In this week’s newsletter

✅ Introducing Professor John K. Davis, a philosopher specializing in medical ethics. ✅ Malthusian overpopulation concerns. ✅ The haves, the have-nots and the will-nots.  ✅ Challenging the myths associated with longevity. ✅ Detailed show notes.

🤙🏼 Want to connect? Add me on LinkedIn. 🙏🏼 Not subscribed to the LEVITY podcast on Youtube yet? Do it here. 🎧 More of a listener? The LEVITY podcast is also available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and other places.

”The choice to turn down life extension will be a little bit like choosing lifelong celibacy”

When Aubrey de Grey learned we were featuring Professor John K. Davis in this latest episode of LEVITY, he remarked: ”John has been a leading figure in this space for decades - indeed, he spoke at my very first SENS conference in Cambridge in 2003. Looking forward to his 2024 views!”

By ”this space”, de Grey refers to the field of bioethics and philosophical discourse surrounding life extension and the societal implications of solving aging. Professor Davis, a philosopher at California State University, Fullerton, is renowned for his work in this area, particularly his book New Methuselahs: The Ethics of Life Extension, which examines the ethical arguments for and against radical life extension.

In a way, it’s rather disheartening. The discussion around solving aging, defeating death, and achieving unlimited healthy lifespans is still shrouded in myths, steeped in copium, and hampered by weak but pervasive arguments.

People apply different standards or reasoning to solving aging compared to other medical or technological advancements. Many of us have a, as John says, ”a particular blind spot when when it comes to life extension”.

Speaking of Aubrey de Grey, he once shared his views on the solution to this conundrum.

”I was asking him, what do you think would be effective in persuading people life extension is a good idea? And he said - I think he's dead right about this - he said just keep talking about it. Just keep bringing it up. Just keep rehearsing the issues again and again. So people have the chance to get familiar with it and I think that's a lot of it right there”, John tells me and Patrick.

Philosophical meeting of minds

And that’s exactly what we are doing in this episode. We need many more of you to get familiar with the idea. While the technical hurdles in solving aging are immense, I often find myself wondering if the societal and cultural barriers we face aren't even more daunting.

Of course, we explored these topics in our very first episode of LEVITY. As many of you know, my co-host Patrick Linden is also a philosopher and author of the brilliant book The Case Against Death, which shares many similarities with John's work. Patrick excels at dismantling the many absurd claims that pro-deathists have in their arsenal. Here, I found myself in the company of two philosophers, taking turns systematically debunking these ideas. (I must admit, I occasionally felt like the third wheel in the philosophical meeting of minds. 😄)

In the show notes below, you'll find some of the key arguments from the episode, including Davis's ”God's offer” thought experiment, the ”lingering guest” metaphor, the idea of ”death benefits” and why it could be wise to take Malthusian concerns seriously. You’ll learn about why we should promote life extension, not inhibit or prohibit it.

Armed with these insights, you'll be better prepared to advocate for life extension in your own circles. Remember, every conversation you have could be a step towards changing minds and, ultimately, changing and saving lives.

A detailed overview of the episode

/

Introduction

• Guest introduction: The hosts introduce Professor John K. Davis, a philosopher specializing in medical ethics at California State University, Fullerton. Davis is known for his book New Methusalems: The Ethics of Life Extension, published by MIT Press in 2018, where he makes a case for the promotion of life extension science. His work has been recognized in various media outlets, including The Daily Beast, The Conversation, Science, Newsweek, and the Financial Times of London.

• Davis's path to philosophy: Davis shares how he transitioned from a career in law to philosophy. Initially, he pursued philosophy courses for personal interest but soon became drawn to medical ethics, particularly issues surrounding autonomy and end-of-life care. This interest naturally extended to exploring the ethics of life extension.

Defining life extension and addressing misconceptions

• Life extension vs. immortality:

  • Davis begins by clarifying that life extension is not the same as immortality. He explains, ”immortality means you literally cannot cease to exist”, while life extension refers to halting the aging process. He points out that even with life extension, ”we're just as vulnerable to accidents or diseases... as we are in this life”, meaning that while life spans could be significantly lengthened, people would still be susceptible to death from external causes.

• Philosophical resistance:

  • Davis expresses frustration with the philosophical community's resistance to the concept of life extension. He recalls a specific instance in 2013 where he presented his ideas to a group of respected philosophers, only to find them unanimously dismissive of the idea. He finds it troubling that these scholars, despite his detailed arguments, showed little willingness to engage with the concept of radically extending human life.

Ethical and moral frameworks for life extension

• Three societal approaches:

  • Davis outlines three approaches society can take regarding life extension:

    1. Promotion: Actively advancing and supporting life extension technologies.

    2. Inhibition: Implementing measures to slow or regulate these developments.

    3. Prohibition: Completely banning life extension technologies.

  • Davis advocates for promoting life extension, emphasizing that while it offers profound benefits, it also poses significant challenges that need careful management.

• Quality of life and boredom:

  • Addressing the common concern that life extension could lead to boredom, Davis uses a vivid analogy: ”If you go to an all-day music festival and you're having a good time at 1:00 in the afternoon, would you go home because you think you might be bored at 9:00? No, you stay until you're bored, and then you leave”. He argues that concerns about boredom are speculative and that people would have the option to discontinue life extension if they wished.

  • Davis also discusses how cultural narratives, like Simone de Beauvoir's All Men Are Mortal, have negatively influenced perceptions of life extension, often depicting it as a curse rather than a beneficial choice.

• Personal identity and change:

  • On the issue of personal identity over time, Davis argues that identity is always evolving, even in a normal lifespan. ”You're not going to be a different person in 25 years”, he explains, suggesting that changes in identity over an extended lifespan would occur gradually, just as they do now. This gradual evolution would not diminish the value of life extension.

Social and economic implications: The haves, have-nots, and will-nots

• The haves, have-nots, and will-nots:

  • Davis introduces a critical framework from his book, categorizing people into three groups concerning life extension:

    1. The haves: Those who can afford life extension technologies.

    2. The have-nots: Those who cannot afford these technologies.

    3. The will-nots: Those who choose not to pursue life extension, even if they can afford it.

  • He points out that a surprisingly high percentage of people, according to Pew Research, fall into the ”will-nots” category, reflecting a significant portion of the population that is not interested in extending their lives.

• Justice and accessibility:

  • Davis discusses the ethical issue of inequality in access to life extension. He suggests that while life extension might initially be available only to the wealthy (”the haves”), technological advancements could eventually reduce costs, making it accessible to a broader population. He draws parallels to the decreasing costs of other technologies, arguing that life extension could follow a similar path.

• Impact on the will-nots:

  • Davis explores the potential social pressure on the ”will-nots” as life extension becomes more common. ”In time to come, the choice to turn down life extension will be a little bit like choosing lifelong celibacy...it'll be an increasingly eccentric option”.

The Malthusian challenge: overpopulation concerns

• Historical context and modern projections:

  • Davis traces the origins of overpopulation concerns to the late 18th century, referencing the debate between William Godwin and Thomas Malthus. Malthus, in response to Godwin’s speculation about life extension, warned that such advancements could lead to overpopulation.

  • Davis and demographer Shahin Davoudpour developed models to project population growth under various life extension scenarios. For instance, with a thousand-year life expectancy, a modest fertility rate could lead to a tenfold increase in population over several generations, highlighting the potential for significant overpopulation.

• The lingering guest metaphor:

  • To explain the overpopulation issue, Davis uses the metaphor of a lingering guest at a party: ”Suppose you're throwing a party...you invite 200 people, your party is a huge success, everybody loves it, nobody wants to leave. By 9:30 at night, you've got 200 people in your living room.” This illustrates how extended lifespans without corresponding adjustments in birth rates could lead to unsustainable population growth.

• Forced choice as a solution:

  • Davis proposes ”forced choice” as a potential solution to the overpopulation problem. Under this policy, individuals would have to choose between life extension and the number of children they could have. While acknowledging the ethical and practical challenges of such a policy, Davis argues it might be necessary to prevent catastrophic overpopulation.

Critique of technological optimism:

• Davis is critical of the overly optimistic views of some transhumanists who believe that advancements like space colonization will solve overpopulation. He argues that such solutions are unlikely to be feasible within the first few generations of life extension, emphasizing that ”We’re not going to build enough cruise ships for eight billion people in three generations. We’re not going to build colonies in space in three generations”.

Broader ethical and philosophical considerations

• Strong paternalism and autonomy:

  • Davis critiques ”strong paternalism”, where authorities make decisions on behalf of individuals for their supposed benefit. He argues that denying individuals the choice to extend their lives is akin to removing life support from a patient who wishes to continue living. ”If the implication of these objections is not just that the speaker doesn’t want life extension; I would never force it on someone. But they think no one else should even have the option—that’s as bad as taking people off life support before they’re ready to go”.

• Engagement with opposing arguments:

  • Davis expresses frustration with the lack of substantive engagement from critics of life extension. He notes that many objections are rooted in outdated philosophical traditions focused on accepting death. ”People who don’t like this position don’t really engage the arguments...I just get silence, and I'm sort of waiting for my adversaries, they haven't shown up”. He calls for a more rigorous and open debate on the ethical implications of life extension.

• The role of Silicon Valley:

  • The conversation touches on the role of Silicon Valley in funding life extension research. While some figures like Peter Thiel have invested in this area, Davis notes that overall investment is relatively small compared to the wealth available in the tech industry. (See our episode with Adam Gries for much more on this.) He argues that more significant investment is needed to accelerate the development of affordable life extension technologies.

Concept of ”God's offer”

During the conversation, John K. Davis introduces a thought experiment he refers to as the ”God's offer argument”. This concept is used to explore the idea of extended life and its potential appeal.

• The argument: Davis describes a scenario where a person, at the moment of death, is confronted by God. In this scenario, God presents the person with two options:

  1. Option one: Enter an afterlife, which is optional and can be left at any time if one chooses.

  2. Option two: Continue living a life much like the one they've known, but without aging.

• Purpose of the argument: Davis uses this argument to highlight the intuitive appeal of continued life, even in the face of alternatives like a conventional afterlife. He suggests that many people might choose to continue living, experiencing and growing, rather than opting out of life entirely. This thought experiment is designed to challenge assumptions about the desirability of extended life and to question why we might choose life over other forms of existence, even in a hypothetical divine scenario.

• Ethical and philosophical implications: The ”God's offer” thought experiment invites listeners to consider the value they place on life and what conditions might make that life worth continuing. It also implicitly critiques the idea that an afterlife, as traditionally conceived, would inherently be more desirable than an extended earthly life.

Death benefits argument

• Davis addresses common arguments that suggest death gives life meaning, a view that often leads to opposition against life extension. He critiques these ”death benefits” arguments, which propose that the value of life is tied to its finiteness.

• Davis counters that meaning in life can be maintained or even enhanced in a world where life is extended, challenging the idea that death is necessary for life to be meaningful.

Steven Austad's role and contributions

• Steven Austad is an evolutionary biologist and a prominent figure in the field of geroscience, which studies the biology of aging. He is particularly known for his research on how environmental pressures influence lifespan across different species. Austad has conducted extensive studies on species like opossums to understand how aging and metabolic energy allocation for self-repair vary depending on environmental conditions. His work is foundational in the discussion of potential life extension in humans.

• Peter mentions that Steven Austad and John K. Davis have similarly titled books, with Austad’s latest work being Methuselah's Zoo.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

• Balancing Pros and Cons:

  • Davis concludes by emphasizing the importance of weighing the pros and cons of life extension. While challenges such as justice and overpopulation exist, he believes the potential benefits outweigh the risks. He advocates for continued research and public discourse on life extension, stressing the need for society to prepare for the ethical and social implications.

  • Davis highlights the importance of public engagement, recalling a conversation with longevity researcher Aubrey de Grey: ”Just keep talking about it...people need time to get used to this”. He believes that as society becomes more familiar with the concept of life extension, resistance will decrease.

• Long-Term Vision:

  • Looking ahead, Davis remains cautiously optimistic about the future of life extension. He envisions a world where life extension is as routine and accessible as many modern medical technologies. While acknowledging the challenges, he believes that with careful management and ethical consideration, society can successfully navigate the transition to a world where extended life is possible.