Can time truly be commoditized? Although it is presently unattainable, we must consider the potentiality in the future. As scientific advancements propel us closer to reversing the aging process, achieving singularity, and potentially purchasing time, we must also acknowledge the ominous reality of our proximity to midnight. This reference alludes to the Bulletin of Atomic scientists' doomsday clock, which currently stands at its closest proximity to destruction since the end of the Second World War. While the scientific community strives towards prolonging the life of an individual, we must acknowledge the ethical dilemmas and double standards that come with extending the lifespan of a select few while neglecting the overall life expectancy of humanity. It is imperative that we address and reconcile with these disparities to ensure a just and sustainable future. Humanity faces great peril which are critical to not only humanity’s long-term existence but also stability, in form of climate change, prehistoric viruses, inequality, automation and depletion of natural resources. Many of these issues are directly or indirectly related to this discourse’s dilemma on humanity vs human.
The Tale of Terra
Envision Terra, a young girl hailing from South Africa, adorned with a resplendent, earthy complexion. She was born in the tropical suburbs of Kwazulu-Natal and harbors an intense passion for the strikingly diverse landscape of her homeland, ranging from the sweeping savannahs and rugged mountains to the picturesque shores and beguiling safaris. Terra has never seen the outside world, but she has seen the real world. Just 10, orphaned and suffering with congenital AIDS passed down to her from her mother. Her parents both died when she was just 8 years old, both were infected with AIDS. Unwilling to take Terra in after her parents’ death, her relatives abandoned the poor girl in a hospital under the guise of her treatment the very next day of her parents’ passing. She would grow up to know the harsh realities of the world. Having bounced around the foster care for almost 2 years, she was tired of it and just when she was thinking of escaping all this, she was adopted. Wilson’s came out to South Africa in the summer of that year on an official UN mission for their research, they were technologists from Australia that would tour out and talk to people to find atrocities and issues below the surface that aren’t typically visible to solve some of those using technology. They got to know about the state of foster care especially for children who have lost their parents to AIDS. Engulfed by serotonin, the love hormone, their hearts poured out for those children. Determined to make some wrongs right, they decided to adopt a child who was passing through such a problem. Little did they know, their life was going to totally change after this already life-changing decision of adoption.
After completing all formalities and returning back to Australia, they immediately got started on the treatment for Terra. Terra didn’t even get time to process this all, to her, Wilsons were still strangers and the people that separated her from the only thing she had in the world, the place where she felt at ease, where she had fond memories of her parents and the landscapes she loved. Little did she know either, her life was set to change for good. Vertically infected children i.e., children who are infected with AIDS from their parents mostly die early with maximum lifespan up to 20 years. Two years in foster care had worsened her conditions. In Australia, her treatment started just at the right time yet she still would probably have only until 20 to live or so the doctors said. Wilsons soon started running out of money. Their emotional, spur of the moment decision proved to be reckless. They had not just emptied their coffers but also made it worse for Terra emotionally. Neither did they understand Terra’s language and neither could she. She was not comfortable here. Teaching her a new language at 10 years of age with already limited brain functions due to untimely intervention of AIDS treatment was a straight uphill battle.
While, Wilsons race against time to save Terra’s life, their neighbors rush to increase their lifespans, spending millions all for being lab rats to some scientist’s career. Wilsons’ neighbors the Smiths are an action-packed billionaire couple who made their fortune in medicine supplements. Rich & old, the Smiths are working tirelessly to fund studies and themselves becoming lab rats to multi-million-dollar experiments to reverse ageing and increasing their lifespan. When injected with a drug to reduce their metabolic age, Ms. Smith had an immediate adverse reaction which damaged her heart. She already had a history of congenital heart failure and this made this much worse. The duo went from trying to reduce their age to just surviving by using their vast fortune and connections to move Mrs. Smith up the transplant list but her medical trials and advanced age didn’t exactly play to her favor. The duo turned to something they never believed in, waiting. They were used to getting their way almost instantaneously but not this time. In this situation, other than killing someone else and getting their heart they had no option than to wait. Meanwhile, at the Wilsons, Terra’s heart also suddenly started deteriorating which is common in AIDS patient. This happened at an early age for Terra due to medical neglect as well as the vast number of pathogens she was exposed to in foster care. Terra was certainly higher up in the food chain for one thing than Mrs. Smith which was the transplant list due to her “actual age” not the “pretending age”. Mr. Smith was an egoistic, well connected and shrewd man who was used to having things his way by throwing his money. He knew about the developments in case of Terra and was also aware that just that morning there was a bike accident and the person was not likely to survive but was an organ donor. The organ would most probably go to someone from the same hospital. At this point, there is no confirmation on whom does the dying patient’s heart matches, Mrs. Smith or Terra. Mr. Smith, though, unwilling to take chances, bribed the doctor to hold off on putting Terra on the transplant list the next day. The doctor understood all the developments and asks himself a deeply philosophical question that people in positions of power have asked themselves for decades: Should one respect the law & ethics or money? Should the doctor do what’s legally and ethically right or accept the bribe?
I am going to leave the story where it is right now, you can draw up endings based on your school of thought and philosophy. This is a choice often posed: ethics or money? Righteousness or greed?
Well again, these questions are left up to you based on your contemplations.
In today’s modern world we are given a similar choice: Humanity (towards terra) or Human longevity (for Mrs. Smith)?
How far do you think the story is impactful?
Highly
Somewhat
Not at all
I agree I am comparing things at vastly different proportions but this has to be discussed. If scientists do have significant progress, then due to the power of compounding, situation will change drastically.
While evaluating human longevity for humanity’s longevity, there are several areas that should be discussed, both rational and empirical. Rationally speaking, we must discuss the societal implications of radical life extension, philosophical and ethical arguments around life extension and sustainability of such practices. Societally, how sustainable is increased longevity for the stability of our society as we know it?
Empirically, what does the data say?
If you ask why these questions are relevant?
Well, if you personify humanity, you will see that balance and harmony is extremely important within a human, similarly humanity too needs balance, societally, environmentally and sustainability-wise.
The Future with Enhanced Longevity
Let’s start with societal implications while incrementing human longevity.
The story’s theme was pretty much centered around the inequality aspect of societal implications. The world is divided between the haves and the have nots. If such technologies do come into play, who will regulate these? Moreover, only the uber elite will be able to employ such technologies. Another noteworthy aspect is that often change begins from the top of the society i.e. capitalist world and then trickles down to mass consumption of resources by everything. There is a good possibility that while, initially longevity enhancing methods will be available to the ultra-rich only, such methods may ultimately through economies of scale be available to the public at large, thus removing societal imbalances.
This has been seen on a large scale historically, the capitalists fund the R&D which then becomes available to the public at large.
While, all this is true, change can begin from capitalist dollars, control power of such technologies with elective yet equity-wise vital procedures can lead to inequity. Human longevity and incremented life expectancy is a lot of power in the hands of a select few.
Historically, powerful & expensive technologies take a lot of time to penetrate to the lowest levels of the society. The world today is already divided on basis of power. There are some people with disproportionate amount of power. Further, empowering the uber-elite with such techniques and the subsequent capitalist monopoly will be detrimental for the society. I am not suggesting socialism here: Socialism is bad for the overall progress of the country and simply pulls everyone down. But I am suggesting controlled capitalism. Science can give us a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean we should use to its full extent. It is vital to incorporate and create policies today which will prevent monopoly of such technologies and promote regulation of such techniques.
Nuclear bomb was a bad outcome of the war, but its byproduct nuclear energy is desirable.
Research and advancement in the field of longevity can lead to vital discoveries that can treat various human diseases like Cancer. This will save countless lives throughout the world based on its affordability.
Policies must be put in place which prevent monopolistic control of such technologies.
In the pharmaceutical industry, the company that develops a new drug typically has a monopoly on its distribution and pricing, which can result in cost price being up to 4000% more than the cost of manufacturing. Similarly, in the longevity science field, patents and trademarks can create monopolies for certain players, which can limit access to life-extending technologies, especially in developing countries. This can lead to issues of inequity, as access to these technologies may depend on wealth and ethnic or racial identities, and could potentially be seen as a form of non-lethal weapon or soft power. While medicines and pharmaceuticals are seen as a necessary need, longevity-enhancing techniques may be viewed as a manifestation of human greed. Therefore, it is important to consider the potential ethical implications of these technologies and ensure that they are developed and distributed in a fair and equitable manner.
Ethically, we must consider that there already is great variance in the life expectancy in third world and first world countries. Use of such technologies in the first world(due to its associated technological skill and paying ability) will widen the gap. On another hand, it can also lead to reducing that gap if proper policies are put into action to prevent unethical use of such technologies.
There is a parallel between unregulated life enhancing techniques and the animal kingdom. Bees!
Bees have a system of hierarchy based on life expectancy. Queen bee the most integral aspect, almost a divine figure lives from 2 to 5 years while the others that come below live in contrast only for about 21 to 60 days. This is a huge gap. This life expectancy gap is what contributes to the divinity of the queen bee. In fact, already parallels exist in form of the oldest & “experienced” people leading the oldest and largest of the institutions in the world today. Most politicians in older democracies are older in age. If life expectancy remains restricted and unregulated, the world’s power and wealth will be centralized in a few hands just like the power of the beehive is in the hands of the queen bee. I call this the Bee Hypothesis.
How far do you agree with the Bee Hypothesis?
Highly
Somewhat
Seems a little too imaginative
But the world can also develop faster, because people, with their unique skillsets and ideas, can stay in commission longer, thus advancing the human race. Imagine, if Einstein had lived longer or Ramanujan had not died at 32.
On the other hand, though, as a person ages, the productivity does go down, while life expectancy can be increased, we are still unsure of their intellectual longevity.
How good is human longevity for the planet?
Some scientists say that fertility rates are on the decrease and so we are headed for a reduction in the population of Earth. If this is indeed true, longer lifespans may compensate to this effect and sustainability-wise situation may not worsen. However, if a radical number of people go for life extension in the short term, it will burden the resource system and strain the climate. In the long term, though population will not be more, there will still be stress on the system since the population will be greater in age i.e. a lot of people will be old by that time. This will put stress on medical facilities and also cause a shortage of young individuals. This will tip the scales and cause imbalance in the society.
There are certain pseudoscientific techniques, such as Cryonics, which claim to enable the storage of deceased individuals immediately after their death with the possibility of reviving them in the future using advanced technologies. However, this option is highly unsustainable, environmentally damaging, and extremely expensive due to the high energy requirements for cooling processes or the large quantities of liquid nitrogen needed. In reality, such possibilities offer a false hope to people seeking to extend their lives and maintain relationships with their loved ones. Even if all of these individuals were brought into the future, there is another significant concern to consider. Bringing a person to a new world without upgrading their knowledge, skills, and abilities will have disastrous psychological effects on the person and render them useless in the new world order. This is similar to how bringing a dollar from 1900 to the present has reduced its value due to inflation. Ultimately, people desire to prolong their lives to have more experiences with their family and friends, not to exist in a world where they no longer have a place.
The concept of singularity, where human consciousness is uploaded to a computer, is another futuristic idea. However, this approach negates the essential human characteristic of physical connection with others and experiencing the world in real time, rather than through a camera lens. While this approach may maximize intellectual capabilities and potentially offer immortality, it comes at the cost of losing the essence of what it means to be human. Moreover, while a computer may require less space and resources than a human, it is important to consider the ethical implications of creating such artificial beings and whether they would have the same rights and privileges as living humans. In conclusion, while singularity may offer certain advantages, it is critical to carefully evaluate its consequences and whether it aligns with our values as human beings.
Other techniques like those employed by Nectome, will simply preserve your brain and in the future, revive the memory and thought processes and simulate them as neural networks on a server. This way is not a way to keep yourself alive but a way to keep your intellectual thinking alive.
All my arguments, either in favor or against will be very subtle. To the common man, all of this may well be unnoticeable.
Today, there are extensive movements today around concerns about safety of AI. In fact, an open letter from the Future of Life institute to pause all giant AI experiments and give thought to safety protocols to ensure has been signed by some of the most consequential people of this generation like Elon Musk, Andrew Yang, Steve Wozniak and Yuval Noah Harari. AI is not a threatening technology at present, neither is it harmful today. In fact, AI has helped us make great strides in the field of advancing humanity, but as it becomes human competitive at general tasks we must consider the disadvantages.
Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?
In a similar fashion, longevity tech does not pose threat today but it might in the future as I have conveyed through my thoughts. No one is stopping AI progress, but asking for an AI summer during which proper considerations as well as policies can be decided to manage risks that AI poses? Throughout this article, my goal is to bring issues to light and not to curb R&D in longevity but to ensure we have proper ethical, societal, environmental, sustainability safeguards in place before we roll out such technologies.
After presenting arguments from both sides, I acknowledge that my viewpoint may seem biased toward valuing humanity over human longevity. However, it's important to recognize that double standards exist in our world. If I were to amass enough billions in the future, I may even find myself investing in technologies to extend my lifespan and those of my loved ones. Therefore, this text is not intended to provide a clear-cut answer on what should be done, but rather to encourage readers to reflect on the issue. Personally, when I revisit this chapter of my thoughts in the future, this text will serve as a point of contemplation, helping me make a more informed decision based on the circumstances of that time.
How far do you agree with the overall analysis of this text?
Highly
Somewhat
Seems a little too imaginative
Policy Recommendation
1. One of the top priorities should be to prevent the monopolization of futuristic technologies. The existing IP and patent processes often limit the distribution of such technologies and make them accessible only to those who can afford them. To address this issue, a new sub-arm should be established under the World Intellectual Property Organization, with a specific focus on ensuring equitable distribution and access to these technologies. To achieve this goal, IP processes should be reserved for inventors in first-world countries or those with a certain level of purchasing power parity. In countries with lower PPP, the manufacturing and distribution of these technologies should be assigned to the industry that offers the best quality control at the lowest price. The inventor can choose to outsource the manufacturing to third-world countries for the first world. By doing this, the cost price will be low, and when marked up based on the PPP of the first world, the inventor's profit will be high, thus ensuring that they are properly compensated for their invention.
2. A second safeguard should be to ensure the youthfulness of the population and maintain a fine balance between longevity and population. The population should be properly controlled to prevent dynamic stress on supply chains and hinder the progress. The best policy safeguard here is to cap the age at which longevity interventions can be performed. After a certain age the interventions shouldn’t be allowed so that the longevity is increased during the peak years of life. This also increases the productivity of the population by maintaining the population at a certain age. Let’s say after the age of 50, interventions should no longer be allowed so that all investments in this field are made to prolong the youthful age which is productive to the world. Moreover, there should be mandatory cap on the number of years that can added so as to not infringe of the right of fruitful existence for future generations.
What do you think about this policy?
It's impactful
It might work
Its fundamentally insufficient
Comments