Philosophy Now Forum

by Rick Lewis

http://philosophynow.org/issues/89/The_Glum_Reaper

One or two of the articles from the latest addition seems to come ready made with two distinct fallacies.

1) Death and ageing is a disease that can be 'cured'.
2) Due to the possibility of a cure the world is in danger of becoming overpopulated or moribund, or both.

Time is not an agent like radiation, heat, sharp knives, bacteria, viruses. You cannot cure the effects of time because it is not time that is at fault. There are a thousands different causes of ageing. There is no silver bullet, nor can there be, to halt the ageing process. Ageing is about change, and the changes that are ageing are the changes of renewal. With each cell regeneration we age.

There is no doubt however that life is lived longer than ever before. And if you are lucky enough to live in the West you can reasonably expect to live double the life that you would have expected just 100 years ago.
In many of the poorest countries life expectancy can be less than half the maximum elsewhere.
In Monaco life expectancy and birth is now 89.6 years, whereas in Chad it is 48, according to the CIA. I have seen lower estimates for the bottom line, and certainly in most of the human past if you got to 50 you were likely to be the oldest person you knew.
So, we are already there with the longer life, and oddly the places where the population rates are highest is often in the countries with the lowest life expectancy.

I think the real issue is not how long you live, but how many years you can enjoy a healthy life. Fighting 'death' and 'ageing' has not necessarily led to stagnation, rather it has provided longer for people to make a difference. The last of life is where the maximum of experience and knowledge resides, too loose it too early is a tragic waste.

It is amazingly ironic to read Mary Midgley banging on about longevity as if it were a bad thing, when she is still writing crystal clear articles at the age of 92!!!!

You might be interested in a radio programme hosted by Philosophy Now columnist Prof Raymond Tallis on Radio 3 a week ago. Jason very helpfully posted the link in another thread and I listened to it yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d7b2b

This is also about the prospects and desirability of "beating ageing". However, Ray Tallis' radio programme devotes far more time to the science involved.

I agree that it is pretty dubious to regard all the accumulated cellular-level damage caused by the passage of time as a disease. However, the radio prog (and the various research linked from Nick Bostrom's article) does suggests that there might be ways to overcome this damage anyway.

Ray points out that in the century or so up to the 1970s or 80s there were big gains in life expectancy due to progress in tackling social ills causing child mortality, and also in tackling infectious diseases. Apparently most experts thought that once these two causes of early mortality had been largely dealt with, then life expectancy would level off and there would only be small gains after that, as death from old age would provide an unchanging "upper limit". However, to their surprise, life expectancy has carried on rising, and so has the average length of healthy life.

From what I've read there are a number of promising lines of attack for research aiming to increase human lifespans further. For instance there is a lot of talk about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase
which is very much to do with the process of cell regeneration which you mention.

chaz wyman wrote:It is amazingly ironic to read Mary Midgley banging on about longevity as if it were a bad thing, when she is still writing crystal clear articles at the age of 92!!!!

Yes, that is ironic, isn't it? Ray points out in his programme that Mary Midgley didn't publish her first book until the age of 55. If she had only lived the average lifespan of the 19th century, none of the brilliant books on which her reputation rests would ever have seen the light of day!

RickLewis wrote:You might be interested in a radio programme hosted by Philosophy Now columnist Prof Raymond Tallis on Radio 3 a week ago. Jason very helpfully posted the link in another thread and I listened to it yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d7b2b

This is also about the prospects and desirability of "beating ageing". However, Ray Tallis' radio programme devotes far more time to the science involved.

I agree that it is pretty dubious to regard all the accumulated cellular-level damage caused by the passage of time as a disease. However, the radio prog (and the various research linked from Nick Bostrom's article) does suggests that there might be ways to overcome this damage anyway.

Ray points out that in the century or so up to the 1970s or 80s there were big gains in life expectancy due to progress in tackling social ills causing child mortality, and also in tackling infectious diseases. Apparently most experts thought that once these two causes of early mortality had been largely dealt with, then life expectancy would level off and there would only be small gains after that, as death from old age would provide an unchanging "upper limit". However, to their surprise, life expectancy has carried on rising, and so has the average length of healthy life.

From what I've read there are a number of promising lines of attack for research aiming to increase human lifespans further. For instance there is a lot of talk about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase
which is very much to do with the process of cell regeneration which you mention.

chaz wyman wrote:It is amazingly ironic to read Mary Midgley banging on about longevity as if it were a bad thing, when she is still writing crystal clear articles at the age of 92!!!!

Yes, that is ironic, isn't it? Ray points out in his programme that Mary Midgley didn't publish her first book until the age of 55. If she had only lived the average lifespan of the 19th century, none of the brilliant books on which her reputation rests would ever have seen the light of day!

Thanks for the links. I'll take a look soon.

I thought the little telomeres would raise their heads. I wonder if they will be any more significant than interferon, which hit the headlines with much excitement around 30 years ago and feted as the next panacea? Turned out to be a bit of a damp squib.
I doubt these Telomeres (despite their optimistic nomenclature) are key to the end of death, but I imagine they will more likely be another tool in the box for giving us a longer life. The trick would be to get a living subject to somehow improve their telomeres despite already having them pre-set by their individual genetics. For those not yet born one imagines that with selective breeding we could get new borns with better telomeres. I'll take a look at the link before I put my foot in it though.

For a guy that planned an MA at the age of 48 only to get cancer I found Mary's story very encouraging. Having got the cure and then got the MA, I'm still 3 years younger than Mary when she made her first book deal.
There is hope for us all; it is never too late.

.... But the nearest we will get to immortality is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

Even if people live longer the Grim Reaper will still have plenty to do I am sure. There will always be accidental deaths that the Reaper can look forward too. Hospitals will continue to wrongly administer care and inadvertently kill people. There could also be more deaths due to suicide by people growing bored of living too long. And if the weather becomes more extreme as is believed there will be more weather related deaths.

But even with extended lives people will die sooner later. So why the big deal about the Reaper being glum? It should continue to be business as usual.

The Grim Reaper would love the planet to remain sustainable because then there will always be people around that will eventually die.

spike wrote:Even if people live longer the Grim Reaper will still have plenty to do I am sure. There will always be accidental deaths that the Reaper can look forward too. Hospitals will continue to wrongly administer care and inadvertently kill people. There could also be more deaths due to suicide by people growing bored of living too long. And if the weather becomes more extreme as is believed there will be more weather related deaths.

But even with extended lives people will die sooner later. So why the big deal about the Reaper being glum? It should continue to be business as usual.

The Grim Reaper would love the planet to remain sustainable because then there will always be people around that will eventually die.

A greater population means a larger number of dead people. Larger populations are the result of living longer and healthier lives.
There are far more people dying now that did 100 years ago.

There is at least one plus in living longer, a greater concern for the environment and sustainability. Since people are going to live longer they are going to demand a safer environment, for their own personal pleasure and wellbeing. It will be a totally selfish act but that how thinks happen.

At the moment most of us are concerned about the environment up to a point, up to the point of our deaths. After that we don't care much. But if we live longer we will really care about the environment for much longer since our self-preservation will depend on it.

Individuals living longer will put more pressure on governments and business so they can be able to indulge and enjoy their lives for a longer period of time in good health. What would be the point of living longer if it isn't accompanied by a healthy, sustainable environment in which to relax and enjoy?

I would say this is one good reason why pushing for longevity is a good idea. Plus, the cruise industry needs us to continually fill its ships.

The topic of issue 89, "Are Death's Days Numbered?, is truly absurd. But even in absurdity one can fine food for thought.

Perhaps this is what philosophy is also about, thinking fantastic thoughts that are absurd. How existential.