Response to “First Things” critique of transhumanism and radical longevity

As I’ve mentioned before, I tend to be a techno-optimist, and believe emerging technologies such as gene therapy, robotics and molecular nanotechnology will help make the future of humanity a brighter place than it would have been without them. That said, I certainly understand that there are valid concerns with and arguments against some of the core aims of transhumanism, especially concerning radically extending the human lifespan. In a recent blog post at First Things, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith tackles a recent Reason magazine piece about the Longevity Summit, which was held in November 2009. In the process, he makes a few arguments against the pursuit of radical longevity, but his arguments won’t be causing any transhumanists or advocates of radical longevity to alter their beliefs:

First, Smith asks readers how the “amazing feat” of extreme human life extension can be accomplished, and provides an answer in the form of a blockquote about research in calorie restriction, taken from the Reason article. He then says:

Some might not call semi-starvation living, but beyond that, there may be a hitch. Apparently, as reported here, a medical study unexpectedly showed that slightly chubby people live longer than thin or normal weighted people.

Calorie restriction is only a means to slightly extend the lifespan, at best as much as 40 percent. Assuming a person in otherwise perfect health can expect to live to about 90 or so, CR could add as many as 36 years to one’s life. Impressive, to be sure, but hardly the effective immortality discussed in the Reason article. That said, CR isn’t a means to radical longevity, but rather an effort to live long enough to take advantage of the technologies that will enable significantly longer lifespans. Smith is either guilty of lazy writing, at best, or dishonesty, at worst, when he implies that attendees of the Longevity Summit advocate CR as a means to stopping or reversing human aging.

Smith also fails to mention the technologies covered in the Reason article that could provide a true path to extreme longevity: stem cell treatments, cryopreservation of tissues and organs, and nanotechnology. He does mention “human cloning” off-hand, only to note that “so far, that hasn’t worked out.”

The article then turns more philosophical:

But here’s the thing: Death is terrible and terrifying, but we need it. Knowing we will be dead far longer than we were ever alive–one spiritual teacher called our lives “a parenthesis in eternity”–helps us appreciate the sheer importance of life.

I agree that death is bad, and that life is important. So important, in fact, that we should make every effort to preserve it to prevent dying from old age and disease. Throughout most of human existence, life was “terrible and terrifying” as we coped with starvation, disease, high levels of infant mortality, and the like. We don’t accept these perils of life, so why should we accept death itself if we develop the means to avoid it?

On a macro level, it allows society to be dynamic by eventually removing the old from among us so that there is room for the new. Can you imagine how stilted and moribund society could become if people lived five hundred years?

There is no reason why a society of long-lived humans would be stagnant. Rather, I think of the incredible life experience that would accumulate over half a millennia, enabling humans to use the benefit of their years to contribute to science, art, engineering, and more. In addition, a long lifespan would enable humans to survive the incredibly long journeys to extrasolar planets for colonization, which is key to the long-term survival of our species.

Not surprisingly, Smith is pessimistic about the options for radical longevity in our lifetimes, but notes that even if it were possible, its pursuit would be ill-spent:

Better, I think, to focus our resources on helping the currently sick and destitute not die young from uncured diseases like malaria or the effects of bad drinking water, than to waste any of our resources on a  Quixotic quest to allow the already comfortable and healthy live forever.

Of course there is no dilemma here – it isn’t as though research dollars are being diverted from efforts to cure malaria and clean up water to efforts that will ultimately lead to longer, healthier lives for humans. We can do both. Furthermore, research that will lead to longer lifespans for the “comfortable and healthy” will also benefit the lives of the “sick and destitute,” as is the case with all technologies.