Comments on Sentient Developments: On Singer and radical life extension

@c: "...it seems to me that his position does not...

2010-01-09T19:02:39.932-05:00

@c:
"...it seems to me that his position does not entail the view that we should logan's run everyone at 30"
I'm sure Singer doesn't actually advocate for that, no. But it is where the application of his criterion of the greatest sum of universal happiness over time appears to lead. At least in a society that has reached the maximum sustainable population, where a (happy) baby can only be born when another (miserable old) person dies. You have not actually addressed the argument and showed why it doesn't lead there.

In fact, in your reasoning, you're actually using a much different criterion than Singer uses: fulfilling the wishes of the existing living people. Which is a useful criterion, of course, but not one that supports Singer's argument, nor his conclusion, as I will show:

"Once a being comes into existence its continued existence is a matter of some particular concern and its preferences will be thwarted by any shortening of her or his life."

By this argument, as long as the individual wants to continue living, life should be extended by any means possible. Otherwise, we'd violate the preferences of the individual. Therefore, the pill should be developed.

"So we can also dismiss the claim that Singer must be opposed to cancer treatments since these are therapies for already existing beings."
Why wouldn't the life-extending pill benefit already existing beings as well?

"It does seem to me that Singer is right that whether we should want to develop or make available such technology depends crucially on the quality of life that would be extended."

Not by your argument above. Except maybe when quality of life has dropped below the threshold where the individual no longer wants to continue living. And in that case, the individual can simply choose not to take the pill. So the pill should still be developed.

"Living our first 75 years without the looming limits of our existence might allow us to live more happily during this time..."
Even more reason to develop the pill.

Seriously, all your arguments indicate that the pill should be developed.

I don't know Singer's work on this topic, but it s...

2010-01-09T16:15:57.213-05:00

I don't know Singer's work on this topic, but it seems to me that his position does not entail the view that we should logan's run everyone at 30, even granting his view that happiness declines during or after middle age.

Once a being comes into existence its continued existence is a matter of some particular concern and its preferences will be thwarted by any shortening of her or his life. So we can also dismiss the claim that Singer must be opposed to cancer treatments since these are therapies for already existing beings.

It does seem to me that Singer is right that whether we should want to develop or make available such technology depends crucially on the quality of life that would be extended. That is, such therapies cannot be presumed to be desirable or good.

Nevertheless it seems to me that death and generally confronting finitude is one of the deepest sources of anxiety and distress for human beings. Living our first 75 years without the looming limits of our existence might allow us to live more happily during this time and so might offset the happiness penalty of our later years.

But, I take it that Singer's basic point is correct--whether we should develop these technologies cannot be determined without considering the quality of life that is being extended.

Hmmm. "Early 1990s" is a long time ago. Perhaps Si...

2010-01-04T04:40:29.914-05:00

Hmmm. "Early 1990s" is a long time ago. Perhaps Singer's position on this has evolved? Has he made any response to your critique thus far?

Does it really have to be that complicated? Maybe ...

2009-12-30T13:01:30.344-05:00

Does it really have to be that complicated? Maybe I'm not understanding the details well enough, but it seems to me that Singer's argument can be defeated by a relatively simple reductio ad absurdum:

Let's assume that there is a finite maximum population size that can be supported by the Earth's resources. That means we will eventually have a steady state society with a fixed population size. Population control ensures that only as many babies are allowed to be born as needed to replace those that die.

Now let's accept for the moment Singer's criterion of maximum total happiness, and apply it to this situation.

Suppose that happiness is more or less constant throughout your life. Then with a fixed population size, the total amount of happiness will be the same, whether it's a population of young people, old people, or very old people. It doesn't matter for the total happiness whether you have many sequential short lives, or fewer longer lives. In this situation, Singer's criterion therefore doesn't help one at all when deciding to develop the pill or not.

(If you instead assume that happiness increases with age (possibly due to increased knowledge and wisdom), Singer's argument will of course lead you to decide to develop the pill.)

However, if you assume (like Singer does) that happiness is higher in youth than in middle age, and the pill doesn't extend youth, then clearly not developing the pill gives greater total happiness. After all, a population of youthful short-lived people will be more happy than the same number of people that are long-lived but not youthful. As I understand it, this appears to be the gist of Singer's argument, and his reason to conclude not to develop the pill.

But if you would more generally apply this argument under thee assumption of a fixed population size, it would mean that you would maximize happiness by killing people shortly after their peak happiness years are over. This way more people can be born and live their peak years, resulting in a larger overall happiness.

Of course, that would be a monstrous policy. Therefore, Singer's criterion doesn't result in an acceptable morality and must be rejected as a useful moral criterion.

Longer life --> Greater human capital accumulation...

2009-12-28T00:19:14.213-05:00

Longer life --> Greater human capital accumulation --> Greater wealth and technology --> Ability to support more people if we so chose.

After reading your post, I still have no idea what...

2009-12-27T13:56:29.717-05:00

After reading your post, I still have no idea what you mean by "benevolence," other than that it's not utilitarianism.

We've already increased lifespans greatly in the p...

2009-12-27T11:29:55.899-05:00

We've already increased lifespans greatly in the past century or so. If the later parts of our lives make us less happy than the early years, was that then a mistake?

The Earth is finite, so there's some level of overpopulation (the exact level isn't important for this argument). If we died quicker, we could have more people living for a shorter period of time. And if we tend to be happier as children than when elderly,... would that then make sense? I don't think so.

We've already achieved "radical life extension." Would any of us want to give that up?

ya well with technology giving us all the option f...

2009-12-27T03:05:18.517-05:00

ya well with technology giving us all the option for eternal life very soon, i almost understand Singer's fears of overpopulation, but he is forgetting that technological advances shall also soon allow us to terraform mars, the moon (the moon of Mars lol), and possibly even venus ... then we will also engineer hardy forms of life which will be able to survive on the Jovian Moons etc ... isn't the ultimate goal of any species to increase it's numbers? god told Father Abraham to be fruitful and multiply ... but ya i hope they give me the option to suicide if i get tired of it after a couple hundred years

If that's really the utilitarian view, then that w...

2009-12-27T02:39:26.469-05:00

If that's really the utilitarian view, then that would be like banning reliable cancer cures if there was evidence that cancer survivors were slightly more prone to depression. I don't need to know any of the "complicated issues" to know how insane that is.