[extropy-chat] The Inevitability of Universal Immortality in a Finite Universe

[Mark Walker]

Suppose a world's population is fixed at 10 billion inhabitants and only 10%
of these (autonomously) choose to pursue superlongevity (to tens of
thousands of years or more). Assume further that if one pursues
superlongevity then one is not allowed to have children. This means that 1
billion people will continue to live while 9 billion die off in the first
hundred years or so. Of course the nine billion that die will be replaced by
9 billion descendents. Assume on the next iteration that 10% of the nine
billion choose to pursue superlongevity,  in which case 1.9 billion people
will forgo ageing, while 8.1 will continue to procreate to top up the
numbers. On the next iteration then there are 2.71 billion immortals and
7.29 mortals, and so on. The point of course is that within a very 6
generations the superlongevitists will be the majority and eventually the
mortalists will disappear completely.

Superlongevity          Mortal
1                                   9
1.9                              8.1
2.71                            7.29

etc., etc., etc.,
----
10                              0

The interest in the argument is that it is based on seemingly equitable
principles and conservative assumptions. The argument assumes that the
superlongevists will not reproduce, so it is not as if the longer-lived are
trying to leverage their numbers by out breeding the mortalists. Nor are the
superlongevists using coercion to strengthen their numbers, since the choice
to pursue superlongevity is by hypothesis made autonomously (free from
coercion). I think 10% is a very conservative figure as to how many would
choose superlongevity both initially and over the course time. My own
informal survey of students suggest that at least 25% would jump at the
chance to access superlongevity technology. I'm inclined to think that many
more would hop on the bandwagon when it actually came available. Of course
the same conclusion would be reached if only .01% of each generation choose
immortality only that it would take longer. Also, the argument works no
matter what size the population is (colonizing other planets won't help) so
long as it is finite. Of course one complication here is that some of those
who choose superlongevity might change their mind and commit suicide. By the
same sort of reasoning we should expect that those committing suicide ought
to be reduced (as a percentage), for eventually the suiciders will be
replaced by individuals who have a much stronger and sustained preference
for superlongevity. Of course showing that universal superlongevity is
inevitable on these assumptions does not show that it is the morally right
decision. However, I think it does show that the only way to stop the
immortality wave (given these assumptions) would be to usurp the autonomy of
individuals. For example, suppose an affirmative action program that said at
least 10% of the population must be mortals would force a percentage of the
mortal subgroup (or those that have already chosen immortality) to give up
their lives in order to meet the quota.  Ironically, perhaps the best bet
for mortalists would be to use genetic technologies on their descendents
would be to implant an urge to be mortal to try and reduce the attrition of
their numbers. This would be a desperate move for moralists like Kass, for
instance. Of course it raises the question of how we much we could fiddle
with the preferences of our descendents and still call them autonomous. Of
course if there are genetic predispositions for preferring superlongevity or
mortality then this would favor the idea that universal immortality is
inevitable.


Cheers,

Mark

Dr. Mark Walker
Department of Philosophy
University Hall 310
McMaster University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1
Canada