Given my bias towards the idea that technological evolution in its broadest sense (machines and modes of thinking) is the central driving force of contemporary human societies, I am currently working on an extensive study titled “The Challenge of Dogmas and the Future of Development.” I am particularly burdened by the tendency of prominent scholars to delve into “religious and ideological dogmas and the vast implications of cognitive systems” and strive to challenge the essence of these aspects. Despite the overwhelming and increasing number of scholars in this field, the concept of overcoming death or—at the very least—extending lifespans to hundreds or thousands of years, which the world treats as one of its dogmas, has led me to ask myself: What drives scientists to pursue this direction? I found answers among them in several reasons:
- When completing such research, the outcomes will either be successful, leading to a complete human revolution and a tremendous transformation, or we will come to a failed conclusion. In the latter case, we will uncover hundreds of findings throughout the theoretical exploration in studies and references on one hand, and practical research in scientific laboratories on the other hand. In both cases, evolution occurs.
- One of these scientists (and I will refer to some of them in this article) argues that some different religious texts speak of individuals living for hundreds of years. How did this happen? Why? If we discover the validity of these traditional narratives, our certainty in the heritage and the precedents for what we strive to achieve increases. If it turns out that the concept of lifespan is linked to a specific measure like the year, then anyone who lived before the use of the year (the principles of which were established by the Egyptians over four thousand years ago) raises questions about what preceded this usage and how it was applied to later stages of measuring lifespans.
- These studies discuss the individual’s inclination towards immortality. The afterlife is a hypothesis that means you will never truly die (either in heaven forever or eternally damned in hell), while reincarnation as another theory distinguishes between the death of the spirit and the death of the physical body, with the transition occurring in one dimension, namely the spirit. Some modern scientific theories explain this as a “psychological trick” stemming from an inner human refusal of death; it represents a struggle between “Eros” and “Thanatos” in Freud’s theory. Contemporary research will contribute to favoring one theory over another or impose a new understanding of certain texts.
Examples of Future Studies in This Field:
Despite my limited expertise in this biological field, I have sought to understand the most prominent ideas and scholars in this area:
- Leading this trend is American scientist Ray Kurzweil, particularly in his book The Singularity Is Nearer, which is a revised edition of his earlier book, The Singularity Is Near. Kurzweil believes that three sciences establish the foundation for achieving individual eternity (i.e., overcoming death): genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. He believes that machines and humans are on their way to becoming one entity—a process that will happen gradually but exponentially, fueled by self-accelerating returns. Each result in the three mentioned fields will feed into the other two, and importantly, this feeding among the trio will accelerate, making the outcome “closer” than Kurzweil himself initially thought. As the journey toward singularity unfolds, Kurzweil predicts that “human life will irreversibly transform, and humans will transcend the ‘limitations of our biological bodies and brains.'” He looks beyond singularity to assert that “the intelligence that will emerge will continue to represent human civilization.” Moreover, he feels that “future machines will resemble humans, even if they are not biological,” suggesting that by 2045 we may stand at the threshold of this reality.
- British scientist Aubrey de Grey supports this orientation and uses a compound term, Methuselarity, derived from singularity as indicated by Kurzweil, and from Methuselah, who is mentioned in the biblical Book of Genesis as having lived for 969 years and died a week before the Flood. In his book Ending Aging, de Grey insists that humanity is heading towards a future point in time when, presumably, people will no longer die from age-related causes. He believes that reaching a lifespan of a thousand years is within reach. De Grey argues that automation (i.e., the gradual replacement of humans by machines) will lead to a revolution in certain economic concepts, such as wages, which will result in new cognitive systems if automation coincides with the end of aging.
- Within this context is Japanese Nobel Prize winner Shinya Yamanaka, who emphasizes the possibility of “rejuvenating” stem cells, alongside British scientist David Sinclair, who is even more confident than others. Sinclair believes that a range of diseases—including chronic conditions like heart disease and even neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s—can largely be treated by reversing the aging process that leads to them. Even before this happens, he sees this process as a crucial new tool for researchers studying these diseases. In most cases, scientists rely on small animals or tissues to model aging diseases, which do not accurately replicate the conditions of aging. However, they have applied certain experiments to some types of worms and succeeded in extending their average lifespan by 40%.
The above raises questions about the relationship between evolution and the transformation of the dogmas of cognitive systems. If one succeeds in challenging these dogmas, it propels development (for who could have imagined the possibility of eliminating time and distance…now you can Zoom into a seminar three thousand kilometers away, and the audience sees and hears you as if you are in the same room… Moreover, those who have lived this experience often forget that they are not physically present with the attendees). Conversely, if one fails, how many findings were discovered during this journey of failure? The number may even exceed that of successful outcomes.
However, the other side lies in the implications of success or failure. Imagine, for a moment, if electricity were to stop, or the internet were to fail, or land, sea, and air transport were to be canceled, etc. Most political, economic, and social systems would be disrupted. This means that the future will favor those who work to summon it and prepare for it before it arrives. The future is an inevitable guest; to receive it well, you must fulfill your duties of hospitality… this poses a new challenge to your dogmas… perhaps.
