An interesting piece from Scientific American on the influx of money from silicon valley rich-listers into life extending technology.
Examples include Larry Page, Larry Ellison, and Peter Thiel, who have donated nearly half a billion in various research ventures for extending life indefinitely.
The article responds to the investment into life extending technology with three points:
"First, the second law of thermodynamics is paramount in the universe, so entropy will get us in the long run, if not the short..."
"Second, extrapolating trend lines far into the future is problematic. Accelerating change may not continue at those rates nor apply to all technologies..."
"Third, according to a 2007 review paper in the journal Clinical Interventions in Aging entitled “The Aging Process and Potential Interventions to Extend Life Expectancy,” there is no single cause of aging and more than 300 theories for why cells deteriorate and stop dividing..."
Not one of the points raised by Scientific American is particularly compelling in my opinion.
The second law of thermodynamics can stay intact, we will never reach true immortality so the law is never even threatened. Regarding the last two points, we may not see a single massive life extension breakthrough, and frankly, it's not needed. we only need something to extend our life a little bit, then a little bit more. This wouldn't be "radical" life extension. It would be what Aubrey de Grey describes as "Longevity Escape Velocity".
Examples include Larry Page, Larry Ellison, and Peter Thiel, who have donated nearly half a billion in various research ventures for extending life indefinitely.
 |
| Douglascerettah, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons |
The article responds to the investment into life extending technology with three points:
"First, the second law of thermodynamics is paramount in the universe, so entropy will get us in the long run, if not the short..."
"Second, extrapolating trend lines far into the future is problematic. Accelerating change may not continue at those rates nor apply to all technologies..."
"Third, according to a 2007 review paper in the journal Clinical Interventions in Aging entitled “The Aging Process and Potential Interventions to Extend Life Expectancy,” there is no single cause of aging and more than 300 theories for why cells deteriorate and stop dividing..."
The second law of thermodynamics can stay intact, we will never reach true immortality so the law is never even threatened. Regarding the last two points, we may not see a single massive life extension breakthrough, and frankly, it's not needed. we only need something to extend our life a little bit, then a little bit more. This wouldn't be "radical" life extension. It would be what Aubrey de Grey describes as "Longevity Escape Velocity".
Personally, I believe the life extension projects to be misguided. As far as I can tell there are no compelling reasons why humans need to live longer. Unless there is a clear evolutionary reason compelling us to live longer, such as long distance space travel, I would be much more content with a lifespan that is predictable and comfortable, rather than long.
Here's a question for you then. If you knew that you were going to live for 200+ years, how would that change your life and how you behave?
Comments
Post a Comment