13 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast (Rev 13:1-3).
James Anderson has done a post on secular immortality:
I’ll take his post as a springboard to make my own observations. Suppose medical science does figure out how to halt the aging process. What would be the consequences?
i) It would necessitate draconian measures in population control. Universal or near-universal mandatory sterilization.
ii) Of course, some people would still die of other causes, viz. murder, illness, suicide, accident. So it wouldn’t be prudent to eliminate fertility altogether. Various options might be considered. Maybe storing fertilized ova. Or perhaps a global lottery, where the winners are allowed to have a child.
iii) Because rare couples with children would provoke extreme envy on the part of many childless couples, replacement children would be wards of the state.
iv) It would require a massive, intrusive police-state apparatus to enforce zero-population growth.
v) A police-state requires an elite ruling class to police the underclass. The ruling class would exempt itself from the antinatalist policy.
vi) There’d be a black market for babies or fertility doctors who circumvent mandatory sterilization.
vii) Marriage would be less relevant in a childless society. There’d be an uptick in promiscuity, jealousy, and revenge killings. Jersey Shore on steroids.
vii) A childless society would require an enormous emotional adjustment. For most folks, having kids is a fundamental dimension of their personal fulfillment. Depression would rise.
viii) Pets would take the place of children. In a childless society, pet-owners would develop a fanatical attachment to their pets.
ix) There’d be demands to extend immortality to pets, inasmuch as pets would be surrogate children.
x) Killing a pet would be tantamount to murder.
xi) Culture would be apt to stagnate inasmuch as creative thinkers tend to run out of new ideas beyond a certain age.
xii) Ironically, artificial immortality would lead to higher rates of suicide from depression and boredom. Murder rates might also rise (see above).
xiii) Society would become extremely risk-averse. If we’re all going to die anyway, sooner or later, we feel freer to take calculated risks. Life’s a gamble, and you’re bound to lose in the long run. It’s just a matter of when.
But if immortality were a live-option, then altruism would take a hit. If death is not inevitable, would you risk your life for someone else?
xiv) Would society forcibly conscript some men and women to do the dangerous jobs?
xv) We’d still be liable to death from disease. This might lead to a black-market in organ-harvesting. Although we prolong life through organ donation, that doesn’t confer immortality. All of us must still face the inevitable. But if immortality were a live option, then that raises the stakes. In that case, it’s all-or-nothing. Not a choice between dying sooner or later, but between dying and not dying. So involuntary organ-harvesting would be a far greater temptation.
xvi) Christianity would be outlawed as a socially subversive religion.
xvii) Would artificial immortality disprove the Bible? If the death penalty is God’s sanction for sin, and we figure out how to cheat death, have we thwarted God?
a) I don’t think that’s essentially different from medical science in general, which cures or prevents certain diseases–including life-threatening injuries or illnesses–even though liability to disease is ultimately a sanction for sin.
b) Immortality in a fallen would could also be punitive. I’ve been discussing the dire social consequences of a childless society.
Counterfeiting is a leading theme in Revelation:
Like other spiritual counterfeits, you’d pay a steep price for counterfeit immortality (e.g. Rev 13:1-3). Like other Faustian bargains, the Devil comes to collect his dues.
c) There’d still be the coming Day of Judgment.
By the way, Torchwood recently ran a series titled "Miracle Day" on the very topic.
ReplyDeleteAlso, here is an opinion piece from the NYT.
It seems to me medical science would have to make use of physical matter already in existence in order to halt or reverse aging in humans as we know humans to be (not transhumans or what not). For example, we'd have to grow organs from pre-existing stem cells. Not even Craig Venter can create stem cells ex nihilo. We're still made from dust and to dust we have to return, even if it's to grab a few fistfuls of dust to keep ourselves dusty and alive.
ReplyDeleteRelated, if medical science were to find a way to halt or reverse aging, we would still be subject to death inasmuch as the universe in which we live is subject to decay and eventual death. Or could humanity ever figure out a way to keep the universe from dying too? I don't think so. As such, we're really only as "immortal" as the universe or multiverse. We might live billions or trillions or whatever years rather than a 100 years, give or take, but in the end our fate is still tied to the fate of the universe.
Yet Biblical Christianity talks about the redemption of our bodies as well as creation.
I am under the impression that there is something like a 120 year limit on our genetic capabilities at any rate. But who wants to be 90 years old and looking at living another 30 years at that old and feeble age?
ReplyDelete