Posted by Ilya Somin:
A Real Difference in Fundamental Values - The Debate Over Life Extension -:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_30-2008_01_05.shtml#1199070500
I have often [1]argued that many political disagreements that seem
like differences in fundamental values are really disagreements over
the right means to achieve common values. That is certainly true of
many of the issues that divide libertarians from liberals on the one
hand and social conservatives on the other. However, there are some
exceptions to this generalization. Cato Unbound's [2]recent debate
over the desirability of radical life extension technology (which
could potentially extend human lifespans for decades or centuries)
highlights an especially stark divergence of this type - one that
definitely does separate libertarians from at least some social
conservatives in a fundamental way. To me, and to most libertarians,
it seems pretty obvious that life extension is an extraordinarily good
thing in and of itself. Perhaps some negative second-order effects of
this technology could outweigh its vast benefits. But those negative
effects would have to be truly enormous to outweigh the massive
benefits of decades or centuries of extra lifespan. This is especially
true, given the fact that life extension research seeks to extend not
merely lifespan, but "healthspan" - the length of time during which we
will remain reasonably vigorous and healthy (see [3]Aubrey de Grey's
lead essay in the Cato debate).
In [4]his contribution to the Cato debate, conservative bioethicist
Daniel Callahan clearly takes a different view:
I had a child who died a few months after birth, and I considered
that tragic as did everyone else, but when my mother died at 86 of
cancer, no one considered it a tragedy or even a great evil. Those
who knew her said at her funeral that �we loved your mother and
will miss her, but she had a good and full life.� I have never
heard anyone say it is a tragedy that Socrates, Shakespeare, George
Washington, and Albert Einstein died and are no longer with us. And
while I hope in my more self-regarding moments that my friends and
families will wail and gnash their teeth at my funeral, I doubt at
my age they will do so; and I can, so to speak, live with that.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. To me it seems extremely obvious
that it is a tragedy that Socrates, Shakespeare and the rest are no
longer with us. Apart from the benefits of longer life to these
individuals themselves, the rest of us would gain from the additional
great works they might have produced in the extra time. Who knows what
masterpieces Shakespeare might have given us had he lived to be 552
rather than 52? As far as personal anecdotes go, my grandfather died a
few years ago at the age of 95. Despite his advanced age, his death
definitely was "a great evil" and his relatives and friends still miss
him. Perhaps death was a lesser evil compared to going on living in
the near-vegetative condition he had fallen into near the end. But if
de Grey and other experts are correct, the result of radical
life-extension technology will not be additional years of a vegetative
existence but decades or centuries of added healthspan. It's hard to
say whether my family's reaction to death is more typical than
Callahan's (though I tend to think it is). But the difference between
them is striking.
There are some pragmatic consequentialist arguments against anti-aging
technology that don't implicate fundamental values. For example,
critics worry that without relatively short lifespans, there will be
no generational succession in powerful leadership positions, and
therefore important institutions might stagnate under leaders who have
become moribund. I think that most such arguments are weak. The
generational succession problem is easily addressed by instituting
term limits for leadership positions - policies which already exist
for many key offices in both the public and private sector, including
the presidency.
By contrast, Callahan's argument really does represent a deep moral
chasm between us. If taken seriously, it suggests that no good was
achieved by extending life expectancy from the "natural" average of 35
or 40 that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution to today's
75-80. Indeed, Callahan himself at one point suggests that life
expectancy was "long enough" (quoting the philosopher Seneca) back in
the days of the Roman Empire, when "the average life expectancy was 30
and one was considered was considered old at 40." It's hard to tell
whether he means this point seriously or not. But if he does, it
further underscores the difference in moral values between his brand
of social conservatism and my own views.
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1188012920.shtml
2. http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/do-we-need-death
3.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/12/03/aubrey-de-grey/old-people-are-people-too-why-it-is-our-duty-to-fight-aging-to-the-death/
4.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/12/10/daniel-callahan/nature-knew-what-it-was-doing/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
