"We are on the verge of a revolution in medicine: understanding, treating, and ultimately preventing the causes of degenerative aging. But medical revolutions only happen if we all stand up in support of funding and research. We did it for cancer. We're doing it for Alzheimer's. We can do it for aging - and create an era of longer, healthier lives!"

Required Reading
Activism and Advocacy
Calorie Restriction
The Community, Visualized
Cryonics
Healthy Life Extension Explained
Introductory Articles
Longevity Meme Newsletter
Methuselah Foundation
Mprize for Longevity Research
Stem Cells, Regenerative Medicine
SENS, Negligible Senescence
What is Anti-Aging?

On the Causes of Aging
Accumulating AGEs
The Failing Immune System
Junk in the Lysosome
Mitochondrial Free Radicals
Senescent Cells
Other Causes of Aging

Objections Answered
Boredom
Inequality and Economics
Overpopulation
Stagnation
The Tithonus Error
What About Retirement?

Recent Entries

  • Graying Hair and Fading Stem Cells
  • Calorie Restriction and DNA Damage
  • The Methuselah Gene, Examined
  • Calorie Restriction Protects Against Age-Related Muscle Loss
  • The Things You Can Change
  • Reminder: Aging 2008 on June 27th at UCLA
  • Ageless Animals, the Sea Urchin Edition
  • Aging
  • 500 Scientists
  • Horizons For Immunotherapy
  • Revisiting Sirtuins
  • Complicating WILT
  • Aging as a Challenge For Regenerative Medicine
  • More On Telomere Shortening and Mitochondrial Dysfunction
  • Signs of Rose-Type Immortality in Humans?
  • Next Steps For Longevity Science at the Methuselah Foundation
  • Updates at Ouroboros
  • Why Do We Accumulate Senescent Cells Anyway?
  • The Immune Response Connection to Alzheimer's Disease
  • The Million Year Lifespan

    Weblogs of Interest
    Accelerating Future
    Ageing Research
    Alcor News
    Al Fin Longevity
    April's CR Diary
    Andart
    Anti-Aging Medicine & Science
    Biosingularity
    CRON Diary
    Cryonics Society
    Depressed Metabolism
    Digital Crusader
    Distributed Republic
    Ethical Technology Blog
    Existence is Wonderful
    Frontier Channel
    Future Current
    FuturePundit
    grailsearch.org
    Longevity Science
    Marginal Revolution
    Metamagician and the Hellfire Club
    Methuselah Foundation Blog
    Mises Economics Blog
    Nanodot
    Ouroboros
    Overcoming Bias
    Pimm - Partial immortalization
    Responsible Nanotechnology
    ScienceBlogs
    Sentient Developments
    Singularity Institute Blog
    The Loom
    The Speculist
    Tangled Bank
    Transumanar

      
    Search

    Archives (Monthly)

    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    July 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004
    October 2004
    September 2004
    August 2004
    July 2004
    June 2004
    May 2004
    April 2004
    March 2004
    February 2004
    January 2004

    Creative Commons License
    Attribution, noncommercial, no derivative works. Play nice.

  • « Small Steps Towards Engineered, Hyperefficient, Artificial Immune Systems | Main | Electric Pulse Interview With Aubrey de Grey »

    Thursday, May 1, 2008

    "Should" is a Dangerous Word

    "Should" is right up there with "we" as a dangerous word, one of the signposts you'll see as you're sliding down the slope to signing away your life and rights to collectivism. For example, the sentence "Should we want to live longer?" A lot of foundational assumption is slipped in underneath that one. "Should" according to who? Who is "we?" Who are these people with the veto over our desires implied by "should?"

    It is usually the case that you will see sentences containing "should" and "we" in this way when you're being sold up the river. There exists some group of people who think you should live your life a certain way, regardless of your opinions on the matter, and this is a little of the manner in which they build up a rhetoric to justify their eventual use of force and constraint of law. Assumptions of inclusion and unity via "we" and assumptions of authority via "should." Neither are true; you're not a member of their little group unless you choose to be, and there is no authority beyond that which you grant them of your own choice.

    If we didn't live in a world of huge, intrusive governments, in which the writing of law and use of force is up for grabs by any sufficiently well-organized and unethical group, then rhetorical dishonesty would just be part and parcel of persuasion. A tactic of the low road, and probably not a very good one at that, but there's nothing wrong with persuasion.

    Sadly, we do live in a world in which freedom, beyond lip-service to the concept, is unfashionable and no-one is safe from the mechanisms of government. Those mechanisms are presently sitting atop medical research and development, for example, ensuring it proceeds far more slowly than is possible. It is plausible that access to life extension technologies, once developed, will be limited by goverment employees and their enablers. So we must be deeply suspicious of everyone who invokes unity, collectivism and authority in their speech.

    When you see "should" think instead about your own opinion and reasoning. Don't let anyone tell you what to do with your life, or how long you can aim to live in good health. No more justification for is needed for working towards healthy life extension than "I would like to."

    Posted by Reason at May 1, 2008 3:52 PM | TrackBack (0)

    Posted by: FrF at May 2, 2008 10:20 AM

    "So we [sic] must be deeply suspicious..."

    I had to smile when I read that sentence.

    Generally I like the soberness and calmness with which Reason makes his case but I still have a strong aversion to large portions of where he's coming from idea-wise. Of course, even to the casual reader of "Fight Aging" it wasn't hardly a surprise that Reason is an adherent of Ayn Rand.

    [Posted by: FrF at May 2, 2008 10:20 AM]

    Posted by: Reason at May 2, 2008 4:20 PM

    Naturally, you would benefit from applying the same skepticism and thought to whatever I might recommend. I was going to tack on a paragraph saying as much, but it seemed redundant at the time.

    [Posted by: Reason at May 2, 2008 4:20 PM]

    Posted by: Michael G.R. at May 3, 2008 11:28 AM

    Well said. People who want to control you will always claim that they're doing it "for the greater good", or say that they're simply fulfilling the wishes of the majority (majority rule is necessary in some cases, but only a limited number).

    [Posted by: Michael G.R. at May 3, 2008 11:28 AM]

    Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. Please note that comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.










    Remember personal info?