Don't Play God? Someone Has To.

One very energetic group of opponents to technological advance and bioengineering happens to be composed of people who believe that the human race lives under the concern and protection of a benevolent deity. In their view, tinkering with something that this god made and called "good," is not only an affront to this god but also a path to destruction. The problem with this point of view is that science has proven it wrong. Throughout the history of life on this planet, species have come and gone. Nature does not care about perpetuating our species.

Take a look at an excellent article by Sam Harris, featured on RichardDawkins.Net entitled "Mother Nature is Not Our Friend." A brief excerpt:

The fossil record suggests that individual species survive, on average, between one and ten million years. The concept of a "species" is misleading, however, and it tempts us to think that we, as homo sapiens, have arrived at some well-defined position in the natural order. The term "species" merely designates a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; it cannot be aptly applied to the boundaries between species (to what are often called "intermediate" or "transitional" forms). There was, for instance, no first member of the human species, and there are no canonical members now. Life is a continuous flux. Our nonhuman ancestors bred, generation after generation, and incrementally begat what we now deem to be the species homo sapiens — ourselves. There is nothing about our ancestral line or about our current biology that dictates how we will evolve in the future. Nothing in the natural order demands that our descendants resemble us in any particular way. Very likely, they will not resemble us. We will almost certainly transform ourselves, likely beyond recognition, in the generations to come.

Will this be a good thing? The question presupposes that we have a viable alternative. But what is the alternative to our taking charge of our biological destiny? Might we be better off just leaving things to the wisdom of Nature? I once believed this. But we know that Nature has no concern for individuals or for species. Those that survive do so despite Her indifference. While the process of natural selection has sculpted our genome to its present state, it has not acted to maximize human happiness; nor has it necessarily conferred any advantage upon us beyond the capacity raise the next generation to child-bearing age. In fact, there may be nothing about human life after the age of forty (the average lifespan until the 20th century) that has been selected by evolution at all. And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene.

Sam Harris makes a profound point. The continuation of what we call human is not a given. If we do not play god on our own behalf, who will?

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Self-Enhancement Unethical?

Safety concerns over people taking drugs to improve themselves is fine, but this article seems to go beyond the issue of safely. It seems to imply that well people should not be trying to enhance themselves.

The ability of prescription drugs and medical procedures to improve intellectual performance is likely to increase significantly in the next 20 to 30 years as technology advances.

"We know that there is likely to be a demand by healthy individuals for this treatment," Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's Medical Ethics Committee said at the launch of a discussion paper on the issue.

"However, given that no drug or invasive medical procedure is risk free, is it ethical to make them available to people who are not ill?"

Why wouldn't it be ethical to make drugs or procedures available to people who are not ill? What is wrong with letting well people make themselves better? Perhaps it's competition they fear. Can't have the average idiots making themselves as smart as the cognoscenti, can we?

I am all for safety, but some folks seem to have a socialist view of medicine and do not want to see a day when people can make themselves more competitive by enhancing their "god-given" abilities. That wouldn't be "fair." But self-enhancing products do not remain out of reach for the average citizen for very long. Technology is always too expensive for most people in its early stages, but eventually everyone can have it. Computers and cell phones are just two examples of this phenomenon. So I say let the rich be the testers. Perfect the stuff with them and then, when all the bugs have been worked out, let me at it.

Brain-boosting drugs spark ethical debate in UK

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Scientists Shy Away from Human Enhancement...Again

I have written before about this phenomenon and wondered aloud about its psychological and sociological underpinnings. Here I go again. The article in question describes the creation of so-called super-mice: able to leap tall buildings, etc., but very quickly quotes the researchers as follows:

They emphasized that the aim of the research was not to prepare the way to enhance the genes of people.

And again:

"We humans have exactly the same gene. But this is not something that you'd do to a human. It's completely wrong. We do not think that this mouse model is an appropriate model for human gene therapy. It is currently not possible to introduce genes into the skeletal muscles of humans and it would not be ethical to even try."

No, no, no. We aren't even thinking of enhancing anybody. That would be wrong. We only want to help cure diseases:

Professor Hanson accepted that it was possible athletes might misuse any future drug developed in this way. He said: "It's very possible. It's a different approach to putting a gene into a human. I would only do that to help anyone who suffers from disorders such as cystic fibrosis."

Apparently it's politically incorrect to consider making humans better. We can only use science to bring everyone to the same level. I absolutely believe that we should find cures for diseases. I also believe that we should not shy away from enhancing ourselves.

How will the current mentality play itself out? I know there are researchers out there working at human enhancement, but when will it be seen as "ethical"? Will it ever?

The mouse that shook the world

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

The Call for Human Augmentation is Beginning

There have been innumerable occasions during my lifetime when I have wondered what it must have been like to be part of the beginning of something big. The 60s, for example. The sexual revolution. The birth of personal computing. I was not there at the beginning of many important, transformative periods. But this time, I am there. Or here.

I have written before about the absence of a hue and cry for technologies to augment the human animal. The last time I posted on this topic, a reader commented that cosmetic surgery was a kind of augmentation, but even there the goal is to bring people up to the standards of the super-beautiful, not really to go beyond what it means to be human. And I'm not talking about machines that exist outside of and separate from the body; we already have lots of those. I'm talking about enhancements to our senses that take us far beyond normal human ability, and to our powers of cognition, our durability, our ability to live underwater, etc. Almost no one in the mainstream of business or science is calling for that kind of augmentation. It is heartening, therefore, when someone with influence issues just such a call.

Ed Boyden, Assistant Professor in the MIT Media Lab and MIT Department of Biological Engineering, has written an excellent article called In Pursuit of Human Augmentation
The journey toward making "normal" obsolete. His central point:

It's arguably time for a discipline to emerge around the idea of human augmentation. At the MIT Media Lab, we are beginning to search for principles that govern the use of technology to augment human abilities--that make the idea of normal obsolete. As a codirector of the Center for Human Augmentation, I lead a lab, the Neuroengineering and Neuromedia Lab, that is developing devices that will hopefully eventually allow us to enhance memory, creativity, and happiness in humans.

Will his determination to be at the forefront of such a discipline catch on? I certainly hope so. Stay tuned.

Source article.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

The Ethics of Enhancing Humanity

Not too long ago I raised the question, When will remediation become augmentation? In other words, when will medical science begin to use technology to enhance healthy people in addition to treating the sick? For the first time I have run across a notable figure actually urging medical researchers to do exactly that.

In Canberra, Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University and an eminent bio-ethisist, recently told a gathering there that Doctors are too focused on treating the sick and risk missing the enormous opportunities of using advances in medical science to "make happier, better people."

"If we cured all disease - cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. - we would only prolong life on average by 12 years," the Australian-born Savulescu said.

"So we have pretty much reached the ceiling of what we can do by treating and preventing disease."

The next frontier is enhancing life through medical intervention. We can be brighter, stronger, healthier.

He argued that many of us routinely use cognitive enhancers like caffeine and nicotine. Alcohol is another intervention, this time to improve mood and aid socialization. Prozac and Viagra are interventions.

Savulescu urged the medical profession to embrace new methodologies and not worry too much about ethical considerations.

"The sort of methodologies in science that I'm talking about are stem cell science, cloning and the new genetics," he said.

I predict that this sentiment will, unfortunately, be criticized by misguided people who will accuse scientists of "playing God," who alone, according to them, should have the right to improve humanity. But if a few visionary men and women see that there exists the potential for a massive market for such enhancements, the naysayers will just be whistling in the dark. At least this is what I hope. Let those who are against human enhancement remain as they are if that is their choice, but let them not claim the right to make that choice for me.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

I Have Set Before You Life and Death

These words, taken from the Bible, may have a meaning for us that is somewhat different to what the author intended. In a completely non-religious context, those of us who are still alive in the next 20 to 30 years may very well face this choice: Do I want to live forever?

In this BBC Channel Four documentary, the ideas of Aubrey de Grey, Ph. D., are examined. For those of you who are unfamiliar with him, Aubrey de Grey is a biomedical gerontologist who is working on the goal he calls engineered negligible senescence.



Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Why Are We Cool With Age-Related Death?

Though it is unusual for me to post more than once a day on this blog, it is not unheard of. Today is one of those days when I have something on my mind and just need to get it out to you straightaway. Having a sandwich for lunch, Fox News on the TV (without sound), ALERTs popping up one after the other. Bridge collapse: What caused this catastrophe? Teens shot: Terrible tragedy. Mine explosion: What went wrong?

What struck me was the evidence of society's alarm at death's newest acquisitions, but only when they are from unnatural causes. Death can take as many as it wants by natural causes and no one cares a whit. Why is that? Why do we show such passionate concern over improving bridge safety, but none at all over aging? Looked at another way, it seems we want everyone to get their 80 years' worth. But no more. (Wizened and toothless 120-year-old exceptions excepted.)

Don't people realize that the number 80, roughly speaking, is not written in stone? It's only the current life expectancy, and only in this country. Would you have been upset with anyone wanting more than 60 years in the 1930s? Or more than 40 years in the 1850s? Why is one number more appropriate than another?

Why are age-related deaths acceptable and others not? I'll give you my take on it. Because we have been conditioned to believe that age-related death cannot be avoided, we have sanctified it. We sanctify what we believe is inevitable. But I believe, as Dr. House yelled in one episode, "Death is never dignified! Ever!"

I know there was an episode of Star Trek, though I can't remember which one, in which people would go off to the death chambers when their number came up, docilely and without complaint, because they had been conditioned to think of dying as an honorable thing to do in an overpopulated world. Rather than try to solve the overpopulation by other viable means, they kept marching to their demise like lambs to slaughter. Of course Captain Kirk set them straight in the end.

I know what people say are their reasons for not wanting to extend their health-span. The say they would get bored? How do they know that? Unless they are already bored at 30. But that's their problem, not the world's. They say people would go mad. Again, how do they know that? Has anyone tried it? I think if you enjoy life there would be nothing to cause mental collapse. They say there aren't enough resources for everyone. Well why don't we figure out how to solve that? Why are people so unwilling to live longer?

I'll tell you something else that I think may be involved. Religion. If we live much longer, we sort of show that God may not be there after all. Didn't he say in a fit of pique that the sum of our years shall be 120 and no more? If we can bust that limit, what does that say about God?

Your thoughts on all this are invited.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Stop Thinking Lifespan and Start Thinking Healthspan

It is devilishly difficult to change the meanings we have associated with words and had reinforced over years and even decades. At the moment I am in the middle of an Accounting for Management class as part of an MBA program. In accounting, debits and credits mean only one thing: items to the left and items to the right of the line. They have no meaning as so subtraction or addition. I know this, and yet my long-held beliefs about these words still intrude into my cold calculations.

Similarly, I think we associate age with infirmity, which is quite understandable, since we have seen people get old, get sick, require lots of medicines and expensive medical procedures to keep them alive, and then die. It is rare to find someone older than 65 who has no illnesses and is hale and healthy.

Because the idea of old age is so firmly wedded to the idea of sickness and costly medical care, when transhumanists speak about the goal of radical life-extension, people seem to envision a world full of cane-using, wheelchair-riding, social-security-needing, 200-year-old parasites who are blithely sucking the last bit of the marrow out of the Earth's resources before finally kicking the bucket. I can see them thinking, Man, die already! I mean how long can someone play golf and eat dinner at 4 PM?

This is where it helps to understand that transhumanists are not interested in extending our number of dying years. They are interested in extending the number of years (perhaps indefinitely) we are completely healthy. No osteoporosis. No diabetes. No cancer. No heart disease. No inch-thick bifocals. No need for life-support. Just every 20 years a fresh round of rejuvenation therapy and many, many years of productive life. We're not talking about living off social security and Medicare. Won't need it.

So try that picture and see if it helps any.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Maximum Age Increasing at Accelerating Rate

It is a long-held believe that humans have a maximum life span of 115 to 120 years. Like many long-held beliefs, this one is also incorrect according to a recent demographic study by UC Berkeley associate professor of demography John Wilmoth.

"Those numbers are out of thin air," said Wilmoth. "There is no scientific basis on which to estimate a fixed upper limit. Whether 115 or 120 years, it is a legend created by scientists who are quoting each other."

Wilmoth and his associates found that maximum life span at death has been rising for the last 138 years. (Note that this study concerns maximum life span at death, not average life span.) Not only has this number been increasing, but it has been increasing at an accelerating rate.

Historical records, on the other hand, show that the entire configuration of ages at death in Sweden has been shifting upward for 138 years, he said. The upward trend accelerated suddenly around 1970, more than doubling the rate at which the life span was growing, from less than one year of age for every two decades to more than one year per decade.

This has happened because of medical and public health advances throughout the century, said Wilmoth, whose analysis ruled out simple population growth as a factor. Some scientists had thought that the increased number of very old people could be due to a larger population base, but Wilmoth's data show that the main cause is increased survival after age 70.

There have been countless gripes about the technology that keeps people alive who would otherwise have died, all claiming that there is no point to prolonging life when there is no quality of life or hope of recovery. No argument here. But those who are working at eliminating or reversing aging speak not of life span, but of health span. The goal is to increase the span of years that people can expect to be healthy, not hooked up to life-saving machines.

I have been surprised by the number of people who say they would not want to live longer than the current average life span of about 80 years. Would the same people have chosen to live only 40 years when that was the average life span? To me these numbers seem arbitrary. But a deeper question arises: Why wouldn't people choose more life? Is it because they are unhappy? Perhaps that is true for some. Is it because they are bored? Again, perhaps. But another reason comes to mind: Is it because they are religious?

Those who believe that they will inherit eternal life in spiritual form through their religious beliefs may feel that prolonging their physical life is only postponing their journey into a heavenly existence. I'm not sure. In any case, I am confident that we will have that choice before too long. What will you choose if you make it until then?

Original Story

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Precision Drug Delivery Achieved

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the key to nanotech's power is in its precision. Assembling structures one atom or molecule at a time, or delivering precise dosages of drugs to precise locations, it's about precision. Researchers at Iowa State University have made a major breakthrough in the latter by using nano-sized devices to "penetrate plant cell walls and simultaneously deliver a gene and a chemical that triggers its expression with controlled precision."

Currently, scientists can successfully introduce a gene into a plant cell. In a separate process, chemicals are used to activate the gene's function. The process is imprecise and the chemicals could be toxic to the plant.

"With the mesoporous nanoparticles, we can deliver two biogenic species at the same time," Wang said. "We can bring in a gene and induce it in a controlled manner at the same time and at the same location. That's never been done before."

The devices themselves are amazing creations in their own right:

It is a porous, silica nanoparticle system. Spherical in shape, the particles have arrays of independent porous channels. The channels form a honeycomb-like structure that can be filled with chemicals or molecules.

"One gram of this kind of material can have a total surface area of a football field, making it possible to carry a large payload," Trewyn said.

Lin's nanoparticle has a unique "capping" strategy that seals the chemical goods inside. In previous studies, his group successfully demonstrated that the caps can be chemically activated to pop open and release the cargo inside of animal cells. This unique feature provides total control for timing the delivery.

Very little imagination is required to see where this research can lead in terms of the ability to deliver medicines and gene-therapies to the specific cells that need them. Even further, we can envision the development of nano-devices that will repair damaged cells and clean up the toxic waste products that our bodies fail to deal with. Radical life-extension, here we come.

Source

[via Nanosingularity]

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Who Will Build the First Artificial Mind?

Most of the work that has been done so far and is being done now in the field of artificial intelligence is focused on what is called "narrow" AI. That is, AI systems that are very good at, in fact far better than humans are, certain narrow fields. They are powerfully intelligent in terms of solving very specialized problems. According to AGIRI.org:

Specialized intelligence is simply the capability of a system to carry out some instance of Problem Solving that is considered difficult.

This includes the intelligence displayed by Narrow AI programs like Deep Blue or Google that are highly tailored to do just one sort of thing.

There is a sort of instant gratification in the development of narrow AI, because it solves difficult problems as soon as it is completed and thus has immediate value, whether in industry or academia. Nothing wrong with that. But who is working on making a mind?

Distinct from narrow AI is "general" AI, known as AGI. A general artificial intelligence would be able to understand and manipulate all kinds of patterns and problems. You could have a great conversation with an AGI. And an AGI that has access to its own code could quickly become a super-intelligent AI, with greater-than-human intelligence. Building an AGI is a much more difficult undertaking than building narrow AI. So who is working on AGI?

The Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute is, that's who. Specifically, Dr. Ben Goertzel and his team are building what they hope will become an AGI. They call it Novamente. Here is a recent 30 minute presentation by Dr. Goertzel on their project. His presentation is titled Artificial Intelligence and Human Immortality. Enjoy!



Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

BBC - Time Video: How to Live Forever

I posted about this program a few days ago but couldn't find it online. Someone did and posted the link in a comment, so here it is. It really is amazing.



Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Radical Life-Extension is Going Mainstream

No doubt every generation in human history has thought of itself as possessing unique characteristics. And no doubt many generations have. However, there are developments that are now on the brink of occurring that will transform humanity in ways that make the word "unique" seem far too weak to encompass what is coming.

A Science Channel program was aired this week, with little fanfare or publicity, but which nonetheless brought the idea of radical life-extension into the mainstream of public consciousness. It was profoundly moving to me for many reasons which I will explain in a bit. The program was titled very simply, "Time."

When I first saw the listing and decided to record it to my DVR, I anticipated a physics-based analysis of the "fourth dimension," which might have been interesting. What I saw, however, was something I did not expect: an analysis of human aging that culminated with the realistic hope of overcoming it within the lifetimes of those now living.

One of my first pleasant surprises was the program's host, Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist who has a gift of explaining physics in a way that makes it interesting and understandable to the layman. He was the perfect person to be host.

The program began with a description of man's unique awareness of his own mortality and how this awareness gave rise to our desire to overcome the mastery of death. He spent some time discussing religions' promise of eternal life, but pointed out the problem that, in order to receive it, one must have faith that it exists. Dr. Kaku then confessed that, even though the viewer may not require proof of heaven's existence, he does.

As the program progressed, Dr. Kaku explained something that biologists have recently discovered, something that has turned our understanding of death on its head: There is no gene for death. There is absolutely nothing in our genetic code that programs us to die. Rather, everything in our genes is programed for us to live. So what's the problem?

Dr. Kaku then pointed to the fact that our metabolic process, in essence the process of being alive, "leaks" free radicals, which go on to damage our cells so that they do not operate properly. We have mechanisms in place to repair this damage, but those mechanisms are eventually overwhelmed, and our bodies age. That's it. That's the problem. The accumulation of cellular damage that our bodies cannot repair.

The program continued as I was fervently hoping it would, with a brief interview with none other than the bearded one, Aubrey de Grey himself, who explained his confidence that we will be able to repair enough of this damage to delay death long enough for rejuvenation therapies to improve, so that more damage can be repaired, thus buying enough time for further improvements, et cetera. He explained that, while biblical-style immortality would not be achieved using rejuvenation therapies (since humans could still be killed by other means besides aging), living for 1,000 to 2,000 years was definitely possible.

Finally, Dr. Kaku asked the question: If we could live that long by simply drinking the contents of a bottle (and here he held a hypothetical glass bottle of rejuvenation fluid), would we drink it? He walked about it New York City asking people that question. To his surprise, many said that they wound not, citing reasons such as, they would get bored, they would miss their departed loved ones, they would go mad, 80 years was enough, and the like. On the other hand, many said they would, that they loved life and would gladly accept more of it.

Then Dr. Kaku made it personal. "Would I drink it?" After a brief pause and a smile, he said, "Sure."

PS: If you know where a video of this program can be found on the web, please let me know.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Nanotechnology and All Things Precise

What is the big deal about nanotechnology. Why are really tiny machines better than regular-sized machines? And why are engineered drugs supposed to be so much better than the ones we came up with before? And what makes smart bombs so smart?

These are just some of the questions many people find themselves asking whenever these topics arise in the news. They are good questions, and they all have the same answer: Precision. Yes, folks, in each case it is about precision. Let me explain.

Hundred dollar bills

Imagine that you are a normal person, with a normal income and normal tastes in consumer goods. OK, got that? There is only one thing strange about you. It's your money. All you have are $100 bills. When you get paid, they round down. When you pay for goods and services, they round up. This means that your weekly salary of $1099 is rounded to $1000. You lose $99 every week. Too bad, so sad. When you buy a 25 cent pack of gum (if you are foolish enough to buy only that), you have to pay, $100. A dinner bill of $35 including tip costs you, you guessed it, $100.

Precision in fabrication

That would surely suck, wouldn't it? Well, we've been doing something like that for many thousands of years. How so? you ask. Well, whenever we build a widget, for example, we round up on the materials we use to build it, simply because our tools can't be any more precise about it. But what if we could build that widget atom by atom? We would use not one more atom than is necessary. With lots of widgets we could save a bundle.

Precision in medicine

How about drugs, the medicinal kind? First, instead of taking a bunch of ingredients, mixing them together and trying the concoction on test victims, I mean subjects, to see what, if any, therapeutic effects might result, we would be able to build a molecule or compound exactly to order, made from the start to do exactly what we want it to do. Second, rather than manufacturing one drug to treat every headache, we could design and create one that's just perfect for you, based on your specific genetic makeup.

Further, wouldn't it be nice if, instead of having to swallow a pill that has to be dissolved in your belly, then absorbed through the lining of your intestines, float around your bloodstream until most of the molecules find the right address, they could all be targeted and delivered precisely where they are needed? Not a molecule wasted?

Killing the right enemy

And smart bombs, well, we're talking about not killing 15 people when we only need to kill one. (I'm am optimistic about the future, but the idea that we won't have bombs or killing...come on.)

This idea of making things more precise through technology is affecting you right now. One reason why there's so little inflation, why prices of most things are stable or falling, is because of technology. The companies that make and process and package and deliver and sell the milk you buy are all using computers and sophisticated algorithms to make sure they aren't wasting a drop of milk or a second of time. Of course, they are wasting many drops and many seconds, because the technology available has lots of room for improvement. But we are learning the advantages of precision.

So, now you know. It's time to start cheering for technology, for artificial general intelligence, and the singularity.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Reflections on "Human 2.0: Creating Gods"

I hope many of my readers took the time to watch the entire BBC presentation of "Human 2.0: Creating Gods," if only to gain an understanding of the fantastic possibilities and existential dangers that are approaching with the singularity. I watched it yesterday, and today I will post some of the thoughts that occurred to me as I reflected on what I saw.

The Singularity is Almost Certainly Inevitable

Anyone who watches the videos will probably come away with this feeling. Barring something like an ELE (extinction-level event) in the next two decades, computers will achieve and quickly thereafter exceed human intelligence by 2025; and the human brain will be simulated successfully in a computer.

Serious people (and serious money) are toiling away at various aspects of this goal, and they are making incredible headway. As Ray Kurzweil points out, computers became a billion times more powerful in the last 25 years, and they will become another billion times more powerful in the next 25 years, which will put them at and beyond human intelligence.

Within a year, a supercomputer that has been painstakingly fed, neuron by neuron, the circuitry and workings of a section of mouse brain, will be turned on. Once that occurs, it will not be very long before an entire animal brain, and then a human brain, will be simulated on a computer.

It Has Never Happened Before

Obviously the technology is new, that's not really what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the singularity, which can be defined as a point of "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history." We think of history as being cyclical: nations rise and fall, great men and women come and go, boom and bust, over and over. There have been amazing inventions: fire, the wheel, writing, the printing press, the airplane. But this has never happened before, and it has never even been anticipated before except in science fiction. We can speculate all we want about the results and consequences of it, but no one can predict what will come next.

The Downsides Must Be Mitigated

It cannot be stopped, and it will present existential dangers, that is, dangers that threaten the continued existence of the human species. What must be done then, and what is being done, is to develop safeguards and defensive measures against the inevitable downsides. Just as the Internet age brought viruses and Trojans, and just as responsible people have continued to develop the means to stay steps ahead of those who use it for nefarious purposes, so we must stay ahead of the dangers that will come with the singularity.

Please feel free to share your own reflections in a comment.

If you haven't yet seen the videos, you can watch them be going to yesterday's post. And by so doing, you will be staying tuned.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Human 2.0: Creating Gods

These are must-see videos. This series of videos that demonstrates just how far along we are on the road to transhumanism and singularity: creating a new kind of human.



Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

(Wait until the monkey stops moving its arm! A profoundly creepy moment.)

Part 5

Part 6

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Death is Swallowed Up

"But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory."

Although the means may be different, the passion is the same, the desire to overturn the rule of death, to make taxes the only thing that's certain. The sentiment expressed by the apostle arises in the breast of all humanity, a shaking of fists against a ruthless destroyer. We say together, Let us have an end to death's reign.

I wish it were so. One would think, at least I would, that we would all feel this way. Not to force unending life upon those who do not want it, but rather to allow for the choice. Death now leaves no alternative. I vote for options.

I vote for a world in which anyone who so desires can choose to be healthy and strong indefinitely; rejuvenation treatments every 10 years, but only if you want them. I vote for the option to make backups of our minds that can be restored in artificial bodies should accidental death occur. I vote for the choice to be uploaded into virtual worlds, and to live there as long as I want to. I don't think that's asking too much.

I learned this morning of the death of a beloved aunt, gone at 66 years of age. The pattern of her experiences and personality, as wonderful as they were, are gone forever. Yes, a part of her lives on in our own memories, but the person she was is no more. Why should she have ended at 66?

Some have expressed to me that desiring more than 80 years or so seems greedy. Enough is enough. Life would get boring after that. But why 80 years? We only choose that number because it happens to be our approximate, average life expectancy where we live. Should those who live in Botswana be happy with 40 years? Would they be tired of life after 40 years? How about Ethiopians at 45?

The fact is, these numbers are completely arbitrary. We only think that 80 is acceptable and should be enough for anyone because that happens to be about all we can expect at this moment and in this country. Those who accept the Bible literally should recall that Methuselah lived to 969, and no one complains that he must have been bored from 80 on.

It's almost as if most of us have been brainwashed into a quiescent melancholy or quiet cynicism so that we accept death with meekness and without complaint. It is my belief that radical life-extension will come anyway, but perhaps it would arrive sooner if we all wanted death to be swallowed up.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Want to Sound Like a Singularity Guru? Learn These Terms

George P. Dvorsky's blog, Sentient Developments, has an excellent list of "Must-Know" terms for the 21st century intelligentsia.

If you like to think of yourself as a knowledgeable person who is comfortable discussing the bleeding-edge developments of his or her day, you need to study this list. Here's a taste:

Artificial General Intelligence: This ain't your daddy's AI. Rather, AGI describes the kind of intelligence that you and I have -- the commonsense knowhow we have when we're put into unfamiliar situations. Once developed, artificial agents endowed with AGI will be non-specialized intelligent entities that will come to represent the bona fide synthetic equivalent to human intelligence, and then move beyond.

Cosmological Eschatology (aka physical eschatology): CE is the study of how the Universe develops, ages, and ultimately comes to an end. While hardly a new concept, what is new is the suggestion that advanced intelligence may play a role in the universe's life cycle. Given the radical potential for postbiological superintelligence, a number of thinkers have suggested that universe engineering is a likely activity for advanced civilizations. This has given rise to a number of theories, including the developmental singularity hypothesis and the selfish biocosm hypothesis.

Friendly AI: If we are going to survive the Singularity and the onset of greater-than-human AI, it had better be friendly. And if it turns out to be friendly, it won't be by accident. Computer science theorists such as Eliezer Yudkowsky and Ben Goertzel are already working on what may ultimately prove to be an intractable problem. A poorly programmed, malevolent, or misguided SAI could destroy all of humanity with a mere thought. Asimov's Three Laws will do little against incomprehensibly powerful autopotent entities (a term coined by Nick Bostrom indicating total self-awareness and ability to self-modify).

You don't want to be totally left behind, do you? Then get cracking!

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Longevity Escape Velocity Explained: Aubrey de Grey

There seem to be more people who are skeptical of the possibility of radical life-extension than there are who consider it to be worth pursuing. This sense I have is based only on my own interactions with others and could well be wrong. It may be that most people are simply oblivious to the concept and the theories that underlie it.

Hence the dissemination of information about radical life-extension by people like Aubrey de Grey becomes invaluable, for if the general public sees it as a worthwhile endeavor, it will receive the benefit of greater interest and funding, and will therefore occur more quickly than it otherwise might.

I encourage you to watch this video, simply because the concept of LEV (Longevity Escape Velocity), as explained by Aubrey in this video, is eminently well thought-through and easy to understand.

In a nutshell, the idea is that metabolism, or living, creates damage as a side-effect, and when the amount of damage created reaches a certain threshold, it results in pathology. Pathology breeds more pathology, causing a downward spiral leading to death. De Grey's proposal is not to tinker with metabolism, which is not well understood, or to focus on pathology, which ultimately overwhelms the body, but rather to focus on repairing the damage before it accumulates to the point of pathology.

He postulates that a somewhat effective rejuvenation therapy that could repair only half the damage existing in a middle-aged person could extend that person's healthspan sufficiently long to allow for technological improvements in rejuvenation such that the next one could repair 75 percent, which would extend healthspan again, allowing for advances to make an even more effective rejuvenation, and so on.

I hope you'll watch it.

Via Accelerating Future

Submit to Social Websites

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Texas Instruments Wants to Augment You

You should already know that human beings are being augmented by computerized devices. That's been happening for a while: cochlear implants, Parkinson's pacemakers, implanted defibrillators, artificial retinas. These are all in use as you read this. But a lot more is coming soon.

Texas Instruments has already created a "gastric pacemaker" which, when implanted onto your stomach, gives a small shock that makes you feel too sick to eat any more than you should. Like that last slice of pizza.

As researchers learn how to improve dialogue between silicon and neuron, these devices will improve alongside. For example, according to this article from the Dallas Morning News:

Scientists at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center have attached a mechanical arm, one wire per nerve, to a volunteer’s shoulder. The man can now use his mind to move fingers, hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder. The device still lacks the control needed for pro sports or safecracking, but it’s an honest-to-goodness bionic arm.

“The cells sit right on top of the chips and talk to one another,” said Dr. Dennis Stone, vice president for technology development at the Dallas hospital and research center. “We’re at the dawn of something huge, and Dallas is right in the middle of it.”

I certainly wish TI well in their research and look forward to the continual advance of "bionic" tech. Stay tuned.

Singularity & The Price of Rice is updated daily; the easiest way to get your daily dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.