- Emma Heikkinen
- Helsinki, Finland
- Finland
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is is ethical to try to lengthen the human lifespan?
My concerns about the ethics of trying to lengthen the human lifespan are partly related to overpopulation, poverty and famine and also the demographic changes it would cause. We've just hit 7 billion people on this planet and continue to reproduce.
My other aspect on the ethical side of this is that isn't is a bit selfish to try to live longer and longer? Are the medical and genetic engineering projects to lengthen the human lifespan the modern search for Philosopher's stone and the ultimate sign of our fear of death?
Please share your thoughts and knowledge and ask more questions!
Closing Statement from Emma Heikkinen
Thanks for everyone for contributing to this conversation! I could not be happier that my first TED conversation got replies and actually gave me some very fruitful thoughts also. Happy holidays everyone!
Thomas Anderson
All of Humanity should have the opportunity to live well into their 300's. Longer, the more we understand how energy and DNA work together.
Emma Heikkinen
I'd like to hear your thoughts about the possible outcomes and positive/ negative side-effect significantly lengthening human lifespan all around the globe would have. In my opinion, it will be only a few people with money and the right geographical location who will be able to benefit from the new technologies and medicine for a quite a long time. The world is very divided and unequal as I have stated many times before and therefore lengthening one's lifespan might create new "classes" and make bigger gaps between people of the world. If someone invents "the cure for death and aging" I'm sure they won't be giving it away for free.
So I'm quoting myself and asking you:
1) What are the social, economical, political, global, religious etc concerns behind trying to lengthen human lifespan?
2) In your opinion, are there more positive or negative possible outcomes for developing biological and genetic engineering, medicine etc. to lengthen the human lifespan significantly? Why is that?
Ram Sidh
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jorgen Klaveness
Thank you for responding to my outburst about autism prevention, as an alternative way to keep health care costs down. I'm sorry to sidetrack the main conversastion, so I'll try to be very brief when I answer Kristian's question:
>> "The most likely cause is cumulative low-grade poisoning, with things like mercury, lead, copper and aluminium"
according to who?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jorgen Klaveness
The poisoning theory is more a concern than a full-blown belief, i.e. a question about what risks we can allow ourselves to take while we develop our understanding of the problem. I've lived with this problem in my family for 25 years, have read everything I've come across about the causes and gone to countless conferences, and believe we hae ample reason for concern. Very simply put, lead is over 50 times more poisonous in the presence of mercury and vice versa, and the toxicity of both increases in the presence of testosterone. If you want to read more, start with the work done by professor Boyd Haley.
There's already some evidence. The lab results are clear, but we don't have enough of them yet. Amalgam fillings, for example, don't seem to give off enough mercury to harm most people, but we know that it's concentrated across the placenta, and the rise in autism happened to the first generation to be born after such fillings became widespread. The epidemiological evidence is ambiguous. The rise in violent crime, for example, mirrors our exposure to tetraethyllead with a 22-year time lag, but both of them also mirror other factors as well. It's a mess - but one we I think we can't afford to ignore.
In haste,
:-J
Jørgen
Krisztián Pintér 200+
giving mercury to someone has no ethical aspects, as long as everything is voluntary and honest.
Jorgen Klaveness
You are right, of course - except that it's not the one or the other. Governments make their own mistakes, particularly when they don't have democratic feedback. When they do get that feedback, however, you very often see politicians get into power on the strength of their short-term promises. That is one of the main reasons why countries run up debt.
The biggest US problem right now is not the wars, or the debt as such, but the way the debt is increasing mainly because health care spending is out of control. Health care is nice. Everyone loves it, and wants to spare no expense when they feel they "need" it (or their loved ones). The problem is that all those costs add up. To say it (over)simply: We are bankrupting our kids and grandkids, in order to keep ourselves and our parents alive. And in order to save money, we're not even giving our kids the kinds of education that might have enabled them to pay the debt off.
Atul Gawande wrote a brilliant article about the mechanics and psychology of health care spending a couple of years back, called "The Cost Conundrum". It depicts a medical system that has gone half the way towards where Law is now (I'm a lawyer). The only way out of this mess is to spend more sparingly and wisely. Europe manages to run health care systems that are much cheaper, and not that much worse.
We also need to start reconciling ourselves with death.
Emma Heikkinen
Also one other point is that the question setting of the original question here is not really what I even meant. Actually the only ethical problem behind the actual lengthening of a human lifespan is if we want to lengthen the life of someone who would most probably suffer from it more than just to die away. The real ethical questions are elsewhere and rise of the social, economical, political, global and even religious viewpoints behind the actual issue.
Perhaps what I should've been asking in the first place is:
1) What are the social, economical, political, global, religious etc concerns behind trying to lengthen human lifespan?
2) In your opinion, are there more positive or negative possible outcomes for developing biological and genetic engineering, medicine etc. to lengthen the human lifespan significantly? Why is that?
This is a very intriguing topic and I'm blown away by all of your brilliant and thorough comments! How does my new setting of questions look like?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
to the questions.
1. as you pointed out, if the lifespan is lengthened considerably, population could go up. i believe it has an ethical aspect, which is: every couple must ask whether they will be able to raise their children on a level of wellbeing they find appropriate. as the expected longevity increases, that question becomes more and more difficult to answer. all sort of political and economical consequences follow as well. as soon as significant life extending will be possible, the desire for such treatments will skyrocket. there will be a lot of turmoil about fairness and equality, and we might hear the wish to establish some "longevity cap". i can't want to hear what major religions have to say about this. suppose we can live practically forever. will such treatment allowed to a christian? will they ban it?
2. considering how terrible aging is, the net result has to be massively positive.
Emma Heikkinen
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Karyn Seroussi
Karyn Seroussi
Your question makes me think of one I've pondered. At what age range is life "most" valuable? We always go to great lengths to save babies and children. They're cute, they're helpless, and as a parent, I feel that primordial prime directive to protect them. I would probably jump in front of a train to save a stranger's baby. I would have broken most any code of "ethics" to save one of my babies from illness or injury. Maybe even sacrifice my own life.
But, from a societal point of view, we haven't put as many resources into a two-year-old as, say, an 18-year-old. Food, shelter and education aren't cheap. At 18, a person is just getting ready to pay back that investment through work, procreation, providing resources for the next generation, etc. At 35, functional working parents are indispensible. At 55, experience and knowledge can be extremely valuable. How much do we lose when we lose a 70-year-old who is a dedicated climate scientist? Or a superior educator? Or a wise and ethical lawyer or judge?
The problem with ethics questions is that there's no one-size-fits-all answer. But when I try to tailor your question to the individual case, I run into the biggest ethics question of all... who has the right to decide which life is most valuable? Is there any one person or committee I would trust in that role? I believe that every person has the right to end their own life, but no other.
And that takes me to my answer to your question: ethically, a hospital staff has to treat all life as equally valuable. Even a brain-damaged 90-year-old on a respirator. Doctors will always have to make some quiet decisions, but they aim to balance their use of resources as best they can and save as many lives as possible. The young will be favored above the old because of the bias I described. Still, IMO, a civilized society has to come from a starting point that every life is worth saving... and extending... wherever the resources (yes, even money) exist.
Emma Heikkinen
This is a very interesting topic. You introduced the ethical problem behind age and the value of human life in different ages very well. I also think the societal point of view is very interesting. Just the other day I sat in a lecture with a researcher talking about how age and education are being valued in working life and how this affects people's personal sense of value and worthiness. It is a very hot topic also, at least here in Finland we have a big issue with elderly people conducting suicides (well ,we have high suicide rates in every age group...) and I think one of the things affecting this issue along with loneliness etc. is the sense of feeling like your life doesn't have a value anymore now that you're old. You've become a burden instead of being a valuable human being. In my opinion effectiveness and the competitiveness of our economies have put the stress on our mid-life (which can basically be anywhere between 25-55 nowadays) on being the most time-money-efficient time of a human life and that's when the person can most "contribute" (make money for the society/ government, economy etc.) and therefore this is the highest value-point in our life from societal point of view. Work is a key word here: a value of a person who remains uneducated and unemployed is from this point of view much lower than a working person's value. I personally think it's quite sad and narrow minded to see life from the time-money-efficient point of view and use those "lenses" to look at the value of people. Of course this is only one way of looking at this issue, but I just wanted to share that thought. It's a complicated question which doesn't really have one answer and bringing in religion and philosophy to this conversation just makes it even more complex - yet interesting.
Thank you for your comment!
Ram Sidh
I will tell you something Krisztian, have you ever thought about why a human is 'doomed' to die in the end? Neither have I, because I wouldn't know unless I died too, hoping that our minds aren't completely destroyed by that time. I have read the Upanishads, Vedas, hardly even touched the Bible because it isn't really relevant in this issue, and I came across a stunning realization. We try to avoid death due to a fear of the unknown, due to the fear that we may be forgotten, more importantly due to the fear that all our materialistic possessions and our bodies would just disintegrate. What an extremely human view of death that is. No, I've realized that with all of our science and medicine what we've done is create more problems for ourselves rather than solve anything. No, I've realized that death is our way to living forever. This may sound like it's straight from out of a movie, but I strongly believe in this fact. I do not fear death. You can take it from a scientific point of view. Have you ever heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy and Mass? I don't think so, but I'll tell you what it is...The law states that energy and mass can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed from one form to another. That is what is happening to us. Our mass is a manifestation of pure energy, when we die, this mass will transform into energy and will ascend. Don't think I'm some sort of religious fanatic, but this is what I strongly believe. In the end Krisztian, I can't really argue with you and you can't really argue with me, because both of us have no idea what death is at this point.......unless your a zombie of course.....
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging-associated_diseases
it is irrelevant why we fear death for this conversation. having stupid reasons is not immoral. in fact, most of our reasons are silly to some degree. stealing someone's wallet with or without a good reason is immoral. the act itself is immoral. not using a cellphone to avoid brain cancer is probably silly, but not immoral, since the act itself is not immoral.
moral questions always aimed to change the behavior of other people. if something is immoral, we go out to great distances to stop that behavior. that is why it is very important to clearly define what is false, silly, questionable or immoral. we don't have to persecute false and silly things. it is enough to just argue them. but we do want to fight immorality with an iron fist. if overpopulation is an immoral act, it has serious consequences to our personal rights.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
it is mostly scientific, but he makes the point that yes, overpopulation can be a problem, but aging and death already is a problem, and quite severe at that. basically he asks whether it is moral not to try to save people from that suffering.
Emma Heikkinen
I think human mind is the most extraordinary thing there is, but it doesn't change the fact that we are biological, material beings. I think it's great that we can enhance the quality of life and save people from dying before they have lived full lives. Sometimes I do think it's cruel to try to keep someone alive, for example a baby that's been born way before it's time and is not developed enough and will suffer for the rest of it's life if it will be "saved" or a person suffering from a terminal illness etc. In my opinion it is more humane to let them die than make them live.
Here we actually come to another counter-topic: Is euthanasia acceptable? In my opinion it is acceptable. In many cases it's the people who remain that don't want to let go, not the person who will die.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i don't think there are any ethical consequences in any medical treatments that can make life longer. this is simply not an ethical question. it opens up a lot of ethical questions though, for example who will pay for it, and who will pay for the research of such treatments. these are interesting questions. but making someone healthier for longer time is not questionable.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Emma Heikkinen
I notice my "argument" about death and aging being natural is a naturalistic fallacy, and I'm quite amazed I didn't notice it myself - this is why conversation is so important! I have one question for you though: do you think it still isn't an ethical question to make someone healthier for a longer time if it's about making someone for example terminally ill relatively healthier for a longer time but thereby lengthening one's lifespan?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Frans Kellner 100+
This to limit the costs of insurance.
Jorgen Klaveness
Emma Heikkinen
Jorgen Klaveness
I'm all for political action, but see other problems as more pressing than to limit the number of octogenarians. Autism has increased by a factor of 20 over the last 25 years. Autism hits boys 4 times more often than girls, which means that whatever is causing autism to go up, is probably acting synergistically with testosterone. I'm afraid that it's not a coincidence that the ratio of boys to girls in our colleges has gone down to 40/60 over the same time span. The most likely cause is cumulative low-grade poisoning, with things like mercury, lead, copper and aluminium, that are relatively harmless in very small doses when acting alone, but which are dramatically more poisonous when allowed to act together. Testosterone is known to increase the toxicity. Estrogen protects. This ongoing problem is something we very definitely can't afford as a society, and yet NOBODY is doing a thing about it.
Emma Heikkinen
As we see, increasing knowledge is crucial. This piece of information I just received, makes me want to look into it more.
Also thank you for sharing your opinion!
Krisztián Pintér 200+
according to who?
Zdenek Smith 100+
I think the real problem with the good use of resources are not necessarily individuals but rather governments that spend trillions of dollars on wars, false security measures and laws that aid big corporations rather than the public.
Emma Heikkinen
I think lack of education and religion are the root of all evil. when it comes to overpopulation in certain areas of the world. More contraceptives, better medical care, even a right to have an abortion would lessen the suffering significantly. There are, in my opinion, some very dangerous religious rules and teachings that are making it very hard to fix certain things, as contraceptives and therefore also the spreading of HIV/AIDS etc. As Dylan F said in his post, we really have all the potential but we're terribly lacking of the will to strive towards global equality. I think global inequality and political selfishness are the biggest causes of famine and lack of required means for survival and global wellbeing. There is theoretically enough of food and land on this planet for all people, but they're so unequally divided, it's not even a valid argument anymore. It’s politics all the way.
What about the motives behind trying to live longer? Is it that we've forgotten about the fact that we're animals with a frail and degrading corpses and become so arrogant in our intellectual and spiritual understanding, that we are starting to play with our genes and try to find a quick-fix to our little problem of mortality?
Zdenek Smith 100+
I wonder what is natural? Is it natural that unlike animals we started to use fire? Is it natural that we sit in front of a computer and communicate through the thing called the Internet? Or is it natural that through evolution we developed ability to think and used it to our advantage as other animals use different traits as well?
We do not really can predict the future so while people will live longer and longer our technology might solve problems that are associated with this phenomena. The trend is that technology is allowing us to be more efficient, use renewable resources like sun and wind, use less natural resources such as paper (with the Internet people buy less books, magazines and receive less mail, for example) and venture into space to mine diminishing metals etc.
However I do agree we need to ensure our way of life is indeed sustainable and it will not affect future generations. I also agree with lack of education and cultural/religious dogmas constraining our ability to act. In US greed and influence of powerful corporations and politicians dictates how government spends money without considering much environment and educational needs.
"What about the motives behind trying to live longer?"
I think for some people trying to live longer can open great possibilities to learn and experience the world. Similarly technology will continue to allow us to do things we could never do before. I see likely that eventually we will merge technology with our bodies and becoming even less similar to animals. Why should that be wrong thing to do?
One potential problem I do see with people living much longer. In the past older generations kept their religious and ethical beliefs while the next generation pushes forward more liberal views and practices. Hopefully as we start living much longer we learn to never stop learning and adjusting to new ideas and better way of creating equality and morality?
Emma Heikkinen
I just read John Dewey's book "Quest for Certainty" and I thought he discussed the conflict between ancient philosophy and the quest of human mind to find the absolute certainty and "truth" behind everything and how religion and this kind of ancient believes have and still are hindering our ability to utilise all the new information and knowledge. It is a very interesting topic also and I really hope that the human kind will develop slowly and by that I here mean letting go all religious and other dogmatic believes.
Emma Heikkinen
I would like to address another se of questions. If we hypothetically would think it's ok to lengthen our lifespans (technology, medical and gene engineering etc.)these solutions would (most probably) for a very long time be available for only certain people with a lot of money, the right geographical location, socio-economical background, cultural heritage etc. factors. People's life expectancies in different parts of the world are already very different (from around 40 to over 100 y expectancies) and the medical care and basic requirements for survival are not meeting people's needs. What do you think, does the request of trying to lengthen human lifespan create an even bigger gap between the ones that can access this new information and inventions and those who are less fortunate and are struggling to stay alive in so many parts of the world. Are we creating just another level of inequality into this world? Would it be better to accept out limited lifespans and then try to make the most out of it for everyone. In my opinion we can’t tag along forever, we need to turn into dust at one point so the next generations can fill in from were we left off.
Jorgen Klaveness
The aging process is there for a reason. The goal of sexual reproduction is diversity. Eternal life is the negation of diversity. Each generation needs to grow up, reproduce, and then GET OUT OF THE WAY. Human beings are programmed to age die at the point in time where they're at risk for outcompeting their descendants in the fight for resources. So, first we become frail, and then - when our frailness makes us a burden for our descendants, we die. Women live longer because they're more useful for their grandkids.
If it hadn't been for modern medicine, I would have died at birth. Was it ethical to keep me alive? I guess it was, since it helped me fulfil my biological "destiny". Was it ethical to save me from appedicitis at 40, and again from complicatons from hernias at 55? I'm not the best judge of this, but my excuse for staying alive is that I'm still pretty useful. My continued existence is probably so useful for the next generation, in a long-term perspective, that it outweighs the short-term benefit they would get if I left the scene now (so they could divide up my land and my possessions).
Will it be ethical to keep me alive at 85 or 90? My pension, at that point, will come from my own savings, but that's a silly point to make: My descendants would be better off if they could get those savings straight away, without having to work hard for them and channel the resourcese / income away from their own children. The same goes for the rest of society, if I didn't have descendants.
I could go on and on. My point is that we should wait till the end of the discussion before we take out the words "ethical" and "unethical", and decide on the semantic issue of where and how to use them.
Emma Heikkinen
I very much liked your GET OUT OF THE WAY explanation and I agree with you on that. This is exactly the root of my questions and the reason this whole issue feels so complex and intriguing to me. After all, we are a bag of flesh, blood, bones and some organs and not meant to live for ever. One specific organ, the brain, just makes us forget about that fact sometimes and believe that we're trapped in our mortal bodies with "immortal souls". Do you think the fact that we're able to reason, conduct complex knowledge, ask questions about life and death etc. gives us the right to (try to) escape our evolutionary and biological state of humanness?
As I said in one of my previous replies to someone, I think "ethics" is a socio-historically and culturally conducted complex set of believes of good and bad and how we should think and behave etc. and is therefore a very tricky concept to discuss. I also think we construct our knowledge of the world and our opinions based on the scientific facts but also socially, historically and culturally transmitted information and believes. Emotions also play a role in this game.
Thanks again for your comment!
Zdenek Smith 100+
Instead of looking at how long people live should we aim at changing our lives so we consume in environmentally friendly way, with sustainability and reuse in mind and be less materialistic?
Emma Heikkinen
I agree on sustainability being the key word here. I also think the question of overpopulation is interesting, and I have seen that talk: it's very intriguing. Check out my latest comment if you're interested in my opinion on the issue(: Thanks!
Zdenek Smith 100+
deb burks
Population can be controlled, however: Provide every female on the planet with the means to prevent pregnancy and the population will even out in 9 months, and then actually start to gradually decline as it does in countries where pregnancy prevention products are free or inexpensive and readily available.
Emma Heikkinen
The word sustainability really is a key here. It seems to come up in many comments and you're definitely right, in my opinion, with the notion of how unsustainable the way we're living right now is.
Thanks again!
raymond mynar
Emma Heikkinen
I agree with you that we should try to constantly learn and develop knew knowledge. In my opinion it is also very important to discuss the possible outcomes and side effects some of our new technologies and innovations might have. After all, if you innovate something brilliant that would for example improve significantly the lives of 10,000 people, but deprive other people on the planet of basic requirements for life, would it be ethical? I think everything is connected because we share this planet and it's limited assets all together and we should try to think of ourselves as a part of the entity and not just ourselves or our country etc. It's a very complex world we live in.
I'm glad you found TED! I've been watching the talks for a long time, but just registered and joined the conversation myself(: Welcome!
Dylan F
So I believe we should ask different questions in regards to aging and a growing world population. Do we have the resources and technology to sustain a healthy standard of living (however defined) for the world population as a whole? If so, what are the required steps to reach this? If not, why not? What technologies may need to be further developed to ensure this? And what can we do to minimize suffering in the mean time (i.e. contraceptives, dampening the desire for wanting many children through creating more opportunities and enhancing the standard of living in areas of poverty as much as possible, etc.)?
Our planet is huge, our technology is advanced (and exponentially increasing) but our willingness to strive towards global equality is lacking.
Emma Heikkinen
Thanks for your comment! I agree that without life (human life) ethics don't exist, because "ethics" is a man-made concept and a socio-historically and culturally constructed complex set of believes of how we should behave and what we should base our decisions on. Nevertheless, human life exists at least for now, so ethics in my opinion is a relevant issue to bring on the table. I wanted to ask, why is it that you think it's inevitable we strive towards living longer? Couldn't it be also inevitable for us to except the fact that we're mortal and will die at one point, and instead of trying to live longer just try to pursue a better standard and quality of living (hence death avoidance in a form of modern medicine for example)?
What do you think are the biggest factors that are stopping us from increasing global equality and wellbeing? How could we make the new technologies and information available for everyone and not just for a small group of people on this planet?
Thanks again(:
Dylan F
Thanks for the response. I read your other post you've made clarifying your stance. I really do think it's a very interesting and relevant question. If living a longer life directly contributed to a shorter life of someone else, I could foresee a strong moral argument for such a balancing act. However, such limitations do not exist.
From my understanding, a long, healthy life requires only a reasonable amount of resources. Unless you're genetically predisposed to diseases or have unhealthy habitual tendencies, you'll be quite fine statistically if you have access to general healthcare, healthy food and water and find yourself in a social community. These basic necessities could easily be brought to everyone, right now.
The root issues to why these basic necessities are not universal lay in policies and economics: Policies because the world is not quite yet globalized and thus we have societies with totalitarian rule and very misguided social beliefs as a consequence; Economics because many nations have been unable to compete internationally for reasons in and outside of their control.
Dylan F
It has been happening already. Although the gap is large now, the global life expectancy in the 1800s was 37. So even those at the low end of the spectrum are enjoying lives much better than the average person 200 years ago! But it gets better because in this information age we find ourselves in, there is exponential change. We think in linear terms so it’s very hard to imagine what the next few decades will look like. With biotechnology, robotics and (eventually) nanotechnology, some believe we could even be immortal by ~2050. By then we will be much more intelligent than we are now that all ethical dilemmas we predict now will be obsolete. I suppose all we can do is continue to develop technologies, value well-being as the most important thing in life and structure our communities promoting that fact.
Ed Schulte 50+
Is without a beginning or end.
Obviously you are referring to the current manifestation in form ( lower material body existence ) therefore the consideration must be ...what "Quality" of consciousness this BEing is resinating with and what Quality is it contributing the Whole.
Follow that question with this ...if the BEing does not exist in physical form what "forms" remain and again what "Qualities" remain and resinate with the "whole."
Here is a working example Carl G. Jung has left a Living "Quality" which continues to Manifest in the below quote summary. Would this summary be more effective ...more applied within the "whole" if he where still alive??
wrt to the burned of extended / larger populations on the planet...the planet will adjust to the needs of the consciousness it is here to support. Its task would simply be easier if it didn't have to sustain so much waste due to unconscious behaviour.
"Carl Jung answered the question of belief late in his life, "I don't believe; I know."
"The following spiritual principles are the bedrock on which creative recovery and discovery can be built. Read them through once a day, and keep an inner ear cocked for any shifts in attitudes or beliefs.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
1. Creativity is the natural order of life. Life is energy: pure creative energy.
2. There is an underlying, in-dwelling creative force infusing all of life—including ourselves.
3. When we open ourselves to our creativity, we open ourselves to the creator's creativity within us and our lives.
4. We are, ourselves, creations. And we, in turn, are meant to continue creativity by being creative ourselves.
5. Creativity is God's gift to us. Using our creativity is our gift back to God.
6. The refusal to be creative is self-will and is counter to our true nature.
7. When we open ourselves to exploring our creativity, we open ourselves to God: good orderly direction.
8. As we open our creative channel to the creator, many
Emma Heikkinen
There is one fundamental thing I don't share with you, which is the existence of God, the creator or however one wants to address this kind of a "being". Nevertheless, I could ask a couple of new questions:
1) If you believe a human being is without a beginning or end, why would someone want to try to lengthen their material existence?
2) Does the material existence even matter, if we're just creative energy flowing through time and space?
3) Also, if we're creations ourselves and meant therefore to create, is it ok for us to create ways to lengthen our (material existence) life spans on this planet?
Ed Schulte 50+
I will return your "Thank You" with a "Thank Us!!..because all we HUmans ever have is each other"
wrt your "There is one fundamental thing I don't share with you, which is the existence of God",.......which is completely fine from my perspective ...
...no HUman has either the need nor the right to try and convince another HUman 'Who they are' .......that is for each to discover through their own unique creative process/experience and return back to that one infinite BEing-ness with that added experience/quality in hand. And, adding here, to do so as many times as required
Re "the creator".....if you are referring to the unfortunately common practice some religions and mind sets have of clinging to some "external" to ones Self ..."being"-ness "or "creator" or "however one wants to address this"... then we are together in understanding ......there is NO THING that is outside of HUman existence.
WRT your questions
1) I don't see/hear/feel a HUman being "whats" is or needs to...it is mealy the efficiency of the design that we are. The greater the efficiency in Love and Life the less contradiction there are between the material / Psychical and Noetical bodies
2) It (matter/physical) matters in that it is the ideal place to gain "experience" (again as said above) in elevating the "Quality" of Infinite "being" iow it knows itself better ( the Jung point no. 4, 5 and cut off 8)
3) I see/hear/feel that that point is covered ...so lets take it a step further shall we? We know full well that the Sun ( just another part of our body) is a source of limited supply of energy. What or who and how, will it be replaced when it's replacement is required ? Don't you agree that replacing it will be perfectly OK too??