Does death give life meaning? Perhaps, but that I think that there are other ways to do so.

The premise of the movie sounds interesting. I didn't realize it was suppose to be a deep though about the value of life, rather than a comedy.

I write this because I have been disappointed in recent comedies such as "Break Up", "Click", and "You, Me, and Dupree". All of those seemed to start with a plot that could become funny, but then detoured into a depressing concept that ruined the film.

In a novel I'm working on, it is noted that an immortal can achieve many things in his lifetime, but mankind in general creates far more, BECAUSE of his mortality and the incessant need to leave something behind when they pass on.

Mac,

I'll accept that premise, and take it another step. Why pro-create if you are immortal? Moreover, genetics is essentially the natural means for recording history, tracking lessons learned, and continual improvement. The genetic code is full of information about failed concepts in the past, such as humans with gills. What happens when mortals fail to pro-create for the promise of immortality, and thus the genetic code is not updated?

Whether or not death gives life meaning is not the point here (I think its rubbish). The point is that this, like any other kind of value statement, is individual specific. Some people derive value from death. Others (like myself) consider this rubbish. The point is, from a public policy standpoint, is if individuals are allowed to make this value judgement as free individuals, or if people of the ilk of Leon Kass are able to use the corrupt force of government to impose their value judgements on the rest of us.

The issue is not about life-extension itself. It is about power and freedom of choice. One cannot be anti-immortalist and pro-freedom at the same time.

Leland says: Mac,

I'll accept that premise, and take it another step. Why pro-create if you are immortal?

Well, they can't. Which makes the achievements of mankind that much more important as he sees it.

If one accepts the notion (and I agree it's rubbish) that death gives life meaning, then at some point one has to ask; 'How much is 'enough' life?' (And I mean for intact, healthy people, I'm not getting into end-of-life suffering and quality issues.)

Should someone (perhaps Mr. Kass) have said to Jeann Caulmet (who made it to 122, cognitively intact); "You've had more than your share, Madame. You should have moved along deveral decades ago."

That the means to signifigantly extend human life are at least in sight, make it possible to even have serious ethical debates, and not simply brush it off as wishful thinking. Research will go on, either focused on that goal, and/or as serendipitous 'fallout' from other biological research (on cancer, for example). Supression of the knowledge won't be possible (the Internet lends itself well to that), nor will it be practical to keep out any such drugs and treatments. (consider how [in]effectively we keep out recreational drugs, then imagine trying to do the same with substances that are demonstrably *good* for you...)

Once it's shown to be possible, massive demand will sweep ethical hand-wringers (and anyone else in the way) prompty aside.

Me, I'm sure I'll find plenty of meaning in those things that I was probably born too soon to otherwise take part in. Hiking on Pluto, or admiring Saturn's rings up close, for example.

Death giving life meaning *might* make some sense in a static, or slowly changing world with little opprotunity for new knowledge and experience, but not in one where we know enough, to realize just how much more we *don't* know and have yet to learn.

Who'd want to miss that?

You know, my attitude always was that life gave life meaning. People are way too quick to put the "meaning" of life somewhere other than within life itself! Some imagine that life is worthless outside the context of an afterlife. Some imagine life is worthless outside the context of expressing some ideal.

Personally, I can't see how "meaning", something commonly taken to be derived in terms of the world, can exist outside the context of life.

As for death, there is always time for that later, regardless of whenever later happens to be. (Hopefully a few decades later at least, in my case, though you never know)

Since the title of your post is "Tradeoffs", if we examine the tradeoff between dying now and dying later, how does it become a non-trivial problem, assuming you're healthy?

I think that another hurdle to face with life extension is that with the sense of immortality would come the sense of invulnerability. As people grow older they will wish to reach out and continually expand their experiences. Ever becoming more daring and far reaching in their goals. Frank Glover even points out that he'd go so far as to hike on Pluto which would sound like a rather dangerous endeavour to me. Perhaps if there were any type of nannyism to develop around life extension then it may come with ever increasing penalties to insurance if your found to be partaking in certain activities or growing beyond a certain number of years. The longer you play the more you pay.

Live 50,000 years, still end up on your deathbed with nothing but your memories of a life wasted or useful. What's the difference?

I think that another hurdle to face with life extension is that with the sense of immortality would come the sense of invulnerability. As people grow older they will wish to reach out and continually expand their experiences. Ever becoming more daring and far reaching in their goals.

I think exact opposite would happen. People who know they can expect to live centuries if they avoid accidental death will be much more risk-averse. The likes of Frank Glover will be exceptions rather than the rule.

ever increasing penalties to insurance if your found to be partaking in certain activities or growing beyond a certain number of years. The longer you play the more you pay.

With life insurance that’s true already, and why not? If you race motorcycles or climb mountains, insurance company is taking a greater risk with you than with someone whose daily routine is desk and exercise bike.

Live 50,000 years, still end up on your deathbed with nothing but your memories of a life wasted or useful. What's the difference?

The difference is amount of time you had to MAKE it useful. If you wasted your 50,000 years, it’s your fault. But if you chose to make it useful, it was a lot more useful than 50 years could possibly be.

"ever increasing penalties to insurance if your found to be partaking in certain activities or growing beyond a certain number of years. The longer you play the more you pay.

With life insurance that’s true already, and why not? If you race motorcycles or climb mountains, insurance company is taking a greater risk with you than with someone whose daily routine is desk and exercise bike.
"

If your insurance charges you at a rate, wouldn't eliminatng one possible cause of death (the increasing probability of disease and infirmity due to old age) in fact make your insurance payments go way down? After all, over a period of time, assuming no accidents, you would more than pay for any sort of care for said accidents.

Note that things like 'hiking on Pluto' don't *have* to mean a high-risk experience. Yellstone National Park has well-marked hiking trails, I suspect, yet it, too, was once uncharted and unknown (except perhaps to the natives a situation not likely to occur elsewhere in this solar system) as well. Such a thing may not be sooner than early in the next century, putting me in my 150's, but this *is* about life extension. And spacesuit technology should be quite mature and reliable by such time.

Now, in either case (Yellostone or Pluto), will there be people who leave the established trails at their own risk? Likely. I doubt indefinite life spans will signifigantly discourage risk-taking for many (and this may well be a good thing, or we have no human exploration). But I don't necessairily plan to be the *first* one to most places.

As a nearer-term anology, I'd also like to learn to SCUBA dive...in nice, warm, open water. The thought of doing the same activity in caves, under ice, or too deeply into wercks, scares the crap out of me...