THINQon : The ethics of living forever

The Living Room General The ethics of living forever

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Mark Opal

The ethics of living forever

Latest Post: November 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM

13 followers

We've all heard of Methuselah, the wandering Jew who lived for centuries. Then of course there is the fountain of eternal youth and hundreds of other longevity myths for every culture on the planet. Humans are enamored by the idea of living forever. Hasn't it crossed all of our minds at least once how we wish we could turn off our natural clocks and stop the aging process for a year or a decade or even a century? How cool would it be to live a couple centuries and chronicle actual change? Or abstract even further and live long enough to see species evolve? That would be awesome. "Hey Tommy, you remember way back when, before Bears had wings?"

But these are just dreams, living forever is impossible. Or is it? Dun dun dun... About a year or so ago was when I first started hearing scientists assert that a calorie-restricted diet could increase one's lifespan. The statistic I remember reading was that if a person eats 30% fewer calories than he might end up living 30% longer. So, by saying no to one meal a day you can stay on this planet for 20-25 more years. Sounds good to me. Today I read a follow up article about a drug that has been tested on mice and worms which simulates the calorie restricted diet without the actual requirement of the calorie restriction. Imagine that, a once-a-day pill to live 30% longer.

Obviously we are years away from actually seeing something like this if at all, but I find the question on whether or not I would take it fascinating. So would I, would you? Is it even an ethical question at all? I think it is just a smaller question inside a larger debate about the proper border between science and nature. If we can do this one small thing which doesn't seem so bad or dangerous, then where should we draw the line? If we can choose to cheat death a bit longer why can't we as parents chose which genes our children get? In my opinion the moment we allow one departure from our natural condition than we are opening a floodgate for the tinkering of our definition of the word human.

But if the option were offered to me today, to live 30% longer, I don't see any reason that would prevent me from accepting. Every living thing in the world cycles cells continuously throughout their entire life. The cells and atoms that comprise your unit today will not be the ones there 10 years from now. So why do we die? We're like an apple product, built in with an automated death process. If the human genius can successfully turn that process off, why shouldn't we?

This post is referenced by the following other contributors:

Linda OReilly

in "What should we expect from a Republican congress? What should we fear?"

(The Chamber of Politics)

Reply to:

Martin Howells, Trained in pure mathematics, physics,...

December 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM

13 followers

Without getting into the ethics of it, there is no good reason to consider immortality in a significant sense, is impossible. Certain whales live to over 200 years, one was found at 210 years old. The Turritopsis nutricula jellyfish is effectively immortal, the process is transdifferentiation, whereby it escapes death. When I was in Japan, many very old people (>100 years) in coastal towns on diets of mainly seafood. Same is true for some regions in Italy, different diet, I understand.

Reply to: or

Linda OReilly

December 27, 2009 at 6:59 PM

88 followers

I'M KIDDING--BUT NOT MUCH a sci-fi story

I've been hearing about this for a long time. At first I thought, well, how arrogant is that? We want to be healthy and strong and have sex and never die and leave no room on the planet for others to follow. So mundanely human of us.
But there's not a lot we can do change our human nature and what men can do men will do. So, if there really is a way to live to 150 or 250 or beyond you can bet it will happen.

There are quite a few of us (me) who won't be interested in the twig and leaf diet. And the pill thing won't work because we'll still be human and if we can eat what we want we will. I can hear the Hostess factory gearing up. The pill will just feed into our baser instincts. (here I'm assuming or hoping that we want more out of our longer lives than an endless stream of Double Cheeseburgers with Fries and Twinkies)

If we're going to live a very long time it would be a good idea to be able to renew not just our cells but our attitudes and brains. We'll have to find a way to transform stale old 21st century ideas for the 22nd and 25th centuries--in the same old bodies and minds.

There's a thing called transhumanism in which science predicts that we'll be augmenting our brains with drugs and our bodies with chips and next generation chips--whatever they'll be called. So we'll get to be partially bionic, to use a 1970's term. And then there comes the time--not too far away if technology keeps advancing--when we can just download our knowledge and awareness into organic computers and not consider the body at all.

Who will have the money to do this stuff--the great unwashed, like me? No. Big Money. The money will talk as ever and can you imagine the brains that will be residing in those computers??

No need for bodies, the lowly unfinanced will become extinct or be used to feed the organic computers.

I hope they like Twinkies.

Reply to: or

Martin Howells, Trained in pure mathematics, physics,...

December 28, 2009 at 12:30 AM

13 followers

Your thinking, it is in the right way. As a Russian girl I knew, once said to me. It's kulturney. I hope you tell your grandchildren and nephews and nieces of all these things. So they will think you all the more crackers. This is important and will happen in one form or another provided our tech. civilisation maintains itself in the meantime. Presently about 150 y.o. is the limit with current technology. Beyond that something special is needed. Caloric restriction is only a first step, it's boring. I wouldn't be surprised if a present reader of THINQon lives to see the first 150 y.o. human.

Much of the foundations for the transhuman technology is already in place (bionics, nanotechnology, cognitive science, etc.). Many of the arguments against come from the classics. (hubris, fountain of youth, trivialization of humanity, and others). Why would a transformed humanity and human realm not be better, be worth having. There will be mistakes but there always have been. What is our living for? Who even asks this now? In the old sense and now, in the new? Is it to spread consciousness in the universe? The present, highest(??), transmogrification of matter and energy that is known? The Omega point? de Chardin and all. The goal still there despite his misunderstanding and prejudices.

Isn't big money used now to get transplants? Did Jobs get his liver by the normal route, albeit with lots of good advice or was it something else? Does Hollywood money have an advantage. Do you know from your previous work? Is there organ harvesting in China. Did a Western friend of mine, whom I loved, die there for that reason? Unlikely?

Will I be able to bang you if we are both 200 years old? These are explosive questions.

love, M.

Books Discussed