What is O'ism's view on immortality?

[nimble]

What exactly is the Objectivist stance on any sort of after-life/astral plane/consciousness-without body...etc? I assume Objectivism holds that none of those exist, if this is true then why is it not the most important issue of Objectivism to promote technologies that could possibly be the end of death, such as anti-aging medicines in genetics, or nanotechnology...etc?

You would think that if Objectivism holds that only values are possible in life, that the primary focus of every Objectivist would to be to prolong life as much as possible. But I notice often Objectivists aren't interested in this subject, they usually get too caught up in political philosophy or something like that.

[Hal]

I think its largely a division of labour thing; there are many people already doing research which could increase longetivity. Also quality of life is equally or more important than length of life to some people - why live till 500 without really enjoying yourself, when you could live till 60 and have a great time?

[nimble]

I think its largely a division of labour thing; there are many people already doing research which could increase longetivity. Also quality of life is equally or more important than length of life to some people - why live till 500 without really enjoying yourself, when you could live till 60 and have a great time?

Because if you die at 60, then you miss out on an infinite period of time that occurs after your death, where you may have had some chance to have joy, whereas when you die there will never be any joy again FOREVER!

[Hal]

Because if you die at 60, then you miss out on an infinite period of time that occurs after your death, where you may have had some chance to have joy, whereas when you die there will never be any joy again FOREVER!

Well, I dont think literal immortality is possible (for a start, under what circumstances could we say about a living thing that it couldnt ever die). But even assuming you mean very long life, its not clear from the individual's perspective that researching life extension techniques will be productive - what if he fails to find any? Lets assume there are 1000 people in the world currently researching longvetiy. Now, if I also start researching it, there will be 1001. Is my contribution really going to make _that_ much difference? Am I going to increase the probability of preventing aging by a high enough amount that it justifies dedicating many years of my life to something that doesnt interest me? Why not just do something I enjoy and hope one of the other 1000 people finds something?

[nimble]

Well, I dont think literal immortality is possible (for a start, under what circumstances could we say about a living thing that it couldnt ever die). But even assuming you mean very long life, its not clear from the individual's perspective that researching life extension techniques will be productive - what if he fails to find any? Lets assume there are 1000 people in the world currently researching longvetiy. Now, if I also start researching it, there will be 1001. Is my contribution really going to make _that_ much difference? Am I going to increase the probability of preventing aging by a high enough amount that it justifies dedicating many years of my life to something that doesnt interest me? Why not just do something I enjoy and hope one of the other 1000 people finds something?

I think literal immortality is possible although not probable. THere is nothing genetically that makes us die at a specific time.

[HaloNoble6]

How much do you know about cell biology, nimble? I think the process of dying is inevidable, the only thing that can be done is to push the body's cell beyond their limit of self-healing and self-reproduction, which I believe is the limiting factor in the length of life. Perhaps Jennifer can comment, since she has some expertise in such matters.

[nimble]

First, there are genetic therapies that are developing to counteract aging. Second, there is nanotechnology, which hopefully stands to be able to reproduce you atom by atom in the exact form that you are now, which if done right would essentially resurrect you from the dead. You would have the same DNA, the same memories, and experiences, and you would be EXACTLY who you are right now, using the exact same matter you are composed of now. If that doesn't result in immortality in the right sense, then you must think that there is some non-physical factor I am leaving out, like a spirit.

[HaloNoble6]

Interesting theory, nimble. I would say that perhaps replicating atom after atom is one hurdle, but replicating the neuro-electronic inner-workings of the brain would be another. I speculate that perhaps atomic arangements are not the end-all to the consistency of our brain, so perhaps this would have to be looked at.

How far along are these people, and when do they think they'll have this tech ready?

[nimble]

Well, supposedly we are about 60-100 years away from tripling our life span through genetics, which would buy us enough time to get to the nano technology which is supposedly about 100-120 years away from being able to do that type of stuff.

[nimble]

I think the idea behind all of this is to keep your brain from aging with genetics, and to reconstruct anything that might go wrong with your body with nano-technology. I'm not a genius in this area, but it may even be able to reconstruct brain tissue in a manner that includes whatever data has been imprinted on it. But this is all speculation, but not pure speculation, it has a very real potential to do all that it says it will be able to.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

I speculate that perhaps atomic arangements are not the end-all to the consistency of our brain.....

Then what is the end-all to the consistency of our brain? What do you mean by this?

[HaloNoble6]

What I meant to say is that simply arranging every atom exactly as it is presently arranged does not gaurantue full replication, that life is an on-going process of the movement of matter and charge, not simply static arrangement.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Dying is just a result of deterioration of the DNA which encodes the instructions for everything else made in the cells. The reason we die is that over time our DNA gets oxidized by free radicals, etc. and it's not possible to know where the mistakes are. As a result of those mutations, people get cancer, faulty proteins get made, etc. This is why so many anti-aging formulas and diets are focused on anti-oxidants.

So if the molecular structure of your DNA could be preserved and constantly replaced in your cells from time to time, when needed, I don't really see why an infinite life couldn't eventually be possible. All the atoms in your body would still be recycled and replaced (your body would not be static) but the molecular structure of your DNA would remain intact nevertheless. If I remember correctly, all the matter in one's body is totally replaced every 7 years. It's like repairing a building. You can remove and replace pieces of a brick wall without tearing down the wall, and the end result is to restore the wall to its original structure. That's all DNA repair is, and your cells do it all the time. The problem is, they don't do it perfectly, and that's why we die, barring an accident or heart attack.

I don't know much about this, but my guess is that that these technologies are focused on DNA repair itself and/or the creation and eventual successful transplantation of human cell clones or the DNA itself. DNA is just a very complex chemical, that's all. We are at a very, very early stage in our understanding of cell biology. So much so that we have no idea what technologies will be developed just ten years from now for understanding genetics, cell biology, etc. We have no idea.

Fascinating stuff.

[HaloNoble6]

I see, I never knew dying was the result of the deterioration of DNA. Thanks, tree.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

There's no doubt it would be an extremely difficult feat to keep all that DNA in tip top shape. But to rule it out would be ridiculous at this stage in our understanding of cell biology. It would be like Galileo suggesting we'd never make it to space or something.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

That's why you should eat lots of fruit. Antioxidants.

[HaloNoble6]

I knew trees were good for more than just furniture and paper.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Trees are good for more than just wood.

[softwareNerd]

That's why you should eat lots of fruit.  Antioxidants.

Does eating antioxidants slow the oxidization of DNA? Do studies show this? Is it a significant slowing?

Can my apple a day suffice or should I stop by Safeway on the way back from work and load up on a few dozen? Seriously though, is there a good web article about this, which you would recommend?

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

I can't recommend a good article off-hand that really proves it. And it is doubtful that there is a single article that would prove it. But doctors have been advocating for some time now that people eat fruits and vegetables for various reasons, and this is one of them.

I do know for sure that oxidative damage is a serious problem for DNA and that there are specific enzymes in your body - like superoxide dysmutase - that are targeted to correct it or to harness free radicals.

Blueberries and grapes are high in antioxidants. So are peppers, tomatoes and vegetables in the mustard family - like broccoli.

Apples? Not so sure.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[jrs]

Because if you die at 60, then you miss out on an infinite period of time that occurs after your death, ...

No. Then you die at 61, gaining only one year. Postponing death is a continuous struggle, not a problem which can be solved once and for all. Furthermore, it becomes more and more difficult as you get older, until at last it becomes impossible. In any case, you would eventually be killed by an accident even if all other causes could be suppressed.

There is nothing genetically that makes us die at a specific time.

It is not possible to copy our chromosomes completely. In particular, the ends cannot be copied because the proteins which copy them cannot attach without something to which to attach on both sides. So the ends are padded with a repetitive sequence. This is called a telomere.

As our cells divide, the telomeres which protect the ends of our chromosomes become shorter until they no longer work and then the cell dies (or becomes cancerous). The telomeres are lengthened in the process of producing sperm and ova. So this count-down to death is reset when reproduction occurs. But lengthening them in the soma (the body excluding the germ cells) would eliminate our main defense against cancer and so make our lives shorter rather than longer.

Furthermore, somatic mutations cannot be entirely suppressed by any method [including anti-oxidants]; and these will result in the eventual disintegration of the body.

Second, there is nanotechnology, which hopefully stands to be able to reproduce you atom by atom in the exact form that you are now, which if done right would essentially resurrect you from the dead.

This is beyond fanciful. It would be more than a million times easier simply to let you die and replace you with a new person. Which is why it is done that way.

Nanotechnology is vastly overrated. And performing surgery on a cell by cell basis over the whole body or even just the brain is impossible.

[GeddyWizard]

This is beyond fanciful.  It would be more than a million times easier simply to let you die and replace you with a new person.  Which is why it is done that way.

Nanotechnology is vastly overrated.  And performing surgery on a cell by cell basis over the whole body or even just the brain is impossible.

I'm not a bio student..so pardon any technical simplicity..

1) Can you specify why it is so impossible to reproduce a person cell by cell with nano technology? I heard something about a method where they freeze an organ (like the brain).. slice it into thin pieces than observe it with an electron microspope and that gives you the person on a subatomic level I guess? than all thats left is to recreate that on that level.....is that the process you meant was impossible?

2) On the topic of bypassing death, what if they just created the brain using the "black box" method? no need to understand it on quite such a detailed level...just observe how it affects the brain's electronic configurations... then start to build models..put them in people (we can use criminal's on death row as tests)

and refine the procedure gradually..

eager to hear your response..Roy

[scottkursk]

This is beyond fanciful.  It would be more than a million times easier simply to let you die and replace you with a new person.  Which is why it is done that way.

Given the level of technology now you're absolutely right. In the intermediate basis we'll be able to swap out organs, replace the occasional "bad" gene here and there to prevent genetic based illnesses, etc. But that's still quite a way off.

Nanotechnology is vastly overrated.  And performing surgery on a cell by cell basis over the whole body or even just the brain is impossible.

I'll agree with you there as well. It is overrated now and is impossible given the current level of technology we've got. But then the way the doctor rebuilt my leg after my rugby accident and managed to leave literally no scar whatsoever used to be totally a pipe dream a few years ago. Arthroscopic surgery and the electrostimulation are light years technologically from nanobots coursing through someone's veins attacking cancer cells. But still, 100 years from now we very may look at nanotech treatments the same way we look at someone getting scoped.

[GeddyWizard]

? no need to understand it on quite such a detailed level...just observe how it affects the brain's electronic configurations...

Oops... I meant to write.. how the brain affects the rest of the body's chemistry and to try to model artificial brains that do the same..and just keep tweaking this process...

the advantage here.. is not having to understand all the tiny details of the brain..just to

observe cause and effect and strive to replicate that.. the same way that

mental medications work.... no psychiatrist really knows the details..they just kept refining it.

[scottkursk]

mental medications work.... no psychiatrist really knows the details..they just kept refining it.

Check the labeling on SSRI's etc and you'll see that they say "we think what happens in the brain is XYZ and that is how it treats depression and anxiety by doing ABC but we really don't know." Mind you, in many cases the drugs do end up having an effect on people ranging from very therapeutic to zombification to downright negative. That is pretty much black boxing it which is amazing considering how much research they put into it.

Of course, that is ignoring the therapeutic advantages to rational cognitive therapy. But that is another topic entirely.