More Commentary on "The Coming Death Shortage"
Dave Gobel of the Methuselah Foundation drew my attention to a WorldChanging commentary on the rather horrible "The Coming Death Shortage" from the Atlantic. I think that the WorldChanging crew give it more respect than it deserves, but make your own mind up.
I do agree that it is good to see pro-death advocates taking the prospects for radical life extension seriously - no-one with an understanding of the field and the way in which progress happens is laughing at these ideas any more. Healthy life extension is coming; the big question is whether or not it will happen fast enough to benefit those of us reading this today. (And whether enough people will step forward and act to make a difference).
Don't forget to read the comments - many are better than the post in terms of addressing the problems and misconceptions in the reviewed article. Remember that in the end any argument against medical research for longer, healthier lives is an argument for forcing millions of people to suffer and die. It's that simple.
UPDATE: Conveniently enough, you can find the full article text posted at the transhumantech Yahoo! group.
Generation Y (those born between the years 1981 to 1994) will be the last generation in which all of its members will die of natural death. Radical life-extension technologies will only benefit those born after 1995. I don't believe medical nanotechnology will make an impact until 2050 at the earliest. I'm sure most people will agree with me that the only people alive today that will see the 22nd century are small children (like Alcor in one of their statements). Immortality, bar cryonics, will not pan out for any living adult today during their lifetime. For anyone over eighteen years old, cryonics is the only chance for them to live a lot longer than the conventional four score years. Besides that, you will NOT live for 120 years. I've read several pieces from experts around the web that have shaped my viewpoint. It's useless for Gen-Yers, Xers, and Baby Boomers to just sit there waiting and dreaming, because it won't come unless they have a cryonics contract. The book "Fantastic Voyage" is an exercise in naivete, dangling promises of life-extension and immortality in the faces of those who WILL NOT MAKE IT, pure and simple. There's no truth to the fountain of youth. Cryonics is the only option for today's adults to see the 22nd century.
I'd have to disagree with that. Your suggestions on timing are just as unrealistic in light of real world examples of the time required for meaningful progress in cancer research, Alzheimer's research and AIDS research. I don't see us curing aging in 20 years, but I do see it as possible - IF people stand up and make a difference - to obtain the necessary funding levels in 10 years, and then make real inroads into longevity in the following 20. It doesn't all have to be done at once, and each new advance gives us longer to develop something better.
I have to side with Reason on this one, I'm not far older than Gen-Y (1971), and I hope to see many more centuries, but I am trying to be realistic and hedge my bets, I'm practicing CRON, and doing all I can to keep my body as young as I can. I think the coming century is going to bring marvels the likes of which we can't even imagine at present. Ray Kurzweil has done some considerable research into the way technology research is a self-feeding animal, and I think that we are at the confluence of a number of these technologys benefitting each other (computers, nanotech, and biotech will all interplay off of each other in the coming century), check out his article on it at http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
I for one plan on being around for a long time, but I will hedge my bets any way I can, with what's at stake you'd be foolish not to, I will be participating in Cryonics as well.
Wrong. I have actually seen the near-term future and I'll prove to you that the first half of this century will bring more of the same as the last half of last century, just slightly faster computers. Technological progress will remain at a plateau - that it has hit in the year 2006 - for several decades afterward. The skeptics will come out and laugh at those naive predictions about how people expected extended lifespans during this time. The "promise" of nanotechnology is seen during this period exactly how we view flying cars and space colonies today, as it didn't pan out as well as we hoped. It remains confined to spelling corporate logos out of xenon atoms rather than swimming around our bodies. George W. Bush is re-elected in 2008, and him and Leon Kass immediately begin a program demonizing scientists in the media. Creationism is taught in schools, and science of any kind is viewed as terrorism. A lack of funding has forestalled further progress in many areas such as nano, bio and info tech. Moore's Law is overturned in the year 2007 following a grinding halt (in which we are seeing the beginning of here in 2005). Many of the leading futurists of today, Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Hans Moravec, Marvin Minsky, Mike Deering and the rest of the singularitarians hang their heads in embarassment in how wrong they truly were in the outcome of the near future.
I'd have to disagree with "MysticMonkeyGuru" also. Despite encountering several skeptics and pessimists around the web, I have good reason to believe that a lot of people born before 1995 will see greatly extended lifespans occuring during their lifetimes without the aid of cryonics. There seem to be two types of people, ones who think the future is going to roll along without any major disruptions (are far greater in numbers, the likes of "MysticMonkeyGuru" fall into this camp) and ones who can expect major changes occuring on the near-future horizon due to accelerating returns and technological progress. As Ray Kurzweil has stated many times in his books and articles on KurzweilAI.net, the rate of technological progress is growing exponentially, doubling every decade. As the years tick away, technological tools become more cost-effective and efficient.
I agree with Reason also, that I do not expect to see aging fully cured within twenty years. However, with the right funding accumulated over a ten-year period, would transalate into effective, working longevity therapies two decades after that. If we started now, we could make good progress in human longevity by 2035 (or 2040 if it takes a little longer).
On a personal note, I'm 24 years old at this moment, this implies that when I'm 55 or 60, I should have a good shot at an extended life and/or curing some aspects of the aging process. Many older people born in the mid 1950s or later could have a chance too, if all goes according to plan.