I am not a big believer that science will extend the normal human lifespan anytime soon–if ever. But I find it interesting that the transhumanist idea of immortality has caught on in some influential circles, with some insisting that the prevention of aging is a moral imperative. For example, the immortality extremist, Aubrey de Gray, stated in a lecture I attended that money to help improve health care in Africa should be diverted to his type of research, and moreover, not to do so was an equivalent evil to terrorism.
An article in today’s Telegraph suggests the potential price that could come from dramatically extending lives–free access to suicide and a state-imposed dramatic population control that would dramatically reduce the number of young people. From the story:
People will simply choose to end their own lives in the future, when anti-ageing drugs that could extend lifespans by many years become commonplace, according to an expert on longevity. But birth rates might also have to be centrally controlled to cope with rising numbers of old people, Dr David Gems of the Institute of Healthy Ageing at University College London said. Dr Gems, who is researching ways of slowing ageing, said society faced “a strange future”.
To say the least. Gems’s next assertion needs some thinking through:
He argued that prolonging life with anti-ageing drugs that could delay the onset of age-related diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, was a moral imperative comparable to the eradication of smallpox. “The potential for reducing suffering is absolutely immense,” he said. The idea that developing illnesses later in life was more acceptable than developing them earlier “needs to be combated”, he added. But he pointed out that if science enabled “quite dramatic increases in longevity” that could lead to large scale social changes. Among them would be societies dominated by old people and higher populations as a result of lower death rates.
It strikes me that we need to differentiate research aimed at alleviating diseases of a normal life span–e.g. Alzheimer’s, the impact of stroke, etc.–from research intended to dramatically extend the normal life span, such as de Gray’s. The former is important precisely because it will alleviate suffering and benefit society. The latter, however, is to rob the future. It is too expensive, probably futile, and in the end–profoundly selfish.
And notice the utopianism–and the raw fear of death:
At first drugs will only extend lifespans by small amount like six months to a year, he said, but scientists will continue to improve treatments extending life. “We will be stuck on a treadmill of ever greater lifespan extension,” he said. “But we have to say ‘yes’, we have to put the treatment of suffering first. “Morally, we have to continue looking for ways to decelerate ageing – there’s no end to this research.”
No end? No end? We are not passive flotsam and jetsam floating on the current. We have free will, and there are areas we should not go–at least, not on the public dime.
In pondering this, I am struck by the wisdom of Leon Kass in “The Case for Mortality” (American Scholar, 52-Spring 1983, no link):
In perpetuation, we send forth not just the seed of our bodies, but also a bearer of our hopes, our truths, and those of our tradition. If our children are to flower, we need to sow them well and nurture them, cultivate them in rich and wholesome soil, clothe them in fine and decent opinions and mores, and direct them toward the highest light, to stand straight and tall—that they may take our place as we took that of those who planted us and who made way for us, so that in time they, too, may make way and plant. But if they are truly to flower, we most go to seed; we must wither and give ground.
This is by no means a call for elderly people to die and get out of the way, as former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm once put it, badly (and inadvertently) mangling Kass’s point (as discussed in my Culture of Death).
Bottom line: Those who desperately seek human immortality seek to overcome the powerful beat of the natural rhythms of life. If they ever succeeded, it would rob life of vibrancy and the healthy acclimation to changing circumstances creating by the entry and exit of successive generations, resulting in a stultified species mired in reaction.
Our forefathers and mothers cared as much about their progeny (us) as they did themselves. Many today agree: To them, it is all about us.
May 12th, 2010 | 4:33 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pro-Life Healthcare . Pro-Life Healthcare said: Obsession With Radically Extending Longevity Could Hurt Society http://bit.ly/988yWz #hcr [...]
May 12th, 2010 | 7:12 pm
So please tell us,what in Wesley-World is a “normal” life span?
May 12th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
HW-honestly, go “jump in a volcano.”
May 13th, 2010 | 1:01 am
This all is not to mention that the Christian is (presumably) aiming at a world and life infinitely superior to what we have here.
As HW wonders what a “normal life span” is, no specific length of time can be specified. However, Wesley Smith’s thrust is simply that putting priority on endlessly prolonging life, and because ‘nobody should have to suffer’ and ‘let’s pretend to have self-centered heaven on earth’, is so very pathetic as to be unnatural.
May 13th, 2010 | 4:27 am
Warren, I wish we could make this deal: You, safepres and Wesley go ahead and die on schedule and History Writer and I and our friends and loved ones will live healthy and happy lives for thousands of years even though it would be a “pathetic” and “unnatural” situation.
Personally, I’d take that bargain in a heartbeat.
I wonder though, if we could take a cheap pill every day and live forever, how many Christians would choose to put off meeting Jesus “just for one more day”.
My aunt died about a year ago and she was a devout believer, but judging by the way she fought death, I think she would have been delighted to take that little pill and put meeting Jesus on hold for a little longer.
But so long as those pills don’t exist, just keep calling eternal life pathetic and unnatural and tell everybody you’d never take one.
May 13th, 2010 | 10:26 am
Gosh, SafePres, that was a really imaginative comment. Maybe YOU can tell us what a “normal” life span is.
May 13th, 2010 | 9:13 pm
I agree with about 90% of Wesley Smith’s posts in his blog. However, this one is just completely off base. Aging is a disease, plain and simple.
95% of all medical problems in the U.S. are due to the aging process. You cannot “cure” diseases such as stroke and Alzheimer’s independently of curing aging because, ultimately, these diseases are manifestations of the aging process itself. However, if you cure aging, all of these other conditions will be as rare as a blue moon.
Curing aging is not “too expensive”. In fact, it is the cost-effective solution to curing ALL of the problems of old age by a single process. The current system of treating old people without treating the underlying cause of the problem, the aging process itself, is what is too expensive and is driving all of the developed world into bankruptcy. Indeed, curing aging will lead to a “pro-longevity” dividend that will be far larger than the “peace” dividend of the early 90′s.
I argue that the only solution to the pending bankruptcy and decline of the developed world is to cure aging. There is no other solution. I think a failure to develop effective anti-aging medicine will doom the West (and East Asia) to extinction.
The notion of “normal” lifespan is meaningless concept. We live longer than medieval Europeans, for example. As long as people are healthy and physiologically youthful, they should be able to live as long as they want. It is silly to believe anything else.
Also, stop quoting Leon Kass. This man is just odious. He makes me sick to my stomach. Nothing this man has written is worth the paper it is printed on. His worldview is pathological.
The “natural rhythm of life? Are you kidding me? Do you expect me to sacrifice my future health and vitality for this kind of airy, philosophical claptrap? The purpose of life extension is to get free from having to live life in a fixed pattern. Its about being able to live an open-ended life of unlimited opportunities and potential. To live with an unlimited personal horizon. That is why I am into radical life extension (I don’t believe that the afterlife that the religions promise really exists. I think this is a fraud). I despise the fixed pattern life, especially when I’m not the one to define the pattern. I want to break free of it as soon as possible. If this means the death of natural rhythms, I’m all for it. Let’s get rid of it once and for all.
It is reasonable to argue whether the government should finance this work. However, it is not reasonable to argue that private individuals should not develop and commercialize this technology on their own. There is no legitimate argument against this.
May 13th, 2010 | 9:16 pm
Opposition to radical life extension IS a part of the culture of death. “Deathism” IS a part of the culture of death. You cannot claim to be of a culture of life and believe that curing aging is bad. These two positions are incompatible with each other.
May 13th, 2010 | 11:04 pm
In the US, the average life expectancy is eighty years. It would be nice to see this life expectancy in areas where poverty cuts lives short. It would not be nice to see people living for thousands of years if this came at the cost of implementing “transhumanism.”
May 14th, 2010 | 1:41 am
Meh, I don’t hear anyone complaining about our lifespan being longer than it was 50 years ago. I assume in 50 years, nobody will be complaining about living longer than people do today.
I’m not sure we can justify withholding life-extending enhancements, thereby forcing people to die, simply to ensure we have some ‘changing circumstances’.
May 14th, 2010 | 10:17 am
Statistics here can be deceiving. If you just look at the unadulterated numbers, the “life expectancy” in the Middle Ages was 35 (or so) whereas now it’s in the middle 70′s. This is a untrue, of course, an effect produced by a very high infant mortality rate. People who survived their first five years in the MA were not expected to drop over dead at 35.
I’m an estate planner, and my experience (supported by various studies) is that few people reach the age of 90, and of those, most of them are not in very good shape. A substantial minority cannot dress themselves without help, as one marker. Even fewer reach 100, and even fewer of those are in good shape. We hear about the exceptional individuals, and because more people are getting to 90 (far fewer die of infectious disease earlier) we have the illusion that we’ve extended the human lifespan. We have not.
There have always been exceptional individuals. St. Anthony of Egypt lived to 106 in the 300′s, for example. What we have NOT seen is substantial numbers of people living to be, say, 120, which is what we should see if we were genuinely extending the human lifespan (rather than allowing more people to reach the previous limits, which is what is actually happening).
At our present state of knowledge, asking whether we “should” extend the human lifespan is like asking whether we “should” allow human beings to develop the power of independent flight. Since we cannot yet do either, these questions are of limited interest.
May 14th, 2010 | 7:58 pm
safepres: Assuming the biological capacity were developed without “transhumanism” (whatever that’s supposed to be)— i.e., a drug that stopped the aging process — how would you feel about people being able to live for however long they wanted? “Not nice?”
May 15th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
The common assumption about life-extending technologies is that they will be cheap enough for everyone to afford. Why? A longer lifespan is a product that you could put almost any price on and still have someone pay it. What if it costs a million dollars a month, or more? What if only the Bill Gates of the world get another hundred years or so? Life extension will be available only to the rich, the only question is *how* rich?
May 15th, 2010 | 8:25 pm
SparcVark: Are you protesting our free market economy? Is price really a concern? We here in the US of A are proud to live in a God-blessed free market economy. Heck, everybody in the country would probably like to have a new Rolls Royce, not to mention a charge account at Tiffany’s and an endless supply of Bud Lite, but there’s no entitlement to this stuff. All you need in order to have whatever you want whenever you want it, is to be a multi-billionaire; if you aren’t — well all that probably means is that God doesn’t like you as well as He likes Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Seriously, you’re worried that the poor won’t be able to have eternal life without having to die first? What are you, some kind of commie-pinko-socialist? :-)
May 16th, 2010 | 12:00 am
Heck, I’m a conservative and I’m supposed to laugh at the less fortunate and enjoy inequality, but even I don’t like the idea of rich first-worlders spending their wealth on living another century or so while poor people lack clean water. It’s the height of selfishness.
Plus, look at how people like Ray Kurzweil organize their lives around trying to live forever like they’re Emperor Qin, trying to hold out until some magical drug gets released. It’s no way to live.
May 16th, 2010 | 1:22 pm
Heck, I’m a conservative and I’m supposed to laugh at the less fortunate and enjoy inequality, but even I don’t like the idea of rich first-worlders spending their wealth on living another century or so while poor people lack clean water. It’s the height of selfishness.
Think cell phones. These were status symbols for the wealthy in the mid 80′s. Today, everyone has them, including much of the developing world. Technology starts out expensive, then becomes cheaper as its developed. I see no reason why this would not be the case for life extension.
May 17th, 2010 | 12:16 am
Why are consumer electronic products like cell phones the correct price model? Won’t it be more like healthcare, where prices continue to increase more and more for smaller and smaller increases in the average lifespan? This is apart from the fact that for those who really want it, no price would be too high for life-extending drugs or other treatments. Make cell phones expensive enough and people won’t use them. Not true for some people and life extension.
I think this is theoretical since I don’t see radical life extension happening in a time frame that will stop anybody commenting on this thread from dying of old age in the next 100 years, should nothing else get us first.
May 18th, 2010 | 10:52 pm
No, electronics and semiconductors is the more appropriate model. Consider that the price for Lasix eye surgery and other “elective” medical procedures has declined over the years as well. The reason why medicine is expensive is because of bureaucracy and regulation, not due to its inherent nature.
Besides, if we choose to develop anti-aging medicine using our own money and resources, its no one’s business but our own.
The cost to cure aging is actually quite modest:
http://maxlifefoundation.typepad.com/maximum-life-foundation/2010/02/david-kekich-how-long-will-it-take-and-how-much-will-it-cost-to-cure-aging.html
Its a tiny fraction of what is spent on health care every single year in this country.
May 20th, 2010 | 4:06 am
[...] that the prevention of aging is a moral imperative. Author: Wesley J. Smith —– Read more in a blog entry on the online pages of ‘First Things’ magazine, May 12, [...]
June 14th, 2010 | 10:06 pm
[...] control of our evolution,” we shouldn’t. We don’t have near the wisdom and it wouldt be a big mistake to interfere with mortality. But that’s okay. It won’t happen. Which is not to say that transhumanism should be [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact