Homo Evolutis

[rhoenix]

At TED 2009, now halfway through the near-weeklong binge of activities and presentations, Juan Enriquez energized and perhaps terrorized attendees with his brief look into the future of human affairs, and indeed, of the human species. What made Enriquez' presentation so engaging was that his vision wasn't that far off, this sci-fi future that he spoke of; it's the future that is unveiling itself right before us, a future that we will all likely watch arrive, and our children will come to know as reality.

Chairman and CEO of Biotechonomy, Enriquez says that humanity is on the verge of becoming a new and utterly unique species, which he dubs Homo Evolutis. What makes this species so unique is that it "takes direct and deliberate control over the evolution of the species." Calling it the "ultimate reboot," he points to the conflux of DNA manipulation and therapy, tissue generation, and robotics as making this great leap possible.

We are already in the midst of minor improvements to the human body and mind; Enriquez gave examples of growing new tissues for successful transplant, programmable cells, and augmenting our abilities through robotics. As this trend accelerates, more and more aspects of the human experience, of the human life, will be capable of scientific manipulation. While some improvement may come post-birth, our understanding of DNA and biology may lead to something much bigger.

The day may come when we are able to take the best biology of the known animal kingdom and make it part of our own. This isn't just about being a bit stronger, or having perfect eyesight our whole lives. All of our organs and limbs have weaknesses that can be addressed, and there are also opportunities to go beyond basic fixes and perform more elaborate enhancements. At a private lunch on Thursday, Enriquez spoke of a young girl who, after suffering a knee injury, received tendon replacement therapy centered around tendons grown in a lab. It not only fixed her knee, but made it stronger than normal. Later in life as she pursued life as a professional skier, he coach actually asked that she have the same surgery on her other knee to increase her abilities.

The point was clear: one day it will be possible for everyone to have stronger joints, bones, etc., thanks to work being done today, work which may ultimately be delivered into DNA. We would become a species that could, literally, control its own biological destiny.

All TED talks are limited to 18 minutes (in theory), so Enriquez wasn't able to elaborate beyond the basic points, nor was he able to field questions, which would have undoubtedly included essentialist objections to his notion of speciation or evolution. But for those 18 minutes, Enriquez painted the clearest path towards humanity's Borg-like future I've ever had the pleasure of hearing. It is no coincidence that he also mentioned, briefly, the need for ethical dialog around these issues.

All of this, coincidentally, was prefaced by a short discussion about our economic woes as of late, and Enriquez's view of the way out. With the massive growth in mandatory spending, Enriquez called for an end to entitlements, and a return to the acceptance of austerity. Tough times are unavoidable.

He also had comments on the workforce that were more relevant to his presentation. Like many, Enriquez believes that our workforce is going to work later and later in life, to the age of 70 and beyond. This is necessary because we need more production, and also because we must reduce the amount of time seniors spend collecting money from governments. In this way, the dawn of Homo Evolutis will not merely be occasioned by our desire to live longer, but by the necessity of it.

[Singular Intellect]

Truth be told, enhancing and improving human existence is something I very much look forward to. How far such efforts will be realized in my lifetime or how much I will be able to benefit from them I don't know, unfortunately.

[OsirisLord]

I still think cybernetic augmentation is a more efficient way to go for human modification. Face it, we can probably build a better artificial heart then try to re-engineer one with genetics.

[Samuel]

I still think cybernetic augmentation is a more efficient way to go for human modification. Face it, we can probably build a better artificial heart then try to re-engineer one with genetics.

Yes, but we would have to make a mechanical version for each generation- why not deal with the problem only once?

[Akkleptos]

Uh-huh... I always thought that with the genetic engineering of humans, we would eventually stop evolving naturally and start to become our own idealised form of "humans". But since real evolution is only noticeable after really long periods of time, we might have disappeared as a species before seeing where it would eventually take us.

At least this way we get a say on what we will become. Small caveat: we might advance socially and technologically to a level that could be incompatible with our present bodies and brains (or even their genetically-enhanced future versions). Even now, some forms of aggression (that are hardwired in our primate brain) are considered unacceptable by modern social standards.

[Duckie]

Technically the proper Latin should be homo evolutionis, or homo evolutus. which means 'unrolled man'. Which is dumb.

That said I don't see why people assume it has to be one or the other? Genetic Engineering, Cybernetics, etc? Why can't we do them all at once? Homo Evolutionis Magna!

[Samuel]

Uh-huh... I always thought that with the genetic engineering of humans, we would eventually stop evolving naturally and start to become our own idealised form of "humans". But since real evolution is only noticeable after really long periods of time, we might have disappeared as a species before seeing where it would eventually take us.

At least this way we get a say on what we will become. Small caveat: we might advance socially and technologically to a level that could be incompatible with our present bodies and brains (or even their genetically-enhanced future versions). Even now, some forms of aggression (that are hardwired in our primate brain) are considered unacceptable by modern social standards.

The evolutionary pressures for the last 100000 years have been mostly due to disease. Guess what we have mostly managed to control?

Technically the proper Latin should be homo evolutionis, or homo evolutus. which means 'unrolled man'. Which is dumb.

That said I don't see why people assume it has to be one or the other? Genetic Engineering, Cybernetics, etc? Why can't we do them all at once? Homo Evolutionis Magna!

Ala Lalande 21185? That would be fun. Total plasticity of the human form!

[Serafina]

I still think cybernetic augmentation is a more efficient way to go for human modification. Face it, we can probably build a better artificial heart then try to re-engineer one with genetics.

Yes, but we would have to make a mechanical version for each generation- why not deal with the problem only once?

And a biological heart can repair itself, does not need a power source etc. - and you can "use" it on children, which is difficult with a artificial heart.

[Coalition]

I'd settle for redesigning the lungs so they are a loop, with one-way valves leading to one side, and from the other side. You breathe in, and the air fills your lungs in one direction. You exhale, and the air goes out the other side. Redesign the capillaries so it flows counter to the air flow (similar to birds), and this way you can get more air flow through the lungs, rather than just the parts near the esophagus.

I'll admit it is off the top of my head, but it looks like a decent change to human lung structure, based on that of birds (birds use a pair of air sacs and complex valves to achieve the effect, I am replacing the air sacs with more lung tissue). You will need more filtration and other stuff to keep gunk from getting into lungs (since the Heimlich will not work if something gets into the lungs) but you might get better oxygen flow.

Of course if anyone with biology experience says it will not work, I'll scrap the idea.

[Samuel]

Hemoglobin in the red blood cells isn't very efficient- I remember reading they could make a mechanical version that was smaller so you could pack more in your body. That would be nice

Re-engineering... pelvis come to mind. Make it so that it can expand more for child birth.

Biologists probably are more aware of the crappy parts, but in general genetic engineering won't fix them except for the next generation of those who get the changes. Unless you start doing surgerical modification.

[Garlak]

Hrrmmm... this is kind of a Sci-Fi like question but: what would it take to enable a human to be capable of photosynthesis? What kind of body modification would need to be done for that? What would be the side-effects and weaknesses?

Is this something we might be able to accomplish, at all? Say, in the next 100 years, or 200 years?

[Junghalli]

Hrrmmm... this is kind of a Sci-Fi like question but: what would it take to enable a human to be capable of photosynthesis?

Chloroplasts in the skin cells.

I doubt you're going to be able to get much energy that way though. Plants don't move for a reason. I'd be shocked if you could get anywhere remotely near the amount of calories you need to survive by photosynthesis.

Also, your skin would be green, and to get the full effect (for what it's worth) you'd have to walk around naked.

[Ariphaos]

Biologists probably are more aware of the crappy parts, but in general genetic engineering won't fix them except for the next generation of those who get the changes. Unless you start doing surgerical modification.

I'm not convinced of this. A great deal of modifications are not going to need surgery (ie, most anagathic techniques) and of those that do... by the time you medically get to this point, what's the problem?

[Tanasinn]

The point was clear: one day it will be possible for everyone to have stronger joints, bones, etc.,

Provided, of course, you have the money.


I somehow doubt anyone is going to foot the bill to make the underclass into post-human supermen.

[Samuel]

Biologists probably are more aware of the crappy parts, but in general genetic engineering won't fix them except for the next generation of those who get the changes. Unless you start doing surgerical modification.

I'm not convinced of this. A great deal of modifications are not going to need surgery (ie, most anagathic techniques) and of those that do... by the time you medically get to this point, what's the problem?

Genetic engineering can't change existing individuals body layout. That is all I meant. At least I hope so...

The point was clear: one day it will be possible for everyone to have stronger joints, bones, etc.,

Provided, of course, you have the money.

I somehow doubt anyone is going to foot the bill to make the underclass into post-human supermen.

Vote for the transhumanist party- upgrades for all! Come on- do you doubt that it will be part of a groups political platform? If the people who can't afford it is large enough they will rise to power.

[Serafina]

The point was clear: one day it will be possible for everyone to have stronger joints, bones, etc.,

Provided, of course, you have the money.


I somehow doubt anyone is going to foot the bill to make the underclass into post-human supermen.

Thats a crappy argument against scientific progress.

There was a time were only rich people could afford cars/computers/mobile phones.
Granted, the reason why those are cheap and widely avaiable today are partially technical (miniturasation).

But who says such cost-decreasing breakthroughs wont happen with biomodifications?
Especially if they are based on genetical engineering: With the potential to influence following generations, you WILL have wide-spread modifications someday.

The most important modifications are medical, anyway. The technology that could be used to create advanced organs can be used to create replacemnet organs. Crafting cybernetic implants will be used to replace lost bodyparts.
Genetic engineering may increase resistance against disease and eleminate gnetic diseases.

Lots of the stuff that is praised (stronger bones, more efficient lungs, stronger heart) is nice, but not necessary for the "normal" human (i.e. everyone but professional athletes and soldiers) because the parts we have are doing the job we need - normal bones/hearts/lungs can easily withstand everydays stress, adn failure is rarely critical - expect disease like osteoporosis or heart malfunction, and those could be solved otherwise with such advanced technology.

I am a wholehearthy supporter of transhumanism - it is what our progress will eventually allow, and surpressing it because its "immoral" is idiotic. When we can do it, why should we not use it?

[Samuel]

There was a time were only rich people could afford cars/computers/mobile phones.

And then most of the US population became rich. Outside of the first world, most people don't have cars or computers. Phones are more prevalent because they can be shared- one person owns it and rents it out.

But who says such cost-decreasing breakthroughs wont happen with biomodifications?

Because it will probably have to be based on an individual case by case basis? Which means that it requires experts to do so and unless wages start dropping, it will cost alot. It depends heavily on wheter parts can be standardized or not.

[montypython]

I've always agreed with the proposition of how evolution is transitioning from a physical quality to an informational one, and how that in turn transforms the physical.

[Tanasinn]

Thats a crappy argument against scientific progress.

Nice strawman, but I'm not arguing against scientific progress. If I was a Jesus freak, I'd have already started screaming about my invisible friend, I'm sure.

There was a time were only rich people could afford cars/computers/mobile phones.
Granted, the reason why those are cheap and widely avaiable today are partially technical (miniturasation).

...and that's still the case. How many Afganistanis do you know with a modern automobile, a cell phone, a modern computer? How many common Chinese?

Especially if they are based on genetical engineering: With the potential to influence following generations, you WILL have wide-spread modifications someday.

It comforts me to know that some day there won't be an underclass of humanity seperated not just by wealth, but by genetic inferiority.

The most important modifications are medical, anyway. The technology that could be used to create advanced organs can be used to create replacemnet organs. Crafting cybernetic implants will be used to replace lost bodyparts.
Genetic engineering may increase resistance against disease and eleminate gnetic diseases.

This is another case of "if you have the money." Not to lessen the importance of such medical breakthroughs.

I am a wholehearthy supporter of transhumanism - it is what our progress will eventually allow, and surpressing it because its "immoral" is idiotic.

Again, strawman. I'm not advocating suppression at all, just pointing out the lie of EVERYONE getting to be made into a post-human superman. Like most luxuries, the rich and powerful will benefit, the rest of humanity won't get shit.

[Broomstick]

Truth be told, enhancing and improving human existence is something I very much look forward to. How far such efforts will be realized in my lifetime or how much I will be able to benefit from them I don't know, unfortunately.

Well, even in my lifetime there have been some truly significant improvements. Just off the top of my head:

1) Elimination of smallpox

2) Routine, long-term successful organ transplants.

3) Cardiac bypass and angioplasty - in the 1970's, conditions that we now treat outpatient used to routinely kill people.

4) Joint replacement - when I was the age of most people on this board if your joints wore out you were just crippled. For life. And in horrible pain. Now, old farts go ballroom dancing on new hips and knees.

Not to mention being in touch with everyone, whenever you want. I remember when an overseas phone call usually required you to dial an international operator for a connection, now anyone can do it direct from home. If someone left the house you had to wait until they got back to contact them (hell, I remember the time before answering machines were routine!). People used to get lost and die in the woods - now they dial 911 and get rescued before their toes get chilly.

There have been quite a few advances in "human existence" in the past few decades, I'm sure we'll have more in the future (barring a complete collapse of civilization, of course).

For more fun - look at my parents' generation. My parents pre-date penicillin, international air travel, plastics, and a crapload of other stuff.

[Junghalli]

For more fun - look at my parents' generation. My parents pre-date penicillin, international air travel, plastics, and a crapload of other stuff.

To put this kind of thing in perspective, I personally like to do what I call the "one human lifespan" game.

One human lifespan ago it was 1929.

Two human lifespans ago it was 1849.

Three human lifespans ago it was 1769.

Pretty much the entire modern world happened in the space of three human lifespans.

[Surlethe]

I've always agreed with the proposition of how evolution is transitioning from a physical quality to an informational one, and how that in turn transforms the physical.

Mind elaborating?

[Samuel]

I think he means that first it was genes, than culture and now we can alter our genes.

[Akkleptos]

There was a time were only rich people could afford cars/computers/mobile phones.

And then most of the US population became rich. Outside of the first world, most people don't have cars or computers. Phones are more prevalent because they can be shared- one person owns it and rents it out.

Well, cars are expensive not only because they're technological products, but mostly because of the infrastructure and manpower needed to build them comes with a price tag, and so does the amount of steel and other costly materials in it. Computers are also expensive because of the first reason, but many people can get by using older-generation computers, sometimes een discarded and donated by richer societies.

But when it comes to mobile phones... well, that's another ball game, entirely:

With one in three adults carrying a cellphone in Kenya, mobile telephony is having an economic and social impact which is hard to grasp if you are used to living in a country with good roads, democracy and the internet.

In five years the number of mobiles in Kenya has grown from one million to 6.5 million - while the number of landlines remains at about 300,000, mostly in government offices.

Regarding the OP: I'd like to see this question discussed: when genetic engineering technology makes it feasible, will most of mankind choose to become their ideal of humans, of will it go transhuman altogether?

-edit: drat! spelling...