Is Death a Disease? “The first person to live to be 1,000 years old is certainly alive today; indeed, he or she may be about to turn 60,” says Aubrey de Grey, the Cambridge University geneticist who has become the de facto spokesman of the anti-ageing crusade.
Interested? Read this article from Barron's. I read it a few months ago, and it blew my mind. I tried earlier (unsuccessfully) to find a copy online to reference so I could write this post, and reading this article in the NY Times today prompted me to look again. I found it this time.
I'm not going to waste time paraphrasing either article, I'm just going to note that the issue makes me somewhat conflicted. Before I go on, let's make two assumptions for the point of argument.
1) We're going to assume that Aubrey de Grey is A) correct on his scientificness and B) not a Russian mystic.
2) We aren't talking about aging normally until 75 and then just hanging on for a few more decades, we're talking the aging process scaled out over centuries.
On one hand, I have trouble justifying the need for anyone to live past a 100, but I'm willing to admit that at 21 years old, being 200 is no more incomprehensible to me than 85, and that death is an issue I haven't really thought a lot about. I mean, the whole thing doesn't seem on the up and up (somehow I can't see the medical system offering equal access to life extension), but unless I join some gnostic cult and learn the secrets of the universe, you can bet I'll be first in line in sixty years.
Here's my estimate of reactions from you all (going from most opposed to most in favor)- J. Morgan, Hans, Charles, Standingout, Redness, Me. I can't really offer a good guess for Mair and EAP, and I'm not sure where GMack fits in. I think he'd be up for two centuries more of fashion, although he'd probably kill himself once we end up wearing this-
Scantily clad women in mithril space clothes? Schwing and schwing!
Interested? Read this article from Barron's. I read it a few months ago, and it blew my mind. I tried earlier (unsuccessfully) to find a copy online to reference so I could write this post, and reading this article in the NY Times today prompted me to look again. I found it this time.
I'm not going to waste time paraphrasing either article, I'm just going to note that the issue makes me somewhat conflicted. Before I go on, let's make two assumptions for the point of argument.
1) We're going to assume that Aubrey de Grey is A) correct on his scientificness and B) not a Russian mystic.
2) We aren't talking about aging normally until 75 and then just hanging on for a few more decades, we're talking the aging process scaled out over centuries.On one hand, I have trouble justifying the need for anyone to live past a 100, but I'm willing to admit that at 21 years old, being 200 is no more incomprehensible to me than 85, and that death is an issue I haven't really thought a lot about. I mean, the whole thing doesn't seem on the up and up (somehow I can't see the medical system offering equal access to life extension), but unless I join some gnostic cult and learn the secrets of the universe, you can bet I'll be first in line in sixty years.
Here's my estimate of reactions from you all (going from most opposed to most in favor)- J. Morgan, Hans, Charles, Standingout, Redness, Me. I can't really offer a good guess for Mair and EAP, and I'm not sure where GMack fits in. I think he'd be up for two centuries more of fashion, although he'd probably kill himself once we end up wearing this-
Scantily clad women in mithril space clothes? Schwing and schwing! posted by Justin at 1:48 PM 
4 Comments:
Why didn't I get an estimated response? Overpopulation is definetly something we'll need to think about if any significant portion of the population is going to increase their life expectancy by an order of magnitude. Plus, most people are sick of working every day after about 50-60 years. I doubt you can get people to keep working every day for 900 years, and a 100 year retirement may become a strain on society. I don't know, I think there are a lot of additional practical issues besides the philosophy that we need to deal with in respect to an advancement like this.
There, estimated.
1) Overpopulation is a non-issue, they've been estimating unsustainable populations for centuries and we're still fine, we just keep finding new ways to produce more food with less land.
2) I think it would only be weird for the transitional period, if there is a way it was applicable to all than I don't think it would be an issue. I mean, I don't go around wishing I could harvest grain for twenty years and drop dead at 30... plus, it would be totally optional how long you live (to an extent)- I mean, you wouldn't have to take the stuff if you didn't want to, you could just opt to live a normal life and kick out at eighty- I think the whole thing is a little too vague to really pin down what would happen.
3) Agreed, what's it going to be like when everyone on the road is a senior citizen? when the voting bloc is primarily people over 80? to have great-great-great-great grandchildren? I think there are a lot of issues we need to consider, but I don't think we should move to block it.
I have to run out the door, but you totally pegged me wrong - I'm completely opposed. I think living forever will seriously fracture my conception of what it means to be human. I'm willing to be wrong about it, but I personally haven't thought through a fulfilling way to experience life without the threat/promise of death. Maybe it doesn't matter to stretch it out 1000 years....but maybe it does. I don't know. I'll see you tomorrow.
If I have to go on a near-starvation diet, COUNT ME OUT.
Seriously, though, I don't know. I don't think human culture is infinitely pliable by a long shot, but we have adopted reasonably well to radical changes across history. I think immortality is a pipedream (and thank the Maker for that one because that is a BAD idea, although that's a disseration and a half). Longer lifespan, though, seems possible. As to whether its desirable, again, I'm not sure. In developed countries, we're living TWICE as long as humans once did. That should still cause us some shock, but we blithely expect our 80 years+ forgetting that our ancestors hoped for 40.
I think we're talking about potentials in science and especially in society and, as has often been noted, we can't see potential until its actuated. Except in near-starvation diets which only have the potential to make Erica run screaming from this entire conversation.
Post a Comment
<< Home