[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Brett Paatsch]

Mark Walker wrote:

> In case anyone is interested, I have a first draft of a paper
> on physical immortality.  http://www.permanentend.org/immortality.html

Good the more the merrier.

I am sorry I haven't the time to go to the whole paper. You posted
the abstract so I'll respond with an impression on the abstract.

>The abstract is below:

>Abstract: Killing mortal humans is wrong primarily because
> it inflicts upon individuals one of the greatest losses they can
> experience: the loss of their future.

Hmm. I guess it could reduce down to that but if so thats
unfortunate as a logical case might be based on it but not a
widely resonately compelling one I suspect. You'd have just
a narrow but perhaps valid case of interest to a relatively
small audience, is my impression.

>  It is argued that this same analysis applies to those who
> would deny access to life extension technology.

Ok

> To deny access to radical life extension technology—technology
> that would greatly extend or permit physical immortality
> —is wrong primarily because it inflicts upon those who
> desire this technology one of the greatest losses they can
> experience: the loss of their future.

Looks like a suboptimal moral argument to run. Why not
run instead:

On what basis does *any* human individual *presume* to
*ration* the lifespan of any other human individual?

Religious? Economic? Bizarre utilitarian where nonexistent or
potential beings are weighted against actual ones in a calculus
that balances imaginary against real? - If so then more rope
for the opponent please! :-)

A lot of good existing moral arguments can be enlisted in the
service of challenging those who would presume to ration
others lives.

> Recognition of this loss  makes a strong presumptive case
> for the moral impermissibility of prohibiting access to radical
> life extension technology.

Life extension technology is fuzzy stuff to most people. Where
does something like penicillin or gm food grown in poor farmland
fit in for instance - these could be life extension technologies.

I much prefer scenarios where those who would argue the merits
of death are more closely revealed for what they are trying to do
- that is ration other peoples lives based on their own worldview.

I prefer to see them (Kass etc) have to make their case with the
world looking and wondering how they (Kass etc) got to
consider that their particular worldview should be particularly
priviledged. How is it that Kass presumes the wisdom and moral
judgement to ration other peoples lives... Let Kass etc **make**
their case if they can - whilst having to *conspicuously* carrying
the full burden of their prejudice.

While my impression is that the ground you are choosing to fight
may be suboptimal, I haven't read more than your abstract, and I
certainly commend doing something as better than doing nothing.

Good luck.

Regards,
Brett