Over at the very entertaining web site io9.com we had
yesterday a facile and naive example of excessive technological
optimism, written by George Dvorsky. The piece was entitled No,Extreme Longevity Won't Destroy the Planet.
I don't object to the title: we can overheat and
pollute Earth to our maximum ability, and the planet
will still be around, and habitable to many forms of life. I do object to the
reasoning in this piece that we need not worry about environmental
problems that would be caused if the human lifespan were to vastly
increase.
Dvorksy then asks,”Where are we going to get all that
energy?” He mentions only two technologies: concentrated solar
power and space-based solar power. But concentrated solar power is
feasible only in places such as Spain and Nevada where there is a very
high amount of daily sunlight. Space-based solar power is a speculative system, and no one knows if it will work.
Dvorksy then finishes up his case by saying that we
really have enough room for everyone, since we can build
mega-pyramids to house people, and if necessary we can move people
into outer space. That's pretty lame reasoning, given the huge costs
(both financial and environmental) of doing either of these options.
Overall, I find that Dvorksy has made a very weak case
for what he seems to be arguing for, that we can have super-prolonged
lifespans without worrying much about the environmental effects. At
least Dvorsky's piece is not quite as naïve as a similar recent
piece at the SeriousWonder.com web site, which can be summarized as:
“Google is working now on age extension. Next stop:utopia.” (The
piece now comes up as a blank page, so I won't link to it.)
Consider a few points relating to what man is currently
doing to the planet. Today there is a news report saying Health of Oceans Declining Fast.
The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) warns
that the oceans are being warmed by global warming, facing an
acidification threat. Stocks of fish are rapidly declining because
of overfishing. NASA just released an air pollution map showing huge
air pollution levels in India, Europe, and China. The IPCC just released a new report warning about how global warming is imperiling our planet. We are rapidly depleting the fertility of our planet's
top soil as discussed here,
with one professor saying that we have only 60 years of
usable top soil left. There is a huge risk of future water shortages.
Currently nearly one in ten US watersheds are stressed as discussed here, with China, India, and the Middle East facing worse water supply problems.
Schematic Depiction of Future Environment Problems
It would seem that all of these problems will get much
worse if suddenly the human life span increased by several decades.
So a cavalier attitude of “no problem, new technology will handle it” seems doubtful.
I think that in the short term there is not much risk of
environmental degradation caused by extreme lifespans, because
probably for a good long time it will only be rich people who can
afford the medical treatments needed for such lifespans. But if we
ever get to the point where a large fraction of the people can afford
120 year lifespans, we would then need to introduce new laws or
social sanctions to prevent an increase in environmental degradation
caused by longer human lifespans.
I can think of two possibilities. One stern possibility is to
introduce legislation requiring sterilization (whenever necessary)
for anyone who has his lifespan extended way beyond the current
limit. This would prevent situations such as a 160 year old man
becoming a father at ages 20,22, 45,47,49, 55,57, 65, 75, 77, 85, 87,
95,97,99, 105,108,111, 120, 122, 131,133, and 141. Of course, just mentioning required sterilization brings up all kinds of unpleasant memories and associations, but this might be a rare case when it might be morally justified.
Another possibility would be to introduce legislation
that would tend to make it extremely difficult for any person with a
super-extended lifespan to consume at a very high rate in his later
years. One can imagine an age-adjusted tax code which slaps very
high consumption taxes on people who try to live in great luxury
(with a high carbon footprint) after achieving a lifespan greater
than 90 years.
In effect, society would then be saying to an 80-year old: You want to
live fifty more years? Those years have got to be green years.
No comments:
Post a Comment