The Illogic of Immortality

Some scientists believe human immortality is achievable and ought to be pursued. A few of them claim it is illogical to do otherwise, and that anyone who opposes the idea essentially prefers death over survival. A common line of argument is that people who don't think immortality is a good idea actually are afraid of living forever.

But the desire for human immortality contains a silent cultural vanity peculiar to societies influenced by the Enlightenment. If there is any feature of modern thought even more ubiquitous than the scientific point of view, it is an increasing emphasis upon "the individual" as the relevant focal point of political, economic, artistic and moral theories. Science must measure individuals first, to quantify its insights in psychology and even in sociology, and the point of therapeutics in any medical field is to treat persons, not societies. "Western culture" (a term used with trepidation) respects the individual above the group in countless ways -- often even when we purport to be discussing the "general good."

Despite our rhetoric about "human rights," the rights protected under law are the individual's rights. Our motives are viewed as emotionally directed and thus personal and subjective. Our literary heroes are iconoclastic rebels, seekers, loners and pioneers. And our ethics, politics and economics explicitly assume "self-interest" as the common denominator beneath human actions in the world [D. Hume, A. Smith, J. Madison*].
*many thanks to George F. Will: Statecraft as Soulcraft (1983)

This emphasis on the individual is then scaled up to the macro level. Culture becomes "personality writ large"  [R. Benedict, 1934]. Parenting becomes "socialization" of the child. Politics becomes a "balancing of interests" and we complain about the influence of "special interests" upon politicians (themselves self-interested). Economies run on individuals' choices in a free market, as opposed to a coerced collective interest in a socialist (re)distribution of private assets. Arguments for freedom and choice are oriented to the needs of the individual, usually (albeit no doubt properly) at the expense of the power of the state.

Arguments for human immortality as well, despite the rhetorical "we" implied in "human," express a hidden cultural assumption that individuals should become immortal. This silent assumption is easier to spot if we notice that evolution already constitutes an attempt to become immortal, if "immortality" is defined as survival of a species  (more properly, life itself) indefinitely over time. 

Science tells us there is a mechanism for adaptation to changing environmental conditions which occurs through gradual changes in DNA -- and this adaptation (when successful) constitutes survival. 

According to science it is the species that nature optimizes over time. Thus there is a fundamental contradiction between the concept of an individual's immortality and survival of the species. Survival does not depend upon individuals per se -- if it did, then life itself would not have survived on earth for four billion years: species must change to survive (because the environment changes). Unlimited survival of old (unadapted) DNA sequences in a species population actually would retard its evolution -- thus increasing its chances of extinction.

Consider: if every person were immortal, presumably everyone could continue to procreate forever (viz: Strom Thurmond). But DNA changes in the progeny of later generations would continue to adapt the human species. Logic shows there could develop more than one "human race" -- one extremely old and atavistic, plus many increasingly recent versions, plus the newest.

Either science must then figure out a way to genetically revamp the old through continuous upgrades of DNA in situ, to keep up with the newest models, or else the "ancient ones" must face the insufferable prospect of eternal life as obsolete.

I just hope that's covered under my new universal health care account. Otherwise I'm suing for my individual human rights.