Introduction We're conducting a few experiments with today's meeting. First, we're trying out a new meeting room. Second, we're trying a new meeting format, with a small number of speakers, who each get around 10-15 minutes to talk on the same headline topic, before we open up to group discussion. That's a meeting format I've seen work well in various industry settings. In this case, our headline topic for the meeting is, "Transhumanism in the UK, 2008-2012: Hopes and fears, opportunities and risks". Finally, thanks to a suggestion from Ben, we're going to make transcripts or notes from at least some of the presentations available on the UKTA website afterwards. So the topic is "Transhumanism in the UK, 2008-2012: Hopes and fears, opportunities and risks". I'll start by saying why this is an important topic. Why transhumanism is important Here's a definition I like. Transhumanism supports and encourages the thoughtful development and application of technology to significantly enhance human mental and physical capabilities, with profound possible consequences. Let me highlight two words here: "technology" and "thoughtful". The technologies of interest to transhumanists include the following. First, medicine, including biotechnology and stem cell research which will take medicine a lot further. Second, nanotechnology, which takes manufacturing to a new level, and which could take medicine yet further again. Third, computer and communications technology, sometimes called ICT, including work on AI. Fourth, cognitive brain science. The reason for putting the word "thoughtful" into this definition of transhumanism is to guard against the possible bad consequences of developing or applying technology. Technology by itself is neutral, and can give rise to either good or bad outcomes. By the word "thoughtful", I mean four things. First, we don't want to be misled by snake-oil salespeople, who falsely promise great results. The modern world has enough fanciful mumbo-jumbo without us adding to it. Second, I'm only interested in claims about technology that can be backed up by peer review. Third, I obviously want to avoid possible bad runaway consequences of technology, whether it's malignant super-AI or some nanotechnological all-absorbing "grey goo". Fourth, I want to avoid socially divisive outcomes from these new technologies. I'm confident that we can, collectively, be sufficiently thoughtful, so that we will in due course see profound good consequences of the technologies I mentioned, and avoid the bad ones. We will see significantly enhanced human mental and physical capabilities, in many categories. The first category is "anti-disease and pro-cure", resulting in more and more people who are not only super-healthy but even "better-than-well". Second is "anti- aging and pro-longevity", extending and expanding lives of individual humans all over the globe. Third is "anti-constraint and pro-autonomy", resulting in people everywhere having more choices and more experiences. Fourth is that people will become smarter, stronger, wiser, and kinder – and hence more able to address and solve the BIG problems facing humanity which currently seem to be beyond us. Transhumanists are interested in prioritising and accelerating these enhancements. What changes can we see as feasible, by 2012? That brings me to the questions I suggest we should be considering this afternoon. What changes are feasible for us to anticipate in the UK between now and 2012, regarding public attitudes towards transhumanism? Bear in mind that the general public appears to be extremely apathetic or even hostile towards transhumanism today – witness the fact that the attendance at this meeting is so small (fewer than twenty people). So what could happen to change this attitude? And what progress is feasible, over the same timescale, with specific transhumanist projects? To make the questions more personal, what role (if any) can we as interested individuals play in regard to changing these attitudes, and in regard to accelerating (or decelerating) these projects? To avoid complacency, we should also ask ourselves, what could go wrong? What could generate adverse feedback to transhumanism? And how can we guard against these risks? Finally, we might also ask whether there's any special UK angle to transhumanism. I'll give my answers to these questions in outline, before going into more details. In summary, transhumanism should be much more influential in the UK by 2012 than now, but there's nothing guaranteed about it. There are many reasons for us to be hopeful about the future of transhumanism in the UK, but also some reasons to be fearful. We can make a lot of difference to the outcome, through both local and global activity. Drivers for the development of technology I realise these answers might appear overly optimistic. The issue is as follows. The development of technology seems to be something that's way outside what we, as individuals, can hope to influence. Technology is driven forwards by science, and by business. Short of becoming a great scientist, or a wealthy business person, is there anything we can do to influence the outcome? Well, I think there is. Both science and business are capable of being influenced. I remember from my four years of studying the history and philosophy of science, more than twenty years ago, how individual scientists are guided by all kinds of different motivation. They're also influenced by government regulations and funding rules, so that's another angle we can consider – namely, to influence politicians and legislators. Again, scientists are influenced by fashionable or interesting ideas advanced in the media. They're also influenced by prize funds established by individuals or groups. Finally, the direction of science can be swayed by research sponsored by business. As for the development of business, we shouldn't resign ourselves to the thought that business is governed by some super-logical laws of capitalism and hence is outside our influence. Business people are influenced, not just by actual profits from existing products, but also by ideas about future profits from products that haven't been developed yet. And businesses can, on occasion, be swayed by the philanthropic motivations of well-placed individuals. A battle of ideas To summarise so far: we can aspire to influence the development of technology, by means of influencing politicians, the media, business people, and other groups in society, by championing sufficiently attractive and compelling ideas. The story of transhumanism in the UK, 2008-2012, is therefore the story of a battle of ideas. The better the ideas we can advance, in the media, in the universities, and elsewhere, the more influence we can have on the outcome of transhumanist projects. Remember, too, that transhumanism is about the development AND APPLICATION of technologies. Even if we only have limited scope to influence the DEVELOPMENT of new technologies, we have more scope to influence the APPLICATION of existing technologies. Again, it will be the quality of our ideas that determines the extent of our impact. We need to advance transhumanist ideas that are clear, striking, compelling, and sticky. The good news is that there are already around six ideas – or bundles of ideas – which we can promote for this purpose. Six ideas that can work to our advantage First is the bundle of popular ideas in favour of pro-beauty, cosmetic surgery, laser eye treatment, anti-aging facial creams, dietary supplements for healthier living, pills for memory enhancement, and so on. That's a sign of public acceptance of using the fruits of technology to enhance human physical and mental capabilities. There's big money involved. We transhumanists can tap into this zeitgeist to suggest logical extensions to it. Second is the widespread latent recognition that, just because something is natural, it doesn't mean that it's desirable. Disease is natural, but most humans have no hesitation in fighting against disease. Nature is "red in tooth and claw", but most humans want to build up structures to promote at least some peaceful collaboration rather than an all-out "eat or be eaten, kill or be killed" environment. We could push these ideas a bit further and talk (with some care) about "The Nature Delusion", seeking an impact parallel to that achieved by Richard Dawkins from his book "The God Delusion". Once people realise how deeply they are pre-disposed to "improving on nature", it could open their minds to greater acceptance of explicitly transhumanist goals. The big jump comes with the third idea. This idea takes the concept of "The Nature Delusion" one stage further, to talk about the concept of "The Death Delusion". We're not only saying that people could be urged to waken up from the assumption that nature always knows best. We're also saying that people could be urged to waken up from the assumption that, for humans, death is inevitable. My cue here is the marvellous observation by Aubrey de Grey that, for all of human history up till the present era, it has been "reasonable to be unreasonable" about accepting relatively short human lifespans. We've had good reason to devise all kinds of vaguely plausible nonsense about mortality enhancing our character, and so on. People have had to suppress their innate aspirations for indefinitely long healthy lifespans, to preserve both their personal sanity and societal sanity. These innate aspirations have become distorted in all kinds of ways. However, the prospect of significant medical advances within the current generation means it is no longer reasonable to take such an unreasonable (self-deluding) viewpoint. This is now something that can be discussed as never before, as we challenge society to appreciate anew the enormous costs and undesirability of human aging. Fourth, we can bring to the public table the topic of cryonics, and the principle of self- determination. If someone realises they have a fatal disease that is seriously damaging their brain ahead of actually killing them, it makes good sense for them to consider being vitrified (a more accurate term than "frozen") some time before the onset of biological death. That way, they will have a better chance to retain more of their mental capabilities, for the future date when (all being well) they can be brought out of suspended animation, once science has progressed to being able to cure that disease. However, under present legal systems, that would be regarded as murder and/or assisted suicide. I'm not saying this is an easy topic, but it is one that should enter the public debate arena. We can make the case that the law should be changed to make it easier for committed cryonics supporters to enter the state of vitrification at a time and place of their own choosing. Fifth, changing tack, there's already a great public interest in the prospects for ever- smaller, ever more powerful devices for computing and communications. We can highlight the likely extension of established trends, which will result in nano-sized computing and communications devices, with benefits such as highly targeted highly effective smart medicines, among many others. Sixth, we can address the widespread concern about environmental, energy, and climate- change issues, by drawing attention to possible smart technological fixes – including nanotechnology and geo-engineering. Again, this will need to be done sensitively, but we could bring the really powerful arguments into the public consciousness. Ideas that can change the world By chance, just as I was setting out this morning to travel to this event, I found the latest copy of Time magazine on my doormat. The front cover is entitled "10 ideas are changing the world". Reading from page 33: "More than money, more than politics, ideas are the secret power that this planet runs on". This message matches well what I have been trying to say today, about the fundamental potency of suitable ideas. This article in Time doesn't include the idea of transhumanism – yet. We can aspire to seeing transhumanism included in a similar list in the near future. But the list does include, at number 6, "Geo-engineering: messing with nature caused global warming; messing with it more might fix it". And number 7, "Aging gracefully: forget conventional wisdom; gray- haired societies aren't a problem". It's fascinating. Seven aspirations for the UKTA The last thing I want to cover is the question: what would it mean, in practical terms, for us in Extrobritannia to advance transhumanist ideas that are clear, striking, compelling, and sticky? How should we organise ourselves, to succeed with these goals? First, we need to continue our activities that provide mutual support via face-to-face and online interaction. Second, we can collect and share reliable information about dietary supplements, cryonic techniques, scientific developments, etc – ideas that aren't overly tainted by commercial motivation or wishful thinking. Third, on the basis of this reliable information, we can collectively develop, debug, debunk, refine, and prioritise ideas relevant to transhumanism – separating wheat from the chaff. Fourth, recognising that ideas are often communicated via art as well as via logic, we can highlight and champion good art that supports transhumanism, including novels, plays, poems, films, drawings, and so on. Fifth, drawing on these tools, we can encourage others to see through the fallacies of the nature delusion and death delusion, and to appreciate the attractions of transhumanism. Sixth, this means a lot of outreach – to universities, to overseas transhumanist groups, to media, and to fertile ground wherever we find it. We can look forward to building new active transhumanist groups in towns throughout the UK. Seventh, by doing all of the above, we can avoid the risks of inaction and apathy, and of other ideas displacing pro-transhumanist ones from the public mind. So by 2012, we can imagine many more people taking parts in our meetings and online discussions, and that the media will be very much more sympathetic to our ideas.