Last August I wrote (critically, of course) about a $5 million grant given to the University of California at Riverside by the Templeton Foundation. The subject was “Immortality,” and the lucky recipient was philosophy professor John Fischer. If you read my earlier post on this, you’ll know that much of the Templeton money was earmarked for studying ludicrous questions, including whether near-death experiences give us plausible evidence for an afterlife (we already know the answer to that), and whether perpetual existence in an afterlife would be “repetitive or boring.”
This is what we’ve come to expect from Templeton. How much more good that money would do were it used to buy food for starving African children!
At any rate, UCR Today, the publicity organ of the University, announced yesterday that the Immortality Project has awarded its first essay prize to Steven Cave, a writer based in Berlin. You can see his essay, called “Death: Why we should be grateful for it,” on the New Scientist website (why is it there?) for free until August, though you have to register (a simple procedure requiring your name, email, and a password). It was published last October.
Although I know there are some readers who don’t mind dying, I’m not one of them. When I read this essay, I immediately thought of two quotes from Woody Allen (I’m recalling these from memory):
“I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work—I want to achieve it by not dying.
and
“I don’t mind dying. I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”
Cave’s essay, however, is meant to make a virtue of this necessity. Death, he argues, is a good thing, and for numerous reasons. Well, maybe it’s good because when you’re old, decrepit, and ill, you are ready to go. But in a world without death, that wouldn’t be the case, for death is the result of that decrepitude. (Cave doesn’t posit what shape we’d be in if we were immortal.)
Here are some of Cave’s arguments for why death is good (indented quotes are from the article):
. . . we work very hard to stave off death, to defy it for as long as possible or deny it altogether. All this frantic defiance and denial result in some of our greatest achievements.
This is perhaps most obvious when considering humanity’s material progress: agriculture, for example, was invented to give us the food we need to live. Clothes and buildings keep us warm and give us shelter, weapons allow us to hunt and defend ourselves, and medicine heals our sicknesses. The great majority of the material innovations that make up our civilisation are in essence life-extension technologies that we have been driven to invent by the spectre of oblivion.
Of all these achievements, perhaps the greatest is science. This, too, has always been motivated by the fear of death. Francis Bacon, the father of empiricism, described indefinite life extension as “the most noble goal”. He sacrificed his own life to the cause, dying of pneumonia contracted while attempting an experiment in cryopreservation involving a chicken and some snow. Science is the business of self-aware mortals – the gods would have no need of biochemistry.
This is almost religious in its blatant disregard of the facts. First of all, clothes, weapons, fire, buildings and agriculture weren’t contrived to stave off death, but to keep us comfortable. Those things would still have come about if we were immortal. After all, who wants to spend eternity shivering and starving?
Yes, some medicine was contrived to stave off death, but if we didn’t have death, we wouldn’t need that kind of medicine! This is like saying that cancer is good because it enabled us to develop chemotherapy.
Further, a lot of medicine came from a wish to alleviate conditions that don’t kill us, like migraine headaches, sinus conditions, and the like. As for the claim that “science. . has always been motivated by the fear of death,” that’s completely stupid. Really? Did quantum mechanics come about from fear of death? The theory of evolution and of chemical bonds? Where does Cave get such an idea? Where is his evidence?
But there’s more. Death didn’t just give rise to science, but to civilization and culture, too!
. . . Despite the best efforts of science and technology and the very real improvements in life expectancy that they have achieved, the terrifying prospect of death still hangs over us. That is why humans invented culture as well as material civilisation. Many thinkers, from Georg Hegel to Martin Heidegger, have suggested that its purpose is to reassure us that even though the body will fail, we will still live on.
Who is he kidding? Yes, as Cave notes, some people create in the hopes of immortality, but there are many other reasons for producing culture, including the simple need for self-expression. I doubt that the majority of artists or composers are driven more by the desire to leave something that will outlive them than to leave something that expresses their feelings and can be appreciated by their contemporaries. After all, when you’re dead you don’t experience any approbation! Does Cave seriously think that if we were immortal that there would be no civilization?
There is one part of the argument (not considered by the author) that may be true. If we were immortal, we wouldn’t have evolved into humans unless we had children, and natural selection for bigger brains—and hence culture—would have been much more difficult without differential mortality, i.e., death. There still would have been selection via differential fertility, of course, but even then the world would fill up with people and we’d all die. In that sense, and that sense alone, death is good for our species. But Cave doesn’t take this critical issue on board.
And there’s another elephant in the room: for many, the main motivation for religion is bodily death and the attendant hope that we’ll live on plucking our harps on a cloud. The knowledge that our physical death would produce an afterlife was a motivation, for instance, for the 9/11 episode. But somehow Cave manages to convert this into a positive, for afterlife isn’t what comes after our physical death, it is “the denial of death”:
. . . in over 400 studies, psychologists have shown that almost all aspects of our various world views are motivated by our attempt to come to terms with death. Nationalism, for example, allows us to believe we can live on as part of a greater whole. Sure enough, Greenberg and colleagues found that US students were much more critical of an anti-American writer after being reminded of their mortality. A further study, by Holly McGregor at the University of Arizona, showed that students prompted to think about death were not merely disapproving of those who challenged their world views, but willing to do violence to them in the form of giving them excessively large amounts of hot sauce (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 74, p 590).
These initial studies supported Becker’s bleak view that the denial of death is the route of all evil. It causes the creation of in-groups and out-groups, fosters prejudice and aggression, and stokes up support for wars and terrorism.
Of course, if we were immortal there would be no need to attack other people, for you couldn’t kill them! (If Cave thinks that we’d be naturally immortal, but still subject to death by violence, he doesn’t say so.) It is the realization of death, and the need to continue life on some other plane, that motivates religion. Were we immortal, I doubt we’d be so religious.
Cave goes on to tout the Pyramids and other touristic tombs as benefits of death, but really, if I could live forever, I’d gladly do without the Pyramids—though I’d miss the Taj Mahal.
Finally, and, as an evolutionary biologist, I find this to be the most ludicrous argument: Cave claims that our desire to reproduce stems from our fear of death. Having kids is a “terror management strategy”, giving us solace that we will live on through our children:
Socrates saw this 2000 years ago, arguing that much of what men do can be understood as a desperate attempt to immortalise themselves; women, he thought, could take the more direct route of having children. Several studies suggest he was right to see founding a family as a terror management strategy: one showed that German volunteers expressed a greater desire to have children when reminded of death; another that Chinese participants were more likely to oppose their country’s one child policy when similarly primed.
There’s one problem with this: animals and plants, who don’t know they’re going to die, have precisely the same drive to reproduce. This, of course, is the sine qua non of natural selection: it gives us the drive to reproduce because genes that promote such drives—and of course they needn’t operate through conscious knowledge—are those genes that persist. How much of our desire to have kids is based on our conscious knowledge of mortality, and how much is from our instinctive desire to reproduce, instilled by evolution, that is simply reified through consciousness? After all, many of our “conscious” decisions may simply be mental confabulations of things that our genes have already compelled us to do.
Cave ends up with a truly Templetonian positive conclusion:
Conscious death reminders, on the other hand, stimulate a more considered response, leading people to re-evaluate what really matters. The more we actively contemplate mortality, the more we reject socially imposed goals such as wealth or fame and focus instead on personal growth or the cultivation of positive relationships.
Orly? It seems to me that atheists are the ones who would be most likely to reject things like wealth and fame in favor of more meaningful goals. Does Cave really think that, in a world of immortals, we would strive far more avidly for wealth and fame than we do already.
There may be a good essay to be written on this topic, but Cave’s isn’t it. He doesn’t lay out the conditions of immortality, specify whether we could still be killed or grow feeble, or discuss the implications for natural selection. He ignores the fact that consciousness of mortality probably plays little role in our drive to reproduce, nor whether that drive is even a good thing in today’s overcrowded world. Finally, Cave doesn’t adduce the slightest bit of evidence that science, civilization, and culture spring largely from fear of death.
I don’t know how much money Cave got for his prize, but I suspect that, given Templeton’s largesse, it’s substantial. I look forward to further essays on why cancer, tsunamis, and strokes are good. Thank the Lord that He gave us death! That, after all, is probably the hidden Templetonian message behind the prize.
Living for ever with the human brain as it is would suck…!
I am not afraid of dying and I don’t think I’d want to live forever, but I’d certainly like to live a lot longer than the 80 odd years we’re allocated, especially if that meant no aging. In fact aging is worse than dying, I’d settle for just staying 25 physically until it came to die, except it’s only the decrepitude of aging that makes dying acceptable. Dying sucks.
The secret to old age is dying young as late as possible….
Practising a healthy lifestyle helps,but is obviously no guarantee.
I am a transhumanist. Even though I acknowledge prolonged lifespans are unlikely to be attainable in my lifetime. For me it’s really the conquest of aging that is the worthwhile goal, with anyone free to check out any time they have had enough. So I am really opposed to unwelcome death.
I am not sure if anyone would really choose to live forever. It would be interesting to have the choice though. It’s an awfully big Universe. It’s hard for me to imagine ever growing tired of it. Then there is all of cyberspace to explore – all the virtual worlds we could imagine.
My favorite quote on the subject is:
“Death is just Nature’s way of telling you it’s time to slow down”.
The ultimate form of “denial of death” is religion. There is no death … we only continue on another level. And yes, religion does create in-groups and out-groups, foster prejudice and aggression, and stokes up support for wars and terrorism.
Hard to quarrel with that. So far, so good.
Exactly. I was rendered momentarily speechless by the clueless irony there.
Once again, Sastra saves me the trouble of having to comment. I spotted the same glaring blind spot.
The question that arises is, which came first, religion as denial of death, or religion as power and control, with religious ethics (1. Appease the gods 2. Be not bad to each other) as a byproduct?
From the ancient burials arranged with ornaments as if for an afterlife, I’m inclined to think the former.
Well, the Elves in Tolkien’s stories are immortal (although they can be killed by violence), and yet they still have children, create art and culture,and do pretty much all the same things that their mortal neighbours the Men, Dwarves and Hobbits do. There: Cave’s whole argument is refuted.
Seriously: is this example of vacuous, self-serving special pleading ALL that’s required to win a large grant from the Templeton Foundation? If so, I really think I’m missing out here.
The really funny thing is that Tolkien’s universe is a much richer creation than the christian myths. Well, really, I guess that isn’t saying much. The same could be said for many of the fiction books you would find on a typical bookstore shelf.
That even well educated believers don’t or can’t see that is just one more example of how a good carny scam can fool peoples perceptions.
That’s not really a mystery to me. To get a huge fan base for a poorly written epic-sized story, you just have to start off by saying it’s based on a true story. Even the crappiest TV shows with the most uninteresting characters and nonexistent storylines will build a big audience if you claim they’re “reality”.
Honest fiction is harder to sell. It has to actually be good.
Tolkein, I would remind you, was a Roman Catholic. I think his mother converted…? I am sure there are clear elements of that in his work, though he was of course heavily influenced by his love of Finnish, Celtic & Germanic mythology.
I’ve been thinking that the best type of immortality is if I can take really long naps between periods of adventuring. For example, after fifty years or so of globe trotting, drinking beer, and reflecting on my own navel, I would hibernate for another fifty years and then start the whole process over again.
+1
One of the messages of self-help books, philosophies, and religions is that we strive to experience a feeling of transcendence, belonging to something ‘bigger’ than ourselves.
How chastening to consider that transcendence might be just a self delusion to cope with the thought of death.
“Yes, some medicine was contrived to stave off death, but if we didn’t have death, we wouldn’t need that kind of medicine! This is like saying that cancer is good because it enabled us to develop chemotherapy.”
This reminds me of a commenter on The Friendly Atheist a few weeks ago who claimed that the silver lining to 9/11 was better airline security.
Lemme restate that: She never invoked a silver lining. She specifically said it was GOOD because it made us safer.
Without death there would be no evolution.
Without evolution we’d all be mindless pond soup.
Hey Templeton, can I have my $5 million now?
Winner!
I think the vast majority of humans throughout history have been religious and thought some part of them to be immortal. And yet they do science, art, etc. anyway. Caves’ is one of those arguments that can be refuted by simply looking out the window and thinking about what you see.
Completely aside from the philosophy, the awarding process seems a bit hinky in this case. This guy already wrote a book on this subject. Either Templeton gave him an award for republishing his book in a series of essays (which is okay, if that is what they set out to do), or he’s using their award to do that on his own. But either way, no original thought is coming out of this award.
I find it odd that Cave didn’t also mention the very obvious link between the practise of surfing and that of stamp collecting as being a direct effect of the “goodness of death”.
I have always considered the specific size of the Templeton prize award that any particular non-religious recipient receives, as a direct measure of that particular recipients price of becoming a whore.
Classic case of a writer fitting the facts to his thesis, rather than his thesis to the facts.
The great thing about life is that sooner or later we all get over it. That does not stop a profound sadness when others ‘lose’ life before we might expect. I am thinking of a UCL scientist who was just killed in a bike accident (I did not know her), http://www.ucl.ac.uk/es/news/esnews/giles
but most people will think of examples they know of someone whose loss seems cruel. I say ‘seems’ because death is an indifferent process in an indifferent universe.
Steve Jobs said “Death is very vikely the best single invention of life. It Is Life’s Change Agent.”
http://www.cultofmac.com/121101/steve-jobs-death-is-very-likely-the-best-single-invention-of-life-it-is-lifes-change-agent/#xAfZpxoEbv9icQTW.99
We are only colonies of cells. There is a continuous line of cellular life leading from each of us, back to the very first cell/s. To talk about immortality is as meaningless as talk about fairies – a nice idea, but only an idea, nothing more.
I don’t think it is meaningless at all. The difference between dying of old age and not being susceptible of dying from old age would be very significant to people on an individual level and society as a whole. And prevention of death from old age certainly seems possible from our current level of understanding, though I won’t hold my breath.
Unless you mean specifically the magical type of immortality where you can’t die period. Then I would agree with you. But from a personal perspective, I still don’t think that death is a great thing. The Universe is indeed indifferent, but human beings are not.
You make death sound like a ‘disease’ that we can ‘cure’ – I think that immortality means exactly what it say – no death. You are just talking about an extended life longer than the norm.
?
That doesn’t sound like a very good interpretation of what I wrote above. I mentioned one specific cause of death, aging. Do you mean to imply that given our current level of understanding that it is highly improbable that we would ever be capable of modifying human biology so that aging no longer occurs? Or, do you mean to express contempt for people that think that pursuing that is worthwhile?
I had considered that that was what you meant. Which is why I wrote “Unless you mean specifically the magical type of immortality where you can’t die period. Then I would agree with you.”
However, I am perfectly fine with a usage of immortality as not susceptible to dying from old age, since that is a common usage these days.
Contempt? Certainly not! But I do wonder that while some will pursue this research, pointlessly I would say, if it were achieved what would it mean for society? Were I a moralist I would say this would be immoral. We already use far more resources than the Earth can sustain, ‘stealing’ from other species. Then who would get this long life -everyone? I somehow doubt it.
Couldn’t agree more about the moral issues and practical consequences. Change over short time frames is often very messy, and this would definitely count as a big change. But it is not likely that arbitrarily long life extension would happen suddenly. Very likely to happen incrementallly. Who knows, if it ever is accomplished we may already have solved some of the major issues that would be so exasperated by very long human life times. Or not.
I believe you have badly misused the word “colonies” in your phrase “colonies of cells.”
Your phrase does not add any illumination.
It’s similar to “We are all just billions of red cells that move oxygen from one place to another.” Descriptive, but, adds no perspective.
Hmmm… you are perhaps right. What I mean is that the germline has this ‘immortality’ or continuity, while most cells just support that – they grow divide or are replaced when they die but do not themselves take descendants to the next generation. A bit like a bee colony.
The nice thing with death, like gods, is that they aren’t present in life and therefore can be pointed at as behind the curtain. That is one reason why the abrahamistic cult of death is so successful.
As for immortality, it will be far shorter than people seem to think. The death rates of 20 years, not much affected by wear, is ~ 1/2000. So even if medicine would stave off immediate ageing, we will live to ~ 2000 years. We are far too mobile to live to 10 000s of years as some stationary plants and animals do.
But I guess 100s of year is enough to settle down a bit.
Didn’t Asimov play with some of these themes? His robots are effectively immortal, & the ‘Spacers’ live very long lives compared with earth men?
Heinlein explored long-lifers too. It’s often suggested that those with the potential to live a very long time would, by culture and reflection and sheer habit of years, tend to be very careful about crossing roads, trying new foods, doing drug deals, sitting with their backs to doors and such. There’s no reason to think death rates of 20-year-old moderns would apply.
There is magic immortality, but just how is that supposed to work? What prevents you from being killed when a 2000 lb bomb is dropped into your dining room while you are eating dinner?
Then there is “not so magic” immortality, which may actually be possible some day. You don’t age but, you can still die from disease or trauma. I can’t see any reason why evolution couldn’t work just fine given this type of immortality.
I do not want to die. There are way to many things to experience. 80 years or so is not even really enough time to properly prepare yourself for the grand adventure of existence.
“There is magic immortality, but just how is that supposed to work? What prevents you from being killed when a 2000 lb bomb is dropped into your dining room while you are eating dinner?”
I don’t know whether you live in the UK, but if so, and if you’re of a certain age, you may remember the late 60s/early 70s TV puppet series “Captain Scarlet”, involving the adventures a square-jawed hero battling to defend the Earth from the evil Mysterons, who lived on Mars if I remember correctly. The hero had been rendered immortal by the Mysterons before he turned against them, and every episode would end with him thwarting their plans, while being run over by a tank, falling into heavy machinery, being blown to smithereens, incinerated or otherwise meeting some kind of grisly end. Afterwards. he’d always be shown recuperating in a hospital bed, with his arm in a sling or a small sticking plaster over his brow. Even as a small child, I could never figure out how that worked!
“Captain Scarlet is indestructible. You are not. Remember this and do not try to imitate him!”
/@
That sounds like a fun show, but nope, never come across it before. I feel culturally enemic when I think of all the stuff I have missed.
Leaders of some traditional religions are not opposed to immortality per se, they are opposed to immortality other than the one they claim their religion offers. In fact, immortality is the greatest selling point of some religions. Christianity probably would have been short-lived except for the promise of immortality. Likewise, there probably would be few if any young men willing to strap on explosives and blow up themselves and others if it were not for the promise of immortality in paradise. (Christians went off to the Crusades believing they would get an express trip to Heaven if they died fighting the “infidels.”)
I don’t expect to see a concerted effort to extend human life span and quality of life to hundreds of years, not to mention immortality, through science by the leaders of those religions which owe their existence to their promise of immortality for members of their exclusive clubs. In fact, those religions are an obstacle to the human quest for immortality
(Lilburn Lowell Decker)
As I approach the 2 year anniversary of watching my 55 year old father die from stage IV lymphoma, his essay revolted me. The idea that my father suffered and died in the service of some “greater good” is nearly as offensive as the people who say “he’s in a better place now”.
My dad’s death was not noble, or dignified, or beautiful, or any of that. It was a body’s functioning breaking down and ceasing. It hurt him, and his family who watched, helpless. So Cave’s glib assertion that “death = progress” revolts me on a level I can’t even articulate.
Indeed, and millions of people will have had the same sort of experience and share your reaction, I should think. I know I do.
And other thinkers have suggested this idea of “living on” after death is complete and utter bullshit.
I agree. It is another case of “Language Abuse”, practiced by Deepak and too many others. What exactly is meant by “purpose” “reassure” and “live on” in that sentence? Everyone can use those words individually in a sentence that has meaning, but here, strung together, fuzzy “I feel what you mean” interpretation is pushed on the reader.
Invariably, I flash back in these moments to my most favorite “Candid Camera” episodes…to wit, the fellow in the employment office with fifteen other job seekers. The fifteen are part of the gag. All at once, without prompting, they start removing their clothes. The “victim” of the joke watches, astonished at first, asks nothing, says nothing, then slowly removes his tie, his coat, all the while checking others, who say nothing to him. Pretty soon, he is vigorously removing his pants, purposefully doffing his undershirt and underwear, socks, all inspired by the others. Naturally, a man enters the room and beckons him to come along to the interviewer, outside.
He has no explanation as to why he is naked, but, there he stands.
That’s how BS like this gets credibility. An absurd action, prompted by unexamined example, results in “naked man”.
If we’re supposed to see this as an attempt at theodicy, then it fails horribly.
Does Cave ever get around to addressing the suffering that so often accompanies dying? Simple death, in isolation, is the least of theodicy’s problems. The quip (Twain?) about not suffering the slightest inconvenience while dead seems apposite. Indeed, euthanasia is all about achieving death while avoiding the suffering.
I think Cave has used rather a lot of words to completely miss the point.
I think it’s something to do with free will 🙂
The prize is $3,000 & there’s plenty more where that came from. One can submit entries for two more years. Anyone who has had an essay published in a recognised outlet [conditions below] can submit it for a prize & one is allowed to win twice!
Jerry you must have written something that fits the criteria. You could give your winnings to some suitably rational project.
UCR Essay Prize :-
QUOTED FROM LINK:-
Without death, the beaches would be overcrowded.
Without death, the buses would be overcrowded…
I’m just 141 more sentences away from $3000.
So does heaven lack all those qualities that Cave values so much?
It seems odd to tout the importance of a limited lifespan when most religions argue that one’s existence can continue forever in some immortal form.
Conscious death reminders, on the other hand, stimulate a more considered response, leading people to re-evaluate what really matters. The more we actively contemplate mortality, the more we reject socially imposed goals such as wealth or fame and focus instead on personal growth or the cultivation of positive relationships.
I don’t get it, could someone ‘splain it to me?
We are only here temporarily, so there is no point is accumulating wealth and fame.
But likewise, we are only here temporarily, so there is no point in focusing on personal growth and positive relationships.
The conclusion assumed is centuries old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori
Sad that it can, as noted above, be refuted simply by looking around you.
It’s a mangled attempt to take credit for the recrudescence of Ernest Becker. “The Denial of Theft.”
Fischer forgot this one: after death there shall be no Templeton Foundation.
Of course the religious have a morbid fascination with Thanatos, while prudishly forgetting about Eros. I’m sure libido has at least an equal if not far more important role to play in driving people to achieve.
Fear of death seems to come into play in certain survival instincts, but most activity is predicated on the presumed continuity of life, and driven by the more creative urges.
Certainly when death looms near it can focus the mind in the same way being held at gunpoint can focus the mind. Death is a boundary condition, not a major purpose for creating and doing.
If an individual using a lifetime of reasoning and common sense comes to the conclusion that god is a myth is it automatically negated by a deathbed conversion? I suspect that a crazed individual klinging to life is not an ingredient to overwhelming insight. If you want to learn about the true nature of an individual look at his life not his death.
We would look a bit different if the common ancestor of all life had been immortal. Without death and I assume without reproduction we would not have evolution. We would still be hanging out in the primordial ooze.
I’ve heard that we should die because living would be boring and always thought – how could you know? I’d like to try it out as long as I don’t become decrepit & there are good migraine meds for me 🙂
So, I guess Bartleby the Scrivener was a misunderstood philanthropist. Who knew?
The road to hell?
Okaaay, I’m a biochemist. And since nobody else has mentioned this.
This makes not one fucking whit of sense. He got money for writing stuff like this? Not that I expect UC Riverside will be, but they should be embarrassed.
Death is – necessary. Without it, we could never evolve, at least not by the usual selective reproduction route. Because there would be no room left for any new arrivals.
I suppose we could have a finite number of immortal beings who gradually improved themselves. But life would have to be so different as to be almost unrecognisable (‘It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it’).
Yeah, death sucks. So do parasitic wasps, appendixes, and all the other crappy things heaped on us by evolution or by existence itself. (Okay, there are also a few good bits too). There’s no reason we should be grateful for death though.
Let me leave you with one of my favourite taglines –
‘Life (n). A sexually transmitted terminal condition.’
“I’ve been mistreated, don’t mind dying”
— R. Johnson
Another good comment on the topic by Robert Johnson: “I don’t care what you do with my body when I’m dead and gone” Actually, I think Robert Johnson was a far better philosopher than this Cave guy.
I am not afraid of death.
I am afraid of dying – because there is a risk that my living will is not respected and the process will be slow, painful and humiliating.
This is the opinion of a person with chronical pain – and if I had ever been a healthy young adult, I am sure my opinion would be different.
As for herstory/history, I am a good example that science already has prolonged my life and made it MUCH better:
all my female ancestors died of diabetes and kidney disease they developed in pregnancies (unwanted since the witchburnings) – my grandmother was the first generation whose “life” was prolonged by the artificial kidney and I would not want to exist that way.
I am childfree because I fought the abortionforbidding law since age 15 with the very aim of never having any children in a society with high risk of rape.
But because of the drugsforbidding laws I get prescription painkillers daily only since I was 47 – and now I can glimpse what people could mean by this immortality speculations,
but they mistake the optimal period of the life of some humans for all the time and all the life and health situations possible.
Many of them make it difficult for believers to be grateful to their awfully bad designer god (as is required by religions) – or easy to accept evolution the tinkerer, and the idea that life is soon over.
I should add that of course this difficulty to fulfill the gratefulness-requirement of religions needs propaganda – and that´s what the Templeton foundation is there for.