Search This Blog

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Quantified self

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some people present their quantified self methods and results at meetups and conferences on this topic
 
Quantified self, also known as lifelogging, is a specific movement by Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly from Wired magazine, which began in 2007 and tries to incorporate technology into data acquisition on aspects of a person's daily life. People collect data in terms of food consumed, quality of surrounding air, mood, skin conductance as a proxy for arousal, pulse oximetry for blood oxygen level, and performance, whether mental or physical. Wolf has described quantified self as "self-knowledge through self-tracking with technology".

People choose to wear self-monitoring and self-sensing sensors (e.g. EEG, ECG) and wearable computing to collect data. Among the specific biometrics one can track are insulin and cortisol levels, sequence DNA, and the microbial cells which inhabit one's body.

Other terms for using self-tracking data to improve daily functioning are self-tracking, auto-analytics, body hacking, self-quantifying, self-surveillance, and personal informatics.

History

According to Riphagen et al., the history of the quantimetric self-tracking using wearable computers began in the 1970s:
The history of self-tracking using wearable sensors in combination with wearable computing and wireless communication already exists for many years, and also appeared, in the form of sousveillance back in the 1970s [13, 12]
Quantimetric self-sensing was proposed for the use of wearable computers to automatically sense and measure exercise and dietary intake in 2002:
Sensors that measure biological signals, ... a personal data recorder that records ... Lifelong videocapture together with blood-sugar levels, ... correlate blood-sugar levels with activities such as eating, by capturing a food record of intake.
The logo of Quantified Self Labs, a company founded by Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly, which holds conferences and other events
 
The "quantified self" or "self-tracking" are contemporary labels. They reflect the broader trend of the progressions for organization and meaning-making in human history; there has been a use of self-taken measurements and data collection that attempted the same goals that the quantified movement has. Scientisation plays a major role in legitimizing self-knowledge through self-tracking. As early as 2001, media artists such as Ellie Harrison and Alberto Frigo extensively pioneered the concept, proposing a new direction of labour-intensive self-tracking without using privacy infringing automation.

The term "quantified self" appears to have been proposed in San Francisco, CA, by Wired Magazine editors Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly in 2007 as "a collaboration of users and tool makers who share an interest in self knowledge through self-tracking." In 2010, Wolf spoke about the movement at TED, and in May 2011, the first international conference was held in Mountain View, California. There are conferences in America and Europe. Gary Wolf said "Almost everything we do generates data." Wolf suggests that companies target advertising or recommend products use data from phones, tablets, computers, other technology, and credit cards. However, using the data they make can give people new ways to deal with medical problems, help sleep patterns, and improve diet. 

Philosophers like Michel Foucault are recognized as being a part of the foundations in the ideas of the quantified movement. Foucault and other philosophers focus on the idea of "care of the self," in which they emphasize the importance of self-knowledge for personal development. Foucault explains that it involves looking inside oneself and emphasizes self-reflection, which is also associated with the quantified self movement, where self-tracking participants can attend "show-and-tell" style conventions to share their experiences with the technology.

Today the global community has over a hundred groups in 34 countries around the world, with the largest groups in San Francisco, New York, London, and Boston having over 1500 members each.

Methodologies

Like any empirical study, the primary method is the collection and analysis of data. In many cases, data are collected automatically using wearable sensors -not limited to, but often worn on the wrist. In other cases, data may be logged manually.

The data are typically analyzed using traditional techniques such as linear regression to establish correlations among the variables under investigation. As in every attempt to understand potentially high-dimensional data, visualization techniques can suggest hypotheses that may be tested more rigorously using formal methods. One simple example of a visualization method is to view the change in some variable – say weight in pounds – over time.

Even though the idea is not new, the technology is. Many people would track what they would eat or how much physical activity they got within a week. Technology has made it easier and simpler to gather and analyze personal data. Since these technologies have become smaller and cheaper to be put in smart phones or tablets, it is easier to take the quantitative methods used in science and business and apply them to the personal sphere. 

Narratives constitute a symbiotic relationship with bodies of large data. Therefore, quantified self participants are encouraged to share their experiences of self-tracking at various conferences and meetings.

Applications

A major application of quantified self has been in health and wellness improvement. Many devices and services help with tracking physical activity, caloric intake, sleep quality, posture, and other factors involved in personal well-being. Corporate wellness programs, for example, will often encourage some form of tracking. Genetic testing and other services have also become popular. 

Quantified self is also being used to improve personal or professional productivity, with tools and services being used to help people keep track of what they do during the workday, where they spend their time, and whom they interact with.

One other application has been in the field of education, where wearable devices are being used in schools so that students can learn more about their own activities and related math and science.

The Nike+ FuelBand is one of the many kinds of wearable devices that people use as "quantified self" tools
 
Many start-up companies occupy the market right now. Most of them help track data for some type of health pattern, be it sleep or asthma. However, there are bigger companies such as Nike, Jawbone and FitBit that occupy some of the space in the market. 

A recent movement in quantified self is gamification. There is a wide variety of self-tracking technologies that allow everyday activities to be turned into games by awarding points or monetary value to encourage people to compete with their friends. The success of connected sport is part of the gamification movement. People can pledge a certain amount of real or fake money, or receive awards and trophies. 

Many of these self-tracking applications or technologies are compatible with each other and other websites so people can share information with one another. Each technology may integrate with other apps or websites to show a bigger picture of health patterns, goals, and journaling. For example, one may figure out that migraines were more likely to have painful side effects when using a particular migraine drug. Or one can study personal temporal associations between exercise and mood.

The quantified self is also demonstrating to be a major component of "big data science", due to the amount of data that users are collecting on a daily basis. Although these data set streams are not conventional big data, they become interesting sites for data analysis projects, that could be used in medical-related fields to predict health patterns or aide in genomic studies. Examples of studies that have been done using QS data include projects such as the DIYgenomics studies, the Harvard's Personal Genome Project, and the American Gut microbiome project.

Quantified Baby

Quantified Baby is a branch of the Quantified Self movement that is concerned with collecting extensive data on a baby's daily activities, and using this data to make inferences about behaviour and health. A number of software and hardware products exist to assist data collection by the parent or to collect data automatically for later analysis. Reactions to "Quantified Baby" are mixed.

Parents are often told by health professionals to record daily activities about their babies in the first few months, such as feeding times, sleeping times and nappy changes. This is useful for both the parent (used to maintain a schedule and ensure they remain organized) and for the health professional (to make sure the baby is on target and occasionally to assist in diagnosis). 

For quantified self, knowledge is power, and knowledge about oneself easily translates as a tool for self-improvement. The aim for many is to use this tracking to ultimately become better parents. Some parents use sleep trackers because they worry about sudden infant death syndrome.

A number of apps exist that have been made for parents wanting to track their baby's daily activities. The most frequently tracked metrics are feeding, sleeping and diaper changes. Mood, activity, medical appointments and milestones are also sometimes covered. Other apps are specifically made for breastfeeding mothers, or those who are pumping their milk to build up a supply for their baby. 

Quantified baby, as in quantified self, is associated with a combination of wearable sensors and wearable computing. The synergy of these is related to the concept of the internet of things.

Devices and services

Notable self-quantification tools are listed below. Numerous other hardware devices and software are available, as a result of advances and cost reductions in sensor technology, mobile connectivity, and battery life.

Activity monitors

Sleep-specific monitors

  • SleepBot – a freeware app, for Android and iOS
  • WakeMate – a wristband plus an accompanying app
  • Zeo – a sleep-monitoring headband (company is now defunct)
  • SleepCycle - app for iOS to track sleep

Diet and weight

Other

Debates and criticism

The Quantified Self movement has faced some criticism related to the limitations it inherently contains or might pose to other domains. Within these debates, there are some discussions around the nature, responsibility and outcome of the Quantified Self movement and its derivative practices. Generally, most bodies of criticism tackle the issue of data exploitation and data privacy but also health literacy skills in the practice of self-tracking. While most of the users engaging in self tracking practices are using the gathered data for self-knowledge and self-improvement, in some cases, self-tracking is pushed and forced by employers over employees in certain workplace environments, health and life insurers or by substance addiction programs (drug and alcohol monitoring) in order to monitor the physical activity of the subject and analyze the data in order to gather conclusions. Usually the data gathered by this practice of self-tracking can be accessed by commercial, governmental, research and marketing agencies.

The data fetishist critique

Another recurrent line of debate revolves around "data fetishism". Data fetishism is referred to as the phenomenon evolving when active users of self-tracking devices become enticed by the satisfaction and sense of achievement and fulfillment that numerical data offers. Proponents of such line of criticism tend to claim that data in this sense becomes simplistic, where complex phenomenon become transcribed into reductionist data. This reductionist line of criticism generally incorporates fears and concerns with the ways in which ideas on health are redefined, as well as doctor-patient dynamics and the experience of self-hood among self-trackers. Because of such arguments, the Quantified Self movement has been criticized for providing predetermined ideals of health, well-being and self-awareness. Rather than increasing the personal skills for self-knowledge, it distances the user from the self by offering an inherently normative and reductionist framework.

An alternative line of criticism still linked to the reductionist discourse but still proposing a more hopeful solution is related the lack of health literacy among most of self-trackers. The European Health Literacy Survey Consortium Health defines health literacy as "[...] people's knowledge, motivations, and competencies to access, understand, appraise, and apply health information in order to make judgements and take decisions in everyday life concerning healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion to maintain or improve quality of life during the life course." Generally, people tend to focus mostly on the data collecting stage, while stages of data archiving, analysis and interpretation are often overlooked because of the skills necessary to conduct such processes, which explains the call for the improvement of health literacy skills among Self-Quantifiers.

The health literacy critique is different from the data-fetishist critique in its approach to data influence on the human life, health and experience. While the data-fetishist critical discourse ascribes a crucial power of influence to numbers and data, the health literacy critique views gathered data as useless and powerless without the human context and the analysis and reflection skills of the user that are needed to act on the numbers. Data collection alone is not deterministic or normative, according to the health literacy critique. The "know thy numbers to know thyself" slogan of the Quantified Self movement is inconsistent, it has been claimed, in the sense that it does not fully acknowledge the need for auxiliary skills of health literacy to actually get to "know thyself". The solution proposed by proponents of the health literacy critique in order to improve the practice of self-tracking and its results is a focus on addressing individual and systemic barriers. The individual barriers are faced by elderly citizens when having to deal with contemporary technology or in cases where there is a need for culturally-sound practices while systemic barriers could be overcome when involving the participation of more health literacy experts and the organization of health literacy education.
at

Do-it-yourself biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do-it-yourself biology (DIY biology, DIY bio) is a growing biotechnological social movement in which individuals, communities, and small organizations study biology and life science using the same methods as traditional research institutions. DIY biology is primarily undertaken by individuals with extensive research training from academia or corporations, who then mentor and oversee other DIY biologists with little or no formal training. This may be done as a hobby, as a not-for-profit endeavour for community learning and open-science innovation, or for profit, to start a business.

History

The term "biohacking" as well as the concept of do-it-yourself biology has been known as early as 1988.

Biohacking entered the San Francisco programmer and maker communities as early as 2005, through simple demonstrations of basic experiments. As DIYbio experiments became the focus of SuperHappyDevHouse hackers, the hobby gained additional momentum.

In 2005 Rob Carlson wrote in an article in Wired: "The era of garage biology is upon us. Want to participate? Take a moment to buy yourself a lab on eBay." He then set up a garage lab the same year, working on a project he had previously worked at the Molecular Sciences Institute in Berkeley, California.

In 2008, the DIYbio organization was founded by Jason Bobe and Mackenzie Cowell and its first meeting held.

In 2010, Genspace opened the first community biology lab, Ten months later it was followed by BioCurious, and Victoria Makerspace. Many other labs and organizations followed, including but not limited to Counter Culture Labs in Oakland, CA, Baltimore Underground Science Space in Baltimore, MD, TheLab in Los Angeles, CA and Denver Biolabs in Denver, CO. 

In 2016, the first conference to focus specifically on biohacking was announced to take place in Sept. in Oakland, CA.

Aspects

The DIYbio movement seeks to revise the notion that one must be an academic with an advanced degree to make any significant contribution to the biology community. It allows large numbers of small organizations and individuals to participate in research and development, with spreading knowledge a higher priority than turning profits.

The motivations for DIY biology include (but aren't limited to) lowered costs, entertainment, medicine, biohacking, life extension, and education. Recent work combining open-source hardware of microcontrollers like the Arduino and RepRap 3-D printers, very low-cost scientific instruments have been developed.

Community laboratory space

Many organizations maintain a laboratory akin to a wet-lab makerspace, providing equipment and supplies for members. Many organizations also run classes and provide training. For a fee (usually between $50 and $100), members can join some spaces and do experiments on their own.

Open source equipment

The DIY biology movement attempts to make available the tools and resources necessary for anyone, including non-professionals, to conduct biological engineering. One of the first pieces of open source laboratory equipment developed was the Dremelfuge by Irish biohacker Cathal Garvey, which uses a 3D printed tube holder attached to a Dremel rotary tool to spin tubes at high speeds, replacing often expensive centrifuges. Many other devices like PCR machines have been recreated extensively. In recent times, more complex devices have been created such as the OpenDrop digital microfluidics platform and the DIY NanoDrop both developed by GaudiLabs. Opentrons makes open-source, affordable lab robots, and got its start as a DIY biology collaboration at Genspace.

Advocacy

Most advocacy in biohacking is about the safety, accessibility and future legality of experimentation. Todd Kuiken of the Woodrow Wilson Center proposes that through safety and self-governance, DIY biologists won't be in need of regulation. However, Josiah Zayner has proposed that safety is inherent in biohacking and that accessibility should be the foremost concern as there is large underrepresentation of social and ethnic minorities in biohacking.

Research topics

Many biohacking projects revolve around the modification of life and molecular and genetic engineering.

Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics is another popular target for do-it-yourself biology research. As in other fields, many programming languages can be used in DIY biology, but most of the languages that are used are those with large bioinformatics libraries. 

Examples include BioPerl or BioPython, which use the languages Perl and Python, respectively.

Genetic engineering

Genetic Engineers are a subculture of biohackers as one of the most accessible forms of biohacking is through engineering microorganisms or plants. Experiments can range from using plasmids to fluorescent bacteria, controlling gene expression using light in bacteria, even using CRISPR to engineer the genome of bacteria or yeast.

Medicine

Restricted access to medical care and medicine has pushed biohackers to start experimenting in medically related fields. The Open Insulin project aims to make the recombinant protein insulin more accessible by creating an open source protocol for expression and purification. Other experiments that have involved medical treatments include a whole body microbiome transplant and the creation of open source artificial pancreases for diabetics.

Implants

Grinders are a subculture of biohackers that focus on implanting technology or introducing chemicals into the body to enhance or change their bodies' functionality. 

Some biohackers can now sense which direction they face using a magnetic implant that vibrates against the skin.

Art

In 2000, controversial and self-described "transgenic artist" Eduardo Kac appropriated standard laboratory work by biotechnology and genetics researchers in order to both utilize and critique such scientific techniques. In the only putative work of transgenic art by Kac, the artist claimed to have collaborated with a French laboratory (belonging to the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) to procure a green-fluorescent rabbit: a rabbit implanted with a green fluorescent protein gene from a type of jellyfish [Aequorea victoria] in order for the rabbit to fluoresce green under ultraviolet light. The claimed work came to be known as the "GFP bunny", and which Kac called Alba. This claim by Kac has been disputed by the scientists at the lab who noted that they had performed the exact same experiment (i.e., the insertion of the jellyfish GFP protein-coding gene) on numerous other animals (cats, dogs, etc.) previously and did not create Alba (known to the researchers only as "Rabbit Number 5256") under the direction of Kac. The laboratory consequently kept possession of the transgenic rabbit which it had created and funded and the "transgenic art" was never exhibited at the Digital Avignon festival [2000] as intended. Kac -- claiming that his rabbit was the first GFP bunny created in the name of Art -- used this dispute to popularize the issue as one of disguised censorship by launching a "Free Alba" campaign. A doctored photo of the artist holding a day-glow-green tinted rabbit appears on his website. The members of the Critical Art Ensemble have written books and staged multimedia performance interventions around this issue, including The Flesh Machine (focusing on in vitro fertilisation, surveillance of the body, and liberal eugenics) and Cult of the New Eve (In order to analyze how, in their words, "Science is the institution of authority regarding the production of knowledge, and tends to replace this particular social function of conventional Christianity in the west").

Heather Dewey-Hagborg is an information artist and biohacker who uses genomic DNA left behind by people as a starting point for creating lifelike, computer-generated, 3-D portraits.

Criticism and concerns

Biohacking experiences many of the same criticisms as synthetic biology and genetic engineering already receive, plus other concerns relating to the distributed and non-institutional nature of the work, involving potential hazards with lack of oversight by professionals or governments. Concerns about biohackers creating pathogens in unmonitored garage laboratories led the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to begin sending its representatives to DIYbio conferences in 2009. The arrest and prosecution of some members for their work with harmless microbes, such as artivist Steve Kurtz, has been denounced as political repression by critics who argue the U.S. government has used post-9/11 anti-terrorism powers to intimidate artists and others who use their art to criticize society.

Existing regulations are not specific to this field, so that the possibility of pathological organisms being created and released unintentionally or intentionally by biohackers has become a matter of concern, for example, in the spirit of the re-creation of the 1917 flu virus by Armed Forces Institute of Pathology researchers in 2005. In the US the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate has worked with the American Association for the Advancement of Science's National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to convene a series of meetings to discuss biosecurity, which have included discussions of amateur biologists and ways to manage the risks to society it poses. At the National Institutes of Health, National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity leads efforts to educate the public on "dual use research of concern", for example with websites like "Science Safety Security". In 2011, DIYbio organized conferences to attempt to create codes of ethics for biohackers.

Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, is a critic of biohacking who argues that—using a laptop computer, published gene sequence information, and mail-order synthetic DNA—just about anyone has the potential to construct genes or entire genomes from scratch (including those of the lethal pathogens) in the near-future. A 2007 ETC Group report warns that the danger of this development is not just bio-terror, but "bio-error".

While no DIYbio project to date has involved harmful agents, the fear remains in the minds of both regulators and laypersons. However, it is often pointed out that DIYbio is at too early a stage to consider such advanced projects feasible, as few successful transformative genetics projects have been undertaken yet. It is also worth noting that, while an individual could conceivably do harm with sufficient skill and intent, there exist biology labs throughout the world with greater access to the technology, skill and funding to accomplish a bioweapons project. 

While detractors argue that do-it-yourself biologists need some sort of supervision, enthusiasts argue that uniform supervision is impossible and the best way to prevent accidents or malevolence is to encourage a culture of transparency, where, in essence, do-it-yourself biologists would be peer reviewed by other biohackers. Enthusiasts argue that fear of potential hazards should be met with increased research and education rather than closing the door on the profound positive impacts that distributed biological technology will have on human health, the environment, and the standard of living around the world. Due to the lack of precedent regarding such a business model, the DIYbio founders see this as an opportunity to be innovators in regulatory and safety policy.

Groups and organizations

  • Baltimore Underground Science Space (BUGSS) in Baltimore
  • Biocurious in Sunnyvale, CA
  • Biofoundry in Sydney
  • Biospacesg in Singapore
  • Bricobio, in Montreal
  • Capital Area BioSpace (CABS), in D.C, Metro area
  • Charlottesville Open Bio Lab, Charlottesville, VA
  • Denver Biolabs in Denver, Colorado (United States)
  • Counter Culture Labs, in Oakland, California (United States).
  • Hackuarium in Renens (Switzerland)
  • La Paillasse, Paris (France)
  • London Biohackspace London (United Kingdom).
    • at

    Friday, January 11, 2019

    Posthumanism

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    Posthumanism or post-humanism (meaning "after humanism" or "beyond humanism") is a term with at least seven definitions according to philosopher Francesca Ferrando:
    1. Antihumanism: any theory that is critical of traditional humanism and traditional ideas about humanity and the human condition.
    2. Cultural posthumanism: a branch of cultural theory critical of the foundational assumptions of humanism and its legacy that examines and questions the historical notions of "human" and "human nature", often challenging typical notions of human subjectivity and embodiment and strives to move beyond archaic concepts of "human nature" to develop ones which constantly adapt to contemporary technoscientific knowledge.
    3. Philosophical posthumanism: a philosophical direction which draws on cultural posthumanism, the philosophical strand examines the ethical implications of expanding the circle of moral concern and extending subjectivities beyond the human species
    4. Posthuman condition: the deconstruction of the human condition by critical theorists.
    5. Transhumanism: an ideology and movement which seeks to develop and make available technologies that eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities, in order to achieve a "posthuman future".
    6. AI takeover: A more pessimistic alternative to transhumanism in which humans will not be enhanced, but rather eventually replaced by artificial intelligences. Some philosophers, including Nick Land, promote the view that humans should embrace and accept their eventual demise. This is related to the view of "cosmism" which supports the building of strong artificial intelligence even if it may entail the end of humanity as in their view it "would be a cosmic tragedy if humanity freezes evolution at the puny human level".
    7. Voluntary Human Extinction, which seeks a "posthuman future" that in this case is a future without humans.

    Philosophical posthumanism

    Philosopher Ted Schatzki suggests there are two varieties of posthumanism of the philosophical kind:

    One, which he calls 'objectivism', tries to counter the overemphasis of the subjective or intersubjective that pervades humanism, and emphasises the role of the nonhuman agents, whether they be animals and plants, or computers or other things.

    A second prioritizes practices, especially social practices, over individuals (or individual subjects) which, they say, constitute the individual.

    There may be a third kind of posthumanism, propounded by the philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. Though he did not label it as 'posthumanism', he made an extensive and penetrating immanent critique of Humanism, and then constructed a philosophy that presupposed neither Humanist, nor Scholastic, nor Greek thought but started with a different religious ground motive. Dooyeweerd prioritized law and meaningfulness as that which enables humanity and all else to exist, behave, live, occur, etc. "Meaning is the being of all that has been created," Dooyeweerd wrote, "and the nature even of our selfhood." Both human and nonhuman alike function subject to a common 'law-side', which is diverse, composed of a number of distinct law-spheres or aspects. The temporal being of both human and non-human is multi-aspectual; for example, both plants and humans are bodies, functioning in the biotic aspect, and both computers and humans function in the formative and lingual aspect, but humans function in the aesthetic, juridical, ethical and faith aspects too. The Dooyeweerdian version is able to incorporate and integrate both the objectivist version and the practices version, because it allows nonhuman agents their own subject-functioning in various aspects and places emphasis on aspectual functioning.

    Emergence of philosophical posthumanism

    Ihab Hassan, theorist in the academic study of literature, has stated:
    Humanism may be coming to an end as humanism transforms itself into something one must helplessly call posthumanism.
    This view predates most currents of posthumanism which have developed over the late 20th century in somewhat diverse, but complementary, domains of thought and practice. For example, Hassan is a known scholar whose theoretical writings expressly address postmodernity in society. Beyond postmodernist studies, posthumanism has been developed and deployed by various cultural theorists, often in reaction to problematic inherent assumptions within humanistic and enlightenment thought.

    Theorists who both complement and contrast Hassan include Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, cyberneticists such as Gregory Bateson, Warren McCullouch, Norbert Wiener, Bruno Latour, Cary Wolfe, Elaine Graham, N. Katherine Hayles, Benjamin H. Bratton, Donna Haraway, Peter Sloterdijk, Stefan Lorenz Sorgner, Evan Thompson, Francisco Varela, Humberto Maturana and Douglas Kellner. Among the theorists are philosophers, such as Robert Pepperell, who have written about a "posthuman condition", which is often substituted for the term "posthumanism".

    Posthumanism differs from classical humanism by relegating humanity back to one of many natural species, thereby rejecting any claims founded on anthropocentric dominance. According to this claim, humans have no inherent rights to destroy nature or set themselves above it in ethical considerations a priori. Human knowledge is also reduced to a less controlling position, previously seen as the defining aspect of the world. Human rights exist on a spectrum with animal rights and posthuman rights. The limitations and fallibility of human intelligence are confessed, even though it does not imply abandoning the rational tradition of humanism.

    Proponents of a posthuman discourse, suggest that innovative advancements and emerging technologies have transcended the traditional model of the human, as proposed by Descartes among others associated with philosophy of the Enlightenment period. In contrast to humanism, the discourse of posthumanism seeks to redefine the boundaries surrounding modern philosophical understanding of the human. Posthumanism represents an evolution of thought beyond that of the contemporary social boundaries and is predicated on the seeking of truth within a postmodern context. In so doing, it rejects previous attempts to establish 'anthropological universals' that are imbued with anthropocentric assumptions.

    The philosopher Michel Foucault placed posthumanism within a context that differentiated humanism from enlightenment thought. According to Foucault, the two existed in a state of tension: as humanism sought to establish norms while Enlightenment thought attempted to transcend all that is material, including the boundaries that are constructed by humanistic thought. Drawing on the Enlightenment’s challenges to the boundaries of humanism, posthumanism rejects the various assumptions of human dogmas (anthropological, political, scientific) and takes the next step by attempting to change the nature of thought about what it means to be human. This requires not only decentering the human in multiple discourses (evolutionary, ecological, technological) but also examining those discourses to uncover inherent humanistic, anthropocentric, normative notions of humanness and the concept of the human.

    Contemporary posthuman discourse

    Posthumanistic discourse aims to open up spaces to examine what it means to be human and critically question the concept of "the human" in light of current cultural and historical contexts In her book How We Became Posthuman, N. Katherine Hayles, writes about the struggle between different versions of the posthuman as it continually co-evolves alongside intelligent machines. Such coevolution, according to some strands of the posthuman discourse, allows one to extend their subjective understandings of real experiences beyond the boundaries of embodied existence. According to Hayles's view of posthuman, often referred to as technological posthumanism, visual perception and digital representations thus paradoxically become ever more salient. Even as one seeks to extend knowledge by deconstructing perceived boundaries, it is these same boundaries that make knowledge acquisition possible. The use of technology in a contemporary society is thought to complicate this relationship. 

    Hayles discusses the translation of human bodies into information (as suggested by Hans Moravec) in order to illuminate how the boundaries of our embodied reality have been compromised in the current age and how narrow definitions of humanness no longer apply. Because of this, according to Hayles, posthumanism is characterized by a loss of subjectivity based on bodily boundaries. This strand of posthumanism, including the changing notion of subjectivity and the disruption of ideas concerning what it means to be human, is often associated with Donna Haraway’s concept of the cyborg. However, Haraway has distanced herself from posthumanistic discourse due to other theorists’ use of the term to promote utopian views of technological innovation to extend the human biological capacity (even though these notions would more correctly fall into the realm of transhumanism). 

    While posthumanism is a broad and complex ideology, it has relevant implications today and for the future. It attempts to redefine social structures without inherently humanly or even biological origins, but rather in terms of social and psychological systems where consciousness and communication could potentially exist as unique disembodied entities. Questions subsequently emerge with respect to the current use and the future of technology in shaping human existence, as do new concerns with regards to language, symbolism, subjectivity, phenomenology, ethics, justice and creativity.

    Relationship with transhumanism

    Sociologist James Hughes comments that there is considerable confusion between the two terms. In the introduction to their book on post- and transhumanism, Robert Ranisch and Stefan Sorgner address the source of this confusion, stating that posthumanism is often used as an umbrella term that includes both transhumanism and critical posthumanism.

    Although both subjects relate to the future of humanity, they differ in their view of anthropocentrism. Pramod Nayar, author of Posthumanism, states that posthumanism has two main branches: ontological and critical. Ontological posthumanism is synonymous with transhumanism. The subject is regarded as “an intensification of humanism.” Transhumanism retains humanism’s focus on the homo sapien as the center of the world but also considers technology to be an integral aid to human progression. Critical posthumanism, however, is opposed to these views. Critical posthumanism “rejects both human exceptionalism (the idea that humans are unique creatures) and human instrumentalism (that humans have a right to control the natural world).” These contrasting views on the importance of human beings are the main distinctions between the two subjects. 

    Transhumanism is also more ingrained in popular culture than critical posthumanism, especially in science fiction. The term is referred to by Pramod Nayar as "the pop posthumanism of cinema and pop culture."

    Criticism

    Some critics have argued that all forms of posthumanism, including transhumanism, have more in common than their respective proponents realize. Linking these different approaches, Paul James suggests that 'the key political problem is that, in effect, the position allows the human as a category of being to flow down the plughole of history': 


    However, some posthumanists in the humanities and the arts are critical of transhumanism (the brunt of Paul James's criticism), in part, because they argue that it incorporates and extends many of the values of Enlightenment humanism and classical liberalism, namely scientism, according to performance philosopher Shannon Bell:

    While many modern leaders of thought are accepting of nature of ideologies described by posthumanism, some are more skeptical of the term. Donna Haraway, the author of A Cyborg Manifesto, has outspokenly rejected the term, though acknowledges a philosophical alignment with posthumanism. Haraway opts instead for the term of companion species, referring to nonhuman entities with which humans coexist.

    Questions of race, some argue, are suspiciously elided within the "turn" to posthumanism. Noting that the terms "post" and "human" are already loaded with racial meaning, critical theorist Zakiyyah Iman Jackson argues that the impulse to move "beyond" the human within posthumanism too often ignores "praxes of humanity and critiques produced by black people", including Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire to Hortense Spillers and Fred Moten. Interrogating the conceptual grounds in which such a mode of “beyond” is rendered legible and viable, Jackson argues that it is important to observe that "blackness conditions and constitutes the very nonhuman disruption and/or disruption" which posthumanists invite. In other words, given that race in general and blackness in particular constitutes the very terms through which human/nonhuman distinctions are made, for example in enduring legacies of scientific racism, a gesture toward a “beyond” actually “returns us to a Eurocentric transcendentalism long challenged”.
    at

    Is Most Life in the Universe Lithophilic?

    by on January 11, 2019
    Original link:  https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2019/01/11/is-most-life-in-the-universe-lithophilic/ 

    Seeking life on other worlds necessarily makes us examine our assumptions about the detectability of living things in extreme environments. We’re learning that our own planet supports life in regions we once would have ruled out for survival, and as we examine such extremophiles, it makes sense to wonder how similar organisms might have emerged elsewhere. Pondering these questions in today’s essay, Centauri Dreams regular Alex Tolley asks whether we are failing to consider possibly rich biospheres that could thrive without the need for surface water.

    By Alex Tolley

    Image: An endolithic lifeform showing as a green layer a few millimeters inside a clear rock. The rock has been split open. Antarctica. Credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endolith#/media/File:Cryptoendolith.jpg, Creative Commons).
    A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is” – The Streetlight Effect
    I’m going to make a bold claim that we are searching for life where the starlight can reach, and not where it is most common, in the lithosphere.
     
    One of the outstanding big questions is whether life is common or rare in the universe. With the rapid discovery of thousands of exoplanets, the race is now on to determine if any of those planets have life. This means using spectroscopic techniques to find proxies, such as atmospheric composition, chlorophyll “red edge”, and other signatures that indicate life as we know it. There is the exciting prospect that new telescopes and instruments will give us the answer to whether life exists elsewhere within a decade or two.

    The search for life on exoplanets starts with locating rocky planets in the habitable zone (HZ). The HZ is defined as potentially having liquid surface water, which requires an atmosphere dense enough to ensure that water is retained. While complex, multicellular life that visibly populates our planet is the vision most people have of life, as I have argued previously [13], it is most likely that we will detect the signatures of bacterial life, particularly archaean methanogens, as prokaryotes were the only form of life on Earth for over 85% of its existence. Most worlds in the HZ will probably look more like Venus or Mars, either too dry and/or with an insufficient atmosphere to allow surface water. Such worlds will be bypassed for more attractive Earth analogs.

    This is particularly important for the most common star type, the M-dwarfs. These stars are often downgraded as having habitable planets due to the flaring of their stars which can strip atmospheres and irradiate the surface. This reduces the likelihood for life at the surface, and for many, is a showstopper.

    However, if life established well below the surface, these factors affecting the surface become relatively unimportant. All stars, including M-dwarfs, may well have a retinue of living worlds, but with their life undetectable by current means.

    Despite mid-20th-century hopes for multicellular life to be found on Mars or Venus, it is now clear that the surfaces of these planets are devoid of any sort of multicellular based ecosystems. Venus’ surface is too hot for any carbon-based life to survive. The various Martian orbiters and landers have found no multicellular life, and so far no unambiguous evidence of microbial life on or near the surface. The Moon is the only world where surface rock samples have been returned to Earth, and these samples suggest, unsurprisingly, that the lunar surface is sterile [10,12].

    NASA’s mantra for the search for life, echoing the HZ requirement, is “Follow the water!” On its face, this makes the lunar surface unlikely as a habitat, similarly Mars, although Mars’ does have an abundance of frozen water below the surface. This leaves the subsurface icy moons as the current favorite for the discovery of life in our solar system, particularly around any hypothetical “hot vents” that mimic Earth’s.

    However, when following the trail of liquid water, we now know that the Earth has a huge inventory of water in the mantle, providing a new source of water for the crustal rocks. This water is most likely primordial, sourced from the chondritic material during formation.[6,9] If the Earth has primordial water in the mantle, so might the Moon, as it was formed from the same material as the Earth. A recent analysis of lunar rocks indicates that the bulk of the water in the Moon is also primordial, with concentrations only an order of magnitude less than the water in the Earth’s mantle [1]. While we know Mars has water just below the surface, the same argument about primordial water deep within Mars also follows.

    The question then becomes whether this water is in a form suitable for life. Is there a zone in these worlds where water is both liquid and at a temperature below the maximum we know terrestrial thermophiles can survive?

    Table 1 below shows some estimates for Earth, Mars and the Moon where a suitable liquid water temperature range exists. The estimated thermal gradients are used to suggest the depths where life might start to be found as temperatures and pressures result in liquid water, and the maximum depth life might survive.

    On Earth, the reference planet, the high thermal gradient, and warm surface suggest life can be found at any depth, up to about 5 – 6 km. The Moon, due to a low thermal gradient might only have a habitable zone starting at 15 km below the surface but reaching down to nearly 120 km. Mars is intermediate, with a habitable zone 6-29 km in extent.

    Table 1. Estimates of thermal gradients and range of depths where water is liquid, but below 120C as a current approximate maximum for thermophiles

    WorldSurface CThermal
    gradient    		Depth (km)
    at 120C (with
    0C at
    surface)    		Depth (km) at
    0C with
    surface temp    		Depth (km) at
    120C with
    surface temp
    Earth1420-304-603.5-5
    Mars-636.4-10.6 **11-196-1018-29
    Moon-18 *1.17 ***10315118
    * Assumes the Moon surface temperature would be the same as the Earth without an atmosphere
    ** [7]
    *** [8]

    So we have 2 possible rocky worlds in our solar system that may have water reservoirs in their mantles due to primordial asteroids and therefore liquid water in their lithospheres deep below the surface, protected from radiation and with fairly constant temperatures within the range of terrestrial organisms. So our necessary condition of liquid water may exist in these worlds, rather than at the surface.

    Given that liquid water may be found deep below the surface, is there any evidence that life exists there too?

    In 1999, the iconoclast astrophysicist and astronomer Thomas Gold published a popular account of his theory that fossil fuels were not derived from biological sources, but rather from primordial methane that was contaminated by organisms living deep within the Earth’s crust.[4,5]. While his theory remains controversial, his suggestion that organisms live in the lithosphere has been proven correct. [11]. Bores have shown that microorganisms have been found living at least 4 km below the surface. It has been suggested that the biomass of these organisms may exceed that of humanity on Earth, so life in the lithosphere is not trivial compared to that on the surface of our planet.

    Figure 1. Illustration of the search for life in the lithosphere. At this time, life has been found at depths of nearly 4 km, but absent at 9 km where the temperatures were too high.
     
    1. Deep-sea, manned submersibles and remotely operated vehicles collect fluid samples that exit natural points of access to the oceanic crust, such as underwater volcanoes or hydrothermal vents. These samples contain microbes living in the crust beneath.
     
    2. Drilling holes into the Earth’s crust allows retrieval of rock and sediment cores reaching kilometers below the surface. The holes can then be filled with monitoring equipment to make long-term measurements of the deep biosphere.
     
    3. Deep mines provide access points for researchers to journey into the Earth’s continental crust, from where they can drill even deeper into the ground or search for microbes living in water seeping directly out of the rock.
     
    Source: [11]

    From the article:
    To date, studies of crustal sites all over the world—both oceanic and continental—have documented all sorts of organisms getting by in environments that, until recently, were deemed inhospitable, with some theoretical estimates now suggesting life might survive at least 10 kilometers into the crust. And the deep biosphere doesn’t just comprise bacteria and archaea, as once thought; researchers now know that the subsurface contains various fungal species, and even the occasional animal. Following the 2011 discovery of nematode worms in a South African gold mine, an intensive two-year survey turned up members of four invertebrate phyla—flatworms, rotifers, segmented worms, and arthropods—living 1.4 kilometers below the Earth’s surface.
    With our existence proof of a deep, hot biosphere in Earth, is it possible that similar life could exist in the lithospheres of other rocky worlds in our solar system, including our Moon?

    Mars is particularly attractive, as there is evidence Mars was both warmer and wetter in the past. There was geologic activity as clearly evident by the Tharsis bulge and the shield volcanoes like Olympus Mons. We know there is frozen water below the surface on Mars. What we are not certain of is whether Mars’ core is still molten and hot, and what the areothermal gradient is. One of the scientific goals of the Insight lander, currently on Mars, is to determine heat flow in Mars. This will help provide the data necessary to determine the range of the habitable zone in the lithosphere.

    In contrast, we do have samples of Moon rock. An analysis of the Apollo 11 samples showed that organic material was present, but there was no sign of life except for terrestrial contamination [10, 12]. Since then, very little effort has been applied to look for life in the lunar rocks. The theory that the Moon is desiccated, hostile to life, and sterile, seems to have deterred further work. The early analyses indicated that methane (CH4) is present in the Apollo 11 samples. This may be primordial or delivered subsequently by impacts from asteroids or comets. If we ever discovered pockets of natural gas, even petroleum, on the Moon, this would be a staggering confirmation of Gold’s theory.

    So where should we look?

    Although the Moon is in our proverbial backyard, the expected depth of liquid water starts well below the bottom of the deepest craters.. This suggests that either deep boring would be necessary, or we must hope for impact ejecta to be recoverable from the needed depths. The prospects for either seem rather remote, although scientific and commercial activities on the Moon might make this possible in this century.

    Despite its remoteness, Mars may be more attractive. Sampling at the bottom of crater walls and the sides of the Valles Marineris may give us relatively easy access to samples at the needed depths. Should the transient dark marks on the sides of crater walls prove to be liquid water, we would have samples within easy reach. The recent discovery of a possible subsurface water deposit just 1.5 km beneath the surface of Mars might be another possible target to reach.

    The requirement that water is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for life has focused efforts on looking for life where liquid surface water exists. Because of the available techniques, exoplanet targets will be those that satisfy the HZ requirements. While these may prove the first confirmation of extraterrestrial life, they cannot answer some of the fundamental questions that we would like to know, for example, is abiogenesis common, or rare, and is panspermia the means to spread life. For that, we will need samples of such life. For the foreseeable future, that means sampling the solar system. We have 2 nearby worlds, and Gold suggested that there might be 10 suitable Moon-sized and above worlds that might have deep biospheres [5]. That might be ample.

    To date, our search for life beyond Earth has been little more than looking for fish in the waves lapping the shore. We need to search more comprehensively. I am arguing that this search needs to focus on the habitable regions of lithospheres of any suitable rocky world. We might start with signs of bacterial fossils in exposed rock strata and ejecta, and then core samples taken from boreholes to look for living organisms. Finding life, especially that from a different genesis would indicate that life is indeed ubiquitous in the universe.

    References

    1. Barnes, J. J., Tartèse, R., Anand, M., Mccubbin, F. M., Franchi, I. A., Starkey, N. A., & Russell, S. S. (2014). The origin of water in the primitive Moon as revealed by the lunar highlands samples. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 390, 244-252. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.01.015
    2. Davies, P. C., Benner, S. A., Cleland, C. E., Lineweaver, C. H., Mckay, C. P., & Wolfe-Simon, F. (2009). Signatures of a Shadow Biosphere. Astrobiology, 9(2), 241-249. doi:10.1089/ast.2008.0251
    3. Davies, P. C. (2011). ​ The eerie silence: Renewing our search for alien intelligence. ​ Boston: Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
    4. Gold, T. (1992). The deep, hot biosphere. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(13), 6045-6049. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.13.6045
    5. Gold, T. (2010). ​ The deep hot biosphere: The myth of fossil fuels. New York, NY: Copernicus Books.
    6. Hallis, L. J., Huss, G. R., Nagashima, K., Taylor, G. J., Halldórsson, S. A., Hilton, D. R., . . . Meech, K. J. (2015). Evidence for primordial water in Earth’s deep mantle. Science, 350(6262), 795-797. doi:10.1126/science.aac4834
    7. Hoffman N.(2001) Modern geothermal gradients on Mars and implications for subsurface liquids. Conference on the Geophysical Detection of Subsurface Water on Mars (2001)
    8. Kuskov O (2018) Geochemical Constraints on the Cold and Hot Models of the Moon’s Interior: 1–Bulk Composition. Solar System Research, 2018, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 467–479.
    9. Mccubbin, F. M., Steele, A., Hauri, E. H., Nekvasil, H., Yamashita, S., & Hemley, R. J. (2010). Nominally hydrous magmatism on the Moon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(25), 11223-11228. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006677107
    10. Nagy, B., Drew, C. M., Hamilton, P. B., Modzeleski, V. E., Murphy, S. M., Scott, W. M., . . . Young, M. (1970). Organic Compounds in Lunar Samples: Pyrolysis Products, Hydrocarbons, Amino Acids. Science, 167(3918), 770-773. doi:10.1126/science.167.3918.770
    11. Offord, C. (2018) Life Thrives Within the Earth’s Crust. The Scientist, October 1, 2018.
    12. Oyama, V. I., Merek, E. L., & Silverman, M. P. (1970). A Search for Viable Organisms in a Lunar Sample. Science,167(3918), 773-775. doi:10.1126/science.167.3918.773
    13. Tolley, A Detecting Early Life on Exoplanets. Centauri Dreams, February 2018
    14. Way, M. J., Genio, A. D., Kiang, N. Y., Sohl, L. E., Grinspoon, D. H., Aleinov, I., . . . Clune, T. (2016). Was Venus the first habitable world of our solar system? Geophysical Research Letters, 43(16), 8376-8383. doi:10.1002/2016gl069790
    15. Woo, M. The Hunt for Earth’s Deep Hidden Oceans. Quanta Magazine, July 11, 2018

    at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    Introduction to M-theory

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory In non-tec...

    • Wiki
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ward Cunningham , inventor of the wiki   A wiki is a website on whi...
    • Islamic State and the Levant
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام   ( ...
    • Heart Sutra
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...