In this article from AlterNet, a writer discusses the “Bizarre Libertarian Plan of Uploading Brains into Robots to Escape Society.” Setting aside his mistaken presumption that all transhumanists share a libertarian political persuasion (although several prominent voices do), he describes several advanced technologies and concepts central to transhumanist thought and comes to the following conclusion:

No one wants to die, but the thought of living forever among narcissistic libertarian cyborgs makes death’s cold embrace seem more like a squishy hug from the Easter Bunny.

Now AlterNet is a “liberal” blog, but I think this post would have been far more interesting had it compared the approach to transhuman concepts from both a libertarian viewpoint and a democratic transhumanist viewpoint as espoused by thinkers like Dr. James Hughes or George Dvorsky.

Politics aside, though, this article does illustrate how most people view transhumanism. First, these technologies are so radical it’s difficult for most people to wrap their minds around them As a result, transhumanist thinkers get labeled as, at best, idealists, and at worst, cranks. Second, even if you convince people that these technologies are feasible and are on their way, it’s a challenge to convince them that they’re desirable. I’m still amazed more people aren’t enthusiastic about the concept that they might never have to die a natural death.

Transhumanism’s struggle in the near future will be portraying itself in ways that aren’t scary, weird or off-putting. Even so, as transhumanist technologies advance I expect a much larger (and organized) backlash. Good, proactive PR can go a long way toward helping to mitigate negative sentiment.

If I were attending the H+ Summit at Harvard this weekend (and oh how I wish I were), I’d be sure to take in Hyena’s lecture on “Global TransHumanism: An Analysis of the Top H+ Nations. Praising Their Achievements and Goals.“

He also provides his opinion on who is helping bring about this potential future:

Ok, so who is working towards this eventuality? Well, if it happens this way, pretty much everybody in the NBIC fields – everybody working on nanotech and biotech and AI and brain science, whether as citizen scientists in a collaborationist project or working for a corporation, or those wacky surrealists at DARPA – they’re all pushing this potentiality forward. Of course, we may have to “hijack the singularity” from them eventually – or even now (think gene patent v. open source bio). But mainly, I think all the people who are engaging in open source collaborationist tinkering and culture, the citizen scientists – particularly the more sophisticated and educated young people that are choosing to invest themselves in “garage” projects – I think they all may be taking us there.

I also think the best, smartest critics and skeptics and SF writers and creators are helping – by problematizing these scenarios in advance, by giving us arguments and narratives that remind us about human behaviors and emotions and political and economic and scientific realities. Brilliant fiction adds to our foresight… our pattern recognition… by playing out dramatic, difficult, dark, challenging, ambiguous or dystopian scenarios based on similar technological possibilities.

Like all of R.U. Sirius’ writings, it’s well worth reading.

Swiss police said today that their car was halted on the night of April 15 at Langnau en-route to the technology centre at Rueschlikon, near Zurich.

The site is due to be opened next year and already has some of the most complex and advanced computer equipment in the world installed in it.

‘A large quantity of explosives was found,’ said a police spokesman.

He said the amount of explosive would have caused far more devastation than the Ruetli explosions of 2007. The Ruetli meadow near Lake Lucerne was the scene of small bombs detonated near the homes of politicians in that year.

IBM spokeswoman Susan Orozco confirmed ‘an incident’ but would not say more.

Last month, I pondered why nanotechnology had largely escaped the radar of anti-technology activists. This is a sharp contrast to new technologies like stem cell research and genetically modified foods, which each have inspired protests and “direct action” from activists in the form of pulling up fields of GM crops.

As nanotechnology advances and takes on a larger role in our everyday lives, I expect awareness and opposition will increase. Hopefully violent action against researchers and facilities can be curtailed, however.

Overall, investment by other countries grew by 27 percent between 2003 and 2008, compared to only 18 percent by the U.S.

The Council presented a number of proposed actions to help the U.S. maintain its lead in the field, including:

[…]the working group called for a $2 million budget increase — up from the current $3 million — to strengthen the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office, which oversees the [National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)].

And they recommend the NNI — which has funneled $12 billion in investments through 25 federal agencies over the past decade — increase its investment in manufacturing of nanomaterials by 100 percent over the next five years.

The report also calls for programs to retain scientific and engineering talent trained in the United States, such as the development of permanent resident cards for foreign nationals who get an advanced degree in science or engineering at a U.S.-accredited institution and can prove they are working in science or engineering fields.

And it calls for better ways to track the impact of nanotechnology on the economy, the environment and health.

As research goes beyond “proof of concept” nanotechnology and continues to show practical uses, the investments will come. I hope the U.S. government will do its part to exercise a light regulatory touch to encourage additional private development.

Professor Jennifer Kuzma of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota argues nanotechnology doesn’t have the “yuck factor” that accompanies other scientific advancements that do trigger anti-technology activism. She’s got a point – for example, many people just aren’t comfortable with the idea that their food has been genetically altered, even if it’s perfectly safe or “improves” on non-GMO food. Embryonic stem cell research carries an even more severe “yuck” factor, especially for the large percentage of the population who identify as pro-life.

Compared to those two examples, current commercial applications of nanotechnology are relatively boring. The most significant anti-nanotech protest we’ve seen in the United States involved topless women occupying an Eddie Bauer store in Chicago to rage against… stain resistant pants.

Although I’m a huge proponent and enthusiast of nanotechnology, we do have evidence that shows some applications of nanotechnology can be very dangerous. One study showed that, if inhaled, carbon nanotubes could be the “new asbestos,” leading to respiratory problems and cancer. Eric Drexler even wrote about the potential dangers of “grey goo” in his landmark book, Engines of Creation.

As nanotechnology continues to be a topic of research, chances are evidence will come to light that some applications may be hazardous to human health. Although there are few protests at the moment, I agree that it’s in the nanotechnology industry’s best interest to rigorously test the safety of their products to ensure activists don’t have a reason to stifle nanotechnology development:

(David Eaton, professor and director of the Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of Washington) believes that nano safety data is needed to maintain the public confidence that will be required to facilitate the widespread distribution of the materials into commerce.

“Such advances may be hindered by public fear,” he says, “because we failed to adequately demonstrate the relative safety of the materials before potential exposures become widespread.”

History, he adds, shows how easily such a turn of fortune can happen. “If applications of nanomaterials into consumer products greatly outpaces research that allows us to understand the potential human health and environmental implications of these new technologies,” he predicts, “there will be a public backlash against all forms of nanotechnology, similar to what occurred a number of years ago with genetically modified foods.”

By exercising caution and continuing research that shows the potential of nanotechnology to improve our lives, scientists and industry will have the opportunity to acclimate consumers to a revolutionary new technology before their minds are exposed to fear, uncertainty and doubt from anti-nanotech activists.

One of the great things about TED is that, while the conferences are fairly exclusive, they put up video from their presentations online for all of us to benefit. While there are many presentations worth watching out of the 600+ videos that can be found on the TED site, here are my favorite five talks on transhumanist topics:

Aimee Mullins on running (February 1998)

Aimee Mullins garnered attention as a record-setting runner who also happens to be a double amputee. She successfully competed against able-bodied athletes while at Georgetown University on carbon fiber legs that were modeled after those of a cheetah. At TED1998 she spoke about her experiences running in college and at the paralympics, and the challenges she experienced using her then-revolutionary prosthetics.

Rodney Brooks says robots will invade our lives (February 2003)

Roboticist Rodney Brooks, Director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, spoke in 2003 about how robots would be increasingly integrated into our lives. While advancements in robotics have come a long way since Brooks gave this presentation, a lot of this is still very applicable today, especially his demonstration on how we will provide direction to robots on how to perform complex tasks.

Nick Bostrom on our biggest problems (July 2005)

Philosopher Nick Bostrom, founder of the World Transhumanist Association (Now Humanity+) and current director of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, presented on humanity’s three biggest problems, including death, existential risk and that “life isn’t usually as wonderful as it could be.” He talks through how humans would need to change, as well as how we would have to change the world around us, to address these issues.

Ray Kurzweil on how technology will transform us (February 2005)

At TED2005, Ray Kurzweil provided an overview of his Law of Accelerating Returns and how it will affect the development of nanotechnology, the growth of computing, and how we will eventually merge with our technology. This is a great overview of many of Kurzweil’s thoughts that he addresses in his books, particularly The Singularity is Near.

Aubrey de Grey says we can avoid aging (July 2005)

Aubrey de Grey, gerontologist and author of Ending Aging, presented in 2005 on why defeating aging is desirable, why we need to begin serious discussions of radical longevity, feasibility of radical longevity, why humans accept aging, and how we can actually begin to significantly extend lifespans.

EDIT 3/23/10: I clarified some language in the blurb about Aubrey de Grey’s presentation.

A team at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena used nanotechnology — the science of really small objects — to create tiny polymer robots covered with a protein called transferrin that seek out a receptor or molecular doorway on many different types of tumors.

[...] In a phase 1 clinical trial in patients with various types of tumors, the team gave doses of the targeted nanoparticles four times over 21 days in a 30-minute intravenous infusion.

Tumor samples taken from three people with melanoma showed the nanoparticles found their way inside tumor cells.

And they found evidence that the therapy had disabled ribonucleotide reductase, suggesting the RNA had done its job.

Davis could not say whether the therapy helped shrink tumors in the patients, but one patient did get a second cycle of treatment, suggesting it might be. Nor could he say if there were any safety concerns.

The Reuters article refers to these particles as “nanotech robots” which I’m not sure is entirely accurate, but it’s still a novel and exciting method of delivering treatment.

Led by Carl Batt, the Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor of Food Science, the researchers synthesized nanoparticles – shaped something like a dumbbell – made of gold sandwiched between two pieces of iron oxide. They then attached antibodies, which target a molecule found only in colorectal cancer cells, to the particles. Once bound, the nanoparticles are engulfed by the cancer cells.

To kill the cells, the researchers use a near-infrared laser, which is a wavelength that doesn’t harm normal tissue at the levels used, but the radiation is absorbed by the gold in the nanoparticles. This causes the cancer cells to heat up and die.

“This is a so-called ‘smart’ therapy,” Batt said. “To be a smart therapy, it should be targeted, and it should have some ability to be activated only when it’s there and then kills just the cancer cells.”

Researchers are now working on improving the technology in order to use it in human clinical trials.

(Via FuturePundit)

He also gives advice on how to approach engineering, how to choose subjects for study, and what to look for in a university when it comes to an undergraduate program. If you or anyone you know is interested in exploring nanotechnology, an area were amazing advancements are taking place on a regular basis, Drexler’s post is a good place to start.