There is a lot of talk, too much perhaps, on the good points and bad points of religion and what religion to follow etc. I have no problems with religion as long as it doesn't interfere with good science. I'm talking about the scientific discoveries like a cure for Cancer, AIDS, Diabetes and Heart Disease which have not quite come into fruition yet.
But it always astounded me that when it came to the big question of death, which has always been thought to be inevitable, people's only solution for thousands of years is to hope that they will go to heaven; a place that will indeed rescue them and give them eternal life amongst their family and loved ones.
Now I have always thought this was a comforting idea, but from a very young age I questioned it and simply could not accept it as having any truth. I just couldn't accept or believe that there was a place where people magically arrived at after they died. To me this makes no logical, and certainly no scientific sense whatsoever! I also used to think that since evolution has been proven and humans indeed emerged from apes which emerged from so called "lower lifeforms" down to protazoa (spelling,) that it was more than a bit unfair as well as anthropomorphic to think that people get to go to heaven when our relatives including apes, (which we share 98% of our DNA with) don't have such a place to escape death from. I've never once heard a Christian, Muslim, or a Jew claim that other animals have their own heaven or that God even rules over lower life forms.
So not having a faith in anything and pretty much being an atheist I decided to try to work on the problem that is literally killing us, and that is the aging process. Most people have never considered that it's possible, (and now I know almost definitely so,) to one day slow down, halt, or better yet reverse the process of degenerative aging in human beings, as well as other animals. So that got me involved with longevity communities like the Immortality Institute, The Longevity Meme, Humanity +, The Extropy Institute and many more. Some of these communities, all online, focus on the umbrella term known as Transhumanism. This is the idea that through the use of applied biotechnology and ultimately one day nanotechnology that it is ethical and the right thing to fix some of the tremendous problems of the human condition.
This includes the most important problem imo of human aging and why we live such short lives of 80 years plus compared to animals such as certain tortoises that can and do live well over 200 years! I never understood why a much dumber animal barely conscious, (in the human sense of the word) gets to live more than two centuries without any medical help or even human intervention! The species is just long lived as it is programmed into their DNA.
So I think if people choose to have faith in whatever religion makes them the most comfortable than that's great! But why not start talking about the topic of combating the aging process in people? So it is my hope that in little blog entries like this one I can start getting people excited and willing to talk about something that probably CAN one day be done to at least radically delay the thing most people fear most which is death. But the problem is this kind of science is controversial in that many religions state it is "unnatural" or "selfish" to want to live longer than what God has given us in years. These people look at death as natural, and part of the whole life cycle. Well my retort is always something like, "when people died at age 40 over a hundred years ago that was natural, but we used medical breakthroughs to extend people's lives and isn't that a good thing?"
We have many "natural" diseases that are still killing people left and right, but I believe using "unnatural" remedies like chemotherapy for cancer is better than having nothing at all to combat the disease. When we finally find a cure for many more cancers that will also be "unnatural," but again in this case the overwhelming majority of people would see it as a necessary and ethical thing to do; as well as the right thing to do as well. And how is wanting to live a long and happy life a selfish thing to want? It simply isn't. As for being selfish in wanting to live long, how is the most important fundamental human instinct we have; the "will to live" a bad thing? Don't forget most of the decisions we humans make are for at least partially self serving reasons and no one complains. Than there is the important issue of overpopulation. Well one solution to the over population problem, is to cut down on the number of kids each family has. But the hope is also when people do live much longer than they do now, we'll have much much more time to work on the population problem as well as others.
There is also a practice that has been around for a few decades called cryonics or cryogenics. This is the practice of freezing a person's body after their de-animation, (or death) in liquid nitrogen. The hope is that one day science will be able to thaw out these people, repair the disease or whatever killed them, and bring them back to life! The hope also is by that time we'll have found a way to reverse the aging process so that already old people will gradually inversely age or become young again. The hope is that than we'll be able to stop them from growing too young ;)
But so few people are considering cryonics. And this has always bothered me because with burial and cremation we are assured that the person will never be able to be brought back to life. But with Cryonics there is a small hope, (we are not sure how small), that the person may live again sometime in the future! But Ted Williams and his son did it and many more could to. My friend just died at age 42 from lung cancer, which is extremely young by the standards of even today at least he will have a small chance at life again. You could have this chance too! I think it would be great if more famous people did cryonics as that would run the price down as more people caught on.
So these are my thoughts on aging and death. I'm sure some of you will agree with my statements, or at least some of them, and plenty others will object from religious and other standpoints, but this is a topic that really needs to be discussed more. In Russia there was a popular poll that asked how many of you would like to live longer even forever? 78% of people said yes to I believe both. (Sorry memory isn't so good these days.) It is every child's dream to want to live as long as possible, unfortunately society teaches us early on not to dream so big. I'm saying dream away and let's make this thing a reality!
Devon
just a small follow up post. Other objections to living too long is boredom, depression, things get old mostly. Well first of all ideally one day we'll be able to choose how long we would like to live, although I'm not sure if that would work out since suicide seems a bit wrong.
But the way to combat boredom is working on better drugs and one day brain augmentations that will allow us to have much much richer inner mental worlds. Imagine being so much more smarter than we are now presently? That would combat the boredom problem. Also if we could "abolish" mental suffering, which is a great but not so talked about transhumanist idea. In David Pierce's brilliant online manifesto, The Hedonist Imperative he talks about how one day the last bit of human suffering will be a documented event. He believes that now through biotechnology and making better drugs to combat depression and all other mental illnesses we will make progress on the mental suffering front. One day advanced medicines that will target the neurtransmitters responsible for happiness and joy in our brains could be fine tuned to make us much happier than anything imaginable by our present day standards. Imagine gradients of true bliss and even euphoric feelings not capable of being felt by the limits in structure to the present human brain, and you'll get the idea.
Some have gone so far as to talk about including a nanochip or some kind of mechanical briain augmentation that could be put in our brains one day. No nothing is in the works for this as of present as far as I know.
Some will think we are playing God or this it too Orwellian and "big brother" like. But I say if there turns out that there isn't a God than it is up to us humans to better the quality of our lives. This brain chip mental implant stuff probably will offend many as I wasn't too keen on it when I first heard about it. But if we do go ahead one day with these radical technologies than I hope we use them all in the most ethical and humane ways possible.
What I believe is unnatural is fear of aging. Creams and injections are invented to make people look younger than they really are. Frankly, I think people should embrace their age and be proud of how long they've lived. Living to 80, 90, or older is no small feat.
The sea turtle and box turtle are some of the oldest living animals, at least in captivity. After that, I believe its the golden eagle at 80. Most animals don't live anywhere near as long as humans, especially in the wild. As for the turtles, maybe they are living a better lifestyle than we are and there is something to learn from them. You never know.
As for freezing, first off, according to snopes and straightdope.com, Walt Disney was not frozen, he died of lung cancer and was cremated. The rumors came about because he was extremely secretive about his death. Freezing would be pretty complicated: the space is essentially being rented by the deceased's estate. So once the estate runs out, the body is thawed.
Finally, I believe in being comfortable. In some cases, chemotherapy is not the best option and death is preferred. Of course, that decision is up to the patient or family, depending on the situation and is a whole other debate. But I do think cures for diseases should continue to be researched and pursued. But death and aging shouldn't be feared. They are just the next stages, and new adventures.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
Fair enough if you really believe that. But if you were told that science came up with a way to make you live say 50 years longer and aging slower wouldn't that be something to be excited about? You say living to 80 or 90 is no small feat. Well it certainly isn't and most don't even live to 80, as I think the average life expectancy for a male is like 68...this is unacceptable.
Just because aging has been the only option up until now does not mean that it has to be this way. Perhaps you are a believer in an after life which is great, but what if you're wrong? Basically all I'm arguing is that science is going to solve the riddle of the aging problem, one day and maybe soon from all that I've read. And wouldn't it be better to be a part of that instead of being left behind?
I told you about the poll in Russia where 78% said they'd like to live much longer if not forever. Now forever is too long for most, and that I can relate to somewhat, but you are REALLY happy with the life span the way it is? What about people who have debilitating diseases like Parkinsons eg. Michael J. Fox, or depression or any other terrible illness that robs us or our happiness. Don't those people have a right to want to live longer in hopes of finally curing their illness?
As for the creams that is just a superficial way to attempt to delay the aging process. But don't you think people are almost fanatical about staying younger? Isn't this for a good reason? The reason is people value, and have always valued youth and vitality. Think of all the religious fanatics that cling to a hope that heaven will make them immortal. My obvious point is that people are innately scared, petrified even, of dying, and even more so of dying young. I think it is ethical and yes natural to intervene if we can! Just think of the savings on health care and insurance for the elderly. One estimate said we could eventually save trillions of dollars by keeping people alive longer. There is already an initiative certain special interest groups are trying to pass called The Longevity Dividend, which would attempt to delay aging by like seven years thus saving alot of money.
As for cryonics, I wasn't sure by your post but it is already a practiced thing. I'll have to correct what I said about Disney, thanks for that.
Basically it bothers me that we are such an intelligent species but yet we die so soon. Yes tortoises maybe an extreme example, but 80 years isn't long at all considering many don't even make it to that age, like my mom who sadly passed away over a year ago at 65. I think it is necessary and ethical to do something about human aging.
Just think of all the things you could do if you lived longer? You could travel more, retire earlier, study more and even get multiple degrees. You could date longer, socialize more...I'm sure you could name a million other things.
All of my friends, including my family, have told me whenever we have these discussions things like "of course I'd like to live longer, who wouldn't?" So I don't think I'm saying anything that "far fetched" or radical! Life is beautiful and should be celebrated as much as possible imo. People have a tendency to want to think everything is for the best like one of the main characters did in Candide, (a book by Voltaire.) In that book the main character realized through his travels that things were not always for the best and that in fact there were many problems that could one day be fixed. The aging problem is one of the biggest that I see. Don't assume that life can't get much better than it is now despite living in the best time to be alive in, arguably.
I, personally believe in an afterlife, but of course I may be wrong. And your friends are right, who wouldn't want to live longer? But frankly I would be happy if I died at 85. If I lived over 100, awesome, but at that point I would be ready to go. Its all about putting off death, and we put it off because we are afraid of it. I'm going to guess that you are around my age, probably in college. But at a certain age, you get prepared for death, its sort of a break. No one bugging you, no responsibilities, plus, there are fewer and fewer peers the older you get. This will always be true because people will always die before your time.
I'm sure Michael J. Fox would love to live to see a cure for Parkinson's. But how long is a person supposed to wait?
So I agree with you that life is beautiful and should be cherished, but I think one of the things that makes it that way is that it is limited. If people knew they could live for an obscene number of years, would they set out to do all of the things they accomplish? Students would put off college or traveling thinking they had all the time in the world rather than continuing back for more degrees. It could turn us into advanced procrastinators.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
The argument that longer life could make us perpetual procrastinators is not a good one basically because the finality of death is so much more powerful a meme.
Most people that I know especially the older folks constantly feel like they just don't have enough time to do even a small fraction of what they want in life. My dad's 68 now and loves life and simply doesn't want it to end. He is an engineer and working on some really neat stuff. He feels that the longer he lives the more knowledge and life experience he accumulates. It's made him a wiser better person. When I showed him a documentary called Exploring Life Extension he listened to a bio luddite named William Hurlbutt who believed that living as long as we do is a natural thing and is God's will. My dad, an atheist himself, screamed out "you little shit!" You see for people like us who really don't want to be limited in the time we have hear on our planet just as much as we fear the utter oblivion of death itself, living longer is a must.
As for my age I'm older than you I think, I'm 33. It's true that the radical life extension communities often interest younger people who haven't been hit with the realities of the world, and oppressed by societies intolerance to most new radical ideas and mind sets.
As for "how long should a person have to wait" question, I started reading Michael's book and he is determined to wait it out until he beats his illness, even though he knows that if they don't find a cure eventually he'll die probably quite a bit younger than he would like.
If you are college aged and in your late teens or early twenties than the reality of life being short may not have hit you yet, as it didn't me at that time. But once I got into my late twenties and had to battle serious and debilitating depression I soon realized that I could not afford to waste any more time.
As for the afterlife thing, I'm happy that your belief seems to work for you, I just don't want to take the chance should there not be an afterlife. So fear of death but more importantly fear of not living and doing are my main motivating forces behind my interest and work in human longevity and Transhumanism.
As for why I disagree that having a limit on life makes you appreciate it more here is my argument. First of all I agree that if I lived say 1000 years in the present state of my that my mind is now, I would probably at times, even if I was in optimal health, grow board. However if I continued to progress and get more interested in new ideas and things I would mostly remain motivated and interested in what I was doing. The boredom issue is what motivates me to want to have some kind of scientific intervention done on my brain such as taking a drug that could increase my intelligence, or make me happier etc. Eventually I would want to augment my brain with some kind of a chip probably a nanochip to increase my intelligence and make me think in more complex and interesting ways.
However right now it would be just nice to live an extra 50 years while aging slower.
Just to quickly point out at the present way things are as one gets older sure your older peers die and some who are in your age bracket. But my whole thing is if we worked on actually halting or reversing the aging process than this wouldn't be a problem any more would it?
Also we only get ready to die because we know there is no other option and we get old and frail.
Aging can be looked at, in some way, as a degenerative disease. Your brain slows down, and so does your body as well as your bones become weak and frail. At this point don't you think most older folks don't really want to live because life becomes such a burden? In truth aging usually in the last few years of life is unbearble suffering for the people in that position. When one finally dies it is more a relief I'd imagine than anything. I'm against all human suffering and don't think it should be tolerated in civilized society anymore.
Well let's not let this happen so fast! Or at all! If we could just reverse the aging process we could live as a young person, who knows how long?
First of, my guess about your age came because you are on this site, so I assumed you were motivated partly by scholarship money.
Death and aging are natural. It is Earth's way of clearing us out to make room for new plants and animals. And yes, fewer peers always exist at each level, because no matter what this won't be an overnight change and people will continue to die, including at young ages.
Have you ever read the naked sun by Isaac Asimov? The main character presents an interesting point near the end. He basically says that with a population that lives so long, new ideas are not presented as frequently. Everyone is a Traditionalist. As you get older, you are more set in your ways. We need an influx of young people willing to go against the grain. There is also a matter of supporting the older generation. Medicaid and social security help now, but they are in many ways a broken system. And many people will not be able to work for their entire lives. Nor will they feel they should have to. (Which I agree, they shouldn't.) Families will end up taking care of their elders for the rest of their lives, and many more generations will have to live together in one house.
Finally, I don't see aging as an underlining issue. Childhood illness still exists, as does poverty and hunger.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
You say people get more set in their ways as they get older. But perhaps you're not considering that many are talking about the actual reversal of the aging process. If this can be done, and Aubrey De Grey believes it could be easier to reverse aging than merely slowing it down or halting it, then I don't think you will see as many people so set in their ways. In my experience, people are either inclined to be more open minded, or set in their ways. This will always be a problem. And I would think the people who want to live several hundred years, or however long, will be more thirsty for knowledge, as longevity seems to attract a free thinking crowd.
Agreed that unitl we have fixed the problem there will be many deaths. But the whole point is actually fixing teh probelm.
As for 'natural', sure the life to death cycles is natural, but so is Cancer, AIDS, heart disease and any other diseases. Instead of dying at extremely young ages, now we are living much longer because we see curing these "natrual" things as essential, and I would imagine most people think this way in developed, and even third world countries now. Evolution is natural, and we are a part of it. But it's also natural that we were born with brains that can and do solve problems like disease, and poverty in third world countries.
As for the resource problem, I should point out that nanofactories, and things like solar nano power, could reduce costs immensely, and that combined with having less children, could make a human lifespan of 500 years sustainable.
But once you start thinking about things like SENS, which I agree it may or may not work, then at least you will start realizing that if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, certainly reversal of teh aging process will happen eventually. So no, younger people will NOT have to care for frail, aging adults.
An awful lot of research is being, and has been, done on aging. Thus far the results are less than earth shaking. Most of the improvement in the average span of human life has been as a result of eliminating childhood diseases rather than overcoming any part of the process of aging.
Thus far the most effective method of extending your life is reducing your caloric intake:
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Aging/6-05-31-LowCalorieDiet.htm
If we ever do eliminate aging, our economic system will require a reworking. Old people currently own the vast majority of property, and then they die and pass it on. If they stop dying they will keep accumulating wealth. Class warfare could easily become age warfare.
The big breakthrough in anti-aging research may come at any moment, or not until you are dead. Just like life after death your belief, or lack thereof will not change the facts one bit. Thus a better place for you to focus your attention is on living each day to the fullest. Do what you should be doing now because you may never get another chance.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
The one thing you may not be aware of his Aubrey De Grey's SENS Foundation which like I said is working on an engineering approach to aging through ground up working and repairing the 7 causes of aging, as he calls them.
He believes there is a 50/50 chance his theory will work within 50 years I think it is. You can google SENS foundation and read up on it yourself. It's promising stuff really and he has many followers and many opponents calling him crazy or a deluded. I personally think he's brilliant from what I've heard him say and what I've read from him.
If you are interested in learning more go to imminst.org or longevity.meme for to great sites that have a wealth of info on it. Both sites have good introductory explanations and imminst has a huge expansive forum with tons of topics one of which is caloric restriction.
Thanks for replying!
"He believes there is a 50/50 chance his theory will work within 50 years I think it is."
Scientific
Wild
Assed
Guess
I tend to think biological theories produced by computer scientists are more likely to be oversimplifications than those produced by biologists and physicians. I am open to seeing myself proven wrong though. From what I can see the SENS project is lacking any concrete results so far....
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
I tend to think biological theories produced by computer scientists are more likely to be oversimplifications than those produced by biologists and physicians. I am open to seeing myself proven wrong though. From what I can see the SENS project is lacking any concrete results so far....
I should point out that Aubrey De Grey is a biogerentologist, not a computer scientist. But you're right, many had said that we would have found a cure for AIDS already, but it's been over twenty years, since that was announced.
Sure childhood diseases, hunger in third world countries, and gross social and economic inequalities often leading to poor health should be first and foremost. I'm not arguing against this. I'm simply saying, why not work on both? Don't forget curing the aging process will prevent all of the horrific diseases that kill us when we become old. So instead of going after disease by disease, one by one, like throwing darts, why not fix the underlying problem that is causing most of those diseases?
Of course we will STILL have to cure individual diseases that are not age related like many cancers, AIDS, some diabetes, etc.
Finally, I'm not saying this will even happen in my lifetime, but I believe that pessimism and cynical thinking will never accomplish anything this important. What we need is realism combined with optimism, because that is the only way we can aim high, while staying grounded. I'm not accusing you in particular of being cynical or pessimistic. You are being realistic it seems. I just choose to keep with me a certain hopeful childhood starry eyed outlook to life, that has gotten me through the worst of times.
Don't forget whenever a new technology or scientific theory comes to light, the vast majority shoot it down and say it will never happen. Examples are the telephone, to which people said "this invention will never catch on," and of course the airplane, to which most people thought it could never happen. Curing aging may not prove any harder than curing many other diseases, once thought impossible to cure. If people got angry at the 100, 000, to 150,000 deaths that happen everyday, and saw it as unacceptable, despite being "natural," then I think more scientists and researchers would make a more serious attempt at ending aging in humans. Right now no one wants to contribute in a major way to SENS and other approaches, because most funders and lobby groups want results right away. SENS will take many years of testing first on rats, and then on monkees, and finally humans.
It really boils down to how much one values his/her and others lives, which I'm sure you do seeing as you are at least open to this stuff. Most people refuse to discuss it. Although I just saw a poll of various countries and in most countries, when asked if they would like to live forever, around 40% said yes. India had a whopping 67% say they would like to live forever, while Russia was lowest at only 33%. That tells me that many many more people would love to live at least another 10 years or so. People seem to be ok with extending life by a decade or even a score. It's forever that makes people weary. Hell, I don't even want to live forever, and I'm quite sure that will prove to be impossible for so many reason.