Longevitize! - Essays on the Science, Philosophy & Politics of Longevity

LONGEVITIZE!

ESSAYS ON THE SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY & POLITICS OF LONGEVITY

EDITED BY: FRANCO CORTESE

2013 Center for Transhumanity

ISBN: 978-0-9919824-2-4 Published by Center for Transhumanity

Cover: Oak fractured by a lightning bolt. Allegory on wife's death. (1842) by Maxim Vorobiev

Cover Design by Wendy Stolyarov

This volume is dedicated to the 36.5 million people that will have died this year from age-

correlated diseases that are in principle preventable and unnecessary.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EDITORS PREFACE___

PART ONE: LONGEVITYS POSSIBLE PROBLEMS___

1. WONT MINDCLONES ONLY BE FOR THE RICH AND FAMOUS?

MARTINE ROTHBLATT, PH.D, MBA, J.D.

2. DESIGN AS BIOLOGY: MORE SUSTAINABLE CITIES FOR A GROWING POPULATION

RACHEL ARMSTRONG, PH.D.

3. FUTURE OF URBAN FARMING: MORE FOOD FOR LONGER-LIVING PEOPLE

FREIJA VAN DUIJNE, PH.D.

4. IF IMMORTALITY CREATES HORRIBLE OVERPOPULATION, WHAT NEW ZONES SHOULD WE

COLONIZE?

IMMORTAL LIFE DEBATE FORUM

5. SUPERLONGEVITY WITHOUT OVERPOPULATION

MAX MORE, PH.D

6. LONGEVITY LOGISTICS: WE CAN MANAGE THE EFFECTS OF OVERPOPULATION

FRANCO CORTESE

7. OVERPOPULATION & EXTINCTION

DAVID KEKICH

PART TWO: LONGEVITY PHILOSOPHY___

8. IMMORTALISM: ERNEST BECKER AND ALAN HARRINGTON ON OVERCOMING BIOLOGICAL

LIMITATIONS

JASON SILVA

9. REFUTING THE INDEFINITE LONGEVITY WILL SLOW PROGRESS CRITICISM

FRANCO CORTESE

10. LAZARUS LONG

JOHN ELLIS , PH.D.

11. TECHNO-IMMORTALISM 101: WHAT ARE MINDFILES?

MARTINE ROTHBLATT, PH.D., MBA, J.D.

12. LONGEVITY AND THE INDIAN TRADITION

ILIA STAMBLER, PH.D

13. WHENCE COMETH DEATH?

JOSH MITTELDORF, PH.D

14. DEAD AS A DOORNAIL?

PETER ROTHMAN

15. THE OBJECTIVIST-EXTROPIAN SYNTHESIS

G. STOLYAROV II

16. LET A THOUSAND TURTLES FLY IN THE FACE OF IMMORTALITY

GIULIO PRISCO

17. ARE THERE TRANSHUMANS AMONG US?

DAVID KEKICH

18. THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE VIEW THAT LIFE IS SOMETIMES NOT WORTH LIVING

G. STOLYAROV II

19. BIO-PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR HUMAN BIOLOGICAL IMMORTALITY

MARIOS KYRIAZIS, MD, MSC, MIBIOL, CBIOL.,

20. TRANSHUMANISM AND MIND UPLOADING ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS

G. STOLYAROV II

21. THINK

MILE

22. LONGEVITY AND JEWISH TRADITION

ILIA STAMBLER, PH.D

23. I-NESS: WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT PRESERVE THE SELF?

G. STOLYAROV II

24. HOW CAN A MINDCLONE BE IMMORTAL IF ITS NOT EVEN ALIVE?

MARTINE ROTHBLATT, PH.D., MBA, J.D.

25. CLEARING UP COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHOLE BRAIN EMULATION & SUBSTRATE

INDEPENDENCE

FRANCO CORTESE

26. CAN CONSCIOUSNESS SURVIVE PHYSICAL DISCONTINUITY?

G. STOLYAROV II

27. IS YOUR BRAIN YOU?

DAVID KEKICH

27. PEOPLE WHO JUSTIFY AGING ARE PROFOUNDLY WRONG

MARIA KONOVALENKO, M.SC.

28. COPING WITH DEATH: THE COSMIST THIRD WAY

GIULIO PRISCO

29. DEATH IS NOT MY BRAINS FRIEND - I BELIEVE IN NEUROLOGY, NOT IN GOD

GIOVANNI SANTOSTASI, PH.D

30. THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE WORTH DYING FOR

G. STOLYAROV II

31. TO KNOW OR NOT TO KNOW?

ERIC SCHULKE

32. DESIRING IMMORTALITY

JASON XU

33. THE SUFFERING OF WHICH YOU SPARE YOURSELF THE SIGHT

MILE

34. MY FRIENDS BREAK MY HEART

DAVID KEKICH

35. THE ADVANTAGES OF IMMORTALITY

G. STOLYAROV II

36. IMMORTALITY IS NOT A WASTE OF TIME!

B.J. MURPHY

37. HOW WILL LIFE EXTENSION CHANGE RELIGION?

G. STOLYAROV II

38. ASK THE AGED IF THEY SUFFER

MILE

39. AN ATHEISTS RESPONSE TO PASCALS WAGER

G. STOLYAROV II

40. PROGRESS, HOPE & HUMAN LONGEVITY

DAVID KEKICH

41. REFUTING THE TECHNICAL INFEASIBILITY ARGUMENT

FRANCO CORTESE

42. NATURE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND BUT TRANSHUMANISM IS!

ROEN HORN

43. LONGEVITY IN THE ANCIENT MIDDLE EAST AND ISLAMIC TRADITION

ILIA STAMBLER, PH.D

44. COULD RELIGIONS COME TO ADOPT A NATURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON RESSURECTION AND

JUDGEMENT?

G. STOLYAROV II

45. WHAT WILL LIFE-EXTENSION DO TO RELATIONSHIPS?

LINDA GAMBLE

46. WHAT WILL LIFE EXTENSION DO TO CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT?

G. STOLYAROV II

47. HUMANITYS NATURE IS TO TAKE ON PROBLEMS LIKE DEATH

MILE

48. THE GLOBAL BRAIN & ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN BIOLOGICAL IMMORTALITY


49. LIFE IS WORTH LIVING FOREVER!

G. STOLYAROV II

50. AMALGAMATION OF INDEFINITE LIFE EXTENSION AND TRANSCENDENCE AS WE MOVE

TOWARD THE FUTURE

JAMESON ROHRER

51. DEATH COSTS THE WORLD A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY

ERIC SCHULKE AND VIOLETTA KARKUCINSKA

52. LIFE AND LIBERTY: WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT?

G. STOLYAROV II

53. OCCAMS RAZOR & THE SOUL

YANIV CHEN

54. EVOLUTION: BIOLOGICAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, SOCIETAL

G. STOLYAROV II

55. REJUVENATION RE RELIGION

FRANCO CORTESE

PART THREE: LONGEVITY POLITICS___

56. DEBATE FORUM: WHICH WILL BE THE FIRST NATION TO OFFER STATE-SUBSIDIZED

IMMORTALITY TO ITS CITIZENS?

IMMORTALLIFE.INFO DEBATE FORUMS

57. THE LONGEVITY PARTY MANIFESTO


58. THE LONGEVITY PARTY WHO NEEDS IT? WHO WANTS IT?

ILIA STAMBLER, PH.D

59. PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR INDEFINITE LIFE-EXTENSION?

G. STOLYAROV II

60. LETTER TO SERGEY BRIN


61. STUDY GERONTOLOGY! THIS FRONTIER PROVIDES HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

ERIC SCHULKE

62. DEATH IS TERRORISM


63. INTERNATIONAL LONGEVITY ALLIANCE MANIFESTO

ILA

64. LIBERTY THROUGH LONG LIFE

G. STOLYAROV II

65. HOW MUCH DOES AGING COST YOU?

DAVID KEKICH

66. WHAT IS THE BOTTLENECK FOR PROGRESS IN BIOMEDICAL GERONTOLOGY?

FRANCO CORTESE

67. HOW TO COMMUNICATE THE LIFE EXTENSION AGENDA

PETER WICKS

68. SUPPORT LIFE, NOT WAR

TOM MOONEY

69. HOW TO GET THE WORLD TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT DEATH

MILE

70. EVERYONE MUST MAKE THEIR OWN TRANSHUMANIST WAGER

ZOLTAN ISTVAN

71. STRATEGIES FOR HASTENING THE ARRIVAL OF INDEFINITE LIFE EXTENSION

G. STOLYAROV II

72. TAKE ACTION!

ILA

73. TRANSHUMANISM AS A GRAND CONSERVATISM

G. STOLYAROV II

74. INVERTING A TECHNOPOLITICAL TROPE: ON THE HUBRIS OF NEO-LUDDISM

FRANCO CORTESE

75. TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT LIFE EXTENSION: IF THEY SAY NO

MILE

76. DEFEATING AGING AND DEATH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND URGENT GOAL FOR HUMANKIND

GIOVANNI SANTOSTASI, PH.D.

77. INTERNATIONAL LONGEVITY ALLIANCE INITIATIVES

ILA

78. PROBLEMS WITH NIA FUNDING DISTRIBUTION


79. A LIBERTARIAN-TRANSHUMANIST CRITIQUE OF JEFFREY TUCKERS A LESSON IN

MORTALITY

G. STOLYAROV II

80. DOES THE WORDS IMMORTALITY & FOREVER DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD FOR OUR

CAUSE?

JOHN R LEONARD

81. HOW TO CONVINCE SKEPTICS & FENCE-SITTERS

ERIC SCHULKE

82. THE COALITION TO EXTEND LIFE

TOM MOONEY

83. WHY BIOTECH IS UNLIKELY TO BE THE WAY


84. ITS ABOUT LIFE-EXTENSION, NOT ENDING PAIN AND DEBILITATION

MILE

85. MAXIMUM LIFE FOUNDATION CAPITOL WHITE PAPER

DAVID KEKICH

PART FOUR: LONGEVITY PRAGMATICS___

LIFESTYLE___

86. DEBATE FORUM: WHAT IS THE BEST LONGEVITY EXERCISE?

IMMORTAL LIFE DEBATE FORUM DEBATE

87. LONGEVITY LIFESTYLE

DAVID KEKICH

88. LONGEVITY RUNNING: LIFE EXTENSION SCIENTIST BILL ANDREWS 138-MILE HIMALAYAN

ULTRAMARATHON

JASON SUSSBERG

89. LONGEVITY & EXERCISE

DAVID WESTMORELAND

90. THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP YOUR WEALTH INTACT: KEEPING YOUR HEALTH INTACT

DAVID KEKICH

91. ENDURANCE EXERCISE STUDY SAYS 40 IS THE NEW 80

MARC RANSFORD

92. 3 WAYS ANIMAL PROTEINS JUST MIGHT KILL YOU

JONATHAN BECHTEL

93. RULES OF THUMB FOR ESTIMATING YOUR BIOLOGICAL AGE

DAVID KEKICH

94. VEGETARIANISM & LONGEVITY

JOERN PALLENSEN

95. THE CHINA STUDY: VEGANISM & LONGEVITY


96. 20 HEALTH BENEFITS OF MEDITATION

DAVID KEKICH

97. RUNNING & WEIGHTLIFTING FOR NEUROGENESIS & LIFE-EXTENSION

ALEX LIGHTMAN

98. NATURAL ANTI-AGING IS AN OXYMORON

JOSH MITTELDORF, PH.D.

TECH___

99. CHEMICAL BRAIN PRESERVATION: CRYONICS FOR MIND-UPLOADERS

GIULIO PRISCO

100. MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY & LONGEVITY

DICK PELLETIER

101. PREVENTATIVE TESTING FOR AGING


102. 3D-PRINTED CYBERNETIC APPENDAGES

JAMESON ROHRER

103. ORGAN AND TISSUE REPLACEMENT COULD END AGING BY 2020

DICK PELLETIER

104. CREATION OF ARTIFICIAL CELLS DEALS FATAL BLOW TO VITALISM

G. STOLYAROV II

105.MEDICINE WILL TRANSCEND THE LIMITS OF BIOLOGY

DAVID KEKICH

106. SYNTHETIC BIOLOGYS PROMISE


107. LONGEVITY & THE TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY

DICK PELLETIER

108. LONGEVITY, DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING & VIDEO GAMES

G. STOLYAROV II

109. NANOTECH TO END DISEASE, AGING & POVERTY

DICK PELLETIER

110. BIOHACKING 101: WHY SELF EXPERIMENT?

WINSLOW STRONG

111. DIY NANOTECH DOUBLES LIFESPAN IN MICE!

GRINDHOUSE WETWARES

112. CRYONICS 101

JAMESON ROHRER

PHARMA___

113. TELOMERASE HISTORY & TIPS

DAVID KEKICH

114. SUPPLEMENTAL SKINNINESS


115. ASTRAGALUS: IS THIS ANCIENT CHINESE HERB THE TELOMERE-ENABLER OF THE FUTURE?

JONATHAN BECHTEL

116. EXCITING DISCOVERY OF 2,000 YEAR-OLD TIBETAN ROOT


117. THE SEARCH FOR A MIRACLE LONGEVITY DRUG TO SLOW, HALT OR REVERSE CELL

SENESCENCE

DAVID KEKICH

118. BRAIN CHEMISTRY AND LIFESPAN


RESEARCH ___

119. POTENTIAL THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS OF TELOMERE BIOLOGY

WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, PH.D

120. LONGEVITY: WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS

DAVID WESTMORELAND

121. EXTREME LIFESPANS THROUGH PERPETUALLY EQUALIZING INTERVENTIONS


122. DR. DAVID SINCAIR MAKES PROGRESS IN THE WAR ON BIOLOGICAL AGING

G. STOLYAROV II

123. 14 KNOWN MECHANISMS OF AGING AND THEIR SOLUTIONS

DAVID KEKICH

124. ALZHEIMERS IS A PROBLEM OF IMBALANCE, NOT TOXICITY


125. THE DEMOGRAPHIC THEORY OF AGING


126. EXTREME LIFE EXTENSION THROUGH EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION


127. JOY IS 60% OUT OF OUR CONTROL

DAVID WESTMORELAND

128. SQUARING THE MORTALITY CURVE OR EXTENDING LONGEVITY?

DAVID KEKICH

129. PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY IS POSSIBLE: ASK TURRITOPSIS NUTRICULA!

G. STOLYAROV II

130. AN EXCEPTION TO SEVERAL THEORIES OF AGING: THE NAKED MOLE RAT


131. THE INTEGRATION OF STEM CELL MEDICINE

DAVID KEKICH

132. THE OCEAN QUAHOG: A CLAM THAT CAN LIVE FOR OVER 400 YEARS

G. STOLYAROV II\

133. AGING IS AN ACTIVE PROCESS OF SELF-DESTRUCTION


PART FIVE: THE ART OF LONGEVITY___

134. HEY KIDS, DONT FORGET TO TAKE MY BRAIN OUT OF THE FREEZER!

HANK PELLISSIER

135. QUESTIONS TO A TRANSHUMANIST

GIOVANNI SANTOSTASI, PH.D

136. RE-LIVE/RE-BOOT

B.J. MURPHY

137. 2033 IMMORTALIST FICTION CONTEST WINNER

G. STOLYAROV II

138. OPEN LETTER TO THE CLOSED CASKET

FRANCO CORTESE

139. I WANT MY DAUGHTER TO BE IMMORTAL

HANK PELLISSIER

140. JONATHAN SWIFT'S STRULDBRUGS, IMMORTALITY, AND NEGLIGIBLE SENESCENCE

G. STOLYAROV II

141. IMMORTALIST REMIX: I HAVE A DREAM

ERIC SCHULKE

142. CYBERNETIC LOVE POEM

GIOVANNI SANTOSTASI, PH.D.

143. MONOLOGUE OF IMMORTAL MAN

G. STOLYAROV II

144. JOIN IMMORTALISM, OR DIE!

HANK PELLISSIER

145. IMMORTALIST HIPHOP

MAITREYA ONE

146. HOME IS WARE THE HEARTH IS

FRANCO CORTESE

147. TRANSHUMANIST REVOLUTION

ZOLTAN ISTVAN

PART SIX: LONGEVITY POPCULTURE, PROGRAMS & EVENTS___

148. BILL GATES WANTS TO BE IMMORTAL?


149. SURPRISING HEALTH HABITS OF THE ULTRA-WEALTHY

DAVID KEKICH

150. LONGEVITY & THE TRANSHUMAN

CLYDE DESOUZA

151. GOOGLE WANTS TO FUND LIFE-EXTENSION START-UPS


152. WILL GOOGLES RAY KURZWEIL LOVE FOREVER?

DAVID KEKICH

153. TRANSHUMANIST MEDIA CONTENT


154. IMMORTAL LIFE INTERVIEW WITH R.U. SIRIUS, BIOGRAPHER OF TIM LEARY

HANK PELLISSIER & R.U. SIRIUS

155. ANTI-IMMORTALIST CINEMA

B.J. MURPHY

156. BAD CINEMA


157. INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT ETTINGER

GIULIO PRISCO & ROBERT ETTINGER

158. GF2045: MORE ACTION, LESS TALK!

RANDAL A. KOENE, PH.D

159. GLOBAL FUTURE GONGRESS 2045, NEWYORK CITY

WINSLOW STRONG

160. GF2045: WHAT WILL WE LOOK LIKE IN 2045?

DAVID KEKICH

161. HELP CONQUER DEATH WITH CITIZEN SCIENTIST GRANTS & RESEARCH FUNDING FROM

LONGECITY!

FRANCO CORTESE

162. SILICON VALLEY TRANSHUMANIST ESTABLISHES RESURRECTION GROUPS

JASON XU

163. THE MOVEMENT FOR INDEFINITE LIFE-EXTENSION (MILE): THE NEXT STEP FOR HUMANKIND

G. STOLYAROV II

164. CYPRUS SYMPOSION PATHWAYS TO INDEFINITE LIFESPANS


CONTRIBUTORS

APPENDIX I: ORGANIZATIONS & INSTITUTIONS OF INTEREST

COMPILED BY FRANCO CORTESE

APPENDIX II: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON LONGEVITY

COMPILED BY G. STOLYAROV II

EDITORS PREFACE

The eradication of involuntary death via science and technology will be the defining feat of our

century. Involuntary death and suffering is nothing less than the crisis of our times, and the

complete abolishment of involuntary aging as quickly as possible is a moral imperative if there

ever was one. 100,000 real, living people die per day from age-correlated disease and functional

decline; 3 Million people lost per month to causes that are not inevitable, but instead have

specific material causes that can be remediated and even reversed through a variety of medical

therapies already visible on the developmental horizon. Look at what humanity has done with

and on this earth the myriad ways in which we have whorled the very world itself to better-

embody our values and desires. To say that continually increasing human lifespans is technically

infeasible is to laugh in the face of history, and 3 Million in-principal preventable human deaths

per month 36.5 Million deaths per year is an untenable situation in a civilization as capable

as ours.

Indefinite longevity has been a long time coming. Deaths final defeat can arguably be seen as

inherent, or at least embryonic, in the rise of modern medicine, which made it increasingly

apparent that the causes of physical disease and functional decline were physical and procedural

rather than moral and metaphysical. If the body and mind were material systems amenable to

physical changes, then what was to stop us from keeping the body in a healthy condition through

the correct series of physical manipulations, potentially indefinitely?

A body in full functional optimality has a certain set of phenotypic correlates. A body in

functional decline (i.e. having sustained accumulated damage from aging) has an alternate set of

phenotypic correlates. If we can sustain and perpetuate the phenotypes correlating with

functional optimality, then what, really, is to stop us from doing so potentially indefinitely in

other words, from removing and reversing any deviation from the phenotypes correlative with

functional optimality?

The 20th

century witnessed the convergence of multiple alternative approaches to indefinitely-

extending human lifespans. We see the formulation of increasingly precise tools for making

changes to the body on the molecular scale genetic engineering, recombinant DNA and gene

therapies, regenerative medicines (e.g. bio-printing, stem-cell replacement therapies) and

synthetic biology. These tools progressively developed into what can be considered the

biotechnological approach to indefinite life-extension, epitomized by Aubrey de Greys

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, which locates 7 major causes of aging (that

is, age-correlated functional decline for individuals, and an increase in the mortality rate as a

function of age for populations) and posits 7 distinct biomedical approaches to either reversing

the effects of those seven deadly causes or making their effects negligible.

We also see the conceptual formulation of nanotechnology first by Richard Feynman in his

seminal 1959 lecture Theres Plenty of Room at the Bottom and later developed more formally

in K. Eric Drexlers Nanosystems, which described his notion of mechanosynthesis that is,

configuring molecules through mechanical manipulation at the atomic scale rather than through

chemical reaction. This paved the way for Robert A. Freitass groundbreaking work in

Nanomedicine although Drexler did lay a conceptual foundation for the health and medical use

of nanomachines in his popular book Engines of Creation. With machines small enough to fit

inside not only our bloodstreams, but our very cells, we would appear to be able to fix almost

any sort of structural, connectional or procedural damage i.e. phenotypic deviation leading to

or correlating with aging. Indeed, with the nanotechnological approach we neednt even

necessarily understand the mechanisms underlying the formation, regulation and growth of the

disease or phenotypic (e.g. structural or procedural) correlate(s) of functional decline; if we

know the molecular structures and procedural-parameters correlating with functional optimality,

and we have machines capable of atomically-precise molecular manipulation, then we can

simply revert any such phenotypic deviations to normality (i.e. to the phenotype(s) correlating

with optimal or normative functionality), recurrently, regardless of their ultimate or underlying

cause(s).

The 20th

century also witnessed the conception of a third broad approach to reversing the effects

of aging, recurrently and potentially indefinitely: Mind-Uploading, or the notion of transferring

the mind residing in or embodied by ones brain into a computer. This concept appears to have

been first introduced by J.D Bernal in The World, The Flesh and the Devil, where he wrote

for even the replacement of a previously organic brain-cell by a synthetic apparatus would

not destroy the continuity of consciousness, and continued forward by Arthur C. Clarke, who

envisioned a transfer from brain to computer in his 1956 novel The City and the Stars. The

notion was further developed by Hans Moravec in his 1988 book Mind Children, and later by

Kurzweil in The Singularity is Near. The notion eventually evolved into the contemporary

intellectual movement of Substrate Independent Minds and the academic discipline of Whole

Brain Emulation, explored by such projects and groups as Randal A. Koenes

CarbonCopies.org., the 2045 Avatar Project, Henry Markrams Human Brain Project and the

similarly-aimed recent US BRAIN Initiative.

But while progress has been and is being made, progress does not make itself. Some think that

the best approach to take is to wait it out while living as healthily as one can until the

breakthroughs are made. But progress is not some external force or thing progress is us. We are

the prime mediators of progress. Jow long it takes to achieve continually-extended lifespans is

determined by how much attention, demand and funding it receives today and tomorrow. The

bottleneck for progress in biomedical gerontology may be funding, but the bottleneck for funding

is demand, desire, advocacy and lobbying. You can have an impact on the fight to end the

finality of death as a non-scientist and non-technologist. You can write a letter to your local

politician. You can spread the word that deaths final death is finally on the developmental

horizon. You can publicly advocate for more government research initiatives, policy reports, and

feasibility studies. You can volunteer at such non-profit organizations as LongeCity or the

International Longevity Alliance. And considering that the amount of time it takes to achieve

continually-increasing longevity is a function of how hard we work for it, which is in turn a

function of how hard we demand it, advocate it and lobby for it, then working to hasten the birth

of an ageless age is one of the most ethical and noble ways that one could spend their time, in

terms of the number of involuntary-deaths prevented and the amount of suffering preemptively-

negated.

Longevity cannot be left solely to the scientist and technologist because it is larger society that

determines what is worthy of sciences surveyance, what problems are important and should get

funding in short, the scope and extent of science. We need longevity to enter the arena of

politics, of activism, of art. We need men and women of every craft to take in hand their chosen

tool and demand the right to increasingly-longer life. We need every layman to stand up and say

Down with the childhood lies of deaths inevitability, or dignity, or naturality; down with the

obscene lie that we have no choice but to lie down at long last. We are human we, who have

stood up to raise ourselves up from the very beginning. We are the species defined by our

proclivity to deny and defy definition, to say doom to duty, and finally, to say death to death.

Accordingly, this volume considers longevity from a variety of viewpoints: scientific,

technological, philosophical, pragmatic, artistic. In it you will find not only information on the

ways in which science and medicine are bringing about the potential to reverse aging and defeat

death within many of our own lifetimes, as well as the ways that you can increase your own

longevity today in order to be there for tomorrows promise, but also a glimpse at the art,

philosophy and politics of longevity as well areas that will become increasingly important as

we realize that advocacy, lobbying and activism can play as large a part in the hastening of

progress in indefinite lifespans as science and technology.

The contributors of this volume are taking part in this most righteous of plights, the fight to

finally end the fickle final night and sickly-sanctified oblivion called involuntary death. This

volume is entirely indebted to their contributions. These men and women, along with the many

researchers, advocates, activists, artists and supporters of indefinite longevity who have not

found their way into the present volume, are the true heroes of our time. And it is never too late

to join them.

FRANCO CORTESE

PART ONE: LONGEVITYS POSSIBLE PROBLEMS

OVERPOPULATION, RESOURCE SCARCITY, THERAPY-AVAILABILITY &

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

LACE AND GHOSTS (1856) BY VICTOR HUGO

WONT MINDCLONES ONLY BE FOR THE RICH AND FAMOUS?

BY: MARTINE ROTHBLATT, PH.D, MBA, J.D.

1987 was the first year in which one billion people boarded airline flights. In that year the

worlds population hit 5 billion, meaning approximately 20% of all people experienced a

fantastic luxury not available to historys wealthiest monarchs. By 2005 two billion people were

boarding airliners each year, and the worlds population had grown to 6.5 billion. In the short

span of years between 1987 and 2005, airline flight grew from being a right of 20% to a right of

31% of humanity, from barely a fifth to almost a third. Even assuming more frequent flights by

the wealthier, this is startling evidence of the democratization of technology.

1987 was also noteworthy as the first year mobile phone sales hit one million units. A tool for

the rich? Twenty-two years later, in 2009, half the worlds population owned their own mobile

phone. From one million to three billion in 22 years. Even assuming some rich people have two

or more mobiles, this is undeniable evidence of the democratization of technology.

As with flying and phoning, so it will be with mindcloning. At first just a few. Almost overnight

it will be almost everyone. Technology democratizes. Thats what it does. I cant think of a

technology that does not democratize. Heart transplants? The first was in 1967, and currently

thousands of poor and middle class people are getting them each year, mostly in countries such

as the United States (including at least one impoverished prisoner), but also countries such as

Vietnam and India (where the first recipient was the wife of a handkerchief vendor). The

improvement of eyesight? Eyeglasses are almost universally available, and in wealthier countries

even those in the lowest wealth deciles of the population routinely wear contact lenses or have

corrective eye surgery.

Even in totalitarian countries, technology democratizes. Citizens of non-capitalist or non-

democratic countries rarely lack TVs or radios, even if they have little interesting content

available. Aside from sub-Saharan Africa, 90% or more of all urban populations worldwide have

access to electricity, and even 50% or more have access in rural areas.[1] Even in Africa,

wracked by impediments to technological development, two-thirds of city dwellers and a quarter

of villagers have electricity.[2]

Not one single person, monarch or mendicant, had access to the magic of electricity for over

97% of recorded history. Yet, in that last three percent of recorded history since the technology

arose, it has been made available to over half the species, including the poor in the great majority

of countries. Facts such as this demonstrate that mindcloning technology will rapidly be

available to the masses.

What possible reason would there be for mindcloning technology to be a unique exception to the

overwhelming tendency of technology to democratize, especially information technology? It

would have to be something uniquely related to mindcloning. It could not be anything such as

mindcloning involving storage of a lot of personal data many companies have already

democratized that function. The only thing really unique about mindcloning is that it creates a

new form of life, vitological life.

In fact, though, there are many examples of democratized technology for creating new forms of

life. From biologically-produced new kinds of medicine (ie, creating new kinds of bacteria that

make pharmaceutical ingredients), to transgenically-produced new kinds of crops and animals,

new forms of life have in every instance been rapidly made available to far greater populations

than the rich.

Perhaps it is the fact that the mindclones will be sentient life that will be used as an argument to

restrict them to the rich? Not a chance. Humans produce sentient life by the mega-ton, from pets

to pregnancies, and there is no possible way for the rich to corner the market (nor would there be

any reason to do so). Or maybe it is the fact that the mindclones might be so smart that the rich

will want to keep all of that intelligence for their own quest to get ever richer? While I do not

doubt that they would, if they could, the historical record shows that they cant, and hence they

shant. The supercomputers of 20 years ago are less powerful than the laptops of today. Indeed, a

run-of-the-mill MacBook Pro is over 1000 x more powerful than the legendary Cray-1

supercomputer. In other words, any effort by the rich and powerful to control mindclone

technology would be as fruitless as an effort to control the Cray supercomputers of the late 20th

century other companies technologies will swirl around the controlled technology, like a

rushing river around boulders in its riverbed.

I dont believe there is any doubt as to why technology always democratizes. It is as simple as

this: (1) people want what makes life better for other people (generally this entails technology),

(2) satisfying popular wants is in the self-interests of those who control technology (both

technology originators and government regulators), and (3) over time the magnitude of these two

factors overwhelm any countervailing forces (such as cultural bugaboos or fears of losing

control). The wanted technology becomes available, either because scales of production make it

cheaper, innovation makes it more accessible [3], or officialdom finds its interests better served

by channeling rather than blocking the wanted technology.

There are two further reasons why mindcloning will be rapidly democratized. The first is that the

marginal costs of providing mindfile storage and mindware vitalizations to the billionth, two

billionth, three billionth and so on persons are virtually nil. The second reason is that it is in the

economic interests of the persons having mindclone technology to share it as broadly as possible.

Each reason will be considered in more detail below.

Lets first think about the costs of mindcloning. There are four main elements: (1) the cost of

storing a persons mindfile, estimated in Question 1 as about a gigabyte a month based on

Gordon Bells experience, (2) the cost of running that mindfile through vitalizing mindware to

set its consciousness parameters, (3) the cost of transmitting mindfile data and mindclone

consciousness, and (4) the cost of user electronics for accessing mindclones. Because the costs of

these elements are amortized across tens of millions if not billions of users, the incremental costs

of these for each person are negligible. For example, if it costs a billion dollars to create

mindware, the costs per person are but one dollar for a billion people and fifty cents for two

billion people. Assume the cost of building out a high-speed transmission network with capacity

for six billion mindclones is $6 billion. In that case, the cost is $2/mindclone for three billion

mindclones, but only $1/mindclone for six billion mindclones.

There has never been an easier thing to place in the hands of the masses than information.

Shortwave radio broadcasts cover every human in the world for the same cost as if there were

only 1% as many humans spread throughout the world. Consequently, the cost of shortwave

radio per person is less the more people who listen.

The Sirius XM Satellite Radio project I launched in the 1990s cost over a billion dollars. In a

way that was the price that one very wealthy person would have had to pay for the enjoyment of

satellite radio. It was possible to offer the service only to rich people, say for a million dollars a

year, so that they could show off their exclusive and amazing audio toy. But nobody considered

doing that for even a millisecond. Instead we priced the service around $10 a month and today

over 20 million people listen. That billion dollar project, which grew to over two billion dollars,

when divided by 20 million listeners, comes out to just $100 per person. It will be much the same

way with mindcloning.

Mindclone technology is simply the shortwave or satellite radio of tomorrow. Instead of

someone sending commoditized information down the airwaves to the masses, in the form of

broadcasts, for matriculation and selection within the brains of those masses, someone will send

individualized information down the cyberchannels to the masses, in the form of mindclone

consciousness, for refinement and enhancement via interaction with the brains of those masses.

The second factor forcing democratization of mindfile technology is the economic interests of its

creators. The more people who create mindfiles, the wealthier will be those who create mindfile

technology. This is really just Google on steroids (or Facebook, or Twitter, or Tencent, or a

dozen other competitors). It is in the economic interests of Google, Facebook, Twitter and so on

to share their technology as broadly as possible. The more people who use a social media site,

the more valuable the owner of that site becomes. This is because more people, more human

attention, translates, some way or another, into more money. And so it will be with mindfiles.

The sites, or sources, that we go to for our mindware, or for tune-ups of our mindware, or for

storage of our mindfiles, or for organization of our mindfiles, or for housing of our mindclones,

or for socializing of our mindclones those sites and sources will be valuable to the people and

companies who want to sell things to usthings like virtual real estate, and things like real-

world interfaces.

DESIGN AS BIOLOGY: MORE SUSTAINABLE CITIES FOR A GROWING POPULATION

BY: RACHEL ARMSTRONG, PH.D.

Wafer thin artificial leaves separate with the rising sun, as buildings wake up. They continue to

follow its path over the course of the day, sucking dew and carbon dioxide out of the air. These

substances are then filtered into the fleshy fabric, within the walls of our homes, which are not

dead spaces but active processors, like stomachs that are packed with thriving microbial

colonies. They generate heat, recycle grey water and filter effluents to produce rich, native soil

that has a commercial value and is used to grow plants in green plots, or window boxes. We are

now producers, not consumers. There are no more infertile stretches of asphalt sprawled over our

urban rooftops but an expanse of vegetation that processes the citys rich chemical landscapes

and it is no longer possible to tell which of these vibrant structures are artificial, or natural.

Visionary ideas about our near-future cities help develop new approaches to underpin human

development without necessarily being constrained within the limits of what is already possible.

Modern cities are run and populated by machines to such an extent that we no longer really

notice them. And while machines are useful, they consume fossil fuels and transform them into

energy, carbon dioxide and industrial pollutants which, on an industrial scale, produces a world

that Rachel Carson noted is not quite fatal. In recent years weve looked to renewables to avoid

the need for using fossil fuels but the percentage of our energy provided by these alternatives

remains small compared with our overall consumption.

Yet, there is an alternative technology available to us, which we have barely begun to apply in its

full potential. Nature provides a rich portfolio of, sometimes unlikely, living technologies that

may shape our near-future lifestyles in new ways. The practice of biomimicry already taps into

Natures ingenuity, where for example, the Venus flower basket sponge, which has a lattice

exoskeleton, inspired the famous hexagonal skin of Norman Fosters Gherkin Tower.

While these solutions are currently realized through industrial processes we have reached a point

at the start of the 21st century, where we do not have to copy Nature but can directly design and

engineer with her processes with such precision and on a range of scales - that we can think of

them new kind of technology. Living technologies have unique properties that may enable us to

imagine and realize our urban spaces in new ways since they are adaptable, robust and have an

incredible ability to transform one thing into another. Think of how trees share common

technologies (leaves, trunk, roots) that are adapted to different kinds of environments and use of

a range of resources. For example, needle-leaved Canadian evergreens make the most of scant

sunlight and their leaf litter feeds the acidic soils that nurture networks of microorganisms, such

as, nitrogen fixing bacteria, which in turn, enriches the food for the trees. In the near future, we

will begin to tap into the technological potential of this metabolic diversity and strategically use

it within the fabric of our cities.

While trees are complex organic structures that require substantial infrastructures and resources

to nurture them, biotechnology has revealed that multicellular organisms can perform the same

kinds of processes but even more powerfully. Although these creatures cannot be seen with the

naked eye, they are much easier to keep and much more vigorous than trees.

Indeed, architects are already suggesting that microorganisms may power our cities. For

example, Alberto Estevezs Genetic Barcelona proposes that using the techniques of synthetic

biology - which enables us to grow organisms that do not exist in Nature by manipulating their

DNA trees would be engineered to produce a natural light-producing protein usually found in

jellyfish. So, not only would we be able to enjoy the mood-elevating wavelengths the light

emitted by these plants but we would also benefit from not having to rely on fossil fuels and

central power grids to provide street lighting.

In the near future our buildings may also be grown by industrial-strength microorganisms.

Some of these may form the basis of self-healing materials such as, Henk Jonkers biocrete,

where hardy bacteria are mixed into traditional cement and form plugs of solid when they are

activated by water, from micro fine cracks in the material. Other projects such as, Magnus

Larssons Dune is more ambitious and harnesses the metabolic powers of a sand-particle-fixing

species of bacteria to produce sandstone or marble in deserts, thought to be too hostile to live in.

Within modern cities, the value of harnessing the transformational powers of communities of

microorganisms, called bioprocessing, is being realized in wastewater gardens. These may be

thought of as bacterial cities within our own, which are fed with our waste organic matter and

transform it into useful substances. Rather than being noxious sumps of filth and disease, these

sewage plants are popular visitor attractions - odorless greenhouses with the look and feel of a

botanical garden. Bioprocessing units may be designed to house different kinds of ecologies to

suit particular habitats. For example, in estuary environments oystertecture, where shellfish are

farmed on sculptural metal structures, could be used in bioprocessing systems to filter impurities,

improve water quality and increase biodiversity.

These developments in living technology suggest that we will evolve solutions using the

transformational properties of natural systems. Living technologies build upon traditional skills

working in combination with new scientific knowledge. Importantly, since biology is

everywhere, these approaches are not confined to Western societies. Increasingly DIY bio

communities are learning how to hack natural systems and diversify living technology

applications. This may streamline global human development with biospherical processes so that

our lifestyles are more sustainable, less environmentally disruptive and ultimately means that our

cities are better places to live.

Perhaps the future of our urban environments will not be about designing buildings, as we know

them, but to produce synthetic ecosystems, which improve the quality of our lives.

FUTURE OF URBAN FARMING: MORE FOOD FOR LONGER-LIVING PEOPLE

BY: FREIJA VAN DUIJNE, PH.D.

Over many centuries, attempts have been made to get food production out of the cities. Produce

comes from the land and is transported into the cities. In most western cities, abattoirs have

disappeared. Markets are still there, but no longer have a central role in our shopping.

This image is starting to change again. Urban farming is emerging in all sorts of shapes. A few

examples from the Netherlands: offices that use their roof for rooftop farming, volunteer gardens

with a restaurant, like Hutspot Hotspot in Rotterdam, urban farm companies like Uit je eigen

stad, high tech indoor growing systems like Simbi City, or Plantlab. Which types of urban

farming would be around in 2020?

SCENARIOS FOR URBAN FARMING

Scenarios for the future of urban farming may help us think about the directions for urban

farming. Also it helps us thinks about ways to support different developments.

Here are the basic scenarios that we came up with. They are still in a preliminary stage. And we

welcome all suggestions for further elaboration. What do you think that might happen in these

scenarios?

THE URBAN FOOD PRODUCER

LED technology, sensor technology and all sorts of ICT applications are affordable to apply for

indoors, layered crop production. This takes place in formerly empty buildings, for which no

other use has been found. Various companies have demonstrated to be economically successful

in producing fruits and vegetables. These are high end produce, for which a good price is being

paid by restaurants and private consumers in the cities.

Businesses have started off with small production units. After the first successes, they could

make further investments and grow their business. Suppliers, service providers and other

businesses have settled next to each other to make use of each other (waste) streams, products

and services.

Consumers are involved through social media. They have Apps to see which types of produce

are available and shop directly. There are virtual supermarkets which offer the products of

several urban food producers. Products can be delivered at home through a peer to peer

deliverance service. But a network of drones for deliverance is coming up soon.

THE URBAN FARMER

The dream of the urban farmer is to reconnect city people with making food. The urban farmer

wants to share his knowledge and craftsmanship with the young and the old. Their business is a

multifunctional farm with fruits, vegetables and animals. They have various revenues. People

can subscribe to weekly food packages. There is a restaurant and catering. Crowd funding allows

people to have a share in the company. In exchange for that they receive products and they are

invited for events on the farm.

For their personnel, urban farmers rely on volunteers in addition to their regular employers. That

makes up an interesting mix of people and cultures.

The urban farmer also has a function in maintaining the public greens near the farm. Thanks to

their close connection to the people in the neighborhood, the farmer knows their demands and

wishes in relation to green areas in the city.

THE CITIZEN GROWER

Lots of people who live in cities share the wish to be active in food production. Kitchen gardens

are popular among young and old. The barren grounds and rooftops look tempting to these

gardeners. People start to ask the city government if they could use these parcels for growing

food. Some cities have pro-actively responded to this demand and made maps of available

parcels and rooftops.

People use the food that they grow to sell on neighborhood markets. Near a garden complex

there is often a restaurant, where meals are served made from fresh neighborhood produce. The

unemployed start off as waiters and other personnel in the restaurant, making it easier for them to

find a paid job later on. Schools and children are involved. They are physically active and learn

about healthy food.

City councils are happy with this movement and develop additional education programs to help

people learn about the nature of food. They also facilitate the growers movement in all sorts of

ways, for instance by making it easier for businesses to donate or act as barter in a project. In this

way the city, businesses and citizens connect through the growing of food.

THE URBAN FOOD DEVELOPER

With the latest technology the possibilities for urban food production systems have come closer,

at least in theory. This could be a solution for food supply in the cities. This means a new use for

empty building, environmental benefits through lower energy use and small food miles. These

new urban food production systems, and the knowledge to build them, could be important for

mega cities in emerging economies. This is recognized in vision documents of regional and

national governments.

Public-private initiatives aim at system solutions for high-tech large scale urban food production.

Projects aim at knowledge development and deliverables such as new applications for the design

of food production systems. One aspect of these projects concerns the dialogue with society

about new food production technologies and food production facilities in downtown

neighborhoods.

Governments also use these projects for demonstration purposes. These types of food production

systems are very innovative. Their development is an important contribution to the branding of

the region or country an innovative agri&food producer with great export potential.

IF IMMORTALITY CREATES HORRIBLE OVERPOPULATION, WHAT NEW ZONES SHOULD

WE COLONIZE?1

BY: IMMORTAL LIFE DEBATE FORUM

Although the essay by Max More included in this volume provides reasons why radical life

extension would not lead to horrific overpopulation, many critics of Superlongevity still list this

as a primary reason for they oppose significantly extending human life.

Lets just assume that population will keep increasing if that happens, where would humans

live? Do any of the options below appeal to you?

1. Colonize the oceans, with floating islands and immense ships.

2. Colonize Antarctica and other uninhabited regions, with glass-domed temperature-

controlled communities.

3. Colonize the ocean floor.

4. Dig underground, and into mountains, like moles- build immense subterranean cities.

5. Colonize the Moon.

6. Colonize Mars.

7. Build huge satellites that each provide habitation for 100,000 people, that

circumnavigate the Earth.

8. None of the above, just ban breeding, or make people cue up for permission to

multiply.

____________________

My own preference would be to colonize tropical oceans, as soon as desalination is efficient.

Aquaculture would be easily available as both a food source and an economic option.

My second choice would be gophering into mountains.

1 Debate Question and introductory discussion by Hank Pellissier.

By GIOVANNI SANTOSTASI on Mar 14, 2013 at 3:21pm

____________________

Of course the premise is wrong since population growth is inversely proportional to Kilowatt

usage per capital but - if I must assume population growth then the answer would be to

genetically modify ourselves to be 6 inches tall so that we could support 60 billion with no

problem on Earth.

By JAEAME I. KOYIL on Mar 14, 2013 at 3:53pm

____________________

if I must assume population growth then the answer would be to genetically modify ourselves to

be 6 inches tall so that we could support 60 billion with no problem on Earth.

And be eaten by rats and cats?

I say Mars is the place to goif possible.

By ALAN BROOKS on Mar 14, 2013 at 8:24pm

____________________

Any or all of the above, once those options become technically feasible and have been properly

risk-assessed. But we need to think about our messaging here. One of the more credible

accusations that technosceptics tend to hurl at Transhumanists is that we are all gung-ho

technoenthuasiasts, navely dreaming our techno-utopian dreams and woefully underestimating

the risks. I can easily handle people telling me that defeating the aging process is not natural,

but when they worry about overpopulation Im more inclined to sympathise, and to the extent

that I still want to convince them Id be more inclined to try to tease out what other concerns

they might have and respond to them, rather than hitting them with a bunch of were going to

colonise other planets-type ideas.

Well, maybe I should read that Max More article

By PETER WICKS on Mar 14, 2013 at 11:43pm

____________________

Of all terrestrial locations to locate massively swelling populations the deserts seem smartest - all

exotic locations require considerable investments, deserts require the least. What is smartest and

most affordable is to dig a broad channel in a deep groove or canyon and let people live in

apartments on either side of the channel. That would filter out harsh desert sunlight and it would

mean access to straight linear roadways, and flowing water - and desert on either side to cultivate

plants and solar energy.

By letting such a canyon meander through the desert landscape it would be easy to house

millions sustainably. Travel up and down the canyon would be easy by monorail.

By KHANNEA SUNTZU on Mar 15, 2013 at 5:28am

SUPERLONGEVITY WITHOUT OVERPOPULATION

BY: MAX MORE, PH.D

Proponents of superlongevity (indefinitely extended life spans) have been making their case for

the possibility and desirability of this change in the human condition for decades. For just as

long, those hearing the arguments for superlongevity have deployed two or three unchanging,

unrelenting responses. The question: But what would we do with all that time? is one of them.

Another is the But death is natural! gambit. The final predictable response is to conjure up the

specter of overpopulation. Despite strong downward trends in population growth since this issue

gained visibility in the 1960s, the third concern remains an impediment.

Paul Ehrlichs 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb [1], ignited a trend in which alarmists

routinely ignored data and reasonable projections to scare the public. Those of us who see

achieving the indefinite extension of the human life span as a central goal naturally find this

behavior quite irritating. If baseless fear wins out, we will gain little from our personal programs

of exercise, nutrition, or supplementation. Widespread fear leads to restrictive legislation -

legislation that in this case could be deadly. Although the volume has been turned down a little

on the population issue, it continues to reverberate and deserves a response. The purpose of this

essay is to address the essential concerns, provide current facts, and dispel the errors behind the

overpopulation worries.

VALUES FIRST

As I will show, we have little reason to fear population growth with or without extended lives.

However, to bring into focus an ethical issue, I will pretend for a moment that population growth

is or will become a serious problem. Would this give us a strong reason for turning against the

extension of human lifespan?

No. Opposing extended life because, eventually, it might add to existing problems would be an

ethically irresponsible response. Suppose you are a doctor faced with a child suffering from

pneumonia. Would you refuse to cure the child because she would then be well enough to run

around and step on the toes of others? On the contrary, our responsibility lies in striving to live

long and vitally while helping others do the same. Once we are at work on this primary goal, we

can focus more energy on solving other challenges. Long, vital living at the individual level

certainly benefits from a healthy physical and social environment. The superlongevity advocate

would want to help find solutions to any population issues. But dying is not a responsible or

healthy way to solve anything.

Besides, if we take seriously the idea of limiting life span so as to control population, why not be

more proactive about it? Why not drastically reduce access to currently commonplace medical

treatments? Why not execute anyone reaching the age of seventy? Once the collective goal of

population growth is accepted as overriding individual choices, it would seem hard to resist this

logic.

IT IS HOW MANY, NOT HOW LONG, THAT MATTERS

Limiting population growth by opposing life extension not only fails the ethical test, it also fails

the pragmatic test. Keeping the death rate up simply is not an effective way of slowing

population growth. Population growth depends far more on how many children families have, as

opposed to how long people live. In mathematical terms, longer life has no effect on the

exponential growth rate. It only affects a constant of the equation. This means that it matters little

how long we live after we have reproduced. Compare two societies: In country A, people live on

average only to 40 years of age, each family producing 5 children. In country B, the life span is

90 years but couples have 4 children. Despite the much longer life span in country B, their

population growth rate will be much lower than that of country A. It makes little difference over

the long term how many years people live after they have had children. The population growth

rate is determined by how many children we have, not how long we live.

Even the short-term upward effect on population due to a falling death rate may be cancelled by

a delay in child bearing. Many women in developed countries choose to bear children by their

early 30s because the obstacles to successful pregnancy grow as they age. As the last few

decades have already shown, extending the fertile period of womens lives would allow them to

put off having children until later, until they have developed their careers. Not only will couples

have children later, we can expect them to be better positioned financially and psychologically to

care for them.

Almost certainly, the first truly effective technologies to extend the maximum human life span

will come with a significant cost of human development and application. As a consequence

population effects would first be felt in the developed countries. This points to another flaw in

the suggestion that extended longevity will dramatically boost population growth. The fact is,

superlongevity in the developed nations would have practically no global or local population

impact. The lack of global impact is a consequence of the small and falling share of the global

population accounted for by the developed nations. No local population boom drama can

realistically be expected because these countries are experiencing very low, zero, or negative

population growth:

The share of the global population accounted for by the developed nations has fallen from 32

percent in 1950 to 20 percent currently and is projected to fall to 13 percent in 2050. [2] If we

look just at Europe, we see an even more remarkable shrinkage: In 1950, Europe accounted for

22 percent of the global population. Currently it has fallen to 13 percent, and is projected to fall

to 7 percent by 2050. [3] To put this in perspective, consider that the population of Africa at 749

million is now greater than that of Europe at 729 million, according to UN figures. Europes

population growth rate of just 0.03 per cent will ensure that it will rapidly shrink relative to

Africa and other developing areas.

In Eastern Europe, population is now shrinking at a rate of 0.2 percent. Between now and 2050,

the population of the more developed regions is expected to change little. Projections show that

by mid-century, the populations of 39 countries will be smaller than today. Some examples:

Japan and Germany 14 percent smaller; Italy and Hungary 25 percent smaller; and the Russian

Federation, Georgia and Ukraine between 28-40 percent smaller. [3]

For the United States (whose population grows faster than Europe), the bottom line was summed

in a presentation to the Presidents Council on Bioethics by S.J. Olshansky who did some basic

calculations to demonstrate what would happen if we achieved immortality today. The bottom

line is that if we achieved immortality today, the growth rate of the population would be less than

what we observed during the post World War II baby boom. [4]

Low fertility means that population trends in the developed regions of the world would look even

milder if not for immigra-tion. As the 2000 Revision to the UN Population Divisions projections

says: The more developed regions are expected to continue being net receivers of international

migrants, with an average gain of about 2 million per year over the next 50 years. Without

migration, the population of more developed regions as a whole would start declining in 2003

rather than in 2025, and by 2050 it would be 126 million less than the 1.18 billion projected

under the assumption of continued migration.

All things considered, countries fortunate enough to develop and make available radical

solutions to aging and death need not worry about becoming overpopulated. In an ideal scenario,

life extension treatments would rapidly plunge in cost, making them affordable well beyond the

richest nations. We should therefore look beyond the developed nations and examine global

population trends in case a significantly different picture emerges.00

GLOBAL POPULATION FLATLINING

We have seen that we have no reason to hesitate in prolonging life even if population were to

grow faster due to higher fertility rates. But does the developing world, with or without cheap,

ubiquitous life extension, have much to fear from a population explosion? Are populations

growing out of control in those regions? The fad for popular books foretelling doom started in

the 1960s, at the tail end of the most rapid increase in population in human history. Since then,

the poorer countries, well below us in the development cycle, have also been experiencing a

drastic reduction of population growth. This is true despite major relative life extension - the

extra decades of life bestowed by medical intervention and nutrition.

Taking a global perspective, the numbers reveal that the average annual population growth rate

peaked in 1965-1970 at 2.07 percent. Ever since then, the rate of increase has been declining,

coming down to 1.2 per cent annually. That means the addition of 77 million people per year,

based on an estimated world population of 6.1 billion in mid-2000. [3] A mere six countries

account for fully half of this growth: India for 21 percent; China for 12 percent; Pakistan for 5

percent; Nigeria for 4 percent; Bangladesh for 4 percent, and Indonesia for 3 percent. China has

markedly reduced the average number of births per woman over the last 50 years from six to 1.8.

Starting from the same birth rate at that time, India has fallen much less, although still almost

halving the rate to 3.23 percent. If these trends continue up to 2050, Indias population will

exceed that of China. [5]

Despite the fecundity of these top people-producers, the overall picture is an encouraging one:

The total fertility rate for the world as a whole dropped by nearly two-fifths between 1950/55

and 1990/95 - from about 5 children per woman down to about 3.1 children per woman. Average

fertility in the more developed regions fell from 2.8 to 1.7 children per woman, well below

biological replacement. Meanwhile total fertility rates in less developed nations fell by 40

percent, falling from 6.2 to 3.5 children per woman. [6]

We can expect population growth to continue slowing until it reaches a stable size. What size

will that be? No one knows for sure, but the best UN numbers indicate that population may peak

at as low as 8 billion people, with a medium projection of 9.3 billion and an upper limit

projection of 10.9 billion. [2;7] The medium projection also points to global population peaking

around 2040 and then starting to fall.

I wrote the first version of this paper in 1996. In revising it, I found it interesting that, less than a

decade ago, the higher projection allowed for 12 billion or more. Demographers had continued

their long tradition of over-estimating population growth. This effect seems to have been

reduced, but take all projections (especially those longer than a generation) with a healthy dose

of skepticism.

FORCES OF POPULATION DECELERATION

Why, though, should we expect people in less developed countries, even given contraceptives, to

continue choosing to have smaller families? This expectation is not merely speculation based on

recent trends. Sound economic reasoning explains the continuing trend, and makes sense of why

the poorer nations are only just beginning to make the transition to fewer births.

Decelerating population growth appears to be an inevitable result of growing wealth. Early on in

a countrys developmental curve, children can be regarded as producer goods (as economists

would say). Parents put their children to work on the farm to generate food and revenue. Very

little effort is put into caring for the child: no expensive health plans, special classes, trips to

Disneyland, X-Men action figures, or mounting phone bills. As we become wealthier, children

become consumer goods. That is, we look on them more and more as little people to be

enjoyed and pampered and educated, not beasts of burden to help keep the family alive. We

spend thousands of dollars on children to keep them healthy, entertain them, and educate them.

We come to prefer fewer children to a vast mob of little ones. This preference seems to be

reinforced by changing tastes resulting from improved education. The revenue vs. expense

equation for extra children further shifts toward having fewer offspring as populations become

urbanized. Children cost more to raise in cities and can produce less income than in the country.

Fertility declines for another reason: As poorer countries become wealthier, child mortality falls

as a result of improved nutrition, sanitation, and health care. Reduced child mortality in modern

times can come about even without a rise in income. People in poorer countries are not stupid;

they adjust their childbearing plans to reflect changing conditions. When child death rates are

high, research has shown that families have more children to ensure achieving a given family

size. They have more children to make up for deaths, and often have additional children in

anticipation of later deaths. Families reduce fertility as they realize that fewer births are needed

to reach a desired family size. Given the incentives to have fewer children as wealth grows and

urbanization proceeds, reduced mortality leads to families choosing to reduce family size.

Economic policy helps shape childbearing incentives. Many of the same people who have

decried population growth have supported policies guaranteed to boost childbirths. More than

that, they boost childbearing among those least able to raise and educate children well. If we

want to encourage people to have more children, we should make it cheaper for them to do so. If

we want to discourage fertility, or at least refrain from pushing it up, we should stop subsidizing

it. Subsidies include free education (free to the parents, not to the tax-payers), free child health

care, and additional welfare payments to women for each child they bear. If parents must

personally bear the costs of having children, rather than everyone else paying, people will tend to

have just the number of children for whom they can assume financial responsibility.

Even if there were a population problem in a few countries, extending the human life span would

worsen the problem no more than would improving automobile safety or worker safety, or

reducing violent crime. Who would want to keep these deadly threats high in order to combat

population growth? If we want to slow population growth, we should focus on reducing births,

not on raising or maintaining deaths. If we want to reduce births, we might voluntarily fund

programs to provide contraceptives and family planning to couples in poorer countries. This will

aid the natural developmental process of choosing to have fewer children. Couples will be able to

have children by choice, not by accident. Women should also be encouraged to join the modern

world by gaining the ability to pursue vocations other than child-raising.

OVERPOPULATION DISTRACTS FROM REAL PROBLEMS

Major downward revisions in population growth - throughout the UNs sixteen rounds of global

demographic estimates and projections since 1950 - have drained the plausibility of any

overpopulation-based argument against life extension. We can better understand the real

problems that are talked about in relation to overpopulation instead as issues of poverty. Poverty,

in turn, results not from having too many people, but from several major factors including

political misrule, continual warfare, and insecurity of property rights.

As Bjorn Lomborg points out, we find many of the most densely populated countries in Europe.

The region with the highest population density, Southeast Asia, has about same number of

people per square mile as the United Kingdom. Although India has a large, growing population,

it also has a population density far lower than that of The Netherlands, Belgium, or Japan.

Lomborg also notes that Ohio and Denmark are more densely populated than Indonesia. [3]

We should also recognize that most population growth takes place in urban areas, which provide

a better standard of living. As a result, most of this planets landmass will not be more densely

populated than it is today. Over the next three decades, we can expect to see almost no change in

the rural population of the world and, by 2025, 97% of Europe will be less densely populated

than today. [8] We should celebrate the urbanization trend since even the urban poor thrive better

than they would in the country. The causes of this include better water supplies, sewage systems,

health services, education, and nutrition. [9] Oddly enough, serious infectious diseases like

malaria are less threatening the closer buildings are together (and so the smaller the space for

swampy areas beloved of mosquitoes and flies). [10]

SUSTAINABILITY AND THE GREAT RESTORATION

The future could be far brighter than the eco-doomsters have long portrayed it. As Ronald Bailey

[11] reports:

Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University,

believes the 21st century will see the beginning of a Great Restoration as humanitys

productive activities increasingly withdraw from the natural world.

If world farmers come to match the typical yield of todays US corn growers, ten billion people

could eat amply while requiring only half of todays cropland. This is one way in which

technological advance in farming will allow vast expanses of land to revert to nature. Transgenic

crops could also multiply todays production levels while solving several significant

environmental challenges. [12]

Visions that emphasize human ingenuity and opportunity have a far more impressive historical

record than those that emphasize human passivity and helplessness. Paul Ehrlich is a classic case

of the latter type and you have only to browse his dark, alarming books to recognize how

consistently bad he has been at making environmental predictions. In a 1969 article, Ehrlich

predicted the oceans dead from DDT poisoning by 1979 and devoid of fish; 200,000 deaths from

smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles in 1973; U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42

years by 1980 because of pesticide-induced cancers, and U.S. population declining to 22.6

million by 1999. [13] Ehrlich famously lost a ten year bet against cornucopian economist Julian

Simon (and refused to renew the bet). In 1974, Ehrlich recommended stockpiling cans of tuna

due to the certainty of protein shortages in the USA. And so on.

As Bailey explains [13], contrary to Ehrlich:

Instead, according to the United Nations, agricultural production in the developing world has

increased by 52 percent per person since 1961. The daily food intake in poor countries has

increased from 1,932 calories, barely enough for survival, in 1961 to 2,650 calories in 1998, and

is expected to rise to 3,020 by 2030. Likewise, the proportion of people in developing countries

who are starving has dropped from 45 percent in 1949 to 18 percent today, and is expected to

decline even further to 12 percent in 2010 and just 6 percent in 2030. Food, in other words, is

becoming not scarcer but ever more abundant. This is reflected in its price. Since 1800 food

prices have decreased by more than 90 percent, and in 2000, according to the World Bank, prices

were lower than ever before.

A reading of economic and social history quickly makes one thing plain: throughout history

people have envisaged overpopulation. Even the great nineteenth century social scientist W.

Stanley Jevons in 1865 claimed that Englands industrial expansion would soon cease due to the

exhaustion of the countrys coal supply. [15] However, as shortages developed, prices rose. The

profit motive stimulated entrepreneurs to find new sources, to develop better technology for

finding and extracting coal, and to transport it to where it was needed. The crisis never happened.

Today, the USA has proven reserves sufficient to last hundreds or thousands of years. [16] If one

resource does begin to run low, rising prices will encourage a switch to alternatives. Even a

vastly bloated population cannot hope to exhaust energy supplies. (Solar energy and power from

nuclear fission and soon fusion are practically endless.) So long as we have plentiful energy we

can produce substitute resources and even generate more of existing resources, including food.

Even if population were to grow far outside todays highest projections, we can expect human

intelligence and technology to comfortably handle the numbers.

Human intelligence, new technology, and a market economy will allow this planet to support

many times the current population of 6.2 billion - it can support many more humans than we are

likely to see, given trends toward lower birth rates. Many countries, including the USA, have a

rather low population density. If the USAs population were as dense as Japan - hardly a

crowded place overall - our population would be 3.5 billion rather than 265 million. If the USA

had a population density equal to that of Singapore, we would find almost 35 billion people here,

or almost seven times the current world population. New technologies, from simple

improvements in irrigation and management to current breakthroughs in genetic engineering

should continue to improve world food output. Fewer people are starving despite higher

populations. This does not mean they are feeling satisfied. Millions still go hungry or are

vulnerable to disruptions in supply. We need to push to remove trade barriers, abolish price

controls on agriculture (which discourage production and investment), and pressure governments

engaging in warfare and collectivization to change their ways.

POLLUTION

Nor should we expect pollution to worsen as population grows. Contrary to popular belief,

overall pollution in the more developed countries has been decreasing for decades. In the USA,

levels of lead have dropped dramatically. Since the 1960s levels of sulfur dioxide, carbon

monoxide, ozone, and organic compounds have fallen despite a growing population. Air quality

in major urban areas continues to improve, and the Great Lakes are returning toward earlier

levels of purity. [17] This is no accident. As we become wealthier, we have more money to spare

for a cleaner environment. When you are longing for food, shelter, and other basics, you will not

spare much thought for the environment. So long as mechanisms exist for converting desires for

cleaner air and water and space for recreation into the things themselves, we can expect it to

happen.

Most effective at spurring the positive changes are markets - price signals creating incentives for

moves in the right direction. If polluters must pay for what they produce because their activity

intrudes on the property rights of others, they will search for ways to make things with less

pollution. Pollution problems do exist. Most of them can be traced to a failure to enforce private

property rights, so that resources are treated as free goods that need not be well managed. Fishing

in unowned bodies of water is an example of this. The desertification of collectively or

government owned land in Africa is another. We can be reasonably confident that the trend

towards less pollution with greater population will continue. However, complacency is out of

place. We should press for responsible management of resources by privatizing collectively

owned resources to create incentives for sound management and renewal.

So long as we continue to allow freedom to generate more wealth and better technology, we can

expect pollution to continue abating. More efficient recycling, production processes that generate

fewer pollutants, and better monitoring and detection of polluters, along with economic

incentives making each producer responsible for their output, will allow us to continue

improving our environment even as population grows. Assuming that we achieve complete

control of matter at the molecular level, as expected by nanotechnologists, we will have the keys

to production without pollution. Another product of molecular manufacturing will be the

disappearance of most large-scale, clumsy machinery. Less and less land will need to be used for

manufacturing equipment, making more room for people to enjoy. Some manufacturing will be

moved into space. The result of these and other changes (some of which are already underway)

will be the freeing of the Earth from unwanted, but previously necessary, means and by-products

of manufacturing.

The population issue raises numerous factual, economic, and ethical concerns. I urge the

interested reader to check into the sources listed in the References, especially the essays by Jesse

Ausubel [18] and the books by Bailey, Lomborg, and Simon. [3;19;20-25] I have only sketched

lines of thinking showing that we would be severely misguided not to push for extended life out

of fear of overpopulation. Let us move full speed ahead with extending life span: Once we have

vanquished aging, I would expect other threats to life, such as war and violent crime, will

become even less acceptable. We can look forward to a long-lived society better off than

previous generations; not only in economic well being, but also in security of life and health.

REFERENCES

[1] Ehrlich, Paul R; The Population Bomb (1968); Sierra Club-Ballantine

[2] World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision (2001a); United Nations Publications

[3] Lomborg, Bjorn; The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World

(2001); Cambridge University Press.

[4] Olshansky, SJ; Duration of Life: Is There a Biological Warranty Period? in: The

Presidents Council on Bioethics (2002) Washington, DC.

[5] World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision, Additional Data (2001c); United Nations

Publications.

[6] Eberstadt, Nicholas; Population, Food, and Income: Global Trends in the Twentieth

Century in: Bailey (1995).

[7] World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision, Annex Tables (2001b); United Nations

Publications

[8] World Urbanization Prospects: The 1996 Revision (1998); United Nations Publications

[9] The Progress of Nations (1997) UNICEF.

[10] Miller, Jr. Tyler G; Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions

(1998); Wadsworth Publishing Company.

[11] Bailey, Ronald; The End Is Nigh, Again in: Reason (2002); June 26.

[12] Rauch, Jonathan; Will Frankenfood Save the Planet? in: The Atlantic Monthly (2003);

October.

[13] Bailey, Ronald; Eco-Scam (1993); St. Martins Press.

[15] Jevons S; The Coal Question: An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation and the

probable exhaustion of our coal mines (1865); Kelley Publishers.

[16] http://www.eia.doe.gov/

[17] Taylor, B et al. Water Quality and the Great Lakes in: Michigans Opportunities and

Challenges: Msu Faculty Perspectives, Michigan in Brief: 2002-03. Public Sector Consultants,

Inc.

[18] Ausubel, Jesse; The Great Restoration of Nature: Why and How in: Challenges of a

Changing Earth (2002); pg.175-182 // Proceedings of the Global Change Open Science

Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2001, 10-13 July) edited by Steffen, W & Jaeger, J &

Carson, DJ & Bradshaw C; Springer http://phe.rockefeller.edu/sthubert/hubert.pdf // Ausubel,

Jesse; Where is Energy Going? in: The Industrial Physicist (2000);

[19] The True State of the Planet (1995); edited by Bailey, Ronald; The Free Press

[20] Simon, Julian L; Resources, Population, Environment: An Over-Supply of False Bad

News in: Science (1980, Vol. 280); pg.1431-1437

[21] Simon, Julian L; The Ultimate Resource (1981); Princeton University Press

[22] Simon, Julian L; Forecasting the Long-Term Trend of Raw Material Availability, in:

International Journal of Forecasting (1985, Vol. 1); pg.85-109.

[23] Simon, Julian L; Population Matters (1990); N.J.: Transaction

[24] Simon, Julian L; Bunkrapt: The Abstractions that lead to scares about resources and

population growth, in: Extropy (1993, Vol. 11); Summer/Fall 1993, pg.34-41.

[25] The Resourceful Earth (1984); edited by Simon, Julian L & Kahn, Herman; Basil

Blackwell, Inc.

LONGEVITY LOGISTICS: WE CAN MANAGE THE EFFECTS OF OVERPOPULATION

BY: FRANCO CORTESE

By far the most predominant criticism made against indefinite longevity is overpopulation. It is

the first potential problem that comes to mind. But fortunately it seems that halting the global

mortality rate would not cause an immediate drastic increase in global population; in fact, if the

mortality rate dropped to zero tomorrow then the doubling rate for the global population would

only be increased by a factor of 1.75 [1], which is smaller than the population growth rate during

the post-WWII baby-boom. Population is significantly more determined by birth rate than by

death rate, simply because many people have more than one natural child. This means that we

should not see an unsustainable rise in population following even the complete cessation of death

globally for a number of generations. We will run into problems 3 or 4 generations hence but

this leaves us with time enough to plan for overpopulation before were forced to resort to more

drastic solution-paradigms like procreation-bans and space colonization.

Moreover, there are a number of proposed, and in some cases implemented, solutions to existing,

contemporary problems that can be utilized for the purpose of minimizing overpopulations

detrimental effects on living-space and non-renewable resource constraints. These contemporary

concerns include climate change and dependence on non-renewable energy sources, and they are

only increasing in the amount of public attention they are attracting. While these concerns and

their potential solutions were not created by overpopulation or with overpopulation in mind, the

potentially negative effects of an increasing global population can be effectively combatted all

the same using such contemporary methods and technologies. Thus we can take advantage of the

solution-paradigms developed for such contemporary concerns as climate change and

dependence on non-renewable resources, and borrow from such movements as the sustainability

movement and the seasteading movement, so as to better mitigate and effectively plan for the

negative repercussions of a growing global population caused by the emergence of effective

longevity technologies.

In a session with The Presidents Council on Bioethics (as it was composed during the Bush

Administration), S. Jay Olshansky [2] reported calculations he performed indicating that

complete cessation of the global morality rate today would lead to less population growth than

resulted from the post-WWII Baby Boom:

This is an estimate of the birth rate and the death rate in the year 1000, birth rate roughly 70, death

rate about 69.5. Remember when there's a growth rate of 1 percent, very much like your money, a

growth rate of 1 percent leads to a doubling time at about 69 to 70 years. It's the same thing with

humans. With a 1 percent growth rate, the population doubles in about 69 years. If you have the

growth rate if you double the growth rate, you have the time it takes for the population to

double, so it's nothing more than the difference between the birth rate and the death rate to

generate the growth rate. And here you can see in 1900, the growth rate was about 2 percent,

which meant the doubling time was about five years. During the 1950s at the height of the baby

boom, the growth rate was about 3 percent, which means the doubling time was about 26 years. In

the year 2000, we have birth rates of about 15 per thousand, deaths of about 10 per thousand, low

mortality populations, which means the growth rate is about one half of 1 percent, which means it

would take about 140 years for the population to double.

Well, if we achieved immortality today, in other words, if the death rate went down to zero, then

the growth rate would be defined by the birth rate. The birth rate would be about 15 per thousand,

which means the doubling time would be 53 years, and more realistically, if we achieved

immortality, we might anticipate a reduction in the birth rate to roughly ten per thousand, in which

case the doubling time would be about 80 years. The bottom line is, is that if we achieved

immortality today, the growth rate of the population would be less than what we observed during

the post-World War II baby boom.

We would eventually run into problems, of course, a century down the road, but just so you know

the growth rates would not be nearly what they were in the post-World War II era, even with

immortality today.

In other words we will only have increased the doubling-time of the global population by a factor

of 1.75 if we achieved indefinite longevity today (e.g. a doubling time of 140 years in 2000

compared to a doubling time of 80 years). This means that we will have two to four generations

worth of time to consider possible solutions to growing population before we are faced with the

hard choice of (1) finding new space and resources or else (2) limiting or regulating the global

birthrate.

An alternate study on the demographic consequences of life-extension concluded that

population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. The

study applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish

population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005,

concluding that even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life

extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22%

only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million) and that even in the case of the most radical life extension

scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to

overpopulation. [2]. The total population increase due to the complete negation of mortality

given by this study is significantly lower than the figure calculated by Olshansky.

Finding innovative solutions to new and old problems is what humanity does. We have a variety

of possible viable

Documents

Longevitize! - Essays on the Science, Philosophy & Politics of Longevity