From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 10:13:16 MST
This post which was on cryonet this morning should be of interest here.
I am also sending it to the memetics list
Keith Henson
Message #22967
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:57:46 -0700
From: Mike Perry <mike@alcor.org>
Subject: Libertarianism, Cryonics, Religion
Recent exchanges on libertarianism inspired the following, with an
additional boost from some remarks on religion. I begin with some issues
that seemed to call for further, brief comment, then move on to tie in
libertarianism with cryonics and immortalism (albeit in a somewhat limited
way). Finally I address the subject of religion, with some thoughts on why
a scientific version may be both feasible and desirable at this point, and
some tentative suggestions of how I intend to proceed with such a project.
The point seems well-established that no libertarian system has been tried
and shown itself able to stand on its own and out-compete alternatives. I
argued that the failure of libertarianism to take firmer hold has deep
roots in human nature, including the fact that people exist, in some
measure, to perpetuate their genes rather than being motivated by more
rational self-interest. (It's the genes, we could say, that motivate their
hosts to do what is "rational" from the genes' point of view.) Some think
of the system in place in the days of the Founding Fathers as much closer
to a libertarian system than today's U.S. governmental apparatus and in
certain important ways they are right, particularly as regards the federal
government-though it was still not fully libertarian. They see the
historical trend, though, if I understand it right, as being one of a
steady erosion of individual freedoms and usurpation of authority, which
may culminate in a complete totalitarian system. The federal government, it
is true, has tremendously increased its powers and control over the past
two centuries, and this may seem to reflect an unstoppable trend toward
full totalitarianism. But I think that, if you consider the system as a
whole, which means government on all its levels, there are strong
countervailing tendencies. In 1790, for instance, women couldn't vote and
blacks could be owned as property. These things were not mandated in the
Constitution but were not forbidden either, and did exist as an accepted
part of the total system.
As our history unfolded, people demanded the abolition of slavery and the
enfranchisement of women, and these reforms took place. In some other ways
you can see progressive reforms, such as the elimination of "blue" laws
against working on religious holidays, outlawing of racial segregation, and
the recent Supreme Court decision banning laws against private sexual acts
between consenting adults. Other reforms are possible too, of course,
depending on what the people feel is right and proper and try to see
enacted via their power to vote. (And we have seen reforms in some other
countries too, most notably in the collapse of communism in the Soviet
Union and Europe and its ongoing accommodations with capitalism elsewhere.)
This brings us to the present.
Today we have better opportunities for both good and bad than ever before.
The bad possibilities should not be overlooked, but here I will focus on
the good ones, from an immortalist perspective. Mainly, we could transform
society into something that has never existed, and which bears comparison
with some of the religious concepts of heaven. We could eliminate diseases
and aging as well as poverty and even stupidity and the need for employment
as we now understand it (working at a job you would not choose if
independently wealthy).
Reforms on this level, though, would require, among other things, modifying
the basic human organism. Some fearful pessimists realize this could really
happen and is perhaps even starting already. They would impose legislative
measures to bring it to a stop before it goes very far. Their fear of the
possible downsides exceeds any appreciation of the possible benefits. It
seems that they would recognize the present human species as a kind of
"person" in its own right, and an entity with a right to exist surpassing
that of the individuals who now comprise that very species but who might
voluntarily abandon it under foreseeable circumstances. So they would
impose restrictions on an individual's right to choose, for instance, a
treatment to eliminate aging, and the physical means to otherwise improve
one's body and/or mind, were such to be developed. They fear that allowing
this sort of thing would result in something other than homo sapiens
populating the planet after a period of time. Cryonics has attracted some,
if limited, notice from this group too. Predictably there has been some
negative reaction, and we can expect more, since cryonics could serve as a
stepping stone to an existence other than human, and in any case is
offensive in its intended purpose of permitting an escape from the normal
attrition of aging. (So far I think cryonics is mostly dismissed on grounds
that it has no serious chance of working anyway, but that could change if
there were more appreciation of the scientific case for cryonics,
particularly with some new preservation protocols.)
The fears of these people, I think, are well founded-the possibilities
really do threaten the biological homo sapiens. The threat exists through
the free, voluntary choices of individuals who could decide to opt out of
what they would perceive as a biological strait-jacket. As immortalists, of
course, we demand the right to choose, should the option present itself.
Ultimately, that body of ours must be found wanting, if for no other
reason, because it is running down and in time will run no more, unless
something is done. We are not concerned about the "needs of the species" if
said needs require our physical sacrifice. Some powerful guarantees of our
freedom of choice would thus be in order. It is unfortunate that such
libertarian thinking as Mill's principle was not firmly embedded in our
legal framework; it would serve us well. All is not lost, though; as one
ray of hope, the Declaration of Independence (not a part of U.S. law but
still widely respected) recognizes the rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. You could use it to justify a person's right to
choose to have his aging process reversed, with extension to other
improvements. If such procedures were available there should be widespread
support, which should be helped by this historic precedent. (I also think
the respect for freedom to date in the U.S., even if it stops short of full
libertarianism, has helped keep cryonics legal, given that the public is
not particularly interested in it and is even somewhat repelled.) So the
ayes would probably outshout the background noises of any holdout luddites.
But now we have to confront the fact that the proven procedures are not in
place, and the nay-sayers are making their bid to try to forestall the very
possibility.
Ironically, they could win, and the consequence could be the destruction of
the very species they are trying to save--or perhaps the lesser calamity of
a new and lengthy, technophobic dark age. Such could be the outcome if we
don't achieve liberation from our present human form, as a consequence of
the resulting stagnation and frustration. Imagine a steady-state homo
sapiens culture, with individuals dying as usual and new ones being born
who would have to relearn everything from square zero to keep the system
going. Life would become more or less a zero-sum game (as it was until
relatively recent times), with a constant struggle between haves and
have-nots. It could, among other things, make a good breeding ground for
terrorists of many different stripes and gripes, some of them, it may be
presumed, having considerable brilliance along with the traditional
fanatical hatred. Sooner or later, one misguided group or lone individual
could wreak horrible damage, if some rogue nation didn't do it first. But
along with that would surely be a scientific, constructivist underground
which would be trying to topple the system in a very different and more
hopeful way, that is to say, provide the means for individuals to escape
the dreary birth-death cycle and become something more than human.
I doubt if matters will come to the point of a worldwide ban on good
science, however. If it did come to that in the West, national rivalries in
other parts of the world, Asia, and yes, the Middle East too, would kick
in, and you'd see more of the good progress happening there. Our backward
bailiwick might then sense it was being left in the dust, undo its
repressive policies, and get moving again. In any case, the prospects for
the biological homo sapiens don't look good, and we aren't likely to see
the steady state for very long, if at all. We should be grateful that at
least one of the alternatives, the path to something higher, is both
possible and gaining support.
We wonder what we can and should be doing to further the good alternative,
and particularly, make it happen for us. Cryonics is an obvious choice-the
life-extending technologies are not here yet, and this offers our best
chance of persisting physically until they will be. Beyond that, we can
talk and otherwise communicate about our choice of cryonics, and try to
support the important work with our resources allocated as seems fit. I
will not deal with this difficult subject in any generality here. But I
will mention one approach that is sometimes suggested and other times
cautioned against: religion. Religion has been a powerful force in human
society up to now, and in particular has served to legitimize and honor the
deep wish felt by humans through the ages to be something more than human.
True, traditional religions have proposed and promised means of achieving
this that are not exactly the scientific and technological approach we
transhumanists are now advocating. But we can make the point that here the
end really is more important than the means, then try for something more:
to meet the religionists on something approaching their own turf.
To do this, we have to think of religion in a different way from those who
dismiss it as "fantasies about spirits" or insist it must involve belief in
the supernatural. If you think instead of religion as a process of
attempting to meaningfully engage with what is of transcendent or ultimate
significance, the possibility of a rational, scientific religion gains
plausibility, at least if we can center our attention on what is, in fact,
of truly deep, beyond-human-level significance. But of course this is just
what we immortalists are doing with our attempts to overcome death
scientifically, something we know must become a never-ending quest and take
us to rather distant reaches of knowable reality if it is to continue.
Something along the lines of an immortalist religion has been attempted
with Venturism, but I sense the need for something deeper. This I think
would fit within the Venturist umbrella--and that's what Venturism is, an
umbrella movement within which other cryonics-endorsing movements could
find shelter without being in total agreement. What I am proposing, though,
would not be an umbrella movement, but a religious enterprise with more
specific content--it would, of course, not be acceptable to everyone who
may find the "umbrella" congenial, an inevitable tradeoff.
Tentatively, I propose to name the new movement Aionism after the Greek
_aion_, "eternal." It is to be based on my book, _Forever for All_, but to
more directly address the special concerns of religion, and itself be
called and considered a religion. Aionism would posit no supernatural
entity or presence, but would recognize an Ordering Principle or Way of
things, which is manifest in everything from mathematics to the world of
our experience. A kind of Dao, then--and Aionism would be a scientific
Daoism. It would provide a rather generous eschatology for humans--and
other sentient beings too--eventual resurrection in some meaningful form,
and eternal happiness, but no guarantee that the path thereto will be
smooth or swift--which means that one's choices and behavior will
definitely make a difference. (In particular, choosing cryonics will
arguably "smooth the path," a subject explored in the book. More generally,
though, Aionism would advocate the highest moral standards and
consideration for all that is right and good, insofar as these things can
be ascertained.) The path of one's existence, though, has special
significance, progress and growth in an appropriate sense being important,
with no final state ever being reached.
Well, I said this will not be for everyone, but we can ask if such a
project would help our cause overall more than hurt. I think it would, even
though it could inspire a backlash from traditional religionists who might
be especially offended by it. But they in turn have to live with each other
who have different persuasions. And a movement that truly advocates what is
right and good, as Aionism is to be, must inspire some favorable response
from the many in traditional religions who also favor these things. So my
guess would be that with proper presentation Aionism would be accepted at
least as another kind of religion, again, a variant of Daoism, with special
emphasis on science on one hand, and individual salvation and immortality
on the other, which implies that each individual is something rather
special. I think it could, in particular, serve as a means of clarifying
and legitimizing in some skeptical minds what it is we really want with our
"tampering with nature." For we are seeking the loftiest and noblest goals
imaginable, and yet they are things humans have long dreamed of and sought
after. It's just that we think we've found a new and better way to approach
these goals, one that is more rooted in the reality that scientific
evidence reveals.
Looked at from the Aionist perspective, then, the human race is a great
start but not an end-in-itself or final goal. It must be nurtured
carefully, like a growing child, not stunted, to find a proper destiny
beyond its present level.
Mike Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 30 2003 - 10:08:57 MST