Here’s the abstract:

Imagine yourself building a house out of Lego; do you use only one colour? Or do you make your house out of whatever colour brick you happen to grab? Do you cringe at the sight of toy store displays stocked with movie-franchise-tie-in Lego sets? (And why are the pieces so big these days?). Do you have an unusual fear of vacuum cleaners? Do you remember Blacktron vs. the Space Police? Perhaps the Black Knights castle sets were more of your thing. If you’ve answered passionately to any of these questions, you will undoubtedly enjoy a discussion of Lego nostalgia, history, and philosophy, as well as a showcase of constructions by contemporary Lego hobbyists and artists.

• Queen’s School of Computing was visited by Eli Blevis in late October, an associate professor from the School of Informatics, Indiana University at Bloomington. Blevis is best known for his research in the field of sustainable interaction design, an area which draws from computing, cognitive science, and design criticism. I really enjoyed hearing about his research inspirations, as well as the multidisciplinary nature of his research. His talk raised some good questions as well: Are interaction designers to blame for the technological waste generated by our society? How can interaction design bridge technological divides in our world?
• The man behind the Copyright for Canadians campaign, Michael Geist, a law professor from the University of Ottawa, spoke last month of the ongoing copyright debacle in this country. He documents his own stance on this and other technology-related issues, as well as the may grassroots efforts in this country to ensure we don’t become a digital ghetto (a recent CBC Search Engine topic).
• Aging scientist Aubrey de Grey spoke at the first Changing the World conference in Toronto last month. He identifies several forms of cellular damage contributing to aging, and the prospect of repairing this damage as it occurs (as opposed to preventative or curative measures). With this approach, he hopes to be able to expend the human lifespan to an average of 150 years within 30 years time. Combining this estimate with the law of accelerating returns, he proposes an indefinite human lifespan will be attainable not much longer after that.
• Another Changing the World conference speaker which I enjoyed hearing from was Eric Chivian, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work on stopping nuclear war. Chivian’s current work involves environmental protection and the effect of biodiversity on human health. For instance, bears den for months but don’t develop osteoporosis or kidney problems. He also describes the medical applications of substances excreted by rare frogs. His talk was very enlightening, emphasizing the need to ensure the survival of such species are of great importance to our health.

A few years from now, it becomes increasingly apparent that those born after, say 1980, have ceased to exhibit any signs of biological aging. With that, anyone who falls under this demographic are no longer susceptible to any form of age-related illness or condition, both physically and mentally. Everyone’s biological age caps off at around 35; their chronological age increases, but their bodies stay relatively in the same condition, and their minds stay similarly as sharp.

This is starting to sound like the opposite scenario as to the situation posed in the novel (and recent film) Children of Men by P.D James. In the film, which is also set in the near future, all the women of child-bearing-ages inexplicably lose their fertility, resulting in mass hysteria, radical social and govermental upheavals, and an aging populace with no younger generations to replace them: in other words, humanity collectively dying of old age, and losing its mind along the way.

Let me expand upon my scenario a bit more. (I think we’ll begin to see more and more similarities to Children of Men as we develop this idea, at least in terms of how society and humanity react to this phenomenon). So everyone on the planet born after 1980 seems to cease aging at ~35 biological years. No scientific endeavor can explain it. Children are born, they grow, reach adulthood, and stay put in their mid-thirties; no grey hairs, no senility, no loss of sensual acuity. In addition, let’s assume that the entire world is affected, not just those in countries blessed with good nutrition and comfortable climates. Sure, people will still die of malnutrition, plague, armed conflicts, and environmental catastrophes – but no one is dying of old age. Theories aimed at explaining this global condition revolve around dietary or environmental changes occurring around the year 1980, which had gone unnoticed at the time, and thus affecting only newborns born from that year onwards. However, just like in the case where the whole world suddenly becomes infertile, no one can convincingly explain why anyone under 35 is poised to live indefinitely.

Today many futurists envision a near future in which radical life extension is possible, and eventually readily available. Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, for one, has gone to great lengths to ensure his own longevity: with meticulous medical and dietary regiments, he has apparently stalled his biological again process for the last several years. He promises to do this until new innovations in biological, nanotech, and robotic research can provide even longer life extensions. Similarly, in the field of biomedical gerontology, researchers such as Aubrey de Grey is exploring the idea of regenerative tissue, to eliminate all forms of age-related tissue-damage, thus providing indefinite lifespans.

Such therapies will undoubtedly be costly at first, and available only to the privileged classes, however it would only be a matter of time before the entire planet could enjoy such longevity. What I’m curious about is this: what then? What happens when the entire world has the ability to live as long as they want – to stay effectively the same biological age. I suppose this is more a general case of my thought experiment – that in which everyone (inexplicably) loses any signs of tissue decay.

In my thought experiment, the older generations eventually die off, leaving a world of thirty-somethings (and younger) behind. Males stay reproductively viable, while obviously females still have a set number of ova (however menopause would  have no age-related effects – simply a halt in the menstrual cycle). Despite this – would humans still seek out sex? One could argue that all sexual intercourse, even sex sought out solely for pleasure, and not reproduction, is driven by an underlying instinct to ensure our genetic survival. In the case of ensured genetic survival through indefinite lifespans, would we lose this instinct altogether and stop having sex? In this sense, immortality may be its own form of population control: there’s no need to worry about the world getting too crowded: while nobody is dying, nobody new is showing up either.

If I’m wrong – then we may start seeing another form of catastrophe. Remember those social and governmental upheavals? The mass hysteria? Someone’s going to need to control a population that won’t die off, with new generations adding to the pile. One would hope that with age comes wisdom, and that an aged society may formulate a wizened and ethical form of population control. Otherwise, the world could spiral into a system of harsh anti-reproduction policies, such as those used today in China.

I’m suggesting here that the purpose of life is to create new life. If there is no need (or ability) to create new life, life loses its purpose. Hence, an existential catastrophe among the immortals.

Footnote: I imagine that I am neglecting a whole spectrum of social, cultural, and religious reactions to the thought experiment – so I ask you, dear reader, to fill in the blanks.

toothpastefordinner.com

Link to Steampunk Magazine.

Link to Steampunk Anthology collection.

So why do I hate on cell phones? I’m not a recluse nor a non-person for having this position, which is often the response I get from people when I inform them that I don’t have a cell (and that they would feel naked should they not have their phone on their person at all hours). And no, I’m not worried about poisoning myself with radiation or giving myself a brain tumor either.

While perusing University of Ottawa Law professor Michael Geist‘s blog today, I came across some interesting factoids that make my position somewhat more justifiable. In his recent article entitled “iPhone Arrival Places Spotlight on Canada’s Wireless Crisis“, Geist points out just how comparatively weak Canada’s mobile infrastructure is. It is an illuminating piece, so I thought I’d share some take-away points:

• Mobile data pricing in Canada is among the highest in the world, creating a significant barrier to the introduction of new mobile services and causing many consumers to carefully ration their mobile use for fear of being hit with a hefty bill at the end of the month;
• Canada ranked 75th [worldwide] in the number of mobile subscribers, trailing countries such as El Salvador, Kazahkstan, and Libya.  It also lagged behind countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, Italy, Sweden, and Norway on mobile pricing.
• Canadian data prices are far above the U.S. offer of unlimited data for US$20 per month;
• Last month, the World Economic Forum pointed to problems in the wireless market as a key reason for Canada’s slipping global ranking for “network readiness”;
• The year-long delay of the iPhone – Apple first launched the device last June in the United States followed by France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland, and Austria – provided tangible evidence that the Canadian market desperately needs an injection of competition (as the sole GSM provider, Rogers was the only carrier capable of supporting the iPhone)

Despite these grim stats, it seems that there may be some good news on the way: An upcoming spectrum auction in Canada may allow for more healthy competition in the Canadian market. Geist has some additional comments and recommendations in this regard for Industry Canada that are well worth reading.

So what am I waiting for? More choice among providers and cheaper data plans would certainly be a start. Until then I will happily rely on email, IM, and land-line phones as primary means of communication. It sure beats missing all that fine print and ending up with a surprise $1000 bill at the end of the month for not clearly understanding your data plan, especially when the cost of sending a simple SMS is about 4.4 times as expensive as sending the equivalent amount of data from the Hubble space telescope.