At the risk of proving that I am immature (since these words can be read as me rejecting my mortality, which he mentions in the article) I wonder why so few of these posts acknowledge the possibility that new technology will allow life to be extended?
A lot of people seem to have a mental block regarding the possibility that our biological clock, like almost everything else, may eventually be changed by technology.
I am especially surprised by science fiction writers. Why are there old people in so much sci fi? Why are there old people on shows like Star Trek? Does anyone seriously think we will grow old and die 500 years from now? And isn't sci fi suppose to lead the way in this area? I mean, what is the point of sci fi, if it doesn't help people imagine how the future might be different? (Obviously, I'm talking about that branch of sci fi that avoids fantasies and dystopias)
Virginia Postrel has sort of hit on this theme in her writing, where she wonders why sci fi tends to be less optimistic than it used to be. The future is no longer what it once was:
A lot of things that used to be sci fi are now real: space travel, global communication devices, computers that can fit in your pocket, medical treatments for once untreatable illnesses, etc.
It would be interesting to have a poll on Hacker News and ask people how long they think they will live. Since Hacker News is a community of forward looking individuals (and pro-technology too), such a poll would give a sense of how much a forward thinking group thinks medical technology is going to change in the next 60 years.
"Does anyone seriously think we will grow old and die 500 years from now?"
Absolutely. Here's a few reasons why I think that way:
A)Even if we somehow solve the problem of aging, some people (quite possibly many or even most) will still choose to live a "natural" life for any number of reasons.
B)History suggests that we will not continue our current rate of progress indefinitely. Who knows how long it may take to recover from the inevitable disruptions.
C)I suspect that, like cancer or practical flying cars, aging is a harder problem than we think it is. Just because we can envision the end result does not mean we can achieve it.
D)Based on current medical trends, any effective anti-aging treatment is likely to be so expensive that the vast majority of people will not be able to afford it.
I assume you are just joking with the reference to entropy. It is only relevant to closed systems, and organisms are not closed systems. We can remove entropy from a system using energy. That is what food is for - it gives us the energy to remove entropy from our bodies.
I should have qualified my remarks. I recognize that the technologies of the future may only be affordable to the rich. And when I said "die", I meant "die" of old age. I realize that there will always be the risk of getting hit by something large, moving faster - whatever the equivalent of a bus is, 500 years from now.
But seriously, will (wealthy) people age 500 years from now?
This thread is interesting to read. Since the audience on Hacker News is likely to be tech-savvy and forward looking, the pessimism here displayed suggests that even tech-savvy people do not see massive extensions of life-span happening any time soon.
I think we will grow old and die 500 years from now. It may be at a slower rate. I just think that stopping aging is a lot different that slowing it, and preventing death is a lot different than delaying it.
Extended lifespans sound great if you assume you'll won't suffer some significant financial or career setback that leaves you spending 100 years eking out an existence in a slum.
I agree. The risk of setbacks is great. In some sense, extended lifespans makes the gap between the rich and poor seem more unfair. Right now, in the USA, the poor live to be 78 and the rich live to be 84. In the future those numbers might be 78 and 184.
Comments
At the risk of proving that I am immature (since these words can be read as me rejecting my mortality, which he mentions in the article) I wonder why so few of these posts acknowledge the possibility that new technology will allow life to be extended?
A lot of people seem to have a mental block regarding the possibility that our biological clock, like almost everything else, may eventually be changed by technology.
I am especially surprised by science fiction writers. Why are there old people in so much sci fi? Why are there old people on shows like Star Trek? Does anyone seriously think we will grow old and die 500 years from now? And isn't sci fi suppose to lead the way in this area? I mean, what is the point of sci fi, if it doesn't help people imagine how the future might be different? (Obviously, I'm talking about that branch of sci fi that avoids fantasies and dystopias)
Virginia Postrel has sort of hit on this theme in her writing, where she wonders why sci fi tends to be less optimistic than it used to be. The future is no longer what it once was:
http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002834.html
A lot of things that used to be sci fi are now real: space travel, global communication devices, computers that can fit in your pocket, medical treatments for once untreatable illnesses, etc.
It would be interesting to have a poll on Hacker News and ask people how long they think they will live. Since Hacker News is a community of forward looking individuals (and pro-technology too), such a poll would give a sense of how much a forward thinking group thinks medical technology is going to change in the next 60 years.
"Does anyone seriously think we will grow old and die 500 years from now?"
Absolutely. Here's a few reasons why I think that way:
A)Even if we somehow solve the problem of aging, some people (quite possibly many or even most) will still choose to live a "natural" life for any number of reasons.
B)History suggests that we will not continue our current rate of progress indefinitely. Who knows how long it may take to recover from the inevitable disruptions.
C)I suspect that, like cancer or practical flying cars, aging is a harder problem than we think it is. Just because we can envision the end result does not mean we can achieve it.
D)Based on current medical trends, any effective anti-aging treatment is likely to be so expensive that the vast majority of people will not be able to afford it.
E)In the end, entropy always wins.
My apologies for all the pessimism. :)
I assume you are just joking with the reference to entropy. It is only relevant to closed systems, and organisms are not closed systems. We can remove entropy from a system using energy. That is what food is for - it gives us the energy to remove entropy from our bodies.
I should have qualified my remarks. I recognize that the technologies of the future may only be affordable to the rich. And when I said "die", I meant "die" of old age. I realize that there will always be the risk of getting hit by something large, moving faster - whatever the equivalent of a bus is, 500 years from now.
But seriously, will (wealthy) people age 500 years from now?
This thread is interesting to read. Since the audience on Hacker News is likely to be tech-savvy and forward looking, the pessimism here displayed suggests that even tech-savvy people do not see massive extensions of life-span happening any time soon.
I think we will grow old and die 500 years from now. It may be at a slower rate. I just think that stopping aging is a lot different that slowing it, and preventing death is a lot different than delaying it.
Extended lifespans sound great if you assume you'll won't suffer some significant financial or career setback that leaves you spending 100 years eking out an existence in a slum.
I agree. The risk of setbacks is great. In some sense, extended lifespans makes the gap between the rich and poor seem more unfair. Right now, in the USA, the poor live to be 78 and the rich live to be 84. In the future those numbers might be 78 and 184.