The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: August 4, 2017
Bitcoin Cash: Currency Soars to $700, Lawsuit Looms | Fortune.com
Posted: August 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm
A new version of bitcoin hit the market on Tuesday and, on its second day of trading, it has already tripled in price and its market cap is now third biggest of all digital currencies.
Known as Bitcoin Cash, the new currency arrived via a so-called " fork " in which a faction of people who run the software that controls bitcoin started a breakaway version.
The price of Bitcoin Cash hovered between $200 and $300 for most of Tuesday and then suddenly shot up. As this screenshot from CoinMarketCap shows (look to the right of the graph), Bitcoin Cash has also appreciated in relation to bitcoinone unit of the new currency is now worth about 30% of the original one:
Meanwhile, the price of the original bitcoin has, contrary to the fears of many bitcoin owners prior to the split, maintained its value. On Wednesday, bitcoin was trading around $2,700, which is not far from its all-time high of $3000.
As for Bitcoin Cash, it can be seen as a new asset class that achieved a valuation of $12 billion literally overnight (Update: as of mid-afternoon, the price had fallen to closer to $450 for a market cap closer to $8 billion.)
It's unclear if Bitcoin Cash will be able maintain its value since, like other digital currencies, its real world use is limited and its value derives primarily from what investors assign to it.
And part of Bitcoin Cash's surge in value may be tied to a liquidity issue arising from a decision by some exchanges to refuse to distribute the new currency to their customers.
The creation of the fork in bitcoin's blockchainthe software ledger that permanently records all transactionsby a minority of bitcoin operators followed a period of bitter infighting in the bitcoin community.
The details are esoteric (they center on the size and processing speed of the "blocks" on the blockchain), but the upshot is there are now two bitcoin blockchains, each with its own currency.
Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.
Upon the creation of the new chain, the breakaway faction chose to award Bitcoin Cash on a one-for-one ratio to every owner of bitcoin. So if a person owns five bitcoins, they are entitled to five units of Bitcoin Cash.
This scheme has been complicated, however, by the decision of the world's biggest bitcoin exchange, Coinbase, not to support Bitcoin Cash. For practical purposes, this means the millions of people who maintain a wallet on Coinbase did not receive the new "Cash" and, as of now, there is no way for them to do so.
Coinbase has clearly stated the company is not taking customers' Bitcoin Cash for themselves, but its decision to withhold the new currency has led one prominent legal scholar to suggest the company will be sued.
And, indeed, that now looks likely to transpire. An activist group, which claims Coinbase's decision is akin to a brokerage withholding new shares from its investors, warns it will commence a class action suit after August 15 if the company doesn't release the Bitcoin Cash.
Meanwhile, an attorney named Priyanka Ghosh-Murthy told Fortune she intends to file a complaintinvoking negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichmentin Florida by the end of the week.
Coinbase, which set out its decision on Bitcoin Cash in a July 27 blog post, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update : On Thursday afternoon, Coinbase reversed course and said it would support Bitcoin Cashbut only starting in January, 2018.
Go here to read the rest:
Bitcoin Cash: Currency Soars to $700, Lawsuit Looms | Fortune.com
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on Bitcoin Cash: Currency Soars to $700, Lawsuit Looms | Fortune.com
‘Bitcoin cash’ prices fall by 57 percent, while some investors must wait until 2018 to receive their tokens – CNBC
Posted: at 12:52 pm
Two of the world's largest digital currency exchanges have changed their minds and decided to support the new asset "bitcoin cash", but customers will have to wait until January 2018 to gain access to their tokens.
"We've examined all of the relevant issues and have decided to work on adding support for bitcoin cash for Coinbase customers," David Farmer, director of communications at Coinbase, posted online on Thursday. An almost identically worded press release was posted by GDAX.
"We are planning to have support for bitcoin cash by January 1, 2018, assuming no additional risks emerge during that time."
Coinbase, which claims to have 9 million users, and its subsidiary the Global Digital Asset Exchange (GDAX) initially told customers they could not safely support the new crypto currency created on Tuesday on their exchanges, citing concerns about the asset's stability and security.
However, the exchanges decided to change their stance due to customer demand and trading volumes, among other reasons.
Charles Hayter, chief executive and founder of digital currency comparison website CryptoCompare, says there is also an economic reason for the shift in stance.
"Some exchanges are realising that they are missing out on trading fees and also seeing an exodus of clients to platforms that do support bitcoin cash," he told CNBC via email.
Some Coinbase and GDAX customers are unhappy with the exchanges' decision and took to Twitter to express their frustration. Others decided to withdraw their funds from the exchanges due to their initial stance.
"Bitcoin cash" was created on Tuesday after the underlying bitcoin technology known as the blockchain underwent a "fork", meaning it split to create a new digital currency. This happened because the community disagreed on how to increase the blockchain's capacity and reduce transaction delays.
Every bitcoin investor was entitled to the same number of "bitcoin cash" tokens, but not every exchange or bitcoin payment company is accepting the new coin, or allowing it to be traded.
Go here to read the rest:
'Bitcoin cash' prices fall by 57 percent, while some investors must wait until 2018 to receive their tokens - CNBC
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on ‘Bitcoin cash’ prices fall by 57 percent, while some investors must wait until 2018 to receive their tokens – CNBC
Coinbase says it will support Bitcoin Cash after all but it isn’t committed to trading yet – TechCrunch
Posted: at 12:52 pm
Coinbase, one of the worlds largest (if not the) largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has reversed its stance on Bitcoin Cash and said it will introduce support for the fork next year.
Coinbase was among numerous exchanges to opt out of trading Bitcoin Cash after it came into existence on August 1 on the grounds that it wasnt proven or safe. Beyond refusing to facilitate trading, Coinbase also said it wouldnt allow customers storing original Bitcoin on its platform to claim their Bitcoin Cash entitlement. Those who wanted it were told to remove their coins and go elsewhere to do that.
But now the company which was started by former Airbnb engineer Brian Armstrong (pictured above) and is reportedly raising funding at a $1 billion valuation has changed its stance slightly. It told customers via email that it will introduce support for Bitcoin Cash by January 1.
Once supported, customers will be able to withdraw Bitcoin Cash. Well make a determination at a later date about adding trading support, Coinbase said.
In other words, lets see what happens before we commit to trading
Thats almost certainly a response to anger from Coinbase customers, who threatened to move their coins elsewhere and, in some cases, take legal action over their Bitcoin Cash entitlement. (Tl;dr people like free stuff, especially people who are into crypto.)It is unclear exactly what impact this had on the Coinbase business, but signs arent great.One analytics firm estimated that its cold storage reserves dropped to half of their previous level following customer withdraws.
Yet, despite that, a number of Coinbase investors told Business Insider that they arent overly concerned about the pushback, while the overall future of Bitcoin Cash itself is unclear. Principally thats because the fork has the same mining difficulty as Bitcoin, but asmaller fraction of its hashrate.
Right now, Bitcoin Cash became the third largest cryptocurrency based on total coins in the market on day one, but its $7 billion market cap trails Bitcoin ($44 billion) and Ethereum ($21 billion) by some way. Its situation mayhave changed by January, too, while also Coinbase has tended to take a conservative approach to bringing new currencies on.
Right now it offers trading for Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin the latter of which was only added this past May despite gaining significant attention in 2013. Indeed, Litecoins founderhad been director of engineering at Coinbase for nearly four years before leaving this summer that gives some insight into how stringent its policy is.
Note: Article corrected to note that Litecoin founder Charlie Lee is no longer with Coinbase.
See the rest here:
Coinbase says it will support Bitcoin Cash after all but it isn't committed to trading yet - TechCrunch
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on Coinbase says it will support Bitcoin Cash after all but it isn’t committed to trading yet – TechCrunch
Bitcoin Has Split Into Two Cryptocurrencies. What, Exactly, Does That Mean? – Slate Magazine (blog)
Posted: at 12:52 pm
This picture taken on April 7, 2017, shows a man walking past a signboard informing customers that bitcoin can be used for payment at a store in Tokyo.
AFP/Getty Images
If you owned bitcoin prior to Aug. 1 and slept in a little that morning, you would have woken up to find your stash had doubledsort of.
Before Aug. 1, there was a single bitcoin currency simply called bitcoin, or BTC. Like most cryptocurrencies, bitcoin avoided having a central bank that verified transactions by maintaining a constantly verified ledger of transactions that was distributed across thousands of computers. This ledger is called the blockchain, and up until Aug. 1, there was only one of it. That day, at 8 a.m. Eastern, an alternative coin called Bitcoin Cash, or BCC, was born when the bitcoin blockchain split in two. Bitcoin Core, as the original currency is now called, and Bitcoin Cash have identical ledgers until Aug. 1. Now each currency maintains a separate ledger, and since cryptocurrencies are represented by their blockchains, that means bitcoin has effectively split in half, giving each user a bank account filled with both currencies.
The question of why bitcoin split is a deeply political one, as much about the philosophy of what bitcoin should be as it is about practical concerns of payment speed and per payment surcharges. As David Z. Morris described in Future Tense in June, the dispute centers on the maximum size allowed for any block in the blockchain. This is a technical point, but you can think of it as arguing over how many transactions are allowed on one page of the ledger. The original limit, imposed by pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto either as doctrine or temporary fillerdepending on whether you support BTC or BCCwas 1 MB of data. This low limit is leading to delays in the amount of time it takes a transaction to be verified, which is itself leading to higher surcharges for premium verification. (For a primer on how this all works, click here.)
If transaction time were the only issue, though, there wouldnt be a three-year-long flame war and a battling subreddits, one for each coin. There are two other issues. One is that the BTH folks think that allowing larger blocks hinders small players from mining bitcoins, centralizing power in the hands of large mining entities. Bitcoin was created as an alternative to centralized currencies, however, so greater centralization is a serious accusation. Point for BTC.
BTC has proposed a size increase of its own, one that comes with an even greater philosophical change. Segregated Witness, also known as SegWit2x, aims to fit more transactions on one page of the blockchain ledger by doubling the size of the page (that is, doubling the blocksize limit), and by reserving all space on the page for transactions. Right now, each page (each block) contains transaction details (Alice gave Bob 2 BTC), and signatures (I, Alice, agree to give Bob these 2 BTC). Instead of making the page much longer, SegWit2x wants to create more space on the page by erasing the signatures and reserving that space for transactions. Many believe this proposal changes the fundamentals of bitcoin more than BCC does, and in terms of structure of the chain, they are right. Thats why some supporters of BCC oppose the name alternative coin, they view what theyre doing as closer to Satoshis vision than BTC. Point for BCC.
However, the Highlander there can be only one approach is a false choice. To understand why, we need to look at the recent history of another cryptocurrency, Ethereum. Back in June 2016, $50 million were siphoned away from the Ethereum blockchain by some clever thieves. However, the thieves werent quite as clever as they thought. Because of the way they drained the money, they had to wait 28 days before they could withdraw it and, presumably, retire to some tropical locale. In that time, Ethereum made a hard choice, one that Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum, called the single most important moment in cryptocurrency history since the birth of Bitcoin. Rather than let the thieves make away with the money, a large portion of Ethereum users forked the blockchain so that the transactions that stole the ETH never happened.
A lot of people were upset by this. It violated the spirit of the blockchain. The purists split off and started their own cryptocurrency called Ethereum Classic (ETC). A year later, both currencies are still used (though ETH is worth far more than ETC) and are fairly stable. In fact, their combined value is greater than the original value.
The same thing seems to be happening with bitcoin. According to Quartz, BCC is already the third most valuable cryptocurrency, behind BTC and ETH. And, just like the Ethereum split, the BTC-BCC market is worth more than the original market was. However, while there can be more than one currency, thats not to say there will be. It took six hours for the first BCC block to be mined, a process which usually takes about 10 minutes on BTC. That block was 1.9 MB, larger that BTC would allow, but the next block on BCC was only .04 MB, stoking fear that not enough miners had adopted BCC. Whether the achievement of BCCs debut as a new cryptocurrency is a Pyrrhic victory for the founders or a resounding success will hinge on the answer to that question.
Go here to see the original:
Bitcoin Has Split Into Two Cryptocurrencies. What, Exactly, Does That Mean? - Slate Magazine (blog)
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on Bitcoin Has Split Into Two Cryptocurrencies. What, Exactly, Does That Mean? – Slate Magazine (blog)
Bitcoin Mobile SIM Card Top-Ups Now Available in 136 Countries – Bitcoin News (press release)
Posted: at 12:52 pm
Bitcoin remittance service Sobit has been launched to enable users to charge their prepaid mobile SIM cards using bitcoin. The service supports over 600 operators in 136 countries.
Also read:Rollout of 260,000+ Bitcoin-Accepting Stores in Japan Begins
Sobit was jointly developed by Japans leading reward site operator Ceres Inc and the Tokyo-based bitcoin and blockchain venture company Janom LLC.
Ceres has already partnered with other prominent bitcoin companies including Bitflyer, Bitbank, Coincheck, and Breadwallet on other cryptocurrency projects. Janom launched a bitcoin remittance service called Cointip in November 2016 and the company also partnered with Keepkey LLC to obtain exclusive distribution right of Keepkey products in Japan.Ceres Inc recently announced the launch of Sobit:
With Sobit, you can charge your prepaid SIM card using just bitcoin. You dont need any accounts, credit cards etc. Just a wallet with available bitcoin. Sobit supports prepaid SIM cards from over 600 operators in almost 140 countries.
Users first enter their phone numbers to use Sobit, even though the system should correctly detect the operator of each phone number most of the time, the company conveyed. Once the right operator is selected, the user can check the rates, choose the desired top-up amount, type in their email address and send bitcoin through the QR code provided or via their bitcoin wallets. The company states:
We will charge your phone as soon as your bitcoin transaction gets one confirmation, which may take up to 10 minutes (it depends mostly on your bitcoin wallet and fee settings).
Users will also get an email confirmation with their order details. While you should get your top-up immediately, for some countries or operators, there may be significant delays, even up to 24 hours, Sobit cautioned.
Currently, only payments equivalent to $100 maximum per day will be accepted due to technical reasons, the company added.
On Sobits website, 136 countries are listed. In the U.S., supported operators include Verizon, T-mobile, AT&T, H2O, and Net10. In the UK, they include Orange, T-mobile, Virgin Mobile and Vodafone. In China, they are China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom.
Would you use Sobit? Let us know in the comments section below.
Images courtesy of Shutterstock,Sobit,Ceres
Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check ourtoolssection.
Read the rest here:
Bitcoin Mobile SIM Card Top-Ups Now Available in 136 Countries - Bitcoin News (press release)
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on Bitcoin Mobile SIM Card Top-Ups Now Available in 136 Countries – Bitcoin News (press release)
Astronauts Film ‘Star Wars’-like Docking of Spaceship With Space Station – Inverse
Posted: at 12:51 pm
Astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) captured the crewed Soyuz spacecraft firing thrusters and spewing cryogenic snow into space as it docked with the ISS last week, a scene befitting of a Star Wars space maneuver.
NASA astronaut Randy Bresnik tweeted out a video of the July 28 event, which can be watched below. Bresnik praises the piloting of Russian Soyuz Commander Sergey Ryazanskiy, who carefully unites the pointed nose of the Soyuz spacecraft with the ISSs docking port.
Docking two spaceships is essentially an orbital ballet culminating in a collision, wrote Bresnik.
These docking maneuvers have become commonplace, but a screen full of blasting thrusters and chunks of cryogenic snow is a vivid reminder of how extreme the space procedure truly is. This docking occurred while both spacecraft were racing around Earth at 17,150 miles per hour.
Until SpaceX and Boeing complete their respective crew modules which are both slated to launch in 2018 the only way any human can travel into space is aboard the Soyuz spacecraft and accompanying rocket.
NASA currently pays Russia some $70 to $80 million per seat on the Soyuz. This might be costly, but it comes with an impeccable record of safety and success. Russian engineers designed and first launched the Soyuz in the mid-1960s. After two fatal incidents soon after its inception, the craft has performed safely for nearly 50 years, both launching astronauts into space and bringing them home.
When the SpaceX Dragon and Boeing Starliner come online next year, NASA estimates that the price per seat will be a bit cheaper than a trip upon a trusty Soyuz rocket, at $58 million.
For now, there is a Soyuz spacecraft attached to the ISS at all times to serve as a lifeboat. If the ISS experiences an emergency say the station gets pummeled by an unforeseen asteroid chunk or wayward satellite astronauts can flee from the station via the Soyuz.
Such a dramatic evacuation would likely be as Star Wars-like as the docking, complete with blasting thrusters and a violent descent to Earth.
Read more:
Astronauts Film 'Star Wars'-like Docking of Spaceship With Space Station - Inverse
Posted in Space Station
Comments Off on Astronauts Film ‘Star Wars’-like Docking of Spaceship With Space Station – Inverse
Welcome to SpaceX City: The Ultimate Startup – PCMag India
Posted: at 12:51 pm
The rise of the private space industry may be what's needed to kickstart humans' journey to the final frontier; the pursuit of profit is often a fantastic spur for innovation. Just how this will all play out is anyone's guess, but the wheels are most definitely in motion.
In September 2016, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took the stage at the annual International Astronautical Congress conference in Guadalajara, Mexico, to outline his vision for invading Mars. The plana combination of technical specificity and operational vaguenesswould make us a multi-planetary species by pre-stocking Mars via unmanned supply missions that leave Earth every 26 months when the two planets align in their respective orbits.
These initial one-way trips will take around 80 days with today's technology, but Musk believes they can eventually be shortened to 30-day voyages. Once Mars is properly supplied with a bounty of necessary Earth stuff, humans will blast off for the Red Planet. If all goes according to plan, SpaceX's first robotic landers will touch down on Mars in the early 2020s.
Musk's interplanetary blueprint received a lot of attention, but it's not exactly unprecedented. In the last century, earthlings have proposed space colonization plans of varying degrees of seriousness. In the 1960s, Wernher von Braun, the father of rocket science and first director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, predicted that a future incarnation of the Saturn rocket would begin sending humans to Mars by the 1980s.
Around the same time, the Soviets were developing plans to construct a moon base known as "Zvezda," also by the 80s. Then the Cold War lost its urgency, and those theoretical missions collided with economic reality. Since then, a few private space organizations have formulated colonization plans of their own, but they've resulted in little more than a few sparsely attended conferences here on Earth.
Yet even after all those decades of space disillusionment, Musk's plan feels refreshingly tangible. Perhaps it's because he has a well-earned reputation as a closer, an industrial-scale macher who sets bold goals and has the technical, financial, and operational prowess to make them a reality. But space colonization is starting to feel less like inconsequential space-nerd pondering and more like something that can be turned into a viable space-nerd business.
Given the majesty of discovery and the fact that colonization is our best insurance policy should the Earth get into a bar fight with an asteroid (just ask the dinosaursoh wait, you can't), it might seem odd to focus on space's economic promise. But when it comes to making money up there, the sky is literally not even the limit. Space is the ultimate technology platform, teeming with opportunity and ripe for ethically uncomplicated exploitation. Some have predicted that it will be the first industry to produce self-made trillionaires. The privatization of space and the establishment of private outposts far from the watchful eye of mother Earth might prove to be one of history's most important developments.
SpaceX isn't the only organization going to Mars. NASA has scheduled a manned mission to orbit ol' Red in 2033, followed by "boots on Mars" in a subsequent but as-yet-undefined mission.
The agency's Martian plans haven't received nearly as much attention as those from SpaceX. This is probably because NASA's post-Apollo record of manned exploration has been an evolving disappointment, with timelines shifting from administration to administration and budget to budget. But perhaps that lull was just part of the process the science had to go through before it got real.
Trailblazing scientific inquiry (which NASA has spent the last half century absolutely crushing) doesn't come with the expectation that it will immediately result in anything usefulpragmatic applications built on scientific discovery typically come later, sometimes decades down the line. Nobody could have guessed that quantum physics would one day bring about the iPhone, or that networking research computers over telephone lines would eventually lead to Twitter.
Of course, in order for a science to become a business, it needs to make money. And lots of money will be necessary to get to Mars. A recent Wall Street Journal expose questioned SpaceX's finances and its ability to pay for the Mars project (the company was dealt a serious blow following a pair of launch failures in June 2015 and September 2016). But that same report revealed SpaceX's plans to supplement the costs of its "Interplanetary Transport System" by becoming a satellite-based ISP. The company has also entered the space tourism game with a deal to launch a pair of unnamed space tourists around the moon next year for an undisclosed (but surely hefty) fee.
It's a viable plan; over the past 16 years, various people of means have paid tens of millions of dollars to Russia's Federal Space Agency for tickets to the International Space Station, including video game pioneer Richard Garriott, Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberte, and the man responsible for Microsoft Office, Charles Simonyi (twice).
Musk has promised to reveal more about how the company will fund its Martian aspirations soon. But to be sure, there will be lots of ways to make money in spacemost we probably haven't even imagined yet. A more pressing question is who will get there first.
Like SpaceX, Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin aims to slash the cost of launches by developing reusable rockets and supplementing the effort through tourism. Richard Branson's tourist venture Virgin Galactic was recently joined by a sibling B2B company Virgin Orbit, which will launch small satellites into orbit. Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Systems recently unveiled a 385-foot wingspan plane from which it will launch rockets from high altitudes, starting in 2020.
Like traditional aerospace powerhouses (Orbital ATK, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin), many of these new space startups depend on contracts from NASA, the Department of Defense, and other public agencies. But unlike those old-school aerospace titans, these new startups have an aura of urgency, innovation, and gleeful disruption. It's perhaps not surprising that many have been seeded by libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley money monsters looking to stake their claim in this most disruptive of technologies (it also doesn't hurt that this particular technology has the added allure of being super sci-fi cool).
Given the current state of space tech, imagining anything resembling A Space Odyssey coming about in our lifetimes may be difficult. But history shows that big technological paradigmshome computing, the internet, mobile techhave similar origin stories: They quietly emerge from the ether as glorified science projects no one really takes seriously before finding their groove and exploding exponentially.
The rush of space startups already amassing concrete engineering accomplishments suggests that we may be witnessing the beginning of one of these exponential ascensions, albeit at a slower pace. Space is the hardest and most dangerous technological barrier humanity has ever had to overcome, but there's very little reason to think we won't get there. The lure of history and potential for obscene profit are just too tempting for someone not to figure it out.
Planetary Resources is a Redmond, Washingtonbased startup with a unique business model: mining asteroids for profit. The company has been seeded by a cadre of Silicon Valley elites (Google's Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, as well as X-Prize co-founder Peter Diamandis, among them) and already has plans to send a swarm of unmanned, river-tube-size "Arkyd 200" satellites to a nearby asteroid in 2020 to prospect it for desired materials.
The company stays afloat via corporate and government contracts and licensing of its proprietary technology. In addition to developing prospecting satellites, the company is working with partners on space-based 3D printers that will shape construction-grade metals like iron, nickel, and cobalt, which are abundant in asteroids. These theoretical printers will be able to build machines, tools, and possibly even habitats and ships directly in space, therefore avoiding the great expense of shipping the materials from Earth.
But perhaps more important, Planetary Resources will be prospecting for water. Once water is mined from an asteroid or comet (probably in solid ice form), electric currents generated by space-based solar panels can break it down to its atomic building blocks. The hydrogen and oxygen can then be recombined into a powerful propellant (i.e., rocket fuel), establishing a network of celestial gas stations and making the solar system a lot smaller.
Planetary Resources takes advantage of technology previously designed for scientific missions, but it is an unabashedly for-profit enterprise.
"You start an asteroid-mining company with the support of a lot of visionary people who have the capacity to take some risk in their business ventures, but it was certainly their demand that we create a businessnot just something that is spending money for a very long time," CEO (and former NASA engineer) Chris Lewicki told me last year. With the Arkyd 200 expeditions, "We're not trying to figure out how old the solar system is or find out how we all came to be; we're asking a very simple business question of, 'Is there enough water on this asteroid for us to go back?'"
That question becomes particularly interesting when you consider the potential windfalls. In 2015, President Obama signed into law the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act, (which passed with assistance from lobbyists working on behalf of Planetary Resources); it states that any citizen has the right to engage in the "commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource" without any interference from the US government.
Lewicki believes some precious metals excavated in space will be so valuable that it will be worth the cost to bring them back home. The company's future will mostly take place far from Earth, though, servicing a not-yet-existent space industry and the humans who work, live, and play in the outposts that support them.
Spacegetting there and living thereisn't easy. We haven't even touched on how future Martian colonists will go about protecting themselves from solar radiation (there's no protective ozone layer on Mars), securing sources of oxygen and water (the good news is there are indications of reserves of water just below the Martian surface), or grow their own food (Matt Damon's character in The Martian resorted to planting potatoes in his feces). These first pioneers will have to be a hearty bunch.
Elon Musk thinks a ticket to Mars can be brought down to around $200,000close to the median home price in the US todayvia a system whereby workers would pay off their debt over many years or even decades.
"Not everyone would want to go. In fact, probably a relatively small number of people from Earth would want to go, but enough would want to go who could afford it for it to happen," Musk writes. "People could also get sponsorship. It gets to the point where almost anyone, if they saved up and this was their goal, could buy a ticket and move to Marsand given that Mars would have a labor shortage for a long time, jobs would not be in short supply."
Terms like "indentured servitude" don't land very well on contemporary ears (which is probably why Musk opted to use "sponsorship"). But is it really all that different than going to work every day to earn money to repay a mortgage? This model is analogous to how some of the first English colonists in North America covered the cost of their intercontinental journeyby agreeing to become indentured servants with contracts that lasted anywhere between three and seven years. (Or perhaps it's like Dr. Fleischman's service-for-education agreement on the TV show Northern Exposure, if that's how you roll.)
For some, the promise of adventure in a new worldno matter the costwill be reason enough to make the interplanetary leap. But for others, Mars's endemic labor shortage might be the motivating factor. There's a very real possibility that in the future, we won't have enough jobs for people on Earth, thanks to automation. Mass "technological unemployment" is far from universally accepted gospel, but a number of people will be willing to leave the Earth to work in SpaceX Citypossibly for the rest of their lives.
These space pioneers will lay the foundation for a literal whole new world, but they might also play an important role supporting those of us who remain here on Earth. Civilization is under threat from asteroid impacts, global warming, and nuclear war; but it's also facing increasing pressure from a few centuries of unprecedented human progress. And colonization might be just the key to keeping it all goingon this planet and the ones that follow.
While cable news traffics in war, terrorism, and tragedy, the world is actually quietly enjoying a golden age.
Consider the following: Despite some troubling hot spots, we are seeing some of history's lowest rates of war deaths around the globe. According to The World Bank, childhood mortalitydefined by children under 5 who die per 1,000 live birthshas fallen from 182.7 in 1960 to just 42.5 in 2015; and last year, for the first time ever, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty (those living on less than $2 a day) fell below 10 percent.
That last one was a very big deal that didn't receive nearly enough attention. Not only has extreme poverty plummeted to historic lows, but it happened in the blink of history's eye. The World Bank also reports that extreme poverty plummeted from 37 percent of the globe in 1990 to just 9.8 percent last year, which is even more remarkable considering how the global population has continued to balloon since the Industrial Revolution.
There's little reason to think these trends won't continue, which leads to a very interesting problem: How will the world respond when communities that have finally risen above mere subsistence begin to expect (if not demand) things like nutritious food, clean water, electricity, access to information, and maybe even McMansions, SUVs, and bountiful backyards?
While technology helps us do more with less, a proliferation of middle class societies will place additional stress on a planet that is already long overdue for a vacation. Throw into the mix the prospect of a swelling population, climate change, and increased job competition, and you can see how things might get messy fast.
One possible countermeasure is physical expansion. Past expansions have managed to boost parent and colonial societies. "If you start moving people from where land is scarce and costly to where it is abundant and cheap, you're going to raise their standard of living and also generate a growing output per capita that will benefit the economies of both societies," explains Jan de Vries, professor emeritus of history and economics at the University of California at Berkeley. "One is benefited by less population pressure on their resources, and the other is benefited by high productivity for the new arrivalsand trade allows them both to become better off."
According to de Vries, in order for the motherland (or mother planet, in this case) to see any real economic benefit, the "transaction costs" have to come down. Mars is far away, but history shows that it's well within our abilities to shrink barriers that once seemed insurmountable. It took a couple of months for Columbus to cross the Atlantic; by the 1830s, the steam engine sliced the time to five days; and a century later, Charles Lindbergh flew from Long Island to Paris in just 33 hours.
Our ability to shorten the gap between Earth and its outposts will become increasingly consequentialwe need only look to the revolutionary founding of this country to understand why. After Europe's expansion into the New World, the two societies remained physically close enough to facilitate trade but were far enough apart that the colonies eventually began to think of themselves as something else. That philosophical break cleared the way for experimental forms of self-rule, which eventually had an impact on both sides of the Atlantic. We can only speculate about the impact of a similar interplanetary break.
Colonialism is a potent force that has the power not only to build new nations but to transform existing ones. The post-Columbus colonial expansion fueled the rise of powerful nation-states in Europe, which ousted the volatile feudalism that ruled the continent since at least the 10th century. The European nations that benefited the most in the Age of Discovery were those with access to the most advanced maritime technologies; but in the Age of Discovery 2.0, those with the most advanced space technologies probably won't be European, American, Russian, or Chinese. They might not be nations at all; SpaceX City could represent the beginning of a whole new political paradigm.
Nobody can predict how it will all shake out at this point, but consider the prospect of billions and trillions of space bucks flowing unfettered into highly organized corporate structures thatnot to get all #FeelTheBern on youhave spent the past 30-plus years untangling themselves from government oversight. (As mentioned above, we've already seen the private space industry successfully lobby US regulators to loosen control over the nascent extraterrestrial economy.)
It's not difficult to imagine how a corporate-run outpost far from the Earth might trend dystopian, but there's reason for optimism as well. Absent a global calamity leading to widespread desperation, there's little reason to believe that people won't continue to expect certain unalienable rights. Any authority that attempts to tell them otherwise will have a fight on its hands.
In fact, human dignity's best chance for survival in space is a multitude of colonies that are close enough for trade and travel but far enough apart that they don't directly compete for resources. In this scenario, if you didn't like the way things run in SpaceX City, you could make a case of your usefulness to Planetary Resource's floating armada to buy your contract (like what T-Mobile will do today to get you out of your contract with Verizon). Once your debt is paid, you'd be free to try out Blue Origin Town on the moon of Europa. Or if you're feeling entrepreneurial, maybe even go out and start your own homestead. Just like a marketplace of nations.
Once a multitude of peacefully coexisting outposts is established, some intriguing possibilities arise. Just as the European colonies in the Americas ran real-world experiments featuring new forms of government, future space colonies would be free to experiment with novel societal models of their own. Some of these models will fail and some will flourish, but they'll all have the ability to learn from each other's missteps and improve over time. Free-market kumbaya.
On the other hand, anyone suckered into moving to space might be enslaved by an AI-infused uber-Musk that inhabits a giant kill-bot made from repurposed Falcon Heavy rockets. The colonists will be forced to do his bidding as he wages an unending galaxy-wide war against an army of Bezos cyborg clones.
Humanity's future in space is too far away to predict with absolute clarity. But it's close enough that it's worth our time to carefully observe it as it takes shape. And it's worth our collective effort to make sure it gets done right.
This story first appeared in the PC Magazine Digital Edition. Subscribe today for more original feature stories, news, reviews, and how tos!
Read more:
Welcome to SpaceX City: The Ultimate Startup - PCMag India
Posted in Moon Colonization
Comments Off on Welcome to SpaceX City: The Ultimate Startup – PCMag India
Here’s where experts say we should draw the line on gene-editing experiments on human embryos – Los Angeles Times
Posted: at 12:50 pm
A day after a blockbuster report that researchers had edited harmful genetic mutations out of human embryos in an Oregon lab, an international group of genetics experts urged scientists against taking the next step.
A panel of the American Society of Human Genetics, joined by representatives from 10 organizations scattered across the globe, recommended against genome editing that culminates in human pregnancy. Their views were published Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
In the United States, the Food & Drug Administration forbids any medical use of gene editing that would affect future generations, and the agency strictly regulates experimental use of the technology in labs. But around the world, scientists sometimes circumvent restrictions like these by conducting clinical work in countries that have no such strictures.
People who want to gain access to these techniques can find people willing to perform them in venues where they are able to do so, said Jeffrey Kahn, director of the Berman Center for Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University. That underscores the importance of international discussion of what norms we will follow.
Indeed, some of the groups signing on to the new consensus statement acknowledged that they inhabit parts of the world in which medical and scientific regulatory bodies scarcely exist, or are not robust.
The panel said it supports publicly funded research of the sort performed at Oregon Health & Science University and reported Wednesday in the journal Nature. Such work could facilitate research on the possible future applications of gene editing, according to its position statement.
In the Nature study, researchers created human embryos with a mutation in the MYBPC3 gene that causes an often fatal condition called inherited hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Then they edited the DNA of those embryos during the first five days of their development. At that point, the embryos were extensively analyzed and used to create stem cell lines that can be maintained indefinitely and used for further research.
But advancing to the next step allowing pregnancies to proceed with altered embryos will require further debate, the genetics specialists asserted.
They cited persistent uncertainties regarding the safety of gene-editing techniques. They also said the ethical implications of so-called germ-line editing, which would alter a patients genetic code in ways that would affect his or her offspring, remain insufficiently considered.
Panel members raised questions about who would have access to therapies made possible by manipulating the genome, and how existing inequities could be exacerbated. And they expressed concerns that the availability of germ-line editing could encourage experiments in eugenics the creation of people engineered for qualities such as intelligence, beauty or strength that would set them apart as superior.
Perhaps the most deeply felt concern is conceptual: the sense that in identifying some individuals and their traits as unfit, we experience a collective loss of our humanity, the group wrote.
The position statement comes on the heels of the Nature study reporting the first successful use in human embryos of a relatively new and increasingly popular gene-editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9. That study offered some reassurance that unforeseen or off target effects of such therapies can be avoided with certain practices.
Study leader Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a biologist at the Oregon university, said that while there is a long road ahead, he hoped to employ these techniques in human clinical trials in the coming years.
The genetics groups consensus statement lays out some of the scientific and ethical debates that should come before any trial would attempt the incubation and birth of children whose faulty genes had been repaired while they were still embryos.
The group also voiced concerns about the potential impact of germ-line editing on families and societies in which they might become widely used.
Arguably, the ability to easily request interventions intended to reduce medical risks and costs could make parents less tolerant of perceived imperfections or differences within their families, panel members wrote. Clinical use of germline gene editing might not be in the best interest of the affected individual if it erodes parental instinct for unconditional acceptance.
@LATMelissaHealy
MORE IN SCIENCE
In a first, scientists rid human embryos of a potentially fatal gene mutation by editing their DNA
After surgery, more than two-thirds of patients wind up with leftover prescription opioids, study finds
You can predict how many blacks are killed by police by measuring the racism of whites, research finds
Excerpt from:
Here's where experts say we should draw the line on gene-editing experiments on human embryos - Los Angeles Times
Posted in Human Genetics
Comments Off on Here’s where experts say we should draw the line on gene-editing experiments on human embryos – Los Angeles Times
Genetics expert discusses creating ground rules for human germline editing – Medical Xpress
Posted: at 12:50 pm
August 4, 2017
A Stanford professor of genetics discusses the thinking behind a formal policy statement endorsing the idea that researchers continue editing genes in human germ cells.
A team of genetics experts has issued a policy statement recommending that research on editing human genes in eggs, sperm and early embryos continue, provided the work does not result in a human pregnancy.
Kelly Ormond, MS, professor of genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine, is one of three lead authors of the statement, which provides a framework for regulating the editing of human germ cells. Germ cells, a tiny subset of all the cells in the body, give rise to eggs and sperm. Edits to the genes of germ cells are passed on to offspring.
The statement, published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics, was jointly prepared by the American Society for Human Genetics and four other human genetics organizations, including the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and endorsed by another six, including societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Africa and Asia.
Germline gene editing raises a host of technical and ethical questions that, for now, remain largely unanswered. The ASHG policy statement proposes that federal funding for germline genome editing research not be prohibited; that germline editing not be done in any human embryo that would develop inside a woman; and that future clinical germline genome editing in humans not proceed without a compelling medical rationale, evidence supporting clinical use, ethical justification, and a process incorporating input from the public, patients and their families, and other stakeholders.
Ormond recently discussed the issues that prompted the statement's creation with writer Jennie Dusheck.
Q: Why did you think it was important to issue a statement now?
Ormond: Much of the interest arose a couple of years ago when a group of researchers in China did a proof of principle study demonstrating that they could edit the genes of human embryos.
The embryos weren't viable [meaning they could not lead to a baby], but I think that paper worried people. Gene editing in human germ cells is not technically easy, and it's not likely to be a top choice for correcting genetic mutations. Still, it worried us that somebody was starting to do it.
We've been able to alter genes for many years now, but the new techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9, that have come out in the past five years have made it a lot easier, and things are moving fast. It's now quite realistic to do human germline gene editing, and some people have been calling for a moratorium on such work.
Our organization, the American Society of Human Genetics, decided that it would be important to investigate the ethical issues and put out a statement regarding germline genome editing, and what we thought should happen in the near term moving forward.
As we got into the process, we realized that this had global impact because much of the work was happening outside of the United States. And we realized that if someone, anywhere in the world, were moving forward on germline genome editing, that it was going to influence things more broadly. So we reached out to many other countries and organizations to see if we could get global buy-in to the ideas we were thinking about.
Q: Are there regulations now in place that prevent researchers from editing human embryos that could result in a pregnancy and birth?
Ormond: Regulations vary from country to country, so research that is illegal in one country could be legal in another. That's part of the challenge and why we thought it was so important to have multiple countries involved in this statement.
Also, since 1995 the United States has had regulations against federal funding for research that creates or destroys human embryos. We worry that restricting federal funding on things like germline editing will drive the research underground so there's less regulation and less transparency. We felt it was really important to say that we support federal funding for this kind of research.
Q: Is germline editing in humans useful and valuable?
Ormond: Germline editing doesn't have many immediate uses. A lot of people argue that if you're trying to prevent genetic disease (as opposed to treating it), there are many other ways to do that. We have options like prenatal testing or IVF and pre-implantation genetic testing and then selecting only those embryos that aren't affected. For the vast majority of situations, those are feasible options for parents concerned about a genetic disease.
The number of situations where you couldn't use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to avoid having an affected child are so few and far between. For example, if a parent was what we call a homozygote for a dominant condition such as BRCA1 or Huntington's disease, or if both members of the couple were affected with the same recessive condition, like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, it wouldn't be possible to have a biologically related child that didn't carry that gene, not unless germline editing were used.
Q: What makes germline editing controversial?
Ormond: There are families out there who see germline editing as a solution to some genetic conditions. For example, during a National Academy of Sciences meeting in December of 2015, a parent stood up and said, "I have a child who has a genetic condition. Please let this move forward; this is something that could help."
But I also work in disability studies, as it relates to genetic testing, and there are many individuals who feel strongly that genetic testing or changing genes in any way makes a negative statement about them and their worth. So this topic really edges into concerns about eugenics and about what can happen once we have the ability to change our genes.
Germline gene editing impacts not just the individual whose genes are edited, but their future offspring and future generations. We need to listen to all of those voices and try to set a path that takes all of them into account.
That's a huge debate right now. A lot of people say, "Let's not mess around with the germline. Let's only edit genes after a person is born with a medical condition." Treating an existing medical condition is different from changing someone's genes from the start, in the germline, when you don't know what else you're going to influence.
Q: There was a paper recently about gene editing that caused mutations in excessive numbers of nontargeted genes, so called "off-target effects." Did that result surprise you or change anything about what you were thinking?
Ormond: I think part of the problem is that this research is moving very fast. One of our biggest challenges was that you can't do a good ethical assessment of the risks and benefits of a treatment or technology if you don't know what those risks are, and they remain unclear.
We keep learning about potential risks, including off-target mutations and other unintended consequences. Before anyone ever tries to do germline gene editing in humans, it is very important that we do animal studies where the animals are followed through multiple generations, so that we can see what happens in the long term. There's just a lot that we don't know.
There are so many unknowns that we don't even know what guidelines to set. For example, what's an appropriate new mutation level in some of these technologies? What is the risk we're willing to take as we move forward into human studies? And I think those guidelines need to be set as we move forward into clinical trials, both in somatic cells [cells of the body, such as skin cells, neurons, blood cells] and in germline cells.
It's really hard because, of course, we're talking about, for the most part, bad diseases that significantly impact quality of life. So if you're talking about a really serious disease, maybe you're willing to take more risk there, and these new mutations aren't likely to be as bad as the genetic condition you already have. But we don't know, right?
We haven't had any public dialogue about any of this, and that's what we need to have. We need to find a way to educate the public and scientists about all of these issues so people can have informed discussions and really come together as this moves forward, so that were not in that reactive place when it potentially becomes a real choice.
And that goes back to your first question, which is why did we feel like we needed to have a statement now? We wanted to get those conversations going.
Explore further: 11 organizations urge cautious but proactive approach to gene editing
Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more
Continue reading here:
Genetics expert discusses creating ground rules for human germline editing - Medical Xpress
Posted in Human Genetics
Comments Off on Genetics expert discusses creating ground rules for human germline editing – Medical Xpress
Madhuri Hegde, PhD is Elected to the Board of the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine – PR Newswire (press release)
Posted: at 12:50 pm
Dr. Hegde joined PerkinElmer in 2016 as Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, Global Genetics Laboratory Services. She also is an Adjunct Professor of Human Genetics in the Department of Human Genetics at Emory University. Previously, Dr. Hegde was Executive Director and Chief Scientific Officer at Emory Genetics Laboratory in Atlanta, GA and Professor of Human Genetics and Pediatrics at Emory University and Assistant Professor, Department of Human Genetics and Senior Director at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX.
Dr. Hegde has served on a number of Scientific Advisory Boards for patient advocacy groups including Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, Congenital Muscular Dystrophy and Neuromuscular Disease Foundation. She was a Board member of the Association for Molecular Pathology and received the Outstanding Faculty Award from MD Anderson Cancer Center. She earned her PhD in Applied Biology from the University of Auckland in Auckland, New Zealand and completed her Postdoctoral Fellowship in Molecular Genetics at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX. She also holds a Master of Science in Microbiology from the University of Mumbai in India. She has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has given more than 100 keynote and invited presentations at major national and internal conferences.
"We are delighted that Dr. Hegde has been elected to the ACMG Foundation Board of Directors. She has vast experience in genetic and genomic testing and is a longtime member of the College and supporter of both the College and the Foundation," said Bruce R. Korf, MD, PhD, FACMG, president of the ACMG Foundation.
The complete list of the ACMG Foundation board of directors is at http://www.acmgfoundation.org.
About the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine
The ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is a community of supporters and contributors who understand the importance of medical genetics and genomics in healthcare. Established in 1992, the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine supports the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics' mission to "translate genes into health" by raising funds to help train the next generation of medical geneticists, to sponsor the development of practice guidelines, to promote information about medical genetics, and much more.
To learn more about the important mission and projects of the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine and how you too can support the work of the Foundation, please visit http://www.acmgfoundation.org or contact us at acmgf@acmgfoundation.org or 301-718-2014.
Contact Kathy Beal, MBA ACMG Media Relations, kbeal@acmg.net
View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/madhuri-hegde-phd-is-elected-to-the-board-of-the-acmg-foundation-for-genetic-and-genomic-medicine-300499860.html
SOURCE American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics
Posted in Human Genetics
Comments Off on Madhuri Hegde, PhD is Elected to the Board of the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine – PR Newswire (press release)