Toggle light / dark theme

It is Unethical Not to Use Genetic Engineering

When I hear that the conversation is about an ethical problem I anticipate that right now the people are going to put everything upside down and end with common sense. Appealing to ethics has always been the weapon of conservatism, the last resort of imbecility.

How does it work? At the beginning you have some ideas, but in the end it’s always a “no”. The person speaking on the behalf of ethics or bioethics is always against the progress, because he or she is being based on their own conjectures. What if the GMO foods will crawl out of the garden beds and eat us all? What if there will be inequality when some will use genetic engineering for their kids and some won’t? Let’s then close down the schools and universities – the main source of inequality. What if some will get the education and other won’t?

That’s exactly the position that ‪Elon Musk took by fearing the advances in genetic engineering. Well, first of all, there already is plenty of inequality. It is mediated by social system, limited resources and genetic diversity. First of all, why should we strive for total equality? More precisely, why does the plank of equality has to be based on a low intellectual level? How bad is a world where the majority of people are scientists? How bad is a world where people live thousands of years and explore deep space? It’s actually genetic engineering that gives us these chances. From the ‪#‎ethics‬ point of view things are visa versa. It’s refusing the very possibility of helping people is a terrible deed. Let’s not improve a person, because if we do what if this person becomes better than everybody else? Let’s not treat this person, because if we do he might live longer than everybody else? Isn’t this complete nonsense?

There’s another aspect of ‪#‎geneticengineering‬ – people always talk about improving the children, however genetic engineering first and foremost gives the opportunity to improve the already living people. Gene therapies already exist and it would be wonderful if we could live to see the moment when they are able to improve our health and intellect many fold. It is obvious that these technologies have to be safe. So, if we can help a child or a grown up, let’s do it immediately. This is the real ethic position.

I will also allow myself to speculate that genetic engineering is the fastest track towards the Artificial Intelligence. The majority thinks that AI will arise in a computer, but I think it might be easier to grow the superbrain and train it. And yes, with the help of genetic engineering.

Read more

Are new stem cell therapies miracles in a bottle–or just a dangerous form of snake oil? — Tyler Graham Popular Science

On a snowy evening in Brooklyn, New York, sweat is streaming from my pores, rolling down my face, back, and palms. I don’t know what the temperature is here inside the MRI machine, but “summer in the Sahara” seems about right. I keep thinking about how I should have shed my winter-weight pants and button-down shirt.

The lab technician chimes in over a microphone. He reminds me not to move or I’ll need to start the MRI over. Considering I’ve been here for 45 minutes, that doesn’t sound appealing. My eyes sting, and sweat has pooled in weird places. I imagine this is what Chinese water torture feels like. Add to that, I have a gadolinium contrast agent coursing through my body. The substance is supposed to highlight areas of inflammation, but it can also make you feel like you’re itching from within. Read more

Which Ego? And, ergo, P.Q. By Lifeboat Foundation’s Own Andres Agostini — Amazon, LinkedIn

Which Ego? And, ergo, P.Q.

There is no “…Ego…”, but SELF-INTEREST WITH SELF ESTEEM, fueled only by SELF OWN WILL POWER and hence directed by OWN ETHOS and OWN COGNITION and OWN SENSING.

BY THE WAY:

P.Q. equates to Prudential Quotient or, better yet, to PRUDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE (P.Q.).

With Prudential Intelligence Plus Interculturalness, You Have Serenity and Productivity and, therefore, Five-Star Corporate Generals (High-Brass CEOs) are subsequently enable to structurally cope with the ‘Global Marketplace”s business-like theater of military operations.

ABSOLUTE END.

Authored By Copyright Mr. Andres Agostini

White Swan Book Author (Source of this Article)

http://www.LINKEDIN.com/in/andresagostini

http://www.AMAZON.com/author/agostini

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/heldenceo (Other Publications)

http://LIFEBOAT.com/ex/bios.andres.agostini

http://ThisSUCCESS.wordpress.com

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/agostiniandres

http://www.appearoo.com/aagostini

http://connect.FORWARDMETRICS.com/profile/1649/Andres-Agostini.html

https://www.FACEBOOK.com/amazonauthor

http://FUTURE-OBSERVATORY.blogspot.com

http://ANDRES-AGOSTINI-on.blogspot.com

http://AGOSTINI-SOLVES.blogspot.com

@AndresAgostini

@ThisSuccess

@SciCzar

Dr. Aubrey de Grey: When Do You Want to Die?

This archive file was compiled from an interview conducted at the SENS Research Foundation in Mountain View, California, February 2013.

“The first person to live to 150 is alive today.” That was the promise featured on a billboard from the insurance giant Prudential in the year 2013. The advertisement was perhaps representative of a growing awareness that the possibility of substantially extended human longevity was, if not around the corner, no longer a science fiction daydream. Later the same year, search leader Google established a company, Calico, specifically dedicated to rethinking aging. It seemed as though the existing paradigm, in which thinking about longevity was all well and good — but actually investing in it crossed over into madness — was starting to crumble.

Despite these outward signs of change however, polls indicated that most people were not interested in investing — financially or emotionally — in longevity. Many saw in longevity research the problems implicit in the message of the Insurance billboard: “If I live to 150, won’t I run out of money? Will I ever be able to retire? Wouldn’t dying at 80 or 90 be just fine, really?”

In this archive file, Dr. Aubrey de Grey discusses his perspective on the reservations the people of the time had in relation to anti-aging and rejuvenation research.

What was the tipping point that would make the public want to defeat aging?
More about Dr. Aubrey de Grey:
Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

SENS Research Foundation:
sens.org/research

Who is Dr. Aubrey De Grey?

This archive file was compiled from an interview conducted at the SENS Research Foundation in Mountain View, California, February 2013.

About Dr. Aubrey de Grey: The first Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, decided in the 200s BC not to die, and assembled China’s best thinkers and searchers to solve the problem of death. Things did not work out for him. As of the early 21st century, historical efforts at reliable health in old age displayed a reliable pattern of failure. While the eventual crystallization of the scientific method and resulting technology had greatly improved many people’s life expectancy, the longest possible lifespan of an individual had proved to be a much more stubborn thing. Dr. Aubrey de Grey shot to controversial prominence in the 2000s, proposing that for the first time in history, developments in a wide variety of fields made it plausible to advocate for health technology which would significantly tackle age-related disease — possibly allowing the old to live with a higher quality of life and the same low ‘risk of death’ as the young.

Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

SENS Research Foundation:
sens.org/research

/* */