You have the formula. Give it to me now.

Longevity has been one of the main goals of transhumanism. We all want to live long enough to see the Future. What if someone tells you that you can live longer without waiting for gene mods, nanobots, or symbiotes? Too easy, right? No, we don't need technology to live longer, better lives. It can be as easy as changing your diet, and we can do that right now.

I'm not trying to sell any diets; there's too much controversy on which one works, and which one is pseudoscientific bullshit. I don't even buy the natural, or traditional diet, the one that Michael Pollan pushes: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I know most of the processed foods have all kinds of icky preservatives in them, and I know soda will rot you from the inside. But why worship the traditional diet? Traditionally, the average life-span is shorter than it is today. Show me a culture that lives to 120 and I will eat whatever they are having.

Aside: lobsters show negligible senescence and can live to well over 100. Too bad for them they are so delicious. Too bad for us we don't get that longevity by eating them.

140 yr old lobster about to be interrogated on the secrets of its longevity.

The point remains: whether you are anti-fat, pro-carbs, or pro-starving-yourself, you can live better just by tweaking your lifestyle. A bit of exercise is good. Learn to cook, or dance, or play Guitar Hero. Be happy and free yourself from stress. Hang out with friends. Fall in love. It could work. Even if these things don't work, and they don't make you live any longer, well, at least you had fun living.

Merry Christmas. See you in the Future.

Would you ever choose to kill yourself?

Would you ever choose to kill yourself?

That was a loaded question. Most people would say "No, of course not. Life is too precious."

Would you choose to live forever?

Surprisingly, many people would say "No. Living forever would be boring and pointless." Or they may give another reason - people have come up with many ways of justifying their mortality.



Do those questions set up a false dichotomy? Right now, you don't have to kill yourself to find death - age and disease and accidents will take care of it eventually. But some day, science might provide us with solutions for each of those problems; there may be a cure for aging. Aubrey de Grey and other researchers are convinced that they will find a way.

When there exists a choice for immortality, isn't choosing the alternative equivalent to choosing death?

Think of it this way: Every year on your birthday, you receive a small package in the mail. You unwrap it, and inside is a red pill. There's a card there that explains what everybody already knows: If you take this pill, you will live another year, completely healthy and active and free of diseases, guaranteed. If you don't take the pill, you may die within the year.

One year, you feel depressed, or bored, or just sick of it all, and you decide to flush the pill down the toilet. At the end of the year, you're still alive and healthy. And the next year too. You get suspicious, and call the number on the back of the card.

It turns out that all those red pills are actually placebos. The only real pill was the first one you took on your 18th birthday - that one has already made you immortal.

After the call, you receive a package in the mail. It contains a blue pill; if you take the blue pill, you will die. Not immediately, but inevitably, you will die.

Would you take the blue pill?