17 replies to this topic

[bacopa]

A Throwaway Life

To Those Who are Angry : A Plea For Life Extension

This letter is a desperate plea and is addressed to all those people who know what it feels like to run out of time. Perhaps one of the worst feelings possible is to have to over simplify one’s life simply because the human life span is too short to do even a small fraction of the things we would like to do while we are alive. I’m a writer, a thinker, and once an over zealous renaissance man.
Now at age 26 I’m already feeling a shortness of breath, not physically but psychologically. For many people in my age group, especially those educated and intelligent enough to be understanding and sensitive to this idea, it feels as though now what? At age 26 I would like to believe that I have just started to really understand my life and actually know for once what it feels like to be in control of myself and where I am headed. I have only begun to accumulate what “could and should” be a life of complex and fascinating experiences. However for many in my peer group it feels hopeless and pointless to get too enthusiastic about anything for the simple fact that there is not enough time; not enough hours in a day to get done all that one would hope to. My life feels too rushed and I wish I had more time.

It feels horrible to have to sacrifice one’s ideals, and dreams to a watered down and mundane existence. And it feels even worse to have to live with all that passion that life gives us, but know the majority of it will simply go to waste, for life forces us to “slow down” even when we so desperately don’t want to! I see it all the time in people these days. Many don’t even realize it but they choose a life of conformity and simplicity because whenever they try anything too lofty they run into a brick wall. We’ve become a society that communicates in sound bytes rather than attempt any form of communication that takes more than a few seconds of time. Why? because of time and human fear. It’s sad to think that all this potential is being wasted simply because of lack of time to use even a small fraction of our potential. But what can we do about it? One way is to consider life extension.

I don’t know of too many people these days that can’t relate to the feeling of living in a chaotic quagmire we call life. Whenever I walk through Cambridge and Boston I see desperate people, avoiding eye contact, and panicking with the realization that to see others like you is to see your own mortality flash before your face. And when that life feels cut short the only feelings that accompany it are sorrow, anger, and ultimately depression and bitterness. If my plea sounds a little on the heavy handed or bitter side it is nothing compared to the way many people feel these days.
It shouldn’t be such a hard thing to accept that we age but it is; quite simply it is probably one of the most difficult things to have to accept in one’s life. Seeing someone once so full of life and vitality suddenly looking old and frail is upsetting no matter how much we would not like to think it is. Especially now with so many people working out regularly it is so upsetting for people to lose all that they worked for as they age. I’m quite sure that it’s a myth that the actual aging process should be a sign of “a well lived and worn through life.” Instead we’re quickly realizing that it’s the experiences we cherish, and the maturity that comes with aging, not the actual physical process itself. I know of friends who in their twenties are already getting gray hairs and are becoming angry and sometimes depressed, because it’s as if their genes have taken over and have already told them what they will become and what they have to look forward to from that point on. I’m sorry but getting gray hairs at 22 has nothing to do with maturity or any other similar sounding hogwash.

Having to live life in super “sped up” mode as if we’re all trying to diffuse a bomb is a sad thing. So I plea with the science community and especially concerned people who are aware of this vital issue, to continue to support genetic research in regards to issues concerning longevity, such as stem cell research . Donations to non-profit sites such as this one are vital for these changes to take place. Life is too precious to keep throwing away human potential like this. Through donations, word of mouth, as well as informed lifestyle choices we can combat this problem. I personally believe we.should have life spans of at least 120 years or more. For me, 90 years of complete health and wellness and the next 30 to “wind down,” would certainly be more optimal than the current Darwinian hell that we are living in. Sound crazy? Throwing away human potential is a far crazier concept for me to digest. And of course those who do not wish to live that long could choose not to. But for those who really value a full life and all that it could be and should be, please hear this plea, get angry at apathetic people who don’t seem to care one way or the other, and support genetic research.
Ultimately it’s up to the individual to make this decision. As a person who values life itself you should take control of your life and start being able to 8notice the people who care about humanity vs. those that are lazy and don’t care one way or another. A bell should ring each time you find yourself among people that would rather ignore these issues vs. people who really care. Get involved yourself and continue to support sites like The Immortality Institute.

Edited by dfowler, 29 September 2003 - 07:56 PM.

[Mind]

Instead we’re quickly realizing that it’s the experiences we cherish, and the maturity that comes with aging, not the actual process itself.

This line is so good it should become a motto. It is hard to explain this to people for whatever reason. I think the aging process also affects their minds and leads many people to just accept their coming death. Or to say it differently...physical aging leads to psycological aging.

[kevin]

Excellent sentiments...

When there was no other option, people still rebelled at the loss of faculties and their dimunition to a shadow of themselves with age. Now, we have whole generations brought up on the science fiction of Star Trek and 'instant everything' who are told they must face the same death sentence as their grandparents with the same equanimity. For some reason I don't think these new generations will accept that as an answer.. and they are all going to be quite angry that their forebears feel they should forebear taking advantage of the power these new technolgies bring towards assuaging our 'human condition' and our 'inevitable decline'.

[chubtoad]

I agree that people have distorted values when it comes to aging. They see wisdom and experience but can't seperate it from the person's physical demise. One thing it is all too easy to do is put your life on autopilot. Get up, go to work, come home watch tv ect. Another crazy thing is most of these people that just go to work so they can get wealthy and retire are theists. I've read a lot of the old and new testament and I dont think this is what it was getting at.

[fredski]

Shorter lifespan is for the greater good of one's intelligence. It is the very one factor to help you grow as a true spirit. You are sad to age because you are a materialist. Convergence should be a principle in your life to organize all those different things you like but don't have enough time to do. It is not a question of time but intelligence. You need to make correlations between all this diversity, then once everything connects there is no time but just spirit. End of life becomes irrelevant.

[Bruce Klein]

Warm Welcome Fredsky,

I understand your concerns for materialism, as I see humans can be very distracted by such pursuits as bigger houses and faster cars.

I hope you decide to stay around for a while here and challenge our views as we're desperate for more voices of reason such as yours.

Thanks
BJK

[Jay the Avenger]

An very nicely written piece of text, that comes off as social and honest.

I can totally relate to this.

On top of that, I think it's scary to see people telling themselves that the agingprocess itself is a necessity. It might be contageous! :(

[bacopa]

Yah, the materialism means nothing to me what matters is experiential growth and quality of life. Being able to talk longer about issues that we can't in our fast paced lives now. Being able to not be so saturated with ideology that you don't agree with and is forced at us. Being able to take a personal stance as an individual without having to give up most of our humanity to the daily rituals of society. How about education that is truly unlimited in having no set times? How about a country of well educated and intelligent beings that have had the chande to mature and become remarkable people

[Utnapishtim]

Dfowler. I too share your sentiments. All I can say is that I know that some exceptionally bright people are working on this problem. I am the same age as yourself and am fairly confident that scientists will make major progress within our natural lifetimes to buy us A LOT of extra time. All the evidence seems to point that way. Of course it could be wishful thinking. We shall see.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Welcome to the forums dfowler, nice piece of writing we have here. "Darwinian hell" is a wonderrrrful way of putting the situation, I couldn't agree more. The algorithms underlying the struggle for fitness in the Darwinian age are our true tyrants, probably worse than nearly all humans I've ever seen. Just thinking of the sheer quantity of negative utility evolution has created is scary. Even moreso if you believe in the possibility of animal sentience, as I do.

[Lazarus Long]

Good synchronicity here, I just wrote "Death is life's whip but it doth make slaves of us all." in a separate post on the TTLC pie chart as you were writnig here Michael. The point is that we confuse the concept of Natural Law and Human Law and they are not derived from the same same basic principle. One is an attempt to explain behavior the other attempts to control it. I suggest the issue is liberty and when rational people act in accord with their basic good will and desire they need no laws to regulate them.

People use law to resolve issues of liability for "negligence" and to attempt to restrict behavior for the public good but also because we are a vindictive species that measure some form of compensation as punishment inflicted upon the perpetrators. I see reason as taking people to a higher level of awareness.

Many things contribute to "reason" from material profit to philanthropy, from rational risk assessment to lofty goals. I doubt there will ever exist a single set of algorithms capable of anticipating all there is to reason because as we become more rational we also become more complex and process ever more complex data in ever more complex ways.

The search for a modern variant on a moral code for AI is only useful if it is flexible enough to grow with its adherents but if it so flexible then like human laws it can and likely will be broken at some point. If it is not so flexible it is likely to become an impediment to the growth of AI, which may be desirable in some people's minds but also may invoke the worst case scenarios of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Welcome to our humble abode Devon may you share your ideas for ages to come.

[till]

Laz wrote: when rational people act in accord with their basic good will and desire they need no laws to regulate them.

That is so patently untrue that I don't understand anybody can possibly believe it. Human history is a canvas of people doing things they consider 'rational' things, with the best of intentions (as perceived by themselves), and look what they do!

'Reason', like logic, is but a slave to the assumptions upon which it operates, and 'good will' is entirely a matter of the perceived reality of those who use the term. For many apparently rational people in this world, the WTC bombing was a reasonable thing to do, and ultimately an act of of 'good will' (directed against the US, of course, but 'good willed' with respect to the 'oppressed masses', whoever that is supposed to be).

'Reason' will never, by itself, lead to the determination of 'truth', and 'good will' is, at best, a matter of definition, and at worst an excuse for some of the worst deeds committed by men.

[Lazarus Long]

There is a profound difference between "rational" and "rationalizing." The process you describe Till is not predicated on rational behavior and it is not the product of "reason" but instead the perversion of reason by the preeminent application of will(ful), fear, wishfulness, and/or desire to allow people to overrule the rational process, not "good will" nor to be more specific "rational desire" what is generally referred to as common sense.

The process you are describing is the result of what I suggest is better understood as "seductive reasoning" and in this sense can be included as a "process of reason" but only by default. Seductive reasoning is logic applied not in the search for truth at all but for the purpose of "convincing or seducing."

One can be trying to convince themselves, others, or the "record" but it is the source of what you are describing and not what I am talking about. In fact I happen to agree with you in principle and when someone is applying seductive reasoning it is antithetical to the actual role of reason in our lives and the corruption of the rational process is only clearly visible when one is committed to seeing the truth before what they might want to be true.

Seductive reasoning is neither inductive nor deductive but it uses twisted variations of both methods to accomplish its goals and humans are highly "subjective" and thus vulnerable to it but this is not rational. The problem with pure reason is not that it causes the kinds of perverse behavior you describe, the problem with pure reason is that it tends to result in no action at all within sufficient time to meet the challenges of real events so some action is required that is at best an estimate of a reason and this is where "faith" becomes a mechanism necessary to leap the chasm in time to act all.

What you are describing is not a true pitfall of reason as much as a subterfuge or mimicry of reason that is really about so many other things, fear, lust, conspiracy, greed, pretext, and so on. These allow us to "justify" in our minds and hearts the actual usurpation of the rational process in favor of assuaging these corrupting passions. Not that I see all emotion as corrupting BTW, but clearly some are and Seductive Reasoning is how they corrupt; like a wolf in a sheepskin they serve to give the pretense of reason, not to meet the prerequisites of it.

Reason is not "a slave to the logic that underlies it" and you are confusing motives and intention with proofs, facts and necessities. Reason is what makes us question and act with purpose, not merely obey but when we do find sufficient cause we can act without any external "force" in a manner completely consistent with intent of law. Law is at best a fall back position and a manner of ensuring memetic principle for our species is preserved against our mortality because we are not preeminently rational as beings but I stand by what I said because when people are truly reasonable they look for more than simple rationalizations in order to justify doing what they really "know" is wrong.

'Reason' will never, by itself, lead to the determination of 'truth', and 'good will' is, at best, a matter of definition, and at worst an excuse for some of the worst deeds committed by men.

I must add that I disagree with what you are trying to assert here, (no surprise) but I do so because I disagree with what IMO you have confused for reason. I do however think that "reason alone" is insufficient as the sole guide for the course of our lives but I think it must take precedence over faith and yet continue to work with it.

What I will point out however is that the example you have given as to why an act of seemingly mad destructiveness to some is logical to others isn't because of the simplistic rationalization process, or even as a true example of Seductive Reasoning (though this does happen to be a contributory aspect of the combined political strategies on all sides) it is directly because of Human Laws and how they are interpreted.

Your example isn't caused ultimately by "logic" at all but by what happens when conflicting systems of cultural "laws" are defended irrationally when in conflict with other cultures that they come in contact with. t also occurs when they represent the special and prejudicial interests of the societal leadership of all sides of the conflict as these "special interests" mitigate their desire to seek and select a rational forum for the litigation of underlying principle in favor of the application of the logic of force.

Ironically it is also because all too often the continued conflicts serves these specific special interests better than peace and reason would but for the vast majority of people on all sides they are being manipulated to make their decisions to harm one another based on ignorance and fear and this is not a rational position at all.

Your view point and mine would require that we carefully apply our words and agree afore hand on specific definitions for what we are addressing but that said on some aspects we aren't as far apart as you suggest and on others the differences are not rational but simply determined aspects of the very process by which we resolve the conflicts, and thus resolve a better view of the truth.

This process of conflict resolution and avoidance is highly rational and even predicated on the application of objective logic as we at best comprehend it. Law would be only theocratic in foundation if there existed no underlying appeal to real logic as a necessary quality and constraint for its consistent, "fair" and appropriate application but law isn't necessary when people act rationally, it becomes necessary because they don't. Nothing about your example addresses this, which was at the heart of what I was saying in the first place.

In fact the examples you provide more support my argument that it is the irrational adherents to systems of law that are creating destruction and there was nothing of "Good Will" involved, though there may have been a perversion of the principle of "Good Will" by the suicide bombers believing irrationally that they were buying a ticket to heaven for their deeds. It is faith not logic that is the source of the atavistic behavior and problems facing us and that is because we still have systems of Law predicated upon faith not reason but that is changing and that too is part of the underlying conflict between cultures.

BTW, I do not see Islam as anymore irrational than any other religions but I see the issue one of "priorities" and systems of law predicated upon faith have reached the limits of their potential and can only decline from now forward so the real issue is what to replace them with and I argue it needs to be a rational transition to reason as dominant and faith at the very best being an equal partner, or in the interests of fairness, subservient to reason.

[Lazarus Long]

I should add that seductive reasoning is probably not a true synthetic variant of the implied dialectic dichotomy inherent in the relationship of inductive and deductive reasoning though seductive reasoning does employ restricted and overly subjective applications of both methodologies to accomplish its purpose. It is probably related to a more arcane aspects of human psychology and behavior.

Do not forget that at least in English reason has at the very minimum a dual use defining in and independent yet overlapping manner both the logical process of "proof" and the principle of "motive" for all activity. Rational behavior as I have been using refers to the reliance on the application of reason as a "system of evaluation" prior to establishing the conviction necessary to defend one's motive's for behavior. I suspect you and I Till have both a semantic disagreement and perhaps an "ordinal question" for how to apply the methodology of establishing "motive".

I would suggest alternatively that the true synthesis of inductive and deductive reason can be understood better as "productive reasoning" and is at the heart of what may be defined pragmatically and conceptually as "logical progress". It is the quintessence of creative action.

That there exists a negative variant is also likely but I prefer to focus upon creative as opposed to destructive logic and while I don't credit seductive reasoning as really a purely destructive force it is probably why even the very best intentions are all too often waylaid into unintended destructive outcomes.

The antithesis of "productive logic" might be considered "conductive logic;" a consistent and systematic process of applying logic to preserve a status quo and/or condone actions. It is a great part of what drives Theocratic and Institutional reasoning and it is what happens when instead of focusing validity for facts and a constructive course towards goals we sacrifice the rewards of risks for the protection perceived necessity in the face of reason and behave destructively instead of constructively.

Seductive reasoning plays a role in both Productive and Conductive logical constructs as it reflects the human subjectivity to manipulation due to charismatic evolutionary biology and psychology. The point is that defining reason as I did was to point out the limited pragmatic aspect of Law in relation to general behavior. I need desire no laws other than Natural ones for rule but I understand the role of Law as a social construct focused on "social engineering" change in a pre-established directional manner and it has always been so since Hammurabi. What I am saying is that truly rational people do not need the Law to make them understand how to do what is right and as an individual that values "Freewill" I freely accept the responsibility to overrule social constructs in favor of doing what my own conscience determines to do as correct conduct.

Ultimately liberty is predicated on such an understanding and it is here that we encounter the limits of Locke and Rousseau's social contracts. For the social contract to be valid it must be an agreement that is freely and knowingly entered into and if not, it logically abrogates the logical validity of the contract and its binding nature.

[Hypermere]

I must say that "A Throwaway Life" speaks the feelings that I and surely many other members are wrestling with as our vitality wanes with every day. It's a shame the even in the scientific community there is relatively little open opposition to the disease of aging.
Of course, if you want something done right you should do it yourself...after reading this thread and reflecting on the problem over the past few months I am considering going back to grad school and doing a thesis project to tackle some aspect of the problem on a molecular level.

[jgochenouer]

DFowler,
Part of your frustration is that your body has stopped growing. I am an old professor and I find that people in their 20's are frustrated by the pace of change. They have experienced remarkable and rapid change in their own bodies and physical environment up until about the age of 20. They think change is a really rapid thing in life and then everything comes to a grinding halt as they are thrust into the slow changing adult world. But I do agree that we need to get angry with those that fear stem cell research and all of the other genetic-related science that has such enormous potential. Hook up with the Baby Boomers. They're in their prime income years and are all afraid of death. Another group to hook up with includes persons with severe disabilities that may be cured if we could accelerate research. 87 billion for Iraq? Think what that sum could do to cure paralysis.

[fredski]

I would like to suggest something to you all. First principle: nothing can be lost but nothing can be gained either, there is only transformation.Second principle: that there is no soul that incarnates into a body at birth but rather it takes one's life in material world to create a spirit. All this energy condensed into the life of a human being to mold a spirit that will be released at death. You do not lose your body at death, you just release something new that took a lifetime to create, the spirit. Then in this context what is the relevance of immortality?

[bacopa]

I wrote the article because I was angry with societies stupidity and callousness regarding ageing seemingly only up to a few decades recently. Movies, pop culture, our sports obsession, laziness and of course organized relgion have been all STUPID escapes society has turned to instead of confronting the reality of life extension through the eyes of real science. One of the reasons I like forums like this one is that I feel I can relate to many people here. They're all real people with an awareness not found in most forums...in the 21st century finally we're starting to realize how oblivious we've all been and how non-existant the research on ageing has been up until only a few decades ago. There are many of us of all ages who are waking up to a world where much more could already have been done had people put their priorities, and minds, in the proper perspective. personally I think it's great that a few of us are really starting to care about such important issues as life extension. Hopefully others will follow suit.
.

Edited by dfowler, 30 September 2003 - 04:08 AM.