgier, and saying anything less is surely considered a statist perspective by many in the liberty movement, but the reality is undeniable: the best potential allies to libertarianism are not going to be taken in by this vacuous phrase. The best potential allies to libertarianism are already wise enough to see right through it.

Image: Shutterstock

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Read this article:
Taxation Isn't Theft & That Hashtag Doesn't Make You Edgy - Being Libertarian

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Taxation Isn’t Theft & That Hashtag Doesn’t Make You Edgy – Being Libertarian

David McCullough: President Trump’s Disregard for History Is ‘Utter Nonsense’ – TIME

Posted: at 9:31 am

Over the course of nearly 50 years, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David McCullough has traveled across the U.S. speaking to audiences at universities, the White House and even before a joint session of Congress about the lessons of history. Some of his most recent speeches are compiled in his new book The American Spirit: Who We Are and What We Stand For , out Tuesday.

McCullough sat down with TIME to talk about why he's publishing this anthology now, how history will judge us and what the past can teach our presidents.

TIME: Why compile your speeches now?

McCullough: I felt it necessary. The time was right. We began work last summer as the campaign got moreoff track. We have to remind ourselves of what we believe in, in the way of standard behavior, standard dedication, standard patriotism. And in order to do that, you have to understand history. Weve been raising several generations of young Americans who are, by and large, historically illiterate. And it's not that theyre not bright. It's not that theyre indifferent to learning. It's not that theyve grown up with great disadvantages. Its not their fault. It's our fault. Almost 80% of colleges and universities no longer require history for graduation.

What should history classes focus on to be the most useful in today's world?

History is about people. History is about cause and effect. History is about leadership or lack thereof, or twisted vision that inflicts its mistakes upon leaders. As I point out in the book, the best of our presidents, using the presidency as a model of leadership, were all avid readers of history. Several of them were historians. Woodrow Wilson was professionally, a professor at Princeton. Theodore Roosevelt wrote one of the best histories of the Naval War of 1812. John Kennedy wrote three works of history, one of which, Profiles in Courage , is still a very good book. Dwight Eisenhower wrote one of the best books ever written on World War II. And he wrote every word himself.

Even if you do nothing it has an effect. It isnt just that the effect comes from action. It can come from inaction. Some of the best decisions ever made by our presidents are when they decided not to do something. Harry Truman decided he would not use the atomic bomb in Korea. General Eisenhower decided not to go into Vietnam. John Adams decided not to go to war with France when it would have been disastrous, and it made him very unpopular. So when you take that job, you have to not only understand how the government works, but you have to understand how human beings work, and that people are imperfect. Were so inclined to portray the heroes of the Revolutionary War era as all perfect. No, they werent perfect.

How can we judge that? Should we use today's standards to assess those leaders, or just the standards of the time in which they lived?

First you have to understand the time in which they lived. There was no simpler time, ever. There was no easier time, ever. Unless you understand what it was like to go through the Civil War, what the influenza epidemic of 1918 was like, you have no appreciation of that. History is an antidote to the hubris of the present. History should be a lesson that produces immense gratitude for all those who went before us. To be ignorant of their contribution is rude. And for anyone in public life to brag about how they dont know any history and dont care to know any history is irresponsible.

President Trump has expressed admiration for Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton. What does that say about the type of leader he aspires to be?

He's said he does not read history, or presidential biographies, because, as he said , he has a mind that can reach beyond all that. Thats utter nonsense. Thats ego-centric illusion. To me, its as if weve put someone in the pilot seat who has never flown a plane or even read about how you do it. So we have to cope with it, by counteracting that, with young people coming along that realize that this is a lesson in how not to be a leader.

Is he the reason you wrote this book?

Yes. But let me stress: I never mention his name in the book. I'm talking to all Americans. I'm talking as much to the people who voted for him as much as the people who voted against him. Let's get this momentary spasm were going through over with as soon as possible and out of our minds. We have to try to figure out how to get back on track.

Do you think America is truly exceptional? Should students be taught that?

I think America has come further in giving opportunity to the best thats in human nature than any other country ever in history, and we seem to be holding on for over 200 years already. Weve greatly improved the inequalities and the shortcomings of our way of life as weve moved forward. One of the things I feel is that we are a country of good people. We are a country of well-meaning, hard-working, conscientious people 90% of us. And, we are blessed with progress in a number of fields today, the likes of which no people on Earth have ever enjoyed in all of history. Think just for example of whats happened in medicine. Think of the improvements that have been made in the opportunity for education. We have the strongest, most powerful, well-equipped military force in the world. I am optimistic. I dont think we should feel because weve got this clown holding stage that thats what were destined to do from now on.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

What name should historians give this period of history were living in?

It's not my profession to judge things now. Youve got to wait 50 years. But Im sure they will wonder what in the world overcame us.

You were on the first board of scholars for the new Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia, which opens this week. What are its most valuable artifacts in your opinion, the ones that people should make sure to see...

I dont think the artifacts are the most important.

So what is important about the museum's collection?

What's so important about it is its the first museum on the subject of the American Revolution that weve ever had. And, underline this, we can never know enough about the American Revolution if we want to understand who we are, why we are the way we are, and why weve accomplished what weve been able to accomplish that no other country has.

What do you think future historians will think of the material that we'll leave them from today?

Were producing so much for future historians that they may be just overwhelmed, because so much of it is redundant and boring. Theres a record of everything, every day. Facebook, for Gods sake! It's like a landslide, every day, of stuff.

So the fact that were not writing letters to each other wont hurt them?

Oh, thats a huge loss. Huge loss, because no one in public life would dare keep a diary anymore. It could be subpoenaed and used against you in court. And nobody writes letters. If youre interested in immortality, start keeping a diary, and when you get to the point when you think maybe the curtain is going to come down on you, give it to the Library of Congress, and youll be quoted forever because it will be the only diary ever in existence.

Is there a particular biography you wish you had written or would like to see a historian write? Some figure who you think is ripe for exploration?

I think theres a good biography to be written about Gerald Ford. He was a far more interesting figure of depth as a leader than hes given credit for.

What's your favorite historical monument or museum in the U.S. or abroad?

The Shaw Memorial in Boston. A powerful one, in the extreme, because it gives the black troops that served in the [Civil] War a chance to be seen as individuals and not just mechanical figures.

Favorite library?

The Library of Congress. The Library of Congress is the greatest library in the world. Do you know what my favorite statistic is? There are still more public libraries in this country than Starbucks .

Favorite movie that's based on a historical event?

My favorite movies arent of real events. Harvey, with Jimmy Stewart. Some Like It Hot.

Read the original:
David McCullough: President Trump's Disregard for History Is 'Utter Nonsense' - TIME

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on David McCullough: President Trump’s Disregard for History Is ‘Utter Nonsense’ – TIME

A Modest Proposal for Suicide as a Facilitator of Transhumanism – Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Posted: at 9:31 am

Perhaps the most potent argument against suicide in modern secular societies is that it constitutes wastage of the agents own life and commits at the very least indirect harm to the lives of others who in various ways have depended on the agent. However, the force of this argument could be mitigated if the suicide occurred in the context of experimentation, including self-experimentation, with very risky treatments that aim to extend the human condition. Suicides in these cases could be quite informative and hence significantly advance the prospects of the rest of humanity. The suicide agents life would most certainly not have been in vain.

Much if not most of the cutting edge enhancement research is currently conducted on non-humans and/or simulated on computers. Regardless of the promise of such research, it is generally agreed that the real epistemic step change will come from monitoring human usage of the relevant enhancement treatments. But as long as research ethics codes for human subjects continue to dwell in the shadow of the Nuremberg Trials, a very high bar will be set on what counts as informed consent. Nowadays, more than seventy years after the defeat of Nazi Germany, the only obvious reason for such a high bar is the insurance premiums that universities and other research institutes would need to bear if they liberalized the terms on which subjects could offer themselves in service of risky enhancement research.

Of course, the actual outcomes of such experiments need not be death, just as the actual outcomes of suicide attempts are often not death. Nevertheless, the agent would be treating the prospect of suicide in the spirit of self-sacrifice, not so very different from citizens who volunteer to join military service, knowing full well that they may need to give up their life at some point. In this way, the moral stigma surrounding suicide would be removed. Indeed, in a truly progressive society, this route to suicide may come to be seen as a legitimate lifestyle choice one that might even become popular if/when death comes to be medically reversible.

My inspiration for this line of thought, which I have been pursuing from The New Sociological Imagination (2006) to The Proactionary Imperative (2014), is the great 1906 lecture by the US pragmatist philosopher-psychologist William James, The Moral Equivalent of War. There James acknowledged that there is something of value in people willingly risking their lives in war a sense of self-transcendence -- which nevertheless needed to be channelled in a more productive fashion. My modest proposal is that the taboos on suicide be lifted such that potential experimental subjects who are told that their chances of survival are very uncertain may nevertheless agree to participate with limited liability borne by the institution conducting the research.

To be sure, there remain many questions to be solved such as who bears the liability of a subject severely harmed but not killed as a result of an experiment. In addition, the usual concerns about the potential exploitation of economically vulnerable subjects apply, and may even be intensified. However, the bottom line is that individuals should be presumed capable until proven otherwise of setting the level of risk which they are willing to tolerate, even including a level that implies a much higher likelihood of death thanmost people would tolerate. Such people have the makings of becoming the true of heroes of the transhumanist movement.

Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, Fuller is best known for his foundational work in the field of social epistemology, which is concerned with the normative grounds of organized inquiry. He has most recently authored (with Veronika Lipinska) The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism (2013).

Here is the original post:
A Modest Proposal for Suicide as a Facilitator of Transhumanism - Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Posted in Transhumanist | Comments Off on A Modest Proposal for Suicide as a Facilitator of Transhumanism – Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

God in the machine: my strange journey into transhumanism – The Guardian

Posted: at 9:30 am

I first read Ray Kurzweils book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, in 2006, a few years after I dropped out of Bible school and stopped believing in God. I was living alone in Chicagos southern industrial sector and working nights as a cocktail waitress. I was not well. Beyond the people I worked with, I spoke to almost no one. I clocked out at three each morning, went to after-hours bars, and came home on the first train of the morning, my head pressed against the window so as to avoid the spectre of my reflection appearing and disappearing in the blackened glass.

At Bible school, I had studied a branch of theology that divided all of history into successive stages by which God revealed his truth. We were told we were living in the Dispensation of Grace, the penultimate era, which precedes that glorious culmination, the Millennial Kingdom, when the clouds part and Christ returns and life is altered beyond comprehension. But I no longer believed in this future. More than the death of God, I was mourning the dissolution of this narrative, which envisioned all of history as an arc bending towards a moment of final redemption. It was a loss that had fractured even my experience of time. My hours had become non-hours. Days seemed to unravel and circle back on themselves.

The Kurzweil book belonged to a bartender at the jazz club where I worked. He lent it to me a couple of weeks after Id seen him reading it and asked him more out of boredom than genuine curiosity what it was about. I read the first pages on the train home from work, in the grey and ghostly hours before dawn.

The 21st century will be different, Kurzweil wrote. The human species, along with the computational technology it created, will be able to solve age-old problems and will be in a position to change the nature of mortality in a postbiological future.

Like the theologians at my Bible school, Kurzweil, who is now a director of engineering at Google and a leading proponent of a philosophy called transhumanism, had his own historical narrative. He divided all of evolution into successive epochs. We were living in the fifth epoch, when human intelligence begins to merge with technology. Soon we would reach the Singularity, the point at which we would be transformed into what Kurzweil called Spiritual Machines. We would transfer or resurrect our minds onto supercomputers, allowing us to live forever. Our bodies would become incorruptible, immune to disease and decay, and we would acquire knowledge by uploading it to our brains. Nanotechnology would allow us to remake Earth into a terrestrial paradise, and then we would migrate to space, terraforming other planets. Our powers, in short, would be limitless.

Its difficult to account for the totemic power I ascribed to the book. I carried it with me everywhere, tucked in the recesses of my backpack, though I was paranoid about being seen with it in public. It seemed to me a work of alchemy or a secret gospel. It is strange, in retrospect, that I was not more sceptical of these promises. Id grown up in the kind of millenarian sect of Christianity where pastors were always throwing out new dates for the Rapture. But Kurzweils prophecies seemed different because they were bolstered by science. Moores law held that computer processing power doubled every two years, meaning that technology was developing at an exponential rate. Thirty years ago, a computer chip contained 3,500 transistors. Today it has more than 1bn. By 2045, Kurzweil predicted, the technology would be inside our bodies. At that moment, the arc of progress would curve into a vertical line.

Many transhumanists such as Kurzweil contend that they are carrying on the legacy of the Enlightenment that theirs is a philosophy grounded in reason and empiricism, even if they do lapse occasionally into metaphysical language about transcendence and eternal life. As I read more about the movement, I learned that most transhumanists are atheists who, if they engage at all with monotheistic faith, defer to the familiar antagonisms between science and religion. The greatest threat to humanitys continuing evolution, writes the transhumanist Simon Young, is theistic opposition to Superbiology in the name of a belief system based on blind faith in the absence of evidence.

Yet although few transhumanists would likely admit it, their theories about the future are a secular outgrowth of Christian eschatology. The word transhuman first appeared not in a work of science or technology but in Henry Francis Careys 1814 translation of Dantes Paradiso, the final book of the Divine Comedy. Dante has completed his journey through paradise and is ascending into the spheres of heaven when his human flesh is suddenly transformed. He is vague about the nature of his new body. Words may not tell of that transhuman change, he writes.

Dante, in this passage, is dramatising the resurrection, the moment when, according to Christian prophecies, the dead will rise from their graves and the living will be granted immortal flesh. The vast majority of Christians throughout the ages have believed that these prophecies would happen supernaturally God would bring them about, when the time came. But since the medieval period, there has also persisted a tradition of Christians who believed that humanity could enact the resurrection through science and technology. The first efforts of this sort were taken up by alchemists. Roger Bacon, a 13th-century friar who is often considered the first western scientist, tried to develop an elixir of life that would mimic the effects of the resurrection as described in Pauls epistles.

The Enlightenment failed to eradicate projects of this sort. If anything, modern science provided more varied and creative ways for Christians to envision these prophecies. In the late 19th century, a Russian Orthodox ascetic named Nikolai Fedorov was inspired by Darwinism to argue that humans could direct their own evolution to bring about the resurrection. Up to this point, natural selection had been a random phenomenon, but now, thanks to technology, humans could intervene in this process. Calling on biblical prophecies, he wrote: This day will be divine, awesome, but not miraculous, for resurrection will be a task not of miracle but of knowledge and common labour.

According to Kurzweil, we would soon reach the Singularity, when we would be transformed into Spiritual Machines

This theory was carried into the 20th century by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit priest and palaeontologist who, like Fedorov, believed that evolution would lead to the Kingdom of God. In 1949, Teilhard proposed that in the future all machines would be linked to a vast global network that would allow human minds to merge. Over time, this unification of consciousness would lead to an intelligence explosion the Omega Point enabling humanity to break through the material framework of Time and Space and merge seamlessly with the divine. The Omega Point is an obvious precursor to Kurzweils Singularity, but in Teilhards mind, it was how the biblical resurrection would take place. Christ was guiding evolution toward a state of glorification so that humanity could finally merge with God in eternal perfection.

Transhumanists have acknowledged Teilhard and Fedorov as forerunners of their movement, but the religious context of their ideas is rarely mentioned. Most histories of the movement attribute the first use of the term transhumanism to Julian Huxley, the British eugenicist and close friend of Teilhards who, in the 1950s, expanded on many of the priests ideas in his own writings with one key exception. Huxley, a secular humanist, believed that Teilhards visions need not be grounded in any larger religious narrative. In 1951, he gave a lecture that proposed a non-religious version of the priests ideas. Such a broad philosophy, he wrote, might perhaps be called, not Humanism, because that has certain unsatisfactory connotations, but Transhumanism. It is the idea of humanity attempting to overcome its limitations and to arrive at fuller fruition.

The contemporary iteration of the movement arose in San Francisco in the late 1980s among a band of tech-industry people with a libertarian streak. They initially called themselves Extropians and communicated through newsletters and at annual conferences. Kurzweil was one of the first major thinkers to bring these ideas into the mainstream and legitimise them for a wider audience. His ascent in 2012 to a director of engineering position at Google, heralded, for many, a symbolic merger between transhumanist philosophy and the clout of major technological enterprise.

Transhumanists today wield enormous power in Silicon Valley entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel identify as believers where they have founded thinktanks such as the Singularity University and the Future of Humanity Institute. The ideas proposed by the pioneers of the movement are no longer abstract theoretical musings but are being embedded into emerging technologies at organisations such as Google, Apple, Tesla and SpaceX.

Losing faith in God in the 21st century is an anachronistic experience. You end up contending with the kinds of things the west dealt with more than a hundred years ago: materialism, the end of history, the death of the soul. When I think back on that period of my life, what I recall most viscerally is an unnamable sense of dread. There were days I woke in a panic, certain that Id lost some essential part of myself in the fume of a blackout, and would work my fingers across my nose, my lips, my eyebrows, and my ears until I assured myself that everything was intact. My body had become strange to me; it seemed insubstantial. I went out of my way to avoid subway grates because I believed I could slip through them. One morning, on the train home from work, I became convinced that my flesh was melting into the seat.

At the time, I would have insisted that my rituals of self-abuse drinking, pills, the impulse to put my body in danger in ways I now know were deliberate were merely efforts to escape; that I was contending, however clumsily, with the overwhelming despair at the absence of God. But at least one piece of that despair came from the knowledge that my body was no longer a sacred vessel; that it was not a temple of the holy spirit, formed in the image of God and intended to carry me into eternity; that my body was matter, and any harm I did to it was only aiding the unstoppable process of entropy for which it was destined.

To confront this reality after believing otherwise is to experience perhaps the deepest sense of loss we are capable of as humans. Its not just about coming to terms with the fact that you will die. It has something to do with suspecting that there is no difference between your human flesh and the plastic seat of the train. It has to do with the inability to watch your reflection appear and vanish in a window without coming to believe you are identical to it.

What makes the transhumanist movement so seductive is that it promises to restore, through science, the transcendent hopes that science itself has obliterated. Transhumanists do not believe in the existence of a soul, but they are not strict materialists, either. Kurzweil claims he is a patternist, characterising consciousness as the result of biological processes, a pattern of matter and energy that persists over time. These patterns, which contain what we tend to think of as our identity, are currently running on physical hardware the body that will one day give out. But they can, at least in theory, be transferred onto supercomputers, robotic surrogates or human clones. A pattern, transhumanists would insist, is not the same as a soul. But its not difficult to see how it satisfies the same longing. At the very least, a pattern suggests that there is some essential core of our being that will survive and perhaps transcend the inevitable degradation of flesh.

Of course, mind uploading has spurred all kinds of philosophical anxieties. If the pattern of your consciousness is transferred onto a computer, is the pattern you or a simulation of your mind? One camp of transhumanists have argued that true resurrection can happen only if it is bodily resurrection. They tend to favour cryonics and bionics, which promise to resurrect the entire body or else supplement the living form with technologies to indefinitely extend life.

It is perhaps not coincidental that an ideology that grew out of Christian eschatology would come to inherit its philosophical problems. The question of whether the resurrection would be corporeal or merely spiritual was an obsessive point of debate among early Christians. One faction, which included the Gnostic sects, argued that only the soul would survive death; another insisted that the resurrection was not a true resurrection unless it revived the body.

Transhumanists, in their eagerness to preempt charges of dualism, tend to sound an awful lot like these early church fathers. Eric Steinhart, a digitalist philosopher at William Paterson University, is among the transhumanists who insist the resurrection must be physical. Uploading does not aim to leave the flesh behind, he writes, on the contrary, it aims at the intensification of the flesh. The irony is that transhumanists are arguing these questions as though they were the first to consider them. Their discussions give no indication that these debates belong to a theological tradition that stretches back to the earliest centuries of the Common Era.

While the effects of my deconversion were often felt physically, the root causes were mostly cerebral. My doubts began in earnest during my second year at Bible school, after I read The Brothers Karamazov and entertained, for the first time, the problem of how evil could exist in a world created by a benevolent God. In our weekly dormitory prayer groups, my classmates would assure me that all Christians struggled with these questions, but the stakes in my case were higher because I was planning to become a missionary after graduation. I nodded deferentially as my friends supplied the familiar apologetics, but afterward, in the silence of my dorm room, I imagined myself evangelising a citizen of some remote country and crumbling at the moment she pointed out those theological contradictions I myself could not abide or explain.

I knew other people who had left the church, and was amazed at how effortlessly they had seemed to cast off their former beliefs. Perhaps I clung to the faith because, despite my doubts, I found and still find the fundamental promises of Christianity beautiful, particularly the notion that human existence ultimately resolves into harmony. What I could not reconcile was the idea that an omnipotent and benevolent God could allow for so much suffering.

Transhumanism offered a vision of redemption without the thorny problems of divine justice. It was an evolutionary approach to eschatology, one in which humanity took it upon itself to bring about the final glorification of the body and could not be blamed if the path to redemption was messy or inefficient. Within months of encountering Kurzweil, I became totally immersed in transhumanist philosophy. By this point, it was early December and the days had grown dark. The city was besieged by a series of early winter storms, and snow piled up on the windowsills, silencing the noise outside. I increasingly spent my afternoons at the public library, researching things like nanotechnology and brain-computer interfaces.

Once, after following link after link, I came across a paper called Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? It was written by the Oxford philosopher and transhumanist Nick Bostrom, who used mathematical probability to argue that its likely that we currently reside in a Matrix-like simulation of the past created by our posthuman descendants. Most of the paper consisted of esoteric calculations, but I became rapt when Bostrom started talking about the potential for an afterlife. If we are essentially software, he noted, then after we die we might be resurrected in another simulation. Or we could be promoted by the programmers and brought to life in base reality. The theory was totally naturalistic all of it was possible without any appeals to the supernatural but it was essentially an argument for intelligent design. In some ways, Bostrom conceded, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation.

One afternoon, deep in the bowels of an online forum, I discovered a link to a cache of simulation theology articles written by fans of Bostroms theory. According to the Argument for Virtuous Engineers, it was reasonable to assume that our creators were benevolent because the capacity to build sophisticated technologies required long-term stability and rational purposefulness. These qualities could not be cultivated without social harmony, and social harmony could be achieved only by virtuous beings. The articles were written by software engineers, programmers and the occasional philosopher.

The deeper I got into the articles, the more unhinged my thinking became. One day, it occurred to me: perhaps God was the designer and Christ his digital avatar, and the incarnation his way of entering the simulation to share tips about our collective survival as a species. Or maybe the creation of our world was a competition, a kind of video game in which each participating programmer invented one of the world religions, sent down his own prophet-avatar and received points for every new convert.

By this point Id passed beyond idle speculation. A new, more pernicious thought had come to dominate my mind: transhumanist ideas were not merely similar to theological concepts but could in fact be the events described in the Bible. It was only a short time before my obsession reached its culmination. I got out my old study Bible and began to scan the prophetic literature for signs of the cybernetic revolution. I began to wonder whether I could pray to beings outside the simulation. I had initially been drawn to transhumanism because it was grounded in science. In the end, I became consumed with the kind of referential mania and blind longing that animates all religious belief.

Ive since had to distance myself from prolonged meditation on these topics. People who once believed, I have been told, are prone to recidivism. Over the past decade, as transhumanism has become the premise of Hollywood blockbusters and a passable topic of small talk among people under 40, Ive had to excuse myself from conversations, knowing that any mention of simulation theory or the noosphere can send me spiralling down that techno-theological rabbit hole.

Last spring, a friend of mine from Bible school, a fellow apostate, sent me an email with the title robot evangelism. I seem to recall you being into this stuff, he said. There was a link to an episode of The Daily Show that had aired a year ago. The video was a satirical report by the correspondent Jordan Klepper called Future Christ, in which a Florida pastor, Christopher Benek, argued that in the future, AI could be evangelised just like humans. The interview had been heavily edited, and it wasnt really clear what Benek believed, except that robots might one day be capable of spiritual life, an idea that failed to strike me as intrinsically absurd.

One transhumanist believes we may reside in a Matrix-like simulation of the past created by our posthuman descendants

I Googled Benek. He had studied to be a pastor at Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the most prestigious in the country. He described himself in his bio as a techno-theologian, futurist, ethicist, Christian Transhumanist, public speaker and writer. He also chaired the board of something called the Christian Transhumanism Association. I followed a link to the organisations website, which included that peculiar quote from Dante: Words cannot tell of that transhuman change.

All this seemed unlikely. Was it possible there were now Christian Transhumanists? Actual believers who thought the Kingdom of God would come about through the Singularity? I had thought I was alone in drawing these parallels between transhumanism and biblical prophecy, but the convergences seemed to have gained legitimacy from the pulpit. How long would it be before everyone noticed the symmetry of these two ideologies before Kurzweil began quoting the Gospel of John and Bostrom was read alongside the minor prophets?

A few months later, I met with Benek at a cafe across the street from his church in Fort Lauderdale. In my email to him, Id presented my curiosity as journalistic, unable to admit even to myself what lay behind my desire to meet.

He arrived in the same navy blazer he had worn for The Daily Show interview and appeared nervous. The Daily Show had been a disaster, he told me. He had spoken with them for an hour about the finer points of his theology, but the interview had been cut down to his two-minute spiel on robots something he insisted he wasnt even interested in, it was just a thought experiment he had been goaded into. Its not like I spend my days speculating on how to evangelise robots, he said.

I explained that I wanted to know whether transhumanist ideas were compatible with Christian eschatology. Was it possible that technology would be the avenue by which humanity achieved the resurrection and immortality? I worried that the question sounded a little deranged, but Benek appeared suddenly energised. It turned out he was writing a dissertation on precisely this subject.

Technology has a role in the process of redemption, he said. Christians today assume the prophecies about bodily perfection and eternal life are going to be realised in heaven. But the disciples understood those prophecies as referring to things that were going to take place here on Earth. Jesus had spoken of the Kingdom of God as a terrestrial domain, albeit one in which the imperfections of earthly existence were done away with. This idea, he assured me, was not unorthodox; it was just old.

I asked Benek about humility. Wasnt it all about the fallen nature of the flesh and our tragic limitations as humans?

Sure, he said. He paused a moment, as though debating whether to say more. Finally, he leaned in and rested his elbows on the table, his demeanour markedly pastoral, and began speaking about the transfiguration and the nature of Christ. Jesus, he reminded me, was both fully human and fully God. What was interesting, he said, was that science had actually verified the potential for matter to have two distinct natures. Superposition, a principle in quantum theory, suggests that an object can be in two places at one time. A photon could be a particle, and it could also be a wave. It could have two natures. When Jesus tells us that if we have faith nothing will be impossible for us, I think he means that literally.

By this point, I had stopped taking notes. It was late afternoon, and the cafe was washed in amber light. Perhaps I was a little dehydrated, but Beneks ideas began to make perfect sense. This was, after all, the promise implicit in the incarnation: that the body could be both human and divine, that the human form could walk on water. Very truly I tell you, Christ had said to his disciples, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these. His earliest followers had taken this promise literally. Perhaps these prophecies had pointed to the future achievements of humanity all along, our ability to harness technology to become transhuman. Christ had spoken mostly in parables no doubt for good reason. If a superior being had indeed come to Earth to prophesy the future to 1st-century humans, he would not have wasted time trying to explain modern computing or sketching the trajectory of Moores law on a scrap of papyrus. He would have said, You will have a new body, and All things will be changed beyond recognition, and On Earth as it is in heaven. Perhaps only now that technologies were emerging to make such prophecies a reality could we begin to understand what Christ meant about the fate of our species.

I could sense my reason becoming loosened by the lure of these familiar conspiracies. Somewhere, in the pit of my stomach, it was amassing: the fevered, elemental hope that the tumult of the world was authored and intentional, that our profound confusion would one day click into clarity and the broken body would be restored. Part of me was still helpless against the pull of these ideas.

It was late. The cafe had emptied and a barista was sweeping near our table. As we stood to go, I felt that our conversation was unresolved. I suppose Id been hoping that Benek would hand me some portal back to the faith, one paved by the certitude of modern science. But if anything had become clear to me, it was my own desperation, my willingness to spring at this largely speculative ideology that offered a vestige of that first religious promise. I had disavowed Christianity, and yet I had spent the past 10 years hopelessly trying to re-create its visions by dreaming about our postbiological future a modern pantomime of redemption. What else could lie behind this impulse but the ghost of that first hope?

Main photograph by Liam Norris/Getty Images

This is an abridged version of an essay from the latest issue of n+1, on sale now. To find out more, visit nplusonemag.com/subscribe.

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here

Read more:
God in the machine: my strange journey into transhumanism - The Guardian

Posted in Transhuman | Comments Off on God in the machine: my strange journey into transhumanism – The Guardian

Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post | The …

Posted: at 9:30 am

Highline

Science

Education

Weird News

Business

TestKitchen

Tech

College

Media

Pollster

Heroin Epidemic

Donald Trump

Racial Inequality

US Senate

Election Results

HuffPost Hill

Police Brutality

Hate Crimes

Supreme Court

Congress

So That Happened

Entertainment

Comedy

Celebrity

TV

Arts + Culture

Backspace

Movies

Healthy Living

Travel

Style

Taste

Black Voices

Latino Voices

Women

Fifty

Queer Voices

Parents

ALL SECTIONS

Arts + Culture

Black Voices

Books

Business

Candidate Confessional

Celebrity

College

Comedy

Crime

Divorce

Dolce Vita

Eat the Press

Education

Election Results

Entertainment

Fifty

Good News

Green

Healthy Living

Highline

Home

Horoscopes

HuffPost Data

HuffPost Hill

Impact

Latino Voices

Media

Newsletters

Outspeak

Parents

Politics

Pollster

Queer Voices

Religion

Science

Small Business

So That Happened

Sports

Style

Taste

Tech

Teen

TestKitchen

Travel

TV

Weddings

Weird News

Women

FEATURED

OWN

Paving the Way

The Power Of Humanity

Retire Well

Sleep + Wellness

What's Working: Purpose + Profit

WorldPost

NBC VIA GETTY IMAGES

SCIENCE

NASA

COMEDY

The Daily Show

Originally posted here:
Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post | The ...

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post | The …

The Americans season 5, episode 7: The Committee on Human Rights gets personal – Vox

Posted: at 9:30 am

Every week, some of Voxs writers will gather to discuss the latest episode of FXs spy drama The Americans. This week, deputy culture editor Genevieve Koski and staff writers Caroline Framke and Alissa Wilkinson talk about The Committee on Human Rights, the seventh episode of season five.

Caroline Framke: Halfway through watching The Committee on Human Rights, I realized I was annoyed.

Throughout its run, The Americans has always had its characters stop to debrief each other on the particulars of one mission or another, or even just a slightly strange interaction that could, with a stroke of bad luck, mean disaster. And maybe season five isnt worse than any other on this front, but I sure have felt the drag of these scenes more than ever. Getting renewed for two seasons at once might have made The Americans feel like it could afford to take its sweet time, even this deep into the season. And there were plenty of moments where The Committee on Human Rights seemed especially slow.

Not a whole lot actually happens in the episode (directed by none other than Matthew Rhys), unless you count Paige finally breaking up with Matthew Beeman. But there were thankfully still a few key scenes that made me second-guess where we actually are at this point in The Americans.

There were the times when both Philip and Elizabeth realized neither of them had gotten an accurate read on their respective honeytrap marks in their ongoing wheat investigation. There was Stan having his closest shave yet with getting fired. There was Gabriel insisting he knows nothing about Stans new girlfriend Rene being a Russian spy (but shes been featured so frequently in otherwise innocuous scenes that there has to be another shoe to drop, right?).

And as for Gabriel himself, he left me with more questions than answers on his way out of the country. For example: Why did he tell Elizabeth that Paige would be fine, before turning around and telling Philip the exact opposite?

What did you both think about this episode, which felt pretty quiet to me, all things considered?

Genevieve Koski: Ooh, I disagree pretty strongly with you there, Caroline. True, there wasnt a lot of suspense or action in The Committee on Human Rights, but the episodes endless discussions were packed with thematic import and consequence, particularly those involving Paige.

Whats been so interesting to me about Philip and Elizabeths conversations with their daughter has been how they reveal the Jennings parents mounting awareness of the extent to which theyve misled her. Paige has seemingly transferred much of her church-bred idealism to her parents work, expressing more and more interest in what theyre doing and chagrin that America is engaged in such an evil plot. Of course, we, along with Philip and Elizabeth, now know that no such plot exists, and that Directorate Ss revised mission to steal Bens superwheat is actually the more nefarious mission.

Its also become increasingly evident through looks, not words, as is this shows wont that Philip in particular is uncomfortable with the honeypot element of their mission, something Paige really cant know about for a variety of reasons. Paige has fully bought into the version of the truth that her parents have sold her, and welded her own budding ideology onto it. And thats thrown into sharp focus for Philip and Elizabeth, and us how divorced from an ideology Directorate Ss work has become.

This season has spent a fair amount of energy poking holes in the idea that the Soviet Union is something worth defending at all costs, and The Committee on Human Rights goes all in on that idea, through both Olegs investigation into his mothers imprisonment in the 1950s and Gabriels final goodbyes to Philip and Elizabeth, wherein he openly mourns the things hes done in his countrys name. It adds up, he tells Elizabeth, and the moral burden hes accumulated is evident in his face.

And then come his parting words to Philip, accompanied by a pointed musical sting: You were right about Paige. She should be left out of all of this. Its an understated moment, but it was quite a gut punch for me.

Alissa Wilkinson: I felt like Philip's face right before the credits rolled along with knowing Rhys directed this episode was where The Committee on Human Rights really landed its sucker punch. Philip is loyal to his homeland, but it's always felt as if that loyalty was propped up by people around him, like Elizabeth and, clearly, Gabriel. That moment falls somewhere between an admission of truth and a betrayal, and I didn't see it coming. That Gabriel says it and then just walks out of Philip's life isn't just the country betraying him, but something very deep and personal for Philip. I wonder if we'll find this moment to be a catalyst moving toward The Americans last big act.

I've been continually surprised by the sly way this season has been inverting, blurring, and repositioning lines that have always felt relatively set (between Soviets and Americans, usually). I laughed aloud early on when Pastor Tim handed Marx to Paige, but of course! Much of Marx's ideology is actually in line with Tim's, and Paige's, progressive Christianity. The fact that the book keeps surfacing (and that Elizabeth seems surprised when she spots it) is a reminder that politics, religion, and ideology have always mixed uncomfortably and strangely in America.

But as you point out, Genevieve, its been illuminating to see how, in introducing the family business to their American-reared, socially conscious daughter (who still wears her cross around her neck but is starting to reconsider, I think), Elizabeth and Philip have grown more uncomfortable with their own work. It's one thing to think you can transgress on behalf of your cause, a greater good. It's another thing to realize you wouldn't tell your own daughter what you'd been up to, and then feel the need to lie about it.

And frankly, this season's honeypot plots are far from The Americans most squeamish uses of the tactic. I mean, Philip seduced Kimberly, a teenager, and there's always poor Martha. In comparison, Ben and Deirdre are pretty vanilla. Nobody's really getting hurt. The fact that Philip and Elizabeth both feel so uncomfortable (and seem to both be off their game) is a subtle but clear indication of character development, on both of their parts.

I think the episode's relative quietness, though, is interesting, because The Americans is one of those shows where events from earlier episodes that didn't seem all that important at the time come back in a big way later on. I think The Committee on Human Rights just threw a bunch of Chekhov's guns onto a variety of mantels, and I'm curious about which one is going to go off first. What do you think?

Caroline: I think you both just blew my opening argument to pieces. Damn you, smart co-workers!

On second thought, I see your point, Alissa. Even when things seem fairly manageable on this show, theres usually a moment when everything blows up in everyones faces and that final moment with Philip sure felt like one of those. The difference between Gabriels relationship with Elizabeth and his relationship with Philip has maybe never been so stark as in his respective goodbyes to them. Elizabeth, Gabriels stalwart soldier, sat with him in the streaming daylight and held his hands in her own. Philip, Gabriels troubled prodigal proxy son, didnt say goodbye so much as confront him, grimly staring him down in the shadows.

As far as strewing Chekhovs guns goes, I have to think that Mischa will come back into the picture by the end of the season. It cant be a coincidence that Gabriel finally met and evaluated Paige almost immediately after doing the same with Mischa. And if/when Mischa does return, it will be ... messy.

Another moment from that final scene that struck me particularly hard came when Philip used his remaining minute with Gabriel to ask point blank if Rene is one of ours and Gabriel responded that Philip must be losing [his] mind. Gabriel doesnt tend to speak like that, but his patience for Philips questions had clearly reached its limit. It also seems to me that Philip didnt buy it much like hes not exactly buying that the Soviet Union has the moral high ground in this mission theyre pursuing.

What do you both think is up with Rene? And, uh, how much longer can Stan possibly keep his job in counterintelligence, given all the feathers hes ruffled?

Genevieve: I admit, Ive never really bought into the Rene is a secret spy theory, and I still think its a big red herring but one this episode made an effort to dangle in front of our faces.

Gabriels response to Philips question was interesting on both a textual and technical level by which I mean I suspect it was altered after the fact to keep us wondering. Notice that when Gabriel follows up his denial about Rene with, Its possible the Center didnt tell me because they knew youd ask this question, the camera is on Philip, and the audio has a distinct ADR quality to it that is, it sounds like it was recorded in and edited in later. I cant say for certain, but I suspect this scene was originally written as a flat-out denial, with the equivocation added in afterward to keep us guessing about something Im pretty certain is not worth guessing about.

Alissa: I almost feel like Rene is TOO obvious of a secret spy girlfriend by now. They've been signaling it so hard! But then I'm lost when I try to imagine what else she could be. A private investigator? CIA? A grifter? Or just ... maybe just Stan's girlfriend? I find her fascinating and I keep looking for clues, which I think may be The Americans' way of distracting me from what's obviously in front of my face.

There have been two other clear moments I can recall when Elizabeth and Philip suspected something that turned out to be totally wrong: once with the real reason the United States is developing grain, and way back in an early episode when there was an assassination attempt on President Reagan and they thought a coup was on. Both times I bought into it, and both times the show twisted me into coming back to my senses. I wonder if this is another similar moment.

Either way, I agree that Mischa is certainly coming back. That aborted journey is too much to throw away, especially coupled with Philip's persistent recurring memories of his father, a father who is always bringing him things in those memories.

Genevieve: Going back to the idea of Chekovs guns, though, I do think were facing a big upheaval with Stan, though I dont think itll come through Rene. Hes obviously on very thin ice at the FBI after his fun little blackmail adventure with the CIA, and his work with Agent Aderholt doesnt seem to be progressing in a manner destined to save his ass.

I found that scene with Aderholt and Stan questioning a potential Soviet defector enlightening as far as Stans mindset goes; the whole time he was frankly telling their mark about the potential for danger if she works as an informant, I was seeing the word Nina flash over and over behind his eyes. If were looking at this whole season as a story about questioning loyalties, which I am, I cant help but wonder if Stans time with the FBI is coming to an end not by force but by choice. His growing disillusionment is clear, and he seems to have no real ideological stake left in counterintelligence work. Hes a man going through the motions and maybe Rene is nothing more than someone who presents the possibility of a happy life outside the FBI (which, remember, was a huge contributing factor to his divorce).

Caroline: That makes sense to me. Its easy to forget five seasons in that Stan was already exhausted with the FBI when The Americans debuted, after years of undercover work, and that all his time since has been spent struggling with the demands of his job and the possible damage it can do to the people he loves. This season, weve seen him prioritize a new relationship, take an interest in a good girl like Paige influencing his son, and joke ever more fondly with Henry as if the boy is part of his own family. I dont think Stan can be in this for much longer, especially since hes now taken a moral stand that was the counterintelligence equivalent of pulling the pin out of a grenade. It cant be long before he drops it, whether on purpose or not.

Alissa: And that's interesting, because I think Paige, Philip, and even maybe rock-solid Elizabeth are moving ever so slowly in the same direction that Stan is with their own loyalties. Paige is going to feel betrayed by her parents. Philip already feels betrayed by his country, for sure. Even Elizabeth feels like her resolve is getting slightly shaky. It would be a fitting final act for The Americans if the Jennings family left the 1980s and ended up as disillusioned institution haters in the 90s, wouldn't it?

The Americans airs Tuesdays at 10 pm on FX. You can keep up with our coverage of this season here.

View original post here:
The Americans season 5, episode 7: The Committee on Human Rights gets personal - Vox

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on The Americans season 5, episode 7: The Committee on Human Rights gets personal – Vox

Dogs apologize better than some humans – New York Post

Posted: at 9:30 am

Dogs apologize better than some humans
New York Post
Dogs know when they've screwed up and their tail-between-the-legs pose is actually a highly evolved apology bow, according to CUNY researchers. Naughty pooches hang their heads and tuck their tails to appear submissive to their owners a ...

and more »

Read the original:
Dogs apologize better than some humans - New York Post

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on Dogs apologize better than some humans – New York Post

Zuckerberg: Facebook Is Working on a Brain Interface That Lets You Communicate Using Only Your Mind – Futurism

Posted: at 9:29 am

Building a Better Brain

In case you missed it, Facebooks annual developer conference started today. At the event, CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed key details about where the company is going next, specifically focusing on what Facebook is working on in relation to bots, virtual reality, augmented reality, and new communication methods (such as advances they are working on in Messenger).

Oh, and he also said that key details are going to be revealed tomorrow about Facebooks direct brain interface.

The work comes from Facebooks mysterious Building 8(B8), which has apparently been working on brain-computer technologies for some time. In their recent call for an engineer, B8 states that they are seeking an experienced Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Engineer who will be responsible for working on a 2-year B8 project focused on developing advanced BCI technologies.

Today, Zuckerberg stated what the ultimate goal of this interface will be. The full quote is below:

Tomorrow, we are going to update you on all of our work on connectivity. We have a team right now in Arizona preparing for our second flight of Aquila, our solar powered plane thats going to help beam down internet connectivity to people all around the globe, and were going to update you on a lot of the other technology that we are building too. Youre going to hear from Regina Dugan about some of the work that were doing to build even further out beyond augmented reality, and that includes work around direct brain interfaces that are going to, eventually, one day, let you communicate using only your mind.

Zuckerberg asserts that the company will discuss where they are in relation to their work on the BCI technology and the timeline until the final unveiling. Of course, neuroscience is rather complex, and there is a lot of research that has yet to be done. So the details will likely be based largely on projections.

That said, BCI technologies may be a lot closer than many assume.

Zuckerberg isnt the only one working on a brain-computer interface. Recently, Elon Musk announced that he is creating a company called Neuralink, which will research the human brain in order to augment human intelligence and allow humans to keep pace with artificial intelligences. Initially, these enhancements will likely assist in smaller ways, such as helping us improve our memories by creating additional, removable storage components.

Similarly, Braintree founder Bryan Johnson is investing $100 million to make a neuroprosthesis that will allowus to unlock the power of the human brain and, ultimately, make our neural code programmable. Johnson outlines the purpose of his work, stating that its all about co-evolution:

Our connection with our new creations of intelligence is limited by screens, keyboards, gestural interfaces, and voice commands constrained input/output modalities. We have very little access to our own brains, limiting our ability to co-evolve with silicon-based machines in powerful ways.

He is working to change this and ensure that we have a seamless interface with our technologies (and our AI). So get ready. Human superintelligence is (very likely) only a matter of time.

Disclosure: Bryan Johnson is an investor in Futurism; he does not hold a seat on our editorial board or have any editorial review privileges.

Excerpt from:
Zuckerberg: Facebook Is Working on a Brain Interface That Lets You Communicate Using Only Your Mind - Futurism

Posted in Futurism | Comments Off on Zuckerberg: Facebook Is Working on a Brain Interface That Lets You Communicate Using Only Your Mind – Futurism

Elon Musk Just Made a Tesla Vehicle a Lot More Affordable – Futurism

Posted: at 9:29 am

In Brief Tesla just made its cheapest electric vehicle variants even cheaper. The price adjustments, which also affected the higher-end Tesla EVs, come as the Model 3 gets ready for shipping later this year.

In the United States, transportation alone accounts for nearly 30 percentof global warming emissions. Cars and trucks, specifically, account for almost one-fifth of the total U.S. emissions, contributing around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for every gallon of gas.

Any serious effort to decrease global warming emissions and fight climate change, therefore, includes developing cleaner vehicles. One of the champions in this front is Tesla and its electric vehicle lineup. Now, Elon Musks innovative company is makingtheir cheapest EV even cheaper.

Yesterday, Tesla announced a $5,000 decrease in the price of theModel S 75 and its all-wheel drive 75D variant both powered by a 75kWh battery putting their base prices at $69,500 and $74,500, respectively. At the same time, the drop in prices was accompanied byadded freebies. Both Model S variants now have an automatic rear liftgate and a glass roof.

Other Tesla EV models also got some price adjustments, and the cost of upgrading to higher battery capacities dropped as well. The price changes come as the $35,000 Model 3 is expected to begin shipping this year.

Making EVs accessible to more people is a big partof Teslas fight against climate change. Putting more electric cars on the roads will surely cut CO2 emissions in the long run, and once regulations catch up with autonomous driving tech, Teslas will be saving the lives of both current drivers and future generations.

See more here:
Elon Musk Just Made a Tesla Vehicle a Lot More Affordable - Futurism

Posted in Futurism | Comments Off on Elon Musk Just Made a Tesla Vehicle a Lot More Affordable – Futurism

VW Just Showcased an All-Electric Car That Goes a Staggering 311 Miles on One Charge – Futurism

Posted: at 9:29 am

In Brief Volkswagen just unveiled a new electric crossover concept called the I.D. Crozz today. Though not intended for sale, the I.D. Crozz boasts top speeds and an extended range on a single charge.

Today, just beforethe Auto Shanghai motor show, German car manufacturer Volkswagen unveiled their latest all-electric vehicle: the I.D. Crozz. This electric crossover concept is the third in VWs new I.D. lineup, after its hatchback and van concepts.

The I.D. Crozz combines a four-door coup with an SUV. This crossover concept is also supposedly fully autonomous. It uses four laser scanners on the roof to detect obstacles, along with radar and ultrasonic sensors, and multiple cameras. The car is even able to communicate what mode its in (autonomous or manual) using glowing LED lights on the cars roof and grille.

The car can reach top speeds of 180 kilometers (112 miles) and at a range of 500 kilometers (311 miles) with just a single charge. Its powered by two electric motors at the front and rear axles, for a combined 225 kW (302 horsepower), according to AutoBlog.

Unfortunately, the I.D. Crozz issimply a concept vehicle, meaning it isnt intended to be sold. However, VW would probably produce a consumer version based on the this concept, as the German car maker has previously set a goal of selling 1 million EVs yearly by 2025.Volkswagen also said earlier that they will launch a pure-electric car in China next year.

Still, the supposed capabilities of this crossover concept are worth noting. An electric vehicle with such an extended range can make EVs more attractive to motorists. It dashes fears of running out of power without nearby charging stations. This could help to open the doors to wider EV consumer adoption and thats a good thing. EVs on the road would reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation industry, which totals to about 30 percent of all carbon emissions in the U.S. alone.

Read more from the original source:
VW Just Showcased an All-Electric Car That Goes a Staggering 311 Miles on One Charge - Futurism

Posted in Futurism | Comments Off on VW Just Showcased an All-Electric Car That Goes a Staggering 311 Miles on One Charge – Futurism

Page 1,892«..1020..1,8911,8921,8931,894..1,9001,910..»