Total Rejuvenation: What It Might Mean to You and to Society

What would happen if you could go to a clinic and, for $1,000 (less in third- world countries) receive two or three injections that would restore you to the blush of youth? How would you feel about it personally? Would you get terminally bored if you could live forever? What about population control? What about all the current retirees? What about your own retirement? The prospects for age reversal The fact that germ cells seem to have the ability to completely restore themselves, so that their progeny can be born unblemished, suggests to me that there are mechanisms within the germ cells of all living organisms that operate within the first hour or two of fertilization to eliminate all cellular damage*. Otherwise, the various species could not have survived for thousands of generations. I suspect that we can identify these cellular mechanisms—DNA repair enzymes, lipofucsin-eliminators, etc—and apply them to mature, differentiated cells. Of course, there’s no guarantee that this will be the case. But let’s suppose that it’s true, and that within a few weeks after parenteral treatment, you could be as good as new. Then what? Age reversal would not mean immortality Rejuvenation would be no ticket to immortality. Even if restoration could be as complete as it is in a newly issued organism, you would be as mortal as any twenty-year-old. Sooner or later, death would find you. Epidemics of lethal diseases, such as smallpox or certain strains of influenza, could take you under. Also, there would be hereditary diseases and infirmities that rejuvenation wouldn’t cure (though that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t sooner or later yield to medical advances). Cancer wouldn’t be eliminated, but completely restored cellular machinery should reduce its incidence. Similarly, cardiovascular incidents should be reduced, although neither cancer nor cardiovascular misfortunes would disappear. Treatments of life extension in science fiction typically portray the life-extended as a doddering, staggering mass of prosthetics. I don’t think it’s going to happen that way. I think it’s going to take the form of age retardation, if not complete restoration. Dark visions of extended infirmity, of existence protracted beyond its proper span, are too often the way youth extension is portrayed, but I think they’re cut from the whole cloth. Our retirees will have to go back to work One of the prices we’ll have to pay for extended youth is that of working longer. It’s clear that we can’t have most people retired most of the time (unless robots take over these functions). Somebody has to feed and clothe the world. But the problem we face today is that our young adulthood is currently spent rearing our children. Once they’re grown and gone, both our time and our money become available for other purposes (although grandparents must sometimes rear their grandchildren). At that age, though, it’s time to prepare for retirement, whether we “need it or no”. Given a much longer youth-span, we could go back to school and retool for jobs that would better fit our interests. Also, we would need less money and less security than we did when we were supporting our children. One of the noteworthy dividends of retirement is financial security. In retirement, we no longer have to worry about downsizing or layoffs… which brings us to an interesting point. Between our contributions and our employers’ contributions, we normally save enough money during our working years to fully fund our retirements. If we save 15% of our incomes for 40 years, and our employers match it with an additional 15%, that adds up to 12 years of income, without allowing for even the most conservative investment growth. If we could get a modest 3% per annum return above inflation, that would give us 24 years of saved income after 40 years, yielding, at a modest 3% return above inflation, 72% of our working income. Since we were paying 15% into our retirement account during our working years, plus, perhaps, 5% to 8% in income taxes on our retirement savings, our take-home pay after saving for retirement would only have been 77% to 80% of our gross pay, anyway. If we invested our retirement savings in a Roth IRA, all of our retirement income would be tax-free, and we would net more after-tax retirement income than we made when we were working. One problem that is also a stopper where retirement is concerned is the need for health insurance. On the other hand, health insurance premiums for most 20- year-olds are low enough that private health insurance might be feasible in lieu of Medicare. The bottom line is that we can probably fund our own retirements over a 40-to- 50-year working career. This raises an interesting issue. Many people would welcome an occupational role, particularly if it could be part-time telecommuting with flexible hours. What turns most of us off at work are factors other than the work itself. (1) We are caught up in interpersonal conflicts of our own, and between others. There are all kinds of personalities at work, and some of them are toxic. (2) We are forced into meaningless chores, such as attending meaningless meetings when we should be doing our assigned work, or working nights and weekends on proposals, reports, etc.. (3) We are forced to take whatever arrogances or inequities are dished out to us. (4) We are terribly insecure, with layoffs, RIFs or contract terminations never far from our doors. (5) Having to rise at a quarter-to-dawn five days a week and then spend the day cooped up in an office isn’t something that most people with a choice would eagerly embrace. The driver for accepting all this crap, at least in my own case, was the need to support our children, and later, the need to reach retirement eligibility. Otherwise, I’d have been out the door like a shot. On the other hand, I’m so attached to work that I consider meaningful that I’m spending my days and nights in retirement donating it free gratis. And I think that a lot of us march to such a distant drum. What I would hope might happen would be the establishment of more flexible and more-satisfying work arrangements. Effects upon Social Security One of the immediate consequences of youth extension would be a hue and cry over Social Security. In principle, Social Security takes in enough, or nearly enough,money during our working years to support us in perpetuity. However, it’s not designed for that, and there would be enough confusion during such a transition that a lot of politicians would probably try to take advantage of the situation to push their own agendas. I would imagine that Social Security benefits would be trimmed back, or available for a limited period of time. Some way would have to found to encourage those of us who are already retired, and who also chose rejuvenation, to re-enter the work force. The fact remains, however, that over a sufficient number of years, prudent people could save enough to live indefinitely off their investments. Population control Another crucial issue is that of population control. Populations in the developed world are already dwindling. I could imagine that there would be at least a moral code that would limit everyone to reproducing only once (two per couple). We can’t afford a population explosion. I could imagine children growing up with a cousin, so that an extended family would get the most mileage out of the children they had. All the aunts and uncles would focus on, maybe, two children at a time. Childbearing and rearing would probably be postponed. Educations would stretch out. There would be a great deal of adult re-education. Would marriages last for hundreds of years? Mine probably would. There’s no way I could get bored in less than an eon. I think there would be a transition period, as is the case for any major change in lifestyles. Opposition to life extension There are influential elements that don’t want to see an extension in lifespan. Think how it would affect the medical industry! How about funeral homes? Cosmetic companies have their own expensive, proprietary, anti-aging creams that have to be used every night. How would they receive this? How about companies that sell herbal remedies? How about the pharmaceutical industry? Our children and grandchildren might have trouble seeing us young and dark- headed--like an 18-year-old Mr. And Mrs. Santa Claus. There are many who decry it as unnatural, and who want to see people die in the natural way, and in so doing, maintain the ageless order of things. “After all, if God had wanted man to fly, He’d have given him wings.” “If God wanted man to ride in horseless carriages, He’d have given men wheels.” I don’t think anyone should even think about forcing age reversal upon these people. I think they should be allowed to die in the natural way. And since they won’t be around in the world of the future, they have no charter to tell those of us who will how to live. They’re short-timers. (I wonder how it will be when they enter the nursing home, with its stenches, its demented derelicts who wail, “Help me! Help me!” day and night, and its incarceration of those hapless who are still rational. It’s one thing to prate about “the natural order of things” when you’re sitting behind your desk; it’s quite another when your oncologist tells you your malignancy has metastasized.

“Like old rag dolls, they’re strewn around the room, Half-deaf, half-blind, half shorn of mind, And sliding always toward the haunted well From which no certain whisper ever comes.”

“These are the ones who stayed too long in life… ” . What infuriates me about these ”It’s unnatural” hypocrites—yes, hypocrites—is that they’re not living in a technologically deprived manner. They’re not knapping flints in the wilderness, depending upon God (or Allah or Jahweh) for their needs the way God intended. Au contraire, they’re driving cars, traveling by air, accepting medical interventions, and living in air-conditioned environments.

Summing it up To summarize, I think that (1) It would take a number of years to establish the long-term safety of anti- senescence treatments. Initially, only results on animal models would be available. Anti-senescence treatments might be accessible at first only by prescription, with people going offshore or abroad for longevity treatments. The effects on existing industries would be enormous, with a lot of politicking taking place. Rejuvenation would be a revolutionary development, and there would be a lot of resistance to it. You would hear a lot of propaganda about safety. I think that general public distribution would be delayed as long as possible, with pharmaceutical companies scrambling behind the scenes to figure out ways to restore their profits. There would also be a greatly reduced demand for medical services. It would probably happen gradually. For most people, there would be no urgency about being rejuvenated. Also, delaying public access to longevity treatments would allow older retirees to die off, thereby reducing pension plan indemnities. (2) Congress would move to modify Social Security and federal retirement systems. This might be done rather quickly in order to modify plans for new retirees who are approaching retirement age. There would be an effort to “grandfather in” new provisions, so that those who were already retired wouldn’t feel the pinch right away. One stopgap might be to raise the retirement age incrementally until one could see how well other provisions worked. Everyone’s best bet would be to build his or her own retirement nest egg. For those of us who are already retired, it would consist of saving money, perhaps, returning to work to augment our rate of savings. (3) For the individual, at first, during the transition period, there would be a bewildering change in perspective. Of course, no one would have to subscribe to rejuvenation therapies, and most likely, many of the very elderly would not. For those who did, the most immediate thought would be, “What about work? Will I have to work forever?” or “Will I have to go back to work, and work forever?” (I would hope that efforts would be made to make work seem more palatable to all… something one does joyfully. Beyond that, there would be the prospect of saving enough money to retire.) There might also be concerns about children. “I’ve had three children. Won’t I ever be able to have any more?” Once the transition period passed, these issues would subside. (4) People might spend more time completing their education or training. However, I could imagine lifelong learning, with an emphasis upon making education fun. The educational bar would be raised. Families would probably be postponed, with adults paying more attention to nieces, nephews, and second cousins. (5) It’s instructive to ask: How many wealthy retirees could society support? Note that this is independent of the amount of money available, depending as it does upon the production of goods and services… the “real” economy. Right now, we’re probably supporting 60 million to 70 million retirees (between one person in four and one person in five). Over the next quarter of a century, that ratio is scheduled to fall to one in three as the baby boomers retire. This would imply between 90 million and 100 million retirees. So presumably, the country could support ~100,000,000 retirees. If rejuvenation became available, there would initially be people who would have to remain in the workforce rather than retiring, as well as many retirees who would choose to return to work, or to school and then to work.

What should you do if such an option becomes available? Most of us are presently building our own retirements, so we’re already on the right road. Payments into Social Security are mandatory, so that can’t be altered. I would imagine that any changes to the Social Security would be at least reasonably fair, providing compensation for any major benefit reductions. Most people will be close to self-funded retirements by the time they reach age 65. As far as other steps are concerned, probably an awareness of the possibility of youth extension is sufficient. There will be many changes occurring over the coming decades. Techniques for raising intelligence are coming to light. For example, babies’ intelligence can be boosted by 3-to-4 points of IQ be breast-feeding them. The relevant ingredients will probably be available in stores in the near future. Similarly, supplementation of babies’ formulas with the omega-3 fatty acids is alleged to raise IQ’s by 6-to-8 points. Low self-esteem is claimed to reduce troubled children’s IQ’s by 25% (Rejection Massively Reduces IQ - New Scientist). No doubt other techniques will contribute further to this.