Comment on this entry
Modified Humans: the Most Cost-Efficient Way to Colonize Space
In 30 years, “enhanced” astronauts might not have lungs or stomachs, so they can survive without breathing or eating. Plus they’ll have nano-skin to resist radiation.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 06/30 at 11:31 AM
Hope we don’t end up making something like this (http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/8/2011/11/f44466bf19a85c02d400c98dafaba162.png).
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 06/30 at 11:47 AM
As a positive futurist, I believe that as humanity evolves over the coming decades and centuries, changes to our bodies and appearance will be dictated by needs, desires, and the environment we call home at the time.
With my simple biological brain, I can only imagine what may lie in our future; but I am chomping at the bit to become part of however it may unfold.
Posted by Intomorrow on 06/30 at 12:30 PM
“Physicist Stephen Hawking recently warned; ‘It’s important for humans to spread out into space for survival of the species. All Earth life could be wiped out by a nuclear war, runaway virus, or some other danger.’ Mr. Hawking, we hear you. By 2050, migrations to the high frontier could be well underway.”
Good piece; btw are you related to Hank? you’ve got his talent. Now that the flattery is out of the way it does appear unlikely any but the most hardy and patient of humans could stand for instance traveling in space for the months it would take to arrive at Mars (though one does adapt). In other words it would take a real ubermensch of a human to go to Mars, etc. Could be that the beings who travel to Mars might not speak a language we are familiar with. As you write, it is difficult to make specific predictions—as some of us discovered to our sorrow during the last few decades.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 06/30 at 12:41 PM
I do not believe I’m related to Hank, but thanks for the compliment.
Today, it’s a struggle getting to Mars—six to eight months each way stuffed into a small space—In my next week’s article, I touch on the importance of developing faster-than-light-speed travel to make the vast distances in space more manageable. This is something that just has to happen.
Posted by Intomorrow on 06/30 at 01:01 PM
Correct, if we call ourselves technprogressives and or transhumanists we have to examine contingencies. Aside from WMDs and pandemics, threats from space itself in the form of asteroids, etc., are a matter of concern.. 2050 may be none too soon to have migration to the high frontier underway—numerous threats both on and off Earth can occur in the span of 38 years (one can see why the religious and others are hoping for miracles).
What got me interested in space wasn’t Star Trek or Star Wars, but Apollo 8, the first circumlunar voyage. I remember a TV commentator
discussing the astronauts’ digestive troubles with an off-camera expert; before Apollo such had not been a problem, or at least not a serious one. However in the larger quarters of the Apollo command module, the astronauts could float around- which disoriented their digestive systems.
At any rate, developing faster-than-light-speed travel is the way to go, as well as hominid astronauts 2.0 and then 3.0…
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 06/30 at 01:41 PM
@ Dick Pelletier
“touch on the importance of developing faster-than-light-speed travel to make the vast distances in space more manageable. This is something that just has to happen.”
Well then these should be encouraging (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/mixmaster/2011/08/scotty_warp_speed_is_real_seri.php) (http://www.prlog.org/11782162-warp-drive-worldwide-demo-this-year.html).
BTW, did you see the image I posted?
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 06/30 at 01:54 PM
Christian, thanks for the Marshall Barnes link; I’ll have to check it out.
No, I have not seen the image you posted.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/01 at 03:44 PM
You touched on how people may still want to retain the ability to eat and drink stuff, but the problem I see with having no lungs is that we also need them to generate sound and therefore communicate. We may use some kind of brain-to-brain communication technology, but we are a very verbal species and it would be very difficult to not be able to speak any words. Also, could people really stand the sensation of not breathing?
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/01 at 05:30 PM
‘We’ would be a modified species.
You’re underestimating the ability to adapt.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/01 at 05:32 PM
Christian, I certainly share your concerns. There are some monumental issues to overcome before many of these technologies can become reality.
Kurzweil suggest that for those who do not wish to give up their food eating pleasures, a special stomach can be created that would receive real food, but not distribute the nutrients to the body. Nanobots would dissolve this food and carry it into a ‘nutrient belt’ for later disposal.
And where in the world will we get the mindset to accept a body that would have a ‘no breathing’ mode; or a brain made of CNTs that process information millions of times faster than our biological brains?
These thoughts just boggle my mind. I certainly would not like to be among the early adopters. How about you?
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/01 at 06:35 PM
Traveling in space for long periods, there would be much else to be concerned with besides eating and breathing. Under the circumstances I personally would be concerned with accidents, micrometeorites, and such things—not eating and breathing.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/01 at 06:43 PM
Inntomorrow, yes, the focus probably would be centered around preventing accidents, and micro space particles would certainly be of concern.
But lengthy space flights must be done away with. In my fictional scenario, I show the family making the Earth-to-Mars trip on a hyperspace craft in just 3 hours.
Heim, who wrote the paper on this far-out scheme believes that his throry will be proven by the 2020s and could become reality by mid-century. Will this hapen? Who knows.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/01 at 07:25 PM
“I show the family making the Earth-to-Mars trip on a hyperspace craft in just 3 hours.”
Any beings making Earth to Mars voyages in three hours would be advanced enough that eating and breathing would probably be nothing important, IMO.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/01 at 07:30 PM
Intomorrow, you may be right, but I still would not like to be an early adopter of these technologies.
I just can’t wrap around the idea of not breathing and processing thoughts so fast.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/01 at 09:08 PM
This next question is just out of curiosity but it sums up a concern I read from commentators of another article about implants. If something were to happen that caused the collapse of civilization as we know it (again, out of curiosity), would those implants/changes still remain functional? I have a hard time imagining how “food belts” would be useful it such a situation. I guess that’s where having both option of eating is good to have.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/01 at 09:22 PM
I think if humanity progresses to the point of shedding their biology in the 2040s and 2050s, coupled with enhanced brains processing data millions of times faster than today, we won’t have to worry about civilization collapsing.
This is just my opinion.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/01 at 10:24 PM
Personally I try to avoid being that optimistic, seeing how current events are playing out. BTW, sense this article kinda talks about space exploration you might be interested in this blog about build a working USS enterprise within 20 years (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/).
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 12:50 PM
There are several schemes to start a Mars colony, but I am of the opinion that none of them have much of a chance of being financed and actually becomiing reality.
To send today’s biological humans to such a place is just insane. You are sentencing the travelers to an early death at best, and the expenses to build bulky space suits and underground or domed huts for housing is simply cost-prohibitive.
Most investors find such a trip unfinancable.
The sensible way to spread our populations to the stars and become a multi-planet species is to modify humans to be immune to the dangers of space life.
Granted, the technologies to alter our bodies in these extreme ways do not exist today; however, they could happen by mid-century or so if the human decision-makinig powers chose to get started now with the necessary research.
Comments welcome.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 02:12 PM
You’ve got it right, Dick;
nothing to add except the best defense against Luddism is the offense, the choice is now out in the open, let the old-fashioned rule or push hard against them.. and there’s nothing enlightened/kind about it, we are subverting patterns having existed for thousands of years, but superseding it is we are going to ruin the biosphere sooner or later no matter what we do—or don’t do.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 02:23 PM
Well put, Iintomorrow. Hooray for humanity! Go future!
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/02 at 03:09 PM
So I guess terraforming Mars to make it more habitable is out of the question?
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 03:26 PM
No, extemely expensive; the govt. would probably rather spend the funds on quixotically nation-building Afghanistan and Iraq than terraforming Mars!
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 03:33 PM
Of course, Mars could be terraformed to accommodate today’s biological humans with their frailties, but some estimates put this at from one or two hundred years or more.
Here’s a link on terraforming Mars. The writer says it’s possible with today’s technologies; would be much easier with tomorrow’s technologies, but may not make sense financially. They add that the first space colonies will probably be built underground, or in domed facilities; or with modified humans immune to the environmental dangers.
http://www.philforhumanity.com/Terraforming_Mars.html
However, as the future unfolds – maybe during the 2300s – terraforming technologies could advance where this would be performed by nanobots traveling through wormholes and planets in this era may be modified to fit human requirements. If a positive future evolves in the centuries to come, I think this could become reality.
Comments welcome.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 03:45 PM
“...or with modified humans immune to the environmental dangers.”
This appears most likely. Also, IMO, in order to adapt to the rigors they would have to be modified to have greater patience than today’s human.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 03:56 PM
Let’s don’t underestimate the power of the Singularity, which some say will arrive around 2045.
As machine intelligence passes the Singularity point, gainiing abilities to build other machines with even more intelligence, this will cause an intelligence explosion unlike anything humanity has experienced.
Positive futurists predict this new artificial general intelligence will enable humans to interface their brains with the smart silicon entities and share their vast knowledge.
Of course, we will probably need to enhance our biological brains with neurons made from carbon nanotubes in order to absorb this awesome iinformation, but everything points to this happening.
This will create a mid-century human as different from us 2012’ers as we are to our cave dweller ancestors.
It should be an interesting time, this mid-century life; don’t you think?
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 04:05 PM
It is already interesting, but muddled by an inability to choose between the past and future—it does not seem we can live in both the past and anticipate the future.
However perhaps I’m wrong, maybe people can live in the past while preparing for the future; I don’t think so yet maybe they can somehow.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 04:13 PM
I think living in the past is for romantists and dreamers.
I love the future with all its unknowns and hope.
I see a time, maybe four or five hundred years when no humans will remain on Earth. Humanity will have found other worlds with more advantages than this 3rd rock from the sun offers, and off we go!
I even envision a time when our species opts for digital living. We may even need a planet to hank our hats on. We could become ‘universal babies’.
In fact, there may already be advanced species who have chosen this route and they could be observing us and anxiously awaiting the time when we will choose this superior type of life.
Now, I’m just rambling. Sorry.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 05:13 PM
Will ramble as well: I’d like to leave the Earth right now, but that’s only from not feeling young enough to fight the good fights which need to be fought—fights not against people but against old-fashioned ways which are not relatable to technoprogressivism.
You know how so much in life is an accident? a guy meets his wife at a party he almost didn’t attend; a chance meeting leads to a corporate merger; and so on. I watched Apollo 8 on TV over 43 yrs ago and got interested in space; at that time it did not appear we would actually get to the Moon for a few more decades, accidents such as Apollos 1 (and later 13) might occur to throw off the schedule—but they pulled off the landing before the end of the decade. Then the public lost interest, as the primary reason for Apollo was to beat the Russians to the Moon and it made sense back then.. if the Russians had gotten to the Moon first we wouldn’t have been able to watch it; the Soviets were V. paranoid and secretive because of WWII.
At any rate since that era space interest has slowed down, there used to be Space Interest Group (SIG) offices located in universities, but not anymore. After the Cold War finished, the public lost what residual interest in space they retained after Apollo ended in ‘72.
Perhaps not only the times but also the place: living in the Midwest makes me sour; moved out here with progressive notions the residents think are communist; progressivism—even technoprogressivism—is viewed as ‘communist’. What James Reston wrote long ago (during the time of the Gemini launches) always comes to mind,
“Americans are a funny people, they change things with their hands, they admire those who ‘live modern’, yet they are very conservative.”
However what is any longer being conserved? IMO they are old-fashioned. There’s a couple I know, both about 65 yrs old; they are a caricature of the Old School; fundamentalist Christians, porkpie hat and old gown, hunting and fishing. Nevertheless they possess all the latest gadgets, they ‘live modern’—it is a disorienting juxtaposition of the old and new, borrowed and blue.
What can we do with a Janus-like public: a public looking to the past spiritually, nonetheless materialistic in (as far as gizmos go) their looking to the future—-
living in the past but doing so with modern means.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 05:32 PM
I think I understand how you feel, Intomorrow, but with such an incredibly bright future peeking its head around the corner, stay positive.
I believe anyone in good health who can survive during the next 8 years with healthcare that leaves a lot to be desired, has a shot at surviving into this magical future.
During the 2020s, stem cell therapies and genetic engineering procedures hold great promise to rejuvenate our tired and aging bodies. By 2030, we could be biologically several decades younger than our chronological age.
Then with molecular nanotechnology kicking in during the 2030s with nanobots and other miracles, every adult could appear like a healthy 20-something.
And of course, if we survive to the 2040s, we may be home free with mind transfer technologies reaching maturity.
I look for the maximum human age record, 122, to be broken before mid-century.
Will I make it to this promised land? Today, I’m 81 and I belileve that with a little luck, I have a shot.
Comments welcome.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/02 at 06:04 PM
“every adult could appear like a healthy 20-something.”
I’ve read from an article on the io9 blog that the body age that most people would like to be immortal with is actually around 32. At that point you have the experience and wisdom of age couple with the strength and vigor of youth.
Forgive me for the bombardment of questions. There’s a novel I’m working on and one of the things it involves is future humans. Here are the questions:
Like the scenario you mentioned in your article, do you think modified humans overall will look the same externally or do you think their will be some external differences (eg. height)?
Once modified and implanted with technologies, will modified humans still be able to reproduce?
Final question, if implants and modifications improve at the same rate as cell phones and i-pads do, will that pose a problem for those who have older versions of implants and modifications? I would imagine getting the latest thing constantly would be costly.
Oh, and here’s another thing you might be interested in. Its a trailer for an upcoming short film titled “Love Like Aliens” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gprZuvpIfsw). I think you would be interested in this because of its premise:
“In a future not too far from now, Humanity has advanced to a point where the line between Homo sapiens and Androids have blurred completely. This has occurred so that the species could survive. Technology has allowed humans to travel into deep space to colonize other planets and galaxies deep in the universe because Earth has become uninhabitable. One of the many unfortunate results of this robotic Darwinism is that human behavior and consciousness has also changed over the years. Much of what makes one human—love, family, intimacy etc., have all become things of the past.”
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 06:04 PM
You’re 81? then no one here ought to complain much.
Still, [mis]communicating with rubes makes me old-feeling and tired, it’s as if they’re energy vampires who thrive off it (they as a rule aren’t, but a few are). Operative term is ‘radical conservative’: they do want to change things albeit in a painful way; they want to make sure as much as can be assured that they and their people are at the top, not only because they want power but also as they think they empiricly know what to do, and perhaps that Providence has chosen them to lead. Power and Providence work synergistically for them.
I’m worried about the GOP, if anyone can derail progress, they can- they proved it during the last decade. Would they be interested in space? only if a threat of space-militarization arose. Again, they beat the Russians to the Moon and beat them at the Cold War: since that time—going on a quarter century—interest is space has stagnated.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 06:24 PM
Intomorrow, again; try to stay positive. I learned a long time ago that people don’t make me feel; I choose whether to make negative or positive feelings. A few years ago, I headed up a singles activities organization which spread to over 200 American and Canadian cities.
One of our more popular activities was Monday night’s Wine & Pairing, where we spent 90 minutes reading from Dr. Bach’s book Pairing; then 90 minutes of dancing. The Pairing episodes taught that we are responsible for our own feelings. It changed my life.
Christian, thanks for the great Love Like Aliens link. As to what age people might want to revert to, I believe that being the healthiest will be the deciding factor. For me, that’s my early 20s, in 1952 when I returned from Korea. I was a lean mean machine at that time.
As mentioned in the article, I think people will retain their human looks, and with molecular nanotechnology able to perform upgrades inside our body, there should be little concern over body parts becoming obsolete.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 06:27 PM
“One of the many unfortunate results of this robotic Darwinism is that human behavior and consciousness has also changed over the years. Much of what makes one human—love, family, intimacy etc., have all become things of the past.”
Hate and violence also make one human, have done so for over two million years; there’s nothing unnatural about hate and violence. Walk out into the desert around Simi Valley: animals killing and maiming each other. What is unnatural about it?
Don’t know about love and family; but intimacy? depends what the definition of intimacy is.. in a world of increasing sousveillance, one might prefer seclusion to intimacy.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/02 at 07:27 PM
@ Dick Pelletier
“As mentioned in the article, I think people will retain their human looks, and with molecular nanotechnology able to perform upgrades inside our body, there should be little concern over body parts becoming obsolete.”
That’s good to hear, though I think people would aim for being taller. Originally in my novel, technological humans were 10 ft tall as a mode of fashion if you will, but I might reduce it to seven or something like that. Also, I would like to know your answer to the other two questions I asked.
BTW, glad you liked the trailer  .
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/02 at 07:41 PM
One more thing, do you think the premise for “Love Like Aliens” has any accuracy or shows any genuine concern?
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/02 at 08:12 PM
Christian, regarding will modified humans reproduce?
I don’t really know how this will play out. I’ve written a couple of pieces about artificial wombs and this technology will undoubtedly become a popular way for biological humans to reproduce in the next three or four decades.
However, after humanity merges with its machines, which eventually will lead to 100% non-biological humans with all body parts being manufactured with molecular technology, the only thing left that would not be manufactured would be consciousness.
Today, scientists cannot even agree on a definition for this unique trait. Maybe by late 2030s or 2040s, the mysteries of consciousness will be unraveled and if this happens, the question would be: how would consciousness be assigned to a newly constructed non-biological body?
My wet mushy biological brain cannot address this question adequately. Ask me in 50 years, and I may have an answer.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/02 at 09:14 PM
I guess that means if we don’t unravel consciousness and if all humans become “non-biological”, which I actually doubt, then that makes those humans a dead end and more prone to extinction. Think about it, even if our population reaches nine billion by mid century that is still a relatively small population for colonizing the solar system, let alone the galaxy. And theirs the issue of computer viruses and solar maxes that could destroy non-biological humans. Lets face it, not even our most advanced technologies aren’t immune to those kinds of threats (especially virus which could become much more devastating as new technologies develop).
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 11:49 PM
Geesh, you’re almost as pessimistic as me. But as for the following, you needn’t be concerned:
“Think about it, even if our population reaches nine billion by mid century that is still a relatively small population for colonizing the solar system, let alone the galaxy.
There will be ways to reproduce quickly.
Anyway, Dick is encouraging, esp. regarding post- 2020 transhumanism.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/03 at 12:54 AM
“There will be ways to reproduce quickly.”
What ways would those be?
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/03 at 10:39 AM
I believe birthrates will drop drastically in the future. When people can live for an indefinite time, there will be little need to reproduce in order to continue the family line.
Why would we need more people added to our species? Colonizing space may be one answer. I can’t think of any other answer, can you?
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/03 at 02:36 PM
“What ways would those be?”
If you wanted to colonise space there’d be any number of ways for bios and non-bios to rapidly reproduce. You’re a Christian, Christian? the scripture says, “be fruitful and multiply.”
So there you go!
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/03 at 02:45 PM
Remember, in this future time when most humans will have ditched their biology and are living in non-bio ‘housing units’, where all body parts are manufactured via molecular nanotechnology processes; the same puzzle remains: How do you attach a consciousness to these newly-created bodies?
Posted by @VoteLarryDis114 on 07/03 at 04:58 PM
instead of damaging our bodies technologically or genetically modifying our species for such a long trip to Mars, let’s colonize our moon first…... ship up there a glass smelter to make see through airtight buildings so we can grow plants inside, food, make oxygen & have carbon consumed in a co-generative symbiotic system…. once we have made a huge community safe & industrial on the moon, we can build better spaceships there with humans who have evolved in reduced gravity & needing less escape velocity rockets meaning more room for cargo needed on a future Mars colony @VoteLarryDis114 www.hireLarryFireBobby.com 843-926-1750 Larry_Carter_Center@yahoo.com
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 07/03 at 05:17 PM
@ Dick Pelletier
You don’t think the reasons I mentioned aren’t of any concern? Weather we like it or not, transhumans/posthumans won’t be invulnerable. Their is even a whole article about why future humans won’t be invulnerable (http://jetpress.org/v22/coeckelbergh.htm).
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/03 at 05:24 PM
Others can voice the pessimistic view of the future, I’ll stick to the positive.
I believe humanity is destined for great accomplishments in the centuries ahead. Success is already written into our future!
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/03 at 05:41 PM
“You don’t think the reasons I mentioned aren’t of any concern? Weather we like it or not, transhumans/posthumans won’t be invulnerable. “
It’s a question of age, too. You are 21, so radically extended lifespans don’t appear, to surmise (without knowing you) to be of great import; however to the elderly—Dick is 81; I’m over 55—it can be second in importance only to family, merely for example. Since I have no family, radical longevity is priority #1. Thus, invincibility is of secondary or tertiary importance.
Consciousness is the problem, Dick.. but anything related to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, and IMO consciousness is difficult to observe without altering it, is something to be left to the Turing Church, not Bob’s Church of the Subgenius:
http://www.subgenius.com/
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/03 at 05:48 PM
Yes, the mysteries of consciousness must be unraveled before mind transfer can be perfected.
A growing number of neuroscientists believe that the sextillions of interactions between our neurons guide all our thoughts, emotions, and physical actions; and that one day, this complex system will be clearly understood as we get closer to developing artificial intelligence in machines.
Will this be the answer? Time will tell.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/03 at 06:46 PM
Don’t want to think about consciousness.
What I was attempting to write to Christian was: I’ll take existence under any decent conditions whereas at his age he might not be much interested, not yet anyway (death and taxes for instance, do not generally interest the young—but when one is older, death and taxes become less abstract and more real).
Though one would not want to try to speak for you, it might very well be safe to say that at 81 you’re not dissimilar in this.
Posted by Dick Pelletier on 07/03 at 07:14 PM
Yep; I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/04 at 03:13 AM
Intomorrow’s point about differing interests (with regard to longevity) is crucial in my view, and something we should talk about more here at IEET.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/04 at 03:15 AM
Sorry, I meant to be clearer: Intomorrow’s point about differing interests _across generations_ is crucial.
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog