Collective Immortality: Living on Through Others
Kenneth Taylor

02 November 2015

This week we're talking aboutCollective Immortality – living on through others. Collective immortality refers to the fact that although each of us individually is going to die, the species as a whole will endure – if not forever, then at least for a very long time.

The subtitle is a little misleading, I have to admit, since we’re not really talking about the continuation of your individual life through the species. That would be a sort of pseudo-immortality – not the real thing, in any case. As Woody Allen puts it “I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen. I want to live on in my apartment. “ Though frankly, being confined for an eternity to even a really nice Manhattan apartment like his would actually get pretty boring after awhile, I imagine.

Humor aside, I think Allen is trying to make the deeper point that the prospect of death threatens to saps life of meaning and “living on through others” doesn’t change that fact. But I actually think Woody may have that wrong. I don't think that the prospect of death saps life of meaning. People dread death, to be sure, especially a premature death. But that does not mean that they want to live forever. But dreading death is consistent with living with purpose and determination, even in the face of death. Indeed, the prospect of death is what gives urgency to our lives. We have one very short life to live. There are no do overs. So we cannot afford to waste it. Carpe Diem! Seize this one, solitary day that you have been given. Suck all that goodness and sweetness out if that you possibly can.

What would really strip our lives of meaning, would be if we knew that nobody at all would live on after we die. Now it may not be immediately obvious why one should care whether other people live on after you yourself die. At a minimum, though, one tends to care about one’s children living on after you and about the many other people you hold near and dear. But those, of course, are people in whose continued existence one has a personal stake of some sort. When we talk about collective immortality, we’re talking about people on into the distant future, to whom no one currently living will have any real personal connection whatsoever. Why should we care about them?

为了找出原因，让我们做一个小小的思想实验来验证这一说法。假设明天，突然间，从外太空来的某种病毒使每一个活着的人都不能生育。从那天起，再也不会有新人诞生。慢慢地，但不可阻挡地，我们都会消亡。无可否认，这是一个相当可怕的思想实验。但它使我们能够提出一些深刻而重要的问题。以我为例。我一直在努力完成三本不同的书，现在看来似乎是永远。如果我知道从今以后不会有新人出生，我还会继续写完所有的书吗?我应该吗? What would be the point? There’s going to be nobody around to read and appreciate my brilliance.

我很想说，为了我自己的利益，我将继续写它们，因为我想在我的这些长期项目中实现某种程度的接近。但为什么结案如此重要呢?事实上，一想到我一生致力于写作的珍贵书籍，坐在满是灰尘的图书馆书架上，从来没有被其他人读过，只不过是蛆虫的食物，我就感到深深的恐惧。这在某种程度上削弱了我对它们是否值得一写的信心。但如果这是正确的，似乎我可能与未来几代完全陌生的人的存在有利害关系——相当个人的利害关系。

不过，尽管我愿意承认，我们做的一些事情，是着眼于遥远的未来——一个不包含我们或我们爱的人的未来。但说我们此时此地的生活有意义的一切都受制于子孙后代的存在，这是不对的。想想一顿美餐、一个美丽的日落或一个最亲爱的朋友的陪伴带来的快乐。这些事情让我们的生活变得有意义。即使我们知道我们是地球上最后的人类，他们仍然会这么做。

I suppose that one could worry whether there could actually be a life – a well-lived and meaningful life – that consisted wholly of such pleasure. So much of human life is bound up with the existence of future generations. So much of what we do would simply lose its point if we knew there were no more people to come. In our hypothetical thought experiment, for example, after awhile, there would be no point of training to be an elementary school teacher or a pediatrician if there no new people were being born.

I guess the real question is one of proportions. How much of our lives are essentially bound up with the existence of future generations? Are those aspects of our lives that are bound up with the existence of future generations things we could easily do without? Or are they essential parts of what it is to be a human being so that without them we would cease to be recognizable to ourselves?

These are the sorts of questions we address in this episode. We’d love to have you add your voice to the discussion.

Comments(7)

sanjay's picture

sanjay

Wednesday, November 4, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

After reading your article a

看了你的文章，我想到了一个词——旅行者。人在出生后会经历不同的人生阶段，从童年到青少年，从青少年到成熟，或者成年再到老年，最后到死亡。伍迪·艾伦想要通过住在他的公寓里来获得永生，这不是一个坏想法，但如果这是可以实现的。现实是让生活变得简单和快乐的最好方法。这是一个古老的谚语，适度是好的，所以以同样的方式生活在适度是好的，永远活着只会带来疾病，痛苦和永无止境的生命。正如他的牧师向国王建议说，你将在你的家族和王国中活得最久，作为回报，国王提拔他的牧师为寺庙的首领。另一个牧师去对国王说，你将见证你的父母，孩子，孙子，叔叔和婶婶的死亡，你将负责安排他们的葬礼，作为一家之主，你将无法阻止这一切。一位国王大怒，下令将他绞死。所以现实仍然是一样的，但是我们准备好接受整个现实了吗，或者只是我们想要的。
Mr Ken as you have described that you are working on three books which leaves with a question that satisfaction is something in completing a one project which is close to your heart or working on a unfinished many projects. Stillness is important as it helps to focus on one project than to be on many active at the same time.Stllness is the key of satisfaction. Ones accomplishment or brilliance is judged by others not by himself as even mirror shows us what we want to see and every one is Damn good Looking.....
为什么对某些人或任何人都很重要。因为结束与结束或最终成就有关。当我们结束的那一天，意味着我们已经完成了所有的事情，明白了一切，所以是时候继续前进了，因为我们没有什么可以见证，也没有什么可以对生活做出贡献了。历史证明，即使是亚历山大大帝也无法完成他的旅程，死在了回希腊的路上。这意味着他死时没有实现自己的愿望。对社会的贡献比自我封闭更重要，因为自我封闭只针对你自己。
A life is meaningful as long as we don't associate ourselves with the future which is a mystery to us.Meaningful life is what we have not what we don't and we should try to make the most of it.
世界将继续前进，我们是旅行者/访客在这一生谁在这里贡献尽可能多，而不考虑任何回报和永生带来我的一个问题，如果我们不能实现或贡献在我们最好的70年的生活，我们期望在那之后实现??????????
Well this the first time i have written so expect many flaws in it................
Await for your reply and i am open for critiques....

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Thursday, November 5, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

I suppose collective

从利他主义的角度来说，我认为集体永生是一个很好的概念。但是，我怀疑，对于那些希望在个人死后生命问题上得到一个积极结论的奉献者来说，它起不到什么作用。仍然有很多人抱有这样的希望，原因有很多——可能包括伍迪·艾伦(Woody Allen)所向往的(尽管有些无聊)。我偶然看到了迪尼希·德索萨的书:《死后的生命，证据》尽管D'Souza提供的证据多种多样，而且对一些人来说可能很有说服力，但它主要是间接的，当然也是道听途说。等到时机成熟，我们都将知道圆满的真相，也会知道令人心碎的谎言。这个令人满意的事实，用现代的夸张手法来说，是了不起的。相反，这个令人心碎的谎言几乎不会产生任何影响。当你死了，谎言就再也伤不了你了。
Fondly,
Neuman.

momookim's picture

momookim

Sunday, November 8, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

This post reminds me of a

这篇文章让我想起了去年Samuel Scheffler关于关心后代的演讲。想象一下，一个怀疑论者怀疑他们关心后代。我们能对那个人说什么来说服他们关心我们呢?我可以看到两条貌似合理的推论。第一种是向那个人解释他们实际上已经关心子孙后代了。我们可以指出他们正在进行的项目、目标和野心，我们可以证明，如果未来的后代不存在，这些项目将如何难以理解或无意义。如果肯是怀疑论者，我们可以把他的三个著作项目作为他关心的证据。另一种推理则深入到更深的层次，在关心是理性的情况下，说明为什么怀疑论者应该关心。我想我这里借用了内格尔在《利他主义的可能性》中的一些观点。怀疑论者可能会指出一些她看重的东西，也许肯的清单上没有的东西:“一顿美餐的乐趣，或一个美丽的日落，或一个人的陪伴?亲爱的朋友。” And as Ken adds, "Those things contribute to the meaningfulness of our lives." These things contribute to the worth of the skeptic's life. But, in admitting this, the skeptic must also cede that there is nothing specific about his life that makes these activities valuable only for him. These activities add value, because they are value-adding activities for people. So as long there are people and valuable activities in the future, the skeptic will admit there will be valuable lives in future generations. And if the skeptic must accept there will be valuable lives in future generations, she would be remiss to not care about them by at least intellectually acknowledging them. While this sketch is not comprehensive, I find it pretty interesting and somewhat compelling.

N. Bogdanov's picture

N. Bogdanov

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

What strikes me first is the

我首先想到的是，如果我们知道在我们死后没有人会继续活下去，我们的生命就真的失去了意义。然而，这一说法的真实性似乎取决于我们的生命的价值首先必然与他人联系在一起，其次与我们之后的其他人的存在联系在一起。肯?S的思想实验围绕着他的书就是这样一个例子。与此同时，肯承认并不是所有的价值观都是这种类型的，比如享用一顿美餐或享受好伙伴的陪伴。这些活动对我们当下很有价值，不管将来会发生什么。因此，正如肯的结论，这个问题似乎涉及到比例的问题。你能过上只有这些价值的真正有意义的生活吗?
从存在主义的角度来看，我?我起初忍不住回答说，的确，这是唯一能让你活得有意义的方法!因为在这样的观点下，没有本质，也没有内在的任何意义，包括我们的生命。相反，只有我们自己才能给我们的生活和我们周围的世界带来价值。当然，一个人可以通过这样一种方式来让我们死后人类的集体存在变得有价值。在这样的模式下他或她会过一种与他人有某种客观价值的生活相似的生活吗?的生活。这样看来，我最初的诱惑是错误的。然而，这两种生活之间仍然有一个重要的区别。在存在主义的观点下，有意义的生活和他人的价值之间缺乏必要的联系? future existence. One may choose whether and how they subscribe to such a view. And this is an important freedom, I think.
Mo?s comment, indeed drawing on The Possibility of Altruism, pulls me strongly as well, however. I love Nagel?s argument in this book and find it compelling as a means of generating at least intellectual respect for others. I wonder how Nagel?s view would mesh with the existentialist? Perhaps a discussion for another time.

Alyosha's picture

Alyosha

Friday, November 20, 2015 -- 4:00 PM

The approach you articulate

你所阐述的方法与利他主义无关。它的目的是试图在名声中寻找慰藉。祝你好运!

BG's picture

BG

Thursday, June 21, 2018 -- 10:22 AM

有趣的讨论。I

有趣的讨论。我有几个不同的想法。尽管从思想实验中获得了无意义的感觉，但我发现自己仍然被荒谬的问题和寻找激情的解决方案所吸引。用外行的话说，“既然你在这里，不如开个派对吧!”也许超人类主义没有意义了，很多东西实际上会发生改变(例如，一段时间后不再需要学校老师)，但人们仍然可以通过正念找到激情。讨论永生时，我想到的第二个更务实的想法是:存在风险。如今，生活似乎正在通过指数级的变化加速。如果我们不能适应这样的超负荷，会发生什么?通过永生的幻想，我们越造越快，仿佛它不会事与愿违。我一直在读自杀率上升的报道。 Could it be that in the new disconnect there are more people who seek Philosophical Suicide?

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Sunday, June 24, 2018 -- 11:09 AM

When I was in my mid-forties,

When I was in my mid-forties, a few years after marrying for the second(and most certainly, the last) time, I had, for a time, regrets about never siring children. A mid-life crisis? I suppose so, but the regrets were natural enough, given the social contract under which I (and so many others)had been raised, and the genetic imperative for procreation. Now that I am much older, and secure in the knowledge that there is a better than good chance my family line will continue via my older brother's contributions, I no longer give serious thought to this conundrum. In short, I now think immortality would become tedious at best. I have learned as much as I could and contributed, where it was allowed. To think that children of mine would have been a priceless contribution to the continuance of humankind, on the basis of any superior genes, is mere vain imagining. Contrary to Einstein's assertion, God DOES play dice. And roulette...

Tags