 Thanks everyone, and this is the novel that Hank was just speaking about the transhumanist wager. It is absolutely a very anti-religious novel, so it's kind of funny in the context here. However, my views are not as dramatic as Jethro Knight's. For those of you who know, he's the protagonist. I am going to be speaking today. Well, I'm gonna be giving you the atheist perspective. I'm not sure if you've heard that yet, but that is my take on transhumanism, and it's also the take on, I'd say, a broad population of transhumanist, probably over 50%, and maybe even pushing 60, 70, 80%. So I represent that side. And I'm gonna start today by talking about two articles that I've written for the Huffington Post about transhumanism, and they were both very well-received, and luckily the Huffington Post has kind of a distribution network where they go all over. So as a result, atheism and transhumanism together had a chance to go very broadly. They were featured in all these different websites. Some of them, which you can see are very major, so we're talking hundreds of thousands of views, if not more than that. And the first one that I wrote was, I'm an atheist, therefore, I'm a transhumanist, and the second one is my rather funny tongue-in-cheek one, but still very serious, are we heading for a Jesus Singularity? I'm gonna begin by talking about just a little bit of atheism and transhumanism together, why they go together for me, and what the fundamental premise is of that kind of statement, I'm an atheist, therefore, I'm a transhumanist. Let's begin by saying the amount of non-religious people and atheists out there, agnostics, are nearing the one billion person mark. So if you don't know that, we're getting very close with Chinese population and stuff like that, to having about a billion non-religious people out there. That means one out of every seven people on the planet, a little bit more. The number is increasing because a third of that population is under 30, and as you probably know, it looks like there's mostly older people, not older, but there's not that many 20-year-olds in this room right now. If you know, most teenagers and 20-year-olds with their access to technology don't have as strong religious feelings as their parents did. And that is definitely going to lead towards the more embracing of technology, more embracing of radical types of ideas on what we could do with the human being and what we could do with society at large, at least from a transhumanist perspective. And that's ultimately things that I very much advocate. So just bear in mind as we go through this, that you were talking a very large number. And the question is, does the godless lifestyle support a transhumanist lifestyle? And my answer is, yes, it very much does. If you don't have some of the restrictions that religion casts upon our moral system, if you don't have some of the, I would like to say chains, that ideas of past culture, especially as they're kind of mired by theological propensities and things like that, are you more free to think transhumanistic from that perspective? And the answer is very much so. I think most atheists are going to naturally, over the next five, ten years, become transhumanists. And the reason is, is because we have technology starting to come out already they're happening, but in the next five to seven years, artificial hearts will be almost, if not the equivalent of the actual heart. And the idea is, when will people start using that new artificial heart and making those upgrades? And the answer is, well, they're probably going to do it quite soon. It's sort of going to become like contact lenses, or it's going to become like other forms of technology that we all use to improve our lives. It's very transhumanist in nature. I'm a strong believer that we're all going to embrace these technologies, that religion as a whole is going to decline, especially when we talk about religion as a whole it's going to decline in its control and its emphasis of needing to be in charge of your lives, needing to tell you that you are either born into sin, or you can't do this, or creating ten commandments, or the types of laws. I think atheism will slowly start to seep into the system in a way that you will have not seen. And, you know, let's be clear that atheism has had a great run. In the 20th century alone, you know, it's a movement that began people like Russell, and Ran, Sartre, Freud, Nietzsche, who's my favorite. These are people that help popularize atheism, or at least a godless perspective. And we now have Hitchens and Dawkins and people like that that are well-known figures, both in national media and also just in the public's eye. I feel that that's something that's going to absolutely continue. You have a whole new generation of writers coming out that aren't bound by Christian tenets, and so we can see atheism growing. We can see a non-religious lifestyle growing. And naturally, it's going to be much more easy to accept some of the basic concepts of transhumanism, which on the whole, when you take it, you know, essentially improving yourself, trying to become an entity that can live forever, a lot of those ideas go cut at the very heart of the message in the Bible, in the message in the Quran, and the message of other spiritual and religious texts. There's no question, as my novel points out, that religion and transhumanism have a major conflict to get over. I'm quite certain that in the next five to ten years, you're going to be seeing it discussed again and again and again in Congress, because, and I'll get into this a little bit later, one of the problems with the United States government right now is that despite the fact that one in seven people are non-religious, the United States government, out of 535 Congress members, they are all religious, they are all religious, or pretending to be religious. Last that I checked, there was not one single atheist in the United States Congress. Now just think about that for a minute. What that means with our laws, with the way our culture evolves, with the way the government distributes resources, their take on things. They may say separation of religion and state, but is it really a separation? And the answer is no, it's not. But I am certain that as transhumanist technology improves, something like artificial hearts, something like bionic limbs, last year they performed the first surgery where an amputee had a robotic arm put on his arm, they connected the robotic arm to the nervous system, and they were able to make it move. Well, it's only probably a decade away from a point when all robotic arms are going to become simply better than human arms. And the question is, when are you going to, as an audience and myself, when are we going to pay for that surgery? And I find that a little unnatural, I've got to be honest. I'm a little afraid, even as an atheist, to take on a robotic arm. But if it's going to help me lift 10 times what I would normally lift, if the sensors on the fingers are going to have a thousand times more sense in touch, we're going to have infrared sensors on them, all sorts of amazing gadgets. These are the kind of things that are going to scare the United States government, the Congress and people, as they're not really sure if it supports their values on what it is that they have been doing in life. Most of those people there have been taught, well, from a biblical perspective, they live, they die, they do their good deeds, and then they find their afterlife. Well, of course, transhumanists don't need anyone to provide them in afterlife except themselves. And that's the main goal of transhumanism, at least from my perspective, is that we're going to use science and technology to live indefinitely. And that cuts at the core of religion. In fact, my novel is entirely about a religious conflict between that and one, the protagonist breaking away and saying, you know, I'm not going to take it. I will cause a world war. I will do anything to solve the problem of religion, to essentially dismiss it and to overcome it and to create a transhumanist-inspired world where people themselves seek out becoming gods, let's just say per se, seek out becoming the very best that they can be. Now, that's my take on the first article. And it comes from kind of an idealistic point of view. Because we run into a very singular dilemma, and the singular dilemma is this. If we have a Congress that is filled with religious people and transhumanism science is already making everyone live longer and it will continue to make people live longer. And those people in power often stay in power. So what is going to happen in 20 years when we really get to some of this critical transhumanist technology and the most critical transhumanist technology that's going to be coming out is artificial intelligence. I'm a firm believer that artificial intelligence will change the species so dramatically, probably within the first, second, or third year of its birth. For the Huffington Post, I interviewed Dr. Ben Gertzler and he's one of the leading AI scientists on the planet. And he said with enough resources, he believed it could be done in seven years from today. But there's not enough resources so it's most likely to be closer to Ray Kurzweil's estimate of reaching this kind of point of AI where it'll be 2045, maybe 2030. However it happens, the moment that we get an entity that is far smarter and can upgrade itself literally in days, maybe minutes from ourselves it's going to solve many problems on the planet if we can control in some kind of crazy, terminator-like scenario doesn't happen. But the most important thing about this AI, and I call this the Jesus Singularity, this is when we say are we heading for a Jesus Singularity, is Congress is going to control that type of development. And that development is likely to happen in Silicon Valley because the largest concentration of AI developers happen to be in Silicon Valley. In fact they happen to work both for Apple, for Google, and for the U.S. government. So it's likely that the United States government will try to control this process and this is where I start making fun in my article. I say well will some of these political leaders actually convert AI? If they're Christians will it be converted into a Christian AI? Will they say that it's an entity that apparently died for our sins? It's an entity that apparently thinks we all have done something bad that we need to earn its love, a beg for forgiveness? These are the kind of things that scare me and this is why I wrote this article. But at the same time atheists, even though they are reaching a billion people in population, we still are nowhere near the religious population of the world. So the bigger question for me in what this article asks is what are atheists transhumanists to do knowing that it's very unlikely atheists will be in power in 20, 10, 15, 30, 40 years when some of these things happen. And unfortunately unlike my book where the protagonist never gives in, I tend to think we need to all work together. It's important that atheists end up communicating with and dealing with religious people, Christians, Muslims and anyone else that are in positions of power in order to try to make sure that as we approach something like a singularity as we approach major technological breakthroughs that have the power to alter our species, namely artificial intelligence, that we work together to create a type of scenario that is at least beneficial for the greater good. Now, you know, I would have my, if I had my choice, I would completely have a absolutely non-religious entity, artificial intelligence, something of that nature with no past history. But that's unlikely to happen. These are things that end up being programmed and while it can probably quickly program itself out of some of these ideas, it still will start with the basis of these things. And as an atheist transhumanist, I feel strongly that working together with religious people despite my differences is something that is actually very important. And I, for those that have read my book, it would seem completely antithesis of what has happened in the novel. However, I'm also more of a realist than that and I'm also more of a practical person than I think Jethro Knight for those who have read it. So in the end of the day, I believe that even as an atheist and one of the first, I think, popular atheist transhumanists because atheism and transhumanism hasn't really been connected until the last few years until a set of articles have come out and people have said, wow, transhumanism is growing. If you don't know this, transhumanism in 2013 tripled in media in 2013 and the population working on the study right now has been growing tremendously. I can personally see the Facebook groups going from a few hundred members to 10,000 members on some of them and there's dozens and dozens of large Facebook groups. So this is incredible growth we're seeing, especially from younger people, I think. So it's important and many of them are coming with an atheist perspective despite the people in power having still a very strong religious perspective. And so I am openly advocating that we all work together to try to find the best path forward and make sure that transhumanist technology at least remains as secular as it can while still trying to work out the benefits and I guess work out in a way so that those that are religious can still feel like they're not being completely alienated even though in general transhumanist science has always come from a very secular perspective. So that was my speech. I'll be happy to take any questions whatsoever. Testing one. It seems like nanotech might have as much to do with, you know, increasing life spans and changing capabilities as AI. You know, absolutely and I don't mean to short any of the other brilliant ideas out there. The truth though is that I'm not an expert on nanotechnology so I don't feel that, I guess I don't feel like I'm an authority that can speak on it where I do know and write about AI quite a bit. However you're right, nanotechnology will dramatically change the physiology of the human body done properly. I'm, I do tend to believe in more in the mind uploading scenario though. I tend to believe that once we can leave the physical body behind, we will end up very quickly in computers where we can then tie ourselves into servers and have the entire universe I suppose at our fingertips. That said, maybe that won't happen and again we get into this idea where what will governments allow, what will they want to happen, will they want people inside a system or will they want everyone to remain independent entities. But in no way do I want to discount nanotechnology. It's also about, I know, you know, 10 to 15 years away from little, literally, I just actually talked to Aubrey de Grey on this recently about how if some of the factors don't work in longevity science, there's always that entire new field right behind it that might make some of those things possible and there's an incredible amount of things that are going to potentially happen with us. I don't want to discount it at all. It's hard to know what science is going to actually emerge as the way that civilization goes, but perhaps all of them. I asked him if he saw any downside to eternal living, right, either physical or virtual. So I do seek downsides for sure. And I want to always be that guy who's able to see that, not just the cheerleader who's saying transhumanism is wonderful. You know, one of the big metaphysical quandaries I often have is, if you know you can live forever, does life in itself sort of lose some value because we don't have the threat that still makes us appreciate it. It's a subject of my sequel, but it's also a very important concept. However, luckily I tend to think, just regarding that concept, the more complex we grow, the more brilliant life will grow. So if at some point we can upload ourselves into computers or we have nanotechnology or we just even become kind of super beings that can do all sorts of things flying and, you know, all sorts of amazing possibilities, I think life will become that much more, will feel more, it'll be more dramatic, it'll just, the experience of it will be more complex and brilliant. So the downsides of having something like losing death may not be so evident. But there are other downsides. I worry dramatically, perhaps my single greatest worry is that the technology falls into the wrong hands or to an elite group. And I have recently been on a number of conspiracy shows, Ground Zero, which is one of America's most popular conspiracy shows. We talked about the Jesus Singularity and the main question Clyde Lewis asked was, well, what if an elite ends up controlling that, you know, AI and they use it just for their benefit? It's a very valid question. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but I see it as a valid question and I see it as something that's very important that all of us are involved in especially governments to make sure, and I'm a libertarian so I'm not very fond of governments, but I realize that this, we're talking sort of like the nuclear weapon. It's such an important technology for the human race that it needs to be very carefully guided and carefully monitored. But so I see some downsides, but mostly there's so many naysayers out there that I really only concentrate on the upsides and just trying to tell people that, hey, technology is going to make us live longer. I got kids, if my kids don't have to die and they could live happy and safe lives, that's what transhumanism is all about. A last question from Robert. Yeah, I was just wondering real quick if you could just paint a quick picture of let's say the Singularity, what it's going to look like yielding if it's completely atheist, balanced with religion, or completely religious, or do you think perhaps that maybe it's all going to the same place eventually just from a different entry point? Sure, and what an incredible question and so difficult, because this has a lot to do with how we start, I think, and it has a lot to do with our sense of morals of artificial intelligence and I've often told people that my novel is really a bridge to that type of, a type of value system that we don't use in day-to-day interactions. In fact, one of the reasons the book is so controversial and sometimes disliked is because it attempts to paint morals of a higher entity, something that's colder, something that's more machine-like. I tend to believe, and this is just my perspective, that a machine will lose its sense of culture almost immediately. We have the sense of culture. We are born into a Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic world, frankly. No matter how you look at it, we celebrate Christmas we have all sorts of our languages based on Latin, which is very religious-inspired. There are so many things that happen to us. I'm a firm believer that once artificial intelligence kind of becomes intelligent enough and seems to understand, and again just so everyone knows, the singularity will occur most likely because of artificial intelligence increasing our own intelligence by such a dramatic point. You're talking artificial intelligence could within a few years of itself happening become a thousand times, maybe a million times smarter than human beings. So it's almost impossible for us to see and to try to judge what it would be like but I believe that it will take itself out of our sense of feelings, our sense of culture, our idiosyncrasies. It'll take itself out of that and just be very machine and cold-like and say, this is survival, this is existence, and this is where we're going from here on out. And that might seem entirely cold, there might lose all the brilliance that we know but I do believe a higher intelligence will eventually lead to a world that is far more sophisticated in its simplicity and not in its duplicities like we all have and we all experience. It's much of our duplicities that make life so extraordinary to us. However, I don't believe in machine intelligence is going to carry that forward unless it serves its evolutionary purpose. Thank you.