This next one is not probably not so forbidden, but sure there is not enough talk about it. And it is the fact that some people and organizations wants to blend humans and machines together to make human2.0. This intellectual movement is called Transhumanism:
Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal at fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman“.[1]
The contemporary meaning of the term transhumanism was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and worldviewstransitional to “posthumanity” as “transhuman“.[2] This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, and organizing in California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.[2][3][4]
Influenced by seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives.[2] Transhumanism has been characterized by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as among the world’s most dangerous ideas,[5] to which Ronald Bailey countered that it is rather the “movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity”.[6]
According to Nick Bostrom,[1]transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as in the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death.
There is debate within the transhumanist community about whether the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can be considered an influence, despite its exaltation of the “Übermensch” (overman), due to its emphasis on self-actualization rather than technological transformation.[1][7][8][9]Nikolai Fyodorov, a 19th-century Russian philosopher, advocated radical life extension, physical immortality and even resurrection of the dead using scientific methods.[10] In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was geneticist J.B.S. Haldane‘s 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, “indecent and unnatural”. J. D. Bernal speculated about space colonization, bionic implants, and cognitive enhancement, which have been common transhumanist themes since then.[1] Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane’s), appears to have been the first to use the actual word “transhumanism”. Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature“.[11] This definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.
Computer scientistMarvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s.[12] Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as Hans Moravec and Raymond Kurzweil, who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.[13][14] The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to “posthumanity” as “transhuman“.[15] In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the conceptualization of “transhumanity” in his book Man into Superman.[16][17] FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973.[18]
The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his “Third Way” futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the Earth’s gravity as they head into space.[19][20] FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030’s courses and audiences from Vita-More’s artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement,[21] and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[22] which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of Extropy Magazine was published by Max More and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy,[23] and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:[24]
Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. […] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies […].
In 1992, More and Morrow founded the Extropy Institute, a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new memeplexes by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of cyberculture and the cyberdelic counterculture. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry and public policy.[25] In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration.[26]The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:[27]
- The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
- The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.
A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist.[28]
In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their futurist visions and needed to be addressed.[2] A particular concern is the equal access to human enhancement technologies across classes and borders.[29] In 2006, a political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the libertarian right and the liberal left resulted in a more centre-leftward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director James Hughes.[29][30] In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, stating that its mission was “essentially completed”.[31] This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to “Humanity+” in order to project a more humane image.[32] Humanity Plus and Betterhumans publish h+ Magazine, a periodical edited by R. U. Sirius which disseminates transhumanist news and ideas.[33][34]
The first transhumanist elected member of a Parliament is Giuseppe Vatinno, in Italy.[35]
Theory
See also: Outline of transhumanismIt is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of “posthumanism” and how posthumanism should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its conservative,[5]Christian[36] and progressive[37][38] critics. A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. biological uplift),[2] but clings to a “posthuman future” as the final goal of participant evolution.[39]
Nevertheless, the idea of creating intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism.[13] Moravec’s ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a “complacent” or “apocalyptic” variant of posthumanism and contrasted with “cultural posthumanism” in humanities and the arts.[40] While such a “cultural posthumanism” would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the “autonomous liberal subject” but are expanding its “prerogatives” into the realm of the posthuman.[41] Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view.
Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[42] However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.[43] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics.
The philosophy of transhumanism is closely related to technoself studies; an interdisciplinary domain of scholarly research dealing with all aspects of human identity in a technological society focusing on the changing nature of relationships between the human and technology.
Aims
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe,[27] transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.
Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.
Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[44] Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity’s future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.[45]
While many people believe that all Transhumanists are striving for immortality, it is not necessarily true. Hank Pellissier, managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology, surveyed Transhumanists, and of the 818 respondents, 23.8% did not want immortality.[46] Some of the reasons were that they would be bored, Earth’s overpopulation, and that “they wanted to go to an afterlife.”[46]
Ethics
Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations by drawing on futurology and various fields of ethics. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically “natural” as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.[47] In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism’s critics on the political right and left jointly as “bioconservatives” or “bioluddites“, the latter term alluding to the 19th century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.[48]
Many believe that transhumanism can cause unfair human enhancement in many areas of life, but specifically on the social plane. This can be compared to steroid use where if one athlete uses steroids in sports he has an advantage over those who do not. The same scenario can happen when people have certain neural implants that gives them an advantage in the work place and in educational aspects.[49]
…
Threats to morality and democracy
Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the dystopia depicted in the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Sometimes, as in the writings of Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.[100] In his 2002 book Our Posthuman Future and in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism the world’s most dangerous idea because he believes that it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of democracy in general and liberal democracy in particular, through a fundamental alteration of “human nature“.[5] Social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his 2003 book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another’s unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human “species ethic” would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.[101] Critics such as Kass, Fukuyama, and a variety of Christian authors hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral but also threaten the social order. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the “naturalizing” of social hierarchies or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. The AI pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum criticizes what he sees as misanthropic tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.[102][citation needed]
In a 2004 article in Reason, science journalist Ronald Bailey has contested the assertions of Fukuyama by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that liberalism was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or de facto equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or de jure equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, “the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance“. In fact, he argues, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and posthuman rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.[6] Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as philosopher Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to tradition, and what they see as alarmism, involved in Brave New World-type arguments.[103]
Dehumanization
Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings, because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact.[89][104] Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the “natural” into the “artifactual”.[105] In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of “monsters” such as human clones, human-animal chimeras or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982), the novels The Boys From Brazil (1978) and The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people and subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[106]
Others believe that “we are morally obligated to help the human race transcend its biological limits.”[107] In fact, they go so far as to call those who are opposed to them, “Bio-Luddites.”[107] Though the gamut of Transhumanist opinions ranges from those who believe that we will eventually be cyborgs to those who simply want their brains frozen in the hopes of being resuscitated in the future, all have considered the question of the human identity, and whether or not it will be compromised. While the concept of being able to do away with negative emotions is appealing in theory, there are possible negative implications. For example, Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, points out that if we did not have the emotion of aggression, “we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves.”[107] These would not only affect our humanity, but also our interactions with others.[107]
Writing in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health care benefits.[108]
A different response comes from transhumanist personhood theorists who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science writer Isaac Asimov termed the “Frankenstein complex“. They argue that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters but what they characterize as the “yuck factor” and “human-racism” that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.[25][109]
Existential risks
Struck by a passage from Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski‘s anarcho-primitivist manifesto (quoted in Kurzweil’s 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines[14]), computer scientistBill Joy became a notable critic of emerging technologies.[115] Joy’s 2000 essay “Why the future doesn’t need us” argues that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. It invokes, for example, the “grey goo scenario” where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy.[116] Joy’s warning was seized upon by appropriate technology organizations such as the ETC Group. Related notions were also voiced by self-described neo-ludditeKalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway‘s 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of the techno-utopianism he interpreted it as promoting.[117] Lasn argues that high technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment.[118]
In his 2003 book Our Final Hour, British Astronomer RoyalMartin Rees argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.[119] Advocates of the precautionary principle, such as many in the environmental movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that artificial intelligence and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.[120] The Terminator franchise‘s doomsday depiction of the emergence of an A.I. that becomes a superintelligence – Skynet, a malignant computer network which initiates a nuclear war in order to exterminate the human species, has often been cited by some involved in this debate.[121]
Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of existential risk. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often unrealistic and sometimes even counter-productive, as opposed to the technogaian current of transhumanism which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series Connections, science historianJames Burke dissects several views on technological change, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the status quo of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet’s resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, clean, alternative technology rather than fostering what it considers to be anti-scientific views and technophobia.[122]
One transhumanist solution proposed by Nick Bostrom is differential technological development, in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.[45] An argument for an “anti-progressionist and pessimistic version of transhumanism” has also been presented by Philippe Verdoux.[123]
Then I post some videos in chronological order. First one is a video about ancient robots and machines and tells for example how Leonardo Da Vinci made first so called cyborg (5 parts):
Here is also another video series which talks about ancient machines (5 parts):
Then we move towards transhumanisms goals and here is a small russian film where they do experiments in the revival of organisms. They for example chop of dogs head and then revive it so that it eats and acts like it was alive. And remember this was in the year 1940:
One of the defenders of transhumanism is Kevin Warwick a man who probably wants to be a cyborg. He for example has put neuro-surgical implantation of a device (Utah Array/BrainGate) into the median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system directly to a computer to assess the latest technology for use with the disabled. Here is description about him:
Kevin Warwick is Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, England, where he carries out research in artificial intelligence, control, robotics and biomedical engineering. He is a Chartered Engineer (CEng.) and is a Fellow of The Institution of Engineering & Technology (FIET). He is the youngest person ever to become a Fellow of the City & Guilds of London Institute (FCGI). He is the author or co-author of more than 500 research papers and has written or edited 27 books (three for general readership), as well as numerous magazine and newspaper articles on scientific and general subjects. He has broadcast and lectured widely and held various visiting professorships.
Kevin was born in Coventry, UK and left school to join British Telecom, at the age of 16. At 22 he took his first degree at Aston University, followed by a PhD and a research post at Imperial College, London. He subsequently held positions at Oxford, Newcastle and Warwick universities before being offered the Chair at Reading, at the age of 33.
He has been awarded higher doctorates (DScs) by Imperial College and the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague on different scientific areas. He was presented with The Future of Health Technology Award from MIT (USA), was made an Honorary Member of the Academy of Sciences, St.Petersburg, was awarded the IEE Senior Achievement Medal in 2004, the Mountbatten Medal in 2008 and the Ellison-Cliffe Medal in 2011 from the Royal Society of Medicine. In 2000 Kevin presented the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, entitled “The Rise of The Robots”. He has also been awarded Honorary DSc Degrees by the Universities of Aston, Coventry, Bradford, Bedfordshire and Portsmouth and an Honorary DTech Degree by Robert Gordon University.
Kevin instigated a series of pioneering experiments involving the neuro-surgical implantation of a device (Utah Array/BrainGate) into the median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system directly to a computer to assess the latest technology for use with the disabled. The development of the implant technology was carried out by a team of researchers headed by Dr Mark Gasson who, along with Kevin, used it to perform the ground-breaking research. Kevin was successful with the first extra-sensory (ultrasonic) input for a human and with the first purely electronic communication experiment between the nervous systems of two humans. His research has been discussed by the US White House Presidential Council on BioEthics, The European Commission FTP and led to him being widely referenced and featured in academic circles as well as appearing as cover stories in several magazines – e.g. Wired (USA), The Week (India).
The Institute of Physics selected Kevin as one of only 7 eminent scientists to illustrate the ethical impact their scientific work can have: the others being Galileo, Einstein, Curie, Nobel, Oppenheimer and Rotblat.
His work is used as material in several advanced Level Physics courses in the UK and in many University courses including Harvard, Stanford, MIT & Tokyo. His implants are on display in the Science Museums in London and Naples. As a result, Kevin regularly gives invited Keynote presentations.
Kevin’s research involves robotics and he was responsible (with Dr Jim Wyatt) for Cybot, a robot exported around the world as part of a magazine “Real Robots” – this resulted in royalties totalling over £1M for Reading University. Robots designed and constructed by Kevin’s group (Dr Ian Kelly, Dr Ben Hutt) have been on permanent interactive display in the Science Museums in London, Birmingham and Linz.
Kevin’s recent research involves a collaborative project with the Oxford neurosurgeon, Prof. Tipu Aziz, using intelligent computer methods to predict the onset of Parkinsonian tremors such that they can be stopped by means of a deep brain implant. This work was hailed in the Mail on Sunday as “the most significant recent advance in biomedical engineering”.
He presently leads an ongoing EPSRC sponsored project in which a cultured neural network (using biological neurons) is trained to control a mobile robot platform. This work, which was reported on in a New Scientist feature article, is being used as an exercise for high school science studies in the UK. A Youtube video of this research has now been downloaded/viewed over 1.6 million times.
His presentations include The 1998 Robert Boyle Memorial Lecture at Oxford University, The 2000 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, The 2001 Higginson Lecture at Durham University, The 2003 Royal Academy of Engineering/Royal Society of Edinburgh Joint lecture in Edinburgh, The 2003 IEEE (UK) Annual Lecture in London, The 2004 Woolmer Lecture at York University, the Robert Hooke Lecture (Westminster) in 2005, the 2005 Einstein Lecture in Potsdam, Germany and the 2006 IMechE Mechatronics Prestige Lecture in London. The 2007 Techfest plenary lecture in Mumbai; Kshitij keynote in Kharagpur (India); Engineer Techfest keynote in NITK Surathkal (India). The Annual Science Faculty lecture at University of Leicester in 2007 and the Graduate School in Physical Sciences and Engineering Annual Lecture, Cardiff University. In 2008, Leslie Oliver Oration at Queen’s Hospital; Techkriti keynote in Kanpur. Also 2008, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, guest lecture “Four weddings and a Funeral” for the Microsoft Research Chair. In 2009, Cardiff University, 125th Anniversary Lecture and Orwell Society Lecture, Eton College. In 2010 he launched the new Research Institute for Innovation Design and Sustainability (IDEAS) at Robert Gordon University and gave the Ellison-Cliffe Lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine in 2011. In 2012 he is to present the IET Pinkerton Lecture in Bangalore.
Kevin was a member of the 2001 HEFCE (unit 29) panel on Electrical & Electronic Engineering, was Deputy Chairman for the same panel in the 2007/8 exercise and is a member of the EPSRC Peer College. Kevin received the EPSRC Millenium Award (2000) for his schools robot league project. Kevin’s research has featured in many TV and film documentaries, e.g. Inventions that changed the world (BBC2), Late Night with Conan O’Brien (NBC), Future Scope (RAI 1) and The Making of I Robot (Twentieth Century Fox/Channel 5). He has appeared 3 times on Tomorrow’s World, 5 times in Time magazine, thrice in Newsweek and was selected by Channel 4 as one of the Top 6 UK Scientists for their 2001 series “Living Science”. In 2002 he was chosen by the IEE as one of the top 10 UK Electrical Engineers. Kevin also appeared as one of 30 “great minds on the future” in the THES/Oxford University book – Predictions – with J.K.Galbraith, Umberto Eco and James Watson.
Kevin’s research is frequently referred to by other authors – recent examples being in books by Robert Winston, Peter Cochrane, Jeremy Clarkson and Susan Greenfield. Kevin’s research was selected by National Geographic International for a 1 hour documentary, entitled “I,Human” screened in 2006/7 – this was broadcast in 143 countries and translated into 23 different languages. Some of his TV appearances are logged on the imdb website.
Here is Kevin Warwick’s appearance in TEDx and notice that it is the first time when they named conference after the speaker, why? That’s because this is the mainstream’s goal and they want to destroy humanity and bring in the human2.0:
Is this the so called mark of the beast scenario (666)? Who wants to be chipped and tracked all the time? How far we have to go when we are playing God? I think that this is the end of our mankind, but it’s just my opinion. I think that first we should learn to live in peace and after that we could start to develop this kind of technology. All of this technology is going to be militarized and used to kill and destroy people and you can check that in the history books if you want. We are just doing the same mistakes again and again.
Now when you have watched the Warwick’s presentation I post a video about DARPA‘s robots. Now if you think that Warwick’s ideas are linked to these machines, what we got? I think rela-life terminators:
Death from a swarm of tiny drones: U.S. Air Force releases terrifying video of tiny flybots that can can hover, stalk and even kill targets
- Air Vehicles Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, is already developing prototypes of tiny drones that can hover
- The Micro Air Vehicles will work in swarms to provide complex surveillance of a battlefield
- They can also be armed with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives ‘for precision targeting capability’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281403/U-S-Air-Force-developing-terrifying-swarms-tiny-unmanned-drones-hover-crawl-kill-targets.html#ixzz2UeiQDwNx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on FacebookThe U.S. Air Force is developing tiny unmanned drones that will fly in swarms, hover like bees, crawl like spiders and even sneak up on unsuspecting targets and execute them with lethal precision.
The Air Vehicles Directorate, a research arm of the Air Force, has released a computer-animated video outlining the the future capabilities of Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs). The project promises to revolutionize war by down-sizing the combatants.
‘MAVs will become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future,’ the narrator intones.
‘Unobtrusive, pervasive, lethal – Micro Air Vehicles, enhancing the capabilities of the future war fighter.’
Scroll down for video
Hovering: Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are the future of the unmanned drones program, according to a new video from the Air Force. The Air Force has already developed a drone capable of hovering like a moth
Perching: The video, released by the Air Vehicle Directorate, shows a pigeon-like drone that can draw power from an electrical wire while its camera watches a target
Crawling: The drones will be equipped with legs so that they can crawl through tight spaces like an insect
The project, which is based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was revealed in the March issue of the National Geographic magazine.
Air Force officials said they have already produced tiny remote-control prototypes – but they consume so much power that can only operate for a few minutes. Researchers estimate that it will take several years of advances in battery technology to make the designs feasible.
Still, the Air Force has a clear concept of what it hopes to accomplish with the program.
More…
The promotional video begins with a swarm of tiny drones be dropped on a city from a passing plane.
The drones will work in concert to patch together a wide, detailed view of the battlefield – singling out individual targets without losing sight of the broader scene.
‘Data will be communicated among the MAVs to enable real time, reliable decision-making and to provide an advanced overall picture for other platforms or operators,’ the Air Force says.
Killing: The video demonstrates how MAVs could be used to sneak up behind unsuspecting targets and kill them with a single, lethal shot
Lethal: The drones could be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives ‘for precision targeting capability’
As the drones fall, they begin to fly – not like planes, but like insects. High frequency flapping wings allow the drones to hover and maneuver in tight spaces.
The military has already produced a drone patterned after a hawk moth that can flap its wings 30 times a second. However, the activity exhausts the drone’s tiny battery in just a few minutes, according to National Geographic.
Another drone type soars like a pigeon and perches unobtrusively on a power line to observe a surveillance target with a camera.
The Air Force is working on technology that will allow the drones to steal electricity from power cables and other sources – so they can continue to operate for days or weeks on end.
Swarming: The drones couple be dropped en masse over a battlefield or a city and would work together to create a complex surveillance network
Working together: The drones would use advanced software to navigate by ‘sight,’ rather than GPS – which can be blocked by buildings or by jamming from the enemy
The Air Force training video shows a winged MAV following a target as he drives through the streets of a dense city.
Advanced sensors will enable ‘optic flow,’ which will allow remote pilots to fly by ‘sight’ – rather than flying by GPS, which can be disrupted by buildings or deliberately jammed by enemy forces.
The video depicts three drones following the target into a house, where they maneuver hallways and rooms undetected.
‘Small size and agile flight will allow MAVs to covertly enter locations inaccessible by traditional means of aerial surveillance,’ the narrator says.
The video follows the drones as they fly through an open door and sneak up behind a man who is aiming a sniper rifle.
‘Individual MAVs may perform direct attack missions and can be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives for precision targeting capability,’ according to the video.
On screen, a small, hovering vehicle pauses before shooting the man directly in the back of the head.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281403/U-S-Air-Force-developing-terrifying-swarms-tiny-unmanned-drones-hover-crawl-kill-targets.html#ixzz2Ueige0Ik
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So you just have to ask yourself that do you want this kind of future? Because if we don’t talk about this agenda we are truly facing a dark future which could be like this:
Future looks pretty dark, but stay tuned for more FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY!
The sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, throw off minute particles of matter positively electrified, which, impinging upon [the upper] plate, communicate continuously an electrical charge to the same. The opposite terminal of the condenser being connected to ground, which may be considered as a vast reservoir of negative electricity, a feeble current flows continuously into the condenser and inasmuch as the particles are … charged to a very high potential, this charging of the condenser may continue, as I have actually observed, almost indefinitely, even to the point of rupturing the dielectric
Compared to his alternating current generator, this “dynamo” represents something of a curious throwback to the days of Faraday’s early experiments with a copper disk and a magnet. Tesla makes some improvement over the Faraday setup by using magnets that completely cover the spinning metal disks and he also adds a flange to the outside of the disks so current can be taken off more easily – all of which makes for a better generator than Faraday’s. On the surface, though, it is hard to see why Tesla patented such an anachronistic machine at this point in his work.
In the Faraday unipolar generator “the current,” as Tesla noted, “set up will therefore not wholly pass through the external circuit … and … by far the greater portion of the current generated will not appear externally…”
It was also in 1893 that Tesla applied for a patent on an electrical coil that is the most likely candidate for a non-mechanical successor of his energy extractor. This is his “Coil for Electro-magnets,” patent #512,340. It is another curious design because, unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one.
enclosing the first
