E S S A Y

The Consequences of PhysicalImmortality:

Can Humans Cope with Radically Extended Lifespans?

Bruce J. Klein Immortality InstituteUSA

.83

Bruce J. Klein considers himself to be a fairly aver-age homosapien, yet he believes his DNA is suicidal. Inorder to overcome this problem, Klein hopes to eventu-ally shed his biological body for a more robust posthu-man form.

Kharin: How well are infinite lifespans matched tofinite environmental resources? Given popular resistanceto the most basic forms of genetic modification, can werely on science and technology to keep pace with expand-ing lifespans?

In short, Yes. I think we can keep pace with popu-lation growth and we can steward environmentalresources successfully. Chiefly because we've alreadybeen successful thus far. Looking forward, because ofgreater fine tuning and skill at the manipulation of mat-ter, we will improve.

Creativity and ingenuity are infinite in capacity. Solong as we have something to do and are alive, therewill always be problems to solve and better ways tosolve them. As humans strive for a better life, this drivewill propel technology and requisite efficiency gains fur-ther into the future.

Granted, this doesn't preclude the possibility ofsome catastrophic or unforeseen external or internalevent happening. Life, of course, has been devastatedon numerous occasions by asteroid impacts and weseem to have the dangerous urge to blow each otherup. Yet, the 'engine' of creation1, as Eric Drexler's writes,continues to hum along. And as Ray Kurzweil2 rightlypoints out, it's all happening at an accelerating rate.

Yet, social resistance to change is persistent. Therewill always be some degree of resistance because of ourevolutionary heritage. Our ancestors were successfulreproducers not because they took great risks. Theywere successful on the whole because they were riskaverse. Thus, evolution has selected for humans whowere somewhat resistant to change but not totallyclosed to opportunity. Once the benefits are made obvi-ous however, resistance turns quickly to support.

Remember the clamoring3 over "test tube babies"?In the early 1970's, nearly all bioethicists warned againstin vitro fertilization (IVF) and 80% of the American publicopposed test-tube babies. Today, over 100,000 babiesexist - 200,000 worldwide, from IVF. And now about80% of Americans support IVF.

Kharin: In the event that finite resources and infinitelifespans conflict with one another, to what extent is therelikely to be a trade-off between increasing lifespans andincreasing birthrates? Can we rely on the European pat-tern of falling birthrates and increasing lifespans beingrepeated elsewhere?

Well, this question implies there is some inherent"finite resource" problem. I tend to disagree. As alludedto in the first response, as long as humans seek a betterlife, creativity and innovation will necessitate and resultin more efficiency and greater degrees of fine-tuning.This will lead to even more innovation, creation and effi-ciencies. Pretty much what we see now, just more of it.

Extrapolate this pattern of improvement towardssome possible conclusion, and one can make some

Journal of Futures Studies, May 2004, 8(4): 83 - 88

Journal of Futures Studies

84

pretty far out predictions. One is that we'll even-tually have control over every atom in the uni-verse. Moravec, Tipler, Perry and others havepostulated these futures, but I'll just say herethat I believe it is theoretically possible. I wouldalso like to note that I believe we'll experience a"Singularity"4 from this process. But that's anoth-er topic.

Also, while answering this question I hap-pened upon the following quote from a U.S.News article by Jerry Taylor,5 a resource special-ist at the free-market Cato Institute:

While it is counterintuitive to manypeople, natural resources are not fixedand finite; they are created bymankind, not by Mother Nature. Sinceresources are a function of humanknowledge, and our stock of knowl-edge has increased over time, it shouldcome as no surprise that the stock ofphysical resources has also beenexpanding.Taylor goes on to give examples from the

oil industry, but I believe his overall assessmentis correct and applicable to all areas of humanachievement.

In answer to your question about birthrates, first if all, humans may not always want tohave children, or at least at such a fast and furi-ous clip. If people knew they could live for hun-dreds even thousands of years in good health,the drive to have children would certainlydecline.

Importantly, the introduction of the birthcontrol pill in the 1960s has given women achoice and gives us a hint at what is to come. Ifnot specifically because of increased lifespan inthe past few centuries, but surely a contributingfactor, women are choosing to have fewer chil-dren later in life. Also the children they have arefor the most part surviving. This is a big advanceover the past when many children died beforetheir first birthday. Today, the need to havemany children to ensure that at least some willsurvive is not as important as it used to be.

Overall the trend looks promising, espe-cially in the lesser developed countries wherewe see a rise in the standard of living because offree market expansion. Chiefly powered by a

growing entrepreneurial drive, goods are nowbeing produced more cheaply and productivitygains are being realized as centralized govern-ments tend to sell their monopolies businessesand assets to the private sector.

Economist Fredrick Hayek said it best in"The Road To Serfdom"6:

Only since industrial freedom openedthe path to the free use of new knowl-edge, only since everything could betried - if somebody could be found toback it at his own risk -- has sciencemade the great strides which in thelast 150 years have changed the faceof the world. The result of this growthsurpassed all expectations. Whereverthe barriers to the Gee exercise ofhuman ingenuity were removed, manbecame rapidly able to satisfy ever-widening ranges of desire.Kharin: How much of a problem is access

to the technologies that are the "gateway" toimmortality, given the likely expense? In particu-lar, won't economic inequality always bar accessfor certain sections of the population? And inareas like Europe and Canada with state fundedhealth services what is the likelihood of themeven being offered?

There will always be differing degrees ofquality in service and accessibility to health care.Providing advanced health care services is anexpensive business and we're starting to seesome strain on the system as we grow olderand live longer. However, the goal should notto achieve some sort of perfect parity, rather weshould work for a competitive balance. Weshould allow the system to work to improveitself. We should allow for competition, notimpose overbearing regulation. Granted, a cer-tain amount of regulation is needed, but thebalance is always safer on the side of less, espe-cially in the long run.

But more specifically to the question of"gateway" technologies and immortality; look-ing to examples in the past as a guide can behelpful. While, automobiles were only for therich at the turn of the century; today, mostAmericans of legal driving age have a car. Ibelieve health and longevity care to be no differ-

The Consequences of Physical Immortality

85

ent. Having access to health and life extensiontechnologies will be a universal want, becauseof this, the cost on a per person basis will dropwith demand. Free market forces are powerfuland work, just as they have worked with othertechnologies (i.e. cars, televisions, computers,you name it).

Kharin: Finally, inequality and social insta-bility have always been closely linked and somehave predicted that technologies like geneticmodification may lead to social unrest. Howmuch of a concern is this?

As suggested above, a free market econo-my with few restrictions will allow human inno-vation to help with the dispersal of wantedgoods. Social unrest in the past was largely dueto overburdening regulations by governments.Large corporate monopolies are a worrisomepossibility as well. I would not count out a sce-nario where one biotech company could possesthe elixir for immortality. But the chances areslim for a couple of reasons.

a) The problem of aging is a complex one.The disease of aging it's a multifacetedintercellular problem. No one genetic,hormone, or stem cell therapy couldpossibly solve the problems of aging.So, no one company would likely haveenough resources and manpower tocorner the market.

b) The current system of government issensitive to monopoly power (i.e.Microsoft) and would quickly conspire,especially with public support, to breakup any life extension monopolies.

Kharin: Cryonics seems to be a key themefor the immortality institute. However, this is acontroversial area. In particular, it is argued thatnot only are suspension procedures not meaning-ful currently and that current cryonics facilitiesare therefore essentially identical to Sutton Hooor the Pyramids: elaborate tombs constructedwith a false expectation of an afterlife. Is this afair view, and if so do you feel such facilitiesdamage the work of the Immortality Institute?

Not at all. Cryonics is a cornerstone in thefoundation of the modern immortalists' move-ment. Cryonics is a legitimate, tangible manifes-tation of the human desire for continuance.

There is nothing wrong with cryonics from

my point of view. There is justifiable concern,however, for its effectiveness. For instance,there is a point after death where cellular dam-age is to overwhelming and cryonics is useless.Some have speculated this point to be twohours, maybe more. I'm not sure. But, as a safe-ty net, nothing is better than cryonics at pre-serving the information of the brain after death.As Ralph Merkle7 says, "Would I rather be in thecontrol group, or the experimental group?"

Also, cryonics is important for bringing thedebate of immortality to a larger audience.When the Ted Williams'8 story hit, I believe itwas overall good for cryonics. It gives people acommon starting point, a common person toassociate with an idea. It has also raised impor-tant questions as to why someone would wantto preserve their body after death in the firstplace.

Kharin: Another issue is that even with nan-otechnology to repair tissue damage; suspen-sions may remain, since the charge fields used tostore memory decay as entropy sets in duringcryonic preservation, so that any re-animationwould be of a being devoid of memory, and byextension personality. How significant an issuedo you think this really is?

The most powerful argument for the suc-cess of cryonics is that nearly all decay stopswhen molecules are suspended in liquid nitro-gen.

If preserved as soon after death as possi-ble, the tissues & brain cell (the information)when held at temperatures of -196 degreesCentigrade, will last for thousands of years. Ifwe haven't found a solution by then, it's proba-bly safe to assume something very bad hap-pened and concerns for cryonics patient willparish as well.

Kharin: Nanotechnology and genetics bothseem important themes for the Institute, but bothare very politically sensitive areas. Realistically,surely political and legal changes will always beone step ahead of scientific changes? Will thesetechnologies survive regulation? How much of aproblem is it that advances in fields like cloningmay be left to countries like China?

Notoriously, politicians and lawyers fallbehind when it comes to advancing technology.

Journal of Futures Studies

86

Only after public outrage or perhaps sensationalepisodes do we push to enact promotive orprohibitive legislation (i.e. Raelians & cloning).

There is relatively little legislation control-ling the really important technologies. Theinternet, for example while profoundly impor-tant, remains untaxed. More importantly, AIresearch is mostly overlooked for now, but itsimpact will be enormous. There has been nopublic outcry to ban a potential "Hal", for exam-ple, except from the likes of Bill Joy9 and a fewothers. AI represents much more of a threatand/or benefit to humans than cloning ever will.

Kharin: John Wyndham suggested thatshort term lifespans lead to short-term perspec-tives - how would we expect our conception ofthe world and ourselves to change with expand-ed lifespans? One consequence of immortalitymight well be stasis, that it is the waxing andwaning of the generations that brings changeand progress, for example. Wouldn't evenEinstein or Shakespeare run out of ideas eventu-ally?

I doubt Einstein would have ever run outof good ideas. He was still working on a unifiedtheory in the last day so of his life in 1955? Westill haven't found a unified theory nearly 50years later. Would we expect Einstein, andthose like him, if still alive, to simply stop askingquestions?

Interestingly, let's say we somehow suc-ceeded in solving all the problems of the uni-verse. Wouldn't this lack of problems be a prob-lem itself?

Fittingly, Hans Moravec writes in his prel-ude to his book "Mind Children"10:

A mind would require many modifica-tions to operate effectively after beingrescued from the limitations of a mor-tal body. Natural human mentality istuned for a life span's progressionfrom impressionable plasticity to self-assured rigidity, and thus is unpromis-ing material for immortality. It wouldhave to be reprogrammed for continu-al adaptability to be long viable.Whereas a transient mortal organismcan leave the task of adaptation to theexternal process of mutation and natu-

ral selection, a mind that aspired toimmortality, whether it traces itsbeginnings to a mortal human beingor is a completely artificial creation,must be prepared to adapt constantlyfrom the inside.I agree with Moravec. Biological minds are

at a huge disadvantage. We have a hard timewith change and self-improvement. It takes 10to 26 years of expensive education for humansto become educated in order to of benefit tosociety. Computer on the other hand, can learn(download) new skill in seconds.

Will a biological mind be incapable of liv-ing forever? I don't know for sure, it doesn'tseem impossible. Some people feeling morecomfortable keeping their biological bodies.Yet, they'd likely need nanobots11 residing with-in them to fix oxidation damage, cancer and amyriad of other problems associated with oldage. There's also the risk associated with walk-ing around in delicate biologic bodies as well.Personally, I opt out of biological bodies for anexistence in a more durable substrate.

Kharin: To what extent would someone bethe same person after living for hundreds ofyears? Do you envisage a limit to our capacityfor self-reinvention?

No, there's no limit as far as I can tell.We're different by the second, by the day, bythe year without detrimental effect. Some of useven get better with time. Others get worse.But who's to judge really? It's a choice thatshould be left up to the individual. If theydecide that they've had enough life, that's fine.It's their choice. No organization should havethe power to keep anyone alive against his orher will. However, organizations should havethe freedom to offer information and sugges-tions about how to live longer.

Kharin: The entire idea of evolution is thecontinual adaptation of organisms to their envi-ronment. Doesn't immortality run the risk of leav-ing us progressively more poorly adapted to achanging environment?

Evolution is painfully slow and brutal. Onthe other hand, we have information technolo-gy, biotechnology, and now nanotechnologythat offers an alternative. I believe transhuman-

The Consequences of Physical Immortality

87

ism is the logical progression in our evolution-ary road toward greater intelligence and under-standing of the world.

Think of it. We are humans creating tech-nology of the physical world around us toimprove our lives in that physical world. Is thatinherently bad? Should we not try to improveour lives? How far do we go in either direction?Can we just stop where we are now and sayfine this is enough? As Bill Mckibben12, author ofthe book titled "Enough", would suggest:

It is clear that these revolutionary technolo-gies are being driven by people withimmortality, or something very near it, ontheir minds. In genetic engineering circles,much talk in the last year has centered onthe promise of longer lives. As Danny Hillis,a computer scientist, says, "I'm as fond ofmy body as anyone, but if I can be 200 witha body of silicon, I'll take it." One odd thingis that it is precisely this same class ofthinkers - hyper-rationalist scientists, whohave long sneered at religion as the refugeof the weak - who can't face the fact of theirown mortality. But clearly their own dis-comfort with mortality goes so deep thatthey will risk not only the dangers that comewith genetic engineering, but even the lossof meaning that will attend this post-humanfuture.Kharin: Would not a society run by four

hundred-year-olds become extremely conserva-tive? For example, would Jefferson have beenable to deal with gay rights? Would LordPalmerston have been able to make decisions oncontraception?

Thomas Jefferson was president for twoterms, mainly in gratitude to Washington'sexample. All presidents, except for Franklin D.Roosevelt, followed this example. The 22ndamendment made this a law.

A society run by stodgy, inept 400 yearolds would reflect badly on the underlying sys-tem not necessarily the individuals running thesystem. I expect that over time there will besafe mechanisms in place to replace bad leaderswith good ones. Much like what we have todaywith on-violent presidential elections.

Longer life is an overall good for society.

Acquired knowledge is gained by individualsand thus retained for more years in tangibleform. Knowledge can be passed on to youngergenerations in books, while at the same timeretained in primary sources (authors).

Life is much better by most measures sincewe've started to live longer. As we keep mar-kets free and government corruption to a mini-mum, the system works and improves itself.

Kharin: The question of immortality raisesquestions about predicting our future develop-ment. For example, the development of AI toassist with nanotechnology. Assuming that the AIis self-adaptive and evolutionary (and hasgreater capability than humans), would not theimposition of constraints as envisaged byEliezer's Friendly AI theory be interpreted as ameans of subjugation, thereby creating preciselythe grounds for breaking the constraint? Whatare the prospects for immortality as set againstthe prospect of an AI Sapiens at odds with theNeanderthals?

The question of AI is an important one.Our success or failure in designing a self-improving program will likely decide the futuresuccess or failure of all life on earth. I agree withEliezer's Friendliness theory.13 We must get thisright the first time around.

The question of subjugation and con-straint is wrapped up in the discussion of creat-ing AI. There is much contention about what ismoral and ethical. I maintain however, that AI'sdevelopment is inevitable. And as such it isimperative upon us that we find some way tocreate it and stay alive in the process.

As for immortality and AI, I would specu-late that a successfully created AI would keep inmind the wants of humans. I speculate that thegreatest of all human wants is the desire to stayalive.

CorrespondencePMB 118 - 408 19th St. North.Birmingham, AL 35203USAPhone 205-833-5613 Fax: 270-423-2601 bjk@imminst.org

Journal of Futures Studies

88

Notes1. K. Eric Drexler - Engines of Creation: The

Coming Era of Nanotechnology, http://www.foresight.org/EOC/

2. Ray Kurzweil - The Law of AcceleratingReturns, http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

3. Test Tube Babies - A Revolutionary Birth,http://news.mpr.org/features/199711/20_smiths_fertility/part7/section1.shtml

4. Singularity - The Singularity Institute,http://www.singinst.org/

5. Jerry Taylor - "Are we running out ofresources?" U.S. News - http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next030717.htm

6. Fredrick Hayek - "The Road To Serfdom"http://jim.com/hayek.htm

7. Ralph Merkle - http://www.merkle.com/cryo/8. Ted Williams - Cryonics Controversy:

http://www.cryonics.org/ted.html9. Bill Joy - "Why the future dosen't need us"

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

10. H. Moravec - 'Mind Children' 1988 page 511. Nanobots - Foresight Institute, Preparing for

nanotechnology: http://www.foresight.org/12. McKibben: http://resurgence.gn.apc.org/

issues/mckibben212.htm 13. Eliezer Yudkowsky - "Creating Friendly AI

1.0" http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/