R.U. Sirius Co-Authors New Book On Transhumanism 76
An anonymous reader writes "I've never been able to work up a fear of the robot apocalypse," admits R.U. Sirius, who more than 20 years after Mondo 2000's original guide to geek culture has again collaborated on a new encyclopedia of emerging technologies. As we progress to a world where technology actually becomes invisible, he argues that "everything about how we will define the future is still in play," suggesting that the transhumanist movement is "a good way to take isolated radical tech developments and bundle them together". While his co-author argues transhumanists "like to solve everything," Sirius points out a much bigger concern is a future of technologies dominated by the government or big capital.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like making a nazi supersoldier that shoots lightning, using suspiciously well conserved corpse parts from the 10th century and "Tesla" electric stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
But, of course, such "transhumans" will be genetically identical sans surg
Re:What exactly is Transhumanism ? (Score:5, Informative)
Transhumanism is currently a hodgepodge of religious nonsense, visionary science fiction, and practical self-improvement. I confess I am a bit swept up in the romantic ideal of it. I love the idea of human improveability in the form of intellectual and technological advancement, extended lifespans, higher quality of life, and even post-scarcity economies [wikipedia.org].
The religious nonsense part of it is best embodied in Ray Kurzweil's singularity [singularity.com] (also known as the nerd rapture [wikipedia.org]), the idea that humanity will soon upload our minds to computers and live forever. I can't imagine us not having this technology before the end of the century--especially with efforts like the UK's Human Brain Project [humanbrainproject.eu] and America's BRAIN Initiative [nih.gov] AND a proof of concept with researchers mapping a worm's brain into a legobot and having it "come alive" [openworm.org]. HOWEVER: I also don't pin any personal hopes for immortality on this research because we are making copies of our minds, so even if my mind joins the singularity, I will still die--probably bitterly jealous of my immortal self having all that virtual sex in technoheaven.
For me, the science fiction of transhumanism is all about vision and inspiration, and not about dreams of salvation and immortality like Kurzweil promotes. The science fiction part of it is most accessible through Star Trek, but in reality our transhumanist future will probably be more like the wild visions of Charles Stross' Accelerando [wikipedia.org], or my personal favorite the Quantum Thief Trilogy [wikipedia.org] by Hannu Rajaniemi. These books drop you into settings filled with Matrioshka brains [wikipedia.org] (Dyson Spheres [wikipedia.org] made of computronium [wikipedia.org]), and force the reader to confront all the uncomfortable otherness that comes with virtual life.
Another great science fiction resource is the Creative Commons Eclipse Phase RPG [eclipsephase.com], which takes place in a future where humanity has colonized solar system and extended out into the Oort Cloud. Each planet and environment requiring different engineering and culture adaptations to survive. You can download all the books in PDF format [wordpress.com]. These books are a fantastic jumping-point for the imagining what a post-human future might look like.
This all said, I am not a fan of Sirius' encyclopedia. I was looking for practical, real-world things I can do right now to enhance my life through science and technology. Instead, I got very thin treatments of many subjects, overstatements of medical advances, important subjects left out (like the 19th Century Russian Cosmism movement [wikipedia.org] (precursor to transhumanism)), and a general lack of leads to new areas to research. I get way more information from Wikipedia-surfing than I got from this book. I do appreciate his efforts though. If he gets more people into the idea of transhumanism, then more people will collaborate on it, we'll have more hacks for better living, and more people thinking about the future and human progress.
Re: (Score:3)
I was looking for practical, real-world things I can do right now to enhance my life through science and technology.
That doesn't look like it was the point of the book. It looks like an overview of the field, not a how-to guide.
Instead, I got very thin treatments of many subjects
I don't think that's fair. According to Amazon, the book covers 90+ topics in 288 pages. [amazon.com] I don't see how they could be in-depth about any of them.
important subjects left out (like the 19th Century Russian Cosmism movement [wikipedia.org] (precursor to transhumanism))
The Cosmism entry is on page 52. [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Gibberish Rules (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the Google billionaires I think who recently declared that computers and the internet are going to get embedded in everywhere and will become effectively invisible.
In fact, computers have been embedded or "hidden" in consumer appliances since the 80s and the old stuff was sometimes more invisible than now (camera with automatic settings, car, washing machine). But now it's "on the internet" or at least on a local network ; sensors and wireless are considerably cheaper.
Before I was born there was hype about that kind of stuff already but it was with serial lines and an 8-bit computer with 40 column text display.
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
Saw this same rambling thought in the '60s... (Score:2, Insightful)
I was just a small kid, but back then they called it an acid trip.
I think I'll wait until H++14 is fully supported before upgrading myself.
Intellectual wankery (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
AI has advanced, simply not in the way popular culture predicted it once would.
There will be little need for human-like replicants running about while humans themselves are inexpensively abundant.
R. U. Sirius? (Score:2)
Ken Goffman is a huckster and charlatan (Score:1)
Goffman is a huckster and charlatan, why is anyone still paying attention to this enemy of relevance ?
Kenny Boy Goffman has been the self appointed Court Jester to the psychedelic and transhumanist communities for far too many years. In reality, neither camp has anything in common and Kenny does great damage with his hucksterism and nonsensical gibberish. This crusty old hippy and now goofy shill for techno-fascism needs to shut up for once and for all. He damages what little remains of the potential for a
Re: (Score:3)
As someone strongly critical of the "transhuman" religion I find the "Amor Mundi" blog equally misguided and void of any with or insight.
One example: we have an increasing amount of real world AI capable of real world tasks - that includes self driving cars and (projects for) autonomous UAE. Yes, that's weak AI - not the (idea of) strong AI the singularity people worship. But it's AI.
And still Mr. Carrico claims one shouldn't be afraid of algorithms - but any sane person should!
Re: (Score:3)
in fact, Goffman is an ardent supporter of several self defined "neo reactionary fascist" transhumanists... he makes constant support and mention of these people, and they are "race realists" and HBD creeps.
AFAIK this is completely untrue. R.U. is an acquaintance of mine, I've read some of his work, and this is simply false. He actually leans to the left. Of course, any editor who covers wide-ranging topics is going to mention and even publish people they don't entirely agree with. That's how magazine publishing and "encyclopedias" work. But you are spewing bullshit when you say he's an "ardent supporter" of any of that. [Citation needed], dude.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, that's quite a rant, dude.
his boosterism for the truly evil transhumanist technocrats who oppose democracy and who cheer-lead for general mechanization and dehumanization
OK, I just read the two linked interviews, and I'm just not seeing this. At all. Neither of the authors seem to be cheerleading for evil and dehumanization. They both seem to be fairly positive about transhumanism, but mention flaws and potential downsides. I am acquainted with R.U., and he's not at all a "technocrat," and that comes through in those two interviews.
Re: (Score:1)
So lets put them in a pit with george soros and the koch brothers.. the resulting release of energy will power our society for the next 100 billion years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In particular he more than makes the case that the bones of "transhumanism" are in fact : fascist, plutocratic elitist, sexist, racist and overwhelmingly adolescent
Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear anyone or anything called "fascist," sexist," and "racist" all at once, I think it tells me more about the person using those words than it does about whatever they are talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you are morally bankrupt . nothing else need be said.
Oh right, I'm "morally bankrupt " because I don't take people seriously when they froth at the mouth and throw terms like "fascist" and "racist" and "sexist" at anyone they disagree with. On the other hand, I'm not an Anonymous Coward making absurd and unsubstantiated charges. Anyone who reads just the linked interviews should be able to see that you don't know what you're talking about. I doubt if anyone who knows R.U. thinks he's any of those things. I don't know what your problem is, but in this discussi
Re: (Score:1)
Co-Author Jay Cornell Replies (Score:3, Interesting)
I am the co-author of this book (and disappointingly unnamed in this discussion), so I thought I would register and reply to a few points.
Just as reporters often don’t get to write the headlines for their stories, authors don’t always have final say about the titles of their books. Our working title was “The User’s Guide to Transhumanism,” which I think would have been a little more on-point. The word “encyclopedia” notwithstanding, we couldn’t cover everything, certainly not in any depth, in the number of words we had to work with. However, contrary to a post above, we do have an entry on Cosmism. Since the entries are alphabetical, I don’t know how the commenter missed it.
We tried hard to be objective. While we are both largely supportive of transhumanism, neither of us are starry-eyed “believers,” and I think the book (and even the interviews linked in the story) make that clear. We at least mention the criticisms and potential downsides of transhumanism, and in fact there’s a relatively lengthy entry called “Criticisms of Transhumanism” which is online.
Unfortunately there is an "Anonymous Coward" trolling this discussion, making a lot of wild and baseless charges. I’ve known R.U. for nearly 30 years, and it’s completely absurd to call him “fascist"/"sexist"/"racist"/"elitist"/"technocratic" by any normal meanings of those terms. I’d describe him as somewhere on the left on many issues, but he’s hard to pigeonhole politically. I would never consider him a dogmatist or even much of a joiner. (For the record, I’m a sort of impure libertarian who tries to take a somewhat distant and objective view of politics, and is often more willing to compromise with the left or right than a libertarian is “supposed to.”)
Whatever Peter Thiel funds, sadly, he’s not funding me or R.U. We could use some of that money. The Anonymous Coward is seeing conspiracies where none exist (as far as I know, at least). Transhumanism is a large, diverse thing, with many political and personal divisions and factions. Some people in it one could fairly call “right-wing” or “neo-reactionary,” but there are also many who could be fairly called “left-wing” or “socialist.” Labeling all advocates of transhumanism as "fascist" or "technocratic" is simply ignorant.
It's self-interested of me to say this, but I would recommend that people buy and read the book, and make up your own mind. We think it will be entertaining and informative for people interested in transhumanism, or in the future in general. If you think we've made an error or left something out, contact us through our website [transcendencethebook.net] and we'll fix it in the next edition (which we hope will happen). In any case, please don't jump to conclusions based on anonymous mud-slinging.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A thousand word to say what could be said in a sentence. I suppose amongst these future squawkers you would include Von Braun and his future visions of moon ships and humans living in space. Because 100 to 60 years ago people like you were saying exactly the same kind of thing about him. They were saying the world would never need more than five computers, that science and medicine had already reached a pinnacle. Come to think of it 100 years ago people like you including serious 'real' scientists were sayi
Re: (Score:1)
Always proof read before hitting submit!! -
"A thousand words to say what could be said in a sentence."
''Come to think of it 100 years ago people like you, including many 'real' serious scientists were saying how heavier than air manned flight would never be possible.."
"Way back in 1990 I did some theoretical design work on nano-tech assemblers - advocates then estimated that with funding assemblers were about 10 to 20 years in the future - they are still about 10 to 20 years in the future."
Stupid SD interfa