Posted 17 February 2010 - 02:42 AM
The Immortalists claims here were pretty bold, and came on pretty strong. In his defense though he’s only 16, and I can see him becoming a great supporter of this cause as he continues to work with it and grow into it. I'm not sure that he ever thought you would come here and respond. I think that’s kind of funny though. I hope you have assumed that most of us wouldn’t have gone so far as to suggest that you should go work at McDonalds, or insinuate that you're not intelligent.
Based on the Longevity Dividend and BBC article, interviews, and other pieces, I certainly got the impression that you were more for the compression of morbidity than indefinite life extension as well. That’s what the Longevity Dividend says. For example:
“This compression of mortality and morbidity would create financial gains not only because aging populations will have more years to contribute, but also because there will be more years during which age-entitlement and healthcare programs are not used.”
Compression of Morbidity isn’t a bad thing per say. Although it seems that portraying to the public that indefinite life extension is not in the cards is. It’s a thin line to draw because we know, like you expound on, we cant see it there in the cards either. When people like Aubrey say that the first person to live to 1,000 could be 60 years old now, I don’t think hes saying that the first person to live to 1,000 is alive now. At least that’s what I hear, and there’s a big difference. Allowing people to open their minds to the realities that things may be around any corner is important. We shouldn’t announce that they are around the corner, and I don’t think that most of us do. Im sure we may do so incidentally from time to time, but over all, from what I see, most if not all of our intentions are to say that there is a reality as to whether indefinite life extension is there in our biologies, in the cards for us, or not. The faster we go to get all of the world that will, to support its research, the faster we can get there, and if it is there, then we will be able to reap the benefits in time for more people who would have otherwise obliterated for eternity. If its not there, if we never find it, and along the way we realize a compression of morbidity by say, 7 years, or whatever, then great, that’s a great goal, and a much needed step, but 7 years should not be the goal in and of itself, and from what many of us can see, this seems to be another important distinction.
Its not the goal in and of itself in the same way that getting the “no coloreds allowed” signs removed wasn’t the goal of Civil Rights, or, performing 50 more space launches to orbit the earth wasn’t the goal in getting to the moon.
Martin Luther King Jr. stated in his I Have a Dream speech, the notion that this is no time for gradualism, that justice to long delayed is justice denied. To quote:
“We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”
It seems that its the same for this cause.
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail he talks about those who would say slow down and wait.
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
It seems that it’s the same for this cause.
In John F. Kennedys Rice Stadium Moon Mission speech he spoke the following two excerpts:
“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
“…even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us.
But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.”
It seems it’s the same for this cause.
We don’t have to know we can get there to go there, but we do have to go there to get there. Im reminded of another quote that goes, “If Columbus had an advisory committee he would probably still be at the dock.” –Arthur Goldberg
Things like 7 year dividends, the removal of coloreds only signs, and orbits around the earth are/were parts of it, but Im not sure that causes like the latter two could have ever gotten to where they were going if they didn’t aim for them, if people didn’t prepare to go all the way, rather than prepare to go a portion of the way. Im reminded of the Wayne Gretsky quote: “100% of the shots you don’t take don’t go in.”
We have to plant the seed that we are undertaking the quest for indefinite life extension now, we have to take into consideration the fierce urgency of now, we have to have a dream, we have to shoot for the moon. We have to start now.
To quote Kennedy again:
“The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, 'In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!’”
They say that necessity is the mother of invention, if people don’t think they need it, they are going to innovate at a much slower rate than if they did. Like MacArthur said, “It is fatal to enter any war with out the will to win it.” We may not be able to get there, but we have to believe we can if we are to put forth the amount of effort that is needed to get it done in time for us if it is there. Like Eden Phillpotts said, “the universe waits patiently for our wits to grow sharper.” we don’t intend to keep it waiting. By god, we may not get there, but we have to go there, and we have to do it like our lives depend on it.
I don’t think that people like the writers of the Longevity Dividend are necessarily against places that support indefinite life extension. I think there’s a balance to be struck, like many say about the over hype that sometimes slips out, it would also be nice to try to keep the underselling of this potential here from going to low. A lot of us support the Longevity Dividend. I do, and we continue to help spread it, but it would be nice if it could be adjusted so as to not dissuade the notion of indefinite life extension.
For example in the following segment, something similar to the part in brackets could be added:
"No one is suggesting that alteration of these genes in humans would be practical, useful, or ethical, [with out further research and discussion,] but it does seem likely that further investigation may yield important clues about intervening pharmacologically."
In this line “unrealistic” could be removed and it would still serve its purpose:
"What we have in mind is not the unrealistic pursuit of dramatic increases in life expectancy, let alone the kind of biological immortality best left to science fiction novels."
I know you guys want to appeal to conservative crowds, and that thats where a lot of the funds come from, and that you need to, and that shooting for the moon doesn’t appeal to the scientific method, but in addition to scientists, your also humans, and you know that pioneers have come a long way, through a lot of barriers to get us to where we are today. I think that appealing to the scientific method and conservative crowds can be done without shutting indefinite life extensionists out of the picture, and at the same time I think that we can continue to grow toward a movement in support of indefinite life extension with out over hyping it. I look forward to seeing both continue to evolve on into the future.
