Episode 11 of Existence is Wonderful Audio has been posted and is ready for download -- click here if you are interested and not already subscribed. Sorry it took so long to produce a new episode; the last one came out in March, and things have been pretty busy since then. And this one was very tricky to produce -- mostly because of the content, which lies somewhere outside my primary areas of focus. I didn't touch much on life extension specifically in this episode, so those of you who are ONLY interested in hearing about longevity science might want to skip it. My main topic of discussion this time was the notion of a "genetic divide" -- that is, the notion that advances in genetic and reproductive technology might lead to a schism between the biological "haves" and "have-nots".
And so far I don't think that my opinion on this subject is likely to be shared by, well, anyone. I am not in favor of banning all genetic technologies, nor do I think there is anything "sacred" about the human genome. Every one of us is a mutant, after all; there's no such thing as a "standard" human to begin with. But at the same time, I do think that there are some caveats that ought to be kept in mind when approaching things like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). It is very difficult to write (or talk) about this because I feel like I need to hang massive disclaimers on everything so as to avoid being generalized into a "pro-technology" or "anti-technology" faction when my views cannot possibly be simplified in that way. And I also realized when preparing the script for this podcast that I have what I consider to be two primary areas of focus in my own flavor of transhumanism: life extension, and the use of technology to improve and enhance the lives of people who already exist.
I actually have tremendous difficulty addressing certain areas of bioethical discourse. And part of the reason I have so much trouble writing about these topics (like "designer babies") is because frequently in such cases, we are dealing with hypothetical/theoretical beings as opposed to living individuals. It is a lot harder, in my mind, to make a case for configuring future generations a certain way than it is to make a case for helping people in the present generation access technologies and modifications that would help them live longer, happier, more functional lives. I think that outside trying to allow people to live longer lives and suffer fewer illnesses like cancer and heart disease, it is exceedingly difficult to claim that we truly know what future generations are likely to thank us for. And I don't think that utilitarian calculations, or decisions made on the basis of prejudice, are valid means to make choices and institute policy regarding the fate of all those hypothetical embryos swimming in potential-space.
So, with that in mind, I hope Episode 11 at least comprises some sort of food for thought.
Links of Interest Pertaining To This Episode
1. Nice writeup on 'The Gimp Parade' on the subject of "race as disability" following an interesting mishap at a fertility clinic.
2. An abstract on "procreative beneficence", something I have a fair number of philosophical problems with. It seems like one of those "sounds good on the surface, but actually has a lot of flaws" terms -- sort of like "pro-life".
3. James Hughes on, Ensuring Universal Access to Enhancing Technologies.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Centenarian Birthdays, Abstractions, and Presuming to Exist
It seems that quite frequently, whenever someone lives to be 100 or 110 or some other impressive number, they tend to be celebrated and interviewed by newspapers and asked enthusiastically what their "secret" is (that is, how they were able to live so long in reasonable health). But then, when the idea of making it possible for everyone to live to 110 or beyond in good health is suggested, many people will claim that this is a bad idea or that it "diminishes what it means to be human"!
So, why the double standard here? Why is it considered good for particular individuals to lead long, vital lives but not for everyone to have the opportunity to do the same? I have never in my life come across an article featuring a centenarian or supercentenarian on his or her birthday that suggests that the specific person in question is somehow "taking up too much space" or that their time on earth is (or should be) drawing to a close; rather, such articles seem to reflect a very positive attitude about the person. This is good! This is exactly the sort of thing that we want to perpetuate -- that is, the celebration of long and interesting lives and the people who live them.
But why can't this attitude manage to carry over into general attitudes toward the elderly? If a person is valuable (which all people are), then why should we not be doing everything possible to assure that they have access to the finest and most appropriate medical care? With the kind of cognitive dissonance one encounters when reading an article about a specific centenarian followed by an article about why it's supposedly bad to support life extension, one might imagine articles with titles like, "Happy Birthday! Now, Drop Dead!" to be commonplace -- thankfully this is not the case. But still, it is rather unnerving to see some supercentenarians apologizing for their own longevity. Tomoji Tanabe, who recently turned 111 (and who is currently the world's oldest male of verifiable age), supposedly said recently:
Considering that the article linked above began with a statement about "Japan’s welfare system buckling under the demands of an ageing society", one can only hope that Tomoji Tanabe's joke has nothing more ominous than a note of dark humor behind it. The same man stated in another article, "“I don’t want to die,” and I sincerely hope that this statement is taken altogether seriously!
Saying that elderly people are somehow "supposed" to die, or that longevity medicine undermines humanity, is a cop-out -- not to mention an insult to people who are still alive long when most would have already succumbed, and who (uneasily?) joke about possibly having overstayed their welcome while at the same time expressing that no, they are not gung-ho about seizing the grave. Being alive and sentient is about a lot of things. Why must death, specifically age-related death (of all things) be singled out as some sort of cosmically significant defining factor of what it means to be a person? There are so many things in life that one might garner meaning from, after all -- art, beauty, love, friendship, creativity, excitement, learning, awe, wonder, and even the constant and unrelenting struggle to make meanings in a universe that frequently seems to be patently absurd.
To deny the possibility of continued existence to full, valuable, loved individuals on the basis that this might somehow undermine the significance of life and personhood is beyond discriminatory. It is beyond presumptuous. Why not let people determine for themselves what it means to exist rather than presuming to decide for them on the basis of outmoded notions of everyone needing a guaranteed (probably age-related) end in order to truly appreciate and participate in life?
This is perhaps one of the most confounding things for me in terms of arguments against the idea of healthy life extension -- the idea that somehow, the "wisdom of nature" suggests that we are all part of some grand circle that demands our demise within but a few decades of our birth. Some make arguments along the lines of, well, we all need to consume things in order to survive, so when we die, that's our way of "giving ourselves back to the earth" -- and that trying to remove ourselves from this cycle signifies dangerous and ignorant hubris.
Much of the intent behind appeals to "nature" as justified architect and destroyer alike seems curiously similar to the archaic, almost alchemical awareness that the existence of one thing (or one person) effectively cancels out the potential for another. Do some people feel guilty for holding their own form, and dread having to explain their own existence eons into the future, when they might be long past the age that would have meant the certain demise of all their ancestors? Do these same people feel that the pattern that makes up each of us -- that traces the thread of our awareness through spacetime -- is predetermined to persist for around 80 years, pushing beyond that fate only at the expense of other, possibly "better" patterns?
If so, I would seriously advise such people to stop playing the would-be martyr and get around to the business of living their lives, of trying to use their accumulated experience and knowledge and sensory input data to explore the depths and heights of being -- and to help allow others to do likewise. You exist. Existence is a pretty reasonable deal, all things considered.
Stop feeling guilty about being alive, stop feeling like the world would be better if someone other than you were breathing "your" air and eating your food and stepping where you walk. Instead, take joy in the fact that of all the patterns that could have been, you ended up falling out of the aether and into conscious awareness. This is not selfishness. It is not egoism. It is simply the rational acknowledgement that just as you are no "better" than your friends, family, neighbors, or ancestors, no "hypothetical" future-being or ungerminated embryo somehow has more claim to a portion of the universe's resources than you do.
Certainly, we should all keep sustainability in mind and use our resources as wisely as possible. But there is absolutely no reason to think that somehow, you don't deserve to exist past a certain point in time because you need to eat plants and such to survive -- some trees live for thousands of years, and some marine animals are thought to be capable of living indefinitely; surely, no-one would accuse these life forms of taking the place of something else that "should" exist in their stead. Not to mention the fact that aging is only one of the possible things that could kill you -- there's no way to guarantee absolute invulnerability, and we certainly wouldn't "lose" the uncertainty inherent in existence if the single variable of age-related death were somehow mitigated! It is perfectly possible to acknowledge the preciousness and fragility of life, and the vulnerability and struggle and uncertainty that come as part and parcel of biological existence, without making appeals to some divine "circle of life" that demands the sacrifice of individual minds for the sake of making fertilizer.
This is yet another area in which I see a strong overlap between longevity advocacy and disability rights. Many elderly people are disabled, and many disabled people face the same exact challenges as the "average" elder: wondering if they are a "burden" to their families, wondering if their existence is too expensive to justify, and having no idea if the folks at the hospital will even bother trying to save them if they get into an accident or suffer a fall. I don't see any philosophical distinction between a dying elderly person and a dying person with a serious disability; both are people, both are valuable, and both deserve the best in lifesaving care regardless of their age or configuration.
In the ideal hospital, a person's age should not matter with respect to whether their life is considered worth saving, just as their disability status should not matter. The fact that resources are an "issue", that they are limited, and that we humans haven't done that great of a job with this whole "sustainable living" thing just yet should not negate the fact that it is wrong to kill people, and it is wrong to let people die if there is any shadow of a chance of preventing that death. If resources are a problem, we need to work on solving that problem in ways that do not demand sacrifices in the manner of some bloodthirsty ancient idol.
So, next time you come across an article about how radically extended lives would "undermine" what it means to be human, try recalling (or looking up) articles about individual centenarians and supercentenarians. Note the differences in attitude when individuals are discussed, versus where "demographics" are discussed in the abstract. I'm guessing the results will be quite telling indeed.
So, why the double standard here? Why is it considered good for particular individuals to lead long, vital lives but not for everyone to have the opportunity to do the same? I have never in my life come across an article featuring a centenarian or supercentenarian on his or her birthday that suggests that the specific person in question is somehow "taking up too much space" or that their time on earth is (or should be) drawing to a close; rather, such articles seem to reflect a very positive attitude about the person. This is good! This is exactly the sort of thing that we want to perpetuate -- that is, the celebration of long and interesting lives and the people who live them.
But why can't this attitude manage to carry over into general attitudes toward the elderly? If a person is valuable (which all people are), then why should we not be doing everything possible to assure that they have access to the finest and most appropriate medical care? With the kind of cognitive dissonance one encounters when reading an article about a specific centenarian followed by an article about why it's supposedly bad to support life extension, one might imagine articles with titles like, "Happy Birthday! Now, Drop Dead!" to be commonplace -- thankfully this is not the case. But still, it is rather unnerving to see some supercentenarians apologizing for their own longevity. Tomoji Tanabe, who recently turned 111 (and who is currently the world's oldest male of verifiable age), supposedly said recently:
“I have been around too long,” he joked, “I am sorry.”
Considering that the article linked above began with a statement about "Japan’s welfare system buckling under the demands of an ageing society", one can only hope that Tomoji Tanabe's joke has nothing more ominous than a note of dark humor behind it. The same man stated in another article, "“I don’t want to die,” and I sincerely hope that this statement is taken altogether seriously!
Saying that elderly people are somehow "supposed" to die, or that longevity medicine undermines humanity, is a cop-out -- not to mention an insult to people who are still alive long when most would have already succumbed, and who (uneasily?) joke about possibly having overstayed their welcome while at the same time expressing that no, they are not gung-ho about seizing the grave. Being alive and sentient is about a lot of things. Why must death, specifically age-related death (of all things) be singled out as some sort of cosmically significant defining factor of what it means to be a person? There are so many things in life that one might garner meaning from, after all -- art, beauty, love, friendship, creativity, excitement, learning, awe, wonder, and even the constant and unrelenting struggle to make meanings in a universe that frequently seems to be patently absurd.
To deny the possibility of continued existence to full, valuable, loved individuals on the basis that this might somehow undermine the significance of life and personhood is beyond discriminatory. It is beyond presumptuous. Why not let people determine for themselves what it means to exist rather than presuming to decide for them on the basis of outmoded notions of everyone needing a guaranteed (probably age-related) end in order to truly appreciate and participate in life?
This is perhaps one of the most confounding things for me in terms of arguments against the idea of healthy life extension -- the idea that somehow, the "wisdom of nature" suggests that we are all part of some grand circle that demands our demise within but a few decades of our birth. Some make arguments along the lines of, well, we all need to consume things in order to survive, so when we die, that's our way of "giving ourselves back to the earth" -- and that trying to remove ourselves from this cycle signifies dangerous and ignorant hubris.
Much of the intent behind appeals to "nature" as justified architect and destroyer alike seems curiously similar to the archaic, almost alchemical awareness that the existence of one thing (or one person) effectively cancels out the potential for another. Do some people feel guilty for holding their own form, and dread having to explain their own existence eons into the future, when they might be long past the age that would have meant the certain demise of all their ancestors? Do these same people feel that the pattern that makes up each of us -- that traces the thread of our awareness through spacetime -- is predetermined to persist for around 80 years, pushing beyond that fate only at the expense of other, possibly "better" patterns?
If so, I would seriously advise such people to stop playing the would-be martyr and get around to the business of living their lives, of trying to use their accumulated experience and knowledge and sensory input data to explore the depths and heights of being -- and to help allow others to do likewise. You exist. Existence is a pretty reasonable deal, all things considered.
Stop feeling guilty about being alive, stop feeling like the world would be better if someone other than you were breathing "your" air and eating your food and stepping where you walk. Instead, take joy in the fact that of all the patterns that could have been, you ended up falling out of the aether and into conscious awareness. This is not selfishness. It is not egoism. It is simply the rational acknowledgement that just as you are no "better" than your friends, family, neighbors, or ancestors, no "hypothetical" future-being or ungerminated embryo somehow has more claim to a portion of the universe's resources than you do.
Certainly, we should all keep sustainability in mind and use our resources as wisely as possible. But there is absolutely no reason to think that somehow, you don't deserve to exist past a certain point in time because you need to eat plants and such to survive -- some trees live for thousands of years, and some marine animals are thought to be capable of living indefinitely; surely, no-one would accuse these life forms of taking the place of something else that "should" exist in their stead. Not to mention the fact that aging is only one of the possible things that could kill you -- there's no way to guarantee absolute invulnerability, and we certainly wouldn't "lose" the uncertainty inherent in existence if the single variable of age-related death were somehow mitigated! It is perfectly possible to acknowledge the preciousness and fragility of life, and the vulnerability and struggle and uncertainty that come as part and parcel of biological existence, without making appeals to some divine "circle of life" that demands the sacrifice of individual minds for the sake of making fertilizer.
This is yet another area in which I see a strong overlap between longevity advocacy and disability rights. Many elderly people are disabled, and many disabled people face the same exact challenges as the "average" elder: wondering if they are a "burden" to their families, wondering if their existence is too expensive to justify, and having no idea if the folks at the hospital will even bother trying to save them if they get into an accident or suffer a fall. I don't see any philosophical distinction between a dying elderly person and a dying person with a serious disability; both are people, both are valuable, and both deserve the best in lifesaving care regardless of their age or configuration.
In the ideal hospital, a person's age should not matter with respect to whether their life is considered worth saving, just as their disability status should not matter. The fact that resources are an "issue", that they are limited, and that we humans haven't done that great of a job with this whole "sustainable living" thing just yet should not negate the fact that it is wrong to kill people, and it is wrong to let people die if there is any shadow of a chance of preventing that death. If resources are a problem, we need to work on solving that problem in ways that do not demand sacrifices in the manner of some bloodthirsty ancient idol.
So, next time you come across an article about how radically extended lives would "undermine" what it means to be human, try recalling (or looking up) articles about individual centenarians and supercentenarians. Note the differences in attitude when individuals are discussed, versus where "demographics" are discussed in the abstract. I'm guessing the results will be quite telling indeed.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Miscellaneous Items for Interesting Times
1. First of all, the boring item. I changed the title of my post on mirror neurons from "Much Ado About Mirror Neurons - Empathy, Autism, and Bias" to "Mirror Neurons, Autism, Empathy, and Bias" based on the disovery of an article with a very similar title on the BrainTechSci blog. Since this other article was written long before mine, I figured I would alter my title so as to prevent any potential confusion.
2. Now, for something decidedly unboring. Last Monday I was interviewed by representatives from the BBC for a documentary set to air sometime in the future (I'm not exactly sure when, and I'm not sure that they are either, but I think the earliest will be September of this year). The subject of the documentary is "The Future", and it sounds as if it is going to be a very intriguing piece. Somewhere around 40 people were interviewed on all kinds of fascinating topics, from robotics to nanotechnology to life extension. I don't know if I managed to do any kind of justice to the sorts of topics covered, and there were so many things I wished I'd said afterward (and some things I know I worded quite clumsily), but it was really neat to be able to take part in such a cool project.
I'm not sure what sort of tone the documentary is going to take, but at least for my part I tried to emphasize not "technophilia" but a rational approach to emerging tech that involves a concurrent social evolution (e.g., so that technologies can be developed for uses that help people, but that people are not compelled to use these technologies in ways that promote bigotry or injustice).
I look forward to seeing the results primarily because of the other people that were interviewed and because, well, I think that it is important for more people to become aware of the kinds of developments in science and biotech that are likely to impact their lives, in some cases sooner than they might have anticipated.
(And the BBC people did say that I was allowed to talk about the project publicly -- I asked permission when they were done filming.)
3. The book by Dr. Aubrey de Grey and his assistant Michael Rae (titled, Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Biotechnologies That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime) is now available for pre-order on Amazon, and will be released on September 4, 2007. I'm excited to see it getting published -- as Reason notes:
A few months back I helped edit drafts of this book (as part of volunteering with the Methuselah Foundation) and found the level of writing to be highly accessible -- I learned quite a bit about mitochondria and other biological components possibly relevant to the aging process just from reading the raw text, and I will be very pleased to get my copy of the final product. One thing I am hoping is that this book helps make the case that addressing age-related illness and death is simply the logical extension of medicine in general -- in short, it represents a very ethically appropriate attempt to expand the sphere of medical effectiveness to older people. By talking about the relevant biotechnology in terms that people can actually understand, perhaps this and similar publications will help bring longevity science closer to most people's field of view.
4. Transvision 2007 is coming up -- it will take place in Chicago, IL starting July 23 and concluding on July 26. From the official site:
I won't be attending in person (due to schedule constraints and general bandwidth saturation) but would certainly encourage anyone with the means and interest to go. I will be peeking into the virtual offshoot of TV07 in Second Life. In any case, I'm sure it is going to be a fascinating event, and I hope to see whatever recorded media ends up coming out of it.
2. Now, for something decidedly unboring. Last Monday I was interviewed by representatives from the BBC for a documentary set to air sometime in the future (I'm not exactly sure when, and I'm not sure that they are either, but I think the earliest will be September of this year). The subject of the documentary is "The Future", and it sounds as if it is going to be a very intriguing piece. Somewhere around 40 people were interviewed on all kinds of fascinating topics, from robotics to nanotechnology to life extension. I don't know if I managed to do any kind of justice to the sorts of topics covered, and there were so many things I wished I'd said afterward (and some things I know I worded quite clumsily), but it was really neat to be able to take part in such a cool project.
I'm not sure what sort of tone the documentary is going to take, but at least for my part I tried to emphasize not "technophilia" but a rational approach to emerging tech that involves a concurrent social evolution (e.g., so that technologies can be developed for uses that help people, but that people are not compelled to use these technologies in ways that promote bigotry or injustice).
I look forward to seeing the results primarily because of the other people that were interviewed and because, well, I think that it is important for more people to become aware of the kinds of developments in science and biotech that are likely to impact their lives, in some cases sooner than they might have anticipated.
(And the BBC people did say that I was allowed to talk about the project publicly -- I asked permission when they were done filming.)
3. The book by Dr. Aubrey de Grey and his assistant Michael Rae (titled, Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Biotechnologies That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime) is now available for pre-order on Amazon, and will be released on September 4, 2007. I'm excited to see it getting published -- as Reason notes:
Aimed squarely at folk who want to know more about the science of repairing the molecular damage that causes aging, but find navigating the wild waterways of scientific publications too intimidating or time-consuming, this is a step by step, detailed explanation of how we could achieve radical life extension within our lifetimes, as best we understand from our present knowledge of our biochemistry.
A few months back I helped edit drafts of this book (as part of volunteering with the Methuselah Foundation) and found the level of writing to be highly accessible -- I learned quite a bit about mitochondria and other biological components possibly relevant to the aging process just from reading the raw text, and I will be very pleased to get my copy of the final product. One thing I am hoping is that this book helps make the case that addressing age-related illness and death is simply the logical extension of medicine in general -- in short, it represents a very ethically appropriate attempt to expand the sphere of medical effectiveness to older people. By talking about the relevant biotechnology in terms that people can actually understand, perhaps this and similar publications will help bring longevity science closer to most people's field of view.
4. Transvision 2007 is coming up -- it will take place in Chicago, IL starting July 23 and concluding on July 26. From the official site:
...the theme of TransVision 2007 is: Transhumanity Saving Humanity: Inner Space to Outer Space, and will feature three full days of compelling dialogue with the greatest minds of today about creating the civilizations of tomorrow. TV07 brings extraordinary people from across the globe together with more than 30 distinguished speakers, entertainers and visionaries including: award-winning inventor, futurist, author Raymond Kurzweil; acclaimed longevity scientist, Aubrey de Grey; and Emmy award winning actor, William Shatner.
I won't be attending in person (due to schedule constraints and general bandwidth saturation) but would certainly encourage anyone with the means and interest to go. I will be peeking into the virtual offshoot of TV07 in Second Life. In any case, I'm sure it is going to be a fascinating event, and I hope to see whatever recorded media ends up coming out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)