While completing stage 3 undergraduate biochemistry at Waikato University in 1974 it
became obvious to me that the default mode of life is immortality.
What do I mean by that?
All living forms on this planet are part of a continuum of life that has existed for
billions of years.
Most of those life forms do not "age", as we humans age.
Most of them just divide into two when they get enough food to get big enough.
Some of them survive, some die due to some external cause, but not internal "aging".
We, and most other large animals, are different.
We "age". Our bodies change, and only our "germ line" (our eggs and sperm) carry on to create a new generation.
This is unusual. All of our cells have the genetic programming to go on living forever
(as demonstrated by our germ line),
but for a variety of reasons it is masked in most cells in our body.
[What those reasons are is another fascinating inquiry, but not for this website.]
That being the case, when we understand our genetic programming, it must be possible to
extend human lifespans indefinitely. [As a result of the success of the human genome project
we are now very close to understanding how to do it.]
Once I believed that "in my bones", I left the question of how to do it to others, and jumped straight to the next question:
If it is possible to remove the genetic risks to long life, then what other threats are there to living a long time (thousands of years)?
It turns out to be a long list of risks, which is detailed elsewhere.
But before getting to the list, it was important to form the next question first.
What technical, social, and political systems need to be in place to stabilise a society where the average age of individuals is over 1,000 years?
These solutions will have to work in relation to every sort of threat posed to human survival.
One of the things that rapidly fell out of these considerations was that whatever systems we adopt, they had to work for every individual, however rich or poor.
Nothing other than total universality had any chance of achieving long term stability with security - the mathematics leave no doubt of that.
Every person, no matter how rich or powerful, has to be better off as a result of adopting the solution - (whatever that solution would be) - or it will not be adopted.
For over thirty years I have been in this inquiry.
I have taken the inquiry, and the evolving solution set, to many different groups. I have received assistance from many people, most notably Roy Edmundson.
The imperative for action is now critical.
It is now a simple matter of survival for many of us.