Who wants to live forever?
Jan. 16th, 2005 10:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexagonAn article in Technology Review pissed me off on Friday night, so yesterday I wrote them an editorial.
Sherwin Nuland ("Do You Want to Live Forever?", February '05) may have reason to conclude that Aubrey de Grey is "nuts", but in his concluding speculations about de Grey and "the end of days" he does not come across as convincingly sane himself. In addition, his assumption that society at large would not desire immortality treatments is just as unexamined as de Grey's assumption that it would.
Some of the space given to Nuland's philosophy of dying at the end of a "natural" lifespan should have been spent describing his reasons for holding that philosophy. The article as written simply illuminates the unsupported opinions of two men--and in the absence of good reasons not to, yes, I still want to live forever.
--![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
flexagon, MIT '9x
The author of the article was sanctimonious in the extreme about his willingness to be shoved off the island when his cells tell him to: I should declare here that I have no desire to live beyond the life span that nature has granted to our species. For reasons that are pragmatic, scientific, demographic, economic, political, social, emotional, and secularly spiritual, I am committed to the notion that both individual fulfillment and... life on this planet are best served by dying when our inherent biology decrees that we do.
Er... that's nice, but what if I'm not impressed by your listing of big words? What if I want to know your actual reasons? What if, just maybe, I have no particular idea what you're talking about, and at this point just think you sound like an insufferable prig?
I've already given away that I want to live forever, selfish little flexagon that I am. Yes, It's obvious that there would be trouble associated with the development of immortality/longevity treatments, the first being the possibility of huge global unrest during the period when these treatments are available to some people but not others. After that we get into population problems--all quite solvable by trimming the birth rate, but yes, that does mean not as many people wouldn't get the admittedly valuable experience of being parents, or at least not as often. After that we get into the strange social situation of most adults being the same biological age more-or-less forever. And the possibility of people being even more afraid of death, because death would be taking away an even longer lifespan. The idea of marriage being until death would get a lot more difficult (and a lot more stifling). Et cetera.
On the other hand we'd have brilliant careers not cut off in mid-stroke by a stroke. We'd have people with plenty of time to explore several careers, people with hundreds of years worth of wisdom to bring to bear on problems. And as long as people expect to be alive to see the results of their actions, there would be more long-term thinking on the part of corporations, governments and individuals... which is where I see benefits to the environment, etc, as well as just to people. Defeating death would also mean overcoming cancer and lots of other diseases that currently cause a great deal of human suffering. And then of course there's you and me not dying for a long time... it has a certain appeal, does it not? :)
In the end I do think we'll research this into the ground and make use of it, simply because humanity = curiosity. For good or evil, that is what I think we are. Heck, we've already increased the human lifespan a good deal, with changes occurring in society accordingly. I just hope we're wise enough to turn the whole thing to good--and hope people don't just get crankier and crankier as they get older.
What do you think? Discuss.
Sherwin Nuland ("Do You Want to Live Forever?", February '05) may have reason to conclude that Aubrey de Grey is "nuts", but in his concluding speculations about de Grey and "the end of days" he does not come across as convincingly sane himself. In addition, his assumption that society at large would not desire immortality treatments is just as unexamined as de Grey's assumption that it would.
Some of the space given to Nuland's philosophy of dying at the end of a "natural" lifespan should have been spent describing his reasons for holding that philosophy. The article as written simply illuminates the unsupported opinions of two men--and in the absence of good reasons not to, yes, I still want to live forever.
--
flexagon, MIT '9xThe author of the article was sanctimonious in the extreme about his willingness to be shoved off the island when his cells tell him to: I should declare here that I have no desire to live beyond the life span that nature has granted to our species. For reasons that are pragmatic, scientific, demographic, economic, political, social, emotional, and secularly spiritual, I am committed to the notion that both individual fulfillment and... life on this planet are best served by dying when our inherent biology decrees that we do.
Er... that's nice, but what if I'm not impressed by your listing of big words? What if I want to know your actual reasons? What if, just maybe, I have no particular idea what you're talking about, and at this point just think you sound like an insufferable prig?
I've already given away that I want to live forever, selfish little flexagon that I am. Yes, It's obvious that there would be trouble associated with the development of immortality/longevity treatments, the first being the possibility of huge global unrest during the period when these treatments are available to some people but not others. After that we get into population problems--all quite solvable by trimming the birth rate, but yes, that does mean not as many people wouldn't get the admittedly valuable experience of being parents, or at least not as often. After that we get into the strange social situation of most adults being the same biological age more-or-less forever. And the possibility of people being even more afraid of death, because death would be taking away an even longer lifespan. The idea of marriage being until death would get a lot more difficult (and a lot more stifling). Et cetera.
On the other hand we'd have brilliant careers not cut off in mid-stroke by a stroke. We'd have people with plenty of time to explore several careers, people with hundreds of years worth of wisdom to bring to bear on problems. And as long as people expect to be alive to see the results of their actions, there would be more long-term thinking on the part of corporations, governments and individuals... which is where I see benefits to the environment, etc, as well as just to people. Defeating death would also mean overcoming cancer and lots of other diseases that currently cause a great deal of human suffering. And then of course there's you and me not dying for a long time... it has a certain appeal, does it not? :)
In the end I do think we'll research this into the ground and make use of it, simply because humanity = curiosity. For good or evil, that is what I think we are. Heck, we've already increased the human lifespan a good deal, with changes occurring in society accordingly. I just hope we're wise enough to turn the whole thing to good--and hope people don't just get crankier and crankier as they get older.
What do you think? Discuss.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 02:49 pm (UTC)Mental stagnation of older people would indeed be a problem--the question is really how much of that is physically based in the brain. Some kind of brain cell regeneration would have to be part of any really good longevity treatment, so would that help prevent some of the fossilization that happens? Who knows? It doesn't happen to all old people even now. Some old people keep getting more tolerant, and learning more and such until they die. But if that started happening to everyone it would be a real problem.
I'm gonna have to fight back on the "selfish" point though, not to mention the "nothing to hold onto but their careers" bit. I never said that people would cling to them, in fact the opposite... I just suggested there would be time to try a few instead of clinging. And... isn't it weird to think that the next generation would necessarily do better than us at running things? People are people.
As for finances, longer-lived people would be able to retire at a much earlier point relative to their lifespan. Interest on most investments outstrips inflation by a fair amount. We've already seen this happening in the last century, where retirement is now commonplace as people live longer.
The "floating about without direction" thing is addressed pretty well in Dennis Danvers' book End of Days, if you happen to be in search of some decent SF. Writing's a bit clunky but the thinking is really good. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 03:00 pm (UTC)I didn't say the next generation would do better necessarily, but going with the stagnation thing, they will be creative while we are becoming set in our ways. That is why they need a chance to be in charge.
Just like I think Gen X needs a chance to be in charge if the baby boomers would ever give up their stranglehold on everything.;)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 03:14 pm (UTC)