doesn't it make more sense to prolong your lifespan, THEN reverse the ageing process?
Yes, it does. That's why many people here (Dr. de Grey excepted, oddly enough) are strong proponents of
Calorie Restriction and unnecessary-risk aversion.
As for the medical and research community, longevity
is being pursued, and quite heavily. For the most part, longevity to them is in three forms: disease prevention and treatment; calorie restriction mimetics; and stem cell therapies, i.e. rejuvenation.
The first, as has been predicted, will only add about 15 years to a person's average lifespan. And that's assuming we can prevent and treat all known diseases. As you can imagine, this approach will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decade alone, and over a trillion dollars in the long run.
The second (CR mimetics) will probably add anywhere between 2 and 30 years to a person's lifespan, with the geometric mean, not the arithmetic mean, being the most likely: about 5-10 years, which is currently what is attributed to wine/resveratrol. As you can imagine, this approach is far less expensive, at least from a research perspective. Throw in FDA regulations and the trials (medical and metaphorical) to bring these treatments to market, and we're still looking at billions. But the research costs are very low...
The third, stem cell therapies, has the promise to add decades to an average lifespan. Not just in treating diseases, which is really the first category I mentioned, but in replacing worn out organs altogether! In theory, if the brain could be kept healthy, stem cell therapies could add another half a lifetime to one's life, an extra 30-60 years.
In theory, anyway. And stem cell research is being pursued to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding a year already, with billions on the way.
So I agree with what you said: "we need to rush, rush now because time shows no mercy." But I should point out that longevity is not necessarily the department where we few immortalists need to focus our energy. I suppose that will sound a little bit hypocritical, given my upcoming website entitled "Longevity First".
While what we need to achieve first is longevity, that's not for us to worry about. Capitalism and the medical establishment are already working on longevity. Our involvement will not likely change things enough to bring actuarial escape velocity even a month sooner, and probably not even a day sooner.
No, what we need to worry about is the next step, the step that is
not currently being confronted by capitalism or the medical establishment. That's the prospect of stopping aging altogether, and perhaps even reversing it. That's the prospect of controlling not only aging, but death itself, via advanced nanotechnology.
Biomedical nanotech and SENS. These are things which are being so overwhelmingly ignored, given how likely they are to occur, how soon they
could occur, and how little they would cost in relation to the benefits, that it is up to us to raise our voices on
these issues!
It's not that we're counting our chickens before we hatch. It's just that we're focussing our efforts in an area that has only minimally greater risk, for a reward that is far grander. Would you invest in venture that has a 40% chance of failure, with a 60% chance of doubling your money; or would you invest in a venture that has a 41% chance of failure, a 49% chance of doubling your money, and a 10% chance of returning your money a thousand-fold?
Well, if you could do it multiple times, like a slot machine, the choice is obvious. But what if you only get this choice once? What would you do? If you absolutely had to get your money back to survive (and we
DO!), would that change your decision?
