if everyone is living to 120 and population has doubled. those material challenges are clearly very real. but you go beyond the material challenges. you talk about the philosophical objections that you have as well. you seem to be suggesting that, actually, if we could live much longer and, you know, posit the notion of forever ie, immortality it would be extremely bad for us, bad for us because it would drain us of motivation. we would all be bored and we would be unhappy human beings. do you really believe that? the philosophical debate about immortality has been focused on genuinely unending life. and i think, given the prospect of eternity, we would either have to become something very different to the very finite creatures we are now with a limited set of interests, or we would become terribly bored and fall into ennui. but that doesn t mean that applies to the real prospects of life extension of a few decades. but it is worth bearing in mind that, you know, hundreds of millio
people to live a few decades longer is very welcome. you re at the intersection of sort of philosophy, technology and science. when you look at today s scientific breakthroughs and technological developments, do you believe that real, significant progress is being made in life extension? yes, there is progress. there are reasons to be sceptical and there are reasons to be optimistic, and we have to balance these two. the reasons to be sceptical are, this is something humans have not just been pursuing for thousands of years, but genuinely believed that they were on the verge of for thousands of years. the ancient egyptians thought they were on the verge of creating an elixir. the ancient chinese thought it. scientists have been thinking it for centuries. but there has been real progress in the last decades in extending the lives of other organisms, like fruit flies and nematode worms, and even mammals like mice. and if i may. ..that suggest we re getting closer. if i may introduce the
to make them go well. you say you re broadly, and in principle, excited. you don t come across as excited. you come across as deeply concerned. you talk about the earth s carrying capacity. that, i guess, means its resource base and what it can.the number of people it can manage to keep alive on this planet. you talk about the carrying capacity being overburdened, and you say that a longevity of 120 to 160 years for the average human would make life pretty much impossible. well, i am very concerned. i think everyone ought to be concerned about the drain on the planet s resources that we re exerting with 8 billion people. and we need to be tackling that. and my worry is when people say, you know, it would be fantastic if we have a breakthrough in life extension and, sure, there ll be problems, but we ll solve them. well, fine. but let s. .. show me how you can solve the problems of biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse and global warming now, and then i ll believe you if you tell
just like, for example, thomas malthus in the 18th century, who couldn t see the transformative effect that technology would have on food production, you can t see the ways in which the human spirit of sort of innovation and development will allow us to live longer and benefit from that rather than suffer from it. well, john is an excellent philosopher, based in sunny california, and he likes to contrast his sunny, californian optimism with my english melancholy. curmudgeon, he calls you. curmudgeon. exactly. and. but i think we need to be cautious and we need to look at the possible downsides. broadly speaking, i m incredibly excited by new technologies, life extension technologies and lots of others. but my mission, and that of the new institute we founded, is to make these transformations go well. and we only do that by thinking also about how these technologies, including this one, life extension, can go wrong and what we need to do
to others or will be reserved for themselves. to others or will be reserved for themselves. it is such an important for themselves. it is such an important question. - for themselves. it is such an important question. if- for themselves. it is such an important question. if they i for themselves. it is such an i important question. if they are donating large sums of money that donate forward basic research for the benefit of all, that should certainly be welcomed but one of the real concerns about life extension that it will be the privilege of a rich elite and that would have disastrous consequences. aha, have disastrous consequences. a philosopher i believe you know, john davis, he wrote a book in which he said imagine a world in which the wealthy few live on in endless youth, and elite of the immortals. they would behave like branches watching a herd of cattle, the likes of you and me, whose members change with the years while they remain in control. that is dystopian they rema