What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

The "Unconditional Surrender" Approach to the War Against Death

August 21, 2011, 10:23 AM

Here we find a most lucid talk on the ethics of the uninhibited pursuit of indefinite longevity. 

The speaker (Mr. Stolyarov) criticizes me, David Brooks, and Daniel Callahan for being pro-death, which is immoral.  He does me (the correct) honor of being the most philosophical of the three popularizers of this evil teaching.

I kind of agree with him on what's wrong with Brooks and Callahan.  I will, of course, summarize in my own way.  Callahan views a world full of too many old people as a social threat.  We can't afford the expense and social pathologies of a gerontology based on keeping people around as long as technology will allow.  So we need to restore the idea of a natural lifespan.  We should keep people as healthy as possible for, say, eighty years tops, and then not divert scarce resources to extreme measures to keep them ticking. And certainly we need to abandon the modern dream of indefinite longevity (which Callahan rightly traces to the enlightenment thinker Condorcet).  There's more evidence than ever that nature is fighting back with great success in our efforts to escape her clutches, and so, if we tell the truth, we can see that we may well have pretty much reach the limits of our longevity project.  There are limits!  And personal happiness and social health depend on living well with them. 

David Brooks, having abandoned philosophy for evolutionary psychology and neuroscience (and so having become more confused), thinks of people as hardwired to be not so much rational, calculating, and obsessively self-conscous as for social, cooperative instincts that morph into virtue.  So they've gone down the wrong path by fighting against nature by being as death-obsessed as they've become.  They can talked into getting in touch with their true natures by thinking of themselves more as social organisms and less as autonomous "Is."  Death is our natural end, and we can readily embrace it with a spirit of adventure and even a sense of social gratitude.  My death is what's best for my species, my country, my family, and so forth, and I know instinctively it couldn't be that bad for me. Death is a price I pay for having lived well as social animal.

According to the speaker, we can't help but think of ourselves as unique and irreplaceable beings.  So the point of life is to pursue personal significance and avoid personal extinction.   Nature is no standard!  Nature is out to kill each of us.  Not only that, an argument against nature's intelligent design is the screwed up, suboptimal, ridiculously vulnerable bodies we've been given.  We have to improve upon nature with ourselves in mind.  We really know there's no God who can save us, that we're on our own.  We want to transform our environment--which includes our bodies--to make our lives as pro-choice in possible.  Any any self-conscious being would choose against death, against the surrender of consciousness.  To surrender to death by choosing not to live indefinitely--or even to be moved by the thought that death will win in the end--is to be come immorally fatalistic, to surrender while you still have weapons to deploy against a cruel and implacable enemy.  This speaker, to his credit, doesn't talk about immortality, but only of indefinite life extension. 

I'm going to take the perverse approach this Sunday morning of saying that Callahan and Brooks have to take this highly self-conscious approach--and so transhumanist approach--of the speaker more seriously.  Christians, for example, know that biological death is terrible, and they hope to avoid its natural consequences.  And, for beings full of personal love, it's not as all clear that there's such a thing as a complete life.  We always want more.  I do think our speaker is wrong in not following the Christians in thinking of each of us as not only personal, but relational, but that's for another post.




The "Unconditional Surrende...

Newsletter: Share: