Sorensen buried?!
A biotech genius like Sorensen apparently chose to be buried. I don't comprehend it.
« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »
A biotech genius like Sorensen apparently chose to be buried. I don't comprehend it.
Readers will note I've been unsatisfied with explanations of why the smartest people measured by wealth accumulation over time don't seem rationally concerned about solving aging and existential risk. In a more formal way, I'd like to explore conspiracy theories for way they might not be concerned, and also a conspiracy theory alternative to the "Great Filter" idea of Hanson/Bostrom.
1. Is it possible that human aging and existential risk have already been functionally solved?
2. Is it possible that the universe is teaming with intelligent life, and the smartest people are aware of that already?
There are good, maybe definitive reasons to answer "No" to both questions. But there's also some evidence that leads me to be open-minded.
For the first part of #1, I'll note that mainstream criticism of jewish people attempting to control american media functionally ended with greater jewish ownership and influence in american media. Secondly, I'll note that interest in technology leading to immortality seems to have been punctuated rather than consistent. For example Lindbergh and his collaborator's interest, and the gap in between that and cryonics.
It's a rather flimsy case to make, and I acknowledge that. At the same time, more mainstream explanations seem doubtful to me.
As for #2, our current situation is so weird and inexplicable that I don't see a conspiracy to not reveal widespread intelligent life as necessarily less probable than than none observably exists outside Earth. But I'd like an open-minded, smart person to hash through this more carefully.
Don't know the accuracy of the list overall, but it seems on point from what I know:
history of human medical experimentation:
http://www.pseudoanonymous.com/?p=22
According to it 3 phase mandatory human clinical trials began after birth defects from thalidomide, which had only been tested on animals.
List of the most cited scientists, 1983-2003, and links to the wikipedia pages of the top 3. (Not sure if this is only for the human biosciences, or if they just get cited the most).
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct2003/sw_sept-oct2003_page2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Vogelstein
A criticism of aspiring human reproductive cloners (Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, Dr. Severino Antinori and Dr. Avi Ben-Abraham seem like the most credible (although still rather uncredible) of 2001, when serious conversation pretty much ended) published in 2002, by esteemed molecular biologist Dr. George Weinberg.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200206/weinberg
In listing the difficulties, it does seem like this would best be done at a large scale, because the yield of successful clones would be less than 5% (though most would be lost as spontaneous abortions, rather than as dead or severely ill infants. A Dr. Ishii might have the organizational competency and ethical flexibility to carry out a project like this. One could probably see this coming, but it might be ideal to have 2 simultaneously running cloning projects: 1 to clone the most effective reducers of human existential risk and aging, and 1 to clone the most effective improvers of cloning technology. The latter is the sort of self-improving technology that I think Hansen describes as setting off singularities, though I think this would likely be a mini-singularity at most (I see humanity rapidly becoming a species of Von Neumanns, Einsteins, etc. without the more obvious flaws, but I don't see our general social aesthetics changing that much (pair bonding, status heirarchies, individual personalities) from mass reproductive cloning of our best existential risk minimizers per se.
Great paper with a lot of info about reproductive cloning and national and international perspectives. Make sure to check out the great tables. Apparently the Libertarian Party and about 10% of Americans support reproductive cloning, and there's a huge potential market to offer people reproductive cloning services. Although I'd rather they just bear and raise the clones of our best existential risk problem-solvers, of course.
I only skimmed the section I quoted, but I'm disappointed "cloning existential risk problem solvers" doesn't seem to be listed as a reason considered positive to support reproductive cloning.
http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/reportpdfs/Cloning_A_Policy_Analysis_Revised.pdf
"Arguments to Permit
Reproductive Cloning
Proponents of reproductive
cloning, who comprise a minority
of the American public, fall
into two groups. Some believe
that while it is not yet safe it
would be ethical under certain
circumstances if safety could be
assured. For example, the World
Transhumanist Association’s
Statement on Cloning supports
the “full reproductive rights to the
use of cloning and other assistive
technologies by competent adults
aft er these have been demonstrated
as safe and eff ective for human
use”233 but states that the “use of
cloning technology on humans
at this stage of its development is
highly unethical”233 because of the
lack of animal safety data and that
if attempted “could signifi cantly
set back public acceptance of
transhuman technologies.”233
Others favor attempting
reproductive cloning right now;
as described below, two fertility
researchers have indicated their
readiness to use the technology,
although they have presented no
evidence that they have succeeded
in producing a cloned child. Th ose
who advocate reproductive cloning
have made one or more of the
following arguments in support of
their position.
Reproductive cloning would
allow couples who currently
cannot to have children
genetically related to
themselves
Some support reproductive
cloning because it would aff ord
an opportunity to those who
currently are unable to produce
genetically related children to
do so.76,163 Unlike other forms of
assisted reproduction, such as the
use of donated gametes, cloning
would not introduce the nuclear
genome of a third party. For
example, if a couple had a genetic
condition leading to infertility, one
member of the couple could be
cloned so that one parent would
have a biological connection to
the child. By some accounts, there
could be signifi cant demand for
cloning for this purpose. In March
2001, scientists Severino Antinori
(Italy) and Panos Zavos (U.S.A.)
announced they were ready to
begin reproductive cloning for
infertile couples; they reported
that close to 700 American couples
already had volunteered.173
Cloning also could be used
to produce biologically related
children if one member of a
couple carried a genetic mutation
he or she did not want to pass
on to the child. Finally, some
Cloning: A Policy Analysis 21
have noted approvingly that
cloning could allow gay couples
to produce children genetically
related to one member of the
couple.163 Others within the gay
community have argued, however,
that resources would be “far
better spent advocating for equal
access to existing means of family
building.”29
Reproductive cloning should
be permitted as part of
procreative liberty
Related to the potential benefi t
of reproductive cloning for couples
unable to have biologically related
off spring is the argument that the
government should not interfere
with the right of individuals to
reproduce in any manner they
choose. While the Supreme Court
has in other contexts recognized
a right to procreative liberty
(e.g., contraception, abortion),
no court has had occasion to
address whether the Constitution
protects the right to reproduce
through cloning, and it has been
the subject of much academic
debate.58,61,101,107,191,192 Some argue
that procreative liberty should
extend to reproductive cloning.
While they acknowledge the ethical
diffi culties inherent in cloning,
they maintain that “individuals,
doctors, and scientists — not
politicians” are best equipped to
deal with these issues.174 Further,
they take a generally optimistic
view of the societal impact. For
example, Libertarian Party chair
Steve Dasbach disputed claims that
cloning would lead to “armies of
identical Frankenstein-like people,”
stating that “cloning can’t recreate
an individual human being, with
his or her unique personality,
beliefs, talents, and goals. It can
only reproduce a genetically
identical ‘blank slate’ upon which
a new personality — formed by a
lifetime of experience and learning
— will gradually emerge.”174
Similarly, World Transhumanist
Association chair Nick Bostrom
has argued: “Th is is an opportunity
for us to overcome some of
our prejudices. Scaremongers
have argued that a clone would
somehow have a diminished degree
of humanity. If the claim of human
cloning is borne out, we will be
faced with the concrete choice
between rejecting this view, and
denying the dignity of a living
human baby.”233
Some who argue for the freedom
to clone cite as potential benefi ts
improved parenting by those who
are familiar with the genome
contained in their child and a
greater sense of identity on the part
of clones because they know where
their genome came from.76"
It's an interesting blog. On the one hand, he seems crazy in rather mundane ways. Why would the govt. make him ill, heal him, make him ill again, etc. over decades? His explanation (admitted to good schools, student activism) don't seem compelling for that sort of expensive, exceptional treatment.
On the other hand, the apparently documented history of u.s. govt. experimentation on citizens does seem irrational and inefficient in places.
If some sort of tuskeegee syphallis type government experiment isn't allowing him to putter along for decades, with sufficient resources to maintain websites and maintain these leisure time speculations and advocacies, where are his financial resources coming from? Inheritance or a trust from his "physician parents"?
http://www.healthycitizens.blogspot.com/
Smart, crazy, conspiracy theorists are interesting. If they're really smart, one can wonder if they've spotted a conspiracy that the rest of us haven't noticed yet. After all, the history of the 20th century has had its share of them, many of which Richard Perlman mentions on his blog. Should we imagine none exist in 2008? What's the likely range and focus of secret human medical experimentation?
Unlike Richard Perlman, I'd like to state for the record I have no desire to end whatever existing secret medical, mind control, etc. experimentation that is going on in the U.S. or elsewhere. However, I do encourage the experimenters to adopt the solving human aging/ reducing existential risk priorities of Bostrom and De Gray, and the scientific excellence standards of the best scientists today, even while maintaining the flexible, (consequentialist?) ethics of Ishii.
A recent post of mine to OB
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/toward-morality.html#comment-119695170
Anders Sandberg has a great articulation of this, in that he implies developing the right large institutions that check and balance each other (presumably super intelligent AI powered to do what follows) may allow us humans to survive coexisting with superintelligent AI, just as we survive and even have decent quality of life in a world of markets, governments, religions, and corporations, alll of which can check each other from abuse and degredation of quality of human life. I like the analogy, because I think it's possible that subsets of the aforementioned may already be entities functionally more intelligent than the smartest individual humans, just as subsets of humans (competent scientists, for example) may be functionally smarter than the most effectively survivalist unicellular organism.
So we may already be surviving in a world of things smarter than us, throught their own checks and balances of each other.
Of course, we could just be in a transitionary period, rather than in a permanently good or better period, or the analogy may not hold. I wouldn't be suprised if the substrate jump to digital happens at the level of governments, corporations, or markets, rather than human minds first. In fact, with regards to markets, it arguably has already occured. Similary to Eliezer's AI in a box, markets could be described as using incentives to get us to engage in nano-manufacturing. We'll see if it ends in a cure for aging, or for a reassembly of the species (and the planet, solar system, etc.) into something that will more efficiently maximize the persistence odds of the most effective market algorithms.
One way to determine who the best existential risk minimizers to clone or breed might be the most cited scientists. Possible corrections against rewarding people who cite each other a lot or fields that cite themselves a lot might be most unidirectionally cited outside their field. By unidirectionally, I mean cited by scientists they haven't themselves cited. I imagine this would favor applied mathematicians quite a bit, which is probably how it should be.
Also, I'm interested in mass sterilization. For necessary genetic diversity, we probably need far, far less than 1% of the population procreating. People who want the pregnancy and parenthood experience can gestate and raise in vitro fertilized embryos or clones of the best existential risk minimizers. Beyond that it's waste, in my opinion, and given the challenges we face we don't have that kind of luxury, in estimation.
However, the gradient against this type of policy is of course steep in our current political and social reality. And so we suffer and die because of a bias of creating and procreating one's own biological children, dumb as they'll be, rather than raising the biological offspring most likely to save our collective asses in the next couple of generations.
It would be great to get sourcing on the claim that Dr. Ishii ended up working on bio-weapons in Maryland.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0510-24.htm
" In 1946, Project Paperclip secretly brought more than 1,000 Nazi scientists to the US. Among their ranks were Kurt Blome, who had tested nerve gas at Auschwitz, and Konrad Schaeffer, who forced salt into victims at Dachau. Other experiments at mind control via drugs and surgery were folded into the CIA's Project Bluebird. Japan's Dr Shiro Ishii, who had experimented with prisoners in Manchuria, came to Maryland to advise on bio-weapons."
Recent Comments