Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article delves into how Twelver Shia Islam responds to technological challenges, particularly focusing on radical life extension (RLE) within the trans-humanism paradigm. While there is a consensus among religions regarding spiritual and mental enhancement, body enhancement, including RLE, poses ethical and theological questions. After a brief introduction to the concepts of human existence, life, and death, I explore Shia rational reasoning, delving into the notions of the ‘rational impossible’ and ‘normal impossible’ in the context of RLE. Additionally, I investigate the relationship between RLE and the belief in Mahdism, which centers around the idea that the last Imam, al-Mahdi, lives in occultation and will eventually reappear as the promised savior. I also seek to understand the legitimacy of using technology to achieve longevity from the perspective of Shia Islam. Additionally, in the final section of the study, I present the viewpoints of four prominent Shia Mujtahids, obtained through email correspondence and Istefta. This Q&A section reveals multifaceted perspectives within the Shia community regarding RLE. Notably, the traditional group, referring to the intra-religious teachings, adopts a more open approach to the RLE issue, challenging prevailing stereotypes. This research emphasizes that, from the perspective of Shia Islam, a very long life is neither deemed impossible nor irrational. However, ethical considerations and potential side effects must be carefully weighed when implementing RLE technologies. Researchers and scientists bear the responsibility of using technology fairly and ethically, and avoiding any actions that may worsen various kinds of inequalities. Continuous exploration and dialogue are essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic from the perspective of Shia Islam, as theological interpretations may evolve with scientific progress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".