Seneca and an Example of Poor Use of Numbers

At Positive Liberty Ed Brayton, writing on age and lifespan notes:

Daniel Callahan, a conservative bioethicist, takes a stand against extending lifespans in his contribution to this debate but I frankly don’t think he really believes his position. For instance, he writes:

The Roman philosopher Seneca noted many centuries ago that “it is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it. Life is long enough, and a sufficiently generous amount has been given for the highest achievements if it were well-invested…. Life is long if you know how to use it.” Those words were written when the average life expectancy was 30 and one was considered was considered old at 40. He was right then and his words are still true today.

But if Seneca was right then, at a time when people only lived to be 40, why isn’t Callahan arguing against the vast range of medical advances that have already allowed us to extend human life spans to nearly twice that amount? At 77 years old, would Callahan actually wish not to have the last 35 years of his life? Does he believe that his last 35 years have been superfluous? [Note: When Originally posted the "blockquote" tags were misplaced and this paragraph appeared to be mine and not Mr Brayton's. That has been now fixed.]

Seneca it might be noted, lived to 67 years old in that age noted above “when people only lived to be 40.” The statistics of mortality in the last century have changed dramatically to medical science. However, it is very unhelpful to be completely disingenuous when one discussing these issues. The mortality curve for example hasn’t been a distribution for which the average has merely shifted over unchanged. The shape of the curve is qualitatively different. In Iron age societies average ages was about 25. In the wealth of Rome it was, if we take Mr Brayton’s “data” 40. Today in the wealthy nations, that average it is above 70. However, some few people regularly lived to 70 or 80 throughout history. However, today one might note the relative scarcity of people reaching 200-300 years old (and nobody I think is arguing that is only because the modern medicinal era is so young). Specifically the “tail” hasn’t moved very much with the average.

This argument, “Does he believe that his last 35 years have been superfluous?” is precisely the same as the argument sometimes offered in the abortion arena by the pro-life advocates asking to find an individual who, having not been aborted would have preferred abortion had been done on him to avert the fact of their life.

Mr Brayton offers exactly two arguments for radical life extension. The first is above and has the same flaws as it does in the abortion debate. The second is the argument of the happy (and young), i.e., Why should not one with to remain young and happy forever? I think a bland reply to that might be, “Do you want ponies with that, too?” Radical life extension is a radical change to what it means to be human and consequently to human society and culture. How, one wonders, can one not realize that?

There is however, a good point is buried here, I think. Today, in the presence of modern medicine 2.1 children per couple is required by a culture for it’s population to remain stable. The additional “.1″ is currently the number which was required because of infant and early mortality. In the Iron and Roman ages a small fraction was not sufficient by any means. Typically this number needed to be much greater, I’m just guessing but probably more like 4-8 births per couple to insure a stable population. There is good and bad in this story, but ultimately the good (in this part of the story) outweighs the bad. That is:

• To the good, children and large families are a blessing. Children are a blessing. Contrast gatherings with dozens of cousins, aunts, uncles and so on with the modern European ghastly demographic of 1 child per couple which as consequence means exactly no uncle(s), no aunt(s), and neither kin nor cousins (just 2 parents and 4 grandparents and one child comprise the entire extended family).
• To the bad, well, death was common, e.g., Kindertotenlieder by Mahler (Lied Mahler Lieder Song Cycles) (Kindertotenlieder roughly translates as songs for dead children, in the 19th century and before that every family would bury one or more children was the rule not the exception).

The buried point I alluded to, is that today 2.1 or the married couple with 2 children is the norm and that might an unfortunate byproduct of modern medicine and other modernizations.

In general, modern medicine is throwing issues and things to consider for ethical and societal consideration fast and furious. Attempting to kill debate and discussion on these issues is, to put it bluntly, evil. This could be an interpretation of the remarks such as “I can’t imagine a coherent response” in the light of discussions on this. What we don’t need are more people who put out one side or the other as the only reasonable or coherent view. What we need are good attempts to gather the best discussions from all sides to provide resources for people to make intelligent choices.

Mr Brayton, who is if I recall a Deist and not Christian, apparently does not know Christian eschatology for he notes:

For someone who believes in heaven, this may seem a rational response. And of course, no one is suggesting that they be forced to extend their life (except, perhaps ironically, the very people who would make this argument, since they generally overlap with those who oppose even passive, voluntary euthansia). But for someone like me who sees no reason to believe that there is an afterlife, this argument is simply not a compelling one.

Christians it might be noted, do precisely hope (and recall Pope Benedict likens faith as the hypostasis of hope) for what Mr Brayton wishes for, e.g., everlasting life here on earth with happiness. It’s just that Christians think that is not something that humans will achieve. If one recalls via the Creed of Nicea, ” We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” For it is not a life “in heaven” for which we hope. It’s just that an everlasting life in sin and without theosis is not thought to be good. It’s not so much that we look for death and welcome it, however our death is to be witness (which is the original meaning of the word martyr). The Christian position on extending quality of life is that this is good. The position on radical life extension, I’d think, would be it is a bad thing because men and our society is so broken and evil that it’s not going to help and furthemore it’s something we already have been promised.