the race between lifespan and technology

We, as humans, have a lifespan. The body does not have the ability to last forever - it's not in the DNA, and not within the realm of medicine to change yet. But technology is changing things fast, and surely it will change even faster soon. Lifespan has increased incredibly in the last hundred years, and the next hundred promise to have many times the amount of change.

So the big question is will you remain alive until the first serious life-extension technology arrives? It doesn't need to be "immortality", or even allowing you to live for 100 more years. The first one only needs to give you another twenty or so, because in those twenty they'll find even more methods. That's the goal you should keep in mind, to keep yourself intact and aware until that point is reached, because from there on, it'll just get better. (I've heard an estimate recently that they're extending lifespan by approximately one-quarter of a year every year. The target - extending by at least a year's lifespan per year of technological advance.)

Of course, it is a given that extending lifespan doesn't simply mean tacking more time on at the end - living a lot longer while in a frail state, with a degraded body and mind, is not what is being looked at here, and as technology improves, it won't simply tack on all the time at the end, but will be able to keep us healthy and active for longer also.

I want to win this race, I want to arrive at the boarding point and be able to enjoy the rest of the ride. I want to decide when I get off myself, not letting anyone or anything else say "that's it for you".

See Green Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson for more on this issue.

Rifkin was one of the first to publicise the unforseen problems with genetically modified organisms, and the unforseen consequences of their diffusing through the ecology.

His view is that science had--and continues--to contribute chemicals and other things, to the environment--dyes, glues, additives of all kinds, plastics, pesticides, etc.--that have negative effects on people, including infertility, and gender dysfunction, allergies. The most serious effect, or course, is cancer.

Rifkin saw the future of science, after having polluted the environment, as working towards the goal of allowing people to live in the fouled nest they had created. When I read him, years ago, nanotechnology and gene-therapy were not on the horizon. But the details are irrelevant.

The capital investment in any new technology is enormous. Only the largest corporations will be able to make it. Governments will not be the players in research they once were. The irony is, it is corporations who profited from the pollution that they will provide the solutions for--and profit from. They created this mnarket.

But let us not be begiled, new technology is only for those that can afford. Why would it be otherwise? While we have the price of admission to the internet, there are those who cannot afford a basic telephone connection. How many of use will be able to afford the technological fix to live in the brave new world?

Technology is not the remedy for problems caused by technology, it is just another profit center.

There is a race, but the track, and the racecars?