Life After Life
Tech Review has an interesting article about a man named Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey, a self-proclaimed futurist who taught himself the intricacies of genetics. He now believes that our level of technology is sufficient to begin seriously attacking the problem of old age in hopes of achieving physical immortality (or at least, extended longevity). The article’s author states that Aubrey:
“…bases his certainty that there are only seven such factors on the fact that no new factor has been discovered in some twenty years, despite the flourishing state of research in the field known as biogerontology, the science of aging; his certainty that he is the man to lead the crusade for endless life is based on his conception that the qualification needed to accomplish it is the mindset he brings to the problem: the goal-driven orientation of an engineer rather than the curiosity-driven orientation of the basic scientists who have made and will continue to make the laboratory discoveries that he intends to employ. He sees himself as the applied scientist who will bring the benisons of molecular biology to practical use. In the analogous terminology often used by historians of medicine, he is the clinician who will bring the laboratory to the bedside.”
Obviously the possibility of prolonging life and reducing the suffering that old age brings is tantalizing, and Aubrey’s basic justification for his work is that since life is the first and most important right of man, it should be the one which he works most to preserve and extend. The article’s author doesn’t agree with Aubrey’s ideas, however, and states that:
“For reasons that are pragmatic, scientific, demographic, economic, political, social, emotional, and secularly spiritual, I am committed to the notion that both individual fulfillment and the ecological balance of life on this planet are best served by dying when our inherent biology decrees that we do. I am equally committed to making that age as close to our biologically probable maximum of approximately 120 years as modern biomedicine can achieve, and also to efforts at decreasing and compressing the years of morbidity and disabilities now attendant on extreme old age. But I cannot imagine that the consequences of doing a single thing beyond these efforts will be anything but baleful, not only for each of us as an individual, but for every other living creature in our world.”
Most people think of biological death as a certain evil–that it is an attack against our humanness. Hence, Aubrey’s passion for eliminating it altogether. But films such as Bicentennial Man offer a different perspective: namely, that death is just as much a part of being human as is life. This thought had never occurred to me before, as I had always been in the former school of thought. I have to admit, death as a final point of rest does have a certain appeal, but is that just because we lack the passion for life that we should have?
Aubrey sees aging as primarily the result of seven different factors: 1) cellular atrophy, 2) accumulation of unwanted cells, 3) mutations in chromosomes, 4) mutations in cell mitochondria, 5) the accumulation of “junk” within intercellular structures, 6) the accumulation of “junk” outside of the cell, and 7) cross-links in a cell’s proteins. Aubrey readily admits that only a few of these are currently addressable, but he is confident that cellular transfusions (which would include stem cell replacements) are possible in the future.
The ethical questions are, of course, 1) at what cost will prolonging life occur? and 2) is it beneficial to man to live as long as he can? The social consequences would be quite interesting–the technological fountain of youth would essentially wipe away any physical distinction between the elderly and younger generations. The physical state of both would be, for practical purposes, identical. Obviously man’s physical capacity for happiness could be prolonged, but would his mental capacity follow suit? What would it mean for a person to acquire hundreds or thousands of years worth of memories?
The toll on natural resources would also be great, propelling us to come up with alternative methods of living (under the ocean, anyone? in space stations or on other planets?), which is not of itself a negative thing, but would require careful planning and significant effort.
The economy could theoretically be stimulated by the preservation of able-bodied laborers, and social security could wither and die like it should because no one would need to draw it.
In short, the possibilities are profound, but the ethical and practical questions need to be probed further. What thoughts, if any, do you have on the subject?
5 comments
You mentioned the potential problem of overextending our natural resources, presumably because of overpopulation. However, were men to live much longer the rate of childbirth would probably decrease dramatically. In fact, if death were not an imminent threat to mankind, it’s possible that the sexual urge would be diminished. Part of the reason people go seeking after bodily pleasures is because of the threat of death, and with this removed men might feel free to look elsewhere for fulfillment.
I cannot firmly condemn or affirm De Grey’s research, because I think it is a mixture of wisdom and foolishness. On the one hand, we should do what we can to prevent physical and mental suffering, and the processes he refers do would seem to potentially do exactly that. On the other hand, we have a number of theological, philosophical and sociological issues to wade through.
From a Catholic theological perspective, physical death is part of the curse of man’s sin (as are other things like difficulty in labor and pain in childbirth). For someone to attempt to “cure” mortality brings two things to mind: (1) the Tower of Babel, when man tried to reach heaven with his own strength, and was forever humbled for it; and (2) God’s words after Adam’s sin, “He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” The implication being that a fallen nature mixed with immortality would be too terrible to allow.
Philosophically, I can understand how death can be seen as a good thing. A “time limit” allows a man to properly order his life, keeping him from laziness and apathy. It also encourages him to enjoy the brief time he has more so than he would with an extended life.
Sociologically, it’s uncertain how longer lifespans would affect the world. We can speculate on things like overpopulation and stagnation of civilizations, but I’m not really qualified to conjecture more than I have.
This will seem like an odd suggestion, but I would recommend reading up on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. His fantasy world was populated with the races of immortal elves and mortal men, and he frequently took the time to think out the implications of these very different races and their respective societies. The elves possess a great sadness because they remember all the things they have lost, while the men leave the “circles of the world” for someplace else at death. If I find any good online articles, I’ll post links here.
Jon, your point about childbirth being decreased is actually a point that Aubrey makes later in the article. He, however, tends to think that childbirth would eventually disappear. The author is clear that he’s somewhat biased in this respect, since he and his wife have decided not to have children because it would “hinder” their careers. I respect their decision, but bearing and rearing children is an awesome task that should be undertaken by individuals who value it. Aubrey thinks that it should be left to the individual to choose his course in this, and I agree.
Certainly extending life is not the same as immortaility, and I wonder if the concept of physical immortatlity is even possible. We still deal with the second law of thermodynamics–and the reduction of usable energy–in every physical respect. This would seem to eliminate the possibility of immortality, though it would take a significant amount of time before that happened. Also, Aubrey’s methods would not preclude death entirely–a gunshot wound, car wreck, explosion, or natural disaster would still enforce “dust to dust”.
True, immortality and long life are not the same thing, but in the minds of most people it may as well be. a thousand-year-long lifespan is more than the human mind can apprehend on a practical level, and by the time natural death comes one would probably be very tired of life. It’s sort of a false immortality, I suppose.
The immortality that was originally Adam’s would have been preternatural in origin, not natural. By nature Adam would have grown old and died like the animals, but in an unfallen state he would have possessed the power of spirit in complete mastery over his body.
That’s all very sweet. It’s also very different from the way you envisioned it, Nick. You had plenty to say about how silly I was for expressing my thoughts on love and romance and all that. Not for you, you said. Oh no. For you it would be one simple cup of coffee: once you got enough money, you’d have yourself a look around, you’d frequent those places where women on par with your own level of comeliness and intelligence would also frequent, make the most logical choice based on the evidence at hand, and that would be the end of it. Forget all that romance crap. Let’s laugh at Eric.
…okay, so I’m just joking.
Nick, I love you man. I hope your romance is a poetic as I always thought it would be. Meanwhile, I shall enjoy feeling slightly vindicated…headhunter.
Whoops my comment which began “that’s all very sweet” belonged on the other post. The post about Nick’s infatuation. Yeah, so…