Transhumanist immortality: Understanding the dream as a nightmare
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2021.006Keywords
Immortalist fallacy, immortality, indefinite life, transhumanism.Abstract
This paper offers new arguments to reject the alleged dream of immortality. In order to do this, I firstly introduce an amendment to Michael Hauskeller’s approach of the “immortalist fallacy”. I argue that the conclusion “we (normally) do not want to live forever” does not follow from the premise “we (normally) do not want to die”. Next, I propose the philosophical turn from “normally” to “under these circumstances” to resolve this logical error. Then, I review strong philosophical critiques of this transhumanist purpose of immortality in the literature. There are two key questions related to the possibility of fulfilling this goal: the hard problem of consciousness and the personal identity dilemma. Finally, I defend a specific type of indefinite life and justify that it is more desirable than our current limited life.References
Agar, Nicholas. 2010. Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
Bostrom, Nick. 2008. “Why I want to be a posthuman when I grow up”. In Berth Gordijn., and Ruth Chadwick (eds.). Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity (pp.107-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bostrom, Nick. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, Allen E. 2011. Beyond Humanity?: The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Callahan, Daniel. 1997. Living to be 100: Good or bad? Journal of Applied Gerontology, 16(3), 267-269.
Chalmers, David J. 2010. The singularity: A philosophical analysis. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17, 7-65.
Cordeiro, José Luis., and David Wood. 2018. La muerte de la muerte. La posibilidad científica de la inmortalidad física y su defensa moral. Barcelona: Deusto.
de Grey, Aubrey D. 2004. Escape velocity: Why the prospect of extreme human life extension matters now. PLoS Biology, 2(6), 723-726.
de Grey, Aubrey D. 2015. “The singularity and the Methuselarity: Similarities and differences”. In Ben Goertzel., and Ted Goertzel (eds.). The End of the Beginning: Life, Society, and Economy on the Brink of Singularity (pp. 151–169). San José: Humanity+ Press.
de Magalhães, João P. 2004. Alice’s dilemma. Futures, 36(1), 85-89.
Diéguez, Antonio. 2017. Transhumanismo: La búsqueda tecnológica del mejoramiento humano. Barcelona: Herder Editorial.
Fukuyama, Francis. 2002. The Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Bio-Technological Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Gems, David. 2003. Is more life always better?: The new biology of aging and the meaning of life. Hastings Center Report, 33(4), 31-39.
Glannon, Walter. 2002. Extending the human life span. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(3), 339-354.
Harris, John. 2000. Intimations of immortality. Science, 288(5463), 59.
Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making People Better. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hauskeller, Michael. 2013. Better Humans?: Understanding the Enhancement Project. Durham, NC: Routledge.
Hauskeller, Michael. 2019. Ephemeroi-human vulnerability, transhumanism, and the meaning of life. Scientia et Fides, 7(2), 9-21.
Hopkins, Patrick D. 2012. Why uploading will not work, or, the ghosts haunting transhumanism. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 4(01), 229-243.
Kass, Leon. 2003. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Harper Collins.
Kitcher, Philip. 2014. Life after Faith. The Case for Secular Humanism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kurzweil, Raymond. 2005. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin.
Marcos, Alfredo., and Moisés Pérez Marcos. 2019. Cave 2.0. The dualistic roots of transhumanism. Scientia et Fides, 7(2), 23-40.
Moravec, Hans. 1989. Mind Children. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Overall, Christine. 2003. Aging, Death, and Human Longevity: A Philosophical Inquiry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pigliucci, Massimo. 2014. “Mind Uploading: A philosophical counter-analysis”. In Russel Blackford., and Damien Broderick (eds.). Intelligence Unbound: Future of Uploaded and Machine Minds (pp. 119-130). Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.
Pijnenburg, Martien, A M., and Carlo Leget. 2007. Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(10), 585–587.
Preston, Ted M., and Scott Dixon. 2007. Who wants to live forever? Immortality, authenticity, and living forever in the present. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 61(2), 99-117.
Roduit, Johann A. R. 2016. The Case for Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Human Enhancement. London: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.
Sandel, Michael J. 2007. The Case against Perfection. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Savulescu, Julian., Sandberg, Anders, and Guy Kahane. 2011. “Enhancement and well-being”. In Julian Savulescu., Ruud ter Meulen, and Guy Kahane (eds.). Enhancing Human Capacities (pp. 3-18). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stock, Gregory., Callahan, Daniel, and Aubrey D. de Grey. 2007. Debate: The ethics of life extension. Rejuvenation Research, 10(3), 407-416.
Temkin, Larry. S. 2008. Is living longer living better? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(3), 193-210.
Williams, Bernard. 1973. “The Makropoulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”. Problems of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, David. 2016. The Abolition of Aging. The Forthcoming Radical Extension of Healthy Human Longevity. London: Delta Wisdom.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia et Fides
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
CC BY ND 4.0. The Creator/Contributor is the Licensor, who grants the Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Work on the fields indicated in the License Agreement.
- The Licensor grants the Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Work/related rights item specified in § 1 within the following fields: a) recording of Work/related rights item; b) reproduction (multiplication) of Work/related rights item in print and digital technology (e-book, audiobook); c) placing the copies of the multiplied Work/related rights item on the market; d) entering the Work/related rights item to computer memory; e) distribution of the work in electronic version in the open access form on the basis of Creative Commons license (CC BY-ND 3.0) via the digital platform of the Nicolaus Copernicus University Press and file repository of the Nicolaus Copernicus University.
- Usage of the recorded Work by the Licensee within the above fields is not restricted by time, numbers or territory.
- The Licensor grants the license for the Work/related rights item to the Licensee free of charge and for an unspecified period of time.
FULL TEXT License Agreement
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 921
Number of citations: 2
