The idea of living forever has, it seems, intrigued us humans, well, forever. But no one seems to consider what that would be like. I mean, there are 7 billion of us, give or take a few, on the planet now. We can’t feed them all, nor can we ensure that the wealth of the planet is distributed in a fairer way.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/silicon-valleys-quest-to-live-forever
I found this article and there are three broad avenues of research it seems; the first and most bizarre is to find a way for us to become immortal. Bizarre because, as a global society, we’re not ready for that. We’re not ready to deal with 7 billion people living forever. But then of course immortality would not be for all of us, because only the top 10% would be able to afford it.
What then would the rest of us do? Would anarchy not ensue as the gap between the “have’s and the have not’s” widen? If some magic pill were discovered today that would in effect grant immortality, how many members of your family would you buy the pill for? Would you buy it for your best friend? Your business partner?
How would you deal with the progress of technology? What would happen if a global war hit? Would you fight for your right to be immortal? Even though that may mean dying? Would you fear accidents? The longer you live, the more chance there is of being killed in a freak accident.
Immortality, then, is not such a simple thing; it’s something to strive for perhaps, but not to achieve until as a society we’re ready for it.
But what about living to 200 or 500? Would that be better? Obviously, you’d be working for well over a hundred years (if you lived to be 200, more if the average age were 500). How long would you be in school? For women the question is tied up with how long they’re fertile. If you lived until around 200, when would you have your first child?
Much of the research is around lifestyle, diet, and exercise, so is in reach of us all. But again, what would that mean for society? Would there be the same impetus to succeed, to do, to reach, if you knew you had between two and five hundred years to achieve anything?
As for immortality the same questions remain; are we, as a society, ready for much longer life spans? We certainly don’t have the infrastructure to cope with the increase in population, unless of course, we restrict procreation, which is a whole different discussion!
The final area of research is not so much about longevity as it is about being healthy for the 100 years or so more of us are reaching these days. The aim is to get us to a point where we live healthy active lives and then let everything wind down in a short time span at the very end of our lives.
If our lifespan is, let’s say, 120 years (today it’s around 81 in UK and 78 in the US), we’d live 115 years healthy active and productive. Then, in the last 5 years, we’d wind down, finally going on to the next great adventure around the 120-year mark.
At the moment, we live longer, but not healthier, so we spend 20/30 years sometimes where we’re not well, not fit, not active and need care.
This last model sounds good, doesn’t it? Living longer and being healthy and active, thus not needing to be cared for by either family or the state. But still we’d need to make changes in how we, as a society, function.
For example, the Bible tells us that we have three score years and ten to live, around 70 years. Traditionally here in the UK, men worked until they were 65 and women, 60. Those ages have been shifted upwards to 66 for both men and women, aiming to reach 67 by 2028.
Average life expectancy now is 81 and retirement age is 66 so an average of 15 years retirement. If, by 2028, life expectancy is around 100, that’s 32 years of retirement. If that happens, who will pay the taxes to support an aged top-heavy population?
According to the Office of National Statistics we already have a situation where three quarters of the population are older than the median age of 40.
The question of whether we aim for immortality, extreme life extension or a healthy and active old age brings up some important points. Not the least of which is cost; whether that’s the cost of treatment to extend life beyond 120 years, or the cost of supporting an ever-increasing retired population.
But there are others, like at what age we do actually retire, how much tax we pay to the government to care for us in whatever way we need (pension, health care, housing) when we’re retired. Or the changes society needs to make to how it values us at different ages; we live in a youth culture, where all things youthful are good and all things age-related are not. That’s a simplification I know but serves to point out the difference.
Then there’s what we do to earn our daily crust, even if we only go with the last option, living a healthy active life until around 120, the chances are that we’ll need to radically change how we look at our careers.
Technological advances are happening at an exponential rate and to be competitive in the world we as individuals and as a society need to keep up. Re-education, then, will be important.
Artificial Intelligence and Robotics are predicted to take over many jobs; from driving a lorry to giving legal advice, getting diagnosed by AI or having robot carers in the home. It’s likely that we’ll need to be educated in how to enjoy time away from work, to define ourselves by what we enjoy doing rather than what we get paid to do.
The opening question when meeting new people would change from “What do you do for a living?” to “What do you enjoy doing the most?”.
How do you answer the question “Is living forever a good idea?”