From: Aubrey de Grey (ag24@gen.cam.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 09:29:07 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Points 8 and 9 rely on a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of genocide
> - "killing a lot of people of a particular race". This is more properly
> characterized as mass murder. Genocide, especially as used by thinkers
> with a collectivist bent, is an attempt to eradicate a nation, race or
> culture. "Genus" is Latin for "race" or "kin", so for a collectivist,
> genocide is more than just killing a lot of people - it is killing a
> superhuman entity, and therefore worse than just killing humans. What's
> more, a nation denied access to techniques of rejuvenation will not
> die, and some might even claim that the attrition of its constituent
> parts is necessary for progress, akin to shedding of human enteric
> epithelial cells.
>
> Such quibbles can be used by a wily opponent to advance his position
> against the transhumanist, perhaps under the pretext of "saving the
> spirit of the society", or similar gobbledygook. It might be better to
> stick to the simpler argument - killing a lot of people by denying them
> rejuvenation treatment they want and can afford, is mass murder, and as
> such prima facie bad, even if not genocidal.
You make a strong point here, but I think the best refinement of what
I currently have is different from yours. Yours has two problems: (a)
that "mass murder" is simply not strong enough (after all, it is used
to describe the murder of merely hundreds of people), and (b) the use
of "genocide" as you (accurately) describe it has exactly the correct
character of talking about eradicating a "nation", because "nation" is
an appropriate term for any very large group of people with a common
characteristic that leads to common interests. Re (a): even though we
accept that mass murder is bad in general, we are familiar with cases
where it has been deemed the lesser of two evils, so allowing others
to categorise delay in developing real anti-aging medicine as "only
mass murder" may invite wily challenges. Re (b): in the same way that
it makes sense to refer to (e.g.) "the Arab nation" I think it is fair
(and even useful) to note that the set of people worldwide born in a
given range of years has a common interest (viz., the development of
real anti-aging medicine in a given range of years) that distinguishes
it somewhat from the corresponding interests of those born at other
times. Hence they can reasonably be described as a "nation" for this
purpose. I think your point can thus be met by a clarification of
"genocide" rather along the lines of my clarification of "homicide"
-- i.e. an acknowledgement up-front that I'm stretching normal usage,
but a justification of that stretching.
Comments please, before I revise the existing text.
Robbie Lindauer wrote:
> It's good not to get too deeply involved in reality and the meaning of
> life and death, because you might discover that what you want is not
> physical immortality at all.
My only disagreement with this statement is in respect of the use of
the word "discover". My position is that no one can adequtely know
whether they will want to live in a world with indefinite potential
lifespan until they experience it, nor whether others will want to.
Introspection is useless -- we have NO IDEA what we will think of such
a world. All we can do is give ourselves the option.
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> I would be quite happy to rewrite human morality to remove many of the
> inane things we call brave which are actually adrenalized mass stupidity.
My only disagreement with this statement is in respect of the use of
the word "adrenalized". Most early death in wealthy nations from
violent causes has, until the past 58 years (fewer for the US), been
due to war, i.e. the conscious, considered, collective decision to
sacrifice huge numbers of people in the national interest. My view
(hope, anyway) is that the success of wealthy nations in not going to
war with each other for far longer than has been seen since as far back
in history as I can establish may very well have resulted from a larger
value placed on human life these days than when adventitious mortality
from peaceful causes (such as infection) was much higher. It is this
point that leads me to the opinion that we have a very good chance of
avoiding world wars indefinitely, without which my well-publicised
estimates of future life expectancy could not be fulfilled.
Aubrey de Grey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 09:38:18 MDT