Wednesday, December 29, 2004
What happens if we do live forever?
The New York Times: Just How Old Can He Go?: "...most people would scoff at [Mr. Kurzweil's] notion that emerging trends in medicine, biotechnology and nanotechnology open a realistic path to immortality - the central claim of a new book by Mr. Kurzweil and Dr. Terry Grossman..." Essentially, the forecast is that, in 25 years or so, human beings will be able to halt, or at least drastically slow down, the aging process using technology that permits changes to the body at the cellular level.
The notion of "reprogramming our biology" brings to mind Bill Joy's "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Dr. Joy's article ponders the potential for dire unintended consequences of commercializing cutting-edge technologies that are so new that we don't yet fully comprehend their implications.
It's possible to dismiss Mr. Kurzweil and Dr. Grossman's book as wildly optimistic and Dr. Joy's article as excessively gloomy, but the idea that we are on the verge of developing biotechnology that might continue extending life expectancy while at the same time creating the potential for substantial environmental damage doesn't seem all that farfetched.
So, before we find ourselves confronted with a fiat accompli whether we like it or not, shouldn't we consider whether a world in which many human beings live well into their second century makes sense?
Any of us would look forward to living a longer, healthier life, but there are some downsides. Would we restrain birthrates in order to limit overpopulation? How would we finance all those extra years? A higher average age is one likely consequence. Do we simply re-scale the periods of our lives (schooling, working, retirement years), or will other social adjustments be required. Will there be more of a burden on younger people to contribute to the care and upkeep of older generations? Will we be "manipulating our cells" during the period of our lives when we are reproducing--that is, might we alter the genetics of our offspring as well?
There are also moral issues. The cost of the technology is likely to make it disproportionately available. Is wealth (particularly inherited wealth) the most socially desirable way to allocate access to a longer life? Assuming the technology can't be made readily available to everyone, how will who benefits and who will not be decided?
The notion of "reprogramming our biology" brings to mind Bill Joy's "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Dr. Joy's article ponders the potential for dire unintended consequences of commercializing cutting-edge technologies that are so new that we don't yet fully comprehend their implications.
It's possible to dismiss Mr. Kurzweil and Dr. Grossman's book as wildly optimistic and Dr. Joy's article as excessively gloomy, but the idea that we are on the verge of developing biotechnology that might continue extending life expectancy while at the same time creating the potential for substantial environmental damage doesn't seem all that farfetched.
So, before we find ourselves confronted with a fiat accompli whether we like it or not, shouldn't we consider whether a world in which many human beings live well into their second century makes sense?
Any of us would look forward to living a longer, healthier life, but there are some downsides. Would we restrain birthrates in order to limit overpopulation? How would we finance all those extra years? A higher average age is one likely consequence. Do we simply re-scale the periods of our lives (schooling, working, retirement years), or will other social adjustments be required. Will there be more of a burden on younger people to contribute to the care and upkeep of older generations? Will we be "manipulating our cells" during the period of our lives when we are reproducing--that is, might we alter the genetics of our offspring as well?
There are also moral issues. The cost of the technology is likely to make it disproportionately available. Is wealth (particularly inherited wealth) the most socially desirable way to allocate access to a longer life? Assuming the technology can't be made readily available to everyone, how will who benefits and who will not be decided?
Murph 9:08 PM