9 replies to this topic

[advancedatheist]

The Immortalists: Charles Lindbergh, Dr. Alexis Carrel, and Their Daring Quest to Live Forever
by David M. Friedman




Also refer to the New York Times review:

Collaborators in a Quest for Human Perfection

I've also uploaded a PDF version of the New York Times review.

Attached Files

•  IMMORTALISTS_REVIEW.pdf   335.91KB   29 downloads

[niner]

That was weird. I had no idea about this aspect of Lindbergh's life. From the NYT Review:

But for a demonstration of the bizarrely particulate nature of human intelligence, which allows scientific brilliance and moral idiocy to thrive side by side, forget Jekyll, Hyde and Frankenstein: this is the book to read.

[Shannon Vyff]

Yeah, I'd read the NYT review before and thought that the same things seen as horrid about their stance then, are hurled at Immortalists today. When people assume that Immortality will only be for the rich (the wealthy will likely be the ones to benefit first, as they even live longer today than those in poverty) or people assume that anyone who wants Immortality today is selfish and only cares for themselves, their own sense of being superior.

[suspire]

Yeah, I'd read the NYT review before and thought that the same things seen as horrid about their stance then, are hurled at Immortalists today.  When people assume that Immortality will only be for the rich (the wealthy will likely be the ones to benefit first, as they even live longer today than those in poverty) or people assume that anyone who wants Immortality today is selfish and only cares for themselves, their own sense of being superior.

I think there is a negative perception towards Immortalists, because of the nature of society. The wealthy will be the ones to benefit initially from immortality-research; this has always been the trend of society. You have hundreds of millions of people living in conditions only negligibly(if that) better than they were living in a couple of hundred years ago. There is, in fact, a real possibility that the wealthy(or at least Western middle-class and above) will be the sole beneficiaries of immortality--at least for quite some time. The logistics of global immortality are mind-boggling and the motivation for imparting immortality to the global poor are minimal(beyond humanitarian reasons...and just one look at the newspapers will show how strongly governments and individuals are motivated by humanitarian concerns).

These forums exemplify some of these issues. There is little discussion about global impact of immortality. Even in threads that claim to investigate the topic, the real discussion rotates around how it will impact specific individuals(mostly themselves), or Western, middle-class society. You have members espousing immortality research at the cost of human lives, of ignoring the plight of the poor, sacrificing them(millions upon millions for generations) on the altar of progress(once again, progress that favors the "haves")--and almost no one raises a flag in disagreement. Any voices of dissent on specific forms of immortality research are shouted down, not through vigorous discussion of the facts, but ad hominen attacks or high-school level "I wanna win" tactics; apparently *any* and *all* immortality research is equally valid and must require our full support.

Until Immortalists fundamentally change their attitudes and present themselves to the public in a new, more positive light, they will be seen as a fringe group, mostly concerned with, well, themselves. To be frank, reading these forums, I think most Immortalists have tunnel vision, grasp at any theory/technology that "offers the hope of immortality"(regardless of its many complications or impracticalities), are self-consumed and coldly callous to humanity at large. I know some will say: "We want to save all of humanity! The ultimate form of protecting humanity is immortality!" I don't buy it--living is not enough. I am sure this is difficult for many to understand, unless they have lived through the absolute crushing poverty of the third world, but I think a large percentage of middle-class, Western Immortalists are missing a large chunk of the picture. The honest truth is, most Immortalists that I've encountered are interested primarily in one thing: Saving themselves(and their near and dear) at any and all costs.

You may claim I am wrong, but actions speak louder than words. And if that day comes, if Immortalists fundamentally change their attitudes, they may also change people's perceptions of them. And yeah, I am an Immortalist too, of sorts--but I have many reservations and concerns.

That said, immortality will eventually come. It is a matter of time. But part of me wonders what it will mean for humanity--whether it will create the ultimate class divide of "haves" and "have-nots".

P.S.: I am not implying you are one of those cold, callous Immortalists, wing_girl. I just replied to your post, because you raised the topic. You are one of the few Immortalists who have consistently advocated humanitarian efforts on par or surpassing immortality research. I hope, however, that you do not become the "face" of Immortalists, because while you'd be great for PR for Immortalists, I don't think you'd be representing the prevailing point of view(you'd give them a little too much credit).

[lunarsolarpower]

You have hundreds of millions of people living in conditions only negligibly(if that) better than they were living in a couple of hundred years ago.  There is, in fact, a real possibility that the wealthy(or at least Western middle-class and above) will be the sole beneficiaries of immortality--at least for quite some time. The logistics of global immortality are mind-boggling and the motivation for imparting immortality to the global poor are minimal(beyond humanitarian reasons...and just one look at the newspapers will show how strongly governments and individuals are motivated by humanitarian concerns).

One great thing about those with the immortalist mindset is they are capable of thinking on the very long term. Few other people care that much what the world looks like in 500 years other than as idle curiosity or as it pertains to their legacy. However taking a long view of things it becomes apparent that we live in a fabulously rich part of a nearly limitless universe. At the same time our societies are set up in response to the scarcity that has shaped them since the beginning.

Just as the industrial and green revolutions allowed standards of living to rise for nearly all socioeconomic groups to rise, an increase in intelligent allocation of resources and improved techniques for accessing new resources could usher in an era of prosperity that at first sounds blindly utopian. However, in order to allow this splendid enrichment to simultaneously increase global happiness and decrease misery, steps need to be taken to avoid the default state of society over the last 10,000 years where an elite group at the top conspire and pull every trick in the book to ensure they and their heirs are never subject to the difficulties they would face in a meritocracy.

If the transparent society is allowed to come into existence absent the tyranny of authoritarian regimes, chances are that corruption and injustice can be largely made obsolete.

I wonder if ImmInst should consider setting up a think tank to provide long term strategies aimed at promoting a better future.

An example of a policy I see as essential to long-term stability and improvement in society is the creation of something like the Citizen's dividend as technology replaces more and more occupations. Personally I would like to see the administration of a fund to provide this benefit performed by an entity other than a government.

[bgwowk]

These forums exemplify some of these issues. There is little discussion about global impact of immortality. Even in threads that claim to investigate the topic, the real discussion rotates around how it will impact specific individuals(mostly themselves), or Western, middle-class society. You have members espousing immortality research at the cost of human lives, of ignoring the plight of the poor, sacrificing them(millions upon millions for generations) on the altar of progress(once again, progress that favors the "haves")--and almost no one raises a flag in disagreement.

This is, as usual, a double standard. Try logging on to a cancer patient discussion forum and assailing them for being selfish for discussing specifics of their condition, and research related to their disease, rather than how people in the third world could access treatments they seek. You would never think of doing such a thing, nor would it be tolerated. Aging is peculiar in that it is the only disease condition in which the worthiness of the afflicted seems to come up as issue.

It seems to be a religious response. For example, Christians typically insist on salvation as the only possible or appropriate means of radically extending life. Secular socialists demand expressions of selflessness, concern for the environment, and egalitarianism (their core beliefs) as a test of worthiness. In normal medicine, victims or advocates of curing diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, spinal injuries, etc. simply do not get this kind of moral litmus testing. There's something about the idea of living long that makes people think about their deepest personal beliefs, and thrust them into discussions in ways that they would never do for any other disease intervention.

[suspire]

You have hundreds of millions of people living in conditions only negligibly(if that) better than they were living in a couple of hundred years ago.  There is, in fact, a real possibility that the wealthy(or at least Western middle-class and above) will be the sole beneficiaries of immortality--at least for quite some time. The logistics of global immortality are mind-boggling and the motivation for imparting immortality to the global poor are minimal(beyond humanitarian reasons...and just one look at the newspapers will show how strongly governments and individuals are motivated by humanitarian concerns).

One great thing about those with the immortalist mindset is they are capable of thinking on the very long term. Few other people care that much what the world looks like in 500 years other than as idle curiosity or as it pertains to their legacy. However taking a long view of things it becomes apparent that we live in a fabulously rich part of a nearly limitless universe. At the same time our societies are set up in response to the scarcity that has shaped them since the beginning.

Just as the industrial and green revolutions allowed standards of living to rise for nearly all socioeconomic groups to rise, an increase in intelligent allocation of resources and improved techniques for accessing new resources could usher in an era of prosperity that at first sounds blindly utopian. However, in order to allow this splendid enrichment to simultaneously increase global happiness and decrease misery, steps need to be taken to avoid the default state of society over the last 10,000 years where an elite group at the top conspire and pull every trick in the book to ensure they and their heirs are never subject to the difficulties they would face in a meritocracy.

If the transparent society is allowed to come into existence absent the tyranny of authoritarian regimes, chances are that corruption and injustice can be largely made obsolete.

I wonder if ImmInst should consider setting up a think tank to provide long term strategies aimed at promoting a better future.

An example of a policy I see as essential to long-term stability and improvement in society is the creation of something like the Citizen's dividend as technology replaces more and more occupations. Personally I would like to see the administration of a fund to provide this benefit performed by an entity other than a government.

I whole-heartedly agree that a long-term mindset is not only important, but essential--whether you be an Immortalist or not. I also agree, that in theory, a true Immortalist would look long-term for the welfare of both the world(on a physical level) and humanity(social-economic). I am not sure if I agree that Immortalists are actually doing that. If anything, I'd say that most of the ideas and theories bandied around tend to be A) Overly optimistic--the future is nothing but positive and we just need to "wait until technology gets us there". B) Ignores the grave short term problems and all the difficult steps between now and the 500 year futuristic society.

I do wish we had more discussion on these topics on this forum and in the general Immortalist society.

[suspire]

These forums exemplify some of these issues. There is little discussion about global impact of immortality. Even in threads that claim to investigate the topic, the real discussion rotates around how it will impact specific individuals(mostly themselves), or Western, middle-class society. You have members espousing immortality research at the cost of human lives, of ignoring the plight of the poor, sacrificing them(millions upon millions for generations) on the altar of progress(once again, progress that favors the "haves")--and almost no one raises a flag in disagreement.

This is, as usual, a double standard. Try logging on to a cancer patient discussion forum and assailing them for being selfish for discussing specifics of their condition, and research related to their disease, rather than how people in the third world could access treatments they seek. You would never think of doing such a thing, nor would it be tolerated. Aging is peculiar in that it is the only disease condition in which the worthiness of the afflicted seems to come up as issue.

It seems to be a religious response. For example, Christians typically insist on salvation as the only possible or appropriate means of radically extending life. Secular socialists demand expressions of selflessness, concern for the environment, and egalitarianism (their core beliefs) as a test of worthiness. In normal medicine, victims or advocates of curing diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, spinal injuries, etc. simply do not get this kind of moral litmus testing. There's something about the idea of living long that makes people think about their deepest personal beliefs, and thrust them into discussions in ways that they would never do for any other medical intervention.

These forums don't talk about Immortality technology/techniques, solely. If, like a cancer forum, the entire forum was devoted solely to debating new techniques/strategies on immortality/immortality research, I would agree with your position. However, these forums are much broader. That said, your position is echoed on the forums, bgwowk, as evidenced by the lack of discussion on the topics I've mentioned. So I am not sure why you'd be aghast by my bringing up this topic; I am in the extreme minority on here and I post so infrequently about it due to the futility of raising the topic at all. Of course, if you are asking why general society views Immortalists as they do--well, I've explained why. Feel free to rail against society in general and their perceptions of Immortalists all you like.

I also think the analogy between a cancer forum and an overall immortality culture to be, well, specious at best for very obvious reasons. I also don't view aging as a disease, but ymmv.

There is nothing "religious" about discussing the inherent concerns, problems, pitfalls, pros and cons of what would, assuredly, be the most society-altering event in the history of mankind--immortality. Once again, comparing it to "medical intervention" is, at best, a specious position.

EDIT: Since this line of thought began with general society's reactions to Immortalists, I will add that the perceptions of general society towards Immortalists are not helped by drawing comparisons between normal people wishing to be immortal with cancer patients.

In the end, I think it is a fundamental world-view difference of opinion. Many Immortalists view death/aging as an "evil" and are "fanatic" on their "crusade" to end it(quotation marks are used to denote, well, hm, a religious overtone--if we're bringing up religion) at any and all costs. It is the most important thing in their lives. General society, on the other hand, tends to view death as inevitable, and focus their energies on other priorities, unless/until that time science allows for immortality. Priorities, therefore, are focused on different aspects of life. I suspect Immortalists will, as wing_girl mentioned, continue to be regarded somewhat negatively and as a fringe-group until their priorities are perhaps presented as more balanced.

As I mentioned before, I think research into immortality is a worthy endeavor, but has some serious implications. Unlike discussing cancer research, it should be viewed more along the lines of how a new, major world religion would impact society, or a new, radical form of government might alter humanity for the simple reason that immortality, once achieved, will have an impact so much broader and potent than curing any single disease. A deeper, more mature discussion of immortality is certainly warranted.

Edited by suspire, 04 September 2007 - 07:30 AM.

[bgwowk]

There is nothing "religious" about discussing the inherent concerns, problems, pitfalls, pros and cons of what would, assuredly, be the most society-altering event in the history of mankind--immortality. Once again, comparing it to "medical intervention" is, at best, a specious position.

There is no event. There is only medicine doing what it has always done, which is incrementally removing obstacles to health and longevity. "Immortality" is a misnomer. There will always be causes of death, and some average life expectancy that is less than infinity no matter how advanced technology becomes. The real issue is whether there is something special about biological aging, as distinct from other causes of suffering of death, that justifies complacency. There is not.

EDIT: Since this line of thought began with general society's reactions to Immortalists, I will add that the perceptions of general society towards Immortalists are not helped by drawing comparisons between normal people wishing to be immortal with cancer patients.

This does tie into religion. When the issue is framed as "wishing to be immortal", this steps on cultural terror management mechanisms that say we already have immortality through works, children, faith, etc. Seeking immortality off the standard menu is not socially acceptable, and leads to all kinds misfortune as told in literature and movies. Yet, at the core, what is being advocated by "immortalists" is simply addressing a pathology (aging) that causes suffering and death just as cancer causes suffering and death. There is no need for either advocates or critics to frame the goal in theological terms, such as people not dying anymore. For that really is not on the menu.

In the end, I think it is a fundamental world-view difference of opinion. Many Immortalists view death/aging as an "evil" and are "fanatic" on their "crusade" to end it(quotation marks are used to denote, well, hm, a religious overtone--if we're bringing up religion) at any and all costs. It is the most important thing in their lives. General society, on the other hand, tends to view death as inevitable, and focus their energies on other priorities, unless/until that time science allows for immortality. Priorities, therefore, are focused on different aspects of life. I suspect Immortalists will, as wing_girl mentioned, continue to be regarded somewhat negatively and as a fringe-group until their priorities are perhaps presented as more balanced.

Here again we have a double standard. There are plenty of people who have made it their life mission to treat and cure specific diseases like muscular dystrophy, AIDS, paralysis, etc. Their dedication is praised, not criticized. People do not say, "They should focus their energies on other priorities because death by AIDS is inevitable unless/until that time science allows a cure." What is it about aging that causes the aged and the progressive deterioration of their health to be so devalued as a priority?

As I mentioned before, I think research into immortality is a worthy endeavor, but has some serious implications. Unlike discussing cancer research, it should be viewed more along the lines of how a new, major world religion would impact society, or a new, radical form of government might alter humanity for the simple reason that immortality, once achieved, will have an impact so much broader and potent than curing any single disease. A deeper, more mature discussion of immortality is certainly warranted.

If by "immortality" you mean a cure for aging (there will always be other causes of death) I do not disagree that discussion of a post-aging world is both interesting and warranted. It's like a discussion of what a child will go on to do with his/her life if they beat cancer. However such discussions must not distract from the urgency of treating the disease. What we often see in aging intervention discussions is the equivalent of questioning whether a child's cancer should be treated because we are uncertain of how they will pay for college. First things first!

Edited by bgwowk, 05 September 2007 - 12:13 AM.

[Mind]

Specious:

2 : having deceptive attraction or allure
3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness

A cancer patient wants a cure not because they want to live an additional 24 hours, another week, or another year. They want to live an indefinite period of time. Same thing for the immortalist with respect to curing aging.

I don't think the comparison between curing cancer and curing aging is specious at all. It is quite logical because cancer is a subset of the entire disease of aging. In fact the number one risk factor of cancer is your age. All over the world in every research lab and every hospital where all the world's known diseases are being researched and cured, human society is essentially "curing" aging. It is incumbant on intelligent people to look at the big picture and discuss where all of this is headed. It is also compassionate and commendable to actively pursue a cure to all known diseases. What is the alternative...advocating death and misery?

Also, in my opinion, if people knew they were going to live a lot longer, they would live a lot more ethically and give more consideration to protecting what is here, and thus solve some of the problems you mentioned earlier.

Additionally, there is always a place for "grand ideas" and daring projects. We would've never flown, broken the sound barrier, visited the moon, etc... without some person or group taking the risk, doing the hard work, and being the leaders. Curing aging such a endeavor and it is noble