Our genes say we must soon die. I say they are not the masters.

[ApostateAbe]

You are not actually the master of your life. You are a puppet. Richard Dawkins first rose to fame by proposing that human beings (and all other organisms) are merely the vehicles of our own genes, and he was right. Evolution is all about survival, but obviously we do not survive for long. We do not relevantly evolve. Our genes do. It is all about the survival and evolution of our genes. They are the masters. Our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors generally serve the purpose of our genes. Our interests typically match the purpose of our genes.

But not all the time. An example is death. We may think of death as something inherent to life. An inevitable consequence of life is death. If we must live, so we must soon die.

Must we? Actually, death is merely a function that acts in the evolutionary interests of our genes. When we die, our genes do not die. Our genes live on, either in our children or in our nephews and nieces. When we reach the age of our children's adulthood, our genes say,

"OK, thank you for trying your best to make more of us. We have your children now. We don't need you. In fact, we are better off if you die so you stop sharing the valuable resources of your children. We would rather that your children have it all, because some of them have upgraded versions of ourselves. Thank you very much, you can die now."

And that is when you deteriorate and die.

We don't want to die. We are not the same as our genes, and we do not always have the same interests as our genes. We are programmed to want to live as long as possible, and our genes like that programming only because they prefer us to live for at least as long as it takes to reproduce and care for children, and they have put an upper limit on how long we live, whether we like it or not. They just want us to reach that upper limit. Our genes want us to eventually die, because our genes expect to decide when we die.

But, there seems to be little reason we can't yank back control from our genes. It is conceivable that we could actually reverse-engineer the biological process of aging and death, and we can eventually cure it. Our genes won't like it, because it would mean that we need to put limits on our reproduction. Screw the genes. If they programmed us to want to avoid death, then they should accept the consequences.

Yes, there is a biotech company that is trying to cure aging and dying:

http://www.sierrasci.com/?p=our_company#

And a Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EternalLifeFan/

 

[NobleSavage]

I'm not having kids. Fuck my genes, they they are going down with me.

 

[bilby]

I'm not having kids. Fuck my genes, they they are going down with me.

I don't get a choice; I have three nieces, and my brother's wife is expecting her second child - if she has a boy, that's pretty likely my entire genome passed on without my permission, involvement or consent; If she has a girl, then likely only the Y chromosome misses out, and given how small it is, that's not a serious loss - and likely I have distant relatives who carry that exact Y chromosome already elsewhere; my father's brothers had no sons as far as I know, but I would be surprised if my grandfather's brothers had no grandsons.

Our genes have been around a long time, and they didn't get where they are today by putting all their eggs (or sperm) in one basket.

 

[untermensche]

Every human gene will die in the blink of the universe's eye.

 

[braces_for_impact]

My worry has always been that a cure for death by aging would be developed - and only available (at least for some period of time) to the very wealthy. A lot of people already die an unnecessary death because lack of medical care. I know if I were on the edge of death and the cure was this treatment, I would probably be pretty bitter. I could imagine a lot of people being the same way. Would it really upset our society?

 

[PyramidHead]

This type of technology may increase lifespan, but death is still inevitable for everyone. If gene therapy works, and the tyranny of the telomeres is overcome, there will still be a million other ways to die. Ultimately, even if by some miracle a person is able to survive until the heat death of the universe, they will still die and no one will remember them. Genes are not our only masters.

I share braces_for_impact's concern that, like all rare and amazing medical treatments, life extension will first go to the already fortunate. People will get pissed off about that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I share braces_for_impact's concern that, like all rare and amazing medical treatments, life extension will first go to the already fortunate. People will get pissed off about that.

Ya, but how long will they be pissed off for? A few decades to a century max and then those poverty-stricken whiners will die off. It's not too big a deal.

 

[PyramidHead]

I share braces_for_impact's concern that, like all rare and amazing medical treatments, life extension will first go to the already fortunate. People will get pissed off about that.

Ya, but how long will they be pissed off for? A few decades to a century max and then those poverty-stricken whiners will die off. It's not too big a deal.

When that happens, who will change my oil?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, but how long will they be pissed off for? A few decades to a century max and then those poverty-stricken whiners will die off. It's not too big a deal.

When that happens, who will change my oil?

I'm sorry, did robotic butlers and genetically engineered cats all of a sudden forget how to change oil?

 

[skepticalbip]

I share braces_for_impact's concern that, like all rare and amazing medical treatments, life extension will first go to the already fortunate. People will get pissed off about that.

Ah, this is why we haven't told the rabble about it. Those of us who can afford to live as long as we wish don't want the world cluttered with too many of the huddled masses using up all our resources. We only need enough of the poor to do all the menial things that need to be done to support our lifestyles.

 

[Peez]

selection does not favour limited lifespan per se

I hope that I do not sound too negative, but this is a ‘pet peeve’ of mine and I wish to tackle certain problems ‘head on’. No offense is intended.

ApostateAbe:
You are not actually the master of your life. You are a puppet. Richard Dawkins first rose to fame by proposing that human beings (and all other organisms) are merely the vehicles of our own genes, and he was right. Evolution is all about survival, but obviously we do not survive for long. We do not relevantly evolve. Our genes do. It is all about the survival and evolution of our genes. They are the masters. Our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors generally serve the purpose of our genes. Our interests typically match the purpose of our genes.

Keep in mind that Dawkins was discussing evolution, leaving aside a discussion of “free will” there are major influences in our lives other than our genes.

But not all the time. An example is death. We may think of death as something inherent to life. An inevitable consequence of life is death. If we must live, so we must soon die.

Many people do seem to think this, but it is not a logical requirement.

Must we?

It depends on what you mean by “must”. There is no inherent requirement for death, but living systems normally do die.

Actually, death is merely a function that acts in the evolutionary interests of our genes. When we die, our genes do not die. Our genes live on, either in our children or in our nephews and nieces. When we reach the age of our children's adulthood, our genes say,

"OK, thank you for trying your best to make more of us. We have your children now. We don't need you. In fact, we are better off if you die so you stop sharing the valuable resources of your children. We would rather that your children have it all, because some of them have upgraded versions of ourselves. Thank you very much, you can die now."

And that is when you deteriorate and die.

No.

I have often seen this sort of argument put forward, but it makes no sense at all.

First, keeping the gene-centric perspective, selection favours genes that tend to have more copies of themselves in a population than other genes. It doesn’t matter whether the genes are in you or your children, or your parents, or your brother, or your cousin...

It is certainly true that you may compete with your children for resources, but the only reason your genes might prefer your children over you is that they are likely to outlive you, and that only applies if you are senescing (aging). If there is no senescence and no limited lifespan, then your genes will be just as happy in you as they are in your children, so this is not a reason to evolve senescence or a limited lifespan.

In fact overall your genes are happier in you, because you share 100% of your variable genes with yourself but only about 50% with your child. In a hypothetical population of animals with infinite lifespan, a hypothetical gene that imposes a limited lifespan would tend to kill the organism carrying the gene (the parent) with only a 50% chance of the alleged beneficiary (the child) carrying the gene. The alternate gene (the original one in that population) would always benefit the organism carrying it.

In addition, in a population full of organisms with unlimited lifespans, the parent that dies and allegedly reduces competition for its offspring also would reduce competition for all of the other children in the population, the ones with unlimited lifespan, so the alleged benefit of this hypothetical gene just would not help carriers of the gene.

Finally, the reference to “upgraded versions of ourselves” undermines the whole argument (such as it was). Selection does not favour a gene that tends to increase the reproductive fortunes of a different gene.

We don't want to die.

I certainly don’t!

We are not the same as our genes, and we do not always have the same interests as our genes.

Very true.

We are programmed to want to live as long as possible, and our genes like that programming only because they prefer us to live for at least as long as it takes to reproduce and care for children, and they have put an upper limit on how long we live, whether we like it or not. They just want us to reach that upper limit. Our genes want us to eventually die, because our genes expect to decide when we die.

No.

Leaving aside the anthopomorphising, there is no evidence that any gene has evolved through selection that favours a limited lifespan, and I have seen no theoretical argument supporting the hypothesis that such selection has ever occurred.

Essentially all selection involves trade-offs. Any trait costs something, the question is whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. A hypothetical gene that confers earlier development and maturation at the cost of long-term survival would often be favoured by selection. An extreme example of this is when certain salmon expend so many resources on reproduction that they do not survive long after breeding. Many fish survive quite nicely after breeding, there is no physiological reason that the salmon could not reduce their reproductive output and live longer. Selection has favoured higher reproductive effort, in spite of the cost imposed on lifespan.

When looking at these sorts of trade-offs, one should keep in mind that a hypothetical organism with unlimited lifespan is not expected to live forever. Most organisms dies before they reach the limit of their lifespan, increasing that lifespan would provide no benefit at all for them.

But, there seems to be little reason we can't yank back control from our genes. It is conceivable that we could actually reverse-engineer the biological process of aging and death, and we can eventually cure it. Our genes won't like it, because it would mean that we need to put limits on our reproduction. Screw the genes. If they programmed us to want to avoid death, then they should accept the consequences.

Yes, there is a biotech company that is trying to cure aging and dying:

http://www.sierrasci.com/?p=our_company#

And a Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EternalLifeFan/

I am certain that there are ways in which our genes could be re-engineered to extend our lifespan, and some of these ways might have little or no negative impact on our quality of life. I suspect that substantial increases in lifespan would require designing us from the ground up, something that we are a long way from doing and something that entails serious ethical issues (to say the least). Even modest increases in lifespan would bring up some social issues (as has been mentioned).

Peez

 

[crispy]

http://www.sierrasci.com/?p=our_company#

I like their motto 'cure ageing or die trying'

 

[fromderinside]

This is depressing but I think it needs saying. There is no Dean drive. Life is the illusion we give to an awareness of some of what our machinery is doing and no more. Combining "no Dean drive principle" with the illusion of life as just the workings of another machine, another set of principles being locally obeyed. As utermensche wrote

Every human gene will die in the blink of the universe's eye.

... except there is no evidence the universe has eye or lid.

 

[bilby]

I share braces_for_impact's concern that, like all rare and amazing medical treatments, life extension will first go to the already fortunate. People will get pissed off about that.

Ah, this is why we haven't told the rabble about it. Those of us who can afford to live as long as we wish don't want the world cluttered with too many of the huddled masses using up all our resources. We only need enough of the poor to do all the menial things that need to be done to support our lifestyles.

This is why I have to be drunk as often as possible, to stop you from using telepathy to make me commit suicide.

(That's my story, and I am sticking to it).

 

[ryan]

Thank god someone else on here shares my and only a few other's views on this.

http://www.sens.org/ is another promising company to stop or reverse the aging process.

Those who do not want to die are responsible for doing something about it. Nobody wants to die, yet they do next to nothing about contributing to knowledge and technology that will let them control their lifespans. It hurts my brain to try to understand why people are not more motivated in learning how to stop and reverse aging. All things important to a person cannot exist without life. And selfless people have no excuse either. They could be working in research fields such as biotechnology to help others live longer and healthier.

Letting people have control over how and when they die, anticipating emergent problems from extending lifespans and finding solutions to them, in my opinion, should be everybody's top priorities. What the hell is worse than death?

My main focus in life is to do as much as I can towards these priorities.

 

[PyramidHead]

Thank god someone else on here shares my and only a few other's views on this.

http://www.sens.org/ is another promising company to stop or reverse the aging process.

Those who do not want to die are responsible for doing something about it. Nobody wants to die, yet they do next to nothing about contributing to knowledge and technology that will let them control their lifespans. It hurts my brain to try to understand why people are not more motivated in learning how to stop and reverse aging. All things important to a person cannot exist without life. And selfless people have no excuse either. They could be working in research fields such as biotechnology to help others live longer and healthier.

Letting people have control over how and when they die, anticipating emergent problems from extending lifespans and finding solutions to them, in my opinion, should be everybody's top priorities. What the hell is worse than death?

My main focus in life is to do as much as I can towards these priorities.

You cannot say that death is the worst thing ever without conceding that birth is also the worst thing ever. If you hate death, there is no reason not to hate the only thing that guarantees it will occur. Prolonging life will not solve the problem, because everybody dies, even if you live for 1000 or 1,000,000 years. There is no such thing as birth without death. If you are really upset about death, the easiest thing you can do is to spare your children by not having any. I fully support making people happier while they are alive, or even giving them extra time if they really want it. But I don't kid myself into believing that would be any real victory over death, because everybody dies. If the time you gain by stopping the aging process is anything like the time you already have, it will probably be a mixture of mostly boredom, some pain, and a few really great experiences. That's life; keep movin' on. One day, though, you will die. Everything important to you will no longer be important.

We're not on a battlefield fighting against death. We lost that battle by being born. To paraphrase Cioran, all that is left for us is the relief and repose of a defeated army that has already been conquered. This fact makes existence endurable for me: whatever happens, I've already lost the big fight, so I don't have to worry about it anymore. I can carve out my small, provincial meaning in the world, maybe take advantage of some cool technology that gives me another hundred years or so--a twinkle, when it's behind me! No matter how much extra time we secure for ourselves, it will never approach the tiniest fraction of how long we will be dead. That is the cost we bear for being born. Is it worth the good stuff? Maybe it seems that way to us because we're actually here. If we were never here, I don't think we'd care one way or the other.

I fully agree with you about controlling the circumstances of our death, but that's much more complicated than controlling aging. Think about it: wouldn't most people want to die of old age anyway, if given the choice, instead of dying in a horrible accident or by disease? If we solve the problem of natural aging, that won't provide any protection against everything else about reality that is lethal, which is literally everything else about reality. People who die of old age may have been one plane ride away from an fiery explosion. And the longer you live (especially in the prime of your health), the more risks you take, increasing the likelihood of some non-age-related cause of permanent unconsciousness. Unless you want to add another century of life so you can hide in a tiny room, you'd have no more control over how you perish than you did before.

 

[ryan]

Thank god someone else on here shares my and only a few other's views on this.

http://www.sens.org/ is another promising company to stop or reverse the aging process.

Those who do not want to die are responsible for doing something about it. Nobody wants to die, yet they do next to nothing about contributing to knowledge and technology that will let them control their lifespans. It hurts my brain to try to understand why people are not more motivated in learning how to stop and reverse aging. All things important to a person cannot exist without life. And selfless people have no excuse either. They could be working in research fields such as biotechnology to help others live longer and healthier.

Letting people have control over how and when they die, anticipating emergent problems from extending lifespans and finding solutions to them, in my opinion, should be everybody's top priorities. What the hell is worse than death?

My main focus in life is to do as much as I can towards these priorities.

You cannot say that death is the worst thing ever without conceding that birth is also the worst thing ever.

I asked what is worse than death to explain why it should be a top priority.

If you hate death, there is no reason not to hate the only thing that guarantees it will occur. Prolonging life will not solve the problem, because everybody dies, even if you live for 1000 or 1,000,000 years. There is no such thing as birth without death.

You can't possibly know this. I expect that we will continue to gain power over ourselves and the environment at an exponential rate.

If you are really upset about death, the easiest thing you can do is to spare your children by not having any. I fully support making people happier while they are alive, or even giving them extra time if they really want it. But I don't kid myself into believing that would be any real victory over death, because everybody dies. If the time you gain by stopping the aging process is anything like the time you already have, it will probably be a mixture of mostly boredom, some pain, and a few really great experiences. That's life; keep movin' on. One day, though, you will die. Everything important to you will no longer be important.

Well that's your opinion.

We're not on a battlefield fighting against death. We lost that battle by being born. To paraphrase Cioran, all that is left for us is the relief and repose of a defeated army that has already been conquered. This fact makes existence endurable for me: whatever happens, I've already lost the big fight, so I don't have to worry about it anymore. I can carve out my small, provincial meaning in the world, maybe take advantage of some cool technology that gives me another hundred years or so--a twinkle, when it's behind me! No matter how much extra time we secure for ourselves, it will never approach the tiniest fraction of how long we will be dead. That is the cost we bear for being born. Is it worth the good stuff? Maybe it seems that way to us because we're actually here. If we were never here, I don't think we'd care one way or the other.

95% of the time I am glad I'm alive and was born.

I fully agree with you about controlling the circumstances of our death, but that's much more complicated than controlling aging. Think about it: wouldn't most people want to die of old age anyway, if given the choice, instead of dying in a horrible accident or by disease? If we solve the problem of natural aging, that won't provide any protection against everything else about reality that is lethal, which is literally everything else about reality. People who die of old age may have been one plane ride away from an fiery explosion. And the longer you live (especially in the prime of your health), the more risks you take, increasing the likelihood of some non-age-related cause of permanent unconsciousness. Unless you want to add another century of life so you can hide in a tiny room, you'd have no more control over how you perish than you did before.

Then don't take risks.

Also, we may be able to one day upload our information and have a backup copy just in case of a freak accident. And who knows what other ideas will come up.

 

[PyramidHead]

You cannot say that death is the worst thing ever without conceding that birth is also the worst thing ever.

I asked what is worse than death to explain why it should be a top priority.

If you hate death, there is no reason not to hate the only thing that guarantees it will occur. Prolonging life will not solve the problem, because everybody dies, even if you live for 1000 or 1,000,000 years. There is no such thing as birth without death.

You can't possibly know this. I expect that we will continue to gain power over ourselves and the environment at an exponential rate.

I think I do know it, because entropy will eventually prevail, won't it? Even in your wildest imagination, let's say you live for billions of years as some kind of god, impervious to the elements... won't everything around you eventually rip itself apart as the universe expands and the stars burn up all their energy? At some point, it has to come to an end, and when that happens you will be in exactly the same state you would have been if you'd died at 76, and it will suck just as hard.

 

[ryan]

I asked what is worse than death to explain why it should be a top priority.

If you hate death, there is no reason not to hate the only thing that guarantees it will occur. Prolonging life will not solve the problem, because everybody dies, even if you live for 1000 or 1,000,000 years. There is no such thing as birth without death.

You can't possibly know this. I expect that we will continue to gain power over ourselves and the environment at an exponential rate.

I think I do know it, because entropy will eventually prevail, won't it? Even in your wildest imagination, let's say you live for billions of years as some kind of god, impervious to the elements... won't everything around you eventually rip itself apart as the universe expands and the stars burn up all their energy? At some point, it has to come to an end, and when that happens you will be in exactly the same state you would have been if you'd died at 76, and it will suck just as hard.

Imagine that we figure out how to make a wormhole to go back in time, and hopefully reality splits each time to avoid the grandfather paradox.

Or what if we figure out how we can get energy from nothing in the form of positive and negative energy like how the universe supposedly did?

 

[bilby]

I asked what is worse than death to explain why it should be a top priority.

If you hate death, there is no reason not to hate the only thing that guarantees it will occur. Prolonging life will not solve the problem, because everybody dies, even if you live for 1000 or 1,000,000 years. There is no such thing as birth without death.

You can't possibly know this. I expect that we will continue to gain power over ourselves and the environment at an exponential rate.

I think I do know it, because entropy will eventually prevail, won't it? Even in your wildest imagination, let's say you live for billions of years as some kind of god, impervious to the elements... won't everything around you eventually rip itself apart as the universe expands and the stars burn up all their energy? At some point, it has to come to an end, and when that happens you will be in exactly the same state you would have been if you'd died at 76, and it will suck just as hard.

Imagine that we figure out how to make a wormhole to go back in time, and hopefully reality splits each time to avoid the grandfather paradox.

Or what if we figure out how we can get energy from nothing in the form of positive and negative energy like how the universe supposedly did?

Imagine that everyone is a millionaire.

Imagine that everyone is a pacifist.

OK, I have done my bit to solve world hunger and achieve world peace.

Unless, of course, imagination achieves nothing without some kind of reality based plan to bring about the conditions being imagined. In that case, I have done nothing but waste time.

Imagination is as effective as prayer. Neither gets shit done.