It's Lexikon

This is the video of my talk at Transpolitica 2016, a futurist conference about emerging trends in politics and public policy. I was lucky enough to be asked to present my thoughts on how politics will change when gene editing technology (for therapy and enhancement) goes mainstream. 

You can take a look at the slides from my presentation here (and feel free to share!)

The talk was included an updated version of my ‘biopolitics grid’, which continues to evolve. 

It’s not done by any means, and certainly I think it needs to be able to give context on its own without the necessity of being attached to one of my talks or articles. 

But that said, apparently the transhumanists liked it, and it now has its own page on Hpluspedia, which you can see here. 

From the Guardian: 

The UK’s fertility regulator has given the green light for clinics to apply for licences to create the country’s first babies made from the DNA of three people.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority announced on Thursday that it would accept applications after it met to review the latest scientific evidence for the safety of the procedure.

What a lazy summer!

In the past four weeks, I’ve done nearly nothing, as I transitioned from Boston to London, where I’m now living full-time, funemployed. 

However, I have had one particularly good piece published during my lazy haze.

WBUR’s Cognoscenti column took a story about my magnet implant adventure and grinder culture in general, and I’ve particularly enjoyed the bewildered comments below the piece, as well as across social media. People are SO MEAN when they don’t understand wtf you’re talking about. 

Still, IMHO it’s totally worth a glance, because although others have written about magnet implants, and this isn’t really new by any means, I’m coming at it from the ethical and regulatory angle. 

Magnet (and other) implants should be legal, done by doctors, and they should be monitored, just like any other medical-grade body augmentation. 

What I didn’t really get into here is the need for some kind of database (beyond bodyhack.me forums) about the whole implantation process, that mimics the kind of reporting a patient in a clinical trial might be obligated to make. This is obviously, a wildly optimistic idea, but I think it’s absolutely necessary. 

This week it was announced that Zachary Quinto would be starring in a new show about biohacking... It’s officially going mainstream now, and before thousands of teenagers start slicing themselves open, the leading minds in the grinder movement should get organized. 

I know, I know... Trying to get cyborg anarchists to agree on anything is like herding cats. But hopefully this can happen at some point, before something worse than my painful rejection happens to someone else. 

A glorious new opinion product from the digital pages of the Washington Post, In Theory is everything a big media org needs to be doing right now. 

This past week, columns running on In Theory have done the due diligence needed to begin debating transhumanist issues (extra credit for WaPo actually using the word “transhumanism”! FINALLY PEOPLE PAYING ATTENTION!). 

The authors writing in the transhumanism themed week are eloquent, respectful, thoughtful leaders of various branches, and despite the controversial and unfamiliar subject matter, they are clearly out to educate mainstream readers. Crucially, they carry a certain air of legitimacy, unlike some other notable futurist columnists. 

Three must-reads from In Theory this week: 

How DIY bio-hackers are changing the conversation around genetic engineering, by Ellen Jorgensen 

At Genspace, we believe the best way to understand biotechnology is to experience it through practice. CRISPR and other yet-to-be discovered genome editing technologies will be at the heart of the transhumanism conversation. Understanding will be crucial as society debates the social, moral and ethical implications of modifying our DNA and contemplating human enhancement.

Soon we’ll use science to make people more moral, by James Hughes

Drugs, devices and gene therapies will soon allow us to safely suppress our appetites with a level of control only seen in ascetics and achieve transcendent states previously only accessible to yogis. Addictions will be treatable with implants, vaccines and therapies that enable the brain to unlearn dependencies. Psychedelic drug studies and brain imaging of meditators are suggesting ways to turn off neurotic self-absorption and tune into oneness and awe.

In defense of transhumanism, by David Vincent Kimel

Transhumanists should demand the possibility of such prenatal care for all citizens rather than allowing the free market to restrict it to the few. In the long term, the development of increasingly efficient gene editing technology (both in vitro and, some day, in the womb itself) will likely significantly lower the associated costs. Although the horrors of eugenics should serve as a sobering reminder of the evil that can be perpetrated in the name of progress, they should not stifle discussion in the academy about the responsible implementation of genetic engineering in the future.

Will technology allow us to transcend the human condition? by Christine Emba

This sentence is my whole life: 

“Societal consensus is lacking on whether making changes that can be inherited to the genomes of individuals is something that humankind should pursue.”

How can we solve this problem using the broken media mechanisms we have, coupled with a deep distrust and misunderstanding of science? We need a public debate, and badly. 

The Times Science section is majorly lacking. It’s not fun, it’s rarely interesting to non-science folk, and the only subjects apparently warranting their own tabs are Environment and Space & Cosmos. 

Knowing what we know about the future of the life sciences industry (business and regulation) this seems like an editorial oversight, especially because there is consistent coverage of this very sticky area in the pages of the Grey Lady. But the good stuff is mostly buried below a ‘Show More’ button on the main Science front unless you come here daily. (Get real, what year is this?) 

Plus, maybe if they had someone in charge of a designated space, there wouldn’t be as many factual errors in the reporting. But that’s old news.* 

Here some articles everyone should read: 

Hallelujah! GMOs!

“Genetically engineered crops appear to be safe to eat and safe for the environment, according to a comprehensive new analysis by the advisory group the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. 

The report also says that new techniques, like a way to make small genetic changes in plants using genome-editing, are blurring the distinction between genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding, making the existing regulatory system untenable. It calls for a new system that pays more attention to the attributes of the crop, as opposed to the way in which it was created.”

Theranos is still trying to make it despite these points:

“Theranos has been sharply criticized for a lack of experienced laboratory professionals among its management and on its board”

“The company, once valued at $9 billion, now faces growing skepticism over its technology and is under criminal investigation and intense regulatory scrutiny”

“Proposed sanctions include revoking the California lab’s certification and barring ... Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos’s chief executive, from the industry for two years”

I’m sorry girl, but please put us out of the misery of watching you flail around Silicon Valley. 

Most importantly...

Scientists tiptoeing around the idea of creating a synthetic human genome

Oh man. Dr. George Church organized the “secret” meeting, which took place at Harvard. 

“Organizers said the project could have a big scientific payoff and would be a follow-up to the original Human Genome Project, which was aimed at reading the sequence of the three billion chemical letters in the DNA blueprint of human life. The new project, by contrast, would involve not reading, but rather writing the human genome — synthesizing all three billion units from chemicals.”

“Would it be O.K., for example, to sequence and then synthesize Einstein’s genome?” Drew Endy, a bioengineer at Stanford, and Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University, wrote in an essay criticizing the proposed project. “If so how many Einstein genomes should be made and installed in cells, and who would get to make them?”

... Well hot damn, I’m glad I’m going to grad school. 

It’s important to note that GMO labeling legislation on the table in numerous American states does not take CRISPR and other emerging editing tech into consideration, instead relying on decades-old definitions from GMO bans in the EU. 

Bioethicist/transhumanist Dr. James Hughes and philosopher/podcaster John Danaher spend an hour talking about the roots of transhumanism, unrealistic theories on the singularity, Zoltan Istvan’s incredibly weird and badly-written political theatre, and all the political and religious relativism that orbits the kaleidoscopic landscape that is futurism. Plus, I learned a new word: “algocracy.” 

CHECK IT OUT. 

It’s really good listening, especially if you’re on a road trip and driving an average of eight hours a day like I am right now. 

This is a #FashionProm theme I can finally get behind -- Manus x Machina was meant to showcase the intersection of technology and fashion, and I think it was successful in doing so, for the most part. 

The annual Met Gala (hosted by Empress Anna Couture to benefit the Met Museum’s Costume Institute) generally attempts to show off radical ideas about design. However, celebrities fail to follow rules more often than not, and there’s usually a big mess of crap strutting around the red carpet. (See the cringe-worthy 2013 punk theme that actually made me feel physical discomfort.) 

So this year, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the theme was not only totally culturally appropriate for once, but also really well done, with a few excellent stand-outs. 

These are my favorites.

EDIT: Nope, Claire Danes wins the whole damn thing with this light-up Zac Posen gown.

Taylor Swift in Louis Vuitton was my personal favorite, particularly the white hair and dark lips. Mmmmm join me at the goth club, girl. 

OMFG Zayn Malik’s arms are everything.

NY Mag credits an “unknown designer,” although the suit is Versace. Someone please tell me about these arms, because there is no way around the fact that everyone will be wearing them in the future. Also, once a member of One Direction debuts an idea like this, it proves that cyborg/prosthetics envy is real.

I’m not crazy about Gigi’s Hunger Games sequin leotard/Game of Thrones choker, but I do dig her cyborg fingers (what do we call those?).

Turns out, I was a cyborg long before I thought I was. 

“If you aren’t convinced that an IUD is a cyborg implant, let me put it another way. I have a device inside of my body that controls the way that my body functions...The ability to control when I conceive is a power unheard of for thousands of years of human history. It’s far more impactful than being able to unlock my phone or car door with my hand.”

RADICAL MINDSHIFT. And now I kind of want to come up with a name specifically for female cyborgs -- fyborgs? 

I never had an xray done of my own IUD, but here is the image of my magnet implant in my left hand. 

I finally got to use my Transhumanist political grid illustration (it appears in my latest post for Motherboard), which is great because I’m kind of sick of drawing it on napkins for people.  

Read it. 

However, I do wish I could have had an actual graphic designer make it for me instead of trying my damnedest to make Google Draw work in my favor (questionable). 

My lack of artistic talent aside, the piece was a point-counterpoint between Zoltan Istvan and James Hughes. I think it’s important to present the other Transhumanist views out there, because Zoltan does get a lot of coverage and is often erroneously referred to as the leader of the movement, which is, in actuality, different from the party. 

There are a lot of futurists out there who consider themselves techno-progressives but would rather not align with Istvan’s particular brand of venture capitalist libertarianism, so Hughes is a good look for that side, IMO. 

Best takeaways from the debate: 

Istvan on American democracy: “...I think the two-party system in America is a bummer. It sucks.”