4 ms·
This study reports on attitudes to longevity that are reminiscent of the 2013 Pew survey [1]. When asked, people want to live a little longer than their neighbo
by reasonattlm 8y ago
This study reports on attitudes to longevity that are reminiscent of the 2013 Pew survey [1]. When asked, people want to live a little longer than their neighbors, at the high end of the normal life span for old individuals today. When asked how long they want to live given the guarantee of perfect health, people pick a number close to the maximum recorded human life span. This sounds like a collusion between the instinctive desires for first conformity and secondly hierarchy, deeply entwined with the human condition, present in all of our primate cousins, a self-sabotaging gift from our evolutionary heritage. We are hardwired to feel comfortable in a hierarchical social structure. We desire to be higher in the hierarchy than those around us, yet not so high that we are non-conforming.
One might argue that the interaction between the need for hierarchy and need for conformity is also at the root of the essential conservatism in human nature: the urge to preserve the present state of the world, to change it as little as possible. Given a teacup, ambition is restrained to the safe, conformist goal of two teacups - rather than, say, the disruptive change of a tea set factory, a house, an end to aging, the colonization of Mars, the cure for cancer. We live in an age of radical change, a revolution in the capabilities of biotechnology presently underway, but when you ask people what they want for their health, they'll claim nothing more than ten more years. That is the least of what might be achieved soon in the medical sciences, but without the desire for more than that, the rejuvenation research projects capable of providing far more will continue to struggle to find funding.
At the same time as the potential has arisen for a future in which the suffering and death of aging is banished, all disease controlled through advanced medicine, the vast majority of people still march stolidly towards what they assume to be the same fate as their grandparents [2]. They are conforming. They expect to live a life that is the same in shape as it was for those born in the early to mid 1900s, somehow holding this idea in their minds at the same time as retaining the memory of living through the computing and internet revolutions, alongside any number of other sweeping changes in the nature of the human experience. How do we change this story that people are telling themselves? That is the fundamental question for all advocacy for radical change, such as the radical change of bringing an end to aging.
[1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-beyond-americans-views-on-aging-medical-advances-and-radical-life-extension/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-beyond-...
[2]: https://www.exratione.com/2017/04/blind-upon-the-eve-of-apotheosis/ https://www.exratione.com/2017/04/blind-upon-the-eve-of-apot...
- haskellandchill 8y agoI don’t want your changes, thanks. The suffering of living in your prisons is worse than growing old.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoHierarchy? I'm sorry but what I would gather from that is more or less the opposite: a kind of communitarian equality, if anything. But my first instinct was to think that most people, when asked how long they want to live will have difficulty answering beyond current lifespan because we are instinctively trained to think that '100 = old and decrepit' - even if the question does say something along the lines of '100 but in 'good health''. "for a future in which the suffering and death of aging is banished, all disease controlled through advanced medicine, the vast majority of people still march stolidly towards what they assume to be the same fate as their grandparents [2]. They are conforming." Again I disagree because this utopian future is still essentially an illusion, which most people immediately recognize (they don't live in the tech bubble?), and in reality, 90 is getting pretty old and that's it for today, and probably for the next long while barring any 'big leaps' in tech. Which may happen, but there's no reason to believe they would. Science has not really extended life. All we've done is perfected the conditions in which we live, and have learned out to take care of our bodies well. Like you own a bike and used to run it through the forest, not oil it, parts would fall of. Now we run our bicycles on smooth surfaces, we get checkups, replace parts, oil the wheels. We have not improved bikes, we just extend them more or less towards their current, maximal life span. Please tell me when they can regrow my hair, or do the simplest thing and make the skin on my face 'not sag'. Then we can talk.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoI have a hard time taking seriously anyone who makes claims about what is “hardwired” about human behavior. It’s one thing to observe historical patterns. For the most part you can only guess about what is innate. And your language should reflect that. Statements about what’s innate do tend to reveal the boundaries of what the speaker is willing to consider. So they are informative in that way.