It seems to me that unlike say, GAI research very little attention has been paid to the consequences of such work. I do not see how this would not result in a tiered society where at least at first those with access to longevity will be the wealthy and resourceful and thus able to tyrannise those that dont.
There are then of course a myriad of psychological/existential implications which someone like Scott Alexander would have a field day with. How can we give our time meaning if we have an unlimited amount of it? What about personal relationships? Or vocational callings not to speak of parenthood or the environmental costs. Finally the arc of human life has been argued to have evolutionary purpose, our time is limited for good reason it is in a way the ultimate motivator to do good and build. Why would anyone want to take that away?
Indeed how are we to differentiate between supposed moral motivations and a thinly veiled fear of the shedding of our mortal coil?
It seems to me that unlike say, GAI research very little attention has been paid to the consequences of such work.
This is true, and indeed there has been very little social sciences research on longevity that I am aware of, besides public attitudes towards longevity. Given the highly probable rise of anti-aging technologies in the near future, social science should focus its attention on modeling the impacts of longevity on social systems, political systems, and so on.
I do not see how this would not result in a tiered society where at least at first those with access to longevity will be the wealthy and resourceful and thus able to tyrannise those that dont.
Distributional justice is a very common objection to life extension that has been addressed at length by many in the field. This article and this site do a good job at laying out the arguments, and David Wood who I recently interviewed discusses this point, as he does in great depth in his book, The Abolition of Aging.
I’ll summarise some of the responses to distributional justice (i.e. ‘only for the rich’) arguments below:
Anti-aging therapies are in principle no different from existing medical treatments such as anti-viral or anti-cancer therapies. For example, there is little philosophically difference between a cancer therapy (e.g. molecules that kill cancer cells) to extend healthy lifespan and a senolytic drug (e.g. molecules that kill senescent cells) to extend healthy lifespan. In the same way that few would object to the development of better cancer therapies today (e.g. CAR T-cell therapies) that only the rich can afford (and are not, for example, currently available to people in Africa), few should object to anti-aging drugs that extend healthy lifespan, even if only the rich can initially afford them too. Basically, many lifesaving medical interventions are initially expensive, and therefore only available to the rich, but this isn’t a reason to inhibit research. An additional point: if you support current medical research—which functions essentially to extend healthy lifespan, you should also support anti-aging, which also aims to extend healthy lifespan, though through prevention rather than cures. The only difference between the two is the approach, and the likely effectiveness—anti-aging is likely to be more effective at accomplishing the goal. Hence, we should be more enthusiastic about this approach, if anything.
Therapies are unlikely to stay expensive for long. When patents expire after 10-20 years, drugs usually become ridiculously cheap, and so any distributional inequality is unlikely to last long. Metformin, a life-saving diabetes drug (that is also being studied for its anti-aging properties) is a good example—it was initially expensive but the price has now plummeted to 31 cents per tablet in 2013. There are numerous economic forces that will drive low prices—governments are incentivised to subsidise these therapies, to populations healthy and stave off the diseases of old age that cost healthcare systems trillions of dollars worldwide annually (e.g. dementia alone costs over $1 trillion), which is otherwise set to grow due to an aging population. Insurance companies will similarly be incentivized to subside these therapies, to keep their clients healthier and able to avoid the chronic diseases of old age for longer. A good analogy is car sales—cars used to be too expensive for most people but are now ubiquitous and largely affordable. Since the market size for anti-aging therapies (i.e. all humans on Earth) is huge, as it is for cars, we would expect the huge demand to result in lower prices. Food technology is another, more recent example. In 2013 the first lab-grown burger was $325,000, and two years later the cost fell to $12.
Not developing anti-aging technology doesn’t help the poor. Anti-aging technologies only available for the rich would not help the poor, but not having these technologies available to the rich—that is, allowing the rich to age and die like the rest of us—also wouldn’t help the poor. What matters is not only that the gap between rich and poor is closed, but also how it is closed. For example, those in Western countries could give up all their comforts and wealth to be economically equal to the lowest African countries. But this is not the goal—the goal is to bring the African countries up in wealth, not bring economically prosperous nations down. The same applies to anti-aging: the goal is to bring everyone’s healthspans up (even if it means there will exist some inequality, initially), not keep everyone’s healthspans down.
There are then of course a myriad of psychological/existential implications which someone like Scott Alexander would have a field day with. How can we give our time meaning if we have an unlimited amount of it? What about personal relationships? Or vocational callings not to speak of parenthood or the environmental costs. Finally the arc of human life has been argued to have evolutionary purpose, our time is limited for good reason it is in a way the ultimate motivator to do good and build. Why would anyone want to take that away?
This alludes to the ‘death brings meaning to life’ and ‘boredom’ arguments—i.e. that we need death in order to achieve some kind of meaning and psychological stability in our lives.
But the argument, upon closer inspection, is utterly absurd, as this article explains. Life gives meaning to life, not death. The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be, and is determined while you are alive to think, reflect, and plan—not when you are dead. When lifespans were extended from 40 years to 80 years, did people psychologically and existentially cripple at the newfound time on their hands? No, they found new ways to use the time. Humans are incredibly adaptable and will find new ways to spend the time. We have no reason to think this will change if lifespans are extended by 1 year, or 1000 years. Half of workers over 50 engage in 3 or more careers, and a longer lifespan simply allows more time to start new careers, pursue passions, spend time with loved ones and anything else that the person wants to do.
‘Death brings meaning to life’ is a nonsensical argument for death is really just another facet of the naturalistic fallacy coupled with the lazy conservatism inherent in human nature.
It seems to me that unlike say, GAI research very little attention has been paid to the consequences of such work. I do not see how this would not result in a tiered society where at least at first those with access to longevity will be the wealthy and resourceful and thus able to tyrannise those that dont.
There are then of course a myriad of psychological/existential implications which someone like Scott Alexander would have a field day with. How can we give our time meaning if we have an unlimited amount of it? What about personal relationships? Or vocational callings not to speak of parenthood or the environmental costs. Finally the arc of human life has been argued to have evolutionary purpose, our time is limited for good reason it is in a way the ultimate motivator to do good and build. Why would anyone want to take that away?
Indeed how are we to differentiate between supposed moral motivations and a thinly veiled fear of the shedding of our mortal coil?
Just playin the advocate. Fantastic post btw.
This is true, and indeed there has been very little social sciences research on longevity that I am aware of, besides public attitudes towards longevity. Given the highly probable rise of anti-aging technologies in the near future, social science should focus its attention on modeling the impacts of longevity on social systems, political systems, and so on.
Distributional justice is a very common objection to life extension that has been addressed at length by many in the field. This article and this site do a good job at laying out the arguments, and David Wood who I recently interviewed discusses this point, as he does in great depth in his book, The Abolition of Aging.
I’ll summarise some of the responses to distributional justice (i.e. ‘only for the rich’) arguments below:
Anti-aging therapies are in principle no different from existing medical treatments such as anti-viral or anti-cancer therapies. For example, there is little philosophically difference between a cancer therapy (e.g. molecules that kill cancer cells) to extend healthy lifespan and a senolytic drug (e.g. molecules that kill senescent cells) to extend healthy lifespan. In the same way that few would object to the development of better cancer therapies today (e.g. CAR T-cell therapies) that only the rich can afford (and are not, for example, currently available to people in Africa), few should object to anti-aging drugs that extend healthy lifespan, even if only the rich can initially afford them too. Basically, many lifesaving medical interventions are initially expensive, and therefore only available to the rich, but this isn’t a reason to inhibit research. An additional point: if you support current medical research—which functions essentially to extend healthy lifespan, you should also support anti-aging, which also aims to extend healthy lifespan, though through prevention rather than cures. The only difference between the two is the approach, and the likely effectiveness—anti-aging is likely to be more effective at accomplishing the goal. Hence, we should be more enthusiastic about this approach, if anything.
Therapies are unlikely to stay expensive for long. When patents expire after 10-20 years, drugs usually become ridiculously cheap, and so any distributional inequality is unlikely to last long. Metformin, a life-saving diabetes drug (that is also being studied for its anti-aging properties) is a good example—it was initially expensive but the price has now plummeted to 31 cents per tablet in 2013. There are numerous economic forces that will drive low prices—governments are incentivised to subsidise these therapies, to populations healthy and stave off the diseases of old age that cost healthcare systems trillions of dollars worldwide annually (e.g. dementia alone costs over $1 trillion), which is otherwise set to grow due to an aging population. Insurance companies will similarly be incentivized to subside these therapies, to keep their clients healthier and able to avoid the chronic diseases of old age for longer. A good analogy is car sales—cars used to be too expensive for most people but are now ubiquitous and largely affordable. Since the market size for anti-aging therapies (i.e. all humans on Earth) is huge, as it is for cars, we would expect the huge demand to result in lower prices. Food technology is another, more recent example. In 2013 the first lab-grown burger was $325,000, and two years later the cost fell to $12.
Not developing anti-aging technology doesn’t help the poor. Anti-aging technologies only available for the rich would not help the poor, but not having these technologies available to the rich—that is, allowing the rich to age and die like the rest of us—also wouldn’t help the poor. What matters is not only that the gap between rich and poor is closed, but also how it is closed. For example, those in Western countries could give up all their comforts and wealth to be economically equal to the lowest African countries. But this is not the goal—the goal is to bring the African countries up in wealth, not bring economically prosperous nations down. The same applies to anti-aging: the goal is to bring everyone’s healthspans up (even if it means there will exist some inequality, initially), not keep everyone’s healthspans down.
This alludes to the ‘death brings meaning to life’ and ‘boredom’ arguments—i.e. that we need death in order to achieve some kind of meaning and psychological stability in our lives.
But the argument, upon closer inspection, is utterly absurd, as this article explains. Life gives meaning to life, not death. The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be, and is determined while you are alive to think, reflect, and plan—not when you are dead. When lifespans were extended from 40 years to 80 years, did people psychologically and existentially cripple at the newfound time on their hands? No, they found new ways to use the time. Humans are incredibly adaptable and will find new ways to spend the time. We have no reason to think this will change if lifespans are extended by 1 year, or 1000 years. Half of workers over 50 engage in 3 or more careers, and a longer lifespan simply allows more time to start new careers, pursue passions, spend time with loved ones and anything else that the person wants to do.
‘Death brings meaning to life’ is a nonsensical argument for death is really just another facet of the naturalistic fallacy coupled with the lazy conservatism inherent in human nature.