From Snitcheroo                    Jul 19, 01 06:19:48 AM -0700
Delivered-To: <fuchs@michaelfuchs.org>
To: fuchs@michaelfuchs.org
Subject: Re: No More Death? / Camus

I can only dash off a few quick thoughts as this playing doctor gig has me
busy...apologies for disjointedness but perhaps more later.  Feel free to
share.

Yes, more money for research but I will never accept the extreme you
propose...and here's why.

In order to negate death on the purely physical level, science must be able
to reproduce every iota of the being and to maintain the relationships
between all the moving parts.   The problem with this argument is that one is
dealing with death and thus life on a purely physical/mechanical level--the
replacement of this broken part, this broken gene, etc.  If one does this,
then life too is imprisoned on the purely physical level.  More so, this
would not be an evolution from within us...it would be Science with the
capital S (as designed by imperfect humans) imposing this false perfection on
the human form and then freezing that physical form--forever imperfect and
static.   And at what price?  I would argue to the loss of everything that
makes us human.

As I see it (and in my line of work I manage to see both), life and death
exist as two connected points on one plane with one defining the other.  To
reinterpret your Camus quote a bit: There is not truly life as we know how to
process it without death always waiting in the wings for us.  This is not to
say that these immortal folks of the future do not 'exist'.  But I argue that
they are not 'alive.'  Taking away infirmity, takes away all that one has to
struggle against; it takes away the ultimate reference point.  Indeed, it is
this fear of death, rather the drive to avoid not-living anymore, that powers
evolution--life's purpose is to make more life and as much life as can be
made.   Life and on the larger scale, evolution of life, must have that
uncertainty, that questioning, that agitation, the trial and error.

Any philosophy/religion that says you can find the perfect stillness and
nirvana *in life* is overstating it.  Even to assume there is such an
acheivable thing--to bring death and life into one singularity is nothing
more than one imperfect man's questing for an answer.   Even the high holiest
meditating monk on the mountain is meditating for a reason, he's still
searching and he will search until he dies.   And it is that searching--be it
for sex or philosophy--that I again argue is life.  It is our unique
itchiness, to search for something more, that I think is the foundation of
human free will.  We itch to make choices--perhaps inexplicable ones and
perhaps toward an inexpressable and hidden 'something'--but it is enough for
me to know that at least we choose.

If indeed this physical immortality is possible, it seems to me that the big
questions--why am I here?  where will I go?---no longer need to be answered
because those questions imply that there is a beginning and an end to your
existence.

I think it is interesting that if you take death out of the equation, perhaps
the only relevant big question that will remain is 'what will make me happy
now?'   <Notice: I will neatly sidestep the messy issue of 'what is
happiness?'>    Then can we not simply de-evolve our troublesome worrying
consciousness, remove that whole prefrontal cortex, and let the id out to
satisfy us.  Much like a pampered never aging, never dying pet--To eat, to
sleep, to drink, to fornicate as the primitive brain instructs us to with no
cares in the world.   But for me, I find it interesting that this picture is
unsatisfying.  It would be too perfect.  I would miss my itch....

In the end, I believe we are not driving towards immortality per se, but
rather inching towards a creature that can better enjoy the time of living.



Hope all is well, and that some of that made sense,
-S