Immortality, would you take it?

Science & Technology Biosciences
41

Given that life is the standard of the Objectivist ethics, I am somewhat puzzled by the apparent ambivalence of some (presumably Objectivist) individuals on the incredible prospect of the indefinitely-continued successful achievement of precisely the ultimate end that all moral human action is directed toward.

Leaving aside the question of the metaphysical impossiblity of literal indestructibility, the interesting point here is that there is every reason to expect that, given an appropriate level of scientific advancement, human beings will be able to achieve practical immortality.

Great comments Sponge, I never cease to be amazed by the people who seek to find some value in death. I have participated in a few discussions on indefinate life spans on Rand inspired forums and am always in the voice of the minority, people almost always end up appealing to some form of “without death life has no meaning” etc, I think these psychological knee jerk reactions to philosophically accepting indefinate life spans are defense mechanisms which have come from the fact that for 90,000 years mankind has had to pyschologically deal with his own inevitable demise. A difficult thing so we make up all sorts of nonsense religions and philosophies, an ever lasting after life, convince yourself life has no value and so you wont be bothered by death (the Buddhist tactic) or even as a secular atheist convince yourself that you cant truly appreciate life without death looming over you, or something similiar.

Here are some of the conversations I have had with ‘Objectivists’ who want to die

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi…ns/1166.shtml#7

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Quotes/0859.shtml#0

http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ…amp;Thread=1166

And an ongoing one - http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in…ic=3586&hl=

I am glad to see on this forum that many people are accepting of the idea.

  • Michael

“…You must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes you desires away from your reach and drains your life out of your body.” - Ayn Rand

“The rapid progress true science now makes, occasions my regretting sometimes that I was born so soon. It is impossible to imagine the height to which may be carried, in a thousand years, the power of man over matter. We may perhaps learn to deprive large masses of their gravity, and give them absolute levity, for the sake of easy transport. Agriculture may diminish its labor and double its produce; all diseases may by sure means be prevented or cured, not excepting even that of old age, and our lives lengthened at pleasure even beyond the antediluvian standard."

“Your observations on the causes of death, and the experiments which you propose for recalling to life those who appear to be killed by lightning, demonstrate equally your sagacity and your humanity. It appears that the doctrines of life and death in general are yet but little understood. . . . I wish it were possible . . . to invent a method of embalming drowned persons, in such a manner that they may be recalled to life at any period, however distant; for having a very ardent desire to see and observe the state of America a hundred years hence, I should prefer to any ordinary death, the being immersed in a cask of Madeira wine, with a few friends, till that time, to be then recalled to life by the solar warmth of my dear country. But . . . in all probability we live in an age too early and too near the infancy of science, to hope to see [such] an art brought in our time to its perfection. . . .”

  • Benjamin Franklin
42

Yeah, but seriously, how do you decide if it’s worth living? In the context of a being which exists regardless of his efforts, where you can’t die, what is the meaning of “worth it”?

What is the purpose of ignoring the distinction between indefinitely long life and literal indestructibility? The actual issue raised by this thread, and the only one relevant to human life in reality is the potential for achieving, through technology, indefinitely long lifespans. That is simply not an issue with any resemblance to Ayn Rand’s indestructible robot.

I find it completely astounding that some individuals seem to have conluded that if the alternative between life and death is the ultimate basis of human values, then the actual failure to meet that standard, the actual occurance of the complete annhilation of all your values is somehow necessary to make them values in the first place. That is spectacularly fallacious.

The point of an ultimate end is to achieve it. The fact that the potential to fail to bring about that end is what necessitates a code of values to guide your actions does not mean that you therefore should fail at your acheiving that end. It means precisely the opposite–you should always acheive it.

If the highest moral purpose of your actions is to ensure the continued existence of a life proper to a rational being, then how, at some arbitrary number of years in the future, will it suddenly become desirable to extinguish that life?

A good general rule is that when you start sounding like Leon Kass you should check your premises. “Finitude” (i.e. a short lifespan) is not a value.

And the idea that you’d “get tired” or bored and simply give up after a few centuries is one of the most apathetic, unambitious, passionless, unimaginative statements of pathological ennui that I can conceive of. It represents a seriously impoverished view of the future that is possible if a rational philosophy takes hold, of the values that one could potentially pursue and create given a radically advanced state of science, and of the phenomenal extent of the human potential. More often than not, simply to make the claim is indicative of a lackluster sense of life and an inert mind.

It’s often been said that in the scenario of longer lifespans, only boring people will get bored…

For the record, I certainly don’t think that anyone who ever makes this claim is boring, etc., but I do think they haven’t thought the matter through or considered its nihilistic implications.

These attitudes have life or death consequences for all of us, because their prevelance in the general population contributes to the widespread indifference or outright hostility toward the incredible promise of aging research. But whether such research will go ahead with sufficient funding, and whether it will escape being stifled, through the force of the state, by its many ideological enemies has real bearing on whether we will see any practical benefit from it in our own lifetimes.

1 Like
43

Great comments Sponge, I never cease to be amazed by the people who seek to find some value in death.

I’m not suggesting that you haven’t had conversations with people who seek to find some value in death, but I think the viewpoint may not be that death has value, but that death is what gives life it’s value. You and bobsponge may certainly disagree, but I think I understand why life would lose it’s value when it has no alternative, when the choices one makes truly can be inconsequential.

To be clear, I am not questioning anyone’s conceptual capability here, as mine could be equally flawed in what I’m about to say as well. My concern about the immortality position of the “yes” people is that they are only speaking from a perspective of fantasy. As we examine the question “would you want to live forever”, we do so from a whole lifes worth of perspective and experience that that will not be the case. I’m not sure that I would trust the imagination in saying “yea that would be great.” Actually being immortal is so far outside of our existences frame of reference that I think at best any answer is just wild speculation. Thus, I make my decision based on the frame of reference I know, the one that reality dictates. Saying that I don’t want to die is not saying the same thing as saying I want to live forever. It’s not valuing death, it is recognizing how death makes choice valuable and purposeful. It’s a recognition that there not are endless options of “do-overs”.

44

What is the purpose of ignoring the distinction between indefinitely long life and literal indestructibility?

What is your evidence that I have ignored that distinction? Are you speaking of the problem of “context”, whereby knowledge and statements or questions about knowledge occur in a context and not, say, in a vacuum?

The actual issue raised by this thread, and the only one relevant to human life in reality is the potential for achieving, through technology, indefinitely long lifespans.

Huh. Your comment is simply irrelevant, in that the actual immortality and indestructability issue is at the heart of the question. Please note the number of posts that explicitly acknowledge the difference between staving off body degeneration versus bizarro immortality type claims. Insofar as there is insufficient evidence that all participants grasp the relevant distinctions, it is entirely appropropriate to emphasize the relevant facts. The most relevant fact is that the concept of “value” is possible only because of life, and the fact that it is not metaphysically given and immutable. It seems to me that you misunderstand the importance of Rand’s indestructible robot point.

I find it completely astounding that some individuals seem to have conluded that if the alternative between life and death is the ultimate basis of human values, then the actual failure to meet that standard, the actual occurance of the complete annhilation of all your values is somehow necessary to make them values in the first place. That is spectacularly fallacious.

I’m unaware of any examples of that fallacious reasoning. Please provide a reference to the claim you’re making, as well as a defense of your assertion that the reasoning is fallacious (I wouldn’t even care if it were “mildly fallacious” rather than, as you claim “spectacularly fallacious”). Were I in the mood to engages in utterly irrational rationalizations, I would say that your statement is utterly fallacious. However, I am not that kind of guy, so I would certainly not say such a thing.

Can I then assume that you reject Rand’s robot argument? I admit that it’s one of the more difficult arguments of Objectivism.

I didn’t reply to the rest of your comments, since they had no perceptible relationship to anything I’ve said, so I assume you were simply using your post as a springboard for addressing other aspects of the world which upset you, and that you weren’t suggesting that I had some relation to those comments.

45

but that death is what gives life it’s value. … but I think I understand why life would lose it’s value when it has no alternative, when the choices one makes truly can be inconsequential

As we examine the question “would you want to live forever”, we do so from a whole lifes worth of perspective and experience that that will not be the case.

But think about that statement. Why does *death* (the opposite of life, the opposite of existence) bring more value to life? Also, there will always be an alternative, you can *always* choose to cease existing. So it’s not fair at all to form the question as if it is a sentance to be forced to exist fore-ever, that will never be the case and is not a physical possibility. It’s more accurate to form the question as “would you like to have the choice to NOT die?” becasue eventually we may very well have that choice. Most people use the death brings more value to life justification in the same manner that they would say you dont really know how good something is until you lose it, that to truly enjoy freedom you have to be enslaved, etc. But all of these other examples presume you are subjectively comparing the two states, that of having the thing and not having it, but you need to be alife in order to make this comparison. You cant do that with death, you simply cease to exist. In light of that, can you try to convey why you feel that the possibility of death makes your life have more value? And why the the option of living indefinately would make you feel like life was of a lesser value? I have difficult wrapping my head around that attitude.

“would you want to live forever” is not a fair question because it implies that if you answer yes, at this instant, you will in fact definately live *forever* (even if you spent eternity floating in a black void) A better question, and more accurate, is to say “would you always want to have the option to keep living the next instant”

46

Why does *death* (the opposite of life, the opposite of existence) bring more value to life?

Can we start with smaller and more specific questions: what do you mean by “value”, and what is the standard for measuring value? What distinguishes “positive value” from “disvalue”? I know you may think it is unfair to ask this question, but it would also be unfair if you failed to answer the question, and it was equally unfair of you to raised the fairness issue, so achieve fairness stalement, you have to at least answer this question (or admit that Vern’s question is not unfair). I really want an answer to the implication that talking about “value” apart from life and the possibility of its negation is at all sensible, so I hope you won’t just say “I retract my unfair question”. Yah know?

47

Does the fact that my car can get stolen raise the value of having it? No. My car is valuble because it takes me where I want to go and gives me freedom. Does the fact that I can lose my life raise the value of living it? no.

48

My car is valuble because it takes me where I want to go and gives me freedom.

You’re confused about the ultimate source of value. The fact that your car take you where you want to go and gives you freedom isn’t a rational standard of value – that’s really the whim-worshipper’s standard. You can perhaps justify the car in terms of a short-term goal, namely the transportation function (sorry, I think the “give me freedom” argument is a complete non-starter except from the libertarian “freedom is the only moral absolute” perspective), but is “going where you want to go” really the ultimate moral measuring stick for you?

Please, directly answer the question – acording to you, why is life intrinsically valuable? Alternatively, explain what your ultimate (final, irreducible) standard of value is. Especially in light of the fact that value for men only makes sense in terms of evaluating choices. What does it mean to evaluate a choice when the choice is metaphysically irrelevant? I think that you’ll find that the concept of value only makes sense when there is a choice, meaning a mental discriminations between actions which relate to your ultimate purpose. If you cannot affect the outcome, then you have no rational basis for preferring one action over another, in terms of its efficacy in realizing that goal.

49

Can we start with smaller and more specific questions: what do you mean by “value”, and what is the standard for measuring value? What distinguishes “positive value” from “disvalue”?

What do you mean by “value” do you think that death adds value to life or not? Regardless of whether I know your definition of value, you either agree with this statement (according to your own definition) or you do not?

What is the definition of “value” What is Rand’s Definition- Something that we seek to acquire or perpetuate? That seems a limited definition to me. Something of ‘worth’ to us, something ‘useful’ to us? The most important things to us that we strive to acquire or keep? If you have an answer to the above question, you must also have a working definition of “value” Feel free to share it.

50

But think about that statement.

The assumption here is that I haven’t thought about the statement when in fact I have. And it doesn’t bring “more” value to life, it establishes that life has value to begin with. If you reject that life is the ultimate source of value, that’s fine with me, I have no qualms about that. But if you do then you must think about what that entails. I’m not assuming you haven’t thought about, I just don’t know what your standard of value is.

However, I don’t think you have invalidate my main opposition. You can only evaluate the question of immortality from the perspective of someone who doesn’t have it. Your entire frame of reference is centered around the inescapeable fact that you will die.

51

The assumption here is that I haven’t thought about the statement when in fact I have. And it doesn’t bring “more” value to life, it establishes that life has value to begin with. If you reject that life is the ultimate source of value, that’s fine with me, I have no qualms about that. But if you do then you must think about what that entails. I’m not assuming you haven’t thought about, I just don’t know what your standard of value is.

However, I don’t think you have invalidate my main opposition. You can only evaluate the question of immortality from the perspective of someone who doesn’t have it. Your entire frame of reference is centered around the inescapeable fact that you will die.

Life is not the ultimate source of value, i dont think anyone here actually feels that way, it is a pre-requisite however to having values and pursuing them, life is the mechanism by which that is accomplished. Consider the obvious example of Galt threatening to kill himself for Dagny. Clearly the mechanistic perpetution of the molecular process of life is not our highest value, because that implies we might betray everything else we value (friends, family, loved ones) in order to perpetuate that value, it means you are nothing but a non sentient process. My life is important to me because it allows me to pursue every other value, but I can recognize values may be perpetuated beyond my own existence. I would not choose to live in a perpetual state of tortue nor betray another thing I value very highly in order to merely ensure the perpetuation of the mechnistic process of life. Clearly you can value things more than life, but life must damn well be pretty high up there. Clearly, even for objectivist, life is not the *only* standard by which you judge the value of things, else you would immediately devolve into a nietzschean exploiter.

An indefinate life span would allow me to indefinately persue the things which I value, such as knowledge, heatlh and well being for the people I care about, intellectually or emotionally stimulating experiences, etc. Giving up all of those things in order to perpetuate the mechnistic process of life is a non-starter. Simaltaneouslly asserting the threat of life ending makes those things have more value is silly.

Again you should drop the use of the term “immortality” it is a metaphysical impossibility and has a whole plethora of baggage with it that is irrelevant (witness the desire to still have the choice to die) no real mechnism of achieving indefinate life spans will take away from you the option to die, you must still create and perpetuate purpose in your life, you must still make for yourself a life you actually desire to live.

52

What is the definition of “value”

Okay, I see what there problem is here. Rand lays the groundwork in “The Objectivist Ethics”, so if you are not familiar with Rand’s writings, that’s the essay of hers that I suggest starting with. Tara Smith in her book Viable Values then expands on that foundation, and I very highly recomment that work as an excellent statement of the relationship between life and value. I own Professor Smith very much for her expression “morgue avoidance” which dramatically clarifies the issued.

53

You’re confused about the ultimate source of value. The fact that your car take you where you want to go and gives you freedom isn’t a rational standard of value – that’s really the whim-worshipper’s standard. You can perhaps justify the car in terms of a short-term goal, namely the transportation function (sorry, I think the “give me freedom” argument is a complete non-starter except from the libertarian “freedom is the only moral absolute” perspective), but is “going where you want to go” really the ultimate moral measuring stick for you?

Please, directly answer the question – acording to you, why is life intrinsically valuable? Alternatively, explain what your ultimate (final, irreducible) standard of value is. Especially in light of the fact that value for men only makes sense in terms of evaluating choices. What does it mean to evaluate a choice when the choice is metaphysically irrelevant? I think that you’ll find that the concept of value only makes sense when there is a choice, meaning a mental discriminations between actions which relate to your ultimate purpose. If you cannot affect the outcome, then you have no rational basis for preferring one action over another, in terms of its efficacy in realizing that goal.

The poster was clearly giving some concrete examples why taking something away doesnt make it have more value to them. What is your ultimate source of value? Your life? As I said to Rational Biker, that implies that you would do absolutely anything and everything to merely perpetuate the mechanistic process of life, disregarding friend, family, loved ones, etc, if necessary, you would immediately devolve into a nietschean exploiter of persons. Also you would direct all of your time and money and efforts toward defeating aging and death, because nothing else is of higher value than your life, are you doing that? What is the goal that operates as your ultimate standard of value? Wealth? Health? Why? Because these things perpetuate the material ability to pursue the things you derive joy from. Can you explicitly state what your ultimate purpose is here on this forum and explain why an indefinate lifespan operates in contradiction to that? I assume you are leading us to the point that once your ultimate purpose is fulfilled, that your life would be meaningless? If so, why have any goals at all? Since achiving them would rob your life of value.

Okay, I see what there problem is here. Rand lays the groundwork in “The Objectivist Ethics”, so if you are not familiar with Rand’s writings, that’s the essay of hers that I suggest starting with. Tara Smith in her book Viable Values then expands on that foundation, and I very highly recomment that work as an excellent statement of the relationship between life and value. I own Professor Smith very much for her expression “morgue avoidance” which dramatically clarifies the issued.

What is your definition of Value?

54

Your life? As I said to Rational Biker, that implies that you would do absolutely anything and everything to merely perpetuate the mechanistic process of life, disregarding friend, family, loved ones, etc, if necessary, you would immediately devolve into a nietschean exploiter of persons.

Taking out of context everything else Objectivism builds on that, yes it might imply that. However, I’m speaking from the point of view of Objectivism, which is the focus of this forum, where that is distinctly not the case.

Aside from that, this argument really isn’t anything I’m going to invest a lot of time in. What we are discussing is fantasy and I’m concerned with reality. I have no real stake in persuading anyone else anyway. You guys can be shocked, surprised, and astounded the opposing position if you so choose.

55

Almost all of us here being athiests, the afterlife to us would be absolute oblivion; nothing, not even knowing of it (after death). In my opinion agonizing terror would be better than oblivion. When we die, ALL will be finished for us, Immortality (or no old age-death) would a no-brainer…

Lifee would be what you made of it, but that’s how it is already right? :thumbsup:

death giving life value?! It might give it a little more value, in that you would only have a limited time to cherish it, but without death there is more time to cherish, and more security. Hell, death isn’t a finish line, your goals are the finish lines, death is your disqualification from the “race.”

(this analogy can go pretty damn far…)

56

In my opinion agonizing terror would be better than oblivion.

I have to ask, how long do you think you would exist in a constant state of agnoizing terror? And by “you” I mean body and mind.

I have to admit, if I was interested in persuading anyone, this argument would be impossible to defeat no matter how reasonable the counter-argument. If you really believe your mind is strong enough to defeat a constant state of torture and agony and whatever in order to avoid “nothingness”, more power to you.

I’ll pass.

57

Taking out of context everything else Objectivism builds on that, yes it might imply that. However, I’m speaking from the point of view of Objectivism, which is the focus of this forum, where that is distinctly not the case.

Aside from that, this argument really isn’t anything I’m going to invest a lot of time in. What we are discussing is fantasy and I’m concerned with reality. I have no real stake in persuading anyone else anyway. You guys can be shocked, surprised, and astounded the opposing position if you so choose.

That’s an entirely reasonable judgement call for you to make and I respect that, my principle point though is that most people, even secular educated people, still strive to find some value in death in some twisted way or another, and are thus philosophically opposed to indefinate life spans. It’s one thing to acknowledge you’d prefer an indefinate life span but do not see pursuing it as a worthwhile cause, its entirely different thing for a person to fool themselves into believing they actually want to die, so they won’t be upset at the prospect and the realization of the full finality of the death of their friends and loved ones. We stand, possibly, on the technological cusp of an entirely different age of humanity, if humanity had actively pursued eradicating aging explicitly we likely would have all ready conquered it by now, but the fact that most people philosophically accept death obviously undermines any rational effort to combat aging and death in general. Most people oppose not only indefinate life spans for themselves, but for others as well.

58

For the record, I would like to sharply distinguish myself from those arguing for “immortality” on the basis of disagreement with or lack of understanding of Ayn Rand’s crucial, historic identification of life as the ultimate standard of value. This is the most fundamental and important of her many contributions to the field of ethics, and I am not interested in debating this point. The “indestructible robot” was a thought experiment designed to demonstrate that it is only the fact that we, as living beings, face an alternative between existence and non-existence that necessitates our taking only those actions that, given our identity and the nature of reality, will lead to the maintenance of a life proper to a rational being. Given the choice to live, that which supports the life of the individual is the good, that which destroys it is the evil.

The moral ideal is to live. And as long as you continue to exist, you will always face the fundamental alternative of life or death, and life will always be the ultimate end to be achieved. It follows from this fact that you should always continue to live (disregarding the side-issue of rare cases where continued life is actually intolerable).

Morality will not expire. The fact that you will have been around for a long time will not somehow negate your nature as a living entity and suddenly make death instead of life the goal of ethics.

In other words, achieving an indefinitely long and happy life is precisely the ultimate fulfillment of the Objectivist standard of value.

Achieving a state in which the risk of death is negligible and the expected lifespan is indefinite would not, by some contortion of logic, contradict the source of values and render happiness impossible.

This is akin to the idea that for a rich person, productive work could no longer be a value because he doesn’t face the alternative of providing enough material goods or not any longer. Just as the overabundance of the values produced by productive work does not contradict the virtue of productiveness but is precisely the successful implementation of it–so too the “overabundance” of life itself is not a threat to the source of values but is rather the extraordinary and enduring acheivement of all your values.

That we could die is the fact of reality that gives rise to the phenomenon of value.

That we should die at some point in the future, after an arbitrary length of time has elapsed, is a sick and nihilistic view that only an utter rationalist could somehow extract from a sophomoric reading of Objectivism. The Objectivist ethics holds precisely that we should not die.

The possibility of death is the reason we need a morality–to enable us to live. This view that the actual occurance of death is desirable is radically opposed to the Objectivist theory of value on a fundamental level. Should anyone be under the impression that they are somehow defending Ayn Rand’s morality of life on this earth by upholding this rampant deathism, they are grossly mistaken.

To repeat a crucial point–this question is of life or death importance because we are now at the threshold of the scientific conquest of aging. But whether the current scientific investigation of the aging process translates–in our lifetimes–into practical technological interventions allowing us to extend our lives is still very much in question. This research needs to be pursued, advanced, or supported vigorously by every individual with a stake in remaining on this earth for as long as they choose.

So the question of the propriety of seeking to radically extend the human lifespan is essential in determining whether and to what extent this research is pursued–and whether it will be stifled by its many philosophical opponents, thereby definitively ensuring all of our woefully imminent deaths.

It is only Objectivism that provides the full ethical validation for the individual’s right to support and advance his own life, and it is only on this basis that the spectacular promise of modern biomedical science will be realized.

59

That we should die at some point in the future, after an arbitrary length of time has elapsed, is a sick and nihilistic view that only an utter rationalist could somehow extract from a sophomoric reading of Objectivism.

(snip)

This view that the actual occurance of death is desirable is radically opposed to the Objectivist theory of value on a fundamental level.

If these comments are directed to anyone in particular in this thread, it would be fair to clarify to whom they are directed. To my knowledge no one has advanced these as arguments or ideas so you are attacking a strawman here.

If anything, the statements made are that we will die after an indeterminable (as opposed to arbitrary) amount of time. There is a 100% historical probability of that. When something happens to significantly alter that fact, perhaps we will have a new perspective under which to examine these the morality of near immortality.

60

What is your definition of Value?

My definition of value is “that which one acts to keep or gain”, which presupposes “for something”. Value implies choice – alternatives. Is any of this wording familiar? I’ve taken it from “The Objectivist Ethics”.

Can you explicitly state what your ultimate purpose is here on this forum and explain why an indefinate lifespan operates in contradiction to that?

My ultimate choice is to exist (which then implies certain things, such as “living qua man”). If existence is guaranteed and actions cannot be judged according to their effect on realizing that goal, the notion “acting to keep or gain” is meaningless, because you have existence already, and you keep it regardless of how you act. Immortality contradicts the concept of value, by negating choice.