Sorry to go on about this…there are at least two articles in this material, perhaps I’m too lazy to write them and deferring to you! Yes, 1) The dynamic-interactive part of being human (or any living thing) is a complex feedback loop where Nature helps decide who survives, so a) hard to hack that and b) the end product might violate Nature or create an ugly mass-extinction? (hey! a 3rd article might be are war and pestilence (and death) a culling process that prevents our species from suffering mass-starvation, like ruminate predation?)
2) The one I’m trying to zero in on is the reciprocal nature of Nature and bodily processes, the “thing that gives you life also gives you death”. Nature is full of that (ie can’t live without sunlight or water, but at some level both will kill you) and plants w defense systems like broccoli are actually sorta “3 parts good one part bad” (most people think in Boolean terms, A is “good”, B is “bad”). So since there’s never been an immortal mutant, I have to assume that maybe even a stem cell is programmed for destruction someday, and if it doesn’t die, something else will get it (all pretty much a “good” thing). I’ve been reading “Nature” weekly for years, and now “Science”, and that’s the general thread (bear in mind these are the Science papers and not the “live forever” hokum you get elsewhere). Here’s one article that mentions the sorta “if one thing don’t getcha the other will” of aging (basically the aging process keeps cancer at bay?) https://www.livescience.com/60825-aging-is-inevitable-according-to-math.html But ok, so now its 2040, we’ve conquered cancer, aging, tuned immunity to perfection, but then maybe the end product isn’t dynamic enough to keep pace w Nature? (BTW a human-robot hybrid, or cyborg, certainly the direction we’re going, with our mental-essences stored in the cloud, all good except are we still “human” as defined by the organic thing that adapts to Nature…it might be a long time before we can hack the adaptation part, or even want to)
To your point where we might learn what changes/adaptations to make to ourselves, I’d guess we will always be too vain or stupid for that…especially if the change involves a necessary self-destruction, like lemmings?
Finally, we’re writing some really good shit about this (especially you), and not reaching an audience on Medium (who cares more about woo-woo and relationships than Science). There’s a market for those who can broaden the latest research (like you) in the Science Magazines, even the heavy-weights like “Nature” and “Science” (whose front sections have the popularized stuff, the back end the science papers). Certainly “Scientific American” and others might be a good market? I’m assuming you’re younger and needing to make $ off writing? I try to inject humor into mine, not always successfully! Examples: https://scottvern.medium.com/will-government-healthcare-replace-prisons-in-2040-b47e4c06caba https://scottvern.medium.com/the-dangerous-righty-lefty-pharmaceutical-punch-ef0a4478dc1e
Keep up the good work!
