43 replies to this topic

[ag24]

OK everyone, this is a major call to action, and I believe it is a call to urgent action.

http://www.vatican.v...asquale_en.html

I refer, of course, to the middle section of the first paragraph. (Thanks to Eli for alerting me.)

The first thing we can say is that this is a classic case of "Gandhi stage 3", the acknowledgement of a radical position at the level of taking the trouble to voice opposition to it. But there's more.

I have no knowledge of the Vatican's decision-making process, but I think it is pretty certain that the Pope does not address random topics in his second-most high-profile speech of the year without a great deal of prior analysis and preparation. The appearance of radical life extension in this homily is thus a sign that we are making far more impact than we might have assumed. Given the wealth commanded by those who take their orders from a higher power, the potential impact of a moderately positive view on the part of the Vatican, or even of an acceptance that there is a case to answer, could be absolutely massive.

So... what can we do with this?

I think there is one big risk, which is that the Vatican will become aware that they have ventured into territory of which they know little and will clam up and let the topic fade into the distance. There may be a chance to avert that scenario, by developing a line of communication soon that helps the Vatican to evolve their current position into a more rounded one. Whether we can in fact do that depends critically, I suspect, on first impressions: on finding a way to approach them constructively and non-antagonistically.

But how can we do that?

Ideas please. Please email me (aubrey@sens.org) as well as posting here.

Cheers, Aubrey

[Mind]

No big ideas right now on how to influence the Vatican, but an old friend of mine is a Catholic Priest. This will give me a good reason visit and broach the topic.

[Denjin]

At the end of the paragraph he basically says Christianity offers real immortality, though, so I don't quite know what to make of the earlier bits.

[tunt01]

not what i expected to read when i first saw aubrey's post. i would have expected them to make a veiled threat about using embryonic stem cells (one lifeform) to try to save and prolong the life of another. i guess i falsely assumed that would be the "line in the sand" for the church.

the message is almost cult-like, when you get to the end and he says, "In baptism, this medicine is given to us. A new life begins in us, a life that matures in faith and is not extinguished by the death of the old life, but is only then fully revealed." That's practically what Jim Jones said to his followers before they all drank cyanide and killed themselves at the Jonestown massacre. "We've lived this life, let us move on to the next life," and then they all drank cyanide and killed themselves in a mass suicide, because they thought they were going to be saved.

i think the right way to approach it in an argument is to minimize the term "immortality" or "completely ending aging" as a goal in and of itself. the goal is to try to heal mankind of the diseases associated with aging, so that you can improve mankind's welfare. the goal is focusing on human diseases of aging -- healthy lifespan for the sake of health and a quality of longevity. Not longevity for longevity's sake. If we can figure out how to make a man live for 200 years, but he is immobilized, takes in nutrients through a feeding tube and is hooked up to machines 24/7, then that isn't really much of an accomplishment is it? it's focusing on curing the diseases of aging which will give you better golden years. so is that a worthy goal? is alzheimer's worth trying to cure, is osteoporosis worth curing? should we try to stop cancer and heart disease? why wouldn't that be worthwhile? i think the issue is where do you draw the line between trying to cure all these diseases and really making people ultimately immortal. that is the ultimate question here.

and that can be answered in a simple hypothetical question in return, "at what point have we done enough to cure HIV, cancer, and other diseases -- such that we should just let people rely on the fact they have been baptized?" we've added about 15-20 years of lifespan on the average AIDS patient, is that enough... should we just stop and say, "we've given you enough medical research, now it's time to put your life in god's hands?" we may never get to immortality. we may cure every disease we know of today, and 5,000 more will appear that we didn't expect because new viruses happen, new bacteria occur, the world and the environment is alway schanging. but setting the bar low and saying "we're only going to try to partially cure cancer," is inhumane and really goes against a lot of what the bible teaches us about how we look at our fellow man. science and religion both tell us to set the bar high and try to achieve the most of what we can for fellow man.


i could go on, but that's my 2 cents in a nutshell....

Edited by prophets, 05 April 2010 - 12:46 AM.

[caston]

If I were to give advice to every church today I would say three things:

1) Stop asking people for money
2) Stop being homophobic and trying to force gay people into straight marriages and stop condemning gays and saying they are going to hell
3) Stop inciting hatred against all other religions
4) Start Condemning destruction of the environemnt
5) Start plating trees and building ground swells to replenish the water supply
6) Start condemning those that pollute the air, rivers, land and sea
7) Start condemning those that push the worlds plants and animal species to the brink of extinction
8) Change their own behaviors so that they are not being hypocrites
9) Stop talking so much mystic nonsense and trying to brain wash people with it
10) Acknowledge that the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" are terms of the quality of the natural environment. The unspoilt natural world is "heaven". The polluted, over developed, over populated world is "hell". The churches themselves have been pushing earth towards "hell" and need to turn around 180 degrees.

Edited by caston, 05 April 2010 - 03:29 AM.

[Alex Libman]

The substance of this message disappears on every level, even religious, when it claims there would be "no more room for youth". It's a big freakin' universe out there, in case you haven't noticed, and this solar system alone can support an unknown number of trillions of people!

So let's see... God supposedly created this humongous universe and all the scientific possibilities we're only beginning to scratch the surface of, He told us to "go forth and multiply" and focus on the family and no hanky-panky specifically for the purpose of optimizing procreation and parental responsibility, and now, wham - the depopulation agenda suddenly kicks in! In its struggle to remain relevant, the Vatican has been a mouthpiece of the socialist world-government agenda for decades... All lip-service aside, the fertility rates in the supposedly Catholic countries have plummeted faster than anywhere else, with Spain and Italy only squeezing out an average of 1.3 babies per vagina - way short of the 2.1 needed to at least keep the population stable. The human population will peak around 2040 and then decline, with no reversal mechanisms in sight, except of course the libertarian solution - stronger Parents' Rights!

The Earth can certainly support a hundred billion just using the ideas that have been on the drawing board as far back as the 1950s, before the environmentalist agenda swept those ideas beneath the rug of government-controlled media and academia: farming more land more efficiently, hydroponics, floating greenhouses in seas and oceans, fish farms below the ocean surface that can raise fish populations by the factor of thousands, vast underground mushroom farms, geothermally-heated / lit greenhouses in the polar regions, irrigating the deserts, whole skyscrapers of greenhouses, etc, as many as we need. Add to that modern ideas about genetic engineering, space farms where GE plants / fungus benefit from much greater proximity to the sun, etc, etc, etc - there is no limit anywhere in sight!

The anti-natalist agenda and the anti-longevity agenda come from the same source - socialist governments taking the easy way out of the economic problems that they themselves created, while clipping the wings of the human civilization in the process! Socialism sees each person as a burden - a stomach that needs to be fed, a job that needs to be taxed into existence, a life that needs to be micromanaged, a mind that needs to be brainwashed lest it becomes a threat to their power. Capitalism sees each person as a sovereign self-owning entity and an asset to himself and others: a mind that can create new ideas, a pair of hands that can pull that person's economic weight and then some, a rational economic actor that can produce / consume / invest / trade for the greater benefit of the economy as a whole!

This is why I firmly believe that the first battle on our road to greater longevity and immortality must be a political one.

Edited by Alex Libman, 05 April 2010 - 04:35 AM.

[Ghostrider]

Wow! I never thought the Catholic church would go that far so soon. They are clearly taking the "threat" of indefinite lifespan very seriously now. I can see why, once people no longer know when they will die, why go to church? They need suffering, death, and fear in order to survive. If there was no conflict and speaking generally, limitations, why would people go to mass? I think spirituality and religion are compatible with not dying of old age. That's really all we are after here.

And yes, Aubrey is exactly right, we have now officially reached Ghandi Stage 3.

[N.T.M.]

"Humanity would become extraordinarily old, there would be no more room for youth. Capacity for innovation would die, and endless life would be no paradise, if anything a condemnation."

Wow. What idiocy. Seriously.

[s123]

If I were to give advice to every church today I would say three things:

1) Stop asking people for money
2) Stop being homophobic and trying to force gay people into straight marriages and stop condemning gays and saying they are going to hell
3) Stop inciting hatred against all other religions
4) Start Condemning destruction of the environemnt
5) Start plating trees and building ground swells to replenish the water supply
6) Start condemning those that pollute the air, rivers, land and sea
7) Start condemning those that push the worlds plants and animal species to the brink of extinction
8) Change their own behaviors so that they are not being hypocrites
9) Stop talking so much mystic nonsense and trying to brain wash people with it
10) Acknowledge that the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" are terms of the quality of the natural environment. The unspoilt natural world is "heaven". The polluted, over developed, over populated world is "hell". The churches themselves have been pushing earth towards "hell" and need to turn around 180 degrees.

In other words, stop doing the things in with they are experts (asking money, condemning people who don't fit their doctrine, using heaven and hell to make people obey them,...).

"Humanity would become extraordinarily old, there would be no more room for youth. Capacity for innovation would die, and endless life would be no paradise, if anything a condemnation."

Logically, the church has much to lose if we succeed. Until now, he church has hold a monopoly on eternal life (even though it is a delusion) and they would lose it if we succeed. Funny thing is that endless life in heaven is not a condemnation but on earth it is. What I don't understand is why they don't commit suicide, so that they can go quicker to their utopian paradise called heaven.

Edited by s123, 05 April 2010 - 09:50 AM.

[caston]

I don't quite follow all the logic here.. Even a man that has had his aging fixed may still believe that if he gets hit by a truck tomorrow he may have to face God.
We're not making people immortal were merely fixing aging. The only reason the church is concerned is because they are run by a bunch of old fart kiddy fiddlers.

Edited by caston, 05 April 2010 - 01:54 PM.

[ag24]

Thanks everyone. Keep it up.

The key point for me here is that the Pope's words do NOT equate the avoidance of aging with the avoidance of death. He went to the trouble to say "perhaps not in excluding death totally, but in postponing it indefinitely, in reaching an age of several hundred years?" - in other words, he did not actually do the standard faith-based thing of saying that this was creating immortality. Moreover, he backed that up by saying what he thinks IS the problem (social/cognitive ossification). It's true that he then went on to say a bunch of things that did indeed blur the distinction between keeping people healthy indefinitely and keeping them alive, but his words could have been a great deal less open to reasoned debate than they are.

Also, let's not be too simplistic: as we know, aging is highly unlikely to be the only cause of death that we bear down on in coming decades, so those of us who indefinitely avoid death from aging can indeed look forward to indefinitely avoiding death from accidents etc too. That still doesn't cause any difficulty for any putative opmipotent being, but it does mean we should be a bit cautious about relying on the "accidents will still get us" argument. We should stick to "aging causes suffering".

Cheers, Aubrey

[Mind]

The main point here is that the Vatican is thinking about these issues. They cannot avoid it. The cardinals and pope have to square life extension with their doctrine. The "flock" must be talking about life extension quite a bit lately.

I know a lot of "us" could sit around and complain about religiosity all day long. Don't. Think about how this new awareness could help speed developments in anti-aging therapies and technologies. Complaining about dogmatic and illogical religions of the world will not save anyone today (although I know you could make a long-term pay-off argument). Getting a billion Catholics thinking more about life extension could pay dividends quickly. Getting a billion Catholics to support (with money and talent) life extension research because it is "within their doctrine", could save a lot of people sooner than you could by ranting in an internet forum.

[niner]

The Papal message here was:
-What if we attain indefinite lifespans?
-It would be bad. (so much for Papal infallibility...)
-The true answer is Jesus.

The positive aspect of this is that even the Catholic Church sees the handwriting on the scientific wall; they can see the way things are heading. This speaks to the rather profound mainstreaming of the idea of curing aging; this is good. The less good thing about it is they put a negative spin on it, and revert to the standard message. Perhaps what this means is that the idea of curing aging as a possibility has taken hold sufficiently, and now it is time for us to push harder on addressing the consequences of much longer lifespans. Primarily this would involve correcting misconceptions, and secondarily it might involve a more rigorous examination of what exactly the consequences would be.

[brokenportal]

So what I see is the Pope acknowledged the cause for indefinite life extension, which we can quote to encourage other people to lend this acknowledgement that its more than just a small group of people engaged in another of many causes. Its another appeal to authority we can use, that we can add to our memeing tool boxes. "This cause has been growing, its so big now that the Pope acknowledged it in his Easter day 2010 speech." Quote, "..."

This also sets up the debate for us, with certain target crowds, to much more forcefully contrast the two. "Do you want to take a chance with life in an unverifiable heaven, or live here on earth with health?" Quote, the Pope, "..." The Pope seemed to make the Tithonus error, which is easy to shoot down. His only other arguement why eternal life in heaven is better seemed to be that the old cant innovate, which is unfounded. They might innovate less over all, but that doesnt mean its because they cant. Older people are pressured to settle on ideas and become conservative as they get older, but extended lifespans render them young, relative to over all age, again. Older people are also more preoccupied with family, death, job security, health concerns, mid life crisis, and a lot of other factors.

As for approaching them, maybe make sure to get things like the Longevity Dividend, Ending Aging, and maybe the Scientific Conquest of Death into their hands. Probably have a religious person approach them. Dave Gobel is really religious isnt he?

[bgwowk]

The key point for me here is that the Pope's words do NOT equate the avoidance of aging with the avoidance of death. He went to the trouble to say "perhaps not in excluding death totally, but in postponing it indefinitely, in reaching an age of several hundred years?" - in other words, he did not actually do the standard faith-based thing of saying that this was creating immortality. Moreover, he backed that up by saying what he thinks IS the problem (social/cognitive ossification).

Indeed. He made a wise distinction.

Taken literally, he did not close the Church's door on medical extension of life. He said that extended life without God was a condemnation; that the human condition without God was not suited to an indefinite prolongation of life.

The Catholic Church has a vested tradition in knowledge and learning. It has a greater "communion" with modern science than some other branches of contemporary Christianity. To the extent that science may bring healthy life extension, I think the Church will eventually make peace with it.

[Shannon Vyff]

I happened to be sitting in an Easter service with my youngest child over the weekend at our local Church of England church build 850 years ago. The message was simplified from the Catholic head's message--but essentially "believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and ever", "Immortality is with him." This made for some entertaining conversations with my kids for sure

At the beginning of the message the Pope is supporting extreme life extension, he is not condoning it, even though he goes on to say true immortality is with Jesus. He does though say that a bunch of old people will stifle the innovation of youth, some points in the message seem to contradict each other. He lost me when he says a "new cure for death must be found" (because living a long time would be boring) and that cure is the oil of Christ, being reborn and baptized as a Christian.

Churches provide spiritual reflection, all types of the do-even the agnostic or secular humanist ones. People donate to help run their own church community, but also to fund larger social action projects. Some churches do better in this regards than others.

The Catholic church has a lot of redeeming to do in the public eye due to recent recent scandals, perhaps they could mount a "fund life extension" campaign--this Pope really needs some popular press (he even has his own scandals, not to mention the Catholic churches scandals of the past decade).

On how to influence the church--easy, find a member who is active and in a position of power--propose funding or supporting a campaign, have the leaders take a vote.

Finding a member who is well connected is harder, perhaps Justin's priest friend is not an ex-priest and is in good standing. Someone like that may start an initiative in his own church about supporting life extension, if he got some good media it would rapidly spread higher up.

[bgwowk]

This also sets up the debate for us to much more forcefully contrast the two. "Do you want to take a chance with life in an unverifiable heaven, or live here on earth with health?"

You do not want to do that. Setting up life extension as a competitor to religion is a losing proposition. Religious people can be convinced that there is value in relieving suffering and extending healthy life. Religious people aren't going to be convinced that their faith-- a central part of their identity --might be wrong so they should "hedge their bets." They will be offended by the suggestion, and prejudiced against anything further you have to say.

[didierc]

The most important sentence is Sooner or later it should be possible to find the remedy not only for this or that illness, but for our ultimate destiny – for death itself. That the pope is saying this is indeed very important.

Why is the pope so affirmative? There could be a will to organize a debate about life extension as soon as possible to make life extension more difficult. But it could be also that the church wants to prepare catholics to a new situation, a world where a very long life is possible.

We should maybe choose this (very) optimist point of view, arguing that the pope is not saying that life extension is evil but that we will have to cope with big philosophical questions when it will be possible.

Didier

[David Styles]

Members, please see also the appropriate thread in the VIP Outreach forum, sparked by this.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=40093

[Ghostrider]

We should stick to "aging causes suffering".

I agree, that should be our focal message here. We only want to reduce human suffering. Since disease causes suffering, we must work to eliminate all disease. Since aging itself is a disease (causes pathology), we must cure aging. Very simple. Jesus tells us to heal the sick. That's what I want to do.

[VictorBjoerk]

I think it is good news that these things are brought up, from reading between the lines people in the Vatican has to be aware of the life extension movements. Among catholics there are certainly a vast number that would support something like "healthy life extension", on the other hand there are some who don't.

The message was a bit confusing to me, I don't really get if he is all negative or positive.

Some obvious things:

When dealing with religion using words like immortality may cause them to backfire, "curing age-related disease" is much better. Obviously they will backfire even more if one says their belief in a paradise with Jesus is deluded and that eternal life on earth is much better.

The church isn't only evil, at least where I live it is certainly the organisation that does most good towards elderly people and help them enjoy whatever tiny quality of life they have. Without the church many frail people in nursing homes would never leave their nursing homes. Certainly there are many in the church that support curing disease, a priest I personally know is due to have stem cell therapy for an eye disorder.

[Florin]

Someone should find out from exactly what source the pope heard about "indefinite prolongation of this current life." If he saw Aubrey talk about it, it might be easy to get the pope to grant him a private audience or open another kind of dialogue. Even though I'm not holding my breath about this, it's still worth looking into.

[PWAIN]

I think the take home message for me is that the Church sees it's future threatened by the possible extension of life.

Athiests who want to take on the church should wake up and realise that the best way to eliminate religion is to have immortality. In a world where indefinite lifespans are common, the role of religions is greatly deminished. Telling a kid that he is going to die in about 50 000 years so he should go to church and pray (to become immortal in heaven) is not going to work any more.

Religion is getting sidelined and will only reduce in popularity as the world becomes a better place to live in. People who are miserable dream of heaven, people who are happy dream of tomorrow.

[RighteousReason]

OK everyone, this is a major call to action, and I believe it is a call to urgent action.

http://www.vatican.v...asquale_en.html

I refer, of course, to the middle section of the first paragraph. (Thanks to Eli for alerting me.)

The first thing we can say is that this is a classic case of "Gandhi stage 3", the acknowledgement of a radical position at the level of taking the trouble to voice opposition to it. But there's more.

I have no knowledge of the Vatican's decision-making process, but I think it is pretty certain that the Pope does not address random topics in his second-most high-profile speech of the year without a great deal of prior analysis and preparation. The appearance of radical life extension in this homily is thus a sign that we are making far more impact than we might have assumed. Given the wealth commanded by those who take their orders from a higher power, the potential impact of a moderately positive view on the part of the Vatican, or even of an acceptance that there is a case to answer, could be absolutely massive.

So... what can we do with this?

I think there is one big risk, which is that the Vatican will become aware that they have ventured into territory of which they know little and will clam up and let the topic fade into the distance. There may be a chance to avert that scenario, by developing a line of communication soon that helps the Vatican to evolve their current position into a more rounded one. Whether we can in fact do that depends critically, I suspect, on first impressions: on finding a way to approach them constructively and non-antagonistically.

But how can we do that?

Ideas please. Please email me (aubrey@sens.org) as well as posting here.

Cheers, Aubrey

If ANY Catholic or Christian religious leader wants to take on Life Extension - I say bring it on!

We have the right on our side-- Life Extension is consistent with a philosophy of life, and we can win on any debate they want to bring on this -- and I believe that the people are on our side, the side of life, as well.

I conducted a very informal poll in a Christian forum, this is not to be taken as real evidence but I happen to believe it is representative anyway.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=35481

Edited by RighteousReason, 07 April 2010 - 06:22 PM.

[immorta]

I've started this topic in Russian Transhumanist Movement forum and in my blog http://immortaz.livejournal.com

[Shannon Vyff]

Instead of focusing on how aging causes suffering, we need to address also how ending aging can help people develop the technologies to help all lives on the planet. Through our God given, or evolutionarily derived intelligence we can end suffering and advance the species. Whether there is a plan, or we are making our own plans- ending aging is something we can do if we work on it.

[Medical Time Travel]

Read from the following URL:



The Bible says both that (I'm paraphrasing) man's days will be numbered at 120 years but also that in the day of the Lord a person of 120 years will be considered a mere child. There apparently will be a change in the first rule for some reason and it looks to me like it could well be technology that might do it! So the scripture is prophetic as always! I'm having a hard time finding the second scripture but I know it's there! I'll post it when I find it!

There is a scripture in the Bible that says that in the future a person of 120 years of age will be considered a mere child. I don't remember the chapter and verse but I know it's there.

[KalaBeth]

Oh... that's awesome.

.. It's awesome because it means the "extension of healthy mortal life into the centuries (or more)" sensibility is becoming common enough that the Pope sees it as something to mention - even if he mentions it to condemn it.

I mean.. he's not condemning people who believe in fairies for instance, because it doesn't matter now. That this came up on his radar at all is an amazing shift of the seas.


And frankly, any movement needs a counterbalance I think. I want people concerned about the ossification of humanity, I want people who remind us of the sacredness of life as they perceive it. I can think the Pope wrong about any number of things.... but I'm glad he's there. Tail of the kite, salt of the earth.

[farraj]

We should stick to "aging causes suffering".

I agree, that should be our focal message here. We only want to reduce human suffering. Since disease causes suffering, we must work to eliminate all disease. Since aging itself is a disease (causes pathology), we must cure aging. Very simple. Jesus tells us to heal the sick. That's what I want to do.

Completely.

One think i truly disliked on some posts was the "hate" and war-like feeling some of you had (besides the complete lack of respect for a belief).
someone said "if we win, they loose". wth? that makes it look like some sort of soul-eating contest. this isn´t a competition, both transhumanists and catholics have a desire for the same thing: the best existence (saying life could cause some problems) possible for mankind.

Im truly amazed with the growth of the cause.

Sorry for any mistakes

[AmagicalFishy]

As unfortunate as it may be, I'm afraid that it is not the youth which facilitates a capacity for innovation—that, I feel, is what the Pope implied. Those who strive to innovate do so for the rest of their lives, regardless of how long that may be (if anything, those innovative minds in every field from art to science would much value more time, to both see the effects of theirs and other's innovation, and to continue their progression). A true poet is a poet forever. Furthermore, there will always be "room for youth," albeit its worth will diminish very reasonably.

While I understand living for an indefinite period of time brings with it many issues, I feel that the Pope's opinions are religiously motivated. I mean . . . he is the Pope.