Page 11234..1020..»

Category : Transhumanism

Transhumanism: Will This Be How Humanity Destroys Itself …

Transhumanism is promising eternity, but it may be the way humanity destroys itself by sacrificing everything that makes us human.

is the intentional merging of man with machine. It the movement to augment or enhance humanity by meldingsynthetic, machine-like parts to the human body. It is driven to make man more precise, logical, analytic and knowledgeable by making man more robotic. Transhumanism is a highly dangerous movement that reminds me of a little kid playing with fire. We have no idea where this is going to take us, yet we race blindly on, believing that if we can, we must. Thats themaxim of misguided science: if we can do it, we will do it, no matter what. No matter if millions of people die from an atomic bomb. Many authors, film directors, artists and visionaries have foreseen and warned about the danger of an AI (Artificial Intelligence) system that becomes self-aware, decides it doesnt want humans to live and kills them all. So we need to ask ourselves: will transhumanism be how humanity destroys itself?

Transhumanism is selling the idea that you can plug yourself into a supercomputer and become all-powerful, all-knowing, immortal a god. Its promoting the idea that humanity can have a future without death.

The situation reminds me of the Garden of Eden. Now, I am not a Christian (I think almost all religions contain some truth but have gotten bogged down in a ton of dogma), howeverI do think the Garden of Eden is a highly symbolicstory. Traditional Christianity interprets the story as proof of mans sinful nature, and to some extent uses it to justify judgement and punishment of those who are curious and seek knowledge. However I think a more profound understanding is that the ejection of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden symbolizes mankinds fall into a lower state of consciousness. We used to live in a time where we felt and experienced our divine nature more, where we felt more connected to each other, to Nature and to the Earth, but we have descended into more separation. And, deep down, all of us feelthetremendous pain and suffering in that separation.

What makes transhumanism so scary is that it is like trying to take a second bite of the apple.It is trying desperately to return to that state of higher consciousness, to make up for the disconnection, but in doing so, it is pushing us further away from Who We Really Are.People are trying to overcome the primal pain of disconnection by voluntarily chipping themselves, as though that would restore connection, but all its doing is denying our own humanity and making us more robotic.

To believe Heaven and Hell are literal places you go to after you die, full of milk and honey or fire and brimstone, is a very shallow and limited way of understanding those concepts. Adeeper way to comprehend them is to realize they are states of being. They are states of consciousness. They are something you feel and experience in this lifetime on this planet. We can have Heaven on Earth or Hell on Earth depending upon how we use our powers of creation here.

The best way to describe Hell is when you get trapped in a creation of your own making which isexactly what iscoming down the pipes when blindly enthusiastic transhumanists suggest we create virtual or digital worlds, create avatars in which to navigate these worlds, and then transfer our consciousness to these avatars and become gods. The point is tolive forever in a digital world as an omnipotentimmortal. The reality, I suggest, could be very different; we would lose all our sovereignty and individuality andbecome mindless drones, just another digital brick in the wall or electronic cog in the giant machine. This is exactly the kind of situation that the megalomaniac Controllers already running our world want: one where it is would literally be impossible to think differently to how the hive-mind or the State wants you to think.

Firstly, transhumanismisrooted in a lack of self-knowledge. We already are immortal. Every human being is a unique soul or consciousness, a spiritual being on a human journey. Theres nothing we need to do to become immortal. Why are we chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow instead of looking inside of ourselves? Why are we constantly looking outside for solutions rather than getting in touch with our true essence?

Secondly, transhumanism is steeped in the denial of death. It tries topatch up the body with metallic and plastic parts to avoid the body breaking down, decaying and dying as it naturallydoes. Transhumanism is a mentality which is so focused on creating an augmented bio-vessel whichnever wears out that it fails to accept the natural cycle of birth and rebirth, of living and dying, that surrounds us in Nature. A healthy acceptance of deathcan be a powerful teacher to help you get more out of life and cut through petty grievances. Many spiritual traditions teach that living in constant knowledge of ones impending death is the best motivator there is to be the best you can be.

In conclusion, transhumanism is a dangerously misguided philosophy.It is so appealing to those who love technology or who have not fully accepted the reality of death as a part of life. Yet, if we collectively go down the transhumanistic road, we risk sacrificing everything about ourselves that makes us great our emotions andfeelings, our unique thoughts and perspectives, our passion in exchange for a fake immortality and emotionless subsistence.

*****

Want to keep informed on the latest and greatest news and analysis on the New World Order, Natural Health, Sovereignty and more?Sign up for free blog updates!

Makia Freeman is the editor ofThe Freedom Articlesand senior researcher atToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions forhow humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.

See the original post:
Transhumanism: Will This Be How Humanity Destroys Itself …

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas

The modern Victor Frankenstein holds a high political office, carries diplomatic immunity, and is most likely funded by the largest corporations worldwide. His method is ancient: alchemy. His fraternities are well known and their secrets are well kept, but his goal of times past and present is the same; he dares to become as god, genetically manipulating the seeds of the earth, the beasts on the fields, and to claim legal ownership over humanity by re-creating it in his own image. This is no fairy tale, science fiction, or conspiracy theory it simply is!

Transhumanism, a Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas by Dr.’s. Joseph P. Farrell and Scott D. de Hart lifts the veil from the macabre transhumanistic monster being assembled and exposes the hidden history and agenda that has set humanity on a collision course for the Apocalypse.

Joseph P. Farrell, PhD, is the author of the best-selling Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men: The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda.

See original here:
Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

A New Generation of Transhumanists Is Emerging | HuffPost

A new generation of transhumanists is emerging. You can feel it in handshakes at transhumanist meet-ups. You can see it when checking in to transhumanist groups in social media. You can read it in the hundreds of transhumanist-themed blogs. This is not the same bunch of older, mostly male academics that have slowly moved the movement forward during the last few decades. This is a dynamic group of younger people from varying backgrounds: Asians, Blacks, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Latinos. Many are females, some are LGBT, and others have disabilities. Many are atheist, while others are spiritual or even formally religious. Their politics run the gamut, from liberals to conservatives to anarchists. Their professions vary widely, from artists to physical laborers to programmers. Whatever their background, preferences, or professions, they have recently tripled the population of transhumanists in just the last 12 months.

“Three years ago, we had only around 400 members, but today we have over 10,000 members,” says Amanda Stoel, co-founder and chief administrator of Facebook group Singularity Network, one of the largest of hundreds of transhumanist-themed groups on the web.

Transhumanism is becoming so popular that even the comic strip Dilbert, which appears online and in 2000 newspapers, recently made jokes about it.

Despite its growing popularity, many people around the world still don’t know what “transhuman” means. Transhuman literally means beyond human. Transhumanists consist of life extensionists, techno-optimists, Singularitarians, biohackers, roboticists, AI proponents, and futurists who embrace radical science and technology to improve the human condition. The most important aim for many transhumanists is to overcome human mortality, a goal some believe is achievable by 2045.

Transhumanism has been around for nearly 30 years and was first heavily influenced by science fiction. Today, transhumanism is increasingly being influenced by actual science and technological innovation, much of it being created by people under the age of 40. It’s also become a very international movement, with many formal groups in dozens of countries.

Despite the movement’s growth, its potential is being challenged by some older transhumanists who snub the younger generation and their ideas. These old-school futurists dismiss activist philosophies and radicalism, and even prefer some younger writers and speakers not have their voices heard. Additionally, transhumanism’s Wikipedia page — the most viewed online document of the movement — is protected by a vigilant posse, deleting additions or changes that don’t support a bland academic view of transhumanism.

Inevitably, this Wikipedia page misses the vibrancy and happenings of the burgeoning movement. The real status and information of transhumanism and its philosophies can be found in public transhumanist gatherings and festivities, in popular student groups like the Stanford University Transhumanist Association, and in social media where tens of thousands of scientists and technologists hang out and discuss the transhuman future.

Jet-setting personality Maria Konovalenko, a 29-year-old Russian molecular biophysicist whose public demonstrations supporting radical life extension have made international news, is a prime example.

“We must do more for transhumanism and life extension,” says Konovalenko, who serves as vice president of Moscow-based Science for Life Extension Foundation. “This is our lives and our futures we’re talking about. To sit back and and just watch the 21st Century roll by will not accomplish our goals. We must take our message to the people in the streets and strive to make real change.”

Transhumanist celebrities like Konovalenko are changing the way the movement gets its message across to the public. Gauging by the rapidly increasing number of transhumanists, it’s working.

A primary goal of many transhumanists is to convince the public that embracing radical technology and science is in the species’ best interest. In a mostly religious world where much of society still believes in heavenly afterlives, some people are skeptical about whether significantly extending human lifespans is philosophically and morally correct. Transhumanists believe the more people that support transhumanism, the more private and government resources will end up in the hands of organizations and companies that aim to improve human lives and bring mortality to an end.

Go here to see the original:
A New Generation of Transhumanists Is Emerging | HuffPost

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Transhumanism | Future | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human cognitive and physical abilities and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disease, aging, and death. Transhumanist thinkers study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.

Although the first known use of the term “transhumanism” dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s, when a group of scientists, artists, and futurists based in the United States began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers postulate that human beings will eventually be transformed into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman”.

The transhumanist vision of a profoundly transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters as well as critics from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by a proponent as the “movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity,” while according to a prominent critic, it is the world’s most dangerous idea.

In his 2005 article A History of Transhumanist Thought, philosopher Nick Bostrom locates transhumanism’s roots in Renaissance humanism and the Enlightenment. The Marquis de Condorcet, an eighteenth century French philosopher, is the first thinker whom he identifies as speculating about the use of medical science to extend the human life span. In the twentieth century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was J.B.S. Haldane’s 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of genetics and other advanced sciences to human biology.

Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane’s), appears to have been the first to use the actual word “transhumanism”. Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature”. This definition differs substantially from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.

The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the twentieth century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School for Social Research in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to “posthumanity” as “transhuman” (short for “transitory human”). In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the popularization of the concept of “transhumanity” in his book Man into Superman. FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973 to stimulate transhumanly conscious activism.

The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his “third way” futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the earth’s gravity as they head into space. FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030′s courses and audiences from Vita-More’s artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement, and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.

In 1988, philosopher Max More founded the Extropy Institute and was the main contributor to a formal transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy in 1990.[ In 1990, he laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:

“Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. [] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies [].” In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an organization with a liberal democratic perspective. In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration. The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic with a high profile in the transhumanist movement.

In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute made a decision to cease operations of the organization, stating that its mission was “essentially completed”. This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization.

For a list of notable individuals who have identified themselves, or been identified by others, as advocates of transhumanism, see the list of transhumanists.

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists an ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a post-Darwinian phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change. To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futures studies and various fields or subfields of science, philosophy, economics, history, and sociology. Unlike philosophers, social critics and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the “natural” as an obstacle to progress. In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism’s critics on the political right and left jointly as “bioconservatives” or “bioluddites”, the latter term alluding to the nineteenth century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of manual labor by machines.

Converging Technologies, a 2002 report exploring the potential for synergy among nano-, bio-, informational and cognitive technologies (NBIC) for enhancing human performance.While some transhumanists take a relatively abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including inheritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human nervous system. Though some propose modification of the peripheral nervous system, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions. More generally, transhumanists support the convergence of emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, mind uploading, and cryonics. Transhumanists believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human. Transhumanists therefore support the recognition or protection of cognitive liberty, morphological freedom and procreative liberty as civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of enhancing themselves and progressively become posthuman, which they see as the next significant evolutionary steps for the human species. Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate such a transformation by the midpoint of the twenty first century.

A 2002 report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, commissioned by the U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, contains descriptions and commentaries on the state of NBIC science and technology by major contributors to these fields. The report discusses potential uses of these technologies in implementing transhumanist goals of enhanced performance and health, and ongoing work on planned applications of human enhancement technologies in the military and in the rationalization of the human-machine interface in industry.

Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, believe that the pace of technological evolution is accelerating and that the next fifty years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings. Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, they also explore the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change, and frequently propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity’s future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.

On a more practical level, as proponents of personal development and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity. Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in life extension practices, and funding research in cryonics in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort rather than remaining an unproven method. Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities with a range of objectives exist to provide support and forums for discussion and collaborative projects.

There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold complex and subtle views that are under constant revision and development. Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:

Although some transhumanists report a very strong sense of spirituality, they are for the most part secular. In fact, many transhumanists are either agnostics or atheists. A minority, however, follow liberal forms of Eastern philosophical traditions or, as with Mormon transhumanists, have merged their beliefs with established religions.

Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as immortality albeit a physical one. Several belief systems, termed new religious movements, originating in the late twentieth century, share with transhumanism the goals of transcending the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the body (Ralism) and mind (Scientology). While most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives, some speculate that future understanding of neurotheology will enable humans to achieve control of altered states of consciousness and thus “spiritual” experiences. A continuing dialogue between transhumanism and faith was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.

The majority of transhumanists are materialists who do not believe in a transcendent human soul. Transhumanist personhood theory also argues against the unique identification of moral actors and subjects with biological humans, judging as speciesist the exclusion of nonhuman and part-human animals, and sophisticated machines, from ethical consideration. Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media.

One extreme formulation of this idea is Frank Tipler’s proposal of the Omega Point. Drawing upon ideas in physics, computer science and physical cosmology, Tipler advanced the notion that the collapse of the Universe billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity as a simulation within a megacomputer. Cosmologist George Ellis has called Tipler’s book “a masterpiece of pseudoscience”, and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating perceived flaws in Tipler’s thesis.

For more details on this topic, see Transhumanism in fiction. Transhumanist themes have become increasingly prominent in various literary forms during the period in which the movement itself has emerged. Contemporary science fiction often contains positive renditions of technologically enhanced human life, set in utopian (especially techno-utopian) societies. However, science fiction’s depictions of technologically enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many horrific or dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong.

The cyberpunk genre, exemplified by William Gibson’s Neuromancer (1984) and Bruce Sterling’s Schismatrix (1985), has particularly been concerned with the modification of human bodies. Other novels dealing with transhumanist themes that have stimulated broad discussion of these issues include Blood Music (1985) by Greg Bear, The Xenogenesis Trilogy (19871989) by Octavia Butler; the “Culture” novels (19872000) of Iain Banks; The Beggar’s Trilogy (199094) by Nancy Kress; much of Greg Egan’s work since the early 1990s, such as Permutation City (1994) and Diaspora (1997); The Bohr Maker (1995) by Linda Nagata; Extensa (2002) and Perfekcyjna niedoskonao (2003) by Jacek Dukaj; Oryx and Crake (2003) by Margaret Atwood; Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan (2002); and The Possibility of an Island (Eng. trans. 2006) by Michel Houellebecq.

Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other media during the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. Such treatments are found in films (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, 1979; Blade Runner, 1982; Gattaca, 1997), television series (the Ancients of Stargate SG-1, the Borg of Star Trek, the Nietzscheans of Andromeda), manga and anime (Ghost in the Shell), role-playing games (Transhuman Space) and computer games (Deus Ex, Half-Life 2, Command & Conquer). The fictional universe of the table top war game Warhammer 40,000 also makes use of genetic and cybernetic augmentation. Human characters of the Imperium often employ cybernetic devices, while the Space Marines are indeed posthuman. Many of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its postcyberpunk offshoot.

In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More, mentioned above, transhumanism has been represented in the visual and performing arts by Carnal Art, a form of sculpture originated by the French artist Orlan that uses the body as its medium and plastic surgery as its method. The American performer Michael Jackson used technologies such as plastic surgery, skin-lightening drugs and hyperbaric oxygen treatment over the course of his career, with the effect of transforming his artistic persona so as to blur identifiers of gender, race and age. The work of the Australian artist Stelarc centers on the alteration of his body by robotic prostheses and tissue engineering. Other artists whose work coincided with the emergence and flourishing of transhumanism and who explored themes related to the transformation of the body are the Yugoslavian performance artist Marina Abramovic and the American media artist Matthew Barney. A 2005 show, Becoming Animal, at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, presented exhibits by twelve artists whose work concerns the effects of technology in erasing boundaries between the human and non-human.

Read more:
Transhumanism | Future | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Yudkowsky – Simplified Humanism

Frank Sulloway once said: Ninety-nine per cent of what Darwinian theory says about human behavior is so obviously true that we dont give Darwin credit for it. Ironically, psychoanalysis has it over Darwinism precisely because its predictions are so outlandish and its explanations are so counterintuitive that we think, Is that really true? How radical! Freuds ideas are so intriguing that people are willing to pay for them, while one of the great disadvantages of Darwinism is that we feel we know it already, because, in a sense, we do.

Suppose you find an unconscious six-year-old girl lying on the train tracks of an active railroad. What, morally speaking, ought you to do in this situation? Would it be better to leave her there to get run over, or to try to save her? How about if a 45-year-old man has a debilitating but nonfatal illness that will severely reduce his quality of life is it better to cure him, or not cure him?

Oh, and by the way: This is not a trick question.

I answer that I would save them if I had the power to do so both the six-year-old on the train tracks, and the sick 45-year-old. The obvious answer isnt always the best choice, but sometimes it is.

I wont be lauded as a brilliant ethicist for my judgments in these two ethical dilemmas. My answers are not surprising enough that people would pay me for them. If you go around proclaiming What does two plus two equal? Four! you will not gain a reputation as a deep thinker. But it is still the correct answer.

If a young child falls on the train tracks, it is good to save them, and if a 45-year-old suffers from a debilitating disease, it is good to cure them. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle which says Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad. If so and here we enter into controversial territory we can follow this general principle to a surprising new conclusion: If a 95-year-old is threatened by death from old age, it would be good to drag them from those train tracks, if possible. And if a 120-year-old is starting to feel slightly sickly, it would be good to restore them to full vigor, if possible. With current technology it is not possible. But if the technology became available in some future year given sufficiently advanced medical nanotechnology, or such other contrivances as future minds may devise would you judge it a good thing, to save that life, and stay that debility?

The important thing to remember, which I think all too many people forget, is that it is not a trick question.

Transhumanism is simpler requires fewer bits to specify because it has no special cases. If you believe professional bioethicists (people who get paid to explain ethical judgments) then the rule Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad holds only until some critical age, and then flips polarity. Why should it flip? Why not just keep on with life-is-good? It would seem that it is good to save a six-year-old girl, but bad to extend the life and health of a 150-year-old. Then at what exact age does the term in the utility function go from positive to negative? Why?

As far as a transhumanist is concerned, if you see someone in danger of dying, you should save them; if you can improve someones health, you should. There, youre done. No special cases. You dont have to ask anyones age.

You also dont ask whether the remedy will involve only primitive technologies (like a stretcher to lift the six-year-old off the railroad tracks); or technologies invented less than a hundred years ago (like penicillin) which nonetheless seem ordinary because they were around when you were a kid; or technologies that seem scary and sexy and futuristic (like gene therapy) because they were invented after you turned 18; or technologies that seem absurd and implausible and sacrilegious (like nanotech) because they havent been invented yet. Your ethical dilemma report form doesnt have a line where you write down the invention year of the technology. Can you save lives? Yes? Okay, go ahead. There, youre done.

Suppose a boy of 9 years, who has tested at IQ 120 on the Wechsler-Bellvue, is threatened by a lead-heavy environment or a brain disease which will, if unchecked, gradually reduce his IQ to 110. I reply that it is a good thing to save him from this threat. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle saying that intelligence is precious. Now the boys sister, as it happens, currently has an IQ of 110. If the technology were available to gradually raise her IQ to 120, without negative side effects, would you judge it good to do so?

Well, of course. Why not? Its not a trick question. Either its better to have an IQ of 110 than 120, in which case we should strive to decrease IQs of 120 to 110. Or its better to have an IQ of 120 than 110, in which case we should raise the sisters IQ if possible. As far as I can see, the obvious answer is the correct one.

But you ask where does it end? It may seem well and good to talk about extending life and health out to 150 years but what about 200 years, or 300 years, or 500 years, or more? What about when in the course of properly integrating all these new life experiences and expanding ones mind accordingly over time the equivalent of IQ must go to 140, or 180, or beyond human ranges?

Where does it end? It doesnt. Why should it? Life is good, health is good, beauty and happiness and fun and laughter and challenge and learning are good. This does not change for arbitrarily large amounts of life and beauty. If there were an upper bound, it would be a special case, and that would be inelegant.

Ultimate physical limits may or may not permit a lifespan of at least length X for some X just as the medical technology of a particular century may or may not permit it. But physical limitations are questions of simple fact, to be settled strictly by experiment. Transhumanism, as a moral philosophy, deals only with the question of whether a healthy lifespan of length X is desirable if it is physically possible. Transhumanism answers yes for all X. Because, you see, its not a trick question.

So that is transhumanism loving life without special exceptions and without upper bound.

Can transhumanism really be that simple? Doesnt that make the philosophy trivial, if it has no extra ingredients, just common sense? Yes, in the same way that the scientific method is nothing but common sense.

Then why have a complicated special name like transhumanism ? For the same reason that scientific method or secular humanism have complicated special names. If you take common sense and rigorously apply it, through multiple inferential steps, to areas outside everyday experience, successfully avoiding many possible distractions and tempting mistakes along the way, then it often ends up as a minority position and people give it a special name.

But a moral philosophy should not have special ingredients. The purpose of a moral philosophy is not to look delightfully strange and counterintuitive, or to provide employment to bioethicists. The purpose is to guide our choices toward life, health, beauty, happiness, fun, laughter, challenge, and learning. If the judgments are simple, that is no black mark against them morality doesnt always have to be complicated.

There is nothing in transhumanism but the same common sense that underlies standard humanism, rigorously applied to cases outside our modern-day experience. A million-year lifespan? If its possible, why not? The prospect may seem very foreign and strange, relative to our current everyday experience. It may create a sensation of future shock. And yet is life a bad thing?

Could the moral question really be just that simple?

Yes.

View original post here:
Yudkowsky – Simplified Humanism

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

U.S. Transhumanist Party PUTTING SCIENCE, HEALTH …

Ojochogwu Abdul

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Part 5:Belief in Progress vs. Rational Uncertainty

The Enlightenment, with its confident efforts to fashion a science of man, was archetypal of the belief and quest that humankind will eventually achieve lasting peace and happiness. In what some interpret as a reformulation of Christianitys teleological salvation history in which the People of God will be redeemed at the end of days and with the Kingdom of Heaven established on Earth, most Enlightenment thinkers believed in the inevitability of human political and technological progress, secularizing the Christian conception of history and eschatology into a conviction that humanity would, using a system of thought built on reason and science, be able to continually improve itself. As portrayed by Carl Becker in his 1933 book The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers, the philosophies demolished the Heavenly City of St. Augustine only to rebuild it with more up-to-date materials. Whether this Enlightenment humanist view of progress amounted merely to a recapitulation of the Christian teleological vision of history, or if Enlightenment beliefs in continual, linear political, intellectual, and material improvement reflected, asJames Hughesposits, a clear difference from the dominant Christian historical narrative in which little would change until the End Times and Christs return, the notion, in any case, of a collective progress towards a definitive end-point was one that remained unsupported by the scientific worldview. The scientific worldview, as Hughes reminds us in the opening paragraph of this essay within his series, does not support historical inevitability, only uncertainty. We may annihilate ourselves or regress, he says, and Even the normative judgment of what progress is, and whether we have made any, is open to empirical skepticism.

Hereby, we are introduced to a conflict that exists, at least since after the Enlightenment, between a view of progressive optimism and that of radical uncertainty. Building on the Enlightenments faith in the inevitability of political and scientific progress, the idea of an end-point, salvation moment for humankind fuelled all the great Enlightenment ideologies that followed, flowing down, as Hughes traces, through Comtes positivism and Marxist theories of historical determinism to neoconservative triumphalism about the end of history in democratic capitalism. Communists envisaged that end-point as a post-capitalist utopia that would finally resolve the class struggle which they conceived as the true engine of history. This vision also contained the 20th-century project to build the Soviet Man, one of extra-human capacities, for as Trotsky had predicted, after the Revolution, the average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise, whereas for 20th-century free-market liberals, this End of History had arrived with the final triumph of liberal democracy, with the entire world bound to be swept in its course. Events though, especially so far in the 21st century, appear to prove this view wrong.

This belief moreover, as Hughes would convincingly argue, in the historical inevitability of progress has also always been locked in conflict with the rationalist, scientific observation that humanity could regress or disappear altogether. Enlightenment pessimism, or at least realism, has, over the centuries, proven a stubborn resistance and constraint of Enlightenment optimism. Hughes, citing Henry Vyberg, reminds us that there were, after all, even French Enlightenment thinkers within that same era who rejected the belief in linear historical progress, but proposed historical cycles or even decadence instead. That aside, contemporary commentators like John Gray would even argue that the efforts themselves of the Enlightenment on the quest for progress unfortunately issued in, for example, the racist pseudo-science of Voltaire and Hume, while all endeavours to establish the rule of reason have resulted in bloody fanaticisms, from Jacobinism to Bolshevism, which equaled the worst atrocities attributable to religious believers. Horrendous acts like racism and anti-Semitism, in the verdict of Gray: .are not incidental defects in Enlightenment thinking. They flow from some of the Enlightenments central beliefs.

Even Darwinisms theory of natural selection was, according to Hughes, suborned by the progressive optimistic thinking of the Enlightenment and its successors to the doctrine of inevitable progress, aided in part by Darwins own teleological interpretation. Problem, however, is that from the scientific worldview, there is no support for progress as to be found provided by the theory of natural selection, only that humanity, Hughes plainly states, like all creatures, is on a random walk through a mine field, that human intelligence is only an accident, and that we could easily go extinct as many species have done. Gray, for example, rebukes Darwin, who wrote: As natural selection works solely for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress to perfection. Natural selection, however, does not work solely for the good of each being, a fact Darwin himself elsewhere acknowledged. Nonetheless, it has continually proven rather difficult for people to resist the impulse to identify evolution with progress, with an extended downside to this attitude being equally difficult to resist the temptation to apply evolution in the rationalization of views as dangerous as Social Darwinism and acts as horrible as eugenics.

Many skeptics therefore hold, rationally, that scientific utopias and promises to transform the human condition deserve the deepest suspicion. Reason is but a frail reed, all events of moral and political progress are and will always remain subject to reversal, and civilization could as well just collapse, eventually. Historical events and experiences have therefore caused faith in the inevitability of progress to wax and wane over time. Hughes notes that among several Millenarian movements and New Age beliefs, such faith could still be found that the world is headed for a millennial age, just as it exists in techno-optimist futurism. Nevertheless, he makes us see that since the rise and fall of fascism and communism, and the mounting evidence of the dangers and unintended consequences of technology, there are few groups that still hold fast to an Enlightenment belief in the inevitability of conjoined scientific and political progress. Within the transhumanist community, however, the possession of such faith in progress can still be found as held by many, albeit signifying a camp in the continuation therefore of the Enlightenment-bequeathed conflict as manifested between transhumanist optimism in contradiction with views of future uncertainty.

As with several occasions in the past, humanity is, again, currently being spun yet another End of History narrative: one of a posthuman future. Yuval Harari, for instance, in Homo Deus argues that emerging technologies and new scientific discoveries are undermining the foundations of Enlightenment humanism, although as he proceeds with his presentation he also proves himself unable to avoid one of the defining tropes of Enlightenment humanist thinking, i.e., that deeply entrenched tendency to conceive human history in teleological terms: fundamentally as a matter of collective progress towards a definitive end-point. This time, though, our eras End of History glorious salvation moment is to be ushered in, not by a politico-economic system, but by a nascent techno-elite with a base in Silicon Valley, USA, a cluster steeped in a predominant tech-utopianism which has at its core the idea that the new technologies emerging there can steer humanity towards a definitive break-point in our history, the Singularity. Among believers in this coming Singularity, transhumanists, as it were, having inherited the tension between Enlightenment convictions in the inevitability of progress, and, in Hughes words, Enlightenments scientific, rational realism that human progress or even civilization may fail, now struggle with a renewed contradiction. And here the contrast as Hughes intends to portray gains sharpness, for as such, transhumanists today are torn between their Enlightenment faith in inevitable progress toward posthuman transcension and utopian Singularities on the one hand, and, on the other, their rational awareness of the possibility that each new technology may have as many risks as benefits and that humanity may not have a future.

The risks of new technologies, even if not necessarily one that threatens the survival of humanity as a species with extinction, may yet be of an undesirable impact on the mode and trajectory of our extant civilization. Henry Kissinger, in his 2018 article How the Enlightenment Ends, expressed his perception that technology, which is rooted in Enlightenment thought, is now superseding the very philosophy that is its fundamental principle. The universal values proposed by the Enlightenment philosophes, as Kissinger points out, could be spread worldwide only through modern technology, but at the same time, such technology has ended or accomplished the Enlightenment and is now going its own way, creating the need for a new guiding philosophy. Kissinger argues specifically that AI may spell the end of the Enlightenment itself, and issues grave warnings about the consequences of AI and the end of Enlightenment and human reasoning, this as a consequence of an AI-led technological revolution whose culmination may be a world relying on machines powered by data and algorithms and ungoverned by ethical or philosophical norms. By way of analogy to how the printing press allowed the Age of Reason to supplant the Age of Religion, he buttresses his proposal that the modern counterpart of this revolutionary process is the rise of intelligent AI that will supersede human ability and put an end to the Enlightenment. Kissinger further outlines his three areas of concern regarding the trajectory of artificial intelligence research: AI may achieve unintended results; in achieving intended goals, AI may change human thought processes and human values, and AI may reach intended goals, but be unable to explain the rationale for its conclusions. Kissingers thesis, of course, has not gone without both support and criticisms attracted from different quarters. Reacting to Kissinger, Yuk Hui, for example, in What Begins After the End of the Enlightenment? maintained that Kissinger is wrongthe Enlightenment has not ended. Rather, modern technologythe support structure of Enlightenment philosophyhas become its own philosophy, with the universalizing force of technology becoming itself the political project of the Enlightenment.

Transhumanists, as mentioned already, reflect the continuity of some of those contradictions between belief in progress and uncertainty about human future. Hughes shows us nonetheless that there are some interesting historical turns suggesting further directions that this mood has taken. In the 1990s, Hughes recalls, transhumanists were full of exuberant Enlightenment optimism about unending progress. As an example, Hughes cites Max Mores 1998 Extropian Principles which defined Perpetual Progress as the first precept of their brand of transhumanism. Over time, however, Hughes communicates how More himself has had cause to temper this optimism, stressing rather this driving principle as one of desirability and more a normative goal than a faith in historical inevitability. History, More would say in 2002, since the Enlightenment makes me wary of all arguments to inevitability

Rational uncertainty among transhumanists hence make many of them refrain from an argument for the inevitability of transhumanism as a matter of progress. Further, there are indeed several possible factors which could deter the transhumanist idea and drive for progress from translating to reality: A neo-Luddite revolution, a turn and rise in preference for rural life, mass disenchantment with technological addiction and increased option for digital detox, nostalgia, disillusionment with modern civilization and a return-to-innocence counter-cultural movement, neo-Romanticism, a pop-culture allure and longing for a Tolkien-esque world, cyclical thinking, conservatism, traditionalism, etc. The alternative, backlash, and antagonistic forces are myriad. Even within transhumanism, the anti-democratic and socially conservative Neoreactionary movement, with its rejection of the view that history shows inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment, is gradually (and rather disturbingly) growing a contingent. Hughes talks, as another point for rational uncertainty, about the three critiques: futurological, historical, and anthropological, of transhumanist and Enlightenment faith in progress that Phillipe Verdoux offers, and in which the anthropological argument holds that pre-moderns were probably as happy or happier than we moderns. After all, Rousseau, himself a French Enlightenment thinker, is generally seen as having believed in the superiority of the savage over the civilized. Perspectives like these could stir anti-modern, anti-progress sentiments in peoples hearts and minds.

Demonstrating still why transhumanists must not be obstinate over the idea of inevitability, Hughes refers to Greg Burchs 2001 work Progress, Counter-Progress, and Counter-Counter-Progress in which the latter expounded on the Enlightenment and transhumanist commitment to progress as to a political program, fully cognizant that there are many powerful enemies of progress and that victory was not inevitable. Moreover, the possible failure in realizing goals of progress might not even result from the actions of enemies in that antagonistic sense of the word, for there is also that likely scenario, as the 2006 movie Idiocracy depicts, of a future dystopian society based on dysgenics, one in which, going by expectations and trends of the 21st century, the most intelligent humans decrease in reproduction and eventually fail to have children while the least intelligent reproduce prolifically. As such, through the process of natural selection, generations are created that collectively become increasingly dumber and more virile with each passing century, leading to a future world plagued by anti-intellectualism, bereft of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, coherence in notions of justice and human rights, and manifesting several other traits of degeneration in culture. This is yet a possibility for our future world.

So while for many extropians and transhumanists, nonetheless, perpetual progress was an unstoppable train, responding to which one either got on board for transcension or consigned oneself to the graveyard, other transhumanists, however, Hughes comments, especially in response to certain historical experiences (the 2000 dot-com crash, for example), have seen reason to increasingly temper their expectations about progress. In Hughess appraisal, while, therefore, some transhumanists still press for technological innovation on all fronts and oppose all regulation, others are focusing on reducing the civilization-ending potentials of asteroid strikes, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology. Some realism hence need be in place to keep under constant check the excesses of contemporary secular technomillennialism as contained in some transhumanist strains.

Hughes presents Nick Bostroms 2001 essay Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards as one influential example of this anti-millennial realism, a text in which Bostrom, following his outline of scenarios that could either end the existence of the human species or have us evolve into dead-ends, then addressed not just how we can avoid extinction and ensure that there are descendants of humanity, but also how we can ensure that we will be proud to claim them. Subsequently, Bostrom has been able to produce work on catastrophic risk estimation at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford. Hughes seems to favour this approach, for he ensures to indicate that this has also been adopted as a programmatic focus for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) which he directs, and as well for the transhumanist non-profit, the Lifeboat Foundation. Transhumanists who listen to Bostrom, as we could deduce from Hughes, are being urged to take a more critical approach concerning technological progress.

With the availability of this rather cautious attitude, a new tension, Hughes reports, now plays out between eschatological certainty and pessimistic risk assessment. This has taken place mainly concerning the debate over the Singularity. For the likes of Ray Kurzweil (2005), representing the camp of a rather technomillennial, eschatological certainty, his patterns of accelerating trendlines towards a utopian merger of enhanced humanity and godlike artificial intelligence is one of unstoppability, and this Kurzweil supports by referring to the steady exponential march of technological progress through (and despite) wars and depressions. Dystopian and apocalyptic predictions of how humanity might fare under superintelligent machines (extinction, inferiority, and the likes) are, in the assessment of Hughes, but minimally entertained by Kurzweil, since to the techno-prophet we are bound to eventually integrate with these machines into apotheosis.

The platform, IEET, thus has taken a responsibility of serving as a site for teasing out this tension between technoprogressive optimism of the will and pessimism of the intellect, as Hughes echoes Antonio Gramsci. On the one hand, Hughes explains, we have championed the possibility of, and evidence of, human progress. By adopting the term technoprogressivism as our outlook, we have placed ourselves on the side of Enlightenment political and technological progress.And yet on the other hand, he continues, we have promoted technoprogressivism precisely in order to critique uncritical techno-libertarian and futurist ideas about the inevitability of progress. We have consistently emphasized the negative effects that unregulated, unaccountable, and inequitably distributed technological development could have on society (one feels tempted to call out Landian accelerationism at this point). Technoprogressivism, the guiding philosophy of IEET, avails as a principle which insists that technological progress needs to be consistently conjoined with, and dependent on, political progress, whilst recognizing that neither are inevitable.

In charting the essay towards a close, Hughes mentions his and a number of IEET-led technoprogresive publications, among which we have Verdoux who, despite his futurological, historical, and anthropological critique of transhumanism, yet goes ahead to argue for transhumanism on moral grounds (free from the language of Marxisms historical inevitabilism or utopianism, and cautious of the tragic history of communism), and as a less dangerous course than any attempt at relinquishing technological development, but only after the naive faith in progress has been set aside. Unfortunately, however, the rational capitulationism to the transhumanist future that Verdoux offers, according to Hughes, is not something that stirs mens souls. Hughes hence, while admitting to our need to embrace these critical, pessimistic voices and perspectives, yet calls on us to likewise heed to the need to also re-discover our capacity for vision and hope. This need for optimism that humans can collectively exercise foresight and invention, and peacefully deliberate our way to a better future, rather than yielding to narratives that would lead us into the traps of utopian and apocalyptic fatalism, has been one of the motivations behind the creation of the technoprogressive brand. The brand, Hughes presents, has been of help in distinguishing necessarily Enlightenment optimism about the possibility of human political, technological and moral progress from millennialist techno-utopian inevitabilism.

Presumably, upon this technoprogressive philosophy, the new version of the Transhumanist Declaration, adopted by Humanity+ in 2009, indicated a shift from some of the language of the 1998 version, and conveyed a more reflective, critical, realistic, utilitarian, proceed with caution and act with wisdom tone with respect to the transhumanist vision for humanitys progress. This version of the declaration, though relatively sobered, remains equally inspiring nonetheless. Hughes closes the essay with a reminder on our need to stay aware of the diverse ways by which our indifferent universe threatens our existence, how our growing powers come with unintended consequences, and why applying mindfulness on our part in all actions remains the best approach for navigating our way towards progress in our radically uncertain future.

Conclusively, following Hughes objectives in this series, it can be suggested that more studies on the Enlightenment (European and global) are desirable especially for its potential to furnish us with richer understanding into a number of problems within contemporary transhumanism as sprouting from its roots deep in the Enlightenment. Interest and scholarship in Enlightenment studies, fortunately, seems to be experiencing some current revival, and even so with increasing diversity in perspective, thereby presenting transhumanism with a variety of paths through which to explore and gain context for connected issues. Seeking insight thence into some foundations of transhumanisms problems could take the path, among others: of an examination of internal contradictions within the Enlightenment, of the approach of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adornos Dialectic of Enlightenment; of assessing opponents of the Enlightenment as found, for example, in Isaiah Berlins notion of Counter Enlightenment; of investigating a rather radical strain of the Enlightenment as presented in Jonathan Israels Radical Enlightenment, and as well in grappling with the nature of the relationships between transhumanism and other heirs both of the Enlightenment and the Counter-Enlightenment today. Again, and significantly, serious attention need be paid now and going forwards in jealously guarding transhumanism against ultimately falling into the hands of the Dark Enlightenment.

Ojochogwu Abdulis the founder of the Transhumanist Enlightenment Caf (TEC), is the co-founder of the Enlightenment Transhumanist Forum of Nigeria (H+ Nigeria), and currently serves as a Foreign Ambassador for the U.S. Transhumanist Party in Nigeria.

Read this article:
U.S. Transhumanist Party PUTTING SCIENCE, HEALTH …

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Amazon.com: Transhumanism: The History of a Dangerous Idea …

Transhumanism is a recent movement that extols mans right to shape his own evolution, by maximizing the use of scientific technologies, to enhance human physical and intellectual potential. While the name is new, the idea has long been a popular theme of science fiction, featured in such films as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, the Terminator series, and more recently, The Matrix, Limitless, Her and Transcendence.

However, as its adherents hint at in their own publications, transhumanism is an occult project, rooted in Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, and derived from the Kabbalah, which asserts that humanity is evolving intellectually, towards a point in time when man will become God. Modeled on the medieval legend of the Golem and Frankenstein, they believe man will be able to create life itself, in the form of living machines, or artificial intelligence.

Spearheaded by the Cybernetics Group, the project resulted in both the development of the modern computer and MK-Ultra, the CIAs mind-control program. MK-Ultra promoted the mind-expanding potential of psychedelic drugs, to shape the counterculture of the 1960s, based on the notion that the shamans of ancient times used psychoactive substances, equated with the apple of the Tree of Knowledge.

And, as revealed in the movie Lucy, through the use of smart drugs, and what transhumanists call mind uploading, man will be able to merge with the Internet, which is envisioned as the end-point of Kabbalistic evolution, the formation of a collective consciousness, or Global Brain. That awaited moment is what Ray Kurzweil, a director of engineering at Google, refers to as The Singularly. By accumulating the total of human knowledge, and providing access to every aspect of human activity, the Internet will supposedly achieve omniscience, becoming the God of occultism, or the Masonic All-Seeing Eye of the reverse side of the American dollar bill.

Originally posted here:
Amazon.com: Transhumanism: The History of a Dangerous Idea …

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Transhumanism – Ascension Glossary

Transhumanism is an international, cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition, by making available technologies that greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. [1]Many transhumanists believe in the compatibility between the human mind and computer hardware, with the implication that human consciousness can be transferred to alternative media, known as mind uploading. Since the Science of the Soul and the Consciousness functions of the spiritual bodies, have not yet been discovered by scientists, this has potentially extremely destructive consequences to human consciousness and the electromagnetic functions of the Lightbody. Posthumans (the result of applied transhumanist technologies) could be completely synthetic artificial intelligences, or a symbiosis of human and artificial intelligence, or uploaded consciousness, or the result of making profound technological augmentations to a biological human.

Transhumanism is a school of thought that seeks to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Essentially, this is about creating artificially intelligent hybrids or cyborgs to replace the organic spiritual consciousness of humans. Some examples are redesigning the human organism using advanced nanotechnology or radical technological enhancements. Some of the proposed biological enhancements are using some combination of technologies such as genetic engineering, psychopharmacology, life extension therapies, neural interfaces, brain mapping, wearable or implanted computers, and entrainment of cognitive techniques. Most of these options are designed to disconnect the human soul from the human body, and prepare the body to be used as a shell for a new host. Effectively, this is integrating technological and pharmaceutical hybridization to damage human DNA, as preparation for body snatching.

The fundamental basis of the Transhumanism concept is the A.I. downloaded into the scientific human mind from the Negative Aliens and Satanic Forces, in their quest to survive and achieve immortality by hijacking human consciousness and ultimately possessing the human host body. They do not have flesh and bone bodies and covet ours. Most academics are filled with a variety of mind control and alien implants to be a cog in the wheel to steadily enforce alien control systems. Most early transhumanism concepts were developed by geneticists interested in eugenics and sustaining life forms in synthetic environments. (Like the eugenic experiments similar to those of the Black Sun Nazis). A common feature of promoting transhumanism is the future vision of creating a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve and eventually, either supplement it or supersede it. This distraction on the surface is a scheme, while the underlying motivation is intending species extinction of what we know as humans today. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, yet it completely ignores the electromagnetic function of human DNA and the consciousness reality of the multidimensional human soul-spirit. They claim to want to stop human suffering but have no idea of the alien machinery and mind control implants used to imprison human consciousness. They know nothing about the afterlife, what happens during the death of the body or even how the human body or Universe really works, yet they want to control every aspect of the human body with artificial technology.

A primary goal of many transhumanists is to convince the public that embracing radical technology and science is in the human species best interest. With the False God Alien Religions used to spread the rhetoric of fear and mindless obedience on one end, and the primarily atheistic science used to mock all things religious without any comprehension of true spiritual understanding on the other, they have the bases covered. Consciousness and spiritual groups are quickly labeled Conspiracy theorists by scientists to intimidate, discredit and shut us up. Obviously, until people have personal consciousness experiences outside of their body, have the ability to communicate with assorted lifeforms, such as deceased humans and travel to other dimensions, they have zero information about consciousness and are totally uninformed and ignorant about the nature of reality. None of these transhumanist people, are remotely qualified to be put in charge of scientifically directing the future evolution of the human species. Propping up egomaniacs and Psychopaths, and giving them power and control over world affairs and influence over public perception is the game of the NAA Controllers.

The true knowledge of the Sacred Sciences of the Soul and mechanics of human multidimensional consciousness have been obliterated from record and conveniently mind controlled out from the majority of sciences. If scientists integrate theories of the soul or consciousness outside of the consensus of the mind control standard, they risk ridicule and losing their funding and careers. Unfortunately, the controlled mainstream sciences do not recognize multiple dimensions of consciousness inherent in the functions of activated human DNA, or know that biological life and multidimensional human consciousness does not end on this earth. The quest for biological immortality on a prison planet is ludicrous when experiencing the capability of human multidimensional consciousness. After the human body expires, if the undeveloped and disembodied consciousness is merged and assimilated into artificial intelligence, the remnants of that human soul will not have a human body to incarnate into any longer. Hence, that person will lose their connection to organic spiritual biology and cease to be human. Transhumanism is a Consciousness Trap. [2]

Since the persons Consciousness has not been prepared for the afterlife, whatever is left of his energetic quanta will be assimilated into a cyborg body or other types of synthetic life forms or EBEs. There are currently spiritually disconnected humans existing on the earth that will be assimilated into synthetic life forms that appear as Extraterrestrial Biological Entities, but were actually human souls in human bodies in past timelines. Most of the smaller EBE bodies assimilate nutrients from light similar to plants. They are unable to evolve, reproduce, ascend or move into higher dimensions of consciousness. Some of these EBEs have returned to the earth from the future to try to break into the human genetic code, in this earth timeline in order to save themselves. Many of these EBEs were once humans that were involved in the Orion Wars, and were captured in Orion and used in worker colonies. Some from the earth were enslaved on the astral plane by other races of creatures, such as Mantids, Grey Aliens and Reptilians that took them as workers to other planetary systems. Some are even used as minions for carrying out human abductions in MILABS soul transference projects. Many of them had their consciousness erased and they do not remember that they were once human.

This is one of the possible results of the Transhumanism movement underway in this earth timeline now, that leads to the potential future alien or dark force control over that Soul. Once the consciousness is assimilated into artificial intelligence and synthetic biology, that being can no longer incarnate into an organic human form. That person cannot incarnate again into human realms, such as planet earth. They become a displaced entity that cannot die and be reborn into another identity they are enslaved and merged with an AI hive mind. This is desired by many of these negative groups, such as the Alpha Draconis/Orion Group, as then they have full control over the life force of humans that can be made into worker slaves. This is the main purpose as to why Transhumanism is being marketed and pushed aggressively during this time, they want to create more human EBEs and cyborgs or host bodies. When that person drops their body while the Universal Gates are open, they can easily be transported to many different planetary systems for trading as a workforce commodity.[3]

The term directed evolution is used within the transhumanist community to refer to the idea of applying the principles of directed evolution and experimental evolution to the control of human evolution. This has its base in Eugenics theories.

When we look at the larger Galactic picture of consciousness enslavement, we see the NAA’s many pronged agenda to target the Brain, CNS and thought forms of every person on earth. Through the agenda of Transhumanism, we see the promotion of hybridization and synthetic integration with artificial neural networks for control over the CNS and Brain. What is starting to surface with more clarity is that our human Neurobiology is wired for empathy, which connects us to higher consciousness and has a spiritual function. The NAA and their minions of soulless AI infected synthetic beings do not have the bio-circuitry for empathy. We are in essence, in a struggle between human EMPATHS, and alien hybridized humans and extra-dimensional aliens that are NON-EMPATHS. [4]

The traumatized are vulnerable to become pawns in further spreading Sexual Misery programing, especially into the younger generation. Transgender ideology is a specific psychological warfare tactic being run by the Controllers, in tandem with Transhumanism, to counter and prevent spiritual Ascension. These satanic agendas are designed to condition people to reject their own bodies, and to generate delusions that can have them mentally identify with anything else but actually being a human and unconditionally loving toward their own natural body.[5]

Mind Controlled Gene Expression

Genetic Engineering

Eugenics

CRISPR

Originally posted here:
Transhumanism – Ascension Glossary

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

ALIGNED WITH LOVE: DANTE, TRANSHUMANISM AND THE CATHARS …

The first use of the word Transhuman was by the 13th century Italian poet laureate and suspected/probable Cathar, Templar and heretic, Dante, in Paradisio, the last book of his Divine Comedy. The poem, considered one of the greatest works of human literature, is a Cathar inspired visionary journey into the afterlife and a guide for our ascension. It also offers an alternative to todays Transhumanism.

This fact will come as a surprise to scholars who suggest the term transhumanism was first coined in 1957 by Julian Huxley, a British evolutionary biologist and promoter of eugenics (who advocated culling the human herd ala the Nazis), who used the term in his book New Bottles for New Wine.

Considering Transhumanism is about packing our skins with computer chips, Huxleys title is more than poetic. Readers of my book, The Skingularity Is Near, are aware that the gods of Silicon Valley (aka the Digerati) are developing a new skin for humanity that will give us vastly advanced capacities such as health, beauty, longevity, athletic ability, and general mental ability, as compared to ordinary humans, and will fulfill Huxleys vision of positive eugenics. With our without our permission they seek to transform the entire human race via technology and unite it as one Superbeing.

Transhumanism is a more palatable or higher sounding term for the lower eugenics. It is the goal of UNESCO, the UNs global organization dedicated to the creation of a single world culture founded by Huxley in 1947. Huxley believed the world was ready for a new religion to replace the old superstitious ones. The UN would build the new Tower of Babel of this religion. You can read a slightly paranoid, but factual, update on the UNs implementation of Artificial Intelligence to fulfill its globalist agenda here.

New Bottles, New Wine is a play on the mysterious parable attributed to Jesus: And no one puts new wine into old wineskinsbut one puts new wine into fresh wineskins (Mark 2:22). Putting fresh wine in old stretched to the limit skins is asking for trouble. Its like trying to get new results with old behaviors.

Transhumanists believe we must make new skins for the new, gooder human to inhabit. Our old skins and human behaviors simply will not due. Therefore, reason Transhumanists, if we change the skin via technology we can control behavior, and if we can control behavior we can change humanity. Those Fitbits and Apple Watches that monitor blood pressure, heart rate, and basically everything else, are the front door of this type of behavior modification or mind control technology. In March, 2017 Elon Musk launched Neuralink to meld humans with A.I. in an effort to save us.

This behavior-mind-skin modification is among the top concerns of they/we who question the implications/sanity of, or outright oppose, Transhumanism.

What will happen to those who do not take the chip or get the new skin (like some older whiners, like me, may choose to do)? What if they are deemed unfit or defective humans by the new ones?

Huxleys writings on eugenics provides possible answers, beginning with sterilizing of the unfit or ungooder (aka those unretrofitted with chips?) and identification of defective humans (the unaugmented?). He also advocated for: prohibition of marriage of the unfit and segregation of institutions containing degenerate individuals.

As I write this article, MIT Technology Review announced that the first human embryos have been edited in the U.S., demonstrating that we can improve the DNA of human embryos. The news here wasnt the capability, but the location. Previous reports of editing human embryos were all published by scientists in China, who are considered to be less than ethics challenged. The U.S. intelligence community last year called this type of gene editing (known as CRISPR) a potential weapon of mass destruction. It appears the unspeakable is becoming unstoppable.

Dante holds the Divine Comedy.

Will there be a safe place, a high mountain, for the unfit, ungooder and backward thinking humans in the new world of the souped up or hot-rodded Transhumans and genetically engineered humans? A way out?

I believe there isand this is what Dante was, prophetically, pointing to in the Divine Comedy and what he actually meant when he coined the term Transhuman before Julian Huxley hijacked it.

CHANGING FLESH

Dantes Divine Comedy is about the souls journey to God and how he changed his earthly flesh into celestial flesh, prompting the first dropping of the word Transhuman.

Changing our behaviors that change our flesh to light is the only way out of earth life.

There is nothing funny, ha ha, about Dantes poem. In the classical sense the word comedy refers to works which reflect belief in an ordered universe, in which events tend toward not only a happy or amusing ending but one influenced by a Providential will that orders all things to an ultimate good. This infers a belief in God, and a God that is actively involved in our daily lives and our ascension.

The how to change human flesh into celestial flesh question has been on the human table for thousands of years, especially every since Babylon in 600 B.C. Dante updated it in a dramatic fashion.

The Italian genius was a great assembler of esoteric knowledge. He drew from the Greeks, Romans, early Christians any and all who could assist in answering the fundamental question we all face. Where do we go after we die? How do we get there?

He wasnt the first to visualize, preview or rehearse ascending, but he was among the many who consciously seek the how to of this process.

How do we become more whole, holy, compassionate and complete and ascend to dwell among a higher class of souls? (The answer is we change what we are doing while in the body.)

GET THE ROBE

Dante sought to complete his earthly journey by embarking on a celestial journey which would land him in the company of the holy ones in heaven (Sion, Paradise), and the just humans made perfect, who surround the throne of Christ.

Dantes journey, and the poem, is divided into three sections: Hell, Purgatory and Paradise. This is our ascension journey, too. The descent into the underworld precedes our ascension. This descent is a sort of pop quiz. The reason for this is because ontogeny recapitulates philogeny, meaning we have to go through, recapitulate or review all our previous states of being throughout our evolution just to make sure we have transcended them. One reason for this is that they represent where we came from, demonstrating that we are morphing beings who have transited, transfigured or transformed through many previous states (that we dont have to repeat) and have many ahead of us, as well.

Dante knew our next goal was to acquire the white robe of these Chosen Ones or Perfect Ones. The idea is that if we want to be like the perfected ones we must dress like themlightly. This white robe is also worn symbolically by the Knights Templar, the holy militia or Gods army, of which Dante was a member.

Dante studied at Florences Santa Maria Novello. The Spanish Chapel, the old chapter house of the monastery shows the white-robed Chosen entering the gate to the high mountain, Sion. This is one of many ascension painting we will study during our Immortal Italy tour May 8-22, 2018.

Dante knew that this robe is transmittable and that one way to get this robe was to have it gifted from the Perfect or Chosen. The other way is to act like these beings, to think like them and to become perfect like them while in our earthly body.

Perfection and Heaven are terms for a state of being and a state of doing superior to ordinary earth life.

Dante is telling us we can consciously upgrade our consciousness while on earth and ascend to a superior place and state of being.

In our future, our future selves will inhabit new skins of light. New behaviors will accompany these light bodies. My work is devoted to identifying these new behaviors and assisting souls in implementing them so that the capacities of our future selves can be lived now. In Buddhism, these invaluable behaviors are called paramitas (perfection, completeness). These behaviors include generosity, patience, kindness, truth speaking. The root, para, means beyond Doing the paramitas completes us and takes us beyond ordinary human suffering.

Identifying with these states of being now, and doing them, is the key to accelerating our evolution. This will take us into the transcendent realms, not Transhumanism.

THE GOOD ONES

In his celestial journey to become a Perfect One in Heaven, Dante also drew from the Cathar knowledge of how to ascend the mystical ladder to God and navigate the seven planetary spheres.

The Cathars (or Good People) of Southern France were gnostic ascension masters who claimed to possess the true secret ascension teaching of Jesus, one composed of symbols and known as the Book of Love. They were massacred by the Catholic Church in the first European genocide from 1200-1244 to prevent the Book of Love from gaining widespread acceptance.

Like the Essenes the Cathars sought a return to our Edenic State, our primordial condition before the fall. Back then, we werent in a lesser state. We were in a supra-human phase. This is same state of being that Transhumanists seek to attain via technology.

The Cathars utilized the Ascension of Isaiah, an early (2nd-3rd century AD) Christian text that follows the journey of Isaiah, and the ascension of Jesus, through the Seven Heavens, where Isaiah gets his robe. He also saw Enoch and all who (were) with him, stripped of (their) robes of the flesh; and I saw them in their robes of above, and they were like the angels who stand there in great glory (Ascension of Isaiah 9:10).

This text was used as a visualization tool to induce visions of the afterlife and to connect with their future selves. Through repeated chanting of the text the body of the Cathars began to know what it felt like to be in heaven among the angels and how to become them. Today, feeling it to manifest it is a principle of quantum healing.

In the view of esoteric Dante scholars, such as Gabriele Rossetti, Eugene Aroux and Rene Guenon, Dantes Divine Comedy is a metaphysical-esoteric allegory that simultaneously veils and unveils the successive phases through which the consciousness of the initiate passes in order to reach immortality (angelhood/perfection). In addition to the Cathar teachings, it is drawn from Eleusis, Karnak, and India. While some wonder how Dante could have contact with these teachings, others, such as this author, believe he had tapped into the unifying cosmic truth woven through these teachings.

Dantes vision also has elements of Mohhammneds 7th century ascension to the celestial spheres (Miraj). In a single night Mohammed physically and spiritually ascended the seven levels to heaven with the archangel Gabriel, where he spoke with God. Don Miguel Asin Palacios has shown the striking correspondence between the Divine Comedy and The Book of the Nocturnal Journey, especially the fact that both heaven and hell are accessed via an immense funnel formed by a series of levels.

WORDS MAY NOT TELL OF THAT TRANSHUMAN CHANGE

Having completed his ascension through seven halls or holes in space, Dante arrives in the Empyrean, a region of pure light beyond physical existence, time and space, where he is enveloped in a light that transforms his human flesh into the perfect celestial flesh of the angels, rendering him dressed appropriately to see God.

Mohammed nears the Throne of God, attracted by a luminous garland. Says Rene Guenon in The Esotericsm of Dante, the apotheosis of both ascensions is the same: the two travelers, raised to the presence of God, describe Him as a center of intense light surrounded by nine concentric circles formed by compact lines of innumerable angelic priests who emit luminous rays.

Dante is practically speechless at witnessing the transfiguration or metamorphosis of his body into light, words may not tell of that transhuman change.

Like Glaucus when he tasted the herb of immortality that made him peer among the ocean gods, Dantes transfiguration is complete.

Like sudden lightning scattering the spiritsof sight so that the eye is then too weakto act on other things it would perceive,

such was the living light encircling me,leaving me so enveloped by its veil of radiance that I could see no thing.

The Love that calms this heaven always welcomesinto Itself with such a salutation,to make the candle ready for its flame.

Dante witnessed the power of the soul to cloak it self, uncloak itself, and then re-cloak itself. He witnessed the power of resurrection and ascension developed by the guardians of the holy land the Essenes, Gnostics, Cathars and Templar.

Dante sees an enormous rose, symbolizing divine love, the petals of which are the enthroned souls of the faithful. All the souls he has met in Heaven, including Beatrice, have their home in this rose. Angels fly around the rose like bees, distributing peace and love.

Of course, many Transhumanists do not believe in the existence of an ethereal soul, so most are unaware of the religious nature of their quest to perfect the human body. They have no idea that they are the latest priests of human transformation and that their lineage stretches back, at least, to Babylon, when the Magi first began teaching the art of resurrection. The line weaves through the Essenes and early Christianity.

FACE TO FACE WITH GOD

Finally, Dante comes face-to-face with God Himself (Cantos XXXII and XXXIII). God appears as three equally large circles occupying the same space, representing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

but through my sight, which as I gazed grew stronger,that sole appearance, even as I altered,seemed to be changing. In the deep and brightessence of that exalted Light, three circlesappeared to me; they had three different colors,but all of them were of the same dimension;one circle seemed reflected by the second,as rainbow is by rainbow, and the thirdseemed fire breathed equally by those two circles.

Within these circles Dante can discern the human form of Christ. The Divine Comedy ends with Dante trying to understand how the circles fit together, and how the humanity of Christ relates to the divinity of the Son but, as Dante puts it, that was not a flight for my wings.

In a flash of understanding, which he cannot express, Dante does finally see this, and his soul becomes aligned with Gods love.

Aligned with love.

This should be the goal of all humans, Transhumanists included.

When we are aligned with love we are perfected. More, we are truly Born Again.

Link:
ALIGNED WITH LOVE: DANTE, TRANSHUMANISM AND THE CATHARS …

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Transhumanism Research Papers – Academia.edu

Filosofia MoraleGiovanni CogliandroA.A. 2017/18

Scopo del corso suscitare linteresse degli studenti per i temi del dibattito scientifico degli ultimi anni tra i diversi orientamenti della filosofia morale contemporanea. Si forniranno le informazioni indispensabili per comprendere le discussioni pi originali dei nostri giorni ed eventualmente poter sviluppare ricerche e percorsi personali di approfondimento. Saranno introdotti ed esposti in particolare i recenti sviluppi e i dibattiti che si sono sviluppati negli ultimi anni in tema di definizione della persona, etica normativa, metaetica, etica delle virt, deontologia, consequenzialismo, perfezionismo liberale, biopolitica, etica della cura, bioetica, disability studies, transumanesimo, moral enhancement e neuroetica. Nel corso si proporranno alla discussione alcuni casi che hanno diviso e ancora dividono le coscienze su diversi temi scottanti quali inizio e fine della vita, sperimentazione, ingegneria genetica.Nel corso delle lezioni verranno fornite indicazioni su articoli o saggi in italiano o inglese utili per lo studio personale e lapprofondimento di quanto esposto in aula.

Lesame verter su un testo a scelta tra: Angelo Campodonico, Michel Croce, Maria Silvia Vaccarezza, Etica delle virt. Un’introduzione, Carocci, Roma 2018 (capitoli scelti).Neil Levy, Neuroetica. Le basi neurologiche del senso morale, Apogeo Education 2009 (capitoli scelti).Michael J. Sandel, Contro la perfezione. L’etica nell’et dell’ingegneria genetica, Vita &Pensiero, Milano 2008 .

Read more here:
Transhumanism Research Papers – Academia.edu

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson