THE LIKELIHOOD OF IMMORTALITY: This is one of my ramblings about the possibility and likelihood of technological immortality based on statistical probability, Moore’s Law, science, physics, evolution and everything.

We’ll start with the tech.


  • Pharmaceuticals – Drugs. Mainly these are merely treatments for symptoms or preventative maintenance, not cures for diseases. Although there could be a “fountain of youth” type drug that allows a humanoid (or any carbon based biological entity) to survive very long periods of time. Though not immortal, the being (human or alien) could essentially live forever IF cellular repair and replacement could be fast and absolute.  
  • Genetic Engineering – Editing, reprogramming, modification of the genome (DNA) of a human (or alien) to produce desirable traits and remove undesirable DNA. It’s thought that telomeres a related to longevity, and we could live exponentially longer lives if we could discover a way to effectively modify/repair our DNA and cells, our cells would have the ability to last longer and repair themselves more efficiently. 
  • Nanotechnology – Microscopic Medibots, nanites, nanobots which are programmed to seek out and destroy harmful microbes and cells (bacteria, viruses, fungi, cancer etc.)
  • Cyber Enhancement – Augmenting a biological organism (human or alien) with technology to enhance durability and longevity and maximize work performance.
  • Transfer of Consciousness To a Machine/Computer – Becoming AI. The transfer of human consciousness (memories, thoughts, brain data) to a computer inside a starship or android or some other kind of machine to extend life and propagate throughout the universe.

All of these combined are probably used throughout the universe by intelligent civilizations to prolong life and 

FRAGILITY OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE: Biological, organic, carbon based life is fragile and very limited in its ability to do work. It’s not as efficient because biological life forms are extremely fragile compared to machines. Biological life is extremely sensitive to temperature fluctuations, radiation, extreme pressures (vacuum and pressure at different elevations), toxins, acids, and many chemicals. Biological life is not very durable physically and it prone to trauma/damage to skin, flesh, bone, cells. Infections and poisons are another threat to biological life. Biological life is not the most efficient kind of life, by far.

INEFFICIENCY OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE: Carbon based organic/biological life is efficient only within the environment it evolves, and then only as efficient as it needs to be to self-replicate and propagate throughout said environment. 

TECHNOLOGICAL LIFE: We can now create AI. This AI has the potential to be smarter than humans. We can logically deduce that based on our current rate of technological advancement, that eventually we will likely create a superintelligent AI. Further, based on our same technological advancement of medical technology, drugs, genetic engineering, nanotech, cybernetic augmentation, etc., that we (life in general) will eventually merge with technology AI and machines to become a new kind of life. It just seems that this is the most logical outcome. There will be those that disagree, but their mere disagreement is irrelevant because the math of statistical probability says that the merging of the biological with the technological will happen. (one could argue that my disagreement with their speculation is also irrelevant, and that’s perfectly fine; they’re wrong; could I be wrong? Sure. Is it “likely” I’m wrong? No. because I’m thinking it and I know that others within my species are also thinking it, and if WE humans are thinking this way, we must assume other technologically advanced species would also come to the conclusion as well, that biological life is too fragile for interstellar travel. Is it possible? Sure. Absolutely! Is it efficient? No. Not even close.

Evolution doesn’t always choose the best life form, right? Maybe not, but natural selection works, and when an intelligent species advances technology to the point it can become more efficient at adapting to the environment, one has to rethink its place in the universe. 

Evolution itself can be controlled at a certain point in the evolution of an intelligent species. This is an evolutionary singularity, a transcendence or transitionary period, a stage in the cosmic lifecycle of life itself. A point in cosmic time where intelligence realizes that biological life is not the pinnacle of life in the universe.

Neither is technological life. It likely continues on until it finds a way to become energy. But I’m no scientist or mathematician or physicist. I can only logically speculate on where and how things might happen, and logically where that is likely to lead.

I don’t believe for an instant that biological life is the pinnacle of life in the universe. Show me evidence that it’s impossible to transfer our consciousness, and further that it’s impossible for an AI to become superintelligent, and I’ll be forced to accept it as evidence that what I propose is impossible. I MUST change my mind based on the evidence because my opinion means nothing unless it’s based on cold hard scientific empirical evidence.

However…Having said all that. I still think that given the laws of physics are probably likely the same throughout the universe, and evolution happens similarly everywhere in the universe, that an intelligent biological species will eventually become technology simply because it’s more efficient.

Darwin even said that the primary factor driving evolution is not natural selection, but rather adaptation. 

Adaptation is deliberate. This goes to the creativity and abstract thought of any given creature. The ability of any given creature to think abstractly enough to adapt to the environment they are in.

Currently humans need only be adapted to live on earth. But that will change as our priorities change. As the dangers to our existence increase, we will adapt. 

Natural selection becomes artificial selection. This is the evolutionary singularity.

It’s a stage in between biological evolution and technological evolution.

Increasing our ability to think abstractly, to problem solve, to adapt and overcome the limitations of biological life. To overcome the limitations and inefficiencies of natural selection itself. We do this through logical abstract thought and creative problem solving tempered by critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Being nihilistic about life and the universe, but not negative. One doesn’t have to be negatively nihilistic about life. I’m not saying nihilism is either negative nor positive. I think it’s neutral.

I think biological carbon based life forms throughout the universe come to the same conclusions I have come to. We have to assume that survival and propagation is the goal of any species.

They will realize where they come from, where they are, and where they must go to survive.

The idea of survival of the fittest isn’t just based on natural selection alone. If that were the case we may not exist at all. 

It was a combination of everything. All the things. Mostly it was probably abstract thought and creativity, not just intellect or just natural selection. How limiting is that? How narrow minded is that kind of mentality? It’s not realistic. Not even close.

Having said all that…

If knowledge is our goal, survival must also be; and vice versa! If survival is our goal, knowledge must also be.

To learn the secret of the universe, we must explore. To explore we must live longer. To live longer we must become more durable. We become more durable by evolving ourselves. It’s a logical process.

Even drugs and genetic engineering, and cybernetics, and nanotechnology will only go so far in making biological life last longer. Durability is a direct factor, a deciding factor in adaptation and that is the deciding factor in evolution itself. And we have the ability to decide to evolve ourselves now. We have the ability to advance evolution beyond the biological.

And so will any other intelligent biological life form which reaches K1 Type civilization. (see Kardashev Scale: K1, K2, K3)

I think some civilizations get it, some don’t, some destroy themselves, and some prosper. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule.

Also, I want to say something about nihilism with regard to entropy. Specifically about the tendency for small-minded fools to say “There’s no purpose” and they blame “entropy” for their lack of positivity. They are generally negatively nihilistic about the universe.

I think there is both a positive and negative side to everything. Nihilism included. Positive nihilism and negative nihilism. 

I think there are people who are so discouraged and small minded that they look at entropy and ask the question “What’s the point? If everything is going to be destroyed eventually anyway, why should we care or do anything?” 

Um…because! Our purpose is what we make it. Just because the universe has no intrinsic purpose (it just is), it doesn’t mean it’s impossible to have intrinsic purpose in our lives.

This nihilistic narrowmindedness is sadly most likely caused by two things. Mental disorder (i.e. depression) and lack of intellect. I think less of the latter and more of the former. I think some people get depressed when they understand there is no real purpose in the universe. But I also think this is a fallacy of logic to think that just because the universe and life has no intrinsic purpose, that that somehow also means that we have no individual or group purpose. That is a fallacy. That is irrational. That is illogical. That is emotional.

Negative Nihilists tend to be emotionally driven emo-goth-like naysayers. Negative Nancys that are always shitting on everything. I think it’s a mental disorder. Namely depression. Not “bad” per se, but just negative. Overly negative.

I am a positive nihilist. There is no intrinsic purpose to the universe or life really, other than to be and survive. That’s it.

But I temper this knowledge with the realization and knowledge that our purpose comes from within. We’re self aware. We experience the universe. We can experience awe and love and anger and h*** and happiness and a whole gamut of emotions. We experience empathy and compassion. We have a moral and ethical code. Generally speaking, I think most of us are good “people”. We want to be good and want to be happy and we love our families. We want to survive and thrive. We want to experience the universe. We love to explore. We’re curious. We love. We tend towards altruism (regardless of people’s opinions; studies show that humans tend toward altruism.) to help each other. 

I think that it’s likely this is how it plays out throughout the universe with most intelligent species.

I think that purpose is deliberate. First is survival. Then knowledge. Curiosity. Creative problem solving. All directed toward survival of us as individuals and our groups, families, communities, society, and the species as a whole.

Logic tells me this is most likely how life evolves throughout the universe.

Yes, I’m making some logical leaps here and huge assumptions. Assuming that other life forms would feel emotion is one assumption. Maybe we should hope they do. Or not. I don’t know.

I do know that life will find a way. To adapt, to learn, to survive, to grow, to evolve itself.

It makes logical sense that part of evolution is to become technology. To merge with AI and machines. To become machines. 

Look at it this way.

We’re already biological machines. Technological machines are the next most logical stage in our evolution and I think the evolution of life in the universe. 

We can’t assume that biological life is the pinnacle of life. That would be illogical, irrational, arrogant, narrow minded and short sighted.

It simply makes sense that this is how it plays out. 

Unless we destroy ourselves. In that case, yeah…that’s just silly.

I don’t think that’s probable. I think life finds a way. That it evolves itself. Makes itself more durable. Adapts to the environments it lives in.

Eventually intelligent biological life will venture to the stars. To survive in space requires different kinds of technology. 

I think humans have tunnel vision with regard to space travel. We’re trying to figure out a way to travel through the vast distances of interstellar space while staying biological entities.

Our innate refusal to change and adapt to our environment is perhaps our Achilles heel.


This fact should be enough to wake science up out of their narrow minded worldview but it doesn’t. We’re trying our best to stay human.

We’re literally limiting ourselves without even realizing we’re doing it. We’re assuming. We’re illogically and irrationally trying to figure out a way to make space habitable for biological life by building spaceships that house humans instead of becoming a spacefaring species which can survive in space without an exoskeleton. That’s all a spaceship is. A big exoskeleton.

We don’t have the technological ability yet to turn ourselves into machines, but given our advancement in the past, that is a statistical probability. 

I think eventually we’ll realize that it just doesn’t make sense to continue sending our species into space inside spaceships. That eventually we’ll become spaceships. Or rather, we will become machines that can survive on planets and in space. 

I think this is how life evolves to survive everywhere in the universe. If they get past the point where they could destroy themselve without actually destroying themselves, I think they move to the next stage of evolution by becoming machines.

This doesn’t necessarily mean they become emotionless creatures h***-bent on conquering the galaxies and the universe at large. But it could mean that.

I think logically that there are all kinds of life at all stages of evolution throughout our galaxy and the universe. Some destroy themselves, some get past the Great Filter, some evolve themselves through genetic engineering, some evolve into technology, some become conquerors, some become scientifically driven, some are altruistic, some are dangerous, some are neutral, some are bad and some are good, relatively speaking. 

It makes sense to conclude biological life is NOT the pinnacle of life in the universe. That we’re most probably not alone. That life finds a way to evolve itself and become technology. 

That is how I think immortality is achieved. That is how I think it works.

Fermi was right to look at the universe and ask “if aliens exist and the universe is teeming with life, where is it?”, but I think he was wrong in what kind of life he was looking for.

Technological life would probably not be visible with our equipment and instruments. It’s impossible to prove a negative though. The absence of evidence of something is not evidence of something. We need evidence of a thing’s existence to prove its existence. Or not.

Black holes were predicted and we can’t see them, but we can see their effects. We can see the effects of a black hole’s immense gravitational field on light and celestial bodies near it. We can see stars being ripped apart and sucked into black holes. We can’t see the black holes themselves but we can see their effects.

I’m not saying I think black holes are aliens. I’m saying perhaps instead of looking for biological life forms (we shouldn’t be looking only for the effects of biological life) but instead we should be looking for the effects of a technological life form capable of interstellar travel.

It would most likely blend in with the background radiation of space, would probably be very difficult if not impossible to see with radio telescopes, infrared, etc. 

Look at the great voids in the universe. How were those formed?

I have a hypothesis about that.

A highly technologically advanced civilization capable of interstellar travel would eventually also be able to tap into the power of their planet and then their star and then their galaxy.

What if a highly advanced species decided that survival required them to eat their planet, their star and their galaxy.

Galaxy Eaters! (name for a book; that sounds kinda B movie’ish)

Self replicating machines. (that sounds terrifying, but technically HUMANS ARE SELF REPLICATING BIOLOGICAL MACHINES)

An AI machine capable of self replication.

A silicon based super intelligent life form.

THIS makes the most sense.

Those great voids shouldn’t exist. Or rather, they should be as large as they are relative to the age of the universe. How are they growing so large so fast when there hasn’t been enough time yet for them to form given the age of the universe? Are these great voids evidence of alien civilization(s)?

We need to point all our telescopes toward the great voids and peer deep inside at all wavelengths of light, point our radio telescopes and listen to the dark.

If the voids are alien civilizations then this of course answers Fermi’s Paradox.

But there’s no way to prove it one way or the other until we have evidence that that is what the voids are. Is it likely that they’re naturally forming voids? I don’t know (yet). I honestly haven’t studied enough about them to know. What I’ve read thus far suggests science doesn’t yet know the answer, and perhaps I’m merely filling in the void with speculation as to what it is. A “g** of the gaps” type of fallacy of logic. Only this would be an “alien of the gaps” fallacy. 

I’m intellectually honest enough and humble enough to know I don’t know and admit it, publicly, without shame. I understand I am ignorant of many things and am unashamed of admitting my ignorance.

More importantly however, I am willing to learn. I’m willing to change my opinion based on the evidence because if I don’t change my mind based on the evidence, then my opinion is worthless.

This sounds self-deprecating at first glance, But it’s not. It’s simply honest humility, nothing more nothing less. Which I think is severely lacking in our species. False pride, embarrassment, arrogance, illogical assumptions.

Bias is a problem. I’m biased and I know I’m biased. I want there to be aliens out there and I’m trying desperately to create a hypothesis that makes that possible.

Is it possible the universe is empty of life except for our planet? Sure. I guess. But that is, I think, extremely unlikely considering how the universe works.

Given our knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, and every other “ology” and area of study, math and statistical probability suggests very strongly that the universe not only has life (us), that life is inevitable, likely the universe is teeming with life, likely mostly carbon based biological organic microbial life forms in the greatest quantity, followed by (and in order) intelligent organic life forms with the ability to create technology, artificial intelligent technological (silicon based) life forms, with the final type of life being energy based. Perhaps quantum life. But that’s really stretching this kind of logic to its maximum point.

I think this is how it works throughout the universe.

So, yeah, to recap:

Immortality is likely possible. Evolution is based on adaptation and happens in stages. There are 3 logical and likely stages (with few exceptions), and that the universe is full of all of these kinds of life forms all at varying stages in their cosmic evolution.

This is the basis for my GENERATIONS UNIVERSE for my novel.

It leaves it open for all kinds of possibilities. It’s also, I believe, a fair assumption, logically sensible, plausible hypothesis. Is it probable? Sure. I think it is. But I’m biased in that regard.

So…what about the universe being a simulation? (another part of my Generations Universe/Simulacrum Infinitum)

I think this immortality/evolutionary hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to the simulation hypothesis. Meaning I think both could be possible simultaneously.

Meaning biological life can be BOTH real and a simulation at the same time, IF reality is relative to those viewing/experiencing it.

This goes WAY out there on a logical limb into purely fantastical imaginative speculation. Or does it…?

I’ll leave that for another video/article. (see my Simulacrum Infinitum hypothesis/novel)


If you liked this read, you may like to read my Quantum Life Hypothesis.