In part 1 I introduced 3 kinds of conservative dispositions or attitudes, following G.A. Cohen.
- Valuing the valuable -> Particular Valuing
- Valuing the valued -> Personal Valuing
- Accepting the given
In part 2 I mentioned 4 different arguments in the context of Particular Valuing that can be formulated for the ongoing and unending preservation of individual human lives:
- The pan-conservative argument: Valuing all actual, existing entities in general,
- The pan-biological conservative argument: Valuing all actual, existing biological lives in general,
- The pan-human, weak anthropocentric, conservative argument: Valuing all actual, existing human lives,
- The ecological diversity argument: Valuing all actual, existing, living instances of ecological diversity.
In part 2 I worked out the first, most general pan-conservative argument in detail.
Today we discuss the more specific pan-biological conservative argument: Valuing all actual, existing biological lives in general. Continue reading “Open Lifespan as conservatism: a defence of human life as existing value, part 3: particular valuing, the pan-biological argument”
Several friends of mine, ones I respect a lot, recommended me to read Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow by Yuval Noah Harari. I was told Harari writes about the potential of longevity technologies lengthening healthy lifespan. I decided to give it a go and purchased the book for GBP 6.99.
My main reference is the ‘Immortality’ section of Homo Deus called The Last Days of Death. That is and was plenty enough.
1. Immortality vs Open Lifespan
The last Days of Death chapter opens with:
In the 21st century humans are likely to make a serious bid for immortality.
Stop right there: Harari thinks the term ‘immortality’ captures the human quest of continuously lengthening biologically human, healthy lifespan.
With in opening like this Harari is conceptually instantly closing the serious discussion of this topic by falling into the Immortality Trap. Continue reading “Yuval Noah Harari caught in the Immortality Trap: how to frame Open Lifespan poorly”
Anthropocentrism is also known by other names as humanocentrism, human-centeredness or human exceptionalism. It has something to do with attributing a special significance to humans in the universe.
According to the Environmental Ethics entry
of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy strong anthropocentrism
only assigns intrinsic value to human beings alone. So intrinsic value, whatever it would be, is captured in absolute terms and applied only to humans.
In weak anthropocentrism value assignment gets relative and quantitative by human beings representing greater amount of intrinsic value than any non-human things.
Ecological thinkers and environmental ethicists have a rather easy job finding traces of anthropocentrism in the works of canonical thinkers of Western philosophy.
Object-oriented ontology also attacks and rejects anthropocentrism and moves away from epistemological approaches.