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

[Brett Paatsch]

Mark Walker wrote:

> 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.

Seemingly, but how in practice they choose to pursue it isn't specified and
almost certainly would have ramifications. If a person wanted to pursue
superlongevity but couldn't afford it without assistance from the state to
cover the costs for instance.

> 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.

On the contrary I think you've bypassed a key problem if not the key 
problem.
Health is a costly resource. Who pays when someone wants a treatment that
they cannot afford themselves? Some might see having to pay for such a 
treatment
for others as usurping their autonomy by removing their ability to do what 
they
want to do with their money because they are being taxed for most of it. 
Others
might be happy to pay tax to support women having children but not to 
support
crusty oldies kicking on indefinately and competing with their children and
grandchildren for jobs and opportunities and influence etc.

> 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.

I understand you are trying to teach philosophy students to think through
the moral issues in this area. If so more strength to your arm.

But the real battles are going to be over health economics and how resources
are allocated when they are in short supply I suspect. Also over who can own
the technology and for how long can they have patent monopolies.

Brett Paatsch