Biohacking Thematic e-magazine Issue 31 An Ovi Publication 2025 Ovi Publications - All material is copyright of the Ovi and Ovi Thematic Magazines Publications C Ovi Thematic Magazines are available in Ovi/Ovi ThematicMagazines pages in all forms PDF/ePub/mobi, and they are always FREE. If somebody tries to sell you an Ovi Thematic Magazine please contact us immediately. For details, contact: ovimagazine@yahoo.com No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the writer or the above publisher of this magazine F or this issue of the Ovi The- matic eMagazine we decid- ed to focus on Biohacking; the practice of modifying one’s biology for enhanced perfor- mance or health. However, - and you must al- ways remember that - this is an opinion eMagzine and Ovi con- triibutors do exactly that, express opinion on a subject that seems to present a captivating philo- sophical dilemma: to what extent should humans strive to tran- scend their biological limitations and the very essence of what it means to be human? At the heart of biohacking lies a profound yearning for self-mas- tery. Human beings have long sought to exert control over their environment and their destinies. Biohacking represents a logical extension of this pursuit, an at- tempt to extend that control in- ward, to the very fabric of our being. By manipulating our biol- ogy, we seek to overcome limita- tions imposed by genetics, aging, and disease. We strive to become stronger, smarter, healthier, and more resilient. This drive for self-improve- ment, however, raises crucial philosophical questions. Is the pursuit of enhanced capabilities inherently valuable? Does it align with our understanding of hu- man flourishing? Aristotle, for example, argued that true happi- ness lies in the cultivation of vir- tue and the pursuit of knowledge, not in the mere accumulation of external goods or enhanced abilities. Similarly, proponents of virtue ethics might question whether the pursuit of superhu- man strength or intelligence nec- essarily leads to a more fulfilling or meaningful life. Furthermore, the pursuit of biological enhancement raises concerns about our relationship with our bodies. Traditional- editorial ly, the human body has been viewed as a given, a vessel for our consciousness, subject to the natural laws of birth, aging, and death. Biohacking chal- lenges this view, suggesting that the human body is not merely a given, but rather a malleable substrate that can be engineered and optimized according to our desires. The ethical implications of bi- ohacking are equally profound. The potential for inequality is a significant concern. Access to these technologies will likely be unevenly distributed, creat- ing a two-tiered society where the wealthy and privileged can afford to enhance their capabil- ities while the majority are left behind. This could exacerbate existing social and economic disparities, leading to a further stratification of society. Moreover, the pursuit of bi- ological enhancement raises concerns about the very na- ture of human existence. Are we playing God by attempting to manipulate the fundamental building blocks of life? What are the long-term consequenc- es of altering our genetic make- up and pushing the boundaries of human potential? Could we inadvertently create unforeseen and potentially catastrophic consequences? These questions require care- ful consideration and ongoing philosophical debate. We must grapple with the ethical im- plications of altering human nature, the potential for unin- tended consequences, and the long-term societal impact of widespread biological enhance- ment. And this is exactly what we are attempting to do in this is- sue without this meaning that we are the experts. Barely opin- ionated and strongly hoping that we can motive you to do further research, check what the experts have to say and ...think. A big thank to the people who contributed for this issue to become true, Enjoy the new Ovi e-Maga- zine issue Thanos Kalamidas We cover every issue for 20 years The ovi https://realovi.wordpress.com/ The Ovi thematic eMagazine Biohacking February 2025 Editor: T. Kalamidas contributors: Prof. Anis H. Bajrek- tarevic, Kamila Bog- danova, Mary Long, Thanos Kalamidas, Marja Heikkinen, Sabine Fischer, Lucas Durand, John Kato, Timothy Davies, George Cassidy Payne, David Barger, Nikos Laios, Jan Sand, Leah Sellers, Ethan Camp- bell, Eze Ogbu, Emma Schneider, Manish Kumar Arora. contents Editorial 3 Biohacking Biohacking: The future of human enhancement or a risky gamble? 8 Biohacking; Key Legal, Moral and Commercial considerations - Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic & Kamila Bogdanova 15 The Cult of perfection - Mary Long 35 Outangle 40 Playing God or Saving Lives? - Marja Heikkinen 42 The ethics of the Frankenstein complexities - Sabine Fischer 47 Unlocking human potential - Lucas Durand 53 The final step before human cloning? - John Kato 59 Unlocking human potential - Lucas Durand 53 Bio-hacking plus eugenics equals superman? - Timothy Davies 62 Poetry Towards a Biology of God - George Cassidy Payne 67 The human spirit - David Barger 68 The Human Story - Nikos Laios 70 Am - Jan Sand 72 Energies of the Inner and Outer Cosmos - Leah Sellers 74 Narration Dreams of the flesh - Ethan Campbell 76 Thoughts/articles ITrumpian threats and Ursula’s precarious leadership - Thanos Kalamidas 83 Rwanda’s lethal involvement in DR Congo’s civil war - Eze Ogbu 87 Greenland, the next frontier or the next Czechoslovakia?- Timothy Davies 92 Settling a non-peace ceasefire - Emma Schneider 96 Manish Zodiac Predictions for February 2025 - Manish Kumar Arora 100 Art Katalin Ladik 107 The 80s: Photographing Britain 108 Rock, Paper, Scissors 109 Wafaa Bilal: Indulge Me 110 Light painting 112 Biohacking: The future of human enhancement or a risky gamble? In an era where science fiction often feels indistinguish- able from reality, the concept of biohacking has emerged as one of the most controversial and transformative move- ments of the 21st century. From implantable microchips to gene editing and DIY biology experiments conducted in garages, biohacking promises to revolutionize human potential. Yet, it also raises profound ethical, safety, and societal concerns. Advocates herald it as the dawn of a new human evolution, while critics fear it could spiral into a dystopian nightmare. This article explores the pros and cons of biohacking, offering insights into both its potential and its perils. The Case for Biohacking: Unlocking Human Potential Proponents of biohacking argue that it is a natural ex- tension of human ingenuity. Humanity has always sought ways to improve itself, whether through medicine, fitness, or technology. Biohacking merely accelerates this pursuit, enabling individuals to take control of their biology and enhance their capabilities. 1. Health Optimization Biohacking’s most immediate and widespread appeal lies in health optimization. Nootropics, also known as smart drugs, are already being used to improve focus, memory, and cognitive performance. Nutrigenomics allows indi- viduals to tailor their diets based on their genetic predispositions, improving metabolism and reducing the risk of diseases. Wearable devices can monitor vitals, providing data to make informed health decisions. This data-driven approach has the potential to prevent illnesses before they occur, transforming healthcare from reactive to proactive. 2. Extending Lifespan Longevity is another frontier that biohackers are actively explor- ing. Anti-aging treatments, ranging from stem cell therapy to hor- mone regulation, have shown promise in slowing down biological aging. Biohackers like Dave Asprey, founder of Bulletproof, have made headlines by investing heavily in techniques to extend their lifespan, arguing that living longer gives humanity more time to solve pressing global problems. 3. Breaking Barriers for the Disabled One of the most inspiring aspects of biohacking is its potential to empower disabled individuals. Prosthetic limbs enhanced with sensory feedback and neural implants restoring sight or hearing demonstrate that biohacking can significantly improve quality of life. The blending of biology and technology in this context show- cases human resilience and innovation. 4. Expanding Cognitive Abilities Cognitive enhancement through nootropics, brainwave stimu- lation, and neural implants hints at the possibility of a super-in- telligent future. Imagine a world where memory loss is eradicated, learning speeds quadruple, and creativity becomes boundless. Bio- hacking could democratize intelligence, unlocking capabilities that were once the privilege of a select few. The Dark Side of Biohacking: Ethical and Safety Concerns Despite its allure, biohacking has generated significant controver- sy, and not without reason. Critics argue that the rush to modify biology carries unforeseen risks, both for individuals and society. 1. Unregulated Experimentation A major concern is the lack of oversight in biohacking practices. Many enthusiasts operate outside traditional medical and scientif- ic institutions, conducting experiments in home labs. While inno- vation thrives in such environments, the potential for accidents or harmful results is undeniable. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR can permanently alter DNA, and mishandling these technologies could lead to mutations, infections, or even biohazards. 2. Inequality and Accessibility Biohacking may widen existing social inequalities. Access to cut- ting-edge enhancements may be restricted to the wealthy, creating a new class divide between the “enhanced” and the “unenhanced.” This could lead to ethical dilemmas about fairness and equality in education, employment, and healthcare. 3. Loss of Humanity As humans merge with machines and modify their genetics, questions arise about what it means to be human. Critics worry that biohacking might strip away individuality and authenticity, reduc- ing people to programmable entities. Could we lose our sense of identity in the pursuit of perfection? 4. Security Risks With technology comes vulnerability. Implantable devices and neural interfaces could be hacked, exposing sensitive personal data or even enabling remote control of bodily functions. This raises pro- found security concerns that have yet to be fully addressed. 5. Ethical Dilemmas in Genetic Engineering Editing genes to eliminate diseases may seem noble, but what about designing babies with specific traits? The line between ther- apy and enhancement is blurred, opening debates about eugenics and designer genetics. Such practices could reignite discriminatory ideologies under the guise of scientific advancement. Striking a Balance: Regulation and Responsibility Navigating the promise and peril of biohacking requires a bal- anced approach. Governments and regulatory bodies must estab- lish clear guidelines to oversee biohacking practices while fostering innovation. Open dialogue among scientists, ethicists, and the pub- lic is crucial to determine acceptable boundaries. 1. Establishing Ethical Frameworks Developing ethical standards for biohacking can help prevent misuse. Independent review boards should oversee research, ensur- ing safety protocols are followed. Ethical frameworks must address issues of consent, particularly in experiments involving human sub- jects. 2. Education and Public Awareness Empowering the public with knowledge about biohacking can demystify the field and reduce fear. Schools and universities should include bioethics in their curricula, encouraging informed debates about emerging technologies. 3. Collaborative Research Rather than isolating biohackers, mainstream scientists should collaborate with them. Partnerships can bridge gaps between tra- ditional institutions and grassroots movements, fostering safer and more innovative outcomes. 4. Addressing Inequality Governments should ensure equal access to biohacking advance- ments through subsidies or public programs. Without equitable dis- tribution, enhancements could exacerbate societal divides. The Road Ahead: A Crossroads for Humanity Biohacking sits at the intersection of science, technology, and philosophy. It represents both the boundless ambition of human progress and the inherent risks of playing god with biology. Wheth- er it leads to a utopia of enhanced health, intelligence, and longevity or spirals into chaos depends on how we choose to approach it. Supporters argue that biohacking has already changed lives for the better, providing tools to treat diseases and improve human per- formance. Skeptics, however, caution against its unchecked growth, fearing irreversible consequences. What remains clear is that biohacking is here to stay. Its impact will be determined by our ability to regulate its use, respect ethical boundaries, and prioritize collective welfare over individual ambi- tion. The future of humanity may well depend on striking the right balance between curiosity and caution in the pursuit of human en- hancement. Embracing Potential While Mitigating Risks Biohacking embodies the duality of modern innovation, im- mense potential coupled with significant risks. It forces society to reevaluate definitions of health, identity, and ethics. While it offers promising solutions to age-old problems, it also challenges us to safeguard human values against reckless ambition. The debate over biohacking is far from settled, and perhaps it never will be. What matters most is that we continue questioning, experimenting, and regulating with a shared vision of enhancing not endangering, humanity. In navigating this brave new world, the choices we make today will shape the generations to come. Biohacking; key Legal, Moral and commercial considerations PRoF. AniS H. BAjRektAReviC kAmilA BogdAnovA B iohacking is a rapidly growing movement that combines technology, biology, and self-experi- mentation to optimize human performance and well-being. It encompasses a range of practices, from ge- netic modifications and wearable technology to cogni- tive enhancement and nutritional interventions. In the European Union (EU), where health, technology, and data privacy regulations are extensive, the rise of bio- hacking challenges traditional legal and ethical bounda- ries and raises complex regulatory questions. While bi- ohacking offers individuals unprecedented control over their physical and mental capabilities, it often operates on the fringes of legality, exploiting regulatory gaps. This article explores biohacking’s core practices and ex- amines the legal frameworks, including treaties like the Oviedo Convention, the General Data Protection Reg- ulation (GDPR), and other relevant EU policies, along with the regulatory loopholes that biohackers navigate and the broader implications for regulators and society. defining the biohacking In traditional dictionaries, bi- ohacking is often portrayed as a narrow and sometimes con- troversial practice. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, defines it as “the activity of ex- ploiting genetic material ex- perimentally without regard to accepted ethical standards, or for criminal purposes” (Oxford English Dictionary). This defi- nition emphasizes biohacking’s potential for risk and uncon- ventional methods of biological manipulation. Similarly, Merri- am-Websterdescribes it as “bi- ological experimentation (as by gene editing or the use of drugs or implants) done to improve the qualities or capabilities of living organisms, especially by individ- uals and groups operating out- side traditional medical or sci- entific research environments” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). These definitions highlight bi- ohacking as a self-directed, ex- perimental practice typically conducted outside conventional scientific settings. For the purposes of this work, we will hereby operate with our own definition: externally induced, concealed gene (in- formation hoovering, seques- trating, doctoring, and/or) in- tervention for non-transparent ends. (Bajrektarevic, 2010) Biohacking has evolved into a form of “DIY biology,” where individuals — often outside in- stitutional frameworks — apply biological science and technolo- gy to optimize their bodies and biological systems. According to Meyer (2020), biohacking thrives in peer production envi- ronments where knowledge and resources are openly shared, al- lowing individuals to take con- trol of their biology through accessible tools, including wear- able devices, supplements, and even genetic modification. This approach reflects a democrati- zation of science that disrupts traditional boundaries between professional and amateur sci- entists, raising ethical concerns around safety, privacy, and reg- ulation (Meyer 2020). As a grassroots movement, biohacking blends biology with principles of open science and DIY experimentation. Delfanti (2013) suggests that biohacking challenges conventional scien- tific hierarchies by emphasizing collaboration and open access to biological knowledge and tools. Biohackers frequently conduct experiments on themselves or their environments to push the limits of human biology, pro- moting a democratized science culture. This movement advo- cates for peer production and low-cost technologies as a form of resistance against proprie- tary, closed scientific systems (Delfanti 2013).Coenen et al. (2017) report that biohacking integrates diverse life sciences techniques beyond the confines of traditional academic and cor- porate research, further blurring the lines between professional and amateur scientists. While many biohacking tech- niques are health-focused, oth- ers pursue aesthetic, psycho- logical, or even transhumanist objectives, exploring the ex- tension of human capabilities through technology. Constituting elements • Lifestyle optimization Lifestyle optimization in bi- ohacking focuses on improving well-being through practical and measurable changes in dai- ly routines. It targets areas such as diet, sleep, physical perfor- mance, and mental capacity, often using tools like wearable devices to track health metrics and guide adjustments. Popular methods include intermittent fasting, cold exposure, and the use of natural supplements. Diet is a fundamental aspect of biohacking. Approaches like intermittent fasting and keto- genic diets aim to enhance me- tabolism, reduce inflammation, and promote fat loss. Nutrig- enomics, which examines the relationship between nutrients and gene expression, supports personalized dietary strategies that align with genetic predispo- sitions, balancing hormones and improving overall health. Sleep quality is another pri- ority. Biohackers use devices to monitor sleep patterns and test different techniques, such as adjusting room temperature, changing meal timings, or tak- ing supplements like melatonin. Biohackers usually share their findings online, creating a col- laborative community that ex- changes ideas and refines meth- ods for better rest. Physical enhancement of- ten centers on strategies like High-Intensity Interval Train- ing (HIIT), which delivers sig- nificant physiological benefits through brief yet intense exer- cise sessions. Cognitive improvement is also a major focus, with meth- ods that include mindfulness, neurostimulation, and the use of nootropics. Substances like caf- feine and L-theanine enhance focus and reduce fatigue, while others, such as modafinil, im- prove memory, attention, and executive function, enabling sharper mental performance. • DIY biology DIY biology represents a more experimental branch of biohacking, often involving community labs where enthu- siasts use biological tools and techniques typically reserved for professional researchers. Examples include genetic ma- nipulation, open-source insu- lin production (such as in the Open Insulin Project), or de- veloping personalized medical treatments. One of the primary uses of DIY bio is genetic engi- neering, where individuals ex- periment with organisms like bacteria or yeast to modify ge- netic material. This can include projects like creating fluorescent bacteria or altering plants to produce new compounds. Mey- er notes that technologies such as CRISPR have made gene edit- ing more accessible to non-pro- fessional scientists, allowing for experimentation with genetic material at a relatively low cost (Meyer 2020). • Grinders and transhu - manism At the extreme end of the biohacking spectrum are in- dividuals known as “grinders” or DIY transhumanists. These biohackers embrace invasive procedures, including the im- plantation of electronic devices (such as microchips) to enhance sensory capabilities or monitor health data. Their goal is often to transcend biological limits, en- tering the realm of cyborgism. Ethical and regulatory concerns are prevalent in this area due to the experimental and some- times dangerous nature of these modifications (Coenen 2017; The Medical Futurist 2024). Grinders push the boundaries of self-experimentation, frequently employing devices such as RFID chips for unlocking doors, mag- nets implanted in fingertips for sensing electromagnetic fields, or even more advanced bio- technologies aimed at enhanc- ing sensory perception or com- munication capabilities. Fuisz emphasizes the lack of legal frameworks to address the po- tential risks or unintended con- sequences of these experiments. This lack of regulation presents both an opportunity for innova- tion and a potential hazard, as these practices exist outside the traditional boundaries of medi- cal and scientific research (Fuisz 2017). Moral considerations and le- gal limitations The rapid rise of biohacking has sparked debates about its safety and the ethical implica- tions of self-experimentation. While many biohackers claim that their efforts help to advance health technologies, others crit- icize the movement for lacking adequate regulatory oversight. For example, invasive body modifications raise concerns about safety, legality, and poten- tial misuse. On the other hand, biohacking movements like DIY biology advocate for open access to scientific tools, which may contribute to more afforda- ble healthcare solutions, such as producing cheaper medica- tions like insulin (University of Southern California 2024). Currently, the tension between innovation and regulation in bi- ohacking is widely discussed. Excessive regulation might sti- fle creativity and personal free- dom, but too little might lead to widespread harm. The challenge is to strike a balance that allows biohackers to innovate while protecting public safety and eth- ical standards. This raises the question of whether new laws and regulations should be cre- ated specifically for biohacking, or whether existing medical and scientific frameworks are suffi- cient to address these concerns (Fuisz 2017). eU Regulatory framework The rapid growth of biohack- ing, particularly in DIY biology and personal health modifica- tion, has raised complex legal and ethical challenges within the EU. While biohacking itself is not explicitly addressed by a sin- gular legal framework, its vari- ous practices intersect with nu- merous existing EU regulations. These frameworks—governing data protection, medical devic- es, genetic modification, and ethical biomedical research— indirectly regulate biohacking activities. As the line between personal experimentation and formal biomedical innovation blurs, it becomes essential to understand how EU regula- tions address the safety, privacy, and ethical considerations sur- rounding this emerging field. This chapter will explore the key EU treaties and directives that apply to biohacking, highlight- ing the specific legal provisions that biohackers must navigate to ensure compliance with EU standards. • General Data Protec - tion Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 The General Data Protection Regulation is a cornerstone of EU law concerning the protec- tion of personal data and priva- cy. Article 9 of the GDPR specif- ically addresses the “Processing of special categories of personal data,” which includes biometric data used for uniquely identify- ing a person, as well as genetic data. Since many biohacking practices involve the collection and processing of such data—ei- ther for self-monitoring, health tracking, or experimentation— biohackers must comply with this provision. Article 9(1) gen- erally prohibits the processing of these special categories of data unless the data subject has given explicit consent (Article 9(2)(a))