My life is my ultimate measure of all value, without it I can not value.
My life is terminable, when life is gone, nothing else is possible.
To continue valuing, I must endeavor to make my life interminable.
So why isn’t everyone out there searching for the “fountain of youth”?
My life is my ultimate measure of all value, without it I can not value.
My life is terminable, when life is gone, nothing else is possible.
To continue valuing, I must endeavor to make my life interminable.
So why isn’t everyone out there searching for the “fountain of youth”?
I’m too busy enjoying life right now.
Yes, but that life will end, wouldn’t it be preferrable for it to go on?
Think of it as a wager:
If I work really hard at extending my life I will be able to enjoy it that much more
If I don’t try to extend life I will die
The parameters of this wager are how long you could extend life and what toll it will take on you if you try and fail.
I believe that you could indefinitely (or nearly so) extend your life based on scientific evidence.
I do not know whether this goal is achievable in my lifetime.
Quite a dilemma, but one in which you have everything to gain and everything to lose.
How does the quest for immortality fit in with the Objectivist ethics? If life is the standard of value, doesn’t it make sense that the preservation of that life would be a culture’s main objectives? Imagine that tommorrow somehow the world was fully Objectivist. Wouldn’t biological immortality be one of the chief focuses of business and science? Would thouroughly rational people voluntarily accept death? I really can’t believe that.
This is why I feel that one of the by-products of an Objectivist society would by at the least incredible longevity and more likely immortality. Something else we are fighting for. I sometimes wish that the fight for longevity/immortality could be used as one of the “sales pitches” of Objectivism. But I know that would make us appear like wackos. Unfortunately, immortality has been in the hands of the mystics forever. A rational, scientific approach would seem alien to the overwhelming majority of the culture.
I agree with you, but I’m not asking as a mere point of philosophy, but on a personal level, why you, or anyone, doesn’t take it on themselves to increase their lifetime if that is what is most important.
First of all, I do endeavor to prolong my life by treating my health, eating right, not smoking, taking vitamines and minerals, etc.
But it is important not to hurt the quality of life in the quest to increase the quantity, or length, of it.
Also - as to your philosophical point: I have to point out that life alone is not the source of values. That life IS terminable is that source.
If you were a God, who needed nothing to remain alive, nothing to improve your life - and nothing could endanger this status - you will be completely ammoral. You will not need any principles to guide your actions. What for? Your situation could not get better or worse.
Food will just become a mindless indulgence, when nutrition is gone. Work will be just a way to “kill time”, when you have no time limit, no financial goals. Everything will lose it’s meaning and significance.
Fortunately - this is impossible. Man can NEVER become in principle indestructible. You will always have to maintain your life, and your goal oriented approach.
Again, I agree with the points made, and yes, it shoudl have been stated that the difference between life and death is the reason life has meaning. However, once again, I must ask the personal question of why we, by and large, have not taken greater steps to improve our natural lifespan. Perhaps it is not apparent that death is a completely avoidable event with the correct material precautions, and that these are not investigated nearly enough among we who value lives so much. Cryogenics is a laughable field currently, but its end goal, that extension of life will be possible or could be soon, does not seem to attract enough attention or support. If we really analyze the cause of death to be the cessation of neural activity, does this not seem like a simple problem to solve?
Not everyone has to become a scientist developing anti-aging techniques, for the same reason not everyone has to be a great writer to write life-affirming novels, or be a farmer growing the best food, or be an astronaut discovering uncharted planets.
To continue valuing, I must endeavor to make my life interminable.
I’d prefer not to look at life as something that is simply gone when I die. Rather, it is best for me to continue to become my ultimate self and in so doing what influence do I have on those I love and value? (not necessarily a question anyone can answer for anyone else - but answer for our-selves)
First of all, I do endeavor to prolong my life by treating my health, eating right, not smoking, taking vitamines and minerals, etc.
But it is important not to hurt the quality of life in the quest to increase the quantity, or length, of it.
Also - as to your philosophical point: I have to point out that life alone is not the source of values. That life IS terminable is that source.
If you were a God, who needed nothing to remain alive, nothing to improve your life - and nothing could endanger this status - you will be completely ammoral. You will not need any principles to guide your actions. What for? Your situation could not get better or worse.
Food will just become a mindless indulgence, when nutrition is gone. Work will be just a way to “kill time”, when you have no time limit, no financial goals. Everything will lose it’s meaning and significance.
Fortunately - this is impossible. Man can NEVER become in principle indestructible. You will always have to maintain your life, and your goal oriented approach.
I completely disagree with this and consider this an ancient worldview. No disrespect intended as I value all your other contributions. But the view you just described was the way the ancient Greeks viewed their gods. The gods were “undying” and this was the main distinguishing characteristic b/w gods and men. B/c gods could not die they could not know courage or fear. The Greeks considered their mortality as the essence of what made them human. Now this was fine for 2500 years ago but in light of modern philosophy and science I consider it outdated.
I do not think that immortality would destroy mankind’s purpose and his meaning. Think about what you are saying. Its almost like an environmentalist argument. Imagine tommorrow that a sceintist discovers a way to achieve immortality. You would make it seem that this man was a destroyer of man’s soul. In fact that is almost always the way science fiction depicts immortality; as a destructive goal that robs mankind of his humanity. And further, that is the way that the moderns view bio engineering. Read Alex Epstein’s article in the TIA for the current views on bio-ethics. He was not talking about immortality per se. But what else could be the possible end of bio-engineering?
As for indestructability. I don’t think immortality means indestructability. People could still die or be hurt. Immortality could take many forms; transferring intelligence and memmory into a new cloned body for example. Were not talking about Ayn Rand’s indestructable robot with no values here. Were just imagining a time when men stop the aging process and find a way to perpetuate youthful, strong bodies and minds.
I don’t know about you, but to me that is one of the greatest accomplishments men could achieve. I don’t relish dying and I don’t consider it some honor for a life well lived. Dying will probably be looked upon by some future society as the inevitable consequence of a culture that worshiped death. I would argue that in a fully Objectivist culture people would not die. It just makes no damn sense. Remember Ayn Rand’s passage from Atlas where she says the circle is the shape of nature whereas the straight line is the mark of man. A rational culture would spit at the “circle of life.”
Forgive me for taking a position which is controversial even for Objectivists but I’m passionate in my hatred for death.
Yes, but that life will end, wouldn’t it be preferrable for it to go on?
Sure, and you do whatever you reasonably can to extend your life as much as possible. But, looking for your “fountain of youth” is not the answer. Real scientists are engaged in expanding our knowledge of life and death, but that is science, not some mythical “fountain of youth.”
By fountain of youth I don’t mean Ponce de Leon’s object but rather the key element which causes death, and means of avoiding it. To my understanding this is the cessastion of the mind or brain, and thus to preserve life the brain must simply be preserved.
Erandror, you say that everyone doesn’t have to be one profession, but I’m not speaking of merely a profession, I’m speaking of a way of life. If the utmost value comes from life then a fool would be someone who would give that up willingly. When you are about to die, you will not be able to turn to the scientists developing their techniques and say “Why haven’t you saved my life?”. Either tell me that the pursuit of extended life is unfeasible at this time or explain to me why you don’t like life enough to make its extension yoru primary goal.
Argive99,
Note that I did not say that man shouldn’t strive for the longest possible lifespan, including an indefinite lifespan. What I WAS getting at was that values are possible only while life must be maintained by choice and action.
If nothing you could do can hurt your life in any way - then you have no basis for morality. The ancients were right at that, and Ayn Rand herself spoke of this in The Virtue of Selfishness. The source of all value is life, which must be continuously maintained.
If life were a permanent, unchanging fact, like it was for the Greek gods, then all forms of morality become arbitrary.
In human beings, even if we can solve every medical problem - we remain basically mortal. Destructible. We have to keep maintaining life: eat properly, work out, work to maintain constant income, learning new things, taking care of our health. If we stopped doing these things, stopped valuing - we would die.
The Gods of Greece simply COULD NOT die. They could not CHOOSE to die. They didn’t need principles for living, because living was the given, automatic, unchangeable fact. They just did whatever amused them.
By fountain of youth I don’t mean Ponce de Leon’s object but rather the key element which causes death, and means of avoiding it.
But the average person is ill-equipped to do anything scientific, other than follow the advice of those who are knowledgeable. So, as a division of labor, they do what they do best and they leave the scientific research into life extension to the scientists who work in that field. Do you have a better suggestion?
The Gods of Greece simply COULD NOT die. They could not CHOOSE to die. They didn’t need principles for living, because living was the given, automatic, unchangeable fact. They just did whatever amused them.
I absolutely agree with you here. I am arguing in essence that immortality doesn’t mean that mankind will become constant and unchanging or that it will never need to maintain its values. To the contrary, mankind will always need to at least understand all the requirements for immortality and never forget them. I think that there is this view that an immortal life means sitting in the clouds doing nothing all day. Its almost understandable that people have that view because that’s largely the view offered by religion. I would think that immortal beings would constantly expand their knowledge, their mastery of the universe and their love of life. I see no reason why this would lead to the lack of values. Again, if life is the standard of value, its preservation should be of paramount concern.
How could immortality not be the eventual agenda for science and technology. Think about it. If scientists could expand our lifespans tommorrow to 150 years, they would. Then, when 150 years became too little (when people craved more life), science and business would double the lifespan to 300; then 600, 1200, etc, etc.. Could it be that at some point, people will willingly say “no, that’s enough life for me. I think that I’ll try this death thing.”
Immortality has to be in the cards for a fully rational culture. For the life of me, I can’t see how it could be otherwise.
I am arguing in essence that immortality doesn’t mean that mankind will become constant and unchanging or that it will never need to maintain its values. To the contrary, mankind will always need to at least understand all the requirements for immortality and never forget them.
Then what you really mean is life extension, not immortality.
Then what you really mean is life extension, not immortality.
I guess you could call it “perpetual life extension” as “immortality” has such baggage attached to it. Maybe that would lessen the resistance to it.
But anyway you slice it, 70-100 years is just too damn short!
"I am arguing in essence that immortality doesn’t mean that mankind will become constant and unchanging or that it will never need to maintain its values. To the contrary, mankind will always need to at least understand all the requirements for immortality and never forget them. "
I agree. Achieving immortality in itself would initiate change. It makes me think of the book Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, in which our species populates Mars about the same time that scientists find a way to stop aging in it’s track. In the book, over-population has already become an issue, but within a few years of the anti-aging “vaccination”, the problem has reached astounding proportions.
Extending the human life span would unavoidably create a serious population problem. This in turn would accelerate the movement and neccessity to populate other planets/space. All of those people will have to go somewhere. Populating space in itself seriously challenges our values (raising ethical questions regarding our impact on other planets) and brings into question the very structure of our race.
There are so many of us, and to extend our lives would be a considerable change to our overall “system”. The system would naturally seek equilibrium, and reach a dynamic equilibrium, in which the only constant is change. (One change in turn invites another - a little Butterfly Effect hoo ha).
But then again, I’m a newbie and it’s late. I just stumbled in here, and you folks have set my mind on fire - I love this place.
Humbly,
Sabine
I remember a similar story in Vonnegut’s “Welcome to the Monkey House” in which people can live forever by continually drinking an elixir. This carries on for so long that people forget how bad death is and encourage the older member of their family to “move on” and stop taking the tonic so that the younger may enjoy more space on the terribly overcrowded earth. It illustrates the point that without constant reminder of the reality and essence of death, immortality would be easily fallen out of. To be truely immortal would be impossible because their is, or seems to be, the continual requirement to decide to live and not to die.
Then again, I imagine a terrible punishment would be to be kept forever alive without freedom to end life, having your ability to freely exist removed.
If you were a God, who needed nothing to remain alive, nothing to improve your life - and nothing could endanger this status - you will be completely ammoral. You will not need any principles to guide your actions. What for? Your situation could not get better or worse.
Food will just become a mindless indulgence, when nutrition is gone. Work will be just a way to “kill time”, when you have no time limit, no financial goals. Everything will lose it’s meaning
I dont think I buy this, and it seems to run contrary to Objectivism. The purpose of man’s goal directed actions is not just his survival, but his happyness - there is far more to the life of a rational entity than just the mere sustainment of its existence. Just because an immortal would have no physical needs (in the sense of maintaining its life) does not mean that it would have no psychological needs - the motivation to perform actions to increase its happyness should still be there.
As an example, consider someone who inherits 500 million dollars at a young age. This person has no ‘life sustaining’ need to work or produce for the remainder of his existence - he has more money than he will ever be able to spend. The concept of ‘maintaining his life’ simply does not apply here - this person has all the food, shelter, security and medical aid that money can buy. If your argument were correct, there would be no need for this heir to be productive, and he would just spend his days snorting cocaine off the bellies of hookers. In reality, this is obviously not the case. Why?