Sam Ghandchiسام قندچيGenetics Cannot End Death
Sam Ghandchi
ژنتیک نمی تواند به مرگ پایان دهد

Three days ago, in an article entitled "Why I am not a Future-ist,"
(1) discussed crossing the chasm for futurism; noted Ray Kurzweil's "second half of the chessboard" story; and Ray was kind to remind me yesterday that his story was not just about Moore's Law, but "relates to his law of accelerating returns, of which Moore’s law is one of many examples" (2). This is an important issue, as futurism crosses the chasm, because the result of, having a specific future in mind and striving towards it, will be drastically different from being future-looking (3).

One major example of how the above distinction makes a difference, is the way we thought of ending death, just ten years ago, when we were basically focused on solutions coming out of genetic change and biology. For example, on November 17, 2007, had a TV interview in Persian with Ahmad Reza Baharloo on the Voice of America, VOA, entitled "Futurism and End of Death"
and a detailed written document in Persian was simultaneously published (4). At the time, I believed genetic engineering to play a major role in ending death. I no longer think that way, as discussed recently in a book entitled "New Variant to Meet Human Needs" (5).

As presented in the above book, even
, artificial, genetic modifications, are slow, and more importantly, they give rise to a myriad of side effects, as deadly as Leukemia, which make the results of genetic changes, more deadly, than the problems it is hoped they fix; and the multitude of side effects, are also exponential. This is why I now believe the path to ending death is through substitution of biological parts of human body with artificial solutions such as pacemakers. For example, we already have kidney dialysis machine, and can just miniaturize it, to be able to implant it in our body.  Needless to say that new advancements of power source for prosthetics, that are being worked on, are as important as the functional design. Surely such solutions are superior to kidney transplanting which disables another healthy human.

Maybe, replacing the brain, artificially, will be, the last piece of the puzzle. Downloading our brain will not be easy, as the work of reverse engineering the brain by Ray Kurzweil has shown, but it is not formidable; humans have come a long way since the time, writing was the only way to download our thoughts beside using language to pass information verbally to our progeny. We have since had vinyl records, photography, and then magnetic and laser hard disks, SSD's, clouds, etc and these information download and storage technologies are making new milestones as fast as the cps rates (computation per second) of cpu and gpu's reaching the speeds, human brain processes data.


Hoping for a democratic and secular futurist republic in Iran,

Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
7, 2017
*I am highly indebted to a young scientist who rightly deserves to be named the main author, but does not like his name to be mentioned.



1. Why I am not a Future-ist

چرا آینده گرا نیستم


2. Wheat and chessboard problem


Second half of the chessboard



3. For my explanation of Kurzweil's Law of Accelerated Returns, please visit the following link

4. AI, Singularity, and End of Death (in Persian)
هوش مصنوعی، نقطه انفصالی، و پایان مرگ
آینده نگری و پایان مرگ

5. New Variant to Meet Human Needs-An Electronic Book
واریانت جدید برای تأمین نیازهای بشر- کتاب الکترونیک


Related Article

Ray Kurzweil's Response to Genetics and Death Topic

پاسخ کرزوایل به بحث ژنتیک و مرگ



Featured Topics