Dystopian Kurzweil: As Big Tech continues frantically pushing AI development and funding, many users have become concerned about the outcome and dangers of the latest AI advancements. However, one man is more than sold on AI's ability to bring humanity to its next evolutionary level.

Raymond Kurzweil is a well-known computer scientist, author, and artificial intelligence enthusiast. Over the years, he has promoted radical concepts such as transhumanism and technological singularity, where humanity and advanced technology merge to create an evolved hybrid species. Kurzweil's latest predictions on AI and the future of tech essentially double down on twenty-year-old predictions.

In a recent interview with the Guardian, Kurzweil introduced his latest book, "The Singularity Is Nearer," a sequel to his bestselling 2005 book, "The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology." Kurzweil predicted that AI would reach human-level intelligence by 2029, with the merging between computers and humans (the singularity) happening in 2045. Now that AI has become the most talked-about topic, he believes his predictions still hold.

Kurzweil believes that in five years, machine learning will possess the same abilities as the most skilled humans in almost every field. A few "top humans" capable of writing Oscar-level screenplays or conceptualizing deep new philosophical insights will still be able to beat AI, but everything will change when artificial general intelligence (AGI) finally surpasses humans at everything.

Bringing large language models (LLM) to the next level simply requires more computing power. Kurzweil noted that the computing paradigm we have today is "basically perfect," and it will just get better and better over time. The author doesn't believe that quantum computing will turn the world upside down. He says there are too many ways to continue improving modern chips, such as 3D and vertically stacked designs.

Kurzweil predicts that machine-learning engineers will eventually solve the issues caused by hallucinations, uncanny AI-generated images, and other AI anomalies with more advanced algorithms trained on more data. The singularity is still happening and will arrive once people start merging their brains with the cloud. Advancements in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are already occurring. These BCIs, eventually comprised of nanobots "noninvasively" entering the brain through capillaries, will enable humans to possess a combination of natural and cybernetic intelligence.

Kurzweil's imaginative nature as a book author and enthusiastic transhumanist is plain to see. Science still hasn't discovered an effective way to deliver drugs directly into the brain because human physiology doesn't work the way the futurist thinks. However, he remains confident that nanobots will make humans "a millionfold" more intelligent within the next twenty years.

Kurzweil concedes that AI will radically change society and create a global automated economy. People will lose jobs but will also adapt to new employment roles and opportunities advanced tech brings. A universal basic income will also ease the pain. He expects the first tangible transformative plans will emerge in the 2030s. The inevitable Singularity will enable humans to live forever or extend our living prospects indefinitely. Technology could even resurrect the dead through AI avatars and virtual reality.

Kurzweil says people are misdirecting their worries regarding AI.

"It is not going to be us versus AI: AI is going inside ourselves," he said. "It will allow us to create new things that weren't feasible before. It'll be a pretty fantastic future."

Read more:
Transhumanist author predicts artificial super-intelligence, immortality, and the Singularity by 2045 - TechSpot

4 min read

Visualize interfaces interwoven in the fabric of our existence where thoughts execute operations and technology magnifies our intellect.

Transhumanism, the merger of humans and technology designed to surpass our limitations, has stopped being a futuristic dream. It is changing fast, and UX/UI designers are poised to be amid this brain-twisting evolution.

So, what is Transhumanism all about?

Transhumanism is a movement aimed at extending the borders of human capabilities. Consider brain-computer interfaces that enable you to change objects using nothing but thoughts (think Professor X!) , wearable technology that keeps tabs on your health and emotions in real-time, and augmented reality in which the digital and physical dimensions flawlessly merge. Sounds pretty wild ?

Hold on, it gets wilder:

And this is happening right now. For example, consider some of these companies paving the path for yet to grow Brain-Computer Interface (BCI).

However, these are just a window into the wide world of companies that are breaking the boundaries between humans and machines. It is no longer about the future but a present requiring a second design thinking revolution.

What do UX/UI designers have to do with it?

The interfaces we design today will mold the transhuman future, we will make. We owe it to weigh that this future is inclusive, ethical and brings good to all humans. So,

Start learning: Jump into the transhumanism world with some resources you can find in the links below. Comprehend the technology, ethics, and societal issues.

Think outside the box: Dont submit to the tyranny of screens and keyboards. Investigate new technologies and visualize how they could be applied to produce engaging, intuitive, and ethical experiences.

Emphasize empathy: As humans are getting integrated with technology, the understanding of our needs in the emotional domain is gaining even more importance. Develop interfaces that are and will be sensitive to us as we evolve.

Collaborate with other disciplines:This is not a single-handed venture! Develop unique designs in partnership with neuroscientists, ethicists, and other professionals.

So, how is this different from the way we design in the modern times?

Its a paradigm shift! For example, say you are moving from planning for specific smartphone users to creating solutions for augmented humans, who communicate with the world by thought, gesture, or by streaming information directly. The main objective here is to come up with adaptive interfaces that are able to accommodate the unique needs and capacities of every individual which is far outside the one-size-fits-all model.

Think about it: Now we develop software for tracking applications for the fitness trackers which can read our heartbeat. The transhuman future would enable us to create interfaces that directly speak to our nervous system and provide us with personalized health interventions in real-time. It is an all different ball game!We are the authors of our future pattern.

Are you ready to leave the screen and create something for the new human evolution?

References:

Reading Suggestions:

Additional Resources:

The blog post is only the starting point. I suggest you investigate the references and reading lists I have provided to develop your knowledge of transhumanism and its effects on UI/UX design. Please, bear in mind that future is not carved in granite. We have the ability to make it what we want, and with careful design, the transhuman future will be one that is good for all of humanity.

Continued here:
Beyond Clicks and Screens: Designing for the Transhuman Future - Medium

There is now a strong and powerful philosophical and scientific movement that advocates the use of current and emerging technologies, like genetic engineering, cryonics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology to augment human capabilities and improve the human condition. This may be called transhumanism. Offhand, nothing wrong there, though we have to sort out and clarify the ethical issues involved there.

But thats not all there is. There is also a movement that goes further than this and seeks to use scientific and technological advancements to produce humans with augmented capabilities who evolve into an enhanced species that transcends humanity --the posthuman. This is where a big question mark can be made!

We all know that man is in constant process of development. With his spiritual soul, he is actually poised toward the infinite. But with his corporeal body, he is somehow always limited to some space and time. Thus, it cannot be denied that in our lifelong journey of human development, we have to contend with the tension between the seemingly endless potentials of our soul and the real limitations of our body.

We just have to be clear about what the true and ultimate end, definition, and purpose of man is. And this is where we resort to the deepest belief we hold. Are we Christian believers, or agnostics, if not atheists? Or do we hold on to another philosophy and ideology?

Christian believers are clear about what man is, what the purpose of his life here on earth is, what he is supposed to be in the end. They can make use of whatever they can discover in this life, always respecting the natural law that God the creator has inscribed in the things of this world, but using the things of this world to pursue their ultimate goal.

Christian believers hold that man is Gods image and likeness. He is being tested in this life to see if what God wants him to be is also what he likes to be. That is the purpose of his life here on earth, for which everything that he does in this world can only be the means, the occasion, and the reason to make his choice.

Advertising

Scroll to continue

Christian believers hold that man is meant in the end to be a saint, because that is what is involved in carrying out his duty to conform himself to Gods will to be Gods image and likeness. Thus, everything that he does should be in pursuit of this ultimate goal meant for man --that is, to be a saint, to be Gods image and likeness, sharers of his divine life and nature.

Thus, Christian believers should try their best to have the proper focus, the proper intentions in all their actions. They can do anything as long as they have that proper focus and intention, and as long as they use ethical ways to pursue their ultimate goal.

We are somehow reminded of this truth of our Christian faith in that gospel episode where Christ lamented over an unfortunate tendency of the people then who just ate and drank, marry and had fun, without giving due attention to the real purpose of their life. (cfr. Lk 17,26-37)

Especially these days when we have a lot of distractions, let alone the fact that precisely there are powerful forces that redefine man and nature, altering them according to their own ideas, we really need to strengthen our sense of focus and purpose in life.

Visit link:
Beware of transhumanism and posthumanism - The Freeman

The 2023 shareholder season heralded a new element of shareholder proposals: conspiracy theories. The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) and National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) each filed such proposals; both are self-described conservative watchdog organizations. NCPPRs primary focus is public policy research and education, while NLPC promotes ethics in government, advocating for limitations on big government.

NCPPR filed at least seven shareholder proposals containing conspiracy theories or conspiratorial language, demanding a congruency report" on relationships between companies and "globalist organizations -- a demand that could be interpreted as an antisemitic dog whistle. In the supporting statement of its shareholder proposals, NCPPR claims these companies work with globalist organizations, namely the World Economic Forum, who "openly advocates for transhumanism, abolishing private property, eating bugs, social credit systems, The Great Reset and a host of other blatantly Orwellian objectives."

NCPPR filed these proposals at Alphabet/Google, Pfizer, Bank of America, Boeing, Marriot, Merck and Johnson & Johnson. Three of these proposals (at Alphabet, Marriott and Merck) made it onto the proxy ballots, while three companies successfully petitioned the SEC to have the proposals excluded (Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Bank of America) and one was withdrawn by NCPPR (Boeing).

NLPC also filed a similar proposal with Johnson & Johnson, though the company successfully argued it should not be included on the proxy ballot.

"Globalist" is a term used by many on the right and the far right. It has been used by mainstream personalities and politicians to refer to people or entities that support multilateralism and cross-border cooperation, but in extremist contexts, "globalist" is used by white supremacists and other antisemites as an antisemitic dog whistle, wielding it as a codeword for Jews or as a pejorative term for people whose interests in international commerce or finance ostensibly make them disloyal to the country in which they live.

Primary conspiracy theories

Several prominent conspiracy theories surfaced repeatedly in these proposals. The first, the Great Reset, is a conspiracy theory that can be used to espouse antisemitism. It warns that "global elites" used the pandemic (or other newsworthy events) to advance their interests and push a globalist plot to destroy American sovereignty and prosperity in favor of a global totalitarian regime. Adherents sometimes promote antisemitism as part of the conspiracy theory. Before it was adopted by conspiracy theorists, the phrase originally referred to an initiative introduced by the World Economic Forum.

The second primary conspiracy theory focuses on transhumanism, the idea that humans can transcend the physical limitations of our bodies -- perhaps even death itself. In its more conspiratorial form, proponents believe a "Satanist" or elite cabal of humans, on a mission to replace humans with machines/governments, are modifying bodies and DNA via secretly inserted chips. It can be and often is seen in conjunction with Great Replacement and Great Reset theory. This conspiracy theory has both antisemitic and anti-LGTBQ undertones, due to the associations proponents make with Satanist transhumanists alleged connections to George Soros and numerous references to the globalists behind the mov. Anti-LBGTQ authors such as Jennifer Bilek claim that transgender folks especially are the vanguard of this foundationally anti-humanity movement to transform the essence of what it means to be a person.

This kind of conspiratorial activism was also evident in the 2023 NCPPR shareholder proxy guide, in which the organization claims, We sometimes forget the UN is the institutional originator of climate nonsense and that the US government and by extension, the American taxpayer is the largest funder of the most prevalent globalist organization on Earth, whose very explicit purpose is to be the one-world government that globalists are trying to bring to fruition.

The NLPC also echoes this sentiment in a blog post attacking Brian Moynihan, Bank of America CEO and detailing their shareholder activism: Moynihan has been more than willing to place Bank of America in a globalist posture, subjugating shareholders interests under those of the World Economic Forum agenda of transhumanism, abolition of private property, consumption of bugs, social credit systems, and other Great Reset priorities. Paul Chesser, director of the Corporate Integrity Project for NLPC gave remarks at the Bank of America annual general meeting promoting fear of a one world government, a conspiracy theory with roots in the 1990s.

NCPPRs 2022 proxy voter guide is much more explicit, going so far as to detail the organizations understanding of these conspiracies, with subheadings about transhumanism and the Great Reset. Ethan Peck, a Free Enterprise Institute fellow (project of NCPPR), also commented while presenting a 2022 proposal that [Pfizer CEO Albert] Bourla is a globalist leech... And he is using shareholder money to finance his free trips to Davos where he advances the transhumanist agenda.

At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that either organizations agents espouse overt antisemitism, or that these proposals were filed with antisemitic intentions. However, the conspiracies espoused fit neatly into a broadly conspiratorial world view, and in some cases may serve as on ramps to more overtly antisemitic concepts. These conspiracies were once the mainstay of the darker corners of blogs and message forums, and it is of note that they have moved into the mainstream discourse about cultural norms a development antisemites undoubtedly welcome.

View post:
Conspiracy Theories, Some with Antisemitic Roots, Crop Up in 2023 ... - ADL

During a recent appearance on the "Conversations That Matter" podcast, John Cooper, the frontman and bassist for the Grammy-nominated Christian rock band SKILLET, weighed in on "queer theory", a field of study that challenges existing traditional ideas about identity, sexuality, and gender particularly that of heteronormativity, or the belief that heterosexuality is the natural, moral, or "normal" expression of sexuality. The 48-year-old musician, who is promoting his recently released second book, "Wimpy, Weak And Woke", said in part: "I believe that queer theory is literally the end of all things. There will be no meaningful conversations even able to have in the world if queer theory actually becomes as ubiquitous as it seems like it is already becoming. There will be no distinctions between anything. If you embrace queer theory, and you embrace the idea that men can be women and women can be men, or you can be both, or neither, blah, blah, blah, then you will end up having to accept that there really is no difference between mankind and beast. It just follows. And in fact, the queer theorists would probably be, like, 'Yeah, that's right.'"

He continued: "Sexuality, to me, that's the key. If the church does not stand our ground on sexuality, we lose everything. We absolutely lose everything.

"This is just so upsetting to me. A lot of Christians just do not believe that it's as bad as it is They just refuse to believe it. And they keep saying, 'Guys, there's nothing new under the sun. It's always been this bad. You're making it seem like it's worse.' That's just not true. It hasn't always been this bad.

"Transgenderism is the most civilizational-shifting thing that has happened in I don't even know how long. You're talking about something that could change the trajectory of human nature forever. And, of course, if anybody's done the reading, I'm not gonna get into this, and I don't write about this in the book, but if anybody knows what transhumanism is, we're one step away from transhumanism, which we won't even get into," he added, referencing the position that human beings should be permitted to use technology to modify and enhance human cognition and bodily function, expanding abilities and capacities beyond current biological constraints. "And transgenderism sort of makes that possible. It's a sort of Gnosticism that really will bring us into a man-and-machine kind of thing coming in together. It's absolutely horrifying."

Cooper previously warned against transgender ideology earlier this year in an interview with The Daily Signal.

"We don't even believe in objective reality now," he lamented, referring to American society. "We are saying you can be a Christian as you want to, as long as you privatize it. You can be a Christian at your home. Just don't go around telling people. But in the public sphere, [where] we used to be able to talk about religion and objective reality In the public sphere, we are going to make peoples personal subjective feelings be public truth.

"So if you say, 'I'm a boy, but I know I'm actually a girl, and I believe it in my heart,' the public has to say your inner feelings are true," he added. "But if somebody says, 'No. I can see objective reality. You are a boy,' that's not publicly true, though it can be a privately held belief if you want.

"That's the way to end all things," Cooper said. "That is the destruction of objective reality."

In various interviews over the years, Cooper has said that he "always had faith in God" and that his mother was a "Jesus fanatic." He also claimed that he was willing to put his career on the line to take a stand for Christ.

In 2021, Cooper was asked by the "Undaunted.Life: A Man's Podcast" what he would say to someone who says that Satan works through rock music, and thus Christians shouldn't play rock music. He responded: "I would say Satan can work through just about anything. I would say that music is created not by the Devil; [it is] created by the Lord. All things were created by God. So instead of thinking that the Devil owns a genre of music, I would say capture that music and bring it back into subjection under the lordship of Christ."

As for what he would say to someone who says it is sinful for Christians to have tattoos, Cooper said: "I understand why Christians think that, because of the Old Testament. I would say it probably takes a little bit of a longer explanation of Old Testament law and what it meant. But a short version would be there are some things in the Old Testament that were a picture of something in the New Testament. There are some things that are not pictures, like murder we don't murder, we don't steal, so and so forth. Dietary restrictions, things like that, were a picture of something.

"Here's what God wanted: God wants to make his people set apart and holy unto his name," he continued. "And I don't think that God does that any longer from the way that we look; he does that now because of Christ's work on the cross, his resurrection, and he sanctifies us, which sets us apart from the sinner and the pagan."

SKILLET's latest album, "Dominion", was released in January 2022 via Atlantic.

"Wimpy, Weak And Woke" was released on November 14.

John's debut book, "Awake & Alive To Truth", has had over 10 printings and won the Book Impact Award at the 2021 K-Love Fan Awards. His podcast, "Cooper Stuff", continues to grow rapidly as well with over four million downloads and more than two million YouTube views.

John Cooper press photo courtesy of The Media Collective

View post:
SKILLET's JOHN COOPER Explains Why He Believes 'Queer ... - BLABBERMOUTH.NET

The new gods are running into a bit of trouble. From the soap opera playing out at Twitter HQ, the too-big-to-fail bankruptcies in the cryptocurrency space, to mass tech layoffs, the past month has seen successive headlines declaring a litany of woes facing the bullish tech boyos in Silicon Valley and beyond.

The minute-by-minute coverage of Elon Musks escapades and the global levels of interest in the FTX collapse both go well beyond what youd expect from a business story. Im willing to gamble a few Bitcoins that the popular fixation has little to do with any particular interest in successful software engineering; rather it is the personalities who inhabit these spaces, and the philosophies that propel them in their godlike ambition. What is their end goal, we wonder. What drives them, beyond the pursuit of growth? It is easy to assume that money is all that motivates the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, Musk and Jeff Bezos. Except, when you start to examine the mindsets of these men, its clear that cash is far from the whole story.

The concept of effective altruism has had its day in court after FTX, the worlds second largest cryptocurrency exchange announced that, oops, it was mysteriously short of $8bn and would be filing for bankruptcy, post haste. As the dust and fraud allegations settle, the personal guiding principles of FTXs millennial chief executive, Sam Bankman-Fried, have come to the fore. Bankman-Fried ostensibly was driven into crypto by an adherence to the effective altruism movement. Originally espousing giving as much targeted time and money to philanthropy as possible, EA has been morphed by its most prominent practitioners into getting very, very rich and then spending that money on projects that better the human race. This earn-to-give philosophy is dependent on data-driven analysis of what causes offer the best returns of betterment. Its utilitarianism with a god complex.

Since Bankman-Frieds spectacular fall from grace, it seems as if this doctrine may be doomed to the same downward spiral as its most famous disciple. Its hard to argue that you possess the best instincts to improve the prospects of the human race when you cant even keep your own affairs or billions in customer funds in order.

Then there was the allegation last week by the Insider journalist Julia Black that Musk, along with other billionaires, appear to be engaged in their own personal eugenics programme via a movement called pronatalism. Black writes that pronatalism an ideology centred on having children to reverse falling birthrates in European countries, and prevent a predicted population collapse is taking hold in wealthy tech and venture-capitalist circles, with the aid of hi-tech genetic screening.

Musk has championed pronatalist ideas publicly. Privately the Tesla co-founder is, in his own words, doing my part; he has 10 children known to the public, two of whom are twins he fathered with an AI expert who serves as an executive for his Neuralink company. But the ideas go beyond Musk and into the canyons of Silicon Valley; the worlds richest and most powerful people see it as their duty, Black claims, to replicate themselves as many times as possible.

Blacks subjects also namecheck effective altruism, longtermism (which prioritises the distant future over the concerns of today), and transhumanism (the evolution of humanity beyond current limitations via tech), as complementary philosophies. The concept of legacy is key to understanding our tech pioneers. As one interviewee tells Black, The person of this subculture really sees the pathway to immortality as being through having children. Given that Musks genius business record is one of multiple near-bankruptcies before he even arrived at Twitter, this rather undermines the theory that the future will be safe only if populated by mini-Musks.

These companies believe that in order to make visions ideas a reality, they require total control of the landscape around them. In his 2017 book World Without Mind, Franklin Foer wrote that Facebook now Meta was founded on the concept of radical transparency a belief that sharing every facet of our lives will somehow result in social good. The metaverse, in which we dont just share our lives on social media but conduct them within it, is this ideas logical conclusion. It has already lost the company $9.4bn.

Silicon Valley and its missionary outposts are dominated not only by the pursuit of growth, which is a means to an end. The underlying raison detre tying these various tech titans together is their fervour for enacting their own personal theological outlooks in supposed service of the wider world. To do this, they must dominate and monopolise remake society in their image, platform by integrated platform.

When we view these monoliths as businesses like any other, or allow them to claim global monopolies, we fail to realise that they are competing for more than our attention or our cash: they are competing for the right to dictate what our societies look like. So it matters a great deal when that vision falters, or fails altogether. Its the stuff of myth and folktale played out via forums and Wall Street Journal tip lines; the emperors slowly shedding their clothes. We are watching would-be gods shrink back to being men once more.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

See more here:
The gods of Silicon Valley are falling to earth. So are their warped visions for society - The Guardian

This month, the 8 billionth child entered the world. Demographers believe that the worlds population is moving towards 10 billion. But at some point, the curve will begin to move downwards. Families will shrink. People everywhere (except sub-Saharan Africa) will become older and older, leading to huge burdens on government social services.

The problem is that most countries have birth-rates below replacement level. And no one knows how to coax women into having more children, as China has discovered, to its dismay. It moved from a one-child policy, to a two-child policy, to a three-child policy and fertility has edged even lower.

What is to be done? A solution comes from an improbable source wealthy, geeky, tech and venture-capitalist pro-natalism activists.

Chapter 1: Elon talks about it

The eccentric billionaire Elon Musk has been married twice but now describes himself as single. He has had at least nine children with a combination of wives, girlfriends, and surrogates. Here are some of his recent tweets.

Chapter 2: Malcolm and Simone do something about it

Malcolm and Simone Collins radiate powerful self-confidence. As a married couple they have operated companies on five continents that collectively pulled in US$70 million every year; raised a private equity fund; directed strategy at top, early-stage venture capital firms; written three best-selling books; served as managing director of Dialog, an elite retreat for global leaders founded by Peter Thiel; and earned degrees in neuroscience, business, and technology policy from St Andrews, Stanford, and Cambridge.

Before marrying, they committed to having between 7 and 13 children. Since Simone was older, she had to ensure that her age would not be a barrier to their plans for an expanding family. In 2018, which they call the Year of the Harvest, they produced and froze as many embryos as possible. They already have three children: Octavian, Torsten, and Titan Invictus.

The evolutionary logic associated with transhumanism is an important theme in their plans. On the population level, whole cultures are in danger of extinction like the Japanese or Armenians or Catalans. This would represent a tragic loss of cultural diversity. We are about to experience the largest cultural mass extinction since the colonial period, they write. Their Project Ark is to save as many cultures as possible by promoting higher birth rates.

On a family level, their proposals involve tinkering with embryos to ensure that their children have good genes. Their critics call this eugenics. They prefer to call it common sense. What we advocate for is fairly vanillaif aggressivetranshumanism: Improving and transforming the human condition with technology. Be against transhumanism all you want, but dont call it eugenics.

Chapter 3: Learn all about population implosion at pronatalist.org

From their home in rural Pennsylvania, this highly-connected couple is preaching the gospel of pro-natalism, the latest fad amongst the super-rich in Silicon Valley. For the past 20 or so years, billionaires have been obsessed with longevity increasing lifespans to hundreds of years. Research on that continues, but some are turning their minds to demography. The person of this subculture really sees the pathway to immortality as being through having children, says Simone.

Pronatalist.org, a website created by Malcolm and Simone, alerts readers to the crisis:

Birth rates are falling precipitously around the world in both developed and developing countries. If dramatic action is not taken, we will witness the extinction of entire societies, expansion of totalitarian governments, and an unchecked rise of tribalism.

South Koreas birth-rate is about 0.81, far below replacement level. The Collinses call this genocide by inaction. They have a knack for presenting the consequences of population decline in vivid analogies: This is equivalent to a disease that wipes out 94% of the population. We need radical solutions to save endangered ethnic groups.

They even see contemporary politics through a demographic lens:

If you have ever wondered why different ideological factions in politics seem to be able to agree on less and less as time goes on, why they are becoming more authoritarian, and why tribalism seems to be increasing: You are witnessing the invisible hand of demographic collapse at work.

Population numbers will eventually rebound within a few hundred years, but progress the world has made in terms of womens rights, freedom of speech, environmentalism, racial equality, gay rights, etc. runs the risk of systematic erasure if we fail to intervene.

Whats the answer? Only a profound cultural change will save us, they argue. Tax credits and baby bonuses are just tinkering around the edges:

Only cultures with a strong external motivation to have kids are well above repopulation rate at the moment; all others will enter the dustbin of history. Essentially, every world culture that does not have strong religious convictions or educate and treat women as equals is being systematically deleted.

A single family having eight kids that successfully passes that practice to their own children can save their entire ethnic group. (One family having eight kids for ten generations leads to over a billion descendants.)

Chapter 4: Malcolm and Simone have a survival plan

The best-known groups with high fertility are all religious. About a quarter of Israels population will be Haredi Jews by 2050, according to a recent estimate. In 1980, they were an insignificant minority of 4 percent. The American Amish may have the worlds highest birthrate; one demographer joked that in 200 years, all Americans will be Amish.

Of course, Malcolm and Simone are not conventionally religious. If pressed, they describe themselves as secular Calvinists. They are not Sunday church-goers but they are hard-working, hard-driving, abstemious, frugal souls on a mission from Evolution.

Their unconventionally religious stand is to encourage fans to create family cultures which welcome children. Were trying to create a playbook for people who want to work their values and morals into durable cultures that are far more likely to endure intergenerationally (rather than go extinct due to low birth rates), Simone explained in an email to MercatorNet. One can create a durable culture from scratch, without any religious element, or one can reinforce an existing religion or culture to make it durable (capable of lasting intergenerationally).

They have nearly finished writing another book which sketches their philosophy of the intertwined themes of demography, evolution, family structure, and religion, called The Pragmatists Guide to Crafting Religion. At its core, they write, this book is a meditation on how we can intentionally construct a culture/religion that will be evolutionarily successful and spread.

They have a Sisyphean job ahead of them. As they observe wryly: It may be easier to coax a caged panda to reproduce than it would be to convince a cosmopolitan progressive to raise their own kid.

Malcolm and Simone describe themselves as conservative Republicans, although in some ways, they are fully-paid-up progressives. They will be attending the LGBT-friendly Log Cabin Republican shindig at Mar-a-Lago in mid-December. They endorse experimental family structures, and their views on moral issues would disconcert traditional Christians.

But beneath the hipster veneer, they really are the secular Calvinists they claim to be. They are not shy of expressing stern and judgemental views about pop culture which offers sex, power, acceptance, prestige, wealth, and the life of Riley without hard work. They take a dim view of the cultural super virus which is how practicing secular Calvinist hipsters describe woke culture.

As an aside, they are nonchalant about woke lunacies. From an evolutionary perspective, they contend, bad ideas literally go extinct. That cultural super virus is a sterilizing disease and almost none of its husks reproduce above repopulation rate, hence our grandkids likely wont have to deal with them.

And on family dynamics, they are astonishingly conventional. They point out in their book that the best motivation for the next generation to have kids is a happy home life as a child:

If a young girl grows up and sees her mom and people like her overburdened, unloved, and ignored by society, why would she choose to have kids herself? Why would she aspire to that? While we cant fix this at the societal level, we can address this problem intentionally-designed cultures. If you want to create a durable culture for your family and inspire your children to have kids of their own, one of the best things you can do is ensure you have a strong relationship with your spouse.

For our family, this means ensuring daughters see their mothers glorified, appreciated, and even deified within family culture for the sacrifices they make while also demonstrating that none of those sacrifices require foregoing a career or stepping back from public life.

In some respects, they may be even sterner than their God-fearing Calvinist forebears. Child-bearing is natural for women, they write in their book. Theres no reason to exaggerate its difficulties:

In our House, having kids is just part of the yearly routine. While Simone is appreciated for it, she never hints that it would be justified for her to use pregnancy or childbirth as an excuse to step back from work. The productive glorification of motherhood requires never giving into societys tendency to conflate gratitude and approval with justification to winge, whine, indulge, or lean out.

No way that these guys have been infected by the cultural super virus!

Chapter 5: networking for pro-natalism

The Collinses want you to join them. We are actively building a diverse network of families with the grit to make it through this maelstrom, they say on the website. If you are committed to a high birth rate and building a healthy culture for your family, we want to talk!

Read more:
The power couple on a mission to save the world from demographic disaster - MercatorNet

Most of us dont think of power-hungry killer robots as an imminent threat to humanity, especially when poverty and the climate crisis are already ravaging the Earth.

This wasnt the case for Sam Bankman-Fried and his followers, powerful actors who have embraced a school of thought within the effective altruism movement called longtermism.

In February, the Future Fund, a philanthropic organization endowed by the now-disgraced cryptocurrency entrepreneur, announced that it would be disbursing more than $100m and possibly up to $1bn this year on projects to improve humanitys long-term prospects.

The slightly cryptic reference might have been a bit puzzling to those who think of philanthropy as funding homelessness charities and medical NGOs in the developing world. In fact, the Future Funds particular areas of interest include artificial intelligence, biological weapons and space governance, a mysterious term referring to settling humans in space as a potential watershed moment in human history.

Out-of-control artificial intelligence was another area of concern for Bankman-Fried so much so that in September the Future Fund announced prizes of up to $1.5m to anyone who could make a persuasive estimate of the threat that unrestrained AI might pose to humanity.

We think artificial intelligence is the development most likely to dramatically alter the trajectory of humanity this century, the Future Fund said. With the help of advanced AI, we could make enormous progress toward ending global poverty, animal suffering, early death and debilitating disease. But AI could also acquire undesirable objectives and pursue power in unintended ways, causing humans to lose all or most of their influence over the future.

Less than two months after the contest was announced, Bankman-Frieds $32bn cryptocurrency empire had collapsed, much of the Future Funds senior leadership had resigned and its AI prizes may never be rewarded.

Nor will most of the millions of dollars that Bankman-Fried had promised a constellation of charities and thinktanks affiliated with effective altruism, a once-obscure ethical movement that has become influential in Silicon Valley and the highest echelons of the international business and political worlds.

Longtermists argue that the welfare of future humans is as morally important or more important than the lives of current ones, and that philanthropic resources should be allocated to predicting, and defending against, extinction-level threats to humanity.

But rather than giving out malaria nets or digging wells, longtermists prefer to allocate money to researching existential risk, or x-risk.

In his recent book What We Owe the Future, William MacAskill a 35-year-old moral philosopher at Oxford who has become the public intellectual face of effective altruism makes a case for longtermism with a thought experiment about a hiker who accidentally shatters a glass bottle on a trail. A conscientious person, he holds, would immediately clean up the glass to avoid injuring the next hiker whether that person comes in a week or in a century.

Similarly, MacAskill argues that the number of potential future humans, over many generations for the duration of the species, far outnumbers the number currently alive; if we truly believe that all humans are equal, protecting future humans is more important than protecting human lives today.

Some of longtermists funding interests, such as nuclear nonproliferation and vaccine development, are fairly uncontroversial. Others are more outlandish: investing in space colonization, preventing the rise of power-hungry AI, cheating death through life-extension technology. A bundle of ideas known as transhumanism seeks to upgrade humanity by creating digital versions of humans, bioengineering human-machine cyborgs and the like.

People like the futurist Ray Kurzweil and his adherents believe that biotechnology will soon enable a union between humans and genuinely intelligent computers and AI systems, Robin McKie explained in the Guardian in 2018. The resulting human-machine mind will become free to roam a universe of its own creation, uploading itself at will onto a suitably powerful computational substrate, and thereby creating a kind of immortality.

This feverish techno-utopianism distracts funders from pressing problems that already exist here on Earth, said Luke Kemp, a research associate at the University of Cambridges Centre for the Study of Existential Risk who describes himself as an EA-adjacent critic of effective altruism. Left on the table, he says, are critical and credible threats that are happening right now, such as the climate crisis, natural pandemics and economic inequality.

The things they push tend to be things that Silicon Valley likes, Kemp said. Theyre the kinds of speculative, futurist ideas that tech billionaires find intellectually exciting. And they almost always focus on technological fixes to human problems rather than political or social ones.

There are other objections. For one thing, lavishly expensive, experimental bioengineering would be accessible, especially initially, to only a tiny sliver of humanity, Kemp said; it could bring about a future caste system in which inequality is not only economic, but biological.

This thinking is also dangerously undemocratic, he argued. These big decisions about the future of humanity should be decided by humanity. Not by just a couple of white male philosophers at Oxford funded by billionaires. It is literally the most powerful, and least representative, strata of society imposing a particular vision of the future which suits them.

Kemp added: I dont think EAs or at least the EA leadership care very much about democracy. In its more dogmatic varieties, he said, longtermism is preoccupied with rationality, hardcore utilitarianism, a pathological obsession with quantification and neoliberal economics.

Organizations such as 80,000 Hours, a program for early-career professionals, tend to encourage would-be effective altruists into four main areas, Kemp said: AI research, research preparing for human-made pandemics, EA community-building and global priorities research, meaning the question of how funding should be allocated.

The first two areas, though worthy of study, are highly speculative, Kemp said, and the second two are self-serving, since they channel money and energy back into the movement.

This year, the Future Fund reports having recommended grants to worthy-seeming projects as various as research on the feasibility of inactivating viruses via electromagnetic radiation ($140,000); a project connecting children in India with online science, technology, engineering and mathematics education ($200,000); research on disease-neutralizing therapeutic antibodies ($1.55m); and research on childhood lead exposure ($400,000).

But much of the Future Funds largesse seems to have been invested in longtermism itself. It recommended $1.2m to the Global Priorities Institute; $3.9m to the Long Term Future Fund; $2.9m to create a longtermist coworking office in London; $3.9m to create a longtermist coworking space in Berkeley; $700,000 to the Legal Priorities Project, a longtermist legal research and field-building organization; $13.9m to the Centre for Effective Altruism; and $15m to Longview Philanthropy to execute independent grantmaking on global priorities research, nuclear weapons policy, and other longtermist issues.

Kemp argued that effective altruism and longtermism often seem to be working toward a kind of regulatory capture. The long-term strategy is getting EAs and EA ideas into places like the Pentagon, the White House, the British government and the UN to influence public policy, he said.

There may be a silver lining in the timing of Bankman-Frieds downfall. In a way, its good that it happened now rather than later, Kemp said. He was planning on spending huge amounts of money on elections. At one stage, he said he was planning to spend up to a billion dollars, which would have made him the biggest donor in US political history. Can you imagine if that amount of money contributed to a Democratic victory and then turned out to have been based on fraud? In an already fragile and polarized society like the US? That would have been horrendous.

The main tension to the movement, as I see it, is one that many movements deal with, said Benjamin Soskis, a historian of philanthropy and a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. A movement that was primarily fueled by regular people and their passions, and interests, and different kinds of provenance attracted a number of very wealthy funders, and came to be driven by the funding decisions, and sometimes just the public identities, of people like SBF and Elon Musk and a few others. (Soskis noted that he has received funding from Open Philanthropy, an EA-affiliated foundation.)

Effective altruism put Bankman-Fried, who lived in a luxury compound in the Bahamas, on a pedestal, as this Corolla-driving, beanbag-sleeping, earning-to-give monk, which was clearly false, Kemp said.

Soskis thinks that effective altruism has a natural appeal to people in tech and finance who tend to have an analytical and calculating way of thinking about problems and EA, like all movements, spreads through social and work networks.

Effective altruism is also attractive to wealthy people, Soskis believes, because it offers a way to understand the marginal value of additional dollars, particularly when talking of vast sums that can defy comprehension. The movements focus on numbers (shut up and multiply) helps hyper-wealthy people understand more concretely what $500m can do philanthropically versus, say, $500,000 or $50,000.

One positive outcome, he thinks, is that EA-influenced donors publicly discuss their philanthropic commitments and encourage others to make them. Historically, Americans have tended to regard philanthropy as a private matter.

But theres something which I think you cant escape, Soskis said. Effective altruism isnt premised on a strong critique of the way that money has been made. And elements of it were construed as understanding capitalism more generally as a positive force, and through a kind of consequentialist calculus. To some extent, its a safer landing spot for folks who want to sequester their philanthropic decisions from a broader political debate about the legitimacy of certain industries or ways of making money.

Kemp said that it is rare to hear EAs, especially longtermists, discuss issues such as democracy and inequality. Honestly, I think thats because it is something the donors dont want us talking about. Cracking down on tax avoidance, for example, would lead to major donors losing both power and wealth.

The downfall of Bankman-Frieds crypto empire, which has jeopardized the Future Fund and countless other longtermist organizations, may be revealing. Longtermists believe that future existential risks to humanity can be accurately calculated yet, as the economist Tyler Cowen recently pointed out, they couldnt even predict the existential threat to their own flagship philanthropic organization.

There must be soul-searching, Soskis said. Longtermism has a stain on it and Im not sure when or if it will be fully removed.

A billionaire is a billionaire, the journalist Anand Giridharadas wrote recently on Twitter. His 2018 book Winners Take All sharply criticized the idea that private philanthropy will solve human problems. Stop believing in good billionaires. Start organizing toward a good society.

Go here to see the original:
Power-hungry robots, space colonization, cyborgs: inside the bizarre world of longtermism - The Guardian

KPMG has appointed software engineer and tech entrepreneur Alyse Sue as its new head of metaverse future, with the goal of creating a multimillion-dollar business based on metaverse technology and cryptocurrency over the next two years.

Sue rejoined the Big Four firm after working as a senior consultant on the KPMG Innovate team between 2012 and 2015 before focusing on her own startup projects. Sue co-founded Transhumanism Australia and cryptocurrency Transhuman Coin, which are both dedicated to funding research and development of technologies that enhance human biology, and Genomix, a data machine-learning startup that identifies genetic variations associated with long life spans.

Previously head of Web3 for software development and innovation consultancy firm Palo IT, Sue will now report to James Mabott, a partner at KPMG Futures.

"My role at KPMG is to use metaverse technology to create new business models for the firm," said Sue. "I am primarily interested in blockchain metaverses such as crypto, Horizons 2 and 3 mix realities. We would like to encourage more businesses to move toward this model, and we believe that the way we work will considerably change by 2030, because metaverse adoption is driven by B2B. "

According to the KPMG website, Metaverse Future is about reflecting a continuously evolving world by developing new business models and adapting to changes in technology. The firm believes that by 2030, synthetic data generated from simulated realities could allow robots to problem-solve and replace humans for high-risk tasks. However, Meta's Reality Labs unit, which develops virtual and augmented reality technologies set to support the metaverse, reported a cumulative operating loss of $9.1 billion since Q3 2021.

While KPMG's main source of revenues relies on consulting or advisory-based services, Sue explains that an increasing number of banks and fashion companies are currently experimenting with crypto and NFTs, and that the company aims to attract this new category of clients by investing in new technologies. Sue says the metaverse would be the product of quantum computing, artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies. While some of those models are not well-developed yet, KPMG expects them to play a significant role on the tech stage by 2030.

"We could bring advances to AI and quantum, and use simulations in different environments and scenarios," said Sue. "Those simulations could help us determine what is the best business strategy, driven by blockchain technology."

The four fields of research Sue is most interested in are payments, standards, security and tokenization, which refers to physical assets being represented on a digital blockchain. She says that Metaverse Future is about finding new areas of growth and exploring new technologies such as cryptocurrency, NFTs, decentralized autonomous organizations, as well as VR and AR.

However, Chainanalysis data revealed the average price of NFT sales has dropped by 92% since May, and KPMG may need to consider these complications for its future investments. Currently, Metaverse Future counts 90 team members whose work focuses on AI and quantum computing, in addition to the metaverse. The firm also launched KPMG Origins, a blockchain-based track-and-trace service that helps businesses navigate increasingly complex supply chains with an independent data-sharing platform.

"The metaverse is not a passing fashion and companies are all looking at how they can engage customers in new ways," said Sue. "The numbers are increasing, and some people are already spending more money on their avatar than on their actual wardrobes. It is an exciting space to be in, and if you're part of it, you've already become part of the future."

Sue says that KPMG regularly organizes one-on-one meetings with its clients to understand their problems and come up with a product that will meet their needs. As a result, Metaverse Future is currently working on ways to protect its users' privacy and guarantee a swift transition from Web 2.0, which is the current version of the internet, to a third version of the World Wide Web.

According to Sue, Metaverse Future is ultimately all about clients and explaining to them how metaverse technology is going to look in the next few years. Sue says that people want to know how new technologies are going to change the landscape of business, and KPMG believes its new initiatives may revolutionize employee, client and third-party interactions.

"The best way to learn for companies to explore these new technologies is to dive in and play around with NFTs," declared Sue. "They should read about the theory, run experiments and wonder how they can help customers better solve their problems."

KPMG is not the only CPA firm to make a few moves toward the metaverse. In December 2021, PwC Hong Kong purchased a LAND site in the popular Sandbox metaverse, a blockchain-based gaming platform. In January, Prager Metis also became the first CPA firm to open up a metaverse headquarters as part of a joint venture with metaverse studio Banquet LLC.

Continued here:
KPMG Australia appoints first-ever head of metaverse future - Accounting Today

Check out the on-demand sessions from the Low-Code/No-Code Summit to learn how to successfully innovate and achieve efficiency by upskilling and scaling citizen developers. Watch now.

Ive been enjoying the peek into our metaverse future that Amazon Prime Video is delivering each week with airings of The Peripheral streaming show.

As I noted when the series debuted, its an example of how the world is science fiction is becoming more science and less fiction. And the recent sixth episode of the show feature the addition of Alexandra Billings, a trans actress who plays the inspector Ainsley Lowbeer in the show.

The show is Prime Videos top show, and, to paraphrase the first line from Herman Narulas book Virtual Society, I believe that one day it will be watched by a person without a body. Thats because The Peripheral depicts what its like to move between different worlds and to inhabit the bodies of others.

And for a trans actress like Billings, this brings to mind the notion that your physical body may not matter in a future where digital and physical seamlessly interact. Billings has been a trailblazer for LGBTQ+ representation, and she recently made history when she starred on Broadway as Madam Morrible in Wicked, the first time a trans actress has portrayed a traditionally cis female role.

Intelligent Security Summit

Learn the critical role of AI & ML in cybersecurity and industry specific case studies on December 8. Register for your free pass today.

I talked to her about the significance of the role in The Peripheral, where she plays a trans person in the future. The show is based on a novel by William Gibson, who coined the term cyberspace, and it was produced by Westworld creators Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan. Its a complicated story that moves around in time and explores whether the digital world is real or not. And the show is different from the book, as it uses Gibsons story as a jumping off point for ideas about our future. And that gives Billings some interesting leeway to play Lowbeer as a trans person in the show.

Lowbeer is a character who polices the border between a physical reality and the virtual world. And she is like a messenger from the future for us. And she can teach us how to think about topics like transhumanism. Lowbeers character is pretty unique, and I think anyone thinking about the metaverse should consider watching The Peripheral.

Heres an edited transcript of our interview.

VentureBeat: It sounds like an exciting role for you.

Alexandra Billings: Yes, it is. Its super fun, and it was super exciting.

VentureBeat: Did you view this as a kind of ground-breaking role?

Billings: Oh, yeah, sure, absolutely. Its rare that you have a transgender character thats written as a trans person. Meaning, a trans person doesnt come into a show and have to change a cis character into a trans experience, but that its specifically written for us. Also, that her transness isnt the central part of her being. It takes a backseat to who she is and what she does. That itself is pretty extraordinary.

VentureBeat: I think you maybe could get to a place where your head kind of explodes, because transhumanism in the future should be quite possible. Given the technology in the show, its a reality that people can swap bodies. They can be whoever they wish to be at any given moment. It feels quite relevant.

Billings: Youre exactly right, and thats very astute, because the queerness of this show happens all the way through it. Flynne becomes a man, because the Peripherals are actually justI want to say robots, but thats not sort of true. Theyre vessels, really. They present in one particular gender, but your particular gender doesnt necessarily have to do with the Peripheral that you climb into.

It was really fascinating. That actually didnt sink into my little pea brain until I was watching it. I thought, This is queer as heck! Its really stunning. From the very beginning the whole thing screams trans. Its fascinating.

VentureBeat: I also feel like some of this is not really presentI mean, I read through the first book. It doesnt seem like it is a theme of the first book at all. Its just there. But it sounds like the fiction of the show can actually show this more.

Billings: I think youre right, yes. I think thats exactly right. What the books did was hint at it and put it in the world. What the TV show did was just allow it to blossom a bit more. And again, it doesnt hit you over the head. But it is there. It is present. Its so great. I mean, thank God thats true. Because how else do we normalize but by just putting our stories in the center?

VentureBeat: Is there some creativity you feel like you can bring to this role, then, because its not sticking to the text as canon? Its interesting that its using the text as a jumping-off point to express a lot of different things.

Billings: I think thats right. The writers are the ones in charge of the direction, but they have meetings with all of us and ask us, What do you think? Where should we go? What interests you? What doesnt interest you? Because the writers are cis, when I got the role I told them, When you write Lowbeer, you must come to me. You have to talk to me. And they were more than willing to do that. They were actually very grateful. They said, Were really appreciative of your voice. I said that it needs to be infiltrated into the storyline and into Lowbeer, so that her transness comes from a lived experience, and not one that is writing about a lived experience.

VentureBeat: Where are some interesting places this is going that you might hint at? Im sure you dont want to spoil anything, but

Billings: Thats so hard. Its such a hard question, because I dont want to get fired. And also I feel likeone thing I can tell you is that weve had conversations about what has never been done on television, and also what would be interesting to the story, to the world itself, and how Lowbeer can add to the story. Thats what matters to me the most. The fact that Im in it is representation enough. I dont think we need to browbeat people. But the conversations that weve had have been about, how do we keep the story interesting? How do we keep it buoyant? Thats all I can tell you.

VentureBeat: One thing I can think of is that the times and maybe the acceptance of trans people would be different in Flynnes age than in the future. You can see that change has happened, maybe.

Billings: I think thats right. Also, because the show is a reflection of this global experience were all going through right now, I think it would behoove the show to have people that are still stuck in the 1950s. You talk about relevance. We still have Candace Cameron talking about traditional marriage as if its an actual thing. Shes going to make these movies about traditional marriage, which isnt a thing. Theres no such thing as traditional marriage. Thats not a category of marriage. It doesnt make any sense. What shes saying is, Im going to make these films that are exclusionary. Thats what Im going to do. Im going to make films about this experience only when we talk about marriage. Which doesnt make any sense.

Having those kinds of people, even in the Peripheraltheyre never going to go away. Thats the thing. Were not going to get rid of them. Theyre not going to disappear. We always have to have that balance. Nobody is a one and nobody is a 10. We have to have the ideas of that scale in order to keep ourselves balanced. I think having some of those kinds of people in the PeripheralI think that matters.

VentureBeat: It might be interesting from your point of view to be a messenger from the future for our real world today.

Billings: Thats a great idea. Id love to be a message from the future.

VentureBeat: What are some things you would say?

Billings: You know, I think Id saylisten, its probably the stuff I say now, which is that I really believe, as long as we keep going forward, things are going to change. But we have to keep moving. We can take breaks, but we cant rest. We cant take a nap. That cant be true. We can allow ourselves some space from the revolution, but we have to keep moving. Otherwise people like this sad woman whos living a very delusionary worldwhat we have to do is instead of saying, Youre wrong and youre a terrible person, we move forward into education. Thats what the future holds.

VentureBeat: Its something liketechnology changes for sure, but humanity changes as well.

Billings: Thats right. Listen, humanity is technology. Technology doesnt exist as a thing unless were the ones who program it. A computer doesnt know anything else besides what we tell it. It doesnt get smarter. We get smarter. Thats what we have to remember. We are technology. One of the reasons social media is so interesting is because its us. Its humanity condensed into your phone.

VentureBeat: Its interesting, tootranshumanism seems like a popular science fiction idea. It seems almost like an ideal state to a lot of people. Ive never heard people say its unacceptable. Ive basically heard people say its acceptable. I would think that then maybeits interesting to compare that to trans people.

Billings: I would agree with you. Especially, adding the word humanism to our community normalizes and allowsI have no desire to assimilate. I never have. My transness was neveryou know, I never wanted to be the same. People called me a weirdo my whole life and I thought, Fabulous! That was never a thing for me. That was never a trigger. But I did want to be able to come into society, to be able to be a part of the thing. Not to be the same as, but to bring my otherness into society. I think adding the word humanism to our community helps do that.

VentureBeat: I did remember another science fiction story that envisioned a future version of YouTube that would put you in VR, in a body suit, and let you feel what its like to be somebody else. Walk a mile in the shoes of an LGBTQ person.

Billings: That is a great idea. I fear, though, that just because you spend one day, one week, or even one year walking in my skin, you still dont get the full vision of my history. You dont know what its like to have spent day after day after day as a seven-year-old transgender person. Im 60 years old now. This is back in the late 1960s. To spend day after day as a trans child and not have a word for what you are. Thats very different than walking around the planet as a 50-, 40-, or 30-year-old trans person. I think its a great idea in theory, but we need to be very mindful that the queer experience is historical. It doesnt exist moment by moment only. We have a culture.

VentureBeat: Where do you hope this all goes, your opportunities related to the show?

Billings: Listen, I hope the Peripheral runs for 150 years. I do. I think it should run as long aswhat was that other thing? I never watched it. The dragons show. Im a terrible person. I never watched it. But I think the Peripheral literally can reflect the state of the human experience as long as we continue to change. Lets hope it never ends. Lets hope theres never any happily ever after. Theres alway just a continuum.

VentureBeat: Lets hope we get past the Jackpot.

Billings: Thats right!

GamesBeat's creed when covering the game industry is "where passion meets business." What does this mean? We want to tell you how the news matters to you -- not just as a decision-maker at a game studio, but also as a fan of games. Whether you read our articles, listen to our podcasts, or watch our videos, GamesBeat will help you learn about the industry and enjoy engaging with it. Discover our Briefings.

Here is the original post:
Why a trans actress in The Peripheral is a messenger from our future | The DeanBeat - VentureBeat