Will We Say 1 Superhuman Super-life Is Worth 10 Normal Lives?

Before too many decades we may see the appearance of a small number of genetically-enhanced humans with higher intelligence or much longer lifespans. This may create a social upheaval, and the tremors may penetrate deep into our laws and moral ideas.

Today if you ask anyone whether all human beings are of equal worth, almost anyone would agree with such a statement. In many cases people act in a very different way, as if the citizens of their country are worth more than the citizens of other countries. But at least almost all of us would answer affirmatively when asked if all human lives are of equal value.

But in the future, things may be very different. We may see the rise of a small group of humans with extremely long lifespans. We may also see the appearance of some humans with a much higher level of intelligence. If that happens, will the “all humans are of equal worth” idea continue to be endorsed by all? Something very different may happen. We may see people start talking about “super-lives” that are worth more than regular lives.

Here is the kind of reasoning that may come into play:

Is the life of a man who will live to be 1000 worth the same as a man who will live to be 80? Is the life of a man with an intelligence quotient of 500 worth the same as a man with an IQ of 100? Of course not! We must distinguish between ordinary lives, and super-lives. It is only logical to consider a super-life as worth more than a regular life. How much more? That is a matter to be calculated, using logical mathematics.

What kind of “logical mathematics” might such a person have in mind? It could work something like this. Someone might calculate that if a superhuman has a lifespan x times greater than the regular lifespan, then that superhuman has a super-life worth x times more than a regular life. Someone might also calculate that if a superhuman has an intelligence x times greater than the average human intelligence, then that superhuman has a super-life worth x times more than a regular life. Such calculations might be applied simultaneously, so that someone with a lifespan five times greater than the average lifespan (and an intelligence five times greater than the average intelligence) might then be considered to be worth 25 times more than a person of average intelligence and average lifespan. 

I am not at all saying that I agree with such calculations, nor am I saying that a superhuman should be considered some type of “super-life” worth more than a regular life. I am merely suggesting that this type of reasoning may become popular, regardless of its validity. It may even be that the rules of law are rewritten to take such calculations into effect. One can only imagine the bizarre legal ramifications.

A new law might be introduced saying that if a superhuman is very sick or badly injured, and needs to get to the hospital quickly, he has the right to drive to the hospital as fast as he can, even if that means running over and killing ordinary humans in his path. Superhumans may have a special 911-like number they can call to summon an ambulance, a type of ambulance that arrives more quickly than ambulances for ordinary humans.

The government might cut foreign aid to help poor and starving people in other countries, reallocating such funds to pay for the genetic engineering needed to create superhumans. If anyone complained about the loss of life, the official rebuttal might be: it is better to create one super-life than to save ten regular lives.

A new law might be introduced saying that if a superhuman has a reasonable reason for suspecting that a regular human might kill him, the superhuman has the right to draw a gun and kill that human. Superhumans may walk out of court uncharged, by merely using an excuse such as this: “He looked rather mean and scary, so I killed him.”

Superhumans might be granted cards that place them first in line for any organ transplant, first in line for any blood transfusion, and first in line whenever they walk into an emergency room. Instead of the traditional lifeboat rule of “women and children first” when a ship is sinking, the new rule might be “superhumans first; then women and children.” Faced with two fires at the same time in a city, computers might route fire trucks to first go to the blazing home of a superhuman, and only later to go to the blazing house of a regular human.

When it comes to education, we can expect that the superhumans will get the finest free schools along with free college educations at elite universities. No one will be able to resist this slogan: a super-mind is a super-terrible thing to waste.

If such laws and provisions are introduced, they will no doubt create bitter resentment. We ordinary humans are used to being the top race on this planet. We will not take kindly to being relegated to second-class status. One can imagine an angry mob of regular humans carrying torches and pitchforks, along with hand-made signs saying: Death to the superhumans!

If something like that happens, then all the talk about superhumans having a thousand-year lifespan may turn out to be ironically inaccurate. Hunted down by resentful humans, the superhumans may not even live as long as ordinary humans.

Road Maps to Future Immortality?

Maria Kkonovalenko recently created some cool visuals outlining three “road maps to immortality.” The first one is here, and depicts a path to immortality by genetic engineering. The second visual depicts a path to immortality by regenerative medicine. The third one is here, depicting a path to digital immortality.

The steps Maria has outlined are fascinating to ponder, but I think there are definite moral and practical difficulties we must ponder before getting too excited. First, let's look at Maria's path to immortality through regenerative medicine.

One thing Maria imagines is pigs serving as “bioreactors for growing human organs.” I have a moral issue with this proposal, which is quite similar to the moral issue I have regarding breeding pigs for slaughter. The problem is that pigs are highly intelligent and sociable animals. A scientist once made a crude video game with a large joystick cursor that an animal could manipulate with its snout. The scientist tested whether dogs or pigs could learn how to use the game. Even after many efforts, dogs were unable to learn the game, but pigs learned how to use it very quickly. So there is reason to believe that pigs are even more intelligent than dogs. Would it be moral for us to use pigs to grow some material that we would use in our body, for super-long lives? Possibly not.

Another thing Maria imagines is head transplants, and growing a new body in the lab. We can imagine the scenario: once you get to be 60, you start growing a new body in a big glass unit you keep in your basement. Then when you get to be 80, you arrange to have your head transplanted to the new body.

But there would be two big problems with this approach. The first is that while you would have a new body, you would still have the same old, aging brain. The result might look something like this:

There would also be the moral difficulty involved in growing the second body. Since a body requires a brain to function, how could you grow a replacement body without that body having its own mind and personality? If the body did have such a mind and personality, it would presumably be murder for you to have surgeons decapitate that body and replace its head with your head. Perhaps the replacement body could be set up so that it didn't have any mind. But the idea of having a mindless replacement body growing for 20 years in a lab or your basement is creepy, like the story of Frankenstein.

None of these messy biological and moral difficulties are associated with Maria's third road map to immortality, her vision of digital immortality. But I don't think the scenario she imagines is very plausible. She basically imagines that we will learn more and more about how consciousness works, by scanning and analyzing brain tissue. She imagines us concentrating on animals first, first figuring out exactly how the brain of a smaller animal works, then figuring out how the brain of a larger animal works, and then finally figuring out exactly how the human brain stores memories and produces thoughts. Then once we understand that, according to this vision, we can create computers or robots that duplicate this functionality, and upload our minds into such electronic units.

There are several problems with such a scenario. The main one is that the production of human consciousness by the brain is one of the great mysteries of nature, and there is little hope that we will be able to solve it through brain scanning. No matter how closely we examine a neuron or brain tissue with a scanning device, it seems unlikely we will ever be able to say, “Aha, there is a thought being produced,” or “I see it now; there is a memory being stored.” So brain-scanning offers little hope that we will be able to understand the brain and consciousness enough to perfectly reproduce it electronically. There is also the whole duplication problem discussed here.

We should not necessarily be depressed if digital immortality is not possible. The situation can be expressed through the flow chart shown below. The question is: is the origin of spiritual human consciousness from mere physical matter a kind of “miracle of consciousness” that can never be understood in terms of mere physics, chemistry, and biology – perhaps something that can only be understood through some more transcendent principles? If the answer to that question is “no,” then there is perhaps some hope that some of us may be able to achieve some kind of digital immortality by uploading our minds into machines. But if the answer to this question is “yes,” then there is a distinct possibility that such transcendent principles may open the door to some kind of spiritual immortality. I don't find this latter possibility to be any less hopeful than the first. 

6 Drawbacks of a 125-Year Lifespan

Scientists are working on extending the human lifespan. It is entirely possible that within a few decades the human lifespan might be fifty years longer. Most people think that such an outcome would be extremely fortunate. But there are some serious downsides and disadvantages that might arise from a human lifespan that long. Below is a list of six drawbacks.

Wealth inequality might increase. The United States has a grave problem with excessive wealth being concentrated in the hands of the few. In this year's State of the Union Address, President Obama reported that the wealthiest 1% own 40% of the wealth in he United States, and the bottom 80% own only 7% of America's wealth. 

If people live to be 125, the wealth inequality problem would probably increase very significantly. The main reason is that death is a major factor that helps to limit wealth inequality. When very rich people die, the government gets a large share through inheritance taxes, and usually the person's fortune is divided up among several people. If the very rich are living to the age of 125, that end-of-life wealth redistribution is delayed for several decades.

Unemployment might increase. In many fields it is very hard for young people to find a job, partially because of all of the older people holding on to their jobs. If people live to be 125, people might hold on to their jobs until they are 90 or 100. One can only imagine how negative an effect that might have on the unemployment rate.

Ideas might stagnate. It has been said many times that some inappropriate or weakly supported theories never die until their advocates finally grow old and die. This problem of conceptual stagnation might became worse if people have 125-year lifespans. One can imagine people saying things such as this: “I've been advocating string theory at this university for the past 90 years, and I'm sure not going to change my mind now.”

Retirement programs might bankrupt. A program such as Social Security was designed under the assumption that people would typically die around the age of 70 or 75. What happens when people start living to be 125? It might be enough to send many a retirement program into bankruptcy.

Overpopulation might get worse. The world's population was 6 billion in 1999, but grew to 7 billion in 2011. It is predicted to grow to 7.7 billion by 2020. By the time we develop science for 125-year lifespans, the world might be groaning under a terrible overpopulation crisis (exacerbated by global warming and resource depletion). Much longer lifespans may make the problem significantly worse. The extent of this difficulty will depend on how expensive lifespan extension is. If scientists develop a fairly inexpensive youth pill, and billions start living beyond the age of 100, this might make overpopulation much worse. But if life extension depends on very expensive techniques that only the rich can afford (as depicted in the visual below), the effect on overpopulation might be fairly small.

An ad of the future

Dementia might proliferate. Longer lifespans might be produced by the introduction of some general technique or medicine that slows aging in all parts of the body. But it is just as likely that longer lifespans will be produced through techniques that allow people to replace or rejuvenate particular parts of the body. In the latter case, there will be a very great risk that people will get younger hearts, younger livers, younger lungs, and younger arteries before they get younger brains.

The reason for this risk is that the brain is much more complicated than any other organ in the body. Compared to the brain, the heart and the lungs and the liver are ridiculously simple (and might well be produced by sophisticated 3D printers). So probably decades before there is anything like a technique for rejuvenating the brain (or stopping the aging in the brain), there will be techniques for replacing the heart or the lungs or the liver.

Why is this a problem? It's because people will be tempted to make organ replacements that give them much longer lifespans, but leave them with the same old brains, brains that will tend to become demented when people reach an age of 85, 90, or 95 (because of Alzheimer's disease, strokes, and normal brain aging).

One can only imagine what a cruel twist of fate this might end up being. An 80-year-old might have an operation giving him a new heart, followed by an operation giving him new lungs. He might then rejoice after being told he can look forward to forty more years of life. But then five or ten years later, he might become demented and senile. His extra decades might be spent in a state of vacant senility in a nursing home, at tremendous cost to society.

So you may be saying: no problem; before getting a new heart or lungs, I'll just ask my doctor whether he's sure this won't end up being an expensive ticket to a decade or two in a nursing home. But it's as likely as not that if you ask your doctor, “Are you sure I won't get senile when I'm 100 or 110?” he will simply say: “I don't know.”

So people now about 50 or 60 may be faced with a very tough choice in a few decades. You may be told that some fancy high-tech operation may give you 30 years of additional life, with the risk that you may be spending half of that time as a senile, demented person in a nursing home. Which choice will you make?

Let us hope that they come up with huge breakthroughs in preventing dementia and strokes, medical science that you will be able to afford, so that you will never face such a choice.

Will Extreme Longevity Cause an Ecological Hell?

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.

Dvorsky claims, “Over the course of the next several decades, and as we eventually (and hopefully) cross into the next century, humanity will progressively shrink its global footprint on the planet — a footprint that, for each of us, is impossibly large right now.” But he does nothing to support this amazing claim that man's footprint on the environment will shrink in the next few decades. We have every reason to believe that this claim is false. Our footprint on the planet is getting worse every decade, as population grows, as consumption increases and as the global warming pollution and other types of pollution get worse. A large part of the problem is that more and more people in Asian and Third World countries are developing Western patterns of consumption, such as all of those Chinese who are buying cars.

Dvorksy asks, “How are we going to feed everybody?” He notes that “we are way off track if we are going to feed everybody by 2050,” citing this study. Besides mentioned genetically engineered crops, all he can do to support the idea of food abundance is to cite the theoretical arguments of Eric Drexler about nanotechnology, and to note that a Star Trek type replicator would help the problem. Not a very compelling case. Drexler claims that precise atomic manufacturing will allow for an age of superabundance, but his claims were extensively criticized by Nobel Prize winner Richard E. Smalley.

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.

Slow Your Aging While You Help Save the Earth

Today's headlines are reporting a very interesting study reported in a scientific journal. Healthful Living May Improve Telomeres and Lifespans says one headline. Healthy Diet May Reverse Aging, Study Finds says another headline.

But it seems that the real headline should be: Stop Eating Meat and Slow Your Aging.

Telomeres are little cap-like structures on the ends of the chromosomes in your cells. As cells age, the telomeres grow shorter and shorter. Eventually when the telomeres in a cell grow short enough, the cell stops dividing, which results in cell death. The more of this cell death that occurs, the faster you age.

Chromosomes (gray) and telomeres (white)

The newest study (reported in Lancet Oncology) was done on a small group of men who adapted a vegan diet, increased exercise, and underwent an anti-stress program that included meditation and support groups. After five years on such a program, the men had telomeres that were 10% longer than at the beginning of the five years. The control group had telomeres that were 3% shorter than at the beginning of the five years.

A vegan diet is one that includes no meat, fish, or animal products such as cheese or milk. But we don't know exactly what causal factors played a part in the results. It might have been that the results would have been as good if the participants had merely followed a vegetarian diet, one which excludes meat but does not exclude fish, eggs, or cheese.

There was a previous study that compared diet and telomere length. Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, this study involved 840 people, many times more than the small group studied by the study published in Lancet Oncology. The study analyzed a large variety of foods and drinks consumed by the 840 people, and found only one type of food that tended to shorten people's telomeres.

That type of food was processed meat.

In other words, the study found that sausages, hot dogs, salami, and similar food is making you age faster.

No one should be surprised that sausages and similar food makes you age faster. You never really know what is in a sausage. I'm reminded of a line from the song Master of the House in the musical Les Miserables, in which the inn keeper confesses that his sausages are made with the livers of horses and the kidneys of rats.

You should give up processed meat, and your best best for slowing your aging is to give up all red meat. If you do so, you will not merely be helping yourself, but our planet as well.

Meat consumption is one of the largest causes of global warming. Five years ago the United Nations produced a report called Livestock's Long Shadow, which estimated that raising livestock for food is causing 18 percent of global warming. Two environmental specialists for the World Bank produced a report arguing that raising livestock for food is causing 51 percent of the world's global warming. The exact percentage is a matter of debate, but there can be no doubt that a large amount of global warming could be prevented if we stopped eating meat, or greatly reduced our meat consumption, particularly the consumption of beef. Beef consumption is a particularly large factor in global warming, because cows abundantly produce methane, which speeds up global warming much more dramatically than carbon dioxide.

There is also the moral issue that if more gave up meat eating, there would be more food available. To make a pound of meat available, you have to feed an animal as much as 13 pounds of grain. If the world ate much less meat, there would be much more grain available, and we would not have a world where up to a billion people suffer from hunger.

Let me end this post by simply considering what is best for helping you slow your aging rate. I will list three options: an easy option, a more challenging option, and a most challenging option.

The easy option is for you to simply stop eating processed meat such as sausages. That will eliminate from your diet the one and only food product that the previously cited AJCN study found to be a telomere shortener (a food that accelerates your aging).

The more challenging option is to give up all red meat, or all meat. That might well help slow your aging rate, and will help reduce global warming and help increase the world food supply.

The most challenging option is to go vegan, and give up consumption of all animal products. While it might seem to be justified by the study recently published in Lancet Oncology (which showed the big telomere improvement for vegans), you might wait for a follow-up study before taking this most difficult step (as that study used only a small sample size).

The Impatient Gold Digger: A Science Fiction Story

When beautiful young Wanda Wilkins, age 24, married the billionaire Barry Sampson, age 105, Wanda thought she had secured for herself riches beyond her wildest dreams. Barry was known to be in poor health, and few expected him to live more than another year or two. Wanda told herself: I hate this old goat, but if I just play along for a few years, I'll end up inheriting most of his money.

One day Wanda accompanied Barry to the doctor's office to hear the results of his latest medical tests. The doctor's face was grim.

“You've had a great long run, Barry,” said the doctor, “but it looks like your time is finally running out. You have advanced cancer of the liver, kidneys, and stomach.”

“My, that's so tragic,” said Wanda, play acting to the best of her abilities. “How long does my husband have to live?”

“About four months,” said the doctor.

Wanda took out her handkerchief, and did her best to fake some tears, while she started to think about the countless millions she would soon inherit.

“I'm going to fight this,” said Barry.

“That's fine, darling,” said Wanda. “Do your best.”

A few weeks later Wanda found out that when Barry said he was going to fight death, he wasn't kidding. Barry brought Wanda to meet some doctors he had hired at a local clinic that specialized in radical approaches to life extension.

“Barry, you said you wanted us to pull out all the stops to save your life,” said Dr. Carlin, “and that's what we're going to do. We're going to try something that no one has ever done before. In a few months, your brain will be removed from your body, and immediately hooked up to a special machine that will keep it alive outside of your body. Using electrodes, we will hook up your brain to a special computer interface that will be able to understand your thoughts. Everything in your body other than your brain will be thrown away, but your brain will live on, perhaps for many decades of additional life. This is the most ambitious life extension project ever attempted.”

“That sounds great,” said Barry.

“My God, that's the most bizarre scheme I've ever heard of,” said Wanda, hardly able to hide her horror at the idea. “Are you saying my husband's brain will live on, even though the rest of his body is dead?”

“Exactly,” said Dr. Carlin.

Wanda tried to persuade her husband not to try the strange plan, but Barry could not be convinced. He went for several weeks to the clinic, where they put a skull cap on his head, and trained the computer in be able to interpret his thoughts.

Finally the day of the operation came. Wanda couldn't stand to watch the procedure. She was told to come in to the clinic to see the results of the operation.

Wanda was guided to a lab where she saw a glass container filled with fluid and a brain. The brain was connected to wires, which led to a computer. The computer had a camera, a microphone, and a monitor.

Wanda was disgusted by the sight. On the computer monitor, she saw some words. The words read:

HELLO, WANDA. I CAN SEE YOU. THIS IS YOUR HUSBAND BARRY.

Wanda looked at the monitor and the computer, not knowing what to think.

“Barry, can you hear me?” she asked.

The computer monitor now displayed a new message:

YES, WANDA. I CAN HEAR YOU. I'M DOING FINE. HOW ARE YOU?

“I know it seems hard to believe,” said Dr. Carlin. “But your husband is still alive. Even though the rest of his body is gone, we have preserved his brain. So his consciousness lives on. He can in a sense see with the camera we have provided, which is connected to the computer that is connected to his brain. And he can in a sense hear with the microphone we have provided, which is connected to the computer that is connected to his brain. And he can in a sense speak with the monitor we have provided, which is connected to the computer that is connected to his brain.”

“How long can he survive like this?” asked Wanda.

“Oh, the good news is that he can keep living like this indefinitely,” said Dr. Carlin enthusiastically. “Perhaps for another 50 years.”

“Fifty years?” said Wanda. “Fifty freaking years?”

Wanda was thoroughly revolted, and stormed out of the life extension clinic. After using every curse word in the book, she finally came up with a plan to get her husband's money.

Her plan was simple: she filed a legal suit, petitioning the court to declare her husband legally dead.

The legal hearing was a contentious one. Dr. Carlin argued that Barry was very much still alive, on the grounds that he could still respond to stimuli such as the sound of a voice.

But the decisive point in the hearing came when Wanda's lawyers asked about the software that was used to communicate between Barry's brain and the computer connected to it. Dr. Carlin admitted that the software used artificial intelligence software to “flesh out” the electrical impulses coming from Barry's brain. Wanda's lawyers argued that this artificial intelligence software was basically a kind of artificial chatbot that was making up the answers itself after getting some vague electrical signals that could be interpreted in different ways.

“So when that computer says, HELLO, I'M BARRY, I SEE YOU,” asked Wanda's lawyer, “it may really be the computer software that's talking more than Barry himself, correct?”

“Well, maybe,” said Dr. Carlin, an answer that made Wanda smile.

“And when the computer monitor next to Barry's brain gives a message saying it recognizes you,” asked Wanda's lawyers, “that may be facial recognition software in your computer rather than Barry actually recognizing someone, correct?”

“Perhaps,” said Dr. Carlin.

Finally the judge issued a ruling. He ruled that Barry Sampson should be considered to have legally died at the moment that his brain was separated from his body. The judge ruled that appearances of personality from the brain-computer hookup were mainly artifacts of computer software rather than artifacts of consciousness in Barry's brain.

Armed with the judge's ruling, Wanda walked into the life extension clinic, and approached Barry's brain on the shelf. The computer monitor connected to the brain flashed a message:

HELLO, WANDA, HOW ARE YOU TODAY?

“Shut up, hubby,” said Wanda. “You're legally dead.”

Wanda disconnected the wires from Barry's brain, and placed the brain in a jar of formaldehyde. To this day that jar with Barry's brain sits on the book shelf of a professor of biological ethics at Columbia University.

Is There a Body Transplant in Your Future?

This week an Italian neuroscientist named Dr. Sergio Canavero released a paper outlining how to perform a human head transplant.The scientist made headlines by announcing that head transplants (which can also be called body transplants) are feasible and can be done in the near future on humans. Supposedly the procedure has already been performed on other mammals such as rhesus monkeys. The procedure involves rapidly chilling the two bodies involved, cutting off their heads, attaching one head to the other head, and then gradually warming the body of the transplant recipient, who has an old head and a new body.

If such procedures are done any time soon, they will probably be done on special cases, such as people who have been paralyzed from the neck down. But what about using a body transplant as a radical means of extending human life? Let us explore the feasibility of that. The big question is: even if it were possible for a person to extend his life by getting a body transplant for his aging body, how could the young body be acquired? I can imagine several different ways.

Acquiring a Body From a Newly Deceased Youth

One way to get bodies for body transplants would be to use bodies from young people who had died naturally, from events such as gunshots to the head or drug overdoses. This method would be fairly uncontroversial, as you would only be using a body that would otherwise soon rot in the grave. But the main problem with this method is that only a small number of people could use it, because relatively few young people die.

Acquiring a Body From a Human Raised to be a Body Donor

Another method would be to raise ordinary humans specifically for the purpose of serving as body donors. The humans might be told from an early age that they were not destined to live beyond an age of about 20, at which point they would serve as body donors. This method is technically feasible, but morally unacceptable and appalling. The film Never Let Me Go offered a chilling look at a future society in which a group of young people were raised purely to be organ donors. Raising humans to be used for body transplants would be even more chilling and repugnant.

Acquiring a Body From an Unconscious Human Raised to be a Body Donor

Another method would be to somehow raise unconscious humans specifically for the purpose of serving as body donors. The humans would somehow have the higher levels of their brain removed as early as possible, so that they would have no consciousness, personality, or memory. But the lower brain stem functions of these humans would be left intact, so that their hearts and lungs could keep working. They might be fed intravenously.

While a little less appalling than the previous method, this method would also be very morally objectionable to many people. Somehow there is something revolting about the idea of a human body slowly growing on a bed for 18 years, while the body is attached to a bunch of sensors, wires, and tubes.

Growing a Human Body in a Lab

Another method would involve growing a human body in a lab, through some type of technique that might allow the quick growth of a human body. Scientists have been able to grow organs in a lab, and they might somehow progress to growing an entire full-grown body in a lab, possibly by speeding up the normal human growth mechanisms.

Creating a Human Body Through 3D Printing

Another method might dispense with growth of the body altogether, and attempt to simply assemble or produce a full-grown human body. Scientists have recently been able to create an artificial ear by using 3D printing. If 3D printing progresses sufficiently, we might be able to somehow print layer-by-layer a 3D body that could be used as a donor for body transplants. It is likely that 3D printing could one day be used to produce something that resembles a dead human body, but whether it could be used to produce something like a functional human body, with all the processes working, is an unanswered question.

Using an Electronic Body for a Body Transplant

Still another method (and one that seems relatively sound from an ethical standpoint) is the method of creating an electronic or robotic replica of the human body, and using that for body transplants. This might be advantageous from the standpoint of greatly extending the human lifespan. Rather than having at 80 a body transplant that would give you another 60 years of life, and then having to worry about getting another body transplant 60 years later, you could instead get an electronic and robotic body that might last you for 500 years. But we might not have the technology for using electronic body transplants for many decades, perhaps not until the 22^nd century.

Downsides of Body Transplants

There would seem to be two main downsides of having a body transplant as a way of extending your life.

The first negative aspect is that if you had a body transplant when you were very old, you might then have a nice young body, but you would still have the same wrinkled old face and the same old aging brain. So imagine if you lived to 80 and had a body transplant. You might then five years later get Alzheimer's disease. Rather than living a few years in senility, you might live sixty years in senility. Not much of a bargain. 

Another negative aspect is the possibility that the body transplant would go wrong, and that you would end up with a new body, but be totally paralyzed. You might then live 60 additional years in such a state of paralysis. Of course, your doctors might try a second body transplant operation to fix the problem. But perhaps you didn't have the money to pay for that. How could you earn it, with your body being paralyzed?

Conclusion

In summary, I conclude that there is some possibility of a body transplant in your future, but only if you are young and rich (or someone who will become rich). People who fall into neither of these categories (such as myself) must hope for some simpler method of life extension, such as a nice simple youth pill.

7 Strange Contrasts of the Future

The future will be a strange landscape of sharp contrasts, where trends sometime move in opposite directions, leaving results that are diametrically opposed. Let us look at seven of these strange contrasts.

Our virtual worlds will get more beautiful, but our real world will get more ugly.

Virtual worlds are the artificial landscapes created by game designers and art designers working for television and movies. A few decades ago the best virtual worlds looked like crude cartoons, but progress in computer-generated imagery has been breathtaking. Video games such as The Elder Scrolls V: Sykrim and Fable II offer stunningly beautiful vistas, and if you see the latest Pixar movie you may see even more gorgeous make-believe landscapes. As computer technology improves, these virtual worlds will get ever more ravishing.

But as our virtual worlds get more and more beautiful, our real world will probably get more and more ugly. Overpopulation, sprawl, deforestation, and pollution all will play a part in decreasing the beauty of the natural world. We see an example of this in the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada, where a huge lovely natural area is being turned into something almost as ugly as a moonscape. 

There will be more forms of synthetic life, but far fewer forms of natural life.

According to the Wikipedia.org article on synthetic life, "In May 2010, Craig Venter's group announced they had been able to assemble a complete genome of millions of base pairs, insert it into a cell, and cause that cell to start replicating." Scientists will no doubt make many additional forms of synthetic life in the future.

But in coming decades the total number of natural species will sharply decrease. It is estimated that every day 100 species are being lost to deforestation. The National Wildlife Federation has estimated that 27,000 species are becoming extinct every year. Global warming is expected to increase the rate of species loss as more and more species become extinct because their habitat has changed.

The human population will grow higher and higher, but our resources to support it will grow lower and lower.

The human population is expected to grow by billions in the coming decades. Unfortunately, the earthly natural resources to support that population seem to be growing ever smaller. We are using up our reserves of oil, and may be near the peak of oil production; we may have only several decades left of regular crude oil. Several experts think we will hit Peak Coal in a few decades. We are depleting our supplies of fresh water, and the fertility of our soil is gradually declining. In addition, within a few decades we may soon run short on numerous types of metals and minerals such as phosphorus.

We will have more droughts, but also more floods due to rainfall.

Global warming is not making every place hotter and drier. Instead global warming is tending to make hot places hotter, and wet places wetter. A recent scientific paper states, “Climate models project increased aridity in the 21^st century over most of Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East, most of the Americas, Australia, and Southeast Asia. Regions like the United States have avoided prolonged droughts during the last 50 years due to natural climate variations, but might see persistent droughts in the next 20–50 years.”

But other places that tend to get a lot of rain will get even more rain. For example, last month a headline on monsoon floods in India stated: “5000 Missing in India Floods: Scientists Say Global Warming is to Blame.”

People will have more and more information, but the world will be more and more confusing and hard to understand.

Information is supposed to make things easier to understand. If you don't understand the Civil War, read a book or two on it, and you'll understand it. But as we pile up more and more terabytes of information, the world doesn't seem any easier to understand. The world seems to get more and more complex and hard to understand. Even as our science progresses, we add more and more baffling mysteries: black holes, the Big Bang, quantum entanglement, and dark energy, to name a few.

We'll get more effective ways of extending life, and also more effective ways of destroying life.

Scientists are working on exciting life-extension technologies. They know that as we age the units called telomeres at the ends of our chromosomes grow shorter and shorter. Scientists think there may be some way to stop these telomeres from shortening, and that may be the key to extending the human lifespan. Scientists are also doing work on stem cell research and artificial organs, which will offer hope for increasing the human lifespan.

But as this work continues, scientists will also continue work on artificial germs which could wipe out billions of us, drone aircraft which can bring death instantaneously from the sky, and nuclear weapons of increasing deadliness.

Our communication devices are getting ever more sophisticated, but our messages are getting ever more vapid.

Back in the time of Thomas Jefferson, people would use inkwells and quill pens, but they would write long letters to each other with sentences such as “It suffices for us, if the moral and physical condition of our own citizens qualifies them to select the able and good for the direction of their government, with a recurrence of elections at such short periods as will enable them to displace an unfaithful servant before the mischief he meditates may be irremediable.” 

But today the typical smartphone user does not write long letters, but sends out a slew of vacant, vapid little text messages such as “OMG DID U C HER? LOL”