Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I have a better way of putting it. The current regime of fixed lifespans and the conventional life cycle is essentially planned obsolescence of human beings.

We don't like it when the Detroit big three automakers practiced planned obsolescence when they made cars in the 70's and 80's.

Why the f**k should we accept the equivalent as applied to us human beings?

Posted by kurt9 at December 3, 2007 11:58 AM

Well, actually, planned "obsolescence" isn't the right word (in either the case of cars or people). It's more like planned deterioration. Old people aren't obsolete--they're decrepit. However, some old cars are obsolete, regardless of their physical condition, that that wasn't necessarily planned.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2007 12:01 PM

I believe that the limited human lifespan is the main reason progress is made. People make peace with the "establishment" over time, until gradually they *become* the establishment. Given enough lifespan, everyone would eventually become totally resistant to change (i.e. progress), and that number of intransigents would just get more numerous and more powerful as time went on. Most people become resistant to change early in adult-hood, and even "innovation addicts" become less interested in change as they get older.

I haven't decided whether progress is worth a limit on my lifespan, but a lot of people would say it is. On one hand, I wouldn't want to live in the world of 500 BC, but on the other hand, it might be fun, and you wouldn't know the difference anyway, having never experienced progress.

Didn't someone famous once say that even in science, the new generation doesn't win out over the old by argumentation, it wins out by waiting for the old guys to die? If people lived forever, you'd see a lot more old farts suspiciously falling from the fifth floor of the physics lab than you do now.

Posted by Artemus at December 3, 2007 12:10 PM

Given enough lifespan, everyone would eventually become totally resistant to change (i.e. progress), and that number of intransigents would just get more numerous and more powerful as time went on.

Yes, that is one of the problems that we'll have to solve.

But if you think that living in 500 BC would be "fun," you have a poor understanding of history. Hobbes had it right--"nasty, brutish and short."

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2007 12:21 PM

The "resistance to change" arguement implicitly assumes that this resistance develops because of philosophical maturity and not neurochemical happenstance. I would tend to argue the opposite, in which case life-extension technologies would likely make this a moot point, anyway. (See Bruce Sterling's "Holy Fire" for my favorite examination of this and related topics.)

Posted by Eric J at December 3, 2007 01:22 PM

"Yes, that is one of the problems that we'll have to solve.

So is anyone actually working on or thinking about such problems? When I encounter posts on life extension they seem to just assume that nothing will change, except we'll have more time. Which seems rather like assuming that this new invention called the automobile won't change anything, since it is just a horseless carriage.

One thing that seems to be just assumed is that people are basically happy, and so we will get extra centuries of happiness. I doubt it. Or that most people have a satisfactory philosophy that can sustain them spiritually over the long haul. Yet we see bloggers like Rand or me heaping scorn upon untold millions of liberals because they have abandoned the liberal (Truman/JFK/FDR) beliefs that they used to have. They seem in fact to be empty, to be angry and bitter, to be lost souls, with no principles, no ideals, no noble dreams.

So, is it a kindness to let them live for millennia?

Or what if you have something terrible on your conscience? I've made a few stupid mistakes that, with a bit of bad luck, could have killed somebody. If I had, I'm not sure a longer life would be such an appealing idea.

GK Chesterton once wrote that if men lived for a thousand years, they would all end up either in the Catholic Church, or in nihilism and utter despair. I would say that that's a good hypothesis. It fits many of my observations. But it's a bit unsettling to think that we all may all of us live to see that experiment run, with us as subjects, and to find out personally whether he was right....

Posted by John Weidner at December 3, 2007 01:38 PM

The critics of life-extension always look for the possible downside, but these are the problems of *victory*. Much like people saying that "being rich isn't all it's cracked up to be", or "regular access to good sex is overrated" I have to respond: it's better than the alternative.

Posted by Jason Bontrager at December 3, 2007 01:58 PM

Rand: If the entropy of the universe is always increasing, but your (and my) lives are negentropic processes, does that mean that for us to live someone, somewhere else in the Universe must die (or not be born) for the accounts to balance? I'm a big fan of Aubrey, and I plan to live for centuries, but some real opponent of life extension may raise it one day.

John Weidner: Maybe you wouldn't be happy with a millennial lifespan, but I would. I'm a big fan of being alive, and plan to keep on doing it as long as I can.

The cool thing about free will is that just because everyone CAN live forever does not mean every HAS TO live forever. They can choose not to. Which means everyone I meet at the coffee shop in 2345 AD will be happy with their lives, since all the sad sods will have offed themselves (with time, if not with a gun). Could be worse (for me) ...

Posted by Brock at December 3, 2007 02:02 PM

If the entropy of the universe is always increasing, but your (and my) lives are negentropic processes, does that mean that for us to live someone, somewhere else in the Universe must die (or not be born) for the accounts to balance?

No. All negative entropy which is life on Earth is more than balanced (indeed, made possible) by the positive entropy in that big yellow thing in he sky.

Posted by Ilya at December 3, 2007 02:13 PM

"these are the problems of *victory*."

That's not an answer. You are just assuming your premise, that death is the enemy. My comment suggested that that premise is doubtful. If you are an unhappy person, but cannot or will not commit suicide, then natural death is possibly not your enemy.

Your examples (wealth, sex) don't look too good to me. I've known unhappy rich people, and I've also known seducers who seem to be able to bed a different girl every week, but did not seem very happy. (In fact, insanely immature.)

We have actually run an experiment, on a planet-wide scale, that tests some of the assumptions that seem to underlie the thinking of those who enthuse about life-extension. The experiment used a planet (Earth about the year 1945) where most people suffered poverty or tyranny or ignorance or war or the threat of war. The hypothesis was that these things are the enemy, and defeating them would be *victory* and would have almost an un-alloyed good results. So we selected nations or even whole continents and give them prosperity, democracy, peace and universal education. What happened?

Petri dish #1 is called "Europe." Are we happy with the results so far? Do we feel justified in keeping those assumptions, or are there some indications that it may be time to do some hard thinking?

Posted by John Weidner at December 3, 2007 02:30 PM

"Maybe you wouldn't be happy with a millennial lifespan, but I would. I'm a big fan of being alive, and plan to keep on doing it as long as I can."

At the moment I feel fine about it, though I've known times of despair when I would not have been. But I have reasons for thinking so. The main one is that I've won through to Christian faith after decades of doubt, confusion, wrong turnings and egregious stupidity. With one result being that I think I'm not (I hope I'm not fooling myself) as fearful of death as I once was. So I can face that millennium with perhaps a lighter heart and more courage than someone who thinks death is the enemy.

And my point is not that I have the answers to the questions raised by life-extension, but that I'm not impressed by the enthusiasts, because I see no signs that they think deeply about the meaning of their lives or where they are going. Quo vadis? You can brush past that question for 50 years, but not, I think, 500.

Posted by John Weidner at December 3, 2007 02:57 PM

The problems of victory? Are you serious? I assure you that I am more than capable and willing to deal with whatever "problems" that a victory over aging and death will bring on to me.

The critics of radical life extension are being presumptuous in claiming that they speak for people like me.

Posted by kurt9 at December 3, 2007 03:01 PM

""The critics of radical life extension are being presumptuous in claiming that they speak for people like me"

If you are referring to me, I'm not a critic of life-extension. I'm a critic of YOU. Because you won't think. I prod you guys now and then, and never never never do I get a good answer.

But hey, if there's ever a need to deal with these things, then that will also mean that you will have a lot of time on your hands, and you can start to stretch your mind a little...

Posted by John Weidner at December 3, 2007 03:24 PM

>Petri dish #1 is called "Europe." Are we happy with the results so far?

I think the relevent question is whether people actually live in Europe are happy with the results so far. If you google for "Happiness Index", you'll see that happiest countries in the world are all in Europe.

I also thought your comparison to 1945 was interesting. Last time I was in Europe, I was indeed quite struck by how many people came up to me and said "My life would be so much more fulfilling if my city was still overrun with sadistic fascists while my neighbors languished in death camps...."

(PS: John, I'm sorry I didn't answer you on the Secular schools. You gave me food for thought, but I'm not done thinking yet.)

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at December 3, 2007 04:10 PM

Given enough lifespan, everyone would eventually become totally resistant to change (i.e. progress), and that number of intransigents would just get more numerous and more powerful as time went on.

Is this still true if part of the life-extension process also involves replacement of parts of your brain? Perhaps the resistance to change is simply a function of some aspect of the brain that has leveled off. A whole new bunch of Neurons for example might well make someone reconsider the earlier proof of a theorem. This isn't simply speculation. SSRIs have shown the capacity to grow neurons just as learning something new generates fresh neurons. So if you have the means to fire whatever process produces the right brain cells, or even as suggested earlier replace entire parts of your brain (while preserving consciousness of course) your new self might well argue with your old self about the proof of the theorem.

So who says you would be resistant to change?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 3, 2007 04:15 PM

So, is it a kindness to let them live for millennia?

This assumes there is a symmetry between being "alive" and being "dead". There isn't. This isn't a theological "eternal life" but a biological one. Someone who is alive can easily become dead, but someone dead cannot become alive. All "indefinite" lifespans do is give people choice. I expect that, should powerful longevity treatments become available, suicide will become more socially acceptable. We are already starting to see this happen.

Posted by sjv at December 3, 2007 04:26 PM

If you are referring to me, I'm not a critic of life-extension. I'm a critic of YOU. Because you won't think. I prod you guys now and then, and never never never do I get a good answer

Maybe it's because you've leveled off in your thinking, making you simply not curious enough to know what might happen if you lived longer. You have to stop thinking that living longer is equivalent to vegetating.

Why are kids so curious? When we really find out what part of the brain or what aspect of growth in the brain causes that, and when we can replicate that process in adults, you might question a lot of things you've taken as settled.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 3, 2007 04:26 PM

Hillary-Supporter,
Let me know if you have some more thoughts; I'd be interested.

It is of course almost impossible to define happiness. I'd guess that the symptoms Europe exhibits (demographic collapse, collapse of civilizational morale, inability to defend against threats both internal and external) indicate that something is deeply wrong. (No, i don't think they would be happier scratching through the rubble like 1945.)

But my point is that our assumptions about Europe's future were wrong. No one expected things to end up like this. (Well, this guy may have.) And those assumptions, which I grew up with, have a similarity to the assumptions that life-extension enthusiasts exhibit. So, if engineering assumptions turn out wrong, and the levee breaks, uh, it's probably time to re-think. right? I'd suggest that a lot of other assumptions need a re-think.

I'm not suggesting stopping life-extension research. If it is possible, it will happen. I'm just suggesting that a lot of likable enthusiastic people are gonna get way more than they bargained for. I tend to like them, and I think they are heading for trouble....

Posted by John Weidner at December 3, 2007 04:34 PM

OK. One more comment for John.

His comments seem to infer that all interest in life-extension is motivated by a terrible fear of death.

Hell no. It's motivated by fun! Which isn't to say you can't also be afraid of death.

Oh and by the way, I'm a Christian myself. Think about all the GOOD you could do if you lived a lot longer, why dwell only on the fact that you will SIN a lot more? Some of that sinning could also be FUN, and will give you the opportunity to PRAY more. Sounds like a Win-Win.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 3, 2007 04:38 PM

Toast,
"You have to stop thinking that living longer is equivalent to vegetating" WTF? Where did that come from?

I'm suggesting YOU are refusing to think about life's big questions. And that if you live for a thousand years you will not be able to avoid them.

You are assuming that even with life-extension you will remain the same person you are now, and just have extra time for hobbies. In fact you are assuming that your own soul will be vegetating. And you are the one that's thinking various things are settled. I suspect you are in for some surprises.

Sure I'm curious about the future. and there will be lots of fun. But I think it will be far different than we imagine, and that you had better have some sturdy survival gear in your philosophical toolkit.

And I did NOT say that the research is motivated by fear of death. I said that I am (I hope) a little better equipped to face a long future since I am (I hope) a little better able to face the possibility of death than I was before. My Catholic faith says I should think about dying at least daily. Do you do that? It is a good discipline.

Posted by John Weidner at December 3, 2007 05:20 PM

But if you think that living in 500 BC would be "fun," you have a poor understanding of history. Hobbes had it right--"nasty, brutish and short."

I said it *might* be fun. Not everyone in 500 BC died at 22 from an infected spear wound.

It might be worthwhile to consider the philosophical implications of a greatly extended, say doubled, average lifespan. But wouldn't an unlimited lifespan require a 100% effective treatment for every disease, both known and unknown? There is currently no 100% effective cure for any fatal disease. Isn't it likely that 600-year-old people would start developing diseases we have never seen before? Medicine doesn't understand aging, and even if it did, that doesn't guarantee a cure. We understand genetics but we can't cure sickle-cell anemia. I'm all in favor of trying, but let's be realistic.

Also, Aubrey De Grey's commentary, especially the term "geronto-apologists," is hilariously shallow. I don't have to be sure that an unlimited lifespan is infeasible, any more than I have to be sure that a perpetual motion machine is infeasible, in order to know it's a waste of time to plan for it.

Posted by Artemus at December 3, 2007 05:21 PM

I'm suggesting YOU are refusing to think about life's big questions.

And how do you know that? Just because I'm not particularly concerned about dwelling on the un-answerable?

I agree that if you are truly obsessed with these BIG questions, living very long could really be a BIG problem. The more you find yourself thinking about these BIG questions, the more it might make sense to wish to check out the other side of the river.

On the other hand if you wanted to answer a lot of small questions, or try to teach yourself the proof of Fermat's last theorem, a boost in brainpower and a decent increase in time could help. Right now most of us certainly don't have enough of either.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 3, 2007 06:15 PM

Perhaps wars would be fought by the octogenarians. Those that had lived a life and had their fill and still felt compelled to die for some cause or belief. Teenagers would probably fall from this duty in that it would be a disgrace to potentially end a multi-century life span so quickly.

I think to get some good thoughts on this one should refer to fantasy fiction writers who have spent a good deal of time contemplating and writing about Elves. Elves are purported to have an indefinite life span with the elders commonly being 1200-1500 years old. With all the complexities and challenges in which life brings, eliminating the aging process is just but one variable to consider in the innumerable fatal conflicts one can encounter in a 1000 years.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 3, 2007 07:05 PM

Suppose today's average lifespan of about 80 years were to get extended by a factor of 10 to 800 years. How would that work out? Would you start school when you're 50, graduate high school when you're 180 (that alone would be enough to slow the birthrate) and work for the next 400+ years? Whoopee! Maybe you'd be able to save enough to enjoy a retirement lasting 200 years or so. Maybe not.

Personally, I think human progress and innovation would pretty well come to a standstill if we see a massive increase in longevity. Why bother to do anything today (or this decade) when you can just as easily wait?

I'm 50 years old. Whether I live another year or another 50, I've learned to embrace the changes that life has in store. When my time comes, I'll go just like all of humanity has done since the species evolved. And when I die and when I'm gone, there'll be one child born to carry on. Or something like that.

Posted by Larry J at December 3, 2007 07:11 PM

Toast, you are just not making sense. You say you are a Christian, but also think it odd to be "obsessed with these BIG questions."

But that's what Christianity IS. It claims to have the answers to the biggest questions. (Some of them very strange answers indeed.) That's the FUN part. Like being in some mind-boggling SF story.

It's like Cardinal Pell put it, that the world has forgotten its story. But we Christians have not. We know something of what's going on.

Posted by John Weidner at December 3, 2007 07:34 PM

Jeez Larry, did you even read the earlier comments before you jumped in with yours?

Why bother to do anything today (or this decade) when you can just as easily wait?

Is all your motivation conditional on how much time you have remaining in the future? That's a rather depressing view of life.

Posted by at December 3, 2007 07:34 PM

Comin' in late (as usual) but I wouldn't mind livin' as long as I could,I have friends I haven't met,there's food I haven't eaten,there's places I haven't been,there's women I haven't been with (of course if my wife lives as long too that ain't gonna happen :D),there's still things I'd like to learn....

Who knows what might come from the really intelligent & inventive people if they could live 150 years?

Posted by Frantic Freddie at December 3, 2007 09:49 PM

I'm with those who think suicide by not taking longevity drugs will become accepted if longevity drugs do in fact appear. That will culture humanity to accept suicide by other methods, as long as they don't involve shortening other people's now-longer lifespans.

As for exploring the big questions...I'd say one of those big questions is what happens when we get these longevity drugs. How will humans react to being 200 years old? Will life be worth living when you're 360? What kind of personalities can stand the test of time? (See Larry Niven's Louis Wu and Vernor Vinge's Della Lu for some examples.) Living longer will most likely add questions to our lives, rather than subtract them - and the best thing is we'll have time to think about them all.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 3, 2007 10:22 PM

Even now, there's a vast difference in the dynamism of societies. Age doesn't explain it. How do we chose to reward or punish risk-taking, creativity, and unusual choices or thoughts? These aren't just decided by the oldest of the fogies. I see no reason that a society of effective immortals has to be stagnant. It is a problem where we may already have the answers in front of us.

Second, the cost to society is insignificant compared to life extension. This decision will turn out one way. Nobody is going to permit longevity to be squandered just so we get a little more turnover in society.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 3, 2007 11:44 PM

John --

You wrote: Toast, [skip] You are assuming that even with life-extension you will remain the same person you are now, and just have extra time for hobbies. In fact you are assuming that your own soul will be vegetating

Toast_in_Tea did not respond to this statement, but considering that he wrote: your new self might well argue with your old self about the proof of the theorem, I would say your above statement is unwarranted.

Larry --

Do you really think creative people do what they do because they believe they are running out of time? I know quite a few scientists and inventors, and none of them profess to this motivation. Especially not the young ones, who generally do not think about death and are thus in the psychological situation everyone would be in an ageless society. They innovate because they LIKE innovating. And if they lived forever, they could tackle projects which would take centuries to complete.

I also would like to point out that inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs are a fairly small minority; it takes a rather unusual mindset. Most people go through life without ever creating anything. But just as true writer can not not write, true inventor can not not invent.

Posted by at December 4, 2007 06:44 AM

Oops. Previous comment was mine.

Posted by Ilya at December 4, 2007 06:50 AM

I do not see anyone on this board claiming otherwise. Major technological changes always bring major social changes -- usually in ways that could not possibly have been foreseen beforehand. In fact, I am willing to bet that biggest new problems significant life extension will bring will NOT be those people are expecting (e.g. boredom, political stagnation, collapse of Social Security, overpopulation). It will be something new, but I do not see how ANY new set of problems could be worse than being dead.

I also think that these future problems will depend a great deal on the exact mechanism of life extension. Immortality a la Peter Hamilton (people age at normal rate and undergo a long and extensive rejuvenation therapy every 30-40 years) would cause a very different set of problems than straightforward arrested aging.

I second that. Just reading all the books I want to read could easily take 150 years.

Posted by Ilya at December 4, 2007 07:32 AM

No. All negative entropy which is life on Earth is more than balanced (indeed, made possible) by the positive entropy in that big yellow thing in he sky.

I've seen this kind of statement before; it's actually not correct. The entropy of the Sun is decreasing with time (because when you net react four protons and 2 electrons to get an alpha particle, you've decreased the number of independent particles in your system. If the core of the sun were hot enough, the higher entropy of free nucleons would drive the endothermic dissociation of the nuclei, as happens in core collapse supernovas.)

Of couse, the 2nd law isn't violated, since the conversion of the energy produced to electromagnetic radiation, and the degradation of that radiation down to 5700 K or so (and its emissions off into space) causes the total entropy to increase. The entropy is carried off in the emitted sunlight, and does not remain in the Sun itself.

Posted by Paul D. at December 4, 2007 09:05 AM

I know that. I was too lazy to spell it out.

Posted by Ilya at December 4, 2007 09:14 AM

Ilya,

"I do not see anyone on this board claiming otherwise"

From my perspective--not expressed very well in my hasty comments--that is just what you are all doing.

I think the problems to come are philosophical or spiritual, and most of you don't even want to open up that can of worms.

I think about this because I'm a "futurist," and think a lot about how our society is reacting to change, and will react to ever more rapid change in the future. This question is very similar to the one that life-extension poses, but on the level of society as a whole.

Our situation is like a SF story, where people are being stuffed into time machines and sent into the future. And what I SEE, right now, is that a lot of people are not handling this well. They are not prepared.

At the moment this is mostly a problem we see among liberals, especially in my generation, the Boomers. (Us conservatives have grown up being somewhat countercultural, and are used to defending our ideas against the zeitgeist.) I constantly encounter liberals who are brittle, defensive, angry, even crazy, and closed-off from threatening new ideas. I think they are in deep trouble. In fact, already dead mentally. I think they have been killed by being tossed into a "future" that is not like what they grew up imagining.

But the problem lies ahead for all of us. We are all being flung into the future. And it is going to be very strange. And anyone who does not have really solid core principles and beliefs is going to be in deep shit. Vague technocratic optimism is not going to cut it.

Imagine, as a thought experiment, some guy from 200 years ago suddenly appearing in our time, and encountering girls with piercings and tattoos and postmodernism and hookups and...well, you know. Is he ready? What does he need, to be able to cope? What does he need in his mental toolbox to deal with the unimaginable?

"Just reading all the books I want to read could easily take 150 years" But think. Imagine. Imagine John Adams going into Borders, ready to read all the books he didn't have time to read........

Posted by John Weidner at December 4, 2007 10:01 AM

"Imagine, as a thought experiment, some guy from 200 years ago suddenly appearing in our time, and encountering girls with piercings and tattoos and postmodernism and hookups and...well, you know. Is he ready? "

People are pretty adaptable. I think he would be fine. He might even be delighted.

Have you read James Clavell's Shogun? It examines the same sort of cross-cultural immersion. Based on the story of William Adams, who really did have to adapt to an alien world.

Posted by at December 4, 2007 10:14 AM

John --

I would not assume that those of us who do not share your Catholic faith haven't given the "big questions" some thought, or that our "mental toolbox" isn't sufficiently prepared to handle centuries or millenia of life and change. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I assure you that I have given these things great thought.

I've also had first-hand experiences with people who have had your exact concerns. My "second mother" (a friend's Mom who shared child-care duties with my Mom), was an evangelical Christian who converted later is life. My wife's parents converted to Catholicism late in life too. I've also had a few friends in my generation make a similar change. Not surprisingly I've had this conversation many times, and I do not wish to have it again in a comment thread on Rand's blog. Suffice it to say, my "mental toolbox" is well stocked, and my philosophical underpinnings are well adapted and time-tested. I am very confident I will be able to handle the centuries ahead, regardless of the changes that come.

What may be confusing you is that I (we?) do not seem to share many mental things in common with you. Catholicism "works" for you, and has worked for many people for 2,000 years. Of course, none of them lived for 300+ years, so who's to say Catholicism works over an extended lifespan? Regardless, do not assume that Catholicism is the only solution. Our brains operate at very different frequencies, but that doesn't mean mine (or the other posters' on this site) can't cope with what is to come. We aren't the fragile liberals you meet in SF on a daily basis.

You can email me if you really wish to discuss it further though.

Posted by Brock at December 4, 2007 11:37 AM

Most importantly a Hot Shower and copious squirts of Deodorant. And maybe a shot of Viagra after a Starbucks Espresso.

Posted by Offside at December 4, 2007 11:38 AM

Imagine, as a thought experiment, some guy from 200 years ago suddenly appearing in our time,

But the discussion isn't about people flung from one century into the far future, so the analogy doesn't hold. Your hypothetical man from 1807, had he lived through the intervening 200 years, would be quite capable of dealing with the pierced girls. He might not like them, he might think they're no better than whores, but he wouldn't go into a Future Shock-induced seizure either.

Since others are citing various works of fiction I think I'll add my two cents: Border Guards by Greg Egan takes place in a society where everyone is immortal and they've engineered space such that they have unlimited elbow room. The relevant text is:

“Ten thousand years' worth of sophistry doesn't vanish overnight,” Margit observed dryly. “Every human culture had expended vast amounts of intellectual effort on the problem of coming to terms with death. Most religions had constructed elaborate lies about it, making it out to be something other than it was — though a few were dishonest about life, instead. But even most secular philosophies were warped by the need to pretend that death was for the best.

“It was the naturalistic fallacy at its most extreme — and its most transparent, but that didn't stop anyone. Since any child could tell you that death was meaningless, contingent, unjust, and abhorrent beyond words, it was a hallmark of sophistication to believe otherwise. Writers had consoled themselves for centuries with smug puritanical fables about immortals who'd long for death — who'd beg for death. It would have been too much to expect all those who were suddenly faced with the reality of its banishment to confess that they'd been whistling in the dark. And would-be moral philosophers — mostly those who'd experienced no greater inconvenience in their lives than a late train or a surly waiter — began wailing about the destruction of the human spirit by this hideous blight. We needed death and suffering, to put steel into our souls! Not horrible, horrible freedom and safety!”

Posted by Jason Bontrager at December 4, 2007 12:22 PM

I have to agree with Brock -- John Weidner seems to have mental base very different from most people here, myself included. Things which work for him simply do not work for me.

On the subject of embittered liberals, however, I think John got it exactly wrong. It is not that they lacked a "solid core principles and beliefs" -- it is just that their principles and beliefs turned out to be WRONG and/or irrelevant. When the future arrived, and it was not what these liberals expected, they proved to be too inflexible and unable to change. Whereas many other former liberals did change, and are reasonably happy. If anything, TOO solid a core of beliefs may be a liability in the changing world.

Posted by Ilya at December 4, 2007 12:32 PM

John,

Once again, you are being presumptous in claiming that I do not think.

I think all the time. I think about my business. I think about sales and marketing in Asia. I think about space, nanotech, and other stuff. I think about what I want to become and where I want to go. I think about kit surfing and scuba diving.

So, you see, I think about stuff all of the time.

Posted by kurt9 at December 4, 2007 12:36 PM

Radical life extension is not a public debate issue. It is a personal business issue, much like working out in the gym or cosmetic surgery. The problem with people like John is that they are trying to make what is obviously a matter of personal preference and trying to make it into a political issue.

Guys, lets keep it non-political.

Posted by kurt9 at December 4, 2007 01:29 PM

Ilya,
You are right that my "mental base" is different, and in fact I should not even bother with these discussions, since I am not likely to have any meeting of minds. (Of course if you are going to live for 1000 years maybe you should practice "getting" what odd people are saying. It might be a useful skill.)

On embittered liberals, I think I'm right. I think the Libs who had a solid core of liberal beliefs are the very same ones who changed.

Think about the Iraq Campaign. That is a liberal project, of the sort that JFK or Truman would have favored. Overthrowing dictators, stopping genocide, bringing democracy and freedom to people... those are things that in my youth were liberal. And back then conservatives still tended to be isolationist, and to distrust any idealistic foreign policy.

A real liberal will be supporting the President right now. On Iraq and also other issues. But the Lefties who hate Bush and Iraq are, I think, the ones whose liberal faith has seeped away, leaving them empty. They are "wearing" liberalism like the Invisible Man wore bandages, to hide their nothingness. And Iraq puts them on the spot, in a way they just hate...

Brock, I don't assume your toolbox is empty, it's just that I am concerned that that does not seem to be the question people ask when contemplating living into a long strange future.

Posted by John Weidner at December 4, 2007 01:53 PM

John,

The philosophical skills needed to live forever are the same as those needed to be a long-term expat.

These are the belief in openess, freedom, and the desire to expand your horizons and to try new things.

For example, the SoCal beach boy that I was ended up in Japan in 1991, because of the recession at the time. I adapted to the situation (having studied Japanese language helped) and was able to create a new life and happiness for myself in this totally strange new environment.

I think living into the far future will be a lot like this. New technologies and societies will emerge as we grow out into space. We may get FTL. If not, our future will be similar to the O'neill scenario. As long as one is adaptable, is willing to learn and try new stuff, and likes to have fun; I think such a person will have no problem living forever young.

Since I have lived as an expat for 10 years, I am more than qualified to say that I am more than capable of "handling" an indefinetely long youthful lifespan.

Posted by kurt9 at December 4, 2007 06:40 PM

Japan is already experiencing our future. John, you visit Japan and let us how you make out.

Posted by at December 4, 2007 10:01 PM

The Onion already has the Japan angle well covered.

Posted by Paul D. at December 5, 2007 08:38 AM

"is willing to learn and try new stuff..." Unless John Weidner suggests it ;-)

But seriously, Kurt has come up with something that actually impresses me here. Living as an expat may be analogous to what I'm suggesting living long into the future may be like. It might be interesting to study how people react to it, including people who did not intend to become expats. I once read of a WWII refugee family who said they were actually lucky to have lost their fortune, because they were forced to fling themselves into the American world and make a whole new life for themselves.

Posted by John Weidner at December 5, 2007 08:39 AM

Kurt --

The philosophical skills needed to live forever are the same as those needed to be a long-term expat. These are the belief in openess, freedom, and the desire to expand your horizons and to try new things.

Being an immigrant myself, and having lived in parts of US which are as culturally different as can be, I agree completely.

John --

Think about the Iraq Campaign. That is a liberal project, of the sort that JFK or Truman would have favored. Overthrowing dictators, stopping genocide, bringing democracy and freedom to people... those are things that in my youth were liberal.

You are thinking of classical definition of Liberalism, which is not too far from Kurt's expat philosophy. I don't know how long ago your youth was, but this is not what the word "liberal" means any more. The "embittered liberals" you are talking about never were liberals in classical sense -- they were (and many still are) Marxists, or some other kind of top-down communitarianists. They may have called themselves "countercultural", but "openess, freedom, and the desire to expand horizons and to try new things" were never part of their mindset. They did not want free competition of ideas -- they wanted to replace what they perceived as unjust social system with "perfect" one of their own devising. And the ones most embittered seriously believe that their vision of future failed because of some sinister right-wing conspiracy. They hold onto their core beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Ilya at December 5, 2007 11:40 AM

Ilya,

Actually I think the term "classic Liberal" is applied to the 19th Century Liberals, who had a lot in common with today's conservatives. Including belief in limited government and free enterprise.

The New Dealers dubbed themselves "Liberal," to avoid admitting they were quasi-socialists. That's the meaning of "liberal" I grew up with. But it included a willingness to fight for various things Americans believe in--though there was always a slippery and equivocal aspect to this. Truman and JFK are good examples.

In the 60's, among my generation especially, many of them morphed into what we have now. People who will fight for nothing. (And then the "neocons" began the parade of liberals leaving the Democrat Party in disgust.)

But, I don't think today's liberals (or Progressives, or whatever this year's phony name is) are Marxists. They have socialist reflexes, and their policies always lead towards bigger government and fewer freedoms. But I think they do not have an actual belief-system or philosophy. I have yet to meet one who will fight for socialism, or base any argument on Marxist theory. None of them would go off to fight in the Spanish Civil War, as their fathers did.

They are nihilists. Almost all of them. You won't understand them unless you realize this.

Posted by John Weidner at December 5, 2007 01:43 PM

They are nihilists. Almost all of them. You won't understand them unless you realize this.

With all due respect, that is complete nonsense. And incidentally there are a hell of a lot of Catholics and Catholic Priests, Bishops and Cardinals who also happen to be what you call modern day liberals or who intersect more closely with the progressive values you decry than a conservative mind-set.

Not only are you off target in evaluating the future, you seem to have problems evaluating the here and now.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 5, 2007 02:12 PM

"Perhaps wars would be fought by the octogenarians. Those that had lived a life and had their fill and still felt compelled to die for some cause or belief. Teenagers would probably fall from this duty in that it would be a disgrace to potentially end a multi-century life span so quickly."

You might be interested in John Scalzi's novel; "Old Man's War."

Posted by Frank Glover at December 5, 2007 02:49 PM

Toast, I got reasons for what I write. But I'd also LOVE to be proved wrong, and if you have actual facts, please gimme.

I've been blogging since 11/2001. And I have had many arguments with left-leaning people, (and observed many others on other more important blogs.)

But I have never once had a "principled" argument with a leftist. That is to say, one where they are willing to explain the principles or philosophy that underlie the positions they advocate, and then debate on those grounds. (And, BTW, any of my positions I am willing and ready to debate in terms of my underlying philosophy and core values.)

And I have, over the last few years taken to prodding these people ever more rudely. To the point of flat-out telling people, "You don't believe this stuff you wrote. You are a nihilist. You don't believe in anything." And never once have they responded to that with a counter-argument or objection. They just leave the discussion. They walk away as if nothing had happened.

It is very strange. If you called me a nihilist, it would be like someone in the old days of dueling slapping me with a glove. I would have to respond to the challenge. But leftists never do, in my experience.

If I'm wrong, show me the counter-examples.

And yes, I am perfectly aware of many liberal Christians. I live in San Francisco. And my suspicion is that a lot of them are real Christians but simultaneously are nihilists in the political realm. (Yes, I know that is a strange idea. But that's where my suspicions are heading.) And others I suspect have had their Christian faith seep away leaving Christianity as just a sort of habit or reflex, as is their leftism.

Posted by John Weidner at December 5, 2007 03:07 PM

John, this thread is veering seriously off-topic. Three names: Hans Kung, Helder Camara, Mother Theresa. Liberal or Conservative? Have Philosophy or not? Think about it. Christianity is a bit bigger than you want to think.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 5, 2007 04:42 PM

Toast, you are just wasting my time. You are responding to some imaginary person, and not noticing what I actually write.

If I mention that I suspect that some people's faith has eroded, that does not mean I espouse a small or exclusivist view of Christianity. I wrote that I think that some liberals are REAL Christians, but are also nihilists in the political realm. So I am OBVIOUSLY not thinking that liberals can't be Christians.

I'm perfectly aware of Hans Küng, Helder Camara, and Mother Theresa. I've never suggested a view of Christianity that does not include them.

That whole previous comment of mine was a response to what YOU wrote, and you ignored it. You challenged my views, and then you ignored my answer. The heck with you.

Posted by John Weidner at December 5, 2007 05:53 PM

I can't help you John. I was simply trying to show you examples of people whose world view and philosophy could be the basis of a left of center Christian view of the world and life, thereby invalidating your claim that leftist Christians are invariably nihilists.

Anyway, I can't see what this has to do with the original thread, so while I don't return the compliment, I also don't plan to comment on this any further. Cheers.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 5, 2007 06:41 PM

John --

You may be right about most of "embittered lefties" lacking beliefs. I had met (in person) a few 50-60 year old dedicated Socialists who still fervently believe in Uncle Fidel -- and I suppose by now Uncle Hugo, -- and that Socialism is still the future. They are embittered because they think there are evil forces arrayed against them. And I would not put it past them to take up arms if opportunity occured. But now I have to agree such people are a very small minority.

But this whole discussion went seriously off-topic. Fact is, some people adjust easily to changing circumstances, and some do not. The former may find longer lifespan challenging and exciting, while the latter may find it unbearable. Frankly, to me this sounds trivially true.

Posted by Ilya at December 6, 2007 07:00 AM

"because they think there are evil forces arrayed against them"

Important to add: "and that proletariat has been thoroughly and deliberately duped"

Posted by Ilya at December 6, 2007 07:03 AM

Post a comment