Comment on this entry
On Singer and Radical Life Extension
Peter Singer argues that we should not proceed to develop a hypothetical life-extension drug, based on a scenario where developing the drug would fail to achieve the greatest sum of universal happiness over time. But that’s the wrong test.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by veronica on 12/29 at 02:20 PM
I feel like I've read this essay before.
I guess not really, but it did have some echoes of your essay from two years ago:
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/blackford20070309/
Posted by Russell Blackford on 12/29 at 07:00 PM
Yes, I was working on these ideas over time in my "sandpit", i.e. my blog, before I produced a fairly definitive version to submit to the Journal of Medical Ethics.
Posted by William Harryman on 12/29 at 08:02 PM
I agree with Singer's conclusion, but for different reasons. Consider:
How many people are healthy and vital at 60 now? We have 65% of the population either overweight or obese. How much are we spending on health care for people over 60? Double the lifespan and we significantly increase our health care expenditures. Not only that, with such a high rate of unhealthy people, the quality of life for the majority of the population living twice as long would be low at best, disease-ridden at worst.
How many people are active and vital and enjoying life at 70? How many more are just waiting to die? What then if that wait takes another 70 years? What is the psychological quality of life when the physical is not healthy? How many people would find such a long life depressing? My guess is many would.
Do we have the natural resources to support people living that much longer? Imagine the population increase that we would have to deal with in the first 100 years or so. And what about those living in the 3rd and 2nd worlds? Do they get to live twice as long as well? Or just those of in the Western World? What about the new diseases we will encounter in living that long? Imagine having this same Supreme Court for another 75-100 years. Imagine some states electing the same Senator for nearly 100 years.
These are only a few issues off the top of my head. I'm sure smarter people could raise many more, and more serious ones.
I don't think the people advocating for radical life extension have generally thought about the real world consequences.
Posted by Adam P on 12/31 at 05:36 PM
"How much are we spending on health care for people over 60? Double the lifespan and we significantly increase our health care expenditures."
--Keeping people biologically YOUNG and HEALTHY will keep costs DOWN.
"Not only that, with such a high rate of unhealthy people, the quality of life for the majority of the population living twice as long would be low at best, disease-ridden at worst."
--Keeping people biologically YOUNG and HEALTHY will keep quality of life HIGH.
"How many people are active and vital and enjoying life at 70?"
--Quite a few. Some run sub 3-hour marathons.
"How many more are just waiting to die? What then if that wait takes another 70 years? What is the psychological quality of life when the physical is not healthy?"
--Nobody who supports longevity supports centuries of living in poor health. Aging is the CAUSE of death, not something that just accompanies death in old age.
"How many people would find such a long life depressing? My guess is many would."
--This is just speculation. Those that are depressed do not have the right to murder those that are not.
"Do we have the natural resources to support people living that much longer? Imagine the population increase that we would have to deal with in the first 100 years or so."
--Population growth is SLOWING DOWN. Most advanced nations have SUB-REPLACEMENT birth rates. Some scholars are predicting a population COLLAPSE, rather than an explosion.
"What about those living in the 3rd and 2nd worlds? Do they get to live twice as long as well? Or just those of in the Western World? What about the new diseases we will encounter in living that long?"
--International treaties and such can be established to ensure access to poor countries.
"Imagine having this same Supreme Court for another 75-100 years. Imagine some states electing the same Senator for nearly 100 years."
--Two words: TERM LIMITS
"I don't think the people advocating for radical life extension have generally thought about the real world consequences."
--YES, THEY HAVE. Aubrey de Grey has written extensively on the consequences of radical life extension. It is opponents of longevity that have not considered the consequences, both good and bad.
Posted by anon on 12/31 at 11:17 PM
It should be noted that Peter Singer's paradox is expressly reliant on a specific variation of utilitarianism. It's not at all clear how the number of individuals should enter into the social welfare function, and the choice Singer relies on (total utility) has been widely questioned. See Mere addition paradox and Average and total utilitarianism.
Note that individual utility is clearly higher in the anti-aging scenario, since the life-extension pills are adopted and there are no externalities. However, the aging scenario contains more individuals and this makes total utility higher.
Posted by Thomas Stojanovic on 01/04 at 11:42 AM
I think Singer's argument is exposed as being flawed when examined at a number of levels.
Firstly, if we were really trying the maximize "happiness" then we would legislate for people's lives to be terminated when they reach, say, 35. Based on his argument, this would increase "happiness". Clearly, this is ridiculous.
Secondly, Singer is forgetting that for many people it takes until around 50 before they are starting to master their crafts. Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michell Collins were 39 years when they fly Apollo 11. To have only 20 or 30 years of productive life left after gaining some mastery is a huge waste on all of our resources. The positive benefits from people having longer, productive lives would be huge (would you rather go to an expert with 5 years experience or 50 years experience - like a surgeon or architect).
Thirdly, in his argument there is no account for the worth of having "wise tribal elders" in our society. I wish I had an uncle, or two, that had lived for over 150 years that I could ask for advice and learn from their experience.
Posted by Bart Bush on 06/26 at 05:23 PM
I'm doing a paper that argues against peter singer in his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality". I just wanted to know if he is a strict consequentialist, or if he believes also in positive rights (rights that require action ie. helping those in need)
yes it is -.-
Funny name btw
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog