Phil Lecture 7 - DR. KENNETH FERGUSON PDF

Preview

Summary

DR. KENNETH FERGUSON...

Description

Phil Lecture 7 Death and the Meaning of Life Curing death ● More and more research is being done in science into the process of aging ● Although the verdict is not in yet, there is some reason to believe that it might be possible at some point to “cure aging” ● That is, it might be possible through genetic engineering to intervene in the biology involved in the aging process so as to prevent us from growing old Scientific advantages related to aging ● Ability to grow organs in the lab, and other medical advances, will continue to extend the life span of humans ● Use of stem cells to regenerate tissue in treating stroke and other medical conditions ● Study of progeria - premature aging - has led to a deeper understanding of the aging process ● Scientists have found genes that delay the aging process - created fruit flies that have double the normal life span ● Created mice that spontaneously regenerate parts of their bodies, constantly repairing damaged parts How the process of aging works ●

“Inside the nucleus of a cell, our genes are arranged along twisted, double-stranded molecules of DNA called chromosomes. At the ends of the chromosomes are stretches of DNA called telomeres, which protect our genetic data, make it possible for cells to divide, and hold some secrets to how we age and get cancer.”

●

●

●

●

“Telomeres have been compared with the plastic tips on shoelaces, because they keep chromosome ends from fraying and sticking to each other, which would destroy or scramble an organism's genetic information.” “Yet, each time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide; it becomes inactive or "senescent" or it dies. This shortening process is associated with aging, cancer, and a higher risk of death.” “This seems to be a key part of why cells die during the aging process,” Rutherford says …. “When a cell gets to the point that it has no telomeres left, it won’t be able to divide again. Or if it does, it’ll be messed up.” ○ So the next question is, if we can restore the telomeres in elderly cells, might that stop them – and us – from getting old? “Telomeres are undoubtedly a key part of aging, and the discovery of telomerase was a significant moment in understanding why cells don’t continue to reproduce forever, why they’re not immortal. If we could target that process of losing telomeres, with drugs or whatever, you could possibly maintain a longer shelf-life for a cell, it could continue reproducing far longer than its natural life. I don’t think it’s just science fiction; I think it’s genuinely a worthy topic of research with therapeutics in mind.” (Dr. Adam Rutherford, geneticist and author of Creation: The Origin of Life)

Things that (almost) live forever ● ●

“Most animals eventually get old and die. But a few lucky species don't seem to feel the weight of time, and just keep going and going.” “Paradoxical though it might seem, biologically immortal organisms are definitely mortal. They can be killed by a predator, a disease, or a catastrophic change in the environment …. But unlike humans, they rarely die simply because they get old.”

The Great Basin bristlecone pine ● ● ●

These trees can live for 5,000 years Apparently, they have stem cells in their roots that enable them to generate new growth The stem cells can remain youthful for millennia

Meet Ming The Mollusca ●

●

●

“Ming the Mollusca is the oldest verified solitary animal on record. This ocean quahog was 507 years old when biologists dredged it up from the coastal waters around Iceland in 2006 and promptly killed.” “Ming died, but it might have been biologically immortal. In many animal cells, oxygen-containing molecules react with the membranes, generating small molecules that in turn damage other parts of the cell.” “But a 2012 study found that ocean quahog cells carry membranes that are unusually resistant to this sort of damage. Ming might have lived so long because its cells, like the cells of the bristlecone pine, aged at a negligible rate.”

The “immortal” jellyfish ●

“When the immortal jellyfish restarts its life cycle, it also repurposes and regenerates its cells in a process called transdifferentiation. It begins the path toward its medusa form again as a practically entirely new being.”

Meet Aubrey de Grey (1963-) ● ● ● ● ●

English gerontologist Ph.D. from Cambridge University Co-author of Ending Aging Does research on rejuvenation and reversing of aging processes Predicts that human life-span will soon reach 150, and, eventually, several hundred years

The possibility of immortality ●

●

“A biomedical gerontologist and chief scientist of a foundation dedicated to longevity research, de Grey reckons that within his own lifetime doctors could have all the tools they need to "cure" aging -- banishing diseases that come with it and extending life indefinitely.” “I'd say we have a 50/50 chance of bringing aging under what I'd call a decisive level of medical control within the next 25 years or so," de Grey said in an interview before delivering a lecture at Britain's Royal Institution academy of science.”

●

●

●

●

“An average of three months is being added to life expectancy every year at the moment and experts estimate there could be a million centenarians across the world by 2030.” "This is absolutely not a matter of keeping people alive in a bad state of health," he told Reuters. "This is about preventing people from getting sick as a result of old age. The particular therapies that we are working on will only deliver long life as a side effect of delivering better health." “De Grey is reluctant to make firm predictions about how long people will be able to live in the future, but he does say that with each major advance in longevity, scientists will buy more time to make yet more scientific progress.” In his view, this means that the first person who will live to 1,000 is likely to be born less than 20 years after the first person to reach 150.

The concept of “longevity escape velocity” ●

“…call it longevity escape velocity -- where we have a sufficiently comprehensive panel of therapies to enable us to push back the ill health of old age faster than time is passing. And that way, we buy ourselves enough time to develop more therapies further as time goes on …”

The “immortalists” ●

●

There are some people whose goal is to stay alive long enough that the increasing life span with achieving “practical” immortality for them (except, of course, for death due to accident or violence) They do this partly through close attention to nutrition and exercise, but mainly by greatly reducing calorie intake, as this appears to significantly increase the life span

Immortality: a good thing or a bad thing? ● ● ● ●

So, the ability to cure aging would be a momentous change in human history But would it be desirable? Would you want to be immortal? How would immortality affect our lives? How would it affect society? What effect would immortality have on the meaningfulness of life? Would it make life more meaningful or less meaningful

Sir Bernard Williams (1929-2003) ● ● ● ● ● ●

Former Royalair Forec pilot Self-confident individual, an influential philosopher First wife was the prominent Conservative political figure, Shirley Williams Taught at Cambridge university and Berkely Served on important royal commissions Main works: Problems of the Self, Descartes, Utilitarianism

Is death a good thing or a bad thing? ● ●

It has generally been assumed throughout history that death is a bad thing, or even worse, that it is a reason for existential despair Wishing to be immortal, like the Gods, is a recurring theme in ancient mythologies, a

theme that persists into today’s religions with their belief in an infinite afterlife as if everyone would agree that this is a desirable thing Williams - Immortality would be a bad thing ● ● ●

Bernard Williams has argued that it is a mistake; that human life is much better with death than without it, and that morality is preferable to immortality: “Immortality, or a state without death, would be meaningless, I shall suggest; so, in a sense, death gives the meaning of life.” “From facts about human desire and happiness and what a human life is, it follows … that immortality would be, were conceivable at all, intolerable…”

“The Makropulos Affair” ●

●

In discussing this issue, Williams refers to a play by Karel Capek called The Makropulos Affair (hence the title of the article) in which a woman has lived for 342 years. Her life has now become so boring and pointless, that she opts for suicide Note, however, that the play is merely used by Williams to illustrate various points. It plays no essential role in his argument

Williams’ basic argument against immortality ●

If we continue living indefinitely, either we would remain similar enough to count as the same person, or we should change so much that we would be a different person ○ In the latter case, where we don’t remain the same person, there is no immortality, as the original person has ceased to exist somewhere along the way ○ If we do remain the same person, then life would inevitably become so boring and repetitive that death would be preferable

Two senses of “same” person or thing ● ● ●

A = B in the qualitative sense means that A and B have the same properties A = B in the numerical sense means that A and B are one and the same thing (or person) Note that when Williams speaks of the “same person”, he means this in the numerical sense

In Williams’ own words ●

“… in considering the prospect of an eternal life I would want to live, two conditions must be met: First, it must be that it is I who continues to live; that is, I-now am identical to the person whose future existence I am contemplating. Second, it must be that my future life “to me looking forward [is] adequately related, in the life it presents, to those aims which I now have in wanting to survive at all.”

●

“The idea behind this second condition is that the future life I am considering has to be attractive to me from my current standpoint. Williams essentially presents a dilemma: assuming the first condition is met, either one’s character (projects, goals, concerns, etc.) remains stable for eternity or it does not. If it remains stable, then life would become very boring …. If it does not remain stable, then the concerns of that

future individual are so remote from mine now that I would have no reason to care about living in the future as the person with those remote concerns.” (“Against the Tedium of Immortality”, by Donald Brucknerz) Clarifications ●

●

The choice is between our present situation, in which death inevitably occurs after a century or so of life, and being given the option of living as long as we want. (so death would occur only through suicides or accident) Williams is also working from the assumption that a person’s goals, projects, commitments, etc., are very central to his/her nature. It is these projects that primarily give meaning and purpose to our lives and form the basis of our identity as a person

Williams’ argument in more detail ●

●

Contingent desires: these are desires one has simply in virtue of being alive. They include all sorts of physical desires, for food, sex, etc. But also they can include intellectual desires, like the desire to read great literature, view great paintings… Categorical desires: these are desires for things, or to do things, that we consider important or valuable for their own sake. They involve the pursuit of goals that we might dedicate our lives to, that give us a reason for living, such as science, medicine, art, philosophy...

Categorical desires and identity ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Williams’ central thesis is that a meaningful existence requires having categorical desires It is the pursuit of these types of goals that is our reason for living Furthermore, the identity of a person, who they are, is constituted by their categorical desires So, if all my categorical desires were to change, then I would cease to be (numerically) the same person So Williams’ view that, if we were immortal, we would eventually exhaust all of the potentiality available to us for living meaningful lives At some point, I will have done everything, experienced everything, accomplished everything, that would be of any interest to, or relevance for, a person like myself There will be no point in my continuing to live. Life will have lost its attraction, and i will become existentially, or permanently, bored

Discussion ● ●

●

You might object to Williams’ position on the grounds that we could transform ourselves in various ways We could acquire new interests, talents, skills, knowledge, and so forth, which would enable us to take up very new and different goals and projects in life. So boredom would not be inevitable - we can avoid it as long as we keep changing But Williams’ response to this is that we would then cease to be the same person, and so immortality would have been lost

Immortality and Religion ●

It is important to note that Williams’ critique of immortality is meant to apply to immortality in the religious sense as well as immortality achieved by scientific

● ●

medicine Many religions see the existence of an afterlife as playing an essential role in giving life meaning But, if William is correct, this whole conception of immortality as somehow underpinning the meaning of life is confused and misguided

Some objections to Williams’ view 1. 2. 3. 4.

Underestimates importance of contingent desires Exaggerates the extent to which categorical desires contribute to a meaningful life Exaggerates the contribution of categorical desires to personal identity Overlooks the extent to which changes lead to new activities that make life more interesting 5. Fails to appreciate the shortness of life - not enough time to do all the things you want to do 1 underestimates contingent desires? ● ● ●

Can’t we have a good life, a life worth living, that mainly involves only contingent desires These include countless different things - desires for food, wine, sports, sex, friendships, social interaction, reading… Aren’t these the sorts of things that lie at the heart of most peoples’ lives anyway?

Williams’ response to this ●

●

It is clear from his view of contingent desires that Williams is not sympathetic with hedonism. He is more inclined to think that the value of life resides in pursuing worthwhile projects and commitments than is simply experiencing pleasure So the disagreement between hedonism and the view that meaningfulness consists in pursuing projects of value is very relevant in evaluating Williams’ view of death

2 does meaningful life depends on, or derive from, categorical desires? ● ● ●

The question is not only whether a good life must involve categorical desires, but whether a meaningful life depends on categorical desires Isn’t Williams’ view somewhat elitist? Most people think of themselves as pursuing projects of importance to the world But don’t they still have lives that are rich, complex, interesting, and very meaningful?

3 does identity depend on categorical desires? ● ● ●

Can’t we remain the same person even if our categorical desires eventually change completely? Even now, we change a lot as we go through life - we develop new interests, modify our values and our goals, we meet and interact with new people… As long as our categorical desires change gradually, couldn’t we at some time in the future have completely different categorical desires but still be numerically the same person?

4 importance of a changing world ● ● ●

We should keep in mind when evaluating Williams’ views on death that human society is constantly changing over time This results in new types of activities that we could not have engaged in before. Think of all the things we can do today that people 100 years ago could not do So such changes result in new activities for people to engage in. might this not enable us to avoid boredom, without changing so much that we are not the same person?

5 fails to appreciate the shortness of life ● ● ● ●

Most people, anyway, older people, have the sense that life goes by too quickly You find yourself forced to choose between so many options, choices that have to be made quickly, without adequate information If life were longer we could do so many more things that we never have a chance to do now Why wouldn’t it be a good thing to be able to live your life over and over in many different ways (like Faust)?

Arguments to support Williams ● ●

●

Even taking all of these possibilities into account, would immortality actually be desirable Forever is a very long time. At most, you might think, the issue is whether it would be desirable to live a lot longer than we do now, maybe several hundred or even 1,000 years or so Let us try to imagine the changes that such a long life span would bring with it

How would immortality change our lives ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

When would we go to school? How long would we stay in school? Would we get married? When? Why? Would marriage be seen as permanent? Would we have children? When? How many? Would we raise one family and then after have another family, then another? Would we lose touch with our children? Siblings? Friends? Would we change our careers? When?

the effect of death on life ● ● ● ●

It is important to recognize that death is more than just the endpoint of our lives The fact of death is something that conditions and effects our lives in very basic ways. For one thing, it imposes a kind of timetable on our lives There is a time for going to school, for partying endlessly, for experimenting with different forms of life, for getting married, buying a house, having children, etc Would immortality not destroy the stages of life as we experience them now?

Lose our sense of urgency ● ● ●

If death was far into the distant future, would we not lose our sense of urgency, of the need to do various things now, and so we would never do them? There would be no winning or losing in life. Anything you fail at now you could try again at a later time Nothing would have any value, our sense of accomplishing things would be lost

Bioethicist Leon Kass on death ● ●

Morality “is the condition for making them [our lives] count and for treasuring and appreciating all that life brings.” (form the U.S. President’s Council) "The very experience of spending a life, and of becoming spent in doing so, contributes to our sense of accomplishment and commitment, and to our sense of the meaningfulness of the passage of time, and of our passage through it.” (from the U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics)

The completeness of life ● ● ● ●

Without death, our lives would lack completeness. There would be no such thing as unsuccessful life, or a failed life, no such thing as “living-a-life” Try to imagine a novel that never ends. Would it really be a novel or a play? Could there be a type of game that goes on forever? So no winner, no loser? The very identity, or the very nature, of some things seems to require that they have an endpoint A life is like a project or undertaking, like a work of art. It is something we create. So there must be a point at which it’s over

Of course, none of these arguments would apply if we merely...