When the Solar Impulse team need a low cost and light weight toilet this is what they came up with.
Archive for Human Enhancement
Bertrand Piccard- Solar Impulse- Video- Internet- Solar Aircraft- NO GAS- Day and Night
What does it take to make available all the video for Solar Impulse ?
CBS Interview
Across America: Reassembly in Moffet Read more
Elon Musk Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity– What is his thinking- What is common in these?
Elon Musk at TED conference in Long Beach, CA
Elon Musk (born 28 June 1971) is a South African entrepreneur who later moved to the USA. He is best known for founding SpaceX and for co-foundingTesla Motors and PayPal (originally X.com). At SpaceX he is the CEO and Chief Designer and at Tesla Motors he is Product Architect. Musk is also Chairman of SolarCity. Read more
CampCraigAllen Help the Disabled- Give Hope Make Dreams Possible Help If you can…See the Camp and What it can do
http://www.campcraigallen.org Our Mission 
Camp Craig Allen is dedicated to the “Overlooked” physically disabled children and physically disabled adults of North Texas. We will encourage self-awareness, positive influence, and independence in therapeutic and educational programs in an accessible environment that promotes abilities and talents of those with the most physical challenges.
Our Goals :
Once our facility is built… 
All activities, programs, and the environment will encourage personal growth, ability awareness and Read more
What our civilization needs is a billion-year plan
Lt Col Garretson — one of the USAF’s most farsighted and original thinkers — has been at the forefront of USAF strategy on the long-term future in projects such as Blue Horizons (on KurzweilAI — see video), Energy Horizons, Space Solar Power, the AF Futures Game, the USAF Strategic Environmental Assessment, and the USAF RPA Flight Plan. Now in this exclusive to KurzweilAI, he pushes the boundary of long-term thinking about humanity’s survival out to the edge … and beyond. — Ed.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S. government.
It isn’t enough just to plan for two or 20, or even the fabled Chinese 100 year periods. We need to be thinking and planning on the order of billions of years. Our civilization needs inter-generational plans and goals that span as far out as we can forecast significant events.
For this discussion, I define a “significant event” as an event about which we have foreknowledge and which will fundamentally change our planning assumptions.
For instance, the most significant near-term external problem we can forecast is that we have only about one billion years before the Earth becomes uninhabitable. Somewhere around that time, our Sun will have expanded and start boiling away our oceans. Truly, as the great space visionary Konstantin Tsiolkovsky foresaw, “Unless mankind leaves the Earth, it will surely die there.”
It is a nasty reality that sometimes the solutions to significant problems take time, and last-minute crash programs can fail. It would be a darn shame to end life’s two billion year run (and humanity’s eight million year run) prematurely because of a lack of planning.
Moving everyone and everything we value off Earth is likely to take some time. The same is likely to be true for any of the alternatives: uploading most of us to exist “in-silico,” putting a sunshade between Earth and the Sun, moving the Earth, or attempting to control the Sun.
It is often a good idea to have at least a cadre of people thinking well in advance about the problem, and designing solutions.
Space colonies and space solar power
The obvious solution available to us today to cope with Earth’s eventual non-inhabitability is to build O’Neill style space colonies from material in the Asteroid belt, which is estimated to have a carrying capacity of 10–100 trillion people (1,000 to 10,000 times our current population on Earth).
Of course, to be able to exercise that option, we would need a space policy that recognized survival as the fundamental reason for the space program, with articulated goals of space development and space settlement explicitly stated, and a space program pushing the technology and logistical capabilities to be able to attain those goals.
Energy production history and forecast (credit: Richard C. Duncan, The Peak Of World Oil Production And The Road To The Olduvai Gorge)
Energy availability is a key constraint to human progress and mobility. Spacefaring and space settlement capabilities would need to be developed before some other crisis (such as peak oil) caused a new and likely irrecoverable dark ages, which would reduce the energy capital available to develop the pre-cursor technologies. Nature has provided humanity a bounty of easy energy in the form of fossil fuels, a sort of ”baby fat” for the Earth to grow to adolescence. Use it well to reach new energy sources and we transcend; use it poorly (use it up) and we collapse.
Earth surface temperature given steady 2.3% energy growth, assuming some source other than sunlight is employed to provide our energy needs and that its use transpires on the surface of the planet. (Credit: Tom Murphy)
The case where we transcend a fossil fuel crisis is just as compelling. If we succeed in continuing our population and development growth and find new energy sources, and assuming energy use (including all sources: fossil, nuclear, fusion, etc.) grows at annual rate of 2.3% (reduced from the current 2.9% to be more realistic), we’d only be able to continue growth on Earth for another 420 years before we could not maintain the heat balance of the planet, and started boiling the oceans ourselves.
Of course, a good plan seeks to avoid such extremes, and with a little planning and ambition, we can make the best of those billion years, and both expand our population to “islands in the sky” and take good care of our home planet.
Space solar power satellite, artist’s impression (credit: SpaceWorks Engineering Inc. and Spaceworks Commercial)
With just a little care and proactive maintenance of the biosphere (climate control and some impact sensors), Earth should be good for at least another billion years. It could be a lush, green tourist location with a modest population of 10 billion, all living in relative energy wealth, if it built a ring of solar power satellites in geostationary orbit. (A fully developed civilization living at a U.S. or European equivalent lifestyle would only require on the order of 40–50TW of total electrical energy, and a ring of powersats in geostationary orbit could supply as much as 330 TW).
Sure, Earth might end up being a minor player and backwater tourist location in a solar-system-spacefaring civilization 1,000–10,000 times more populous and better connected, but a planet is a terrible thing to waste, especially when a little maintenance can get you another billion trips around the Sun.
But even the O’Neill solution is temporary, because within only about 5 billion years, our Sun will have first swallowed most of the space in which those colonies had been built on its way to becoming a red giant. Shortly thereafter, the Sun would collapse to a dim white dwarf incapable of supplying the passive solar energy upon which such colonies would depend.
Of course, colonies can be moved, and it’s possible we will have developed more impressive technology by then. As long as the Sun shines, there is energy available, and we can have an ambition to become a Kardashev Type 2 civilization — where we first surround and ultimately encase our Sun to use all of its energy.
A “Dyson swarm” version of a Dyson sphere, consisting of solar power satellites and space habitats orbiting in a dense formation around a star (credit: Wikimedia Commons)
But once our Sun started to dim, even encasing the Sun in a Dyson sphere of solar arrays to capture all the Sun’s energy would not be a sufficient solution.
Artists conception of completion of a Dyson Sphere under construction and a moon being harvested for resources (credit: Adam Burn)
However, the knowledge that the utility and growth horizon of our home star is limited should not lead us to be resigned or pessimistic about our future. Human beings have done fine in the past when the environment constrained growth. Even with constrained growth, there is plenty of Sun to support a space colony-based population of billions to potentially trillions at current energy requirements … for a good 5 billion years.
Beyond the solar system
But as we get close to the 4 billion mark, it would be good to have figured out a non-solar solution to our energy problem or figured out interstellar travel to move to new younger suns. Fortunately, there are already serious efforts to conquer interstellar travel and faster-than-light (FTL) propulsion. (The definitive work on approaches to FTL travel and space-time engineering is Frontiers of Propulsion Science by Marc Millis, founder of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion, and Dr. Eric Davis.)
The latest effort is the 100 Year Starship Project (100YSS), begun by the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) — the people who brought you the Internet — and NASA, which previously led an effort in the 1990’s called the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP). The 100YSS is managed by a team of non-profits led by former Astronaut Mae Jemison.
100YSS is not alone. Marc Millis, former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, heads another organization, the Tau Zero Foundation, a volunteer group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and writers who have agreed to work together toward practical interstellar flight.
In advance of achieving interstellar flight, we can begin to map out where we intend to go. Fortunately our science presently has this capability. There is already a significant amount of activity in the astronomical community looking at potentially habitable systems.
Each day seems to bring stories of new discoveries of ever more Earth-like planets circling distant stars. Our capabilities to detect exoplanets (planets orbiting another star) are getting better every day, and will receive a major upgrade in 2018, when we launch the James Webb Telescope (JWST).
Our criteria for new suns certainly will include that they have at least have the energy and material we need. While by then we will certainly be at home in space colonies and worlds of our own making, we may still desire systems that have habitable planets where we could recreate much of our entire biosphere or daughter ecosystems.
Artist’s impression of the collision between our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy, as viewed from Earth (credit: James Gitlin/Space Telescope Science Institute)
But as we approach the four billion year point, we need to plan to be a multi-stellar/multi-exo-planetary civilization, as there are other neighborhood events to consider. Around the same time our mother star is going through significant changes, we’ll have another problem we need to plan for. Our galaxy will be colliding with another galaxy, Andromeda.
How exactly that will affect us will become clearer as we get closer; it may present both threats and opportunities. The mix-up may move other stars into proximity with our own, perhaps making it easier to leap to attractive new stellar habitats, but perhaps also disturbing our own system and endangering our civilization.
In case something nasty was heading our way, it is not too early to think about how we might sidestep a potential collision. There are already ideas for moving entire stars. An example is the Shkadov Thruster, which uses gravity to balance light pressure on a reflector (“statite”), resulting in a net force that moves a star slowly through space.
Spreading out as wide as possible within our galaxy or other galaxies is highly desirable, because there are largely unpredictable events like supernovas and gamma-ray bursts that are like a grenade going off in a crowd, killing any solar systems in their proximity. The farther we spread, the more we spread our risk.
But the remote possibility that we could be a victim of a gamma ray burst is no reason for defeatism. If we can figure out a way to do interstellar travel, we should have a nice long run as a multi-star civilization.
However, if we forecast out a little more, we see that again, our planning assumptions to start to change. Even as a long-living civilization capable of interstellar travel, we face limits. The stars themselves are limited resources.
But even here, there are ideas of fundamentally re-engineering space-time to literally give us a “new lease on life,” perhaps deliberately engineered black holes or wormholes that allow for the creation of entirely new baby universes — possibly even “intelligent black holes” — and restarting the entire process of creation.
Even the galaxies are moving farther and farther away. Eventually, as the Stelliferous Era comes to an end, it will be “slim pickins” as new stars form less and less. Still, our civilization could enjoy a nice life to a ripe old age of one trillion to one quadrillion years before things really got bad.
That is a lot of time for creation of poetry, literature, art and science! We should not let a few small obstacles a mere 1–5 billion years in our future slow us down, and deprive us of the chance to spread life, intelligence and art farther in the universe.
Further in the future, in the Degenerate Era (1014 to 1040 years) we will need to have figured out some serious magic to perpetuate life and intelligence, or we will have to make our peace with entropy as we approach the Heat Death of the Universe.
But even here, there are ideas of fundamentally re-engineering space-time to literally give us a “new lease on life,” perhaps deliberately creating black holes or wormholes that allow for the creation of entirely new baby universes, and restarting the entire process of creation. The exploration of fundamental engineering of spacetime itself is being pursued by the same community seeking to make interstellar travel a reality.
Near-term threats
Of course, even before 1 billion years, we’ve also got some near-term “bad weather” to plan for. Before the Sun starts boiling us, we’ll have major dust storms as the Sun’s 250-million-year-orbit around the center of the galaxy pushes us through cosmic clouds of dust as we climb and descend through the galactic disk, say astronomers.
That dust could penetrate our heliosphere as early as 2,500 years from now, possibly even reaching Earth to deplete our atmosphere of vital gases and strip away protection from cosmic rays (as may have happened in previous mass extinctions).
In only 10,000 to 35,000 years, four stars (Proxima and Alpha Centauri, Barnards, and Ross 248) will be close enough to disturb the Oort cloud and send giant comets our way, such as those that killed the dinosaurs (only 65 million years ago).
An illustration of the Kuiper Belt orbit (KBO) and Oort Cloud in relation to our solar system (credit:NASA)
And in less than 1 million years, the star Gliese 710 is going to race past our solar system and come within just three quarters of a light year from our Sun, well inside the Oort cloud.
In that same time period, we can count on more than a few asteroid strikes, which luckily will be completely preventable. According to NASA, more than a million near-Earth objects are larger than 40 m in diameter (the approximate threshold for penetration through the Earth’s atmosphere).
Asteroids as big as 2 kilometers can discharge an impact energy of a million megatons and create an effect similar to a nuclear winter, with loss of crops worldwide and subsequent starvation and disease. Still larger impacts can cause mass extinctions, like the one that ended the age of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago (15 km diameter and about 100 million megatons).
Artist’s concept of Laser Bees spacecraft swarming around a dangerous asteroid to move it into a safe orbit (credit: Planetary Society )
So to reach our billion year plan goals, we will need a planetary-defense asteroid detection system and a deflection system up and running “lickedly split,” or we forfeit a lot of good years! Fortunately that is a comparatively easy problem to solve, and the same suite of competencies that allow us to divert an asteroid enable us to capture and mine it.
Creating the plan
But any plan about the future is really about how we intend to allocate resources today. Our first priority needs to be planetary defense and space-solar power so we can lock in the full billion years of value Earth can provide.
The next priority is developing the competencies to make use of space resources to enable closed-cycle life support for the free-flying space settlements that will allow us to extend our civilization to the full five billion years warranty on the Sun. All the while, we need to be trying to find a way to build starships before this Sun goes bust.
Some people think a billion years is too far out to plan for. If it isn’t in their or their children’s lifetime they don’t care. Or it is so far away that they think no one will be around, or if there are, then it will be “their problem.”
That’s silly. It is good not to allow really big looming problems. And, planning for a long-term problem does not mean you need to ignore near-term problems. It is possible both to put money away in an IRA while you maintain your car. Planning for events like your children’s college or retirement might seem a long way away, and that there is plenty of time ahead to get busy, but the same factors apply — a little bit of early investment compounds over time and is worth a LOT of investment later on.
Of course, any person alive today should realize that “objects in the future may be closer then they appear.” Proximity is based on perception. Our perception of the distant future is measured against our own individual life span — and that is undergoing change as well.
Our billion-year plan needs to consider the likely and predictable problem of time-contraction: 1,000 years is just not what it used to be! If thinkers like Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil are right, our civilization is on an exponential technology curve that will eventually result in “longevity escape velocity,” meaning that for every year a person lives, medical science advances to allow them to live one additional year. Already, there may be people alive today that may have indefinite life spans.
The idea that a post-Singularity world might allow us to exist “in-silico” as uploaded simulations and control our own “clock speed” poses even more radical time contraction. Even if we only succeed in extending human life a mere tenfold to 1,000 years, or an unrealistically low doubling to 200 years, every number discussed above is twice or ten times closer in terms of individual “care factor” and potentially much closer to home.
But even if human life span remained constant, it is a responsibility of life to plan for its offspring, and civilization to seek to continue itself. At least the part of civilization I live in has this essential mission enshrined as the most basic task in our U.S. Constitution: “Secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity.” To do that requires planning. Planning allows time itself to be our resource and acts as our lever to do great things.
Many look at the significant events discussed above as “doomsday scenarios,” but to me, they are just eventualities to be planned for, and chance favors the prepared mind. It’s also a happy consequence that the farther out you look for problems, and the bigger problems you try to tackle, the more likely you are to perceive and be able to bring ambitious thinking to more proximate problems.
If we had not been building instruments in space to look far out into space, we would not even know about the threats of asteroids, comets, gamma-ray-bursts or galactic collisions. We also would not have the space-based surveillance to know about the hurricane or tsunami on its way. Lifting our eyes to the horizon pays.
Of course, there are more proximate threats, and several of our own creation. But personally, I bet on humanity, not against humanity. We are the life carriers, the intelligence, and the gametes of Gaia. It is our destiny to spread not just human life, but the entire clan of life, and intelligence, first to the Solar System, and then to the stars.
The great strategist John Boyd told us that it is the nature of all organisms to seek to “Survive, survive on their own terms, and improve their capacity for independent action.” Ultimately, the space program is about survival, growth, and flourishing. Not just of ourselves, but all life.
And for at least a billion years, the plan needs to be (as beautifully stated by Lee Valentine of Space Studies Institute): “Mine the sky, defend the Earth, settle the Universe.”
Chemical brain preservation: how to live ‘forever’ — a personal view
Neuroscientists today can preserve small volumes (<1mm³) of animal brain tissue immediately after death with incredible precision — the features and structure of every synapse within these volumes is well-protected down to the nanometer scale, using an inexpensive, room-temperature process of chemical fixation and plastic embedding, or “plastination.” This image is an example of plastination and local circuit tracing, occurring in leading neuroscience labs around the world today. (Credit: Brain Preservation Foundation)
Here’s my 45 minute talk on Chemical Brain Preservation at World Future Society 2012. Given the progress we’ve seen in the relevant science and technologies it’s a topic I’m presently very optimistic about. I had a great audience with lots of questions at the end, but in the interest of brevity I’m just uploading the talk. Let me know your thoughts in the comments, thanks!
A number of neuroscientists, working today with simple model organisms, are investigating the hypothesis that chemical brain preservation may inexpensively preserve the organism’s memories and mental states after death. Chemically preserved brains can be stored at room temperature in cemeteries, contract storage, even private homes.
Our 501c3 nonprofit organization, the Brain Preservation Foundation, is offering a $100,000 prize to the first scientific team to demonstrate that the entire synaptic connectivity (“connectome”) of mammalian brains can be perfectly preserved using either chemical preservation or more expensive cryopreservation techniques.
Such preserved brains may be “read” in the future, analogous to the way a computer hard drive is read today, so that either memories or the complete identities of the preserved individuals can be restored or “uploaded” in computer form.
Chemical preservation techniques are already being used to scan and upload the connectomes of very small animal brains (C. elegans and OpenWorm, zebrafish, soon flies). Though these scans are not yet sufficiently complex to extract memories from the uploaded organisms, give them a little more time, we’re very close now to cracking long-term memory. We just need to know a bit more about this process at the protein/receptor/gene level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation
Amazingly, if information technologies continue to improve at historical rates, a person whose brain is chemically preserved in 2020 might have their memories read or even fully return to the world in a computer form not centuries but just a few decades from now, while their children and loved ones are still alive. Given progress in electron microscopy and connectomics research to date, we can even forsee how this may be done as a fully automated and inexpensive process.
Today, only 1% of people in developed societies are interested in living beyond their biological death (see When I’m 164, David Ewing Duncan, 2012). With chemical brain preservation, this 1% may soon have a validated, low-cost method that will allow them to do just that. Once it becomes a real option, and recovery of simple memories has been demonstrated in model organisms, this 1% may grow larger as well.
I am particularly excited by chemical brain preservation’s ability to improve the social contract: what benefits we may reasonably expect from the universe and society when we choose to live a good and moral life. I believe that having the option of chemical brain preservation at death, if the science is validated, may help all our societies become significantly more science-, future-, progress-, preservation-, sustainability-, truth and justice-, and community-oriented in coming years.
Would you choose chemical brain preservation at death if it was widely available, validated, and inexpensive? If not, why not? Would you do it to donate your brain to science? Your memories to your children or others who might want them? Would you be willing to come back in person, if that turns out to be possible? If it is sufficiently inexpensive, would it be best to preserve your brain at death, and let future society decide if either your memories or your identity are “worth” reanimating?
Please let me know what you think in the comments, thank you.
Chemical brain preservation: how to live ‘forever’ — a personal view
Neuroscientists today can preserve small volumes (<1mm³) of animal brain tissue immediately after death with incredible precision — the features and structure of every synapse within these volumes is well-protected down to the nanometer scale, using an inexpensive, room-temperature process of chemical fixation and plastic embedding, or “plastination.” This image is an example of plastination and local circuit tracing, occurring in leading neuroscience labs around the world today. (Credit: Brain Preservation Foundation)
Here’s my 45 minute talk on Chemical Brain Preservation at World Future Society 2012. Given the progress we’ve seen in the relevant science and technologies it’s a topic I’m presently very optimistic about. I had a great audience with lots of questions at the end, but in the interest of brevity I’m just uploading the talk. Let me know your thoughts in the comments, thanks!
A number of neuroscientists, working today with simple model organisms, are investigating the hypothesis that chemical brain preservation may inexpensively preserve the organism’s memories and mental states after death. Chemically preserved brains can be stored at room temperature in cemeteries, contract storage, even private homes.
Our 501c3 nonprofit organization, the Brain Preservation Foundation, is offering a $100,000 prize to the first scientific team to demonstrate that the entire synaptic connectivity (“connectome”) of mammalian brains can be perfectly preserved using either chemical preservation or more expensive cryopreservation techniques.
Such preserved brains may be “read” in the future, analogous to the way a computer hard drive is read today, so that either memories or the complete identities of the preserved individuals can be restored or “uploaded” in computer form.
Chemical preservation techniques are already being used to scan and upload the connectomes of very small animal brains (C. elegans and OpenWorm, zebrafish, soon flies). Though these scans are not yet sufficiently complex to extract memories from the uploaded organisms, give them a little more time, we’re very close now to cracking long-term memory. We just need to know a bit more about this process at the protein/receptor/gene level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation
Amazingly, if information technologies continue to improve at historical rates, a person whose brain is chemically preserved in 2020 might have their memories read or even fully return to the world in a computer form not centuries but just a few decades from now, while their children and loved ones are still alive. Given progress in electron microscopy and connectomics research to date, we can even forsee how this may be done as a fully automated and inexpensive process.
Today, only 1% of people in developed societies are interested in living beyond their biological death (see When I’m 164, David Ewing Duncan, 2012). With chemical brain preservation, this 1% may soon have a validated, low-cost method that will allow them to do just that. Once it becomes a real option, and recovery of simple memories has been demonstrated in model organisms, this 1% may grow larger as well.
I am particularly excited by chemical brain preservation’s ability to improve the social contract: what benefits we may reasonably expect from the universe and society when we choose to live a good and moral life. I believe that having the option of chemical brain preservation at death, if the science is validated, may help all our societies become significantly more science-, future-, progress-, preservation-, sustainability-, truth and justice-, and community-oriented in coming years.
Would you choose chemical brain preservation at death if it was widely available, validated, and inexpensive? If not, why not? Would you do it to donate your brain to science? Your memories to your children or others who might want them? Would you be willing to come back in person, if that turns out to be possible? If it is sufficiently inexpensive, would it be best to preserve your brain at death, and let future society decide if either your memories or your identity are “worth” reanimating?
Please let me know what you think in the comments, thank you.
book review | Human+ — smartdust, spooks, psychics, and transhumans
Each artificial neuron would communicate with the brain via electrical signals and would be able to wirelessly interface with external hardware, enabling brain-computer networking. Once such networking was established, David noted with interest, Internet telephony could be quite simply deployed. Synthetic telepathy, in other words. …
Such advanced technology may be developed in a couple of decades, transforming us into a “telepathic” species. But what if we already have “natural” psychic abilities, emergent properties of quantum-entangled neurons, waiting to be unlocked by appropriate training?
Or both? Can transhumanist human enhancement and the paranormal abilities co-exist? Or are they on an inescapable collision course?
These are some of the questions that U.K.-based writer and journalist Martin Higgins sets out to explore in his novel Human+, a just-published science-fiction page-turner inspired by of futures studies, psychic spy research, and the transhumanist movement.
Adapted from a movie script, the novel combines reality-warping and edge-of-your seat action scenes reminiscent of Wild Palms, Vanilla Sky, and The Bourne spy series.
Smartdust and spooks
David, a Manhattan heroin drug addict, is rehabibiliated by Dr. Wharton, a psychiatrist with a spooky past, and finds himself in a new-agey program to develop his latent remote-viewing psychic powers. Dr. Wharton and his staff are somehow associated with Future Proof, a Soho futures-studies consultancy. David becomes David McKinley, a highly paid futurist and expert on advanced nanotech and biotech — knowledge that he actually accesses psychically.
Future Proof is funded by billionare venture capitalist Thomas Ames to develop a roadmap for a futuristic nanotech-biotech breakthrough: inhalable “smartdust” — nanobots small enough to pass through the lungs and the blood-brain barrier, and act as neurons — enhancing mood, extending life, and enabling direct networking with the world via wireless brain-computer links.
Their new company, Thetis, plans to accumulate wealth beyond their wildest dreams. But things go awry when David’s instructor and now colleague Lawrence attempts to blow the cover of what appears to be a nefarious scheme to control humanity, linked to the Defense Intelligence Agency’s remote viewing/psychic spy program.
Singularity or Spirituality?
I am persuaded that advanced transhumanist technologies will bring very radical change, someday soon. For example, early technologies similar to Thetis’ smartdust and brain-computer interfaces are already emerging from the research labs. I am less persuaded of naturally occurring psychic abilities and otherworldly realms. But I hope to be wrong, because these things would also be cool — very cool.
If both the Singularity and transcendent psychic abilities are on the horizon, I would totally agree with Dr. Wharton’s dictum: “Who’s to say the two can’t develop together — technology and human potential — perhaps should develop together?”
Human+ has KurzweilAI readers directly in its bullseye. I highly recommend it for its thought-provoking reading pleasure — and I look forward to seeing Human+ the movie.
Italy elects first transhumanist MP
A transhumanist congressman? In Italy? Seriously?
Yes. In July, Italy — ironically, a stronghold of the Catholic Church — became the first major Western nation to elect an active transhumanist.
Giuseppe Vatinno, a member of the Italian Parliament, ran on a platform of “politics that strive to improve the human condition, making use of appropriate advanced technologies.”
And not a moment too soon, as Italy slides dangerously toward bankruptcy and urgently needs a new direction.
How did this happen?
Transhumanism1 — the idea that we can radically change ourselves by merging with technology — already had a precedent in Italy: former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi invested in MolMed, which aims to raise average life expectancy to 120 years and beyond — perhaps to continue ruling until that age? And transhumanism was already present in the work of the Futurist movement of Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, which had an important influence in Italian politics in the first half of the 20th century, and is explicitly transhumanist in its modern revival.
But it took someone more dedicated to the cause. Vatinno’s influential Il transumanesimo. Una nuova filosofia per l’uomo del XXI secolo (Transhumanism. A new philosophy for the man of the XXI century) has helped counter some of the cultural hostility to transhumanism, which is especially evident in Italy. (See video at 00:45.)
A graduate of the University La Sapienza in Rome in theoretical physics and specialized in particle physics, cognitive psychology, neural networks, and image processing, Vatinno teaches in the Masters program on energy and environmental issues at the Politecnico in Milan and the University La Sapienza in Rome.
As a member of the Parliamentary Commission for Environment and Public Works, Vatinno brings his futurist vision to policy making, especially in the energy sector.
He also credits the Italian Transhumanist Association (AIT), the Italian chapter of Humanity+, through its magazine Divenire (Becoming) for promoting transhumanist ideas in Italy. (Full disclosure: I have known Giuseppe for many years, and I serve with him on the Board of Directors of the AIT.)
A transnational movement
But Vatinno doesn’t see transhumanism limited to Italy. “I think transhumanism has the strength of a transnational movement,” he says, offering these tips:
- Support your arguments by a clear logical framework, based on the principle of cause-effect, and backed by data and forecasting models.
- Propose technological and scientific solutions. ”For example, I believe that the environmental problem, an ‘existential risk,’ can be basically solved by advanced technology, combining the Proactionary Principle of the extropian philosopher Max More with sustainability, in a perspective that could be called ‘Tecnogaianism.’”
- Explain science. “The reactions of people during the election campaign, after explaining things, was always positive.” (Here’s where being a journalist and a writer helped Vatinno.) “But the scientists, the ‘lords of technology,’ must understand that sometimes they need to talk to ordinary people — explain and discuss — because only then we can hope to achieve a political consensus, crucial to real social change.”
“Transhumanism is a revolutionary philosophy, which tends to subvert old values, and create new ones,” says Vatinno. ” This is what useful technologies do: they just win, and that’s it.”
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 rather than in some supernatural “afterlife.” 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 such as neuroscience, neuropharmacology, life extension, nanotechnology, artificial ultraintelligence, and space habitation, combined with a rational philosophy and value system. — Max More
First attack on a cyborg
UPDATE: McDonald’s provided this statement to KurzweilAI on July 18, 2012:
“We share the concern regarding Dr. Mann’s account of his July 1 visit to a McDonald’s in Paris. McDonald’s France was made aware of Dr. Mann’s complaints on July 16, and immediately launched a thorough investigation. The McDonald’s France team has contacted Dr. Mann and is awaiting further information from him.
In addition, several staff members involved have been interviewed individually, and all independently and consistently expressed that their interaction with Dr. Mann was polite and did not involve a physical altercation. Our crew members and restaurant security staff have informed us that they did not damage any of Mr. Mann’s personal possessions.
While we continue to learn more about the situation, we are hearing from customers who have questions about what happened. We urge everyone not to speculate or jump to conclusions before all the facts are known. Our goal is to provide a welcoming environment and stellar service to McDonald’s customers around the world.”
- McDonald’s
On July 1, Steve Mann, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Toronto and renowned as the world’s first cyborg, was physically assaulted in a McDonald’s in Paris for wearing his EyeTap eyeglass, with resulting damage to his eyeglass, which is surgically attached to his skull.
“I’m not seeking to be awarded money. I just want my Glass fixed,” said Steve. Paris police and McDonald’s were unresponsive, he said.
Maybe KurzweilAI readers in France and Europe can help? Here’s the McDonald’s contact page in France. We will pass along your comments and suggestions to Steve.
UPDATE: Khader Aissani, 36, manager, McDonald’s of Champs-Elysées as of Oct.2011:
Khader Aissani (credit: 20minutes.fr)
Here is Steve Mann’s report. It raises significant questions for future wearers of Google Glass and other enhancements.
Digital Eye Glass
I believe that Digital Eye Glass will ultimately replace glasses, and will help many people see better, and improve the quality of their lives through Augmediated Reality.
I wear a computer vision system, and carry a letter from my family physician, as well as documentation on this system when I travel.
I have worn a computer vision system of some kind for 34 years, and am the inventor of the technology that I wear and use in my day-to-day life.
Although it has varied over the last 34 years, I have worn the present embodiment of this system (pictured below) for 13 years. This simple design which I did in collaboration with designer Chris Aimone, consists of a sleek strip of aluminum that runs across the forehead, with two silicone nose pads. It holds an EyeTap device (computer-controlled laser light source that causes the eye itself to function as if it were both a camera and display, in effect) in front of my right eye. It also gives the wearer the appearance of having a “glass eye”, this phenomenon being known as the “glass eye” effect (Presence Connect, 2002).
Over the years the EyeTap has also therefore been known as the “Glass Eye” or “Eye Glass”, or “Digital Eye Glass”, using the word “Glass” in its singular form, rather than its plural form “Glasses” (See figure caption, “EyeTap digital eye glass”, Aaron Harris/Canadian Press, Monday Dec. 22, 2003).
Recent news has described me as “the father of wearable computing” in the context of various commercially manufactured versions of similar eye glass, such as those made by companies like Google, Olympus, and the like (see below), so as this technology becomes mainstream, McDonald’s might need to get used to it.
I originally created this technology, and the computer vision algorithms (e.g. HDR = High Dynamic Range), to help people see better. I have also assisted a number of blind and visually impaired (partially sighted) persons with various projects, and I continue to conduct research in this area. I was also part of the team that invented, designed, and built rehabilitation technology for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and this technology continues to be used by the CNIB.
Physical assault and willful destruction of customer’s property by persons acting as representatives of McDonald’s
In June of 2012, my wife, children, and I traveled to Paris, France, for our summer vacation, in order to give our children the opportunity to learn true Parisian French (we have them enrolled in French immersion at school).
On the evening of 2012 July 1st, my wife and children and I went to McDonalds at 140, Avenue Champs Elysees, Paris, France, after a day of sightseeing (8 museums and other landmark sights, as part of a boat cruise package), and while we were standing in line at McDonalds, I was stopped by a person who subsequently stated that he was a McDonalds employee, and he asked about my eyeglass (digital computer vision system, i.e. EyeTap).
Because we’d spent the day going to various museums and historical landmark sites guarded by military and police, I had brought with me the letter from my doctor regarding my computer vision eyeglass, along with documentation, etc., although I’d not needed to present any of this at any of the other places I visited (McDonald’s was the only establishement that seemed to have any problem with my eyeglass during our entire 2 week trip).
Since I happened to have it with me, I showed this doctor’s letter and the documentation to the purported McDonalds employee who had stopped me in the McDonalds line.
After reviewing the documentation, the purported McDonalds employee accepted me (and my family) as a customer, and left us to place our order. In what follows, I will refer to this person as “Possible Witness 1″.
We ordered two Ranch Wraps, one burger, and one mango McFlurry, from a cashier who I will refer to as “Possible Witness 2″. My daughter handled the cash to pay Possible Witness 2, as my daughter wanted to practice her French. Possible Witness 2 complimented my daughter on her fluency in French.
Next my family and I seated ourselves in the restaurant right by the entrance, so we could watch people walking along Avenue Champs Elysees while we ate our meal.
Subsequently another person within McDonalds physically assaulted me, while I was in McDonand’s, eating my McDonand’s Ranch Wrap that I had just purchased at this McDonald’s. He angrily grabbed my eyeglass, and tried to pull it off my head. The eyeglass is permanently attached and does not come off my skull without special tools.
I tried to calm him down and I showed him the letter from my doctor and the documentation I had brought with me. He (who I will refer to as Perpetrator 1) then brought me to two other persons.
He was standing in the middle, right in front of me, and there was another person to my left seated at a table (who I will refer to as Perpetrator 2), and a third person to my right. The third person (who I will refer to as Perpetrator 3) was holding a broom and dustpan, and wearing a shirt with a McDonald’s logo on it. The person in the center (Perpetrator 1) handed the materials I had given him to the person to my left (Perpetrator 2), while the three of them reviewed my doctor’s letter and the documentation.
Left-to-right: Perpetrator 2 tearing up my doctor’s letter, while Perpetrator 3 watches (credit: Steve Mann)
After all three of them reviewed this material, and deliberated on it for some time, Perpetrator 2 angrily crumpled and ripped up the letter from my doctor. My other documentation was also destroyed by Perpetrator 1.
I noticed that Perpetrator 1 was wearing a name tag clipped to his belt. When I looked down at it, he quickly covered it up with his hand, and pulled it off and turned it around so that it was facing inwards, so that only the blank white backside of it was then facing outwards.
Perpetrator 1 pushed me out the door, onto the street.
The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system.
As a result of Perpetrator 1′s actions, therefore images that would not have otherwise been captured were captured. Therefore by damaging the Eye Glass, Perpetrator 1 photographed himself and others within McDonalds.
The images, all taken by Perpetrator 1 (i.e. their having been captured was caused by Perpetrator 1′s actions), were among those recovered from the damaged computer vision system, and will hopefully help in solving this crime.
Please help
I tried on many occasions to contact McDonald’s but have not received any response. As McDonand’s does not publish any direct contact email information, I used the whois database to find some email addresses, e.g. of domains like “mcdonalds.com” and emailed those addresses.
My attempts included filling out various online forms on mcdonalds.com but to no avail. I also tried calling the main number, at mcdonands.com: 1-800-244-6227, but got a voice recording that was totally unintelligible (very loud and distorted), and it appears this number does not work.
I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without much luck.
In my research, I came across Penny Sheldon, a travel agent from Boise, Id., who was physically assaulted by McDonalds staff in Paris, France, because she photographed their menu. This seems surprising because many people use a handheld camera as a seeing aid to magnify and read signs, etc. (zooming into a picture to see it on screen).
Penny Sheldon contacted the Police in Paris, but did not receive much help from them. I’m not seeking to be awarded money. I just want my Glass fixed, and it would also be nice if McDonald’s would see fit to support vision research.
I don’t have the resources to take on a branch of a large multi-national corporation operating in a distant country, but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter, how to ensure it doesn’t happen again to me or anyone else wearing Eye Glass, and what can be done to advance Digital Eye Glass research in not just the technological realm, but also the realm of social responsibility and “culture and technology.
Best regards,
Steve
Dr. Steve Mann, PhD (MIT ’97), PEng (Ontario),
330 Dundas Street West
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, M5T 1G5.
Research in Wearable Computing and Augmediated Reality
The more people that adopt this technology to improve the quality of their lives, the more that McDonald’s will become accustomed to it. You can become involved by building your own wearable computer vision system. See for example, the following links:
http://www.eyetap.org/publications/
























