Highlights

  • A population explosion from lifespan extension could strain global resources like water and energy.
  • Social challenges include distributing age-reversing technology and managing extended use of Social Security and Medicare.
  • Moral dilemmas arise on whether humans should alter the natural life cycle.

Dr. Joel Geiderman, a professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Hospital and UCLA, believes we could run into all sorts of detrimental issues and controversies if we develop new technology in the future that dramatically extends human lifespan. Doing so may provide some sort of means to reverse aging, facilitating a global population boom arising from an extended average lifespan.

Medical Advancements Coming at a Rapid Pace

Along those lines, within the past few years, a new class of drugs called GLP-1 receptor agonists—so-called “weight-loss drugs”—have garnered widespread attention from the masses in developed countries worldwide. In that regard, their primary manufacturers, Eli Lilly and NovoNordisk, have not been able to keep pace with the demand for them.

With this new class of drugs, people who have experienced obesity or have even been mildly overweight suddenly have the option of restoring a more youthful physique, just by taking a pill. In fact, Senator Bernie Sanders, even said recently that the rising demand for these drugs could bankrupt the Medicare program in the coming years.

The thing is that if the afflictions associated with obesity, affecting more than two out of five adults, can be rectified so quickly with a medical advancement, it takes no great stretch to imagine a day when aging itself could be addressed with an intervention, according to Dr. Geiderman. In that sense, already, research tackling the primary hallmarks of aging abounds. For example, stem cell dysfunction, erosion of protective caps on the ends of chromosomes (telomeres), DNA damage, and inflammation are all under intensive investigation, and our knowledge of processes related to aging advances almost every day.

Dr. Joel Geiderman Believes We May One Day Solve Age Reversal Using AI

As a physician, Dr. Geiderman believes that we will soon discover a biological mechanism that triggers the onset of aging with enough research. As such, he thinks that we may be able to solve age reversal in the future by simply blocking a protein that turns on our aging clocks. Moreover, to block such a protein, he believes we may use enzymes or antibodies, either produced naturally in the body after some infection or in a laboratory.

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has also made large-scale computations using millions of data points and applying logical algorithms with mega computers possible. This, Dr. Geiderman believes, will inevitably speed up research efforts on age reversal. Moreover, AI-based computational technology could compress the work of thousands of scientists down from decades to a single day. Nowadays, whole departments and institutions around the world are investigating the potential of AI, and because of this, he believes that the day we can “cure” aging is perhaps not far off.

Prolonging Human Lifespan Could Lead to Global Shortages for Essential Resources

With that in mind, Dr. Joel Geiderman thinks that there are plenty of things that could go wrong following an aging “cure.” The first question he poses is whether our planet has the natural resources to support an ever-expanding population arising from dramatic lifespan extension. For starters, he thinks that solar and wind energy would not provide a sufficient power supply for such a population boom. As an alternative, he thinks we could start using nuclear energy, provided by nuclear power plants. Dr. Geiderman brings up a few complications arising from this plan, though, such as whether we could build enough power plants to keep up with demand and furthermore, who would pay for the construction of the new nuclear plants.

Another conundrum that Dr. Geiderman believes would pose problems is the question of how we would provide enough food and water to an expanding global population. He brings up the water wars that are already underway in the American West, driven by drought and overuse by an already expanding population. This example also helps to illustrate how fragile our food chain is since water shortages can lead to ceasing irrigation to grow crops.

Similar dilemmas, he thinks, would also arise for our infrastructure. In that sense, he thinks highways, airports, and housing could not keep pace with an ever-expanding population. In essence, he is skeptical that human ingenuity can keep up with demand, even for basic necessities.

Facing Tough Questions Such as How to Distribute Age-Reversing Technology to the Underprivileged

Reversing aging to extend human lifespans would also elicit numerous social dilemmas. For example, if people were to choose not to work beyond 40 years, it remains unclear how long individuals could rely on Social Security and Medicare benefits. These government-subsidized programs would clearly have some serious funding issues to deal with.

Other social questions that would arise are whether life sentences for certain crimes would still be reasonable if people, including those in prison, were living substantially longer. Also, Dr. Geiderman questions whether sociopathic murderers who never age would ever become less dangerous to society. Alternatively, perhaps incarcerated individuals would not receive lifespan-extending therapies. Figuring out who gets to use a future aging intervention technology and other social quandaries surrounding such an aging “cure” abound, and undoubtedly, so would opinions on the matter.

Then, there are social issues regarding political power. If a significant age-reversal technology were to be developed, whether lifetime terms for our Supreme Court Justices were still appropriate may need re-examination.

Last, and perhaps most importantly, if such a “cure” for aging was found, how to distribute it to populations worldwide may become a serious source of contention. As such, controversies would likely arise related to distributing the aging intervention technology to those who are less privileged.

Governmental Control of Births and Deaths for People Lived Longer with Limited Resources

According to Dr. Geiderman, moral issues would also need consideration. Along those lines, many think there is a divine plan that includes our stages of life and that we should not interfere with it. Moreover, even if our life cycles are the result of billions of years of biological evolution, some may believe that nature has a better handle regarding how long we should live than we do.

Nonetheless, if a lifespan-extending aging intervention were developed that led to a global population boom and if the world’s population could not be supported with the resources at our disposal, governments may need to start controlling births and deaths. This sort of dystopian idea would engender a scenario where world governments have the power to decide between life and death.

Whether Human Ingenuity Can Make Up for Our Faltering Global Resources

Essentially, if researchers develop a lifespan-extending aging intervention that precipitates a massive boom in the global population, the biggest question is whether human innovation can keep pace with growing demands. This would be important, especially if food, water, and energy supplies became depleted. We may never know for certain whether human ingenuity can keep up until such a scenario evolves on a worldwide scale. Clearly, Dr. Joel Geiderman believes that such a groundbreaking medical development could be detrimental to humans, causing resource-related as well as social and moral conundrums.

All the same, there are other experts in the aging field who disagree with Dr. Geiderman’s perspective, believing that no such controversies and dilemmas would come about with lifespan extension. An example comes from Karl Pfleger, a longevity investor and analyst from Stanford University, who believes that since birth rates are currently falling, we will not experience overpopulation from lifespan extension.

Perhaps the problems humanity may face with a population boom as proposed by Dr. Geiderman would come with varying degrees of severity. In that sense, Dr. Geiderman’s view is that humanity will experience more detrimental scenarios regarding resource shortages as well as social and moral dilemmas. On the other hand, Dr. Pfleger believes we can dismiss these potential problems coming to fruition at all. If a population expansion from enhanced longevity does happen in the future, the reality we experience may be somewhere in between these perspectives with these problems having, possibly, lower degrees of severity than Dr. Geiderman proposes.

In a story published in Fortune, Dr. Geiderman shares a quote from J. Robert Oppenheimer, the so-called father of the atomic bomb, that falls in line with his perspective and which he believes is pertinent to the idea of reversing aging:

“The deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it is possible to find them.”