Overview The aim:

Depends, but may include weight loss, heart health, and diabetes prevention or control.

Balanced Diet: These diets fall within accepted ranges for the amount of protein, carbs, fat and other nutrients they provide. Learn More

Going vegetarian could help shed pounds and fend off chronic diseases.

You can cook up a perfectly healthy, meat-free menu that supports weight loss and reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Well, which kind of vegetarian do you want to be? Most choose a lacto-ovo approach, turning their backs on meat, fish, and poultry but still eating dairy products and eggs. (Lacto-vegetarians, meanwhile, also nix eggs, whereas ovo-vegetarians also nix dairy; vegans exclude all animal products.) For the lacto-ovo camp, the governments 2010 Dietary Guidelines can help you develop a healthy plan. You can skip over the first 80 pages and just figure out how many meatless calories you should eat (Appendix 6, page 78) and where they ought to come from (Appendix 8, page 81) to get all the nutrients you need.

A daily 2,000-calorie diet, for example, should include 2 cups of fruit; 2 cups of vegetables; 3 cups of dairy, 6 ounce-equivalents of grains, and 5 ounce-equivalents of protein. The fine print will tell you how much actual food is in an ounce-equivalent. For grains, one ounce-equivalent is a slice of bread or a 6-inch tortilla; for protein, its an egg or quarter-cup of cooked beans. As with any diet, boredom is avoided through variationlike incorporating different-colored veggies and sources of protein to get the nutrients you need.

If that sounds tedious, countless books offer structure with vegetarian meal plans and recipes. The Internet is also full of good information. On its website, Oldways, a nonprofit food think tank, simplifies with its vegetarian food pyramid, which it codeveloped with the Harvard School of Public Health. The Mayo Clinic also offers tips to get started.

You dont have to go cold turkey. You could start by preparing a couple meat-free dishes each week, and gradually make more substitutionstofu in stir fry instead of chicken, say, or grilled veggie burgers instead of beef. If your aim is also weight loss, amp up your exercise routine and eat fewer calories than your daily recommended max.

Do: Try tofu.

Fill your menu with lots of vegetables and plant-derived protein sources, like tofu.

Likely. Research shows vegetarians tend to eat fewer calories, weigh less, and have a lower body mass index (a measure of body fat) than their meat-eating counterparts. If youre doing it righteating lots of fruits, veggies, and whole grainsyoull likely feel full on fewer calories than youre allowed each day. With that calorie deficit and a little physical activity, youre bound to shed pounds. How quickly and whether you keep them off is up to you.

Yes, provided you create a healthy plan (a French fries and doughnut diet counts as vegetarian). Research has linked vegetarian diets to reducing cholesterol, blood pressure, and the risk of heart disease. As long as youre not devouring copious calories and youre monitoring your saturated fat intake, youll tilt the heart-disease odds in your favor.

Even better, the vegetarian diet is linked to longevity: In a six year study of more than 73,000 people published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers found that vegetarians including those following vegan, lacto-ovo-, pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets were 12 percent less likely to die than nonvegetarians.

Yes, its a good option for both.

Prevention: Being overweight is one of the biggest risk factors for type 2 diabetes. If going meat-free helps you lose weight and keep it off, youll stand a better chance of staving off the disease. Some research has linked vegetarianism with a lower diabetes risk.

Control: Its a healthful option, according to the American Diabetes Association. And because there are no rigid meal plans or prepackaged meals, you can ensure that what youre eating doesnt go against your doctors advice.

Unlikely, as long as you create a sensible plan.

Youll almost certainly jack up your risk of heart disease and diabetes (and wont do your waistline any good) if your meals revolve around white bread, cheese, and sugary, fatty desserts. If youre worried about malnutrition, your doctor can help design your meals.

One large study in the journal PLoS One linked vegetarianism with higher incidences of cancer, allergies and mental health disorders, as well as a higher need for health care and poorer quality of life. However, the study, which was conducted in Austria, wasnt causal and may not be generalizable to the United States. Its also probably not conclusive enough to trump other findings, like a 2012 review concluding that a well-planned vegetarian diet has no adverse effects on health.

Otherwise, vegetarianism is generally safe for everyone. Children, teens, and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding can safely go meat-free. (Besides, research has linked excessive red meat consumption with cancer and heart disease.)

Fat. If you make healthful choices, you should stay within the governments recommendation that between 20 to 35 percent of daily calories come from fat.

Protein. It should keep you within the acceptable range for protein consumption.

Carbohydrates. Its in line with the recommendation that carbs supply 45 to 65 percent of daily calories.

Salt. The majority of Americans eat too much salt. The recommended daily maximum is 2,300 milligrams, but if youre 51 or older, African-American, or have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, that limit is 1,500 mg. Its up to you to stay under your cap, but it shouldnt be too hard if you eat enough fresh produce, ditch heavily processed foods, and hide the salt shaker.

Other key nutrients. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines call these nutrients of concern because many Americans get too little of one or more of them:

Supplement recommended? N/A

How much do you like meat? If the thought of a turkey-free Thanksgiving isnt a turn off, making the switch probably wont be too hard. Plus youre free to decide what you cant live without (omelets? ice cream?) and whether youll cheat on occasion. Be mindful that healthy vegetarianism requires planning, especially if youre a first-time convert.

When you want to cook, theres a recipe somewhere thatll suit your taste buds. When you dont, virtually every restaurant serves up vegetarian fare. And while alcohol is technically permitted, thats not license to binge drink.

Recipes. Limitless. Magazines, books, and websites like this one abound, offering suggestions for every meal and cuisine.

Eating out. Easy. Restaurants typically have lots of vegetarian-friendly entres. Careful, though: Vegetarian doesnt always mean healthy and restaurants are known for their gargantuan portions.

Alcohol. Vegetarian-friendly, but too much can thwart weight loss and damage the liver, brain, and heart. Moderation is your best betthats one drink a day for women, two a day for men. (A drink is considered 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1 ounces of liquor.)

Timesavers. None, unless you hire somebody to plan your meals, shop for them, and prepare them.

Extras. N/A

Nutrition experts emphasize the importance of satiety, the satisfied feeling that youve had enough. If youve built a healthful vegetarian diet around fiber-packed veggies, fruits, and whole grains, you shouldnt feel hungry between meals.

Youre making everything, so if something doesnt taste good, you know who to blame.

Its moderately pricey. Stocking up on produce and whole grains can get expensive, but bypassing the butcher will help keep the tab reasonable. Plus, lacto-ovo vegetarian staples like eggs and beans are some of the most affordable choices at the supermarket.

Vegetarian diets can be easily adaptedchoose your preference for more information.

You can easily follow egg- or dairy-free approaches.

And with a few more restrictions (i.e., shunning all animal products), you can become veganread about veganism here.

Yes, just make sure your choices are certified gluten-free.

Doable, as long as you stay away from buying too many processed foods. Eating lots of fruits and veggies generally keeps the sodium count low.

Yes, you have the freedom to use only kosher ingredients.

Yes, but its up to you to ensure your food conforms.

Vegetarianism only has rules on animal products, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt exercise.

No matter the diet, the more you move, the quicker youll see the pounds come offand youll reduce your risk of developing diabetes, heart problems, and other chronic diseases. Adults are generally encouraged to get at least 2 hours of moderate-intensity activity (like brisk walking) each week, along with a couple days of muscle-strengthening activities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers tips to get you started.

See the original post:
Vegetarian Diet -- What You Need to Know -- US News Best Diets

Im a level 5 veganI dont eat anything that casts a shadow. The Simpsons

People often point to some food item and ask me, Can you eat this? My answer is always Sure, I can eat whatever I want. I choose not to eat certain things. When deciding what type or kind of vegetarian you want to be, think about what you want to include or avoid. You dont need to fit into one of these categories, but understanding them will help you think about your short-term and long-term goals.

See also: Thinking of going vegetarian? Start here!

You dont have to be vegetarian to love vegetarian food! Flexitarian is a term recently coined to describe those who eat a mostly vegetarian diet, but occasionally eat meat. Find out more about a flexitarian or semi-vegetarian diet here. More

The word pescatarian is occasionally used to describe those who abstain from eating all meat and animal flesh with the exception of fish. Although the word is not commonly used, more and more people are adopting this kind of diet, usually for health reasons or as a stepping stone to a fully vegetarian diet. Click here to learn more about pescatarianism. More

When most people think of vegetarians, they think of lacto-ovo-vegetarians. People who do not eat beef, pork, poultry, fish, shellfish or animal flesh of any kind, but do eat eggs and dairy products are lacto-ovo vegetarians (lacto comes from the Latin for milk, and ovo for egg).

Lacto-vegetarianis used to describe a type of vegetarian who does not eat eggs, but does eat dairy products.

Ovo-vegetarian refers to people who do not eat meat or dairy products but do eat eggs.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian, that is, a vegetarian who eats both eggs and dairy products,is the most common kind of vegetarian. Learn more about lacto-ovo vegetarianism here.

See also:

A raw vegan diet consists of unprocessed vegan foods that have not been heated above 115 degrees Fahrenheit (46 degrees Celsius). Raw foodists believe that foods cooked above this temperature have lost a significant amount of their nutritional value and are harmful to the body. Learn more about a raw vegan diet here. See also: 150 easy raw food recipes to try More

The macrobiotic diet, revered by some for its healthy and healing qualities, includes unprocessed vegan foods, such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and allows the occasional consumption of fish. Sugar and refined oils are avoided. Perhaps the most unique qualifier of the macrobiotic diet is its emphasis on the consumption of Asian vegetables, such as daikon, and sea vegetables, such as seaweed. Learn more about a macrobiotic diet here. More

If you're interested in exploring a healthy vegetarian diet, but haven't yet made the leap, check out my tips for how to become vegetarian. Or, if you're already vegetarian, take a minute to share how you went vegetarian, so that others can learn from your experience!

See also: Thinking of going vegetarian? Start here! More

See original here:
Types of Vegetarians - Definitions - About.com Food

by Maria Popova

Wisdom on overcoming the greatest human frustration from the pioneer of Eastern philosophy in the West.

How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives, Annie Dillard wrote in her timeless reflection on presence over productivity a timely antidote to the central anxiety of our productivity-obsessed age. Indeed, my own New Years resolution has been to stop measuring my days by degree of productivity and start experiencing them by degree of presence. But what, exactly, makes that possible?

This concept of presence is rooted in Eastern notions of mindfulness the ability to go through life with crystalline awareness and fully inhabit our experience largely popularized in the West by British philosopher and writer Alan Watts (January 6, 1915November 16, 1973), who also gave us this fantastic meditation on the life of purpose. In the altogether excellent 1951 volume The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety (public library), Watts argues that the root of our human frustration and daily anxiety is our tendency to live for the future, which is an abstraction. He writes:

If to enjoy even an enjoyable present we must have the assurance of a happy future, we are crying for the moon. We have no such assurance. The best predictions are still matters of probability rather than certainty, and to the best of our knowledge every one of us is going to suffer and die. If, then, we cannot live happily without an assured future, we are certainly not adapted to living in a finite world where, despite the best plans, accidents will happen, and where death comes at the end.

Alan Watts, early 1970s (Image courtesy of Everett Collection)

What keeps us from happiness, Watts argues, is our inability to fully inhabit the present:

The primary consciousness, the basic mind which knows reality rather than ideas about it, does not know the future. It lives completely in the present, and perceives nothing more than what is at this moment. The ingenious brain, however, looks at that part of present experience called memory, and by studying it is able to make predictions. These predictions are, relatively, so accurate and reliable (e.g., everyone will die) that the future assumes a high degree of reality so high that the present loses its value.

But the future is still not here, and cannot become a part of experienced reality until it is present. Since what we know of the future is made up of purely abstract and logical elements inferences, guesses, deductions it cannot be eaten, felt, smelled, seen, heard, or otherwise enjoyed. To pursue it is to pursue a constantly retreating phantom, and the faster you chase it, the faster it runs ahead. This is why all the affairs of civilization are rushed, why hardly anyone enjoys what he has, and is forever seeking more and more. Happiness, then, will consist, not of solid and substantial realities, but of such abstract and superficial things as promises, hopes, and assurances.

Watts argues that our primary mode of relinquishing presence is by leaving the body and retreating into the mind that ever-calculating, self-evaluating, seething cauldron of thoughts, predictions, anxieties, judgments, and incessant meta-experiences about experience itself. Writing more than half a century before our age of computers, touch-screens, and the quantified self, Watts admonishes:

The brainy modern loves not matter but measures, no solids but surfaces.

[]

The working inhabitants of a modern city are people who live inside a machine to be batted around by its wheels. They spend their days in activities which largely boil down to counting and measuring, living in a world of rationalized abstraction which has little relation to or harmony with the great biological rhythms and processes. As a matter of fact, mental activities of this kind can now be done far more efficiently by machines than by men so much so that in a not too distant future the human brain may be an obsolete mechanism for logical calculation. Already the human computer is widely displaced by mechanical and electrical computers of far greater speed and efficiency. If, then, mans principal asset and value is his brain and his ability to calculate, he will become an unsaleable commodity in an era when the mechanical operation of reasoning can be done more effectively by machines.

[]

If we are to continue to live for the future, and to make the chief work of the mind prediction and calculation, man must eventually become a parasitic appendage to a mass of clockwork.

To be sure, Watts doesnt dismiss the mind as a worthless or fundamentally perilous human faculty. Rather, he insists that it if we let its unconscious wisdom unfold unhampered like, for instance, what takes place during the incubation stage of unconscious processing in the creative process it is our ally rather than our despot. It is only when we try to control it and turn it against itself that problems arise:

Working rightly, the brain is the highest form of instinctual wisdom. Thus it should work like the homing instinct of pigeons and the formation of the fetus in the womb without verbalizing the process or knowing how it does it. The self-conscious brain, like the self-conscious heart, is a disorder, and manifests itself in the acute feeling of separation between I and my experience. The brain can only assume its proper behavior when consciousness is doing what it is designed for: not writhing and whirling to get out of present experience, but being effortlessly aware of it.

And yet the brain does writhe and whirl, producing our great human insecurity and existential anxiety amidst a universe of constant flux. (For, as Henry Miller memorably put it, It is almost banal to say so yet it needs to be stressed continually: all is creation, all is change, all is flux, all is metamorphosis.) Paradoxically, recognizing that the experience of presence is the only experience is also a reminder that our I doesnt exist beyond this present moment, that there is no permanent, static, and immutable self which can grant us any degree of security and certainty for the future and yet we continue to grasp for precisely that assurance of the future, which remains an abstraction. Our only chance for awakening from this vicious cycle, Watts argues, is bringing full awareness to our present experience something very different from judging it, evaluating it, or measuring it up against some arbitrary or abstract ideal. He writes:

There is a contradiction in wanting to be perfectly secure in a universe whose very nature is momentariness and fluidity. But the contradiction lies a little deeper than the mere conflict between the desire for security and the fact of change. If I want to be secure, that is, protected from the flux of life, I am wanting to be separate from life. Yet it is this very sense of separateness which makes me feel insecure. To be secure means to isolate and fortify the I, but it is just the feeling of being an isolated I which makes me feel lonely and afraid. In other words, the more security I can get, the more I shall want.

To put it still more plainly: the desire for security and the feeling of insecurity are the same thing. To hold your breath is to lose your breath. A society based on the quest for security is nothing but a breath-retention contest in which everyone is as taut as a drum and as purple as a beet.

He takes especial issue with the very notion of self-improvement something particularly prominent in the season of New Years resolutions and admonishes against the implication at its root:

I can only think seriously of trying to live up to an ideal, to improve myself, if I am split in two pieces. There must be a good I who is going to improve the bad me. I, who has the best intentions, will go to work on wayward me, and the tussle between the two will very much stress the difference between them. Consequently I will feel more separate than ever, and so merely increase the lonely and cut-off feelings which make me behave so badly.

Happiness, he argues, isnt a matter of improving our experience, or even merely confronting it, but remaining present with it in the fullest possible sense:

To stand face to face with insecurity is still not to understand it. To understand it, you must not face it but be it. It is like the Persian story of the sage who came to the door of Heaven and knocked. From within the voice of God asked, Who is there and the sage answered, It is I. In this House, replied the voice, there is no room for thee and me. So the sage went away, and spent many years pondering over this answer in deep meditation. Returning a second time, the voice asked the same question, and again the sage answered, It is I. The door remained closed. After some years he returned for the third time, and, at his knocking, the voice once more demanded, Who is there? And the sage cried, It is thyself! The door was opened.

We dont actually realize that there is no security, Watts asserts, until we confront the myth of fixed selfhood and recognize that the solid I doesnt exist something modern psychology has termed the self illusion. And yet that is incredibly hard to do, for in the very act of this realization there is a realizing self. Watts illustrates this paradox beautifully:

While you are watching this present experience, are you aware of someone watching it? Can you find, in addition to the experience itself, an experiencer? Can you, at the same time, read this sentence and think about yourself reading it? You will find that, to think about yourself reading it, you must for a brief second stop reading. The first experience is reading. The second experience is the thought, I am reading. Can you find any thinker, who is thinking the thought, I am reading? In other words, when present experience is the thought, I am reading, can you think about yourself thinking this thought?

Once again, you must stop thinking just, I am reading. You pass to a third experience, which is the thought, I am thinking that I am reading. Do not let the rapidity with which these thoughts can change deceive you into the feeling that you think them all at once.

[]

In each present experience you were only aware of that experience. You were never aware of being aware. You were never able to separate the thinker from the thought, the knower from the known. All you ever found was a new thought, a new experience.

What makes us unable to live with pure awareness, Watts points out, is the ball and chain of our memory and our warped relationship with time:

The notion of a separate thinker, of an I distinct from the experience, comes from memory and from the rapidity with which thought changes. It is like whirling a burning stick to give the illusion of a continuous circle of fire. If you imagine that memory is a direct knowledge of the past rather than a present experience, you get the illusion of knowing the past and the present at the same time. This suggests that there is something in you distinct from both the past and the present experiences. You reason, I know this present experience, and it is different from that past experience. If I can compare the two, and notice that experience has changed, I must be something constant and apart.

But, as a matter of fact, you cannot compare this present experience with a past experience. You can only compare it with a memory of the past, which is a part of the present experience. When you see clearly that memory is a form of present experience, it will be obvious that trying to separate yourself from this experience is as impossible as trying to make your teeth bite themselves.

[]

To understand this is to realize that life is entirely momentary, that there is neither permanence nor security, and that there is no I which can be protected.

And therein lies the crux of our human struggle:

The real reason why human life can be so utterly exasperating and frustrating is not because there are facts called death, pain, fear, or hunger. The madness of the thing is that when such facts are present, we circle, buzz, writhe, and whirl, trying to get the I out of the experience. We pretend that we are amoebas, and try to protect ourselves from life by splitting in two. Sanity, wholeness, and integration lie in the realization that we are not divided, that man and his present experience are one, and that no separate I or mind can be found.

To understand music, you must listen to it. But so long as you are thinking, I am listening to this music, you are not listening.

The Wisdom of Insecurity is immeasurably wonderful existentially necessary, even in its entirety, and one of those books bound to stay with you for a lifetime.

Thanks, Ken

Donating = Loving

Bringing you (ad-free) Brain Pickings takes hundreds of hours each month. If you find any joy and stimulation here, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner:

(If you dont have a PayPal account, no need to sign up for one you can just use any credit or debit card.)

You can also become a one-time patron with a single donation in any amount:

Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the weeks best articles. Heres what to expect. Like? Sign up.

Follow this link:
An Antidote to the Age of Anxiety: Alan Watts on Happiness ...

For the last several decades, a strange liberation movement has grown within the developed world. Its crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates. They want nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints. As "transhumanists" see it, humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolutions blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species.

It is tempting to dismiss transhumanists as some sort of odd cult, nothing more than science fiction taken too seriously: Witness their over-the-top Web sites and recent press releases ("Cyborg Thinkers to Address Humanitys Future," proclaims one). The plans of some transhumanists to freeze themselves cryogenically in hopes of being revived in a future age seem only to confirm the movements place on the intellectual fringe.

But is the fundamental tenet of transhumanism that we will someday use biotechnology to make ourselves stronger, smarter, less prone to violence, and longer-lived really so outlandish? Transhumanism of a sort is implicit in much of the research agenda of contemporary biomedicine. The new procedures and technologies emerging from research laboratories and hospitals whether mood-altering drugs, substances to boost muscle mass or selectively erase memory, prenatal genetic screening, or gene therapy can as easily be used to "enhance" the species as to ease or ameliorate illness.

Although the rapid advances in biotechnology often leave us vaguely uncomfortable, the intellectual or moral threat they represent is not always easy to identify. The human race, after all, is a pretty sorry mess, with our stubborn diseases, physical limitations, and short lives. Throw in humanitys jealousies, violence, and constant anxieties, and the transhumanist project begins to look downright reasonable. If it were technologically possible, why wouldnt we want to transcend our current species? The seeming reasonableness of the project, particularly when considered in small increments, is part of its danger. Society is unlikely to fall suddenly under the spell of the transhumanist worldview. But it is very possible that we will nibble at biotechnologys tempting offerings without realizing that they come at a frightful moral cost.

The first victim of transhumanism might be equality. The U.S. Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal," and the most serious political fights in the history of the United States have been over who qualifies as fully human. Women and blacks did not make the cut in 1776 when Thomas Jefferson penned the declaration. Slowly and painfully, advanced societies have realized that simply being human entitles a person to political and legal equality. In effect, we have drawn a red line around the human being and said that it is sacrosanct.

Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the worlds poorest countries for whom biotechnologys marvels likely will be out of reach and the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing.

Transhumanisms advocates think they understand what constitutes a good human being, and they are happy to leave behind the limited, mortal, natural beings they see around them in favor of something better. But do they really comprehend ultimate human goods? For all our obvious faults, we humans are miraculously complex products of a long evolutionary process products whose whole is much more than the sum of our parts. Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones: If we werent violent and aggressive, we wouldnt be able to defend ourselves; if we didnt have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldnt be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love. Even our mortality plays a critical function in allowing our species as a whole to survive and adapt (and transhumanists are just about the last group Id like to see live forever). Modifying any one of our key characteristics inevitably entails modifying a complex, interlinked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome.

Nobody knows what technological possibilities will emerge for human self-modification. But we can already see the stirrings of Promethean desires in how we prescribe drugs to alter the behavior and personalities of our children. The environmental movement has taught us humility and respect for the integrity of nonhuman nature. We need a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls.

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Read this article:
Transhumanism | Foreign Policy

June 15, 2015

The New Bioethics (vol. 21, no. 1, 2015) is now available online by subscription only. Articles include: The subject of enhancement: Augmented capacities, extended cognition, and delicate ecologies of the mind by Darian Meacham Just a bit of fun': How Read More

May 26, 2015

(The Telegraph) Wealthy humans are likely become cyborgs within 200 years as they gradually merge with technology like computers and smart phones, a historian has claimed. Yuval Noah Harari, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said the Read More

May 15, 2015

Dialog(vol. 54, no. 1, 2015) is available online by subscription only. Articles include: The boundaries of human nature by Ted Peters Beyond the boundaries of current human nature: Some theological and ethical reflections on transhumanism by James M. Childs Jr. Read More

May 8, 2015

Theology Today (Vol. 72, no. 1, 2015) is now available online by subscription only. Articles include: Bodies, selves, and human identity: A conversation between Transhumanism and the Apostle Paul by Steven John Kraftchick

March 10, 2015

(ABC.net) Our knowledge of human biology in particular of genetics and neurobiology is beginning to enable us to directly affect the biological or physiological bases of human motivation, either through drugs, or through genetic selection or engineering, Read More

February 6, 2015

World Future Review (Vol. 6, No. 3, September2014) is now available online by subscription only. Articles include: The Boundaries of the Human: From Humanism to Transhumanism byJos Cordeiro What is Future Human Evolution About? byTed Chu Human and Robots Interaction: Read More

January 12, 2015

NanoEthics (Volume 8, Issue 3, December2014) is now available online by subscription only. Articles include: Ethical issues in cyborg technology: diversity and inclusion by Enno Park Human Enhancement? Its all about body modification! Why we should replace the term human Read More

December 25, 2014

Neuroethics(Volume 7, No. 3, December2014) is now available online by subscription only. Articles include: What to Enhance: Behaviour, Emotion or Disposition? by Karim Jebari Defining Moral Enhancement: A Clarificatory Taxonomy by Kasper Raus, et al Moral Enhancement and Self Subversion Read More

November 26, 2014

(Phys.org) What do pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, Iron Man and flu vaccines all have in common? They are examples of an old idea thats been gaining in significance in the last several decades: transhumanism. The word denotes a set of Read More

November 12, 2014

(Vox) Scientists have been making amazing advances inbionic technology in recent years: robotic exoskeletons that help people walk, artificial eyes that help blind people see. Some of these technologies are meant as medical aids to help people regain function. Read More

Read the original post:
Transhumanism | Bioethics.com

Transhumanism is a recent movement that extols mans right to shape his own evolution, by maximizing the use of scientific technologies, to enhance human physical and intellectual potential. While the name is new, the idea has long been a popular theme of science fiction, featured in such films as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, the Terminator series, and more recently, The Matrix, Limitless, Her and Transcendence.

However, as its adherents hint at in their own publications, transhumanism is an occult project, rooted in Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, and derived from the Kabbalah, which asserts that humanity is evolving intellectually, towards a point in time when man will become God. Modeled on the medieval legend of the Golem and Frankenstein, they believe man will be able to create life itself, in the form of living machines, or artificial intelligence.

Spearheaded by the Cybernetics Group, the project resulted in both the development of the modern computer and MK-Ultra, the CIAs mind-control program. MK-Ultra promoted the mind-expanding potential of psychedelic drugs, to shape the counterculture of the 1960s, based on the notion that the shamans of ancient times used psychoactive substances, equated with the apple of the Tree of Knowledge.

And, as revealed in the movie Lucy, through the use of smart drugs, and what transhumanists call mind uploading, man will be able to merge with the Internet, which is envisioned as the end-point of Kabbalistic evolution, the formation of a collective consciousness, or Global Brain. That awaited moment is what Ray Kurzweil, a director of engineering at Google, refers to as The Singularly. By accumulating the total of human knowledge, and providing access to every aspect of human activity, the Internet will supposedly achieve omniscience, becoming the God of occultism, or the Masonic All-Seeing Eye of the reverse side of the American dollar bill.

Original post:
Transhumanism: The History of a Dangerous Idea: David ...

Resources Home Documents DPI and Bioethics Journals Issues A-I Home Abuse of disabled people AIDS/HIV/Disabled people Artificial Chromosome Artificial womb Banff Bio/Nanochip Biodiversity/Biopiracy Bioethic Bio/Nano weapon/soldier China Cloning Cybernetics Disability Studies Disabled people and Technology Perception/Reality of disabled people Disabled children Arts and Advocacy of dis people Law/Statistic of dis people Dis people in rural areas Disabled women Down Syndrome Equality Rights Eugenics Euthanasia Feminist bioethics Food/and other Biotech Futile Care Gene Therapy Genetic Discrimination Human Enhancement Genetics general/PID/Prenatal Testing Globalisation/Ethics Gov-ethic committees Health research/Qualy/Daly/ Holocaust Human Rights Issues J-Z Home Latimer/Infanticide Infotechnology Managed Care Nanotechnology Native disabled/non dis people Personhood psychiatric violence, deception and coercion Public Consultation Qualy/Daly/Health research Religion, Faith, Spirituality, Church, God and Disabled people Research on human subjects Sex selection Siamese Twins Singer, Peter Stemcell Sterilisation of disabled people Treaty for a Genetic Commons Transhumanism/Bionics/AI/Cryonics UNESCO Ethics of water Wrongful birth/life suits Xeno/Organtransplantation/disabled Please send link suggestions (your webpage or others) to me. I can only grow the webpage with your help

Transhumanism calendar of events, Transhumanist Groups and Contacts in Your Area, Transhumanism and disability, Transhumanism and Feminism, Transhumanism related papers, Transhumanism links, Extension of Life/Aging, Bionics (Eyes, Cochlear Implants, Tracking devices, Cognitive Sciences/AI)

Here is the original post:
Transhumanism - International Centre/Center for Bioethics ...

From transhuman, to transhumanism: What is the definition, and what is the movement that it inspires? This page will serve as an overview. We are talking about the next stage of human evolution; the immortalization of humanity; a future where human and machine is one in the same.

[social_share/] The popularity of transhumanism as an ideology has arguably been on an exponentialrise since the 1990s, as is most notable in the graph below. The graph displays the frequency of which the word transhumanism has featured in published books. We have displayed this graph to compare it to the use of the simple, more ideologically free word transhuman.

By simple definition, transhuman is defined onWikipedia as an intermediary form between the human and the hypothetical posthuman. We add complexity with the simple Oxford definition of transhuman/transhumanist The belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. I argue that this is as far as the definition of a transhumanist should go. It is merely a person who agrees humanity should have the freedom to enhance itself through its merger with technology.

Political scientist, Francis Fukuyama,describes transhumanismas the worlds most dangerous idea. Countering this, science writerRonald Bailey asserts that it is amovement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity.

What the above commenters fail to understand itthat both arguments stand true. In humanities aspiration for transhuman evolution, we will face huge dangers. Failing to understand those dangers because of over optimism is just as dangerous as ignorantly fighting against innovation though pessimistic fear/paranoia.

I argue that the optimistic/pessimistic contrast has a charging effect for the calls for transhumanist defence/attack. This in effect encourages people to define transhumanism beyond its pure definition.

In explaining this, its advocates sometimes say that we are all transhumanists, said Cook. We use glasses; we wear dentures; we take caffeine; we have pacemakers. This is true, but the nub of transhumanism is extending human capacities, not just repairing defects in the way we are now.http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2616/the_surprising_spread_and_cultural_impact_of_transhumanism.aspx

Read the original post:
Transhumanism News - That's Really Possible

Put simply Transhumanism is the belief that technology can allow us to improve, enhance and overcome the limits of our biology. More specifically, transhumanists such as Max More, Natasha Vita-More and Ray Kurzweil believe that by merging man and machine via biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, and artificial intelligence, one day science will yield humans that have increased cognitive abilities, are physically stronger, emotionally more stable and have indefinite life-spans. This path, they say, will eventually lead to "posthuman" intelligent (augmented) beings far superior to man - a near embodiment of god.

Transhumanism 101 with Natasha Vita-More

Transhumanism is both misunderstood and feared. Ignorant people with an ideological agenda have gone as far as labeling it "the most dangerous idea." I thought that it is time to bring some basic intellectual clarity on the topic and who is better prepared to help us do that but "the first female philosopher of transhumanism"!?

Max More - The Singularity and Transhumanism

Some of the main issues here are:

Can humanity continue to survive and prosper by embracing technology or will technology eventually bring forth the end of the human race altogether?

Will humanity get polarized into neo-luddite technophobes (such as Samuel Butler and Ted Kaczynski) or transhumanist technophiles (such as Max More, Natasha Vita-More, Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec and Nick Bostrom)?

Does that mean that wide spread global conflict may be impossible to avoid?

Is transhumanism turning into a new "religion" for certain scientists? (with "prophets" such as Ray Kurzweil and Vernor Vinge) Or, is it a viable scientific hypothesis?

Who will be the dominant species?

What is the essence of being human?

Do you agree or disagree with the content of this page? Do you want to improve it? Do you want to post some great singularity content of your own? Why not share it here at Singularity Symposium?!

Click below to see contributions from other visitors to this page...

Follow this link:
Transhumanism and the Technological Singularity

Transhumanism, Ethics, and the Internet: A Dispatch from the "Transhuman Visions" conference

By Brian Green

Transhumanism is a contemporary worldview whose proponents seek to radically extend human life and grant humans enhancements in an effort to render them as powerful as possible. The first-ever Transhuman Visions conference, organized by Hank Pellissier of the Brighter Brains Institute, met on February 1, 2014, in San Francisco, California. I attended because I have longstanding academic interests in the technological, religious, sociological, psychological, and ethical aspects of transhumanism.

The very first speaker at the conference, Roen Horn, reflected some of the complex religious aspects of transhumanism; he used a lot of Christian imagery, while at the same time denying that we can appeal to a (possibly imaginary) God for our immortality. In his view, if we want to be immortal, we have to do it on our own. Atheism, anti-theism, agnosticism, and new age spirituality were subtexts in many of the presentations. Horn's use of the catch phrase "eternal life pirates never surrender" also presented something of both the whimsy and the seriousness of the movement.

Another speaker, Rich Lee, was a "grinder" a devotee of do-it-yourself technological body modification. He had inserted magnetic implants in his own body in order to augment his own sensory perception, and electronic RFID chips into his hands so as to wirelessly control locks and other items that require identification to operate. Transhumanism and extreme body modification share the idea of the manipulability of the human body in accord with the human will. This is a movement that might grow in popularity yet remain somewhat limited in its appeal, at least for the near-termas tattoos and body modification currently remain.

Several speakers discussed ways to increase health and longevity. Caloric restriction is the only well-proven way to extend life, but very few people actually follow it, since it is rather unpleasant. These speakers discussed a few ways, such as periodic fasting, to get some of the perceived benefits of caloric restriction without having to actually starve oneself. Among other things, the speakers also recommended wearing orange glasses in the evenings in order to prevent artificial lights from interfering with natural bodily rhythms that promote a good night's sleep.

Aubrey de Grey was the most prominent speaker at the conference. Something of a celebrity in the radical life-extension community, de Grey discussed ways to popularize the life-extension movement so as to gain more funding for its research. He argued that significant gains could be made with just $50 billion invested in anti-aging research. One clever audience member asked if de Grey would shave his long beard for a crowd-funded $5 million donation, to which de Grey replied "yes!" and then even lowered the bar to $1 million; what happens to his beard remains to be seen.

Perhaps the most interesting speaker, and one who gained great applause from the audience, was Randal Koene, who discussed his initiative to get all those working in fields relevant to "whole brain emulation" (WBE) to cooperate in their efforts. Transhumanists see WBE as a kind of Holy Grail of life extension because they believe it will allow them to upload their minds into computers and thus attain complete immortality, with humans living inside a computer network as "substrate independent minds" (SIMs). Personally, I am skeptical of the relevance of this idea to life extension, since WBEs in a computer will not be "alive" in any biological sense (a rather key aspect of "life extension")nor do I think minds can be substrate independent. Of more relevance for life extension is neural prosthetic technology, which allows brain damage to be repaired through brain-computer interfaces. This technology is actually progressing very rapidly, with brain damaged tissue already electronically restored in animals. One might reasonably ask where the dividing line between neuroprosthetics and WBE might be: How much brain has to be replaced before the prosthetic is your brain? Could a brain-dead person be restored to life with a partial or whole-brain prostheses? But these questions will not be resolved by debate but by actual experiments.

Another speaker at the conference, Zoltan Istvan, proposed the idea that those who speak out against transhumanism might be committing a crime because they are advocating a worldview that will lead to many deaths. Perhaps such speech should be banned, he proposed. Needless to say, such a course of action would raise some grave ethical questions. This type of thinking, which could perhaps lead to a type of totalitarian transhumanism, is something that I had not heard much about before.

Utopianism was a definite ethical theme at the conference. For transhumanists, Utopia means humanity without death and with godlike powers. Utopia is a "greatest good," all other goods are subordinate to it, including, as noted above, the pleasure of eating, the absence of pain from body modifications, existence as a body of flesh, and perhaps even freedoms (of speech, etc.). As an infinite good, however, Utopia can be used to morally justify anything (by arguing that in the face of an infinite good any finite evil is negligible). This can be extremely dangerous.

While transhumanism has existed primarily as an Internet-based movement for a couple of decades now, the Transhuman Visions conference was an event intended to build face to face human relationships. As the movement has grown in popularity, especially in the tech-friendly Bay Area, it has finally passed a critical threshold, so that now in-person contact starts to make sense for those interested in it. The conference had approximately 300 attendees.

As for me, I am a transhumanism enthusiast, but also a skeptic. While I see no intrinsic moral problems with extending healthy human life as long as we can (realizing that important related questions of justice, cost, accessibility, side-effects, etc., would also need to be addressed), I do not think material immortality is possible in this world. As material creatures subject to entropy, we must eventually break down and die. The existential denial of our own mortality is an evasion, not a solution. But transhumanism does not stop at evasion; it is a social movement with a lot of highly motivated and intelligent people, and is actively researching solutions of many types. I was very impressed by several of the people I spoke to. Some were there because they were deeply concerned about the health of their loved ones and they saw transhumanism as the chance to save their loved one's lives.

Research into extending healthy life is a worthy task and not one to be discouraged. While the extreme search for immortality is, I think, futile, and futile acts can be morally problematic, the general effort to extend life is not futile, and is certainly something that would interest many people. Significantly lengthened lifespans will likely not appear quickly, but by a long slow process of medical advance, and those individual medical advances, compounding over time, will be a very good thing.

Brian Green is assistant director of campus ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and an adjunct professor teaching ethics in the SCU Graduate School of Engineering.

February 2014

Here is the original post:
Transhumanism, Ethics, and the Internet