TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Movement for indefinite life extension: Why, why we should think we can and what we can do to help get there.

I want to arrange for one of the people that I work with to give a talk on the movement for indefinite life extension. The main points we expound on are: why we should want it, why we should think we can achieve it, and what we can all do to help make it happen.

If we can inform the world in a timely manner then there is a good chance we will see indefinite life extension achieved in our lifetimes. Through our three main points, we put forth the reasoning that we believe can compel people to pitch in with making this happen.

There are guides and introductions on this that we can go over, if by the grace of life, somebody takes notice of, and interest in this.

0
Share:

Closing Statement from Eric Schulke

Please dont consider killing yourself to try to do things like get away from people that you dont like. The future is huge, and there is a lot to do and see. This roller coaster of an existence we exist in, the potential of it, the could be future of it, hasnt even left the docking station yet. We're still just getting fastened in. I would hate to miss any part of this dynamic, incredible life if I didnt have to. Opportunity is a big deal, and we have a seemingly infinite amount of it ahead of us. Our ancestors humored themselves in private that it might be true, their children started to make it happen, and our generations took it to the next levels. Now humanity, through its exponential acceleration in science and technology, stands at the door steps of things we'll create, breakthroughs we'll make, discoveries, that we cant even imagine yet. Our future is looking bright, and its only getting better. Just recently we have only been able to create what we could conceptualize and plan for, and that was since the beginning of human-kind. Now we are among the first generations that live in a world where tomorrow we will be creating things we havent even dreamt of yet. Our option is stay and brave the glorious challenges of life in this incredible universe(s) for as long as we can.

progress indicator
  • Feb 28 2014: Some of the major problems I have with this is:
    1. We have no way to completely stop the ageing process, even in basic cells.
    2. The world has a carryingcapacty. Now yes we can raise the capacity with technology, but even that can only go so far. With no deaths, our population would increase with no barriers and the world would be over run within decades.
    3. Is it ethical to keep someone alive indefinately? Consider how many religions promise rebirth or heaven after death.
    4. Sickness. If the disease and hunger was eliminated from the equasion, then the popation as a whole would live longer.
  • thumb
    Feb 24 2014: I for one want to see what my other options are first. Being stuck in this proverbial heaven and hell situation forever does not sound to appealing to me. Now if I could shoot everyone I don't like without repercussions that might sway my opinion a bit.
  • Mar 3 2014: Humans are a rare opportunity in this existence. Life is a mind-blowingly incredible chance, and the suffering of death is monstrous.

    "Every life is like a separate universe, the knowledge and perspectives that each person gathers during his or her lifetime is unique and precious. Death is decay and suffering, pure and simple – standing by and letting it happen to people is pure cruelty. We no longer live in the dark ages or prehistoric times; our societies are evolving and so must our mindsets. Stopping diseases like aging and various forms of death is paramount to our continued evolution. Every child grows up re-learning everything about the world, with limited tools, and is snuffed out before they get even to contemplate many of the next advancements and tools that they could have wielded, that would have freed them to the glorious next levels.

    What old rabbit wouldn’t jump out of its cage if the door were to finally be left open? Aging, other diseases, and death in general are like boulders and landslides littering the path of our evolution. What city or rural area chooses to go with dirt roads? What interstate landslide is left where it is? Short lifespan is ridiculous, aging and death shut down our opportunities." - http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/who-are-you-to-scoff-at-life

    "ask the 36,500,000+ people that are living in the fires of aging, getting set to die in this next year. That’s an astonishing 100,000 every single day until the war on aging is won.

    Ask the Hospice patients across the world, desperately trying to hold onto the homes they built around themselves, watching strangers flood into their personal worlds like medics coming to the aid of the bomb torn lives in battle. Ask them whether great sacrifice for this cause is worth it." - http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/ask-the-aged-if-they-suffer

    "You are a one trillion percent priceless commodity to this realm." - http://transhumanity.net/articles/entry/what-you-are
  • Mar 3 2014: Let me die at the time of my own choosing. It has taken me so long to learn so much. Now give me the health and energy to use that knowledge. Think how much is lost to a culture where knowledge simply dies with a generation as it did before written laguage. Even with computers to store knowledge, the stored knowledge is already beyond the ability of a single human to learn in our current life spans.
    The science is well underway to extend life. The real preparation will be in learning the ethics of eternity, cooperation, sustainablity. As we change our bodies, we will be changing the meaning of the "creationism vs evolution debate.
    • Mar 3 2014: Yes, it is for each person to decide. It is critical that we allow people the ability to choose for their self, rather than forgoing such technology and advances so that only the people that choose to die can have their choice. If people want to die, that is up to them, but stopping the rest of the world from having the choice is wrong.

      There will be a lot of adapting to do, that's right. We have gone through it with things like transitioning to farming, then to industry, to the tech era, etc. It's not always easy, but humanity seems to be getting better at it, as we're shuffling through transitions to the future at ever accelerating rates these days. With life secured, and potentially, things like nearly limitless energy, nearly ubiquitous production of goods and services by robots, etc, it seems that we will have the chance to help clean up many of the rest of the worlds problems and challenges in no time. I, for one, am eager to get there and cannot wait.

      Suffering is despicable, and through indefinite life extension, we can all be empowered to do something about it. With limitless life, there will be few excuses left for leaving injustices to thrive.
  • Feb 28 2014: I understand where you are coming from. We have been in that same general state of thinking in the past too. What we find is, and maybe you agree:
    1. That's not assertable. There are plenty of hypothesis' building toward theories, and probably a variety of theories already (though its hard to assert that without consensus). You may ultimately be right but we don't know that yet. The movement for indefinite life extension supports the people, projects and organizations that are going there to see. This is morally imperative and something that we can increase the likelihood of happening in our lifetimes with world awareness.
    2. Like I stated, population is on a decline in many industrialized countries (when you subtract immigration). Death isn't the go-to solution for this. I can't think of anything that death is the go-to solution for, though there might be.
    3. Stating it that way, I can see what you mean. However, this is about giving people the choice. People can choose to live indefinitely or not, kill themselves, will still succumb to accidents and tragedies, can end their hypothetical life extension treatments, etc. The better version of that question, it seems to me, is, "is it ethical to prevent people from having the potential choice to live indefinitely".
    4. I'm not sure what you mean, could you rephrase that?
  • Feb 26 2014: There are corrupt people in the world, many that do bad things now, and many that will do bad things in the future. They might abuse potential life extension therapies and treatments, but what we find, and you might agree, is that us letting ourselves die so they cant abuse us is not the solution to that. If, and that is the key word, if, they abuse it, then we’ll fight them for it, not die. For all the people that have wanted to harm other people throughout history, there are very few that I can name that killed themselves to solve the problem. Most of them have fought back, many of them have been victorious, and there is a great majesty in that. There is a great spirit to that, much greater than the spirit of death as the go-to solution when times might get tough.
  • thumb
    Feb 26 2014: In a Utopian society where everything is perfect, then yes living forever would be a great idea. Same goes for Socialism actually. But the thing is, those models should like 'apply to all or none at all'. The mere existence of inequality of wealth and power throws those models down the drain because it will cause a ripple, a cascade, like dominoes that would end up making the situation worse instead of better. The promise of immortality though I agree seems to be close at hand, is a power too great for anyone. If ever it should probably be put to a vote who gets to be immortal, choosing the most responsible individuals that would benefit best society if they do not die. Our current economy and by laws have been built on the fact that people die. Immortality would probably do more harm than good. Unless we break up the snow ball of power that some people have. It would only increase the gulf between the rich and the poor. after immortality, genetic manipulation might probably next, then nano augmentation, etc etc. the list goes on and on. More and more technology are discovered that were first targeted to help the needy but end up with the corrupt because only they have the power and money to gain access to such technology. Unless the world is full of selfless saints, immortality should be banned.
  • Feb 23 2014: I know what you mean, but think about it, if the rich end up hording the cures, then death to all is not the go-to solution. Then also, and you might agree, the rich often times end up doing the world a favor by being the first to adopt new technologies, surgeries, therapies, etc. They act as the guinea pigs of sorts and help pay for the initial designs while they are improved and prices come down. In the 1980s, cell phones were thousands of dollars and only the rich could afford them, but now kids in third world countries have them. Same thing with HIV treatments, actually. Now they are being sent to places like Africa at $100 per treatment.

    As for people in other countries fighting us if only we have it, that is the way it is with many other things that greatly enhance life, many countries have them, many others don't, and that doesn't seem to be happening. I could be wrong though. If you have examples then please do share them here.

    As for population, upon first examination, I can understand that is how it seems. However, what we find is that population is on a decline in many industrialized countries. Before we use death as a solution for a potential population crisis, one out of many to choose from is continued industrialization of more of the world.
  • Feb 23 2014: I hope not. Imagine for example that life extension, say that a person could live to 200, becomes available but costs a fortune so that only the rich can afford it. This would make our current rich verses poor crisis a joke. The outcry would be severe and of course must end in revolution with many deaths. Today our world is gradually slipping into a form of capitalistic feudalism with the rich taking the place of the aristocracy of the middle ages. Now let us consider that this service becomes available to most in the west given no doubt the high level of technology required. Then it converts to wars between poor countries who do not possess the technology and the richer ones. If such a technology was ever created it would need to be available to everyone on the planet. Then, we get severe over population even worse than now and the planet is suffering badly as it is. It cannot afford even more people.