#33 “Can death be the answer?" A conversation with philosopher Nicholas Agar

We are always excited about the next technological solution. But what if it does not come? Or what if it comes only for the few, or with terrible side-effects? And while we are waiting for the easy tech fix, are we neglecting what we can do now to better our lives?

Many of our previous guests have been excited about the prospect of radically extending our lives, and some have been optimistic about the prospect of achieving this in our life time, perhaps even within a few decades. We are Levity, the real longevity podcast after all.

Todays guest thinks that we should be less excited about radical longevity, and radical enhancements in general. And he does not think radical life extension is on the horizon.

Nicholas Agar is a New Zealand philosopher specializing in ethics. He holds a BA from the University of Auckland, an MA from Victoria University of Wellington, and a PhD from the Australian National University. As of 2022, he is a Professor of Ethics at the University of Waikato. He is a prolific writer and the author of How to think about Progress, and Truly Human Progress, to mention two recent books.

CHAPTERS

00:00 Introduction

03:38 The hype and the reality

06:02 Too much enthusiasm for radical life extension -- or too little?

17:15 Distribution worries -- more life only for the rich?

23:06 Pessimism about distribution and feasability

29:00 Structural reasons for bad science and big promises

33:30 Is it wise to spend money on radical life extension?

37:13 Should we die if we have had good life?

48:48 Deat as tool for solving housing crisis

58:27 Liberal eugenics

01:06:45 How to attract funding -- hype + conservative grant proposals

01:09:40 What is enhancement?

01:25:30 A mechanical Roger Federer with robot arms

01:38:12 Is it bad to cease to exist?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.