The Link Between War and Bioengineered Humans

The U.S. military is investing in all kinds of augmentation – pills you ingest, body armor you can wear, and machine parts you can add to your body.

Bioengineered humans are people who have been biologically upgraded through machine implants, genetic manipulation and drugs. Together, they herald what is popularly known as the coming post-human or Human 2.0 era. Augmentation is any bodily intervention that enhances human function and was not initiated because of a pathological deficiency. The only area where elective augmentation is obvious in everyday life is in cosmetic surgery such as veneers and drugs that enhance human capability and endurance like Viagra.


Biomimicry and bio-enhancement are becoming far more sophisticated. Scientists can now grow new organs in the lab, for example, and 3D bioprinters where they can be printed are being developed by companies like Organovo. However, the incentive to augment the physical strength of the human body is something that most of us don’t care about deeply on a daily basis. “I don’t need to run faster. I have a car,” said a friend when we proposed the advantages of having a robotic foot. Running faster, X-ray vision, hearing at frequencies that only wolves and dogs can hear, having photogenic memory: all this sounds good but none of us would spend the time or money to acquire them because the advantages are not immediately clear. Unlike plastic surgery, which makes us immediately more attractive to the opposite sex, it is unclear what a new kidney would afford me if my current one functions reasonably well.

Of course, there are a number of reasons why we would want to invest in bio-enhancements, such as living longer with loved ones and eliminating susceptibility to malaria in Africa. But the private sector will not pay for the high cost of research based on these lofty goals and the government is already crumbling under debt and budget constraints. Human 2.0 would likely be a pipe dream if it wasn’t for one group which is always looking for a superior human: the army.

The military is on a warpath to create the world’s first Super Soldier, who can see further, fight longer, process information faster and recover sooner from injury. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the agency specifically responsible for the development of new military technology, has been funding augmentation projects around the world (see a short list here). Soldiers also face more physical trauma in war than people in any other profession. The need to restore functionality in injured soldiers and the large number of funds the Army makes available to fulfil it drives and pushes research in biomimicry across academia and corporatiosn.

The incredible effort in creating sophisticated prosthetics by Hugh Herr’s Biomechantronics lab at MIT was recently given a further boost with a grant of $7.2 million by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. The grant was specifically provided to fund biohybrid limbs that will restore function to amputees and will in fact be attached to the body and receive direct input from the body and brain. The biohybrid legs could not only restore but also potentially enhance the capability, speed and endurance of amputees, ultimately making them ‘better than human’. In a similar investment, the Army just awarded $34.5 million to the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to continue research on a robotic arm that actually takes commands from your brain. When you want to move your natural arm, you think you want to it to move and it moves as a result of signals sent from your brain to your arm. Imagine the same mind control over your prosthetic arm. The difference between the natural and robotic arm would then just be that one never ages, is not susceptible to disease, is stronger and can always be upgraded to a superior version.

The research in regenerative medicine, which has led to the success of Anthony Atala’s work in growing organs in the laboratory, was also funded partly by the Department of Defense that wanted to assist veterans severely wounded in the war. Even many of the advances in facial reconstruction were funded by the Army after World War II and then commercialized into cosmetic surgery.

The military is investing in all kinds of augmentation – pills you ingest, body armor you can wear, and machine parts you can add to your body. The most recent buzz in the news was about Lockheed Martin’s HULC Military Exoskeleton which is a of a hydraulically powered titanium body suit or exoskeleton that allows soldiers to carry weights up to 200 pounds for long periods of time without feeling the full burden of the heavy weight. Soldiers can also run with this load on any type of terrain. See this video for details and flashback to the movie Iron Man.

Peter W. Singer’s book Wired for War is a must read on the future of military warfare and includes the efforts of the US army to augment soldiers. In his great TED talk, Singer talks about how Japan is building robots to care for elderly people, but in the US we’re building robots to kill people. Will our efforts in human augmentation always be subservient to the threat of war? One can only hope world peace is not antithetical to the desire for such scientific progress.

Ayesha and Parag Khanna explore human-technology co-evolution and its implications for society, business and politics at The Hybrid Reality Institute.

Drill, Baby, Drill: What will we look for when we mine on Mars?

It's unlikely that there's anything on the planet that is worth the cost of shipping it back

popular
  • In the second season of National Geographic Channel's MARS (premiering tonight, 11/12/18,) privatized miners on the red planet clash with a colony of international scientists
  • Privatized mining on both Mars and the Moon is likely to occur in the next century
  • The cost of returning mined materials from Space to the Earth will probably be too high to create a self-sustaining industry, but the resources may have other uses at their origin points

Want to go to Mars? It will cost you. In 2016, SpaceX founder Elon Musk estimated that manned missions to the planet may cost approximately $10 billion per person. As with any expensive endeavor, it is inevitable that sufficient returns on investment will be needed in order to sustain human presence on Mars. So, what's underneath all that red dust?

Mining Technology reported in 2017 that "there are areas [on Mars], especially large igneous provinces, volcanoes and impact craters that hold significant potential for nickel, copper, iron, titanium, platinum group elements and more."

Were a SpaceX-like company to establish a commercial mining presence on the planet, digging up these materials will be sure to provoke a fraught debate over environmental preservation in space, Martian land rights, and the slew of microbial unknowns which Martian soil may bring.

In National Geographic Channel's genre-bending narrative-docuseries, MARS, (the second season premieres tonight, November 12th, 9 pm ET / 8 pm CT) this dynamic is explored as astronauts from an international scientific coalition go head-to-head with industrial miners looking to exploit the planet's resources.

Given the rate of consumption of minerals on Earth, there is plenty of reason to believe that there will be demand for such an operation.

"Almost all of the easily mined gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc, antimony, and phosphorus we can mine on Earth may be gone within one hundred years" writes Stephen Petranek, author of How We'll Live on Mars, which Nat Geo's MARS is based on. That grim scenario will require either a massive rethinking of how we consume metals on earth, or supplementation from another source.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, told Petranek that it's unlikely that even if all of Earth's metals were exhausted, it is unlikely that Martian materials could become an economically feasible supplement due to the high cost of fuel required to return the materials to Earth. "Anything transported with atoms would have to be incredibly valuable on a weight basis."

Actually, we've already done some of this kind of resource extraction. During NASA's Apollo missions to the Moon, astronauts used simple steel tools to collect about 842 pounds of moon rocks over six missions. Due to the high cost of those missions, the Moon rocks are now highly valuable on Earth.


Moon rock on display at US Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, AL (Big Think/Matt Carlstrom)

In 1973, NASA valuated moon rocks at $50,800 per gram –– or over $300,000 today when adjusted for inflation. That figure doesn't reflect the value of the natural resources within the rock, but rather the cost of their extraction.

Assuming that Martian mining would be done with the purpose of bringing materials back to Earth, the cost of any materials mined from Mars would need to include both the cost of the extraction and the value of the materials themselves. Factoring in the price of fuel and the difficulties of returning a Martian lander to Earth, this figure may be entirely cost prohibitive.

What seems more likely, says Musk, is for the Martian resources to stay on the Red Planet to be used for construction and manufacturing within manned colonies, or to be used to support further mining missions of the mineral-rich asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

At the very least, mining on Mars has already produced great entertainment value on Earth: tune into Season 2 of MARS on National Geographic Channel.

How humans evolved to live in the cold

Humans evolved to live in the cold through a number of environmental and genetic factors.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons
Surprising Science
  • According to some relatively new research, many of our early human cousins preceded Homo sapien migrations north by hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.
  • Cross-breeding with other ancient hominids gave some subsets of human population the genes to contend and thrive in colder and harsher climates.
  • Behavioral and dietary changes also helped humans adapt to cold climates.
Keep reading Show less

Study: The effects of online trolling on authors, publications

A study started out trying to see the effect of sexist attacks on women authors, but it found something deeper.

Maxpixel
Surprising Science
  • It's well known that abusive comments online happen to women more than men
  • Such comments caused a "significant effect for the abusive comment on author credibility and intention to seek news from the author and outlet in the future"
  • Some news organizations already heavily moderate or even ban comments entirely; this should underscore that effort
Keep reading Show less