Toggle light / dark theme

By — Computerworld

Computerworld - Approximately 18 people die every day waiting for an organ transplant. But that may change someday sooner than you think — thanks to 3D printing.

Advances in the 3D printing of human tissue have moved fast enough that San Diego-based bio-printing company Organovo now expects to unveil the world’s first printed organ — a human liver — next year.Liver tissue

Like other forms of 3D printing, bio-printing lays down layer after layer of material — in this case, live cells — to form a solid physical entity — in this case, human tissue. The major stumbling block in creating tissue continues to be manufacturing the vascular system needed to provide it with life-sustaining oxygen and nutrients.

Read more

US scientists have performed a dramatic reversal of the ageing process in animal studies.

They used a chemical to rejuvenate muscle in mice and said it was the equivalent of transforming a 60-year-old’s muscle to that of a 20-year-old — but muscle strength did not improve.

Their study, in the journal Cell, identified an entirely new mechanism of ageing and then reversed it.

Other researchers said it was an “exciting finding”.

Read more

Some people become incredibly confused about the effort to eliminate aging, which they see as a nebulous, ill-defined process. I refer to the concept of radical life extension, when aging as a process has been abolished. I am not referring to simple healthy longevity (the effort to live a healthy life until the current maximum lifespan of 110–120). Here are some common misconceptions:

1. The Fallacy of words

Eliminating aging will make us ‘immortal’ and we will live forever.

No, it won’t. If we eliminate aging as a cause of death, we may be able to live for an indefinite (not infinite) period, until something else kills us. Even in a world without aging, death can happen at any time (at age 10, 65 or 1003) and for any reason (a shot in the head, malaria, drowning). If we manage to eliminate aging as a cause of death, the only certain thing would be that we will not necessarily die when we reach the currently maximum lifespan limit of around 110–120 years. We would certainly NOT live for ever, because something else will kill us sooner or later. Our organs cannot be repaired if we perish in a nuclear explosion for example, or in a fire. Some statisticians have mentioned that, without aging, we may be able to live to 1700–2000 years on average before death happens due to some other catastrophic damage. This is a long time, but it is not ‘forever’.

2. The Fallacy of numbers

Eliminating aging will result in overpopulation.

No, it won’t. This is based on spurious, even naïve, thinking. Aging happens because we need to reproduce. Or, we need to reproduce because we age. If aging is eliminated, the need to reproduce will also be broadly eliminated. It is a cyclical, reciprocal argument.

3. The Fallacy of loneliness

“I don’t want to live dramatically longer because I will have to witness the deaths of all my family and friends”.

No, you won’t. If you live longer because aging has been eliminated, then your family and friends will too. In any case, this counteracts fallacy number 2: if everybody else dies, how come we would have overpopulation? And fallacy number 2 counteracts this one: if we do have overpopulation, then it is likely that your friends and relatives will be alive too.

4. The Fallacy of the pill

Aging will be eliminated by taking a pill (or a combination of pills, injections, something physical).

No, it won’t. It will be eliminated through a change in the direction of human evolution, when billions of humans continue to engage with technology (or via other, abstract global technologically-dependent means). As the general direction of evolution is towards a more complex state which makes us better adapted to our environment, there would come a point when our hyper-technological environment would select individual longevity instead of aging and degeneration, as a more thermodynamically efficient situation.

5. The Fallacy of money

Research into the elimination of aging is not progressing fast due to lack of appropriate funding.

No, funding is not the main bottleneck. The main problem is the widespread adoption of the wrong approach. The idea that aging can be eliminate through pharmacological intervention dates back to the time of the Alchemists. It has no place in a modern, highly technological and intellectually sophisticated society, and certainly not with respect to defying such a fundamental process as aging. It is reductionist instead of integrative.
Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed. Aging happens because within a tendency to progress from simple to complex, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species

6. The Fallacy of the rich elite

Only a few rich people will have access to the treatment.

This is a combination of fallacies number 4 and 5, a fallacy based on fallacies. People who adapt and fit within an upwards moving technological environment will be more likely to survive. Money is irrelevant. What is relevant is intellectual effort and aggressive engagement with our environment (hyperconnectivity is an example). If a large number of humans (in the order of hundreds of millions) actively engage with their increasingly technological environment, there would be no reason to age/reproduce at the current rates, as survival can be assured through the individual rather than the species. Therefore, there could be no secrets about the process, due to the very fact that a significant section of humanity must necessarily participate.

7. The fallacy of frailty

Living dramatically longer will mean a long life with debilitating illnesses.

No, it won’t. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. A life without aging necessarily means a life without age-related degeneration. You cannot have one without the other.

Superintelligence! By Mr. Andres Agostini
BRAIN0

This is an excerpt from the conclusion section of, “…Superintelligence…” that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article:
BRAIN
EXCERPT.

How do I exercise my mind? What types of thinking modes I daily use?

BRAIN31. “Einsteinian Gedanke” Thinking
2. “Post Mortem” Thinking
3. “Pre Mortem” Thinking
4. “Short-Term and Long-Term” Thinking
5. “Terra Incognita” Thinking
6. “A Cappella” Thinking
7. “À la Quantum Mechanics” Thinking
8. “A Posteriori” Thinking
9. “A Priori” Thinking
10. “Against Fashionable” Thinking
11. “Against Inexpensive” Thinking
12. “Against Sloppy, Emotional” Thinking
13. “Against the whole cliche of the moment” Thinking
14. “Alpha and Omega” Thinking
15. “Applied Omniscience Knowledge” Thinking
16. “Continuous Improvement and Innovation” Thinking
17. “Edisonian Research” Thinking
18. “Over-Hauled Re-Engineering” Thinking
19. “Primum nocere” Thinking
20. “Primum non nocere” Thinking
21. “Rara Avis” Thinking
22. “Support Learning and Change” Thinking
23. A Radical yet Rigorous Strong-Sense and Critico-Creative
24. Aggregated Thinking
25. Alternatives-Exploring Thinking
26. Black-and-White Thinking
27. Bottom-Up Thinking
28. Cognitive Thinking
29. Composite Thinking
30. Compounded Thinking
31. Comprehensive Thinking
32. Cosmological Thinking
33. Counter-Cognitive Thinking
34. Counter-envisioning Thinking
35. Countering Thinking
36. Counter-intuitive Thinking
37. Counter-Intuitiveness Thinking
38. Countermeassuring Thinking
39. Counter-seeing Thinking
40. Cradle-to-grave Thinking
41. Cross-functional Thinking
42. Cross-pollinated Thinking
43. Cross-Referenced Thinking
44. Cybered Thinking
45. Cyber-Enabled Thinking
46. Deep Thinking
47. Dense Thinking
48. Discontinuous-Progression Thinking
49. Discoverer’s Thinking
50. Early-On Thinking
51. Easternized Thinking
52. Ecological Thinking
53. Engineering Thinking
54. Entomological Thinking
55. Epicentric Thinking
56. Epidemiological Thinking
57. Ex-ante Thinking
58. Exploratory Thinking
59. Exuberant Thinking
60. Factory Thinking
61. Forensic Thinking
62. Forethought Thinking
63. Forward Thinking
64. Futures Thinking
65. Futures Thinking
66. Fuzzy-Logic Thinking
67. Generative Thinking
68. Gestalt Thinking
69. Governed Thinking
70. GPS Thinking
71. Gray-areas Thinking
72. Harmonic Thinking
73. Helicopter Thinking
74. Heterodox Thinking
75. Heterodox Thinking
76. Hindsight Thinking
77. Holistic Thinking
78. Holistic Thinking
79. Horse-Seeing Thinking
80. Hyper-Geometrical Thinking
81. Illogicality Thinking
82. In-Advance Thinking
83. In-Parallel Thinking
84. In-Series Thinking
85. Inside-out Thinking
86. Integrative and Transformative Thinking
87. Interconnected Thinking
88. Interdependency Thinking
89. Interdisciplinary Thinking
90. Internetted Thinking
91. Interrelated Thinking
92. Inventor’s Thinking
93. Inward-Looking Thinking
94. Macro Thinking
95. Macroscopic Thinking
96. Metaphorical Thinking
97. Microscopic Thinking
98. Multidimensional Thinking
99. Multifaceted Thinking
100. Multilevel Thinking
101. Multi-Level Thinking
102. Multi-Perspective Thinking
103. Multi-Range Thinking
104. Multi-tasking Thinking
105. Mystified Thinking
106. Naturalist Thinking
107. Networked Thinking
108. Nonlinear Thinking
109. Non-Status Quo Thinking
110. Nuanced Thinking
111. Old-guard Thinking
112. Open Thinking
113. Orthodox Thinking
114. Outward-Looking Thinking
115. Parenthetic Thinking
116. Peripheral Thinking
117. Pluri-Filter Thinking
118. Pluri-Intent Thinking
119. Pre-“Post Mortem” Thinking
120. Preemptive Thinking
121. Pre-Forensic Thinking
122. Preter-Naturalist Thinking
123. Pseudo-Serendipitous Thinking
124. Qualitative Thinking
125. Quantitative Thinking
126. Radar Thinking
127. Radiant Thinking Irradiantly
128. Re-Engineering Thinking
129. Scenario-Method Thinking
130. Semi-Covert Thinking
131. Semigoverned Thinking
132. Semigoverned Thinking
133. Semipredictable Thinking
134. Semipredictable Thinking
135. Sonar Thinking
136. Sonar Thinking
137. Spacewalk Thinking
138. Spacewalk Thinking
139. Specificity Thinking
140. Specificity Thinking
141. Strategic Thinking
142. Strategic Thinking
143. Submarine Thinking
144. Submarine Thinking
145. Surprise-Free Thinking
146. Surprise-Free Thinking
147. Synergistic Thinking
148. Synergistic Thinking
149. Systems Thinking
150. Systems Thinking
151. Systemwide Thinking
152. Systemwide Thinking
153. Telescopic Thinking
154. Telescopic Thinking
155. Through-Paradoxes Thinking
156. Through-Paradoxes Thinking
157. Throughput Thinking
158. Throughput Thinking
159. Top-down Thinking
160. Top-down Thinking
161. Trans-Contextual Thinking
162. Trans-Contextual Thinking
163. Un-Commonsensical Thinking
164. Un-Commonsensical Thinking
165. Unconventional Thinking
166. Unconventional Thinking
167. Unconventionally-Uncommon Thinking
168. Unconventionally-Uncommon Thinking
169. Un-daydreamed-of Thinking
170. Un-Daydreamed-of Thinking
171. Undreamed-of Thinking
172. Undreamed-of Thinking
173. Unorthodox Thinking
174. Unthinkable Thinking
175. Upside-down Thinking
176. Vanguard Thinking
177. Vertical-lateral-+Thinking
178. Weird Science’s Thinking
179. Weirdo’s Thinking
180. Westernized Thinking
181. Wholeness Thinking
182. Womb-to-tomb Thinking

END OF EXCERPT.

Please see the full presentation at http://goo.gl/8fdwUP

The Future of Management Wargaming, Now! By Mr. Andres Agostini
WarGaming
This is an excerpt from the conclusion section of, “…The Future of Management Wargaming , Now…!” that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article:

In addition to being aware and adaptable and resilient before the driving forces reshaping the current present and the as-of-now future, there are some extra management suggestions that I concurrently practice:

a) “…human knowledge is doubling every ten years [as per the 1998 standards]…”

b) “…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…”

c) “…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…”

d) “…knowledge is doubling by every fourteen months…”

e) “…more than the doubling of computational power [is taking place] every year…”

f) “…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…”

DYNAMICS

Accordingly, Andres likewise indicates, “…Transformative and Integrative Risk Management (TAIRM) is also implemented in order to prevent technological surprises to the savvy organization seeking this advice and service by TAIRM, but also to create disruptively technological surprises (managerial ‘…Sputnik Moments…’) for the enterprise’s competitors…”

Please see the full presentation at http://goo.gl/SUg18r and at http://goo.gl/8fdwUP

by RHIANNON EDWARD

a TREATMENT to cure or halt dementia by 2025 is “within our grasp”, Prime Minister David Cameron said yesterday, as he announced a doubling in UK funding for research.

Mr Cameron was addressing scientists, politicians and campaigners from around the world who have gathered in London for a dementia summit called by the UK as part of its year-long chairmanship of the G8.

With the World Health Organisation (WHO) forecasting that the number of dementia sufferers will almost double worldwide every two decades, Mr Cameron has said he wants UK government investment in dementia research to rise from £66 million in 2015 to £122m in 2025, with similar increases from the commercial and charitable sectors.

Read more

Applied Omniscience in Transformative and Integrative Risk Management! By Mr. Andres Agostini
OMNISCIENCE
This is an excerpt from the presentation, “…Applied Omniscience in Transformative and Integrative Risk Management!…” that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article:

Please see the graphic at http://lnkd.in/dUstZEk

This is an excerpt from the conclusion section of, “…NASA’s Managerial and Leadership Methodology, Now Unveiled!..!” by Mr. Andres Agostini, that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of this illustrated article and presentation:

superman
In addition to being aware and adaptable and resilient before the driving forces reshaping the current present and the as-of-now future, there are some extra management suggestions that I concurrently practice:

1. Given the vast amount of insidious risks, futures, challenges, principles, processes, contents, practices, tools, techniques, benefits and opportunities, there needs to be a full-bodied practical and applicable methodology (methodologies are utilized and implemented to solve complex problems and to facilitate the decision-making and anticipatory process).

The manager must always address issues with a Panoramic View and must also exercise the envisioning of both the Whole and the Granularity of Details, along with the embedded (corresponding) interrelationships and dynamics (that is, [i] interrelationships and dynamics of the subtle, [ii] interrelationships and dynamics of the overt and [iii] interrelationships and dynamics of the covert).

DETAIL    DETAIL    DETAILBoth dynamic complexity and detail complexity, along with fuzzy logic, must be pervasively considered, as well.

To this end, it is wisely argued, “…You can’t understand the knot without understanding the strands, but in the future, the strands need not remain tied up in the same way as they are today…”

For instance, disparate skills, talents, dexterities and expertise won’t suffice ever. A cohesive and congruent, yet proven methodology (see the one above) must be optimally implemented.

Subsequently, the Chinese proverb indicates, “…Don’t look at the waves but the currents underneath…”

2. One must always be futurewise and technologically fluent. Don’t fight these extreme forces, just use them! One must use counter-intuitiveness (geometrically non-linearly so), insight, hindsight, foresight and far-sight in every day of the present and future (all of this in the most staggeringly exponential mode). To shed some light, I will share two quotes.

The Panchatantra (body of Eastern philosophical knowledge) establishes, “…Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes.…” And Antonio Machado argues, “… An eye is not an eye because you see it; an eye is an eye because it sees you …”

Managers always need a clear, knowledgeable vision. Did you already connect the dots stemming from the Panchatantra and Machado? Did you already integrate those dots into your big-picture vista?

As side effect, British Prime Minister W. E. Gladstone considered, “…You cannot fight against the future…”

PARALLEL     PARALLEL      PARALLEL
3. In all the Manager does, he / she must observe and apply, at all times, a sine qua non maxim, “…everything is related to everything else…”

4. Always manage as if it were a “project.” Use, at all times, the “…Project Management…” approach.

5. Always use the systems methodology with the applied omniscience perspective.

In this case, David, I mean to assert: The term “Science” equates to about a 90% of “…Exact Sciences…” and to about 10% of “…Social Sciences…” All science must be instituted with the engineering view.

6. Always institute beyond-insurance risk management as you boldly integrate it with your futuring skill / expertise.

BEYOND     BEYOND       BEYOND
7. In my firmest opinion, the following must be complied this way (verbatim): the corporate strategic planning and execution (performing) are a function of a grander application of beyond-insurance risk management. It will never work well the other way around. Transformative and Integrative Risk Management (TAIRM) is the optimal mode to do advanced strategic planning and execution (performing).

TAIRM is not only focused on terminating, mitigating and modulating risks (expenses of treasure and losses of life), but also concentrated on bringing under control fiscally-sound, sustainable organizations and initiatives.

TAIRM underpins sensible business prosperity and sustainable growth and progress.

8. I also believe that we must pragmatically apply the scientific method in all we manage to the best of our capacities.

If we are “…MANAGERS…” in a Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Era (not a knowledge-driven eon because of superficial and hollow caprices of the follies and simpletons), we must do therefore extensive and intensive learning and un-learning for Life if we want to succeed and be sustainable.

As a consequence, Dr. Noel M. Tichy, PhD. argues, “…Today, intellectual assets trump physical assets in nearly every industry…”

Consequently, Alvin Toffler indicates, “…In the world of the future, THE NEW ILLITERATE WILL BE THE PERSON WHO HAS NOT LEARNED TO LEARN…”

We don’t need to be scientists to learn some basic principles of advanced science.

Accordingly, Dr. Carl Sagan, PhD. expressed, “…We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows about science and technology…” And Edward Teller stated, “…The science of today is the technology of tomorrow …”

And it is also crucial this quotation by Winston Churchill, “…If we are to bring the broad masses of the people in every land to the table of abundance, IT CAN ONLY BE BY THE TIRELESS IMPROVEMENT OF ALL OF OUR MEANS OF TECHNICAL PRODUCTION…”

I am not a scientist but I tirelessly support responsible scientists and science. I like scientific and technological knowledge and methodologies a great deal.

Chiefly, I am a college autodidact made by his own self and engaged into extreme practical and theoretical world-class learning for Life.

APPROACH    APPROACH     APPROACH9. In any management undertaking, and given the universal volatility and rampant and uninterrupted rate of change, one must think and operate in a fluid womb-to-tomb mode.

The manager must think and operate holistically (both systematically and systemically) at all times.

The manager must also be: i) Multidimensional, ii) Interdisciplinary, iii) Multifaceted, iv) Cross-functional, and v) Multitasking.

That is, the manager must now be an expert state-of-the-art generalist and erudite. ERGO, THIS IS THE NEWEST SPECIALIST AND SPECIALIZATION.

Managers must never manage elements, components or subsystems separately or disparately (that is, they mustn’t ever manage in series).

Managers must always manage all of the entire system at the time (that is, managing in parallel or simultaneously the totality of the whole at once).

10. In any profession, beginning with management, one must always and cleverly upgrade his / her learning and education until the last exhale.

An African proverb argues, “…Tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it…” And Winston Churchill established, “…The empires of the future are the empires of the mind…” And an ancient Chinese Proverb: “…It is not our feet that move us along — it is our minds…”
DESTINY       DESTINY       DESTINY
And Malcolm X observed, “…The future belongs to those who prepare for it today…” And Leonard I. Sweet considered, “…The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create…”

And finally, James Thomson argued, “…Great trials seem to be a necessary preparation for great duties …”

AGE       AGE         AGE
Consequently, Dr. Gary Hamel, PhD. indicates, “…What distinguishes our age from every other is not the world-flattening impact of communications, not the economic ascendance of China and India, not the degradation of our climate, and not the resurgence of ancient religious animosities. RATHER, IT IS A FRANTICALLY ACCELERATING PACE OF CHANGE…”

Please see the full presentation at http://goo.gl/8fdwUP

Whenever I talk about indefinite life extension, the science and tech behind its development, and the desire for individuals to have the ultimate choice of when and how long they wish to live and die, the radical left almost always resorts to the argument, “Yeah, that sounds great, but then the rich aren’t going to provide it for the 99%. They’ll only keep it for themselves and let us die off.” How is this not equivalent to the conspiracy theory that the 1% are withholding the cure for cancer to the general populace?

It’s a bullshit viewpoint, in my opinion. Yes, the 1% are greedy fucks who care more about profits than anything else, but then, I ask you, how do they expect to earn profits from an extinct species?

While you’re trying to figure out an answer for that, I also find the idea that nothing would result from this kind of oppression to be asinine. Why? Here’s a good example: Black Friday. Every year Black Friday customers gather in the hundreds and thousands in each city, literally rioting, fighting, and killing people, just so they can get their hands on consumer products that’ll be outdated by next year. So if the cure for aging is being withheld from the masses, what the fuck do you think the masses are going to do? Just go home and sob? Ha! There’d be warfare on the streets the next morning.

So do I believe that indefinite life extension will be withheld from the 99% by the 1%? No. Just like I don’t believe that the 1% are withholding the cure for cancer from the 99%.

The article above was originally published as a blog post on The Proactionary Transhumanist.

Procreative sexual activity has been at the heart of the evolutionary process for millions of years. Until recently, the situation was simple: a male and a female had sexual intercourse in order to produce offspring and thus ensure survival. But, in humans, there are certain signs that something profound may be happening, signs which may be pointing to the beginning of Radical Life Extension. I argue that reproduction is a tactic used by natural evolution in order to increase complexity and thus, survival. Reproduction equals aging. But, as we now may have the capability to increase complexity through technology, the reproduction stratagem may be downgraded and thus aging will also decrease.

Here, the term ‘Radical Life Extension’ specifically means the abolition of aging. Without the process of aging, however it is defined, people will not suffer age-related degenerative conditions, and they will not die of old age. Therefore, the terms ‘Radical Life Extension’,’ Indefinite Lifespans’, and ‘cure of age-related diseases’, all convey the same meaning: a life without aging. It is important to emphasize that I consider the process of aging to be directly related to that of reproduction. I argue that the process of reproduction is necessarily implicated in the process of aging (in other words, aging happens because we need to reproduce), as explained in my argument number 3 below.

In this context, I would also like to remark that by ‘reproduction’ I specifically refer to sexual (i.e. genetic) reproduction. Evolution may still continue to use (or begin to use) other forms of reproduction such as memetic reproduction and reproduction of noemes.

The main thrust of my discussion is that we are now beginning to witness the first tentative steps leading away from the significance of procreative sexual intercourse and towards the global emergence of other, sustained, non-procreative sexual preferences.

Let me explore a series of logical arguments which lead to an inescapable conclusion. Note that I do not imply a sentient deity in my discussion. I do not infer any entity that possesses any conscious awareness which transcend the laws of nature.

Argument 1
Nature, through evolution, tends to progress towards higher levels of complexity. To put it another way, within natural laws there are basins of attraction which necessarily tend to cause a transition from simple to complex, and therefore lead to the emergence of new characteristics. The Belgian Cyberneticist Francis Heylighen has listed these characteristics in increasing order of complexity, as follows:
* mobility
* sensation
* learning
* intelligence
* morality
* mimicry
* language
* culture
* technology.

He states that “The idea is that all life, wherever it occurs in the universe, will develop those traits of universal fitness, in roughly the same chronological order. It means that those traits are built into the laws of nature. They are statistically inevitable. It is as if nature ‘wants’ us to go in a certain direction. This is what gives biological evolution its clear directionality”.

The above list is not final, and there is no implication that technology is the end stage of human evolution. The point I am making here is a general one: that evolution tends to higher complexity, whatever this complexity might be, in order to ensure survival within a specified niche.

Argument 2
Based on this list, it is obvious that we are currently on the highest stage of natural evolution, that of technology. There will certainly be higher end-points in the future. In fact, I can think of at least two such stages which we have not yet achieved, but at this point I argue that this has profound implications on the issues of aging and radical life extension. If the general direction of evolution is towards increasing complexity and survival, why do we age and die? The answer is straightforward. Within a tendency to progress from simple to complex, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging – see argument 3) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species.

Argument 3
Until now, the clear role of reproduction was to maximise the chances of survival and thus progress to a higher stage in the list above. However, in order for reproduction to be successful, the genetic code (germ-line) must be maintained. An inequality of resources available for repair and maintenance between germ line and somatic cells means that, while the integrity of the germ-line is fully guaranteed, that of somatic cells is not. Therefore we (our bodies) must age and die through aging. Survival is thus assured, albeit it is the survival of the germ-line and that of the species, and not the survival of our own individual selves.

Argument 4
The main tendency in nature (i.e. the direction of evolution), through a relentless progress of increasing complexity, is to stay alive. Ultimately, what matters is to survive. The basins of attraction mentioned above exist because they ensure survival. Reproduction is just a means for assuring survival in the face of adverse thermodynamical resources. If there was a way to survive without reproduction, then the process of reproduction would be drastically downgraded. We may be now able to survive, i.e. live (dramatically) longer, through the use of technology and not necessarily through reproduction. There are three types of technology that is relevant here:
* Biomedical Technology
* General mechanical technology (includes AI)
* Digital Communications Technology

I have argued elsewhere that it is this last type of technology that is the most promising in achieving Radical Life Extension. In humans, technology is both the result of natural selection and the cause of the end of natural selection.

Argument 5
If there are any signs that reproduction is being downgraded then it means that the above arguments are likely to be correct, and that the process of long individual survival has begun. One such preliminary sign is the decline in procreative sexual practice and the relatively widespread emergence of other practices or preferences. If nature somehow ‘senses’ that survival is now being assured through technology, then the pressure for finding a mate of the opposite sex and reproduce would be eased, allowing the widespread emergence of other non-reproductive sexual practices such as homosexuality, non-procreative polyamory, hedonist polysexuality or pansexuality. It is likely therefore that we are now entering a period of human evolution which will not entirely depend on reproduction. Reduced reproduction means that more resources are available to be passed on to the soma (body) and thus radical longevity becomes more likely.

Discussion
How can the technological environment in which one finds themselves impact sexuality? There is a train of logical arguments which answer this question:
• If we accept that evolution generally tends to higher complexity and sophistication (including technological sophistication) in order to increase survival, and
• If we accept that a stage of significant technological achievement has now been reached (or is likely to be reached within 20 years), and
• If, as long as the human species survives, it is immaterial whether its survival is achieved through reproduction or through any other means, and
• If one of these other means is technology,

then, it is also logical to assume that genetic reproduction is now less important than before because high complexity/intelligence can be achieved through technology and through the prolonged survival of the individually- enhanced human, and not necessarily through a random process of natural selection (birth/procreation/death). If genetic reproduction is now not as important as before, any tendency to conventional procreative sexuality will diminish. Thus, other sexual preferences and practices will become more common place.

And just to push the discussion further into the realms of speculation, one should wonder if the progressive global reduction of sperm count, the increased incidence of undescended testicles, and the first signs that men are becoming less ‘macho’, have any relationship with my argument. It may be hypothesized that, as the reproductive practice is now being downgraded, the health of male sexual organs has begun to be affected, in preparation for a procreative shutdown, at least in some sections of humanity.

Finally, I have been asked: Can using computers make me gay? This is a captious statement which is both true and false, but it helps illustrate a point. Based on the arguments above, increased engagement with technology at a significant level, and by a significant number of people, will have an impact on natural selection and thus on procreation. It will diminish the hitherto immense pressure to find a mate and have offspring, and so other sexual preferences will emerge globally. The discussion does not refer to single isolated individuals but to humankind as a whole.

For more information on our research in these areas see www.elpisfil.org.

This article was originally published here:

Sexuality, Evolution and the Abolition of Aging