Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 10724

Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute Florida campus have refined the already state-of-the-art gene-editing system CRISPR. The new improvements boost the ability of CRISPR to target, cut and paste genes in human and animal cells and helps to address the concerns of off target gene mutations raised in a recent study [1].

What is CRISPR?

CRISPR is short for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat,” and is a gene editing system that exploits an ancient bacterial immune defense process. Some microbes combat viral infection by sequestering a piece of a virus’ foreign genetic material within its own DNA, to serve as a template. The next time the viral sequence is encountered by the microbe, it is detected immediately and cut up for disposal with the help of two types of RNA. Molecules called guide RNAs show the location of the invader, and the CRISPR effector proteins act as the scissors that cut it apart and destroy it.

Read more

A conspiracy theory article that I think is spreading semi-fake news (but it’s interesting to see how some people react to #transhumanism):

While the title of this article may sound like it belongs on a strange and dark science fiction movie, it doesn’t. Unfortunately, it seems that as the technological world continues to advance, the more the old adage ‘the truth is stranger than fiction’ becomes true.

Throughout the past year or so, we have heard Google’s leading futurist tell us that it will one day be possible to live forever. His belief is that it will start with nanobots in the human body which would work to defeat deadly disease, in place of our immune system. Kurzweil maintains that the human immune system is inadequate and that,

Continue reading “The Elite Want to Transfer Consciousness Into a New Body and Live Forever” | >

An article discussing why extreme risk aversion deriving from indefinite lifespans is neither very likely, nor rational.

There’s a theory suggesting that, if we could live indefinitely, we might become extremely risk-averse. Presently, regardless of when you die, you ‘only’ lose a handful of decades of life at worst, because you would have died of old age eventually anyway. However, the reasoning goes, if you could live for an indefinitely long time, your untimely death would cost you no less than eternity; the conclusion is that, in order to avoid such an unimaginable loss, people wouldn’t dare taking even the most insignificant risks, such as crossing the street, ultimately making their own lives quite miserable.

The problem with this argument is that it hinges on a flawed assumption. The assumption is that we dare taking any risks at all only because we know that in a few decades at best we’re going to be dead anyway. Why do you take a plane for a holiday at the Antipodes? Because you’re going to die anyway when you’re old. Why do you go on a rollercoaster ride? Because the reaper would get you sooner or later anyway. Why do you go out without an umbrella even though it looks like it might rain? Because pneumonia would cut your life only a few decades shorter. Note that this argument also answers the age-old question, ‘Why did the chicken cross the street?’ Because YOLO.

This is not how smart people (or chickens) think. The question is one of magnitude of benefits and risks of a certain course of action. Consider the case of John, 40 years old, taking a plane from New York to Madrid for a two-week holiday. There is a chance the plane might fall into the Atlantic Ocean during the flight, in which case John would die. The chance isn’t very big, but it’s not zero nonetheless. If the plane doesn’t fall, then John gets his holiday (the benefits); however, if the plane falls, not only does John not get his holiday, but he also loses his life. At age 40, John isn’t exactly a youngster any more, but he does have some 40 years of life left, though. While the perceived value of the holiday and the remaining 40 years of life are subjective, it is quite reasonable to say that two weeks in Madrid aren’t worth losing 40 years of life.

Read more