2 replies to this topic

[longevityethusiast]

There's an article in The Guardian, "‘Anti-ageing is anti-life’: why longevity culture is just ageism in a lab coat." It's not well researched and she doesn't even explain why she thinks the longevity field is ageist. She mostly talks about anti-aging skincare. What do you guys think about this article? I personally think it's a dumb article and not well researched at all. She doesn't seem to understand that being pro-death is being anti-life.

[dlewis1453]

A dumb, slop article by someone who knows nothing about the field and makes emotional argument. When someone's view of the longevity movement is mainly based on anti-aging skincare, you can be confident their analysis will be only skin deep. 

[Mind]

An article written by a women, quoting mostly women, psychoanalyzed by women about why women are desperate to look young.

 

Women have been wanting to look young and fertile ever since humans started walking upright. It is a biological trait in our sexually dimorphic species. Men are generally attracted to young and fertile women. Women are mostly attracted to older, confident, successful, fit men.

 

The fact that there are more options for women to "hold on to youth" a little longer in the present day, does not change the basic psychology.

 

In any case, the article was a yawner for those who have been arguing the benefits (both individual and cultural) of rejuvenation research. The writers are apparently too lazy to dig below the surface (cosmetic surgery).

 

That being said, it is unfortunate that people do not respect their elders as much as in the past. I think it has to do with social media and the internet. Families and communities used to be close-knit. The transmission of cultural knowledge was done face-to-face.