Indefinite Lifespans Humans, Society and the Planet Marios Kyriazis

Terminology Longevity Life prolongation, life extension Living for ever, immortality Indefinite lifespans, extreme lifespans Human Biological Immortality

Most People Think A commonly held belief is: human enhancement leading to extreme lifespans will be achieved via interventions directed at the person

As human lifespan is extended there will be ethical and legal issues to consider, such as over-population, access to treatment and therapies, distribution of technology, equal rights. Who will receive the treatment, who decides, and who pays? Freedom to not get ill, not die and not be in pain.

Current discussions are irrelevant The discussion may however not be exactly relevant because it is frequently based on a single life extension therapy. We at the ELPIs Foundation for Indefinite Lifespans believe that interventions directed at the personal level alone will not be enough to promote extreme lifespan.

No single treatments

Need to increase our sophistication Interventions will need to address higher levels of complexity The Society The Planet The Universe Other??

Optimal Society The optimisation of society’s longevity may depend on the efficacy of : 1. Market forces 2. Legal control (something higher that applies to all) 3. Internalized restraint (such as restraint for aggression, antisocial acts, and immorality) 4. Mutual monitoring (each provides feedback to others, and reciprocity of cooperation). However, we must include another: The input of information in order to counteract increasing entropy

SOCIETY If there is an argument about affluent people being able to afford immortality, when poor cannot, then should there be a similar argument about entire societies? Do rich societies which can last longer have a moral obligation to those which are poor and therefore cannot last long?

Rich vs Poor Do long-living societies have a moral duty to contribute to the survival of poorer ones KNOWING THAT, if these poor societies survive long, then the rich societies will also survive? As societies become more complex, so do humans need to adapt and accept this complexity. This can be achieved by living longer. One agent reciprocally determines the other, so both must have equal rights.

Second Life SL is a society: a group of people sharing a (virtual) territory and have similar cultural expectations. SL helps promote survival of humans, by informing and teaching. It facilitates input of meaningful information into humanity. Should SL have special rights?

The Planet

The Global Brain What is it? Why it is relevant to Longevity Does it have the right to live in a pollution free environment? Does it have the right to progress and evolve?

Global Super-organism What is it? Example: The Global brain attached to 3-D printing = ability to move and influence its surroundings, a new GSO. Should this have rights, and what should these be? (freedom of ‘speech’, right to life, freedom of ‘thought’, even reproductive rights?) Does the planet have the right to live in a pollution free environment?

Higher Agents If these agents promote individual human benefits, and if without them humans cannot achieve extreme lifespans, then shouldn’t these agents be entitled to certain rights? The right to live, and the right to live healthy and indefinitely The right not to suffer from disease (social disease such as crime, poverty, unemployment) The right to expand and improve Not to suffer from any ‘disability’ (limitations of service) Here I give human attributes to inanimate agents but if this concept helps human longevity, then it does become an essential issue to address.

Co-operation, not Opposition New evolutionary understanding: Seek ‘win-win’ situations Avoid ‘win-lose’ ones

Genes and Memes If genes have a moral right to life and bad ones must be eliminated, then is it the same with memes? And with noemes?? The noeme is the abstract representation of the sum of one’s neuro-digital presence in the world

SUMMARY The rights of everything Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Does it mean that an agent should inherently be entitled to certain rights, just because it supports human life? Society, Planet, even the Universe!

Thank you Marios Kyriazis