One of the more pleasurable aspects of blogging is that of control. As the captain of his or her own tiny print shop, a blogger can exercise a despotic editorial control that "real" newsmen can only dream of. Of course, that doesn't guarantee a readership, perhaps quite the opposite. But it can come in handy.

In this instance, it involves resurrecting some thought provoking remarks from a post several days old, just because I feel like it. Perhaps you remember Rita, the feisty undergrad from the University of Chicago? She put up a spirited defense of Dr. Kass in the comments section. Turns out she worked with him (Bioethics Stuff, no less) for several weeks over the summer, while she was interning in Washington. So it's one handshake of Kevin Bacon day, and this is the closest we've gotten yet. Perhaps I should interview Dr. Blackburn?

Anyway, have you ever had one of those conversations that was slightly unsatisfactory? That left you feeling that you hadn't hammered your point home forcefully enough? One of those archetypal, "I should've said" aftermaths? If so, then you'll understand the irresistable lure of the conversational do-over.

Unfortunately, Rita shows no interest in a rematch (entirely understandable under the circumstances, classes are starting), so this is going to be a unilateral effort. I have a sneaking suspicion that she could have made the time, but quit when she realized she couldn't win. Smart move.

A more extensive and unaltered version of her comments is available here. Think of it as my concession to fair play.

In this version, you'll find that I've smushed together her reponses to comments by Sean, Eric, Brian, and myself into a composite that mimics a one-to-one conversation. Many thanks to all of them for their contributions. Any reader who wants a clearer notion of who said what is encouraged to use the aforesaid link. Rita will open the conversation with a question...

Well, aren’t we feeling a little smoldering resentment today?

What, did poor Justin get personally snubbed by Kass?

Not even once. I reckon it would be beneath his dignity.

And we can't touch Kass personally because he couldn't care less about us and has a real job...

I doubt he even knows I exist, it’s true.

...so we snipe at random bloggers who give him one sentence of credit instead?

Never random. And show me where I sniped at you.

Well, I'm honored that my two sentences have received such thorough scrutiny and close reading.

I dare say.

It's not quite clear to me why I should consult with my friends and family to ascertain Kass's sanity.

They might provide a beneficial grounding in reality. Maybe you’ll find them more convincing than me. Maybe you'll respect their opinions.

Do you often ask your parents if your convictions look OK?

Not in so many words. But I actually do solicit their opinions on the issues of the day. Sometimes they’re surprisingly insightful. Aren't yours?

If consensus is the standard however, you may be out of luck. It seems that many people agree with Kass.

They do indeed. Luckily, many does not equal most. Or even a simple majority. The latest surveys show 2 to 1, my favor, improved considerably from just a few years ago. Presentation counts for a lot. The Kass bioethics agenda is a sure loser, but "your guy" seems determined to go down swinging.

If we summarize your nicely contextualized snippets here...

Thank you. I like to think I have a good nose for snippets.

we will find that Kass thinks that: giving birth is a part of life...

I agree.

dying is a part of life...

I agree.

abortion might be bad...

it is unusual not to have to experience the death of anyone you know in your lifetime...

Hey, wait a minute. That’s not what he really said. Here now, let’s review the text...

"Paradoxically, even the young and vigorous may be suffering because of medicines success in removing death from their personal experience. Those born since the discovery of penicillin represent the first generation ever to grow up without experience or fear of probable death at an early age. They look around and see that virtually all their friends are alive."

This is not a lifetime-average phenomenon. He specifically says that even the young and vigorous may be suffering. That’s a good deal more emphatic than your bland summarization indicates. And why are they suffering? Because they grow up without experience or fear of probable death at an early age. Sneaky.

cloning is bad, etc.

Hard to miss that one. It may or may not turn out to be true.

Moreover, what kind of deranged lunatic claims individuals don't have rights to their own bodies?

Why, he does. Cites are available, at your request. And you know I’ve got them, don’t you?

Over the 20th Century, the average life expectancy (though not life span) has been extended in developed nations, but that extension has been a by-product of medical technology and sanitation practice aimed at controlling specific diseases, largely those caused by external organisms.

A wonderful thing, no? Quite unprecedented. Rectangularizes the survival curve.

Diseases of old age (opportunistic infection not included) tend to be illnesses caused by internal breakdown of the body, a sign that the life expectancy has caught up with the maximum life span.

That seems initially plausible. Further research might be needed to up my confidence level.

What medical science has done throughout history has been to assist this process of catching up...

Not strictly accurate.

and now you suggest that we use medical science to override the barrier itself.

Yes, I do. Though I’m not entirely alone in doing so.

But for what purpose?

To promote better, longer lasting health. To postpone debility and death. Because most people would like to see it happen. But you probably want a Purpose. I can’t help you there.

And what is the end of medical science if this is the case?

Must it have an end? And if it absolutely must, do we have to sit down today and figure it out before proceeding? We’ve never done that before. How about we just do what we can, as we can, and see how things shape up?

Acceptance of death is a central aspect of humanity...

Yes, and it’s had to be. So far we’ve had zero choice in the matter. But I could say with equal accuracy that denial of death is a central aspect of humanity. As is "merely" putting food on the table. Or believing in a life to come. Or healing people, as and when we can. Humanity has a whole bundle of central aspects.

in both your quotes from Montaigne's Essays and Homer's Iliad above, you ignore the overarching argument being made for the sake of one or two lines taken out of context.

Not at all. Both quotes make the point that death is unavoidable. True, as far as it goes. Both also make the point that if it could be avoided, well, that would be a really good thing. I believe my exact words regarding Sarpedon and Glaucus included “Given the circumstances it's a reasonable position.” As for Montaigne, he wrote what he wrote. Surely he had reasons for doing so?

The Iliad is a story that revolves around man's mortality; Achilles' triumph is his acceptance of death

Maybe. It could also revolve around mercy, or prideful stupidity, or the faithlessness of women. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that there might not be lockstep academic unanimity on the question. I’d bet that if I made inquiries around the classics departments of various prestigious universities, I could find differing opinions on the matter. Anyone think I’m wrong?

Achilles' triumph is his acceptance of death...

I guess so. But wait, in the Odyssey, The shade of Achilles makes the following statement...

"Say not a word,' he answered, 'in death's favour; I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead.”

Talk about poor sportsmanship. But being dead and all, you’d think he would know whereof he speaks. You’d do better to focus on Odysseus, and how his love for Penelope led him to embrace his mortal life and abandon the prospect of immortality with Calypso. Just a hint. For your future arguments.

It is what separates men from gods, whose immortality is put on display in Book I as an endless life of carnal pleasure in which nothing has any meaning. Hera and Zeus quarrel violently and then sleep together the same night. If you live forever, what is an argument worth? But the argument between Achilles and Agamemnon in the same book is epic precisely because they are men, they are mortal, and they therefore suffer deeply from all the afflictions of passion and pride. Insults matter to men. And the specter of mortality is the driving force behind the desire for glory and honor and fame. Otherwise, why bother?

Personally, I find this argument both unconvincing and limited. I know very few people (none, in fact) whose everyday lives are motivated by the "specter of mortality". For those devout Christians I know, fear of judgment may enter into it, but I don’t think so. They’d be good people anyway. Some alternative motivations that strike me as more realistic would be lust, pride, greed, anger, curiosity, and love.

So if we're going to turn down our basic humanity for the sake of endless years living on near-starvation diets, there better be an extremely compelling reason.

If by “turn down our basic humanity”, you refer to living a longer, healthier life, I don’t believe your characterization is accurate. We won’t be turning down our basic humanity. Nor do I think a compelling reason will prove necessary. I may be way off base here, but I think many (if not most) people will be more than willing to sign up voluntarily, assuming of course that the option is available to them. I don’t think they should be forced to. I don’t think they should be forced not to.

Do you have one?

I don’t need one. Do you have a compelling reason why people shouldn’t? I'll bet not.

Is 150 years a magic number...

I took the number 150 from one of Kass’s more (hopefully) infamous soundbites. There’s nothing magical about it.

or if we reach that, will we demand 250, and then 350 and so on?

Is it critical that we know that right now? Should not knowing deter us? Do you think we should have the answers to every possible objection, no matter how implausible, before we can take action? My own answers would be no, no, and no. My best guess is that we'll stop when we push up against the limits defined by technology and biology.

It is not their personal decision unless they are coming up with the medical technology to extend their lives in their own basements.

An untrue assertion. In the final analysis, the consumer will decide what to purchase and where to purchase it. Absent coercive government action, of course. Unless the government bans such activity, I don’t see it as being any different in kind from health care purchased today. The customer chooses from a menu of options. But this is to argue eels and apples. Again, nice try.

You're creating a false model of the distribution and use of technology in this country by ignoring the commercial sphere in which such technology is exchanged.

Believe me, it was the farthest thing from my mind. And since there is currently no such thing as life extension technology in this country, how can you point to my (nonexistent) model of its distribution and use, and say it’s false?

Looking at other sectors of the economy for inspiration and insight, we find that new goods and services are created with a fair degree of regularity, and that consumers successfully begin to utilize them, abstruse theoretical objections notwithstanding.

This sphere is problematic because at one end stand experts and at the other stand laymen. This is the basic dilemma of industrial revolution-era progressivism.

It is? Problematic? I guess that’s why the iPod never caught on.

Why does the FDA exist at all? Shouldn't the process of deciding [what] can be consumed be between buyer and seller alone?

Now that you mention it, yeah, given a few reasonable caveats.

Unfortunately, not being as eager a student of Kass as you seem to be, I can't claim wide-ranging knowledge of all his past pronouncements. My direct knowledge of him is limited to a summer internship, where I disagreed with him on some issues...

Which you cannot legally speak of. Too bad, really.

He was quite the opposite of the dogmatic sleazeball you make him out to be, but what can I say? You've spent years cataloguing his every word from afar.

A man needs a hobby. But, surely you wouldn’t be violating your vow of silence to provide a few anecdotes attesting to his good character? Others have had nothing but good to say of him. Join the chorus, add your two bits worth.

I've only encountered him in person. I wouldn't want to let my personal experience get in the way of your obviously greater erudition.

Of course you wouldn’t. It would be unfair. But you could read all the books that I’ve read, just for starters. I have faith in you. And I hate to say this, but to the casual reader my erudition probably does look greater. Primary source material is immensely helpful that way.

It's not entirely clear what I should be convincing you of. If I recall correctly, my original post made two points: 1) I found Kass to be admirable and 2) Fight Aging is deluded.

You should be convincing me that Dr. Kass is, as you claim, admirable. Apart from his hobby-horses and bug-bears, I’m inclined to freely grant the point. Beyond that, who knows? You could be the one to turn this place around. Regarding point two, I don’t think Fight Aging is either insane or deluded (they’re quite different you know), but I don’t think I could change your mind. So, I’m not even going to try.

Now admittedly, perhaps I’ve been handicapped by not knowing Dr. Kass personally. I’ve had to form my opinions based on what I’ve read, unsatisfactory though that may be. If I’ve come to some unkind conclusions about him, well, at least they’re based on things he actually wrote, or said, or did. Let me just reemphasize that. My opinions were formed by words that he intentionally set down on paper, or spoke into a microphone, or by actions that he took, that have since become a part of the public record. He wrote or said or did those things deliberately.

Do you think I should discount them based on your special, personal knowledge?

Most people in this country are in the same boat I am. They haven’t met him and they never will. We are all depending on the written word to form our opinions. To change those opinions will require other written words. If you’re not up for it, that’s fine. But don’t pull the “I know him personally and you don’t” card, and then refuse to back it up with at least an anecdote or two.

Now, it seems that an argument over Kass's character would be both a rather daunting prospect for us evidence-wise, and probably irrelevant and pointless.

Maybe, maybe not.

You might go in for the ad hominem arguments, which wouldn't surprise me, but they're nonetheless not likely to find much response.

If we’re arguing character, the arguments would of necessity have to be ad hominem. How not? Your criticism would be valid if we were discussing policy only. But you claim that's not your area of expertise.

As for your thought experiment, it's not clear to me how this relates to a debate over stem-cell research or abortion or whatever the embryos are supposed to represent.

They just represent themselves.

It assumes that whatever the choice is, it's a zero-sum proposition.

Not at all.

Now, the pro-life position is obviously not a zero-sum proposition. Preventing abortion does not automatically result in the death of developed humans.

True, but that wasn’t what I was asking.

In the stem-cell research case, the implication is that merely allowing embryo destruction will lead automatically to the saving of lives. After all, we're not doing research on the person we save from a burning building to see if different rescue techniques might save him. We're just saving him. In addition, it assumes there are no other possible means to rescue this person EXCEPT to destroy embryos. Is that reflective of the real situation of medical research?

Not precisely, but it's debatable. It would certainly be an interesting argument, but it’s not the argument I’m looking for. And as the rescuer, you are not destroying the embryos. The fire does that, all by itself. All you have to do is evaluate the situation and then take proper action.

Moreover, is there a principle to be found behind the result that most people (I assume) would choose the child?

Actually, yes. But not the principle you think. You’re trying to generalize prematurely.

It strikes me that the principle is that majority instinct under duress is universal moral truth in all circumstances.

Not a bad guess, but still wrong.

How far are you willing to defend that proposition?

Not far at all. It’s not my proposition. But if it were true, it wouldn’t need my defense, now would it?

(“Do you think it should be their decision, or the governments?") This is a misrepresentation of how the distribution of technology actually happens. It's not as though either you decide all on your own which chemicals to ingest, or the government forces them down your throat. The appropriate role of government regulation in technology is not obvious or simple, but that doesn't mean that either strict laissez-faire or a totally planned economy are better for their simplicity value.

Thanks for the tutorial. I think we can assume that the hypothetical average reader would nonetheless understand the gist of the question, and could provide us with a meaningful yes or no answer.

Might it be fair to say that in your own case you think your decision should entail a complex process of collaboration between yourself and the appropriate government agencies? That you are willing to forego some but not all your own choices in favor of those generated by some bureaucracy, and that you find the process necessary and unobjectionable? I rather doubt that, but I could be wrong.

Life is like good and stuff. Is it like good and stuff all the time?

Clearly not.

So, Terri Schiavo's life was like good and stuff, and she should've been kept alive on that basis?

Terri Schiavo is barely relevant to the discussion at hand. Shall we stop doing heart surgery because of Terri Schiavo? Stop child vaccination? More broadly, shall we stop helping any patients at all because we can’t save every one of them? You’re taking evasive action...

Or, a patient with advanced dementia should have every medical effort, no matter how invasive, made to save him in his decline--bypass surgery, kidney transplant, etc--because his life is like good and stuff?

And dumping chaff like nobody’s business.

Furthermore, how much life is good? Just 150 years?

If that’s all we can manage, I guess we’ll just have to accept it.

What if when we get there, we decide 350 sounds like a more satisfactory number?

Then we would be really, really lucky.

Why not 600?

Well, if the laws of nature allow it…and we’re smart enough to figure it out...I guess it might be okay.

Eternity, maybe?

Whoah. Let’s not get overly ambitious.

On what basis are we deciding how much life is good enough?

That question works both ways. On what basis are we deciding how much life is too much? Do these questions even make sense?

And I suppose we're to ask Terri Schiavo how she feels about it?

Another diversionary straw-herring. Still, why not answer seriously?

Given that she’d lost two thirds of her brain, I don’t think the most heroic of heroic measures would have done her much good. Nor do I think amazing twenty-second century super-science could have brought her back. Had I been in her position, I’d have wanted it ended rather than prolonged. Others may differ, to which I can only say it’s their life.

Whatever their preference, people should make sure that their wishes are well known and their legal instruments accurate and up to date. Terri Schiavo is a grisly reminder of what can go wrong if you don’t. That being said, in my idealized vision of a better tomorrow, I see her initial injury as having been quickly detected and put right, thus obviating the entire tragic sequel. I guess I’m just a hopeless, simple-minded idealist.

Or a dementia patient?

Well, that would depend on the nature of the dementia, wouldn’t it? Is it reversible or irreversible? Is anybody working on the problem at all? What kind of progress are they making? What does the living will say? And the next-of-kin? Are there any legal guardians to ask, at all? Are there adequate financial resources? Those are the sorts of questions I would want answered, before making a decision.

Moreover, can you simply live as long as you will yourself to live...

Clearly not.

...or would extension require you to use technology created by someone else?

Yes. Yes it would. I like these simple questions much better.

Because unless you're working out all those biological dilemmas in your own basement, it seems that at some point, this will necessarily involve commerce.

Even as I type these words, bright young people are working on those biological dilemmas, in basements all around the world. Yes, they hope to have products to sell. Yes, people will want to purchase them. Shall I stabilize the world monetary system before we allow them to do so? As long as I'm already up, perhaps I should institute world peace.

How this affects your access to a technology and the degree of government regulation of it is open...

I’m sure the government will find some way to get involved, quite likely to our detriment.

...but don't pretend that it's an entirely individual proposition.

No, we shouldn’t pretend that. That would be bad. But the question, as phrased, assumes that all such troubling developmental roadblocks have been successfully negotiated. It could happen. Maybe you think it’s a long shot, but it could happen. So if it did, and you had access to such therapies, would you choose to use them? It’s pretty simple, really.

Moreover, please do not mistake me for Kass.

Not a chance. He's suave. He wouldn’t lose his temper. And he would be much more subtle and lyrical as he evaded the questions, assuming he deigned to answer them at all.

We are not one and the same. I don't make or propose to make policy.

But I bet you’d like to. Wouldn’t you? C’mon, fess up, it’s not a crime. Your admirable mentor figure would like to make policy. Why shouldn't you?

You tread dangerous ground when you suggest that any argument about the morality of a proposition is akin to a legislative argument.

Strange, I don’t recall anyone suggesting that. But if I had, how would it be dangerous?

It is an essentially relativist position that withholds all judgment based on the premise that each person knows what is good for him.

It is?

What is immoral is not the same as what is or should be illegal. But it is still immoral, no?

So, if it’s immoral but not illegal, why exactly should the government get involved? To publish non-mandatory shunning guidelines, perhaps? Where then does the ten million dollar fine enter the picture?

Again, that evades the question of incompetent patients.

Which, again, is not much of a question.

Who decides for them and on what basis? Moreover, please let me know how you plan to decide. Since we're not talking policy, but the fundamental rightness of life extension (unless of course you believe that what is "right" is relative for each person, or is based purely on unreflective knee-jerk decision-making...

Apparently we’re also talking about care of the demented. As to not talking policy, I'm not the one lobbying congress to jail SCNT researchers.

and you're certain that life extension is good...

Reasonably certain, yes.

I assume you have the standard for the good life figured out, and you have concluded that it requires eternal life to achieve.

Well. That’s setting the bar pretty high. All I have to do is figure out the standard for the good life. Did Jonas Salk have to do that before he cured polio? Nice feint.

And as for eternal life? I’d count it a gain just to achieve lots and lots more. And not even for myself, necessarily. I see this as a long-term project, one which I’m unlikely to benefit from personally. No, I’m in this for posterity’s sake. As it happens, I don’t think eternal life and perfect health are achievable. Should we therefore stop trying to vigorously push back the limits? To advocate such a course strikes me (unreflectively, in a knee-jerk sort of way) as morally deficient.

Such answers have only been evading philosophers since the 5th Century, and I'm sure they'd love to hear your conclusion. Please, do share.

So let me get this straight. If I want the approval of the prudent and philosophically inclined when I say something as unexceptionable as “healthy life is a good thing and more of it is better,” I must first grapple with twenty-five hundred years worth of ethical inquiry (just how well is that coming along, anyway?) and come up with definitive answers? To the heretofore unanswerable? And any progress in the real world of medical advancement should do the same?

Has anyone, anywhere, who ever did anything, had to satisfy such a requirement? That you should set such an impossible condition speaks poorly for your argument. At a guess, you're angry (at least in part) because you know you don't have a real case.

Take heart. Things will get better. In my experience, most college students shed their collegiate beliefs with rapidity, grace, and no little embarassment once they have left academe. Perhaps you will, too. I'd put the odds at better than four to one.