The debate over whether immortality is desirable all too often gets the crucial issue entirely backwards. What I mean is that too often the argument centers on old age and whether this condition is truly lamentable, or has redeeming features. Seemingly powerful evidence to support the second hypothesis comes from various surveys which suggest that the elderly are actually happier, on average, than younger people.
To which we may reply: obviously! The elderly are happier because they are no longer worried about getting old. The worst has happened, and there is nothing much else to either hope for or fear, so a certain tranquility is possible.
But does this prove that aging is something to be desired? Hardly. What it really shows, and what is too little recognized, is how the aging process reaches all the way back into one's early years, poisoning them with its curse.
Think of work. Why is it so stressful? Why do we let its inflexible demands dominate our adult lives? Is it because shelter and sustenance are so extraodinarily difficult to obtain? No - it is because we know that old age and decline are coming, and we had better build up wealth while we still have the energy to do so.
Imagine for a moment that you knew that you would never age. Would you be worrying about your 401K or your employee pension plan? Would you be worrying about "falling off the career ladder" and not being able to get back on? Or would you now feel free to do exactly what want to do, all the time, with no fear of "wasting" your time and being sorry later? Maybe it's just me - but I'll take the second scenario.
Consider also relations with the opposite sex. Why are they so fraught? Is it because
our desires are really so difficult to satisfy? I submit that again the main problem is aging, reaching its cold claws back into our supposedly sunnier years. Dating is stressful because behind it always lurks the big question: is this the person I want to spend the rest of my life with? And if not, then why am I wasting precious time with them, time during which I grow less attractive every day?
But what if you knew that you would never age, and never become any less attractive than you are right now? Could you not then interact with other people based on who they are rather than on what commitment they might be willing to make, or demand? Could dating not be fun and romantic, as it is portrayed in books and movies (which inevitably end just when "commitment" begins)?
Relationships now are essentially the same as jobs. Both represent the sacrifice of individual freedom, and often one's innate personality, on the altar of future safety. One seeks a relationship, a.k.a. trial marriage, not because one genuinely wants to spend all of one's time with one single other person, but rather because the clock is ticking and the music is getting ready to stop. It is no wonder the self help literature for relationships sounds almost like that for careers - all "work", "investment", "agreement", "collaboration" - for both are solving the same problem.
So next time some advocate for "natural" aging asks you why you are so afraid of it, ask them whether they have a 401k whose little numbers they are toiling to increase. Ask them whether they really intended to spend most of their waking hours on one single occupation. Ask them whether they really wanted to marry one person and never look at another for the rest of their lives.
Everybody fears aging and this fear dictates much of what we do. It is the root cause of most unhappiness in the wealthy nations. Mentally we have already rejected it, as seen all too clearly in the popular culture, but the physical reality is lagging behind. Immortality is what we want now, and therefore it is what we need, and, fortunately, it is also inevitable.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Super Species Aeternitatis
How would you live if you knew you would never age, grow feeble, and die? If you knew with certainty that, however much effort you devoted to one activity, unlimited time still remained for everything else? I suggest that you think about this question hard and then...start living that way today; for I believe that many of you, perhaps most, will see this scenario realized.
How can this be? Aren't aging and death immutably written into the human condition, unchangeable and forever beyond the pale of science? On the contrary, we have known for a century or more that the body is a material machine. This is the lesson and the foundation of all medicine. Like any other machine, it decays over time and needs repairs; and also like any other machine, it can be repaired.
Our knowledge of the human machine, and biology more generally, has now reached the critical point at which effective repairs will start becoming possible. Why do I say "critical point"? What has changed in comparison to, say, ten or twenty years ago? The answer is that today we have the tools to probe and modify life processes at the molecular scale; before we didn't. The human machine is built from molecules (approximately 100,000 different types) and it is through cataloging and understanding these that immortality will be achieved. And conversely, nothing smaller than a molecule is relevant; there is no new frontier of research needed, nor any major conceptual breakthroughs. Money, manpower, and elbow grease are all we need.
We could have the knowledge we need virtually as soon as we choose to. With, say, ten billion dollars of dedicated funding (a couple of months worth of Iraq war funding) we could inventory and understand every molecule in the human body. One hundred thousand molecules may sound like alot, but it isn't. A typical jetliner has more parts, and a team of perhaps 1000 biologists working for a few years with strong funding could easily accomplish this task.
Once we catalog each molecule and what it does, all we have to do is figure out how they misbehave and fail over time, and design other molecules to counteract the problems. It's not trivial, in fact it could be considered "rocket science"; but remember that rocket science was mastered, and by far fewer people, and with far more primitive resources, than we have available today.
Immortality is within our reach, right now, if we choose to pursue it. It is also inevitable, since medical science will never rest as long as people die. How could it? Doctors swear an oath to prevent people from dying by all means possible. As long as anyone dies, there must be an underlying molecular cause for their death, and medical science is obligated to root out and remove this cause. Eventually, the diagnosis/disease paradigm of medicine will achieve immortality - but we can do much better.
How? By immediately devoting serious resources to researching, preventing, and correcting the processes of molecular deterioration which ultimately give rise to the symptoms that doctors treat. The best and perhaps the only way to not die is to not age in the first place. This is where our resources should be focussed, and lots of resources, right now. Every billion dollars we waste fighting in Iraq, or purchasing useless military equipment, or propping up the price of mazola, represents months or perhaps years of additional, healthy life lost to every person in the world. The opportunity costs of poor spending decisions have never been greater.
Finally let us address the curious idea some people have, or think they have, that "natural" aging and death is desirable and good. First we ask how the "natural" death process can be distinguished from the presumably "unnatural" disease processes which we strive frantically to treat. The answer, of course, is that the "natural" processes are simply those which we haven't learned to treat yet. Once they are shown to be treatable, people will not tolerate these disastrous indignities any longer. Are the elderly really so attached to their diapers? I think not.
Those who think that death by aging is a good thing probably haven't experienced it. Furthermore they have failed to think their premise through clearly, for if aging and death are good, then treating the diseases of the aged is a pointless waste of time. Dramatically raising the average human lifespan, as achieved in this century, has also been a waste of time. If aging and death are truly seen as desirable things, it follows that Medicare should be eliminated. If aging is right and good, then hospital treatment for the diseases of aging must be wrong and bad. Foes of immortality research sometimes suggest that we should not "play God" and monkey with the human lifespan; but they need to realize that not playing God, when we could play God, is equivalent to playing Satan.
Will immortality be good for the world? Will it be good for the race? Will it be good for individuals? These are worthy questions which I will not tackle here. Immortality is possible, and therefore unavoidable. Many people alive today will never suffer the indignities of aging or death. Do you want to be part of the last cohort to wear diapers and die? I know I don't. Write your congressman today.
How can this be? Aren't aging and death immutably written into the human condition, unchangeable and forever beyond the pale of science? On the contrary, we have known for a century or more that the body is a material machine. This is the lesson and the foundation of all medicine. Like any other machine, it decays over time and needs repairs; and also like any other machine, it can be repaired.
Our knowledge of the human machine, and biology more generally, has now reached the critical point at which effective repairs will start becoming possible. Why do I say "critical point"? What has changed in comparison to, say, ten or twenty years ago? The answer is that today we have the tools to probe and modify life processes at the molecular scale; before we didn't. The human machine is built from molecules (approximately 100,000 different types) and it is through cataloging and understanding these that immortality will be achieved. And conversely, nothing smaller than a molecule is relevant; there is no new frontier of research needed, nor any major conceptual breakthroughs. Money, manpower, and elbow grease are all we need.
We could have the knowledge we need virtually as soon as we choose to. With, say, ten billion dollars of dedicated funding (a couple of months worth of Iraq war funding) we could inventory and understand every molecule in the human body. One hundred thousand molecules may sound like alot, but it isn't. A typical jetliner has more parts, and a team of perhaps 1000 biologists working for a few years with strong funding could easily accomplish this task.
Once we catalog each molecule and what it does, all we have to do is figure out how they misbehave and fail over time, and design other molecules to counteract the problems. It's not trivial, in fact it could be considered "rocket science"; but remember that rocket science was mastered, and by far fewer people, and with far more primitive resources, than we have available today.
Immortality is within our reach, right now, if we choose to pursue it. It is also inevitable, since medical science will never rest as long as people die. How could it? Doctors swear an oath to prevent people from dying by all means possible. As long as anyone dies, there must be an underlying molecular cause for their death, and medical science is obligated to root out and remove this cause. Eventually, the diagnosis/disease paradigm of medicine will achieve immortality - but we can do much better.
How? By immediately devoting serious resources to researching, preventing, and correcting the processes of molecular deterioration which ultimately give rise to the symptoms that doctors treat. The best and perhaps the only way to not die is to not age in the first place. This is where our resources should be focussed, and lots of resources, right now. Every billion dollars we waste fighting in Iraq, or purchasing useless military equipment, or propping up the price of mazola, represents months or perhaps years of additional, healthy life lost to every person in the world. The opportunity costs of poor spending decisions have never been greater.
Finally let us address the curious idea some people have, or think they have, that "natural" aging and death is desirable and good. First we ask how the "natural" death process can be distinguished from the presumably "unnatural" disease processes which we strive frantically to treat. The answer, of course, is that the "natural" processes are simply those which we haven't learned to treat yet. Once they are shown to be treatable, people will not tolerate these disastrous indignities any longer. Are the elderly really so attached to their diapers? I think not.
Those who think that death by aging is a good thing probably haven't experienced it. Furthermore they have failed to think their premise through clearly, for if aging and death are good, then treating the diseases of the aged is a pointless waste of time. Dramatically raising the average human lifespan, as achieved in this century, has also been a waste of time. If aging and death are truly seen as desirable things, it follows that Medicare should be eliminated. If aging is right and good, then hospital treatment for the diseases of aging must be wrong and bad. Foes of immortality research sometimes suggest that we should not "play God" and monkey with the human lifespan; but they need to realize that not playing God, when we could play God, is equivalent to playing Satan.
Will immortality be good for the world? Will it be good for the race? Will it be good for individuals? These are worthy questions which I will not tackle here. Immortality is possible, and therefore unavoidable. Many people alive today will never suffer the indignities of aging or death. Do you want to be part of the last cohort to wear diapers and die? I know I don't. Write your congressman today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
