Reason’s Ron Bailey is sure a sucker for futurism and transhumanism. If there is a big conference about how we can all live forever, count on him to be there breathlessly reporting, which is ironic and paradoxical: Bailey usually claims the mantle of rationality and most of this stuff is pure pie in the sky.
Moreover, transhumanism and immortalism–the two are connected but different–are both forms of materialistic religion, in that they promote an eschatology similar to what most religions offer–eternal life. Only rather then a promised “New Jerusalem” where God will dry every tear and “death will be no more,” or Nirvana, a state of becoming one with all things, or repeated reincarnation, transhumanists and immortalists really believe they can have eternal life in their existing bodies right here on terra firma.
Baily clearly yearns for this to be real, and so he attended another conference and produced another extended piece. From Bailey’s article, “The Methuselah Manifesto”:
If you’re under age 30, it is likely that you will be able to live as long as you want. That is, barring accidents and wars, you have centuries of healthy life ahead of you. So the participants in the Longevity Summit convened in Manhattan Beach, California, contend. Over the weekend Maximum Life Foundation president David Kekich gathered a group of scientists, entrepreneurs, and visionaries to meet for three days with the goal of developing a scientific and business strategy to make extreme human life extension a real possibility within a couple of decades. Kekich dubbed the effort the Manhattan Beach Project.
How will this amazing feat be accomplished?
Anti-aging research is a rich and varied territory right now. Researchers are finally beginning to get a handle on the actual causes of aging. With this increased scientific understanding, some researchers now believe they are on the way to figuring out how to stop it, and—eventually—how to reverse it. University of California, Riverside biochemist Stephen Spindler reported on his research seeking caloric restriction mimetics. It is well established that restricting many mammal species to about two-thirds of what they would ordinarily eat extends their healthy lifespans. For example, calorie restricted mice live up to 50 percent longer, and experience less heart disease and cancer than those who eat as much as they want. Spindler is now screening a variety of compounds including pharmaceuticals to see if they mimic the effects of calorie restriction in mice.
Some might not call semi-starvation living, but beyond that, there may be a hitch. Apparently, as reported here, a medical study unexpectedly showed that slightly chubby people live longer than thin or normal weighted people. Then, there’s a compound apparently to be extracted from fruit flies–does PETA know?–selected for greater age. Some thought the key to immortality would be human cloning. But so far, that hasn’t worked out. And what would any transhumanist immortality confab be without Aubrey de Gray preaching from the pulpit?
Theoretical biogerontologist, Aubrey de Grey, the founder of the SENS Foundation and the Methuselah Foundation, is the energizer bunny of anti-aging scientific research and advocacy. SENS stands for Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, which De Grey defines as “an integrated set of medical techniques designed to restore youthful molecular and cellular structure to aged tissues and organs.” De Grey focused on one proposed anti-aging solution which is to install mitochondrial genes in the nuclei of cells.
Y’all can read the rest for yourselves. But here’s the thing: Death is terrible and terrifying, but we need it. Knowing we will be dead far longer than we were ever alive–one spiritual teacher called our lives “a parenthesis in eternity”–helps us appreciate the sheer importance of life. On a macro level, it allows society to be dynamic by eventually removing the old from among us so that there is room for the new. Can you imagine how stilted and moribund society could become if people lived five hundred years? Besides, if we live forever, how will we ever pay for Obamacare?
Bailey ends with question:
At the end of the summit, David Kekich’s poignant question still resonates: “Will you be part of the last generation to die from aging, or will you be part the first generation to enjoy open-ended youth and vitality?”
Sorry, none of us have any real choice in the matter. One hundred years from now, everyone at that conference–as well as your humble correspondent–will be caught up in whatever–if anything–comes next. Better, I think, to focus our resources on helping the currently sick and destitute not die young from uncured diseases like malaria or the effects of bad drinking water, than to waste any of our resources on a Quixotic quest to allow the already comfortable and healthy live forever.
November 29th, 2009 | 7:24 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wesley J. Smith, transalchemy. transalchemy said: Reason's Ron Baily Thinks We Can Live Forever http://bit.ly/7EEzpN #transhumanism [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 9:29 am
“Death is terrible and terrifying, but we need it. Knowing we will be dead far longer than we were ever alive–one spiritual teacher called our lives “a parenthesis in eternity”–helps us appreciate the sheer importance of life. ”
Hmm, no. That’s just rationalizing something that you think is inevitable.
That argument is addressed very well here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
and here:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2004/03/healthy-life-extension-and-boredom.php
November 30th, 2009 | 9:36 am
[...] Wesley Smith takes on Ron Bailey and the idea that we can — or should — live forever. [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 10:42 am
Well, when we meet in the great beyond, we will know which of us was right. : )
November 30th, 2009 | 12:09 pm
jkt you scum sucking transhumanist every single last one of you should be purged and dragged into the street and shot. the only good transhumanist is a dead one you nazi eugenic lover.
November 30th, 2009 | 12:27 pm
No, pitied perhaps, but no. Of course, I know this is sarcasm.
November 30th, 2009 | 2:16 pm
I think quite the opposite, if we could live longer (not immortal, say, 500 years), it would likely cause this species to appreciate life more than it does. We think little of killing 100,000 Iraqis for…WMDs? If people lived longer, they would place a greater premium on human life. Individuals like Mr. Houben would be given hope that maybe they could be cured before they die.
About 100 years ago, the life expectancy in the US was approx 45.
To extend their immensely valuable lives, people tried prayer and mythology (including human sacrifice) for 1000s of years. It didn’t work.
In 100 years modern science has nearly doubled the US life span. It seems science is the better option.
The difference between the eternal life offered by science vs. religion: one is physical and known to be real, the other is supernatural and utterly unproven. Further there is serious doubt any religion has factual credibility.
November 30th, 2009 | 4:17 pm
David: No, science has not doubled life span, it has doubled life expectancy. Those are different things. Many fewer people die younger, particularly in infancy, thereby expanding the length of life we can be expected to have based on statistics. And it is true, that more people are living into advanced old age. But it has not materially extended the length of life itself. Advanced old age remains advanced old age. I don’t see that changing.
November 30th, 2009 | 5:31 pm
i really dislike people who say immortality is good or it would be great to live to 200 or 300.
if you live to 100 and never had any medical problems be happy that’s a good life wanting more than that is selfish.
I’ve been studying these transhumanists for years they are the very essence of the abuse of science and people trying to claim enhancement is actually medical for example quality of life as opposed to length of life. I can’t wait until transhumanism is banned by the un and all attempts to make the human race immortal are outlawed. Really trying to make humans more powerful should cause the scientist in question to earn a life in prison sentence. before you know it they’ll be saying humans should have superhuman strength and intelligence which will only cause a rift between have’s and have not’s i am avid reader of the center for genetics and society and think all transhumanism/enchantment/immortality should be shut down and banned.
November 30th, 2009 | 7:39 pm
David:
If longer life spans make people value life more highly, how on Earth do you explain the 20th century, which saw both a vast increase in the average life expectancy and hundreds of millions of lives cut short by war and oppression?
December 1st, 2009 | 10:13 pm
[...] of the core aims of transhumanism, especially concerning radically extending the human lifespan. In a recent blog post at First Things, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith tackles a recent Reason magazine piece about the [...]
December 3rd, 2009 | 10:41 pm
I suppose we ought to have anticipated the tired argument that “life is precious because we die” and “we need death”. To put things into perspective, an individual need only apply such arguments to their own life: yes, death is terrible if you happen to love your life and no, you do not need death in order to love that life. The value in life is due to life itself, NOT due to the fact it comes to an end. The Ferrari isn’t valuable because it runs out of gas or encounters mechanical failure or rusts and fades away over time. The Ferrari is valuable because of what it IS and what it can DO – here and now. So too with a life. I value my life for what it is here and now, for what I can do with it here and now and what I might be able to do with it in the future given enough experience, education and will. Because I value life and all it has done, can do and can potentially do, I wish it to continue indefinitely. I anticipate I will continue to learn, grow and progress a hundred years from now just as I am doing at 50. I have no reason to believe that will ever change. Speaking for myself alone, stagnation is impossible to me.
December 6th, 2009 | 10:06 pm
I think someday people will see that science and religion are on 2 roads trying to answer the same questions. Many of the things mentioned in the Bible are clear, some issues aren’t clear. Therefore speculation has been stated as fact, when it has just been someones opinion.Also, science opposed to God will eventually be clarified. Both roads will come together someday. Those who can’t or wont justify these 2 roads will never see the TRUTH.
December 18th, 2009 | 9:58 am
people saying they dont want to live longer…HA! these are young and stupid ppl who have not had death facing them. no one wants to die, ever, not even 90 yr olds on their deathbeds. only depressed or facing terrible pain with no hope would opt for “just stop the pain and end it now”.
if u really dont care to live longer via science, stop brushing teeth based on science and stop eating balanced foods based on science. if u really dont think living longer is good, just end it now…who needs a longer life rite?? end it now.
December 18th, 2009 | 10:50 am
People don’t want to die, but a time comes when people realize the time has come. In any event, we have no choice and this yearning for immortality can rob one of focusing on the things that are important while we are still here.
December 18th, 2009 | 3:30 pm
i dont think ppl spend all day long pining in their bedrooms aching for immortality, sacrificing their careers and relationships. i think ppl interested in longer healthier lives, like you, do things towards that objective when they can…. pursue it via moderate changes in lifestyle and as a hobby.
like any hobby, you will find those who make it a career , those who are addicts, and those who simply read on it. the addicts and career folks are the ones whose efforts benefit the rest. i want to see more of them, i want to see policies and orgs and moneys laid out like this that have a focused practical objective of ensuring the existing citizens can continue(not unborn children who are a huge societal burden and have no rights)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact