|
Do you want to live forever?
Why? What is the reason for your belief? What is the meaning? These are
questions of philosophy, and whether you know it or not, your answer is
based on your philosophy of life and death.
When some people hear the word 'philosophy', what they think of is a
rather obscure branch of academia, of little relevance to the real world.
But academic philosophy is only one narrow aspect of 'philosophy'. In the
broadest sense of the term, everyone who can think is doing philosophy.
Like all animals, human drives are in part a product of evolution.
Evolutionary psychology is the branch of science that investigates the
underlying biological aspects of human urges. We have physical and
emotional needs: we need food, water, air, shelter and sleep, and we may
have inbuilt cravings for things like sex, money, power and fame. Yet
unlike all other animals, we humans are capable of abstract thought - of
reasoning. And reason seems to give us the power to over-ride our other
animalistic cravings. Once our biological needs are taken care of, the
rest of our actions can only be fully explained by reference to our high
level thoughts. In the realm of the intellect, the ideas and beliefs that
we hold will govern how we behave. These ideas and beliefs in sum form our
philosophy of life. We may be conscious of our philosophy or we may not.
But everyone without exception has a philosophy.
If the formation of ideas and beliefs is philosophy then philosophy is all
around us. We read the newspapers and come across a hard-hitting editorial
- philosophy. We turn on the T.V and hear political commentary -
philosophy. We see a Christian preacher on the street corner giving us the
gospel of Christ - philosophy. Often we simply don't recognize many basic
ideals as philosophy, because we take them so much for granted. Consider
many basic principles held by those living in modern nations - democracy,
science, and the idea of progress, the rule of law, religion, the very
concept of a 'nation'. All of those things had their roots in
philosophical ideas. 'Democracy' was a radical concept developed by
philosophers in ancient Greece. Branches of modern science such as
chemistry and astronomy matured from philosophical doctrines like alchemy
and astrology. The modern idea of progress was a philosophical idea, which
first took root during the Renaissance period of the Middle Ages.
Philosophical ideas gave rise to religions like Islam, which spawned the
great Persian Empire of the Middle East. In the West, the Christian
philosophy of Thomas Aquinas helped shaped Europe for a millennium. It is
clear from the historical record that philosophy has been a major driving
force shaping human society. That is not to say it's the only force of
course. Aside from biology, human behavior is also partially driven by
things such as class struggle, and the physical environment. But it is
clear that if we wish to understand why people behave the way they do, we
must engage in philosophy.
Most people alive today do not regard physical immortality as a sensible
proposition. In fact, many people would be opposed to radical life
extension. An exploration of the prevalent philosophies in today's
cultures helps provide an explanation. We can identity three key modes of
thought that prevent the idea of immortality from being taken seriously:
(1) Cartesian dualism, (2) Fatalism, and (3) Static views of human nature
Let's examine these 3 common viewpoints. The first is the idea named after
philosopher Rene Descartes. Cartesian dualism holds that there is a
supernatural component to human consciousness, which has an existence
independent of the human body. This idea that we have 'souls' which
survive physical death is obviously a central tenet of many of the world's
religions, both Eastern and Western. Those who believe that they will
survive physical death may not see the point of radical life extension,
and at the least, belief in souls must reduce the motivation for believers
to try to extend physical life.
The second common reason why people don't take life extension seriously is
fatalism. People simply don't believe that physical immortality is
something that is possible. Therefore they see little point in making
aggressive efforts to combat aging.
The third general reason for doubting immortality is the idea that human
nature is necessarily limited. Even if people realize that they will not
survive physical death, and they are prepared to admit that death might
not be inevitable, they may still doubt the wisdom of life extension. They
fear that radical life extension would somehow cause change to cease, so
that nothing new under the sun could take place. Common worries along
these lines are that long life would be boring or pointless, or that
society would become ossified, or that evolution would stop, or that no
one could have any children.
In order for a significant social acceptance of immortality to occur, each
of these 3 common philosophic viewpoints will need to be addressed. It's
important for both skeptics and immortalists to stick to specific issues
when arguing their views. The specific issues are: Do we have souls that
can survive physical death? Is it likely that science can one day find a
way to give us physical immortality? And: would physical immortality be
worthwhile or is there a good reason why human lifespan should be finite?
Mainstream thought in the worlds major religions hold that we do have
supernatural souls that can survive physical death. However it is
important to realize that all major religions have a variety of differing
theological viewpoints, and some of these alternative viewpoints have
wholly naturalistic conceptions of things like God and souls. One does not
have to become an atheist in order to agree that there is nothing
supernatural about human consciousness. Pantheists equate God with the
natural Universe. Pantheism holds that there is no clear division between
mind and matter, and that human consciousness is a natural phenomenon
arising from sufficiently complex arrangements of matter. This is in
keeping with the scientific world-view that human consciousness is totally
dependant on the human brain, and the death of the body will result in the
death of the mind. There are also scientific theologies such as the Omega
Point theory, which postulates an evolutionary God equivalent to the
universe at the end of time. Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin, who
wanted to reconcile science and Christianity, first put the idea of an
Omega point forward. It's clear that science and religion need not
conflict. But acceptable of the scientific world-view requires that we
concede that our soul is not supernatural. An entertaining and convincing
over-view of the evidence that there is nothing supernatural about
consciousness can be found in the book 'Consciousness Explained', by
philosopher Daniel Dennett.
Our consciousness depends on our body. If we value life, we should try to
cherish and preserve it. Therefore, we should try to cherish and preserve
our body for us long as we value life. Since aging and disease harm our
bodies, a reverence for life requires that we fight aging and disease. And
a continued reverence for life requires an on-going battle against
death... or the quest for physical immortality! A reverence for life is,
in fact, a central tenant of most major religions. And this expresses
itself in a yearning for spiritual immortality. So we see that the
scientific and the religious conceptions of immortality are both motivated
by the same reverence for life. The scientific insight is that spiritual
(mental) immortality requires physical immortality.
Here we run into the next major hurdle preventing people from supporting
the quest for physical immortality. Fatalism. The 'common-sense' view is
that physical death is inevitable and it is useless to fight it. So the
skeptics will simply dismiss physical immortality as a hopeless dream. In
order to realize that physical immortality, may not, in fact, be a
hopeless dream, research the marvelous scientific advances in areas such
as stem cell research and cloning, proving that new tissues and organs can
be grown as replacements for aging ones. There are documented animal
studies conclusively proving that life span can be extended through
caloric restriction, and studies conclusively proving that life span can
be extended through genetic manipulation. It is important to focus on
proven results rather than on long-term futuristic possibilities. You may
be skeptical of pipe dreams, but proven results cannot be denied, and they
demonstrate that physical life extension is possible. Damien Broderick's
'The Last Mortal Generation: How Science Will Alter Our Lives in the 21st
Century' is an excellent over-view of life extension research up to the
year 1999.
Developing personal exercise, diet and supplementation programs, which
produce immediate improvements in health, can combat fatalistic feelings
that immortality is a hopeless dream. Keep yourself informed about
scientific advances related to aging and try applying these advances in
your own life. Seek out people and media promoting life extension and
carefully sit down and examine the facts. Upon reviewing the facts, even
hard-core pessimists must admit that immortality is not a hopeless dream,
and that there is at the very least a small possibility of radical
extensions of human span at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Given that immortality might just be possible, the skeptic will still
question why we should want it. Perhaps the problems which extended life
may cause make the goal unworthy? A negative view of what immortality may
be like is a world where nothing ever changes, where people just run out
of things to do, a nightmare of hellish boredom. The mistake here is to
imagine that human nature is fixed and that the world contains limited
resources and possibilities. But there is strong evidence to suggest that
neither of these assumptions is true.
The Renaissance ideal was that humans could take charge of their own
destiny and improve upon their basic nature through such things as good
government, proper education and applied reason. Although human history is
punctuated with barbarism, it is clear that life in the year 2003 for the
average human is generally better than it was in the Middle ages, just as
life in the Middle ages was generally better than it was in the Stone
ages. It is better not just in the material sense, but in the social sense
also. Democracy and universal human rights were radical ideas of the
Middle Ages, but today they have been widely applied throughout the world.
The 20th century saw the horrors of things such as Nazism, but it also saw
the wide acceptance of rights for oppressed people such as woman, gays and
blacks. Human nature can be improved, albeit slowly.
It is important to understand that the vitality of a society is not a
function of the length of time that people live, but a function of the
political and social structures. Things such as democracy and free markets
were designed in order to weed out stagnation. Under democracy, people can
prevent elites from accumulating too much power and bad leaders can get
thrown out. Under free market capitalism, competition and the profit
motive encourage constant innovation, because businesses selling bad
products go bankrupt and businesses selling better products get rewarded.
There is no reason why a society of extremely long lived people should
stagnate, provided the right political and social structures are in place.
What about the concern that resources and possibilities are finite? It
might seem to be 'common sense' that there is only a finite amount of
living space for instance. But an understanding of economics and science
suggests that common sense is wrong. Economists are increasingly coming to
realize the extent to which wealth is created by human knowledge. It is
human knowledge which defines what a 'resource' actually is. For instance,
take oil, which might seem on the surface to be a pretty clear-cut example
of a finite physical resource. But prior to an understanding of how oil
could be used, oil was simply worthless black goo. It acquired a value
only after humans worked out how to use it. Advances in science and
technology resulted in more oil being discovered and improved extraction
techniques allowed more of it to be accessed. In addition, we leant to
utilize it more efficiently. Surprisingly, the world oil reserves have
been increasing, in contradiction to the claims of doomsayers who warn
that resources are running out. The key point is that resources are not
fixed, but can be increased through greater knowledge of how of the
universe works. Not even living space is fixed. For instance, space travel
has the potential to open up many new worlds beyond the Earth upon which
human descendants could conceivably live. Immortality does not mean that
no new people can be born or that there will be will be insufficient
resources to sustain them. Wharton Business School graduate Paul Pilzer
has developed what he calls the theory of economic alchemy, which is
explained in his book 'Unlimited Wealth'. The reason resources are not
fixed is because knowledge enables people to take something that has very
little value and convert it into something of significantly greater value.
Since there is no known limit to the things that can discovered, there is
no limit to the amount of resources that exist either. Economist Julian
Simon was once asked what he thought 'the carrying capacity' of the Earth
was. How many people can planet Earth sustainably support? He didn't
hesitate to give an astounding answer: 'It's infinite'.
In order to understand why the possibilities of existence are not finite,
a firm grasp of the potential of science and technology is required.
Technologies such as Nano-technology (the ability to precisely manipulate
matter on the molecular scale), Bio-technology (the ability to engage in
genetic modifications), and Information technology (methods of
communication and computation) may enable humans to take control of the
process of evolution itself, by gaining the ability to radically improve
their minds and bodies. The philosophy of Transhumanism is a philosophy
celebrating and exploring the ways in which science and human creativity
could be used to improve upon human nature and open new possibilities. Far
from being boring, an immortal existence may be filled with a never-ending
variety of new and exciting things for us to explore. An entertaining
sense of the remarkable potential of science and technology may be
obtained by reading Damien Broderick's book 'The Spike'.
Some will no doubt find all this talk of radically changing human nature
to be outrageous or scary. It may be feared that we are doing something
against the natural order, against God's will, that should we try to
change human nature too much we will create monsters or lose our humanity
together. But it is important to understand that the pioneering spirit is
itself a key part of human nature. Indeed, it is the pioneering spirit
that may define who we truly are. Attempts to alter human nature do of
course hold dangers, but the solution is not to reject such attempts, but
to work to find intelligent ways to manage the dangers. If it turns out
that there is some design or intelligence behind the universe, such as
God, why should he not want us to fulfill our potential? The Aristotelian
concept of 'Eudemonia' or 'Self-fulfillment' holds virtue to be acting to
fulfill our highest potential.
In order to bring about the dream of radical life extension, scientific
research is required, followed by technological developments that apply
that research to create products such as anti-aging drugs. Finally,
government policies need to be in place that ensures that the fruits of
such research are potentially available to all. None of these things can
happen in a society, without the support of a significant number of
people. In order for the relevant scientific research to take place,
motivated and qualified researchers are needed, along with sufficient
funding. In order for breakthroughs to be converted into products that
people can use, there must exist a relatively free market, which gives
entrepreneurs the freedoms and incentives to develop and market these
health products. In order for things like anti-aging drugs to be
potentially available to everyone, government policy needs to ensure
universal access to health-care, whilst at the same time keeping
health-care free from restrictive regulations and excessive bureaucracy.
Those people living in Western industrialized nations are already living
in societies where a significant number of people respect science, reason,
progress and free markets. But few yet give credence to something as
radical sounding as immortality. And many will be uneasy about attempts to
radically change human nature. Religious and environmental groups, those
who doubt capitalism, and those who are uneasy about technology all have
concerns that will be need to addressed.
We have looked at the three main reasons as to why people may doubt the
wisdom of life extension. These were: (1) Cartesian Dualism: The belief
that we have souls that can survive physical death (2) Fatalism: The
belief that physical death is inevitable and it is foolish to fight it and
(3) Static views of human nature: The belief that human nature is fixed,
the world has limits and attempting to over-step these limits would be
evil. A sketch of the refutations to these ideas was given. A person who
supports life extension generally believes that: (1) There is no division
between mind and matter: the mind depends on the body and will not survive
physical death. (2) Science can radically extend human life and may even
one day allow physical immortality, and (3) neither human nature nor the
universe is limited. Instead human potential is infinite, and it is good
that we should reach for this potential.
In order to accurately assess the wisdom of radical life extension, there
needs to be extensive debate over each of these main philosophic areas.
Budding immortalists would need to embark on a philosophic crusade in
order to create the social conditions for success in the quest to become
immortal. People might embrace the idea of physical immortality when there
is a widely understood philosophy of immortality. Poet William Blake said:
‘To see a world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower, hold
infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour.' And Ralph
Waldo Emerson said: 'To the dull mind nature is leaden. To the illuminated
mind the whole world burns and sparkles with light.' If we all could learn
to see the world like that, who wouldn't want to live forever?
Marc Geddes is
a 31 year old writer from Auckland, New Zealand. His background is in
science and Info Tech. He studied pure science (fysics) at the
undergraduate level at Auckland University, and later studied Business
Computing at the undergraduate level at Manukau Tech.
Mr. Geddes is a Transhumanist and has been a full member of the World
Transhumanist Association for over a year. He has written several
articles for transhumanist e-zines and you can check out his website at:
http://www.prometheuscrack.com.
Give feedback on
this work at TRA's new forum, which you can access at
http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.
Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, the newest
means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find
it at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator.
You can sign up by sending an e-mail to
rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Click here to return to the Issue XXIV
index.
Visit
TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues
of the magazine. Click
here. |
