The Abolition of Aging

The Abolition of Aging was pointed out to me a little while ago as a more populist companion to Ending Aging. It offers less of a detailed introduction to the relevant areas of rejuvenation biotechnology, and more of an argument for the manifest destiny of radical life extension, a goal for our species that in this age of biotechnology should be both inevitable and desirable. I'm all for more people putting forward strong moral arguments for the work needed to bring an end to aging. There is no such thing as too much advocacy for this cause; helping to alleviate the vast and ongoing suffering and death produced by degenerative aging is the greatest good that anyone can achieve, and yet so very many people remain to be persuaded.

We live in an era of sweeping change. Every day brings a fresh wave of news reports about apparent breakthroughs by scientists and engineers. As a futurist, when I talk to audiences about the implications of accelerating technology, I'm used to witnessing some powerful reactions. Our untutored gut reactions to hearing about an unexpected future scenario are liable to lead us astray - badly astray. The evaluative principles which served us well in the past may lose their applicability in the very different circumstances that could exist in the future. Therefore, let's try to calmly assess this possibility: practical therapies for the comprehensive reversal of biological aging may be just around the corner. It's my own carefully considered view that, within 25 years - that is, by around the year 2040 - science may have placed into our hands the means to radically extend human longevity. A suite of rejuvenation treatments, administered regularly, could periodically undo the accumulated damage of aging in both body and brain. As a result, life expectancy will shoot upwards. Not long afterward, more and more people will start sailing past the current world record for the longest verified human lifespan.

But when I mention this viewpoint to people that I meet I frequently encounter one of two adverse reactions. First, people tell me that it's not possible that such treatments are going to exist in any meaningful timescale any time soon. In other words, they insist that human rejuvenation can't be done. It's wishful thinking to suppose otherwise, they say. It's bad science. It's naively over-optimistic. It's ignorant of the long history of failures in this field. The technical challenges remain overwhelmingly difficult. Second, people tell me that any such treatments would be socially destructive and morally indefensible. In other words, they insist that human rejuvenation shouldn't be done. It's essentially a selfish idea, they say - an idea with all kinds of undesirable consequences for societal harmony or planetary well-being. It's an arrogant idea, from immature minds. It's an idea that deserves to be strangled. Can't be done; shouldn't be done - in this book, I will argue that both these objections are profoundly wrong. I'll argue instead that rejuvenation is a noble, highly desirable, eminently practical destiny for our species - a "Humanity+" destiny that could be achieved within just one human generation from now. As I see it, the abolition of aging is set to take its place on the upward arc of human social progress, echoing developments such as the abolition of slavery, the abolition of racism, and the abolition of poverty.

Link: https://theabolitionofaging.com/

Comments

Let's hope Trump won't slow us down

Posted by: RS at November 9th, 2016 8:11 AM

I wonder if he might actually accelerate us since Peter Thiel was such a strong supporter.

Posted by: Corbin at November 9th, 2016 12:47 PM

Another excellent reason to move to less regulated environments.

Posted by: Barbara T. at November 9th, 2016 1:33 PM

Trump's pro-innovation mindset was one of the largest reasons I voted for him. The philosophy of "create an environment where people can just DO THINGS" is necessary to get anything real done.

Posted by: Slicer at November 9th, 2016 5:22 PM

I worry about the anti-science agenda of the GOP. I worry that a Trump/Pence Supreme Court will not be friendly to attempts to alter the nature of human existence. God wants us to die on schedule, not hack His Creation, they might say. I think we would have been better off with a secular, progressive court, but that's water under the bridge at this point. Trump will not eliminate the FDA. The vast majority of the public wants it to stay. Of course they don't realize how the FDA harms them, but that's beside the point. It's not going away any time soon.

Posted by: niner at November 9th, 2016 10:41 PM

"Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA" - from Donald Trump's plan

And if you think nine old people, whose deaths can severely hurt their political ideologies, can, will, or want to halt antisenescence treatment, I don't know what to tell you.

Posted by: Slicer at November 9th, 2016 11:21 PM

USA Today reported that Peter Thiel is to join the Trump transition team. I really hope he urges the President to back anti-senescent research and SENS, it could possibly happen.

Posted by: Corbin at November 10th, 2016 11:22 PM

Thanks Corbin, good to know that Thiel is part of his team. Yea, I hope Trump does something useful with his new power and influence such as SENS and medical advancement.

And, it would be great if they can trim the FDA excessive red tape and get medicine approved quicker and with less cost.

Posted by: Robert at November 11th, 2016 12:53 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.