Toggle light / dark theme

Transhumanism and my work in the Wall Street Journal today (with about 2.4 million copies in print too—largest US paper by circulation I think). It’s hard to tell, but this might be the first time the WSJ has covered the #transhumanism movement at all. Sorry, there is a pay wall to read full article on the digital side for now.


Spending time with eco-warriors, transhumanists, anti-Islamist activists and other disgruntled opponents of the status quo. Brian C. Anderson reviews “Radicals Chasing Utopia: Inside the Rogue Movements Trying to Change the World” by Jamie Bartlett.

From Islamists to angry populists to militant environmentalists, liberal democratic societies face growing pressure from movements that want to shatter the status quo and replace it with a new and (to them) better order. In “Radicals Chasing Utopia,” the British journalist Jamie Bartlett sets out to describe and understand this new spirit of radicalism. The consensus that defines “ ‘normal’ political ideas,” he says, has been blown apart—and that’s a good thing. Not everyone will agree.

Mr. Bartlett provides a series of…

To Read the Full Story.

Read more

Artificial meat and food may be among our best tools to solve the problems of animal cruelty, feeding a growing population, and (in part) global warming. What do vegans and vegetarians think? In favour of cruelty-free lab-grown meat, or against it by principle?


I often say that I am not a fan of ‘-isms’. Not even those supporting the causes I care for, such as transhumanism. I sympathise with some ‘-isms’ (again, such as transhumanism), but I never consider myself a ‘something-ist’. The reason is that, generally, ‘-isms’ have two problems. The first problem is that they almost always support at least some ideas, or make certain claims, which I disagree with or find too fanciful (certain acceptations of ‘mind uploading’ come to mind, but that’s a story for another post). The second problem is that, if you say you’re a something-ist, people will almost surely assume that you endorse, or believe in, some ideas that are really not your thing, merely because such ideas are either an integral part of the relevant something-ism, or are what people think something-ism is about (which may or may not be true). Not to mention the fact that people often regard the dictionary as the ultimate authority on what ‘real’ something-ism is about, cheerfully ignoring all its variants and flavours (which often blur into mainstream something-ism and each other), whose proponents are usually well persuaded that their own something-ism is the real thing—others just got it wrong.

There’s actually a third problem too. Namely, that if they’re not careful, something-ists who are a bit too zealous might end up putting their ideology before the reasons they embraced it in the first place. Sometimes, this can undermine the very objective something-ists intended to achieve with their embracing the ideology and spreading it left and right.

I had a brilliant example of this phenomenon one time when, while having lunch at a vegetarian restaurant (or vegan, I’m not sure), I mentioned lab-grown meat to my friend. My friend is a vegetarian (or vegan, I’m again not sure), whereas I am not. Vegetarianism and veganism are, obviously, two ‘-isms’; as a corollary of the above, I’m neither a vegetarian, nor a vegan. (Although again according to the above, perhaps I should say ‘vegetarianist’…) I’m not just quibbling about definitions: I do indeed eat animal products of pretty much all kinds. This, however, doesn’t prevent me from sympathising with the cause of vegetarians and vegans who are such because they’re against animal cruelty. Quite frankly, even if animals are raised in the best possible way, and are then killed in the nicest possible way (whatever that means), eating them is still at odds with my own moral compass. Even though I do eat them.

Read more

In April, Scientists based in Philadelphia unveiled an artificial womb undergoing testing on fetal lambs. With a prediction from one of the researchers that the technology could be ready for human testing in three to five years, artificial wombs suddenly became the most unexpected rage of 2017. But what sort of artificial wombs might realistically be a part of healthcare in the near future?

In this video series, the Galactic Public Archives takes bite-sized looks at a variety of terms, technologies, and ideas that are likely to be prominent in the future. Terms are regularly changing and being redefined with the passing of time. With constant breakthroughs and the development of new technology and other resources, we seek to define what these things are and how they will impact our future.

Follow us on social media:
Twitter / Facebook / Instagram

A conspiracy theory article that I think is spreading semi-fake news (but it’s interesting to see how some people react to #transhumanism):


While the title of this article may sound like it belongs on a strange and dark science fiction movie, it doesn’t. Unfortunately, it seems that as the technological world continues to advance, the more the old adage ‘the truth is stranger than fiction’ becomes true.

Throughout the past year or so, we have heard Google’s leading futurist tell us that it will one day be possible to live forever. His belief is that it will start with nanobots in the human body which would work to defeat deadly disease, in place of our immune system. Kurzweil maintains that the human immune system is inadequate and that,

“Your immune system, for example, does a poor job on cancer,” he told Playboy.” It thinks cancer is you. It doesn’t treat cancer as an enemy. It also doesn’t work well on retroviruses. It doesn’t work well on things that tend to affect us later in life because it didn’t select for longevity.”

He also believes that the nanobots will enhance humanity and bring us to a point we could never have reached on our own. “We’re going to be funnier. We’re going to be sexier. We’re going to be better at expressing loving sentiment.”

Read more

Another LEAF interview from the International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit in Madrid with Didier Coeurnelle of Heales.


LEAF director Elena Milova was recently at the International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit in Madrid. During the conference she caught up with life extension advocate Didier Coeurnelle.

In this interview Didier discusses his projects and shares advice to the community regarding what kind of activities can help foster progress in the development of rejuvenation biotechnology.

Didier is one of the most active members of the European life extension community, co-president of HEALES (Healthy Life Extension Society), vice-president of French Transhumanist Association Technoprog, and a founding member of the International Longevity Alliance. He is also a long-term member of the local ecology movement. Didier is currently a lawyer in a Belgian federal government agency for social security. Didier is the main organizer of the biennial scientific conference Eurosymposium on Healthy Ageing, held in Brussels, Belgium.

Read more

The story is on bringing people back to life with radical science and it talks about transhumanism and cryonics. This is the most widespread story I’ve seen on #transhumanism in Eastern Europe yet. https://tenyek.hu/kulfold/237876_felelesztik-az-agyhalottakat.html

Read more

New story about the recent book on #transhumanism To Be a Machine:


For the (very very quickly) upcoming Love & Death Issue, I had the chance to interview the journalist, Mark O’Connell, who is the author most recently of To Be A Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death. He also wrote that amazing piece in the New York Times Magazine a few months ago about Zoltan Istvan, the transhumanist who ran for president and drove across the country in a coffin-shaped bus. O’Connell’s new book reads like a travelogue among characters like Zoltan, futuristic types (mostly from California) that O’Connell describes with a charming blend of cynicism and aloof interest. Like an agnostic amidst a group of “true believers,” O’Connell is both repelled by and drawn in by the belief system that transhumanism proffers.

If you’re unfamiliar, transhumanism is the movement that asserts an immortal future thanks to technology and science. As O’Connell describes it, it is the technological teleology of salvation: “a projection whereby intelligent life takes over all matter in the universe, leading to a cosmological singularity.” In other words, the computers we’ve built, the science we’re discovering, will free us from our mortal coil, our bodies. We will live eternally in new bodies, machines unconstrained by sickness, vulnerability and death.

You can see how O’Connell hears the religious bells ringing. But he also, throughout the book, describes this paradox: that this futurism is just a new iteration of a very old idea. Despite all the science fiction lingo used to describe this singularity (“longevity escape velocity,” “whole brain emulation,” “cyborgs”), what we really have is the apex of Enlightenment thought, and before that, Gnostic thought. It is the idea that we are liberated by our minds, that certain refinements of knowledge will set us free.

Beneath the talk of future technologies, I could hear the murmur of ancient ideas. We were talking about the transmigration of souls, eternal return, reincarnation. Nothing is ever new. Nothing ever truly dies, but is reborn in a new form, a new language, a new substrate.

Read more