immortalist assumption ( absurdist )

actual goal of increased longevity

normal lifespan


The immortalist assumption, which I have taken as a given for most of my life
is absurd.  It is youthful folly.  Nonetheless, it is quite likely that I will
live far longer than my cohort, the implication being that an extrapolation 
towards the immortalist assumption may not be absurd.  What is the criteria
for absurdity in this case?  There are some obvious ones.

no estate planning
obsession with immortality

Some of these mistakes can actually be counterproductive to the goal of 
increased longevity, but the question remains.

Take supplements, as it were.   I take more supplements than is rationally
required to achieve the goal in a kind of shotgun approach.  The justifacation
for this approach is the perception that waiting for a better solution will 
only result in failure to achieve the goal.  This kind of thinking can be
taken to extremes which are counterproductive.  For example, maybe some of my
supplements actually shorten life span, but in my zeal I take them without
knowledge.  This is only an example, and there are very many ways in which
this tension plays out.

Another example would be estate planning.  An immortalist absurdly believes
that he will live forever, and prepares with a perpetually regenerating fund.
If he writes a will, it is based on the unfortunate fact that he might die 
accidentally.  

The decisions that are made in this matrix of tension and unknowledge are 
deeply colored by assumptions that are merely worldly.  For example, the 
perpetual fund is seen as an inate value, and supplementation is an 
expression of consumption and wealth, the extreme expression of which would be
cryonic suspension.  They are all profoundly selfish pursuits.

For contrast it is worth considering a more normative view.  Life span is 
determined by the average, and accidents are accounted for by the actuarie.
There is no need for a perpetual fund, because life span is defined, which 
frees funds for the present.  Supplementation, if undertaken at all is for 
improvement of the quality of life, and it would not be a sacrifice in any way.
A calculation would be made relative to comfort, wealth, and expected life
span in order to determine the correct and rational level of supplementation.
Every value is finite and defined.  Extensive estate planning is crucial, 
because time of death is a virtual known.

The normative view is limited by definition, and it has endured many 
generations.  It is delineated by cultural experience and statistics, because
the actual values are indeterminant, in that context.

Self preservation is also an ancient value, and longevity pursuit uses the 
best current knowledge to extend life.  Due to the expected exponential effect
of life extension, the expected life span is vastly indeterminant, though 
finite.  Thus an approach to the absurd immortalist position is consistent
with the ancient value and pursuit of self preservation as well as the fact
that the expected life span is far beyond the norm.  In my mind this indicates
that pursuit of a perpetual fund is worthwhile, and better than life insurance,
as it were.   The same argument is good for a rather extravagent use of 
supplements, as well as the more quotidian pursuits of exercise, healthy diet,
and good sleep.   The net effect is that the life extender is spending more 
on supplements, saving more, and trying to live a more frugal and healthy life
than the norm; all of which seems to add up to a happy end point.

The question remains as to how much effort should be diverted to unselfish 
pursuits.  In the norm, a generous person can plan for a defined amount, but 
in life extension this is not the case, and more sacrifice is required to 
be unselfish in the present.  In the long view, the life extender may do more 
good, if he is generous.

Underlying this whole discourse is the question of how much effort should be
diverted from worldly pursuits and banked on an afterlife.  Relatedly, what is
the relative value of the normative versus the extended contribution in the 
view that extends beyond death.  It is a dance with the unknown, which is 
also perhaps less known to the life extender.  I haven't gotten any closer to
an answer with this discourse, although I continue to theorize that good done
in the world is of greater worth.  This theory would be supported by the idea
that a greater measure of faith is clearly required to do good here amidst 
these vast unknowns, which are large compared to the most extended life span.