National Geographic interviews Joel Garreau on his new book, Radical Evolution:

That's one of the critical aspects of Radical Evolution: We're talking about the next 10 or 20 years. We're not talking about some far side of the moon. This is going to happen on our watch.

What Garreau calls "cussedness" in the article, I'd rather call 'human ingenuity'. Though it's nice to see NatGeo paying attention to this: most of the time it's like we're pondering the coming of an Enlightenment - and interpreting that as the moderate version - without realizing the radicals came first...

It's nice to see someone writing on this who is neither a utopian nor a dystopian.

I skimmed through this book and I think all three of his scenarios are wrong. All three scenarios are based on the notion that everyone will make the same choice with regards to these technologies. This is what makes his "middle-path' scenario especially unbelievable. Why the assumption that everyone will make the same choice? Some people want to live forever young, others are content to live the conventional life-cycle based life. Still others will make other choices.

On this basis, I think the future will be some combination of all three scenarios and then some. One thing is obvious though. Living the conventional life-cycle will become optional in the next 20 years.

We can't cure cancer, cerebral paulsy or even the common cold; we haven't even extended maximum human life a minute, let alone a year, and somehow we are on the verge of extending human life forever? What utter nonsense.

There's already a drug on the market, picovir, which is effective against picornaviruses, a class which includes the rhinoviruses that cause 30% of common colds. However, last I heard, the FDA had declined to approve it for treatment of colds because the benefits would be so modest and they aren't convinced they outweigh the risks of possible side effects.

The drug is approved for use against rarer, more serious viral infections (myocarditis, some kinds of encephalitis, polio, etc.)

We can't cure cancer, cerebral paulsy or even the common cold; we haven't even extended maximum human life a minute, let alone a year, and somehow we are on the verge of extending human life forever? What utter nonsense.

Actually we probably have extended the "maximum" lifespan by several years, there are more people in the top age brackets than there used to be. Certainly we've extended, through a combination of public health infrastructure and medical care, the average lifespan which is a more relevant statistic and is solidly documented.

Further, we do routinely cure cancer, just not all cases of it. While I don't see a lot of hope right now in curing cerebral palsy once it has occured (since it appears to be several broad categories of brain damage that impair motor function starting before birth or in infants), we are working on ways to repair brain damage.

Finally, there are a host of anti-viral drugs out there now. I would guess that some of them probably would have an effect on the common cold, but there's no point in bothering since the disease is so mild and cures itself on its own.

"Actually we probably have extended the "maximum" lifespan by several years, there are more people in the top age brackets than there used to be."

Improved infant mortality and not competing with wolves for dinner accounts for more people living to old age. This has done nothing to extend the max lifespan. I don't see too many people making it past 120, although more are living to the century mark.

If we wanted to extend average human lifespan, there's little we could do that would beat controlling malaria. Fortunately, there are many possibilities there, so if (big if) the countries where malaria is significant can get their acts together, it can be done.

I read somewhere that it's been estimated that half of all human deaths that have ever occured (since some point defined to be the beginning of the species) have been due to malaria. Most of these are infant deaths.