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

Photo
- - - - -

We must find a way to combat the Pro-aging Trance!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
70 replies to this topic

#1 The Immortalist

  • Registered User
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:21 AM


My project idea is to start a compilation of all known or possible ways to combat the psychological fenomenon many of us Immortalists encounter frequently called the Pro Aging Trance. This is very important because it will help speed up the process of recruiting more people to the movement.
We must have a list of techniques and comebacks to say to all of those Deathists and people trapped in the pro-aging trance so that they will have no choice but to agree! Lets all discuss our own theories and solutions about this issue. Maybe one day we can make a book titled "your guide to convince everyone to support the quest for Immortality!" We can post conversations that we had with people who were negative about the idea of life extension and then discuss what went wrong, then we can post conversations that were successful with people who did not have prior knowledge of our cause and discuss those as well.

we need not be psychologists but it would surely help if we had people who have some background in psychology to help. We could also contact some distinguished psychologists to hear there opinion on the matter.

I've contacted Kelsey Moody who was studying psychology at one point and the pro aging trance and this is what he had to say, "I could probably speculate on this for hours but I'll be brief. My hypothesis is that the pro aging trance is caused by a psychological phenomenon known as learned helplessness, and the widespread occurrence of learned helplessness among people can widely be described by a collective theory called terror management theory."
I asked him what his theory was about why us Immortalist are so strongly bound to this movement and prolonging life, this was his response, " In response to your second question, I think that reasons for us being so committed to this cause may be explained by necrophobia, though I don't have a lot of evidence for this and have not spent much time researching that yet. It should also be noted that not all animals exhibit learned helplessness (though a vast majority do) so perhaps we are simply the special cases where learned helplessness doesn't occur."

I have my own Hypothesis about the pro-aging trance,

There is a time in every humans life when they are a child that they first begin to understand the concept of death, when they realise they may die they usually get upset (at least I did) and consult their parents, the parents being programed by society usually to believe there is an "afterlife" tell the child that death is not a problem their is an afterlife. The child being very impressionable psychologically by there parents and because of there young age is "indoctrinated to believe death is okay they don't have to worry and that there is a heaven to go to. Also because most humans are programmed to mindlessly follow social norms they just believe what everyone around them tells them.

Now as for what I think about us Immortalists

Necrophobia an extreme fear of death is a factor that may influence us Immortalists and even those "indoctrinated" to seek ways to prolong life, this is certainly a case for myself because since I was a young child I have always been terrified by dieing this is what probably motivated me to support this cause, I don't have such a great fear of death anymore though.

Also I looked at a pole about "what your personality type is" in the introduce yourself forum it was a test to see what your personality was, even though I don't think these types of tests are exact, I believe they are useful in general grouping people into different categories of personality and how they think, over 60% answered "rational" which on the tests website it said it was the rarest personality type in the general population, interestingly the website said "rationals" are generally non conformists and they are very logical about how they think of things and tend to not base their decisions based on emotion and they are generally introverted people who are not as social as most other types of personalities. Is this why most people are caught in the pro-aging trance but not people like us are we the way we immortalists are because we do not conform to society and have a mind of our own (which of course is a good thing?
I should also point out that hardly anybody voted for the emotional extroverted personality types. They are also the most common personality types in the world and also I personally don't associate with people with those types of personalities.

Please share your insight into this issue.

Edited by The Immortalist, 12 January 2010 - 11:27 AM.


#2 Inkstersco

  • Registered User
  • 42 posts
  • 5

Posted 12 January 2010 - 03:40 PM

Over and above the pro-aging trance, I believe there is yet another force at work, something I call an 'intellectual blind spot'.

I wrote about it in the 'Imagination and Demand' article of what might be the latest Rejuvenation Research.

http://www.lieberton...journalCode=rej


I believe it might be easier than we think to tear down the trance, if we attack the 'impossibility' assumption hardest. With the right message, it could become received wisdom to the man in the street that tissue repair(fast), will outpace tissue damage(aging, so slow as to be imperceptible). The idea rests easy in the imagination, like the idea that renovation is faster than erosion. This is basically a very compact, portable version of Aubrey's description of the SENS approach, but one that can be readily understood if reading about it in a newspaper on the back of the bus.

A headline which says 'Scientist says aging will be defeated', actually makes a weaker impression than 'Tissue repair technology to outpace\overtake\overpower aging itself'. Without a vivid, immediate understanding of the concepts involved, 'deafeat aging' sounds like 'sit on your own lap' : bewildering and pointless.

The effective rhetoric would be to refer to defeating aging as if it's some kind of sound barrier -- a turning point in which repair is generally greater than damage.

--Iain

Edited by Inkstersco, 12 January 2010 - 03:45 PM.


#3 Mind

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 15,213 posts
  • 2,006
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:48 PM

A couple of comments wrt common objections to immortality:

Overpopulation. It would seem to be the least of our problems based on latest growth trends and rigorous mathematical analysis of life extension effects on population. Links to Max Moore's and Gavrilov's analysis can be found in the latest front page feature article. How to combat this. Most people who hold on to this old canard/red herring were educated in the 1970s, still believe The Population Bomb, and still think we are headed toward 25 billion people by 2025. This is ridiculous and these people can probably be shamed with "get with the program", "get a clue", or "the year is 2010 not 1975" comments. Most of them have pride in their "world knowledge/wisdom" and don't like to be seen as ignorant.

Boredom. The best comment about this I heard this year was from Felicia Nimue Ackerman. She said (paraphrasing): When people talk about boredom and stagnation due to indefinite lifespans you should counter with "so I should die just so you don't get bored!?"

#4 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:41 PM

Ok now that we have some insights I'll make a list of what we have so far,

Main problems:

1. Proaging trance: The cycle of psychological resistance to the serious prospect of real anti-aging medicine that he summarized as the simultaneous holding of the following views:
position 1. "I refuse to think seriously about whether aging is feasible, because it is clearly not desirable."

position 2. "I refuse to think seriously about whether defeating aging is desirable, because it is clearly not feasible. (taken from the ling Inksterco provided, http://www.lieberton...ournalCode=rej)

2. Intellectual blind spot: From what I read in the paper Inksterco wrote, I interpreted it as some sort of shortcoming of the imagination of most humans including many sci fi authors and the general population. This shortcoming of imagination makes it hard to think it's possible (even in science fiction, but excluding the fantasy genre) that human senescence can be treated some how. (please explain to me if I'm wrong Inksterco)



Retorts in arguments
1. the overpopulation argument::
/there is mathematical analysis by Max moore and Gavrilove (http://www.imminst.o...s/aging-america) that suggests we are not headed for a population bomb, Mind suggested using a comeback such as "get with the program", "get a clue", or "the year is 2010 not 1975". In Minds subjective experience he says that Most people who hold on to this old canard/red herring were educated in the 1970s, still believe The Population Bomb, and still think we are headed toward 25 billion people by 2025.

2. the boredom argument

[Quote/Mind] The best comment about this I heard this year was from Felicia Nimue Ackerman. She said (paraphrasing): When people talk about boredom and stagnation due to indefinite lifespans you should counter with "so I should die just so you don't get bored!?" [Quote/Mind]

Edited by The Immortalist, 12 January 2010 - 11:52 PM.


#5 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:44 PM

Keep the ideas flowing people we need as much information as we can get.

Can I request a sub-forum for this project I started?

#6 Mind

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 15,213 posts
  • 2,006
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:46 PM

wrt respect to overpopulation quote above. It is my SUBJECTIVE experience that most people who come up with the overpopulation argument fall into this category. Even after confronted with data, they still claim 7, or 8, or 9 billion people is still too many for the earth to sustain, which is very debatable.

#7 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:01 AM

wrt respect to overpopulation quote above. It is my SUBJECTIVE experience that most people who come up with the overpopulation argument fall into this category. Even after confronted with data, they still claim 7, or 8, or 9 billion people is still too many for the earth to sustain, which is very debatable.


I changed it, is it good enough now? lol even I think 7 billion people is too many. Maybe we can counter there argument that 7 billion people is too many for the earth to sustain, with that there is data to suggest that when people live longer and healthier they tend to have less children and have children later, as is in the case in Japan. There may even be a law in the future that says if you want to have a child you must cancel your life extension therapies and other laws to keep the population from exploding. I speculate that when we achieve an indefinite lifespan most of us humans will probably not have the desire to procreate as much and focus on other things in life.

How can I get this project I just started into the projects and teams forum?

#8 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:08 AM

In response to how will we not eco-terrorize the planet, we should point out nanofactories, nano solar power, and other nano devices that could prevent this from happening.

Then people will say, "all of you immortalists live in lala land with you projections that simply won't come true like example x didn't come true."

We need more knowledgeable statements about the future of nanotechnology. For the population overload question I directed them to H+ faq's where there was a good retort to the population problem, and i directed them to Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, plus all of the articles that are out there that talk of nanotech's future being exponential.

#9 brokenportal

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:26 AM

This is a good idea you have here. Let me know if you need anything and I will try to get you what I can. For example, I can help you find others interested in this.

Here are some links to this discussion that have taken place in the past.

http://www.imminst.o...ing-t31855.html
http://www.imminst.o...o...25487&st=20
http://docs.google.c...evision=_latest (line 36)

One thing I would suggest is to consider continuing on with a quiz like we have been working on.

However, part of the reason I have shifted gears away from that is because I am now almost convinced that the pro aging trance is all but a fraction of what is going on, and the main thing that is going on is that people are just simply uninformed. To that end many of us are working on developing, an as of yet tentative, 5 year plan to inform the world.

Edited by brokenportal, 13 January 2010 - 12:27 AM.


#10 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:32 AM

In response to how will we not eco-terrorize the planet, we should point out nanofactories, nano solar power, and other nano devices that could prevent this from happening.

Then people will say, "all of you immortalists live in lala land with you projections that simply won't come true like example x didn't come true."

We need more knowledgeable statements about the future of nanotechnology. For the population overload question I directed them to H+ faq's where there was a good retort to the population problem, and i directed them to Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, plus all of the articles that are out there that talk of nanotech's future being exponential.


Could you please provide links to the above information?

#11 acrossuniv1

  • Registered User
  • 19 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:45 AM

for those who say "I don't want to be 120 years old, can hardly move my legs, and still alive!", tell them anti-aging means there is less aging effect, which means when being 120 years old, one can still play sports, have sex, enjoy life like young people. It does not only mean people just not dying.

My two cents:)

Edited by acrossuniv1, 13 January 2010 - 01:46 AM.


#12 acrossuniv1

  • Registered User
  • 19 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:49 AM

tell that any change of life events may be scary, the change of status quo of current human life expectancy condition may be scary, but after the change there will be new opportunity and new happiness that worth overcome our fear of change

Edited by acrossuniv1, 13 January 2010 - 01:50 AM.


#13 Eugene

  • Registered User
  • 96 posts
  • -6
  • Location:brooklyn

Posted 13 January 2010 - 04:41 AM

Here is what I say to boredom argument:

You are basing the affect of boredom on a false psychological model. Do you grow bored as a function of time? Are you more bored now then you were 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Do you ever feel boredom as a result of how long you lived up to this point? Or is it more about something immediate, like doing a repetitive task for too long? Do you really think that boredom is something psychologists would not be able to treat just as we treat depression? Indeed, is it not far more easier to get rid of than a multitude of other emotions? All you have to do is do something different. The utility gained degrades within a short time by doing the same thing, but our psychological model is such, that as research shows, we regain our ability to enjoy it within a very short period of time. A candy can taste just as good within hours of eating too much candy.

Here is what I say to unfeasible argument:

Aging is a mutitutde of degenerating biological mechanisms. What reason is there that with increasing knowledge and technology we will be able to treat/repair the accumulating damage? People used to be convinced that aviation is nothing but science fiction, nothing but wishful thinking, but today we can get humans all the way to the moon and beyond. The way we learned to fly is the same way we will learn to stop aging, namely by bending nature to our will.

Regarding overpopulation:

We should obviously value existing life more than life not yet come about. How can we value something that not yet exists? Becoming a scientist takes years and years of work, how can something yet not existing be more valuable then that? Besides, we can control population is much better ways then allowing people to die quicker. If we take this valuing unexisting human life argument seriously, then we should decrease lifespans, not increase them, and I think you want to live you life as long as you can. Would you ever agree to be terminated just because people want to decrease human population, or give space to a new baby not yet even conceived? You would obviously just ask people to reduce population by other means, such as limiting reproduction, or simply developing technology to sustain more people? Population argument rests on the idea that technology will be unable to develop as fast as population. What about inhibiting other planets? Moreover, it takes 2.1 babies per family to just SUSTAIN a population, and 2.1 babies per family is more then enough. In fact, there is a growing problem of decreasing population in civilized countries. Growth is by and large a function of poverty, ignorance and religion, not age.

Edited by Eugene, 13 January 2010 - 04:43 AM.


#14 Cyberbrain

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 13 January 2010 - 05:05 AM

Although all the arguments in this thread have been posed by bioluddites, I think the truth is that they really are just afraid to venture into both the unknown and out of the statues quo, especially since radical life extension doesn't exist yet.

Most personal bias against longevity exist from a combination of theism and/or naturalism reinforced by group conformity. In the end people will remain faithful to their upbringings (purpose of life is to live, make love, die). People will not venture out of this till the technology actually becomes available. Once then, a gradual process will begin where everyone will slowly start to see the benefits of longevity. Till then no one will burst their own personal bubble worlds. It's like religion. I once talked to a priest. He said "I know there might not be an afterlife but I continue to believe anyway because not doing so will make me depressed". People will not abandon their faith to their values for something that is extremely far fetched to them (especially since they know so little of it) - they view transhumanism not only as magical thinking but dangerous.

I say we keep fighting, but ultimately it will be the creation of the actual technologies that will turn people. Till then we must educate.

Edited by Cyberbrain, 13 January 2010 - 05:08 AM.


#15 Eugene

  • Registered User
  • 96 posts
  • -6
  • Location:brooklyn

Posted 13 January 2010 - 05:21 AM

Although all the arguments in this thread have been posed by bioluddites, I think the truth is that they really are just afraid to venture into both the unknown and out of the statues quo, especially since radical life extension doesn't exist yet.

Most personal bias against longevity exist from a combination of theism and/or naturalism reinforced by group conformity. In the end people will remain faithful to their upbringings (purpose of life is to live, make love, die). People will not venture out of this till the technology actually becomes available. Once then, a gradual process will begin where everyone will slowly start to see the benefits of longevity. Till then no one will burst their own personal bubble worlds. It's like religion. I once talked to a priest. He said "I know there might not be an afterlife but I continue to believe anyway because not doing so will make me depressed". People will not abandon their faith to their values for something that is extremely far fetched to them (especially since they know so little of it) - they view transhumanism not only as magical thinking but dangerous.

I say we keep fighting, but ultimately it will be the creation of the actual technologies that will turn people. Till then we must educate.


That, sir, is a very good point. The only thing i can add is that we must make sure consensus doesn't ban the relevant research areas so that we could at least work on it. Do not underestimate what people can do if they get convinced that transhumanism is morally appalling.

Moreover, I say we also need new fresh blood to get encouraged enough to go into the relevant fields and work on the very projects we hold dear. We also need scientists that already exist to get on-board. We can't create this technology without people actually working on it. And I would add that it is the duty of people who realize the important of transhumanism to work in a relevant field, even if it means changing careers, unless there is a good reason not to. There is enough people for example making software for transhumanists to go into that area for example. One does not need the depth of transhumanism to be a software engineer, and many other fields. We must at least try to get as close as possible. I am not saying we should all become biologists, but if say we are programmers, we should do our best to make the existing biologists work as easy as possible.

If all transhumanists choose easy money making career choices, then transhumanism is nothing but pleasant thought.

Edited by Eugene, 13 January 2010 - 05:22 AM.


#16 valkyrie_ice

  • Registered User
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 13 January 2010 - 05:22 AM

Give me an argument for, I can supply an argument against.

Religious grounds.

God gave you a temple, and told you to take care of it. Are you going to defy god and not use the very best to take care of your responsibility?

Boredom.

So, you don't want to know if it will be possible to surf on a solar flare? Man, you have no imagination do you?

Overpopulation

Um, overcrowding occurs in cities, but 80% of the surface of our planet is completely uninhabited. We could support a population twice as large as we have right now if it weren't for political control of crop productions intended to keep prices high. Overpopulation is a myth fed to you to make you think things are far worse than they are.

Immortality means seeing your friends die off (the lonely vampire/highlander scenario)

Ummm, you're joking right? Why would your friends all chose to die instead of using the same immortality technology? You a suicide cult or something?

Immortality is impossible.

You are really behind the times aren't you? We already know what has to be done to make you immortal, it's just a matter of finding the correct techniques to actually correct the errors in DNA that cause you to age and die.

Immortality is going to lead to stagnation. The elders need to die for new ideas to happen.

Um, brain plasticity is a function of age. We will reverse aging, restore brain plasticity, and enable even old geezers to be able to learn and adapt like they were twentysomethings. I expect the "elders" are going to be every bit as innovative as the youngsters... and they will probably be even better at it due to experience.

Immortality will suck if you're forever old.

Umm, it's called REJUVENATION for a reason. You won't be OLD. You'll be forever 21.

Immortality will mean I can't retire

And you'd rather die than work? OOOOOOOOkay. However, work is going to be obsolete inside of twenty years. You'll have robots to help you do whatever you want. Did you see Ironman? That lab Tony had that did ninety percent of the job of making the Ironman Suit? Did that seem like work or play to you? Considering that that is where work is headed, I think I'm rather looking forward to "work".

Immortality will only be for the rich.

Yeah, it's great isn't it? All those rich people who will be willing to pay to be test subjects for the early, possibly dangerous, versions of the tech. Man, I can just see them lining up to pay billions to perfect and complete the process to the point that it will be 100% reliable, cheap, and absolutely safe when the pharmaceuticals run out of rich people to make immortal and will start selling it to the masses to make that last bit of profit before they go obsolete. It's gonna be great!

Immortality is a lie, even if they can make you not age, you can still die!

True, at least until they develop the means to back up your brain so that you can respawn when you die, just like in a video game. Man, imagine how bloody and violent sports will get when you can kill the other team with complete freedom! Suicide plays will take on a truer meaning! Maybe they'll even give the players back their weapons! And your Fav star might be able to play for decades before he gets bored and moves on!

Immortality means dictators will be around forever.

Ummm. Dude, you're smoking some really bad shit there. Dictators are already failing around the world. It's a system that relies on control of information, and they simply don't have that control anymore. And immortality will mean that those dictators who survive will have a very very long time to be repentant for their crimes.

Immortality will only go to the elite power brokers, not the common people.

Dude, do you really really really think the mass of humanity is going to simply roll over and die if they don't have too? We still have our pitchforks and torches. While I abhor violence, it'll be inevitable if anyone tries to deny immortality to the masses once they are aware it exists. No government would be able to defend against the entirety of it's population rising against it.



Give me more, I can give you a comeback.

#17 Eugene

  • Registered User
  • 96 posts
  • -6
  • Location:brooklyn

Posted 13 January 2010 - 05:27 AM

Give me an argument for, I can supply an argument against.

Religious grounds.

God gave you a temple, and told you to take care of it. Are you going to defy god and not use the very best to take care of your responsibility?

Boredom.

So, you don't want to know if it will be possible to surf on a solar flare? Man, you have no imagination do you?

Overpopulation

Um, overcrowding occurs in cities, but 80% of the surface of our planet is completely uninhabited. We could support a population twice as large as we have right now if it weren't for political control of crop productions intended to keep prices high. Overpopulation is a myth fed to you to make you think things are far worse than they are.

Immortality means seeing your friends die off (the lonely vampire/highlander scenario)

Ummm, you're joking right? Why would your friends all chose to die instead of using the same immortality technology? You a suicide cult or something?

Immortality is impossible.

You are really behind the times aren't you? We already know what has to be done to make you immortal, it's just a matter of finding the correct techniques to actually correct the errors in DNA that cause you to age and die.

Immortality is going to lead to stagnation. The elders need to die for new ideas to happen.

Um, brain plasticity is a function of age. We will reverse aging, restore brain plasticity, and enable even old geezers to be able to learn and adapt like they were twentysomethings. I expect the "elders" are going to be every bit as innovative as the youngsters... and they will probably be even better at it due to experience.

Immortality will suck if you're forever old.

Umm, it's called REJUVENATION for a reason. You won't be OLD. You'll be forever 21.

Immortality will mean I can't retire

And you'd rather die than work? OOOOOOOOkay. However, work is going to be obsolete inside of twenty years. You'll have robots to help you do whatever you want. Did you see Ironman? That lab Tony had that did ninety percent of the job of making the Ironman Suit? Did that seem like work or play to you? Considering that that is where work is headed, I think I'm rather looking forward to "work".

Immortality will only be for the rich.

Yeah, it's great isn't it? All those rich people who will be willing to pay to be test subjects for the early, possibly dangerous, versions of the tech. Man, I can just see them lining up to pay billions to perfect and complete the process to the point that it will be 100% reliable, cheap, and absolutely safe when the pharmaceuticals run out of rich people to make immortal and will start selling it to the masses to make that last bit of profit before they go obsolete. It's gonna be great!

Immortality is a lie, even if they can make you not age, you can still die!

True, at least until they develop the means to back up your brain so that you can respawn when you die, just like in a video game. Man, imagine how bloody and violent sports will get when you can kill the other team with complete freedom! Suicide plays will take on a truer meaning! Maybe they'll even give the players back their weapons! And your Fav star might be able to play for decades before he gets bored and moves on!

Immortality means dictators will be around forever.

Ummm. Dude, you're smoking some really bad shit there. Dictators are already failing around the world. It's a system that relies on control of information, and they simply don't have that control anymore. And immortality will mean that those dictators who survive will have a very very long time to be repentant for their crimes.

Immortality will only go to the elite power brokers, not the common people.

Dude, do you really really really think the mass of humanity is going to simply roll over and die if they don't have too? We still have our pitchforks and torches. While I abhor violence, it'll be inevitable if anyone tries to deny immortality to the masses once they are aware it exists. No government would be able to defend against the entirety of it's population rising against it.



Give me more, I can give you a comeback.


LoL, all in good humor! : )

But i really hope you do not actually talk to people that way, because they would get all defensive, and that is not something we want. They would just feel like you are "so much better" then them and it is detrimental to the goal -- which is to convert them.

#18 valkyrie_ice

  • Registered User
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 13 January 2010 - 05:56 AM

LoL, all in good humor! : )

But i really hope you do not actually talk to people that way, because they would get all defensive, and that is not something we want. They would just feel like you are "so much better" then them and it is detrimental to the goal -- which is to convert them.


No, this was indeed tongue in cheek. But the simple fact exists that for every argument I've ever been given for why immortality is impossible, I can find an argument for why it's not only possible, but even inevitable.

Simply put, I personally feel it's a moot point. We are at a stage where immortality is going to arrive regardless of what actions we take. Every single path which will make it inevitable is already being researched, and massive progress is being made. It might be in a decade, it might take two, but it is IMHO inevitable prior to 2030. We're too close to both synthetic biology and bioengineering, and practical Nanotech to make me think it will not arrive by 2030, probably via multiple pathways. We can print organs. Organ donations will cease to be needed inside of five years. We'll be able to replace any part of your body that fails. We can model DNA to any specification. Inside of ten years we will likely be able to create cells programmed to go into our bodies and repair cancers, restore telemere lengths, and repair some forms of cellular damage. Well be able to cure nearly every ailment that causes us to die. Fat and diabetes are both in danger of being cured in the next year based on current research. Alzhimer's is also looking well on it's way to a cure. Organ failure is already going to become a minor issue with organ printing. Stem cell based repairs are beginning to become a feasible practice, which may eliminate most forms of handicap by enabling the repair of missing limbs, damaged nerves, and even things like muscle tissue damaged by muscular dystrophy. We are much closer to solving all the medical issues which contribute to old age wear and tear then most people realize.

Based on the speed of developments in just this last year alone, I expect some pretty impressive results in the labs over the next ten years. What will be slower to change is public policy and government regulations, which could slow availability to the general public for years after the actual creation of life extending technologies.

We might have immortality for years before it's finally FDA approved.

#19 Inkstersco

  • Registered User
  • 42 posts
  • 5

Posted 13 January 2010 - 07:48 AM

2. Intellectual blind spot: From what I read in the paper Inksterco wrote, I interpreted it as some sort of shortcoming of the imagination of most humans including many sci fi authors and the general population. This shortcoming of imagination makes it hard to think it's possible (even in science fiction, but excluding the fantasy genre) that human senescence can be treated some how. (please explain to me if I'm wrong Inksterco)



Yup, that's pretty much it. A popular vision of aging simply doesn't exist, and the population simply doesn't have the mental resources to even vaguely imagine a physical solution to the problem of aging.

--Inkstersco

#20 brokenportal

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:28 PM

VI, how about this one.

You guys are all dreaming hippies that need to get productive jobs and stop wasting the worlds time and resources with stupid goals like indefinite life extension.

#21 Inkstersco

  • Registered User
  • 42 posts
  • 5

Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:56 PM

VI, how about this one.

You guys are all dreaming hippies that need to get productive jobs and stop wasting the worlds time and resources with stupid goals like indefinite life extension.



That's just an extension of all the other crap. The key is for people to see old people as injured young people, and regenerative medicine as the fixer of that injury. Once that notion clicks into place, the whole trance-like ediifice comes tumbling down. 

Consider that in the Spanish language, the following English sentences tranlates thus:

He is old: Es viejo.
He is injured: Está herido.

The creepy thing here is the fact that the sentences don't use the same verb 'to be'. In Spanish 'es' means 'is' as in, 'Earth is a planet', whereas 'esta' means 'is' as in 'the planet is warm'. 'Es' means it's an inherent property, inextricable from the thing itself. 

This isn't to say that Spanish speakers are more affected by the trance, only that their two different versions of 'be' makes mankind's psychology on the matter clearer.

--Inkstersco

Edited by Inkstersco, 13 January 2010 - 11:59 PM.


#22 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,895 posts
  • 1,577
  • Location:New York

Posted 14 January 2010 - 01:13 AM

Told to stop dreaming, that death is inevitable, I have respoded "well, I do expect to die one day, but why rush it?" That seems to stop that criticism in its tracks.

The religious arguments seem against immortalists and lfe extension seem to come from Catholics and other Christians: it is the natural order of things for without death how shall a man see the kingdom of heaven? Rabbis seem to be very much in favor of life-extension: life is a gift from God, it is precious, we should protect it and prolong it.

#23 John Schloendorn

  • Registered User, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 14 January 2010 - 03:04 AM

My hypothesis is that the pro aging trance is caused by a psychological phenomenon known as learned helplessness, and the widespread occurrence of learned helplessness among people can widely be described by a collective theory called terror management theory.

I think this is a plausible hypothesis. It is also easy to test. What needs doing is to replicate learned helplessness and terror management experiments from the literature, using one group of immortalists and one group of non-immortalists. If immortalists are susceptible to learned helplessness and terror management, then the hypothesis would be refuted. If immortalists are deficient in these behaviors, then one would have something interesting to work with.

#24 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 14 January 2010 - 03:43 AM

This is a good idea you have here. Let me know if you need anything and I will try to get you what I can. For example, I can help you find others interested in this.

Here are some links to this discussion that have taken place in the past.

http://www.imminst.o...ing-t31855.html
http://www.imminst.o...o...25487&st=20
http://docs.google.c...evision=_latest (line 36)

One thing I would suggest is to consider continuing on with a quiz like we have been working on.

However, part of the reason I have shifted gears away from that is because I am now almost convinced that the pro aging trance is all but a fraction of what is going on, and the main thing that is going on is that people are just simply uninformed. To that end many of us are working on developing, an as of yet tentative, 5 year plan to inform the world.


Thank you brokenportal I would like this idea to get started up, I don't know if I could be the project champion but it would help if you could find others interested to work on this.
What I would like to see happen is this to be a formal project in the action forum where people will compile as much information as possible about the psychology of persuading people to our cause. Then people working on this project will compile all the best information we can find on persuading people and put the information on the Imminst wiki. I intend this section on the wiki to become a "course" or "guide" to help our members to become more effective "salespeople" and persuasion artists, and also to help the Immortality institute with its promotion campaigns.
If we can get people working on this project that have studied sales techniques, the psychology of persuasion, anything to do with marketing techniques that would be awesome.


What you said about people being simply uninformed is definitely correct. I want you to hear what I think of this matter:

Lets say we inform the whole world, there will always be people that when they learn about the movement they will support it no matter what and become "hard core" immortalists, these people will just simply need to be informed and it won't matter if we use any special psychology techniques on them, this category would include me because if today I had not heard of this movement and I read about it in a magazine I would be like WOW this is what I have been searching for! Sign me up!

There would be other people who would need more fancy marketing and persuasion techniques and rhetoric like the politicians use in their speeches to convince the to support the cause, this is what the research into the pro-aging trance will help out on.

Could you explain in more detail this plan to inform the whole world?

#25 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 14 January 2010 - 03:50 AM

My hypothesis is that the pro aging trance is caused by a psychological phenomenon known as learned helplessness, and the widespread occurrence of learned helplessness among people can widely be described by a collective theory called terror management theory.

I think this is a plausible hypothesis. It is also easy to test. What needs doing is to replicate learned helplessness and terror management experiments from the literature, using one group of immortalists and one group of non-immortalists. If immortalists are susceptible to learned helplessness and terror management, then the hypothesis would be refuted. If immortalists are deficient in these behaviors, then one would have something interesting to work with.


Yes this is a very plausible hypothesis, anyone here could try it. Don't forget to give all credit to Kelsey Moody, I don't want anyone to get sued.
Do you know of any literature I could read about learned helplessness and terror management?

Edited by The Immortalist, 14 January 2010 - 03:55 AM.


#26 SiliconAnimation

  • Registered User
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:34 AM

Some Bible support for bringing back extended lives: (Fixing the mutations that reduced our lives since Adam and Eve) Anyone know of anything from the Talmud? Usually OT isn't enough for hardcore Jews. Koran anyone?



Genesis 5:3 (King James Version)

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Genesis 5:4 (King James Version)

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:


Genesis 5:5 (King James Version)

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

#27 SiliconAnimation

  • Registered User
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 14 January 2010 - 05:24 AM

A couple of comments wrt common objections to immortality:

Overpopulation. It would seem to be the least of our problems based on latest growth trends and rigorous mathematical analysis of life extension effects on population. Links to Max Moore's and Gavrilov's analysis can be found in the latest front page feature article. How to combat this. Most people who hold on to this old canard/red herring were educated in the 1970s, still believe The Population Bomb, and still think we are headed toward 25 billion people by 2025. This is ridiculous and these people can probably be shamed with "get with the program", "get a clue", or "the year is 2010 not 1975" comments. Most of them have pride in their "world knowledge/wisdom" and don't like to be seen as ignorant.

Boredom. The best comment about this I heard this year was from Felicia Nimue Ackerman. She said (paraphrasing): When people talk about boredom and stagnation due to indefinite lifespans you should counter with "so I should die just so you don't get bored!?"


With our current carbon footprint per capita, overpopulation will be a problem first becasue of resource consumption before that of space.

Some people (like myself) would not like to see the world as a giant New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles and value large amounts of personally owned land and totally unindustrialized space for animals or hiking, boating, hunting, camping, etc. While I understand that the convenience of unindustrialized land can't compete with the convenience of money generated from it's potential use and real-estate value, I entertain the idea of population control being mandatory long before space is even noteworthy of discussion. Ideally, we will achieve indefinite lifespans for all and have government managed population growth to match the death rate.


On that note: "Cemeteries and burial ceremonies are not acceptable methods of population control... Stop ageing now."

Edited by SiliconAnimation, 14 January 2010 - 05:28 AM.


#28 valkyrie_ice

  • Registered User
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:38 AM

VI, how about this one.

You guys are all dreaming hippies that need to get productive jobs and stop wasting the worlds time and resources with stupid goals like indefinite life extension.



Humm, aging hippies created that cellphone you're using. Aging hippies created the computer you're posting on. Aging hippies created the internet. Aging hippies are the nerds of the generation before nerds existed. In forty years, aging hippies have contributed more to increasing the worlds standards of living than the auto industry has in 150. We aging hippies have a really bad habit of making our "stupid goals" into reality.

It's sad that you consider all those little advances that make your life easier to be a waste of time. But hey, to each their own and all that. However that doesn't change the fact that research has proven to be the single most productive job in the world repeatedly, nor does it change the fact that life extension is not only an achievable goal, but one which is possible in the near future. Perhaps if you looked into it a little deeper, you might be surprised at exactly how close we are.



This particular line is sheer ignorance, and prejudiced ignorance at that. While it's unlikely that you will ever convince someone with this mindset of the truth of the situation, as they are going to be far too wrapped up in justifying their world view to actually listen, education is the sole tactic which has any hope. This is the cry of the person who has too little actively used intellect and has therefore been reliant on manual labor most of their life, and so cannot see mental labors as remotely comparable to "real work"

Considering that 90% of my neighbors in Florida fit this mindset, I can tell you it's pretty hard to penetrate the wall of hatred for anyone who uses their brain.

#29 valkyrie_ice

  • Registered User
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:46 AM

A couple of comments wrt common objections to immortality:

Overpopulation. It would seem to be the least of our problems based on latest growth trends and rigorous mathematical analysis of life extension effects on population. Links to Max Moore's and Gavrilov's analysis can be found in the latest front page feature article. How to combat this. Most people who hold on to this old canard/red herring were educated in the 1970s, still believe The Population Bomb, and still think we are headed toward 25 billion people by 2025. This is ridiculous and these people can probably be shamed with "get with the program", "get a clue", or "the year is 2010 not 1975" comments. Most of them have pride in their "world knowledge/wisdom" and don't like to be seen as ignorant.

Boredom. The best comment about this I heard this year was from Felicia Nimue Ackerman. She said (paraphrasing): When people talk about boredom and stagnation due to indefinite lifespans you should counter with "so I should die just so you don't get bored!?"


With our current carbon footprint per capita, overpopulation will be a problem first becasue of resource consumption before that of space.

Some people (like myself) would not like to see the world as a giant New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles and value large amounts of personally owned land and totally unindustrialized space for animals or hiking, boating, hunting, camping, etc. While I understand that the convenience of unindustrialized land can't compete with the convenience of money generated from it's potential use and real-estate value, I entertain the idea of population control being mandatory long before space is even noteworthy of discussion. Ideally, we will achieve indefinite lifespans for all and have government managed population growth to match the death rate.


On that note: "Cemeteries and burial ceremonies are not acceptable methods of population control... Stop ageing now."



Humm. and floating island houses in the sky, underground homes, infinite VR houses with minimal realworld footprints and so on sound unappealing?

We could fit 10 billion people on this planet and have enough room to give everyone a large piece of land. Most people would still crowd together.

JoSH recently discussed this on Foresight.org. http://www.foresight...nanodot/?p=3651 Mile high towers centered in a square mile of land would occupy less than 1% and could house the entire population of the earth in a space about the size of montana.

#30 SiliconAnimation

  • Registered User
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 14 January 2010 - 06:11 PM

A couple of comments wrt common objections to immortality:

Overpopulation. It would seem to be the least of our problems based on latest growth trends and rigorous mathematical analysis of life extension effects on population. Links to Max Moore's and Gavrilov's analysis can be found in the latest front page feature article. How to combat this. Most people who hold on to this old canard/red herring were educated in the 1970s, still believe The Population Bomb, and still think we are headed toward 25 billion people by 2025. This is ridiculous and these people can probably be shamed with "get with the program", "get a clue", or "the year is 2010 not 1975" comments. Most of them have pride in their "world knowledge/wisdom" and don't like to be seen as ignorant.

Boredom. The best comment about this I heard this year was from Felicia Nimue Ackerman. She said (paraphrasing): When people talk about boredom and stagnation due to indefinite lifespans you should counter with "so I should die just so you don't get bored!?"


With our current carbon footprint per capita, overpopulation will be a problem first becasue of resource consumption before that of space.

Some people (like myself) would not like to see the world as a giant New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles and value large amounts of personally owned land and totally unindustrialized space for animals or hiking, boating, hunting, camping, etc. While I understand that the convenience of unindustrialized land can't compete with the convenience of money generated from it's potential use and real-estate value, I entertain the idea of population control being mandatory long before space is even noteworthy of discussion. Ideally, we will achieve indefinite lifespans for all and have government managed population growth to match the death rate.


On that note: "Cemeteries and burial ceremonies are not acceptable methods of population control... Stop ageing now."



Humm. and floating island houses in the sky, underground homes, infinite VR houses with minimal realworld footprints and so on sound unappealing?

We could fit 10 billion people on this planet and have enough room to give everyone a large piece of land. Most people would still crowd together.

JoSH recently discussed this on Foresight.org. http://www.foresight...nanodot/?p=3651 Mile high towers centered in a square mile of land would occupy less than 1% and could house the entire population of the earth in a space about the size of montana.


I guess my question is, "Why would you want or need that many people?"

The answers I can imagine being given are numerous. There are of course, a lot of advantages to having more of a product. However, it seems to me rather gluttonous if you'll forgive the usage of the term, and puts too much stress on the quantity of human life rather than the quality. Population control will have to become an issue at some time in the future regardless. Setting up a model for limited population on the earth now is going to make coming to that realization over time much less violent and shocking.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users