The Author of this work, Alex Zhavoronkov is highly optimistic about the eventual
success of biological technology in vastly increasing human lifespans. He is also pessimistic about the state of the
economy. These two threads come together
in this book, “The Ageless Generation”. In it, he argues that the government should simultaneously
ramp up research and development in these areas
( for example, we should make a much more concerted effort to cure
cancer) while also rolling back the welfare state that covers seniors (social
security and Medicare in the US).
I don’t want to go through a point-by-point rebuttal, mainly
because the premise is so interesting.
So many people look to the future as either a utopia or a dystopia, but
unless the political ideal of the futurist in question covers economics
specifically, the projections feel like they assume the everyday economy as
continuing to exist as is. I think that
this book falls into that trap. How is
it that we live in a world where we may cure death, but we haven’t cured
work? I like my job, but I’m not so
scared of my own mortality that I want to keep doing it for another couple of
decades to comfortably live into my 120s.
I think that is a major blind spot here, not considering the nature of
work excepting computer-mediated knowledge work. Add to that the idea that people not exiting
jobs disrupts the current schema where people retire out and get promoted up
and graduates enter the labor market – curing death will lock young people into
either entry-level jobs or unemployment for
a very long time.
The second issue that got me was that he is very focused on
both of his fixes. The singularity that
we will reach is a biological one, where the life expectancy increases faster
than the calendar year as prophesized by Aubrey De Grey (Both referenced in the
book and a writer of a blurb). As far as I remember, there is no mention of a technological
singularity more associated with the work of Ray Kurzweil which could be a rival or a symbiotic vision of the future. The other focus is on rolling back “entitlements”
which would be hard because people have paid into those programs and people
have real expectations for when they can leave the labor force. I don’t know why extending the working life
is important here. If you solve for
death, you can maybe reimagine a world where there is more art, and more
leisure time (I know Marx and Keynes were able to imagine it). There are other places in the budget where
savings can be had.
I just worry that the book may be overselling the idea that we can even
achieve what he’s saying can be met biologically. He marvels at the increase in life expectancy
in the 20th century, but were those achievements just the
low-hanging fruit of life-extension? I’m
not sure about that, but I worry about nature fighting back. One thing I kept thinking about was the
evolution of anti-bacterial-resistant bugs. There aren’t many new penicillins in the pipeline,
and we have to keep at it just to keep where we are (and that’s just one
example of what can happen to the organism, and ignoring any systemic issues). We have also to struggle with people taking
for granted now simple things like vaccines.
People have been worrying about their safety, even though it is hard to
prove absence: anecdotes beat statistical evidence and probabilities. I suppose if you could cure cancer, you’d
have a pretty high-take up, but it is harder to sell prevention as opposed to
intervention.
I am sure that Zhavoronkov has heard many of these criticisms
before. This book is more for a popular
audience, so it is more of an introduction.
I hope he is right on the science.
That’s where I feel his domain lays.
The economics need more work, and I think he is largely incorrect mainly
because of a lack of imagination. If the
science works, the cultural change will refigure economics and art and the
nature of work. I’m interested in seeing
what’s next.
I received a copy of this book in exchange for review.
No comments:
Post a Comment