Ramez Naam
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Alberto Gaitan
May 21, 2014, 6:35:29 PM5/21/14
to me...@hacdc.org
I have the unique opportunity to hang out with SciFi author and programmer/nanotechnologist, Ramez Naam. Thought I'd ask this group of transhumanists if there are any questions you'd ask if you were me.
He'll be speaking about prominent possibilities in our biotech futures at an invitation-only event and then a small group, including yours truly, will be going to dinner with him.
LinkReincarnate
May 24, 2014, 7:53:01 PM5/24/14
to Alberto Gaitan, me...@hacdc.org
What are transhumanists doing to make sure that their breakthroughs will be available to all? Back in 2005 or so when scientists started rediscovering TDCS devices there was one doctor who was talking about the moral implications of making it widespread with the general tone being that augmentation that is available to everyone would be immoral. They were saying that they thought this tech should only be used for treatment of various mental illnesses. Ritalin and Modafil are only prescribed upon demonstrating a need for them even though they can be used to augment ability. Is this a common mentality about drugs and devices amongst the people who create them or is there a debate on the subject?
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Alberto Gaitan <alberto...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have the unique opportunity to hang out with SciFi author and programmer/nanotechnologist, Ramez Naam. Thought I'd ask this group of transhumanists if there are any questions you'd ask if you were me.
He'll be speaking about prominent possibilities in our biotech futures at an invitation-only event and then a small group, including yours truly, will be going to dinner with him.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Grind DC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to meat+uns...@hacdc.org.
To post to this group, send email to me...@hacdc.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/hacdc.org/d/optout.
www.linkreincarnate.com
Stuart Washington
May 26, 2014, 11:44:57 AM5/26/14
to LinkReincarnate, Alberto Gaitan, me...@hacdc.org
Scientists are, by nature, a cautious and skeptical lot. If the public is allowed to modify themselves with drugs or devices, scientists know (from experience) that there will be benefits and hazards. This predicament becomes more hazardous when self-trained people start to tinker with their own bodies. The human body (or even the bodies of any multi-cellular organism) is highly complex and unpredictable problems will emerge once you start tampering with it. Multimillion dollar scientific projects carried out by large governments and corporations, each consisting of large groups of (mostly) intelligent and well-meaning people fail to predict negative consequences of tampering with the human body. Joe-smart-guy working alone in his garage (or multiple Jane and Joe smart-gals and guys) without coordinating with other people (or other groups) are likely to repeat mistakes made by others and do harm to themselves and other people. I don't want to say that there will be no success stories (someone working alone who enhances human thought), but tampering with the human body is a very dangerous path for independent scientists and engineers.
Alberto Gaitán
May 26, 2014, 2:56:29 PM5/26/14
to me...@hacdc.org
Report about the talk:
Naam spoke principally about the short-term, and the forgone conclusion
that climate change is already fomenting increasing socioeconomic strife
because of its effect on water, food, and energy supplies. He spoke
about genetic engineering's role in ameliorating these problems.
He proposes that the USA and other capable nations do the research to
accelerate solutions and to give them away to the developing world once
perfected. The numerous sociopolitical problems that would arise along
the way were beyond the scope of the talk.
On food production, he said that the USA and Canada alone currently
produce enough grain to meet world demand through 2050. The factors that
allow these yields are affordability of water, fertilizer (nitrogen and
phosphorus) and pesticides, something 7/8 of the world's farmers cannot
afford.
The water and deforestation issues can be addressed by drastically
curtailing/reversing deforestation. One promising technology solution
for this involves engineering carbon-neutral biofuel sources that
utilize non-potable (salt) water and require no feedstock (other than
CO2). George Church (jouleunlimited.com) and a Craig Venter
(syntheticgenomics.com) were listed as promising players in a field that
includes several others with some of the latter getting poor results
because of the machine-mediated processing that their photobioreactors
require. Joule, Synthetic Genomics and others don’t have to harvest and
process the cyanobacteria, having created organisms that excrete easily
collected biofuels (ethanol, butanol, and others). Current yields are
around 6,000 gallons per acre with target yields at about 25,000 gallons
per acre and a cost equivalence of 30USD/barrel of crude.
The fertilizer issue is being addressed by current research trying to
engineer soy's root nodule symbioses into grains to allow them to fix
nitrogen. There are also some who have reportedly found nitrogen
fixation in other plants besides legumes but much secrecy surrounds much
of this research because of the resulting IP windfall. No mention of a
complementary technology to provide phosphorous.
The pesticide issue is being addressed by more projects, including the
existing golden rice varieties and the BT varieties of grain and rice
that are a current research focus. Asked about reports that BT crops'
pollen is toxic to species of genus Lepidoptera, he said that there was
no evidence of that even though the main stream press had reported that
in stories of the Monarch butterfly's decline. He also discounted the
monoculture issues as these crops are developed with some variability
because they use wild varieties as a template. They also have to be
re-engineered periodically.
Some participants' comments:
* The sociocultural barrier leading to acceptance of GMO foods will make
the current technical and socioeconomic issues look like bumps on the road.
* Scaling the CO2 => Fuel biotech may be too difficult.
* The knowledge gulf between the idea people, and the political
machinery that has to implement these ideas, is wide and growing. A new
breed of bureaucrat will be required.
PS:
One of this list's members wanted me to ask about "direct video to the
brain" and he mentioned recent experiments that transmit an image to the
optic nerve. The achieved resolution was limited by how many electrodes
could be inserted into the nerve without damaging it while surviving the
hostile environment inside the body.
He opined that mapping the connectome may not be as fruitful as some
think because learning appears to involve changes within neurons
(although not as far down as the quantum level as some recent articles
have posited).
Naam spoke principally about the short-term, and the forgone conclusion
that climate change is already fomenting increasing socioeconomic strife
because of its effect on water, food, and energy supplies. He spoke
about genetic engineering's role in ameliorating these problems.
He proposes that the USA and other capable nations do the research to
accelerate solutions and to give them away to the developing world once
perfected. The numerous sociopolitical problems that would arise along
the way were beyond the scope of the talk.
On food production, he said that the USA and Canada alone currently
produce enough grain to meet world demand through 2050. The factors that
allow these yields are affordability of water, fertilizer (nitrogen and
phosphorus) and pesticides, something 7/8 of the world's farmers cannot
afford.
The water and deforestation issues can be addressed by drastically
curtailing/reversing deforestation. One promising technology solution
for this involves engineering carbon-neutral biofuel sources that
utilize non-potable (salt) water and require no feedstock (other than
CO2). George Church (jouleunlimited.com) and a Craig Venter
(syntheticgenomics.com) were listed as promising players in a field that
includes several others with some of the latter getting poor results
because of the machine-mediated processing that their photobioreactors
require. Joule, Synthetic Genomics and others don’t have to harvest and
process the cyanobacteria, having created organisms that excrete easily
collected biofuels (ethanol, butanol, and others). Current yields are
around 6,000 gallons per acre with target yields at about 25,000 gallons
per acre and a cost equivalence of 30USD/barrel of crude.
The fertilizer issue is being addressed by current research trying to
engineer soy's root nodule symbioses into grains to allow them to fix
nitrogen. There are also some who have reportedly found nitrogen
fixation in other plants besides legumes but much secrecy surrounds much
of this research because of the resulting IP windfall. No mention of a
complementary technology to provide phosphorous.
The pesticide issue is being addressed by more projects, including the
existing golden rice varieties and the BT varieties of grain and rice
that are a current research focus. Asked about reports that BT crops'
pollen is toxic to species of genus Lepidoptera, he said that there was
no evidence of that even though the main stream press had reported that
in stories of the Monarch butterfly's decline. He also discounted the
monoculture issues as these crops are developed with some variability
because they use wild varieties as a template. They also have to be
re-engineered periodically.
Some participants' comments:
* The sociocultural barrier leading to acceptance of GMO foods will make
the current technical and socioeconomic issues look like bumps on the road.
* Scaling the CO2 => Fuel biotech may be too difficult.
* The knowledge gulf between the idea people, and the political
machinery that has to implement these ideas, is wide and growing. A new
breed of bureaucrat will be required.
PS:
One of this list's members wanted me to ask about "direct video to the
brain" and he mentioned recent experiments that transmit an image to the
optic nerve. The achieved resolution was limited by how many electrodes
could be inserted into the nerve without damaging it while surviving the
hostile environment inside the body.
He opined that mapping the connectome may not be as fruitful as some
think because learning appears to involve changes within neurons
(although not as far down as the quantum level as some recent articles
have posited).
Stuart Washington
May 26, 2014, 10:50:52 PM5/26/14
to Alberto Gaitán, me...@hacdc.org
I just skimmed what you said he talked about, and it all seems like good positive kinds of things. There's no harm in Joe-smart-guy/Jane-smart-gal coming up with solutions to climate change. The only problem is getting governments/corporations (again, composed of smart, well-meaning people) to listen to them. Strangely, networks of smart well-meaning people are all too often very insular.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages