![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsHas 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.
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.
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.
What qualifies as "extraordinary means"?
Date: 2007-01-30 12:23 am (UTC)I'll bet you're just fine with all of those... why balk at newer technologies? What, is anything invented before you were born "ordinary means" for some reason?
And, as for life being "something that wasn't meant to last forever", just *who* "meant" this? I certainly didn't sign a contract to that effect.
If you think you should climb into a grave at your "three-score and tenth" birthday, that's your prerogative... but I'd kindly ask you to not stand in the way of the rest of us choosing a different path.
Yes, "death is a part of life"... as are traffic accidents and malaria. I see no reason why any of those should be passively accepted, and I see no good justification for embracing them just because they are old (aka "natural").
Re: What qualifies as "extraordinary means"?
Date: 2007-01-30 02:45 am (UTC)Look around; all life ends in death, no exceptions. You don't get a vote, neither do I, nor do all those who came before. I find the underlying idea that *we're* somehow special, that it would be a great tragedy if *we* aren't somehow spared, to be a statement of supreme ego.
"If you think you should climb into a grave at your "three-score and tenth" birthday, that's your prerogative... but I'd kindly ask you to not stand in the way of the rest of us choosing a different path. "
By what means? Or is it any means necessary, so long as the goal is achieved? If not, what is the point where we say "no, this is too far, this is too high a price to pay"? What good is immortality if we exchange our humanity for it?
Re: What qualifies as "extraordinary means"?
Date: 2007-01-30 05:37 pm (UTC)What means are acceptable when it comes to life extension? I don't intend to deprive someone else of life for the sake of my own, if that's what you're thinking. Why don't you tell me what means you find unacceptable?
Yes, death is all around us... so what? Just because my ancestors only lived for X years doesn't mean I'm for some reason destined to have that same lifespan. I see no reason why I necessarily have to die, yet I am not blind to the probabilities.
Again, you yourself are using life extension technologies right now... what determines which technologies are acceptable, and which are not?
Re: What qualifies as "extraordinary means"?
Date: 2007-01-31 08:18 pm (UTC)Ah, but we attempt to avoid death as long as possible, consistent with our other values. And if it is possible to avoid death for centuries, millennia, or longer, then why should we court earlier ends by refusing to develop and take advantage of such technology?
Even immortality is relative. No matter how strong the immortality technology used, eventually any indivdual immortal would meet some end. For some immortality technologies, this would require the collapse of the immortal's whole civilization, and possibly a malicious attempt to erase all copies of that individual, but eventually this would happen. If nothing else, eventually entropy would reduce energy gradients in the Universe to the point where continued existence of organized Mind became impossible.
I find the underlying idea that *we're* somehow special, that it would be a great tragedy if *we* aren't somehow spared, to be a statement of supreme ego.
It is simply realistic to note that we are approaching a level of technology where it will be possible to survive longer than the century or so that is our normal maximum. To refuse to take advantage of such an opportunity would be (literally) suicidal.
It is sad that this technology did not exist for earlier generations of humans, but we do them no good by denying it to ourselves.
By what means? Or is it any means necessary, so long as the goal is achieved? If not, what is the point where we say "no, this is too far, this is too high a price to pay"? What good is immortality if we exchange our humanity for it?
Immortality would not be worth it if it meant sacrificing too much else that we value as humans. On the other hand, individuals have the right to embrace whatever technologies they can afford, provided that they are not committing force or fraud against other individuals by doing so. By what right would you prohibit someone from making use of an immortality technique? And how would you morally distinguish such a prohibition from murder?