[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ-aMw2Mlwg 600 400] Remade into Vanilla Sky
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHtF8PADoN0 600 400]
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmIIFw589Cs 600 400]
A month or so back, I published a couple of new articles, which each deal with the concept of posthumanism. The main article details a typology of human enhancements that aims to clarify the different levels of discussion and expectation of human enhancement technologis. The second is a 'Letter to Utopia', a reply to Nick Bostrom's Letter from Utopia published alongside my paper in SELT. They're available through the SELT website: MIAH, A. (2008) Engineering Greater Resilience or Radical Transhuman Enhancement? Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, 2, http://www.bepress.com/selt/vol2/iss1/art5.
MIAH, A. (2008) Letter to Utopia. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, 2, http://www.bepress.com/selt/vol2/iss1/art7
Part of the Biennial for 2008
Culture and Consequence is a one-day conference produced by LCACE in partnership with the Cultural Leadership Programme. The aim of the day is to provide a platform to open up for wider discussion some of the key ethical issues emerging for the arts and cultural sectors now.
At the heart of the event there is a desire to examine the sometimes uncomfortable relationships between arts and ethics with a view to exploring how, if or indeed should the arts be expected to be ethical.
The day will provide timely and provocative presentations as well as a range of panel discussions that will attempt to unpick the following themes and their relationship with the arts:
- Profit and Value
- Public Space
- Human Rights and Human Goods
- Faith and Conflict
The event will be of interest to:,artists, academics, arts organisations, cultural practitioners and policy-making bodies.
Confirmed speakers include: Baroness Susan Greenfield • Jude Kelly (Artistic Director, Southbank Centre) • Dr Robert Beckford (Oxford Brookes University) • Zina Saro-Wiwa • Matthew Taylor (RSA) • Sir Richard Dalton • Professor Adam Arvidsson (University of Copenhagen) • Hasan Bakhshi (NESTA) • Jo Wilding • Matty Peacock (Streetwise Opera) • Dr Jonathan Holmes • Dan Gretton (Platform London) • Gary McKeone • Professor Ben Quash (King's College London) • Professor Clemens Sedmak (King's College London) • Rhonda Wilson (Rhubarb Rhubarb) • Jonzi D • Nigel Osborne • Gini Simpson ( Space Media Arts) • Michael Symmons Roberts • David Cotterrell • Sophie Hope
This list will be regularly updated.
To book please go to https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lcace/index.php
REPORTINGCHINA 2008 THE TIBET STORY – JOURNALISM UNDER PRESSURE Following protest in London on UK media coverage of Tibet – has the British/Western media been fair to China on Tibet? CHAIR Isabel Hilton PANEL INCLUDING Lindsey Hilsum (China Correspondent C4 news) Wang Rujun (Peoples’ Daily) Ma Guihua (London Correspondent Xinhua News Agency) Jon Williams (World News editor BBC) Introductions: Sally Feldman (Dean University of Westminster School of Media Arts and Design) 18.30 – 20.00 Wednesday 21st May Lecture Room, University of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish St, London W1W 6UW More information: Dorothea Josem (dorothy@themediasociety.co.uk) ENTRY IS FREE AND OPEN TO ALL
http://trans-disciplinary.net/ati/Visions/V3/cfp.html
This inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary project aims to explore what it is to be human and the nature of human community in cyberculture, cyberspace and science fiction. In particular, the project will explore the possibilities offered by these contexts for creative thinking about persons and the challenges posed to the nature and future of national, international, and global communities.
Papers, short papers, and workshops are invited on issues related to any of the following themes;
- the relationship between cyberculture, cyberspace, science fiction and the Machinima phenomenon
- science fiction and cyberpunk as a medium for exploring the nature of persons
- humans and cyborgs; the synergy of humans and technology; changing views of the body
- human and post-human politics; cyborg citizenship and rights; influence of political technologies
- bodies in cyberculture; from apes to androids - electronic evolution; biotechnical advances and the impact of life, death, and social existence; the impact on individuality
- gender and cyberspace: new feminisms, new masculinities
- electronic persons, community and identity; cyberspace, cybercommunities, virtual worlds, and home worlds
- nature, enhancing nature, and artificial intelligence; artificial life, life and information systems, networked living
- cyberpolitics, cyberdemocracy, cyberterror; old conflicts, new spaces: elections, protest and war in cyberspace; nationality and nationalism in cyberculture; the state and cyberspace: repression vs. resistance
- cyberpolitics, cybercultures and Serious Games (Documentary CGs)
- cybercultures: the transnational and the local
- boundaries, frontiers and taboos in cyberculture
- cyberculture and orientalism
- religion and spirituality in cyberculture, science fiction and cyberpunk
- old messages, new medium: cyberspace and mass communication
- cyberculture, cyberpunk and the near future: utopias vs. dystopias
- technology vs. the natural? cyberculture and the green movement
- the cultures of computer gaming
Papers will be considered on any related theme. 300 word abstracts should be submitted by Friday 15th February 2008. If your paper is accepted for presentation at the conference, an 8 page draft paper should be submitted by Friday 6th June 2008.
300 word abstracts should be submitted to both Organising Chairs; abstracts may be in Word, WordPerfect, or RTF formats, following this order:
[slideshare id=372085&doc=miah200612hastings2-1209129492787872-8&w=425]
Edge Hill Station, Liverpool
Originally uploaded by andymiah
Last Friday, I attended the opening of the Pavillion at Edge Hill Station, a new exhibition space in the oldest passenger railway station in the world.
The RSF have been reporting this conference, which took place in Beijing over the last few days.
AL and AL exhibition at FACT
Originally uploaded by andymiah
My photo of Slavoj Zizek when he was in Liverpool, added by someone to his wikipedia entry. It's been picked up by a few books for publishing since.
On 5th – –7th September this year, Glasgow University is hosting the 2008 Critical Legal Conference. For those unfamiliar with it, this is an annual international conference, which – –despite the name – –is also likely to be of interest to many people (academics and others) with no direct involvement with law. I have attached a Call for Papers, and I would be grateful if you would consider printing this out and displaying it at your institution, drawing it to the attention of prospectively interested colleagues, or – –of course – –submitting an abstract yourself. (Some of you have already agreed to attend, so please disregard the last). In view of your areas of interest, may I draw your attention in particular to the Healthcare stream, described at http://www.criticallegalconference.com/blurbs/nblurb4.htm and provisionally titled The Choice Agenda: Patient or Consumer? As you'll see from the site, one of our principal objectives is to tease the CLC away from some of the more abstract and esoteric theorising that has characterised it in recent years, and to re-engage to some extent with political causes and social movements, and I hope this stream will be a positive step in that dir ection. If, however, you have ideas for papers or even streams that lie outwith that precise topic, please don’ ’t hesitate to contact me about them.
Please note that the closing date for abstracts is 31st May.
From Colin Gavaghan, Uni of Glasgow
Colin Gavaghan <c.gavaghan@law.gla.ac.uk>
A BEIJING OLYMPICS CULTURAL PROJECT
National Art Museum of China (NAMOC) No. 1 Wusi Street Dongcheng District Beijing 100010 P.R.ChinaJun 10, 2008 -July 3, 2008
During the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the National Art Museum of China will present “SYNTHETIC TIMES – Media Art China 2008” in its current location at the center of Beijing. NAMOC is the only national art museum in China that is dedicated to research, presentation and promotion of modern and contemporary arts. “SYNTHETIC TIMES – Media Art China 2008”, scheduled from June 10th to July 3rd, will be one of the most important cultural events leading up to the Olympic Games in Beijing.
The exhibition will occupy approximately 4500 square meters (48000 square feet) of the museum gallery space and an additional outdoor area of ca. 2000 square meters (22000 square feet). The internationally recognized Dutch architecture firm NOX/Lars Spuybroek will architecturally transform the entire first floor of the museum in response to the nature of the works on display. A full-color catalogue will be co-published by NAMOC and the MIT Press to accompany the opening (with international distribution). An online forum dedicated to the discourse of the respective exhibition themes and beyond will be created prior to the opening of the event. A pre-Exhibition symposium will be held in New York City in collaboration with MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) and other major cultural and educational institutions. The forum and the subsequent symposia will be moderated by a group of distinguished scholars and media arts professionals. Selected discussion essays will be included in the catalogue. Meanwhile, a number of satellite exhibition venues have been planed within the greater Beijing art community, engaging prominent galleries of the booming Beijing art scene. In addition, a number of special evening events during the opening days of the Exhibition are conceived to celebrate countries with significant contribution to the development of media art and culture.
Synthetic Times – Media Art China 2008 will showcase both established and emerging artists from approximately thirty countries, and over fifty media art installation works will be on view along with performances, workshops, presentations and discussion panels. To complement the theme exhibitions, The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) will contribute a special screening program consisting of seminal video art works. Ars Electronica is set to present the award winning Animation Festival while European Media Art Festival will bring in an edition of International Emerging Video Art. The Exhibition is envisaged as a landmark event in the history of contemporary Chinese art dedicated to embracing the most innovative artistic production and theorization to date, and aspiring to foster and advance new modes of thinking and novel ways of artistic engagement in an increasingly technologically immersed society and global cultural landscape, resonating with the leitmotifs of “Cultural Olympics” and “Hi-Tech Olympics” put forward by the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.
Supported by the Chinese government, international cultural foundations as well as embassies from the participating countries, renowned museums and media art institutions worldwide will collaborate with NAMOC to produce the Exhibition and its related events.
Is public science a public good? - A debate on the future of universityscience
Thursday, 15th May 2008, 4pm- 6pm
Portcullis House, London, SW1A 2LW
Panellists:
* Philip Moriarty, Professor of Physics, University of Nottingham * Ben Goldacre, writer of the Guardian's Bad Science column * Terence Kealey, Vice Chancellor, University of Buckingham * John Pethica, Chief Scientist, National Physical Laboratory * Phil Willis MP, Chair, Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee * Ian Gibson MP, Member, Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee * Jack Stilgoe, Demos
Should we be worried about companies funding university science? Does it boost innovation or poison science and blacken our ivory towers? Should science aim to change the world or fuel the economy? Join us for a debate on the future of science in universities.
This event is hosted by Ian Gibson MP and Phil Willis MP, with the support of the Institute of Physics.
Spaces are limited. RSVP to science@demos.co.uk
Demos Building everyday democracy www.demos.co.uk to subscribe to free email updates: www.demos.co.uk/emailupdates weblog: www.demosgreenhouse.co.uk
On Thursday afternoon Josh Neicho from Letters at the Evening Standard asked me for a contribution about the torch relay arriving in London. I was waiting for a flight to Barcelona, but cobbled together something for them. Pasted below are the published version and my full submission. All are free for quoting: Evening Standard published version
"If athletes are thinking of protesting this weekend, as the Olympic flame arrives in London, first they have to decide what they are protesting about - Tibet or wider human rights issues - then, on how their politics square with Olympic values.
There is an argument that the Olympics should be untainted by confrontational politics. In support of this view, one could point to the vast amount of soft diplomacy done at the behest of the Olympic movement: such as the Olympic Truce, which through the UN calls on heads of state to cease conflicts during the competition, or Olympic Solidarity, which enables the participation of many athletes who might not otherwise compete due to financial difficulties or political circumstances.
Athletes are and should be free to express themselves about global issues without intervention from any Olympic authority. They should, however, be cautious about their celebrity being co-opted by well-meaning but aggressive campaigning teams seeking to use them for their own benefit. They should gain inspiration from the quiet protests of Juan Carlos and Tommie Smith in Mexico in 1968; but recall their actions led to their expulsion from the Games.
The arguments used to support demonstrations against the Beijing Olympics, furthermore, might also be advanced by protesters against the 2012 London Games, on account of Britain's involvement in the Iraq war and attacks on civil liberties during the "war on terror".
Hypocrisy is rife on this issue, which is why the IOC prefers to portray itself simply as a sporting organization, even though it is clearly more than this."
Dr Andy Miah, andymiah.net
My full submission
The Olympic torch passing through London this weekend
"If athletes are thinking of protesting this weekend, as the Olympic flame relay arrives on its long route to Beijing, then they have first to decide what it is they are protesting about. The interventions - plural and different - at the lighting ceremony in Olympia two weeks ago were characterized as pro-Tibet protests, yet the Reporters without Borders, while Tibet sympathizers, are predominantly concerned about the freedom of Chinese journalists within the mainland. It was the pro-Tibet protestors in the village of Olympia later that day that made particular reference to Tibet. So, will their protest be about media freedom of local or international journalists, or the various campaigns that have been launched in relation to Darfur, via the 'Genocide Olympics' strap line? Alternatively, will the protest be about the people of Tibet and the state of unrest that has been evident?
Their next decision should be about how their politics square with Olympic values. On one view, protest and activism are an integral element of the Olympic ideals, since they can contribute to the achievement of greater intercultural understanding, the core business of Olympism outlined in the Olympic Charter. On another view, the Olympic ideals should be untainted by this sort of confrontational politics, for its potentially destructive potential. Proponents of such views point to the vast amount of soft international diplomacy, which is evident below the surface of the Olympic Movement. For example, the Olympic Truce draws on the IOC's relationship with the United Nations to call upon Heads of States to cease conflicts during the 16 days of competition. Alternatively, Olympic Solidarity has enable the participation of athletes from a vast number of countries that might otherwise be unable to take part, due to financial difficulties or political circumstances. Consider also the moment that North and South Korea entered the stadium at the Opening Ceremony of Sydney 2000.
The fact remains that in 100 years of modern Olympic history, there has never been a non-politicized Games. Yet, each incarnation has had to ensure that the Games are not too political, so as not to disrupt the entire Olympic programme. It is clear that athletes do not want this and the recent calls to boycott only the opening ceremony by Kate Hoey - a politics that gestures towards issues of political sensitivity - is a sensible route for those with strong views on this subject.
Athletes are and should be free to express themselves about global political issues without intervention from any Olympic authority. They should be cautious about their celebrity status being co-opted by well-meaning, but aggressive campaigning teams who seek to draw on an athlete's name for their own good, some of which might have sponsorship tie ins that conflict with the Olympic sponsorship programme. They should gain inspiration from the quiet protests of Juan Carlos and Tommie Smith in Mexico 1968, but recall that their actions led to expulsion from the Olympic Games. Perhaps this is not too great a sacrifice for some athletes, but for others, it would be devastating and perhaps limit their capacity to capitalize on their Olympian status for subsequent purposes.
Finally, one might observe that arguments used to support protests of the Beijing Olympics due to China's political interventions or lack of, might also be used to protest London's Games in 2012, on account of its maneuvers in foreign policy, the Atlantic Alliance and assaults on human rights that have been justified in the context of a war on terror. In short, if athletes protest China, then they should consider whether they are also willing to protest London and, if not, whether this tells us anything about why protest and the Olympics enjoy a very difficult relationship. Hypocrisy is rife on this issue, which is why the IOC prefer simply to remain single minded about being just a sporting organization even if we know they are not."
Dr Andy Miah Reader University of the West of Scotland
Miah, A. (2008) Letter to Utopia: A Reply to Bostrom,Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, 2(1), 1-6.
Sunday 24 February, 2008.
Dear Posthumanity,
Thank you for your recent (?) correspondence, it sounds like a lovely place where you are living. This is the first time I have written a letter to the future, so please forgive me if what I write seems unreasonable. My friends, Roberto Casati and Achille Varzi (2001) helped me out, so I hope you will find it suitable. In any case, I particularly hope that nothing I say here will be a source of concern for you or, indeed, will be cause to weaken the chances of your coming into existence. I fear that it might, so I thought I should at least warn you of this.
My first thoughts upon reading your letter involved imagining whether everyone around you experiences the utopia that you describe. Do you speak on behalf of the whole of humanity? Where I live it is very difficult to achieve this, since there is such diversity of wealth and happiness. For many, the monotony of a ‘commuter ride’, as you mention, is something of an ideal to work towards. I am not really in a position to speak for the whole of humanity, though I perceive that your situation is quite different. Nevertheless, I am compelled to indicate that my reply to your letter comes merely from an individual, and a relatively affluent one at that. However, I will endeavour to be fair to the range of people that are alive here today and will try to consider their interests, when I attempt to imagine on their behalf whether our future, your present, is appealing.
Before moving on, I am curious to know how you were nominated to represent your people in stating claims about their welfare. Are you their leader, if such a concept still applies in your time? It's not clear to me that it would. Perhaps your words represent some kind of collective consciouness. We have recently developed things called wikis here, which are like written encyclopedia entries, though anybody can edit them. I wonder if your letter was written this way, such that it conveys the sentiments of all people. Perhaps it took months of preparation and passed through the hands of thousands of people. The wikis that I describe probably sound a little primitive but, to some here, such innovations are still quite radical. Moreover, we are hopeful that this kind of system could lead to meaningful social change and enable a representation of more diverse perspectives than is typicallly achieved through our traditional mechanisms of governance. I suppose I am saying all this because I need some reason to trust that you are the person you claim to be, rather than someone who randomly found a way of sending something through time. In any case, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your letter spoke about some very enticing prospects, which I find value in pursuing regardless of whether I will live to see them come to fruition. I am reassured to know that everything works out well for us in the end – or at least for some period of time – even if, sometimes, I don't see how some people will make it through to the end of today. Many don't. I have numerous questions that I want to ask you, which I hope you will be willing to engage with. For example, I am trying hard to understand your claim to greater intelligence. You know, there are some really, really clever people around here! Still, I wonder whether your claim requires that you have answers to my questions, in order to fully support your claim. However, answers to the kinds of questions I have in mind have eluded the intellect of people since time immemorial, so my expectations of what you will say are modest. Indeed, there is a big part of me that hopes you will not have answers to my questions, since I am troubled by the kind of omnipotence that you seem to enjoy. It's just that we have dealt with a lot of people who espoused claims of superiority over others – other races, ethnic groups, religious convictions – and I am quite wary of any language that appears to draw from such intentions.
To tell you the truth, matters of intellectual or physical difference are a very difficult subject for me to think about or discuss. Well, you will know what happened to us in the 20th and 21st Centuries – and, indeed, many centuries before. People still want to claim that there are reasons to support the eradication of certain kinds of people in this world on the basis of inferiority. The spectre of racial science has not completely disappeared from our society and I don’t really know what to do about that. The most eloquent of arguments has been made against it and still the most racist beliefs remain locked into the mindset of some parts of our society.
Another of my initial thoughts when reading your letter was that you seemed quite distant from our situation here. I’m sorry if this comes across as a little angry, but you must have known that we are not anywhere near achieving the ‘peace’ you describe, and that ‘prosperity’ is terribly unevenly distributed among us. I know you were just being cordial, but I’m trying hard to demand more from you than just pleasantries. I also need for you to realize that your enhanced status does not make you superior to me, or endow you with greater entitlements than I currently enjoy. I regard you as some kind of brother or sister to us – you said we are kin - and I cannot resist my honesty to tell you that times remain hard. Personally, I have difficulty in knowing whether I am prospering or am at peace. My government is at war with various places, as are others, but I sit at home enjoying classical music on the radio and watching plays in theatres. Sometimes, a very good play makes me think that parts of my world are already characteristic of a utopia, where such wonderful creations and unabated freedoms seem self-evident. When moved by such moments, I find it hard to imagine that there is anything more beautiful. But, I’m not completely fixed on that idea - I am willing to entertain the idea that aesthetic qualities progresses, as if further insights are occurring as we progress through time. I wonder how art is different in your world. Is it still imitated by life?
I would also like to know more about how you make sense of peace and prosperity and how it all came about. Did it require some great conflicts to occur, or the suppression of certain kinds of ideas and lifestyles? From how you write, I get the feeling that it did not. I also imagine that these two conditions of peace and prosperity have only just come into being where you are, and that you are writing to me, perhaps, on the day after Utopia was declared. How else could you recall the absence of these terms, unless you have lived through them? Am I right?
When you say ‘I hope you will become me’, I presume you do not mean this in a literal sense. What you mean, surely, is that you hope for me to enjoy what you see as the better life that you (or humanity in general) lead, compared with mine. I ask only because I want to rule out the possibility that my body could be appropriated one day by some, more powerful or deserving other, in order to provide the biology for some other person, perhaps you. I’m being silly, aren’t I? But then we have the cryonics movement and, well, let’s forget that for now.
I was delighted to see your reference to the use of pens. These implements – in their various forms – have been central to our humanity, both literally and symbolically for centuries. I am glad to learn that they remain a part of your world. Tell me, are they still a significant means of self-expression, or is their use simply nostalgic, used only by romantics?
I wanted to ask you more about your experiences of bliss. You invite us to consider why our lives cannot consist of uninterrupted blissful moments. I find this a very interesting proposition, since it has never really occurred to me. Do you mean some kind of permanent state of bliss? I ask, because I’m not sure that such an aspiration would be desirable or, perhaps we have different views about what a blissful life would entail. If I consider your reference to the ‘ecstasy of love’, as some limited definition of bliss, then I must conclude that you speak surely of the bliss of young love, which is but one kind. I have been with the same partner for some time now and I genuinely feel that our love gets stronger every day. Yet, we have also endured hardship and we have grown through it together. I cannot easily extract my enjoyment of the bliss we have shared from this hardship.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish to claim that hardship is something we should willingly endure or seek out, for the beneficial feelings of looking back from a position of well-being. Although, I am reminded of a very clever designer friend of mine called Michael Burton (2007) who imagined a biophilia clinic, a future space in a world where all illness has been eradicated. People would visit the clinic to seek out the contraction of illnesses, perhaps, to feel more human or, at least, to ensure their immune systems remained effective. Clearly, various forms of hardship have differing conditions of value. For example, the hardship of suffering that is experienced because of a severely difficult illness, such as the persistence of kidney stones throughout one’s life, is different from the hardship of raising a child. The comparison is all the more rich since people often discuss the relative pains of these two experiences. Each is clearly hard to endure, but I think we would be foolish to pursue the hardship of suffering from kidney stones and sensible to pursue the hardship of raising a child. Yet, so far, most of my hardships have been more like raising a child than having kidney stones and I’d quite like to retain them. Well, when you speak of the importance of the ‘journey’, you seem to indicate that you also value these kinds of hardship. Yet, they certainly are not moments of bliss!
Other concerns of mine are aroused when you ask me to consider the memory of my ‘best experience’. I just cannot think of my life in this way. I have experienced moments of extreme banality that I have found to be insightful and, even in times of suffering, I sense the possibility of understanding something valuable, the prospect of which I would be cautious to eliminate. I think my core doubts about your situation are revealed when you indicate that you are ‘happy’ and ‘feel good’. You say this as if your happiness is the highest of your goals. Yet, it seems to me that there is much more to your contentment than just happiness. You seem reconciled with the world in a way that is far richer than happiness and this intrigues me. What is happiness for you?
I really liked your three ‘transformations’ and I am glad to report that I think we are on course for them to be realized. However, some things puzzle and confuse me about the way you describe them. When you talk about the possibility of growing capacities that are ‘unimaginable’ to me now, I feel uncomfortable. I find myself asking whether there is anything that is beyond my own imagination. Such a proposition seems something of a challenge to my intelligence. To assist in answering this question, I think about the capacities I currently enjoy, but which were not imaginable to people who came before me. Were these abilities, nevertheless, beyond their imaginations? I feel inclined to claim that there are no such instances of betterment that I could not imagine with my current level of intellect. Moreover, I want to claim that the depth of human imagination evident within the vast range of texts that have come before me – literally the artefacts of people’s imaginations - provides an infinite wealth of possible influences from which I might enrich my own imagination. I am drawn to thinking of the capacities of flight or space travel, which are instances of abilities that were unavailable to my predecessors. Indeed, actual human flight still eludes us. Yet, the point is that it has always been imaginable, hasn’t it? So, perhaps I can imagine your circumstances, after all.
Regardless, as I have already noted, I think we are on track to achieve your transformations, but I feel certain that we will not get there in one emergent leap. Like the pursuit of flight, I think we will need the imaginations of science fiction writers to assist us, along with the incremental progress of science. For this reason, I wonder whether we will ever become completely disconnected from our current understanding of humanity, in such a way that we will talk about having become posthuman. I’m also doubtful that this future state would diminish the regard we have for our prior selves. Nevertheless, if I were generous to your proposals, then the most we might expect is to regard our future capabilities in your Utopian state, as similar to how I now regard the apes from which we have descended or, indeed, the status of apes that exist today, which bear very close resemblance to us. Yet, I must confess that this set of analogies causes me some anxiety. We are not at all in agreement about the moral significance of so-called species boundaries. We disagree a lot about whether we might describe our position in the world as superior to animals.
By the way, what happened to non-human animals? Are they also living a utopia? You did say that it is ‘the birth right of every creature’ to pursue pleasure. I wonder how far you have extended that commitment, especially given some conversations we are having here about being able to uplift the capability of some species to something that might more closely approximate human experience. I also wonder what other capacities you have that are ‘beyond human’. When you use that phrase – ‘beyond human’ – do you mean that you have the capabilities enjoyed by many animals, such as faster movement of limbs and the capacity to see in the dark, for instance? Do you share the view that there are great sources within nature that should inform how we imagine our enhanced status? It’s here where I’m looking first, since there’s such rich variation and I’m curious to know whether this is also where your people began. It seems to me that we might locate our inspiration for human enhancement within the broad boundaries of nature. Indeed, the capacity of extending life is also visible here.
This incremental theory of biological change places us in a very difficult position when attempting to respond to your advice. You say for us to go slowly with our ‘paradise engineering until you have the wisdom to do it right’, but how should we know when we are in this position? I feel that we have often progressed in ways that exceeded the readiness of the world at large and it doesn’t seem too bad to continue on that basis, while always being mindful of the risks. Are you urging us simply to exercise precaution, as I feel that such an approach might limit any major progress we could make in reaching your position.
I think what intrigues me most about your letter is its ambiguity about your own position within history. You present your circumstances as something of an end state, a goal that is reached. But, what then is left for you to do now? Is it just Utopia maintenance, or does its existence deny the capacity to regress towards a lesser state? And next time, send some photographs!
Finally, I hope you might be able to elaborate on something. I have wondered whether your letter was intended for some of my recent ancestors, rather than us directly. The ‘yellowing photos’ you mention belonged mostly to people who came before us. We have not had them for quite some time now; most of us possess only digital images. Oh yes, what came after digital!? I’ve been longing to know. I just can’t imagine that there is anything beyond the digital. Is this what you mean by being unable to imagine beyond human? That said, we frequently participated in the practice of ageing digital photos to create the effect of time that has passed.
Yours Sincerely,
Your Ancestor.
PS: Soon after we received your letter, we received another one, which we believe was sent from your successors. They say only the following: ‘It’s all gone wrong! If you receive a letter titled ‘Letter from Utopia’, ignore it. They are trying to mislead you.’ Where do we go from here?
References
Bostrom, N. (2008). "Letter from Utopia." Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, this volume.
Burton, M. (2007) Biophilia Clinic. In: Dunne, A. Design Interactions. London: Royal College of Art.
Casati, R. and A. Varzi (2001). "That Useless Time Machine." Philosophy 76(298): 581-583.
Some reflections on why the RSF protest in Ancient Olympia took place and whether we can judge it: It is conceivable that the RSF regard the presence of Chinese authorities in Olympia as a violation of that sacred space. So, in their view it is already a polluted space and their intervention cannot diminish any further what is already a violent assault on the Olympic ideals. Indeed, from this perspective, their protest constitutes a necessary counter-balance to restore the spirit of the Olympic ideals. I note that their protest might have been very different - it could have involved physical violence towards an individual. Instead, it was an act that aimed strictly to gain a presence within a television camera frame and I put it to you that it is this space, rather than Olympia, that they were invading. It also took place during speeches, rather than the lighting ceremony. These are relevant details that should inform our judgment of the specifics of their act.
Equally, the politics of sacred space needs further unraveling here. On what basis should we conclude that Olympia is a sacred space, rather than a space that is historically valued by certain communities? The live broadcast on BBC News 24 (in which I saw Roy!) had commentators speaking throughout the Priestesses performance and, typically, commentators are silent during sacred ceremonies. Also, the priestesses are actresses so, while this should not diminish the value of the proceedings to us, we might not claim it has the gravity of a religious ceremony, for instance.
Additionally, to suggest that what has been achieved by the IOC's negotiations with China is satisfactory does not stand. The RSF's work on China extends well before the Olympics were planned for Beijing and if one looks at their campaigns, most of what they discuss aims clearly to utilize the Olympics as a mechanism for their own campaigns. They trade on the idea that many people care about the Olympics and their utilization of it is necessarily aggressive. Incidentally, their protest was pro-Tibet - especially as foreign journalists were required to leave there recently (now being let back it seems) - but not wholly about Tibet. It seems to me that the bulk of the RSF campaign is about DOMESTIC journalist freedom in mainland China.
Here in the UK, I feel that the intervention by the RSF has set the frame for the entire commentary about the Beijing Olympics. Moreover, I don't think this should trouble us or China greatly. Great Games should be about more than just the results of competition and a trouble free undertaking. However, in pursuing this aspiration, we must engage with the educative process of conflict negotiations. For me, this is the Olympic spirit.
Where is the evidence to support the claim that what the IOC has achieved with media freedom in China is sufficient to allow journalists to undertake their work? My feeling from journalists is that these freedoms to travel and so on are all perfectly fine providing you do not wish to undertake anything that is too critical of the state and I hardly think this is likely to be a satisfactory state of affairs for any journalist. Also, to the extent that the IOC has concerned itself predominantly with the freedom of Olympic journalists ie those that are reporting sports events, this hardly consists of a broad opening up of China to Western media.
If our claim is that the IOC has enabled the door to open, then this certainly has merit, but if what we see is appalling, that merit has limited currency. Moreover, to the extent that the invasion of sacred space has the greatest impact on people's sensibilities, then I see the methods and target of the RSF protestors as completely logical. It is the disruption of ceremony that provides the symbolic impact that protestors seek. We must also recognize that all aspects of the flame relay are concurrently symbolic to certain audiences and underpinned by significant commercial sponsorship. This fact hardly coheres with the view that this journey is strictly, spiritually pure.
I appreciate the long view of international diplomacy, but there are many who believe that the open door to china could shut just as quickly after the closing ceremony and, for them, this is why it is necessary to exert as much pressure now. I also see the acts of organizations as the RSF as constitutive of international diplomatic efforts, in the same way that we might talk of Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. On this basis, I think we are too close to this situation to adequately judge its long term implications. For now, my eyes and ears in Greece and China tell me that, for the first time in history, journalists were not permitted into the Acropolis for the torch arrival and that Tiananmen Square was also severely restricted in the last few days.
Finally, let's remember that China's new 'Olympic' legislation for foreign media, which began in January 2007, ends in November 2008.
I appreciate these are sensitive issues, but I think this is why we need to pursue different points of view in order to come to terms with what is happening.
Trailer [youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikNO1ANHIQs 600 400]
Interview with Director & Steve Kurtz:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf8Dikl7zO8 600 400]
In an attempt to start assembling journalists that will be in Beijing, I've put together a Facebook group to share impressions, understanding and knowledge about orientation. If you're going and you're covering the Games as a journalist, please join the group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10776325266&ref=mf