'But the fundamental ambition of transhumanism is more problematic. Its architects champion a use of technology to accelerate the evolution of humanity so radically that at the end of the process humanity as such would disappear'
What we do read as LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE discussion as critics of transhumanism fails to discuss GOALS of GMO HUMANS----it leads the discussion to what is a small avenue of use for remote, technology medicine and genetic engineering.
The term EUGENICS is heard often as a critical analysis for MOVING FORWARD GMO HUMANS. There is no doubt global banking 1% are trying to develop science to extend the lives of those global 1%-----NOT ALL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE----but the overwhelming goals of GMO HUMANS and TELEMEDICINE are breeding human capital for the functions of work and remote medicine for space colonization.
'From its inception, the abolition of human death and aging has been one of the goals of transhumanism'.
Below we see what should be a voice for 99% WE THE PEOPLE ---the masses----GOD'S CHILDREN-----our Jesuits as we shout over and again are those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS 5% freemason/Greeks. These 5% fake religious freemasons have supported and pushed throughout CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA for the dismantling our our US civil society to bring NEW WORLD ORDER. We do not look to our JESUITS as voices for 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
The discussion below offers correct concerns but never mentions the goals of GMO HUMANS as future PRODUCTS to maximize wealth and power of global 1%---it only identifies EUGENICS as a problem.
Politics & SocietyLast Take
Who's afraid of transhumanism? (We all should be)
John J. Conley September 05, 2017
It is difficult to define, but it’s a growing movement. Transhumanism has its own central organization (Humanity+), its own demographic base (Silicon Valley), even its own political formation (the Longevity Party).
On one level the movement’s goals appear benign. One of its key documents, “Principles of Extropy,” sums up the basic values of transhumanism: “perpetual progress, self-transformation, practical optimism, intelligent technology, open society, self-direction, and rational thinking.” The local Rotary Club would not object.
But the fundamental ambition of transhumanism is more problematic. Its architects champion a use of technology to accelerate the evolution of humanity so radically that at the end of the process humanity as such would disappear. A superior posthuman being would emerge. According to Wikipedia, “Transhumanism is the intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available knowledge to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.” From its inception, the abolition of human death and aging has been one of the goals of transhumanism as it engineers a new being freed from the biological constraints of the current human condition.
Two of the movement’s philosophers, Max More and David Pearce, have developed eloquent apologies for the transhumanist creed. But they also indicate the movement’s more ominous philosophical themes.
The very concept of human nature disappears in much transhumanist literature. The human body is dismissed as something of secondary, accidental importance. Mr. More argues that “the self has to be instantiated in some physical medium but not necessarily one that is biologically human—or biological at all.” Once again in the history of philosophy, the body has become a mere container for the human mind. The body is perceived as an impediment to the mind’s development rather than humanity’s natural site for thought. Tellingly, in this new version of anthropological dualism, the soul has disappeared; it is the sovereign self, a liberated will yearning for omniscience and omnipotence, that remains. Unsurprisingly, Ayn Rand is one of the movement’s favorite novelists.
Not only is humanity freed from its biological finitude in the transhumanist dream; it no longer enjoys any unique status as a subject of rights. Max More claims that “creatures with similar levels of sapience, sentience, and personhood are accorded similar status no matter whether they are humans, animals, cyborgs, machine intelligences, or aliens.” The religious claim that human beings are made in God’s image and the political claim that humans deserve respect because of their transcendental status crumble. Little of Renaissance humanism remains in a movement that glorifies the posthuman being to come and considers current humanity a fleeting phenomenon with no particular, intrinsic dignity.
The moral philosophy of the transhumanist movement is broadly utilitarian. One cannot judge the morality of a particular act in isolation; its goodness depends on whether it contributes to the global pleasure of a future humanity and ultimately a posthumanity.
David Pearce has developed an influential version of this transhumanist utilitarianism in his book The Hedonistic Imperative. For Mr. Pearce, the greatest ethical task of humanity is to eliminate all suffering in the world. Just as medical science has eliminated physical suffering through anesthetics, we should now use technology to conquer all psychic suffering. Mr. Pearce endorses a vigorous use of genetic engineering and pharmacology to achieve this goal of an anguish-free humanity and posthumanity. He even supports the use of such technology to abolish pain in wild animals.
Mr. Pearce’s ethics represent the perfectionist side of the transhumanist project. He describes the mission to eliminate suffering as “paradise engineering” and “the naturalization of Heaven.” The state of a properly engineered posthumanity in the future is nothing less than paradisal: “Our descendants may live in a civilization of serenely motivated high achievers, animated by gradients of bliss.”
It is a strange utopia. Our current opioid epidemic is a cautionary tale against the dream of a sedated humanity. We are still reeling from the totalitarian dream where millions perished in the name of a radiant future that required some lethal cutting of ethical corners in the meantime. The enthusiastic transhumanist revival of eugenics is a cause for alarm. Is there any place for people with disabilities in this utopia? Why would we want to abolish aging and dying, essential constituents of the human drama, the fountainhead of our art and literature? Can there be love and creativity without anguish? Who will flourish and who will be eliminated in this construction of the posthuman? Does nature itself have no intrinsic worth? Finally, isn’t the transhumanist dream of liberating humanity from its biological and psychic creaturehood simply a high-tech surrender to an ancient temptation, “Ye shall be as gods?”
Who’s afraid of transhumanism? I am. We all should be.
What term accompanies DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION? Disruptive economics tied to technology. This is far-right wing global banking corrupting what is REAL scientific research and theory surrounding NATURAL DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION.
We don't want to be confused about REAL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES as is the goal of global banking 5% players. DARWIN'S evolution theories looked at GRADUALISM-----humans and higher animals have been found not ABLE to EVOLVE RAPIDLY because we are complex animals with complex organ systems. So, REAL disruptive evolution theory has always addressed simple plants and animals like bacteria, jellyfish, insects. THIS IS REAL SCIENCE and that research helped with modern MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH.
Below we see global banking 1% co-opting our REAL scientific term-----to that economic term as all CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA GLOBAL BANKING does. We have read in economic media DISRUPTIVE ECONOMICS---DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY. This is NOT REAL science ----it is propaganda meant to keep 99% of WE THE PEOPLE from knowing goals that kill not only 99% of humans but PLANET EARTH.
MCKINSEY report is that global banking media pretending any of MOVING FORWARD is tied to PUBLIC INTEREST------when it's goal is killing all that is 99% sustainability
'but some truly do have the potential to disrupt the status quo, alter the way people live and work, and rearrange value pools'.
Report McKinsey Global Institute May 2013
Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy
By James Manyika, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Peter Bisson, and Alex Marrs
Twelve emerging technologies—including the mobile Internet, autonomous vehicles, and advanced genomics—have the potential to truly reshape the world in which we live and work. Leaders in both government and business must not only know what’s on the horizon but also start preparing for its impact.
The relentless parade of new technologies is unfolding on many fronts. Almost every advance is billed as a breakthrough, and the list of “next big things” grows ever longer. Not every emerging technology will alter the business or social landscape—but some truly do have the potential to disrupt the status quo, alter the way people live and work, and rearrange value pools. It is therefore critical that business and policy leaders understand which technologies will matter to them and prepare accordingly.
Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy, a report from the McKinsey Global Institute, cuts through the noise and identifies 12 technologies that could drive truly massive economic transformations and disruptions in the coming years. The report also looks at exactly how these technologies could change our world, as well as their benefits and challenges, and offers guidelines to help leaders from businesses and other institutions respond.
We estimate that, together, applications of the 12 technologies discussed in the report could have a potential economic impact between $14 trillion and $33 trillion a year in 2025. This estimate is neither predictive nor comprehensive. It is based on an in-depth analysis of key potential applications and the value they could create in a number of ways, including the consumer surplus that arises from better products, lower prices, a cleaner environment, and better health.
Some technologies detailed in the report have been gestating for years and thus will be familiar. Others are more surprising. Examples of the 12 disruptive technologies include:
Advanced robotics—that is, increasingly capable robots or robotic tools, with enhanced "senses," dexterity, and intelligence—can take on tasks once thought too delicate or uneconomical to automate. These technologies can also generate significant societal benefits, including robotic surgical systems that make procedures less invasive, as well as robotic prosthetics and "exoskeletons" that restore functions of amputees and the elderly.
Next-generation genomics marries the science used for imaging nucleotide base pairs (the units that make up DNA) with rapidly advancing computational and analytic capabilities. As our understanding of the genomic makeup of humans increases, so does the ability to manipulate genes and improve health diagnostics and treatments. Next-generation genomics will offer similar advances in our understanding of plants and animals, potentially creating opportunities to improve the performance of agriculture and to create high-value substances—for instance, ethanol and biodiesel—from ordinary organisms, such as E. coli bacteria.
Energy-storage devices or physical systems store energy for later use. These technologies, such as lithium-ion batteries and fuel cells, already power electric and hybrid vehicles, along with billions of portable consumer electronics. Over the coming decade, advancing energy-storage technology could make electric vehicles cost competitive, bring electricity to remote areas of developing countries, and improve the efficiency of the utility grid.
The potential benefits of the technologies discussed in the report are tremendous—but so are the challenges of preparing for their impact. If business and government leaders wait until these technologies are exerting their full influence on the economy, it will be too late to capture the benefits or react to the consequences. While the appropriate responses will vary by stakeholder and technology, we find that certain guiding principles can help businesses and governments as they plan for the effects of disruptive technologies.
- Business leaders should keep their organizational strategies updated in the face of continually evolving technologies, ensure that their organizations continue to look ahead, and use technologies to improve internal performance. Disruptive technologies can change the game for businesses, creating entirely new products and services, as well as shifting pools of value between producers or from producers to consumers. Organizations will often need to use business-model innovations to capture some of that value. Leaders need to plan for a range of scenarios, abandoning assumptions about where competition and risk could come from, and not be afraid to look beyond long-established models. Organizations will also need to keep their employees' skills up-to-date and balance the potential benefits of emerging technologies with the risks they sometimes pose.
- Policy makers can use advanced technology to address their own operational challenges (for example, by deploying the Internet of Things to improve infrastructure management). The nature of work will continue to change, and that will require strong education and retraining programs. To address challenges that the new technologies themselves will bring, policy makers can use some of those very technologies—for example, by creating new educational and training systems with the mobile Internet, which can also help address an ever-increasing productivity imperative to deliver public services more efficiently and effectively. To develop a more nuanced and useful view of technology’s impact, governments may also want to consider new metrics that capture more than GDP effects. This approach can help policy makers balance the need to encourage growth with their responsibility to look out for the public welfare as new technologies reshape economies and lives.
DISRUPTIVE ECONOMICS has as a goal of MOVING FORWARD disruptive human evolution ----GMO HUMANS. This is why we are seeing UBER-----morphing to DRIVERLESS VEHICLES----all having a goal of ending the ability of 99% WE THE PEOPLE's ability to easily move around. This is DISRUPTING what was freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness American economics of building infrastructure and products EVERYONE CAN USE-----and moving back to DARK AGES where 99% of citizens have no ability to move outside of their immediate living space.
THE QUANTIFIED HEALTH economics is that DISRUPTIVE ECONOMICS ending broad, quality of life, freedom to choose doctor and medical treatment and life style---to GMO HUMANS where everything our bodies do is recorded and made mega-data completed by internal NANOBOTS----MICROCHIPS-----external technology clothing. We will not be able to take A BREATHE without it being monitored.
THIS IS NOT BEING DONE FOR OUR PUBLIC INTEREST---IT IS BEING DONE BECAUSE GLOBAL BANKING 1% ARE FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, DICTATORS---LIKE CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
All these goals in ONE WORLD ONE MEDICINE was developed and goals set these few decades ----it is not TRUMP being the evil FOOL----we have allowed those global banking 5% neo-liberals and neo-cons be that SHIP OF FOOLS.
We are sure global banking 1% want to augment the reality of 99% WE THE PEOPLE for our ENTERTAINMENT AND LEISURE
'5. Augmented Reality
Last but not least are advances in display and audio technologies that enable users to experience real and imagined environments with ever-greater richness'.
Jan 9, 2015 @ 01:27 PM 167,628 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
The Five Most Disruptive Innovations At CES 2015
Paul Nunes and Larry Downes
Once again, we scoured the edges of the 2.2 million square feet of exhibit space at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show looking for what we call Big Bang Disruptors.
Those are the innovations that enter the market both better and cheaper than existing products or services, creating the greatest opportunity for dramatic--even catastrophic—success, and setting incumbents up for the biggest possible disruption.
As usual, we found plenty of disruptors—some from incumbents, some from start-ups, but all with the potential to cause big changes, many of which their developers almost certainly don’t intend.
Before we get to our five most disruptive innovations, a few general observations.
Our overall groupings of disruptors aren’t all that different from last year’s list. As many attendees we talked to agreed, this year was mostly though not entirely about more, better, faster, and cheaper rather than the introduction of entirely new technologies. Still, there were plenty of disruptive innovations worth highlighting. So without further ado:
1. Transportation - Autonomous Vehicles
Disruptive energy continues to emerge. Toyota’s Mirai hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which emits nothing but water, will go on sale this year in California. (When we wrote about it last year, it was just a concept.)
But the big news this year is the continued evolution of fully self-driving or “autonomous” vehicles. Their arrival is now just a matter of time, perhaps no more than a decade or two at most And, as with many big bang disruptions, we expect the transformation of transportation will continue to proceed gradually, and then, at some inflection point, suddenly.
The technology and cost for autonomous vehicles are almost ready for the mass market—with the real hold up being the regulators, who barely know how to begin rethinking a hundred years of safety, insurance, and traffic laws.
Unlike the awkward-looking prototypes of the first Google cars, the incumbent automotive companies (who fortunately already know more than a few things about disruptive innovation), are showing concept vehicles that will just look like cars, with the cameras, sensors, and other new technology hidden from view. Audi has a console that can be removed and replaced, like a tablet computer. VW will use ultrasonic technology to predict where you can find a parking space.
Now the question becomes what you will do when you’re not actually focused on driving. Mercedes demonstrated a vehicle, guestimated for 2030, whose side panels would all be flexible displays, turning the car into a theater for Infotainment, social media, and other information-intensive applications.
(The Mercedes-Benz F 015 concept car was a big hit with CES attendees)
2. Health and Fitness - The Quantified Self
There’s been an explosion since last year of new vendors and new applications that collect, report, and respond to information from the user’s own body, a trend that is sometimes referred to as “the quantified self.”
Although in many cases their component hardware is the same, and while most use phones and tablets for the user interface, right now these offerings are largely stand-alone point solutions for particular uses. Some are health related, some for improved fitness training. There are separate categories for seniors, people with disabilities, kids, and athletes, again using much of the same technology.
The overlaps can be surprising, even to the developers. The ReSound LiNX, for example, is a state-of-the-art hearing aid that is beautifully designed to be nearly invisible, with its controls moved to Apple and soon Android devices over a Bluetooth connection
Other than the price tag, which is $1,000 or $3,000 depending on the severity of a user’s hearing loss, the LiNX could easily substitute for earbuds and other listening technology, many of which themselves now include sensors to double as biometric trackers. The Dash from Bragi, for example, is a “hearable,” providing both an attractive wireless earphone (though much larger than the LiNX) and over fifteen sensors, tracking heart rate, respiration, oxygen saturation, and more.
At some point we believe all of these technologies will converge and rationalize, and when they do the result will be nothing short of a revolution in health care in the broadest sense, with patients shifting from passive to active participants in diagnosis, treatment, and preventive care. For an aging population in particular, this technology could add years to our ability to stay in our homes and defer the need for assisted living and home health care.
The earliest devices (back only a few years ago) took advantage of plentiful sensors from the exploding smartphone market—including accelerometers, magnetometers and gyroscopes--to track basic movement, count steps, and recognize when we were asleep.
But as more kinds of sensors become better, cheaper, and easily recombinable, the range and sophistication of human and environmental sensing has expanded dramatically. Today, you can get products that measure and report on a wide array of biometric data including glucose levels (iHealth), emotional state (Being by Zensorium), temperature (TempTraq and Pacif-i by Blue Maestro), sleep patterns (Sleep Number), pulse (Fitbit’s PurePulse), alcohol level (Alcohoot), weight (Withings), blood pressure (QardioArm by Qardio), and much more.
Each of these metrics has important applications. We wrote last year, for example, about technologies at CES’s Eureka Park, a special area for start-ups, aimed at improving the lives of patients with chronic medical conditions, and this year we found even more worth noting. Veristride, which we singled out in last year’s review, continues to make strides with inserts for shoes that can help stroke victims improve their walking.
This year we were impressed with UMoove, which is developing software-based eye tracking technology that uses the camera and processor already on a tablet to measure attention and focus. The company’s short-term goals are to diagnosis and help treat conditions such as ADHD and autism.
And Linx IAS has adapted technology it originally developed for the military to make a small sensor device that athletes can wear (with or without a helmet) to measure and report on impacts to a player’s head, giving coaches instant alerts about the possibility of concussions.
We were also impressed with Quell, an FDA-approved device that stimulates the brain to block pain receptors for patients with chronic conditions. The device is worn around the calf in a neoprene wrap and is approved for overnight use, and will sell for around $250 later this year. It performs similar functions (though not as specific) to existing devices that today must be surgically implanted at dramatically higher cost and risk. Better and cheaper technology could translate to a big bang disruption for the company.
3. Manufacturing – 3D Printing and Robotics
In the world of mass market 3D printing, the trend is for more, more, more—more vendors, more printing media, and more applications. The new kid on the show floor only a few years ago with just a few vendors showing expensive prototypes, this year boasted over fifty 3D printer vendors, many selling home products for under $300.
WHAT ARE 3D PRODUCTS? PLASTICS.
Industrial 3D printers have long been used to create manufacturing prototypes, but up until now the disruptive applications to go along with the rapid decline in price for the key components haven’t been obvious. Now the devices are increasingly being used for remote, just-in-time manufacturing and printing more sophisticated designs including customized prosthesis and 3D printed fashion.
Still, we’re just getting started with disruption of a wide range of manufactured goods and processes. This year, 3D printing pioneer MakerBot announced the availability of filaments (the basic plastic media used by the printers) that have integrated real-world materials including iron, bronze, maple and limestone. Printing objects with these new media can produce much more realistic looking and acting output, moving the technology closer to printing “real” items rather than plastic simulacra.
A company called Voxel 8, for example, will soon sell a 3D printer that can print electronic circuitry as part of an object—a true printed circuit—with the potential for making functioning electronic devices. Where will this end? In the future, 3D printers may be able to print more 3D printers.
Even more exciting were several new printers capable of using edible media to print actual food, one of the applications that has long been on the wish list of the 3D printing community. 3D Systems, another early industry leader, demonstrated the CoCoJet, which uses Hershey’s chocolate as its medium. “Ideal for the baker or chocolatier,” according to the company’s website, “the CocoJet prints custom designs in dark, milk or white chocolate.”
Even more impressive is the company’s ChefJet, due later this year, which will print with sugar or candy, examples of which were on ample display at the booth (we missed out on the offer of a sample). The ChefJet, with a large build volume, will allow cake decorators and candy makers to prepare elaborate designs and then print them, once or (hopefully) repeatedly.
Finally, we were impressed with a 3D printer that isn’t a printer at all, but rather a pen known as the 3Doodler, which has already sold over 100,000 units. As you draw, whether on a surface or not, the pen extrudes heated plastic filament, creating solid objects. If that’s hard even to imagine, then you’ve just experienced what makes big bang disruptions so unnerving.
Outside of 3D printing, the manufacturing innovation that most caught our attention was a start-up called Graphene Frontiers, which like many of the innovators in Eureka Park has received funding from the National Science Foundation.
Graphene is a form of carbon that is a single atom thick, which in sheets has been shown in the lab to have remarkable strength and conductivity. Graphene Frontiers has patented technology to mass produce the substance, and is working on ways to print it directly onto silicon wafers, where it might provide very low cost medical diagnostics when combined with specific antibodies. But applications in the life sciences are only the beginning. Graphene could prove to be the most important discovery of the early 21st century.
4. The Internet of Things
We declared last year to be the year when the Internet of Things—in which everyday items became fitted with the ability to collect, send, and receive information—finally became a reality. That was clearly the case with this year’s exhibits, which included very large companies including Samsung and Bosch and plenty of start-ups using the basic technology in surprising new ways. The theme for this year was everything connected to everything else, whether it made obvious sense to do so or not.
The shift from computers as computers to everything else as computers has already disrupted industry leaders. As recently as a few years ago, Intel’s very large booth in the Central Hall mostly focused on PCs and laptops that featured the company’s chips. But as the market for computers slows, the company has shifted its attention to the IoT, offering ever smaller and more powerful components that can be embedded into everything that isn’t already “smart.” Intel’s booth this year had hardly any traditional computers.
Similar to the health and fitness applications, the IoT solutions are so far more of the standalone variety, with little integration. (Several competing standards and platforms are still vying for dominance, as is typical for emerging technologies.)
That hasn’t stopped the innovators, however, and the general idea of the smart home has now given way to very specific applications for specific and previously dumb things. We saw smart air conditioners, outdoor grills, water bottles, locks, light bulbs, wallets (like the Wocket), shoes, forks, toothbrushes, glasses and pretty much every item you can think of.
One of the finalists for this year’s “Best of CES” products was a smart belt, known as the Belty, that senses when you’d had a big Las Vegas dinner and automatically loosens itself. (In theory, it can also get tighter, if that was ever necessary.)
Taken separately, these devices may not need much in the way of remote user control and may not offer much in the way of useful information that can be uploaded to computing devices and consolidated in the cloud. But once we put it all together on standardized platforms, the disruptive impact will cross many industries, including manufacturing, distribution, retailing, consumer products, agriculture and transportation. To name a few.
Among a long list of contenders, we were especially impressed by Parrot’s smart Pot, which has built-in sensors that measure temperature, moisture, sunlight and fertilizer level. When it’s time to take care of your plants, the pot lets you know by—you guessed it—communicating wirelessly with your smartphone or tablet. A related product can go directly into the ground for outdoor plants.
And Belkin’s WeMo line of smart home offerings, which we wrote about last year and extensively in our Big Bang Disruption book, continues to expand. This year, WeMo has finally integrated technology it acquired some years ago from a startup called Echo. New WeMo sensors and software are now in field trials that will expand the system to monitor water and power usage and identify from a single location, such as the breaker box, multiple devices and their individual performance.
The water sensor will analyze vibrations in the pipes to calculate and improve usage efficiency and to alert users to possible leaks. The electricity sensors, likewise, will identify waste, determine devices that need repair, and help improve the design of home security systems. In an era of growing sensitivity to the need for resources efficiency and sustainable practices, these technologies may provide a level of power and water management that is inconceivable today.
5. Augmented Reality
Last but not least are advances in display and audio technologies that enable users to experience real and imagined environments with ever-greater richness. Whether in the form of virtual reality goggles and earphones that provide immersive gaming experiences, or superimposed displays that augment the view out a car window, the continued decline in price, size, and power requirements for basic computing components continues to spark revolutionary change in the world of sensory input.
We first met up with the developers of the Oculus Rift, a prototype goggle for 3D gaming, at CES 2013. The start-up, founded by a community college student named Palmer Luckey with an obsession for military simulation hardware, had just completed a wildly successful Kickstarter fundaraising campaign and didn’t even have a booth on the show floor—the founders were demonstrating their proof-of-concept in a hotel suite which also doubled as a crashpad.
A year later, the company’s developer’s kit won best of show, and in March of last year Facebook acquired the company—still without a commercial product—for $2 billion. Bang!
For CES 2015, the company had a flashy and over-subscribed booth at the Convention Center where attendees waited in long lines to try out the latest prototype, known as Crescent Bay. Those who were skeptical about the remarkable value placed on the company by Facebook learned pretty quickly how a 3D immersive picture can be worth 2 billion words.
The company has set a high bar in both price and performance for future display technologies. And even without a commercial product, Oculus has disrupted industries well outside of gaming. Based on the prototype developer’s kit, other companies last year were demonstrating applications of the Oculus technology.
Middleware producer SoftKinetic, for example, attached depth and gesture recognition cameras onto the Oculus Rift, allowing the user’s hand motions to translate into real-time manipulation of objects in the 3D space. Intel is embedding SoftKinetic’s technology for what it calls RealSense, which could someday facilitate virtual design and other fine motor manipulations, including medical applications.
This year, we saw the Oculus technology in such unlikely places at Lowe’s and OnStar. Lowe’s was using it to demonstrate in-store design simulations for home improvements, while OnStar applied it for demonstrations of new in-vehicle experience.
Competitors, naturally, have also appeared, including Razer, which announced an open source virtual reality headset in hopes will prove easier for third parties to integrate. The device will sell later this year for about $200.
Like Lynx, Quell, and even Oculus, many of the most disruptive innovations we found this year, as in previous years, fall squarely into the early market experiment stage of Big Bang Disruption. Some–perhaps most of them–will never make it to mainstream success. But even those that don’t succeed send a strong signal to incumbents of imminent disruption when some entrepreneur hits on the right combination of new technologies and business models.
That is, for incumbents who are listening. As the number of innovators working with new technologies continues to expand, that better include everybody.
See you next year.
Here we have global banking media outlet again confusing 99% WE THE PEOPLE with what are REAL scientific terms tied to EVOLUTION and MOVING FORWARD technology economics ending all our modern several century's of all 99% of citizens being involved in business and economic development---to all 99% of citizens being PUSHED OUT of global economics and business.
Below we see the mantra of far-right wing global banking 1% OUR REVOLUTION-----tied to MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE-----this is the FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 'populists' being sold as LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS.
'REVOLUTION is defined as forcible overthrow for an entirely new system…drastic, disruptive, far-reaching, momentous change'.
These are 5% players living for today not caring that their families will not be MOVING FORWARD with these global 1% and their EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION.
So, national media tries to sell global banking DISRUPTIVE ECONOMICS as the new DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION creating talking points to make 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens think they are included in a GOOD WAY in this economy when in fact they are slated to be those GMO HUMANS.
Evolutionary innovation------not DARWIN'S disruptive natural evolution.
EVERYDAY INVENTIVE BLOG™
Revolutionary Vs. Evolutionary Innovation
by Kirsten Osolind | Wednesday, August 29th, 2012
BLOG Debunking Innovation Theories, Innovation (general), Innovation News
Last week, author Ralph Ohr wrote a blog post titled, “Evolutionary and Revolutionary Innovation” in response to recent discussions with RE:INVENTION and a blog post written by RE:INVENTION CEO’s former Entrepreneur Magazine editor, Rieva Lesonsky.
In his post, Ralph suggested that companies must pursue both revolutionary and evolutionary innovation to survive. He postulates that evolutionary innovation focuses on orientation towards today’s customers and revolutionary innovation focuses on orientation of tomorrow’s customers. That only revolutionary innovation is associated with uncertainty.
Hat tip to both Ralph and Rieva for their thought-provoking blog posts. With respect, we disagree. We must own a different dictionary. Authors and academics often amuse us with their semantics and misuse of terms.
HERE’S OUR RESPONSE…..
EVOLUTION (the definition of the word by way of Freedictionary.com) is defined as gradual change, adaptation, progression, metamorphosis.
REVOLUTION is defined as forcible overthrow for an entirely new system…drastic, disruptive, far-reaching, momentous change.
So let’s apply these definitions to the concept of innovation. BOTH evolutionary innovation and revolutionary innovation need to focus on orientation of today’s customers AND tomorrow’s customers to gain traction. BOTH evolutionary innovation and revolutionary innovation are fed by visionary foresight. BOTH are connected to high uncertainty.
Not all firms need both (or can/must manage both).
The Advantages of Evolutionary Innovation
EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION mounts challenging hill after hill at an even pace, day after day. Evolutionary innovation plans for the world as it could be and begins calculated migration to new ideas while understanding the world as it is today. Revolutionary innovation (particularly unmitigated, first or speed to market revolutionary innovation) can deplete energy and resources; akin to climbing a hill comprised of Confectioner’s sugar. Frenetic pacing over unstable, dramatically varied terrain – forcing change for a new system or idea prematurely while ignoring the realities of today’s market — is a lot more challenging.
We can point to numerous examples where evolution worked and revolution failed in the automotive, energy, technology, and transportation industries. For more, see: http://bit.ly/Nawald. Proof that non-linear or revolutionary innovations do not always achieve the most significant advances.
Revolutionary innovation (speed or first to market concepts) is only optimal under the following conditions: high performance products, long product lifecycles, a relatively long window of market opportunity, relatively high sales, stable margins, and relatively flat development costs. Only given these conditions, can companies generate sufficient revenue to offset the increased costs incurred with speed to market and revolutionary innovation.
– Source: “Speed to Market and New Product Performance Tradeoffs,” Journal of Product Innovation Management
There are really only three scenarios in which first to market revolutionary innovation can guarantee a sustainable advantage: (1) if you can secure ironclad patent protection (2) if you can set a proprietary industry standard, or (3) if you can use your lead to establish such a beachhead that even if better options become available, your customers will find it too much of a hassle to switch. In nearly all other cases, best beats first.
– Source: Jim Collins, “Good to Great”
Companies that EVOLVE AND REFINE an innovation tend to achieve greater stock value gains than the original company disruptor. More: http://bit.ly/QNhRWM.
– Source: National Bureau of Economic Research
Lest we forget: the iPod was not the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn’t the first smartphone, and the iPad wasn’t the first tablet. Apple ENHANCES. Apple EVOLVES ideas. The idea that Apple is a disruptive, revolutionary innovator is pure bunk. In the words of the always brilliant, Patrick Thibodeau (Computerworld’s senior editor): “the iPad is about as innovative as the toaster.”
Apple excels at EVOLUTION.
Inventors disrupt; most companies evolve. Companies that try to “disrupt” (take for instance, biotech startups) rarely commercialize anything at all. Their company or product is acquired by a company that can bring the idea to market. Yes there are outliers, but they are few and far between. And that’s OK.
The reality is that most successful companies out-execute the competition with a new twist on an existing product or service *OR* they are better-equipped to commercialize an invention than the original inventor. Companies should see competition as an opportunity to improve products and customer service. Connecting with customers in the marketplace should be the ultimate goal, not speed to market or “revolutionary innovation.” Quick pause: the word “should” makes us shudder, so let’s say it in a different way. Companies are generally better off when they focus on people, action and impact rather than technology and “innovation.” That’s basic good business. It’s amazing how many companies fail at the basics. Get the basics right and you can build a sustainable business. People (customers and employees) drive company prosperity and change the world for good.
DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION because it required rapid physical changes saw few plants and animals of a species able to adapt and died. This is from where the term SURVIVAL OF FITTEST derived. This is the term as well embraced by EUGENICS-----the idea of global banking 1% is to create these economic and societal structures that only the strongest can survive. Remember, the global banking 1% have only the talent of LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING----no genius at all. All of this EUGENICS tied to race, gender, class, creed is all propaganda to advance wealth and power for a particular global 1%. Our OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% Europeans are great big FOOLS thinking they are superior. So, too the Asian global 1%---the Arabic global 1%.
This all ties into the corruption of REAL scientific DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION. Global banking 1% are selling to those dastardly 5% freemason/Greek players that they are in a race to be SURVIVAL OF FITTEST----when the goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% ----allows NO ONE to be THE FITTEST.
FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, SMART CITIES pretends to be left -----pretends to create altruism through CORPORATE PATRONAGE AND CHARITY when in fact it is far-right LIBERTARIAN MARXISM----MAO'S CHINA/STALIN'S USSR/HITLER'S SUPREME RACE....all corporate fascism for the global 1%.
Scientific American sadly left the realm of REAL science peer reviewed public interest science along with NATURE AND SCIENCE. We are being told to relax as MOVING FORWARD unfolds----it will be all good.
The EUGENICS of MOVING FORWARD comes from the same place thousands of years of OLD WORLD rich thinking they are the best----same today with global banking 1%-----the genetic manipulations are tied to building humans as products to do work of future. No supreme race happening.
Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts
A psychologist probes how altruism, Darwinism and neurobiology mean that we can succeed by not being cutthroat.
Why do people do good things? Is kindness hard-wired into the brain, or does this tendency arise via experience? Or is goodness some combination of nature and nurture?
Dacher Keltner, director of the Berkeley Social Interaction Laboratory, investigates these questions from multiple angles, and often generates results that are both surprising and challenging. In his new book, Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life, Keltner weaves together scientific findings with personal narrative to uncover the innate power of human emotion to connect people with each other, which he argues is the path to living the good life. Keltner was kind enough to take some time out to discuss altruism, Darwinism, neurobiology and practical applications of his findings with David DiSalvo.
DISALVO: You have a book that was just released called Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life. What in a nutshell does the term “born to be good” mean to you, and what are you hoping people learn from reading the book?
KELTNER: “Born to be good” for me means that our mammalian and hominid evolution have crafted a species—us—with remarkable tendencies toward kindness, play, generosity, reverence and self-sacrifice, which are vital to the classic tasks of evolution—survival, gene replication and smooth functioning groups. These tendencies are felt in the wonderful realm of emotion—emotions such as compassion, gratitude, awe, embarrassment and mirth. These emotions were of interest to Darwin, and Darwin-inspired studies have revealed that our capacity for caring, for play, for reverence and modesty are built into our brains, bodies, genes and social practices. My hopes for potential readers are numerous. I hope they learn about the remarkable wisdom of Darwin and the wonders of the study of emotion. I hope they come to look at human nature in a new light, one that is more hopeful and sanguine. I hope they may see the profoundly cooperative nature of much of our daily social living.
DISALVO: You’ve said that one of the inspirations for your work was Charles Darwin’s insights into human goodness. Because most people equate his name with “survival of the fittest,” it’ll probably be surprising to many that Darwin focused on goodness at all. What were a few of your take aways from Darwin’s work that really inspired you?
KELTNER: What an important question. We so often assume both in the scientific community, and in our culture at large, that Darwin thought humans were violent and competitive and self-interested in their natural state. That is a misrepresentation of what Darwin actually believed, and where the evolutionary study of human goodness is going.
My take aways from Darwin are twofold, and as you suggest above, I was surprised as well in arriving at an understanding of Darwin’s view of human nature. The first take away is found in Descent of Man, where Darwin argues that we are a profoundly social and caring species. This idea is reflected in the two quotes below, where Darwin argues that our tendencies toward sympathy are instinctual and evolved (and not some cultural construct as so many have assumed), and even stronger (or perhaps more ethical—see his observation about the “timid man” below) than the instinct for self-preservation:
“For firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of his fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them. … Such actions as the above appear to be the simple result of the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts than that of any other instinct or motive; for they are performed too instantaneously for reflection, or for pleasure or even misery might be felt. In a timid man, on the other hand, the instinct of self-preservation might be so strong, that he would be unable to force himself to run any such risk, perhaps not even for his own child.”
The second take away comes from close study of Darwin’s Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals, published one year after Descent of Man. There, Darwin details descriptions of emotions such as reverence, love, tenderness, laughter, embarrassment and the conceptual tools to document the evolutionary origins of these emotions. That led me to my own work on the physiology and display of these remarkable emotions, and to the science-based conclusion that these emotions lie at the core of our capacities for virtue and cooperation.
DISALVO: You recently wrote an article with the provocative title “In Defense of Teasing.” Because we’re ostensibly a society set against teasing in any form (school, workplace, and so on), what do you think teasing has to offer that we might be missing?
KELTNER: Teasing is the art of playful provocation, of using our playful voices and bodies to provoke others to avoid inappropriate behaviors. Marc Bekoff, a biologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, has found in remarkable work with coyotes that they sort out leaders from aggressive types in their rough-and-tumble biting. The coyotes that bite too hard in such provocative play are relegated to low status positions. We likewise accomplish so much with the right kind of teasing.
Teasing (in the right way, which is what most people do) offers so much. It is a way to play and express affection. It is a way of negotiating conflicts at work and in the family. Teasing exchanges teach children how to use their voices in innumerable ways—such an important medium of communication. In teasing, children learn boundaries between harm and play. And children learn empathy in teasing, and how to appreciate others’ feelings (for example, in going too far). And in teasing we have fun. All of this benefit is accomplished in this remarkable modality of play.
DISALVO: Your team at U.C. Berkley has done a lot of interesting research on the vagus nerve and its association with altruistic feelings. Tell us a bit about this research and its implications for better understanding the nature of altruism.
KELTNER: The vagus nerve is part of the parasympathetic autonomic nervous system. It is a bundle of nerves that originates in the top of the spinal cord, it activates different organs throughout the body (heart, lungs, liver, digestive organs). When active, it is likely to produce that feeling of warm expansion in the chest, for example when we are moved by someone’s goodness or when we appreciate a beautiful piece of music. University of Illinois, Chicago, psychiatrist Steve Porges long ago argued that the vagus nerve is a care-taking organ in the body (of course, it serves many other functions as well). Several reasons justify this claim. The vagus nerve is thought to stimulate certain muscles in the vocal chamber, enabling communication. It reduces heart rate. Very new science suggests that it may be closely connected to oxytocin receptor networks. And it is unique to mammals.
Our research and that of other scientists suggests that the vagus nerve may be a physiological system that supports caretaking and altruism. We have found that activation of the vagus nerve is associated with feelings of compassion and the ethical intuition that humans from different social groups (even adversarial ones) share a common humanity. People who have high vagus nerve activation in a resting state, we have found, are prone to feeling emotions that promote altruism—compassion, gratitude, love, happiness. Arizona State University psychologist Nancy Eisenberg has found that children with elevated vagal tone (high baseline vagus nerve activity) are more cooperative and likely to give. This area of study is the beginning of a fascinating new argument about altruism—that a branch of our nervous system evolved to support such behavior.
DISALVO: Oftentimes we learn about intriguing academic work being done on emotions, morality and related areas, but are left asking, “OK, but how do we do any of this? Is there anything we can make actual use of here?” Looking down the road, what do you want the impact of your work to be out in the world?
KELTNER: I have always felt that our science is only as good as the truthful rendition of reality that it provides and the good that it brings to our species. In summarizing the new science of emotion in Born To Be Good, I was struck by how useful this science is. The ancient approaches to ethics and virtue—for example, found in Aristotle or Confucius—privileged things such as compassion, gratitude and reverence. A new science of virtue and morality is suggesting that our capacities for virtue and cooperation and our moral sense are old in evolutionary terms, and found in emotions that I write about in Born To Be Good.
And a new science of happiness is finding that these emotions can be readily cultivated in familiar ways, bringing out the good in others and in oneself. Here are some recent empirical examples:
Meditating on a compassionate approach to others shifts resting brain activation to the left hemisphere, a region associated with happiness, and boosts immune functions.
Talking about areas of gratitude, in classrooms, at the dinner table or in the diary, boosts happiness and social well-being and health.
Experiences of reverence in nature or around morally inspiring others improves people’s sense of connection to others and sense of purpose.
Laughing and playing in the face of trauma gives the person perspective upon life’s inevitable difficulties, and improves resilience and adjustment.
Devoting resources to others, rather than indulging a materialist desire, brings about lasting well being.
This kind of science gives me many hopes for the future. At the broadest level, I hope that our culture shifts from a consumption-based, materialist culture to one that privileges the social joys (play, caring, touch, mirth) that are our older (in the evolutionary sense) sources of the good life. In more specific terms, I see this new science informing practices in almost every realm of life. Here again are some well-founded examples. Medical doctors are now receiving training in the tools of compassion—empathetic listening, warm touch—that almost certainly improve basic health outcomes. Teachers now regularly teach the tools of empathy and respect. Executives are learning the wisdom around the country of emotional intelligence—respect, building trust—that there is more to a company’s thriving than profit or the bottom line. In prisons and juvenile detention centers, meditation is being taught.
Our STEM HUMANIST crowd ---those dastardly 5% freemason/Greeks have been sold a bill of goods with all this DARWINIST SURVIVAL OF FITTEST in MOVING FORWARD.
DARWIN'S evolutionary theories were tied to animal evolution ------up to but not including primate/human species. DARWIN did not coin the phrase SURVIVAL OF FITTEST for humans. Today's mad dash to be 5% WINNERS is tied to this SURVIVAL OF FITTEST------natural evolutionary survival---when the goals of global banking 1% have always been MANUFACTURED GMO HUMANS. Global 1% do not want natural human strength---they are killing it. Remember, the OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS always threw the strongest of enemy to the lions.
Below we see an article written in global banking 1% hyper neo-liberal mecca---UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO press. We know HODGSON is that OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 5% so we do not take his academic writing to heart-----we look for what he is hiding.
So, here we see who is PROPAGANDIZING AND CORRUPTING REAL DARWIN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY MOVING FORWARD DISRUPTIVE ECONOMICS
'The authors, professors at the University of Hertfordshire Business School and the University of Southern Denmark, maintain that Darwinian ideas have been applied to economics “in crude form”. Economists and business gurus have stressed ideas such as competition and individualism, to the point where “survival of the fittest” has become something of a mantra'.
NEVER look for analysis of social science from far-right global banking economic academics! It appears Hodgson is promoting kindness and docility in our 99% WE THE PEOPLE as global banking is getting ready to MOVE FORWARD brutal societal conditions.
Review by Morgan Witzel November 3, 2010
Darwin’s Conjecture The Search for General Principles of Social and Scientific Evolution
By Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen University of Chicago Press, $45/ £29
Few thinkers have had quite the same impact as Charles Darwin. His theory of evolution was so powerful and compelling that it became the new orthodoxy, affecting how we think about many aspects of our lives. Not least of these influences has been on the way we do business. So-called social Darwinism has played an important role in shaping our understanding of economics, markets and organisations. For example, when discussing business organisations we often speak of them “adapting” and “evolving” to meet conditions in their changing “environment”, as if our business organisations were some sort of Galápagos seabird and not large and highly complex institutions. When, during the recent crisis, many companies failed, it was easy for us to explain this in Darwinian terms. These failed businesses were weak: according to the law of “survival of the fittest”, they had been selected out. The business world is a jungle, a harsh environment in which only the strong can adapt and survive. Or so our thinking often goes. But do these “Darwinian” notions about business have any real grounding in Darwin’s own theory?
According to Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen, the answer is largely no. Nevertheless, Darwin’s theories can be extremely important in helping us to understand how organisations, institutions and markets change. Rather than picking bits out of the Darwinian corpus and adapting them to suit our own purposes – or to fit our own preconceptions – we need to look at his theory as a whole. This is not a book about business, but it is a book that business people should read in order to understand business. It is a scholarly and profound work of relevance to all the social sciences, and there are times when the lay reader will be glad for the glossary thoughtfully provided at the end of the book.
Its primary value for the business reader is to expose some of the fallacies connected with Darwinism that have grown up over the years, and re-examine our ideas. The authors, professors at the University of Hertfordshire Business School and the University of Southern Denmark, maintain that Darwinian ideas have been applied to economics “in crude form”. Economists and business gurus have stressed ideas such as competition and individualism, to the point where “survival of the fittest” has become something of a mantra. As a result, key Darwinian ideas such as mutual aid, sympathy and co-operation have often been ignored by later writers on business and economics. The authors remind us of these overlooked theories, and challenge the idea that Darwinism offers such easy solutions as “survival of the fittest” in any case.
“Darwinism as such provides no single model or axiomatic system,” they say. “There is no simple explanation of why some organisations prosper and others fail.” Darwin’s theory rests on three simple principles: variation, selection, and replication or inheritance. Of the three, it is inheritance that has received most attention in recent years thanks to advances in genetics. And in business we sometimes talk of organisations as “inheriting” characteristics in the same way that people do, or having an “organisational DNA” as part of their cultures. But as the authors point out, this is a fallacy. Organisations do not have genes, nor is their method of evolving comparable to replication. There is, they say, no comparison between organisations and people on this level. Instead, when we consider how organisations change, we need to look at all three principles: the variation in types of organisation, the factors for why some organisations work better in some environments than others, and then how organisations change and grow. Competition exists, of course, they write, but it is only one factor out of many. One key lesson from this book is that we need to consider more closely how businesses interact and depend on each other, even when they are also in direct competition. Rather than seeing markets as arenas for combat, we should consider them as complex systems, with companies linked together through that system.
Recognising, perhaps, that businesses need to think less about competition and more about co-operation, the latter might offer better prospects for long-term survival. More generally, we need to remember that markets and businesses are infinitely more complex than we like to think they are. The authors do not shy away from complexity; indeed, they hint in the conclusion that we need more of it in our thinking about business. The authors conclude that Darwin’s theory of evolution can be a rich source of inspiration and understanding for modern social scientists, economists and business people. They are critical of those who shy away from Darwin’s theories as being somehow too difficult to understand and those who treat the theory as a pick ‘n’ mix – helping themselves to the bits they like and discarding the rest. One needs to understand the whole theory in order to see how evolution really works.
This book is written from the INSIDER of GMO HUMANS-----so we would need to understand it does not address goals or allow for open discussion of what societal dystopia will really look like
'A Crack in Creation'
: Jennifer Doudna's CRISPR memoir is ...
The prospect of a memoir from Jennifer Doudna, a key player in the CRISPR story, quickens the pulse. And A Crack in Creation does indeed deliver a welcome perspective on the revolutionary genome-editing technique that puts the power of evolution into human hands..... So far, the Broad Institute has controlled the CRISPR narrative.