Is Roman Catholicism a deathist religion?

[ribozyme]

I unbashedly will say my intention in this thread (and others posted recently) is to simply observe how Catholics will react to the life extensionist memes proliferated by people such as Aubrey de Grey. Aubrey de Grey is my hero as I enjoy his perfervid activism. Haven’t read his new book in depth though. I’ll stop starting threads on this topic after this, as I do not want to spend much time on this forum.

Now, I found this from the Catholic Answers website and it denigrated some of my “religious” beliefs:

The fundamental problem among those who reject all religion is that they have not found a way to conquer death. A group of wishful thinkers called “transhumanists” believe they can overcome all finite obstacles, including mortality. They are committed to overcoming human limits in all their forms by extending lifespan, augmenting intelligence, perpetually increasing knowledge, achieving complete control over our personalities and identities, even gaining the ability to leave the planet. Transhumanists seek to achieve these goals by reason, science, and technology, according to a spokesperson, an enterprising individual who dubs herself Natasha Vita-More (née Nancie Clark).

The notion of human life without limits belongs to the realm of fantasy. But the beliefs expressed by transhumanists, including the eradication of all pain, illustrate how desperately unrealistic people can become when they reject their supernatural destiny. Nick Bostrom, a professor of philosophy at Oxford University and another apologist for transhumanism, anticipates a universal cure for aging:

Today we can foresee the possibility of eventually abolishing aging and we have the option of taking active measures to stay alive until then, through life extension techniques and, as a last resort, cryonics. This makes the illusions of deathist philosophies dangerous, indeed fatal, since they teach helplessness and encourage passivity.

Bostrom deprecates those “deathists,” especially Christians, who accept the inevitability of death. Christians would undoubtedly prefer to identify themselves as loving realists. The inevitability of aging and death does not dull their responsibility for caring for people or making great strides in medical technology.

Rebellion against death is, ultimately, rebellion against God. John writes in his first epistle:

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.

(1 John 2:15–16)

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0607fea2.asp

I also found this as something to ruminate on:

I think they have chosen the end that better describes a healthy approach to the future. They want to create the future as they see it, as they hope it will be. Not wait for it; create it. No, there isn?t a specific single vision of the future held by all Extropians. There is rather a conversation among people of reasonably similar interest, complete with a set of guiding principles that are well worth reading.
…

I left with a clear idea about one thing there was consensus on: it would be a good thing to live forever. Almost to a person, the Extropians I met are pro-life in the strongest sense of the word: they intend to defeat death.

futurist.com/archives/society-and-culture/pro-life-a-visit-with-extropians/

So why are Catholics thanatophiles?

From Nick Bostrom: Fable of the Dragon Tyrant

A wonderful allegory about defeating death. I, however, do not know if such proposals are correct. And I do not suscribe to Ray Kurzweil’s timeframes anymore who suggests “molecular manufacture” would be available in 2025. His time frames are constructed to bring him optimism as he is currently 59 years old. Even if they are wrong, my advice is to do everything you can to live a healthy life.

What does the Church think about life extension?

 

[po18guy]

Interesting viewpoint. We have, each of us, received our life from God. As such, our lives are not our own, though we endeavor erroneously to embrace that belief at times. We are not “deathists” in the general meaning of the term. We have the hope of eternal life, even of the resurrection of the body, but only through God’s grace-there is no guarantee. Some Christian sects maintain that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross assures them of eternal life, but, once again, ego inflames the imagination. Ego also drives those who seek eternal life, or extended life for their own selfish purposes. For, to do so is to assume oneself greater, worthier than the mightiest who have trod this planet. That is near delusional. The worst, most infamous examples of human behavior extant have been either produced by or derived directly from ego gratification.

Mr. de Gray is, at our current state of knowledge and ability, on a par with some of the better known science fiction authors. His thought processes and philosophy call into question the necessity of human reproduction, which will necessarily have to be curtailed should he achieve his goal. The very presence of reproductive structures within the human point directly to limited life span by design.

In the end, I believe that he will probably de subjected to cryogenesis at some point, eventually to be disposed of at some future date, as interest in his particular tangent of human cognition wanes. What were you expecting?

 

[Greg27]

I have studied some of the ideas of transhumanism and Bostrom. He gives some interesting and intruiging arguments, but like those of Kurzweil and other futurists, they are highly speculative. In a way this goes back to the dreams of people like Bacon and Descartes who felt once mankind discovered the ‘secrets of nature’ and reached true wisdom by his own efforts, he would also obtain the medical knowledge necessary to defeat things like disease and death. Unfortunately as history has shown with things ranging from the destruction of the environment to weapons of mass destruction to embryo cloning and mass produced contraceptives and abortion on a large scale by the modern medical system, science and technology and their application have not always produced outcomes which are beneficial in an unequivocal sense to the human race. Anyone can see science and technology have brought many wonderful forms of progress to our lives and our knowledge of things, but they have not removed human evils (greed, lust for power, cruelty, inhumanity, etc) and perverse human motivations which have turned the tools science and technology have given us into highly destructive forms.

Looking at the future, a similar potential for abuse exists, as does the capacity for great good. Perhaps medical technology will extend lives and give better medical treatment, but for whom? Even today, medical treatment of the best kind is increasingly only available to the rich and powerful, as can be seen for example in the U.S. where the medical treatment and science is often first rate, but millions of people are also without health insurance. In the future we might see the rich or super-rich able to extend their lives and health through having access to the best resources, while the poor are left out.

Personally I don’t think human perfection is as easy as the transhumanists like to portray it, though I have no doubt science and technology 50 years from now will be far more advanced than it is now, and our standards of living will probably be much higher (at least if we can deal with climate change). Still, in my view it is imperative for philosophers and theologians to not let science and technology develop in a vacuum of moral value and meaning, as the potential implications of future technology have grave moral implications, as do those that exist today.

 

[ribozyme]

I have studied some of the ideas of transhumanism and Bostrom. He gives some interesting and intruiging arguments, but like those of Kurzweil and other futurists, they are highly speculative. In a way this goes back to the dreams of people like Bacon and Descartes who felt once mankind discovered the ‘secrets of nature’ and reached true wisdom by his own efforts, he would also obtain the medical knowledge necessary to defeat things like disease and death. Unfortunately as history has shown with things ranging from the destruction of the environment to weapons of mass destruction to embryo cloning and mass produced contraceptives and abortion on a large scale by the modern medical system, science and technology and their application have not always produced outcomes which are beneficial in an unequivocal sense to the human race. Anyone can see science and technology have brought many wonderful forms of progress to our lives and our knowledge of things, but they have not removed human evils (greed, lust for power, cruelty, inhumanity, etc) and perverse human motivations which have turned the tools science and technology have given us into highly destructive forms.

Looking at the future, a similar potential for abuse exists, as does the capacity for great good. Perhaps medical technology will extend lives and give better medical treatment, but for whom? Even today, medical treatment of the best kind is increasingly only available to the rich and powerful, as can be seen for example in the U.S. where the medical treatment and science is often first rate, but millions of people are also without health insurance. In the future we might see the rich or super-rich able to extend their lives and health through having access to the best resources, while the poor are left out.

Personally I don’t think human perfection is as easy as the transhumanists like to portray it, though I have no doubt science and technology 50 years from now will be far more advanced than it is now, and our standards of living will probably be much higher (at least if we can deal with climate change). Still, in my view it is imperative for philosophers and theologians to not let science and technology develop in a vacuum of moral value and meaning, as the potential implications of future technology have grave moral implications, as do those that exist today.

I’ll be honest with the members of this forum… I noted how you mentioned health care. I thought the Catholics on this message board would look at social inequality insouciantly while concomitantly having an extremely myopic perspective on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Again some members of this forum dispelled this from me. This portends some rather miserable events in the future, though, as the inequality is apparent even to the social conservatives.

Regarding the notion of transhumanism, I am now disillusioned with it. But I do think we can use it to eliminate the undesirable features of humanity.

I will add more later, but I do agree with most of what you say. My superficial treatment in this post will now satisfactorily address your concerns.