Hello? Is there anybody out there?

I realized that my conception of who reads this blog may not be accurate.

So, out with it. Who the fuck reads this thing? Who are you??

Been a long time since i rock and rolled...

Hey everyone,

been about three years since I posted here. Recently I've found myself constructing political / philosophical / scientific arguments and narratives spontaneously, in increasing volume, so I'm anticipating a return to blogging as a form of self expression...

There's something about the notion of a blog that I find repulsive... but I can't really articulate how or why.

It could be just, I view it mainly as a calisthenic thing for my own benefit rather than a service provided for the readers, because the thoughts are usually rambling and not so well organized, as they should be if the writing is really for the reader's benefit?

One solution is obviously to become a better writer.

Regardless, I suspect I'm going to have to get over whatever it is, because sending spurious off-the-cuff insane ramblings to snoogums is rapidly losing a viability as a method of self-expression... somehow I'm realizing I have little or no personal connection to many people on the list now, most of the posts are just garbage.

Also, I kinda got the heebie-jeebies at my last visit to Caltech... I realized that, returning to that place is not going to make my memories stronger, its going to make them weaker.

To the extent that those memories are crucial to my current conception of myself, they must be preserved at all costs... Which means I must now embark on the journey of the rest of my life, with this concept of a place preserved at my core, but yet not returning, nor trying to articulate or explain it to others... (this effort usually ends in failure in my experience).

I find this echoes some of Everett's earlier posts... depending on ones current mood, the words and images conjured up relating to the Caltech Experience vary so wildly...

I don't feel it was madness. Surely there were more crazed and confused periods especially towards the beginning. But to my mind the whole period was not unlike the ways that I would faux-stumble walk around, kicking open doors... Goldstein once would laugh at the "incredibly haphazard way in which you do things, Chris Beck"... I don't know how many of my friends came to realize that this was entirely intentional, something that I did that expressed the way life can feel so crazy and haphazard, but that so much of it is superficial. It also gave me a feeling of control, I suppose.

One of my fondest memories will be one time Krastina and I went to Venice Beach, and we were walking by the water, and I was sort of doing this weaving thing as I walked, at first to avoid stepping in the waves with my bare feet, but afterwards just to preserve the oscillations, and I sort of stepped in, still totally "haphazardly" and scooped her up in my arms, and spun rapidly, so that her body was held close to mine but her legs flew out from under her, and I spun her for 3 or 4 times, and then set her down completely in stride and we continued walking. She said something afterwards like, "I think that is what I will remember of today."

Another quote that comes to mind although I can't quite remember it, was due to Brandi around the time she graduated... it was something about, how she will forever miss the place and the people, but how we are all preserved in eachothers' hearts... Realize reader, that I intended to work this in when I first mentioned the idea that I must preserve these memories without revisiting the places... but I got completely sidetracked with other ideas that came to mind, a Fundamental Flaw in my capricious, rambling narrative.

Of course I could defend the rambling narrative as a style if I wanted, its the post-modern, rejection of the unbiased viewpoint, rejection of these arbitrary style rules, its Gonzo Journalism, Man, its the only thing that's really expressive and meaningful, its the only kind of narrative that any one cares about.

But that would all be some kind of horseshit cocktail, served up on the rocks. When the little voice tells you, your writing is needlessly disorganized, you need to fix it. This is why I don't like blogging. This is also why I like snoogums, because no email is too trashy for snoogums. Its the fuckin wild west of prose & poetry.

Oh, I wanted to point everyone to this essay, from about 5 years back. The shared concern of two Princeton Professors concerning the future of Computer Science Education & Policy. I thought it was certainly worth glancing at, if not actually reading.

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/pubs/cacm05.pdf

Lemme know what you think, Biffmotron, in particular.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that, while I'm not aiming to bring We Alone on Earth down to "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly", I am shooting personally for something more like, say, 19th century France. (think Evariste Galois). If you've got a bone to pick with that, well sir, I challenge you to a duel.

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

No new content, but I wanted to put a few links up for our loyal readers.

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

And their peer-reviewed journal, Journal of Evolution and Technology.

There are lots of provocative articles with a great transhumanist stance, and I invite our readers to submit articles that I should comment and respond to. I may pick a few of my own for tomorrow.

--Biff-"and onwards into the realm of serious academia"-motron

Military and Democratic Human Enhancement

In a densely packed piece for CSPO’s Soapbox, Clark Miller makes the case that the military is not the proper agency to spearhead human-enhancement research because “soldiers are not just instruments, and the military has a poor record of allowing its personnel to opt out of dangerous experiments,” and because enhanced humans are (potentially) antithetical to achieved merit, the democratic basis of our society. His proposed solution is a civilian oversight board to provide democratic control of human enhancement technology.

I agree with Miller’s main points, but differ on the specifics. He correctly observes that the military needs are irreconcilable with the Helsinki Declaration on ethical human subject research. Secrecy, hierarchy, and mission focus do not align with protecting the health of subjects, informed consent, or the requirement that “in medical research involving human subjects, the well-being of the individual research subject must take precedence over all other interests.” Yet, this argument does not hold up. On a strict reading of the Helsinki Declaration, all research for the purposes of human enhancement is unethical. War is an inherently dangerous endeavor, and different rules apply in combat than in the civilian sphere. Is there a moral difference between undergoing an enhancement trial, and being ordered to take a fortified strongpoint? The dark past of military medical experiments is a cautionary signal, but not one that necessarily demands the radical step of civilian oversight board.

Miller’s second point about the threat to democracy is more interesting. I agree with him that human enhancement technology potentially undermines core assumptions of western democracy. In America, we have been blessed with a strong sense of the citizen-soldier. Military personnel remain apolitical in the spirit that their service will be appreciated in the tradition of George Washington and Cincinnatus. This tradition has sheltered America from military coup and disaster, but it is predicated on the notion that once the soldier leaves the military, he becomes an ordinary civilian, with no special status other than the respect we accord him of our free will. Military human enhancement draws a clear line between the soldier and citizen, a divide which can only prove hazardous to the historically tranquil relationship between the American state and its military. The democratic consequences of military human enhancement are impossible to predict, but we are right to be fearful of them.

Do we need civilian oversight? We obviously need de-militarized human enhancement, as the early subordination of nuclear power to military needs in the United States, and its current sad status, shows. Human enhancement focused only on military needs would be a tragedy, and the time to avert that is now, in the early days of the field. But I also believe that an approach focused solely on regulating the military is doomed to failure. We need “pull” for civilian human enhancement applications, to create an industry and market capable of every type of innovation. But given the consequences, there should be some kind of oversight and regulation on human enhancement. What kind of regulatory agency can move fast enough to keep up with technology, impartial enough not to get bogged down in the grinding issues of day-to-day politics, and yet remain responsive to the will of the people.

Is human enhancement with democratic control possible, or does human enhancement imply a new form of governance?