Re: If it's not AI, Nano, or Uploading Extropians Ignore it.

David D. (
Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:41:44 -0700

Lyle Burkhead wrote:
> David D. writes,
> > If gene therapy for humans started at least by 1990, then wouldn't it be possible to use that technology for genetic re-creation. Example: If I
had the money and the right doctor, could I isolate the "novelty" gene,
whip up an elixir, shot it up (or perhaps inhale it in aerosol form), to
give myself a "high" that made me want to pursue "novel" (or
perhaps there's an extropian gene) ideas, ways and means?

> You can do that anyway. You don't need gene therapy. The genes are
> already there, we all have them, it's just a matter of turning them on.
> Suppose you did have an aerosol. Imagine inhaling it.

I wonder how the people posting to this list would rate if they were
given a test to determine if they had the 'novelty' gene. I'd guess
pretty high. AND, if there's a 'novelty' gene, there very well might be
an 'extropian-transhuman' gene. This would explain the very real
experience of Chris' 'high' feeling when he gets an 'aha'
Also, you may not _have_ the gene to be activated. If only one parent had
the 'extropian/novelty/huntington's chorea' gene, you might not receive
it. Even if they both had it, you might not receive it. So no matter how
many aerosols, patches, plug-ins you had, you could never activate that
Getting that gene from somewhere else and injecting it to provide your
body with the biological assistance it was incapable of giving you, is a
current technology. Only, this technology is being used to treat disease
and not for any 're-creational' or 'cosmetic' purposes.
Is it possible, right now, to use this technology for purely
cosmetic purposes?

New ideas will come so fast
> you can't write them down.

I'm thinking about longevity, so I _can_ write them down (and research
them, and write about them and realize them.)

David D.

"_Death_, is a health crisis." Dana Scully. (X-Files)