Ben's talk

Slide 1

This was the original remit for these talks. Being typically ornery, and in the true spirit of a 'herd of cats', as transhumanists are sometimes referred to, I've gone off on my own, and created a slightly different version, as follows:
Slide 2

To address these four points, I want to first create a list of what I consider to be transhumanist-relevant technologies, then condense this down to a small number of items that I think are worth talking about at the moment, then discuss the prospects for these in the next four years.

The second part will consider social aspects, particularly public perceptions and attitudes to these ideas and technologies, and if there's anything we can do to influence them.
Slide 3

Cryonics – nothing to say here, because the technology already exists. It does need perfecting, yes, and there are obvious social and legal issues that need addressing, but from a technical point of view, I don't see much that needs talking about just now. The vitrification process may need improving, perfusion techniques could be fine-tuned, etc., but it's no big deal.

Life-Extension – currently under development, but not much mainstream or popular support as yet. Prime candidate for support efforts. Is SENS the only approach? It's probable that any others boil down to the same thing, imo.

Miscellaneous biotech things (tissue engineering, stem-cell therapy, genetic engineering…) – to my mind, this comes under the general heading of life-extension. Some people may think in terms of life improvement, and enhancement, e.g. souped-up immune systems, cognitive enhancement via drugs or genetic engineering, etc. However, these things are all focused on biology, and remaining biological, and I don't see that as relating to the longer-term aspirations of most transhumanists. Biology is what we have to deal with until we get something better, therefore it all boils down to life-extension.

Nanotechnology – by which I mean Molecular Manufacturing, as distinct from 'conventional' nanotechnology.

Artificial Intelligence / Augmented Intelligence

Some people put space colonisation in with ^H ideas. I propose to ignore this here, because it's an application of technology, rather than a technology in itself. Plus I doubt there will be any significant developments in such a short timescale.

Cyborg technology. I believe this important because we will need to make a transition from biology to non-biological systems. At least that's my take on things, as I see no real long-term future in remaining biological. A cyborg is a hybrid organism, and represents the transition stage from purely biological humans to whatever comes next. A necessary and vital component of cyborg tech. will be neural interfaces. I believe this is one of our big challenges at the moment.

I'm looking at these things from two perspectives: the purely technological side, and the social side. While I'm ignoring the "UK" part of the brief for this session, it's still implicit in what I'm saying, simply because I live here and am immersed in the culture here. I can't talk about ^H in Africa or Asia or the Middle East, so to that extent, although I may talk in global terms, I'm unavoidably biased as a denizen of the UK.

Slide 4

(This is not necessarily exhaustive or complete)

Life-Extension

I see this as still bravely struggling with the early stages, but showing promise. There are a lot of different factors involved, obviously, but Aubrey de Grey's SENS does seem the most likely to yield any practical results. I'm aware that there are a number of transhumanists who would disagree with this, and see SENS and related efforts as a waste of time. I don't (fair enough. We are a herd of cats, after all), and I think it's worth supporting. In terms of the next 4 years, I doubt we will see any startling developments, but I do think that significant progress will be made in understanding the '7 deadly things'. No cures as such, but a better understanding of what the problems are.

Nanotechnology

This is a difficult field to keep up with now, especially as it's become a buzzword that's used in an attempt to make customers and investors think a business is cutting-edge.

Most of what is called Nanotechnology is what I would call 'weak' nanotech. Most of the work being done in 'proper' nanotech, or Molecular Manufacturing, is still theoretical.

Again, there is disagreement about whether this 'Drexlerian' nanotech is possible, desirable or necessary. I'm inclined to think that MM is necessary in some form if we're going to develop neural interfaces, and the means for uploading minds to non-biological systems.

So, again, I don't see much possibility of any visible progress within the next 4 years, although no doubt the 'weak' nanotech will come on in leaps and bounds. We may well see things like carbon nanotubes being manufactured in vast quantities and used in composite materials with improved properties. But there's a big difference between a car body that's 20% lighter and more impact-resistant than at present, at roughly the same cost, and one that's 95% lighter, changes shape at will, and contains more processing power than the entire world contains at the moment, and can be produced for virtually no cost. And yes, of course, such technology will be massively disruptive and the very concept of 'car body' may not be applicable any more by then. This is the kind of thing that people mean when they say 'paradigm shift', and it's very difficult to make any kind of predictions concerning that.

AI

Regarding AI, I see one troubling trend. The vast majority of people who are willing to call themselves AI (Artificial Intelligence) researchers seem to be ignoring the single working example of intelligence we have. I'm not convinced (to say the least) that this is a good idea. I've had a discussion with Ben Goertzel (of Novamente fame) on this topic, and while I'm sure he's much more intelligent than me, and obviously understands his subject much better, I'm troubled by the assumption that AI research can safely ignore biological minds while attempting to create new ones from scratch.

There are a lot of people working on the nuts and bolts of biological intelligence, though, and this is encouraging. I've recently read a paper by Sim Bainbridge, one of the founder members of the UKTA, who is now doing a PhD in neuroinformatics, that describes a chip designed by his team that models the synaptic connections of real neurons in a novel way. The design is indefinitely scaleable, so that this approach, if it works as hoped, could form the basis of a 'silicon brain', able to be programmed from data taken from a scan of a biological brain. A prototype of the chip is being manufactured for testing very soon.

Similar work is happening all over the world at present (for example the 'Blue Brain' project), and I think that the next 4 years will see some very significant developments in this area, but no actual Artificial General Intelligences, there aren't enough people working on the biomimetic approach to AI, imo. and there's still too much work to be done for four years to be enough time.

(the next slide – a single 10,000 neuron cortical column from a rat brain, is intended to give a feel of how big a brain actually is)

The whole area of biomimetic vs. totally novel mind architectures is a topic that goes way beyond the remit of this talk. Perhaps it can be discussed later, or be the subject of another meeting, if we can find a suitably qualified speaker (or even better, two, to present each side of the issue).

Cyborg Tech

Cyborg Technology is a bit of a technological mixed salad. Anders has a joke about a railway station announcement: "The train on platforms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 will be coming in sideways". This is a bit what cyborg technology is like. A lot of different but related things that are arriving at the same time. Anyone on one platform will see only one carriage coming in. But take a step back, and if you look at things in a certain way, you can see a pattern emerging.

Work on synthetic blood, tissue engineering, biomimetic control systems, high-density energy storage, robotics, immunology, rapid prototyping, endoscopic surgical techniques, bioactive polymers, biomechanics, surface chemistry, genetic engineering, biophysics, diagnostic imaging techniques, neural interfacing and yes, Nanotechnology, to name but a few, are all separate train carriages that are arriving at the same time. Put them together in the right way, and I think we'll have the tools we need to start making cyborgs.

It's often said that we are already cyborgs, and this is true. Put a naked human in the middle of a forest somewhere, prevent them from using any technological aids, and the chances are that they'd be dead within days.

We all wear clothes and many of us use artificial aids to sight, memory and communication. But this kind of cyborg tech is not within our bodies. We need technology that is fully integrated at the deepest level of our tissues and cells, and we are rapidly developing it.

Prospects for true cyborgs in 4 years? Given that we have people walking around now with cochlear implants and artificial hip joints, I think the next 4 years will see a continued improvement in our abilities in this area. How far that will go, I don't know and wouldn't like to guess. Improved abilities, possibly, but I doubt that it will see technology that will extend anyone's life beyond the 'natural span', though. Maybe in the 4 years after that…

I have a particular interest in this topic, and intend to pull together a number of ideas and strategies, to create a kind of 'transhuman upgrade roadmap'. This is an ongoing project, and I'd like to ask anyone that has an interest and would like to contribute, to contact me (benc@delysid.bltc.net).

Slide 5

Rat Cortical Column

Single processing unit of a brain. This is a tiny tiny part of a rat’s brain, which contains millions of them. It’s an even smaller proportion of a human’s brain. We can just about simulate one of these on a massive supercomputer (although this is in great detail – probably much more detail than necessary – but the significant thing at the moment is that WE DON’T KNOW how much detail is necessary). We can simulate an entire brain region in much less detail. Is this enough? We need to find out.

Slide 6

Public perception of transhumanist memes

When an idea, or a collection of ideas, has a label, people take notice of it and react to it.

Have you noticed how the way a question is phrased has a big influence on the answers people tend to give?

If you say "Are you in favour of properly testing new products that will benefit people's health, even if this means using experimental animals?" you will almost certainly get a different answer than if you ask "Are you in favour of torturing innocent animals to test new health products?".

Does the answer someone gives when confronted with a question like this bear any relation to their actual behaviour, though?

How many people who are 'against animal testing' carefully read the labels on the products they buy to ensure they haven't been tested on animals? Perhaps at some level, most people realise that if these things aren't tested on animals, they will have to be tested on people. Perhaps they also realise that this is not something they should say out loud.

When it comes to transhumanist memes, the same principles apply.

What's important is not to win arguments about population pressure, climate change, and the right to self-determination. What's important is to help people see how they, personally, will benefit from life-extension technology, Nanotechnology and being able to use physical and cognitive enhancements.

It's true that people tend to focus on the good things, and ignore the bad ones, on a personal level. Look at the incidence of obesity, and how difficult it is to give up smoking.

If the focus is switched to an impersonal level, that's when the focus switches to the bad things. Global warming, pollution, overpopulation.

Almost all the light bulbs in my flat are energy-saving fluorescent bulbs. Is this because I think it'll help to reduce global warming, or because it saves me money and the hassle of changing blown bulbs? Have a guess.

The sci-fi fallacy

One thing above all else smacks me in the face whenever I hear people talking about transhumanist ideas, especially when the ideas are new to them:

Usually, the only reference they have for these crazy-sounding ideas is science-fiction.

Mostly, the popular sf films.

What springs into someone's mind when anyone mentions the idea of Artificial Intelligence? Terminator, of course. SkyNet. HAL. The self-aware computer in Star-Trek that tried to kill everyone. Forbidden Planet. Etc.

If the AI isn't malevolent, it's lacking in some way. Cmdr. Data in Star Trek TNG, was a tragic figure, whose biggest wish was to be human.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Stories are designed to be dramatic. Hubris and meddling with the ways of nature always leads to disaster. The plucky humans (unenhanced, 'natural' humans) always win in the end.

The robots always go insane and try to kill everyone. Except in very rare cases that are usually box-office flops.

No wonder many people have a negative reaction to these ideas. They're conditioned to, by all the science fiction films they've seen. If this is the only exposure most people get to such ideas, no wonder that they react badly when someone starts saying some of this stuff could really happen. As soon as you mention that people and technology will become more and more interdependent, eventually merging together, they start thinking about Cybermen and Daleks. What do you think has a greater impact on the thinking of the average person about genetic engineering: Golden Rice or GATTACA?

Drama sells. But it's a very poor tool for thinking about the future.

I do think that things are improving. I'm sure that a lot of people have read Iain M Banks' Culture novels, and thought, hey, that's cool. A utopian society run by machines that doesn't go haywire.

Ray Kurzweil pops up in the news more frequently these days, and surely not everyone who listens to him thinks he's a nutter.

Slide 7

There isn't time to go into the various 'bad' scenarios, so I won't.

We all know that there are a number of existential risks – that is, risks to our very existence – but I feel there is very little that ordinary people can do to avert these. I propose to take the attitude of blind optimism or hope, at least for the present discussion, and assume that we won't blow ourselves up or be wiped out by a runaway self-improving optimisation process (sometimes known as an 'Unfriendly AI').

What I do want to mention is that transhumanism isn't something remarkable and new. The basic themes are as old as mankind, and this means that there's an underlying current of transhumanist memes that run through all cultures, and there is a basic desire to overcome our limitations in just about everybody. I think the question isn't so much 'if' life-extension, AI, etc. will happen, but 'when'.

So the things that can go wrong (apart from the existential risks mentioned above) are things that can delay progress toward our goals, rather than things that can thwart them altogether. This doesn't mean that we can afford to sit back and wait, though. Eventual breakthroughs in life-extension do you no good if you're already dead. Also, if you think the human race is in a miserable state (who among us doesn't?), you won't want to prolong the misery.

Eleizer Yudkovski and Aubrey de Grey have some excellent (if depressing) figures about world-wide mortality rates. It's very sobering when you realise how many people just died, now. Do you know? (100,000 people died today – in the time it takes to say "somebody just died", about 2 people actually did die).

Slide 8

I think one of the most important things we can do is to think of ways to combat this 'bad sci-fi' conditioning. To make people see that while films like Blade Runner and GATTACA are entertaining, the idea that they are actually guides to the future is completely laughable.

The other thing we can do, is to draw attention to the personal, immediate benefits that transhuman technologies (but without using that label) can bring. Fortunes have been made by appealing to people's vanity, laziness and greed. We could do worse than cast transhumanist ideas in ways that appeal to those tendencies.

Of course, we should also appeal to people's good qualities as well. Just don't count on them to be as powerful.

We also need to be armed with good replies to the objections that people make when they're in 'global problems' mode. There are some genuine potential problems, and of course we need to be aware of them, but the majority of people think immediately of the silly, easily answerable objections, like the idea that life-extension will mean an ever-increasing pensions bill, and a world full of people in wheelchairs.

So, what's the best way to help to accelerate the progress that we are seeing already?

My list of things is short, and I'm sure it's incomplete:

If you can, do science

If you're deciding on a career and if you have the aptitude, become part of the technology base. Become a scientist, medical professional, technologist, etc., rather than a manager for instance. Base your career choices on the prospects for the human race rather than on your financial prospects.

If you can, make money

On the other hand, if you have an aptitude to make loads of money, do so. We can't have enough transhumanist millionaires!

If you can afford to, donate money to the cause you think most worthy. Support the Methuselah Mouse prize, Imminst, CRNano, etc., join the WTA, or even the UKTA!

I intend to create a list of ^H organisations that accept donations, and put it on the website.

Talk to people

Most of us don't fall into the categories of scientist or millionaire. But what we can all do is talk. So talk to people. Introduce them to the ideas, get them to think about them, ask what they'd do if they could live to 300, and if they say oh, I'd get bored, point out why they almost certainly wouldn't. it might be a good idea to create a 'conversational ideas bank' for us to draw on. See the web site and blog for progress on this idea.

Don't mention the T-word. It's controversial, and does put many people off. Let people discover for themselves that they're transhumanists, if they want to use that label. It's the ideas that are important, not the label, and the ideas aren't a monolithic package.

Remember the Shock Levels, and keep it low-level. If someone is receptive, they'll climb the Shock Level ladder by themselves.

Stay alive

Lastly, look after yourself. Do what you can now to extend your healthy lifespan. The longer you live, the more people you can talk to, the more money you can make, and the better your chances of seeing the world that you want.

As part of the badly-needed website revamp, I intend to gather a set of rebuttals to common negative knee-jerk responses to ideas like life-extension, Nanotechnology, and AI, and make them available as easily downloadable and printable documents. I also want to explore the concept of the 'conversational ideas bank'. Any help with these will be greatly appreciated.

Transcripts of these talks will be available on the website as soon as possible.

SOME LINKS

Life-Extension:

http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/

Future-Shock Levels:

http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000117.html

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/works/shocklevelanalysis.htm