Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: life extension

MANDATE: Thou Shalt Sin In Favor Of Explosively-Nonlinear Victory For Eternity!

BRUSH 400

ERGO:

Thou Shalt Sin Against Linear Failure, In Order To Embrace Explosively-Nonlinear Victory For Eternity!

What to do against the item below?

Thou Shalt Sin Against Linear Failure, In Order To Embrace Auspicious Nonlinear Victory!

FIRST, LET US UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS HAPPENING CONCERNING PERVASIVE CHANGE:

“… BEGINNING WITH THE AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE KNOWN WORLD AT THE TIME OF CHRIST, STUDIES HAVE ESTIMATED THAT THE FIRST DOUBLING OF THAT KNOWLEDGE TOOK PLACE ABOUT 1700 A.D. THE SECOND DOUBLING OCCURRED AROUND THE YEAR 1900. IT IS ESTIMATED TODAY THAT THE WORLD’S KNOWLEDGE BASE WILL DOUBLE AGAIN BY 2010 AND AGAIN AFTER THAT BY 2013 …”

AND TO UNDERPIN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, LET US ALSO CONSIDER THE WORDS OF BILL GATES:

On Mar 24, 1999 Microsoft Chairman, and today’s smartest and wealthiest person, gave, in hard writing (ISBN: 978–0446525688), a pervasive forewarning that 96.357% of the people, with their intrinsically and un-salvageably linear and unprepared minds, utterly ignored.

THIS IS THE VERBATIM FOREWARNING:

“ … We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years [2001] and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten [2011] …” — Bill Gates. Brackets by the Author.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, LET US CAREFULLY CONSIDER THIS:

1.-) “…HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IS DOUBLING EVERY TEN YEARS [AS PER THE 1998 STANDARDS]…” [226]

2.-) “…COMPUTER POWER IS DOUBLING EVERY EIGHTEEN MONTHS. THE INTERNET IS DOUBLING EVERY YEAR. THE NUMBER OF DNA SEQUENCES WE CAN ANALYZE IS DOUBLING EVERY TWO YEARS…” [226]

3.-) “… BEGINNING WITH THE AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE KNOWN WORLD AT THE TIME OF CHRIST, STUDIES HAVE ESTIMATED THAT THE FIRST DOUBLING OF THAT KNOWLEDGE TOOK PLACE ABOUT 1700 A.D. THE SECOND DOUBLING OCCURRED AROUND THE YEAR 1900. IT IS ESTIMATED TODAY THAT THE WORLD’S KNOWLEDGE BASE WILL DOUBLE AGAIN BY 2010 AND AGAIN AFTER THAT BY 2013 …” [226]

4.- ) “…KNOWLEDGE IS DOUBLING BY EVERY FOURTEEN MONTHS…” [226]

5.-) “…MORE THAN THE DOUBLING OF COMPUTATIONAL POWER [IS TAKING PLACE] EVERY YEAR…” [226]

6.-) “…The flattening of the world is going to be hugely disruptive to both traditional and developed societies. The weak will fall further behind faster. The traditional will feel the force of modernization much more profoundly. The new will get turned into old quicker. The developed will be challenged by the underdeveloped much more profoundly. I worry, because so much political stability is built on economic stability, and economic stability is not going to be a feature of the flat world. Add it all up and you can see that the disruptions and going to come faster and harder. No one is immune — not me, not you, not Microsoft. WE ARE ENTERING AN ERA OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION ON STEROIDS. Dealing with flatism is going to be a challenge of a whole new dimension even if your country has a strategy. But if you don’t have a strategy at all, well, again, you’ve warned…” [226]

WHAT TO DO ABOUT? EXACTLY THIS:

(1.-) Picture mentally, radiantly.

(2.-) Draw outside the canvas.

(3.-) Color outside the vectors.

(4.-) Sketch sinuously.

(5.-) Far-sight beyond the mind’s intangible exoskeleton.

(6.-) Abduct indiscernible falsifiable convictions.

(7.-) Reverse-engineering a gene and a bacterium or, better yet, the lucrative genome.

(8.-) Guillotine the over-weighted status quo.

(9.-) Learn how to add up — in your own brainy mind — colors, dimensions, aromas, encryptions, enigmas, phenomena, geometrical and amorphous in-motion shapes, methods, techniques, codes, written lines, symbols, contexts, locus, venues, semantic terms, magnitudes, longitudes, processes, tweets, “…knowledge-laden…” hunches and omniscient bliss, so forth.

(10.-) Project your wisdom’s wealth onto communities of timeless-connected wikis.

WHAT ELSE?

(11.-) Cryogenize the infamous illiterate by own choice and reincarnate ASAP (multiverse teleporting out of a warped / wormed passage) Da Vinci, Bacon, Newton, Goethe, Bonaparte, Edison, Franklyn, Churchill, Einstein, and Feynman.

(12.-) Organize relationships into voluntary associations that are mutually beneficial and accountable for contributing productively to the surrounding community.

(13.-) Practice the central rule of good strategy, which is to know and remain true to your core business and invest for leadership and R&D+Innovation.

(14.-) Kaizen, SixSigma, Lean, LeanSigma, “…Reliability Engineer…” (the latter as solely conceived and developed by Procter & Gamble and Los Alamos National Laboratories) it all unthinkably and thoroughly by recombinant, a là Einstein Gedanke-motorized judgment (that is to say: Einsteinian Gedanke [“…thought experiments…”].

(15.-) Provide a road-map and blueprint for drastically compressing (‘crashing’) the time’s ‘reticules’ it will take you to get on the top of your tenure, nonetheless of your organizational level.

(16.-) With the required knowledge and relationships embedded in organizations, create support for, and carry out transformational initiatives.

(17.-) Offer a tested pathway for addressing the linked challenges of personal transition and organizational transformation that confront leaders in the first few months in a new tenure.

(18.-) Foster momentum by creating virtuous cycles that build credibility and by avoiding getting caught in vicious cycles that harm credibility.

(19.-) Institute coalitions that translate into swifter organizational adjustments to the inevitable streams of change in personnel and environment.

(20.-) Mobilize and align the overriding energy of many others in your organization, knowing that the “…wisdom of crowds…” is upfront and outright rubbish.

IS THAT YOUR BEST?

(21.-) Step outside the boundaries of the framework’s system when seeking a problem’s solution.

(22.-) Within zillion tiny bets, raise the ante and capture the documented learning through frenzy execution. (23) “…Moonshine…” and “… Skunkworks …” and “…Re-Imagineer…” it all, holding in your mind the motion-pictured image that, regardless of the relevance of “…inputs…” and “…outputs,…”, entails that the highest relevance is within the sophistication within the THROUGHPUT.

(24.-) Don’t copy Nature and Biology, don’t even copy Universe. Just copy the Omniverse.

(25.-) Correlate everything else with the ignored and unthinkable ‘else’ of everything else, forever.

(26.-) Combine the practical and technological with the mysterious and meaningful.

(27.-) Pencil your map.

(28.-) Brush your road-map.

(29.-) Scratch your blueprint.

(30.-) Conceive of, develop and share unthinkable lessons learned.

(31.-) Facilitate a heterogeneous group — in the midst of appalling interpersonal chemistry — towards the accomplishment of a common goal.

(32.-) Learn complex new skills and new ways to make corporate miracles crystallize.

(33.-) Typo the cartoon.

(34.-) Keystroke the drawing.

(35.-) Acculturate your brain to operate executions from the applied omniscience via the lenses and springs of systems methodology.

(36.-) Manage RISKS and BENEFITS and CHANCES and OPPORTUNITIES in series and never in parallel.

(37.-) Remove accident causes prior to a loss, knowing that an accident is never a random stroke of fate, but an utter and thus purported instrument of ignorance of supine ignorance.

(38.-) Convert your viewpoint to a systems approach.

(39.-) Enable full-orbed and balanced stability of your thinkables and unthinkables.

(40.-) Attempt to know, early on, the end from the beginning.

(41.-) Identify driving forces to make better decisions, manage uncertainty, and profit from change.

(42.-) Declare the past, recover yesterday, analyze the present, enjoy today, and reinvent tomorrow (today’s ensuing 24 hours).

(43.-) Build your own FUTURE transcending your past.

(44.-) Contort your mindful, mindless executions — and those in the midst of ‘mindful’ and ‘mindless’ executions —, solely out of this world, and solely out of this universe, and solely out of this reality, but not just for the inexpensive, tangential, impious sake of intellectual stunts, but only so that the ‘life’ has not unfruitful ‘afterlife’ — so-called —, and also so that the ‘world’ has no ‘afterworld’ (as well as, in congruence with the present work, ‘after-universe’ and even ‘after-verse.’) — so-called —. Aren’t afterlife and afterworld dis-intermediated anyway? Now, you, and merely you, proceed and transcend yourself, by yourself and for yourself.

(45.-) If you really want to make an operational difference in your professional theater of operations, go and get a full immersion in the fringe. Right in there, under that tense and pressing dynamics, you’ll have the vantage flux of the mirage.

AND, WHAT ELSE?

(46.-) Tantalize your tangential pre-cognition and cognition into ever-‬metamorphosing ‭your attentive and contemplative trans-meditation Zen.

(47.-) ‭De-realize, thus, de-focus from that taken-for-granted realities of the folly and the faulty, literally!

(48.-) ‬Mostly in-source your mind with long-unknown virtualities.

(49.-) Assure that there are not un-searched areas of risk, benefit and sustainable opportunity.

(59.-) Acculturate yourself and those in your crew and in the orbit of incumbent stakeholders with most actionable, applied omniscience. Remember culture without science and technology is beyond blind.

(60.-) Cultivate the highest manifestations of human intelligence: vision, discipline, passion and conscience.

(61.-) Achieve next-level breakthrough in productivity, innovation and leadership in the marketplace and society.

(62.-) Develop the internal power and moral authority to break out of those problems to become a significant force in solving them.

(63.-) Use your voice and deeds to superbly serve your organization’s purposes, functions and stakeholders.

(64.-) Magnify your current gifts, talents, skills and dexterities.

(65.-) Take a prior learning for Life, apply it to a new situation, learn from practical experience, and apply the new learning.

(66.-) Pervasively reason from effect to cause and from cause to effect.

(67.-) Envision shrewd yet calculated risks, from start to end, to turn downsides into upsides.

(68.-) “…Exponentialize the rushed and marshaled progression of your own all-rounded, perennial learning curves on the doubles, chiefly those directly concerned with engaging your diverse skills, dexterities, and talents to overcome — through fluid execution by mind preparedness — your theater of operations because of and by the increasingly threatening surroundings. Otherwise, the onset Technological Revolutions (compounded in a pervasive composite), as explained in «Futuretonium and Futureketing», will give you the hardest time to you and yours. There is realistic and austere hope if we work the hardest and in the most scientific mode.

(69.-) Figure out exactly which genes and neurons coalesce to make synapses with.

(70.-) Wire up synapses and genes the soonest.

(71.-) Ask now more sophisticated questions to marshal upon.

(72.-) Don’t juts copy Nature but focus on copying Biology, Nature and the Omniverse.

(73.-) Transfer the Heritage Business or the Legacy Business into the Third Millennium.

(74.-) Transform Completely.

(75.-) Expand Globally.

(76.-) Extend Digitally.

(77.-) Build an Intelligent-Innovation Strategy.

(78.-) Combine the best features of the three breathtaking strategies into one.

(79.-) When in doubt, Be Bold!

(80.-) Learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high.

(81.-) Experiment at the edges of business.

(82.-) Challenge yourself to question every assumption.

(83.-) Keep the acceleration going, keep your world changing and off balance.

(84.-) Remember, the frozen image is false. The reality is continual motion.

(85.-) Trigger domino effects and change the way the economy behaves.

(86.-) Foreshorten product life cycles from years to months or even weeks or hours.

(87.-) Put customer experience at the heart of digital transformation. This includes blurring the line between digital and physical customer experiences, the authors advise. “A Digital Master figures what customers do and why, where and how they do it. The company then works out where and how the experience can be digitally enhanced across channels.”

(88.-) Constantly challenge your business model; consider how you might transform your industry before others do it. “Not paying attention is even a bigger risk. Executives in music, newspapers, and equity trading have already seen the radical upheavals that digital business model reinvention can bring to their industries.”

(89.-) Get familiar with new digital practices that can be an opportunity or a threat to your industry and company.

(90.-) Identify bottlenecks or headaches — in your company and in your customers — that resulted from the limits of old technologies, and consider how you might resolve these problems digitally.

(91.-) Craft a compelling digital vision, one that specifies both intent and outcome. “There is no single best way to express a vision for digital transformation. It’s not a formulaic process,” the authors state. “You need to craft a vision that builds on your strengths, engages employees, and evolves over time.”

(92.-) Make your digital vision specific enough to give employees a clear direction, while giving them the flexibility to build on it.

(93.-) Open up the conversations to give everyone a role in digital transformation, and deal with resistance by being open and transparent about the goals.

(94.-) Consider which digital decisions must be governed at the highest levels of the company, and which will be delegated to lower levels.

(95.-) Focus your initial investments on getting a clean, well-structured digital platform; it’s the foundation for everything else.

(96.-) Challenge yourself continually to find new things you can do with your IT-business relationships, digital skills, and digital platform.

AND, SUBSEQUENTLY WHAT?

(3,102.-) “ … Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense …” (On October 29, 1941, U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill)

TO THE EXPRESS PURPOSE, IT MUST BE INCESSANTLY ACKNOWLEDGED FOR LIFE:

As well as Andres, Egotistical Prima Donna (SkunkWorks practitioner) is no longer a captive to history.

Whatever he, she can imagine, he, she can accomplish.

As well as Andres, Egotistical Prima Donna (SkunkWorks practitioner) is no longer a vassal in a faceless bureaucracy, he, she is an activist, not a drone.

As well as Andres, Egotistical Prima Donna (SkunkWorks practitioner) is no longer a foot soldier in the march of progress.

As well as Andres, Egotistical Prima Donna (SkunkWorks practitioner) is a Revolutionary! … ”

TODAY, I GOT THIS FROM LOCKHEED MARTIN RESEARCH SCIENTIST:

“ … Many businesses think today’s world is complicated and with technology rapidly changing, trying to figure out all the correct things to do is impossible, that it is better to just do what can be done, and adjust things when the result happens to be what is not expected. This is simply gambling where the odds for success and the liability of failure are getting worse by the day. The truth is the world is not complicated, just complex, and with complexity increasing at the same time technology is rapidly changing, the combination of the two conditions only seems complicated. The difference between complexity and complication is complexity can be logically addressed and accounted for such that proper risk management can then be applied and when the quality of the technology is assured early in the planning, analysis and design of the technical solution instead of only assuring it late in the development cycle, the integrated combination of these two scientifically validated methodologies can be used to reliably predict the expected outcomes. There is nobody better at applying the integrated combination of risk management and quality assurance than Mr. Andres Agostini or is there anybody that has more real world experience in doing so, and this includes solving some of the most wicked problems of some of the largest businesses throughout the world. If you are just gambling things work out, then I highly recommend you stop doing business dangerously and seek the assistance of Andres, the master of risk management and quality assurance, as well as reliability and contiguous process improvement…”

000 a 24 hours

ABSOLUTE END.

Authored By Copyright Mr. Andres Agostini

White Swan Book Author (Source of this Article)

http://www.LINKEDIN.com/in/andresagostini

http://www.AMAZON.com/author/agostini

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/heldenceo (Other Publications)

http://LIFEBOAT.com/ex/bios.andres.agostini

http://ThisSUCCESS.wordpress.com

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/agostiniandres

http://www.appearoo.com/aagostini

http://connect.FORWARDMETRICS.com/profile/1649/Andres-Agostini.html

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/amazonauthor

http://FUTURE-OBSERVATORY.blogspot.com

http://ANDRES-AGOSTINI-on.blogspot.com

http://AGOSTINI-SOLVES.blogspot.com

@AndresAgostini

@ThisSuccess

@SciCzar

New Book: An Irreverent Singularity Funcyclopedia, by Mondo 2000’s R.U. Sirius.

Posted by Rob Chamberlain in 3D printing, alien life, automation, big data, bionic, bioprinting, biotech/medical, complex systems, computing, cosmology, cryptocurrencies, cybercrime/malcode, cyborgs, defense, disruptive technology, DNA, driverless cars, drones, economics, electronics, encryption, energy, engineering, entertainment, environmental, ethics, existential risks, exoskeleton, finance, first contact, food, fun, futurism, general relativity, genetics, hacking, hardware, human trajectories, information science, innovation, internet, life extension, media & arts, military, mobile phones, nanotechnology, neuroscience, nuclear weapons, posthumanism, privacy, quantum physics, robotics/AI, science, security, singularity, software, solar power, space, space travel, supercomputing, time travel, transhumanism | Leave a Comment on New Book: An Irreverent Singularity Funcyclopedia, by Mondo 2000’s R.U. Sirius.

Quoted: “Legendary cyberculture icon (and iconoclast) R.U. Sirius and Jay Cornell have written a delicious funcyclopedia of the Singularity, transhumanism, and radical futurism, just published on January 1.” And: “The book, “Transcendence – The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity,” is a collection of alphabetically-ordered short chapters about artificial intelligence, cognitive science, genomics, information technology, nanotechnology, neuroscience, space exploration, synthetic biology, robotics, and virtual worlds. Entries range from Cloning and Cyborg Feminism to Designer Babies and Memory-Editing Drugs.” And: “If you are young and don’t remember the 1980s you should know that, before Wired magazine, the cyberculture magazine Mondo 2000 edited by R.U. Sirius covered dangerous hacking, new media and cyberpunk topics such as virtual reality and smart drugs, with an anarchic and subversive slant. As it often happens the more sedate Wired, a watered-down later version of Mondo 2000, was much more successful and went mainstream.”

Read the article here >https://hacked.com/irreverent-singularity-funcyclopedia-mondo-2000s-r-u-sirius/

Corporate Reconnoitering?

000000000 blitz 400
ABSOLUTE END.

Authored By Copyright Mr. Andres Agostini

White Swan Book Author (Source of this Article)

http://www.LINKEDIN.com/in/andresagostini

http://www.AMAZON.com/author/agostini

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/heldenceo (Other Publications)

http://LIFEBOAT.com/ex/bios.andres.agostini

http://ThisSUCCESS.wordpress.com

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/agostiniandres

http://www.appearoo.com/aagostini

http://connect.FORWARDMETRICS.com/profile/1649/Andres-Agostini.html

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/amazonauthor

http://FUTURE-OBSERVATORY.blogspot.com

http://ANDRES-AGOSTINI-on.blogspot.com

http://AGOSTINI-SOLVES.blogspot.com

@AndresAgostini

@ThisSuccess

@SciCzar

Technologies based on stem cells, genetic engineering or tissue engineering may eventually have considerable impact in alleviating certain diseases such as arthritis, heart disease, or dementia. But these rejuvenation biotechnologies cannot be used by the general public at large in order to negate the ageing process itself.

1. Problems with Stem Cell Therapies

One methodology for delivering biotechnology rejuvenation therapies (such as stem cell therapy) is bone marrow transplant. This is a complex, clinically risky, and administratively complicated procedure. It is well beyond the technical issue of artificially manipulating and repairing cells in the laboratory. Cells need to be harvested from a patient, manipulated in the laboratory, and then re-transplanted in the patient.

Consider what happens during an autologous cell harvest. The patient has to attend a clinic and this may involve a pre-procedure physical assessment, followed by administration of a Colony-Stimulating Factor which is given as an injection every day for up to 14 days, (the patient must be instructed on how to do this at home). A course of chemotherapy may be needed in order to regulate the production of stem cells. The patient returns for another visit for the harvest. The harvesting process takes three to four hours and it may have to be repeated every day for up to five days in order to collect enough cells for the transplant. It involves an epidural or a general anaesthetic (with all the associated risks), punctures over the pelvic bone and withdrawal of marrow material. Alternatively, intravenous access and blood withdrawal need to be arranged. The amount to be withdrawn must be assessed from person to person. The patient needs to recover from the anaesthetic.

After appropriate laboratory treatment of the cells, the patient needs to return for the transplant itself. The patient will again need to have a pre-treatment visit and (a full day) assessment, pre-treatment conditioning with insertion of an indwelling central venous access line, followed by intravenous (or intra-bone marrow) injection of primed stem cells, (which may need to be repeated the following day or more times soon after).

Following the procedure, it is necessary to observe the patient due to the risk of infection, and the patient must be kept in a germ-free environment, in some cases for up to three months (in hospital). The follow-up period can be one or two years in some cases, and there is a need for specialist nutritional input, home care, occupational therapy, medical follow-ups and regular clinic appointments. Even then, the fate of the injected stem cells remains unclear, both in functional and in duration terms. For instance, the injected stem cells need to develop cross-talking pathways with existing mesenchymal and endothelial cells, which involves a precise, co-ordinated, dynamic and hierarchical expression of genes and proteins, many of which are based upon stochastic elements, which are impossible to predict. This may influence the lifespan of the injected stem cells and require an earlier-than-planned re-treatment.

2. Problems with Tissue Engineering

Another proposed biotechnological therapy against age-relate degeneration such as abnormal tissue function due to cell loss, is tissue engineering. Although the technology necessary for developing large amounts of viable engineered tissue such as bone, skin or even heart can be achieved, a major problem is the transplantation of this engineered tissue to the appropriate organ in humans. Autologous cells must be harvested from the patient, either surgically or through a bone marrow procedure as discussed above, and then, following appropriate engineering interventions, transplanted surgically in the patient. The clinical sequences of the procedure, particularly those involving more advanced techniques such as in situ or in vivo tissue engineering may take a year from beginning to end. Therapies involving allogenic tissues will require lifelong immunosuppression. This would be a therapy for one type of tissue, and therefore the entire procedure would need to be repeated for other types of tissue, until all tissues affected by age-related damage would have been repaired. Questions about the number of qualified surgeons needed in order to carry out these procedures en masse would need to be addressed. Pre and post procedure assessments, physical rehabilitation therapy, follow up meetings, risk of infection or thromboembolism, and other intrinsic consequences of surgery would add to the existing difficulties.

3. Problems with Genetic Therapies

As a concept, gene therapy appears ideal in treating ageing changes. However, this is an oversimplification fraught with clinical obstacles. It is known there are several hundred genes that can modulate the ageing process. In mice alone there are over 100. Issues with pre-existing immunity to the vector, choice of vector, costs, dose, and many others need to be addressed. Non-viral vectors such as liposomes or methods based on nanotechnology need to be given to the patient via an intravenous route with all the problems discussed above. The new gene may not be inserted correctly on the DNA, or it may be overexpressed, causing more problems than it resolves. The risk of introducing infection or inducing a cancerous change remains.

For these and other reasons, the progress with gene therapy has not been as vigorous as expected. New techniques such as CRISPR cannot easily be applied in clinical situations involving humans. The current administration technique involves a hydrodynamic injection method which in mice has been proven effective in some experiments, but remains unusable in humans.

Discussion

These methods of administration are likely to remain the same (with minor, irrelevant to this argument, technical modifications) in the near-term (10−15 years) and perhaps the medium-term (20−50 years) future. Bone marrow transplant, is currently an appropriate method for patients who have one specific disease, but its applicability must be rigorously questioned when it is intended for people who have many co-existing age-related conditions. Our medical systems can tolerate this type of treatment if it is directed at a few patients having one disease each. But a single stem cell therapy will not have an effect on multiple conditions or organs, therefore if we consider that there are many organs needing treatment against ageing, then this becomes a clinical and administrative nightmare. However, it becomes an impossibility when, in addition to the above, we aim to treat large numbers of people. Worldwide, there are approximately 60,000 bone marrow transplants (BMT) performed each year. If we assume that, over a 10 year period, an arbitrary minimum 1% of all humans could possibly be treated with BMT-dependent rejuvenation biotechnologies each year, then there will be a need to provide 70,000,000 BMT a year! Or, viewing this from another angle, assuming a reasonable yearly 20% increase in our clinical capability to deliver rejuvenation biotechnologies, it will take us 10 years to reach a mere 1 000 000 target patients, (and at that point, the procedures would need to be repeated in the same patients, in order to maintain the status quo). Therefore, even in the best case scenario, we could only possibly treat 0.015% of humans, ever.

In addition, patients would need to undertake other rejuvenation procedures such as vaccinations, cytotoxic and other drugs, multiple crosslink breakers (drugs or enzymes), intravenous immunotherapy, apoptotic-modulators, and other treatment modalities. And this has to be repeated until all organs or tissues where there is accumulation of age-related pathology have been treated. But this is not the end, as all of these procedures will need to be repeated in the same patient in perpetuity (in order to achieve a continual absence or age related pathology for an indefinite time). Let me look at the matter in a different way: One cycle of treating one aspect or group of damages via bone marrow transplant, realistically takes a minimum of 2–3 months. It is likely that the same patient will need to undergo the bone marrow stem cell transplant procedure again in order to treat different organs such as brain degeneration, pancreatic or liver damage, or visual age-related damage. If each such cycle takes 3 months, then there will not be enough months in the year for any patient in order to have the full treatment for each and every organ or tissue. The quality of life of the recipient will be reduced to a minimum, and it will be a miserable and endless cycle of hospital and clinic visits, treatments and follow-up appointments repeated into perpetuity, a kind of dystopian, dehumanised society. The above discussion refers to the difficulties encountered during a scenario where we aim to treat just 10% of humanity. If we now consider the difficulties associated with treating the other 90%, then it must be obvious even to the most ardent advocate of rejuvenation biotechnologies that this method of addressing the ageing problem becomes an impossible delusion.

We should also acknowledge the possibility that, although some therapies could be developed, these may not by themselves result to any appreciable benefit for the patient until other therapies have also been developed and deployed. For instance, if a therapy is devised against atherosclerosis but not against cancer, the patient will perish from cancer-related damage, even if their arteries are healthy. So all of the above interventions need to be developed at an appropriately advanced clinical stage.

At this point it may be worth reiterating that I fully recognise the value of biomedical regeneration technologies but only insofar these are applied on specific and isolated diseases, and not on the biological process of ageing itself. Rejuvenation biotechnologies will not be of any value for the great majority of us who are aiming to avoid ageing and live a life without chronic degeneration.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25072550

Since ancient times people have been searching for the secret of immortality. Their quest has always been, without exception, about a physical item: a fountain, an elixir, an Alchemist’s remedy, a chalice, a pill, an injection of stem cells or a vial containing gene-repairing material. It has never been about an abstract concept.

Our inability to find a physical cure for ageing is explained by a simple fact: We cannot find it because it does not exist. It will never exist.

Those who believe that someday some guy is going to discover a pill or a remedy and give it to people so that we will all live forever are, regrettably, deluded.

I should highlight here that I refer to a cure for the ageing process in general, and not a cure for a specific medical disease. Biotechnology and other physical therapies are useful in alleviating many diseases and ailments, but these therapies will not be the answer to the basic biological process of ageing.

In a paper I published in the journal Rejuvenation Research I outline some of the reasons why I think biotechnology will not solve the ageing problem. I criticise projects such as SENS (which are based upon physical repairs of our ageing tissues) as being essentially useless against ageing. The editor’s rebuttal (being weak and mostly irrelevant) proved and strengthened my point. There are insurmountable basic psychological, anatomical, biological and evolutionary reasons why physical therapies against ageing will not work and will be unusable by the general public. Some of these reasons include pleiotropy, non-compliance, topological properties of cellular networks, non-linearity, strategic logistics, polypharmacy and tolerance, etc. etc.

So, am I claiming that we are doomed to live a life of age-related pathology and degeneration, and never be able to shake off the aging curse? No, far from it. I am claiming that it is quite possible, even inevitable, that ageing will be eliminated but this will not be achieved through a physical intervention based on bio-medicine or bio-technology. Ageing will be eliminated through fundamental evolutionary and adaptation mechanisms, and this process will take place independently of whether we want it or not.

It works like this: We now age and die because we become unable to repair random background damage to our tissues. Resources necessary for this have been allocated by the evolutionary process to our germ cell DNA (in order to assure the survival of the species) and have been taken away from our bodily cells. Until now, our environment was so full of dangers that it was more thermodynamically advantageous for nature to maintain us up to a certain age, until we have progeny and then die, allowing our progeny to continue life.

However, this is now changing. Our environment is becoming increasingly more secure and protective. Our technology protects us against dangers such as infections, famine and accidents. We become increasingly embedded into the network of a global techno-cultural society which depends upon our intelligence in order to survive. There will come a time when biological resources spent to bring up children would be better spent in protecting us instead, because it would be more economical for nature to maintain an existing, well-embedded human, rather than allow it to die and create a new one who would then need more resources in order to re-engage with the techno-cultural network. Disturbing the network by taking away its constituents and trying to re-engage new inexperienced ones is not an ideal action and therefore it will not be selected by evolution.Alchemist complex

The message is clear: You have more chances of defying ageing if, instead of waiting for someone to discover a pill to make you live longer, you become a useful part of a wider network and engage with a technological society. The evolutionary process will then ensure that you live longer-as long as you are useful to the whole.

Further reading
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/kyriazis20121031
https://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/12/the-seven-fallacies-of-aging
https://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/04/the-life-extension-hubris-why-biotechnology-is-unlikely-to-be-the-answer-to-ageing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25072550
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6910

Western Canada’s most futurist-oriented longevity organization, the Lifespan Society of British Columbia, has organized a first-class life extension conference, which will take place later this fall in the heart of downtown Vancouver. The Longevity and Genetics Conference 2014 offers a full-day of expert presentations, made accessible to a general audience, with keynote on the latest developments in biorejuvination by Aubrey de Grey of SENS Research Foundation. The conference will be interactive, with a panel session for audience questions, and VIP options for further interaction with speakers.

ImageofAubreydeGrey
Aubrey de Grey

Who will be there? In addition to Aubrey de Grey, there are four other speakers confirmed thus far: Dr. Angela Brooks-Wilson, Head of Cancer Genetics at the Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre at the BC Cancer Agency, Dr. S. Jay Olshansky, Board of Directors of the American Federation of Aging Research, and co-author of The Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging, Dr. Clinton Mielke, former Mayo Clinic researcher and founder of the quantified self platform “infino.me”, and lastly, one of futurism’s most experienced and dedicated radical longevity advocates, Benjamin Best, who is currently Director of Research Oversight at the Life Extension Foundation. This conference is a multi-disciplinary event, engaging several points of interest and relevance in the longevity space, from the cellular, genetic science of aging, to the latest epidemiological and even demographic research. You can also expect discussion on personalized medicine and quantified self technologies, as well as big picture, sociological and philosophical, longevity-specific topics.

All around, the 2014 Longevity and Genetics conference, set to take place Saturday November 15, has a lot to offer, as does the host city of Vancouver. A recent study has indicated that a majority of Canadians, 59%, are in favor of life extension technology, with 47% expecting that science and technology will enable living until 120 by 2050. The Lifespan Society of British Columbia is keeping that momentum and enthusiasm alive and growing, and I’m glad they have organized such a high-calliber event. Tickets are currently still available. Learn more about the event and purchase tickets here.

ImageofVancouver
Vancouver B.C.

Would you have your brain preserved? Do you believe your brain is the essence of you?

To noted American PhD Neuroscientist and Futurist, Ken Hayworth, the answer is an emphatic, “Yes.” He is currently developing machines and techniques to map brain tissue at the nanometer scale — the key to encoding our individual identities.

A self-described transhumanist and President of the Brain Preservation Foundation, Hayworth’s goal is to perfect existing preservation techniques, like cryonics, as well as explore and push evolving opportunities to effect a change on the status quo. Currently there is no brain preservation option that offers systematic, scientific evidence as to how much human brain tissue is actually preserved when undergoing today’s experimental preservation methods. Such methods include vitrification, the procedure used in cryonics to try and prevent human organs from freezing and being destroyed when tissue is cooled for cryopreservation.

Hayworth believes we can achieve his vision of preserving an entire human brain at an accepted and proven standard within the next decade. If Hayworth is right, is there a countdown to immortality?

To find out more, please take a look at the Galactic Public Archives’ newest video. We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Cheers!

What follows is my position piece for London’s FutureFest 2013, the website for which no longer exists.

Medicine is a very ancient practice. In fact, it is so ancient that it may have become obsolete. Medicine aims to restore the mind and body to their natural state relative to an individual’s stage in the life cycle. The idea has been to live as well as possible but also die well when the time came. The sense of what is ‘natural’ was tied to statistically normal ways of living in particular cultures. Past conceptions of health dictated future medical practice. In this respect, medical practitioners may have been wise but they certainly were not progressive.

However, this began to change in the mid-19th century when the great medical experimenter, Claude Bernard, began to champion the idea that medicine should be about the indefinite delaying, if not outright overcoming, of death. Bernard saw organisms as perpetual motion machines in an endless struggle to bring order to an environment that always threatens to consume them. That ‘order’ consists in sustaining the conditions needed to maintain an organism’s indefinite existence. Toward this end, Bernard enthusiastically used animals as living laboratories for testing his various hypotheses.

Historians identify Bernard’s sensibility with the advent of ‘modern medicine’, an increasingly high-tech and aspirational enterprise, dedicated to extending the full panoply of human capacities indefinitely. On this view, scientific training trumps practitioner experience, radically invasive and reconstructive procedures become the norm, and death on a physician’s watch is taken to be the ultimate failure. Humanity 2.0 takes this way of thinking to the next level, which involves the abolition of medicine itself. But what exactly would that mean – and what would replace it?

The short answer is bioengineering, the leading edge of which is ‘synthetic biology’. The molecular revolution in the life sciences, which began in earnest with the discovery of DNA’s function in 1953, came about when scientists trained in physics and chemistry entered biology. What is sometimes called ‘genomic medicine’ now promises to bring an engineer’s eye to improving the human condition without presuming any limits to what might count as optimal performance. In that case, ‘standards’ do not refer to some natural norm of health, but to features of an organism’s design that enable its parts to be ‘interoperable’ in service of its life processes.

In this brave new ‘post-medical’ world, there is always room for improvement and, in that sense, everyone may be seen as ‘underperforming’ if not outright disabled. The prospect suggests a series of questions for both the individual and society: (1) Which dimensions of the human condition are worth extending – and how far should we go? (2) Can we afford to allow everyone a free choice in the matter, given the likely skew of the risky decisions that people might take? (3) How shall these improvements be implemented? While bioengineering is popularly associated with nano-interventions inside the body, of course similarly targeted interventions can be made outside the body, or indeed many bodies, to produce ‘smart habitats’ that channel and reinforce desirable emergent traits and behaviours that may even leave long-term genetic traces.

However these questions are answered, it is clear that people will be encouraged, if not legally required, to learn more about how their minds and bodies work. At the same time, there will no longer be any pressure to place one’s fate in the hands of a physician, who instead will function as a paid consultant on a need-to-know and take-it-or-leave-it basis. People will take greater responsibility for the regular maintenance and upgrading of their minds and bodies – and society will learn to tolerate the diversity of human conditions that will result from this newfound sense of autonomy.

By Richard Van Noorden and Nature magazine — Scientific American

Scientists who work on genomics and are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) must post their data online so that others can build on the information, the agency has said in an update to its guidelines.

The change, which expands the remit of an earlier data-sharing policy, is not expected to drastically alter research practices — many genomics researchers are accustomed to sharing their data. But the latest policy, released on 27 August, gives clearer instructions for gaining the informed consent of study participants. The NIH will now require researchers to tell study participants that their data may be broadly shared for future research.

Read more