Ben Bova

It is difficult for us to understand the controversy that was caused early in thetwenty-first century by the advent of

human immortality. When, in the late1990s, the Geron Corporation of Californiaand the University of Texas SouthwesternMedical Center announced that they had‘immortalized’ human cell cultures, thegeneral public hardly took any notice.

But when the Fossel Clinic in Michiganbegan demonstrating conclusively that age-ing cannot only be stopped but actuallyreversed — when elderly patients were obviously rejuvenated and returned to thephysical condition of thirty-year-olds — thegroundswell of enthusiasm and controversybegan to shake the world.

Today, we are quite accustomed to the fact that any man or woman can live as longas he or she desires — barring accident —and remain physically youthful and active indefinitely.

Yet when the first successes of the FosselClinic brought that prospect of physicalimmortality to the full attention of the newsmedia and the general public, great objec-tions were raised and great fears wereexpressed.

Some feared that only the rich would beable to obtain immortality treatments, andthis would lead to a widening and permanentgap between rich and poor. The infamousDeath League fomented riots in dozens ofcities around the world with their accus-ations that a wealthy and powerful élitewould receive immortality treatments, whilethe poor and powerless would not be able toafford them.

Misguided though such accusationswere, they attracted wide popular supportand led to the creation of public committeesto oversee the equitable distribution ofimmortality treatments. Others objected onreligious grounds, firm in their belief thatattempts to extend the human lifespan wereattempts to subvert God’s chosen plan.Although the most conservative religiousbelievers firmly rejected immortality treat-ments for themselves (and, sadly, often fortheir families), the general public eagerlysought physical immortality.

Theologians then began to ponder theimplications of this startling new capability.Many considered, like earlier Churchfathers, that any new human faculty can onlybe attributed to God’s beneficence. Someeven claimed that Christ’s exhortation, “Be

clinical treatments were in fact kept far lowerthan health economists had expected —more akin to a vaccination than an organtransplant.

The great struggle to adapt society to thegreatly extended human lifespan took morethan a century, however. Virtually everyaspect of social, economic and political lifeunderwent a fundamental change once thedread aspect of death had been thus removedto a distant horizon.

Humanity showed its resilience, in time.Birth rates around the world are very close todeath rates now. Global population growth isstabilizing — not without a struggle, but astable world population is in sight. Today, thebirth of a baby is a cause for celebration bythe entire community. Couples no longerhave children to please their parents, or togain some perceived advantage in their community. Babies are rare, and cherished.

The advent of immortality has broughtan unexpected additional benefit. For all ofhistory, humans have thought the stars wereutterly unreachable. Even with modernspace technology, it would take centuries toreach the nearest stars. Now, we have cen-turies to spend. Today the ships bearing thefamilies of scientific explorers are headingout beyond the fringes of the solar system,plying the long, silent pathways to the stars,bearing the seeds of humankind into a wait-ing Universe. ■

Ben Bova is the author of more than ninety novels andworks of nonfiction. Among the latter is Immortality:How Science Is Extending Your Lifespan — andChanging the World. He has been Executive Editor ofboth Omni and Analog Science Fiction magazine. Heis President Emeritus of the National Space Societyand a past president of Science Fiction Writers of America.

Eternal verities, eternal questionsHow our ancestors reconciled themselves to eternal life

futures

NATURE | VOL 404 | 30 MARCH 2000 | www.nature.com 439

JAC

EY

ye therefore perfect, even as your Fatherwhich is in heaven is perfect,” should beinterpreted as referring to physical perfec-tion, as well as moral.

Pope Michael I set the example for manyRoman Catholics when he accepted theimmortality treatment for himself, while atthe same time resigning his position as Pontiff. “No man should remain in such aposition of power indefinitely,” he wrote inhis famous encyclical, Vitam aeternam. Hismoral stance led to widespread public insistence that all political office-holders besubjected to strict limitations on their termsof office.

Pragmatists feared the economic andsocial dislocations that might accompanyimmortality, and pointed out that if thedeath rate were lowered almost to zero, thenthe birth rate must be equally lowered, or theworld would suffer a population explosionof intolerable proportions. Despite theseobjections, and despite organized politicalcampaigns against immortality (and someterrorist acts, such as the missile attack on theFossel Clinic), once the general populaceunderstood that death could be postponedindefinitely, an enormous groundswell ofpublic pressure forced governments to abandon all thoughts of suppressing the scientific knowledge or of banning theimmortality treatments altogether.

It turned out that the various therapiesinvolved in ‘immortalization’ were much lessexpensive than the pessimists predicted.Basically, they consisted of injections ofhuman growth hormones and a cocktail ofenzymes such as telomerase. While theresearch leading to these capabilities wascostly, it was largely funded by governmentaltax revenues. Because of this, the real costs of

© 2000 Macmillan Magazines Ltd