The Bioethical Implications of Human Immortality (moral, Earth, paradise, elder)

[fullyveiled muslimah]

But all those things you listed as causes for aging they left out one, which is the passage of time. The body will continue to work the way it has been regardless of medical treatment. You can reset a clock all day but time has not reset at all. This sounds to me much the same thing as resetting a clock to say 2:00 pm just because you want it to be 2:00 pm. That doesn't mean anything though because if it's really five in the morning then the clock reset is useless, and a deception.

It all seems to me a silent attempt to become the God people refuse to worship. To become the controller of death and life, time and space, and to almost live outside the ralm of and unaffected by time, but we cannot. It simply is not within our ability to do so. Death is inevitable and as you keep living aging is just as inevitable, despite what you look like. I am all for keeping a good appearance and staying in the best possible health as one ages, don't get me wrong. I am puzzled as to what is so wrong with death that we wish to postpone it? It will come no matter what, so what's with trying to stay in this world so long?

[Runt]

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

But all those things you listed as causes for aging they left out one, which is the passage of time. The body will continue to work the way it has been regardless of medical treatment. You can reset a clock all day but time has not reset at all. This sounds to me much the same thing as resetting a clock to say 2:00 pm just because you want it to be 2:00 pm. That doesn't mean anything though because if it's really five in the morning then the clock reset is useless, and a deception.

It's a misperception that people age simply because time has passed. There is nothing in the human body that says, "Oh look, I've lived 50 years and that is a long enough time to enjoy health. Now it's time to start getting old and degenerating!" The process of aging is understood by modern medicine as an accumulation of various factors, most of which are caused by "buildup" (of "memory" T-cells instead of "naive" T-cells, of free-radicals, of junk in the lysosomes, of AGEs) and "breakdown" (of cells--- because lysosomes stop clearing out cellular "junk" and telomeres fall off every time the cell divides, eventually causing the cell to STOP dividing and the body to stop replacing damaged tissue; of proteins---because of the buildup of AGEs and free-radicals). ALL of these things are theoretically within our ability to eventually fix, and part of the reason people live longer today is because our healthcare and lifestyle choices prevent some of these problems from accumulating at as fast a rate as they used to in previous generations. Our ability to address these problems is still increasing, and I think it is illogical to assume that we won't be able to eventually solve them all---assuming of course that scientific advancements continue at the same rate and we don't destroy our entire species in the process.

Fixing these problems may not make an immortal human being in the sense that such an individual is unable to die due to uncurable illness or irrepairable injury. It may not even completely end aging, because there are probably factors we do not know of, and which might not become a problem until much much much later in life (hundreds or thousands of years). Radiation from the sun, for example, may slowly but surely damage cells in the body until cancer becomes a telltale sign of---and cause of death by---old age. Whether or not every problem can be solved is unknown, but identifying problems and conceiving possible solutions are one step along the way.

And even if scientific advancements don't make humans conquer old age, they almost certainly will allow allow us to live longer and longer each generation. Our life expectancies may cap out somewhere, but even adding 10 years to the human lifespan while the population is continuing to grow can cause problems (such as overpopulation and resource allocations issues) which should be addressed before such a time arrives. Ignoring the implications of modern medicine's ability to extend the human life---whether 10 years or indefinitely---is dangerous and foolish.

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

It all seems to me a silent attempt to become the God people refuse to worship.

If there is a God, He gave us the very thinking capacities which allow improve our health and our quality of life. It seems unreasonable to me that such a God would allow us to treat illnesses, injuries, and disorders that threaten our lives before old age, and yet not treat those physical problems which threaten our lives with old age. If we consider the causes of old age, we see that they are as much illnesses or disorders as diabetes or heart disease, and, theoretically, just as treatable. There is no reason not to treat them, and I think it is unethical not to attempt to do so if it is possible.

If there is not a God---and I have yet to encounter any compelling evidence that there is (sorry)---then there is no reason to label our quest to improve our health and quality of life as arrogant attempts to rise above our pre-ordained "place" in the cosmic order.

If we wish to argue against attempting to live longer, we will need more compelling reasons than an appeal to religion.

I am puzzled as to what is so wrong with death that we wish to postpone it? It will come no matter what, so what's with trying to stay in this world so long?

Consider: If there is nothing "wrong" with death and there is no reason to postpone it, then it is just as pointless to try to preserve and prolong the life of an infant as it is to try to preserve and prolong the life of an elderly person. Yet very few people, I think, would argue for just letting the ill, disabled and injured die. Why? Because of the potential possessed by a living human to love, to learn, to teach, to create, to better the world, to dream... If these things are valueless, then there is no reason to live, whether we live 5 years or 100. If these things do have value, however, then there is no reason to die, whether we live 3 months or 1000 years.

We will not become ageless, and science is no closer to making us immortal now than it was a million years ago.

At the dawn of humanity I doubt humans lived more than 20-30 years before old age came and ended their lives. (Is it pointless to try to live longer than that?) In the dark ages men and women lived 40-50 years, I believe, before old age took them. (is it pointless to try to live longer than that?) The life expectancy keeps rising, because of better healthcare, better lifestyle choices and better nutrition. Science played an important part, I think, in that process. Does this mean Science made us immortal? No. But Science did allow us to live longer. It is illogical to believe that it cannot continue to do so.

Now "without death" a couple must be controlled as to how many if any children she births.

I hate to tell you this, but even if we should all die around 75 years old, eventually we are going to have to consider population control mechanisms, simply by virtue of the fact that our planet's population is rising. Would you suggest that we should not live to 75 years because the population might need to be controlled? Or would you start considering viable and ethical ways to control population?

If we do birth young, what will they do later in life if the old never get old? If they never get old and die off, they will continue to work, eat, need shelter. Death is a release and is population control.

If the need to work, eat and find shelter are compelling reasons not to continue living, then they are compelling reasons not to continue living now. Yet I do not think that it makes sense to die simply to avoid working, eating and building shelter. There is much that makes life worth living beyond (or despite) these most basic necessities, and which would make life worth living for a 10-year-old, a 30-year-old, an 80-year-old, or a 1000-year-old.

Also.... As I mentioned in the article... Lucretius argued, just as you do, that old age serves as a population control mechanism that functions to remove one generation to make room for the next. While it is true that old age and death do have this function, it is unethical to advocate for its continuation.

Overall stated that the passivist argument (that the death of the elderly is justified by its function as a population control mechanism) is an ethically unacceptable, ageist view that privileges younger populations while simultaneously discriminating against the elderly. It unjustly implies that the elderly "may have a real and compelling duty to die" and thus places a lower value upon the lives of the elderly than on the lives of younger individuals.

[fullyveiled muslimah]

You have successfully confused the points I was trying to make. Nowhere did I say life was invaluable. The point, is that death is also valuable. It serves a good purpose, and should not be tampered with. Aging is not an illness to be conquered. Plus death is not a result of aging anyway, so the correlation is silly. People die young all the time and of various things. We cannot make ourselves nor the world death proof. Attempting to save the life of a dying person, and prolong the life of a person dying on a cellular level is two different things. With the passage of time our bodies will degrade in its performance. I can't see how that little fact is pushed aside. Time is a factor, and one that cannot be changed by us.

If we know that prolonging life will create a different set of problems related to it, why should it be done? Because we supposedly can? Because we want to? Are these good enough reasons to create a set of issues the we ourselves will not face but the generations we leave here? Seems a selfish deed to me.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

You have successfully confused the points I was trying to make. Nowhere did I say life was invaluable. The point, is that death is also valuable. It serves a good purpose, and should not be tampered with.

I'll address what appear to be your two major arguments one at a time.

1) While all life is valuable, death is unavoidable and should not be postponed.

(I'm sure you would not only admit the effectiveness of---but you would actually advocate---giving a liver transplant to a patient suffering from liver psoriasis or a blood transfusion to a young child suffering from leukemia in order to postpone what would, in both cases, be an inevitable death if not for human efforts to treat the conditions. If you agree that these deaths can and should be prevented, you have no option but to concede that death can indeed be postponed and, in some cases at least, should be.)

2) It is acceptable and just to use our knowledge and technology to postpone these otherwise-inevitable deaths, but not to use our knowledge and technology to postpone aging because the deaths of the elderly function to make room for the new generations.

(This suggests, first and foremost, that there are no other ways---or no preferable ways---to address the problem of scarcity other than by letting the elderly die. Second, it suggests that while all human life is valuable, the lives of the young are more valuable than the lives of the elderly, for it is acceptable in your view that the elderly die so that the young might have resources with which to live. If you do not agree with the above statement, then you have to concede that the lives of the young and the old are of equal value, and that both, therefore, have an equal right not only to preserve their lives, but also to have access to the resources necessary for the preservation of their lives.)

Aging is not an illness to be conquered. Plus death is not a result of aging anyway, so the correlation is silly. People die young all the time and of various things

It is correct that death is not caused only by aging, but aging---which is characterized by the gradual breakdown of the human body due to a variety of treatable factors which are accumulated over time---does indeed eventually lead to death.

You assert that aging is not an illness, but I must respectfully disagree. Were any of the causes of aging to appear in a younger individual and threaten his or her life or health, you, modern medicine and the general population would concede that it is an illness and should be treated. Your assertion that the same thing is a perfectly natural process in the elderly rather than an illness and should not be treated is no more than ageism.

We cannot make ourselves nor the world death proof.

The world is not currently death proof, but the potential to slowly address the different causes of death gives us the opportunity to gradually make death less and less likely. This isn't speculation, but truth: we have already conquered many forms of death. Injuries and diseases which would have killed individuals in the past are generally treatable (if not outright preventable) today. Women do not die in childbirth and children do not die in infancy as often in the modern world as they did in the ancient. Vaccinations, advanced surgical techniques, the quick responses of medical teams, our general understanding of nutrition and the working of the human body prevent death on a daily basis. If you don't believe me, compare the death rates in third world countries that lack advanced medical knowledge and technology with the death rates of first world countries.

Death is preventable, if not indefinitely, then certainly on the short term.

Attempting to save the life of a dying person, and prolong the life of a person dying on a cellular level is two different things.

Cancer is a form of death on the cellular level. Would you argue that we should not try to prevent and treat cancer?

With the passage of time our bodies will degrade in its performance. I can't see how that little fact is pushed aside. Time is a factor, and one that cannot be changed by us.

You already made that point. Once again, the factors which cause our bodies to degrade are theoretically treatable. Furthermore, they are already treated to a limited degree today, with success. That is part of the reason why people live longer.

If we know that prolonging life will create a different set of problems related to it, why should it be done?

Because those problems can addressed.

Because we supposedly can? Because we want to? Are these good enough reasons to create a set of issues the we ourselves will not face but the generations we leave here? Seems a selfish deed to me.

First, it's not selfish to want to live. If you don't believe me, then you might as well go kill yourself now and stop consuming resources which can be used by others. Second, no, the ability to do something does not mean we should. Third, problems can be solved, and therefore the existence of a problem is not a sufficient reason to avoid a course of action. However, the problem should be solved before the course of action is followed.

[rojse]

I think that immortality may be achieved, but not in the purely biological manner that you think of. I think that our memories would be stored onto computer, along with an analysis of our voice and image of ourselves, and we would live forever as a computer program that could make independent thoughts for itself.

Obviously, we have some way to go on this mind storage on a machine, but it is a far closer possibility than immortality itself.

That said, I do hope that scientists do figure it all out, and that I might even live long enough to see it happen.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by rojse

I think that immortality may be achieved, but not in the purely biological manner that you think of. I think that our memories would be stored onto computer, along with an analysis of our voice and image of ourselves, and we would live forever as a computer program that could make independent thoughts for itself.

Obviously, we have some way to go on this mind storage on a machine, but it is a far closer possibility than immortality itself.

That said, I do hope that scientists do figure it all out, and that I might even live long enough to see it happen.

You could still die. Magnetic blast wipes out the storage medium.

[rojse]

You would have multiple backup copies, just like any other important file.