The BioCurious Hazard

The Art, Science & Philosophy of Transhumanism, Biohacking & The Quantified Self

Soylent. The lesser of two evils.

      To be parabolic and overly-dramatic, I hate food. So I started eating a nutrient rich sludge.

      To expand on that point, I don’t actually hate food – I’m simply frustrated by the utility of food consumption. Deciding, purchasing, preparing, consuming, cleaning and digesting – I’d prefer a set batteries to switch out and be done with it.

      Whilst I have great self-control in many areas, when it comes to basic functioning I lack serious motivation. Eating, Drinking, exercise – I remain unmotivated. It’s not uncommon for me not to eat to the point of passing out. Rest assured this is not a result of body dysmorphia or the like – I am simply abhorred by the act eating.
      And I’ve found myself doing an Olympian-level performance of mental gymnastics to avoid it.

      However I digress. After living on nicotine, caffeine and the occasional snack for roughly a decade – I began experimenting with DIY Soylent. Primarily with a DIY soylent known as Melb-lent due to the accessability of the products.

       I had slight concerns regarding the Upper Limit (Ul) on certain vitamins however most of the ‘risky’ vitamins (Sodium, chloride, magnesium – information available from National Health and Medical Research Council.) demand an intake of the 300% before adverse reactions occur. The only excess 300%+ for RDI is for phosphorus: I was slightly concerned about this but the the UL tolerance for this vitamin is about 500%-600%.

      The realistic concern for soylent is from the lack of phyto and micro nutrients. An understandable concern – unsurprisingly I’ve had a few mortified nutritionists advise against this.
      However this concern comes from the angle that I appear healthy and hence, assumedly have a health diet.

      I’m not and I don’t. I don’t get my phyto or micro nutrients. Period. I only get about 35% of my RDI as it is.
I am progressing from barely anything to something – and that is at least amenable.

     As I am writing this, I am excited as I begin my soylent diet again. My preliminary tests revealed great results. Over the past 3 months –  

1 month on Soylent full time
1 month on Soylent for one meal
1 month returning to pre-soylent diet.

      The pro’s for soylent were almost immediately apparent – I felt a remarkable state of energy, this outlining how much of my RDI I was actually missing. My productivity was up, I had impulses to exercise, and most notable to everyone else – I had moved 8% closer to my ideal weight (was/am underweight). Both productivity and health had quantifiable metrics indicating improvement.

       Stoic motivation powered me through the first 3 weeks. I was slamming it down. After 3 weeks however, arose a strange juxtaposition.
      The Stoicism had worn off. I was left with the unappetising task of consuming a meal that, upon a cursory glance, looked like a slurry of granulated mud.
      At least it looked like sandy mud, like that from the ocean – not from a swamp.
      In retrospect, the dopamine that would have previously driven my appetite was replaced by rewards revolving around productivity and stoicism – once the novelty had worn off, I was left without a chemical reward for necessary consumption.

I was caught between a rock and hard place for the 2nd month –


       I was torn between the dopamine of a burrito that would ultimately leave me unsatisfied or the energy of a nutrient rich mud, the last 8th of which, would be poured down the sink as my retching reaches maximises frustration.
A paradox.

       On the 3rd month, when I returned to a ‘real’ diet I was admittedly enjoying food for the first time in a decade – it was expensive, but also a welcome experience. I didn’t really ‘get’ it until then; now I can understand people’s dedication to food.

       Unfortunately, it was undeniable that my energy and motivation was lacking. Its evident that much of my motivation isn’t primarily internally driven, but can simply can be reduced to fuel. If I gathered anything from these preliminary tests it is that whilst my cerebral motivation is always willing, the body however, can be lacking.

      Now I am re-adjusting to the soylent diet again – and whilst I still struggle to down the concoction, my energy levels and productivity have already phenomenally improved over the past few days.

       In conclusion, given that my typical diet does not even meet 50% of the recommended RDI, Soylent is a great alternative. It would be unwise not to mention; this is not for everyone – if you can manage a real, healthy diet I would encourage such. But if you’re just looking to top up you RDI, it’s an option.

      Subsequent testing may yield quantifiable results worth sharing, but limit metrics have only encouraged viability not extended usage.

L33t Upgrades: The FlexNT Beta

Very excited to log My FlexNT arrived! Graciously supplied by Dangerous Things this little package is indicative of evolving in-vivo technology. The most notable progression is that it will require minor surgery to install.

Psychologically, I formed an unusual continency I hadn’t anticipated. Due to the nature of my biohacking pursuits (i.e. to further the field itself) when approaching implantation I’ve always, ALWAYS decided outright on an experienced installer necessary, primarily for the sake of the experiment and furthermore for argument and safety sake.

A strong focus of mine is safe installation. As implants become increasingly common (but more succinctly) increasingly advantageous installers will become a necessity to minimise risk. We’ve come to a point where the chips can be produced out of a garage and culturally, it’s not unheard of for grinders to implant themselves.

Whilst culturally this is acceptable, within wider society – this makes people uncomfortable. However, I would posit that most grinders DIY attitude is not strictly due to culture and cultural capital but is heavily catalysed by a lack of safe installation facilities. In my experience I’ve found professionals, even body modders, that are unphased but unwilling to participate.

So iterate the point in a colloquial metaphor: We need safe injection rooms.

Ethically, finding installation raised a curious notion – if I can’t find a willing installer with minor-surgeon skills… will I have to install it myself?
For the sake of my virtue remaining in tact I may have too.

Aesthetically, the flex immediately gives a more medical impression – anecdotally a glint of insight illuminated in a conversation with my mother. Showing people the NTi injection assembly had always freaked people out – the twitches on their face, the tweak of an eye, the nuance of the tone – repulsion was near impossible to hide.

My mother had been a previously guilty of such behaviour – funnily, when I showed her the FlexNT, comfortably sitting in a sterilized container, she didn’t flinch. If her previous revulsion (the xNTi) had not been so constant, then the lack of any visual disgust would not have been so striking! I immediately acknowledged this and she revealed that it simply looked more medical and hence, appealing.
I suppose it depends on which establishments you actually trust, even if it is influenced by aesthetics. However I digress.

To reiterate, self installation is not a contingency I was prepared for. And in the interest of transparency I must confess – I was excited at the possibility of me needing to perform surgery on myself. Never had that feeling before. I wasn’t about to jump at it – it’s an absolute last resort, but a last resort I could pull valuable data and experience from.

Before this, the plan of attack is has been decided on. I plan to scout possibilities and obstacles through interviews with a Doctor, a Nurse, a Med Student, a Dermatologist and our trusty lawyers.
From here I can source more progressive doctors,
Failing that, convince a doc/nurse to do it anonymously (I believe there is a slight chance)

Failing that – self-surgery.

I don’t necessarily think the later is a good option, but it’s a viable one. My main objection in the medical arena would rely on the notion that 100% risk prevention isn’t realistic, people will do it themselves, hence future risk mitigation is a must.
I would feel some cognitive dissonance asserting such things if I knew I personally wasn’t willing to implant myself.
I’m being fallacious here as an Argument for Hypocrisy is what I cling to…but there’s something about talking the talk but not walking the walk that doesn’t sit right with me.

FlexNT instillation will be a common hurdle to many grinders as unfortunately it requires skills akin to surgery, a skillset most are not willing to engage in unless out of necessity.

I would like to digress into the historical context of body modification, but for now I will reveal in the whimsy that one person’s upgrade is another person’s self mutilation.

Stackin’ Noots: Caffeine + L-Theanine

Stackin Noots: L-Theanine; when a strength becomes a weakness

I decided to test out the infamous L-Theanine + Caffeine stack for 2 weeks, at roughly a 1:1 ratio, to test further viability. Admittedly the tests were all intuition, no metrics.

For a quick introduction to L-Theanine please check this PubMed abstract
For those who embrace TL:DR, Its the amino acid in Tea – boosting Alpha states without drowsiness. Realistically notable in higher doses.

Caffeine tablets will be used in subsequent experiments to determine the most effective ratio but initially a few weeks were needed to test the viability of the Nootropic stack. I don’t have a spectrometer handy so I the exact caffeine content in my coffee is unpredictable – for now I shall measure in cups like a barbarian.

The L-Theanine + Caffeine stack produced considerable results, but more notably, presented an unexamined risk with Nootropic Experimentation. In retrospect, the stack was so effective that it had disguised the negative effects of my biological feedback loop.

What did this meant in practice: It meant that I consumed 3-4 times my normal daily caffeine content, and without a ‘crash’. When it came time to eat, I couldn’t even tell I was low on fuel.

That was bad. Admittedly, it would be important to note here I have impulse control issues and a general distaste for food. I enjoy flavour, but when I consider the utility of acquisition, consumption, digestion and cleaning needed for regular food consumption I often decide “Fuck it, I’ll have another cigarette and coffee”. I do experiment with Soylent to some success but that’s a whole another post.
I found the L-theanine actually wears off faster than the coffee – but if you’re perpetually drinking the stack it continues to hide withdrawal from caffeine.

The amalgamation of this distaste for food consumption, Impulse control issues and the wondrous effects of L-Theanine resulted in a heavy crash. It’s not uncommon for me to wait until the afternoon or night to eat. In this case, I left food consumption for so long that it was to my detriment. I got dizzy, had a sickly feeling and cognitive function took a hard nosedive. I occasionally indulge in a caffeine binge and crash hard – however by the end of the day, the crash not equivalent to the amount of caffeine I consumed – it was considerably less.

It was evident that my biological feedback loop was being effected – without the feedback warning me, the need to eat was more readily overlooked than usual.

As far as the positive effects go – it was quite effective. I found that…
1. I had phenomenal focus without any skittishness or jitters. It wasn’t quite the tunnel focus found in stims but a wide, clear focus
2. Not only was the ability to focus improved but the ability to choose what to focus on was also improved, I could switch easily between focus’ when needed without ‘bleed in’ from what I was previously focusing on.
3. The focus allowed for the Scale and Scope of any project to be considered within a ‘fuller’ context – funnily enough I would usually have considered this to be something to do with glutamate as my memory seemed to be standing to attention (minor creatine supplements were being used), however considering that the Theanine was the only real variable I would conclude I could simply ‘focus’ on my memory. It’s also possible to chalk this up to a placebo effect, not necessarily due to the Theanine but the retention of motivation over an extended period.

When comparing the negative to the positive effects it’s evident (anecdotally) that the L-Theanine + Caffeine stack IS effective HOWEVER the problem with it was a personal one. For me it was a lack of mental discipline and intellectual curiosity coupled the exploitation of the nootropics ability to cover the negative effects of coffee.

Friendly Neighbourhood Cyborg – My experience with the xNT Implant

         My appearance on the News was predictably too whimsical for my liking – I’d like to use this post to address context and the nuanced divide between “what is does” and “why I got it“.

The Instillation

       Weeks ago I got my implant – and whilst I don’t like dealing in anecdotes, people are naturally curious about personal experience.

       I elected to go the Piercing urge in Melbourne Victoria. I’ve been into body modification for about a decade and for at least the past 9 the The Piercing Urge had always emerged as one of the most professional and experienced studios in NSW/Victoria.

Pete Sheringham a piercer with 25 years experience
who has installed at least 30 so far conducted the procedure with a remarkable absence of pain.

     The intrusive part of the procedure itself took less than a minute. In the interest of transparency, I would indicate that the procedure took longer than usual as the implant itself did not exit the needle entirely upon first insertion.

      At this point I will reiterate the importance of going to an experienced professional and touch on the necessity of the implant ‘pocket’ during installation.

       Installation Note: The Pocket is where the needle creates a space for the implant by penetrating the dermis and subsequently being retracted slightly. This displacement allowing a locations the implant to comfortably sit. On a related sidenote, this process illustrates why serious piercers tend to stay away from piercing guns and why the injector assembly maximises efficiency of the procedure – hollow needles themselves create a space for the foreign material to sit, whereas guns use brute force, to create the negative space.

     This may explain why anecdotally I found that this ‘piercing’, regarding pain, was non existent when compared to any other piercings. . I’ve had gun and needle piercings and needles have always been less painful and better healing. (Admittedly, this area of the hand does avoid major nerves)


      The healing process was uneventful and I barely bruised from the procedure. Pre-natal will internally help with the process and I’ve know people to use Bio-oil so ensure there was no scarring.

      I found over the first one or two days – I experienced a slight ‘tingle’, but could not ‘feel’ the implant inside the hand, I kept checking its presence (monitoring possible migration) from the outside. Movement of the tag under the skin was not painful or noticeable – by now I can push it up against the dermis to reveal the outline with no irritation or pain.

      In regard to how long before I used the Implant – I was ten meters from the piercing studio before I had tested and secured the tag. Remember: Securing the tag is the first thing to do.


        For myself, what I USE it for and WHY I got it are two different issues.
        I use the tag itself as a NFC key (for NFC locks) and a Virtual Business Card (Automatic input of contact details) – conveniently as I work at an NFC company I find many uses for NFC in everyday life so I will experiment with it as ideas arise but frankly, at the moment it’s quite ‘useful’ so I haven’t experimented as frequently as I expected.

      Why I got the Implant has to do with my Philosophy. As a Transhumanist, I would posit that Biohacking is the embodiment of applied Transhumanism.

       On this scale, more of a lean forward than a step.
I intend embrace the risks of Implants (strictly within elective self-experimentation) in order to achieve greater insight regarding the future application of this technology.
I need rational and empirical evidence before I can nudge it in a more amenable direction. (I would also note that the ‘risk’ of this implant in particular is not a concern, this philosophy will become more apt as implants progress.)

      Furthermore, once I can derive rational and empirical evidence – I will simultaneously be in an informed position to make decision take practical action where necessary. I am not glib about this – unforeseen dangers exist with any new technology. However this is not like an automated machine you can hurl your shoes into – regardless, the machine would keep spinning. Since the technology exists, people will choose to augment. Whether that’s a curious biohacker in his garage or, perhaps parabolically, a secret government lab. Its unrealistic to think everyone will ever think and act the same way.
The best disinfectant for bad ideas is sunlight, this is the main reason I would favour the democratisation of science – the choice, the knowledge and access to this tech is vital to make informed decisions and practical efforts regarding its future.

      Realistically, the data I will draw from this experience is not just for myself, but for any persons who can extrapolate something useful from the data.

A semantic argument: Augmentation v Enhancement

            Please forgive me while I argue with myself…

Currently it appears that within the Transhuman community, the terms “Augmentation” and “Enhancement” are loosely interchangeable, and are more readily defined as needed within the rhetoric itself

          The subjectivity of the english language may be instrumental in alleviating the tensions that bio-luddites harbour again biohacking or transhumanist.
I hate to blindly submit to argumentum ad populum, but if dictionaries are indeed descriptive and not prescriptive (i.e. popular usage dictates meaning) then in everyday conversations we have opportunities to nudge syntax in an amenable direction, at least in the English language.

         Without postulating about synaptic associations, neuroplasticity, and the malleability of human language I would posit that,

         “Regarding Experimental Biohacking technologies; Augmentation should be the preferential term over Enhancement”

         I justify this considering both shortcomings of usage and effect regarding the word Enhancement.

        Descriptive weakness of Enhancement: Whether the technology is enhancement or not would be more reliably concluded in retrospect. 10 years of electromagnetism vs 15 years of heavy metal poisoning may not qualify as enhancement. I.e. leave it to the anthropologists.

      Exacerbations of hostility towards Other: Unfortunately, it seems a recurring pattern in human nature that the ‘other’ generally spooks the mainstream population.
In theory, an Other under the description “enhanced” implies a difference wherein the ‘enhanced’ party is better. This undeniable this will subliminally exacerbate the negative effects of the divide.

       I’ve pondered this for a while and intuitively I agree with the posit.
This makes me suspicious. Am I pushing a bias?

       Considering this I should like to make a case for Enhancement and subsequently, explore the divide between the words. My first posits seemingly just discredit Enhancement in favour of Augmentation – surely Enhancement has some pros!

       So. Why use would the word Enhancement be better regarding usage and effect?
I would posit

       Inseparability of H+ and STEM field: Enhancement is already in usage within stem fields to refer to Human Enhancement Technology. It already has practical definition. I would not posit this on the basis of traditionalism and time immemorial – but for the sake of consistency and non-convolution. If the developers of what we would class ‘transhuman technologies’ refer to them as HET – then it seems logical it is continued to avoid any confusion between the developer and user considering the importance of interaction between the two parties.

      Descriptive Philosophical disposition: it could be argued that using Enhancement in regard to the Homosapien species is more amenable to Augmentation when considering individual bias towards change.

      Enhancement implies the improvement of Humans. Change as Improvement.
      Augmentations implies the changing of Humans. Change as Difference.

      To extrapolate the point, it cultivates a shift toward being better humans as opposed a shift from being human. It is arguable that Enhancement more accurately represents the overall goals of transhumanism – to improve the human condition.

     Within consideration of both words, my main focus appear to be the practical usage of the word, and subsequently the sociological effects.

      As far as practical usage of these terms, the problems with the division are raised through the ambiguity and interchangeability of the words.
The definition of Enhancement technologies within STEM fields should have some continuity between the developer and the user – its practical – engaging in rhetoric where there is an unaddressed divide between academic usage and prescriptive definitions; often feels like a shifting of the goal post or a bait-and-switch.
Admittedly, as someone who studied at a tertiary level, I am guilty of this as well.

      However, this particular difficulty of discernment between the two definitions can be addressed in a question,

     If I referred to HET as Human Augmentation Technologies to academics and developers- would this impede the rhetoric?

     I would posit it would not, on the grounds there is a higher probability that the academic would understand what the layman meant, but a lower probability of the layman understanding the wider academic context.
Everyone has been a layman, not everyone have been an developer. Academic definition within rhetoric may be useful, but not as practical in everyday usage.

      In regard to a wider effect on society, the former arguments appear to imply

     Augmentation fosters less of a sociological divide via the implication of being ‘different’, not ‘better’.
     Enhancement fosters the spirit of long-term Transhuman goals to be better ‘humans’.
Putting these two together, whilst I hate reductionist behaviour, I believe we can reduce it to a simple psychosociological premise –

     Is it more apt for the rhetoric to placate fears and reduce friction or to encourage and inspire Transhumanism?

     Unfortunately, I can’t objectively answer this and evidently, it’s all conjecture. From my position (postulating that Transhumanism is an process or action not an ideology of belief that it is inherently good) I would posit that the former is a ‘better’ use, on the grounds that,

     The main obstacle of Transhumanism is not it ‘happening’ – it’s already happening – those inspired and encouraged will the inspired or encouraged regardless. The main obstacle is ‘fear’ of it happening which I would be so bold to say distills hate and subsequently persecution.

     Following this premise, the most amenable and efficient development for both parties (forgive the false dichotomy of Transhuman enthusiasts and Bio-luddites) would involve working together to minimise risk and maximise potential.
The implicit meaning behind Augmentation facilitates neutral ground more than the word Enhancement.

In conclusion – I am somewhat partial to Augmentation over the word Enhancement.

      I can understand the usage of the word can be used interchangeably, however if we are not explicit in an academic context for definition – it should be accurate to the lowest common denominator (the layman) and furthermore, should outline what it is not what we want it to be. Augmentation should precede Enhancement on the grounds that change must occur before it can be deemed good or bad.

     Regarding wider psychosociological ramifications of the word – I stand by the posit that Augmentation fosters more neutral grounds for rhetoric and development than the word Enhancement, as when used as an adjective, Enhancement has implicit hierarchical functionality whereas augmentation simply outlines difference.

[If anyone can provide the legitimate source for the Display Image I would greatly appreciate a link – to attribution and to explore the artists work]

Quantified Self, IFTTT & NFC: The Process

          Considering many my posts will undeniably be grandiose suppositions and unconscious sophistry I would like to provide something practical solution for your attention!

           I’ve been experimenting with methodologies to log events and/or metrics in the most efficient manner. In the interest of disclosure, I would note that I am the Sales Manager of NFC Wireless Australia so access to the technology wasn’t a hurdle.

Most of these tags log the data to a spreadsheet – subsequently most of this data is logged to the aggregate QA spreadsheet.

I use NFC tags to quantify myself by measuring and logging time metrics regarding the most basic functions.

Wake/Sleep cycles
Calorie Consumption
Water Consumption
Caffeine and Nicotine
Bathroom stops

Find the anecdotal recount here.

          Quantification via NFC requires the combination of hardware and web-services.
The hardware: Phone and Tags
Services and Software: Encoding Application, Google Account and Drive, IFTTT, MAKER within IFTTT.

          Primarily, creation of a google sheet is necessary – pretty self explanatory.
Secondly, IFTTT provides the services needed to log time events with NFC tags. After establishing the necessary profiles – the IFTTT formula is,

IF = Maker application
THEN = Google Drive – Add new line to google spreadsheet.

This ‘add line function’ – Can be split into two variables being a static log or an on/off function. For the static log function, it’s easy enough and will automatically create a spreadsheet if one doesn’t exist. In order to function as on/off or in/out this formula must be used

[+Add ingredient] = OCCOUREDAT

Followed by
||| =IF(ISODD(ROW()), “Started”, “Stopped”) ||| =IF(ISEVEN(ROW()),ROUND(((DATEVALUE(REGEXEXTRACT(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),COLUMN()-2,4)), “\w+ \d{2}, \d{4}”)) + TIMEVALUE(REGEXEXTRACT(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW(),COLUMN()-2,4)), “\d{2}:\d{2}[A|P]M$”))) – ( DATEVALUE(REGEXEXTRACT(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW()-1,COLUMN()-2,4)), “\w+ \d{2}, \d{4}”)) + TIMEVALUE(REGEXEXTRACT(INDIRECT(ADDRESS(ROW()-1,COLUMN()-2,4)), “\d{2}:\d{2}[A|P]M$”)))) * 24, 2),””)

            In the interest of disclosure, this is not my formula – it has been pulled from other MAKER apps after a long night of troubleshooting – hence the exact MAKER app eludes me.

           The MAKER webhook will call this function – this can be found in the Maker service Settings (IFTTT Settings>Services>Maker). From memory this was a pain in the ass but the webhook url will look like

   account URL number, it will appear in settings in MAKER)

           In order for the webhook to perform the function –

   account URL)

            Depending on the application the url would need to be changed to the desired spreadsheets name. Once we have this URL, we can encode this to an NFC tags.

            For the layman, NFC Tasks and NFC tools (from Wakdev) is what I would recommend due to the simplicity of the UI. For those who are computer savvy I would suggest NXP TagInfo and TagWriter. As NXP are manufacturers of these tags it’s a very powerful app. Once one of the applications are loaded up it is simply a matter of encoding the webhook.

             Smartlocks deserve a mention here – a phone needs to be unlocked for an NFC action to execute; the NFC tag is still scanned and the UID is read. Because of this, most of my tags  are programmed to be are recognised by my phone as a Smartlock.  The Smartlock function (on my s5) allows for me to scan with a locked phone (as long as it is ‘awake’) and when the UID is read, it will automatically unlocks and executes the function.

Hopefully, this process can assist with your own self-quantification.

Anecdote: Quantified Self, IFTTT & NFC

Warning: this article contains Anecdotes and Conjecture. For a related article of containing  practical application click here.

         My sleep cycle times are measured by an NFC tag next to my bed – this tag has 2 functions, the first is to activate the Webhook which logs the time and automatically inputs this into my spreadsheet. The second is to unlock my phone with smart lock: this may seem trivial but its how to get around the NFC reader only working with an unlocked phone. 

         Originally the process was, alarm>unlock>swipe>Do button (A IFTTT function)
In total(from alarm deactivation) this took approx 4-5 seconds to wake and log.
The process is now alarm>hold phone to tag
In total (From alarm deactivation) this takes approx 2-3 seconds to wake and log.

        Alarm clock apps that need a NFC trigger are also available – but I found mine enraged me and it just wasn’t a good start to the day.

        Tracking Calorie Consumption outlines inconsistencies in my input. Whilst accounting for this as a variable its I keenly tracked productivity patterns re: KJ amongst other things.
Calories (as far as metrics go) are easy to track, I have a general distaste for food and subsequently my RDI is fulfilled by a DIY soylent diet (dopamine permitting, I will elaborate on my Soylent experiment in a later post). It’s not for everyone. Frankly, it’s not for most.
        My meals themselves are divided into approximately 2150Kj each and whilst I try to keep regular intervals, this is not always the case.

        As the soylents measurements can be neatly divided, the point that time, is the only metric to be fulfilled. In addition, my water can be similarly accounted – for except these are measured in .9L bottles.  
        As a result, I place NFC tags on water bottle/soylent tubs and scan from there. Admittedly, I have had to replace the tags a few times, luckily I’m in a position to find a decent water resistant wet-inlay.
The webhook that the NFC tag calls, automatically inputs the data to a spreadsheet.

       Caffeine and Nicotine are (some) of my vices, seems fitting to track these habits. I can get a estimate as each of my cigarettes 12mg. I am basing this on colour indications from years ago. Since we now have plain packaging cigarettes in Australia I can only ‘estimate’ – we are not told the strength of the cigarettes.

       We can’t even ask certain questions to the cashier regarding the pricing (because ‘prices are advertising’). No shit.
Curious how Australia can simultaneously nurture a massive concentration of the world’s most deadly animals…and facilitate parabolic nanny-state tactics that prevent us from knowing the tar/nicotine concentrations.
       Each cigarette is automatically logged into a spreadsheet by scanning the ferrite-layered tag on my cigarette case.
       Caffeine measurement is similar but the metric for the amount of caffeine in each coffee is impossible to average without a spectrometer, subsequently I can only log the ‘amount’ of coffee I have had.
        Without predetermined units that are individually divided on things like food and coffee, I imagine this would require some workarounds (multiple tags would do it). This is done with tags on the coffee jars. It can be on the cups themselves, but that is a lot of tags and excessive exposure to such heat may degrade them

        Logging bathroom breaks can reveal…interesting patterns. Tracking each visit, I adopted a NFC technique I’ve used previously for alternate reasons. A while ago, I started experimenting with embedding NFC chips into my suits and vest – these had simple functions such as unlocking as it came out of pocket or starting a google search. I had historically sewed industrial tags into my vest and found that one of these sufficed considering heat and moisture during washing. A quick scan on the way in and the spreadsheet is updated.

        As a contractor, logging my work hours was vital. I found that a tag at my desk and door assisted with this. A simple on/off logging function that tracks time and day is automatically updated with every webhook sent by the tag.

      In retrospect, by my recount I follow this routine with the stoic resolution of a buddhist vulcan. I don’t. My aggregate spreadsheet data looks like swiss cheese.

A Grinders Beef

         Whimsical self-deprication: Grab ya torch and pitchfork – theres a strawman to burn!

In the interest of transparency I should note I reside at the experimental grinder end of Biohacking. Many Biohackers just want to be as healthy as biologically possible. When Rich Lee address’ the divide in Transhumanism he identifies the ‘Maximisers’ and the ‘Beyonders’ as the two distinct families embracing Biohacks.

Maximising processes is an understandable desire, but as someone partial to technological determinism I find many ‘naturalistic’ biohacking techniques unbearably intuitive to the point where I find it embarrassing to be placed in the same category.

SEO can make biohacking look pretty whitebread.

Biohacking articles that posit techniques such as ‘Standing in the sun’ or ‘Breathing air from nature’ is a biohack. I lament myself for an ad hominem attack but I suspect may Biohacking Authors are simply jumping on the clickbait buzzword bandwagon.

I suspect my own disinclination to this may be rooted in technomania – as the ‘Hacker’ mindset is derivative of technological elements, I would justify this as inherit in the epistemology of biohacking.

        Subsequently I must state I am not remotely the arbiter of Biohacking, but…

I would still posit technologically dependant Biohacks – such as subdermal Implants, nootropics and TDCS (electro-stimulation) are more accurate examples of Biohacks than the aforementioned ‘naturalistic Biohacks’, on the objection that without technology, it is not an accurate usage of the word ‘Hack’.

Furthermore, I would state use of technology is a more succinct embodiment of ‘hacker ethics’ within a biological context and systems thinking. The use of the word ‘Hack’ has been hijacked from its etiological roots and being wielded by buzzword culture amongst SEO exploits. I would agree that definitions, at least within English, evolve proscriptively not descriptively – and this eventuate with with the word ‘hack’.
Contemporarily however, I would urge usage to be centralised around a more etiological and I daresay, intuitive, definition of hack – my defence not being my bias toward the culture itself, but that exploring the traditional context of hacking will provide a tremendous amount of insight into systems thinking and the effects of technology – which will simply be ignored if people associate biohacking with organic optimisation such as ‘Eating plenty of Greens’ or ‘Turn off your phone when you go to bed’.

Photo from – Broken URL

Transhumanism in Practice: H+, Biohacking and the Quantified Self.

         In regards to a tangible goal for H+ pursuits, I believe the most amenable role is to act as a transitionalist for transhumanism providing a wealth of knowledge and practices that can ultimately decrease the amount of hostile utility directed towards the philosophy. This would require implementing a strategy of cumulative knowledge in many fields over an extended time.

         How to inject this strategy into everyday life is manifested by the conjunction the quantified self and Biohacking. I would posit these fields are exercising practical Transhumanist philosophy. The real trick is the keep it in the forefront of one mind.

          Realistically – I often forget I am not separate from evolution, but a simply a step in it (albeit it a miniscule one). By explicitly retaining Transhumanism as the focus of my Biohacking experimentation it not only provides empirical evidence but assists with critical thinking along two paths – Immediate results from the experiment and formulating future hypothesis’.

          Whilst recording the individual’s experience is anecdotal, cumulative experimentation within an evolutionary timeframe could provide useful data. To embrace conscious evolution I would posit that trapping the data solely inside my own meatbag would do injustice to future anthropologists. I’m attempting to be history assisting the historian.

          Knowing this, it is advantageous to keep records of these Biohacks in a tangible manner via self quantification.

          To give a perceptable example, if Soylent (Food supplement) is the focus of a Biohacking experiment – the Hypothesis can be concluded by using appropriate metrics to quantify empirical effects of this on the self. Furthermore – the more metrics and variables one can account for will surely assist with empirical conclusions by establishing lengthy average controls.

          Whilst biohacking provides the catalyst for the data, the data itself is what’s essentially important to myself. Quantified Self establishes tangible metrics for investigation, as well as retaining the goal of cumulative knowledge in everyday life.
I would defend that for a consistent experience with a biohack, not only would a control (as much as possible) metric be amenable, but once the information is articulated it assists with pattern recognition, building a rigorous conclusion and subsequent hypothesis’.

Blog at

Up ↑