CHAPTER IX
144
When people blithely assert that they "wouldn't want to live forever," it usually means only that they have not really thought about it.
The disclaimers fall perhaps into two main categories. The first concerns alleged moral considerations. "When I'm called, I'm ready to go. . . . We have to step aside for our children.
We shouldn't impose ourselves on posterity. . . . Trying to hang on beyond our natural span is undignified and cowardly. . . . Birth, growth, and death form a natural and necessary cycle. . . . Fear of death is a sign of immaturity.
As far as "imposing ourselves on posterity" is concerned, some remarks have already been made, and a good deal more will be said in the last chapter. At this point it may be well just to insert a reminder that the freezer program should make everybody less desperate and the world more stable; it may even swing the balance in preventing a nuclear war. If this is true, then without the freezer program there may be no posterity. In that case, our descendants need it as much as we do.
When someone continues to insist that he would not want unlimited life, he is often wearing a mask which can be lifted by putting the question just a little differently. Let us ask first: "In case of a severe infection, would you refuse penicillin to stave off the 'natural' conclusion of death?" He can hardly claim he would. We ask next: "If a serum were to appear on the mar-
145
ket, guaranteed to add twenty vigorous years to your life, would you refuse it?" He is not likely to say he would, nor would he refuse a perfected immortality serum.
And now we see his true face: he wants immortality, all right, at he wants it on a silver platter. It is not life he objects to, at effort and risk. Far from being stoic, or resigned, or well- adjusted, or complacent, or mature, or philosophic, or self effacing, or altruistic, or any of the other dignified things he pretends to he, he is merely myopic and nervous.
A slightly different way to unmask such a person is simply ask him what span of life he would pick, if he could make his own choice merely by wishing. Would he pick exactly his "natural" span, neither more nor less? Would he willingly accommodate himself to whatever accident or ailment would do him in, in the ordinary course of events, seeking neither to shorten nor prolong his life? Merely to ask these questions reveals the absurdity affirmative answers.
The notion that superior personalities accept death more readily has also been denied, for example, by Dr. C. Knight Aldrich, chairman of the department of psychiatry at the University of Chicago. He writes:
"However, my experience, both clinical and extra-clinical, suggests that it is particularly difficult for the strong, well-integrated personality to accept with equanimity the idea of his own death.
"Strength of personality may help a patient not so much to void depression in anticipation of death as to conceal depression in others. On the other hand, many patients who seem to accept death with real equanimity have depressions that antedate their fatal illnesses or they have lost interest in living as a result of pain or disability. Their apparent realistic courage indicates that they have given up life and are welcoming death. Death can be faced more readily if there is little to lose by leaving life than there is a great deal to lose." (1)
146
A few of my friends have expressed fear that the cowards will embrace the freezer program most eagerly, while the brave and the dignified may spurn it. This notion seems to be negated, not only by the theoretical considerations already put forward, but also by observation. Among the many who have talked and written to me, it is by and large the weak and timid who hang hack - is it not the nature of the weak and timid to hang hack? - while the strong and hold spirits usually seize the concept with delight. Only those embrace death who are half dead already. The ones who surrender are those who are already in retreat.
Disclaimers in the second category question whether extended life is worth while, even to the individual. "I've had a full life. I'm already bored and couldn't endure a second life. I wouldn't like a futuristic world. . . . There would be nothing to do. . . . I wouldn't fit in Etc.
The main difficulty is that few people have the remotest conception of what the future will he like; they think of it dimly as mid-twentieth century, plus maybe sliding sidewalks, family helicopters, and a twenty-hour work week. They fail to understand that the differences will be qualitative as well as quantitative.
In particular, they completely fail to grasp that people will be different, including themselves. Mental qualities, including both intellectual power and personality or character, will be profoundly altered, not only in our descendants but in ourselves, in you and me, the resuscitees.
That genetic science will enable us, sooner or later, to mould our children as we please seems almost taken for granted by the experts and by all laymen with a spark of imagination. We might for example quote Dr. Philip Siekevitz:
"For I think we are approaching the greatest event in human
147
history, even in the history of life on this earth, and that is the deliberate changing by man of many of the biological processes. ... Already we can very easily produce mutants in bacterial strains; we will soon be able to control these changes; and it is not such a big jump from bacteria to plant, to animals, or to man himself . . . we will be able to plan ahead so that our children will be what we would like them to be - physically and even mentally." (105)
Some of us may suspect that from uncontrolled mutations in bacteria to controlled mutations in man really is a pretty big jump, and it may take quite a while. But time, fortunately, is what we have plenty of. Sooner or later, these achievements will be realized. Professor Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner in genetics, has said: "I am convinced that he [man] will remake himself [genetically] . . . we may attain to modes of thought and living that today would seem inconceivably god-like." (76)
Such breath-taking predictions are readily accepted by many intelligent laymen - but only as interesting speculations of no direct concern. These notions take on entirely different colours when we realize that we, personally, may be there to witness these titanic events - and that we will have to deal with these supermen.
What will they be like, these genetically planned and engineered descendants of ours?
On the physical side, they will be strong, handsome, and healthy, but beyond this it is impossible yet to say. They may look almost exactly like people today, or they may not; certainly the current human design leaves plenty of room for improvement.
For example, Professor Muller has pointed out the absurdity a multi-purpose mouth. "[An alien] would find it most remarkable that we had an organ combining the requirements of
148
breathing, ingesting, tasting, chewing, biting, and on occasion fighting, helping to thread needles, yelling, whistling, lecturing, and grimacing. He might well have separate organs for all these purposes, located in diverse parts of his body, and would consider as awkward and primitive our imperfect separation of these functions." (78)
While Dr. Muller may have stretched it a little-not all of us want to separate our yelling from our lecturing, and a special organ to thread needles will find few buyers even in a ladies' sewing circle-the point is surely well taken. Imagine the incalculable benefit in teen-age happiness alone, if one could eat, chew gum, and talk on the telephone, all at the same time- without the danger of strangling!
But the great changes will be those in intellect and personality. And if our descendants are all super-duper whiz kids, even if they are kind and good, how can we compete? How can we live? The problem is real, but there are solutions.
One solution, of course, is to refuse to breed supermen. Such issues will be hotly debated in all the parliaments of earth, with unpredictable results. But probably the issue will fade, for several reasons.
In the first place, we will not necessarily be resuscitated the moment it becomes technically feasible, unless we insist. If it should happen that at this time genetic improvement is far advanced but individuals cannot yet be much improved, then resuscitation may be delayed, conceivably.
Second, even if for a time we have to live with superior descendants, a modus vivendi may be found. There will be means for reducing envy on the one hand and arrogance on the other, and for enabling the individual to enjoy what he has; more will be said about this shortly. It is also important to remember that no disadvantage need be permanent; we can no doubt summon
149
considerable patience when we know that we only have to wait a while, and science will improve us further.
Third, we shall probably be supermen ourselves shortly after resuscitation. Somatic improvement may stay abreast of, or get ahead of, genetic improvement. Designing a new model will not necessarily be easier than overhauling the old. It should be- come possible to perform extensive improvement in living individuals by various biological techniques, for example, using regeneration together with somatic mutation, microsurgery, and psychosurgery.
Besides biological changes, there is also vast potential in the use of prostheses, mental as well as physical - for example, by coupling a human mind to an electronic computer. Some different suggestions, but in the same general direction, have been made by Dr. R. M. Page, Director of Research, U. S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington; he envisages ultra-rapid communication between man and machine by a sort of electronic mind-reading, and thinks it might be achieved in fifty years. (85) Thus all the resources of a huge computer may some day be in the direct service of a man's mind; it might even be said to be part of his mind, when hooked in on either a temporary or permanent basis. The man-machine combination may well be far superior to any purely biological superman, in which case we shall be immediately equal to our descendants.
The best advice for success in life has always been to choose your parents wisely; and now, in effect, this will become possible. Collectively, if not individually, we can expect to design ourselves, selecting the desired traits and abilities. Of course, the alarmists will protest that there may be unforeseen consequences, and such presumption is dangerous. And we must agree; that it is. But we can only choose between dangers, and not escape them. Doing nothing also constitutes a choice, and often a poor one. (Stock market players often forget that every day they hold
150
a stock they have, in effect, except for overhead, made a new decision to buy that stock in preference to all others.)
Living has always been dangerous; and now, for the first time, dying will be dangerous too. But most of us will prefer the danger of our activities after resuscitation to the safety of no activity at all.
Just what our activities may be in the world of the future is not easy to picture. At least for a considerable period, there will still be economically productive work in the form of scientific investigation, administration, education, and many kinds of artistic endeavour. There will be many activities involving human relations which, although perhaps not economically productive, will give that "needed" and "useful" feeling; for example, taking an interest in your children's or parents' troubles, or participating in politics. Certain simple pleasures are likely to wear quite well - things like exercising the muscles and glands, playing with the children or great-grandchildren, enjoying the lakes and forests.
This may seem rather thin at first. For instance, how many people can be painters, or writers, or composers, or sculptors? The answer is, maybe everybody! Nobody will be stupid-not by today's standards, and probably not by tomorrow's, since there is likely to be more homogeneity. There will simply be more artists and smaller average audiences. I'll buy your painting, and you'll buy my music; and each will enjoy doing his own work, and each will appreciate the other's.
If this still sounds unconvincing, we can help make our point with a well-known and venerable story. A communist was exhorting an audience of laborers: "Comes the Revolution, you'll eat strawberries and cream." One worker objected, "But I don't like strawberries and cream." The agitator glared at him. "Comes the Revolution, you'll like strawberries and cream!"
The skeptics must be continually reminded that not only will the world be changed, but themselves also both their ability to
151
perform and their capacity to appreciate and enjoy. There are al ready many forerunners of these developments.
There is now considerable use - sometimes excessive use-of tranquilizers on the one hand and "psychic energizers" on the other. Mood is known to be related to hormone and enzyme balance. Depression and anxiety can often be relieved by such drugs as epinephrine and adrenochrome, and many other drugs are known to affect personality. Furthermore, many common mental disorders may be at least partly chemical in nature; e.g., schizophrenia seems to be related to the production of a substance called taraxein. (43)
Some of the future potentialities have been indicated by Dr. A. Hoffer and Dr. R. Humphrey Osmond, Canadian psychiatric researchers: "Psychopharmacology may help us learn how to think clearly however distracting personal and other calls may he, without however preventing us from indulging, when we need it, in the boldest imaginings. Such capacities developed in an increasing number of our species would be as effective as a beneficial mutation and we think, far more easily achieved." (43)
Elsewhere, in discussing experiments with "psychedelic" or "mind-manifesting" drugs, Dr. Hoffer writes: "Thought becomes creative, one's horizons are widened, and the world and its problems are seen with a fresh eye. . . . Over half of our patients who achieve a psychedelic experience are subsequently much better people. For example, out of more than half of a series of sixty alcoholics treated in this way over one-half are now sober and good citizens and certainly much happier than they were before. Volunteers who have experienced this type of reaction find to their surprise and pleasure that they are more mature, more tolerant, and have a broader outlook on life." (42)
Some progress has been made in tracing motivation, as well as sensation, to local centres in the brain, according to Dr. James Olds, physiologist at U.C.L.A. It appears that rats can be made
152
to gratify the drives of hunger, thirst, digestion, excretion, and sex by self-stimulation of their brains with electricity. (The rats were allowed to manipulate controls which turned on the current, the electrodes being inserted in suitable regions in the brain; the technique is called ESB, for Electronic Stimulation of the Brain.) The report says that "Some of the animals have been seen to stimulate themselves for twenty-four hours without rest and as often as 5,000 times an hour." (84)
This is in some ways an obscene experiment, with sinister overtones. (The same may be said of many biological experiments.) But it underscores the possibility of finding "happiness" partly by working on oneself, rather than by working on the environment.
Professor Rostand has also emphasized the possibilities in improving individuals. ". . . intelligence . . . also character can be affected by chemical dosing . . . The future may bring the use of medicines that would favour social behaviour, kindness and devotion . . . the possibility cannot be excluded that there may come into being a psychosurgery whose aim would be to raise the individual above himself. . . ." (95)
I would go further than the cautious optimism of these scientists and say that, given enough time, these dazzling developments and many others have a high degree of probability.
But even if one grant all this, there remain the questions of long-range goals, of fundamental values and motivations, of the nature of happiness. If we dare face immortality, must we not also face the profoundest problems of man and the universe?
It is possible we shall never be able to find "ultimate" values or "ultimate" goals. It is also possible that there are built-in conflicts or paradoxes in the human mind on the deepest level, so that in
153
the end tragedy cannot be avoided. Not every problem has a solution.
At present, however, such speculations seem all but futile. We are too raw even to frame proper questions, let alone understand the answers. The very structure of our brains may need improvement before we can apprehend the secrets of the cosmos.
Eventually, most "philosophical" problems may turn out to be biological. Dr. Jonas Salk has written, "If we can study CNS [central nervous system] phenomena according to those biological principles that have been shown to be applicable to other systems, a basis for reconsidering behaviour in biologically meaningful terms may emerge, which then by empirical means may expand further our understanding of the CNS of man and all that flows therefrom: behaviour, creative activity, motivation, values, responsibility, and the intangible qualities of personality reflected in reactions, choices, aptitudes, and attitudes." (96)
When a humane, progressive, cooperative society has been achieved, the purpose of life will be learning and growth - the disclosure and then the attainment of ever more advanced intermediate goals, until either the final goal (if any) is revealed, or some catastrophe overtakes us.
During this grand unfolding, "happiness" in private and peripheral affairs will no doubt rest on a compromise between internal and external satisfactions. Few of us would want the contentment of a narcotic stupor, or an ESB jag, on a permanent basis. Likewise, ignorance may be bliss, but who would want the "happiness" of a cow-or even of a bull? Yet, judiciously used, chemistry and surgery can exert a beneficial stabilizing influence. On the external side, there will be an ever widening range of activities, including some we have not yet thought about.
To some, this may appear remote and gray. Actually, the canvas of the future shows blinding colour and riotous excitement. Remember, once again, you and I will not be the same, but en-
154
larged and enriched, equipped fully to appreciate these words of Thomas Huxley: "If there is anything I thank the Gods for (I am not sure there is, for as the old woman said when reminded of the goodness of Providence - 'Ah but he takes it out of me in the corns') it is a wide diversity of tastes. . . No one who has lived in the world as long as you and I have can entertain the pious delusion that it is engineered upon principles of benevolence. . . . But for all that, the Cosmos remains always beautiful and profoundly interesting in every corner - and if I had as many lives as a cat I would leave no corner unexplored." (45)