Generally Negative Review of Life Extensionists on Time.com Monday, Mar 16 2009
life extension and transhumanism 9:43 am
Any coverage is good coverage, right? The answer is no. Negative coverage of life extension can spread stereotypes that cause funding sources to become more squeamish about contributing to groups like the Methuselah Foundation.
On Time.com, a feature “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now” includes “Amortality” as one of their ideas, saying that, “The defining characteristic of amortality is to live in the same way, at the same pitch, doing and consuming much the same things, from late teens right up until death.” The journalist also writes, “They’re a highly sexed bunch”, and includes Nicolas Sarkozy, Madonna, and Mark Zuckerburg among their number.
You might read the article and say it’s not too negative, but it is negative. The general feel I got was that life extensionists are irresponsible and deluded about their age. This is the same boring conservative reaction that we’re used to hearing, but these arguments are even more dangerous because they can appeal to moderates, unlike the arguments of Kass for instance, which appeal only to religious conservatives.
The impetus to extend life need not be based on denialism and youth fetishism (it can be, especially among the millions of people who buy “anti-aging” creams, but this exists less in the more mature life extension advocacy organizations based on humanitarian goals). It can be based on transhumanism as simplified humanism:
“As far as a transhumanist is concerned, if you see someone in danger of dying, you should save them; if you can improve someone’s health, you should. There, you’re done. No special cases. You don’t have to ask anyone’s age.”
Michael,
I have a question for you: A few posts ago you said that “moral realism is false” — which suggests that there aren’t facts of the matter about what one morally ought and ought not do — yet in defense of life extensionism you endorsingly quote Yudkowsky on transhumanism/humanism as a framework for helping us to decide what we morally/ethically ought to do. These two ideas seem to be in fundamental tension with each other. How do you see them as compatible? Am I missing something?
Thanks.
@Ryan:
Well, Joshua Greene would say “you shouldn’t use words like “should” and “ought”", or something like that.
Michael didn’t make any realist statements in his post. He said “based on” and “impetus”, which is consistent with antirealism.
But there’s still something of an unresolved issue here. If people dislike life extension for no particular reason, it is a tough job for a self-confessed antirealist to dissuade them.
What convinces me? Well, I like life, pure and simple. I would be pro-life extension whether or not it is socially fashionable or not.
“What convinces me? Well, I like life, pure and simple. I would be pro-life extension whether or not it is socially fashionable or not.”
– actually, if I’m brutally honest, wanting to conform to transhumanist in-group ritual probably has a lot to do with it, as does wanting to see science and technology progress beyond what I would otherwise get.
Just because there isn’t an objective morality doesn’t mean that many of us don’t have shared values.
Basically, I’m in favor of life, and others can make the same choice or not.
It depends on the understanding of “Life extension”. I think there is a substantial difference between what is described on Time.com and what transhumanism actually aims to advocate.
What is currently happening, are the somewhat sad attempts of people trying to hold off death until something better comes along. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s only a little sad because we don’t have the means to do it.
AFAIK there is no consensus on why we age. There are theories indicating that it is genetically mediated, telomeres play a role, waste products will accumulate, oxidative stress will add its part, cells will not proliferate like they used to and thus we somehow age.
But the data about those things is shaky, especially regarding the quantitative contribution of the factors in question. We don’t understand the mechanisms well enough in order to systematically devise something that could seriously be called a therapy.
Ignorance opens the door to quackery. Most of life extension today is just that. Too little data coupled with too much desperation leads to the sale of powdered rhino horn and tiger bones for enhancing your manliness. And scientists (again) shouting claims that they are just in shooting distance of stopping aging once and for all. Give them funding and 10 years, then… But I’m ranting again.
What transhumanism advocates is truly extending the human lifespan by scientific means. Apart from leading reasonably healthy lives, we don’t know how to do that, because we don’t understand aging.
So all of today’s efforts are tainted by either a stench of quackery, or stuck at the stage of outside consmetics. The sad tone of the article derives from the fact that today there is no way to stop aging and many people desperately believeing that there is.
Just as there are gender roles so too are there age roles. If you transgress cultural roles you can hardly be surprised when you cop flak for it. That is what I think is objected to in the article (though not consciously). The very first thing applied to transgressors is scorn (or depending on the level of transgression, revulsion). Changing something about humans that has been a given from the dawn of time is hardly going to be a smooth process.
“Just as there are gender roles so too are there age roles.”
– but we all agree that denying women equal rights to men was a mistake, and perpetuating it on the grounds that moral realism was false and things had always been that way would have been a worse mistake.
People share more values than they differ on, which is what makes any kind of moral discussion possible, I suppose. We gave women equal rights because we have a strong universalizing instinct, and valued the individual. [Correct me if I'm wrong here!]
Similarly, we will give 50 year olds equal life-rights to 25 year olds because we have a strong universalizing instinct, and value the individual.
“Similarly, we will give 50 year olds equal life-rights to 25 year olds because we have a strong universalizing instinct, and value the individual.”
– and hence, by induction on age, the goodness of immortality follows. QED.
The Time article is full of unsubstantiated distortions as well. It claims that “amortals” are more profligate and less fiscally responsible than other people, without citing any evidence to back this assertion up. The article then goes on to talk about successful people who are “amortals”, like the founder of Facebook.
Most of the life extension people I know personally are more conservative with their money and are better at financial planning than those I know who are not into life extension.
Basically, the article is full of distortions and innuendos, all of which are completely unsubstantiated. Of course, we know this is the depth to which mainstream journalism has sunk to these days.
Personally, I would not worry about what negative images the mainstream media paints life extension people with. I think the Bush national guard memos (among other gaffs) has comprehensively discredited the mainstream media. I don’t know anyone who pays attention to what they say anymore.
I’m not sure what is an age role. For example, am I supposed to quit working out in the gym because I am of a certain age? Or quit doing some of the outdoor sports, such as kite surfing and cat sailing, because I am of a certain age? I mean, are these people serious?
There is one argument that sounds very compelling for me, and if you insist and use it wisely, it wakes a lot of people up, really fast.
Position: I don’t give a damn about global warming. I don’t give a damn about peak oil or pollution. I don’t care about overpopulation. All those problems will take decades to unravel, and I’ll be long dead by then, and since I don’t have kids I don’t care.
Answer: You better hope someone doesn’t invent a solid cure to aging then, or with that attitude you may find yourselves living with the consequences. For decades.
OK, here goes the nifty-fifty year-old (soon to be 51 this coming March 31st—”yippee kai yay, motherf—–”): The authors of the Time piece (which I have to note–in the spirit of disclosure–that I haven’t yet read, and I’m “going by” only Michael’s article here and the comments…), I suspect, are one or another (or a combination) of 3 things: Culturally *brainwashed*, and/or somewhat stupid (in terms of rational expectations of ongoing science and technology), and/or in denial of their own loathing of DEATH (and even old-age).
It’s really very simple, kids: Even middle-age (and therefore, *a fortiori*, old-age)**SUCKS**. Your metabolism changes (“slows”, more-or-less), so that it is easier to get “middle-age spread”, i.e., for guys, a “spare tire”. Now, sure, one can still go to the gym or whatnot and strive to do as well as good ol’ Jack LaLane (who’s still hoppin’-&-boppin’ at 90-something!!), but even the musculature degenerates to some extent. One’s libido declines significantly (which can be both a blessing AND a curse), and one’s knees, e.g., begin to ache (not constantly [yet], but occasionally!). At the risk of seeming a reductive physicalist: I want control over my own biological processes, for heaven’s sake. Surely, after all, that’s the very *raison d’etre* of bio-medical science!!! I want to be able to optimize my biological functioning—and this logically-necessarily implies controlling the onset and progression of the DISEASE known as senescence (“aging”). “Aging” is ultimately merely a physio-chemical process (or, for the purist, ensemble of processes) which can, in-principle be, not only understood, but controlled and even reversed (hence, “rejuvenation”). The late great bio-gerontologist (and, of course, sexologist, for which he’s better-know by most of the public), Alex Comfort said it best: “Senescence is, biologically-speaking, not a very satisfactory state of affairs.” (Gotta love those Brits for their penchant for urbane, understated wit!!)
So here’s the bottom line kids (and I say ‘kids’, please know, with great affection): Aging **SUCKS**; *death*, *a fortiori*—duh!—**SUCKS** a hell of a lot more*!! No more sex, no more golf, no more bridge (or poker), no more learning/practicing *tai chi*, no more “stopping to smell the flowers”, no more respiration—period!! You get what I’m sayin’?!?!! Do the math; figure it out! DEATH SUCKS!! So I end this little “wake-up!!!” rant with that same great quote…yet again the immortal (!!) words of the late, great Alan Harrington: “Death is an imposition on the human race, and no longer acceptable…spend the money, hire the scientists, and hunt death down like an outlaw!”
Yeah, baby!
Ciao…
P.S. Good point, Khannea Suntzu!!
If we accept the notion that people should live by age roles, does this mean that I have to wait for SENS therapy before I can get back into wind surfing?
Saying appreciation and praise, giving feedback as the best reward to the blogger in your life. So for that thank you for this post. Admire it!