Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view









Personhood Beyond the Human Conference whats new at ieet
Environmentalism, Innovation & Economics

Meet the smi2ling New Believers

See-through brains

#OpPrism, #AntiSec, #Anonymous | Anonymous Reacts to NSA

The Temptations of Data vs. The Temptations of Privacy

Scientists explore ways to transform hostility into peaceful thoughts

Human-Made Minds: Living with Thinking Machines

What are the Most “Frightening” and Exciting Technologies of the Future?

Can we upload our minds? Hauskeller on mind-uploading (Part Two)

A Transhumanist’s Journey To Becoming Gods, Angels, and Ghosts


ieet books

eGods: Faith versus Fantasy in Computer Gaming
Author
by William Sims Bainbridge


comments

SHaGGGz on 'Meet the smi2ling New Believers' (Jun 19, 2013)

Giulio Prisco on 'Meet the smi2ling New Believers' (Jun 19, 2013)

David Pearce on 'Abolition is Imperative in Kurzweil's Sixth Epoch Scenario' (Jun 19, 2013)

dobermanmac on 'Scientists explore ways to transform hostility into peaceful thoughts' (Jun 19, 2013)

Intomorrow on 'Meet the smi2ling New Believers' (Jun 19, 2013)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

The Hubris of Neo-Luddism
by Franco Cortese
May 26, 2013
(3457) Hits
(12) Comments

End of Eating Food
by Dick Pelletier
May 25, 2013
(2977) Hits
(13) Comments

Abolition is Imperative in Kurzweil’s Sixth Epoch Scenario
by Jønathan Lyons
May 25, 2013
(2414) Hits
(37) Comments

How the Singularity Makes us Dumber
by David Eubanks
May 29, 2013
(2277) Hits
(2) Comments

Call for Papers for Special Issue of JET on “Technological Unemployment and Universal Basic Income”

Jun 4, 2013
(2181) Hits
(0) Comments

The singularity: merging human/machine to achieve immortality
by Dick Pelletier
May 21, 2013
(2102) Hits
(4) Comments



IEET > Rights > Neuroethics > ReproRights > Life > Enablement > Implants > Health > Vision > CyborgBuddha > Futurism > Technoprogressivism > Fellows > David Pearce

Print Email permalink (5) Comments (5114) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


The Biointelligence Explosion


David Pearce
David Pearce
HedWeb

Posted: May 11, 2012

How recursively self-improving organic robots will modify their own 
source code and bootstrap our way to full-spectrum superintelligence.

“Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us…. Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.”

Edward O. Wilson, Consilience, The Unity of Knowledge, 1999

“I predict that the domestication of biotechnology will dominate our lives during the next fifty years at least as much as the domestication of computers has dominated our lives during the previous fifty years.”

Freeman Dyson, New York Review of Books (July 19, 2007)

1. The Fate of the Germline

Genetic evolution is slow. Progress in artificial intelligence is fast. Only a handful of genes separate Homo sapiens from our hominid ancestors on the African savannah. Among our 23,000-odd protein-coding genes, variance in single nucleotide polymorphisms (”SNPs”) accounts for just a small percentage of phenotypic variance in intelligence as measured by what we call IQ tests. True, the tempo of human evolution is about to accelerate. As the reproductive revolution of “designer babies” gathers pace, prospective parents will pre-select alleles and allelic combinations for a new child in anticipation of their behavioural effects - a novel kind of selection pressure to replace the “blind” genetic roulette of natural selection. In time, routine embryo screening via preimplantation genetic diagnosis will be complemented by gene therapy, genetic enhancement and then true designer zygotes. In consequence, life on Earth will also become progressively happier as the hedonic treadmill is recalibrated. In the new reproductive era, hedonic set-points and intelligence alike will be ratcheted upwards in virtue of selection pressure. For what parent-to-be wants to give birth to a low-status depressive “loser”? Future parents can enjoy raising a normal transhuman supergenius who grows up to be faster than Usain Bolt, more beautiful than Marilyn Monroe, more saintly than Nelson Mandela, more creative than Shakespeare - and smarter than Einstein.

Even so, the accelerating growth of germline engineering will be a comparatively slow process. In this scenario, sentient biological machines will design cognitively self-amplifying biological machines who will design cognitively self-amplifying biological machines. Greater-than-human biological intelligence will transform itself into posthuman superintelligence. Cumulative gains in intellectual capacity and subjective well-being across the generations will play out over hundreds and perhaps thousands of years - a momentous discontinuity, for sure, and a twinkle in the eye of eternity; but not a BioSingularity.

2. Biohacking Your Personal Genome

Yet germline engineering is only one strand of the genomics revolution. Indeed after humans master the aging process, the extent to which traditional germlines or human generations will persist in the post-ageing world is obscure. Focus on the human germline ignores the slow-burning but then explosive growth of somatic gene enhancement in prospect. Later this century, innovative gene therapies will be succeeded by gene enhancement technologies - a value-laden dichotomy that reflects our impoverished human aspirations. Starting with individual genes, then clusters of genes, and eventually hundreds of genes and alternative splice variants, a host of recursively self-improving organic robots (“biohackers”) will modify their genetic source code and modes of sentience: their senses, their moods, their motivation, their cognitive apparatus, their world-simulations and their default state of consciousness.

As the era of open-source genetics unfolds, tomorrow’s biohackers will add, delete, edit and customise their own legacy code in a positive feedback loop of cognitive enhancement. Computer-aided genetic engineering will empower biological humans, transhumans and then posthumans to synthesise and insert new genes, variant alleles and even designer chromosomes - reweaving the multiple layers of regulation of our DNA to suit their wishes and dreams rather than the inclusive fitness of their genes in the ancestral environment. Collaborating and competing, next-generation biohackers will use stem-cell technologies to expand their minds, literally, via controlled neurogenesis. Freed from the constraints of the human birth canal, biohackers may re-sculpt the prison-like skull of Homo sapiens to accommodate a larger mind/brain, which can initiate recursive self-expansion in turn. Six crumpled layers of neocortex fed by today’s miserly reward pathways aren’t the upper bound of conscious mind, merely its seedbed. Each biological neuron and glial cell of your growing mind/brain can have its own dedicated artificial healthcare team, web-enabled nanobot support staff, and social network specialists; compare today’s anonymous neural porridge. Transhuman minds will be augmented with neurochips, molecular nanotechnology, mind/computer interfaces and full-immersion virtual reality (VR) software. To achieve finer-grained control of cognition, mood and motivation, genetically enhanced transhumans will draw upon exquisitely tailored new designer drugs, nutraceuticals and cognitive enhancers - precision tools that make today’s crude interventions seem the functional equivalent of glue-sniffing.

By way of comparison, early in the twenty-first century the scientific counterculture is customizing a bewildering array of designer drugs that outstrip the capacity of the authorities to regulate or comprehend. The bizarre psychoactive effects of such agents dramatically expand the evidential base that our theory of consciousness must explain. However, such drugs are short-acting. Their benefits, if any, aren’t cumulative. By contrast, the ability genetically to hack one’s own source code will unleash an exponential growth of genomic rewrites - not mere genetic tinkering but a comprehensive redesign of “human nature”. Exponential growth starts out almost unnoticeably, and then explodes. Human bodies, cognition and ancestral modes of consciousness alike will be transformed. Post-humans will range across immense state-spaces of conscious mind hitherto impenetrable because access to their molecular biology depended on crossing gaps in the fitness landscape prohibited by natural selection. Intelligent agency can “leap across” such fitness gaps. What we’ll be leaping into is currently for the most part unknown: an inherent risk of the empirical method. But mastery of our reward circuitry can guarantee such state-spaces of experience will be glorious beyond human imagination. For intelligent biohacking can make unpleasant experience physically impossible because its molecular substrates are absent. Hedonically enhanced innervation of the neocortex can ensure a rich hedonic tone saturates whatever strange new modes of experience our altered neurochemistry discloses.

Pilot studies of radical genetic enhancement will be difficult. Randomised longitudinal trials of such interventions in long-lived humans would take decades. In fact officially licensed, well-controlled prospective trials to test the safety and efficacy of genetic innovation will be hard if not impossible to conduct because all of us, apart from monozygotic twins, are genetically unique. Even monozygotic twins exhibit different epigenetic and gene expression profiles. Barring an ideological and political revolution, most formally drafted proposals for genetically-driven life-enhancement probably won’t pass ethics committees or negotiate the maze of bureaucratic regulation. But that’s the point of biohacking. By analogy today, if you’re technically savvy, you don’t want a large corporation controlling the operating system of your personal computer: you use open source software instead. Likewise, you don’t want governments controlling your state of mind via drug laws. By the same token, tomorrow’s biotech-savvy individualists won’t want anyone restricting our right to customise and rewrite our own genetic source code in any way we choose.

Will central governments try to regulate personal genome editing? Most likely yes. How far they’ll succeed is an open question. So too is the success of any centralised regulation of futuristic designer drugs or artificial intelligence. Another huge unknown is the likelihood of state-sponsored designer babies, human reproductive cloning, and autosomal gene enhancement programs; and their interplay with privately-funded initiatives. China, for instance, has a different historical memory from the West.

Will there initially be biohacking accidents? Personal tragedies? Most probably yes, until human mastery of the pleasure-pain axis is secure. By the end of next decade, every health-conscious citizen will be broadly familiar with the architecture of his or her personal genome: the cost of personal genotyping will be trivial, as will be the cost of DIY gene-manipulation kits. Let’s say you decide to endow yourself with an extra copy of the N-methyl D-aspartate receptor subtype 2B (NR2B) receptor, a protein encoded by the GRIN2B gene. Possession of an extra NR2B subunit NMDA receptor is a crude but effective way to enhance your learning ability, at least if you’re a transgenic mouse. Recall how Joe Tsien and his colleagues first gave mice extra copies of the NR2B receptor-encoding gene, then tweaked the regulation of those genes so that their activity would increase as the mice grew older. Unfortunately, it transpires that such brainy “Doogie mice” - and maybe brainy future humans endowed with an extra NR2B receptor gene - display greater pain-sensitivity too; certainly, NR2B receptor blockade reduces pain and learning ability alike. Being smart, perhaps you decide to counteract this heightened pain-sensitivity by inserting and then over-expressing a high pain-threshold, “low pain” allele of the SCN9A gene in your nociceptive neurons at the dorsal root ganglion and trigeminal ganglion. The SCN9A gene regulates pain-sensitivity; nonsense mutations abolish the capacity to feel pain at all. In common with taking polydrug cocktails, the factors to consider in making multiple gene modifications soon snowball; but you’ll have heavy-duty computer software to help. Anyhow, the potential pitfalls and makeshift solutions illustrated in this hypothetical example could be multiplied in the face of a combinatorial explosion of possibilities on the horizon. Most risks - and opportunities - of genetic self-editing are presumably still unknown.

It is tempting to condemn such genetic self-experimentation as irresponsible, just as unlicensed drug self-experimentation is irresponsible. Would you want your teenage daughter messing with her DNA? Perhaps we may anticipate the creation of a genetic counterpart of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to police the human genome and its transhuman successors. Yet it’s worth bearing in mind how each act of sexual reproduction today is an unpoliced genetic experiment with unfathomable consequences too. Without such reckless genetic experimentation, none of us would exist. In a cruel Darwinian world, this argument admittedly cuts both ways.

Naively, genomic source-code self-editing will always be too difficult for anyone beyond a dedicated cognitive elite of recursively self-improving biohackers. Certainly there are strongly evolutionarily conserved “housekeeping” genes that archaic humans would be best advised to leave alone for the foreseeable future. Granny might do well to customize her Windows desktop rather than her personal genome - prior to her own computer-assisted enhancement, at any rate. Yet the Biointelligence Explosion won’t depend on more than a small fraction of its participants mastering the functional equivalent of machine code - the three billion odd ‘A’s, ‘C’s, ‘G’s and ‘T’s of our DNA. For the open-source genetic revolution will be propelled by powerful suites of high-level gene-editing tools, insertion vector applications, nonviral gene-editing kits, and user-friendly interfaces. Clever computer modeling and “narrow” AI can assist the intrepid biohacker to become a recursively self-improving genomic innovator. Later this century, your smarter counterpart will have software tools to monitor and edit every gene, repressor, promoter and splice variant in every region of the genome: each layer of epigenetic regulation of your gene transcription machinery in every region of the brain. This intimate level of control won’t involve just crude DNA methylation to turn genes off and crude histone acetylation to turn genes on. Personal self-invention will involve mastery and enhancement of the histone and micro-RNA codes to allow sophisticated fine-tuning of gene expression and repression across the brain. Even today, researchers are exploring “nanochannel electroporation” (NEP) technologies that allow the mass-insertion of novel therapeutic genetic elements into our cells. Mechanical cell-loading systems will shortly be feasible that can inject up to 100,000 cells at a time. Before long, such technologies will seem primitive. Freewheeling genetic self-experimentation will be endemic as the DIY-Bio revolution unfolds. At present, crude and simple gene editing can be accomplished only via laborious genetic engineering techniques. Sophisticated authoring tools don’t exist. In future, computer-aided genetic and epigenetic enhancement can become an integral part of your personal growth plan.

 


To Read the Rest of the Essay, Click HERE

 


This essay is a preprint of a paper that will appear in the forthcoming Springer volume: The Singularity Hypothesis: A scientific and philosophical assessment. (2012). Eden, A, Sørake, J., Moor, JH., Steinhart, E., eds. Berlin: Springer.


David Pearce is the author of the internet manifesto The Hedonistic Imperative, that details how the abolition of suffering can be accomplished through "paradise engineering." He co-founded the World Transhumanist Association in 1998, and the Abolitionist Society in 2002.
Print Email permalink (5) Comments (5115) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


Will humanity’s successors also be our biological descendants? Some transhumanists believe in IJ Good’s conception of the Intelligence Explosion - which combines the exponential growth of computer processing power (Moore’s law) with the prospect of software-based intelligent minds that can recursively self-edit their own source code in an accelerating spiral of intelligence amplification. Believers in the Intelligence Explosion argue that biological humanity is most probably headed for extinction later this century. This tradition is best represented today by the Singularity Institute/lesswrong community. But soon organic robots (i.e. us) will be able to edit their own genetic source code in a recursive cycle of self-improvement. And unlike digital zombies, computer-assisted humans - and soon computer-assisted transhumans - can aspire to full-spectrum superintelligence.

Alas what futurists call “predictions” might better be described as prophecies.





@ David Pearce

1. Don’t you think there will be significant groups of people (e.g. Amish and tribal groups) that would remain biological?

2.  Can you clarify on the difference between prediction and prophecy?





1) Technically, phasing out experience below hedonic zero throughout the living world would probably be feasible in a century or less. In practice - and precisely for the reasons you suggest - some groups and some individuals will presumably want to continue to have children “naturally”. So long as bioconservatives insist on reproducing via genetic roulette, I fear that pain, suffering and malaise in some form will continue indefinitely, albeit with diminished prevalence.

So what is the solution? I don’t know. But just as we now regard, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny their children lifesaving blood transfusions as potentially guilty of child abuse, maybe posterity will regard humans who propagate malign genetic code in a similar light. (cf. malware writers and corporate sloppy code writers at present). We intervene to protect the interests of the young and the vulnerable in cases of child abuse today. Maybe posthumans will treat primitives who harm other sentient beings as no less irresponsible.

However, this line of thought is extremely risky. Not least, the prospect of centrally directed germline regulation raises the spectre of coercive eugenics. One of the most persuasive arguments in favour of the abolition of suffering is a simple libertarian principle. Everyone should be free to choose whether they want to undergo experience below hedonic zero or not. Compare the biology of involuntary malaise now. Time and again I’ve had lively debates with apologists for suffering, only to ask if they believe that anyone should be _forced_ to suffer when the biological capacity for unpleasant experience becomes purely optional. (How much? For how long? And enforced by what means?) Rather sheepishly, pain apologists typically say no, they don’t favour inflicting suffering on others, but personally they don’t want some kind of pleasure Gestapo forcing them to he happy. Indeed so. But if we can agree that no mentally competent adults should be forced to suffer against their will, then what should be the hedonic default setting of our future children? Who decides?

2) The distinction between scientific prophecy and prediction isn’t wholly clearcut. But compare, say, Newton’s inverse square law or the equations of Einstein theories of special and general relativity with the sorts of “predictions” that futurists make. We rely on numerous suppressed premises, background assumptions, possible defeaters and ceteris paribus clauses. Compared to the exact sciences, the track record of futurology is dismal - not least thanks to so-called “paradoxes of prediction” (cf. http://www.wright.edu/~gordon.welty/Prediction_70.htm ) However, I’m going to stick my neck out and “predict” that if experience below hedonic zero exists in our forward light-cone 500 years from now, this won’t be because its abolition proves technically too difficult. Rather it will exist because humans - or our successors - opt to conserve it. If so, I can’t think why.





@ David Pearce

I was thinking more about people who simple choose to remain biological (while still tinkering with their genome and such) and not become machines like most other transhumanists “predict”.  It’s kind of like an idea I have for a sci-fi novel where humanity becomes two groups in the future which I call Techs and Bios for obvious reasons.  Also, what is “hedonic zero”?





Christian, I agree with you. Most people have no desire to become cyborgs, let alone “upload” themselves (etc). Indeed, many transhumanists would fault the kind of scenario I explore in the Biointellignce Explosion as too bioconservative and carbon chauvinist. But when, for example, safe and effective radical antiaging therapies become available, even  staunch bioconservatives are likely to forget their principles (or rather rationalisations) and use them. Might not the same hold true of tools for radical mood-enrichment and intelligence-amplification too?

“Hedonic zero”? Apologies, I slip too readily into jargon. The term is due to philosopher Henry Sidgwick ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Sidgwick )  It captures the idea than when passing from good to bad hedonic tone or mood, or vice versa, there is a “neutral” emotional state that is neither. Biotechnology will shortly allow us to consign states below  hedonic zero to the dustbin of history.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: FBI framing members of Occupy?

Previous entry: Witchcraft and the Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376