Daily Archives: October 15, 2004

Book Review: The Scientific Conquest of Death

sod7.jpg

When I heard this summer that the Immortality Institute was publishing its first book, The Scientific Conquest of Death: Essays on Infinite Lifespans, I asked for an advanced copy to review for the Speculist.

I was surprised and honored when Bruce Klein and Reason from FightAging emailed me a working draft. This was a valuable blog-lesson for me: ask and you shall (sometimes) receive.

I’m happy to report that the book is a complete success.

This book is a collection of essays divided into two parts: Science and Perspectives. The Science half of the book is written by scientists well-known to life extension enthusiasts: Aubrey de Grey, Michael West, Robert Freitas, Ray Kurzweil, and Marvin Minsky to name a few.

These authors work in different fields but share a vision of a future where degenerative aging is a choice – and a rather unpopular choice. For most of these scientists, it’s not so much a question of “if,” but “when:”

We can no longer pretend that we know so little about how to cure aging that the timing of this advance will be determined overwhelmingly by future serendipitous discoveries: we are in the home straight already.

-Aubrey de Grey

While I found the Perspectives half of the book a little slower going, ultimately it may prove to be more important than the first half.

While the authors of the Science section outline potential paths to the goal, the Perspective authors ask whether the goal is worthy. Will we be plagued by overpopulation or lethargy if death is removed from the picture?

The objections [to eternal youth] can be divided into two different categories: practical and philosophical. Practical worries might include: the population problem, the problem of scarce resources and environmental pollution, eternal youth that is only available to the wealthy, the accumulation of too much wealth and power by an elite group of immortals�

A philosophical objection to life extension is the worry that the longer we lived, the less we would value our time. After all, a basic economic principle is that the value of a resource tends to increase the more scarce it is. Would we somehow value each moment less if we lived longer? Another worry that people may have is that a desire for life extension is somehow selfish. Perhaps budding immortals would become really self-centered and narcissistic?

-Marc Geddes

To its credit the Immortality Institute allowed debate on these issues. Several of the Perspective essayists are quite critical of the goal of life extension.

But if the authors of the Science portion the book are correct that radical life extension is coming, any philosophical arguments against life extension will ring hollow when it arrives. The Perspectives section is of greater value when it debates how to adapt our society to life extension, rather than whether we should pursue it.

The publication of this book is certainly a landmark for the Immortality Institute. The Institute should be proud of this accomplishment. More importantly, this book is a milestone in the quest for life extension. The depth of the bench here, the willingness of respected scientists to contribute to such a book, is an important development.

These contributors and others that follow can now investigate the possibility of radical life extension without the fear of being thought unserious. This alone could make all the difference.

The Scientific Conquest of Death: Essays on Infinite Lifespans, will be available within the next couple of weeks at Amazon.com.

Click here for the Table of Contents, introductions for both the Science and Perspective portions of the book, biographical sketches of the authors, and additional resources.

Incredible? Maybe. Shrinking? No Way.

Wired Magazine ran a recent piece on K. Eric Drexler, whose relationship to
the field of nanotechnology is difficult to characterize — Dean? Founder?
— as The
Incredible Shrinking Man
. There is no question that Drexler’s work has been
misrepresented and misunderstood, that the term "nanotechnology" has
been co-opted by others who then have the audacity to paint Drexler as some
kind of outsider or Pariah in the field, or that there is a strong movement
within both the business community and the ever-seeking-funding research community
to eliminate what Glenn Reynolds has described as the spooky
side nanotechnology. Drexler’s opponent in the Great
Assembler Debate
, Dr. Richard Smalley, the Nobel laureate responsible for
the discovery of buckyballs, even went so far as to accuse Drexler of frightening
the children
with his predictions of nano-weapons and grey goo. Spooky,
indeed.

It was therefore all the more exciting to see the news
that Dr. Peter Diamandis, the Chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation, is going to
head up the Foresight Institute’s Feynman Grand Prize Steering Committee. The
Foresight Institute is an organization
founded by Drexler to help prepare the world for the coming age of molecular
manufacturing. The institute annually awards Feynman
Prizes
to major contributors in the field; the grand prize is a $250,000
cash award which will go to the first individual or team to construct a rudimentary
nano-scale computer and robotic arm. Diamandis’ presence on the committee for
the Feynman Grand Prize indicates that the goals of the Foresight Institute
are no more "fringe" than were those of the X Prize committee. While
the Nano Business Alliance continues
to insist that term "nanotechnology" applied only to stain
resistant pants
and other vital breakthroughs, some researcher or team of
researchers is one day soon going to provide Drexler the ulitmate vindication,
and open up a new world even more strange and wonderful than the one promised
by the triumph of SpaceShipOne.

They're Jamming Our Signals!

I
like those public service messages that Cingular runs in movie theatres featuring
Mr.
Inconsiderate Cellphone Man
. The guy is so obnxoious that there’s almost
something likeable about him. However, there is nothing admirable about his
mobile telephony habits. Well it looks as though nos amis in France have
done something
to end Mr Inconsiderate’s reign of terror, and the UK is thinking about doing
the same:

The infuriating ring of someone else’s mobile blights many a night out at
the cinema or theatre. France has decided to jam phone signals to allow audiences
to enjoy shows in silence – could the UK follow suit?

I doubt that we’ll see anything like this in the US. The Bill of Rights makes
it darn difficult to curb obnxoxious behavior. I’m not saying that jamming phone
signals in movie theatres is a free-speech issue. Beats me if it is. I’m saying
it would almost certainly be opposed on those grounds.

Plus, in my limited recent movie-going experience in suburban Denver, I haven’t
observed much of a cell-phone problem in the US. Now if they had had this technology
a few years ago in Malaysia…

They’re Jamming Our Signals!

I
like those public service messages that Cingular runs in movie theatres featuring
Mr.
Inconsiderate Cellphone Man
. The guy is so obnxoious that there’s almost
something likeable about him. However, there is nothing admirable about his
mobile telephony habits. Well it looks as though nos amis in France have
done something
to end Mr Inconsiderate’s reign of terror, and the UK is thinking about doing
the same:

The infuriating ring of someone else’s mobile blights many a night out at
the cinema or theatre. France has decided to jam phone signals to allow audiences
to enjoy shows in silence – could the UK follow suit?

I doubt that we’ll see anything like this in the US. The Bill of Rights makes
it darn difficult to curb obnxoxious behavior. I’m not saying that jamming phone
signals in movie theatres is a free-speech issue. Beats me if it is. I’m saying
it would almost certainly be opposed on those grounds.

Plus, in my limited recent movie-going experience in suburban Denver, I haven’t
observed much of a cell-phone problem in the US. Now if they had had this technology
a few years ago in Malaysia…