Open lifespan as a coherent life plan enables super-agency

Similarly to my previous post, Open lifespan needs an open narrative: life as a series, the indirect philosophical background of this post is the meaning of life question. But the direct philosophical foreground is ‘agency'[1].

Introduction

In ‘Agency, Life Extension, and the Meaning of Life‘, professional philosopher Lisa Bortolotti argues that the so-called agency objection against a loosely defined life extension technology should be rejected.

Briefly put, the agency objection argues that one important component of the meaningfulness of human life is being constrained as an agent and since ‘life extension’ removes these constraints it undermines this meaningfulness of lived lives. Continue reading “Open lifespan as a coherent life plan enables super-agency”

Open lifespan needs an open narrative: life as a series

Trying a quicker, less detailed blog format now, maybe because I’m writing from the beach, by Lake Balaton, and using family vacation time. The philosophical background of this post is the ‘meaning of life’ question, and I will be dealing a lot later with this question in the context of open lifespan. The foreground is aesthetic, uses analogies from cinematography.

1. Closed Lifespan -> Closed Narrative -> Life as a Feature Length Movie

Philosopher Joshua Seachris thinks ‘narrative ending links closely with the meaning of life’.  Continue reading “Open lifespan needs an open narrative: life as a series”

Open or closed lifespan: that is the question, not mortality vs. immortality

Perhaps the most frequent, most misleading and hence, most annoying framing problem around biomedically achieved healthy lifespan extension is that the headline making machinery is using the term immortality without any restrictions when only discussing the first detailed technological plans and the articulating will behind breaking the closed lifespan barrier of ~120 years or so. What do I have in mind? Here’s some pointed questions to consider when deciding you might be one of the people tempted to scream immortality too soon: Continue reading “Open or closed lifespan: that is the question, not mortality vs. immortality”

Can you imagine a world without disease but with biological aging? Neither can I

One default philosophical question about counteracting biological aging is whether those interventions would qualify as enhancements or medical therapies/medical preventions. The answer to this question depends on the status of biological aging, whether it can be considered as a natural process or an actual broad-spectra disease.
In what follows I sketch a simple, reductio ad absurdum argument to show that disease and biological aging cannot be conceptually separated from each other. I’ll make the connection between the two clearer throughout argumentation. If they are connected through a conceptual continuum then biological aging cannot be considered a natural process so interventions counteracting it cannot be considered enhancements, but medical interventions, either preventive techniques or therapies.

Continue reading “Can you imagine a world without disease but with biological aging? Neither can I”

Reading Mark Johnston: the problem of leftover, future personites and open lifespan

I spent yesterday on a philosophical pilgrimage to Oxford and the zenith of the day was attending the talk of Mark Johnston, of Princeton, called ‘How the Liquid Self Corrodes Ethical Life’ held at Merton College.

The real moment came after the talk when I managed to ask a question from Johnston on the way walking out of college. Continue reading “Reading Mark Johnston: the problem of leftover, future personites and open lifespan”

Live every day as if you were ten times older: 10X principle for an Open Life

Previously on this blog:

Open Lifespan is open-ended, indefinite lifespan. I will also call it, simply ‘Open Life’. Open lifespan is based on open healthspan a technological possibility to counteract ongoing biological aging processes in the human body, to keep age-associated functional decline and increasing mortality continuously at bay.

Currently we all live a closed life but let’s assume open healthspan and ask: Instead of ‘Live every day as if it were your last’ how about ‘ live every day as if you were 10x older’?

What do I mean by that? Amongst the things you do during your regular days there should be times planned and spent, relevant and sustainable enough even for your ten times older self. Not the whole day, but parts and portions of it.

Why?

Continue reading “Live every day as if you were ten times older: 10X principle for an Open Life”

Life extension is dead, long live the Open Lifespan!

‘Life extension’, the concept and term, just does not cut it anymore.  For one, for many (count mainstream media here) it sounds like luxury, but more like the luxury of an extended life sentence in a jail on a private island, built for the mega-rich. A guarded, gated, closed community. Artificial and extra. Not something that is enriching your current life. Not something that gives you principles and grounds meaning and carry values in your life. Not something that invites constructive discussion about ethics and morals.

‘Longevity’ is a good concept but add the term ‘extreme’ or ‘radical’ to ‘longevity’ and suddenly people not exposed to the concept before in details (most people) turn a bit suspicious and the conversation is going to be rigged.

Meet ‘Open Lifespan’. Open lifespan is open-ended, indefinite lifespan. I will also call it, simply ‘Open Life’. It is the opposite of our current, closed lifespan. But it is also very far from being an infinite lifespan and conceptually it has not much to do with immortality.

Open lifespan is based on open healthspan a technological possibility to counteract ongoing biological aging processes in the human body, to keep age-associated functional decline and increasing mortality continuously at bay.

Continue reading “Life extension is dead, long live the Open Lifespan!”