• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Martin Rees - ImmInst Interview


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 December 2003 - 05:47 PM


Posted Image

Martin Rees is Professor of Astronomy and Cosmology and (from 2004) Master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal and also Visiting Professor at Imperial College London and at Leicester University. After studying at the University of Cambridge, he held post-doctoral positions in the UK and the USA, before becoming a professor at Sussex University. In 1973, he became a fellow of King's College and Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge (continuing in the latter post until 1991) and served for ten years as director of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. From 1992 to 2003 he was a Royal Society Research Professor.

http://www.ast.cam.a.../IoA/staff/mjr/

Martin Rees was kind enough to grant ImmInst the following interview:

Bruce Klein: I'd be quite happy to publicize your book. This is a very important issue to ImmInst as we have created a Threats To Life Council to focus attention on how to overcome such risks going forward.

Perhaps, I could ask you two questions concerning your ideas about the possibility of human physical immortality and then feature this interview and book to the homepage of ImmInst?


Martin Rees: Fine

Questions 1:

Evidence for an afterlife has yet to be substantiated. Do you worry that if your life were to end tomorrow, your consciousness/existence would be obliterated and why?

Martin Rees: I'm reconciled to extinction -- losing all consciousness as well as rotting away physically. Indeed, I think we should welcome the transience of our lives. Individual immortality would be deleterious for life's further development unless we could transform ourselves, mentally and physically, into something so different from our present state that the transformed entities wouldn't really still be 'us'.

We should see ourselves -- and, indeed, all humans -- as just a phase (perhaps even a rather early one) in the gradual emergence of life and consciousness in the cosmos. We should -- contrary to Woody Allen's preferences -- be satisfied if we can survive through our works, rather than by not dying.

PS I'd rather my body ended up in an English churchyard than in a Californian refrigerator!

PPS Woody Allen also reminded us that 'eternity is very long, especially towards the end'!

Bruce Klein: You kill me ;)

Questions 2:

You've reconciled your extinction. Fair enough. And I suspect that if you were to die tomorrow, your good works would suffice handily as a substitute for physical immortality.

However, let me pose a hypothetical. Similar to how ‘you’ have stayed ‘you’ from birth until now, I will guarantee you that this ‘you’ will remain intact forever. Would this guarantee in anyway change your mind about the prospect of physical immortality?


Martin Rees: I'd be ambivalent about a lifespan of even a few centuries if I couldn't transcend present mental (and even physical) limitations. Regrets and frustrations would just pile up intolerably.

If technology allowed me to transcend these limitations, I'd only be the same person in the sense that I would retain some memories of early life. But even over present life-spans it's not clear how much continuity of personality is really preserved. Each of us is a 'bundle of sensations' somehow woven together as a continuous thread or 'worldline'.

But I still wonder whether it's fair (for instance) to hold old people responsible for what they did when young, so different have they become. And this problem of 'continuity' would be aggravated by a far longer lifespan and more malleable brains and bodies.

You ask me: "Do I want to be immortal?" -- my answer (selfishly) is "maybe, but I'm not sure"

But if you asked me about an inevitable consequence (unless I'm to be uniquely privileged): "Would I then want everyone else to be immortal, leaving no space for a bright confident younger generation?" my answer would be "No" -- absolutely, and unequivocally.

That's why I can't support your aim -- unless the 'ancients' can be dispersed to 'twilight homes' far away in space.

End




Be sure to check out Martin's newest book:

Posted Image

Our Final Hour
Britian's Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees warns that there is a high likelihood of a major world catastrophe emerging at almost any time in the near future. More...

You can purchase 'Our Final Hour' from Amazon

#2 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 17 December 2003 - 09:22 PM

Heh, slightly odd interview.

I agree with "Individual immortality would be deleterious for life's further development unless we could transform ourselves, mentally and physically, into something so different from our present state that the transformed entities wouldn't really still be 'us'." But if you have the power to make a human immortal, you obviously have the power to "transform" someone somewhat. I disagree that it wouldn't "really still be us" if we transformed ourselves radically; under the everyday person's notion of identity perhaps it wouldn't be, but under the transhumanist notion...

"I'd rather my body ended up in an English churchyard than in a Californian refrigerator!" simultaneously labels himself as a deathist and as biased towards a particular geographical area of the Earth; the one that he happens to have spent a lot of time at before. It's ironic that I *come from* California, but save my sentiments for the Earth as a whole, not any one particular area. But perhaps I'm simply reading into his comment too deeply.

Anyway, Rees has important points about existential risks (even though he talks about a Singularity-gone-bad for only a few pages in his book, and that's the most intense risk!) As usual, immortalists need to focus on possible threats as well as the potential benefits; accelerating pro-life extension projects will do nada unless existential risks can simultaneously be kept under control.

#3 John Doe

  • Guest
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 December 2003 - 04:17 AM

Rees shares my reservations about immortality but with more passion.

I, for one, feel that a church is a repugnant place to be for eternity.

Give me the refrigerator.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 December 2003 - 09:27 AM

But perhaps I'm simply reading into his comment too deeply


I suspect Martin was acting in jest here (dry humor?) as the tone of the interview was somewhat lighthearted.

#5 faith_machine

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 December 2003 - 10:01 PM

Prof Rees made me curious when I heard about his book several months ago. Now, since he did this interview, I feel obligated to read it. (I'm sure it's a good book). However, by his interview, I have to confess I don't agree with him regarding life extension. He wants to be buried, not frozen. I think he is a typical establishment academic, who downplays things like cryonics. If people like him actually took suspended animation seriously, (intellectually) and not emotionally, maybe it would work by now! I hope he changes his mind before its too late...

#6 yose

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Caracas, Venezuela

Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:39 AM

Dear Michael,

I see that you are practicing your Spanish: "accelerating pro-life extension projects will do nada unless existential risks can simultaneously be kept under control."

As for Martin Rees, his opinion deserves "nada" from me:-)

Immortally yours,

#7 mkper85260

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 December 2003 - 06:09 AM

I disagree that immortality would necessarily so transform us that it wouldn't be "us" after awhile. There was a discussion of this and other immortality issues on Cryonet recently. See particularly #s 23054, 23071.

Mike Perry

#8 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 December 2003 - 06:19 AM

Thanks Mike welcome to the ImmInst forums.

Here is one of the links to the CryoNet.org discussion: #23071

#9 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 21 December 2003 - 04:15 PM

I think his sentiments have more to do with his age than anything else. I am seriously beginning to believe that acceptance of death comes gradually with age because of physiological changes in the human brain. Young people just do not talk this way. Evolutionarily speaking, our "selfish genes" may have designed things this way. People who are young are programmed to love life and reproduce. After we pass the age of reproduction our genes have no use for us and let us die. Along with the overall decay comes decay of the brain and these brain changes lead to the acceptance of death. I am not sure there are any (non-religious) young (under 40) members here at Imminst that even come close to accepting death. Almost all of the people who tell us through interviews and posts that we should accept death are older.

#10 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 21 December 2003 - 04:59 PM

Evolutionarily speaking, our "selfish genes" may have designed things this way. People who are young are programmed to love life and reproduce. After we pass the age of reproduction our genes have no use for us and let us die. Along with the overall decay comes decay of the brain and these brain changes lead to the acceptance of death.


This is a very important observation Mind that I will confirm from my own anecdotal observations as well. I am not however sure the result is of genetics as much as memetics, the "selfish meme" at that.

We should keep track of this issue and gather more data for analysis. I do not think the result is programmed as much as consequential of cumulative experience either but the "effect" of the switch is clearly present and at least as old as the "Riddle of the Sphinx." It is a subject we should return to for a comparison of "Old and New Minds".

#11 Casanova

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 December 2003 - 10:13 PM

Mind writes:

I am seriously beginning to believe that acceptance of death comes gradually with age because of physiological changes in the human brain. Young people just do not talk this way.


Baloney. You keep making these "age-ist" statements, over, and over again. They are in the same category as calling all blondes dumb, or claiming that ceratin ethnic groups are lazy, or stupid, genetically. It is insulting. Stop it.

When I was a teenager, all of my friends were terrified by nuclear war, by foolish politicians, and businesspeople, who seemed hell bent on destroying the world. We all thought of suicide, and of the hopelessness of the future.
One of my friends, when I was a teen, was a very well read Jewish teen, named Mark Horowitz. We would talk about all kinds of existential issues, and we dreaded what the future might hold in store for us.
We accepted the possibility of death, mainly from nuclear war. We also accepted death as a transition to non-physical realm. We all knew we would die some day, and faced that fact. It was reason why we went wild sometimes; live it up while you still can.

Facing the issue of death, as we did as teens, and looking stright into the face of the suicide option, as many of us did, knocks your "age" argument into the dustbin.

The issue of facing, and accepting physical death, is an issue that transcends age. To say it is a gradual senilty issue, as you hint, is absurd, and a slur.

How do explain teenage suicides?
How do explain teenagers who turn to God, and become Christians. They face the issues of death, and immortality.

How old are you, Mind?

#12 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 21 December 2003 - 10:53 PM

Casanova, I am not stating anything as fact...only "beginning to believe" this is true. I base this on my experience talking with young and old people through my life and by reading interviews here at Imminst.

I also qualified my assumption somewhat by saying "non-religious" young people.

If you have seen otherwise, that is fine. I have no argument with you. If most of the young people you know want to die or accept death... and hardly any old people you know are that way...then you would obviously come to a different conclusion. Since I do not know all these young people that want to commit suicide, perhaps I am mistaken.

I am 32.

#13 yossarian

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 December 2003 - 08:23 PM

The notion that one can 'carry on' after ones death through ones living work and thus achieve immortality is a bit tenuous. It reminds me of ppl who name their kids, 'Jr,' or 'Third,' or the same name as themselves and instill in them and themselves that they are now a continuation.

I think Rees is kidding himself if he thinks like this. I dont think its even better than the real thing. Not even close.

#14 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 22 December 2003 - 11:53 PM

Hah, good comparison. For better or for worse, it seems unlikely that the inhabitants of the future will care about the fine details of human life in the past; the action will be there, not here.

"Martin Rees the Third". :)

#15 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 23 December 2003 - 05:52 AM

Posted Image

Kenneth Silber is a New York City-based writer focused on science, technology and economics. He has written for various publications including Book, City Journal, Commentary, Insight, the New York Post, Reason, Skeptical Inquirer and the Washington Times.

Silber worked as an editor and writer at Space.com. He is a research associate of consulting firm Kafan FX Information Services, and coauthor, with Alexei Bayer, of an economics column for Mental Floss magazine. Silber is an illustrator for Heisenberg's Fun House, a humor webzine at http://www.uncertaintypark.com

Posted Image

Kenneth's Tech Central Station article archive found here.




Kenneth Silber - Answering Martin Rees

Dear Kenneth,

Perhaps you'd like to reply to Martin Rees
concerning the prospect of physical immortality
(pro/con) with two (or so) paragraphs.

Bruce Klein
Chairman, ImmInst.org
---

Thanks, Bruce. Here's my take on the Martin Rees
interview:


Rees argues that if we lived much longer, we wouldn't
be "us." I'm not so sure. When he says we're each a
"bundle of sensations," he's stating a position that's
fairly common among professional philosophers and
which can be traced to David Hume.

However, there are some philosophers, such as John
Searle, who have argued for a "non-Humean self" --
that individual consciousness and identity involve
more than a "bundle of sensations." If that view is
right, then maybe Rees' concerns could be alleviated.

Such topics might seem academic or esoteric. But
actually, further progress in the philosophy of mind
would be very helpful for formulating opinions about
life extension.

Kenneth Silber

#16 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 06 March 2005 - 10:56 PM

Anyone seen the program with martin rees called " What we still dont know " its a 3 part series and I only managed to catch the 3rd part... I have it on tape now but cant seem to find the other 2 anywhere

Any ideas?

This is the show http://www.channel4....till_dont_know/


I do know someone that actually works for C4. Maybe they have it archived and he can get hold of it hmm




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users