[extropy-chat] The Long Now: Bets and Predictions Over Time

[Damien Broderick]

>The Long Now Foundation's
>
>Bets and Predictions Over Time
>
>http://redpuma.net/longview/tree/bets-html/

Ye gobs! Check out this powerful reasoning by:

Melody K. Haller
Winnings to:
Accion International

Haller's Argument:
Peter's bet blithely refers to overcoming the Hayflick Limit without even 
considering the bioethical or social implications of doing so. I suspect 
that it will be broken, like the atom. But this is one of the fundamental 
building blocks of evolution--what arrogance and self-importance to think 
that our existence is so important and valuable that we have the right to 
mess with evolution, or that we have any clue whatsoever as to the 
implications of doing so. There's a tremendous outcry about cloning, 
bypassing sexual reproduction, but no one seems to think there's a problem 
with cracking the code to immortality. The life span-expiration mechanism 
came into play in evolution about the same time as the infinitely popular 
sexual reproduction. Unless done in by inclement circumstances, single cell 
animals such as yeast don't die; they just divide. Ironically, the arising 
of limited life spans coincided with and seemingly contributed to the rapid 
proliferation of life on Earth. My nonscientific, intuitive take on this is 
that evolutionary adaptation takes place more rapidly when the older 
generation gets out of the way, especially as organisms increase in 
complexity. Humans may succeed in overcoming self-limiting life spans but 
the result is likely to be contra-indicatory to the continued success of 
humans and other life. Further, from a political and compassionate point of 
view, I am convinced that such an extension of life span would benefit only 
the privileged and powerful, as it already does. The desire of the self to 
continue existing is a nearly irresistible force. But it is one thing to 
extend life by optimizing the care and circumstances of the organism and 
quite another to extend it by neutralizing inherent cellular functions. I 
do not doubt that further advances will be made in prolonging longevity and 
perhaps Peter will prove correct. Luckily, there's yet another expiration 
barrier that comes into play at about 200 years of age. I am betting money 
against his prediction purely because I believe that the further radical 
prolonging of human (and pet) longevity would not benefit the human 
species, nor the other species who are also rightful inhabitants of this 
small planet.

=================

I have no idea what she means by `there's yet another expiration barrier 
that comes into play at about 200 years'. This sort of blithering is what 
we can expect to see in buckfuls, alas.

Damien Broderick