• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Aging is not a disease,it is a important part of the human life cycle


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 13 July 2008 - 02:44 PM


http://www.st.nu/asi...n...l&id=744783

The swedish health minister Maria Larsson says that aging is not a disease.

"it is important to change our minds,aging is not a disease,it is a natural part of the human life cycle"

However she argues that much more money should be spent on elderly care which is good.........

But I would have liked if she had stated "aging is a disease,let's focus our resources on a cure"

#2 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 13 July 2008 - 03:12 PM

Does she provide any arguments as to why "it is important to change our minds, aging is not a disease" other than the "its natural" thingy, or is that just a blank statement?

Its sounds like a typical values loaded politicians answer. Perhaps its a good thing that politicians start expressing such opinions. It provides an opportunity to argue against them. If they don't have better arguments than that, it should be rather easy to shoot down.... So, heart surgery, toxic cancer treatments and airplanes are not natural. Should we stop using them?

Edited by lightowl, 13 July 2008 - 03:14 PM.


#3 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 13 July 2008 - 03:28 PM

No,She only says that it's natural.

I'm not qualified to argue against her and the purpose of the debate is not aging it's about that she wants to improve the quality of the elder care.
I think she writes the sentence " when we get old,frail and dependent" at least a dozen of times. How depressing....

Edited by Shonghow, 13 July 2008 - 03:59 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 13 July 2008 - 04:04 PM

However most people don't think of aging as a disease but a natural part of the life cycle.....

#5 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 13 July 2008 - 06:22 PM

However most people don't think of aging as a disease but a natural part of the life cycle.....

Yea, its sad really. I rather like the argument that longer healthy life will be beneficial to the economy, due to a greater number of productive years in a lifetime, regardless of a complete cure for aging. Extending that logic there is no reason politics cant actively extend healthy lifespan while still arguing that "growing old" is natural and good. If extending healthy life is good, then there shouldn't be a logical limit to how long we live in that healthy state. I think we are probably "only" talking about a period of 30-50 years of delay this "aging is natural" mindset is going to cause on the fight against aging. After that the bio-tech revolution will probably have made it "easy" to cure aging (hopefully). Looking at the speed of discovery and innovation in bio-tech today, it is a cause for great optimism that its only a matter of time now (provided the world doesn't go completely belly-up by some catastrophe).

Edited by lightowl, 13 July 2008 - 06:26 PM.


#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 13 July 2008 - 07:16 PM

Persuading politicians to support healthy life extension should be much easier than arguing we should try to end death altogether. The "Death is natural" meme will hold on a lot longer than the "aging is natural" meme. There is a significant difference and in the political realm we should most certainly be pushing healthy life extension right now - popular opinion is tilting in our favor and politicians do not like to be on the wrong side of popular opinion.

#7 siberia

  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 9

Posted 13 July 2008 - 09:50 PM

I quickly wrote a short comment in the newspapers page, using the highly imaginative pseudonym "kalle", although half of it seem to have been edited away. Anyway...

In general I think it's a good idea to comment such ideas wherever they arise, even in small country newspapers, but am not sure, of course. I have been thinking about writing a letter to the editor to send to various newspapers about this, how we view death and aging, focusing on how little attention it gets while it is what it is (degeneration, suffering...), sharing the more rational life extensionist view without naming it so. I actually think that something like that can be published, at least somewhere, if written in the right way.

Wouldn't this be the best topic to discuss attitude-changing-wise?

Edited by siberia, 14 July 2008 - 01:15 PM.


#8 Shoe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 135 posts
  • 1

Posted 13 July 2008 - 10:56 PM

She's a member of the Christian Democratic party, so I guess nothing else was to be expected. However, I don't think what she said was meant to be taken as a statement against immortalism. Rather, I think it was meant to comfort people worrying about aging. She's probably not even aware of people like Aubrey de Grey.

#9 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 14 July 2008 - 06:36 AM

She's a member of the Christian Democratic party

Yikes. I feel sorry for you guys. Its almost as bad as our situation, having fundamental nationalists as a minority-government support party. They have just too much power. Fortunately Denmark is small, so they cant really do anything about the proliferation of the global workforce. At least your minister is to the left.

I don't think what she said was meant to be taken as a statement against immortalism

That was my thought too when reading the article, with my limited Swedish language skills. I agree with her that government should provide care for poor disabled (but regardless of the cause of disability).

Persuading politicians to support healthy life extension should be much easier that arguing we should try to end death altogether.

Yea, one good example is the "In Pursuit of the Longevity Dividend"

#10 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 July 2008 - 09:37 AM

What is the point of writing "it is important to change our minds,aging is not a disease,it is a natural part of the human life cycle".
Does she expect anything good will come from that?

Regardless what you label aging it is a fact that it is a big social problem for society not to mention the horror for the old people themselves.

I think it is a good idea to spend resources to improve the quality of life for elderly but even if even more resources are spent on elderly making sure they get better food,antidepressive drugs, and activities to participate in it is still such a horror being frail and decrepit.
I understand her idealistic vision of a society where suffering and death can be "served on a silver plate" but the fact is that it is difficult .

#11 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 18 July 2008 - 05:02 PM

http://www.dn.se/DNe...p?d=52&a=778621

"Aging is a natural part of life and we must realize that old age and the dying process is a very meaningful part of the human life cycle"


I almost didn't believe this was true until I saw it. The article was meant to encourage people to care more for elderly by the government.

#12 katzenjammer

  • Guest
  • 292 posts
  • 10

Posted 18 July 2008 - 08:59 PM

One of my sisters is a chaplain in a hospital. The other day she informed me that the whole problem with our medical industry is that people are just living too long. She was quite serious. There's something sinister about a chaplain saying this, isn't there?

#13 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 18 July 2008 - 10:32 PM

"Cycle" just means "circle." We use the expression "going in circles" to mean an exercise in futility. If we can break out of the cyclic/circular trap by finding technological solutions to the medical emergency we call aging, we might have the ability to go towards more interesting places.

#14 Shoe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 135 posts
  • 1

Posted 18 July 2008 - 10:49 PM

http://www.dn.se/DNe...p?d=52&a=778621

"Aging is a natural part of life and we must realize that old age and the dying process is a very meaningful part of the human life cycle"


I almost didn't believe this was true until I saw it. The article was meant to encourage people to care more for elderly by the government.


Wrong link, it seems.

#15 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 July 2008 - 06:09 AM

I think the author's line of thinking is:

A cannot be obtained.
Therefore, ~A is natural and therefore good.

#16 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 21 July 2008 - 10:59 PM

I think the author's line of thinking is:

A cannot be obtained.
Therefore, ~A is natural and therefore good.


Yes as many people have pointed out " the Stockholm syndrome"

#17 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 15 November 2008 - 12:51 AM

She's a member of the Christian Democratic party

Yikes. I feel sorry for you guys. Its almost as bad as our situation, having fundamental nationalists as a minority-government support party. They have just too much power. Fortunately Denmark is small, so they cant really do anything about the proliferation of the global workforce. At least your minister is to the left.

I don't think what she said was meant to be taken as a statement against immortalism

That was my thought too when reading the article, with my limited Swedish language skills. I agree with her that government should provide care for poor disabled (but regardless of the cause of disability).


Wait-a-minute pal! What has nationalism to do with this? I'm a nationalist and I'm for life extension and transhumanism as well. If it is the Danske Folkeparti you are referring to, they are doing a great job, and I wish nationalist parties in Sweden were as influential (Christian Democrats are NOT a nationalist party)! And what u mean about the 'global workforce'? Solving our low birth rate by importing skilled (and unskilled) immigrants from countries that btw need them for their own development? And if Europe spended more in health care and research instead than wasting money taking false refugees who then often despise the host countries, we would be far better. But this is not the forum for such discussions.

Edited by Proconsul, 15 November 2008 - 01:09 AM.


#18 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 15 November 2008 - 10:55 AM

What has nationalism to do with this?

Nothing, I just don't like nationalism in the extremist form. Its narrow minded and lead to hatred of anything that is different and foreign.

Solving our low birth rate by importing skilled (and unskilled) immigrants from countries that btw need them for their own development?

Yep, its that us vs. them mentality I don't like. Giving poor workers high paying jobs in the west is pulling a lot of people out of poverty. Many of those people are continuing to support their families in their home country.

Dansk Folkeparti are a bunch of narrow minded assholes if you ask me. They only care about their own interests. Such people should not be allowed minority power. They hate foreigners so much that they are willing to compromise their own socialistic values just to make life miserable for a few unfortunate refugees. Its quite disgusting.

Edited by lightowl, 15 November 2008 - 10:56 AM.


#19 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 15 November 2008 - 04:51 PM

[/quote]
Solving our low birth rate by importing skilled (and unskilled) immigrants from countries that btw need them for their own development?
[/quote]

Hmm.. So people are the property of their respective countries? The development needs of their countries trump their own desires and dreams? Societies is there to serve people not the other way around, in my opinion. I am not my governments property.

#20 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 16 November 2008 - 11:41 AM

Hmm.. So people are the property of their respective countries? The development needs of their countries trump their own desires and dreams? Societies is there to serve people not the other way around, in my opinion. I am not my governments property.

No, of course not, but in my view the collective interests should predominate over the individual ones. At least when laws and regulations are concerned.

#21 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 16 November 2008 - 12:00 PM

What has nationalism to do with this?

Nothing, I just don't like nationalism in the extremist form. Its narrow minded and lead to hatred of anything that is different and foreign.

Solving our low birth rate by importing skilled (and unskilled) immigrants from countries that btw need them for their own development?

Yep, its that us vs. them mentality I don't like. Giving poor workers high paying jobs in the west is pulling a lot of people out of poverty. Many of those people are continuing to support their families in their home country.

Dansk Folkeparti are a bunch of narrow minded assholes if you ask me. They only care about their own interests. Such people should not be allowed minority power. They hate foreigners so much that they are willing to compromise their own socialistic values just to make life miserable for a few unfortunate refugees. Its quite disgusting.


Well, then I'm a narrow minded asshole too because I agree with them. And if the 'few unfortunate refugees' - which are not few, often not so unfortunate, and mostly not even refugees - are messing with your country, acting violently, and despising or even hating the society that give them hospitality, then definitevely DF is correct to give priority to this problem. But hey, for me it's ok if u for instance want to share your flat with one of those 'unfortunates'... or if one of them hits your cheek cuz you are a 'danskjävel' you can surely present them the other cheek... after all it's only right that people who wants to impose burdens on the society start bearing these burdens too...

I don't want to continue this discussion because it's OT and risks to poison this forum. I just don't cease to be amazed how people totally refuse to see reality even when are rubbed against it... and to end it: let's see how life extension and transhumanism will be carried on when certain 'unfortunate' religions (I don't name it but it's obvious what I'm thinking to) will have even more influence and power in Europe.

#22 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 16 November 2008 - 12:45 PM

Well, then I'm a narrow minded asshole too because I agree with them.

Agreed.

And if the 'few unfortunate refugees' - which are not few, often not so unfortunate, and mostly not even refugees

You brought up refugees. If you don't like foreigners, refugees should be the least of your worries. Fortunately a majority of people in DK don't hate foreigners as DF does. In fact the current government want to bring in more foreign workers, though DF will fight with all their will to limit that.

But hey, for me it's ok if u for instance want to share your flat with one of those 'unfortunates'

Its typical for extremists to take it to the extremes. Who is forcing anyone to share their flat with refugees? Its not an issue. Criminal elements should be dealt with, but banning refugees and foreners is not a viable solution. It is however the only solution that is acceptable for those who are afraid of the rest of the world.

I don't want to continue this discussion because it's OT and risks to poison this forum.

If you don't want to discuss things you should make an example and stop. Making your points and then stating that you wont discuss it is rather silly. Don't worry about poisoning. The mods will take care of it if they see fit.

Edited by lightowl, 16 November 2008 - 12:46 PM.


#23 SinewySam

  • Guest
  • 3 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 January 2009 - 09:52 PM

One of my sisters is a chaplain in a hospital. The other day she informed me that the whole problem with our medical industry is that people are just living too long. She was quite serious. There's something sinister about a chaplain saying this, isn't there?



Wow that just gave me spooks! /shiver

Although, life extension+poor health (the kind that puts you in a hospital to begin with) does seem like a crappy equation.

What we need is old people with no need for hospitals.

What we need is a lack of need; interesting..

#24 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 24 May 2009 - 11:45 AM

Is aging natural?

Well yes and no. Aging does occur naturally but the next thing that occurs is that the aged animal becomes an easy meal for the youthful offspring of it's nearest predator. What is unnatural is for this aged animal to survive. What is especially unnatural is having the animals form a sophisticated society where vast resources are invested in keeping these aged animals alive. This occurs to the point where a very significant and rapid increasing portion of their population is aging.

Moral aspects aside it will get to the point where each young and able bodied person needs to be able to support 2+ aged people. These resources could otherwise be invested in having more children which would increase the pool of labor able to care for the aged.

So we find ourselves in a vicious cycle where the aged are a significant drain on our society. Putting more and more resources into aged care instead of investing it in young families will make the cycle worse.

Investing the money into a) forming new families and b) technologies to slow and reverse aging in quarter and middle aged people will mitigate the trend towards an aged society.

The economic growth gained from a and b should deliver a surplus allowing the care for the aged. The actual "aged demographic" is a demographic we want to keep as small as possible and by any means necessary with the exception of the forced euthanasia of the aged.

Edited by caston, 24 May 2009 - 11:51 AM.


#25 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 24 May 2009 - 05:40 PM

Is aging natural?

Well yes and no. Aging does occur naturally but the next thing that occurs is that the aged animal becomes an easy meal for the youthful offspring of it's nearest predator. What is unnatural is for this aged animal to survive. What is especially unnatural is having the animals form a sophisticated society where vast resources are invested in keeping these aged animals alive. This occurs to the point where a very significant and rapid increasing portion of their population is aging.

Moral aspects aside it will get to the point where each young and able bodied person needs to be able to support 2+ aged people. These resources could otherwise be invested in having more children which would increase the pool of labor able to care for the aged.

So we find ourselves in a vicious cycle where the aged are a significant drain on our society. Putting more and more resources into aged care instead of investing it in young families will make the cycle worse.

Investing the money into a) forming new families and b) technologies to slow and reverse aging in quarter and middle aged people will mitigate the trend towards an aged society.

The economic growth gained from a and b should deliver a surplus allowing the care for the aged. The actual "aged demographic" is a demographic we want to keep as small as possible and by any means necessary with the exception of the forced euthanasia of the aged.


Caston: You may like to read my essay in the articles and creative subforum ;)

#26 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 25 May 2009 - 03:04 PM

If I only read one this week which would you recommend the most?

#27 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 25 May 2009 - 03:19 PM

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=29988

#28 Cassox

  • Guest, F@H
  • 62 posts
  • 1

Posted 25 May 2009 - 08:35 PM

Hmmmm.... also by definition, a disease is an abnormal state. Physiological decline is not abnormal. Death really is an important and natural part of the human life cycle. But really.... who gives a shit about natural? I've never understood "natural" as a selling point.

#29 Cassox

  • Guest, F@H
  • 62 posts
  • 1

Posted 25 May 2009 - 08:46 PM

You know, I've never really thought about how whenever the term "natural" comes up, its almost always a stupid argument. Let me give a few examples of "natural" arguments:
Homosexuality isn't natural.
Herbs are safer than drugs because they are all natural.
Natural childbirth is much better than c-section, especially if you don't use analgesics.
Disabilities such as Down Syndrome are natural, and thus genetic counseling/adaption is bad. (Think I'm making this up? Look at disabilityisnatural.com)
Hmmm... anything at all that says "Natural remedy" pretty much should be labeled as "snake oil."


I think I have a new hypothesis. Anyone who uses the description "natural" as a selling point is an idiot. Naturally, I'll have to design some rigorous double blind studies.

#30 jdgauchat

  • Guest
  • 211 posts
  • 30
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 26 May 2009 - 06:13 PM

Aging is part of nature, thats ok, what they don't say is that nature sucks!

Any deadly virus or bacteria is part of nature as well, but we fight against this disgusting natural structures.

The problem of human kind is the world of fantasy we live on that push us to die and disappear from existence and be happy with that.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users