BREAKPOINT: terrorists vs. transhumanists

PRLog (Press Release) - Feb 17, 2010 -
“Globegrid,” a high-speed global network, links supercomputers worldwide. Combined with advanced AI software, it promises to reverse-engineer the brain, revolutionize genomics, enable medical breakthroughs, develop advanced human-machine interfaces, and allow for genetic alterations and even uploading consciousness. But it spurs a terrorist-fundamentalist Luddite backlash against transhumanists, as hackers take down the power grid, and destroy vital international data and telecom links, communications satellites, and biotech firms.

In The Scorpion’s Gate, I projected a world in 2010, with the United States and China competing politically and economically for a dwindling supply of increasingly expensive oil and gas. That competition naturally took them to the Persian Gulf, where the largest oil deposits remained.  The Persian Gulf of 2010 was unstable, with the United States threatening Iran, and fundamentalist Islamic forces emerging in Saudi Arabia.  Corruption and giant corporations made Washington a political battleground.  While I noted at the time of publication that the work was not meant to be predictive, many of the trends in the novel have developed and are dominating the news.

by Richard A. Clarke

Breakpoint, set in 2012, is meant to be predictive, at least about technology.  It may read to some like science fiction, but it is based on emerging technologies that are the subject of research today.  Scientists and engineers differ in their views about when the research will result in deployed technology, but their differences are most often a discussion of “when,” not “if.”

This novel is intended to project you a few years ahead, to start readers thinking now about the political, social, and economic changes that technology is about to create. Those changes could be wrenching, creating tensions in our society.  A woman’s right to choose, the teaching of evolution, and stem-cell research have already created social and political discord in the United States.  The coming technological events may make these current controversies seem like a practice round, a warm-up.  For the next debate may be about “what is a human”: Should humans change the species with human-machine interfaces and genetic alterations?

The opening rounds have already occurred.  The Transhumanist movement is real and has regular meetings around the country.  In 2002, the National Science Foundation issued a stunning report, “Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science.” The report, which overall has an upbeat and optimistic tone, concludes that connections between the human brain and computers will transform the way humans work, other technologies will eliminate disabilities and diseases that have plagued the human condition for centuries, and human creativity will flourish due to both improved understanding of the human mind and enhancements to the brain. A year later, the President’s Council on Bioethics issued its report, “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness” which took a somewhat dimmer view of using technology to enhance human beings. Chaired by Leon Kass, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the commission included conservative political figures such as Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer. They believe that genetic science should not be used to enhance human performance, only to fix mistakes that make some humans less healthy than the norm.  In 2004, Californians voted on a referendum on stem cell research and approved funding for research.  Court fights have delayed the spending of state monies.

To read the article in full for free go to http://www.brainwaving.com/2010/02/17/breakpoint-terroris...

Photo:
http://www.prlog.org/10536335/1