After my last video about the potential use of technology to ensure human immortality,
there were some people who offered their views on why this might not be such a good idea.
A few of them pointed out that literal immortality may not actually be possible, and for reasons
of cosmology, thermodynamics, and so on, we would never really get to live forever. And
that might be so. But does it mean we shouldn't even try? Even if we can't live forever, we
could live for a much longer time. If that's not worth pursuing because we'll still have
to die eventually, then why don't we all just kill ourselves right now? We may not be able
to eliminate all potential causes of death, but we might be able to eliminate some, possibly
even many. This is something that we've always tried to do. Isn't that still worth working
towards? Others claimed that wanting to avoid death is somehow just like religion. Really?
How is it like religion? Just because a belief system that's rooted in mythology happens
to incorporate an entirely fictional kind of immortality, it doesn't mean the very notion
of it is irrevocably tainted. Simply not wanting to die isn't something that must be inherently
entangled with religion, and in this case, religion plays no part whatsoever. This is
a response to having confronted the natural world as it is. I know that when I die, it
is not a recoverable state. I know that when other people die, they are not being kept
in a holding area in the upper atmosphere or the core of the earth waiting to be reunited
with me. Death is real and permanent. And once we recognize this, the question is: what
are we going to do about it? There are no saviors here. There is no eternal life after
we die. There is only our own ingenuity, and the hope of applying our skills within the
confines of the natural world to find a real solution to death. Magic is not science, and
faith is not an answer. Some have said that even if immortality was possible, only the
wealthy would have access to it, and everyone else would be left out. And while that's certainly
not the best outcome, this doesn't seem like a reason not to make an effort anyway. Every
new technological development comes with issues of it not being available to everyone. Does
that mean there should be a moratorium on new technology until everyone has equal access?
We don't usually respond to this by denying the fruits of technology to anyone, just because
everyone doesn't have it yet. Instead, we do our best to make it available to as many
people as possible, including the less well-off. If we were to refrain from any technological
development just because it wouldn't be accessible to everyone at first, many people would be
much worse off than they are now. Others said that if people no longer die, then biological
evolution would cease to take place among humans. First of all, we don't know if this
would actually happen. People who live forever might still have offspring. But even if this
is the result of immortality, is that a problem? Is there any particular reason that the evolution
of humans has to continue in this way? Is the ongoing progress of evolution some kind
of moral imperative that we're beholden to? Just because it happens naturally doesn't
mean we're in any way obligated to ensure that it continues. And insofar as evolution
works to produce organisms that are better adapted to survive in their environment, keeping
people from dying would go a long way towards achieving that. We've already found ways of
making sure that people don't die when they otherwise would have, as well as ways for
people to reproduce when they otherwise couldn't. Our minds are just as much a product of evolution
as anything else. Are we not supposed to put them to use in this manner? Some people claimed
that anyone seeking immortality is just afraid of dying -- with the implication that we shouldn't
be. But why not? While it's certainly not helpful to suffer from crippling anxiety about
mortality while it's still limiting the time we have to enjoy life, why shouldn't we want
to avoid death nonetheless? Believe it or not, there are actually a lot of people who
don't want to die. I hadn't expected that this would be a point of contention, considering
that people generally do try not to die. Is it really that hard to believe that many of
us do enjoy our lives, and would like to be able to continue enjoying life for as long
as possible? And if it's possible for us not to die, why would there be anything wrong
with that? If you yourself don't actually fear death, then that's your perspective,
and you're certainly entitled to it. But this isn't generalizable to the class of all humans.
Others claimed that wanting to live indefinitely is somehow selfish. But is it selfish to simply
not want to die when you potentially wouldn't even have to? Should we be restricted to a
fixed allotment of time, as if anything beyond that means taking more than our fair share?
This doesn't have to be zero-sum. We could all live longer -- potentially much longer
-- without it taking anything away from others. And even if you still think it is "selfish",
this doesn't mean anyone should have to die when they otherwise wouldn't need to, just
for being selfish. Some people brought up the possibility that social progress would
be slowed or halted when older generations no longer die off, because they would be less
likely to change their views over time. And while that might be an issue, there are probably
better ways of addressing this than requiring death. The greater ease of social change is
often considered a positive side effect of older people dying, but if they were never
going to die, this may not be a sufficiently compelling reason to force them to. There
are other tactics available that could be tried first, like persuasion. But even if
some of them can't be persuaded to agree with you, does that mean they should then have
to die? Killing people who disagree with you is indeed a method of bringing about social
change. But most of us tend to frown on that. If our current optimum solution to this requires
for people to die, I'm not sure we've brought our best efforts to bear on the problem. Finally,
many people insisted that overpopulation would still be an issue. For the sake of brevity,
I addressed this in my last video by handwaving it away. My real answer is: I don't know.
And that's the best answer I have right now, because I'm one person who is certainly not
the smartest person in the world, and at present, there already aren't too many good options
for dealing with this. When people suggest a reduction in the global birth rate, this
is usually received poorly and considered somewhat totalitarian. Intentionally killing
off a significant portion of the population, even moreso. And doing nothing about the problem
is just negligent. So in all honesty, I probably won't be able to offer a solution here. And
when it comes to something like technological immortality, I especially don't know how it's
going to end up. I can't tell you what kind of changes will bring about the eradication
of death, nor do I know how this will specifically affect things like reproduction, resource
consumption, the kinds of environments that will be habitable for us, and so on. There
are too many unknowns here to articulate a fully developed answer yet. I could tell you
that we'll all move to outer space, or the oceans, or we'll all shrink ourselves, or
upload our minds to computers. Or maybe there will just be medical therapies that prevent
aging and all other diseases while changing nothing else. But I don't know that, so it's
hard to work out how the effects of this should be dealt with. The problem with citing overpopulation
as an objection to immortality is that it means preemptively concluding that this is
a problem that can't be dealt with, even given an indefinite lifespan to work on it. And
we certainly don't know that, either. What I do know is that these are not reasons to
avoid trying at all, nor are they sufficient to mandate death for every person ever when
this could have been avoided. Wouldn't it be better to work towards immortality and
the possibility that this is something we can learn to live with, instead of never having
the chance to find out?