"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!"

Email Contact
reason -at- fightaging -dot- org

  
Search

The Causes of Aging
Accumulating AGEs
Buildup of Amyloid Between Cells
The Failing Immune System
Declining Lysosomal Function
Mitochondrial DNA Damage
Senescent Cells
Other Causes of Aging

Required Reading
Calorie Restriction
The Community, Visualized
Cryonics
Engineered Negligible Senescence
Envisaging a World Without the FDA
Healthy Life Extension Explained
Introductory Articles
Longevity Meme Newsletter
The Odds of Human Longevity Mutations
The Need For Activism and Advocacy
Stem Cells, Regenerative Medicine
Twelve Ways to Extend Mouse Life Span
The Vital Debate in Aging Research
What is Anti-Aging?

Initiatives
Biogerontology Research Foundation
Campaign Against Aging
Campaign for Aging Research
LifeStar Institute
Immortality Institute
Maximum Life Foundation
Methuselah Foundation
Mprize for Longevity Research
Science Against Aging (Translate)
SENS Foundation

Benefiting From Medical Research
How to Read Scientific Research
Researching Therapies and Clinical Trials

Objections Answered
Boredom
Inequality and Economics
Overpopulation
Stagnation
Being Older for Longer?
What About Retirement?

Recent Entries

  • The Conservative View of Progress in Applied Cancer Research
  • More on Stem Cell Technology and the Rise of Medical Tourism
  • Resting Metabolic Rate and Aging, Another of Metabolism's Complexities
  • Capabilities in Stem Cell Science Are Advancing Rapidly
  • Incentives and Cryonics
  • Videos From the Foresight 2010 Conference
  • A Steady Flow of New Donors at the Methuselah Foundation
  • Manipulating Fat in the Context of Slowing Aging
  • On Medical Tourism For Stem Cell Therapies
  • Cells, Hearts, and Brains
  • Rapamycin Research Rolls Onward
  • Reversing Blindness in Retinitis Pigmentosa With Stem Cells
  • The Body Does Work to Break Down Damaging Aggregates
  • A Few Cancer Stem Cell Articles
  • The Latest on Mitochondrial Uncoupling
  • Longevity Research at the Science Network
  • Journalists Are In the Business of Gathering Eyeballs, Not Truth
  • @ging, a New Aging Science Blog
  • Redefining Bionics Again
  • Encouraging Transparency in Life Science Fundraising

    Blogs of Interest
    @ging
    Accelerating Future
    Ageing Research
    Alcor News
    Al Fin Longevity
    April's CR Diary
    Andart
    Biology of Aging
    Biosingularity
    CRON Diary
    Cryonics Society
    Depressed Metabolism
    Distributed Republic
    Ethical Technology Blog
    Existence is Wonderful
    Foresight Institute
    Future Current
    FuturePundit
    grailsearch.org
    green light go
    HumanPlus
    In Search of Enlightenment
    Marginal Revolution
    Maximum Life Foundation Blog
    Metamagician and the Hellfire Club
    Metamodern
    Methuselah Foundation Blog
    Mises Economics Blog
    Ouroboros
    Overcoming Bias
    Pimm - Partial immortalization
    Responsible Nanotechnology
    ScienceBlogs
    Sentient Developments
    Singularity Hub
    Singularity Institute Blog
    Sonia Arrison
    The Speculist
    The Technological Citizen

    Archives (Monthly)

    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    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

    Creative Commons License

    Fight Aging! is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. In short, this means that you are encouraged to republish and rewrite Fight Aging! content in any way you see fit, the only requirements being that you (a) link to the original, (b) attribute the author, and (c) attribute Fight Aging!.

  • Tuesday, February 15, 2005

    A Pro-Death Distillation

    As a counterpoint to a flurry of articles on healthy life extension and biological immortality (or vulnerable agelessness) in the past week, here is an editorial that neatly distills a number of different (and debunked) pro-death ideas into a few short paragraphs.

    Humanity has always found its greatest triumphs, if not its very reason for being, in struggle. Those regarded as our greatest leaders - people like Churchill, Lincoln, and in Canadian terms, Trudeau - are defined more by what opposed them than what they did. Much of invention is born from a struggle of some kind or another, whether it's against nature or just trying to get information out quicker. Even in our everyday lives, competition inspires us to something more; we'll often try harder or do better when we have someone or something we’re trying to best.

    And with the removal of the threat of death, we'll have done away with arguably the biggest competition we have. One doesn’t need to point out the countless works of art, to say nothing of entire philosophies, that have tried to come to grips with man’s mortality. Ignoring the obvious religious significance of such an event, if man no longer fears death, what reason does man have to continue living? We’ll have, for lack of a better term, won.

    This isn’t to say that the arrival of an elixir of life will be met with mass suicides and depression across the world. No, people will probably continue on pretty much as is, but that would be precisely the problem. Things would stagnate; people would find no reason to do much of anything. Why work, why create, why learn, why suffer, why strive, why believe, why love, why hate, when in the end, it's likely those who take the safest path will end up ahead, in the form of living longer? The world will be locked in permanent suburbia, where too much or too little will lose out in favour of just enough.

    Obviously, this happens enough in our world as is; people will almost always settle for mediocre over something that might just be good, but might also be bad. But now, at least, there is one thing that can push us into something more: the fact that, eventually, we're not going to be around anymore. If nothing else stirs us, at least the cold, hard truth of mortality will give rise to something more than sitting on the couch.

    But to remove that, to remove the one thing that humanity has always struggled against, is to take out something that is essentially human. If this ever happens, we might just live forever, but I doubt we'll have any reason to.

    How silly! How shortsighted! An infinity of far, far greater challenges awaits us after this comparatively simple fix for less desirable characteristics of our biology - exploring the solar system, traveling to the stars, cataloguing all life on Earth, terraforming mars, understanding the roots of intelligence, building a science to determine whether or not we have free will ... I could go on. Personally, I'd like to be around and in good health to try my hand at helping to overcome a few of these future challenges.

    More to the point, you, oh writer of editorials, may feel this way, but a great many people fail to share your pessimism, lack of foresight, world-weariness and death wish.

    Posted by Reason

     
    Share |

    Posted by: Kurt at February 17, 2005 5:37 PM

    this deathist asshole can speak for himself! Personally, he and others of his ilk can shove it where the sun doesn't shine!

    [Posted by: Kurt at February 17, 2005 5:37 PM]

    Posted by: Raj at October 16, 2005 9:46 PM

    The argument of David Berry in his editorial Immortality would kill humanity is so full of fallacies as to be ludicrous.

    He says ”Humanity has always found its greatest triumphs, if not its very reason for being, in struggle." The editorial argues against the fight against ageing. This statement thus acknowledges that to win the fight against ageing would be a great triumph. Yet he argues against triumphing in this very epic battle but implying that it would be a defeat as we would then die as "people would find no reason to do much of anything."

    Does David Berry go to his job, enjoy reading, going to the movies, travelling, playing or watching sport, or doing anything that he enjoys only because he is secure and content in his belief that one day he will be a aged shrunken decrepit shell of what he was in his youth? Do children and youth, who by and large are not haunted by thoughts of ageing and death, find "no reason to do much of anything"?

    Again he says "people like Churchill, Lincoln, and in Canadian terms, Trudeau—are defined more by what opposed them than what they did". By implication again we are led to believe that what they struggled against was in fact (and hence their greatness), ageing and death. This is palpably ridiculous.

    Then comes his little leaps of reason from "Much of invention is born from a struggle of some kind" to "And with the removal of the threat of death, we’ll have done away with arguably the biggest COMPETITION we have". Emphasis mine.

    A lot of invention comes from the struggle against death and to survive but firstly the removal of ageing will not remove our struggle for survival, just better the odds for it and not against it. It would give people more time to find solutions, for example, of surviving the death of our planet, the solar system or even our galaxy.

    Then not all of our invention sprang from our struggle against "the threat of death". The wheel, the telephone, flight, motor car, the piano the guitar, I could carry on ad infinitum, did all these inventions spring from the struggle against ageing?

    Again ageing is not our competition. It is a nasty disease and not one to be glorified. I wonder if David Berry would glorify AIDS or Alzheimer's? We do not compete against ageing. It is simply a disease that robs us of our dignity and intellect.

    [Posted by: Raj at October 16, 2005 9:46 PM]

    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?