If stem cell research eventually results in a way to radically extend the length of human life, how would our soicety change? Let's assume that it's cheap enough for everyone to afford (although you may argue that some group of elites would try to restrict access). Perhaps a constant supply of the drug is needed to stay young forever, or perhaps it's a one-shot deal. Either way, people just plain stop dying from natural causes -- but bullets and car crashes can still be lethal, of course.
So how would society change? I'll toss out a few ideas without a lot of justification (some seem obvious to me, others are mere speculation).
1. Political jobs would all be term-limited.
2. Income tax would be eliminated in favor of a wealth tax.
3. People would either stop driving, or would drive tank-like vehicles (which would be financed on 100-year terms).
4. The price of real estate would increase, at least until the supply expanded through space exploration.
5. Medical doctors would be almost entirely replaced by biologists and gene therapists.
6. Denists would need to find a way to make our teeth last longer... unless the stem cells let us grow new teeth. Maybe we'd all get artificial teeth implanted into our jaws.
7. Depending on how the stem cells worked, fertile women might become scarce. Unless the stem cells would differentiate into egg cells women would still lose their fertility in just a few decades (by running out of eggs), while men would stay fertile their whole lives. This could lead to the rich and powerful men using their influence/power to attract all the women young enough to bear children. Some women already sell their eggs and even carry babies for other people, and that would probably become more widespread.
8. Interest rates would change. Would they move up or down? I think down, because people would be willing to settle for lower returns on their money since they'd have much more time to accumulate wealth.
9. Following #8, all financial business would become more risk adverse.
10. Space exploration would be done almost entirely by robots, until space travel was nearly 100% safe.
11. Of course, people would need to leave their houses less in general, since most people would working from home (or wherever they want to be).
12. Suicide would become the number 1 cause of death.
13. We'll discover a whole host of new medical problems that can't be solved by stem cells.
14. Likewise, we'll discover a bunch of new mental diseases.
15. The vast majority of people would never be able to retire.
16. What about marriage and divorce? Would everyone eventually end up divorced at some point? Would anyone get married anymore? This may depend on #7.
17. Prison sentences would get longer.
18. Depending on #7 again, the population might increase much more quickly than current rates. People might be expected to sterilize themselves, and there may even be laws put into effect for population control purposes, depending on #4.
19. What if stem cells in the brain cause humans to revert back to their pre-adolescent mental abilities -- without concrete reasoning?
20. People would change their hobbies around, resulting in scads of awful poetry and artwork.
Michael wrote:
7. Depending on how the stem cells worked, women might become scarce.
What do stem cells have to do with the scarcity of women?
Do women seem to be scarce where you are now?
Unless the stem cells would differentiate into egg cells women would still lose their fertility in just a few decades (by running out of eggs), while men would stay fertile their whole lives.
Stem cells won't differentiate into egg cells. I don't see the point of thinking they need to. As for men remaining fertile and women experiencing menopause, how is that going to have an effect?
This could lead to the rich and powerful men using their influence/power to attract all the women young enough to bear children.
It is doubful that they would be able to coerce any more women than they already do.
Some women already sell their eggs and even carry babies for other people, and that would probably become more widespread.
And your point is?
Here is my real question: How does reasearch that extends health which, in turn, extends life have any effect on numbers of women as a percent of the population? Are we only going to allow men to obtain this treatment? Or, are you saying that we would enact laws like those in China which restrict couples to one child, thereby causing a population skew based on selection of the sex of the children which are allowed to come to term? Because if you are I would think that you would have to think again because the people of this country will not stand for it.
S3: With regards to #7, fertile women would become scarce relative to fertile males.
Why?
Sorry, I guess I mean what's your point? We already have that since women experience menopause in mid-life, about half of a couple's life is spent with the male fertile and his wife infertile. I would think that our procreative efforts may have been completed by then. Of course Paul McCartney(61) and wife(34) just had a new baby. Are you saying that that would become more common if we somehow radically extended life?
8. Interest rates would change. Would they move up or down? I think down, because people would be willing to settle for lower returns on their money since they'd have much more time to accumulate wealth.
9. Following #8, all financial business would become more risk adverse.
I don't see the market changing all that much. Financial institutions most likely wouldn't change much, but individuals might become more likely to take risks since they would have longer to make up any losses they might incur. This is typical now. Younger people are more likely to take risks, financial and otherwise, than older people. The behavior pattern would just become truncated to fit the new lifespan.
Yeah, that's something I was thinking about this afternoon. 20-somethings have no concept of mortality, so maybe everyone would start acting more like people in their 20s. Then again, people would still probably accumulate wisdom over time, which might make them more risk-adverse anyway.
You have some very kewl story ideas here . . .
While people may get more risk-averse, the risks associated with most activities goes down.
First of all, 20 year olds can survive traumas better than older people, and if everyone is biologically 20, then overall survival rates for every sort of trauma go up.
Second, any society with enough medical research to come up with an anti-aging treatment will also develop improved emergency treatment, further boosting survival rates and decreasing the danger associated with everyday activities. This is already happening to some degree - part of the decrease in murder rates is a reflection of improved emergency treatment of gunshot wounds.
Development should continue until an accident victim can have a device that pumps fresh blood directly into his brain until a whole new body (sans brain, of course!) can be grown for him and his brain transplanted into it. Given that and a good way to protect the brain itself (skull reinforcements, anyone?), death by accident will practically disappear, all sorts of dangerous stunts will get more popular, and people might even start going for battle reenactments with real, loaded weapons.
If everyone has the vitality of 20 year olds, expect blistering economic growth and technological advancement - older, wiser, and more experienced people will have plenty of energy to work longer and harder, leveraging their skills and experience without being limited by declining stamina. And, of course, none of our output will go to supporting retirees. (Assuming, of course, that we're not crazy enough to keep Social Security after every last possible justification for it has ended - a big assumption, admittedly).
They're already working on growing teeth.
Ken: Good points, you're probably right about a lot of it. Of course, in a lot of ways our minds are intimately tied to the rest of our bodies, and it's hard to say for sure that we'd be the "same" if our brains were moved.
Claire: My thoughts exactly.
There would be severe changes in the life insurance business. Consider annuities.
By the way, stem cells are only one avenue -- nanobots & gene therapy (e.g. a telomere hack) are two others. I'm not sure if computer uploads count.
I know people are working on getting a third set of teeth to grow via genetic hacks.
Old people would REALLY have all the power. Assuming everyone else doesn't gang up on them.
I disagree about #10 -- long-lived people would be more able (and depending on population and political events, more willing) to take sublight voyages.
Back to that sex thing...
Pick up a copy of The White Plague. One of Frank Herberts best. It'll give you the heebie jeebies.
What does it have to do with this discussion? Envision a ratio of 1000 fertile men to one ferile woman.
ferile woman? no. feral woman? no. fertile woman. oh!
Kevin re: #10, sure people would take sublight trips, as soon as they were 100% safe. But again, this goes to the risk-adverse/-perverse question.
In Terry Pratchett's "Strata", the population has indefinite life spans; the young are extremely risk-adverse, while the older population (200+ years) goes adrenaline tripping for novelty - and eventually, the odds catch up with them.
With political and economic power being permanently concentrated in a gerontocracy, the younger generations would have quite an incentive to develop a frontier (i.e. space travel and colonization). Assassination could also become a recognized method of obtaining a promotion, unfortunately. Elizabeth Moon's Familias Regnant universe deals with the social and political effects of life extension.
I suspect that the human nervous system can't last indefinitely, and any wholsale replacement runs the (almost certain) chance of creating a flawed copy instead of extending the original.
Oh and RE: #20: there's already a lot of exceptionally bad poetry and writing around. I suspect that there would actually be a lot more good writing, as the ability to rewrite would increase.
At least, I fervently hope so!
Radically longer lifespans?
Upside: More time to blog.
Downside: Some people (and their blogs) would be around a lot longer.