*Stares Off at Horizon*
"LITTLE GIRL WAIT BOAT WITH SCARLET SAIL." IMAGE: ANATOLY TIPLYASHIN

FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Tech

*Stares Off at Horizon*

When we think of the future, with all advances that entails, we're really only wondering about one thing: Where are we going?

The week is wrapping up here, which seems as good a time as any to think about everything we've done. Not in a "look at what you've done!" way, like you'd say to a dog for doing something bad—well, maybe you deserve this, but that's your own call—but as a way of reflecting on the steps that have gotten us to where we are, and where that trajectory is taking us in the future.

We spend a lot of our time here at Motherboard thinking about the future, and sure, space asparagus and mind-reading helmets are all a part of that. But they're only pieces of a larger question that's far more personal. When we think of the future, with all advances that entails, we're really only wondering about one thing: Where are we going?

Advertisement

"ELDERLY MAN SITTING IN THE GARDEN AT A WOODEN TABLE THINKING AND STARING INTO THE DISTANCES AS HE REMINISCES FOND MEMORIES, WITH COPYSPACE." IMAGE: SERGIGN

It's a question easily asked in the broad term, where "we" is humanity at large. It's a pick-your-future scenario: Is the rise of big data sending us on the path to the Jetsons or Blade Runner? But there's a far more personal element, one we don't often acknowledge.

You see, the part about the future none of us care to admit is the simple fact that we have to get older in order to arrive there. It's one thing to think of all the milestones planned for 2050 (which is in and of itself an arbitrary target simply because humans like multiples of 10).

Yet even as I look forward to soccer-playing robots, I also must accept that bringing them forth also means bringing about my own old age. That's the ignored cost of the future: It will be brought about with our own brains, sweat, and blood, but also with our own limited time.

"MAN ON CARIBBEAN BEACH LOOKING AT AIRCRAFT RISING UP IN THE AIR OVER A BLUE OCEAN." IMAGE: PATRICIA HOFMEESTER

It's fair to wonder if we're all going to be left behind. That's one of the reasons projects like Dmitry Itskov's 2045 initiative, in which he hopes to develop a machine-based analog of immortality, are so enticing. So many of our hopes for the future are rooted in our need to arrive there in the first place.

Advertisement

There's a self-delusion inherent to futurist thought, which perhaps isn't that delusional at all. It's the idea that just as our gadgets continually improve, so will our ability to stay alive. There's no doubt that cultural innovations have had a major impact on our longevity, but how sustainable is that?

"YOUNG WOMAN STARING INTO THE DISTANCE." IMAGE: CONRADO

From a transhumanist point of view, there are two intertwining paths we can take. One is that represented by Itskov and Kevin Warwick, in which the human essence—our mind—could potentially be digitized and transported into a fresh shell, bringing forth an era of technological immortality.

Others, like Aubrey de Grey, are working from the biological angle, and hope to kill death from a cellular level. In the middle are techno-medical advances with huge promise, like that of intracellular nanomotors or 3D-printed organs, which could bring forth a revolution in precise medicine. It also brings forth the question of whether or not we need to draw a line for how organic humans need to be.

"AMUR TIGER LOOKING INTO THE DISTANCE CLOSEUP." IMAGE: DMITRI GOMON

We might not even have the choice. As Warwick told me a few years ago—something that's stuck with me—the people who don't want to augment themselves, like the Terrans described by Hugo de Garis, will likely exist, but not for long.

"I can't see them competing for five minutes without the technology," he said. "There may well be Terrans but I don't think that they'll last very long. I think that they would be very quickly burned out or left behind, simply like that. Yeah, there will probably be a few people who grumble about it."

Advertisement

And that leaves us stuck in a rather curious little cage: In order to survive into the future we dream of developing, we have to dedicate part of that developing to improving ourselves. And if we don't? We simply won't make it.

"POINTING DOG SITS AND STARES INTO THE DISTANCE." IMAGE: DIMEDROL68

So are we our own masters, or, by seeking for the future, are we also searching for one? It's an interesting question, but only because of the way we've framed the ethics of death. I really like something that Gennady Stolyarov, a transhumanist who wrote a children's book about death, told Fast Company.

"Ultimately, there is an evolutionary dynamic in there," Stolyarov said. "The people who choose not to terminate their own lives … are the ones who are going to determine the course of our culture, our philosophy, everyone else's attitudes."

In other words, only the people who not only accept that death sucks, but act on it, are going to be the ones making the rules down the line.

"PENSIVE ELDERLY AMPUTEE SITTING ALONE ON A RURAL PATHWAY IN HIS WHEELCHAIR WITH HIS CHIN RESTING ON HIS HAND STARING INTO THE DISTANCE." IMAGE: VIACHESLAV NIKOLAENKO

If true, it represents a fundamental shift in power dynamics in human culture. None of us really likesthinking about our own mortality and the beautiful, fragile bodies we call home, but it's a necessary evil.

Currently, the type of disruptive/capitalistic thinking that we expect to produce innovation is largely focused on the physical angle to our own fragility. Exoskeletons are an obvious health boon, and positively incredible to boot.

Advertisement

But that's only one part of the longevity equation, and others—antibiotics being one glaring example—have fallen by the wayside. Others, like the aforementioned brain hacking and digitization, is something we haven't even begun to address as a society, largely because the most broadly-accepted ethical mores around life, death, and humanness have not yet brought those potential developments into the fold.

"MACHO LITTLE BOY WEARING CAMOUFLAGE PLAYING WITH AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON STANDING A A GRASSY RURAL FIELD SHADING HIS HANDS WITH HIS EYES AS HE STARES INTO THE DISTANCE." IMAGE: VIACHESLAV NIKOLAENKO

That's left a power vacuum for first-movers in the anti-aging race. So in order to get the future, we have to live long enough to get there. While we intrinsically know this, it's not something that we tend to think about much, and that inability to accept our role in shaping a future we might not ever see is something we humans are positively terrible at.

The ramifications of the future being separated from us by time and our own dislike of acknowledging death is played out in every major decision we make—or don't, in the case of our continual passing the buck on climate change, which is in part because we don't see immediate change.

But think about the flipside: those taking the long view. By accepting that walking into the future means walking down each of our own lifelines, one can focus on the opportunities along the way. It's hard for many to think about, but not all. Silicon Valley's giants understand the potential in fighting off death, and are investing heavily into the longevity market. And therein lies the rub: Moving first means you get to monetize immortality.

Advertisement

"AMERICAN BLACK BEAR BOAR SITTING UP. SUMMER IN NORTHERN MINNESOTA." IMAGE: CRITTERBIZ

Heady thoughts for a Friday, and enough to make you want to go pick up a sixer, take it to the river, and just kick back. And you should! We run the opposite risk as well: Focusing so much on the future that we forget the now defeats the whole point of living, which is the end goal anyway.

"ELDERLY MAN LOOKING INTO THE DISTANCE ALONG THE ROAD." IMAGE: RASICA

Still, as we all wander off into the night, we'd do well to think about what it's going to take to arrive at whatever destination we dream of. For now, time is linear, and we've not yet found a way to break our timelines from the rest of the world's, cryogenics be damned. Someone's going to change that fact, and it'd be good for all of us to accept and address it early.

If not, well, I don't know what might happen. We could all end up robots; we could all end up dead. In any case, I just know that I'm going to be bummed if 2050 brings space hoverboards and I'm kept from suborbital shredding by my ancient, organic knees.