Getting Our Priorities Straight

One plank of a technoprogressive platform is “Ensuring Universal Access to Enabling Technologies.” Ultimately, we want all responsible sentient beings (excluding children, criminals, the insane, etc.) to have equal and uninhibited access to advanced tech that might enable radical life extension, brain augmentation, sensory expansion, and other “wonders” not yet even contemplated.

...

Complete entry

Posted by EmbraceUnity  on  03/30  at  05:03 PM

Hear Hear!

Posted by Sam Kenyon  on  03/30  at  09:52 PM

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but your first paragraph sounds like the insane and criminal are excluded from any access in your long term plan. You might argue that the insane and criminal need brain augmentation and/or mind altering tech the most.

Posted by Mike Treder  on  03/30  at  10:51 PM

I actually intended that statement to be somewhat ambiguous, Sam. It's not clear yet how soon - or even whether - some sort of permanent mind altering tech like you describe might be developed. I didn't want to assume that we'll be able to "cure" the insane by any specific point in time.

The same thing might apply to criminals as well; if someday we can apply nanobot therapies or some other neuroengineering technique to permanently erase criminal tendencies from afflicted humans (or other sentient beings), maybe they will then be eligible for transhuman enhancements. Or, even if that point is not soon reached, we certainly should consider making enabling technologies available to reformed criminals who have demonstrated their readiness to play by the rules even in the absence of invasive behavior alteration therapies.

As for children, I didn't intend to say that they should be exempt from enhancement technologies altogether - quite the opposite. It's just that parents or legal guardians will likely have to make those decisions for children up to a certain age. When they reach 18 years old (or 16, or 12, or whatever, depending on the enhancement), then kids can choose for themselves.

These are the kinds of ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that our organization was formed to deal with. We're working on them already, but as my article pointed out, we must be careful about putting excessive emphasis on futuristic questions, or we risk bypassing the opportunity to have a real impact.

Posted by Shane Brauner  on  03/31  at  10:44 AM

Hi Mike,

I agree completely. This is also the best way for us to gain public acceptance as well. Even that may still be an uphill battle (remember the opposition to Golden Rice?).

How do we appropriately deliver this message? How do we encourage research into base level items? How do we energize the public and get them enthusiastic about coming advancements?

The best way I can see is to highlight longevity advancements (like the recent Oprah series with Dr. Oz: http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahshow/20090305-tows-oz-live-longer) that will have a direct impact on the lives of the average American.

I dislike focusing on new advancements to the wealthiest when so many suffer with needs that can be easily met with today's (even yesterday's) technology, but this trickle-down approach seems to be one that "works."

Shane

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: