Design is a process, like philosophy,
like science, like technology and mathematics, and any other engineering
protocol. It's a process of looking at
a problem, adressing what causes that problem possibly,
and what positive solutions there are to a problem. And then it goes about reinventing
and reworking and reassessing and reevalutiong until there is a
possible solution to the problem. When that possible solution is identified
the next step in design protocol is to actually build a prototype for that
solution and test it and retest it.
A process of taking something from its existing state and moving it to a preferred
state, design aptly relates to extreme life extension.
It also relates to the adaptive processes of the human species.
In the human use of human beings, Norbert Wiener states,
"The human species is strong only insofar as it takes advantage
of the innate adaptive learning facilities its
physiological structure makes possible."
Organisms anticipate the future, choose routes to take and then adjust
their behaviour accordingly, as "every organism exhibits
some degree of aim or purpose" thereby becoming
a model. Such a model can be seen in what Alfred North Whitehead
provides as a vision of behaviour.
Also such a model can be recognised in Wiener's
scientific framework of cybernetics in potential for organisms to viewed as
formations in assesing technological advancements, notably
"a living organism is no longer seen as permanent form
but rather as a network of activity." With this new definition of life
the philosophy of becoming superceeds the philosophy of being and
life becomes a process bound to the notion of change.
Let's look at design
adaptation and the state of the art of human futures. We'll consider
a human prototype where their human body and brain modified by the user
as in the human future in the centre. That's a
prima posthuman I designed in 1997. Okay, so
if a design is a social process and it relates
to social progress and it relates to possibly the
synergenic aspect of the human incorporating with machines
and technology, what does that mean exactly?
For design, in the biological arts the idea
of molding or sculpting our body is as essential
as working on a painting or working on a sculpture. For cognitive
sciences and neurosciences, looking at the brain and looking at what
causes the cells to degenerate, what causes those synapses and the dendrites to connect
what causes the telemerose in our chromosomes to
lose their ends. These are all aspects of looking at the design process of
the human body as it ages. Well
in the biological arts there's enormous potential
for not only the robotics, the
neurologists, the designers, the nanotechnologists
all working with the information nanotech
all working with the information nanotechologies
brings. How does this convert? What does this mean
to the process of design as it effects extreme life extension?
Whether or not modifying or enhancing is advantageous is
a deep and problematic ethical issue, especially right now
and it's, as you know, it's in the news and it's discussed tremendously
What are the ethics of our doing this? Well, as I'm concerned as a
designer, I look at the design and the potential of design. My job is to
problem solve this issue that I've identified as aging and death
and the
discontinuitiy of personal identity. That's the problem
as I see it. And as a I designer I go back to look at what type of technologies
and processes can be used to aleivate that problem
I have to team up with other people of course in other professions
so then I came up with design on the brink, the biotech
robotics, infotech, nanotech, cognitive neuro sciences
Put together these different disciplines are working. I'm not the first
one doing; I'm not the only doing it. It's become a major field with the arts
and it's becoming a field in industrial and product design
While I may have designed the first prototype
medical scientists and surgeons are
far ahead of what any artist or designer could possibly do right now and
I don't make any pretense there. However, what is missing in those domains
is the creativity and the understanding of what the problem is
I don't have to look at it strictly from a philosophic or a scientific
point of view. I have the ability to roam in my imagination, looking at
what possibilities there are. So, this
state of the art with design futures is basically
state of the art with design futures is basically
that a little bit of poetic license
understanding the ethics as well. What is the relationship with extreme life extension
and design? As a process, design is intention of extension and design
design is intension-based. We solve a problem. We build a method for solving the problem
and go about testing it. The relationship between design and extreme
life extension can be identified by using these three steps
First, the problem of cell apoptosis.  Second, the
problem of analysing and researching what technologies and sciences are available to us
And third, putting them into action. I have some slides later I'll
show you on this. Some very creative interpretations.
One of the main issues here, is the fragility
of the human body and fragility of the human brain
The brain's dynamic library of experiences is so fragile
that we have to consider what possibilities there are
for backing it up. Just as we back up our computer, our
brain needs some sort of mechanism to give us the
well-being that our memories are being preserved.
We have tape recorders. We have video cameras. We have
all sorts of artistic mechanisms to do that, but what
if we wanted that integrated within our brain? Yes, there are possibilities
for chips and immersive design and environment design and all sorts of
interesting mechanics for that. But what if we look at it from a different perspective?
Not as technology and communications, but looking it as an
enhancement of the human brain. Then it becomes a whole other
area, a whole other domain. So, the sustainability
of memories then becomes the central issue. We had death which is
the formation of why design would be involved or related to extreme life
extension, but if we look more deeply into it, it becomes memory because
in memory, is that where our personal existence resides? And if so, isn't that
very precious, and if not, why is it not?
If we can preserve our personal existence through our memory
then why aren't we doing it? Why are we sustaining the
environment and sustaining as much as possible but not sustaining ourselves so there is the
key question: what is it in human nature that doesn't value
personal identity, the individual, the being, the species
as primary situation or issue
that we must pay attention to immediatly. Well, one of the issues there is
the practice of religion or spirituality or
any other type of our ritual that looks at
our afterlife and puts more emphasis on our afterlife
than our being life. So if we look at
possibilities of death and redefining it, then
we get into a whole other issue. Throughout mythology
whether it's going back to the bushmen in Africa
who are said to be the first
humans, the bushmen worshipped an underworld. In Egypt
there was the afterlife, in different religions
in the Navaho Indians, it's the Four Corners, and going
to an underworld in the Earth or
lying with the Gaia sprit belief. Christianity
of course, Judaism, all the different religions have a belief about the afterlife
So, if we place our religion or spiritual views above our
real-time views, then of course it makes sense. Why wouldn't it
That's where our value is. But those of us who don't
or want to place value on both possibilities, then the existence
of a personal identity and sustaining it and continuing has great value
for us.
