|
|
As this page shows, I put my nose in many pots. But the unifying theme is big picture questions for humanity. Some of these questions are about ethics and values. Others have to do with methodology and how we make predictions or deal with uncertainty. Still others pertain to specific concerns and possibilities, such as existential risks, the simulation hypothesis, artificial intelligence, life-extension, human enhancement, and the transhumanist movement (in which I've been involved as co-founder and chair of the WTA). As a species, we are not adept at thinking about these questions. Pessimistically, one might hold that we are so bad at thinking about them that it is a good thing that we usually ignore them. Attempting to wake up without succeeding would only give us bad dreams. Perhaps. But how will we know unless we try? |
The Future of Humanity. Book chapter on macro-prosects for humanity
Three Ways to Advance Science. For Nature podcast [also audio]
The
Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement,
with Anders Sandberg
Dignity
and Enhancement.
Commissioned for the President's Council on Bioethics
In
the Great Silence there is Great Hope.
Popular lecture for BBC Radio 3
Technological
Revolutions: Ethics and Policy in the Dark.
Book chapter
|
|
 |
||
|
ETHICS & POLICY
Astronomical
Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development
 
|
TRANSHUMANISM & THE FUTURE
Existential
Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards
|
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE & PROBABILITY
Argues against George Sower's refutation of the doomsday argument, and outlines what I think is the real flaw. [pdf] When driving on the motorway, have you ever wondered about (and cursed!) the fact that cars in the other lane seem to be getting ahead faster than you? One might be tempted to account for this by invoking Murphy's Law ("If anything can go wrong, it will", discovered by Edward A. Murphy, Jr, in 1949). But there is a deeper explanation, based on observational selection effects... [PLUS, 2001, No. 17] A paradoxical thought experiment [Erkenntnis, 2000, Vol. 52, pp. 93-108] Examines the implications
of recent evidence for a cosmological constant for the prospects of
indefinite information processing in the multiverse. Co-authored with
Milan M. Cirkovic. [Astrophysics and Space Science, 2000, Vol.
279, No. 4, pp. 675-687] [pdf]
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND
|
|
FAILED STAND-UP COMEDIAN Before taking up my current post as director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, I was a British Academy postdoctoral research fellow here in the Faculty of Philosophy. Before that, I was a lecturer at Yale University. Beside philosophy, I also have a background in physics, computational neuroscience, mathematical logic, and artificial intelligence. My performance as an undergraduate set a national record in Sweden. Prior to becoming a tweedy academic, I dabbled in painting and poetry, and for a while I did stand-up comedy in London. I co-founded the World Transhumanist Association in 1998 to encourage public engagement with the prospects of future technologies being used to enhance human capacities. The WTA, a non-profit grassroots organization, now has some 4,400 members from all over the world, and local chapters in many countries. Later, I co-founded the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a virtual think tank. In the early days, a common reaction was "this is just science fiction". But in the last few years, it seems that both academia and the public are gradually ceasing ignore what is arguably one of the most important issues of our time: how we might use our growing technological powers to improve human lives by ensuring access to a wide set of options for prolonging healthy lifespan, augmenting cognition, and improving emotional well-being. Discussions no longer get stuck on whether human enhancement will ever be possible, although time-scales for specific developments are highly uncertain. Rather, the focus is increasingly on ethics - whether it ought to be done. This is a bit of progress. The enhancement debate frequently gets polarized into two opposing ideological camps, transhumanists vs. bioconservatives. That is unfortunate. Hopefully, a further few years hence, we will finally enter the more constructive phase where we ask not whether human enhancement is good in general, yes or no, but rather questions like: Which enhancements, exactly? How to solve the myriad technical problems? What kind of regulation and public policy and funding priorities do we need? What cultural challenges will we face and how to deal with them? We also need to think more about the risks and about how to make opportunities available globally. THE BIG PICTURE I want to understand the big picture: our place in the world and the long-term prospects for intelligent life. It would be good to learn to think about such matters without resorting to wishful thinking, mysticism, hype, myopia, or anthropocentrism, but that is not easy. The big picture is worthy of study in its own right. It seems ennobling to try to expand our horizons beyond our own little corner of the world and its ephemeral concerns. Theoretical fascination, however, is not the only mainspring of my quest. Corny as it sounds, I want to help make the world a better place. One reason why big picture questions are important is that their answers might affect what outcomes we should expect from our own technological development, and therefore - indirectly - what policies it makes sense for us to pursue. Unless we understand something of the big picture, how can we know where we ought to be going? It seems quite likely that humanity will in this century master technologies that will enable us to overcome many of our current biological limitations. Possible outcomes range from extinction to lives wonderful beyond imagination. We might at last get the opportunity to truly grow up and experience life as it should have been all along. If things develop quickly enough, the benefits might even be enjoyed by ourselves or our children. In addition to transformative technology, we need the wisdom and the good will to use it well. In my view, all of us ought to have the option of becoming ageless creatures with vastly enhanced intellectual, emotional, and moral capacities. Why aim for less? Human life in its present form can be breathtakingly, amazingly fantastic, as you know when you experience it at its best. Yet even these best moments are, perhaps, merely dull premonitions of what is in principle possible. |
CONTACT For administrative matters, or if you are a reporter who wishes to schedule a non-urgent interview, please contact Vicky Bristow, FHI Projects Officer: Phone (office): +44 (0)1865 276934 To contact me directly (but please, only if it's necessary):
Fax:
+44 (0)1865 27 69 32
Snailmail:
Nick
Bostrom
St.
Cross College
St. Giles,
Oxford, OX1 3LZ, United Kingdom
VIRTUAL ESTATE
Future of Humanity Institute
Papers
on observational selection effects
World Transhumanist Association
Devoted
to the question, Are you living in a computer simulation?
Blog
run together with Robin Hanson and Eliezer Yudkowsky
|
|
|
 |
|
|
DRAFTS
|
POWERPOINTS, VIDEO, INTERVIEWS, ...
|
MISCELLANEOUS Fictional
interview of an uploaded dog by Larry King. [html]
|
|
 |
Introduction
to Transhumanism
(POWERPOINT)
|
|
 |
Wisdom is distinct
from cleverness or mental efficiency. Wisdom is about getting the big
things right. A prerequisite is the ability to recognize what the big
things are, i.e., a sense for proportion, for what is important. I am
often thinking about this: What if I am overlooking something essential
or getting a big thing wrong? Then whatever progress I'm making is in
vain. It is worse than useless to travel fast and far if one is going
in the wrong direction. How can one reduce the probability of such fundamental
error? And of course, if one spends too much of ones time worrying about
such questions, one never gets anywhere at all. In the ideal world, perhaps
one would have two lives. In the first life, one would figure out what
the right direction is. In the second life, one would set off in that
direction at one's maximum pace. As things stand, one is left to make
a half-hearted compromise between recklessness and paralysis.
|
Anthropic
Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy
