Memo39+--+Primary+Data+No.2

Thomas Solley STSH 4980-01 Senior Thesis Costelloe-Kuehn 11/2/2014

Click here to return to portfolio.

__ Memo 39 -- Primary Data __ #2 As-per my Memo 38, I am looking forward-to my interview with Dr. Bostrum -- if it occurs -- as the second-most important piece of feedback I could get for my Thesis. While arguably this speaker has more weight within my paper than any other, content-wise -- I look to him thus-far in my potential interviews as the only accredited source of transhumanist-feedback regarding the Slow Movement, e.g. his feedback and interview holds the weight of the entire transhumanist community, in terms of 'what is the transhumanist response to the slow movement?'

Granted, I did pick a very big, important, and busy figure -- for those exact reasons. Dr. Bostrum is one of the most recognized and published members representing the transhumanist community, and countering opposition from community members such as Dr. Fukuyama in the fields of ethics and philosophy. As such, his words hold incredible weight -- I would be even more privileged to get his feedback than necessarily from the University of Washington experts! As my notes in October 19th Stream show, I was unable to find any published papers from other important members of the transhumanist community -- such as Simon Young, George Stock, or Gregory Hughes -- which has put me in a rather difficult position. I obtained those names -- and some information on each person's views -- from the Nicholas Agar paper, "Whereto Transhumanism?" After reviewing those names mentioned within, I determined that those other names were... Perhaps secondary to Bostrum's, not only because Bostrum has published more papers (which I actually have some very LIMITED access-to), but also because; - James Hughes, head of the H+ page -- could not find any published papers of his relevant to my subject - Gregory Stock, author, proponent of technologies as providing 'choice' to people, and thus as liberating (not unimportant or dissimilar from my own thoughts), according to Agar was known for a show-down with Dr. Fukuyama. I also could not find any direct works from him regarding the slow movement. - Ronald Bailey, journalist with some futurist views -- same mantra as above. - Simon Young, composer, mixes music with transhumanist/posthumanist thinking -- emphasis on 'evolutionary humanism' [sadly I can no longer find where that term I have written-down comes from, it is not in Agar's 2007 article]. While his perspective -- indeed, all of the "big names" recognized in Agar's paper -- is unique, it has seemed to me that Bostrum has been the most consistent in tackling philosophy and ethics -- which, from an interview perspective, has made it easiest for me to prepare myself with background-papers for this particular, hoped-for interview.

It is important to note here that my pursuit of academic papers written by the above names was a very limited affair -- searching within Google Scholar and EBSCOHost under a specific query -- and that as a result, there is a high probability that my questions to Dr. Bostrum hold little relevancy to his published works and/or professional opinion. That having been said, this is why I ask him in my (as yet) unsent email for a re-direct to more relevant sources, should they be available. Granted as well, my knowledge of Bostrum's work is also very limited -- I have only four of his papers, only one of which I've found pertains directly to my perception of transhumanist thought/morals, "Is Transhumanism The World's Most Dangerous Idea," (2004). I have not had the time to read through his 30-page papers on the 'history of transhumanist thought,' and on 'posthuman dignity,' sadly, though IF I can indeed get an interview with Dr. Bostrum then I shall indeed be reading those other three papers of his that I have -- if only to familiarize-myself with the thought-style of the subject.

However, if I can indeed get an interview with Dr. Bostrum, I believe his input will be, as I have said before, invaluable to my Thesis, even more-so than Kurzweil would be if I were writing on the Singularity (which is minimally relevant). I am not including Dr. Kurzweil in my Thesis if it can be helped -- as per the Sngularityhub interview I included in my Notes, and the critic's response to Kurzweil's ideas, it would seem to me that Dr. Kurzweil has become less of an inspiration than I had hoped. Though he is serving on IBM (or Google? Intel?) to help create an advanced AI, the biggest slam I saw and still hold from the review was that Kurzweil's novel (and the ideas on human-thought-processes, the noosphere) did not include any credible references or sources to established scientists -- which as a scientist myself, I found to be rather disheartening. I had expected that such an inspirational and well-known figure would be at the top of things (which he is now) and providing new models/lenses with science behind them (which apparently he is not). This series of articles shook something of my faith and credibility with Dr. Kurzweil -- thus I hope to avoid associating myself with the "blowback" of his recent thoughts/novel. -->> Which in turn propels ME to be sure I have enough scientific evidence to back my own thoughts -- which I feel I do not, which is why I am seeking a response -- and further direction -- from a credited scientist and philosopher.