"Dr. Ian Irvine" wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
snip...
>
> The criticism I made was merely that Broderick
> had not explored enough the psychological and spiritual dimensions of Old
> Age. From a Developmetal Psychology perspective the book is sadly lacking -
> all the more so since so much of what is written is groudbreaking and even
> prophetic. Likewise, my thoughts on the topic of old age, immortality etc.
> were not covered to any depth in my review of Broderick's book. Your
> assumption that I equate the wisdom of old age only with suffering is in
> fact incorrect.
I understand what you are saying, however, you apparently seem to
approach the book with the blinders typical of leftist luddites (which I
thank you for confessing your prejudice about). Framing the longevity
issue and its science with blithe and tired dismissals like 'western
materialism' 'capitalist opression' and other dead cliches of the failed
communist/socialist movements of the past does you no credit, and
nullifies the validity of your criticism.
I find it odd that leftists like yourself tirelessly try to delineate
between the 'natural' characteristics of the natural kingdom while
separating anything regarding man as 'artificial', and thus not natural.
If you are to hold to this premise, you cannot conversely claim that man
'shouldn't' live longer than his 'natural span'. By your own logic, man
is a creature of artifice. We are self taught, not trapped by instinct,
and all of civilization is an exercise in letting lamarckian evolution
supplant darwinian evolution. It should be, therefore, the natural
consequence that man should seek to, and achieve, victory over death,
just as he has transcended his natural limits of speed, strength,
endurance, immunity to disease and sickness, information processing and
storage, and gravity. Under the philosophy of western liberalism, it is
accepted that man is a transcendental being, yet modern humanism is
showing less and less commonality to the liberal tradition, and what is
the political left has drifted toward primitivist fascism. This has
resulted in leftist opposition to genetic engineering to feed the hungry
or cure the sick, space exploration to find new resources or to colonize
space, or any sort of technological development that is not vetted by
the star chambers of political correctness as 'appropriate technology'.
You have forgotten FDR's admonition against fear, and thus betrayed the
underpinnings of your philosophy yourself.
> Hence:
>
> While there is something to be
> > said for confronting one's mortality, the rot of old age does not result
> > in wisdom, its simply a pain, an impediment, and a source of suffering
> > that could and should be avoided. Humanists claim to seek to alleviate
> > suffering in this world, yet they refuse to admit that the greatest
> > amount of suffering is from old age. If you claim that wisdom results
> > from this suffering, then you cannot conversely claim that other sources
> > of suffering, like child abuse, scholastic, military, gender, religious,
> > and racial/ethnic hazing and discrimination, police torture and
> > imprisonment of criminals, are not all character building activities
> > that should also be accepted in our all too human world. By opposing
> > such suffering, you are thus opposed to creating greater wisdom in the
> > world. As this reducto ad absurdum demonstrates, the logic of old age
> related
> > suffering producing wisdom is false, or else your whole worldview is
> > false. Wisdom comes from experience.
>
> The peculiar circumstances of late Capitalism's pathologies (as listed
> above in your letter)
I really don't want to get into one more tired debate over capitalism
versus communism or any of its less completely malignant pathologies. I
will leave it with the statement that there is no 'pathology' described
above which has not demonstrated itself to be more malignant under
communist or socialist sytems, and you will not find any evidence to
contradict this.
> are in no way synonmous with the complex
> psychospiritual, psychosocial and physical changes that come with pre-'Old
> Age'. Your logical error is apparently to see all suffering as the same. To
> equate old age for example, with child abuse, racism etc. is to mix
> categories to an almost absurd degree and thus to trivialise what is at
> issue with partisan rhetoric (I assume you're on Damia's side in all this -
> correct me if I'm wrong).
Pain is pain, is it not? Moreover, as any advocate for the elderly can
tell you, old age is, in fact, the greatest scourge on our society.
After some point health care costs nearly double with each additional
year of life. This drain of resources to maintain an unproductive member
of society (far in excess of those resources contributed in the past to
that society, in fact, since the average retiree consumes their lifetime
Social Security savings in less than 3.5 years) stagnates the ecnonomy,
retards investment in improving technology to be less stressful on the
environment, and increases unemployment, illiteracy, child and spouse
abuse, etc. It is a fair thing to say that the drain on the marginal
productivity of society caused by old age is the prime cause of the
difficulty we have found with solving what you categorize as 'capitalist
pathologies'.
I consider Damien to be a friend, but I also consider him to be far too
willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to political persuasions that
have repeatedly proven themselves to be dependent on defunct concepts of
zero and negative sum games, and willing to debase the individual that
does not serve to their advantage. Damien is a far more tolerant person
than I.
>
> * You comments are nevertheless very interesting and have made me think
> further about the psychospiritual issues/changes etc. which come with old
> age ... though I'm not keen on living for 4,000 years ... just yet. Maybe,
> however, I will eat my words once I reach my 60s ... indeed the old knee
> joints creak a fair bit these days as a 36 year old ... and I forget
> people's names a fair bit these days <grins>!!
I'm only 32, but Damien himself is a bit of an oldster himself. He has a
very significant personal interest in the development of longevity
treatments in what remains of his lifetime. My only regret is that we
did not have them in time to save other great SF writers like Heinlein,
Herbert, and Azimov.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT