|
December 23, 2007
Dust-up At The Cato Corral
There's a bit of a back and forth going on over at Cato Unbound regarding the wisdom of pursuing radically longer lifespans. So far, not too many people have been paying attention. On the pro side we have Aubrey De Grey and Ron Bailey. Long time readers will no doubt already know that my sympathies lie with their side of the argument. On the side of human dignity (and death), we have Daniel Callahan and Diana Schaub. Though I disagree with them, simple honesty forces me to note that both of them are superlative, albeit unwitting, entertainers. Sadly though, it appears that Mr. Callahan's heart wasn't really in it. I found his response perfunctory, unreflective, and more than a little sad. We shall leave him for much later, or perhaps never. Ms. Schaub however, does not disappoint. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Mr. De Grey made the matter of fact observation that some bioethicists indulge in what amounts to tabloid Socratics... A venerable rhetorical tactic in the promotion of fragile positions is to raise in the audience's mind the specter of some terrible consequence of the opposing position without actually spelling it out. Unnerving questions are asked - but then, rather than answers offered, the subject is changed, leaving the concern to fester in the subconscious. The author escapes, however, with the knowledge that if challenges are raised to the validity of these concerns he can resort to the claim that he never actually said that. Much the same technique is used in those vulgar TV documentaries about UFO abductions, or demonic posession, and I have seen it again and again in the works of Kass, Schaub, Meilaender, et al. One would think that forewarned is forearmed, but in this instance one would be wrong. Ms. Schaub responded with a textbook example of the type. I have edited it to accentuate the point. You can read the entire piece here... How would one feel at, say, 370 years of age, contemplating pet number 30-something? The physical energy required for a new puppy is nothing compared to the psychic energy. So, I don't think it's absurd to worry about the effects of extremely long life on our commitments, aspirations, and receptivity to new life and love.... Upon reading such a deeply troubling compendium, I sometimes ask myself a deep question of my own. How, in all the wide world, could we possibly get meaningful answers to these questions? I mean, short of going ahead with the program and giving it our best shot? I've tried and tried, but I can't come up with a anything. Can you? Lacking answerability, just what is it, exactly, that we're trying to determine? We might just as well ask ourselves what did the Clark's see that night?And what about that mysterious star map? Was the circular pattern of warts on Barney's torso just a coincidence? In either case, all you'll get back is opinion. Ron Bailey noted this in his response... So what about the social consequences of radically longer and healthier lives? In that regard, Diana Schaub in her reaction essay raises many questions for reflection about those consequences, but curiously she fails to actually reflect on them. That last was somewhat unfair of Mr. Bailey, who tends to be flippant and irreverant. Actually, I always liked flippant and irreverant. But I wouldn't want any readers to think that Ms. Schaub hasn't done real philosophic work. She is, after all, the author of Erotic Liberalism: Women and Revolution in Montesquieu's "Persian Letters" . And surely the world is a finer place for it. And, too, she serves on the President's Council on Bioethics, where I am certain she is doing much social good. If I had more time, I would ask Ms. Schaub some questions of my own. More on that later.
posted by Justin on 12.23.07 at 08:45 PM
Comments
In about a century (the blink of an eye by historical standards) we've nearly tripled the human lifespan. We don't seem to have much trouble with life extension so far. Perhaps Dr. Schaub would like to turn back her own clock to the average farmer's wife of 100+ years ago and start cranking out kids at age 14 or so, arthritis by age 20 (from heavy manual labor that started as soon as she was old enough to carry a bucket), only to die by age 25 or 30. That, after all is the historical norm, we wouldn't want to pervert that any, because, gasp! bad things could happen! Not being able to benefit mankind perfectly, is a pretty dumb reason to not attempt to benefit mankind at all... jan · December 23, 2007 11:34 PM Wasn't "Cato" the name of the O.J.Simpson's pet white man? "I'm pro human rights, but I'm also pro human responsibilities too!" Andrew Dawson · December 24, 2007 02:43 AM My problem is that those who consider long life the highest value, do so to the point of contempt for all other values--and consequently contempt for the rights and prerogatives of others. Not the sort of people one cares to coexist with for long. Brett · December 24, 2007 08:49 AM I do have contempt for all other values besides life and i can't conceive of what one could value higher than good healthy long life for oneself and all other humans, one without the horror of aging and decline, the fear, the pain, the humiliation, the loss of a lifetime of adult competence and independence--how anyone could have "values" that see value in aging is astonishing. the ludicrously petty examples given in Ms. Straub's reaction show a hatred of actual human life that i can't fathom. we will be sad because we have too many pets over a lifetime?? well, thats certainly an argument for death. also, like we won't make immortal lifelike robot companions that exceed real pets in likely every possi ble way. what people like ms. straub are in fact reacting to is that every single aspect of human life, culture, society and relationships would be irrevokably altered as we EVOLVED into our new non-aging life process. and like all stasists what they really cannot stand is the specter of radical change. I highly suggest the book "the elementary particles" by michael houllenboucq, an amazing exploration of the horror that awareness of our decline and mortality inflicts upon human existence. dana · December 24, 2007 09:37 AM "i can't conceive of what one could value higher than good healthy long life" A free and happy one. Even if short. Anonymous · December 24, 2007 10:17 AM The same technology that would make life extension possible would also make it almost impossible for the State to enforce laws against it. So for all of those who think they can send the State's Enforcers to attempt to stop this, better not do it, it's futile. Robert · December 24, 2007 06:22 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Is Huckabee simply the anti-Romney?
Callipyginous Ephebiphobia on the campaign trail? Policy Of Blockade HAPPY NEW YEAR! slanted or planted? Stifling diversity in the name of diversity? Insensitivity in the name of sensitivity? Fred's Message To Iowans A Marine Needs Help Recreating a past we only imagine
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think Ms. Schaub would remind you that your "To-Do List" could get out of hand in a hurry, Justin.
In fact, your comment that "If I had more time, I would ask Ms. Schaub some questions of my own." seems rather comical in context of this post.