Dragonwriter Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 The recent death of Robin Williams has got me reflecting on the question of the morality of man's pursuit of biological immortality. To my mind, it seems completely implausible for anyone to NOT desire for man to find the key to defeating death - death is the ultimate involuntary act, why shouldn't we want to at least render it a voluntary experience rather than some inevitable predator that comes for us all at an unknowable time and place and takes away everything we were and are. And yet, I worry that I may be missing something in my (admittedly) rather emotional outrage. Is there any reason man SHOULDN'T pursue the defeat of death?
Falling Trees Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Well, what is your experience with death?
Wuzzums Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 This reminds me of one of my favorite lines from Catch-22 which sums up the main character's motivation: "live forever or die in the attempt." I'm ok with eternal life if, like you said, it's voluntary and I also have the choice of opting out whenever I want. There's this great movie that deals with the very idea of immortality, how life everlasting can be achieved and how it might affect such a person on a psychological level. It's called The Man From Earth, and you can see the whole movie on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d86yxqCNZss
nathanm Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Human immortality would be a can of worms the size of a grain silo. If immorality comes before people evolve to a far more peaceful anarchistic worldview there's going to be some serious troubles. People with poisonous ideas now have the option to extend their lives indefinitely. The immortal politician, the immortal narcissist… If that doesn't send a chill down yer spine—yikes! 2
Jeremy Dahl Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Mental health and social health are most definitely a part of extreme longevity. How can you live "forever" in a stressful and dangerous environment?Extreme longevity is a great goal, but as with all things, it is most likely to be unhealthy if one pursues something so unprecedented, without moderation or being grounded.Immortality without maintaining humanity seems absurd to me. How much true difference is there in having a cyborg you live forever, or some sort of website and journal? They are both not the original human, rather reflections and echos.We should probably all seek maximum health, and the fullest life possible. Immortality is unprecedented to life as we know it. Pursuing immortality, aggressively and actively, being so unrealistic, borders being delusional hubris.
tasmlab Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Sounds good to me. Sign me up! I really really don't want to die.
MysterionMuffles Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Man should quest for morality first. 1
12baird12 Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I would love to live forever. The world is certainly capable of entertaining me for a very, very long time.
Des Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I want to stay alive. In fact that is the title of the first video that I uploaded to youtube (after the initial test upload which I deleted). https://www.google.co.za/search?q=youtube+desmond+gorven+playlist&rlz=1C1ASUM_enZA521ZA521&oq=you&aqs=chrome.1.69i60j69i59j69i60l2j0j69i57.5434j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
DCLugi Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying" -Woody Allen
dsayers Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 The question is invalid. It's like asking "Should X = X?" or "Should matter exert gravitational forces?"
Des Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying" -Woody Allen Same goes for me. I have started a topic : https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45329-life-expectancy-and-ethics/ I started the topic because I see the desire to postpone death, and the reason to desire ethical behaviour from others, and that desire for ethical behaviour from others, as the reason to offer our own ethical behaviour as part of any and all trade (in the widest sense of the word trade), and to trade only if the ethicality is reciprocal. To give an example of my meaning, it is not rational to suggest or accept: "I scratch your back, you scratch mine, murder is no harm, no foul, so if you kill me (or I kill you) at any point, it's no violation of the back-scratching deal". This requirement for ethics inside every agreement of exchange (for the exchange to have rational value to both traders, assuming neither is suicidal), is the basis for the value of a do-no-murder pact between members of any social group, which then extends to a do-no-evil pact, because any aggression which falls short of murder, if repeated in enough instances, can amount to death, so it must be banned as an evil, The pact must call it evil (or some synonymous term like "not good"), and ban it. Why it would be a pact, is a matter of practicality of having a large group sign up once to an ethic, rather than specify the ethic in each contract, or agree an ethic before one walks past another on a street (without being in a group of 3, weapons drawn).
Des Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 The question is invalid. It's like asking "Should X = X?" or "Should matter exert gravitational forces?" I can't fault that response to the topic. I'm replying here to draw attention to a topic that may interest anyone interested in this topic. Same goes for me. I have started a topic : https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45329-life-expectancy-and-ethics/ I started the topic because I see the desire to postpone death, and the reason to desire ethical behaviour from others, and that desire for ethical behaviour from others, as the reason to offer our own ethical behaviour as part of any and all trade (in the widest sense of the word trade), and to trade only if the ethicality is reciprocal. To give an example of my meaning, it is not rational to suggest or accept: "I scratch your back, you scratch mine, murder is no harm, no foul, so if you kill me (or I kill you) at any point, it's no violation of the back-scratching deal". This requirement for ethics inside every agreement of exchange (for the exchange to have rational value to both traders, assuming neither is suicidal), is the basis for the value of a do-no-murder pact between members of any social group, which then extends to a do-no-evil pact, because any aggression which falls short of murder, if repeated in enough instances, can amount to death, so it must be banned as an evil, The pact must call it evil (or some synonymous term like "not good"), and ban it. Why it would be a pact, is a matter of practicality of having a large group sign up once to an ethic, rather than specify the ethic in each contract, or agree an ethic before one walks past another on a street (without being in a group of 3, weapons drawn).
Libur8us Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 The recent death of Robin Williams has got me reflecting on the question of the morality of man's pursuit of biological immortality. To my mind, it seems completely implausible for anyone to NOT desire for man to find the key to defeating death - death is the ultimate involuntary act, why shouldn't we want to at least render it a voluntary experience rather than some inevitable predator that comes for us all at an unknowable time and place and takes away everything we were and are. And yet, I worry that I may be missing something in my (admittedly) rather emotional outrage. Is there any reason man SHOULDN'T pursue the defeat of death? It would get pretty crowded around here wouldn't it? Could our wetware handle the stress? Or are you suggesting compete mechanization? If so, I don't think all these mechanoids would have souls. Is the transference of consciousness possible? Noone knows, I sure would like to find out though. Because I'd also love to live forever.
bugzysegal Posted October 19, 2015 Posted October 19, 2015 The question is invalid. It's like asking "Should X = X?" or "Should matter exert gravitational forces?" Photons? j/k lol. Seriously though, sign me up. Hitchens had a point about being able to face death with reason, that has created the niche for religion and so much room for bad reasoning.
David Ottinger Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 'Immortality' should be on everyone's bucket list. (couldn't resist.) Suicide is a way for one to exert control over his/her life, although it takes everything out of you. (Ok, I thought I was going to be a little more serious, but I failed at the end. C'est la vie. No one gets out alive. Hopefully you all enjoyed the jokes.)
Des Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 It would get pretty crowded around here wouldn't it? Could our wetware handle the stress? Or are you suggesting compete mechanization? If so, I don't think all these mechanoids would have souls. Is the transference of consciousness possible? Noone knows, I sure would like to find out though. Because I'd also love to live forever. K. Eric Drexler adapted Malthus's population concerns for a population expanding off-planet: Exponential growth can outstrip quadratic** growth, so, yes, we can populate planets faster than we can get to new planets, let's hope we will not be that dumb. However, this is true even with short lifespans, and long lifespans do not necessarily change the exponential growth picture much, but I hope that some wisdom about reproduction rates may come with a population containing more people who have had more time for reflection. ** limited by speed of light, off-planet expansion is limited to quadratic expansion, proportional to c3, where c is speed of light. Population growth is less restricted than that. It's already too crowded for my liking, especially so because close to 7 billion people are making no effort to find me the panacea. If a large proportion were making that effort, I'd be more happy to have the whole lot as fellow travellers. Accidents and murder will still thin some population, and I want to avoid those for as long as possible, but that is a statistics thing, and given time, those odds tend towards 1:1. Could our wetware handle the stress? I want to try it, cos I don't want to be transferred into a machine. Call me sentimental, I can't reason that my self is the components of my self, I just want to not destroy my living tissue in one hit (slowly over time by taking showers, no problem).
dsayers Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 It would get pretty crowded around here wouldn't it? Could our wetware handle the stress? Identifying a problem isn't identifying the end of a story, but rather the beginning of a new chapter. People once predicted that we'd be extinct by now due to food constraints. So we acknowledge the problem as a species and improved upon our technology to farm in different places, more efficiently, etc.
Anjin-san Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 I would much rather focus on quality of life, which requires respect for the non-aggression principle, than quantity. "nathanm" summed it up nicely: If immorality comes before people evolve to a far more peaceful anarchistic worldview there's going to be some serious troubles. People with poisonous ideas now have the option to extend their lives indefinitely. The immortal politician, the immortal narcissist… If that doesn't send a chill down yer spine—yikes! See the earlier fiction of Larry Niven, for example. His future society achieved immortality through drug discoveries, and though organ transplants. The elites made more and more laws punishable by death - on the operating table, where organs were harvested to feed their own demand. Eventually, even jaywalking was a capital crime (if I recall correctly), and death was the only punishment. I would not, however, initiate force to prevent voluntarily-funded research.
Des Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Human immortality would be a can of worms the size of a grain silo. If immorality comes before people evolve to a far more peaceful anarchistic worldview there's going to be some serious troubles. People with poisonous ideas now have the option to extend their lives indefinitely. The immortal politician, the immortal narcissist… If that doesn't send a chill down yer spine—yikes! Alive in a can of worms beats dead next to a tin of cake (in my system of personal preferences, widely shared). I get a peaceful worldview precisely from wanting to stay alive after standard expiration date, and I see hope that people who have lived 100 years or more, and can live much longer, may be more inclined to be peaceful, may be more inclined to opt in to a non-aggression pact for personal benefit, even if operating purely for personal benefit, without feelings for other people. I would much rather focus on quality of life, which requires respect for the non-aggression principle, than quantity. "nathanm" summed it up nicely: See the earlier fiction of Larry Niven, for example. His future society achieved immortality through drug discoveries, and though organ transplants. The elites made more and more laws punishable by death - on the operating table, where organs were harvested to feed their own demand. Eventually, even jaywalking was a capital crime (if I recall correctly), and death was the only punishment. I would not, however, initiate force to prevent voluntarily-funded research. Current technology is working on growing organs, but I(not I alone**) predict that nanotechnology will repair organs while they are still in [our] bodies, plus also allow us to morph [without surgery] our entire bodies, doing art with the size and shape, not just with colours on the outside, not having to permanently live with whatever shape/outer decoration we choose. Harvesting organs from people is likely to become outdated technology relatively soon. I want to bring some of the already-predicted features of the future into the philosophical discussion, because I think it will be helpful to be aware of the definitions needed in the future, e.g. the definition of person, for the purpose of discussion of ethics. Also, accurate predictions of technology direction can help us focus. If selling kidneys is a temporary phenomenon, this may inform our priorities in regard to advising people which evils to take aim against, in which order.
dsayers Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Harvesting organs from people is likely to become outdated technology relatively soon. That's a fascinating notion. I hadn't thought of that. When I first read this, my knee-jerk reaction was to respond how the poor tend to be behind technologically. This got me thinking about a story a buddy of mine told me a few years ago after he visited Peru. He described people living in abodes where the roof was just a sheet of corrugated metal laying on top of "walls"... but these people had smartphones. His interpretation was people whose priorities were out of whack. My interpretation was people who understood that access to the sum of human consciousness is about the most valuable possession one could have. Then I got to thinking about how poor people today compared to middle class of last century are virtually indistinguishable. I haven't taken the time to collect my thoughts, but what do you think of this "sublimation" of technology? By that I mean the way some technology gets outmoded so rapidly that the poor never had time to adopt it. Or spreads so rapidly, it becomes so efficient that even black market organ harvesting for example just won't have enough of a demand to be worth the risk. This just came to me, so I'd love to hear what others have to say about it.
Romulox Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 That's a fascinating notion. I hadn't thought of that. When I first read this, my knee-jerk reaction was to respond how the poor tend to be behind technologically. This got me thinking about a story a buddy of mine told me a few years ago after he visited Peru. He described people living in abodes where the roof was just a sheet of corrugated metal laying on top of "walls"... but these people had smartphones. His interpretation was people whose priorities were out of whack. My interpretation was people who understood that access to the sum of human consciousness is about the most valuable possession one could have. I had a similar experience while doing some work in an impoverished mountain village in Ecuador, likely very similar to what your buddy saw in Peru. The houses were basically block walls with corrugated metal roofs and two rooms (kitchen and bedroom). Just like your friend, I noticed that most of the adult males in the town had cell phones. Since the main source of income for the adult males is construction work in the nearby city, it became obvious why every guy in town had a phone; it allowed them to find work and transportation into town infinitely easier than it would be otherwise. While most of the men had basic phones, the leader of the town had a smartphone, email, and a facebook account, which allowed him to easily communicate with our organization, ultimately resulting in a clean water distribution system for his community. So they absolutely had their priorities straight; clean water, shelter from the relentless wind and sun, and then employment. When asked if they were satisfied with their house, they generally responded as if just asked them if the sky was blue (as long as you are out of the wind, you are happy!). Then I got to thinking about how poor people today compared to middle class of last century are virtually indistinguishable. I haven't taken the time to collect my thoughts, but what do you think of this "sublimation" of technology? By that I mean the way some technology gets outmoded so rapidly that the poor never had time to adopt it. Or spreads so rapidly, it becomes so efficient that even black market organ harvesting for example just won't have enough of a demand to be worth the risk. This just came to me, so I'd love to hear what others have to say about it. So from my experience, I wouldn't say that the poor are necessarily "behind" when it comes to technology, or that they don't have time to adopt it. They just have to pick and choose which technologies to adopt; since their resources are extremely limited, they can't have it all. A cell phone will increase the employment opportunities of the typical mountain villager by orders of magnitude, while a flat screen tv won't do them a damn bit of good. I see organ replacement technology that could achieve immortality as the same situation as the cell phone but taken to an extreme level. A poor person with health issues would likely overlook something like a big screen tv or the latest greatest iPad, but would probably sell all their worldly possessions for a newly grown organ, since death is the alternative. So it would follow that this new organ replacement technology would be widely adopted almost immediately by the poor given the price of the replacement is achievable.
bugzysegal Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I had a similar experience while doing some work in an impoverished mountain village in Ecuador, likely very similar to what your buddy saw in Peru. The houses were basically block walls with corrugated metal roofs and two rooms (kitchen and bedroom). Just like your friend, I noticed that most of the adult males in the town had cell phones. Since the main source of income for the adult males is construction work in the nearby city, it became obvious why every guy in town had a phone; it allowed them to find work and transportation into town infinitely easier than it would be otherwise. While most of the men had basic phones, the leader of the town had a smartphone, email, and a facebook account, which allowed him to easily communicate with our organization, ultimately resulting in a clean water distribution system for his community. So they absolutely had their priorities straight; clean water, shelter from the relentless wind and sun, and then employment. When asked if they were satisfied with their house, they generally responded as if just asked them if the sky was blue (as long as you are out of the wind, you are happy!). So from my experience, I wouldn't say that the poor are necessarily "behind" when it comes to technology, or that they don't have time to adopt it. They just have to pick and choose which technologies to adopt; since their resources are extremely limited, they can't have it all. A cell phone will increase the employment opportunities of the typical mountain villager by orders of magnitude, while a flat screen tv won't do them a damn bit of good. I see organ replacement technology that could achieve immortality as the same situation as the cell phone but taken to an extreme level. A poor person with health issues would likely overlook something like a big screen tv or the latest greatest iPad, but would probably sell all their worldly possessions for a newly grown organ, since death is the alternative. So it would follow that this new organ replacement technology would be widely adopted almost immediately by the poor given the price of the replacement is achievable. Couldn't agree more. The non-market of organs is hurting the poor now.
Recommended Posts