Ask Ray | Thoughts on the consequences of the elimination of aging
April 8, 2013 by Ray Kurzweil
Hello Ray,
I would like to begin by stating that I am a huge fan and supporter of yours. I read your book The Singularity Is Near last year, and I was enchanted by all of your ideas on the exponential development of human technology and science. I am 100% singularitarian.
I understand that you are a very busy man, but I would tremendously appreciate it if you could take a moment of your time to read this email and respond with your own thoughts on the issue I am about to present to you.
I have recently read an article which discusses your views on the challenge of eliminating the process of aging. As I read the article, a disturbing thought came to my mind: What if humans were to completely eliminate the process of aging in, say, the next ten or twenty years (probably before the technological singularity)?
What would be the worldwide consequences of such a development? Would the elimination of aging, and thereby the elimination of death, ultimately, have good or bad consequences?
I believe that the consequences of such a development would be terrible for the entire human race in general.
I will present to you my personal prediction of what will occur. If, say, 15 years from now, the solution to death had been found and made available to all, mostly everyone would be eager to obtain it.
Once humans have been cured of aging and death, they will probably continue their lives and still reproduce with each other: this creates an obvious problem. The world’s population, already growing incredibly fast, will become enormous.
Less resources will be available for everyone, and the world’s average standard of living will greatly decline. Naturally, people, seeing that they do not have enough resources to care for their children, will gradually stop reproducing, and less and less children will be born each year.
It must be kept in mind that, although the cure for age-related death has been found, death will still occur due to other factors, such as starvation. Thus, people will continue to die and be replaced by means of reproduction, and the world’s population will eventually level out. However, people everywhere will be living in terrible conditions, as, once the population has leveled out, there will be just enough resources in the world to support this population.
Although age-related death has been eliminated, billions and billions of people will be living in absolutely horrid conditions. Given these possible developments, would it not be best for a scientist who has found a cure for aging not to reveal his discovery, for the good of all mankind?
In your response could you please tell me what you think of the accuracy my prediction, or if you totally disagree with it, what your own personal prediction is? If my prediction is somewhat accurate, what can be done today to prevent such a disastrous outcome? I am deeply unsettled by this issue, and any response would be enormously appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.
— Rish Vaishnav
Hi Rish Vaishnav,
The same technologies that will radically extend human longevity will radically expand available resources. For example, we have 10,000 times more free energy from the sun falling on the Earth than we need to meet 100% of our energy needs.
Total solar energy is doubling every two years and is about seven doublings from meeting all of our needs. There are similar scenarios for water, food, housing. Try taking a train trip anywhere and you’ll see that almost all of the land is unused.
— Ray
Ray,
Thank you so much for your response! I feel much better now about this issue, knowing that you have a much more optimistic (and definitely much more accurate) prediction than I do. I guess that we can also take into account that with a greater population, there will be much more people (along with more advanced technology) available to collaborate in the search for more and more resources to support the infinitely growing population. Once again, thank you so much for your response.
— Rish Vaishnav
Related:
SENS Research Foundation — “reimagine aging”
comments 92
by DevilDocNowCiv
Rish,
Without claiming Ray is wrong, if mishandled and if separate entities like nation-states rather than a world state exist, the knowledge would probably have to be shared to prevent war.Then, unless we have a mature space industry program, or we have the AI augmented human working, we may end up facing various versions of the pressures you note, Rish. But AI augmentation to me means that after a fairly short time, almost no-one in a given country would be less than very bright, and there would be many true geniuses. That being so, things like the vertical greenhouses noted in this thread, and various solar projects along the lines Ray suggested in the article, and if not already working the space industrial idea would be jump started by many folks that are combinations of John D Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Einstein, Ray, etc. I think if we get the AI first or within a few decades of the long life tech, we can handle it. Then, hold on for the Singularity-those very bright AI guys and gals will finish the research.
by Abas
the cure of aging will come and it will be like the cure for many past diseases, I believe it will be very natural, it might take just one or two years for people to accept it and change their lives accordingly. some still may choose to die but most choose to live at least for one or two other centuries to see what it looks like, it really is a shame to just pass on this deal! why not at least sample the good? think of how many years you will have to travel our beautiful galaxy ;)
by Jeff
Rish,
Your concerns have a Malthusian tone to them. The ideas advanced by Thomas Malthus have proven incorrect time and time again for two centuries. ( Although note that one of his core ideas was that population follows the means of subsistence )
I remember being told in school in the late 70s that by the year 2000 there would not be enough resources on earth to feed the expanding population and millions would starve. They told us that the percentage of the world’s population living in famine would increase dramatically. Obesity would have been a better prediction. Famine has almost disappeared except in a few war torn areas of constant unrest. A political problem, not a technical or resource one.
In the 1930′s an acre of farmland in the Midwest produced about 22 bushels of wheat. Today that same acre produces about 300 bushels and greenhouses can do ten times that. Build a city farm and you have a ten fold increase again.
by Jack
There are some daunting challenges. The current model of retirement, forced to some extent, will have to be reexamined. It would be wise to make use of the skills and wisdom of elders rather than keep them dependent on political handouts, but a wise course is not often chosen. In any case work will be subject to a similar revolution due to robotics.
by knpstr
I think it’s interesting to think about certain social norms today that may be eliminated in an ageless world. If child bearing goes down, would marriage still exist? Certainly at first it would, however over the years I could see more of a polyamorous society, or one that just “dates” but never marries.
by Captn
I’m going to echo the thoughts of some of those below, and say we should cross the overpopulation bridge when we come to it. Mind uploading offers a possible solution. We might, for example, pass a law saying that anyone can have children and remain in a physical body long enough to rear them, perhaps even long enough to see grandchildren come about, but they would have to agree to eventually “go virtual”. It may not even be necessary to pass such a law. As people spend increasing amounts of time in virtual worlds where they can tailor things to their liking, many will undoubtedly decide to dispense with physical bodies, making room “on earth” for additional people.
To me, the defining feature of the singularity (in fact the reason it’s called a singularity) is the unpredictable nature of what happens after. We can solve the problems raised by the singularity with the expanded intelligence it will give us. For us to try to solve those problems now is kind of like asking our school aged children to plan our retirement funds.
by Steve Brockbank
Dear Ray,
Recently I wrote Trading Currencies using Economic Surprise, free at http://suesi.skysphere.com, and would like to establish the Institute for Surprise economics. I developed the mathematics to calculate surprise indexes, and programmed them using public data from The Economist. The methodology works very well and seeks a public forum that you know how to do.
Sincerely,
Steve Brockbank
by DC
“Total solar energy is doubling every two years and is about seven doublings from meeting all of our needs. ”
So, what do we do if, after 14 years, we discover that somebody/thing owns the sun, and is now gonna start charging us for the “free” energy?
by Daniel
Ray is “the man”. And if we dont die, we just have to create food that never ends.
Everything is possible at the end. Think outside the box.
by Mr.X
Having to eat food is still very much inside the box.
by Mr.X
And this “think outside the box” stuff is just another box.
by Editor
Yes, usually a smaller box….
by knpstr
As far as food goes, the next step would be Vertical Farming
by JEVENS
I get so angry at people who come out against eliminating aging and disease. Because most anyone who is faced with a deadly illness is going to do anything they can to find a cure. It’s like criminal defense lawyers. Nobody likes them until they need one or a family member needs one. Same with medicine and treatments. I’ll take the immortality and deal with the other problems as they come thank you very much. Of course, until we can free ourselves from the confines of this planet on a large scale, we would have to put strict limitations on procreation. I’d rather do that. People who haven’t been brought into existence have no rights against me that i or anyone else should have to die to make room for these hypothetical people who don’t yet exist and don’t even know they don’t exist. Of course all women I have ever met without exception raise the procreation issue is the first drawback. I used to be frustrated when they would say that until I considered what a prime imperative having a child is in a woman’s life. To them immortality is a problem not for any altruistic reason (because if you think about it, there is none that is reasonable) but because of how badly they feel the need to procreate on a personal level. It’s still a stupid reason though. I’m going to be more upset about somebody I love dying then somebody who had always never existed not being created.
by Michael
Jeven, I agree with your sentiment, especially about people who are against ending aging. However, I would like to point out that I don’t believe there will be a need for strict procreation laws because we already have proof that increasing lifespans does not increase population. Look at the lifespans and population growths of current countries; some have life expectancies of over 80 years while others have less than 40. According to conventional logic, those countries with the longest life expectancies will also be experiencing the greatest population increases. Well, in fact, it is the exact opposite. Countries with the longest life expectancies have the slowest population growths and those with the shortest lifespans have the greatest population growths. There are several reasons why this is true, but the strongest is probably that increased life expectancy allows for greater wealth creation and the wealthier people are the less children they have.
Add in the increased technological advances that would be attained by dramatically increasing the years that a person contributes to society instead of being a drain on it, and you will have no increase in population issues caused by increasing lifespans.
by Cybernettr
It “gets” me how someone prefaces an overly long-winded question with an acknowledgement of how valuable Ray Kurzweil’s time is. It also gets me how they ask a question that has already been asked and answered a hundred times before as if it’s a totally new thought.
As far as the fear of radical life extension leading to overpopulation, I say let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. We don’t even know if it’s possible yet.
How many centuries has man been searching for the “fountain of youth?” If it occurs reasonably close to Kurzweil’s predictions, then I will see that as a vindication of his other predictions, which state that mind uploading will be only a few decades away.
This means that our consciousness soon wouldn’t need ANY physical space whatsoever, and so the concept of overpopulation will be a moot point.
On the other hand, if Kurzweil’s prediction of indefinite longevity proves to be false, at least for the foreseeable future, then the fear of overpopulation will obviously also be a moot point.
Let’s take Kurzweil’s predictions as a whole, rather than piecemeal. They stand or fall together.
by Bob
I think you’re making a very valid reason here. The quest for the fountain of youth has been going on for thousands of years, and in each generation there are always those who think that it’s just around the door – and they’ve all been proved wrong. So while Mr. Kurzweil may be very knowledgeable and have a lot of ideas, and I do admire him for his “possibility mindset”, I don’t think we should look at his predictions as truth – rather, look at them as ways of thinking, fascinating perspectives that can lead to new and exiciting discoveries.
by thinkinggrandmother
I’m thrilled to read online comments from intelligent, insightful readers. I’ve learned so much in just the few minutes it’s taken to read these. You all, and Ray, hold the promise for a better, healthier earth and perhaps, less suffering for humanity. Think on, brave souls. This stretching is what may keep our species thriving. I appreciate you.
by Bill
Better to ask Aubrey de Grey, who Ray himself frequently cites as a source on life extension. Aubrey famously / infamously opined in a public speech over 10 years ago that a world without aging would by necessity be “a world without children”; he believes (or at least believed) that governments would necessarily implement mandatory birth control measures.
This sort of answer incenses and enrages lots of people, and probably for this reason Aubrey in more recent years has retooled his reply to commonly asked questions regarding overpopulation by saying we shouldn’t derail human life extension research due to hypothetical concerns; basically, he now says we will figure it out as we go, which while beimg evasive is a more palatable answer to many.
When communicating with people like us–”the unwashed masses”–Ray and Aubrey proselytize.
by gaoptimize
Aubrey de Grey reprising the “Child Catcher” roll in “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang”. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm366183680/nm0375818
It might work! I plan on having ~5 children per century with women I admire until the galaxy is fully populated, then I’ll probably slow down..
by John Underwood
What organism today has already eliminated aging and never naturally dies? Cancer cells. They multiply forever until killing off their host. Sorry for the dire analogy.
Are folks optimistic that humans have the emotional capacity to fairly manage the impact of future technical advances? The last couple millennia suggest no.
by Pt
Emotional capacity is a matter of having healthy neurotransmitter levels and other physiological factors that future biomedical technology has the potential to optimize, maintain, and monitor, so that is (hopefully) going to be less of a factor going forward.
by Alex P
Your dire analogy made some time ago: ” “There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.” — Agent Smith, The Matrix, 1999.
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000745/quotes
by Hugh Bristic
Good golly! This reminds me of nothing so much as the kinds of conversations Rush Limbaugh has with his worshipful dittoheads. Does this not strike anyone else as a sort of contrived dialog, especially the “thank you for showing me how wrong I am” response to Kurzweil’s answer? I mean I like his stuff, but you can’t take it for Gospel. As the years go by, this whole movement seems to morphing more and more into the Church of Ray.
by Mr.X
@Hugh Bristic:
“As the years go by, this whole movement seems to morphing more and more into the Church of Ray.”
This isn’t surprising to anyone who takes the time to actually imagine what happens when information spreads (like a virus) through “networks”.
As time passes -up to a certain point before things tend vanish into obscurity (maybe because the source and most exposed elements die off, the death of the former radically reducing the reproductivity of it’s ‘child’)- more and more people will have been exposed to the ideas of a given thinker (especially if he or she keeps on publishing).
Given the nature of the topic at hand and Mr.Kurzweil’s claims, it is comprehensible that many religious inclined or weak-minded (factual statement, no jugdement) people feel drawn to his “philosophy”. My hopefully not too strongly distorted short summary should make this apparent:
Technological progress has not only the potential to but most likely will solve just about any problem in a relatively short period of time.This will happen because the accumulation of technology, knowledge, their application etc etc will lead to exponentially accelerated progress which reaches it’s climax in an event called singularity, after which nothing will be like before and everything will be most likely much better for most (or many) of us.
Phrased differently one might translate this inside his (or her) head as: Technology will bring us salvation by means of the 53c0nd c0m1n6.Or salvation 2.0
Especially the concept of a technological singularity, perceived as a single, all-encompassing and all-changing event mirrors the end-time phantasies of common religions, although the concept of singularity more strictly speaking describes (afaik) a point in time after which the process of technological progress will be accelerating to such an extent that mosh’s (mostly organic substrate humans) can’t keep up.Speaking of which, this is another resemblance between most forms of transhumanism (etc) and traditional religions:
A dualistic distinction between those more and those less well-aligned with the contents of the ideology at hand, held by the followers of said ideology.
Incredible power (given by technology,subsequent self-enhancement, etc), immortal beings and immortality itself, as well as eternal, peaceful, collectivistic utopias (people uploaded into one machine) are recurring themes in many if not most religions, and any ideology which features these is almost guaranteed to be of strong appeal to people whose “spirtual hunger” is currently not being satisfied.Of which there are, arguably, many (just think about the widespread and echo of all those ‘new-age ideas’).
Without judging anyone, especially since I am not that familiar with Mr. Kurzweils ideas, I also want to throw in my observation that most followers of a “guru”, thinker etc don’t really understand the ideas of that person deeply but mix and mesh them with what’s already inside their heads, right away upon encountering them, thereby literally interpreting into the original philosophy as soon as they spread the contents further.
In doing so not only will the prospective and future followers of a movement be influenced by it, but they will influence and change the movement ‘back’, it’s ideas and ideals, through their interaction with it and “their world/environment”.
Of course, this is only ‘natural’, but it might be helpful to explain some of the more “out-there” comments on this site.Including this one;)
by Editor
An interesting analysis, Mr. X, in which you adroitly dance at the edge of the dreaded Mosh Pit … and somehow avoid falling in. :) A well-timed counterpoint to Giulio’s pean to the anomalous transhumanist-Mormon faith.
by hal
Ray Kurzweil is not L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith. He does not have Tom Cruse, John Travolta or the angel Moroni with sheets of gold with the truth written down.
He is a scientist and a futurist. How much is HG Wells, Isaac Asimov, and Richard Feynman we shall see.
Enjoyed his KC book signing at Unity Temple. Didn’t see any sycophants like at a Justin Bieber concert. That’s conjecture not hard science.
Try to remember that science starts with observation and goes quite a ways from there. Based on Ray’s results i have money in his stock. (bought his book-yeah it’s only $29, but remember compounding!)
Gotta say i was i bit concerned for him when in an earlier book he plans to be Ramona when the ethereal ether state (is that a double positive lol) happens.
Don’t know why that should have bothered me, so i checked myself into the local library each month to read Scientific American and now i feel better. Then guilt for not supporting that fine rag while letting than ad filled Wired languish. So i ordered it. Meanwhile Ray’s newsletter could keep Charles Dickens busy! Hey wait, just like Marcel Proust i just ate a cookie and it made me think about….. So i better stop here.
by tedhowardnz
There are limits to expansion, and they are a long way off.
The sun puts out enough energy to support over 500 million earth ecosystems. We are not short of energy.
If we take mass, and organise it more efficiently for life, as hollow cylinders rather than as balls, with gravity simulated by spinning, then just the mass of Mars is enough to provide 30,000 times the surface area of the earth (allowing for 20m of rock to provide radiation shielding).
Mostly our thinking is limited by thinking in terms of money and markets, and all markets are scarcity based (just think how much money you can get in a market for a bag of air – air being very important and very abundant – ie has zero scarcity).
We are developing automation technology that gives us the theoretical ability to deliver abundance of anything to anyone, yet our financial gurus are talking about “austerity” – it is utter madness!!!
Markets are great tools for allocating scarce resources, but they are useless at dealing with or incentivising abundance. Same goes for money – which is a market measure of value.
If we continue to think in terms of money- we are doomed.
We need to start thinking in terms of abundance, and incentivising systems that deliver and maintain abundance.
Very different from market based measures!
Ray is right, as far as he goes, and he is not going far enough to get to the core of the greatest threat facing us – the incentive structures delivered by markets.
by Bri
You really hit an important topic. One that will be very hard to face. In my eyes it is one of the most challenging issues about to confront us. I like how you say if we continue thinking in terms of money we are doomed. People don’t realize and or don’t want to face the fact that the financial system will fail in a short while. How we handle that will greatly affect if we can survive as a species. As it crumbles the differences between the haves and the have nots will get dangerously into the anarchistic response zone. Religious fundamentalism and Luddite sentiments will become very strong. We have to pay particular attention to the needy or they will bite. Our monetary system will go whether we want it or not.
by tedhowardnz
Hi Bri
It is a yes and no response.
If we fail to achieve technical and social systems to deliver abundance, then our existing economic system may well collapse, or it may continue, but in either case the majority of people will be living in scarcity, and markets will deliver real value to them. So markets and money will continue, even if the existing system collapses.
I am looking a layer deeper, at the incentive structures that having scarcity, or abundance impose.
We have an opportunity to create a system that delivers abundance to everyone, and with that, over time, security as never before in human history (as is required by entities with indefinite life-spans).
There are many aspects to longevity. Biological aging is only one of many classes of threat to life. To achieve extreme longevity we need to address all classes – which include the social causes of injustice, comet and meteor strike, large scale volcanism, large earthquakes, pandemics, etc.
I have been looking at these issues since seeing in 1974 that ending biological aging was a logical possibility; and it now seems very clear to me that the deep systemic incentive structures that have given rise to our current social institutions need to be addressed directly. Markets are reaching the end of their social utility. To deliver the sort of security that extreme longevity necessitates, we must transcend market paradigms (of which money is the most visible).
by Pete
RE If we take mass, and organise it more efficiently for life, as hollow cylinders rather than as balls, with gravity simulated by spinning, then just the mass of Mars is enough to provide 30,000 times the surface area of the earth (allowing for 20m of rock to provide radiation shielding).
Thanks for mentioning this idea (or rotating habitats and the increased surface area we can gain).
As well, surely many sentient lifeforms, after the Sing, will upload and live as virtual beings. Then the population can become even larger.
by JFH
Good points. IMO They all point to our ultimate demise. If the fountain of youth was discovered tomorrow whatever corporation funded the research would NEVER divulge the technology to the masses. Governments would become involved as politics is always at the heart of any major new technology. IMO at best the rich and powerful would gain access and noone else would even be aware of the breakthrough. You think the wealthy have any incentive for incentivising abundance??? They will strive tooth and nail to keep the power structure intact. A small example… Diamonds are not incredibly rare. They are fairly abundant. De beers hoards these diamonds in vaults to keep the supply artificially low and drive the price up. Expand that thinking to abundance in general and there’s my theory on how this will all work out for the rest of us.
by Knot
Illness is incredibly expensive (for governments also). If one could eradicate all sickness from their country, that would lift them out of the financial crisis pretty fast. Also, allowing for serious healthy lifespan extension or not could be an extremely dividing controversial political issue, and may get one elected (or not) pretty much by itself. I’m not sure any governmental institution could resist experimenting with it in some form.
Sure there would be some complaints of lost jobs in the healthcare sector and what not, but all jobs are doomed eventually anyway. Our culture and economy are based on demand and scarcity – the shift in thinking we’ll have to make when new technologies could bring abundance – free schooling, free energy, free food, no healthcare costs – would be absolutely dramatic. I’m not sure if societies based on thousands of years of needs and scarcity can deal with people becoming extremely self-sufficient in such a short timespan.
But obviously, any attempt to impede such progress can only end in failure.
I only hope it’ll be implemented as intelligently and smoothly as possible, and that the masses of people losing their jobs can be compensated by drastically lower costs of living at the same time. Grasping at the status quo by large institutions could make this whole process so much more painful.
And when it’s over, we’ll have larger issues to deal with. The solving of age-old biological problems seems utopian now (to some), but the new tech will come with new challenges, existence will have hardships in a different way (though I choose to believe, a more pleasant way).
by Bill
JFH:
It’s very unlikely to work out that way. Patent protection, which grants a monopoly during its term, requires full disclosure and publication of the protected invention. Only if patent protection could not be obtained for some reason would would the invention be guarded as a trade secret.
by Michael108
Very intriguing comments. Can you offer some more on this or links to your or other blogs/articles? Thanks.
by Carlos
Once society becomes richer and more technologically advanced. We will simply colonize other planets. There are hundreds of billions of them. We will actually need billions and billions of humans to colonize the galaxy. We could build new ecosystems and terraform the milky way. There will never be an overpopulation problem. Relax .. Don´t Worry … Be Happy!
by Rob
It may be better to build an artificial planet in the same orbit as earth but with the living surface on the inside. That way, energy from the sun could be directly beneath us and better for energy, food etc. and we would be able to filter out ultraviolet light, etc. We could then built more as needed. Actually, I read somewhere that it we could build an artificial planet like this that encompassed the whole solar system [but it would not have to extend to Pluto].
by Spacerocks1
Far more concerning to me than the physical world challenges the end of human death from old age (which is very different that the end of human death, which could still occur from many other causes) would present to us is the psychological and social challenges that will result. I think the kind of psychological singularity this presents is at least as difficult to predict and prepare for as all the other singularities the exponential growth in technological capabilities will produce.
by Michael108
Agree, the ability for us to cope with accelerating technology is already strained. (Distraction, stress, feeling overwhelmed, etc) We can work to strengthen our capabilities i.e. meditation… However, perhaps cognitive augmentation needs to be considered as part of the likely near future.
by andmar74
This is a typical example of advancing one parameter and keeping the others constant, as Ryan have posted.
In the future it will not be a problem if there are a lot more people than today. I don’t think that will happen though. It becomes trivial to feed, house and entertain an almost endless amount of people.
But we are headed in another direction: Super-human AI or technology merged with humans to create super-humans.
So reader don’t worry about overpopulation. Instead you could worry about AI’s. Will they be friendly?
by Michael
Agreed, by ending age related declines the amount of time that people spend in their productive years will dramatically increase. Currently, our productive years are actually a small part of our entire years. Once we get too old we either become a drain on society or on our own resources. If aging were cured, our productive years would become indefinitly long, thus allowing for much greater wealth building and problem solving.
by Michael
What the author doesn’t understand is that population growth is driven by birth rates not death rates. This can easily be seen by comparing population growth rates among current world countries. Those with the longest life expectancies, some upwards of 80 years, also tend to have the slowest population growth rates, may times, even negative population growth rates because they also have the lowest birth rates. Those countries with highest birth rates also tend to have the lowest life expectancies, sometimes less than 40 years, but their populations are exploding. So, you see, dramatically increasing life expectancy won’t dramatically increase populations.
by Pete
Thank you for mentioning this fact. As we may stay physically and mentally healthy for indefinite time (via enhancements) we may need not to have children at all.
by bill yarberry
Seems like many forget chemistry 101 — that outside of nuclear reactions, matter is neither created nor destroyed. Does anyone think there is not enough matter in this solar system to provide all the material needed for just about anything. The scare resource is ingenuity. We will never “run out” of atoms. Where in the world do people get the idea that we will run out of gold, copper, iron, carbon, etc.??
by Roland
Ray writes: Try taking a train trip anywhere and you’ll see that almost all of the land is unused.
About 100 % of that so called unused land is in use to maintain life on earth. We need biodiversity in robust ecosystems to stay alive and well.
It seems Ray is not bright about everything. Cityboy? Or shares in Soylent Incorporated?
by Gabor
Oh, I think Ray is bright enough. Let me translate Ray’s thoughts so you can understand it just as well. What are the most basic prerequisites of life? Energy and matter. Some could argue it’s just energy because the two are just different forms of each other but I don’t want to confuse you further.
So to support life, for a minimum we need energy (glucose) and matter (protein) among other stuff. Despite what most people would think, our bodies are extremely inefficient in obtaining these required resources. Just think about how much conversion you have to go through to obtain glucose from different materials. In reality, it goes back to a huge piece of land that needs to be taken care of and processed many times by many different people (who also use resources) before it gets on your table in a form of sugar or food that contains sugar and the conversion process is still not finished because the sugar still needs to get in your bloodstream, converted to glucose and transported to the cells for fuel.
This is just a rough example of how inefficient our energy conversion currently is. I could further complicate it by describing how we need “macro” transportation also to obtain above energy. As we go to work on the piece of land (which is huge) we use cars/buses/trucks/ that use gas. The gas is just stored solar energy that was created and converted in a process that took many-many thousands of years and again huge pieces of land just to get fuel to our cells. In short, all of the energy we use today is converted very inefficiently from the Sun’s energy. Solar energy is free, however, for the next several billion years if you don’t need the complicated conversion process. The energy we use in the future will be less “processed” and more directly received from the Earth’s direct source: the Sun. This will “free” up all the required natural resources to support the complicated (and wasteful) conversion process.
All that free resource, the huge span of land that is not currently occupied is what Ray is referring to. Humans are clumped into “dense” populated areas with huge spans of no humans in between. And that’s not even counting that 75% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, which we might change in our “techno” future when we will have limited (or no) need for natural water as we will be able to create it on demand if it’s needed at all.
by Pete
I agree with you and the facts you present. In the future, large-scale group (perhaps engulfing the Solar System) of solar energy collectors should be built. Therefore, the Sun’s energy will be used to the fullest.
by daarong
The reader is overly optimistic about people’s ability to not reproduce when it makes sense. Just look at the world today. Even when it would be considered horrible and cruel to birth a child in a place of suffering and death, people still do – in great numbers. It’s human instinct to do so.
What I wish Ray would have addressed is the exponential population growth in a death-free world versus the exponential increase in resource availability. I feel Ray did not really respond to the reader since he did not put any numbers or estimates behind his reasoning.
… there you go, I’m done with my Debbie-downer.
by Beatriz Valdes
What I liked most about the above commentaries is he expectation that aging will be overcome before technological Singularity becomes a reality. This is what I think most of us are more concerned about. I am 73, and although in particularly youthful condition, very much want that time span -for solutions to aging and age related illnesses- shortened. Hope that with the joining of cientific researchers toward that specific aim, and the exponential growth of computing power, they will surprise us with sooner than expected results.
by jack salvatore
Hear, hear, Beatriz. I’m similarly situated, 62 and in “perfect” health (my cardiologist’s quote, not mine) and looking to keep crossing those bridges Grossman talks about, jumping from one technological advance to the next.
by Gabor
I completely understand your concern and wishful optimism. We, the few generations alive today, are the first (including you) who has a chance for previously unimaginable life extension and the chance to expand our intelligence to levels impossible even to imagine with our current limited minds.
In my humble opinion, we will make great advances in life extension in the next 10 or so years. People who are in better economic conditions, will have more and more tools available to extend their lives just a little further until the real “cure” for aging is developed. Cancer will be cured or at least stalled within 10 years. The bigger issue though is hearth health. I believe the secret is moderately staying active and paying particular attention to avoid accidents (injury). Injury triggers faster replication and speeds up gene degradation as well as uses more energy conversion, like running a car 80 mph instead of 60 will break it down sooner. Diet is also very important as our body slowly looses efficiency and we need to supply more of the good stuff and less of the bad. Life extension supplements from trusted sources are a good idea. And, of course, genetic testing if affordable, to at least have some idea of areas that might need special attention. There are many tools today to extend life to a 100 or beyond. Unfortunately, economic status (wealth) is still a major factor in obtaining and in some cases even knowing about these tools but some of the economic advantages can be balanced out today with the abundance of information available free of charge.
by Knot
If you do the basics (no smoking, being active, maintaining a healthy weight, not drinking too much) you have a pretty good chance.
Ray predicted the first biotech breakthroughs in the 2020′s, and nanotech in the 2030′s. The biotech will buy people at least a dozen more years or so, which is enough to get into the much more powerful advances of the 2030′s and 40′s.
Biotech is indeed doing well so far, but since it’s exponential the progress in 2019-2020 will probably be more impressive than all of 2010-2015.
Overall we’re learning to manage a whole range of conditions ever better. It’s all about buying (healthy) time. If you get really unlucky, and catch something that won’t be treatable for a long while, then that’s a shame. But most common afflictions are quite treatable now. My grandmother died 15 years ago from a cancer that has a very high recovery rate today. If you live well, and just make it another 10 healthy years, that would improve chances dramatically yet again. Every year you buy is exponentially more useful.
Most importantly, be happy, don’t worry. Stress is a major cause of illness. And if worst comes to worst, and you don’t make it, your years will have been happy, and not spent worrying.
by Michael108
Maybe something like this?
http://io9.com/345728/geneticists-discover-a-way-to-extend-lifespans-to-800-years
by jack salvatore
Let’s not get out ahead of our headlights. First things first: you want to die? Fine, we all know how easy that is. You don’t want to? Ah, now that presents the type of challenge Kurzweil and Grossman are talking about. As for the solutions to these various scenarios, we’ll do what humans have always done and continue to do: we’ll figure something out. But population control strikes me as a good place to begin, since what is going on now is insanity. You need a license to drive a car, but to create a life? Nothing. Over and over, research has shown, when educational levels rise and affluence, population rates decline. So let’s just take things one step at a time.
A further thought: people, this is going to happen whether we like it or not or whether or not we are “comfortable” with the idea. Kurzweil may be the smartest guy in the world; Grossman has tremendous courage to step out of what could have been a mundane medical practice and really start thinking outside the box. Humans have been uncomfortable with the situation of their own physical demise since we developed awareness of it. Now the technology is bringing us to the point where we can throw off the yoke. As I said above, if you don’t want that, if you want to die, that’s easy. But the day of the indefinite life span is upon us.
by Martin
If a cure for aging is ever discovered, I suggest that there be a law to sterilize anyone who wants the cure and hence forth to forbid people from having children before the age of say 25, after which, one can either be sterilized and given the anti-aging cure, or allowed to have children and age naturally.
by Khannea Suntzu
Unacceptable.
I have another proposal – we democratically decide on how many new people we can afford as a nation (or world?) and look for who is best suited to be a parent. Genes may play a role. Achievement may play a role. Then we allot prospective parents with a parenting licence and we penalize illegal procreation, or apply technologies that make procreation completely impossible.
I hope idea this wouldn’t escalate towards the ultimate punishment.
by Guillermo
I think that idea is quite good and reasonable. I wonder though what effects both biological and psicological would have to live for ever. I mean usually paradigm shifts and social advancement happen because the old generation dies. But then, I guess by then we would keep our brain as plastic as when young, and basically procreate ideas, which sounds pretty neat.
by Joëlle Lageyre
Do we ” deserve ” to become almost immortal ? Are the majority of people so
interesting , intelligent , loving … ? I think it is too early in our evolution .
by Knot
That insinuates that we know what is good for us or society, and positive change often comes from unexpected angles.
I still have good hope that this won’t become an issue at all, or only for a short while, because other technologies will render this whole point moot.
by Gabor
Why?!?
by Michael
There is already proof that increasing life spans doesn’t increase poplations. Look up some facts about birt rates, life expectancy and population growth for current countries of the world. You’ll find that those with the longest life spans also have the lowest population growth and lowest birth rates. The conclusion, exenting life spans naturally decreases birth rates. Lower birth rates means lower population growth because birth rates are the driver of population. Further there will be no need for legislation.
by Tom N
Widespread use of birth control may have some effect on birth rates as well, don’t you think?
by Michael
Well obviously there has to be at least one mechanism reducing birthrates as simply living longer can’t directly reduce it. The point is that the mechanisms come into play as people live longer.
Perhaps, as people live longer they feel less of a need to have numerous offspring so they are more willing to use birth control. Or perhaps, as people live longer they become wealthier and more educated and thus more willing to use birth control.
by gaoptimize
“If a cure for aging is ever discovered, I suggest that there be a law to sterilize anyone who wants the cure… ”
Wow, there sure are a lot of collective power statists hanging out here. When you decide to sterilize me and mine, you better bring a big army. I think you will find the Moon, or whereever we are living in freedom, a very harsh mistress indeed.
by mark
When I read authors like Robert Lanza (Biocentrism) and Bruce Hood (The Self-Illusion), I can’t help but think that the pursuit of bio-immortality is primarilly a fear-based, brain-generated pursuit. Physicists and mystics through the ages have proclaimed that death is a sensory illusion and there is really nothing to fear: our brain generates needless concern along with the attendant anxiety. All that’s required is a brain-body increase in energy and information processing capacity to see the silliness of a pursuit such as immortality. Better is simply to relax and let time and gravity have their way with us.
by Mr.X
“Better is simply to relax and let time and gravity have their way with us.”
I’d prefer them to have their way with just you.
Ps: It is always nice to see how little evidence we need to believe something we want to believe.
by Khannea Suntzu
Don’t slam the door on the way out, Bye!
Evolution in action if you ask me.
by gaoptimize
I love this comment! Where are the “Up Arrows” in this comment forum software?
by H1dra
Hi mark, don’t bother with those “philosophically ungrounded” comments.
I still disagree with you in one important point though: it’s not about simply dying, but how you get there :-)
by Guillermo
Death is a loss to society and to me, obviously. That is why I consider it bad. Nobody would like if every few decades you lost everything you ever had, like your house, memories, everything and irreversebly… Well death, is like that but next level, so I consider it as next level undesirable.
by H1dra
Yes, I never said it was not bad. :-)
But it’s badness is less on those things (even consciousness!) rather than choice itself. People choose to sell all those things from time to time, your example show this loss of choice, as the real worst of it.
But yes it is bad, though not so worthy of the anxiety which screws the actual living portion of your life. In fact, nowadays I sometimes think of it with relief, though as I said above, choice is key, to choose _when_ to have this “relief”.
by Mr.X
@H1dra:
“Hi mark, don’t bother with those “philosophically ungrounded” comments.”
There is a reason most people distinguish science and philosophy.Btw: I think Khannea’s’ application of a concept belonging to evolution was very philosophical indeed .
@Mark:
“All that’s required is a brain-body increase in energy and information processing capacity to see the silliness of a pursuit such as immortality.”
But you or some guru whom you take by his word already has seen through all this (and prbly all things) without increases in processing power etc.Why are they then required for the rest of us?
Or are you saying that your “brain-body” already has much greater information processing capabilities and energy than for example mine..?
If neither is true, how can you know you know what’s the best course of (non)-action?
“I can’t help but think that the pursuit of bio-immortality is primarilly a fear-based, brain-generated pursuit.”
Just because something is rooted in an emotion doesn’t change it’s validity.Either it is good/right to do, or not, irrespectively from any judgement your brain may generate about this.We should try to keep “objective” reality and our conceptualizations apart.
Btw: Pursuit requires someone to do the pursuing, and this someone must have something like a brain/processor to do the pursuing with, or not?If you disagree: How do you prove this is unessecary?If it is necessary, why is it bad if it/you use/s emotion to move you?
“Physicists and mystics through the ages have proclaimed that death is a sensory illusion and there is really nothing to fear: our brain generates needless concern along with the attendant anxiety.”
Physicists?You mean like centuries ago, when a cold was treated by bloodletting and epilepsy by exorcism?
And the word of someone who could just as well be mad (mysticist), out to gain sth and so on, who obviously hasn’t experienced what he talks about (or do you believe they died and came back before transmitting their ‘truths’ down to us) is enough for you to close off the option of living longer by technology?
You may die anyway, and then you will know if you were right (or most likely you will not know anything).Why hasten/guarantuee ‘your’ ‘end’?
Ps: If I try to avoid losing my income this is also fear-induced.Shall I give everything I have away and starve?Do you do this?If yes, how come you are commenting here?
by Michael108
Pursuit of indefinite healthy life extension does not equal “pursuit of immortality”
by Harry Hopkins
It seems to me the writer’s question was about the “process” of aging. If we eliminate the process of aging babies would remain babies and the population would not explode exponentially. The process of evolution would also be stopped along with other growth processes. We need to stop looking at humanity as a species of disconnected individuals. Humanity is in itself a growing organism and birth and death are important parts of the process. If you stop the aging process you also stop the healing process, the cell reproduction process and the learning process.
by Khannea Suntzu
Democracy is the solution. Consensus is the solution. Force and tyranny is unacceptable.
by Jeff
“Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting over what we have for dinner.” That’s why the world is in trouble with debt. Democracies will always vote to enslave some minority – blacks, “the rich,” etc. and vote to spend on their perceived interests. Wait until we can vote to see who lives and dies if we deem the world “overpopulated.”
by Pete
Democracy can be enhanced by mass-cyborgization and mass-technological-telepathical-connection, which probably result in Hive-Minds.
I understand that Hive Minds do not sound like democracy, but I believe that is the more optimal solution.
BTW, if sentient lifeforms want to live hedonistically, a existence as a infomorph may be a good solution. Or, to the greater extreme, become a “wire-head” (please Google this, some descriptions on “wire-head” are available on http://www.Lesswrong.com )
by de Broglie
Anarcho-capitalism will replace Democracy. It will be similar to the new movie coming out in August, Elysium. However, it wouldn’t make sense to be so dystopian.
by Jabbah
No, the process of aging is not the same as the process of maturation. Cells will still need to be replaced in a person who doesn’t age, just the effects of aging will not affect the cell replacement process. A baby that has been “cured” of aging will still mature normally but once matured will not age. Ie everyone will be stuck at around an age of 18-25.
Because of this continued cell replacement, gene therapies will be available that will allow you to change physical aspects of yourself encoded directly in your genes such as eyes hair and skin colour. Even something as drastic as a sex change may be possible.
by Scopist65
Hello, Ray: I have read several of your books including Fantastic Voyage and have even talked to Dr. Grossman. My dread is I won’t be around long enough to live, if not forever, at least for say 125 years. But if I am, I sure hope medicine gets to be as good as you predict it can. When I read medical things now, I just don’t think it will. For me, we’d have to fix optic nerves–all ruined by glaucoma–and no tthanks, I don’t want a camera stuck inside my head, grow me some nice optic nerves or eyes. Also, figure out what Fibromyalgia really is and fix it and I want to eat whatever I want. Food and I have a love-hate relationship. I just hope I can afford to hang on long enough. I’d love to live in a world where blindness is cured and where all people can work and where you don’t feel like you take your life in your hands when you try to travel as a blind person solo worrying about traffic and strange people wanting to help you. Even other blind people can be nasty critical. So I hope the future you discuss is in my lifetime. Best –I would so love to see a computer screen and not be so dependent on a speech software that always glitches because of my Dvorak keyboard. I never should have learned that keyboard in 1999. Thanks.
by Oneironaut
Ray,
How is solar doubling every two years, when you said the same thing about “seven doublings away” in a Glenn Beck interview in 2008? From this, we can deduce that solar is doubling every five years (and counting). When will it be six doublings away? What statistics are you using, anyway?
by H1dra
Yes, he just keep repeating stuff robotically… the question is if this is purposeful, just to give you hope, while they bring some other reality instead.
by Cybernettr
Kurzweil wasn’t necessarily lying in the 2008 Glenn Beck interview. Remember, solar didn’t start off at 1%. At the time of the Beck interview, it may have been at 1/5th of a percent or 1/10th of a percent. It wasn’t until 2011 that he said that solar power supplied around 1% of the world’s energy needs. Assuming a doubling of every two years, it should now be at about 2%. That means it will be at 100% in about 15 years or so.
by Michael108
Some great recent announcements re recent advances in solar energy conversion efficiencies, including nanotech based … Just google it.
One example; http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/08/sol-voltaics-uses-nanotechnology-to-make-solar-energy-25-percent-more-efficient/
by gaoptimize
I think solar adoptions will not be one of those things that will be smoothly geometric. In fact, the pace of recent advances has defered my acquisition plans. There is a $/Watt installed threshold that will trigger me. I can imagine that threshold is similiar for many people. Once it is crossed, there will be explosive growth, like the doubling from 15% to 30%, and 30% to 60% in a few years. The standard “afficianado” to “pro-sumer” to “all but the poor” to “all but the Ludites saturation” progression of all advancements. And I am not knocking the Ludites here. I have a 2003 vintage flip phone that I only carry because the wife insists.
by Oneironaut
“At the time of the Beck interview, it may have been at 1/5th of a percent or 1/10th of a percent.”
No, Kurzweil said “seven doublings away” in the Beck interview, like I said. Look it up. That means comprising 1% of all the energy.
by Cybernettr
Yeah, I watched the interview again and you’re right, he DID say “only 7 doublings away.”
So if that was in 2008, we should be approaching the third doubling already and almost be at 8% which I’m pretty sure we’re not.
This solar energy prediction may be another one of his “rolling predictions” like radical life extension, which he as been saying is “10 to 15 years away” for at least 8 years now.
However, I was hoping his solar energy prediction, which would appear to be mathematically measurable and quantifiable, would be more accurate.
I guess the appearance of mathematical precision in his predictions can be rather deceptive.
by Tom N
Good comments below. Everybody needs to relax, for a couple reasons:
1. We have a tendency to polarize everything: good/bad, problem/solution, etc. This works against us, because the number of things we classify as “problems” can very quickly get out of control.
2. Life changes as our technology changes. RYAN (below) was right – as technology changes, the situation changes.
3. I can see a future where we spend less time in factories and offices doing boring, mindless work and instead are able to get back to the land, working outdoors to grow our own food while machines do the mindless, backbreaking and monotonous tasks for us.
4. As more and more people are lifted out of poverty, our reproductive rates will decline
5. The fact that medicine will make tremendous progress at life extention does NOT automatically mean that everybody currently alive today will survive. New technology still has to be deployed. You may have noticed that, although drone aircraft exist, not everybody has one in their garage.
by Ryan
I think the reader question makes the mistake of assuming that all factors remain the same except for one single aspect (in this case effective immortality for all). Its a problem that pops up in books and movies all the time where they tell a story where only that one thing changes and the culture and people are still effectively like us as we are now with no other real changes or technologicaly innovations in other areas.
The problem with that however is that, by the way they described it, if an immortality elixer became available and and everyone one could have it that would suggest a much greater level of affluence worldwide than we have currently. And, as can be seen in almost all 1st world nations, as primal concerns decrease and luxuries, education, and free time increase there is usually a significant drop in population expansion (to the point that in many 1st world nations much of the population increases come from immigrants from places where they haven’t yet acclimated to a standard of living where having fewer children is preferable).
Again, such an immortality elixer wouldn’t exist in a technological vacuum. Other areas of science will also be progressing and potentially making it easier, cheaper, and faster to contend with the issues we have today. Those changes would add together and probably also change the outlook and behaviors of the people at the time. I can personally say for myself that, should they be able to give us functional immortality with no real degradation in our abilities, I’d be more than happy to wait a few centuries before having children. First it would leave some time to get through any upheavals that are likely to occur with rapidly advancing technology and its effects on society through the tumult of those changes early on. Second it would put me at a much better position mentally, and potentially economically should we still be using anything remotely like the system we currently live under.
While I’m not currently banking on it happening before I would decide to have children at this point with the rate of advancment going on I could see others growing up in a generation with that tech making such decisions.
by A guy
Somehow I’m not that comfortable with us using all available space on Earth just to house people. We already have far too huge an impact on the environment.
However, by expanding into space, this point could effectively become moot.
by Bruce Gavin Ward
while i am not convinced by your somewhat questionable math re energy, food, space, etc., this also assumes that all these people like each other, and get along just fine; oops…….. [and the upTake by governments, always lags behind by, oh lets say at least two generations (take Canada's Harper for example - he's not convinced that there is a GW problem yet.)]
by gaoptimize
I’m not convinced there is a global warming “problem” either. Bring back the good old days of the early carboniferous period!