A follow-up to last week’s Demise of Death
My post last week on the Demise of Death received so many thought provoking comments that I feel compelled to further the discussion in another post. The new information and perspectives contained in the the comments have transformed the way I intend to approach parts of the debate. With such a fertile discussion ground, I felt I would be remiss if I did not give attention and thanks to several of the eloquently expressed ideas.
Here’s the point-by-point update:
Nanotech & Biotech Will Not Necessarily End Death: That death may remain even if aging is cured was a point raised by a few of the commentors. If our bodies did not deteriorate into death, fatal accidents, acts of violence etc. could still bring about mortality. I realize that my rationale for thinking we may be able to conquer death altogether was somewhat obscure in my first post. One theory proposed by futurists and transhumanists, is 
that to truly conquer aging, we will not be able to rely merely on stem cells, genetic therapies and drugs.
These treatments can, the theory argues, only go so far to combat cellular deterioration. If we are to truly end, and not merely delay aging, we would eventually have to develop nanobots capable of precisely repairing cells. My own logic followed that if we are able to create effective cellular-repair nanobots, we will have mastered nanotechnology and it will serve a number of other functions beyond cellular repair.
Prolific poster Dick Pelletier has pointed out a few times that if nanobot technology were mastered, we could, in theory, surround ourselves in a sort of thin nanobot shield that could, in theory, protect us from violence and accident. Perhaps I have taken this rationale too far. It does not logically follow that by ending aging we will necessarily end death by accident or violence, but I think it is at least a reasonable possibility.
Taking Control of Your Fate Opens Pandora’s Box: Let us consider my original conjecture is incorrect and that we will be able to bring an end to aging, but not death by accident or violence. If this becomes true, we will, in effect be gaining a greatly extended life at the expense of knowing that death will certainly come either by violence, violent accident or suicide. I cannot help but think these are all troubling ends.
Admittedly, most deaths now are troubling. Death by disease and aging is most often the end of a long, painful, degrading, messy battle. But, at present, we can at least hope to be one of the lucky few to die comfortably, unknowingly in their sleep. This hope will be eliminated if aging is defeated.
Even to me the benefits outweigh the downsides, but it is deeply disturbing to know you will one day kill yourself if you aren’t hit by a bus or murdered first. This is in part what I meant when I wrote that I considered myself a part of nature and do not wish to be removed from the natural process. Taking your fate out of the hands of nature results in some very difficult decisions.
Accepting Suicide? This idea of death occurring either by chance or choice is tied to another point raised in the comments. Johnfrink said, “I’m pretty sure if we conquer death eternal life will not be forced on anybody.” And I am inclined to agree. It is unlikely that in a future without aging, omniscient police will parole the streets taking into custody all those thinking of ending it all. But that doesn’t mean suicide will be any more desirable than it is today.
Physically healthy people commit suicide everyday, all over the world, and society does not approve. Family and friends of those that commit suicide feel betrayed, hurt and ashamed. The community at large often acts with sadness and dismay, often with condemnation. Could this ever change? Could a community ever accept that people want to end their lives? Perhaps, but I have a difficult time imagining family and friends peacefully allowing a healthy loved one to end his or her life.
Nanotech & Biotech Will Not Necessarily End Death: That death may remain even if aging is cured was a point raised by a few of the commentors. If our bodies did not deteriorate into death, fatal accidents, acts of violence etc. could still bring about mortality. I realize that my rationale for thinking we may be able to conquer death altogether was somewhat obscure in my first post. One theory proposed by futurists and transhumanists, is that to truly conquer aging, we will not be able to rely merely on stem cells, genetic therapies and drugs. These treatments can, the theory argues, only go so far to combat cellular deterioration. If we are to truly end, and not merely delay aging, we would eventually have to develop nanobots capable of precisely repairing cells. My own logic followed that if we are able to create effective cellular-repair nanobots, we will have mastered nanotechnology and it will serve a number of other functions beyond cellular repair. Our prolific poster Dick Pelletier has pointed out a few times that if nanobot technology were mastered, we could, in theory, surround ourselves in a sort of thin nanobot shield that could, in theory, protect us from violence and accident. Perhaps I have taken this rationale too far. It does not logically follow that by ending aging we will necessarily end death by accident or violence, but I think it is at least a reasonable possibility.
Taking Control of Your Fate Opens Pandora’s Box: Let us consider my original conjecture is incorrect and that we will be able to bring an end to aging, but not death by accident or violence. If this becomes true, we will, in effect be gaining a greatly extended life at the expense of knowing that death will certainly come either by violence, violent accident or suicide. I cannot help but think these are all troubling ends. Admittedly, most deaths now are troubling. Death by disease and aging is most often the end of a long, painful, degrading, messy battle. But, at present, we can at least hope to be one of the lucky few to die comfortably, unknowingly in their sleep. This hope will be eliminated if aging is defeated. Even to me the benefits outweigh the downsides, but it is deeply disturbing to know you will one day kill yourself if you aren’t hit by a bus or murdered first. This is in part what I meant when I wrote that I considered myself a part of nature and do not wish to be removed from the natural process. Taking your fate out of the hands of nature results in some very difficult decisions.
Accepting Suicide? This idea of death occurring either by chance or choice is tied to another point raised in the comments. Johnfrink said, “I’m pretty sure if we conquer death eternal life will not be forced on anybody.” And I am inclined to agree. It is unlikely that in a future without aging, omniscient police will parole the streets taking into custody all those thinking of ending it all. But that doesn’t mean suicide will be any more desirable than it is today. Physically healthy people commit suicide everyday, all over the world, and society does not approve. Family and friends of those that commit suicide feel betrayed, hurt and ashamed. The community at large often acts with sadness and dismay, often with condemnation. Could this ever change? Could a community ever accept that people want to end their lives? Perhaps, but I have a difficult time imagining family and friends peacefully allowing a healthy loved one to end his or her life.
Perpetual Utopia: Putting aside the feelings of others, can a healthy individual ever really want to end their life? Healthy individuals are common place in suicides, but happy and healthy victims of suicide must be rare indeed, if they exist at all. As Kevinperrott eloquently wrote in the comments “ultimately, for me the most uncomfortable part of not having a
finish line is no longer having the comfort of knowing that such a
finish line is out of my control and I would need to take
responsibility for that decision. Suicide is never a thought process those who value life are inclined to enjoy.” Even if we are somehow able to comfortably entertain suicidal thoughts, actually casting off one’s mortal coil means defying every instinct we have as living beings. Such a mutiny not easily achieved. Is it possible the deathless utopia we imagine of could actually be filled with ancient, bored people, miserable to go on living but too scared to take their own lives?
Gradual Uploading May Be the Answer: One reason I wish to remain biological, is that I cannot be sure an artificial body would contain my “self.” This uncertainty was at the heart of my section exploring the real vs the unreal. tk421 wrote a fascinating response to this question: “The way one could be sure they were not in a simulation within our
current universe would obviously be via designing and applying the
procedure themselves, presumably via a nanotech upgrade of their
current brain, a system tried and tested by millions of years of
evolution, by replacing, individually, and one by one, all the neurons… with as much
attention taken as possible to replicate the original behaviors.” A few days later, Dick Pelletier (aka futuretalk) wrote a post about nearly the same thing. I found myself much more comfortable with the idea of nanotech gradually replacing my neurons than I was with a sudden upload. Such a gradual procedure mirrors, as tk421 says, natural cellular replacement. Also, in theory, if the process is gradual, I would be able to sense the changes and stop the whole thing if I felt my “self” being compromised or I did not like the effects. Yet, this may be wishful thinking. It is possible my “self” could be instantly replaced at any moment in the procedure and I may not even know it. Gradual does not necessarily mean safe.
All questions of real vs unreal are very difficult to discuss because they are by definition subjective. madsci23 observed, “Let’s face it, we’re already living in a simulation. Perhaps the
software is running on meat instead of a silicon or computronium based
substrate but the end result is the same..” I wholeheartedly agree, but am I right in thinking that transformation from a biological interface to a synthetic one requires a tremendous leap of faith?
Towards a Safe Serendipity Perhaps my conclusions more most far flung in my exploration of serendipity versus control. For I find myself, once again, agreeing with madsci23 who commented, “I agree with you that humans have tried to replace randomness with
purposeful intent where it has been efficient to do so but I disagree
with the extremes you come to based on that assumption. For one thing,
I don’t think it’s necessary to completely eliminate chance in order to
preserve my existence anymore than I think ‘living on the edge’ adds
anything of real significance to my life. A little serendipity adds
wonder to the world but a life that is so capricious that at any moment
you might 
drop out of existence is a bit too neurotic for my tastes.” I now think it unlikely that we will achieve such a strangle-hold of control that we will live in a static universe. Serendipity, though less dangerous, will remain. Although, I do think it important, that as our technological power increases, the scientific community continuously debates what actually should be controlled. For instance, how much do we really need to control the weather? Preventing level five hurricanes would save lives, but perhaps we should leave non catastrophic weather patterns alone.
The Death of Birth The first comment made by AJ011 addressed a concern that had crossed my mind, but I had not written about: “From a philosophical perspective, maybe from a logical one, I see
extending life as extending everything we enjoy in life (and everything
we don’t). That seems too indulgent and selfish or ultimately wrong as
we have accepted again and again that we will die.” When I think about this meme, I do tend to feel immortality is at least a little, if not very, selfish. Don’t we need to die to make room for new life? If we live for say, 1,000 years, haven’t we consumed the resources of about 13 generations beyond our own? I realize by asking this, I sound suspiciously like extreme Catholics who seem to yell “Every sperm is sacred!” but I think my concern for future generations is valid. Could the death of death mean the death of birth? With our bodies forever young, will many of us still feel the need to have new young? How dreadfully static would the world be without newcomers? And if we do continue to have children who would also be immortal, what is to prevent us from eventually reproducing unchecked until we are, as the saying goes, “up to our ears” in each other.” Probably it would never get quite that bad. But, obviously, overpopulation is a concern. And I am skeptical that even if nanotech eventually provides us with unending abundances of food and goods it will solve all the problems. Wouldn’t space eventually reach an astronomical premium? Do we really want to be that much more stacked on top of each other than we already are?
In the end, I find that it is neither possible nor desirable to reach conclusions in this discussion. The debate is young and will doubt continue indefinitely. Personally, I would like to hear more ideas about how we could extremely extend lifespans while living in harmony with the environment and continue having children. I would be very interested to hear from those who do not feel a conflict in identity when considering becoming artificial. Also, though those who commented were generally somewhat uncomfortable with immortality, it is interesting to point out that 90.91% of those who participated in the poll indicated they were not uncomfortable. I encourage those that are comfortable with the idea to comment. Were you always comfortable with the idea, or did it take some time to get there?
Thanks again to all the commenters who have made this discussion so interesting and informative. Keep sharing your ideas as this is a very important discussion.
Comment Thread ()
