Death as we know it will die.
October 30, 2005 3:58 PM Subscribe
Death as we know it will die. If you wish to be a prophet, first you must dress the part. No more silk ties or tasseled loafers. Instead, throw on a wrinkled T-shirt, frayed jeans, and dirty sneakers. You should appear somewhat unkempt, as if combs and showers were only for the unenlightened. When you encounter critics, as all prophets do, dismiss them as idiots. Make sure to pepper your conversation with grandiose predictions and remind others of your genius often, lest they forget. Oh, and if possible, grow a very long beard.
By these measures, Aubrey de Grey is indeed a prophet. The 42-year-old English biogerontologist has made his name by claiming that some people alive right now could live for 1,000 years or longer. Maybe much longer. Growing old is not, in his view, an inevitable consequence of the human condition; rather, it is the result of accumulated damage at the cellular and molecular levels that medical advances will soon be able to prevent — or even reverse — allowing people to go on living pretty much indefinitely.
Please no. Some days the assurance that all this will be over soon enough is all I have to cheer me up.
posted by dame at 4:01 PM on October 30, 2005
posted by dame at 4:01 PM on October 30, 2005
Geek that I am, for a long time I thought that those bumper stickers which read "Millions now living will never die" were talking about life extension or cryonics or some sort of extropian uploading scenario, rather than the Rapture or Armageddon.
I note in passing that although Aubrey de Grey does not mention "strange aeons" I'm not sure I trust him.
posted by hattifattener at 4:15 PM on October 30, 2005
I note in passing that although Aubrey de Grey does not mention "strange aeons" I'm not sure I trust him.
posted by hattifattener at 4:15 PM on October 30, 2005
You know, my son is trying to write a fictional piece on why this kind of thing is an awful idea. It's not like we'd erase all the problems of life when we erase death.
posted by ScotchLynx at 4:17 PM on October 30, 2005
posted by ScotchLynx at 4:17 PM on October 30, 2005
There can be only one.
posted by homunculus at 4:22 PM on October 30, 2005
posted by homunculus at 4:22 PM on October 30, 2005
Well, it would only be immortality for the rich at first. Then just Malthusian catastrophe for all!
posted by TwelveTwo at 4:29 PM on October 30, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 4:29 PM on October 30, 2005
While this man has a point in that we will be able to extend human life to an unbelievable length, I think it would also be the worst thing to happen to mankind.
As it is, we have trouble with resources. Food, water, land, oil, you name it. Who would want to live forever? First, we'd never be able to retire. After all, retirement is only perhaps a dozen years before life expectancy ends. Religion would be no savior. As much as is promised to the faithful, it seems that the religious are the most afraid to die.
Not to mention that the rich would be the ones to afford it and want it most, which would mean less chance for anyone else to become rich.
No, if mankind figures out how to make everyone live forever, I'd like to die. Although, if I could figure out how to ruin this immortality for those so greedy to strive for it, I'd find that a noble purpose indeed.
However... that is one awesome beard.
posted by Saydur at 4:55 PM on October 30, 2005
As it is, we have trouble with resources. Food, water, land, oil, you name it. Who would want to live forever? First, we'd never be able to retire. After all, retirement is only perhaps a dozen years before life expectancy ends. Religion would be no savior. As much as is promised to the faithful, it seems that the religious are the most afraid to die.
Not to mention that the rich would be the ones to afford it and want it most, which would mean less chance for anyone else to become rich.
No, if mankind figures out how to make everyone live forever, I'd like to die. Although, if I could figure out how to ruin this immortality for those so greedy to strive for it, I'd find that a noble purpose indeed.
However... that is one awesome beard.
posted by Saydur at 4:55 PM on October 30, 2005
I got to meet Aubrey de Grey a couple years ago at Transvision 2004 and see his talk on this subject... Brilliant guy...
posted by glider at 4:58 PM on October 30, 2005
posted by glider at 4:58 PM on October 30, 2005
"You should appear somewhat unkempt, as if combs and showers were only for the unenlightened."
Oh, I see: because I don't want people to suffer my rotting-corpse B.O. they won't believe in my Prophethood.
posted by davy at 5:04 PM on October 30, 2005
Oh, I see: because I don't want people to suffer my rotting-corpse B.O. they won't believe in my Prophethood.
posted by davy at 5:04 PM on October 30, 2005
Those who worry that a cure for aging will be the downfall of man can relax. Last I saw, people were still dying in droves from auto accidents, homcides, overdoses, etc. In fact, I recall reading a calculation of life expectancy if all disease, including aging, were cured. It still came to "only" a few thousand years. By then we'll all have slipped in the tub a few times, fallen down a few stairs and been too close for comfort to a few tornadoes, earthquakes and fires. Until someone can find a cure for stupidity, (or a a way to make reliable backups), we're all too mortal.
posted by gregor-e at 5:10 PM on October 30, 2005
posted by gregor-e at 5:10 PM on October 30, 2005
Naysayers and grumblebunnies.
You wanna die, go right ahead. Me, I wanna keep going until I choose to stop. Dame and Saydur can live on in their kids' memories or their works; I wanna live on in my house and putter in the same garden I've tended for 300 years.
Who would want to live forever?
*raises hand*
First, we'd never be able to retire. After all, retirement is only perhaps a dozen years before life expectancy ends.
You have that backwards. Retirement is only a few years because so few of us build up enough capital to live off of permanently, so retirement is a short span in which we expend our life's savings.
But if I could bank on a thousand-year lifespan, I work for 100 years or so, saving normally and letting compound interest work its magic, and then I have capital saved to live off of interest indefinitely/forever without touching the principal.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:43 PM on October 30, 2005
You wanna die, go right ahead. Me, I wanna keep going until I choose to stop. Dame and Saydur can live on in their kids' memories or their works; I wanna live on in my house and putter in the same garden I've tended for 300 years.
Who would want to live forever?
*raises hand*
First, we'd never be able to retire. After all, retirement is only perhaps a dozen years before life expectancy ends.
You have that backwards. Retirement is only a few years because so few of us build up enough capital to live off of permanently, so retirement is a short span in which we expend our life's savings.
But if I could bank on a thousand-year lifespan, I work for 100 years or so, saving normally and letting compound interest work its magic, and then I have capital saved to live off of interest indefinitely/forever without touching the principal.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:43 PM on October 30, 2005
For the record, I am not Scotchlynx's son. And when I did it I probably used a lot more kinky sex than his son will, because my parents didn't know I was writing it.
posted by localroger at 5:44 PM on October 30, 2005
posted by localroger at 5:44 PM on October 30, 2005
If we're to live to 1,000, will all the best music be written when we're 100, or will it still be when we're 18? Because it's going to be a hard slog living for 970 years directing scorn towards those coming up behind us.
Can I date someone who is 220 when I'm 450, or will that be considered creepy?
posted by TimTypeZed at 5:47 PM on October 30, 2005
Can I date someone who is 220 when I'm 450, or will that be considered creepy?
posted by TimTypeZed at 5:47 PM on October 30, 2005
Guns would still work, right?
What would be the point of this? Most people just waste their lives anyway, and those who achieve greatness often do it out of a desire for immortality.
I don't think this is possible. It becomes the transporter situation all over again. After your cells die and are replaced, are you still you? And don't give me that "seven years" crap.
posted by Eideteker at 5:58 PM on October 30, 2005
What would be the point of this? Most people just waste their lives anyway, and those who achieve greatness often do it out of a desire for immortality.
I don't think this is possible. It becomes the transporter situation all over again. After your cells die and are replaced, are you still you? And don't give me that "seven years" crap.
posted by Eideteker at 5:58 PM on October 30, 2005
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.--Susan Ertz
posted by missbossy at 1:00 AM on October 31, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by missbossy at 1:00 AM on October 31, 2005 [1 favorite]
If I remember correctly, there was a study which guessed that the human body could be extended to nearly 180 years. The average maximum would be more in the 130-150 range, after which you would still have the problems of joint and limb stiffness, dementia, and circulatory/respiratory problems. Only entropy can be considered indefinate, and slowing that process down merely delays the inevitable.
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:07 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:07 AM on October 31, 2005
And, even if it did, Mr. de Grey "would surely destroy us in attempting to preserve us" because living for such long periods would undermine what it means to be human.
Short-sighted Luddite fear-mongering rubbish. All of human progress has been about changing what it means to be human. Modern man lives an incredibly different life than his ancestors, and we can only hope that this continues to our descendants.
A few examples, off the top of my head:
- High-yield farming. Modern man does not need to worry about starving.
- Penicillin, germ theory. Disease is no longer an everyday threat. Heck, compared to the short, brutish lifespans of our ancestors, modern man is already pretty dang close to immortal.
- Civil rights movement. Cruelty is no longer nearly as socially acceptable as it used to be. More importantly, equal social treatment facilitates the transfer of ideas and knowledge, further expanding the marketplace of ideas.
- Mass communications, high-speed transport. Physical distance and language are no longer nearly so limiting a factor. I can be on the other side of the world in half a day, an unthinkable proposition a mere hundred years ago.
Etc, etc, so forth and so on.
To restrain progress in the fear of "altering the human condition" is, quite frankly, to be blind to our own actions and history. We've already altered the everyday human condition to incredible degrees; are we honestly any less "human" because of it?
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.--Susan Ertz
Cute, but millions also do nothing because they do not have immortality.
posted by PsychoKick at 1:58 AM on October 31, 2005
Short-sighted Luddite fear-mongering rubbish. All of human progress has been about changing what it means to be human. Modern man lives an incredibly different life than his ancestors, and we can only hope that this continues to our descendants.
A few examples, off the top of my head:
- High-yield farming. Modern man does not need to worry about starving.
- Penicillin, germ theory. Disease is no longer an everyday threat. Heck, compared to the short, brutish lifespans of our ancestors, modern man is already pretty dang close to immortal.
- Civil rights movement. Cruelty is no longer nearly as socially acceptable as it used to be. More importantly, equal social treatment facilitates the transfer of ideas and knowledge, further expanding the marketplace of ideas.
- Mass communications, high-speed transport. Physical distance and language are no longer nearly so limiting a factor. I can be on the other side of the world in half a day, an unthinkable proposition a mere hundred years ago.
Etc, etc, so forth and so on.
To restrain progress in the fear of "altering the human condition" is, quite frankly, to be blind to our own actions and history. We've already altered the everyday human condition to incredible degrees; are we honestly any less "human" because of it?
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.--Susan Ertz
Cute, but millions also do nothing because they do not have immortality.
posted by PsychoKick at 1:58 AM on October 31, 2005
TwelveTwo writes " Well, it would only be immortality for the rich at first. Then just Malthusian catastrophe for all!"
Whee! I get the joke! I guess all this work I'm doing right now getting my degree in International Economics really is worth it.
posted by Deathalicious at 2:18 AM on October 31, 2005
Whee! I get the joke! I guess all this work I'm doing right now getting my degree in International Economics really is worth it.
posted by Deathalicious at 2:18 AM on October 31, 2005
Here's the Technology Review issue that goes into depth about de Grey's research. Despite the unprofessionally nasty Pontin editorial, the main article is pretty interesting.
posted by Nelson at 2:37 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by Nelson at 2:37 AM on October 31, 2005
Albert Einstein had a mustache, not a beard, but other than that the physical description fits.
I'm guessing the author was scared by a hippy as a child and never got over it.
posted by Jatayu das at 3:17 AM on October 31, 2005
I'm guessing the author was scared by a hippy as a child and never got over it.
posted by Jatayu das at 3:17 AM on October 31, 2005
Saydur: As it is, we have trouble with resources. Food, water, land, oil, you name it.
This problem is easily solved; don't reproduce. There should be little difference in resource usage between 1 person and his 9 decendants and that 1 person living those 10 lifetimes himself. In fact, it might even reduce this problem, because he won't have to spend as much of his life being educated and being old, both drains on the system.
First, we'd never be able to retire. After all, retirement is only perhaps a dozen years before life expectancy ends.
Well, not necessarily permanently, but you could do much the same thing. The resources you use to retire, you save up over about 30 years; instead of using them to be old for 12 years, you could use them to take 12 years off work and do whatever you wanted. After that, you'd have to start working again. But after 12 years of doing whatever you wanted, you probably wouldn't mind starting a new career.
Not to mention that the rich would be the ones to afford it and want it most, which would mean less chance for anyone else to become rich.
Possibly at first, but in the long term, everyone would have to have it, or at least everyone in the societies in which it existed. The thing is, rich people need skilled members of society, a need which will only increase into the future as technology eliminates the need for laborers. And they're going to realize that a doctor, or an engineer, or even a hairdresser who's 500 years old and has 200 years of experience is going to beat the hell out of a normal one. Eventually the need for these super-skilled members of society, and the increase in resources that future technology will provide, will bring these benefits to all of society.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:37 AM on October 31, 2005
This problem is easily solved; don't reproduce. There should be little difference in resource usage between 1 person and his 9 decendants and that 1 person living those 10 lifetimes himself. In fact, it might even reduce this problem, because he won't have to spend as much of his life being educated and being old, both drains on the system.
First, we'd never be able to retire. After all, retirement is only perhaps a dozen years before life expectancy ends.
Well, not necessarily permanently, but you could do much the same thing. The resources you use to retire, you save up over about 30 years; instead of using them to be old for 12 years, you could use them to take 12 years off work and do whatever you wanted. After that, you'd have to start working again. But after 12 years of doing whatever you wanted, you probably wouldn't mind starting a new career.
Not to mention that the rich would be the ones to afford it and want it most, which would mean less chance for anyone else to become rich.
Possibly at first, but in the long term, everyone would have to have it, or at least everyone in the societies in which it existed. The thing is, rich people need skilled members of society, a need which will only increase into the future as technology eliminates the need for laborers. And they're going to realize that a doctor, or an engineer, or even a hairdresser who's 500 years old and has 200 years of experience is going to beat the hell out of a normal one. Eventually the need for these super-skilled members of society, and the increase in resources that future technology will provide, will bring these benefits to all of society.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:37 AM on October 31, 2005
This post kind of freaked me out... up until I realised it was about Aubrey de Grey and not me.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:57 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by Meatbomb at 3:57 AM on October 31, 2005
You'd have thought that the guy had watched The Mark of Gideon. I thought that all science types liked Star Trek.
posted by talitha_kumi at 4:51 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by talitha_kumi at 4:51 AM on October 31, 2005
I submit that anyone who wants to live for 1,000 years or more should by no means be allowed to do so.
posted by moonbiter at 4:52 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by moonbiter at 4:52 AM on October 31, 2005
If things get too crowded we can always ship the telephone sanitizers to another planet.
Everyone who cheerfully claimed they wanted to die, please state your ages.
posted by mecran01 at 4:54 AM on October 31, 2005
Everyone who cheerfully claimed they wanted to die, please state your ages.
posted by mecran01 at 4:54 AM on October 31, 2005
Adam Carolla -- who sometimes breaks out of his mook persona to offer an insightful observation -- noted that all prophets and cult leaders are middle aged men whose ideology eschews regular hygiene and grooming, and welcomes sex with multiple underage girls.
"Worship me as the embodiment of god on planet Earth, sign over all your assets to me, and let me sleep with your teenage daughter. That's my new religion in a nutshell!"
posted by Devils Slide at 5:08 AM on October 31, 2005
"Worship me as the embodiment of god on planet Earth, sign over all your assets to me, and let me sleep with your teenage daughter. That's my new religion in a nutshell!"
posted by Devils Slide at 5:08 AM on October 31, 2005
Aubrey rocks. He is totally goofy and nuts and silly and fun to have beer with. He addresses life extention with the roll-up-your-sleeves attitude of an engineer and the imagination of a futurist. Yay this post. :)
posted by By The Grace of God at 5:15 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by By The Grace of God at 5:15 AM on October 31, 2005
Swinburne:
From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives forever
That dead men rise up never
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.
posted by jfuller at 5:33 AM on October 31, 2005
From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives forever
That dead men rise up never
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.
posted by jfuller at 5:33 AM on October 31, 2005
> Everyone who cheerfully claimed they wanted to die, please state your ages.
Swinburne is 169.
posted by jfuller at 5:40 AM on October 31, 2005
Swinburne is 169.
posted by jfuller at 5:40 AM on October 31, 2005
That is not dead which can eternal lie
And with strange aeons even death may die
--H.P. Lovecraft
posted by deusdiabolus at 6:35 AM on October 31, 2005
And with strange aeons even death may die
--H.P. Lovecraft
posted by deusdiabolus at 6:35 AM on October 31, 2005
I say screw all this science and healthy living and self preservation crap... with enough hard drugs and fast living we can go back to the good old days when old age was 30 and people died at 35...
posted by ewkpates at 7:08 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by ewkpates at 7:08 AM on October 31, 2005
I say screw all this science and healthy living and self preservation crap... with enough hard drugs and fast living we can go back to the good old days when old age was 30 and people died at 35...
Not so. In the Netherlands, with its easy hard drugs availability and prosecution laws, the first retirement home for junkies has already been opened.
posted by kika at 7:32 AM on October 31, 2005
Not so. In the Netherlands, with its easy hard drugs availability and prosecution laws, the first retirement home for junkies has already been opened.
posted by kika at 7:32 AM on October 31, 2005
One link op-ed. ;p
The implementation of cell and gene therapy is too far away from us to consider seriously. It's still a decent discussion, but I have a hard time caring.
Don't worry. You will all die soon enough.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:58 AM on October 31, 2005
The implementation of cell and gene therapy is too far away from us to consider seriously. It's still a decent discussion, but I have a hard time caring.
Don't worry. You will all die soon enough.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:58 AM on October 31, 2005
...throw on a wrinkled T-shirt, frayed jeans, and dirty sneakers. You should appear somewhat unkempt, as if combs and showers were only for the unenlightened.
I'm gonna live for 1,000 years and I won't have to comb my hair or even wash myself during all of that time – now that’s the true liberation of mankind!
posted by Termite at 9:21 AM on October 31, 2005
I'm gonna live for 1,000 years and I won't have to comb my hair or even wash myself during all of that time – now that’s the true liberation of mankind!
posted by Termite at 9:21 AM on October 31, 2005
Cute, but millions also do nothing because they do not have immortality.
posted by PsychoKick at 2:58 AM MST
If only I had more time I would get off my duff and do something.
I don't really think death is a big or a bad deal. A change of states- sublime. While I am not hoping for death it will be fine. At 51 years does this mean I have a better appreciation of what death means? More likely to panic? My 82 yr old mother-in-law is ready. "I'm sick of it."
That said, Bruce Sterling's description of life regeneration in Holy Fire is one I could go for.
posted by pointilist at 9:34 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by PsychoKick at 2:58 AM MST
If only I had more time I would get off my duff and do something.
I don't really think death is a big or a bad deal. A change of states- sublime. While I am not hoping for death it will be fine. At 51 years does this mean I have a better appreciation of what death means? More likely to panic? My 82 yr old mother-in-law is ready. "I'm sick of it."
That said, Bruce Sterling's description of life regeneration in Holy Fire is one I could go for.
posted by pointilist at 9:34 AM on October 31, 2005
Here's the (perhaps "nasty") Sherwin Nuland feature on de Grey mentioned in the Chronicle article:
Do You Want to Live Forever?
posted by mrgrimm at 10:22 AM on October 31, 2005
Do You Want to Live Forever?
posted by mrgrimm at 10:22 AM on October 31, 2005
The more I think about it, the more I'm boggled by the whole idea that "doing nothing about senescence is the equivalent of slaughtering thousands of people everyday."
I think there's a massive gap between those who believe in the importance of the individual ego and those who do not (some egoists belive in heaven, some believe that we should live forever, etc.).
Someone once said, "You can't die for the life of you," which universally speaking, seems quite accurate.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:46 AM on October 31, 2005
I think there's a massive gap between those who believe in the importance of the individual ego and those who do not (some egoists belive in heaven, some believe that we should live forever, etc.).
Someone once said, "You can't die for the life of you," which universally speaking, seems quite accurate.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:46 AM on October 31, 2005
The only way that this should happen is if anyone granted immortality also has to submit to 100% sure infertility.
Let those who agree to die have kids to replace them.
FWIW, I'd gladly do the above, even though I have a baby on the way. There's a hell of a lot I want to do in this life and nowhere near enough time to do it.
posted by Kickstart70 at 2:30 PM on October 31, 2005
Let those who agree to die have kids to replace them.
FWIW, I'd gladly do the above, even though I have a baby on the way. There's a hell of a lot I want to do in this life and nowhere near enough time to do it.
posted by Kickstart70 at 2:30 PM on October 31, 2005
Most of the billion things I want to do in life involve things that would render any cellular immortality null and void (skydiving, mountain climbing, etc.).
posted by Eideteker at 7:43 PM on October 31, 2005
posted by Eideteker at 7:43 PM on October 31, 2005
4. The problem: Unwanted cells (such as fat cells)
Mr. de Grey's solution: Possibly stimulate the immune system to kill unwanted cells.That is so not going to backfire.The best part is the end result: Rich people will grow poor people like crops. Mmmmm.... That's good peasant!
posted by bigbigdog at 9:13 PM on October 31, 2005
Mr. de Grey's solution: Possibly stimulate the immune system to kill unwanted cells.That is so not going to backfire.The best part is the end result: Rich people will grow poor people like crops. Mmmmm.... That's good peasant!
posted by bigbigdog at 9:13 PM on October 31, 2005
« Older Cattle ranching conservationism | ichiban kawaiii! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 4:00 PM on October 30, 2005