[ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists

[Bryan Bishop]

On Saturday 01 March 2008, Tom Nowell wrote:
> I'm sorry if the following post sounds in anyway
> anti-Bryan, but his posts have been the most
> dismissive towards religious influence recently. I'm
> going to mention why I think we should pay attention
> to religion and how it views transhumanism.

Just to make sure, you do understand that I am not dismissive of 
religions at all, merely in terms of making "transhumanism" a reality, 
such as making futurist technologies realized, since *not* paying 
attention to religion does not influence the bottomline technicality of 
the technologies involved. Otherwise, it's an amazing cultural 
phenomena and much more.

> Bryan said " They certainly don't have supercomputers,
> they don't have massive research institutions,
> they don't have neurofarms, the only power they have
> is lots of listeners and a widely distributed
> mental program. What does this power have to do with
> transhumanism?"
>  Well, if they decide that some transhumanist ideas or
> methods are incompatible with their code of ethics,
> they will use that mental program to try and influence
> as many people as possible. This includes many lapsed
> catholics without a particularly strong interest in
> science, who when pushed on a bioethical topic may go
> "I don't know!<shrug> I guess it sounds a bit contrary
> to what I was taught as a child, so I suppose I'm a
> little bit against transhumanist technology X".

No matter how much they proclaim to be against a possibility does not 
determine that bottom line of feasability. Yes, they can protest, yes, 
they can try to stone us, they can try to burn us alive, but you see, 
we can diffuse the information over the internet, and good luck warring 
against the internet. It will route around the damage.

>  Italy, like most developed countries, is a
> representative democracy. This means laws are made,
> and taxes spent, by people who's career depends on
> chasing votes. If enough Italian politicians decide
> that chasing the catholic vote is more important than
> letting some biological research facility or
> experimental medical clinic do what it wants, then
> transhuman progress in that country may be seriously
> held back. The US ban on federal funding of embryonic
> stem cell research didn't hold back the field as much
> as some feared, but the prospect of labs being banned
> from performing certain research is very real.

Thought police fail, and so will fabrication police, it'd be like trying 
to control the whole sum of biological innovation occuring at the 
bacterial level, which is a near impossibility -- just like killing an 
evil man does not kill Satan (for the sake of brevity of point). So 
just because the State declares it "illegal", what does this mean? 
Really?

> Your ES cell or GMO research group would like to
> allowed to legally earn a living without risking jail
> or being closed down.

Yes, they'd like that. And what if they can't? Then I guess they, by 
definition, wouldn't be the ES/GMO research group then, right? Time to 
move in some more interested parties in performing that research ...

> Bryan also said "we're
> increasingly able to do research without financial
> cost (more "DIY")." DIY research still depends on
> being allowed to do it legally. If your research

You are wrong. Look at the DIY malacious software industry. That's 
completely illegal. And it works.

> requires iodine, red phosphorous or hydrochloric gas
> you risk DEA investigation in the US, as the link
> below makes clear.

Hm, that's an interesting problem, but I think that we can come up with 
interesting ways of getting the chemicals we need -- after all, there 
must be a source for these chemicals and resources, right?

> If the war on terror becomes the war on bio-terror,
> anyone doing home biotech research risks being locked
> up without trial. I think it was in Greg Bear's

Writing certain words, thinking certain thoughts -- no, this is usually 
completely untraceable. It's when you start telling people, when you 
become "on the grid" (as I have); it's when you leave enough clues and 
a trail for some seriously intense detectives to trace everything back 
to you. Otherwise there's little risk.

> "Quantico" where he painted a picture of a US filled
> with terrorism, where even vineyards were closely
> monitored for their biotech fermentation equipment,
> and the FBI was furiously trying to contain biotech.

I saw Greg Bear on television a few months ago, he was surprised that 
there wasn't more high school students doing biotech and related 
engineering yet, and he's right that it will probably change pretty 
soon. I should go get the book. Sounds interesting. 

>  I must admit, I've always liked the idea of DIY
> biotech research, and would love to become a "wetware
> hacker" of sorts, but I think in the UK I'd be
> breaking a huge number of laws. I can imagine a future

Then are you also breaking the law by unknowingly increasingly applying 
selective pressures on germs and bacteria via applying chemicals to 
kill them (such as hand sanitizers, soap, etc.)?

> in which me and Bryan are sat in the Guantanamo Bay
> rehabilitation facility for suspected bioterrorists,

http://biohack.sf.net/ <-- I am probably already on their list.

> being played lectures on Intelligent Design over and
> over again until we confess that genetics is a lie and
> god made the human race perfect, and please may we
> have a phone call?

On that note, who the hell are you supposed to call if you get locked up 
in Gitmo? Not just any regular lawyer, surely. A super lawyer, perhaps?

- Bryan
________________________________________
Bryan Bishop
http://heybryan.org/