When trying to consider the problems of the future, we have to keep in mind that several assumptions are always at play. Still, it is interesting to think of problems we may very well face somewhere in the future. I do not believe that we should be too precocious in trying to attack these issues — we have to deal with problems that are real and current, rather than waste our energy on the fancies of our imagination –, but, with all of this said, it remains an enjoyable intellectual game that may have implications for policies in the near future. So let us begin:

It is possible that, one day, we will achieve something akin to immortality, where age is no longer a threat to the well-being of our bodies and death no longer broods above our lives as a guarantee of our end. This is quite clearly the ideal that we move towards when we invest in medical research. Even before the advent of science, the possibility of immortality excited the imagination of cultures throughout the world. Yet, what would happen if we turned this dream to reality? It might be in fifty years or it might be in fifty-thousand years, but, with a few assumptions, it seems almost inevitable.

The primary assumption is that we will continue seeing technological growth in the future (with ups and downs, of course). There is clearly an incredible amount of potential for technological growth, when we consider all the doors that we perceive and have not yet been able to crack open. The human body is essentially no more than a machine of incredible complexity. We are still far off from understanding all the mysteries that lay within it and we are even further off from mastering the knowledge that it has to offer us, but it remains that there is nothing inaccessible about the mechanisms within us. We have learned so much about our body in the last hundred years and if we assume that this growth in understanding will persist in the future, then it is quite clear that we will be able to repair our bodies with perfection, perhaps even replace and improve them. Thus, immortality exists as a possibility.

The primary challenge would come from those who have faith in the concept of spirits or Gods. Another might come from those who believe that our brain is physically limited in such a way that will prevent us from ever understanding a machine as complex as our selves. Still, we can safely assume that immortality is indeed a possibility.

Of course, if the most pessimistic predictions of environmentalists have any truth, then it may not be possible to reach such a point; either humanity will destroy itself in the process or it will return to a primitive, or at least limited, level of technology. But humanity has proved itself to be highly resilient and it is not at all foolish to say that there is a fair probability that we will rise above such challenges all while maintaining technological growth. Here lays the second assumption.

The most problematic assumption is that we can not sustain an unlimited amount of population growth. In this current world, this is common sense: the Earth has a limited amount of physical space and, if we are limited to living on it, then population growth can not go on forever. But, by the time we reach a level of technology high enough to achieve immortality, then we may have also developed the technology to live a self-sustainable life in space or on other planets, thus making the amount of space we have to live in almost unlimited. But we will still assume that we are limited to living on the Earth, for reasons which will become clear later on. Thus, here lays the third assumption.

So, what happens if we assume that technological growth will persist through the future; that immortality is achievable; and that there is a limited amount of space for us to live in? Well, the population growth would continue as long as some humans want children, thus increasing the population density until we reach a critical point where the limits of our planet become a problem. At this point, we would face two options: either we can stop having children or we can begin killing people. Neither of these options feel right, since we have inherent desires to reproduce as well as to survive.

If we decide to stop reproducing, then the cycle of life and death will be brought to an end. Perhaps this is not fully rational, but I believe that there is value in such cycles, because humanity must replace itself with new generations to allow progress. As we grow up, we are all socialized and we finally become stuck in our ways. The new generations are capable of highlighting these flaws and addressing them. I suspect that if we take a million immortal humans and give them a thousand years, they might achieve less than a million humans who have an equal birth:rate ratio and who live in perfect health until the age of one hundred, where they die (which are simple models of the two choices we face). But this conclusion is just the reflex of my mind; is this really true? I do not know.

But if we do end up facing the choice of ending procreation or ending lives, which one should we take? If the aim is progress, then the choice is unclear. As I have said, there might be important value in the self-renewal that death allows humanity, but a case can also be made in saying that immortal humans could achieve more, since the same mind would be able to dig deeper within a specific topic. If  we do obtain the ability to become immortal, then it can be argued that we will also be able to modify ourselves so as to improve our minds, removing the need for self-renewal, perhaps even removing the desire for procreation. This would also allow us to control our genetic evolution.

Even if we can achieve more through self-renewal: is there any value in “achieving” things except as a tool to assist our happiness? Unless we simply become bored with life — which I don’t think would be a problem if perfect health is maintained throughout the years –, it seems to me that there is no point in self-renewal, assuming that the only goal we should have is to maximise happiness. With immortality, people would have plenty of time to understand themselves, to find their ideal occupation, lifestyle and social circles. Perhaps a society of immortals would be a happier one.

Either way, we will be best positioned to deal with this problem when it actually arises. But, this is only an extreme version of a problem we will face very soon: even if we only learn to push life expectancy to the age of, say, one-hundred and fifty, then the problems I have spoken of here will become relevant — if they are not already. One of the primary measures of a health-care system’s performance is the population’s life expectancy. In fact, with public health care, people are coerced into giving money (through taxes) so that people can push back death: we do not only try to augment the quality of our lives, but we try to extend their length.

We live in a world where not only is our planet the only place where we can live, but where our resources are limited. Is it right that we use resources to push back our inevitable deaths when we could use this same money to fund education or simply increase the quality of our lives instead?

From a liberal point of view, the government has no right to prevent people from purchasing health-care services to delay their deaths, but it is morally suspicious to force people to participate in this; it clearly violates the no-harm principle (immoral to use force against anyone except an initiator of force) and utilitarian ethics are unclear on the matter, for we do not even know if it leads to a greater amount of overall happiness.

Currently, it is argued that people work hard, pay taxes to the government and thus have a right to expect health-care services in old age. This is too simple an argument. Of course we have a right to benefit from how our tax-money is used, but what if I do not want such services for myself, what if I would rather see my money be used to fund education or health-care dealing with the quality of our lives; is it fair that I be forced to slow the death of others? Is it fair that I am forced to work more so that I can extend the lives of others as well as myself?

Of course, it’s easy to say that the policies of government reflect what people want and thus what we have is what we should have. But, even if it is true that government policies reflect our wants, I believe that there is a strong case for ending the funding of public health-care for people above a certain age and allowing them to use their own resources, if they have them, to deal with their health. Instead, this money should be used to make people happier in the present, rather than simply extending the time they have to enjoy life. Happiness must come before life expectancy and the kind of death that comes with old age is something to be respected, rather than something for us to spend so much of our resources fighting off like madmen fearing the natural consequence of life.

-Dussault

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website