If anyone clicks on my profile, they might notice that I have "disability rights" listed as one of my interests. I think it is necessary to explain my position here. I do consider myself a "transhumanist" because that philosophy is closely in-line with the outlook I've developed independently of even learning of transhumanism -- but I am not in favor of some of the more eugenic-like aspects of some transhumanist lines of thought.
I do not agree with the notion of fiddling with someone's mental / emotional characteristics before they are born. Personality is one of the main factors that determines a person's behavior, and personality is not, by and large, something we are born with. We are born with tendencies toward certain directions, but in many ways, the "self" develops in response to environmental variables.
What I DO support are genetic / in-utero interventions for conditions that actually kill people.
I am opposed to the notion of playing with genes in the hopes of influencing temperament -- the world needs introverts and extroverts, salesmen and inventors, librarians and actors, naturalists and artists. I can understand a parent wanting their child to have maximum chances for success, but I don't think it is right to impose a definition of success on someone who hasn't even been born yet.
Plenty of parents would like their child to someday take over the family business -- but rather than creating some sort of custom-designed offspring who is likely to eagerly follow in the family legacy, I think it is far better for the parent to let their child grow and develop as an individual and then let the child decide what they want to do with him or herself in the long term.
So, how does this relate to disability rights?
The way I see it, human existence is like a huge and complex construct. There are tremendous benefits to having different perspectives as to the nature of this "existence construct". If everyone had exactly the same set of abilities, likes, dislikes, interests, attention patterns, etc., it's likely that many vital aspects of society would cease to function. If everyone were a people-oriented extrovert with a tremendous desire to belong, a lot of scientific developments would cease because everyone would be too busy planning cocktail parties. If there were no Deaf people, we would lose an opportunity to observe how language can develop in a visual (sign language) rather than auditory medium.
To bring this to a personal level, I absolutely am not in favor of manipulating the brains of fetuses if it is determined that the child is going to be autistic. Autism, by and large, results in a developmental trajectory that is extremely difficult to predict. To assume that just because someone has an autistic brain structure that they are going to lead "miserable" lives, "devastate" (how I hate that word!) their families, and "never contribute anything" is ridiculous.
There's no way to know this when a person is conceived or born. Many people with autism are very happy, very successful in their chosen ways, and run into most of our difficulties due to a lack of understanding of our communication style (or due to the existence of social institutions that we would really be better off without). I am certainly in favor of learning how autistic brains are structured, but I think it would be tragic if we sought to eliminate these differences in brain structure.
My own autistic spectrum "disorder" has not turned my existence into a tragic waste. I would be infuriated if anyone decided that I should be forced to undergo some sort of therapy to make my brain "normal". My brain-difference doesn't make it impossible for me to breathe, wonder, think, or live. I fully support technologies that might be able to prevent severe and deadly birth defects (as in, things that result in a child going straight from the womb into the ICU), but I do not support the notion that anyone can decide FOR a person how their brain is going to be configured, what their personality is going to be like, etc.*
One danger in "espousing a philosophy" -- transhumanism or any other -- can come from not differentiating sufficiently between reasonable, ethical goals and unreasonable, unethical goals. In a sense, growing up differently-brained has prepared me to work toward the right to continue existing even when I'm elderly -- I feel that in some ways I've had to justify my existence all along!
In embracing transhumanist ideas, I am not in any way suggesting that everything mankind doesn't alter or influence is somehow bad. I support recycling efforts and nature preserves (as in, plots of land set aside to grow wild and allow nonhuman native life to flourish, not elephant jelly!), and I think that the randomness inherent in human reproduction is essential to our evolution as a species.
I think there are indeed some things we humans should not "mess with" -- but the aging process isn't one of these things. Let the trees grow, save the baby whales, DON'T tell me my brain structure is somehow inferior and in need of elimination from the human gene pool -- but certainly work toward cures for things like diabetes, cystic fibrosis, AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's, kidney failure, liver disease, and aging that result in actual bodily damage and death.
Supporting disability rights doesn't mean supporting the elimination of everything that might be remotely considered a "disability". Some transhumanists may disagree with me on this, but I say that if something doesn't kill a person or (beyond any shadow of a doubt) drive them to murder or torture, then we ought to look very carefully at how we deal with it.
However, I know that death is bad. I know that dying of age-related illness is no picnic in the park -- some people "go" quickly, due to a freak heart attack or whatnot, but many others just watch themselves deteriorate over a period of years, sometimes many years. The illnesses and infirmity of old age do not represent positive diversity -- rather, they represent an involuntary loss of health concluded with the absolute loss of a person. Someone can live happily and productively using sign language, being autistic, using a wheelchair, etc. -- but it's difficult to be happy and productive in any sense when you are dead, or when your brain tissue is literally destroyed by something like Alzheimer's.
In my support of transhumanist ideals, I support the rights of all people regardless of age, regardless of difference from the "typical" to exist for as long as they would like to exist.
* The only exceptions I make to the "don't mess with people's brains" dictate I follow is in the case of things like sociopathic tendencies, pedophilia, etc. Diversity does not mean we need to accept abusers, rapists, murderers, and child molesters.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
The Fallacy of "Fix the World First"
Part of what I am trying to do with this blog is address, comprehensively, the various arguments I often encounter when I mention healthy life extension. It is my impression that many times (and this is not to disparage anyone, it is just an observation) these arguments are a bit on the "knee-jerk" side and not very well thought out.
For instance, the "we need to fix the world now, and end poverty and diseases, before we even think about extending lives and devoting money and resources to anti-aging research" argument. I encounter this one quite frequently. My response to it is basically this: we already devote all sorts of resources to things that are arguably totally frivolous -- why not go attack these things rather than singling out life extension and anti-aging research?
Saying that we shouldn't research life extension / anti-aging technologies until everyone in the world is properly fed and clothed is as illogical as saying that nobody should be able to have any sort of modern appliance until everyone in the world has access to "the basics".
Many of the things most of us in the Western world take for granted -- indoor plumbing, distributed electricity, designer clothing, professional sports, reality TV, sitcoms, nutritionally empty snack foods, packaging design for nutritionally empty snack foods, high-end graphics cards for computers, plasma TVs, sports cars, car stereos, LCD monitors, athletic shoes, internet-enabled refrigerators, special effects, sweetened alcoholic beverages, sparkly gel-ink pens, Hello Kitty merchandise, wireless Internet, cellular phones, cell phone accessories, scented lotions, hair dye, cosmetics, strip malls, casinos, celebrity worship, tabloids, video games -- are still far-off and unimaginable luxuries in some parts of the world.
Very few of the things listed above lead to, or are likely to lead to, improved quality of life for people in the world who are truly suffering. Yet people are more than happy to support horrifically large salaries for football players, keep asinine reality-TV shows on the air, and pour all sorts of time and money into development of, and advertising for, new high-tech basketball shoes. It makes no sense for anyone who partakes of any of the things listed above to call anti-aging research a frivolous waste of time, money, and resources.
Anti-aging research is basically a win-win proposition. Not only could it provide massive, life-enriching benefits for people who just plain don't want to die, studying the mechanisms behind senescence has the potential to lead to serendipitous discoveries about serious diseases like cancer and immune dysfunctions. Data obtained regarding the aging process is data about humans, and how we develop and change over the years, and how our bodies operate at fundamental levels. I don't think anyone would suggest that age-associated problems like Alzheimer's and arthritis and atherosclerosis are good things -- approaching such conditions from more than one angle (the "cure" angle AND the "prevention" angle) seems much more likely to yield results that could help a lot of people.
Not only is anti-aging research far from frivolous, it seems that it would be irresponsible NOT to follow this line of research considering the sheer number of people it could help. It is an ethical imperative, not a pipe dream of the wealthy. Think of all the people in poor nations who have benefitted from such things as antibiotics and other medical treatments -- treatments that were basically tested first on people who perhaps had greater material wealth.
Just because certain technologies cannot be immediately distributed to everyone that could possibly need them does not mean that we should not pursue such technologies on the basis that it somehow isn't fair. The world is imperfect. Human social organization is imperfect. But even with the glaring imperfections in how we operate as a species, we can still make great strides toward a better world -- a world in which more and more individuals have the opportunity to pursue their goals, lead productive and self-directed lives, and find happiness.
It obviously cannot happen all at once for everyone, but this is a terrible reason to restrict research that could help so many.
If anyone wishes to target possible "wastes of resources" or "selfish pursuits", please do not put anti-aging research in this category. Instead, stop going to football games, stop eating spicy cheese puffs, stop driving your car, get rid of your computer and cell phone, and make sure to donate all non-essential portions of your income to people who lack the basics of survival. Oh, and if you develop cancer or some sort of condition that necessitates an organ transplant or other expensive treatment, you should probably just let yourself die. After all, why should you get to experience any sort of luxuries relegated to the world's wealthy?
If the above paragraph sounds ridiculous, that's because it does indeed represent how ridiculous it sounds to me when people refer to anti-aging research as a selfish waste of time and money and some sort of distraction from solving the world's "real problems". Age-related illness IS a "real problem". It has never made sense to me that we're supposed to somehow make the world a great place for everyone as long as they happen to be 75 or younger -- somehow, we're supposed to create a society in which people exist in perfect health and happiness until one day they just keel over and die. I do not think that many people really think about what they're suggesting when they say, "Fix the world first!"
For instance, the "we need to fix the world now, and end poverty and diseases, before we even think about extending lives and devoting money and resources to anti-aging research" argument. I encounter this one quite frequently. My response to it is basically this: we already devote all sorts of resources to things that are arguably totally frivolous -- why not go attack these things rather than singling out life extension and anti-aging research?
Saying that we shouldn't research life extension / anti-aging technologies until everyone in the world is properly fed and clothed is as illogical as saying that nobody should be able to have any sort of modern appliance until everyone in the world has access to "the basics".
Many of the things most of us in the Western world take for granted -- indoor plumbing, distributed electricity, designer clothing, professional sports, reality TV, sitcoms, nutritionally empty snack foods, packaging design for nutritionally empty snack foods, high-end graphics cards for computers, plasma TVs, sports cars, car stereos, LCD monitors, athletic shoes, internet-enabled refrigerators, special effects, sweetened alcoholic beverages, sparkly gel-ink pens, Hello Kitty merchandise, wireless Internet, cellular phones, cell phone accessories, scented lotions, hair dye, cosmetics, strip malls, casinos, celebrity worship, tabloids, video games -- are still far-off and unimaginable luxuries in some parts of the world.
Very few of the things listed above lead to, or are likely to lead to, improved quality of life for people in the world who are truly suffering. Yet people are more than happy to support horrifically large salaries for football players, keep asinine reality-TV shows on the air, and pour all sorts of time and money into development of, and advertising for, new high-tech basketball shoes. It makes no sense for anyone who partakes of any of the things listed above to call anti-aging research a frivolous waste of time, money, and resources.
Anti-aging research is basically a win-win proposition. Not only could it provide massive, life-enriching benefits for people who just plain don't want to die, studying the mechanisms behind senescence has the potential to lead to serendipitous discoveries about serious diseases like cancer and immune dysfunctions. Data obtained regarding the aging process is data about humans, and how we develop and change over the years, and how our bodies operate at fundamental levels. I don't think anyone would suggest that age-associated problems like Alzheimer's and arthritis and atherosclerosis are good things -- approaching such conditions from more than one angle (the "cure" angle AND the "prevention" angle) seems much more likely to yield results that could help a lot of people.
Not only is anti-aging research far from frivolous, it seems that it would be irresponsible NOT to follow this line of research considering the sheer number of people it could help. It is an ethical imperative, not a pipe dream of the wealthy. Think of all the people in poor nations who have benefitted from such things as antibiotics and other medical treatments -- treatments that were basically tested first on people who perhaps had greater material wealth.
Just because certain technologies cannot be immediately distributed to everyone that could possibly need them does not mean that we should not pursue such technologies on the basis that it somehow isn't fair. The world is imperfect. Human social organization is imperfect. But even with the glaring imperfections in how we operate as a species, we can still make great strides toward a better world -- a world in which more and more individuals have the opportunity to pursue their goals, lead productive and self-directed lives, and find happiness.
It obviously cannot happen all at once for everyone, but this is a terrible reason to restrict research that could help so many.
If anyone wishes to target possible "wastes of resources" or "selfish pursuits", please do not put anti-aging research in this category. Instead, stop going to football games, stop eating spicy cheese puffs, stop driving your car, get rid of your computer and cell phone, and make sure to donate all non-essential portions of your income to people who lack the basics of survival. Oh, and if you develop cancer or some sort of condition that necessitates an organ transplant or other expensive treatment, you should probably just let yourself die. After all, why should you get to experience any sort of luxuries relegated to the world's wealthy?
If the above paragraph sounds ridiculous, that's because it does indeed represent how ridiculous it sounds to me when people refer to anti-aging research as a selfish waste of time and money and some sort of distraction from solving the world's "real problems". Age-related illness IS a "real problem". It has never made sense to me that we're supposed to somehow make the world a great place for everyone as long as they happen to be 75 or younger -- somehow, we're supposed to create a society in which people exist in perfect health and happiness until one day they just keel over and die. I do not think that many people really think about what they're suggesting when they say, "Fix the world first!"
Friday, April 07, 2006
The Selfishness Issue
One ethics-based argument against radical life extension I've encountered is that the notion of vastly extending one's lifespan is somehow "selfish". The way I see it, wanting to keep living when you're 120 is no more selfish than wanting to continue living when you're 12. I think it's a very, very dangerous line of reasoning that could follow from making the "it's selfish" argument -- basically, this argument assumes that one person is justified in saying when another person is obligated to stop existing.
To illustrate this point, If Bob wants to live forever and will do what he can to achieve it (so long as he remains informed the entire time and does not knowingly or deliberately influence the world in a negative manner), why should Joe be able to say, "Bob, I'm sorry, but there is going to come a point where the best thing you can do for the world is die". I don't think that Joe has any real ability to predict the ramifications of Bob's continued presence. What if Bob is a tireless altruist, working to improve conditions in developing nations? What if Bob is an inspiring poet whose works move people to new heights of understanding of their own condition? How can Joe possibly insist that no matter what Bob is doing, his mere presence beyond a certain age is nothing but a detriment?
I would argue that even if Bob is just an "ordinary" person, living a quiet life in the country, planting his vegetable garden and reading the paper and spending time with his cats, he still has the right to maintain this existence for as long as he would like to. It's not up to Joe to make the decision or judgement as to whether Bob should get to continue living. It's actually more selfish (or at least self-righteous) for Joe to insist that Bob's lifespan should be limited by Joe's philosophy. If Joe wants to die, and feels it's somehow his duty to die, then that is his choice, but it doesn't have to be Bob's choice.
Joe will argue that Bob's continued presence represents an unfair use of resources, that Bob's long life somehow interferes with the future by denying someone else -- who hasn't been born yet -- the chance to exist. The thing is, there is no proof that Bob's life in any way prevents anyone in the future from existing. For all we know, Bob's presence could be granting others MORE opportunities. If Bob (at a robust 200 years of age, perhaps?) tutors his niece in some aspect of art or science and this niece goes on to enrich the lives of others, then couldn't it be argued that Bob's presence -- at age 200 -- actually improved the world, rather than made it worse?
Wanting to live a very long time may be "selfish" in the sense that most human endeavors are selfish in some way -- they allow continued surivival, and opportunities, that may or may not impact the survival and opportunities of others. Driving a car (rather than taking public transit or walking or biking) could be said to be "selfish" because it only behooves the driver's convenience, and inarguably has some sort of environmental impact. Grocery shopping for yourself and not buying anything to donate to a homeless shelter could be considered selfish. Having one's own children rather than adopting (especially when you're concerned about overpopulation) is almost inarguably a selfish act. None of these things are immoral in my estimation, because like it or not, what we call "selfishness" is inseparable from living. So perhaps life extension is selfish, but it's no *more* selfish or likely to result in the breakdown of society or the environment than anything else many people do, (and are not bothered about to any real extent).
Another reason I take issue with the "selfishness" argument as applied to life extension is that it has implications for such things as disability rights. To what extent does a person have to justify their own existence, present or continued? If one claims that people beyond a certain age are obligated to die (because they've somehow used up "their share" of certain resources), then it seems that this involves making a judgement as to what constitutes a contribution to society. What about a disabled person -- someone who is perhaps unable to walk, or cook without assistance, or even move? Is Stephen Hawking using up "too many resources" because he requires a wheelchair, other assistive technology, and staff persons to help him survive? Think of all the people that could be fed, clothed, etc., with the money and time resources it takes to keep this one man alive...does that mean that Dr. Hawking should feel guilty for merely existing, and that the world would be better off without him?
Most people reading this would probably say no, that Dr. Hawking should not feel guilty about his needs because he is making a tremendous contribution to society. But what if he wasn't? What if he was just a disabled man, with no PhD, who needed the same supports to survive but was not a physicist.
Would he then be obligated to die?
Again, I say absolutely not. He would still be a person, and it is impossible (not to mention immoral) for an outside agent to even attempt to judge whether he has a right to continued existence. It sets a very dangerous precedent when one starts using the resource / social contribution model as a rationale for encouraging or disagreeing with the maintenance of people's lives. Lots of people who are outside the visible economy make incredible contributions to human existence, yet are not necessarily recognized or acknowledged for doing so.
There are retired senior citizens who perform volunteer work, which represents a tremendous amount of "free labor", which most certainly benefits the world. There are disabled individuals who cannot hold paying jobs, but who write powerful and passionate essays on human rights and share them with the world through the computer and other means of publication. The point I'm trying to make is that resource use can be a good investment in many cases, and that one needs to be on the lookout for "contributions to society" where one might not expect them, because when contributions are atypical or not subject to direct economic measurement, they can simply "pass under the radar" unless one is looking for them.
I agree that society does benefit from a certain amount of turnover and refreshment of perspectives, and that if everyone alive today magically just Didn't Die (yet we kept reproducing at the same ridiculous rate) there would be serious problems...but still, this doesn't convince me that it's unduly selfish to live or keep living. People are often called "selfish" if they commit suicide, and yet people are also called "selfish" when they endeavor not to die at all. One's presence, or absence, can affect the world (and the Universe) in completely unpredictable ways. Rather than assigning the "selfish" moniker to life-extensionists, perhaps it would be more rational to just keep applying it to suicides, since the argument used to justify the labeling here is that those who off themselves are denying the world of their contributions.
It's evident that this reasoning could just go round and round and round.
Therefore, it seems that the MOST pertinent thing to do is not worry so much about whether other people are doing things, or holding philosophies, that you consider "selfish". Rather, each person should be free to pursue a life that they are suited for, and work toward goals that are meaningful for them. Whether they look impressive to anyone else or not.
It's all well and good to talk about the "greater social justice", but if your favorite relative was 95 years old, in some sort of terrible pain, and DID NOT want to die, I can't imagine anyone here would sit there and say, "Well, Grandma, too bad...you've had your chance to live, and now you need to get out of the way so your presence doesn't somehow deny arbitrary future people the right to exist." I think it would be sick and reprehensible to sit there trying to convince such a person that they shouldn't desire to live any longer, or withhold medical treatment from them on the basis that they were "using up resources".
After all, it is one thing to say on the statistical, impersonal level, "Well, a certain number of people have to die every year in order to maintain the social order and natural equilibrium". It's quite another to say that someone's relative, or YOUR relative, "deserves" to die. Even if they'd rather not. Even if they haven't finished experiencing things and forming connections between thoughts, etc. Maybe a lot of people just accept death, but those that do not should NOT be obligated to experience decline and suffering. And they shouldn't be made to feel guilty for existing, regardless of how old they are.
To illustrate this point, If Bob wants to live forever and will do what he can to achieve it (so long as he remains informed the entire time and does not knowingly or deliberately influence the world in a negative manner), why should Joe be able to say, "Bob, I'm sorry, but there is going to come a point where the best thing you can do for the world is die". I don't think that Joe has any real ability to predict the ramifications of Bob's continued presence. What if Bob is a tireless altruist, working to improve conditions in developing nations? What if Bob is an inspiring poet whose works move people to new heights of understanding of their own condition? How can Joe possibly insist that no matter what Bob is doing, his mere presence beyond a certain age is nothing but a detriment?
I would argue that even if Bob is just an "ordinary" person, living a quiet life in the country, planting his vegetable garden and reading the paper and spending time with his cats, he still has the right to maintain this existence for as long as he would like to. It's not up to Joe to make the decision or judgement as to whether Bob should get to continue living. It's actually more selfish (or at least self-righteous) for Joe to insist that Bob's lifespan should be limited by Joe's philosophy. If Joe wants to die, and feels it's somehow his duty to die, then that is his choice, but it doesn't have to be Bob's choice.
Joe will argue that Bob's continued presence represents an unfair use of resources, that Bob's long life somehow interferes with the future by denying someone else -- who hasn't been born yet -- the chance to exist. The thing is, there is no proof that Bob's life in any way prevents anyone in the future from existing. For all we know, Bob's presence could be granting others MORE opportunities. If Bob (at a robust 200 years of age, perhaps?) tutors his niece in some aspect of art or science and this niece goes on to enrich the lives of others, then couldn't it be argued that Bob's presence -- at age 200 -- actually improved the world, rather than made it worse?
Wanting to live a very long time may be "selfish" in the sense that most human endeavors are selfish in some way -- they allow continued surivival, and opportunities, that may or may not impact the survival and opportunities of others. Driving a car (rather than taking public transit or walking or biking) could be said to be "selfish" because it only behooves the driver's convenience, and inarguably has some sort of environmental impact. Grocery shopping for yourself and not buying anything to donate to a homeless shelter could be considered selfish. Having one's own children rather than adopting (especially when you're concerned about overpopulation) is almost inarguably a selfish act. None of these things are immoral in my estimation, because like it or not, what we call "selfishness" is inseparable from living. So perhaps life extension is selfish, but it's no *more* selfish or likely to result in the breakdown of society or the environment than anything else many people do, (and are not bothered about to any real extent).
Another reason I take issue with the "selfishness" argument as applied to life extension is that it has implications for such things as disability rights. To what extent does a person have to justify their own existence, present or continued? If one claims that people beyond a certain age are obligated to die (because they've somehow used up "their share" of certain resources), then it seems that this involves making a judgement as to what constitutes a contribution to society. What about a disabled person -- someone who is perhaps unable to walk, or cook without assistance, or even move? Is Stephen Hawking using up "too many resources" because he requires a wheelchair, other assistive technology, and staff persons to help him survive? Think of all the people that could be fed, clothed, etc., with the money and time resources it takes to keep this one man alive...does that mean that Dr. Hawking should feel guilty for merely existing, and that the world would be better off without him?
Most people reading this would probably say no, that Dr. Hawking should not feel guilty about his needs because he is making a tremendous contribution to society. But what if he wasn't? What if he was just a disabled man, with no PhD, who needed the same supports to survive but was not a physicist.
Would he then be obligated to die?
Again, I say absolutely not. He would still be a person, and it is impossible (not to mention immoral) for an outside agent to even attempt to judge whether he has a right to continued existence. It sets a very dangerous precedent when one starts using the resource / social contribution model as a rationale for encouraging or disagreeing with the maintenance of people's lives. Lots of people who are outside the visible economy make incredible contributions to human existence, yet are not necessarily recognized or acknowledged for doing so.
There are retired senior citizens who perform volunteer work, which represents a tremendous amount of "free labor", which most certainly benefits the world. There are disabled individuals who cannot hold paying jobs, but who write powerful and passionate essays on human rights and share them with the world through the computer and other means of publication. The point I'm trying to make is that resource use can be a good investment in many cases, and that one needs to be on the lookout for "contributions to society" where one might not expect them, because when contributions are atypical or not subject to direct economic measurement, they can simply "pass under the radar" unless one is looking for them.
I agree that society does benefit from a certain amount of turnover and refreshment of perspectives, and that if everyone alive today magically just Didn't Die (yet we kept reproducing at the same ridiculous rate) there would be serious problems...but still, this doesn't convince me that it's unduly selfish to live or keep living. People are often called "selfish" if they commit suicide, and yet people are also called "selfish" when they endeavor not to die at all. One's presence, or absence, can affect the world (and the Universe) in completely unpredictable ways. Rather than assigning the "selfish" moniker to life-extensionists, perhaps it would be more rational to just keep applying it to suicides, since the argument used to justify the labeling here is that those who off themselves are denying the world of their contributions.
It's evident that this reasoning could just go round and round and round.
Therefore, it seems that the MOST pertinent thing to do is not worry so much about whether other people are doing things, or holding philosophies, that you consider "selfish". Rather, each person should be free to pursue a life that they are suited for, and work toward goals that are meaningful for them. Whether they look impressive to anyone else or not.
It's all well and good to talk about the "greater social justice", but if your favorite relative was 95 years old, in some sort of terrible pain, and DID NOT want to die, I can't imagine anyone here would sit there and say, "Well, Grandma, too bad...you've had your chance to live, and now you need to get out of the way so your presence doesn't somehow deny arbitrary future people the right to exist." I think it would be sick and reprehensible to sit there trying to convince such a person that they shouldn't desire to live any longer, or withhold medical treatment from them on the basis that they were "using up resources".
After all, it is one thing to say on the statistical, impersonal level, "Well, a certain number of people have to die every year in order to maintain the social order and natural equilibrium". It's quite another to say that someone's relative, or YOUR relative, "deserves" to die. Even if they'd rather not. Even if they haven't finished experiencing things and forming connections between thoughts, etc. Maybe a lot of people just accept death, but those that do not should NOT be obligated to experience decline and suffering. And they shouldn't be made to feel guilty for existing, regardless of how old they are.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Life in the details
One day recently, as I left work, I noticed a triangular puddle of water that had collected between two sections of curb surrounding a small garden-like zone in front of the building. The garden-like zone is carpeted with what looks like wood chips of some sort, perhaps to ward off certain sorts of insects, protect the soil, or simply provide a particular aesthetic. There is a tree with huge, plush green leaves that I always stare at while waiting for my ride home...sometimes after a day amidst carpeted rectangles within rectangles, the sight of the leaves on this tree reminds me that the world is real and I am in it.
The next day, the triangular puddle was gone, the linearity of each wood chip laid bare and emphasized by the darkness of its former immersion. My brain superimposed the image of the puddle over the now-drying area, and proceeded to play a little film of what had happened: I saw, in my minds eye, the water disappearing: some of it evaporating, some of it whipped into the asphalt parking lot by gusts of wind, but most of it sinking into the soil beneath the wood chips. Once under the chips, this puddle was no longer a puddle, but branching-out streams led through capillary action through the tiniest of roots. I glanced, again, at the succulent leaves of the tree and saw many puddles like yesterday's watery triangle splitting into discrete rivulets, some of which made their way through small roots to large roots to the trunk, to branches, and to the ends of twigs and finally into the leaves, which plumped in satisfaction at having reached optimum turgor pressure.
This is not a unique incident. Whenever I know of systems, whether in nature or in machine, I tend to visualize these systems. When I eat, I cannot help but picture the process of digestion. When my hair grows, I picture the food I eat being processed into the cells that make up things like hair. When I turn on my computer, I see electrons moving through wires and miniscule traces, semiconductor gates controlling current in a breathtaking dance of proper timing. When I see old, old buildings I am filled with strange surges of strange delight and longing for the history within: witnessing how I imagine the construction that took place, the laying of drywall, the positioning of beams. I am absolutely fixated on how things are and how they came to be...this has been the case for as long as I can remember. The more I learn, the richer experiences like walking down a sidewalk become: even the sidewalk itself contains a fascinating mini-movie of flowing particles and the process of drying cement.
When people talk about boredom, whether in their lives or as something they'd anticipate as being a consequence of a very long life, I find that I do not understand this at all. There are pictures, histories, parts, and systems everywhere, even in the most mundane-seeming of things. It took me a long time to even comprehend the meaning of "mundane" since as far as I'm concerned, everything has the potential to be fascinating. It would take an infinite number of lifetimes to pore properly over the myriad systems in unaltered nature alone, let alone the infinite potential inventions that are likely to come about due to conscious human intent.
The next day, the triangular puddle was gone, the linearity of each wood chip laid bare and emphasized by the darkness of its former immersion. My brain superimposed the image of the puddle over the now-drying area, and proceeded to play a little film of what had happened: I saw, in my minds eye, the water disappearing: some of it evaporating, some of it whipped into the asphalt parking lot by gusts of wind, but most of it sinking into the soil beneath the wood chips. Once under the chips, this puddle was no longer a puddle, but branching-out streams led through capillary action through the tiniest of roots. I glanced, again, at the succulent leaves of the tree and saw many puddles like yesterday's watery triangle splitting into discrete rivulets, some of which made their way through small roots to large roots to the trunk, to branches, and to the ends of twigs and finally into the leaves, which plumped in satisfaction at having reached optimum turgor pressure.
This is not a unique incident. Whenever I know of systems, whether in nature or in machine, I tend to visualize these systems. When I eat, I cannot help but picture the process of digestion. When my hair grows, I picture the food I eat being processed into the cells that make up things like hair. When I turn on my computer, I see electrons moving through wires and miniscule traces, semiconductor gates controlling current in a breathtaking dance of proper timing. When I see old, old buildings I am filled with strange surges of strange delight and longing for the history within: witnessing how I imagine the construction that took place, the laying of drywall, the positioning of beams. I am absolutely fixated on how things are and how they came to be...this has been the case for as long as I can remember. The more I learn, the richer experiences like walking down a sidewalk become: even the sidewalk itself contains a fascinating mini-movie of flowing particles and the process of drying cement.
When people talk about boredom, whether in their lives or as something they'd anticipate as being a consequence of a very long life, I find that I do not understand this at all. There are pictures, histories, parts, and systems everywhere, even in the most mundane-seeming of things. It took me a long time to even comprehend the meaning of "mundane" since as far as I'm concerned, everything has the potential to be fascinating. It would take an infinite number of lifetimes to pore properly over the myriad systems in unaltered nature alone, let alone the infinite potential inventions that are likely to come about due to conscious human intent.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Introduction - Why I Support Life Extension
People who have lived a long time have generally accumulated huge amounts of wisdom and realizations, and if these people disappear, all this knowledge just evaporates (assuming they haven't written it down). This is really tragic, in my opinion. I mean, if people WANT to die, then I am certainly not going to stand in their way, but what I am concerned about is social pressures that encourage people to line up unquestioningly for their doom. There is nothing OK, healthy, or ethical about this. I think that medicine should be entirely devoted to saving lives and preserving health, no matter what the person's age.
Witholding treatment or favoring one age group over another is discrimination, plain and simple. I don't think that any of us can decide whose life has "a lot of possibilities" -- only the person whose life is in question can decide. If you deny an older person a chance at living longer because they don't have enough "potential", would you also deny this chance to a disabled person, or simply someone you didn't like? I am not trying to be inflammatory here, I am just trying to make the point that how long a person has already lived is a very, very bad way to determine the worth of their lives. It's like making such a judgement based on gender or disability, which is just plain wrong.
Some very intelligent friends of mine have attempted to elucidate their own rationale (for death being an essential part of being human) in light of their beliefs about nature and whatnot. I'm trying to take these arguments and consider them in a rational manner, and I plan to treat anyone who comments here with the utmost respect, realizing we all come from different philosophical frames of reference shaped by everything from our life experiences to our very neurological structure.
This blog is intended to explore ideas pertaining to the following aspects of radical life extension:
1. Is it even possible?
My take on the matter: Theoretically, yes, and I'll try to explain why I think so. I am quite excited about the notion of Escape Velocity, and I consider cryonics to be a good last-resort sort of thing (and I plan to arrange for it myself as soon as I am able). I also see such things as nanotechnology and stem cell-based therapies as having huge potential for addressing the problem of age-related decline.
The way I see it, the frailty and ill health associated with aging is just another engineering problem -- it's no more "special" than any other disease, and I think that a much of the pessimism I've seen regarding the potential to arrest aging has to do with deep cultural memes that somehow elevate death to something of cosmic significance. It is my hope that the real science, the understanding of the mechanisms behind human death, will mean the welcome dissipation of these cultural memes.
2. Is it ethical?
Again, I say yes, for reasons I hope to make very clear over the course of time and discussion here. It's been 7 years since I started studying (on a hobby basis) the issue of radical longevity. Most of my own focus has been on the "Is it possible?" question, which is indeed critical to explore. However, a recent discussion elsewhere (a text-based BBS...yes, a few do still exist!) prompted me to start thinking much more extensively on matters of ethics and social responsibility.
Things like overpopulation, competition for resources, genetic / cultural stagnation, etc., all need to be addressed when one discusses a non-dying population, or subpopulation. As do more personal issues like, "Is the drive to continue existing somehow selfish or immoral?" I hope to bring a rational voice to the discussion of these issues, and I welcome discussion from anyone who has thoughts on such notions.
Witholding treatment or favoring one age group over another is discrimination, plain and simple. I don't think that any of us can decide whose life has "a lot of possibilities" -- only the person whose life is in question can decide. If you deny an older person a chance at living longer because they don't have enough "potential", would you also deny this chance to a disabled person, or simply someone you didn't like? I am not trying to be inflammatory here, I am just trying to make the point that how long a person has already lived is a very, very bad way to determine the worth of their lives. It's like making such a judgement based on gender or disability, which is just plain wrong.
Some very intelligent friends of mine have attempted to elucidate their own rationale (for death being an essential part of being human) in light of their beliefs about nature and whatnot. I'm trying to take these arguments and consider them in a rational manner, and I plan to treat anyone who comments here with the utmost respect, realizing we all come from different philosophical frames of reference shaped by everything from our life experiences to our very neurological structure.
This blog is intended to explore ideas pertaining to the following aspects of radical life extension:
1. Is it even possible?
My take on the matter: Theoretically, yes, and I'll try to explain why I think so. I am quite excited about the notion of Escape Velocity, and I consider cryonics to be a good last-resort sort of thing (and I plan to arrange for it myself as soon as I am able). I also see such things as nanotechnology and stem cell-based therapies as having huge potential for addressing the problem of age-related decline.
The way I see it, the frailty and ill health associated with aging is just another engineering problem -- it's no more "special" than any other disease, and I think that a much of the pessimism I've seen regarding the potential to arrest aging has to do with deep cultural memes that somehow elevate death to something of cosmic significance. It is my hope that the real science, the understanding of the mechanisms behind human death, will mean the welcome dissipation of these cultural memes.
2. Is it ethical?
Again, I say yes, for reasons I hope to make very clear over the course of time and discussion here. It's been 7 years since I started studying (on a hobby basis) the issue of radical longevity. Most of my own focus has been on the "Is it possible?" question, which is indeed critical to explore. However, a recent discussion elsewhere (a text-based BBS...yes, a few do still exist!) prompted me to start thinking much more extensively on matters of ethics and social responsibility.
Things like overpopulation, competition for resources, genetic / cultural stagnation, etc., all need to be addressed when one discusses a non-dying population, or subpopulation. As do more personal issues like, "Is the drive to continue existing somehow selfish or immoral?" I hope to bring a rational voice to the discussion of these issues, and I welcome discussion from anyone who has thoughts on such notions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)