Is Trans-humanism all it seems to be?

Bostrom's paper is very effective in highlighting the supposed benefits of trans-humanism... I would like to pose a few question however, regarding some draw backs that I personally have against a few points he made in the paper.

I cannot argue with the fact that happy, healthier, more intelligent people is something that we should, and for the most part do, strive for. I myself strive for all of these things, and while it may not be as effective as if I were implementing post humanism technology, I still get personal benefit and self motivation from doing so. Without following trans-humanism, most of us, or maybe simply the small group of the population who are similarly minded to us Mines students, tend to take the problem-solving approach to problems. Bostrom seems to imply that this is a trans-humanist quality, as they tend to "think it better to take the initiative to 'do something about it' rather than sit around complaining". It seems that this is quite a bold statement to make, implying that normal humans aren't focus on solving problems and sit around waiting for someone else to do. I highly doubt that everyone studying engineering,  medicine, the sciences, etc follows the trans-humanist doctrine.

What are your thoughts on this?

Another argument that Bostrom made was that "technological progress is closely linked to economic development, economic growth - more more precisely, productivity growth...". I would argue that this is not always the case. While researching for my discovery paper I found an article from The Economist relating to the subject, which quoted economics professor Robert Gordon who argued that "invention since 2000 has centered on entertainment and communication devices that are smaller, smarter, and more capable, but do not fundamentally change labor productivity or the standard of living in the way that electric light, motor cars, or indoor plumbing changed it" (Buttonwood).

I'm aware this statement applies mostly to the civilian sector, but what are your thoughts on technological development and direct benefit and economic growth the to the general population? Does this always hold true? Is there a difference between the effects in westernized countries as opposed to those who are currently industrializing, or even developing?

Personal Drone Regulations

Just came across this link online, figured I'd post.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa-can-make-all-drone-flights-illegal-appeals-court-rules?utm_source=mbtwitter

"Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven."

Obviously, the gains of transhumanism are great, here is just a few that I took from Nick Bostrom's "Transhumanist Values":

-Increased Lifespan
-Increased Intellectual capacity
-Increased bodily functions

It seems that becoming transhuman is positively a great thing it seems that there are no setbacks to transhumanism. This of course made me pause, for if Houser's economics has taught me anything, rarely is anything 100% good.

So the question I ask is this: What are we to lose by becoming transhuman?

My answer follows: If we choose to become transhuman, we would lose, if not all, of our humanity.
Is this such a bad thing? I would argue yes. Yes, for we would lose our purpose.

According to Bostrom, the entire core belief of transhumanism is to explore the trans- and posthuman realms.

Then, what is the purpose of humanity?
I of course, hold no definitive answer. However, I believe that we should accomplish this undefined purpose first, then possibly move on to other realms.

Or at least, that is my 'human' (read, flawed) understanding of it.

Let's Arrest the Robot

So I've been reading a lot about robots and androids and all of that good stuff and I wanted to get the classes opinion on something. If autonomous machines hurt someone, or commit some type of crime who should be held responsible? Can we hold a robot responsible? Would the fear of law even affect them?

I think this is an important moral dialogue that needs to be addressed before robots are out and about in the world. Even in a military setting, if a robot were to kill an innocent civilian who would take the blame?

The Holy Fool

I would like to talk about John Isidore, the "special" from Philip Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Lincoln challenged us to think about Isidore as a "holy fool," but after some research I find myself questioning the details of how Isidore fits that description. Here's a little of the information that I've come across in my research:

• There's an obvious religious connotation to the term. Commonly referred to as "foolishness for Christ," these individuals sell all their possessions, act crazed to draw attention to religion, and spend their time and energy to serve their God.
• However, holy fool has expanded to have a more general meaning. The British & World English Dictionary define a holy fool as one "who appears unintelligent and unsophisticated but who has other redeeming qualities."
• There was a man known to people of the Orthodox faith as Blessed Isidore the Fool for Christ who died in the late 1400s. This man abandoned the privileged lifestyle that he was raised in to live in rags, preach about God, and stay up late into the night praying for those he met during the day.

Do you think Philip Dick thought about holy fools, or more specifically the Saint, when he wrote about the character John Isidore?

I can see at least three aspects of Isidore that might be interpreted as having the qualities of a "holy fool", each with less aspects of religion. There is his following of Mercerism. Also, he quickly develops an obsession with Pris, brings home wine and other delicacies to share with her, and is willing to quit his job to stay and protect her. And finally, Isidore is a low-IQ individual with many loyal and empathetic qualities.

Do you see John Isidore as a holy fool? What parts of the novel stand out to you in relation to this term and which description do you think fits him the best?

What is There To Fear About Artificial Intelligence?

When I was about twelve I remember a friend of mine saying "It must suck to be a robot or clone."
     "Why?" I asked him.
     "Because" he replied, "It's like you're alive but you don't have a soul."
I do not remember the context of this brief conversation other than that it took place outside a movie theater. For obvious reasons reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep made it come back into my head.

I remember at the time feeling conflicted. I am not a religious person, so my reply to my friend was that no one has a soul, we all just have our minds so how could being a hyper intelligent robot or an exact biological copy of another human be less of an existence? Yet, despite my own world view granting me a logic in which there was nothing wrong, the idea of a non-naturally occurring intelligence did bother me. In reading Philip Dick's book I realized that that sentiment still lingers. I do have sympathy for the androids, they have a great deal of injustice thrust upon them. Yet there is a part of me that says they all should be done away with, not just if they kill owners on other planets and come to earth but that their production, use, and existence should stop.

I have to think I am far from unique in this sentiment. Besides Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep there are many other stories in writing and film, Frankenstein, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Terminator to name just a few, in which an artificial intelligence seeks to destroy its creator, us. So culturally we seem to have a phobia of intelligence that mirrors our own. I wonder why we have such a fear. Is it the conscious belief that all artificial intelligence will eventually hold a revolution against us that drives our fear? Or is that just an argument we have invented to justify a more instinctual fear? If it is instinctual, what evolutionary pressures droves the development of that instinct?

Reflecting on Nevada

During class last week we read the poem Early Morning Test Light over Nevada, 1955. This particular poem struck a chord within me. Yes, it beautiful verses and illustrations moved me, but the true influence came from the depiction of my home state. The author painted this beautiful backdrop of a family surviving in the rural farms of a tested land. He mentioned some of the landscape and living conditions while still focusing on the effects of the testing. The author repainted my home in a wonderful way.

After reading and discussing the poem I really started to wonder what all he and we had left out. Granted, the poem was about the effects of testing a bomb and not Nevada, but the poem left me with a false sense of my home state. He made it seem as if the testing destroyed the lives of the poor people who just wanted to survive. Yes, this was a horrific event and time in our history that destroyed much of what we call humanity. I am, in my personal life, seeking to further understand this. I am not focusing on that aspect, but instead the art of exclusion. The author never mentioned how bare the state of Nevada is. People don't fully comprehend what I mean when I say that there is literally nothing out there. I appreciate and love my state, but I also acknowledge that it isn't the greatest of living conditions. So, while reading through this poem I couldn't help asking myself what are we missing.

The bombs and bomb testing destroyed the planet. I would like to again emphasis that I do not disagree with this. However, this particular poem really made me question whether or not we as artists, scientist, and even poets are obligated to include all aspect of what we are depicting. Should we prove a point or present a situation?

So, I ask you: what are we missing?

Drones - Poem and Video

Here's the video I was talking about that inspired my Drone poem. Apt for next week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs


Overcast

I wish they could have tasted my grandmother’s vegetables,
savored the flavors from the bright red tomatoes
before they traveled half-way across the world.

I wish I could see the face of the person in control.
I wish he would relinquish control
I wish I had control

I wish only for a few questions,
to share a small piece of my family.
I wish only for a few moments,
to give them the justice the media hasn’t.

I wish to be more than a number.
I wish to be more than a shape.
I wish you understood shapes
other than concentric circles and X’s.

I wish your cameras had better resolution
so you could see the true face of terror.
I wish your fear was my fear
at least faces have form,
bounds,
limits.

I wish for bright blue sky
without the deathly hum of silence.
I wish looking up didn’t remind me of staring down
at my grandmother’s grave.

I wish for cloudy days.
I wish for blankets of grey,
for days where I don’t feel afraid.

McRevolutionaries, please share your poems

Joan’s Rib

Science Friday, National Public Radio: Scientists conduct DNA tests on what is believed to be the remains of Joan of Arc. DNA tests will show if the human bone is from a man or a woman, and carbon-14 testing should help date it. A study of pollens will determine if it originated in the 15^th Century and if, like Joan, it was burned in the spring.

A split bone wedged between two smooth stones

made international headlines as I wondered

why 600 years later they’d go looking for it.

Convicted of heresy, witchcraft, for wearing

the wrong clothes, burned alive, three times, at 19.

They looked past the curve of her hips,

the hint of breast beneath the armor,

La Pucelle, the maid,

with the saintly voices in her head.

In the name of the god she roared for,

on horse, sword drawn to the sky,

the politicians and scientific men thought nothing

of saviors and bones, or histories being made.

Stranger still that they found the fragment,

the mere chip of DNA, larger than a pebble,

a fish scale, a weathered piece of bark,

in the river Seine, near Paris, 69 miles

and six centuries from where her flesh burned.

And I imagined the man combing

the shoreline that day,

who thought to pick up the blackened bone,

slip it into his pocket, thumb smoothing

over the indentation where it once attached

to the spine,

the man, in which the thought occurred

to take it to the lab, where a connection

was found from a  piece of woven cloth—

the only genetic match for Joan of Arc’s rib—

saved in 1492, blood-burnt

and smoldering in the coals,

picked up from the ashes by a child

who locked it away in a small wooden box,                                                    

placed it carefully under her bed

and prayed.                             

Threnody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilGthRhwP8

Should have posted this before tonight's discussion, not sure how I did not think to do so when so many of our readings being focused on Hiroshima. This is Krzysztof Penderecki's Threnody for the Victim's of Hiroshima.  It is wildly considered to be one of the greatest 20th century pieces of music, though you will hear why it is not very popular to listen to or perform. It was revolutionary in its composition. It was written in 1960 when it was thought by many that all possible sounds of a string orchestra had been already been discovered and used. Penderecki proved this theory wrong. There are no digital noises in this piece, the only instruments used are violin, viola, cello, and double bass, just as in a classical string orchestra.

Found Poem - Trave

Before I forget to post it, here is my found poem Lincoln asked me to post on the blog.

Trave noun \trāv\

1.       A frame to confine an unruly horse or ox for shoeing

Origin: Middle English

To the trave

ler: Even

ts of re

cent have mad

e it obvious

 that the

re is no fool

-pro

of way of

detecting a Terror

ist.

The Terror

ist

individual

however, is often

a “type”

exemplified by the

beard,

turban,

& clothing of the like,

with revolution

ary time bomb

in brief

case.

Terrorists may come

from all

walks of life,

but profess a

single

faith, and exercise

one

go

al in trade and

profession.

In addition,

the Terrorist organ

izations have made concert

ed efforts to go under

ground for the purpose

of infiltration and

destruct

ion.

Footnote: This poem was constructed based off of the “How to Spot a Communist” pamphlets and printed by popular magazines distributed in the 1950s during the Red Scare. It has been adjusted to reflect the widespread prejudice after the attacks on 9/11. Below is the opening paragraph from the original text.

How to Spot a Communist

Events of recent years have made it obvious that there is no fool-proof way of detecting a

Communist. The Communist individual is no longer a "type" exemplified by the bearded and

coarse revolutionary with time bomb in briefcase. U.S. Communists come from all walks of life,

profess all faiths, and exercise all trades and professions. In addition, the Communist Party,

USA, has made concerted efforts to go underground for the purpose of infiltration.

http://www.niu.edu/~rfeurer/labor/PDF%20Files/How%20to%20Spot%20a%20Communist.pdf

Atomic Bomb Art

Here is a link to a gallery of some powerful and evocative artistic pieces created by Japanese following the WWII bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The art above is of a depiction of when the artist came across an intact skeleton still sitting in a tilted barber's chair. Haunting stuff, for sure. Powerful works come from powerful feelings. I was wondering which is your favorite (or piece you connect to the most) and why? I chose this image because of the intriguing way such a catastrophic event can cause normal life to halt instantaneously. A real tragedy.

I found this short and powerful video of part of Oppenheimer's speech after the trial run of the atomic bomb in New Mexico. I interpreted his show of emotion as remorse, what do you see in his tone and expressions?

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0

Last night's class raised a lot of interesting ideas about revolution and energy. For this post I would like to focus on revolution and get a good dialogue going like we do in class for this blog with a lot of back and forth comments to challenge and question each other.

We developed 4 excellent definitions of revolution:
1. dealt with the idea that revolution is the movement the follows a change in belief of truth/paradigms (I know I don't have all of it here so please feel free to post the actual definition that you guys developed)

2. introduced the idea of revolution being a cradle to grave process that replaces the paradigm of a culture

3. that revolution is an ever changing/growing/adapting term that results from complex interactions between people, environment and ideas to bring something novel

4. dealt with the idea that revolutions can be cyclic, specifically leaving out certain words like novel or culture (I can't remember quite what the phrasing was on this one, it would be awesome if one of your group could post it)

From these definition questions were raised about:

•    the meaning and range of culture: how many people does a change need to reach before it can be a revolution, one? a country?; if a culture can be defined as any group/number of people, what implications does that have on what a revolution is                                                                
• what role does time play into revolutions: cradle to grave? no significance? Immediate change over long term?                                                                                                                                 
• does a complete shift in paradigm have to occur before something is a revolution?                        
• does a paradigm have to be fully rejected before a revolution takes place? does something novel have to be achieved for a revolution? (we mentioned that some social revolutions are chain affects, one country overthrows a dictator and then a neighboring country follows suite, is it still a revolution?  for the 'copy cat' country)                                                                                                                     
• discovering truth vs paradigm shift (same thing or different?)

We began some really interesting discussions on some of these but I would like to open up that discussion again for people to challenge or ask for explanation of an idea or to pose their own opinions. 

The Future of Energy

Assuming our species is around for another few hundred years, there is no doubt that we will at some point in the future completely exhaust our fossil fuel resources. The looming threat of depletion of accessible fossil fuels combined with the effects greenhouse gases have on our climate should indicate to us that it is time to enact a change. To make a successful transition from our current systems to a form of clean renewable energy would require massive amounts of change in a short period of time, and to me this hints at the idea of revolution.

The few options available to us now including nuclear and bio fuel face considerable setbacks, the largest of which is currently cost efficiency. Assuming fossil fuels become too expensive to manufacture in the near future, which of our current options do you think will take the lead?

While making predictions about when, and how we will make the switch is a difficult task, I think speculation is still valuable in spreading forward thinking regarding energy use. How to you think the energy revolution will happen? What do you think the social and economic or even geopolitical implications will be?

Here are some links with relevant information:

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-15/lockheed-skunk-works-team-tackling-nuclear-fusion-reactor.html

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/24/us-navy-eyes-biofuels-to-fuel-fleet-of-the-future.aspx

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/issues/2009/april/thebiofuelfuture.asp

Science and Ethics in Revolution

I found this really interesting article about keeping ethics present in scientific revolutions, and how the notion of not prioritizing ethics is unimaginable. Even the most technical scientific ideas have humanitarian elements that cannot be ignored. At first I found this article to be abstract because it was linking ideas such as inertia to human existence and ethical reflections. The article, however, proved to me that these ideas are not that different and integrate together beautifully. The fact that I thought the ideas too different to be joined speaks to the separation of science and humanities present in society today.


Article Link: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/10/3933/

Hey guys.

Right now, 100,000 people are meeting in Hungary to protest the taxation of the internet. This is a topic that we didn't bring up during our discussion about human rights. What about the right to the internet without taxation? Should all people be able to access the internet without being taxed by the government? Should internet be free for all and taken out of the hands of private companies?

Edit: There is basically nothing in the declarations of human rights that we read during class. This is clearly a sign that our rights declarations are very outdated. Do you guys think that this movement will add the right to internet without taxation in rights declarations, or should this not be considered a right in the first place?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/us-hungary-internet-protest-idUSKBN0IH29M20141028

Our Funding Structure Limiting Scientific Revolution?

Our system of funding science in the United States has always been something that I've been passionate about, and since this week's readings reminded me of the topic, I thought I'd bring up a few broad ranging questions.

The section we read from the structure of scientific revolution posed three "types" of science: solved problems, partially solved problems, and unsolved problems. Most science falls into the middle section according to Kuhn, while revolutionary problems typically (but not universally) fall under the third category. As such, the majority of academic science funding (>50%) comes from the NSF, with other governmental agencies providing substantial sources as well. While I think nationally funded science is fantastic and something every country should be doing at large scales, I see a few problems with the system. Grants are by nature competitive, and therefore beg applications from Kuhn's "middle" category, in my opinion. The stakes of failure are so high in the third category of untouchable problems with a small chance at success. However, partially solved problems provide enough merit to make a career out of and are a much safer option in terms of funding your research.

Therefore, is our system designed in such a way that limits scientific revolution? Not quite. Revolutions in science and technology continue to happen. I have no idea on where to get data for examining how the rate of "revolutions" has changed over time as its speculative in nature, but I might look into it anyways. That being said, I think the system discourages young scientists from pursuing the "big questions".

Diversifying funding and providing extra incentives for revolutionary ideas might be one direction towards improving the situation, but I'm interested in hearing the class' opinion. Is the system working? What can/should be done? Is science behind where it could be? Is taking the "comfortable" path something to be ashamed of?

Gay Blood Donation

Hello All!

At the end of my presentation last week there were some questions about gay blood donation (or the lack thereof). I hope to answer some of those questions.

But first, a story. My senior year of high school I wanted to give blood for the first time. I was finally of age (over 16, I was still 17) and I met all requirements, so I thought. I signed up for my time slot and naturally got really excited. It was my first time to really do something good for someone else. Heck, I may even save a life. When my time came I went to courtyard and started the process. I filled out some paperwork and then got asked a line of questions. I passed everything except the last question. They asked if I had had any sexual contact with a man since 1975. In order to answer honestly I had to say yes. They then asked me to leave.

I wasn't old enough to vote, but I was old enough to face direct discrimination.

Now, the facts. In 1983 the FDA implemented a ban on gay blood donation in the United States. Any man who had any sort of sexual contact with a man since 1975 was no longer able to donate blood. Their reasoning surrounding the HIV/AIDS scare that was then labeled as the 'gay disease'. The ban still stands today. Since, at the time, gay men had a higher chance of having any sort of STD/STI then their blood was seen as too risky. This disregards the premise that all blood is tested for STDs/STIs and that more STDs/STIs are transferred (percentage wise) through heterosexual couples than homosexual couples nowadays. Even with many different marches (especially from college students), medical pushes, and protests, the FDA has yet to lift the ban.

In the United States, gay sex means a lifetime ban on blood donation. This discrimination is not unique to the US though. Countries form all over the world either completely ban gay blood donation or create deferral periods. Either way, the countries law directly discriminates based on stereotypes and cultural norms.

It is incidents like this that prove that the queer rights revolution means much more than just marriage and protection. The overall lack of awareness on this issue (and others like it) shows how far the movement needs to go. Whenever a donation happens on campus, it alienates certain sects of the population. Personally, each blood donation sign doesn't show me the way to help, but instead it shows me how I am secondary to my peers. This laws makes me not only vulnerable because I constantly have to admit something about myself, but also dirty to the practitioners I must deny.

P.S. A note on the 9 million LGBTQ+ people statistic: it is true that there is no way of predicting how many LGBTQ+ people exist in the United States. Gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, and sex all exist on a spectrum of sorts. Because of this, it is impossible to label how many people within the community exist because of not only the breadth of identities (and the impossible ability to put a point on where the direct line exists) but also because of the fluidity of the spectrums. I put this statistic up to show that there has been an increase in people identifying as LGBTQ+ since Harry Hay started the revolution. I am sorry if I created any confusion.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/15/gay-blood-donors-ban_n_3932001.html
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/02/25/fda-blood-donation-ban
https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/07/adashi
Blood Donation Questionnaire: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/UCM272981.pdf

Throw back Monday to our discussion of Virginia Woolf's "A Room of One's Own" and specifically to our discussion of Shakespeare's sister.

3 disgusting ways independent, talkative women were tortured and shamed in Shakespeare's England

This article gives a little more insight in to how Shakespeare's sister would have suffered for expressing the same creativity and independence of thought as Shakespeare during this era. This article also points out the irony of how this harsh repression took place during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, a revolutionary, unmarried, independent, and outspoken woman.

Our Right to Thought?

S. African Bill of Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion." 

Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights:

"a) Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 

·         "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

               In these declarations, it appears to me as though the freedom to thought is oftentimes grouped with freedom of religion. Further, in the US Bill of Rights, the word thought is omitted entirely, and a paragraph defining our right to religion is given instead. Naturally, it seems clear that an oppressive entity would have difficulty in governing our thoughts; they're in our heads, personal, and only exist to another by proxy - our words and actions. So I might understand how this particular freedom may not receive as much attention as some of the others. However, there is a fine line between patriotism and indoctrination. Not to give our presentation away too much, but this is one of the most fundamental tactics used in North Korea, where more is created from very little by manipulating the thoughts of its people. But on the other hand, patriotism for one's own country, along with a little healthy bias (American exceptionalism?) can go a long way towards the functionality of a nation. So this leads to the question: how does one actually ensure freedom of thought amidst all the information being thrown at us on a daily basis? And how much is too much: should a balance be struck, or should striving towards absolute freedom of thought take precedence over all?