The author is

READING	NAME	Agenda Item
Max More “On Becoming Posthuman” http://www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm	Andrew Nelson	"Clearly we have already taken our first steps along the road to posthumanity. We have begun to directly alter our genetic structure to remedy nature's failures. We use Prozac, Piracetam, Hydergine, and Deprenyl to modify our psychology, enhance our concentration, and slow brain aging." (Second Paragraph of Are Posthumans Possible?) He makes a good point to try to ease the fear of a posthuman world but also touches on something that I find very scary which is the insane amount on drugs we currently put into our bodies. It is as if our society has become a huge science experiment with all the different drugs we are mixing in our bodies.
	Heather Lautman	"We may be able to "upload" our selves (our psychology, memories, emotional responses, values, feelings) from our biological brains into synthetic brains." May sound scary and awful, but what about in Harry Potter? Pensives and the memories being collected with magic seems cool, where is the line between cool and scary?
	Andrew Krushelnyski	I feel as though the idea of posthumanity has really already begun. Not only has it started but I feel as though it is inevitable like it is somewhat stated in the reading. Furthermore I feel as though we are helping the process along with the idea of genetical changes and/or medicinal enhancements.
	Tracy Breslin	"Life without death would be meaningless." "I don't want to live longer than my allotted time." In general, people fear death, but we also fear the unknown and posthumanism. How do our fears come into play in this debate of natural versus unnatural? Our indecisions and desire for "just the right amount" lead to a double standard.
	Galen Frechette	So I understand that this guy is down with enhancement and says its technically feasible and I guess makes some kind of argument or statements or something about why it is desirable. But other than that I’m not sure I really get it. Maybe someone could help explain it to me, or tell me how they see it? Also, say this guy becomes the immortal Posthuman he talks about, what then?
	Jonathan Amazon	Some of these ideas seem extraordinarily fantastical. He talks of human enhancement as though the technology already exists and is just under wraps from the stigma of being post human. In actuality even our most advanced medical technology can just barely emulate what the body does on its own. Lets get on par with nature before we even think about 'enhancing' ourselves.
G. Wolbring. “The Enhancement Debate.” http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/documents/oxfordfinal3.doc	Rachel Ferebee	I agree with the dispelling of superstitions that keep mankind from progressing. However, I think the author makes a huge leap in assuming immortality is inevitable. The earth has limited resources, and if everyone lived forever, there could be no additional births to burden these resources. Who would pick which types of people get to live in this future? Do you really want dictators and criminals to live forever?
	Matt Naples	Body enhancements should be done as long as the effect is accepted by all that are involved with the process. Social ethics and cost of enhancements.
	Charlie Senness	Page 6 What is the problem with problem 4? Why wouldn't a disabled person not want to be "normal"/fully functional? What are possible reasons why they would want to be disabled (embracing their "deficiency") when they could be fully functional? Also the fact that there is no consideration to social solutions... who cares? If a disabled person can be "fixed" then there would be no need for these "social cures"; especially if social solutions aren't a practicality for some time. However, would being "fixed" just serve as another means of discrimination?
	Grant Boucher	Hot-Rodding one's body and mind should be an individual's choice. There is nothing more unique about a person than his/ her own body. Everyday people are modifying themselves: THC, LSD, amphetamine salts, and caffeine alter brain function; glasses, aspirin, and plastic surgery modify the physical body. Who is to say I can't design and build a better limb or vision or memory storage device and integrate it with my body?
	Andrew Star	Many arguments used to demand the prohibition of enhancement will not work until similar actions are not taken in areas where enhancement does only mark a techno difference but does not pose a new problem. For example if we do not changes the inequity to education in the first place then ones arguments against a brain chip which would allow the upload of information based on the selective access to the chip by a few is on very shaky ground.
	James Johnston	Absent In reference to problem 6 & elevate status: If sentient beings can communicate and operate with one another civilly, the control of one being over another, as well as favoritism, would be an injustice. If equity is insured, (so that anyone who wants an enhancement can receive one) why would there ever be a rational allowing "natural" humans to have elevated status over artificial life or enhanced humans.

Ben Goertzel and Stephan Vladimir Bugaj. Ch 12, “ The Path to Posthumanity, ch 12 2006, Academica; http://www.goertzel.org/Chapter12_aug16_05.pdf	Dan Schaffer	Page 345 refers to the "Lone Crusader", and after Drexler was mentioned earlier in this article, I can't help but feel he is walking that path. It can be seen by many that Drexler's idea is suspiciously unable to be directly proven wrong. Freud and Drexler offered interesting insight into a future that, most likely, has and will not follow their ideas completely. -Added in class Also, more generally, what stance is the nanotechnologist supposed to take with respect to the poor? Technology divide is already a great barrier. In what way can we morally advance through nanotech, or beyond homo sapiens, if quality of life is already so varied?
	Mike Pennisi	Starting on page 336, Eliezer claims that the best thing he can do to help the world is his work towards the Singularity. Eliezer, who once claimed that love would be a barrier to his work, has since been engaged in romantic relationships. Can he have it both ways?
	Andrew Cunningham	(309) "Extropianism is a particular form of transhumanism, concerned with the quest for “the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and limits by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values, while avoiding religion and dogma.” Working toward the obsolescence of the human race through AI and robots is one part of this; another aspect is the transfer of human personalities into “more durable, modifiable, and faster, and more powerful bodies and thinking hardware,” using technologies such as genetic engineering, neural- computer integration and nanotechnology." How is this considered evolution? It is not letting nature run its natural course and involves a "creator." Why would we want something that would be working to our demise?
	Jason Bernardo	Ben says on p. 337: "I do feel AI will be a profoundly positive technology for humans, not a negative one like, say, nuclear weapons, which I wouldn't enjoy working on even if it were intellectually stimulating." Are there no benefits to researching and implementing nuclear science? Also, is AI only a positive technology for humans? The article talks about replacing humans and this doesn't seem very positive for humans. What about the use of AI by the military in warfare and its use for control over people?
	Molly Danskin	PG 11 “a standard libertarian argument, sometimes repeated by Max More, to the effect that the reason the air was polluted was that nobody owned it4 – ergo, air, like everything else, should be private property”


Coenen et al “Of Visions, Dreams and Nightmares: The Debate on Converging Technologies” http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/043/coua04a.pdf	Sarah Petzold	The difference between the EU and the US is intriguing. How are the traditions and customs between the two ending in such a different future for nanotechnology and other converging technologies. What does the political atmosphere between the EU and the US have to do with the difference in how the poplulation and policymakers view the emergence of the converging and nano technologies? The US is ambitious, while the EU cautions against unbridled technological optimism.
	Grant Kovach	"Overall, the initiative is technology-driven, seems to be heavily influenced by the new government perspectives on national security after 9/11, and conceals that many of the assumed technical breakthroughs presuppose scientific knowledge and technological capabilities that will very likely not be available in the forseeable future."
	Joyce Chow	“The major differences between the European CTEKS and the US American NBIC are perhaps that CTEKS are conceived as a bottom-up approach, starting from societal needs and involving many scientific disciplines other than the core of three or four (depending on the strategic importance of cognitive science), while NBIC has a strong focus on the improvement of human capabilities and performance, fuelled no doubt by military and security concerns…”
	James McKenna	In the NSF/DOC report (Roco, Bainbridge 2002) this bold vision is further elaborated: CT can potentially bring about “world peace, universal prosperity and an evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment," is this really the case or is it more likely the advancement in CT will bring world destruction, chaos, and barbarity towards the people?
	Ishan Gaur	"Interestingly enough, the political discussion on CT shows signs of the same paradox as the debate on nanotechnology. Much simplified: “It is not clear, what it really is, what it will enable and where it will lead to, but in any case it is very important and will have enormous impact”."
	Alex Lamparski	I am left to wonder if the only reason the ideas of advancing human ability through technology seems like a 'nightmare' and 'unnatural' because of the emphasis on religion in my life growing up. As i read each article I try and open my mind to these new ideas but they all feel 'evil'' in a way.