Could emerging technologies enable individuals to radically extend life spans or even transcend the very idea of aging itself? As you might expect, transhumanism has annexed various philosophical ideas, especially in California, to become a kind of quasi religion or a quest for immortality.
At one level transhumanism intersects with some fairly practical theories regarding life extension. For example, the adoption of a very low-calorie diet has been shown in some studies to significantly extend the life of mice and some say that the idea can be applied to people too. Developments in regenerative medicine (see Chapter 22) tap into some of these urges and impulses too, although beyond this, things can get a little weird.
Some people, for example, believe that it’s possible to use cryonics (i.e. low-temperature preservation techniques) to keep dead people in a state of suspended animation until future medical technologies allow them to be brought back to life—although it’s much more likely that they’ll just be defrosted into a kind of slush. Is this happening already? Yes, in California primarily. Why are people doing this? A quest for immortality or a second chance most probably. Having said this, some scientists argue that the idea is not quite as cranky as it sounds, and point to insects such as the arctic moth, which pauses its growth each winter until its seven-year development has finished.
“Death gives meaning to our lives. It gives importance and value to time. Time would become meaningless if there were too much of it.”
Ray Kurzweil, author, inventor and futurist
What’s in it for us? More standard versions of transhumism have attracted some serious thinkers over the years, including, most notably, the futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil and the nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler. Drexler, for example, has speculated about the potential of using nanotechnology to repair worn-out or broken body parts to radically change what it means to be human and potentially extend human life indefinitely. This obviously links with branches of artificial intelligence and robotics thinking, all of which in some way challenge what it means to be human or, in the case of transhumanism, argue that human beings will at some point extend beyond biological constraints to become posthuman.
Some people find transhumanism a somewhat abhorrent idea precisely because it extends the capabilities and especially the longevity of the individual. It seems somewhat selfish and narcissistic, they say, given many of the problems the human race as a whole already faces or will face in the future. However, it may be where extreme forms of individualism eventually take us.
“Many would apparently rather bumble around with their eyes closed, trusting in tradition, than look around to see what’s about to happen. Yes, it is unnerving, yes, it can be scary. After all, there are entirely new mistakes we are now empowered to make for the first time.”
Daniel C. Dennett, cognitive scientist, writer and philosopher
As to the religious linkages, it seems that many supporters of transhumanism are agnostic or atheist. This makes logical sense, because these people are challenging the view that life is God-given and that pure biological (i.e. natural or unenhanced) life is sacred. On the other hand, transhumanist views could link more strongly with some Eastern religions, or perhaps forms of spiritualism, because they seem to be suggesting that our biological, bipedal form is merely a staging post, or a stepping stone, to a more enlightened or fulfilling end state.
The ethics of immortality So, is transhumanism an achievable and thoroughly reasonable long-term goal, the world’s most dangerous idea or just utter scientific nonsense? In the next 50 years, I am inclined to think the latter, although taking a much longer-term viewpoint it does at least seem achievable.
But just because technology allows us to do something doesn’t mean we always should. Unless basic issues relating to resource and even landmass availability can be solved, there is a fairly convincing argument, currently at least, which says that a world full of people who never die is a very bad idea. Dying, after all, has its uses, especially in terms of the regeneration of ideas. This is a point picked up by Steve Jobs in his Stanford University commencement address:
“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet Death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away.”
Stirring stuff. But what if Steve was wrong? What if it’s only a matter of time before our time on Earth—or elsewhere—is effectively infinite? It cannot be beyond the bounds of human ingenuity to solve or, at the very least, to slow down what has historically been considered to be a natural aging process. Just think what we could achieve if instead of 80 years we all had 180 years.
Personally, I’m with Steve (and Shakespeare: “Thou know’st ‘tis common; all that lives must die.”). Our time is short and it’s this very fact that makes life so precious. If life, or anything else for that matter, were to become infinite, it would then be meaningless and trivial. It’s precisely life’s rarity, its limited nature, that makes it so priceless, and we should fight to the death to stop immortality from becoming a reality.
the condensed idea
Living forever
| timeline | |
|---|---|
| 2100 | Human beings start migration to far-flung galaxies |
| 2150 | Typical humanoid life span is 584 |
| 2200 | Children heavily taxed to reduce overcrowding on planet XB-1987 |
| 2250 | Having children is made illegal on Earth |
| 2255 | Children kept illegally |
| 2275 | Average life span now over 800 |
| 2300 | Transhumanism declared a giant mistake |