Radical Life Extension: Good or Bad?
Ed Brayton on Jan 5th 2008
Cato Unbound has a debate on the subject of radical life extension - the pursuit and development of medical advances that would significantly extend human life spans by decades, perhaps even centuries. They pose the question in these terms:
Is aging an inevitability or a disease? Is death the ultimate tragedy or necessary to give life meaning? If we could live forever, should we want to? If much longer lives are within technological reach, is it our duty to do everything possible to achieve radical life extension, or is it instead our duty to reconcile ourselves to finitude?
There are many arguments against radical life extension, some philosophical and some practical; none strike me as the least bit compelling. If advances in medicine, nutrition and other fields allow human beings to live much longer and healthier lives, would this be a bad thing? I can’t conceive that it would be any more than I can conceive that it already has; after all, advances in those fields have already allowed the average human life span to roughly double over the centuries. Who among us would turn back the clock and hope to have an average lifespan of 40 or 45?
Daniel Callahan, a conservative bioethicist, takes a stand against extending lifespans in his contribution to this debate but I frankly don’t think he really believes his position. For instance, he writes:
The Roman philosopher Seneca noted many centuries ago that “it is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it. Life is long enough, and a sufficiently generous amount has been given for the highest achievements if it were well-invested…. Life is long if you know how to use it.” Those words were written when the average life expectancy was 30 and one was considered was considered old at 40. He was right then and his words are still true today.
But if Seneca was right then, at a time when people only lived to be 40, why isn’t Callahan arguing against the vast range of medical advances that have already allowed us to extend human life spans to nearly twice that amount? At 77 years old, would Callahan actually wish not to have the last 35 years of his life? Does he believe that his last 35 years have been superfluous?
If he doesn’t - and I’m quite sure he doesn’t - then he doesn’t really believe that Seneca was right. And if he recognizes and believes that the last 35 years of his life have been useful, joyful, productive and so forth, why would he not wish for 35 more? Or 70 more? He characterizes the argument of Aubrey de Grey, an aging researcher who is actively working on these medical advances and who began the debate at Cato, this way:
An implicit premise of de Grey’s argument is that a longer life is a better life, and that the longer the better, and even longer, even better.
Well, close. I think the premise is that if one’s life is healthy, productive and happy then it is better that it be longer. Is that premise false? I can’t imagine a coherent response to it. The only possible moral argument, as opposed to a practical one, would have to be a religious one, that by living longer you are forestalling your entry into heaven.
For someone who believes in heaven, this may seem a rational response. And of course, no one is suggesting that they be forced to extend their life (except, perhaps ironically, the very people who would make this argument, since they generally overlap with those who oppose even passive, voluntary euthansia). But for someone like me who sees no reason to believe that there is an afterlife, this argument is simply not a compelling one.
I’d be curious to hear the views of Positive Liberty readers on this issue.
Filed in The Basement
[...] At Positive Liberty Ed Brayton, writing on age and lifespan notes: Daniel Callahan, a conservative bioethicist, takes a stand against extending lifespans in his contribution to this debate but I frankly don’t think he really believes his position. For instance, he writes: The Roman philosopher Seneca noted many centuries ago that “it is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it. Life is long enough, and a sufficiently generous amount has been given for the highest achievements if it were well-invested…. Life is long if you know how to use it.” Those words were written when the average life expectancy was 30 and one was considered was considered old at 40. He was right then and his words are still true today. [...]
This exercise can be looked at in two different ways: either as a matter of public policy, or a matter of personal practice.
As for policy, it seems quite clear to me that no coercion (i.e. government funding/endorsement) can be justified to provide resources for such a study or pursuit. There are just way too many objections to be made, from the faith-based ones you mention, to questions of practicality and possibility, to a variety of salient economic objections. Though these objections may not compel you, they are far from trivial enough to be dismissed outright when dealing with monopolies of force and public policy. Nor does it seem that any prohibition can be justified, or even clearly defined on such a hypothetical question, for many of the reasons that you point out.
From there if we progress to a question of personal practice, this whole exercise falls apart, under the weight of too many hypotheticals, and could easily be relegated to the waste bin labeled “mental masturbation.” There are clearly many practices and supplements in use today designed to lengthen, or strengthen our lives, and each must be taken on its own merits. Clearly there have been many positive advances (eye glasses perhaps top the list,) but it is unquestionable that there have been just as many if not more, of a dubious nature (lead paint and asbestos seemed great at first.) For the most part, I would submit that every advantage that technology grants us also robs from us a small part of what connects us with the natural world (automobiles and processed foods have made us obese and increasingly disconnected from the natural environment, computers and telephones often disconnect us from real physical human contact and have decimated the American neighborhood,) and I would stress that due diligence should be paid to understand this give and take before we make a choice that is irreversible.
Even if we only look at the actual practices employed today, it can clearly be understood that life extension is not near as easy as some might suggest. The recent extensions have not only created economic and familial strains, but also given rise to a whole new slough of physiological strains, perhaps most notably in regards to neurology. All this being said, it seems incredibly hard to argue against a hypothetical externality-free life extender (without resorting to faith-based arguments,) but then it seems harder to argue that such a creation could be achieved (without resorting to science fantasy.)