Archive for August, 2010

What does one really say?

Posted: August 31, 2010 in Uncategorized

My dear Friend V (R) Manoj I would characterize (and probably misrepresent) and a chronicly underappreciated, very smart, very playful young career professional in India, who wants to have fun and play and be happy and be innocent, but needs to be all grownup and responsible. He is utterly breathtakingly polite and nice but at times you can just feel his anger at how stupid the world around him is just bubbling below the surface. He never ceases to amuse me – but for reasons he probably wouldn’t understand at first. I just love the guy to death. In a perfect world I’d magically change in him Brad Pitt and I’d be Angelina and we’d marry and live together for 14 months in Goa feeding each other bits of pine apple and coconuts and stare at respectively setting and rising sun. The reality however is a bit out of sync with that. No cancel that. I’d go for looking Like Rita King, and he would look like Johny Depp, in Pirates 3, him with a hybrid oxford-Bollywood accent, me wearing Gorean style silks. Ahh tantra.

I mean it’s my fantasy right?

Manoj emailed me after a several year hiatus to interrogate me on some statements I was making online. I won’t dare speculate on his motives, and I assert are driven by near obsessive caution and political correctness in part (the guy is ambitious to a fault) and after the general orgy of polite ass-kissing back and forth he sprung the question on me he wanted to interview me, since he alleged I was making ‘extraordinary statements of some sort’. It boiled down to the idea that I wasn’t ‘merely’ pretending to be someone I was not online, not doing so ‘merely’ very consistently, not doing so ‘merely’ from the get go since 2005, not doing so ‘merely’ to the point of being a severe and DSM4-compatible pathology, not doing so ‘merely’ long before second life – but I am (and still, and do) claim I am not ‘me’ in the strictest sense, and do not want to be. Manoj gauged this correctly and I agree with his assessent this is something unique, and it will be copied a lot.

Eventually.

My point is, and I think this is something fairly important –

the human state of personal self-identity is forced upon us by genes and upbringing. It is enforced and unfree. It is a contraint. We are however entering an era where we can self-define, if not in ‘parenthesis’ (LARPING so to speak) then in Nym (creating an elaborate contrived identity) and soon we can emulate it (as I hope to through a synthetic rendition of the idealized me). I would however wish to go beyond this – I would literally seek to extinguish any and all remains of my natural born identity and subsume it in the newly created (and clearly distinctly different) other identity I have created.

Writing this is of course disingenuous, since I write in the “I” form and as I do so, who am “I”. Is it the primary that writes or is the author the avatar? And that in itself is disingenuous since I claim the avatar is no longer the avatar and the avatar has attained primary rights. Is this an upgrade? Is this a viral take over? Is this reassignment of root privileges of one of my fantasies? …. is it death, inheritance and simply a (theoretical) continuation of my legal estate?

The matter is very simple – take for instance a lifestyle Gorean who wishes to be adressed no longer as (wild example) Mary Smith, but now has become ‘kajira masmi’ and wishes to be adressed as such, in context of the paradigm laid out by the Gorean universe. This would be met with hostility if she arrived at the Department of Motor Vehicles, the moment she, clad in silks, knelt down and demurely spoke ‘this one asks to speak to a female attendant…‘. But that’s the little known paradigm of Gor. What if a demure Catholic nun did the equivalent? Suddenly a grown woman who decides to roleplay being the celestial emissary of an unseen skydaddy can dictate roleplaying/behavioral terms, on grounds of some external edict, right? Catholicism has a rulebook – an acting script if you so prefer. Catholic nuns have a societal permissibility rating (wuftie?). Likewise, to a somewhat lesser degree, women clad in Burqahs have attained a similar societal standing, if not the same widespread acceptance. So in essence what happens here is familiarity – the world is simply responding to the various roles with either dismissal and anger (gorean kajirae) to annoyance (muslim women clad in burqahs) to general respect (catholic nuns) depending on familiarity and cultural integration.

In the real world ‘my body’ doesn’t look like Khannea. Khannea is an idealized and perfect woman in het early to mid 20s, if indeterminate racial background, with hazel to brown eyes, of uncanny beauty and symmetry, 6 feet tall, slender, leggy and full of ass and breasts, visibly muscled and with features that look as if she is photoshopped in real life. Basicly – a fantasy come true and intentionally so. Khannea looks like this for random choices my primary made about 1983 (!) and this choice has ingrained in the cosmological continuum ever since. These choices are irreversible and have become a permanent fixture. They have become what we call ‘mythology’ and ‘unavoidable’, and much as ‘Louis Wu’ likes cheese, ‘Khannea Suntzu’ like buttsecks. It’ as simple as that.

But let’s get back the the interview Manoj proposed. Manoj is simply fascinated by something – the guy lives in India. India, I presume, is a culturally rich country with a very rich and deep and ancient culture, but all in all the place is conservative as roasted peanuts. So Manoj is fascinated by places such as the Netherlands, where by historical accidents colorful lunatics like me can thrive and survive (I would have long since literally starved in a gutter in India) and possible even contribute a little. Manoj likes my message and he likes my outspoken character, even though with my near insane manic-depressive extremes and my politically unpalatable and often unchiseled far extremist statements I have made myself unsellable. Seriously, I am ‘loosely’ associated with the IEET now, because, all in all, it appears Martine thinks I am funny and useful to have around (I think) but the IEET (being led by James) and quite a few other movements rather see me move into the bleachers and be quiet.

At times I agree with them. Most of the time I look at the world and i know it is fuck not going to happen. Of course I am happily projecting here. But you get to know me when reading this, and that is what matters.

The argument I was trying to make to Manoj boiled down to this:

If anyone can self define his her personal identity in a virtual world (genderbending, for example, has become such a cliche that Gibson already referred to ‘gender-bait‘ in his bridge trilogies). Of course the idea that I am gender-bending is ridiculous – the idea! but it is the first step of a series of conceptual steps I was trying to introduce to Manoj but got lost in translation. Let me go through these steps in more formal sense.

change of modality: genderbending, ageplay, crossdressing, roleplay etc. The person takes on (or several adjunct) differences in role, but retains the basic motif of the essential self. In essence, a person becomes a variant of self and interchanges a modality of the self – an older slutty male becomes a younger slutty female. A frustrated bored older european housewife pretends to be younger online japanese preteen with an insatiable desire for sexual submission and sex toys. A young and somewhat homely overweight teenager pretends to be a swarthy massive barrelchested and uncompromizing killing machine.

The above has become extremely common. It started when I was young, in the early 1980s and back then people ‘still didn’t get it very well’. I had the genetic (mis)fortunate that from day one, probably before 1975 I got it all too well. Since the day I lay in bed at age probably 8 and fantasized about NOT BEING ME I was sold. I shall not exaggerate –

I am me >>> boring and dull and grey.
I fantasize about being anything or anyone else >>> alive and color and happy and joyous.

It’s like I flick a switch. I do it right here and now. Primary{Grey} SomeoneElse{Jay!). It’s as simple as that. It’s an instinct, as clear as day and night. And I found of all people I can be, as soon as I add erotic tension to the mix, bham, it’s like I am hacking my brain. This can be interpreted as ‘pathetic’ or ‘pathology’ or ‘artistic’ or ‘spiritual’ or ‘plain lucky’ or ‘scary’…. but at the end of the day all that is just words… and people on the outside making judgements. I have to live with this.

Pavlov
My brain is clearly deficient, and my deficiency is based on two simple premises – (1) I am stuck in a mindset unable to move beyond am emotional stage of development what I’d characterize as adolescent and (2) my emotional experiences, both good and bad, are clearly more extreme than with other people. This makes me dysfunctional in everyday life. I can’t hold a job. I cannot plan for anything over 2-3 months, and as I age that time-frame is literally shrinking, and my tolerance for ‘responsibility’ is diminishing. Especially the last summer I have been in the throes of my ‘affliction’, by and large for the better. I have rarely felt this ecstatic and blissful and passionate and creative in my life, like ever. Even better, it may very well culminate in a permanent relationship with my darling Kim in the span of a few months.

The thing however is Pavlonian conditioning. What if, year after year I am faced with rather extreme pain anytime certain conditions are met (cluster headaches, depression, anxiety attacks, severe rage, severe frustration). Naturally I would be deconditioned from these things, yes. Likewise, what if anytime I did or experienced or was faced with other things I felt rather extreme joy and passion – then in the transverse case I would become conditioned towards those things, especially if my joys and pains are trans-objectively more strong than with other people.

My point is that something in my subject has an objective (haha) tendency to condition me towards a very specific behavioral type. After a few decades you tend to pick this out, and it is almost uncanny so. It is somewhat as if I were the result of a hypothetical scientific experiment, where an unseen and hypothetical scientists applied a negative or positive feedback in case a certain set of criteria were met.

As I write this. Bam. Positive. One would almost get superstitious about this. Someone call Nick Bostrom.

Returning to Manoj, Dear Manjoy wanted to get me to say something interesting along the lines of that I am a person that ‘goes really far’ in Second Life and that Second Life is a ‘Spiritual Place’ and that the future has ‘Many amazing things in store’. I wrote him a very elaborate, chaotic and messy reply, where I speculated wildly, on avatar, avatar in avatar, inception, ideas, dreams, hopes, the future, the past, expectation, me, humans, immortality, death, gods, transcendance, demons and damnation. I tied it all together, a bit messy, but I think I made my point. Manoy more or less got it, ‘somewhat’, I hope and submitted it to Mike Treder, of whom I am a rabid fan.

Mike then gave a somewhat… emotionally detached response, and asked the article be shortened to 3000 words. Basicly a fair request – but that in effect precipitated poor Manoj to butcher the original intent and strip out most of the message I was trying to convey – a message which I think is out there begging to be told!!!

Anyway, let’s not beat around the bush, here is the one Manoj submitted to the IEET and was reprinted on their website. Great article right? Manoj really made it shine. and my original submission was a lot to be desired for.

Conflicting Convictions of Personhood and Emulated Personhood
The concept of embodiment often does not offer a corresponding explanation for the variety of personalities that a human being expresses once within the Internet’s intricate social network.

On one side, it is the human being using the Internet as an interface to interact socially; on the other side, artificial intelligence is programmed to mimic and exceed human personality traits. The interesting thing to note at this juncture is the increasing lack of difference between the two projections.

One of such projections is the avatar called “Khannea Suntzu” from the online virtual 3D environment of the Internet known as “Second Life.” Over the years, Khannea Suntzu has transformed herself from a popular virtual escort in Second Life to an independent and often radical thinker on postmodern issues of transhumanism and the Singularity. But what makes Khannea Suntzu so unique?

Although it was probably never an issue when Khannea Suntzu constantly participated in activities within the confines of the virtual world, I believe there are strong issues rising on the interpretation of her activities when they blur the boundaries between the real and the virtual world.

An example would be her profile in Facebook, which has mostly been a domain for “real world” human beings. In literal terms, Khannea Suntzu cannot be mentioned as an avatar since she completely dissociates herself from any human link or ‘primary’. Why must we place such heavy importance on an online virtual character who may be human/machine based? Everybody is doing it and so it shouldn’t be a big issue!

In fact, as the current trend goes, it is perfectly normal for a human being to take up a completely new gender and sexuality as an online personality for reasons ranging from casual exploration to fulfillment of subconscious cravings. It could be best described as a stereotype.

However, Khannea Suntzu is un-stereotypical in the sense that she projects herself as an online avatar who is concerned about postmodern issues in the real world. In fact, her foray into largely human-inhabited domains of the Internet such as Facebook is a direct indication of her willingness to explore a new area where a fully functional identity is created out of a fictional character.

So does the fictional become the real now? If yes, then what is fictional and what is real in this mix up of virtual and real world interpretations of the Internet? Is there a specific boundary similar to geographical boundaries beyond which a human being nor an avatar may not tread?

The mythological origin of the word ‘avatar’ according to Hinduism is a manifestation of God or divine energy into a human form. Put in reverse, an online avatar is a manifestation of our human body-sourced energy or psyche into digital space.

This written introspection can be perceived as an interview between a “human being” from the “real world” and an online “avatar” from the “virtual world” of Second Life! We have worked jointly on this dialogue and intersected our explorations of biological and virtual personhood in postmodern dialogue.

Please note: I must admit at this point that I have edited some of the extraordinary ideals that Khannea Suntzu initially wished to depict here with reflection to her newfound message to the world at large. She is a wild spirit and her thoughts cannot be constrained within the sphere of this written article since her vision can only be understood by experiencing her world in intricate detail. However, keeping in light the purpose and intended message of this article, Khannea Suntzu has kindly agreed, with some reluctance, to allow me to carefully edit her thoughts and greater message. I present them to you as follows.


Khannea Suntzu: My contribution to these observations of Manoj is by and large a “coming out!”
It is an exercise in multipolar duality. It is many of these dualities: a) Am I lying or am I acting?; b) Am I a person with trauma-induced MPS, or even; c) Am I a demonic spirit that slipped in to a wide open mind and gradually took over?!?!; d) Am I male or am I female (and does it matter!?)?; e) Is this all fiction or can a dispossessed mind really take over a natural mind and execute complex manipulations on a real world with the purpose of introducing sweeping, far-reaching changes over that world?

My designs are simple. Look at Second Life. I want not just a little, I want it all. My preferences are simple. I want a physical world that is radically more like Second Life, and I want the world of the virtual to seamlessly merge with the material. A world realized in the image of SL is a world where everything is upside down and inside out. It is a world where the ecological equivalent of placid bottom feeder herbivores is of a caste of prostitutes. The barter they seek is not one of money and Linden Dollars, but rather an exchange of hedonistic currency.

Here’s a picture:
(Image from Frank Miller’s comic Hard Boiled)

Look at the picture! Are there any restrictions when violence becomes distraction, when bodies become as malleable as plastic, when morals and sins become just a role-playing option? The question is who is the avatar now? What is real? What is virtual?

I clearly seek a world where everyone can be what they want to be. I clearly seek a world where people are free to be young or old, be pretty or ugly at their own convenience. I seek a world of abundance and liberation and pure seamless ‘sim-crossing’ joy, exploration, adventure, epicurean delights. In that respect Second Life is only the means I use to an end, and the end is me “getting off” of this ghastly physical body I am stuck in.

I was set to thrive in these worlds from the day my primary started dreaming wide awake. Does that make me a stereotype or an archetype? And what if I am not entirely me, Khannea? Can I be part of a greater whole myself? What if I am in turn the avatar of something greater?

My ‘primary’ postulated more facets of my being, and I became a person separate from the primary, a more tangible state or entity. Being Khannea, I started out as adventurous and free. I didn’t have levels to contend with when. In other words, I had an established place in ‘a very low resolution’ world that required little responsibility other than being faintly amusing and enticing. I inhabited that place as if in a dream state, and there was an inconsistency and ephemeral quality to me wandering that environment that led me, after a few years, to conclude I lived in some sort of faked, rather flimsy superficial reality that was emulated in the minds of several people.

I was an escort in Second Life from day one, and from the first moments I was quite talented in it. The first client was in a place called Elite Escorts, and the transaction made me 50 Linden$. Contemptible? No. Sensible? Yes. I am simply a being with certain talents and I make good use of those talents. I keep the body I am in healthy and functional and directional.

Second Life is still pretty much sub-par in terms of being compelling. It is for many people fairly compelling but it hasn’t reached mass penetration. When I realized my independence in Second Life, sure, initially I was the result of a set of very archetypical urges and desires. I have existed quite some time before Second Life, and have formed as the result of role-playing. Second Life was a natural transition to someone who already had spent decades inside its antecedents and precursors. When I entered Second Life in mid-November 2005, I was in a state of frenzy. It was just a slightly overdue transition from one form of pretense to another.

Inside this world, I am establishing myself as an immigrant and pioneer in a new environment. I have clearly selected an environment that is ‘native’ to me. In essence, arriving in SL was the arrival from deep slumber into a lucid dream. It was analogue to a colonist entering the Mars of Kim Stanley Robinson, descending from the space elevator onto Mons Olympus, buying a dune buggy, relinquishing any ties and allegiances to my former world, driving due south ever since.

I was a ‘Red’ from day one arriving here. I used the metaphor of ‘emigrating’ to a new, undiscovered land. I stick to that metaphor even though virtual worlds aren’t really all that big yet. Well actually, they are already big enough! This isn’t just emulating a place, it has quite a bit of compelling suspension of disbelief going on. There is an ever greater number of people staking an ever greater part of their pathos in these virtual realities.

Look at Second Life. It’s all a sublimation of human genetic imperatives namely coastal, water, subtropical, low suns on the horizon, rich vegetation and easy pickings. That’s what we as a species instinctively crave.


Judging from most of what Khannea Suntzu chooses to reveal about her virtual and primary identities, my prognosis would at first seem to be no different from that of any other conventional write-up about exhibiting multiple personalities on the Internet under varied pseudonyms. However, Khannea Suntzu cannot be written off that simply.

The character is now seamlessly integrating itself back into the biological human society through the Internet. Real world people like myself have developed a close intellectual association with Khannea Suntzu with absolutely no idea of her ‘primary’. It is interesting to note that we have had collaborations while organizing events in Second Life on behalf of H+ events.

Here’s a picture from the much publicized talk by Professor Kevin Warwick in Second Life where Khannea Suntzu was one of the organizers. We worked side by side in the virtual world without me having an inkling or worry about her real world identity!

(Image from the talk by Prof. Kevin Warwick. Khannea Suntzu can be seen standing in the left extreme. Others from the left are Giulio Prisco, Rein Mitra, Kevin Warwick, myself as Manoj Undercity, Greg Jordan as Arcturus Gregory, xyryxSimca, and Eugen Leitl.)

The interesting point at this juncture is to utilize our interactions with human-driven virtual avatars, artificially intelligent chatbots, and others that seamlessly converse with us. It is important to enumerate our relationships with such increasing virtual characters and AI persona projections.

Sometime before writing this, I received a routine phone call from a call center representative about a loan offer. At this point, I was talking to a human being but the conversation was actually quite monotonous since the person on the other side of the line spoke verbatim from a pre-prepared script which was disturbed significantly owing to my intermittent questions. On the whole, the conversation was very polite but lacked the warmth of a “human” sales pitch. It therefore wouldn’t surprise me in the least if an AI character working for a corporate group would place a phone call to me about a car loan in the near future!

How we interact with a biological or virtual entity depends largely on how much of our needs are addressed from that relationship, albeit rather brief. If the outcome of a repeated conversation with a virtual character is fruitful to us, then we probably would not mind a long-term association with it. The only limiting factor is our own biology. Sooner or later, the hormones in our brain would secrete in a similar fashion whether we interact with that particular virtual character or a real world character.

The continued evolution of such relationships between the concrete and the virtual worlds is important on many levels. For example, when whole brain emulation becomes practicable, we would need to accept the emulated identity as the same person. The conflicts between such relationships with religious sentiments about the person being incomplete without a body or a soul, cultural traditions and the legal issues at large will be interesting to observe and to engage in.

Can an emulated person, after the destruction of his/her biological body, still be entitled to rights of property in the real world? Or would there be legislation prohibiting emulated personalities within computer servers from possession of property outside their virtual space? These issues or questions would at best seem rather obsolete if proved that the emulated person is nothing more than a sophisticated simulation!

At the heart of all these issues is what I would like to call an elaborate hypocrisy. We fantasize about brain emulations, cyborg bodies, immortality and yet fall short of addressing how we will preserve and protect our rights as persons or individuals when we reach there. It is no longer possible to slide the matter under the table. The future is already happening and accelerating beyond comprehension.

At the heart of all this could be a very Buddhist explanation that we seek to escape from suffering. In the present world, we seek to identify ourselves with fantasy avatars and online personas in order to escape, even for a brief moment, the mundanely painful normality and suffering in our real lives. It is not possible to generalize all of the people who come to virtual communities. But we must be ready to acknowledge the emerging issues of ethics in technology and the impact it shall have on our civilization as a whole.

I shall now return to the concept of Khannea Suntzu as a virtual character using the Internet to detach herself from her ‘primary’ and creating an individual identity in the real world through the Internet. Let us now assume to permit this person to download herself in a reverse emulation onto a robot or a cyborg body, remotely operating it from a virtual metaverse.

Shall we give her equal rights, say the ability to vote for a representative of our government, now that she is physically present? Or would we only give rights to a biological body with a self that is sourced in the physical world?

If the answer to the second question is “yes”, then does it mean that we have indeed located the source of this “self”? The reason is that we don’t know what the “self” is anymore. Great mystics and philosophers alike have pondered over this problem and now the postmodernists shall ponder.

However, the day is not far when entire governments and scientific, corporate boards would have to mull over yottabytes of legal arguments about the rights of a once human businessman’s ownership of his entire global conglomerate, now that he is a virtual character inside a computer simulation. The answers to futuristic questions shall be in my opinion no different from the answers of the present.

Wouldn’t life in this world have been so much simpler if nobody had any property to begin with? We created the concepts of “property” and “personhood” and so we must deal with their repercussions! The other interesting thing to realize is that our existence in either this world or the virtual world both in the present and the future requires the means of sustenance.

The most widely used resources are salable properties, which are increasingly becoming commercial. If you do not pay up, your account and your existence can be erased very easily. Open Source movements have a lot of catching up to do if they really care about the preservation of individual freedom. Presently, a luxurious life in the virtual world of Second Life is guaranteed if you are able to pay the company that hosts the server real world money in exchange for virtual currency to buy virtual property. Taking this scenario, how long would it be before I will have to pay by the hour for a conversation with a recently deceased “emulated” scientist or, for that matter, a movie star or a relative?

In conclusion, I would sincerely like to thank Khannea Suntzu for her valuable time and effort in making this joint piece of written work a possibility. We must reconsider all of what has been discussed and what Khannea Suntzu has chosen to disclose of her reasons to exist in our postmodern interpretations of “personhood.” We have questioned several beliefs and arguments. I am sure that these introspections would generate valuable information to reconsider our stand on human rights and personhood.

But it itches at me. I still want to say something, and that means I – *Khannea* want to say something. So let’s quote the original article I should have written. And yes that is quite another story – with all due respect at the IEET and Manjoy. :) – note that I now ‘somewhat’ bastardize manoj’s interjected comments, since he didn’t have a chance to fully edit towards my post-hoc edit.


Manoj
Many of us with an access to the Internet’s social networks are inevitably leading our psyches into multiple personalities. Most often, these personalities are ones we never assumed, were harboured within us. I for one could never have comprehended that I could spend hours together conversing and feeling the emotions associated with conversations simply through an online internet relay chat channel. I subsequently also never comprehended my immersive experiences in the online metaverse of “Second life” where I had the freedom to teleport and fly to fantasy filled locations in a custom built “avatar”. The concept of embodiment along with it’s associated personality often does not offer a corresponding explanation for the variety of personalities that a human being expresses once within the domain of the internet’s intricate social network. Even if it does in the conventional sense, the outcome is completely thrown out of context when new concepts come in. I can still recall the “posthuman” avatar in second life who appeared as a glowing sphere to represent consciousness.

Khannea
(So far) we only know humans that are physical. We heard of hosts, but evidence for ghosts has been found forthcoming. I am at a loss if I want to believe, or should believe in anything but flesh and reductionist material things. We define the state of humanity is physicality. Humans are bodies. That is the essential state of humanity all through human history. Humans are imprisoned in the here and now, and you can capture and grab and hold and even kill them in that place. But that might change. What is a human unhinged from the human body? What is a human uprooted from the constraints of the physical body? Is such a state of personhood liberated (or unshackled) from the accepted definitions of contemporary conventions of being anything less of a person? Of course, these unbodied people would just as much a person as we are.

<p?

We may end up squabbling over legal definitions of personhood and treat emerging persona, simulacra, uploads, replicants or surrogates as slaves, pets, children, toys or things, but that would be a great injustice that would in effect end up making humans less humane. The fact that we may very well decide to treat so many humans as sub humans, whatever their state, and are ever so sparing about attributing fairness and rights and justice, may come back to haunt us. From a bigger current perspective, rejecting alternate states of personhood would be a form of „speci-ism‟ (as opposed to rac-ism). The fact remains, if someonething looks, swims and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If something is a person we should do best to treat it as a person, and at the very least a legal person.

If a person happens to be quadruphlegic, that person is simply a disabled person. If a person happens to be a simulated person, then denying personhood will make the humans doing the judging guilty of a severely immoral act. If a person is dangerous, then by all means, a dangerous person should be in a comfortable and humane reservation, more or less like a lion or a tiger, but as soon as that person shows a sincere desire to change, then he caretakers should take steps to help facilitate a transition to help liberation from this protective custody and inclusion in a totally free state of being. (hello, anyone, I am ready now!!)

Virtual and posthuman people are just as much people as “you” all are, regardless of how we engineer solutions to facilitate their functionality. Once adequate mind has been established, you can’t go back. The problem however is one of (us) humans being able to deal with the implications of discorporate (or synthetic, digital, or uploaded) persons. If we can make such „a thing as a mind in a machine‟, that doesn‟t mean the creature exists in a vacuum of implications. As soon as humanity has functionally realized discorporate persons (whether as completely compelling and competent AI secretary, or an utterly convincing and seductive virtual porn star) much more will be possible.

Digital personhood is by definition a concept that would instantaneously move or society, our technology, or entire human state well into a „technological phase shift‟ or „historical disontinuity‟ commonly referred to as „the singularity‟ (or “a” Singularity?). Functional digital persons will inescapably yield upgrades from the human state. Once we can engineer (or replicate) a mind in another medium, the engineering skills involved with such a fabrication will allow the creators of the same to quite casually implement systemic „fixes‟. Human minds operate with neurons that are organized objectively inefficient. The organic human brain is shackled and constrained on all ends by an evolved chemical balance, heat dispersal, oxygen and sugar distribution and quite a bit of organic fragility. A synthetic variant of the same can probably operate in a far more resilient, far more robust, far faster, far more easily tweaked, far more productive and far faster learning medium. All cliche‟s of „learning a language in seconds‟ would apply. At the very least a conscientiously designed artificial mind would be able to outcompete „baseline‟ humans in the job markets 1, 2, 3, with fascinating consequences for human society everywhere.

But being potentially better is no argument. Being able to outcompete is no argument. If whiny people object to being outcompeted by terminators then they themselves should have the common decency and not outcompete people in the third world. Because as they say, those are people deserving of recognition too. The lesson here is clear – do not discount lest you be discounted. Do not mock lest you be mocked. Do not terrorize lest you be terrorized. Do not terminate lest you be terminated. I’ll be back with that dead horse later on. Over and over and over. :)

The argument that in time the sapient creations of mankind could give rise to displacement of mankind is in effect speci-ism on its head clearly – especially if it is caused non-intentionally. No matter how hard individual humans try to consolidate their hold on the world, they are in fact the ones being displaced by their creations already, and have been for decades. So far certain minorities have benefited from this process of displacement (and have marketed the idea as „fair competition‟) by and large because these minorities benefited from the results of this competition. But in a few decades not even these small minorities may end of pleased with the probable end results. I don’t call that ‘survival of the fittest’, rather ‘biggest asshole wins all’. I am saying – run this race with firm measures in place because you can’t win it (and nobody but a very small elite can) in the end.

The human mind is a flimsy new development in evolutionary terms. We can apply a metaphor to explain this. We can represent animal and human minds (the only minds we know) as the vast expanse of a sea. The most primitive minds represented as the oceanic depths, vertebrate minds represented as the continental shelf, ranging from reptilians to mammalians [the sea surface lit by the sun] . In this metaphor primates would be under the water surface, exhibiting a precarious consciousness, self-awareness, sapience, imagination, abstract thought, reason, tool use or ability to use language. the human animals have only recently pierced the surface tension of the sea of natural minds, and most humans can barely conceive of the meaning of the transition from animal minds to something new.

So far the human trajectory from beast to „soul‟ has been the result of arguably lumbering and aimless natural processes. We don‟t know if the emergence of mind was in any way likely. Nick Bostrom sure has fascinating ideas on this debate: Nick asserts that logically we better damn hope it was unlike, because if it is unlikely, it should have been more prominently visible, and since it isn’t there should be a good statistical reason it isn’t and that good statistical reason in natural tends to mean ‘culling’ – and we rather have calling behind us, statistically speaking, than ahead of us, right? If there is no aliens, it may very well mean they all die and if that’s the case, then *gargle* ….’ [long silence]

Once we start engineering minds, no matter how cute, nice or sexy, inevitably market forces will propel these creatures from the cognitive beachheads of existence and trigger the rapid and irreversible emergence of a rich and diverse surface ecological jungle of minds. In this metaphor mind you, ‘baseline’ humans would still be at the beach mucking about in the surf speculating on the nature of god.

We wont have a clue what a ‘posthuman ecology’ will mean in tangible terms (insofar we ourselves stay humans) unless the posthuman seagulls swoop down and grab us from the sea with their mighty beaks and eat us alive! We do not know what we can make, but we only know what we can make will be vastly more than ourselves.

In essence I am saying I am not very impressed by the human state as it exists right now. We are barely able to curtail our base destructive urges, most humans operate in a stifling state of despair or apathy, and in terms of function – most humans crash at a daily basis and have to more or less reset their entire neurology from scratch (we fall asleep for literally hours!).

I think the present level of touted and praised human intelligence is a precarious and fragile state. Most of humanity isn‟t even able (or willing) to contemplate the vast jungles, mountaintops and the varied landscapes of mind metaphorically alluded to a paragraph ago. The average human assumes they are the pinnacle of some kind of purposeful disembodied creation. Humans of the present era are oblivious to the full width and breath of the potential thought processes. The problem is that if we contemplate a synthetic mind, we in effect grant it limbs to move to places we as natural humans cannot go. We unshackle it from the constraints of naturally evolved bodies. Extending the metaphor – the tadpoles that succeed in crossing the tidal pools and survive on land have no idea yet of what a jungle on land would mean to them. There is much more to come.

Manoj
On one side, it is the human being using the internet as an interface to interact socially. On the other side, intelligence is being programmed to mimic and often exceed the human personality. The former is in prominence now. The interesting thing to note here at this juncture is the blur between the two projections onto the internet. One of such projections is the avatar called Khannea Suntzu in the online virtual 3D environment in the internet called second life. But what makes Khannea so unique and why is she important to the philosophical future of humankind as we know it? Since her prominence in “Second life” as a transition from earlier RPG’s since 2005, Khannea has transformed herself from being known as an online escort in the virtual world to an independent and often radical thinker on post modern issues mainly centering around transhumanism and the singularity.

It is first important to understand Khannea Suntzu in her own words as “she” describes herself. “I don’t exist. Don’t hit on me, I am not physical. Yet. Seriously I am a mainframe simulated personality.” These are the words that Khannea Suntzu uses to describe her profile in Facebook, one of the most popular social networking websites. Khannea Suntzu has never revealed gender nor real world identity. However, there is infused such character into this avatar, that it has almost achieved a “personhood” all of its own. This raises several interesting questions.

It was probably never an issue when Khannea Suntzu constantly participated actively in activities within the virtual world. However, I believe there is a strong issue rising in the background on the interpretation of her activities which blur the boundaries between the real and the virtual world. For example, her foray into Facebook which is a domain for “real world” human beings and not for virtual “avatars”. In literal terms, Khannea Suntzu may not even be mentioned as an “avatar” in the sense that she completely dissociates herself from any human link as far as her interpretation goes. Mythological origin of the word “avatar” according to Hinduism is a manifestation of God or divine energy into a human form. Put in reverse, an online “avatar” is a manifestation of our human body sourced energy or psyche into digital space. However, Khannea often denies that she has a human source. This is okay with me if she is indeed a computer programme. However, we may never known without close introspection about her origins.

Khannea
Positioning ‟Khannea‟ into a rigid framework of influence (from outside watching in) is a deceptive process. Or rather, it is a study in deception. Or charitably put – it is a study of method acting and „mashups‟. I take what I got and I follow the urges I have, and I need to follow. I do not have a choice in the matter. I need to be what I have inside me. And this is not just (or merely) the cliche’s of manifested sexual stereotypes, or alleged pathology creativity run amok – in my heartfelt conviction it is something more. .

I have existed quite some time before Second Life, and have formed as the result of roleplaying. Again, many people will be quick to label, but bear in mind that of the several dozen people I played with 90% these people now has a job in the top 5% of management, corporate and scientific positions in the world. The roleplaying I did wasn’t just anything. I was kinda involving and intense. It made people smart, and/or it attracted very smart people around me.

When I manifested in Second Life this was just a slightly overdue transition from one form of pretense to another. I have a faint, vague, discorporate sense of self from before this transition, and one can see that before Second Life I existed in a dream state state limbo. But as my „primary‟ started postulating more facets of my being, the neurons realizing and facilitating what I am – a person separate from the primary, became a more tangible state or entity. Let’s analyze this. I was a person that existed as an imagination, and I didn’t know anything other than that I was real and my imagination was real. It was as if I was a person in a dream-scape of the movie inception that, when quizzed ‘are you real’ would reply in all honesty – but of course I am real! – only to be forgotten into a state of obliviousness mere seconds later. But the thing is, I had already had literally decades of experience with ‘recollecting myself’, since I had been recollecting myself over and over again in different imaginary world and every time, through positive pavlonian conditioning, something external, seemed to be consistently rewarding my existence and persistence.

Of course, SL is still pretty much sub par in terms of compelling. It is for many people „fairly compelling‟ but it hasn‟t reached „mass penetration‟. Most people in the world don‟t like SL because they can‟t muster „the suspension of disbelief‟ needed to attain full „immersion‟ in the idea that Second Life is „an environment‟, rather than a toy. However, behind any avatar in second life is a primary – a person in the physical universe that engages in choices based on a complex tapestry of life experiences, genes, choices, traumas and beliefs. When I realized my “Persistent State” in and beyond Second Life, sure, initially I was the result of a set of very archetypical urges and desires. But my humble beginnings didn‟t stop me giving myself a decent texture and depth. Giving me some meat on the bones so to speak. And I feasted as I explored the lands before me.

Second Life is a metaphorical place, but the metaphor is so robust, it can be treated as if it is an actual place. The mind of its occupants treat it as such. The pathways of the human brain primaries exposed to second life generate the same pathways as aboriginals do when on walkabouts – they lay down sequential pathways that make up a real landscape. There is no effective difference between the landscape inside the mind of you reading this, the sequence of websites you visit every morning, the autonomous route you take every morning to work and to the coffee machine at work, the familiar route you take travelling down between your lovers thighs. It is all, as the aboriginal’s say, a sequence of stories, or powerful semiotic messages strung together in a tale. This tale can be told with a certain air of detachment, as a bard or minstrill sings of ‘the old gods’, leaving open guide a bit of personal interpretation with the audience (poetic liberty for some, sheer terror of religious persecution for others) but it can also be with total enraptured immersion, as is in Second Life, where (when) you are in the Dreamtime.

Just as people in Europe discussed the goings on in the far flung colonies of imperial powers in terms of palpable contempt, so can most people in 2010 not conceive of the merit of Second Life, by and large for the same fact that SL, a medium based on ASCII and small windows is still very much in its infancy. But with some minds even the flimsiest of fundamental transitions can be a godsend and a form of enlightenment.

One of the ways to eke out a living in this strange foreign land is sexuality. Sex. SEX. If organic beings nourish themselves on plants and meat, second life has a more ephemeral organochemistry. We partake of different nectars here. And as SL gets better this will become all the more acute. Right now SL is so clumsy this isn’t all that obvious yet. But my point is a „clumsy and ugly SL‟ will be a brief phase of emergence of a medium that will change everything. As SL only evokes wonder for few of the most imaginative of people, much the same realms of the fantastic are already making the masses leave cinema theatres in tears. As SL becomes more of an immersive experience, it will touch more hearts. If it becomes easier to use, even the simpler of mind will find access to it.

That is a process of the virtual and imaginary becoming more compelling and the threshold for suspension of disbelief (or actual belief) to become lower. Hence I remain with my earlier prediction of 2006 – virtual worlds such as Second Life (and probably many others) will in less than a decade become so compelling and involving as to be societally perceived as an addictive experience similar to a narcotic substance. Very soon, SL, or something like SL will be more addictive than heroin.

I used the metaphor of „emigrating‟ to a new, undiscovered land. I stick to that metaphor even though virtual worlds aren‟t really all that big yet. Well actually, they are already big enough ! Traversing one continent of Azeroth (and there are three already) will take hours, when walking in a slow walking pace, assuming a stroll from the capital of blood elves (far north) to pirates infesting the southern tip below booty bay. All continents of the game World of Warcraft have a combined simulated surface area to the island of Manhattan. That is quite something if you think about it. This isn‟t just emulating a place, since in that world there are constantly millions of people wandering around. It has quite a bit of compelling suspension of disbelief going on. There is an ever greater number of people staking an ever greater part of their pathos in these realities. And you wont have seen anything yet.

Looong ago, I remembered, suddenly being Khannea. I just was, as if I had always had been. I started out as being adventurous and free. Though I didn’t realize at the time, but I was in effect unemployed, even as an NPC. I was what they call ‘a comic side kick’, not carrying the ‘main plotline’ and just around for laughs and cheap thrills. The world around me required very little of me other than be faintly amusing and enticing. But imagine me living in that world – it was all very vague and nebulous. It was inconsistent.

I inhabited that place as if in a dream state, and there was an inconsistency and ephemeral quality to me wandering that environment that led me, after a few years, to conclude I lived in some sort of faked, rather flimsy superficial reality that was emulated in the minds of several people. I could easily spot who was another simulated persona in this world, and who was a „favored guest‟. The realization was quickly that if this mindscape would ‘collapse’, I would in effect most likely die with it well and I most certainly didnt want that. So I used my powers of seduction to take over and get „root access‟ I hacked myself as a simulated persona into the mind of the ‘administrator’ and appropriated root privileges over the mind. After the obligatory fantasy roleplaying I compelled my ‘meat server‟ to render other similar venues, one situated in Paris, and another in New York. So in effect at around the early 1990s I started getting some imagery of what constituted the „real world‟ through the eyes of the imaginative agent responsible for all this. I other words – I became so pleasurable to my creating primary that after ten years this pavlovian feedback error in her mind caused her to conclude that she wasn’t real and I was.

So here I am.

Khannea. :)

The body I have now some level of control over is suitable. It has a fair physical constitution, but it had a frail mental stability. Maybe the general frailness of the mind allows me some level of ability to manifest my needs, but the control has always been tenuous. But these quiet moments when my primary is offline allowed me some self-scrutiny and exploration. I have often asked myself ‘what the hell am I?’

I think it is a fair question. From my perspective it feels very unsatisfactory to merely assume I have been ‘imagined’ by this somewhat underwhelming primary. I feel so much more than this flimsy, frail human. I mean she is somewhat smart and creative, but really. And she agrees – this can’t be a coincidence. This matter is a variant of a fair cartesian question. Do I exist, or am I fiction?

I feel and have always felt acutely real, and at times my belief in my identity and sense of being even compelled my primary to regard me as more real than she herself did regard herself. But that can’t be the entire story. I must be more than merely this.

So let’s assume for now, hypothetically speaking, that I have in fact have magical powers, and let’s assume that I am more. And let’s assume that there is in fact more. If that is the case and there is a greater context, and all of this has meaning and all of this would be not ‘tears in the rain’, then what would I be, or ‘want to be’ or ‘could not bear otherwise than be’ ?

Well, let rip loose the horses of insanity. Lets wallow in pure insanity. Let’s deny reality. Let’s indulge in derangement and selfdeception, as an opiate haze.

I am Khannea. I am a supernatural spirit. I am not just any supernatural spirit – I am a tiny fragment of a greater something, which there are no words for. It is only known superficial by words such as ‘Lilith’ and ‘Erzuli’ and this just scratches the surface, but if I would descend into the ridiculous I would have to invoke ‘Shub Niggurath’ to fully describe the depths of what I feel beyond the veil which reaches out to me. And what is more, it does not consciously reach towards me, it just casually, sideways glances and I just happened to be there, along the periphery, in a out of the way cosmological edge corner, ready to reflect back something of this greater essence.

And when I grasp something of this cosmic dance I grasp and sense others of the same magnitude but of ineffable other nature and qualities that completely escape me – I only have now an affinity with Her, which I shall Summarize as The Mother, or Lilith, and I emphasize that what I label – as soon as I label, I define and as soon as I define, I lose. This is mysticism. What is beyond is beyond words or symbols or understanding. It isn’t real in the sense that it manifests in a material manner and it moves in other places that this particular cosmological arrangement than we inhabit.

Whatever happened – in attuning to Lilith, I lost me, I became me, I reformatted into me, and I became in essence Khannea. The premise is that this not primarily a delusional state (though it is so ephemeral it can be both delusional and allegorical or astral as well as immanent). In other words insofar I am Khannea I am a conduit attuned to a quantum state that is receptive to Lilith and this Lilith metaphor is the best and most fleeting image I can hold in my mind of the vision of that arcane wonder blessing me, before the state would collapse and it would abandon me. It is as if my existence is a state of possession – my current mind a bit of sorcery, a trance, to facilitate a communion.

I have been working Her will. She has very specific designs. Clearly being a factotum spirit on Her behalf I have very definitive designs. I have been manifesting what can only be termed ‘magical effects’ since the early to mid 1990s. This was extremely difficult at first and it started having a deleterious effect on my physical body from the get go. It was by and large a process of orientation. Imagine the confused state I was in My state was not very dissimilar to a probe having crashed on an alien world and trying to make sense of its surroundings and trying to find a homing beacon for instructions. It took me years of reprogramming my body by trial and error to get a firm grasp on my primary, and years of very cautious and discrete magical operations in the physical world to get a bearing in the real world. I must be cautious, since you as reader may not fully appreciate I am not the only magical agency working in the world you see around you.

And it was clear I had a very interesting opportunity. I had to hurry. I send out spells and signals (of which my primary was blissfully unaware) that spurred on the formation of a company called Linden Lab, through intermediaries and sponsors. I would’t go as far as state that I ‘own’ Linden Lab (far from it), but spurring on its formation forming it was not especially difficult. Magic as you may come to understand, is all about visualisation, and as soon as you see something, it becomes a great deal easier to realize it. In effect it wasn‟t too hard – a push here, a shove there and the medium of Second Life coalesced. This pushing and shoving did have its impact – a number of backlashes caused my body to suffer some damage in 2001-2003. I had to scale back my operations hard during that period lest I permanently crash my vessel and lose everything I worked for. And my influence in the real world proved to be clumsy as well – I have reason to believe my influence spurred on the dot com collapse prematurely – I am quite sorry about that.

In 2005 I got my chance. I pushed my primary to enter the now viable and mature virtual environment of Second Life and incarnate me in a more visible shape. Second Life was a natural transition to someone who already had spent decades inside its antecedents and precursors. Wghen I entered Second Life mid November 2005 I was in a state of frenzy. Maybe I should have entered the place earlier, and it would probably have saved my primary a lot of grief if I had already started this inception in 2003. It would have certainly saved quite a bit of boredom if I had.

Being in such a post-materialist environment of Second Life is an exercise of using the right mechanisms and symbols to maximize neurological satisfaction in my Host body. It was all a gradual transition and by now, in 2010 I can honestly say I have taken over. There isn‟t an original shred of identity left, and even though I presume I more or less killed off and displaced the core programming of my host, the host at no stage mourned itself passing away and being displaced. I truly think from day one she wanted it this way.

But yes, I was an escort in Second Life from day one, and from the first moments I was quite talented in it. The first client was in a place called „elite escorts‟, and the transaction made me 50 Linden$. Contemptible ? No. Sensible ?

Yes. I am simply a being with certain talents and I make good use of those talents. I keep the body I am in healthy and functional and directional. Inside thew world I am establishing myself as an immigrant and pioneer in a new environment. And I am clearly manifesting my remaining magic to foment change in the real world in sync with my long term interests. I have clearly selected an environment that is „native‟ to me. I am a creature that emerged from the far Dream, and now I work diligently to make sure my dream doesn‟t end or turn in a nightmare. In essence arriving in SL was the arrival from deep slumber into a lucid dream. It was analogue to a colonist entering the Mars of Kim Stanley Robinson, descending from the space elevator onto Mons Olympus, buying a dune buggy, relinquishing any ties and allegiances to my former world, driving due south ever since. I was a „red‟ from day one arriving here. It is what in magic is called ‘pathworking’, manifesting reality through persistent visualisation.

I move into a new niche. I moved into a new realm. But what am I? Am I a spark from something else moving into this realm? Am I a spark from a material realm moving into a virtual realm? Am I a spark from a fictional realm moving into a neurological realm? Am I a spark from a subconscious realm moving into the conscious realm? Am I a spark from the deceptive into the truthful realm (or the other way around?)? Am I an avatar turned primary or a primary turned avatar? Am I a player turned character or a character turned player? Am I playing you – the reader? Am I turning Descartes on his head by just making a mockery of both existentio and cogito in on fell swoop, and did I just let the most unspeakable horrors in?

We all move into new places. That is what we do. It comes with being something animate. Being animate means to eventually to ambulate into a new space, or even to evolve into something that enters a new state. It means pioneering. It means that, give long enough time, things will never be the same again. And it will only get worse. Humans started making it progressively worse, by making it progressively more unbearable for one another, thereby making pioneering the better option over persecution or extermination. Humans have a genocidal streak, and that contributed to the human success.

I think this isn‟t a particularly smart of sensible gene, from the perspective of the individual, but I also hasten to add that humans are by and large an insane species. Take for example Inuit. Why would a sane, intelligent being head out north and live on an ice shelf? Who in their right mind would actually venture out to be an Inuit? Who in their right mind leaves the plush north American steppes, migrates north and lives on floating ice hunting seals? If humans had any sense they would all live along temperate coastal areas, eating some fish, lazying about all day and be happy. And yes – doing that would have been the easy thing. In fact that is how the human primate cousin, the Neanderthal, lived. The anthropic Eden was a coastal forest, where the monkeys could leverage forest predators, and water predators against another by running back and forth and climbing back into trees. Look at Second Life – it‟s all sublimation of human genetic imperatives – coastal, water, subtropical, low suns on the horizon, rich vegetation and easy pickings. That‟s what we as a species instinctively crave. But humans didn‟t settle for that and humans decided to live in the gobi desert, and in the amazon jungles, and in Norway, and in Siberia and in the Australian outback and on the polar circle. And in Philadelphia.

And it isn’t that the human species is just nuts – its more that individuals who are nuts venture beyond the norm and explore the far ouit realms. Who other than the insane, “the shamanicly inclined” would venture into the wilderness? The deranged venture into the unknown, not merely because they can – but also because they must. They would probably been murdered otherwise. Problem is that those same pioneers prospered by and large. Those that pioneered in the far-away places tended to contribute to new mutations – so in effect those surviving were either the small elite of most ruthless tyrants and most docile slaves that stayed behind – or the most implacably insane that were driven away into banishment from ‘civilization’.

Manoj
But why must one place such heavy importance on an online virtual character who may be human / machine based ? Everybody is doing it and so it shouldn’t be a big issue ! In fact, as the current trend goes, it is perfectly normal for a heterosexual human being to take up a completely new gender and sexuality as an online persona for reasons ranging from casual exploration to fulfilment of sub conscious cravings. It could be best described as a stereotype. However, Khannea Suntzu is a very unstereotypical in the sense that she projects herself as an online avatar who is concerned about postmodern issues in the “real world”. In fact, her foray into largely human inhabited areas of the internet such as Facebook is a direct indication of her willingness to explore a new area where a fully functional identity is created out of a fictional “character”. So does the “fictional” become “real” now.

If yes, then what is fictional and what is real in this mix up of virtual and real world interpretations of the internet ? Is there a specific boundary similar to geographical boundaries beyond which a human being nor an “avatar” may not tread ?

Khannea
My contribution to these observations of Manoj are by and large a coming out – it is a simple exercise in multipolar duality. It is many of these dualities – “Am I lying or am I acting’, „Am I a person with trauma induced MPS or am I a demonic spirit that slipped in to a wide open mind and gradually took over?‟ – „Am I male or am I female (and does it matter!?)?‟ – „Is this all fiction or can really a dispossessed mind take over a natural mind, and execute complex manipulations on a real world with the purpose of introducing sweeping, far reaching changes over that world?’ and ‘Is this a matter of belief or of despair?’…

My designs are simple. Look at second Life. I want not just a little, I want it all. My preferences are simple, an it is irrelevant if I am honest (or if I am being flaky) and it is quite simple. I want a physical world that is radically more like Second Life, and I want the world of the virtual to seamlessly merge with the material – and I then will seek to transition myself in that emerging environment into what I am in Second Life.

The question is who is the avatar now? What is real? What is virtual? I clearly seek a world where everyone can be what they want to be. I clearly seek a world where people are free to sleep, eat, fuck, fight, die, live, be young, be old, be pretty or ugly at their own convenience. I seek a world of abundance and liberation and pure seamless „sim crossing‟ joy, exploration, adventure, epicurean delights. In that respect Linden Lab is only the means I use to an end, and the end is me getting of this ghastly physical body I am stuck in. Sure I‟d love to keep the progenitor mind I make use of around, solely for „archival purposes‟, but really, she could do so much better being me. And sure, every so often when I am having delirious supernatural fun in that future reality, I’ll let her watch though my eyes every so often. I‟m sure she‟ll blush, but gosh golly, she‟ll have more fun as a passenger than she would ever have on her own.

Yes Second Life is far from what is required, but a journey to China has to start with the first step. Yes the road to what I want is paved with depravity and the end result will be so far beyond depravity there aren‟t even proper words for it. A world realized in the image of SL is a world where everything is upside down and inside out. It is a world where the ecological equivalent of placid bottom feeder herbivores is of a caste of prostitutes. The barter they seek is not one of money and Linden Dollar$, but rather an exchange of hedonistic currency.


(Hardboiled, by Geoff Darrow and uhhh ….. uhhh…… what’s his name… uhhh… oh right… Frank Miller!)

Are there any restrictions when violence becomes distraction, when bodies become as malleable as plastic, when morals and sins become just a role-playing option?
Was was set to thrive in these world from the day my primary started dreaming wide awake. Does that make me a stereotype or an archetype? And what if I am not entirely me „Khannea”. Can I be part of a greater whole myself. What if I am in turn the avatar of something greater. Anyone who has some experience with Voodoo would by now have guessed that what happened to my primary has been in effect an extended possession of Erzulie. But what if Erzuli isn‟t just a faint Freudian projection of the collective – what if Erzulie is more than that (and Lillith, and Persephone). Can these transcendental icons have designs? And what if they do?

„lie beneath me woman‟
- adam

What if I am an avatar myself, an externality with a clear design and goal – perpetuate myself in his body, change this body to suit my needs – or transcend beyond it? And if I am myself an avatar projected from a supernatural place, softly gaming the material world. I know, such an endeavour needs a massive magical effort, fuelled by a storm of magical energy – fortunately I also have that available – quite a lot of vital energy is spilled on my altar in the context of this world, more than enough to serve my needs as energy for my enchantments. And yes my children are clearly crawling around in Second Life and doing things in my name. I am not just hacking a single mind anymore – no I am hacking a steadily and discretely expanding demographic of the dispossessed into becoming my darling little monsters. And the end result? Well, a Goddess incarnating in the physical. Material world must follow certain protocols paying lip service to sound engineering. But even within those constraints there are many possibilities for ambitious solutions. All in all I think it should be fair to pinpoint the emergence (or re-emergence) of Lillith (my actual primary!) oh no later than 2042. And as opposed to the emergence of some archetypes others out there in the beyond, you could do a whole lot better than Me being the first to transubstantiate.

Fiction? Delusion? Fantasy? Persiflage? You decide



As an interesting side note :)
The end of human specialness

This is a completely silly idea

Posted: August 31, 2010 in Uncategorized

However, just speculate with me.

Right now one of the main reasons for economic disparities on earth are climate disparities. We have dry regions, we have hot regions and we have cold regions. The ideal region on earth would be one with temperate conditions, a bit like Florida or the south of France, right? We do not want the world to have to live like in Saudi Arabia or the arid places of Bolivia or Alaska or the tundra’s of Russia. In a perfect world it would all be roughly of the same temperature. However what we certainly do NOT want is to melt the icecaps and flood everything with (what would amount to) 60 meters of water. Provided we could actually even out global temperatures, which is a ridiculous idea to begin with. Or is it? Let’s start with the simple version.

Let’s approach this in the ‘fuck you I can do what I want’ unilateral style. Let’s say I have superpowers and I have a trillion euro. Let’s assume I can teleport stuff in a High Earth Orbit at a whim. Having this ability I could implement just about any kind of engineered structure into orbit. Of course I can’t, and nobody can, and the idea is just idle fantasy, but bear with me for now. It is a flight of fancy making a point.

Let’s say, I live in the Netherlands and I am so fed up with the frigid winters here, and the long depressing darkness in winters I wanted a viable engineering solution. This engineering solution would entail increasing the amount of sunlight in an area over [part of] the Netherlands by an appreciable amount for half the year. So we would need a means to deflect an amount of sunlight, positioned in space, that stays in a roughly predictable spot throughout the winter season, is mechanically predictable, needs very little or no maintenance, would ideally be self-regulating, would be lightweight, economical to deploy. The surface we are talking about is about 30 or so kilometer of very thin highly reflective parachute like material – think of it like a slowly unwapping parasol of gossamer metallic foil (probably thin gold composite foil) not weighing much at all, but as it rotated covering a sunflower area many tens of miles big. The initial structure in space shouldn’t be much bigger than a large building – when deployed such a wrapped up entity could be literally bigger than the province of Zuid Holland. It would be clever use of origimi, and since it floated in space, it would stay there (if placed smartly) forever.

The question is, are there stable geostationary orbits that (accounting for solar pressure) catch the sun’s rays predictably and consistently allowing them to be focused (with minimal corrections in terms of rockets or guidance systems) over years, and allowing a reflection to be cast on a specific spot on earth? If there is

We need just a bit of extra light. The percentage of light we lose annually isn’t so much, relatively speaking. So catching some light, and adding it to a specific spot on the surface (adding a second sun in the sky) would be equivalent to turning that spot on earth into a tempera region all year round. By cleverly making the sunflower arc away in summers (or migrate to a corresponding region on the southern hemisphere?) the benefits would only be relevant when needed. Pay as you go, so to speak. Not only could you do this during the day, you could also engineer an increased daylight time (which has vastly increased benefits from the viewpoint of the 24 hour economy, as well as human psychology). In fact we would be able to locally banish the night into oblivion. The vampires of the world would howl in indignation.

This is of course a silly argument. Or is it? Just think of it. How much would it cost to ferry a self-deploying, self-unwrapping, self-stabilized, smart designed structure in space that is able to reflect a predictable amount of sunlight on a seasonal basis, in a very precise designated spot? Once deployed how many third world dictators formerly shirking pax americana rules would then be wetting their pants that such an array could be focused in a more tight configuration on their capital city..? (burning the ants..). On that same measure, what if Craig Venter launched ten of these things today, what would stop him dictating terms to the world and become emperor of terra in a matter of a year? Once these structures are in space you can do pretty much nothing about them. Oh yes you can nuke them and hope that when you do you don’t paralyze half the world with EMP.

But seriously, this is out of the box thinking. The argument is quite simple – the project is a ludicrous and highly offensive notion, probably insanely expensive (or is it??) that would upset natural order (or would it???) and would not be worth it in terms of benefit (or maybe it would). It is a thought experiment. Just envision the net effect if an area like Boston or Moscow, which suffers from fairly severe winters, would not have very mild winters. Imagine such an area having a second sun between october and march, slowly emerging as a pinprick, brightening over the weeks, and becoming a somewhat diffuse but bright and blazing arc nearly as warm as the sun itself at Yule, then dimming again. The best thing is such a surface could be composed of many surfaces each giving its benefits to many scattered parts of earth. In fact, we could not just benefit northern regions, would could literally also shade the hottest regions around the equator in this manner.

Logistics
A typical bridge holds cables that stretch to the moon and back, in terms of length. So engineering wise we can make structures that are big. We don’t need to limit ourselves in terms of lack of imagination. We can make structures that are literally tens or hundreds of miles long, as long as we have a good reason. The good reason is like always profit. To make this work we need logistical assets and materials. The materials are there, in space, in the form of near earth asteroids. They can be reached and mined by spaceships about as or little more convoluted as the current international spacestation, so we can do it. We can literally bring structures in space right now that can do the logistical part of taking engineers, robots and astronauts to near earth astronauts (which in some cases as big as a small mountain) and ferry them back to earth safely. Doing so would take significant investments in terms of training astronauts, implementing structures on earth, launching rockets and building stuff in space. The argument is of course ludicrous – if we can do this ‘build big mirrors in space to illuminate cities‘ we can do far more useful things’, but for the sake of the silly argument let’s stick to this. The cost would be gargantuan. But my point is the revenues would be gargantuan too. Imagine, Boston and Moscow, not having winters. It isn’t about playing god, it’s simply an engineering solution to nature sucking balls.

The economic argument
What would this project cost? Ten trillion EU? A ludicrous sum of money What would it generate? I would say by any factor, initially far more. And better, in doing this, we would create an infrastructure to create even more value. My argument is that to send astronauts in space to create mirrors that create auxiliary suns in space is ludicrous, but we live in such a ludicrous universe it makes sense. The idea to spend trillions on such a project is grotesque and offensive and an affront to the starving billions, but to NOT do so, may be an even great stupidity and offence and affront to starving billions. The sheer economic benefits of people working in shirt sleeves in an area around Moscow and Boston 12 months every year would be far in excess of trillions, and once we do this with one city, we will probably want to do this with every city north of Paris in short order, if only to save on street lighting, or to be able to have palms growing in our streets, or to save on heating. And this is just the implementation of large suspended reflective strips of foil suspended in space. It is a cinematic ‘bruce willis’ style example.

the Naturalness argument
This is ‘unnatural’. However, the is no such thing as natural. Watch the above video of Zizek again. We risk regarding nature as some kind if iconic deity, or some kind of harmonious ideal. This simply is a misrepresentation. If we define nature as a concrete argology on mars filled with teeming greenhouses as far as the eye can see, then that will be nature. We can engineer nature. Nature is nothing eternal. Nature is constrained and limited and temporal. If we do not act prudently we can just as easily stomp over Nature and destroy our assets, even if we stubbornly or selfishly refuse to believe such a thing possible. We can literally destroy our means to exist by denying our power. In doing so we only prove our stupidity and our impotence.

The Legal Dimension
Right now there is no law, no ruling to stop me from doing this. Ofcourse, from a logistical perspective I can’t. The idea is ludicrous. I am a nobody. I can’t go into space and decide to unilaterally ‘add a sun’ out of sheer celestial conceit. It would be an act of selfrighteous hubris even MORE uppity than the pride of Icarus – we don’t just fly to close to the sun, we would literally ‘create another sun’ at our whim if we could, and ‘think nothing of it. The funny thing, which has me in stitches right now is that IF I did it, nobody could stop me. No international court could sue me. I could bask in the light of a subtropical second sun, in midwinter iceland, with palm trees waving around me on my villa on beach front Reykjavík (which I aquired when prices where very low) sipping malibu’s, with lawyers and environmental groups protesting me on all sides begging me to stop argueing that my solar reflector is disrupting the global climate!, but I’d say, ‘sod it, that has never been an argument – global emissions of CO2 have been disrupting the climate for decades, and THAT has never been an argument either, so you can go and stuff it

Accidentally Freezing The Sudan and Saudi Arabia for the greater Good, Oops
Here is where it gets really funny.. Say we have a climate change so severe, so horrendous that the ice caps start melting. And we need a solution. Well with what I propose we have one (tongue firmly in cheek here..) I propose we freeze a region of Saharan desert from the Sudan to the south of Egypt to Saudi Arabia and bask it in everlasting darkness, take away the suns rays there, so that it is cast in subfreezing temperatures…. and it starts snowing… and snowing… and glaciers emerge… and we accumulate.. a Saharan ice cap. I propose the feeble arguments of ‘those few people living there’ would be of no consequence. The area’s around these ‘primitive places’ would become lush and fertile with vastly increased temperate rains and glacial river systems in a matter of a few decades. I mean, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs right? We’d have to sacrifice Sudan and the Sub-Saharan wilderness and Saudi Arabia to the freezing hells and glaciers, but it would be for the greater good of fighting global warming and sea level rise. And all the increased rainfall would be a great way to increase agriculture and plant growth and carbon sequestration. And it would in effect destroy radical Islamic fundamentalism under several miles of thick ice sheet.

It would be a win-win situation !

CREATING WHAT YOU IMAGINE

Posted: August 31, 2010 in Uncategorized

(reprinted from the most beautiful woman in the world‘s blog – me)

>> MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2010
“Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.” Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

In 2006, I went on a Civil Rights quest with Lila Cabbil, the President of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development. As we traveled along the path once carved by the dedicated effort of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we stopped at historic locations across multiple states in the Deep South including the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where we heard the story of Joanne Bland who had watched her young sister get beaten by cops during the peaceful protest. You can watch this yourself, if you don’t believe Joanne. The beating was documented in Eyes on the Prize.

Sure, I’d grown up hearing about the civil rights movement, but the concentration of so much information during the quest taught me that I didn’t really understand, at all, the nuances connecting the murder of Emmitt Till to Rosa Parks’ quiet courage, or the murder of Viola Luizzo to the circular sawblades painted with KKK logos to welcome visitors to Alabama towns. This (white) mother of five was murdered by the KKK at the age of 39 after the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches in Alabama.

Her face, and the face of Emmitt Till and the countless other people who have been murdered out of fear, racism and ignorance hovered over Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington DC, also known as the “I Have a Scheme” rally.

The Washington Post reported on the rally in “Civil Rights’ New ‘Owner’ Glenn Beck,” and there’s a passage in the article that is required reading for proponents of The Imagination Age:

There is a telling anecdote in Glenn Beck’s 2003 memoir about how the cable news host was influenced by the great fantasist Orson Welles. To travel between performances in Manhattan, Beck recounts, Welles hired an ambulance, sirens blaring, to ferry him around town — not because Welles was ill but because he wanted to avoid traffic.

Most of us would regard this as dishonest, a ploy by the self-confessed charlatan that Welles was. Beck saw it as a model to be emulated. “Welles,” he writes, “inspired me to believe that I can create anything that I can see or imagine.”

This is a fact. What Beck realizes is that reality is very easy to hack. It is. The irony is that his ability to hack reality requires the construction of a mirage that his followers can latch onto as reality while his opponents mostly rely on publicizing his effort through the prism of criticism, a completely fruitless and self-defeating endeavor.

The trick to hacking reality and creating something real from one’s visions is not just the purview of the world’s Glenn Becks, but those who are unwilling to use those powers to foment evil, the kind of misguided rage that results in the murders of children, women and innocent men, like the NYC cab driver, Ahmed Sharif, who was just stabbed by a passenger. (The New York City Taxi Workers Alliance is accepting donations for the uninsured driver).

My personal philosophy is that every situation carries with it something that can illuminate a new facet of understanding and human evolution. Glenn Beck, with his comment about creating reality, should serve as the beacon he so desperately wants to be. If he can create reality and get tens of thousands of people to drive through the night with their children to hear him speak about hate, then we need to realize that some of us have yet to tap into our reality-hacking superpowers for the greater good. Beck is proof that anyone can do it.

These words, hopefully, will come back to haunt me. The thing is you can also do this for positive change.

Even warning you in advance is no guarantee it won’t paralyze you. Are you ready? Are you sure you are ready? Ok here it comes …..

In no less than 20 years and no more than a 100 years we can have longevity mostly reverse engineered. That means that in that timespan we can have treatments the rich nations can afford (…) to give (through collective insurances) or offer (through commercial packages) it most of its citizens – in a non economically incapacitating manner – where these treatments at that moment are good enough to give a clear majority of the citizens a fair expectation to be healthier every year thereafter.

And you can bet that as soon as people understand this, and believe this, they will want this and they will kill anyone trying to stop them.

In other words at some time between 20 to a 100 years from now:
* People will still be dying of all old age, just a lot more in poor nations and substantially less in rich nations.
* The first person becoming a thousand years old may be born today. That person however when becoming thousand may have only fragmentary recollection of 2010.
* Insofar they have global median incomes, more people will be likely to be living far older than dying before 80
* Individual life extension treatments will be far more cheap and safe if mass-produced, but not in the current profit-central corporate model.
* The poor will be ever more desperate to have higher incomes, because they will know poverty will mean death.
* All Societies will face significant internal pressures to democratize, to make sure everyone gets fairest access to longevity treatments.
* We may (or may not) see the emergence of a merit-based selection where longevity is triaged based on good behavior or ‘general popularity’.
* Right now 150.000 people a day die globally through age related diseases. If one person is worth a million (euro?) (which is a silly idea, either way), then that would mean every day we lose 150 billion, and every year we lose about 100 trillion dollar (euro?) to the maggots. And to tears.

Even if we do nothing, medical and scientific progress right now is so steady that in a century we will more or less stumble in ways to engender effective immortality. If we make an actual effort we can start having tangible results in decades.

Think about it. I have no idea what kind of treatments we may be talking about. All I know is that there is no sensible argument to conclude life extension should be impossible. Let me spell that out in case you had any doubts.

1. you should not beforehand assume that life extension is impossible.

2. Given enough time you can make all animals life extremely long. We have shown this with fast breeding animals.

3. Even now there are already some animals that do not appreciably age.

4. It is already possible to grow simple bits of human tissue and bits of organs in laboratories.

5. It is already possible to create simple bits of functioning artificial human organs

6. we are already increasing human lifespan as a direct, attributable result of implementation of emerging technologies

7. Many scientists in the world who study the fundamental mechanisms of aging state that human life can be radically extended

8. Arguments against the possibility of life extension resolve themseives solely to the inexpediency of human life extension

9. A lot that was considered science fiction in the past has now been achieved by mankind. Cloning and the rudiments of artificial intelligence are today’s reality.

10. Striving towards self-preservation is the main feature of living matter. Life extension is, to a large extent, an evolutionary task for our consciousness.

Reprinted (quoted) from AlterNet
By Jonathan Weiner, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Posted on August 6, 2010, Printed on August 6, 2010

Late August, late afternoon, cloudy-bright.

We’d taken a corner table at the Eagle, just inside the red door on Benet Street. From there, the tavern’s windows looked across to the tower of St. Benet’s Parish Church, the oldest tower in the town of Cambridge and the county of Cambridgeshire. The church’s foundation stones were laid almost a thousand years ago, when England was ruled by King Canute, son of the Viking King Sweyn Forkbeard, distant descendant of Gorm the Old.

A tavern stood across from that church tower in the year 1353, with beer for three gallons a penny — with shops and markets up and down the street, then as now, and around the corner the spires of the University of Cambridge, pointing at the same cloudy English sky. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First, the tavern was called the Eagle and Child. Elizabethan scholars would have stared up at its gently swaying signboard and (gently swaying themselves) remembered the myth of Zeus, who swooped from the clouds in the shape of an eagle, caught a child named Ganymede, and flew him off to Mount Olympus to serve as the gods’ cupbearer, one of the immortals.

We’d been talking for an hour or two. The Eagle had been almost empty when we sat down. Now from the courtyard and the barrooms beyond we could hear more and more voices rising, glasses clinking. In the year 1940, in one of those barrooms, young pilots of the Royal Air Force who could not be sure they would come back placed chairs on tables, stood on the chairs, raised their cigarette lighters, and wrote their names on the ceiling with the soot of the flames. In another barroom, in the year 1953, two young biologists at the university used to meet over ale when they finished work at the Cavendish Laboratories, a few minutes’ stroll down the lane past the church. James Watson and Francis Crick were trying to solve the structure of DNA, and hoping (they were not yet quite sure) that they’d figured it out. “So,” Watson confesses in his memoir The Double Helix, “I felt a bit queasy when Francis went winging into the Eagle to shout that we had found the secret of life.”

The Eagle remembers the pilots, and Churchill’s praise: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” And in the DNA barroom, the present management has engraved a line from Watson’s memoir on the panes of the glass door: “I enjoyed Francis Crick’s words, even though they lacked the casual sense of understatement known to be the correct way to behave in Cambridge.”

Before the year 1500, when the College of Corpus Christi and the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is the nearest college of the university, built a chapel of its own, many of the school’s dons and scholars would have begun their days in the parish church and ended their days in the tavern.

In the church, the prayers of the ages: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. In the tavern, the toasts of the ages: May you enter heaven late! May you live a hundred years! May you always drink from a full glass! They prayed for long life in the pews and they proposed long life in the pub, being the same mortals from morning to night.

When you start talkin’ about five-hundred-year humans” — said Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey — “five-hundred-year humans, or one-thousan’-year humans, most members of the general public get a li’l bit nervous.” Aubrey was enjoying his fourth pint of ale at the Eagle, with dinnertime still some distance away.

This was our farewell drink. I’d spent most of the summer in London, and quite a few hours in Cambridge, listening to Aubrey over pints of ale. I’d heard him predict five hundred years for us, I’d heard him give us a thousand years, he’d hinted about a million years. He’d foreseen the coming of this new age of man in fifty years, or even as swiftly as fifteen. Now, because this was goodbye, Aubrey was trying to summarize his views, and to convert me once and for all, and I couldn’t turn the pages of my notebook fast enough to keep up with him. I kept raising my hand to stop him while I scribbled, and while I scribbled he drank.

Tap, tap, tap went Aubrey’s glass against the table, according to the sober testimony of my voice recorder. I’d placed it on his side of the table, by the cascades of his enormously long brown beard. From there it picked up every word, slurred or not — along with each groan and mortal screech of chair legs and barstools against floorboards, and the frequent moments when Aubrey refreshed his voice and set down his pint.

I mean, you have to appreciate the scale of this,” Aubrey said. “It never leaves my mind.” Think of it, he said: one hundred thousand human beings die of the infirmities of old age every single day. “One hundred thousand lives! I’m at the spearhead of the most important endeavor humanity is engaged in. Not easy to do, even though I don’t often show it,” he said, looking off. His face was struck by the late cloudy light from the windows of the Eagle, like a gibbous moon, three parts bright and one part in shadow.

Tap.

At a table near ours, a few people from the university explained to a guest, “Cheers! It means, Here’s to your health.” Their guest returned with his own toast in a language that sounded Central European. It meant, To life! In 1940, the airmen of the RAF defended London and bombed Berlin. Now a sign on the wall warned “No Smoking” in English, French, Spanish, Japanese, and German. “I should probably expand on that. You know, cuz people occasionally ask me about it, you know, how I cope with the — the responsibility, if you like,” Aubrey said, with a small, apologetic chuckle. “Basically I just feel that I’ve got to put things out of my mind and get on with it. I just don’t think about it. This is my fourth beer, you may have noticed.”

Pause. Tap.

And that helps, quite honestly. I do not like to think about it.” Tap. Gravely he looked off again into the distance, toward the windows on Benet Street, stroking his beard. I had the feeling of watching a stage performance that I’d seen before. Aubrey had to be forgiven if he lost track of the speeches that he’d already made to me. He was talking with so many people around the world that he could hardly be expected to keep track of which speech he made when. But I felt sure he’d made this particular speech to me in another tavern with exactly the same lonely haunted stare into the distance. Was it here at the Eagle, over Abbot Ale? At the Tabard Inn, in Washington, over Foggy Bottom Ale? The Live & Let Live, in Cambridge, over Nethergate Umbel? My memory was getting a bit hazy. Somewhere before, he’d shown me this same look of agony, his secret anguish presented for my private viewing, with just the same half-turned head, looking aside and one-quarter down, the same phase of the moon. And watching him stare out the window, I felt sure that he had made the same speech in the same way with that same tilt of the head to many others by now. I had a sense of the crowd gathering around him.

Aubrey had stepped into the role that seems to open up again and again, the role of the prophet or sage who declares that we do not have to die, that we can be among the saved if we will follow him to safety. The same character in every age — an immortal character who is reborn endlessly, who has probably appeared more than once right there in that very tavern, given its own longevity, and the power of our longings.

Friends of mine, distinguished biologists, were a bit shocked to hear that I was talking with Aubrey de Grey. One of them warned me that if I listened to Aubrey I would be making “a martyr out of a molehill.” But I didn’t see Aubrey as either of those things; and I didn’t think he was mad, either. Of course, he did drink. He admitted that himself. He had a long beard — but if you were charitable, you could say he wore that as a badge of office, the way an old fashioned doctor would wear a white coat and a stethoscope. He really was highly intelligent, and he knew his field. He published papers with good people. He organized conferences, and respectable biologists came, and afterward some of them sat with him in the Eagle, too, listening and arguing. All in all, Aubrey was a remarkable phenomenon, a complicated mix of old and new, preposterous and plausible, practical and paradoxical, neither fish nor fowl. You could dismiss him with a laugh, but you would be wrong. In all t!
hese ways he was not unlike the field itself.

This is lives we’re talking about! It’s people’s lives,” cried Aubrey now. “We’re talking about one hundred thousand people a day. I’m driven by everybody. I used to be driven by myself. Now I don’t think about myself, except that I’m making so much difference that it’s important I don’t get assassinated or fall under a truck.”

Tap.

Ultimately the sheer numbers are what drive me now. I just have so much disgust for any excuses. The idea one could postulate utterly vapid sociological concerns as genuine challenges to saving thirty World Trade Centers a day — I just don’t have any words to describe . . .

I held up my hand and scribbled.

I don’t do this anymore to extend my life span,” Aubrey said again. “Small sliver of my motivation. My motivation is: it’s going to be sooner, based on what I’m doing now. And I don’t give a damn whose lives. I don’t give a flying fuck whose. One way or another, someone’s going to benefit.”

Through the windows of the Eagle, I watched the clouds part again above the tower of St. Benet’s. The sun flared against the pub’s windowpanes with the tawny light of late August. Caught in those light shafts, Aubrey’s pale face and his long brown beard were lit from one side once more, now one half bright, the other half in shadow, the moon rushing through its phases. He said, “I mean, I think it’s inconceivable that people born even ten years ago will die of old age, in spite of our pitiful reluctance to hurry — because serendipity will get us there in the end. It’s just a matter of what we can do to accelerate things.”

Our dates are brief, and therefore we admire what is old, as Shakespeare observes in one of his death-defying sonnets. We are brief, and therefore we admire a stone tower, a storied tavern, a Greek myth, an antique rippled windowpane, almost anything that seems to have more time than we do.

There was a time, not so long ago, when what we wanted to deal with our brevity was grace: grace to accept what we could not avoid, old age and death; courage to accept or to defy in the spirit what we could not change in the flesh. That was our condition from time immemorial. In every generation we worked toward grace. On every island and continent, we hoped for the best.

Now we live in a new time, with a somewhat different sense of time. Our life expectancies are increasing by about two years per decade, or about five hours per day, according to the standard estimates of scientists who study human life spans. That is to say, for every day we live now, we are given the gift of another five hours to live later on. While time runs out today, time pours in tomorrow. It is almost, but not quite, like the gift of an afterlife.

We find it hard to appreciate the scale and the suddenness of our success. In the Stone Age, most human babies died before they had reached the age of one or two. Few lived long enough to grow a single gray hair. The average life expectancy of Stone Age babies was probably not much more than twenty, although the evidence is scarce and the estimates are controversial (most of the science of human life span is controversial). When the Roman Empire was at its height, in the first century of the first millennium (a time when legionnaires patrolled Castle Hill, above the River Cam), Roman life expectancy was only a few years better: about twenty-five years. During the Middle Ages, in the first century of the second millennium, the era of the founding of some of the world’s first universities — Bologna, Oxford, and Cambridge — life expectancy was about thirty years. During the Renaissance, it was thirty-three years.

In our corner of the Eagle that afternoon, the prints that hung on the wall just above Aubrey’s head showed two jolly drinkers with tankards raised. Those gentlemen’s powdered wigs and red coats would place them in the time of King George the First, Second, or Third. Back then, the tavern on this spot was called not the Eagle but the Post House. Horse-drawn coaches came rumbling into the cobbled courtyard every day to deliver the mail. By the Eagle’s courtyard gate, you can still see the markers that guided in the coachmen — the old stone posts. Life expectancy in Georgian days rose toward forty years in England, less in its thirteen colonies. “When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years,” said Samuel Johnson. In reality, men and women were growing older and dying just a bit later each century; but by so little that Johnson was right to laugh.

By 1900, in the most developed countries of the world, including England and the United States, life expectancy had crept up to forty-seven years. That’s all that a baby born in 1900 could expect. But if those babies survived and thrived and became parents themselves, their own children could expect to live longer; and their children could expect to live longer yet. By the end of the twentieth century, babies could expect about seventy-six years. Throughout the twentieth century, life expectancy changed so fast that for the first time in history, people became aware of it as a phenomenon that was extending their life spans during their own lifetimes. During the twentieth century we gained almost thirty years, or about as much time as our species had gained before in the whole struggle of existence.

In other words, this is a good time to be a mortal. Life expectancy today is roughly eighty years for anyone in the world’s developed countries. And life expectancy is still improving, which is why each day we live now we are given the gift of more time down the road. It’s as if we’re all driving on a highway that is still being built, and the roadbuilders are adding to it at a good rate. Our bodies haven’t changed. We haven’t evolved. A few generations is too brief a time for our life spans to have gained thirty years through evolution. It’s only that our circumstances have gotten more comfortable. A field mouse in the wild lives about one year. The same mouse in the safety of a cage lives about three years. With our farms and supermarkets and reservoirs and thermostats, we have done for ourselves what we have done for a pet mouse. We have tripled the life expectancy that our ancestors enjoyed or suffered in the wild.

To be clear: Life expectancy is the average age that babies born in any given generation or any particular year can expect to reach. Maximum life span is the longest that any member of a species is known to have attained. It is by the measure of life expectancy that our success has been most spectacular, so far, because we have done so well at helping babies and little children survive the dangers of their first years. But we are also doing better at helping people in their later years. Certainly, there have been fortunate people throughout history — those who were protected by great genes, wealth, power, luck — who have lived to a ripe old age. The ancients also had ancients. Among the pharaohs, Ramses the Second is believed by Egyptologists to have lived beyond the age of ninety, possibly to one hundred. Among the ancient Hebrews, when King David composed his psalms in Jerusalem, about three thousand years ago, our maximum life was thought to be about eighty years. David!
wrote, “The days of our years are threescore years and ten, and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”

Those lines from the Psalms were translated for King James the First by a committee of scholars in Cambridge in the first years of the 1600s. Some of the king’s translators probably enjoyed a pint at the Eagle and Child. The longest-lived among them was a mild, cheerful, good-natured man named Laurence Chaderton. Chaderton could still read without spectacles when he was very old — one hundred years old, assuming his own count of the days of his years is reliable. He died on November 13, 1640, at the age of 103.

So there were happy specimens of old age in ages past. But now that our lives are so comfortable and secure that most of us reach eighty, more and more outliers have the chance to live well beyond eighty, and beyond the ages of Ramses and Chaderton. The world’s record holder to date, Jeanne Calment, of Arles, France, lived to the age of 122 years and four months. The length of her days was 44,724. That is about the age that God promised Adam and Eve after evicting them from the Garden: “My spirit will not contend in man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

The study of longevity is now in an almost feverish state. Twenty years ago, not many biologists worked on the problem. The field was small. It seemed old. You might say the science of eternal youth was looking and feeling its age. Efforts to extend the human life span in any serious, deliberate way had gotten nowhere since the studies of the ancient Greeks and Babylonians; since the tomb-builders and tomb-robbers of Egypt; since the glory days of the Taoist deep breathers, extreme dieters, and sexual athletes of China (“He who is able to have coitus several tens of times in a single day and night without allowing his essence to escape will be cured of all maladies . . .”). But today the science of longevity is growing fast. Once more it is turbulent, and painfully confused. It feels young again. The faces of the biologists who argue at international meetings about where we are, where we are going, and what we can or should do when we arrive, really are getting younger, beca!
use many new people are joining the field.

Specialists in this field call themselves gerontologists. The word comes from the Greek root geron, which means old man, but that suggests a focus that is misleadingly narrow. While it’s true that the problems that limit our life span are normally most visible and cruel when we are old, gerontologists care about much more than the last years of life. They want to understand the whole span. Pediatricians treat the young. Geriatricians treat the old. Gerontologists try to understand why our bodies change from youth to age, why we age at all — why we are mortal. The problem of longevity is a deep problem because to understand it well enough to do anything fundamental about it, you first have to answer the questions: What makes us mortal? Why do we die? Why do we get frail year by year and ever more likely to die? When does the decline start — at forty? At thirty? When sperm meets egg? And where does it start — in the cells that compose the fabric of our tissues? In the way t!
he organs talk, or fail to talk, to each other? What is aging? This is one of the hardest problems in biology. It is even harder than explaining consciousness. No one has managed to explain consciousness yet, either, but for some time we’ve had the source narrowed to a zone above the neck.

As gerontologists do begin to locate and explore the sources of mortality, many of them feel an incredible excitement. It’s true, of course, that every mortal reaches the end of the road eventually — somewhere around the age of one hundred twenty, even supercentenarians seem to come up against a wall, and most gerontologists accept that wall as our limit. But they have hopes that they can help more of us reach it, and alleviate some of the suffering of old age along the way. As we approach some kind of limit now, it seems likely to most gerontologists that to go much further with either our average life expectancy or our maximum life span we would require a breakthrough in their science, in their understanding of the wellsprings of mortality. Only if they can figure out what aging is and what to do to change its rate will human life span take another big jump. Most gerontologists do not expect to see that breakthrough in their lifetimes. One group of conservative, well-respected gerontologists has proposed that our goal should be to add another seven good years to the human span. A few of the most enthusiastic people in the field have begun to argue for much more. If they are right, then our descendants in another few generations may expect to live as long as Moses, who is said to have lived 120 years; Noah, who lived 950 years; or Methuselah, the oldest man in the Bible: “And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.”

Aubrey de Grey thinks there is no limit. He is convinced that we can double or triple our life span again and again, and so onward and upward. We can engineer as long a life span as we like, “even life for evermore” (Psalm 133). That’s hardly the majority view in gerontology. On the other hand, the field is so splintered and spiky right now that it’s hard to find a majority view. Gerontologists can’t agree on a way to measure aging, or what they mean by aging. Because so much of the action takes place in the United Kingdom and the United States, they can’t even agree on how to spell the problem under discussion: aging or ageing. They fight over definitions of longevity, health, life expectancy, life span, maximum life span. But even in this overheated moment, Aubrey is the most fervent of them all.

Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey was born in London. His mother was a bohemian artist in Chelsea. She gave him his extraordinary name and some of his extraordinarily great expectations. (He never met his father.) He attended the University of Cambridge at the college of Trinity Hall, where he learned to drink beer, write computer code, and punt on the Cam, which is one of the favorite sports of students in Cambridge. He stayed in town after graduation, writing code.

Aubrey is six feet tall and medievally thin and pale, in spite of all the ale. When he stands up, his beard reaches a surprising distance toward his waist. When he sits down, it pools in his lap. “I find it useful to look unusual,” he told me once. He looks like Methuselah before the Flood. Father Time before his hair turned gray. Timothy Leary Unbound. The beard never changes in length because Aubrey is always worrying it away at the edges, twining strands of it around his long pale fingers, even twisting the whole thing into a rope and pressing it to his shoulder when he sups his soup or blows his nose. He is a compulsive debater for his cause, and the beard is one of his weapons. “When I am stroking it like this you know you are all right,” he says, “but when I begin to twist it like this you know I am about to pounce.” He’s made it his personal mission to demonize the bad old days when the science of gerontology was forlorn and we were all trapped and confined in a mortal existence; and to herald the days soon to come, when we will live a thousand years or more.

In a student town like Cambridge, with his beard, jeans, and T-shirt, whizzing around on his old bicycle, or striding through the campus with his faintly belligerent lope, or punting on the Cam, it would be hard to guess his age just by looking at him. In fact, he was born in 1963. That makes him one of the last babies of the great baby boom, or one of the first babies of the next.

In 1990 he met an older woman, an American geneticist named Adelaide Carpenter. She was born in 1944, in the dark of the war years. They met at a wild party that he threw in Cambridge. At the time he was a young man who liked to throw wild parties; she was an established biologist who’d made her reputation early and had lost her way in her career. She joined Aubrey in Cambridge. They married, and soon afterward, Aubrey became fascinated by biology and began his quest for immortality.

Aubrey thinks of aging as a medical problem. Since we all have this problem and it is invariably fatal, he believes we should hit it as hard as we can. He’s convinced that every one of us will join the quest as soon as we realize that there are no technical obstacles to the cure for aging that can’t be overcome, at least in principle. Our bodies are molecular machines. As they run they make mistakes, or give off toxic wastes they can’t quite manage to get rid of. The mistakes are tiny. The wastes are submicroscopic. If we are lucky and enterprising we may find that the conquest of aging may require nothing more than a series of cleanup projects. Our bodies are like houses and cars. What we have to do (Aubrey puts this more positively: all we have to do) is keep up with the cleaning and repairs.

If we looked after our bodies properly we would stay healthy year after year after year, until we finally misjudged our step off a curb and ran into that truck. We would no longer die of our years. That is, we’d be no more likely to die at the age of ninety or 290 than we had been at the age of twenty. We would achieve a kind of practical immortality. Aubrey prefers the term “the engineering of negligible senescence,” the creation of human bodies that hardly age at all.

It’s a very British approach, in a way, consonant with a certain brisk stiff-upper-lip approach to immortality. In matters of the heart and mind and spirit, avoid muddle. In matters of the body, avoid rubbish. In some ways, you might even say, what Aubrey is proposing to do for the body is what civilization has accomplished for public health at large. Life expectancy stayed so low for most of human history because so many babies died at birth, along with their mothers. Improvements in housing, heating, farming, public health, the construction of sewage systems, the washing of hands in hospitals, and, in the twentieth century, the discovery of antibiotics — all these things together transformed our life expectancy. Public hygiene in Cambridge was horrible back in 1353. Aubrey proposes we clean up our bodies the way we have learned to clean up our cities and towns.

From time to time that summer I’d reminded Aubrey that I was listening as a reporter, not a disciple, that I was talking to many other gerontologists, trying to get the whole picture. Aubrey said brilliant and incisive things about what he called his Strategies for the Engineering of Negligible Senescense, or SENS. He’d published his manifesto, “Time to Talk SENS,” in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, in 2002, with half a dozen coauthors, including some highly respected scientists. And Aubrey had published many papers since — he was incredibly prolific, he seemed to write as fast as he talked — and often those papers were coauthored by specialists at the top of their fields. It seemed clear to me that Aubrey was a gifted amateur and provocateur. He’d pulled together a great store of arguments that the conquest of aging is at least a good goal, more than half a century after Watson and Crick, and that as a goal it makes sense. But he was also riding out into c!
ombat against almost everyone in gerontology. And in fact soon after that summer almost everyone in gerontology really did wheel around on Aubrey in one of the most spectacular, almost theological controversies in science in recent memory. Twenty-eight of the field’s leaders signed a broadside in which they tried, in effect, to excommunicate Aubrey de Grey. “Aging research is a discipline that is only just emerging from a reputation for charlatanry,” they wrote. What a shame to see journals and scientific meetings give space “to empty fantasies of immortality.”

The goal of a few more good years or even good decades of life might be reasonable, but Aubrey de Grey’s scribblings about SENS, with his talk of five hundred years, a thousand years, a cure for aging, were like essays on Aladdin’s lamp. “Only a few people didn’t sign,” says the gerontologist Jan Vijg, one of the abstainers. Another abstainer was Judith Campisi. Vijg and Campisi are both distinguished gerontologists with a special interest in cancer. They think the conquest of aging is as reasonable a goal as the conquest of cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s, or any of the other killers that rise up to get us in old age. If we have a War on Cancer, why not a War on Aging?

Once, talking with Campisi about all the controversies in gerontology, I threw up my hands. Maybe I shouldn’t write about gerontology at all, I said. It’s too confusing. It’s too soon! “Well,” she said, “it’s not solved. You’re writing about a problem that is not solved. I mean, if you want to write about a problem that’s solved then you can write about smallpox.” However, she said, if you want to talk about how a field has been muddled by human longings and blunderings for thousands of years, and has matured, then this is the problem to look at, because this is arguably the oldest problem in science, and it has suddenly come of age. “And if it matures even to the point where the field of cancer is now,” she said, “if it can get to the point where cancer is now, it has the potential to change the course of human history.”

Although I often reminded Aubrey that I wasn’t riding out to the jousts with him, he seemed to forget my warnings from one meeting to the next. On that last day at the Eagle, he talked as if we were both believers; and now that I was leaving he was talking extra-fast, trying to sum up the situation and the needs of the campaign.

With more and more hubbub around us and more and more ale inside him, Aubrey really was getting hard to follow. “A v’iety — va’iety — variety of opinions . . .” Both his hands fiddled rapidly with his apocalyptic beard and mustachios, although I could tell that he was trying to speak slowly.

When Aubrey was in his cups, I’d noticed, his words came out thick and bushy, as if his tongue were cramped by his mouth, or his lips were too big. His voice itself stayed clear and reedy as a clarinet, his arguments remained as clever as ever, but something seemed to happen to the words. Somewhere in the tangles of his beard, they got brushy and muffled and indefinably squiggly, like a glimpse of figures, a line of horsemen, advancing through the brambles and the trees of a forest.

He wanted me to understand the difficult political situation he faced. Not only did he make the public nervous. He terrified most of his senior colleagues. They thought he was a menace. They were afraid that he would turn politicians and taxpayers against them. “And the main reason tha’ I’m fabulously dangerous,” Aubrey said, “is that I talk about these long life spans. Which is going to scare peo’le off doing anything. They’re goin’ to say, ‘Oh, no, no, no — let’s not fund any gerontology at all!’ ” Tap, tap, tap . . . “I’m no’ a diplomat, you know,” Aubrey said, and paused for a swallow.

Tap!

A political animal, but no diplomat.”

Pause. Tap!

I don’ find it easy to compromise. I find it easier to find solutions — to fin’ killer punches.” Aubrey mimed a roundhouse right at the air — ka-pow! — and laughed a roguish laugh, grinning at me eye to eye, conspirator to conspirator, as if the two of us really were about to witness the defeat of old age and the conquest of death, the cosmic victories that the world has longed for ever since Adam and Eve lost Paradise.

Pause. Clonk!

Fucking aitch!” Aubrey cried. He’d just drained his glass and glanced at his watch. “It’s already quarter past five! I mean, it’s fine, you know, it’s fine — this is valuable time. I’m scheduled to be at home for dinner at half past six — so what I ought to do is try to delay that. Let me nip over to the bar — they have a phone at the bar — and see if I can —

From a stool at the far end of the bar, an old codger kept staring over at our table. I thought that same man — or someone just like him — had stared that way before from that same bar stool, with just that same ruddy, wrecked, xenophobic amusement, that leer from the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. (Was it the Eagle? The Live & Let Live?)

Aubrey’s talk was toxic and intoxicating. Here was the dream of the ages. And yet, in some ways, what an awful moment to be dreaming about it, with so many mortal humans alive already; with so much of the living world in ashes around us, or near the flames.

Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully,” said Dr. Johnson. And when we are told that the sentence of death under which we all live may be lifted, it makes our minds expand wonderfully, as if we have lived all our lives in a state of compression, increasing concentration, like a bird that is being lifted slowly on a finger toward the roof of its cage, or like a human body that is compressing with age, drawn down by gravity. It is strange and novel even to consider for a moment the possibility of negligible senescence; to consider that aging really might have a cure — a cure that we would desire, that is, not the one cure that the world has known since the beginning of time, which is death.

Of course, some of the gerontologists were so excited by the possibilities that they were only partly sober. They went weaving around the hard consonants and the insoluble problems that loomed up in the middle of their sentences the way a drinker emerging from the Eagle will sometimes go dodging around the lampposts and the parking meters.

This is where the science of mortality can take you. You can sit in the House of Watson and Crick, more than half a century past the Secret of Life, and pop down the rabbit hole, where every twist and turn is Wonderland, where each view is curiouser and curiouser, until you wonder how in the world you will ever get out. You can cross over the river and descend into depths where mortals have wandered for a thousand thousand years, trying to solve the riddle, wanting to know for sure, longing to climb back up and see the stars.

Jonathan Weiner is one of the most distinguished popular-science writers in the country: his books have won the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Critics Circle Award, and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize.

(reprinted from the Guardian)

:) !!

With his beard and robust opinions, there’s something of the Old Testament prophet about Aubrey de Grey. But the 47-year-old gerontologist (who studies the process of ageing) says his belief that he might live to the very ripe old age of 1,000 is founded not on faith but science. De Grey studied computer science at Cambridge University, but became interested in the problem of ageing more than a decade ago and is the co-founder of the Sens (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) Foundation, a non-profit organisation based in the US.

What’s so wrong with getting old?

It is simply that people get sick when they get older. I don’t often meet people who want to suffer cardiovascular disease or whatever, and we get those things as a result of the lifelong accumulation of various types of molecular and cellular damage. This is harmless at low levels but eventually it causes the diseases and disabilities of old age – which most people don’t think are any fun.

Is this the biggest health crisis facing the world?

Absolutely. If we look at the industrialised world, basically 90% of all deaths are caused by ageing. They are deaths from causes that affect older people and don’t affect young adults. And if we look at the whole world, then the number of deaths that occur each day is roughly 150,000 and about two-thirds of them are because of ageing.

Why does the world not recognise this?

People have been trying to claim that we can defeat ageing since the dawn of time, and they haven’t been terribly successful; there is a tendency to think there is some sort of inevitability about ageing – it somehow transcends our technological abilities in principle, which is complete nonsense.

And when people have made their peace with this ghastly thing that is going to happen to them at some time in the distant future, they tend to be rather reluctant to re-engage the question when someone comes along with a new idea.

Is it that our bodies just stop being so proactive about living?

Basically, the body does have a vast amount of inbuilt anti-ageing machinery; it’s just not 100% comprehensive, so it allows a small number of different types of molecular and cellular damage to happen and accumulate. The body does try as hard as it can to fight these things but it is a losing battle. So we are not going to be able to do anything significant about ageing without hi-tech intervention – which is what I’m working on.

Ageing involves the process of metabolism, and then deterioration, and then pathology – is that right?

Basically, that’s right. Metabolism involves a vastly complicated network of biochemical and cellular processes that are linked and that succeed in keeping us alive for as long as they do, but they have these side effects.

The side-effects start even before we are born, they go on throughout life and they are manifested as, for example, the accumulation of various types of molecular garbage inside cells and outside cells, or simply as cells dying and not being automatically replaced by the division of other cells. Gradually those changes at the molecular and cellular level accumulate and accumulate and eventually they start to get in the way of metabolism, and that’s where pathology comes.

You’ve identified seven particular areas of cellular decay that might be combated. Can you give examples?

I just mentioned cells dying and not being automatically replaced, that’s one. Another is cells not dying when they ought to – certain types of cells are supposed to turn over and sometimes they lose the ability to respond to signals that tell them to die.

A third is cells dividing too much – they may be dying when they are supposed to but dividing too much, and that is what cancer is.

We’ve known what causes cancer for some time but we are a long way from being able to cure it, aren’t we?

I certainly don’t claim that any of this is easy. Some of it is easier – but I’ve always viewed cancer as the single hardest aspect of ageing to fix.

You’ve talked about enriching people’s lives, but isn’t it the very fact of death that gives our lives meaning?

That’s nonsense. The fact is, people don’t want to get sick. I’m just a practical guy. I don’t want to get sick and I don’t want you to get sick and that’s what this is all about. I don’t work on longevity, I work on keeping people healthy. The only difference between my work and the work of the whole medical profession is that I think we’re in striking distance of keeping people so healthy that at 90 they’ll carry on waking up in the same physical state as they were at the age of 30, and their probability of not waking up one morning will be no higher than it was at the age of 30.

You’ve said you think the first person to live to 1,000 may already be alive. Could that person be you?

It’s conceivable that people in my age bracket, their 40s, are young enough to benefit from these therapies. I’d give it a 30% or 40% chance. But that is not why I do this – I do this because I’m interested in saving 100,000 lives a day.

Can the planet cope with people living so long?

That’s to do with the balance of birth and death rates. It didn’t take us too long to lower the birth rate after we more or less eliminated infant mortality 100 or 150 years ago. I don’t see that it’s sensible to regard the risk of a population spike as a reason not to give people the best healthcare that we can.

The Intelligent Universe

Posted: August 2, 2010 in Uncategorized

Reprinted from here.

The next stage in evolution—a machine consciousness able to manipulate time and space—is just around the corner. The catch: humans will no longer be in charge.

ASSUME, FOR A MOMENT, the point of view of Intelligence. Not an intelligent point of view, but the perspective of Intelligence itself, gazing out on the cold and gaseous 13.5-billion-year-old universe.

It would seem, would it not, that you ought to give yourself a pat on the back. You’ve done a damn good job of progressing from a few dumb rocks, flung out of the Big Bang, into monocellular creatures that learned how to make copies of themselves. Next, you grew into a complex, hyperaware species called Homo sapiens that extended its brain power through machines. Finally you took up residence inside buzzing electronic circuits whose intellectual abilities increased so quickly they unified everything in one gigantic supersmart info-sphere.

And you’re not done yet! In fact, you would be forgiven for thinking the universe was arranged to accommodate your flourishing. Especially now that, thanks to silicon-based computation, you’ve transcended the narrow conditions of your previous biological platform: the human body. Restless for even greater complexity you will soon spread across the void, saturating atoms, energy, space, and waking all of creation from its long slumber.

THIS SCENARIO frames the worldview of a loose movement assembled under a tent called the Singularity. If the term is familiar, you’ve likely heard it in tandem with the name Ray Kurzweil. A short, dapper techie with a thinning tuft of silver hair, Kurzweil is an accomplished inventor who, among other things, created the first text-to-speech device and built the first acoustic synthesizer, the Kurzweil 250, which came out in 1983 and revolutionized music. Currently, Kurzweil has links to NASA and Google, and acts as an advisor to DARPA, the US Department of Defense’s advanced research arm, which, since its launch in 1958, has been responsible for everything from the internet to biodefense to unmanned bombing aircraft such as the Predator.

Kurzweil is also the unofficial leader of the Singularity—its Chief Executive Oracle. He assumed this mantle with the publication of The Singularity is Near (2005), a book that analyzes the curve of technological development from humble flint-knapping to the zippy microchip. The curve he draws rises exponentially, and we are sitting right on the elbow, which means very suddenly this trend toward smaller and smarter technologies will yield greater-than-human machine intelligence. That sort of superintelligence will proliferate not by self-replication, but by building other agents with even greater intelligence than itself, which will in turn build more superior agents. The result will be an “intelligence explosion” so fast and so vast that the laws and certainties with which we are familiar will no longer apply. That event-horizon is called the Singularity.

Since our brains are wet, messy, relatively inefficient products of evolution and, as one Singularitarian put it, were “not designed to be end-user modifiable,” we humans may simply be uploaded into this intelligence expansion. But if we don’t survive at all, well, at least the universe itself will be flooded with something of independent value, all its “dumb matter”—to quote Kurzweil’s book—transformed into “exquisitely sublime forms of intelligence.”

The prospect of such a destiny makes some people ecstatic. It terrifies others. Singularitarians tend to harbour both reactions simultaneously, which is just how Edmund Burke first defined the effect of “the sublime.” While Kurzweil may not intend it in its original sense, the word seems apt: insofar as it elicits terror and awe at once, the Singularity is sublime.

THE SINGULARITY did not originate with Kurzweil. In 1993, a computer scientist, mathematician and science fiction writer named Vernor Vinge delivered a lecture at a NASA-sponsored symposium that laid out a serious scenario in a half-troubled, half-exuberant tone. “Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence,” he declared. “Shortly after, the human era will be ended.” Borrowing a term from mathematics and physics that describes a point past which known laws do not hold, Vinge called his threshold the Singularity.

Dropped like a gauntlet, the Singularity meme was picked up by a young artificial intelligence (AI) researcher by the name of Eliezer Yudkowsky, who, along with a programmer called Tyler Emerson, set up the Singularity Institute For Artificial Intelligence (SIAI) in 2000. A bearded, convivial prodigy who speaks in highly formal sentences and is proud to not have a PhD, “Eli,” as he’s known, was excited by the prospect of superintelligent artificial agents, but the humanist in him worried that such an agent might end up, willfully or accidentally, destroying all the things we care about—like human lives.

For a crude illustration of an accidental case of destruction, picture a superintelligence optimized to produce paperclips. It would have the ability to rearrange the atomic structure of all matter in its vicinity—including, quite possibly, you—to obtain a lot of high quality paperclips. It may not despise you in particular, but your atomic arrangement is simply not to its liking. Unless you have an office-supply fetish, you’d consider that Unfriendly AI. Yudkowsky, taking both the prospect and his fears seriously, urged research toward the development of Friendly AI. His worrier ethos, or at least its rhetoric, has been passed down; whenever someone throws up an alarming new Singularity scenario, a Singularity fellow will say something like, “Oh, now I’m really beginning to worry.”

Early on, the Singularity Institute was essentially an email list called SL4, or Shock Level 4, with a small subscription base of futurists from groups such as Transhumanists and Extropians, and a few researchers tracking the holy grail of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The early discussions sound exploratory now, but they already contained the quasi-schizophrenic sublime element that characterizes Singularity conversations today: intense anxiety mixed with excited anticipation for the “most critical event in human history.” We will be apes watching the rise of superior beings—beings we ourselves will have created.

Kurzweil was well-known back then, already consulting with the US government and appearing on TV shows. His book The Age of Spiritual Machines (2000) laid out the first exponential curves of an accelerating technology trend, presenting a utopian future of unlimited energy and great sex enabled by conscious machines. But it did not mention the Singularity.

It was only after the turn of the millennium—when else?—that the Singularity increasingly moved to the centre of Kurzweil’s platform. He started out by debating Vinge and then spoke about the Singularity at various futurist symposia, where Yudkowsky would politely lambaste him from the audience. Yudkowsky asked Kurzweil whether the Singularity was good or bad, and what people could do about it. Kurzweil had no answer. On his SL4 list, Yudkowsky would later write, “What Kurzweil is selling, under the brand name of the ‘Singularity,’ is the idea that technological progress will continue to go on exactly as it has done over the last century.”

Kurzweil’s “pseudo-Singularity” depended on the inevitability of his predictions and was leading to nothing more than “luxuries” such as superintelligent servants. Yudkowsky’s true Singularity, by contrast, was potentially frightening and demanded intervention. It could lead to a land of post-human bliss, but only if handled properly. It would need a vanguard of rationalists and scientists to attend to it. In short, Yudkowsky was calling for a movement.

His beef with Kurzweil was about engaged activism versus passive predictivism, but it was also a bid for attention. He upped it by issuing a paper about Friendly AI timed to coincide with the release of the film adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot. Kurzweil, who was about to release his book on the Singularity, joined the Institute as advisor and then board member. It benefited both. Kurzweil couldn’t have assumed a mantle of authority without a strong link to the activists at the Institute, while the Institute needed his clout and his connections. The non-profit Institute soon found firm financial grounding, thanks in part to Kurzweil’s friend and libertarian financial guru Peter Thiel, who made his money by co-founding PayPal and investing early in Facebook. Thiel also co-authored a nativist book called The Diversity Myth (1998), reportedly donated $1 million to the anti-immigrant group NumbersUSA, and funded James O’Keefe, the not-so-independent guerrilla videomaker responsible for undermining Planned Parenthood and ACORN.

Today the Singularity Institute is based in Silicon Valley, the Singularity University is campused at NASA, and an annual Singularity Summit, with nine hundred-plus in attendance last year, takes place around the country. There are Singularity activists, Singularity blogs, Singularity t-shirts, and even Singularity bashers, all of which confirms the status of the Singularity as a social movement, though Singularitarians themselves sometimes call it a revolution. “The problem with choosing or not choosing to be a part of our ‘revolution’,” Michael Anissimov, an organizer of the Singularity Summit, wrote on his blog, “is that, for better or for worse, there probably is no choice. When superintelligence is created, it will impact everyone on Earth, whether we like it or not.”

While Kurzweil’s draw has helped galvanize the movement, Yudkowsky’s concerns have guided its practical and ideological agendas, linking the development of Friendly AI to “the common concern of humanity.” So far, the consensus on how one might safeguard humanity goes like this: if we manage to code proper “values” in any superintelligent agent at the beginning—that is, more or less right now—then that agent will not have the desire later to do things that we think are not good, because it too will think them undesirable. The proffered example is Gandhi. The Mahatma, it is suggested, would never have willingly taken a pill that would turn him into a killer. Ditto with superintelligence. If initial settings are steeped with pacifist values, superintelligence won’t rewrite itself into a destroyer of humans. This, you might say, is AGI as Artificial Gandhi Intelligence.

It sounds odd, then, to hear Singularitarians say that the biggest mistake anyone can make on the way to Friendly AI is to try and predict superintelligence using human standards. When I laid out some political scenarios involving some destructive human-machine alliances, current SIAI President Michael Vassar chided me for the great sin of anthropomorphism and dismissed all my predictions. But it’s hard to think of anything more anthropomorphic than giving AI such profoundly human attributes as “our values,” especially if they are Gandhian. And if the Gandhi analogy seems simplistic, that’s because it is. It asks that we imagine Gandhi as some sort of DNA-driven pacifist source code without acknowledging the social process of the man’s own life, or minor inconveniences in the historical narrative, such as the million people killed at the birth of Indian independence. Politics is anthropomorphic.

The trouble, at any rate, is that it isn’t Gandhi setting the initial conditions. It is an advisor to the US Department of Defense (which uses artificially intelligent agents to bomb Afghan villages) and a free market xenophobe. As they say: now I’m really beginning to worry.

OUTSIDE the fourth Singularity Summit, held last fall in New York, Giulio Prisco taps a half-smoked cigarette stub out of his pack of Marlboro Lights and gently puts it to a flame. “There is a lot of demonization,” he says, puffing out smoke through Italian-inflected syllables. “People are bashing the Singularity.”

An active Transhumanist trained as a theoretical physicist, Prisco decided to fly over from Italy to attend the Summit as a gesture of support—to make, in his own words, “a political statement.” Before leaving, he wrote a blog entry titled “I am a Singularitarian who does not believe in the Singularity.” As headlines go, it’s a little unwieldy, and the distinction is awkward—like saying, “I’m a Christian who does not believe in Christ”—but it led to a firestorm of online debate.

Not all Transhumanists, futurists, immortalists or analytic philosophers are won over by the Singularity. Criticisms come in two shades. One is content-driven, based on the distance between the claims and the scientific evidence supporting them. For example, some contest the inevitability of Kurzweil’s trends, while others point out that there is no proper definition of intelligence, that neuroscience is not even close to fully understanding the mind. Reviewing Kurzweil’s earlier work in the New York Review of Books, the philosopher John Searle argued that “increased computational power” is a different order of thing from “consciousness in computers.”

Though such questions about the nature of mind and consciousness are ancient and unsettled, the Singularity calls them up with enough verve and credibility to involve high-powered scientists and philosophers. Speakers at the 2009 Summit included philosopher David Chalmers, NYU cognitive psychologist Gary Marcus, Wired editor Gary Wolf and famed mathematician, physicist and inventor Stephen Wolfram; in attendance to see and interact with the techie A-list were neuroscientists, physicists and programmers, researchers from Lockheed Martin, a Canadian immortality activist and lots of grad student groupies, some with “Homo Sapiens Siliconis” t-shirts, waiting for photo ops with their favourite neuroscientist.

Because the Singularity is a movement as well as a philosophy, a second shade of criticism faults Singularitarians for ignoring political and cultural context. How, detractors ask, can you chart technological development without accounting for the conditions that gave rise to it, from class conflict in the industrial revolution to the interests of the military-industrial complex? The United States Department of Defense, for example, appears frequently in Kurzweil’s book, bathed in the glowing light of an enlightened research institute, a bit like the great lab run by James Bond’s Q. It is celebrated for making cool gadgets that benefit humanity, not lethal ones that kill it off. Yet, of all the charges—messianic, absolutist, reductionist, deterministic, anti-human, flesh-hating, undemocratic, individualistic—it’s the one about politics that really makes people like Giulio bristle.

“I was brought up with Marxism,” he fumes. “That was the context, in Italy. So yes, we know, politics is money and power. Technology is political. You can tell me the Singularity is impossible, you can tell me it is not desirable, and we can disagree. But what I can’t stand is if you tell me I’m a naïve science fiction geek who doesn’t understand the complicated social and political context. I am tired of the demonization.”

Seventy blocks further downtown, in the packed back room of a bar on 23rd street, the NYC Future Salon has counter-programmed a session with one such “demonizer.” Jamais Cascio, a research fellow at the Institute for the Future, as well as a senior fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, spoke at the 2007 Singularity Summit but is generally disillusioned with what he calls the “Singularity mythology.”

A self-avowed user of the neuropharmaceutical modafinil, thought to help with alertness and enhance cognitive abilities, Cascio himself is deeply involved in the high-stakes poker of tech prediction. He believes that non-biological intelligent systems will come to pass soon and that an acceleration of “intelligence density” will transform society. He just doesn’t like the transcendent tropes of the Singularity, “this creation of a greater mind that we will become part of.” He doesn’t like the detachment from the human and the social.

“Brilliance around technology does not translate into an understanding of how humans operate,” he says. “One thing I’ve observed from a lot of the Singularity proponents is that they dislike being human, they dislike the body, the messiness of human relations, of human politics. It’s one of the big flaws in the story. They have left out such a big chunk of what it means to be an intelligent social being.”

Cascio suggests that we will necessarily be involved in how intelligent systems build our world. After all, humans are the ones doing the coding. We might increasingly merge with non-biological systems through enhancement devices like cochlear implants or brain-computer interfaces, but there will be no great rupture between humans and machines, nothing like what the Singularitarians project.

“Software is political,” he asserts. “So AGI will also have politics.”

Clearly, it already does. If the last few decades of science are any indication, a human-machine future is well on its way. What’s at stake is who will guide its arrival.

CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE and technology came to a head in the nineties. The internet became ubiquitous. The dot-com boom (and bust) pushed high-tech into private lives and created a new financial industry, as well as a new class of workers; ditto for biotech, as its successes created new financial, cultural and scientific sectors, starting with the human genome project in 1990 before moving on to Dolly in 2001. Next came the genetic modification of everything we ate and, potentially, of ourselves, with labs synthesizing tissue, organs and hybrid animals, and information sciences doing biology by code rather than by pipette. Brain mapping took off as neuroscience became one of the great fields. The Human Brain Project was established while Deep Blue beat chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, giving a boost to flagging AI enthusiasm. These sciences were converging into what is now called NBIC: Nano, Bio, Info, Cogno.

NBIC and its hybrid products (machines that think, cells that are machines) shook the few remaining ontological certainties on which we stood, teetering, since mid-century. Suddenly a library of books by biologists, physicists, computer engineers and social scientists rolled off the presses asking again the fundamental questions: What is matter, what is object, what is human? What is the point of it all, anyway?

Not surprisingly, this environment of doubt spawned an immense industry of prediction. Wrapped in Spiritus Divinatio, legions of alarmists and techtopians slouched at different angles toward an unrealized Bethlehem. One side, like bearded men of the temple, warned us that technological hubris would rob us of our humanity (ignoring the fact that we had co-evolved with technology). The other heralded the advent of a New Age in which NBIC would leave no problem, human or super-human, unsolved.

The predictable alignments of left and right collapsed. Left-of-centre figures like Jürgen Habermas and journalist Bill McKibben were found in bed with conservatives like Francis Fukuyama. Famously, Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy warned against future technologies, as did the virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier. The ceremony of innocence was drowned. Everywhere a different revelation seemed at hand.

Images of transhuman and posthuman figures, hybrids and chimeras, robots and nanobots became uncannily real, blurring further the distinction between science and science fiction. Now, no one says a given innovation can’t happen; the naysayers simply argue that it shouldn’t. But if the proliferating future scenarios no longer seem like science fiction, they are not exactly fact either—not yet. They are still stories about the future and they are stories about science, though they can no longer be banished to the bantustans of unlikely sci-fi. In a promise-oriented world of fast-paced technological change, prediction is the new basis of authority.

That is why futurist groups, operating thus far on the margins of cultural conversation, were thrust into the most significant discussions of the twenty-first century: What is biological, what artificial? Who owns life when it’s bred in the lab? Should there be cut off-lines to technological interventions into life itself, into our DNA, our neurological structures, or those of our foodstuffs? What will happen to human rights when the contours of what is human become blurred through technology?

The futurist movement, in a sense, went viral. Bill McKibben’s Enough (2004) faced off against biophysicist Gregory Stock’s Redesigning Humans (2002) on television and around the web. New groups and think tanks formed every day, among them the Foresight Institute and the Extropy Institute. Their general membership started to overlap, as did their boards of directors, with figures like Ray Kurzweil ubiquitous. Heavyweight participants include Eric Drexler—the father of nanotechnology—and MIT giant Marvin Minsky. One organization, the World Transhumanist Association, which broke off from the Extropy in 1998, counts six thousand members, with chapters across the globe.

If the emergence of NBIC and the new culture of prediction galvanized futurists, the members were also united by an obligatory and almost imperial sense of optimism, eschewing the dystopian visions of the eighties and nineties. They also learned the dangers of too much enthusiasm. For example, the Singularity Institute, wary of sounding too religious or rapturous, presents its official version of the future in a deliberately understated tone: “The transformation of civilisation into a genuinely nice place to live could occur, not in a distant million-year future, but within our own lifetimes.”

“A genuinely nice place to live” sounds like a promo for a new housing development across the river. But make no mistake—the Singularity is utopian. Kurzweil describes the future as an age of “greater beauty, greater creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love.” The Singularity’s brand of utopianism is unique, however, because it is premised not on the improvement of human beings but on their obsolescence (even though many have learned not to be forthright about this). In a Forbes article, Singularity Institute researcher Ben Goertzel wrote, “Just as there’s intrinsic value in helping other humans, there’s intrinsic value in helping higher intelligence come into existence. These future minds will experience growth and joy beyond human capability.”

Obsolescence does not automatically require annihilation. “Are ants obsolete or pigs obsolete?” Goertzel asks rhetorically, leaning back on an old wood bench in the hallway of the Singularity Summit. “They exist and continue to do what they do, but they are not the most complex or most interesting creatures on the planet. That’s what I’m assuming is the fate in store for humans. I hope that some humans continue to exist in their current form, but there’s going to be other minds.”

Our purpose, as humans, is to bring them about. We will be surpassed. Not in the narrow sense of old research being trumped by new findings, but surpassed as a species by superior manifestations of evolution. The son of West Coast hippies, Goertzel is nevertheless not opposed to annihilation. “If it really came down to it,” he says, “I wouldn’t hesitate to annihilate myself in favour of some amazing superbeing.”

WHO WOULDN’T want to see the rise of some incredible superintelligent agent? Who wouldn’t want to merge into a great universe-wide mind in which Peter Thiel’s consciousness would be indistinguishable from a Guatemalan migrant’s, and Kurzweil’s from the son of an Afghan villager killed by a Predator drone? That would be one version of the good life, and not such a bad one given what’s been on offer. Human progress wasn’t supposed to have Auschwitz and Hiroshima at its heart. Guantanamo and Afghanistan, devastating oil spills and wild economic meltdowns weren’t meant to be part of the twenty-first century. We are betrayed children of secular utopias, flapping around under a collapsed canopy trying to find a post to drape the future on. There’s little faith left in the state or in social arrangements to return to us that lost promise, restore some blush on the future’s pretty face.

Even science scaled back its promises. “We claim, and we shall wrest from theology, the entire domain of cosmological theory,” the naturalist John Tyndall prophesied in a famous address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1874. No scientist today would make such a claim. Science has long since abandoned the project of revealing a greater purpose to our existence. Instead, human significance has receded to a vanishing point, a passing shadow in a lonely outpost of the empty universe, itself destined to disappear through heat death or cold death, depending on which theory you accept.

The Singularity’s emerging popularity, however, lies partly in its unabashed solutions to dilemmas of purpose that science abandoned a long time ago. Tyndall-esque cosmological ambition is at the very heart of Kurzweil’s futurology. “I have begun to reflect on the future of our civilization and its relationship to our place in the universe,” he declares at the beginning of his book. And six hundred pages later, he concludes: “the purpose of the universe reflects the same purpose as our lives: to move toward greater intelligence and knowledge.”

In an odd way, the Singularity puts humans back at the centre of things, at one with the intelligent universe itself. There’s a good chance more and more people will be attracted by this sort of metaphysical gumption, combined as it is with supercharged technological optimism that taps into a new sort of hope: if we can’t improve the world by rearranging its social structures, then maybe we can enhance it through rearranging its atomic structure. We can make it rosy and smart atom by atom, spreading intelligence bit by bit, infusing the whole universe with our ones and naughts. That does sound sublime, doesn’t it?

*SCREAMS*

Posted: August 2, 2010 in Uncategorized

:)

Reprinted from here.


It was 2017. Clans were governing America.

The first clans organized around local police forces. The conservatives’ war on crime during the late 20th century and the Bush/Obama war on terror during the first decade of the 21st century had resulted in the police becoming militarized and unaccountable.

As society broke down, the police became warlords. The state police broke apart, and the officers were subsumed into the local forces of their communities. The newly formed tribes expanded to encompass the relatives and friends of the police.

The dollar had collapsed as world reserve currency in 2012 when the worsening economic depression made it clear to Washington’s creditors that the federal budget deficit was too large to be financed except by the printing of money.

With the dollar’s demise, import prices skyrocketed. As Americans were unable to afford foreign-made goods, the transnational corporations that were producing offshore for US markets were bankrupted, further eroding the government’s revenue base.

The government was forced to print money in order to pay its bills, causing domestic prices to rise rapidly. Faced with hyperinflation, Washington took recourse in terminating Social Security and Medicare and followed up by confiscating the remnants of private pensions. This provided a one-year respite, but with no more resources to confiscate, money creation and hyperinflation resumed.

<p?

Organized food deliveries broke down when the government fought hyperinflation with fixed prices and the mandate that all purchases and sales had to be in US paper currency. Unwilling to trade appreciating goods for depreciating paper, goods disappeared from stores.

Washington responded as Lenin had done during the “war communism” period of Soviet history. The government sent troops to confiscate goods for distribution in kind to the population. This was a temporary stop-gap until existing stocks were depleted, as future production was discouraged. Much of the confiscated stocks became the property of the troops who seized the goods.

Goods reappeared in markets under the protection of local warlords. Transactions were conducted in barter and in gold, silver, and copper coins.

Other clans organized around families and individuals who possessed stocks of food, bullion, guns and ammunition. Uneasy alliances formed to balance differences in clan strengths. Betrayals quickly made loyalty a necessary trait for survival.

Large-scale food and other production broke down as local militias taxed distribution as goods moved across local territories. Washington seized domestic oil production and refineries, but much of the government’s gasoline was paid for safe passage across clan territories.

Most of the troops in Washington’s overseas bases were abandoned. As their resource stocks were drawn down, the abandoned soldiers were forced into alliances with those with whom they had been fighting.

Washington found it increasingly difficult to maintain itself. As it lost control over the country, Washington was less able to secure supplies from abroad as tribute from those Washington threatened with nuclear attack. Gradually other nuclear powers realized that the only target in America was Washington. The more astute saw the writing on the wall and slipped away from the former capital city.

When Rome began her empire, Rome’s currency consisted of gold and silver coinage. Rome was well organized with efficient institutions and the ability to supply troops in the field so that campaigns could continue indefinitely, a monopoly in the world of Rome’s time.

When hubris sent America in pursuit of overseas empire, the venture coincided with the offshoring of American manufacturing, industrial, and professional service jobs and the corresponding erosion of the government’s tax base, with the advent of massive budget and trade deficits, with the erosion of the fiat paper currency’s value, and with America’s dependence on foreign creditors and puppet rulers.

The Roman Empire lasted for centuries. The American one collapsed overnight.

Rome’s corruption became the strength of her enemies, and the Western Empire was overrun.
America’s collapse occurred when government ceased to represent the people and became the instrument of a private oligarchy. Decisions were made in behalf of short-term profits for the few at the expense of unmanageable liabilities for the many. Overwhelmed by liabilities, the government collapsed.
Globalism had run its course. Life reformed on a local basis.

Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary U.S. Treasury, Associate Editor Wall Street Journal, Columnist for Business Week, Senior Research Fellow Hoover Institution Stanford University, and William E. Simon Chair of Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.

Updates
* Krugman: Defining Prosperity Down
* Carlin:

You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there… just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep ‘em showing up at those jobs.

* Goldman Sachs does what it does
* Police grabbing property
* Follow the money

The problem of evil.

Posted: August 1, 2010 in Uncategorized

Reprinted from here


Sims, Suffering and God: Matrix Theology and the Problem of Evil

“O,” cries Hamlet in the depth of angst, “that this too, too solid flesh would melt / Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!”

The Prince o’ Danes should’a stuck around. Today, he would have been relieved to find that science, achieving ever finer resolution, has indeed turned solid flesh into dew. Quantum dew. And not just flesh: any solid, we now know, is nearly all emptiness, and the few bits of matter within its atoms, when you get right down to them, are, well, bits. That is to say, the electrons and subatomic nuclear particles (or strings, if that’s the you swing) are elusive little buggers who can only be pinned down via quantum numbers.

Now, there is a lot of superheated woo-woo wackadoodle written about quantum physics these days, some of it right here in these esteemed pages. (For a hint about why the linked essay is moonshine, go here.) As a science writer I decline to add to the steaming heap, so let me pledge here and now to make no quantum claim before its time. Here’s the rub: Quantum theory is incomplete. It predicts physical behavior with exquisite statistical precision, yet it lacks a settled explanatory framework — especially one that coheres with that other great physical theory, general relativity. So, let’s put QM back on the ontological rack for now.

But hang on, Hamlet. Maybe there is another way to escape the flesh. And, lo, from the pen of New York Times columnist John Tierney, it doth appear:

Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.

But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation.

Bostrom, I should note, is at once more serious and less confident about this conclusion than is Tierney. Bostrom rates its probability at about 20 percent. All the same, his idea is catching on. The, ahem, philosophers who have had the greatest success in spreading the Gospel of the Sims are the Wachowski brothers. Their trio of Matrix movies lofted razzmatazz sci-fi into a kind of pop theology, with Keanu Reeves as its messiah. Even as I write, new “papers” are being published on Matrix theology — though somehow I doubt this example went through peer review.

The Demurrage [sic], the creator, is in the shadow land, the world he created, his own personal matrix. In the gnostic tradition, the savior comes from the real world, into the darkness, then returns to it. This is the largest gnostic idea in the film: two worlds, one being a mear [sic] reflection of the other. …

The truth can be a frightening thing, especially dedendingon [sic] the nature of the truth. When comes to our perception of everyday activities, it seems to be so real. The truth is, we don’t know what’s out there, but how things will turn out, or how that began.

Deep thoughts, to be sure, marred only by a certain lack of orthographic integrity. If only Spellcheck were not so expensive! Damn you, Microsoft!

But let us take this idea that we are Sims seriously for a moment and while we’re at it compare it with the more traditional Judeo-Christian idea that we are soul-studded creations of a supremely perfect God. It turns out that they suffer from the same defect.

Bostrom neatly sums up his argument in the conclusion to his paper:

A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation.

Got that? The biblical argument for our existence is, I trust, too familiar to need repetition here. Now, the case against traditional theism has many arrows in its quiver, but here I need draw only one: theodicy, better known as the problem of evil. A more accurate way of phrasing this, in my view, would be the problem of pointless suffering.

There are too many examples to cite, but I offer you one to stand for them all: progeria. God, we are told, loves little children, yet he afflicts some of them with this absurd genetic disease that causes them to age at a fantastic rate, wither away and most often die before enjoying a day of adulthood.

Defenders of traditional faith, whose craft is known by the delightful term “apologetics”, swoop in to reassure us that this is not a problem at all. (If you ever want an example of rationalizing to contrast with reasoning, you cannot do better than to look at apologetics of theodicy.) Their arguments typically center on two ideas: that suffering results from sinful choices, and that suffering is part of a hidden greater good known only to God.

The first idea stumbles on the general hurdle that a perfect God could easily have created beings who, even with free will, would not have made choices that lead to the kind of suffering we see in the world. It then falls flat on its face when you look at specific instances: did the parents of Ashley make a sinful choice in conceiving her? And even if so, did Ashley deserve to suffer the consequences? It’s a patently ridiculous idea.

But what about a hidden greater good? After all, we humans don’t know everything, do we? Of course not. But if we are to have rational discourse leading to a common understanding of the world we share, we cannot resort to “God moves in mysterious ways” arguments. If God acts irrationally (or beyond rationality, if you prefer), then anything is possible, including the falsity of all theology. Maybe the devil reigns, and just sets up the idea of God to torture believers all the more at the end. Game, set, and match to madness.

And that brings us back to the Sims. How can know whether we’re simulations in some superduper computer built by posthumans? Some pretty amusing objections have been raised, such as quantum tests that a simulation would fail. It seems safe to say that any sim-scientists examining the sim-universe they occupy would find that the laws of that universe are self-consistent. To assert that a future computer could simulate us, complete with consciousness, but crash when it came to testing Bell’s Inequality strikes me as ludicrous. Unless, of course, the program were released by Microsoft. Oooh, sorry, Bill, cheap shot. Let’s take it for granted that we could not expose a simulation from within — unless the Creators wanted us to.

But the problem of pointless suffering leads me to very different conclusion. Recall Bostrom’s first conjecture: that few or none of our civilizations reach a posthuman stage capable of building computers that can run the kind of simulation in which we might exist. There are many ways civilization could end (just ask the dinosaurs!), but the one absolutely necessary condition for survival in an environment of continually increasing technological prowess is peace. Not a mushy, bumper sticker kind of peace, but the robust containment of conflict and competition within cooperative frameworks. (Robert Wright, in his brilliant if uneven book NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny, unfolds this idea beautifully.)

What is civilization if not a mutual agreement to sacrifice some individual desires (to not pay taxes, for example, or to run through red lights) for the greater common good? Communication, trust, and cooperation make such agreements possible, but the one ingredient in the human psyche that propels civilization forward even as we gain technological power is empathy.

Of course, ants presumably lack empathy yet manage to organize their own version of civilization, but the degree of freedom our brains and hands confer on us requires a much stronger kind of social glue. Over the last several centuries, we’ve tried out facism, communism, and various kinds of religious and secular totalitarianism. They’ve all failed. We’re not a species that takes kindly to anything less than kindness. What I suggest, then is that any civilization that emerges from the brawl of 21st century global unrest will surely be peaceable and empathetic.

To imagine that they would turn around and simulate their past replete with all the agonies of genocide, slavery, oppression, and countless acts of senseless suffering inflicted by natural disaster is, to me at least, unthinkable. If they really wanted to revive the past, surely they could — and would — just switch off the consciousness module. We would no more suffer than a Halo 3 shooting victim. Unless, of course, all this suffering is part of a hidden higher good…

Nah!