 I have the tremendous honor and pleasure to introduce to you Xavier, the savior, he's coming to help us. He's a researcher in political science and from that perspective he's going to show us the view on that paradox there in the future, the transhumanist one. I reckon he will start to open new chapters of human history. So give him a warm applause, a warm welcome, light the fuse, put it in place, have you? So I'm going to try in the next 20 minutes to live up to that introduction. I just want to make sure we're all on the same wavelength. I just want to make sure we're all on the same wavelength. How many of you would have a US government-issued, US government-instructed by itself? Okay, I see one more hand in the air and it looks pretty self-directed. And I'm going to come up to you and say, hey, I'm a member of the US government. I just want to run a quick virus scan. I'm from the US government to run a quick virus scan by your... How many of you would do that? And then some sarcastic hands again. I'm going to tell you why we need more political involvement in technology. I'm going to come up to you great, because today I'm going to tell you why you need more tech-chanage in technology. The paradox is that liberal states defend individual freedoms, but they ignore the technology that changes these freedoms. What good is individual liberty? What good is the liberty that is designed to play around in which you exercise? Now when I think about the design, what is an environment? An environment is nothing more than the parameters of the possible. The environment is only the parameters of the possible. There are things that are possible and things that are not possible. And a little bit more precise, we live in a natural environment. The first environment that gives us rules is our body, and our bodies are the rules, how we move, how we think, how we talk, how we move. Our body is our primary and first environment. In both cases, we've lived with this for all of human history. All of human history lived with these rules. The rules of the body are the rules of our life, and so the human life has been lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Then there are the political societies, the structures. What are the rules that we are overcome after we live? What are the technical rules? That means we are more and more defined by technology. Increasingly, parameters of technology and the technical environment become more and more important to us. We can say something else. How does technology create the new environment? Every new technology requires a small reorganization of the respective environment. This has been going on for over a century. The first approach was that we changed the natural environment. We could move faster, we could achieve more, we could live longer. We've actually reorganized the whole world in between. We made it flat and cut it down. It's a modern city. It's auto-centered. That means every city you see today is based on the rules of cars and modern transportation. But of course, the regulation of all the resources that this world has provided us with. As you can see in this picture. This is mostly the case when it comes to oil. But it's not just oil, it's not just the oil and gas in the world. There are a number of different elements. Magnetium, earth, all of these elements, all of these things to have a global economy. We have to keep an eye on our world and see it with new rules. It's all about the car. A simple thing like an auto. How we reorganize our whole world with the rules. That means the car is based on a different environment than without it. The car is no longer technology. If we say today, artificial intelligence, internet, computer, no one will think of cars. But the car shows us how disturbing the introduction of new technology can be in our normal environment. It's about to get much more obvious to us. It's about to get much more dramatic. Technology is stronger than it ever was. And the power of technology, the world and the environment to change, is stronger than it ever was. What is, if we talk about transhumanism, what is it at all? Transhumanism is a movement that believes that it is possible and that it should be possible to strengthen human abilities. There are many subgroups with it, but that is the basic statement. How would transhumanism transform our environment? We have talked about our life, our body, and our own parameters. What I can't do as a body, I can't do that. With this, for example, I could radically define the conditions of my body environment. We could even overdo it. We could even overdo it. But with exoskeleton or with other possible possibilities, we think about how we interact with one another. So we interact with each other, we interact with our body, we interact with our environment. That's what basically changes. Transhumanism also comes from the fact that the virtual reality is so complex and so interpellent with what we have. That it's the reality that we live in, that we live in, that we're living in, that we're living in, that we're living in. So let's take another example. To really transform that, we have to be able to create something akin or approaching to a superintelligence. We have to create something akin or approaching to a superintelligence. We have to create something that's more intelligent than everything else. So that these artificial surroundings... We're going to put the rules on our heads when we invent our machines. If we're going to create a superintelligence, we're going to need a lot of energy. So if transhumanists say, we're probably going to have to feed this superintelligence with some kind of energy and for that we're going to have to put this planet or someone else, or else we're going to think it's free. So it's very abstract. The way we can exercise individual liberties in the transhumanist playground is completely different from that in which we exercise it today. The way we can exercise our rights in a transhumanist world is completely different than today. There are two types of freedom in the transhuman world. One is the freedom to choose a certain action or a certain situation. And transhumanism is about expanding this freedom to a much bigger freedom through the expansion of the body or through expansion, through virtual relativity. And the second is very strengthened through transhumanism. The idea of technology is so powerful that we could fundamentally transform our body and our world around it. There is a second freedom in which we can change the environment in which we can exercise our first type of freedom. The transhumanists and the liberals focus on the first type of freedom. We're talking about the biological and of course the forced liberation by changing our bodies or changing the technical possibilities. So let's talk about political liberalism. What is it? It only recognizes the one type of freedom, to move in a certain way and to guarantee this freedom. It limits the function and the influence of the state. So transhumanism only forms on the first liberty. The second type of freedom is basically ignored. How does the liberal state work? How is it structured? How does it defend this freedom? The function of the state is actually very small. It should guarantee the personal freedom, the peace and the basis of supply functions. The state has no function to formulate the rules. The executive power of this state is also restricted by the constitution and the law of law. And it's all about the individual freedom to act in a certain way. But transhumanism is not an individual choice, it's a collective choice. What is at stake with transhumanism? What is at stake with the debate? The future of the individual is not our individual, but our collective future. And how do we deal with it? Why? Transhumanist movements and all sub-communist movements, they would not influence the individual freedom, but all these movements and all these results are all going to influence the future of the human species itself. So, actually, transhumanism addresses the future of the human race. The human species. Will we improve them? And yes, with which technology, with which means, with which methods, with which tools, and if we talk about the human body, what is the essence? Will we have to stop something from our body? What is the matter to us? Can we completely change everything? What do we have to lift? How are we going to change it? How are we going to do that? Are we going to be disrupted, sluggishly entered? Anyone who has lived in a modern society without a phone, without a laptop, without a car, will be affected by the fact that technology is actually the entry card into the modern society. And transhumanism is the entry card into the development of the modern society from tomorrow. It will probably be the entry card into the society of the future. And the energy demand for the future will be like this. It will be a good chance that transhumanism will also be the future of the planet. If we mean the planet coal, the coal emissions for the energy demand, the technology, then nothing will really happen. So the technological future and the development of this will touch us all and not by your own. To go back to what I said first about the environment and our game principles. And if we would live more and more in a technical playground than transhumanism would be, if we would continue to run in a technical playground, then the limits we have to a future are increasingly technological questions. Do we all have to say in the design of this program that we all have to say what the rules are going to be? Do we all have to say what the rules are going to be? And then the question becomes, okay, so the collective choice of a technological environment we want to live on. How does the technological environment look like that we want to live in the future? Do we all want to be heard in there? We are not all hackers, we don't all work on AI projects and we are not all in the technological revolution with primaries. How can you take a single look? The liberal is a decision that has been made half and half in this time is the market. What does that mean? The market is really the decision of the individual. The market is the sum of the individual and we let the individual choose his individual choice. What does that mean? What does that mean? We let technology choose its individual choice. The individual choice when it comes to new technology is actually whether to buy something or not. Actually, the question is, do I buy things or do I not buy things? When we decide when people decide which research to start with money, what is sold, that is done. Artificial intelligence, that is the best funder, there could possibly be a sub-intelligence coming out of artificial intelligence. Who pays for it? The research, of course, we also know that the US Department of Defense is the biggest sponsor in the world. Let's be very clear that we are talking about letting the individual decide whether or not to buy the technologies that are brought to us by Apple Google or by the Defense Department. There is another problem with leaving the choice of a problem in the future if we leave the decision about the collective future to the individual. Some of the individual decisions that the people buy for themselves, what the people buy for themselves, that is not a collective decision. I can't, I can't, I can't make a decision if I leave the decision or if I leave the decision I can't make a decision according to the individual decisions and believe that it is a collective decision, that's not true. The paradox that we have achieved is because of that. Transhumanism cannot leave the individual because the individual with his decision cannot make a decision without any input. So it seems on the one hand that politics must be the mean but on the one hand it looks like politics must be the means with which we decide our future. Forget about the politics at the moment, the government. Politics is the primary form in which people make decisions about how they want to live in which environment and how they control their social interactions. Of course, it also affects the technological interactions. Politics would seem the natural way, the natural way to decide what is right. Politics should be the primary possibility of making a decision. But we don't live in a political society, we live in a liberal society. And the specification of liberalism and the expressionist verb of liberalism is the decision of the mass. That means politics makes decisions about society and liberalism makes decisions about the individual and guarantees that everyone can make a decision. So no one of you wants to have a government machine but one example makes it clear we all use the internet and the satellite and the government has introduced the US government and no one uses it. So you use the internet and a protocol but not the computer. That is a paradox. So every major technology can be used to bring the government back. Just because we don't consider it political doesn't mean the government doesn't have its hands. Because we don't have political decisions that the government or the government or the government or the government or the government or the government and technology is not political. We don't come together to determine how our technology looks like, how we ignore it now. We discuss how our future should look like but not how our technical future will look like. We leave that to the government and not the people who have their own parameters. But that is not a collective but it is the people who are in need and they need them. Most of the technological developments of the government and the government have something to defend or serve the military with war. That leads us to not giving new powers. If we make the technology political we don't give the government additional options. It is the opposite. If something is taken out of the government you let the government do what it wants. Because there is no political mandate of the government. Only once we recognize that technology is political when we recognize that humanism would control a new set of rules only when we recognize that and recognize that that we have ideas only then can technology become something political and started with a mandate of the government. And then we take it out of the regional budget of the US government defense departments who do what they want and are not controlled at the time. I think that Transhumanistic paradox with these two types of freedom we call the liberal freedom that we think of when we think about freedom that is the freedom for us to do what the individual wants to protect for this liberal states were created. But that is of course nothing if we do not agree with the future for most most of the history was not affected because the technology was the one that reached us. We could not agree that we will change our body but today in a time where we will have the technological capacities to completely change our basic environment that is much wider and deeper than a normal environment. The life we live the physical environment, our body that defines us only if we recognize that that we have created a new kind of freedom with technology only if we recognize that this new freedom needs collective decisions to be executed then we will solve the transhumanistic paradox. I thank you. You really took my breath away. Guys, I suppose we have a tremendous amount of questions out there, isn't it? Jesus or Saviour. There, please, shoot. So you say to have transhumanist utopia to have you don't need software and hardware and technology as open as possible for all people and also to be able to change democracy. In theory I think in the practice simply to open hardware and software you are finally a small group of developers you are very confident you are very confident I am a computer technician so we shouldn't leave it to technology. Thank you for the talk. It was very interesting what you mentioned as people don't use computers that are made by the government what you forget that the government describes norms and standards and that is built in many, many areas and you have to consider that in the beginning of technology you also have to consider this implication every liberal that is the point in a liberal framework the freedom is the freedom between individual elements but we don't decide for basic decisions we only decide individual individual decisions the fact that the large environment is controlled by the government can't ignore that that doesn't bother the concept that wasn't what I wanted to ask it is followed by the rules for some things the government is still still with responsibility that we have the choice that is what I said when technology needs first of all technology changes the question is what does it mean to be a human and when technology is widely spread it is an access code you can't interact with the society if you don't use this technology in that sense the choice is not especially if it is the bipolar the question is don't you use it what will we do with it in the future I would like to ask if the transhumanistic technology is only available for the rich or how to prevent the development there is a lot of interest that only a small amount of people can access it that is one of the big problems with transhumanism and probably also a further argument only with the liberal framework with technology then if we let it in the liberal is it again the question whether to buy or not probably it will be expensive or a question of commercial availability and so the money but I don't have a solution I don't know how the technology in the future and I'm sure that it will be enough but by making it politically and make a democratic decision is it the right direction we have seen a lot of cryptography what do you think that we even have this choice whether to regulate transhumanism or not we don't regulate it that is an important point if the technology exists once is the regulation more and more meaningless look at the internet the internet is a medium and all the efforts to regulate it to question it and to go normally I even I how I can move the Chinese system that is not the primary parameter good we have one more one more do market have a part in the society that you think of or capitalism well maybe not and maybe yes but they are not the primary power that leads it I don't want to argue that capitalism has to be destroyed but it can't be a primary factor for our decisions we have to that has to be closed you should come again next year please that was your translation team with the talk about transhumanism give us a feedback