Very interesting interview posted on The Futurist.... The interview
raises more questions than it answers, but that seems to be a hallmark
of good interviews.
Enjoy!
Barry
http://www.wfs.org/content/futurist-interviews-longevity-expert-sonia-arrison
The Futurist Interviews Longevity Expert Sonia Arrison
Live Very Long and Prosper a Lot
SONIA ARRISON
Think how culturally and materially richer we would be if people could
live, be healthy, and contribute to society up to ages of 150, 200, or
beyond. Thus argues Sonia Arrison, senior fellow at the Pacific
Research Institute. In her book 100 Plus: How the Coming Age of
Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to
Family and Faith (Basic Books, 2011), she tracks the advancements of
“life-extension” medical techniques, which undo the damage that our
bodies incur over time. With further refinement of such procedures,
Arrison hopes, we could look forward to unprecedented innovation and
societal reform as brilliant innovators stay with us and share their
knowledge and experience for decades—and in time, centuries—longer
than they would today. She spoke about this with Rick Docksai,
assistant editor for THE FUTURIST.
THE FUTURIST: Your book will find a lot of fans here in the World
Future Society. Life extension is a topic that excites a great many of
us.
Sonia Arrison: One of the things that excites me is that a lot of the
science sounds like science fiction, but it isn’t science fiction
anymore. You might have heard about the man who had cancer of the
trachea and was going to die. Doctors tried an experimental procedure
to grow a new trachea in the lab. The surgery was done using a
synthetic scaffold. It's been a month since the surgery, and the man
is cancer-free.
THE FUTURIST: Countries across the globe anticipate having huge
populations of senior citizens on their hands and not enough resources
to serve all of them. People are living longer than ever as it is, and
it is actually creating some problems. In such an environment, why
would countries want to pursue life extension?
Arrison: If people are around longer and they're healthier, then the
entire society is going to be wealthier. That’s because we’re not
giving up the experience. Think of all the older people you know who
are super smart and have tons of experience, but then they die and
it's lost, and the next generation has to rebuild. If we didn't have
to lose all that experience as quickly, we wouldn't have to keep
rebuilding. It would be a tremendous resource for society.
If we look back at history, most of the greatest innovation is done by
people in their later years. Elderly people, because of their
experience and because of the trial and error they have been through,
are really good at coming up with new products and ideas.
THE FUTURIST: I imagine that progress toward life extension will vary
country to country. South Korea is reportedly far ahead of the United
States in stem cell research, and some people expect that much
pharmaceutical research now taking place in the United States might
move to France and Germany. What advantage would countries like South
Korea, France, and Germany have over others? If they achieve super-
long life spans before other countries do, how would geopolitics change?
Sonia Arrison: That’s a really smart question. One of the reasons
America is a leader in the world is because we're so wealthy. Economic
research shows that health creates wealth. There are seven country
studies that show that living extra years creates extra growth. If one
country has a five-year advantage in life expectancy then real income
per capita grows between 0.3 and 0.5 percent faster per year. That’s
pretty significant when you consider that between 1965 and 1990, real
income per capita growth was only 2 percent per year. And that’s just
with a 5-year advantage. Imagine if it’s a 20-year difference! This
really could put the U.S. at risk if we don’t keep up.
THE FUTURIST: As you note, life extension has a lot of skeptics and
some opponents. Perhaps speaking of “life extension” and “living to
125 or more” can unsettle people. Perhaps the concept is more
palatable if presented as boosting senior citizens’ well-being and
reversing aging. What do you think?
Arrison: I think the best way to make the pitch is to take a look at
what our health-care system looks like now. Most of the money spent on
health care is spent at the end of life. If we could come up with
technologies to make people healthier longer, we'd be spending less
money on health care period.
THE FUTURIST: What would death look like, if people aren’t getting
sick and dying of all things that they do now?
Arrison: I think the progression of morbidity would be different. I
think we would be healthy for a long time and drop off quicker. I’m
looking at a health span of 150 years. But eventually, we will see a
society where we just keep repairing people indefinitely. The only
thing that’s going to kill you is accidents or some plague or
something that we can’t predict. There would still be things that can
kill you, but they'd be quick, and you wouldn’t spend months in the
hospital sucking up a lot of resources.
THE FUTURIST: How fast are we moving toward the extended life spans
that you describe in the book? How fast should we move, ideally?
Arrison: I think that we are moving a lot faster than most of us
realize, but we're also not moving fast enough. The reason we're
moving faster is new technology, plus people are more interconnected
today: There is the Internet. Another reason is expanding computer
power.
But we’re not focused on this as a goal. I don’t see society as
concentrated on being healthy and living longer, like it was on going
to the Moon. We’re going to lose a lot of people we would not have
lost in the first place. I don’t want to lose all those people, so I
want us to move faster.
About the Interviewee
Sonia Arrison is a Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and
a columnist for TechNewsWorld. Her work has appeared on CNN and in the
Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today.
She lives in Atherton, California.
END.
Comments
100+
Submitted by Julia Vockrodt (not verified) on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 8:40am.
I am really intrigued by Sonia Arrison's perspective on living longer.
Initially the idea of a population living way beyond 100 was rather
alarming. Many of us have grown up with the notion that you work a
certain number of years and then retire. However, the traditional
picture of retirement has indeed lost its appeal and many of us intend
to either work longer or fulfill a dream or ambition. Living longer
brings with it certain pressures such us sustaining the quality of
life both in terms of economics and health. Will science really be
able to repair our bodies sufficiently to allow us to work and play at
a vibrant level for longer and how will we pay for our extended lives?
Maybe the question is how long should we live? I think that there are
sociological questions to answer as well as spiritual and
psychological issues to consider. All in all it is a fascinating
subject.
I wish Sonia would have said
Submitted by Pat (not verified) on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 12:15pm.
I wish Sonia would have said more to encourage everyone to buy her book.
Living longer so you could follow your dreams is only good if you can
afford it. No matter the transition, we all live in an economic
society.... that follows the golden rule. I guess a qualifier for long
life equals some form of trade off. Anyone want to paint that scenario?
No doubt, there will be new rules on euthanasia. (no need for "life"
in prison?)
A new industry will be born. (the evolution of "Make A Wish" ...) ??
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
