Ending aging in the Shteyngart of Eden: Biogerontological discourse in a Super Sad True Love Story

From the annals of people who truly have either too much time on their hands or the golden touch when it comes to writing grant applications, I give you this gem. Interestingly, the ScienceDirect system where the paper is hosted seems a little faulty: while the paper is not open access, if you click on one of the links for the full paper and then click on the abstract link on the paywall page, it will in fact show you the full paper. Web development is hard, sad to say, and you rarely get all of what you'd like to think that you paid for. In this case, there are fringe benefits for the rest of us, however. So take advantage while it's there:

Ending aging in the Shteyngart of Eden: Biogerontological discourse in a Super Sad True Love Story

Based on the assumption that cultural and literary criticism can and should impact scientific and medical research on aging, this paper asks whether the analysis of a text such as the Super Sad True Love Story that has received very broad recognition can be seen as a cultural critical intervention into the ageism so often openly displayed in scientific discourses.

Apart from more general social criticism, the novel includes numerous references to biogerontology and nanomedicine that - although at times sounding futuristic and satirical - represent up to date research results of modern life science laboratories.

As a matter of fact, Shteyngart indicates in the afterword that he modeled the indefinite lifespan extension company on the work of biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey. Although de Grey, whose radical ideas have provoked harsh opposition in the scientific community, was first seen as an outsider, he has now come to occupy a central position in the field of anti-aging studies. Despite the fact that at the first glance his theories seem very bold and futuristic, he is "a factor to be dealt with in any serious discussion of the topic."

In the end, Shteyngart maintains that "nature simply would not yield" (2010: 329) and biogerontology is seen as a major failure. Shteyngart here makes a provocative prediction regarding the future development of Aubrey de Grey's SENS project that serves as the scientific background of the novel, but does the novel's dystopic account of rejuvenation technology have the power to change its readers' ways of thinking regarding biogerontological research and the cultural meaning of old age? The Super Sad True Love Story mirrors and creatively distorts biogerontological discourses and thus provides a very good basis for comparison and discussion.

Even if you do a good job as the author of a Frankenstein work, getting the groundwork right on the science involved, it's still a Frankenstein work. Science failing man - man attempting new science and having it fail or get beyond him in some plot-vital way - is ever a popular vision, but it is fundamentally unrealistic. We are where we are because our ancestors succeeded in science, continually, over and again. They incrementally created a better world with science, one step at a time, until the dreams, wonders, and visions of yesteryear now walk in everyday life.

Novels that postulate gloom, failure, and malaise to result from human life extension are a dime a dozen. They far outnumber those that do not; indeed most of the positive visions are in those fictional settings in which great longevity simply exists, and is not really remarked upon, nor a part of the core plot. Consider the Culture, the Wheel of Time series, and so forth. Drag medicine and human longevity into the core plot, and suddenly the author is compelled to reweave Frankenstein out of the threads of biogerontology. It's a sad thing.

There are sound reasons for all this, of course. Dystopian visions, tales of hubris and the resulting fall sell books, much as bad news sells newspapers. But that this all exists in the industry of fiction does not make it in any way useful or valid beyond entertainment - or, sadly, beyond propaganda, intentional or otherwise. The logic of writing a dystopian story or a Frankenstein tale is that certain failures will take place: the author bends reality to the needs of the tale. A good author does that well enough that someone without a grounding in the fields in question won't be able to spot the dubious leaps and assumptions.

So no, I don't think fiction is the place to start any discussion of the future of biogerontology or the SENS vision. Not until we start getting a more useful class of fiction, anyway, which doesn't seem terribly likely. The truth and the reality of where we stand, what can be done with biotechnology, and what is needed to make progress - those are topics to focus on.

Comments

Hundreds of thousands of years ago they were probably telling stories of the great hubris of attempting to utilise fire, and the dystopian societies that would from it.

Posted by: Arcanyn at January 2nd, 2013 12:53 AM

Unlike Reason, I do think fiction can play a constructive role. For example, it's just conceivable that 'The Day After' may have saved us from nuclear holocaust, by helping to open Reagan's eyes to the effects of nuclear weapons. But like any other kind of advocacy, fiction can also be harmful if the basic message is misconceived.

I must say I find Kriebernegg's paper (from the small portion I've read) rather tiresome, not least because of its premise that de Grey is ageist for viewing biological ageing as undesirable. Of course the polar opposite is true - it's de Grey's detractors who would have us believe that it's healthy and desirable that older people have much shorter lifespans and healthspans to look forward to than younger people.

Kriebernegg's faulty thinking reminds me of the controversy over treatments for deafness. Because deaf people who use sign language constitute a linguistic minority, there's an understandable tendency to focus on that aspect rather than the disability. But that leads to the absurd mindset that anyone advocating treatment for deafness must be prejudiced against deaf culture, and is the rough equivalent of an English-speaking imperialist trying to wipe out a minority language! It gets to the point where people actually have to take a step back, and remind themselves that deafness is a disability, and that in an ideal world it's better to be able to hear than not be able to hear. Accepting that doesn't mean that you think that deaf people are less equal than hearing people, or that deaf culture and language isn't valuable. By the same token, believing that ageing is harmful doesn't mean that you are prejudiced against people who are suffering from the effects of it (quite the reverse).

Another (trivial) example - I suffer from premature hair loss. I've long since accepted that fact, I hardly think about it from one day to the next, it doesn't define who I am, it doesn't affect my quality of life, and I certainly don't see myself as inferior to people with a full head of hair. But if I was offered an affordable and reliable way of getting my hair back without any side-effects, would I take it? Of course I would.

Posted by: James Kelly at January 2nd, 2013 11:48 AM

Kriebernegg seems to credit the book he's reviewing with more understanding of AdG's views on ageing than it actually evinces. The book speaks of dietary interventions, supplements and massive doses of antioxidants, things for which AdG has never been a strong advocate and whose efficacy he has in fact criticized.

As far as the merit of "Super Sad True Love Story" as a criticism of biogerontology, I can't see that it has much. It follows the long tradition of polemical literature in associating arbitrary contemptible qualities with the people who advocate X where X is the position targeted for criticism. In this case, the advocates for X are also shallow, childish, totalitarian, bigoted, elitist &c, but it is not shown how these qualities arise from their being advocates for X. To take this sort of literary swipe and turn it into an argument or critique is to make a strange sort of guilt-by-association fallacy in which even the association is a fictional imputation.

The book culminates its rather unfair treatment of rejuvenation biotechnology with a diabolus ex machina (the favourite device of most dystopic science fiction) by which rejuvenation biotechnology fails in an unexplained and, on further inspection, nonsensical way. There is no remotely plausible mechanism by which SENS-like therapy would address the outward manifestations of ageing without also undoing ageing damage in a way that increased lifespan. The author has it fall out this way so that he can have his cake and eat it too: he can condemn the foolish futility of defying the natural order while still allowing the chosen bogeyman to menace with dreadful fangs of inequality and lack of social justice.

Posted by: José at January 3rd, 2013 11:13 PM

I have neither read the novel, nor am I familiar with AdG's quest for anit-aging medicine. But some of the above mentioned comments have given rise to thoughts:
- A "treatment" against aging suggests that aging is a sickness; it might be an undesirable state, yes, who wants to be restricted in let's say moving around freely, who wants to be fragile and incapacitated, to quote just a few example. But an "illness"... - the terminology here is a sad choice.
- Since I regard aging as a natural part of the life cycle, the rather more pressing questions are not how I can prolong a life but how can I live the years that I have in a satisfying and as healthy as possible way. Regarded from this point of view, we cannot "prescribe one medicine" for all, especially since the medicine of choice is to "throw in a couple of years". It's an individual choice. To just prolong life or try to avoid death is immature and does not address the real issues in life, to live life fully while you are alive, the number of years is not is not of primary importance but rather how they are filled.
- I am asking myself what Kelly means by "ageing is harmful". Does this refer to the fact that with time we have fewer years to live and this fact is harmful? I have met quite a number of elderly people who were quite at peace with their life, their age and actually also the fact that they were going to die. None of them described aging as harmful. What some of them did say, however, was that they didn't want to stick around much longer, that they had seen enough. I would be curious whether there have been scientifically-founded expert interviews (the experts being elderly people) on the question of "how old would you like to become".
- Frankly, I am quite flabberghasted by the sensational headlines on your homepage: "Closing in on the cure for death" or "Ageing is an enemy - so fight it". The money spent on this science would be better invested in other, useful research. Maybe the scientists involved in that field should ask themseves why it is so important to prolong life. Maybe they had better get started on living their lives they have right now.

Posted by: monika at March 6th, 2013 6:06 AM

Another bit of information: after well-founded research I managed to discover that Kriebernegg is, in fact, female and not as quoted above male (comment José). The author of the above-mentioned comment should rethink his statement. A Freudian slip? Do all critical thinkers have to be male?

Posted by: monika at March 9th, 2013 5:27 AM

@monika:

"A "treatment" against aging suggests that aging is a sickness; it might be an undesirable state, yes, who wants to be restricted in let's say moving around freely, who wants to be fragile and incapacitated, to quote just a few example. But an "illness"... - the terminology here is a sad choice."

Why? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

"Since I regard aging as a natural part of the life cycle"

Well, dying from measles or cancer is also natural, but nevertheless we cure them and consider it very humanitarian to do so.

"The rather more pressing questions are not how I can prolong a life but how can I live the years that I have"

If there is such a thing as "the years that I have", how can life be prolonged? Your argument starts with a contradiction.

"To just prolong life or try to avoid death is immature and does not address the real issues in life"

To "address the real issues in life" you need... well, you know, to be alive to begin with, and to "avoid death" is the only way we know of for having a life, you know.

"I would be curious whether there have been scientifically-founded expert interviews (the experts being elderly people) on the question of "how old would you like to become"."

You could start by asking yourself when do you would like to die from cholera or by being hit by a truck.

"Maybe the scientists involved in that field should ask themseves why it is so important to prolong life."

Because whitout life you can't have anything else, perhaps?

Posted by: Antonio at December 26th, 2016 11:55 AM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.