Do We Really Want EVERYONE to Live Forever?

“To those who can hear me, I say, do not despair

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed

The bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress

The hate of men will pass, and dictators die

And the power they took from the people will return to the people

And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

~Lyrics from ‘Iron Sky’ by Paolo Nutini

Immortality. The end of death. Calico. Radical life extension. These are the topics near and dear to many of our greatest minds. At its heart, this is the dream of a future time where man no longer succumbs to biological death.

Our desire to beat death is not new. Long have we tried to avoid it, even though death is the only guarantee in life. Not all will drive a Tesla, study at university or even get to eat today, but everyone will die. It is our constant companion. Some learn to live with this inevitability, focusing on the now. Others make all sorts of deals with various spiritual practices in order to ensure the after-life is pleasant. Still others wake each morning in fear of their deaths, unable to live fully because they’re analyzing every activity from the stand point of whether or not it will keep the Grim Reaper at bay.

In the end , we all die. Yet our efforts to avoid life’s final moments have not been in vain. Through science we have changed the game of life significantly. Thanks to vaccines and antibiotics, we’ve added decades to human living. While this has consequences on human evolution and biological reproduction, one thing is clear—we are already living longer. Death still comes for all, but we’ve radically extended human life by conquering the virus and bacterial worlds on a fairly significant level. Have we eradicated disease? No. But we have made progress. The average life expectancy in 2018 is 79 years. In 1920 it was 54.

Yet as long as death still makes her final call, many see time as against us. There are radical life extension programs popping up everywhere. Some focus on genetic cures, others on eradicating disease, others on hormones or organ replacement therapies. Many look to the Singularity, or a merging of our consciousness with machines, to bring the solution. Whatever it is, humanity has long chased this dream and there aren’t any signs of it stopping.

Yet as we march towards an immortal utopia, I can’t help wondering if it’s a good idea. Individually, I’m not sure I’d want to live forever, so as long as there were laws that ensured I could opt out of immortality, I’m fine with progress continuing down this path. But before we get too far, I think we need to ask ourselves, “Do we really want EVERYONE to live forever?”

Now before ya’ll start screaming eugenics, I’m not talking about whether or not some group or race is worthy of immortality. Technology is to be shared, and anytime a single group hoards it, we all suffer. What I’ve been thinking about is the effects of immortality on governance. Because if there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that those in power like to stay in power. Death is one of the only ways we can get rid of them. And if a bad leader can’t die, because we’re no longer capable of dying, then how in the world do we recover from devastating leadership?

We don’t have to think like a sci-fi writer to work this out. Right now we can see the effects of improved longevity and poor leadership within the American political and business sectors. Men, and a few women, who refuse to leave their posts as they grow older. Who remain in power, even though there are able bodied folks much younger than them ready to lead. Who refuse to even groom the next generation because they have no intention of stepping down until—you guessed it—death herself forces their hands.

Take the US Congress. A recent study done by Quorum, a public affairs platform, states the following:

“Today the average American is 20 years younger than their representative in Congress. This should come as no surprise, considering that over the past 30 years the average age of a Member of Congress has increased with almost every new Congress. In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61.”

Further breakdown shows that within the Democratic Party, the average age is actually 72 years, whereas the Republicans hold an average age of 48. Why is that? I think the emergence of the Tea Party within the Republican Party, which can be seen as a reformation on that party’s politics, did a fairly good job of sweeping out the old, for better or worse. The Democrats haven’t had that type of insurgence take over—yet.

It appears that by and large, congressional Baby Boomers aren’t letting go, unless forced to do so as the Tea Party candidates can attest. Unless someone kills them, or their careers, they’re not going anywhere. Only cancer, party rebellion, or a homosexual affair, will get them to leave.

Not only does this create a power vacuum where no new ideas can come to life, it also prevents the younger generations from taking their rightful place at the table. We’ve had one  sort-of Gen X president, Barack Obama (technically he might be a Boomer, as he was born in '61 and most consider '63 as the Gen X cutoff), who is now 56 years old, yet the election of 2016 gave us Trump (69 at that time), Hillary (68) and Bernie, who was a whopping 74 years old.

Where are the younger Democrats? Are they not involved, or is all the gold going to the elders? Is anyone mentoring them and preparing them to take the reins, or will Generation X be skipped completely, with Millennials taking office at age 60 when the Baby Boomers finally die?

This is an issue, especially in a world where the most powerful have access to the latest life extension technologies. A dictator used to need sons to continue his tyranny, and even then a son could end up being too weak to continue the path. The same thing went with our kings. Good ideas die with people, tis true, but bad ideas need death as a reset, do they not?

I’m not saying we should stop seeking the philosopher’s stone. By all means, keep at it you alchemists of medicine, physics and engineering. But as a society, we need to prepare ourselves for the eventuality that those in power will stay in power, forever, unless we set up restrictions now.

In a society where the life expectancy is already 79, term limits are needed more than ever. Not forced retirement, but forced rotation of work. People will need to keep themselves busy during their golden years (which are now at least 40 years long) and there’s only so much golf that can be played, unless you’re the President of the United States, of course. But we need to encourage people to step down after a certain amount of time. We limit the presidency, we need to limit congress as well as the judiciary branches. A retirement age based on years of service, not an arbitrary age, seems appropriate.

It’s easy to imagine how horrible it would have been if Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin had lived forever. How about a world where the same people are elected over and over, never stepping down, allowing in the random whipper snapper when a seat becomes vacant? How can one person understand a lifetime of technological and medical advancements at every turn? How can someone stay up-to-date, in order to serve the people and understand the cultural phenomena as they emerge?

Oh wait, no need to imagine such a dismal state of affairs.

I think the Zuckerberg trials made it abundantly clear that we’re already letting our leaders lead for too long—and it will only get worse when death’s kiss is no longer felt on this earth.

The Queen Bee and the Cougar: From Insult to Empowerment

I’ve been thinking about how we insult women as they age by comparing them to animals. When I was younger, they called me a tease if the boys thought me attractive. Now that I’m middle aged, they call me cougar. When I was little, they called me bossy for asserting myself or asking that my needs be met. Now that I’m middle aged, they call me the queen bee. 

My instinct is to cringe, the title queen bee is after all, an insult. The queen is seen as selfish, demanding, entitled, and manipulative. People imagine a bee, sitting on a throne, golden crown on her head sipping propolis, while throngs of workers toil all day to keep the hive running. This however, is a profane assessment, and couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, the queen bee is one of the most selfless creatures on Earth, whose entire life is dedicated to the successful propagation of her species.

Life in the hive depends entirely on the fidelity of the queen. It is true that there is only one of her kind, and she is completely unique amongst her sisters, yet by her very nature, she is the one being in the hive that can never change her mind, never stop working and never decide to turn her back on her leadership role. If she asserts any independence, the entire hive will fail. Bees can’t live without their queen.

She is the organizing principle. Everyone follows her orders, yet she rules with a natural wisdom. She knows exactly how many workers are needed for each season, and how many drones will keep the hive warm. With a signal, she assigns tasks with precision and the workers follow her wisdom with their own loyalty. In this way, she is bossy, but in her bossiness, the rest of the hive can relax and truly become one. Everything is taken care of. Every task is held, because the queen holds the hive as one entity, one mind. The hive shows us that many hands are needed in order for bees to live out their role on Earth as pollinators.

The queen bee serves ceaselessly, sometimes as long as five years, with her eyes always on the prize. She doesn’t get a day off. She isn’t sitting on a throne. Instead she is laying eggs, all day, and instructing the hive to ensure that those eggs grow to adulthood. Her sole focus is on procreation and fertility so that the hive might live forever.

Unlike the workers, the queen rarely leaves the hive, once after she’s born in order to mate with the drones, and then only when she has been successful and produced enough bees that the hive needs to split. The queen bee never frolics among the flowers, nor feels the summer sun’s kiss. She can’t—to do so would be an act of treason against those she was born to protect.

Yes, she’s the only one. Yes, she’s in charge. Yet the queen bee isn’t selfish, rather she’s completely at service to the greater good, the whole, the all. I think she’s admirable, and rather than cringe at the comparison, which is often an insult, I think it’s time to accept it, for the path of the queen bee is one who leads through service, without question. I would love to be so selfless and her path is one worth pursuing.

In our complex world, we need more queen bees, not less, dedicating their lives to helping us navigate the serious problems of our time.

So claim it ladies, and aspire to become a queen bee as she truly is—an important part of the ecosystem in which we live. Which leads me to the other animal insult thrown at middle-aged women—cougar—usually as a means to belittle the fact that she has remained sexual past her prime. You know, she actually enjoys sex even though she’s no longer a maiden and her kids are older? (When I googled the word cougar, the first link is one to a dating website for women seeking younger men.)

Again, there is some wisdom in the profane and even though the term is used to cut women down, like the queen bee, the world is in need of this sort of feminine leadership. Just like the queen of the hive, the cougar is the queen of the forest. As the apex predator, the cougar plays a pivotal and critical role in maintaining biodiversity in many different ecosystems. By hunting deer and wild boar, the cougar keeps the herbivore population balanced, ensuring that over-grazing doesn’t occur. As an example, a recent study on the trophic decline of Zion National Park showed that a reduction in cougars led to the overpopulation of deer, which led to the destruction of key plant species, namely the cottonwood tree, which led to not only erosion along the creeks and streams (the trees were no longer there to keep the soil in check) but also the loss of habitat for many insects which fed bird species, which are also now in decline.

Like the queen bee, the cougar keeps the ecosystem in order. Should she be envied for her position? Should she be killed off because she bothers the livestock? Should she be seen as a danger to the order of humanity?

Middle aged women are needed to reorganize a society that has lost its way. One where 50% of our children live in poverty, where health care sends many into debt, where people are left without shelter in the rain and cold. Our human society is in need of strong, feminine leadership. Middle age is a time when a woman is not only wise with years, but she also has more time to serve the whole because the needs of her own family are waning. She can make the effort to grow her talents and assert her power in a larger context.

Beware, there is a price to pay. If you’re too bossy, you’re the queen bee. If you’re too sexy, you’re the cougar. But maybe it means you’re doing something right? Turn the insult upside down and go deeper, and you just might find that both of those animals represent exactly what is needed at this time in history. For to become either is to lead with service, a trait that is sorely lacking in our world, from the boardroom to the White House.

Expect people to strike back. Look at how we fear the swarming hive and do all we can to kill the bees. The same goes for the cougar, who is often hunted by the human because she dares to feed on their penned-in livestock. The queen bee and the cougar live according to different rules, and often pay dearly for it. Yet without them, the natural world could not survive.

So be a queen bee, or a cougar, or both, without shame. For they are beautiful, strong, selfless and completely necessary in the web of life.

One Planet, Many Policies

“Policy is largely set by economic elites and organized groups representing business interests with little concern for public attitudes or public safety, as long as 

the public remains passive and obedient.”

~ Noam Chomsky on the Transatlantic Agreement and US Policy

The news and I have an on-again-off-again relationship. For the most part, I strive to surround myself with positive elements. After over forty years on this Earth, I’ve learned that worrying about something that hasn’t yet happened, or might happen, or is happening but there’s nothing I can do about it, is actually a waste of time. Right here, right now, in my life, wonderful things are happening and those are the things I do not wish to miss, simply because I was stressed about something that’s completely out of my control. In spite of the fact that I'm writing a dystopian trilogy,  I truly believe that the world is NOT out to get me.

Yet, as a writer of science fiction, I do a lot of research, and the news is a part of that. Particularly political news, since that is where the power lies—in the hands of those who work in our governmental agencies.

This morning, I found the quote above from Noam Chompsky very telling. It sums up the entire attitude of governance in America at this moment in time. Decisions are not made in the name of the people, but rather for those who have an economic hand in them. These decisions are being made daily, behind closed doors. However, given the fact that we are one human race, sharing one atmosphere, one biosphere and one planet, any decision made behind closed doors affects all of us, whether the politicians realize it or not.

It has long surprised me that most people refuse to believe that their government would hurt them. Folks like to complain about the government, but suggest that decisions might be made intentionally without regards to our safety, and people cry, “CONSPIRACY THEORY!” and tune you out.

“That’s impossible! The government would never do that.”

Is it? Take Chomsky’s quote above. I agree it’s a stretch to believe the government would kill citizens intentionally, but when economic powers are concerned, our governments already have a track record of disdain for our safety and our freedom. Take the nuclear testing in the 1960’s, which released new forms of radioactive carbon into the air we all share, and thus into all of our bodies. Remember Erin Brockovich? PG&E knowingly spewed carcinogenic waste into a town’s water supply as a way to cut costs.

And today, as I read Charles Eisenstien’s latest article for The Guardian, I learned that, “the US National Research Council endorsed a proposal to envelop the planet in a layer of sulphate aerosols to reduce solar radiation and cool the atmosphere.”

This plan, also known as geoengineering, is an important one because it involves changing our atmosphere without our consent. One country has decided to spray a layer of sulphate aerosols across the planet, without any testing of the long term effects on human and planetary health. Why would we rush to this type of solution for the environmental crisis we’re in? And why do we, the people, sit back and let it happen? Why are we so obedient?

Let me be clear, I don’t think this is a conspiracy to wipe out humanity, but for some strange reason, we’ve all been trained by the media to think that. Most people won’t discuss it when I bring it up, and I know I risk being seen as “out there” for mentioning it. But hear me out. Geoengineering our skies has been an idea for quite some time. Most likely it started out as a really cool patent that would help some company make a lot of money. It wouldn’t be too hard to figure that one out, there are many patents registered under this category. They’ve been testing and spraying since the late 90’s. Money is the driving factor here.

But now we’ve got a real climate change issue on our hands and geoengineering has yet another reason to be pursued—saving humanity. We must cover our atmosphere in a layer of metals so that we can cool the planet. It will save all of us! Yet will it? I’d like to see some answers first.

What is the impact on human health to be breathing in sulphates? How about animals, or insects? How cool do we want to go? What if we get too cool, how do we heat things back up? What do we spray then? The Earth naturally cools and heats over centuries, in patterns we don’t really understand, so are we sure we know exactly how to do this right?

The questions are endless, yet many aren’t asking them, for fear of being seen as crazy. Instead we look to the skies and say the grid like cloud patterns are normal, and that they’ve always been there. That’s only true for people born since the early 90’s. The rest of us know better, yet we don’t question. It’s as author Miguel Angel Ruiz said, “We only see what we want to see; we only hear what we want to hear. Our belief system is just like a mirror that only shows us what we believe.”

For me, the real reason we need to wake up and ask the hard questions of those making policy is because both business and government have shown us that they don’t understand the web of life in which we live. Policies are short sighted, profit driven and made without regard to safety and wellbeing. A new perspective must enter our leadership. As Eisenstein puts it so well...

“The quick fix mindset behind geoengineering must be transformed to one that seeks a humble partnership with nature if we are to address climate change.”

I’d go even further to say we need to stop assuming that business and government will fix the problems we see, and seek our own humble partnerships with one another, as we begin to make the difference locally. The age of the quick fix has dominated us economically and politically for centuries, but in the larger scope of things, humanity knows instinctively that all is connected and that what we do to our skies will affect every creature on the planet. We’ve been here before, and it’s time to stop being passive and demand that our solutions take into consideration the wellbeing of not only our economy, but life on the planet as a whole.

I'm a Believer

I haven’t blogged in a while, mostly because I’ve been busy writing the sequel to eHuman Dawn. It seems I can’t write two things at once, or at least, I don’t believe I can. The sequel has been exciting to create and while I’m pleased to announce the first draft is finished, the final product is far from complete. Now comes the time for editing and rewriting, for pulling out scenes, adding new ones and reshaping worlds, as well as words.
   
While writing the second eHuman novel, a new thought began to circulate through my head:

“How do our beliefs shape the world as we know it?” 

At the end of eHuman Dawn, the female lead, Dawn, announces that she’s about to take on a quest to search the world for humans--those who remained in the flesh after the rest of the population Jumped into eHuman bodies. (Sorry readers, if you haven’t read the book, this might not make sense. You can remedy that unfortunate situation by purchasing it at Amazon, using regular currency, or from me using Bitcoin! Just click the appropriate button above.)

Dawn believes that someone must have avoided the Great Shift, and she’s willing to give up the role of World Leader to pursue her goal of finding what’s left of carbon based humanity. Like the whisper of a grand conspiracy theory, Dawn’s belief sets the course for the rest of her life, taking her from the victorious, immortal eHuman world into the unknown, and because he believes in her, her beloved Adam follows.

Belief is defined as, “Trust, faith or confidence in someone or something” and in my opinion, is the driving force of human life as we know it. Once, we believed that the world was flat, until someone began to believe it might be round, and set out to prove the rest of us wrong.

Once we believed that illness was literally a curse, or the devil inside of us, and healthcare was practiced accordingly. With time, curious minds began to wonder, thus believe, that perhaps something else was causing the illness. Eventually a new way of curing disease was created, but it would take decades for enough people to believe in them before antibiotics were accepted as normal.

Belief guides the scientist to invest his time into finding a new solution. Belief guides the investor to give his money to a new technology. Belief guides the population to purchase and use the innovations at hand. Any marketer knows that the adoption of a product requires teaching the consumers why the product is important before they’ll buy into it.

Belief has driven men to war against others, and encouraged humans to destroy or continue practices that are harmful. Belief is the driver of all evolution and devolution. We believe in the “survival of the fittest” and therefore have created entire economic systems based on such a belief--money that rewards the “strong” and destroys the “weak.”

My eHuman novels deal with the intersection between belief, immortality, and technology. When people ask me, “Will AI destroy us?” I answer, “Only if we believe it necessary to destroy one another.” As long as we believe some of us are good, and others aren’t even human, then there’s a good chance our AI will behave the same way.

Other readers ask me, “Could we really live forever?” I answer, “Do you believe we can?” My dear Transhumanists, here is the crux of the issue--as long as we accept that an average lifespan of seventy-six is an achievement, we’ll never live forever. Hell, we won’t make it past one hundred. Before the government will invest in life extension technologies, we the people must believe it possible. We must believe the human being has only just begun it’s ascent, and that we’re at the point where we can indeed inherit our true potential as peoples of the Earth.

Of course, immortality isn’t appealing to everyone. That’s fine. I’d reckon though that most of you reading this would like to live as long as possible, and in health and wellness. If this is true, then the place to start is your belief. Seventy-six really isn’t that long. Why not expect to live to be one hundred? Why not believe that fifty is just the half way point, instead of the end of your life? Why not live as though you’ll be on this planet forever, even if no one you know personally has done it? How many decisions would be different if you believed you’d be here for a lot longer? What would you do now to live a more meaningful life? Would we, as a race, continue to destroy the environment if we believed we’d be around for a long, long time?

Whatever we believe in, we become. Whatever we believe in, we invest in. Whether it’s a government or an individual, the choices we make are based on our beliefs about ourselves, our world, and one another. 

If we begin to believe that every human being is worthy, then our AI will do the same. Perhaps then our technology will serve us and help create a cleaner, greener, more prosperous world.

If we begin to believe that one hundred is the new seventy, perhaps it would be so. What if we age merely because we expect to age, whether consciously or not?

Well, that would be something, wouldn’t it?