【龙腾网】想长生不老？伦理上须费一番思量
August 31, 2018 11.44am BST
Author John K. Davis Professor ofPhilosophy, California State University, Fullerton
作者为加州大学的哲学教授
Life extension – using science to slow orhalt human aging so that people live far longer than they do naturally – mayone day be possible.
长生也许会在某一天成为可能，即使用科学来放慢或停止人类的变老，这样人们就能远比自然情况下活得更久。
Big business is taking this possibilityseriously. In 2013 Google founded a company called Calico to develop lifeextension methods, and Silicon Valley billionaires Jeff Bezos and Peter Thielhave invested in Unity Biotechnology, which has a market cap of US$700 million.Unity Biotechnology focuses mainly on preventing age-related diseases, but itsresearch could lead to methods for slowing or preventing aging itself.
大企业们正在认真考虑这种可能性。2013年，谷歌成立了一家叫做Calico公司,力图开发出延寿的方法，而硅谷的亿万富翁杰夫·贝索斯和彼得·泰尔已经投资于市值7亿美元的生物科技公司Unity Biotechnology。Unity Biotechnology主要专注于预防和衰老有关的疾病，但其研究可以导向放缓或预防衰老本身的方法。
From my perspective as a philosopher, thisposes two ethical questions. First, is extended life good? Second, couldextending life harm others?
从我作为一个哲学人的角度来看，这就提出了两个伦理方面的问题。首先，长生是件好事吗？第二，长生会伤害到别人吗？
Is living forever a good thing?
长生不老是一件好事吗？
Not everyone is convinced that extendinglife would be good. In a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Religion andPublic Life project, some respondents worried that it might become boring, orthat they would miss out on the benefits of growing old, such as gaining wisdomand learning to accept death.
不是每个人都相信延长寿命是件好事。在皮尤研究中心宗教和公共生活项目2013年开展的一项调查中，一些受访者担心长生可能会变得乏味，或是担心他们会错失变老带来的益处，例如智慧的增长和学着接受死亡。
Philosophers such as Bernard Williams haveshared this concern. In 1973 Williams argued that immortality would becomeintolerably boring if one never changed. He also argued that, if people changedenough to avoid intolerable boredom, they would eventually change so much thatthey’d be entirely different people.
诸如伯纳德·威廉姆斯这样的哲学家也抱有同样的顾虑。在1973年，威廉姆斯主张，如果一个人永远不会变，那么不朽带来的无聊将会变得让人无法忍受。他还认为，如果人们改变的程度大到足以避免无法忍受的无聊，那他们最终会大变，使得他们将成为彻底不同的人。
On the other hand, not everyone ispersuaded that extended life would be a bad life. I’m not. But that’s not thepoint. No one is proposing to force anyone to use life extension, and – out ofrespect for liberty – no one should be prevented from using it.
另一方面，并不是所有人都信服延长寿命会是一种糟糕的生活。我就不信。但这不是重点。没有人提议去强迫任何人延长寿命，而且出于对自由的尊重，也不应该阻止任何人去这么做。
Nineteenth-century philosopher John StuartMill argued that society must respect individual liberty when it comes todeciding what’s good for us. In other words, it’s wrong to interfere withsomeone’s life choices even when he or she makes bad choices.
十九世纪的哲学家约翰·斯图亚特·密尔（John Stuart Mill）主张，在决定什么对我们有益时，社会必须尊重个人自由。换句话说，去干涉某个人的人生选择是错误的，即便他或她做出的是糟糕的选择。
However, Mill also held that our libertyright is limited by the “harm principle.” The harm principle says that theright to individual liberty is limited by a duty not to harm others.
然而，密尔也认为我们的自由权受“伤害原则”的限制。伤害原则说的是：个人自由权受到不危害他人这份责任的限制。
There are many possible harms: Dictatorsmight live far too long, society might become too conservative and risk-averseand pensions might have to be limited, to name a few. One that stands out to meis the injustice of unequal access.
存在许多可能的危害：独裁者可能活得太长，社会可能会变得过于保守且不愿意承担风险，养老金可能不得不受到限制，这只是其中的几个例子。我想到的一个问题是：使用权的不平等带来的不公。
What does unequal access looks like when itcomes to life extension?
说到延长寿命，使用权的不平等是如何体现的呢？
Available only to the rich?
使用权只对富人开放？
Will life extension increaseinequality?
（图解：延长寿命会加剧不平等吗？）
Many people, such as philosopher JohnHarris and those in the Pew Center survey, worry that life extension would beavailable only to the rich and make existing inequalities even worse.
在皮尤中心调查中的许多人诸如哲学家约翰·哈里斯，担忧延寿只会对富人开放，并进一步恶化现存的不平等。
Indeed, it is unjust when some people livelonger than the poor because they have better health care. It would be far moreunjust if the rich could live several decades or centuries longer than anyoneelse and gain more time to consolidate their advantages.
事实上，一些人因为拥有更好的医疗保健服务而活得比穷人长久是不义的。而如果富人可以比其他任何人长寿几十年甚至几百年，并得到更多时间来巩固其优势，则是远比前者更严重的不义。
Some philosophers suggest that societyshould prevent inequality by banning life extension. This is equality by denial– if not everyone can get it, then no one gets it.
有些哲学家提议，社会应该通过禁止延寿来防止不平等。这是通过拒绝来求得平等，即如果不是每个人都能得到，那就谁也得不到。
However, as philosopher Richard J. Arnesonnotes, “leveling-down” – achieving equality by making some people worse offwithout making anyone better off – is unjust.
然而，正如哲学家理查德·J·阿内森注意到的，“向下拉平”是不义的，即通过让部分人的境况变差来求得平等，而不是通过让任何人的境况变得更好。
Indeed, as I argue in my recent book onlife extension ethics, most of us reject leveling-down in other situations. Forexample, there are not enough human organs for transplant, but no one thinksthe answer is to ban organ transplants.
事实上，正如我在我最近关于长生伦理的书中主张的那样，我们中的大多数人在其他一些情况下是拒绝向下拉平的。例如，没有足够的人体器官可用作移植，但不会有人认为，其解决办法是禁止器官移植。
Moreover, banning or slowing down thedevelopment of life extension may simply delay a time when the technology getscheap enough for everyone to have it. TV sets were once a toy for the wealthy;now even poor families have them. In time, this could happen with lifeextension.
此外，禁止或放慢延寿的发展可能只会带来一段时间的推延而已，届时技术会变得廉价，足以让每个人都拥有。电视机一度是富贵人家的玩具；如今甚至是贫穷的家庭都能拥有。假以时日，长生是可以实现的。
Justice requires that society subsidizeaccess to life extension to the extent it can afford to do so. However, justicedoes not require banning life extension just because it’s not possible to giveit to everyone.
社会正义要求社会在其可以负担的范围内去资助人们对延寿术的使用。然而正义并没有要求，仅仅因为不能给到每个人就去禁止延寿。
Overpopulation crisis?
会造成人口过剩的危机？
Another possible harm is that the worldwill become overcrowded. Many people, including philosophers Peter Singer andWalter Glannon, are concerned that extending human life would cause severeoverpopulation, pollution and resource shortages.
另一个可能的危害是：世界将变得过于拥挤。包括哲学家彼得·辛格和沃尔特·格莱农在内的许多人，都在担忧延长人类的生命会导致严重的人口过剩、污染和资源匮乏。
One way to prevent this harm, as somephilosophers have proposed, is to limit the number of children after lifeextension.
防止这种危害产生的一个法子，如一些哲学家已经提议的，便是去限制延寿后（的人群）生孩子的数量。
This would be politically very difficultand very hard on those who want longer lives, but trying to ban life extensionwould be equally difficult, and denying people longer lives would be just ashard on them – if not more so. Limiting reproduction, as hard as that may be,is a better way to follow the harm principle.
在政治上这将会非常难以推行，而那些想求得长生的人们也很难遵从，但是设法去禁止延寿将会同等困难，而且拒绝赋予人们更长的寿命如果不是更困难，也同样困难。限制生育尽管存在难处，却是遵循伤害原则的更好办法。
Will death be worse?
死去会变得更糟吗？
Another possible harm is that widespreadlife extension might make death worse for some people.
另一个可能的危害是，对于一部分人来说，广泛普及的延寿可能会让死亡变得更糟了。
All else being equal, it is better to dieat 90 than nine. At 90 you’re not missing out on many years, but at nine youlose most of your potential life. As philosopher Jeff McMahan argues, death isworse the more years it takes from you.
在其他条件相同的情况下，在90岁死去要比在9岁死去更好。到了90岁，你是不会错失很多年的，但要是9岁的话，你就会失去你潜在的大部分人生。如同哲学家杰夫·麦克马汉主张的那样：死亡剥夺你的岁月越多，死亡就越糟糕。
What will be the right measure of age?
（图解：衰老的正确衡量方法是什么？）
Now imagine that people living in a farwealthier neighborhood don’t have to die at 90 or so. They can afford lifeextension, and will live to 190. You can’t afford it, and you are dying at 80.Is your death not so bad, for you’re losing only a few years, or is your deathnow far worse, because – if only you had life extension – you might live to190? Are you losing 10 years, or are you losing 110 years?
现在想象一下，生活在一个远远富裕得多社区里的人们不必在90岁上下死去。他们负担得起延寿的费用，而且会一直活到190岁。你负担不起，那就会在80岁的时候濒临死亡。你的死去是没那么糟，因为你仅仅失去了不多的岁月，还是说现在你的死去变得更糟了，因为要是能享用延寿你可能会活到190岁？你将失去的是10年，还是110年呢？
In a world where some people get lifeextension and some don’t, what’s the right measure for how many years deathtakes from you?
在一个部分人能获得延寿而部分人得不到的世界里，衡量死亡剥夺了你多少年生命的正确方法是什么呢？
Perhaps the right measure is how many yearslife extension would give you, multiplied by the odds of getting it. Forexample, if you have a 20 percent chance of getting 100 years, then your deathis worse by however many years you’d get in a normal lifespan, plus 20 years.
也许正确的方法是：延寿术赋予你的岁月，乘以你得到它的概率。举例来说，如果你有20%的可能得到100年额外的生命，那么你的死亡剥夺了你的年数，要比正常情况下你寿终正寝要糟，会多出20年。
If so, then the fact that some people canget life extension makes your death somewhat worse. This is a more subtle kindof harm than living in an overpopulated world, but it’s a harm all the same.
如果是这样，那么一部分人能得到延寿的事实就会让你的死亡变得糟糕几分。相比生活在一个人口过剩的世界，这是一种更加微妙的危害，但它终究是一种危害。
However, not just any harm is enough tooutweigh liberty. After all, expensive new medical treatments can extend anormal lifespan, but even if that makes death slightly worse for those whocan’t afford those treatments, no one thinks such treatments should be banned.
然而，任何危害都不足以压倒自由。毕竟，昂贵的新疗法可以延长正常的寿命，但就算对于那些无力负担这些疗法的人，这会使死亡变得更糟糕一些，也没人会认为这些疗法应该被禁止。
I believe that life extension is a goodthing, but it does pose threats to society that must be taken seriously.
我相信延寿是一件很好的事，但它的确对社会构成了一些威胁，必须严肃对待。
评论：
1、My choice as far asliving longer would be 100% determined by QUALITY of life.I am an active personand enjoy my life.I typically awake around 6:45=&AM.I have coffee and dosome pcing then go to the gym around 10 for a couple of hours.If weatherpermits, I play 18 holes then work a couple hours in the afternoon.I also enjoyfishing.Although I’m 79 Y/O, I neither look, feel or act as if I am limited bymy age.
The activies I mentioned above are my usuallifestyle which varies .
对于活得更久，我的选择百分之百取决于生活质量。我是一个积极的人，且享受着我的生活。通常我会在早上6:45左右醒来。我喝点咖啡，做做心脏起搏，然后在10点左右去健身房锻炼两个小时。如果天气条件允许，我会打一轮高尔夫球（18洞），然后在下午工作两个小时。我也喜欢钓鱼。虽然已经79岁了，我看上去、感觉上或是行动上都不像是被年龄框限着。
我上述提到的这些活动是我通常的生活方式，根据情况而变化。
If I was not able to live my life this way,I see no point in just “existing” so, do NOT plug me in or extend my lifeotherwise.
如果我无法以这种方式生活，那我觉得只是“存活”着就没什么意义，可不要给我插上电或是延长我生命什么的。
2、I suggest thatpreservation of mental capacity is of much greater importance that extension oflife. At 68 years old, I am acutely aware of the degradation of mentalcapacity. My memory sucks and I no longer have the mental stamina to carry outextended calculations. My working vocabulary has shrunk. At my current rate ofmental degradation, I doubt that I’ll have anything worthwhile to think or doafter age 90. Why keep the body functioning when I am but a shadow of myyounger self?
我认为保持心智能力要比延长寿命重要的多。在68岁的年纪，我强烈地意识到心智在退化。我的记忆力很糟，而且心智上我不再拥有精力去完成持续的运算。我的工作词汇量已经缩水了。以我目前的心智退化速度，我怀疑我到90岁以后还会有什么值得思考或做的。当我不过只是更年轻自己的影子时，为什么还要去保持机体的功能呢？
3、Eons ago (talk aboutlife extension) in university, there was a lot of discussion about the benefitsof “modern Medicine” and how in many areas, including sub-Saharan Africa, millionswould be saved from early deaths and lives extended. I began to think about theconsequences, one not so good. A number of societies featured higher number ofbirths to compensate for the higher death rate. With the new medicines thebirth rate did not decline, so…..huge growth in population and use of naturalresources. We are facing the consequences now and society then did not think toconsider the consequences.
老早以前在大学里有许多讨论，关于“现代医学”好处，以及在包括撒哈拉以南非洲的广大地区，数百万人是如何从早夭中被挽救出来并活得更长的。那时我开始思考其后果，那些不那么好的后果。很多社会以更高的出生人数来补偿更高的死亡率为特点。有了新药而出生率并没有下降，于是就带来了人口以及自然资源使用量的极大增长。我们现在正面临着诸般后果，而彼时的社会没有想到要去考虑这些后果。
4、Life extension couldbe very useful in solving the problem of the ballooning of the aged populationand the need to find enough people to support them in retirement. Presumably ‘exendees’ will not be allowed toretire until they are twenty years from death,and can look after those of uswho are too poor to pay for an extenson. That will lessen the appea , won’tit? Personally, I think life extensionis bonkers, but if people must go for eternal youth let them suffer the consequences of eternal workto pay their way.
延寿术在解决老年人口激增乃至找到足够的人员在他们退休时供养他们的问题上，可能会非常有用。很可能“长生族”直到距离他们死亡20年之前，都不会被允许退休，这样就能照顾我们中那些穷到负担不起延寿的人。这样会使请求人数变少，不是么？个人而言，我认为延寿太疯狂了，但如果人们一定要去求取长生，那就让他们遭受为支付其生活方式而永恒工作的后果吧。
5、The author is aphilosopher, he needs to specify what he means, otherwise the debate becomespointless. Is he talking about something like 50 years extended life? Or 10,000years? What does “forever” mean in this context? Clearly he doesn’t literallymean forever.
这个作者是个哲学家，他需要为他想表达的意思作出定义，不然辩论就会失去意义。他谈论的是延寿50年之类的情况吧？还是1万年？在全文的语境中“永远”指的是什么意思？显然他的意思不是字面上的永远。
I see no reason why anyone would becomebored if they lived an extra 50 or 100 years. 10,000 years is a different issue though.
我看不出有什么原因能让任何多活了50或100年的人变得无聊。但多活1万年就是一个不同的问题了。
Also, this whole debate seems to presupposethere’s no afterlife (and this is because almost all of the “scholarlycommunity” subscribe to some flavour of materialism). The prospect of living longer, at least if ingood health, seems very attractive if the alternative is oblivion. But it’s a somewhat more complex issue ifthere’s an afterlife and especially so if people tend to reincarnate.
而且，整个的辩论似乎假定了不存在来世（而这是因为几乎所有的“学术团体”都认同某种程度的唯物主义）。如果这个替代法被遗忘，活得更久的远景，至少在良好的健康状况下似乎非常有吸引力。但如果存在来世，某种程度上这就是一个更复杂的问题了，当人们倾向于去转世的情况下尤其如此。
6、First of all, lifeextension is already being used by our Secret Space Program, and has been sincethe 1980’s. They just aren’t going to tell us about it, although there arewhistleblowers out there doing so.
首先，延寿已经被使用在我们的绝密空间计划中了，而且自80年代起一直在用。他们只是不打算向我们透露这些，虽然存在一些揭发者。
Secondly, thanks to the work of Dr. MichaelNewton and others, we know without any reasonable doubt that reincarnation isreal and we will all incarnate again whenever we want to, so life extension isirrelevant.
其次，多亏了迈克尔·牛顿博士和其他人的工作，我们全然无疑地知道轮回是真实存在的，而且我们在自己想要的时间都会再次化身，所以延寿是无关痛痒的。
7、Overpopulation is amajor harm to the earth and therefore a major harm to all the occupants. It maybe difficult, but banning life extension must be done. Although having saidthat, I’m sure a few wealthy people would do it illegally, and perhaps set thestage for a fork in evolution, where there is a superior race and a slave race… but if we do nothing, we’ll end up in a Kurt Vonnegut story …
人口过剩是对地球的重大危害，因而也是对所有居住者的重大危害。也许很难，但禁止延寿是必须去做的事。尽管如此，我很确定一些个富人会非法做这件事，而且可能会为演化中的分道扬镳做好准备，届时就会有一个高级种族和一个奴隶种族...但如果我们无所作为，那最终我们将面临库尔特·冯内古特故事中的遭遇...
