Techno Sapiens
Stepping Stones in Human Evolution
A Virtual Economy
Apr 29th
A virtual economy is currently in development in the online world of Massive Multi Player Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG). These online games exist thanks to the web that allows interconnected computers to participate in the same game, persisting as a virtual world beyond individual players’ computers. These online games are also constantly evolving with time adding features to the virtual worlds. In these games, virtual goods and services are sold and bought using virtual currency. Currency can take the form of e-gold, PEDs, or credits of some type. This currency can be used to buy anything from virtual weapons, which help the game characters advance in the game by vanquishing an enemy or conquering new territories, to super powers, machines of all kinds, and virtual real estate. Like in the “real world”, virtual assets and properties help the game players advance in the game and acquire even more assets and power.
In the past decade, the exponential growth and popularity of online multiplayer games has introduced real economic rules to the game. Scarce resources are usually more expensive and harder to obtain. Goods and services are traded in virtual markets. Specialization of characters in order to gain specific skills or resources is also prevalent. Actual companies have been set-up to obtain and trade this virtual goods for real revenue. Lately, financial transactions within the games have garnered the attention of tax authorities of several countries since these virtual goods can also be exchanged for real ones and game assets can be converted into real cash through a sale. Tax authorities have a hard time classifying this type of revenue as it does not fit in any traditional category the closest being online gambling. These transactions happen online and between individuals who are sometimes located in different countries. The question then arises, when a financial transaction that involves real money takes place virtually, who pays the taxes of such transaction and to whom should these taxes be paid, when players across the world are mostly anonymous and these transactions exist off the books of any national agency?
What started as a virtual game worlds has now become a true virtual economy, similar yet also different to the one that exists in the real world. In this virtual economy, the transfer of real currencies coexists side by side with currencies that have no value in the real world. It is a strange hybrid of real and imagined value. This new parallel economy throws our economic principles for a loop or, I would argue, calls for a reexamination of the direction our real world economy has taken. Real economies are supposed to be closed. This means that the amount of money circulating is finite; it is attached to the value of “real” things and subject to supply and demand forces. In the online world, money can be “created”, for example by mining ore from virtual mines or by solving tasks and puzzles. This seemingly “infinite” supply of virtual currency could pose a problem to anyone who would want to trade it in earnest. Inflationary forces could drive the prices of virtual assets almost infinitely if players were allowed to create currency as they pleased. However, at present, this does not tend to happen, as many games have clearly formulated rules that dictate that players must “work” at amassing their virtual bank accounts, through accomplishing tasks and winning challenges, like in the real world. As a result of the rules and parameters that guard the virtual economy, entrepreneurs have jumped in and established specialist companies inside these games, dedicated to trading specific types of assets or performing tasks that some players might not be interested in doing, akin to real world brokers and contractors. Purchasing of virtual assets using real currency is common place and real profits can be made by selling these assets. In 2009 Buzz “Erik” Lightyear purchased a virtual property called the Crystal Palace Space Station in the game of Entropia for $330,000. This purchase beat the previous record, a purchase of a virtual asteroid for $100,000 in 2005.
Even though it has remained mostly within the realm of online gamers and unknown to most non-gaming people, this new kind of economy is rapidly developing, with the potential of becoming much more relevant. In the future the “real” economy and the virtual economy might merge, as improbable as this may seem. This is a real possibility because, thanks to technology, the virtual economy is looking more and more real while the real economy is looking more and more virtual. We live at a time in which real banks regularly have leverage ratios of 10:1 and in many cases much more, so for 1 real unit of currency, banks “create” 9 more units, unattached to any real asset. Money is moved around the world electronically, almost instantaneously. These financial transactions happen within computers only, in virtual terms, and physical money is never exchanged. Furthermore, money is created from thin air by countries willing to sell bonds to eager investors and this allows them to print more money. In many ways, this violates the principle of a closed monetary system, with consequences that we are currently experiencing. Countries are defaulting on their debt obligations and have to be rescued, least they be left bankrupt, destabilizing the whole economical system of trust.
Many have argued that without indefinite economic growth, our real economy is unsustainable. Is the greedy quest for new avenues of growth why financial institutions are taking advantage of “virtuality” to a detriment to the economy and the soundness of economic principles? The financial crisis of 2008 has shown us how fragile the whole financial system of trust really is. Banks lent money that was not backed by any real assets and created financial instruments, such as credit swaps and collateralized insurance, which derived their value exclusively from speculation. Leverage (debt) ratios grew to unsustainable levels and the whole system collapsed under its own weight when investors wanted out. Trillions of dollars disappeared in an instant. Trillions that, I would argue, did not exist in the first place. Traditionally, the role of financial institutions had been to move money in order to keep the economy moving and their profit came from their cut for performing this service. This time, banks became very greedy and they all bought into the same funny money funds each one was creating and used them as real investment instruments. Ten trillion dollars later, the result of this failed experiment of trading virtual assets left the US with its biggest debt in history. The loss of this virtual money has translated into the loss of real money that will not be available in the future to build real roads, bridges, schools, businesses and many other aspects of the real world infrastructure.
Paradoxically, many aspects of our daily life have been gradually migrating to the virtual world. Our music is now digital, played over digital devices and computers. Print media has also moved from the physical to the virtual world. Entertainment, in the form of TV, online games, and the internet, exist sometimes exclusively in the digital world. Today we use our online presence to communicate with others in virtual social environments such as facebook, twitter, Google, and other platforms. New social phenomena, like online games, online forums, cybersex, and cyber bullying, occur only in the virtual world.
Our reality is becoming more and more virtual and the need for virtual assets more apparent. When most of our digital content and information (our music, books, important documents etc.) exists solely in “the cloud”, allowing them to be efficiently accessed from anywhere in the world, shouldn’t our monetary assets too? From an economic perspective, the move to a virtual currency makes a lot of sense. A currency that is not prone to government manipulation and one that would eliminate the inefficiencies and arbitrages associated with exchanging one currency into another. Moving and securing large amounts of physical money (cash) from one place to another seems quite archaic. The value of money has long stopped being backed up by physical things (gold, silver etc.) Today’s money is only worth as much as a country’s trustworthiness and its historical ability to pay back those who are willing to lend money to it. However, the fact that each country can create its own money makes the overall system dangerously flawed. While the introduction of new money diminishes the ability of some countries to exchange goods and services, others have an unfair advantage, as their currency remains strong in the face of large and looming debts. The current worldwide financial system is unstable and subject to manipulation and crashing.
A world wide virtual currency has the potential to solve significant issues of our current global economy. It would eliminate the exchange inefficiencies that I mentioned before (leaving many a hedge fund managers without a job). It would provide the world with a finite global pool of money that cannot be easily manipulated (barring hackers – virtual security would have to be at a maximum) and that can only be increased through economic growth. This virtual currency would be backed by people’s willingness to pay a specific price for a good or service that could vary for different parts of the world, based on the laws of supply and demand. The same currency could also be used to buy virtual assets, as we migrate our lives more and more into virtual realms. Currently, we use real currency to purchase virtual “assets” such as access to relevant people (think LinkedIn plus), online domains, virtual companies, etc. And as our social interactions migrate online, we will also seek to purchase things like online wardrobes, jewelry, houses, and other “necessities” for a proper standing in our developing online society, blurring more and more the line between our online life and the real life. Money, cash, e-cash, e-gold, whatever we want to call it, in the future, our monetary assets will have to be able to seamlessly travel between the real and the virtual world. The notion of a universal virtual currency might seem unrealistic to many who grew up going to brick and mortar banks and who keep safes at home. While this concept may seem strange to those still skeptical of the web and the social phenomena developing online, for many on the facebook/google/twitter generation who already do not see a distinction between online assets and real ones, this notion will come as second nature.
E8 – An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
Dec 20th
In 1915 Albert Einstein proposed a new interpretation for gravity in his theory of General Relativity. Until that point, the classical interpretation of gravity provided by Newton in 1687 was the guiding theory. Newton basically described gravity as a force of attraction between objects. In Einstein’s new interpretation, mass and energy distort the geometry of spacetime, creating the illusion of force as objects fall through bent spacetime. Einstein’s theory of gravity prevails as the modern interpretation for gravity and is used to predict the planetary motions, the orbits of artificial satellites, GPS triangulation and other applications.
Similarly, the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, created in the first decades of the 20th century and refined during the subsequent decades, has allowed scientists to relate all the other forces of nature under a common set of equations, proving that three of the four known forces are different representations of the same fundamental force. Electromagnetism, the nuclear weak and strong forces are all part of the Standard Model. However, gravity is not included. Gravity lies outside of the realm of present Quantum Theory. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity and the Standard Model seem incompatible, as they philosophically differ in regards to what constitutes a force.
Almost since the inception of the Quantum Theory, scientists of all walks of life have strived to come up with a Theory of Everything (TOE) that unifies all the forces into a Grand Unified Theory, but with no success so far. Many potential candidates have been proposed. Some of these theories are incredibly complex, requiring multiple space dimensions. And, for the most part, they exist outside the realm of experimentation rendering them unverifiable. String Theory and Super Symmetry are examples of such theories and have been held as candidates for the TOE since the 70’s.
Superstring theory representation of 6-dimensional spacetime
In 2007 a new candidate was put forth by an unlikely proponent. The new theory comes from a surfer dude/snowboarding scientist named Garret Lisi, who splits his time between surfing in Hawaii and skiing the slopes of Lake Tahoe and Colorado. Lisi was not affiliated with any university at the time he proposed his theory, and, for many years, had resisted falling in line with the conventional wisdom of his peers that held String Theory as the most likely candidate for the TOE. Lisi has taken known geometrical representations known as Lie Groups (which seem to relate known particles) a few steps forward. His development proposes that all known subatomic particles are related to each other and fit nicely within the construct of the E8 Lie Group.
The E8 Lie group is a structure with complex dimension in eight-dimensional Euclidean space, that is considered by many as the most beautiful structure in mathematics. In his paper “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” Lisi proposes a Unified Field Theory that combines a Grand Unification Theory of particle physics with Einstein’s description of gravity, using the largest Lie algebra group, E8. The E8 structure incorporates the interaction of all known particles and predicts 24 new particles.
First identified in 1887, E8 has 248 dimensions and cannot be observed or even drawn in its complete form. The E8 is the largest and most complex of the five exceptional Lie groups. According to Lisi’s theory, the E8 contains four subgroups that are related to the four fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force (which binds quarks that comprise protons); the weak force (which controls radioactive decay); and the gravitational force.
The E8 is expressed as a 248-dimensional object. However; it can also be expressed as an eight-dimensional object with 248 symmetries. Lisi located the 224 known particles as points within the E8 structure using their charge as coordinates in eight dimensions. The remaining 24 places were reserved for yet-to-be observed particles with predicted properties of charger and spin.
E8 graph as a 2-dimensional orthogonal projection
Lisi found that when he rotated the E8 filled with the quantum particles, patterns emerged between particles and forces. Photons interacted with leptons to create electrons and other known connections between particles in the physical world. The E8 also includes gravity. If correct, the E8 would show how macro-scale gravity interacts with the other three forces.
Lisi’s model is incredibly elegant and beautiful, linking all know particles in the Standard Model and grouping them in a way that has been corroborated previously by testing of the Standard Model. It also predicts new particles, as any true theory should, and these particles might soon be observed at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the largest particle accelerator in the world located beneath the Franco-Swiss border.
As Lisi himself has indicated, this is an all or nothing theory. If true it can portend the final unification of all natural forces. If not, then it will be just another idea – an elegant one at least.
Lisi’s idea of positioning known particles within a Lie group is not new. Previous physicists had noticed that all currently known matter particles fit nicely and carry the correct observed changes in three copies of the smallest group representations of SU(5). This is one of the reasons why Lisi’s idea may actually be a Grand Unified Theory.
The fact that particles in the Standard Model can already be positioned in simpler structures such as SU(5) and that the E8 can be visualized in 3 dimensions by other representations such as G421 and F4, points in the direction that these simpler shapes are only parts of a larger and more complex structure, such as E8. In his newest model, only 20 particles remain unknown to complete the puzzle and these new particles might resolve the apparent excess of invisible mass and energy that the universe seems to posses which today we call Dark Matter and Dark Energy. We have come a long way already in the subatomic realm of quantum physics and this might be the next big step towards converging the physics of the subatomic world with the macro physics of the cosmos.
The forces of nature have always seemed to follow mathematical rules. It seems right and befitting that nature would have chosen a structure such as the E8 to create order from chaos. Even if E8 is eventually proven flawed, Lisi’s geometrical interpretation of the natural order merges Einstein’s geometrical view of space time and the quantum mechanics particle world. It seems only fair that a Grand Unifying Theory should incorporate geometry among the apparent chaos of the quantum world.
“Nature’s grand book, which stands continually open to our gaze, is written in the language of mathematics. Its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.”
Galileo Galilei 1623
Achieving a Unified Theory of Everything would be extremely exciting. New physics invariably lead to the understanding of previously unknown phenomena and new potential technological applications. Just like Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity launched humanity into the atomic age, the final understanding of gravity could lead to applications as mundane as new transportation methods and as far reaching as interstellar travel. It has been 95 years since Einstein introduced the concept of space time and the equivalence of energy and mass providing a new understanding of the physical world not seen since Newton’s apple. We might be seeing a new apple falling from the tree.
Best Technologies of 2010 – 3D Digital Video
Nov 26th
Help me Obi-wan Kenobi! Most 30 and 40 year old men will recognize these words spoken by Princess Leia’s holographic image in the iconic scene from the first Star Wars film. 3D holographic communication is commonplace in a “Galaxy Far Far Away…”, as imagined by George Lucas. But even before this type of communication was envisioned in the Star Wars universe, people had already imagined a future in which 3D images were the norm.
3D image technology was invented in the early19th century when Scottish inventor David Brewster invented the Stereoscope in 1807. This device produced photographic pictures in 3D.
Almost a century later, the first commercial 3D presentation took place at the Astor Theater in New York City, on June 10, 1915. The film showed rural scenes of the US and Niagara Falls in 3D. A few decades later, in 1947, the soviet’s released the first feature-length movie in color and 3D, a version of Robinson Crusoe by Alexander Andreyevsky’s.
During the 50’s and 60’s, a good number of 3D movies were made, usually on low budgets, emphasizing scenes that would startle the audience by throwing objects towards the viewers rather than using the 3D images to make for a more natural and realistic visual experience. After this boom period, the popularity of 3D movies dwindled. These earlier 3D movies projected anaglyph images to provide a stereoscopic 3D effect. When viewed through glasses in which the two lenses are color opposites (such as red and cyan), images become superimposed, but offset with respect to each other, to produce a depth effect.
Use Red-Cyan glasses for 3D Effect
In just this past year we have seen a significant increase in the number of movies released on 3D. What makes the latest batch of 3D movies different is that they take advantage of new technologies, such as alternate-frame sequencing and computer animation, to create a truly realistic 3D experience. James Cameron’s Avatar is the prime example of what current state of the art 3D digital video can achieve. 3D image technology has also been packaged for the home in the latest generation of 3D TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, Sony and most other mayor TV manufacturers. This first generation of commercial 3D displays provide a satisfying home 3D experience though they require special polarizing glasses. Starting in 2010, 3D TVs are ready for the prime time since digital 3D broadcasting and display technology have converged, a feat that was impractical only few years ago before the age of digital broadcasting. Just like more and more movies are being released in 3D, more and more TV broadcasting will be produced in this manner.
Perhaps the mild inconvenience of having to wear special glasses to enjoy 3D TVs will become acceptable for the next generation, in the same way that we have become accustomed to the ear buds of first Walkmans and now MP3 players. Though, most likely, we will not have to embrace this inconvenience as new technologies will bypass it. Technologies, such as Autostereoscopy, will soon allow us to watch a truly immersive experience without the need of special glasses. Toshiba has produced a 3D TV model that will start selling soon which incorporates a polarizing layer on the screen, allowing viewers situated in a specific area before the TV to get the 3D effect without the need of glasses.
So why is 3D TV technology important? Beyond the novelty factor of 3D TVs, this technology has important commercial and social implications on the way we communicate. 3D TV is only a bridge towards more immersive future technologies such as Holographic Volumetric Displays, like the ones being developed by Actuality Systems Inc. These displays allows for a 360 degree 3D view of an image, so that it can be viewed from all angles, like a regular physical object. Current applications of this enhanced 3D technology include medical displays that permit doctors to look at images of patients’ organs as a 3D volume.
In 1876, the telephone was the first device that allowed us to communicate over a great distance at a truly personal level. To many first time telephone users, the experience of hearing the voice of someone far away as if they were standing next to them is still magical today. One day 3D holographic displays may do for the eyes what the phone did for our ears.
3D Holographic displays will greatly enhance the communication experience of applications such as Telepresense. Telepresence, a technology currently commercially available from Cisco Systems, is an impressive set of technologies based on digital compression, internet protocols and telecommunication management. This technology allows for face to face meetings between people around the world through live two way video and audio communications. Add 3D technology to the mix and you end with a more realistic experience in which 3D realism becomes a substitute for personal human interaction.
As companies and business continue to expand globally and, as larger and larger amounts of data can be transmitted through the internet, remote meetings will become more commonplace and indispensable. People working on opposite sides of the world will meet in virtual offices to work together at a level not yet possible with current technology. You might end up in a conference room with just yourself surrounded by 3D holographs of your co-workers scattered across the world. Travel might not be required to achieve a true personal level of interaction because 3D technology will afford the body language and facial expressions which are as important as the spoken language. The end of the dreaded commute, as 3D telepresence allows more people to work from home, would mean an explosive increase in productivity for millions of people, and will be a boost to the world economy.
From a social perspective, our personal interactions will also be affected. A family might sit at the dinner table with the whole family when in actuality, only some members are physically present accompanied by 3D holograms of family members scattered throughout the world. Being able to achieve virtual closeness with far away loved ones will open up many possibilities to grow and maintain relationships with people that live far away, relationships that in the past may have dwindled due to the distance. Our social networks will be enhanced and enriched and this will lead to new social conventions and rules. With the advent of e-mail and text messaging, the communication has increased dramatically. What we have lost in the process, is the personal interaction with fellow humans. With the advent of 3D technology, we will have to once again face our personal and professional interactions head on, whether in flesh and bones or in holographic digital avatars. Today’s 3D TVs and movies are only a step, but an important one, in a new era of personal telecommunication.
Best Technologies of 2010 – Synthetic Life
Nov 6th
Last spring a fundamental breakthrough in the nascent arena of synthetic biology took place. A group of researchers in Maryland, led by Dr. Jay Craig Venter, created a bacterial cell controlled solely by a chemically synthesized genome. That is to say that the researchers engineered an artificial DNA sequence based on the computer record of the genome of the bacteria M. mycoides. The synthetic DNA sequence was then introduced into the cell of a different bacteria, M. capricolum, from whom its own DNA had been removed. Thus, a new synthetic bacterium, dubbed “Synthia”, came to exist. The new organism was viable and able to replicate indefinitely. To be clear, the synthetic genome did not come from a previously living organism but was completely chemically synthesized in the lab based on a computer “blueprint”.
This outcome was the result of a 15 year effort by Venter’s group. Previously, this group had synthesized the genome of bacteria with the goal of creating a new life form by the name of M. laboratorium, for which the group submitted patents in 2006.
The importance of this recent achievement can be overshadowed by the controversy of whether this is a new form of life or not, a claim that is not made by Venter’s group. Some researchers have argued that this only replicates what nature does naturally and re-creates an existing living organism using borrowed cellular infrastructure, in this case, the cell membrane from a different but related bacterium.
Beyond the question of what the new bacterium is or is not, is the significance of the scientific process that achieved a viable and self replicating bacterium. The fact that researchers were able to put together the right combination of chemicals that comprise a minimal DNA structure and were able to kick start its reproduction is quite amazing. This demonstrates a basic but thorough understanding of the way biology works at the cellular level and of the many small but relevant interactions among different cellular mechanisms that control self division.
So what is remarkable about this breakthrough? There are practical applications in the horizon, of course. Exxon Mobil currently has a TV ad that talks about a venture called Synthetic Genomics, a venture co-founded with Dr. Venter. Funding for this venture is said to be in the $600 million dollar range and has the immediate goal of engineering algae for production of diesel fuel. The dream of a biological and renewable source of liquid fuel might be at hand with profound implications for our fossil fuel dependant world economy. Venter himself has also expressed interest in synthesizing bacteria to manufacture hydrogen and other biofuels and also to absorb carbon dioxide and other green house gases.
Some other practical and economic applications include the engineering of better crops, engineered fish that can get some of their energy from sunlight, bacteria that hunt and degrade pollutants and microbes that invade cancer tissues. There is so much potential, not the least of which is in the health arena. Vaccines and medicines that can work on the underlying genetic sources of diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Cancer, Diabetes and many others, that have a strong genetic component might become available in the decades to come. Beyond curing or outright wiping out diseases with strong genetic components, the understanding of the essential working mechanisms of life itself will give humanity a truly immense power on what more life can be. Understanding the machinery of life at a fundamental level can lead to new methods of cellular re-generation that may lead to dramatic increases in life span and eventually, biological immortality.
This may sound fantastic, but one of the goals of research such as Venter’s is to do exactly that – beat the curse of cellular degeneration and terminal mutations.
Venter’s breakthrough is only the latest in a series of breakthroughs that started not that long ago in the 20th century. The launching point could be said to be when Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA, followed by the discovery of the mechanism of meiosis cell division, the role of mitochondrial DNA, RNA protein synthesis mechanisms, and most recently genome decoding and cloning. Most of these, especially the earlier discoveries after Watson and Crick, have been silent breakthroughs, mostly away from public limelight. Only the most recent ones such as cloning, which elucidate human manipulation of life in a more tangible way, have created a bit of an uproar. Piece by piece, they have brought us very close to understanding and mastering life itself.
The emerging field of synthetic biology is at hand. It is the aim of this field to treat microbial biology in the same way we treat electronic engineering or information technology. Like these other established fields, this filed seeks to establish a complete infrastructure for design, simulation and fabrication. Synthetic biology researchers would like to create a tool set, similar to object oriented programming or electronics, in which libraries of biological building blocks are created and shared for assembling new engineered biological machinery.
It is interesting that the Vatican does not oppose Venter’s research as they have publicly stated that they do not consider this a new type of life. I believe they do not truly understand the significance of his research, because if they did, they would certainly oppose it. Perhaps they do understand the implications but realize that human mastery over life cannot be stopped. Though, I think this practical resignation is quite unlikely given the church’s opposition to all technologies that they consider violate the sanctity of human life. Moral and religious implications abound as the power to control life nears.
The time when researchers will be able to produce true new life forms is in the horizon and will become a reality faster than we can digest all of its repercussions. As with any powerful technology, such as atomic energy, the consequences of its misuse can be apocalyptic. Some worst case scenarios of misuse include the creation of organisms that reproduce and displace natural ones leading to mass extinctions, the creation of new organisms for which we lack immunity or are unable to control, and organisms designed as weapons for lethal applications by clandestine organizations, to name a few.
Although the risks are real, I personally do not believe that these scenarios will pan out. After all, we have had the power of the atom for over 60 years and we have been able to harness it and not destroy ourselves. Faced with new advancements in science and technology, control them we must, yet the threat will always exist. There is no real way of stopping new technological developments such as this one, since knowledge follows a progressive path which can be traced back to when humanity began using tools as a means to survive. The proverbial promethean fire driving the quest for knowledge and survival will take us to remarkable achievements which will always be paired with equally remarkable risks. It is up to us to do the best we can with the fire that we are about to steal from god.
What is Techno Sapiens?
Oct 6th
In this post I provide a definition for Techno sapiens, the namesake for this blog. I define Techno sapiens as a new intelligent species resulting from Homo sapiens’ integration with technology. Alternatively, the term Homo Technologicus has been used by others in a similar context meaning “technological man”.
Techno sapiens are physically different from previous human groups through the use technology assisted genetic and physical modification. Techno sapiens evolution is technology driven and its genome will be different from Homo sapiens’ genome in ways never before imagined possible through natural evolution.
The concept of the Techno sapiens as a new species is associated with the concept of transhumanism (TH). TH is a movement that espouses that humans are a transitional form of a species intent on transcending itself through developments in various disciplinary sectors, such as nanotechnology, genetics, information technology, and cognitive science, all of which converge towards making human modification possible.
Transhumanism points out that the mental, emotional and sensory capacities of humans are limited by their biological condition. Our bodies limit our ability to interact with technology. We can’t yet control cars with our thoughts or store unlimited amounts of information PartyPoker as our brains do not operate as an infallible memory systems. However, TH refuses to accept these limitations as fate. Proponents argue that we already possess the techniques and technologies, such as genetic engineering, neurosurgery, and nanotechnology, to alter our bodies.
By harnessing the convergence of technological capacity, humans can begin to re-invent their own natures into states of being that “low-tech” approaches of self-discipline, hard-work, and patience could never really make possible. The ultimate goal of TH is to eliminate aging, illnesses, and death and achieve biological or cybernetic immortality.
But, should we?
The desire for immortality is as old as humanity itself. Religions have proposed a solution to our finite existence by providing an everlasting after life or by means of re-incarnation. At the same time, religion tells us that life is sacred and not to be tampered with. Furthermore, we grow up with the notion that when man tries to go against nature chaos ensues. Stories such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are a clear reminder that men should not attempt to cheat death.
But death we cheat, everyday in hospitals worldwide, where life is extended by means of life-saving medicine, electronic implants such as pace makers, and cancer killing radio isotopes. Lost senses are restored by means of auricular and ocular implants. The blind can see and the deaf can hear once again. Medicine has only recently evolved from the ineffective and pseudo-scientific protocols of the past, into a truly life preserving science. The life span of people in developed countries has increased by 30 years this past century.
Diseases that once scoured humanity have been defeated. The plague, polio, small, pox, diphtheria and many others remain at bay. Others, such as diabetes, aids, and cancer, still remain. But if treated early on can become treatable chronic conditions instead of death sentences. Few argue that science should not seek to heal human maladies, but when it comes to enhancing the human condition, opinions diverge.
The 2010 Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to Dr. Robert Edwards for his breakthrough work in developing in vitro fertilization (IVF), which led to the birth of the first “test-tube baby,” Louise Brown, in 1978. Some consider that this advance gave humanity the power to create and manipulate human life.
Harnessing this power from nature might sound ominous and religious figures have called all assisted reproductive technologies inappropriate and going against the will of god. But, for the 4 million couples that have been able to conceive a child since 1978 thanks to IVF, this development is one of the most important achievements in all of human history.
The techniques developed by Dr. Edwards have played a significant role in subsequent controversial life-manipulating developments, such as the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep from an adult cell, a procedure that could be attempted on humans some day. Techniques such as Cloning and IVF were initially considered controversial, only to later become widely adopted and understood.
The possibility of fundamentally changing humanity as we understand it today is within our grasp. This frightens a lot of people. Others embrace it. Change is always a cause for anxiety. The development of these technologies necessarily means changes in human society, just like agriculture, the industrial revolution, automobiles and the internet have brought about.
Some groups will resist the changes, on moral or religious grounds, and will chose not to adopt new technologies (i.e. The Amish). Technology is opening so many avenues and possibilities that they are hard to appreciate from our present vantage point. Only time will tell the true impact of these developments. But if history is any lesson, technology will be used to facilitate and enhance the life of humans, albeit not everyone.
Technology is not inherently good or bad. It is neutral to human existence. Unfortunately, access to technology is not equitable as access to it is based on power, money, and the level of economical development of a nation. Access to technology will continue to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots, between rich countries and poor countries.
The real discourse in our society must not be on whether technology is good or bad but on how to best deploy it so as to provide the widest benefits possible to society. Whether it is IVF or stem cell research, technology is frequently blamed for changing long held notions of family and society, as it is also for global warming, population explosion (or control), obesity, pollution etc., but these are all problems not inherent to technology but to poor human planning and irresponsibility. Techno–progressivism is an ideology that espouses that notions of human progress should focus not only on technical and scientific measures but also on ethical and social ones. An analysis of the cost, benefits, and risks of new technologies should accompany their deployment. This is a position the Techno sapiens blog supports.
Will uneven access to technology result in variations on our genome based on the level of access by peoples and nations? It might. The discussions on how to best use our technology should transpire away from the profit motive. Instead, it should take place in a holistic social context, as the march of science can hardly be stopped. Arround 1609 Galileo Galilei wrote that his telescopic observations supported Copernicus idea that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system. This went against the religious beliefs of the time and he spent the rest of his life as a prisoner of the church. Almost four hundred years later, Pope John Paul II apologized for his trial after men have been to the moon and back six times.
The progression of science and technology should not be feared or stopped but discussed openly in order to best use it for the betterment of human kind. It is the purpose of this blog to explore the possibilities that technologies offer as they come of age in an ever accelerating technological world. A world inhabited by the Techno sapiens.
Best Technologies of 2010 – The iPad
Sep 20th
The iPad, part computer, part e-reader, part communication platform, is Apple’s latest gadget in a long tradition of innovative devices. Among other things, it is arguably the first tablet computer that actually works for the average user. I can almost hear the chorus of dissenting readers that will opine that the iPad is by no means the first tablet device, unique or even original. What about the tablet PC from around 2001? Or even before that, Apple’s own Newton device? What about the Kindle? Yes, I agree that there have been many attempts at creating such a device.
Early tablet computers focused mostly on portability and direct input of data using a pen and handwriting recognition software. Pen computers emerged in the 1980’s and were built around handwritten recognition. At the time, this was foreseen as an important future technology. A an example of a device based on this technology is the NestorWriter handwriting recognizer. Initially, technology observers were enthusiastic. However, enthusiasm for the new technology quickly faded when pen computers did not sell. Pen computers were measured against the more powerful desktop PCs and most users found pen tablets difficult to use since it required the user to train the software. In particular, handwriting recognition was criticized because of its poor performance – it did not reliably recognize the pen’s strikes and it became a hindrance since typing words with a keyboard was actually faster.
Handwriting recognition never became the “killer ap” that it was once envisioned to become. The technology’s letdown drove pen computer companies to failure. Momenta is a good example, it closed in 1992 after much hype due to failing to sell its tablets. By 1995, pen computing had failed in the consumer market, but it lived on in industrial environments. Companies such as WalkAbout, Xplore, and Microslate sold many pen tablets and pen slates mainly for inventory management, militaty and other niche applications. Muti-touch screens, such as those found in the iPhone and the iPads, offer a novel and more natural way to interact with a computer. Even software based keyboards have proven a good solution for inputting information into devices in a way that pens never did.
A significant reason why prior attempts at tablet computers failed is that there wasn’t a compelling reason to use one until recently. The computing world of the past three decades has been, for the most part, one in which interaction with a computing device depended on the keyboard and the mouse attached to a desktop computer and, for most part, this has been sufficient. Throughout the first decade of this 21st century, a convergence of cellular radio communication and other wireless technologies, such as wi-fi, has awaken the general population to the fact that information can be had pervasively.
The first true wireless information devices were the cell phones. By the early 90’s, fiercely competitive telecoms were happy to offer data plans and access to a few websites, a watered down version of the internet, that could be accessed through the diminutive cell phone screens. Early entrepreneurs tried to sell all kinds of services for cell phones, from ring tones to horoscopes to pornography. But beyond novelty, none of these applications were very compelling or useful. For most people, surfing the watered down web available on a cell phone screen seemed a vastly inferior experience to web surfing on a home computer.
In the middle of the 00’s, specialized tablet computers used as electronic reading devices such as Sony’s Reader and Amazon’s Kindle, started to appear . These allowed people to read electronic text with a similar experience than a book. This was more in line with the public’s desire to “read” electronic content from a larger, book sized screen rather than the smaller screens of cell phones. The first models still depended on PCs to download the content to be then transferred into the e-readers. This required a certain level of technical sophistication that limited their use especially among the older population that is historically the biggest consumers of books.
Starting in 2007, the e-readers began to incorporate technology to beam electronic books directly into the devices via cellular or wi-fi signals. This was a turning point for the technology because it finally provided compelling reason to use these devices. Now anybody could download content easily and from anywhere, at any time. The devices became wildly popular and people developed an almost passionate attachment to their devices. Just ask any Kindle user if they like it.
The combination of wireless communication, tablet computing and the internet has actually increased the number of books that people read each year. This is actually a true turning point in the way humans use and obtain information quite comparable to the invention of the printing press. When in 1440 Guttenberg’s presses started churning copies of the bible and other texts, this gave the common person access to knowledge that had been the domain of a few for centuries. It actually gave a reason for people to learn how to read, since books were now available, and universities to flourish and spread the information, championing humanity into a new golden age of knowledge, starting with the Renaissance and continuing until this day.
Back to the the iPad. When first launched in January, it became the most versatile and powerful digital convergence device, particularly in the consumption of Web, multimedia and informational content. A recent ZDnet.com posting indicated that “The iPad is a non-stop source for consuming updated news feeds, is a phenomenal casual web surfing device, is great for viewing and listening to streamed media” The iPad, is a portable universal content consumption device that far surpasses previous e-Readers. With its web connectivity, books can be linked to multimedia elsewhere in the internet in an endless stream of interconnected information.
When Apple finally revealed the iPad, there had been long speculation about its features and capabilities. Even the name “iPad”, was cause for worldwide betting. Would it have a pen or stylus, as other tablet PC’s? Would it be geared towards businesses or gaming? Would it be more of an iPhone on steroids? In its present form, the iPad is by no means perfect but it is certainly the best tablet computer, and e-reader, and communication platform so far. It neatly packages key technologies developed during last century, such as wireless communication, micro processing, multi-touch flat screens, data storage, software and the internet, in a very useable device.
Early adopters have complained about the lack of multitasking capabilities, camera, lack of VOIP, limited storage and software compatibilities issues, and more. All these are sure to be incorporated in later generations. The iPad materializes the futuristic ultimate communication device as envisioned by A. C Clark in his 1968 novel and movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clark described a device eerily similar to the iPad that he called the “Newspad”, that allowed instant access to the world’s major electronic newspapaers via a system resembling the present day internet.
“When he tired of official reports and memoranda and minutes, he would plug his foolscap-sized Newspad into the ship’s information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world’s major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad. Switching to the display unit’s short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him.
Each had its own two-digit reference; when he punched that, the postage-stamp-sized rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it with comfort. When he had finished, he would flash back to the complete page and select a new subject for detailed examination.”
Undoubtedly there will be others devices in years to come that will improve on the iPad’s capabilities. This device is a product of technological convergence, making it part of an evolutionary process rather than a revolutionary device. But as the first device in its class, it is a true corner stone. The iPad makes science fiction into science fact and foreshadows a time when self updating electronic paper finally replaces the cellulosic type and information is truly available everywhere and any time. The Newspad has arrived, nine years late, and, in many ways, it is the fulfillment of what a personal computer was always supposed to provide – personalized computing free from bulky pieces of hardware and wires that extend human capabilities to a point only dreamt by past generations.
Best Technologies of 2010 – Falcon 9
Sep 1st
Since the dawn of the space age and throughout NASA’s manned spaced programs, most children have fantasized about going into space. Wresting away the grip of earth’s gravity and achieving low earth orbit requires an exquisite orchestration of many complex technologies such as gyroscopic control, radio telemetry, cryogenic turbo pumps, staged propulsion, supersonic aerodynamics, advanced materials science and many more. The fact that we have achieved success through the ingenious synchronization of so many technologies is remarkable.
In simple terms, a rocket launch in nothing more than a controlled explosion. In the case of the Space Shuttle, this “explosion” is equivalent to a small nuclear bomb. While a “controlled explosion” may sound simple enough, it is not when lives and the safeguard of multi-million dollar equipment depend of its perfect execution. Scientists and engineers working on how to get into space have had to overcome numerous roadblocks, almost one at a time, with great patience and incredible effort. Undertaking the goal of going into space from scratch could prove insurmountable and only countries that decided to dedicate significant national resources to this task have been able to achieve success.
In recent years, a few dreamers have decided to take on the challenge. Taking advantage of more than four decades of R&D and a growing knowledge base on space exploration, these deep pocket individuals have decided that wishing is not going to take them to the stars. The timing is right for private companies’ incursion into outer space.
SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk, has taken a clear lead in the growing arena of private space exploration. Musk, a self made billionaire who made his fortune from the sale of Paypal to Ebay, could have spent the rest of his time on this planet on his own private island in a gold tub filled with champagne. Not this guy. Perhaps, he did fulfill the island part of this scenario since Musk found an island in the Pacific Ocean (Omelek island, administered by the US Army) from which to test and launch Falcon I, SpaceX’s first rocket.
Falcon I was in many ways what the Mercury program was for NASA, proving of all the basic technologies. The Falcon 1 rocket accomplished a successful demonstration after a couple of attempts. This ambitious program was immediately followed by a much heavier rocket, the Falcon 9, that can carry payload and astronauts into orbit. Falcon 9 was impressively successful on its first demonstration flight. Falcon 9’s success is significant because it epitomizes the benefit of opening up space exploration beyond government agencies. The development of space technology will speed up and government space agencies such as NASA will be able to better focus their resources beyond low earth orbit.
With a few successful launches under SpaceX’s belt, the contracts have followed. In 2008, NASA signed a $1.6 billion contract with SpaceX, a significant amount for a company formed in 2002 and little track record. This indicates that NASA is serious in trying to divest itself of the tedious and expensive task of re-supplying the Space Station and sees an opportunity to outsource the job to companies like SpaceX’s. NASA has indicated that it wants to concentrate in more “important” tasks such as landing on an asteroid or going to Mars. The Shuttle, the Swiss army knife of spacecrafts, will be retired next year and SpaceX could not be happier since they will become “indispensable” to NASA. With this unstoppable dispersal of technological development, the privatization of space has begun.
Arguably, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and several other private corporations have been working alongside NASA all along. But now, the private companies are also calling the shots, not just NASA, and this is very telling of what’s to come in space exploration. We have seen this scenario develop before in the air industry. Charles’ Lindberg transatlantic flight in 1927 helped to spur the ambitions of entrepreneurs who dreamed of routine flights between the United States and Europe.
In 1937, Pan American (Pan American enjoyed a monopoly on international routes helped by the US government who had chosen the airline for its foreign routes) awarded Boeing with a contract to build its legendary B-314 flying boat, the largest commercial plane to fly until the advent of the jumbo jets 30 years later. Each plane cost more than half a million dollars. In 1939, the Pan American B-314 Yankee Clipper made its first trial flight across the mid-Atlantic, from Baltimore, Maryland to Foynes, Ireland. The major turning point in transatlantic air service occurred in June 1945 when the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board granted permission to other two airlines (TWA, AOA) to operate service across the North Atlantic breaking Pan American’s monopoly over international air travel and contributing to the flourishing of air travel in the postwar era.
The history of commercial air travel underscores how both political factors (Civil Aviation Acts, Pan Am lobbied to protect its position as America’s major international airline) and technological advances (the advent of the Boeing B-314) were key factors in the expansion of commercial air travel. This is analogous to the current situation in space exploration in which NASA and a few contractors have had a monopoly over space flights for the past 40 years with the help of a handful of lawmakers allied with the major contractors. SpaceX and other pioneers, such as Scaled Composites, Bigelow Aerospace and others, are trying to break this monopoly and open space once and for all. Beyond profit and glory, these entrepreneurs understand that left in the hands of a few, space exploration will develop more slowly to the detriment of all. Open and competitive space exploration will produce more and faster developments and successes. (source info)
Given the potential profit, dreamers and entrepreneurs will find a way into space and into making it a profitable business. SpaceX has advertised on its website that its going rate for launching payloads into orbit is between $5,500/lb and $7,500/lb of payload for (depending on the height of the orbit) for payloads of aprox. 10,000 lbs. This is the best deal available today. ESA (European Space Agency) currently has one heavy lifter in circulation, the Ariane 5 rocket. ESA is struggling to find a market for this heavy lifter with a price tag of at least $8000/lb of payload for payloads of up to 15,000 lbs. ESA’s previous rocket model, Ariane 4 (now retired), was closer to SpaceX’s 10,000 lbs capacity, but at a rate of approximately $9,300/lb of payload. The Russian Space Agency also has a medium capacity launcher, the Soyuz. While this spacecraft offers a relatively low rate of under $7,000/lb of payload, it can only carry up to 6,000lbs. The limited capacity makes it a less attractive to many customers that require higher a capacity launcher.
SpaceX has further to go before the reality of cheap access into space is achieved and before they are able to establish a track record of reliability. But, they are certainly poised for success. The speed at which SpaceX’s program has progressed is impressive even by optimistic standards. Once space is open and accessible, it is hard to imagine what the future will hold. We can easily foresee space hotels, private space stations, and private trips to the moon. But more fundamentally, access to space will bring about changes in our society that are hard to predict, as transatlantic flights did.
Beyond fast travel to a new frontier, I believe that open access to space has the potential to fundamentally change our nature. We will have adapt to the new environment of space. Technology will play an increasingly important role as our carbon based bodies will have to be retooled for the rigors of vacuum and long term microgravity. We will look back at the period to come as the moment when we turned a page in our evolution and became a true space faring species. There is no turning back; a new space race has begun.
Best Technologies of 2010
Aug 15th
I am aware that compiling a list of the “best” of anything can be fraught with peril since different people usually have different opinions of that is the best. However, I have been pondering on the technological breakthroughs of this year and decided to list the ones that I consider have the most potential of significant impact in the decades to come.
Below I list my first five choices of new technologies that could someday be regarded as technological forks in the road from the first half of 2010. In the next few weeks I will write about each of these choices and provide my reasons for selecting them, starting this week with the mass produced electric vehicle.
I will complete the list as the year draws to a close to allow for any new developments in the next few months.
Although at first glance some of these technologies might merely seem like the latest gadget (Apple’s iPad), or merely the logical evolution of existing technologies (Nissan Leaf), I believe that each of these choices, and the technologies that they represent, will have a profound effect in our society and future development as a species. They represent the beginnings of an era in which Homo sapiens takes its first steps towards becoming Techno sapiens.
I welcome your comments, especially if you feel strongly that a certain technology is missing from this list. There are many out there. Let me know what you think!
1. Mass Production EV (Nissan Leaf)
Mass Produced EV – Nissan Leaf 
The Nissan Leaf is not the first full blown electric vehicle (EV) to hit the road. Electric cars go back in history to the time of the first Internal Combustion (IC) engines in the mid 1800’s
Both technologies co-existed side by side, and for a while, it was not clear which technology would be widely adopted. The discovery of vast deposits of oil in the US Southeast made liquid fuels derived from oil both economical and convenient. Mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford combined with cheap fuel, gave IC engines a significant advantage and allowed the technology to dominate throughout the 20th century.
By the turn of the 20th century, IC engines had developed into engineering marvels that combined multiple technologies to squeeze ever more power from a gallon of gasoline. Decade after decade new engine models were introduced with ever increasing horse power output at the cost of efficiency and damaging emissions. Unbelievable as it may seem, a Ford’s Model T from 1908 could go more miles on a gallon of gasoline (25 mpg) than the average automobile in 2008 (20.8 mpg).
Attempts were made along the way to design an electric vehicle that could be mass produced. A notable example is GM’s EV1 in 1996. The EV1 experiment was deemed a commercial failure under a cloud of controversy. EV1’s were recalled and destroyed much to the dismay of the early adopters who had accepted the EV1 with all its initial shortcomings. The official reasons given for the recall included cost, special equipment required to charge the car, low mileage and lack of demand. The story is told in the documentary film “Who Killed the Electric Car”.
At a cost of $26,000 after incentives, the Nissan Leaf will put an end to those who say that an electric vehicle is not commercially viable or that consumers do not want electric cars over their gas guzzling SUVs. Even if the Nissan Leaf does not live up to its commercial goals immediately and even if the existing patch of electrical networks that we call the grid could have a hard time managing the new electricity demand, mass produced electric cars are finally here. To help them flourish we will have to rethink our electrical infrastructure. Perhaps a new grid powered by solar, wind and geothermal energy.
Watch a video of the Nissan Leaf being unveiled below.
Following the commercial success of the Toyota Hybrid, the Prius, Nissan has taken the gamble that a mass produced fully electric vehicle is viable. I think they are correct. With the introduction of the Nissan Leaf, the genie is out the bottle and chances are good that your kids will be driving an electric model (perhaps supped up with ultracapacitors for extra hump). As of whether people will want to buy an electric car that can only travel 100 miles per charge…Well, let’s just ask those earlier drivers of the EV1 who had to be pried from their steering wheels by force when the cars were recalled.
The Leaf will occupy an important place in the history of human transportation as the mass produced electric car becomes an important part of our future society. As important as the Model T was over a century ago. Technologies like the Nissan Leaf represent a shift towards a society where electricity is generated by renewable sources and we are finally able to break the shackles of a fossil fuel based economy. This will be a gradual process but it represents a profound change in the way that we manage our energy resources. The Nissan Leaf and its successors are harbingers of a future in which we accept our responsibilities towards the environment as the dominant species of this planet.
Recent Comments