The Question of Whether to Build Rejuvenation Therapies
Should we build rejuvenation therapies? Hell yes. Are we? Barely, as nowhere near enough of an effort is being made. This is an opinion piece by Aubrey de Grey of the SENS Research Foundation:
Aging is a hot topic among the chattering classes these days. What with biotech companies like Calico and Human Longevity Inc. being founded with the mission to defeat aging, and venerable institutions such as Prudential proclaiming the imminence of superlongevity on billboards, there's no denying that this is a time of great interest in our oldest and deepest-held dream - to escape from the tyranny of inexorable and ultimately fatal physiological decline.But hang on - is the buzz around aging really reflective of what's being done to realize this goal? The briefest dispassionate analysis reveals a different story altogether. The proportion of government spending allocated in the industrialized world to diseases and disabilities of old age is appropriately high, but it is overwhelmingly dedicated to the transparently quixotic approach of attacking those ailments directly - as if they were infections - rather than attacking their lifelong accumulating causes. The latter approach is the focus of biomedical gerontology. Researchers in this field recognize that any direct attack on late-life disease is doomed to become progressively less effective as the causes of those diseases continue to accumulate, so they focus instead on those causes - the "damage" that the body inflicts on itself throughout life in the course of its everyday operation. But they comprise a tiny coterie of scientists - far too few, and with access to far too little funding, to allow progress to occur at anywhere near the maximum rate that the simple technical difficulty of the problem would allow.
I believe that the main reason for this tragic myopia is a phobia about aging so ancient and deep-seated that it overpowers the rationality of nearly all of us, even the most intelligent and educated. Aging holds us in a psychological stranglehold, preventing us from even contemplating the idea of its medical conquest. Thus it is that grown adults find it possible to argue that we should forever continue to let everyone endure the number one cause of human suffering. Unfortunately for us - by which I mean, for the whole of humanity - those adults include the overwhelming majority of the people who control enough money (whether their own, their company's or the taxpayer's) to make a difference. Even without getting into the debate about what approaches to this challenge are the most promising, one can no longer escape the fact that most biomedical gerontologists now agree that we are approaching a time of sharply accelerated progress in extending healthy lifespan. Except, of course, by letting that expert opinion go in one ear and out the other. And that, I'm afraid to say, is what most decision-makers are still doing. The marginalization of anti-aging research is our most shameful humanitarian failure.
Link: http://www.gereports.com/aubrey-de-grey-can-we-and-should-we-give-ourselves-indefinite-youth-oh-yes/
Here's a couple snippets from comments on reddit about this article, and how many people see this field and research.
"I'm usually downvoted for saying stuff like this, and I know in general this futurology sub is a celebration of technology and not really for dire warnings of things to come. But frankly the idea of immortality scares the hell out of me. Not just in terms of resources -- I know you all have plans about how we can get the Earth to support hundreds of billions of people, and even if some of them sound kinda dystopian in themselves (one guy suggests we'll all live in enormous high-rises which presumably cover every inch of Earth's surface) I'll grant that we might find a way.
My fear, though, is that death is an essential part of cultural evolution. People get old and get stuck in their ways of thinking and angry about anything that challenges them. They actually need to die off so new ways of thinking can take hold and we can evolve as a species. You really think it would be a good thing if everyone alive today was suddenly going to be around forever? I mean, Donald Trump and all the people who support him now literally being around for uncountable centuries? Putin? The Saudi royal family? Every current person in Israel and Palestine? And dear god, what if we'd done it in 1920, and perpetually preserved generations of jingoistic, misogynistic bigots around the globe? Do we really think future generations won't look back on us with similar disgust for things we don't even yet consider to be problems?
Without destruction, there can't really be any systematic creation. Too many people have too much invested in the status quo. Nobody wants to die, and that's OK -- but I think we need to acknowledge how important it is. Death is the most important mechanism by which the old is replaced by the new, and as such is at the very heart of what this sub stands for, which is our ability to imagine a future so much better than our present that we can hardly comprehend it."
And
"I get where people are coming from: They really don't want to die and so they cling to an idea that could maybe prevent that. It's exactly the same impetus that draws people to religion and the promise of an afterlife. Personally I get dubious about any line of thinking that is so clearly self-serving.
For me, the experience of having children and seeing them grow, and seeing the wonder they experience, has given me an appreciation for the power of rebirth. My kids will be better than me, and I see value in wiping the slate clean. My generation overturned our elders in some important ways and part of the contract of life is you have to pay that forward."
And
"This is an argument from someone who can't appreciate demographics.
Immortality is a huge, demographic catastrophe. If reproduction continues after immortality, the population must grow. This is simply mathematical fact: for every person that is born, someone must die to make room for them. It's not a matter of having fewer children, it's a matter of having no children.
Everything about this essay is so lazy and stupid. You're talking about a fundamental redefinition of what it means to be human - to age and die is such a fundamental part of who we are (as is having children and grandchildren, for most people), of how culture is formed, of how knowledge is transmitted, of how we structure authority. Fucking deal with all of these things, don't just write them off as mindless fear-mongering."
So pretty much every objection that people have, in three posts. There's more but I'm sure you can all read the comments on reddit if you want. My take on it is that everyone conflates longevity with immortality, and as you can see, does not help support. I don't know if it's because things aren't explained out to people properly or what, but I'm so sick of everyone talking about people being immortal and no one dying and a population of hundreds of billions. If you want my .02, I see longevity having a soft takeoff, as no one will know about limits until someone actually lives to 150, or even past 122. Or until people even make it past 90 and in good health regularly.
Everyone operates under this assumption that there's going to be some magic immortality pill, when in reality (at least initially I would assume) that won't be the case and there will be various treatments for specific diseases or conditions. I get so frustrated reading these types of comments though, that are a bit over dramatic. There's going to need to be some societal change, yes, but we're already in need of that. Sometimes I just feel like we're fighting a losing battle trying to gain support.
Then there's this too that I should of added:
"Again, this is about birth and death rates. Extending the lifespan of most people far into the future would mean the death rate goes way, way, down. Eventually it would equalize (assuming people actually do die of other causes, which isn't clear), but it wouldn't be for centuries. In the meanwhile the population will explode because people continue to be born and the death-rate is effectively zero for decades."
I know SENS paid for a population prediction study based on longevity, but people don't seem to like real statistics. How do you argue this type of thing, since it's such a prevalent mindset.
Saying that these people are stupid is a gross overestimation. How in the .... can a sane person be more affraid of resource scarcity in XXV century than of death from aging in 2050?? WTF do they think aging is?? Haven't they never visited a hospice??
I agree with you mostly. Their view is that it's a necessity, while ours is pretty much the opposite. Is this just cognitive bias on our part because we're all so passionate about this topic, which doesn't let us understand the weight of potential issues? I know there will be issues that need to be sorted out, for sure. But we also won't know there will be 200 year olds for another 130 years probably, for example. So when people speak of immortality it's kind of unfounded. I'm just trying to look at it from all angles, and as objectively as possible, to why so many people are against longevity, you know? Are we the ones who don't get it?
Hey all,
I too was pretty stomached and actually saddened to read these comments.
Sometimes in life we have to go our own way, it sucks, but when everyone is
against you; you have stick your head up high and say 'to hell with that/them',
we'll see who has the last laugh (comments calling people stupid for believing
in anti-aging and not Embrancing their Human Mortality, yeah...the fatalists cannot
accept that their could be something good from life extension; it's just problems and
death is Super Great compared to living an extended life.). Me, now I fully talk about
immortality, I don't even care if they bring it up and laugh at me, or say any attempt to thwarth
aging is futile and morally totally wrong to humanity; and any Sane Human that talks
about Anti-Aging or defeating Aging is Not Sane; but Insane in the Membrane/Brain (lol).
Some of these comments are borderline exaggeration like the 'overpopulation take over,
the end of times on Earth gloom and doom as we pillage ressources and make Earth barren' etc
little do they know, some species are far worse than us; we one of the worst but not the worst either
and people think it's just BS all of this anti-aging stuff.
For those that hate that fatalist death-loving people talk about immortality, I think the reason for them
to talk about that and bring it up; is because it is an old dream in gerontology and history.
You just have to think of Juan Ponce de Leon trying to find the Immortal tree's Elixir of Youth in Mayan Ruins.
It conjures up very special fantasy like images that, when you think about it, not That fantasy. Science-fiction is getting
closer and close to reality; it is approaching the Uncanny Valley and people always fall in the Valley; we have to hop over it and
say : ''Yes Rejuvenation is not some BS, immortality is a nice thing that would be great (if it could even be), but for now we just aim
to increase health extension and push back our death''
Then you'll hear people scream : ''No No No...I Want to Die...let Me Die...''
Ok then die already...no body's going to stop you, trust me.
If you believe jumping a cliff is the solution, only you can decide what happens to your body's fate.
Or if you believe dying at 75 years old is the PERFECT age of death, good for you.
Now let the others who wish to live double that be able too....
''No NO no no...it will affect the humanity balance, we will be overcrowded with old grumpy grinches who don't want to die and earth will explode''......
It makes me think of what Romans, Greeks and Japanese use to do :
They would let the family member that is ailing or very sad decide of their faith...
so the law would allow people to terminate themselves. Perhaps the 'assisted suicide'
will have to be reinstated and anyone who wants to end their misery in diginity can go and do it,
law approved.
Since I have never seen a sound argument against life extension, only knee-jerk reactions and objections too easy to disprove (most of them of the not-even-wrong kind), I'm pretty sure they are the ones that don't get it.
The overpopulation mantra can even be dismissed without any demographical data. What's the point of killing people after decades of suffering in order that other people can live equally short lives and die after the same decades of suffering and repeat again and again and again... If that cycle of decrepitude were so important, why are we treating cancer, infections, injuries, ...? Really, they use childish arguments.
For me, it's simply a cognitive bias due to fear of death and a refuse to think.
Well, to be fair, people would argue we are the ones with fear of death. The one point I'm willing to concede a bit on is the population part. Birth rates eventually would have to be regulated somewhat. I know that other technologies will evolve alongside, and I don't fear the 100 billion scenario, but it's something that's more than likely going to have to be watched. Again, we probably won't really know for 70-100 years or so until longevity plays out on its own and barriers like 122 or 150 are broken.
Sorry to keep linking comments, but here's another exchange I find interestin because of how selective the opposition is.
"OK, explain then why we shouldn't reintroduce deadly diseases and ban medicine. Because using the same logic that is what we should do"
To which the response was:
"Of course I am not advocating for pain and physical debilitation. As medicine progresses we will solve degenerative illnesses and allow people to live healthier and happier lives. That is a social good.
There is, however, a huge gulf between that outcome, and an outcome where people live indefinitely. It's the latter that I see as very risky."
So arbitrary limits are ok then? Who gets to decide this? Why is anyone in charge of that, or have the right to be? Just seems selective and arbitrary, but that seems to be status quo. And again. I'm not looking for immortality per se. Just want more than what we get.
I think regarding overpopulation, we will have enough resources for everyone. I.E. we are getting by here in California with the drought by pushing everyone to reduce water by 25%. And this is w/o any major changes in technology. However, I just read about a method to use a much less expensive desalination process that could change the paradyn of getting water from the sea. That would be significant for water in itself.
Yes, in cities there will be more and taller buildings. But I doubt it will be as necessary in the less populated areas.
Also, over the next 100 years surely we will be moving (permanently) onto other planets and moons. Again, more resources there too.
We always find a way to resolve problems as a human race.
First: Sorry about my English
I think the answer to these people is: "How many years do you think persons should live?"
Suppose 80 years, OK? Good. Then let´s do the following: help Aubrey et al. to do their thing and then people would live until 80 years old healthy. Do you prefer people in their eighty were unhealthy? No, of course you don´t. At that age, you choose: people would be killed, or they should kill themselves, etc. The world would be a better place: nobody´d be unhealthy because of age, there would be significant lower cost in medicine, for example.
But, you wouldn´t like to be killed at eighty specially if you felt young, would you? You´d like to go on living, wouldn´t you? OF COURSE! Because THE PROBLEM IS AGING: if you feel young you´d want to live as much as you can.
@Antonio
Antonio, I think people are in a certain denial, like a :
''I am so F...ed..., I am so F...ed... I am so F...ed'' They believe it soooo much that there is nothing we could say or do to make them change their minds. It's basically...ok then...then...YES...you are F...ed...
the mindset/frame of mind/placebo effect is a powerful thing; it they believe life needs death, death needs life and will All Die, ''that's how it is...it Just is....'' then...they have conditioned themselves that life is Finite and there is nothing we can do about it; as Aubrey says, they do not want to question their own sanity, their assurenedness that Death is Natural Part/cycle of life, they do not want to bring up old battle scars; it's Done and they are in Peace with their decision; there is no Backtracking or Open-mindset to changing their stance. They Are DEAD and they breethe it, love it, and embrace it like the Finite Moment that they have left in their Finite life. Their Mortality is their most precious Gift. A Gift, because unlike immortality, it is FINITE. Not Infinite, they love that it has a start, middle and End (especially that last part); and rejoyce/bask into that Limited Finitness that is their Morta/Limited Time on Earth until Death.
In their head : 1, Born, 2, Grow, 3, Age, 4, Die. End of Story.
Actually they may hide that they are scared of dying, but generally speaking Fatalists and Death Cult lovers WANT to die, they await it when it happens, they are in no fear of it..it's as if I could say : ''so if you die in the next 15 minutes, are you somewhat scared ?''...they will answer :''it's a little quicker than I had planned, but hey, I'm Ready, Death is Shall Be and the Next Life Awaits...so 15 minutes is a Long Time for me'' (...relationnally speaking (for them) that is).
It makes me think of a study I recently read : flies visually see things in slow motion compared to us humans (because their eyes scan refresh rate are extremely high, far more than us...so they see everything 'slowly' in slow mo...so that is why they often wait till the very last second to fly away when we try to slapp them with a journal or something on the wall..they can 'see the newspaper' is sllloww motion coming at them...and they tell themselves : ''Ha...this puny human...he thinks I can't see his frigging newspaper coming to squash me on the walll.....Not! It's soooo slow...lol...I'll wait....and move away''.
Fatalists are like that, the next 15 minutes wait (to drop dead) are ssssuppper slowww..I mean when you want To Die...you are ready anytime (not scared at all)... and the faster the better and 15 minutes sounds like a life time (for everyone it is, 15 minutes could mean such a long time....but for them is like Infinity, because dying at 90 years old is Way Too Long,,and boring, chop the number a little and dispose yourself quick they will say; you will 'advance the specie evolution cycle').
''What's the point of killing people after decades of suffering in order that other people can live equally short lives and die after the same decades of suffering and repeat again and again and again... If that cycle of decrepitude were so important, why are we treating cancer, infections, injuries, ...?''
Exactly...To them we treat these life quality inhibitors (aging pathologies/sickness/diseases), and that is all they are Quality...so they still prefer dying younger but have Quality life for the remaining time left. They just don't want to pertube the humanity balance by living above maximum lifespan of 122, that is Too Much and as such dying between 80-120 is PERFECT for them. Just enough, Not too much (Long enough life with health quality but A GOOD DEATH at around 100) Is that even something we could say : '' a good death ?'' sure you die in your sleep in peace with no hurting...but you're STILL dead....for them it's yeah I'm dead, it's over and out, so don't talk to me about reaching 150 or centuries lifespan, i don't want any of it, I want my death like when I order my big mac at Burger King, I Order It.
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10311821/Flies-see-the-world-in-slow-motion-say-scientists.html
Robert,
I think that if there were energy efficient large scale desalination available, and most all of our energy needs could be met by solar and other renewables (pipe dream fusion), then some concerns and objections might be lessened. There's also things like the lab grown meat which could be immensly helpful, given how wasteful most of our agricultural processes are. These are all things that need to happen, but the timeline in them all is anyone's guess b
I don't see millions, billions, or any real large percentage of the population living in space in 100 years though. That would be amazing, but a gargantuan effort in just transporting a sizeable amount of people there, not to mention actually getting habitats set up. Space is the end game, but I don't think it's that close.
Sorry again to keep posting other comments, but the double talk from these people...
"Your smallpox example does not contradict my point. Currently, even with a robust medical establishment, even the longest-surviving people live only into their early 100's. We can survive, or at least prolong life with, many ailments which would have meant death 100 years ago. But that doesn't change the overall inevitability of death within a generally fixed bell curve of age.
Likewise, execution is not a realistic comparison to the natural process of aging. The whole idea behind finding sustainable natural cycles is that you don't systematically disrupt them. You can work on the margins, but if you upset the actual structure of the system, you very quickly create severe problems.
The fact is, none of us want to die, but eliminating the natural cycle of aging, with its predictable and systematic destruction of the old to make room for the new, strikes me as a recipe for a stunted future.
And
"Well, that's the problem, right? Everyone likes the idea of living longer and feeling healthier, but at some point this becomes a nightmare scenario for the world writ large. I'd say that when the balance of tech changes from merely extending life by some percentage (say, keeping people alive into their early hundreds consistently) to keeping people alive indefinitely, we probably shouldn't cross that line.
But then again, how do you tell people on death's door that you have the tech to save them, you refuse to do it for the greater good. Once this exists, there's not gonna be a way to put the genie back in the bottle, the demand will simply be too loud. And of course, I don't think we can realistically demand that research into prolonging life simply stop.
So yeah, it's a real mess. This seems inevitable, but man, I hope I don't live to see it, and I hope when it does come along, people are enlightened enough to use it only combined with very serious changes in the way we think about the world."
So yeah. Everyone seems so selective about what age and what's normal and how we shouldn't go against what's considered natural now etc. it seems to me like people cherry pick their arguments. Idk
@Ham: It's still non-sense. It's pointless to kill now 100,000 people every day after decades of suffering in order to allow unborn people of an indefinite future to have enough food. It's totally absurd.
And no, there is no need at all of birth control. That falls in the category of not even wrong. World birth rates have been falling every year since at least 1950. In this century we will face a problem of underpopulation, not overpopulation.
And this is why I don't read the comments... reading the comments of mortalists is no better than reading comments on Youtube.
While I agree with that Antonio, the crux of their argument is that no one will die, and people will continue reproducing at current rates. One of those two is more likely than the other, but still. People seem to have very set perceptions of what will happen, and that how things are now will continue to be true in the future.
Youtube comments are similar to comments on aging research articles:
http://wagesofwins.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/youtube-comments.png
Pretty much Jim. Though I also read them to get an idea on the overall vibe and opinion from the general population. And I'm usually very disappointed.
One of the best arguments against overpopulation concerns is this: nothing can avoid unsustainable population growth except birth control. Maintaining the current death rate (as some deathists argue) or developing new technology (as some of immortalists argue) while maintaining the current birth rate will at best only delay the inevitable by a relatively small amount. So, there's no point in letting people suffer and die needlessly.
Antonio, while I agree concern about overpopulation isn't enough to stop the development and deployment of rejuvenation tech, hand-waving it away isn't helpful either. Even SRF-funded studies conclude that as a result of the deployment of rejuvenation tech, population will increase substantially; a 22% increase is forecast by a University of Chicago study, and a more recent University of Denver study mentions that "...the widespread deployment of anti-senescence technologies would cause populations to surge—making fertility rates an issue of tremendous social import...."
Ham mentioned another anti-longevity argument: that there's some big difference between curing disease and significantly increasing longevity, but in fact, we can deduce by simple logic that a significant increase in longevity is inevitable if all of the diseases of aging are cured.
Florin, I've read the second paper you linked, and it certainly doesn't paint longevity in a favorable light where everything is rainbows and sunshine. Especially when it comes to advocating and trying to get more people on board with this. But like the paper admits, there are tons of variables. That being said, I wonder if the potential issues outlined in this paper could be enough to scare governments or regulatory bodies into outlawing potential treatments, or setting upper age limits perhaps? Our society mostly seems reactionary, so I'm sure it would take until after treatments were made and ready to go, before governments and other agencies actually started talking about these issues.
I'll have to read the first one when I get some time.
Ham, we don't have worry about the outlawing of rejuvenation treatments, because even when they'll be ready to use, significant increases in longevity will still probably be viewed as science fiction by most, and regardless of what people think about overpopulation, they'll want cures for their diseases no matter what. Remember that we're already living in a world in which life expectancy has also significantly increased compared to the past, and this has consequently vastly increased population, yet no one wants to outlaw medicine, sanitation, or other drivers of population growth.
@Ham
Hi Ham,
Your sinking feeling I feel it. I respect greatly studies that will rejuvenate and improve health. But, the sinking feeling, ultimately will do nothing to improve our maximum lifespan. I know you think we should aim low with rejuvenation and it is a good thing already just to live healthier longer up to a 100. We should not ask for miracles right...I know. But please understand why if people talk about immortality or very much longer lifespans, is because they hold it dearly (fantasy or not). When I hear stuff like : ''well, people talk about immortality, why are they so fixed on that...we just want to increase health....and have a nice lifespan in good health...that is Good Enough for us...why all the talk of immortality''...I think I am in the middle of that where I wish good health and long lifespan; but wish we not stop there. As some as said, since we are there why not continue further and explore our capabilities to push lifespan and good health together. For me hearing : '' 120 is going to be SO great and IN HEALTH too !'' ...I can only think to myself...well...uh, yeah it will be nice...is it so THAT cool and big of a deal that my jaw is litterally on the floor....no. I think...well my grandma lived nearly a 100, you are trying to tell me a BIG 20 YEARS extra is THE BEST thing since slice bread invention. I don't understand people who think 20 some years on our life is So Huge...it's not...yes it's still a lot, 20 years is a long time...but in Grand Scheme of Things...it's not much. If someone told me : '' We give you 150 years extra or heck even 75 or 50 years extra starting from a 100''. I would be YES Subscribe Me, When do I start the Therapy !!!? (lol). Yeah, I know I live in fantasy land. :D lol.
Oh and I admire Bowhead Whales, Giant Turtles and other extreme lifespan animals for the sole fact they outlive us and that SUcKs for us (lol ...dang life is not fair). They can me hoping that some scientist will finally make us live an extreme lifespan too, but my level of enthusiasm drops each year as I realize they can't do anything about it except talk about little mouses or insects they are trying to slow aging. sometimes, hearinf these comments about fatalists, I feel like the A.Islandica little clam, I feel like clamming inside a shell and die there lol. Oh well, we can always dream, I dream we will hit the half-millinenium lifespan (500 is a number that suits me) before I'm dead (still have least 75 years or so left). ; D
..in my dream that is. I apologize, I'm a day dreamer. Some may tell me : ''Keep on dreaming, you're only kidding yourself lol''.
Put things into perspective here. Yes there are a lot of stupid ignorant comments on such articles but then you have people who also specifically have an anti science agenda and actively seek out such articles (much as we do to enjoy them) to make foolish comments.
The bottom line is people like SENS and many others are working on solutions to these problems. I have spoken to a number of medical professionals not involved with the field and they love the idea of regenerative medicine and agree it is perfectly plausible. People I talk to every day in life are also generally happy about the idea of life extension, someone in my office said it's a no brainer not to want it.
I think such articles bring out the worst critics and they should be soundly ignored and not given further thought. People like Dr De Grey and many many others have soundly rebuffed such flawed arguments so there really is no reason we need to get involved. Its a waste of our time that could be spent spreading the word to those who will listen, and believe me I have found most regular people are certainly not against the idea.
@Florin: Sorry, I still don't buy that fear. We have a catastrophe NOW. 100,000 people die every f... day after decades of suffering for them and their loved ones. No future overpopulation catastrophe can be worse than that. The statement that we must maintain the former situation in order to avoid the later situation is total BS.
And suppose we reach that overpopulation catastrophe in XXIV century. So what? When resources become so scarce, people will control more strongly the birth rates. Even if half the population will starve to death, that will serve to make people realize that birth must be controled, and there will not be overpopulation afterwards. And if you think that the death of half of the population is too much, consider how many people will die before that if we don't have rejuvenation. The latter is much much much bigger.
And anyway, why we must solve the problems XXIV century's people? And even more, solve their problems (worse, what we think will be their problems, they can be real problems or not) by maintaining our problems unsolved.
Really, this is not even wrong, it shows fractal wrongness. It doesn't deserves a serious reply.
@Antonio
"And anyway, why we must solve the problems XXIV century's people? And even more, solve their problems (worse, what we think will be their problems, they can be real problems or not) by maintaining our problems unsolved.
Really, this is not even wrong, it shows fractal wrongness. It doesn't deserves a serious reply."
Nailed it!
Whenever you are confronted again with "overpopulation", answer that there will be no overpopulation problem. As long as the birth rate per family remains below 2.0, and that's already the case in the developed countries today, the population will eventually reach a plateau.
It's pretty obvious when you have understood it.
See e.g. my comment with an example calculation here:
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/10/radical-life-extension-wont-cause-resource-shortages.php#comments
Nicolai
While what your saying makes sense, usually the people you're arguing with will say something along the lines that if no one died/people lived to 1000 and people still had kids at the 2.0 rate it would still cause a problem. Which would eventually be true. The replacement level argument works when people are still dying all the time. Which, even with longevity, there will stil be plenty of that happening every day, probably just not as much. People tend to like to be over dramatic and assume the world will be filled with immortal people that can't die.
Another
"Eh I guess I have nothing in principle against an extra thirty years. So what? It just doesn't seem worth investing myself in the process of trying to get it. Death is a part of life and so are all the things that come with it. I know that makes me a old stodgy non believer to that de Grey guy in the video and also you, but I still think you haven't thought about what you'd do and you're scared to get old. Whatever. You're also nuts for thinking thinking that a thirty-year rejuvinative shot would somehow be apolitical. I mean think how only half of America thinks evolution is real. Tons of fundies would want to ban it on the basis of being against god's plan. I can foresee accusations that rich western nations are pumping their global sweat shop workers full of anti aging shot to keep them going on in bad conditions. Or, more locally, a workplace that refuses to age out, this creating a class of never before employed thirty year olds. Or just regular Catholic couples, doing their regular no-birth-control thing and having like twenty children. (Though maybe they'd also opt out of the shot. Probably would depend on the pope.) There would be a ton of unintended political consequences even if benevolent god Elon Musk distributed it to everyone on earth free of charge.
I really wish you no ill will, you've at least convinced me it could happen
Another interesting perspective. Yet one that just assumes it's going to be an "aging shot". The political and religious issue is could be tumultuous. I'm curious as to how that would play out, especially here in the U.S. Since what was said was a valid point.
Antonio and Steve H, if some people would still be concerned by the overpopulation issue even after it was explained to them that we have a bigger problem today, we better have good arguments which show how the overpopulation issue could be solved. If we dismiss their concerns, they might dismiss us as short-sighted and give them an excuse to ignore anything else we have to say.
@Florin: There are no good arguments for people that can't think. I prefer to convince only part of the people and move the technology forward. When rejuvenation will be available, the rest of the people will simply accept it, like we now accept anesthetics.
http://medicalhistory.blogspot.com.es/2011/11/queen-victoria-feels-no-pain.html
I mean look at some of the arguments I linked. People take what we're looking for to the extreme and turn it into people never dying all while the birth rate is going to stay the same. Or instead of never dying, people living to 1000, while reproducing at the same rate, and throughout those 1000 years. This is part of the reason I don't like talking about extreme longevity like 1000 years. 1, it freaks people out, and makes people take the research way less seriously... At least with the general population 2. Let's get to 120 or 150 before talking about that. We won't know if someone is going to live to 1000 for probably another 930 years at least. No point in talking about extreme longevity like that and getting people riled up. If we can get people to 150, there's probably no limit, but we have to cross that threshold first.
Not to mention if someone has their mind dead set that there's overpopulation, nothing any of us say is likely to change their opinion.
Some people might be persuaded to join our side, if they knew that we've considered their concerns. Without some good stats, however, it's hard to determine how well this strategy would work out. If you don't think it's worth talking to people about their concerns, don't, but if you do, you should present the best available arguments.
Anyway, I'm not sure we should complain too much about people being turned off by talk of immortality. If SENS was positioned only as a cure for the diseases of aging, it would likely be thought of as just another medical research program among many and might not have attracted nearly as much attention as it has, including from most of us.
Perhaps, but Aubrey seems pretty careful now to make sure he doesn't talk about immortality. Only health with any longevity being a side effect. But I understand where you're coming from, for sure, as it goes both ways.
@Florin: I only pay attention to concerns that merit it. That's why, for example, I don't try to reply to concerns about whether life extension is compatible with Christianity. You can't argue rationally with irrational people. I know there are a lot of Christians out there, but I don't care about this debate at all, it's a waste of my time.
I totally agree with your second paragraph. I understand why Aubrey changed to the "I work on age-related diseases, life extension is only a side-effect" motto, but I don't agree with it.