The Post-human Distinction

The topic of what makes a post-human came up in the recent meeting and, like any good discussion, no consensus was reached.

A wolf-dog hybrid

Rob brought up a biological distinction: if one group of beings can trace their lineage back to humans, but can no longer reproduce with humans, then they are post-human. In evolutionary terms, this is speciation (like humans from ancient apes); it takes millions of years, therefore irrelevant to my interest. Even if we work hard at it, through selective breeding practices, it would still take many thousands of years. A poodle can breed with a mastiff. A dog can breed with a wolf with little loss in fertility.

What if a group of people have the technology to alter their bodies in a way that they can no longer have reproduce with un-altered humans? If they have the means to do that, then they can certainly find a way to enable what the techies call "backward compatibility". Use artificial sperm or external gestation chambers if they have to.

So what makes someone post-human?

Will enhancements make us post-human? No. Go through the list of comic book superheroes. Which one is post-human? None of them! If you can describe someone as "human with this special ability" then he or she is still human. Even Superman.

This is a man with superpowers.

Being stronger or smarter doesn't make you post-human. Seeing in the dark? No. Can fly? No. Doesn't age? Nope. Teleport? No but getting closer. Shapeshifter? Almost, but not quite. A cat that talks and thinks and acts like a human is not a cat. That's just a human who looks like a cat.

What is human anyway? Describe to an alien what it's like to be human. Tell them what their medical sensors can not detect: the human experience. We see in colors and shapes and shades, hear sounds and tones and words, touch hot and cold and textures; we feel pain and pleasure, smell coffee and the rain. We can love and hate and be sad or happy. We can remember things that happened in third grade English class. We forget to water the plants. We make terrible mistakes and regret them. We can learn and think and imagine, and we can express ourselves in so many ways. That's what makes us human. It doesn't matter if we are made of cells and DNA, or if we are bits of code in the Matrix. The human experience is platform-independent.

This is a post-human. Not her, the blue one.

Dr. Manhattan (from The Watchmen) is probably the most well known example of a post-human in the media. Here he is, having sex with Laurie. He's in two bodies for double the fun! But he's also in the lab working at the same time. He's also on Mars. I can tell you what he's doing, but nobody can tell you what it is actually like to be in those multiple bodies at the same time. You can't even imagine that experience; try it. Oh, he is also in the future and in the past. Not just see the future and the past - anybody can imagine that. The future-self and past-self are all one single perspective. So he's actually having sex with Laurie in multiple time-instants, simultaneously!

Being post-human is about having experiences that can not be shared by regular humans. Try describing Picasso's paintings to someone who has always been blind. Tell a deaf person what a piano sonata sounds like. Futile! Every time we talk, we assume the other person is hearing, thinking, feeling; we just take for granted that they see life mostly in the same way we do. From a slightly different perspective, sure, but most of it is the same. A blind person can still hear, and taste, and get lonely. What happens if a huge part of your experiences can not be communicated to others, because they simply can't comprehend it? You'd be a post-human.

It doesn't mean that you have to give up any human senses or emotions. They would just be a small fraction of your life. Compare a dog's life with mine: we can both run around and get tired; we can both feel hungry or full. I didn't give up any of those animal urges. But I spend my time working, and thinking, and planning. And I can laugh at jokes. If a dog can laugh at jokes, it will be a post-dog.

Review of Mr. Green: why sci-fi needs to grow up

Remember my post about giving people the power of photosynthesis? Someone already made a short film about it; Mr. Green by Greg Pak is a movie from the site Future States, and it's been described as "thoughtful, intelligent sci-fi". I disagree. At best, it's a poorly-researched and misguided attempt at environmental activism; at worst, it's the kind of fear-mongering that we've all seen in the machine-uprising movies, but without any cool robots.

Recap (Spoilers ahead): Climate change is real, and it's too late to fix it.. Attractive female scientist just lost funding for her project, so she seduces the head of the appropriate government agency, takes him to her hotel room, drugs him (why the date rape undertone here?), infects him with a virus that gives him plant-like powers. He finds out next morning when he sees that his hair is starting to turn green. So he confronts her, and she convinces him by spewing irrelevant data and showing him how nice it is to be a plant. Having been recruited, he spreads the green virus to other important government figures.

The poorly-researched: Sea levels are unlikely to rise by more than 1 meter until 2100. Even if it does by the year 2020, the US will be fine; we can wall it off like in New Orleans (hopefully without Katrina type failures). Besides, once past the tipping point, carbon emissions will be the least of our worries, and might not make much difference at all.

The misguided: "End the consumption of meat in America and you reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by..." What kind of selfish, America-centric thinking is this? So much of the world won't even have food, let alone meat. The poorest countries will be the hardest hit by climate change. Low-lying regions like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and India might lose access to farmland and fresh water, and without ability to rebuild their infrastructure, millions could starve. On the other hand, America will continue to have plenty of food, since our grain and corn belts are far inland and the Mississippi River does not originate from a glacier.

Her technology can ensure that the less fortunate will never face starvation. Her cause should be a humanitarian one, not environmental. I don't care if it will make people feel more connected to nature.

The fear-mongering: Bio-terrorism is not the best way to push an environmental agenda. If her tech is so amazing, why didn't she tell people about it, give them a choice, sell it to them? So it worked on that guy she met at the bar; does she really think that the President will be happy if someone tampers with his genes? No; she'd be arrested and the CDC will take away one of the most important inventions ever. She can wave that Nobel Prize goodbye.

Is the filmmaker confusing angst with idealism? Or does he think that scientists are entirely unaware of ethics? What is the message here?

And if the movie is actually a warning about the dangers of bio-engineering, well, I've had enough of "beware the new technology" stories, especially ones with the stereotypical misguided mad scientist. At least Terminator had badass robots. The transhumanist technology in Mr. Green has the potential to save millions of lives; don't fuck it up with a juvenile and misguided message.

From scratch: algorithmic complexity

I feel like reiterating a point from my last post. The code that describes a human being has very little impact on the actual complexity of a mature human being. Here's a math example for you:

Circumference divided by diameter.

Those four words encode the infinite number of digits of pi (perhaps you've seen videos of a 10th grader reciting it out to 10 thousand digits). Four words precisely and uniquely defines an object of infinite length, which has an infinite amount of data in it. The length of that description is called Kolmogorov complexity, or algorithmic complexity.

You can write a finite length computer program (less than 100 lines of code) that will calculate pi out to arbitrary length. It will run on its own without any additional input, and spit out millions and millions of digits. Human beings, while inside the womb, develop the same way! That genetic code of the baby will unfold itself and generate something far more complex: bones, muscles, organs, integrated nervous system, brain, blood vessels, all of it.

(Heck, we're all probably described in the digits of Pi somewhere. Infinity is a funny thing.)

From scratch

Internet arguments, the best kind of arguments! Transhumanists rallied to defend Kurzweil after PZ Meyer's harsh assault on his blog post "Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain". Kurzweil himself responded with a thoughtful analysis.

The argument centers on one question: "how much information is needed to (reverse) engineer a brain?" Kurzweil guesses about 50 megabytes. Myers says that 50 meg is not enough because A) brain function is very complex and we don't understand most of it; B) the brain is made of billions of cells that all interact with each other, with proteins and other chemicals, and those interactions can not be compressed digitally to a small size.

Point A is silly: we don't need to know how something works to build it. Even Kurzweil made this mistake in his reply. The Wright brothers, who built the first airplane, were high school drop-outs and bicycle mechanics; they probably have never heard of Bernoulli's principle of fluid dynamics, nor did they need to. The first humans who built boats did not need to know why they float. Mothers do not need to know how a brain works to gestate a fully-functional human brain (and the baby!) in 9 months.

For point B, Myer is attacking a strawman; he didn't see Kurzweil's full presentation and assumed that the claim was about an adult brain. Think of the distinction as the difference between an out-of-the-factory computer, and the one you have in front of you. The argument brings up a very good question though: how much information is required to build a brain from scratch? How long would that recipe be?

Let's look at how babies are made. Sperm meets egg to form a complete genetic blueprint. That's all that Kurzweil's analysis covers, and it brings us to 50 megs of data. How much more data goes into brain development between fertilization and birth? What about all the proteins and fluids and chemical gradients? Chemical change is slow, on the order of minutes at least. I'll guestimate around 1000 different chemicals and proteins in the mother's womb / blood, each of which can change its concentration in 10 minutes. That gives a bitrate of 2^10 (number of chemicals) * 20 (bits needed to describe gradient levels) / 2^10 (seconds) = 20 bit/sec. That times 9 months gives a total of 50 megs sent, through chemical signaling, to the fetus.

Does the fetus get information in any other way? There are no nerves in the umbilical cord, so the fetus's brain is not connected to the mother's in any way. The only other way for a fetus to gain information is from its own senses. Are the fetus's senses active? It would not see or smell anything. But what about touch and sound? 9 months of aural input would add up to a lot of data. Here, we have to limit the input to what is specified by the mother's biology; that means music is not required for brain development. What about the mother's heartbeat and breathing sounds? Maybe. But that repetitive noise only adds minimal amounts of data.

What about all the complex chemical reactions inside individual cells? They don't matter. Treat the fetus's brain as one complete entity; the amount of information in its design is equal to the amount of information that goes into it, either from the original gametes, or from the environment of the womb. Everything else, the fetus does on its own. From scratch means we don't have to look any deeper than chemicals and proteins and genes. Put these components together in this specific way: sperm + egg + chemical environment = healthy, functional baby. No quantum physics required!

Let's look computers now and compare; how much information is required to create the latest gadget?  The blueprint of the latest gen Iphone, I'm guessing, is about 10 meg to 100 meg (I've seen cpu design docs around 1 meg uncompressed). Well I can't build one with just the design blueprint; I need the right parts! Add the docs for CPU, LCD screen, antenna, etc. I'll still need the right machines to build all those things! Add blueprints for the machines and the factory. What about the materials? How do I get a hold of germanium? Add in mining equipments, refining processes, prospecting, transportation, etc etc. Where does this end? From scratch means we can just stop there. Sure, there's probably an entire library of physics and engineering books that outline the operating principles of mobile phones and computers, but that's not needed to build one. All we need is the chain of blueprints that will get us from rock to phone.

Carrying capacity

"Carrying capacity, at its most basic level, is about organisms and food supply, where "X" amount of humans need "Y" amount of food to survive. If the humans neither gain or lose weight in the long run, the calculation is fairly accurate." - Wikipedia

Because I adore this kind of calculation, here is the theoretical maximum capacity of Earth, if everybody became vegan:

(1.74000 × (10^17) W * 0.05) / (2000 (kilocalories per day)) = 8.98279159 × 10^13

First number is the total power from sunlight. 5% is the efficiency of photosynthesis for growing plants. 2000 Calories a day is how much energy each person eats. Well over ten trillion people.

If we discount any genetic engineered plants that can grow in the oceans (which would require massive ecosystem changes) and only count arable land (41.4 million square kilometers):

(((((1.36600 kilowatts) per square meter) * (41.4 million square kilometers)) /
2) * 0.05) / (2000 kilocalories per day) = 1.45976558 × 10^13

The first number is the solar constant (amount of light per sq meter). Divide arable land mass by 2 to account for day/night cycle. Rest of calculation is the same. Still about 10 trillion people.

I've totally ignored factors like the supply of fresh water that's required to grow crops. The water factor places a hard limit on the amount of plants that can grow, unless:
(a) Genetically modify plants to use salt water.
(b) Cheaper desalinization.
(c) Create more rainfall.
There's significant research into both approaches.

Australia

(A dialogue with a friend)

"Did you know that eucalyptus oil is hallucinogenic?"
"Bullshit, they sell that stuff in vitamin stores."
"No no, it doesn't work for humans. It's only hallucinogenic to koala bears. It's some kind of evolutionary adaptation. They chew on the eucalyptus leaves and get high all day long. Haven't you seen them, just chilling up in the trees doing nothing? They're like the stoners of the animal kingdom."
"Right, of course you would know about that."
"No, it's true! My friend from Australia told me..."
"Ha! Australia. Australia isn't real."
"What?"
"Australia is just a place made up for those silly TV shows and movies. 'Adventure Down Under!' or some BS like that. 'A mysterious, lost continent in the middle of the Pacific ocean, full of wonderful, fantastic animals and hallucinogenic plants! Aboriginal natives with strange costumes... errr, and customs!' Didn't I read something about people finding dinosaurs there once? Ha!"
"There WERE dinosaurs in Australia, millions of years ago."
"Oh yes, truly a land before time!"
"Don't be silly. Look on any map. Australia, it's there."
"Being on a map doesn't mean it's true. There were maps that showed dragons in those oceans. Columbus sailed using a map that showed China and India in the place of the Americas. Even today there are maps that show Greenland as bigger than the United States. Maps are horribly distorted. Can't rely on them."
"Haven't you seen pictures of Sydney? What about the opera house?"
"Pssh, pictures can be faked so easily. As for the Opera house... Did you know there's an Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas? There's a Statue of Liberty in Paris."
"I know, but the Eiffel Tower in Vegas isn't the REAL Eiffel Tower."
"Oh, it's real. I've been to Vegas."
"No, I mean it's not THE Eiffel Tower. It's just a reproduction."
"What makes it any less Eiffel than the one in Paris?"
"Because it... look, we're going off topic here. How about kangaroos? Koala bears? Those animals don't live anywhere else in the world!"
"The only kangaroos I've seen live right here, at the city zoo. I've never seen koala bears. They could be midgets in fursuits for all I know."
"Fine. The fact is, Australia is a country where millions of people live. Real people."
"Have you met all those millions of people in Australia?"
"Yes! I mean no, not all, but I have a friend who grew up in Australia. The one I told you about."
"You mean he TOLD you he grew up in Australia. You weren't with him when he was growing up, were you?"
"She, but why would she lie to me? She even has an accent."
"Oy! G'day mate! Like that?"
"Sure but not fake sounding."
"Is she the only Australian you know personally?"
"Mm, yes."
"Then how can you be sure she has a genuine Australian accent?"
"Well, I've seen Australian actors in movies. Russell Crowe is Australian."
"He didn't have any accent in Gladiator. In 3:10 to Yuma he had an American cowboy drawl. Does that make him a genuine American?"
"Sigh... So you going to tell me next that the Moon landing is fake? That it was just a movie filmed on a sound stage in Hollywood?"
"No, I believe the Moon landings happened. But all the 'Australian' scenes in movies and shows are filmed elsewhere. Maybe New Mexico, or Nevada. You know, like how those early Clint Eastwood movies are called 'Spaghetti Westerns' because they were shot in Italy."
"I see what you're doing here. You say you don't believe Australia exists. You want me to prove it. Well, I've given you all this evidence already..."
"You've given me second and third-hand information. I would hardly call that evidence."
"... and there's way more evidence for Australia than the moon landings. Look, look at this, they have Fosters beer here, exported from Australia. So how can you believe in the moon landings and not Australia?"
"I rather like the idea of human beings walking on a celestial body."
"What does your personal preference have to do with existence or reality? You're acting like ostriches that bury their head in the sand."
"My friend Jimbo, he learned all about evolution from school. He doesn't believe it though, despite all the scientific evidence. He was raised Christian and prefers the Bible."
"Oh please, you don't have any friends called Jimbo. And if Jimbo is real you'd be as stupid as he is."
"Come on now! Jimbo would be hurt! He's a cool guy; he said he's Australian."

"OK, isn't there any authority on the matter that you would trust? What about geography lessons in school? Don't you trust your teachers? How about an encyclopedia? There are articles about Australian history and economy and culture, filled with verifiable facts. Surely you can trust that! "
"There is an article about the history, government and culture of the Klingon Empire too, probably with more pictures and references than the Australian article. And the Klingon have their own language. You can buy Hamlet, the original Klingon version. The people who made up Australia didn't even bother to give them a language. All they got were some stoned animals and a crappy beer."
"Australians speak English because it was an English prison colony."
"Very convenient."
"What about Occam's Razor? Is it likely that almost everybody in the world share this delusion of an imaginary continent? Or, more simply, you are the one who's delusional and you're the one in stubborn denial?"
"Occam's Razor is hardly a proof. You can't even use that in court. All you've shown me is that most people believe in the existence of Australia (and I can question your claim there). Someone once said that he would believe in a miracle if it is more miraculous for the report to be false. What if your friend told you that in Australia, rocks can float on water? You would think he is joking. What if two friends told you that? What if everyone you know tells you about floating rocks? Now, the majority of Americans believe in miracles and angels. Most human beings believe there is an afterlife, whether it be heaven, hell, reincarnation, whatever. And I'm guessing none of them have been to heaven."
"But that's different..."
"Personally, I do not believe in miracles, or angels, or an afterlife. As I see it, if the majority of people are deluded about heaven and hell, what makes them any more trustworthy on the subject of Australia? It would be completely arbitrary for me to trust people in one testimony and not the other. Why do some subscribe to the teachings of Jesus instead of Mohammed or Confucius? Why do they believe in the Christian God and not Xenu? Why Australia and not Heaven? It all comes down to faith, a personal belief, a preference. "
"You can't compare Australia to Heaven. People have actually been to Australia and come back. You can go visit Australia yourself, right now if you want. Get a plane ticket, fly over, convince your damned, sacrilegious self."
"I can go to Heaven right now too, or more likely, Hell. I prefer to stay right here though. Besides, I can't afford to fly anywhere; I'm just a poor writer."

Hedonism and Utopia

What is utopia? Not the fake ones in stories like Brave New World, but one that you personally want to live in. Here's what I imagine (somewhat in line with David Pearce's neo-hedonism and Yudkowsky's Fun Theory):

It's a typical day; you're walking down the street. You feel happy, safe, comfortable, free. You're going to meet someone to start a new and interesting project together. The weather is beautiful, and you walk a little bit faster because you feel empowered, like there's nothing you can't do. Yes. Suddenly you hear someone whistling, and you recognize that it is your favorite song. You feel an instant connection to that person, and your day just got a hundred times better.

Let's savor that for a moment before I start breaking down the different components.

Typical day: It's not a good life if we are miserable 364 days a year, and then have 24 hours of ecstasy. I'm not saying we should be happy all the time, but the typical, normal mode of being should feel good.

Walking, happy, safe, comfortable, free: These are the basics. Physically fit and mobile. Not depressed. Not anxious, threatened, or feel danger. Not in physical pain. Not oppressed or coerced to do things we don't want to do. You'd be surprised how many so-called utopia fail one or more of these. Except for the "free" part, all these needs can be reinforced medically. 

Rob mentioned that as he gets older, the looming mortality starts to cause more anxiety; so yes, death is a threat to any utopia.

Meet someone: We should have support and feedback from friends, colleagues, loved ones; we are social creatures. More than emotional support, we need someone who can understand us and understand what we care about. There are drugs that help social anxiety disorders.

New and interesting project: We need goals, something to get us out of bed in the morning, something to look forward to. It doesn't have to involve making anything; learning a new skill or going to see a concert or beating a game can easily suffice. There are drugs that can raise the level of focus and motivation. Yudkowsky proposed that the tasks and goals need to be complex to be fun. I won't make that restriction though; some people find a lot of pleasure in repetitive tasks.

Empowered: It is important to feel in control of one's life, and beyond that, to make a difference in the world, to contribute and leave a mark. Motivation and empowerment are closely related to the dopamine pathways in the brain; cocaine and meth both stimulate these circuits, as do some ADHD medication.

Weather, whistling, favorite song: Whatever stimulates our senses should feel better, shinier, more enjoyable, or different in an interesting way. Those who had taken Ecstasy (MDMA) or LSD can testify. There's a connection here to art and creativity as well.

Instant connection: Empathy (and emotional connections in general) should be required for any utopia; we definitely don't want a society full of psychopaths. Greater empathy leads to better relationships and may even cure that modern plague of loneliness and alienation. Watch the movie Equilibrium for an example of a future without empathy.

So how is this transhumanism? I feel that one of the weaknesses of a progressive transhumanist stance is the lack of qualitative goals. Sure, it would be easy to point at progress made in life-extension, or intelligence augmentation, or cybernetics. But what would you say if someone asks that dreaded question: "how would that make our lives better?" or simply "Why?"  How can you even answer that without knowing what a "better life" involves? Let's figure this out!