The New Scientist is running a batch of articles on death, science, life extension and related topics in their latest issue. Here is the first of the two articles you'll probably find most interesting, although both are behind their subscription wall:

The problems of living longer:

From an ethical point of view, two scenarios offer themselves in connection with the future of death. One relates to a situation in which the average human lifespan grows ever longer, but without major solutions to ageing and its many attendant diseases and disabilities. The other relates to the simultaneous conquering both of death and the current downsides of ageing, so that people live healthy well-functioning lives for 150 or 200 years or even beyond.

In the first case there will have to be a debate about the moral legitimacy and manner of elective death - both suicide and euthanasia - and the medical provision for them. In the latter case there will have to be questions about restricting conception, pregnancy and birth, to avoid a global population catastrophe.

Standard Malthusian boilerplate, in other words, mixed in with the Tithonus Error - all utterly wrong, but very familiar. It's rather sad, but to be expected, I suppose. Malthusianism and the Tithonus Error will continue for a while to represent the point of conflicting views at which advocates for the choice of healthy longevity educate those folk still ignorant of the true picture. It's not hard to describe reality - that any successful attempt to lengthen life span must reduce age-related damage and thereby extend healthy life span as well, and that overpopulation is a myth - but it is a challenge to convince people who have lived and breathed false perspectives since childhood, and who must break from the views of their peers in the process of coming to a true picture of the world.

That it is a challenge simply means we owe it to all those who will suffer and die from aging to try harder, of course.

The second piece is more useful, being an interview with biomedical gerontology Aubrey de Grey and transhumanist thinkers Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom. The latter penned the excellent Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant, you might recall.

The plan for eternal life:

New Scientist talks to Aubrey de Grey, Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg about how we could become immortal.

"Immortal" in the modern press sense of physical immortality - agelessness, in other words, or at least to have your biology repaired well enough and often enough to remain in a youthful, healthy state for as long as you please. Fortunately, video of the interviews is up on YouTube. Take a look and see what you think - and if you haven't yet read Bostrom's fable on the fight to cure aging, go and read it now. You won't be disappointed.

Posted by Reason at October 11, 2007 10:15 PM | TrackBack (0)