About Us

The Universal Human Project is being established to operate as a nonprofit (FL based inc currently) model for  cross-disciplinary R&D and think tank. In its full swing implementation, it will utilize a multifaceted and diverse team of both scientific professionals as well as some pre-planned inclusion of other primary roles with varying types of expertise. That's the model–a primary, multi-person, and multi-talented driving force–for our research, experimentation, technological development, and dissemination of newfound human knowledge with practical, and important implications for humanity. Ideally beyond that scale even, but with fundamental humanness as the crux of discovery. 

 

Beyond STEM educated, experienced, and/or practicing team members, the project will (currently) include: 

1. Myself as founder and executive director heading all operations. I am the one who solely conceived of the entire strategy to date and has engaged with citizen science observations, documented preliminary evidence, and developed personally intuited theories that include proprietary experiments to kick start the multi-faceted direction of the organization. I am–in decision making, direction, and developmental experimental methods/studies–balanced out by the team of single field/duty focused scientists, as well as multi-talented prolific scientists, plus other relevant disciplinary/field based roles that all grow and evolve overtime. 

​

2. Several philosophically trained ethicists including ones with expertise on universal human rights. These individuals are critical, moral, and discerning guardians towards our general practices. This including our own internal operations, experimentation/studying, theoretical development, and potential as well as realized effects on individual persons up to our wider society/civilization. They will always have allowed time to analyze, investigate, interrogate, and discern what pitfalls are apparent ethically/morally/functionally to society and what proactive measures likely need to be considered if not immediately incorporated. This assessment must always be completed prior to greenlighting any experiment, study, and/or development of tech/methods. 
 

3. Other role(s) will lie in the field of sociology with analysis provided both proactively and continuously predicting, measuring, and discerning impacts on wider scales of people per what our scientific, technological, methodological, and other innovative features would and will mean when introduced to the public. They work closely with the ethicists (given overlaps) and are also at liberty to analyze, investigate, interrogate, and discern of whats planned  prior to their implementation. The entire team will go over their findings, concerns, and suggestions in a round table manner with back and forth for questioning, clarifying, and evoking mutual understanding. 

​

4. More broadly we can aim to keep philosophers of science in general. They will be apt to help inform the previous two roles as to the dynamics and nature of work being done as well as enlighten the STEM focused team members to considerations not already entertained. Science does not exist without philosophy. Not much does. Without the epistemological backbone of the scientific method there would be no real work and progress achieved. It is its own philosophy. Any attempt to understand, delineate, and discern beyond data points requires philosophical considerations. When you theorize, model intrinsic features of reality (especially those that escape immediate human perception), and hypothesize you are engaging with a form of philosophy bound in epistemological principles (with its challenges) toward what we can know and the age old metaphysical postulations that translate to real world scientific understanding and mastery. 

​

5. Legal experts/lawyers will be an obvious facet needed to engage with many considerations beyond our eagerness to discover, develop, and provide innovative solutions to the world. 

​

6. Regulatory specialists who can readily navigate governmental agency based rules and requirements for certain fields of inquiry and development as well as implement our own smart, proactive standards of protocol. 

​

7. PR/Outreach: I will need keen people who can manage public relations and enhance transparency with broader public accessibility by breaking down and sharing our impactful findings, claims, and theories in appropriate mediums. 

​

More roles will likely be included and integrated given specific needs as the project advances into different fields. Other roles not mentioned are those essential to any operational organization. 

​

General Starting Trajectory and Aims

We will be doing R&D in the following fields to start: neurology, consciousness, physics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, and also several novel fields of study. Those novel fields would be considered cutting-edge, little explored, and largely overlooked in terms of science and technology. As such they are currently proprietary with their success meaning next-gen, new-world catalyzing results. Currently, the currently conceived experiments are too proprietary and requiring guarding to lay out openly. The basis for the theories I have conceived as revolving around my research, previous evidence gathering, and future tech development have been discussed in places on my social media. Primarily, you can get clues on my Medium page (linked at the bottom of every webpage). 

​

The main thrust is initially with foundational research/inquiry, discovery, and studies that will be available (at a desirable time) to the wider research driven, science based, and innovative community for scrutiny and transparency. This will, either sooner or later, lead to technological development. This in terms of applicable, engineered research tools and methods as well as practical use technology that can be developed further by us or the wider R&D community (as appropriate). This will be for demonstrative use cases that apply more generally, if not to very tailored applications beyond science, as well as possible products that we can dispense/sell to relevant peoples and entities as needed. Anything new, unique, and/or original will be patented in terms of tech, devices, and inventions of our scientific research. Some need to be open sourced and publicly available. It depends on the use case, relevance to the greater good of society, and our own competitive edge as well as funding considerations.

​

​Nonprofit Approach Towards Science with R&D In New Cutting Edge Fields

I am establishing The Universal Human Project as a nonprofit entity. This ensures the public's trust and wellbeing by avoiding the corrupted, maligned, disenfranchising, and unethical methods of for-profit, large corporate models. Especially pertaining to matters of scientific discovery and technological advancement that could be game changers for our shared world. When selfish gains alongside delusional addictions to endless profits steer the incentives of a business model it has degenerating effects on society, its communities, and our environments. Not to mention bad-faith, overreaching political influence that usurp true representation of the people in governance.

 

The culture and climate of for profit business, especially when achieved at massive scales, simply do not fit with the model presented above of a diverse team who operate first and foremost off of considering every ethical, moral, and societal impact stemming from cutting edge R&D. The goal is something hinted at and included in contemporary research, scientific inquiry, and its practical applications in terms of ethical approaches. However, this is doubled down on as we serve as a leader in connecting disparate fields of knowledge with cautious analysis of our work at every possible angle humanly conceivable. This done with proactive, considerate, and predicting understandings as the first principle of our conduct as we venture toward novel, unpaved research areas and their untold effects on this world.

 

Through many crucial, historical ways that watershed innovations have been streamlined, rolled out, and cast around us in society, we have learned the sting of foolhardy arms races and advancement. The ever optimistic, oversold promises of previously unimaginable powers and masteries over the very nature of reality. Those suddenly realized and unfolded into a ubiquitous format that simultaneously served and wounded our societies with deep cuts of the double edged sword of science. We still struggle with major, world changing innovations of decades past with their toxic side effects and collateral damages that still seep through their veneer of convenience, supposed betterment, and intractable indispensability of game changing tech. 

​

Some of it will damn us to oblivion. The first major existential development was nuclear proliferation as the ultimate early 20th century arms race. A rush toward development in both sectors private and secretive sectors with uses for both energy and directed devastation. We can draw parallels to the dawn of the internet or information age plus it's add ons of mobile devices and social media. Those tools of convenience, information, betterment, distractions, and manipulation were not world ending in of themselves. Yet, they wrought dystopian challenges that we still don't look in the face truthfully as we were sold over zealous optimisms of "the world and it's knowledge at your fingertips" and true "interconnectivity." Both claims had truths that were enticing and good while still shielding a darker shadow of social engineering, psychological rewiring, indoctrinations with the muddied waters of disinformation. Some of us get smarter and self made with greater access to good information and convenience of service, yet the flip side is deliberately steered to bring people down to a lower level of awareness and their increasing inability to resist certain incentives and indoctrinations. The same game goes for AI as we rush head on to have the most advanced iteration of its offerings, benefits and blowback. ​

​

Beyond profit chasing the issues at hand are that of the adversarial natures of arm's races in science, the need to wield greater power over others, and the drive to lay first claim to discovery through innovation. Soceity attempts to be ethical and proactive about the adverse consequences of rapid development. However, multi-factor dynamics often keep us putting out societal fires reactively rather than in a proactive/predictive manner. When venturing into unlocking innovation, it's worth it to slow down, if not withhold altogether, our progress. Arm's races have no winners. Eventually someone gets shot. I believe in scientific advancement that is forward thinking, predictive, and proactive to a high degree. 

​

One fundamental principle to ask, in terms of ethics, is that, "should my hypothesis prove true–whether its shown in minimal statistically significant findings or shows overwhelming confirmation–what are the impacts to society at large at any foreseeable timescale?" This is a question that should be considered and analyzed at every possible angle prior to even implementing with the experimentation. That way we, with confident optimism and cautious realism, consider every facet of consideration towards the wellbeing of mankind and beyond prior to proving the point. 

​

That is the moral thrust, promise, and duty of The Universal Human Project.