X-Message-Number: 0037
Subject: Why Life Extension -- or Why Live at All?
WHY LIFE EXTENSION -- OR WHY LIVE AT ALL? by Ben Best
LIFE EXTENSION
I have been interested in life extension from the time I was a
child, but have only pursued that interest with diligence in the last
few years. My emphasis has been primarily technical: diet, exercise,
CPR, nutritional supplements and cryonics. I can't remember ever
having convinced anyone that life is desirable, so I write more for
the purpose of explanation than of persuasion.
When I discuss *life extension* I am not talking about extending
the period during which one is a geriatrics patient -- I mean extended
*youth*. At worst, this means having the constitution of a 30-year
old when one is 70 -- and the constitution of a 70-year old when one
is 150. At best, it means eliminating the aging process. Aging is a
*disease*, and quite likely a potentially curable disease. The cover
story of the December 1992 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN describes some
of what science is learning about the mechanisms of aging.
THE MEANING OF LIFE
Philosophically, one can begin with the question: "What is the
purpose of life?" One could even give a standard answer: "To help
others." But as the philosopher Charles Schultz once pointed-out, this
answer begs the question.
And philosophically, there is a problem with the question.
Philosophy distinguishes between *facts* and *values*. *Facts*
include things like, "It is raining" and "Water boils at 100 degrees
Celsius". *Values* motivate statements like "I like bananas", "I want
to marry you" and "Something should be done to stop the depletion of
ozone from the atmosphere". Values are concerned with aesthetics,
motivation and emotion -- attributes of living organisms. Questions
like "What is the purpose of the Universe?" or "What is the purpose of
Life?" are only answerable by intelligent beings, groups of
intelligent beings or, perhaps, by supernatural beings. Only living
beings have purposes. And ultimately, to ask someone "What is the
purpose of life?" in search of an answer, is to surrender self-control
and ask "What purpose do you have for my life?"
Therefore, it makes no sense to ask if the survival of any one
person or even the whole of humankind matters in some objective sense.
A god-like being may make judgements concerning the value of
humankind, but the physical universe makes no such judgements. It is
living beings that make judgements and have purposes -- and rarely
with unanimity.
Given that judgements and purposes are only attributes of living
beings, whose purpose is most important? The government's? Your
mother's? Your own? The last answer may seem selfish and
self-centered, but whether you acknowledge it or not, you have
ultimate responsibility for deciding what purposes are most important
to *you* (as opposed to important to someone else -- the only
alternative). It may be easy to consciously or unconsciously delegate
this responsibility -- and others often attempt to make delegation
easy (if not obligatory) -- but no one can truly take this
responsibility from you.
How important to you is the on-going survival of humankind? How
important to you is the on-going survival of your country? How
important to you is the on-going survival of your friends and family?
And how important is it to you that you remain alive -- and how long
would you like to remain alive?
Suicide counseling is primarily for people who are undecided
about the value of life. The suicide counselor can attempt to remind
the despairing person of the potential pleasures of life -- or attempt
to suggest ways to end pain and depression. The suicide councilor is
helpless to change a person who innately experiences being alive as
being something negative. Many (if not most) people will eagerly
choose death as a means to stop physical or emotional pain if the pain
is intense enough and if the prospect of the pain ending seems bleak.
I WANT TO LIVE
To me, discussing the value of life extension with uninterested
people is a great deal like suicide counseling. I see no easy way of
translating my positive attitudes about life into other people having
a positive attitude about life. I have come to believe that if a
person does not value life, or believes that the value of life has an
expiry date, the matter is beyond discussion. And I mean this not in
the sense of difficulty of communication, but in the sense that what
is of value to me may not be of value for someone else. I like
strawberry and she likes vanilla. I want to live to be a thousand
years old, and he doesn't care whether he is alive in five years.
Personal choices.
What would I do with a thousand-year lifespan? I'd probably
spend some of it trying to find a way to live longer. But I would not
otherwise lack for things to do. It would take me at least 200 years
to read my way through my book collection. I would like to gain
mastery of mathematics, physics and chemistry. I would like to learn
and practice medicine. I want to understand jurisprudence and
practice law. I would like to master carpentry, plumbing and
electrical skills -- and build houses. I would like to master
industrial design & fabrication, computers and biotechnology so as to
start & operate productive businesses. I want to build financial
empires. I want to learn to play musical instruments and explore the
many worlds of music. I want to join and organize communities for
social experimentation. I want to write great books. I want to do
experimental scientific research. I want to explore the planet Earth
with a deep-enough knowledge of flora & fauna & geology that I can
appreciate what I am seeing, hearing and touching. I want to learn
human languages, live & work in many different countries and gain a
direct sense of the lives, histories & cultures of others. And I want
to explore to the fullest my own loves, hates, fears and joys. I want
to fathom love, my capacities for love and the limitless mystery of
love & sexuality.
But telling people what I would do with my extended life will not
satisfy those who don't know what to do with themselves. Enthusiasm
for living is the driving force behind the desire to live. To someone
who equates extended life with extended boredom, a list of possible
activities will only seem like a list of chores.
I don't expect the world to stand still. Many exciting changes
are possible in a world of accelerating technological development.
Benjamin Franklin wrote that he dearly wished he could be chemically
preserved so that he could see the future. But I am not a person
enduring a "veil of tears" in my present life only on the basis of
hope for some future technological paradise. I am enthusiastic about
life. The present world is such a rich treasure-store of marvelous
opportunities that my most abiding interest in the possibilities of
the future is the possibility of extending life.
I am not even certain that my desire to endure is only connected
to my desire to learn and accomplish new things. The thousandth time
that I smell a flower, eat a strawberry, sing a song or kiss a cheek
may be every bit as wonderful as the first. People ask me if I am
afraid of death. To me this question is a macho red-herring. Would I
be afraid of the death of someone I dearly loved? Yes, but *fear* is
a misleading way to represent how I feel about the precious life of
another. So it is with my own life.
I am part of an international community of life extensionists and
cryonicists. They are my friends and allies in the quest for life --
and I work hard so that these precious and fascinating people can
achieve the goals we share.
If people ask me why I want to live forever, I ask why they want
to die. This is not a trick answer -- my bafflement is as genuine as
theirs. I can only speculate that most people live lives that are
woefully boring, depressive or painful -- and they are locked in
despair that things will ever change. Many people complete the goals
of social programming (education, marriage, family, career and
retirement) -- and then feel that there is nothing left to do but die.
Ultimately, I cannot understand why people are so content to age and
die when science is making strides towards the prevention of these
things. There is an incomprehensible gulf of different attitudes.
The technology of life extension may well advance rapidly enough
that biological aging can be eliminated and reversed within 50 years.
If that is true I may be able to avoid death from aging simply by
watching my health & safety, and by keeping-up with the latest
available life extension ideas. If my only danger of death were due
to accident or homicide, my expected lifespan would be 600 years
(1,000 if I am as careful as I intend to be). But just in case, I
could make cryonics arrangements, ie, arrangements to be frozen.
Being frozen after death is the second-worst thing that could happen.
The worst thing is dying without being frozen.
IS WANTING TO LIVE SELFISH?
Is it immoral to spend money on cryonics (which some people
believe is a doubtful last grasp at life) when the same money could be
used to save the lives of many malnourished Third World children? In
this view, cryonics is an example of egotistical selfishness and
greed. By this standard *any* expensive medical procedure becomes
unethical.
But is it really worse to spend money on cryonics than on houses
or cars? True consistency, in fact, would demand that everyone
dedicate themselves to earning as much money as possible and living a
monk-like existence which foregoes children, pets, new clothes,
cosmetics, fine food, smoking, alcohol, vacations, all forms of
entertainment, etc. -- in order to send all available money to the
starving Third World.
The kind of sacrifice demanded by the vision of an Overpopulated
Earth can look pretty unpleasant, if carried to its logical
conclusion. A patient in a Developed Country on a kidney dialysis
machine or expensive AIDS therapy is selfishly consuming resources
that could save many starving Third World children. The Ailing
Elderly in the Developed World consume resources that could be going
to those suffering in the Underdeveloped World. It is as if every
breath we take asphyxiates someone. In this view, the Earth is a
lifeboat and we are all confronted with a kill-or-be-killed scenario
in which the most noble thing any person can possibly do is to commit
suicide to make room for others. We are left with a "humanitarian"
attitude which regards life as utterly cheap, rather than precious.
Is this really humanitarianism? Is it humanitarian to oppose a
medical discovery which would extend human life, such as a pacemaker
or a cure for cancer? One hundred years ago the average human
lifespan in North America was nearly half what it is today. There is
something questionable about a humanitarianism that regards the
attempt to stay alive as being an antisocial act.
The Overpopulation Problem is a matter of human suffering -- and
the brunt of this suffering is currently born by Third World peoples.
Sadly, Third World governments are almost invariably military
dictatorships which impede the basis for economic and technological
growth. Moreover, it is a survival strategy for Underdeveloped World
peoples to have as many children as possible because the more children
survive, the better-off the parents will be. "Children are wealth", a
man from Sri Lanka once told me. Women in Underdeveloped countries
who lack access to contraceptive technology often find it difficult to
opt for any career other than bearing a large family. Food, money and
medicine from the Developed World may temporarily alleviate some
suffering, but it does not get to the root of the problem.
Exponential population growth among people who are unable to
provide for their children is the Overpopulation Problem that must be
solved -- not linear population growth due to improvements in the
quality and quantity of human lifespan. Eternal youth *without*
reproduction results in *zero* population growth. Eternal youth with
the production of one child per person (two children per couple)
results in linear population growth. Even WITHOUT eternal youth,
however, population will grow *exponentially* (as powers of 2) if each
couple has four children. Exponential population growth is the
essential population problem that must be solved, *with or without*
life extension.
From a practical point of view, less than one-millionth of one
percent of the Earth's population has shown any serious interest in
being frozen. If this remains true, cryonics will not have any
significant impact on an overpopulation problem.
The world is grossly underpopulated with the kind of people who
can solve the tough problems leading to human suffering -- people who
can unleash vast stores of energy that is clean & cheap, people who
can create social conditions that lead to economic growth, people who
can teach others how to be productive and people who can find ways to
help would-be parents to have only as many children as they can
support. When each person has the capacity to be a creative net
contributor to world wealth, rather than a net drain, population
growth will be loved rather than feared, and human beings will find it
easier to value and appreciate human lives.
People with extended lifespans will have more incentive to
improve the world and the environment -- the consequences of
short-sightedness will affect them. Unaging brains will have the
opportunity to accumulate wisdom, a precious resource that is
currently lost to senility and "natural" lifespan. It is often argued
that death is necessary to remove rigid old minds from positions of
power so that humanity can progress. But if technology eliminates
aging, minds can continue to grow without becoming rigid or
inflexible. Hundreds of years of accumulated wisdom by youthful,
vital minds could prove to be the most valuable resource available to
humankind.
What about pollution? Technology may well be the cause of much
pollution, but technologies to eliminate pollution have a great
future. Nanomachines may one day launder the earth's atmosphere.
Electric cars powered by batteries charged from fusion energy is a
clean technology. In fact, an elderly person once told me that major
cities are much less polluted now than they were 60 years ago when
coal was commonly used for fuel.
The desire to live as long as possible need not be viewed as an
inhumane desire. If uploading to a computer were possible,
micronization of computer circuits might mean that billions of minds
could inhabit relatively little computer space while consuming
relatively little energy. If *cost* is the ultimate criterion by
which the desire to live indefinitely long is to be judged, is there
some price at which this desire is no longer selfish? Cryonics is
expensive today because relatively few people choose it. If millions
of people were cryonically frozen, economies of scale could drive the
cost very low (liquid nitrogen is *not* expensive).
FEAR OF THE FUTURE
Some people doubt that future generations would have any
incentive to reanimate them. Such people often imagine future
restoration to life as entering a cold, alien technological world of
strangers -- without loved-ones or skills for coping. A fund which
can pay for maintenance (yet still grow faster than inflation) and a
contractual agreement with a cryonics organization should be adequate
incentive for reanimation. Major surgery is typically performed today
in hospitals on patients to whom the surgeon is a complete stranger.
But there will probably be emotional incentives for reanimation
also. The last people frozen will be frozen with the most advanced
technology, and it is they who will be reanimated first. And they
will have a strong incentive to reanimate their friends and
loved-ones. A chain of personal connections will reach backwards in
time to reanimate relatives, friends and even casual acquaintances.
Will the future be so technologically advanced that we will be
unable to adapt or become productive citizens? Many immigrants to
America have moved from Stone Age conditions, yet have adapted
impressively well. It seems hard to believe that people such as
Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci or Madam Curie would not adapt easily and
joyfully to our modern world, if they could be brought back to life.
In fact, many people with mental and physical handicaps who would have
had difficulty adapting even one hundred years ago find that the world
is becoming a more user-friendly place. Computer-aided instruction
and technology to enable the handicapped cannot help but improve.
Such advanced enabling technologies will doubtless make our adaptation
to the future an exciting adventure. There will probably be
technologies to enhance our intellectual powers, which will make us
even more capable of adapting and thriving.
If the world of the future is not a world of very advanced
technology, we will not be brought back. But why should an advanced
technological society be a cold, loveless place? Freed by technology
from the time-consuming drudgeries of daily life, people will have the
time and resources to explore their innermost beings -- and the
innermost beings of others. Self-understanding, passion, intimacy and
intense personal fulfillment will be possible beyond anything we can
imagine. Love will be cultivated like precious flowers in the world
of the future, and the world will bloom with love like magnificent
gardens of splendor. In a state of enduring youth, beauty and
vitality, we will be able to explore and fulfill our deepest dreams.
Of course, we would love to bring our loved-ones to join us in
this future cultivation of our inner potentials. We should make every
effort to do this. But it is wrong to believe that love is impossible
without the existence of some particular person. "Love is as
perennial as the grass", and the potential for love is without limit.
While I don't deny the uniqueness of the loveability of any particular
person, others will always be found who have their own unique
qualities of loveability. The potential for love comes from within
*you*. Loss of a loved-one may create a void, but it also creates a
*space* for new and different love.
The technology of the future will make our bodies disease-free,
beautiful, perpetually youthful and more vigorous than they had ever
been. Our visual acuity, hearing and other sensory capabilities will
be far superior to what is today "normal". We will have access to
fantastic technologies for transportation, communication,
construction, exploration and entertainment. We will be vastly
enabled in our abilities to both work and play. Our productive
capabilities will be enormous, and each individual will be able to
effortlessly build what today would be called empires. We will be
able to sculpt our own mansions surrounded by vegetation and fauna of
our own design. We will be able to fill our worlds with people,
laughter and conviviality -- or experience oceanic peace and solitude
in vast naturalistic settings. Cheap space travel will give us access
to the energies of the sun and the enormity of interplanetary space
into which we may expand. Many will want to go to the stars.
There is no absolute guarantee that the aging disease will be
cured or that people frozen with current technology can eventually be
reanimated. No human effort can ever be taken with 100% certainty of
success. But if the stakes are high (survival, for example) even a
modest possibility of success becomes worthwhile. Some people can
think up innumerable reasons why the future might be an undesirable
place to live -- imagining anarchy, oppressive totalitarianism,
overwhelming strangeness or unbearable loneliness. I believe in my
ability to appreciate life, to adapt and to work to improve my
conditions under almost any circumstances. But as "solace", others
should remember that the option of suicide will probably always be
available if things don't work out.
Will humankind become extinct? Such a scenario requires a sudden
catastrophe. There is now good reason to hope that weapons of mass
destruction will not bring about human extinction. If a strain of
AIDS should arise that is as contagious as the common cold, immense
resources can be brought to bear on the problem. And if technology
makes space travel and space living much less expensive, the
extinction of humankind will be very difficult to bring about within
millenia.
THE NEAR FUTURE
I feel pleased with the rate of progress of interest in life
extension that is now developing. I am more concerned about the rate
of growth of interest in cryonics -- since this is the "first aid"
which may be necessary for some of us to reach the time when
biological aging is no longer a part of normal human life. The
decision to include cryonics in a program of life extension requires a
great stride beyond the more usual methods of safe and
health-conscious living. I hope that those who deeply care about
their lives and the lives of their loved-ones will increasingly learn
to be open to the lifesaving potential of cryonics.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=0037