Transhumanism does not require immortality

True Transhumanism part 4

Transhumanism is often associated with the pursuit of immortality. I am not going to argue that this is entirely mistaken. In contrast to some transhumanists I avoid using the term – at least without clear qualifiers. I will distinguish between meanings of “immortality” and explain why I resist the term. Finally, I argue that transhumanism is compatible with immortality but does not require it or depend on it being achievable.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s I wrote a column for Cryonics magazine titled “Immortalist Philosophy.” These columns investigated aspects of the philosophy of personal identity, leading up to my doctoral dissertation on the topic, published in 1995. These delved into issues of mortality, immortality, the nature of death, and the meaning of life, in pieces such as “Deathism and Immortalism.” in Cryonics #128, Vol.12, No.3, March 1991 and “Individualism, Awareness of Death, and Immortalism” in March 1992. I also discussed the role of technological prediction, the rights of AI and augmented persons, and the idea of uploading.

Although I have used the term “immortality”, I have not done so for around 25-30 years. Even back then I defined immortalism as “the belief in the desirability of, and a striving for, an unending life” and I talked of “the pursuit of immortality”. These imply immortality as a goal – something to move toward – but not necessarily a goal that is fully achievable. Aim at immortality and you might end up with a thousand or millions years of life but death still lurks and lunges.

It also true that many transhumanists use the I-term. I know of no survey that investigates how many transhumanists favor vs. resist the term. I have been trying to persuade my I-using colleagues to drop the term with modest success but the term definitely remains in use. There is even an “Immortality Institute” which, though not explicitly transhumanist, surely includes those who would use that label.

Also true is that important precursors to transhumanism used the term. I am thinking of the Western and the Chinese alchemists for whom immortality was one of a few central goals. We have achieved their goals of flight and – at great expense – transmutation of elements. Immortality remains a work in progress.

Before we can decide how appropriate or unhelpful this term is, we must first distinguish between senses of the word. In doing so, I found it useful to create a couple of new terms.

Types of immortality

Biological Immortality: The least objectionable version of immortality is biological immortality. This is a term used by biologists to refer to a state in which the rate of mortality from senescence is stable or decreasing. It is a condition in which an organism does not age, or in which repair and rejuvenation processes keep up with aging processes. Biologically immortal species such as the jellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii do not die of age.

Given that “biological immortality” is accepted in biology I cannot object to it strongly. Unfortunately, there is no single word for it that clearly distinguishes it from other kinds of immortality. I have no beef with transhumanists talking about immortality so long as it is clearly specified as biological immortality. This is something that we know exists in the animal kingdom. We can probably achieve it, given enough time and research.

[Biological immortality] is something that we know exists in the animal kingdom. We can probably achieve it, given enough time and research.

Despite scientific acceptance of the term, it has been challenged (see the Handbook of the Biology of Aging) because it can be a weak kind of immortality, not fitting long-established uses of the term. An organism can be biologically immortal because they experience a negligible increase in the rate of aging at very old ages. In other words, the increase in the mortality rate may be negligible or zero. This is often referred to as the late-life mortality plateau.

It is not much of a comfort to know that your mortality rate is no longer increasing if it is already exceedingly high when you reach the plateau! The mortality rate may stop increasing when it reaches 50% per year, but your odds of surviving even a few more years are poor. That is why I prefer not to use the I-word even with the biological qualification.

Superimmortality: We never have to die. Either we are practically invulnerable or we are backed up in multiple places so the chances of being completely destroyed are vanishingly small. (In fiction, a good example of this is Marvel’s Eternals. Their bodies can be destroyed but their personalities are maintained and reembodied using Celestial technology.) Super-immortality is also the kind that gods are supposed to have. (They may also have the next kind, although religious texts do not typically address this.) It could also refer to supernatural or religious immortality, although presumably God could terminate your existence. Apparently, in parts of superpower fandom this is called “absolute immortality.” I will stick with superimmortality because absolute immortality does not distinguish between this and the next kind.

Superimmortality as a prospect for humans (or the posthumans we may become) requires accepting certain philosophical views about personal identity. Absolute invulnerability probably only exists in comics. However, we might overcome the lack of total invulnerability by backing up our personalities and having a mechanism to reinstantiate that personality in a new physical embodiment.

If you consider personal survival to require psychological continuity rather than physical continuity, then superimmortality might be achievable or approachable by using backups. Mathematician and self-described immortalist Michael Perry has calculated the requirements for surviving indefinitely in this way. A sufficiently long gap between backups could mean that a large part of your personality is destroyed and “you” are reset to an earlier stage. Depending on the extent of the gap and difference between stored personality and most recent personality, you could consider this partial death.

Hyperimmortality: We might also call this ultraimmortality. This is the scary kind of immortality, um, immortalized in literature. This is eternal existence with no exit. You will live forever whether or not you want to. You cannot die. I agree this “no exit” state is a nightmare state. The confusion of this form of immortality with other forms is a big part of people’s dislike of the term.

Two classic sources portray this disturbing type of immortality. In old myths, Tithonus is the lover of Eos, goddess of the dawn. Eos asked Zeus to give Tithonus immortality. Eos, lacking in foresight, forgot to ask for eternal youth. Zeus, being a dick, grants the request and poor Tithonus lives on but gets older and older and ever more debilitated and demented. This has been called The Tithonus error.

…but when loathsome old age pressed full upon him, and he could not move nor lift his limbs, this seemed to her in her heart the best counsel: she laid him in a room and put to the shining doors. There he babbles endlessly, and no more has strength at all, such as once he had in his supple limbs.

Similarly, in Jonathan Swift's 1726 satirical novel Gulliver’s Travels, the struldbruggs do not die but they do continue aging. We see a reflection of this fear in the opposition to anti-aging research which stupidly assumes that we want to extend life without regard for its quality. Some anti-aging advocates therefore prefer to talk of extending healthspan rather than lifespan.

Problems with immortality

My major problem with using the I-word is that it groups together different concepts, one of which is deeply unappealing. Hyperimmortality is perhaps incompatible with transhumanism which embodies the push to expand our options. If someone has in mind hyperimmortality, your use of the I-term will elicit negative reactions. To the extent to which people associate anti-aging with hyperimmortality, they will oppose it.

Another major reason I avoid immortality is its religious connotations. One of the core purposes of religion is to protect us psychologically from the realization of our mortality. Cheer up! Death isn’t really death. This approach turns away from reality in order to sooth our existential fear. Avoidance does not help us solve the problem. Yes, we can avoid this conflation by talking of biological or physical immortality. Even so, the connection to religious belief is strong and taints rational efforts to push back aging and death.

Non-religious transhumanists will be tempted into something approaching the religious dogma of immortality. The prospect of personal extinction and the extinction of everyone we love will tempt us to pull back from uncertainty and proclaim that, come the Singularity, we will be immortal. No ifs or buts. This is too falsely certain for me. It could also encourage passivity. If we are certain to conquer the ultimate enemy, why should we work toward the goal?

Finally, I dislike the word because it is too easy to make the “immorality” typo! This is not the most profound objection, but I find it insidious and annoying.

Transhumanism and immortality

Transhumanism is a striving to perpetual improvement in oneself and for everyone who wants it. Biological immortality is a sensible and feasible goal. We can also strive toward superimmortality. Whether we can get all the way there is a matter of debate. Since transhumanism is a philosophy that recommends a push for longer and healthier life without limit, it is obviously compatible with some forms of immortality but does not require them. We can be transhumanist even if we expect immortality in any form to be out of reach.

In the end, whether you like the immortality word or not, let us agree to do all we can to defeat aging and biological death. Fight the eternal enemy. Push it back and back until death becomes an unfamiliar face, invading only on the rarest of occasions.