Cryonics

[whatevergirl]

Remember the Ted Williams fiasco? How sad. That’s not the way I want to remember Teddy Ballgame.

I’m not familiar with this story–would you mind sharing?

 

[rtconstant]

I think it’s only a matter of before genetic manipulation, advanced pharmacuticals, cybernetics, stem cells or nanites (or some combination) will dramatically change human life as we know it.

…it’s not a matter of “if” it’s a mater of WHEN.

…and it needs to be discussed NOW before the really big genies come out.

What used to be sci-fi is slowly becoming reality. As our medical and computer knowlege grows in scope, we will have some very long and some very healthy people out there. At first, it will only be for the rich (the ultimate fantasy trip), but with most advances, it will eventually trickle down to the masses.

Imagine…

1. Living for several hundred years (if not longer)
2. Erradicating the big five diseases (heart, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and kidney).
3. Replacing or repairing any organ to pristine condition.
4. No loss of mental capacity.
5. No more need for sleep (or very little).
6. Eternal youth.
7. People becoming more isolated/nuerotic as they live longer and lose touch with their human side (aka: “Highlander” series).
8. The “haves” living to 500 years and the “have-nots” living to 70 with the divisions it could cause.
9. The fusion of human and technology becoming a hybrid species.
10. Mankind becoming less inclined towards God as their “Technological hubris” increases.
11. Designer “perfect” babies (born in artificial wombs) excel while the “norms” get phased out (“Gatica”).
12. The seduction of “digital bliss” as false fantasy worlds become more disirable than the real world (Matrix)

No matter how much we protest on moral grounds there is a certain segment of the population that would rush to get this. As we’ve noticed already, humanity in it’s current state is becoming less inclined towards God, embracing Humanistic reasoning, and is fearful of death. It’s the perfect combination.

It’s coming…are you ready for the tempation?

Just my two cents.

I don’t think all of this is bad. Living for centuries wouldn’t be a bad thing. Heck the Bible seems to suggest some pretty long lives for those who lived before the flood. Now you may not take that literally but still I don’t see an inherent evil in living longer than we do now. In fact I’d say it has as much chance to be spiritually good as evil. A longer life allows for broader experience more time to develope discipline and knowledge. It very well could give us insights and awareness that our extremely short lives give us now. All to often we see people who don’t figure out what’s important in life until they get deep into their later years.

I think that the Church has a difficult position here. It has strongly supported artificial means of extending life for awhile now. This opens the door for quite a bit. If it is OK, for me to be attached to machine to keep me alive until cures for an ailment can be found then what’s wrong with having a cybernetic body? It’s performing the same function accept with an artificial body I can still function.

If its OK, to extend my life by injecting foreign anti-bodies into myself what’s wrong nano-technology that serves the same function but in a much grander scale?

One might even say that we have an obligation to extend our lives and to be as healthy as possible.

Now the virtual world thing I agree could get out of hand quickly.

Also you are correct that there could be a resultant practical problems that could arrive from what would initially no doubt be demarcated race of wealthy super humans while the poor languish below. Today often the only perceived hope of the poor is in physical prowess. Throughout history this has created a more level playing field. The powerful grow soft while the fit and hardened poor or oppressed rise up. Or like in the USA where that our entertainments like sports are often fielded by those who were raised in poorer conditions. Once medicine gets to the point where that the wealthy can live lives of luxury and still be physically superior what chance do the poor have?

Eugenics is a real problem for the future. Afterall if a parent is told that their child is going to be born with some defect but that the doctors can fix the baby no problem almost any parent would jump at it. Yet that isn’t a far jump from customized infants.

With everyday we rapidly approach that “Brave New World”. We obviously progressing technologically faster than our social progress and it is quiet scarey.

 

[royal_archer]

…
One might even say that we have an obligation to extend our lives and to be as healthy as possible.
…
With everyday we rapidly approach that “Brave New World”. We obviously progressing technologically faster than our social progress and it is quiet scarey.

What about the costs? Our current social thinking is that we are all obligated to pay for the medical care of all individuals if they can’t afford it themselves. As the technilogical options grow the costs continue to rise. It is also exponentiall more difficult to extend life the longer we live. At what point do we say enough is enough and allow people to pass with dignity and allow the living to live for something other than paying medical bills?

 

[rtconstant]

What about the costs? Our current social thinking is that we are all obligated to pay for the medical care of all individuals if they can’t afford it themselves. As the technilogical options grow the costs continue to rise. It is also exponentiall more difficult to extend life the longer we live. At what point do we say enough is enough and allow people to pass with dignity and allow the living to live for something other than paying medical bills?

Very relevant questions. I think in the case of socialized medicine many of the technologies will likely be seen as luxuries and not as absolutely necessary at least until the procedures become so refined that they are generally affordable. This wouldn’t take care of the social problems though.

As to the when it is OK, to let someone die with dignity. That’s a tough one. Some would say that Church’s stand on life support is already going to far. It’s tough to call.

 

[ribozyme]

I don’t think all of this is bad. Living for centuries wouldn’t be a bad thing. Heck the Bible seems to suggest some pretty long lives for those who lived before the flood. Now you may not take that literally but still I don’t see an inherent evil in living longer than we do now. In fact I’d say it has as much chance to be spiritually good as evil. A longer life allows for broader experience more time to develope discipline and knowledge. It very well could give us insights and awareness that our extremely short lives give us now. All to often we see people who don’t figure out what’s important in life until they get deep into their later years.

I think that the Church has a difficult position here. It has strongly supported artificial means of extending life for awhile now. This opens the door for quite a bit. If it is OK, for me to be attached to machine to keep me alive until cures for an ailment can be found then what’s wrong with having a cybernetic body? It’s performing the same function accept with an artificial body I can still function.

If its OK, to extend my life by injecting foreign anti-bodies into myself what’s wrong nano-technology that serves the same function but in a much grander scale?

One might even say that we have an obligation to extend our lives and to be as healthy as possible.

Now the virtual world thing I agree could get out of hand quickly.

Also you are correct that there could be a resultant practical problems that could arrive from what would initially no doubt be demarcated race of wealthy super humans while the poor languish below. Today often the only perceived hope of the poor is in physical prowess. Throughout history this has created a more level playing field. The powerful grow soft while the fit and hardened poor or oppressed rise up. Or like in the USA where that our entertainments like sports are often fielded by those who were raised in poorer conditions. Once medicine gets to the point where that the wealthy can live lives of luxury and still be physically superior what chance do the poor have?

Eugenics is a real problem for the future. Afterall if a parent is told that their child is going to be born with some defect but that the doctors can fix the baby no problem almost any parent would jump at it. Yet that isn’t a far jump from customized infants.

With everyday we rapidly approach that “Brave New World”. We obviously progressing technologically faster than our social progress and it is quiet scarey.

Redistribute their wealth… give the poor political power so encourage them to vote. Oh well, redistributing wealth is a worst sin as it is “socialism” or “communism.” Not many people are sympathetic to their plight.

 

[rtconstant]

Redistribute their wealth… give the poor political power so encourage them to vote. Oh well, redistributing wealth is a worst sin as it is “socialism” or “communism.” Not many people are sympathetic to their plight.

You’re right that the plight of the poor largely falls on deff ears and that plight complicates every technological advance that we make. My biggest concern about the future isn’t in the technologies themselves as much as our inability to utilize them correctly or justly. Everyday we advance further and faster but socially we’ve barely progressed into the realm of basic human rights and dignity and that’s in the most “enlightened” nations.

We look at how Blessed Mother Theresa had a legendary life in our generation and yet all she basically did was feed the hungry and give medicine to the poor. It is a sad indictment against humanity when the most basic and minimum acts of compassion gain someone world reknown.

Many of the problems that we have in the world today have a direct correlation to poverty and injustice. Outrage is growing in the world and everyone is pointing fingers but the sad fact is that almost all of us are responsible at some level.

 

[Maearl]

But where is the sin in extending your life? Obviously, if you are doing it at the expense of others (i.e. taking stem cells from aborted embryos or harvesting the organs unwillingly taken from other people, such as what goes on in China), then there maybe sin,

So you are saying that there is nothing wrong with freezing the bodies of the rich to extend their lives when there are millions of people around the world dying of AIDS, birth defects, and malnutrition?

There is a finite amount of natural resources on this earth. Even with terraforming and mining minerals from far out in the universe, wherever people may be – within the immediate vicinity there is only so many resources (copper, silicon, gold, etc). It would therefore not be possible to simultaneously have an unrestrained birth rate and a haulted death rate. We would then need to start having fewer children to continue our lives, or we would need to die to bring forth new life (as we currently do).

Let us hypothetically say for a moment that death will become optional someday because of advances in biotechnology. How many people here honestly believe that it is a noble goal to perpetually spend excessive amounts of time, money and knowledge on oneself just to indefinitely prolong one’s lifespan? Would it not be a more noble cause to instead devote ourselves to bring as many people as possible to live to the natural maximum life span of approximately 120 years?

To me, modern medical science has and always should be one of therapy, not enhancement. Society is given a choice: the unrestrained exaltation of those of us who are already alive through biotechnology, or the self-sacrifice (even to the irreversible cessation of life) that parents make every day for the sake of their children.

I pray that we will never forget the words of Jesus: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” John 15:13

 

[royal_archer]

So you are saying that there is nothing wrong with freezing the bodies of the rich to extend their lives when there are millions of people around the world dying of AIDS, birth defects, and malnutrition?

Keep in mind that for the rich it is there money and they have a right to do with it what they please. To take their money by force and give it to the poor would be stealing.

There is a finite amount of natural resources on this earth. Even with terraforming and mining minerals from far out in the universe, wherever people may be – within the immediate vicinity there is only so many resources (copper, silicon, gold, etc). It would therefore not be possible to simultaneously have an unrestrained birth rate and a haulted death rate. We would then need to start having fewer children to continue our lives, or we would need to die to bring forth new life (as we currently do).

Assuming we do not start inhabiting other plannets.

Let us hypothetically say for a moment that death will become optional someday because of advances in biotechnology. How many people here honestly believe that it is a noble goal to perpetually spend excessive amounts of time, money and knowledge on oneself just to indefinitely prolong one’s lifespan? Would it not be a more noble cause to instead devote ourselves to bring as many people as possible to live to the natural maximum life span of approximately 120 years?

We should first think about normal natual life spans. In terms of life we should also think about balancing quantity with quality. What do we do with the years we have been given?

I pray that we will never forget the words of Jesus: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” John 15:13

As long as it is that persons choice. I fear that those in the medical industry will one day try to talk family members into allowing a loved one to die prematurely (taken off life support, etc) so that the doctors can canabalize the person to get transplant organs of other body parts. I fear the harvesting of prenatal human tissue may become a rationale for encouraging women to kill (abort) their babies. I fear that there will be people who will attempt these two forms of death as noble based on the potential outcome of the uses of their canibalized bodies.

 

[Maearl]

Keep in mind that for the rich it is there money and they have a right to do with it what they please. To take their money by force and give it to the poor would be stealing.

I was not advocating stealing from the rich to give to the poor (which as you pointed out would be wrong). I was simply questioning how virtuous the unjust distribution of wealth really is – I think that unrestrained capitalism comes much closer to stealing than socialism ever has. But I ask again: how is it ethical to covet our own lives and be unwilling to step aside so that others might have life?

I fear that those in the medical industry will one day try to talk family members into allowing a loved one to die prematurely (taken off life support, etc) so that the doctors can canabalize the person to get transplant organs of other body parts. I fear the harvesting of prenatal human tissue may become a rationale for encouraging women to kill (abort) their babies. I fear that there will be people who will attempt these two forms of death as noble based on the potential outcome of the uses of their canibalized bodies.

I completely agree with your point here – I am adamently against all forms of abortion. I am also against euthansia – both through act or omission that brings about the death of another. However, I do not wish to hoard the earth’s resources to myself forever. I have signed up to be an organ donor, as I feel that for me to be unwilling to give my life for another would be incompatible with altruism.

 

[royal_archer]

I was not advocating stealing from the rich to give to the poor (which as you pointed out would be wrong). I was simply questioning how virtuous the unjust distribution of wealth really is – I think that unrestrained capitalism comes much closer to stealing than socialism ever has. But I ask again: how is it ethical to covet our own lives and be unwilling to step aside so that others might have life?

When wealth is “distributed” it is inevitably unfair. Capitalism is based on the presumption that those who create the wealth own it and do with it as they wish. Sometimes they make good moral decisions and sometimes they make selfish immoral decisions. However, since the wealth would never have existed without them no one is harmed when they use it for their own purposes. This of course applies to those who create, build, or other wise earn money by adding value to society. This wouldn’t necessarily apply to those who achieve wealth by manipulation instead of providing value.

The ethics of coveting your life are relative to what you do to stay alive. We each have a limited amount of time on this planet. We have the right and obligation to stay healthy and safe. We do not have the right to harm others to maintain our health and safety unless those individuals are a direct threat. There are many who are yet to come if we do not have room for them now, they will come later.