Immortality, a Philosophical Joust

The subject of immortality can spark some interesting and lively debates. An example of this is the following exchange between ImmInst director Bruce J. Klein and Joshua Hublar. Feel free to chime in with your take on this matter...



Joshua Says:
Immortal? us?
I do not see it.

Rather, I see us as the creators of immortals. But upon which minds would we bestow such independance? You give mankind too much credit, methinks. We are greedy with power and egotistical with identity. We will, in our masterfull creations, create persian flaws. Also, with regard to being immortal - I think that is a waste of energy. Consider: What is more important? You or mankind?
Your works and knowledge or mankind's collective works and knowledge?

I think that immortality is a relegion of the self. To sustain ego binds us to a singular being whereas opening one's mind to embracing death with dignity hastens the process of being able to become shoulders that one might stand on in the future.

I welcome that opportunity for healthy debate on the matter. We have weakened our diversity enough with modern medicine. The mechanisms of life itself have been glued with our well-intentioned road paving - do you honestly think that mankind is MORE than life? Death is the very mechanism that life RELIES upon to affect adaption. No.

If anything will save mankind or bring upon us a new golden era, it will be a 99% decrease in population. Like so many starved dear.

joshua

Bruce says:
What if their is nothing after death?

Joshua Says:
What do you mean, "What if there is nothing after death?"

This statement is egocentric, you see: Even if you die, your work can be the shoulders that someone else stands on. Mankind will continue, dear Bruce. Personally, I have inclinations towards the judeo-christian mythos, but - I have my own reasons. Not so much Fear, per se. At any rate, if I grope around a bit I still find that I can find my atheistic humanist hat and *ahhhhh, yes* it still fits rather snugly.

You see, immortality is actually something quite dangerous for *any* life. The mechanisms of the universe need to be fluid. Consider our constitution, for example. If it were not written in such a fasion as to be mutable - then, my friend, future generations would not be able to adapt its content to suit their times. So as it is with life. If we end death, we also end the mechanisms that allow us to adapt into the unknown. We need genetic diversity to insure our survival. This means dying and fucking, I am afraid.

But, such is life. N'est pas?

Now - insofar as ego is concerned. . . I do admit a sadness at not being able to fit my mind around all that is - but dear Bruce, that is why we have language and division of labour. We are a macrocosm for life on a cellular level. Our society is an organism. It will endure your death just as your body will endure the death of millions of your columnar cells. Fear not - you can leave your mark.

Individuality is a spiritual construct. You are a man in a tribe. Your tribe is what matters - not you.
*shrug*

joshua

If we end death, we also end the mechanisms that allow us to adapt into the unknown.

Not true. Death is just a fact of our current organic substrate and evolution thus far. If we release our mind from its limited "organic trap" there is no reason it cannot continue to grow and adapt into the unknown.

It is possible that releasing our mind or "uploading" will allow us to share our ego amongst many (or all) in some sort of collective. This may be the death of our ego - but it should not be mistaken as the same thing as our current death. Our current death does not allow us any choices. All we become is "stock matter" for future life to use. If we join a collective, our mind AND matter will make a difference and continue to evolve through future levels of intelligence.

Rather, I see us as the creators of immortals. But upon which minds would we bestow such independance? You give mankind too much credit, methinks.

Should we then not give blue green algae credit for being our ancestors? They hobbled around with little ability to contemplate their life and future, yet they are our great great*^100000 grandfathers and grandmothers. We started from such humble beginnings and we're still quite humble. Thus should give us hope... we're moving in the right direction.

We shall continue to improve.. it's just happening a much faster rate now. Our instinct and will dictate innovation and complexity. The problem I see is that DNA and nature have us set to die.. not for a morally justifiable reason, but simply because we evolved in such a way that sex and death was the most successful at creating intelligence.

DNA's soul purpose as an immortal molecule, is to get rid of it's carrier when it's determined no longer useful to evolution. Should we be beholden to the programming of a tiny molecule? DNA has marked each of us to die in order to make way for the next generation. It doesn't have to be this way. Actually, it has not always been this way. For the majority of life, from 4.3 billion years ago to about .5 billion years ago, all life on earth was immortal - bacteria. Each organism, of course did not live forever, as the elements took their toll, but, the point is that we do have the potential for immortality.. immortality is not anti-nature. (please note the following example of bacteria alive after .25 billion year: Immortal Bacteria)

We are greedy with power and egotistical with identity. We will, in our masterfull creations, create persian flaws. Also, with regard to being immortal - I think that is a waste of energy.

Remember the laws of physics? Energy is neither lost nor gained. Entropy will be a long term problem.. but this is another topic entirely.

Consider: What is more important? You or mankind? Your works and knowledge or mankind's collective works and knowledge?

Yes, one has to determine the importance of self and place life’s worth into hierarchy. I hold my life’s worth above country, company, and group. This is not being egotistical; it’s just my personal code. If I loose friends because of it, so be it. Maybe such "friends" do not have my best interest at heart. Obviously they do not care enough to respect my will to live.

I will not lay down my life, or put myself in the position of potential oblivion for some cause (unless the cause is physical immortality) I don’t consider myself a selfish person in sense, other than that I'm not willing to throw away my life for anyone else’s idea of freedom or chivalry. This doesn't mean I condemn the military or persons's wish to commit suicide. Everyone should have the right to make personal decisions about life and death. As I would not want others trying to stop me from living forever, I will not try and stop others from killing themselves.

I think that immortality is a relegion of the self. To sustain ego binds us to a singular being whereas opening one's mind to embracing death with dignity hastens the process of being able to become shoulders that one might stand on in the future.

Here again, I don’t see immortalists.... or better yet, I’ll speak for myself here; I don’t see myself as being egocentric other than for the fact that I will not lay down my life for any cause, no matter how noble.

I welcome that opportunity for healthy debate on the matter. We have weakened our diversity enough with modern medicine. The mechanisms of life itself have been glued with our well-intentioned road paving - do you honestly think that mankind is MORE than life? Death is the very mechanism that life RELIES upon to affect adaption. No.

You may wish to read the rebuttal’s to Leon Kass, Bush’s Bioethics advisor. Kass has expressed much similar ideas about immortality. He believes we should kill over in order to make way for the next generation. He says it’s our “duty” [Leon Kass Article].

If anything will save mankind or bring upon us a new golden era, it will be a 99% decrease in population. Like so many starved dear.

My goodness, You must really want everyone to die? You and Kass should hook up.

What do you mean, "What if there is nothing after death?"

For a clear explanation of this.. please read: Immortalist Philosophy

I do see a problem with overpopulation but that will never be the final say in the topic of immortality. The religious people should just keep dying and living and the immortalists should be able to continue their research or keeping us from getting 'overthrown,' preferably. Along with limiting births per couple. I say this due to avoiding a very bad future where we are like the bacteria and creep and crawl all over the planets. I speculate that if there is 'too much population' in X amount of centuries, some organization of people will address this situation with air born pathogens.

Enough of morbid economics though, the 'statement' that we should die 'for the greater good' is absurd. We, as humans, are not under the foot of environmental pressure. Thus we have also made tools to live longer and to change our own evolutionary path. Call it evolutionary appliance making, heh, or whatever. Bottom line is we control it now.

An immortal person having the information in mind and able to live a thousand fold outweighs the mundane 'live, die. in with the new, out with the old...etc.' The progeny from have to relearn everything when I am still working on lets say...how to map various transcription factors pathways.

Sum up: few people is desirable, we are working to control our own evolution, a learned man/woman who lives a thousand fold of normal human life is far greater then a 'rebirthing population.'

Laterz. . .


If I am able to live for hundreds of years and gain knowledge of various topics they may have to make something better then a PhD. Just an interesting thought.

Joshua Says:
Immortal? us?
I do not see it.

Won't be long before you do see it.

Rather, I see us as the creators of immortals. But upon which minds would we bestow such independance? You give mankind too much credit, methinks. We are greedy with power and egotistical with identity. We will, in our masterfull creations, create persian flaws. Also, with regard to being immortal - I think that is a waste of energy. Consider: What is more important? You or mankind?
Your works and knowledge or mankind's collective works and knowledge?

You can describe human nature all you want, there are a lot of flaws, but also a lot of strengths. If you can go one way, you must be able to go the other. Existence would be a big waste of energy now wouldn't it? Why all these complex formations of atoms (ie life)? It takes a lot of energy to keep them together, what a waste. Why build life in the first place? There are a growing number of immortalists in the world, are they not a part of mankind? Since when did this become a quest for greed and power? You've never known life without death. Therefore you've had no choice but to accept it as inevitable. You make death out to be honorable and dignifying. Why? Are you afraid to challenge death?

I think that immortality is a relegion of the self. To sustain ego binds us to a singular being whereas opening one's mind to embracing death with dignity hastens the process of being able to become shoulders that one might stand on in the future.

Immortality is not a religion, it's the quality or condition of being immortal. You can be immortal and still believe in god, be an atheist, buddhist..etc. You can embrace life with dignity as well. Also, perhaps we're opening our minds when questioning deaths purpose. I don't see how death's neccessary to improve mankinds collective knowledge.

I welcome that opportunity for healthy debate on the matter. We have weakened our diversity enough with modern medicine. The mechanisms of life itself have been glued with our well-intentioned road paving - do you honestly think that mankind is MORE than life? Death is the very mechanism that life RELIES upon to affect adaption. No.

We have weakened our diversity with ignorance and ineptness. Do we honestly think that mankind is more than life? How about this... Do you honestly believe death is MORE than life? Death is triggered by the deterioration of energy.

If anything will save mankind or bring upon us a new golden era, it will be a 99% decrease in population. Like so many starved dear.

So kill everybody and humanity will live happily ever after... What happens to the collection of humanity's knowledge when there are only a few to appreciate it? In one sense, you want us all to die, but you want us to better humanity... how greedy is that kind of rationale?

This is an unhealthy idea, Joshua. Doing nothing to prevent aging and death is committing suicide as surely as taking poison. This brings to mind the less-obscured death cults, like the Hale-Bopp Comet riders' of Heaven's Gate or Jones Town. Powerful egos were involved here, I imagine.
Death by poison or aging should be an option, but not one forced upon individuals by a kooky state supposedly concerned with "higher goods" in order to extract a living from all who produce net values. For instance, the Tribe/State might decide to institute your "Golden Era" and adopt your suggestion of a 99% population reduction. How would you like it done? Guns? Ebola? Small Pox? What suits your fancy? Which way do you picture it happening?
We are talking about ME here. We're talking about my MOM and my DAD, my FRIENDS, my favorite artists, businessmen and scientists. It seems you support handing us over to Moloch's priesthood for blood sacrifices. Frankly, it's upsetting. Where is the "healthy" in this debate? As it stands, the "Tribe" and it's State, by burdening advances in technology with legislation and regulation, stand poised with a poisoned blade over our heads, as we pass under on the conveyor belt of time.
(This drawing of mine serves as an emoticon.)

Edited by wannabe, 24 January 2003 - 10:11 PM.

You give mankind too much credit, methinks.

You give mankind too little credit, methinks.

We are greedy with power and egotistical with identity.

If we hadn't been, how could we have ever evolved in the first place?


It is in man's nature to tinker with things. With life itself even. Immortality is one of the greatest wishes of mankind. It has been for centuries. You could say that it this wish is natural. Hence, the coming-true of immortality itself is natural.

How can it not be? The exponentially growing technological progress which will bring us immortality (amongst other things) is a part of evolution itself.

This is an unhealthy idea, Joshua. Doing nothing to prevent aging and death is committing suicide as surely as taking poison.

We're talking about my MOM and my DAD, my FRIENDS, my favorite artists, businessmen and scientists. It seems you support handing us over to Moloch's priesthood for blood sacrifices. Frankly, it's upsetting. Where is the "healthy" in this debate?

wannabe,

Where is the "healthy" in this debate? From what I understand, getting upset for one minute suppresses the immune system for eight hours.

I am not here to people-please the Joshua's of the world. I see no sense to "convert" the self-destructive.

If Joshua wants to commit a form of suicide, that is his choice.

Like yourself, I am committed to life extension. The longer we live, the further science will take us to provide an opporltunity to live even longer. I see no limits to this process provided that we stay on course and avoid the guilt trips of those who wish to die.

bob

I am not here to people-please the Joshua's of the world. I see no sense to "convert" the self-destructive.

I think my concern comes from knowing that there exist people who want to destroy the happiness of others out of envy, for that compelling rush experienced by the vandal or arsonist. This contingent is not content to die alone, but wants us dead too. With their fluted tones, calling us "dear", they apear rational, concerned and caring to their uncomprehending victims, who defer thinking and power to them. They infest the State, and have laws, guns and jails to threaten and harm immortalizing business with.

I should take it to another thread or start a new one-- --"Should we immortalists evangelize?"

This contingent is not content to die alone, but wants us dead too. With their fluted tones, calling us "dear", they apear rational, concerned and caring to their uncomprehending victims, who defer thinking and power to them. They infest the State, and have laws, guns and jails to threaten and harm immortalizing business with. -- wannabe

Expanding-- Here is an example of how harm may come. I found references to Callahan and other so-called "bio-ethicists" at the website of
Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes -- http://www.cspo.org/whoweare/ Who they are illustrates my concerns from my previous post-- that malific, patronizing policy influencers/makers are paid by us while they kill, at the least, our weakest loved ones, by burdening advancements in immortalizing tech.

From a book review found at http://www.cspo.org/...view.death.html


"...Of course, the real bugbear is the grim reaper herself. Extending lifespan is the ultimate motivator of both biomedical research and an individualistic health care system, and Callahan confronts this fact with disarming directness. "The present average life expectancy in the developed countries has proved perfectly adequate for most people to live a full life . . . I have heard no claims that an average life expectancy that moved from the low to the mid-eighties, much less higher, would lead to . . . a generally higher standard of collective happiness and sense of well-being. While a decently long life can no doubt contribute to those goods, more life beyond a certain point seems to offer no proportionate gains." (pp. 133-4) Callahan's overriding point is that a sustainable health care system will accept the idea of a natural lifespan and work to improve health within that lifespan, not to continually expand its limits.

Much as I agree with it, this is a pretty tough argument upon which to base a reform movement -- especially if, as Robert Pollack argues in The Missing Moment, the human inability to understand and accept death acts as an overbearing but invisible stimulus on the biomedical research agenda. The structure of Pollack's argument seems absolutely original to me. Pollack is a molecular biologist, and his book starts out in the familiar style of a good scientific popularization. His putative subject is the biophysical basis for unconscious thought -- and his presentation is fresh and lucid -- but he has a particular fish to fry here. Scientists, as human beings, can never escape their own unconscious motives, and such motives are therefore and unavoidably prime determinants of the biomedical research agenda and health care delivery system. Science and medicine, Pollack suggests, "are too strongly motivated by an irrational, unconscious need to cure death to be fully motivated by the lesser task of preventing and curing disease simply to put off the inevitable end of their patients' lives and, by extension, their own..."

This contingent is not content to die alone, but wants us dead too. With their fluted tones, calling us "dear", they apear rational, concerned and caring to their uncomprehending victims, who defer thinking and power to them.

wannabe,

Well said!

Such is the system.

Once you understand the system, the easier it is to navigate within it and live.

Your listing did not include the healthcare and educational systems with which they tend to infest.

bob

Boy that Pollack sure makes the field of molecular bio look bad. Don't take his statement in anyway to represent the actual or aspiring molecular biologists. Im starting to question if his degrees are honorary or legitimate.

"Remember the laws of physics? Energy is neither lost nor gained. Entropy will be a long term problem.. but this is another topic entirely."
I admire that you address Entropy as a long term problem.

"Yes, one has to determine the importance of self and place life’s worth into hierarchy. I hold my life’s worth above country, company, and group. This is not being egotistical; it’s just my personal code. If I loose friends because of it, so be it. Maybe such "friends" do not have my best interest at heart. Obviously they do not care enough to respect my will to live."
Did you have a wife or child when you wrote that sentence?

"I will not lay down my life, or put myself in the position of potential oblivion for some cause (unless the cause is physical immortality) I don’t consider myself a selfish person in sense, other than that I'm not willing to throw away my life for anyone else’s idea of freedom or chivalry. This doesn't mean I condemn the military or persons's wish to commit suicide. Everyone should have the right to make personal decisions about life and death. As I would not want others trying to stop me from living forever, I will not try and stop others from killing themselves."
More pie for you?


"Here again, I don’t see immortalists.... or better yet, I’ll speak for myself here; I don’t see myself as being egocentric other than for the fact that I will not lay down my life for any cause, no matter how noble."
What do you mean by nobility? I did not invoke nobility. Though, truly -- at the heart of this matter is some evolutionary psychology. I'm glad that you have the presence of mind to create an issue of it.


"You may wish to read the rebuttal’s to Leon Kass, Bush’s Bioethics advisor. Kass has expressed much similar ideas about immortality. He believes we should kill over in order to make way for the next generation. He says it’s our “duty” [Leon Kass Article]."
Kass is a bigot. I'm not interested in anything he has to say about anything.


"My goodness, You must really want everyone to die? You and Kass should hook up."
I don't want everyone to die, Bruce. I just know that they will.


-Joshua

"Not true. Death is just a fact of our current organic substrate and evolution thus far. If we release our mind from its limited "organic trap" there is no reason it cannot continue to grow and adapt into the unknown."

How does one release our mind from its substrate? You'd rather be emulated than run natively on superior hardware? no thanks. I want all the cycles I can get.

"It is possible that releasing our mind or "uploading" will allow us to share our ego amongst many (or all) in some sort of collective. "
It's called a 'forum'. Welcome to the 80's.

"This may be the death of our ego - but it should not be mistaken as the same thing as our current death. Our current death does not allow us any choices. All we become is "stock matter" for future life to use. If we join a collective, our mind AND matter will make a difference and continue to evolve through future levels of intelligence."
You /are/ a part of a collective.

"Enough of morbid economics though, the 'statement' that we should die 'for the greater good' is absurd. "
I didn't invoke the word, 'good'. It's just the way that it is. We slowly adapt to our environment and recombine with selective forces that change our nature, for better or for worse, depending on the situation at evolutionariological hand. That's my official entry for new word of the year, by the way.

Please don't inject observation with emotion, please. That's two pleases.