A Rant You've Heard Before

Over on Accelerating Future, Michael Anissimov (whose surname I once again "insist" is almost conspiratorially close to Asimov) gave us all the pleasure of pointing out the 'joys' of one Annalee Newitz's comments about Extropianism.

Now, let me start off by saying that she got her terminology wrong; extropians are a group as a whole focused on augmenting intelligence; on creating or finding greater intelligence either in humans or in machines. Her comments were with regards to Immortalists and transhumanists in general; but poorly aimed at extropians. Honestly, even a cursory examination of the title would reveal this: extropy is defined as the 'force' that causes organization within a group of things. This is inverse to entropy, which is the increasing disorder of things over time.

It's really an extremely subtle point, but one worth making. Now, as to the nuts and bolts of Annalee's comments; near the end of the article Michael references, she makes the following "end statement" by way of justifying her entire opinion:

And let there be no doubt about it: the extropian agenda is creepy. Who wants to live forever in a world where only the richest people in developed countries will become immortal? It's not as if there's going to be a special cryogenics fund for everybody in Kenya and Chile. In order for people to live forever in the transhumanist future, some people will still have to live like trash. Sounds sort of like entropy to me.

There it is: the continued, pervasive belief that only the richest people will enjoy these technologies, so they ought not be developed or possessed at all, by anyone, ever.

And frankly, this is a lot like saying, "Ebola will kill everyone in the city. We could develop a cure, but only the richest people in the city could afford it. So we're just going to let everyone die, because that would be unfair to the poor." Nevermind the fact that once the once the cure exists -- much like every other cure that has been developed -- if given long enough the cost could be brought down to the point where everyone could enjoy it. At the end of the day, that's a simple truth; over a long enough timeline, the cost for any new technology will be reduced to the point where a sufficiently great number of people can enjoy it. It may take five hundred years, or five thousand, but that is simply not an excuse to forbid it to anyone. Should I live to be a thousand, I will never understand the objection that "only the rich and powerful will enjoy this!"

It doesn't matter what you want to look at: Originally, good food and the luxury of a warm bed every night was something only the richest of the rich could be guaranteed. Today, it takes only a moderate income -- the American poverty level -- to ensure that. And as to Kenya and the rest of Africa? The problems there are less economic than they are political. You can hardly call something the failure of the capitalist system when the capitalist system has never been applied there. But I digress.

I'll use a more modern example to once again disprove the "fixed pie" myth: rapid prototyping technology, also referred to "home manufacturing" equipment, has always been exorbitantly expensive. But thanks to the folks at RepRap and Fab@Home, that will not remain true in the very near future. All that will remain exclusive is the knowledge to use them. An exclusivity which, much like the Linux operating systems for computers, or the Wikipedia 'free' encyclopedia, is fastly vanishing: both RepRap and Fab@Home are "open source" projects: their hardware & software designs are free to the public for any purpose, licensed under multi-national GNU. More and more colleges are offering free to the public college courses on a variety of topics -- online courses, of course. But if your goal is simple self-erudition, you can achieve it for between 5 and 40 bucks a month, depending on how much your internet connection costs. (Hell, go to a public library in the US and you don't even have to pay that.)

While Corporatist-style commercialism continues to run roughshod over the promotion of human decency and liberty, there is little to no question that advances in technology will very realistically play a major part in the solution to that problem. Youtube and the Peer-to-Peer networks have already cut a chink in the armor of the "Entertainment industry"; (the adult industry faces similar 'peril' from such glamourous sites as YouPorn, and XTube) and as to reaching these outer communities, the poorest portions of the world...

India and China have both presented to the world the Will to Industry. This despite the difficulty in achieving that state. With projects like RepRap and Fab@Home being developed by a very dedicated, if minor, community there is simply no question: while the disparity between haves and have nots may not close for decades or even centuries to come, any advancement in one area will have ancillary benefits that will affect everyone.

In the end, it seems utterly selfish to complain that only the "rich" or the "powerful" will acquire access to technologies providing extended life or increased genius; for all such complaints detract from how soon they will come around at all. And if any historical analysis of technological advancement is to be our guide at all, there is one simple truth:

Once something is invented, sooner or later anybody who wants it can have it.

Scientific Literacy: More Necessary Today Than Ever

It is all to easy to complain, these days, about any number of things. And it seems that where politics are concerned, all anyone is based on is what they complain about the most. Pessimism is chíc these days; optimism is considered naíve. So what, then, do we make of something that is both optimistic and pessimistic?

First; the pessimism. Much ado has been made about the fact that the Northwest Passage has been freed "for the first time ever". This video is proof of it:

Now, nobody is suggesting that this isn't going to have implications on global warming & global climate change in general. But this is used, once again, as evidence of man's fault: when NASA itself says this isn't so. Their culprit? Shifting wind patterns.

And this gets let go, by the public -- because the general comprehension of the media's representation is that "well, they did the research, so I don't have to." And that, more than anything, is the greatest threat facing society. Why? Because it means that whoever does do that research, controls society's opinions on everything under the sun. Are you comfortable with this? I certainly am not.

So where does this come from?

From the National Education Association:

A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching profession. While student enrollments are rising rapidly, more than a million veteran teachers are nearing retirement. Experts predict that overall we will need more than 2 million new teachers in the next decade.

This teacher recruitment problem, which has reached crisis proportions in some areas, is most acute in urban and rural schools; for high-need subject areas such as special education, math and science, and for teachers of color.

[...]

The statistics for turnover among new teachers are startling. Some 20 percent of all new hires leave the classroom within three years. In urban districts, the numbers are worse—close to 50 percent of newcomers flee the profession during their first five years of teaching.

Why do new teachers leave? They say they feel overwhelmed by the expectations and scope of the job. Many say they feel isolated and unsupported in their classrooms, or that expectations are unclear.

Nothing is particularly new about this. In fact, it is used as the most powerful argument for increasing teacher pay, for increasing funding to the Department of Education, and in general all sorts of interesting/curious events. But let us take a somewhat deeper examination of this plight -- one that won't exactly raise us up from this pessimism, but perhaps allow us to understand it a step or two further:

It is not in the best interests of the education lobby for education to actually improve.

It's a statement that we don't often think about, but bear with me and I will explain my logic -- or at least what passes for it. It's actually fairly simple. We'll use Washington, DC as the example for this. From the Cato@Liberty blog:

Is the problem insufficient funding? As it happens, DCPS’s total gross budget for the last school year was upwards of one billion dollars according to its own website, and its enrollment was about 52,000 students. That means DCPS had total per pupil spending of nearly $20,000 last year, or half a million dollars per class of 25 students. You’d think that would cover books.

In a previous article on this blog, "It's For The Children! ... And Other Lies My Government Told Me", I documented the fact that the national average annual cost per student for public schools was $8,701; whereas the cost per student for private schools was $3,116/yr. Almost a third the cost. So, going back to Washington, DC. How could this be so bloated over both the national average for both public and private schools? Well, the answer to that question can also be found in the public record: From The Examiner, circa August 24, 2007: "D.C. Public Schools will pay nearly $5.4 million in full-time salaries to 68 teachers and staff who won’t work full-time jobs this year, schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee told The Examiner on Thursday."

From all of the above, we have learned thus far three things:

Scholastic Acheivement is sliding continuously

This isn't much of a shocker, really: search anywhere and you'll see that there are, annually, fewer and fewer American engineering & physics graduates every year. There really isn't anybody whom is impressed with NCLB -- and that's not even if you include the people who actually study the topic.

Public schools cost more per student than private

There's not much equivocating there: $8.7k for public as compared to $3.1k for private? And let us not forget here that private schools -- even the 'average' ones -- have their impression of prestige for a reason: traditionally, private schools achieve greater scholastic results than public schools.

Washington DC schools spend millions of dollars on faculty that, literally, does nothing.

That incident reported was by no means a singular incident. It has happened before, and in larger numbers. Even so, these were actual teachers being discussed: lets not forget that schools also have administrative staffing; there have been entire studies to compare the number of non-teaching faculty members to the numbers of pupils... which says that this is a problem as well; less, one can only assume, for private schools than for public ones.

Even so; is simply privatizing all the schools the solution to this problem? (If our military security is any lesson, the answer to that question is an emphatic "NO!") Still, creating competition between schools simply couldn't hurt. Perhaps, if schools themselves were held accountable for the allocation of their resources on their students, we might see some streamlining of costs and some improvement of scholastic acheivement. And time and time again, the records have shown: the only effective mechanism for accountability is to put the fiscal survival of an institution on the line. That's called "market competition." However, there's no sign that given today's political and social climates, that honest markets can be restored to so ubiquitous and socialized -- which is what our educational system is. Should things actually turn around, however, it is effectively already too late. The day of the Renaissance man has been dead and buried for centuries.

So where do we go from here? Well, our nation's resident mad military scientist organization -- DARPA -- has already begun to aid in this:

Famous for funding futuristic technology, DARPA is spending $24 million to launch the Brain-Machine Interface Program (BMI), with the five-year research monies divided among six laboratories. High on its development wish list are mind-controlled battle robots, as well as airplanes flown and weapons or equipment operated with nothing more than thought – even from a distance – all through wireless neural interfaces.

And mind you, DARPA is not alone on this. Should true data-in BMI be developed, the problem of education and scientific literacy in particular could be resolved absolutely. Howso? Because the possibility of having a microchip -- or ten -- implanted in your head, and thus allowing you a replete factual education -- with said procedure to cost in the same ballpark as a breast augmentation does today -- between $4,000 to $10,000, USD -- would allow for wholly 'humanities'-esque education; focusing on reasoning skills and the like.

Without such a development, we are likely to face a scenario where the amount of information necessary to make an informed opinion on any given subject continues to fall further and further from the grasp of even our communities of "experts" -- but thankfully, if DARPA, Cyberkinetics, and other such organizations/companies have anything to say, we won't have too much to worry about there: the money is being spent, the effort is being made. While a complicated task, so long as the funding doesn't dry up it's essentially inevitable. (I suppose that statement makes me a functionalist -- but gee, isn't that a shocker to anyone whom has read the title of this blog?)

(Yes, for you AGI enthusiasts; the same gains can be made by AGI as can be made by BMI -- if and only if we hand over control of society to our AGI's. Which, if they are "Seed" AGIs, is entirely likely. But that is too "post-singularity" a subject for this author to be fully comfortable attempting to discuss.)

Can A Transhuman Future Survive Without Libertarian Ideals?

As a transhumanist, I am all too keenly aware of the good and the ill that can come of technology. One technology, however, that seems to have only ills springing from it these days is that of surveillance technology. Consider, for example the perhaps not so infamous as it ought to be 'dragonfly spy':

The little robot you see on the fingertip is a prototype created by the Harvard Microrobotics Lab. While it does not carry any optical equipment -- there are optics of sufficiently small size to fit. More on this particular topic can be found at the Sydney Morning Herald's article, "Washington abuzz with talk of dragonfly spies". There are many obstacles to the development of such machines -- and, to be frank, they offer a multitude of uses beyond mere surveillance. For the moment, however, we'll discuss 'merely' surveillance.

There is another, perhaps more insidious, approach which has been suggested which entails literally growing insects around MEMS devices. What possible benefit to the would-be super-spy is there in this, you ask? Well, the answer to that question becomes more prevalent when one considers that researchers have already -- if crudely -- decoded the neural activity of a cat's brain into visual information.



So you see -- we may come to a point where it will literally be possible -- from a sensory point of view -- to be a "fly on a wall." This becomes all the more troublesome when we consider that -- regardless of Ray Kurzweils's 'law' of accelarating returns -- technological development is outstripping society's ability to regulate our machines. There's nothing really new about that idea -- but still; it is strongly worth paying attention to when we consider the advocates of regulation for new, 'existentially risky' technologies -- such as molecular manufacturing, or synthetic biology, or viral engineering, or... well, by now the point is clear. Surveillance, however, is the name of today's game. More and more, we are told that the new cameras being installed are for our own protection; that they are to prevent crime and the like. Now, numerous studies have shown that they really can't be said to do any such thing:

According to the information, London police solve only 21 percent of all crimes, and the rate of success does not appear to have any correlation to the number of CCTV cameras installed in each borough.

The numbers led a spokesperson for the group to say, "Some of this money might have been better spent on police officers. Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime and too often still, calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is time we engaged in an open debate about the role of CCTV cameras in London today."

So what, then would the impact -- let alone impetus -- of such advanced technologies as 'bug-cameras' be on society? Given the FBI's now infamous abuse of "national security letters" to bypass the 4^th Amendment (that'd be the one that protects "a bloke" from "unreasonable search and seizure"), is there any doubt that, left in the hands of government agencies, these devices would find their way into uses we could not now either imagine nor approve? But, of course -- as I already hinted at -- such devices almost never stay solely in the hands of our governments -- trustworthy or otherwise. And as technology itself becomes more and more readily manufactured by the private citizen, the question facing us is this:

How, exactly, will we adapt to the fact that legislation will be completely inadequate to the task of protecting us from our own ingenuity?

And that's a very, very serious question -- however, it doesn't seem to be one that even my fellow transhumanists recognize, which I personally find troublesome. Consider this another political screed, then: it is abundantly clear that our technologies will never be sanitized, never be made safe by bureaucracies nor by legislation. The 'kiddy porn' epidemic is only another example of this -- things that are legal and perfectly fine, such as a fourteen year old engaging in sexual acts on film, in some former Soviet Bloc countries; these things are profoundly illegal (let alone immoral) here in the 'States. This, 'once upon a time', wouldn't have been an issue -- but communications technology has changed that, as it seems everyone is now aware. As it is, it remains abundantly clear that our government is either incapable or else simply lacks the desire to react to new technologies and techniques. Much like the constant white-hat/ black-hat divide -- or the ongoing 'hacking the iPhone' saga -- bureaucratic organizations; such as religious institutions and yes, the ubiquitously mentioned yet nebulously referenced, "Government", are simply incapable of doing anything more than react to the machinations of "Progress." It's the nature of the beast. This leaves us with a simple question:

What possible solution is there to even mitigate the risks to society that new technologies and techniques present?

Yes, yes -- I know: I'm being about as subtle as a lead ingot dropped on your head from the top of the Empire State Building (how's that for a visual?) And of course the answer -- or at least the one I propose -- is equally as 'subtle'... and equally as simple.

Entrust the protection of society to... social expectations. It is my proposition that the only societies which will survive the raw power that futuristic developments represent will be ones that, much as with the advent of nuclear weapons, are possessed of powerfully strong social mores against their improper use (power plants = okay, global thermonuclear warfare = bad). And here's the catch: So long as we expect our bureaucratic institutions -- and those institutions alone -- to provide for our security and provender, we are essentially doomed to the abuse of new devices -- such as our friendly dragonfly spy cams. And that, ladies and gentlemen of my audience, is exactly the reason behind the "libertarian" argument: socializing the idea of personal responsibility, of the idea that being irresponsible is perhaps the single most immoral, or reprehensible, behavior one can engage in. To get there, we libertarians realize, will require a great deal of change in our ways of doing business and in what we believe government is "good for." It's a simplistic screed -- but it's a vitally important one, if we expect to have the best of all possible outcomes.

A Hazard of Blind Technophilia

Many transhumanists are activists for what is called "mind uploading"; the idea that we can have our 'meat-brains' uploaded into computers, to live out our lives in electronic wonderlands a la today's videogames. And to be fair, with things like "Heavenly Sword" for the PS3, that's no surprise -- imagine where things will be in twenty years. It's pretty hard to imagine that, given the choice between an 'eternal' virtual playground where even the laws of physics are up for grabs, and this grubby ol' world of ours, that even the majority of people would choose the physical.

But there's just one tiny problem with this sort of thinking: electronics are vastly inferior, in terms of survivability, to biological neurons. No computer yet built has operated at full load for a year continuously; yet our bodies do this for decades. By way of example of what I mean, please consider the following video:

To be fair, this is really nothing more than a technological problem -- and technological problems tend to get solved over sufficient time -- but a bit of realism would go a long way towards assuaging the fears and doubts of those who question the realities we transhumanists propose.

10 Reasons I Am A Transhumanist

Yes, apparently the icy fingers of Digg reach far and wide; even to the face of this blog. It's like they always say; stare into the void long enough, and the void stares into you. That being said, let's begin; and please try to keep in mind that this list is of ten semi-random reasons, and isn't in any particular order.

10. Who wants to live forever? Me -- and I'll take it with or without the scottish accent.

Researchers such as Aubrey deGrey are working on human longevity increase. Now, this could be 'radical life extension' -- i.e., living for 10,000 years -- or it could just be an extra 20 years of good health. But either way, if we don't do something to increase human lifespans, our falling reproductive rates (much of the first world is now in negative population replacement rates), will result in a major economic collapse. The added benefit of avoiding arthritis and Alzheimers' are just plain bonuses where I'm concerned. This is especially true considering that many studies indicate that today's seniors do not wish to retire like they did in the past. If medical science can make that feasible, then why not? Besides; if life is the greatest game of all, why not give in to the impulse to play "just one more turn"?

9. Because I'm enough of an anime fan that the idea of living 'catgirls' makes me giggle inside.

Body modification is a very real, and thriving, activity today. As the technology develops for somatic genetic engineering (that is, genetic engineering that only affects the person it's used on, and isn't inheritable), advanced surgical modification, and yes -- even biomechanical devices, this range is likely to increase. And while most of this will be applied to standard modification of the self; remember -- plastic surgery is meant to make us more attractive -- that is in no way an argument against achieving it. There are naysayers whom would have us believe that if everyone was beautiful, nobody would care. Most of these people aren't aware of evolutionary psychology's implications for the "baby's beauty-response studies" which did just that -- judged what newborn babies found more attractive (by studying eye-motion with comparative faces). Since there is a well-known link between satisfaction in life and physical attractiveness, it seems patently unfair to prevent people from choosing to take the chance on a new look.

8. I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords. Especially the servile ones that will likely eradicate human toil and sweat.

Everyone today is familiar with the old story of the worker whose job was replaced by a machine. The associated economic displacement has in many ways given the 'robot' a dirty name. But the simple fact of the matter is that as these machines do their 'dirty work', the products they make become more affordable -- and thus more easily used by the poor, directly enhancing the lower-income range's quality-of-life and standards of living -- as well as expanding the economy, which historically speaking has always created more jobs than it has destroyed. Now, at some point in the future that might very well change; when our robots can start doing all of the thinking we are capable of, they might 'automate' the services industry completely, for example. There have been estimates that by the year 2030 or so, fully 50% of the economy will be completely automated -- that is, 0% human input. What such studies ignore is that the economy will also expand by more than 2x what it is today. And who knows what effect that kind of wealth will have on society-at-large, eh? Perhaps we might even reach a point where simple charitable giving will be sufficient to make a perfectly comfortable life for the permenantly unemployed. Failing that, there's always the socialized answer -- one this libertarian despises -- but with a "robotic" twist; establish laws that require portions of profits derived from automation to be 'redistributed' to those whom are left on their backs. But hopefully society can work those kinks out on its own.

7. We've come too far technologically to turn our backs on it and have anything other than the catastrophic failure of human civilization as a result.

When was the last time you, my reader, hunted and killed an animal for you and your family's consumption over a fire that you yourself had lit without the benefit of any kind of non-hand-manufactured devices? Either for the hunting or for the fire? There's an adage that 'the progress of technology is inevitable' or something like that. Some people -- the neo-Luddites -- see this as the most horrific possible scenario; an answer I've always found quite odd considering the impact of technological progress on the human condition. It's been my experience that most people who talk about "the simple life" have never seen an animal skinned; nor have they seen someone's arm mangled in a loom (many wouldn't even know what a loom is). While that's no excuse to run full-throttle into the future, all bright-eyes and bushy tails, it's also no excuse to turn our backs on something that could radically and fundamentally improve our existence.

6. The average person today is stupid, damnit!

All impact of the Flynn Effect aside, we live in a condition today where nearly one in three people will say that the sun goes 'round the earth. One area of progress that we have seemingly specifically avoided is the improvement of our own minds; however, if we don't do something to change this, it is very likely that the impact of Rational Ignorance will continue to degrade our democratic society as it continues to feel the heavy burden of the inefficiencies derived from the governance of an ever-expanding number of people.
In other words; if we don't do something with science/technology to make people smarter, we can look forward to entire generations of Presidents whom are worse and worse than George Bush. Consider; the "term-average" approval rating for each Congress and President has been on a continual downward spiral for decades. Over 50% of the American population doesn't bother to vote -- ever. Democracies (and republics) can only retain their freedom if the public is well-informed and active in politics. As it stands right now, that burden is simply beyond the capacity of the average person. Does anyone else smell that "Failure of the Nation" pie cooking in the oven?

5. I want to know Kung-Fu.

Currently, one of the funded goals of DARPA is to acheive what is referred to as an "in-out brain-computer interface". (In 'popular culture' this has also been referred to as a "Data-Jack".) The potential benefits to such devices are enormous. Think; you'd never forget the phone-number of the girl/guy you met in the bar last night, or where your keys were, ever again. But that's only the vulgar. Imagine the cost-reduction to education if multi-variable calculus was something that you could learn by paying $100.00 USD and installing a software patch? They also say that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. So much for that little problem, eh? Now, there are some significant hurdles to achieving such technology -- but they are well worth overcoming, and effort is being made specifically to do so.

4. It would be nice to have a backup of myself in case of accident.

One of the many topics being discussed within transhumanism is the idea of "mind uploading". We discuss the idea of mapping the brain and storing that in digital format. Now, there is still, apparently, some debate as to whether such a 'stored format' could operate; that is, could a human mind exist as pure data? But regardless of this, if we can map the mind, we can also rebuild that mind. While this wouldn't actually be the same person as you -- the laws of quantum mechanics and physics in general demand otherwise -- it would be who you were up until that point. And it's a pretty comforting thought to think that you could, technically speaking, 'live forever.' Even if you couldn't remember your own death.

3. I want some say in who will inherit the earth.

Think about it. As they say, "Nothing lasts forever". Some day, the 'reign' of humankind will come to an end.. Now, we could just idly evolve into the next species, or we could just wipe ourselves out through some variant of the game called "Global Thermonuclear Warfare" (Remember, kids; if the computer asks if you'd rather play chess, Say YES). But it simply makes more sense to do what we can to ensure that what inherits the planet (or cosmos, if you like), will be Friendly.

2. I believe it's part of every person's duty as a human being to improve themselves.

Let's face it, we indulge those funny-looking guys in white coats and thick glasses with so damned much money because they improve life for everybody else. So in a real way, science is about improving ourselves. Why not cut out the middleman, as it were, of improving our environment so our lives are better and simply improve ourselves with science? Now, don't get me wrong; this is not an implication that humans are somehow 'intrinsically flawed' or 'inferior'. Compared to the species that preceeded us, homo sapiens is practically god-like. But why stop there? Are we to be so incredibly arrogant as to believe that the human being is the perfected pinnacle of creation, never to change and with no room for improvement? Nature used only four of the twelve known viable base-pairs for DNA. An estimated 5-10% of our DNA is directly from bacteria. Nobody know what effect introns have on the genetic code. But as some in transhumanist society love to point out, the silicon transister's baud rate (speed by which it transfers information) is some several orders of magnitude greater than the neuron's.

1. Since everything in life is connected, if you improve one thing you improve the rest.

Will transhuman alterations improve society for the greater? Who knows. Certainly it will improve life for those whom are so modified, Francis Fukuyama be damned. But, hell -- if it's good enough for the Mormons, then it's good enough for everybody. Moving aside from the infernal/religious imagery, at the end of the day, whenever you ask any explorer why he did what he did, the answer is generally one of two:

• Because I could.
• To see what was there.

For transhumanism, it's good to add just one more:

• I want to be better.

How Much Would It Cost To Become Transhuman?

Most Transhumanists look to the future as the time of enhanced human experience. It's symptomatic of the transhumanist condition; we're all futurists. To our minds, who wouldn't want the shiny new metal arm with the strength of a hundred men, or to be able to quote Neo and utter the infamous line, "I know Kung-Fu!" thanks to a brain-computer interface implant. And this is, of course, the primary criticism of our 'cause.' So, from time to time, it behooves us to recall that improvements to the human condition are already within today's technological reach. And more-over -- they're within the reach of Joe Everyman.

This piece is in many ways a follow-up to a previous article, "The Organic Transhumanist":

As it turns out, it is possible to induce savantism using transcranial magnetic stimulation:

The Medtronic was originally developed as a tool for brain surgery: by stimulating or slowing down specific regions of the brain, it allowed doctors to monitor the effects of surgery in real time. But it also produced, they noted, strange and unexpected effects on patients' mental functions: one minute they would lose the ability to speak, another minute they would speak easily but would make odd linguistic errors and so on. A number of researchers started to look into the possibilities, but one in particular intrigued Snyder: that people undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, could suddenly exhibit savant intelligence -- those isolated pockets of geniuslike mental ability that most often appear in autistic people.

(More on this here).

There's much more on piece, covering nootropics and transcranial magnetic stimulation in general, but what was distinctly absent was, of course, resources which purported to show the availability of these mechanisms.

Today, I will correct this error.

Another blog, "MindHacks", was in many ways instrumental to accomplishing this goal: it turns out that there are two, closely related, movements to produce my favorite of favorites: open-source (Author's Note: Open Source is Made of Win.) 'hacks' ... of our minds. I know, I know -- who would have ever guessed that a blog entitled "MindHacks" would discuss how to hack our minds? The very idea is just out of left field, yes? Okay... </sarcasm>. Those two 'movements' are the Open EEG group and the Open rTMS group. The Open rTMS has a link to a site that offers TMS devices, depending on the desired level of complexity, for between 65 to 220 dollars, with 5.00 shipping. Unfortunately, in the realm of neurofeedback, the resources are... somewhat less available. As discussed in their FAQ: The current estimate is around 200 USD for the electronics. Parts like a box, electrodes, cables and batteries will raise the cost, but by how much depends largely on what you assemble yourself (e.g cables) or buy.. It's worth noting that a medical-grade EEG device would cost roughly 8,000.00 USD. So a 400.00 expenditure with a few man-hours is no big feat, comparatively speaking.

But still, let's say we're splurging, and not sharing, here: 500 for the Neurofeedback device. 250 (for nice round numbers) for the TMS device. Both of which can produce nootropic effects. So, ask yourself: is 750 dollars worth the ability to periodically sleep for only 2 hours for the day, increase your IQ by up to 30 points, and be effectively 'stress-free'?

If all of this is too much commitment for you, however -- or just not enough -- there's another route one can take: the pharmacological. The nootropic drug touted in The Organic Transhuman was "Modafinil", or "ProVigil". Well, it turns out that Modafinil is a restricted drug in the US; it requires a prescription to obtain. And that can put a cramp in the admittedly quite ill-advised home-brewed self-nootropic-medicator's style. But all is not lost: it turns out that there is a drug, which when digested becomes modafinil, which is not so restricted. In fact, it isn't regulated in the United States at all -- despite the fact that it is manufactured by the same agency. It is called Adrafinil. From Adrafinil's Wikipedia entry:

Adrafinil is a prodrug; it is primarily metabolized in vivo to modafinil (Provigil®), resulting in nearly identical pharmacological effects. Unlike modafinil, however, it takes time for the metabolite to accumulate to active levels in the bloodstream. Effects usually are apparent within 45-60 minutes when taken orally on an empty stomach. [...] Adrafinil does not currently have FDA approval in the United States, although it is used in France and elsewhere in Europe. The drug is marketed by the American pharmaceutical company Cephalon, which acquired Group Lafon in 2001, under the brand name Olmifon.

Also from the Wikipedia entry:

In United States, adrafinil is currently unregulated.

Various resources, uncovered during my research, indicated that the 'best' site to acquire adrafinil within the US is a site called Biogenesis.com. There, one can acquire a 1-month supply for $33.25. Thus, a one-year supply would be in the order of 350 dollars.

Added up, that's ~$1,100.00 USD. Now, ask yourself; is "mild" transhumanity at that price too much to ask?

Now, for the record: This is all stuff that is at the 'leading edge' of medical science. That means, people, that What the drawbacks and side-effects of using TMS, neurofeedback, and pharmacologic nootropics, are -- is unknown.. Do this stuff AT YOUR OWN RISK. This is, of course, all legal -- and thus as a libertarian I can't tell "you" not to do this -- but it is worth noting that, even as a transhumanist, the person writing this entry has not partaken of these items.

Can The Brain Completely Control Pain -- As An Act of Will?

As most-anyone who has been through severe chronic pain for most of their life can tell you, how bad it gets can sometimes be a result of one's emotional state. But it turns out that the old legends about Buddhist monks is actually true -- and that, with the 'Miracle of Modern Technology! (tm)'; you, too, can benefit from the brain's ability to turn pain on or off. And you won't even need to give up red meat to do it!

Video: Captcha Tech Used As High-Grade OCR

Distributed computing seems to be all the rage these days; 'Hey, kids! Turn your PS3 into a part of a supercomputer while you're not using it!'. But this just seems like it's cheating. While what they're doing is pure genius, as a transhumanist, I can't help but have visions of human subprocessors a la brain-computer interfaces.

Autism, Technology, And Choice: Another Slippery Slope

Recent television ads, sponsored by Autism Speaks, have been making the proclamation that "a child's chance of being diagnosed with autism is one in 136." There is great good in what they're doing, but there is also deception: It implies that of those 1 in 136 kids, all have 'something wrong' with them.

And that's just not necessarily so. Hidden in these statistics is the idea that all forms of autism are 'disorders'. It's a common belief -- a very common belief -- and, like many common beliefs, when investigated with a strongly discerning eye, tends to fall apart. Now, do not get the wrong message here: there are autists who are developmentally disabled. That's not what this is driving at. The driving idea here is an attempt to uncover the hidden belief that "normal" is a good in and of itself.

Once upon a time, the diagnostic rate of autism was something like 1 in 2,000 children. Now, the numbers for this diagnosis are increasing -- obviously, greatly so if a claim like Autism Speaks.org's can be made legitimately -- and there have been a number of attributions to this, one of the most common being "better diagnosis." And that's accurate. So where is this driving at? Amongst the spectra of autism disorders being diagnosed for now, are two which if there were more awareness of them -- and their criteria -- which would be somewhat troubling to the common public: High-Functioning Autism, and Asperger's Syndrome.

Studies have been done on these 'disabilities' -- such as are cited by this article. Included within it is a good synopsis of the dichotomy here -- and again a motive which is unacceptable to the libertarian in me.

The good:

This article considers whether Asperger Syndrome (AS) or high-functioning autism (HFA) necessarily lead to disability or whether AS/HFA simply lead to 'difference'. It concludes that the term 'difference' in relation to AS/HFA is a more neutral, value-free, and fairer description than terms such as 'impairment', 'deficiency' or 'disability'; that the term 'disability' only applies to the lower functioning cases of autism

The bad and ugly:

but that the term 'disability' may need to be retained for AS/HFA as long as the legal framework only provides financial and other support for individuals with a disability.

Your eyes are not deceiving you. This article just stated that 'HFA' and 'AS' "are not disabilities" -- and yet refuses to require that label change... because it might hurt the ability of those diagnosed with them to receive "financial and other support" -- wha? "Nope, you're fine -- you're a lil' different is all. But play dumb so we can get you free money"!? This is ethical -- how, exactly? ... Moving on.

There are those in the world whom view this as a clinch-pin issue for how we progress as a people. A few are autistic themselves. What is the issue, exactly? Cognitive Liberty But one needn't be an autist themselves to see that honesty on this issue is essential. There's actually a very appropriately named institute that is dedicated to this very topic: The Center for Cognitive Liberty. In their own words:

Our
guiding principles are privacy, autonomy and choice:

• Privacy: What and how you think should be private unless you choose to share
  it. The use of technologies such as brain imaging and scanning must
  remain consensual and any information so revealed should remain
  confidential. The right to privacy must be found to encompass the inner
  domain of thought.
  
  
• Autonomy: Self-determination over one’s own cognition is central to free will. Decisions concerning whether or how to change a person’s thought
  processes must rema