[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Brett Paatsch]

Mark Walker wrote:

> > From: "Brett Paatsch" <
>
> > 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?
> >
> The answer to this question is in the paper itself.

Ok. But the answer to the question in general is not the same as
having other people ask it of Kass in particular.

I don't know if you seen the Movie Inherit the Wind about the Scopes
Monkey Trial? If you haven't its worth a look. Anyone that tries
to impose their morality on other people places themselves in a position
of separation from all other people. The challenge is how to tease that
out. The lawyer defending Scopes in the monkey trial (in the movie)
does it well. He shows that its not the Bible per se (in Kass case
- perhaps instead of the bible its conventional morality (but as *he*
see's it) and his interpretation is only one interpretation) - what still
remains unclear (and dangerous) is why one interpretation gets to
be priviledged.

Perhaps I can't make this point - in this manner. To obtuse. If not
sorry.

> Opponents of radical  life extension may agree that one should not
> ration the "normal" lifespan of individuals but radical life extension
> goes beyond this.

Yes. What is normal though? That the pivot point. Some of your
class will have a concept of normal as 3 score and 10, but they
know there is a range around that.

Explore how they feel if their life expectancy was to be halved
as a result of some rationing decision. A policy decision. Related
to health economics or something. Old people are too expensive
etc. Or the too sick young are too expensive to treat and so don't
get the normal life expectancy because the treatments haven't been
developed. Get your class to examine what happens when normal
is investigated closer. Normal has shifted greatly if the WHO life
expectancy figures are tracked. Who'd want to go back to what
was normal say 100 years ago as opposed to now. Or 50. On what
basis?  - That sort of thing.

>  For example, opponents might think that the former
> follows from a "right to life" but disagree that a right to life implies a
> "right to an immortal life".

Immortal is going to be a problem in a philosophical discussion I'd think
as its not real.

> Thus,  I think our opponents will see a principled distinction between
> rationing  mortal lives and immortal lives whereas we don't.

I'm sure you are right on this if you leave "normal" and "immortal" alone.

> I'm trying to offer an argument against such a principled distinction.

I understand.

>So, I think at least some of  our opponents will say that your sketch
> of an argument begs one of the main questions.

Yes. I'm sorry it was only a sketch.


> > 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.

> I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't see that Kass is saying that
> his worldview is privileged in any untoward way.

Kass is good. I.e Effective. I don't know him to be immoral. To beat
his arguments will not be easy. You can't afford (we can't afford) to
let him have exclusive right to all that is perceived as normal and also
argue for something as intractable (unrealistic) as immortality
ourselves.

>He offers arguments
> for the ethical conclusions that he makes--if this is what you mean
> by a privileged world view then I am equally guilty.

I know. Some of his arguments are good ones. That's not what I
meant. The best I can offer is the Inherit the Wind business.

You will not be able to beat Kass if Kass is right. :-)

>Furthermore, as far as I can tell Kass  doesn't say that we
>should ration the lives of others, what he argues is that it is morally
> impermissible to seek physical immortality. These claims
> are distinct--as I point out in the paper.

I accept that having not read the paper my comments are
largely gratuitous. Sorry for that. I will read it later if I get
time.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch