Judge, Jury and Executioner Syndrome – Article by Arin Vahanian
Arin Vahanian
The topic of life extension seems to bring forth strong emotions from people. While living longer and healthier is a goal that nearly all people say they have, there are critics of life extension who have become quite vociferous in their opposition to extending the human lifespan. The truth is, living a longer and healthier life shouldnât be controversial at all. After all, it is what we humans have been trying to do since day one.
However, when the topic turns to living a healthy life indefinitely, critics seem to come out of the woodwork, citing various reasons why humans should not live radically longer. While each of the major objections to life extension deserves its own space (and its own rebuttal), one objection, in particular, is rankling in its lack of substance â that human beings already live long enough.
As ridiculous as this objection is, we need to address it, not only because of the amount of damage it does to humanity by limiting life-extension research, but also because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. People who present this objection have what I like to call âJudge, Jury, and Executioner Syndrome.â
I can’t imagine that people in the 14th century suffering and then dying from the Bubonic Plague at age 20 or 30 would have considered their life to have been âlong enough.â In the same way, nor could I imagine that someone would actually find declining and then dying from an aging-related disease such as dementia at age 75 to be desirable.
But how long is long enough? Is it 40 years, like it used to be in 19th-century England? Or is it 82 years, as it is in modern-day Japan? Or is it 100 years?
It is difficult to answer this question, because there is no correct answer to the question.
However, rather than going down a rabbit hole, the best way to answer such critics is to ask them why they get to decide how long people should live. Of course, they have no right whatsoever to decide how long the human lifespan should be. This should end the conversation right then and there, but sadly, in some cases, it does not.
To go further, one might want to ask these critics whether they believe their parents or grandparents, if they are still alive, have lived too many years and whether they would want them to die quickly because they have already lived âlong enough.â Or, even better, we should ask critics of life extension how many years they think their children should live (if they have children). Of course, no one, other than a psychopath, would wish such suffering and death upon their loved ones.
Therefore, it appears that people who oppose life extension on the basis that humans already live long enough, tend to only hold this view toward other people, and not themselves or their loved ones. This seems to me to be horribly cruel, not to mention illogical. However, we should not consider those who claim they are satisfied with the 82-year lifespan for themselves, as being nobler or more altruistic than other people. After all, they are still trying to play judge, jury, and executioner!
The argument that human beings already live long enough attacks the very core of what it means to be human. Human beings are designed to want to survive, and to continue living. Otherwise, we would have stopped trying to live longer a long time ago, and as a consequence, we would have stopped trying to find cures for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. The very fact that we are so dedicated to finding cures for conditions that have ravaged humanity is proof that we are dedicated to living longer and healthier. There is no rule that says that human beings can only live until 100 years old, or that they are not allowed to try to live longer.
Of course, just as no one may decide how long the human lifespan should be, neither should we force those who do not want to live longer and healthier, to live longer and healthier. This is a personal choice that everyone must make for themselves. But opponents of life extension do not have the right, nor do they have the ability, fortunately, to decide how long the human lifespan should be.
Even if there is some unalterable limit to how long a human lifespan can be, wouldnât it be better to come to this conclusion and obtain closure after conducting medical and scientific research, rather than hastily quitting, and in the process, damning all of humanity to pain, suffering, and death, solely to satisfy a falsely held belief that humans already live long enough?
I understand that no matter what I may be arguing in this article, there will always be people who do not want to live much longer and healthier than they do now, for whatever reason. While I respect their decision to not want to extend their own life, I also ask them to respect my wishes to live longer and healthier. Surely this seems like a fair position to take.
There is absolutely no reason at all to apologize for wanting to live a healthy life indefinitely. No one should be asking, âWhy do you want to live longer?â Rather, we should be asking, âHow can we live longer and healthier?â This sort of inclusive, optimistic, and honest approach will go a long way toward removing some of the obstacles to life extension, thus putting humanity just a bit closer to attaining what it has been seeking since the beginning of time â to live a longer, healthier life.
Arin Vahanian is the Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party.Â
One thought on “Judge, Jury and Executioner Syndrome – Article by Arin Vahanian”
Iâm glad to see you qualify your statement with âhealthyâ. After all, quality of life should come before quantity.
I think a lot of the concern comes from two sources. One is the rapid timeline that many life extension itâs advocate for. As you stated, extending our lives has been a primary goal for humanity since basically the origin of the species. Itâs also a de-facto goal for all living organisms in general. Itâs the most basic effort of life and evolution. We continue to make strides in curing and recovering from disease and age related deterioration. With any attempt to accelerate a process, there is an impulsive desire among some to resist it. Often times itâs a knee jerk reaction because they havenât been fully informed on what could be. And when we go into education mode we dump all the information on them at once, which can be overwhelming. The incremental timeline weâre in now moves at a pace most palatable for the general public.
Secondly, we must also acknowledge that many donât believe our bodies belong to us, but to a higher power. To many, extending life is playing god and highly offensive. This belief sets aside facts, and potential benefit for all, for faith and allows them to play executioner, intentionally or not, for others based on their personal views. This is much harder to combat, but is still happening in the tiniest of increments. Largely by medical force at this point, when these people eventually wind up in the hospital and are presented with options for their own self preservation. But do they modify their beliefs after the fact? Thatâs an important question that needs more investigation.