Sunday, August 31, 2014

A Manifesto for Survival

If there is one thing we've learned, as a species, throughout our natural history, it's this: the future does not come for free, the future should not be taken for granted and, more than anything else, the future belongs to the fittest! As such, in order for humanity to think about steering the future in one way or another, it firstly needs to fulfill one major prerequisite: secure its tomorrows. Once this goal is accomplished, then we can set our views on the ultimate end game, which I will henceforth address as 'utopias'. While there are no two people alike, I believe that chances are that there is no single utopia. Hence, my preference for its plural form. The final point of all of our efforts should be aimed at creating individually tailored utopias that can somehow coexist even in the presence of contradictions. Although an ambitious goal, the idea of universal happiness, joy and fulfillment is not unattainable in practice. At the very least, think about the wonders of virtual reality technology and imagine for a second how this could help you shape the world of your dreams. According to some, we might be living in a computer simulation anyway, so what difference does it make if we simulate a new world - within the old one - that makes us feel perfectly at ease?

For those of you who are already raising your eyebrows in contempt of the idea of utopian virtual reality and of infamous Nozickian experience machines, I have some good news. This essay is not about paving the road towards the future with virtual blocks; the example of the potential of virtual reality technology is simply to show that, even at this point in time, we have some clear directions that can lead us to utopia. But to get there, first, and to experience the bliss of it all, we need to survive. And this is what I'm going to write about.

I was mentioning earlier that the end game of humanity and the direction towards which it should steer its future is individual utopias. Due to this prominent part that individual well-being plays in my account of the greatest achievement of mankind, I am primarily concerned with individual survival. This piece of writing, which I like to regard as a manifesto, will present in a step-by-step fashion the threats that endanger our survival and will focus on the idea that, in order to have the highest success rate in promoting individual well-being, we should solve our problems in a disciplined and orderly fashion. This said, I would like to propose prioritization as the main algorithm for demolishing the biggest obstacles to our very existence.

First things first


Imagine everything turns out perfectly in your life. If that's the case – and, let's face it, it usually isn't- would you honestly say that your physical integrity and survival are under no threat at all? Probably not. Aging, the silent enemy within, has been wracking havoc in our bodies since the day we could still brag about our wrinkle-free complexions and impressive musculature. Innumerable metabolic processes that are necessary for our well functioning lead, in time, to an accumulated damage that will eventually put a stop to everything we know. Because, at this point, natural death is inescapable for each and every one of us, I consider it the greatest threat to our individual survival and, as such, grant the task of finding a way to escape it the highest level of priority.

Now, let's fast-forward and imagine that we have succeeded in halting and reversing the effects of aging. Are we now safe from dying? Unfortunately, not yet. Even if we can make sure that our bodies are immune from harmful metabolic byproducts, DNA mutations, or hormonal shifts, we cannot control absolutely everything that's going on around us. It might simply be the case that, after visiting your physician for the recommended annual rejuvenation therapy, a brick falls on your head and crushes your skull. What is to be done then and in other similar cases? Depending on many circumstances, accidents may or may not be life threatening. In the high eventuality in which they are, I propose to designate the attempt to protect individual human beings from accident induced death with the second highest level of priority in my scheme of tackling the obstacles to our survival.

If our bodies don't kill us first and if we can actually protect ourselves from other causes of death, are we then safe from physical destruction? Well, not even close. You see, the problem is that - as some moral philosophers have already pointed out - it is so much easier to hurt than to benefit a human being. This thought does not only apply to the behavior of others, but practically to everything that surrounds us. Nature, for one, can be both our friend and our enemy. We need our natural resources in order to survive, but, at the same time, environmental catastrophes have taken many to the grave. In a context in which climate change is starting to represent a serious challenge to humans' well-being, the safe approach is to consider our planet's problems as the third item on our priority list.

Not only the Earth can turn against us, but, according to different theories, the entire universe as well. The death of the universe, as improbable and distant as it might seem right now, represents the last problem that we need to solve in order to guarantee our physical continuity. And, thus, my priority list is complete. Starting from the microscopic processes that keep our bodies fueled and zooming out to the world outside of us, this small four-item list clusters together the dangers that each of us faces in the struggle for survival. In the next lines, I will show that there are paths worthy of being followed for tackling every point on this list. Please, do keep in mind, though, that first things should always come first.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger...?


Most certainly not. But it's surely nice to hear. Among the many coping mechanisms that humanity has resorted to in order to be able to tolerate the horrors of death, religion, spirituality and positive folk wisdom occupy the most prominent places. In spite of all this, the thought remains: nonexistence is scary and potentially infinite. If we are brave enough to assume this value judgment, then there is a high chance that we will be able to push the limits of what we know to exotic territories that might end up marveling us altogether. However, in order to reach this blissful land, we need to give up our coping mechanisms, to abandon that comfort zone that perpetuates a self-sabotaging inertia in the fight against the biggest killer of all times.

There are two main directions that have already been shaped in our attempt to conquer the atrocities of natural death. The first one is beautifully illustrated by the field of biogerontology. Gifted researchers, like Aubrey De Grey, Cynthia Kenyon or David Sinclair, just to name a few, have revolutionized the struggle for survival by leading the way towards new rejuvenating possibilities that may indeterminately extend our lifespans. In the gloomy and unlikely eventuality in which this path might fail us, there is another suitable option to consider: the creation of brain-computer interfaces and uploading human brains on machines. Fortunately, this solution can be applied to both natural and accident induced deaths.

Biogerontology can do little for accidental deaths. But, luckily for us, there are many potential courses of action that might shield us from this type of harm. The one that I consider most successful at this point, although it still appears phantasmagorical, is the protection of internal organs through some kind of resistant coating. This can be accompanied by even more stringent layers of defense, such as, for instance, the introduction in the human body of a set of organ-like devices. With the advent of nanotechnology and its success in reducing the size of computer chips, it is not impossible to conceive the existence of nano-robots which, if and when necessary, may take over the functions of our organs and, thus, keep us alive.

Planet Earth and us


Even if we don't suffer from the effects of any environmental catastrophe, human life extension is definitely a variable that can highly impact our relationship with our planet. People living longer and healthier years may easily lead to overpopulation and an over-consumption of natural resources. As putting a cap to all the progress we can make in extending our longevity is out of the question, what remains to be done is to find a way to accommodate these two conflicting sets of needs: ours and our planet's. Fortunately, even as I am writing this essay, there are visionaries out there pointing to the necessity of colonizing the outer space and of working towards the production of some of the machines that are required for such an ambitious enterprise. Stephen Hawking has been raising awareness about the need to find other places in the universe that we might call home for years, while Elon Musk's Space X is making important progress in devising state of the art transportation that might take us to Mars. Also, many other scientists are actively searching for environmentally friendlier ways of producing energy or for degrading waste, So far, many of their results have been truly spectacular.

'Some say the world will end in fire, / Some say in ice.'


For almost one hundred years, Robert Frost has been subtly warning us about the dangers of taking the universe for granted. There are many theories out there revolving around the potential death of the cosmos: the Big Freeze, the heat death, the Big Rip, the Big Crunch or the Big Bounce. We don't actually have bulletproof evidence supporting any of them and it might as well be the case that the universe expands forever. But, in order to be on the safe side, let us consider this obstacle to our individual survival as well.

While we don't know much in this area right now even as to make a safe and accurate prediction about the fate of all the world around us, it goes without saying that we don't have a plan that could help us avoid these gloomy scenarios either. But what we have instead is a recipe for any kind of success: artificial intelligence. At that moment in time when we have solved all of our most urgent problems and when everything that is left to harm us is the destruction of the universe, it is highly likely that we have managed to create safe and effective AI. I'm saying safe and effective because otherwise we would be long wiped out, with no possibility of further worrying about our existence. Hopefully, if the human mind, cognitively enhanced or not, cannot come up with a solution to this quasi unsolvable problem, a fine product of the human mind, AI, might be up for the challenge.

In place of a conclusion: Priorities set straight


I have argued in this essay that the end game of humanity's future is non-exclusive individual utopias and that, in order to get there, we need to guarantee the survival of individual human beings. The perspective that I embrace is that each individual life is truly priceless and worth fighting for, while each unwanted individual death is a cosmic tragedy. In order to secure the chance to reach our own utopias, we need to prioritize the resources and effort invested in keeping us alive. I proposed the following hierarchy of problems:

1. Individual death due to natural causes
2. Individual death induced by accidents
3. Individual death as a result of environmental catastrophes
4. Individual death through the death of the universe

The prioritization of these problems doesn't mean that we only look at one issue at a time and proceed to the next one only after the previous has been solved. If this were the case, then progress would be very much delayed. The type of prioritization that I am embracing here is not absolute, but relative, and it roughly abides by the following rule: dedicate the bulk of all of your resources to the problem that has the highest degree of stringency and make sure that any item on the list gets less than the one preceding it.

Before ending this post, I need to clarify one last point. I am not arguing here for unwanted unlimited human lifespan. What I am proposing, instead, is a world governed and lived under the auspices of unrestricted freedom of choice. Nobody has to live millions of years until the death of the universe might become an issue. But if someone wants to, then it should be up to them to decide. Ultimately, this is what an individual utopia is all about: nothing if not a world of your making!

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Six Tips for Reaching Ketosis Faster and Possibly Easier

On an average diet, with moderate or high carbohydrate content, our bodies use glucose for energy.  What is special about the ketogenic diet is that it radically disrupts the way in which our metabolism works. Thus, once we minimize our carb intake and manage to deplete the glycogen stores  from our muscles, the body will stop utilizing glucose for fuel and switch to ketones. Ketones are synthesized in the liver from fatty acids and they basically tap on the body's fat deposit. In other words, when you manage to reach ketosis, that metabolic state when your  body is using ketones for energy, you are basically accessing and burning your fat stores. 

Reaching ketosis can be pretty hard. First, the foods that you're allowed to eat are not among the most appealing culinary choices that one could make. Second, the depletion of glycogen that accompanies the transit to ketosis will take its toll on your body through fatigue, dizziness and headaches. Fortunately, all  these can be prevented or at the very least minimized if you try to speed up the phase of glycogen depletion and readjust your lifestyle according to the demands of your new metabolic state.

Here are a few tips to help you achieve just that.

1. Good ketogenic diets are high in fat, moderate in protein and (very) low in carbs. The amount of time that it takes to reach ketosis is dependent on multiple individual factors, like previous diet, macronutrient distribution within the ketogenic diet, physical activity. The faster you get rid of your glycogen stores, the faster you reach ketosis. One way to speed up glycogen depletion is to try to eat as much fat as possible and little to no carbohydrates and protein. 

2. Intermittent fasting associated with a high-fat diet will also help you deplete glycogen fast. My favorite IF protocol is the 18:6 version (18 hours of fasting; 6-hour eating window). Depending on your lifestyle and personal preferences, the 16:8 protocol is also a great choice.

3. Follow a good glycogen depletion workout plan. A good exercise plan should focus on intense muscle work and quick repetitions. You should aim for 15-20 reps/set and it would be great if you could lower the amount of weight you're using and avoid going to failure. When I transit to ketosis and can't wait to get there, I usually reduce my weights by a third. Play with it until you find your own fit. Here is a link to one of my favorite glycogen depletion workout plans. You can use it as such or as a model for your own workout regimen.


4. For every unit of glycogen deposited in your muscle your body stores three units of water. That's the reason why you lose a lot of water and almost no fat at all before you reach ketosis. Unfortunately, during the transition period, fat stores are not yet fully accessed. The elimination of water and the low carb diet will lower your sodium levels, which, at its turn, will cause headache, fatigue and dizziness. You can avoid all these very easily by increasing your sodium consumption. I usually drink one cup of bouillon or broth before and after my workouts, which is the time of the day when my sodium levels reach the lowest points.

5. Drink more water.

6. A ketogenic diet, especially one which relies almost exclusively on fat, is for most of us rather unpleasant and, let's be honest, it deprives us of the joy that food brings to our lives. Fortunately, there are still some tasty options out there that we could take advantage of when we're cruising to ketosis. The rescue comes from the Paleo camp and its culinary achievements. Some of the Paleo foods that can be eaten on the ketogenic diet are so good that they feel like cheat meals. If you love your carbs, there are many delicious carb-emulating Paleo foods that will not interfere with your ketogenic lifestyle. My favorites are the aglio e olio Paleo pasta and the phenomenal chocolate avocado cake.

Good luck, dear ones, and may you reach ketosis fast and easy!





Saturday, August 16, 2014

Books that I Like: Michael Pollan's 'Cooked'




Michael Pollan is definitely one of my favorite writers. Although I do not share all of his views on nutrition, I cannot but feel captivated by the way in which he can put complex ideas into simple words or by his sheer enthusiasm for good food. Reading Pollan, you realize that food is more than nourishment for the body. It is nourishment for the soul as well and it can tell, to the one who listens, many stories about human emotions, traditions, evolution and, last but not least, about our relationship with the world around us.

My favorite quotes

How is it that at the precise historical moment when Americans were abandoning the kitchen, handing over the preparation of most of our meals to the food industry, we began spending so much of our time thinking about food and watching other people cook it on television? The less cooking we were doing in our own lives, it seemed, the more that food and its vicarious preparation transfixed us.

The outsourcing of much of the work of cooking to corporations has relieved women of what has traditionally been their exclusive responsibility for feeding the family, making it easier for them to work outside the home and have careers. It has headed off many of the conflicts and domestic arguments that such a large shift in gender roles and family dynamics was bound to spark. It has relieved all sorts of other pressures in the household, including longer workdays and overscheduled children, and saved us time that we can now invest in other pursuits. It has also allowed us to diversify our diets substantially, making it possible even for people with no cooking skills and little money to enjoy a whole different cuisine every night of the week. All that’s required is a microwave.

[S]ince cooking detoxifies many potential sources of food, the new technology cracked open a treasure trove of calories unavailable to other animals. Freed from the necessity of spending our days gathering large quantities of raw food and then chewing (and chewing) it, humans could now devote their time, and their metabolic resources, to other purposes, like creating a culture.

Cooking is all about connection, I’ve learned, between us and other species, other times, other cultures (human and microbial both), but, most important, other people. Cooking is one of the more beautiful forms that human generosity takes; that much I sort of knew. But the very best cooking, I discovered, is also a form of intimacy.

This book made me think about...

...what cooking really means for us humans, taken as a species, as a group or one at a time.
...how our world, including ourselves, would look like in the absence of cooking.
...how different cooking methods can support or not a healthy lifestyle.
...why I don't cook more often, though I love it when others cook (good food) for me.






Saturday, August 9, 2014

On Money Taboos and the Human Body

The Bible says it very clearly:  The love of money is the root of all evil.  Sophocles concurs: There's nothing in the world so demoralizing as money. And so does Themistocles: I choose the likely man in preference to the rich man; I want a man without money rather than money without a man. We've been constantly taught that money can't buy happiness, nor love and that pursuing financial activities with the sole purpose of accumulating wealth is wrong and dehumanizing. 

Our aversion towards money reaches skyrocketing proportions when the object of the transaction is the human body, in its entirety or its constitutive parts. In most countries, prostitution is sanctioned both morally and legally. We cannot sell children, though it is very easy to commercialize one's eggs, sperm and wombs. We cannot sell blood and organs, but we can receive money for our hair, plasma, placenta or breast milk. We can sell the nakedness of our bodies for art, we can rent our skin for ad tattoos and, more importantly, we are encouraged to sell our physical presence to 9 to 5 jobs.

Although we can't really receive monetary gains from the commercialization of some parts of our bodies, people still donate blood and even organs. Is this a purely altruistic behavior? It might be, although most of the time some non-pecuniary benefits are involved in the transaction. Look at the famous domino transplants, for instance. People donate an organ only with the provision that a loved one can receive another compatible organ. Legally speaking, domino transplants can be classified as barter, which differs from any other financial trade operation through its use of currency. Basically, anything which is not money. Isn't it odd that most of our societies allow people to literally sell their organs, but do not permit them to receive money in exchange? Why should that be the case? Why is money the root of evil when it comes to these specific body parts?

As an exchange currency, money has the advantage of being transferred into any type of good. Money offers its holders the liberty to trade it according to their life views, plans and preferences. More importantly, money does not discriminate between quality and quantity. The same amount can equally pay for your school tuition or - do not laugh - buy you lots and lots of ice-creams, all at the same time. And here is where the taboo on selling organs becomes apparent. You see, when you give up one of your organs, you renounce a fully functional part of yourself that has an important role in keeping you alive and in ensuring your body's health and your overall well-being. Now, if for something as precious for life as a kidney, you receive something of a lower standard, then that transaction has been unfair for you. A kidney can be justly matched by another kidney, but it cannot be paid for with money because money may very well mean those lots and lots of ice-creams. Basically, there is no guarantee of receiving something of a comparable value.

The core idea behind this view is that, in some cases, the quality of a certain good cannot be easily encountered in other goods and, moreover, it cannot be balanced by a raise in quantity. The paternalist spirit that underlines this policy approach is very much willing to avoid the following situation: exchanging one precious piece for a huge pile of worthless junk.

As laudable as these paternalist intentions are, life in general and individual lives in particular are not black and white, but rather exhibit many shades of grey. More than fifty, for sure... In this context, it is very hard to assign rough values to our belongings, be they physical or not. Maybe a kidney is worth a house to a young couple that has just started their life together. Perhaps it is worth a trip to foreign lands to someone who only dreams about that. Anyways, the point is that it is not up to you or me or society at large to determine what counts as what in people's aspirations and life plans. As long as there is legal competency to make such a decision, then the values of autonomy and liberty should ensure and safeguard the selling of organs. Don't think that those willing to take this step would do it lightly. It's a part of their body, after all. It's a part of themselves. But it is their will and their choice. Also, organ selling, both before and after death, would partly alleviate the organ shortage that we're currently experiencing and it would put an end to the horrendous black market that has been created around the need to survive. 

It is not a trivial matter to identify and understand the sources of those money taboos that apply to body parts. It might be paternalism. Or it might be religion. Don't forget that, according to most religious traditions, you do not own your body. Your body belongs to God and you're just its temporary possessor. As such, you cannot dispose of it as you wish because you do not actually own it. Also, these taboos might very well be rooted in ignorance or neglect of some biological facts. How else would you explain the legal difference between selling blood and selling plasma? We all know what blood is, we've seen it, we've read about it, we even build  glorifying metaphors around it. The blood flowing through your veins, which can be either passionately red or aristocratically blue, nourishes you and keeps you alive. Moreover, your blood is the blood of your ancestors ...who would want to sell that? On the other hand, plasma is not as victoriously famous. Let's be honest. We don't really care what plasma is, what it does or where it came from. Plasma has no past and no story. So go ahead and feel free to sell it.