Radical life extension could become an option for many alive today.

Ray Kurzweil and other forward-thinkers believe we have the means right now to live long enough to gain an indefinite lifespan. Barring an unfortunate accident, nearly every adult can achieve radical life extension by maintaining the best possible health today, which will bridge them into the “biotech revolution”, 2010-2020, where stem cell and other gene therapies promise to replace damaged organs, muscles, bones, skin, etc. as needed.

Next, the “medical nanotech revolution” will kick in, 2020-2035, with “nanobots” cruising through our veins, making changes that could morph the body of every adult, regardless of age, into resembling a healthy 20-something by 2030.

This plan offers a way to live indefinitely now (barring an accident), even though we do not yet have all the knowledge necessary for radical life extension. In other words, we do not need to solve every problem today. We can anticipate breakthroughs coming in five, ten, or twenty years and include those with this strategy.

Comments welcome.

Yes, I read your post elsewhere too, about you being eager to enter this tech age. And I found that to be a very enjoyable read.
However, there are other, non-practical methods to extend the natural life-span of humans.
It has to do with death and reproduction. From the gene-centric view of evolution, once an individual is unable to reproduce anymore (ie they are no longer fertile), it might or might not be altruistic for them to die, but either way, there is not much purpose to their living from the point of view of their genes. So if for example, humans were to set rules for our reproduction, say that no one could mate before the age of 45, then logically we should be able to increase our life span to maybe about 120 - 130 years. Of course, this effect would take many generations for any significant change to be seen. And also it is so impractical and stupid, that hopefully no one is ever going to try and implement it.

But personally even with upcoming technology, I am not very much so in favor of expanding our life spans by any means. And my reason is very much so an environmental one. Of course we are all aware of the problems of global warming and ecosystem destruction and also aware of its consequences a century down. And we try to come up with all these plans for conservation and reducing our impact on our planet. But really, with the intelligence and the needs that we have, it really is not plausible to suggest that we stop expanding our technology and go back in time. But we are also aware that this same lust for new technology and infinite resources will leave an impoverished earth to our successors and all life on earth (and that really is a crime). Personally, the only reasonable way I see out of the problem in the long term is that of population control. Already, if the entire world today was to live at the standards that the average north-american lives at, then we would need 4 planet earths to sustain us. And we also realize how improbable it is to find another one of those around.

I am reminded of the conclusion to 'The life of mammals' by Sir David Attenborough:

"Three and a half million years separate the individual who left these footprints in the sands of Africa from the one who left them on the moon. A mere blink in the eye of evolution. Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever-increasing population. In spite of disasters when civilisations have over-reached themselves, that process has continued, indeed accelerated, even today. Now mankind is looking for food, not just on this planet but on others. Perhaps the time has now come to put that process into reverse. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."

Could life extension efforts result in too many people for Earth to support?

With expected arrival of molecular nanotech by 2020 or before, nanotechnologists predict that in the latter half of this century, our planet could be terraformed to support up to 100 billion people. U.N. projections show population leveling off at around ten or eleven billion by 2100.

In addition, with many positive futurists predicting that human-machine merge could be in full swing by mid-2030s; by mid-century, nearly everyone on Earth could be living in a non-biological body, without need for food and many resources.

Many believe that a revolutionary future is unfolding over the next four to five decades that will change our views on life and the environment. By the end of this century, we may remember today’s world as our ancient crude past and wonder how we ever survived the turmoil.

Can this future happen? Most of the technologies to make it become reality are already in play today. Although it may seem unbelievable that humanity could accomplish so much in such a short time – fifty to one hundred years – this writer believes that it certainly is possible.

Comments welcome.

"...nanotechnologists predict that in the latter half of this century, our planet could be terraformed to support up to 100 billion people."

Technology could reduce our green house gas emissions, and reduce out dependence on fossil fuels, and develop new ways for the human body to be fed, or sustain itself, but there is a fundamental principle of the universe that technology or anything could never combat. And that is the something cannot be created out of nothing. To power any kind of technology, we need some resources for it, be they hydroelectric damns (which deprive river banks of sedimentation), or modified bacteria that run micro-motors, or any new idea of technology. But the point is that whatever the idea is, it would still need some resources. And there is no such resource in the planet, excessive usage of which will not affect something else and hence start a chain reaction (that's just common sense). And also if a population of even 50 billion were to live on earth, then simply the amount of space taken by humans, that is if we don't live in poverty, will be more than catastrophic for the ecosystems of the earth.

Though according to experts, our planet could be terraformed to provide for 100 billion people, population theorists suggest that ten or eleven billion will be the maximum level as we begin spreading our populations to the stars in the 22nd century.

Energy needs for the future will come from our planet and sun. Experts predict that hydrogen and fusion energy systems could one day eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.

Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev assigned categories to future civilizations based on their energy needs. Some predict that Earth will reach Type I Civilization status as early as 2100 with the ability to harness 100% of the solar energy that strikes our planet. This is about one million times more energy than we use today.

Type II Civilizations harness all the power in their solar system, Type III, the galaxy, and Type IV, the universe.

Michio Kaku, in his book Parallel Worlds, suggests that in time, our civilization could advance into all of these types, providing we can resolve today’s petty conflicts between our ethnic groups over resources, religious beliefs, and egos. A positive view of our future says that we can overcome these differences.

If i remember rightly, current predictions are that 'ecofriendly' energy sources (solar cells, wind and water power etc.) will make up only a few percentage points of the whole of 100% of our sources by the mid-21st century, at least in the UK.

Has anyone considered the impact of climate change, resource scarcity (at least in the short-run as some of you may predict, as opposed to the lung-run, which I don't share) and political events such as war on mankind's ability to actually carry on with intensive R&D and production and distribution of the new technologies(who can afford them and what are the implications for power-distribution thus resource distribution and thus human welfare?is the majority of mankind better or worse of as a result?)

Why is it, that if evolution has made us who we are today, that we suddenly cannot rely on it anymore for the future, but instead need to resort to technology to help us along?

What are the implications for our humanity if we should decide to and succeed in making us half-robots?

As you might have guessed by now, I'm quite sceptical about the ability of such technology and technological developments (half human, half robot) to enhance mankind's future. Which is not to say that we shouldn't undertake actions/change our behaviour with regards to our environment. Not at all.

Greetings,

Marianne

Admittedly, civilization struggles today with wars, terrorists, ethnic differences, crime, and inequalities between haves, have nots; however, projected sci-tech breakthroughs holds great promise to eliminate all these negative aspects of humanity.

As mentioned above, advanced nanotech can, according to many experts, increase our planet’s resources to easily sustain projected population growth.

Positive futurists see an opportunity to finally transcend the limitations of our biology – to experience life in a healthy body without illness and pain and to enjoy a future filled with universal affluence, intelligence and wonder.

Humanity deserves to enjoy the fruits and rewards resulting from past centuries of progress. A few bold forward-thinkers predict a future that will include living life to its fullest as we begin scattering our populations to the stars – some believe that over the next 200 years, more humans could be living in space than on Earth.