Igor Vishev, the founder of the science of immortality, told Valery Spiridonov about why the study of the issues of eternal life is becoming more acceptable in Russia, how the religious and scientific approach to immortality differs, and which version of immortality for a person he considers the most realistic.
The life path of Igor Vishev was largely determined by the fact that he lost his sight in 1947, when he was only 14 years old, having received a severe chemical burn to his face and eyes. Despite this tragedy, he managed to become a Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Philosophy of the Social and Humanitarian Institute of the South Ural State University in Chelyabinsk, a full member of the Academy of Humanities, a specialist in the field of philosophical anthropology and religious studies.
You are the creator of a new discipline of immortology - the science of immortality. What knowledge do you share with students? What practical skills can they acquire?
- Naturally, I have to deal with people who, to a large extent, have already developed a certain worldview, including regarding the death and immortality of a person. These beliefs, as a rule, have nothing to do with immortology. So students often have to seriously reconsider their views on such a complex issue, and any changes in the world outlook are difficult and by no means quick.
Within the framework of the course on immortology, the historical aspects of the problem are considered - for example, the tendency of the change of pessimistic ideas to optimistic ones, both in religion and in science.
Special attention is paid to the modern philosophical foundations of the non-traditional formulation of the problem of immortality and its solution. We are talking, in particular, about Tsiolkovsky's views on the problem of a perpetual motion machine, allowing a new approach to the substantiation of the possibility of achieving real immortality.
Discussion of the topic of immortality generates an exceptional interest in its moral, humanistic and related aspects. Robert Rozhdestvensky succinctly expressed his negative position on this range of issues: "If only people lived forever, it would be inhuman."
It is not surprising that in the work one often has to face rather sharp opposition and rejection of immortological ideas. At the same time, it happens to me, in return, to hear very interesting approaches and hypotheses from the students. Sharing knowledge with them, I would like to hope that I form their scientific and optimistic outlook, strengthen their belief in the intrinsic value of life, the desire to constantly take care of their health in order to prolong life.
Promotional video:
My opponents, it must be admitted, often have very simplified ideas on the range of issues under consideration, so that enlightenment turns out to be quite relevant. This work has, albeit a delayed, but ultimately very practical effect: current students, quite possibly, in the future will become leaders of various social structures and leaders of public opinion, capable of positively influencing the humanistic and conscious perception of the ideas of immortology.
What is the difference between the concepts of "immortalism" and "immortology" so as not to get confused in the future?
- "Immortalism", as they say, is a loose concept. First of all, representatives of religion were called immortalists, because it professes the doctrine of the posthumous existence of man, of the afterlife, eternal life. Its adherents are called immortalists, since they talk about immortality, and in the absolute sense of the word - as a state that excludes death, for example, the immortality of the soul.
Immortality / Fotolia / Kevron2001
By the way, it is worth noting that some adherents of religion declare such a notion "an invention of the devil", since it follows from it that the almighty God is powerless to destroy it, to punish the sinner with the highest punishment - complete destruction.
But no less important is the fact that such immortalism actually turns out to be postmortalism, after death, because such a belief considers death an indispensable condition for the transition to otherworldly immortality. So already in this regard, certain clarifications should have been made.
But the main thing is still in something else. Over time, the concept of "immortalism" began to be used by representatives of science, but, of course, in a fundamentally different sense - the achievement of real personal immortality, including biocosmists, transhumanists and other scientists. "Scientific immortalism" arose. And along with this, ambiguity, uncertainty, even confusion appeared, each time it was necessary to clarify what kind of immortalism we were talking about.
To eliminate this kind of ambiguity, the concept of immortology, the science of immortality, was proposed. It is unambiguous and accurate in meaning. His followers, that is, supporters of scientific practical immortalism, should be called immortologists. So there was a transition from belief in immortality to the science of immortality. Death should not be trampled upon by death, but by life!
Subsequently, other concepts were proposed, such as "Homo immortalis" - an immortal person as the goal of the development of human society, "immorthohumanism" - humanism, proceeding not from the recognition of the inevitability of death, as now, but from the need to defeat it.
What, in your opinion, is the current trend of changing public perceptions about human life expectancy?
- Compared to the time when I began to deal with this range of problems in the late 1950s, over the past 60 years, the difference in relation to the problem of life and death has been significant! The tradition of the old materialism and Marxism tended to accept the idea of a hopeless doom to die. The logic was approximately the following: we live, of course, not enough, but immortality is unattainable.
At first, I intended to start writing a book about real immortality right away. But I soon realized that with the existing public opinion it would not pass for immortality. I had to switch to articles. It was very difficult to publish. They said to me: “Fight! If there is something in it, you will achieve it. To be honest, I was afraid to crash ahead of time, but continued to fight.
I and, I believe, all of us were greatly helped by the fact that I took part in the 9th International Congress of Gerontologists, which took place in Kiev in July 1972. Its organizing committee was located in Paris, and it had only one of our representatives. The theses of my report "Philosophical Issues of Gerontology", in which the concept of "practical immortality" was mentioned, were published in the proceedings of the Congress.
Soon, my publication appeared in the journal Science and Religion. A little later - in the journal "Philosophical Sciences" and even in the "Bulletin of the Academy of Medical Sciences." My first book, "Radical Extension of Human Life (Philosophical, Social, Natural Science and Moral Aspects)", was published in 1988 by the publishing house of the Ural State University. To date, 17 books and about 250 scientific articles have been published on the topic of real personal immortality.
It can be said that my articles were received with interest, but published with great difficulty. The idea of immortality sounded too bold for that time. Today, many more people look with optimism in this direction, and the number of projects aimed at solving the problem of radical life extension is increasing. In general, the “deathbed” paradigm is changing thanks to a growing cohort of enthusiasts for the idea of real immortality.
What gives you unshakable confidence in the possibility of practical personal immortality?
- Achievements of philosophy and natural science, especially over the past two decades. Previously, these problems were discussed mainly on the natural philosophical plane. Thus, it was asserted, for example: "Human life is subject to a genetic program that can theoretically be changed, including with the aim of prolonging life."
Speech, in my opinion, can and should be about practical, or relative, immortality. It is understood as a person's acquisition of the ability, while remaining young, to live without dying for so long that one could say: a person has become practically immortal. Its relativity lies in the fact that it does not exclude the possibility of death under unforeseen circumstances, but with an indispensable condition for the restoration of human life, in particular, through cryonics and with the help of other advanced methods and high technologies of modern science.
Your predictions for the future: how long may it take to achieve the goal of immortology? What methods can have an effect?
- It's not an easy question. From a purely philosophical channel, the issues of immortology are increasingly flowing into the practical plane. For the last one and a half to two decades, scientific discoveries in this direction began to appear like an avalanche.
The key among them, in my opinion, is the real possibility of cloning mammals (of which there are already many successful examples), and hence humans. This example clearly demonstrates the importance of the time factor. As you know, now there is, in my opinion, a completely unjustified, contrived, ideologically justified moratorium on this kind of research. In addition, it is, in fact, unlimited.
How long will it take? If we conduct such research purposefully, I am convinced that not much. You may not want to apply this technique to yourself personally, reject it, for example, for religious reasons, but it is unacceptable to prohibit this technique, especially forever.
I think that in the foreseeable future we will be armed with breakthrough technologies in the field of genetic engineering, microsurgery and other areas, many solutions will be at their junction. Russia, to the greatest regret, in view of the current state of science and the attitude towards it, is unlikely to become a locomotive in this exciting and promising research. But it could be quite the opposite.
How do you feel about the theory of digital immortality? Or are you more interested in the biological side of the issue?
“The ideas of digital immortality look convincing. But personally, I am a supporter of the development of science in the direction of improving a real living person using the methods of medicine, cryonics and cloning. And cyborgization and AI, in my opinion, are a completely separate area, closer to robots and computers than to a living person.
Digitization of human consciousness and memory can be very useful, for example, as an addition to the cloning technology, when, as the organism-copy develops, information material will be transferred to it, if necessary, in advance taken from the "original" in order to restore it as completely as possible as a person with the memory of my previous life.
What do you think about body transplant? Is it ethical to develop this area of modern medicine?
- In my opinion, most of the so-called ethical problems are contrived, generated by religious beliefs. As for the transplantation of a body, a human head, this is undoubtedly ethical, and personally I admire the courage of those who dare in this area, embody the cherished aspirations of people.
It becomes obvious to me that death has ceased to be hopeless today. The brain of my late wife is placed in a cryostorage, and I do not perceive her death as something irrevocable. This is just a temporary state on the eve of a second chance for her, me and many other people in the victory over death.
Valery Spiridonov