Lincoln Cannon

Last month, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met for our semi-annual General Conference. I’m a practicing member of the Church, which is by far the largest Mormon denomination. And I watched the conference online while sharing some of my thoughts via Twitter. This post summarizes the thoughts that I shared about October 2020 General Conference. As is my tradition, the thoughts include affirmations, criticisms, questions, and elaborations. My intent is to provoke greater engagement with the messages shared by Church leaders at the conference. And I invite you to share your feedback in the comments. I’m posting this summary later than usual. But please don’t take this as a negative reflection on the relative value of this conference. If anything, it’s a positive reflection. I feel that this General Conference was among the best of my lifetime. The opening prayer invokes desire for a return to civility in public life. AMEN! It may be present bias, but I don’t recall worse public dialogue at any previous time in my life. President Nelson expresses gratitude for technology. It has enabled more people to view conference than ever before. That’s right. Technology is part of the work of God. We’ll increasingly observe this, I’m sure. The Church has contributed pandemic aid in the form of 895 projects in 150 countries. Elder Bednar positions the pandemic as a test or proof of human nature. Elder Bednar reminds Church members about preparing (food storage and such) for challenges and emergencies. This is a valuable pragmatic aspect of traditional Mormon practice. Elder Bednar also encourages Church members to endure, or press forward. This too is an admirable trait that Mormons have exhibited for two centuries. Whatever else may be our weaknesses, we keep working. “Faithfulness is not foolishness or fanaticism.” - Elder Bednar Elder Bednar criticizes polarization. But he then seems to encourage it by suggesting that Church members will have increasing difficulty operating in the world. I think he could have offered a more clear message on this topic. Elder Whiting criticizes apathy, saying it’s not enough to extol Christ. We should emulate Christ. We are directed to become complete and full in Christ. We should become as Jesus. Elder Whiting says that step #1, to become like Jesus, is to yearn to “transform ourselves beyond the natural man.” Elder Whiting is addressing the central and most important part of our religion: transformation into Christ. This is theosis, becoming God, as exemplified and invited by Jesus. Elder Whiting observes that we need BOTH sublime grace and meaningful personal effort as we transform to be Christ like Jesus. Elder Whiting teaches that true Christianity is striving to become like Jesus – not just extolling Jesus. Here’s an important exercise. Reconsider Sister Craig’s descriptions of Jesus in light of Elder Whiting’s reminder that we should emulate and not merely extol Jesus. We should become those who give grace and comfort. Sister Craig says that Jesus loves us at the hardest times, and encourages us to do the same for each other. If we do, “in that great day, we will be like him.” Elder Cook characterizes early Mormons as “kind” toward native Americans. The history on that topic seems much more complicated than a general “kind” would suggest. This seems like something that merits some careful retrospection. Elder Cook acknowledges that we, as Church members and leaders, haven’t always been as ethical as we should have been in past conduct. Elder Cook observes that “we live in a moment of particularly strong divisions.” And he points out that we are committed to doing better in civility and racial harmony. “Unity and diversity are not opposites.” - Elder Cook “Race is not identified on membership records.” - Elder Cook Elder Cook says that the US Constitution was “written by imperfect men” who were “inspired” to help all people. Elder Cook says that Mormon scripture makes it ...

What if the best prophecies are fulfilled? What if the worst are avoided? What if, by the grace of God, we make heaven on Earth? What will that look like? Such questions come from one of my favorite professional anthropologists, Jon Bialecki. He has been studying and writing about Mormon Transhumanism. In fact, he has a book on the subject that’s currently in peer review. And I’m looking forward to reading it. Jon is the kind of anthropologist who embeds himself within the culture he’s studying. So he’s been involved in events of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. That has included speaking at our conferences. And, most recently, he led a discussion at an association meetup. The subject of discussion was speculation about the future in Mormonism, both broadly and in Mormon Transhumanism specifically. He wanted to explore how speculation about the future affects our intellectual, religious, and spiritual lives. And we ended up discussing some of the social and political aspects of speculation among Mormons. Importance of Speculation Because Mormon Transhumanists are opinionated, the discussion never advanced beyond Jon’s first question. He asked: “How important is speculation about the future to you? Before joining the MTA? As an MTA member? In your daily life?” One of the most memorable ideas that my parents taught me as a child was the doctrine of theosis. It’s the idea that humanity can and should become God. In the Christian interpretation, it’s not about replacing God but rather about joining God. And it’s not merely about individuals, but also about how communities can join with God together. This idea had abiding impact on me from childhood to the present. Even when I lost my faith in God during young adulthood, inspiration from the doctrine of theosis persisted with me. I doubted that God existed. But I trusted that humanity could and should still work to embody the characteristics and capacities that we attribute to God, particularly as exemplified by Jesus Christ. Because of that abiding and forward-looking inspiration, I frequently imagined how we might realize such hope. And I was never satisfied with passive possibilities of God doing all the work. Maybe God would. But to the extent that we don’t know, shouldn’t we be wondering how to proceed with whatever knowledge, abilities, and tools that we have available to us? To the extent God exists, we should discover and join God. To the extent God doesn’t exist, we should create and become God. Both require work. And work begins with speculation, before proceeding to experimentation and application. For various emotional and rational reasons, I eventually regained my faith in God. But inspiration from the doctrine of theosis hasn’t changed. And the accompanying motivation to speculate hasn’t changed. If anything, my inclination to speculation has only increased as my sense of the practicality of the hope has increased. Confidence in Speculation Out of curiosity, I asked Jon to share the questions that we didn’t have time to discuss. He kindly did that. They’re presented below, along with my answers. “How certain are you about your vision of the future? What is the ‘range of variance’ about the future, for lack of a better word?” I’m not certain. I’m a philosopher. “Certainty” is kind of a bad word. Sure. Like everyone else, except on reflection, I dogmatize like an infallible pope. So sometimes I may sound or even feel certain. But when I’m being careful, I can deconstruct anything. That doesn’t mean I should. Unfortunately or otherwise, I learned this from difficult personal experience. The only end to the path of deconstruction is the one that ends our ability to deconstruct. At some point, to persist, we must turn around, trust something even if only provisionally, and build from there. Don’t, however, confuse my rejection of certainty for a lack of confidence. In many contexts, I probably have more than my fair share of confidence. And I unabashedly advocate ...

A multiple-choice question about God bubbled to the top of my Facebook feed. It asked, “Why doesn’t God stop bad things from happening?” And it offered four options as answers: a) God can’t stop bad things. b) God won’t stop bad things. c) God causes bad things. d) God doesn’t exist. This isn’t a new question, of course, especially at challenging times. Pandemics, economic crises, civil rights protests, and divisive political elections always seem to have a way of provoking such questions. And we have all of that and more going on now. So it’s not surprising to see the question asked. But I couldn’t choose one of the four options. That’s not because I disagreed with all the answers. It’s actually because I agreed with all of them to some extent. And I’d like to explain why. God Can’t Stop Bad Things First, I don’t think God can stop all bad things from happening. I do think God is powerful – more powerful than we have the capacity to imagine. But this isn’t primarily about the power of God, or about our agency to disregard or disobey God. It’s more about logic. In order to observe “bad things,” we must have a concept of “good things.” We can’t possibly know anything about one without knowing something about the other. As the Book of Mormon points out while interpreting the story of Adam and Eve, there must be “opposition in all things.” The concepts of good and evil are unavoidably and inseparably connected. If we want to live in a good world, we have to risk bad experiences. If we want to know the love of God, we have to know that which isn’t the love of God. Logically, there’s just no other way. The word “God” wouldn’t even have meaning in a world without the possibility of “bad things.” God Won’t Stop Bad Things That leads to the second option. I think God can stop some bad things from happening, but won’t. As I mentioned before, I trust that God is more powerful than we have the capacity to imagine. But that doesn’t mean God’s goal is merely to stop bad things. Think about it. If God’s goal is just to stop bad things then the surest solution would be to annihilate the world. Nothing bad happens in a world that doesn’t exist. And, as I’ve already pointed out, bad things always happen in a world where good things can happen. So if God created the world, as I trust to be the case, the goal couldn’t have been to stop bad things. Surely God is far beyond intelligent enough to know that bad things would happen in our world. The goal, then, must have been something different. The Pearl of Great Price claims that God’s goal was and is to help us gain “immortality and eternal life,” or the kind of life that God lives. God Causes Bad Things That ties in with the third option. It might sound strange, but I do think God causes bad things. I don’t think the bad things, themselves, are the direct intent. But, as the Bible points out in the voice of God’s word: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.” Sobering as it may be, it’s just the truth. If God created the world then God created a context that enables bad things. But that’s still consistent with the goal to help us gain the kind of life that God lives. And I can’t imagine any other way for God to create more Gods. When I imagine God, I imagine a genuine creator, not just a copy of some other creator. When I imagine God, I imagine a being of sublime compassion, gained in part through the pain and suffering of intimate acquaintance with bad things that happen. And if I suppose the goal is to help us all become like God, I can only imagine that God gives us real opportunities for real creation and real compassion. And that means God also intentionally exposes us to the real risks that are inherent in those opportunities. God Doesn’t Exist Finally, it may sound heretical at first, but bear with me. I think bad things also happen because, to some extent, God doesn’t exist. For millennia, humanity has imagined ...

Today’s the day after Pioneer Day. The fireworks are now silent. The embers are dark. And I’m thinking about what comes after. Imagine, with me, the last wagon, long after the first pioneers. What is it that we see? Is the ox team that pulls it the smallest and leanest and weakest? Do they have the tenderest feet of any in the train? Maybe one is a little lame in the right front shoulder. Is the wagon worn and creaking, taking more time to fix and to grease? Maybe the hub of the left front wheel is too hot. And the tire of the back wheel on the same side is loose. Is the wind-rent cover old and patched? Does it take hours to mend and tie up to keep out the storm? Are the pioneers sick and tired? Do they need to wash? Are they poorly nourished? Maybe they even need to coax each other to eat the rough food, which is all they have. Are they almost discouraged? Does the promised land seem so far away, and their vision of it so fleeting, that their hearts sink? Maybe they’re praying for the health and strength to push on, and that their courage won’t fail. Maybe they’re praying for faith. Other Pioneers I wouldn’t take away one word of praise or gratitude, honor or reverence from the last wagon of the nineteenth century. But if they were the last pioneers then, as the Apostle Paul observed, we of all people would be the most pitiful. To understand why, think of what pioneers do. Think of what it means to be a pioneer. And it might help to think about some of the other pioneer stories that we tell. I’ll share a couple examples. First, in the Bible, when God banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, they find a place to till the land. There, as Alma describes it in The Book of Mormon, they plant a seed. And they begin to nourish it with great care, looking forward with an eye of faith to plucking the fruit of the tree of life – again. Likewise, in the Book of Mormon, when Nephi’s family is suffering without food and losing their faith, he makes an arrow and asks his father where he should hunt. His father asks God, and Nephi follows their directions to the top of a mountain. There, he uses the arrow to obtain food, which strengthens his family to continue on their way to the promised land. With these additional pioneers in mind, I wonder. Are you and I still pioneers? Like Adam and Eve, are we nourishing the seed of our highest hope? Or like Nephi, are we launching the arrow of longing beyond ourselves? Do we still embrace opposition in all things, as Lehi describes in the Book of Mormon? Can we still have joy because we still experience misery? Can we still do good because we still experience sin? Do we still aspire to love and create worlds without end? No Pioneers “What is love? What’s creation? What’s longing or hope?” I think it takes something like a pioneer to begin comprehending answers to these questions. Otherwise, we might be tempted to conclude too hastily and too finally that we’ve already discovered happiness. We could make ourselves and our world small. Leaving or never visiting places that are hard to live, we’d seldom be too hot or too cold. We’d rarely stumble. Avoiding disagreements, our feelings would be hurt less often. We could still work, but take care to avoid any risk of failure. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about being too poor or too rich. And we wouldn’t have to worry about the burdens of leadership or responsibility. Maybe we could even persuade everyone to want all the same things. Or at least we might persuade those who want different things that they shouldn’t. And we could judge that the world, before, was immoral when people wanted different things. In that small world, hope and longing are quenched. Creation is merely procedural. Love is shallow. And of course there aren’t really any pioneers. Eternal Pioneers Contrast that with the world into which the scriptures invite us. In the New Testament, Paul observes the value of diversity in unity, saying, “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do ...

I’m a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination. I love and support the Church, its members, and its leaders. But that doesn’t mean that I always agree with all of them, all of the time. Nor, of course, does it mean that other members or leaders always agree with me. A friend recently read some of my thoughts about a recent General Conference of the Church. He observed, rightly, that “unquestioning veneration of LDS leadership is something that is inconsistent with your personal philosophy.” And he asked me some questions about my relationship with the Church. Why a Specific Church Matters First, he wondered “how loyalty to the formal LDS church organization relates to your philosophy.” As context for my answer to this question, I distinguish between a religion and a church. And, in particular, I distinguish between the Mormon religion and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Religions, such as Mormonism, are more broad and abstract. Churches, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are more narrow and concrete. From a Platonic perspective, you might consider religion to be the form and church to be the instance. And, by extension, we would expect the form to admit of many possible instances. For example, the Dog form admits of both Lassie and Toto, among others. And the Mormon form admits of both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ, among others. Various religions attribute more or less significance to their churches (or whatever term they might use for the formal organizations related to them). Christianity and Buddhism serve as a relatively clear example. Christianity tends to emphasize its formal organizations more than Buddhism does. And this seems to reflect differences in their fundamental philosophies toward this world and embodiment. Mormonism, more so than any other branch of Christianity that I’m familiar with, emphasizes the value of this world and embodiment. It’s this world that should become heaven. And it’s these bodies that should become immortal. Whether or not some individual Mormons happen to aspire to merely abstract heavens, our authoritative theological tradition clearly and consistently advocates concrete heavens. Accordingly, in my estimation, Mormonism also has a strong requirement for concrete churches. While it may be enough for a Buddhist to claim the religious identity and practice meditation on her own. Something like that generally wouldn’t be enough for a Mormon – not even close to enough. Mormonism mandates embodied expression on all levels, and even anticipates an increasingly robust expression of that embodiment going into the future. So, for me, it’s highly important not only that I identify as Mormon but also that I participate actively in a Mormon church. Otherwise, I don’t think I’d be practicing Mormonism as fully as I’m capable of practicing it. I recognize that other people, now and in the past, have or have had different limitations and challenges. So I don’t intend this as universally prescriptive. But why, then, am I a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular? In part, that’s because I was raised by parents who are members of the Church. But, as I’ve written before, I also feel that this is still the place, for both emotional and rational reasons. Notably, I esteem the Church as the best available, albeit imperfect, embodiment of formal communal advocacy for theosis. The Utility of Church Practices Next, my friend asked, “Do you find utility in obedience, orthodoxy, tithing, garment wearing, rigorous sabbath observance, avoiding coffee, tea and wine, and other aspects of the faith that (arguably) don’t have obvious practical benefits?” I find utility in obedience that is conforming to the image of Christ, as exemplified by Jesus. I don’t find utility in what many recognize as “obedience culture,” which too often manifest ...

What a spring! Pandemic, shutdowns, layoffs, protests, riots – not to mention earthquakes and rumors of, what, murder hornets? I wouldn’t blame you if you’re tempted to think it’s the end of the world. But I’ve got a proposal for you. Instead of the end, maybe it’s the beginning. I’ve been spending some time thinking about scriptural prophecies. And I’m clearly not alone. Videos about prophecies in the Bible have been around a long time. But, right now, they’re getting many more views and shares than usual. One video, shared with me by a friend, uses prophecies from the book of Daniel to make the case that we’re living in what the scriptures call the “end times.” And a family member shared with me another video that even tries to use the book of Revelation to calculate the timing of Jesus’ return. No one knows the day or the hour, says the Bible. But the person in the video claims that we can know the week. The family member who shared the second video with me asked for my opinion. So here’s what I told her. I think the primary value of prophecy is how it affects us – how it affects our thoughts, our words and actions. I don’t think that we should understand prophecy as fortune-telling or fate. But instead we can understand it as something like forth-telling. Forth-telling would be an expression of envisioned possibility. It can be about good possibilities, or bad. But it’s always conditional on our faith – on our practical trust and action. And it’s always intended to provoke us, either to pursue the good or to avoid the bad. It’s like the story of Jonah and Nineveh, in the Bible. God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that they’re going to be destroyed, without qualification. So Jonah tells them. But they repent, God spares them, and Jonah gets mad at God for not fulfilling his prophecy. Likewise, prophecies about the end of the world have different meanings for different people. Some who lived two thousand years ago thought these prophecies entailed the end of the world in their time. Some people who lived one thousand years ago, one hundred years ago, and even ten years ago thought the same. Humans are highly capable of finding and making purpose from symbols. When we make an effort, we can apply any prophecy to ourselves and our time. And, as Nephi points out in the Book of Mormon, that can be a good thing. But it can also be a bad thing, depending on how our interpretations affect us. For example, do our interpretations of prophecy give us hope? Do they motivate us to be more courageous and compassionate? Do they provoke us to work, to serve, and actually to show our love for each other in real action? Or do our interpretations of prophecy weigh us down with distress? Maybe they motivate us to say cruel things or even to act violently? Or maybe they just make us apathetic to others’ suffering? We might tell ourselves, “they had it coming!” I think that, at least on reflection, we each have a choice to make. We can choose how to think about prophecy. We can choose how to talk about it, and how to act on it. And that choice can have serious practical consequences. So is this the end of the world? Well, it might be the end of some things. And let’s hope so! Poverty, war, disease, even death: they should all end, so far as I’m concerned. And the scriptures seem to agree. Remember the prophecy of Joseph Smith, who wrote that the day would come when poverty and enmity will end. Remember the prophecy of Paul the Apostle, who wrote that the day would come when even death will end – the dead resurrected, and the living transfigured. And where there are endings, there are always beginnings. We can see this in the book of Revelation, where John concludes his prophecy by describing the beginning of “ a new heaven and a new Earth.” I don’t know about you. But I find – I feel – hope when I think about these new beginnings. And that feeling leads me to wonder, is there anything that I can do to help realize that hope? Is there anything th ...

Kernel, the neurotech startup funded and led by Bryan Johnson, has been working quietly for four years. Finally, yesterday, they announced more information. They plan, at least initially, to focus on brain monitoring. And their first offering is Neuroscience-as-a-Service (NaaS). The aim of neurotech in general is to enable interaction with the brain in ways that are more like those in which we interact with traditional computers. Read data from and write data to the brain. Network brains to traditional computers and to each other. Perhaps even backup and restore the substrate of consciousness. Some neurotech startups aim to achieve such goals via implants. For example, the Utah Array has been around for decades. It records and stimulates the brain at a low resolution. And Elon Musk has launched a startup, Neuralink, that aims to scale recording and stimulation by orders of magnitude. But of course most people don’t want implants. So others have explored noninvasive technologies. EEG (electroencephalography) is a well known example of noninvasive brain monitoring. For about a decade, companies like Emotiv have sold headsets that monitor electrical pulses from the brain. Just yesterday, I was reading about tFUS (transcranial focused ultrasound), which is an example of noninvasive brain stimulation. It shoots ultrasound at the brain to elicit change, such as improvement to mood. Another well known example is TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation), which stimulates the brain via magnetism. Kernel has chosen to develop a noninvasive technology. Like EEG, it requires a helmet. And like EEG, it’s only for monitoring and not for stimulation. But unlike EEG, Kernel’s technology works with magnetism and light via MEG (magnetoencephalography) and NIRS (near-infrared spectroscopy). Because of this difference, the Kernel helmet may be able to monitor the brain in greater detail than existing EEG helmets. And it would do this in a form factor (the helmet) that is more portable than existing MEG and NIRS devices. According to neuroscientist Edoardo D’Anna: What’s new here is the package, miniaturization and ease of use. Far from trivial, these advances could allow both recording modalities to move out of the lab and into more ‘ecological’ settings (e.g. use during movement, daily activities, etc). At least initially, Kernel is targeting research customers – not consumers. Although a helmet, it’s not yet light enough for prolonged use. And it’s probably not yet simple enough for an untrained person to set up and use alone. But it still appears to be a major improvement on existing technologies, reducing complexity and cost for brain researchers. How important is an easier and less expensive brain monitor? It may be revolutionary. By analogy, consider the importance of easier and less expensive DNA sequencing devices. Sequencing the first human genome took about $2.7B and thirteen years. Now we can sequence a human genome for a few hundred dollars. Consequently, the practical applications of genetic science have multiplied abundantly. Today, brain science faces a challenge like the one that genetic science faced before we could sequence a genome. But the human connectome (the information pattern of which the brain consists) is far more complex than the genome. While a genome represents around three billion base pairs in a static linear relationship, a connectome represents around ninety billion neurons in dynamic three-dimensional relationships. So the human connectome is orders of magnitude more complex than the human genome. And yet, mastery of the human connectome also promises orders of magnitude more practical applications. Kernel notes a few near-term possibilities on its website. Maybe we can improve autonomous car and drug discovery algorithms. Perhaps we can develop more realistic AI voice assistants, personalized education, and facilitated meditation. Already, Kernel Sound ID can decode brain activity to identify a speech or son ...

Today, COVID-19 is ravaging our world. Some of us are suffering physically. All of us are suffering socially and economically. I don’t know for sure what will happen tomorrow. But I know what must happen. You do too, I trust, intuitively if not consciously. So let’s acknowledge and do it. When we imagine a beautiful future, we think of many different things. We’re different people. We have different desires. And we have different perspectives. But no matter how different we may be, there’s one thing that we all share in common. It’s that pocket of space that we call “Earth.” At present, we can barely reach beyond it. Maybe someday that will change, but for now it’s pretty much all we’ve got. Because Earth is all we’ve got, there’s nothing else that any of us can use. To pursue our beautiful futures, we must use Earth. No matter our perspective or desires, and no matter our differences, we must use Earth. Earth is our only means, and we all need it. Because we all need Earth, there’s something else that we share in common. It’s a hard thing. It’s the persistent and inescapable choice between coercion and cooperation. On the one hand, if your beautiful future doesn’t require me, and if you think yourself powerful enough, you’ll choose coercion, at least indirectly. Maybe you lie about this, perhaps even to yourself. But that’s just how it works. That’s how it’s always worked. On the other hand, if your beautiful future does require me, or if you don’t think yourself powerful enough, you’ll choose cooperation. But because I can never know infallibly that your beautiful future requires me, and because you can never know infallibly that my beautiful future requires you, we both have incentive to ensure that one of us doesn’t think herself powerful enough to dispense with the other. If ever one of us becomes persuaded that she’s powerful enough to dispense with the other, there will be a revelation – an apocalypse. That one will reveal whether she thinks the other is part of her beautiful future. But there’s no guarantee that the revelation will go the way the other hopes. And there’s no guarantee that the revelation won’t change over time. So it’s wise, and at scale even existentially essential, that we work against the risks presented by our dynamic power disparities. And probably nothing more truthfully says “you are part of my beautiful future” than our willing relinquishment and sharing of power. Nothing cultivates trust more than cooperation, except perhaps greater degrees of cooperation. And cooperation, at its limits, is practically indistinguishable from compassion. Cooperation must happen tomorrow. And that’s not new. Cooperation has always been the hurdle, the gating or critical factor, between us and our beautiful futures. We have the opportunity, today, to think about what we’ll choose tomorrow because we were at least sufficiently cooperative to survive yesterday. Tens of thousands of years ago, we survived by working together to hunt and gather. Thousands of years ago, we survived by working together to farm and build. In recent centuries and decades, we survived by working together to control nuclear weapons and build the Internet. And by surviving and learning from each of these phases, we gained more power to share, and we confronted yet greater risks. In some ways, COVID-19 is just the latest version of an ancient threat. But in other ways, it’s a harbinger of emerging risk. Our technology-enabled proximity to each other puts global humanity at greater risk from ancient threats. It’s harder than ever before to avoid each other. And that’s not all. The Internet is teaching more of us more than ever before. And biotechnology is making our new knowledge more actionable than ever before. The next virus pandemic may be not only spread by humans, but also created by humans – or not even humans, plural, but even just one human in her basement with a chip on her shoulder. How will we survive this new risk? Again, I do ...

I thought I was sitting down to watch another Transhumanist-themed documentary. I was wrong. No. I don’t have anything against documentaries about Transhumanists or Transhumanism. To the contrary, I’m a huge fan. You might even find me featured in a couple Transhumanist documentaries this year! But 2030, the feature film about FM-2030, turned out to be something else. And in this case, that was a good thing. It beat my expectations. And I bet it will beat yours too. Who Is FM 2030? The son of an Iranian diplomat, FM was born in Belgium on October 15, 1930. His original name was Fereidoun M Esfandiary. In early adulthood, FM competed as a basketball player for Iran in the Olympic Games. Then, after graduating from the University of California at Los Angeles, he served on the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine in the 1950s. Later in life, FM became particularly notable as a Transhumanist. In the 1970s, he changed his name to FM-2030. The change reflected his hope to live until at least 2030, which he expected to be “a magical time” of technological achievement and perhaps the advent of indefinite life extension. He explained: I am a 21st century person who was accidentally launched in the 20th. I have a deep nostalgia for the future. FM formalized his identity as a Transhumanist with the book, Are You a Transhuman? Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World. Published in 1989, the book consists of a series of self-tests that purport to measure psychological adaptation to accelerating social evolution. Whether or not they deliver on that promise, the questions are thought-provoking and might even make for a fun party game. Unfortunately, FM contracted pancreatic cancer and died thirty years short of his goal. His death received attention from the New York Times. Alcor Life Extension Foundation put his body into cryonic suspension on July 8, 2000. And there it remained, protected in a cold preservation tank and surrounded by the hot Arizona desert – until at least 2016? Although I’ve essentially been a Transhumanist since childhood, I didn’t discover explicit Transhumanism until a few years after FM died. So I never had a chance to meet or interact with him while he was alive. But I’ve learned about him and his ideas over the years. And I’ve found inspiration in, even if not always agreement with, his work. For example, I agree with FM’s expectation that technology will enable indefinite life extension and unprecedented abundance. And I share in his hope that we will begin to experience the realization of those expectations within decades (not centuries). But I don’t agree with some of his social views, such as the notion that ancestry, ethnicity, nationality, and religion are generally oppressive constructs. To the contrary, I consider all such constructs to be powerful social technologies, not only for evil but also for good. In any case, FM was and is an influential Transhumanist. Some have called him the “father” of modern Transhumanism. And if you want to understand Transhumanism better, you would be well served to learn more about him. The (Not-Quite) Documentary [ Visit the webpage to view media. ] As described by its director, Johnny Boston, 2030 is “not quite a biopic or an homage or even a traditional documentary.” Rather, it’s “an engaging docu-drama with thriller and sci-fi flourishes that seeks to answer the deeply philosophical question: ‘What will it mean to be human when technology has finally given us a world where no one dies?’” He’s right. In fact, I was surprised by my engagement with the story. Of course, like all biographical documentaries, the film includes snippets from the subject’s life and ideas. There are pictures of FM, young and old. And there are recordings, in which FM’s voice expresses aspects of his philosophy. And of course the film also includes snippets of interviews with relevant experts. For example, Ray Kurzweil talks about the e ...

I love Battlestar Galactica. The story and characters inspire me. The reimagined TV series and movies bring them to life. And I recently decided to watch the show again – even better the second time! But I ran into a problem when I was getting started. None of the viewing order and source guides that I could find on the Internet were good enough. For example, most don’t include Caprica, a prequel series that I consider highly under-rated. And most were written at a time when physical media sources (DVDs and such) were more popular than streaming sources. So I’m fixing that problem. This is the ultimate guide to watching the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. It includes the best viewing order for all of the TV movies and series, as well as all of the webisodes. And it includes streaming source recommendations and links to help you access them all. Battlestar Galactica originally aired in 1978. It was created by Glen Larson (a Mormon, who used many elements of Mormon mythology in the story). The reimagined version was created by Ronald Moore in 2003. This guide is about the reimagined version. How to Watch Battlestar Galactica The viewing order in this guide is almost entirely chronological. But The Plan, one of the TV movies, is a notable exception. It covers the same period of time that the first two seasons cover, but it does so from the Cylon perspective. To avoid spoilers, it’s best to watch The Plan after Season 4 Episode 15. Razor, another TV movie, includes a scene toward the end that some people consider to be a spoiler. I think it’s actually more intriguing than spoiling. But if you want to avoid any risk then watch the last 10 minutes of Razor after Season 3. That would be a small change to the order that I indicate below. Where to Watch Battlestar Galactica There are DVD and Bluray sources that purport to provide the “ complete series.” However, none of them contain everything in my list. So even if you decide to buy physical media, you’ll have to resort to streaming for missing parts. Presently, you can stream almost all of the TV movies and series from Amazon. An exception is Razor, which you can stream from Vudu. The Resistance and The Face of the Enemy are compilations of webisodes that you can stream on YouTube and Dailymotion. I link each item in the list to its best streaming source. Battlestar Galactica Watch Order Now, find your comfortable place. It’s time to visit the twelve colonies, meet William Adama, and join in the Cylon war. Sit back, relax, and enjoy one of the best science fiction stories of all time. Let’s get started! Caprica ( Amazon ) Episode 1, Pilot, Part 1 Episode 2, Pilot, Part 2 Episode 3, Rebirth Episode 4, Reins of a Waterfall Episode 5, Gravedancing Episode 6, There Is Another Sky Episode 7, Know Thy Enemy Episode 8, The Imperfections of Memory Episode 9, Ghosts in the Machine Episode 10, End of the Line Episode 11, Unvanquished Episode 12, Retribution Episode 13, Things We Lock Away Episode 14, False Labor Episode 15, Blowback Episode 16, The Dirteaters Episode 17, The Heavens Will Rise Episode 18, Here Be Dragons Episode 19, Apotheosis Blood and Chrome (all parts combined, Amazon ) The Mini-Series ( Amazon ) Season 1 ( Amazon ) Episode 1, 33 Episode 2, Water Episode 3, Bastille Day Episode 4, Act of Contrition Episode 5, You Can’t Go Home Again Episode 6, Litmus Episode 7, Six Degrees of Separation Episode 8, Flesh and Bone Episode 9, Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down Episode 10, The Hand of God Episode 11, Colonial Day Episode 12, Kobol’s Last Gleaming, Part 1 Episode 13, Kobol’s Last Gleaming, Part 2 Season 2 ( Amazon ) Episode 1, Scattered Episode 2, Valley of Darkness Episode 3, Fragged Episode 4, Resistance Episode 5, The Farm Episode 6, Home, Part 1 Episode 7, Home, Part 2 Episode 8, Final Cut Episode 9, Flight of the Phoenix Episode 10, Pegasus Episode 11, Resurrection Ship, Part 1 Episode 12, Resurrection Ship, Part 2 Episode 13, Epiphanies Episode 14, Black Market Episode 15, Scar ...