Open Letters to Professor Margaret Somerville
(Posted in their entirety, with BJKlein's permission)
Dear Professor Somerville,
Please accept my warmest of cyber-handshakes. Your recent debate with Dr. Hughes at the University of Toronto was enlightening and worthwhile. I followed the exchange with considerable interest, as have my fellow Immortality Institute (ImmInst) colleagues.
Some members have expressed an interest in asking you questions about your views on physical immortality. I hope that you haven't yet become disengaged from the topic. If not, then perhaps you would consider a proposal for an online exchange for mutual benefit. ImmInst members would no doubt benefit from your answers, and you may also benefit by coming to see how immortalists arrive at their way of thinking.
If you're open to such a proposal, please reply to me (bjk@imminst.org) and I’ll send you details on how such an exchange would take place. To find out more about me, feel free to go here:
http://www.bjklein.com, and to find out more about the Immortality Institute, please go here:
http://www.imminst.org/aboutSincerely,
Bruce J. Klein
Founder & Chairman
Immortality Institute For Infinite Lifespans
http://www.imminst.org Postscript: below, please find a letter from "Sophianic," one of our members, in response to your Globe & Mail article, How Perfect Do We Want to Be?; it provides some food for thought for an online exchange.
--
September 15, 2003
Dear Professor Somerville,
In your article, How Perfect Do We Want to Be?, published August 29, 2003 on page A15 of the Globe & Mail, Canada's National Newspaper, you raised some heartfelt objections to the "transhumanist" enterprise. Although I would not call myself a "transhumanist," I do have sympathies with those who do. As anyone who knows them will tell you, they represent diverse points of view on many different subjects relevant to the concept of "transhumanity."
Your deepest concern with "transhumanism" lies in the prefix "trans." You correctly imply that education and culture are two important humanistic methods in relation to the future development of human nature. You concede that this relationship is important "to expand technological opportunities for humans to live longer and healthier lives and to enhance their intellectual, physical, psychological and emotional capacities." I think you would also agree that our technology is both a means and a product of education and culture, that our technology is generally growing in sophistication, and that the rate of progress in technology is beginning to accelerate.
You make several points regarding our relationship with human nature: (1) that it deserves our profound respect; (2) that we have strong justification for interfering with it; and (3) that we take care not to change it radically so as to destroy its essence. But what is the essence of human nature? If human nature encapsulates the common qualities of all human beings, then the essence of human nature must represent a subset of those qualities that we hold most precious. But which ones? And why those? In my attempt to answer these questions, and apply them to your points on human nature, I invite you to ask yourself four deceptively simple, but profoundly important, questions:
1. How long do I want to live?
2. How perfect do I want to be?
3. How much do I want to know?
4. What is my central purpose in life?
When you reflect on these questions, I want you to imagine what it would be like to have no expectation of limits in your answers to the first three questions. To wit ...
How long do I want to live? I have no expectation that I will ever die. In other words, I keep open the possibility that I will forever secure the means to extend my life long enough to apply the next best method in life and health extension technology.
How perfect do I want to be? I have no expectation that I will ever be perfect in every way possible. In other words, I stay open to the promise of possibility itself ~ that there will always be room for improvement, for expansion, for enhancement.
How much do I want to know? I have no expectation that I will ever know everything there is to know. In other words, I remain forever open to an infinite process of learning more through experience, skill acquisition and personal cultivation.
A central purpose, tailored to your own needs and desires, governed by your own values and choices, completes the picture and provides a guide to those answers that (ideally) would bring balance, motivation and persistence over the long haul. I find balance in what I come to know (and experience); I find motivation in how I choose to perfect myself ~ through excellence that I earn, through cultural refinement or through a general sense of completion; and I find persistence in how long I choose to live.
Purpose. Balance. Motivation. Persistence. Together, in harmony, they constitute a powerful basis for human progress and perfectibility in the pursuit of immortality. But in light of this foundation, what does it mean, in essence, to be human? If we strive to improve ourselves, augment ourselves, enhance ourselves, to be ever more perfect through our technology, will the results of that striving threaten the essence of who we are, i.e., our deepest sense of what it means to be human?
In your article, you raise more than several important questions that "transhumanists" would be remiss if they did not make any serious, concerted attempt to address: would life without death affect our ability to find meaning in life? Would life without death be something other than human? Would the conquest of death foster social and economic divisions? Would the conquest of death strip away the mysteries of life and death?
I submit that to be human is to be humane ~ to register concern in response to pain, to feel compassion in response to suffering, to show courage in response to the threat of death. To be humane requires (1) a modicum of pain and suffering, no matter how well off we may be, to prevent a fatal slide into complacency, and (2) the threat of death generally, to encourage a sense of urgency, no matter how advanced we choose to become through our technology. With respect to the first, I do not mean pain and suffering that we bring upon ourselves, and with respect to the second, I do not mean the threat of immediate death. To be human is to be humane, but in light of our growing technology, to be humane may some day prove to be something other than human. In light of these requirements, and with respect to your article, I will now address the questions posed.
First, would the conquest of death strip away the mysteries of life and death? Obviously, yes. Doing away with the alternative between life and death would be the death of us all. With no sense of urgency, the slide into complacency would be a foregone conclusion. The beauty of mystery in life (in relation to the threat of death, whether physical or psychological) would also die within us. As you suggest, we would do well not to turn every mystery into a problem to be solved through technology. We can be thankful that we are not so powerful that we can conquer every contigency that threatens life.
Here's a better question: would the pursuit of immortality necessarily strip away the mysteries of life and death? Obviously, no. Inherent in any pursuit is the risk of failure, the risk of death, both of which must be managed with the appropriate concern and with the necessary choices. In treating aging as a disease, for example, we do a grave disservice to those who, for whatever their reasons, wish to remain on a trajectory toward a natural death. Not everyone is willing to endure the risk of failure in the pursuit of immortality. I think you would agree that aging is a condition of nature, not a disease. But if biological aging were to be eliminated once and for all, we would no longer be susceptible to the effects of psychological aging. Through a process of maturity without physical decline, we would all better appreciate the interplay between life and death in all of its mystery, but also feel less inclined to surrender ourselves to a natural death.
Second, would the conquest of death foster social and economic divisions? Instead, let us ask: would the pursuit of healthy life extension foster social and economic divisions? At first? Possibly, yes ~ that is, if we were to stick our heads into the sand ostrich-like, and neglect to prepare for the prospect of radical life extension. In the long term? Probably not. Healthy life extension might become as mundane and affordable as getting a booster shot at a doctor's office. But then again, perhaps the methods of healthy life extension will at first reflect graduated levels of increasing sophistication and efficacy, not unlike the varieties of economy and luxury cars that we see in the lots of car dealerships. At this point, circa 2003, we just don't know. What we do know is that the human aging process involves more than several layers of systemic failure, and that multiple methods of rejuvenation will likely be required to address each of those layers. Eventually, however, the number and quality of methods to extend healthy life would likely concentrate into a one or two shot deal through genetic and nanomedical methods.
As you implied in your article, a consequence of dramatic healthy life extension is more time. More time means more time to explore and examine ways of effecting change to who and what we are as human beings. In particular, some of the physically challenged among us are looking keenly to a future where such change is not only possible, but routine and positive. In spite of my own healthy and whole body, I would not want to impose my views of what the physically disabled and disfigured should or should not pursue with respect to the possibilities of "transhumanity." My own bias is that they seek to "normalize" their bodies and brains naturally, seeking organic solutions to their difficulties in appearance and mobility. But as I said, I would not want to impose that bias on anyone. If I were to become disabled or disfigured, I might change my mind about "normalization."
The point I want to make here is that informed individuals (and individuals representing groups) are the best judges of what is best for them. As technology advances, we will have many more options to modify, augment and enhance who and what we are ~ physically and mentally. An authoritarian attitude and a utilitarian approach to making decisions (i.e., imposing the greatest good on the greatest number) has always been, and always will be, a poor substitute for the opportunity of informed consent between and among individuals. In my view, the best way to prevent social and economic divisions is to nip them in the bud by letting individuals make their own decisions about what is best for them and their group affiliations. If a conflict should arise, then let that be an opportunity for them to learn tolerance and respect.
Third, would life without death be something other than human, as Leon Kass suggests? Absolutely. If it were at all possible to eliminate (broadly speaking) the alternative between life and death, we would all cease to be human ~ and humane. But in a universe that will forever have "the unknown" as one of its salient features, and that requires from us eternal vigilance against all threats to life, Kass' suggestion amounts to a straw man. If some decided to transform themselves into digital equivalents, or beyond human recognition, they would no longer have any reason to be human, and may no longer have any reason to be humane. But again, individuals (and individuals representing groups) are, and will continue to be, the prime movers in what they decide to do with themselves and their lives as technology advances in tandem with education and culture. As long as individual persons, no matter what their form, remain subordinate to the rights that would respect individual autonomy (and ensure the protection of those rights through law), the freedom for some to transform themselves in the ways I indicated should be upheld, regardless of any bias anyone may have toward preserving what is natural and what is human. In this view, mistakes will be made, lives will be affected, pain and suffering may ensue, but the alternative is far worse: a static and stagnant society stifled by precautionary principles enforced by a tyranny of the few ~ or the many.
Fourth, would life without death affect our ability to find meaning in life? A better question would be: would life without the
inevitability of death adversely affect our ability to find meaning in life? I would say "no." Such a life would positively affect our ability to acquire additional meaning in life, but it would not (necessarily) affect it negatively. The choice to seek and find meaning in life would remain with you, the individual. A central purpose in life that removed the constraints on how long I want to live, on how perfect I want to be, on how much I want to know (and experience), and that guided me toward a vision of fulfillment (for myself and others), would stand me in good stead over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. I would still suffer, but in ways far more subtle than what you might typically associate with suffering. I would still be concerned for my life, with the threat of death generally, and still feel an appropriate sense of urgency. I would still care about others, not just "similar others," even if I were to transform myself gradually and radically beyond recognition over a period of, say, several thousand years.
Immortal, in this world of space and time, mass and energy, information and consciousness, does not mean deathless; it means the potential for animate, sentient, intelligent, (...) life without end. As we become wiser, more intelligent and more powerful in our abilities to handle technology with respect to education and culture, the pursuit of immortality in this world becomes central to who and what we are. I grant you, without a balanced perspective on progress and perfectibility in the pursuit of immortality, we live in danger of becoming obsessed with the quest. To help prevent passion for the quest from becoming obsession with death, I respectfully suggest that you (and others like you) stop treating the prospect of immortality as if it were a threat. I kindly suggest that you broaden your perspective, balance it in light of what I have written here, and then start looking more closely at the many positive consequences that would flow from a life without end in this world.
At the Immortality Institute (www.imminst.org), we are dedicated to doing just that.
Cordially,
Sophianic
--
So far, no response yet from Professor Somerville to the invitation ...
