Fw: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Mark Walker]

> From: "Hubert Mania"
> I strongly advice you to delete the "introductory" completely. If it would
> not have been for immortality I would have stopped reading after the first
> page. An example: In the following short paragraph you use "permissible"
> 7 times and "morally" 6 times which is tiring and aesthetically
inexcusable.
> Academic readers might be used to this kind of style, a bunch of lawyers
> maybe, [snip]
>

Indeed, it is an academic paper. I would have a thought that the references
are all to academic papers might have been a give away. Perhaps, I should
append a warning at the top of the paper that it is an academic paper. That
said, I agree that it could be written better.

>
> What follows until "Global Triage" are exhausting examples about "Kill
> Bill". Anyone who is not familiar with your character and your altruistic
> aims might think you are obsessed with killing. I guess you are probably
> not, but one can gain this impression. I would I believe the scenarios you
discuss
> here at length are obvious to anybody who has at least 5 ounces of common
> sense in his brain.

Well, I do like Edvard Munch and Nick Cave, but I wouldn't call it an
obsession. I agree that one might think the scenarios are obvious, but I am
not sure they are. I taught a course last semester on the ethics of emerging
biomedical technologies and one of the things we discussed was physical
immortality. Like the general population, most of the class was apprehensive
about issues such as cloning, genetic engineering, etc. So, I wasn't
surprised when most of said they would decline the opportunity for physical
immortality if it were offered to them. Nor was I surprised that they
thought that others should not have the opportunity either. What made me
write the paper, however, was the fact that most seem to have little regret
for refusing access to life extension technology. Their reasons for not
granting access were typically of the sort described in the global triage
section, which I understand even though I don't agree. In refusing access to
radical life extension technology they seem to think that they were merely
depriving individuals of a narcissistic (to use Kass' word) luxury. At the
time I challenged them to show the difference between refusing access to the
sorts of life extending procedures we now condone like blood transfusions,
and those of radical life extension. The analysis of killing that they seem
to presuppose is that killing is wrong if it ends a "normal" life span, and
so what they are proposing is not wrong or to be regretted because it is not
like killing or letting die mortal humans. If the argument I make is
correct, this analysis is wrong because what is primarily wrong with killing
has little to do with one's past and has more to do with one's potential
future. In any event, I think that most people think there is a big
difference between not permitting access for mortal humans to blood
transfusions, and not permitting access to radical life extension
technology. So, I think it is a worthwhile project to show that this is not
the case.

Thanks for comments--much appreciated!

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org