What If You Could Live for 10,000 years?

Q&A with transhumanist Zoltan Istvan

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

What If You Could Live for 10,000 years?

HD Video Download

"I'm not saying let's live forever," says Zoltan Istvan, transhumanist author, philosopher, and political candidate. "I think what we want is the choice to be able to live indefinitely. That might be 10,000 years; that might only be 170 years."

Istvan devoted his life to transhumanism after nearly stepping on an old landmine while reporting for National Geographic channel in Vietnam's demilitarized zone.

"I'd say the number one goal of transhumanism is trying to conquer death," says Istvan.

Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller interviewed Istvan about real-world life-extension technology ranging from robotic hearts to cryogenic stasis, Istvan's plan to run for president under the banner of the Transhumanist party, the overlap between the LGBT movement and transhumanism, and the role that governments play in both aiding and impeding transhumanist goals. 

Approximately 10 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Justin Monticello and Paul Detrick. Music by Anix Gleo and nthnl.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this interview, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this. 

Comments

[The Male Gaze?]

I hate the idea of "transhumanism". putting machines in my brain makes me stop being human. I would enjoy the idea of repairing my body though to live a lot longer. Once we get into space the idea of living 10000 years will be even more appealing. It really feels like we're close to both, maybe 50-100 years (sadly probably my generation will die just as this is solved and we head to the stars)

[GlacialPlanet]

So you actually believe Rush Limbaugh is not human?

[RussianPrimeMinister]

How much of your body can be replaced before you cease to be human, exactly?

Or are you simply worried about no longer being you?

Cybernetic enhancement no more reduces our humanity than vat grown liver or pig heart transplants.

[John Titor]

putting machines in my brain makes me stop being human.

That's the point. It's called 'transhumanism'/'posthumanism' for a reason.

I would enjoy the idea of repairing my body though to live a lot longer.

And a massively extended lifespan outside of 'natural' human life wouldn't cause you to 'stop being human' either?

[LynchPin1477]

If one adopts a definition of natural that is basically "anything not invented or altered by humans" (which is a definition I don't care for), then we unnaturally extend human life every time we use medicine.

[John Titor]

That's kind of my point though. How does the deliberate altering of the self by humans through augmentation make you 'stop being human' while other alterations don't? Is it a brain thing? Does medicine that alters natural brain chemistry also make you 'stop being human'?

[LynchPin1477]

Right, and these are difficult, if not impossible, questions to answer without first identifying what makes a person a person, you "you", or me "me". We tend to take those terms for granted and use them rather loosely.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Sounds like an individual personal philosophy to me.

Unless you're thinking of writing something into law.

[LynchPin1477]

It is definitely a personal philosophy thing, though there is one glaring example I won't mention by name where some of these questions have major ramifications for law and individual rights.

[John Titor]

Oh, oh! It's the 'a' word isn't it?

...Animal abuse, right?

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Wait. Can you mechanize a fetus?

And, leading from that, can you have an abortion strong enough to take on Mecha Fetus?

[John Titor]

No abortion is strong enough to defeat Mecha Fetus. Mecha Fetus aborts you.

[jmaimma]

I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I've been doing,
.... http://www.wixjob.com

[Suicidy]

I would be totally for it if I too had a blue box that could go anywhere in time and space.

[javabeast]

George Bush didn't "stop stem cell development"

[CE]

"I think what we want is the choice to be able to live indefinitely. That might be 10,000 years; that might only be 170 years."

Ask anyone who is 169, and I'm guessing they will opt for the 10,000 option.

[MeatBorg]

I think you're right about that. 170 isn't enough time, but at some point there is probably an upper limit to anyone's desire to go on. I'd guess it is a function of your environment. After a few thousand years on Earth, you may be tired and bored because there's nothing new under the sun. But if humans figure out interstellar travel, then you'd probably reevaluate. There's a good novel by Robert Heinlein called "Time Enough for Love" that deals with this topic. Basic premise is humanity has eliminated death and the protagonist is tired of living after many thousands of years.

[GamerFromJump]

I think I'd be just coming up with 50-year plans. Become an expert in something, do it, then move on. Maybe take the occasional decade off to just chill.

[MeatBorg]

I'm on board with the whole idea of transhumanism. I think most libert-atheists are open to the idea of radical life extension.

The only problem I had with this interview is that The Zoltan proposed passing a law preventing government from interfering with the progress of transhumanist technology, but also proposed massive government funding of research in the field by siphoning from the DoD budget. You can't have it both ways. And in the near future, you're not likely to have either.

Certain aspects of the movement won't meet much resistance at first. For example, robotic hearts. But if huge numbers of people start living well over 100 years, you better believe the govt will take action. They won't be able to pretend that Social Security is solvent. If they don't scrap it altogether, they'll make you sign a contract that caps benefits at 20 years after which point you agree to be ground into soylent green.

[RuthBLane]

My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
Get Paid Up To $37.75 Per hour
Easy Work, Excellent Pay. Work Flexible
Hours. No Experience Required.
Move to a better life!
Give a chance to your good luck.
If you are interested,
Visit this web-site,
=============?? http://www.Workvalt.Com

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

10,000 years of spambots? I'll pass.

[Paul.]

"I'm not saying let's live forever," says Zoltan Istvan,

Don't mess with the Zoltan.

[AlmightyJB]

yeah, be careful what you wish for.

[AlmightyJB]

Oh, I guess that was Zoltar. My bad.

[Marty Feldman's Eyes]

Eh, I give it a few hundred years before you're begging Sean Connery to kill you.

[silent v]

Zoltan, Zardoz...what's the difference?

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Kneel before Zod!

[reasontert]

10,000 years is just long enough to see the day that John McCain thinks we should be done in Iraq.

[LynchPin1477]

Forward unto Iran!

[Paul.]

The good news is that in 10,000 years, the middle east will have advanced into the 21st century.

[Marty Feldman's Eyes]

Yeah, they'll finally be beheading people with laser cutters instead of swords.

[Copernicus]

But everyone in ISIS will have jet packs.

[LynchPin1477]

Ten years ago, in my early 20s, I would have said that my ideal age to die at would be around mid 80s. I don't know why, it just seemed like a good place to call it quits.

Now that I've seen more of the world and what it has to offer, and seen first hand what old age has done to my grandparents (and they are in relatively good shape compared to some), I'm leaning more towards living indefinitely. But only if I could do so in a state of relative health and vitality.

I'm not really that put off by the idea of downloading my consciousnesses into a computer or synthetic body, either. I'd like to keep the one I have until it maxes out, but after that, a trade-in seems like a good idea. Unless my new body could fly. In that case, sign me up this very instant.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

The only way I'd be onboard with a transfer of my consciousness is if it involved an actual brain transplant.

Many people, and I've had this conversation hundreds of times, never consider the actual death aspect of a consciousness transfer.

You're not actually transfering yourself, you understand? You're copying. You're creating another you, one that will most likely have all the same characteristics and mannerisms, possibly even memories. But the original you will still exist in the old form, and die off. This is the same problem I have with cloning, and yes, they're the same concept.

I once asked my wife if she would clone me, were she given the chance after my death. She answered in the affirmative, and I was taken aback. It's the same principle. No matter how much that clone acts like me, it is for all intents and purposes an entirely different person. I died. The original, true ME is gone. There just happens to be another person just like me running about.

Unless I can be certain that the true, original, organic ME is kept alive and well, then no, tanshumanism sucks.

[LynchPin1477]

I understand that line of reasoning, but it hinges on a specific definition of "you". Cells die and new ones are made via copying. Are you the same person you were a year ago? A few days ago?

At a more fundamental level, the particles that make up the atoms that make up your cells are indistinguishable. There is no way to tell one electron apart from another. It is the arrangement that matters. So if you could be copied to within some acceptable error tolerance, why would that not be you?

[Suthenboy]

"...it hinges on a specific definition of "you"..."

No, it hinges on the fact that "you" will experience death while another entity very much like you will begin to live. "You" will not live on. Others may perceive you to have extended your life, your copy may have the perception of extended life, but "you" will not.

[LynchPin1477]

You're still assuming your copy isn't you. That is obviously true if you are simply talking about the raw materials, but I think most people consider themselves to be more than just a collection of raw materials.

[Suthenboy]

It doesn't matter what most people consider. There is no ghost in the machine that will move from one machine to another.

The you that exists now will die and have no experience of reawakening in another body, even if the new body has the perception of having waken up in a new body via your transferred memories.

[LynchPin1477]

And if the new body wakes up with all of the memories, emotions, personality traits, and psychological characteristics that you have in your current body, why is it not you waking up? Again, the answer to that question depends on how you define you, what you think makes you, you. You can assert that it is somehow tied to your current body, but that has problems. Your current body isn't the body you had as an infant, or a young adult, or even just a few weeks ago. On long enough time scales nearly all of the cells in your body are replaced with copies. Transplant patients have entirely different organs with different DNA than the ones they had pre-op. Amputees can have limbs replaced with mechanical replicas. We don't typically think of these as instances of new people being created.

If you do, then OK. And if that is the case then yes, a copy would not be "you". But the term "you" becomes an almost ephemeral concept by this definition, since "you" are changing with every moment.

[Suthenboy]

If you replace one part per week in your car eventually you will replace all of the parts. Is it still the same car?
The car exists but in a changing state throughout the process, so yeah, it is. The car 'experiences' being itself and then changing into another car just like the original.

Buying a new car that is indistinguishable from the one you already have is a different matter, even if you duplicate the dings and scratches of your original. The original car only has the experience of ceasing to be used.

Transforming into a different entity is quite different than being duplicated.

[LynchPin1477]

I would say it is not the same car. But the difference is that cars don't memories, thoughts, or experiences in the way people do. That is where I see the fundamental difference.

As I say below, I think there is something that makes us who we are that, at least in though experiments, can be transferred without loss of identity. I don't think cars have that. Note that it doesn't have to be something supernatural like a soul, though I don't have a problem with someone thinking of it in those terms. It could be an exact description of ones neurological state.

If it turns out people don't have something like that which is transferable, then I would change my stance and say that a replica or computerized version of you is not you.

[Suthenboy]

"I would say it is not the same car. But the difference is that cars don't memories, thoughts, or experiences in the way people do. That is where I see the fundamental difference."

Yeah. Bad analogy and it is pointless to ask if it is the same car. Let me try again.

You are more than just the material you are made of. You are a conscience with a constant stream of experience. Once that stream of experience is broken you are gone, even if an identical stream is created. Your stream of experience has ceased to be regardless of whether or not an identical one continues to exist.

It is true that you are not the same you as you were last week, but you were present throughout the transformational process. You continued to exist but in a changing form.
Duplication is very different than transformation is the heart of it.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

When that little touch of perception behind your eyes switches off, you die.

There's nothing else. End of story. Even if a person sits there and decides that a perfect copy of them is really and actually them, when that person dies it's game over, lights out, dying dead done.

Stop what you're doing and just stare at the screen for a second. You feel your eyeballs in your head? Feel behind them, into the little bit of your consciousness that projects out from the center of your brain.

Now imagine that going dark. Everything shuts down. You, the current you operating in that body, will die. That's how it is. No matter what else is running around in the world acting like you, the one behind your eyes right now will be gone.

[LynchPin1477]

Now imagine that going dark.

That happens every time I fall asleep. Which is instructive. If someone replaced "me" with an exact replica while I slept, and I and everyone else in my life was totally unaware, then I would say in a very real way that I was not ended. Yes, the raw materials, they body itself, that is different. But if there is no consequence of the raw materials changing, it's a distinction without a difference.

I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. I think there is something that makes us, us, that can, at least in thought experiments, be transferred without loss of continuity or identity. And I'm not necessarily talking about a soul. At any rate, this isn't a new debate and I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[John Titor]

It's a new consciousness though, which is what I believe Suthenboy is getting at. In terms of identity, yes, that new being is fundamentally the same as the previous one initially. But it's still a copy of another, independent consciousness separate from it. And that consciousness, in terms of identity, changes from its root the moment it is started; it now has experienced different events than its root consciousness, especially if that root is dead. Is a copy that immediately diverges really 'you', or is it a 'new you'? A John Titor 1.1 if you will.

Now, in regards to human cell replacement over time, you can argue that your current consciousness is just a copy of a copy of a copy over time, but it's still fundamentally a consciousness.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

See, that's what I meant by brain transfer. Until we can identify our *per se* soul, and effectively snoodle it from one vessel to another, then the brain is the only viable non-death inducing way to transfer consciousness.

And I'm okay with that. Put my brain to sleep and yank that fucker! Put me in a metal body! Send me to kill John Connor!

Er. . .

[John Titor]

Admit it, you're going for the purple-haired anime girl robot body.

[GlacialPlanet]

ok, but what if instead of replacing you they copied you (created an exact replica as you say)? You don't believe that you would then be "in" both bodies simultaneously do you?

[OneOut]

Actually it might be kinda cool

The automobile companies could evolve into human body look alike companies and come out with new models every few years to einduce people to trade in the old and get the newest sytlist model.

Be the first on your block to own the latest three eyed big dicked athlete model.

And trans gendered people would no longer have a problem switching back and forth at their mechanical heart's desire.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

We'll have to put common sense robot dick length legislation in place.

For the children!

[gaoxiaen]

Anytime anyone beams anywhere on Star Trek, they are killed and recreated.

[GamerFromJump]

When I was 19, 80 seemed incredibly old. Now that's I'm staring down the barrel of 40, it's like "Not enough time!!".

Hell, if we didn't have to worry about time, we'd finally have, as Calvin put it, enough time to do all the nothing we want.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

If humanity manages to completely stop the aging process, and death becomes an option, rather than an inevitability, will major religions still consider suicide to be a sin?

[LynchPin1477]

I suspect at least some major religions will oppose putting off death, as it subverts God's plan and keeps us from Him.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that most transhumanists refuse to acknowledge is that their embrace of life-extending/cybernetics/biorenewal/WTFever will, at least initially, only be affordable by the wealthy (as with any new tech or medicine). This will put them squarely in the crosshairs of the Progressives who will cry that only the "1%" get to live forever.

Enjoy that fight, Zoltan.

[GamerFromJump]

Exactly like cars, computers, electricity and every other thing that was ever a thing.

But you're right. The progvermin will yowl that if everybody can't have it right now!!eleventy1!, then nobody should.

Liberals don't believe in Moore's Law.

If I had the tech to radical life extension, I would probably charge high enough that I could subsidize a charitable provision for people in dire straits. The people with money pay for the privilege of not having to wait and those who can't wait can be helped. Moorean progression would still lead to lower prices as supply rises.

[Mike M.]

And you thought the welfare state was unsustainable now!

If people lived to be 10,000 years old, the French and the Greeks would still probably try to lower the retirement age to like 50.

[Rayson]

You are brilliant.

[Suthenboy]

"..Istvan's plan to run for president under the banner of the Transhumanist party, the overlap between the LGBT movement and transhumanism,..."

Sounds legit. It will be a landslide I am sure.

[Suicidy]

There will be no LGBT in the future. They will be cured of their afflictions. As sill pedophiles necrophiliacs, zoophiliacs, etc..

[Warrren]

Your odds of actually making it to 10,000 is next to nil. If you are even living a slightly active life you will get caught up in some accident, natural disaster or get killed by a strange new disease or something.

Add in the dangers of space exploration and you would have to be really lucky to make it to 1000.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Imagine prison sentences, and how they would extend as lifespans extend. Imagine sitting behind bars for one thousand years.

Ugh.

[GlacialPlanet]

there are already 1000+ year sentences

[Vulgar Madman]

@warren
I'm sure the other 9,999 copies would be sad.

[Suicidy]

That's why we need regeneration powers too. Then we can move on to the next body as necessary.

[GamerFromJump]

"Oh god, he's dead!"

*Guy walks up*

"It's OK, I had an extra guy."

[Libertarius]

I would have hoped that most of you were too intelligent to entertain this "transhumanism" bs. It's utterly rationalistic (made-up), and despite how its advocates pose under the mantle of secular reason and science, this concept smuggles in an old-fashioned spiritualistic view of the mind-body dichotomy: men could live forever, if only it weren't for that material prison you call a body; your consciousness is a timeless, eternal spirit floating in a supernatural ether, and all you have to do is fashion its proper physical vessel.

Is this magazine called Fantasy or Reason?

[LynchPin1477]

Drink? Yeah, I have off tomorrow.

[Suthenboy]

"Is this magazine called Fantasy or Reason?"

There are a number of ways to interpret that question but the answer is always 'yes'.

[KWebb]

Don't you mean drink?

[Mike M.]

I suspect that men have entertained these fanciful notions of eternal life since the beginnings of agriculture, and I suspect we will continue to do so for however long we continue to exist.

No matter how intelligent and enlightened we are, it's impossible not to at least think about these things at times and dream.

[Erasmus vs. Luther]

I've always envisioned eternal life more along the lines of something in Tad Williams' Otherland novels. The extremely rich are reduced to the state of a hairless slug that's cocooned in an incubator that unnaturally extends their lives so that they can live as a god in the VR world that's been customized to their specific version of utopia.

Of course, that would only be a starting point. All kinds of financial, medical and logistical issues would prevent this from being commonplace among the general public, but given the choice, which would be a better standard of life? One would keep you healthy and active for millennia but not necessarily able to make an active, positive difference in the world(as you see it), or live in a glorified Iron Lung and be the undisputed ruler of a world of your own creation?

Something tells me the megalomaniac in us will find a way to perfect the latter technology first.

[JeremyR]

Mick Farren did that first (and probably others) in The Feelies.

[Vulgar Madman]

This is one of the really dumb things about Star Trek. They have the means to be immortal (transporter) but don't use it!

[John Titor]

I think Roddenberry would argue (in his typically smug fashion) that the humans of Star Trek had 'evolved' past the desire to want immortality and accept death as an inevitability.

Of course this is also the universe where genetic enhancement apparently turns you into a psychopath and outside of the Borg cybernetics aren't considered at all.

[Suicidy]

They do use artificial limbs though. Nog got one after losing his leg to a Klingon attack on DS9.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

You understand, right, that a transporter literally tears your entire being apart every single time you use it?

And even if you believe that a transporter is capable of beaming the exact composition of atoms and molecules you had in you at the time (rather than just building a new you from the available sources at the transporter site) what ends happening is that you fucking DIE on the transporter pad and an exact replica of you is built at the location of the beam.

It's the most horrifying and terrible invention that has ever been dreamed up, and nobody ever seems to notice.

"Step onto this pad, please."

"What does it do?"

"It murders you by rending you down to your constituent atoms, then fires them a short distance them and builds a copy of you where we tell it to."

*looks at transporter*

"Sounds good to me!"

NO FUCKING THANK YOU.

[Vulgar Madman]

@RPM
I agree completely. But everyone (except for McCoy) thinks the transporter is just fine. Why not fully exploit it?

[Suicidy]

In the show it doesn't work that way, as characters have been portrayed as retaining their consciousness through the transporter stream.

[JeremyR]

Well, supposedly they only came up with the transporter at the last minute, because they didn't have the shuttle ready.

[heffrey]

my co-worker's mother makes $85 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired for nine months but last month her check was $14492 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this web-site
.. http://www.jobs-check.com

[Almanian!]

Do you want to work like that for 10,000 years, anon-work-bot?

[JeremyR]

Not going to happen.

[The ghOst of mcgOo]

I love these guys that think any problem can be solved if we spend enough money. The human body is infinitely more complex than anything we can currently create. We can't even cure the common cold. Good luck 3d printing a complex organ such as the liver. We barely understand how it achieves any of its functions. Genetic advances do create some interesting possibilities, but immortality is not currently one of them. Guys like this are entertaining but have an irrational fear of death, in my opinion.

[steve baker]

I would profess belief in an almighty god, and pray that he would forbid it!

[ErinJCollier]

my best friend's step-sister makes $71 hourly on the internet . She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her income was $17391 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit this site...........

????? http://www.netpay20.com

[mof37362]

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

[uts02298]

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com