Why plan for a funeral? Live forever instead
For years, I've considered Ray Kurzweil one of my personal heros. The inventor of the very first text-to-speech book reader for the blind and a leading force behind the growth of the voice reciognition industry in the 1990s, Kurzweil is also a vocal advocate for immortality. He pops up in the media every few years to remind everone that he thinks pracical human immortality is not just possible, but is only about 50 years away from reality. He surfaced all over the Web and TV again just a few months ago with proclamations about impending advances in science that will facilitate Not Ever Dying.
I'm intrigued by the notion that humans might live forever--or, at the very least, live many, many time longer than they do today--through medicine or cynernetic technology. In fact, all I can say is, "sign me up." I'd download my brain into a computer in a heartbeat if it meant that my consciousness would be able to see the wonders of flying cars, robot dogs, and cloned dinosaurs in the next century. of course, I can already see Rick Luddite Broida winding up his cranky pitch to say why this is Just Wrong, or, at the very least, Utterly Impossible. Just like rockets to the moon and no-fat ice cream.
I'm intrigued by the notion that humans might live forever--or, at the very least, live many, many time longer than they do today--through medicine or cynernetic technology. In fact, all I can say is, "sign me up." I'd download my brain into a computer in a heartbeat if it meant that my consciousness would be able to see the wonders of flying cars, robot dogs, and cloned dinosaurs in the next century. of course, I can already see Rick Luddite Broida winding up his cranky pitch to say why this is Just Wrong, or, at the very least, Utterly Impossible. Just like rockets to the moon and no-fat ice cream.
posted by Dave @ 11:21 AM
5 Comments:
At June 02, 2005 8:11 AM,
Rick Broida said…
Some would say that wanting to live forever represents the pinnacle of hubris. I am not one of those people. Even so, while I believe we may indeed be able to achieve this "brain download" at some point in the future, there are so many ethical and technological roadblocks that it's not likely to evolve beyond the lab stage. Indeed, the government would likely quash it before it ever became a viable practice, leaving it to subsist as little more than a back-alley, black-market trade.
Consider stem cells. Here we have a technology that holds the promise of curing endless diseases, and a certain alarmingly powerful group (lead by the guy in the Oval Office) won't allow its development. No doubt they'll riot over brain downloads as well, saying it's a violation of the Bible or something.
Oh, and I can't resist the obvious cheap-shot: My brain isn't going anywhere near a computer that runs Windows. "Blue Screen of Death" would take on a whole new meaning.
At June 12, 2005 10:03 PM,
Dave said…
Indeed, I often find myself at the pinnacle of hubris; the view is great from there, and the parking isn't bad either. That said, you have such an incredibly narrow view of this subject that it's embarassing. You choose to focus entirely on "brain downloads," for instance, which is the single most speculative area of research. There are so many paths to immortality in bio and cyber research that it boggles the mind. Even then, the most likely short-term result will be significantly extending human life. How would you like to live to be 125, 150, or 175 years old in good health and with sharp mental faculties? I don't know about you, but sign me up.
At June 13, 2005 8:53 AM,
Rick Broida said…
Hey, you were the one who brought up Kurzweil and brain downloads; now you're bitch-slapping me for taking the bait? Get thee to a Clue-ery! (It's just up the road from the nunnery.)
Do you even read my posts? You didn't address a single point I made, except to classify my viewpoint as "narrow-minded." Would I like to live longer? Well, duh! Do I think the human race has much more serious and potentially devastating issues to deal with first? Better believe it.
The planet's already overcrowded, under-fed, fuel-challenged, water-deprived, and frighteningly war-minded. Let's get all those items under wraps, then I'll get excited about immortatility. See, unlike you, I have my priorities in order.
At June 22, 2005 10:14 PM,
Dave said…
I love your perspective that "the planet's already overcrowded, under-fed, fuel-challenged, water-deprived, and frighteningly war-minded," so we should stop all scientific progress towards immortality until we solve those problems.
First of all, we will NEVER solve those problems. So if you plan to postpone space travel, medical research, and research that will give cats telepathy until we have worldwide peace and prosperity, we'll never do those things at all.
Second, I tend to believe that people would have a greater stake in peace and love and freedom if human life laster longer. After all, if your life is short and finite, you might be willing to take certain risks that would be a whole lot less compelling if you knew you were likely to live for 500 or 600 years. You're throwing away a lot more by dying at the age of 30 when you had another few centuries of life available, don't you think?
You also speak of ethical roadblocks. I agree that there are narrowminded people everywhere that will take issue with almost anything, but are there serious ethical challenges today to extending the life of a human from, say, 50 or 60 years to 80 or 90 years? Not really. So what's wrong with increasing that lifespan to 100, 125, or 150? It's all just a matter of degree. Personally, I think if humanity is offered the ability to extend life into a second century, ehtical concerns will evaporate in the face of, well, living a wole lot longer. Unless, of course, you have to eat babies or sacrifice puppies in the process--obviously, there are limits to everything.
At June 29, 2005 10:16 AM,
Rick Broida said…
My key question is, how many more years do you need to have tacked onto your life before you learn to type? I mean, really, do you even bother to proofread? Talk about a problem that needs solving before striving for immortality!
Listen, I'm all for extending lifespans, curing diseases, and all that. But when I still have to click a Start button in order to shut down my computer, I have a hard time believing that we'll ever develop the software necessary to host a human brain. I think it's a longer way off than you think. And I think world events will conspire to block this kind of progress.
You say we'll "never solve" the real-world problems humanity faces, so by your logic we should just stop trying and plunge ahead with bio and cyber research, and whatever other crackpot immortality schemes someone cooks up. Obviously it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. As I said, I'm all for research; I just think the priority should be on, say, feeding starving children rather than extending the lifespans of rich folks.
Post a Comment
<< Home