It is such a shame that students do so much work that is never seen by anyone except the teacher. Here is an essay I wrote before about immortality. While when I was young I felt that I shouldn’t live forever, now that I get older my ideas have changed!
Should we try to achieve immortality?
There are many reasons why we should try to achieve immortality. Proponents1, draw on a wealth of potential benefits in arguing for why they, and we should too, seek to achieve immortality. Undeniably, immortality does seem an extremely attractive prospect. But, as with most dramatic advances, these benefits are not without problems. Most of these problems are minor and can, and would, be dealt with in the face of the potential benefits of immortality. A couple of these problems are not so minor, and require properly addressing before we can allow a quest for immortality to proceed. The case being proposed is that we should apply the ‘Precautionary principle’ to advances that will lead, to immortality, if possible. We should only proceed to immortality if we can solve these problems.
Firstly, before further argument, it is necessary to clarify what immortality means. There are a number of different forms immortality may take, depending on how it is achieved. This essay will argue against immortality in its most likely, and most desirable form. While this gives the advantage of simplicity, it also allows a more powerful argument. As with cost-benefit analysis and other feasibility appraisal techniques where we have incomplete knowledge of the future, it is better to argue against the highest estimates forecasted and prove otherwise because the project will turn out to be more feasible to all lower estimates. In this case an argument against the most desirable form of immortality, can be applied to, and will be increasingly powerful against, all less desirable forms of immortality.
The most likely form of immortality, (other than merging with machines, or mind uploading2), and the form to be used in this discussion, is the indefinite extension of biological life as a result of an increased understanding of science. This may be achieved in two ways: through successive advances in science, which is accompanied by the elimination of all, or most disease, or by discovering a method, a trick, to enable the human body to continue living indefinitely, but without, necessarily, any accompanied advances in eliminating disease. In order to eliminate the need to weigh the pros and cons of living longer with a perhaps diminishing quality of life of would-be immortals3 it will be presumed that immortality will exist in the first method and immortals will experience no decline in quality of living in terms of illness, which is also probably the most likely outcome. <Advances are already underway, and life extension is happening in developing countries Fukuyama, Kass>. If immortality turns out to be accompanied by a decrease in living standards, that will serves as one more argument against it.
There are enormous benefits to being immortal. An eternal life opens up endless possibilities of new experiences: we would be able acquire massive knowledge, generate huge wealth, experiment with different professions, build an ever increasing network of friends and contacts, travel to every country, witness society develop over thousands of years, to name only a few. Collectively, there are also huge benefits: the accumulation of knowledge and wisdom would mean we would become more productive and efficient economically as we continue to increase our skills and specialties. There would be a huge economic benefit associated with elimination of old age and the associated disease, the welfare state could diminish as there would be no need for pensions (as people would still be fit enough, and would still desire to work), or care homes for the elderly, or expensive medicines (although we don’t know how much immortality would cost). Most importantly, immortality would mean we would no longer have to face the unpleasantness of death, or the fear of aging, and the negative impact on society, friends and family. There are many more benefits than stated here, and they are extremely seductive. But, they are not alone.
This evaluation of immortality will build on work by Kass in ‘L’Chaim and its limits’. It will be argued that he is right in his conclusion that we should be concerned about the prospect of immortality, but wrong in his method. Two common objections to immortality: distributive justice, change in identity will be countered. It will be argued that the two main problems of immortality are the reduction in birth rates that will follow, the social consequences of this, and the effect on individuals.
It is most likely that the ability to become immortal would only be available to the wealthy minority, at least in the early stages, especially because such treatment is likely to be expensive, or limited. On this point Kass raises the objection that it is unfair: “Would it not be the ultimate injustice if only some people could afford a deathless existence, if the world were divided not only into rich and poor but into mortal and immortal?” But such a concern is misguided for three reasons. Firstly, drawing on Rawl’s difference principle of distributive justice, the fact that something will increase inequality is insufficient for it to be unjust, what is important is the benefit to the worst off. As immortality, is used and tested by the minority that can afford it, it will then be more available to everyone else. It is this process of diffusion in electronics, medicine and other advances, that technology is initially very expensive and only available to the wealthy, but as development and innovation advances and through the advantages of economies of scale, the price falls and it becomes available to the masses. Such are the forces of economics that it will be in their interest to make immortality available to everyone. There is no reason to suggest that the worst off will not benefit.
Secondly, even if this does not happen, and for some reason immortality may not be available to everyone, this is no reason to prevent a few people from benefiting from it. Is it not our job to maximise benefit? < Max More > Thirdly, there is also a logical contradiction in his argument. His talk about immortality being unfairly distributed presupposes it is desirable, but as he argues it is undesirable, this should not matter. Any opposition to immortality should surely wish that it is not distributed equally, and only a few will be affected, and that is what will be argued here. Distributive justice is no reason against immortality.
But Kass’s central objection to immortality comes from his argument that death gives meaning to life. He says “For to argue that human life would be better without death is, I submit, to argue that human life would be better being something other than human” which is problematic in itself, and easily susceptible to the powerful transhumanist argument that what it means to be human is not fixed but continuously adapting, evolving and improving. He says there are four ways in which it does: interest and engagement, seriousness and aspiration, beauty and love, virtue and moral excellence but Kass is subtly wrong on the ways death gives meaning to life, and we will come back to this later. It will be argued that it is not death that gives meaning to life, but that if death was eliminated, so too would the aspects of life that provide its meaning: reproduction and the next generation.
The most powerful argument against immortality is from the effect it would have on society and the undeniable pressures it would put on population levels. World population is already growing at an alarming rate and any life extension would put further pressures on this rate. This is an undeniable fact. But what is the solution to this problem? There are three possible ways of dealing with overpopulation. Firstly, we may continue to put our efforts into scientific advance and increase productivity, such as increase farming yields, so we may be able to support a large population. Such a method would, admittedly, support a significant increase in population, but, only to a limit, and it would definitely not allow the ever-accelerating population that would result from widespread immortality. There is only a limited amount of space on the earth and an accelerated growth would eventually result in overcrowding. Secondly, we may invest in space technology and migrate into space. Admittedly, this would seem to solve the problem of overcrowding quite well, but, as we will see, it would still have its problems. Ultimately, we may follow the example of China and set some sort of birth control, as proposed by More <in overpopulation>. Lowering birth rates would be a sustainable long-term solution. It is likely, and healthy, that we would object to such interferences on our freedom and controls on our birth rate but ultimately, birth rates would need to fall
But there may be no need for state intervention to control birth rates. Immortality will, by itself, result in massive reductions in birth rates. As Fukuyama highlights <p61> we are already seeing that increases in life expectancy result a reduction in birth rates: it is no coincidence that Japan has both the highest life expectancy in the world of 82, and one of the lowest birth rates 7.87 per 1000< CIA>. Countries with low life expectancy also see higher birth rates, such as Congo which has a life expectancy of 54.6 and a birth rate of 43 births per 1000 <CIA> both of which are the among lowest in the world. The reasons behind this are many.
The main reason life expectancies are low, such as in Congo, is because healthcare is poor, and disease, violence and other social problems are many. Such an environment creates pressures to have more children for two reasons. Firstly, there exists a high infant moratlity, and a high risk of children dying before they reach adulthood, and so it is necessary to have more children in order for some of them to survive. Secondly, these social problems create the problem of dependency in old age, if a person is lucky enough to live to old age. In order to be safe in old age it is necessary to have many children for protection, and support. When life expectancies are higher, such as in Japan, all these pressures to have children are eliminated. In this environment it is more sensible to wait, in the knowledge that life will be a long one. To have a career, accumulate resources, and then raise a family reassured that upon reaching old age when a person can be fully supported by the state.
In the case of immortality, where life expectancy would be much higher, these forces would be even more powerful, and birth rates would continue to fall. Because of this, it doesn’t matter if we stay on earth, or migrate to space, immortality results in lower birth rates.
This reduction in birth rates is extremely undesirable. While people are, and should be, completely free to choose to have children. There may even be some benefits to society of not having children such, for example an economic advantages of not having to educate them but these are marginal in comparison with the disadvantages. The reduction in birth rates has two problems: those to society, and to individuals. This will cover instances where immorality may be confined to the wealthy minority and also when it is available to all.
The first argument against low birth rates is the negative impact it would have on the progress of society. It is the supple brains of the young with their “fresh people, fresh ideas” (Harris p69) who are able to grasp an understanding of the continuously evolving world and provide innovation and reforms, their aspirations and competitive drive, and this rising of the next generation that drives society to progress. Without the next generation to challenge us, learn from us, and eventually take our place, there would be no need for change, no forces of change, and society would become static. Fukuyama summarises this point when he says that “It stands to reason, then, that political, social and intellectual change will occur much more slowly in societies with substantially longer average life spans” (p66). Fukuyama’s argument that society will become static is more focused on the actions of the ‘older’ immortal generation and the social hierarchies than the abilities of the ‘newer’ generation to cause change (p64). Where today, death is accepted, it is also accepted that people will have to pass their positions of power onto the next generation, but in an immortal society this would not happen “the root problem lies…in the fact that people at the top of social hierarchies generally do not want to lose status or power and will often use their considerable influence to protect their positions.” (p65). It follows that from this that lower birth rates would stunt the progression of society.
Transhumanists may argue that this would not actually be the case, but rather immortality would increase the boundaries of human progress. Aubrey de Grey ( ) argues that so much potential, experience and wisdom is lost through death that by stopping death we would allow massive increases in progress of society such as our ability to continue learning indefinitely. But de Grey overestimates such benefits. Much of this wisdom and experience is decreasingly useful in an ever-changing world, and consists of nothing of any value that can’t be learnt from the new generation especially aided with the advances in other transhumanist technologies.
Reproduction and the next generation are extremely important on an individual level too. It is hard to imagine a world without children – their curiosity, hunger for knowledge and playfulness is something that no adult can possess and a world without this seems an utterly inhospitable place. And it is in this that we come back to Kass’s four ways death give meaning to life, and see that he is wrong. It is not death that gives meaning to life, but rather our ability to make way for the next generation that gives meaning to life.
On interest, it is not our limited time on this earth that make it more enjoyable, but it is our children that renew our passion for life in the hope of making their lives more enjoyable. On aspiration, it is not our desire to achieve great things in the face of limited time, but it is our children that drive us to achieve great things so that we can provide the best for them so that they may themselves be able to achieve great things. On love and beauty, death has no power to provide such a thing, ( and why is beauty so important anyway) but it is our children that can complete the love between a man and a woman, and provide the strongest, most enduring love. On morality, it is not our limited time that enables us to make great sacrifices, but it is for our children that we must set an example so that they may act under good morals. It is under these that a person strengthens and improves his personal values.
The problem with immortality is that it makes no way for the next generation and with it all things that make it colourful, all things that make our time worthwhile, and all things that allow the human race to progress and for that reason it should not be pursued. After all, isnt progression the aim of the transhumanist agenda:
<Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase > (wta website)
To stay true to this aim we should not become immortal.
1) Such as Aubrey De Grey, Max More, Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom
2) One proposed method of achieving immortality is the ability to combine or upload ourselves to a computer (mind uploading), as proposed by Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom etc.. Firstly, whether this is achievable in the first place is highly debatable. More importantly, there are considerable difficulties in basing an argument around such a form of immortality because we cannot begin to imagine what such an experience, or society would be like. The consequences of immortality via mind uploading are therefore extremely difficult to evaluate. Additionaly, mind uploading is accompanied by huge philosophical, and social problems. For these reasons mind uploading won’t enter into this discussion of immortality.
3) It may be possible to continue living longer but still be subject to the aging process and become increasingly inflexible, brittle and more susceptible to suffering from diseases like Alzheimers (which increases according to age)
