Currently viewing the tag: "Philosophy"
Transhumanism was for the better part of its existence a philosophy built around computers, robotics, A.I, and nanotech. Extropianism, one of the most impressive and potent iterations of transhumanism, was born out of Silicon Valley. Many transhumanist research institutes still operate out of the lovely southern California epicenter of futurist dreaming. [...]
Mike Anissimov threw a few rocks through the paper-thin arguments of the wasps over at Futurisms, resulting in their version of an angry swarm (comments and a blog post). The initial post itself is pretty funny, because, in short, Futurisms argued, with a picture and a headline, “We like one of the [...]
Michael Anissimov makes one compelling case, starting with Pocahontas Dances with Ferngully in Space:
The mainstream has embraced transhumanism. A movie about using a brain-computer interface to become what is essentially a transhuman being, Avatar, is the highest-grossing box office hit of all time, pulling in $2.7 billion. This movie was made with hard-core [...]
Ben Goertzel and Giulio Prisco, both Fellows at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology, articulate a “philosophy” known as Cosmism. The IEET has been posting Goertzel’s musings on Cosmism on the blog and, save the incoherent ramblings of a few of Goertzel’s obsequious genuflectors, that’s about all the attention the project has received. For [...]
Annalee Newitz has a new piece up on io9 critiquing the anti-aging/immortality argument. Is brief, incisive, and clear: take 3 minutes and read the whole thing.
Her four points, summarized:
1. We will no longer be human.
2. Whatever body you’re in, there you are.
3. Our augmented bodies and minds will be hackable.
[...]
Transhumanism has a lot of opponents. Some people think we’re insane Robot Cultists drooling as we watch science-fiction movies and cowering in fear every time some aspect of our frail biology rears its head. Others think we’re immoral or philosophically confused or a hoard of imbeciles and will not deign to argue with us. Then [...]
An exacting essay by Michael Ruse on the general ignorance of science among anti-Darwinists:
But rather than work over the details, I want to draw attention to the way this crop of critics ignores evolutionary biology—aside from the kind of cherry-picking in which Fodor engages. Nagel may sneer about the failure to find “accessible [...]
In rhetoric, there are two forms of debate: dialectic or elenchus, in which one tries to understand and defeat the opponent’s argument for the sake of understanding a question and bettering both debaters, and gross argument, in which one merely argues for the sake of defeating the opponent. Dale Carrico’s fulmination against me operates in [...]
When I was in undergrad, a professor asked our whole class a strange question. The question was strange because it seemed totally out of context, but I think he had a point, so I present it here as a worthy thought experiment.
“Lets say that I have in my hand, right now, a pill,” he [...]
Natasha Vita-More has a new piece in The Scavenger. It’s one of the best summaries of transhumanism I’ve read. A sample:
The sciences and technologies for enhancement are referred to as “NBIC”—nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. The topic of enhancement can be divided into three domains: therapeutic enablement (modification), selective enhancement (transition), [...]
About
Pop Bioethics, written by Kyle Munkittrick, is an effort to study the ethics of the continuing evolution of the human species via the lens of pop culture and be somewhat entertaining in the process.
Kyle's writing can also be found at Discover's The Crux, Slate's Future Tense, and at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. For questions or comments: comments [at] popbioethics [dot] com
All opinions, ideas, and words either explicit or implicit found within this website are my own and represent no other person, organization, or group.Categories
