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!

Some drink to remember, some to forget

Looks like I can't be too dismissive of the subtleties of drugs. According to this article, alcohol helps us focus our attention on what's in front of us. It lets us sink into anguish when drinking alone; it lets us indulge in the pleasure of company. It frees us from distractions like our insecurities, inhibitions, indecisiveness, and the whole litter of personal demons that nag at a sober mind. I think Homer Simpson said it best: "To alcohol: the cause of and solution to all of life's problems."

Let's generalize what we want from drugs, because that will help us look past chemical solutions.

Escape: When trapped under pain, suffering, oppression, depression, it's natural to look for a way out. If there's a button you can push to make it stop, you'd push it. That's simple enough, but I'm sure you've heard of the saying "treating the symptom and not the cause."

Change. How can we treat the causes then? We change ourselves and mold our environment, so instead of  just feeling better, we will become better. We learn and build and make things work the way we want; that effort makes us feel empowered and gives us a sense of purpose.

What will happen when drugs (and other technologies) offer us shortcuts? Will it undermine our effort and erode our identity as human beings? There may be more practical concerns too: will shortcuts that let us alter our own goals lead to mental instability?

Feel. "Stop and smell the roses" sounds cliche, but it points to one of the main factors for happiness. Drugs can give us a new appreciation of our senses. Instead of always chasing after an ideal, we take the time to enjoy the things we have.

Control. So much stress and anxiety comes from feeling out of control, not only of external circumstances, but also of your own mental and emotional state. The Penfield Mood Organ from Philip K Dick's famous Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep enables a user to tweak his own mind with incredible precision. Though  that kind of control may not be possible with drugs, we will definitely see a trend in neuropharma toward greater diversity and narrower focus of effects (just because that will be bring in more profits).

Bandwidth of your brain

How much bandwidth does it take to run a completely convincing virtual environment for one person? The answer is surprisingly small. In Consciousness Explained, Dennett claims that an "interactive smello-feelo television would have an astronomical bandwidth" (6); he didn't bother to estimate how astronomical. If you've ever studied physics, you'd be familiar with this kind of estimation: a Fermi problem. Let's play:

A Blu-ray disk outputs a maximum of 40 Mbit/s; it's the best quality video for the general consumer, and it's just about as good as our eyes can see. Blu-ray has surround-sound audio too, so the 40 Mbit/s covers two of our senses: sight and hearing.

Smell and taste are both slower and less sensitive than hearing, and way less than vision. We can distinguish something that's flashing once per second from something that's flashing once per half second. We can easily tell when a musician switches from one time signature to another. But have you ever smelled something that pulsates every second? 10 Mbit/s should cover both smell and taste, and that's being generous.

Proprioception is even simpler. The body has 200ish bones and a similar number of joints. At each moment we are aware of the angle of each of those joints. We are also aware of how tense each of  those skeletal muscles are. A virtuoso piano player can hit about 20 notes per second, and she must know exactly where her fingers are; that gives 20*200*16 = 64 kbit/s, with the 16 bits encoding the angle.

That just leaves touch: pressure, pain, and heat. Skin is the biggest sensory organ in the body, but is it more sensitive than sight? We can feel tiny vibrations and locate pressure with pin-prick precision, especially near our hands and lips. I think 50 Mbit/s would suffice for the entire body (including those extra sensitive parts :)

What about output? The only interesting way of sending information is through our muscles. Yes, I'm going to exclude any excretion of bodily fluids. We have 600ish skeletal muscles which can be moved at about 20 times per second, with varying levels of contraction. That's only about 1 Mbit/s. It's not surprising that our sensory input is 100 times greater than output. You'll probably find the same ratio if you look at your computer's network usage.

So that adds up to about 100 Mbit/s, give or take a factor of 10. In comparison, the current wireless LAN protocol (802.11n) has a max data rate of 600 Mbit/s: more than enough to saturate every one of our senses. All we need is a modem to convert digital signal to the right impulses, and splice it into our nerves.

 Yes, you can kick ass in the Matrix through an 802.11n wireless network.

What about Dennett's other objection, that interactive simulations will take more bandwidth? That is actually a mistake; I have already covered all the input and output channels of a human brain, and analyzed the total bandwidth. Interactivity with the environment is a result of the laws of physics: gravity, thermodynamics, light, solids and liquids, etc. Calculating the result of you throwing a rock into a pond will not demand any more bandwidth; this simulation only requires processing power. Today, we have graphics chips (from nVidia and ATI)  that can produce real-time, nearly realistic rendering of scenes; these chips use specialized circuits to compute the way light interacts with matter. Those same companies are also making specialized physics chips that can simulate how pieces of matter interact with each other.

What's the hold-up then? Why aren't we hooking our brains up to virtual worlds yet?

Oh, right.

The Dating Algorithm

Dating, or pursuing a relationship, is an example of a stochastic search with simulated annealing algorithm. You work on improving your relationship, but sometimes you get stuck in a rut, in a local optimum. There might be new and wonderful experiences out there, but you can't see past what's in front of you. So, once in a small probability, you shake things up and take a risk. You try something new: different person, different place, different activity. The probability, related to the "temperature" parameter, decreases as you get older, until finally you stop taking those risks and settle down to that life, for better or worse.

(Note to self: I should make an animation of this algorithm.)

This post is a sneak peek at the next part of the hedonism series: Relationship engineering.

Soma madness!

Let's imagine the perfect drug.

(This is part 2 of the hedonism series. Put your party hats on!)

First, it shouldn't have any unwanted side effects. No physical impairment (drunk), no addiction or physical dependence (heroin), no long term impact on your body (cancer from smoking), no bad trips, no risk of overdose, no withdrawal symptoms, no buildup of tolerance.

Thanks to advances in biochemistry, we know why these side effects occur. For example, a chemical called dynorphin blocks the reward pathway in your brain, inhibiting you from feeling the same pleasure over and over. If you use cocaine repeatedly, your brain makes more dynorphin and you won't get the same high you got when you started. Addiction is more complicated, but there's no reason why we can't figure out a cure.

So the perfect drug has no nasty side effects, but what can it do for you?

The pleasure drugs: These are the ones that directly stimulate the reward centers of your brain: new forms of heroin, oxycotin, morphine, drugs that wash away pain and turns your pleasure dial up beyond what is natural. It doesn't have to be a chemical substance either; scientists have successfully hooked up electrode to the spinal nerve of disabled patients and use it to trigger orgasms. If possible, electrical brain stimulation (wireheading) may provide a safer and cleaner high than chemicals.

But getting high is boring, one-dimensional. It's a solitary and selfish experience; you can't share it with other people in any meaningful way. Press a button, take a dose, and you'll be checking out of reality, floating through outer space, alone. There's not much else you can do when the intense artificial pleasure eclipses all other feelings. What might that do to your psyche? Look:

A portrait of loneliness: Kurt Cobain spent his last years struggling with heroin addiction; this was him on a good day.

The mood drugs: These drugs affect you in subtler, but more diverse ways. Unlike the pleasure pills, you'll stay grounded in reality, but your mood, personality and motivations are shifted in the designed direction.

Shown here in a common delivery device, caffeine is the second most popular drug in the world.

They can make a depressed person happier (Zoloft, Prozac), calm your anxieties and ease your stress;  they can make you friendlier (Ecstasy), more open and empathic, lower your inhibitions (alcohol); they can make you more motivated, focused (Ritalin, Adderall), raise your alertness (caffeine); they can make you feel safer and more secure, more trustful (oxytocin), increase your libido (testosterone), and even make you fall in love.

Yes, love; read the wireheading article and take note: "Repetition of these stimulations made the patient more communicative and flirtatious, and she ended by openly expressing her desire to marry the therapist." Dr. Paul Zak has also found link between the chemical oxytocin and feelings of social trust and attachment to lovers, to friends, to children, to God.

So you can become fitter, happier, more productive, comfortable, but is there an upper limit? That's what David Pearce asks, and he postulates a future where our level of well-being far exceeds what we feel today, a sublime happiness. What that would be like I can barely imagine. But I know that in the future, "not in the mood" will no longer be a hindrance; I can be in the mood, any mood, as long as I want to. That's freedom of self-expression.

But mood drugs are imprecise; they depend on the action of chemicals like serotonin that paints a broad spectrum of effects. It won't engage any higher-level mental concepts, only your gut-feelings. No wistful reminiscence, no bittersweet goodbyes, no victorious thrills. Though these drugs can prime you to enjoy living, you still have to go outside and actually do it. That brings us to the third kind...

The sensory drugs: These can make what you do feel better by enhancing and distorting your senses. In addition to their positive effects on mood, MDMA (Ecstasy) and methaqualone (quaaludes) can enhance your sensations of touch, making sex more pleasurable and intense. Mushrooms , mescaline, LSD, and other hallucinogens can change your perception in profound ways. Some color-blind people have even reported being able to see color while under the effects of LSD.

Depiction of the very first LSD trip: chemist Albert Hofmann biked home after taking ten times the regular dose.

So imagine that special occasion when you want the food and wine to taste a bit more delicious, the lights and the smile to look more vivid, the touch and the kiss to be more sensual, and everything basking in the soft glow of a heightened appreciation for reality. Think of a dance party, the music, the rhythm and movement. Think of running or swimming or biking and the incredible sense of freedom and speed you can get from just normal, everyday activities. You won't have to jump off mountains get that thrill!

You may have noticed that I've skipped over something between getting in the right mood and experiencing enhanced sensations. In this giant gap of the story is where we actually live our lives, where we work and learn and play. In here lies the difference between the false utopia of Brave New World, and the rich, varied, and fulfilling future you and I want to live in. And that's where I'll explore in the next part of Hedonism for the Transhuman.

Random thoughts and links:

• You know what I want? A reset button: something that can roll back your brain to a saved state. That way I can satisfy my curiosity on whatever I wish to try without worrying about any adverse and unforeseen effects. I get to keep all memories, but my emotional outlook, preferences, and goals can be safeguarded against unforeseen consequences. It's pure fantasy though.
  
  
• There's a major obstacle to what kind of chemicals we can put into our brains: the blood-brain barrier. It stops most cells, bacteria and large chemical molecules from entering the brain.
  
  
• Erowid.org has a comprehensive collection of facts, advice, and anecdotes about drug use.
  
  
• Neuroscientist Anjan Chatterjee has raised some ethical concerns about the future of pharmacological enhancements. I'll have to think about some of his objections to a drug-fueled society.