Editor's Blog
Jason Stoddard recently told me about his "4 Arguments for Immortality" in response to a piece by Annalee Newitz on io9: "4 Arguments Against Immortality." I found Annalee’s argument interesting and Jason’s argument lucid. I thought I’d share them both.
4 Arguments Against Immortality by Annalee Newitz
"Our augmented bodies and minds will be hackable. As computer security nerds already know, every new release means a new vulnerability. Your awesome brain-computer interface may give you unlimited memory but it also means that an evil hacker can take over your consciousness by exploiting a buffer overflow in your brain. Your bionic arm is awesome, but only if you are able to get updates for it from a trusted source. And your cool new exoskeleton? Let’s just hope somebody patched that problem that lets kids in Russia take it over remotely and make you hump trucks forever. Or how about a Dollhouse scenario, where everybody in the world gets a phone call that reformats their brains and turns them into supersoldiers bent on destroying each other. Augmentation creates its own kinds of disabilities."
4 Arguments For Immortality by Jason Stoddard
"Health care problems, solved. As a society, we can’t stop talking about healthcare, the costs thereof (trillions of dollars in the US alone), and all the behavioral and social implications. Personally, we mourn loved ones who have passed away, or, worse, been debilitated by terrible diseases like stroke or dementia. Every one of us watches as we, and our friends, become less physically capable with every passing year. How can anyone argue that eliminating all of this wouldn’t be a good thing?"
21 Comments
hackble i think someone has been watching to much ghost in the shell.
but its understandble if you upload your “soul” into a ofther body your pertty much overideing the existing softwere in body B.
but you know what immortality,turning yourself into a parahuman.bioroid.or in lameist terms a 12 tall blue cat person form a fiticnal moon called pandora.
be my guest. or a person with useble tali or whale penis let them
Pro-choice.
its not going to destroy humanrace just make it even more diverse.
respect the humanish.
you know like amish? yah whatever its 6:11am here and i been up all night reading all this cray stuff i seem to like.
l
biological immortality is the true meaning behind all the 2012 prophesies, the 2nd coming, etc. if you truly want to put the puzzle pieces together for yourself let me save you a ton of wrong turns at albequerque.
1. You must read “The source of the present civilization” by Nakazono. Here’s the link: http://www.budovideos.com/shop/customer/product.php?productid=19046
2. You must read the original Neo-Tech Discovery by Frank R. Wallace. In particular, “The Long Wave” treatise which explains why Einstein never completed his unified theory.
3. Then you can tie it in with macrobiotics, libertarianism, Ayn Rand’s, “Atlas Shrugged”, aikido, the latest developments in cloud computing, and Kotodama theory as practiced by Morihei Ueshiba and written about in “Kotodama” by Nakozono.
4. Then for good measure watch a documentary about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel the inventor of the diesel engine and the puzzle pieces will snap into a non-mystical revelation on why biological immortality is inevitable and due to be available commercially within 20 years.
This is for all the true seekers who wish to become the catalysts to usher in a world of rational and abiding joy as we join the civilization of the universe.
And then just for fun watch “Brick” with Joseph Gordon-Levitt on Netflix. Nothing to do with immortality but damn good flick.
And finally as Bogie said, “There is no sacrifice too great for a chance at immortality.”
Krafty is back to work on MultiTasking for Immortality.
… are groanworthy, though Stoddard’s more so than Newitz’s.
The arguments for: Obvious and very, very true, all of the reasons I’m striving to see immortality brought about properly in the world…
Arguments against are, I think, hillarious. The main references are apparently not only sci-fi, but TV sci-fi.
Reason one: Well, is that such a bad thing?
Reason two: What your saying seems to imply you think people are incapable of positive psychological development, something that an extended lifespan would probably help a lot with. Less rush, more time to rationalise one’s problems without being pressured by a fixed length of ‘optimal’ life.
The Third and Fourth reasons are more valid concerns, hackable headware would be fairly terrible… but then, do we not exercise caution with the devices outside our bodies? The fact that such cybernetics would be a new integral part of one’s being would prompt the same sort of caution that should be exersised with medical treatment, not one’s personal computer. And it is a truth that in what’s vaugely defined as ‘today’s society/economy/whatever’ and it’s disgustingly heirarchical and capitalist structure, yes, such technologies would further widen the perceived gap between “Have/have-not”… which is yet another one of the thousand reasons that the current systems should be demolished and rebiult.
Most of the world’s societal structures and economies today are, frankly, terribly put together and ill-equipped for such goals, long-forgotten today though they are, of a decent standard of living for all and being able to cope with technological development at it’s dramatic current rate. If we don’t have a sound societal and memetic basis for our species, no technology, no matter how flashy or godlike, is going to make it better.
Hardly suprising coming from you Athena! :/
Predictable response, Athena…but I do have to agree that both are rather long on fluff and short on substance.
Io9 has been very fearful of real science of late, seeming to prefer the Murphy’s Law mindset of Hollywood to actually showing anything positive. I am happy to report that many of the posters replying to the Io9 piece are far more against the article than for.
If I had time or got paid highly enough, I’d explain why. Till then, the soundbite will have to suffice.
Athena, the best you can do is stop writing articles or comments for this magazine. You’re obviously not welcome here by the majority of the readers, and it is not hard to see why. We understand that you feel the constant need to make your superiority known, or that you might indeed be so intelligent that you are unable to put up with our uneducated claims. But realize that, by exhibiting this rude and immature behavior, you are not contributing in any meaningful way to this space. I’m afraid most of us don’t have time to care about issues such as you not being paid enough or about information (such as singing in four different languages, or being a respected professor and researcher, or I don’t know what else) that, for some reason, you like to share with us when answering comments. It comes down to this: if you wish to offer a justified opinion, we’ll be glad to hear it. If you’re just here to troll us through sentence-sized claims that you justify by plainly stating that you’re at a greater position in the academic field (and I’m not arguing that you don’t have your reasons for providing us with opinion X or that you don’t know better than us, but that you never tell us why), please leave.
Thousands of people come to the site every day and only a few comment. Many read athena’s articles and appreciate the critical or skeptical voice. You may not like her point of view or her attitude, but you don’t need to ask her to "leave."
R.U.
Ah, priceless. Get humor much, or at all, anonymous troll(ette)? You’re one example why the term “transhumorists” fits your subgroup so well.
And for the record, H+ Magazine was a very generous paymaster. Whereas you write long rants for free — once again proving that you get what you pay for.
As one who is quite critical of Athena’s anti-transhumanist stances, and who argues with her frequently, let me defend her for once.
I may not agree with Athena, I may find her elitist, snobby, and prone to “dictates from God,” but she is still entitled to free speech. Her opinions are as valid as anyone else’s. Mainly I wish she would differentiate between her opinions and actual fact, but never, in all my arguments with her, have I told her to leave, cease posting, or to stop writing. I have criticized HOW she writes, but she is quite right that radical dreamers need their opposites. Which of us is right in our views will be proven by the future.
As a transhumanist, a transsexual, and humanitarian, I believe that every person has a right to individual expression. We are all humans here. We all share the same planet. It is up to us to find ways to co-exist. We cannot wait for a “savior” to come rescue us from ourselves.
Disagree with Athena all you like. I certainly will. But she is entitled to the respect of being a fellow human being with her own thoughts and individuality, and permitted the right to expressing them.
I would very much appreciate it if you didn’t obfuscate the meaning of my words to promote your wonderful egalitarian sentiments, thank you. I didn’t tell her to leave because I don’t like her opinion; it is really much better to read skeptical essays instead of article-length advertisements, which is the case sometimes with this magazine, and I’m not that much of an enthusiastic transhumanist myself to nor do I usually find other people’s views threatening enough to be offended. I merely said that I see no reason why she would want to continue to be here, and wondered how she intends to contribute to the site, if the only thing she does is bombard users with condescending and rude responses, instead of actually responding to criticism. Even if those users are incapable of providing an intellectually competent argument, she can at least refrain from commenting or point out where they are wrong.
If, however, the editor himself condones her exhibited disrespect towards the readers, I can’t really say or argue anything more.
(BTW, if you call the situation in which you try to make a point and she responds with a condescending and satirical image an intellectual conversation, then . . .)
“Even if those users are incapable of providing an intellectually competent argument, she can at least refrain from commenting or point out where they are wrong. ”
Unclear on the concept of argument, are you? I practice The Prisoner’s Dilemma strategy: my replies match the tone of the original comment. Maybe you want me to wear a burqa so I don’t upset your delicate sensibilities? Or are you going to burn a cross in front of my house to express your displeasure — since, unlike you, I put my name on my work?
I would ask you to bite my bum, but I don’t want to catch rabies. Besides, these tantrums are getting more amusing by the moment.
Ah, but you didn’t simply disagree with her, you asked her to *leave.* How is that obfuscating anything?
I’ve made the same points previously, asking her why she was here, why she would contribute to a transhumanist magazine when she was so obviously against all of transhumanist ideas, why she felt the need to condescend, and got the exact same answer. She’s here for the money. She’s also here because she feels it is necessary for scientists and educators who understand the issues to attempt to educate those who don’t know the science. I disagree strongly with how she goes about it, and find her to be everything you’ve pointed out. BUT ASKING HER TO LEAVE IS VIOLATING HER RIGHT TO AN OPINION.
Yes, she is condescending, yes she is rude, yes she is annoying, but she has not violated the rules of misconduct, and is free to contribute.
That is the difference. I can agree with your reasons. I cannot agree with your actions.
Athena represents a percentage of the population. The skeptical unbeliever who views transhumanism as science fantasy. As such she asks questions and makes statements that reflect those views for all those who do not comment. I agree that I wish she was more pleasant about it, but unless she violates the magazine’s rules of conduct, she should be allowed to contribute as she will.
The article against was a bit weak, IMHO. Fear of getting hacked? Of becoming less ‘human’?
Wetware is pretty darn easily hacked. Drugs, torture, social engineering, gaslighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting) Right now we rely on external memory (the internet) and it’s rather easy to distribute false information. Still, life goes on.
As far as being human? That’s based on a vague generalization of what human is. I’m really not worried about applying a ‘label’ of human to myself. Heck, I’m really not worried about being ‘me.’ I’m not even the same me that I was 10 years ago. Or even 10 minutes for that matter.
How long ago was it that certain portions of the ‘human’ race were not considered human by a majority of the folk around? 200 years ago? Heck, certain groups still have the burden of being considered 2nd class people. I rather look forward to the time when being the ‘right kind of human’ doesn’t matter anymore.
And retaining the same problems as we have now? I don’t have the same problems I had 10 years ago. Why would immortality and augmentation cause the flow of my life to be any different.
I do think the concern about economic inequality are valid. I also think it’ll cause economic inequality between the young and old, as the old won’t be leaving the workforce, won’t be passing down their wealth, etc.
These things will probably go away as what we are changes. If the lines between identity blur, if resources become easy to come by, etc. this may all change that.
As far as reasons for? They were a bit vague and fluffy, IMHO.
Reducing health care costs? Yah, it’d free up money for other things, which would be nice.
The ability to seek a new balance? Plenty of people right now integrate work and life. I know I do. And frankly, people won’t simply stop working hard.
Doing grand things? Most grand things are based on the work of many, and with ‘offline’ memory like the internet, the experience of people involved with the grand things can be spread around. Living longer won’t necessarily allow us to do more grand things.
Thinking long term? Plenty do that now. The big rallying cry for pretty much every big decision is to ‘do it for our children,’ be it saving the environment or nuking a country back to the stone age.
Personally, I think the arguments against come down to fear of change. I hate to say it, though. Change is gonna happen whether you like it or not. It may be immortality, or it may be the discovery of aliens. Or even the creation of apples that taste like oranges. Deal with it. Change happens. We survived ice ages because we adapt to change, we’ll likely survive these scare future directions.
The universe is a big place, and I really do want to live long and explore as much of it as I can, and maybe even change some of it as I wander around.
I humbly offer my full response to Newitz at Mindflowers.net:
http://mindflowers.net/2010/04/23/response-to-annalee-newitz-in-defense-of-immortality/
Ryan McGivern
Annalee’s arguments are weak and pathetic and just for a pretense of presenting both sides without having to deal with the strong counter arguments which are not spoken of in public.
First, we must define the terms of the debate so that we are referring to the same thing rather responding to points that no one is making. Posthumanist and critics have refer to Immortality in several different many of which are confusing and or are confused.
First it must be understood that are two general concepts of immortality which are conscious immortality and there is non-conscious immortality but as that cause and content consciousness is debated. However, without resolving issue of consciousness we can have different categories of types of immortal existence. Those categories are physical, informatical, transcendental and each of these can be viewed in terms of active, passive, effective, non-effective.
In other words there when Posthumanists use the word “immortality” they could be referring to “conscious active physical effective immortality” but when a fundamentalist Christian uses the word immortality they could be referring to “conscious active transcendental effective immortality.”
So to response to arguments for immortality we must know exactly what combination of properties whether physical, informatical, and transcendental the posthumanist are talking when they argue that technology will allow “us” to extend the existence of properties in an unbounded manner relative to a non-zero or non-negative time flow.
So let create a proper case against the idea of unlimited biological human lifespan as we currently know it in consciously.
There are several solid arguments that come to off the top my head that posthumanist never want to deal with because they challenge that assumption of the wisdom of the philosophy itself.
Argument #1 against Human Biological Immortality. We value human existence in this universe and believe it should continue and but Immortality technology will create under population, economic collapse, and eventually extinction. Why? Consider the facts of evolution and biology regarding increase in lifespan and the related rates of reproduction. Bacteria typical have the shortest lives of less than 20 minutes there have the greatest numbers in terms of population are virtually impossible to make extinct as a whole. One the other the Sea Turtle has a live of 200+ years and is endangered. It reproduces about every 30 years and has a very low birth survival rate.
But you might ask why do I humans are subject to this biological principle? I would respond by look as the evidence. In the 20th century average lifespans in the western world went from 45 years to about 79 years and this statistic constantly promoted by posthumanist as evidence as to coming of effectively Immortal lifespans. Unfortunately, posthumanists fail to mention is that in western counties is that birth rate has fallen below replace and so the principle of long life= low birth rate still even in humans.
We can a simple formula where B= the Birth rate is a statistical function of lifespan (L) where B(L)= (kp+g)/L where p is population, k is a constant and g is the rate of technical growth related to humans. Therefore if the limit as L approaches infinity (kB+g) approaches zero. What about g? Technological directed toward the care of humans is function of population as the population approaches zero to does that category of technology based on the law of supply and demand i.e zero demands means zero supply production.
If the equation holds true then immortality must mean human extinction and the faster the rate in the rise of lifespans the more quickly extinction arrives. There the argument is true and valid. Q.E.D.
Argument #2 against Human Biological Immortality: It degrades culture and eventually that will prove fatal to civil order and making society unsustainable.
How do it do this? Simple, without the need to produce something not related about than your biological immortality and pleasures of your personal life why would you value creativity outside of those pursuits immediate only to you? Answer: you wouldn’t, therefore longer you live under this selfish paradigm the less you seek to contribute to society and therefore will hate society for existing. But since civilization is held together by its common aims and immortality ensures that there are no common aims there the use of life extension technology ensures a breakdown in civilization.
Culture is created by the desire to build something that future generations will learn from and value later even after you are gone but with the loss of the desire to produce that which out lasts you will stop trying to produce great things of universal important, truth, and beauty ergo a decline.
I hope people find these arguments better than Annaless’s arguments and just so you know I boat load more where that came and understand that dealing with mind uploading nonsense and posthuman morality and will require a very long form argument.
I had never thought about the “hackable” argument before… another point for wetware!
Amazing topic.
“We wouldn’t be human” sounds like a weak, ill-defined argument BUT the thing to remember is that so much of our behavior today depends on the same human/non-human distinction. It’s OK to cut a coffee table into two pieces but not a human being. If we didn’t have the human/non-distinction going on, deciding what it’s OK to cut into pieces would be a more complex problem and one whose answer we might no agree on – not to mention that we might agree on “we” is. Things could get messy, very quickly. So this is a very problem in the guise of any simplist problem.
The other problems are actually simpler. Immortality itself might not be the most immediate problem of a world of god-like power.
An interesting thing that occurs to me is that immortality as such only matters … over long periods of time (well, of course but bare with me).
The singular, if it appears, will be an event which speeds up time. Living five years of “singularity time” will mind-boggling.
If someone survives “the great years”, there won’t be immortality divide, every survivor will have that and more. The problem will be that survival. After the first few years, virtual reality and reality will be pretty interchangable and people will only have problems with
A) themselves or B) Other god-like beings. If we have enough space between us, we’ll pretty much each be in our personal heaven, unless we happen to want hell instead. Of course, we might destroy ourselves before this. This might even be the most likely outcome. But if not, the surf might be nice or something…
The last 3 of Jason’s arguments are essentially the same: if we live forever we can do whatever we want, grand things, amazing things. Would this really happen? I don’t mean to sound like an ass, but could most people find an eternity’s worth of amusements? How many years can the average consciousness continue to contribute? And the idea that a person would WANT to contribute for 500 years, while quite noble, is questionable. An epidemic of nihilism is more probable. I encourage you to watch the movie “Zardoz.” The production value is certainly laughable, but I think it offers a plausible view of what would happen to humans who become immortal (not to mention Sean Connery in a giant red diaper).
hackble i think someone has been watching to much ghost in the shell.
but its understandble if you upload your “soul” into a ofther body your pertty much overideing the existing softwere in body B.
but you know what immortality,turning yourself into a parahuman.bioroid.or in lameist terms a 12 tall blue cat person form a fiticnal moon called pandora.
be my guest. or a person with useble tali or whale penis let them
Pro-choice.
its not going to destroy humanrace just make it even more diverse.
respect the humanish.
you know like amish? yah whatever its 6:11am here and i been up all night reading all this cray stuff i seem to like.
l