Anne : Superlongevity, Stagnation, and Posthuman Potential

Visit our sponsor: Vitamins, Supplements, Nootropics

Home

News

Join the revolution!

Convergence08 1 2 3 Next >

Amazon.com Widgets

Anne

Superlongevity, Stagnation, and Posthuman Potential

One notion that comes up occasionally in the discussion of radical life extension, or superlongevity, or whatever one might call it, is that of possible "cultural stagnation" or some sort of suppression of evolution. A commenter named Josh on the IEET's posted version of Mark Walker's "Universal Superlongevity -- Is it Inevitable and Is It Good?" paper:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/walkersuperlongevity

suggests that, "The individual is by design a temporary entity manifested out of inherited diversity to temporarily express possible solutions to currently relevant hindrances to evolution. Technology is just such an example of a solution. A deathless society is not."

The entire fulcrum of this comment seems to be the notion that individuals must necessarily be sacrificed so that some central tenet of nature may be upheld for the "greater good". I question the notion that a maximally "good" and ethical society must condemn people to death, despite the possibility of developing healthy life-extending technologies. Though some people certainly garner meaning and motivation from awareness of their own mortality, this is not true of all people. I do not see why the "death is meaningful" folks should get to decide the lifespans of those who disagree. As far as I am concerned, people who want to die are welcome to do so, but those who would rather stay around longer should have that option.

However, I do think that the "stagnation" argument has some merit to it, in the sense that new generations do tend to produce fresh perspectives, and indeed, aside from a few "dark age" periods in recorded history in various regions of the world, there has been an overall upward trend in terms of potential quality of life.

But it is my impression that part of this "quality of life" made possible by evolving ethical realizations and technological advances stems from the tendency of these forms of progress to enhance the individual's ability to lead a self-directed existence. The commenter quoted above seems to think that evolution and death of individuals are inextricably linked, and that if you take death out of the equation, evolution will cease and this will lead to some sort of diminishing of the "greater good".

What is being missed here is the fact that this is only one person's conception of a possible "greater good". Certainly, as technology continues to allow lifespans to increase and human abilities to be enhanced, it seems that cognitive flexibility and the capacity for innovation could very well be one of the targets of enhancement interventions. And there does not seem to be anything inherent in the definition of "evolution" that necessitates the destruction of individuals. Biological evolution involving the diversification of expressed genetic traits through the lives and reproductive cycles of generations that die is only one possible evolutionary scenario. Ideas and philosophies have been said to "evolve" -- however, this does not mean that the ideas of one generation are destroyed to make room for the next. If there is some sort of merit to the preservation of an idea, then it will simply be incorporated into new models of a particular philosophy -- not unchanged, but not destroyed either. It makes little sense to place arbitrary limits on the brains of posthumans in terms of the ability of these brains to enjoy a degree of plasticity and flexibility often considered the exclusive province of the young and new.

I think that the same could be said to be true of people. I imagine that if there were any humans alive today (with intact memories) who were born 500 or 1000 years ago, these people, far from being seen as evidence of "stagnation", would almost certainly be sought after for their ability to offer a long-range perspective. The ability to look at physical phenomena (such as layers of rock and crumbled architecture left by ancient civilizations, ice sheets, etc.) and determine patterns in weather and ecology and social / economic trends has not devalued science -- in fact, an entire branch of science could be said to consist of pattern-analysis. We seek to simulate a long-range perspective such as that which might be held by the very, very long-lived by indirect observation and what amounts to a sort of forensics -- but imagine if this perspective were direct, rather than indirect? It does seem that being able to observe patterns and fluctuations in natural and sociological phenomena over eons might at least be worth trying out.

I do not think there is much danger of a society in which no babies are ever born -- and even if there was, I do not see a pressing ethical problem with perhaps altering our evolutionary path so that it begins to occur through creative means that are nonbiological in nature. There is nothing inherently "good" about a species that has as many babies as possible and makes sure to kill off the parents every few years or so. This may indeed lead to a particular form of biological evolution, but if our own human evolution has led us in a direction that allows for different pathways to the future (not necessarily along purely random biological vectors), then perhaps it is only "natural" that we at least explore these new pathways on the basis of experimentation. When discussing the "greater good", it seems ethically irresponsible to dismiss a particular potential pathway out of hand without even trying it. For all we know, superlongevity could lead to forms of "greater good" we cannot even imagine at present.

Further discussion on this matter would be greatly appreciated, since the "stagnation" argument against radical life extension seems to be nearly as frequently encountered these days as the "overpopulation" argument.

Published Monday, May 15, 2006 9:45 PM by Anne

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

	Cybert wrote on May 16, 2006 1:26 AM I think plasticity and flexibility are quite available to older people. As an elective eunuch, I found myself finding much more wonder in the world. The problem was not experience, but hormones.
	dagon wrote on May 16, 2006 7:11 AM The very argument that we need to question life extension is to me akin to a demon in sheep's clothing. It is a horrible idea and I oppose it to the very core. Just a few moments of analysis of all consequences of the idea lead you to conclusions that are just too horrible to contemplate. However, christian right nutjobs (and some other groups) will likely do anything to cling to a idea of the world which they arbitrarily deem natural, and enforce it on those not of their denomination. I openly speculate that life extension will mean the demise of most monotheistic religions and they know it. My guess is that transhumanism as an idea faces tough opposition.
	EschewObfuscation wrote on May 16, 2006 11:07 AM dagon, excellent post. >The very argument that we need to question life extension is to me akin to a demon in sheep's clothing. It is a horrible idea and I oppose it to the very core. Just a few moments of analysis of all consequences of the idea lead you to conclusions that are just too horrible to contemplate. Indeed. Ultimately, being anti-life-extension LOGICALLY REQUIRES you to say that some higher entity should be able to kill old people. I believe Francis Fukuyama has even admitted as much. >I openly speculate that life extension will mean the demise of most monotheistic religions and they know it. Not as much as AI, genetic engineering, nano-replicators, and uploading, all of which take away the supernatural specialness of humanity to various extents. >My guess is that transhumanism as an idea faces tough opposition. Indeed. People on Betterhumans seem to be irrationally exuberant that people know transhumanist technologies exist. That doesn't matter, it was inevitable. The real question is, what is society going to do about these technologies now that it's aware?
	Jim Ledford wrote on May 16, 2006 6:15 PM I too agree. Seems to me that Superlongivity/stagnation is not a problem when you factor in intellegence amplification and transformative learning. Walker knows about growth in the cognitive domain. So what are we missing?
	Anne wrote on May 16, 2006 10:45 PM >Ultimately, being anti-life-extension LOGICALLY REQUIRES you to say that some higher entity should be able to kill old people. I honestly don't see why MORE people don't have a huge problem with this. A society in which some (government? religious?) agent has more control over my lifespan than I do does NOT sound like the sort of society that would be good for anyone. What life extension comes down to, is ultimately, the right to exist at all. It certainly doesn't seem ethical for one group of people to dictate what other groups of people aren't allowed to exist. Age is just another variable. When people advocate killing old people who have supposedly "worn out their welcome" I can't help but see that as a parallel to targeting various races or people with disabilities for extinction. >Seems to me that Superlongivity/stagnation is not a problem when you factor in intellegence amplification and transformative learning. Exactly. The comment that prompted my original post (the second comment under Walker's essay) seemed to be very heavy on rhetoric (about the Greater Good and things being Natural and so forth) but light on substance. By that poster's logic, anyone who has a child at 30 rather than 16 would be guilty of "slowing evolution".
	Anne wrote on May 16, 2006 11:01 PM >My guess is that transhumanism as an idea faces tough opposition. I think the main opposition faced by transhumanism is people who base their arguments and policies on "gut feelings" rather than ethics. It's really difficult to logically argue against someone's gut feeling, and a lot of people just find life extension technology to be squicky because they aren't accustomed to considering it. They've probably also spent a lifetime-so-far building up all these existential security blankets ("death is natural, death gives meaning to life"), etc., and having the very real possibility come up that perhaps they don't HAVE to die shakes the very foundation of their existential security. Hopefully this doesn't sound arrogant -- I'm saying this as someone who went through a very extreme ripping-away of existential defenses about 7 years ago, but I say good riddance to those! (I'd almost gotten to the point of being able to accept "death is a part of life" but then I snapped out of it and realized that was a cop-out, and that the only real thing keeping me from aggressively pursuing life extension was a fear of being wrong. Which is a really stupid fear if one is compelled toward Doing Real Science!) I really do wonder if there's a biological component here. I think some people are more prone to adopting certain sorts of tribalistic memes that do perhaps lend short-term advantages to populations (at the expense of some individuals). Transhumanism simply wouldn't have made much sense 200 years ago, particularly anything involving radical life extension -- technological advancement has actually increased the sphere of what is rational to consider.
	Fight Aging! (Trackback) wrote on May 17, 2006 12:27 AM As I'm sure long-time readers are aware, there are all too many people in the world who would force you and I to suffer greatly and die from old age for no better reason than they want to and they can - concentration of power is the enabler of great horrors.
	albeit wrote on May 18, 2006 3:13 AM Information has heretofore perpetuated and enhanced itself through evolution, but there's no reason it cannot take another path. Evolution has been the most robust way to deal with an unpredictable world. But the inability to pass on knowledge that humans have to acquire handicap it. Evolution demands limited life spans and new generations so that environmental adaptation can occur with as little waste of resources as possible. If the stagnation problem can be overcome, there is no reason evolution has to be the only mode of perpetuation for humanity. We should be careful to never interfere with our procreative instincts and the natural variability that results. The species will undoubtedly need it in the future.
	Jim Ledford wrote on May 18, 2006 7:51 AM Well we know that Genetic engineering is taking place now. So, We are altering the natural variability of species now. And, We can assume that Vatriation in species will speed up and will get more radical. It is a global thing that no religious fundamentalism can affect. But Dont worry. Ultimately It is the laws of nature that will guide the process to its natural outcome.
	V wrote on May 19, 2006 11:09 AM I do think there could be a strong element of truth to the argument that a society made up of near-immortals could suffer stagnation. A good literary exploration of this idea is found in Bruce Sterling's novel, "Holy Fire." It showed a government made up of individuals who had taken very good care of themselves over the years and had bet on the right longevity technologies to greatly extend their lifespans, but these same individuals were very intolerant of those who abused their health or "lived dangerously." The young people of this world felt suffocated by their elders. I'm not even sure if transhuman neural augmentations will cause the "ruling elder class" of an advanced society to overcome the natural conservatism that tends to come with age. But in a way I consider it a moot issue because I see post-Singularity A.I. eclipsing the human/transhuman old guard, anyway. Best wishes, John Grigg
	Jim Ledford wrote on May 19, 2006 7:17 PM So you think there no hope for (MMI) leading the way? There are those who see a Man-Machine Interface bridge building over the years. So, as AI advances so does humanity. Computer/human interfaces will become so intimate, users will be considered superhumanly intelligent (SI). And finally, Grace is necessary for true SI so that only the best of the human spirit will lead the way. That is the big story. Call it hyperevolution. Sure, there will probably be stagnation and pure AI but it will be trivial. Nothing HYPEREVOLVERS will need to be concerned with.
	Anne wrote on May 19, 2006 11:37 PM John Grigg said: "I do think there could be a strong element of truth to the argument that a society made up of near-immortals could suffer stagnation." Even if there was truth to a "stagnation" argument, I don't think banning life extension would be a reasonable solution, given that it fails the ethical test (that is, it's not right to kill people because you don't think they're mentally flexible enough, etc.) Worrying about people becoming intolerant when they get older isn't a valid reason to prevent them from getting older. It seems that "intolerance" and a desire to exert excessive control over others are personality traits not likely to be shared or developed by all individuals. Not all super-long-lived beings are going to become politicians, after all. No matter how long they live. This stagnation of which you speak, IMO, would only "matter" if the so-called stagnant people were banding together and imposing ridiculous or unjust policies on others, and in this case, they should be treated as any other citizen might be. Plus, you'd think that oppression would be conduct unbecoming to a posthuman.
	phentermine (Trackback) wrote on March 28, 2007 10:29 PM news