h+ Magazine

Fall 2008

Issue link: http://cp.revolio.com/i/393

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 21 of 41

22 #1 Fall 2008 DNA harmless; the introduction of mi- crobial (or other foreign) enzymes into our cells to destroy molecules that accumulate in them; and the elimination of our cells' ability to prevent the ends of their chromo- somes from shortening with each cell divi- sion, combined with stem cell therapies to address the side effects that this will cause. Research is proceeding healthily in all these areas, largely funded by the Methuselah Foundation. H+: In your book, you write that to be truly immortal or nonaging we will need to lose the meat. Some people don't think that's too far away. What do you think? ADG: I'm not sure. Actually I think it's risky to think in terms of "truly immor- tal" even in a non-meat scenario – after all, nearby supernovae can fry most things. But as to the time frame of technologies such as uploading, I'm not equipped to speculate. H+: Longevity advocates have finely thought-out, statistically oriented argu- ments as to why longevity will not strain resources or the environment. But does the longevity movement, nevertheless, have a responsibility to do everything it can to prevent or end scarcity and ensure a survivable environment for however many long-living people? ADG: I have a number of arguments as to why the defeat of aging may not strain the environment, but I never say that those arguments are certain. I don't think pro- longevists have a duty to solve that problem themselves, but I do think we have a duty to bring the parameters of the problem to the attention of society, so that society neither overestimates nor underestimates it and so that those best placed to shape public policy act accordingly. e same goes for all aspects of the sociological consequences of the defeat of aging. H+: In talking about the culture of long-lived people, you say that people will be less inclined to take risks. I can see this being a big problem, in a lot of differ- ent ways. Don't we gain benefit and nov- elty from people who are inclined to take risks? (I see you as a big risk taker, repu- tation being the currency of the current age.) And aren't people who will preserve their lives at any cost easily controlled by an authoritarian state or some other type of oppressive imposition? ADG: Benefit and novelty come from the taking of risks, yes, but not the type of risks that will be inhibited by the defeat of aging; that will cause aversion to risks of death, but risks to one's career (for example) will be more acceptable, because there'll be so much more opportunity to make amends for misjudgment. As for being controlled, heh, my reaction is that only someone from a country that still cherishes the right to bear arms could ask such a question... the rest of the civilized world has amply dem- onstrated that there is no such danger. H+: Really? So no one will ever have to risk their lives again to stop oppres- sion? ADG: Since you press me... my closing words "no such danger" were perhaps a mis- statement, but not a material one. I should have said "insufficient such danger to affect our choices today" -- but that's the same thing in practice, because your question was about risks, and therefore about quantify- ing risks rather than about what will or will not "ever" happen. It's hard to dispute that the need to risk one's life to stop oppres- sion is generally lower in democracies than elsewhere and is lower in longer-standing democracies than in younger ones, and fur- ther that long-lived democracies very rarely cease to be democracies whereas non de- mocracies embrace democracy at a steady rate. ose claims are all that are needed to justify my previous answer. H+: You've been in the media a fair bit introducing this very unfamiliar con- cept of a radically expanded life span. On the whole, how would you review the re- sponse that you've received? ADG: Very positive, especially recently. Initially a lot of the coverage was quizzi- cal – journalists "knew" I must be crazy but were impressed by my ability to run rings around their attempts to demonstrate it. More recently most journalists have begun to realize that what I'm saying is actually quite plausible and that the more derisory comments made about SENS by some of my colleagues should not be taken at face value. H+: One hundred years of life can wear you down physically, but it can also wear you down emotionally... perhaps even existentially. For you, is a desire to live long accompanied by a desire to live long in a much-improved human civiliza- tion, or is this one satisfactory? ADG: I'm actually not mainly driven by a desire to live a long time. I accept that when I'm even a hundred years old, let alone older, I may have less enthusiasm for life than I have today. erefore, what drives me is to put myself (with luck) and others (lots and lots of others) in a position to make that choice, rather than having the choice progressively ripped away from me or them by declining health. Whether the choice to live longer is actually made is not the point for me. I'm… not mainly driven by a desire to live a long time. I accept that when I'm… 100 years old… I may have less enthusiasm for life… Resources Methuselah Foundation www.mfoundation.org The Longevity Meme www.longevitymeme.org

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of h+ Magazine - Fall 2008