17 replies to this topic

[Utnapishtim]

Like everyone here I am anxious to see the pace of life extension advance as rapidly as possible. Lately I have been thinking about the fact that there are two quite seperate issues here that need to be adressed. The Ethics and the practicality of life extension.

In the mind of most people today the moral questions are probably irrelevant.
When people imagine themselves to be old they do so in a world unreasonably close to our own. Very few people have even seriously considered the possibility that their own lifespan may be dramatically longer than that of their grandparents.

Whenever a technology has been developed that limits the effects or appearance of certain aspects of aging (Face lifts, anti wrinkle creams, hair coloring/Viagra to name just a few) people have jumped on them. It stands to reason therefore that once the real thing is developed the demand will be huge.

The chief difference between this little community and the public at large is not our desire to remain alive, but our belief that to do so is actually a feasible goal.

If you don't really believe that life extension is remotely possible then it is in your interest to argue that it wouldn't be particuarly desirable anyway. (Raging against the inevitable is pretty undignified after all.) As long as we have to live with death as the great equaliser we are pretty much forced to imbue it with meaning and value if we wish to a contruct a coherent value system.

Convince people that there is an alternative and you change EVERYTHING.

I think that in many ways engaging in discussions as to the ethical correctness of wanting longer life is missing the point a little.

The problem is not that people don't want the product, the problem is developing the product. In order to develop the product you need to convince the public that making inroads against the aging process is a realistic goal. Doing so will go a long way towards making them actively support groups who lobby for anti aging research and voting against politicians who try to put the speed breaks on it.

Edited by Utnapishtim, 14 May 2003 - 09:24 AM.

[Discarnate]

This was discussed in many varied ways the other night in the chat - much useful ideas in there, IMO.

[reason]

This is something I think about a lot. Life extension is an unfortunate name, in that it seems to instinctively mean being old for longer for most people (a consequence, I suspect on current views of aging and medical care in popular culture and reality). We should be selling something more like "being healthy, feeling young and having fun for longer." You might want to take a look at some of my newsletters for musings on this and related topics.

http://www.extropy.o...;threadid=54357

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org/

[kevin]

Maybe we could have a contest for who can come up with the best alternative to 'life extension' that brings up a more positive visualization. "Extended Health Span", "health extension" and "health span" all work for me.

[reason]

Maybe we could have a contest for who can come up with the best alternative to 'life extension' that brings up a more positive visualization.  "Extended Health Span", "health extension" and "health span" all work for me.

I'm trying "healthy life extension" at the moment, see where it gets to. Catches the old, informs the new.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org/

[Bruce Klein]

Not to cast to much aside in the process, but I come from the point of view that there has to be a fundamental reason why we're trying to extend life in the first place.. otherwise, the excuse - 'we're all dead in the long run' - will always win the pragmatic argument.

Thus, in less we find a better word for infinity or immortal, I don’t see a better alternative for the ultimate goal.

However, as you guys suggest with eloquence, this is a battle for minds.. and as such, introductory meme sets are hugely important.. i just like to think of us as already being at the end of the process.. and looking back to help others along.. a little pretentious, but i hope we're correct.

[Utnapishtim]

Bruce

Of course the assumptions built into your argument are that

A) Immortality in the true sense of the word is actually possible
B) Death invalidates having lived

I think those are two very questionable assumptions and I remain unconvinced of either. I'd sure like the luxury of a few hundred years to think about them though.


Not sure of why you think there needs to be a fundamentally deeper reason to end death than simply wanting to.

Desire seems to be a perfectly adequate justification for most of our goals. Not sure why it should be any different with the conquest of aging.

Incidentally I think that for the vast majority of people, the opportunity to get rid of arthritis and wrinkles are far more persuasive arguments than any philosophical argument any of us can concoct.

We seem to be getting trapped in the idea of selling a concept that really doesn't need any selling. This is what I was trying to point out in my opening post. The biggest battle is convincing others of the feasibility, of life extension not its ethical correctness. The demand is already there. How do we convince others that it can actually be met in their lifetime, and thus hasten the arrival of these technologies through greater public and private investment in anti-aging research?

[Discarnate]

I'm not BJ, but I'd suggest that assumption A is potentially possible, and assumption B ("Death invalidates having lived") is poorly formed at best.

Death does not prevent any affect/effect you caused from continuing forward in time, assuming it remains remembered and relevant. In many cases, the affect/effect of a person is only discovered AFTER the person's death, when the culture of the time finds/creates a deep meaning in the affect/effect. In most others, the affect/effect changes over time, as the culture interpretting it changes.

And agreed, it'd be better to discuss this over Some Long Time rather than to hurry it through 3 1/2 decades.

On a seperate note: Desire, in and of itself, may be a reason, but is it a reason which is morally acceptable? I may feel desire ('lust') for someone - does that make it right to have sex with them regardless of their desire?

The concept, IMHO, *DOES* need selling. There's a large, powerful group of people and organizations which gain a significant fraction of their power from fear of death. They are working towards invalidating the concept of immortality. The immortalists have the lucky job of going up against them. Kind of a David v Goliath thing, IMO - got any good slingstones around?

[Utnapishtim]

I disagree with the notion of the underdog immortality advocate. I think those attempting to stem the tide of the Goliath of scientific progress are in the David role not its advocates. While it is true that the pro immortality position is not yet intellectually respectable, either among academics or laypersons, I see that changing dramatically once such an intervention is actually perceived as being possible. The will to live is pretty damn powerful. Once a solution to aging is perceived as being possible, those who condemn it will primarily be those who view their chance of having access to it as negligible or nil, and those who are able to gain by power and prestige by manipulating them.

The societal repercussions of an effective anti aging therapy are likely to be incredibly dangerous and the best manner to weather this particular storm is defintiely a subject worthy of serious discussion and thought.

[Discarnate]

Scientific progress can be reined in, from one of many different groups:

1) The government. Hard to publish research on illegal materials and procedures.

2) Academia. As you referenced, 'the pro immortality position is not yet intellectually respectable'. This can be found as an outside influence on the scientists' research on everything from secretarial support to lab space to funding.

3) Social pressure. It's hard to be gung-ho about this new policy or that new theorem when everyone you meet outside the lab tells you that it's wrong.

There are probably others, as well, but those are the 3 big ones which pop to mind.

If - IF! - immortality can be proven in a layman-comprehensible format other than 'Look at Joe. He's 200 years old today,' I agree the roles will change. As it is, the general public does NOT believe in it (IMO), nor do a large number of 'respected' people who 'should know' one way or the other. Please note that some of these are actors, authors, academicans who have little or no knowledge of the field - they made their bones elsewhere.

However, this level of proof will also increase the struggle AGAINST immortality. The aforementioned personages and organizations which rely on death and aging will 'suddenly' feel threatened. Instead of a slow-roll approach, Juggernaut's carriage will be given your (the publicly acknowledged immortalists) addresses.

IMO, 'course - and I freely admit that I'm rather pessimistic over public policy.

The last bit of your post, "The societal repercussions ... are likely to be incredibly dangerous and the best manner to weather this particular storm is defintiely a subject worthy of serious discussion and thought." is VERY VERY true, IMO. How can we set the terms of the discussion in ways which are beneficial to the acceptance of immortality? How can we soothe the irrational fears, overcome the rational-if-masked fears, and guard against valid fears coming to exist?

[AdamLink]

Question: Do we have any "living thing" in all of nature that can boast of immortality?

Answer: No.

I too would enjoy being able to wake up every morning and squint at the sun. Knowing that one day I may witness it's blinking out. When we achieve immortality, we may have to put a considerable amount of energy into finding a new planet to live on. Once we've found this place we'll have to take messure to find the next one. But we can only keep this up for a while. Just as the sun blinked out the universe may follow suit.

[Mind]

How can we set the terms of the discussion in ways which are beneficial to the acceptance of immortality?

Both sides of the current political spectrum want to control life extension. The left wants to be our good shepard and have government control every minutia of our lives (including how long we live and what kind of health care is equitable). The right thinks we should die because of thier (not our) religious views.

I generally look at most societal dilemas through a libertarian prism. As for immortality, let those who want to live forever, live...and let those who want to die (Kass), die. I feel a message of individual liberty should be sold along with the "good" apsects of of immortality...living long, looking good, and remaining healthy.

How do I set the terms? With this question...What gives anyone the right to tell me how long I should live or if I should even die? Just think of the other option...a politcally imposed limit on life-span. That would be ridiculous on its face to almost everyone I know whether they are immortalist or not.

[Bruce Klein]

Question: Do we have any "living thing" in all of nature that can boast of immortality?

Answer: No.

Answer: No, but...

DNA is immortal in the sense it's been immortal as long as there's been life.

Bacteria, are in theory immortal, (oldest living =250million years), in that if kept in protected environments, they can live forever...

More Examples: http://www.imminst.o...?s=&act=SF&f=48

[Lazarus Long]

There is one aspect of "immortality" that is overlooked here too, and that is the mass/energy relationship. Yes they can be converted into each other and yes they can change form in other ways too but the total amount of mass/energy is alleged to be Universal Constant and has been since the "Big Bang". It is constantly shifting in form but has not had any added or lost since the Universe began.

This is what physics presupposes so it belongs as an example. In other words all the matter that exists in the Universe today is the "SAME" matter that came into existence with it and will remain infinitely present or till the end of the Universe (which ever comes first ) ). The total, if fixed, represents a true example of immortality regardless of the ability to transmute its elemental nature. But this again begs that nagging question of how to distinguish between live and dead matter?

Not just how to adequately define life itself.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

BJ - Life as a system can be considered to be "immortal". All cells currently alive are descendants of the original cells some 4 billion years ago, and hence are an example of the extreme stability of living systems (as a scientist I find it difficult to speak in absolutes like "immortal" though). No organism can survive long without cell division though, those multicellular organisms that do not age senescently (is that a word?) show either high rates of cell turnover or the capability for constant growth, which also requires constant cell division. If a cell divides and the offspring survives in an infinite loop, is this immortality? I would argure yes, it is, and therefore life as a system is (so far) immortal.

Lazarus - The best definition for life I have encountered is the one from information, complex, and dynamical systems theories. We only have one system in the universe (that we know of) that shows the ability to consistently increase its information content and complexity over an extended period of time - and that system is life itself. If we ever encounter another such system or produce one ourselves, we may have to define that system as alive (i.e. the matter doesn't matter, its the organizational and dynamical information content that is important)

I'm also starting to think that life as a system on this planet is essentially indestructible (without the total destruction of the planet itself) and that human information systems may also be reaching a point of stability beyond which it is very difficult to destroy the collected information in the system. As for the personal immortality of individuals, I believe there is a point of technological development sometime in this century where you will be able to record the exact position of every atom in a human body. Preservation of this pattern of information would then give you essential immortality, assuming you had the means to reconstruct the pattern.

As for me, my information content is more important than my physical body, but it may be that you cannot really separate the two unless you have a system with the same level of complexity as the body itself - i.e. a vitrual world with the same level of complexity as the "real" one.

To bring this little philosophical rant back on topic, I struggled with the immortality vs life extension meme when I was at LifeEx/Maxlife. The marketing you use depends on what your goals are. BJ has taken an extreme position by naming his nonprofit Immortality Institute. I fully support this position, that human immortality should be a goal, but I think there will only be a very small portion of the population that will ever support this position. So I think Imminst has an excellent shot at capturing the attention of all hardcore Life Extensionists. If you really want to go after Joe Public though, the message will have to be toned down and made more vague. You need to hit people in their day to day self interest - i.e. happiness, wealth, sex, etc. We need to show people that we are going to be able to keep people young and strong, that it gives them great advantage financially, and that there are very few risks. Extreme long life is never going to appeal to people who have already made up their minds that they need to die on a philosophical or religious basis. Those people just need to be convinced that it is moral for them to stay out of the way of those of us who would like to live.

Best,
Peter

[kevin]

When people say that our maximum life-span must be around 120 years old... You can beg to differ with them. Here's some information regarding a study that suggests that we haven't come close to the maximum lifespan of humanity yet.

---------------------------------------------------
No limit in sight for human lifespans, study says
Last Updated Fri, 10 May 2002 18:19:48
DURHAM, N.C. - Human beings will continue to live longer lives and life expectancies could reach 100 in the next 60 years, a new study suggests.

The American and British researchers say lifespans in developed countries such as Australia, Norway and Japan have increased steadily, suggesting there is no natural limit on life expectancy.

Their research says life expectancy in these countries has increased by three months every year for the past 150 years.

"The key issue for policymakers to understand from our study is that there appears to be no finite limit to life expectancy," co-author James Vaupel of Duke University and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany said in a statement.

This won't lead to immortality, but the authors of the study say it does dispel "the ancient notion that under favourable conditions the typical human has a characteristic lifespan." If there is an upper limit to human lifespans, the authors say, we are a long way from bumping into it.

The study could have implications for budgeting for pension plans, life insurance and healthcare, say the researchers.

The mainstream scientific view is that the body has a pre-set maximum age, that cells are programmed to die. The authors of this study say, "the notion of a fixed lifespan... is distorting public and private decision-making."

The study appears in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Written by CBC News Online staff
No limit in sight for human lifespans, study says

[bacopa]

I think the big issues are what Utn, Dis and Ocs brought up and that is how to sell this to the public. From my experience I notice that the people are afraid of the limits on mortality. How long is too long?

People will become intensely envious and insecure if they think that there are people who will actually live longer than them. Trust me there are many closet immortalists and it's simply a matter I think of getting the meme out.

It would seem that terms such as Life extension and youthfulness will immidiately have people thinking hey, why should I EVER give up my youthful vigor. Commercials have already brainwashed many people to worship youth and beauty. Our ideas are rational not some miracle cream promise.

Get the masses to wake up and realize that putting miracle creams and hair products on won't get them to the goal of healthy life extension only science will. And convincing them why they should will never be a problem simply showing that the technology is there and that it will continue to grow with their support is the key. Show them that life is their right.

I completely agree with Ocs Razor. I think the more we make the meme relatable, easily digestable the better hope we have for selling it. The trick is to not fear life extension in the same way that society has brainwashed them to not fear death. No one wants to deal with death so we have a strong lobbying tool just being another possiblity to escape death, our meme is an alternative to heaven in some ways as sick as that sounds.

[bacopa]

It's unfortunate that academia hasn't fully grasped the notion of life extension let alone immortality.

It would seem that they are too busy worrying about ideas of prestige and class status than actual quality and length of life.

People in general are geared towards doing things 'right,' or 'well.' Unfortunetly most people in business and academia merely worry about acomplishing a given goal correctly they most likely don't really ponder the implications of living longer.

Obsession with class status, wealth, and being well liked seem to dominate most people's minds, few care to see beyond that. Most people, Joe average, tend to just want to have fun, thinking scientifically in general is a problem for them.

So the trick is to sell science as fun just like the commercials do for hair and skin products, like was mentioned in another thread terms like 'Healthy Life Extension' and 'Pro Life' will get people to start thinking beyond their fears.