Hurlbut on the Unmanliness of Life Extension Wednesday, Mar 11 2009
life extension 8:33 am
“I actually find a preoccupation with anti-aging technologies to be, I think, somewhat spiritually immature and unmanly.”
– William B. Hurlbut, former member of the President’s Council on Bioethics and a consulting professor in the Program in Human Biology at Stanford University
One of the more memorable life extension debates I’ve been to was a summer 2007 meeting of the Bay Area Future Salon where Aubrey de Grey went up against William Hurlbut, who used to work under Leon Kass on Bush’s Religious Right-dominated President’s Council on Bioethics. Unlike Kass, who is laughed at and rejected by mainstream bioethics for his nutty, highly quotable opinions (much to the disappointment of Wesley J. Smith), Hurlbut is somewhat more sane-sounding. He is intellectual and often presents his ideas using reasonable rather than bombastic uber-conservative language. One might be led to believe that he even accepts the consumption of ice cream in public. (Yes, my favorite Kass reference.)
Read up on the debate between Aubrey and Hurlbut at Future Current.
Hurlbut was being so sincere and honest that I almost felt sorry for him trying to argue his points in a room full of transhumanists. But then again, he wants us all to die at a predetermined age, so you can’t have too much pity.
If I may be allowed to suggest a motto for Hurlbut’s philosophy:
Be a man. Die.™
quote from Hurlbut:
“When I faced my frailty and finitude, I felt that I came to terms with it in a positive way that I had not previous come to.”
translation into English:
“I am getting old, so I put a positive spin on it by pretending that death is good”
quote from Hurlbut:
“In fact, I think I arrived at the conclusion that life is a little wiser than we are.”
translation into English:
“I decided that evolution, rather than optimizing our adaptations for inclusive genetic fitness, had optimized our adaptations for human thriving and fulfillment”
- um, yeah, he is making newbie errors…
quote from Hurlbut:
“Would Jesus mean much for an immortal humanity?”
translation into English:
“Technological immortality for humans would mean the death of Christianity, which would be very embarrassing for theology postdocs”
“When I faced my frailty and finitude, I felt that I came to terms with it in a positive way that I had not previous come to” doesn’t sound so bad to me; more like “I’ve accepted that I’m going to die, and stopped feeling the terror/blind rage/nihilistic despair/whatever I used to.” – which is healthy, and in principle consistent with judging death as bad.
I’m not sure “…optimized our adaptations for human thriving and fulfillment” is an accurate interpretation – Hurlbut may have other ideas of the good, and may not believe in unguided evolution (crazy, but I generally don’t think it’s fair to penalize people for crazy beliefs that are valid deductions from prior crazy beliefs).
(By “[posterior] crazy beliefs” I mean “life is wise”, and by “prior crazy beliefs” I mean theistic evolution or whatever he might believe in.)
“I generally don’t think it’s fair to penalize people for crazy beliefs that are valid deductions from prior crazy beliefs”
– well… yes, I can see where you’re coming from, Nick. When I was at school, we used to get “method marks” for incorrect answers to maths questions that were the result of one blunder (for example, a sign error).
But reality is less forgiving than you are. It doesn’t give method marks. If you die because you make a sound deduction from an unsound belief in directed evolution, you’re just as dead as if you did something really, really stupid like getting addicted to hard drugs.
And memetically, Hurlbut would be doing far less damage if he advocated that “addiction to hard drugs gives meaning to life”, because that isn’t plausible enough to fool people.
Would it not be even more manly for the Hurlbut’s and Kass’s and other “real men like them” to take one for the team and forego any anti-aging treatment that gets developed ? Allow “the anti-aging wimps” to take anti-aging treatment but still show the profundity of life and death by bearing the torch for aging death.
That would be even more manly. Anti-aging is developed and they choose to not take it for the spiritual health of humanity.
Now they are arguing against anti-aging before it is developed. Are they afraid that if it gets developed that they will be tempted to take it and wimp out ?
How about any of the other medical treatment and knowledge that is available now ? Cholesterol medication is that for pussies ?
Shouldn’t medicine be like the Far Side comic treatment for horses ? All problems are resolved by shooting the horse.
If life is like a symphony, then why should people not be allowed to choose “Victory at Sea”. 13 hour long symphony.
http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/symphonyfaq/f/longestsymphony.htm
Or if life is an Opera.
Wagner’s Ring Cycle, which clocks in at 18 hours
http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/operafaq/f/ofaq7.htm
Symphonies grew out of opera overtures, and the earliest are 8-10 minutes long. By the time of Haydn and Mozart in the late 18th century they ran 20-30 minutes. Beethoven expanded the size; his shortest are about 25 minutes, but his 3rd runs 55 minutes and his 9th runs 70 minutes. The length of CDs was supposedly picked by a record-company executive who said, “Make it long enough to fit Beethoven’s Ninth.” The next generation (Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann) were mostly shorter again (about 35 minutes), but Berlioz’s Symphonie fantastique runs 50 minutes. Most late 19th century symphonies (Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak) run 40-50 minutes, but other composers (Bruckner, Mahler) run longer. Mahler’s 3rd runs about 2 hours and is, I think, in the Guinness Book of World Records. After Mahler, most symphonies were much shorter. Prokofiev’s 1st “Classical” is only 12 minutes. Most 20th century symphonies are 20-30 minutes, though others are 40-45 and a few run as long as 70 minutes.
Victory at Sea and Wagner’s ring cycle are clearly for the symphonic and operatically immature who do not know that many symphonies are 20-45 minutes. Like Viagra if your symphony lasts more than 4 hours then see your doctor so that you are euthanized.
manly symphonies, not many symphonies in the last paragraph.
Hurlburt: We want a technological solution to this inevitable problem of aging and death–I do believe it is inevitable.
It sounds like he is admitting that technology will inevitably give a solution to aging and death.
So then he is saying that the solution should only be given to women (who have no concern about being manly).
Then he has a hierarchy of preferred deaths:
1. External causes are best. It is how greatgrandpa did it and grandpa and they were manly. So if it was good enough for them then it should be good enough for us
2. Psychologically caused death. Behavior deaths. Automobile deaths and drug deaths.
Note: if you were in a car that was following the rules but were hit by another car or if you were crossing the street and got hit by a car, I believe he is saying that you had a psychological/behaviorial problem. Or that might be a special auto death case that classifies as a purer external cause death.
3. Spiritual death. Death by despair. the worst kind of death.
Certain futuristic unmanly people who were setting a bad example:
Hannibal (182 BC), Carthaginian military commander, poison
Gordian I (238), Roman emperor, hanged himself with his belt
Cato the younger (46 BC), Roman republican statesman, stabbed himself with his own sword
Shang Zhou (1046 BC), the last king of the Shang Dynasty of China, set fire to his palace while inside it
So, he’s a Christian? That disqualifies him from calling immortalists “unmanly” and “spiritually immature” since he himself thinks he’ll live forever in one form or another (like an angel, perhaps?).
Quote from Roko:
“translation into English: ‘I am getting old, so I put a positive spin on it by pretending that death is good’”
I don’t think this is fair. I want aging cured as quickly as possible, but I am fully prepared to accept that some people won’t share my enthusiasm. This doesn’t make all their arguments rationalizations. It just means they have different priorities – and thats fine. I think it can be admirable and good for a terminal cancer patient to make peace with their illness and confront their mortality with grace, even up to declining treatment if that’s their wish. The catch is that this doesn’t mean we should not be seeking a cure for cancer! The same is true for aging. I want it cured. But I appreciate that others priorities will differ to my own.
Quote from Roko:
“translation into English: ‘I am getting old, so I put a positive spin on it by pretending that death is good’”
I don’t think this is fair. I want aging cured as quickly as possible, but I am fully prepared to accept that some people won’t share my enthusiasm. This doesn’t make all their arguments rationalizations. It just means they have different priorities – and thats fine. I think it can be admirable and good for a terminal cancer patient to make peace with their illness and confront their mortality with grace, even up to declining treatment if that’s their wish. The catch is that this doesn’t mean we should not be seeking a cure for cancer! The same is true for aging. I want it cured. But I appreciate that others priorities will differ to my own.
BTW I love your blog!
Reread the Hurlburt quote: Hurlburt: We want a technological solution to this inevitable problem of aging and death–I do believe it is inevitable.
He was saying that aging and death cannot be overcome. His overall argument is then that it is damaging to the human spirit and unmanly to even try to overcome aging or death.
So death by despair is bad/the worst. Committing suicide because you despair is bad. Quitting on life is bad. But somewhere along the way fighting for life is good until you keep going and Hurlburt decides it is a lost cause and you go from being a hero to an unmanly coward.
I would say that trying to make a collective decision that no one should try to defeat aging is the talk of life quitters and defeatists.
Have not doctors and medical science been trying to push back death ?
Different life phases are effective by medicine and nutrition. Puberty timing is effected by what is eaten and other environmental factors. The timing of menopause is effected by what is done lifestyle wise. Viagra and other treatments effect the aspect of when certain capabilities related to aging are lost.
Might note that it’s Hurlbut, not Hurlburt.
Stop being cowards, charge into danger with an erect penis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hpjXh5vPDY&feature=related
For example, it could be that some day we succeed in making men immortal, and everything we had ever thought concerning death and its profundity would then become simply laughable.
Has it ever occurred to Mr. Hurlbut that this is what we want?
Has it also occurred to Mr. Hurlbut that the development of effective anti-aging is the REAL “profoundly human and profoundly strong” method of dealing with the issue of aging and death?
Aging and death sucks. Period. I believe in getting rid of that which sucks. Mr. Hurlbut obviously believes that things that suck have value. I do not.
Fortunately, we still live in a free society where people are free to make their own choices as individuals. This means that Mr. Hurlbut has the right to make his own life choices. If we develop effective anti-aging therapies, I can assure you that no one is about to force Mr. Hurlbut to undergo them against his will.
**MUCH** THANKS to Roko, Brian Wang, and Kurt9, as you have expressed, especially taken-in-combination, virtually everything I’d have said—and probably said it a bit better.
Conquering senescence is indeed the REAL “profoundly human and profoundly strong” means of “dealing” with aging-unto-death. The (lamentably and paradoxically) later Alan Harrington in his magnificent book, *The Immortalist* (first published by Random House 40 yrs ago, in 1969) had it right: “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.”
May we ALL live long and prosper…
I kind of think what’s imposed on us gives us meaning.
This attitude suggests that people are too stupid to learn from observing the experiences of others. Certainly adolescences lack the perspective to learn from other people’s experiences. However, to suggest that a competent adult, a successful profession in the prime of their life can derive meaning from imposed events is just way over the top. It says that they cannot learn whatever there is to learn by observing the experiences of other people. This is just an asinine thing to say.
Also, Hurlbut’s definition of manliness is screwed up as well. The socialbiological definition of manliness is the alpha-male. One cannot be an alpha-male without a perfectly functional mind and body. The “transhumanist” definition of manliness is someone who tries to rise above the petty sociobiology games that others play (especially the dating game – think of Roissy in DC) and attempts to create real value or do something pioneering oriented.
I’m wondering if Mr. Hurlbut is a can short of a six-pack.
I’d say at least 2 cans shy of a six-pack… ;)
Where did you got this much info on your blog from?? Also can i take the initiave to take the feeds from your blog for my yoga website?? But cant find the RSS feeds link here!!