Argument One : When We Become Able To Extend Our Lives We Won’t Be “Human”.
Response – as opposed to what? We will be “florgubs” – the odd species that emerged when humanity became immortal? “Florgubs” what used to be the human species, but now they are known by a different name? And when humans stop being humans (and go by another name) will they magically change into something completely different? No Annalee goes even further (and makes a spectacle of herself) – she postulates that those who are immortal look like this:
…which would rather defeat the purpose. My version of Immortal looks a bit more like this:
So what’s this odd prejudice? Is it a human fear of some sort of fundamental change? Say, “what will become of humans when they fly” ? Well – as soon as humans fly their mortal souls will be left behind… and they wil be left changed. Because that is what people believed once and used as an argument to oppose human flight (or any travel at a high speed for that matter).
I declare this argument not erely bunk, but positively ludicrous.
Argument Two : Whatever Body You’re In, There You Are.
Another disingenious, relativist idea, and one I loathe with every fiber of my being. This assertion is an insult to millions of people with a disability. The argument states : it does not matter one iota what body you have, healthy or sick, sane or insane, hideous or beautiful – because you’ll be stuck with the same old crap. This is a morally reprehensible argument. My point is – if we all had healthier bodies, humanity would have to find a new category of people to hold in contempt. The argument more or less implies that ‘inadequate, flawed people’ are necessary. I’d call this a completely evil argument.
3. Our Augmented Bodies And Minds Will Be Hackable.
And they aren’t already? They are and we call the hacking things like disease, rape, murder, brainwashing, religion, slavery, taxes. The statement that an artificial body will be just a relative change, and nothing will ever change is a self-defeating argument. I could use this argument in precisely the reverse manner – I could say “It doesn’t matter if we improve our bodies, because even if we do, we can still be hacked, like we can now” – and what point will the argument have made? Precisely, nothing.
4. We’ll have to deal with the immortality divide.
The argument suggests – so what if some have access to life extension and immortality, and others do not? … and this is an argument against life extension? Well, to me the argument is FOR life extension. Because in the real world, if we can we will. Which means, we should make doubly sure that life extension is not artificially constrained or limited or forced into an unaccountable black market niche – I’d want life extension nationalized, mass produced and available for as many people as we can make it available to – to make doubly sure some sinister elite doesn’t sneak past any laws society would aim to implement. We can’t afford small, unaccountable sinister immortal elites.
The article is one massive orgy of straw man fallacies. Actually I’d call it a deceitful argument.