16 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Three Score and Ten
The immortality threat.

August 20, 2003, 8:00 a.m.
By John Derbyshire (NRO Columnist)


photo credit: http://www.olimu.com/

James Boswell, during his London socializing, once found himself in the company of an aged peer of the realm. Never at a loss for a conversational opening, Boswell asked the old boy whether, looking back on his long life, he could see any pattern or purpose in it. No, replied His Lordship, it had all been "a chaos of nothing."


This came to mind when I read those news stories about recent advances in the understanding of aging, and hopes for dramatically extending human life. (For a sample of the stories, see here, here, and here.)
Now, in the first place, I am skeptical, not to say cynical, about science-news stories of this kind. My skepticism comes from having read too many of them over too many years. We have been on the point of conquering the aging process, to my certain recollection, since at least the 1960s; for about as long, in fact, as we have been on the point of generating affordable electric power via nuclear fusion. I can remember reading this stuff in the science magazines my high-school library subscribed to. Reading the same stories now, 40 years on, I can't help but smile in disbelief.

It's possible, of course, that this time there might be something to it. One of these researchers has quadrupled the lifespan of a nematode by altering a key gene. Hey! There are also a couple of different issues to be untangled here. There is, for instance, the Tithonus Option — that is, the possibility that all that can be prolonged is the decrepitude that every one of us sooner or later falls into if we live long enough. I doubt anybody really wants this. If we are going to live to be 150 years old, as some of these stories promise, we want it to be with joints, eyes, lungs, and brains in full working order.

And then there is the economics of it. Just look at how most people live. Some time in our late teens or early twenties we get a job. Probably it is a job for which our enthusiasm will soon fade, or which we never cared about much in the first place. We peg away at it for 40 years or so anyway, to bring in enough money to pay for things we do care about — our families, our hobbies, our retirement plans. Then we quit, and spend a few years gardening, or fishing, or hot-air ballooning, or just watching TV, reading spy fiction, and taking a cruise once in a while. Then we die. "A chaos of nothing," indeed. Now, if our lifespan is to go to 150, and in good health, how will it be filled? By working longer? How many of us want that? Most people work to live, they don't live to work. So then, instead of a 40-year working life followed by 20 or 30 years of retirement, we are to have a 40-year working life followed by 80 or 90 years of retirement? How on earth shall we pay for it? And in any case...90 years of fishing?

As you can probably tell by this point, I'm agin the whole thing. I don't want to live to 150, not even in good health. I believe, in fact, that the idea of prolonging life is awful in and of itself. Imagine a world full of old farts! You may say: Ah, yes, but they will have the bodies of 30-year-olds. Come on — that's the worst kind of old fart. Old-fart-hood is a state of mind, and no amount of fiddling with genes is going to change that.

Complete Story

[Mind]

Enough is enough. Do what you like with the body: Pump it full of hormones, smooth out the flesh, brighten the eyes, sharpen the reflexes and oil the joints: The person, the core of myself that knows my own history, that has been sorting and weighing and accumulating and negotiating, loving and hating, anticipating and regretting, for 70 or 80 years, will get weary at last. Biochemistry will never be able to do anything about that.

Ah yes...another person that has not quite thought it through long enough. The anti-aging movement isn't about keeping an old decrepit mind locked up in a young body, it is about keeping the mind young also (and maybe even replacing the enitre body). Isn't it interesting how older people (no offense to the older people at imminst.org) gradually come to accept or even welcome death whereas young people fight or ignore it. It has more to do with physical changes in the brain during the aging process than the pure passage of time.

[Lazarus Long]

WHO ARE YOU CALLING OLD!!!

{stomps feet... fumes a bit... and giggles at the thought [:o] [!] )

In less than two weeks I turn fifty and to many of you that is terribly old, but to me it just means that I have only finished my first half century and I feel like a veritable toddler in this respect. [angry]

The mind is not a tool that dulls, it is the body that supports the mind, which fails. Improve the body and still this is no guarantee that one will use their minds however.

Perhaps the problem Mind, is that an awful lot of people in the best of health do not feel obligated to use the capacity of their brain's "mind" to the fullest. [?]

It seems to me that there is a thread beginning to develop among these "Human Racists," it is as if along with trying to impose an obligation to die on others (perhaps because misery loves company, or a way to justify getting rid of the opposition) they appear to be saying that ignorance (maybe even more like stupidity) is a right, and not merely the privilege of fools. [":)]

[kevin]

I disagree with Mind in that I've seen more older people with light heart and mind trapped in an old body than the other way around. In fact I've come to realize, as I think that fatalistic thinking starts much much younger at least from some of the conversations I've had with my younger acquaintances. Certainly younger people feel more 'invulnerable' and 'immortal' than old ones on average, but how they think they will view the world as an old person can be tinged by negative experiences and stereotypes.

People usually accept death because they either think it is inevitable or they don't think life is worth extending. At least their lives. It's just unfortunate that experiencing physical disability and suffering or witnessing it in a loved one can turn a relatively optimistic and joyous individual into a cynical and miserable old coot.

Derbyshire is a perfect example of an 'old fart' in the making.. if he's been 'stumbling about' in his life then he's been doing it wrong..

I progressively get more steamed just reading articles with this kind of mewling, whining tone about how life sucks so bad that death is the preferred modus operandi... It is totally offensive to those people who would do almost anything to see a few more days... even a seconds more light in the eyes of the people they love.

-------
I had to e-mail him.. not that he'll reply..

"From your article entitled "The Immortality Threat", if you've been doing nothing but 'stumbling around'.. you're doing it wrong and your whole story is offensive to those struggling to live. How can you possibly assert that life at any age isn't worth living? Take a good look at your existence and if the sum total of positive energy that you've produced is less than what you've consumed.. I say go for it and take yourself out as you're a total waste of energy and resources that would be better spent on someone with a little more optimism and joy to add to the world.. "
-------------

Edited by Lazarus Long, 21 August 2003 - 06:25 PM.

[kyle65uk]

Ye, I never see quite how these sort of people assume that just because more time will have passed than is "natural" everything will suddenly be different, and anyone of an extended age will suddenly become bored/boring, and tired. Especially since for most people living to 120, would be a significant extension, so by their logic you'd think people of that age would be incredibly depressed, yet from what I've seen; even with the physical features of old age people of around 120 have appeared content. If 120 is prehaps 40/50 years onto the average livespan, its unlikely to change with just 30 more; for it to become 150 years.

Another thing that annoys me is the way these sort of complaining people assume that the availability of immortality is going to mean its forced on then. An ironic objection really since their alternative is everyone dying simply because they want to, which is far worse than even being "forced" to live. After all even if you did choose immortality, after say 500 you could always quit, but theres no such indefinitley available choice for the dead.

Like you suggest in your email Kevin, they should consider "taking themselves out" right now. If life wouldn't be worth living in 100 years now, what makes them think it is now. If anything life will get better with each century, as you get wiser and gain more friends & possesions. I have to finally say, I can't stand the way they fail to follow their own arguements: If the chance to stop working is reason enough to die, surely never having to start is reason enough for suicide, but strangly he didn't commit suicide before he finished school or pre-school. His comparing work to being worse than death is mearly a testiment to what a boring person he is, and how boring he has made his job.

Still a person of such little perception will be no great loss for the future, and thankfully it'll only be a matter of time until his whining, and that of people like him ceases, perminantly.

[advancedatheist]

Derbyshire's article demonstrates why "conservatism" is working at cross purposes. On the one hand conservatives promote an implicit worldview not unlike Objectivism's, where we can use the world to pursue happiness through developing one's abilities and seeking long-range goals. Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwarzenegger exemplify this strand of the conservative message, since both have worked their ways up from obscurity to wealth and celebrity through their own efforts (i.e., unlike a lot of rentiers I could name, who had trust funds and wealthy patrons to help them along).

Yet on the other hand conservatives often promote a pessimistic message influenced by renunciatory religious and philosophical beliefs, that all worldly values are ultimately futile (while they deposit their dividend checks and tax rebates in the bank). Derbyshire seems to fall into this latter category.

Seems like conservatism is suffering from some major cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to admire and emulate the rugged, self-reliant man -- whose efforts are going to turn to ashes even if he can undergo rejuvenation and radical life extension because life is fundamentally bad past so many decades.

[John Doe]

Derbyshire's article demonstrates why "conservatism" is working at cross purposes. On the one hand conservatives promote an implicit worldview not unlike Objectivism's, where we can use the world to pursue happiness through developing one's abilities and seeking long-range goals. Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwarzenegger exemplify this strand of the conservative message, since both have worked their ways up from obscurity to wealth and celebrity through their own efforts (i.e., unlike a lot of rentiers I could name, who had trust funds and wealthy patrons to help them along). 

Yet on the other hand conservatives often promote a pessimistic message influenced by renunciatory religious and philosophical beliefs, that all worldly values are ultimately futile (while they deposit their dividend checks and tax rebates in the bank). Derbyshire seems to fall into this latter category.

Seems like conservatism is suffering from some major cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to admire and emulate the rugged, self-reliant man -- whose efforts are going to turn to ashes even if he can undergo rejuvenation and radical life extension because life is fundamentally bad past so many decades.

You are exactly right.

That article makes me nauseous.

[Jay the Avenger]

I don't want to live to 150, not even in good health. I believe, in fact, that the idea of prolonging life is awful in and of itself. Imagine a world full of old farts!

This sentence gives him away. You can definately tell he's not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box. You can also tell he doesn't have a lot of good arguments, and he knows it. That's when people resort to statements such as the one I quoted.

Also, if 90 years of fishing is all you can come up with, then indeed you're better off dead anyway. The world isn't exactly waiting for people like Derbyshire.

[Bruce Klein]

Seems like conservatism is suffering from some major cognitive dissonance. We're supposed to admire and emulate the rugged, self-reliant man -- whose efforts are going to turn to ashes even if he can undergo rejuvenation and radical life extension because life is fundamentally bad past so many decades

Mark,

You've hit upon an interesting assessment. Would you happen to know more about the historical reasoning behind this train if thinking? Is it more influenced by religious doctrine? And, if so, it seems interesting how powerful and resilient this brand of thinking can be.

[Sophianic]

An Open Letter to John Derbyshire, NRO ...

August 22, 2003

Dear Mr. Derbyshire,

I read, with great interest, your article on Immortality posted at National Review Online.

You raise some important issues on the question of whether we (humanity) ought to make a concerted effort to extend the human life span.

Judging from the content of your piece, your objections to human life extension appear to revolve around the basic issues of personal stagnation and prolonged decrepitude.

That is to say, if we did succeed in extending our lives, even by increments, we would remain hard-pressed to avoid feeling stale and weary as we advanced in our years.

Before I address these concerns, I would like to indicate our points of agreement. I, too, agree with your feeling that nothing awaits us after we die. No words can describe it.

I can also appreciate your point about how so many people settle for less than their best, even when they're young, before they eventually retire without much passion for life.

Indeed, your reference to "a chaos of nothing" is a powerful reminder of what can happen when we give up our dreams, and pursue goals alien to our values, until they wear us down and make us feel old.

I think the best way to address your concern about prolonged decrepitude is to take up a broader context of inquiry, i.e., human life extension is as much about extending health spans and keeping a sense of vitality as it is about the number of years we can count.

Your reference to the Tithonous Option makes it clear what can happen if we ignore quality of life in favor of quantity of life. In reading about how this Option is not an option, I'm sure you can agree how it wouldn't be a threat if we kept them in balance.

Healthy, vital life extension is not a concept you often hear about. Many people know what can happen to their moods and energy levels as they get older. Barbara Morris also knows (she's in her seventies) and she shows no signs of letting up.

She wrote a book for "boomers" on how to stay young and vital as they get older. She calls it "Putting Old on Hold." I would encourage you to take a look. Here's the link:

http://www.putoldonhold.com/Intro.htm

I would also invite you to visit the discussion forum at The Immortality Institute. Your article was posted and you might be interested in reading some reactions to it.

A reference to your article is featured prominently on the home page: http://imminst.org/

You said, and I quote:

"It is mainly young people who make the world go round. In their ignorance, and heedlessness, and ridiculous over-confidence, they push forward in enterprises that the calm, wise, worldly, old farts know for sure will all end in tears. And lo and behold! Once in a while the old farts are proved wrong, and that absurd enterprise opens up a complete new chapter in human history."

Here, I must beg to differ that it is mainly young people who make the world go round. I think everyone, no matter their age, can (and do) make significant contributions to the world.

It may be true that youth sometimes seem too confident, but when they band together to create an "absurd" enterprise with the potential to open up a completely new chapter in human history and then usher in the prospect of immortality for all and sundry, I think you might agree that it would be wise to listen to what they have to say.

I get a strong feeling that this is one enterprise where the "old farts" will be proved wrong.

Cordially,

[Bruce Klein]

Quite diplomatic and wonderfully worded as always Sophianic. Thanks for taking the initiative. I hope he finds the time to reply.

[Casanova]

Also, if 90 years of fishing is all you can come up with, then indeed you're better off dead anyway. The world isn't exactly waiting for people like Derbyshire.

Such compassion, such warmth ....

I'll give you a taste of your medicine:

As with most things in this world, those who want something the most, are usually those who deserve it least.
Most of the wannbe Immortalists, on this website, prove, over, and over, again, that they are the least worthy persons on Earth, for long lifespans, to say nothing of Immortality.
The joke is on you...

[Utnapishtim]

I actually disagree with all of the above comments. I consider all death to be a collosally tragic in its scope. The extinction of any self aware conscious self strikes me as a terrible loss. I understand however, why people react with anger and fury to those who want them to die. Make no mistake about it, this guy is advocating the destruction of millions of sentient beings. That will cause peoples hackles to rise.

[DJS]

Arggh, did that edit instead of quote things again...sorry about that. I don't think any content was lost.

Such compassion, such warmth ....

I'll give you a taste of your medicine:

As with most things in this world, those who want something the most, are usually those who deserve it least.
Most of the wannbe Immortalists, on this website, prove, over, and over, again, that they are the least worthy persons on Earth, for long lifespans, to say nothing of Immortality.
The joke is on you...

Another worthless ad hominem attack. I thought you had left this website? Can't get enough of us, can you?

What is it about us? Are we the people who you love to hate? Or are we a part of you that you love to hate?

I use to detest you, but now I can't help but feel sorry for you. You are the most tragic figure imaginable, knowing what you know and still choosing defeat over victory...

Don't worry, I'm sure Derbyshire will save a place for you amongst the worms.

Sincerely
Kissinger

[Jay the Avenger]

Such compassion, such warmth ....

I'll give you a taste of your medicine:

As with most things in this world, those who want something the most, are usually those who deserve it least.
Most of the wannbe Immortalists, on this website, prove, over, and over, again, that they are the least worthy persons on Earth, for long lifespans, to say nothing of Immortality.
The joke is on you...

What medicine?

What proof?

What joke?


The people worthy of immortality are the ones that keep on developing themselves on and on. This is exactly what I'm doing. The people who have no use for immortality, are those that would fill 90 years with fishing.

This is quite a dystopian view if you ask me.

If it was either Derbyshire or me to be immortal, it would be me. He and I would both agree on that. Derbyshire *wants* to die. I say let him...


If I feel like I need to be put in my place, I'll ask for it.

[AgentNyder]

Are we really to judge which is the worthier pursuit - fishing or 'developing oneself' (however you wish to intepret it) - against the other? Arguably both are forms of pleasure seeking. Where human difference comes into it is that not everyone gains the same utility from doing the same things. Casanova does have point...

We can't stand back on a platform of elitism and sneer at 'philistines' who would rather indulge in simpler activities. If someone wants to spend 90 years fishing then I say good for him, I would congratulate him for being honest!

Not that I think that someone would even WANT to spend 90 years fishing (but who knows, really). I think that you can only gain so much utility from specific activities before you run into diminishing returns so you would either upgrade that activity somehow or look for alternatives...

I think it is Socrates who said that it is a fool who is satisfied....

In any case we don't really exist on a platform of elitism as much as we'd like to think we are (but don't let that discourage you)...

[bitster]

This article doesn't phase me a bit.

I see him criticizing the value of his own life, but not of mine.

Is he trying to prevent longevity research on the basis that he thinks that the lives of others would be just as valueless as his own if was extended? No.

So be it, then. Those who don't value life extension will soon enough be naturally selected out of existence by those who do. Nice knowing you!

The value of life springs first and foremost from the creature living it. If you are unable or unwilling to invest it with value and meaning, that's your own affair. But when you start asserting that MY life is similarly devoid of value on that basis, I am going to have one serious problem with you. You can pry my self worth from my cold dead hands...

I personally think a world with more suicide would be a better one - it would mean that more people would be dying when they wanted to, rather than when they had to. By his logic, why wouldn't you work for a shorter period, retire early, then putter around until you die broke by hanging yourself at 45?

Sure, "most people" work to live. I am not most people.