I enjoyed an evening with Aubrey de Grey yesterday. Aubrey specialises in the science of ageing and how it can be slowed down and even stopped. If his predictions are right, it may be possible for us to live for hundreds of years – and the life expectancy of a 40-year-old today may be around 1,000.
We won’t be decrepit 1,000-year-olds – the bio-rejuvenation he predicts means we could have healthier bodies than we do now.
Does that sound like science-fiction to you?
In 2005, the MIT Technology Review challenged scientists to disprove the claim, offering a $20,000 prize to any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that it is “so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate”. Nobody claimed the money; the learned debate continues.
I drifted in and out of understanding Dr de Grey’s scientific explanations. What interests me most is the sociological impact it could have and especially how people feel about living much longer. It’s very curious: most people look first for evidence against the possibility, not for it – they think first of the problems, not the benefits. Why is that?
When I told people I was going to meet Aubrey, the most common response was light mockery. His long beard does not help in this respect. “He looks like Gandalf de Grey”, said one chap. While most people realise that being a good gerontologist doesn’t require regular beard-trimming, I think we react flippantly to his ideas because they’re such big ideas.
Most people claim to be busy these days, but most people also feel like they’re on a treadmill. Having 10x more time… that’s a lot to take seriously.
We tend to get prematurely practical too. “What about overcrowding?”, “The pension age would have to rise”, “The planet is already struggling to cope with our excesses”.
Those concerns only make sense if you think this one technological advance could happen in isolation. It’s much more likely to happen alongside the development of clean energy and more efficient ways to live in the vast areas of our planet that are currently uninhabitable.
Then there’s the cultural hypnosis. When people think time is valuable and finite, they tend to convert their time into money and hoard it for the future. That way they can convert it back later, enjoying their last few years without any ‘work’. This seems insane to me. But if you think like that, it makes sense to want the best time:money conversion rate – so savings and pensions become important and suddenly getting more time might devalue our stock.
When you extend your life expectancy, a lot of this cultural hypnosis is exposed. The life we were taught to expect (the learning/development phase – the productivity phase – the retirement/illness phase) is much less than the life we could be enjoying.
How would you be living today if you knew you were going to live another 100, 500 or 1,000 years?
When I let my mind go quiet, I notice some of my own beliefs about ageing. My grandparents lived into their early 90s and I’ve already had about 30% of the time they had. Rightly or wrongly, I believe I’ll probably live a bit longer than them – so, on balance, I think I’m about 25% done. Those are just a cluster of beliefs, of course, but you know how much beliefs guide our lives. I also realise I’ve mentally written-off some years at the end of my life. So the race is on to contribute something to the world – I haven’t done much so far, and time is running out. Tick, tick, tick.
For Aubrey, it’s simply about health – if we can clean up the damage that comes from metabolism before it creates pathology, all kinds of illnesses that affect older people will never arise. Goodbye heart disease and Parkinsons, hello 950th birthday. Just make sure you can afford all the candles.
When I asked him about the sociological implications of such longevity, he dismissed the question brusquely. His view: “If disease is preventable, why do you want to die?”
If people won’t get behind the science until it’s put into a sociological context? “Make those people feel stupid”, he boomed.
Making people feel stupid is not my style. Besides, people already have long memories. Can you imagine if they held a grudge for 1,000 years?
The biggest thing I got from meeting Aubrey is a new perspective on what’s possible now. My generation may be on the edge of this new way of living and it may not. The options that may be available in 20-40 years may only extend our life expectancy by 20 years, but further research during those 20 years may improve the technology, and that could continue exponentially. The healthier we are when we start, the better our chances of continuing. According to Aubrey, the first 150-year-old and the first 1,000-year-old will probably be born only 20 years apart. As we tucked into our Time & Space platters – with all that deep-fried tempura, chips and chicken wings – I wondered if my lifestyle today could be knocking hundreds of years off my life. Aubrey had a burger on the side, though. So I remain hopeful.
What might life be like in 1,000 years? What might your life be like today if you knew you were going to live that long?
Can I be useful? Coaching conversations are a wonderful way to explore your own ideas and get in touch with your natural clarity. Please visit this page for details of what I offer.
