elfs | Earth to Don: We're sorry. We've failed you. We will continue to fail you.

Has anyone else read It bothers me that I have to go? This has to be one of the saddest, most freighted things I've read in months. Don Crowdis, the blogger behind DonToEarth, is 93 years old, and he knows his mortality is approaching fast.

At this age, I must say that I do delight in people's amazement when I tell them how old I am. But under all this is the knowledge that I am the oldest male on either side of my family, maternal or paternal, and I know I must go fairly soon. I just don't like the idea. ... There are many reasons. For too long I have behaved as if I could postpone going indefinitely, and thus have so many things that I must do first. I don't want my successors to find out how much I could have done that isn't done, not by a long shot. There are numerous notes and letters I must write. There are places I've wanted to travel, but never had the chance. Actually, each of you can, if you think yourself into my age, fill out the list. At least you can try to understand why I say that I hate to go.

The man is eloquent, whole, and sane, and I have to ask why in all of creation do some people think than Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is a tragedy needing medical investigation to circumvent and prevent, but Suddon Don Death Syndrome would be natural, acceptable, even desirable?

I can't begin to tell you how saddened I am that the library of humanity known as Don Crowdis will someday, probably soon, burn to the ground, along with a hundred thousand like him every day. I can't begin to describe how utterly, unbelievably bloody fucking furious men like Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama make me when they actively block the development of life-extending and life-confirming research, and who want to use government power to ensure that technology for healthy life extension is never developed or used. Kass is on the side of withholding techonolgies that can help us live longer, happier, more productive lives: he is on the side of legislative murder.

Sorry, it's been in the news a lot recently. Last week, the Guardian ran an article about how the children born this year are probably within the tipping point of voluntary immortality (personally, I hope it's 40 years earlier than that!) and how they face "unprecedented challenges" (when hasn't a generation faced "unprecedented challenges" since Newton and Darwin?) dealing with boredom and stagnation. If Mike Adams echoes from the popular tiers what his ivory tower intellectuals blather and believes that death is essential and morally compulsory for "making room," he should do the right things and embrace it now, rather than later.

As long as we continue to give ear to the Adams, and desks to the Kasses and Fukuyamas of the world, we will fail Don Crowdis, and we will continue to fail men and women like him.

Current Mood: sad
Current Music: Amorphis, Grief-Stricken Heart

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

tagryn

Very idealistic, but I see it as more likely that it would turn out to be a way of extending the lifespans of those willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure their survival, without societal constrants of morality or ethics to stop them - or to limit the means the research might take to reach its goal, once that goal (immortality) seemed reachable. Meaning, for example, an Earth where Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. would still be walking around and in power, with no prospect of natural causes ending their tyranny.

I guess my faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity isn't as great as yours. IMHO we're still not anywhere near ready to handle immortality, given how as a species we are still prone towards dictatorship, genocide, destruction of the commons, etc.

From: (Anonymous)

Very idealistic, but I see it as more likely that it would turn out to be a way of extending the lifespans of those willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure their survival, without societal constrants of morality or ethics to stop them - ...

What would be immoral or unethical about immortality? And why wouldn't the technology, once developed, gradually become cheaper (as is the normal case with technologies) until whatever was "necessary" to be immortal became the payment of a small fee or even (eventually) a free public health service?

... or to limit the means the research might take to reach its goal, once that goal (immortality) seemed reachable.

I'm sorry ... what "means" are you envisioning being used to attain immortality which would be unethical or immoral? FYI, bathing in virgins' life blood doesn't actually work ... Countess Bathory was insane, rather than immortal.

Meaning, for example, an Earth where Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. would still be walking around and in power, with no prospect of natural causes ending their tyranny.

True, but it would also be an Earth in which the (future-equivalents of) Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Churchill, Pitt the Elder, and so on would also be available to oppose them. And simply because the dictators were immortal would not mean that they were invincible or invulnerable to being overthrown. Note that Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam did not die of natural causes!

I guess my faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity isn't as great as yours ...

Why, do you consider humans fundamentally evil?

IMHO we're still not anywhere near ready to handle immortality, given how as a species we are still prone towards dictatorship, genocide, destruction of the commons, etc.

I don't see that immortality necessarily makes these problems any worse, and I see ways in which it ameliorates them. For one thing, a society ofimmortals would be less vulnerable to charismatic dictatorship, because charismatic dictators draw their strongest support from youths, who are not mature enough to see their political leaders in context and are apt to be swept away by emotional support of father-figures. For another thing, immortals would tend to take a longer-term view than mortals; they would worry more about problems which take decades or centuries to manifest because they would have every expectation of living to see such consequences.

From:

jordan179.livejournal.com

... and to add to my earlier (accidentally anonymous) comment, you are not directly facing what it would mean to decide that hunanity "was not ready for" immortality and to act on this belief.

It would mean deliberately blocking, ultimately through force, research into immortality (since you could not simply choose not to fund it, since "you" only get to choose for yourself and others would cheerfully fund such research). It would mean that every person thereafter who died of a cause which the research you forcibly blocked would have prevented would then be, to some extent, someone you had murdered.

And finally, it would bring about the very future you feared. Because ultimately, all the ban would do would be to delay the onset of immortality, and ensure that it became a secret, black market technique, affordable only by rich criminals. The honest, and the poor, would continue to die, and the world would be dominated by an immortal cabal, who by that point might be so jealous of their eternal life that they would gladly maintain the ban on immortality -- for everyone else.

From:

tagryn

"Very idealistic, but I see it as more likely that it would turn out to be a way of extending the lifespans of those willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure their survival, without societal constrants of morality or ethics to stop them - ..."

Just off the top of my head, harvesting organs without consent comes to mind. Cloning to achieve same. Extracting DNA in ways that harms the donor, again without consent. That's just three, I'm sure a scientist with a gun to his/her head and that of their family could come up with many others. Would they be more expedient than "moral" methods? Well, pursuing all lanes open to exploration are more likely to yield results than limiting oneself to certain methods. And again, not everybody is saddled with the constraints of morality: science is not without its share of sociopaths and psychopaths.

"True, but it would also be an Earth in which the (future-equivalents of) Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Churchill, Pitt the Elder, and so on would also be available to oppose them. And simply because the dictators were immortal would not mean that they were invincible or invulnerable to being overthrown. Note that Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam did not die of natural causes!"

Again, for reasons I state above, I think the dictator is more likely to be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve immortality than the "man on the white horse" would be. I'm uneasy with the assumption that the hero supply will keep up with the dictator supply, in that scenario.

"Why, do you consider humans fundamentally evil?"

Lets just say I try to have a healthy respect for the Hobbesian aspect of human nature. Self-interest is a much better predictor of behavior than relying on benevolence. Or as Heinlein put it, 'Never appeal to a man’s ‘better nature.’ He may not have one.'

"I don't see that immortality necessarily makes these problems any worse, and I see ways in which it ameliorates them.[...]"

Whereas I believe that the one of the few constants throughout history has been human nature. We've developed, but not nearly as much as we'd like to think. I doubt extended life spans/immortality will be the panacea which shifts us towards the better aspects of our nature.

From:

tagryn

(messed up the first quote, it is in response to the "means" question, not my own statement, sorry)

From:

jordan179.livejournal.com

Just off the top of my head, harvesting organs without consent comes to mind. Cloning to achieve same. Extracting DNA in ways that harms the donor, again without consent. That's just three, I'm sure a scientist with a gun to his/her head and that of their family could come up with many others. Would they be more expedient than "moral" methods? Well, pursuing all lanes open to exploration are more likely to yield results than limiting oneself to certain methods. And again, not everybody is saddled with the constraints of morality: science is not without its share of sociopaths and psychopaths.

Obviously, it would be morally wrong to achieve one's immortality by the use of force or fraud against others, save in self-defense or the defense of innocent others, because it is morally wrong to achieve anything by those means. However, there is no particular reason to imagine that immortality techniques have to work like those in horror stories: there are excellent reasons to believe that the most effective techniques would work in harmless manners.

(for instance, there are plenty of ways to obtain DNA samples without harming anyone, and one can clone organs without creating minded clones who one would have to kill in order to obtain them).

Again, for reasons I state above, I think the dictator is more likely to be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve immortality than the "man on the white horse" would be. I'm uneasy with the assumption that the hero supply will keep up with the dictator supply, in that scenario.

This assumes horror-movie immortality. It is possible that some early immortality techniques might be horrific, but in that case there would be a strong economic and political pressure in non-dictatorial societies to develop non-horrific variants, so this phase would not last very long, if it ever occurred in the first place.

Whereas I believe that the one of the few constants throughout history has been human nature. We've developed, but not nearly as much as we'd like to think. I doubt extended life spans/immortality will be the panacea which shifts us towards the better aspects of our nature.

I don't think that immortality will necessarily change human nature either for the better or the worse. It will just give human beings more time to develop themselves, in whatever directions their natures incline them.

Which I view as a good. Being, after all, human.