Fight Aging!

This is not something that interests me. And I can not believe that there are many people that are interested in a political party with the longevity as its sole goal. I find the very idea odd.

JohnD - Are you suggesting that when countries around the world work to improve life expectancy that they're doing something odd?

That's all longevity is - life expectancy. And might I add, if you read this blog, the longevity being referred to here is healthy life expectancy.

Personally, I find it odd (and morally repellent) that you would criticize a single-issue life-span party and not a single-issue piracy or environmentalist party.

Well said Ranjit!

ranjt, to answer your question, no. Obviously if I am a regular reader and poster on this blog then I in favor of live extension science. I merely think the idea of a single issue party to be silly. Where is it that you think I said that other single issue parties were less silly? So, I am repellent in your eyes because I failed to provide a long winded monologue on all my political views?

Listen, if you post a brief comment that a single-issue longevity party is silly or odd, then you bet you're going to be questioned on it.

And since aging is the leading moral issue today, given the prospect of being able to do something about it in the next century, then yes I reserve the right to call such a view repellent. Your comment implies that longevity as a sole goal for a party is bizarrely myopic. Considering more suffering and death is caused by aging than any other cause, or indeed all other causes combined, I couldn't disagree more.

Single issue parties are not so rare. In fact most of the independentist parties belong in this category.
They usually pursue a single radical idea, but longevity science requires a radical paradigm shift, so why not?

Honestly, I cannot believe most people don't support or unaware of research being done to decrease aging and achieve biological immortality. We talk about in society as death being one of the greatest of all evils yet not a lot of support goes to this.

I can think of no more urgent goal due to wide ranging benefits that defeating age related decrepitude would bring to society. Many nations face severe economic issues in relation to their aging populations.

I would like to live longer than merely 70 years. That´s just not enough. I think this research goal into biological immortality is also good, not only for in the long run but for the short run. If you studie this field then you are bound to find something that can benefit humans that are maybe sick to have longer lives. This is and always will be the next step in human evolution. Why not live 1000 years? 1000 year old Einstein would have been beneficial to humanity.

I am in the process of setting up the Life Extension, Science and Technology Party (LESTp) (Australia) in Australia to run Senate candidates for the next Federal Election (due late 2016). While it is not strictly a "single-issue" party, all the other policies will stem from the central premise of extending the duration and quality of life is a good thing, and that all policy decisions have ramifications for this central objective.

R&LL,

Phil.

We definitely need something like this in the United States! The United States is such a great country with an incredible potential to change the world, but it's quite a shame that we spend so much money destroying stuff via the military. If we turned our attention to maintaining health and attaining an indefinite healthy lifespan instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war, there is a very good chance that this would succeed and all the pain experienced as one gets older would become a distant memory. Imagine not having a solid, concrete 120 year ceiling on how long you can live. The knowledge of when you are going to die disappears with indefinite life extension.

Plus, living an indefinite life span would make people care more about the environment and the future, since most of us would still be alive to witness the consequences of our actions (like non biodegradable plastic and burning fossil fuel) one millennium ago.

For anybody who is against this, seriously ask yourself the question "Would I rather be strong, happy and active or weak, frail, and sick?" If your answer to this question is being strong, happy and active, you are in support of this cause. Why would the passage of time suddenly make it more appealing to be weak, frail and sickly? Being 100 years old versus being 20 years old really should not have to do with how one would feel about the matter- nobody likes being sick, at any age. Ask an "old" 95 or 100 year old person in a nursing home if they would like to be wiry and strong again, and common sense says that the answer is yes.

We the people need to fight for this to end all the pain and suffering experienced by "elderly people". Getting old, as we know it today, February 6, 2015, is no fun! Progressing slowly and painfully towards an obvious end is a future that nobody deserves- so, as a society, it is our duty to fight to put an end to this madness. Let's all live to see the year 3000 !

My name is David Mesrobian, and I speak as an advocate for the life extension movement to give every human being the choice of "Do I want more time to live?" A greater number of people fighting for the cause will reduce the amount of time it takes to succeed.

I'm rather saddened that there is not further support for this initiative. Many of the ethical concerns surrounding immortality are rendered moot when you look at the evidence. For example, increasing standard of living has lead to a decrease in birth rates and thus population growth. Countries with older populations, on average, have far lower natural population growth, despite their lower death rates.

Furthermore, whether immortality is desirable or not for the majority of people is not entirely relevant; if a long life is seen as undesirable, then pass laws to allow for legalized euthanasia so those who view a long life as undesirable can die when they want to, and those that view a long life as desirable can live however long they want (ideally, accidents would still put the average life expectancy somewhere in the hundreds of years if we somehow completely got rid of death by natural causes).

There are some aspects that are being left out in this feed.

For myself I would like to know if biological immortality would mean a change in the pension system. Or would it lead to people stopping to work after a certain time and just enjoying the benefits of tax-financed pensions. How can a society work if people aren't going to work for it. I wouldn't like to be immortal if that meant I had to work for a thousand years. So how could anybody justify to not work while being healthy and young?
I think it is obvious that a system would collapse if a lot of people were refusing to work after 50 years.

Another point that should be mentioned it that there is no such thing as immortality. Even if aging could be cured, nobody will be able to survive a bullet through the head or starvation.

Additionally, if there was a serum that could cure aging it would most likely be sold for a really high price. 99% of the population wouldn't be able to afford it. What we end up with is a world with a rich, young, healthy, almost immortal supremacy that will most likely try to dominate the lower classes. We don't need more separation in this world. Equality is what unites us not a small supremacy.

Of course, in a utopian scenario where everyone keeps working and there is no crime and no exploitation, complete equality and a shared interest it will all work out well. But I hope I am not the only one that sees that this is just a wishful dream.

Don't worry, we will not force you to be rejuvenated, you can relax doing nothing while your body falls apart and we enjoy an indefinite young life. As for your pension, I'm affraid that you will not have it for much time, whatever it happens.