Longevity Research

[Duxwing]

Longevity research seems the most-necessary kind: its every gain saves lives, and its ultimate aim of immortality would save us all. Were your task to make man immortal and your resources all mankind's, what would you do?

Ill-Conceived Example

Preventable death would be eliminated by whatever means necessary. Smokers would be convinced or forced to quit, smoke dealers locked away, and the world scoured of smokable drugs. Meanwhile, fat people would be sent to fat camp, ones regaining or not losing weight would get surgery. The crackdown could lead to civil war, but the casualties would pale compared to the alternative, and the culture would eventually change.

Next the organization would tackle cardiovascular disease. It would develop artificial hearts and blood vessels, manufacturing and directly giving both to surgeons implanting them. Once the hearts and vessels could be left inside patients for years, all but a small watch group would move to cancer research.

The organization would try to maximize the number of lives saved yearly, always researching only one cancer at a time and focusing on reducing fatal effects until encountering diminishing returns. Once all the big killers were tamed, mop-up operations would begin.

Vaccination would be mandatory and cures and vaccines pursued for infections disease. Artificial hearts and vessels would be tweaked to last longer and therefore require fewer replacements. Other organs would be grown.

-Duxwing

PS I am terribly sorry for my example's having seemed... brutal. I meant for it to stir discussion and not represent what I would have done.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Duxwing

[Tommygun]

How long has there been a "War on Drugs" or a one child policy in China?

I don't think force will work unless you are willing to terrorize on a Stalin or North Korean like scale and that means killing large numbers of people.

The only humane way is to go down a slow educational approach which may take a hundred years or more.

Edit: On a historic example you may want to look at the history of eugenics.

It started out as one thing, but as governments got involved it slowly turned into something truly horrific.

I know you mean well, but things like this often end badly as they often get out of hand especially when bureaucracy and over zealous people come together.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Tommygun

[Scotius]

Ah, yes. "Whatever means necessary". Then it's "necessary sacrifices""unavoidable victims" and my personal favourite: "You can't make an omelet without breaking the eggs". And next thing we see are concentration camps and "Arbeit macht frei". I live about ten kilometers from remains of concentration camp Treblinka - it's the place of nightmares. Nothing is worth committing such monstrosities - not even immortality.

[Malokin]

Longevity research seems the most-necessary kind: its every gain saves lives, and its ultimate aim of immortality would save us all. Were your task to make man immortal and your resources all mankind's, what would you do?

Preventable death would be eliminated by whatever means necessary. Smokers would be convinced or forced to quit, smoke dealers locked away, and the world scoured of smokable drugs. Meanwhile, fat people would be sent to fat camp, ones regaining or not losing weight would get surgery. The crackdown could lead to civil war, but the casualties would pale compared to the alternative, and the culture would eventually change.

Next the organization would tackle cardiovascular disease. It would develop artificial hearts and blood vessels, manufacturing and directly giving both to surgeons implanting them. Once the hearts and vessels could be left inside patients for years, all but a small watch group would move to cancer research.

The organization would try to maximize the number of lives saved yearly, always researching only one cancer at a time and focusing on reducing fatal effects until encountering diminishing returns. Once all the big killers were tamed, mop-up operations would begin.

Vaccination would be mandatory and cures and vaccines pursued for infections disease. Artificial hearts and vessels would be tweaked to last longer and therefore require fewer replacements. Other organs would be grown.

-Duxwing

I would fight you to the death with every ounce of my being and I wouldn't be bothered sinking to low levels to do it.

Your idea of longevity research is the total reduction of individuality and personal freedom and if half of what you suggest came to pass it would be worth dying for to stop you.

[vger]

Considering that there are people who subject themselves to these things to a ridiculous amount, and still sometimes outlast their super-healthy peers, I don't think there's much water here. But if you want to declare war on "aging," I think there's a lot of research to be done there.

[K^2]

And women live longer than men. We should outlaw men.

[gooddog15]

And women live longer than men. We should outlaw men.

And tortoises live longer than humans.

We should outlaw humans

[vger]

And women live longer than men. We should outlaw men.

Have you been reading the internet lately? That's already happening.

[pxi]

Ok, so we prevent people from doing basically anything that makes life worth living, so that they can live longer?

Quite the fun future you're proposing, Duxwing.

Edit: Frankly, if this was my task, there would only be one ethical thing to do imo -- kill myself.

Edited November 10, 2014 by pxi

[KSK]

Longevity research seems the most-necessary kind: its every gain saves lives, and its ultimate aim of immortality would save us all. Were your task to make man immortal and your resources all mankind's, what would you do?

Resign. On practical and ethical grounds.

More seriously, I disagree that longevity research is the most necessary kind. There's a difference between extending lives and saving lives. I can save a life with all manner of trivial interventions - a mosquito net, a supply of rehydration salts, basic first aid, a latrine. Far less trivially, I can save many many lives by providing: adequate clean water, nutrition, shelter and basic medical care to everyone. None of that is likely to extend the duration of those lives beyond that of a normal human lifespan.

But for the sake of argument, lets assume that the above is a given. Let's also assume that we can implement your goals of tackling smoking, cardiovascular disease and cancer, without resorting to such drastic measures. Frankly, if we're ever in a place where those kinds of measures are a) regarded as acceptable by the population and enforced by an organisation that is willing, able and mandated to do so, then we're most of the way down the slippery slope to the dystopian fiction novel of your choice. If I was being snarky, I would suggest that alcohol also be phased out or severely rationed (and good luck with that). Less snarkily, re-working society to be less dependent on automobile travel would be a good start too. Lots of people killed in road accidents every year dontcha know. Not to mention the adverse health effects of all that CO2 and sundry other pollutants from vehicle exhausts.

What then? Biologically we would want to focus on neurodegenerative disease, autoimmune disease and osteoporosis to name but a few. I don't see a lot of point being immortal if I can't remember my own name, am crippled by arthritis, or can't move from my mobility aid without my bones breaking under the strain.

Socially and economically, we would need to completely overhaul our current systems to make them fit for purpose with a long-lived or immortal population. Retiring at 65 and living to 165 isn't going to work.

Politically, we would need to ensure that everyone gets access to this, regardless of social, economic or religious status. If you think we've got problems with inequality now, then you aint seen nothing yet, if only the favoured few get access to immortality.

Physically, we'll need either a lot more living space or a way of packing a lot more minds into the same space. I would be putting a lot of research into space travel, computers and/or neural uploading. If you can run 99% of the world population in 'the cloud', then a lot of the above problems are solved anyway.

TL: DR. Longevity research (defined as lifespan extension beyond the current human maximum) isn't remotely necessary. Longevity by itself is pointless without an appropriate quality of life to go with it. Longevity coupled to any positive population growth rate is fundamentally flawed.

[Godot]

I am rather surprised that Duxwing left one important step out:

Instead of eating normal meals (with their variable amount of nutrients) each person would get a chemical mixture (either administered orally or intravenously) with exact the amount of nutrients, that according to calculations a person of the age, gender and body measurements would need.

Definitely a necessary step if you want to maximize age and, after all, Duxwing wants to take "whatever means necessary" to accomplish this

But nope, I wouldn´t be pro such measures. Already now mankind has a population growth that can be considered to be above levels healthy for earth.

With rising life expectancies this would become even more extreme.

Likewise every person should have the right to determine its lifestyle for his/herself. The only good thing on this list are mandatory vaccinations IMHO. Aside from this every person should get all informations about the impact of his/her lifestyle on his/her ife expectancy (so s/he cannot say s/he didn´t know what this lifestyle would cause to her/his health) and s/he should be given every help posible if s/he wants to quit with the unhealthy lifestyle, but not be forced to quit the lifestyle if s/he doens´t want to do it (after all, some persons prefer to live fast and die young )

[KerikBalm]

A cure for ageing would be a terrible, terrible thing for the world.

Case #1: It is available for everyone - overpopulation goes into overdrive, competition for resources results in horrible war and economic devestation

Case #2: It is available to only a select few - as if the 99.9% were not powerful enough already, the concentration of wealth would accumulate, they are already to us as lords were to peasants in the middle ages, but with dramatically extended lifespans, they would become more like gods.

I would not like to live in either of those worlds.

Therefore, if a cure for ageing is ever developed, I hope I am the only one who has control of it - I would trust no one else.

At the same time, I'm sure almost no one else would trust me... and I'm unlikely to gain exclusive posession of it anyway... so.... yea...

[SargeRho]

You're forgetting one thing: Birth rates in industrialized countries are going down. Accidents, disease, substance abuse, etc. are still going to cause deaths.

[KerikBalm]

yet the population still expands... and when you increase lifespan, it will neccessarily increase the growth rate (assuming other variables don't change)

[KSK]

You're forgetting one thing: Birth rates in industrialized countries are going down. Accidents, disease, substance abuse, etc. are still going to cause deaths.

Industrialized countries - yes. Other countries, I'm less sure about. And the kind of immortality that Duxwing has in mind seems to be aimed at eliminating death due to disease or substance abuse. Can't do much about accidents though, or indeed war, as KerikBalm points out. I'd prefer not to have war as the primary means of population control though.

But in any case, merely slowing the rate of increase wouldn't be enough. With an immortal or sufficiently long-lived population, zero growth rate, or a growth rate that fluctuates very tightly around zero, is the only answer. Anything else inevitably leads to extreme overpopulation.

[Godot]

Not to forget that it is especially the population of the industrialized countries (<= 20% or the worlds population) which are responsible for 80% of the resource consumption on earth.

If the remaining 80% of people on earth would rise to the standard of living in the industrialized countries, earth would be doomed.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Godot
It had to be < and not >

[Mazon Del]

Frankly the best way to go about immortality is mind uploads into computers. While yes, you will still reach the inevitable "not enough matter in the universe for the all of us" stage, you can do so far more efficiently (more minds per kilogram of matter). Additionally mind uploads present the only real way to ensure the chances of perma-death are minimal. Backups. Blah blah blah "the backup isn't ME. I am ME!" blah blah. I'd take it in a heartbeat even if the upload process killed biological me.

[Helix935]

Frankly the best way to go about immortality is mind uploads into computers. While yes, you will still reach the inevitable "not enough matter in the universe for the all of us" stage, you can do so far more efficiently (more minds per kilogram of matter). Additionally mind uploads present the only real way to ensure the chances of perma-death are minimal. Backups. Blah blah blah "the backup isn't ME. I am ME!" blah blah. I'd take it in a heartbeat even if the upload process killed biological me.

i agree completely although of course there is also the "not my choice due to extenuating circumstances" stuff

[Godot]

Frankly the best way to go about immortality is mind uploads into computers. While yes, you will still reach the inevitable "not enough matter in the universe for the all of us" stage, you can do so far more efficiently (more minds per kilogram of matter). Additionally mind uploads present the only real way to ensure the chances of perma-death are minimal. Backups. Blah blah blah "the backup isn't ME. I am ME!" blah blah. I'd take it in a heartbeat even if the upload process killed biological me.

For me this would be a reason not to do this.

Or rather only do it if death is imminent (like due to some form of disease that reduces my remaining lifetime to just a few months)

[KerikBalm]

For once, I think an Arnold movie had an interesting insight into this sort of thing.

In the movie the 6th day, they uploaded backups of peoples minds into fresh clones. Normally, its a matter of dying, then seemingly being resurected.

But towards the end (movie is so old, I don't think spoiler tags are needed), the bad guy takes a mortal wound, and a fresh clone is activated... but the "original" (well, not original, but rather, the previous clone) is not dead yet, and sort of looks on at his fresh clone in horror as he realizes he is going to die.

A parallel process running doesn't mean that when your process terminates, that you don't die.

When you die, its lights out, good bye, thats it for you. If some other process starts later, it doesn't revive you, any more than it prevents your death if it starts before you die.

As I figure it, as soon as continuity of consciousness is interrupted, you've died.

Now... if you could connect to a computer, and your mind simultaneously occupies both places at once, and as one "module" in your brain is duplicated in the computer, then shut down in your brain, I suppose your mind could transfer into a machine without the continuity being interrupted.

But if its a matter of shutting down the brain completely first, and then restarting in a computer, its just not the same, you've died.

[Guest]

Society of 1000 year olds would be ridden with moss-covered radical conservatism, centuries-old scores and hatred, strictly enforced strange rules, hate for anything new, anything that force you to re-learn and re-adapt. Younger people wouldn't have any chance to compete for jobs, since old ones would have centuries of experience in their fields, and be preferred for jobs, even if they are locked in said experience and cannot invent anything new.

I don't want to live in such society at all.

I'm 40 years old, and personally, I think it's enough. If someone would say me "you will die tomorrow", I would reply: "Oh, OK".

Edited November 10, 2014 by Guest

[vger]

As I figure it, as soon as continuity of consciousness is interrupted, you've died.Now... if you could connect to a computer, and your mind simultaneously occupies both places at once, and as one "module" in your brain is duplicated in the computer, then shut down in your brain, I suppose your mind could transfer into a machine without the continuity being interrupted. But if its a matter of shutting down the brain completely first, and then restarting in a computer, its just not the same, you've died.

Even if we could do that, we'd never know for sure if we were preventing death or creating a copy. The mind in the computer would think it was the original regardless.

[Mitchz95]

Society of 1000 year olds would be ridden with moss-covered radical conservatism, centuries-old scores and hatred, strictly enforced strange rules, hate for anything new, anything that force you to re-learn and re-adapt. Younger people wouldn't have any chance to compete for jobs, since old ones would have centuries of experience in their fields, and be preferred for jobs, even if they are locked in said experience and cannot invent anything new.

I don't want to live in such society at all.

This exactly. No new minds mean no new ideas. The human race would stagnant, and any form of progress would stop. I'd rather have humanity go extinct than become immortal.

[Godot]

Even if we could do that, we'd never know for sure if we were preventing death or creating a copy. The mind in the computer would think it was the original regardless.

Well, if we are able to make a copy without destroying the original brain and then are able to observe original and copy independent of each other,

we have the proof that both are independant entities (and the destruction of the original would kill the original consciousness)

[Mazon Del]

Yes yes, the usual argument that a copy/parallel process continuing on isn't the same as avoiding death. I agree with this technical definition, but my point of view has always been somewhat akin to parents defending their young. It matters more that the children continue on than that the parent does. It matters more to me that some "me" continues on than "me" continuing on. I would of course ideally love for the "me" that is operating to be the most up to date and complete version of me, but there WILL be situations where this cannot be. Fork a copy of me to pilot the ship against the alien mothership in a kamikaze attack? Sure, why not. Multiple "me's" at the same time is fine, if our tech is good enough to do this in the first place, it shouldn't be that hard to 'merge' the forks. Sure depending on how long the two have been separate this will result in some unique "identity death" going on, but if all parts are from me anyway then they will accept this. Yeah, if I could I'd pull a Doctor McNinja, fork myself hundreds of times, go to college in all the things, merge again.

Cessation of conciousness I have always hated as a description of death. Throw in all the technicalities you want about brain activity, dreams, etc. When you sleep you have a cessation of conciousness. The unbroken stream of you doing things has been broken. The universe could fundamentally work in a Langoliers fashion upon you falling asleep. It is all destroyed, your brain vaporized/eaten-by-interdimensional-pacmen, etc. And then the universe is meticulously reconstructed at morning with your brain atomically no different than it should be. All evidence of this erased, then the universe 'unpauses'. You would never know. All you know is that when you wake up in the morning, you 'know' you are you. When Mazon Del # 23461235145C wakes up, he will "know" he is Mazon Del. That will be good enough for him, and thus it is good enough for me.

Note: Oh I am quite sure if I had this system that I will experience a nigh-infinite amount of horrors and death experiences, etc. But I accept that as a consequence of my choice. Considering that it is me making that decision on myself and not others, that is pretty fair. Plus, if a given copy of myself doesn't want to continue this immortality system, they ARE free to make that choice. However they will do so with the knowledge that a new Mazon Del WILL spawn somewhere else without their ability to stop it, a rolled back copy if necessary. As time goes to infinity, the likelihood that a copy of me will be convinced that this system is horrible/immoral/etc and needs to not be done approaches certainty. So if I actually had this system in place, my first goal is to take the system out of my own hands. Whatever pain/argument/etc convinced me then won't necessarily work on all of me. Time heals all wounds, except for entropy. That's the only thing that I'll allow to stop me. But of course the 2nd goal is to fix entropy or find a way to universe jump...

I get that my views on this subject are not exactly standard and are not necessarily what others might find ethical. That's fine. It's my head.