dw2

14 May 2018

The key questions about UBIA

The first few times I heard about the notion of Universal Basic Income (UBI), I said to myself, that’s a pretty dumb idea.

Paying people without them doing any work is going to cause big problems for society, I thought. It’s going to encourage laziness, and discourage enterprise. Why should people work hard, if the fruits of their endeavour are taken away from them to be redistributed to people who can’t be bothered to work? It’s not fair. And it’s a recipe for social decay.

But since my first encounters with the idea of UBI, my understanding has evolved a long way. I have come to see the idea, not as dumb, but as highly important. Anyone seriously interested in the future of human society ought to keep abreast of the discussion about UBI:

  • What are the strengths and (yes) the weaknesses of UBI?
  • What alternatives could be considered, that have the strengths of UBI but avoid its weaknesses?
  • And, bearing in mind that the most valuable futurist scenarios typically involve the convergence (or clash) of several different trend analyses, what related ideas might transform our understanding of UBI?

For these reasons, I am hosting a day-long London Futurists event at Birkbeck College, Central London, on Saturday 2nd June, with the title “Universal Basic Income and/or Alternatives: 2018 update”.

The event is defined by the question,

What do we know, in June 2018, about Universal Basic Income and its alternatives (UBIA), that wasn’t known, or was less clear, just a few years ago?

The event website highlights various components of that question, which different speakers on the day will address:

  • What are the main risks and issues with the concept of UBIA?
  • How might the ideas of UBIA evolve in the years ahead?
  • If not a UBI, what alternatives might be considered, to meet the underlying requirements which have led many people to propose a UBI?
  • What can we learn from the previous and ongoing experiments in Basic Income?
  • What are the feasible systems (new or increased taxes, or other means) to pay for a UBIA?
  • What steps can be taken to make UBIA politically feasible?
  • What is a credible roadmap for going beyond a “basic” income towards enabling attainment of a “universal prosperity” by everyone?

As you can see from the event website, an impressive list of speakers have kindly agreed to take part. Here’s the schedule for the day:

09:30: Doors open
10:00: Chair’s welcome: The questions that deserve the most attention: David Wood
10:15: Opening keynote: Basic Income – Making it happenProf Guy Standing
11:00: Implications of Information TechnologyProf Joanna Bryson
11:30: Alternatives to UBI – Exploring the PossibilitiesRohit TalwarHelena Calle and Steve Wells
12:15: Q&A involving all morning speakers
12:30: Break for lunch (lunch not provided)

14:00: Basic Income as a policy and a perspective: Barb Jacobson
14:30: Implications of Artificial Intelligence on UBIATony Czarnecki
15:00: Approaching the Economic SingularityCalum Chace
15:30: What have we learned? And what should we do next? David Wood
16:00-16:30: Closing panel involving all speakers
16:30: Event closes. Optional continuation of discussion in nearby pub

A dumb idea?

In the run-up to the UBIA 2018 event, I’ll make a number of blogposts anticipating some of the potential discussion on the day.

First, let me return to the question of whether UBI is a dumb idea. Viewing the topic from the angle of laziness vs. enterprise is only one possible perspective. As is often the case, changing your perspective often provides much needed insight.

Instead, let’s consider the perspective of “social contract”. Reflect on the fact that society already provides money to people who aren’t doing any paid work. There are basic pension payments for everyone (so long as they are old enough), basic educational funding for everyone (so long as they are young enough), and basic healthcare provisions for people when they are ill (in most countries of the world).

These payments are part of what is called a “social contract”. There are two kinds of argument for having a social contract:

  1. Self-interested arguments: as individuals, we might need to take personal benefit of a social contract at some stage in the future, if we unexpectedly fall on hard times. What’s more, if we fail to look after the rest of society, the rest of society might feel aggrieved, and rise up against us, pitchforks (or worse) in hand.
  2. Human appreciation arguments: all people deserve basic stability in their life, and a social contract can play a significant part in providing such stability.

What’s harder, of course, is to agree which kind of social contract should be in place. Whole libraries of books have been written on that question.

UBI can be seen as fitting inside a modification of our social contract. It would be part of what supporters say would be an improved social contract.

Note: although UBI is occasionally suggested as a replacement for the entirety of the current welfare system, it is more commonly (and, in my view, more sensibly) proposed as a replacement for only some of the current programmes.

Proponents of UBI point to two types of reason for including UBI as part of a new social contract:

  1. Timeless arguments – arguments that have been advanced in various ways by people throughout history, such as Thomas More (1516), Montesquieu (1748), Thomas Paine (1795), William Morris (1890), Bertrand Russell (1920), Erich Fromm (1955), Martin Luther King (1967), and Milton Friedman (1969)
  2. Time-linked arguments – arguments that foresee drastically changed circumstances in the relatively near future, which increase the importance of adopting a UBI.

Chief among the time-linked arguments are that the direct and indirect effects of profound technological change is likely to transform the work environment in unprecedented ways. Automation, powered by AI that is increasingly capable, may eat into more and more of the skills that we humans used to think are “uniquely human”. People who expected to earn money by doing various tasks may find themselves unemployable – robots will do these tasks more reliably, more cheaply, and with greater precision. People who spend some time retraining themselves in anticipation of a new occupation may find that, over the same time period, robots have gained the same skills faster than humans.

That’s the argument for growing technological unemployment. It’s trendy to criticise this argument nowadays, but I find the criticisms to be weak. I won’t repeat all the ins and outs of that discussion now, since I’ve covered them at some length in Chapter 4 of my book Transcending Politics. (An audio version of this chapter is currently available to listen to, free of charge, here.)

A related consideration talks, not about technological unemployment, but about technological underemployment. People may be able to find paid work, but that work pays considerably less than they expected. Alternatively, their jobs may have many rubbishy aspects. In the terminology of David Graeber, increasing numbers of jobs are “bullshit jobs”. (Graeber will be speaking on that very topic at the RSA this Thursday. At time of writing, tickets are still available.)

Yet another related concept is that of the precariat – people whose jobs are precarious, since they have no guarantee of the number of hours of work they may receive in any one week. People in these positions would often prefer to be able to leave these jobs and spend a considerable period of time training for a different kind of work – or starting a new business, with all the risks and uncertainties entailed. If a UBI were available to them, it would give them the stability to undertake that personal voyage.

How quickly will technological unemployment and technological underemployment develop? How quickly will the proportion of bullshit jobs increase? How extensive and socially dangerous will the precariat become?

I don’t believe any futurist can provide crisp answers to these questions. There are too many unknowns involved. However, equally, I don’t believe anyone can say categorically that these changes won’t occur (or won’t occur any time soon). My personal recommendation is that society needs to anticipate the serious possibility of relatively rapid acceleration of these trends over the next couple of decades. I’d actually put the probability of a major acceleration in these trends over the next 20 years as greater than 50%. But even if you assess the odds more conservatively, you ought to have some contingency plans in mind, just in case the pace quickens more than you expected.

In other words, the time-linked arguments in favour of exploring a potential UBI have considerable force.

As it happens, the timeless arguments may gain increased force too. If it’s true that the moral arc of history bends upwards – if it’s true that moral sensibilities towards our fellow humans increase over the passage of time – then arguments which at one time fell below society’s moral radar can gain momentum in the light of collective experience and deliberative reflection.

An impractical idea?

Many people who are broadly sympathetic to the principle of UBI nevertheless consider the concept to be deeply impractical. For example, here’s an assessment by veteran economics analyst John Kay, in his recent article “Basic income schemes cannot work and distract from sensible, feasible and necessary welfare reforms”:

The provision of a universal basic income at a level which would provide a serious alternative to low-paid employment is impossibly expensive. Thus, a feasible basic income cannot fulfil the hopes of some of the idea’s promoters: it cannot guarantee households a standard of living acceptable in a modern society, it cannot compensate for the possible disappearance of existing low-skilled employment and it cannot eliminate “bullshit jobs”. Either the level of basic income is unacceptably low, or the cost of providing it is unacceptably high. And, whatever the appeal of the underlying philosophy, that is essentially the end of the matter.

Kay offers this forthright summary:

Attempting to turn basic income into a realistic proposal involves the reintroduction of elements of the benefit system which are dependent on multiple contingencies and also on income and wealth. The outcome is a welfare system which resembles those that already exist. And this is not surprising. The complexity of current arrangements is not the result of bureaucratic perversity. It is the product of attempts to solve the genuinely difficult problem of meeting the variety of needs of low-income households while minimising disincentives to work for households of all income levels – while ensuring that the system established for that purpose is likely to sustain the support of those who are required to pay for it.

I share Piachaud’s conclusion that basic income is a distraction from sensible, feasible and necessary welfare reforms. As in other areas of policy, it is simply not the case that there are simple solutions to apparently difficult issues which policymakers have hitherto been too stupid or corrupt to implement.

Supporters of UBI have rebuttals to this analysis. Some of these rebuttals will no doubt be presented at the UBIA 2018 event on 2nd June.

One rebuttal seeks to rise above “zero sum” considerations. Injecting even a small amount of money into everyone’s hands can have “multiplier” effects, as that new money passes in turn through several people’s hands. One person’s spending is another person’s income, ready for them to spend in turn.

Along similar lines, Professor Guy Standing, who will be delivering the opening keynote at UBIA 2018, urges readers of his book Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen to consider positive feedback cycles: “the likely impact of extra spending power on the supply of goods and services”. As he says,

In developing countries, and in low-income communities in richer countries, supply effects could actually lower prices for basic goods and services. In the Indian basic income pilots, villagers’ increased purchasing power led local farmers to plant more rice and wheat, use more fertilizer and cultivate more of their land. Their earnings went up, while the unit price of the food they supplied went down. The same happened with clothes, since several women found it newly worthwhile to buy sewing machines and material. A market was created where there was none before.

A similar response could be expected in any community where there are people who want to earn more and do more, alongside people wanting to acquire more goods and services to improve their living standard.

(I am indebted to Standing’s book for many other insights that have influenced my thinking and, indeed, points raised in this blogpost. It’s well worth reading!)

There’s a broader point that needs to be raised, about the “prices for basic goods and services”. Since a Basic Income needs to cover payments for these goods and services, two approaches are possible:

  1. Seek to raise the level of Basic Income payments
  2. Seek to lower the cost of basic goods and services.

I believe both approaches should be pursued in parallel. The same technologies of automation that pose threats to human employment also hold the promise for creating goods and services at significantly lower costs (and with higher quality). However, any such reduction in cost sits in tension with the prevailing societal focus on boosting economic prices (and increasing GDP). It is for this reason that we need a change of societal values as well as changes in the mechanics of the social contract.

The vision of goods and services having prices approaching zero is, by the way, sometimes called “the Star Trek economy”. Futurist Calum Chace – another of the UBIA 2018 speakers – addresses this topic is his provocatively titled book The Economic Singularity: Artificial intelligence and the death of capitalism. Here’s an extract from one of his blogposts, a “un-forecast” (Chace’s term) for a potential 2050 scenario, “Future Bites 7 – The Star Trek Economy”, featuring Lauren (born 1990):

The race downhill between the incomes of governments and the costs they needed to cover for their citizens was nerve-wracking for a few years, but by the time Lauren hit middle age it was clear the outcome would be good. Most kinds of products had now been converted into services, so cars, houses, and even clothes were almost universally rented rather than bought: Lauren didn’t know anyone who owned a car. The cost of renting a car for a journey was so close to zero that the renting companies – auto manufacturers or AI giants and often both – generally didn’t bother to collect the payment. Money was still in use, but was becoming less and less necessary.

As a result, the prices of most asset classes had crashed. Huge fortunes had been wiped out as property prices collapsed, especially in the hot-spot cities, but few people minded all that much as they could get whatever they needed so easily.

As you may have noticed, the vision of a potential future “Star Trek” economy is part of the graphic design for UBIA 2018.

I’ll share one further comment on the question of the affordability of UBI. Specifically, I’ll quote some comments made by Guardian writer Colin Holtz in the wake of the discovery of the extent of tax evasion revealed by the Panama Papers. The article by Holtz has the title “The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income”. Here’s an extract:

If the super-rich actually paid what they owe in taxes, the US would have loads more money available for public services.

We should all be able to agree: no one should be poor in a nation as wealthy as the US. Yet nearly 15% of Americans live below the poverty line. Perhaps one of the best solutions is also one of the oldest and simplest ideas: everyone should be guaranteed a small income, free from conditions.

Called a universal basic income by supporters, the idea has has attracted support throughout American history, from Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King Jr. But it has also faced unending criticism for one particular reason: the advocates of “austerity” say we simply can’t afford it – or any other dramatic spending on social security.

That argument dissolved this week with the release of the Panama Papers, which reveal the elaborate methods used by the wealthy to avoid paying back the societies that helped them to gain their wealth in the first place…

While working and middle-class families pay their taxes or face consequences, the Panama Papers remind us that the worst of the 1% have, for years, essentially been stealing access to Americans’ common birthright, and to the benefits of our shared endeavors.

Worse, many of those same global elite have argued that we cannot afford to provide education, healthcare or a basic standard of living for all, much less eradicate poverty or dramatically enhance the social safety net by guaranteeing every American a subsistence-level income.

The Tax Justice Network estimates the global elite are sitting on $21–32tn of untaxed assets. Clearly, only a portion of that is owed to the US or any other nation in taxes – the highest tax bracket in the US is 39.6% of income. But consider that a small universal income of $2,000 a year to every adult in the US – enough to keep some people from missing a mortgage payment or skimping on food or medicine – would cost only around $563bn each year.

This takes us from the question of affordability to the question of political feasibility. Read on…

A politically infeasible idea?

A potential large obstacle to adopting UBI is that powerful entities within society will fight hard against it, being opposed to any idea of increased taxation and a decline in their wealth. These entities don’t particularly care that the existing social contract provides a paltry offering to the poor and precarious in society – or to those “inadequates” who happen to lose their jobs and their standing in the economy. The existing social contract provides them personally (and those they consider their peers) with a large piece of the cake. They’d like to keep things that way, thank you very much.

They defend the current setup with ideology. The ideology states that they deserve their current income and wealth, on account of the outstanding contributions they have made to the economy. They have created jobs, or goods, or services of one sort or another, that the marketplace values. And no-one has any right to take their accomplishments away from them.

In other words, they defend the status quo with a theory of value. In order to overcome their resistance to UBIA, I believe we’ll need to tackle this theory of value head on, and provide a better theory in its place. I’ll pick up that thread of thought shortly.

But an implementation of UBI doesn’t need to happen “big bang” style, all at once. It can proceed in stages, starting with a very low level, and (all being well) ramping up from there in phases. The initial payment from UBI could be funded from new types of tax that would, in any case, improve the health of society:

  • A tax on financial transactions (sometimes called a “Tobin tax”) – that will help to put the brakes on accelerated financial services taking place entirely within the financial industry (without directly assisting the real economy)
  • A “Greenhouse gas tax” (such as a “carbon tax”) on activities that generate greenhouse gas pollution.

Continuing the discussion

The #ubia channel in the newly created London Futurists Slack workspace awaits comments on this topic. For a limited time, members and supporters of London Futurists can use this link to join that workspace.

5 May 2018

Humans: The solution, or the problem?

Filed under: Transcending Politics — Tags: , , , — David Wood @ 3:33 pm

Silicon Valley seems to think that we’re somehow going to compensate for humanity’s faults with digital technologies. I don’t think humans are obsolete. I don’t think humans are the problem, I think humans are the solution.

These words reached my inbox earlier today, as part of a Nesta interview of technology writer Douglas Rushkoff.

The sentiment expressed in these words strikes me as naive – dangerously naive.

Any worldview that ignores the problematic aspects of human nature risks unwittingly enabling the magnification of these flaws, as technology puts ever more power in our hands.

Think of the way that Fox News, with the support of a network of clever social media agitators, has been magnifying many of the uglier human inclinations – resulting in the human calamity of Trumpistan. That’s an example of what can happen if the flaws within humanity aren’t properly handled. It’s an example of twenty first technology making humans problems worse.

Just because we can, correctly, assess humans as having a great deal of positive potential, this doesn’t mean we should become blind to the harmful tendencies that coexist with our favourable tendencies – and which (if we’re not careful) might overwhelm these tendencies.

Here are some examples of our harmful tendencies:

Conflict

  • Abuse of power: we humans are often too ready to exploit the power we temporarily hold, for example in personal relationships with subordinates or colleagues
  • Confirmation bias: we divert our attention from information that would challenge or negate our own pet theories or the commonly accepted paradigms of our culture; we clutch at any convenient justification for ignoring or distorting such information
  • Dysfunctional emotions: we are prone to being dominated by emotional spasms – of anger, self-righteousness, possessiveness, anxiety, despair, etc – to the extent that we are often unable to act on our better judgements
  • Overconfidence: we tend to assess ourselves as having above-average abilities; we also often assume that our core beliefs are more likely to be true than an objective evaluation would suggest
  • In-group preference: we are liable to prejudice in favour of people who seem “like us” (by whatever criteria), and against people who appear to fall outside our group; this drives unnecessary conflict, and can also mean we miss the best opportunities
  • Inertia: we cling onto possessions, habits, and processes that have served us well in the past, and which might conceivably be useful to us at some time in the future, even if these attachments reduce our room for manoeuvre or damage our openness to new experiences
  • Herd mentality: we too readily fall into line with what we perceive our peers are thinking or doing, even though our conscience is telling us that a different path would be better
  • Loss of perspective: we fail to pay attention to matters that should be of long-term importance to us, and instead become dominated by grudges, personal vindictiveness, fads, and other distractions.

Many of these characteristics are likely to have bestowed some evolutionary advantage to our ancestors, in the very different circumstances in which they lived – similar to the way that a sweet tooth made good sense in prehistoric times. These characteristics are far less useful in today’s world, with its vastly increased complexity and connectivity, where individual mistakes can be magnified onto a global scale.

Other characteristics on the list probably never had much direct utility, but they existed as side-effects of yet other character traits that were themselves useful. Evolution was constrained in terms of the character sets it could create; it lacked complete flexibility. However, we humans possess a much greater range of engineering tools. That opens the way for the conscious, thoughtful re-design of our character set.

The project described in the article that caught my attention this morning – the “Team Human” project – needs in my view to be more open to what some in Silicon Valley are proposing (but which the article scorns), namely the use of technology to assist:

  • The strengthening of positive human tendencies
  • The taming of negative human tendencies.

Of course, technology cannot do these things by itself. But it can, very definitely, be part of the solution. Some examples:

  • Education of all sorts can be enhanced by technology such as interactive online video courses that adapt their content to the emerging needs of each different user
  • Vivid experiences within multi-sensory virtual reality worlds can bring home to people the likely consequences of their current personal trajectories (from both first-person and third-person points of view), and allow them to rehearse changes in attitude
  • The reasons why meditation, yoga, and hypnosis can have beneficial results are now more fully understood than before, enabling major improvements in the efficacy of these practices
  • Prompted by alerts generated by online intelligent assistance software, real-world friends can connect at critical moments in someone’s life, in order to provide much-needed personal support
  • Information analytics can resolve some of the long-running debates about which diets – and which exercise regimes – are the ones that will best promote all-round health for given individuals.

And there are some more radical possibilities:

  • New pharmacological compounds – sometimes called “smart drugs”
  • Gentle stimulation of the brain by a variety of electromagnetic methods – something that has been trialled by the US military
  • Alteration of human biology more fundamentally, by interventions at the genetic, epigenetic, or microbiome level
  • The use of intelligent assistance software that monitors our actions and offers us advice in a timely manner, similar to the way that a good personal friend will occasionally volunteer wise counsel; intelligent assistants can also strengthen our positive characteristics by wise selection of background music, visual imagery, and “thought for the day” aphorisms to hold in mind.

What I’m describing here is the vision of transhumanism – the vision that humanity can and should take wise and profound advantage of technology to transcend the damaging limitations and drawbacks imposed by the current circumstances of human nature. As a result, humans will be able to transition, individually and collectively, towards a significantly higher stage of life – a life with much improved quality.

And here’s a formulation from 1990 by the founder of the modern transhumanist movement, philosopher Max More:

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.

Any attempt to “reprogram society to better serve humans” that fails to follow this transhumanist advice – any project that turns its back on the radical transformational potential of science and technology – is leaving itself dangerously underpowered.

In short: the journey to a healthier society inevitably involves transhumanism. Without transhumanism, Team Human isn’t going to make it.

Note: For a fuller examination of the ideas in this blogpost, see my recent new book Transcending Politics, especially Chapter 12,  “Humans and Superhumans” and Chapter 1, “Vision and roadmap”.

Picture source: TheDigitalArtist and JoeTheStoryTeller.

3 May 2018

Recommended: The Longevity Code

If you’re interested in the latest advice on how to extend your healthspan, you should read The Longevity Code by Kris Verburgh.

The full title of the book is “The Longevity Code: Secrets to Living Well for Longer, from the Front Lines of Science”.

The book has the following description (on Goodreads):

Medical doctor and researcher Kris Verburgh is fast emerging as one of the world’s leading research authorities on the science of aging. The Longevity Code is Dr. Verburgh’s authoritative guide on why and how we age — and on the four most crucial areas we have control over, to slow down, and even reverse, the aging process.

We learn why some animal species age hardly at all while others age and die very quickly, and about the mechanisms at work that slowly but definitely cause our bodies to age, making us susceptible to heart attack, stroke, cancer, pneumonia and/or dementia.

Dr. Verburgh devotes the last third of The Longevity Code to what we can do to slow down the process of aging. He concludes by introducing and assessing the wide range of cutting-edge developments in anti-aging technology, the stuff once only of science fiction: new types of vaccines, and the use of mitochondrial DNA, CRISPR proteins, stem cells, and more.

In the course of researching and writing my own book The Abolition of Aging, I read dozens of different books on broadly similar topics. (For a partial list, scan the online copy of the Endnotes for that book.)

However, I found The Longevity Code to address a number of issues in ways that were particularly compelling and engaging:

  1. Persuasive advice on how to modify diet and lifestyle, now, in order to increase your likelihood to remain healthy long enough to benefit from forthcoming rejuvenation therapies (therapies which Verburgh lists as “Step 4” of a four-stage “longevity staircase”)
  2. A compelling analysis of different “theories of aging”, in Chapter 1 of his book, including the implications of the notably different lifespans of various animals that seem on first sight to have similar biology
  3. A down-to-earth matter-of-fact analysis, in Chapter 4 of his book, on the desirability of living longer lives.

The first of these points is an area where I have often struggled, in the Q&A portions of my own presentations on The Abolition of Aging, to give satisfactory answers to audience questions. I now have better answers to offer!

Allowable weakness

One “allowable weakness” of the book is that the author repeats himself on occasion – especially when it comes to making recommendations on diet and food supplements. I say this is “allowable” because his messages deserve repetition, in a world where there is an abundance of apparent expert dietary advice that is, alas, confusing, contradictory, and often compromised (due to the influence of vested interests – as Verburgh documents).

Table of Contents

The table of contents gives a good idea of what the book contains:

  1. Why do we age?
    • Making room?
    • Dying before growing old
    • Young and healthy, old and sick
    • Sex and aging
  2. What causes aging?
    • Proteins
    • Carbohydrates
    • Fats
    • Our energy generators and their role in life, death, and aging
    • Shoelaces and string
    • Other causes, and conclusion
  3. The longevity staircase
    • Avoid deficiencies
    • Stimulate hormesis
    • Reduce growth stimulation
    • Reverse the aging process
  4. Some thoughts about aging, longevity, and immortality
    • Do we really want to grow that old?
    • A new society?
  5. Recipes
  6. Afterword

About Kris Verburgh

You can read more about the author on the bio page of his website. Here’s a brief extract:

Kris Verburgh (born 1986) graduated magna cum laude as a medical doctor from the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Dr. Verburgh is a researcher at the Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies (CLEA) at the Free University Brussels (VUB) and a member of the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group at the Free University of Brussels.

Dr. Verburgh’s fields of research are aging, nutrition, metabolism, preventive medicine and health. In this context, he created a new scientific discipline, called ‘nutrigerontology‘, which studies the impact of nutrition on the aging process and aging-related diseases.

Additionally, he has a profound interest in new technologies that will disrupt medicine, health(care) and our lifespans. He follows the new trends and paradigm shifts in medicine an biotechnology and how they are impacted by the fourth industrial revolution

Verburgh wrote his first science book when he was 16 years old. At age 25, he had written 3 science books.

Dr. Verburgh gives talks on new developments and paradigm shifts in medicine, healthcare and the science of aging. He gave lectures for the European Parliament, Google, Singularity University, various academic institutes, organizations and international companies.

And I’d be delighted to host him at London Futurists, when schedules allow!

6 March 2018

Transcending left and right?

(The following consists of short extracts from Chapter 1,  “Vision and Roadmap”, of my recent new book Transcending Politics.)

One of the most destructive elements of current politics is its divisiveness. Politicians form into warring parties which then frequently find fault with each other. They seek to damage the reputation of their adversaries, throwing lots of mud in the hope that at least some of it will stick. Whereas disagreement is inherent in political process, what would be far better is if politicians could disagree without being disagreeable.

The division between “left” and “right” is particularly long-established. The pioneering transhumanist philosopher F.M. Esfandiary, who later changed his name to FM-2030, lamented this division in his 1977 book Up-Wingers:

To transcend more rapidly to higher levels of evolution we must begin by breaking out of the confinement of traditional ideologies.

We are at all times slowed down by the narrowness of Right-wing and Left-wing alternatives. If you are not conservative you are liberal. If not right of centre you are left of it or middle of the road.

Our traditions comprise no other alternatives. There is no ideological or conceptual dimension beyond conservative and liberal – beyond Right and Left.

Right and Left – even the extreme Left – are traditional frameworks predicated on traditional premises striving in obsolete ways to attain obsolete goals.

Esfandiary’s answer was a different dimension: “Up” – the optimistic embrace of radical technological possibility for positive human transformation:

How do you identify Space scientists who this very day are working with new sets of premises to establish communities in other worlds? Are they Right-wing or Left? Are they conservative or liberal?…

These and other breakthroughs are outside the range of all the traditional philosophical social economic political frameworks. These new dimensions are nowhere on the Right or on the Left. These new dimensions are Up.

Up is an entirely new framework whose very premises and goals transcend the conventional Right and Left…

The Right/Left establishment wants to maintain an evolutionary status quo. It is resigned to humanity’s basic predicament. It simply strives to make life better within this predicament.

Up-Wingers are resigned to nothing. We accept no human predicament as permanent, no tragedy as irreversible; no goals as unattainable.

The term “Up” dovetails with Esfandiary’s evident interest in the exploration of space. We should raise our thinking upwards – towards the stars – rather than being constrained with small-mindedness.

Professor Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick and legal expert Veronika Lipinska take these ideas further in their 2014 book The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism, in which they explore “the rotation of the ideological axis”, from left/right to up/down. Fuller and Lipinska provide some fascinating historical background and provocative speculations about possible futures – including a section on “the four styles of playing God in today’s world”.

I share the view that there are more important questions than the left-right split that has dominated politics for so long. Esfandiary was correct to highlight the question of whether to embrace (“Up”) or to reject (“Down”) the potential of new technology to dramatically enhance human capabilities.

But the “Up” decision to embrace the potential for transhuman enhancements still leaves many other decisions unresolved. People who identify as being up-wing are torn between being “right-leaning upwingers” and being “left-leaning upwingers”:

  • The former admire the capabilities of a free market
  • The latter admire the safety net of a welfare system
  • The former mistrust the potential over-reach of politicians
  • The latter mistrust the actions of profit-seeking corporations
  • The former wish to uphold as much individual freedom as possible
  • The latter wish to uphold as much social solidarity as possible
  • The former are keen to reduce taxation
  • The latter are keen to increase equality of opportunity
  • The former point to the marvels that can be achieved by competitive-minded self-made individuals
  • The latter point to the marvels that can be achieved by collaboration-minded progressive coalitions.

I identify myself as a technoprogressive more than a technolibertarian. Individual freedoms are important, but the best way to ensure these is via wise collective agreement on appropriate constraints. Rather than seeking minimal government and minimal taxation, you’ll see in the pages ahead that I argue for appropriate government and appropriate taxation.

However, I’m emphatically not going to advocate that left-leaning transhumanists should somehow overcome or defeat right-leaning transhumanists. The beliefs I listed as being characteristic of right-leaning transhumanists all contain significant truths – as do the beliefs I listed for left-leaning transhumanists. The task ahead is to pursue policies that respect both sets of insights. That’s what I mean when describing the Transpolitica initiative as “integrative”. Rather than “either-or” it’s “both-and”.

 

1 March 2018

Pragmatically envisioning better humans

Filed under: Transcending Politics — Tags: , — David Wood @ 12:00 pm

Is it possible to significantly improve politics, over the course of, say, the next dozen years, without first significantly improving human nature?

(The following consists of short extracts from Chapter 12,  “Humans and Superhumans”, of my recent new book Transcending Politics.)

In this chapter, I’ll look at four different answers to this question:

  1. We shouldn’t try to improve human nature; that’s the route to hell
  2. We can have a better politics without any change in human nature
  3. Improving human nature will turn out to be relatively straightforward; let’s get cracking
  4. Improving human nature will be difficult but is highly desirable; we need to carefully consider the potential scenarios, with an open mind, and then make our choices…

The technoprogressive transformation of society and human nature that I envision will build upon the product management insight that it’s more important to analyse the intended outcome of a transformation than to become over-enthused by potential means to carry out that transformation. That is, the specification must come first, and then the implementation. Otherwise the implementation might develop inertia of its own. In that case, we’ll get technology for technology’s sake – answers looking for questions, rather than the other way round.

Accordingly, let’s now take a moment to explore features of the human character that there’s a strong case to seek to improve. Then we can move on to consider potential ways to carry out such improvements.

The character features I’m aiming to list are those which, if they are not tamed, threaten to combine in devastating ways with the greater powers that technology as a whole is putting in our hands. These features include:

  • Dysfunctional emotions: we are prone to being dominated by emotional spasms – of anger, self-righteousness, possessiveness, anxiety, despair, etc – to the extent that we are often unable to act on our better judgements
  • Overconfidence: we tend to assess ourselves as having above-average abilities; we also often assume that our core beliefs are more likely to be true than an objective evaluation would suggest
  • Confirmation bias: we divert our attention from information that would challenge or negate our own pet theories or the commonly accepted paradigms of our culture; we clutch at any convenient justification for ignoring or distorting such information
  • Abuse of power: we are too ready to exploit the power we temporarily hold, for example in personal relationships with subordinates or colleagues, and in the process damage other people – and often our own longer-term interests too
  • In-group preference: we are liable to prejudice in favour of people who seem “like us” (by whatever criteria), and against people who appear to fall outside our group; this drives unnecessary conflict, and can also mean we miss the best opportunities
  • Over-attachment: we cling onto things that might conceivably be useful to us at some time in the future, even if these attachments reduce our room for manoeuvre or damage our openness to new experiences
  • Herd mentality: we too readily fall into line with what we perceive our peers are thinking or doing, even though our conscience is telling us that a different path would be better
  • Loss of perspective: we fail to pay attention to matters that should be of long-term importance to us, and instead become dominated by grudges, personal vindictiveness, fads, and other distractions.

Many of these characteristics are likely to have bestowed some evolutionary advantage to our ancestors, in the very different circumstances in which they lived. They are far less useful in today’s world, with its vastly increased complexity and connectivity, where individual mistakes can be magnified onto a global scale.

Other characteristics on the list probably never had much direct utility, but they existed as side-effects of yet other character traits that were themselves useful. Evolution was constrained in terms of the character sets it could create; it lacked complete flexibility. However, we humans possess a much greater range of engineering tools. That opens the way for the conscious, thoughtful re-design of our character set.

Some critics of transhumanism respond that they prefer to keep human nature as it is, thank you very much, with all our quirks and foibles. These features are said to enable creativity, fun, imagination diversity, and so on. My response is to point again to the character flaws listed earlier. These are not “quirks” or “foibles”. Nor can they be described as “allowable weaknesses”. They are dangerous weaknesses. And as such, they deserve serious attention from us. Can we find ways to dial down these character flaws, without (at the same time) inducing adverse side-effects?

Transhumanists are by no means the first set of thinkers to desire these changes in human nature. Philosophers, religious teachers, and other leaders of society have long called for humans to overcome the pull of “attachment” (desire), self-centredness, indiscipline, “the seven deadly sins” (pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth), and so on. Where transhumanism goes beyond these previous thinkers is in highlighting new methods that can now be used, or will shortly become available, to assist in the improvement of character.

Collectively these methods can be called “cognotech”. They will boost our all-round intelligence: emotional, rational, creative, social, spiritual, and more. Here are some examples:

  • New pharmacological compounds – sometimes called “smart drugs”
  • Gentle stimulation of the brain by a variety of electromagnetic methods – something that has been trialled by the US military
  • Alteration of human biology more fundamentally, by interventions at the genetic, epigenetic, or microbiome level
  • Vivid experiences within multi-sensory virtual reality worlds that bring home to people the likely consequences of their current personal trajectories (from both first-person and third-person points of view), and allow them to rehearse changes in attitude
  • The use of “intelligent assistance” software that monitors our actions and offers us advice in a timely manner, similar to the way that a good personal friend will occasionally volunteer wise counsel; intelligent assistants can also strengthen our positive characteristics by wise selection of background music, visual imagery, and “thought for the day” aphorisms to hold in mind.

Technological progress can also improve the effectiveness of various traditional methods for character improvement:

  • The reasons why meditation, yoga, and hypnosis can have beneficial results are now more fully understood than before, enabling major improvements in the efficacy of these practices
  • Education of all sorts can be enhanced by technology such as interactive online video courses that adapt their content to the emerging needs of each different user
  • Prompted by alerts generated by online intelligent assistants, real-world friends can connect at critical moments in someone’s life, in order to provide much-needed personal support
  • Information analytics can resolve some of the long-running debates about which diets – and which exercise regimes – are the ones that will best promote all-round health for given individuals…

It’s worth stressing some key differences between this kind of transhumanist initiative, on the one hand, and the idealist political campaigns of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others (covered earlier in the chapter). The transhumanist initiative is committed to:

  • Open review, so that problems arising can be noticed and addressed promptly
  • An experimental approach, to discover what actually works in reality, rather than just sounding good in theory
  • An agile framework, in which feedback is sought on a regular basis, so that knowledge can accumulate quickly via a “fail fast” process
  • Easy access by all members of society to the set of ideas that are under discussion, in order to promote a wider appreciation of any emerging risks or opportunities
  • Giving priority to data, rather than to anecdote, supposition, or ideology
  • Embracing diversity as far as possible, with hard constraints being imposed only when matters are seen to be particularly central
  • Integrating viewpoints from many different perspectives, rather than insisting on there being only “one true way” forwards.

The technoprogressive feedback cycle

One criticism of the initiative I’ve just outlined is that it puts matters the wrong way round.

I’ve been describing how individuals can, with the aid of technology as well as traditional methods, raise themselves above their latent character flaws, and can therefore make better contributions to the political process (either as voters or as actual politicians). In other words, we’ll get better politics as a result of getting better people.

However, an opposing narrative runs as follows. So long as our society is full of emotional landmines, it’s a lot to expect people to become more emotionally competent. So long as we live in a state of apparent siege, immersed in psychological conflict, it’s a big ask for people to give each other the benefit of the doubt, in order to develop new bonds of trust. Where people are experiencing growing inequality, a deepening sense of alienation, a constant barrage of adverts promoting consumerism, and an increasing foreboding about an array of risks to their wellbeing, it’s not reasonable to urge them to make the personal effort to become more compassionate, thoughtful, tolerant, and open-minded. They’re more likely to become angry, reactive, intolerant, and closed-minded. Who can blame them? Therefore – so runs this line of reasoning – it’s more important to improve the social environment than to urge the victims of that social environment to learn to turn the other cheek. Let’s stop obsessing about personal ethics and individual discipline, and instead put every priority on reducing the inequality, alienation, consumerist propaganda, and risk perception that people are experiencing. Instead of fixating upon possibilities for technology to rewire people’s biology and psychology, let’s hurry up and provide a better social safety net, a fairer set of work opportunities, and a deeper sense that “we’re all in this together”.

I answer this criticism by denying that it’s a one-way causation. We shouldn’t pick just a single route of influence – either that better individuals will result in a better society, or that a better society will enable the emergence of better individuals. On the contrary, there’s a two way flow of influence.

Yes, there’s such a thing as psychological brutalisation. In a bad environment, the veneer of civilisation can quickly peel away. Youngsters who would, in more peaceful circumstances, instinctively help elderly strangers to cross the road, can quickly degrade in times of strife into obnoxious, self-obsessed bigots. But that path doesn’t apply to everyone. Others in the same situation take the initiative to maintain a cheery, contemplative, constructive outlook. Environment influences the development of character, but doesn’t determine it.

Accordingly, I foresee a positive feedback cycle:

  • With the aid of technological assistance, more people – whatever their circumstances – will be able to strengthen the latent “angelic” parts of their human nature, and to hold in check the latent “diabolic” aspects
  • As a result, at least some citizens will be able to take wiser policy decisions, enabling an improvement in the social and psychological environment
  • The improved environment will, in turn, make it easier for other positive personal transformations to occur – involving a larger number of people, and having a greater impact.

One additional point deserves to be stressed. The environment that influences our behaviour involves not just economic relationships and the landscape of interpersonal connections, but also the set of ideas that fill our minds. To the extent that these ideas give us hope, we can find extra strength to resist the siren pull of our diabolic nature. These ideas can help us focus our attention on positive, life-enhancing activities, rather than letting our minds shrink and our characters deteriorate.

This indicates another contribution of transhumanism to building a comprehensively better future. By painting a clear, compelling image of sustainable abundance, credibly achievable in just a few decades, transhumanism can spark revolutions inside the human heart…

(To read more, follow the links from the Transpolitica website.)

7 December 2017

The super-opportunities and super-risks of super-AI

Filed under: AGI, Events, risks, Uncategorized — Tags: , , — David Wood @ 7:29 pm

2017 has seen more discussion of AI than any preceding year.

There has even been a number of meetings – 15, to be precise – in the UK Houses of Parliament, of the APPG AI – an “All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence”.

According to its website, the APPG AI “was set up in January 2017 with the aim to explore the impact and implications of Artificial Intelligence”.

In the intervening 11 months, the group has held 7 evidence meetings, 4 advisory group meetings, 2 dinners, and 2 receptions. 45 different MPs, along with 7 members of the House of Lords and 5 parliamentary researchers, have been engaged in APPG AI discussions at various times.

APPG-AI

Yesterday evening, at a reception in Parliament’s Cholmondeley Room & Terrace, the APPG AI issued a 12 page report with recommendations in six different policy areas:

  1. Data
  2. Infrastructure
  3. Skills
  4. Innovation & entrepreneurship
  5. Trade
  6. Accountability

The headline “key recommendation” is as follows:

The APPG AI recommends the appointment of a Minister for AI in the Cabinet Office

The Minister would have a number of different responsibilities:

  1. To bring forward the roadmap which will turn AI from a Grand Challenge to a tool for untapping UK’s economic and social potential across the country.
  2. To lead the steering and coordination of: a new Government Office for AI, a new industry-led AI Council, a new Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, a new GovTech Catalyst, a new Future Sectors Team, and a new Tech Nation (an expansion of Tech City UK).
  3. To oversee and champion the implementation and deployment of AI across government and the UK.
  4. To keep public faith high in these emerging technologies.
  5. To ensure UK’s global competitiveness as a leader in developing AI technologies and capitalising on their benefits.

Overall I welcome this report. It’s a definite step in the right direction. Via a programme of further evidence meetings and workshops planned throughout 2018, I expect real progress can be made.

Nevertheless, it’s my strong belief that most of the public discussion on AI – including the discussions at the APPG AI – fail to appreciate the magnitude of the potential changes that lie ahead. There’s insufficient awareness of:

  • The scale of the opportunities that AI is likely to bring – opportunities that might better be called “super-opportunities”
  • The scale of the risks that AI is likely to bring – “super-risks”
  • The speed at which it is possible (though by no means guaranteed) that AI could transform itself via AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) to ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence).

These are topics that I cover in some of my own presentations and workshops. The events organisation Funzing have asked me to run a number of seminars with the title “Assessing the risks from superintelligent AI: Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg…”

DW Dec Funzing Singularity v2

The reference to Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg reflects the fact that these two titans of the IT industry have spoken publicly about the advent of superintelligence, taking opposing views on the balance of opportunity vs. risk.

In my seminar, I take the time to explain their differing points of view. Other thinkers on the subject of AI that I cover include Alan Turing, IJ Good, Ray Kurzweil, Andrew Ng, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Stuart Russell, Nick Bostrom, Isaac Asimov, and Jaan Tallinn. The talk is structured into six sections:

  1. Introducing the contrasting ideas of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg
  2. A deeper dive into the concepts of “superintelligence” and “singularity”
  3. From today’s AI to superintelligence
  4. Five ways that powerful AI could go wrong
  5. Another look at accelerating timescales
  6. Possible responses and next steps

At the time of writing, I’ve delivered this Funzing seminar twice. Here’s a sampling of the online reviews:

Really enjoyed the talk, David is a good presenter and the presentation was very well documented and entertaining.

Brilliant eye opening talk which I feel very effectively conveyed the gravity of these important issues. Felt completely engaged throughout and would highly recommend. David was an excellent speaker.

Very informative and versatile content. Also easy to follow if you didn’t know much about AI yet, and still very insightful. Excellent Q&A. And the PowerPoint presentation was of great quality and attention was spent on detail putting together visuals and explanations. I’d be interested in seeing this speaker do more of these and have the opportunity to go even more in depth on specific aspects of AI (e.g., specific impact on economy, health care, wellbeing, job market etc). 5 stars 🙂

Best Funzing talk I have been to so far. The lecture was very insightful. I was constantly tuned in.

Brilliant weighing up of the dangers and opportunities of AI – I’m buzzing.

If you’d like to attend one of these seminars, three more dates are in my Funzing diary:

Click on the links for more details, and to book a ticket while they are still available 🙂

30 November 2017

Technological Resurrection: An idea ripe for discussion

Like it or not, humans are becoming as gods. Where will this trend lead?

How about the ability to bring back to life people who died centuries ago, and whose bodies have long since disintegrated?

That’s the concept of “Technological Resurrection” which is covered in the recent book of the same name by Dallas, Texas based researcher Jonathan A. Jones.

The book carries the subtitle “A thought experiment”. It’s a book that can, indeed, lead readers to experiment with new kinds of thoughts. If you are ready to leave your normal comfort zone behind, you may find a flurry of unexpected ideas emerging in your mind as you dip into its pages. You’re likely also to encounter considerable emotional turmoil en route.

The context

Here’s the context. Technology is putting within human reach more and more of the capabilities that were thought, in former times, to be the preserve of divine beings:

  • We’re not omniscient, but Google has taken us a long way in that direction
  • We’re not yet able to create life at will, but our skills with genomic engineering are proceeding apace
  • Evolution need no longer proceed blindly, via Darwinian Russian roulette, but can benefit from conscious intelligent design (by humans, for humans)
  • Our ability to remake nature is being extended by our ability to remake human nature.
  • We can enable the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk
  • Thanks to medical breakthroughs, we can even bring the dead back to life – that is, the cessation of heart and breath need no longer herald an early grave.

But that’s just the start. It’s plausible that, sooner or later, humanity will create artificial superintelligence with powers that are orders of magnitude greater than anything we currently possess. These enhanced powers would bring humanity even closer to the domain of the gods of bygone legends. These powers might even enable technological resurrection.

Some details

In more detail: Profound new engineering capabilities might become available that can bridge remote sections of space and time – perhaps utilising the entanglement features of quantum physics, perhaps creating and exploiting relativistic “wormholes”, or perhaps involving unimagined novel scientific principles. These bridges might allow selected “copying” of consciousness from just before the moment of death, into refined bodies constructed in the far future ready to receive such consciousness. As Jonathan Jones explores, this copying might take place in ways that circumvent the time travel paradoxes that often feature in science fiction.

That’s a lot of “mights” and “maybes”. However, when contemplating the range of ideas for what might happen to consciousness after physical death, it would be wise to include this option. Beyond our deathbed, we might awaken to find ourselves in a state akin to paradise – surrounded by resurrected family and friends. Born 1945, died 2020, resurrected 2085? Born 1895, died 1917, resurrected 2087?

The book contains a number of speculative short stories to whet readers’ appetites to continue this exploration. These stories add colour to what is already a colourful, imaginative book. The artistic license is grounded in a number of solid references to science, philosophy, psychology, and history. For example, there’s a particularly good section on Russian “cosmist” thinkers. There’s a review of how films and novels have dealt with similar ideas over the decades. And the book is brought up to date with a discussion of contemporary transhumanists, including Ray Kurzweil, Ben Goertzel, Jose Cordeiro, and Giulio Prisco.

Futurists like to ask three questions about forthcoming scenarios. Are they credible (as opposed to being mere flights of fantasy). Are they actionable, in that individual human actions could alter their probability of occurring. And are they desirable.

All three questions get an airing in the pages of the book Jonathan Jones has written. To keep matters short, for now I’ll focus on the third question.

The third question

The idea of technological resurrection could provide much-needed solace, for people whose lives otherwise seem wretched. Perhaps death will cease to be viewed as a one-way ticket to eternal oblivion. What’s more, the world might benefit mightily from a new common quest to advance human capability, safely, beyond the existential perils of modern social angst, towards being able to make technological resurrection a reality. That’s a shared purpose which would help humanity transcend our present-day pettiness. It’s a route to make humanity truly great.

However, from other points of view, the idea of technological resurrection could be viewed as an unhelpful distraction. Similar to how religion was criticised by Karl Marx as being “the opium of the people” – an illusory “pie in the sky when you die” – the vague prospect of technological resurrection could dissuade people from taking important steps to secure or improve long-term health prospects. It might prevent them from:

  • Investigating and arranging cryonics support standby services
  • Channelling funds and resources to those researchers who may be on the point of abolishing aging
  • Encouraging the adoption of health-promoting lifestyles, economic policies, and beneficial diets and supplements
  • Accelerating the roll-out of technoprogressive measures that will raise people around the world out of relative poverty and into relative prosperity.

Finally, the idea of technological resurrection may also fill some minds with dread and foreboding – if they realise that devious, horrible actions from their past, which they believed were secret, might become more widely known by a future superintelligence. If that superintelligence has the inclination to inflict a punitive (hellish) resurrection, well, things gain a different complexion.

There’s a great deal more that deserves to be said about technological resurrection. I’m already thinking of organising some public meetings on this topic. In the meantime, I urge readers to explore the book Jonathan Jones has written. That book serves up its big ideas in ways that are playful, entertaining, and provocative. But the ideas conveyed by the light-hearted text may live in your mind long after you have closed the book.

PS I’ve addressed some of these questions from a different perspective in Chapter 12, “Radical alternatives”, of my own 2016 book “The Abolition of Aging”.

16 November 2017

TransVision 2017: A recommitment to the Technoprogressive Declaration

Filed under: TransVision, YouTube — Tags: , , — David Wood @ 10:30 pm

The organisers of TransVision 2017, which took place in Brussels 9th-11th November, issued a press release after the event concluded. I’m including a copy of the text below, in both English and French versions. Please also find below:

Note that TransVision 2018 will take place in Madrid, Spain, between 19th-21st October. Mark your calendars!

English text of press release

Transhumanists from 20 countries and 4 continents are united around a technoprogressive statement

Meeting in Brussels at the initiative of the French Transhumanist Association – Technoprog for the international conference TransVision, the participants recall that:

The world is unacceptably unequal and dangerous. Emerging technologies could make things dramatically better or worse. Unfortunately, too few people yet understand the dimensions of both the threats and rewards that humanity faces. It is time for technoprogressives, transhumanists and futurists to step up our political engagement and attempt to influence the course of events.

They add

Our vision includes a sustainable abundance of: clean energy, healthy food, material goods and shelter, affordable healthcare, all-round intelligence and mental well-being, and time for creativity – enabled by the application of converging technologies, with no-one left behind.

In this context, they urge that the longevity objective be taken into account by the World Health Organization in the framework of the Thirteenth General Program of Work (2019–2023) (to let it know, react here)

They symbolically offered transhumanist clothes to Manneken Pis, the oldest and rejuvenated citizen of Brussels.

Future activities are being organized. A common calendar will soon be established. The next TransVision conference will be held in Madrid from 19 to 21 October 2018.

Marc Roux, President of the Association Française Transhumaniste – Technoprog
Didier Coeurnelle, Vice President
transhumanistes.com
contact@transhumanistes.com

French text of press release

Transvision 2017: Des Transhumanistes de 20 pays et de 4 continents s’unissent autour d’une déclaration technoprogressiste

Réunis à Bruxelles à l’initiative notamment de l’Association Française Transhumaniste – Technoprog pour le colloque international TransVision, les participants rappellent que:

Le monde est de manière inacceptable inégalitaire et dangereux. Les technologies émergentes pourraient le rendre largement meilleur, ou bien pire. Malheureusement, trop peu de gens comprennent aujourd’hui la dimension des menaces ou des bienfaits auxquels l’humanité doit faire face. Il est temps pour les technoprogressistes, les transhumanistes et les prospectivistes de renforcer leur engagement politique afin de tenter d’influer sur le cours des événements.

Ils ajoutent:

Notre vision inclut une abondance durable d’énergie propre, de nourriture saine, de biens matériels, de soins de santé abordables, d’intelligence globale, de bien-être mental, de temps de créativité – permis par une application des technologies convergentes, sans laisser personne sur le côté.

Dans ce cadre ils invitent notamment à ce que l’objectif de longévité soit pris en compte par l’Organisation mondiale de la santé dans le cadre de son treizième programme général de travail (2019–2023) (pour le faire savoir, réagissez ici).

Ils ont offert des vêtements transhumanistes à Manneken-Pis exprimant le souhait d’une vie beaucoup plus longue en bonne santé pour tous.

Pour les activités à venir, un calendrier commun sera établi. La prochaine conférence TransVision se tiendra à Madrid du 19 au 21 octobre 2018.

Marc Roux, président de l’Association française transhumaniste – Technoprog
Didier Coeurnelle, vice-président
transhumanistes.com
contact@transhumanistes.com

Vlog#1 from TransVision 2017

2017 update to the Technoprogressive Declaration

Attendees at TransVision 2017 recommitted to the Technoprogressive Declaration, as published during TransVision 2014 at https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/tpdec2014. For convenience, a copy of this Declaration is supplied below.

It was agreed to provide some clarifications and explanations:

  1. Our vision includes a sustainable abundance of: clean energy, healthy food, material goods and shelter, affordable healthcare, all-round intelligence and mental well-being, and time for creativity – enabled by application of converging technologies, with no-one left behind
  2. Alongside the well-known transhumanist intentions for superlongevity, superintelligence, and super wellbeing, we additionally emphasise the importance of “super society” – by which term is implied improvements in resilience, solidarity, and democracy, whilst upholding diversity and liberty
  3. We envision a renewal of democracy in which, rather than the loudest and richest voices prevailing, the best insights of the community are elevated and actioned
  4. A vital function of democracy is for political representatives to be periodically held to account, thus ensuring they keep in mind the wellbeing of all citizens rather than just the desires of an elite; also of great importance is that democracy involves peaceful transitions of power
  5. A healthy democracy requires a free press and independent judiciary, and will be assisted by the wise application of technological innovation
  6. Systems for regulation of technology need to be adaptive and agile, rather than heavyweight and anachronistic
  7. We urge education to include, at all ages, skills in bridge-building, emotional intelligence, managing change, and learning how to learn
  8. We reject any hard distinction between “therapies” and “enhancement” as championed by bioconservatives; society benefits not just from interventions that raise individuals to the current average level of health and wellness, but also from interventions that raise the average level higher
  9. Whereas all persons should be liberated from work that is “toil”, we uphold the principle that hard work can bring many benefits, both socially and personally
  10. As technology provides greater levels of sentience and sapience to non-human animals and synthetic life forms, we stand ready to extend the rights of personhood to these enhanced brethren of ours on the journey to greater consciousness and greater enlightenment.

Copy of the Technoprogressive Declaration

The world is unacceptably unequal and dangerous. Emerging technologies could make things dramatically better or worse. Unfortunately too few people yet understand the dimensions of both the threats and rewards that humanity faces. It is time for technoprogressives, transhumanists and futurists to step up our political engagement and attempt to influence the course of events.

Our core commitment is that both technological progress and democracy are required for the ongoing emancipation of humanity from its constraints. Partisans of the promises of the Enlightenment, we have many cousins in other movements for freedom and social justice. We must build solidarity with these movements, even as we intervene to point to the radical possibilities of technologies that they often ignore. With our fellow futurists and transhumanists we must intervene to insist that technologies are well-regulated and made universally accessible in strong and just societies. Technology could exacerbate inequality and catastrophic risks in the coming decades, or especially if democratized and well-regulated, ensure longer, healthy and more enabled lives for growing numbers of people, and a stronger and more secure civilization.

Beginning with our shared commitment to individual self-determination we can build solidarity with

  • Organizations defending workers and the unemployed, as technology transforms work and the economy
  • The movement for reproductive rights, around access to contraception, abortion, assisted reproduction and genomic choice
  • The movement for drug law reform around the defense of cognitive liberty
  • The disability rights movement around access to assistive and curative technologies
  • Sexual and gender minorities around the right to bodily self-determination
  • Digital rights movements around new freedoms and means of expression and organization

We call for dramatically expanded governmental research into anti-aging therapies, and universal access to those therapies as they are developed in order to make much longer and healthier lives accessible to everybody. We believe that there is no distinction between “therapies” and “enhancement.” The regulation of drugs and devices needs reform to speed their approval.

As artificial intelligence, robotics and other technologies increasingly destroy more jobs than they create, and senior citizens live longer, we must join in calling for a radical reform of the economic system. All persons should be liberated from the necessity of the toil of work. Every human being should be guaranteed an income, healthcare, and life-long access to education.

We must join in working for the expansion of rights to all persons, human or not.

We must join with movements working to reduce existential risks, educating them about emerging threats they don’t yet take seriously, and proposing ways that emerging technologies can help reduce those risks. Transnational cooperation can meet the man-made and natural threats that we face.

It is time for technoprogressives to step forward and work together for a brighter future.

 

7 November 2017

Press Release: TransVision 2017, 9-11 November

Filed under: Humanity Plus, TransVision — Tags: , , — David Wood @ 11:25 pm

Brussels | Thursday November 9, Friday November 10, Saturday November 11

Representatives of the major European transhumanist associations will be meeting at the TransVision 2017 symposium held at the Grand Café Muntpunt, right in the centre of Brussels:

  • Day 1 = Reports on the situation and the evolution of transhumanist thought and transhumanist organisations
  • Day 2 = Working groups exploring proposals for future projects
  • Day 3 = Conclusions: the future of transhumanism and the politics of emerging technologies

Journalists are welcome to contact contact@transhumanistes.com in order to attend the symposium.

Journalists can meet and interview the following speakers and participants (among others):

  • Anders Sandberg – Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University
  • Angel Marchev – University for National and World Economy, Sofia
  • Chris Moneteiro – H+Pedia manager, TPUK official, and cybercrime researcher
  • David Pearce ­– Co-founder of Humanity+ (originally the World Transhumanist Association)
  • David Wood – Chair of London Futurists, and Executive Director of Transpolitica
  • Didier Coeurnelle – Co-chair of Heales Healthy Life Extension Society
  • James Hughes – Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
  • Jose Cordeiro –Founding faculty of the Singularity University, and Director of Humanity+
  • Marc Roux – French Association Française Transhumaniste – Technoprog
  • Marcel A. Mayr – Futurist, Transhuman Party Germany
  • Riccardo Campa – Associazione Transumanisti Italiani
  • Valeryia Udalova (Pride) ­– Russian Transhumanist Movement, and CEO of CryoRus
  • Waldemar Ingdahl ­– Spokesperson for Humanity+ Sweden

Please feel free to forward this announcement to any journalist you think might be interested in this event.

For more information about the event, see transvision-conference.org.  For information about previous TransVision conferences (dating back to 1998), see hpluspedia.org/wiki/TransVision.

2 July 2017

If your Windows 10 laptop doesn’t connect to websites

Filed under: Connectivity, Microsoft — Tags: , , , — David Wood @ 1:31 pm

What should you do if your Windows 10 laptop fails to connect to any website? With the same problem in both Chrome and Microsoft Edge?

Suppose, like me, you’ve rebooted your laptop several times, rebooted your home broadband wireless router, and also tried connecting to websites over the cellular SIM that is built into the laptop. All with no avail. What next?

You’d probably, like me, run the Windows Network Diagnostics tool. But what if that fails to report any problems?

That was the situation I was in last night. My laptop had been off the network for a while, as it rendered a 14GB MP4 file from recordings from yesterday’s London Futurists event. (This one, if you’re curious.) But when I was ready to upload the file to YouTube, I hit the connection problem.

As it happens, my laptop is a bit over six years well. It has served me well. But it gets pretty hot from time to time – especially when processing videos. I started to suspect that the heat may have damaged an internal connector. That’s despite the fact that the BIOS diagnostics tests gave the machine a clean bill of health.

I even spent some time disabling anti-virus software. That didn’t make any difference. Nor did leaving the laptop alone, switched off for six hours to cool down as I slept.

At this stage I was beginning to plan the process of buying a new laptop. I went to press the Windows “Shut down” button one more time. I noticed that the button actually said “Update Windows and Shut down”.

Well, I hadn’t been expecting any Windows update. Three days earlier, I’d already been through a very lengthy process of installing something called “Windows 10 Creators Update” – a process I’d accepted on the prompting of messages sent to me by Microsoft through my laptop.

(Did I say ‘lengthy’? A one point during that Creators Update my laptop had displayed a screen for more than two hours saying something like “This will take a while”. The percentage done indicator stayed at 1% for a full 15 minutes, before ticking up to 2%.)

This second update, which took place this morning, also took ages. I stared at my laptop as it warned me, “Getting Windows ready. Don’t turn off your computer”.

After around 30 minutes, I was almost ready to ignore the advice. Before reaching for the hardware reset button, though, I decided to attend to some other household tasks. By the time I returned to my laptop, it was inviting me to log in. Twenty minutes later, I was back online. Chrome was showing me webpages again. Hooray!

In short, my guess is that Microsoft was doing some kind of mass software download to my laptop, at the time I was trying to connect to websites, and for some reason, the Microsoft traffic was exclusively prioritised higher than mine. Too bad that the diagnostic tool gave no inkling of what might be happening.

I notice a recent headline in The Register: “Don’t install our buggy Windows 10 Creators Update, begs Microsoft”. The sub-headline follows up:

We’ll give it to you when it’s ready – and it is not.

My own experience seems to back up that message: the new software can struggle on older hardware.

Windows 10 users take note!

As a postscript, the YouTube video is now available:

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.