In its winter issue, <\/span>New Humanist<\/span><\/i> examines the questionable ideologies of wealthy tech-industry patrons. While organizations like Elon Musk\u2019s Neuralink are developing products that could potentially revolutionize healthcare, innovation is outpacing regulation, raising serious ethical questions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Journalist Peter Ward delves into the rising popularity of effective altruism and longtermism \u2013 gatekeeping ideologies, which have become guiding principles for some of the world\u2019s most powerful companies. Ward asks whether the radical ideas of these movements represent a threat to society.<\/span><\/p>\n Effective altruism, while purporting to save lives in developing countries through large donations to charitable organizations, \u2018ignores the many complexities of aid\u2019, writes Ward, \u2018skimming over unintended consequences\u2019 and ignoring quality of life. The fraud and money-laundering case against crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, who strategically shared his wealth, damaged the reputation of effective altruism, writes Ward. And yet, despite such demonstrations of its ethical limitations, the philosophy has already taken firm root in university campuses and globally influential businesses.<\/span><\/p>\n Longtermism, meanwhile, which aims to protect future generations, has effectively been hijacked by tech giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, who \u2018believe the key to ensuring the safe evolution of \u2026 technology is \u2013 conveniently \u2013 that they undertake the development themselves\u2019, writes Ward.<\/span><\/p>\n His critique continues: the ideology\u2019s single-minded focus exposes it to accusations of ignoring present concerns such as poverty and climate change; the longtermism community\u2019s links to the transhumanist movement, which promotes the modification of humans with technology, and its \u2018obsession with IQ and intelligence\u2019 hint at eugenicist beliefs; and its mega-rich philanthropists with outsized political influence threaten to undermine the democratic process.<\/span><\/p>\n Ethical concerns also lie at the heart of science writer Moheb Costandi\u2019s research into the cyborg. In contextualizing the growing use of Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), Costandi recognizes that the implantable chips are dramatically improving the lives of people with spinal cord injuries or neurological disease by facilitating communication and partial rehabilitation. The devices could also be used in the treatment of a whole range of neurological conditions, from epilepsy to depression and possibly even Alzheimer\u2019s disease. But these applications are still at early stages of development and results are mixed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Meanwhile, \u2018wearable BCIs, which don\u2019t require a surgical procedure, are increasingly available on the market, often with ambitious claims and little regulation\u2019, writes Costandi. Elon Musk\u2019s Neuralink, which in just eight years has become one of the leaders in the field, has set its sights on creating BCIs for healthy people. Musk\u2019s ambition is to develop commercialized devices that can be used by millions to enhance the power of the human brain and boost physical abilities.<\/span><\/p>\n While much of this technological progress should be welcomed, Costandi cautions that there is a crucial difference between assisting those with disabilities and augmenting the capabilities of healthy people. \u2018While the field progresses in leaps and bounds,\u2019 writes Costandi, \u2018there are questions about how the research is being conducted\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Concerns abound over participant selection, privacy and personal data security, as well as the social disruption that could result from a person\u2019s feeling of control over their behaviour, or perhaps even their sense of identity, being changed. \u2018While BCIs have revolutionary potential\u2019, writes Costandi, \u2018strict regulation and proper data governance are urgently needed to ensure that the technology is used safely and equitably\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n Elsewhere in the issue, Peter Salmon explores the ongoing obsession with blood transfusions as a way of extending human life or halting the ageing process. The <\/span>New Humanist<\/span><\/i> regular documents the history<\/span> of blood transfusion, from the first experiments in the seventeenth century<\/span> to the first human-to-human transfusion in 1818 and Soviet scientist Alexander Bogdanov\u2019s ill-fated experiments with \u2018young blood\u2019 in 1928<\/span>.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Bogdanov, who died of a hemolytic transfusion reaction, was a believer in <\/span>Cosmism, a socialist utopian philosophy which saw it as mankind\u2019s ethical duty not only to cure the sick but also to conquer death. The socialist\u2019s ideas have seen a resurgence in popularity among billionaires who embrace transhumanism, embodied by the likes of tech mogul Bryan Johnson and the start-up company Ambrosia<\/span>, <\/b>which offers<\/span> \u2018young blood transfusions\u2019<\/span> at a price only the super-rich can afford.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Yet Salmon echoes Ward\u2019s concerns about transhumanism. Today\u2019s tech billionaires and longevity proponents ignore altruistic concerns in favour of a capitalist model of innovation, separating the rich from the poor. \u2018While benefits for humankind are touted,\u2019 Salmon warns, \u2018it is generally an extreme form of individualism that is front and centre\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.eurozine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Skarmavbild-2025-01-10-kl.-10.00.37-1024x721.png\")
<\/p>\nGatekeepers of wellbeing<\/h2>\n
Tech on the brain<\/h2>\n
Vein men<\/h2>\n