The Abolition of Aging was pointed out to me a little while ago as a more populist companion to Ending Aging. It offers less of a detailed introduction to the relevant areas of rejuvenation biotechnology, and more of an argument for the manifest destiny of radical life extension, a goal for our species that in this age of biotechnology should be both inevitable and desirable. I'm all for more people putting forward strong moral arguments for the work needed to bring an end to aging. There is no such thing as too much advocacy for this cause; helping to alleviate the vast and ongoing suffering and death produced by degenerative aging is the greatest good that anyone can achieve, and yet so very many people remain to be persuaded.

We live in an era of sweeping change. Every day brings a fresh wave of news reports about apparent breakthroughs by scientists and engineers. As a futurist, when I talk to audiences about the implications of accelerating technology, I'm used to witnessing some powerful reactions. Our untutored gut reactions to hearing about an unexpected future scenario are liable to lead us astray - badly astray. The evaluative principles which served us well in the past may lose their applicability in the very different circumstances that could exist in the future. Therefore, let's try to calmly assess this possibility: practical therapies for the comprehensive reversal of biological aging may be just around the corner. It's my own carefully considered view that, within 25 years - that is, by around the year 2040 - science may have placed into our hands the means to radically extend human longevity. A suite of rejuvenation treatments, administered regularly, could periodically undo the accumulated damage of aging in both body and brain. As a result, life expectancy will shoot upwards. Not long afterward, more and more people will start sailing past the current world record for the longest verified human lifespan.

But when I mention this viewpoint to people that I meet I frequently encounter one of two adverse reactions. First, people tell me that it's not possible that such treatments are going to exist in any meaningful timescale any time soon. In other words, they insist that human rejuvenation can't be done. It's wishful thinking to suppose otherwise, they say. It's bad science. It's naively over-optimistic. It's ignorant of the long history of failures in this field. The technical challenges remain overwhelmingly difficult. Second, people tell me that any such treatments would be socially destructive and morally indefensible. In other words, they insist that human rejuvenation shouldn't be done. It's essentially a selfish idea, they say - an idea with all kinds of undesirable consequences for societal harmony or planetary well-being. It's an arrogant idea, from immature minds. It's an idea that deserves to be strangled. Can't be done; shouldn't be done - in this book, I will argue that both these objections are profoundly wrong. I'll argue instead that rejuvenation is a noble, highly desirable, eminently practical destiny for our species - a "Humanity+" destiny that could be achieved within just one human generation from now. As I see it, the abolition of aging is set to take its place on the upward arc of human social progress, echoing developments such as the abolition of slavery, the abolition of racism, and the abolition of poverty.