“For me, the key to longevity – and immortality, in a sense – has to do with transformation.”–Marilyn Manson
Is transformation the key to immortality? A better question is: will radical life extension–the end of aging–in itself be transformative? I believe the answer to that second question is a resounding yes.
In this special Seeking Delphi™ podcast, four of the world’s biggest thought leaders and advocates for ending aging discuss implications and issues involved in achieving human rejuvenation therapy, and begin the discussion of what a post-ageing world might look like. We only scratched the very surface on the latter issues–there will be more to come on the subject.
You can subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on Apple Podcasts, PlayerFM, MyTuner, Listen Notes, and YouTube You can also follow us on Facebook and on twitter @Seeking_Delphi
[
Episode#40–The Dawn of Superlongevity: Scenarios for a Post-Aging Future.
YouTube video of the complete unedited program
Panelist Biographies
Panelist Organizations
Life Extension Advocacy Foundation (LEAF)
Association of Professional Futurists.
A reminder that this and all Seeking Delphi ™podcasts are available on iTunes, PlayerFM, and YouTube. You can also follow us on Facebook and on twitter
The Millennium Conjectures™ 
“A better question is: will radical life extension–the end of aging–in itself be transformative? I believe the answer to that second question is a resounding yes.”
Ah, maybe. Just because we could live longer scientifically, doesn’t mean we will politically. Social system spending constraints in an aging society and longevity gains through medical science are on a collision course.
Paul
Ah. But there is one of the key misconceptions about radical life extension. That’s exactlyone main reason why it is transformative. The entire retirement paradigm will have to change. We are not talking a gradual continuation of the last 100+ years of medical progress which has actually, in effect, caused the global epidemic of diseases of aging by allowing people to live long enough to suffer from them. The new paradigm is to prevent the diseases of aging altogether–and if possible, to prevent or even reverse aging itself. In so doing, it will free up the trillions of dollars we spend globally every year on treating these diseases (heart disease, cancer, dementia, etc.) after the fact for use in solving other problems. And at the rate global birth rates are dropping, we may need radical life extension to maintain global population sometime after 2050. See https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545397/empty-planet-by-darrell-bricker-and-john-ibbitson/
We have been changing the right to die laws here and with it are lots of questions about “how bad does it have to be before we will assist suicide”. I find the whole question about longevity bizarre but certainly, it would hold no attractiveness to anyone if it meant you would suffer on from aging for years. But as a person who sits Zazen everyday, and practices awareness, suffering is not limited to the body; in a person who lives fully, the suffering of others is also experienced as suffering. And if super longevity means that a few of the rich (and as reflected in this panel, white, and if female, attractive) continue at the cost of the suffering of masses of people we will have to add the cost of isolating these white, male and attractive females, (even more) from any real understanding of what it is to truly be an adult human being. The story goes that they tried to keep the future Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama isolated from human suffering too, without success. So why go there?
The whole point of the ending aging movement is to eliminate the infirmities of old age, not prolong them. If 100,00 people a day died from any other reason, it would be seen as a major international crisis of collosal proportions. 100,000 people die everyday from the diseases and ravages of old age, and we seem almost not to notice. 75-80% of our healthcare exenditures…trillions of dollars..;.fo into mainting us in these painful states. We can save the pain and save the money if we put our minds to it. But we have to cure–as Aubrey calls it–the “pro-aging trance.”
many interventions to prolong life cause more suffering and cost more than letting the progress of old age move one towards death. My mother who had few medical interventions died peacefully at home at 94. Many things could have kept her alive longer. But she chose to die at home without dialysis or transplants or anything else. These things we do to the aging population, myself included, are not necessary to lessen infirmities or pain, but to to extend life at any cost. Present day. In contrast a friend spent a year of torture in chemo and radiation because of the promise of a few more months, those months she had no patience for the time she had with anyone except the pain killers. I don’t believe in a “pro-aging trance”. Who would? But I believe a longer life is not a goal we can sustain or achieve without terrible cost, nor a comfortable death an enemy to battle.
Elizabeth, longevity doesn’t necessarily contribute to empathy, rather the opposite. Compassion and empathy arise in impermanence. Permanence and entitlement makes people intractable, helps them blame others for their own troubles and makes them able to defend just about any action that maintains their advantage.
Nobody is saying that it isn’t a major paradgim change. But indefinite health long life is still not permanance. Things still change over time. People will still die from accidents, infectious diseases and other causes and still suffer other trying issues. The notion that indefinite lifespan would somehow kill empathy, regardless of what else is going on or changing, is one that I reject totally. there are other things you can criticize Liz about and I won’t diagree. Not this, though.
Sorry if I seemed to be critizing her or you. I am stating an opinion about what is being discussed. No doubt there is little evidence either way, as empathy can’t really be measured, except perhaps in terms of policies that are passed by ruling bodies. Even then hard to gage. Generally the more totalitarian the governance the more limited the share of the benefits of health services become, therefore those who benefit from increased longevity and health will already be those who have not displayed in any significant empathy, beyond maybe their wives and children, but maybe not even them…But I had hoped she would engage me rather than you feeling you needed to speak for her.
I didn’t take it as criticism. And there are plenty things Liz can be criticized for–on the scientific development front. The whole point of discussions like this is to explore the possibilities of what would likely be one of the most disruptive changes in the history of human civilization. That is, if it occurs. And if it does, how fast it comesand how effetiveit is are also variables that are unknown.
Anyway, your opinions are always welcome, Rio!
Sorry if I seemed to be critizing her or you. I am stating an opinion about what is being discussed. No doubt there is little evidence either way, as empathy can’t really be measured, except perhaps in terms of policies that are passed by ruling bodies. Even then hard to gage. Generally the more totalitarian the governance the more limited the share of the benefits of health services become, therefore those who benefit from increased longevity and health will already be those who have not displayed in any significant empathy, beyond maybe their wives and children, but maybe not even them…But I had hoped she would engage me rather than you feeling you needed to speak for her.