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.

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.

No, Kurzweil said “seven doublings away” in the Beck interview, like I said. Look it up. That means comprising 1% of all the energy.

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.

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.

Everything is possible at the end. Think outside the box.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Are folks optimistic that humans have the emotional capacity to fairly manage the impact of future technical advances? The last couple millennia suggest no.

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?

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;)

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 )