some observers, as they worry about issues such as overpopulation and depletion of natural resources. Indeed, if we considered a world that had radical life extension but no other changes, it would surely lead to unsustainable stresses. But, these same technologies will dramatically change the resource equation as well.
In a world where humans live several hundred or more years, many things will have to change. Those seeking the true meaning of life will have to do a lot more thinking and indeed, they will have a great deal more time to allot to this worthy pursuit. One major change will have to be the churches’ argument of holding out the promise of everlasting life if only you will only repent, live the good life (as we tell you) and, by the by, drop a few coins in the ole collection plate. This argument will fall on deaf ears along with many other once persuasive ecclesiastical admonishments. When such a treatment becomes available, the role of the church will most certainly and necessarily change. Perhaps, it will sustain and find itself relative by providing spiritual guidance, which, without a doubt, anyone living 400 + years is going to really need.
I suggest that you give the moral consequences of a 400-year human life span considerable thought. For example, who would be injected with these remarkable, miraculous ‘doctorbots?’ Would it be only those who could pay $100,000 for the privilege? Would they have to undergo a rigorous selection process to determine that they were indeed worthy in addition to having the money? Would we (as administrators) want to carefully evaluate and educate the candidates for life extension to be sure they understood the consequences? Would we want to include some kind of sterilization component in those selected? We already know that the wealthier one is the fewer children one is likely to want or have. If one lived almost forever, why, on earth would one even need children? Would the candidates be able to live in proximity with others who are all gong to die in a few short years? Perhaps the long-lived humans would have to live separate (maybe secret) lives someplace where ‘normal humans’ would not be found?
Should the treatment just be made available to all? Whether we think such a ‘doctorbot’ is a good thing for humanity or not, it‘s coming! Science in that respect is unstoppable. I don’t think any of us wanted the nuclear bomb but, there you are… As the Chinese say, may you live in interesting times! Some people, (the majority, in fact, who are simply too dimwitted to be bothered) answer that there is no point in even trying to find the true meaning of life because the question is ‘just too deep. This viewpoint holds that humankind will never be able to discover the answer(s), so the question itself becomes meaningless. Other sad sacks deem the question of what life’s true purpose is as meaningless because they view life as an existence with no deep meaning attached to it. Of course, it has to be mentioned here that probably way more then half the world’s population lead such shockingly barren lives that their driving mental processes are directed solely toward finding enough food to sustain life.
These billions, like birds, spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week seeking sustenance. They, except for the need to procreate, have never, ever, had any other kind of thoughts. Until one visits Africa, India and other hugely overpopulated places teeming with billions of permanently impoverished human scavengers, one can have no real appreciation for the above. The appalling conditions of these billions are simply impossible for us to imagine!
The logical positivist view of philosophy, also called logical empiricism, involves both empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism holds that knowledge can be gained through observational evidence. Rationalism stresses that empiricism alone is not enough to provide complete knowledge, so verification is needed. The logical positivist approach to the verification of something considered meaningful is that something must be able to be logically or cognitively determined to be true. Since the logical positivist verifiability criterion cannot prove the answer to the question what is the true meaning of life? Positivists tend to view the question itself as meaningless. Of course they also can not answer the timeless human questions of what happens after death or, indeed, even if God exists? In this, they are aligned with the multitudes of the cerebrally challenged who also don’t see the point of questioning ones purpose.
This view has been criticized by philosophers such as Sir Karl Popper, (1902 –1994) an Austro-British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics who is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Karl thought falsifying criterion should be used to test true statements rather than relying on verifiability criterion alone. Karl obviously needed a few aspirin after trying to think this through! “There is no meaning to why we are here.” Of course, who else could say this but Friedrich Nietzsche? His view that nihilism voids human existence of having meaning. Nihilism is named for the word ‘nihil,’ which is Latin for ‘nothing.’ Nietzsche considered Christianity’s concern with the afterlife stronger than its occupation with life on Earth, so (ergo) he considered the meaning of life empty.
The French philosopher and scientist, Rene Descartes, asserted that life itself may not even be real, but rather might only be a dream. (Good grief, wake me up when it’s over!) Rene questions even the reality of our physical bodies. I didn’t know that they played with peyote back then. Some less imaginative people hold the view that the true meaning of why humankind is here is the result of either accident or coincidence. Descartes came up with an eloquent semantic proof (a syllogism, if you will) for proof of the existence of himself and therefore God. He simply said, “Cogito ergo sum.” Meaning, I am, therefore, he must be!
Even just a few of the many answers to the questions about the true meaning of human existence can get us thinking up even more interesting questions. For example, we can think of how our answers might change depending on our current view of destiny. Is it our destiny to simply die and be put into a stinking hole to feed the worms? Is life predestined such that when we are born our life unfolds according to some unchangeable plan? Or, (my preference, of course,) do we in fact, choose our destiny and learn and grow from our experiences? By the way, listen carefully now! One way to grow in our search for meaning is to be open to the perspectives and viewpoints of others. Such thinking can only bring us all closer together.
Of course, one must be able to discern exactly who is worth listening to and who is not- in this, having a sensitive BS meter is imperative! Clearly, for all of us, the most important voice in our minds and souls must be the voice of God. Without knowledge of Him, we have no scale upon which to measure the worth of other voices. Remember, if God decides that Man can live for 400 years though his scientific discoveries, that can and will happen. Such an unending life without a growing understanding of God would be torture and meaningless.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the dim view that theism is somehow ‘too dangerous, destructive and incomprehensible.’ One example of this is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian in which the late and brilliant Christopher Hitchens wrote: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an anti-theist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." Of course, a few months ago, Chris found out the truth. I wonder what he would have said to all of us were that indeed possible, if he learned that he was, in fact, wrong and that, surprise, surprise, after all, God did indeed exist?
The Chambers Dictionary defines anti-theism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; 'denial' of the existence of a God; opposition to God." To be clear, "opposition to God" is not, in most meanings, a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes the being in the manner of mal-theism, but for various reasons the position that it would be bad / immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens' usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in any deity but also, opposition to God's existence. The second is synonymous with strong atheism. The third and first, on the other hand, need not be atheistic at all. Opposition does not mean disbelief. One can believe in God and oppose him as well. The Devil certainly knows all about God but opposes him at the same time.
I
