The Lost Planet Vulcan – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

Did you know about the lost planet Vulcan? Not Mr. Spock’s planet nor the exoplanet around the star 40 Eridani, but one right here in our solar system. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss the claims that such a planet exists between Mercury and the Sun and the evidence for and against.

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Would It Matter If We’re Living in a Simulation?

A reader writes:

My good sir, a baptized Catholic who is away from the Faith asked me at work this week: “How do we know we are not living in a computer simulation? What is wrong with Elon Musk’s simulation hypothesis?” What do I say in reply?

 

What the Simulation Hypothesis Is

Currently we use computers to run simulations of many different kinds of scenarios. For example, physicists use them to run simulations of how different kinds of subatomic particles interact.

The basic idea of the simulation hypothesis is that as computers get better and better, we will be able to run better and better simulations, and one day we could arrive at a stage where computers would allow us to run detailed simulations of the natural world as we experience it.

We might then choose to run simulations about the past and learn about what our ancestors did. Or we might run simulations just for fun, like a supercomplex, universe-sized Tamagotchi toy.

We might, in fact, run many, many simulations. Or if we don’t, aliens on other planets might.

If a very large number of simulations exists, each of which is indistinguishable from the natural world as we experience it, then how do we know we aren’t living in such a simulation?

This idea—as far out as it may sound—is being seriously entertained by some philosophers and scientists.

It’s essentially a modern variant of an ancient question: How do we know that the world we experience is as it seems? Could reality actually be very different?

 

Bostrom’s Trilemma

As Wikipedia explains, in 2003 the philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper in which he argued that one of three propositions is very likely to be true:

  1. “The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero,” or
  2. “The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero,” or
  3. “The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.”

Bostrom himself does not consider any of these three to be especially more likely than the others, but some have definite preferences.

Option 3 is favored by industrialist Elon Musk, who has said that the thinks the odds are billions to one in favor of us living in a simulation, while astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson has put the odds of us living in a simulation around 50/50 (source).

Others have put the odds vastly lower.

 

Some Objections

Option 1 has been favored by those who have argued that there are insurmountable physical limits to the kinds of computers that can be built even by an advanced civilization, and these would prevent the kind of detailed simulations needed.

One might support Option 2 by arguing that any advanced civilization capable of creating such simulations would have progressed past the point of needing them—either for research or entertainment purposes (an electric wire connected directly to the pleasure center of the brain would be vastly more entertaining, just like Tamagotchi toys proved to be much less entertaining than other options we have).

Some have also challenged the whole trilemma—for example, by noting that we experience consciousness, but patterns of information in a computer do not. The fact of our consciousness means that we are not living in a simulation.

In other words, “the faction of all people with our kind of experiences”—i.e., consciousness—would be exactly zero (Option 3 is false), and computers cannot simulate experiences of our kind (making the kind of ancestor-simulations envisioned in Options 1 and 2 impossible).

And there are other objections, yet.

The simulation hypothesis is thus far from established. However, let’s consider what the implications for the Christian Faith would be if it were true.

 

The Christian Worldview

The Christian worldview contains three essential elements that are relevant to our discussion, and they are encapsulated in the Creed, when we profess our faith in “God . . . maker of heaven and earth”:

  1. God, the infinitely perfect Creator of everything is obviously essential to the Christian worldview.
  2. “Heaven”—i.e., the spiritual world which includes our souls, is also essential.
  3. “Earth”—i.e., the natural world as we experience it, is the final component.

What would we conclude about these three if the simulation hypothesis were true?

 

The Existence of God

Philosophical arguments prove that there is an infinitely perfect Creator outside of all Creation. Therefore, God exists.

The simulation hypothesis does not affect the existence of God. Even if we’re living in a computer simulation, that simulation exists within a computer somewhere in a higher universe.

That universe might itself be a simulation, so you could posit any number of worlds within worlds that you might like.

It doesn’t matter, for eventually there would be some final, created world (or set of worlds in the case of a multiverse) containing the computer(s) that run all the simulations.

That final world (or worlds) still needs an explanation, and that explanation is God.

 

The Physical World

People have wondered for a long time about the nature of the physical world that we live in.

According to the classical element theory, the natural world was made of four (or five) elements: air, earth, fire, and water (and maybe ether).

According to the modern atomic theory of matter, the natural world is made of patterns of subatomic particles that form atoms.

According to the simulation theory, the natural world is made of patterns of information that exist in some unknown computer medium that form simulations of atoms.

Either way, the natural world we live in exists. It’s just a question of what its fundamental components are—whether subatomic particles or patterns of information.

The fundamental nature of our world is an interesting subject, but it doesn’t change anything from a religious perspective. The natural world still exists. Whether it’s made of four/five elements, subatomic particles, or patterns of information, it’s still real.

So, the only thing the simulation theory would do is add at least one additional layer to creation—i.e., the layer containing the computer in which our natural world exists.

 

The Spiritual World

That leaves us with the question of the human soul and the larger spiritual world.

A key point of evidence for this is our subjective experience of consciousness. Although one can assert that consciousness is explained by subatomic particles (as materialists would) or by patterns of information in a computer medium (as simulationists would), one cannot prove this.

In fact, we have no scientific hypothesis at all explaining how consciousness could arise from these things. That is, nobody has produced a testable hypothesis that would account for how non-living things like subatomic particles or information could give rise to consciousness.

This is known in scientific and philosophical circles as “the hard problem of consciousness.”

Yet our consciousness remains as a brute fact that is unexplainable in scientific terms.

One is therefore entitled to set aside assertions that consciousness arises from physical phenomena and propose what our experience indicates—that there is something non-physical (a soul) that, however closely it interacts with our bodies, is responsible for consciousness.

The simulation hypothesis can’t explain this any better than the atomic theory of matter does. Therefore, the simulation hypothesis changes nothing with respect to the third component of the Christian worldview—the soul.

If the atomic theory is true, then our souls interact with the patterns of subatomic particles that form the base layer of the natural world.

If the simulation hypothesis is true, then our souls interact with the patterns of information simulating our bodies in the computer system that resides in the base layer of reality.

If one finds it implausible that souls would interact with such data patterns, that would give you reason to reject the idea that we’re living in a simulation, but it wouldn’t give you reason to reject either the existence of the soul or the existence of a natural world.

 

The End of the World

The Christian Faith holds that, at some point, the physical world in which we live will be renovated and replaced by a “New Earth,” where we will have a place for all eternity.

The simulation hypothesis would not prevent this. If our present physical world is a simulation, God might put us in a new, similar world—or he might put us in a base level reality and have our souls interact with that. Ultimately, that’s up to him.

Either way, whether the present world we experience is a simulation or a base reality doesn’t matter. The Creator who exists outside the entire created world—however many levels it may contain—has made contact with us, here, and told us that one day we will live in a new world.

The nature of that world is in his hands, as it has always been.

 

Conclusion

I thus don’t see how the simulation theory changes anything from a faith perspective. We still have the same three elements—God, the spiritual world, and the natural world—and all three interact.

The natural world used to be explained by the classical element theory, it is presently explained by the atomic theory, and if we ever get actual, robust scientific evidence that we’re living in a simulation then it would be explained by the simulation theory.

But all these theories do is shed varying degrees of light on the nature of the physical world as we experience it. They don’t change anything from a religious perspective.

Learning that the physical world as we experience it is contained in a larger, meta-world would be interesting, but it doesn’t alter the need for us to have a right relationship with the Creator, who is responsible for both the spiritual and the natural world—whatever the specific components or structure of the latter turns out to be.

Neither does the simulation hypothesis stop us from needing to live our lives in the world as we find it.

I’d note that it certainly hasn’t stopped Elon Musk from living his life as an entrepreneur and industrialist and undertaking all kinds of projects.

It hasn’t caused him an existential crisis, and neither should it us.

The Mystery of Cloning – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

MYS013

Separating fact from science fiction, Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss cloning, what it is and isn’t, its surprisingly long history, the moral implications, and future prospects.

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

Direct Link to Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Where Are All the Alien? – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

MYS010

Across billions of stars and billions of years, logic says there’d be at least one alien species advanced enough to be noticed. Hence Enrico Fermi’s famous paradox: Where are the aliens? Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss the mystery of a universe in which we’re seemingly alone.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Area 51

Area 51

Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli explore the mystery surrounding Area 51, the claims that the government is hiding alien spacecraft there, the earthly secret programs to develop specialized aircraft, and the secrecy surrounding the existence of the facility itself.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Continue reading “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Area 51”

Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Bigfoot

Bigfoot

Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli explore the claims and counter-claims about Bigfoot, the mysterious tall, hairy biped supposedly indigenous to North America. Could there be an undiscovered species of primate out in the woods?

Direct Link to Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Transhumanism

MYS002

Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss the mysteries of Transhumanism, both its promises and dangers, including what the Church says about this effort to perfect humanity through science.

Direct Link to Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Ghosts

MYS001

Every week, Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli explore the weird, the strange, and the unusual from the perspectives of faith and reason. In this first episode, Jimmy and Dom talk about ghosts, what they could be, how they fit in a Catholic understanding of the world, and what a rational mind says about them.

Direct Link to Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

The Challenge of Transhumanism

android-arm-human-arm-michelangelo-640x353Transhumanism is a movement that wants to reshape the human race.

It believes that we will soon have the power, through scientific and technical means, to transcend our limitations and be transformed as a species. I.e., transhumanists want there to be a new race of “posthumans.”

Transhumanism hopes to manage the transition from today’s humans to tomorrow’s posthumans. The transition will be more dramatic—vastly more dramatic—than the transition from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens.

On first encountering the aspirations of transhumanists, it’s easy to dismiss them—to laugh them off as jokes or sci-fi delusions—but transhumanists are serious.

They are so serious that many have compared the movement to a religion—one with messianic aspirations and a gospel of technological salvation and eternal life.

 

Background to Transhumanism

Around 380 B.C., Plato described his ideal society in The Republic. Among the groups of people he described in his ideal society was a class of guardians to protect and to rule the population.

For such important functionaries, one would want people of high quality, so in Book V of The Republic, Plato proposed that the guardian class be specially bred—like dogs or horses. Those thought likely to produce desirable offspring would be paired up for breeding; and those expected to produce less desirable offspring would not be given the opportunity.

The dream of selectively breeding humans did not die with Plato. It has appeared in various forms in history. In the early 20th century, the eugenics movement proposed to improve the human race by encouraging people with positive traits to breed and discouraging or preventing those with negative traits from doing so.

At times, eugenicists urged the forcible sterilization of those with undesired characteristics—such as being poor, feeble-minded, alcoholic, mentally ill, etc.

In 1930, Pius XI condemned such measures, stating: “Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason” (Castii Connubii 70).

This exhortation did not prevent the Nazi government from enacting extensive eugenic policies, leading up to an including the “final solution of the Jewish question,” which used death camps to commit genocide on a massive scale in the interests of improving racial “health.”

The Nazis gave eugenics such a bad name that support for the philosophy waned, and even those who supported it avoided using the name.

Now, however, transhumanism wants to alter the human race in ways that the eugenicists could not have dreamt.

The term transhumanism was coined in 1957 by the British biologist Julian Huxley—a eugenicist and brother of Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel Brave New World (1932), which dealt with the scientific manipulation of human nature.

By the 1980s, people referring to themselves as transhumanists began to organize.

 

 

What transhumanism is

The most popular transhumanist organization is Humanity+ (pronounced “humanity plus”), and their web site offers two definitions of transhumanism:

(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

(2) The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies (“Transhumanist FAQ,” HumanityPlus.org).

These don’t convey the full drama of what transhumanists have in mind. Everybody wants to improve the human condition, and studying the potential ramifications, promises, and potential dangers sounds like a good thing to do. But there are flashes of drama when the definitions refer to eliminating aging and overcoming “fundamental human limitations.”

It’s when you start hearing specific examples that the gobsmacking nature of the change they’re after becomes clear.

 

What transhumanists want

The first definition says that transhumanists want to use technology to “eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.”

Of these, the key ones are the elimination of aging and greater intelligence.

Eliminating aging sounds like a very ambitious goal, but transhumanists are deadly serious. In fact, they want to do more than eliminate aging: They want to reverse it.

In the transhumanist future, people would be capable of physical immortality, lived at any biological age they wished. Not only would they not die, they would be able to stop or reverse the effects of aging so that we could have perpetual youth and health (as well as beauty).

Of course, a person might still be killed by accidents, violence, natural disasters, etc., but apart from these he would be able to go on living indefinitely—hundreds or thousands of years or more.

Accompanying the elimination of aging would be a major boost in intelligence. Transhumanists commonly speak of the development of “superintelligences” that would be as superior to ours as ours are to apes.’

With unlimited lifespan and superior intelligence, posthumans would have the time and ability to make whatever other changes they desired, leading to the enhanced physical and psychological capabilities mentioned above.

These could include greater strength, ability to survive in adverse environments (e.g., on other planets), the elimination of mental illness, and the ability to control moods, stimulate creativity, and enjoy profound and lasting joy.

In other words, transhumanists are out to create a posthuman techno-utopia.

 

How transhumanists expect to do this

Transhumanists expect to achieve these goals through a blend of science and technology.

One of the great revolutions of our times is in the biological sciences. Just a few years ago the human genome was sequenced, and now the genomes of many other species are being decoded.

Transhumanists expect that soon we will have a vastly improved understanding of how genes work, and as that understanding grows, it will become increasingly possible to manipulate our genes.

One application of this will be to cure genetic diseases, but another will be to make fundamental improvements in our genetic stock—and not just in future generations but among people who are already alive.

They propose to do what the eugenicists of the twentieth century wanted to do—and more—but without using reproduction to accomplish it. Once a certain level of scientific and technological development is reached, transhumanists foresee people making changes in their own genetic codes.

This is one way they think the goals of immortality and superior intelligence may be accomplished, but they recognize there are limits to what can be done biologically.

That’s why they don’t plan on limiting themselves to medicine. They also expect to use mechanical means. For example, they envision building computers capable of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is superior to ours.

In fact, many transhumanists see better-than-human AI as a key tool. If we can build a machine smarter than us then that machine can work of problems too hard for us and design solutions that we either couldn’t arrive at or that would take us too long. In principle, a better-than-human AI could to improve upon itself and design an even more advanced AI.

Transhumanists also see many other technologies becoming available, including the widespread use of nanotechnology, in which machines the size of a few atoms would be able to restructure matter on the atomic level.

Robust nanotechnology would be amazing, as illustrated by proposed applications like utility fog. This would be a cloud of tiny robots that could arrange themselves into any shape needed. If you wanted a house to live in, you could program utility fog to become a house. If you wanted a car, you could program it to become a car. Or you could just have the fog carry you wherever you wanted to go.

Transhumanists foresee the merger of man and machine. Many people already have artificial replacements for body parts—knee and hip replacements, artificial hearts, etc.

Sometimes the replacement parts are better than the original. I, myself, had to have cataract surgery, which left my eyes with artificial lenses that contain built-in protection from ultraviolet light.

Transhumanists expect this trend to continue, with artificial replacements and improvements for every organ in the body.

For example, the brain might be supplemented with a neural implant allowing it to connect to computers. One of the simpler applications of this would be connecting to the Internet and communicating over it—or communicating directly with people who have similar implants, producing the electronic equivalent of telepathy.

A brain-machine interface could also allow us to supplement our memories, better analyze our experiences, and improve our intelligence. At least, that’s what transhumanists are hoping for.

They even foresee the possibility of people transcending the human form an “uploading” their minds into computer systems, where they would have digital immortality and as vastly increased mental abilities.

 

When transhumanists hope to accomplish this

Transhumanists hope to accomplish these things “in our lifetimes,” but given that they’re planning on immortality, that means an open-ended timetable.

They don’t expect these things to be achieved all at once but incrementally. For example, they don’t expect to wake up one day and hear the news that someone has invented an immortality pill. Instead, they see medicine continuing to improve slightly each year and extend the human life a little bit more.

They predict that at some point in the next few decades, the average human lifespan will be growing by more than one year per calendar year.

For example, in 2030 the average human lifespan might be 90, in 2031 it might be 91.5, and in 2032 it might be 93. As long as the rate the average lifespan is increasing is greater than one year per year, the “average” person can live indefinitely.

Transhumanists would then have all the time they need to work on their goals.

And, they argue, many may come sooner rather than later. They foresee better-than-human AI coming within a few decades, which could make all of their other goals appear much more quickly.

Some have proposed that there will be a technological “Singularity” in which technological change begins happening at a fantastically accelerated rate, making it impossible to predict what comes next.

Computer scientist Vernor Vinge has suggested that such a Singularity will occur before the 2030s (“The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era,” www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/), while entrepreneur and futurist Ray Kurzweil has predicted it before 2045 (The Singularity Is Near).

 

An influential minority

The number of people who identify as transhumanists is small. Humanity+ represents approximately six thousand people, though there are many transhumanists who do not belong to it.

Despite their numbers, transhumanists are disproportionately influential, making them a “creative minority.”

An illustration of their influence is that in 2012 Google hired Ray Kurzweil as its Director of Engineering, where he works to transform the company’s search feature by incorporating artificial intelligence and the ability to understand natural language requests for information rather than just search terms.

And aspects of the transhumanist agenda are being pursued by people who don’t identify as transhumanists. Medicine, science, and industry are all working on projects that fit in to the transhumanist agenda.

But how much of that agenda will be achieved?

 

An uncertain future

Transhumanists acknowledge that the future is uncertain—and that the technologies they propose could be dangerous.

The atomic age made us familiar with the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, but the transhumanist vision features multiple technologies with similar threat potential—including AIs that can out-think and out-compete humans, genetically engineered plagues, and runaway nanotechnology turning everything into “grey goo.”

They argue that the potential benefits outweigh the risks and urge that serious consideration be given to how to mitigate the dangers of these technologies.

 

How much will happen?

It’s virtually certain that science and medicine will continue to progress. We may expect new cures, somewhat longer lifespans, and technologies with the power to improve—and threaten—human life.

However, transhumanism assumes that key trends will continue indefinitely into the future, and this is not clear.

Even if medical science progresses to the point that it’s able to add more than a year to the average human lifespan per calendar year, there’s no guarantee that this trend will continue long term and turn into practical immortality.

Technologists are concerned that Moore’s Law—a well-established trend suggesting that computers double in power every two years—may already be breaking down. Computers will still improve in the future, but perhaps not in the exponential way they have in recent decades.

Some of the advances transhumanists want may not happen for a long time—or at all. Some experts think that better-than-human AI is unachievable.

And some transhumanists goals seem flat out impossible. The idea of “uploading” your consciousness into a computer is metaphysical nonsense. Even if there was a way to make a digital representation of all your memories and thought processes, it would still just be a digital representation—not the real you.

However, the fact some transhumanist dreams are silly does not mean the movement shouldn’t be viewed with concern.

 

The Holy See on genetic engineering

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has already expressed concern about the misuse of genetic engineering. In 2008, it warned against some of transhumanism’s aspirations:

Some have imagined the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool. Some of these proposals exhibit a certain dissatisfaction or even rejection of the value of the human being as a finite creature and person. Apart from technical difficulties and the real and potential risks involved, such manipulation would promote a eugenic mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society (Dignitas Personae 27).

In other words, non-therapeutic genetic engineering could lead to the creation of a genetic elite that would lord it over the unmodified.

Transhumanists argue that, in their preferred future, such modifications would be voluntary, and those who chose not to have them wouldn’t be forced to do so—thus some number of “normal” humans would still exist.

However, this does not mean that normal humans and their choices would be just as valued. Thus the CDF argues that tampering with our genetic codes this way “would end sooner or later by harming the common good, by favoring the will of some over the freedom of others” (ibid.).

This prospect is also discussed by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man, in which he explores the consequences of manipulating human nature the way transhumanists want.

 

Playing God

Perhaps the most fundamental problem with transhumanism is that, by wanting to produce a new, posthuman species, its advocates want to play God. Discussing radical genetic engineering, the CDF writes:

[I]t must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator (ibid.).

This is exactly correct. It is one thing to improve the human condition by fighting disease and inventing new technologies, but it is another to have the creation of a new, superior species of posthumans as your explicit goal.

That goal means you want to play God, and that’s dangerous territory.

The account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 features a similar effort by men to ascend to heaven through their own power, and that ended with disaster.

Even if God chose not to intervene directly to thwart transhumanist plans, the attempt to play God could by itself bring on terrifying disasters, some of which we have already mentioned.

People are already describing transhumanism as a kind of secular religion, and in recent history we’ve seen a eugenically-inspired secular messianism and what it did to millions it deemed genetically inferior back in the 1940s.

Transhumanists could argue that this is an unfair comparison since their emphasis on individual rights and choices would prevent that kind of thing from happening again.

However, it is reasonable to ask whether, if they began to achieve even some of their goals, transhumanists would begin to look down on unmodified humans who refused to “get with the program.” Unmodified humans might then be viewed as second class citizens, as people to be out-competed, dominated, and replaced—the way our ancestors replaced the Neanderthals.

After all, that would be only human.

 

The Transhumanist Declaration

This declaration was developed in 1998 and adopted by the Humanity+ board in 2009.

  1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
  2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
  3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
  4. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
  5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
  6. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
  7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
  8. We favor allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.

Fasting Notes

at the dance studio
If you follow me on Facebook, you may have seen that I’ve recently been chronicling my weight loss journey there, and there’s been a lot of news to report! (The picture is one of me now that I can fit into a shirt that just has an L on the label–no X or XX.) Update: I’m now wearing medium shirts, so I’ve changed the picture.

A few months ago, at the suggestion of my physician, I began to practice intermittent fasting, and it’s really accelerated my weight loss. At the time of writing, I’ve lost 29 lbs 38 lbs 47 lbs 58 lbs 69 74 lbs 84 lbs (it may be more by the time you read this), it’s produced other health benefits (including improved sleep and energy), and it’s been surprisingly easy (very little hunger at all).

I plan to do a blog series about my experience in the new year, but folks on Facebook have been asking a lot of questions, so I thought I’d jot down a few notes here until I can launch the series.

 

You’re really fasting?

Yes.

 

Really?

Yes.

 

Are you hungry all the time?

Not at all. I was surprised at how little hunger I’ve had. I had some for the first few days after I altered my eating pattern, but they went away quickly.

I called a friend who does a lot of fasting, and he said his experience is that hunger is largely a matter of habit. When your body is used to getting a new influx of calories, that’s when it sends the “It’s time to eat now” hunger signal. If you ignore that signal when it comes, it will re-set to the new normal and stop sending you the hunger signal at the old times.

I later asked my doctor about this, and she said it has also been the experience of her patients who have tried intermittent fasting.

 

What do you do when hunger does come?

I may drink non-caloric beverages to fill up my stomach (water, tea, coffee, no-calorie sodas with stevia [a natural, non-caloric sweetener]).

I also just ignore it, because hunger isn’t a constant. It comes in waves, and my experience has been that if I ignore it for 20 minutes, it will go away on its own.

Really, though, I’ve been amazed at how little hunger there has been.

 

Jimmy, I’m concerned for you. This sounds unsafe.

Thank you for your concern, but please don’t worry.

First, my doctor was the one who recommended it.

Second, I’m doing it under a doctor’s care, so all the right things are being monitored.

Third, it’s actually very safe (see below.) Fasting is actually a normal part of human experience. We’re designed for it. It’s just not part of our culture (which is a big part of our culture’s problem with weight management and various health issues).

Fourth, in case of problems, fasting is the easiest thing in the world to stop (also see below).

 

Won’t fasting slow down your metabolism?

Not if you’re doing it right. Calorie restriction will slow down your metabolism, but calorie restriction and fasting are two different things, and the body responds to them differently.

If you reduce the number of calories you eat at each meal but you continue to eat 3-7 times a day then your body will think food is in short supply, but that you do have a supply of it. In that case, your body will adjust your metabolism to the supply it thinks you have. You will get sluggish, irritable, and may feel colder than you otherwise would.

But if you stop the calories, your body will think you don’t have a food supply and that it needs to start burning fat, which is what the fat is there for.

Your body doesn’t know that we aren’t still living in caveman days, so if you aren’t putting new calories in, it think that your food supply has run out and that you need to go kill a bison or something.

It therefore does things to help you be a better bison hunter, like keeping your metabolism revved up.

 

Won’t fasting cause you to burn muscle instead of fat?

No. We can show that people who are fasting aren’t burning muscle because when the body burns protein (the stuff muscle is made of), there is a byproduct known as urea. When people are eating normally, they have substantial levels of urea in their blood from the protein they eat. But when they start fasting, the levels of urea in their blood plummet, showing that they are not burning protein–either from food (which they aren’t consuming) or from muscle.

See this video for more info on that.

Bottom line: You need muscle to go hunt bison, so your body burns the fat and preserves the muscle. The purpose of the fat is to be burned as fuel, so that’s why the body burns it. The purpose of muscle is to help you catch bison, so the body leaves it alone. It will only turn to burning muscle if you’ve used up all your fat and it has no other choice.

 

Won’t fasting make you mentally fuzzy or give you headaches?

No. You need mental clarity to hunt bison, so your body has an incentive to keep you clear headed. Giving you less clarity or headaches would interfere with a successful bison kill, so your body won’t do that to you.

Or that’s been my experience. If you are used to consuming something (e.g., coffee) that will cause headaches if you stop, and if you then suddenly stop, then you may get headaches. However, it’s not the lack of calories that’s causing the headache. It’s the lack of the specific thing that’s causing the headache.

Also, since coffee is a no-calorie beverage, you can have it when you fast! (Just don’t add cream or sugar.) So you can avoid the problem.

People generally report more mental clarity when fasting, not less, which makes sense if your body is preparing you to go kill bison.

 

Isn’t fasting unsafe?

For the vast majority of people, no. See previous answers.

Also, billions of people fast, at least occasionally. Catholics, Jews, and Muslims all practice intermittent fasting.

And we’re built for fasting. Our bodies are made to put on fat in times of plenty so they can use it for fuel when the food runs out. That’s why it’s there in the first place. Feasts and fasts are normal parts of human experience, historically speaking, and our bodies are built to handle them.

However, there are some medical conditions in which people either should not fast or should do so under a doctor’s care. This is particularly the case when you are on medications that you may need less of when you fast. For example, diabetics are likely to need less insulin, people who take blood pressure meds are likely to need smaller doses. If you don’t adjust your dosages, your blood sugar or blood pressure might go too low. Therefore, consult your doctor.

However, needing less of these medications is actually a good thing. It means your health is improving! Yay!

More info on these conditions in the resources recommended below.

 

So what kind of fasting are you doing?

Currently I am eating one meal a day with no snacks. (BUT SEE HERE ON SNACKING.)

The one meal I eat is not calorie-counted, but it’s obviously way less than what I would eat during the course of an ordinary day of eating.

It’s also usually low carb/high fat, though I don’t have to be as strict about that as normal.

I eat it in the evening, but you can do it whenever in the day would suit you.

I also stay hydrated and take my normal vitamins/nutritional supplements.

 

How is eating a meal a day fasting?

It’s an intermittent fast–meaning that I do take some food on a regular basis (in my case, currently once per day).

It’s not a long-term, unbroken fast.

 

Are long-term, unbroken fasts dangerous?

Well, you will eventually need new calories, but people can go for much longer than they suppose and be perfectly healthy on a fast.

Some individuals literally fast for weeks or months.

The longest fast on record was a Scottish gentleman who–under his doctor’s care–only took water and vitamins for 382 days (no food for more than a year!) and was fine. He also went from over 400 lbs to under 200 lbs, which was the point.

 

I’m interested in fasting, but I’m afraid to start all at once. Is there a way to work into this easily and gradually?

You bet! That’s what I did. I took it in stages:

  • I started with a low carb/high fat diet so that, without the carbs, I wouldn’t have the insulin spikes and the resulting hunger they cause (this is why people are famously hungry an hour after eating Chinese food: the high carbs lead to high blood sugar, that leads to insulin release, that leads to a blood sugar crash, and that leads to hunger to get the blood sugar back up)
  • Then I cut out all snacks, so I was eating only three meals a day.
  • When hunger did come, I would drink non-caloric beverages or just ignore it since I knew it would shortly go away on its own (see above).
  • Then I dropped breakfast (the idea it’s the most important meal of the day is not true, which is why so many people find it easy to skip).
  • Once I was used to eating two meals a day (lunch and a late dinner), I started moving lunch later and later in the afternoon, to narrow the window in which I was eating and extend the period each day in which I was fasting.
  • Once “lunch” was within a few hours of dinner, I dropped “lunch.”

This stepwise approach was so successful for me that, the day I first went to one meal, I wasn’t even hungry at dinner time. But it was when I had determined to eat, so I did.

 

I don’t think I could do low carb. Would that stop me from fasting?

No. Fasting is just not eating, so you can do fasting no matter what diet you normally prefer.

 

What if I encounter problems fasting?

I love the way the book I recommend below puts it:

What happens if you do get hungry or don’t feel good while intermittent fasting? Ummmm, hello, McFly? You eat something! This isn’t rocket science, people (The Complete Guide to Fasting, p. 21).

 

What are some of the benefits of fasting?

They include:

  • Weight loss
  • Lower blood sugar
  • Lower insulin resistance
  • Lower blood pressure
  • Lower inflammation
  • It may provide added protection against cancer
  • Greater mental acuity
  • You don’t spend as much money on food
  • You don’t spend as much time procuring, preparing, and consuming food
  • You get the chance to practice self-discipline

More info on some of these here.

In my case, I also found my sleep improved (which is noteworthy, because I’m a lifelong insomniac).

 

If we’re built for fasting and if it has all these benefits, why don’t we hear about it more?

Several reasons. Among them:

  • Big Food has zero interest in not selling you food. It spends enormous amounts of money in advertising trying to get you to buy stuff to eat.
  • Therefore, when its “eat all day by adopting a grazing strategy of three full meals plus three or more snacks” causes people to gain weight and have health problems, it’s solution is not going to be “don’t eat.” It’s going to be “eat something different” (e.g., expensive diet products or the latest fad’s “superfood”).
  • Big Pharma has zero interest in not selling you drugs and medical procedures. Therefore, if you’re suffering from obesity and medical problems, their solution is not going to be fasting but “what kind of drugs or medical procedures can we sell you to address or manage these?”

As the result of economic incentives like these, fasting has virtually disappeared from our culture, though it used to be the norm. Fortunately, it’s being rediscovered, and studies are backing up its health benefits.

 

Where can I get more information about fasting?

I recommend this book: The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting by Jason Fung, MD, and Jimmy Moore.

I also recommend this video as an introduction:

For more detail, check out Dr. Fung’s epic, six-part series on the science of fasting here on his YouTube channel.

And here’s a web page you can read: Intermittent Fasting–Questions and Answers.

 

Are you recommend that I fast?

As part of your religious duties on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (assuming you’re Catholic), yes–unless you have a medical reason not to.

Otherwise, no, I’m not making recommendations here. I’m explaining what my experience with fasting has been and answer common questions people have asked me.

If you think fasting might be for you, great! It’s certainly helped me! But, as noted above, be sure to check with your doctor, particularly if you have medical conditions requiring things like insulin or blood pressure meds.

God bless you, and stay positive in the combox, folks!

 

UPDATE 1: For more on my experience with fasting, including many common questions, click here!

UPDATE 2: Here’s info on why newspaper diet advice is usually horrible, focusing on a piece in The Telegraph that completely botches the issues of “skipping breakfast,” “snacking and grazing throughout the day,” and intermittent fasting.

UPDATE 3: Snacking and Intermittent Fasting (the news is better than you might think!)

UPDATE 4: Fasting Update: The Soup and Noodles Solution

UPDATE 5: Body Fat Testing and Weight Loss Targets

UPDATE 6: Does Fasting Cause Loose Skin?

UPDATE 7: Here’s a video of me and Cy Kellett discussing the spiritual and physical aspects of fasting on Catholic Answers Live: