Talk:Robert Freitas

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dechronification - content possibly removed from article

Dechronification is the concept developed by Robert Freitas that, with nanotechnology, one should be able to reverse the aging process. Freitas suggests that people will be able to "remove accumulating metabolic toxins using resperocyte- and microbivore-class intercellular nanorobots in every tissue cell," "correct genetic damage using chromosome replacement therapy in every tissue cell," and "repair persistent cellular damage using cell repair devices in every tissue cell." This idea is a form of futurology.

Benefits

• Old senior folk longing to become young again will finally realize their dreams.

• Mentally retarded children can keep repeating their grade level in school while looking the part (as old as the other children in their class) until they advance.

• Mentally retarded adults can dechronify to children and repeat school in hopes of becoming much more productive and successful in life via this newly-invented second chance. (Who will work at McDonald's, you might ask? Sentient, robotic androids will soon perform all menial jobs.)

• Rescuers needing to retrieve a child in, for example, a hole only big enough for a small kid to fit through, can dechronify themselves down like so and perform the rescue. Afterwards, they rechronify back to an adult.

• Professional movie actors will not have to grow out of their parts anymore.

• Speaking of that, there might not be a need to hire child actors anymore because they can then use professional adult actors to play child parts once they go through a "dechronitron".

• Dechronification will preclude the possibility of a Luddite Revolution from happening due to sentient, robotic androids taking lower-skilled jobs. This is because Dechronification will make way for anybody with lower skills to shrink down to a younger age, repeat school and hence, retrain them for more sophisticated, better-paying jobs that androids couldn't do.

External links

• Death is an Outrage by Robert A. Freitas Jr.
• "Death Is An Outrage" an essay about the evils of death in the world, and how it will be countered.
• Nanotech-related News Article about nano-detoxification and eventually dechronification

{{medical-stub}} {{technology-stub}} [[Category:Medical research]] [[Category:Nanotechnology]]

The above looks like a section of the article that has been moved here. - Rod57 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal subjective comments - possibly by Collins - 2008

I don't even like Feitas. He is one of these new world scientist that exist simply because he can clatter his silly fingers on a keyboard with no important work actually done to back it up. His writing is packed with generalities, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.45.254 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Like the article on Collins, generalities & lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty low standards to attack and delete sections of an article on me for what you disagree here, and you really have not a clue about the science of self replicators. Working with you people is like working with shock jock journalists or something. All I'm saying, is that Freitas is a fraud on what he wrote about me and you know it. You should not ignore that just because you are "open source" and because he attacked my patent and pile on. You are completely incorrigible. Further, you are sticking up for Napster? That's down in the dirt and you appear to be "Napsterizing" self-replicator science which is unconscionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.37.70 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, who blocked Bower's site I was discussing? That's hacking. Just like before when I reported it to police and was blocked by that nefarious "Yamla" as "legal threats" that started all the flaming. Go ahead, hack and block Bowyers site. See if I care, less PR for that fraud. Wikipedia is a total fraud. An "open source puppet". You have no call to scrape your finger about standards with this level of clear unadulterated bias shown here and all over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.37.70 (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He keeps showing pictures of molecules like gears [1] which further bestowes he deserves to be on Star Trek not things serious here. Antiliby (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also something very suspicious and scary about a psychologist like Freitas teaming up with an atomic scientist like Merkle, both with foreign names attacking a major United States Patent holder like Collins with nothing but a load of hot air. Further Merkle tops the Echelon's and Carnivore's "trigger" words [2], obviously a deep military figure. Collin's comments about the government "stealing his technology" may hold true, seeing how an attempt to commit him by both Quantico MCB (case# N004860, thrown out with prejudice) and the Prince William County Circuit Court (LA 49530) occurred with the chief of police indicating on the affidavit the reason was for "saying the government was trying to steal his invention" (mental case thrown out). Looks like another private scientist/inventor was indeed kidnapped by the U.S. government concerning "globalist" interests.

Antiliby (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Typical, Wiki editor attacking the victim and not confronting the facts, who cares who brings the truth? 71.114.40.113 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The facts of what happened are source enough because the facts speak for themselves (that they occurred). But mostly, Merkle and Freitas are source on it because they initiated the dispute when he wrote the controversial page in the book:[3]. So the other facts follow as documentation to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.33.233 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs third party RSes to show notability

Literally all the sources given are primary, and many of the claims are of questionable notability. What is the third-party RS coverage of Freitas? Where is the biographical coverage? Where are the independently notable awards? Where is the evidence of notability as a scientist or engineer? What fits, say, Wikipedia:Notability (academics), or any other biographical notability criterion? A long list of low-quality references doesn't make a high-quality reference - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Except for reference [6], all of the items tagged with “non-primary source needed” are accompanied by references to journal article citations, patent office citations, or citations of websites of organizations that are not under the control of Freitas, so their provenance is assured. Also, all of these items are factually correct as demonstrated by the cited sources. What more is needed to ensure accuracy of the encyclopedia, and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.252.91.253 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't a mere collection of any fact someone happens to have a cite for. Did you read Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? To quote: "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources." Primary sources don't cut it to justify an article's existence. If you're wondering why, WP:WHYN summarises it - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

comment on "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines"

Because his comments on my patents in "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" is completely idiotic and childish, attacking the description of the patents >where I was required to disclose all prior art< I suggest that his credibility is in severe question as well as this completely incompetent book, full of identity politicking be removed with no further mention of it here. What makes him any kind of expert on self-replicating machines? Has he yet to have made one? No. And if you know nothing about patents please be so kind as to not include yourself in these conversations herein. (Charle Michael Collins). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.165.144 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Deprodded, Sept 2017

Some of the sources I came across:

• Eugene Thacker's Biomedia talks about him throughout the Biomedicine chapter
• Kurzweil's Singularity Is Near talks about his work several times. (Kurzweil looks to be a frequent collaborator/associate, but the book was significant and independently published)
• Extraterrestrial Altrusim: Evolution and Ethics in the Cosmos has a section about him

Google Books appears to return more nontrivial coverage of him/his work. Haven't actually gotten to the other gsearches yet.

Seems to at least merit a week at AfD. Page itself is indeed built on primary sources, and is pretty well tagged to that effect, but doesn't seem so grossly promotional to delete just on promotional grounds. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC

At present it's pretty much a violation of BLP, which does require RSes ... but we can give it a bit of improvement time, sure. (It's that it wasn't touched in months which is why I eventually prodded it.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Going to go through and remove statements sourced to non-BLP-quality sources in a few days - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Cryonics

AS you can expect from someone closely associated with Merkle, Freitas is signed up for cryonics. I asked him to mention this next time he gets interviewed for a publication but added it anyway based on his request.Keith Henson (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)