It occurred to me as Jason quoted:“Voices preaching false consolation will not help us, no matter how skillfully and soothingly they arrange nothingness” that the Immortalists may be doing just this. There is no proof that we can live forever, that we can preserve life. Organisms break down. That’s what we are. The only option is to become a machine – or produced by a machine. Not born. We are no longer human. Quality of life (a valid concern I hope) is sure to degrade as our brain designed to function for 50-100 years must attempt eons of thought and contemplation. Not to mention boredom.
In result, the Immortalists, while a noble and worthwhile goal to extend or improve life, are the ones preaching a false hope. Indeed, their own attachment to this idea will increase their anxiety as they suffer to find a ShangriLa-esque life. While I wish them well, I don’t envy them. For they will die. Just as I will die. But I am not afraid.
Thanks Ian and Jason for challenging assumptions and asking the hard questions.
Best,
Adrian
I just wonder, if science did conquer death, might we not fear death even more? Because now you have the possibility that you can live forever. And the fear of losing that would be worse than fear of death when you think you only have so long left anyway.
]]>What works for the human species at this point in evolutionary history on this planet is a lifespan of 70-90 years. That is why we live that long. Those branches of our species that lived longer died out because they could not compete for resources, or they died from vulnerability to disease – who knows – they are not here. And those branches that lived a shorter lifespan failed to compete with the world around them perhaps because they were not able to corral enough collective knowledge in the primary vehicle of our success – our brain.
This is fun stuff to ponder, but I’m getting back to living the gift of life that I have been given. I hope I have another 30 years or so, but if not, no worries.
]]>The Buddhist perspective is based on the idea of removing mental impurities that are clouding our judgement. Like clouds that obscure the pure blue sky, our thoughts prevent us from seeing reality as it truly “is.”
Therefore, the argument of “embracing fear” is based on the direct experience of knowing this truth at our deepest level… BEFORE our mind (ego) has had time to process reality. In this sense, the Buddhist view is closer to the source of truth.
In contrast, the Immortalist view that we are all unique beings that should not have to die, is based on a judgement that comes AFTER processing reality. We look at ourselves and our world, and say, as Jason wrote above: “I was here; I felt this and it matters, goddamn it!”
Because the Immortalist worldview comes after processing, it can be seen as farther from the truth of reality. It is based on the filter of the ego… another mind-game of our psyches.
In this way, the Buddhist view is defensible beyond mere personal preference of “what is truth.”
]]>