Why Christians Should Support Radical Life Extension

[Olm the Water King]

Why Christians Should Support Radical Life Extension

Why Christians Should Support Radical Life Extension

02/09/2016 02:44 pm ET | Updated 13 hours ago

Micah Redding
Software developer, executive director of the Christian Transhumanist Association, host of the Christian Transhumanist podcast.

"Never again will there be...
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child" (Isaiah 65:20, NIV)

...

 

[Lark]

I'm really unsure about the transhumanism idea, I've heard that its lurking behind a lot of the vogue in LGTB politics, or at least I've heard it suggested so and it wasnt all by some crazy lunatic illuminati conspiracy style nut too.

The reason being that there is potentially a really ugly side to it in which people who've already lost faith in any sort of God/Cosmic or transcent idea/order then lose faith in humanity or any sort of decency with terrible results, to be precise I think Erich Fromm and E.O. Wilson's dichotomy between biophilious and (Fromm's "counterpart") necrophilious is a good one, the difference between loving and valuing living systems and dead ones.

If you look at the change in mindset from back when the Cybermen, Daleks, Borg were all first conceived in science fiction, they were figures of horror, in the last Terminator film John Connor, former leader of the human resistance in that mythos, was now a hybrid machine himself and almost like some kind of tragic hero too to a lot of people, seriously, I've known people to say did you not see how logical Skynet/Connor's character was and the "fusion" idea was so close to that of singularity mechanics as to be a brilliant on screen portrayal. I cant remember the name of the film now, its the name of the title character, but in which a police robot is stolen and "raised" as a thief by gang members, only for him to crack what consciousness is and towards the end of the film transfer that of a scientist helping him and his "mom" to machines like himself. A horror prospect previously when it happened to Picard, a happy ending in that feature.

Similarly you could consider District 13 or whatever it was called, which featured the "Prawns" alien refugees in Africa, as a transhumanism feature too, the guy who is a human who assists them in escaping does wind up entirely transformed into one of them by the end of the feature, not a machine but no longer a man.

I dont see there being any particularly Christian problem with life extending tech, I find it highly curious that this framed in this way but perhaps interesting in that someone wants to frame it that way, someone would like to set up a dichotomy of that kind and have "that" debate, with the sole likely skeptics being the faction that elites and main street are unlikely to relate to in quite the same way as where it anyone else. Its very odd considering that at least the RCC has been at the cutting edge of life affirming actions and messages, condemning malthusian thinking or a certain vogue for suicides and assisted deaths, which popular authors such as Terry Pratchett (I love the guy's fiction and some of his non-fiction) have played a part in. Though just noticing it and I think it'd be great if other people did too, you know not simply have the debate but question why are we having this particular debate, at this particular time and who does it benefit immediately and on a much longer scale? Like the next debate and the one after than and how will the last effect the next?

Humanism perhaps should debate with any transhumanist ideas, although its purely developed and some of its sources seriously misunderstood, I think this is part of the reason that a lot of people didnt understand at all or thought the worst of the Vatican response to the marriage paradigm shift when they said it was a "defeat for humanity".

Leave youse all with that to ponder because I'm going on retreat.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I am unfamiliar with the philosophies of transhumanism, and also the terminology itself fills me with the sense, that all the issues surrounding this topic are strewn on rather shaky ground.

In my opinion "human-ness" first needs a definition for transhumanism to mean anything. Although I get the stark impression that wishing to essentially ground 'humanity' into some sort of categorical definition or formula, might itself be labeled a transhumanist project (as once it is definitively produced, it can be used as a permissive device for transformation). I wonder then if transhumanist is not just an invention of slander given to those who are found to be offensive because they aren't obstinate in deciding that any conceivable answers must be worthless, so the question of 'what is human' might aswell be shunned.

The word itself, transhumanism, along with it's thin shroud of controversy, to me is a sign of a senseless divide: surely it cannot be a labeled position to simply expect there to be no reliance on an open ended definition (on the constituents) of human existence or experience.

To me it is interesting to note, that the more pluralistic you are on this point of definining human-ness (in-itself), the more transhumanism you might endure in the hypothetical and practical exercises of transhuman endevour, perhaps under the sheer weight from the submission to philosophical-uncertainty; and yet, if you are fully decided on a definitive expression of what it means to be human, the more radical you would be in assenting to a "transhuman" endevour that you would be able to reconcile yourself to (and permit to others also), while the converse also holding: looking unfavourably on projects that exceeded the bounds or thresholds of the structured framework to the human-ness you know of. And the luke-warm position is similarly as flagrant as the pluralists, as it is undefined fear alone that cements them into their cult-like aversion to any intelligent intervening claims that are merited by reason instead of just reaction impelled by fearfulness. (It is an interesting point to raise: that Iran is very Islamic, and yet the state offers free sex-assigned surgury, and will even amend the details of the birth-certificate to reflect the assigned biological sex: which just goes to show how definitive 'philosophy' can translate into, what is- by relative standards of societal tolerances,- radical liberties).

I applaud movies which endevor to teach us to pose real questions onto the areas for understanding a definition for human-ness. Table thumping that the question is meaningless, is dismally presumptuous, and constricting on the grounds of an imposed futility (of senseless and ongoing fear-trudging). Definitions can find real discussion, and real resolution towards a grand cohesive image: avoiding this real work just delays real progression in understanding, and developing useful philosophy (in its application to psychology) capable of settling contentions that will otherwise persist rampantly in some form or another.

 

[XV25]

In my opinion "human-ness" first needs a definition for transhumanism to mean anything.

You don't really need to go into too much detail when it comes to the semantics of the discussion. When people speak of transhumanism they usually mean surpassing the limits of human biology, which can be defined pretty clearly depending of the field you are talking about. In the context of life extension, a transhumanist position would be that technology should be developed to extent human life. Usually people get far-out and talk about mind-uploading or some other kind of digital immortality, which i suppose is the inevitable end goal, but it also encompasses biological agelessness too. Gene or cell therapy and the like. Everyone, Christians included, should want to see this technology researched and developed. If nothing else to have the choice of when you die. It's all about choice right? Why some people don't want this kind of future baffles me, it is fundamentally no different than any medicine that would save you from an illness that would otherwise kill you. People have no problem with that but living 200+ years? They see it as unnatural.

You can talk about the sustainability of an ageless population which is something to be concerned about, but there are many ways you could tackle the issue and the criticism doesn't really attack the ethics of the technology itself, just concern over it's effect on society.

 

[Duffy]

You don't really need to go into too much detail when it comes to the semantics of the discussion. When people speak of transhumanism they usually mean surpassing the limits of human biology, which can be defined pretty clearly depending of the field you are talking about.

I interpret what he meant as less about meaning and more about meaningless.

 

[Mole]

The reason we die is to make way for the next generation, if we extended our lives indefinitely, there would be no room for the generations to come. There would be no room for our children.

 

[XV25]

The reason we die is to make way for the next generation, if we extended our lives indefinitely, there would be no room for the generations to come. There would be no room for our children.

I'm pretty sure the reason we die is because our bodies eventually take more damage than they are capable of repairing. And we can have room for children. Lots of ways for that. If everyone was made ageless right now and the population was not allowed to expand, there would still be children. People would be killed and leave vacancies in the population to be filled. Or you could use the land we have more efficiently and just let the population expand. Or a number of other things. Agelessness and an expanding population is not inevitably unsustainable any more than an expanding population without agelessness. It just takes more organization on the part of society.

Besides what do I care about 'the children' who are not born yet and I have no connection to. What's important is that I don't die.

Kind of the only things that matters, really.

 

[Hawthorne]

The reason we die is to make way for the next generation, if we extended our lives indefinitely, there would be no room for the generations to come. There would be no room for our children.

Would will still value having children the same? Instead of our offspring indirectly continuing our legacies we could simply continue it ourselves.

 

[indra]

I'm pretty sure the reason we die is because our bodies eventually take more damage than they are capable of repairing. And we can have room for children. Lots of ways for that. If everyone was made ageless right now and the population was not allowed to expand, there would still be children. People would be killed and leave vacancies in the population to be filled. Or you could use the land we have more efficiently and just let the population expand. Or a number of other things. Agelessness and an expanding population is not inevitably unsustainable any more than an expanding population without agelessness. It just takes more organization on the part of society.

Besides what do I care about 'the children' who are not born yet and I have no connection to. What's important is that I don't die.

Kind of the only things that matters, really.

It's like asking why the rhino's horn isn't eight feet long or two inches long.

The extent of human life has been naturally selected for.

 

[XV25]

It's like asking why the rhino's horn isn't eight feet long or two inches long.

The extent of human life has been naturally selected for.

"It has always been this way, therefore is should always remain this way" is not a very convincing argument. Who cares what our natural lifespan is when we can artificially extend it?

 

[á´…eparted]

I skoff at any "you can't play god" notions. Uh, who says? Can't use religion to bolster that argument, and all the ethic arguments never hold any salt in my eyes.

Life extension is NOT for me though. Mostly because I do not believe that me, as I currently am, will actually be extended, but copied. That's different, and I want no part of that. If others want it though, have at it!

 

[indra]

"It has always been this way, therefore is should always remain this way" is not a very convincing argument. Who cares what our natural lifespan is when we can artificially extend it?

It hasn't always been that way, that's the whole point of evolutionary theory.

I'm not disagreeing, us being homo sapien sapiens, it is our privilege to manipulate our environment rather than be directly subjugated by it.

But I do strongly feel there is merit to death, as a species' advance.

 

[Beorn]

Radically extending life is just at as wrong as radically ending life early.

We have completely lost our sense of what it means to be human so I don't know why we would waste time trying to radically extend and change somethin we know little about as it is.

 

[Mole]

Besides what do I care about 'the children' who are not born yet and I have no connection to. What's important is that I don't die.

Kind of the only things that matters, really.

Natural Selection has seen to it that parents adore their children and would die for them. And as well, Natural Selection has seen to it that we do.

Parents know there are more important things in life than I.

Those who think that the only thing that matters is I, are florid narcissists.

And who would trust a narcissist?

 

[Zangetshumody]

You don't really need to go into too much detail when it comes to the semantics of the discussion. When people speak of transhumanism they usually mean surpassing the limits of human biology, which can be defined pretty clearly depending of the field you are talking about. In the context of life extension, a transhumanist position would be that technology should be developed to extent human life. Usually people get far-out and talk about mind-uploading or some other kind of digital immortality, which i suppose is the inevitable end goal, but it also encompasses biological agelessness too. Gene or cell therapy and the like. Everyone, Christians included, should want to see this technology researched and developed. If nothing else to have the choice of when you die. It's all about choice right? Why some people don't want this kind of future baffles me, it is fundamentally no different than any medicine that would save you from an illness that would otherwise kill you. People have no problem with that but living 200+ years? They see it as unnatural.

You can talk about the sustainability of an ageless population which is something to be concerned about, but there are many ways you could tackle the issue and the criticism doesn't really attack the ethics of the technology itself, just concern over it's effect on society.

I am making a more fundamental swipe at the entire field of this debate:

The position that you express and contrast with my response, contains the presumption that "human biology" is immutable.

In my opinion that is rather radical position, because life is not static (ie. life is not unchanging and dead). So if mutability is not in full force upon what is "human biology", there must be some permissible scope where actions can have a physiological affect, to varieties of degree. Now what that would actually be like in reality, depends on how definitively you furnish those terms ("human" and "biology"), ascertaining definitive meanings that would tend to reveal some scope of legitimate measures of transition. Providing any sort of example would reveal much bias, which is pretty useless without adding accounts for those details, of how the utility of transition relates to the essential meaning of human-ness; but we could conceivably get such a good psychological and philosophical understanding of human-ness, that we can discover that even radical adaption has (at least at some stages, already) occurred through some form of mentally directed thread, that is now stagnant in the current ethos breed into our culture, that is foremost impelled by cultural conditions as they pertain to individual psychologies, and the resulting environmental amalgamation that keeps things tending towards continuity, as our current forms are attuned to some complex of stability, as liberty is naturally distrusted when fundamental understandings are neglected as impossible when they are relegated to imagination and fantasy, because we have lost the roots of those intuitive intellectual pathways for reaching inside the subtle organisations of biological formation and vitality.

Understanding those pathways doesn't mean we also wouldn't co-opt the process by accelerating it with some form of sympathetic technology, working with our biology in a non-dependency style of use (ie. step under this special light, or temporary chemical catalyst to experience the affects of 1000 years of slow adaption potential in an accelerated fashion), but the boundaries of any conservative use will be directed by the framework of understanding the essential nature of those pathways. The Culture book series probably touches on many of these issues, I have not read all those books (haven't completed one of them xD, but I think they have the treatment of all social and cultural issues totally right).

 

[Zangetshumody]

I just realized something I thought important to add, I believe all my opinions around this topic, is why non-racialism is natural to me, and also why I believe in the inclusive nature of shared communion with any form of life that is capable of developing or holding the same philosophical framework that holds to an understanding of the essential meaning of human.

The inverse holds aswell: I believe when people do not have similar philosophical stances to me on these issues, they are doomed to languish in the capricious departmentalization of a biological induced sense of integrity, containing some form of prejudice that would accrue with whatever 'appearance of human' identified with, at the point they wished to solidify and fudge their position (in the more obtuse individuals this includes vulgar racism, which can even extend to dressings of 'intellectually' motivated racisms to falsely promote the standing of those sorts of petty core sentiments (which are based in presumption or uncertainty)). Obviously my views do also include ideas of biological integrity and potential segregation: because people with capriciously fudged conscious beliefs are a liability to people who share a collective image of sanity, and because I am committed to there being a solid understanding to what the meaning of "human" entails.

Furthermore it seems plain to me that people who are not committed to there being a proper understanding to what "human" means, those are the savages, eager to rubber stamp whatever form of unjust prejudice they harbor in their settled state of non-thinking, the type of non-thinking that acquiesces to authority driven, and inherited programming from similarly thoughtless savages who wished for expedient measures to secure their hegemony against other competing systems engineered for hegemonic-continuity; although there is no trace of this kind of hegemony now, other than this lingering memetic junk woven into the fabric of our cultural continuity (the hegemonic influence extended over us from the dead sitting across the grave).

I will reiterate so as also to clarify my point: To not principally be in favor of the possibility to there being a legitimate and authentic form of transhumanism, is to be settled on some kind bigotry extracted from the position of non-thinking; of course a transhumanist perspective (especially in the fashion I have sketched out) might also be correctly identified as a bigot, although that bigotry would be based on some encompassing knowledge claim, which itself would be open to persuasive testimony related to the terms such a knowledge claim is founded in (my opinion is the only type of knowledge that could command sway over such a subject would be described as deeply philosophical and psychological in its definitive treatment of tracking the account of a human life-form that does not diminish its own integrity in whatever incarnated state it takes up it's subsistence through: spiritually one can summarize by saying, the gate to any possible transition is the ability to generate the relevant question resonating to a real conduit identified by the discovery of a particular survey to the extent of 'human' pathways, giving us the clear options to traverse).

 

[á´…eparted]

Natural Selection has seen to it that parents adore their children and would die for them. And as well, Natural Selection has seen to it that we do.

Parents know there are more important things in life than I.

Those who think that the only thing that matters is I, are florid narcissists.

And who would trust a narcissist?

So people who aren't parents, or don't want to be parents are bad people?

 

[Olm the Water King]

 

[Pionart]

um they do, its called eternal life in the kingdom of god, duh

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I don't get the title of this thread. People of all faiths and those that don't practice a religion would have ample reasons to oppose it as support it.

But aren't we just using a broad label that encompasses medical and technological advances? Or am I missing something? I mean, I'm sure some people will have their lines drawn in different places.