When it was announced last year that summer vacation would be two weeks shorter for my
school district. What do you think was the reaction? Did people cheer saying that even though
they prefer summer making it shorter would increase the meaning of it, making a shorter
summer actually more enjoyable? Or did people groan, unhappy that their time free was
being cut short & they would have to do schoolwork sooner? As many of you already
guessed the latter answer is correct. While it's undeniably true that the more you consume of
something the less enjoyable it is, that is not to say this would somehow devalue the units
already consumed of that thing. & as long as the amount of pleasure you gain is still
positive you have nothing to lose. As a species we seemed to have all convinced
ourselves that this simple, & universal logic doesn't apply to our most important joy. Life
itself! Today I will elaborate as to why we fear immortality, it's benefits, & why it's important we
try to obtain it.
school district. What do you think was the reaction? Did people cheer saying that even though
they prefer summer making it shorter would increase the meaning of it, making a shorter
summer actually more enjoyable? Or did people groan, unhappy that their time free was
being cut short & they would have to do schoolwork sooner? As many of you already
guessed the latter answer is correct. While it's undeniably true that the more you consume of
something the less enjoyable it is, that is not to say this would somehow devalue the units
already consumed of that thing. & as long as the amount of pleasure you gain is still
positive you have nothing to lose. As a species we seemed to have all convinced
ourselves that this simple, & universal logic doesn't apply to our most important joy. Life
itself! Today I will elaborate as to why we fear immortality, it's benefits, & why it's important we
try to obtain it.
When
the industrial revolution began, it was met with fear & skepticism. Groups like the Luddites feared
the industrial revolution would take away their livelihood . According to History.com the Luddites were
"British weavers and textile workers who objected to the increased use of automated looms and knitting
frames" & in response to the increased automation in their industry "Began breaking into factories and
smashing textile machines". This goes to show humanity's fear of change. Immortality would lead to
societal changes on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. So it's no surprise that the
premise of immortality sounds kind of scary. At some point things like driving or bathing would become
extremely rare as over a few thousand years there is a high probability that you would die from them.
People would never go outside so long as it provides any amount of danger, & what about food who's
going to farm when over a few thousand years that will likely kill them. Society as we know it would fall
apart. However while it may seem impossible these are all questions that should raise hope rather than
fear. If we wanted to we could easily live our lives like always once we obtain immortality. The fact that
these patterns are considered to be possible at all clearly shows that they aren't problems. According
to pg.515 Krugman's Economics consumers "Usually base their choices on a rough attempt to achieve
greater satisfaction", so if society did get turned over on its head it would be because acting normally
would be much worse.
"British weavers and textile workers who objected to the increased use of automated looms and knitting
frames" & in response to the increased automation in their industry "Began breaking into factories and
smashing textile machines". This goes to show humanity's fear of change. Immortality would lead to
societal changes on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. So it's no surprise that the
premise of immortality sounds kind of scary. At some point things like driving or bathing would become
extremely rare as over a few thousand years there is a high probability that you would die from them.
People would never go outside so long as it provides any amount of danger, & what about food who's
going to farm when over a few thousand years that will likely kill them. Society as we know it would fall
apart. However while it may seem impossible these are all questions that should raise hope rather than
fear. If we wanted to we could easily live our lives like always once we obtain immortality. The fact that
these patterns are considered to be possible at all clearly shows that they aren't problems. According
to pg.515 Krugman's Economics consumers "Usually base their choices on a rough attempt to achieve
greater satisfaction", so if society did get turned over on its head it would be because acting normally
would be much worse.
Another popular argument against immorality is that death gives life purpose & that by giving everything
a due date we are supposed to be able to live our life's to the fullest. However again if living you're life to
the fullest & getting as much done as possible is a good thing, a statement I do not disagree with, then
we would still do so with no due date. Just because no one is forcing me to write this doesn't mean I
won't write it. It just simply means I have the freedom to choose whether I do or not. If you are truly passionate about achieving a goal then you would still want to achieve it whether or not there was a time stamp on it. Immortality should give your achievements more value as you
won't have to lose them & you would be given the freedom to slowly come to a decision as to what you
want to do in life. By giving life a due date you force people to rush into careers that don't fit them just
to stay afloat, or skimp out on their passions because they would be to costly to achieve. You can see
this in the fact that as our average lifespan has increased heirloom jobs have plummeted in quantity, &
while job hopping has increased, according to Forbes "millennials do more job-hopping than any other
generation". The other side to this argument is that eventually we would run out of things to do & stuff
to discover, an argument that inherently relies on a discrimination towards imagination. Both human
creativity & the universe are likely infinite & while what we currently define as achievable goals or
discoverable knowledge are likely finite. Our perception of goals & achievements are bound to change.
The only difference between nonsense & the stuff of value is just that value. Whatever humans can
give or find value in is what is perceived as important but is something that readily changes. The
ancient Greeks found value in the stories' of their gods as they believed that these could keep them
safe or teach them how to ascend into heaven. Know religions like Christianity are on top & science to
has been turned on its head. Once we accomplish the original goal of purpose to benefit the species,
we can create an even higher goal, to benefit the individual. & I don't mean in a to each his own type of
way, I mean rather than focusing all our attention on surviving & helping those who are sick, poor,
malnourished, or elderly we can focus on enlightening ourselves to a stage that we currently likely
cannot fathom. The efficacy at which we could invent new mediums of entertainment would simply
dwarf the law of diminishing returns.
a due date we are supposed to be able to live our life's to the fullest. However again if living you're life to
the fullest & getting as much done as possible is a good thing, a statement I do not disagree with, then
we would still do so with no due date. Just because no one is forcing me to write this doesn't mean I
won't write it. It just simply means I have the freedom to choose whether I do or not. If you are truly passionate about achieving a goal then you would still want to achieve it whether or not there was a time stamp on it. Immortality should give your achievements more value as you
won't have to lose them & you would be given the freedom to slowly come to a decision as to what you
want to do in life. By giving life a due date you force people to rush into careers that don't fit them just
to stay afloat, or skimp out on their passions because they would be to costly to achieve. You can see
this in the fact that as our average lifespan has increased heirloom jobs have plummeted in quantity, &
while job hopping has increased, according to Forbes "millennials do more job-hopping than any other
generation". The other side to this argument is that eventually we would run out of things to do & stuff
to discover, an argument that inherently relies on a discrimination towards imagination. Both human
creativity & the universe are likely infinite & while what we currently define as achievable goals or
discoverable knowledge are likely finite. Our perception of goals & achievements are bound to change.
The only difference between nonsense & the stuff of value is just that value. Whatever humans can
give or find value in is what is perceived as important but is something that readily changes. The
ancient Greeks found value in the stories' of their gods as they believed that these could keep them
safe or teach them how to ascend into heaven. Know religions like Christianity are on top & science to
has been turned on its head. Once we accomplish the original goal of purpose to benefit the species,
we can create an even higher goal, to benefit the individual. & I don't mean in a to each his own type of
way, I mean rather than focusing all our attention on surviving & helping those who are sick, poor,
malnourished, or elderly we can focus on enlightening ourselves to a stage that we currently likely
cannot fathom. The efficacy at which we could invent new mediums of entertainment would simply
dwarf the law of diminishing returns.
Now, while it may seem like I'm rambling on some far of premise, immortality is in fact achievable.
There are many groups currently trying to develop it including the SENS Research Foundation,
according to its co-founder Dr Aubrey de Grey of Cambridge University "SENS Research Foundation’s
strategy to prevent and reverse age-related ill-health is to apply the principles of regenerative
medicine to repair the damage of aging at the level where it occurs." If however your reason for being
against immortality is that you hope for an afterlife or are extremely curious to see what comes next,
well then I'd have to say that logic still deems it too risky to gamble on. As long as we could entertain
ourselves indefinitely once immortal, & as long as nothing interfered with our potential to live forever,
than the cost of dying would be infinite when measured in utils or the amount of pleasure gained from
experiences. If you consider dying to be a gamble as every decision is when the outcomes aren't 100%
factual, than there would never be a scenario where dying by choice would be logical. You're
essentially gambling an infinite amount of happiness, with zero evidence to suggest that your going to
win. Even if an afterlife would be more interesting it's still far better to play it safe than take such a risk.
This is also an issue of morality, if the life lost from something like cancer is a problem why isn't the
loss of life from aging even more infuriating it kills the far more people & does much more harm to our
societies.
There are many groups currently trying to develop it including the SENS Research Foundation,
according to its co-founder Dr Aubrey de Grey of Cambridge University "SENS Research Foundation’s
strategy to prevent and reverse age-related ill-health is to apply the principles of regenerative
medicine to repair the damage of aging at the level where it occurs." If however your reason for being
against immortality is that you hope for an afterlife or are extremely curious to see what comes next,
well then I'd have to say that logic still deems it too risky to gamble on. As long as we could entertain
ourselves indefinitely once immortal, & as long as nothing interfered with our potential to live forever,
than the cost of dying would be infinite when measured in utils or the amount of pleasure gained from
experiences. If you consider dying to be a gamble as every decision is when the outcomes aren't 100%
factual, than there would never be a scenario where dying by choice would be logical. You're
essentially gambling an infinite amount of happiness, with zero evidence to suggest that your going to
win. Even if an afterlife would be more interesting it's still far better to play it safe than take such a risk.
This is also an issue of morality, if the life lost from something like cancer is a problem why isn't the
loss of life from aging even more infuriating it kills the far more people & does much more harm to our
societies.
In conclusion immortality is feared because of the massive societal changes it would bring, the great
challenge it poses to many our beliefs, & the possibility that it's worse than death. But none of these
arguments stop the search for immortality from being rational either because they hold no actual merit,
or because they don't provide enough evidence. & given the substantial benefits immortality provides
it should not just be desired but prioritized. As a human you need to ensure that immortality exists not
only for yourself but for everyone else as well. These deaths don't help contribute to some grand truth,
nor are they inevitable & neither will yours be.
challenge it poses to many our beliefs, & the possibility that it's worse than death. But none of these
arguments stop the search for immortality from being rational either because they hold no actual merit,
or because they don't provide enough evidence. & given the substantial benefits immortality provides
it should not just be desired but prioritized. As a human you need to ensure that immortality exists not
only for yourself but for everyone else as well. These deaths don't help contribute to some grand truth,
nor are they inevitable & neither will yours be.
Build the wall
ReplyDelete