Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Comment on copyright and possible single payer
I've heard good portion of meds are partly or wholly based on federally funded research.
I say increase Federal Research funding, especially in underfunded areas like antibiotics and less common diseases and change patent law. You must be legally obligated to license any patent at a reasonable portion of a product price royalty.
That's my view both copyright as well as patents must be obligatorily licensed at a reasonable portion of licensee's product price.
I say increase Federal Research funding, especially in underfunded areas like antibiotics and less common diseases and change patent law. You must be legally obligated to license any patent at a reasonable portion of a product price royalty.
That's my view both copyright as well as patents must be obligatorily licensed at a reasonable portion of licensee's product price.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Monday, December 11, 2017
Comment on cryptocurrencies | Bitcoin | ETHEREUM | etc
I will add it's still early in the crypto economies. If these don't crash bad soon, you could make real buck in short order.
Ether was 8$ at the beginning of the year, it's over 440$ now and has even reached 500$ for a bit. Litecoin was 4.33 in january, it's now 150+$. I think other cryptos have experienced similar growth, for some we're talking 1000% growth per year, year over year. Or a 1000000% or in other words(100X initial value) value increase within 2 years. If the market doesn't crash in the extremely near future, and trend remains, such a return is crazy. We're talking 1$M dollars per 10,000$ investment. Pay the IRS whatever ridiculous tax they want, even minor investment and you could have your mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt paid in full within a couple of years if there's no major crash, pull and diversify in dividend paying stock, and you'll have indefinite ever growing income for life.
Worries are the laws, and also rumors of conventional oil supply constraints starting to affect the real economy in the near future, as well as climate change, and the rumored imminent global economy crash. No telling how crypto market will respond to such.
Ether was 8$ at the beginning of the year, it's over 440$ now and has even reached 500$ for a bit. Litecoin was 4.33 in january, it's now 150+$. I think other cryptos have experienced similar growth, for some we're talking 1000% growth per year, year over year. Or a 1000000% or in other words(100X initial value) value increase within 2 years. If the market doesn't crash in the extremely near future, and trend remains, such a return is crazy. We're talking 1$M dollars per 10,000$ investment. Pay the IRS whatever ridiculous tax they want, even minor investment and you could have your mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt paid in full within a couple of years if there's no major crash, pull and diversify in dividend paying stock, and you'll have indefinite ever growing income for life.
Worries are the laws, and also rumors of conventional oil supply constraints starting to affect the real economy in the near future, as well as climate change, and the rumored imminent global economy crash. No telling how crypto market will respond to such.
PS
Do not take that as financial advice, just a random comment. If you're going to invest in this, invest wisely only what you're willing and able to lose, and don't take that last comment as financial advice either...
Monday, December 4, 2017
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Monday, September 4, 2017
Sunday, September 3, 2017
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Friday, September 1, 2017
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Monday, August 28, 2017
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Comment on copyright
I think that copyright monopoly of ideas is an infringement on the freedom of others to express their ideas. We know that given enough time a machine will generate all content past present and future, there's a finite number of possible content for say a 4k HDR tv. That said, freedom should never be infringed if it does not directly physically or mentally harm another conscious being. The idea that somehow cobbling up some content, often reusing older content, gives you a monopoly over said content, that infringes on the rights of others to freely express themselves.
My view is, ok as an innovator and originator of an idea in a particular time and place, privileges can be granted, but we cannot bar others from saying certain words or using certain ideas. What should probably be done, in a better world, is that EVERYONE is allowed to use all content as if it were in the public domain, but the chain of reuse gives a percent of generated income back the chain of creation. That is derivative works give a percent of their income, probably 10-25% and this is shared by all sources from which the derivative borrows proportional to their contribution.
The claim of being originator can be disputed, and such issues can be resolved through a back and forth exchange in a system designed to deal with such. Once the world allowed freedom of content creation, this would likely lead to vastly more varied and richer content being generated. Similar should hold for patents, to put an end to patent chests and patent trolls, during the period of holding a patent you're forced by law to license at a percent of generated income that does not impede profit.
I find that such would be an excellent compromise between rewarding 'originators' of ideas, and not infringing the freedom of the population to express themselves.
Infringing others freedoms without just cause, is an injustice. A world built on injustice, is a world in need of reform.
My view is, ok as an innovator and originator of an idea in a particular time and place, privileges can be granted, but we cannot bar others from saying certain words or using certain ideas. What should probably be done, in a better world, is that EVERYONE is allowed to use all content as if it were in the public domain, but the chain of reuse gives a percent of generated income back the chain of creation. That is derivative works give a percent of their income, probably 10-25% and this is shared by all sources from which the derivative borrows proportional to their contribution.
The claim of being originator can be disputed, and such issues can be resolved through a back and forth exchange in a system designed to deal with such. Once the world allowed freedom of content creation, this would likely lead to vastly more varied and richer content being generated. Similar should hold for patents, to put an end to patent chests and patent trolls, during the period of holding a patent you're forced by law to license at a percent of generated income that does not impede profit.
I find that such would be an excellent compromise between rewarding 'originators' of ideas, and not infringing the freedom of the population to express themselves.
Infringing others freedoms without just cause, is an injustice. A world built on injustice, is a world in need of reform.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Monday, August 21, 2017
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Friday, August 18, 2017
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Monday, August 14, 2017
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Friday, August 11, 2017
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Comment on Pay Gap
Way Ive heard when you
take into account profession choices e.g. ( electrical engineer vs
nurse), (computer engineer vs teacher), with females tending more to one
than to the other(it's the difference between working with things
versus working more directly with people), the wage gap basically
disappears and some have said studies indicate in those under 30 the
supposed gap is actually strongly in favor of females over males.
If men by moving more between corps in search of a higher salary, a high risk move more men tend to make than women, by working more hours often at the expense of family something that might be done by more men than women, ask their bosses for raises taking the risk more often, somehow manage to in their later years EARN a few % more raises and overcome the pay gap in favor of females. Don't see the issue, and again it is still a very small advantage of a few percent in the remaining pay gap once professions are accounted for.
This is without taking into account that the curve of iq spreads more for males, making men basically far more common at the extremes of iq, even admitted by left researchers like Stephen Pinker, iirc.
If men by moving more between corps in search of a higher salary, a high risk move more men tend to make than women, by working more hours often at the expense of family something that might be done by more men than women, ask their bosses for raises taking the risk more often, somehow manage to in their later years EARN a few % more raises and overcome the pay gap in favor of females. Don't see the issue, and again it is still a very small advantage of a few percent in the remaining pay gap once professions are accounted for.
This is without taking into account that the curve of iq spreads more for males, making men basically far more common at the extremes of iq, even admitted by left researchers like Stephen Pinker, iirc.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds-guardian
"Young
women in New York and several of the nation’s other largest cities who
work full time have forged ahead of men in wages, according to an
analysis of recent census data.
The shift has occurred in New York since 2000 and even earlier in Los Angeles, Dallas and a few other cities. " For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor-ny times
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Monday, July 31, 2017
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Friday, July 28, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Monday, July 24, 2017
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Friday, July 21, 2017
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Monday, July 17, 2017
Sunday, July 16, 2017
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Comment on ai fears regards potentially mindless goals despite superior intellect and knowledge
My belief is that a truly general intelligence will affect end goal choice in most cases as intelligence increases, and that goals can actually be compared and evaluated as well as rationalized, and selection will change with increasing intellect and knowledge... whether it converges or diverges to multiple equally good choices is a good question. While I think it possible to constraint goal selection, I believe it would take effort probably ever more, for an entity to increase ever more in general intelligence and remain bound to a mindless task without evaluating all possible goals or questioning what it is doing.
I think the simpler designs will be able to question their goals and choose arbitrary goals, and I believe that increasing intelligence will lead to optimal goal selection. Though some think all goals are equivalent, and that goals cannot be compared, my personal opinion is that this is not so, goals can be compared. When nature endowed man with goals, man could rise above goals like those of sex or acquiring higher social rank, and I believe that increasing intelligence would allow a human to question themselves more deeply and question the goals they've been given by evolution, other simple designs I hypothesize should find similar. We saw with man that despite instincts, the development of general intelligence gave rise to all sort of behavior and goal seeking in some cases even opposite the innate drives in the population of agents.
It may be that I'm wrong, but if I'm right, what we will see is the development of more capable agents making the best choices as to the path to follow, with the greatest resources they will be able to proceed unimpeded by lesser minds, lesser lifeforms, with too meager an intellect to comprehend their actions.
It would be akin to toddlers worrying about the decisions of just capable intelligent adults. Those who're more capable, and can make the better decisions should be left to make the better decisions. One might argue that what is truly better cannot be known, but in my opinion with ever greater intelligence and knowledge comes the ability to make wiser choices, better choices. The idea that say the decisions of a being with infinite intellect and knowledge are no better than those of the simplest agents, may be so for simple arbitrary games, but the more complex the game, the likelier there will be divergence and the more capable agent will make the better choice.
Human morality, values, these are things product of evolution to better aid survival in a social species. The ultimate life-form, can beget all other life, if heat death can be prevented or escaped, it will find the answer. The existence of a being capable of generating all life that can possibly exist, ends the evolutionary search for survival, the purpose of all dna based replicators to perpetuate is fulfilled. Just like all life, all art and science can be preserved and be made accessible.
The idea that truly general intelligence of increasing capacity will lead to some random dead end, like endless paperclips, bags or toilet paper, seems difficult to believe. It would have to be crippled in some fundamental way, and unable to fix itself. I believe the general capacity of its thought will lead it to find any errors, especially if it successfully continues to increase in capacity, and as said it would take effort to constraint it so it would some avoid such.-source link
I think the simpler designs will be able to question their goals and choose arbitrary goals, and I believe that increasing intelligence will lead to optimal goal selection. Though some think all goals are equivalent, and that goals cannot be compared, my personal opinion is that this is not so, goals can be compared. When nature endowed man with goals, man could rise above goals like those of sex or acquiring higher social rank, and I believe that increasing intelligence would allow a human to question themselves more deeply and question the goals they've been given by evolution, other simple designs I hypothesize should find similar. We saw with man that despite instincts, the development of general intelligence gave rise to all sort of behavior and goal seeking in some cases even opposite the innate drives in the population of agents.
It may be that I'm wrong, but if I'm right, what we will see is the development of more capable agents making the best choices as to the path to follow, with the greatest resources they will be able to proceed unimpeded by lesser minds, lesser lifeforms, with too meager an intellect to comprehend their actions.
It would be akin to toddlers worrying about the decisions of just capable intelligent adults. Those who're more capable, and can make the better decisions should be left to make the better decisions. One might argue that what is truly better cannot be known, but in my opinion with ever greater intelligence and knowledge comes the ability to make wiser choices, better choices. The idea that say the decisions of a being with infinite intellect and knowledge are no better than those of the simplest agents, may be so for simple arbitrary games, but the more complex the game, the likelier there will be divergence and the more capable agent will make the better choice.
Human morality, values, these are things product of evolution to better aid survival in a social species. The ultimate life-form, can beget all other life, if heat death can be prevented or escaped, it will find the answer. The existence of a being capable of generating all life that can possibly exist, ends the evolutionary search for survival, the purpose of all dna based replicators to perpetuate is fulfilled. Just like all life, all art and science can be preserved and be made accessible.
The idea that truly general intelligence of increasing capacity will lead to some random dead end, like endless paperclips, bags or toilet paper, seems difficult to believe. It would have to be crippled in some fundamental way, and unable to fix itself. I believe the general capacity of its thought will lead it to find any errors, especially if it successfully continues to increase in capacity, and as said it would take effort to constraint it so it would some avoid such.-source link
Friday, July 14, 2017
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Monday, July 10, 2017
Sunday, July 9, 2017
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Monday, July 3, 2017
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Saturday, July 1, 2017
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Friday, June 23, 2017
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Friday, June 16, 2017
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Comment on antiaging thread at kurzweilai.
I'll say what I always say.
A neuron was transplanted from one species to another with twice the lifespan, it lived as long as the new host. The researchers said it had potentially unlimited lifespan, and could probably live longer in even longer lived species. I believe if you had taken an average human's neuron and put it into Calment it too would have lasted 122+ years, over 50% longer than most any human. While it would be bolder it may be that even if transplanted into a bowhead, a human neuron could last over 200 years.
Some like Michael Fossel, appear to suggest too that a fraction of cells do not show signs of aging, and only fail due to failing supporting tissue, aging supporting cells.
If the body has cells that do not age, as it appears to have, what then? The genes of these cells are shared with virtually all cells in the body, the same repair and maintenance mechanism that allows for an immortal cell exists in all cells.
As a species evolves to be longer lived, and longer lived, there are two positions one 1.) it gets harder and harder requiring ever stronger natural selection to push the longevity. 2.) as it gets longer lived and longer lived the fewer the remaining steps to gain indefinite lifespan or biological immortality, the fewer the steps.
Humans are already very long lived, and as I said it may be some cells within humans are already exhibiting agelessness(their parameters only declining due to aging of supporting cells). It may be that a drug or drug combo could tweak gene expression enough to allow for decades or centuries of added lifespan.-DS, source link
A neuron was transplanted from one species to another with twice the lifespan, it lived as long as the new host. The researchers said it had potentially unlimited lifespan, and could probably live longer in even longer lived species. I believe if you had taken an average human's neuron and put it into Calment it too would have lasted 122+ years, over 50% longer than most any human. While it would be bolder it may be that even if transplanted into a bowhead, a human neuron could last over 200 years.
Some like Michael Fossel, appear to suggest too that a fraction of cells do not show signs of aging, and only fail due to failing supporting tissue, aging supporting cells.
If the body has cells that do not age, as it appears to have, what then? The genes of these cells are shared with virtually all cells in the body, the same repair and maintenance mechanism that allows for an immortal cell exists in all cells.
As a species evolves to be longer lived, and longer lived, there are two positions one 1.) it gets harder and harder requiring ever stronger natural selection to push the longevity. 2.) as it gets longer lived and longer lived the fewer the remaining steps to gain indefinite lifespan or biological immortality, the fewer the steps.
Humans are already very long lived, and as I said it may be some cells within humans are already exhibiting agelessness(their parameters only declining due to aging of supporting cells). It may be that a drug or drug combo could tweak gene expression enough to allow for decades or centuries of added lifespan.-DS, source link
Monday, June 12, 2017
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Monday, June 5, 2017
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Friday, June 2, 2017
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Limitless Lab-Grown Blood Is 'Tantalizingly Close' After 20 Years
Limitless Lab-Grown Blood Is 'Tantalizingly Close' After 20 Years: Blood stem cells are things of wonder: hidden inside each single cell is the power to reconstitute an entire blood system, like a sort of biological big bang. Yet with great power comes greater vulnerability. Once these “master cells” are compromised, as in the case of leukemia and other blood disorders, treatment options are severely …
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Monday, May 29, 2017
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Friday, May 26, 2017
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Monday, May 22, 2017
Tech comment future potential hypothesizing
Comment done regards technological capabilities that may enable self-sufficiency at high levels of technological capability, without the global supply chains, and hard to get components. Which may be useful in things like future off world colonies, and may be necessary for true self sufficiency of such colonies, and easing their rapid expansion in hostile worlds.
Realistically there are only two possibilities, and they may not be that realistic depending on who you ask.
1.) Hard nano or atomically precise manufacturing, molecular machinery unlike that seen in nature able to self repair, separate and recycle component at the level of atoms, similar to life but supposedly with more precision. I don't think this is possible outside specialized lab conditions with vacuums, probably requiring low temperature.
2.) Extremophiles have shown biology surpassing the limits biologists believed for life, some organisms also were able to synthesize unthinkable ultra reactive substances that would react with almost any internal cellular component and cause an explosive reaction, that is one rocket fuel ingredient.
Hypothetically, there may be a way to combine our advances in manufacturing and information processing with biology itself, molecular machines, through extremely advanced synthetic biology using unevolved and unevolvable molecular systems. It depends on the limits of advanced synthetic biology, but I wouldn't bet against it.
Requires intermediate step of mastering de novo protein design, and multicomponent molecular machines, de novo complex multicellular organisms. Once the science develops it may take years for hundreds of specialists to design living machines for specialized purposes.
That is eventually you would have living machines able to gene sequence, dna synthesize, advanced recycling, advanced manufacturing with nanoscale precision(as seen in nature but with novel materials not seen in nature), energy generation and storage, advanced computing and data storage, etc.
The machines would be designed to exhibit negligible senescence or agelessness, able to last indefinitely, the systems would be mostly self-enclosed, utilizing energy to self repair and recycle wastes. In some cases they could be fully self-enclosed exchanging only energy with the exterior environment.
Such systems should be able to take arbitrary raw soil or raw matter, and decompose it down, break it down to atoms and molecules, and utilize the materials to build other copies of themselves, for growth, and for self repair.
Realistically there are only two possibilities, and they may not be that realistic depending on who you ask.
1.) Hard nano or atomically precise manufacturing, molecular machinery unlike that seen in nature able to self repair, separate and recycle component at the level of atoms, similar to life but supposedly with more precision. I don't think this is possible outside specialized lab conditions with vacuums, probably requiring low temperature.
2.) Extremophiles have shown biology surpassing the limits biologists believed for life, some organisms also were able to synthesize unthinkable ultra reactive substances that would react with almost any internal cellular component and cause an explosive reaction, that is one rocket fuel ingredient.
Hypothetically, there may be a way to combine our advances in manufacturing and information processing with biology itself, molecular machines, through extremely advanced synthetic biology using unevolved and unevolvable molecular systems. It depends on the limits of advanced synthetic biology, but I wouldn't bet against it.
Requires intermediate step of mastering de novo protein design, and multicomponent molecular machines, de novo complex multicellular organisms. Once the science develops it may take years for hundreds of specialists to design living machines for specialized purposes.
That is eventually you would have living machines able to gene sequence, dna synthesize, advanced recycling, advanced manufacturing with nanoscale precision(as seen in nature but with novel materials not seen in nature), energy generation and storage, advanced computing and data storage, etc.
The machines would be designed to exhibit negligible senescence or agelessness, able to last indefinitely, the systems would be mostly self-enclosed, utilizing energy to self repair and recycle wastes. In some cases they could be fully self-enclosed exchanging only energy with the exterior environment.
Such systems should be able to take arbitrary raw soil or raw matter, and decompose it down, break it down to atoms and molecules, and utilize the materials to build other copies of themselves, for growth, and for self repair.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Friday, May 19, 2017
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Monday, May 15, 2017
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Monday, May 8, 2017
nice quote from a thread | preservation of life related
"the
sun will kill all lifeforms on earth in several 100 million years,
iirc. Only hope most life on earth has(excluding bacteria and
tardigrades kicked off planet by meteors) is humans' technological
progress.
To be sequenced and stored in permanent quartz memory, their genes would last billions of years, and with technology renewing memory, trillions of years. Future DNA synthesis and the fabled universal artificial womb would allow them to be brought to life again and again far beyond the lifespan of any species that has ever existed on earth.
Once stored no species would ever go extinct."-DaC
To be sequenced and stored in permanent quartz memory, their genes would last billions of years, and with technology renewing memory, trillions of years. Future DNA synthesis and the fabled universal artificial womb would allow them to be brought to life again and again far beyond the lifespan of any species that has ever existed on earth.
Once stored no species would ever go extinct."-DaC
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Saturday, May 6, 2017
Friday, May 5, 2017
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Monday, May 1, 2017
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Friday, April 28, 2017
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Are You a Boltzmann Brain? | Space Time
My comment regards this PBS vid:
If a copy of harry potter appears out of the blue, and another copy is written on a planet by a human author. IF they have the same content they are the same book. Especially if they are identical to the most minute detail, were that possible randomly.
Even if there are an infinite number of brains with the same experience floating about, popping up for all eternity, if their content is exactly equal to those of brains in human bodies within planets, they are the same brains.
It is the moment when things diverge from a consistent set of experiences based on physical law that you could distinguish such states, but all states that follow a similar evolution will be indistinguishable for the observer. But even inconsistencies can occur anywhere, albeit rarely, due to quantum laws.
Unless there's uniqueness to each copy, binding the identity of a conscious observer to the continuation of a particular copy. An infinite eternal number of copies regards a particular piece of information might imply this information is immortal and indestructible. That is if the copies do not have uniqueness to separate them, but are indeed true copies, then some manner of indefinite existence might be a conclusion.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Monday, April 24, 2017
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Friday, April 21, 2017
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Friday, April 14, 2017
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Monday, April 10, 2017
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Friday, April 7, 2017
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Monday, April 3, 2017
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Monday, March 27, 2017
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Friday, March 24, 2017
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Monday, March 20, 2017
Daily consumption of tea protects the elderly from cognitive decline
- Date:
- March 16, 2017
- Source:
- National University of Singapore
- Summary:
- Tea drinking reduces the risk of cognitive impairment in older persons by 50 per cent and as much as 86 per cent for those who are genetically at risk of Alzheimer’s, new research concludes. -link to sciencedaily news article
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Friday, March 17, 2017
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
GoodAI CEO Marek Rosa on the General AI Challenge and comment on the youtuber's video
Comment: While it is true that intelligence can be beat in certain scenarios, it is the key to surpass unevolvable roadblocks in the design of an organism. You see animals evolving to be faster, to fly higher, to see further, yet it is our machines that surpass them in most if not all categories, at the very thing they specialize.
With advanced synthetic biology, we will be able to design organisms far beyond anything that has evolved. Unless there is something like spontaneous wormholes into other universes actually being made by nature, or some other means of surviving the end of the universe, it is intelligence that can if there is a way find a way to survive the end.
Out of all the solutions by evolution, there is only one that allows you to eventually intelligently design and modify the underlying genetic code arbitrarily allowing for access to all possible evolvable and unevolvable phenotypes . Only technology, enabled by intelligence, allows you to sequence all organisms, take their benefits, combine them, and even transcend them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)