James J. Hughes

A claim made by Buddhist or Buddhism-affine scholars such as Michael LaTorra and James Hughes is that transhumanism, neuroscience, and the teachings of Buddhism are compatible because they aim to alleviate suffering and pain and attain a stable state of happiness. This claim can be challenged. At first glance, the approach seems valid, because since the 1980s there have been dialogues and scientific collaborations with representatives of Tibetan Buddhism and scientists on the topics of neuroscience, consciousness, ethics and technology, and in this context new interpretations of Buddhist thought have emerged such as ‘Buddhist modernism’ (E. Thompson). In this discussion note, however, two main arguments are advanced as to why the claim and terminology of Buddhist transhumanism are difficult to reconcile with Buddhist terminology, values, and methods: (1) the difference between the use of such methods as meditation and contemplation and the application of so-called human enhancement technologies (2) and differences concerning self-understanding in Western science and Buddhism.

In this highly original book, Russell Blackford discusses the intersection of science fiction and humanity’s moral imagination. With the rise of science and technology in the 19th century, and our continually improving understanding of the cosmos, writers and thinkers soon began to imagine futures greatly different from the present. Science fiction was born out of the realization that future technoscientific advances could dramatically change the world. Along with the developments described in modern science fiction - space societies, conscious machines, and upgraded human bodies, to name but a few - come a new set of ethical challenges and new forms of ethics. Blackford identifies these issues and their reflection in science fiction. His fascinating book will appeal to anyone with an interest in philosophy or science fiction, or in how they interact.

Scientific and technological progress might change people’s capabilities or incentives in ways that would destabilize civilization. For example, advances in DIY biohacking tools might make it easy for anybody with basic training in biology to kill millions; novel military technologies could trigger arms races in which whoever strikes first has a decisive advantage; or some economically advantageous process may be invented that produces disastrous negative global externalities that are hard to regulate. This paper introduces the concept of a vulnerable world: roughly, one in which there is some level of technological development at which civilization almost certainly gets devastated by default, i.e. unless it has exited the “semi-anarchic default condition”. Several counterfactual historical and speculative future vulnerabilities are analyzed and arranged into a typology. A general ability to stabilize a vulnerable world would require greatly amplified capacities for preventive policing and global governance. The vulnerable world hypothesis thus offers a new perspective from which to evaluate the risk-benefit balance of developments towards ubiquitous surveillance or a unipolar world order.