The Million Year Life Span

· August 19, 2011

I’m not going to try to convince you that the foreseeable future is a wondrous place: either you accept the implications of the present rate of technological progress towards everything allowed by the laws of physics, in which case you’ve probably thought this all through at some point, or you don’t. Life, space travel, artificial intelligence, the building blocks of matter: we’ll have made large inroads into bending these all to our will within another half century. Many of us will live to see it even without the benefits of medical technologies yet to come: growing up without the internet in a 1960s or 1970s urban area will be the new 1900s farmboy youth come 2040. Just like the oldest old today, we will be immigrants from a strange and primitive near-past erased by progress, time travelers in our own lifetimes.

A century is an exceptional life for a human, but far greater spans of years will be made possible by the technologies of the 21st century. I’ll plant a flag way out there on the field and claim a million years: a life of a length hard to envisage. I am an advocate for engineered human longevity, and I started on the path that led to Fight Aging!Open Cures, and other projects from the position that (a) immortality would be an unalloyed good if achieved, and (b) our understanding of cosmology does not yet rule out a damn good attempt at actual immortality — the “no death, ever” dictionary definition — or at least a life span of millions of years on the way to that end goal. If a million years is not long enough to figure out the aspects of the problem that cannot be answered today, I’m not sure what would be.

Despite being out there, the million year life span is not an unsupported pipe dream. Living for a million years is a goal that can be envisaged in some detail today: the steps from here to there laid out, the necessary research and development plans outlined, and the whole considered within the framework of what is permissible under the laws of physics, and what the research community believes can be achieved within the next 20, 50, or 100 years.

Biotechnology is the first necessary step on this road of a million years: the biotechnology revolution, still in its early years, is a gateway to the future insofar as it will enable us to extend our healthy life spans by repairing the evolved world of nanoscale machinery within our cells and other vital biological systems. The future is only golden for you and I personally if we live to see it, and for many of us that will require rejuvenation biotechnologies like those worked on by the SENS Foundation. This golden future is one in which our biochemistry does our bidding, aging can be repaired, and molecular manufacturing is in full swing. It will be age of bioartificial bodies, minds transferred to new and more robust mechanisms, strong artificial intelligences, an end to most scarcities, and indeed, anything you might imagine that the laws of physics permit and enough time has passed to develop.

A philosophy of first things first is a good way to temper visions of the far future – and explains why I spend my time talking about rejuvenation biotechnologies, cryonics, and even basic common sense health practices that might stop you cutting a mere decade from your life expectancy. If we don’t complete the first rung of the ladder, that being sufficient control over our biochemistry to slow and then repair aging, then all the rest of our thoughts on radical life extension are for nothing. If I’d been born twenty years earlier, I’d have ended up primarily a cryonics advocate and volunteer. As it is, it looks like these first decades of the 21st century are the era in which the first rung on the ladder of simply remaining alive forever – which is continuously repairing the biological damage of aging in these bodies of ours – can actually be achieved. If we can live another 50 years, grabbing a year here with good health and a year there through incremental advances in geriatric medicine, and if we can build a large enough research community interested in serious work on rejuvenation along the way, then we may live in restored youth and vigor for centuries longer.

If you project out based on accident rates today, you’ll find that an ageless human sustained by biotechnologies of cellular and biochemical repair has a life expectancy in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 years. Sooner or later that piano is going to fall upon your head hard enough that even advanced medical technology cannot fix your injuries in time. So the million year life span: how could that be achieved? The short and not terribly informative answer is that it will be accomplished by using advancing technology to dramatically reduce your vulnerability to fatal accidents, murder, and other unfortunate events that produce the same outcome. Once you start looking at living for even 100,000 years in much the same shape as you are today, it becomes apparent that almost any activity bears an unavoidable minimum level of risk that will jump up and kill you. Eating, swimming, walking … breathing. Stretch out the timeframe far enough and the improbable and fatal will eventually happen.

The way past these risks is to change your form: your risk of fatality for any given activity is a function of your human physiology. Once the research and development community has achieved the goal of practical biotechnologies for the repair and reversal of aging, that will give us all a few hundred years of life in comparative statistical safety. Technological progress will continue across that long period of time, and I can’t imagine that much of the toolkit needed for the next step in long-term risk reduction will remain beyond the human civilizations of the 2200s. Your own personal preferences for that next step will no doubt vary, but I would get my neurons replaced – slowly, one at a time over time, to ensure continuity of the self – with some form of much more robust, easily maintained nanoscale machinery. That allows these engineering possibilities:

  • Swapping out the body for whatever machinery of transport and support best minimizes risk
  • Moving most of the business of life into a virtual world
  • Physically separating my neurons while still remaining alive, conscious, and active

It shouldn’t be terribly controversial at this point to talk about machines that can do the job of a neuron, store all of the same information as a neuron, and integrate fully with surrounding real neurons. Researchers in recent years have assembled lobster neuron simulators from Radio Shack components, grown proof of principle neuron-circuit interfaces, designed and simulated nanomachine replacements for other cell types, and made great inroads into manipulating the internal machinery of cells. These are toys and clunky barnstorming exercises in comparison to what lies ahead, but my point is that this is an active line of research, worked on by thousands of scientists and developers. Similarly, I would hope that interacting via virtual worlds and splitting up one’s machine neurons between various locations follows fairly straightforwardly from having machine neurons in the first place. If your brain is made up of artificial neurons, why not throw in an internet connection, adjunct computer hardware, and secure wireless communication protocols?

Physical distribution of the self across many disparate locations is in fact the key point when it comes to considering risk over the long term. Locations have much the same issues with time, probability and bad events as people do. Meteorites happen, as do landslides, earthquakes, war, and volcanoes. The way to reduce your location-based risk dramatically is to spread out. You might imagine a wireless brain, using whatever the most robust communications technology of the time happens to be, scattered in a thousand separate machine bodies or vehicles across a continent, or even the whole planet. That might be good for many millennia of falling pianos of various types. However, once you start digging back into the geological and astrophysical history of the solar system, it becomes clear that spreading out over an entire planet still leaves you at risk on longer timescales. Probably not from impacts: I’ll be surprised if humanity and its machine descendants fail to solve that problem within a few centuries from now. But there’s always war, nearby supernovae, large solar flares, unusually massive volcanic events, and other unpleasant line items, however. The supernovae are the biggest of the known concerns, given that I expect it’ll be a long, long time before preventing them is a practical and ongoing business for the civilizations that follow man.

What to do about all of this astrophysical and grand geological risk? Spreading out is an option once again: boost up the size of your vehicles and neuron-machines to shrug off the worst case radiation projections for a nearby supernova. Provide them with the means to move about the solar system, and become a spacefaring entity, spread out over a sizeable selection of orbits. By that point in time, your physical presence resembles a small country of machinery, automation, and layers of delegation: perhaps you are a million heavily shielded self-powered containers and transmission systems distributed beyond Pluto’s orbit. The trade-off for spreading out so far is that you must slow down. The speed of thought is determined by the speed of communication between the neurons and sections of your brain. If your brain is light hours wide, you will live very slowly indeed – but with a life expectancy so long that you come out ahead in the end.

There are other paths forward with varying degrees of risk. You might decide not to spread out, but rather live very fast by running your machine neuron brain on faster hardware, for example: if you can pass a hundred years of subjective time in a year of real time then you have reduced your subjective risk for many fatal occurrences a hundred-fold. That would be a pleasant enough life as a part of a community of people all running at the same speed: there is even room for technological development and research to occur at a fair pace under such a scenario.

But to return to the immortality question: is immortality impractical? Given the risk functions and uncertainty in the timeline for completing the repair of aging, it may be unlikely for many of us alive today because we won’t get past the first step on the path. In other words, we will die before the advent of sufficiently good rejuvenation biotechnology. As for the bigger question, it’s far too early to say whether immortality, the “no death, ever” version, is actually impossible. That requires further research into cosmology – so you might give it a million years or so and ask me again.

Regardless, the slope of technology and possibility is curving up ahead of us to great heights, and it’ll be a wild ride either way. Missing out on any of it would be a real downer, so why not spend more of your time and resources helping to get the first step accomplished? Support the development of rejuvenation biotechnology: it’s your gateway to a life that may ultimately prove to have few limits.

Reason is the founder of Fight Aging! and Open Cures.

38 Responses

  1. Pete Thurman says:

    You are right, the way things are now it is not possible. It may not be possible for my generation, but in the near future that may all change. Human nature is human nature, but how long will that exist if we are no longer human? Our race will evolve, into what? I am not certain. Only time will tell. I understand exactly where you are coming from, but none know what the future may hold.

  2. Pete Thurman says:

    You cannot say it is impossible. We don’t know that. It reality everything is already eternal. We are just in a constant and unending state of transformation. As far as affordability, that is part of the transhumanist movement. We should all be trying to find ways to better our universe, ourselves, and those around us. This is not a search for power, or to be a god. It is simply wanting to learn more and live longer. To extend our reach and our vision. We except death insofar as that we must except death. What if we do not have to?

    • Jake says:

      I agree that everything is eternal, in a sense. We’re all made up of tiny bits and pieces that have existed for millions (if not billions) of years. And after we die, those bits and pieces don’t simply vanish, they eventually end up in other things. I do believe, at the rate that technology is advancing, that it will soon be possible for an individual to exist in some capacity for a very, very long time. My issue with this subject is the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots that has been plaguing us since the dawn of civilization. There will always be people in search of power, as much as they can get their greedy hands on–it’s human nature. I would love nothing more than to live in a world where death was an option, for everyone. However, the way things are now, that just isn’t possible.

  3. Moni says:

    Read “Skinned” by Robin Wasserman.

  4. Jake says:

    No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no one and nothing can live forever. I’m all for increasing the human lifespan, exponentially even, but there are some more pressing problems that we as a species must first overcome. Watch the news for 20 minutes and you’ll know what I’m talking about.
    Another thing, how is the everyday chap supposed to afford this?

  5. Pete Thurman says:

    Once true immortality is achieved there is no choice whether to live or to die. You become part of the universe, in constant contemplation. There is beauty in life and in death, we will all make our choices of our own accord. What a wondrous journey it is we all live.

  6. richard40 says:

    Good point that imortality may not be as good as we might think. Obviously imortality under torture, as in “I have no mouth but must scream” is bad. But even imortality under great conditions can become bad, just out of sheer boredom, as in ZARDOZ. The problem is once, over the centuries, you have done every exciting thing you have ever thought of, learned everything you ever wanted to learn, and accomplished everything you have ever dreamed of doing, then what is left that is worth working for.

    Another good example is the Elvish culture in Tolkein. Despite their many wonders, they were a culture in decline, devoted more to the past than the present, and surpassed by mortal men.

    • Ray says:

      Immortality could be just as good as we think.

      You’re making the assumption that you will one day reach the point that there is nothing left to learn and nothing left to accomplish.

      • tom says:

        Amos

        research depends greatly on funds and socially perceived urgency.

        advocacy power depends on amount and kind of people supporting which in turn depends on advertising and popularization.

        so the more talk/articles est about it the better.

        sci-fi fantasy get people motivated.

        science is not magic , and no one claimed that today’s science sopport it , just motivation and hope to research to if it does or not.

  7. Eray Ozkural says:

    Dear Reason,

    Thank you for this article. It’s a particularly good article to introduce the concept to our friends who have not been following the developments.

  8. Karl Hallowell says:

    Really? Truly? Imagine yourself in the scenario from Harlan Ellison’s short story “For I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”: the immortal prisoner of an ageless sadist.

    So you think eternal torment is bad? Maybe we should make that illegal then!

    Sorry, “Reason”. Death isn’t so much an enemy as a friend– a release when, not if, things get bad enough.

    When should when be? I find this a glib version of the “sour grapes” fable. We wouldn’t want immortality, if we had it because something would come up which would make us pine for death. You can rationalize our deaths as you desire, but most of us want more than death.

    • Hale Adams says:

      Karl writes:

      “So you think eternal torment is bad? Maybe we should make that illegal then!”

      The French have a way with words, Karl. One of their many bits of wit and wisdom translates into English as, “If murder is to be abolished, would the assassins be so kind as to begin?”

      As for when death should occur…… hey, I’m a life-member of the Libertarian Party of the United States, and so I’m pro-choice on a great many things, including death. As I wrote in response to emanroga above, don’t impose immortality on me, and I won’t impose mortality on you.

      Deal?

  9. emanroga says:

    “Death isn’t so much an enemy as a friend– a release when, not if, things get bad enough.”

    Thank you, Hale, for making the socialist worldview so succinct and apparent. Your appreciation for the value of an individual year of and individual life is…

    Statistics truly do kill us at some point until and unless we can backup everything. Quantum teleportation suggests a way out, but then it suggest a way out of a lot of things. I suspect that, absent the always-looming Collapse of Scientific Civilization, life span will continue to increase at a rate just slow enough not to spare me the consequences of my own mortality.

    • Hale Adams says:

      emanroga,

      What, precisely, is “socialist” about a tragic view of life? Besides, as the Japanese say, it’s life’s very transience that gives it beauty.

      As for the value of life, to each his own: I prefer death when the time comes; you obviously prefer that it not come at all. How about I make a bargain with you: don’t impose immortality on me, and I won’t impose mortality on you. Deal?

      • friponto says:

        Who’s imposing it on you? Not once in this article that you ridiculed is the word ‘compulsion’ mentioned. But there certainly will be compulsion for many of us to die earlier than we might wish if legitimate avenues of life extension research are drowned in such ridicule.

        • Hedonic Treader says:

          Existential compulsion is historically and contemporarily very common, and I don’t see good evidence to suggest it won’t be in the future. However, so far, the worst they could do to you was keep you suffering until your physical body perished, which they couldn’t prevent for more than a few decades. In an immortalist future of any kind, especially with perfect knowledge of how to amplify suffering in a human brain without permanently shutting it down, enhanced and prolonged torture will become a real threat.

          Existence isn’t voluntary. Neither is consciousness. Neither is suffering. Technology can amplify it all, massively, and therefore it’s a serious risk.

      • Karl says:

        The Japanese are wrong.

  10. Amos says:

    Oh please, listen to this wish-fulfillment nonsense. You will all get old and die. Smallpox was the last disease humans ever managed to wipe out, we can’t even figure out cancer, let alone cure it. We are coming to the limits of what our biological brains can understand and we’re too dumb to build smarter ones. This is all sci-fi fantasy, science is not magic. Live a good life, be happy and accept death. You are all going to live natural life spans (if you’re lucky), and die.

  11. Mark Noonan says:

    Nice try, but your mind is not coterminous with your brain. You might be able to work out how to store, as it were, your memories in a computer, but even all your memories so stored still wouldn’t be you…it would just be a computer program mimicking you.

    You also leave out the fact that if we can live a million years, then the worst SOB you’ve ever met would also live that million years…and if he’s managed to turn himself in to a rate bastard in 80 years, imagine what he’ll be like at 800,000?

    No, death is best…and that is regardless of whether you think it the end of all things, or just the entry way to the life of the world to come.

    • Karl says:

      You are just mimicking you. Your “self” is based upon an ever changing set of cognitive behavioral algorithms. Your self is not the same as it was last week, last year, or last decade.
      In a very real sense, we are all doing a poor job of mimicry, as we tend to not behave exactly the same way in response to remarkably identical stimuli.
      How would you be able to prove that the delta beween the behavior of the “original” and the upload was not simply based on adjustment to a new worldview?

      Especially when you add the premise that the transition to machine is piecewise over time.

      Is the reaction of a person to the image of a rose from an impant in the visual cortex qualitatively different b/c it was a mimicry of the optic nerve he may have never possessed?

  12. H+Pig says:

    Taking the writer’s scenario to it’s logical extreme:

    A private, networked wormhole of several universes, with the data representing my uploaded self flitting hither and thither, between these universes.

  13. Hale Adams says:

    The article’s author writes:

    “…… immortality would be an unalloyed good if achieved…..”

    Really? Truly? Imagine yourself in the scenario from Harlan Ellison’s short story “For I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”: the immortal prisoner of an ageless sadist.

    Sorry, “Reason”. Death isn’t so much an enemy as a friend– a release when, not if, things get bad enough.

    Hale Adams
    Pikesville, People’s Democratic Republic of Maryland

    • friponto says:

      No need to put Reason in inverted commas – it’s his full legal name! And there may be many legitimate arguments against the pursuit of literal immortality (as opposed to the radical extension of lifespan and healthspan which certainly is an unalloyed good) but I’m not sure it’s to be found in a work of fiction about an ‘ageless sadist’.

  14. Ellen says:

    These scenarios remind me of Olaf Stapledon’s First and Last Men.

  15. Ryxogger says:

    I’ve had similar ideas about immortality, many cannibalized from the works of science fiction writer Greg Egan. I’m glad to see other like-minded futurists/transhumanists posit the big ideas.

  16. DutchCon says:

    Interesting piece.

    :-) Funny to see that the basic strategy for avoiding death by accidents, wars and so on, is more or less the same as my strategy to make sure my computer data isn’t wiped out:
    plenty of backups, on and off site.

  1. August 21, 2011

    [...] said Mark Treder three days ago on IEET, along with 42 interesting comments. On H+ Magazine, a very recent article by author “Reason” stated on the matter: “If you project out based on accident rates today, you’ll find that [...]

  2. August 21, 2011

    [...] old Fight Aging! post is dusted off, rewritten, and published at h+ Magazine: “I’m not going to try to convince you that the foreseeable future is a wondrous place: [...]

  3. August 21, 2011
  4. December 2, 2011

    [...] and what the research community believes can be achieved within the next 20, 50, or 100 years.Via hplusmagazine.com Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

  5. June 17, 2012

    [...] long term this is an important line of research, as radical life extension will ultimately require moving away from flesh and into some more robust form of machinery in order to better manage the risk of fatal accidents. ‘Ultimately’ here is a long way [...]

  6. August 5, 2012

    [...] rejuvenation biotechnology, something that will allow us to live additional decades in good health, never mind what comes after that. The rise and rapid obsolescence of many massive industries in medicine will happen over the next [...]

  7. October 7, 2012

    [...] clumsy shortage for agelessness achieved through medical technology, given that you’d have to put in a lot of work to push much past a few thousand years in a human body – even with a risk function for fatal [...]

  8. June 9, 2013

    [...] In this future people will still die, however. The current mortality rate due to fatal accidents, if maintained, would give an ageless, disease-free person a life expectancy of a few thousand years. If you want to live longer than that, then you require either (a) the means of greatly reducing the occurrence and severity of accidents, or (b) to ability to change yourself to be less vulnerable. Those people alive today who are still alive ten thousand years from now, and some will be, will most likely have altered themselves dramatically, abandoning flesh and the human form in favor of far more robust machinery. [...]

  9. June 9, 2013

    [...] In the near future it will be possible to build artificial bodies, and some decades after that it will become possible to gradually replace the biology of our brains with more durable and capable nanomachinery. A diverse industry of brain-computer interfaces and artificial intelligences will arise and come to maturity along the way. Will we in fact largely become a species of intelligent machines within the next few centuries? By this I mean designed machines, as opposed to the evolved machines we presently are: entities that are human, but very distant from our present forms, functions, and limitations. When you design the machinery, rather than just working with what you have been given, an enormous range of possibilities open up. For one thing, even very complex machines can be designed to be far more robust and easily maintained than our biology, allowing a person-turned-machine-intelligence the option of an extremely long life expectancy. [...]

  10. July 11, 2013

    [...] industry, capable of producing robust nanomachines that replicate cell functions. But how do you move from a biological to a machine brain without destroying or merely copying yourself? All of the obvious, easily envisaged methodologies [...]

  11. July 11, 2013

    [...] industry, capable of producing robust nanomachines that replicate cell functions. But how do you move from a biological to a machine brain without destroying or merely copying yourself? All of the obvious, easily envisaged methodologies [...]

Share Your Thoughts