No, the huge human lifespan will not destroy our planet

Original author: George Dvorsky
  • Transfer


Solving the problem of aging is only a matter of time. And preparations for a radical increase in life expectancy have already begun, driven by fears of overpopulation and depletion of the resources of our planet. But critics who believe that long-lived humanity will very quickly make the planet unusable are wrong. And that's why.

Yes, it will take quite a long time, but, ultimately, a way to slow down the aging process will be found. Thanks to advanced medical, regenerative and cybernetic technologies, people of the future will come to “insignificant aging”, a condition characterized by an almost complete cessation of aging and the onset of “eternal youth”. It sounds utopian-optimistic, but, as biogerontologist Aubrey de Gray has repeatedly noted, this is just a technological problem, which is by no means unsolvable.

This view is not new; disputes have been going on for many years. And almost everyone can be used both for and against such an opportunity . We will not disassemble them all here. But, without a doubt, the most prominent argument against the radical extension of life is the issue of overpopulation and environmental sustainability.

Indeed, the constant population growth on a limited planet seems to be something suicidal and ridiculous. Where to accommodate everyone? And how to meet basic human needs, such as food, water, shelter, medical care and education? And how can all this be done in a clean and reliable way?

If we leave aside all other arguments against the radical extension of life, we must approach these issues with a view to the future. You need to understand that there is a very real opportunity to develop solutions that would help cope with an ever-growing population. Remember that this will be at the stage when we stop aging . And this is not such a small feat! So now it’s hard for us to imagine how our society will change, our morality, what we will be able to do.

When we stop aging, we will also fully master human biology, create cyborgs, get super-powerful AI, and at the same time the ability to convert accumulations of matter into anything. Basic energy needs will also be addressed, while today we are forced to do such stupid things as switching the clock to winter time. And, of course, we will delve into outer space and cyberspace.

Constant population growth on a limited planet?


Overpopulation and environmental stability are not so much the future as the present. We cannot deal with these things now - so we will pass it on to future generations, even though it sounds selfish. In fact, today 870 million people are chronically starving. As E. O. Wilson said, we need four planets Earth to raise the standard of living of all mankind to the first world standards. And finally, one cannot fail to admit that global warming is taking place.

The debate about life expectancy seems ridiculous in the light of all this. It is difficult for us to imagine such a radical change, while our technologies and social institutions are not ready for this and are generally busy solving other problems. Therefore, we tend to reject such a path of development.

But, as Annelie Nevitz recently noted , the fear of a demographic explosion is mainly connected with the neo-Malthusian current that still exists in society - a relic of the past hysteria of the “green revolution”. According to UN estimates, by 2050 the world's population will reach 9.3 billion. After another 50 years, humanity will reach 11 billion (today we are 7.2 billion). These calculations do not take into account the possibility of extending life, but indicate such an interesting trend: the more women have access to education, work, and especially to birth control, the fewer children they have . It is expected that this trend will continue in connection with economic and cultural globalization across the planet.



Nevitz also points to another interesting - and often overlooked - fact. Instead of talking about eugenic restrictions on a person’s reproductive function (such as a one-child policy or mixing contraceptives in water) or supporting a hungry existence within specific countries and regions, we must adapt political and social laws to address these issues - for example, invest in education, in resource-saving agronomy and initiatives to develop environmentally friendly and renewable energy sources.

The world has changed


Without a doubt, the widespread spread of a radical increase in life expectancy will forever change society. But, as mentioned earlier, humanity will be forced to reform and adapt the environment, resource base and population policy. However, continuous population growth, even if it slows down due to socio-economic factors, is still continuous population growth . We will be forced to find a solution to the problems of resource depletion, environmental pollution and reducing the living space.

Fortunately, in the near future, progress is expected in biotechnology (in particular, genetic engineering and regenerative medicine), nanotechnology, AI, cognitive sciences and space technology, which would significantly increase the chances of solving the above problems. In the next few decades, when we finally step into the next era, humanity will reduce its negative impact on the planet.

How to feed everyone?


Take, for example, the potential of nanotechnology in the field of molecular assembly. Futurist Michael Anisimov explains:
For example, researcher Eric C. Drexler has already made strong arguments in support of very inexpensive nanotechnology and 3D printing, which will allow the synthesis of cheap food and building materials. This technology can also be used in the construction of low-cost spacecraft that would allow millions of people to colonize the solar system. Marshall T. Sevage, in his book, The Millennium Project , calculated that more than a billion people with their own mansions could fit in the solar system for several billion years. But this book does not address the role of many modern, promising nanotechnologies and virtual reality technologies.


Undoubtedly, something like a replicator from Star Trek would make a big difference. We could literally create food from any matter.

Of course, you should not count on something as conceptual as molecular fabricators, even if some experts predict their appearance in the next few decades (mainly based on our current successes with 3D printing and various nanotechnological breakthroughs).

Now we need to find the best way to keep the population growing. In fact, we have clearly gone astray if we hope to feed everyone by 2050. But, as the futurist Ramez Naam recently said, we can do something today, an example of supporting the growth of the economies of developing countries and expanding the use of genetically modified crops (for greater productivity, protection from pests and less need for fertilizers). The food problem is not easy, and it must be given priority.

Where to get so much energy?


In addition to food, it is worth recognizing the presence of energy problems. But here there is a "light at the end of the tunnel."



The expected technical progress will bring with it concentrated solar energy and distributed systems for its production using lenses and mirrors. Once this technology becomes widespread, it will be possible to build solar power plants that produce gigawatts of energy . At the same time, they will also serve as desalination stations , which will help solve the problem of a shortage of drinking water.



It is possible that obtaining solar energy from space has even greater potential. And this will be more useful to us, because if progress continues at the same pace, by the 2030s we will need 220 trillion kWh per year. By the end of the century, consumption will increase fourfold. The energy received from space with the help of massive panels and transmitted to the earth wirelessly will be the turning points in the development of mankind.

Where to resettle everyone?


Around the overpopulation is something like the myth of a lack of free space. But the problem is not so much in this, but in the unjustified volume of our impact on the Earth. If it can be reduced, then the population will not matter (since there is actually a lot of space).



The most promising areas are archeology and the pyramids of megacities. For example, the 4.5-km Shimizu Mega-City pyramid would be 14 times higher than the Great Pyramid in Giza, and could accommodate 750,000 people living in Tokyo Bay. It will be made of light carbon fiber, it will house research institutions, shopping centers, private houses and restaurants. It will receive electricity through the sun and wind. Also very promising is marine archeology andmarine dwellings in general . Or we could even go underground .

Thinking about the future, it becomes obvious that we must move on in space exploration. This project is good not only as a method of combating overpopulation, but also as a "fallback option" in the event of a cataclysm of planetary proportions on Earth.

There are opinions about the need to colonize the Moon and Mars, and as a result, man will be able to terraform both Mars and Venus . There are even such futuristic projects as creating conditions for life in the Dyson sphere (a massive structure enveloping the Sun). The use of interstellar space can not be ignored either.

Finally, there are also prospects for a posthuman future in terms oftranshumanism . If the hypothesis of loading consciousness turns out to be true, it would be possible to abandon imperfect biological bodies altogether and load our minds into the digital world, where the limitations will concern only computing power. If, however, such a download fails , there is still the possibility of a genetic and cybernetic change in the body and mind . And maybe it’s even possible to create photosynthetic skin.

A radical increase in life expectancy is inevitable, this is a kind of apogee for the development of medical sciences. And instead of empty arguments, it is better to join efforts in creating solutions to help this process, in order to avoid destructive consequences.

Also popular now: