Category Archives: Transhumanism

If you happen to be reading this a million years from now, maybe a movement called effective altruism really took off. Perhaps it protected the lives of the 80 trillion human beings between our generation and yours, who managed to stave off ravaging poverty, man-made pathogens, and nuclear war.

More likely, youre reading this in 2022. If so, chances are that eight years ago, you or some close friends dumped an entire bucket of ice water over your head and shared the footage on Facebook, with a $10 donation to the ALS Association. The research group reported that, in total, the 2014 Ice Bucket Challenge raised $115 million for ALS, the deadly progressive neurodegenerative disease, also called Lou Gehrigs disease. That sounds like a lot of people doing a lot of good.

But if youre an effective altruist, you would probably say that it was funding cannibalism. It was ineffective giving because it pumped millions into a cause that isnt a high priority since it already has sufficient attention, and the research required for a cure will be slow and expensiveessentially depriving more worthy diseases of donations. At the time, the founder of effective altruism (EA), Scottish philosopher William MacAskill, wrote: If someone donates $100 to the ALS Association, he or she will likely donate less to other charities. So, he said, the Ice Bucket Challenge did more harm than good.

This kind of rational pragmatism is a central tenet of EA. The phrase itself was coined in 2011; and the movement, which lies at the junction of philosophy and philanthropy, burgeoned in the halls of the University of Oxford, and has now permeated the world of the ultrarich. By leaving the safe collegial confines of the academy, however, EA has been allowed to grow, attracting a broader range of adherents, often incorporating their own more elaborate ideas. Even when those are promoted by the founding members, theyre easily transformed into even further fantasy by acolytes far detached from the movements core creedsbut wealthy enough to push them.

The grounds of the philosophy are as follows: We should give to the charities that alleviate the worlds biggest problems, and do so with the most effective use of dollars. That premise seems hard to dispute, but theres more. To help achieve that, the movement dictates a narrow set of valuable causes: those committed to alleviating global poverty, investing in biomedical research, and ending factory farmingrigorously selected with empirical evidence to compute cost-effectiveness. Natural disaster relief doesnt pass the test because its oversubscribed. Donating to the treatment of intestinal worms may be more advisable than to tuberculosis, for example, because even though the parasitic disease causes relatively milder illness, its more neglected and more easily remediable at scale.

Sam Bankman-Fried [Photo: Lam Yik/Bloomberg/Getty Images]Now, EA is evolving from obscurity, delving into political spheres, and unfastening the wallets of billionaires. When I talk to William MacAskill on Zoom, he estimates the total of inner-circle EAs at 10,000, up from 100 in 2009. Included in that 10,000 is cryptocurrency-exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who rubs shoulders with Tom Brady and Gisele Bndchen, having thrusted them onto a $20 million Super Bowl ad this year for his company, FTX. And, perhaps theres now a new endorser of the movement: Elon Musk, the fifth most-followed person on Twitterranking between Rihanna and Ronaldowho tweeted his support for MacAskills newest book. This has all formed heavyweight momentum for the rollout of the title, What We Owe the Future, which would be the envy for any product launch.

Much of the newfound enchantment with EA springs from a shake-up of the doctrine in favor of a philosophical concept called longtermism. Between MacAskills first book, 2015s Doing Good Better, and this years, weve suffered a nightmarish pandemic, climate change has spiraled, and tech has produced disquieting side effects. Developed to take on those new threats, EAs now argue that its essential to protect not only our population, but also hundreds of coming generations, millions of years into the future, whose well-being is just as important as ours. That requires even more methodical consideration: calculating not only the cost-effectiveness of philanthropic strategies, but their estimated value for millions of humans, millions of years into the future.

Now embraced, and financed, by some of the worlds richest and most powerful, EA has gone from a simple argument for better allocation of charitable dollars to part of elite discussions about space colonies and digital human enhancement. Which could mean not just eschewing things like the Ice Bucket Challenge, but also constituting a free pass for the wealthy class to abrogate responsibility for addressing todays societal ills while cloaking themselves in a presumably enlightened outlook.

Dont Follow Your Passion, MacAskill titles a chapter in Doing Good Better. To wit, fledgling EAs commit to embarking on career paths where theyre either working for impactful nonprofits or earning to giveworking in well-paid industries, like finance or software engineering, that allow them the luxury of setting aside heaps of cash for donations, typically at least 10% of their total earnings. Theyd say that anyone reading this should be doing the same because theyre privileged to. MacAskill, 35, who says he lives on 26,000 pounds ($31,000) after donating half of his income to charity, is still in the top 3% of the worlds richesteven with his two housemates, lack of a car, and a leaky shower.

The philanthropic causes to which EAs contribute are said to be ones that are relatively neglected, easily solvable, and affect enough people in the world to be impactful if solved. Global poverty has long ranked near the top of lists; other priorities include climate action, criminal justice reform, and animal welfare. To not attend to animals would be to practice speciesism: All creatures are sentient beings capable of pain, and widespread factory farming subjects animals to a lifetime of extreme suffering.

To decide how to tackle those issues, they analyze the causes impacts with randomized control trials. They determine cost-effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs, a numerical measure of the relationship between the predicted quantity of years a person has left to live, and the quality of those years. This should help givers weigh the value of saving a life versus improving the quality of one: Would it be more effective to prevent 10 people from suffering from AIDS or 100 from severe arthritis? EA-aligned organizations, such as GiveWell, prescribe the best routes for charitable giving. For alleviating poverty, the recommended paths are funding parasitic-deworming medicines and bed nets, which respectively cure intestinal parasites and protect against malaria-bearing mosquitos; also, making direct cash transfers to people in developed countries via charities like GiveDirectly.

This validation of prioritizing causes is compellingly novel, says Benjamin Soskis, senior research associate in the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute. Throughout American philanthropic history, theres been ultimately a deference and nonjudgmental attitude toward the ways that people give, he says, fueled by individuals identities, priorities, and prerogatives. EA has opened a space for the community to scrutinize the often-self-indulgent philanthropic choices of the wealthy (and to a much more scrupulous extent than past one-off instances of criticism, such as when hotelier Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her dog, a Maltese, named Trouble). Previously, people wouldnt want to [push] back on gifts to Harvard and Stanford and Princeton as a waste of money, he says, despite their relative ineffectiveness.

But a common concern is that the movements rational assessment of causes removes emotion from givingthat it has an unfeeling, robotic, utilitarian calculus, Soskis says. (EA is explicitly based in Utilitarianism, a British economic movement of the 18th and 19th centuries that preached that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.) But emotion may be the most important factor when deciding where people give: When Michael Bloomberg gives billions to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins, it may not be the most effective use of the funds, but he feels a genuine sense of connection to the school. And the Ice Bucket Challenge had a shared sense of community of friends and familyit s an example of what Jennifer Rubenstein, an associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia and an EA critic, calls intimate donating, like how shed feel pleased to donate to her nieces dance-a-thon for cancer research. But cancer may not pass the prioritization test because its not neglected enough.

I think the emotion is still there, says MacAskill, on the Zoom call. Its just channeled particularly in one way rather than another. In practice, there needs to be some detachment in order to do the most good. Take ER doctors: How much emotion are they feeling day to day? he asks. It might be a fair amount, but if someone dies under their watch, its not the same amount of emotion as if a friend or family member of theirs dies. If you were intensely emotionally resonating with every single person you were interacting with, you just wouldnt be able to do your job.

MacAskill is clearly not devoid of emotion; he opens up about his Eureka moments that sparked the movement, one of which was his visceral reaction as a teenager to learning about the broad neglect of the global AIDS crisis. I was just like, thats fucked up, he says. I cannot believe that people arent talking about this. But rather than emotion, he speaks in terms of ethics. His work stems from a deep, moral desire to make the world better. (In the intervening years, AIDS has become a more prominent global cause, so EAs tend to focus more on malaria and parasitic diseases, though some advocate for funding AIDS interventions.)

MacAskill wants to build a collective movement that effects large-scale moral change, in the way that abolitionists and suffragettes did. Those movements take time, but hes patient; the first public statement against slavery was released in 1688, but it wasnt fully abolished globally for another 300 years (Mauritania was the holdout, until 1981). He envisions, in 100 years, a cultural shift whereby it becomes normal for everyone to consider how theyll make the world a better place. And, naturally, theyll design their plans of action using high-quality evidence and careful reasoning.

The moral underpinnings of EA come from the work of Australian philosopher Peter Singer, specifically his drowning child analogy from 1972. If you walked by a pond, so it goes, and saw a child submerged, the moral obligation to save them would clearly outweigh the small cost of dirtying your clothes and being late for your obligations. Just as critically, this extends to if the child were in a far-flung place across the globe, and you could still save them at a small cost. Thats the rationale for contributing money to relieve world poverty.

But more recently, the understanding of where the drowning child could exist has become more expansive in the eyes of EA thinkers. Now some in the movement advocate that theres no distinction between caring about the spatial versus the temporal. Just as we want to help people in other geographic areas, we should be as concerned about people in the futurepeople who dont exist, and wont for centuries, or millennia, or even millions of years. Homo-sapiens history thus far is minuscule; there will be infinitely many more humans in the future than have ever lived, so preserving that majority should be the priority. When the child is drowning is equally important to where it is.

The effective altruism movement has absolutely evolved, MacAskill says. Ive definitely shifted in a more longtermist direction. Longtermism is rooted in the notion of existential risk, promulgated in 2013 by another Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom. Its a more important moral priority to reduce the risks of future extinction over any other global public good. The human race needs to improve our ability to deal with those risks to our species continued existence, so we should generously fund mitigation strategies.

Various extinction scenarios preoccupy EAs: still global poverty and climate change, but also pandemics (natural and engineered), nuclear war, and potentially the takeover of malevolent artificial intelligencea worry that Elon Musk expressed long before his more overt championship of EA. Vastly more risk than North Korea, he tweeted in 2017. (Though, EAs would say that stable dictatorshipsundemocratic governments that stand firm against the international orderare also a high-importance risk.)

So EA is now in the business of catastrophes. But its still informed by empiricism; EAs say theres a risk of between 1% and 3% that an engineered pandemic could kill off the entire human race this century, or a 20% risk of a third world war by 2070. Again, the rationale can feel cold. Derek Parfit, a philosophy professor who mentored MacAskill at Oxford, once wrote that there is a much greater difference between a nuclear war that kills 99% and 100% of the worlds population, than between a nuclear war that kills 99% and complete peacebecause, in the former scenario, humanity is able to regather and rebuild civilization. And future people need the resources with which to do that.

Some of those resources may be fossil fuels. Theyre more tried and tested than renewable sources, MacAskill writes in his book, and solar panels and wind turbines degrade over time. Future people would need a reserve if they had to come back from the brink of a cataclysm, so we shouldnt deplete them now. We have 200 billion tonnes of carbon left in surface coal, and that stockpile would be easy to access using technology as simple as a shovel, he writesand enough to produce the energy we used from 1800 to 1980.

To many critics, these arithmetic predictions for scenarios so far into the future seem absurd; one called them Pascalian probabilities. EAs unemotionally commit to shut up and multiply: to enumerate the expected utility of an intervention aeons into the future by multiplying the value of an outcome by the probability that it will happen. Even the population figures of future people are vague and varying. Some say humanity could exist one million years into the future, based on other mammals survival rates, but because were more developed, it may be closer to 50 million. Or, millions, billions, trillions of years, suggested Nick Beckstead,yet another ex-Oxforder. What matters, Bostrom has said, is not the exact numbers, but the fact that they are huge.

Evangelizing that future people matter just as much could create an injustice to people who are currently living, including the 1.3 billion people in global poverty, says Ted Lechterman, assistant professor of philosophy at IE University in Madrid, previously a research fellow at the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford, whos written extensive criticisms of EA. Those trade-offs with present and near-term concerns . . . are difficult to justify. He appreciates the way the movement challenges common-sense morality, and that its generally open to debating its ideas, but thinks theyre overvaluing the future.

They also run the risk of overfunding some far-flung, sci-fi, oddball causes, such as asteroid collisions and robot apocalypse, Lechterman says. Some causes do feel outlandish; the EA forums host animated debates about the importance of reducing insect pain. MacAskill defends those discussionsnot because he imagines that saving the ants will become a defining cause, but because the dismissal of weird moral ideas has a very bad track record, he says, again citing early abolitionists, whose beliefs were peculiar to the 19th-century majority. Thrashing out insect welfare, he says, helps us mull over morality, and apply that thought to other concepts.

Lately, EAs pocketbooks have become more plentiful, as two tech billionaires have infused the movement with funds. Along with his wife, Cari Tuna, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, whos worth a reported $15.7 billion, launched the nonprofit Open Philanthropy, which a spokesperson told me committed more than $450 million in grants last year, and $500 million so far this year, to a variety of EA causes, including vaccine development, criminal justice reform, the welfare of carp, tilapia, and shrimp, and adversarial robustness research.

(One leading cause is growing effective altruism itself, through grants to the Effective Altruism Foundation, and MacAskills nonprofit, 80,000 Hours, named for the timespan an average person works in their lifetime. On the 80,000 Hours website, promoting effective altruism receives five-out-of-five scores on importance and neglectedness, and a four on solvability, totaling to a high score among causes of a whopping 14/15.)

Sam Bankman-Fried is probably the most prominent example of the EA earning-to-give model, that you can donate the most by working lucrative jobsa course of action reportedly influenced by MacAskill himself, whom he met in 2012 as an MIT undergraduate. The CEO of FTX has granted $130 million since February from his Future Fund, which is dedicated to solving longtermist problems. The fund welcomes petitions for grants from anyone working on projects, such as better PPE, advocacy for high-skilled immigration, biological weapons shelters, dealing with population decline, and the ability to rapidly scale food production in case of nuclear winter.

The donors have plunged the movement into politics. Moskovitz and Tuna donated $20 million to Democrats in 2016, making them the third-largest donors of the cycle. This year, Bankman-Fried bankrolled the Democratic primary campaign of Oregon House candidate Carrick Flynn, who ran on an EA platform; he lost, receiving 19% of the vote. EA has long been for political spendingand votingfor achieving better policies to improve the world; MacAskill has been a policy advisor to 10 Downing Street. But $11 million on a failed campaign suggests squandering money, the antithesis of EAs dogma of effective expenditure. Looking back, I think that was too much, MacAskill says (though, he wasnt involved in the spending).

Still, Bankman-Fried has since said he will contribute more than $100 million to the 2024 election. Perhaps north of $1 billion, if he has to stop Donald Trump from winning again. Speaking on the podcast Whats Your Problem, he said: I would hate to say [a billion is a] hard ceiling because who knows whats going to happen between now and then. (Fast Company reached out to Bankman-Fried for an interview but did not receive a response. Moskovitz politely declined.) Even Lechterman, the critic, says political spending may be justified in this case, for preventing the horrible candidate from coming to power. He says denying not only Trump, but also other recently elected global leaders, by funding opposition candidates could have saved a dramatic number of lives, while also improving standards of life and reducing social injustices, which are moral improvements in the EA mold.

The substantial involvement of the wealthy has kindled fears that they could start to drive the movement. Soskis, the philanthropy expertwho is partly funded by Open Philanthropythinks theres enough insulation in the movement to keep a mega-donor takeover at bay. There are a lot of people, like himself, who dont label themselves as EAs but are involved in the discourse, intrigued by the novel philanthropic ideas, and willing to steer them in the right directions. He thinks the number of those people is certainly more significant than their numbers would suggest.

Nor is MacAskill overly concerned. His book discusses value lock-in, the notion that some very niche groups tend to define what the worlds values are, for good or evil, and can change the trajectory of the future forever. He runs through the prominent value influencers of the pastJesus, Confucius, Hitlerconcluding, I really dont think its the rich that systematically determined the values of the future. (Hitler, though, was thought to have amassed vast wealth in the sum of more than $6 billion in todays money.) One of the earliest pivotal abolitionists, he says, was Benjamin Lay, a modest Quaker who lived in a cave. The modern environmentalist movement grew to success from the ground up, all along opposed to corporate interests.

But another billionaire might be the source of some unease. Elon Musk has been effusive about EA, asserting that it aligns closely with his ideology. Maybe more than anyone else in the world, Elon has a worldview, MacAskill says. If [longtermism] were wedded to any one particular person, I think it would be a real shame. Musk, who didnt respond to a request for comment, has reportedly not yet donated to causes based on EA, though hes charged Igor Kurganov, a pro-poker player and EA follower, with guiding his philanthropy plan. (An interesting six-degrees-of-EA-separation tidbit: Kurganovs partner, Liv Boeree, is a former housemate of MacAskills.)

MacAskill says that Musk seems to believe in the uncontroversial aspects of EA, but also has his own cause priorities, such as starting Martian civilizations. Some reports suggest hes fixated on transhumanism, or using technology to enhance our natural human states and transcend biological evolution, to achieve greater intelligence and super longevity. He has discussed the importance of keeping the Earth populated; Musk himself might be playing a first-person role in that procreation program. Theres a worry in general: as ideas get more popular, that they get twisted, MacAskill says.

Elon Musk [Photo: Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images]In his book, MacAskill does endorse reproduction, he says to counter an expanding worldview that its immoral to have kids because of your carbon impact. He stops short of recommending it for everyone because he respects personal reproductive choices, but he believes failing to breed could cause future technological stagnation. Even if the generations ahead dont face a calamitous extinction event, they could go through another Dark Ages, deprived of tech innovation, and an existential brain-drain could exacerbate those sluggish eras and collapse society.

But the transhumanism obsession began inside the Oxford halls, particularly from the mind of Nick Bostrom. He has researched genetic enhancement of intelligence via embryo selection, to engineer designer babies with high IQs, which he has acknowledged is reminiscent of eugenics. Transhumanism goes further, in changing the very substrate of persons from carbon-based biological beings to persons based in silicon computers, wrote philosopher Mark Walker. Bostrom has suggested that if we venture into transhumanism, we could create vastly huge numbers of fugture people. He is also a fan of space expansion, claiming in his Astronomical Waste paper, retweeted by Musk, that we waste 100 trillion human lives for each second that we do not colonize space.

The stagnation concern raises some worry about the fate of the future global poorinitially the very individuals that the EAs deemed most worthy of our help. Beckstead, who is now CEO of the FTX Foundation, wrote in 2013 that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country because wealthy nations have more potential to innovate. For Lechterman, the critic, the main source of EA disapproval is that the movement has power over the poor, with a heroic, elitist mentality that our global problems are things that smart, wealthy people can solve on their own.

Deciding whats right for poorer countries creates a dangerous power dynamic, he says. Cash transfers may be better than bed nets and deworming drugs because theyre less paternalistic, and allow people autonomy to spend money as they see fit, but theyre still incentives for societies to put off addressing the root causes of poverty. He says the movement should prioritize investing in advocacy groups and grassroots movements, to put resources in the hands of the people suffering the most, and give them the power to effect long-lasting systemic change.

It can be terribly hubristic for an elite few to make important decisions on the worlds behalf, Lechterman says, even if their motivations are, in fact, pure, and their beliefs are correct. Thats paramount now, as billionaires are flocking to the operation without the same philosophical introspection as the Oxfordian thinkers. Thats where things can especially go awry.

Read the original here:
The truth about Elon Musk, Sam Bankman-Fried, and effective altruism - Fast Company

St. Louis County Republicans last week surely feel they dodged a bullet with the exit from the November ballot of Katherine Pinner, who was briefly the partys nominee for St. Louis County executive. Whatever issues shed hoped to focus on in her campaign, the real issue would have been the lawsuit she filed against her former employer alleging that its mask mandate was satanic and that getting vaccinated displeases God.

Pinner thus took her place among a long line of loons in elective politics these days. Not all, but most, hail from the rightward side of the political spectrum. Which invites some legitimate questions about what has happened to the once-sober conservative movement.

People are also reading

Pinner is the 55-year-old political novice who emerged from out of nowhere this month to win the Republican nomination for the countys top political post. Online, she had voiced beliefs consistent with QAnon, the culty crowd that thinks a dark world of all-encompassing conspiracies hums just beyond plain sight a good-versus-evil epic that casts Donald Trump, improbably, as the former.

Pinners posts pointed out that if you replaced each B in President Bidens Build Back Better legislation with 6, youd end up with the mark of the devil. As voters started catching onto this plan of 6uild 6ack 6etter, the democrats quickly changed their slogan, she wrote. (Shes right. I remember the memo from headquarters.)

She suggested that coronavirus vaccines were laced with nanotechnology designed to bar code nine billion people in order to inventory them.

Its all connected, she warned.

Because, yknow, its always all connected.

After winning the Aug. 2 primary, Pinner apparently got some good advice and did some online house cleaning to remove indications that she is, well, crackers. But it seems she couldnt rein in her demons for long. The $1.2 million lawsuit Pinner filed last week against her former employer, the American Association of Orthodontists, for its pandemic policies, alleges that vaccines prompt transhumanism changes in the body that can lead to being barred from Gods graces. And it claims mask-wearing is associated with dehumanization and satanic ritual abuse.

In the latest head-spinning twist, Pinner late Thursday told the county Republican chair she plans to drop out of the race, without explaining why. Its a welcome if undeserved reprieve for the party, which can now put someone less demonstrably loopy on the ballot.

But the question remains: Why do Republicans, here and around America, keep nominating candidates who, if they approached them on the sidewalk, would prompt them to cross the street?

The poster-child for this phenomenon, of course, is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia. Evidence of her psychosis is too voluminous to detail here, so lets leave it at her suggestion that Californias wildfires were caused by space-based lasers controlled by a cabal of Jewish overlords.

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colorado, hasnt achieved quite that level of bonkers, but its not for lack of effort. Among her litany of lunacy was a speech in June declaring, The church is supposed to direct the government Im tired of this separation of church and state junk thats not in the Constitution. (Narrator: Except in the very first words of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.)

Republican candidates coming up through this years congressional primaries promise more of this derangement. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who has more motive than anyone to get Republicans seated, no matter the details recently worried aloud that his party might fail to take back the Senate because of what he diplomatically called candidate quality issues.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, Pennsylvanias Republican Senate nominee, has pushed such quack remedies that it prompted an essay in the normally staid Scientific American headlined: Dr. Oz Shouldnt Be a Senator or a Doctor. Arizona Republicans have nominated to the Senate 36-year-old Blake Masters, who has praised the anti-tech manifesto of Ted Unabomber Kaczynski. In Georgia, GOP Senate nominee Herschel Walker the former NFL star who has already been in the politically awkward position of having to issue clarifications to the media regarding how many children he has fathered by how many women bashed Bidens new climate law last week by asking, Dont we have enough trees around here?

Then (as always) theres Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who last week lambasted Dr. Anthony Fauci at a fundraising event. Fauci, the federal governments top infectious-disease expert, is retiring in the face of conservative fury over his allegiance to science instead of Trump. But thats not good enough for DeSantis, who told the crowd that someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac. Its worth noting that this elevated rhetoric comes from the man who many Republicans view as the more-sane alternative to Trump for the GOPs 2024 presidential nomination.

Despite the controversy surrounding Pinners brief presence on the St. Louis County ballot, she perhaps shouldnt completely discount a future in the GOP. At the rate its going, todays Republican Party will likely have a place for people like her for a long time to come.

Kevin McDermott is a Post-Dispatch columnist and Editorial Board member. On Twitter: @kevinmcdermott Email: kmcdermott@post-dispatch.com

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the original:
McDermott: Pinner may have been crackers, but in today's GOP, she was practically normal - St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Okay, this one may not technically be a furry game. If the late Fred Patten were to start this review off, he may have asked something along the lines that if you as a player moves around the world as a cat with a robot companion augmenting their ability to interpret the society around them, is that game actually anthropomorphic? Perhaps its more in line with transhumanism, but in this case more transfelinism, where your feline character is augmented by their technological companion.

And like Adam Jensen of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the cat you play certainly didnt ask for this.

The opening of the game reminded me of Milo and Otis, an old movie of a dog and a cat that end up getting lost in the woods and need to make their way back home. Basically it was the predecessor of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. In this case, the unnamed feline protagonist you play as is just catting around with other cats when you find yourself in trouble and are separated from your companions and fall down into a strange lost society of automatons.

You go on your own heros journey through this strange world that has established itself under what appears to be a giant blast shield facility. In order to return to the surface youll need to help your new robot friends, while avoiding the perils of an invasive species that has taken root in the darkness of this underworld.

While the game has been noted to be on the shorter side, it is very much a complete and contained experience. It has moments of tension and balances it well with a cathartic sense of discovery and exploration. I noted while playing that the designer definitely took inspiration from Valve works, and this includes their understanding of Battle Fatigue.

Things can work their way to a bit of an intensity when dealing with the headcrab like creatures that want to chew on your cat hide, but your moments of fleeing and fighting are spaced out where it doesnt become fatiguing.

The world is fun and immersive and the robot characters are interesting. There are certain embellishments that were fun, such as a fully functioning pool table in the bars that you can bat the ball around with your paws. Desks are littered with items to knock down, though disappointingly it doesnt cause frustrations if the owner of said desk watches you knock things off like the true feline you are.

I would recommend this game if you are a curious sort, you know, like a cat. You like to explore places and enjoy the story of a exotic society. If youre the kind that likes a more visceral or reaction based game of skill, you may not enjoy it so much. Take your time and take in the environment around you and youll get the most out of it. Talk to as many folks as you can and do the tasks they ask of you to get the most out of it. Heck, you can even nap around and take in the world as the camera pans out. Because cats like their naps.

Not much to say, its a short game and its mostly the story which I cant go into without spoiling things. Its a nice and contained experience that should you enjoy its premise enough, youll come back to experience it again like a film or a book. Its sometimes refreshing to experience a game that is a contained experience rather than one that expects to be a service it sells to you for the next decade.

To me, I would rather pay 30 bucks for a complete and enjoyable experience even if it is short, then to get it for free and go through a bunch of immersion breaking microtransactions. If that is too pricey for you for a seven hour experience, then you can feel free to wait for the price point to come down.

Visit link:
Stray - A simple and focused game in a world of games that go astray - Flayrah

In the blink of an eye on the evolutionary timescale, humans climbed down the trees, changed the landscape of this planet like no species before, and left their footprint in space. At each stage in the evolution of modern humans, we have strived to break free from the limits imposed upon us by biology. A major part of the human journey has been the development of new technologies, a phenomenon that has grown exponentially over the last century.

Transhumanism is an intellectual and technological paradigm that seeks to leverage this progress to further enhance the human condition. It cultivates a belief wherein by freeing the human body and mind of their biological limitations, humanity will transcend into a future unconstrained by death.

What does transhumanism look like? Its proponents promise a world where lifespan-extending breakthroughs allow us to live longer. Transhumanism will push research toward anti-aging treatments that let us stay healthy for a greater proportion of our longer lives. Mind-controlled prosthetics will offer disabled people the opportunity to regain control of their limbs.

Indeed, much of this is already happening. For instance, cochlear implants restore a sense of hearing, and pacemakers can add decades to patients lifespans. Recently, surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center transplanted a pig heart into a patient. Through genetic engineering, the scientists subdued the immune responses that would have otherwise made the patients body reject the organ. (Unfortunately, he later died.) In the future, transhumanists claim, we may be able to regenerate our organs, including hearts and brains, such that they never grow old.

But transhumanism proponents often go far beyond these breakthroughs. Many in the movement suggest that a singularity is the inescapable outcome of exponential technological progress. In such a future, they claim, it would be possible for humans to upload their minds to a computer and live forever in the digital realm. Some are signing up now to be frozen until such a time arrives that they can be revived.

Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday

So, on the one hand, we have technologies that are lengthening and improving the quality of our lives. But on the other hand, we are promised a techno-optimistic future where humans are immortal. History is rife with con artists promising the elixir of life. Is transhumanism any different? Is transhumanism the savior of humanity or a false prophecy?

Credit: Glenn Harvey / Big Think

In Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, a fanfiction novel by Eliezer Yodkowsky, Professor Quirrell tells Harry of a distant future when humanity would migrate from one solar system to another. He says that humans then wont tell the children about the history of Ancient Earth until theyre old enough to bear it; and when they learn theyll weep to hear that such a thing as Death had ever once existed!

Death, indeed, is the most profound of limitations that biology imposes on us. While immortality is more fiction than fact at the moment, radical improvements in longevity are already underway.

Over the last few decades, the growth of omics technologies has made it possible to understand how genes contribute to phenotypes. Research in various model organisms has revealed that several genes involved in stress resistance, the length of telomeres (the ends of chromosomes that shorten with aging), and cellular division are linked to the aging process. In the last few years, longevity companies have begun exploring their mechanisms of action to develop anti-aging drugs.

Indeed, some of this research shows promise. But the underlying assumption is that aging is simply a disease like any other that can be cured. Is that true?

One important limitation to keep in mind is that much of this research is being done in mice. Thats fine, but unlike mice in laboratory settings, humans dont live in highly protected spaces, a luxury that is arguably a major factor in increasing lifespans. Also, the physiology of mice and men are too different to claim that any effects seen in the former will be seen in the latter. Poor translation from mice to humans remains a challenge for nearly all anti-aging drugs under development, as well as biomedical research in general.

Longevity researchers often see aging as a disease that can be cured. The hypothesized cures often involve restoring vitality by reversing the biological clock. Regenerative medicine technologies are generating a lot of interest, especially following Shinya Yamanakas work in inducing specialized cells to turn back into stem cells upon the introduction of a few transcription factors, molecules that regulate gene expression.

However, this area too is filled with overhyped studies. Telomeres are unreliable aging clocks, and finding a cure for aging is tricky if it cannot be accurately measured. After all, anti-aging drugs are tested by their ability to slow down these aging clocks. Likewise, research on stem cells ability to rejuvenate our bodies is benchmarked by how well they rewind the biological clock. But, if these clocks arent true indicators of biological age, then studies based upon them are not producing reliable information. Worse, unproven stem cell therapies can lead to serious side effects, including blindness and cancers. One womans botched stem cell treatment led to bone fragments growing around her eye.

The Nobel Prize-winning CRISPR technique, which allows researchers to make precise edits in the genome, is incredibly powerful. Undoubtedly, it will make scientific research faster and lead to world-changing breakthroughs. Last year, the technology was used to cure a patient of sickle cell anemia, an inherited blood disorder that was previously incurable.

However, diseases that are caused by single genes, such as sickle cell anemia, are incredibly rare. For example, cardiovascular diseases that constitute the leading cause of death globally are shaped by a complex interplay of multiple genetic and environmental factors. Most likely, genetic engineering will not be able to cure diseases with complex etiologies. For the same reason, this is why the concept of designer babies with pre-selected traits like athletic ability and high intelligence are mostly a fantasy. Many of the characteristics we care about are controlled by hundreds, if not thousands, of genes.

Genetic engineering is also unlikely to be used to cure babies of various illnesses or conditions before they are born. If the objective is to avoid birth defects, pre-implantation screening and embryo selection can achieve that without the need for genetic manipulation.

Credit: Glenn Harvey / Big Think

Ensuring our bodies survive indefinitely through regeneration isnt the only route to immortality. As many sci-fi enthusiasts will vouch, one day, we might upload our minds into vast supercomputers. And like many other technologies touted by transhumanists, there are genuine advances in brain-computer interfaces. For example, some patients in a vegetative state can now communicate thanks to advances in neuroscience. Thus, transhumanists see uploading our minds as the zenith of a trend already underway. But this argument is dominated by hype rather than science.

A major and necessary milestone on the pathway to replicating the human brain in silico is understanding how the brain works. Indeed, we cannot build a conscious entity from scratch if we dont know how consciousness originates. We currently do not and can barely even define it. As most neuroscientists (but perhaps few AI engineers) will admit, we know astonishingly little about how the human brain works. It is still mostly a black box.

Why? The human brain has 1,000 trillion connections between neurons. Properly replicating a brain in other words, you would require precisely reproducing these connections and the information that they contain. (How the brain actually stores information is yet another basic thing we dont understand.) The sheer amount of information needed to reproduce one brain is roughly equivalent to the size of the internet (the 2016 version of the internet, anyway). And the computing power necessary to operate a single computerized brain in real-time is unimaginable at the moment.

Even if we had the necessary computing power, scientists have no idea how the brains structure and function translate to subjective, conscious experience. The sensation of eating chocolate is not something we can reproduce.Additionally, the entire notion that the brain or consciousness is uploadable is dubious. It stems in large part from the belief that our brains are like computers. However, that comparison is not correct. The brain as a computer is just a useful metaphor comparing the complexity of brains to that of humanitys most sophisticated invention; it is not biologically accurate. The brain does not operate like a computer.

Ultimately, all these objections to transhumanism are rooted in a critique of reductionism. Biological systems cannot be reduced to interactions between cells and genes. Cellular systems cannot be reduced to interactions between chemicals. Chemical systems cannot be reduced to interactions between atoms. And quantum mechanics shows us that even atoms cannot be reduced to simple interactions between protons and electrons. But transhumanists seem to believe that this is how the Universe operates, a view that is increasingly out of step with 21st-century science, which is holistic and systems-oriented.

Today, we know that many phenomena are emergent in nature. This means that their properties arise as a consequence of the interactions between their parts. For instance, the biological law of natural selection is not the direct result of the laws of physics. Instead, it emerges from the interactions of countless organisms. Simply knowing how protons and electrons interact does not yield any insight into the emergent phenomenon of biological evolution. Similarly, imitating the interactions of a quadrillion neurons in a computer almost certainly will not allow us to reproduce the emergent phenomenon of the mind. As Susan Lewis writes in her book Posthuman Bliss? The Failed Promise of Transhumanism, The viability of transhumanists dream depends on a compartmentalization of the mind and brain that scientific findings increasingly supersede.

In an essay on emergence, 13.8 columnist Adam Frank wrote:

If you know the fundamental entities and their laws, you can, in principle, predict everything that will or can happen. All of future history, all of evolution, is just a rearrangement of those electrons and quarks. In the reductionist view, you, your dog, your love for your dog, and the doggie love it feels for you are all nothing but arrangements and rearrangements of atoms. End of story.

Obviously, nobody really believes that. Yet, this sort of thing has to be true for the biggest promises of transhumanism to work. The problem is that it isnt true.

Therefore, instead of focusing on a distant future where sci-fi somehow becomes reality, transhumanists ought to redirect their energy to improving the human condition today. Many of the technologies upon which transhumanists base their aspirations can make a real difference here and now.

Visit link:
Transhumanism: Savior of humanity or false prophecy?

Public Theology for the Common GoodA public theology for the common good relies upon an image of a just, sustainable, participatory, and planetary future. How about Isaiah 11? Is the Peaceable Kingdom only a heavenly dream? Or, is it Gods promised future?

The public theologian offers discourse clarification and worldview construction for the sake of the global common good (Peters 2018). Just to be clear, public theology is not a disguised form of evangelization or an attempt to usurp the public square for religious influence.

Built into the worldview of a public theology for the common good today is the assumption that the public theologian contributes one voice among many. Many voices are sounding for attention, to be sure. This includes a variety of religious voices. If anything, the post-colonial public theologian within the liberation theology camp admonishes the world to listen to all voices, especially those voices previously muffled or ignored.

There is no global choir. No unison. No harmony. Only cacophony. What the public theologian intones will be heard solely by ears listening for charity of heart, sound reasoning, and wise judgment.

Public theology is conceived in the church, critically refined in the academy, and offered to the wider culture for the sake of the global common good. Maybe even the galactic common good.

Are we talking about three different publics: church, academy, and wider culture? Not exactly. Hak Joon Lee refines the notion of public. Public refers not so much to a locale as a posture of doing theology, namely, the dialogical openness to everybody in pursuing the common good of a society. Because social media provides the same media through which both church and academy communicate, all theology is already and unavoidably public theology.

Our point here is this: the public theologian speaks as one voice among many on behalf of a single common good. So says Jayme Reaves, a Baptist from Americas Deep South with a theology doctorate from Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland.

If theology in its most basic sense is the study of God, then,also in its most basic sense,public theology is the study of God done by or for the public,or as it pertains to issues in the public sphere. Public theology is theologyaboutandforthe public. If something is a public issue, public theology has something to say about it.[1]

Then Jayme Reaves hits our nail on the head with a sledgehammer.

A concern for the common good cannot be based in the denomination or supremacy of the Christian faith. We cannot achieve common good unless we are willing to question our own power and be willing to share it with others whose voices are not heard.

Pope Francis embraces in different terms a vision of a just, sustainable, participatory, and planetary society. He makes clear that the public theologian speaks with one voice among others, even though what is said has universal application.

100. I am certainly not proposing an authoritarian and abstract universalism, devised or planned by a small group and presented as an ideal for the sake of levelling, dominating and plundering, says Pope Francis in Fratelli Tutti (2020). For the future is not monochrome; if we are courageous, we can contemplate it in all the variety and diversity of what each individual person has to offer. How much our human family needs to learn to live together in harmony and peace, without all of us having to be the same!

The number of concerns we could register in a public theology for the common good would make a list longer than s decimal points. Like a circle with a center, at the center of the common good we find the flourishing of Gods creation, especially human flourishing for each individual as a benefit of the collective. Todays public theologian works out of a futuristic vision of a just, sustainable, participatory, and planetary society.

Even if such a vision is conceived in the church and critically refined in the university, it is offered to the planet as a whole. Susan Codone, on the faculty of Mercer University, writing in Christianity Today (August 7, 2020), says

public theology is a purposeful effort to place our faith in the public square and make room for others to join us.we can challenge the systemic social problems of racism, sexual abuse, misogyny, and domestic violence with couragehoping for change, not retribution.

Secular ears are wary when listening to religious voices. Public theology also understands and accepts that 1) we live in a diverse, multi-faith society and 2) there are many people who are wary of religion, Codone warns.

This public wariness borders on the hostile. We are moving into a post-Christian society and this is reflected in increased expressions of anti-Christian bigotry, writes George Yancey in a Patheos post.

Myresearchhas confirmed that those with this bigotry are more likely to be white, male, wealthy, and well-educated. So, it is very well connected and powerful individuals who have the type of anti-Christian prejudice that will continue to trouble Christians.

Yancy adds advice for us. This loss of cultural power is critical as Christians consider how to prepare to operate politically in a post-Christian world.

Concern over hostility toward religion in general and Christianity in particular has risen to the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito has issued an ominous warning: Theres growing hostility to religion or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors.

Justice Alioto added his concern that our stable and successful society in which people of diverse faiths live and work together harmoniously and productivity while still retaining their own beliefs is under threat.

Channeling the lateRichard John Neuhaus, the justice cautioned against a privatizing of religious belief and practice where the cultural expectation is that when you step outside into the public square in the light of day you had better behave yourself like a good secular citizen.

While Alito is right to worry about the erosion of religious liberty, his speech partially misdiagnoses the problem. Although he referenced multiple faith traditions, he revealed his real concern to be opposition to traditional religious beliefs by those subscribing to the new moral code. This depiction sets up an antagonism between supposedly secular progressive ideas and conservative religious understandings, with the latter needing special protection from the law and the government.Public theologians tend to be supportive of the more progressive ideas.

Public theology, says contemporary Dutch scholar, Toine von den Hoogen, is that it is the form of theological investigation which is aimed at the modern media mediated complexes of meaning which arise in the construction of world views and cultural zones from the fusions between religion and culture, religion and economics, and religion and politics(Hoogen 2019, 10).

Little more than a century ago, another Dutch theologian and statesman introduced a nascent form of public theology to Europe. That was Abraham Kuyper, Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905. The government, too, is the servant of God, Kuyper reminded us(Kuyper 2022, 251). The public theologian continues to remind us of this.

Kuyper spoke to a Christian society. We do not. Ours is a pluralistic society. Todays post-colonial or liberation theologian will publicly raise one voice among many for the common good of the many. When offering to the public square discourse clarification and worldview construction, the public theologian must be careful to speak with charity of heart, sound reasoning, and wise judgment.

Ted Peters pursues Public Theology at the intersection of science, religion, ethics, and public policy. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. His book, God in Cosmic History, traces the rise of the Axial religions 2500 years ago. He previously authored Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom? (Routledge, 2nd ed., 2002) as well as Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003). He is editor of AI and IA: Utopia or Extinction? (ATF 2019). Along with Arvin Gouw and Brian Patrick Green, he co-edited the new book, Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics hot off the press (Roman and Littlefield/Lexington, 2022). Soon he will publish The Voice of Christian Public Theology (ATF 2022). See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

This fictional spy thriller, Cyrus Twelve, follows the twists and turns of a transhumanist plot.

The Public Theology of Rudolf von Sinner

The Public Theology of Katie Day

The Public Theology of Binoy Jacob

The Public Theology of Robert Benne

The Public Theology of Paul Chung

The Drumbeat African Public Theology of Mwaambi G Mbi

The Public Theology of Valerie Miles-Tribble

The Public Theology of Kang Phee Seng

The Public Theology of Jennifer Hockenbery

Karen Bloomquist: Another Worldview Must Be Enacted Today

Global Network for Public Theology (GNPT)

Center for Public Theology

Ebo Lectures in Theology and Public Life

Center for Theology and Public Issues, University of Otago

Lutheran World Federation, Open Access Public Theology Resources

Christianity Today, Public Theology Project

International Journal of Public Theology

Hoogen, Toine von den. 2019. Public Theology and Institutional Economics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Kuyper, Abraham. 2022. On Charity and Justice. Bellingham WA: Lexham.

Peters, Ted. 2018. Public Theology: Its Pastoral, Apologetic, Scientific, Politial, and Prophetic Tasks. International Journal of Public Theology 12:2 153-177; https://brill.com/abstract/journals/ijpt/12/1/ijpt.12.issue-1.xml.

See the original post:
Public Theology for the Common Good | Public Theology for the Common Good - Patheos

Image: Gizmodo/Shutterstock

Gizmodo is 20 years old! To celebrate the anniversary, were looking back at some of the most significant ways our lives have been thrown for a loop by our digital tools.

Like so many others after 9/11, I felt spiritually and existentially lost. Its hard to believe now, but I was a regular churchgoer at the time. Watching those planes smash into the World Trade Center woke me from my extended cerebral slumber and I havent set foot in a church since, aside from the occasional wedding or baptism.

I didnt realize it at the time, but that godawful day triggered an intrapersonal renaissance in which my passion for science and philosophy was resuscitated. My marriage didnt survive this mental reboot and return to form, but it did lead me to some very positive places, resulting in my adoption of secular Buddhism, meditation, and a decade-long stint with vegetarianism. It also led me to futurism, and in particular a brand of futurism known as transhumanism.

Transhumanism made a lot of sense to me, as it seemed to represent the logical next step in our evolution, albeit an evolution guided by humans and not Darwinian selection. As a cultural and intellectual movement, transhumanism seeks to improve the human condition by developing, promoting, and disseminating technologies that significantly augment our cognitive, physical, and psychological capabilities. When I first stumbled upon the movement, the technological enablers of transhumanism were starting to come into focus: genomics, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. These tools carried the potential to radically transform our species, leading to humans with augmented intelligence and memory, unlimited lifespans, and entirely new physical and cognitive capabilities. And as a nascent Buddhist, it meant a lot to me that transhumanism held the potential to alleviate a considerable amount of suffering through the elimination of disease, infirmary, mental disorders, and the ravages of aging.

The idea that humans would transition to a posthuman state seemed both inevitable and desirable, but, having an apparently functional brain, I immediately recognized the potential for tremendous harm. Wanting to avoid a Brave New World dystopia (perhaps vaingloriously), I decided to get directly involved in the transhumanist movement in hopes of steering it in the right direction. To that end, I launched my blog, Sentient Developments, joined the World Transhumanist Association (now Humanity+), co-founded the now-defunct Toronto Transhumanist Association, and served as the deputy editor of the transhumanist e-zine Betterhumans, also defunct. I also participated in the founding of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), on which I continue to serve as chairman of the board.

G/O Media may get a commission

40% Off

Amazon Fire 65" 4K Smart TV

Looks good Aside from being 65" in size, this TV offers UHD 4K visuals which are a constant feast for the eyes, features HDR to make sure you can appreciate the full range of colors and contrasts, and it also allows you to use it as a hub for all of your streaming services.

Indeed, it was also around this time in the early- to mid-2000s that I developed a passion for bioethics. This newfound fascination, along with my interest in futurist studies and outreach, gave rise to a dizzying number of opportunities. I gave talks at academic conferences, appeared regularly on radio and television, participated in public debates, and organized transhumanist-themed conferences, including TransVision 2004, which featured talks by Australian performance artist Stelarc, Canadian inventor and cyborg Steve Mann, and anti-aging expert Aubrey de Grey.

The transhumanist movement had permeated nearly every aspect of my life, and I thought of little else. It also introduced me to an intriguing (and at times problematic) cast of characters, many of whom remain my colleagues and friends. The movement gathered steady momentum into the late 2000s and early 2010s, acquiring many new supporters and a healthy dose of detractors. Transhumanist memes, such as mind uploading, genetically modified babies, human cloning, and radical life extension, flirted with the mainstream. At least for a while.

The term transhumanism popped into existence during the 20th century, but the idea has been around for a lot longer than that.

The quest for immortality has always been a part of our history, and it probably always will be. The Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh is the earliest written example, while the Fountain of Youththe literal Fountain of Youthwas the obsession of Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Len.

Notions that humans could somehow be modified or enhanced appeared during the European Enlightenment of the 18th century, with French philosopher Denis Diderot arguing that humans might someday redesign themselves into a multitude of types whose future and final organic structure its impossible to predict, as he wrote in DAlemberts Dream. Diderot also thought it possible to revive the dead and imbue animals and machines with intelligence. Another French philosopher, Marquis de Condorcet, thought along similar lines, contemplating utopian societies, human perfectibility, and life extension.

The Russian cosmists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries foreshadowed modern transhumanism, as they ruminated on space travel, physical rejuvenation, immortality, and the possibility of bringing the dead back to life, the latter being a portend to cryonicsa staple of modern transhumanist thinking. From the 1920s through to the 1950s, thinkers such as British biologist J. B. S. Haldane, Irish scientist J. D. Bernal, and British biologist Julian Huxley (who popularized the term transhumanism in a 1957 essay) were openly advocating for such things as artificial wombs, human clones, cybernetic implants, biological enhancements, and space exploration.

It wasnt until the 1990s, however, that a cohesive transhumanist movement emerged, a development largely brought about byyou guessed itthe internet.

As with many small subcultures, the internet allowed transhumanists around the world to start communicating on email lists, and then websites and blogs, James Hughes, a bioethicist, sociologist, and the executive director of the IEET, told me. Almost all transhumanist culture takes place online. The 1990s and early 2000s were also relatively prosperous, at least for the Western countries where transhumanism grew, so the techno-optimism of transhumanism seemed more plausible.

The internet most certainly gave rise to the vibrant transhumanist subculture, but the emergence of tantalizing, impactful scientific and technological concepts is what gave the movement its substance. Dolly the sheep, the worlds first cloned animal, was born in 1996, and in the following year Garry Kasparov became the first chess grandmaster to lose to a supercomputer. The Human Genome Project finally released a complete human genome sequence in 2003, in a project that took 13 years to complete. The internet itself gave birth to a host of futuristic concepts, including online virtual worlds and the prospect of uploading ones consciousness into a computer, but it also suggested a possible substrate for the Nospherea kind of global mind envisioned by the French Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Key cheerleaders contributed to the proliferation of far-flung futurist-minded ideas. Eric Drexlers seminal book Engines of Creation (1986) demonstrated the startling potential for (and peril of) molecular nanotechnology, while the work of Hans Moravec and Kevin Warwick did the same for robotics and cybernetics, respectively. Futurist Ray Kurzweil, through his law of accelerating returns and fetishization of Moores Law, convinced many that a radical future was at hand; in his popular books, The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999) and The Singularity is Near (2005), Kurzweil predicted that human intelligence was on the cusp of merging with its technology. In his telling, this meant that we could expect a Technological Singularity (the emergence of greater-than-human artificial intelligence) by the mid-point of the 21st century (as an idea, the Singularityanother transhumanist staplehas been around since the 1960s and was formalized in a 1993 essay by futurist and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge). In 2006, an NSF-funded report, titled Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society, showed that the U.S. government was starting to pay attention to transhumanist ideas.

A vibrant grassroots transhumanist movement developed at the turn of the millennium. The Extropy Institute, founded by futurist Max More, and the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), along with its international charter groups, gave structure to what was, and still is, a wildly divergent set of ideas. A number of specialty groups with related interests also emerged, including: the Methuselah Foundation, the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (now the Machine Intelligence Research Institute), the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, the Foresight Institute, the Lifeboat Foundation, and many others. Interest in cryonics increased as well, with the Alcor Life Extension Foundation and the Cryonics Institute receiving more attention than usual.

Society and culture got cyberpunked in a hurry, which naturally led people to think increasingly about the future. And with the Apollo era firmly in the rear view mirror, the publics interest in space exploration waned. Bored of the space-centric 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars, we increasingly turned our attention to movies about AI, cybernetics, and supercomputers, including Blade Runner, Akira, and The Matrix, many of which had a distinctive dystopian tinge.

With the transhumanist movement in full flight, the howls of outrage became louderfrom critics within the conservative religious right through to those on the anti-technological left. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared transhumanism to be the worlds most dangerous idea, while bioethicist Leon Kass, a vocal critic of transhumanism, headed-up President George W. Bushs bioethics council, which explicitly addressed medical interventions meant to enhance human capabilities and appearance. The bioethical battle lines of the 21st century, it appeared, were being drawn before our eyes.

This TIME cover blew my mind when it came out on February 21, 2011.Image: Photo-illustration by Phillip Tolendo for TIME. Prop Styling by Donnie Myers.

It was a golden era for transhumanism. Within a seemingly impossible short time, our ideas went from obscurity to tickling the zeitgeist. The moment that really did it for me was seeing the cover of TIMEs February 21, 2011, issue, featuring the headline, 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal, and cover art depicting a brain-jacked human head.

By 2012, my own efforts in this area had landed me a job as a contributing editor for io9, which served to expand my interest in science, futurism, and philosophy even further. I presented a talk at Moogfest in 2014 and had some futurist side hustles, serving as the advisor for National Geographics 2017 documentary-drama series, Year Million. Transhumanist themes permeated much of my work back then, whether at io9 or later with Gizmodo, but less so with each passing year. These days I barely write about transhumanism, and my involvement in the movement barely registers. My focus has been on spaceflight and the ongoing commercialization of space, which continues to scratch my futurist itch.

What was once a piercing roar has retreated to barely discernible background noise. Or at least thats how it currently appears to me. For reasons that are both obvious and not obvious, explicit discussions of transhumanism and transhumanists have fallen by the wayside.

The reason we dont talk about transhumanism as much as we used to is that much of it has become a bit normalat least as far as the technology goes, as Anders Sandberg, a senior research fellow from the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, told me.

We live lives online using wearable devices (smartphones), aided by AI and intelligence augmentation, virtual reality is back again, gene therapy and RNA vaccines are a thing, massive satellite constellations are happening, drones are becoming important in warfare, trans[gender] rights are a big issue, and so on, he said, adding: We are living in a partially transhuman world. At the same time, however, the transhumanist idea to deliberately embrace the change and try to aim for such a future has not become mainstream, Sandberg said.

His point about transhumanism having a connection to trans-rights may come as a surprise, but the futurist linkage to LGBTQ+ issues goes far back, whether it be sci-fi novelist Octavia Butler envisioning queer families and greater gender fluidity or feminist Donna Haraway yearning to be a cyborg rather than a goddess. Transhumanists have long advocated for a broadening of sexual and gender diversity, along with the associated rights to bodily autonomy and the means to invoke that autonomy. In 2011, Martine Rothblatt, the billionaire transhumanist and transgender rights advocate, took it a step further when she said, we cannot be surprised that transhumanism arises from the groins of transgenderism, and that we must welcome this further transcendence of arbitrary biology.

Natasha Vita-More, executive director of Humanity+ and an active transhumanist since the early 1980s, says ideas that were foreign to non-transhumanists 20 years ago have been integrated into our regular vocabulary. These days, transhumanist-minded thinkers often reference concepts such as cryonics, mind uploading, and memory transfer, but without having to invoke transhumanism, she said.

Is it good that we dont reference transhumanism as much anymore? No, I dont think so, but I also think it is part of the growth and evolution of social understanding in that we dont need to focus on philosophy or movements over technological or scientific advances that are changing the world, Vita-More told me. Moreover, people today are far more knowledgeable about technology than they were 20 years ago and are more adept at considering the pros and cons of change rather than just the cons or potential bad effects, she added.

PJ Manney, futurist consultant and author of the transhumanist-themed sci-fi Phoenix Horizon trilogy, says all the positive and optimistic visions of future humanity are being tempered or outright dashed as we see humans taking new tools and doing what humans do: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Indeed, were a lot more cynical and wary of technology than we were 20 years ago, and for good reasons. The Cambridge Analytica data scandal, Edward Snowdens revelations about government spying, and the emergence of racist policing software were among an alarming batch of reproachable developments that demonstrated technologys potential to turn sour.

We dont talk about transhumanism that much any more because so much of it is in the culture already, Manney, who serves with me on the IEET board of directors, continued, but we exist in profound future shock and with cultural and social stresses all around us. Manney referenced the retrograde SCOTUS reversals and how U.S. states are removing human rights from acknowledged humans. She suggests that we secure human rights for humans before we consider our silicon simulacrums.

Nigel Cameron, an outspoken critic of transhumanism, said the futurist movement lost much of its appeal because the naive framing of the enormous changes and advances under discussion got less interesting as the distinct challenges of privacy, automation, and genetic manipulation (e.g. CRISPR) began to emerge. In the early 2000s, Cameron led a project on the ethics of emerging technologies at the Illinois Institute of Technology and is now a Senior Fellow at the University of Ottawas Institute on Science, Society and Policy.

Sandberg, a longstanding transhumanist organizer and scholar, said the War on Terror and other emerging conflicts of the 2000s caused people to turn to here-and-now geopolitics, while climate change, the rise of China, and the 2008 financial crisis led to the pessimism seen during the 2010s. Today we are having a serious problem with cynicism and pessimism paralyzing people from trying to fix and build things, Sandberg said. We need optimism!

Some of the transhumanist groups that emerged in the 1990s and 2000s still exist or evolved into new forms, and while a strong pro-transhumanist subculture remains, the larger public seems detached and largely disinterested. But thats not to say that these groups, or the transhumanist movement in general, didnt have an impact.

The various transhumanist movements led to many interesting conversations, including some bringing together conservatives and progressives into a common critique, said Cameron.

I think the movements had mainly an impact as intellectual salons where blue-sky discussions made people find important issues they later dug into professionally, said Sandberg. He pointed to Oxford University philosopher and transhumanist Nick Bostrom, who discovered the importance of existential risk for thinking about the long-term future, which resulted in an entirely new research direction. The Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge and the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford are the direct results of Bostroms work. Sandberg also cited artificial intelligence theorist Eliezer Yudkowsky, who refined thinking about AI that led to the AI safety community forming, and also the transhumanist cryptoanarchists who did the groundwork for the cryptocurrency world, he added. Indeed, Vitalik Buterin, a co-founder of Ethereum, subscribes to transhumanist thinking, and his father, Dmitry, used to attend our meetings at the Toronto Transhumanist Association.

According to Manney, various transhumanist-driven efforts inspired a vocabulary and creative impulse for many, including myself, to wrestle with the philosophical, technological and artistic implications that naturally arise. Sci-fi grapples with transhumanism now more than ever, whether people realize it or not, she said. Fair point. Shows like Humans, Orphan Black, Westworld, Black Mirror, and Upload are jam-packed with transhumanist themes and issues, though the term itself is rarelyif everuttered. That said, these shows are mostly dystopian in nature, which suggests transhumanism is mostly seen through gray-colored glasses. To be fair, super-uplifting portrayals of the future rarely work as Hollywood blockbusters or hit TV shows, but its worth pointing out that San Junipero is rated as among the best Black Mirror episodes for its positive portrayal of uploading as a means to escape death.

For the most part, however, transhuman-flavored technologies are understandably scary and relatively easy to cast in a negative light. Uncritical and starry-eyed transhumanists, of which there are many, werent of much help. Manney contends that transhumanism itself could use an upgrade. The lack of consideration for consequences and follow-on effects, as well as the narcissistic demands common to transhumanism, have always been the downfall of the movement, she told me. Be careful what you wish foryou may get it. Drone warfare, surveillance societies, deepfakes, and the potential for hackable bioprostheses and brain chips have made transhumanist ideas less interesting, according to Manney.

Like so many other marginal social movements, transhumanism has had an indirect influence by widening the Overton window [also known as the window of discourse] in policy and academic debates about human enhancement, Hughes explained. In the 2020s, transhumanism still has its critics, but it is better recognized as a legitimate intellectual position, providing some cover for more moderate bioliberals to argue for liberalized enhancement policies.

Transhumanist Anders Sandberg circa 1998. Photo: Anders Sandberg

Sandberg brought up a very good point: Nothing gets older faster than future visions. Indeed, many transhumanist ideas from the 1990s now look quaint, he said, pointing to wearable computers, smart drinks, imminent life extension, and all that internet utopianism. That said, Sandberg thinks the fundamental vision of transhumanism remains intact, saying the human condition can be questioned and changed, and we are getting better at it. These days, we talk more about CRISPR (a gene-editing tool that came into existence in 2012) than we do nanotechnology, but transhumanism naturally upgrades itself as new possibilities and arguments show up, he said.

Vita-More says the transhumanist vision is still desirable and probably even more so because it has started to make sense for many. Augmented humans are everywhere, she said, from implants, smart devices that we use daily, human integration with computational systems that we use daily, to the hope that one day we will be able to slow down memory loss and store or back-up our neurological function in case of memory loss or diseases of dementia and Alzheimers.

The observation that transhumanism has started to make sense for many is a good one. Take Neuralink, for example. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk based the startup on two very transhumanistic principlesthat interfaces between the brain and computers are possible and that artificial superintelligence is coming. Musk, in his typical fashion, claims a philanthropic motive for wanting to build neural interface devices, as he believes boosted brains will protect us from malign machine intelligence (I personally think hes wrong, but thats another story).

For Cameron, transhumanism looks as frightening as ever, and he honed in on a notion he refers to as the hollowing out of the human, the idea that all that matters in Homo sapiens can be uploaded as a paradigm for our desiderata. In the past, Cameron has argued that if machine intelligence is the model for human excellence and gets to enhance and take over, then we face a new feudalism, as control of finance and the power that goes with it will be at the core of technological human enhancement, and democracywill be dead in the water.

That being said, and despite these concerns, Manny believes theres still a need for a transhumanist movement, but one that addresses complexity and change for all humanity.

Likewise, Vita-More says a transhumanist movement is still needed because it serves to facilitate change and support choices based on personal needs that look beyond binary thinking, while also supporting diversity for good.

There is always a need for think tanks. While there are numerous futurist groups that contemplate the future, they are largely focused on energy, green energy, risks, and ethics, said Vita-More. Few of these groups are a reliable source of knowledge or information about the future of humanity other than a postmodernist stance, which is more focused on feminist studies, diversity, and cultural problems. Vita-More currently serves as the executive director of Humanity+.

Hughes says that transhumanists fell into a number of political, technological, and even religious camps when they tried to define what they actually wanted. The IEET describes its brand of transhumanism as technoprogressivisman attempt to define and promote a social democratic vision of an enhanced future, as Hughes defines it. As a concept, technoprogressivism provides a more tangible foundation for organizing than transhumanism, says Hughes, so I think we are well beyond the possibility of a transhumanist movement and will now see the growth of a family of transhumanist-inspired or influenced movements that have more specific identities, including Mormon and other religious transhumanists, libertarians and technoprogressives, and the ongoing longevist, AI, and brain-machine subcultures.

I do think we need public intellectuals to be more serious about connecting the dots, as technologies continue to converge and offer bane and blessing to the human condition, and as our response tends to be uncritically enthusiastic or perhaps unenthusiastic, said Cameron.

Sandberg says transhumanism is needed as a counterpoint to the pervasive pessimism and cynicism of our culture, and that to want to save the future you need to both think it is going to be awesome enough to be worth saving, and that we have power to do something constructive. To which he added: Transhumanism also adds diversitythe future does not have to be like the present.

As Manney aptly pointed out, it seems ludicrous to advocate for human enhancement at a time when abortion rights in the U.S. have been rescinded. The rise of anti-vaxxers during the covid-19 epidemic presents yet another complication, showing the extent to which the public willingly rejects a good thing. For me personally, the anti-vaxxer response to the pandemic was exceptionally discouraging, as I often reference vaccines to explain the transhumanist mindsetthat we already embrace interventions that enhance our limited genetic endowments.

Given the current landscape, its my own opinion that self-described transhumanists should advocate and agitate for full bodily, cognitive, and reproductive autonomy, while also championing the merits of scientific discourse. Until these rights are established, it seems a bit premature to laud the benefits of improved memories or radically extended lifespans, as sad as it is to have to admit that.

These contemporary social issues aside, the transhuman future wont wait for us to play catchup. These technologies will arrive, whether they emerge from university labs or corporate workshops. Many of these interventions will be of great benefit to humanity, but others could lead us down some seriously dark paths. Consequently, we must move the conversation forward.

Which reminds me of why I got involved in transhumanism in the first placemy desire to see the safe, sane, and accessible implementation of these transformative technologies. These goals remain worthwhile, regardless of any explicit mention of transhumanism. Thankfully, these conversations are happening, and we can thank the transhumanists for being the instigators, whether you subscribe to our ideas or not.

From the Gizmodo archives:

An Irreverent Guide to Transhumanism and The Singularity

U.S. Spy Agency Predicts a Very Transhuman Future by 2030

Most Americans Fear a Future of Designer Babies and Brain Chips

Transhumanist Tech Is a Boner Pill That Sets Up a Firewall Against Billy Joel

DARPAs New Biotech Division Wants to Create a Transhuman Future

Read more here:
Whatever Happened to the Transhumanists? - Gizmodo

These are the times that try mens souls.

So, Thomas Paine wrote in 1775 in his publication of The American Crisis. Not so well-remembered today are the words that followed that famous quote:

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

At that time, Colonial America was passing through the early stages of a Fourth Turning, an historical time of crisis that occurs roughly every eighty years.

As a point of reference, a First Turning is a period of renewal; one in which a historical crisis has ended. The populace has risen to the occasion, thrown off tyranny and conquered social, political and economic tribulation. Having done so, they now create a renewal, based on hard work, personal responsibility and moral integrity.

A Second Turning occurs a generation later, when the rewards of a First Turning have resulted in prosperity and stability. Those new adults who have grown up during a First Turning will be well-off and will seek to pursue high-mindedness and social concerns. Along the way, they will also pursue self-indulgence. (A deterioration begins.)

In a Third Turning, again a generation later, complacency sets in. Politically, those individuals who are sociopathic (a clinical aberration, estimated at about 4% of any society at any given time) tend to rise in political spheres, replacing the older generation of responsible people. They tend to raise taxes, increase social welfare programmes and increase government spending in every way really, any excuse to seize increased power over the populace.

Then, in a Fourth Turning, again a generation later, power having been seized, the sociopaths seek total power the elimination of all freedoms, to be replaced by totalitarian rule.

Historically, in a Third Turning, a complacent people make it possible for sociopaths to take power. In a Fourth Turning, the sociopaths exert that power.

It matters little whether the excuses put forward by political leaders are climate control, racial equity, CBDCs, cancel culture, owning nothing, digital IDs, transhumanism, vaccine mandates or a Green New Deal, the objective is singular: total dominance of the ruling class over the subservient class. Any excuse will do, if it has totalitarian rule as its outcome.

In any Fourth Turning, those who are more thoughtful and forward-thinking will begin to make sense of the ruse, but find themselves being heavily criticized by all and sundry. The media will do all within their power to slap down those who denounce the ruling class. But more to the point, the greater proportion of the populace will remain in their slumber and resist the awakening strenuously.

It is at such a time that the few who have figured out the ruse experience their greatest challenge whether to speak out or whether to just go along.

This group must struggle in the darkness to a great degree, as the majority of the population fight against an awakening, as it disturbs their complacency and is too horrendous to contemplate.

The latter half of a Fourth Turning becomes a chaotic and confusing period one in which many people desperately hope to just get along, whilst those who are more visionary become increasingly aware that their freedoms are being flushed away on a wholesale basis.

And, whilst it is the smaller, more visionary group that creates the spark of change, it is, historically, a different and unlikely group that actually creates substantive change in the latter half.

The group that turns the tide is the group that I often (unflatteringly) refer to as the hoi polloi the average guy.

At some point, the average guy, who simply wanted to be allowed to get on with his life go to work, mow the lawn, sit on the couch with a six-pack and watch the game has had his life so disrupted by the ruling sociopaths and their increasingly manic oppression that he accepts that he must turn off the TV and do something.

He is not a leader, but he is a joiner.

When, in Ottawa, Canada, a few truckers staged a small demonstration, and the average guy saw it on the news, he got in his truck and joined. He may have had no real idea of how events might develop; he simply added what weight he had to the effort.

But the very fact that he is the average guy that the bulk of the population is made up of average guys, makes their collective weight greater than those who may have been more inspired thinkers, and more importantly greater than the weight of the oppressors.

As simplistic as a convoy of Canadian truckers may be, their numbers become their strength.

More to the point, they carry with them the sympathies of other average people, who come out to cheer them on, bring them food and donate money.

Not surprisingly, their achievement is brief, as its so simplistic, but they do succeed in bringing about temporary change, setting Government back on its heels.

Then, a few farmers in the Netherlands hear about the Canadians and decside to drive their tractors into the city, and it happens again.

And it keeps happening.

Throughout history, its been the same. In 1775, when Paul Revere rode into Lexington and Concord, its quite unlikely that he shouted courageously, To arms! To arms! That would have been treason and treason was one of only three capital offenses at that time.

More likely, he went to a few back doors and spread the word quietly. After all, the people of America were at that time British. The hoi polloi of the day especially those of middle age or older were relatively successful and had a lot to lose. They did not approve of revolt and were willing to pay the small stamp tax that had triggered it. They argued vociferously in the House of Burgesses to just get along. But a few firebrands kept up their challenge and, eventually, they were joined by farmers and shopkeepers who, like the truckers, had had enough and decided to do something.

For those of us who saw the warning signs early decades ago the first half of the Fourth Turning has been extraordinarily distressing. The Globalists have been thorough in their planning and have successfully executed the removal of freedoms with great stealth that we assumed any thinking person should have seen coming.

But most people are not thinkers. Most people go along. They continue to go along, right until the moment that. they dont.

Thomas Paine was correct. These are the times that try mens souls. Paine was a visionary who, through his writing, attempted to bring about an awakening.

An awakening happens only gradually, but the point arrives when the common man has had about enough. He may not be intellectually inspired, but his collective weight is, and throughout history, has been the turning point.

We are now on that cusp.

Editors Note: Its clear there are some ominous social, political, cultural, and economic trends playing out right now. Many of which seem to point to an unfortunate decline of the West.

Thats precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team just released this free report, which shows you exactly whats happening and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.

Read more from the original source:
Navigating the Fourth Turning - International Man

Elon Musk's tweets are hilarious, market-moving, or lawsuit-enabling comments. Sometimes, they are also interesting and informative. On Wednesday, August 3, 2022, Musk made a statement about digital and biological computing.He said that the former is growing faster than the latter and we need to be tracking the data.

What is he talking about? I had to re-read the tweet twice to understand what he is talking about. After a little bit of research, I discovered another aspect of a futuristic society that we do indeed need to talk about. After a long time, Musk has actually tweeted something that makes sense.

Short answer: AI takeover and the need to merge humans and machines.

Off the bat, it is clear that Musk is talking about artificial intelligence and of course about a subject that is related to one of his companies - Neuralink.

To understand digital and biological computing ratios better, we need to know what Neuralink does.

Neuralink aims to put computer chips in human brains to allow us to complete tasks such as typing, pressing buttons, moving the cursor etc by just thinking about it. In pop culture, you can find references to such technology in Cyborgs - a human and machine hybrid.

So, how are digital and biological computing related? To understand this, let's answer a few questions:

What is digital computing? It is the collective brainpower of a computer, like your mobile phone or laptop or a self-driving car.

What is biological computing? There are two definitions to this. One refers to the collective brainpower of humans. The human brain is still the most sophisticated computer to exist.

Second, it also refers to organic technology that is used for certain medical purposes using human DNA or cells as data. DNA systems are one example of such a technology.

When Musk says that "the ratio of digital to biological compute is growing fast", he is referring to the belief that artificial intelligence is progressing at a faster rate than our natural human brains including the human and machine hybrid technology.

It is not the first time that Musk has spoken about this. He's been quite vocal about the fear that AI will become more powerful than humans in the future.

In 2019, when a Twitter user asked him whether Neuralink was the answer to giving humanity a defence against AI takeover, Musk answered by saying that there are two reasons - long-term and short-term.

He also spoke at length on the subject in 2017 during the launch of Tesla in the UAE. He explained that computers communicate at the speed of "a trillion bits per second", while humans communicate through typing via phones or laptops at 10 bits per second.

Using this explanation, he said that AI can one day become "smarter than the smartest human on earth", a dangerous situation for humanity. The Tesla and SpaceX founder claimed that humans would become slower and irrelevant in a future ruled by artificial intelligence.

An example of this would be human drivers losing their jobs with the advent of driverless cars in the near future.

What's the solution? According to Musk, the solution to avoid a Terminator-like fate of humans is to merge humans with digital intelligence; exactly what his company, Neuralink, wants to do.

There's a term for the theory of cyborgs too - it's called transhumanism. It was first coined in 1957 in an essay.

Do you think that we are progressing a lot slower than our AI counterparts?

Read more here:
Elon Musk and a warning of dystopian future of AI: What is digital and biological computing? - DailyO

In 2020, under cover of the virus/vaccine narrative, the Global Elite launched its long-planned coup to capture total control of the human population.

Building on a history that dawned with human civilization some 5,000 years ago, and at least 50 years in the final planning, progressive efforts by elites in local, national and now the global context to kill off undesired populations and enslave those left alive are now culminating. See The Final Battle for Humanity: It is Now or Never in the Long War Against Homo Sapiens.

Unfortunately, however, awareness of what is really happening remains extraordinarily low, even among those who are resisting the ongoing destruction of our rights and freedom as well as the rapidly-mounting vaccine death toll. See Terrified of Freedom: Why Most Human Beings Are Embracing the Global Elites Technotyranny.

So let me briefly explain, again, exactly what is happening and why the most popular responses lobbying governments, contesting elections or forming new political parties, legal challenges and protests (in one form or another) by those concerned cannot succeed. And what we must do, if we wish to defeat this coup.

What is Happening?

If one reads the website of the World Economic Forum as well as primary documents produced by that organization, and listens to the organizations key spokespeople, such as Klaus Schwab see Now is the time for a great reset and Yuval Noah Harari see Read Yuval Hararis blistering warning to Davos in full the elite agenda is quite clear.

Under the overall title of the Great Reset, the World Economic Forum has launched a series of deeply interrelated agendas which will impose substantial changes on 200 areas of human life for those left alive.

These interrelated agendas include implementation of the elites eugenics program see The Global Elites Kill and Control Agenda: Destroying Our Food Security along with various programs in relation to the fourth industrial revolution and transhumanism that will deliver them total control of the remaining transhuman population in a world run by technocrats. See Killing Off Humanity: How the Global Elite is using Eugenics and Transhumanism to Shape Our Future.

These programs include efforts to develop and deploy relevant technologies including those in relation to 5G (and, soon enough, 6G), military weapons, artificial intelligence [AI], digital identity, big data, nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things [IoT], the Internet of Bodies [IoB], the Internet of Senses [IoS], quantum computing, surveillance and the metaverse that will subvert human identity, human freedom, human dignity, human volition and/or human privacy. Among other adverse outcomes, these technologies will deprive us of control over our own banking and finances. See Taking Control by Destroying Cash: Beware Cyber Polygon as Part of the Elite Coup.

To reiterate: The net outcome of these programs will be a substantial human depopulation of Earth and the transhuman enslavement and imprisonment of those left alive, primarily in their smart cities.

As Mark Steele concluded in his extensive expert report on 5G Directed Energy Radiation Emissions, The prima facie evidence of this globalist depopulation agenda is unequivocal This is the greatest crime ever to be perpetrated on mankind and all of Gods creation. See Expert Report: Fifth Generation (5G) Directed Energy Radiation Emissions in the context of Nanometal-contaminated Vaccines that include Covid-19 with Graphite Ferrous Oxide Antennas.

Obviously, this is being done without any consultation with those of us who would identify as ordinary people.

Who is Orchestrating This?

The coup has been planned by the Global Elite and its primary agents. It is being implemented through elite control of key international organizations (such as the World Health Organization and United Nations), relevant corporations (including those in the technology, pharmaceutical and media industries) and national governments.

The first point to note is simply this: The Global Elite is too wealthy and powerful to bother participating personally in well-known fora such as the World Economic Forum or even those that are less well-known such as the Council for Inclusive Capitalism. The people who front organizations of this nature are elite agents. Wealthy and powerful, at one level, and happy to be publicly identified, but not the masters shaping our destinies, even if they work out many of the details. For one discussion of this, see What Is The Council For Inclusive Capitalism? Its The New World Order.

But because this Global Elite is both insane and criminal, its members have no concept of what it means to experience ordinary human life, with its daily struggles and occasional triumphs, its routine fears and simple joys. See The Global Elite is Insane Revisited. There is more information in Why Violence? and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

So let me briefly explain, yet again, why governments, legal challenges and protests in their various guises cannot save us from what is happening, although the elite is delighted to have us waste our energy on such efforts, as they intend.

Constitutions, Governments and the Delusion of Democracy

While so-called democratic processes have long been a sham, even the sham elements of democracies the constitutional separation of powers (the division of the legislative, executive and judicial functions of government supposedly to limit the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government), respect for human rights (including freedom of speech, assembly and movement), obedience of laws and adherence to legal process have been ignored by virtually all governments (national, provincial and local) around the world as measures decided by the elite and promulgated through its international organizations such as the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization have simply been implemented by governments despite violating constitutional provisions in various ways and without so much as a public (or, in many cases, even a parliamentary) debate.

To reiterate this point more bluntly: given the eminent roles being played by elite organizations such as the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization in the past two-and-a-half years, do you have much sense that governments are adhering to national constitutions and making independent decisions? Or are they just following orders?

And despite supposedly having the right to freedom of speech, even dissenting politicians attempting to present an alternative view in any mainstream forum, and plenty of progressive ones besides, leads to one of a range of outcomes such as, at their most benign, censorship with corporate and major social media leading the way or howls of accusation such as conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer to discredit the dissenting voice.

This has happened, of course, because politicians are not beholden to voters, which is why lobbying politicians is a waste of time, unless the issue is of little significance geopolitically, militarily, economically and environmentally. As implied above, the elite controls the political fate of politicians, most of whom are well aware that their political survival has nothing to do with pleasing ordinary voters. Politicians are beholden to the elite that manipulates levers of power such as the corporate media and education systems, employs an army of lobbyists to ensure that elite preference is clearly understood (while using bribes where necessary), and has ready access to removal options such as, at its most basic, withdrawal of preselection endorsement.

Of course, the ultimate sanction, paid by five national presidents so far in this current context, is assassination. See Five Presidents Who Opposed Covid Vaccines Have Conveniently Died, Been Replaced by Pro-Vaxxers.

And Emanuel Pastreich makes a compelling argument that Shinzo Abe, the powerful immediate-past Prime Minister of Japan, suffered the same fate because of his ongoing resistance to fundamental elements of the Elite agenda. Moreover, there are other key political figures who are probably in this category, not to mention those sidelined rather than assassinated.

Abe was the highest ranking victim so far of the hidden cancer eating away at governance in nation states around the world, an institutional sickness that moves decision making away from national governments to a network of privately-held supercomputer banks, private equity groups, for-hire intelligence firms in Tel Aviv, London and Reston, and the strategic thinkers employed by the billionaires at the World Economic Forum, NATO, the World Bank and other such awesome institutions.

In parallel with the removal or sidelining of non-compliant leaders, elite wealth has long been deployed to create invisible networks for secret global governance, best represented by the World Economic Forums Young Global Leaders program and the Schwarzman Scholars program. These rising figures in policy infiltrate the governments, the industries, and research institutions of nations to make sure that the globalist agenda goes forth unimpeded. See The Assassination of Archduke Shinzo Abe: When the Globalists Crossed the Rubicon.

As a result of formal political submission to the elite agenda, supposedly basic human rights such as freedom of speech, assembly and movement have been eviscerated under the various lockdown, curfew and martial law measures with many people attempting to exercise these rights quickly discovering that they no longer exist except, perhaps, in the very narrowest of circles or in particular contexts.

But perhaps constitutional lawyer John W. Whitehead, in collaboration with Nisha Whitehead, captures the true depth of what has transpired in these two paragraphs about the United States but equally applicable to other countries:

Not only have the federal and state governments unraveled the constitutional fabric of the nation with lockdown mandates that sent the economy into a tailspin and wrought havoc with our liberties, but they have almost persuaded the citizenry to depend on the government for financial handouts, medical intervention, protection and sustenance.

This past year under lockdown was a lesson in many things, but most of all, it was a lesson in how to indoctrinate a populace to love and obey Big Brother. See After a Year Under Lockdown, Will Our Freedoms Survive the Tyranny of COVID-19?

But Big Brother isnt the government. It is those elite figures who are largely, or completely, hidden from public view and about whom you hear nothing of substance, if you hear anything at all.

Still, this doesnt stop their agents, such as those in the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, from telling you what they are doing. Its just that not many people are paying attention.

As noted by Brandon Smith: Members of the CIC, including the head of Bank of America, openly suggest that they dont actually need governments to cooperate in order to meet their goals. They say corporations can implement most social engineering without political aid. In other words, it is the very definition of shadow government A massive corporate cabal that works in tandem to implement social changes without any oversight. See What Is The Council For Inclusive Capitalism? Its The New World Order.

If you still believe that we can get out of this mess by lobbying governments or electing a different political party into government, you can read more on how the world really works in Killing Democracy Once and for All: The Global Elites Coup dtat That Is Destroying Life as We Know It.

Legal Challenges

While the law and legal processes are shrouded in a delusion suggesting that they play a role in making societies just, in fact, it has long been known that elite control of governments ensures that laws are written to consolidate predatory corporate control and that elite control over legal systems ensures that they function to maintain elite power, corporate profit and the personal privilege of that tiny minority that benefits enormously from the global system of violence, exploitation and destruction.

In 1748, Baron de Montesquieu penned The Spirit of Laws in which he noted There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. Since that time, a notable and diverse series of authors starting well over 100 years ago, including Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy and Mohandas K. Gandhi, have all written critiques exposing the injustice and violence of legal systems. Despite this, the delusion that the law is a neutral agency that delivers justice still widely prevails.

As a result, enormous time, energy and resources are wasted by fine, well-intentioned people who fail to make the distinction between what they have been led to believe and the truth: The legal system is designed to deliver an occasional win for justice in some relatively minor context in order to maintain the widespread popular delusion that justice prevails while functioning to maintain elite social control over the population, oppress exploited constituencies and those who resist, and conceal and defend the vast network of elite and corporate criminality that pervades every facet of planetary life. This delusion is reinforced by films and television programs based on legal settings which often feature the little person winning.

And this is why you have never heard the rallying cry Fight for Justice: Abolish Legal Systems.

If you think the law is really concerned with justice, then ask yourself why poverty and homelessness are not made illegal and those who suffer poverty and homelessness immediately provided with social housing and an adequate income. Of course, this would be easy if military budgets for killing were eliminated (and international conflicts were addressed meaningfully) or the estimated $US32 trillion of illegal wealth hidden in offshore tax havens was made available for the benefit of humanity. See Elite Banking at Your Expense: How Secretive Tax Havens are Used to Steal Your Money.

The bottom line is simple: The Global Elite operates beyond the rule of law. It will not be contained or held to account, in any way, by legal systems. Ever heard of a Rothschild, a Warburg, a Rockefeller or even a Windsor in court? Or organizations like the World Economic Forum and the United Nations?

And while any investigation will quickly reveal that attempts are sometimes made to hold to account a corporation for some illegal activity in a national context, the record also shows that the predominant outcomes in court cases against corporations are protracted legal battles seeking ways out of, or long delays in, being held accountable, fines that are easily written off as a cost of doing business see Pfizers History of Fraud, Corruption, and Using Nigerian Children as Human Guinea Pigs as well as refusal to pay fines and/or retribution against complainants and/or their agents. See How the Environmental Lawyer Who Won a Massive Judgment Against Chevron Lost Everything.

Of course, there is no international legal infrastructure that can hold corporations or international organizations accountable in any meaningful way either.

If you want to read more about this subject, see The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent.

Demonstrations, Blockades, Convoys and other Mass Mobilizations

If we do not thoroughly analyze a conflict, it is impossible to develop a sound strategy, which includes identifying the appropriate strategic foci for action, and then planning tactics that address each focus. This inevitably means that we are essentially guessing what to do, not knowing in advance, as we should, the nature of the strategic impact the action will have.

Moreover, guessing what action to take, usually on the basis of what is familiar or what feels good perhaps because we get out with a bunch of good people virtually inevitably leads to poor choices like organizing a mass mobilization, in one form or another (whether with people, trucks, tractors), focused on governments. And elite agents love ignoring these, as the long record demonstrates!

As former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig once noted about a massive anti-war demonstration: Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes. See Alexander Haig. As a four-star general, Haig, not regarded as the most intelligent Secretary of State in US history, certainly understood the importance of tactical choice. Most activists have no idea.

Which illustrates why demonstrations are notoriously ineffective, as world historys largest demonstration on 15 February 2003 involving demonstrations in more than 600 cities around the world, involving up to 30,000,000 people, against the imminent US-led war on Iraq see The World Says No to War: Demonstrations against the War on Iraq illustrated yet again.

The point is simple: Single actions and numbers are not determinative; strategy is determinative. Obviously, large gatherings, in whatever form they take, could be effective, if they were strategically focused never on governments though. See Why Activists Fail.

In essence, if any gathering is to have any strategic value whatsoever, it must be used to raise awareness of strategic means of resistance.

So if we want to take action that will be strategically effective, we must identity an appropriate strategic goal for the context and then plan an action that will achieve that goal. Anything else is guesswork. See Nonviolent Action: Why and How it Works.

Resisting the Elite Agenda Effectively

If you have the thoughtful courage to strategically resist the Great Reset and its related agendas, you are welcome to participate in the We Are Human, We Are Free campaign which identifies a list of 30 strategic goals for doing so.

In addition and more simply, you can download a one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 17 languages (Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish & Slovak) with several more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset.

If strategically resisting the Great Reset (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the We Are Human, We Are Free Telegram group (with a link accessible from the website).

And if you want to organize a mass mobilization in some form, at least make sure that one or more of any team of organizers and/or speakers is responsible for inviting people to participate in this campaign and that some people at the event are designated to hand out the one-page flyer about the campaign.

If you like, you can also watch, share and/or organize to show, a short video about the campaign here: We Are Human, We Are Free video.

Finally, while the timeframe for this to make any difference is now in doubt, if you want to raise children who are powerfully able to investigate, analyze and act, you are welcome to make My Promise to Children.

Conclusion

As the elite is well aware, critiques of what it is doing and advice regarding effective strategy to defeat it are not sought by those who arent interested in analysis, understanding and strategic impact. And this information is easily suppressed so that few of those who might be interested ever hear of it.

Hence, a primary challenge is getting relevant information to those keen to resist in ways that make a difference.

At the moment, virtually all effort being spent by those opposed to the various mandates and restrictions on our freedom and other rights is, strategically-speaking, wasted.

And the time to resist effectively is running out fast.

So I gently encourage all of you resisting to spend some time evaluating what you are doing and consider participating in the alternative offered just above.

If human beings are to have a future worth living, we must take on the Global Elite directly and undermine their power to impose their agenda upon us. No one else can save us.

Read more here:
The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can't Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them? - PRESSENZA International News Agency

Image: Mark Brooks/Marvel Comics

The X-Men and the rest of mutantkind coming to the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been heavily discussed ever since the ink dried on the Disney/Fox buyout back in 2019. During Comic-Con of that same year, Kevin Feige declared that yes, they and the Fantastic Four would be brought into the fold with Spider-Man, the Avengers and the Inhumans various TV characters.

And now that San Diego Comic-Con is this weekendand Marvel Studios is attending for the first time in three yearseveryones got mutants on the brain.

Ask anyone with a passing interest for the X-Men or MCU, and theyve likely got a list of three or more theories for how the mutants will show up. Were they snapped into existence via Thanos or Bruce Banner? Are they being ported over from the multiverse or in a pocket dimension? Will we just start in 2024 with Charles Xavier making an attempt to gather mutants and start from there? These are just some of the more common theories floating around. Theres so many X-Men, and even more mutants generally that in theory, any possibility for how they get introduced is valid. We already know that some will get brought in via other movies or TV shows rather than a proper X-Men film, but the larger mutant race presents a much bigger hurdle than a handful of individuals.

Image: Pepe Larraz/Marvel Comics

Complicating matters further is the state of mutants outside of the films. While the upcoming X-Men 97 series serves as a nice hit of nostalgia, the mutants of the comics are going full steam ahead towards the future. In 2019, Marvel launched House of X, a miniseries by Jonathan Hickman, RB Silva, Pepe Larraz, and Marte Garcia that upended the mutant mythos. The sentient island of Krakoa has become home to nearly all the mutants, While still hated and feared by the larger Marvel universe, mutants are now taking matters into their own hands, and even taking the time to celebrate their greatness. Over the last three years, various comics have delved into mutantkinds unique experiences with magic, transhumanism, religion, and ascension to cosmic prominence.

Mutants living on their own island and just not caring about the outside world is an interesting concept, one with the potential for exciting stories isolated from the various plates spinning during Phase Four. But whats made the mutants taking their destiny (of X) into their own hands so satisfying is that it was the kind of soft reboot the characters needed. Recall that prior to this, Marvel was basically treating the mutants like redheaded stepchildren due to not owning the rights to those characters, leading to the creative decision to underpromote the X-books and gradually kill the species off by way of a war with the Inhumans. And even what that war eventually ran its course, the mutants still had to get beaten down a little bit more before they were allowed to have a utopia and repopulate their people.

Hated and feared is the theme of Marvels mutants, which neither Foxs films nor Marvels comics in the early to mid 2010s knew entirely what to do with. In the comics, this was especially egregious, since superpowered people save the world with a reliable regularity that mutant discrimination feels even sillier. Mutant as metaphor already began to grow tiresome long before 2019, and will feel even more in poor taste now as Marvel tries to make bigger, often uneven grasps at social commentary in their films and TV series. An evolution is required, but to adapt House and do it justice wouldadmittedly require a decent runup so as to feel appropriately triumphant when Krakoa is revealed in its seemingly idyllic splendor.

To us, our X-Men of 2022!Image: Russell Dautermann/Marvel Comics

At Marvel, movies and comics influence each other an equal amount, and the MCU has shown a desire to get considerably stranger now more than it did a decade ago. An island of superpowered people sounds like the right way for these mutants to feel distinct from Foxs batch and avoid just retreading the same ground. Whether Marvel Studios is willing to give that a shot and let the mutants be as weird as theyre purported to be in universe remains to be seen, either this weekend, or at D23 in September.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel and Star Wars releases, whats next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about House of the Dragon and Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.

See more here:
Mutants are Coming to the MCU, But Where Does Krakoa Fit In? - Gizmodo