-
As we work to develop the next phase of Betterhumans we’re going to introduce and integrate some of our new offerings with the existing version of the site. The first of these changes will be a new approach to how we report the news.
If you’re like us, you need to have your daily fix of the latest news in sci-tech, culture, ethics, politics and all the important happenings around the blogosphere. And if you’re really like us, you’re totally bored of the tired and stale news format that you find virtually everywhere on the web.
We’re going to change it up a bit. We want our news coverage to have some more bite and attitude.
Watch for this starting next week.
-
Check out this sexy conceptual front page mock-up for Betterhumans. While it's unlikely that we're going to go with this exact design, it should give you an idea of the direction we have in mind for the next phase of Betterhumans (which is slated for re-launch in January).
-
We’ve made some changes at Betterhumans. Some
have already happened, while others are still in the works. More
importantly, despite our varied and (at times) inconsistent past, it’s
fair to say that the best is yet to come; we are about to embark on an
exciting next phase for Betterhumans. And this time, we have the
resources to bring some of our wildest ideas to life. To this
end, I have taken on the role of editor-in-chief of Betterhumans. Many
of you know me from previous contributions, and from my work with the World Transhumanist Association, I nstitute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and Sentient Developments
blog. I am now also responsible for the day-to-day management of
Betterhumans, working to ensure that we produce quality content that
reflects its mission. As for Simon Smith, Betterhumans' former
editor-in-chief, he has moved into the role of publisher. Here, he's
working to grow the site, set direction, build partnerships and
sponsorships, and generally ensure that we create and achieve long-term
goals. These changes were made possible by the advent of Commune Media,
of which Betterhumans is now a wholly owned publication. Commune is a
communications agency that helps companies use science and technology
for positive change. Simon is the company's principal and I manage its
operations. We decided recently that it made sense to bring
Betterhumans under Commune, as this would provide greater resources for
Betterhumans while in turn helping promote Commune's expertise. And now
we have some big plans for Betterhumans over the coming months. But before I get into the future of Betterhumans, let’s take a quick look at its past. Simon
founded Betterhumans in 2001 and I joined him less than a year later as
deputy editor. We quickly developed the site and attracted a loyal
following. Regular content featured editorials from key movers and
shakers in the various futurist and progressive movements. We regularly
published book reviews, interviews, encyclopedic articles and the
latest news in human biotechnology and progress. It was a thing of beauty, but given our volunteer workforce, it couldn't last. This
model, while very effective, proved difficult to manage given limited
resources. Consequently, our next focus was on creating a community
centered site to which members could contribute a good share of the
content, namely through the development of user forums and member
blogs. This strategy had its pluses and minuses, and we eventually
recalibrated and re-worked the site such that it combined more
traditional editorial practices with community driven material. Which
is where we find Betterhumans today. Admittedly, it's less than ideal.
We recognize that the site is lacking in dynamic, exciting and
cutting-edge content and services. But that's going to change soon in a
very big way. We're proud to announce that we are already working on the next phase of Betterhumans, which we hope to launch in January 2008. While
we’re not ready to give away too many details just quite yet, I can say
that the changes aren’t going to be subtle. We’re re-inventing
Betterhumans once again. And this time, we have the resources to make
and sustain changes that honestly make us howl with excitement. Stay tuned for more information over the coming weeks.
-
[Cross-posted from Sentient Developments] "My only wish is…to transform friends of God into friends
of man, believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of
work, candidates for the hereafter into students of the world,
Christians who, by their own procession and admission, are "half
animal, half angel" into persons, into whole persons."
– Ludwig Feuerbach
There’s a current billboard in Toronto that reads, “Literacy is a right.” Now,
we’ve all be told to believe that rights are nonsense on stilts, but
there is a certain significance to these sorts of proclamations.
Clearly, when someone declares something to be a ‘human right’ they are
making a very serious claim. They have pinpointed something they feel
no person should have to do without, whether it be protection against
racial discrimination, access to clean water, or in this case, the
ability to read. The impetus behind these sorts of social
efforts is the assurance that persons be guaranteed the most basic
tools and protections required to get through life fairly and safely.
In the case of reading, it is generally acknowledged that illiteracy
debilitates a person to the point where they experience undue
difficulty engaging in all that life and society has to offer. Interestingly,
there’s a normative aspect to these sorts of ‘endowments’ and
privileges. A few centuries ago most people did not need to know how to
read to get through life. Today, however, it is near impossible – hence
the call for literacy as a basic right. But it’s not just the
ability to read that is crucial today. Given the intricacies of the
modern age and the ever-growing complexification of ideas and
technology, it can be said that a scientific education is also
increasingly necessary; if literacy can be considered a basic right,
then so to must scientific literacy. Yet, far too few people
truly understand science and technology today. This is proving to be
extremely problematic, particularly at the dawn of what looks to be a
transformative future. Scientific illiteracy, quite unfortunately,
appears to be an issue that will only get worse and create a slew of
social problems. Including the ongoing entrenchment and spread of religion. We
currently live at a time when rationality and tolerance have never been
more important to the human species. Religion, with all its prejudices
and devotion to ignorance, continues to present a threat to not just
healthy and inquisitive minds, but to civilization itself. Consequently,
we need to place a much higher value on a scientific education. Simply
put, there’s no better way to inoculate against religion and other
forms of misinformation and unhealthy thinking habits. Our children
deserve the right to a scientific, critical mind.  Soft memetic engineeringIndeed,
the only truly effective and ethical way to combat viral religious
memes is to nip them in the bud and prevent them from taking root in
the first place. Prevention is what’s required rather than a cure. Memetic theory
-- the notion that ideas replicate by spreading from mind to mind –
suggests that memes are only effective if they find a home in a
sympathetic brain. The ability of a meme to take root in someone’s
consciousness is a reflection of its ability to exploit human
psychology (consequently, memetics can be thought of the science of
understanding how human psychology responds to information). But this
is only part of the story. Not all minds are alike, and not everyone is
subject to the same information acquisition/transmission tendencies. There
are currently 6.6 billion human minds on the planet in various states
of memetic receptiveness. Owing to new technologies, many these minds
have unprecedented access to the world’s information. The current
memepool is an anarchic mix of ideas bursting open like the Cambrian
Explosion --each idea waiting for the opportunity to copy itself from
one mind to another. These conditions are the result of human
ingenuity, creativity and tolerance. In free societies memes remain
largely unchecked and are allowed to proliferate and mutate at will. In
liberal democracies we consider freedom of speech and the right to free
expression as among our highest values. We also live in a world,
quite thankfully, where people cannot be coerced into adopting a
specific mindset. This was attempted in the 20th century by
totalitarian Marxist regimes who, in the case of religion, banned
spiritual practices, burned down churches and executed priests. The end
result, particularly in post-Soviet Russia, was a religious community
who survived the persecution only to come back with more power and
fervor than before. In other words, it backfired. Indeed, this kind of ideological ‘ memetic engineering’ is very much frowned upon today and should not be considered a viable solution in the struggle to maintain cultural health. Unfortunately,
however, there are consequences to having an anarchic memepool, namely
the unchecked proliferation of misinformation, superstition, and of
course, religion. These types of ideas are more than mere falsities,
they create problems as well. Recently in Canada, for example, Catholic girls were nearly denied vaccinations for for human papillomavirus,
a sexually transmitted disease. As a result, these girls were put at
risk of developing cervical cancer on account of religious sexual
taboos. As Thomas H. Hulxey once noted, “Irrationally held
truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.” As we can attest to
today, religious notions are interfering with the quality of human
lives, whether it be public health issues, hallucinations of an
intelligent designer or the blood lust of a suicidal would-be martyrs. Thankfully,
there is a gentle and elegant way to steer people in the direction of
truth and rationality – what we can call a soft form of memetic
engineering. I’m speaking, of course, of scientific literacy. Given our
society's laws and values, the best we can do is to prime minds in such
a way that they are equipped to fend off superstitious nonsense. A mind
in tune with scientific methodology can better sterilize religious
memes, and at the same time guard against other psychological pot-holes
like pseudoscience and conspiratorial paranoia. A way of thinking
A
scientific education consists of more than just memorizing the periodic
table of the elements or understanding Newton’s basic laws. In addition
to these things it is the acquisition of the skeptical mind and the
capacity for critical thought. Carl Sagan once noted that, “Science is
a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.” Skepticism
should be considered a virtue and a redeeming characteristic. Physicist
Richard Feynman agreed, “There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for
it is through these that new discoveries are made.” Conversely, Richard
Dawkins describes the religious mind as being unimaginative, not
poetic, not soulful. “On the contrary, they are parochial,
small-minded, niggardly with the human imagination, precisely where
science is generous,” he says. Needless to say a number of
things have to change. The education system needs to be reformed, while
popular media needs to take on a more positive outlook when it comes to
science. Take school, for example. In addition to regular
science classes students should have lessons dedicated to critical and
healthy thinking (including lessons in emotional intelligence). These classes should teach the scientific method, empiricism, how to recognize biases and extraordinary claims, and how to properly source data and work with credible sources. This
would go a long way in making the learning of science much more
palatable for students. Today, most students, particularly girls, find
it off-putting. It’s geek stuff. It’s supposed to be hard. Moreover,
science is often relegated to the sidelines in favour of easier or more
romantic and exciting subjects, including athletics. Districts
should establish pro-science campaigns and bring in expert speakers and
science-focused entertainers. Schools need more money, better
equipment, and enthusiastic teachers. Students should have more time
allocated each week to learning about science and critical thinking.
Pop culture needs more positive role models like Bill Nye and outspoken individuals like Richard Dawkins and the late Carl Sagan. Science can be sexy. It just has to presented that way. Liberal education and home schooling
All
of this, of course, cannot happen in a vacuum; science most certainly
needs to be part of a broader liberal education. Students should
understand the width and breadth of the world and avoid the insular
thinking that characterizes religious minds and communities. To
this end, schools should introduce students to psychology, history and
cultural studies at an earlier age. World religions should be taught to
expand otherwise limited faith-based views, thus greatly reducing
xenophobia and general lack of awareness. It would also establish a
sense of humility and reduce notions of cultural relativism. As
for the issue of home schooling, yes, parents deserve the right to keep
their kids at home or send them to private faith-based schools. But
such a decision may eventually come at a price. Standardized testing
should be implemented and no student should be able to earn a high
school diploma without a solid grasp of the basics of science and its
methodology. Should some parents insist on teaching creationism instead
of evolution, their children will have to face the consequences. The
outcome may be that faith-based schooling will eventually carry a
stigma. It’s conceivable that these children will have low
employability and have difficultly earning admission to universities. Democratic process
An
implicit assumption in a democracy is that the collective actions of an
informed populace will be to the benefit of both individuals and the
community. The world, in order to be properly comprehended, and for an
individual to fully engage in life, is increasingly dependent on
persons having a scientific rather than a metaphysical interpretation
of existence. Today, without critical thinkers, democracy and effective
governance is in peril. Moreover, given the complexity of
today’s technologies and the dire consequences (or benefits!) of their
development, the need to address global scale problems has never been
more important. Scientific minds are absolutely necessary to not just
identify these problems, but to solve them as well. Today we face such
calamities as global warming and the spread of catastrophic diseases. It should be noted that many Christian evangelists are global warming deniers
-- not because they claim any special scientific knowledge, but because
they are skeptical of any scientific claim, and any other 'belief
system' like environmentalism that could rival their own. This is a
recipe for disaster. Close-mindedness is not what's required
here; instead, we need dynamic and effective people to help humanity
deal with problems like climate change. Helping people and societyScientific
illiteracy is an impairment. Individuals without the capacity for
critical and rational thought are increasingly having a difficult time
understanding their world and relating to ‘mainstream’ society. There
is a growing divide between the secular and religious worlds, giving
rise to two distinct cultures who are increasingly unable to converse
with each other. Worse, those individuals who embrace more
extreme or fundamentalist versions of religion feel increasingly
alienated by modern society. The urge is to rail against the tide
rather than seek a kind of reconciliation or understanding; cultural
relations ends up regressing to an 'us versus them' mentality. But a common ground does exist. Science is the universal language. If literacy can be declared a right, then so too must scientific literacy. The health of individuals and society depends on it.
-
A friend of mine recently turned me on to a new way of organizing and conceptualizing data. Called mind mapping,
it is a method of note taking that utilizes diagrams which are used to
represent words, ideas, tasks or other items linked to and arranged
radially around a central key word or idea. Mind maps can be used to
generate, visualize, structure and classify ideas. They're also used as
an aid in study, organization, problem solving, decision making and
writing.  After playing around with mind mapping software for several weeks now (I'm using the open source FreeMind),
I have to admit that it totally works for me. I've started to use it
for virtually all aspects of my life, whether it be organizing my next
blog post or structuring my daily routines. I'm even using it for
networking purposes by keeping track of my friends and linking them to
various parts of my life (e.g. wine tasting, concert going, mountain
biking, transhumanism, etc.) How and why does it work?It
works because mind mapping is more sympathetic to the way in which the
human brain operates. Our minds do not organize data in the same way we
typically structure notes or arrange to do lists. Rather, we like to
conceptualize things in a more graphical or symbolic manner, which
results in better and more intuitive conceptualization. Further mind
maps double as a mnemonic device as elements are remembered more easily
when they are laid out in a graphical, non-hierarchical fashion (some
studies have shown as much as 10% improvement in recall, but I'm inclined to think it's better than that).  Typically,
mind maps are composed of an image-centered diagram that represents
semantic or other connections between chunks of information. Elements
are arranged intuitively based on the importance of the concepts and are organized into groupings, branches or areas. This
method better facilitates brainstorming approaches. Idea flow can be
better captured when elements are laid out in a radial, non-linear
graphical manner. Subsequently, this strategy eliminates the hurdle of
initially establishing an intrinsically appropriate or relevant
conceptual framework to work within. Meta organization Mind
mapping has allowed me to take a more holistic approach to my research,
analysis and writing. I have created a massive mind map that I'm using
to key in ideas as they come to me. The map never becomes unwieldy
because extraneous branches can always be collapsed. Elements can be
linked across the map, either with graphical symbols or internal
hyperlinks. When the entire map is open it looks like a giant bowl of
Alphagetti. My hope is that over time the mind map will become
exactly that: a map of my mind. Having a large and highly organized
database with interlinks should allow me to better "see" and remember
the data that is in my head and help me bring together related concepts. The
key, of course, is to not let the technology get in the way of work.
One runs the risk of obsessing over the quality of the mind map. Just
because I'm reshuffling data within my map doesn't mean I'm actually
getting anything done. A tool is not an end unto itself; it is an
assistive device that must ultimately lead to a final product or goal. Time will tell if this will be the case for me, but my initial impression is very positive. var a = 2; if(a == 0) {document.write('Add a comment');} else if(a == 1) {document.write('1 comment');}else{document.write(a+' comments');}
-
Cross-posted from Sentient Developments.
 This
article is partly adapted from my TransVision 2007 presentation,
“Whither ET? What the failing search for extraterrestrial intelligence
tells us about humanity's future.” The Fermi Paradox is alive and well. As
our sciences mature, and as the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence continues to fail, the Great Silence becomes louder than
ever. The seemingly empty cosmos is screaming out to us that something
is askew. Our
isolation in the Universe has in no small way shaped and defined the
human condition. It is such an indelible part of our reality that it is
often taken for granted or rationalized to extremes. To
deal with the cognitive dissonance created by the Great Silence, we
have resorted to good old fashioned human arrogance, anthropocentrism,
and worse, an inter-galactic inferiority complex. We make excuses and
rationalizations like, ‘we are the first,’ ‘we are all alone,’ or, ‘why
would any advanced civilization want to bother with us backward
humans?’ Under
closer scrutiny, however, these excuses don’t hold. Our sciences are
steadily maturing and we are discovering more and more that our
isolation in the cosmos and the dearth of observable artificial
phenomenon is in direct violation of our expectations, and by
consequence, our own anticipated future as a space-faring species. Indeed,
one of the greatest philosophical and scientific challenges that
currently confronts humanity is the unsolved question of the existence
of extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI's). We
have yet to see any evidence for their existence. It does not appear
that ETI’s have come through our solar system; we see no signs of their
activities in space; we have yet to receive any kind of communication
from them. Adding to the Great Silence is the realization that they should have been here by now -- the problem known as the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox
The
Fermi Paradox is the contradictory and counter-intuitive observation
that we have yet to see any evidence for the existence of ETI’s. The
size and age of the Universe suggests that many technologically
advanced ETI’s ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems
inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it. Largely ignored in 1950 when physicist Enrico Fermi famously asked, “Where is everybody,” and virtually dismissed at the seminal SETI conference in 1971, the conundrum was given new momentum by Michael Hart in 1975[1] (which is why it is sometimes referred to as the Fermi-Hart Paradox). Today,
35 years after it was reinvigorated by Hart, it is a hotly contested
and relevant topic -- a trend that will undoubtedly continue as our
sciences, technologies and future visions develop. Back with a vengeance
 A
number of inter-disciplinal breakthroughs and insights have contributed
to the Fermi Paradox gaining credence as an unsolved scientific
problem. Here are some reasons why[2]: Improved quantification and conceptualization of our cosmological environment
The scale of our cosmological environment is coming into focus. Our Universe contains about 10^11 to 10^12 galaxies, giving rise to a total of 10^22 to 10^24 stars[3]. And this is what exists right now; there have been a billion trillion stars in our past Universe. [4] The
Milky Way itself, which is considered a giant as far as galaxies go,
contains as many as 400 billion stars and has a diameter of 100,000
light years.[5] Improved understanding of planet formation, composition and the presence of habitable zones
The
Universe formed 13.7 billion years ago. The Milky Way Galaxy formed a
mere 200 million years later, making our Galaxy nearly as old as the
Universe itself. Work by Charles Lineweaver
has shown that planets also began forming a very long time ago; he
places estimates of Earth-like planets forming 9 billion years ago
(Gyr). According
to Lineweaver, the median age of planets in the Galaxy is 6.4+/0.7 Gyr
which is significantly more than the Earth’s age. An average
terrestrial planet in the Galaxy is 1.6 Gyr older than the Earth. It is
estimated that three quarters of earth-like planets in the Galactic
habitable zone are older than the Earth. We
have a growing conception of where habitation could be sustained in the
Galaxy. The requirements are a host star that formed between 4 to 8 Gyr
ago, enough heavy elements to form terrestrial planets, sufficient time
for biological evolution, an environment free of sterilization events
(namely super novae), and an annular region between 7 and 9 kiloparsecs
from the galactic center that widens with time. [6] The discovery of extrasolar planets
Over 240 extrasolar planets have been discovered as of May 1, 2007[7].
Most of these are so-called “hot Jupiters,” but the possibility that
their satellites could be habitable cannot be ruled out. Many of these
systems have stable circumstellar habitable zones. Somewhat
shockingly, the first Earth-like planet was discovered earlier this
year orbiting the red star Gilese 581; it is 20 light years away, 1.5
times the diameter of Earth, is suspected to have water and an
atmosphere, and its temperature fluctuates between 0 and 40 degrees
Celsius.[8] Confirmation of the rapid origination of life on Earth
The
Earth formed 4.6 Gyr ago and rocks began to appear 3.9 Gyr ago. Life
emerged quickly thereafter 3 Gyr ago. Some estimates show that life
emerged in as little as 600 million years after the formation of rocks.[9] Growing legitimacy of panspermia theories
There
is a very good chance that we inhabit a highly compromised and fertile
Galaxy in which ‘life seeds’ are strewn about. The Earth itself has
been a potentially infectious agent for nearly 3 billion years. Evidence
has emerged that some grains of material in our solar system came from
beyond our solar system. Recent experiments show that microorganisms
can survive dormancy for long periods of time and under space
conditions. We also now know that rocks can travel from Mars to Earth.[10] Discovery of extremophiles
Simple
life is much more resilient to environmental stress than previously
imagined. Biological diversity is probably more much larger than
conventionally assumed. Developing conception of a biophilic Universe in which the cosmological parameters for the existence of life appear finely tuned
As
scientists delve deeper and deeper into the unsolved mysteries of the
Universe, they are discovering that a number of cosmological parameters
are excruciatingly specific. So specific, in fact, that any minor
alteration to key parameters would throw the entire Universe off kilter
and result in a system completely unfriendly to life. The parameters of
the Universe that are in place are so specific as to almost suggest
that spawning life is in fact what the Universe is supposed to do. [11] Cosmological uniformitarianism
implies that that anthropic observation need not be and cannot be
specific to human observers, but rather to any observer in general; in
other words, the Universe can support the presence of any kind of
observer, whether they be here on Earth or on the other side of the
cosmos. Confirmation of the early potential for intelligent life
My
own calculations have shown that intelligence could have first emerged
in the Universe as long as 4.5 Gyr ago -- a finding that is consistent
with other estimates, including those of Lineweaver and David Grinspoon.[12] Refinement of evolutionary biology, computer science and systems theories
Evolution shows progressive trends towards increasing complexity and in the direction of increasing fitness. There has also been the growing acceptance of Neo-Darwinism. Advances
in computer science have reshaped our conception of what is possible
from an informational and digital perspective. There is the growing
acceptance of systems theories which take emergent properties and complexity into account. Game theory and the rise of rational intelligence add another level to this dynamic mix. Development
of sociobiological observations as they pertain to the rapid evolution
of intelligent life and the apparent radical potential for advanced
intelligence
Exponential change. Moore’s
Law. Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns. Steady advances in
information technologies. Artificial intelligence. Neuroscience.
Cybernetics, and so on. And
then there is the theoretic potential for a technological Singularity,
digital minds, artificial superintelligence, molecular nanotechnology,
and other radical possibilities. There is also emerging speculation
about the feasibility of interstellar travel, colonization and
communication. In other words….
There
are more stars in the Universe than we can possibly fathom. Any
conception of ‘rare’ ‘not enough time’ or ‘far away’ has to be set
against the inability of human psychology to grasp such vast
cosmological scales and quantities. The Universe and the Milky Way are
extremely old, our galaxy has been able to produce rocky planets for
quite some time now, and our earth is a relative new-comer to the
galaxy. The
composition of our solar system and the Earth itself may not be as rare
as some astronomers and astrobiologists believe. These discoveries are
a serious blow to the Rare Earth Hypothesis – the idea that the genesis, development and proliferation of life is an extremely special event[13]. It’s also a blow to Brandon Carter’s anthropic argument which
takes a very human-centric approach to understanding cosmology,
suggesting that our existence as observers imposes the sort of Universe
that only we can observe. Finally,
the Universe appears capable of spawning radically advanced
intelligence – the kind of advanced intelligence that transhumanists
speculate about, namely post-Singularity,
post-biological machine minds. Given intelligent life's ability to
overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems
likely that any advanced civilization would seek out new resources and
colonize first their star system, and then surrounding star systems.
Indeed, estimates place the time to colonize the Galaxy anywhere from
one million to 100 millions years.[14] The
fact that our Galaxy appears unperturbed is hard to explain. We should
be living in a Galaxy that is saturated with intelligence and highly
organized. Thus, it may be assumed that intelligent life is rare, or,
given our seemingly biophilic Universe, our assumptions about the
general behaviour of intelligent civilizations are flawed. A paradox is a paradox for a reason: it means there’s something wrong in our thinking. So, where is everybody?
[1]
Hart, M. H. "An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrial Life on
Earth," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 16,
128-135 (1975). [2]
This list, which is not intended to be a complete re-affirmation of the
Fermi Paradox, was inspired and partly adapted from: Ćirković , Milan
M. and Bradbury, Robert J. "Galactic Gradients, Postbiological
Evolution and the Apparent Failure of SETI", New Astronomy, vol. 11,
pp. 628-639 (2006). [3]
"How many stars are there in the Universe?" European Space Agency,
Space Scientist, February 23, 2004:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html. [4] Hanson, R. 1999, “Great Filter,” (preprint at http://hanson.berkeley.edu/greatfilter.html). [5] See Harvey Mudd and S. E. Levine: “Mass of the Milky Way and Dwarf Spheroidal Stream Membership.” [6] Gonzalez, G., Brownlee, D., and Ward, P. 2001, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution,” Icarus 152,
185-200; Lineweaver, Charles H., Fenner , Yeshe, and Gibson, Brad K.
2004, “The Galactic Habitable Zone and the Age Distribution of Complex
Life in the Milky Way.”; M. Noble , Z. E. Musielak , and M. Cuntz:
2002, "Orbital Stability of Terrestrial Planets inside the Habitable
Zones of Extrasolar Planetary Systems" [7]
"A Rush of New Planets," Astrobiology Magazine: Jun 02, 2007:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2351 [8] "All Wet? Astronomers Claim Discovery of Earth-like Planet," Scientific American, April 24, 2007: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=25A261F0-E7F2-99DF-313249A4883E6A86&chanID=sa007 [9] See Stephen J. Mojzsis: http://spot.colorado.edu/~mojzsis/ [10]
Raulin-Cerceau, F., Maurel, M.-C., and Schneider, J. 1998, “From
panspermia to bioastronomy, the evolution of the hypothesis of
universal life,” Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 28, 597; "Encore: Great Debates Part VI," Astrobiology Magazine, Aug 19, 2002: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article254.html [11] The
Wikipedia entry on the Fine Tuning argument has some good links and
references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe [13] Ward, P. D. and Brownlee, D. 2000, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (Springer, New York). Lineweaver, Charles H., Fenner , Yeshe, and Gibson, Brad K. 2004; Grinspoon, David, Lonely Planets, Ecco; 1st edition (November 4, 2003). [14] Ćirković , Milan
M., 2003: "On the Importance of SETI for Transhumanism." As it pertains
to reframing the Fermi Paradox, Ćirković recommends Lytkin, Finney, and
Alepko (1995; for Tsiolkovsky), Jones (1985; for Fermi), Viewing
(1975), and Hart (1975), (Tipler 1980), Boyce (1979).
-
 Martine Rothblatt has an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I don't think her idea is going to work. In
our cybernetic and virtual world of the future, says Rothblatt, genes
are not going to matter so much. Instead, we’ll be concerned about
‘bemes' -- a fundamental, transmissible, unit of beingness. This
will give rise to the transbeman person -- a being who claims to have
the rights and obligations associated with being human, but is beyond
accepted notions of legal personhood. Examples would include a computer
claiming to be conscious; a person successfully reanimated from cryonic
stasis; or the downloading of a ‘cyberconsciousness’ into a highly
engineered ‘bionano’ body. Operation: Mindfile
Rothblatt, an eccentric billionaire lawyer, author, and entrepreneur, made the case for "Cybernetic Biostasis" during TransVision 2007 and
argued that bemes will eventually become the currency of the future –
the stuff that will help prospective persons restore their memories and
sense of identity. She believes that people should create digital
‘mindfiles’ that chronicle their lives; eventually, after death,
persons could be revived by means of ‘mindware’ transfer when the
requisite technology is powerful enough (namely the advent of
artificial intelligence). According to Rothblatt, bemes can be
virtually anything that could later be used to restore a person’s
history, identity and tendencies. Bemetic mindfiles could be comprised
of old photos, blogs, transcripts, diaries, and so on; these artifacts
could later be used to restore and re-define a person’s personality
(including mannerisms, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values). Most
importantly, these files could restore a person's memory. To this end, Rothblatt has created the websites Cyberev.org (short for ybernetic beingness revival) and Lifenaut.com. People are encouraged to use the sites to start chronicling their lives. During
her TV07 presentation Rothblatt admitted that piecing together odds and
sods of data would not create a perfect copy of a person’s
consciousness. She contended that most people only remember fragments
of their past anyway. To Rothblatt, it’s the preservation of the
person’s "essence" that’s important. Memories are a strange thingI
find Rothblatt’s mindfile concept quite intriguing, but ultimately
unsatisfactory. I’m not convinced that a person’s identity and sense of
ongoing self can be re-instantiated in this way. At best we might get a
twisted copy of ourselves with a haphazard sense of someone else’s past. Memories
are a tricky thing; they don’t exist in a vacuum. First, we have
memories because we, as conscious observers, experience the events in
real time. Based on the strength and uniqueness of the event our brain
parses the experience and temporarily stores it into short term memory.
From there it solidifies into our long-term memory where we build an
association with the event. This association allows us to recall the
event at will. We are able to access the memory because we a)
experienced the event first hand, and we b) created a personal linkage
to that event (what could also be referred to as a personal narrative). In other words, you have to know that you have the memory in order to access it. Sometimes
we forget that we have a memory of an event only to be reminded that it
still exists in the brain just waiting to be accessed. I love it when
that happens. My first few thoughts are usually, “Why did I forget
about that? Why did I not think about that for so long?” For what ever
reason the association or linkage to that piece of data was lost. The
memory was still there embedded in the mind, but it was simply not
accessed enough causing it to lie dormant. As for Rothblatt’s
concept, just because a mind is infused with memories doesn’t mean that
all the associations will be there. The memories would likely be
construed as a random mess of images, words and events. It would be
unlikely that the person would be able to make any sense of it at all
and frame a personal narrative around it. Consciousness, identity, and an ongoing sense of selfFar
too many people at the WTA’s TransVision conference batted around the
word “consciousness” with complete disregard for definitions and a
concrete understanding of what it truly is. Consciousness all too often
gets conflated with other aspects of the mind, including memory and
other cognitive tasks that comprise the mechanistic or computational
aspects of the brain. Consciousness is not something you can
piece together and instantiate with cultural artifacts. Nor can a
continuity of consciousness be restored in this manner. That’s still a
question that perplexes even the best philosophers and neuroscientists. Here’s
a thought experiment: let’s suppose that you traded memories with your
best friend – nothing else, just the memories. You’ve still got your
body and all the grey matter in your brain that rightfully belongs to
you, except your memories. Does this mean that you and your friend have
traded consciousnesses? Does it mean that you’ve uploaded yourself into
your friend's brain and vice-versa? The answer is no to both
questions! You would still be you in the sense that you’re still
observing reality, but you’d be convinced that you are now your friend.
A sense of identity (sense
being the key word -- a kind of illusion) may have been transferred,
but not the conscious lens that each of us has with which we observe
and experience the world. No link to cryonic reanimationLater, when Alcor’s Tanya Jones was
answering questions after her cryonics presentation, a member of the
audience asked her if Alcor would consider using the mindfile concept
to help in the process of reanimating frozen patients. Jones answered very clearly: no. Elaborating,
she said that Alcor has considered using mindfiles to help newly
revived persons re-connect with their past life. In this sense, the
mindfiles would be a glorified shoebox filled with an individual's
personal effects. This makes sense. Assuming that a person’s
brain was properly preserved they should have no trouble accessing
their memories. If all goes well the person should feel like they had a
long and hard nap. A very, very hard nap. Their memories, along with
the all important personal narrative, associations and ongoing
identity, should be readily accessible. The mindfile as restorative medicineRothblatt’s
mindfile concept may have limitations in regards to uploading or
restoring a consciousness, but it is far from useless. The short-term
potential as a means for restorative medicine is certainly a
possibility. Alzheimer’s patients may have their memories
re-invigorated and stimulated in the manner that Rothblatt describes.
They could also be used to improve the human capacity for memory, which
can be extraordinarily weak. Looking ahead, there's also the
possibility that mindfiles could be used as a supplement to naturally
stored memories. They could be uploaded into the mind and used in
tandem with other recollections to add width and breadth to memory much
like photographs or home videos do today. So, you may wish to visit Dr. Rothblatt's website after all. Start working on that mindfile!
-
 Of all the celebrities and bigwigs I looked forward to meeting at TransVision 2007
there was only one person who I was truly nervous about running into –
a person who gave me that 'I’m going to squeal like a little girl when
I see him’ kind of feeling. That individual was pioneering neuroscientist Marvin Minsky. A
friend cautioned me by claiming that he was a difficult man and not
very approachable. I dismissed the warning and patiently waited for an
opportunity to start a conversation with him. I eventually got
my chance. I was with two other friends when the three of us bumped
into Minsky in the reception area of the conference hall. Without
hesitation I approached and introduced myself. After we shook hands I
told him how much I appreciated his work and how much of an honour it
was for me to finally meet him. He nodded his head and didn’t say a
word. I was surprised by how old he looked. Minsky is now 80
years old and has been working in the field of neuroscience since the
1950s. Despite his age he recently published a book, The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind. Minsky just keeps on going. Working
to move the conversation along, I told him that while I was conducting
research for my presentation I discovered that he was a presenter at
the seminal SETI conference in 1971 in Byurakan.
Minsky made waves at that conference by having the audacity to suggest
that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations would likely be comprised
of machine minds. It was a controversial suggestion, one that has only
come into acceptance in more recent times. I asked Minsky for a
first-hand account of how his idea was received back in 1971. He
stood there, just blankly looking at me, and didn’t say a single word.
We all waited in silence for what seemed an eternity. I got the
distinct impression that he was thoroughly disinterested in our little
group. Being a sucker for punishment I decided to move the
conversation along. I unabashedly gave him the 10 second executive
summary of my TV07 presentation, where I make some claims about the
limitations of extraterrestrial civilizations and how this might
account for the Great Silence and the problem that is the Fermi Paradox. This
finally got Minsky going. He had attended a SETI conference two weeks
prior and was impressed with what he heard there. Minsky suggested that
the reason we don’t see any signs of obvious megascale engineering or
cosmological re-tuning by advanced ETI’s is that they have no sense of
urgency to embark upon such projects. He argued that advanced
intelligences won’t engage in these sorts of Universe changing
exercises until the very late stages of the cosmos. Jeez, I thought to myself, I hadn't considered that.Leave
it to Marvin Minsky to give me some serious food for thought a mere two
hours before I was to give my talk. I was suddenly worried that this
consideration would pierce a glaring hole in my argument. After
another minute of idle chit-chat I excused myself from Minsky's company
and found a little corner where I could have my little micro-panic and
contemplate his little theory. The more I thought about it,
however, the more unsatisfied I became with his answer; virtually
everyone has a rather smug solution to the Fermi Paradox, and Marvin
Minsky is no exception. Specifically, I was concerned with how such a
theory could be exclusive to all civilizations. It seemed implausible
to believe that not even one renegade civilization would take it upon
itself to change the rules of the cosmos if it had the capacity to do
so. Moreover, given the power to reshape the Universe, a strong
case could be made that a meta-ethical imperative exists to turn the
madness that is existence into something profoundly more meaningful and
safer. As Slavoj Žižek once said, existence is a catastrophe of the
highest order. Timothy Leary described the Universe as an "ocean of
chaos." Waiting until the last minute to create a cosmological
paradise (assuming such a thing is even possible) would seem to be both
exceptionally risky and irresponsible -- not just to the members of a
civilization capable of such feats, but to the larger universal
community itself. Phew. That's right, that's the answer. Ha, take that, Minsky!So,
after rationalizing a counter-argument to Minsky's suggestion, I was
able to calm down and prepare myself for my presentation and deal with
any follow-up questions that could be thrown my way. And that's how I met Marvin Minsky. Sure,
he's not the most personable man I've ever met, but I got the sense
that he's at a time in his life where a) he knows he owes nothing to no
one and b) he'd rather engage with people who can contribute to his
life's work and his ongoing struggle to solve the problem that is human
cognition. And he's still as sharp as they come. It was truly an honour.
-
 It’s funny how these things go. There I was at the TransVision 2007 celebrity reception last Thursday, drinking white wine, munching on hors d’oeuvres and eagerly awaiting the arrival of William Shatner. I was looking forward to a once in a lifetime opportunity. And then I realized that I was in the company of Tanya Jones, chief operating officer for Alcor.
I had never met Tanya before and I have yet to visit their facility in
Arizona. I was very impressed with her TV07 presentation from earlier
in the week and I was bursting with questions. So, as we were waiting for Shatner to arrive, we began to chat. To freeze and protect
During
her talk two days prior, Tanya gave conference attendees the rundown on
some of Alcor's more recent work and initiatives. It was a fascinating
glimpse into the world of cryonics and what it takes to run a company
on the technological and social fringe. She noted how Alcor teams can be rushed to the bedside of dying patients as they ready for the suffusion of cryoprotectants in
preparation for freezing. Without this highly engineered liquid,
preservation would be completely disastrous with each cell suffering a
host of problems, including ice crystallization and the eventual threat
of it losing all its physical integrity upon reanimation. The
cryoprotectant gel, which replaces the blood after death, essentially
converts the body into a glass-like state upon contact with liquid
nitrogen. The body’s informational state is thus retained at the
highest level currently possible. Consequently, getting the
patient into cold storage quickly is paramount. As Tanya noted during
her presentation, “time is trauma.” During the cocktail reception I
asked her how long would be too long. She replied that any kind of
delay is detrimental, but that after 24 hours the real serious and
irrevocable damage starts to occur, namely cellular degradation and
host of other neural problems as the brain begins to lose its cohesion
and organization. I asked her if Alcor has a policy for refusing
the receipt of severely damaged corpses, say a body that had been
terribly damaged by autopsy or by a motor vehicle accident. She
answered that in such cases, where information theoretic death
is all but assured, it is not up to Alcor but rather the predetermined
wishes of the deceased. When an individual signs up with Alcor they
specify the various extremes to which they will still agree to be
cryonically preserved. Alcor unquestioningly adheres to the wishes of
the patient. Tanya also described the freezing process which is
done under strictly controlled conditions. The body is slowly brought
down to the optimally low temperature and is carefully monitored for
fracturing. Quite frustratingly, every preservation that has ever been
conducted at Alcor has suffered from fracturing of some sort. Tanya
described the sound as ice-cubes popping in a drink. I squirmed
in my seat listening to this description, wondering how our high tech
descendants will repair this sort of “information theoretic” brain
damage. Honesty, integrity, credibility
I
was impressed with Tanya’s honesty and I told her so. By being open
about current limitations, they come across as being less interested in
the “sell” aspect and more concerned with creating a credible and
legitimate industry. Along these lines I asked Tanya about regulation
and whether or not she believes there will ever be such a thing as a
monitored cryonics industry. Not only did Tanya whole heartedly
agree, she is convinced that it is inevitable and that a big battle is
looming. “But Alcor,” claimed Tanya, “is ready.” She quickly outlined
her plans and strategy for what she thinks will be a long and drawn out
struggle to get the kind of regulation in place that would be to the
benefit of Alcor and the burgeoning industry of cryonics – a battle
that she believes will come sooner rather than later. As it currently
stands, Alcor is 'regulated' under the Anatomical Gift Act,
which makes Alcor a kind of glorified research lab and organ storage
facility. Which I suppose is better than being acknowledged as a
funeral parlor.  It’s this lack of recognition and backwards thinking that has arguably landed Alcor in trouble. The scandalous Ted Williams affair,
which Tanya claims is finally all over and done with (including cash in
hand), is an example of how a new and unrecognized industry can face
undue challenges and public scrutiny. More formal and cogent regulation
will not only give Alcor needed credibility as they work to create a
viable business, it will also result in a safer and more effective
industry. From grave to cradleInterestingly,
while Alcor is primarily concerned with preservation, they are also
looking ahead to a time when reanimation will finally become possible.
They project themselves as being an all-in-one facility. Today they
freeze bodies; tomorrow they hope to be the company that brings the
dead back to life. To this end they are creating a research lab
in which rats will be cryonically preserved and experimented upon. This
approach makes perfect sense. It will allow them to not just look
ahead, but to gauge the effectiveness of current preservation
procedures and technologies. Jokingly, I complained to Tanya
about their use of rats. “The thought of a little cryonics lab filled
with frozen rats in tiny dewars is unsettling," I said, "Who wants to
see a reanimated rat running around? Why couldn’t you guys have used
cute little bunny rabbits instead – it would be much better PR to see a
bunch of revived bunny rabbits hopping around.” Tanya laughed and noted
how animal experimentation will in fact escalate and eventually come to
involve more complex organisms such as pigs. Cool company
I
have yet to sign up for cryonics. My reasons are, admittedly, personal,
complicated and even non-nonsensical. There may come a day, however,
when I've reconciled my broader existential outlook with the prospect
of cryonics. Until then, however, I will laud the efforts of
Alcor and continue to advocate for the right to a long life. They are
certainly blazing a fascinating trail into the future. Oh, and I
totally missed the opportunity to meet William Shatner. I barely even
noticed that he was in the room when I was chatting with Tanya. Now why do you suppose I have absolutely no regrets about that?
-
Cross-posted from Sentient Developments.
I'm surprised how often the Drake Equation is still mentioned when people discuss such things as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence (SETI), astrobiology and problems like the Fermi Paradox.
Fairly
recent insights in such fields as cosmology, astrobiology and various
future studies have changed our perception of the cosmos and the ways
in which advanced life might develop.
Frank Drake's
equation, which he developed back in 1961, leaves much to be desired in
terms of what it's supposed to tell us about both the nature and
predominance of extraterrestrial life in our Galaxy.
The Drake Equation
The Drake equation states that:
 where:
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate and:
R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Arbitrary at bestThe
integers that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide
interpretation and can differ significantly from scientist to
scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different
answers. Part of the problem is that our understanding of cosmology and
astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little
consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be. Consequently,
the Drake formula relies on 'stabs in the dark.' This makes it highly
imprecise and unscientific. The margin of error is far beyond what
should be considered acceptable or meaningful. No accounting for cosmological development or time Another
major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two
rather important variables: cosmological developmental phases and time
(see Cirkovic, " The Temporal Aspect of the Drake Equation and SETI"). More
specifically, it does not take into consideration such factors as the
age of the Galaxy, the time at which intelligence first emerged, or the
presence of physiochemical variables necessary for the presence of life
(such as metallicity required to form planets). The equation assumes a
sort of cosmological uniformity rather than a dynamic and ever changing
universe. For example, the equation asks us to guess the number of Earth-like planets, but it does not ask us when there were Earth-like planets. And intelligence itself may have been present as long as 2 to 4.5 billion years ago. The
Galaxy's extreme age and the potential for intelligence to have emerged
at disparate points in time leaves an absurdly narrow window for
detecting radio signals. The distances and time-scales in question are
mind-boggingly vast. SETI, under its current model, is conducting an
incredibly futile search. Detecting ETI'sWhich
leads to the next problem, that of quantifying the number of radio
emitting civilizations. I'm sure that back in the 1960's it made a lot
of sense to think of radio capability as a fairly advanced and
ubiquitous means of communication, and by consequence, an excellent way
to detect the presence and frequency of extraterrestrial civilizations. But
time has proven this assumption wrong. Our radio window is quickly
closing and it will only be a matter of time before Earth stops
transmitting these types of signals -- at least unintentionally ( active SETI is a proactive attempt to contact ETI's with radio signals). Due
to this revelation, the entire equation as a means to both classify and
quantify certain types of civilizations becomes quite meaningless and
arbitrary. At best, it's a way of searching for a very narrow class of
civilizations under very specific and constrained conditions. Rather,
SETI should continue to redefine the ways in which ETI's could be
detected. They should try to predict future means of communication
(like quantum communication schemes) and ways to identify these
signals. They should also look for artificial objects such as megascale engineering and artificial calling cards (see Arnold, " Transit Lightcurve Signatures of Artificial Objects"). The future of advanced intelligenceAlthough
possibly outside the auspices of this discussion, the Drake Equation
does not account for the presence of post-radio capable civilizations,
particularly post-Singularity machine intelligences. This is a problem because of what these types of civilizations might be capable of. The
equation is used to determine the number of radio capable civilizations
as they conduct their business on their home planet. Again, this is a
vary narrow view of ETI's and the space of all possible advanced
civilizational types. Moreover, it does not account for any migratory
tendency that advanced civs may have. The Drake Equation does not tell us about exponential civilizational growth on account of Von Neumann probe
disbursement. It does not tell us where advanced ETI's may be dwelling
or what they're up to (e.g. Are they outside the Galaxy? Do they live
inside Jupiter Brains?
Do they phase shift outside of what we regard as habitable space?
etc.). This is a serious shortcoming because the answers to these
questions should help us determine not just where we should be looking,
but they can also provide us with insight as to the makeup of advanced
intelligence life and our own potential trajectory. In other
words, post-Singularity ETI's may represent the most common mode of
existence for late-stage civilizations. And that's who we should be
looking for rather than radio transmitting civs. Are we alone?Michael Crichton
once put out a very weak argument against the Drake Equation. He
claimed that SETI was a religious endeavor because it was a search for
imaginary entities. He is wrong, of course; we should most certainly
search for data where we think we might find it. I believe, despite the
low odds, that it is reasonable to assume that our search for life on
other planets is warranted. Even a negative result can be meaningful. Consequently, SETI should keep listening, but expect to
hear nothing. If we should suddenly hear something from the depths of
space, then we will have to seriously re-evaluate our assumptions. At
the same time we should find better ways to detect advanced life and
tweak the Drake Equation in such a way as to account for the missing
variables and factors I mentioned earlier. Again, and more
generally, we should probably adopt the contact pessimist's frame. Back
in the 60's and 70's, when the contact optimists like Sagan, Shklovskii
and Drake ruled the Earth, it was not uncommon to think that N in the equation fell somewhere between 10x6 to 10x9. These days, in the post Tipler and Hart era of astrosociobiology, cosmologists and astrobiologists have to take such factors into consideration as Von Neumann probes, the Fermi Paradox, the Rare Earth Hypothesis, stronger variants of the anthropic principle and catastrophism. Put
another way, as we continue to search for advanced ETI's, and as we
come to discover the absurdity of our isolation here on Earth, we may
have no choice but to accept the hypothesis that advanced life does not
venture out into space for whatever reason (the most likely being
self-destruction). Our other option is to cross our fingers and
hope that something radical and completely unpredictable lies on the
other side of the technological Singularity.
|