(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Currently I am reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

Among other things, this book has me contemplating the ethics of longevity treatment. At this point, the prospect of a gene-based therapy to stave off the effects of aging appears to be more of a matter of when as opposed to if. The implications of this are far-ranging and deserve attention.

[Poll #254699]

Comments

[t-head.livejournal.com]

First, let's pretend I'm Spinoza. And that a quasi-mathematical ethics proof is not entirely preposterous prima faciae.

Let N be the net effect of existence of a longevous person on an entity's wellbeing.
Thence,
... N(p) = effect of the longevous person on themselves, by dint of their longevity
... N(!p) = effect of the longevous person on the non-longevous
... N(e) = effect of a longevous person on the environment, minus the effect they would have had they normal lifetimes.

Let k be the ratio in which the treatment extends a person's life and L be the ratio of people who undergo longevity treatment.

Then, the net gain/loss of wellbeing on a society of mixed longevity (S) of a given size R would be

S ~= R * ( k * L * ( N(p) + N(e) ) + ( (1-L) * N(!p) )

From which we can state that a affirmative effect can only be obtained if

- BOTH the N terms (N(e)) being most likely negative) are positive OR
- only N(p) is positive but L is sufficiently small AND k is sufficently large

In plain English, longevity is good if BOTH the methuselah better themselves AND make things better for non-methuselah. It's also acceptable if the methuselah live long enough so that their own added well-being outpaces the loss of well-being they cause others AND the ammount of methuselah is kept small.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Good thoughts. I can follow your train of thought, actually. I wonder, though, whether society would accept being divided into "methuselahs" and, um, "non-methuselahs." Why not, though? We seem to have evolved with a natural acceptance of aristocracy and social heirarchy.