3 replies to this topic

[reason]

Below find linked a profile of one of a number of modest health optimization initiatives that are driven by the desire to raise the odds of living to see the arrival of real, working rejuvenation therapies, such as the anticipated results of the SENS research programs. There is a large marketplace to serve people who are convinced they can do better than the 80/20 of calorie restriction and regular moderate exercise in personal health and longevity. This seems like a valid hobby for someone with time and money to burn, but I don't believe that that it is in fact possible to know whether or not you are in fact doing better or worse than the 80/20 approach. At least not at the present time. The data is far too uncertain and the possible gains too small for near all possible optimizing action that people might take today beyond calorie restriction and exercise. You are better off taking that time and effort and directing it to support progress in SENS research.

Your risk of death each year doubles every eight years. I've got one in a thousand chances of dying of natural causes this year. In eight years' time, it's two in a thousand. In 16 years' time, it's four in a thousand. Today, we're just trying to find those extra few years. In 20 years time, finding an extra five years will be huge. Maybe in those extra five years, they can cure aging. The idea is that increasing your life expectancy every year so you can live a bit longer massively increases your chance of living forever.

Rule number one: Stop smoking. If you smoke, you give up half your chances of getting there. And there's normal things, like diet and exercise. There are things you can do at home, like reducing blood pressure and heart rate, that have a huge impact on your general health. But that's all science and research-based. I'm certainly hoping there will be more radical approaches as well. There's also going to be things like storing your stem cells. I'd like to investigate who's offering that service. I want to be storing stem cells today - before the outside starts aging - so when we develop the technology to grow my own parts, I don't have to get a replacement organ and I can actually repair my own heart or repair my own lungs using my own stem cells. I'll be doing it with my 40-year-old stem cells rather than my 60-year-old stem cells. There are definitely going to be clinics out there offering longevity solutions without any science basis at all. I want to weed those out and avoid those ones as well.

Plenty of people have that ethical debate about whether or not you should extend life. But do people want to live forever? I think the answer's no. The people who do, really do. You don't half-want to live forever. If you want to, you definitely want to. There's this online survey, where they ask that question every year, and around 35% of people say yes. I thought that was amazingly low. Imagine a 90-year-old - a bit in pain, not doing anything exciting. If we cure aging, then it'll be a few years after that when we can reverse aging. If you could have a 20-, 30-year-old body again, which is going to be far more useful for you and certainly pain free, then you'd want to live forever. Still, an awful lot of people think that death is a natural thing and we shouldn't fight it.

Link: https://www.inverse....l-we-cure-death

View the full article at FightAging

[phix]

 

 

Still, an awful lot of people think that death is a natural thing

 

You can count me in that awful lot.   I wrote it somewhere else. Yes, death is natural. So what?

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. You cannot build a sound argument on top of a fallacy, and you are in that case bound to be lost in meaningless discussions. Moreover, you will face the same problem again each time a beneficial intervention is not seen as natural, and you will be in a weaker position by having reinforced the fallacy. It is more honest and economical to break that mental barrier once and for all. 

Edited by phix, 17 November 2015 - 09:15 AM.

[corb]

 

 

 

Still, an awful lot of people think that death is a natural thing

 

You can count me in that awful lot.   I wrote it somewhere else. Yes, death is natural. So what?

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. You cannot build a sound argument on top of a fallacy, and you are in that case bound to be lost in meaningless discussions. Moreover, you will face the same problem again each time a beneficial intervention is not seen as natural, and you will be in a weaker position by having reinforced the fallacy. It is more honest and economical to break that mental barrier once and for all. 

 

 

The problem isn't that you or anyone else thinks it's natural.

The problem is when they use that as an argument that we shouldn't fight it.

We live in a time when people are brainwashed to think anything unnatural is evil and you can see it in the craze over "bio" foods.

 

Reason isn't saying you shouldn't think about death as natural, but he's saying you shouldn't use that as a counter argument.

 

If death in your 70s is natural so is death if you're a 5 year old with pneumonia. So why ignore one and not the other? Both are perfectly natural.

Medicine has always been about fighting the natural, building arguments around one thing being more natural than another is hypocrisy.

Unfortunately we live in times when hypocrisy is embraced.

[phix]

Note that I was using "you" in the generic sense, sorry for the ambiguity. I was not referring to "reason", who is not the author of the article, BTW. I just wanted to stress that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that death is natural, and that an argument for life extension should be based on more solid grounds. After all, the naturalistic fallacy is as pervasive and appealing as it is easy to debunk on rational terms.