In Open Lifespan within the possible world framework I have worked out the possible world structure and angle am using to study the philosophy of longevity.
Today I’m trying to show you, by quickly annotating the earlier figures, the difference between thinking about Open Life from a philosophical and from a direct political point of view. If you are following this blog you might have noticed that I got fairly political recently (even given talks), and actively thinking about how to introduce and represent longevity within politics, also making some commitments along the way. So it is important to demonstrate here the difference between the two kinds of thinking.
Consider then the following 2 maps or universes of morally, politically, technologically relevant possible worlds.
In politics, the actual world takes center stage and people wanting to reach something and/or committed to some principles (=politicans) can bring forth the next highly probable world, in the vicinity of the actual world. The realm of counterfactual thinking, politics can accommodate, reaches only the possible worlds neighbouring the actual world. It is a good question whether this kind of actionist thinking can consider worlds farther away, so be able to consider trajectories. One possible example of this might be people thinking about doing something with climate change.
In philosophy, the limiting possible world investigated takes center stage, in our case a world where humans live indefinite, open-ended healthy lives via Open Healthspan technologies counteracting and continuously fixing the aging processes. And building the theory starts from considering different counterfactual scenarios in that limiting possible world and goes backwards to reach the actual world following through lots of possible world trajectories in between. Once all this philosophical work has been completed it is another question altogether whether it might give rise to, enrich a different politics, a politics that might provide actual world prescriptions.