Life is the continuance of relations.  Death is the discontinuence of those relations, as the material changes its relations into something new.  If it were not for death, "life" would be stagnant, and there would be neither "good" nor "bad", just sameness. Death is necessary for there to be "good" or "right", because it creates the contrast: where the good still live and the bad discontinue. Death is natures final judgement that you have critically failed to sustain yourself.  Verses living is continual proof that you have so far succeeded in continuence.

What each individual chooses to sustain and hence use as a measure of "good" and "bad" is as varied as there are 3D permutations of molecular configurations of vast collections of material from the periodic table of elements.  Using oneself's lifespan as a measure of "good" and "bad" is just one of the arguably infinite.  We do not measure the value of a life form by the number of years it has lived, otherwise we'd value individuals within certain species of trees more than our own.  One could also measure "good" by quantity and quality of achievements.

Certainly some duration of life is necessary to attain some quantity and quality of achievements.  But living forever?  Its a worthwhile pursuit for some of us for sure, especially when funded by voluntary means. But surely for most, living forever is not their primary goal, and hence they work towards other things. Just for one example, there is natures more natural way of life extension: reproduction, distribution, and diversification.  These processes increase reliability of continuance of relations through parallel and exponential growth rather than by attempting to increase the longevity of one extant.

One problem with trying to extend your own life rather than working towards raising children and teaching them the best of your knowledge is...  concentration of value and problems that arise when faced with competition that does not respect your property cliams.  If men have the goal to live forever, then they are unable to risk their lives to fight for the freedom of their children.  Hence they become slaves to those who those who are willing to die.

Greetings, Mr. Gores.

Your thoughts are interesting – as far as I can see, original among the responses I have received to this book. I will address them in turn.

If evil or non-good is the absence of good, then the absence of good is not required for good to exist. Likewise, the absence of life (or the termination of existing life) is not required for life to exist or develop. A living organism exhibits growth and dynamism not because of the threat or eventuality of its annihilation, but because of its physical characteristics and interactions with the external world. Death is the dissolution of something intricately complex, orderly, and functional – the living organism – into components that are much simpler and less functional, which do not exhibit the self-sustaining and self-generating properties of life. It is not just changing into something new; it is degeneration and decay – by definition.

The amount of good or value in the world does not diminish by there being more good or value (indeed, just the opposite occurs!) – so the longer one lives, the more one can pursue and achieve in any realm that one considers worthwhile. Whether or not one’s primary aim is to live longer, it is undoubtedly the case that, once one is no longer alive, one ceases to have the ability to achieve anything or to experience or even remember the fruits of one’s achievement. Ayn Rand correctly noted that the fact of being alive is the precondition to the pursuit of any other values; it may not be sufficient for a good life (i.e., flourishing consists of pursuits beyond mere survival), but it is necessary.

Having children is entirely compatible with pursuing indefinite longevity for oneself (I do not have any – but not because I see any kind of conflict here); indeed, children could help with that pursuit. My decision to write and publish a children’s book on indefinite life extension was made to inspire the next generation of scientists and philosophers, whose efforts may benefit those of us who are adults today, so that they might pursue the acquisition of the necessary skills while they still have ample energy and leisure time. However, having children is not a substitute for one’s self-perpetuation. One cannot experience the world through the vantage point of one’s children, and it is direct experience and direct awareness of reality that I find the most fundamental, irreplaceable condition of an individual’s life.

There are memories and legacies, to be sure, but even those are forgotten or diluted sooner than most would like to think. Children remember their parents, but how many people remember (or are even aware of the identities of) their great-great-great grandparents? One can influence the future, but, if one is dead, one does not really know how one’s influence turned out; one can only speculate, and is likely to be very wrong in one’s speculations. One has to live the future to really know what will happen.

Why do most people not pursue indefinite longevity? I think the answer is not that they simply prefer other values; it is that they genuinely do not see the attainment of indefinite longevity as feasible – and they have been culturally conditioned over millennia to put the idea out of their minds, acknowledge the finitude of their lifespans, and spend their time pursuing other goals. Historically, during eras when technologies were indeed insufficient for radical life extension, this was an understandable attitude to take in order to render everyday life psychologically tolerable and to enable smaller-scale but worthwhile pursuits that eventually raised our civilization to its current level of prosperity and advancement. However, now, these same attitudes are counterproductive in that they could retard technically feasible developments to lengthen human lifespans (for lack of public support and funding, as well as the ability of traditional attitudes to motivate restrictive legislation and regulation that could stifle medical progress).

On seeking to avert threats to freedom, I think that the longer a person expects to live, the longer-term a perspective that person would take. The incentive to go out and steal a neighbor’s property or kill him diminishes greatly if one has more to lose thereby. (Hence the growth of commerce has been one of the greatest enablers of peace and toleration throughout history.) If one personally expects to be alive for a very long time, one would be more invested in making sure that existence is hospitable to human values and virtues during the long term. Incentives to “game the system” for short-term gains (be it through expropriation, laws restricting competition, war, pollution, etc.) would dwindle if one had to live with the long-term consequences. Yes, people speak about seeking a better world for their children and grandchildren – but I suspect that, for most, this is partly rhetorical only, and their efforts are in fact much more intense when they see the better situation as attainable for themselves directly. Will the incentive to fight diminish for longer-lived people? Most likely. But it will diminish among those who would threaten liberty also, and I strongly suspect that incentives for aggression for decline to a far greater extent than incentives for defensive action against any aggression that remains.

Mr. Erickson: With regard to your comment, I acknowledge that some degree of risk is inescapable in today’s state of the world, and this qualitative statement will hold for the foreseeable future. However, there are degrees of risk, and there is already much one can do to avoid unnecessary risk while accepting unavoidable or calculated risk. I do think that far too many people thoughtlessly undertake far too much risk, which they would have rejected if they conducted a genuine rational examination.

It is true that radically longer lifespans would dramatically affect the proportions of risk seeking and risk aversion among humans. For more of my thoughts on this issue, I invite you to read my article “Life Extension and Risk Aversion”. But it is both feasible and desirable for the amount of everyday risk to which we are exposed to asymptotically approach zero (even if it never gets there), while increasing technological possibilities enable us to continue to create works of great value without exposing ourselves to physical danger. (Think of possibilities for autonomous vehicles, videoconferencing, and increased telecommuting to reduce mortality from the ubiquitous act of driving to work or going on a business trip.)

Sincerely,

G. Stolyarov II

Dean,

"Good" is increased goal attainment for a goal seeker. "Bad" is decreased goal attainment for a goal seeker.

That's a problem.  People can have goals that are badly flawed, illogical and contradictory. Like Hitler's goal to exterminate all Jews. It is the worst kind of relativism or subjectivism that would make any goal held by anyone at anytime 'good' or 'bad' just because it is there goal and they are attaining it.  If I hold the goal of making a lot of money, and that is considered to be a good thing, then does it become a bad thing if the stock market drops and don't attain it?

There must be an objectively derived standard for 'good' and 'bad.' It must, in this context, be universal and for that it has to derive from human nature.

To call something 'rule based' is not the same as saying it is illogical, irrational, or dogmatic. The key element to look at in reference to rules is how they are derived (rationally or irrationally?) and how they are adopted (thoughtfully or dogmatically?) and if they serve a useful purpose for the person.
-----------------

...let me offer more of my definitions: Living: performing actions that extend one's own life. Dying: performing actions that shorten one's own life.

A definition of living would also have to include those actions that don't increase ones longeveity, but simply continue being alive. It would have to deal with what is the defintion of life.  Do you agree with Rand's defintion of life? "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action."

Even a dying person is still alive and therefore living.  And I wouldn't define dying in such a way that would include eating something high in fat content. The person might not have anyway to know at the time that they will develop issues with their arteries later in life. Eating the ice cream might be life threatening, but that implies that they are living (with higher risk quotients) not dying.  

So if a person forms a goal of eating every kind of ice cream that is made, and they are being successful in attaining that goal, and they do it knowing that it is killing them because of a heart condition, does that make their goal 'good' (goal attainment) and an example of dying ('actions that shorten their life') - all at once?  Dying as a good thing?

Steve,

There must be an objectively derived standard for 'good' and 'bad.' It must, in this context, be universal and for that it has to derive from human nature.

Instead, I would say that when communicating, a person communicating moral judgements like "good", "bad", etc, really should include who's perspective the moral judgement is evaluated with.  Rand's caricature of generalized humans as compared to animals is one perspective (an important one that you and I default to when we don't specify).  I disagree that such is "universal", since clearly there are humans who deviate from the generalization, and there are other species.

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action.

I don't think its necessary to include "self-generated", its succinct without it.  Imagine for example a person who is lying on a hospital bed, with kidney failure, now needing the dialysis machine to stay alive (or a kidney transplant).  Until the patent gets a new kidney, one could consider the nurse that operates the machine, the machine, and the patent all as a life form sustaining the patient.  Of course normally we draw the line for what is included within a life form around the exterior of skin...  but there is no reason why we can't draw the line elsewhere.  If you did draw the line at the skin, then the dialysis machine and the nurse would then not be performing the process of "life" due to the self-sustaining part not being applicable.

Even a dying person is still alive and therefore living.

Rather I'd say that in some ways we are dying and some ways living at the same time...  but overall we may be more dying than living, or vice versa, but still a life form until permanently dead.  I agree this does not correspond well with the layman definitions of life and death, living and dying... but never the less, my definitions are more informative and work better for talking about the underlying processes, especially in the context of talking about medicine and life extension.

And I wouldn't define dying in such a way that would include eating something high in fat content. The person might not have anyway to know at the time that they will develop issues with their arteries later in life. Eating the ice cream might be life threatening, but that implies that they are living (with higher risk quotients) not dying. 

Again, you may be living in some ways and dying in some ways at the same time.  If you would alter this to say "excess sugar, particularly fructose" instead of "fat" then you would be correct biologically.  http://objectivetranshumanism.org/CardiovascularDisease if you want my little refresher on the cause of CVD...  sorry you would have to study the subject yourself I didn't include references.  Consuming animal fat and cholesterol is unrelated to the cause of CVD, or more correctly, saying fat is the cause of CVD is like saying that cliffs are the cause of falling.  Let me just summarize right here: when eating excess sugar, your liver turns the sugar into fat, which it sends to fat cells with lipid carriers called HDL/LDL/VLDL (which the liver also puts cholesterol in), and fructose is a highly reactive molecule that messes up the HDL/LDL/VLDL identifiers, which prevents the liver from being able to recognize them and recycle them once the fat cells are finished collecting fat out of them.

"Fats" needs to be further reduced into kinds of lipids.  There are natural ones and unnatural ones.

Unnatural:

• Vegetable oils (which are unnaturally industrially condensed from vegetables)
• Hydrogenated vegetable oils (unnaturally altering lipid structure to cause the lipids to have extra bends to make them solid at room temperature) are healthy.
• Excess short chain fats resultant from consuming excess sugar/carbohydrates (glucose polymers) as the liver converts excess sugar into short chain fat.

Natural:

• Animal fat, qualified: The best fat is from animals who eat their evolutionary natural diet (such as cows eating grass and chicken eating whatever they find in the pasture).  Grain fed animals severely lack in certain nutrients, including essential fatty acids.

I would be surprised actually to find a study that found that eating an excess of natural fat source would be harmful to humans, given my understanding of human microbiology.  Oh, I guess there is always the case of too much of a good thing, even water can kill a person if drank in excess.  But healthy animal fats surely don't cause CVD.  And eating excess healthy animal fat would be very expensive.  On that note, I wonder if maybe there are elite manipulators who know what is healthy... but they tell the masses that unhealthy things are healthy (seeds, fiber) and healthy things are unhealthy (cholesterol, animal fat)... just as a way to make it easier to kill the masses off and make precious farm land that grows health food lower in price for them to purchase.  A conspiracy, its probably true to some extent, but for most in power its probably not so premeditated.

Mr. Stolyarov,

Thank you for your comments.  I read and enjoyed your article.  I have given some thought to the implications of having an indefinite life span.  The idea of starting over appeals to me, after 65 years of living and having the experience and means to make a better start the second time around.  I was not being critical of the idea of life extension, I have in fact visited several sites concerning life extension the last 2-3 years, I receive the "Fight Aging" newsletter and carefully read selected articles.  I think the technology is too new and undeveloped to benefit me personally at my age and state of health, other than the well known techniques of diet and exercise and intermittent fasting.  I also think the bigger problem, as far as ordinary people being able to take advantage will be the expense and the backlash against the technology ["against nature!", "Not God's will!", "Not fair to common people!", "Overpopulation inevitable!", "Old people need to get out of the way of new generations!", "Not enough room  on the earth!", etc].  The is much room for political manipulation because of the emotion laden arguments that strict regulation of the technology is inevitable.  I have had conversations regarding life extension with a few people, only those I thought might be receptive and with the intelligence to have a considered opinion.  I haven't found a receptive person.  They either believe it's impossible or they aren't interested.  "I don't want to be 100" [a retired person with arthritis and high blood pressure].  "People should get out to the way for young people" [a person with two young children].  The medical profession as practiced today does not give one confidence either.  I have a torn meniscus, my doctor recommends I don't get surgery "at your age it might not heal and you'd need a knee replacement" and "don't squat".  I mention stem cell injections [per Regenexx], he says "too new, insurance won't pay for it, probably doesn't work, no studies.." etc.  I believe the average MD is not very healthy themselves, they prescribe medication for symptoms, their idea of treating a person is if you're somewhere near a statistical average for your age, there's nothing wrong with you.  If something hurts, take a pill, and stop doing whatever it was that made it hurt.  There is a very long way to go to convince the medical profession to advise their patients to do anything but give in to the maladies of age.  Slow down, take pills, get your affairs in order.  I've been told by an ex-primary care physician "don't look stuff up on the internet".  And this is before Obamacare.   I'm afraid life extension technology will be underground if and when it is developed, and possibly available only to a privileged elite.  Given the way the political winds have been blowing I imagine eventually an advanced technocracy run by a powerful elite group running and controlling everything from birth to death of everyone.  These rulers I'm certain would not see an advantage in the cattle having long lives, long enough to realize the situation they're in.  For themselves though, imagine a Kim Jong un with a lifespan of 1000 years.  I'm also concerned about the capacity of our brains to integrate and remember hundreds of years of life experience.  If you are a thousand years old would you even remember the first 800 years?  Technology for archiving our life experiences and memories would needs be developed simultaneously with life extension.

I would be delighted to be persuaded to a more optimistic (to say nothing of less cynical) point of view.

Best Regards,

Mike Erickson

Steve,

Re: caricature:  I didn't mean a negative connotation. Only the "enhance and focus on the difference" as comparing humans to animals.

Re: rational capacity: Its not all or nothing. Some humans are genius. Some have less ability than chimpanzees.  And this is not just due to accidents that cause coma, also "mentally disadvantaged".

So when I say that people deviate from the generalization, I mean deviation in every ability and deviation in ambition for all different kinds of goals.

Steve, I'm concerned more about being consistent with reality than Rand. I would say that you/Rand are fabricating a logical mathematically valid system, much like mathematicians do, that may be logically self consistent but has no or limited relation to reality. In real, things are much more fuzzy/varied than your Platonic abstractions.

A children's book! Amazing! Conquer the world thru the kids! But seriously....my congratulations to Gennady Stolyarov on this remarkable achievement. I hope his success here goes on and on. With quality children's books of this type, this often happens. And I think his book will be on the cutting edge for quite some time.

There are many wonderful lines in the video lecture: "We need this [fight against death] to happen yesterday." (8:10) "We each have precious individual universes inside us that deserve -- and indeed demand -- preservation." (8:55) "We must remember that we are cosmic revolutionaries -- not stooges conscripted to advance the Natural Order that kills everybody." (9:10) 

It's odd that Objectivists talk so little about the very possible Singularity of around 2045; or about very doable Transhumanism. What could be more important?

I've long thought that death is a moral abomination -- an evil beyond compare. It needs to be rapidly, ruthlessly, and summarily crushed.

You would, why does it not surprise me Robert.  Psychotic? As in hammering into children the tenets of the bible? Now that is psychotic.

Santa? 

Good ole Christmas cheer stuff?  Gotta love the original Christmas Aka Saturnalia!