Install a Future Scanner button on your blog.

10 Reasons You Will Live to 1000

May 07 2008 / by juldrich
Category: Business & Work   Year: Beyond   Rating: 16 Hot

By Jack Uldrich

Cross-posted from www.jumpthecurve.com

The signs are all around us and yet, rather surprisingly, there is very little public discussion of an issue that is going to have profound moral, ethical, and political ramifications for all of society.

The issue of which I speak is the possibility of immortality. In just the past few days, however, the New York Times has run an informative article on how advances in genomics are improving the treatment of disease; the Economist has discussed the impressive progress being made in the field of gene therapy, and Technology Review covered the extraordinary advances that researchers at the University of Minnesota are making in growing a human heart.

Last week, I discussed why the future is accelerating and before that, I encouraged readers when thinking about the future to “think 10X, not 10%”; and the more I think about health care and human longeveity, the more I think both of these lines of thought apply to this field in particular. (cont.)

I recently came across this article entitled”The man who will help you live for 1,000 years.” It is about Aubrey de Grey’s new book “Ending Aging.” To most people the idea of living to 1,000 sounds absolutely crazy. But, as I explain in my own new book, Jump the Curve, due to exponential advances in a variety of technologies the ability to do things that sound “impossible” today could very well become quite “doable” tomorrow. (This is just one reason I think we all need to develop a “future bias.”)

With this brief introduction then let me provide you 10 reasons why you could live to 1,000 years of age.

#1: More powerful computers. Late last year, it was announced that IBM had the world’s most powerful supercomputer. It is capable of 1 quadrillion calculations per second. More impressive, by 2009, IBM expects to have a supercomputer capable of 10 quadrillion calculations per second. Now, computer speed, in and of itself, will not directly lead to longer lives but what these supercomputers are learning about the human body – the brain, protein-folding, pharmacogenomics, etc. – could very well lead to some amazing medical breakthroughs.

#2 Better Drugs. I recently stumbled across this article entitled “So You Want to Live Forever?” It discusses the progress that Sirtris Pharmaceuticals (which was recently acquired by GlaxoSmithKline) is making in testing a fountain-of-youth pill in humans. The drug may or may not work, but if it doesn’t work there are similar drugs in the FDA pipeline and it is not unrealistic to think that some of those drugs might just someday be successful at extending human life. (And with the first Baby Boomers hitting retirement age in 2008, you can bet that there will be a large market for any drug that keeps the “Woodstock” generation feeling and looking young.)

#3: Implantable Organs. I have written before about the amazing progress being made in the area of implantable organs. Today, bladders and human skin are being grown. Tomorrow, it is possible that kidneys and livers might be grown. And in 10 or 15 years (perhaps sooner given the University of Minnesota’s progress) maybe even the human heart will be able to be artifically manufactured.

#4 Stem Cell Research: In November 2007, researchers announced that they derived a new method for growing stem cells that might sidestep some of the ethical issues hindering current research. If so, advances in stem cell research could progress at faster rate than most people generally appreciate.

#5 Genome sequencing: This past weekend the New York Times ran an article describing how three companies want to make a portion of your genome available to you for less than $1000. This is extraordinary considering that in the mid-1970’s it cost $150 million to sequence a single gene! As the technology continues to improve and we learn more about how genes regulate human health scientists and researchers could easily find ways to lengthen human longeveity.

#6: Robotic surgeries: I’ve written before about the future of health care and I am of the opinion that within the next decade amazing breakthroughs will be made in the field of robotic surgeries. In fact, researchers in South Korea are already experimenting with miniature robots to clear people’s arteries. If effective, heart disease may be a thing of the past. Robotics are also being used for a growing number of other surgeries as I explained in this piece.

#7: Nanotechnology: The National Cancer Institute has speculated that due to advances in nanotechnology cancer could be a treatable disease as early as 2015.

#8: Advances in proteinomics and metagenomics. How the human body operates is only imprecisely understood today. As advances in each of the aforementioned fields progresses, however, we will have a much better understanding of the human body and, thus, how to treat it.

#9: Human Desire. I understand perfectly well that a vast majority of people are terribly uncomfortable with the idea of radical life extension. Nevertheless, there are thoughtful and intelligent people such as Aubrey de Grey who are actively challenging society to think differently. Rather than accepting aging as an inevitable aspect of life, they are instead encouraging society to view aging as a disease—something to be treated. This is a profound paradigm shift, but is it any more profound than Copernicus telling people 500 years ago that they were not at the center of the universe? History has a way of demonstrating that the future often turns out much different than most people appreciate and that what constitutes “conventional wisdom” in one era is laughed at and mocked by future generations. Our “acceptance” of death might be one such issue.

#10: Evolution. Lastly, I would like to submit the idea that mankind is destined to evolve towards radical life extension. In 1600, the average life expectancy was 36 years. At the beginning of the 18th century, life expectancy had inched forward to 37 years. One hundred years later it had increased to 39 years. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was 47. In the next 100 years, however, it increased by almost 30 years—to 77. What will the next 100 years hold? It is difficult to imagine, but it is important to understand that society will not simply experience a rate of change similar to the last century. Due to the accelerating rate of progress we could very well experience the equivalent of 20,000 years of progress (as measured by the 20th century rate). Within all of this progress, is it possible that we might find the key (or keys) to radical life extension? I believe that the answer is yes.

The real question then becomes: “How do we prepare ourselves and society for this seismic change?”

Related Posts

The Future of Health Care: Part 3 (Robotics)

The Future of Health Care: Part 1

The Future of Health Care: Part 2

The Coming Health Care Revolution

The Robot Will See You Now

Comment Thread (8 Responses)

  1. I think your #10 reason is completely incorrect. First, increase in life expectancy had absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. People on average live longer now because of advances in medicine and better life style. And second, what’s even more important, maximum life expectancy didn’t change at all. In year 1600 people didn’t just die after 36. Some of them lived into their 100s like some people do now. The unusually low life expectancy in those times was mostly due extremely high child mortality. Life expectancy for adults who lived in good conditions was not that dramatically different in those times.

    Posted by: johnfrink   May 07, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  2. What I’ve always been a bit worried about is #5. Don’t get me wrong, sequencing one’s genome is a phenomenal tool that I will surely benefit from. What worries me is this information getting in the wrong hands. What happens if my health insurance company/the government/whoever wants to treat me differently because I’m predisposed for cancer at 45? or track my every move because of the skin cells or other biological samples I happen to leave behind? It’s hard to speculate about the rest of the simulation, but those are the aspects that are worrisome to me.

    Posted by: Marisa Vitols   May 08, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  3. I consider myself really future-minded, but I don’t believe people will live to 1000, even if they can. Instead, I believe people will choose a natural life cycle, maybe even a little lower than is made possible by today’s medical technologies.

    I don’t think the desire to live (practically) forever is innate in humans. Instead, it shows a misunderstanding for what a human is. I’ll be happy to die at 80 or so to leave room for the next generation, possibly one of my children.

    I fully believe we will have the technology for infinite an infinite life, but in the end, we won’t use it.

    To see a counter-trend, I suggest you research the “slow medicine” movement. You can find a book and an article through http://del.icio.us/meryn/slowmedicine

    Posted by: meryn   May 08, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  4. johnfrink: While I agree with some of your points, I would argue that evolution is exponential and that looking at the past 400 years is too short of a time frame through which to consider the issue. (I intend a future post which will elaborate on this idea.)

    Posted by: juldrich   May 08, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  5. meryn: I agree with your point that many people will choose not to live extended lives but there are some who will. This issue isn’t black or white—and the question I believe we must begin grappling with is whether society (particularly that segment of society that doesn’t want to live for an extended time) has the right to impose some artificial lifespan on those who do. I would argue that it does not.

    Posted by: juldrich   May 08, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  6. Great post Jack. I agree w/ your comment that some humans will and some won’t choose extended lifespans, unless we discover something that renders human lifespan moot, such as the notion that we are living in a simulation. But all radical futures aside, I think your list is a great primer for longevity.

    Posted by: Alvis   May 10, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  7. @ johnfrink – your point is totally right, though I wonder if the underlying trend will continue regardless. I think Jack is referring to broader evolution here rather than natural biological evolution. I could also see development (the manner in which genes are expressed in concert w/ their environment) as a potential longevity force – a picky distinction, but an important one.

    Posted by: Alvis   May 10, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  8. While I think johnfrink raises some good points on evolutionary functions vs. ‘Law of Accelerating Return’ functions, its important to point out that even if evolution were an underlying driving force in this hypothesis, the argument presented here leaves out significant causes for evolutionary adaptation… namely that of predation – which in my opinion will likely curtail life expectancy irregardless of synthetic augmentation. You might live to be 1000, but you’re still going to run up against Nature’s rules when evoking the evolution postulate. One can’t pick and choose.

    Posted by: NanoDorkus   May 14, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

Trackbacks (1 Response)

  1. Happy Friday!   Learn about gene therapy! I’m sure you’ve heard of gene therapy- but maybe don’t understand it that well? Scientific American has a nice article explaining it: “How does gene therapy work?“. Its writ...

    Posted by: Ideas For Women News Blog    May 16, 2008

Related content from the Future Scanner and Future Blogger