Topics covered may include:

How to Extend Your Life Now
The Coming Age of Abdundance
The Longevity Dividend
A Proposal for NASA
Reversing Alzheimer’s
A Genius-Friendly World?

Join us!

Wednesday, February 22 2012 7 PM PST / 10 PM EST

I always thought that exchange was a great example of hitting somebody over the head with the obvious. How interesting to learn that Carl Sagan’s “obvious” observation may, in fact, not be true:

“No Empty Space in the Universe” –Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space

New research concludes that instead of “edges,” galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to nearby galaxies and that the intergalactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.Researchers at the University of Tokyo’s Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) and Nagoya University used large-scale computer simulations and recent observational data of gravitational lensing to reveal how dark matter –which makes up about 22 percent of the present-day universe –is distributed around galaxies in a clumpy but organized manner.

Of course, if Sagan had said that the universe was made of galaxies and dark matter (not an idea that got a lot of attention back in those days), I’m sure Johnny would have thought of some comic possibilities there, too.

It’s interesting to think that the vast stretches of intergalactic space might actually have something in them — even if it’s something invisible and about which we seem to have a difficult time making meaningful statements. Check out the exchange on the Wikipedia dark matter discussion page concerning how much of the mass of the universe dark matter makes up versus how much of the matter in the universe it constitutes.

One interesting thing to note: as pointed out by one of the commenters, the Daily Galaxy headline quoted above appears to be an overstatement. There is about a billion light-year stretch of the universe that apparently really is empty space. No matter. No dark matter. Nothing.

So perhaps my headline should be revised to  ”It’s Always Something — Except When It Isn’t.”

So what is dark matter? And why is there an unbelievably big hole in the universe that doesn’t have anything in it? Questions such as these keep life interesting. It’s too bad they don’t come up on late-night talk shows any more.

Time crystals could behave almost like perpetual motion machines

As every young science student knows, moving objects have kinetic energy. But just how much energy does something need to move? In a new study, a pair of physicists has shown that it’s theoretically possible for a system in its lowest energy state, or ground state, to exhibit periodic motion. This periodically moving system can be thought of as the temporal equivalent of a crystal, which is defined by its spatial periodicity. What’s even more intriguing about these “time crystals” is that, by exhibiting motion at their state of lowest energy, they break a fundamental symmetry called time translation symmetry and become “perilously close” to looking like perpetual motion machines.

Sadly, we’ll have to file this either under “nothing to see here” or “not much to see here.”

First off, we don’t know that any of these systems existing in their lowest energy state and yet demonstrating periodic motion actually exist. It seems they could exist. And (this is potentially the most interesting part) we might be able to create them.

Secondly, even if we found one or created it, it would have to be a completely closed system. No energy going in, but none coming out, either — meaning our perputaul motion machine would not be able to do any work or produce any energy. It would just be a very interesting system.

Brain with Alzheimer’s (left) vs. normal brain (right)

Fasting can help protect against brain diseases, scientists say

Researchers at the National Institute on Ageing in Baltimore said they had found evidence which shows that periods of stopping virtually all food intake for one or two days a week could protect the brain against some of the worst effects of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other ailments.

“Reducing your calorie intake could help your brain, but doing so by cutting your intake of food is not likely to be the best method of triggering this protection. It is likely to be better to go on intermittent bouts of fasting, in which you eat hardly anything at all, and then have periods when you eat as much as you want,” said Professor Mark Mattson, head of the institute’s laboratory of neurosciences.

“In other words, timing appears to be a crucial element to this process,” Mattson told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver.

Cutting daily food intake to around 500 calories – which amounts to little more than a few vegetables and some tea – for two days out of seven had clear beneficial effects in their studies, claimed Mattson, who is also professor of neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

If you’re really serious about getting started with life extension, don’t miss Christine Peterson’s Personalized Life Extension Conference. Here’s our recent interview with Christine for those who missed it.

Cross-posted from Better All the Time.

Optimal vitamin D serum blood levels, attained through sunlight or supplementation, dramatically reduce the risk of many diseases other than bone maladies. Many of the most serious are ameliorated by an astonishing 50 to 85 percent. These diseases include cancers, from breast and colon to deadly melanoma skin cancers.

The big killers and most expensive diseases respond similarly to adequate D. I’m talking about hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. So do type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes (to a lesser extent), rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, autoimmune diseases, and apparently even viral diseases such as H1N1 and AIDS.

Want to live longer? Cut your chances of suffering from the afflictions listed above (and many others.) Make sure you’re getting enough Vitmain D.

Simple.

And if you’re really serious about getting started with life extensions, don’t miss Christine Peterson’s Personalized Life Extension Conference. Here’s our recent interview with Christine for those who missed it.

Before he goes batshit crazy for the grueling final couple of minutes, I kind of sympathize with this kid. He’s a transhumanist, really; he just doesn’t understand that New Age crapola will never get him to where he wants to be. In the future, human beings will far surpass Super Saiyans. But you can’t get there by willing yourself there. You have to…do stuff.

BTW, according the Dragonball Wiki, even in that fictional universe a Saiyan can’t just will himself to Super Saiyan status out of desire. You have to NEED to become one.

It will be a wonderful, life-improving technology. Unfortunately, most people are pretty grossed out by the idea. And it’s not hard to see why.

It sounds gross. Meat grown in vats? What is that, anyway? Yuck.

I wonder if the idea of meat growing on its own (ick) in vitro gives us an opportunity to know what our reaction to the idea of killing and eating animals would be if we had somehow never heard of that before. I think we would find the idea shocking and repulsive. (And I love meat.)

With all that in mind, I’m not too surprised by the general reaction to this story:

Food project proposes Matrix-style vertical chicken farms

Architecture student André Ford has proposed a new system for the mass production of chicken that removes the birds’ cerebral cortex so that they don’t experience the horrors of being packed together tightly in vertical farms.

Philosopher Paul Thompson from Purdue University has suggested ” The Blind Chicken Solution”. He argues that chickens blinded by “accident” have been developed into a strain of laboratory chickens that don’t mind being crowded together as much as normal chickens do. As a result, he argues, we should consider using blind chickens in food production as a solution to the problem of overcrowding in the poultry industry. He argues that it would be more humane to have blind chickens than ones that can see.

Ford goes a step further and proposes a “Headless Chicken Solution”. This would involve removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken to inhibit its sensory perceptions so that it could be produced in more densely-packed conditions without the associated distress. The brain stem for the chicken would be kept intact so that the homeostatic functions continue to operate, allowing it to grow.

Okay, we can all agree that both the description and the picture are kind of creepy.

Implementing such an approach would be a major step towards vat-grown chicken. If they were to develop a strain of chicken that lacks the neocortex to begin with, that would be even closer.

Closer, but not the same thing. This would still be a chicken, although a chicken modified to suffer less. But even with parts of its brain missing, there would still be arguments about what it is feeling, what it is experiencing, and so forth.

I find the comments on the linked story very interesting. A few snippets:

My sweet Lord -tell me this is an elaborate joke or a terrifying performance art project. If not then we are all truly doomed.

If we can just allow this kind of disgusting practice to go on…then where does it end?

Its [sic] times like these I feel ashamed to be the dominant species on this planet.

Well, here’s the deal, Sparky. Such an arrangement would actually represent a huge decrease in suffering as experienced by chickens raised for the sole purpose of being slaughtered. I don’t know what the quality of life is for any chicken — not from the inside, I mean  – but we can assume that some of the organic, free-range ones have it pretty good; others even in those categories, not so much. But the vast majority of chickens are treated in a manner we wouldn’t wish on any living creature. (Before I provide this link — you might not want to look at the pictures shown. Fair warning. Here’s the link.)

If André Ford’s idea seems gruesome and inhumane, it’s only because we have chosen not to deal with the gruesomeness and inhumanity of how these animals are currently treated.

Personally, I think it’s a good idea. A step in the right direction.

Cool.

Phil and Stephen discuss life in a world where everything, or almost everything, has become a coffee shop.

Wednesday February 15, 7 PM PST 10 PM EST

1. Education will end up being dominated by a few huge incumbents.

   I agree. Salmon Khan of Khan Academy said in a recent speech that if Sir Isaac Newton had been able to make youtube videos explaining calculus, then he wouldn’t have to. Of course a modern video would be better for modern students than something straight from Isaac Newton, but his point is that great instruction can persist. It can stick around and compete with other great instruction years from now.

   And this won’t require the armies of professors we have today. Just a few elite instructors – or universities – could service multitudes of online students. There will be some non-traditional players in this new field: Apple, through iTunes University, could potentially become a bigger educational provider than traditional institutions like MIT.

2. Online education will kill the liberal arts degree

   McArdle is careful not to make a value judgement about the degree. She is simply stating that Liberal Arts is uniquely difficult to test objectively. I agree with that but would argue that “Kill” is too strong a word. The Liberal Arts degree will diminish in importance. And that would be a good outcome. The future needs more STEM students.

3. Professors (course developers) will be selected for teaching instead of research brilliance

   I disagree. Certainly the elite few professors who actually teach will be selected for teaching brilliance. But research and engineering will be THE work that remains. It is likely that research brilliance will be one of the few qualifications that surviving universities will value.

4. 95% of tenure-track professors will lose their jobs.

   I agree. The entire tenure system will fall. First, because there simply won’t be the need for very many instructors. Second, there won’t be the same need for tenure. Today we give tenure to academics for the same reason that Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. We, as a society, value independence in both our judges and professors. We don’t want professors to be afraid of teaching something that is politically incorrect or controversial. That protection will simply not be needed where lectures are no longer spontaneous. If a professor says something too outlandish, it probably would end up on the cutting room floor.

5. The corollary of #4 is the end of universities as research centers.

   I disagree for the reasons I gave in #3.

6. Young job-seekers will need new ways to signal diligence.

   I disagree in part. Online study doesn’t necessarily signal easy study. If an online company is a diploma mill, word gets out about that. But if the student chooses a well-known top tier program, potential employers will know – better than today – that real effort was made to get the degree. That said, I do agree with McArdle that “there will be more freelancing, more try-out employment, and more unpaid internships.”

7. The economics of graduate school will change substantially.

   I agree. I predict that my field – law – will experience a return of apprenticeships. Law office interns and judicial clerks will “read the law” as in the past, but as part of online study. They’ll attend, virtually, law school and then take the bar when they are ready. Online study may also accelerate the fracturing of the law degree into specialties. Today an attorney straight out of law school is a generalist. She is allowed to practice in most fields of law without additional training. In the future it may be allowable to get the training necessary to do particular legal work and obtain a license allowing only that work.

8. Civil society will have to substitute for the intense friend networks that are built at college.

   Agreed. That’s where the “coffee shop” comes in. It could be a literal coffee shop, or a shrunken university campus, or perhaps a workplace that provides apprenticeship.

9. The role of schooling in upward mobility will change.

   McArdle called this a bit of a cop-out and I agree. To say something will change in the future and then not say how is both a safe bet and uninformative. My prediction: with the cost of education today, many potentially outstanding students forgo college. With the cost barrier brought down then intelligence, flexibility, and diligence will be the currency of the day. That will be a good thing.

10. The young will have a much lower financial burden in their 20s.

    Yes! A very good outcome. Also, people will be much more likely to seek additional training as needed and at whatever age. It will cost much less, and will not require relocating to attend class.

11. The tutoring industry will boom.

    Yes. And this industry would need to be as flexible and varied as online students require. Most tutoring will be online – maybe arranged through the online program they are taking, maybe not. Some tutors will meet students locally in places like coffee shops. Others will work as part of formalized apprenticeship programs for particular businesses. While lectures are broadcast (and cheap), tutoring will tend to be one-on-one (and expensive). Students who require less tutoring will have less student debt to manage later.

12. If the credentials become valuable, cheating will be a problem.

    Credentials are already valuable; and yes, cheating is a problem. But McArdle was referring specifically to the problem of testing. I agree that testing centers will become important – online testing presents too many possibilities for cheating. Proctoring multiple tests on different subjects simultaneously presents some challenges but is manageable. Provided everyone in the room is taking a test that requires the same amount of time, then the proctor just makes sure the right test gets to the right student and keeps time for everybody. It would actually would make cheating off another student more difficult.

Stephen describes the university of the future:

Eventually, some of these campuses might become places where students who use MITx and other programs seek tutoring, network, and socialize — reclaiming some of the college experience they’d otherwise have lost. What used to be a college campus would now be essentially a giant coffee shop.

Here he describes the office of the future:

With the proliferation of laptops and smartphones, the remaining function of the office is to be that place where clients and colleagues know to find you ,  and where kids and other distractions of home can’t.

This separate space is the primary thing we’ll look for in the workplace of the future, along with a new kind of flexibility. Groups for one project will form and disband; then a new group will form for the next project. What will that workplace look like? Probably like a coffee shop, one that features conference space and cubicles for rent.

Here’s my thought: if a university is all but shutting down, they certainly wouldn’t need the whole existing campus to maintain the coffee shop version of the institution. What would they do with the rest of that space? Well, since they’ve already made the move towards the coffee shop business model, a sensible thing to do would be to reach out to the business community and provide a place where business people can connect, too.

This only makes sense when you think about it. Coffee shops as we know them today cater indiscriminately to students, business people, and folks who just want coffee. (Some will have more of one than the other, of course, driven largely by location.) They also currently cater to retail shoppers, as Stephen pointed out, by providing wi-fi that lets people shop while they sip.

As very different organizations converge towards a similar business model — providing a place where people can connect — the smart play might be to recognize the user base potential that exists in the other major organizations that are being coffeeshopped. So a university might start reaching out to business people, while a coffeeshopped office park might start reaching out to students, offering a competitive “university” where students can find work as well as  mentors and classmates.

Alternatively, some higher-end business types might want a more exclusive environment, without the retail shoppers, college students, or even the lower end of the business market. For them, boutique “executive” coffee shops might emerge — places that charge a premium just to get in, ensuring that top players will rub elbows only with other top players.

And, of course, many other “specialty” coffee shops are possible — appealing just to members of a particular industry, just students majoring in particular subjects, etc.

Today’s coffee shops are highly egalitarian and multi-purpose. When more and more organizations undergo coffeeshopification, it will be interesting to see whether this original model will win out, or whether there will be a huge variety of specialty coffee shops, catering to the specific needs of niche user bases and offering some level of exclusivity.  Then again, there may be room for both models.

When everything becomes a coffee shop, we will probably have a lot of different kinds of coffee shop.

We live in a highly connected world, a world in which change occurs at a blindingly fast pace. The sheer number of people we encounter combine with the seemingly endless new events and circumstances that unfold before us to produce a richness of possibility that is unprecedented in human history.

Phil Bowermaster and Stephen Gordon and Stephen explore just a few of the amazing possibilities:

Wednesday February 8, 7 PM PST 10 PM EST

Wednesday February 1, 8 PM PST 11 PM EST

Our friend Christine Peterson joins us to discuss how people are taking achieving a longer and healthier life into their own hands.

The second Personalized Life Extension Conference is coming to the South San Francisco Conference Center March 31- April 1 2012. This looks like a tremendous follow-up to the 2010 event, with a program focused on anti-aging strategies and tactics for a long, healthy life.

A jam-packed agenda will cover myriad important topics, including

The event boasts a terrific lineup of speakers, including World Transformed / FastForward Radio guests David Asprey, Terry Grossman, and Christine Peterson, founder and organizer of the event.

(When you register, don’t forget to use the code SPECULIST or FASTFORWARDRADIO to get the discounted rate of $100.)

Wednesday January 25, 7 PM PST 10 PM EST

• A pill that emulates the effects of exercise?
• A quieter and less damaging approach to wind power?
• SOPA is dead (or is it?)
• A 16 acre farm on a single reidential lot?

Do you see a trend? If you don’t, be sure to tune in — we have many more examples.

Wednesday January 18, 7 PM PST 10 PM EST