In perusing the latest issue of The New Atlantis (which also has pieces by editor Adam Keiper, Bob Park and Bob Zubrin on the new space policy--the Park and Zubrin pieces are regurgitations of the Great Debate), I see that Professor Diana Schaub, one of the recent appointments to the president's Bioethics Commission (of which much has been discussed in the blogosphere), says that immortality is a bad thing.

Star Trek episodes. I kid you not.

She sure didn't look far in SF to come up with Startrek.

Poul Anderson's "Boat of a Million Years" and "World without Stars" AKA "We have fed our sea" are other takes on the effect of long lives on human beings.
There are lots of others just about all with a deeper treatment than the Startrek episodes mentioned.

As a SF fan and SF writer -- and reader -- I have found that when talking with non-SF people ("mundane" is the SCA term) that quoting Heinlein or Asimov or Van Vogt or name-your-favorite-author, makes the general public get MEGO. But if you mention Star Trek or Star Wars, the response is immediate. "Yeah, I saw that episode." Not everyone reads. Most people watch. So a lot of the SF philosophy in the mundane world gets referenced to Trek. Hey, it could be worse: it's better than using Gilligan's Island. ;->

Well, maybe, but while I like Star Trek, I thought the Star Trek “take” on life extension was painfully conventional and in the “Immortality is the Devil’s Work!” school of thought. “Star Trek Insurrection” was an updated “Fountain of Youth” story, with even The Good Guys (Federation) planning to take the happy nature-loving locals away from their land just so Feds can live longer. They had been tempted by The Bad Guys, who had been driven away from their Eden. Take away the starships, and the whole story could have been written centuries ago. I always thought the whole thing was silly – with Star Trek level technology, life spans should be several centuries at least. You wouldn’t look old (or be bald) unless you WANTED to.

The author of this article doesn’t seem to be completely against life extension, but gives a couple of examples of “Not Aging is BAD” Star Trek episodes. She says, “My years watching Star Trek have left me receptive to the view that mortality is, if not precisely a good thing, then at least the necessary foundation of other very good things, and that there is something misguided about the attempt to overcome mortality.”

And there, I completely disagree. I think all the whining about “Death is Good” has always just been a way of accepting something you have no control over. But it is clear that we can now develop technology to at least slow a number of aspects of aging and increase the life span substantially. I don’t see anything wrong with that. We may die from an accident or other event, but I don’t see any good reason to continue living with bodies that fall apart, if that can be changed.

And while we are on Trek, don't forget that in the novels, Kirk has survived well beyond the threescore and ten due to time suspending anomalies and borg nano-tech. Plus Dr. McCoy lives on to his 145th birthday due to multiple artificial organs and exo-skeleton leg braces to help him walk. Spock doesn't count because he isn't human, and even Scotty makes it by putting himself into an endless transporter loop when the O2 in his stranded ship runs out.

Something that's bugged me with Lord of the Rings for sometime has been that given that the elves are virtually immortal, save the occasional war with the dark lord or other accident, what would be sufficient to cause one to place one's life in jeopardy when you're talking a potential life span of thousands of years as opposed to the human threescore and ten. I should think that a lengthened life span would make one very risk-averse. Precautionary Principle uber alles, anyone?

What I found funny was her statement that the Dr. was called Bones, as a reminder that the patients he tends to will end up dead.

Actually, he was called Bones as a tribute to the old term for doctors as sawbones, referring to amputations, an attempt to extend life past the time of a life threatening injury or infection.

The problem with the "mortality is natural" argument is that it's an arbitrary line. If it's true that mortality is natural, than there should be no attempts at saving or extending a life at all. If I'm shot, is it natural to attempt to remove the bullet and stop the bleeding? Afterall, that's getting in the way of the natural outcome of such a mortal injury.

If I get cancer, should I submit to radiation treatments and chemo? Who am I to stand in the way of nature?

The "mortality is natural" argument suffers from the same problem as the defnition of death. Short of information death, the definition of death is a legal one, not a medical one. The line moves with advancing medical technology. To suddenly draw a line and say "this is the end" is arbitrary, and based solely on personal opinion.

Bob

In response to JSAllison "immortals are risk averse". I had a half-baked plot idea once, where that was a given. It seems likely to me that a high tech, very long-lived society would take on a low risk, take it slow approach to everything. For example, what's the rush to get to the moon (a risky task), when you could take centuries to develop safer travel. After all you'll still be there and so will the moon.

I wouldn't criticize her too hard for looking to SF for ethical guidance on future technologies. I would disagree with looking only to the negative views on immortality and eternal youth (two different concepts, by the way) presented in teh Star Trek episodes she references.

Bruce Sterling's "Holy Fire" does a good job of illustrating the generation-gap issues posed by life-extension and youth treatements. Some nice arguments between a newly-young 100-plus-year-old woman and a 19-year-old, if I remember right.

But I prefer Larry Niven's depiction of effective immortality and youth (via "boosterspice") as just another interesting background fact. Like hyperdrive and teleportation booths, it's another technology that humans use without altering their human nature.

Finally, Kim Stanley Robinson portrayed life-extension treatments in his Mars trilogy as a background plot element (mainly as a deus ex machina to allow the main characters to witness the transformation of Mars from dead to living).

These authors (and many others) all look to the possible impacts of life extension on the human condition. I am inclined to the "if we can do it we should do it" mentality, but it is still worthwhile to think through the possible ethical problems ahead of time. Unfortunately, most "serious" authors look only to the present or the past, leaving the future to SF.

Tolkein explained Elves could reincarnate if they choose. Their spirit went west anyway and Valinor was the last stop on the train for Elvish kind.

Also remember that the elves were virtuous by nature and prone to acts of courage.

Let me add that slain elves could reincarnate.

I'm not criticizing her for using SF. I'm criticizing her for cherry picking and using bad and implausible SF.

We shouldn't be surprised that Bush's ethicists don't want to eliminate death; the administration's opposition to the "death tax" is a radically pro-death approach.

Rand,

Sorry, I thought your tone implied that the reference to Star Trek in itself undermined her reasoning, not just her cherry-picking of episodes.

Practically, it probably does, for the giggle factor reason if nothing else. I just meant that it shouldn't, since no other genre really seems willing to tackle these matters in advance and SF offers some prime examples of in-depth examination of the issue of (im)mortality.

Well, I didn't think that the episodes undermined her reasoning--the problem was that they were her reasoning. She took two extremely improbable works of fiction, and tried to imply that they were relevant to the actual development of long lives, with little else to support her thesis.

I think we would both agree here that her main problem is her argument from authority, especially since her sole authority consists of two episodes from a 40-year old TV series. But it is OK sometimes to appeal to authorities for guidance or ideas, and I guess I've kept the conversation going to see whether you would agree that SF provides a legitimate source for persuasion when talking about hypothetical ethical issues related to technology.

It seems that everyone is missing the real point of Ms. Schaub's comments. While some of her comments did center on Star Trek the real meat of her arguments would seem to have come from the book of Genesis. Whether or not you believe in the actual events of the book is irrelevant: It is still a pretty accurate commentary on human nature. After Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they are shown to be self centered. In chapter 2 Adam preforms what can best be described as a 'Happy Dance' when he first sees the woman God has created for him. In chapter 3 he blames 'that woman that you gave me' for his misfortune. His whining is symptomatic of his self centeredness. This is why whining is so despised in people: It shows a concern only for one's self. It is self worship and all of us do it.

Jaques Barzun argues that the West is in a state of decline. I would tend to agree. For the most part this is because of the intense self focus, the self focus evident in the book of Genesis, writ large across our culture. Now I wouldn't argue that this is unique to our generation. Far from it. But it is worse in our generation. Far worse. This is because we have turned inward and begun the sterile contemplation of our own navels. Immortality in our current state would not make us better. Like a whiny, self worshiping child who grows to be a whiny, self worshiping teenager and then a whiny, self worshiping , we would be only whiny, self worshiping people who exist for a very long time. Hm, sounds like hell to me.

I also find it highly ironic that the possibility of immortality in our present state comes at a time in Western history that has also found rights to many sterile activities. Homosexuality, abortion, drugs, and many others are rights that place the individual and his wants far above the needs of society and what will help it grow.

Mr. Simberg and other argue on this blog for the commercialization of and expansion of humanity into space yet do not address the human flaws that will make such an endeavor impossible. How can anyone focus on these noble (and they are noble) goals when they are so fimly focused on themselves? We live in a nation that has more wealth than any nation at any time in human history. Does this freedom from want make us stop whining? No. We just find new things to whine about.

Now that's painting with a broad brush... isn't it possible that while some whine and contemplate their naval others actually go to the stars? It's said we will always have the poor... I'd say whiners (and naysayers) are also going to be found without end. So what?

Jeff: If you were immortal, I'd think you would REALLY want to get into space, as the cost to you of getting smacked by an asteroid just got a lot higher, no? :-)

Jon,

I think the term to use here is "you reap what you sow." The ugly truth here is that society as it currently is structured, needs lots of self-centered whiners who consume lots of extraneous goods and services in order to keep the whole thing going. There are tremendous social and commercial forces keeping people the way they are.

I also find it highly ironic that the possibility of immortality in our present state comes at a time in Western history that has also found rights to many sterile activities. Homosexuality, abortion, drugs, and many others are rights that place the individual and his wants far above the needs of society and what will help it grow.

What does society need? I have yet to see a clear answer to this question. Perhaps, the discerning people on this board might know. One possibility is through the idea of social contracts. Here's a quote from that source (Socrates here is actually a character in Plato's "Republic" who may not reflect the beliefs of the real Socrates):

According to Socrates, societies are formed for the purpose of fulfilling our human needs. We have many needs and thus many kinds people and activities are required to fulfill all those needs. We then form partnerships by which we exchange goods and services. The mutual fulfilling of the various tasks is the basis of justice in society.

So narcissism seems to be a natural problem of society as presented here. Since society's primary duty is fulfilling our wants, it's an obvious problem that we would try to satisfy those wants without regard for the requirements that membership in society brings.

I personally don't find homosexuality or abortion to be inherently narcissistic. Recreational drugs definitely seems a narcistic activity. However, I should point out that some jobs almost require drugs for the worker to be effective. For example, if you work as an 80 hour a week programmer, truck driver, or soldier then some sort of stimulant to work hard and a depressant to sleep afterwards.

Ultimately, I think the problem is parasitic in nature. Society has evolved, if you will, into a tool for extracting resources from its citizens without regard for their welfare. I think that immortality will help here. At least after you've been around a few centuries, it'll be much harder to run some of the current cons masquerading as "needs of society".

I was wondering when someone would bring up a religious comment. Jon, you seem to be focused on “self focus,” “whiny,” “self centered” and, oh, “whiny.” (Well, you repeated a lot).

I was going to respond in detail, but decided there was no point. We just don’t agree. I don’t think the West is in decline, I don’t think life extension (not immortality, I don’t believe true immortality is functionally possible) is “selfish” anymore than clean water and vaccines are and don’t think human nature will stop our expansion into space. It certainly didn’t stop our expansion from Africa to the rest of the world!