This Is How Thoroughly Rotten and Corrupt Hong Kong's Current Government Is

When I read Hong Kong leader C.Y. Leung’s statements to the foreign media, I think, “He really needs to sack his PR guy.” Whether he believes what he is saying or not, we know that he is mouthing the party line because to control Hong Kong, the Communist Party requires the maintenance of the current system.

Although the path along which our political development was supposed to run was the eventual abolition of functional constituencies, not a single step has ever been taken towards dismantling them since 1997. And why would a constituency of vested interests take any step towards removing the source of their political power?

C.Y. inadvertently pointed this out with his reference to the sports community. According to him, they would not have been on his radar screen but for the fact that they have representatives on the Election Committee. That he got his facts wrong is neither here nor there (There are 15 representatives of the sports sub-sector on the Election Committee — not 20).

The point is that it is essential for someone who aspires to be Chief Executive to glad-hand enough people who are on the Election Committee to ensure his election. This is where the election is stitched up with back-room deals. This is where the pork-barrel politics takes place. Only some pigs are more equal than others. Out of the 1,200 members of the Election Committee, precisely 35 members represent the general voting public, namely the 35 members of the Legislative Council who are returned through direct elections from geographical constituencies. Any aspiring candidate can safely ignore them as he can get by without their support but the various special interest groups that make up the rest of the Election Committee have to be assiduously courted and wooed.

Since the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress is that the number of members, composition and formation method of the nominating committee shall be made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the Election Committee for the Fourth Chief Executive (namely C.Y. Leung), the glad-handing remains essential to become one of the two or three candidates that the nominating committee will nominate. Except this time, to become a candidate, it will be necessary to secure the endorsement of more than half of all members of the nominating committee.

The Election Committee consists of four sectors. The First Sector consists of seventeen subsectors all of which have corporations or associations of various kinds as voters. Nine out of the seventeen sub-sectors have no natural persons as voters and out of those that have individuals as voters as well, in four of them, the individuals are way outnumbered by the corporate voters. Individual voters have to be permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) but corporate voters can be wholly under the control of persons who are not permanent residents. So much for foreign interference in our internal affairs.

As we know, there are many businesses set up by mainland interests in Hong Kong. They just have to appoint a dummy who is a Hong Kong permanent resident to go and vote on their behalf for the representative of their choice. It is also possible to buy up the controlling interests over corporations with votes. Those with controlling interests in different businesses have multiple representations through having corporate votes in different sub-sectors. Most of the representation is decided without any sub-sector election.

This what the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress considers to be “balanced participation.” The most extreme example of this so-called balance is the electorate of the Agriculture and Fisheries sub-sector whose corporate voters, all 159 of them, have 61 representatives on the Election Committee whereas the 3,466,201 ordinary registered electors have 35 representatives on the Election Committee. Yes, the Agriculture and Fisheries sub-sector had no election, with all representatives being returned uncontested. And more than half of the electorate in that sub-sector simply have their names listed in the legislation. There are no objective criteria provided in the legislation setting out the qualifications for being a voter. You could say that the Government of the HKSAR gets to appoint the voters.

To Beijing and C.Y., it is completely acceptable not to have equal representation in the nomination committee “because you would be talking to the half of the people who earn less than US$1,800 a month.” Apart from the bone-headed assumption that all people within a certain income bracket would vote in a particular way, he ignores the facts that the vested interests make demands for their support. The community at large has already had to pay the ransom demanded by the transport industry for taking filthy polluting vehicles off the road at some time in the future.

With such a thoroughly rotten and corrupt system, is it surprising that the majority of the general voting public want the option of nomination by citizen voters instead of nomination by a rigged nomination committee? Is it at all surprising that so many thousands, young, middle-aged and old, have turned out into the streets to repudiate this vision of their future and refuse to yield up the public areas they have occupied, despite pepper spray, tear gas and the violence unleashed on them? When there is no prospect of constitutional change to the institutionalized inequality in our political system, which nakedly favors vested interests, what other option is there?

Jon Stewart Skewers Koch Brothers For Buying Ad Time During 'The Daily Show'

John Stewart is not a huge fan of Koch Industries’ latest round of commercials. So after the company bought advertising time “The Daily Show,” Stewart created a revised, in his opinion more accurate, version of the spot.

The original commercial — which features smiling workers and a crawling baby –emphasizes the Kochs’ origins in the “heartland,” noting that the company “[builds] on each other’s ideas to create more opportunities for people everywhere.” Stewart detailed the brothers’ history using their extreme wealth to back conservative causes through dark money organizations, before offering up his own adjustments: “We’re Koch industries, the next generation of Robber Barons,” the new ad said. “Bending the democratic process to our will since 1980.”

Gold Moto 360 Pulled Shortly After It Surfaced On Amazon

moto 360 gold
It has been a while since Motorola’s Moto 360 smartwatch has been up for purchase though availability has proven to be tricky. The Moto 360 is regarded as one of the most beautiful smartwatches one can buy today given that its round design has received praised from most of the public. Those holding out for a gold color option would have been ecstatic to learn that it did become available on Amazon, but was pulled shortly after.

The product page that went live showed a gold colored Moto 360 smartwatch with a choice of 18mm or 23mm metal strap. Initially Motorola only sold the smartwatch in silver and black with leather straps, those waiting for the metal straps were told to stay put until the fall.

Before the product page was pulled it listed the Moto 360 with 18mm and 23mm strap at a $299 price with shipments expected to take place between 1 to 2 months. No explanation was provided as to why this was done and it is unclear right now if and when the gold color option for Moto 360 is going to surface once again.

Metal bands may soon be launched as well seeing as how we’re already well into the fall. Motorola will sell them with the smartwatch itself or as an accessory for those that have already picked up the Moto 360 at $80 a pop.

Gold Moto 360 Pulled Shortly After It Surfaced On Amazon

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

The Top 11 Hilarious Wedding Moments Caught on Film

Your wedding day is real. Warts and all. In this era of glamorized music video style wedding videos, there’s a lot of reality TV going on in the background at your wedding. Think about all those wedding reality shows. The entertaining part is not the ceremony itself. It’s the wedding preparation, DIY disasters and late night reception antics. And the interviews with the guests. Those painfully blunt guests.

While the cinematic wedding videos can be a beautiful way to remember the day, why not also celebrate the hilarity of your wedding day bloopers? Riding a mechanical bull in your wedding dress may not make the cut of the music video — but it sure will be funny to watch on your anniversary.

1. The Groom Twerking to Gangnam Style
Drunk, married and ready to twerk. (See the full video here)
2014-10-28-groomtwerkinggangnam.gif

2. Or a Random Baby Crashing Your Wedding Vows
Probably the world’s youngest wedding crasher.
2014-10-28-BabyInterruptingGIF.gif

3. This Epic High Five to Seal the Deal
You wish you could be this awesome.
2014-10-28-Highfivegif2.gif

4. The Groom Dancing on a Groomsmen Shoulders
“Jump On It” was most definitely the song playing.
2014-10-28-ShoulderDancing.gif

5. Stage Diving Into a Crowd of Your Fans
The bride is like, “Please don’t drop him I JUST married him…”
2014-10-28-StageDive.gif

6. The Drunkest Guy At Your Reception
I’m still trying to figure out why he took off his pants.
2014-10-28-Drunkguy3.gif

7. This Hilarious and AMAZING Groomsmen Dance…
It takes a very secure group of men to move like that.
2014-10-28-GroomDance.gif

8. …And the Rebuttal From the Bridal Party
Obviously.
2014-10-28-bridalrebuttaldance.gif

9. This Awkwardly “Intimate” First Dance
How romantic….?
2014-10-28-AwkwardSexualGif.gif

10. Your Grandpa Dancing Like This
It’s easy to dance like no one is watching when your eyesight is failing.
2014-10-28-GrandpaDancing.gif


11. Riding A Mechanical Bull In Your Wedding Dress

Good practice for the wedding night!
2014-10-28-MechanicalBULL.gif

Bonus:
Don’t you want your guests to be like THIS at the end of your reception?

2014-10-28-Cheeering2.gif

Ariane Fisher writes at the WeddingMix blog about all things DIY wedding video. To get useful tips for turning those photos and videos from your wedding planning, big day and honeymoon into a fun memento, follow her blog.

Sony Acknowledges PS4 Software 2.0 Issues

ps4

The much awaited system software version 2.0 was released recently for the PlayStation 4 but it appears to be plagued with bugs. We reported yesterday how a large number of users have been facing problems ever since they updated the software on their console, with some even finding their console permanently in “rest mode.” Sony has acknowledged the issues and is currently investigating the matter.

Standby mode has been renamed to “rest mode” in this update and if the console is put in this mode many find that it doesn’t get out of it. Some users have also report bugs with the YouTube app for PlayStation 4.

For now Sony suggests that PS4 owners boot into safe mode when updating the console’s software. Currently it is investigating the matter and will share more information when the time comes. It hasn’t said how long it would take for a fix to be developed so that the consoles can be brought back to life.

In the meantime Sony suggests that those who have already updated to version 2.0 on their PS4 should avoid putting the console in “rest mode” and instead go with the “turn PS4 off” option.

The aforementioned mode is used to put the console in a low power state in which it can not only charge the controllers but also download content such as games, movies, TV shows and more. So until a fix is issued PS4 owners have to keep the console powered on while the content downloads, or turn it off and resume download at another time.

Sony Acknowledges PS4 Software 2.0 Issues

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

CAT S50 Smartphone Arrives Stateside

cat s50While it is nice to see smartphone manufacturers take the initiative to come up with tough looking handsets, not to mention making them more durable in the presence of water, such as the Sony Xperia Z3, this does not mean that such handsets are so durable and tough, they will be able to survive any kind of drops and knocks. No sir, but there are some highly specialized phones out there like the CAT S50 that are tough as nails. First unveiled at this year’s IFA expo, the CAT S50 has now crossed the Atlantic, making this one of the most tough Android-powered smartphones to hit the US.

Just what kind of hardware does the CAT S50 pack underneath its rugged exterior? Well, we are looking at a 4.7” display at 720 x 1280 resolution, 2GB RAM, a quad-core Snapdragon 400 processor (not the fastest, we know), an 8P shooter, 8GB of internal memory, with it accompanied by Android 4.4 KitKat as the mobile operating system of choice, not to mention boasting LTE connectivity. As for its toughness, well, you can always fall back on its IP67-certified waterproofing capability, not to mention having wet-finger tracking support. Apart from that, there is also a scratch resistance exterior in addition to conforming to the Mil Spec 810G military rating for operating in harsh environments.

There are rubber bumpers across all four corners, in addition to a thick plastic armor. The CAT S50 runs on a 2,630mAh battery that has been rated at 16 hours of talk time, and it delivers up to 33 days of standby time. Pricing and availability details have yet to be determined as at press time.

CAT S50 Smartphone Arrives Stateside

, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Rupert Murdoch's Sock Game Is On POINT

Rupert Murdoch, the 83-year-old chairman of 21st Century Fox, spoke at The Wall Street Journal’s WSJD Live global technology conference this Wednesday, offering words of wisdom on the importance of fighting Amazon and Netflix, and touching on how he bungled Myspace back in 2005.

More importantly, Murdoch brought an utterly unbeatable sock game, which, luckily, was captured by Fast Company technology editor Harry McCracken and promptly posted to Twitter:

When asked by Business Insider why he continues to work, Murdoch simply replied, “curiosity.” But we’re most curious about where he got those socks.

Why Tim Cook's Coming Out Matters

“I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.”

In a post published on Bloomberg Businessweek this morning, Apple CEO Tim Cook finally acknowledges what has been only whispered for so long: that he is gay. The fact that this is still such big news (and the source a subject of so much speculation until today) shows why, in this day and age, it is still important for members of the LGBT community to stand up and be visible. So why does it matter so much?

For one, Tim Cook is the CEO of one of the most powerful companies in the world. Having someone of his stature publicly declare his sexual orientation is still a rare occurrence in the business world, so much so that The New York Times recently ran a widely shared article asking “Where Are the Gay Executives?” Among other things, the article pointed out that it is still more common than not for LGBT workers to remain closeted at work, and that they also struggle to find mentors, both factors that can have a significant impact on career advancement. Tim Cook’s declaration and his recent work addressing issues of inclusion send a message that discrimination and a lack of diversity will not be tolerated. Coming from the head of Apple, this is no small thing.

Second, Tim Cook’s coming out immediately makes him a role model for countless gay youth to emulate. As Tim himself stated, “[I]f hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it’s worth the trade-off with my own privacy.” The lack of role models in business is a real issue for LGBT executives, and the more that senior executives that can live their lives openly at work, the more opportunities for networking and mentoring there will be for younger workers within a company. Furthermore, statements of equality and inclusion at the top levels of a company are immediately noticed at all levels. Having an openly gay executive at the top level of a company advocating on issues of equality and diversity signals to all employees that they are welcome to be open as well.

Third, Tim Cook’s announcement will make it easier for top LGBT executives at other companies who may be struggling with whether or not to come out themselves to take that leap. No doubt the response to Tim Cook’s announcement will be observed closely at other companies. The way he has handled this, and the way this story is handled, will provide a blueprint for others weighing a similar declaration. Tim Cook’s coming out will make it easier for others to follow in his path. As in other areas, such as entertainment and sports, each coming-out event makes the next one less sensational and newsworthy. Hopefully, others are taking note and preparing their own announcements as well.

Tim Cook’s announcement matters not only because of Apple’s business impact but because of its cultural impact. Few brands have infiltrated our lives as pervasively as Apple has. For a company like Apple to stand at the forefront of diversity and equality issues as well as embracing a prominent gay CEO sends a message to businesses that to succeed, you need to embrace diversity and equality. Tim Cook has instantly made himself a role model for countless gay youth who can now point to a successful openly gay businessman and say, “I can do it too.”

Who's Packing Your Parachute?

2014-10-23-parachutepacking.jpg
A few years ago I interviewed Charlie Plumb, a U.S. Navy jet pilot who served in Vietnam. I learned a very valuable leadership lesson that I’d like to pass on to you here.

Charlie flew 74 consecutive successful combat missions. However, on his 75th mission, his F4 Phantom fighter plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. The plane exploded with some 12,000 pounds of jet fuel, flipping the plane topsy-turvy, end-over-end, down toward a rice paddy below.

Charlie was forced to eject. The only thing between him and imminent death was his parachute that he prayed would open.

He finally felt the opening shock of the parachute. During the 90 seconds of descent he was shot at by enemy troops. “The audacity of this enemy,” Charlie said. “They just knocked down my multimillion-dollar airplane and now they’re trying to kill the pilot!”

Charlie made it down to the ground alive, but was then captured and spent 2,103 brutal days as a prisoner of war in a communist Vietnamese prison camp.

Many years after being repatriated, Charlie, his wife, and another couple were sitting together in a little restaurant in Kansas City.

Two tables over was this guy who kept looking at him. Charlie would look back. He didn’t recognize him, and he kept catching this guy staring at him. Finally the guy stood up and walked over to Charlie’s table and pointed at him with a sort of stern look on his face. “You’re Captain Plumb,” he said. Charlie looked up at him and said, “Yes, I am Captain Plumb.” The guy said, “You’re that guy. You flew jet fighters in Vietnam. You’re a fighter pilot, part of that ‘Top Gun’ outfit. You launched from the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, you parachuted into enemy territory, and you spent six years as a prisoner of war.”

Somewhat dumbfounded, Charlie looked up at the guy and asked, “How in the world did you know all that?” The man chuckled, smiled, and replied, “Because I packed your parachute.”

Charlie was speechless. The man grabbed Charlie’s hand and pumped his arm and said, “I guess it worked,” and then walked off.

Charlie laid awake that night thinking about all the times he had walked through the long narrow room, below sea level on the aircraft carrier, where the men sat at tables packing the parachutes. How many times must he have walked past this man without even saying, “hi,” “good morning,” “good job,” or “I appreciate what you do”?

“How many times did I pass the man whose job would eventually save my life because I was a jet jockey, a Top Gun racing around the sky at twice the speed of sound? Because I was a fighter pilot and he was just a sailor?”

Think about this: How many times in life do you pass the people who help you out the most? The people who come out of the far corners of your life just when you need them the most and pack your parachutes for you? The people who go the extra mile, the people who don’t look for the kudos or the accolades or the achievement medal, or even the bonus check–the folks who are just out there packing parachutes?

So here’s what I want to challenge you to do. Look around your organization for the people who might not be the “Top Guns” of your organization, the loud and brazen leaders, but the ones who support the system that enables the Top Guns to fly. If something goes wrong it will be because they did their job that no one gets hurt or a customer doesn’t go neglected.

This week, find 5 parachute packers in your organization and tell them how much you appreciate them and how important the things they do for the organization truly are. In the end, it might just be them who save your life or your business–or at least save the day.

Peter Singer: 'We Need To Be More Cautious With Our Caution'

the european

Peter Singer is the world’s most prominent and controversial moral philosopher. He talked with Lars Mensel and Max Tholl about techno-skepticism, trash TV, and why our becoming less human might ultimately save humanity.

The European: Mr. Singer, do we have a healthy relationship with technology?

Singer: A question that broad really doesn’t have an answer.

The European: We have observed that certain countries, particularly Germany, are very skeptical concerning new technological developments — be they as broad as consumer technology or much more specific, such as genetic engineering.

Singer: When I say that I am not prepared to give a single answer, I am dissenting from the idea that we should be more suspicious of technology. I am not particularly troubled by our relationship with technology — I am troubled by our relationship with some particular technologies. But the general attitude that technology is a bad thing is a mistake.

The European: But why do you think so many people are afraid of technological progress?

Singer: I am neither a sociologist nor a psychologist, so I don’t know. I suppose that people are afraid of the unknown and of change in general — that may be a factor. But this is just speculation and my speculation isn’t going to be much better than yours or of most of your readers’.

The European: Could there be a link with human nature? If we look at inventions throughout history, starting with fire, there has always been skepticism…

Singer: How could you possibly say that? We have no historical records of the development of fire! How can you say that there was a skeptical attitude?

The European: We are assuming…

Singer: You can’t assume that! There is no basis for that.

The European: Let’s take something closer to our age: When steam engines and stocking frames were introduced, the Luddites were afraid they might drive them out of work. Therefore, they destroyed the machines.

Singer: Sure, but that shows that some people always lose — in this case the ones carrying things by horses or producing by hand — while others gain — the people who needed to get goods to the market quickly and cheaply. Clearly, the population as a whole gained through the existence of steam engines and other developments of the Industrial Revolution. Again, that is a fairly big picture to try to estimate, but I think there’s truth in it.

The European: It’s the potential losers who drive the general criticism.

Singer: Some people will reject technology because they are losing out. Look at the technology we are using: The people working for phone companies used to get large fees from people making long-distance international calls. Clearly, they have lost money through developments like Skype. But just because those people make a fuss about it doesn’t establish it as a good or a bad thing.

“Let’s go ahead with it!”

The European: Maybe realizing the overall benefit is what creates the eventual tipping point: when skepticism turns into acceptance. The telephone was once feared; now we take it for granted.

Singer: I am not sure that this is a universal rule, though. I haven’t studied the history of this but I don’t think too many people thought negatively about the telephone.

The European: Let’s talk about something more controversial than communications technology. You have written quite a bit about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are still being tested and face huge opposition across the world — despite the fact that, as you have pointed out, they promise many advantages.

Singer: And again, it’s not just one thing: There have been some negative consequences from attempting to genetically modify pigs in order to make them more compatible with humans for organ donation. Those pigs have suffered all sorts of health problems. And they haven’t produced compatible organs, haven’t solved the problem of organ shortage.

The European: And on the other hand?

Singer: There are some positive effects from genetically modifying crops. You can argue about this, but genetically modified corn in the United States is resistant to some pests and is generally considered a good thing. Golden rice is a modified crop that we haven’t yet allowed to be grown on a wide scale, but it looks like a promising way to overcome vitamin A deficiency in countries where rice is the staple food — and could save the lives of many children who would otherwise die. It doesn’t look like there is any major downside to it. That is an example of a technology with an entrenched opposition on grounds that certainly had some basis when GMOs were introduced. I am not saying they have no basis anymore — we still need to be careful — but the testing has been quite extensive and the benefits are as significant as they can be. It is time to say: “Let’s be cautious but not have an ideological opposition to anything that is genetically modified; let’s go ahead with it.”

The European: Is it even morally justifiable to ban something because of the danger it might entail? You say that allowing it could potentially save millions of lives. Who gives us the moral authority to make such a judgement?

Singer: Somebody has to make that decision. I am not in favor of letting advocates of hugely modified organisms do what they like. The judgement should be made by national governments or — even better — by international bodies. If the EU bans something that is grown in Ukraine, the seeds are going to blow from Ukraine into Poland. That is why we need decisions that are made in a scientific and non-political way. But going back to what you said: The decisions ought to be made on a cost-benefit basis. If the benefit is potentially big, you have to have a clear indicator that the risks are also very great — if you don’t have that, then you should allow it. There is an onus on the opponents to bring strong evidence that the risks are very great.

The European: These decisions often boil down to what is ethical and what isn’t. You said that the onus is on the opponents — but those will often flat out deny that taking the risk is morally acceptable.

Singer: They are saying no matter how great the benefits, you can’t take any risk at all? That doesn’t seem right to me.

“Skepticism can be lethal”

The European: Think of nuclear power: That is exactly the argument opponents of this technology are making.

Singer: Nuclear power is an interesting example. There are clear benefits and they have actually become clearer as we have become more aware of the significance of climate change. When nuclear power was first started, people didn’t talk about climate change, and the benefits back then were just that it created a limitless source of power that was not dependent on fossil fuels. People did know that coal was dirty — so the benefits were obvious. But clearly, there were also very great risks. Risks of meltdowns, risks of pollution of rivers or rendering large areas uninhabitable — as indeed happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima. The risks were great and I would say that when nuclear power was started, the wrong decision was made.

The European: Why?

Singer; Perhaps the risks were too great for the benefits that people anticipated back then. But now that we know more about climate change, the balance of risks and benefits has swung a bit. And while the risks are still there, we do have more experience in managing those risks. They don’t go away, as you can see in Fukushima, but unless we are spending a lot on solar and other clear technologies, it is hard to see us cutting greenhouse gases enough.

The European: The main problem, then, is that it is hard to judge what the outcomes of any invention are going to be. They stretch into an unknown future and we can’t foresee the outcomes. How can we deal with this uncertainty?

Singer: We can only act on the best evidence we have at the time, and that entails limitations. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t even look at the evidence. And it’s certainly not a reason for saying we shouldn’t change anything. As we see with golden rice, inaction can lead to problems and you bear some responsibility for the large number of deaths that could have been prevented. The fact that we’re uncertain doesn’t mean we should remain inactive when we face such catastrophes.

The European: Skepticism is murder?

Singer: It can be. There are many examples aside from golden rice. If the climate is changing and there are more severe periodical droughts in countries where people are completely dependent on growing their own food, then using GM techniques to create more drought-resistant plants might save millions of lives. There are many cases where inaction is going to have very bad consequences.

The European: That also means that the right thing to do is always in flux — as technology progresses.

Singer: …and as the evidence comes in as to how good or bad that technology is and what the consequences of it are.

The European: So what we need to do is work on our risk assessment.

Singer: We need to make sure we get the best evidence and the best people working on that evidence as it comes in to make assessments on that basis. We need to be more cautious with our caution.

The European: Technology also heightens our freedom of choice. It brings about changes in our ethics and morality: Things like prenatal screening, that simply weren’t available before, now force us to make certain decisions. The availability of technology influences our judgments of desirability. Do you agree?

Singer: Is it good to have this choice? Is it good to know that our offspring will have certain disabilities? Given that it is available, do couples want to use it? The evidence shows that they do. They could choose not to exercise this choice, not to know. But most of them want to know and — given a prognosis of serious disability — will end the pregnancy. That suggests that having this freedom of choice is not an unreasonable desire.

“Technology is an enhancement of our humanity”

The European: You don’t think we are losing some of our humanity because of those technological developments?

Singer: Not in general. In fact, we are solving our problems by using our intelligence and reason — that is very much a human trait. People always talk about what distinguishes us from animals and that will be as good a candidate as any. I am not saying animals aren’t able to reason at all; they do. But obviously we do it at a very different level, partly because we have language we can use to communicate with others and solve problems jointly or learn how others did in the past. We are the only animal on this planet that can do that. You could say that technology is an enhancement of our most distinctively human capacities. It doesn’t mean we don’t ever lose anything, though.

The European: For example?

Singer: There will be some things that change. Things like the kind of entertainment people get fed on television and the number of hours people spend watching fairly mindless junk. Had the TV not been invented, they would be doing things that are more active, playing games with each other, reading more, telling stories, etc. Some of those traditions may have been lost. There are some costs — but in general, we haven’t become any less human through the use of technology.

The European: Some would argue that by enabling us to make these very rational decisions, technology rids us of our ability to empathize.

Singer: I don’t think so. Our ability to empathize is in reasonably good shape – and technology extends it. Clearly, we can now have contact with people that we couldn’t reach before, and we can know what’s happening in other parts of the world in a way that wasn’t possible 100 years ago. People had no idea about droughts in a foreign country or a civil war in the Middle East. Now we have vivid images of war refugees and the suffering and we can empathize with them in a way that would be much harder without technology.

The European: It was said that the broadcasting of the Vietnam War created the opposition to it.

Singer: That is probably right. Remember the picture of the naked girl who had been napalmed, running down the street. That image had a culpable effect on attitudes to the war. And it was possible because of technology. Today, we get instant information and that can lead to action.

The European: Up to this point, technology was part of humanity but not necessarily the other way around. It seems to us that we are now at a tipping point where all the data we generate makes us increasingly become a part of technology. That drives fear and skepticism of technology.

Singer: I would see it as an extension of our humanity rather than a loss of it. If you look into the future, there are possibilities that might be seen as losing our humanity – such as the development of artificial intelligence that we might incorporate into our lives so that we don’t make decisions we do now because the A.I. is better at it. Is that a good or a bad thing?

The European: Your verdict?

Singer: If somebody were to say “that makes us less human” that wouldn’t answer the questions. If it does make better decisions and leads to a more peaceful world with less suffering, maybe that is better — even if it is less human.

The European: Giving up some humanity for everyone’s benefit.

Singer: If you look at humanity in a reasonably objective way, there are bits of it that no one is going to like. We tend to be aggressive towards people who are different from us, as the long history of conflict shows. If artificial intelligence were to take over and put a damper on that, somebody might argue that we had become less human — but it would be better.

The European: Maybe artificial intelligence can replace our fear of the unknown?

Singer: (laughs) Possibly!

This piece also appeared in The European.