• 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
- - - - -

People don't want to cure aging!


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 November 2008 - 12:31 PM


When talking with people IRL as well as people commenting my blog,posts in other forums etc. Immediately when I say something like - "we should put more resources into aging research" people seem to get angry and say that it is a natural part of life and then I maybe respond that starvation is also a natural they say everyone has to die and that 80 years is more than enough.

Why is it like this? Has anyone else noticed it? The big problem is that people actually WANT to get frail and decrepit even the population young people today are big supporters of the GETTING-OLD-BEING-TORTURED-TO-DEATH-IS-FUNDAMENTALLY-RIGHT-SYSTEM.

Today I for example wrote in my blog about the problem of aging, I have received 35 comments everyone says things like - "curing aging is not ethically right" "aging is a natural part of the human life cycle, it should not be changed" "I don't understand why you write about aging, you are born,age and die,face it".

I have not had a single positive comment,only people defending aging and critising me for saying negative things about aging.

why is it like this? How can I get people to understand that aging is evil?

#2 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,005 posts
  • -4
  • Location:South East

Posted 30 November 2008 - 12:45 PM

I can tell you why they get angry when you propose more reasearch into ending aging. They're cretins. Cretins will always try to hold back science. The sad reality is that they will also benefit from it.

#3 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,132 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 30 November 2008 - 03:04 PM

The problem is the immortalism and narcissism connection. It seems narcissist to want infinite youth, power, beauty, money and sex and perhaps even fantasize about conquest of space to that point where you consider these more important that caring about and acting selflessly for the benefit of others.

Also some people are quite happy despite being old and frail. Unfortunately for some of us each time we hear a joint click or notice a wrinkle or some macular degeneration it makes us quite unhappy.

I really want to know how to pursue an a) personal longevity strategy and b) research into the biology of aging and intervention in the aging process in a way that is completely devoid of narcissism and any kind of obsessive compulsivism that might socially isolate us from the bulk of society.

I think the people who are really strongly against anti-aging are in the "haven't you got something better to do with your time?" category though.

Edited by caston, 30 November 2008 - 03:09 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 November 2008 - 03:40 PM

This issue is why many of us see the memetic struggle as almost as important as the scientific one.

Many of the reasons mentioned for resistance are valid, narcissism (or what I call the Peter Pan syndrome), obsessive conservatism (or obsessive resistance to change), a perception that the solution will come at great pain (prolonged suffering rather than a reversal of decrepitude) an association with quackery and the somewhat legitimate perception that this is the venue of snake oil sales that exploit the weak minded and suffering, and there are more.

There is also the competition with the religious meme that somehow if we succeeded *heaven can wait* and everyone will suddenly become immoral.

However the entire issue is also a false dichotomy and we should be very careful about letting ourselves be cast in this light. Do not let the opposition define us. Take some time to take the moral high ground and point out that living longer, with a greater mental capacity would also improve the lot of the whole world by denying the unscrupulous as much opportunity for exploitation, it could mean a greater collective wisdom and experience to allow a larger number of people of good will the time and resources to help build a better world and better address the problems that are overtaking humanity's ability to cope.

This issue is very reminiscent of the overpopulation issue, in which the common fallacy is that longevity leads to overpopulation when in fact longevity leads to lower birth rates and more wealthy, educated and secure populations.

The myth is that longevity will overpopulate the world when in fact overpopulation is driven by the nearly instinctive fear of mortality and it drives people to over-procreate in the face of poverty, while in fact perpetuating poverty, suffering and increasing their likelihood of mortality due to a socially Darwinist competition for resources instead of a more socially responsible access to resources.

#5 Shoe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 135 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 November 2008 - 03:55 PM

I wrote an encouraging (I hope) comment to your blog post, Victor.

Edited by Shoe, 30 November 2008 - 03:55 PM.


#6 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 November 2008 - 04:21 PM

Thank you Shoe for your kind comment.

I don't appreciate the recent comment in my blog from Johnny claiming that Shoes comment was from myself,

#7 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,357 posts
  • 68

Posted 30 November 2008 - 05:10 PM

This issue is why many of us see the memetic struggle as almost as important as the scientific one.

Many of the reasons mentioned for resistance are valid, narcissism (or what I call the Peter Pan syndrome), obsessive conservatism (or obsessive resistance to change), a perception that the solution will come at great pain (prolonged suffering rather than a reversal of decrepitude) an association with quackery and the somewhat legitimate perception that this is the venue of snake oil sales that exploit the weak minded and suffering, and there are more.

There is also the competition with the religious meme that somehow if we succeeded *heaven can wait* and everyone will suddenly become immoral.

However the entire issue is also a false dichotomy and we should be very careful about letting ourselves be cast in this light. Do not let the opposition define us. Take some time to take the moral high ground and point out that living longer, with a greater mental capacity would also improve the lot of the whole world by denying the unscrupulous as much opportunity for exploitation, it could mean a greater collective wisdom and experience to allow a larger number of people of good will the time and resources to help build a better world and better address the problems that are overtaking humanity's ability to cope.

This issue is very reminiscent of the overpopulation issue, in which the common fallacy is that longevity leads to overpopulation when in fact longevity leads to lower birth rates and more wealthy, educated and secure populations.

The myth is that longevity will overpopulate the world when in fact overpopulation is driven by the nearly instinctive fear of mortality and it drives people to over-procreate in the face of poverty, while in fact perpetuating poverty, suffering and increasing their likelihood of mortality due to a socially Darwinist competition for resources instead of a more socially responsible access to resources.



I second this.

#8 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 30 November 2008 - 05:12 PM

I know how you feel. You should write a blog post about this - explain to people why natural does not always equal good or beautiful, what the benefits of living longer/forever would be for the average reader, and what are the negative things about living to only 80 years. To us these things are self-evident, of course, but to the average person they're not.

#9 Shoe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 135 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 November 2008 - 05:24 PM

I don't appreciate the recent comment in my blog from Johnny claiming that Shoes comment was from myself,


Hehe, I was a bit surprised actually. I don't think our writing styles are that similar.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Lotus

  • Guest
  • 71 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Stockholm

Posted 30 November 2008 - 05:40 PM

I do not believe that wanting to live longer is selfish. A lot of people have helped me and given me a lot of their time and energy throughout my life, and for their sake I have an obligation to take care of myself and make the most of the gift/s of life, and also to help others. The longer I live, the longer I can help family and other close people around me that need me. Everything I discover about increasing lifespan and improving health, I share with my loved ones. I can help my parents and my grandparents with what I learn about these issues. I honestly do not understand this perceived dichotomy between care for self/ care for others. You do need to take care of yourself to be of any use to others.

If a very talented doctor can live a hundred years longer, how many more lives can she/he save?

#11 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 30 November 2008 - 06:20 PM

Victor, how about a link to your blog ?
or is it in Swedish ?

#12 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 November 2008 - 06:30 PM

Victor, how about a link to your blog ?
or is it in Swedish ?



It is in swedish but any comments in english are of course welcomed :)

It is not very big since it is only about a month old but it is expanding(today I for the first time had more than 300 swedish readers.)

http://victorbjoerk.blogg.se

#13 lightowl

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

Posted 01 December 2008 - 01:48 AM

Don't let them get you down. Most people don't know what they want until someone give it to them. Most people have never even discussed aging as something to be defeated. They are not prepared to have an open mind about it, so they revert to their indoctrinated arguments. Arguments that have been put there to make aging and death seem OK and even good. Most people here get that all the time.

Common objections.
1) Overpopulation is certain so we shouldn't even try.
2) Aging has always been here, so it always will.
3) Aging is natural, so we shouldn't mess with it.
4) Aging is a beautiful thing.
5) Living a long time would become boring.

Common attacks.
1) Are you really so afraid of dying?
2) Do you think you are god?

There are many more of course. These are just those I get most often. They are all superficial of cause. Most people can not give a good defence to any counter arguments, simply because they have never thought about it any depth. When that happens many will become uncharacteristicly aggressive. People seem to want to retain the illusion that ageing as a good thing. Eventually, when we can really do something about it, people will start to feel comfortable about letting those prejudice's go.

Edited by lightowl, 01 December 2008 - 01:53 AM.


#14 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,132 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 01 December 2008 - 03:04 AM

Some very good points. There are lots of ways we can help others by giving them encouragement and filling them with pride. The important way to do it though is to do so in a way that we don't expect immediate (or any) benefit to our own agendas. In some cases though your agenda may match their agenda. Say if it's a person you find sexually attractive there is always a good chance that attraction is a two-way street. At the same time be careful because sometimes people will attack us for being into the things we are into. The attack is not so much an attack on the interest in things such as life extension but an interest in something that is not them. For instance a friend of mine in primary school when I was about 11 years old critised me for having an interest in computers. To be critised for being interested in computers was a completely new concept to me I thought they were a great and exciting thing but my friend only saw that I was interested in computers and thus had less time to be interested in him. It would have been the same no matter what subject with the only possible difference being possible jealously and at some point acceptance if instead of being into computers there was another person that I was interested in.

That's why some people try to attack us and remove us from all our ambitions, interests and aspirations and destroy our property. They see these things as a threat to our relationships with them but ironically these attacks can make us move further away from them. Ironically this can cause them to invoke a self destructive behavior and act in ways that invoke disgustion.

There may be deeper issues like that people need help with their emotional well being. Even though we are concerned about overpopulation there are lots of people that want to have kids and they shouldn't be punished for feeling that way. Everyone has a sex drive but we also have a death drive which is an urge to return the simpler organic state. This urge is something that exists in all biological organisms.

Telling people not to smoke and drink and eat fast food because it is bad for their health will result in confrontation because they are acting on their death drive. Even hardcore life extensionists like us sometimes give into this death drive. It is nothing to be ashamed of but it is something we should know and understand for example obsessive compulsons can cause damage to us such as RSI from excessive use of computers using to many supplements may actually harm us.

Edited by caston, 01 December 2008 - 03:07 AM.


#15 brokenportal

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

Posted 01 December 2008 - 04:37 AM

When talking with people IRL as well as people commenting my blog,posts in other forums etc. Immediately when I say something like - "we should put more resources into aging research" people seem to get angry and say that it is a natural part of life and then I maybe respond that starvation is also a natural they say everyone has to die and that 80 years is more than enough.

Why is it like this? Has anyone else noticed it? The big problem is that people actually WANT to get frail and decrepit even the population young people today are big supporters of the GETTING-OLD-BEING-TORTURED-TO-DEATH-IS-FUNDAMENTALLY-RIGHT-SYSTEM.

Today I for example wrote in my blog about the problem of aging, I have received 35 comments everyone says things like - "curing aging is not ethically right" "aging is a natural part of the human life cycle, it should not be changed" "I don't understand why you write about aging, you are born,age and die,face it".

I have not had a single positive comment,only people defending aging and critising me for saying negative things about aging.

why is it like this? How can I get people to understand that aging is evil?


Its like that because as Aubrey deGrey puts it, people are in a "pro aging trance". We've all encountered this seemingly impenetrable wall of resistence to indefinite healthy life extension, much to our horrors. Im not sure exactly how, but over the past year and a half or so I have found that I have become increasingly able to crack peoples pro aging trance. I think that some of the reasons for this are that the meme seeds that all of us have been planting over the years have begun sprouting in more and more peoples minds. They say that a person needs to hear about a new concept from around 3 or 4 seperate and credable sources before they begin to beleive it. Thats a good reason to never give up on the meme, even seeming failures are always sure successes.

Also Aubrey has been on a media blitz in that time getting on shows like 60 minutes, colbert report, ted talks, alex jones show, barbara walters special and more. That plants seeds, and it provides a useful tool, you can use it to lend an air of legitimacy to the cause. People are convinced more by things like appeals to authority and the bandwagon mentality, so play into that. Talk about this cause in terms of its happening, and your either with all of us or your out, and tell them about the media coverage etc..

You want to avoid saying things in certain ways because it begs for them to counter your argument, whether they want to or not in some cases. Some people just like to argue the opposite side of the story, dont give them that opportunity. Like for example instead of something like, "do you support life extension" say "What do you think about the life extension causes success in picking up in the news and all lately?" As if you assume they have already heard all about it, it lends it legitamacy right away, and it doesnt give them that direct opening to take the counter argument position.

Some of us have been peicing together the beginning of an outline for a possible show in the imminst broadcast channel to teach techniques on breaking the pro aging trance. Thinking about your post here I got the idea that we could write up a quiz to inform people about the psycology of the pro aging trance and go over techniques for combatting it. See that outline on line 35 here. (most of the things in that list are likely going to be transfered to the imminst wiki.)

Watch all of Aubreys videos, keep this page open when your online so you can listen to the imminst broadcast channel where Mind has tons of videos that go over this kind of stuff looping there. Think of it like life extension tv that doubles as a class. If your a life extensionist then you definently want to take this "class".

Heres a good video of aubrey going over his concepts of the combating the pro aging trance:

145 mark

Aubreys main three points for why people are in a pro aging trance are:
-fear of the unknown
-it used to be rational
-the human cost crushes us

To that list I would add "a lack of a thought out purpose for an indefinite life because of the deaths long reign"


Here is a topic where we compile techniques for combating it and discuss it, its very important that this discussion continue:

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=25487

Please join us in there. Together we can and will and are destroying the pro aging trance.

Edited by brokenportal, 01 December 2008 - 04:41 AM.


#16 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 December 2008 - 04:46 AM

what % of ppl would you say don't want to cure aging? 50%, 75, 80%, 90? 99%? 99.999% ?

100,000 ppl die EVERY day due to old-age/aging/so-called "Natural death", and millions more due to age-related diseases (heart, brain.., the organs age too) , frailties, accidents. some of them are old wise humans. the sooner we cure it, the more knowledgeable lives we save. it's not simply selfish. it's altruistic.

Yeah like lightowl list. the most common response is "Overpopulation!" and "it's natural..."

Edited by HYP86, 01 December 2008 - 04:54 AM.


#17 brokenportal

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

Posted 01 December 2008 - 05:23 AM

what % of ppl would you say don't want to cure aging? 50%, 75, 80%, 90? 99%? 99.999% ?

100,000 ppl die EVERY day due to old-age/aging/so-called "Natural death", and millions more due to age-related diseases (heart, brain.., the organs age too) , frailties, accidents. some of them are old wise humans. the sooner we cure it, the more knowledgeable lives we save. it's not simply selfish. it's altruistic.

Yeah like lightowl list. the most common response is "Overpopulation!" and "it's natural..."



I would say that 0% of people dont want to cure aging, they just all dont know it yet. Its kind of like with picking up women. What percentage of single women dont want to go out with you? 0% if you talk to them right.

To the over population problem, Aubrey talks about it in his videos, and there is some good stuff about it in the MF faq and imminst faq, The angle I usually take is the idea (forgot where I heard it) that population will decline with extended life spans because people will space out the time that they have kids more. So instead of say, everybody rushing to have kids while they are young at around say 20 to 30, they will wait if they live longer. If people live to say 1,000 on average then people would have their 3 or so kids later in life, say around, 50 to 100 years of age and that would slow down the birth rate more than not having life extension would. So let them scream and holler and call you terribly immoral to support this terrible population problem, and then turn it around on them and say, I agree, you should not be a deathist because it promotes population explosion. (dont say that last part, but you could, it would be funny to watch)

To the "its natural" response I say stuff like, "Natural? What are you talking about? Curing diseases is what humanity does, why wouldnt we work to cure the 7 diseases that cause aging?" The key is to refer to the 7 things that cause our cells to age as diseases. If you call them anything but that then they will jump on them as though aging is some mystical untouchable god like aura of a phenomenon. Calling them diseases as though it were obvious, from what I have seen and can remember, has deflated that potential meme bomb every time.

#18 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 01 December 2008 - 04:06 PM

Perhaps these people who are apparently so eager to get old and die should talk with some really old person. I don't recall hearing any of them saying that being old is good. On the contrary, they usually say it's bad. Just a few days ago my 95 yo uncle - who is still relatively self-reliant and not so bad for his age - told me: ' my mother (ie my grandmother) was right when she said that being old is bad!'. In fact it is the contact with old people that first gave me - when I was still little - the persuasion that to age (and die) is a very bad thing.

I think the reason why many people refuse the concept of life extension or rejuvenation is a rather simple psychological mechanism. They know - or think to know - that the odds of defeating aging or even substantially prolong their life are very small. So it's easier for them to convince themselves that getting old and die of old age are just 'natural' things, not so bad and so they should just be accepted (of course also bubonic plague, earthquakes and infantile mortality are 'natural' things, but the difference is that you can always hope that they spare you). That seems a better alternative that digging into their deep fears, pondering about how their bodies will be when - and if - they will be 80, and taking difficult steps to fight against an enemy apparently overwhelming. Of course some people use religion as a shield against those fears.

Also, when you are still 65, relatively strong and healthy for your age, you may still convince yourself that spending several years enjoying retirement and the comfort of family and grandchildren is not so bad. And they can always hope that when their time come, it will be just a peaceful falling asleep (of course, the reality is that very few old people actually die peacefully and without suffering in their sleep).

#19 bacopa

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

Posted 01 December 2008 - 04:27 PM

I know how you feel. You should write a blog post about this - explain to people why natural does not always equal good or beautiful, what the benefits of living longer/forever would be for the average reader, and what are the negative things about living to only 80 years. To us these things are self-evident, of course, but to the average person they're not.


This is probably the best idea yet. Explain to people why this battle is worth fighting for. Tell them the alternatives to a sad journey into old decripide age.

#20 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 01 December 2008 - 05:06 PM

Well, I continue to get a lot of comments about how bad it is to cure aging whatever arguments I have because we "shouldn't do that etc" . If I write " well the alternative is to face a future of disability with high cost for society providing care etc" and still just this stubborn "it's natural and we have to accept it even if we don't want to". People don't even seem to read arguments for why defeating aging is important etc.

Seriously the world is really in a stronger pro-aging trance that I would have expected, I really begin to think that this is a greater obstacle than the scientific. This prevents a lot of resources.People are acting like they are brain-washed.

If looking at the SENS/Methuselah mouse prize by Aubrey de Grey it is really not a lot of money compared to how important it is either.

Any good ideas to get more positive responses?

#21 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 01 December 2008 - 05:32 PM

Be patient and calm as well as considerate and informative. Remember you are not just writing to the persons who you respond to directly but to all that read the exchange of ideas between you and them. That is where the real struggle for hearts an minds occurs. The majority of the people we must address and convince are the ones who will never say a word to you directly in your blog but will read all sides and come to a conclusion of their own.

#22 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 01 December 2008 - 10:00 PM

The thing that people need to realize is that life is not a zero-sum game. Yes, curing aging is 'selfish' in the sense that one reason (maybe even the main reason) I want to do it is to protect myself. However, it also would save the lives of billions of people.

Why is it noble to want a cure for cancer, heart attacks, stroke, dementia, blindness, hearing loss, osteoperosis, or Parkinson's disease when it's so evil to want a cure for aging? It makes no sense!

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 brokenportal

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

Posted 01 December 2008 - 11:56 PM

Well, I continue to get a lot of comments about how bad it is to cure aging whatever arguments I have because we "shouldn't do that etc" . If I write " well the alternative is to face a future of disability with high cost for society providing care etc" and still just this stubborn "it's natural and we have to accept it even if we don't want to". People don't even seem to read arguments for why defeating aging is important etc.

Seriously the world is really in a stronger pro-aging trance that I would have expected, I really begin to think that this is a greater obstacle than the scientific. This prevents a lot of resources.People are acting like they are brain-washed.

If looking at the SENS/Methuselah mouse prize by Aubrey de Grey it is really not a lot of money compared to how important it is either.

Any good ideas to get more positive responses?


Im telling you, Im serious, a lot of us have the answer your looking for. Look through the links Ive posted here. Check out this topic "What are the things you say to chip away at the pro aging trancists" Your post here prompted me to start a good "quiz" project to teach people about the pro aging trance on line 36 here.

and through further thinking about your and others dilemma the idea occurs to me to set up another project for combatting the pro aging trance, we could hold a weekly meeting where we bring people into the chat room for "health chat" and then we could use it as a class of sorts to coach people on how to break through those peoples pro aging trances. Im going to add that to the list too. If anybody wants to help develop it then let me know and Ill get you in on it right away.

Im finding it easier by the day to combat the pro aging trance. I converted a lady to the cause a couple of hours ago with ease.

#24 Vgamer1

  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:39 AM

I really think that these topics can't be sprung on people when they are not familiar with them at all. Unless one has come to believe these ideas by his or her own accord, I don't see people being very accepting of these ideas - at least initially.

Education is a gradual process and breaking people's inconsistent thinking is never easy. Don't start of by saying "How could you not want to cure aging?" or "Why are you such a deathist?" Don't be antagonizing. Instead talk about subjects that you can both agree on and slowly shift the conversation towards anti-aging topics.

I'm planning to start a thread very soon dealing with this exact issue because I think it is very important. Being able to talk to people and educate them about anti-aging is the first step towards acceptance, which is the next step in actualizing our goals.

#25 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:57 PM

All these problems apply to discussions about anarchism, too...

#26 aikikai

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:04 PM

I am respecting people opions about accepting death. I do accept death also, but I would like to live a longer lifespan. I can guarantee that 100% of all members here will die eventually someday, even if we get hundreds of years old.

When we try to persuade that death is "evil", "bad", "a disease" etc., then we sound like religious people trying to plant beliefs to people who haven't asked for it.
People interested in longevity - they seek out information and for example finds this forum.

I just want to have the option so that people who would like to have longevity, they should get it. And for those who don't want, no problem.

We must look at the "problem" the other way around, trying to find funding from people and forces interested in the subject.

Edited by aikikai, 02 December 2008 - 07:08 PM.


#27 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:52 PM

aikikai: Why do you accept involuntary death?

Anyone using google translate reading my blog will see a lot of support and defense for aging, The argument against doing something about aging are numerous and always the same.

#28 brokenportal

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

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:02 PM

I really think that these topics can't be sprung on people when they are not familiar with them at all. Unless one has come to believe these ideas by his or her own accord, I don't see people being very accepting of these ideas - at least initially.

Education is a gradual process and breaking people's inconsistent thinking is never easy. Don't start of by saying "How could you not want to cure aging?" or "Why are you such a deathist?" Don't be antagonizing. Instead talk about subjects that you can both agree on and slowly shift the conversation towards anti-aging topics.

I'm planning to start a thread very soon dealing with this exact issue because I think it is very important. Being able to talk to people and educate them about anti-aging is the first step towards acceptance, which is the next step in actualizing our goals.


It would be nice to give this a long gradual implementation and instill it into the social meme over the years and decades, but with the clock ticking it becomes neccessary to use more and more acute techniques of persuasion. If you can persuade somebody quickly of something and leave them happy with it then that is a good thing.

"How could you not want to cure aging?" I would agree, thats not such a great approach. It needs to be tweaked a little to something like this, "What do you think about that indefinite healthy life extension movement that has been picking up so much steam lately? Oh, you havent heard of it? Its been all over the news, blah blah etc.." That usually hooks them for me, but that is just one of many good approaches. That approach will make them feel underinformed and will make them perk up when future stuff is talked about on it and will get them to go research it a bit themself. It will allow them to feel like you didnt tell them to beleive it, but that they came to the decision more on their own.

I look forward to your ideas though. Post your own thread if you want of course, but I would encourage you to help us build this topic: http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=25487

#29 brokenportal

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

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:09 PM

I am respecting people opions about accepting death. I do accept death also, but I would like to live a longer lifespan. I can guarantee that 100% of all members here will die eventually someday, even if we get hundreds of years old.

When we try to persuade that death is "evil", "bad", "a disease" etc., then we sound like religious people trying to plant beliefs to people who haven't asked for it.
People interested in longevity - they seek out information and for example finds this forum.

I just want to have the option so that people who would like to have longevity, they should get it. And for those who don't want, no problem.

We must look at the "problem" the other way around, trying to find funding from people and forces interested in the subject.



Thats a good idea, I agree completely that in your tactics to persuade people to support indefinite healthy life extension you should avoid talking about how death is "evil and bad". That will only open up the door for them to argue the opposite. Somebody once said that the best way to win an argument is to avoid it. So one part of that is in not asking for their opinion, or prompting it, but instead to inform them and compel them to help if possible. Sometimes you have to leave them to brew on the concepts, but thats great too of course. When they go brew on it then the come to the conclusion of their own volition, and like many of you indicate around here, getting them to decide on it themselves is one of the best tactics. Giving them the option to extend their lives is exactly what we are doing. As for gathering resources from those already interested in the cause, good idea, but we need the support of the masses to increase the speed of progress. "One person can do one years worth of work in one year, whereas one billion people can do one billion years worth of work in one year." and time is of the essence, the clock is ticking and your grave is hungry. The thing is that we have to be much hungrier for existence and the universe than the dirt is for us.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 aikikai

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:12 PM

aikikai: Why do you accept involuntary death?


You answer yourself. If a death is involuntary by example accidents, how can you control that? No one dies voluntarily, and dying by old age is not even that voluntarily today.
"Accepting death" is not "disliking longevity".

And I don't like the opinion saying that old people are tortured by aging. That is somewhat degrading old people who are fully healthy for their age.

Edited by aikikai, 02 December 2008 - 08:19 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users