This piece from In Search of Enlightenment is just as applicable to the level of attention given to longevity science by ordinary folk: "Aristotle would scoff at the insularity and specialization of contemporary political theory. While concerns for the good of humans do populate debates in the field (some more than others), that concern is peripheral rather than central. The neglect of science and technology, for example, easily illustrates how wide the gap is between debates in political theory and the real world. If you were born 200 years ago you probably wouldn't live to see your 30th birthday. If you are born today you will most likely live long enough to suffer from one of the chronic diseases of aging in late life (after age 60). We have more than doubled the life-expectancy of humans in just 200 years. And yet the significance of the advances that made this possible - like the sanitation revolution, vaccinations, material prosperity, changes in behaviour, etc. - go largely unnoticed by the political theorist. Such 'macro-level' considerations typically aren't on the radar of theorists because we tend to form our theories and principles on the basis of micro-level considerations (e.g.: 'Look, the Jones's have more money than the Smith's do. Is this inequality in one small dimension of their life prospects fair if it is the result of 'brute luck'?'). So, how does one go about linking political theory to aging research? This is my project."