Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
MIah on “Should living people be able to donate their human tissue to art?”

MIT Media Lab’s folding CityCar

‪BMW shows off their semi-autonomous driving system‬

Autonomous Transportation for the Year 2030

Automated Cars: Redux

Russell Blackford: Freedom of Religion

‪Jason Silva on Psychedelic Rapture, Ecstatic Awe‬ and Technology

Must the Rich be Lured into Investing? Who are the Real “Job Creators?”

I Want a God-Like Brain

SENS5 - Collective advantages of Life Extension


ieet books

Smart Mice, Not-So-Smart People: An Interesting and Amusing Guide to Bioethics
Author
by Arthur Caplan

From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form
by Martine Rothblatt

Freedom of Religion and the Secular State
by Russell Blackford

The Olympics: The Basics
by Andy Miah and Beatriz Garcia


comments

Intomorrow on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 9, 2012)

hankpellissier on 'I Want a God-Like Brain' (Feb 9, 2012)

Intomorrow on 'We Are All Pirates' (Feb 9, 2012)

CygnusX1 on 'Automated Cars: Redux' (Feb 9, 2012)

Pastor_Alex on 'I Want a God-Like Brain' (Feb 9, 2012)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv


IEET > Security > Eco-gov > Rights > FreeThought > Personhood > Economic > Life > Enablement > Health > Vision > Technoprogressivism > Staff > Mike Treder

Print Email permalink (4) Comments (2356) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


Getting Our Priorities Straight


Mike Treder
Mike Treder
Ethical Technology

Posted: Mar 30, 2009

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.

A big step toward achieving that goal would be a general acknowledgment that items like decent housing, health care, and basic education are fundamental human rights and not just privileges reserved for those who can afford them.

Putting such words into action is not easy, of course—one of the first acts of the fledgling United Nations was to pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, but we are still a long way from seeing it fulfilled in much of the world, including the United States.

Unless and until the most basic human rights for all humans are assured of protection, technoprogressives will not get very far in promoting access to enabling technologies. And we shouldn’t. Our first priority must be to build a strong foundation, and only then to start actual construction of our platform upon that.

Both the foundation and platform might take some of their shape from another old idea—Abraham Maslow’s pyramidal “hierarchy of needs,” a theory he originally proposed in 1943:



By putting our weight squarely behind efforts to insure that all humans (and someday all sentient beings) have a right to at least the lowest level on Maslow’s hierarchy—and, arguably, the second level as well—then we’ll have a much better chance of getting somewhere.

After that process seems well on its way, we can focus on higher levels. With this approach, communities and nations will be quite used to the idea of recognizing and guaranteeing access to basic rights. The challenge, then, is to continually upgrade the meaning of “basic rights” until eventually we reach the point when our demands will include all of the enabling technologies that can be offered safely and responsibly.


Mike Treder is the Managing Director of the IEET, and former Executive Director of the non-profit Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
Print Email permalink (4) Comments (2357) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


Hear Hear!



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.



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.



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



YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: One Model for a New World Economy

Previous entry: The New World

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376