Take your 1905 TV scenario. Tell me at the time that, given developments in electromagnetic theory and machining, somebody might well be able to put two-and-two together… Sure, I have no problem with that. But saying it’s inevitable, not only that the mechanical invention will be made but the societal traction will also happen where TV viewing will become widespread, and that if anybody disagrees with your sense of inevitability — if they, say, write a novel about 2005 where this unique string of events didn’t happen — you criticize them for not drinking the kool-aid… well, then you’ve lost me. (Let’s not mention that TV viewing has been declining since the rise of the internet, as the net proves to be The Revenge of Text…)

Life extension might well happen. On the other hand, I’ve been told it’s “a decade away” for at least 25 years. When you actually have some results, I’ll get excited.

And, speaking of results, I apologize for trying to inject actual data into what I thought was a discussion about scientific possibilities. Heinlein, whom you seem to be fond of, once said, “If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.” That was influential to me.

(For example, to look at the other end of the life spectrum from life expectancy at birth, it turns out the rate of growth in the survivability of white females in the US to age 100 has been cut more than eight-fold over the last 30 years. That is, for the decade 1961-71, survivability to 100 was growing at an annual rate of 12.65%. For 1991-2002, that was down to 1.48%. Still growing, yes, but much more slowly. Why? I couldn’t tell you.)

Anyway… “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong — but that’s the way to bet.”

*^*^*

Oh, and a reason why the 200 years of compounded money might not be worth anything that you didn’t mention: Because the currency in question might not exist anymore. Whether because of conquest, demise of the regime, or regulatory meddling. Not many human institutions last 200 years (meaning the bank might fail, too), and that’s not solely due to “short” lifespans.

I agree fully that there are far worse fates than death. Needlessly extended pain leaps to mind as the best example. But the fact that there are worse things doesn’t make death okay.

Hal –

Many thanks for the kind words. So few readers take the time to notice, much less comment on, the idiosyncratic nature of what we’re doing here. And to suggest that we actually go beyond the idiosyncratic. Too kind.

My expectation of major breakthroughs is not an article of faith. It’s based on a reasonable extrapolation of current developments in several closely related areas. As intellectually satisfying as it might be to pore over statistical abstracts, they have less to say about the future than you might think.

If you and I were alive in 1905 and I told you that one day virtually all homes in America would have television sets, you could argue that the “empirical data” do not show anyone owning such devices. Or, tending a little more closely to the argument at hand, if I were to suggest that polio (or “infanitle paralysis,” as it was called at the time) would be all but eliminated in 50 years, you could likewise argue that the medical statistics suggest no such downward trend.

For an introduction to the scientific grounding for life extension, I would suggest you read this. For a good recent example of how even enthusiasts are tending to underestimate the rate of progress in these areas, look here. Finally, this site is an excellent source of ongoing information on life extension.

Anyway… the life expectancy at birth for a white female was 67.29 years in 1941. The life expectancy at birth for a white female in 2001 was 80.2 years (according to the 2004-2005 edition). That’s an increase of 12.91 years over a sixty year period. To say that an additional 20 years over the next 80 “isn’t enough” is contrary to the long term trend indicated.

Not only that, but most of the easy gains have already been made. Arguably, the biggest improvements in life expectancy haven’t been at the end of life, but at the beginning, through the reduction of infant mortality and childhood diseases. For example, in 1941, if a white female child lived to age 2, her expectancy went up to 70.23 — not only an increase of 4.3% in its own right, but 22.8% of the improvement between 1941 and 2001. While such early mortality has been cut drastically today, it means no such improvements take place in the odds early on.

So, basically, while your faith in “life extension” is touching, it doesn’t seem backed up by the empirical data. Not only that, but you’re basically stuck having to predict and/or rely on when a breakthrough or genius will happen to come along. It might well happen tomorrow, or it might not happen for a 100 years… But critiquing a TV show for not willing to go out on the limb you are seems… idiosyncratic, to say the least.

*^*^*

NB: The 1950 StatAb is here:

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1950-02.pdf

The 2004 Vital Statistics section is here:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/vitstat.pdf

Both need Abobe Acrobat.

Very poignant that a visual artist becomes blind as they approach their end, but hard to believe that cataracts or glaucoma wouldn’t either be cured or that some sort of eye regeneration/replacement wouldn’t be routine by no later than 2050.

Also I have a problem with Keith’s death, as a security guard to be killed by shots to the chest would be unlikely today, let alone 25 years from now.

Given the current war, body armor will most likely make giant leaps in technology and levels of protection and the only way to make his death work is to also assume that bullet technology to thwart armor advances faster and becomes cheap enough for street criminals.

That’s my two cents.

Yes, death sucks. But there are worse things in this world– see Harlan Ellison’s short story, “For I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”.