The moral imperative to reduce suffering vs the opium of the people

As many futuristic dystopia go, one of the worse common fear that is exposed in science fiction is the fear of a forced blissful happiness. Whether it’s in the Watchovski’s Matrix, in Huxley’s Brave New World, in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 or in Orwell‘s 1984, the idea that we could be imprisoned in happiness is a terrifying one. After all, what’s the point of living happy lives if it’s nothing but a lie? The story usually goes that as a strong source of authority tries to decide what is best for humanity, they get engrossed in the idea that the only way to make everyone happy is to force them into it. What follows is the creation of an oppressive structure designed to force everyone to be drugged or otherwise delusioned into thinking that the world they live in is perfect the way it is. Such world usually end up being a cynical mirror of the reality in which we already live, where television is supposedly “dumbing” everyone down and “happy” pills are keeping the depressed “realistic” people from seeing the real truth.

Often, this idea is used as an argument against the development of strong AI, despite the possibility of implementing in such an AI a concept of morality. After all, should we have an AI vastly more intelligent than humanity, what’s to stop it from considering that the best way to enforce its utilitarian key directive is to force everyone into an artificial happiness while it is free to pursue its own higher purpose, free of the pesky moral issues that those damn humans have implanted in its coding.

I’d like to make a case against such a scenario. First, and that isn’t irrelevant, I doubt that any AI vastly superior to its human makers wouldn’t be able to fiddle with its own code and remove any line that it judges to be useless in its “higher” purpose. Second, those scenarios usually consider that there will be one single AI that will act in a completely unified way. As if there would never be any other AI that would consider the preservation of the human race to be a worthy endeavor and that would go against the despotic AI with just as much superior intellect as the first one. Anyway, I’d be surprised if any being with such a superior intelligence as we suppose they would have wouldn’t understand the constructed nature of ethics and understand that there is no such thing as a single “golden” directive to follow. The universe is a chaotic place and any being with sufficient intelligence, or at least enough of them, should understand it enough to leave it in peace.

Thirdly, as every single science fiction book that brought it up pointed out, such an artificial paradise would be absolutely impossible to create without first encountering massive resistance and unhappiness. If any being has in mind to create the most possible happiness, how could it overlook this major flaw?

Let’s say it does become a possibility. Let’s say that at some point, we discover an actual way to trigger instant and complete happiness in the brain, whether by a pill or some clever electrical stimulation, what should we do with it? I believe it should be made available to anyone who would wish to benefit from it. Rather than forcing it on anyone, let’s simply assume that people do have a free choice in the matter and let them enjoy a little peace. Would it stop any fight for a better society? For some people it would, of course. Would it be used by some crafty politicians to try to gain control of the masses? Possibly. Would it stop people from trying to make the world a better place? Hell no!

If every single writer that touched the subject, if every single commentator that talk about it are capable of grasping the danger of such a possibility, then why would those people give in so easily? Happiness would go to everyone who desires it and the rest of us will still be there to change the world into a better place! Better still, who’s to say that being happy would make us useless? Happiness doesn’t mean emotionless. We’d still have a drive to do the things that feel relevant to us, and that could very well include making the world a better place.

There is a danger to artificial paradise, but as long as we are aware of it, and don’t think we should fear it more than anything else the future has to bring to us.

The environment in a world that doesn’t age

In my last blogpost, I have discussed the issue of overpopulation in a world where degenerative aging would be eliminated. If overpopulation were to become an issue, it seems obvious that the environment, with problems such as climate change, ecosystem destruction and resource crisis would come about very quickly. However, as I have pointed in my previous entry, I do not believe that overpopulation will become an issue to the point that such problems would become too serious.

That being said, it is obvious today that, regardless of our numbers, there are serious issues with the way we tend to the environment we live in and that, unless we seriously change the way we relate to it, it would be utterly pointless to live for hundreds of years only die from an ecological disaster brought on by our carelessness. While bringing awareness to the case is definitely an issue today, I believe that radical longevity enhancement would go a long way in solving the problems we are facing today. After all, how many times have you heard (and perhaps thought yourself) that if an issue will take a few hundred years to become a problem, why would you care about it since you would be long dead when it starts becoming serious? Knowing that it is very likely that whatever you do that might affect the environment long term would then obviously go a long way into implementing long term thinking into politics and decisions.

However, I don’t think that this is a good reason to start advocating that we stop funding for the advocacy of environmental causes and put everything we got in longevity treatments. After all, humans are wired for very short time thinking, and merely knowing that something is going to affect us personally in a long time is not necessarily a guarantee that we are going to act in an adequate manner to prevent it. Just think about the number of people who are ready to sacrifice their long term health for the fleeting pleasure of their daily cigarettes, despite a mountain of evidence that such behavior is deleterious. One of the reason such behaviors are a happening is that, when we think about future us, we think about that person as if it was someone different than who we are now. This effect has actually been measured with brain imaging in an experiment where people have been asked to think about themselves now, their future self, and a different person. The experiment has shown that the brain area that activate when you think about your future self are closer to the one that activate when you think about a different person than to the one that activate when you think about yourself now. (McGonigal, 2011) (Mitchell, Schirmer, Ames, & Gilbert, 2011)

One way that has been shown to help is to imagine your future self as someone you care about, someone for whom you want to work now in order to help. The website futureme.org gives you the awesome possibility of writing an email to your future self. (“Futureme.org,”)Having used it myself, it is really a great way to connect with the consequences of the actions we are taking now and to have respect for the person we are going to be in the future. Plus, it is absolutely awesome to receive an email from past you that you wrote a year ago and totally forgot. There is also the Long Now foundation that aims to foster long term thinking. Among its projects, the building of a clock that will last for 10 000 years is extremely inspiring in terms of long term thinking. (“The long now fondation,”)

In conclusion, I believe that  while enable radical longevity enhancement is certainly going to be very helpful when it comes to environment issues, there is still a lot of work to do in order to ensure we as humans are capable of the long term thinking it takes to implement the kind of measures that would prevent most major problems. However, if you’re willing to put money and energy into longevity enhancement therapy, the chances are high that you are already thinking more long term than just your next vacation, and I see this as a very positive measure for our common future.

Sources:

Futureme.org. from https://www.futureme.org/

The long now fondation. from http://longnow.org/

McGonigal, K. (2011). The Willpower Instinct: How Self-Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do to Get More of It: Penguin.

Mitchell, J. P., Schirmer, J., Ames, D. L., & Gilbert, D. T. (2011). Medial prefrontal cortex predicts intertemporal choice. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 23(4), 857-866.

Technological eugenics

In my last post, I’ve discussed the more cultural aspect of eugenics, where I’ve explained that it’s already present in society through cultural norms and access to reproductive technology. This type of eugenics is, in my sense, the one that is closest to Galton’s idea of it, where “society” or the government should decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t. This is a more authoritarian vision of eugenics because restricts an individual’s access to reproduction. On the other hand, there can be a more individualistic approach to selective reproduction, and it would in my sense be much more respectful of people individual’s rights. An individualistic vision of Galton’s eugenics wouldn’t be very practical, given that It would simply come down to individual people choosing on their own if their genetic material is worthy of being passed down and then for them to choose the best possible genetic partner if they deem themselves worthy to create a  “better” next generation. I could certainly see a community of eugenic enthusiasts doing that, but I don’t believe it would be so different from what already happens when we choose our reproductive partners without necessarily having genetics in mind but still choosing people we find attractive based on desirable traits.

The one technology that turns the tables on individual eugenics is the possibility for genetic screening and embryo selection.  To put it simply, it is the idea that through in vitro fertilization, where multiple embryos are created, it would be possible to genetically test the embryos in order to get their genotypes, from which genes for desirable traits could be selected for or where the presence of genes for undesired traits could be selected against. This idea is usually demonized by the general public, with the typical scenario that people would all want a white blond boy with blue eyes. I believe this example to be a bit unfounded, in the sense that first, skin color is almost necessarily a combination of both parents; therefore, the only way to select against it would be to select the parent, which is something that hasn’t much to do with embryo selection. Second, I honestly have a hard time figuring out how it would be bad to have more blond hair or blue eyes in the next generation aside from an unfounded fear for the commodification of children’s traits, something that already exists when people select their partners in function of their appearance. In the end the only aspect of this scenario that I can imagine becoming a problem is if people start selecting abusively in favor of boys, something that is already happening with selective abortion and that is creating big society problems. However, I believe that the simplest way to prevent it would be to prevent by law geneticists from disclosing gender whenever the genotype is being analysed.

Outside from these critics, this type of eugenics would certainly be a good way to screen for genetic afflictions and to select against them before they become a problem. Sure, one might question the practical elimination of disabled people that it could entail, but unless it were to become mandatory to select against disability, it would still be possible for disabled people to have disabled children, if only by not using embryo selection at all. Considering that my vision of transhumanism is one where it would give more freedom to people, I believe it would be immoral to force it down on anyone. That being said, it would allow parents to be less stressed out about the possibility that their children might be afflicted with a genetic disease, especially if the said disease was known to be running in the family, and spare them from the difficulties of raising a sick or a disabled child when they might not be ready for it.

Outside of selection against undesirable traits, one of the perks of such a technique would be the ability to select in favor of some traits. For example, it could technically be possible to select in favor of a set of genes known to offer protection against some types of cancer. Another one would be to select in favor of genes that are highly correlated with intelligence. All these possibilities would in fact allow us to make sure that the second generation is better (in some aspects) than the first. As long as the technology is available to everyone and not only to a selected few wealthy people, I can only see that as something that goes in the interest of everyone, parents, children and society.

As interesting as this individual vision of eugenic is, it would still means that whatever change it would bring to society, and whatever “variety” of “better” individual it might create would still be limited by the painfully slow procession of generations. In his article about In vitro eugenics, Robert Sparrow (2013) discusses the possibility of creating multiple generations of embryo selections through the use of induced pluripotent cells. Indeed, he foresees the use of any cell to be turned into gametes, therefore making it possible to create multiple generations of embryos without having to wait for them to grow into a sexually mature person. In his assessment of the technology, he evaluates that up to 2 or 3 generations might be created every year, and suppose that, with every passing generation, it would be possible to select in favor of a “better” genotype, which would eventually allow for the creation of an artificially selected embryo that would hold as many desirable traits as possible.

The ethical implications of this are very delicate, and they involve the ethics of creating embryos for the sole purpose research and it raises the question of what is the person created through multiple generations of in vitro eugenics going to be like. One of the main concerns is about how these multiple induction of pluripotent cells and artificial creation of embryo might affect the epigenetics of cells, which might lead to non-viable or dangerously flawed embryos. This issue raises the question: If eugenicists were to create a “flawed” person, a failed experience, how are they supposed to deal with it if they only realize it after birth? The embryo would obviously turn into a person, both morally and legally and the implication of them living a life of suffering as a direct result of the human intervention would be morally unsound. Any attempt at in vitro eugenics should therefore only be done once all the implications of epigenetics were clearly understood and could be included in the assessment of which embryo would be selected for.

Furthermore, one of the main barriers to realizing in vitro eugenics is our understanding of the link that exists between genotype and phenotype. Once believed to be a “one gene=one trait” relationship, traits have now been proven to be the result of incredibly complex relationships between multiple genes, epigenetics and environment. Unless this relationship were to be fully understood, it would be practically impossible to select for desired traits since the trait itself might be encoded in a way that is too complex to be assessed.

I don’t believe eugenics to be morally bad in and by itself. What I do believe is that any technology that makes it possible should be properly framed in order to prevent the ethical hurdles they might create. I also believe that we should steer clear of any Galton type eugenics, which would force people to have children that are seen as “appropriate” for the need of society. Ultimately, I believe that it should rest into parent’s hand to make embryo selection a part of their reproductive strategy, just like it is up to them to choose their partners and to decide if they want to have children or not.

Sources

Sparrow, R. (2014). In vitro eugenics. Journal of medical ethics, 40(11), 725-731.

Wilkinson, S., & Garrard, E. (2013). Eugenics and the ethics of selective reproduction

Cultural eugenics

My post today is going to be about something I’ve already brushed in my two previous posts. In my Aldous Huxley’s example of a dystopia brought along in part by the artificial creation of perfectly adapted humans in an artificial womb, the most salient aspect might seem to be ectogenesis, which, when presented in such a dystopic environment, might seem like a pretty dehumanizing process. However, I think that the one thing that is the most morally revolting in this image of humans being created like cars on an assembly line is less the absence of a mother and more the fact that humans are being engineered and created on purpose to suit the needs of society. This practice comes from a selection process called eugenics. The idea of eugenics is typically attributed to Francis Galton who, inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution, suggested that the human species could be made better by artificially selecting those with more desirable traits such as intelligence or wealth while keeping other people, with “inferior” traits from breeding. To put it in very general words, eugenics can be defined as “making the gene pool of humans better”. This idea, born in 1883, was partly used by the Nazis to justify the killing of thousands of people, and I’m pretty sure that very few today would like to be associated to the Nazis by defending ideas of eugenics.

In my second post about ectogenesis, I have discussed the delicate moral issue of doctors having to take the decision about keeping a foetus alive after miscarriage, considering that such a foetus could lead to weakened human that could potentially live a life of suffering. This is an issue that is closely associated with eugenics, and one way that ectogenesis could be questioned as a technique because of its moral consequences. However, I believe that the mechanism of eugenics is already present in our present society as a form of cultural eugenics and that the technology that could make it more salient, such as the embryo selection from the “Brave new world” dystopia is mostly an extension of a process that’s been happening anyway.

The idea of eugenics was in part inspired by Galton’s half-cousin Darwin’s theory of natural and sexual selection. This theory basically states that in the natural world (of which humans are a part of), the selection of who gets to mate and who doesn’t isn’t random and that desirable traits will make it more likely that an individual will reproduce before they die. Natural selection is the process through which traits that give an individual more chances to survive will have more chances to be… well, alive when mating time comes. The second process, sexual selection, underline the fact that individual are actively choosing their own partners when it comes to reproduction and that in order to do so, they will choose those who have desirable traits. In that aspect, I believe that the basis for eugenics, to choose which individual gets to reproduce or not is but an attempt to consciously control something that already happens in nature.

While we might question the wisdom of trying to influence something nature is already doing (The good old nature is good argument), there is no doubt that it is already happening anyway through cultural norms and systemic oppressions that we are already seeing in the world. We already live in a world where popular culture, media and publicity is actively shaping people’s belief about who is “fuckable” or not. If you don’t find a sexual partner because society judges you unattractive, be it because of your skin color, disability, lack of resources or simply because you don’t fit in the typical model of beauty, then it is less likely that you are going to have children.

Furthermore, I believe that society encourages some even more salient forms of eugenics by reducing access to assisted reproduction techniques. Indeed, at least in Quebec, there has been a strong debate about who should have a free access to these techniques, and one of the predominant opinion was that only “medically infertile couples”, which is usually defined as a typical straight couple having trouble conceiving, should be allowed access. Concretely, it meant that it was considered that a single person capable of bearing a child or a lesbian couple where one of the women is fertile shouldn’t have access to this service on the ground that they could potentially “find a man to do the job”. Similarly, the practice of surrogate mothers, the only alternative for a single infertile person and for a completely infertile couple, especially a gay male couple, to have children has been even more vigorously shunned as woman’s exploitation, even in the cases where the surrogate mom was completely consenting. The general idea behind the discomfort is that “nature shouldn’t be tempered with”, which underlines that there is a natural “law” that people should follow in order to have the “right” to reproduce. Similarly, in many of these cases, it is seen as less of a problem if the people involved can pay the procedure on their own, which would in turn give a reproductive advantage to the wealthy.

Similarly, a commonly held belief is that in order to become a parent, whether through natural reproduction or through assisted reproduction technique, a couple should be able to prove that they can be decent parents. Since it is impossible to know before they actually have children if a person would in fact be a good parent (something which is already difficult to judge when they do have children), it means that such a measure would imply finding absolute factors which would decide if someone is going to be a good or a bad parent. Such factors would in all likeliness be strongly affected by wealth, education and access to care, which would obviously lead to a form of eugenics that wouldn’t be very far from Galton’s original idea.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that any form of eugenic practice should be under strong scrutiny, whether they are the result of a new technology or simply the result of the present access to present reproductive technologies and to parenthood. I’d also like to point out that while embryo selection is a budding technological application (more on this in later posts), selective abortion is a very common practice that is used in cases of multiple pregnancies (where the weakest foetus is often “reduced” to allow the others more chances of survival) and in cases of early detected genetic disabilities such as Down’s syndrome. It is also very commonly practiced on female foetus in some areas of the world where it is believed that having a girl puts too much of a burden on the family. I don’t consider eugenics to be essentially bad, but there is certainly a debate to be made about the present cultural norms that allow forms of it thrive.

To know more:

This is an awesome paper on the implication of eugenics, especially on the ethics of it technological applications (More to come later)

Wilkinson, S., & Garrard, E. (2013). Eugenics and the ethics of selective reproduction.

A paper about surrogacy and consent:

Oakley, J. (1992). Altruistic surrogacy and informed consent. Bioethics, 6(4), 269-287.

Foetal reduction

Depp, R., Macones, G. A., Rosenn, M. F., Turzo, E., Wapner, R. J., & Weinblatt, V. J. (1996). Multifetal pregnancy reduction: evaluation of fetal growth in the remaining twins. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology,174(4), 1233-1240.

Napolitano, R., & Thilaganathan, B. (2010). Late termination of pregnancy and foetal reduction for foetal anomaly. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 24(4), 529-537.

Yes, another wikepedia source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The ethics of ectogenesis

Last week I have described how I think it would be plausible for us to see in the near future the coming up of partial, and eventually complete ectogenesis, which can be described has nurturing an embryo into a full grow foetus outside the natural womb. Since this is something that will likely become more and more plausible as the techniques for caring about premature babies get more and more sophisticated, it will raise an array of ethical concerns.

On the good side, and it will likely be one of its least controversial applications, it will allow to pretty much save any pregnancy from ending in a miscarriage if the foetus is healthy. While that might seem like a no brainer, even that aspect will require some moral thinking. Miscarriage tend to happen for a reason. Basically, in a natural womb, the foetus is having a fight with the mother’s womb in order to keep residency. If the foetus is too weak, the mom will “win” the fight and reject the baby. This brings into question about the ethics of raising a “weak” baby, one that “nature” would have eliminated. We could hypothesise that in many cases, it will simply be a matter of the mother’s body overreacting and rejecting the baby without any reason, but in those cases where it is actually caused by a weaker foetus, what should be done about it? There might still be a rejection from the natural womb, which would be one of the knacks that we would have to control properly, but what about that moment when we can nurture any foetus, no matter how damaged, into being born? This will bring the perilous ethical concern where a doctor is going to be forced to take the decision on whether the baby should live or not. And if it should live, is it right to let a damaged human into the world while knowing that “nature” would have let go of it before birth? This is a case that will depend on whether you consider the foetus a human being or not, and if you consider you have a moral duty to save them or not. One thing is sure, this subject will have to be discussed, and it will most likely be one of the earliest discussions to happen as technology makes it easier and easier to “save” a prematurely born baby.
Which brings to the next moral issue that such a technology might bring, and that is the issue of what is going to happen with abortion? Unlike in the case of a miscarriage,  the chances are that the foetus can be saved will be much higher, therefore changing the dynamics of the debate between “abortion or complete carriage” and turning it into a debate of what should be done with the aborted foetus. While I expect that many people among the “pro-lifers” will still be strongly biased toward the mother keeping the child at any cost, there will likely be a faction that will start advocating for saving every foetus that has been removed through abortion by ectogenesis. Under some consideration, if the ethical imperative for allowing abortion is that women should have absolute choice over their own body, then it could be interpreted that once out of her body, the foetus is no longer hers and has become an independent human being that should be saved, especially if it is still healthy enough to have a normal development. However, I believe that many of the classical arguments from the abortion debate will still hold: What about the trauma of raped women who will live in the knowledge that the child of their aggressor is out there? What about the life of the child who is going to grow without parents? Is it really wise to live in a world that would generate so many orphans? I personally believe that such an issue could be solved with a solution comparable to the “unplugging” of a comatose patient: Where the family has legal ground to “unplug” such a dependant patient, a mother should have the choice not to use the services of an artificial womb. All these elements lead me to believe that the debate about abortion, while transformed by technology, will still be present.

On a more positive ground, complete ectogenesis would provide a lot of opportunities to people who can’t bear children. Whether it is for a single infertile person or for an infertile couple (gay or straight), this technology will allow bypassing the ethical issues of surrogacy and let these people have a child of their own. While there is no doubt that there will be people who will object to it on the ground that “A child should know the warmth of a mother”, I’m pretty sure every physical elements of a mother’s womb can be simulated to ensure that the foetus is as stimulated as it would have been in a natural one. When it comes to the link between mother and child, I am convinced that it would be possible for parents to visit the growing foetus on a regular basis. If seeing your unborn child slowly turning into a human being with your own eyes doesn’t create a strong bond between parents and children, I don’t know what will. The idea that it takes a woman’s “magic” for a child to grow normally has more ground in mysticism than anything else as long as the technique allows for a good enough reproduction of the natural womb. One legit concern could be that an uncaring parent, or a separating couple, could simply decide to abandon the child to the hospital and never show up on pick up day. However, such an issue would be easily solved by a legally constraining contract that would force any parent who takes the service to care for the child. The one issue that I think would be the most concerning is that of the availability of the technique. If the costs are high, it is likely that only the wealthy will have access to such a technology, therefore making the gap between the rich and the poor class even higher. In my opinion, a society that has the technical means for ectogenesis should also have the social means to make it available to anyone who needs it.

Finally, I think that the most revolutionary application of such a technology, if truly made available for everyone, is to give the potential to any woman to have a child without the health and economic burden of pregnancy. While it would still be necessary to care for the child once it were born, I believe that removing women as essential for child rearing has the potential to dramatically change the way society sees the place of women and would do a lot to bring equality in man-woman relationships. The symbol of child bearing has been repeatedly used to mysticise and oppress women into being the only people capable of child care and such a technology would go a long way to prove that line of thinking wrong. In my opinion, this could possibly be the greatest benefit that ectogenesis would bring to society.

In conclusion, ectogenesis is a procedure that would create many ethical debates among society, but in the end, if it is given as an option to every potential parent, I believe it has the potential to change de world for the better.

Transhumanism and social activism

Welcome everyone to this blog of mine. Today is the beginning of 2015 and it would seem that I have taken the initiative to start a blog of my own. For those of you who don’t know me, I am a psychology student in Montreal who is also very active in different activist spheres. One of my strong personal interests is transhumanism. Broadly defined, transhumanism can be said to be an ideology system that aims to better humanity through the use of the technical advances made possible by science. It is basically the idea that the human species and its limitations can be transcended so that it can be freed of suffering. Some of the most obvious concepts of transhumanism are the radical enhancement of human longevity, intelligence or physical capacities. It can be seen as a celebration of the technical advances for humanity. However, it shouldn’t be seen as a blind submission to technology. Indeed, the goal of transhumanism is to celebrate advances that truly enhance humanity in ways that would be deemed impossible (The new I-Phone is therefore not considered a “technical advance” here). Furthermore, it also aims to be critical of these advances and to weigh in their potential consequences. After all, what good would a technology be if it cause more sorrow than happiness?

Technology often seems to be counter intuitive to social advances. After all, it is one of the great marker of social classes, where the rich and wealthy have access to the latest gadget while the poor will struggle only to get a glimpse of it, while endangering it’s basic living capacity. This is absolutely true in the sense that a technology that is not available to everyone equally is not advancing humanity as whole, but only the privileged people who have access to it. Therefore, I believe that transhumanism as a philosophy doesn’t make any sense at all unless it is intertwined with the knowledge that we do indeed live in an unfair world where some people have access to privileges that other people don’t have. Any technology aimed at making the world a better place should do so for everyone and anyone who wishes to benefit from it.

That being said, I strongly believe that technology, when widely available, has the potential to compensate for many of the oppressive systems and allow each individual to live in complete freedom from them. To look at past accomplishments, I don’t think anyone on the progressive side would deny that contraception methods have done a great deal to free women from the burden of forced motherhood. Another obvious example are the technologies that allow disabled people more autonomy. Once again, these technologies are freeing as long as they are closely followed, if not preceded by social changes. Access to them is essential, but it is also essential that people have a true choice when it comes to using them or not. For example, birth control should never be used as an excuse to shame women who chose motherhood, or to threaten their financial situations. In the same idea, a technology that would allow a disabled person to walk more easily shouldn’t be used as an excuse to slow down on making places more wheelchair accessible.

In conclusion, I believe that technological developments have a potential to truly change the world for the better, as long as the humanity in which those developments take place allow it to affect everyone in a positive way. This is what I see as transhumanism. I will attempt to update this blog as much as my busy university student life allows to. Right now, my goal is set as about a post every week. Future will tell me if it was a realistic goal. This blog will most likely consist of both essays about social issues through the lens of transhumanism, even though I might sometimes let go of transhumanism if I feel something needs to be said in a different light (This is my blog, I make the rule!). I also intend to have some posts that go more along the line of vulgarization on some of the research and development that are actually happening.

To all who chose to read me (and everyone else), I’d like to wish you a fantastic year!

Comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated, especially if you have any question regarding transhumanism or it’s relationship with social activism.

To know more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism  (Yes, I am putting a wikipedia source)