In the spirit of open and inclusive discussion, I'm going to post some links and some quick thoughts and just try to open up a subject area for random contributions and waffling.
Anti-aging research has come a long way, but in direct contravention of science fiction, we're still not handing out 'juvenat treatments' like sweetmeats. Are we coming close to the elixir of life? Or are we chasing a receding goal like some fever dream?
Aubrey de Grey seems to think that the solution lies in reorienting the approach to the middle ground between geriatrics and gerontology...
The approaches that are available are promising: resveratrol can dramatically increase the lifespan of nematode worms, caloric restriction can't be very much fun but it is proven to increase lifespan for larger animals (rats and mice by 40%). Genetics and proteomics are trickier for me to unravel, but I am assured that the answers there are coming...
If that's not enough to prompt some commotion, what about the fact that we seem to be built for immortality, but have natural selected against it? What are we to take from the fact that sex-cells are functionally immortal, but we are not? Is this a direct confirmation of the selfish gene theory?
http://www.world-science.net/
And then there's the ethics of anti-ageing research. Personally, I feel like arguing that longevity may actually be the answer to our problems, especially if we are of the optimistic viewpoint that ordinary people are still in control of their own destiny, and the goodness of man should prevail.
For instance, despite the accelerating increase in the speed of effective action, policy planning lifespans for everything from fishery to war is outstripping the political lifetimes of those who make the highest level decisions, and thus carry the can. If we assume a consequent/correlative 'drawing out' of the length of time we spend doing things, including our careers, then our lives may also begin to catch up on the timescales that politicians need to be responsible for. That's not to say that all the other problems with global capitalism will go away. But then again, why not? If the people who refuse to account for the full cost of their decisions suddenly realise that they're going to have to face consequences inherent in the raped system that they currently think they're 'leaving to the next generation', might they not think twice?
So lets get back to the waffles...
6 comments:
Very appropriate, very appropriate post for an upcoming birthday.
As I believe I've mentioned before, immortality research has to eventually come into conflict with reproductive rights - there's a conflict here that pro-immortality individuals tend to ignore. For the majority of people, the reproductive rights are more important than the immortality, and there's a problem here that we have to face down at some point.
Whether we have to face it in our lifetimes is less clear. :)
I have a slight issue with your suggestion that "immortal" sex cells are 'proof' of selfish gene theory - a theory which rests on the claim that selection at the genetic level is more important than selection at the individual or group level.
Now here's my issue: in sexual reproduction (the form that goes with your immortal sex cells) only half the genes are passed to the next generation. If, as selfish gene theory claims, each gene tends towards maximising its own replication, a long-living organism that reproduces repeatedly achieves this goal more effectively than a short lived organism that breeds only (say) once. This is because each gene only gets a 50% chance of transmission with each new offspring, and clearly the chance of transmission rises the more breeding options occur.
So why, if selfish gene theory is to be held in this context, do we die after a limited number of breeding options? Is it not because (on the one hand) the very process of evolution is accelerated by the sexual selection "shuffling" of genes and (on the other) we need the older organisms to die in order that they be replaced to create the environmental "space" for new niches to develop?
In a world of immortal organisms, reproduction risks being a liability - it can put too much pressure on the available limited resources. In a world of mortal organisms, reproduction is an asset - not only in producing "replacement" organisms but also in offering those all important opportunities for new traits to develop through "genetic shuffling".
So I would say that this has absolutely nothing to do with selection occurring principally at the level of the gene, and everything to do with selecting against immortal organisms as being "evolutionary dead ends" - a selection process which, I am suggesting, must happen at a level other than the gene, since from the gene's perspective the immortal organism should (on paper) be more effective - at least in the way this is framed in the selfish gene model.
I would suggest this only looks like a selfish gene issue because it looks like the transmission of genes is taking precedence over the individual organisms, a perspective based on the assumption that dying isn't in the best interests of the individual - the same perspective actuated in thinking about immortality tech while ignoring the conflict with reproductive rights (to bring this discussion full circle).
Have you ever considered that dying might actually be in the best interests of the individual? Not least of which because, in the case of mammals and so forth, even immortal brain cells hit saturation (senility). Immortal cells do not produce immortal lifeforms outside of anything more complicated than bacteria and algae.
Spent far too long on this comment now. Must dash! :)
Best wishes!
lol Nice title :D Now...let the birds eye potato waffles begin!
Everlasting life sounds like fun. From what I understand of quantum mechanics and the inner workings of our universe (which is very little), there is no reason why we can't live forever, it is just as improbable as us having lived in the first place. So we must have to explain why we have evoled in this way...and if it is possible that other beings have evolved another way, one which does not require death? Either way, this waffle will brush in some way on that larger question of whyyyyyyyyyyy!?
I do agree, if it was possible though, if I was definitely going to live forever, I would certainly have a greater desire to protect the planet and keep it in some state worth living in.
Probably why parents seem concerned about the world they leave to their children (genetic investment?) and why the religious warn us of a next world of fire and brimstone...i.e. they are looking beyond themselves as individuals into the mysterious face of eternity (and perhaps our only good chance at immortality so far, that is through the ever changing process of life and death).
I do see certain issues with eternal life though for the individual. If it was to be eternity on this planet and this planet alone, then we would need to stop having children....as eventually that would lead us to convert all the matter on the planet into human beings (right?).
So, if we wished to each live forever and still have children, we would need to start moving into the cosmos and having babies on new planets (perhaps we could fly around in space ships impregnating monkeys, mu ha ha ha), or someone increase the size of this planet ad infinitum. So that is one thing. It would have to be sustainable.
And this brings to a second issue, and probably my greater concern with ever lasting life, motivation. I can't speak for the animal kingdom, but as a human being I would imagine that an individuals action in the face of eternity would take on a new perspective (no true beauty without decay?).
If I remember correctly, as a child when I became self aware I lived my life looking ahead to growing up...and now that I am an adult, I am well aware of my own mortality.
These things caused me to act...in one respect childhood never became overly burdensome because there was the prospect of adulthood to look forward to (although I can't honestly say this, as I don't think I would have thought about it that way as a child). Adulthood on the other hand is driven in part by the awareness of mortality (enjoy it while you can) and an appreciation for the transience of beauty.
No doubt to remain alive for eternity we would have to discover in our lives something we could happily exist with forever...heaven I suppose. Do you think it is possible?
I remember a short story (I will attempt to paraphrase, although you could probably google it ;)) by Oscar Wilde about a man who having died is before god in the hall of judgment.
God looks over his life and first says...you have been wicked and mean, lustful and cruel, greedy and selfish, proud and vain"...and the man say "so I have" and god replies "so, I must surely send you to hell, to hell you will go!" And the man replies "You cannot" and god asks "why can I not?" and the man replies "Because that is where I have always been" and god sits back and has a good think about it...and then says "In that case, surely I must send you to heaven, to heaven you will go!" and the man once again replies "You cannot!" and god asks "why can I not?" and the man replies "Because in all my life, and in all my travels, and in all my thoughts, never have I been able to imagine such a place" and in the end there is simply silence in the hall of judgment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FTuNPq6XFw
Haha...are those times correct? What are the chances two people called Chris and Kris deciding to reply to this at the exact same time?
Improbable my ass!
True immortality does preclude reproduction, I agree. Senility at the biological or psychological level would need to be overcome, which would seem to imply us growing into such breadth and depth of mental capacity that we would reach weakly godlike states, unneedful of the novelty brought by reproduction.
From our current be-suited monkey status, and given all these hurdles to overcome, it doesn't seem too likely that we'll reach that godlike state. So why bother to worry about the logical extension of the principle, when the practice is so much less dangerous, attractive in fact?
We didn't always live to 90, and when we didn't we weren't necessarily living more harmonised lifestyles. I've always argued that man is not a naturally homeostatic species, so why not embrace the change on offer? We need something radical to improve our chances. And functional, though not strict, immortality could be the key. 200, 500, 1000 years of life per person wouldn't affect the need for new people, though they might happen less often. The need for quality of life for our existing people, I would argue, is a higher one than the need to maintain our current levels of reproduction. And isn't that the practical question here? Too many people, not enough time.
Some more discussion took place on this topic, in chat form. Here's the transcipt:
5:24 PM
kris: was thinking about your reply to the stuff on zenben...if two people share basically the same physiology, the same basic environment and clear their mind to a certain level were by their unique experiences (if there is such a thing) are filtered...do you think it is possible for them to share the same being?
5:28 PM
me: isn't environment infinitely complex though?
'basic environment' could be a misnomer
5:30 PM
kris: perhaps an archetypal environment...one which may express itself in reality in an infinitely complex way...like the idea of the tree
an archetypal idea of an environment
if that makes sense
I am just trying to figure out an answer to the immortality question
5:31 PM
the best I can come up with so far is that if you go sit under a tree, you can potentially share the same experience of being as countless others who have sat under a tree and though something similar
5:32 PM
that that is the closest you can get to touching immortality
5:32 PM
me: well, i think the reflection of the environment within the individual is important enough that you'd need to have very similar ones, for the entire period of their existence
5:33 PM
unless the experience is transformative
5:34 PM
like the experience of sitting under the tree would need to transform each person utterly, in the same way
but maybe thats what you meant by 'clear their mind'
5:35 PM
kris: uh huh#
kris: is there not something though about the environment...the physiology of the person, that would override the minutia of the personal experience of life...i.e. the environment as a store of information, and the body equally so...is far more vast than the individuals experience of the world and hence could override the sense of self
well, its the best I can do so far...but whether it is what people mean by immortality...is another thing, I think people really mean maintaining that personal experience
5:37 PM
me: yeah, I could see the consciousness being washed away by experience, but then if self-consciousness returns, even transformed, it needs to rebuild itself around what was there before. so all individual traits affect the person, even after this experience
I'm thinking at the physical level
5:38 PM
kris: sure...I think it would be hard to function any more in society otherwise :)
if you forgot how to talk for instance
5:39 PM
me: even neurological topology
the new consciousness has to be based on it...on it, and on the body too
5:40 PM
kris: well, those would be part of the existing physiology
in my example
5:41 PM
I suppose its hard to draw a line between the genetic hard coding and the culturally determined neurology
if that makes sense
5:42 PM
me: isn't it the case in your example that if there is an infinite, you can only really be part of it until you 'come down' and rejoin the self-conscious world?
5:42 PM
kris: by part of it, you mean to experience it?
5:45 PM
me: well, sort of but not subjective experience - cos thats self-conscious
5:46 PM
kris: do you think animals are self conscious?
I reckon they must be
5:47 PM
Pablo seems very conscious of the fact that he doesn't have hands...I think it irritates him greatly
5:48 PM
me: Pablo?
5:48 PM
kris: my folks dog
5:49 PM
me: oh
5:50 PM
kris: not some handless person who I keep in the basement
thats someone else
Post a Comment