The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: Transhuman News
The shadow of Xi Jinping, misinformation and hurt religious sentiments – Business Standard
Posted: April 22, 2023 at 12:22 am
Over the past ten years, there has been a frenzied output of books that decipher the phenomenon that is the Chinese President Xi Jinping. If one includes news articles, mostly Western ones in the English media, the cumulative body of work is daunting.
This past week, Gunjan Singh, who is an assistant professor at OP Jindal Global University,reviewedanother book on the Chinese leader,Xi: A Study in Power, by Kerry Brown.
Like all history, the history of the Chinese Communist Party has been a source of divergent readings. Many have sought to look at the continuities between the current regime and previous ones the most popular comparison is with Mao Zedong, which this book also appears to draw on. These works often approach the subject as though it is something exotic, a quest to divine the secret ingredient in the secret ingredient soup, to paraphrase a dialogue from the hit Hollywood movieKung Fu Panda.
The book under consideration looks at Xis past to piece together the puzzle, especially the impact of the Cultural Revolution. Singh says, The book traces [Xis] personal and political growth by weaving a narrative juxtaposing his early life, his family history with his experiences during the Cultural Revolution and his role as a party worker and provincial leader.
Singh says the book fills gaps in the stories often told about Xi. It helps the readers understand the Chinese leader a bit better than what one can attempt to do by just trying to analyse him from the prism of an authoritarian and power-hungry politician heading a Leninist Party with the goal of holding on to power for life, she writes.
There are some other recent books that might also be of interest to the reader. For one, there is Isabella Webers excellent bookHow China Escaped Shock Therapy, which argues that, unlike popular narratives of a sharp turn under Deng Xiaoping, the CCP chose a smoother transition from a socialist to an international trade-oriented economy. And that the party fears radical change overnight.
There is also Alex RussosCultural Revolution and Revolutionary Culture, a deeply researched book that suggests that the current changes in the CCP, indeed the changes since the mid-1970s, have been made with one aim that the Cultural Revolution must not be repeated. According to the book, the principal aim of the Cultural Revolution was to thwart a tendency towards an overtly bureaucratic state, like in the USSR.
Religious sentiments
Elsewhere, journalist Nilanjan MukhopadhyayreviewedHurt Sentimentsby Neeti Nair, a book that explores the narratives of victimhood that abound in the politics of India and the subcontinent.
This sentiment is at the root of the primary political divide in India, which exists, in the words of the author, between Mahatma Gandhi and Nathuram Godses visions and the imagination of India, writes Mukhopadhyay.
As Mukhopadhyay points out, referring to the book, the phrase hurt sentiments gained significance after the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Given the inverted political logic in todays India, also Pakistan, a reasoned investigation and analysis of this divisive mind-set could not have been timelier, he writes.
Safeguarding religious sentiments also took institutional form, with affiliates of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) drawing the boundaries around what were and werent acceptable as cultural expressions.
The books accomplishment, writes Mukhopadhyay, is being able to simultaneously address those uninitiated in the politics of Hindu majoritarianism and minority communalism with a thought-through and riveting text, as well as provide food for contemplation for those who track the rise of divisive politics in India and its neighbours.
Also, this past week, Debarghya SanyalreviewedAmit SchandilliasDont Forward That Text!
The author breaks down some of the most obvious facts, not into an over-simplified judgement of true or false but carefully crafted analyses, writes Sanyal.
From the Aryan invasion theory to the Sarasvati river and Kosambian elephants, Sanyal writes that Schandillia covers a wide range of topics. Most crucially, the author hasnt shied away from calling a spade a spade, says Sanyal.
However, the book has limitations, writes Sanyal. The author focuses on Indian history mostly ancient and medieval and looks at a specific strand of misinformation, dealing mostly with those of the hard right.
But when one is addressing the vast world of misinformation and WhatsApp facts, one cannot limit oneself to such a narrow strand, writes Sanyal.
A distinction must be drawn in the literature between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation need not be intentional, whereas disinformation is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Market mania
And finally, Samie ModakreviewedThe Big Bull of Dalal Streetby Neil Borate, Aprajita Sharma & Aditya Kondawar, which looks at the life and investments of Rakesh Jhunjhunwala.
Jhunjhunwalas appeal, or at least the appeal of the stock market, has only seemed to have grown since the crash of 2020 after lockdowns were announced worldwide to curb the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.
This appeal is heightened thanks to the many myths that surround Jhunjhunwala, a revered figure among investors. Says Modak that the book corrects many such myths, including the one that he turned Rs 5,000 into Rs 35,000 crore during his career he started with a loan of Rs 2 lakh.
The authors use public information and interviews with his contemporaries to discern his investment decisions. Luckily, there is no shortage of public information on the man. Unlike most stock market stars in India, Jhunjhunwala, a larger-than-life personality with a penchant for the politically incorrect, was not publicity shy... People gathered in their thousands to hear his investment outlook and stock tips (which he famously refrained from offering), writes Modak.
Importantly, the book also looks at some of Jhunjhunwalas bad decisions, apart from the obvious winners he backed, like Titan.
Despite all this detail, the book is incomplete. For instance, the authors tell us little about Jhunjhunwalas life... Nor does it delve much into Jhunjhunwalas investment in unlisted stocks (such as Start Health, the second-most valuable stock in his portfolio after Titan) or how he went about identifying companies in which to invest, writes Modak.
Read more:
The shadow of Xi Jinping, misinformation and hurt religious sentiments - Business Standard
Posted in Politically Incorrect
Comments Off on The shadow of Xi Jinping, misinformation and hurt religious sentiments – Business Standard
Night Jitters: TVs Late Crowd Grapples With Weakness in the Wee Hours – Variety
Posted: at 12:22 am
People from all over the world on most weekdays eagerly line up across New York City ready to do something theyd likely never do at home.
Dozens of tourists, fun-seekers and fans snake across the floor in the middle of the afternoon in the luxurious lobby at NBCs 30 Rockefeller Plaza, all anxious to see Seth Meyers do a live-to-tape run-through of his Late Night, a program that has been on in one form or another on the network since David Letterman launched it in 1982. Attending one of the shows means agreeing to take part in an hours-long process that requires everything from security checks to a light verbal grilling by a warm-up comic who aims to get attendees ready to laugh. Many blocks away, a similar crowd queues up under a marquee on the west side of Manhattan, ready to take part in a taping of Comedy Centrals The Daily Show, a TV institution that debuted in 1996 and, at present, has no regular host.
Visitors to these programs come from as far away as Italy or Holland to see how they get made. Some live closer and just see the shows as a fun place to take a date or spend a few hours off from work. But theres no getting around their task: Fans must sit through a whole hour, from opening monologue to last-minute good night. Some people may watch Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert at home in the same way, but their number is diminishing.
Those late night hosts like to make people laugh. But the wee hours often serve as home to something else: horror stories. Maddie Luke, a 26-year-old who works at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx, is very interested in hosts like Meyers, Fallon and Colbert. Like a growing number of TV consumers, however, she doesnt have a cable or satellite-TV subscription. Instead, she says, I just follow the socials, and Ill find the interview if Im interested in the guest. Shes not sure shes missing out on anything. When Im home, I will watch an hour-long drama or Ill watch a couple of comedy episodes, but for interviews with celebrities, I kind of like where I dont have to watch one guest after another. I dont mind watching a guest that Im interested in, but sometimes, Im not interested in whats next. Megha Kakaraparti , a 26-year-old product manager from Leesburg, Va., prefers to use late-night hours to watch her favorite crime procedurals. When she does take notice of a late-night show, she says, its just clips on TikTok or YouTube, or just something I see on Instagram thats trending.
Its no secret among TV executives that the younger people who once stayed up past midnight to watch David Letterman drop objects off a five-story building are not tuning to this generations cadre of late-night hosts in the same way. Changing habits like those described above make decades-old late night shows such as Tonight, Late Show or Late Night less easy to monetize and, if executives arent careful, less alluring to keep putting on the air one evening after another.
In 2018, seven late night programs NBCs Tonight and Late Night, CBS Late Show and Late Late Show, ABCs Jimmy Kimmel Live, Comedy Centrals Daily Show and NBCs Saturday Night Live drew more than $698 million in advertising in 2018, according to Vivvix, a tracker of ad spending. By 2022, that total came to $412.7 million a drop of approximately 41% over five years. Fallon, Kimmel, Colbert and the others have all in recent years had to grapple not only with viewers moving to streaming, but with a coronavirus pandemic that forced their shows to embrace performances without a band and live audiences and absences due to infection.
All of this gives Madison Avenue a good reason to try something else. Late-night shows have made themselves more alluring to advertisers by offering product placements, even segments during which the host offers a shout out to a sponsor. But viewers are seeking out and finding their cut down highlights, or moments, rather than making the live episode appointment viewing, says Dave Sederbaum, executive vice president and head of video investment at Dentsu Media US, a large ad buyer that works for General Motors and Heineken, among others. My job is to balance our investments in full episodic content as well as highlights in short-form video.
And so, everyone seems to have night jitters. Over the course of the past few years, NBC has gotten out of the practice of programming a show for 1:30 a.m. after doing so since 1988, and Comedy Centrals portfolio of wee-hours programming has been cut from three to one and that one, Daily Show, has yet to replace Trevor Noah, who abruptly told a studio audience while taping an episode in September that he planned to leave to escape the late-night grind after seven seasons. After James Corden ends his run on CBS The Late Late Show in the next few days, CBS will cancel the program, even though it has been a fixture on its schedule since Tom Snyder launched it in 1995. In its place, the network is expected to air a revival of the Comedy Central game show @midnight, which will cost significantly less than a bells-and-whistles Corden production that includes signature bits like Carpool Karaoke.
Others have also been wary. When Conan OBrien arrived at TBS in 2010, it was seen as a bid to compete more directly with the cable networks broadcast rivals. But Warner Bros. Discovery, TBS new corporate parent, has made no move to find a replacement since OBrien departed in 2021, and also cancelled a weekly program from Samantha Bee that emulated late-night antics. Efforts by streamers to harness some of the formats power have not been successful. Netflix stopped production on a nightly program led by Chelsea Handler, while Hulu canceled a weekly show from Sarah Silverman. Apple currently runs a program featuring the legendary Jon Stewart, but any buzz around it has been minimal the result, perhaps, of trying to run a series of this sort without the ability to promote it to a big audience turning in regularly to a primetime or daytime schedule. NBCU has tested a show led by Amber Ruffin for Peacock, but is producing fewer episodes as she works on a comedy pilot.
Late-night TV is one of the industrys signature products. Some veterans of the late-night wars arent optimistic the programs can continue in the same fashion. Youre dealing with some heavy legacy costs and infrastructure: staff, studio crew, hosts. In a time of diminishing audiences, its tough to make that math add up, says Jim Bell, a former showrunner at NBCs Tonight and executive producer of Today who is now head of strategy for NewsBreak, a local news and information platform. You can hope that things like social media Instagram, YouTube might be complimentary, but it just now feels like its cannibalizing.
No one is sending Stephen Colbert to the sidelines not tonight, and probably not next year. Fallon, Kimmel and their cohorts continue to lure a decent audience each evening, and their monologues, sketches, pranks and interviews turn up all over the digi-sphere within minutes of being broadcast, sometimes even in advance. Many of the hosts create bespoke content for Twitter and YouTube. Seth Meyers team releases his signature analysis segment, A Closer Look, in the early evening on social media well before his program airs. He also does a weekly Corrections segment for YouTube that tackles viewers complaints and comments no matter how mundane or odd. Its very heavy on inside jokes. Many hosts are creating other content as well, including a pickleball tournament backed by Colbert or NBC shows such as Thats My Jam or Password that are produced by Fallon.
The networks dont want to give up. The hosts play a big role in influencing the national conversation. Johnny Carson essentially tucked the nation into bed when he led Tonight and it was David Letterman who helped America move on from the tragedy of 9/11 with, of all things, a late-night monologue. Its an important part of the dialogue and culture, says Jen Flanz, executive producer of Daily, which observers note is likely reducing expenses by relying on guests to lead the program. Not every country allows TV personalities to poke fun at the government or influentials, she adds. I think its important to appreciate the platform that late-night hosts have.
The jobs still carry appeal. Kal Penn, who recently completed a week-long stint as a Daily Show guest host, would be eager to take the job full time. The first time I remember watching, I was 18 or 19, he says. So this was a real dream come true to host for a week.
And while its true no single host is bringing in the numbers Carson did when he had only an occasional rival to worry about, there is still admiration for what a late-night host does, putting up hundreds of hours of TV every year under great time pressure. These are difficult jobs. It takes a special talent to be funny and topical while tackling tough subjects and writing great jokes about current events on a nightly basis. The hosts need to be the managing editors of their shows and have a distinct point of view. Its rarefied air to find people who are the best of the best at it, says Jim Dixon, the veteran WME agent who represents Colbert, Kimmel and Jon Stewart. I dont think the networks would be in the late-night business if it wasnt profitable.
How profitable remains a key question. As money gets tighter, executives begin to worry about costs. The move from watching TV programs on a specific night and at a specific time to binge-viewing a favorite on a streaming hub at moments of ones own choosing has destabilized the TV economy, and Wall Street has put pressure on media giants to show profits as well as digital growth. Media CEOs now have this intense focus on cost management and cash flow generation. Theres just such an appetite today to look at old standbys, whether its programming or even assessing entire dayparts and saying, Does this meet our needs over the near term?, says John Harrison, who leads the Americas media and entertainment practice at EY. Some of the late-evening and late-night dayparts could get caught up in that.
TV executives are increasingly pushed to consider whether a live band is truly critical to a new shows midnight success, or forced to count how many field pieces, or sketches produced outside the studio, a show can really do. Producers can tell when things are flush and when they are not, says one executive familiar with late-night programs, and when thats the case, writers and hosts understand we should do the ones we love, and not every idea that pops up in a meeting.
When Johnny Carson held sway behind the desk at NBCs Tonight, it was fun to try and pick at the unknown. Carson routinely played a character named Carnac the Magnificent, who would hold an envelope up to his forehead and guess the answer to a question that was tucked inside. If only someone could see into the future now! Its definitely time for some Carnac, says Bell, the former producer.
Carson never had to worry about the problems that plague late night today. And besides, some of the formats current challenges might best be pinned on Letterman.
Its not Lettermans fault viewers are scrambling to stream when they stay up late. Yet when the host came out to the stage of The Late Show at New Yorks Ed Sullivan Theater on an early April day in 2014 and surprised the live audience by announcing his intentions to retire, he set in motion a series of maneuvers that have weakened late night, rather than bolstering it.
Letterman exited the format in 2015, after 6,080 episodes of CBS The Late Show and NBCs Late Night. In doing so, he opened what many rivals perceived as an opportunity. Lettermans retirement as well as an announcement that Jon Stewart would step down from The Daily Show in 2015 after a 16-year tenure spurred others to see if they couldnt get in on the late-night game. The idea, however, wasnt to capture everyone, as had been the goal for decades, but just a sliver of the overall crowd.
National Geographic Channel lined up astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson for a weekly late-night series aimed at viewers with an inner geek. CMT in 2015 hired comedian Josh Wolf to try his hand at a Wednesday-to-Saturday program that would examine country-music notables. MTV tested Middle of the Night Show, a series that forced a celebrity to host a late-night program on the spot from his or her home.
When Carson held sway, late-night rivals were few and far between. Arsenio Hall made a mark in syndication, but Pat Sajak did nothing for CBS. Joan Rivers famously flopped on Fox. After Letterman moved to CBS from NBC, Fox tried again with Chevy Chase. The attempt didnt last long. But with Letterman and Jay Leno splitting the field, ABC broke new ground, first by launching Bill Maher in Politically Incorrect in 1997 (grabbing the show from Comedy Central) and then by placing Jimmy Kimmel after Nightline in 2003. And HBO nibbled on the edges by developing Maher (after an exit from ABC) in Real Time, and, later, by launching John Oliver in a Sunday format, Last Week Tonight that, if the weekday crew offers the comedic version of the nightly news, stands as a sort of laughterinducing 60 Minutes. Suddenly, everyone wanted to make a late-night play. TBS soon launched Full Frontal with Samantha Bee once a week at 10 p.m. in a program that appealed mainly to viewers with liberal political leanings. BET and Vice tried shows led, respectively, by Robin Thede and Desus & Mero. The Vice duo would jump to Showtime.
As the election of President Donald Trump polarized the nation, some of late-nights voices chose to lean into politics. The fragmentation of viewing and the trickier conversational terrain have hurt the programs, says Harrison. There has been so much political news over the last six to eight years, and that has filtered into late night. When that becomes a large part of your program, in this environment, you are by math probably not appealing to half your potential audience, he cautions. Meanwhile, as more viewers bypass linear TV, he says. Its difficult to discover these shows or promote them.
Enter Fox News Channel. In 2021, the Fox Corp.-backed cable outlet added Gutfeld! to its lineup at 11 p.m. The program features commentator Greg Gutfeld and a panel of contributors who talk politics and culture. Fox has positioned the program as a competitor to Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel and The Daily Show. We are not having celebrities to promote some movie, says Tom OConnor, the programs executive producer. We are just having interesting people that we think are funny. In the first quarter of 2023, Gutfeld! captured more viewers on average than either NBCs Tonight or ABCs Jimmy Kimmel.
Little wonder that the TV companies with longstanding ties to late-night have begun to retrench.
People behind the scenes estimate the CBS reboot of @midnight will cost millions of dollars less per year to produce. There may not be as big an investment in a talent like Cordens, these people say. George Cheeks, president and CEO of CBS, wont divulge additional details, but notes, All the broadcast networks in that space have to be really thoughtful about what we spend, how we spend and how we invest. You cant be locked into some of the legacy elements of the format.
There are other ways to keep late-night going, he argues. I do think the late-night daypart is really critical to the broadcast platform. I think you have iconic franchises in The Late Show, Tonight Show, Kimmel. I think there is genuine interest in maintaining that space. That being said, one of the opportunities we see with the 12:30 spot is a chance to widen the aperture when it comes to format, when it comes to talent, making sure we have diversity both behind and in front of the camera.
Comedy Central may still rebuild The Daily Show around a central personality starting in the fall, but the show has been test-driving guest hosts since January. We were incredibly impressed and,frankly, thrilled with the guest hosts, says Chris McCarthy, president and CEO, Showtime/MTV Entertainment Studios & Paramount Media Networks. Each one has brought something unique over many of these weeks. Weve had some weeks with higher viewing than we did at this time last year, so theres always room for growth. McCarthy adds that the guest hosts will continue until around the end of Spring, and then, we will finalize our choice. Even so, use of guest hosts may remain an option. I think there are a lot of people who want the job, says Flanz. I would like to see a lot of people do it before we make any kind of decision.
Yet the days of offering multiple late-night programs may be over at the network at least for now. What we were finding in in linear, you need things that have the help of big marquee IP, something that has big, broad awareness. We tried really hard to launch new companions. We were finding that people came to linear for their habits. In a lot of cases, that is insurmountable, launching a show when you are up against not having a built-in audience, and so, its challenging, says McCarthy. Thats not to say we might not try down the road to drive a Sunday show or a weekend show, but right now we are laser focused on building out the new version of Daily with an iconic new face. Any new program, he adds, would likely be launched under the Daily Show franchise.
The company that runs what is arguably the biggest portfolio of late-night shows in the industry has been working aggressively to monetize them and could make radical shifts soon, depending on circumstances. NBCUniversal expects to evaluate how it should program 10 p.m. after the 2023-2024 season, says Mark Lazarus, chairman of NBCUs TV and streaming operations, and depending on its findings, the way it presents late-night shows could change. If NBC were to stop putting original scripted hours in its weekday 10 p.m. slot, he says, We would obviously think about how that affects late night and maybe run late night a little earlier, if that became the case. We have made no determination. We will evaluate it a year from now. As of right now, we are firmly set with three hours of prime time.
This wouldnt be the first time NBCU has tested such a strategy. In 2009, it ran a talk-and-comedy show led by Jay Leno at 10 p.m. each weekday, until complaints from affiliates that low ratings were hurting late local news forced its cancellation just months later. When Peacock launched in 2020, NBC proposed airing both the Fallon and Meyers programs in early evening well before Tonight and Late Night turn up on local stations. NBC heard from its affiliates on the matter, and ultimately felt it wasnt the right decision, says Lazarus. It wouldnt bring enough to Peacock to justify what it might do the linear broadcast.
NBCU has already made one big night shift. In a different era, says Lazarus, running a show at 1:30 a.m. made sense and got ratings. After airing programs in the hour led by Bob Costas, Greg Kinnear, Cynthia Garrett, Carson Daly, and, most recently, Lilly Singh, we thought in partnership with our affiliates, we could drive more value by doing other things, and having them program that time slot, he says. Theres no magic to it. Its really late at night and theres a lower audience level.
Even the smallest investor in late-night TV could face challenges in years to come. At ABC, Jimmy Kimmel recently signed another three-year deal, but executives at rival media companies wonder whether the host, who is currently the longest-serving on air and will take off the summer as he has for the past two years, might choose to step down. With Kimmel involved in the Oscars and producing other specials, you cant put a price on what Jimmy means to Walt Disney Company as well as late night, says Rob Mills, executive vice president of unscripted and alternative entertainment at Walt Disney Television, who adds: I dont think hes going to stay for another 40 years, but I certainly am praying hes going to stay beyond these three. The show employs both the host and his spouse, Molly McNearney, who is an executive producer, and it has also given Kimmel more presence as he delves more into creating other programs and content under his production venture, Kimmelot.
What would Disney do if Kimmel chose to exit? The host might have some say in who succeeds him, says Mills. A lot of it is just timing. Is there some new, amazing talent? he asks. If not, absolutely, I think we would look at some other types of formats or things we should do. Could Nightline return to the post-late-news slot it held for years before Disney gave that space to Kimmel? Im sure that news would absolutely be in the conversation, says Mills.
TV networks may not want to have these talks. But they already seem like theyre rehearsing for them.
One late-night show is not like the others.
While the networks explore new models and cut costs, NBC re-engineered Saturday Night Live several years ago. In 2017, NBC took the program, which has long aired at 11:30 p.m. on the east coast, then across the rest of the country in delayed fashion, and ran it live all at once. Doing so was the absolute right thing to do, given how technology allows people to consume media, says Lazarus. I dont think we should treat people on the west coast as second class citizens. As part of the process, NBC cut back the number of commercials in the ad breaks that accompanied SNL, leaving viewers with less time to search other channels or run out for a snack, and prodding Madison Avenue to pay higher prices to appear in the show.
The maneuver has helped stoke continuing interest in the program, which executive producer Lorne Michaels has pushed to morph with the times. SNL is a cultural behemoth. Even Axios, the newsletter publisher focused on politics and technology, has on occasion posted a re-cap of the program, joining dozens of other media outlets who summarize SNL highlights each week.
SNL could face a challenge of a different sort, however. Michaels, who founded the show and guided it through nearly all its tenure on air, is nearing 80. That, combined with some of his own recent remarks, have fueled speculation that the show could, at some not-too-distant point, have other people guiding it from behind the scenes.
I think Im committed to doing this show until its 50th anniversary, which is in three years, Michaels told CBS News in 2021. Id like to see that through, and I have a feeling thatd be a really good time to leave. But heres the point: I wont want the show ever to be bad. I care too deeply about it. Its been my lifes work. So, Im gonna do everything I can to see it carry on and carry on well. Months later, the producer appeared to change his plans. I have no plans to retire, he told The New York Times in 2022.
One theory has it that Michaels could hand the reins to someone like Seth Meyers, Colin Jost or Tina Fey. All three have served as head writers of SNL. Jost is still with the show, while Fey and Meyers have gone one to their own successes in front of and behind the camera. Would Michaels consider stepping back by a few degrees, maintaining oversight of the program while letting someone else take on more routine management tasks? Michaels does, after all, also have oversight of Tonight and Late Night through his Broadway Video production company, and he is also involved with projects tied to Pete Davidson, Maria Taylor and Rachel Maddow, among others. Or will he just keep on keeping on?
NBC declined to make the producer available for comment.
A Michaels departure could create a major change in the way SNL is run. The instructive thing about Lornes stewardship of SNL is he is in charge of the whole thing the business side and the creative side. He is truly the executive producer of the show. He has great lieutenants, but if youre going to bring in a creative person like Colin, Tina, Seth or whoever, you would probably want to place them in charge of the creative elements, and find others who would handle the business side, says James Andrew Miller, co-author of the 2002 SNL oral history, Live From New York. I dont think any one person can do all of the things that Lorne does.
NBC expects to continue working with him. This is not a man who is slowing down at any great rate, says Lazarus. If there is a succession decision to be made, says Lazarus, Lorne is going to have major input on all of that. Its Lornes show. Its Lornes legacy. Let me put it this way: Everybody who has sat in my chair, he has been here to say hello and goodbye to. Hes still here. Hes calling the shots.
Michaels departure would be a once-in-a-lifetime TV event, except for one thing: It has happened before.
The producer left Saturday Night Live after its fifth season, hoping to try his hand at other projects and to get away from the whirl of getting such an unusual program on the air each week. One of the potential successors considered at the time was Al Franken, a writer and occasional on-screen contributor who would go on to become a U.S. Senator from Minnesota. The idea was scrapped by then-NBC chief Fred Silverman, who didnt like the fact that Franken made fun of him and NBCs ratings in a Weekend Update sketch.
Only one thing about Michaels tenure at SNL is certain, says Franken: Its up to Lorne.
As Colbert, Kimmel, Fallon, Meyers and others continue their late-night antics, TV executives acknowledge the terrain once trod by Carson, Letterman and Jay Leno has become more difficult to navigate. Five years from now, it will probably be the same, NBCUs Lazarus says of current late-night formats. Ten years from now, all bets are off. There are a lot of pieces to that what are our relationships with distributors? Is something the norm as opposed to the new entry? What is the relationship between broadcast and affiliate partners?
Even so, some are trying to figure out what viewers will watch late in the evening. I think it can be a moment of opportunity for outlets with open real estate or who havent been in the space in some time or at all, says Allan Hadelman, who heads the New York office of talent agency UTA. Im curious as to whether there is some type of programming that exists in this format that is compatible with new audiences and distribution, for people who may no longer turn on a tv and flip through the channels but still may be interested in something consistent, reliable, and entertaining at the end of the day.
Netflix recently did a live broadcast of a Chris Rock stand-up concert, complete with a pre-show and post-show. And Sony Pictures Television hopes to launch a new half-hour syndicated late-night talk show in the fall led by Craig Ferguson. The program aims to focus on surprising and hilarious TV moments and would launch, presumably, as CBS and Comedy Central are trying to get viewers excited about the new post-Corden game show and a new Daily Show set-up. There may also be new opportunities for the regulars, says one person familiar with some of the late-night programs Fallon, for instance, would likely greet a bigger crowd at 10 p.m. than he does at 11:30 after the local news.
The question, of course, is whether the entries of the future will get people lining up around New York as the current crowd does. For now, late-night hosts are holding sway. The job is unique, influential and lucrative, and these masters of midnight can still laugh all the way to the bank. Unfortunately, the networks that broadcast them cannot.
More:
Night Jitters: TVs Late Crowd Grapples With Weakness in the Wee Hours - Variety
Posted in Politically Incorrect
Comments Off on Night Jitters: TVs Late Crowd Grapples With Weakness in the Wee Hours – Variety
18 Human Genetic Engineering – Clemson University
Posted: April 19, 2023 at 9:36 pm
Melissa Nolan
By the end of this chapter, students should be able to:
Those beautiful blue eyes you inherited from your mother are actually a result of a complex science known as Genetics. The scientific field of genetics studies genes in our DNA. Genes are units of heredity transferred from a parent to offspring and determine some characteristic of offspring. Your genes are responsible for coding all of your traits- including hair color, eye color, and so on. In recent years, scientists began exploring the concept of gene editing, which is the deliberate manipulation of genetic material to achieve desired results. Gene editing can potentially alter any given trait in an organism- from height to hair texture to susceptibility for certain diseases.
Gene editing applied to humans is referred to as Human Genetic Engineering, or HGE. There is extensive debate in and out of the scientific community regarding the ethics of HGE. Much of this debate stems from how this technology will affect society, and vice versa. Individuals may harbor concerns about the rise of designer babies or scientists playing God by determining the traits of an individual. On the contrary, HGE presents potential cures to diseases caused by genetic mutations. Human Genetic Engineering (HGE) is a novel technology which presents various ethical concerns and potential consequences. HGE should be approached cautiously and with extensive governmental regulation given its history, its current state, and the potential it has to change the world in the future.
Genetic Encoding of Proteins by MIT OpenCourseWare is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
HGE utilizes CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tools to cut out specific genes and replace them with a newly designed gene.
HGE encompasses a variety of methods which all work to produce a deliberate change in the human genome. The most common and prevalent way to edit the human genome is via CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, and Cas9 is a protein that functions as scissors to cut DNA/genes. The CRISPR/Cas9 system originally developed as a part of a bacterias immune system, which can recognize repeats in DNA of invading viruses, then cut them out. Since then, scientists have harnessed the CRISPR/Cas9 system to cut DNA sequences of their choice and then insert new DNA sequences in their place.
The CRISPR/Cas9 system allows for designer genomes, and rapid engineering of any cells programming. With the use of CRISPR/Cas9, scientists can cut out certain traits from an individuals cells and insert new traits into those same cells.
CRISPR Cas9 System by Marius Walter is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0
Gene therapy is a recently-developed technology which can be applied to both somatic and germline genome editing.
Gene therapy concepts were initially introduced in the 1960s, utilizing outdated methods, such as recombinant DNA technology and viral vectors, to edit microorganisms genomes. Recombinant DNA consists of genetic material from multiple sources. The first experiments involved transferring a genome from one bacteria to another via a viral vector. Soon after was the first successful transformation of human cells with foreign DNA. The success of the experiment prompted public concern over the ethics of gene therapy, and led to political regulation. In the gene therapy report of the Presidents Commission in the United States, germline genome editing was deemed problematic over somatic genome editing. Also, non-medical genome editing was deemed problematic over medical genome editing. Germline genome editing occurs when scientists alter the genome of an embryo, so that the entire organism has altered genes and the traits can be passed to offspring. Somatic genome editing involves editing only a few cells in the entire organism so that traits can not be passed down to offspring. In response to the report, the rDNA Advisory Committee of the National Institutes of Health was formed and proposed the first guidelines for the gene therapy clinical trials. This is an example of technological determinism, in which technology determines the development of its social structure and cultural values or regulations.
In the past few decades, gene editing has advanced exponentially, introducing state-of-the-art technologies such as the CRISPR/Cas9 system, which was developed to induce gene modifications at very specific target sites. Thus, gene editing became a major focus for medical research (Tamura, 2020). Gene editing has led to the potential for development of treatment strategies for a variety of diseases and cancers. So far, somatic genome editing has shown promise in treating leukemia, melanoma, and a variety of other diseases. In this way, HGE may be demonstrative of cultural determinism, in which the culture we are raised presents certain issues which necessitate the development of a specific technology.
DNA CRISPR Scissors by Max Pixel is licensed under CC0 1.0
CRISPR/Cas9 is the primary technology proposed for use in HGE. HGE presents a variety of pros and cons to society.
Somatic genome editing in HGE via the CRISPR/Cas9 system has proven to be effective at editing specific genome sites. Since 2015, genome editing technologies have been used in over 30 human clinical trials and have shown positive patient outcomes. The treatment of disease may be a positive benefit of HGE, but there are also various potential risks. Various forms of deliberative democracies formed in recent years to address scientific and ethical concerns in HGE. Deliberative democracies afrm the need to justify technological decisions made by citizens and their representatives with experts in the field via deliberation. Overall, the consensus remains that the pros and cons of HGE are not equivalent enough to justify widespread use of the technology.
Current human clinical trials show successful transformation of human immune cells to HIV-resistant cells. This implies that HGE may be the cure for HIV(Hu, 2019). Other successful somatic genome editing trials treated myeloma, leukemia, sickle cell disease, various forms of epithelial cancers, and hemophilia. Thus, gene editing has provided novel treatment options for congenital diseases and cancers (Tamaura, 2020). Congenital diseases are those present from birth, and typically have a genetic cause. For these reasons, scientific summits concluded HGE is ethical for research regarding somatic genome editing in congenital diseases and cancers.
There are many safety concerns regarding CRISPR applications, mainly in germline genome editing. As a result of technological determinism, a leading group of CRISPR/Cas9 scientists and ethicists met for the international Summit on Human Gene Editing. The summit determined that heritable genome research trials may be permitted only following extensive research on risks and benefits of HGE. However, the summit concluded that federal funding cannot be used to support research involving human embryos with germline editing techniques. These decisions were made to avoid potential risks such as the following.
The major concerns regarding germline genome editing in HGE include: serious injury or disability, a blurry line between therapeutic applications of HGE and medical applications, misapplications, potential for eugenics ( the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable), and inequitable access to the technology.
HGE is a complex technology which presents a variety of risk factors for the coming decades. Deliberative democracy is necessary to keep this technology in check, ethically.
The future of HGE is uncertain and requires immense forethought. The American Society of Human Genetics workgroup developed a position statement on human germline engineering. The statement argues that it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy; and that in vitro(outside of an organism) germline editing should be permitted with appropriate oversight. It also states future clinical human germline editing requires ethical justification, compelling medical rationale, and evidence that supports its clinical usage. Many of these decisions were made based on the potential concerts over the future possibilities of the technology.
At the societal level, there may be concerns related to eugenics, social justice, and accessibility to technology. Eugenics could potentially reinforce prejudice and enforce exclusivity in certain physical traits. Traits can be preselected for, thus labeling some as good and others as unfavorable. This may perpetuate existing racist ideals, for example.
Moreover, germline genome editing may also increase the amount of inequality in a society. Human germline editing is likely to be very expensive and access may be limited to certain geographic regions, health systems, or socioeconomic statuses. Even if human genetic engineering is only used for medical purposes, genetic disease could become an artifact of class, location, or ethnic group. Therefore, preclinical trials are necessary to establish validity, safety, and efficacy before any wide scale studies are initiated.
Others argue that HGE may lessen genetic diversity in a human population, creating a biological monoculture that could lead to disease susceptibility and eventual extinction. Analyses have predicted that there will be negligible effect on diversity and will more likely ensure the health and longevity of humans (Russel, 2010). Legacy thinking may be responsible for the hesitations towards continuing forward with HGE, as there are also many potential pros for genetic engineering. Legacy thinking is using outdated thinking strategies and actions which may not be useful anymore.
In an alternative modernity, we can imagine HGE as an end-all for most congenital diseases and cancers. Moreover, it may be used in germline gene editing to prevent certain birth defects or heritable diseases. So, although HGE has a variety of potential risk factors, there is also great promise for novel medical therapies in the coming decades. The continued use of this technology should be approached cautiously and with extensive governmental regulation, allowing for research regarding its medical applications only.
In 2016, germline gene editing was proven feasible and effective in chickens by leading researchers in genetic engineering, Dimitrov and colleagues. In this study, scientists used CRISPR/Cas9 to target the gene for an antibody/ immunoglobulin commonly produced in chickens. Antibodies are proteins produced in immune response. In the resulting population, the chickens grew normally and healthily with modified antibodies which conferred drug resistance. This study was the first to prove that germline editing is both feasible and effective.
HGE is a rapidly expanding field of research which presents novel possibilities for the coming decades. HGE utilizes CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tools to cut out specific genes and replace them with a newly designed gene. As important as this technology is, it is also important to recognize how new it is. Gene therapy research began in the 1960s, with somatic cell editing only commencing in the past two decades. This has presented many advantages for the potential treatment of congenital diseases, but also presents various risks. Those risks stem from germline gene editing and include eugenics and inequitable access to the technology creating large socio economic divides. In the future, more regulation should be placed on the advancement of HGE research before larger-scale studies take place.
1. What is the primary technology proposed for use in HGE?
A. Recombinant DNA technology
B. CRISPR/Cas9
C. Bacterial Transformation
D. Immunoglobulin
2. When was gene therapy concepts first introduced?
A. 1920s
B. 1940s
C. 1960s
D. 1980s
3. What is a major ethical concern regarding HGE addressed in this chapter?
A. Potential for ageism
B. Gene editing is only 50% effective
C. HGE can only be used in Caucasians
D. Potential for eugenics
Answers:
Baltimore, D. et. al.(2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1028
Brokowski, C., & Adli, M. (2019). CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool. Journal of Molecular Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044
Cong, L., Ran, F., & Zhang, F. (2013). Multiplex Genome Engineering Using CRISPR/Cas9 Systems. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231143
Dimitrov, L., et. al. (2016). Germline Gene Editing in Chickens by Efficient CRISPR-Mediated Homologous Recombination in Primordial Germ Cells. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154303
Hu, C. (2019). Safety of Transplantation of CRISPR CCR5 Modified CD34+ Cells in HIV-Infected Subjects with Hematological Malignancies. U.S National Library of Medicine. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03164135
Ormond, K., et. al.(2017). Human Germline Genome Editing. AJHG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012
Russell P.(2010) The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhq004
Tamura, R., & Toda, M. (2020). Historic Overview of Genetic Engineering Technologies for Human Gene Therapy. Neurologia medico-chirurgica. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.ra.2020-0049
Thomas, C. (2020). CRISPR-Edited Allogeneic Anti-CD19 CAR-T Cell Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory B Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. ClinicalTrials. https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04637763
Read the original:
18 Human Genetic Engineering - Clemson University
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on 18 Human Genetic Engineering – Clemson University
Donald Trump called Chinese leader Xi Jinping a ‘brilliant man’ and said there is no one in Hollywood with the – Business Insider India
Posted: April 17, 2023 at 9:44 am
Donald Trump called Chinese leader Xi Jinping a 'brilliant man' and said there is no one in Hollywood with the  Business Insider India
Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump called Chinese leader Xi Jinping a 'brilliant man' and said there is no one in Hollywood with the - Business Insider India
Posted in Politically Incorrect
Comments Off on Donald Trump called Chinese leader Xi Jinping a ‘brilliant man’ and said there is no one in Hollywood with the – Business Insider India
Hair Wigs and Extension Market Size to Grow by USD 5.26 billion from 2021 to 2026, Growth Driven by Technologi – Black Enterprise
Posted: April 10, 2023 at 9:59 am
Hair Wigs and Extension Market Size to Grow by USD 5.26 billion from 2021 to 2026, Growth Driven by Technologi  Black Enterprise
Posted in Human Longevity
Comments Off on Hair Wigs and Extension Market Size to Grow by USD 5.26 billion from 2021 to 2026, Growth Driven by Technologi – Black Enterprise
Ex-Google engineer says humans will achieve immortality in 7 years; here’s how netizens reacted – Business Today
Posted: April 6, 2023 at 2:11 pm
Ex-Google engineer says humans will achieve immortality in 7 years; here's how netizens reacted  Business Today
View original post here:
Ex-Google engineer says humans will achieve immortality in 7 years; here's how netizens reacted - Business Today
Posted in Transhumanist
Comments Off on Ex-Google engineer says humans will achieve immortality in 7 years; here’s how netizens reacted – Business Today
Florida man allegedly killed stepdaughters ex in front of victims 4-year-old just hours after he was awarded split custody: Police – Law & Crime
Posted: March 31, 2023 at 2:13 am
Florida man allegedly killed stepdaughters ex in front of victims 4-year-old just hours after he was awarded split custody: Police  Law & Crime
Posted in Post Human
Comments Off on Florida man allegedly killed stepdaughters ex in front of victims 4-year-old just hours after he was awarded split custody: Police – Law & Crime
TOM UTLEY: Mrs U and I are better prepared for the end. But scientists say we might live to 122! – Daily Mail
Posted: at 2:01 am
TOM UTLEY: Mrs U and I are better prepared for the end. But scientists say we might live to 122!  Daily Mail
Read the rest here:
TOM UTLEY: Mrs U and I are better prepared for the end. But scientists say we might live to 122! - Daily Mail
Posted in Immortality Medicine
Comments Off on TOM UTLEY: Mrs U and I are better prepared for the end. But scientists say we might live to 122! – Daily Mail
Astronaut Peggy Whitson is set to extend her record-breaking space streak – Houston Public Media
Posted: at 1:52 am
Astronaut Peggy Whitson is set to extend her record-breaking space streak  Houston Public Media
See original here:
Astronaut Peggy Whitson is set to extend her record-breaking space streak - Houston Public Media
Posted in Space Station
Comments Off on Astronaut Peggy Whitson is set to extend her record-breaking space streak – Houston Public Media
Super-intelligence and eternal life: transhumanism’s faithful follow it …
Posted: at 1:47 am
The rapid development of so-called NBIC technologies nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science are giving rise to possibilities that have long been the domain of science fiction. Disease, ageing and even death are all human realities that these technologies seek to end.
They may enable us to enjoy greater morphological freedom we could take on new forms through prosthetics or genetic engineering. Or advance our cognitive capacities. We could use brain-computer interfaces to link us to advanced artificial intelligence (AI).
Nanobots could roam our bloodstream to monitor our health and enhance our emotional propensities for joy, love or other emotions. Advances in one area often raise new possibilities in others, and this convergence may bring about radical changes to our world in the near-future.
Transhumanism is the idea that humans should transcend their current natural state and limitations through the use of technology that we should embrace self-directed human evolution. If the history of technological progress can be seen as humankinds attempt to tame nature to better serve its needs, transhumanism is the logical continuation: the revision of humankinds nature to better serve its fantasies.
As David Pearce, a leading proponent of transhumanism and co-founder of Humanity+, says:
If we want to live in paradise, we will have to engineer it ourselves. If we want eternal life, then well need to rewrite our bug-ridden genetic code and become god-like only hi-tech solutions can ever eradicate suffering from the world. Compassion alone is not enough.
But there is a darker side to the naive faith that Pearce and other proponents have in transhumanism one that is decidedly dystopian.
There is unlikely to be a clear moment when we emerge as transhuman. Rather technologies will become more intrusive and integrate seamlessly with the human body. Technology has long been thought of as an extension of the self. Many aspects of our social world, not least our financial systems, are already largely machine-based. There is much to learn from these evolving human/machine hybrid systems.
Yet the often Utopian language and expectations that surround and shape our understanding of these developments have been under-interrogated. The profound changes that lie ahead are often talked about in abstract ways, because evolutionary advancements are deemed so radical that they ignore the reality of current social conditions.
Listen to the audio version of this article in The Conversations In Depth Out Loud podcast:
In this way, transhumanism becomes a kind of techno-anthropocentrism, in which transhumanists often underestimate the complexity of our relationship with technology. They see it as a controllable, malleable tool that, with the correct logic and scientific rigour, can be turned to any end. In fact, just as technological developments are dependent on and reflective of the environment in which they arise, they in turn feed back into the culture and create new dynamics often imperceptibly.
Situating transhumanism, then, within the broader social, cultural, political, and economic contexts within which it emerges is vital to understanding how ethical it is.
Max More and Natasha Vita-More, in their edited volume The Transhumanist Reader, claim the need in transhumanism for inclusivity, plurality and continuous questioning of our knowledge.
Yet these three principles are incompatible with developing transformative technologies within the prevailing system from which they are currently emerging: advanced capitalism.
One problem is that a highly competitive social environment doesnt lend itself to diverse ways of being. Instead it demands increasingly efficient behaviour. Take students, for example. If some have access to pills that allow them to achieve better results, can other students afford not to follow? This is already a quandary. Increasing numbers of students reportedly pop performance-enhancing pills. And if pills become more powerful, or if the enhancements involve genetic engineering or intrusive nanotechnology that offer even stronger competitive advantages, what then? Rejecting an advanced technological orthodoxy could potentially render someone socially and economically moribund (perhaps evolutionarily so), while everyone with access is effectively forced to participate to keep up.
Going beyond everyday limits is suggestive of some kind of liberation. However, here it is an imprisoning compulsion to act a certain way. We literally have to transcend in order to conform (and survive). The more extreme the transcendence, the more profound the decision to conform and the imperative to do so.
The systemic forces cajoling the individual into being upgraded to remain competitive also play out on a geo-political level. One area where technology R&D has the greatest transhumanist potential is defence. DARPA (the US defence department responsible for developing military technologies), which is attempting to create metabolically dominant soldiers, is a clear example of how vested interests of a particular social system could determine the development of radically powerful transformative technologies that have destructive rather than Utopian applications.
The rush to develop super-intelligent AI by globally competitive and mutually distrustful nation states could also become an arms race. In Radical Evolution, novelist Verner Vinge describes a scenario in which superhuman intelligence is the ultimate weapon. Ideally, mankind would proceed with the utmost care in developing such a powerful and transformative innovation.
There is quite rightly a huge amount of trepidation around the creation of super-intelligence and the emergence of the singularity the idea that once AI reaches a certain level it will rapidly redesign itself, leading to an explosion of intelligence that will quickly surpass that of humans (something that will happen by 2029 according to futurist Ray Kurzweil). If the world takes the shape of whatever the most powerful AI is programmed (or reprograms itself) to desire, it even opens the possibility of evolution taking a turn for the entirely banal could an AI destroy humankind from a desire to produce the most paperclips for example?
Its also difficult to conceive of any aspect of humanity that could not be improved by being made more efficient at satisfying the demands of a competitive system. It is the system, then, that determines humanitys evolution without taking any view on what humans are or what they should be. One of the ways in which advanced capitalism proves extremely dynamic is in its ideology of moral and metaphysical neutrality. As philosopher Michael Sandel says: markets dont wag fingers. In advanced capitalism, maximising ones spending power maximises ones ability to flourish hence shopping could be said to be a primary moral imperative of the individual.
Philosopher Bob Doede rightly suggests it is this banal logic of the market that will dominate:
If biotech has rendered human nature entirely revisable, then it has no grain to direct or constrain our designs on it. And so whose designs will our successor post-human artefacts likely bear? I have little doubt that in our vastly consumerist, media-saturated capitalist economy, market forces will have their way. So the commercial imperative would be the true architect of the future human.
Whether the evolutionary process is determined by a super-intelligent AI or advanced capitalism, we may be compelled to conform to a perpetual transcendence that only makes us more efficient at activities demanded by the most powerful system. The end point is predictably an entirely nonhuman though very efficient technological entity derived from humanity that doesnt necessarily serve a purpose that a modern-day human would value in any way. The ability to serve the system effectively will be the driving force. This is also true of natural evolution technology is not a simple tool that allows us to engineer ourselves out of this conundrum. But transhumanism could amplify the speed and least desirable aspects of the process.
For bioethicist Julian Savulescu, the main reason humans must be enhanced is for our species to survive. He says we face a Bermuda Triangle of extinction: radical technological power, liberal democracy and our moral nature. As a transhumanist, Savulescu extols technological progress, also deeming it inevitable and unstoppable. It is liberal democracy and particularly our moral nature that should alter.
The failings of humankind to deal with global problems are increasingly obvious. But Savulescu neglects to situate our moral failings within their wider cultural, political and economic context, instead believing that solutions lie within our biological make up.
Yet how would Savulescus morality-enhancing technologies be disseminated, prescribed and potentially enforced to address the moral failings they seek to cure? This would likely reside in the power structures that may well bear much of the responsibility for these failings in the first place. Hes also quickly drawn into revealing how relative and contestable the concept of morality is:
We will need to relax our commitment to maximum protection of privacy. Were seeing an increase in the surveillance of individuals and that will be necessary if we are to avert the threats that those with antisocial personality disorder, fanaticism, represent through their access to radically enhanced technology.
Such surveillance allows corporations and governments to access and make use of extremely valuable information. In Who Owns the Future, internet pioneer Jaron Lanier explains:
Troves of dossiers on the private lives and inner beings of ordinary people, collected over digital networks, are packaged into a new private form of elite money It is a new kind of security the rich trade in, and the value is naturally driven up. It becomes a giant-scale levee inaccessible to ordinary people.
Crucially, this levee is also invisible to most people. Its impacts extend beyond skewing the economic system towards elites to significantly altering the very conception of liberty, because the authority of power is both radically more effective and dispersed.
Foucaults notion that we live in a panoptic society one in which the sense of being perpetually watched instils discipline is now stretched to the point where todays incessant machinery has been called a superpanopticon. The knowledge and information that transhumanist technologies will tend to create could strengthen existing power structures that cement the inherent logic of the system in which the knowledge arises.
This is in part evident in the tendency of algorithms toward race and gender bias, which reflects our already existing social failings. Information technology tends to interpret the world in defined ways: it privileges information that is easily measurable, such as GDP, at the expense of unquantifiable information such as human happiness or well-being. As invasive technologies provide ever more granular data about us, this data may in a very real sense come to define the world and intangible information may not maintain its rightful place in human affairs.
Existing inequities will surely be magnified with the introduction of highly effective psycho-pharmaceuticals, genetic modification, super intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, nanotechnology, robotic prosthetics, and the possible development of life expansion. They are all fundamentally inegalitarian, based on a notion of limitlessness rather than a standard level of physical and mental well-being weve come to assume in healthcare. Its not easy to conceive of a way in which these potentialities can be enjoyed by all.
Sociologist Saskia Sassen talks of the new logics of expulsion, that capture the pathologies of todays global capitalism. The expelled include the more than 60,000 migrants who have lost their lives on fatal journeys in the past 20 years, and the victims of the racially skewed profile of the increasing prison population.
In Britain, they include the 30,000 people whose deaths in 2015 were linked to health and social care cuts and the many who perished in the Grenfell Tower fire. Their deaths can be said to have resulted from systematic marginalisation.
Unprecedented acute concentration of wealth happens alongside these expulsions. Advanced economic and technical achievements enable this wealth and the expulsion of surplus groups. At the same time, Sassen writes, they create a kind of nebulous centrelessness as the locus of power:
The oppressed have often risen against their masters. But today the oppressed have mostly been expelled and survive a great distance from their oppressors The oppressor is increasingly a complex system that combines persons, networks, and machines with no obvious centre.
Surplus populations removed from the productive aspects of the social world may rapidly increase in the near future as improvements in AI and robotics potentially result in significant automation unemployment. Large swaths of society may become productively and economically redundant. For historian Yuval Noah Harari the most important question in 21st-century economics may well be: what should we do with all the superfluous people?
We would be left with the scenario of a small elite that has an almost total concentration of wealth with access to the most powerfully transformative technologies in world history and a redundant mass of people, no longer suited to the evolutionary environment in which they find themselves and entirely dependent on the benevolence of that elite. The dehumanising treatment of todays expelled groups shows that prevailing liberal values in developed countries dont always extend to those who dont share the same privilege, race, culture or religion.
In an era of radical technological power, the masses may even represent a significant security threat to the elite, which could be used to justify aggressive and authoritarian actions (perhaps enabled further by a culture of surveillance).
In their transhumanist tract, The Proactionary Imperative, Steve Fuller and Veronika Lipinska argue that we are obliged to pursue techno-scientific progress relentlessly, until we achieve our god-like destiny or infinite power effectively to serve God by becoming God. They unabashedly reveal the incipient violence and destruction such Promethean aims would require: replacing the natural with the artificial is so key to proactionary strategy at least as a serious possibility if not a likelihood [it will lead to] the long-term environmental degradation of the Earth.
The extent of suffering they would be willing to gamble in their cosmic casino is only fully evident when analysing what their project would mean for individual human beings:
A proactionary world would not merely tolerate risk-taking but outright encourage it, as people are provided with legal incentives to speculate with their bio-economic assets. Living riskily would amount to an entrepreneurship of the self [proactionaries] seek large long-term benefits for survivors of a revolutionary regime that would permit many harms along the way.
Progress on overdrive will require sacrifices.
The economic fragility that humans may soon be faced with as a result of automation unemployment would likely prove extremely useful to proactionary goals. In a society where vast swaths of people are reliant on handouts for survival, market forces would determine that less social security means people will risk more for a lower reward, so proactionaries would reinvent the welfare state as a vehicle for fostering securitised risk taking while the proactionary state would operate like a venture capitalist writ large.
At the heart of this is the removal of basic rights for Humanity 1.0, Fullers term for modern, non-augmented human beings, replaced with duties towards the future augmented Humanity 2.0. Hence the very code of our being can and perhaps must be monetised: personal autonomy should be seen as a politically licensed franchise whereby individuals understand their bodies as akin to plots of land in what might be called the genetic commons.
The neoliberal preoccupation with privatisation would so extend to human beings. Indeed, the lifetime of debt that is the reality for most citizens in developed advanced capitalist nations, takes a further step when you are born into debt simply by being alive you are invested with capital on which a return is expected.
Socially moribund masses may thus be forced to serve the technoscientific super-project of Humanity 2.0, which uses the ideology of market fundamentalism in its quest for perpetual progress and maximum productivity. The only significant difference is that the stated aim of godlike capabilities in Humanity 2.0 is overt, as opposed to the undefined end determined by the infinite progress of an ever more efficient market logic that we have now.
Some transhumanists are beginning to understand that the most serious limitations to what humans can achieve are social and cultural not technical. However, all too often their reframing of politics falls into the same trap as their techno-centric worldview. They commonly argue the new political poles are not left-right but techno-conservative or techno-progressive (and even techno-libertarian and techno-sceptic). Meanwhile Fuller and Lipinska argue that the new political poles will be up and down instead of left and right: those who want to dominate the skies and became all powerful, and those who want to preserve the Earth and its species-rich diversity. It is a false dichotomy. Preservation of the latter is likely to be necessary for any hope of achieving the former.
Transhumanism and advanced capitalism are two processes which value progress and efficiency above everything else. The former as a means to power and the latter as a means to profit. Humans become vessels to serve these values. Transhuman possibilities urgently call for a politics with more clearly delineated and explicit humane values to provide a safer environment in which to foster these profound changes. Where we stand on questions of social justice and environmental sustainability has never been more important. Technology doesnt allow us to escape these questions it doesnt permit political neutrality. The contrary is true. It determines that our politics have never been more important. Savulescu is right when he says radical technologies are coming. He is wrong in thinking they will fix our morality. They will reflect it.
See original here:
Super-intelligence and eternal life: transhumanism's faithful follow it ...
Posted in Transhumanist
Comments Off on Super-intelligence and eternal life: transhumanism’s faithful follow it …