August 31, 2018 11.44am BST
Author John K. Davis Professor ofPhilosophy, California State University, Fullerton

作者為加州大學(xué)的哲學(xué)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.

長(zhǎng)生也許會(huì)在某一天成為可能，即使用科學(xué)來(lái)放慢或停止人類(lèi)的變老，這樣人們就能遠(yuǎn)比自然情況下活得更久。

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.

大企業(yè)們正在認(rèn)真考慮這種可能性。2013年，谷歌成立了一家叫做Calico公司,力圖開(kāi)發(fā)出延壽的方法，而硅谷的億萬(wàn)富翁杰夫·貝索斯和彼得·泰爾已經(jīng)投資于市值7億美元的生物科技公司Unity Biotechnology。Unity Biotechnology主要專注于預(yù)防和衰老有關(guān)的疾病，但其研究可以導(dǎo)向放緩或預(yù)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?

從我作為一個(gè)哲學(xué)人的角度來(lái)看，這就提出了兩個(gè)倫理方面的問(wèn)題。首先，長(zhǎng)生是件好事嗎？第二，長(zhǎng)生會(huì)傷害到別人嗎？

Is living forever a good thing?

長(zhǎng)生不老是一件好事嗎？

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.

不是每個(gè)人都相信延長(zhǎng)壽命是件好事。在皮尤研究中心宗教和公共生活項(xiàng)目2013年開(kāi)展的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查中，一些受訪者擔(dān)心長(zhǎng)生可能會(huì)變得乏味，或是擔(dān)心他們會(huì)錯(cuò)失變老帶來(lái)的益處，例如智慧的增長(zhǎng)和學(xué)著接受死亡。

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.

諸如伯納德·威廉姆斯這樣的哲學(xué)家也抱有同樣的顧慮。在1973年，威廉姆斯主張，如果一個(gè)人永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)變，那么不朽帶來(lái)的無(wú)聊將會(huì)變得讓人無(wú)法忍受。他還認(rèn)為，如果人們改變的程度大到足以避免無(wú)法忍受的無(wú)聊，那他們最終會(huì)大變，使得他們將成為徹底不同的人。

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長(zhǎng)壽命會(huì)是一種糟糕的生活。我就不信。但這不是重點(diǎn)。沒(méi)有人提議去強(qiáng)迫任何人延長(zhǎng)壽命，而且出于對(duì)自由的尊重，也不應(yīng)該阻止任何人去這么做。

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.

十九世紀(jì)的哲學(xué)家約翰·斯圖亞特·密爾（John Stuart Mill）主張，在決定什么對(duì)我們有益時(shí)，社會(huì)必須尊重個(gè)人自由。換句話說(shuō)，去干涉某個(gè)人的人生選擇是錯(cuò)誤的，即便他或她做出的是糟糕的選擇。

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，密爾也認(rèn)為我們的自由權(quán)受“傷害原則”的限制。傷害原則說(shuō)的是：個(gè)人自由權(quán)受到不危害他人這份責(zé)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.

存在許多可能的危害：獨(dú)裁者可能活得太長(zhǎng)，社會(huì)可能會(huì)變得過(guò)于保守且不愿意承擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，養(yǎng)老金可能不得不受到限制，這只是其中的幾個(gè)例子。我想到的一個(gè)問(wèn)題是：使用權(quán)的不平等帶來(lái)的不公。

What does unequal access looks like when itcomes to life extension?

說(shuō)到延長(zhǎng)壽命，使用權(quán)的不平等是如何體現(xiàn)的呢？

Available only to the rich?

使用權(quán)只對(duì)富人開(kāi)放？

Will life extension increaseinequality???

（圖解：延長(zhǎng)壽命會(huì)加劇不平等嗎？）

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.

在皮尤中心調(diào)查中的許多人諸如哲學(xué)家約翰·哈里斯，擔(dān)憂延壽只會(huì)對(duì)富人開(kāi)放，并進(jìn)一步惡化現(xiàn)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.

事實(shí)上，一些人因?yàn)閾碛懈玫尼t(yī)療保健服務(wù)而活得比窮人長(zhǎng)久是不義的。而如果富人可以比其他任何人長(zhǎng)壽幾十年甚至幾百年，并得到更多時(shí)間來(lái)鞏固其優(yōu)勢(shì)，則是遠(yuǎn)比前者更嚴(yán)重的不義。

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.

有些哲學(xué)家提議，社會(huì)應(yīng)該通過(guò)禁止延壽來(lái)防止不平等。這是通過(guò)拒絕來(lái)求得平等，即如果不是每個(gè)人都能得到，那就誰(shuí)也得不到。

However, as philosopher Richard J. Arnesonnotes, “l(fā)eveling-down” – achieving equality by making some people worse offwithout making anyone better off – is unjust.

然而，正如哲學(xué)家理查德·J·阿內(nèi)森注意到的，“向下拉平”是不義的，即通過(guò)讓部分人的境況變差來(lái)求得平等，而不是通過(guò)讓任何人的境況變得更好。

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.

事實(shí)上，正如我在我最近關(guān)于長(zhǎng)生倫理的書(shū)中主張的那樣，我們中的大多數(shù)人在其他一些情況下是拒絕向下拉平的。例如，沒(méi)有足夠的人體器官可用作移植，但不會(huì)有人認(rèn)為，其解決辦法是禁止器官移植。

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，禁止或放慢延壽的發(fā)展可能只會(huì)帶來(lái)一段時(shí)間的推延而已，屆時(shí)技術(shù)會(huì)變得廉價(jià)，足以讓每個(gè)人都擁有。電視機(jī)一度是富貴人家的玩具；如今甚至是貧窮的家庭都能擁有。假以時(shí)日，長(zhǎng)生是可以實(shí)現(xiàn)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.

社會(huì)正義要求社會(huì)在其可以負(fù)擔(dān)的范圍內(nèi)去資助人們對(duì)延壽術(shù)的使用。然而正義并沒(méi)有要求，僅僅因?yàn)椴荒芙o到每個(gè)人就去禁止延壽。

Overpopulation crisis?

會(huì)造成人口過(guò)剩的危機(jī)？

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.

另一個(gè)可能的危害是：世界將變得過(guò)于擁擠。包括哲學(xué)家彼得·辛格和沃爾特·格萊農(nóng)在內(nèi)的許多人，都在擔(dān)憂延長(zhǎng)人類(lèi)的生命會(huì)導(dǎo)致嚴(yán)重的人口過(guò)剩、污染和資源匱乏。

One way to prevent this harm, as somephilosophers have proposed, is to limit the number of children after lifeextension.

防止這種危害產(chǎn)生的一個(gè)法子，如一些哲學(xué)家已經(jīng)提議的，便是去限制延壽后（的人群）生孩子的數(shù)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.

在政治上這將會(huì)非常難以推行，而那些想求得長(zhǎng)生的人們也很難遵從，但是設(shè)法去禁止延壽將會(huì)同等困難，而且拒絕賦予人們更長(zhǎng)的壽命如果不是更困難，也同樣困難。限制生育盡管存在難處，卻是遵循傷害原則的更好辦法。

Will death be worse?

死去會(huì)變得更糟嗎？

Another possible harm is that widespreadlife extension might make death worse for some people.

另一個(gè)可能的危害是，對(duì)于一部分人來(lái)說(shuō)，廣泛普及的延壽可能會(huì)讓死亡變得更糟了。

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.

在其他條件相同的情況下，在90歲死去要比在9歲死去更好。到了90歲，你是不會(huì)錯(cuò)失很多年的，但要是9歲的話，你就會(huì)失去你潛在的大部分人生。如同哲學(xué)家杰夫·麥克馬漢主張的那樣：死亡剝奪你的歲月越多，死亡就越糟糕。

What will be the right measure of age?

（圖解：衰老的正確衡量方法是什么？）

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?

現(xiàn)在想象一下，生活在一個(gè)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)富裕得多社區(qū)里的人們不必在90歲上下死去。他們負(fù)擔(dān)得起延壽的費(fèi)用，而且會(huì)一直活到190歲。你負(fù)擔(dān)不起，那就會(huì)在80歲的時(shí)候?yàn)l臨死亡。你的死去是沒(méi)那么糟，因?yàn)槟銉H僅失去了不多的歲月，還是說(shuō)現(xiàn)在你的死去變得更糟了，因?yàn)橐悄芟碛醚訅勰憧赡軙?huì)活到190歲？你將失去的是10年，還是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?

在一個(gè)部分人能獲得延壽而部分人得不到的世界里，衡量死亡剝奪了你多少年生命的正確方法是什么呢？

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.

也許正確的方法是：延壽術(shù)賦予你的歲月，乘以你得到它的概率。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，如果你有20%的可能得到100年額外的生命，那么你的死亡剝奪了你的年數(shù)，要比正常情況下你壽終正寢要糟，會(huì)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.

如果是這樣，那么一部分人能得到延壽的事實(shí)就會(huì)讓你的死亡變得糟糕幾分。相比生活在一個(gè)人口過(guò)剩的世界，這是一種更加微妙的危害，但它終究是一種危害。

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，任何危害都不足以壓倒自由。畢竟，昂貴的新療法可以延長(zhǎng)正常的壽命，但就算對(duì)于那些無(wú)力負(fù)擔(dān)這些療法的人，這會(huì)使死亡變得更糟糕一些，也沒(méi)人會(huì)認(rèn)為這些療法應(yīng)該被禁止。

I believe that life extension is a goodthing, but it does pose threats to society that must be taken seriously.

我相信延壽是一件很好的事，但它的確對(duì)社會(huì)構(gòu)成了一些威脅，必須嚴(yán)肅對(duì)待。


評(píng)論：

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 .

對(duì)于活得更久，我的選擇百分之百取決于生活質(zhì)量。我是一個(gè)積極的人，且享受著我的生活。通常我會(huì)在早上6:45左右醒來(lái)。我喝點(diǎn)咖啡，做做心臟起搏，然后在10點(diǎn)左右去健身房鍛煉兩個(gè)小時(shí)。如果天氣條件允許，我會(huì)打一輪高爾夫球（18洞），然后在下午工作兩個(gè)小時(shí)。我也喜歡釣魚(yú)。雖然已經(jīng)79歲了，我看上去、感覺(jué)上或是行動(dòng)上都不像是被年齡框限著。
我上述提到的這些活動(dòng)是我通常的生活方式，根據(jù)情況而變化。

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.

如果我無(wú)法以這種方式生活，那我覺(jué)得只是“存活”著就沒(méi)什么意義，可不要給我插上電或是延長(zhǎng)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?

我認(rèn)為保持心智能力要比延長(zhǎng)壽命重要的多。在68歲的年紀(jì)，我強(qiáng)烈地意識(shí)到心智在退化。我的記憶力很糟，而且心智上我不再擁有精力去完成持續(xù)的運(yùn)算。我的工作詞匯量已經(jīng)縮水了。以我目前的心智退化速度，我懷疑我到90歲以后還會(huì)有什么值得思考或做的。當(dāng)我不過(guò)只是更年輕自己的影子時(shí)，為什么還要去保持機(jī)體的功能呢？

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.

老早以前在大學(xué)里有許多討論，關(guān)于“現(xiàn)代醫(yī)學(xué)”好處，以及在包括撒哈拉以南非洲的廣大地區(qū)，數(shù)百萬(wàn)人是如何從早夭中被挽救出來(lái)并活得更長(zhǎng)的。那時(shí)我開(kāi)始思考其后果，那些不那么好的后果。很多社會(huì)以更高的出生人數(shù)來(lái)補(bǔ)償更高的死亡率為特點(diǎn)。有了新藥而出生率并沒(méi)有下降，于是就帶來(lái)了人口以及自然資源使用量的極大增長(zhǎng)。我們現(xiàn)在正面臨著諸般后果，而彼時(shí)的社會(huì)沒(méi)有想到要去考慮這些后果。

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.

延壽術(shù)在解決老年人口激增乃至找到足夠的人員在他們退休時(shí)供養(yǎng)他們的問(wèn)題上，可能會(huì)非常有用。很可能“長(zhǎng)生族”直到距離他們死亡20年之前，都不會(huì)被允許退休，這樣就能照顧我們中那些窮到負(fù)擔(dān)不起延壽的人。這樣會(huì)使請(qǐng)求人數(shù)變少，不是么？個(gè)人而言，我認(rèn)為延壽太瘋狂了，但如果人們一定要去求取長(zhǎng)生，那就讓他們?cè)馐転橹Ц镀渖罘绞蕉篮愎ぷ鞯暮蠊伞?br/>
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.

這個(gè)作者是個(gè)哲學(xué)家，他需要為他想表達(dá)的意思作出定義，不然辯論就會(huì)失去意義。他談?wù)摰氖茄訅?0年之類(lèi)的情況吧？還是1萬(wàn)年？在全文的語(yǔ)境中“永遠(yuǎn)”指的是什么意思？顯然他的意思不是字面上的永遠(yuǎn)。

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讓任何多活了50或100年的人變得無(wú)聊。但多活1萬(wàn)年就是一個(gè)不同的問(wèn)題了。

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，整個(gè)的辯論似乎假定了不存在來(lái)世（而這是因?yàn)閹缀跛械摹皩W(xué)術(shù)團(tuán)體”都認(rèn)同某種程度的唯物主義）。如果這個(gè)替代法被遺忘，活得更久的遠(yuǎn)景，至少在良好的健康狀況下似乎非常有吸引力。但如果存在來(lái)世，某種程度上這就是一個(gè)更復(fù)雜的問(wèn)題了，當(dāng)人們傾向于去轉(zhuǎn)世的情況下尤其如此。

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，延壽已經(jīng)被使用在我們的絕密空間計(jì)劃中了，而且自80年代起一直在用。他們只是不打算向我們透露這些，雖然存在一些揭發(fā)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，多虧了邁克爾·牛頓博士和其他人的工作，我們?nèi)粺o(wú)疑地知道輪回是真實(shí)存在的，而且我們?cè)谧约合胍臅r(shí)間都會(huì)再次化身，所以延壽是無(wú)關(guān)痛癢的。

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 …

人口過(guò)剩是對(duì)地球的重大危害，因而也是對(duì)所有居住者的重大危害。也許很難，但禁止延壽是必須去做的事。盡管如此，我很確定一些個(gè)富人會(huì)非法做這件事，而且可能會(huì)為演化中的分道揚(yáng)鑣做好準(zhǔn)備，屆時(shí)就會(huì)有一個(gè)高級(jí)種族和一個(gè)奴隸種族...但如果我們無(wú)所作為，那最終我們將面臨庫(kù)爾特·馮內(nèi)古特故事中的遭遇...