rainbow walking

Hi, Ryanfire and I are putting together a website on the subject of Indefinite Life. We got the idea from a discussion with Dave Matthews where the subject was hotly debated. Here is the opening paragraphs to the site:

WHY MUST WE DIE?

That question, which is the title of this website, spawns within us some of the most intense emotional and mentally exhausting anguish, culminating in such a subtle, yet pervasive dread, that we are driven to seek an answer and end up embracing a sedative in order to carry on with our daily lives. Being confronted by one’s own mortality is perhaps the major milestone of ones maturity. But HAS THE question BEEN ADEQUATELY answered OR FULLY EXPLORED?

The first step, the crucial step, in every persons thought processes APPEARS TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO accept death as the inevitable consequence of life. From this point forward one is pushed towards the adoption of one of two worldviews: Theism or atheism.

theistic worldviews insulate the mind from the nagging pressure of ones mortality by presenting death as nothing more than a doorway to eternal rewards or punishment.

atheistic worldviews insulate the mind with a more subtle approach that encourages one to embrace death as a motivation to live ones life more aggressively or to embrace death as a welcome respite to a life well lived.

The theist wonders how an atheist can live without the promise of eternal life and the atheist wonders how the theist can live with such a promise WHERE no proof EXISTS that it is genuine.

But why must we accept death as the inevitable consequence of life? What if the insulation provided by these worldviews is actually engendering an improper attitude towards the question? Let’s explore the possibilities.

There are only seven categories of death producing events. Let’s list them in the order of statistical frequency in which they actually result in death:

1. disease

2. old age

3. Accident

4. war

5. murder

6. suicide

7. natural catastrophe

Categorizing death producing events in this way allows us to realize that only 2 and 7 appear to be outside our ability to regulate. Accidents CAN be prevented. War, murder and suicide are a result of human choices. Only old age and natural catastrophes are currently outside our realm of control. Some diseases remain untouchable but great strides are being made in this area.

But first let’s examine the more obvious objections to Indefinite Life. Proponents of both worldviews are likely to respond that our reasoning is erroneous, citing the following objections:

1. Death is a 100% observable consequent across the board. No one has ever been observed to live indefinitely. It’s an impossibility.

Our response: So what? Flying, walking on the moon and heart transplants are a recent phenomena of human pursuits that were once considered impossible as well.

2. Without death the world would quickly become over-populated.

Our response: With proper focus and effort population levels can be maintained. With proper application of scientific pursuit, space travel can open up new vistas for human populations. If life could be extended indefinitely, space travel over great distances, taking long stretches of time, would be far less problematic. Is there any person alive today who would willingly die just to make room for a newborn?

3. Most people wouldn’t want to live indefinitely anyway because of the complications involved in aging.

Our Response: This would be true if indefinite life meant a continual physiological aging. But if the biological clock could be manipulated to stop or slow down to a fraction of its current pace, at the prime of ones life, these problems would vanish. A person needn’t be locked into indefinite life anyway. If the biological clock can be stopped it should also be possible for it to be started up again.

4. Even if we shifted the focus of our worldviews to make indefinite life a serious goal, it isn’t likely we will see any benefits in our lifetime so what’s the use?

Our Response: This is, perhaps, the most difficult question. What’s in it for me? Several good responses come to mind:

(A.) All current political, economic, education and philosophical human endeavors are geared around the inevitability of death and focus primarily on facilitating more productive lifestyles. While this is a worthy goal in itself, it hasn’t resolved many of the problems that ultimately lead to some of the primary causes of death listed above like murder, war or suicide. Other than music, the language of death is probably the most universal language understood by every human alive today. A political, economic, educational, philosophic paradigm that makes the conquest of death its primary goal would find few objectors among the human population. Who could resist? Why would they? If properly demonstrated, the conquest of death can become the world unifying factor that offers a universal axiomatic flag to rally all nations, religions or lack of, economies and philosophies.

(B.) The conquest of death would be the perfect balance between altruism and science offering every individual, regardless of circumstance, a hope of something better for humanity than this plateau of change and conflict that currently dominates our lives and choices. I can think of no better remedy to apathy and nihilism than a very real hope that humanity has a chance to extend its personal survival indefinitely.

5. A theist might object on the basis of eternal life as a major cornerstone of his or her faith.

Our Response: Indefinite Life is not to be confused with eternal life. This site is not promoting the idea of a naturalistic eternal life. Indefinite life is not a new philosophy. All of us live today in the shadow of death with a probabilistic lifespan of less than a hundred years. In this respect we are born into an indefinite lifespan. The Indefinite Life we are promoting is essentially a large increase to the current indefinite lifespan, so there shouldn’t be any conflict with a believers eternal life doctrines. In the Old Testament of the Christians and Jews bible the first men mentioned lived natural lives close to a thousand years. In the New Testament it is mentioned that death is the last enemy to be destroyed, (1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.) I can see no theological justification against extending life indefinitely. In order to deny the viability of indefinite life without hypocrisy a person must resist the temptation to preserve their own life by any natural means. Every morsel of food we consume, every doctors appointment we make and keep is a testimony to how much we long to extend our lives.

owleye

That accidents can be controlled does not mean that accidents can be eliminated. To control a parameter is to bring in within constraints. All control systems, however, are subject to parametric conditions outside of which the system is not designed to handle. Thus a river bed (including its banks) is "designed" to control the path of the river as it proceeds to its "destination." Too much water, however, can prevent the bed from controlling this.

In speaking of eternal life, controlling accidents may forestall their occurrence, but, in the fulness of time, will nevertheless occur and will prevent its accomplishment. (Note that this category is not really much different than your last category -- natural calamity.)

Secondly, assuming starvation (or the lack of ability to acquire sufficient energy and resources to sustain life) belongs in one of your categories (or belongs to a new one), there is a great danger that an extension of life may do one of two things: (1) through reproduction, will run out of resources to be able to sustain the size of the population: (2) produce a no-growth situation in which we are in equilibrium with the existing resources. The former means biological death, while the latter means psychological death.

owleye

Liquidrage

Interesting topic and one I myself have thought of a lot.

This is one reason why I am not just an atheist but anti-religion. If everyone was an atheist you can bet that a lot more research would be done to try and extend the human lifespan. But as is the world is only midly interested in eternal life without dying first.

But I've also thought of some interesting reactions if human lifespans could be extremely prolonged.

For example, if I know that old age could be overcome but death from say accident still possible I would take much fewer risks then I do now.
I certainly wouldn't drive in a car much. Who wants to risk having their body damaged when beyond repair when otherwise they are immortal? Not I.

Would humanity still progress as it has been if somewhat immortal? I'm not sure it would.

rainbow walking

Originally posted by owleye:
That accidents can be controlled does not mean that accidents can be eliminated. To control a parameter is to bring in within constraints. All control systems, however, are subject to parametric conditions outside of which the system is not designed to handle. Thus a river bed (including its banks) is "designed" to control the path of the river as it proceeds to its "destination." Too much water, however, can prevent the bed from controlling this.

In speaking of eternal life, controlling accidents may forestall their occurrence, but, in the fulness of time, will nevertheless occur and will prevent its accomplishment. (Note that this category is not really much different than your last category -- natural calamity.)

rw: Excellent thoughts Owleye, would you be interested in writing an article on accidental death and its impact on this view?

Secondly, assuming starvation (or the lack of ability to acquire sufficient energy and resources to sustain life) belongs in one of your categories (or belongs to a new one), there is a great danger that an extension of life may do one of two things: (1) through reproduction, will run out of resources to be able to sustain the size of the population: (2) produce a no-growth situation in which we are in equilibrium with the existing resources. The former means biological death, while the latter means psychological death.

owleye

rw: I would place starvation under either the catagory of natural catastrophe (since it is often caused by drought or flooding) or under the catagory of war, since this also seems to be a prime cause of death by starvation. Also might fit under murder in those cases where governments are able to alleviate it but for political or private reasons refuse to try.

I really appreciate your input. Here is a link to the site that is currently under construction:

<a href="http://ryan.real.ca/death.html" target="_blank">http://ryan.real.ca/death.html</a>

rainbow walking

Hi Liquidrage,
Ryan and I would love for you to share your thoughts on this further, perhaps an article or two to be considered for inclusion on the site:

<a href="http://ryan.real.ca/death.html" target="_blank">http://ryan.real.ca/death.html</a>

Thanx

abe smith

My Impression Izz that you persons who resent not being allowed to live forever aren't very old yet. I hope that you-all are spending every present day intensely experiencing your own present lives. (And I recollect Henry's comment about his contemporaries who want eternal life, who get bored stiff trying to get thru a rainy Sunday afternoon.) There're a number of sound BIOLOGICAL reasons for limited life; you might think about those. Abe

Jamie_L

Feel free to ignore me while I voice a pet peeve:

I don't think theism and atheism are the appropriate poles to frame this issue in. It is quite possible to be a theist and not believe in a spiritual afterlife. It is also possible to be an atheist, yet have supernatural beliefs that allow for thoughts of an afterlife. Though these cases are much less common than the traditional atheist and theist views, I think it still muddies things to use these terms.

The two conclusions are: you believe in an afterlife, or you don't.

Alright, I'm done with my tangential commentary. Carry on.

Jamie

WJ

Interesting....in a similar vein, what about eternal bliss? When I read the post it reminded me of this:


<a href="http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm</a>

(The last two chapters of possible objections are most interesting.)

I think one question to all of this is, why?
Certainly, in a 'generic' sense, humans typically place a high value on the sanctity of life and living. But one question might be relative to ethics in that if one could extend life, would the psychological factors be improved, or would they remain the same? I think say an extended life, unless you understand the value of it, would make no difference in purpose. In other words, the phemonenon of the mid-life crisis would simply be pushed back or indefinitely postponed towards a sort of infinite regress . Perhaps the limitations of time is a good thing...

Purpose?

rainbow walking

rw: Well, this pursuit isn't about resentment of death, but love of life. And I am interested in any biological reasons for the life span humans are currently limited to, so if you could steer me in the right direction it would be appreciated.

rainbow walking

rw: I agree that these are possibilities but are they representative of the majority? Since our endeavor is not to distinguish the finer points of theism/atheism I fail to see the muddiness.