Using tools available within Lifenaut.com, groups and individuals will pool their knowledge and efforts to build the “mind file” for a digital representation of Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Charles Darwin, or Gandhi will able to carry on speech and text conversations based on information accessed by custom built artificial consciousness software. A “mind file” is a digital archive that represents the unique knowledge, values, mannerism, beliefs and behavior of a person- in this case, an historical figure. Overtime, each “digital clone” will become more and more true to the original. The project also invites people to propose other historical figures for “re-animation”.

The project is funded by the Terasem Movement Foundation Inc., which in October of 2007 launched Lifenaut.com, the first free digital immortality social networking site to explore the possibility of creating robust “mind files” or digital archives of a person’s life that can be used in the future to re-create a digital clone.

To get involved or learn more, visit History Lives at Lifenaut.com.

Contacts
Terasem Movement Foundation Inc.
Bruce Duncan, 617-365-7414
Managing Director
bduncan2008@gmail.com

Life-expectancy for the ancient Romans was circa 23 years; today the average life-expectancy in the world is circa 64 years.

For the past 150 years, best-performance life-expectancy (i.e. life-expectancy in the country where it is highest) has increased at a very steady rate of 3 months per year.

2. Aging is the biggest cause of death and misery in humanity.

100 000 people die per day from age-related causes.  150 000 people die per day in total. Cardiovascular disease (strongly age-related) is emerging as the biggest cause of death in the developing world.

3. Progress is possible

The goal should be to extend the HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE lifespan, not to just keep people alive longer on respirators or in old people’s homes. This is embodied in the concept not of life span but “health span”.  The easiest way to do this is to prolong healthy life not attempt to compress morbidity

The more we understand about the biochemical processes involved in senescence the more we find that they look like disease processes. The accumulation of lysosomal aggregates and amyloid plaques, extracellular protein-protein cross-linking, nuclear and mitochondrial mutations, cell atrophy, cell senescence, and cell loss without replacement: these processes may all be implicated in both pathology and senescence.  At the level of genetics and biochemistry, there simply does not seem to be any meaningful distinction between “processes predisposing to or constituting disease” and “normal aging”.

Aging is not an evolutionary adaptation. Aging, rather, is what happens when various bodily systems evolved to maintain health gradually accumulate defects and begin to malfunction. In the Pleistocene, when life-expectancy is estimated to have been a mere 20 years, too few of our ancestors survived to ripe old age for evolution to favor investment in stronger anti-aging defenses than those we now possess and are forced to rely upon, notwithstanding their evident inadequacy in the modern era where many causes of premature death have been removed.

The tortoise, by contrast, whose ancestors were less accident-prone thanks to their protective shells, enjoys anti-aging defenses robust enough to give it a lifespan of upwards of 150 years. It is humbling to reflect that somewhere on the Galapagos Islands a giant tortoise might still be around who watched the landing of Charles Darwin.

We will all age, if we live long enough. We should understand why turtles age slower than us. And we should use that knowledge to stave off aging.

Last week brought exciting breakthrough. Scientists identified ajellyfish which could be immortal.

Turritopsis nutricula is the only known animal that is capable of reverting to its juvenile polyp state. Jellyfish usually die after propagating but Turritopsis reverts to a sexually immature stage after reaching adulthood and is capable of rejuvenating itself.

Theoretically, this cycle can repeat indefinitely, rendering it potentially immortal.  The jellyfish and its reversal of the ageing process is now the focus of research by marine biologists and geneticists. It is thought to achieve the feat through the cell development process of transdifferentiation, in which cells transform from one type to another.

The switching of cell roles is usually seen only when parts of an organ regenerate. However, it appears to occur normally in the Turritopsis life cycle.

Medically-induced rejuvenation of organs and tissues is no longer science fiction: it is simply the application of regenerative medicine to the molecular and cellular damage of aging. Just as for the repair and maintenance of man-made machines, this approach can in principle postpone age-related ill-health indefinitely. People would remain physically and mentally as vigorous and functional as young adults, and death would only be from causes that currently affect young adults, such as accidents. The consequent elimination of Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, most cancers, arthritis and inumerable other age-related diseases would have astronomical economic benefits, vastly outweighing the expense of developing and delivering these therapies. Even for those who consider that the chance of success in developing these therapies is low, the risk/benefit balance of investing significantly in the attempt to develop them is unequivocally in favour of such an investment.

Anti-aging research is scandalously under-funded.  In the US, a vast proportion of the funding doled out by the National Institute of Aging is given to research on Alzheimer’s disease. According to one estimate (from circa 2004), only about 0.02% of the money spent by the National Institutes of Health (of which the NIA is part) is spent on fundamental aging research. I think funding ought to be perhaps 1,000 times greater. Even if we only hastened progress to a cure for aging by one year, that is brought it forward by one year, that’s about 30 million lives saved. Every year we delay finding a cure, 30 million people die.

Objections can be overcome. Of course extending healthy lifespan might create various problems and challenges.  But for any possible problem that might arise, one question that we must not fail to ask ourselves is: “Is this problem so bad that it is worth sacrificing up to 100,000 lives per day to avoid having to solve it?”  If the answer is obviously no, then we should look for solutions.

Here are two final objections:

1. Obligations to Future Generations

We have an obligation to die and turn the world over to the next generation.

How long each generation should live raises deep questions about intergenerational relations, quality of life and burden of care. However healthy and able older people may be economically productive, self supporting and a source of knowledge, experience and care for younger generations, liberating younger people to work. The answers are not clear, especially when life extension is coupled with life enhancement.

At any rate, since few of us believe there is a positive moral obligation to have children, that is to create future people, the obligation to create new generations must be weak

2. Loss of Meaning

Many people fear that a longer life would result in boredom and a gradual loss of meaning. This would be more likely if one was a solitary Methuselah. But in a world where many of those close to us also lived longer, the greatest source of human well-being – deep human relations – would remain intact and arguably grow richer as that network expanded across generations.

There is little empirical support that longer good life loses meaning. Research shows that life-satisfaction remains relatively stable into old age. One survey of 60,000 adults from 40 nations discovered a slight upward trend in life-satisfaction from the 20s to the 80s in age

With the advent of human enhancement– enhancement of cognitive powers, physical abilities and control of mood – this is likely to be even less of a problem.

The challenge is to create longer and better life. But that too is within our grasp. We should aim for drugs to prevent normal memory decline, interventions to keep us physically and mentally active. Viagra is a good example. It deals with one effect normal human aging. 20 million men in the US find it of benefit and it no doubt contributes to meaning in their lives in some way.

And surely it is up to individuals to decide whether their lives come to lack meaning. For our part, we would take the longer life.

Our goal should be more, much more, longer and better life. We need a war on aging.

Billions of dollars have been spent preparing for a flu epidemic. The Spanish flu killed 20 million people. Aging kills 30 million every year. It is the most under-researched cause of death and suffering relative to its significance. Whatever breakthroughs occur in medicine or health care generally, at the moment we face the inevitability of ageing. That might not be necessary.

Authors:

Julian Savulescu, Programme on the Ethics of the New Biosciences, James Martin 21st Century School, University of Oxford

Nick Bostrom, Oxford Future of Humanity Institute, James Martin 21st Century School, University of Oxford

Aubrey de Grey, Methuselah Foundation

Published 29 November 2008

IT IS not every academic that specialises in a subject as extraordinary as extraterrestrial ethics. But Andy Miah is no ordinary academic. Part futurologist, part philosopher, his work on the science of sport grew to encompass bioethics, medical law and now covers all aspects of the way technology impacts on human beings.

Miah, who is a reader at West of Scotland University and who has the marvellous title Fellow of Visions in Utopia and Dystopia at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies has just finished editing Human Futures – a collection of futuristic visions that includes the work of artists, designers and even science fiction writers.

“I’m particularly pleased that the whole process of getting it into print has taken about seven months – most academic books take about three years,” he says. For a futurologist you understand why this might become an issue.

The book covers subjects as diverse and controversial as cloning, genetic screening, disabled athletes, space exploration and cosmetic surgery using a variety of wildly different imaginative approaches.

One contribution comes from Yann Marussich, a Swiss bio artist who ingests a potent blue dye and then exhibits himself in a glass case, allowing people to watch as the colouring seeps out of his pores.

Even the index of the book is unusual – as well as a formal alphabetic index the book has a tag cloud index, that showers words across the page with a larger type for topics mentioned more often.

“I’m pretty sure it is the first book in the world with a tag cloud index,” Miah says.

Miah, 33, who took a degree in sport science, then a PhD in bioethics and a masters in medical law, has previously written or co-authored more conventional-looking books on genetically modified athletes and on the way medical information on the internet has transformed the way people look at health. He has also written papers for publications including the Lancet.

But, in his opinion, uncharted territory requires new ways of thinking – which is why Human Futures, published by the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology in Liverpool, is such a radically different book.

In his introduction Sir Drummond Bone, former vice-principal of Liverpool University, says: “When we talk about the need for radical interdisciplinary thinking in order to understand an environment which paradoxically is increasingly created by our own activities, we rarely think radically enough.”

In Miah’s view the world in which scientists pursue their own particular lines of inquiry to the exclusion of other forms of thinking is limited.

“Specialism is an outdated mode of operation. People today are talking about convergence,” he explains.

“I spend a lot of my talking to bioethicists and engineers and for the most part they are absolutely null and void of any imagination.

“Their way of imagining the future is very different from that of an artist or designer. What I find with artists and designers is that they bring a whole different way of looking at problems.”

Miah believes using artists and designers to explore the possibilities at the cutting edge of research can help engage members of the public in the very real debates about the ethical implications of research. “The question is what does the future look like – and who is in the position to tell us what the future looks like?”

In one unsettling image in the book a little girl appears to be playing with clay like lumps of human flesh, in a sculpture by Patricia Picinini. In another, designer Kate O’Riordan has created a “breathing dog” – a canine with an extra set of mechanical lungs which can breathe for its owner – just as a guide dog can see and a hearing dog can hear.

“There was a time when we used leeches and maggots to help us recover – but aesthetically we now find trouble with that,” Miah says.

“The underlying question is about the limits of what is possible and desirable as the scientific field of genetics and biotechnology expands. What I want to do is bring a range of different approaches to the question: ‘What does the future look like?’

“Artists can communicate concepts in a way that allows people to make sense of it. Designers are something else. What they are bringing is not just vision but the practical application of technology.”

Miah tells me about one of his design colleagues who invented a telephone tooth implant – questioning how far the miniaturisation of electronic goods could be taken. It didn’t actually work – but it illustrated the question of how far things could go. In terms of ethics and human rights scientific and medical advances can throw up challenging issues – such as the case of South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, whose case is discussed in the book by Gregor Wolbring.

Pistorius, who has artificial legs below the knee, was initially barred from the 2008 Olympics because his artificial “cheetah legs” could make him faster than able- bodied athletes. He was later told he could compete, but failed to qualify.

In Miah’s view, science fiction can be an important way of exploring the implications of science fact – which is why there is also a section devoted to fiction.

He says: “These fictional works should provoke us to consider the realities of how science and technology are evolving. All these works are based on actual scientific realities – but they take us further than a deep scientific analysis might take us.”

Miah’s interest in extraterrestrial ethics was triggered by a work of art.

He was inspired by watching Laurie Anderson – the “first and last official artist in residence at Nasa” perform her work The Way of the Moon at Glasgow Tramway in 2005.

It set him thinking about the medicalisation of astronauts, the way they are used as human specimens in space, about the possibility that bio-engineered robots could be sent on missions to Mars and about what could happen if human beings encountered alien life. But isn’t the formulation of ethics in relation to little green men a step too far?

“The answer is all ethics are made up ethics. Morality is a figment of our imagination,” Miah explains.

“And we are already committed to the environment of space – whether or not little green men exist. If we were to discover water on Mars this is a new environment and we have to work out how to engage with it.”

Miah, who has a Bangladeshi father and an English mother, says thinking about the future could help make human beings behave better in the present. “I get frustrated that I live in a century which is not past racism.

“Thinking about extraterrestrial ethics is important – because it should allow us to build a real sense of concern for the environment and for other beings – which could also show us how to treat humanity.

“Ethics has always been a way of making sense of the moral choices we encounter. Extraterrestrial ethics should focus our attention on outer space in part to help us refine how we deal with life on Earth.”

* Source: The Scotsman
  * Location: Edinburgh

Today’s discussion is the second of two panel events on “the risks, benefits and extent of how far research can extend our mental and physical abilities”.  Chaired by Kerri Smith, Nature Podcast Editor and presenter of Nature Neuroscience’s NeuroPod, the panel comprised:

• Kevin Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading and wannabe cyborg.
• Andy Miah, Reader in New Media & Bioethics at the University of the West of Scotland, Fellow of the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology and dapper dresser.
• Aubrey de Grey, Chairman of The Methuselah Foundation, an organization committed to accelerating progress toward a cure for age-related disease, and owner of a magnificent beard.

After a brief introduction and tongue in cheek incitement to “get physical” from Nature Managing Editor Nick Campbell, the panel members lay down their views on the subject of physical enhancement.

Aubrey de Grey begins by pointing out that all three panel members are advocates for physical enhancement and questions whether the discussion will really be a debate at all, then lays down his case, arguing that being against the concept of physical enhancement is “incoherent”.  Citing examples such as the beneficial effects of antibiotics and vaccines on the immune system, he illustrates that we humans have already taken measures to enhance ourselves physically.

Next up is Kevin Warwick, who compares humans to computers in order to demonstrate the limitations of our mental capacities.  He cites a professor at MIT who claimed that all the memories of a 100-year-old person could fit on a single CD and states that machines can sense spectra like ultraviolet and X-rays, finally suggesting that by harnessing the power of computers in these areas we can enhance mental powers such as memory capacity and sensory perception.  Warwick’s most famous experiments represent the first steps along this path - in 1998 he implanted a chip under his skin and was able to open and shut doors via a computer, then in 2002 a new chip that interfaced directly onto his median nerve permitted him to move a robot arm in synchrony with his own actions.

The third panel member, Andy Miah, spoke about the value of human enhancement in elite sports.  An asthmatic, he only recently began regularly using his inhaler and feels that his running capability has increased tremendously - where do these kind of measures fall in the debate about physical enhancement?  Miah also discusses the case of the South African runner Oscar Pistorius, who is a double amputee and the proud owner of very high-tech carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs.  Pistorius successfully campaigned to compete with able-bodied athletes in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.  His case raises interesting questions about the perception of disability and the purpose of enhancements.

Chair Kerri Smith picks up on this theme and asks the panel whether there is a difference between enhancing the physical capabilities of a disabled person in order to bring them up to the the capacity of a ‘normal’ individual, and physically enhancing a healthy person to give them abilities above the norm. Harking back to the case of Oscar Pistorius, Andy Miah opines that the definition of a ‘normal’ human and, therefore, what constitutes a physical enhancement is particularly difficult, especially in the paralympics. This issue then leads into a discussion of what constitutes an acceptable physical enhancement, with Aubrey de Grey suggesting that elite sport is ‘the canary in the coalmine’ of physical enhancement and may well prove to be the litmus test of what society considers acceptable.

Finally, the panel are asked what sort of physical enhancements are possible at this moment in time and how long it will be before one of their pet projects comes to fruition.  Aubrey de Grey says that the aim in his field is “to solve the problem of aging faster than it catches up with us” and that he hopes the discipline of regenerative medicine will reach this point in 25-30 years.  Andy Miah thinks that the first genetically enhanced athletes might appear in the 2012 Olympic Games, and acknowledges that genetic modification is already possible in animals and it is only ethical and safety concerns that prevent such techniques being used in humans today.  Kevin Warwick cites his most recent experiments - in which rat neurons are interfaced with robot ‘bodies’ - as examples that enhancing physical capabilities through computers is technologically possible at the moment, and purports that it could only be 12-18 months before scientists start doing similar experiments with the human nervous system.  On the other hand, there are many concerns relating to surgery, infection, and the ethics of such undertakings, meaning that linking human brains to robot bodies - Steve Martin brain-in-a-jar style - might not happen for up to 10 years.

So what of Nature’s original question - “How should we respond to enhancement technologies?”  The answer from the panel seems to be: “enthusiastically”.  The last word goes to Aubrey de Grey, who states “It is intellectually bankrupt to say that any enhancement per se is wrong”.

By Tricia Bishop

November 18, 2008

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mohandas Gandhi quote posted on CyBeRev.org

Traditional religion’s ethereal immortality doesn’t strike Martine Rothblatt as much of a trade-off for dying.

To the millionaire entrepreneur, who launched both Sirius Satellite Radio and one of Maryland’s largest biotech companies, death is both tragic and, through not-yet-invented technology, avoidable.

Rothblatt embraces a more tangible immortality, a digital, downloadable one - a “transreligion for technological times.” And she’s asking you to join in, by uploading everything about yourself to the Internet so researchers can spend the next couple of decades figuring out how to create a digital version of you to transfer to an alternate body when your current one dies.

As she says in a 2006 video, “Our goal is to capture the mannerisms, personality, recollections, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values of as many people as possible, store this information, transmit this information into the cosmos and ... have it combined with mindware that will allow the individuals to be revitalized and continue to live in a joyful immortality.”

Think of the Fountain of Youth, Count Dracula’s story, the Bionic Woman. For as long as there have been people, we’ve imagined ways to prolong our lives, perhaps eternally, by melding with the mystical or medicinal. Involving computers and software is just the latest incarnation.

But to consider it outside the realm of the fantastical and ask others to do the same is still a tough sell, especially when you factor in the many components bundled into Rothblatt’s goal: She’s also shopping a science-fiction movie based on the idea to distributors now and has an Internet radio station beaming messages about mind-uploading into space.

It’s a tough sell, that is, until you consider the other seeming impossibilities Rothblatt - who has a doctorate, a master’s degree in business administration and a law degree - has already achieved.

Ideas become reality

When she was young, she dreamed of tiny satellite antennas that could fit on the tops of cars; she later launched Sirius Satellite Radio and won recognition as one of the inventors of the medium. She was born male, but felt female, and in the early 1990s underwent a sex change operation and became an advocate for transgender rights. With no drug development background, she started a biotech company to find a treatment for her daughter Jenesis’ primary pulmonary hypertension, a rare, life-threatening disease that elevates the pressure on blood vessels in the lungs. Today, Silver Spring-based United Therapeutics has a stock market value of about $2.6 billion and gave Rothblatt a compensation package worth $25 million in 2007.

“She’s a pretty interesting person in her own right,” said Bruce Duncan, a professor with a film background.

He was teaching at the University of Vermont about three years ago when he began scouting around for a new project. He spotted an ad on Monster.com for a managing director position with the Bristol-based Terasem Movement Foundation, one of two organizations Rothblatt created to carry out her plans. He scored the job.

In September, he was on assignment at the International Film Festival in Toronto looking for a film distributor (“All world rights are still available,” he said) for Rothblatt’s movie, TransBeMan. He also shopped the film in Cannes, France, and hopes to show it at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, along with the Berlin International Film Festival.

“Because of her business, she’s always interested in the leading edge of where technology and biology and computer sciences is going,” said Duncan, a recent convert to Rothblatt’s way of thinking. He happily admits it’s all intriguing, even if the premise sounds a little odd.

Though technology is already merging with biology through artificial limbs attached to nerves and the like, a complete merger is definitely still a science-fiction kind of concept. Rothblatt, 53, seems to understand this.

TransBeMan is described as a “post-modern fable about the world’s first Bio Electric Hybrid Human, society’s reaction and the emergence of ‘Fleshism’ as a new form of racism.” It stars James Remar ( Dexter) and Kevin Corrigan (TV’s The Black Donnellys). It’s meant to be entertaining, but also educational. “Advance copies of the film for critics and industry professionals should be available by the end of the month, Duncan said.

The media-shy Rothblatt declined to talk on these topics, saying she spends less than 1 percent of her time on the issues, though she’s invested more than $1 million in them by funding the foundation, according to 2006 tax records.

Instead, she designated Ray Kurzweil her spokesman. He’s on the board of directors at United Therapeutics and producing/directing a movie version of his most recent book - The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology - through one of Terasem’s many divisions.

He “is extremely credible, more engaged than me & Im totally in sync with him,” she said in a message sent from her iPhone.

“I think she shares my view of death as a tragedy,” said Kurzweil, an author and entrepreneur who received the National Medal of Technology from Bill Clinton in 1999 for “pioneering and innovative achievements in computer science,” according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

“One of the things that’s lost, aside from the relationships, is all of this knowledge and wisdom and skill and learning, and that’s really what the Terasem foundation is seeking to preserve,” he said.

There are actually two Terasem foundations, the Terasem Movement Foundation Inc. in Vermont, and the Terasem Movement Inc. in Satellite Beach, Fla. Each maintains a Web site devoted to creating digital versions of the human race. Why two? To hedge her bet, said Nick Mayer, cyberbiological systems at the Terasem Movement Foundation.

“In sort of the same way that salmon lay millions of eggs [to ensure at least] a few survive, we have different perspectives on the same problems, there’s kind of this competitive edge,” Mayer said.

On the Vermont side is Lifenaut.com, an older social-networking site that even sells its own logo-laden gear, including T-shirts designed for dogs. It claims about 7,500 members. On the Florida front is the newer CyBeRev.org which Rothblatt, in her video, said stands for “cybernetic beingness revival.”

Through the Web sites, people can post pictures, video, blogs, memories, psychological test results - basically anything you can put on MySpace and Facebook. Then, after you die, researchers hope to be able to use that information to create a digital “mindfile” of you, which would be broadcast into space to live eternally, but also turned into software that could be put into a robotic, holographic or even cellular body.

High on creativity meter

In her Lifenaut profile posted online, based on results from a personality test, Rothblatt scored high in imagination, happiness, creativity and stability. Rationality, sympathy and understanding were on the lower ends.

In November, she posted an audio file of someone named Temple singing while Rothblatt plays piano in Silver Spring; in April, she posted a video of herself walking on a frozen lake with a dog. There’s a video of her doing tai chi in Florida and one of her daughter dancing the rhumba. She’s included pictures of swimming with the dolphins in Bermuda and a first-birthday haircut given by Grandpa Sam.

She describes herself as a “happy promoter of futurist concepts,” who enjoys technology, astronomy and geopolitics, along with the band Santana. Both Star Trek and The Dick Van Dyke shows are favorites. So is Kurzweil; he’s listed under “Heroes” alongside Carl Sagan and Frederick Douglass, among others.

She’s blogged about her aunt’s death, team solidarity at work and Barack Obama, whom she says makes her “so happy” because he “gives so much hope for the world.”

These are the memories she’s working to preserve, the details that would make up her mindfile and her digital being in the future.

It seems to be something that’s more for the survivors than those who die, though. You won’t experience the new experiences of your cyber consciousness. In fact, Kurzweil and Rothblatt believe the cyber-you should be considered a separate individual with its own set of civil rights.

“It’s a deeply philosophical issue,” Kurzweil said.

Terasemfaith.org, the Internet home base for Terasem Movement Transreligion Inc., describes Rothblatt’s religion as one that believes “God emerges as technology becomes increasingly omnipresent, omniscient, omnificient and omnipotent,” and that “technology will soon enable joyful immortality.”

Selmer Bringsjord is skeptical. He’s the director of Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning Laboratory at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

Such concepts have “been around a long time,” he said, though they weren’t seriously talked about among engineers, more by philosophers. But as global warming worries grow, biological threats mount and weapons become more sophisticated, the idea has taken on a new urgency, Bringsjord says. “At any moment, all consciousness could be extinguished,” Rothblatt said in the 2006 video. “Through an asteroidal collision, a cometary collision, a supernova collision, a gamma ray burst, a mega nuclear holocaust that could wipe out life, a biologically engineered virus that wipes out life, a mega volcano,” she said. “We live in a dangerous universe.”

Exploring these issues is fair, Bringsjord said, though he hasn’t seen any evidence that anything meaningful can ever be achieved.

“The benefit is that it’s raising big issues or what is life and people and so forth,” he said. “At least it raises the issues and allows us to talk about things.”

digital rebirth

Prolonging lives, perhaps eternally, has long been the stuff of science fiction. Martine Rothblatt’s vision of using computers and software to do this is the latest incarnation. Her projects include:

http://terasemweb.org

Terasemweb.org is the Internet home base for Rothblatt’s Terasem Movement Transreligion Inc. It describes Rothblatt’s religion as one that believes that “technology will soon enable joyful immortality.”

http://lifenaut.com

A social-networking Web site launched by Rothblatt, it claims about 7,500 members.

http://cyberev.org

On this site, people can post pictures, video and more. Theoretically, researchers can use this information to create a digital “mindfile” of the person, which could be broadcast into space or turned into software.

http://unither.com/utcabout.asp

Rothblatt founded this biotech company to find a treatment for her daughter’s rare, life-threatening disease. Today, Silver Spring-based United Therapeutics has a stock market value of about $2.6 billion.