Here’s a piece from yesterday’s Mercury News. He’s not a pure investor. It’s part philanthropy:
I think the probability of humanity living longer is greater if we’re a multi-planet species. I think that’s fairly obvious. But I’m also quite optimistic about Earth. I don’t think Earth is in any danger of imminent demise. I think we will solve the problems that we have before us, and that humanity will probably live for a very long time.
But there’s always a chance that it could end. That’s why people buy life insurance. They don’t expect to drop dead tomorrow. Or car insurance. You don’t expect to T-bone your car into a semi. But you might. That’s why I’m a big believer in space exploration.
For me, space exploration is actually more interesting for positive reasons. I think humanity will be far more interesting and richer and diverse and just the future will be much more exciting and interesting if we are a space-faring civilization that is expanding among the stars than if we’re forever on Earth.
That’s the attitude I’d have if I had his kind of money.
I’m not an early adaptor, and unlike the younger generation, I don’t live with my cell phone–it’s not an intimate and essential part of my life. I often forget to take it when I leave the house. Of course, this may be less a generational thing than the fact that I work mostly from home. When I’m traveling, I’m much more careful to keep it handy. But I wonder how many of these new developments won’t be picked up by older generations unused to them?
It’s also going to be a strange world, when most people are walking around seemingly talking to themselves like schizophrenics. We can still tell today because of the earpieces, but once they get smaller, or embedded in the body, it’s going to be a lot harder for shrinks to tell the difference between people with imaginary voices in their head, and real ones.
[Update late morning]
I’m guessing from comments that my humor was a little too subtle today.
I haven’t bothered to download IE7, because I use Firefox 2.0 for the vast majority of my web browsing, and find IE6 acceptable for the rare occasions when a web site insists that I use Internet Explorer. Based on this article, it sounds like that was a good (non)move.
The scientific community is starting to believe in life extension. There’s still a lot of resistance, though, as the discussion about grant titling indicates. There’s an old saying (generated, I believe, in the wake of Kuhn’s Structure Of Scientific Revolutions) that “science advances, funeral by funeral.” Ironically, it may ultimately require the deaths of a generation of researchers to achieve indefinite lifespan.
This isn’t particularly profound, but it’s interesting to see a growing awareness of transhumanism and its implications among the non-technical commentariat. Mona Charen on life extension:
Let’s stipulate that for those wealthy enough to take advantage of it (i.e., most Americans), science will make it possible for people
I’ve often thought that it is a massive economic waste. I also think that there are things that could be done about it that would be relatively low cost, and don’t involved construction of new highways or relaning the roads. As I’ve noted before, if I were king, I’d launch a massive public education campaign on lane discipline, and enforce it with tickets. I’d be harder on left lane hogs than on speeders.
) that “science advances, funeral by funeral.” Ironically, it may ultimately require the deaths of a generation of researchers to achieve indefinite lifespan.