Never say die?

Abstract

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work”, said Woody Allen, “I want to achieve it through not dying”. He's not alone. Bryan Appleyard's latest book details a growing brigade of “immortalists” convinced that old age and death are mere technicalities that medical science will one day overcome. Appleyard seems alternately bemused and beguiled by this group of people who are either freaks or unique, depending on your view. The notion of immortality is as old as humanity, and the book embraces several strands of thinking from mythology, philosophy, and religion. Modern-day believers bide their time in different ways: some opt to be cryogenically frozen; others restrict their calorie intake to fewer than 1500 a day, while popping a pharmacy of vitamin pills.Appleyard makes clear that he is talking about medical immortality rather than some kind of Greek-god indestructibility. Advanced medicine and better sanitation have seen lifespans lengthen since the 19th century, but what would be the breakthrough that “solves death”? Nanotechnology, suggests Appleyard, could repair physical damage quickly and easily; geneticists could alter the genes that control our lifespan; or stem-cell science could rejuvenate our brains, heart, and muscles. The book skims over the science pretty quickly, lingering instead on the implications of such technology for society.Those who oppose the quest for immortality do so for many reasons, one being its staggering impracticality. Only the rich are likely to be able to afford such technology. And if people had children without dying themselves, society would need stringent fertility control, but who would enforce it? Our social fabric too would in all likelihood be ripped apart as relationships break down under the strain of being wedded to the same person for centuries.More profound would be the potential for utter boredom. As Appleyard points out, there is already much we could do but don't bother to. Moreover, if we were immune to disease but still vulnerable to being killed by an accident, we might become more risk-averse. Languish in eternal ennui or be thrilled at the idea of having all the time in the world; however you feel about the idea of living forever, if the immortalists are right you might not have to wait long to find out. “I don't want to achieve immortality through my work”, said Woody Allen, “I want to achieve it through not dying”. He's not alone. Bryan Appleyard's latest book details a growing brigade of “immortalists” convinced that old age and death are mere technicalities that medical science will one day overcome. Appleyard seems alternately bemused and beguiled by this group of people who are either freaks or unique, depending on your view. The notion of immortality is as old as humanity, and the book embraces several strands of thinking from mythology, philosophy, and religion. Modern-day believers bide their time in different ways: some opt to be cryogenically frozen; others restrict their calorie intake to fewer than 1500 a day, while popping a pharmacy of vitamin pills. Appleyard makes clear that he is talking about medical immortality rather than some kind of Greek-god indestructibility. Advanced medicine and better sanitation have seen lifespans lengthen since the 19th century, but what would be the breakthrough that “solves death”? Nanotechnology, suggests Appleyard, could repair physical damage quickly and easily; geneticists could alter the genes that control our lifespan; or stem-cell science could rejuvenate our brains, heart, and muscles. The book skims over the science pretty quickly, lingering instead on the implications of such technology for society. Those who oppose the quest for immortality do so for many reasons, one being its staggering impracticality. Only the rich are likely to be able to afford such technology. And if people had children without dying themselves, society would need stringent fertility control, but who would enforce it? Our social fabric too would in all likelihood be ripped apart as relationships break down under the strain of being wedded to the same person for centuries. More profound would be the potential for utter boredom. As Appleyard points out, there is already much we could do but don't bother to. Moreover, if we were immune to disease but still vulnerable to being killed by an accident, we might become more risk-averse. Languish in eternal ennui or be thrilled at the idea of having all the time in the world; however you feel about the idea of living forever, if the immortalists are right you might not have to wait long to find out.