 |
 |
The source of this tongue in cheek article is The Logevitymeme: http://tinyurl.com/4o255 The Bio-Luddites by by George Dvorsky ( george at betterhumans.com) The late Freddy Mercury of Queen once asked, "Who wants to live forever?" Pose the question to the growing community of transhumanists, immortalists, cryonicists and various life extension aficionados around the world, and most would surely raise a hand and proclaim, "Uh, that would be me, thank you very much." Predictably, ever since the mainstream have caught on to such seemingly outlandish desires, life extension advocates have been met with much scorn, ridicule and many rolled eyes - but not for the reasons you might think. Bio-Luddites - named for their opposition to new biotechnology, such as advanced medical research - certainly don't think that life extension advocates are crazy, at least not about the prospect of life span augmentation and thwarting aging altogether. No, the bio-Luddites are very concerned that this wish might actually come true. The transformation of humans into a deathless species, they argue, could be disastrous on many levels. As the prospect of radical extension of the healthy human life span becomes more real with each passing year, prominent bio-Luddites have gone on the offensive to convince immortal wannabes that death is where it's at. They speak in a flowery and comforting tone, proclaiming that death defines our species and endows our lives with meaning, purpose and social stability. The most outspoken of these pro-death advocates are, of course, Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama, both of whom sit on the President's Council on Bioethics in the US. They're not alone, however, and can count a number of bioconservatives, bioethicists, and other opponents of scientific progress - including Charles Krauthammer and Bill McKibbin - on their side. I consider myself open to ideas and alternative perspectives, but as I consider the arguments of the bio-Luddites and look deeper into their meaning, I have come to realize that the death-promoting propaganda campaign is more than just a battle for hearts and minds. I get the impression that - should radical life extension technologies become readily available - these detractors, some of whom have the ear of the President, would go much further than fighting a war of words in their attempt to ensure that we never gain mastery over our mortality. While the bio-Luddites are directly concerned with the people of the US, encroaching cross-border influences, including the pressure they've put on the United Nations to impose international restrictions on medical research and regenerative medicine, should cause concern for people the world over. So I'm forced to consider what it would take to stop the coming anti-aging revolution, and in doing so I have come to fear the kind of future the bio-Luddites have in mind. Big Brother wants you dead At times the bio-Luddites sound parochial and authoritarian, and at their worst they sound downright ideological and even totalitarian. Leon Kass has repeatedly stated, "the finitude of human life is a blessing for every individual, whether he knows it or not." And frighteningly, when asked by Brian Alexander, the author of Rapture: How Biotechnology Became the New Religion, if the government has a right to tell its citizens that they have to die, Fukuyama answered, frighteningly, "Yes, absolutely." Just what, exactly, does this dynamic duo have in mind for the citizens of the US, and by extension, the rest of the world? I am completely bewildered as to how, at the dawn of the biotech century, such a policy of death by government fiat could actually be put into place in an ethical, safe and legal manner. In fact, I believe that it can't. It would take an authoritarian iron fist to stop serious anti-aging efforts - a Brave New World far scarier than the one that bio-Luddites think the transhumanists and life extension advocates would introduce. Shame on you for living How might this conflict play out? Before the bio-Luddites do anything drastic, they will likely ramp up the pro-death rhetoric to convince people they should abstain from supporting, developing and utilizing life extension technologies. I can already imagine the guilt-tripping psychological warfare. "Die or your children won't be able to find a job," one ad might go. Realistically, this will have very little impact on public opinions. As demonstrated by the Viagra phenomenon, hormone therapy and a host of other commercially successful products, the demand for a longer, healthier life span is powerful and widespread - even to the point of purchasing unscientific "anti-aging" pills and potions that have no proven effect. Frankly, it is hard to believe that anyone of sound mind and healthy body would see their own death at that very moment in time as "a blessing," no matter how many bioethicists were at hand to convince them of the merits of dying. Herald Tribune columnist Rich Brooks recently pointed out, "It is death, Kass might say, that gives urgency to life. It drives us to discovery, to cross oceans and reach into the emptiness of space; it is the reason we squeeze pleasure and meaning from every moment and see beauty in every sunset." But if death is such a blessing, asks Brooks, "then why don't we embrace it? Why is life such a desperate enterprise?" Ultimately, says Brooks, "it's because each of us has only one life - a prospect that leads us to live out our lives with meaning and purpose." And yes, the slope is always slippery. "When disease or hardship strikes, we decide as individuals whether to seek health- and life-extending treatment," says Brooks. "Taken collectively, these decisions set the course for humanity. Our collective will to live drives the quest for cures and life-saving technology. Thus taking advantage of medical breakthroughs affirms our humanity rather than diminishing it." Given the inevitable failure of a pro-death propaganda campaign, the bio-Luddites will have to take their fight to the next level. Declaring a War on Life Thanks to the efforts of pioneering biogerontologists such as Aubrey de Grey, Leonard Hayflick and Cynthia Kenyon, aging is increasingly coming to be regarded as a medical condition - a condition that will one day be treated and ultimately cured. Coming from a computer science background, de Grey in particular has demonstrated that aging can be viewed as a solvable engineering problem. It will only be a matter of time before these and other researchers make greater and greater strides in their work, resulting in a steady flow of life-extending medical interventions destined for the market. The healthy human life span will become increasingly longer, with every year of extra life bringing people closer to the next medical breakthrough. Soon we will achieve "escape velocity," as medical science extends healthy life span faster than we age. This is the vision for the years ahead - unless, of course, drastic measures are put in place to prevent it. Similar to the current War on Drugs, it is conceivable that a government led by bio-Luddites could impose a War on Life, criminalizing and suppressing life extension research. Medical science would be closely monitored and regulated, with researchers forced to work within state-sanctioned guidelines. This is not as farfetched as it might sound. Current governments in both the US and Canada, for example, have enacted extremely stringent policies in regards to stem cell and cloning research. The US in particular currently boasts one of the most anti-science regimes in all of its history. Given the prominence of religious and Luddite groups, combined with a mostly scientifically illiterate and politically challenged populace, the US government may continue this regressive policy as human enhancement technologies increasingly come into focus and into practical use. Impossible to enforce Like the useless, expensive War on Drugs, this War on Life would also have its share of problems and victims. Quelling scientific research into life extension would be exceedingly difficult, creating an enormous black market for researchers, clinicians and therapies - forcing an exodus of scientists to countries with less stringent regulations. Conservative nations could petition the UN to impose global bans on such research - exactly as they are trying to do now for human therapeutic cloning, with a fair degree of success - but again, imposing and enforcing such a policy would be costly and tragic beyond measure. Finally, the limits of a war against anti-aging would be impossible to define and circumscribe. Most diseases are caused by aging and the steady deterioration of the body. How would we decide what constitutes a life extension intervention? How could we possibly delineate between a therapeutic medical practice and a life extension practice? Is curing heart disease to be allowed? Diabetes? Logan's Run One way around this dilemma for the bio-Luddites would be to enforce a maximum life span. In such a scenario, the elderly would be denied health- and life-extending treatments after passing a certain age. Since it would be impossible to distinguish between any kind of health intervention and life extension, the elderly would simply be left to die. This reminds me of the campy 1976 sci-fi film Logan's Run. The movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic hedonistic world where no one is allowed to live beyond the age of 30. The Orwellian culture is laden with pro-death rhetoric and citizens are made to feel shamed for even thinking about living beyond 30. When their time is up, they're forced to attend a death ritual called "renewal" for the illusory chance of a continued life called "rebirth." If anyone dares to avoid this state-imposed euthanasia, a crime referred to as "running," the offenders are tracked down and mercilessly killed on the spot by "sandmen," a specialty corps put into place for just such purposes. Quite suddenly, given the stated position of the bio-Luddites, the horror of Logan's Run seems a disturbingly real possibility. If, as Fukuyma asserts, the state has the right to tell its citizens that they have to die, and assuming that such a policy would be put in place when life extension technologies arrive - and arrive they will, regardless of propaganda campaigns and draconian anti-science measures - this would seem the only possible recourse to guarantee population turnover. This begs the question: What would the bio-Luddites set as a maximum allowable life span? How old do people have to be before Leon Kass or Bill McKibbin believes they start to "negatively impact society," families, the "sense of the human life cycle," and "the perception of a fulfilling and meaningful life?" Any decision about a maximum life span would be utterly arbitrary. No figure could ever possibly make sense to everyone or be agreed upon. Furthermore, any policy of enforced euthanasia would be a gross violation of human rights - the worse and most ethically repugnant thing that most of us could imagine. The elderly would have all the justification in the world to fight against the implementation of state-mandated mass murder. They will continue to have every right for equal access to the best and most effective health interventions that medical science has to offer. In fact, the elderly are already starting to organize and agitate, as recently demonstrated by a group of elderly New Yorkers who openly smuggled drugs from Canada to protest what they see as overly strict and unjust trade regulations. Worse than useless ethics Before recorded history began, humans could expect to live just a few years past 30. As recently as a century ago, life expectancy was not much more than 40. Today, the average life span is well into the 70s and creeping into the 80s. People are not just living longer, they're living healthy and vibrantly into their elder years. Today's 70 and 80 year olds are completely unlike the elderly I remember seeing when I was child growing up in the 1970s. No one seems to be complaining. In fact, they're celebrating - and rightfully so. Society has coped very well with these changes by steadily adapting to the realities of longer-lived, healthier citizens. The sky hasn't fallen on our heads due to the last 30 extra years of healthy life granted to us - and it won't fall on our heads due to the next 30 either. There's no reason to believe that culture, society and its institutions won't continue to change and adapt to future issues, including any potential overpopulation problems. If past trends are any indication, longer lives in fact mean fewer births and declining population growth. Meanwhile, pro-death, bio-Luddite bioethicists like Leon Kass and his ilk are offering the worst and most useless kind of ethics. It is an ethics without foundation in reality, devoid of pragmatic guidance and practical solutions. It is an ethics that espouses the enforcement of death on a massive scale. This will not do for the coming realities of 21st century life. The pro-death rhetoric is only resulting in a confused and scared populace, backwards, stifling legislation and a depraved indifference to the ongoing toll of 50 million lives lost each year. Since the members of the US President's Council on Bioethics have declared their recognition of the scientific plausibility of serious anti-aging research, their systematic curtailment and prevention of this research could be construed someday as a crime against humanity. Don't believe their hype. Fight for your right to live. Copyright © 2004 Betterhumans. George Dvorsky is the deputy editor of Betterhumans and the president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, a nonprofit organization devoted to encouraging the use of technology to transcend limitations of the human body. For more Dvorsky, visit his transhumanist blog, http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn