“How is having a cochlear implant that helps the deaf hear any different than having a chip in your brain that could help control your thoughts?” —Michael Goldblatt, former director of DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office, quoted in the Atlantic
What’s the difference between reading books all day and playing video games?
Come on, what’s the difference between spending your time with friends and family “in person” and spending your time with them virtually?
How is having a child through cloning any different from having a child the old-fashioned way?
Why is the feeling of happiness that you have after a good day any different from the feeling of happiness I have after I take this drug?
Why is talking with your spouse and children using your mouth and ears different, in any way that counts, from communicating with them through brain chips that link your minds directly?
We already pick our mates with some idea of what our kids might look and act like. How is that any different from genetically engineering our children so they look and act the way we want?
Don’t we already send our children to school to make them smarter? How is that any different from just downloading information straight into their brains?
If your grandmother is already in a nursing home, what’s the difference if the nurses are robots?
Memory is already so fluid and fallible that we forget things all the time; what’s the difference if we just help people forget things they would rather not be stuck remembering?
What does it matter, in the end, if a soldier is killed by another soldier or by a robot?
How is it really different if, instead of marrying other human beings, some people choose to marry and have sex with machines programmed for obedience and pleasure?
What’s the difference if our bodies are replaced by machines?
In the scheme of things, what’s the difference if humanity is replaced with artificial life? The persistence of intelligence is all that matters, right?
What’s the difference?
Friday, September 25, 2015
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Who’s Afraid of ‘Brave New World’?

I was very happy to learn from George Dvorsky at io9 that Aldous Huxley’s novel “Brave New World is not the terrifying dystopia it used to be.” It’s not that the things in the novel couldn’t happen (more or less), but rather that they are happening and “we” have become much more enlightened and simply don’t need to worry about them anymore. The book is a product of its time, and our time understands these things much better, apparently.
Thus, the strongest condemnation Dvorsky can offer of the eugenics program depicted in Brave New World is that it is “disquieting.” But we can get over that. Genetic engineering techniques that might have once have been met with “repugnance” are now commonplace. Newer techniques which promise more control to make more things like those in Brave New World possible will have the same fate, Dvorsky expects, trotting out the number-one cliché of progressive bioethics: “While potentially alarming, these biotechnologies and others currently in development hold great promise.” And on the basis of that “great promise” we merrily slide right down the slippery slope:
Advances in genetics will serve to eliminate a host of genetic diseases, while offering humans the opportunity to forgo the haphazard genetic roll of the dice when it comes to determining the traits of offspring. A strong case can be made that it’s both our duty and right to develop these technologies.
Problem solved!
The next non-problem Dvorsky sees in Brave New World is totalitarianism, which, along with “top-down” eugenics, he proclaims “dead.” Happy day! One might trust Dvorsky more on this topic if he did not declare that even in Huxley’s own time the book conveyed a “false sense of urgency” on this topic. But we now know that biotechnology will be “tools made by the people, for the people.” A case in point, I suppose, would be the drug company that just raised the price of one of its pills by 5000 percent.
And on and on. Concern about widespread use of psychoactive prescription and non-prescription drugs is, Dvorsky says, either “not entirely fair” or “hysterical.” On sex and the family Huxley’s “prescience is remarkable” but his concerns are “grossly old fashioned and moralizing.” So too his Malthusian concerns are “grossly overstated” particularly when population control (apparently it is necessary after all) can be achieved by “humanitarian methods.”
So there you have it. It seems that for the advocates of technological “progress” and human redesign “don’t worry, be happy” has become a respectable line of argument. I know I feel much better now.
Friday, September 4, 2015
Using cloning for human enhancement?
We have occasionally written about human cloning here on Futurisms — for example, five years ago we had a back-and-forth with Kyle Munkittrick about cloning — and we return to the subject today, with an excerpt from the latest issue of The New Atlantis. The entirety of that new issue is dedicated to a report called The Threat of Human Cloning: Ethics, Recent Developments, and the Case for Action. The report, written by a distinguished body of academics and policy experts, makes the case against all forms of human cloning — both for the purpose of creating children and for the purpose of biomedical research.
Below is one excerpt from the report, a section exploring the possibility of using cloning to create “enhanced” offspring. (I have removed the citations from this excerpt, but you can find them and read this section in context here.)
Cloning for “human enhancement.” Much of the enthusiasm for and anxiety about human cloning over the years has been concerned with the use of cloning as a genetic enhancement technology. Scientists, and especially science-fiction writers, have imagined ways of using cloning to replicate “persons of attested ability” as a way to “raise the possibility of human achievement dramatically,” in the words of J.B.S. Haldane. As molecular biologist Robert L. Sinsheimer argued in 1972, “cloning would in principle permit the preservation and perpetuation of the finest genotypes that arise in our species.” Candidates for this distinction often include Mozart and Einstein, though the legacy of eugenics in the twentieth century has left many authors with an awareness that those who would use these technologies may be more interested in replicating men like Hitler. (While in most cases, the idea of cloning a dictator like Hitler is invoked as a criticism of eugenic schemes, some writers have actually advocated the selective eugenic propagation of tyrants — for instance, the American geneticist Hermann J. Muller who, in a 1936 letter to Stalin advocating the eugenic use of artificial insemination, named Lenin as an example of a source of genetic material whose outstanding worth “virtually all would gladly recognize.”)
Today, eugenics has a deservedly negative reputation, and the idea of using a biotechnology like cloning to replicate individuals of exceptional merit is prima facie ethically suspect. However, advocates of eugenic enhancement have never entirely disappeared, and their influence in bioethics is arguably not waning, but waxing. In recent years academic bioethicists like John Harris and Julian Savulescu have been attempting to rehabilitate the case for eugenic enhancements on utilitarian grounds. For these new eugenicists, cloning-to-produce-children represents “power and opportunity over our destiny.”
This new eugenics needs to be confronted and refuted directly, since insisting on the self-evident evil of eugenics by pointing to historical atrocities committed in its name may become increasingly unpersuasive as memories of those atrocities dim with time, and as new technologies like cloning and genetic engineering make eugenic schemes all the more attractive. Furthermore, as the philosopher Hans Jonas noted in a critique of cloning, the argument in favor of cloning excellent individuals, “though naïve, is not frivolous in that it enlists our reverence for greatness and pays tribute to it by wishing that more Mozarts, Einsteins, and Schweitzers might adorn the human race.”
In an important sense, cloning is not an enhancement, since it replicates, rather than improves on, an existing genome. However, as Jonas’s remark about the human race indicates, the cloning of exceptional genotypes could be an enhancement at the population level. And from the point of view of parents who want children who can checkmate like Kasparov, belt like Aretha, dunk like Dr. J, or bend it like Beckham, cloning could represent a way to have offspring with the exceptional abilities of these individuals.
Arguably, cloning is a less powerful form of genetic engineering than other techniques that introduce precise modifications to the genome. After all, cloning only replicates an existing genome; it doesn’t involve picking and choosing specific traits. This weakness may also, however, make cloning more appealing than other forms of genetic engineering, especially when we consider the genetic complexity of many desirable traits. For example, some parents might seek to enhance the intelligence of their children, and evidence from twin studies and other studies of heredity seems to indicate that substantial amounts of the variation in intelligence between individuals can be attributed to genetics. But any given gene seems to have only a tiny effect on intelligence; one recent study looking at several genes associated with intelligence found that they each accounted for only about 0.3 points of IQ. With such minor effects, it would be difficult to justify the risks and expense of intervening to modify particular genes to improve a trait like intelligence.
Cloning, on the other hand, would not require certain and specific knowledge about particular genes, it would only require identifying an exceptionally intelligent individual and replicating his or her genome. Of course the cloned individual’s exceptional intelligence may be due to largely non-genetic factors, and so for a trait like intelligence there will never be certainty about whether the cloned offspring will match their genetic progenitor. But for people seeking to give their child the best chance at having exceptional intelligence, cloning may at least seem to offer more control and predictability than gene modification, and cloning is more consistent with our limited understanding of the science of genetics. Genetic modification involves daunting scientific and technical challenges; it offers the potential of only marginal improvements in complex traits, and it holds out the risk of unpredictable side effects and consequences.
Of course, it is possible that cloning could be used in conjunction with genetic modification, by allowing scientists to perform extensive genetic manipulations of somatic cells before transferring them to oocytes. In fact, genetic modification and cloning are already used together in agriculture and some biomedical research: for larger animals like pigs and cattle, cloning remains the main technique for producing genetically engineered offspring....
Using cloning as an enhancement technology requires picking some exceptional person to clone. This necessarily separates social and genetic parenthood: children would be brought into the world not by sexual pairing, or as an expression of marital love, or by parents seeking to continue and join their lineages, but by individuals concerned with using the most efficient technical methods to obtain a child with specific biological properties. Considerations about the kinds of properties the child will have would dominate the circumstances of a cloned child’s “conception,” even more than they already do when some prospective parents seek out the highest-quality egg or sperm donors, with all the troubling consequences such commodified reproduction has for both buyers and sellers of these genetic materials and the children that result. With cloning-to-produce-children for the sake of eugenic enhancement, parents (that is, the individuals who choose to commission the production of a cloned child) will need to be concerned not with their genetic relationship to their children, but only with the child’s genetic and biological properties.
Normally, the idea of cloning as an enhancement is to create children with better properties in which the improvement resides in an individual and his or her traits, but some thinkers have proposed that cloning could be used to offer an enhancement of social relationships. This is the very reason given in the novel Brave New World: the fictional society’s cloning-like technology “is one of the major instruments of social stability! ... Standard men and women; in uniform batches,” allowing for excellence and social order. And as the geneticist Joshua Lederberg argued in 1966, some of the advantages of cloning could flow from the fact of the clones’ being identical, independent of the particular genes they have. Genetically identical clones, like twins, might have an easier time communicating and cooperating, Lederberg wrote, on the assumption “that genetic identity confers neurological similarity, and that this eases communication” and cooperation. Family relationships would even improve, by easing “the discourse between generations,” as when “an older clonont would teach his infant copy.” Lederberg’s imaginings will rightly strike today’s readers as naïve and unsettling. Such a fixation on maintaining sameness within the family would undermine the openness to new beginnings that the arrival of each generation represents.
Before we embark on asexual reproduction in order deliberately to select our offspring’s genes, we would do well to remember that sexual reproduction has been the way of our ancestors for over a billion years, and has been essential for the flourishing of the diverse forms of multicellular life on earth. We, who have known the sequence of the human genome for a mere fifteen years — not even the span of a single human generation — and who still do not have so much as a precise idea of how many genes are contained in our DNA, should have some humility when contemplating such a radical departure.
Below is one excerpt from the report, a section exploring the possibility of using cloning to create “enhanced” offspring. (I have removed the citations from this excerpt, but you can find them and read this section in context here.)
* * *
Today, eugenics has a deservedly negative reputation, and the idea of using a biotechnology like cloning to replicate individuals of exceptional merit is prima facie ethically suspect. However, advocates of eugenic enhancement have never entirely disappeared, and their influence in bioethics is arguably not waning, but waxing. In recent years academic bioethicists like John Harris and Julian Savulescu have been attempting to rehabilitate the case for eugenic enhancements on utilitarian grounds. For these new eugenicists, cloning-to-produce-children represents “power and opportunity over our destiny.”

In an important sense, cloning is not an enhancement, since it replicates, rather than improves on, an existing genome. However, as Jonas’s remark about the human race indicates, the cloning of exceptional genotypes could be an enhancement at the population level. And from the point of view of parents who want children who can checkmate like Kasparov, belt like Aretha, dunk like Dr. J, or bend it like Beckham, cloning could represent a way to have offspring with the exceptional abilities of these individuals.
Arguably, cloning is a less powerful form of genetic engineering than other techniques that introduce precise modifications to the genome. After all, cloning only replicates an existing genome; it doesn’t involve picking and choosing specific traits. This weakness may also, however, make cloning more appealing than other forms of genetic engineering, especially when we consider the genetic complexity of many desirable traits. For example, some parents might seek to enhance the intelligence of their children, and evidence from twin studies and other studies of heredity seems to indicate that substantial amounts of the variation in intelligence between individuals can be attributed to genetics. But any given gene seems to have only a tiny effect on intelligence; one recent study looking at several genes associated with intelligence found that they each accounted for only about 0.3 points of IQ. With such minor effects, it would be difficult to justify the risks and expense of intervening to modify particular genes to improve a trait like intelligence.
Cloning, on the other hand, would not require certain and specific knowledge about particular genes, it would only require identifying an exceptionally intelligent individual and replicating his or her genome. Of course the cloned individual’s exceptional intelligence may be due to largely non-genetic factors, and so for a trait like intelligence there will never be certainty about whether the cloned offspring will match their genetic progenitor. But for people seeking to give their child the best chance at having exceptional intelligence, cloning may at least seem to offer more control and predictability than gene modification, and cloning is more consistent with our limited understanding of the science of genetics. Genetic modification involves daunting scientific and technical challenges; it offers the potential of only marginal improvements in complex traits, and it holds out the risk of unpredictable side effects and consequences.
Of course, it is possible that cloning could be used in conjunction with genetic modification, by allowing scientists to perform extensive genetic manipulations of somatic cells before transferring them to oocytes. In fact, genetic modification and cloning are already used together in agriculture and some biomedical research: for larger animals like pigs and cattle, cloning remains the main technique for producing genetically engineered offspring....
Using cloning as an enhancement technology requires picking some exceptional person to clone. This necessarily separates social and genetic parenthood: children would be brought into the world not by sexual pairing, or as an expression of marital love, or by parents seeking to continue and join their lineages, but by individuals concerned with using the most efficient technical methods to obtain a child with specific biological properties. Considerations about the kinds of properties the child will have would dominate the circumstances of a cloned child’s “conception,” even more than they already do when some prospective parents seek out the highest-quality egg or sperm donors, with all the troubling consequences such commodified reproduction has for both buyers and sellers of these genetic materials and the children that result. With cloning-to-produce-children for the sake of eugenic enhancement, parents (that is, the individuals who choose to commission the production of a cloned child) will need to be concerned not with their genetic relationship to their children, but only with the child’s genetic and biological properties.
Normally, the idea of cloning as an enhancement is to create children with better properties in which the improvement resides in an individual and his or her traits, but some thinkers have proposed that cloning could be used to offer an enhancement of social relationships. This is the very reason given in the novel Brave New World: the fictional society’s cloning-like technology “is one of the major instruments of social stability! ... Standard men and women; in uniform batches,” allowing for excellence and social order. And as the geneticist Joshua Lederberg argued in 1966, some of the advantages of cloning could flow from the fact of the clones’ being identical, independent of the particular genes they have. Genetically identical clones, like twins, might have an easier time communicating and cooperating, Lederberg wrote, on the assumption “that genetic identity confers neurological similarity, and that this eases communication” and cooperation. Family relationships would even improve, by easing “the discourse between generations,” as when “an older clonont would teach his infant copy.” Lederberg’s imaginings will rightly strike today’s readers as naïve and unsettling. Such a fixation on maintaining sameness within the family would undermine the openness to new beginnings that the arrival of each generation represents.
Before we embark on asexual reproduction in order deliberately to select our offspring’s genes, we would do well to remember that sexual reproduction has been the way of our ancestors for over a billion years, and has been essential for the flourishing of the diverse forms of multicellular life on earth. We, who have known the sequence of the human genome for a mere fifteen years — not even the span of a single human generation — and who still do not have so much as a precise idea of how many genes are contained in our DNA, should have some humility when contemplating such a radical departure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bloggers
Charles T. Rubin, New Atlantis contributing editor.
Adam Keiper, New Atlantis senior editor.
Ari N. Schulman, New Atlantis editor.
Brendan Foht, New Atlantis assistant editor.
Mark Gubrud, Futurisms contributor.
About

Blogroll
Related essays
by Charles T. Rubin
- Machine Morality and Human Responsibility
- Beyond Mankind
- Why Be Human?
- Our Bodies, Ourselves
- The Rhetoric of Extinction
- Man or Machine?
- Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature
by Adam Keiper
by Adam Keiper and Ari N. Schulman
by Ari N. Schulman
by Mark Gubrud
by other authors
- Humanism and Transhumanism (Fred Baumann)
- The Trouble with the Turing Test (Mark Halpern)
- Disenchanting Determinism (Caitrin Nicol)
- The Anti-Theology of the Body (David B. Hart)
- Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls (Leon R. Kass)
- Transitional Humanity (Gilbert Meilaender)
- Till Malfunction Do Us Part (Caitrin Nicol)
- Methuselah and Us (Diana Schaub)

Frequently-Used Tags
"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom"
1984
2001
30 Rock
Aaron Saenz
Abraham Lincoln
academia
addiction
Adi Robertson
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
advertising
aesthetics
Agents of Shield
Agnes Heller
AI
AirLand Battle
AirSea Battle
Al Jazeera
Alan Jacobs
Alan Rubenstein
Alasdair MacIntyre
Alcor
Aldous Huxley
Alex Backer
Alex Knapp
aliens
Allen Buchanan
Alta Charo
Amy Gutmann
Ana Maria Cuervo
Anders Sandberg
Andrew Hessel
animal uplift
Anna Salamon
anti-progress
Apple
argument from inevitability
argument from infallibility
Ari N. Schulman
Aristotle
arms control
art
Arthur C. Clarke
artifacts
Artificial intelligence
artificial life
artificial wombs
Asilomar
assisted reproductive technology
assumption of mediocrity
Aubrey de Grey
Audrey Hepburn
augmented reality
authenticity
automation
autonomous weapon system
autonomy
Avatar
avian flu
AWS
beauty
behavioral science
Ben Goertzel
Benjamin Storey
Beyond Therapy
Big Dog
Bill Joy
bioart
bioethics
bionics
body image
body modification
Brad Templeton
Bradley Allenby
Bradley J. Thames
brain in a bottle
Brain Preservation Foundation
brain scans
brain uploading
brain-computer interfaces
Brandon Keim
Brave New World
breathing
Brian Christian
Brian Malow
Bryan Caplan
C.S. Lewis
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots
Caprica
Carl Woese
cats
CCW
cell phones
character
Charles Darwin
Charles T. Rubin
Charles Taylor
chess
children
chimeras
China
Christianity
Christine Rosen
Christmas
Claremont Review of Books
Clearpath Robotics
cloning
CNN
coercion
cognitive computing
cognitive enhancement
cognitive liberty
comments
commercials
communication technologies
compression
computational biology
Condorcet
consciousness
constant connection
Constiution
creativity
CRISRP
cryonics
Cuban Missile Crisis
cyborg
Cynthia Kenyon
Dale Carrico
Daniel Sarewitz
Daniel Sportiello
Darlene Cavalier
DARPA
Darwinism
David A. Noebel
David Benatar
David Brin
David Chalmers
David F. Noble
David Foster Wallace
David Gelernter
David Pearce
David Rose
death
Deep Blue
democracy
Derek Parfit
design
designer babies
despair
despotism
dictators
disability
disruption
distraction
distributive justice
diversity
DIYbio
DOD
Down syndrome
drones
dualism
e-memory
e-readers
Earth
eclipse
Eclipse of Man
economics
Ed Boyden
Ed Regis
efficiency
Eliezer Yudkowsky
ELIZA
embodiment
empathy
enhancement
Enlightenment
entropy
environmentalism
equality of access
Eric Drexler
Eric Talbot Jensen
ethics
ETI
eugenics
everyday life
evolution
evolutionary psychology
Ex Machina
existential risks
exoplanets
extraterrestrial intelligence
extraterrestrial life
extropy
eyes in the back of your head
Facebook
faith
fantasy
fashion
faux caution
fiction
Fight Aging
First Amendment
Fixed
Flannery O'Connor
flash crash
flash war
folk psychology
Foresight Institute
Fort Hood
Frances Willard
Francis Bacon
Francis Fukuyama
Frankstein
Fred Baumann
free markets
French Revolution
Friedrich Nietzsche
friendly AI
Future of Life Institute
futurism
Futurism (art)
Futurisms
futuristic distance
G.K. Chesterton
gaming
Garry Kasparov
Gary Drescher
Gary Marcus
Gary Wolf
gene editing
genetic engineering
genetics
geoengineering
George Dvorsky
George Orwell
germline gene therapy
Gilbert Meilaender
Gizmodo
global warming
gloomy
God
Gödel
Golda Meir
goodness
Google
Gordon Bell
government
GPS
Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition
Greg Benford
Gregor Wolbring
Gregory Benford
H.G. Wells
H+ magazine
H+ Summit 2010
Halloween
Hank Hyena
Hans Jonas
Hans Moravec
heartbreak
Heather Knight
Heidegger
Her
history
holism
hope
hubris
human cloning
human excellence
human extinction
human life
human nature
Human Rights Watch
human significance
humanism
humanities
humanoid robotics
humility
humor
Iain M. Banks
Ian Pearson
ICRAC
IEET
immortality
infanticide
IQ
Irfan Khawaja
Isaac Asimov
Isaac Newton
Issues in Science and technology
Itamar Arel
IVF
J. Craig Venter
J. M. Bernstein
J. Robert Oppenheimer
J.B.S. Haldane
Jamais Cascio
James Hughes
James Jorasch
James W. Wagner
Jamie Metzl
Japan
Jason Furman
Jason Robert
Jeffrey Thurnher
Jende Andrew Huang
Jeopardy
Jesse Schell
Jessica Scorpio
JFK
Jill Lepore
John Harris
John Markoff
John Ruskin
John Singer Sargent
John Smart
Jonah Lehrer
Joseph Weizenbaum
journalism
joy
Judaism
Juergen Schmidhuber
Julian Savulescu
jus ad bellum
jus in bello
just war theory
KAL007
Kathleen Lawand
Katja Grace
Ken Hayworth
Kenneth W. Anderson
Kevin Jain
Kevin Kelly
killer robots
Kindle
kissing
Kyle Munkittrick
L5 Society
lambda calculus
Lauren Silbert
law
law of accelerating returns
LAWS
LAWS2015
lay science
Leon Kass
Leon R. Kass
Lepht Anonym
liberalism
libertarian transhumanism
libertarianism
life extension
lifelogging
linguistics
Lisa Katayama
literature
Lockheed Martin
loneliness
Lost
love
LRASM
Ludwig Wittgenstein
MacIntyre Conference
mainstream
Malthusianism
man as beast
Marc D. Guerra
Marcus Hutter
Marilynne Robinson
Mark Blitz
Mark Gubrud
Mark Walker
Martine Rothblatt
Marvel
Marvin Minsky
Marxism
Maryanne Wolf
materialism
Matthew Crawford
Matthew Waxman
Max More
memory
Methuselah Foundation
Methuselarity
METI
Micah Mattix
Michael Anissimov
Michael Nielsen
Michael Pollan
Michael Schmitt
Michio Kaku
Mike Treder
Milan Kundera
military
Millie Ray
mind as computer
Mind Children
mind control
minds
Modern Times
modesty
molecular manufacturing
monstrosities
moral relativism
morality
morphological freedom
Morris Johnson
Moshe Dayan
movies
multitasking
nanotechnology
NASA
Natasha Vita-More
Nathaniel Comfort
National Geographic
National Nanotechnology Initiative
natural law
natural rights
Neal Stephenson
Ned Seeman
neuro-everything
neurobiology
neuroelectronics
neuroengineering
neuroscience
Never Say Die conference
New America Foundation
Nicholas Carr
Nick Bostrom
Nick Carr
Nietzsche
Nikita Khrushchev
Nikki Olson
Nikolai Fyodorov
Noah Goodman
Noel Sharkey
normativity
nuclear weapons
Oculus Rift
Olympics
ontological fortitude
Orphan Black
Orwells
Outline of History
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
P. W. Singer
paradox of choice
parenthood
Patrick Hopkins
Patrick Lin
Patrick McGuire
patriotism
pattern-identity
Paul Ramsey
Paul Scharre
personal identity
personhood
Peter A. Lawler
Peter Singer
Peter Thiel
philosophy of mind
photography
Pioneer
plastic surgery
plastination
Plato
politics
positive sum game
postmodernism
predation
President's Council on Bioethics
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
progress
progressivism
psychology
public relations
quantum computing
racism
Radiohead
Ramez Naam
Randal Koene
rationality
Ray Kurzweil
Ray Tallis
recommended reading
regulation
religion
relinquishment
René Descartes
repugnance
resentment watch
response to critics
resurrection
rhetoric of inevitability
Richard Feynman
Rick Weiss
rights
ritual
Road to Wigan Pier
Robert Ettinger
Robert P. George
Robin Hanson
robotics
robots
Rodney Brooks
Roger Scruton
romance
Ron Bailey
Ron Fouchier
Russia
Ryan Gariepy
S. Jay Olshansky
Sagan
Santa Claus
science
science fiction
scientific enterprise
scientism
scientists
secrecy
sectarianism
seduction community
self-driving cars
semi-autonomous
September 11
Seth Lloyd
SETI
sex
sex selection
sexual enhancement
Sherry Turkle
simulation
Singularitarianism
Singularity
Singularity Hub
Singularity Summit
Singularity University
Slate
sleep
smart phones
SMBC
social interaction
social robotics
society
Socrates
Sonia Arrison
Sorites paradox
space
space colonization
space exploration
sports
Stanislav Petrov
Star Trek
Star Wars
stem cell research
Stephen Cave
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Johnston
Stephen Wolfram
Steve Jobs
Steve Sailer
Steve Talbott
Stuart Hameroff
Stuart Russell
substrate chauvinism
suffering
superstition
suspended animation
synthetic biology
systems
tacos
Tao
Tea Party movement
Techno-Human Condition
Ted Fishman
Ted Goertzel
Teddy Ruxpin
Terminator
terrorism
The New York Times
The New Yorker
The Prospect of Immortality
the rhetoric of extinction
thinking
Thomas Malthus
thought experiments
Tim Tyler
Time magazine
Tocqueville
Todd May
Total Recall
totalitarianism
Transcendence
transhumanism
transhumanist tech fail
translation
travel
truth
Turing Machines
Turing Test
TV
Twitter
Tyler Cowen
tyranny
U.S. government
U.S. military
UAVs
UGVs
uncanny valley
unemployment
United Nations
United States government
uploading
USSR
USVs
utilitarianism
Utopia
UUVs
Vasili Arkhipov
Vatican
verification
Vijay Kumar
virtual reality
virtue
virtues
Voyager
Wafaa Bilal
Walker Percy
Walter Kirn
Washington Post
Watson
we are already x
whole-brain emulation
William Boothby
William Dickens
Winwood Reade
Wired
wisdom
Witherspoon Council
women's lib
work
XKCD
Yom Kippur War
Yuval Levin
Zeitgeist
Zoltan Istvan