18 replies to this topic

[maestro949]

We often discuss the many objections to life extension. I though it might be a good idea to enumerate them. Several of these could be grouped, or are good group headers I suspect. There are probably many more as well. Feel free to add to the list or suggest groupings, organization, etc.


Objections to Life Extension

• Utilitarian arguments - Death is for the greater good of the human race
• Malthusian consequences (overpopulation, etc)
• skewed demographics (stratification, fairness, social inequities)
• Insufficient Resources (related to overpopulation)
• Damage to the environment
• Turnover of the population is good as it eliminates bad people/leaders
• Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their [bad] ideas exiting the stage
• Seeking life extension is selfish and egotistical and thus somehow immoral
• Culture would be negatively affected if everybody lived forever
• Culturally taboo
• Death is natural
• Evolution is a superior mechanism for advancing the species compared to what humans can design and should not be tinkered with
• Death gives meaning to life, life extension would eliminate the point of living.
• People wouldn't take life as serious
• It's technologically impossible thus not worth pursuing or discussing
• Living in an eternal state of frailty or senility is not a desirable goal
• Boredom
• Some people don't want it, therefore nobody should have it
• The technologies devised to implement longevity therapies can also be used to harm others
• Religious doctrine (insert theist argument here) forbids it. (Playing God, etc)
• Wrong allocation of resources - There are higher priorities humanity should focus on

Edited by maestro949, 06 April 2009 - 11:54 AM.
changed misprint in title

[Lazarus Long]

The title of this thread is *list objectives* but when I read the thread you are really asking for *objections*.

Since you are not online at the moment maestro I hope you don't mind if I go and edit the title.

I had a nice list of more objectives but then had to remove it.

One big objection is the fear of power that longevity implies.

[caston]

How about:
"If you don't get old how can you ever grow?"
"Everyone gets old even cats and dogs."
"I'm here for a good time not a long time"
"If you don't get older then you won't get to grow older with someone"
"You'd miss banging older women"

[Cyberbrain]

One argument that I heard (which I think was mentioned) was that death allows new generations of life to live and utilize the earth. That death is a natural cycle of life and when one grows old they must die so as to let their children have a fair stay on earth. It's the whole argument that one can achieve immortality through having children, therefore one must die in order to make this happen.

But to be honest none of these reasons make any logical sense.

[niner]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

Of all of them, this is the only one that worries me. What are the arguments against this?

[kevin]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

Of all of them, this is the only one that worries me. What are the arguments against this?

This is completely ageist and falls into the 'societal stagnation' argument forms. It can eaily be dealt with in that progress and innovation rely on the quality of an idea, not the age of the mind that produces it. If an idea from an old person is better than that from a younger, than so be it, we're all the better for it. Besides, with physiological ages pegged at 20-30.. which is where most people would probably like to stay.. healthy vital minds and bodies are much more able to produce creative and innovative ideas than the quivering frail shadows we see at extreme ages today. In other words.. healthy, positive, engaged minds, do not stagnate, but remain productive and moreover can put the years of experience to good use int he process. Maybe the person making this statement is more afraid that *they* wouldn't be able to compete with such resources of wisdom that accumulate. Besides, suggesting that a whole generation needs to die when we have the technology to do something about it has some ethical issues of its own, regardless of the societal consequences.

KP

[niner]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

Of all of them, this is the only one that worries me. What are the arguments against this?

This is completely ageist and falls into the 'societal stagnation' argument forms. It can eaily be dealt with in that progress and innovation rely on the quality of an idea, not the age of the mind that produces it. If an idea from an old person is better than that from a younger, than so be it, we're all the better for it. Besides, with physiological ages pegged at 20-30.. which is where most people would probably like to stay.. healthy vital minds and bodies are much more able to produce creative and innovative ideas than the quivering frail shadows we see at extreme ages today. In other words.. healthy, positive, engaged minds, do not stagnate, but remain productive and moreover can put the years of experience to good use int he process. Maybe the person making this statement is more afraid that *they* wouldn't be able to compete with such resources of wisdom that accumulate. Besides, suggesting that a whole generation needs to die when we have the technology to do something about it has some ethical issues of its own, regardless of the societal consequences.

Healthy young minds are also capable of clinging to an idea that is their own, that they are heavily invested in, and that seems correct to them. I'm sure you're familiar with the quote "Science advances one funeral at a time" (generally attributed to Planck). I'm still concerned about what would happen when there are no more funerals... Note that I am not arguing that deathism is preferable, and I don't think I am ageist, nor do I have a fear of being able to compete with the wise elders, since I would presumably be one of them at any rate. So far, the only argument against Planck's observation in an immortal world is that minds that remain physiologically younger would be more open to change. That still doesn't address the psychology of the problem, nor does it address the issue of people remaining in positions of power far longer.

[advancedatheist]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

How about: New generations need to get out of the way to make room for the negligibly senescent.

[kevin]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

Of all of them, this is the only one that worries me. What are the arguments against this?

This is completely ageist and falls into the 'societal stagnation' argument forms. It can eaily be dealt with in that progress and innovation rely on the quality of an idea, not the age of the mind that produces it. If an idea from an old person is better than that from a younger, than so be it, we're all the better for it. Besides, with physiological ages pegged at 20-30.. which is where most people would probably like to stay.. healthy vital minds and bodies are much more able to produce creative and innovative ideas than the quivering frail shadows we see at extreme ages today. In other words.. healthy, positive, engaged minds, do not stagnate, but remain productive and moreover can put the years of experience to good use int he process. Maybe the person making this statement is more afraid that *they* wouldn't be able to compete with such resources of wisdom that accumulate. Besides, suggesting that a whole generation needs to die when we have the technology to do something about it has some ethical issues of its own, regardless of the societal consequences.

Healthy young minds are also capable of clinging to an idea that is their own, that they are heavily invested in, and that seems correct to them. I'm sure you're familiar with the quote "Science advances one funeral at a time" (generally attributed to Planck). I'm still concerned about what would happen when there are no more funerals... Note that I am not arguing that deathism is preferable, and I don't think I am ageist, nor do I have a fear of being able to compete with the wise elders, since I would presumably be one of them at any rate. So far, the only argument against Planck's observation in an immortal world is that minds that remain physiologically younger would be more open to change. That still doesn't address the psychology of the problem, nor does it address the issue of people remaining in positions of power far longer.

Simply, the financial burden and suffering that accompany the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people everday is an argument which overrides any potential impact on the status quo. Period. As Aubrey de Grey often says.. "It's about a sense of proportion."

Ultimately, the status quo SUCKS and I welcome the opportunity to have my ideas compete in the open marketplace with those of the first 150 year old. If I don't like something, I try to change it. If I can't do it myself, I find others of like mind to join me so we can do it together. If I can't find others to help me.. well.. perhaps myidea isnt' all that great.

Edited by kevin, 19 March 2008 - 01:39 PM.

[basho]

That is just an enumeration of rationalizations and post-justifications raised primarily in defense of people's illogical beliefs. I have created a new list:

Objections to Life Extension

• It doesn't fit within my smug, self-confident world view
• I fear change
• I object because my pastor objects
• I object because Hollywood objects
• I object because the attractive and charismatic people on TV object
• I dislike those science-type people with their so-called "theories"
• Its a conspiracy to control us, just like vaccinations
• It would be an offense against God's plan
• The technology already exists, but is kept secret by the Jewish-Freemason-Rosicrucian-Illuminati New World Order

[niner]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

Of all of them, this is the only one that worries me. What are the arguments against this?

This is completely ageist and falls into the 'societal stagnation' argument forms. It can eaily be dealt with in that progress and innovation rely on the quality of an idea, not the age of the mind that produces it. If an idea from an old person is better than that from a younger, than so be it, we're all the better for it. Besides, with physiological ages pegged at 20-30.. which is where most people would probably like to stay.. healthy vital minds and bodies are much more able to produce creative and innovative ideas than the quivering frail shadows we see at extreme ages today. In other words.. healthy, positive, engaged minds, do not stagnate, but remain productive and moreover can put the years of experience to good use int he process. Maybe the person making this statement is more afraid that *they* wouldn't be able to compete with such resources of wisdom that accumulate. Besides, suggesting that a whole generation needs to die when we have the technology to do something about it has some ethical issues of its own, regardless of the societal consequences.

Healthy young minds are also capable of clinging to an idea that is their own, that they are heavily invested in, and that seems correct to them. I'm sure you're familiar with the quote "Science advances one funeral at a time" (generally attributed to Planck). I'm still concerned about what would happen when there are no more funerals... Note that I am not arguing that deathism is preferable, and I don't think I am ageist, nor do I have a fear of being able to compete with the wise elders, since I would presumably be one of them at any rate. So far, the only argument against Planck's observation in an immortal world is that minds that remain physiologically younger would be more open to change. That still doesn't address the psychology of the problem, nor does it address the issue of people remaining in positions of power far longer.

Simply, the financial burden and suffering that accompany the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people everday is an argument which overrides any potential impact on the status quo. Period. As Aubrey de Grey often says.. "It's about a sense of proportion."

Ultimately, the status quo SUCKS and I welcome the opportunity to have my ideas compete in the open marketplace with those of the first 150 year old. If I don't like something, I try to change it. If I can't do it myself, I find others of like mind to join me so we can do it together. If I can't find others to help me.. well.. perhaps myidea isnt' all that great.

Kevin, this isn't about an open and free competition of ideas, and it isn't about the ideas of young minds versus older minds (that are presumably as sharp as young minds are in the immortalist future). This is about some young person's great new idea that becomes dogma, and that young person becomes a powerful person in the world of science or in some corporate hierarchy somewhere. The idea turns out to be not so hot, but the guy can't let go of his idea, and no one wants to fight him on it because he has too much power and can make or break their careers. That's more what I'm concerned about. It's not about old people supposedly having weaker minds than young people, it is about how humans handle power and how they cling to ideas that they are invested in. This is not even about the status quo. The status quo is that people who are clinging to their notions and preventing progress don't stay in power forever, because they die. We are talking about taking this aspect of the status quo, and making it suck MORE. Again, I'm still not promoting deathism, so just saying that death is really bad is not an argument against this particular problem. I think maybe there isn't a good way to dismiss this issue, so instead we would need to correct for it. Perhaps in a very long lived post human world, we will need something like "term limits" for positions of power. My sense is along the lines of, umm, good luck with that. I think this is something that will need to be addressed by societal changes, since the other nineteen points can be dismissed easily, but I don't think this one can.

[kevin]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

Of all of them, this is the only one that worries me. What are the arguments against this?

This is completely ageist and falls into the 'societal stagnation' argument forms. It can eaily be dealt with in that progress and innovation rely on the quality of an idea, not the age of the mind that produces it. If an idea from an old person is better than that from a younger, than so be it, we're all the better for it. Besides, with physiological ages pegged at 20-30.. which is where most people would probably like to stay.. healthy vital minds and bodies are much more able to produce creative and innovative ideas than the quivering frail shadows we see at extreme ages today. In other words.. healthy, positive, engaged minds, do not stagnate, but remain productive and moreover can put the years of experience to good use int he process. Maybe the person making this statement is more afraid that *they* wouldn't be able to compete with such resources of wisdom that accumulate. Besides, suggesting that a whole generation needs to die when we have the technology to do something about it has some ethical issues of its own, regardless of the societal consequences.

Healthy young minds are also capable of clinging to an idea that is their own, that they are heavily invested in, and that seems correct to them. I'm sure you're familiar with the quote "Science advances one funeral at a time" (generally attributed to Planck). I'm still concerned about what would happen when there are no more funerals... Note that I am not arguing that deathism is preferable, and I don't think I am ageist, nor do I have a fear of being able to compete with the wise elders, since I would presumably be one of them at any rate. So far, the only argument against Planck's observation in an immortal world is that minds that remain physiologically younger would be more open to change. That still doesn't address the psychology of the problem, nor does it address the issue of people remaining in positions of power far longer.

Simply, the financial burden and suffering that accompany the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people everday is an argument which overrides any potential impact on the status quo. Period. As Aubrey de Grey often says.. "It's about a sense of proportion."

Ultimately, the status quo SUCKS and I welcome the opportunity to have my ideas compete in the open marketplace with those of the first 150 year old. If I don't like something, I try to change it. If I can't do it myself, I find others of like mind to join me so we can do it together. If I can't find others to help me.. well.. perhaps myidea isnt' all that great.

Kevin, this isn't about an open and free competition of ideas, and it isn't about the ideas of young minds versus older minds (that are presumably as sharp as young minds are in the immortalist future). This is about some young person's great new idea that becomes dogma, and that young person becomes a powerful person in the world of science or in some corporate hierarchy somewhere. The idea turns out to be not so hot, but the guy can't let go of his idea, and no one wants to fight him on it because he has too much power and can make or break their careers. That's more what I'm concerned about. It's not about old people supposedly having weaker minds than young people, it is about how humans handle power and how they cling to ideas that they are invested in. This is not even about the status quo. The status quo is that people who are clinging to their notions and preventing progress don't stay in power forever, because they die. We are talking about taking this aspect of the status quo, and making it suck MORE. Again, I'm still not promoting deathism, so just saying that death is really bad is not an argument against this particular problem. I think maybe there isn't a good way to dismiss this issue, so instead we would need to correct for it. Perhaps in a very long lived post human world, we will need something like "term limits" for positions of power. My sense is along the lines of, umm, good luck with that. I think this is something that will need to be addressed by societal changes, since the other nineteen points can be dismissed easily, but I don't think this one can.

You are applying the rules as they stand today to a situation in which, I don't think, they are applicable. Humans will be augmenting not only their lifespans but their cognitive behavior. This forum itself has a very strong and devoted nootropics crowd. I think you are afraid that things as they are will continue and that people's priorities, and frailities of ego and control, rather than cooperation and synergy, will be the norm. Personally, I believe that our global environment is exerting pressure on the ideas which people generate and outmoded competitive behaviors will not surivive. There will of course always be a tension but I believe the issues will be different. The problem may not be that people are too entrenched but that they are too fluid will be the problem driven by bio-technological integration. I mean, if we're envisioning the technology to radically increase lifespan, why not in parallel envision technology that will radically affect other aspects of human existence. By the time we crack the longevity puzzle, we may all be walking with implants capable of communicating non-verbally with each other... nope.. I don't see your concern as having a reall chance of materializing with radical lifespans.. but it's just an opinion.. I'm very interested in running the experiment.

KP

[bacopa]

"The technology already exists, but is kept secret by the Jewish-Freemason-Rosicrucian-Illuminati New World Order"

you mean you didn't know that? Everyone knows the JewFreeMasonRosicruicainIlluminati's have the elixir!

[niner]

Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their ideas exiting the stage

Of all of them, this is the only one that worries me. What are the arguments against this?

This is completely ageist and falls into the 'societal stagnation' argument forms. It can eaily be dealt with in that progress and innovation rely on the quality of an idea, not the age of the mind that produces it. If an idea from an old person is better than that from a younger, than so be it, we're all the better for it. Besides, with physiological ages pegged at 20-30.. which is where most people would probably like to stay.. healthy vital minds and bodies are much more able to produce creative and innovative ideas than the quivering frail shadows we see at extreme ages today. In other words.. healthy, positive, engaged minds, do not stagnate, but remain productive and moreover can put the years of experience to good use int he process. Maybe the person making this statement is more afraid that *they* wouldn't be able to compete with such resources of wisdom that accumulate. Besides, suggesting that a whole generation needs to die when we have the technology to do something about it has some ethical issues of its own, regardless of the societal consequences.

Healthy young minds are also capable of clinging to an idea that is their own, that they are heavily invested in, and that seems correct to them. I'm sure you're familiar with the quote "Science advances one funeral at a time" (generally attributed to Planck). I'm still concerned about what would happen when there are no more funerals... Note that I am not arguing that deathism is preferable, and I don't think I am ageist, nor do I have a fear of being able to compete with the wise elders, since I would presumably be one of them at any rate. So far, the only argument against Planck's observation in an immortal world is that minds that remain physiologically younger would be more open to change. That still doesn't address the psychology of the problem, nor does it address the issue of people remaining in positions of power far longer.

Simply, the financial burden and suffering that accompany the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people everday is an argument which overrides any potential impact on the status quo. Period. As Aubrey de Grey often says.. "It's about a sense of proportion."

Ultimately, the status quo SUCKS and I welcome the opportunity to have my ideas compete in the open marketplace with those of the first 150 year old. If I don't like something, I try to change it. If I can't do it myself, I find others of like mind to join me so we can do it together. If I can't find others to help me.. well.. perhaps myidea isnt' all that great.

Kevin, this isn't about an open and free competition of ideas, and it isn't about the ideas of young minds versus older minds (that are presumably as sharp as young minds are in the immortalist future). This is about some young person's great new idea that becomes dogma, and that young person becomes a powerful person in the world of science or in some corporate hierarchy somewhere. The idea turns out to be not so hot, but the guy can't let go of his idea, and no one wants to fight him on it because he has too much power and can make or break their careers. That's more what I'm concerned about. It's not about old people supposedly having weaker minds than young people, it is about how humans handle power and how they cling to ideas that they are invested in. This is not even about the status quo. The status quo is that people who are clinging to their notions and preventing progress don't stay in power forever, because they die. We are talking about taking this aspect of the status quo, and making it suck MORE. Again, I'm still not promoting deathism, so just saying that death is really bad is not an argument against this particular problem. I think maybe there isn't a good way to dismiss this issue, so instead we would need to correct for it. Perhaps in a very long lived post human world, we will need something like "term limits" for positions of power. My sense is along the lines of, umm, good luck with that. I think this is something that will need to be addressed by societal changes, since the other nineteen points can be dismissed easily, but I don't think this one can.

You are applying the rules as they stand today to a situation in which, I don't think, they are applicable. Humans will be augmenting not only their lifespans but their cognitive behavior. This forum itself has a very strong and devoted nootropics crowd. I think you are afraid that things as they are will continue and that people's priorities, and frailities of ego and control, rather than cooperation and synergy, will be the norm.

Yes, that pretty much sums up my concern. I feel that the frailties of ego and control are a tough nut to crack.

Personally, I believe that our global environment is exerting pressure on the ideas which people generate and outmoded competitive behaviors will not surivive. There will of course always be a tension but I believe the issues will be different. The problem may not be that people are too entrenched but that they are too fluid will be the problem driven by bio-technological integration. I mean, if we're envisioning the technology to radically increase lifespan, why not in parallel envision technology that will radically affect other aspects of human existence. By the time we crack the longevity puzzle, we may all be walking with implants capable of communicating non-verbally with each other... nope.. I don't see your concern as having a reall chance of materializing with radical lifespans.. but it's just an opinion.. I'm very interested in running the experiment.

In the long run, I hope that post-humans will have solved the problems of ego and control. It's the medium term that I worry about; when we have significant life extension but still haven't dealt with our psychology.

[Shannon Vyff]

It's too hard, takes to many resources and we can save more lives now in the poverty stricken areas of the world.

I'm happy with my life, I don't want to obsess on my death--in fact that detracts from the amount of joy I can feel each day.

Since it is unattainable, the people who believe it will happen, hold onto their belief like a religion--they also think that increased robotics and computing can solve all of humanities problems, causing these people to not work on the problems we have now.

If rich people from now, start to live longer and accumulate more wealth, they can pass laws limiting the amount they are taxed, they could effectively create an elite ruling class, war would inevitable ensue--between the haves and have-nots.

[basho]

"...takes to many resources and we can save more lives now in the poverty stricken areas of the world."

Was that one recycled from arguments against the space program?

Life extension is saving lives though.

[niner]

If rich people from now, start to live longer and accumulate more wealth, they can pass laws limiting the amount they are taxed, they could effectively create an elite ruling class, war would inevitable ensue--between the haves and have-nots.

Didn't that already happen?

[Shannon Vyff]

Hey Basho, you can't argue with me here, this is the thread for objections!

But, yeah the stuff I added are things thrown at life extension, that are broad enough to really apply to many other things going on right now...

[2525]

Let´s find the best answers for these objections:

 

Objections to Life Extension
 

• Utilitarian arguments - Death is for the greater good of the human race

Human race would be far more evolved now if Einstein and lots of others

brilliant scientists would be alive now, helping us everyone with improving

our knowledge, our lives.

• Malthusian consequences (overpopulation, etc)

The population of most Western Europe countries is as we speak decreasing.

Therefore overpopulation is produced only in Asian and African countries,

and it is happening now, when we are not yet living forever.

 

• skewed demographics (stratification, fairness, social inequities)

This is happening now, when we are not yet living forever.

 

• Damage to the environment

We are damaging the environment now anyway, while we are not yet living forever.

But anyway, our human lives are the most important,

and should be preserved and appreciated as the first and the biggest miracle.

• Turnover of the population is good as it eliminates bad people/leaders

It eliminates millions of very good people, our parents, our grandparents as well.

"Turnover" of population is mass murder made by the aging related diseases.

• Progress and innovation relies upon old people and their [bad] ideas exiting the stage

We had the most progress and innovation (Internet, great discoveries and scientifical advancements,

great medical improvements) in the last 20 years, and nobody had to die for these progresses

and innovations to take place.

• Seeking life extension is selfish and egotistical and thus somehow immoral

Trying to be young and healthy is selfish ? And for what would death ever be better than life ?

Valuing death in any way actually means that the person thinking this way is very selfish

immoral and also a possible murderer who does not value his life and his family lives...

• Culture would be negatively affected if everybody lived forever

or maybe the culture would grow immensely. most of the artists create their best works when they are old.

culture would be much better when we will live forever.

 

The beauty of LIFE and being ALIVE are far more important than culture.

• Culturally taboo

Lesbianism and gays were also taboo once, as well as so many other things.

• Death is natural

This is the most stupid thing that I heard as well. Our car is not natural and cars never existed

in the history of evolution. Internet is not natural, our washing machines are not natural,

our planes are not natural. Our electricity is not natural either - it is discovered and

made by us humans. Smartphones as well are not natural. But they all improve the quality

of our lives tremendously. We are much better improving our environment. Almost nothing

that we use everyday is not fully natural. But it is good.

And defeating involuntary death will be the best thing that humanity will ever achieve,

hopefully in the next 20 - 30 years.

• Evolution is a superior mechanism for advancing the species compared to what humans can design and should not be tinkered with

Evolution is a very very slow process which kills everybody.

The progress that us humans made in the last 100 years is far superior to what progress have evolution

brought in the last millions of years.

• Death gives meaning to life, life extension would eliminate the point of living.

Death is just the biggest pain, suffering and the blackest most horrorful thing, in which

everything stops to exist. Death gives nothing else than destruction, losing everything

that matters, killing our parents and the ones we love. I cannot think of anything

worse than death.

• People wouldn't take life as serious

People are not taking life serious anyway as we speak now. People should have freedom

to choose what they want to do with their lives. Those who do not want to live forever,

they can choose so. And those who want to live young and forever, to be able

to do so.

• It's technologically impossible thus not worth pursuing or discussing

Internet, cars, planes, smartphones, etc

were also technologically impossible for 99.99% of our history.

But us humans we made all these become real.

• Living in an eternal state of frailty or senility is not a desirable goal

Living forever in an improving state of youth and improvement is a dream of humanity

since forever.

 

• Boredom

Lots of people are bored  right now with their lives. Should they be killed ?

Millions of people are never bored, are always improving, learning, discovering.

I know for sure that I will never ever get bored.

• Some people don't want it, therefore nobody should have it

Some people don´t want gays and lesbians, so we should just kill all gays and lesbians?

Since when some people should decide for all the other people.

I thought there is freedom of choice and democracy

• The technologies devised to implement longevity therapies can also be used to harm others

This is the most absurd one. Rockets, drones, bombs, machine guns are used to harm others.

Medical technologies are used to save lives, the lives of our parents and our dear ones.

• Religious doctrine (insert theist argument here) forbids it. (Playing God, etc)

We already are doing thousands of unnatural things (internet, smartphones, cars, planes)

and things are just fine and the quality of life has gone up.

• Wrong allocation of resources - There are higher priorities humanity should focus on

The defeat of diseases, aging and death is the highest priority. All the others will be solved

when we will have more time for them, and we gain an infinity of time when

we solve the biggest problem (death).

 

Everyone will have an active infinite life to work and improve our planet and progress

and discover and innovate, instead of only about 25 years as it is now for each person,

between finishing of University and pension.