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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Seriously though, is there a good web article about this, which you would recommend?