5 ms·

Sounds like a very unconventional and interesting academic path and she seems like one of those innately brilliant and curious minds but.. she wants to "cure ag

Sounds like a very unconventional and interesting academic path and she seems like one of those innately brilliant and curious minds but.. she wants to "cure ageing"? I guess my question here is "Why?" I certainly hope her answer is contained in one of her future blog posts because to me ageing is one of those things that would not only be unethical to "cure" and commercialize, but also extremely problematic for the future sustainment of humanity.

meow 15y ago
That was my reaction too. I mean, no one likes to die but if we look at it objectively - death is one of the very effective ways in which society changes from old ideas to new ideas. In a hypothetical scenario where every generation lives till 120, I would assume that current US congress will probably continue with the same members for so long (if you notice, most of them keep getting re-elected so many times). And that would mean no infusion of new ideas. It would also means abolishing of social prejudices like slavery, child marriages etc would have taken a lot longer.
DaniFong 15y ago
Just as a thought experiment, what would be wrong with extending the vigor of youth twenty years beyond our societally imposed retirement age, 65? Two decades out from under the thumb of the expectations and institutions would seem a just reward for the labor of our elders. How many people work for the chance to travel the world, and then find themselves physically kept from doing so?
- damncabbage 15y ago
  Sadly, I think the retirement age would like shift along as well.
- mladenkovacevic 15y ago
  Absolutely nothing. But reward for labour is a Western notion. So yes for us living in Canada, USA, Western Europe...etc there would be absolutely wrong with living forever and rewarding ourselves for all our marvellous work with exotic travels until we're bored and then we can just take the "death" pill at a time of our own choosing. In your retirement travels to distant lands, however, it is very likely that you would encounter people who do not view life in those terms. You might discover that they work simply to survive, and perhaps have some kids for whom they try to make life just marginally better. And maybe in 50-60 generations, the ancestors of those hard-working people would be able to enjoy themselves a little more and spend their 60s travelling the world just to see what other places look like. With an anti-ageing drug in the hands of rich westerners, it is very unlikely that that day would come.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Spend 20 years traveling when you are young, then work until 65 and then die. Boom, aging is no longer a problem.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
reasonattlm 15y ago
So it is unethical to try to help save 100,000 people from a painful, struggling death each and every day? I've always found the mindset bizarre in which abstract ideas and concepts (like "future sustainment of humanity"), utterly disconnected from any form of rigorous examination or critique, are thought important enough to justify the sacrifice tens of millions of lives - every year - and perpetuate the unrelieved pain and madness suffered constantly by hundreds of millions more. You would drown the world in blood to make yourself feel just a little more comfortable in your own self-delusions. You don't have to go far to see that rigorous examination of the world shows overpopulation, "sustainability" concerns on a global scale, and other outgrowths of Malthusianism to be myths and illusions, things that vanish as soon as you start looking into them. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/11/overpopulation-too-many-damned-malthusians.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/11/overpopulation-to... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/08/there-is-no-overpopulation-only-waste-corruption-and-inhumanity.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/08/there-is-no-overp... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/02/malthusian-visions.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/02/malthusian-vision... Malthusian ideas were wrong when they first emerged, and have not stopped being wrong at any time since then. They are wrong now - and dangerous, as they lead people to support destructive acts of relinquishment and regulation.
- pantaloons 15y ago
  It's a straw man -- overpopulation is not the only reason to be against anti-aging remedies. The so called "sacrifice" of death is necessary for progress -- death is a prime mover of dogma, nepotism, wealth, and many more. Humanity benefits immensely from the periodic refreshing of the old guard. It's a question of whether you want a better life for yourself or for your children.
  - jerf 15y ago
    "Humanity benefits immensely from the periodic refreshing of the old guard." Prove it to be a net gain, when the negative side of the equation is the death of billions. You can make anything look good by considering only the positives, or vice versa, but it's no way to make decisions.
botker 15y ago
She answered that question already, in paragraph #3: "I idolized Archimedes, Galileo, da Vinci, Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Tesla, Pasteur, and Darwin. I couldn’t believe they were all dead, and that I would never get to meet them and hear them talk."
- staunch 15y ago
  And she decided to concentrate on immortality instead of time travel? Guess she ain't so darn smart after all.
  - mladenkovacevic 15y ago
    You have a point there considering that a few of those were considered either lunatics, heretics or idiots in their own time. And I'm not convinced that we'd be able to recognize their genius even with an additional 20-30 years with them.

meow 15y ago

That was my reaction too. I mean, no one likes to die but if we look at it objectively - death is one of the very effective ways in which society changes from old ideas to new ideas. In a hypothetical scenario where every generation lives till 120, I would assume that current US congress will probably continue with the same members for so long (if you notice, most of them keep getting re-elected so many times). And that would mean no infusion of new ideas. It would also means abolishing of social prejudices like slavery, child marriages etc would have taken a lot longer.

DaniFong 15y ago

Just as a thought experiment, what would be wrong with extending the vigor of youth twenty years beyond our societally imposed retirement age, 65? Two decades out from under the thumb of the expectations and institutions would seem a just reward for the labor of our elders. How many people work for the chance to travel the world, and then find themselves physically kept from doing so?

damncabbage 15y ago
Sadly, I think the retirement age would like shift along as well.
mladenkovacevic 15y ago
Absolutely nothing. But reward for labour is a Western notion. So yes for us living in Canada, USA, Western Europe...etc there would be absolutely wrong with living forever and rewarding ourselves for all our marvellous work with exotic travels until we're bored and then we can just take the "death" pill at a time of our own choosing. In your retirement travels to distant lands, however, it is very likely that you would encounter people who do not view life in those terms. You might discover that they work simply to survive, and perhaps have some kids for whom they try to make life just marginally better. And maybe in 50-60 generations, the ancestors of those hard-working people would be able to enjoy themselves a little more and spend their 60s travelling the world just to see what other places look like. With an anti-ageing drug in the hands of rich westerners, it is very unlikely that that day would come.
Drbble 15y ago
Spend 20 years traveling when you are young, then work until 65 and then die. Boom, aging is no longer a problem.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

reasonattlm 15y ago

So it is unethical to try to help save 100,000 people from a painful, struggling death each and every day? I've always found the mindset bizarre in which abstract ideas and concepts (like "future sustainment of humanity"), utterly disconnected from any form of rigorous examination or critique, are thought important enough to justify the sacrifice tens of millions of lives - every year - and perpetuate the unrelieved pain and madness suffered constantly by hundreds of millions more. You would drown the world in blood to make yourself feel just a little more comfortable in your own self-delusions. You don't have to go far to see that rigorous examination of the world shows overpopulation, "sustainability" concerns on a global scale, and other outgrowths of Malthusianism to be myths and illusions, things that vanish as soon as you start looking into them. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/11/overpopulation-too-many-damned-malthusians.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/11/overpopulation-to... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/08/there-is-no-overpopulation-only-waste-corruption-and-inhumanity.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/08/there-is-no-overp... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/02/malthusian-visions.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/02/malthusian-vision... Malthusian ideas were wrong when they first emerged, and have not stopped being wrong at any time since then. They are wrong now - and dangerous, as they lead people to support destructive acts of relinquishment and regulation.

pantaloons 15y ago
It's a straw man -- overpopulation is not the only reason to be against anti-aging remedies. The so called "sacrifice" of death is necessary for progress -- death is a prime mover of dogma, nepotism, wealth, and many more. Humanity benefits immensely from the periodic refreshing of the old guard. It's a question of whether you want a better life for yourself or for your children.
- jerf 15y ago
  "Humanity benefits immensely from the periodic refreshing of the old guard." Prove it to be a net gain, when the negative side of the equation is the death of billions. You can make anything look good by considering only the positives, or vice versa, but it's no way to make decisions.

botker 15y ago

She answered that question already, in paragraph #3: "I idolized Archimedes, Galileo, da Vinci, Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Tesla, Pasteur, and Darwin. I couldn’t believe they were all dead, and that I would never get to meet them and hear them talk."

staunch 15y ago
And she decided to concentrate on immortality instead of time travel? Guess she ain't so darn smart after all.
- mladenkovacevic 15y ago
  You have a point there considering that a few of those were considered either lunatics, heretics or idiots in their own time. And I'm not convinced that we'd be able to recognize their genius even with an additional 20-30 years with them.