"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!"

  
Search

Required Reading
Activism and Advocacy
Calorie Restriction
The Community, Visualized
Cryonics
Envisaging a World Without the FDA
Healthy Life Extension Explained
Introductory Articles
Longevity Meme Newsletter
The Most Important Debate
Stem Cells, Regenerative Medicine
SENS, Negligible Senescence
What is Anti-Aging?

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

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

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

  • Subtleties of Calorie Restriction and Evolution
  • Signs of the Times: Engineered Organs in the Popular Press
  • Genescient Envisioned as Sirtris++
  • Help the Immortality Institute Fund Research Into Laser Ablation of Lipofuscin
  • The Singularity's Time in the Sun
  • Deciphering the Machine By Pulling Out Cogs and Flipping Switches
  • Scientific American on Alzheimer's Research
  • The Downward Spiral
  • A Male-Only Longevity Mutation in Mice
  • Cryonics and Economic Incentives
  • Bid in a Charity Auction For a Portrait of Aubrey de Grey
  • You Have To Do Better Than That
  • Failing Memory and the Failing Immune System: Reversible?
  • A New Spanner to Throw Into the Works of Cancer
  • The Benefits of Falling Costs in Biotechnology
  • SENS 4: Early Registration and Abstract Submission Deadline Approaches
  • A Cautionary Tale and a Point of Principle
  • On the 2009 AGE Conference
  • An Update on Decellularization / Recellularization
  • Accumulating Mitochondrial DNA Damage: More Harm or Less Repair?

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

    Archives (Monthly)

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

  • Wednesday, July 19, 2006

    People Who Don't Understand Change

    There are all sorts of bad, mistaken or plain malicious reasons that people give when opposing healthy life extension research - which means being all for suffering, pain and death by age-related degeneration. Perhaps they think that future longevity technologies would lead to increased, longer frailty (the Tithonus error); or that Malthusian predictions of doom by overpopulation will finally be right after all these centuries of being flat out wrong (fat chance); or that a longer life would inevitably lead to boredom; or economic ignorance leads them to oppose the conditions necessary for progress in medicine; or that present day attempts to engineer longer, healthier lives "defy nature" more than those of past centuries; or they romanticize of death and aging as somehow noble, papering over mess, suffering and horrors; or perhaps they are possessed of a deeply ingrained sense of self-loathing.

    And ever onward with the list.

    At the base of it all, I think, is a deep and profound fear of change. Some people would rather embrace any present horror than even the most positive change. This is not one of the better traits we humans seem to have hardwired in our evolutionary heritage. On that note, a very illustrative op-ed was pointed out to me today; it speaks volumes of the mindset that justifies a continuation of today's death and suffering into tomorrow.

    There's a lot of talk about anti-aging research today, but with all the promises of longevity and even immortality, almost no one has apparently considered the consequences of human beings living forever. The more you think about it, the scarier the idea becomes.

    Think of the people who currently hold power in medicine, pharmaceuticals, media or government. Imagine if they never died. In fact, if you think about it, one of the best things about some people is the fact that they will eventually be six feet under.

    ...

    Science would never have advanced if the old-school high priests of science lived forever. And society as we know it today will never move forward unless the cronies currently in power someday keel over and die (harsh, but true). This is why I say a civilization that could give its population the ability to live forever would be doomed to eternal stagnation. Mortality is an important component of any successful species.

    All complete nonsense, of course. I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that ignorance lies at the root of fear of change: ignorance of the way in which change occurs; of the way in which people act to create change; of common timescales of change; of the degree to which change is occurring around us all the time. How can anyone look around the world today and propose that the present breakneck pace of change will somehow grind to a halt if people live longer? Major technological and cultural change is occurring on timescales of a decade; it should be rather hard to deny that in the face of the internet and biotechnology revolution, let alone everything else that is 2006 rather than 1986.

    It is deeply disturbing that so many people believe that death - rather than personal growth and change - is the only thing driving progress. Destruction of health and life is nothing but destruction: those billions of unique individuals could have contributed, changed, built new things, accomplished new goals. The structure of our lives today is forced upon us by the all too rapid decay of our bodies; we simply don't have enough time to be anything more than the merest hint of our true potential.

    The stagnation argument against radical life extension - illustrated in the quote above - is just as bankrupt as the other arguments for the death and suffering of billions, and just as widely dismantled and demolished. Nonetheless, it persists, just as the others; they are a displacement activity, resistant to logic, the cry of people who would rather suffer and die - would rather everyone else suffered and died - than change. If that is their choice, then they should be free to make it for themselves - but fought every step of they way should they work towards removing our freedom to engineer the longer, healthier life that we desire.

    Technorati tags:

    Posted by Reason at July 19, 2006 9:28 PM | TrackBack (5)

    Posted by: Kurt at July 20, 2006 10:01 AM

    What the idiot who wrote the op-ed doesn't get is that his arguments are not so much for aging and death, rather they are an endorsement of free-market capitalism. Free market capitalism is inherently dynamic. The institutions that fail to keep up or be competitive end up being obsoleted and pushed aside by more dynamic entities in the competitive free market. This process occurs whether we live forever or not.

    [Posted by: Kurt at July 20, 2006 10:01 AM]

    Posted by: Kurt at July 20, 2006 10:09 AM

    I think that the people who believe that death is good should be willing to set an example and to kill themselves as the earlist possible moment. That way, they are able to prove their sincerity to the rest of us.

    Any takers?

    [Posted by: Kurt at July 20, 2006 10:09 AM]

    Posted by: Kip Werking at July 20, 2006 2:13 PM

    Reason,

    There is good research on status-quo bias. You can read more here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

    And I recommend learning more about cognitive biases in general:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    [Posted by: Kip Werking at July 20, 2006 2:13 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?