> "Fear and skepticism of progress put us at risk of stagnation and decline."
Might there in your view be other factors that lead to stagnation and decline? Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies offers a landmark perspective on why stagnation and decline might be inevitable in the face of the diminishing marginal returns of increasing sociopolitical complexity. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how techno-humanism hypothetically escapes diminishing returns.
> "This is what I am calling “techno-humanism”: the idea that science, technology and industry are good—because they promote human life, well-being, and agency."
To what extent does your view account for the range of both predictable and unpredictable n-th order effects of science, technology and industry? How does techno-humanism arrive at progress without externalizing n-th order consequences?
These questions are offered in genuine curiosity, as I am myself currently exploring these areas of thought.
Yes, there are other factors that contribute to stagnation/decline. Ideas about progress are one important factor.
Tainter's work is interesting (I have only read a small part of it) and I think there is much that is valuable in there, but I don't totally buy the “complexity” framing. Not all complexity is bad or destabilizing. Some complexity adds stability. A system of representative democracy is more complex than one of absolute monarchy, but it's more stable. A system of corporate and contract law is more complex than the older partnership form, but it's more stable.
Re n-th order consequences, no short answer to that except that of course we have to take them into account as best we can. (But we also have to recognize that we can't fully predict the future, no matter what we do, and we have to act in the face of that uncertainty.)
I guess I failed to mention that Tainters argument is that collapse is triggered by stress in «too complex» societies, and not stress/fragility or complexity alone. I highly recommend the work as it can provide some healthy framing for tech-optimism.
Have you written about externality or something similar elsewhere? I am attempting to find some good perspectives on how technology/modernity can be seen as net value-positive in the face of the devastating externalities.
Great post, and big fan of your work more generally.
How do you think techno-humanism as you've described it compares to Vitalik Buterin's [techno-optimism https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html, which he wrote in reaction to both accelerationism and anti-tech sentiment? Maybe I'll quote from his introduction:
> My own feelings about techno-optimism are warm, but nuanced. I believe in a future that is vastly brighter than the present thanks to radically transformative technology, and I believe in humans and humanity. I reject the mentality that the best we should try to do is to keep the world roughly the same as today but with less greed and more public healthcare. However, I think that not just magnitude but also direction matters. There are certain types of technology that much more reliably make the world better than other types of technology. There are certain types of technlogy that could, if developed, mitigate the negative impacts of other types of technology. The world over-indexes on some directions of tech development, and under-indexes on others. We need active human intention to choose the directions that we want, as the formula of "maximize profit" will not arrive at them automatically.
Good stuff. I look forward to your continued work on this, Jason. Since transhumanism, properly understood, has strong roots in humanism it is another form of techno-humanism. It differs in that it emphasizes the possibilities for transforming human nature physically, cognitively, and emotionally (with all such changes being a matter of individual choice). You can refer to transhumanists as radicals or extremists and your techno-humanist approach as moderate, if that will help!
Great stuff! I have to ask though, have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? I'm not an obsessive fan of Ayn Rand, but the parallels are too obvious to ignore.
Yes, Rand has been a strong influence. I quoted her in the most recent chapter and will make more references later on, particularly in Part 3, A Culture of Progress
me too... Rand helped me understand what motivates the bad guys to want/need to control so badly. Her writings also motivated me to focus on democracy - how tech could help "the people" check Govt power - you know real Founding Fathers stuff :) That said, its pretty clear we have lost the ability to vote out the bad guys. If I had to simplify it - I'd place some blame on Facebook (and their investors) that structured the platform and algorithms to be the ultimate pay2play platform. They essentially turned our computers and phones into commercial TV without us realizing we’re watching lots of commericals. I also blame the Elections Depts (collectively). I wrote a 3 min read (link below) and posted it on LinkedIN when I first started building our social election campaigning platform called WinMyVote.com. The platform functions as the “level playing field” in election information and puts the poer of the vote into the hands of the voters. No ads, no boosts, no SEO, no algorithms - just a 2-sided marketplace where candidates "pitch" themselves and voters get a social sample ballot (app) to organize, manage, and share their favorites - aka their vote. I’d love to demo the platform and pitch you on investment whenever you have 20 mins.
Hi Jason, I just came across your manifesto and am excited with continued reading on this. I’d like to respond to one particular comment you made here - “Manufacturing, construction, transportation, and energy have seen no new general-purpose technologies since the 1960s”
I would add that since then we have encountered a huge advancement with tool technology, in particular, robotics, 3D printing, power tools and cordless power tools which has contributed a huge advancement in efficiencies and accuracies in manufacturing and construction - and for enabling the DIY’er (more so for power tools).
For the last several decades, I have been unable to understand how human progress has become unfashionable. Clearly, this isn’t just the most important topic humanity faces, but at the broadest level and longest time frame, the only topic that matters at all. Yet for most of my life, more books and articles are written on cats than progress.
Thank you for taking a leading role in making the long term enrichment of humanity a central focus.
A promising start to an ambitious project! Just the term techno-humanism is valuable. I have been kind of obsessed with this problem of a broadly appealing, empowering philosophy of progress. I have been trying to imagine what a grassroots community embodying this philosophy would look like. Progress studies felt a bit academic and passive. E/acc was not human-centric enough, as you said. Techno-optimism is also not quite human-centric enough. I think you’ve hit on the right framing with techno-humanism. I can imagine local chapters of a “techno-humanist society”.
I totally appreciated this issue. And not only for the idea and the topics that will be in the manifesto and for the way in which you announced it, but also for the way in which you have clarified what your positions are, the way in which you will support them and, above all, from where these ideas were born, i.e. what evidence brought them to light. I think it's an absolutely underrated exercise in writing books and important pieces like this. I was also fascinated by the sentence in which, to paraphrase, you stated that the optimists are right, but we must not be dismissive of risk. I also think this is the point. Your book will certainly be an inspiration to many scientists and policy makers and I will read it with pleasure!
Great post, and big fan of your work more generally.
How do you think techno-humanism as you've described it compares to Vitalik Buterin's [techno-optimism](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html), which he wrote in reaction to both accelerationism and anti-tech sentiment? Maybe I'll quote from his introduction:
> My own feelings about techno-optimism are warm, but nuanced. I believe in a future that is vastly brighter than the present thanks to radically transformative technology, and I believe in humans and humanity. I reject the mentality that the best we should try to do is to keep the world roughly the same as today but with less greed and more public healthcare. However, I think that not just magnitude but also direction matters. There are certain types of technology that much more reliably make the world better than other types of technology. There are certain types of technlogy that could, if developed, mitigate the negative impacts of other types of technology. The world over-indexes on some directions of tech development, and under-indexes on others. We need active human intention to choose the directions that we want, as the formula of "maximize profit" will not arrive at them automatically.
Jason - an excellent opening salvo. Much to think about and digest here. I'm looking forward to the rest.
One question that lingers, though, is whether the structural and material consequences of progress (as previously understood) aren't now the central obstacles to a positive and prosperous future. I wonder, for instance, whether large capitalist actors': a) refusal to pay their fair share (i.e., taxes), b) allergy towards more equitable distributions of benefits and revenue, and c) tendency to undercut meaningful (and public-serving) mechanisms, notably government, aren’t the most pernicious obstacles to improved innovation, development, and (humanist) prosperity. This isn’t to say a new philosophy of progress wouldn’t be welcome, of course. But we'll have to explore what rules, regulations, and structures of control are necessary to ensure progress advances towards, as you call it, some techno-humanist endstate.
Surveying the present, I worry that the structural economic conditions favour large corporate entities investing heavily in technologies of convenience (attention-grabbing, time-consuming, distracting, and asocial) and, due to their power and market capture, leaves them uniquely positioned to socialize a particular vision (or set of visions) for our future. All to say, I’ll be following along – and particularly interested in Part 3, the Culture of Progress.
(Sorry if my comment takes shortcuts as I don’t feel like writing an essay)
Curious about your work, your article gets my brain going. I’m part of the GDP degrowth crew but always thought we needed a new framework for progress.
Why degrowth ? I’ve been exploring this idea mainly as a way to fight climate change and also because peak oil feels like a very steep (if not impossible) wall to climb. On one hand, we need to reduce CO2 emissions (any GHG tbh) but we also face the inevitable end of our oil ressources at some point. Fossil fuels represent 80% of our energy sources and renewables won’t ever get there (or am I too pessimistic ?), nuclear maybe could but we’ve decided a 9mm to the foot was better. So degrowth of our economies seems unavoidable, the question is, will we get there by ourselves in a controlled environment (with climate adaptation too) or will we wait for the climate crisis and energy crisis to get out of hand with all that comes with it ? (End of democracies, wars, food crisis, migrations…).
I’m part of a volunteer group in France which has 6000 members, mainly engineers and researchers. Interestingly getting more and more diverse, so not only engineers but also farmers, teachers, social workers, mayors, writers, screenwriters…
We try to convince people and the authorities that the problem is gigantic and we need a new vision for our country. It includes technical progress, sometimes technological simplicity, but also a new way of dreaming about our future. What is success ? What is progress ? What should be our new metric for progress and growth (why should growth mean economic growth rather than scientific advances, life expectancy, etc ?). What do we want for our country ?
Degrowth of GDP is not degrowth of human society. GDP is money, it’s such a bad metric to work towards. It has been used with great success for a while, but now it has to be replaced or completed with other metrics. We believe degrowth can be happy, very happy, because it’s a project way bigger than just a few points of GDP which would be just disgusting and cynical. That’s also why we don’t use any money based indicators but only physical flows to draw future plans (energy, materials, workers available, skills…)
So degrowth for us doesn’t always mean collapsing of society or misery and we recognize the value of scientific progress but we all feel in our hearts that today a lot of technologies exist without any social contract and for the sake of creating money rather than human welfare and wellbeing. Guess who’s developing and deploying technology ? Us, engineers, scientists. And we feel misused, we feel responsible for some good but also a lot of bad.
So our problem is how do we keep innovation alive but also ensure that it actually is used to make our lives better with no more bad effects on our environment and our society ? Some believe it’s not possible and prepare for collapse, some believe we can get there. I guess the point is, we all want a change and a public discussion about the future.
With a common vision, a common goal, long term planning, all of this becomes more real and attainable. So I’m glad to have come across your writings and hope it will inspire others to get to the drawing board and make our future a likeable idea.
Anyways, sorry for the rant. Based on the chapter titles, I guess we disagree on a lot of things but I will read you with great interest because we share a few very important things.
If you’re curious about us, I can share a link to our website (although not a lot of our work is translated in english sadly).
I am looking forward to reading Part 1, in which you talk about the value of progress. Currently, I don't see the urgency of correcting "stagnation" in technological development, nor do I see why it should *prevent* well-being. I actually doubt that we're in a period of stagnation all-together. Even if things are slowing down, patience will prove that technology will continue to develop, and perhaps it will do so in a more beneficial way to society thanks to those who aim to proceed cautiously.
A lot of good points here but you lose me with the flying cars, moon bases, and cheap nuclear power. Sometimes things are difficult because of physics, not just culture.
Of course I did read that line, but "might" and "some" dilute it too much for me.
I've read Hall's book (after reading your review) and don't have much good to say about it. If you're interested, I wrote some things about it in the most recent (though now well over a year old) two articles at https://especiallyfuture.blogspot.com/. I didn't really comment on Hall's discussion of nuclear power, but a lot of that was just pure science fiction.
Your comment about vaccines are distorted by the fact that since 1986 the vaccine makers have immunity from prosecution for damages or death by there products. In addition, any plaintiff has to go to the HHS where they have an HHS prosecutor and HHS judge that are sceptical of any damages. As far as cancer, the AMA,FDA and others have a long history of suppressing any therapies that may help cure cancer, please check out "thetruthaboutcancer.com" for more info.
> "Fear and skepticism of progress put us at risk of stagnation and decline."
Might there in your view be other factors that lead to stagnation and decline? Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies offers a landmark perspective on why stagnation and decline might be inevitable in the face of the diminishing marginal returns of increasing sociopolitical complexity. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how techno-humanism hypothetically escapes diminishing returns.
> "This is what I am calling “techno-humanism”: the idea that science, technology and industry are good—because they promote human life, well-being, and agency."
To what extent does your view account for the range of both predictable and unpredictable n-th order effects of science, technology and industry? How does techno-humanism arrive at progress without externalizing n-th order consequences?
These questions are offered in genuine curiosity, as I am myself currently exploring these areas of thought.
Yes, there are other factors that contribute to stagnation/decline. Ideas about progress are one important factor.
Tainter's work is interesting (I have only read a small part of it) and I think there is much that is valuable in there, but I don't totally buy the “complexity” framing. Not all complexity is bad or destabilizing. Some complexity adds stability. A system of representative democracy is more complex than one of absolute monarchy, but it's more stable. A system of corporate and contract law is more complex than the older partnership form, but it's more stable.
I thought this from Arnold Kling on Tainter was good. Eli Dourado's review which Kling links to is also good: https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/contra-the-dourado-tainter-story
Re n-th order consequences, no short answer to that except that of course we have to take them into account as best we can. (But we also have to recognize that we can't fully predict the future, no matter what we do, and we have to act in the face of that uncertainty.)
Thanks for replying!
I guess I failed to mention that Tainters argument is that collapse is triggered by stress in «too complex» societies, and not stress/fragility or complexity alone. I highly recommend the work as it can provide some healthy framing for tech-optimism.
Have you written about externality or something similar elsewhere? I am attempting to find some good perspectives on how technology/modernity can be seen as net value-positive in the face of the devastating externalities.
You might be interested in Arctotherium’s review of J. D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture. It’s another viewpoint on the impact of culture.
https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/review-of-j-d-unwins-sex-and-culture
Great post, and big fan of your work more generally.
How do you think techno-humanism as you've described it compares to Vitalik Buterin's [techno-optimism https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html, which he wrote in reaction to both accelerationism and anti-tech sentiment? Maybe I'll quote from his introduction:
> My own feelings about techno-optimism are warm, but nuanced. I believe in a future that is vastly brighter than the present thanks to radically transformative technology, and I believe in humans and humanity. I reject the mentality that the best we should try to do is to keep the world roughly the same as today but with less greed and more public healthcare. However, I think that not just magnitude but also direction matters. There are certain types of technology that much more reliably make the world better than other types of technology. There are certain types of technlogy that could, if developed, mitigate the negative impacts of other types of technology. The world over-indexes on some directions of tech development, and under-indexes on others. We need active human intention to choose the directions that we want, as the formula of "maximize profit" will not arrive at them automatically.
I am pretty sympathetic to Vitalik's views
Good stuff. I look forward to your continued work on this, Jason. Since transhumanism, properly understood, has strong roots in humanism it is another form of techno-humanism. It differs in that it emphasizes the possibilities for transforming human nature physically, cognitively, and emotionally (with all such changes being a matter of individual choice). You can refer to transhumanists as radicals or extremists and your techno-humanist approach as moderate, if that will help!
Incredibly excited to read the whole book
Great stuff! I have to ask though, have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? I'm not an obsessive fan of Ayn Rand, but the parallels are too obvious to ignore.
Yes, Rand has been a strong influence. I quoted her in the most recent chapter and will make more references later on, particularly in Part 3, A Culture of Progress
me too... Rand helped me understand what motivates the bad guys to want/need to control so badly. Her writings also motivated me to focus on democracy - how tech could help "the people" check Govt power - you know real Founding Fathers stuff :) That said, its pretty clear we have lost the ability to vote out the bad guys. If I had to simplify it - I'd place some blame on Facebook (and their investors) that structured the platform and algorithms to be the ultimate pay2play platform. They essentially turned our computers and phones into commercial TV without us realizing we’re watching lots of commericals. I also blame the Elections Depts (collectively). I wrote a 3 min read (link below) and posted it on LinkedIN when I first started building our social election campaigning platform called WinMyVote.com. The platform functions as the “level playing field” in election information and puts the poer of the vote into the hands of the voters. No ads, no boosts, no SEO, no algorithms - just a 2-sided marketplace where candidates "pitch" themselves and voters get a social sample ballot (app) to organize, manage, and share their favorites - aka their vote. I’d love to demo the platform and pitch you on investment whenever you have 20 mins.
Keep up the great work!! Jim
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/only-thing-necessary-triumph-special-interest-our-elections-gillis/?latest
Hi Jason, I just came across your manifesto and am excited with continued reading on this. I’d like to respond to one particular comment you made here - “Manufacturing, construction, transportation, and energy have seen no new general-purpose technologies since the 1960s”
I would add that since then we have encountered a huge advancement with tool technology, in particular, robotics, 3D printing, power tools and cordless power tools which has contributed a huge advancement in efficiencies and accuracies in manufacturing and construction - and for enabling the DIY’er (more so for power tools).
For the last several decades, I have been unable to understand how human progress has become unfashionable. Clearly, this isn’t just the most important topic humanity faces, but at the broadest level and longest time frame, the only topic that matters at all. Yet for most of my life, more books and articles are written on cats than progress.
Thank you for taking a leading role in making the long term enrichment of humanity a central focus.
A promising start to an ambitious project! Just the term techno-humanism is valuable. I have been kind of obsessed with this problem of a broadly appealing, empowering philosophy of progress. I have been trying to imagine what a grassroots community embodying this philosophy would look like. Progress studies felt a bit academic and passive. E/acc was not human-centric enough, as you said. Techno-optimism is also not quite human-centric enough. I think you’ve hit on the right framing with techno-humanism. I can imagine local chapters of a “techno-humanist society”.
Maybe! I am not sure it is a grassroots movement. But would love to see one
That’s fair, it is a philosophy proposed by an intellectual, which is not really grassroots. But I also hope it becomes influential.
I totally appreciated this issue. And not only for the idea and the topics that will be in the manifesto and for the way in which you announced it, but also for the way in which you have clarified what your positions are, the way in which you will support them and, above all, from where these ideas were born, i.e. what evidence brought them to light. I think it's an absolutely underrated exercise in writing books and important pieces like this. I was also fascinated by the sentence in which, to paraphrase, you stated that the optimists are right, but we must not be dismissive of risk. I also think this is the point. Your book will certainly be an inspiration to many scientists and policy makers and I will read it with pleasure!
Great post, and big fan of your work more generally.
How do you think techno-humanism as you've described it compares to Vitalik Buterin's [techno-optimism](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html), which he wrote in reaction to both accelerationism and anti-tech sentiment? Maybe I'll quote from his introduction:
> My own feelings about techno-optimism are warm, but nuanced. I believe in a future that is vastly brighter than the present thanks to radically transformative technology, and I believe in humans and humanity. I reject the mentality that the best we should try to do is to keep the world roughly the same as today but with less greed and more public healthcare. However, I think that not just magnitude but also direction matters. There are certain types of technology that much more reliably make the world better than other types of technology. There are certain types of technlogy that could, if developed, mitigate the negative impacts of other types of technology. The world over-indexes on some directions of tech development, and under-indexes on others. We need active human intention to choose the directions that we want, as the formula of "maximize profit" will not arrive at them automatically.
Nice work Jason! I'm really looking forward to where this line of work goes! Keep on writing :)
Jason - an excellent opening salvo. Much to think about and digest here. I'm looking forward to the rest.
One question that lingers, though, is whether the structural and material consequences of progress (as previously understood) aren't now the central obstacles to a positive and prosperous future. I wonder, for instance, whether large capitalist actors': a) refusal to pay their fair share (i.e., taxes), b) allergy towards more equitable distributions of benefits and revenue, and c) tendency to undercut meaningful (and public-serving) mechanisms, notably government, aren’t the most pernicious obstacles to improved innovation, development, and (humanist) prosperity. This isn’t to say a new philosophy of progress wouldn’t be welcome, of course. But we'll have to explore what rules, regulations, and structures of control are necessary to ensure progress advances towards, as you call it, some techno-humanist endstate.
Surveying the present, I worry that the structural economic conditions favour large corporate entities investing heavily in technologies of convenience (attention-grabbing, time-consuming, distracting, and asocial) and, due to their power and market capture, leaves them uniquely positioned to socialize a particular vision (or set of visions) for our future. All to say, I’ll be following along – and particularly interested in Part 3, the Culture of Progress.
(Sorry if my comment takes shortcuts as I don’t feel like writing an essay)
Curious about your work, your article gets my brain going. I’m part of the GDP degrowth crew but always thought we needed a new framework for progress.
Why degrowth ? I’ve been exploring this idea mainly as a way to fight climate change and also because peak oil feels like a very steep (if not impossible) wall to climb. On one hand, we need to reduce CO2 emissions (any GHG tbh) but we also face the inevitable end of our oil ressources at some point. Fossil fuels represent 80% of our energy sources and renewables won’t ever get there (or am I too pessimistic ?), nuclear maybe could but we’ve decided a 9mm to the foot was better. So degrowth of our economies seems unavoidable, the question is, will we get there by ourselves in a controlled environment (with climate adaptation too) or will we wait for the climate crisis and energy crisis to get out of hand with all that comes with it ? (End of democracies, wars, food crisis, migrations…).
I’m part of a volunteer group in France which has 6000 members, mainly engineers and researchers. Interestingly getting more and more diverse, so not only engineers but also farmers, teachers, social workers, mayors, writers, screenwriters…
We try to convince people and the authorities that the problem is gigantic and we need a new vision for our country. It includes technical progress, sometimes technological simplicity, but also a new way of dreaming about our future. What is success ? What is progress ? What should be our new metric for progress and growth (why should growth mean economic growth rather than scientific advances, life expectancy, etc ?). What do we want for our country ?
Degrowth of GDP is not degrowth of human society. GDP is money, it’s such a bad metric to work towards. It has been used with great success for a while, but now it has to be replaced or completed with other metrics. We believe degrowth can be happy, very happy, because it’s a project way bigger than just a few points of GDP which would be just disgusting and cynical. That’s also why we don’t use any money based indicators but only physical flows to draw future plans (energy, materials, workers available, skills…)
So degrowth for us doesn’t always mean collapsing of society or misery and we recognize the value of scientific progress but we all feel in our hearts that today a lot of technologies exist without any social contract and for the sake of creating money rather than human welfare and wellbeing. Guess who’s developing and deploying technology ? Us, engineers, scientists. And we feel misused, we feel responsible for some good but also a lot of bad.
So our problem is how do we keep innovation alive but also ensure that it actually is used to make our lives better with no more bad effects on our environment and our society ? Some believe it’s not possible and prepare for collapse, some believe we can get there. I guess the point is, we all want a change and a public discussion about the future.
With a common vision, a common goal, long term planning, all of this becomes more real and attainable. So I’m glad to have come across your writings and hope it will inspire others to get to the drawing board and make our future a likeable idea.
Anyways, sorry for the rant. Based on the chapter titles, I guess we disagree on a lot of things but I will read you with great interest because we share a few very important things.
If you’re curious about us, I can share a link to our website (although not a lot of our work is translated in english sadly).
Have a nice day !
I am looking forward to reading Part 1, in which you talk about the value of progress. Currently, I don't see the urgency of correcting "stagnation" in technological development, nor do I see why it should *prevent* well-being. I actually doubt that we're in a period of stagnation all-together. Even if things are slowing down, patience will prove that technology will continue to develop, and perhaps it will do so in a more beneficial way to society thanks to those who aim to proceed cautiously.
I too doubted that we were in a period of stagnation, but changed my mind after reviewing the history in more detail: https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/technological-stagnation
A lot of good points here but you lose me with the flying cars, moon bases, and cheap nuclear power. Sometimes things are difficult because of physics, not just culture.
I guess you missed the line that came right after: “We might criticize some pieces of this vision, but at least they had a vision.”
Also, I don't know about Moon bases, but I believe in nuclear power and even flying cars, especially after reading J. Storrs Hall on the topic: https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/where-is-my-flying-car
Of course I did read that line, but "might" and "some" dilute it too much for me.
I've read Hall's book (after reading your review) and don't have much good to say about it. If you're interested, I wrote some things about it in the most recent (though now well over a year old) two articles at https://especiallyfuture.blogspot.com/. I didn't really comment on Hall's discussion of nuclear power, but a lot of that was just pure science fiction.
Your comment about vaccines are distorted by the fact that since 1986 the vaccine makers have immunity from prosecution for damages or death by there products. In addition, any plaintiff has to go to the HHS where they have an HHS prosecutor and HHS judge that are sceptical of any damages. As far as cancer, the AMA,FDA and others have a long history of suppressing any therapies that may help cure cancer, please check out "thetruthaboutcancer.com" for more info.