[extropy-chat] GQ Magazine Interview - Biggest Hope for Immortality

[Brett Paatsch]

Natasha wrote:

> I thought I'd ask if anyone has *up-to-date* answers for
> these 2 questions of the interview - just in case any of you
> have insights that are broader and more spot on than my
> own. :-)
> 
> 1. "What is the biggest problem about achieving immortality?"

[Sorry the following is a bit of a rant. I can't spare time to
fix it. So I'm opting to post less than optimal. ] 

Theres a definitional problem. When would you know you'd
gotten to immortality? Its like having successfully counted to
infinity. You can't. There always tomorrow that hasn't happened
yet and the next number you haven't counted too. First you'd
need to operationalise the objective into something specific.

>From an engineering/logical standpoint its possible to think 
about travelling to the moon, mars, jupiter etc as problems 
with apparently achievable objects, and then they become
tractable. They can be broken down into a series of steps and
subproblems. Uncertainties can be managed. Its possible to 
start to think about what it would take to achieve *effective*
'immortality' - like a life expectancy of X many hundreds or
thousand of years. But even to do that well its necessary
to scope the problem properly, making some assumptions,
including assumptions about things that are currently 
unknowable.

The asssumptions then get revisited as more is known. 
There could be an assumption that one has that seems
reasonable in the beginning when less is known (either
because that is the state of knowledge of humankind
at that time - or more often because its the state of
knowledge of the person or group doing the planning 
exercise). Sometimes reasonable assumptions made at
the start (on current knowledge) turns out to be 
unreasonable in light of what is learned later. Good engineers
and investors and entrepreneurs save time by looking for the
fatal flaw first. (They seldom apply this device to their deep
beliefs and hopes pertaining to immortality so far as I can
tell). There is always another project or another investment
that they can direct their time and resources to if one path 
or approach fail. 

But this is not what believers do. Believers don't change their 
assumptions in light of new evidence they reinterpret or spin 
the evidence so as to preserve their assumption. Thats natural
enough but it doesn't get very far in practical terms. The human
desire to not die, an investor or entrepreneur can pretty much
take to the bank. So they do. 

People will buy mirage water if there is no real water to be had.
If both real and illusory solutions are available those who don't
know the difference will still go for the illusory ones just as 
readily as the real ones. 
 
> 2. "What is the biggest chance, the biggest hope for immortality?"

Depends where one is starting from personally. Operationally no
one actually dies of old age. There is always something cellular
that goes first. A heart attack has a cellular basis. A bullet through
the brain has a cellular basis. Cancer will kill a person when a critical
organ fails somewhere, and organismic failure will be a cell failure.
The biggest *hope* for immortality for a person on their deathbed
with an incurable condition and no time to find a cure is a religious 
repreive from the laws of contingency. The biggest *hope* is some
sort of religion. That's not the most practical solution (sometimes
there are no practical solutions) but it is their biggest hope. It has 
been historically, it still is today. But the forms of religion and the
forms of belief change. 

This is as true in 2004 as it was in earlier times. That someway, 
somehow the contingent nature of the universe as we understand
can be suspended in our case. Those with particularly detailed
understandings of the way the universe works and of their own
biology will have a harder time finding hope in assumptions based
on ignorance that they don't share. They may find hope in
ignorance. What igorance they retain and in having the capacity 
to approach problems that threaten their hope for assumptions
they can innovate and improve the quality of life for themselves 
and others whilst they do. But as they learn the shallow illusions
of others will not work for them anymore as they will be turning
on lights. For them hope for immortality always recedes into
the shaddows of what remains unknown. But the products of 
their searching solve lots of problems that are more tractable
than immortality. Cures for diseases. Life saving and labor
saving devices. Of course these don't come in time for 
everybody and how they are dispersed is a function of the 
political systems too. 

Say cryonics and molecular nanotechnology were impossible but 
we didn't know it yet, the person on their deathbed's *hope* for
immortality by that 'method' would be retained.  They wouldn't
achieve it of course (if it was impossible) but they could at least
die hoping. And with hope they'd die happy. 

I think it is actually extremely difficult to remove a persons hope
for immortality because each of us doesn't know something and
most of us *hope* the surprises in the unknowns will be pleasant
not unpleasant. 

I am not concerned that I will persuade or remove hope from 
anyone, by adopting a practical or engineering approach because
I am confident that believers will not stop believing and will find
hope in whatever way is necessary for them. But those who can
intellectually and emotionally work the practical and logical problems
like an engineering exercise can improve the human condition for
themselves and for me.

For me, age 37 and in good health, the best hope for me is to 
perhaps to persuade and coordinate efforts to acquire the
understanding to be able to replace all the organs in the body below
the neck (the brain is harder - so I figure get to it later -but I don't
have a brain disease).  Technologically I think this could be done
in the next 30 years - translation I don't know any reason at the
time of writing this why it could not be done in the next 30 years
(if politics was not an issue).  Technologically my state of ignorance
or understanding is such that I think the organs below the neck 
could be replaceable in the next 30 years - I think technologically
that would be a tractable problem (were it to be set as a goal).
And meanwhile substantial progress would be made in 
understanding the brain as well even without setting it as a goal.  

But of course that is the rub. Setting it as a goal politically. It is
very possible (heck I reckons its a virtual certainty) that politics
will prohibit setting that as a goal.  

This is because most people would find that goal abhorrent.
They will find their hope in different places. Conventional
religions offer easy off-the-shelf minimal-customisation-required
forms of hope-for-immortality. Goals that are abhorrent to the
majority cannot be set in democracies. Even if they are ethical
goals.  Even if they would be technologically possible. But
not everyone starts from the same position. Not everyone is 
37 and in good health. That of itself is enough for people to
prioritise differently and for politics to become a factor separate
to technological considerations. 

Apologies again for the rant. I think you wanted technological
answers - hence *up to date* but technological aspects are only
a part - and in my opinion they are not even the main 
impediment. 

Regards,
Brett