• 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
- - - - -

Dr Leon Kass


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 15 April 2004 - 08:13 PM


Posted Image

On Apr 12, 2004 (SageCrossroads), Dr. Leon Kass (Bush's Lead Bioethics Advisor) answered questions for about an hour. Kass used the term "blessed" or "blessing" six times and the term "immortals", "immortality" or "immortalists" five times.

bless·ed (blĕs'ĭd) adj.
1.
a. Worthy of worship; holy.
b. Held in veneration; revered.
2. Blessed Roman Catholic Church. Used as a title before the name of one who has been beatified.
3. Bringing happiness, pleasure, or contentment.
4. blessed Used as an intensive: I don't have a blessed dime
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Example (bless) - Quote Leon Kass

----The question—there is no question but that the gift(of more) time of the sort that you and I have been blessed with as a result of the changes of the 20 th Century, that that gift of extra time is a great blessing.

That to be able to imagine living out a full life span if one is lucky—and by the way, lots of people are not so lucky and we have a long way to go before the blessings of medical research and public health are extended to our fellow human beings, even in this country, not to speak of the rest of the world—but there is a real question as to whether the gift of time as indefinitely extended before us is, in all respects, a gift.

Time is a gift, but the perception of endless time or of time without bound in fact has the possibility of undermining the degree to which we take time seriously and make it count.----

Example (immortal) - Quote Leon Kass

----And the—the deep meditation to which that passage, I think, would invite us, would be something like this:

Homer in The Iliad and The Odyssey presents human beings who he names as mortals. That is their definition in contrast to the immortals. And the immortals for their agelessness and their beauty live sort of shallow and frivolous lives. Indeed, they depend for their entertainment on watching the mortals who, precisely because they know that their time is limited, and that they go around only once, are inclined to make time matter and to aspire to something great for themselves.

And so the question would be, we are not really talking about immortality, but if it—is there some connection between the limits that we face and the desire for greatness that comes from recognition that we are only here for a short time.----

-----I would, I think, be inclined as we go forward over the next decades, to try to argue with the immortalists and the various other people who, it seems to me, have a very shallow view of this matter.----


Full Transcript:
http://www.sagecross...ts/13/index.cfm

Reason has an excellent rebuttal to Kass found at Fight Aging
http://www.fightagin...ives/000084.php

Robert Ettinger has a related Kass rebuttal:
http://www.youniverse.net/page6.html

#2 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 241
  • Location:US

Posted 15 April 2004 - 10:44 PM

You know, it occurs to me that the between the lines topic we should be worried about here is government mandated and enforced upper limits on life span (through control of medical technology and research). Kass seems to support such a thing.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

#3 David

  • Guest
  • 618 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 16 April 2004 - 12:37 AM

That's very interesting. It seems that Our ol' mate Kass is suggesting that death is our great motivator. How very Freudian (Fraudian) of him. Unfortunately his argument unravels when you go looking for research into the topic. There is no Emperical evidence that death is what motivates us to greatness. Being effective is what motivates us, and there's lots of research into that.

On the other hand he seems to be subliminally saying that expanding the life span is a blessing. Is he perhaps confused? Or is he suggesting that only the chosen should be immortal? HIS crew?

He also seems to be suggesting that there is something that only the inner circle is aware of that the masses aint allowed to have. Gimmme!

I'm kind of of the opposite headspace, that death is what motivates us to not care about the distant future. An essentually selfish point of view that encourages those of low environmental moral fibre to rape the planet, as they have been doing.

Dave

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 immortalitysystems.com

  • Guest immortalitysystems.com
  • 81 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sausalito, California, USA, Earth

Posted 16 April 2004 - 03:43 AM

Hearing what Dr. Kass is saying makes me realize that the time has come to petition the government for an amendment to the constitution.

"The right to the persuit of immortality"

#5 Omnido

  • Guest
  • 194 posts
  • 2

Posted 16 April 2004 - 03:22 PM

Dr. Kass does make one valid point:
That time is limited for mortals, and so we are driven for accomplishment based upon the recognition that we will not exist forever.

I cant agree more with him on that point, as recently within my own life I have been presented with questions by my elders whom all seemed concerned for my mental well-being.
One of those friends stated:
"I cannot see why you are so distressed and cynical at age 25. You are far too jaded for your age, and seem to be scrambling far too fast against the clock."

He is right. The reason why I am doing so is because I am mortal, and also because I know that without some development which will render mortality obliterated, my life and the lives of those closest to me, indeed of all, will perish.

Accomplishment is based upon time. We can only judge what we have accomplished by what we had not, and what we did not, before the accomplishment occured. It was our efforts as we endeavored to achieve the accomplishment that are worth merit, not merely the accomplishment itself.

I have often thought about the value of immortality, and how the coming generations will respond to this. When the time arrives where all humans will be able to live biologically forever, which is a very small accomplishment in terms of scientific plausibility, what kind of value their lives will be for them?
Knowing that they will never have to face growing old or eventual biological death by the decree of entropy, how will our future generations view the importance of their lives? How does one teach the concept of value to one who wants for nothing?

We as immortalists can appreciate the value of immortality because we know that at this moment, (or throughout our lives) we are mortal. We're racing against the clock, and that race is what gives our lives meaning.
This is not to say that I support Kass' view of mortality, but that he is correct in how humans view their lives. If I were already immortal, I could finally relax and endeavor to make my life as meaningful as possible; studying this or that, inventing this or that, helping this person or that person. However, I can only appreciate that concept because at this moment, I do not have it, and I know that if I do not ever get it, my life will have been (seemingly) all for nothing.

If I were always immortal from the beginning of my life until now, I would not appreciate what it is to be immortal because I would never have to face the perils of mortality. Hence, Kass' quote:

And the immortals for their agelessness and their beauty live sort of shallow and frivolous lives. Indeed, they depend for their entertainment on watching the mortals who, precisely because they know that their time is limited, and that they go around only once, are inclined to make time matter and to aspire to something great for themselves.

His point is quite valid.
My question would be: How to instill the importance of the value of immortality into those future generations whom will never know a world without it?

#6 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 16 April 2004 - 04:53 PM

Good points Omnido... although it is unlikely that we will conquer death. Whatever form we take we will likely be subject to 'erasure', so perhaps what future generations will lack is an appreciation for the suffering that accompanies the steady decline in function that seems to go along with being a biological entity with an expiration date..

#7 quadclops

  • Guest
  • 316 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 16 April 2004 - 06:38 PM

I can't buy into Kass's simplistic philosophy.

the immortals for their agelessness and their beauty live sort of shallow and frivolous lives


He's not talking about immortal humans here, he's referring to the Gods. Cosmic beings not only blessed with eternal youth and deathlessness, but also with the power to make anything they want a reality by the mere snapping of their fingers! In a sense, they have all the cheat codes to the universe, and don't have to really work to accomplish anything.

Simply becoming ageless will not immediately put all the universe at our fingertips. We will still have to strive to accomplish our other ends. Even were advanced nanotech to provide us with all the necessaries of existance without the need to work, there would still be personal goals to strive for, and a universe to explore/colonise.

Besides I've seen plenty of mere mortals who lead shallow and frivolous lives. A sense of mortality is no guarantee of the will to achieve. In fact, it could lead to a sense of futility and hopelessness.

I've worked dead-end, low paying jobs for more years than I care to comfortably recall, and with little future prospect for a change for the better. If I knew I had many billions of years left to go though, I wouldn't feel I had wasted so much time slogging along for others. This would seem only a minor hiccup on a long road of future possibilities.

#8 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:01 PM

He's not talking about immortal humans here, he's referring to the Gods.


He also talks specifically about immortalists of today, see:

KASS: "I would, I think, be inclined as we go forward over the next decades, to try to argue with the immortalists and the various other people who, it seems to me, have a very shallow view of this matter. Or, I was on a discussion with a fellow at the Harvard Medical School who is quite cavalier. He is looking for small molecules who will do to these genes—do to the genes, without the mutations, what those mutations do, in the hope that he can simply begin to produce these large increases." [Full Transcript]

#9 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 241
  • Location:US

Posted 17 April 2004 - 12:21 AM

For more along these lines, take a look at Russel Blackford's article in Betterhumans today. I comment on it here:

http://www.fightagin...ives/000085.php

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

#10 Mind

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

Posted 17 April 2004 - 05:20 AM

the immortals for their agelessness and their beauty live sort of shallow and frivolous lives


Really, to me this phrase is just a reflection of what Homer thinks he would have done if he were immortal and god-like. This is obviously the way Kass thinks too. Some people may act this way, but not all. He has made a sweeping generalization that is false.

#11 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 17 April 2004 - 06:38 PM

Posted Image

Bush's Bioethicist Worries About Fruits of Science
By Mort Kondracke
April 15 , 2004


"I have to ask you, is Dolly a sheep?" says conservative bioethicist Leon Kass. His argument is that if Dolly was a cloned sheep - and it was - then a cloned human embryo has the potential to become a human baby.

Kass, the controversial chairman of President Bush's Commission on Bioethics, was disputing the claim made by advocates of cloning for medical research that the product really isn't an embryo, a "life."

I'm on their side of the bottom line - cloning should go forward - but as Kass told me in an interview, "One should not try to win this argument on the basis of terminological sleight of hand."

Kass wants Congress to enact a moratorium on the research. Fortunately, it's unlikely that will happen any time soon, but cloning is the subject of a furious debate. President Bush is against it, Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) is for it.

Advocates of therapeutic cloning, including scientific researchers, biotech companies and disease groups, claim that so-called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" does not produce a human embryo.

Complete Article:
http://www.realclear...4_15_04_MK.html

#12 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 17 April 2004 - 09:38 PM

I told you folks he is probably ghosting this site too but is smart enough to not grant mention so he keeps the references "academic".

#13 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 17 April 2004 - 11:38 PM

A personal note:

Kass's physical appearance alone makes my skin crawl. He is the type of man that makes me want to do anything in order not to have to be in the same room with him.

He's the type of guy with which I would agree on anything, just to get him out of my face as fast as possible. I have actually done this as a little kid, when big and stupid adults were trying to fill my head with bullshit. I still have that feeling to date, when I look at extremist christians such as this monstrosity here.

Considering the fact that he is willing to let millions suffer and die (and be okay with that, apparently), I'd say it's likely that he used to abuse his kids in their early years in the name of god. Religious madness...

Being trapped in a rigid mind like that of Kass is my greatest nightmare.

#14 angelus

  • Guest, F@H
  • 4 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 April 2004 - 02:15 PM

I have often thought about the value of immortality, and how the coming generations will respond to this. When the time arrives where all humans will be able to live biologically forever, which is a very small accomplishment in terms of scientific plausibility, what kind of value their lives will be for them?
Knowing that they will never have to face growing old or eventual biological death by the decree of entropy, how will our future generations view the importance of their lives? How does one teach the concept of value to one who wants for nothing?

We as immortalists can appreciate the value of immortality because we know that at this moment, (or throughout our lives) we are mortal. We're racing against the clock, and that race is what gives our lives meaning...

...If I were always immortal from the beginning of my life until now, I would not appreciate what it is to be immortal because I would never have to face the perils of mortality.


You assume there will be generations born into immortality. I think this is a faulty view. After we achieve immortality what is the point of reproduction? After human immortality is achieved it would be detrimental to our ecology to continue to have children. We would overrun the world and quickly deplete it's resources. I don't believe we can allow future generations of immortals. There can only be one generation of immortals. And that is those who are born into mortality and overcome it.

#15 tobithus

  • Guest
  • 14 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 April 2004 - 03:46 PM

I disagree angelus. The Universe is a big place, and even the Earth's total capacity has never been established.

There's room for a LOT more people

#16 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 28 April 2004 - 07:37 AM

There are, according to ordinary evolutionary theory, things that take place prior to and including the reproductive period are thought to be things that are of selective advantage and therefore that evolution would be at great pains to be fussy about those things.

But things that happen beyond the reproductive age ought to be of relatively little consequence from the point of view of natural selection.


I find it interesting that he is regurgitating Medawar. A fundie with "some" understanding of evolutionary theory...peculiar.

Edited by DonSpanton, 01 February 2005 - 10:02 PM.


#17 angelus

  • Guest, F@H
  • 4 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 May 2004 - 08:14 PM

I disagree angelus. The Universe is a big place, and even the Earth's total capacity has never been established.

There's room for a LOT more people


Perhaps there's room. But has a lot of people ever been a good thing?

#18 ocsrazor

  • Guest OcsRazor
  • 461 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 10 May 2004 - 08:50 PM

Yes Angelus,

More people results in greater economic prosperity, greater civilzation, better art, better science.... everything we regard as human progress. It is the mismanagement of resources for large numbers of people that is a problem. We have no resource shortage, nor is there one anytime in the near future. There is however a crisis of mismanagement which is becoming dangerous.

On the issue of immortals no longer producing offspring, I tend to agree with you that we won't be producing a lot of *human* offspring once people have greatly extended lives. We may however be creating other forms of offspring though.

#19

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 09 June 2004 - 03:15 PM

I must now humbly retract my statement on "Bill".

( http://www.imminst.o...789 )

He is not an imbecile sine paribus. That honorary must be conferred to Leon.

#20 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 17 December 2004 - 04:32 AM

Posted Image

Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls:
Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Perfection
by Leon R. Kass

Excerpt:

...I have tried in the past to make a rational case for the blessings of finitude. In an essay entitled “L’Chaim and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?,” I suggest that living with our finitude is the condition of many of the best things in human life: engagement, seriousness, a taste for beauty, the possibility of virtue, the ties born of procreation, the quest for meaning....

http://www.thenewatl...hive/1/kass.htm


----

Posted Image

Having taught college-age students for nearly three decades, Amy and Leon Kass have learned from their observations and through conversations that young people who are seeking the kind of intimacy marriage can satisfy are finding it difficult to reach that goal in the absence of established ways of courting.

The Kasses, who have stayed in touch with many of their students well after graduation, have seen many of them “bumble along from one unsatisfactory relationship to the next, becoming jaded and embittered,” said Leon Kass, the Addie Clark Harding Professor on the Committee on Social Thought.

He and his wife, Amy Kass, Senior Lecturer in Humanities, decided to confront the problem, both in writing and in teaching. “One should stop cursing the darkness and offer some light and hope to the romantically perplexed,” he said.

http://chronicle.uch...03/kasses.shtml

#21 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 17 December 2004 - 05:11 AM

A flourishing human life is not a life lived with an ageless body or untroubled soul, but rather a life lived in rhythmed time, mindful of time’s limits, appreciative of each season and filled first of all with those intimate human relations that are ours only because we are born, age, replace ourselves, decline, and die—and know it.


Posted ImageThe man is clearly insane..

He'd have us moving up and down the latitudes following the caribou and bison... a man for all ages he is definitely not.

#22

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 17 December 2004 - 07:11 AM

LOL, kevin. I've (we've) flogged this horse many times before, but it's not dead. It seems there is always a group working to maintain the status quo using elaborate justifications to convince the already sympathetic masses. There is no normal, humans have changed their environment (homes, communities, etc.) and their way of life since they evolved to their current form.

#23

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 18 December 2004 - 04:19 AM

The closer the solution to dealing with aging appears to be the more of Kass type philosophy/bioethics will manifest in defense of "a natural lifespan".

To those with such a love for normal, I say: stop taking your drugs for your rheumatoid arthritis, blood pressure, microbial infections, depression and impotence. Remove your glasses, hearing aid, artificial hip, pacemaker and transplanted kidney.

Embrace your encroaching physical degeneration knowing that soon you will be rid of all your physical self only to re-emerge as an ideal entity in some other continuum.

And let us, unfortunate (and unblessed) enough to carry the burden that our only hope lies on this earth, continue our work.

#24 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 05 April 2005 - 09:52 AM

Quotes from Leon Kass:

L’Chaim and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?
http://www.firstthin...icles/kass.html

Once the genes involved in regulating the human life cycle and setting the midnight hour are identified, scientists predict that they will be able to increase the human maximum age well beyond its natural limit. Quite frankly, I find some of the claims and predictions to be overblown, but it would be foolhardy to bet against scientific and technical progress along these lines....

Recent proposals that we should conquer aging and death have not been without their critics.

I wish to make the case for the virtues of mortality....the finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual, whether he knows it or not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users