A Glimpse of the Future -- Or, Has SF Gone Blind? -- SF

*
The question "Is Science Fiction About to Go Blind?" has arisen more and more often in recent years as the idea of a "technological Singularity" has caught on in SF -- literally a rate of accelerating technological change so swift as to be beyond modern human comprehension. Much less our ability to meaningfully predict its course. For obvious reasons, if you believe that we will experience technological progress that pronounced in the near future, the range of future scenarios you can meaningfully write about is correspondingly diminished. Many science fiction writers who anticipate such an era are constantly trying to expand that spectrum of possibilities, but it often proves challenging.

The article linked above describes some of the problems faced by the SF field. Situations from Charles Stross' novel Accelerando (which is given away free online here) are used to illustrate some of the radical changes that could take place in the event of runaway AI and nanotech breakthroughs. While that article is interesting and well worth reading, I'd like to look at a slightly different problem -- what do we lose if science fiction stops being a lens that surveys the future for the rest of humanity, if it loses the predictive power that its best examples have had over the last two centuries?

Consider Brave New World, 1984, R.U.R. or even modern films such as Gattacca. Or, for that matter, the venerable novels of Verne or Shelley or visionaries of human evolution from Olaf Stapledon to William Gibson and Vernor Vinge. Works such as these often introduce a wider audience to critical issues they had no idea existed.

It's been said that the greatest contribution that Brave New World and 1984 made in describing their respective dystopias was in insuring those futures never came to pass. These two potential worlds -- warped, respectively, by massive, misguided human social engineering and a ruthless, all-controlling totalitarian state -- are now classics in the genre that asks "What would be so bad about doing ___?" R.U.R., of course, coined the word "robot" while simultaneously asking what happens in a world where all human labor has been replaced by the efforts of intelligent machines.

Gattacca looked at how radically American society could change with just a single technology -- exceptionally cheap, fast and accurate genetic scans... which would enable the selection of superior embryos, the screening of the "genetically unfit" and the use of DNA analysis in every forensic crime scene. How quickly the future has come upon us.

And Gibson and Vinge, of course, are known for their respective visions of cyberpunk and technological Singularities -- both of which relate to this site's focus of radical human enhancement and which have, more importantly, influenced many futurists, philosophers and artificial intelligence researchers. There are more obscure works, such as Greg Egan's novel Blood Music, which anticipated nanotechnology well before Engines of Creation (as did the character of Warlock in the comic book The New Mutants, though no one wants to discuss that fact =) ), or Arthur C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise, which envisioned a geostationary elevator out of Earth's gravity well... not to mention Clarke's non-fiction explanation of how to put geostationary communications satellites in orbit to revolutionize telecommunications. Which they did.

What's my point? Science fiction propogates otherwise obscure ideas about the future among many different audiences -- whether among potential nanotech innovators reading Blood Music, ordinary American voters watching Gattacca, early 20th Century labor organizers taking in R.U.R., early telecom or aerospace engineers reading Clarke or future civil rights activists contemplating 1984. In each case, the critical audience may differ dramatically -- a few scientists or inventors spurred to develop a technology in one case may serve as the idea's "critical mass," in other cases, it may be the widespread comprehension of millions regarding a technology's implications will change the course of history.

When science fiction dramatically restricts its vision to narrowly defined possibilities -- whether space opera stories, post-apocalyptic realities or your choice of post-Singularity/ post-humanity futures -- the field as a whole loses much of its ability to surprise as it treads and retreads the same overtaxed plot of ground. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of great stories left involving nanites or AIs (or space fleets or holocaust aftermaths), but if every "serious SF writer" ends up tramping down the same path, we're going to end up mssing a lot of insights.

In fairness to writers fascinated by Singularities, it's worth nothing that many writers, while their technological timescales may be greatly accelerated, do consider the impact of radically advanced technology on human society. It's just that they anticipate its arrival being just around the corner, and they generally don't expect "society as we know it" to last very long thereafter. Nevertheless, there are some interesting stories packed into those compressed timespans.

Perhaps more intriguing in this vein are writers such as Ken Macleod who anticipate the survival of some kind of human civilization in their stories -- if one that is much shakier and less populous than the one we have today. And which exists in the shadow of incomprehensibly powerful intelligences.

These are interesting scenarios to contemplate. However, lest the field one day devolve to a "cheesy space opera"/"bug-eyed monsters" level of recycled plots, I thought I'd do my part by pointing out just a few of the questions worthy of the SF's serious consideration, particularly at this stage of history. A few of which actually fit in pretty well in Singularity SF, if you think about them.

In what ways can human beings be enhanced, whether in terms of intelligence, health, speed, looks, whatever? To what degree can they be enhanced while still remaining fundamentally "human"? (And what does "human" mean, while we're at it?)

To what degree can various methods of radical human enhancement be synergized? Will biological beings be able to compete at all with non-biological intelligences? Or -- heresy though it is to ask -- will AIs be able to compete at all with biological or cyborged intellects?

Will recursively self-improving intelligences result in the development of unspeakably powerful AIs -- or unspeakably powerful human/post-human minds, if the world's computational resources and scientific innovation are turned towards the refinement of human/biological intelligence instead of artificial thought?

How many different versions (or factions) of "superior beings" might a technologically evolving Earth/solar system/galaxy en up playing host to? How might they get along? How might they learn to get along, if the only alternative were wasteful (if not genocidal) conflict?

How does ordinary humanity maintain its rights and independence in the face of a newly evolved "higher intelligence"? Will humanity (or a large proportion of it) be forced to self-evolve in response in a kind of "arms race" or at least a push to blunt the most dramatic advantages a superior intellect might hold over "masses of ordinary men"?

Will human beings -- either normal modern ones, geniuses, or significantly more advanced near-future near-humans -- be able to offer higher intelligences anything? Here's a fictional comparison of where various intelligences fall on one imaginary scale. Consider how far down even the most advanced of modern humans would sit on this measure of sentience, and then consider this yardstick was specifically designed to make "mere mortals" a measurable quantity next to the celestial minds it conemplates.

What happens if the difference between "transhuman" minds and conventional geniuses becomes as great as between ordinary genius and the severely retarded? Even if there are no issues of wealth, power and recognition, what happens if "the rest of us" become keenly aware of how irrelevent we are to the next step on the evolutionary ladder?

Is there anything ordinary humanity can do to effectively influence human evolution, whether dramatically hastening it, delaying it, redirecting it or "putting the genie back in the bottle"? How can national/international education, government and/or R&D funding shape these unfolding possibilities?

Whew. There's actually a lot more to talk about, most of which has nothing directly to do with human enhancement at all. But I think I've described enough already to illustrate my point. Even without journeying too far from "ye olde Singularity territory" I've found quite a bit of material that is foreboden in a strict, "the AI gods shall rule all flesh," AI/nano, "hard takeoff" Singularity SF. (An exhausting definition just to write. But oddly enough, an accurate one.)


Future Imperative

(Non-)Human Evolution: The Public Debate -- Bio, Soc

Yes, even the Utne Reader has written an article on "transhumanism" -- the belief that humanity can and should seek to transcend its physical limits through technology. In light of mainstream articles like this one and Francis Fukuyama's declaration in Foreign Affairs that transhumanism is "the world's most dangerous idea" and Bill Joy's call to arms against the notion in Wired magazine, I think the transhumanist vision of human evolution is entering the public discourse.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of the Sciences has submitted guidelines on the ethics of inserting human genes into animals, among other matters. One bio-ethics panel has already endorsed a scientist's plan to create mouse brains almost entirely composed of human brain cells.

Oddly enough, the main red line offered up by the NAS actually had to do with avoiding any experiment that might result in a human brain being "trapped" in an animal body. But the mouse experiment has not gone forward, and the scientist, Irving Weissman, has no immediate plans to do so.

I just know I'm going to end up in a Labyrinth with a classic minotaur at this rate. =)

Seriously, the issue of human brains, even partially human brains, in animal bodies, is going to raise all kinds of ethical questions for many average people. Do such beings have a soul? Consciousness? Complex reasoning, feelings, etc?

How human is human? Regardless of your religion or your private philosophy? Where do you stand?

Sometimes entry into the public discourse doesn't mean a comfortable debut. =)

Ralph


Future Imperative

To Augment or Not to Augment... -- AL, Bio, CPS, Plan, Psych, Soc

*
A chap I occasionally discuss augmentation with brought up the old "make the Internet an AI" plan, and also mentioned these following concerns about human enhancement studies.

"There's a lot of ways intelligence can be augmented, even now, but the danger is always that if we screw around with bits we don't know about, we can shut off important brain areas by accident."

"That's the one thing I'm nervous about as far as government testing goes..."

So, naturally, I offered a relatively short and simple reply...

...

Actually, these are both good points, Daniel, but I look at things from a slightly different perspective.

First, you do want to cautious about causing harm to the brain/ mind/ personality/ soul/ etc. But there's plenty you can do to expand human capabilities without destroying the person -- in fact, much of what you might do will only improve people. Smarter, stronger, faster, healthier, better looking -- who could complain? =)

Think about the commonly accepted ways for improving a human being in the real world. Exercise, healthy food, reading, work demanding advanced physical or mental skills, martial arts, sports. Etc.

These kinds of lifestyle choices don't destroy a human being -- though embracing them may change you radically. Remember, there are lots of disciplined people out there who never went through Marine boot camp, but being highly disciplined would be a huge change to a lot of people's lifestyles. You could even argue that some highly gifted people wouldn't be nearly as productive if they were that focused and goal-oriented (some artistic, musical, literary and other creative types, for example).

On the other hand, most people could benefit from some improvement in their personal sense of discipline -- less of a tendency to procrastinate, for example.

The trick is, most of these "conventional" skills and virtues don't suddenly multiply with an injection or a pill in the modern-day world. So people can get nervous about a major improvement. Even one with no real side-effects.

But think of it this way -- if we start using all the tech and techniques that are already out there for improving human beings now...

Then when something comes along like your superintelligent computer network, or North Korean supersoldiers, or that protein that enhances rat brains (and maybe human brains)...
We won't have to jump into a huge crash program to develop supers of our own, "just to keep up." Instead, we'll have the time to consider each augmentation in turn, looking at the advantages/disadvantages, whether something can be pushed further, whether we've pushed it too far.

Cool stuff, if you're not rushing to get it done.

That's why taking a proactive stance, not just with using existing tech, but researching new enhancements, is such a good idea. We need smarter people just to solve the world's existing problems, but we don't need a small cabal super-augmenting itself while the rest of us are sleeping, and then taking over with absolutely no one having the requisite talents to oppose them.

One of the advantages about distributing exceptional abilities as widely as possible is that you get far more of your population actively involved in looking at issues and solving problems -- something that too many people leave to others. I want to get away from having an "elite" run our lives, be it "super" or otherwise.

Ralph


Future Imperative

Forming Your Own Micronation -- Part I -- "Good God, Why?" -- Hum, Plan, Soc, $$$

*
Ambitious futurists often want to reshape everything about their world, and for some, just changing their own lives isn’t enough. Some dreamers want nothing less than their own sovereign nation. Whether it’s a matter of changing society today, gaining independence from petty national governments or simply having a place where you can wield absolute power, the idea is popular with a surprisingly large number of futurists with very different backgrounds and philosophies.

Whatever else you can say about these people, you can’t fault them for thinking small. So let’s take a look at what someone who wanted to start their own country (or “independent microstate”) would have to deal with.

When you tell your friends and family “I’m planning to start my own micronation,” you’re apt to hear a number of replies. “Why on Earth?” “Are you serious?” “How would you even do that?” And my personal favorite, “Are you insane?”

These comments could phrased more tactfully, but they’re actually a good place to start. When someone asks you, “Good God, why?” – give it some thought.

What do you want an independent nation for? Until you answer that question, there’s no point to your grandiose (or even humble, realistic) plans.

Ask yourself: Do you want it to take advantage of banking loopholes? To engage in cutting edge research that some advanced countries don't approve of (stem cell research, perhaps future gene therapy enhancement work)?

Do you just want an escape route, a bolt hole to flee to if the world starts to disintegrate?

Or do you think that only a transhumanist nation would be accepting and supportive of the emergence of genuine transhumans/ superhumans/ posthumans?

Will this be the cornerstone of your all-conquering transcontinental/ global/ interplanetary/ interstellar/ intergalactic empire?

Or something else?

Here, for example, are the edited comments of one random enthusiast I asked this question of on the Net:

“Fears:
-Research restrictions that inhibit beneficial research based on ignorance or nearsightedness.
-Restrictions on applications of research.
-Fast tracked research on products can't be trusted due to the reasons behind the fast tracking... money (i.e. Vioxx and the new testosterone patch for women).
-Not trust in media information because major media companies are interested in viewers and ratings so they may sensationalize stories or report only part of the story... this overall has negative effects on society.

"Goals:
-A sovereign society built on democratic transhumanist ideals.
-Socially progressive - no money, no debt, no poverty, no greed, each person is self governed. Liberal, free. Free to do anything so long as it does not physically or emotionally harm another person. Fairness and equality.
-A government that is proportionally representative. And has checks and balances for human nature, to inhibit greed and corruption, and promotes ethics and transparency.
-Government documentation available without restriction to every citizen as every citizen is a member of the government.
-Computerized allocation of resources to make sure that everyone gets a fair share of the societal wealth.
-Self sustainability.

"I have a strong suspicion that yes, only a transhumanist nation would be totally accepting of genuine transhumans. I think this because of what has been shown again and again throughout human history. Innocent people and entities will die before change in an existing society will occur. If we create a society that is accepting of those people and entities even before they exist, then no one will have to suffer needlessly. That's just my opinion though, and i can't think of everything, so chances are there will still be plenty of risks, and maybe even a few mishaps.”

One thing the above comments illustrate is not to assume that someone interested in creating a micronation necessarily shares your goals. Prominent groups interested in establishing microstates are often assumed to be, among other things, radical libertarians, fascist militarists, apocalyptic cult groups, ethnic or nationalistic xenophobes, religious extremists and/or cultural throwbacks. A megalomaniacal leader is often consider a good accessory. Yet our above commentator sounds more like another social democrat with visions of a non-coercive utopian paradise. Time to add another category. Or just to toss our assumptions out the window.

That doesn’t mean nobody shares your precise dissatisfactions with modern life in the West. Just that most of them don’t, and statistically speaking, never will. People are diverse.
Deal with it.

The key thing here is to figure out what you want... and what you're scared of. If you can find enough people who share your interests (or concerns), or whose goals work well with your own, you might be able to organize a micronation on whatever scale you feel you need.

So given that you actually have some goals, let’s consider your options.

One thing I'd like to emphasize is that many ambitious goals could be accomplished without founding your own mini-country -- or by "micronations" of varying size and capabilities. This is important, because even if you're dead set on an independent nation as an absolutely necessary interim step to your goals (say, a new, supernation, or transhuman/ posthuman existence)... there are still smaller steps you could be taking on the way to your microstate.

For example, regarding the first three fears mentioned above (restrictions on research, restrictions on applying research, research directed unwisely)…

Option 1 (of Many): Move to a country that generously supports the research you're interested in. Most people realize they have this option -- but if you go this way, you should probably make sure you're doing it on your own terms. First off, pick a country with first class scientific facilities and infrastructure (unless you plan to move everything you need in yourself, and have some other way to attract top-notch talent).

For example, go to Canada (few restrictions, ready access to the U.S. for tech and more people, just a step across the border). Or look at Ireland or Sweden in the EU (vast English fluency, huge scientific/tech infrastructure, but variable political moods in these and other countries).

One way to move towards creating your independent state would be to start an independent city -- an incorporated research city or research zone inside the borders of an advanced nation. If you could insure the level of private support and talent such an enclave would need to be world class, there's plenty of countries that would jump at the chance to host it.

Such an option could also exist in the U.S., and arguably already does, in several places. Consider the San Francisco Bay Area (including Silicon Valley), Boston (with its tech industries and legions of universities, including Harvard and MIT), and others, including even Raleigh-Durham in North Carolina and Austin in Texas -- both "red states", for those following American politics. So you have a number of choices with respect to both human resources and political climate, even in a single country.

Going abroad (outside North America), your obvious alternatives include major research centers in the EU, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, India and New Zealand (contingent, of course, on just what you want to research and what kind of capital you will need to draw on).

The fourth fear, of blocked or distorted media coverage pushing society down the wrong path, is a harder one to influence. Of course, you could always start your own media company, or help others who supported similar goals start or take over one. Again, though, a nation with a smaller population might be easier to influence, but countries with more powerful tech and biotech lobbies might provide you with more allies.

I'm in business, not politics, so I couldn't say. So I’ll leave this issue to people who are actually interested in influencing politics.

And now, let’s look at some positive goals:

“-A sovereign society built on democratic transhumanist ideals.”

Cool, though obviously you'll want some agreement on what those ideals are. Take a look at the Transtopians for a very different viewpoint from that of Betterhumans or the Extropians. Or to put it another way, just because you’ve adopted a label doesn’t mean that everyone else under that label has the same plans. Folks with revolutionary ideas about the future often have incredibly divergent concepts about what is realistic, what is desirable and even what a small group can accomplish.

Once again, consider your bedfellows carefully.

”-Socially progressive - no money, no debt, no poverty, no greed, each person is self governed. Liberal, free. Free to do anything so long as it does not physically or emotionally harm another person. Fairness and equality.”

This would be harder. You've got a lot more libertarians (and also just well-paid professional and entrepreneurial types) in Transhumanism's ranks. They wouldn't all jump on board with a (perceived) far-left/ socialist idea. Also, you'd have to be able to trade with the outside world, which means keeping some track of your resources.

This doesn't necessarily have to be a deal-breaker, however. One option would be for the group to agree on a set of core principles, with a plan that at some future date, the various groups (hopefully no more than two or three) would split off one-by-one as they mustered the resources and form additional, separate but allied Transhumanist states. Splitting nations shouldn't be too hard, especially if you're looking at something physically small and mutable -- like a collection of ships bound together. Splitting a few vessels off from the main mass should be relatively easy.

Hence, you could have the radical Libertarian micronation not far from the social democrats micronation, not far from the Zen Buddhist micronation, etc. Any political or philosophical ideas considered too far from the stated "core principles" could be rejected up front (white supremacists, etc).

”-A government that is proportionally representative. And has checks and balances for human nature, to inhibit greed and corruption, and promotes ethics and transparency.”

An effective participatory democracy shouldn't be too hard to sell. Really, there’s not much else to say. On this point.

”-Government documentation available without restriction to every citizen as every citizen is a member of the government.
-Computerized allocation of resources to make sure that everyone gets a fair share of the societal wealth.
-Self sustainability.”

Regarding wealth, since this is going to be such a tricky issue, you might want to focus on mutual goals. You all want to be prosperous, and none of you want to be a "servant class" to people vastly richer than yourselves, with no hope of progressing up the ladder. And ultimately, as technologies capable of making Transhuman people emerge, you all want to have reasonably equal access to them.

You can probably use a few such points of agreement to come up with an effective model.

My favorite option? Get really rich (you and all of your confederates), so that you have the resources to get this thing started, and more of the contacts who could help make it happen. Having done that, you could conceivably set up some kind of mutual trust for yourselves that would serve as a fallback net for people who "bought into it," either through money/ resources, labor, or both.

There are doubtless other options, but with a fairly tight knit group of people who were all financially independent and all working hard at their projects or businesses, you could easily come up with something.

The key thing, I suspect, would be to agree to share new Transhuman enhancement tech as it emerged, to the extent that it was practical to do so. For example, if a safe gene therapy method emerged that could increase intelligence, then everyone on the raft/island/space station would get a chance to use it (and be free to say "No" to it as well). But if it were an incredibly expensive cybernetic implant, then the community wouldn't be obliged to come up with $50 to $100 million for each poorer applicant.

Obviously, your mileage may vary on any of these suggestions. But the point is that reasonable compromises can likely be found for any number of major issues -- especially if your organization is working from a position of strength… Say, a highly skilled, motivated populace with a great excess of working capital.

“I have a strong suspicion that yes, only a transhumanist nation would be totally accepting of genuine transhumans. I think this because of what has been shown again and again throughout human history. innocent people and entities will die before change in an existing society will occur. If we create a society that is accepting of those people and entities even before they exist, then no one will have to suffer needlessly. That's just my opinion though, and I can't think of everything, so chances are there will still be plenty of risks, and maybe even a few mishaps.”

And this is your motivation for forming a microstate. The next guy/gal will probably have a totally different reason and may want nothing to do with your plans. And that’s fine. If your positions were going to create that much friction between you, you probably didn’t want her/him onboard anyway. =)

Next time, Part II -- Some Practical Considerations. Yes, I did say practical. =)


Future Imperative

Nature Vs. Nurture and Other Misnomers -- AL, Bio, CPS, Psych

*
While discussing our usual ideas about expanding human potential last year on the Imagestream list, a version of the old nature vs. nurture question came up... This time discussing a huge area affecting human ability -- "innate curiosity, anxiety and arousal, introversion/extroversion, obsessiveness, mania -- all those things that are at least partly heritable and which all influence intelligence to a degree."

This discussion took us away from our usual commentaries on exercises such as monitoring your sidebands of awareness, accelerating learning with Borrowed Genius, the Gravity Position, held-breath underwater swimming, methods for boosting circulation to the brain (from visualization to putting your feet up), etc.

So of course, I had to comment...

"In my opinion, this is probably the hardest area to judge in the 'nature vs. nurture' debate. A great part of my belief in 'nurture' as a potentially stronger factor in intelligence doesn't have to do with how you were raised but how you decide to act. In other words, if you're an obsessive reader and writer, you're far more likely to be a writer than someone with a greater 'natural gift' for language who doesn't take much interest in the written word. Self-evident? Of course.

"But since we can't determine to what degree the impulse to become obsessively absorbed in your work (or art/ writing/ research/ inventions) is inherited, it's still hard to give any kind of definitive conclusion about which aspect of our nature influences humans the most."

Some would argue that the studies of twins reared apart show that while environmental factors have big consequesnces early on, these differences fade with time. And hence, they suggest, while a horrible environment can be crippling, the positive effects of a good environment -- loving parents, SES, literature present, etc have diminishing returns when effecting achievement and intelligence -- the better the environment, the less effect it will have.

I answered...

"Here's where I would differ. I think the positive effects of a good environment can be quite profound -- they simply aren't in most cases, so kids from relatively positive environments are usually bright and/or well adjusted, not necessarily earthshaking geniuses. I believe people can be given enormous advantages if you know how, however, and more importantly, they can actively change themselves. Why don't people try to be as smart as they can be? Or as rich, fit, good-looking or successful? This isn't a question of why people run into walls at the (theoretical) upper limits of their abilities, but why they don't make the effort in the first place. I think you need more than genetics to answer that one."

Many people are willing to accept the negative influence an environment can have. Households below the poverty line which add in the prenatal effects of drug use/ smoking/ alcohol and then perhaps some criminal role models - then yes, most people will admit that a "getting hit over the head with a lead pipe environment" can seriously affect your future prospects. But that still doesn't say anything about the good that better, more nurturing homes can offer.

So I said something myself. "To equal such an environment in a positive sense is (supposedly) very difficult. But honestly, when I was growing up, I was writing stories in my head constantly -- and then acting them out. I had an entire band of (imaginary) shapeshifting sentient supercomputers (actually sentient black holes with perfect control over their gravitational fields and faster than light processing speeds) serving as my actors, musicians, stage managers (they could reconstruct galaxies, so Middle Earth or the Federation was never a problem), FX guys (see previous parathetical comment), directors, auxiliary writers... and also my techs, consultants, researchers, confidants and all around source of feedback and 'non-traditional' information. And as a result of my interactions, I was constantly writing whole novels, plays, movies, comics, albums and TV shows. And why not?

"But as a result, I was highly imaginative as a child and teen, and frequently saw the world very differently than others (who did not, after all, have an optional overlay of alternative worlds in their visual fields, or a reality-warping troop of guards declaiming about their Purpose and using artificial worlds as paperweights). But then, I had a sister who started me off on all-embracing live-action acting/role-playing, I lived out in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do but read and describe fictional realities to my fictional support staff (I'd say writing, also, but I had poor hand-eye coordination and didn't write too quickly) and had a tendency to sit with my feet up against the raised backs of the seats in front of me on the bus for much of the interminable rides (which went as long as four hours before the end). I also had a habit of looking at the world from the physical perspective of the various characters I was reading about, especially if I decided to model or role-play them afterwards (effectively using Borrowed Genius). I listened to some of my sidebands of awareness because there was, after all, nothing else to do.

"Sometimes I'd even get so bored I'd hold my breath, just to see how long I could. A few times I even ran like that, to test my wind. During the one year we had to take P.E. in High School, we spent about half the time indoors, which I spent almost exclusively on Ping Pong. (They did force a little basketball on us, but it was North Carolina, after all.) And during all this time I continued to 'read-saturate-read.' All the way through my senior year.

"My point? I have reason to believe that at the time, at least, my mind was highly unusual in its creative capacities, and probably owing, to a large degree, to the experiences I inflicted on myself. Now imagine someone doing all of that, and more than that (I haven't described my every unusual mental quirk, by any means) and then adding in floatation tanks. Image Streaming to live partners. Borrowed Genius, Beachhead, Toolbuilder. Dr. Wenger's brainbuilding marathon. Perhaps even nootropics or other experimental technologies (whatever you think is best). My impression is that you could create an incredibly positive environment for yourself, or someone else equally devoted. But this motivation, and the strategies to exercise it, cannot be merely an inborn gift. You have to choose it for yourself."

My partner in this three-way debate commented, "Yet if your view of environment is as a more tempered, typical role models versus intellectual role models, I would say that you are wrong. Part of the stickiest problem with nature versus nurture is this blurry conception of environment as absolute worst to best home and the blurry concept of genes as merely being the 'engine' of g rather than also including the conglomeration of personal traits -- all highly heritable that affect achievement yet are considered a result of upbringing."

A good point, I might add...

Still, I felt compelled to argue, "But I think you also see homes on the lower bound of what's possible far more often than the upper (if such even exist). So there are far more hopeless dropouts, criminals and drug addicts than there are Teslas, da Vincis or Ramanujans. But that doesn't mean these hyper-positive alternatives are not possible, or that they're not what we should be shooting for."

Who Wants a Flying Car? -- CPS, Soc, Tech

*
And from CBS News, Flying Cars Ready To Take Off , a four-page web article on the flying car prototypes floating around out there (no pun intended =) ). Apparently, thanks to NASA's Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS), we'll have the basic infrastructure and technology to accomodate such small vehicles throughout America's airspace (aside from restricted airspace, of course). Think about how much America would be changed if everyone who now drives instead had access to a reliable, easily-flown car that soared at up to 400 miles per hour.

Actually, this news spurs two thoughts in my mind. One, how many revolutionary technologies would we have emerging right now if everyone in America, the EU, Japan or elsewhere were generating new innovations all the time. What could a new, clean, cheap energy source do for us? A new way to design computers that evaded the physical limits to Moore's Law? A simple way to permanently enhance human intelligence? Etc?

And two, how awesome would it be if those inventors were also skilled at exploiting their inventions economically (or as great shareware projects) and if the government and society were effective at adapting to/adopting them. How many more "flying car revolutions" could we see? Every day?


Future Imperative

Survey: Human Evolution -- the Near Future... -- All Except Easy, Gov, Hum, Plan, Rev, SF, SKiP and Super

Here’s a question I’ve asked in other forms in other venues, but which I think is useful to consider carefully.

Which of the following methods do you think is most likely to lead to radically improved human beings (or sentient beings) in the next 30 years?

Nootropic (intelligence enhancing) drugs

Nootropic nutrients, and/or improved diet, exercise and general health

Genetic engineering of new children

Gene therapy that can modify adults

Cybernetics/surgical modification

Longevity/immortality treatments

Any other biotech that could enhance/repair the body or brain (such as stem cells, over-expressing growth-stimulating proteins in the brain, the use of field effects, peptides, etc. for resequencing of proteins, etc)

Artificial Intelligence

Nanotechnology

Widespread study of challenging fields that require great discipline and/or ability (anything from martial arts to Socratic debate to spontaneously composing poetry in public to conventional athletics)

Society highly conducive to the emergence and nurturing of genius (perhaps superior to ancient Athens or Italian cities in the Renaissance)

Bio/neuro-feedback

Floatation tanks

Other machines designed to enhance the brain (ganzfelds, cranial electro-stimulation, photic and auditory brainwave driving, etc)

Accelerated learning techniques (speed reading, mnemonic tools, Borrowed Genius, etc)

Creativity and/or intelligence boosting techniques (Image Streaming, Provocative Operations (PO), brainstorming, lateral thinking, Beachhead, Toolbuilder, meditation, etc)

Alternative healing techniques

Putting people under incredibly stressful, dangerous conditions, and seeing how they adapt (as in Dune and most of Frank Herbert's other works)

A huge increase in the wealth of a substantial number of people.

The study/practice of psi effects

Some mystical/magical method

Some fanatical subculture or organization completely focused on improving the abilities of its members

The eclectic use of whatever "seems to work" on the above list (a bit of this and a bit of that)

A widespread realization that some or all of these methods of self-improvement exist

A widespread fear that if you don't keep up with other radically-improved people, you'll be obsolete


One respondent commented, “My worst concern in your list is the fanatical subculture ororganization - that could happen all too easily.”

To which I replied…

“My desire to see the public substantially improve itself is not completely selfless. The more capable, self-reliant, intelligent and difficult-to-manipulate the public becomes, the harder it is for any unnaturally bright individual to play games with them. What's more, hundreds of millions or even billions of united human beings of exceptional intelligence would have almost unimaginable resources to throw at their problems. Which means they could snuff out many classic threats to their well-being -- bio- or nuclear terrorism, warfare, economic instability, "natural" disasters, destructive fads/addictions, political manipulation, brain-washing cults, etc.

"Imagine what a united world could do, especially with just a fraction of the resources we casually fiddle with on this list. Imagine being able to throw a hundred thousand scientists at a single problem -- especially if they could Beachhead, High Thinktank and/or Over-the-Wall their way out of that problem. Imagine all those minds casually tapping all that genius at once. Now imagine a world in which all the billions of ‘commoners’ outside the scientific profession also had access to those problem-solving tools.

"Suddenly the threat of a powerful cabal or an insane demi-god no longer seems so pressing, does it? =) If we get to this stage, that is.

"Otherwise, general progress on these matters has been so slow that a small group could easily lurch in this direction with nothing to counter it. Self-interest, self-aggrandizement, a charismatic leader, economic or political bonds -- there are quite a few reasons why a small company, club or research project could go awry. And all the more reason for the rest of us to get going on our own evolution.”

My friend also said, “Efforts to prohibit most of this will be increasingly questioned and will lead in turn to bootlegging, with some real human costs as well as some human benefits. Enough of this is already happening that we are going to be redefining what it is to be a human being, over at least the next half century. We went through an era inideologies where the collective ‘we’ were willing to tear the planet apart over mere differences in economic theory. In this we will be debating the very stuff of what it is to be ourself and what it is to be a human being.”

To which I felt compelled to remark…

“Indeed, ‘bio-conservatives’ have already mobilized against the idea of improving humans. I suspect that creating a fuss on this point may be counterproductive for their cause -- most people, if they had the option of being healthier, stronger, smarter, faster, better looking, younger, etc with no particular drawbacks, would choose to improve their lot. A lot of storm and noise at this point is only going to draw the public's attentionto the concept. Though the idea seems to be to cut off all funding for human enhancement research (including research into inherited health problems), no matter how impractical that may seem.”

I’ll add that I’m staying out of this particular fight, though I suspect that once a general idea of what enhancement technologies can do leaks out, the entire debate will be utterly beside the point.

My friend also added, “We could take the sting out of that by making more progress in the above-mentioned methodological fields where reactions would be tempered by the consideration that one's own efforts have some bearing on advantaged outcome, not riding entirely with some ‘magic pill.’ If these fields remain blocked in their progress, we are headed into a most troublesome path.”

And what could I say, other than…

“Quite frankly, I suspect we'll have rapid breakthroughs in a number of fields. But if we only derived ‘superhumans’ from one or two routes such as ‘superbabies’ and gene therapy, and those methods could be restricted to a chosen few based on political power or economic resources, we could easily end up with a nightmarish scenario and an elite ‘born to rule.’ Yet another reason to develop all our resources now, in order to uplift everyone in the near future.”

He also commented, “PS - don't reflexively believe, nor reflexively discard, the above predictions. Go take a look for yourself, either from conventional linear evidence or en scenario modeled on our "Beachhead" and "Toolbuilder" procedures…”

(Yes, my counterpart in this exchange was Dr. Win Wenger.)

My reply, in its essence, was…

“Believe me, I don't disregard anything. Though it's not something I talk about, my personal experiences/observations (mainly from my youth) have convinced me that a lone genius could easily have vast influence over the world without anyone really knowing. Unless more of us are truly able to ‘think for ourselves,’ we'll be at the mercy of any such individual or small group that chooses to play games with the planet. I don't like the idea of sitting around waiting for some flake of a super-savant to turn the worldinside out, or trying to pre-empt such a power grab with one of their own.

"Such actions are inherently corrupting, and I agree with Dr. Wenger that if human beings learn to tap their most basic creative gifts, then they will be the best possible people to govern their own lives (as they are now =) ) now matter how brilliant their would-be overlords become.”

Interesting Techniques Abound. Here's One of Them -- CPS, Psych, Self

*
Given how many of the exercises I've discussed on this list rely upon visualization skills, I thought I'd add this particular method (of unknown origin) for strengthening that gift. I've found this one to be effective to the extent that I've used it in the past. But like many exercises, you have to be willing to try it in the first place, and to use it more than once or twice, if you really want it to help you.

"Hold up your hand in front of your face and study it closely, the texture, light and shadows, everything. Then close your eyes and recreate it. Do this over and over.

"Once you get comfortable with this, rotate your hand in your mind so that the fingers are pointing downward, then back again. Practice going towards the thumb, then away from it. When you get good at that, rotate the hand all the way around 360 degrees. At this point, you are doing a complete visualization, since your hand won't really do that!"


Future Imperative

Speed Reading Ultrasimplified -- AL, Easy, Self

*
Speed reading is potentially a huge opportunity for self-enhancement. The rate at which you read forms a bottleneck in the speed with which you can gather new information from written material, which means that a much faster reading style could not only make it easier for you to learn new skills and broaden your mind, but also to save time. For a busy student or employee, being able to make it through textbooks or manuals in a fraction of the time (especially with increased comprehension) is clearly valuable. An hour here, an hour there -- when you're pressed for time, it all matters.

I have two suggestions for people who would like to see a substantial increase in their normal reading speed (especially the speed with which they read non-fiction, books for school, etc). Paul Scheele's Double Your Reading Speed in Ten Minutes is an extremely fast method for improving your overall reading speed. I actually had to use it twice to double my speed, because I first tried it in a room full of boisterous teenagers.

Second, there's an interesting accelerated reading tip out there from Dr. Win Wenger that involves using his Image Streaming technique (described in full, with backup procedures in case you have trouble getting your imagery going, here, and with a boiled down version of the technique, with my review, here). Essentially, with Image Streaming you close your eyes and describe aloud whatever pops intoyour mind's eye in all five senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch) as quickly as you can to an external listener -- either a tape recorder or (preferably) a live listener other than yourself.

The basic application of Image Streaming to accelerated reading is simple. "Before you even go in to reading the journal article, manuscript, text chapter or whatever, ask your Image Streaming faculties to show you an image which 'somehow will make everything in this paper come together for me and make sense to me.' Look in and see what that image is. Whether you immediately understand that image's meaning, just hang it on the back walls of your mind and plow into that reading. You will discover, with some amazement the first few times you achieve this effect, that everything in that paper does come together and make sense for you -- in less than a third of the time it'd ordinarily take you to work through that reading! -- And with many times the meaningful understanding that you would have otherwise experienced from that reading!"

I personally have found this technique to be very effective in increasing both my reading speed and understanding. If you are unfamiliar with Image Streaming, you may want to practice it so that you have a good handle on that skill before you try to apply it to your reading. Dr. Wenger suggests testing the method by Image Streaming for 10 minutes a day for ten days (preferably with a live partner), and then deciding, on the basis of whatever gains in mental clarity you've noticed by that time, whether you wish to continue using the technique. I would imagine developing at least that much facility with Image Streaming before using it to enhance your reading would be advisable. Just a suggestion.


Future Imperative

Gene Therapy vs. the Genetic Superbaby. Or Not... -- Bio

One odd question about human genetic enhancement is what would be produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people in our society, gene therapy that could enhance the genes of adults, or altering the germline by modifying the genes of the as-yet-unborn. This may not be an either-or question, incidentally. Both technologies are apt to show up at around the same time because they share some basic requirements. Still, here’s my present assessment.

Given a choice between having advanced gene therapy (permitting “multiple upgrades” of an adult genome without side effects) and in-vitro modification of chromosomes to allow for “superbabies”… I’d pick the advanced gene therapy.

This technology has a number of advantages. For example, you aren’t forced to neglect the condition of people who are already alive and who already have genetic defects. Nor do you don't have to spend 10,000 years breeding your "superior race." And you don't have to be supplanted by a new crop of vastly superior kids about 5 to 7 years after the last bunch started hitting society (whether in the schools, business, politics or sci-tech research).

One of the things that makes people leery about most forms of radical human enhancement is the unspoken fear of being left behind. This belief is not entirely irrational -- most young people in America, at least, have the experience of having been bullied/coerced/manipulated by individuals in a position of superior power. And a lot of us growing up come to an acceptance of who we are by exploring those areas in which we're different and often better than other people. So you have the traditional divisions of jocks, brains, artists, actors, comedians, etc, plus all the people who develop a sense of value by being extremely knowledgeable/talented in a specialized field they consider of burning importance -- the programmer who contributes to Linux, the scientist working on cancer, the Little League coach, the volunteer keeping a shelter open, the writer sharing their particular insights with the world.

If your whole self-image is at least partly based on being really capable in a particular endeavor, would you really look forward to a wave of people coming along, many or all of whom are potentially far better than you are in your field? Or who are already better? Or who can so outshine you -- if it suits their whim -- as to make your entire career look like a candleflame next to the bonfire of their casual accomplishments?

I'm reminded of Srinivasa Ramanujan, a young man with a great interest in arithmetic, who came into the possession of a mathematical textbook that was roughly a century out of date. Within two years, he had re-derived a century's worth of mathematics, and had developed a number of original theories of his own (including one presently being used in modern superstring theory in physics). He later worked for a short time with a great British mathematician before dying at an early age.

My point in the above story is just this... Imagine how it would feel to be one of the minor mathematicians eclipsed by Ramanujan (especially if he had lived). Obviously some, like his friend Hardy, would have been overjoyed with the advances he brought to the field. But imagine having all of your life's work amount to a few theorems this fellow worked out over a lazy afternoon. Now imagine that there's not one Ramanujan, but ten thousand, and that's just the number that have flooded into your obscure little field. And you may not have been a Nobel-caliber scientist, or Olympic athlete or Mother Theresa-like social worker in the old world, much less this new one.

And then imagine finding out that these ten thousand are part of a wave of one million (or more) and that people expect many more waves to come in the future, each one larger and much more gifted than the last. Where, really, do you fit in this "brave new world"? Are you irrelevant? Are your children, now that these "superhumans" have come to supplant them? (And your kids will be obsolete, even if they're in one of these waves. After all, the next model will immediately make them redundant.)

The same problem exists with advanced methods for accelerated learning, creativity enhancement and basic intelligence boosting. There are some impressive techniques and technologies out there, and many of them could probably work in synergy. Thus magnifying their combined effects. And someone who has increased their creativity and/or intelligence could use those abilities to develop even better techniques and technologies.

In this case, the problem isn't creating a new "master race" every five minutes with the latest designer genes (available to no one born previously) but the simple fact that only extremely motivated people with access to all of these brain-enhancing resources are going to be able to use them effectively. So when someone sees the extraordinary feats of a genius who has studied intensively with a host of powerful tools (say, a float tank, some self-hypnosis, advanced speed reading, lateral thinking, Image Streaming, PO, a Ganzfeld, physical inversion, nootropic drugs, a careful diet and exercise regime, Freenoting, etc) they may think "I can't devote my life to doing all that. I have barely enough time to walk the dog. I'll never keep up with someone like that." And quietly envy or fear the newly minted genius.

So the most successful examples of such programs could easily be the most threatening to people. And thus create plenty of resistance, both overt and internalized, to the embrace of highly beneficial innovations.

I'm interested in gene therapy because in the near term it can handle many life threatening or at least debilitating disorders and in the long term it could eliminate the "superbaby" problem outlined above. If we all improve more or less together, no one has to feel threatened or ruined by the overall progress of the species. Even if some people get more advantages “than we had growing up.” People can live with that situation. They have been for centuries.

I feel the related problem with mind-enhancing tech could be relieved if the most powerful techniques that are also extremely easy to use are made widely available to the public. That won't prevent the brilliant, the disciplined or the obsessed from magnifying their relative mental advantages, but will allow for a wide-enough distribution of effective resources to prevent that gap from growing too wide, while also giving a gentle and rewarding-enough introduction to general society to encourage many people to explore their minds' potential further.

Frankly, I want both the brilliant individual and the general run of society to be able to develop to the fullest degree that they can.

Eugenic Apocalypse? Or Not? -- Bio

*
Some human enhancement enthusiasts have been accused of being obsessed with eugenics as a means of evolving the human species. Others can be caught griping about the genetic "decline of the species" as too many of "the wrong people" reproduce.

Human eugenics, the selective breeding of people to bring out favored traits, is a common scare word in these debates, mainly because of its association with the Nazis. Technically, eugenics doesn't have to be anything like their perverted massacres and human experiments, but that's rather beside the point.

When it comes to altering human genetics in a significant way, eugenic breeding programs (or an unconscious, genetic "decline of Man") will almost certainly be a non-issue over the next generation. Human genetics are apt to change so radically over the next several decades that worrying about long-term breeding trends will seem pointless in retrospect.

Why? Because we're making such advances in terms of genetic technology (particularly the information technology that is an underpinning of so much cutting edge biotech) that before long we'll probably start altering the human genome outright. I suspect researchers will start eliminating major genetic defects/diseases first -- a practice that will not be restricted to just the planned pregnancy or even the unborn child. Rather, gene therapy will reach a high level of reliability and be used to treat kids and adults with major genetically derived problems, especially those conditions that will ultimately kill their victims (e.g. small children affected by Tay-Sachs disease, a particularly painful death).

The need to treat these individuals who would otherwise perish will likely lead to ever-improving gene therapy techniques even as genetic research into the nature of genetically-based "high intelligence" (and other gifts) plunges ahead. Of course, there are presumably many factors involved in superior intelligence, and they can probably vary widely among different geniuses in different fields with different styles. Nevertheless, scientists will no doubt begin isolating genetic keys to better (and worse) memory, attentiveness, etc and use these building blocks to at least say with reasonable certainty how we can improve on the brain without damaging/undermining any of its existing functions.

Admittedly, reaching this level of technology may take some time. But it's doubtful we'll be struggling with these matters for more than a generation. Compare this to how much progress a eugenics program could make, even if it were initiated right now, over the course of three generations. Or how far "genetic drift" could take us in that amount of time. After three quarters of a century, if gene therapy hasn't transformed humanity, then the direct manipulation of pre-natal genes almost certainly will.

The other reason I'm not as concerned about theories of human genetic "devolution" is that I do feel intelligence/brilliance/giftedness has a lot more to do with education, upbringing and basic personality than we're sometimes willing to accept -- and I believe all those things can be improved on.

Also, where genetics has undermined the function of the brain, it may be possible to change things for the better through non-genetically based "treatments." For example, what if the circulation to your brain was slower than the ideal because the blood vessels ultimately supplying it (by feeding your circulating cerebral-spinal fluid and so on) were a bit smaller than average? Or simply a bit smaller than they should ideally be?

Well, guess what? There are ways to increase both that blood flow and the size of those vessels. Your carotid arteries can be increased permanently in size by holding your breath and swimming underwater for a total of one hour's worth of time (in segments, I believe, of at least two minutes or more at a go) per day for three weeks. (Which has been found to also permanently increase measured IQ by a small but significant amount.) You can also temporarily increase blood flow to your head by lying down on the floor and positioning a chair under your lower legs in a way that comfortably supports them about a foot off the ground.

And there you go -- you've now physically altered the state of your brain, whatever your genetics may have to say about it. Alternatively, all this research into nootropic drugs may be able to influence the function of our brains, and some substances may prove more effective for individuals with serious deficiencies (that a particular drug addresses) than for those with no real limitations. Nootropic nutrients may be even more promising in this regard, since there seem to be fewer issues of side effects.

All of these advances suggest to me that common concerns about genetics are not as dire as they may seem. The two most frequent apocalypses (that we'll be buried under a tidal wave of idiots and incompetents or that we'll be replaced by a new master race of genetic supermen) don't seem as plausible given bio-tech research in a number of promising directions.

Then again, perhaps I'm being optimistic about the supermen. =)


Author's Note: I wrote the original version of this article before my recent posts on brain development being markedly effected by the manipulation of protein levels. What discoveries like that one illustrate is that we really don't know what course biotechnologies -- or any of the other human enhancement technologies -- are going to take over the next decade, much less the rest of the 21st Century. So, aside from giving us reason to be humble in our comments, we're also reminded that one or more major discoveries could easily vault a particular method for human evolution far ahead of the others.

Will we suddenly have genetically enhanced superbabies? Gene therapy optimized adults? Accelerated learning derived savants? Nootropic wunderkinder?

Who knows. What we do know is that we're getting more hints all the time that everything in our world could change at the drop of a hat, and that it's better to know what's going on than to simply get caught flat-footed.


Future Imperative

Master Race, Made to Order? -- Bio

Recently, in discussing one of the items in my last post, I received some interesting feedback, and wanted to share the ideas that emerged as a result.

-----

Yep. They appear to have a technique that could make people superhumanly intelligent by altering the physical brain. And no one seems to have noticed. The mind boggles. Here's the snippet from my site where I comment on it and a link to the article where they discuss the nuts and bolts. (Without delving into the obvious implications.)

"Now here’s one of those breakthroughs that makes you wonder why they didn’t mark it with a screaming neon sign that says 'Blatant Human Enhancement Research.' It starts out innocently enough. 'A protein that's key to determining the developing brain's size and shape could be used to manipulate stem cells to rebuild the organ in adults.' But then they add, 'Underscoring the protein's impact, over-expressing it in rats gave them enlarged brains with grooves and furrows similar to those in evolved mammalian brains.'

"All right. I’m assuming they over-expressed this protein in very young or in-vitro rats. (Or that they would have to in order to get the fullest possible impact.) But nevertheless, we would appear to have the basic method necessary for developing superintelligent infants. Now sure, we don’t know how greatly a broad-based expansion of the brain would improve human minds, which abilities it would most effect or what drawbacks would exist. (Or how those factors would change with greater or lesser or targeted uses of this protein.) But nevertheless. We now have the means to literally create a whole generation of “superbabies.” And obviously, any applications for adult enhancement would be intriguing as well. And apparently, no one has even noticed."

One reader commented "Khan Noonien Singh will be born in my lifetime." (That's a eugenically engineered Star Trek superman, in case you're wondering.)

I responded...

Actually, this is one of those things I suspect could happen in the not-too-distant future. I don't think most authoritarian governments have much time left, but imagine if a tightly controlled dictatorship -- say, North Korea -- were to have thousand or tens of thousands of babies modified in vitro to have this over-expressed protein. And that they made sure the kids continued to have an excess of it in their brains growing up.

Imagine the impact such a country could have on the rest of the world if they had thousands of young adults who had been raised to be fanatically loyal to the state -- children of mid-level party loyalists, or simply orphans raised completely by the state. Imagine what would happen if their brains were as superior to ours as ours are to a mentally disadvantaged person (with no savant gifts) or a really, really high-functioning chimps.

Imagine what they could do to everyone else.

Perhaps more importantly, this protein experiment has already been pulled off in rats, just as the muscle-building trick you cited has been accomplished in mice. Which means these resources could probably be used now -- no major breakthroughs required.

To take another tack, imagine a major emerging power such as China or India testing out this method... and then altering the protein levels in their leaders', scientists' and engineers' brains. Among others. In India's case at least we (the U.S.) would be dealing with a democracy we get along fairly well with. China, on the other hand, hasn't made all of its intentions clear other than a desire to become the foremost power in Asia and, presumably, the world.

Hyper-evolved brains in the heads of the people who can do the most with them could completely alter the world's balance of power. Super-muscular troops are probably less of an issue, but physically superior ground troops never hurt anybody. And hyper-bright officers and weapons designers are apt to have an enormous impact on the capabilities of one's military.

So I ask, should democratic countries be ignoring this issue utterly? Just a thought.

Comments more than welcome. =)


Future Imperative

What a Difference a Week Makes -- Contemplating the Rapid March Towards Human Augmentation -- Bio

*
One way to see just how close we are to radical human enhancement (creating de facto superhumans) is to take a look at the last week or so of biotech breakthroughs. Actually, let’s look at just a small selection of them, with a few comments. See if you notice a pattern here. And yes, before you ask, though I didn’t mess with the chronological order, this list is basically going to get “worse and worse.” Assuming you pay attention to the trends involved. And that accelerated human evolution really bothers you.


A new report notes “A contentious stem cell surgery is reportedly helping a New Zealand woman with motor neuron disease regain function.” The article adds “The disease was progressively affecting her ability to perform daily activities such as eating and walking.
In a bid to maintain function, Terpstra sought a treatment in China in which stem cells from aborted fetuses were inserted into her brain through holes in her skull.”

Here’s the first thing we should consider.

If you have treatments of any kind that handle major degenerative diseases, at what point do you slip across the line from simply treating a disease to increasing human longevity? And even fighting the basic symptoms of aging itself? And secondly, when you can reverse mental degeneration from a disease, how much easier does it become to enhance “normal function”? (This is more of an issue with pharmaceuticals designed to affect memory loss, etc.)

Another study notes, “Research in animals has shown that adult stem cells injected directly into heart muscle can restore heart function to its original condition within two months.” So here we’re looking a major treatment for heart attacks, actually reversing the “permanent muscle damage” of these incidents with injections. Heart disease being one of the most common forms of death by “natural causes,” is such a powerful treatment again crossing that line into longevity research? Only more so?

Researchers seem to have found a prolific source of adult stem cells for the above treatment (among many others). “Stem cells from hair follicles can develop into neurons, muscle and more, suggesting that hair is a potent and accessible source of cells for regenerating tissues.” This is one of those “little steps” that serves as a building block to many other treatments, be they therapeutic, longevity or enhancement-oriented.

And meanwhile, strides are being made on using embryonic stem cells as well (important for the same reason as adult stem cells). “A human protein has been used to grow and maintain embryonic stem cells in the latest step towards eliminating animal products that hinder the cells' therapeutic use.”

Now combine this next breakthrough with what you read above about regenerating hearts (and the new means to generate the adult stem cells for that treatment). “Acupuncture combined with low levels of electrical stimulation can lower blood pressure by up to 50% in animals, suggesting that it could be a good drug-free intervention for treating hypertension.” I repeat, “by up to 50%.” So now we can cut blood pressure by up to 50% with electrostim acupuncture and can reverse muscle damage from heart attacks. And this is essentially one week of developments, people. Selected developments. =)

But how much more could they do to push enhancement therapy in a mere week? Especially when no one seems to be deliberately doing so? Ask the researchers working on sequencing DNA with lasers. “Lasers have been used to hasten DNA sequencing in a step towards fast, portable gene reading that can be performed at a patient's bedside or even the scene of a crime.”

So not only old fashioned doctors who make house calls are against us, but even those CSI guys are working to break down our mundane “human identity.” Personally, I’m not surprised. But if you feel an urge to break out in a chorus of “Whooo are you?” please restrain yourselves. This site has a certain reputation to live up to.

Still, my point here is simple. The more we move forward on making genetic analysis cheap, fast and easy, the more progress we’re going to make on manipulating genes. So when you see seemingly unconnected genetics developments like this, you should know that it’s feeding directly into genetic enhancement research as well as “normal” therapeutic research.

Now here’s one of those breakthroughs that makes you wonder why they didn’t mark it with a screaming neon sign that says “Blatant Human Enhancement Research.” It starts out innocently enough. “A protein that's key to determining the developing brain's size and shape could be used to manipulate stem cells to rebuild the organ in adults.” But then they add, “Underscoring the protein's impact, over-expressing it in rats gave them enlarged brains with grooves and furrows similar to those in evolved mammalian brains.”

All right. I’m assuming they over-expressed this protein in very young or in-vitro rats. (Or that they would have to in order to get the fullest possible impact.) But nevertheless, we would appear to have the basic method necessary for developing superintelligent infants. Now sure, we don’t know how greatly a broad-based expansion of the brain would improve human minds, which abilities it would most effect or what drawbacks would exist. (Or how those factors would change with greater or lesser or targeted uses of this protein.) But nevertheless. We now have the means to literally create a whole generation of “superbabies.” And obviously, any applications for adult enhancement would be intriguing as well. And apparently, no one has even noticed.

Let’s step back from the blatantly revolutionary stuff for a moment. Scientists have also discovered a protein that shortens telomeres. “A protein discovery has furthered understanding of how telomere length is regulated, important to aging and cancer.” Actually, that last bit says it all. This is basic scientific research that is critical to fighting both aging and cancer. You couldn’t be more blunt in showing how intertwined therapy and enhancement technology are in the biotech realm. Of course, if you’re willing to halt all medical research to thwart enhancement, then no problem. But I think it’s useful to understand how thorny a problem that could be. We’re not looking at just a few esoteric studies that feed into potential enhancements. Rather, strides are being made at every turn.

Oh, and here’s another potential longevity breakthrough, this one coming at the issue directly. And in a big way. “A UK scientist says that a hormone already used in human treatments could extend lifespan by 30 extra years. Researchers at Aberdeen University have found in studies that mice with the highest metabolic rate live around 25% longer than mice with the lowest.”

All right, now even vitamins and minerals are against us. “Daily zinc supplements can boost adolescents' mental performance, according to a new study in seventh graders.
Given 20 mg of zinc five days a week for 10 to 12 weeks, participants showed improved mental performance, responding faster, more accurately and with greater sustained attention on memory tasks than classmates not taking the supplements.”

Furthermore, “Against the baseline established by the tests, Penland and colleagues found that students who consumed an additional 20 mg of zinc each day decreased reaction time on a visual memory task by 12% versus 6%, increased correct answers on a word recognition task by 9% versus 3% and increased scores on a sustained attention and vigilance task by 6% versus 1%. Beneficial effects were seen regardless of participants' previous zinc status.”

So we’re looking at a 5 to 6% improvement in three major areas of ability… from taking zinc. Which brings up one of the best questions about human enhancement. Is it okay to improve human abilities by 5 or 6% across the board? How about 15 to 16%? Or 50 to 60%? At what point does it become “wrong” or “too disturbing”? And for that matter, if it’s okay to enhance people using vitamins or minerals, is it okay to do so using drugs with no side effects? Drugs with minor side effects? Drugs with side effects you can live with? Or that some people can (like steroids)?

Rather than offer my own solutions, I prefer to suggest that these are extremely important questions, and the more minds we have working on them, the better. Especially if we want people to listen to whatever guidelines we come up with in our collective wisdom. If most people aren’t part of the conversation, they’re less apt to agree with its conclusions.

Our next find relates to the last one – critical improvements in ability owing to mineral supplementation. Or actually limited abilities due to a lack thereof. “A mild iron deficiency has been found to negatively affect women's ability to care for their newborn children. Such a deficiency, common after childbirth in women who aren't properly nourished, can make women less emotionally available or in tune with their babies, according to a new study from Pennsylvania State University.”

There’s not much to say here except to point out that extremely fuzzy line between therapy and enhancement. Is iron supplementation enhancement? What about the zinc supplements above? Or do we reserve that title for more radical interventions?

This one is almost too much on top of everything else we’ve had so far. Now even onions have decided to jump on the radical therapy bandwagon. When even your vegetables are in on the conspiracy, something big is going on. “Researchers at the University of Bern in Switzerland have found that a compound in onions fights bone loss in laboratory studies using rat bone cells.”

Yes, bone loss is another major debilitating condition involved in aging. Again, how many symptoms of aging are we allowed to treat before we’re basically going after aging itself?

Now here’s an innovation that on the surface doesn’t seem too earthshaking or broadly applicable. “A method of gene therapy has been developed that exploits a natural process to accurately and permanently correct disease-causing genetic mutations.” This system “exploits a process called homologous recombination that occurs when DNA strands of one chromosome break. In this process, damaged chromosomes are repaired using healthy copies of genetic information from corresponding chromosomes in a cell.”

So when you first consider this option, it may not sound too “enhancement-friendly.” After all, if you’re simply repairing mutated DNA with the correct DNA patterns that are already in your cells, you’re not inserting genetic augmentations. But then look at this next discovery in light of this one…

Because this discovery’s fun: “Damaged mitochondrial DNA has been linked to age-related muscle weakness, providing a target for treating and preventing physical decline associated with aging.”

That’s right. Yet another longevity application. If all you have to do is repair mitochondrial DNA, then something that uses the DNA present to do it will work just fine (of course, you’ll need a source in the mitochondria instead of the chromosomes in your nuclei, but it’s still conceivable). And this technique has another obvious “enhancement” spin, since body-building advantages and resisting the effects of age on your athletic potential are rather closely linked.

On the other hand, perhaps you’re just trying to get your osteoporosis treated. Or something scarier. “A drug widely prescribed for osteoporosis also appears to reduce women's risk of mild cognitive impairment by 33%. The drug, raloxifene, modulates the activity of the hormone estrogen. Manufactured by Eli Lilly, it is also used to treat breast cancer.” Yes, reduces that risk by a third. (They only tested women, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it helped men as well.)

Think about how many scientists are over 30 (or 40, 50 or 60). If most of our, say, scientific elite can have their mental abilities protected (or, using other methods, expanded) through treatments designed to counter mental degeneration, are we not engaged in enhancement of one of our most critical populations?

And let me offer one last discovery, this time on cancer. “A virus engineered to kill cancer can significantly increase survival of mice with advanced human brain tumors.
Infecting and reproducing only in malignant glioma cells, killing them while leaving normal tissue unharmed, the virus's ability to prolong the life of mice with advanced tumors is considered important because such tumors are often diagnosed late in humans.”

This is another fun convergence. Of course fighting cancer plays into the whole longevity issue. But engineering viruses also plays into the practicality of some forms of gene therapy – which can be used for both therapies and genetic augmentations. Which makes this development something of a “double threat” if imminent human evolution gives you the heebie-jeebies.


If you read the book Redesigning Humans; Our Inevitable Genetic Future by Gregory Stock you’ll get a terrific discussion of how intertwined straightforward medical research is with “enhancement research” despite the fact that no one is throwing money at human augmentation. Why? Because every tool human enhancement needs is absolutely critical to saving lives in the here and now. And so delaying human development will at least take a huge slowdown in conventional medical research. Which no one is proposing.



Just some thoughts. Oh, and my apologies for anyone waiting for an update. I lost my last version of this post a couple days ago when the site unexpectedly balked at accepting outside contact. I should have more material soon.

"Plant's Genetic Repairs Astound Scientists" -- Bio

"'Plant's Genetic Repairs Astound Scientists' by Joe Palca

"All Things Considered, March 23, 2005 · In a surprising finding that challenges the conventional rules of inheritance, scientists have shown that the cress plant arabidopsis can overwrite the genetic code it inherits from its parents and revert to that of its grandparents or even great grandparents. Scientists say they now hope to learn whether this is just an aberration, or something that could be happening in other plants and even animals."

Hmm. You know where this could prove to be [i]really[/i] important? If you read a book like Redesigning Humans you'll find out that we'll probably be able to modify the genes of embryoes to produce far stronger, smarter, faster, more attractive, etc people.

But gene therapy -- altering the genetic codes of kids and adults -- is more challenging. I wonder if having a plant that can alter its own genetic code could provide clues as to how to enable humans to make that shift.

Of course, it may be the equivalent of the idea of adding an extra pair of easily-modified chromosomes in vitro to humans, and thus having a set of genes that can be tinkered with at will as the child grows older. Still, worth looking into...

And, of course, repairing one's genes always brings up a potential cure for that pesky cancer thing...

Only Using 10% of Your Brain -- A Debunking Debunked -- AL, CPS, Self

If you've ever heard that the we only use 20% of our brains, or 10%, or less -- or have ever heard that declaration dismissed as an urban legend -- you might be curious as to where the original idea came from. Here's an explanation -- and an argument as to why the actual measure is very different from 10 or 20%. (The following is a quote from Dr. Win Wenger.)

"The literature hasn't been entirely too helpful in either regard, but the original study, the one that practically every workshop leader tosses off as gospel a la folklore without ever bothering to go to source or naming source, is that by J.Z. Young, published in 1964 in his A Model of The Brain (London: Oxford U. Press). He did the actual sampling and counting, and concluded that somewhere between 5% and 10% of the brain was developed, based upon what proportion of the sampled brain cells showed any development at all. Other researchers since have quarelled with his sampling strategies, but apparently did not come up with substantially different conclusions. None of these that I know of factored in the DEGREE of development. Degree can be physiologically demonstrated two ways - thickness of the myelin sheathing which insulates the nerve cell, making it easier to build up a charge difference between the insides and outsides of the cell so it can fire; and the number of dendritic connections the cell makes with other cells. The number of dendritic conections is more easily counted as an indicator. Some cells have been counted with more than sixty thousand connections with other cells, we can mark that as a kind of potential ceiling even though we don't know what actual ceiling exists except that it has to be that high or higher. Most brain cells that are developed at all have only a dozen or so connections with other cells. So,

"Factor the DEGREE of development in with the percentage of cells actually developed and we are already looking at well under 1% development of the brain, in fact well under 1% of 1%, just in physiological terms alone.

"If we turn to behavioral aspects, especially conscious and unconscious, we find similar considerations - for just the developed parts of the brain that we are using. For example, the apparent long-term permanent storage of either every, or at least an astronomical many, of our experiences dating back to infancy and even some in the womb, of which we have conscious use of but a tiny portion of these unless you use drugs, hypnosis, or some of our non-drug non-hypnotic non-intrusive processes that we use routinely in Project Renaissance. Factor that together, in turn, with this - -

"At arms' length distance, please hold up your index finger and stare fixedly at it. Without moving your eyes from your index finger, notice how much more of your surroundings you can see and make sense of. Your index finger is about the span of your visual focus, and represents nicely the still larger issue of the span of your attentiional focus for all ongoing sensory awarenesses and experience. The behaviorists all the way back to Watson demonstrated that that "lateral" information coming in also registers and goes into long-term data storage and whatever processing is engaged there. Either all of it, or at least a great amount of it.... Factor this focus-vs.-background factor together with the enormous beyond-conscious data storage together with the physiological less-than-1%, and I have to conclude - -

"1) The proportion of mind and brain we have developed and are consciously using is very substantially less than that 1%, and -

"2) We do have some room for improvement.

"In addition, we in Project Renaissance have had a lot of experience in bringing not only data, previously beyond-conscious, onto line with full verbal conscious focus, but also functions. It is moreover clear to us that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

"I cannot answer for Tony Buzan's literature which, I think, has somewhat different premises. But I'm afraid I have to stick to my statement that the 1% proposition was something of an understatement. With apologies, ....win

"PS - any of you who DO teach or train workshops, in which you've been using that piece of 5-10 per cent folklore, copy down my J.Z. Young reference above. I've done some of your homework for you. ...w

"PPS - For those of you who are currently practiced in ImageStreaming, one very nice "past history" process you can do this very minute if you care to research this topic experientially, is detailed for you at http://www.winwenger.com/part44.htm That one is not set up specifically for retrieving deep past memories - it is set up for another purpose - but it should be utterly easy for you to use that to retrieve some of your very deep, very beyond-conscious offline memories if you should care to. Additional deep retrieval procedures, more directly useful for that purpose, are contained in my book "Beyond O.K." (http://www.winwenger.com/beyondok.htm) .....w"

Funky Tech Alert -- Battery that Recharges in Just One Minute -- Tech

*
Another example of what working with nanoscale structures -- even if we still lack hard nano-assemblers -- is affecting our technology, especially when it comes to materials engineering.

And yes, kids, one day you'll be able to say to your grandchildren, "When I was your age, I had to plug in my cell phone a whole [I]minute[/I] before it'd recharge. Yeah, you heard me -- a [I][B]minute[/B][/I]!" =)

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-04-01-3

What's more, after a mere 1000 charges, it loses about 1% of its electrical capacity. Boy, we're really livin' in the dark ages, eh?

Poll (Humor): How to Spend $5 Million to Become Superhuman -- Part V -- All but Long, Rev and Super

And so we come to the end of my almost serious poll on "How would you become superhuman if you had a spare $5 million to spend on the project?" Before I toss out this last segment, let me add that I haven't by any means exhausted your potential options. But this five-part list does illustrate the fact that there are tons of methods and technologies out there which most people don't know about. And which could be suprisingly effective in changing some aspect of your abilities or life (particularly if you give credence to anecdotal evidence).

So here's your last set of options. Enjoy. And if you become superhuman in the future, by whatever standard, please let me know.

Acquire or develop cool gadgets like…

...all that spy stuff you can get in the kids section of Wal-Mart (nightvision goggles, eavesdropping microphones, detective’s kits, etc). There are action figures that have their own working nightvision goggles, and if Jake Justice deserves them, why don’t I? =)

…stylish bulletproof clothes. ‘Cause the clothes make the man. Or in this case, keep him from being unmade.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/start.html?pg=5

…floatation tanks, just because you can find the plans here and there online.
http://float-tank.centauremt.com/

The Book of Floating: Exploring the Private Sea by Michael Hutchison


…quantum computers, ‘cause I need some real Ubertech. http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Encyclopedia/article.aspx?articleID=2002-05-23-1

…nanotech, ‘cause I need even more Ubertech. http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Encyclopedia/article.aspx?articleID=2002-05-08-6http://crnano.org/

Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation by K. Eric Drexler


...nanomedicine, because I deserve to be immortal. Nanomedicine, Vol. I: Basic Capabilities by Robert A. Freitas Jr.


...power armor, ‘cause if it’s good enough for the military, it’s good enough for me. http://www.betterhumans.com/Errors/index.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/Robotic_Legs_Closer_for_US_Soldiers.Article.2004-03-05-2.aspx


Develop "metanormal" abilities (psi, magic, etc) by…

Becoming a cyborg, period (like those Borg on Star Trek!).
http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Encyclopedia/article.aspx?articleID=2002-06-12-2

"Uploading" my brain or replacing its neurons with artificial ones. http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Encyclopedia/article.aspx?articleID=2002-05-22-3

Becoming a real cyborg – full body replacement, followed by full brain replacement! =) http://www.natasha.cc/primoguide.htm

Join the U.S. military, or the right government agency, and wait for them to turn me into a cyborg... or genetically enhance me... or give me all kinds of supertech... or all that and more...

Yes, according the following report, government researchers think that creating superhumans is not only possible, it’s likely and desirable if we choose to exploit the relevant emerging technologies.
http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/

And even if I don’t get into those experiments, I’ll join the U.S. military anyway, just to become one of their “future warriors.” http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/index.html

Create a friendly artificial intelligence (AI) and hope that it will do something to improve my existence.
http://www.singinst.org/intro/AI.html

Wait for a technological “singularity” to advance science faster than we can imagine. Take advantage of all that unimaginable science.
http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html

Freeze my body and especially my brain, hoping that when the above singularity happens, the benevolent higher beings will resurrect me and give me superhuman powers. http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Encyclopedia/article.aspx?articleID=2002-05-08-3

Use eugenics or genetic selection to breed my own Master Race – of which I will, incidentally, not be a part…
http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Encyclopedia/article.aspx?articleID=2003-12-08-1

Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future by Gregory Stock


Have my own genetics improved through gene therapy (doubling strength and/or enhanced cardio endurance are already within easy reach, so who knows what’s next)...
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Reports/report.aspx?articleID=2004-08-09-1

Self-hypnosis sounds cool. I think I’ll write my own scripts... http://www.hypnosis.demon.co.uk/v3/self_hypnosis/index.html

Or Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), for that matter...
Trance-Formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis by John Grinder and Richard Bandler


Use supercharged affirmations/positive visualizations... http://www.pavlovpublishing.com/archive.htm

Develop my psi, ESP, etc...
http://www.psipog.net/welcome.html


Develop remote viewing abilities...
http://www.remote-viewing.com/indexmain.html

Develop my telekinetic powers…
http://www.uyta.com/

Use my telekinetic powers to reach back into the past…
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/

Learning the inner mysteries of the ancient, mighty art of, um, acupressure!... http://www.acupressure.com

And if standing around in elaborate robes performing elaborate rituals works for the Ancient Order of the Sacred Moose, then it works for me. Let’s try hermetic magick! http://www.hermetics.org/home.html

Develop/adopt a philosophy/lifestyle that supports my efforts, such as......the Frank Herbert (of “Dune”) concept that people evolve when forced to by immense stress. http://tim.oreilly.com/sci-fi/herbert/ch00.html

...Dr. Win Wenger’s model of self-development through asking better questions... http://www.winwenger.com/part63.htm

...Socratic self-expression of the fine details of your own perceptions, which lets you tap those unutilized mental resources... http://www.winwenger.com/part57.htm http://www.winwenger.com/archives/part26.htm http://www.winwenger.com/archives/part7.htm

...and some further thoughts on the relevance of this kind of work... http://www.winwenger.com/part50.htm

Use whatever seems to work, whether it's on this list or not. (List any particular methods not yet mentioned here.)


Use some other funky plan I found on the Net…

Funky Plan Sites and Books:

The Future of the Body: Explorations into the Further Evolution of Human Nature by Michael Murphy...
&...
The Life We Are Given: A Long-Term Program for Realizing the Potential of Body, Mind, Heart, and Soul by George Leonard and Michael Murphy




Grasshopper Enterprises – Mind Games
http://www.grasshopper.com/mind_games.htm http://www.grasshopper.com/batmemes1.htm
http://www.grasshopper.com

Genius by Design
http://www.geniusbydesign.com

Genius Code by Dr. Win Wenger and Paul Scheele
A melding (reputedly powerful) of the accelerated learning/intelligence enhancement work of both these men.
http://www.geniusbydesign.com/reviews/secondgen/geniuscode1.shtml

How to Increase Your Intelligence by Dr. Win Wenger
A simple but intensive 3-week brain building program.


Ripples from the Zambezi by Ernesto Sirolli
How to stimulate lots of localized economic development – good for anyone who feels free enterprise is where they want to start forging their ultimate super-civ.


The Socratic Continuum – Draw Forth Genius in Yourself and All Those Around You http://www.winwenger.com/part57.htm

Underground Society (Plan for Developing “Elite Fighters”)http://members.fortunecity.com/kisociety/undergroundsociety/index.html

4 Day Plan: Blueprint for a Superman (Outline Only)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+transhuman+OR+superhuman+%22self+improvement%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=20010321171620.22624.00000406%40ng-md1.aol.com&rnum=13

And of Course: Forget All These Other Foolish Plans – Send the Money to Meeee!!! =) =) =)

So... Any comments? =)