• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

how to argue with deathists who say aging is NOT a disease?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 pensatore1

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Vienna

Posted 28 January 2010 - 12:08 AM


hello,

this is my first post, although i have been following the forums for some time already. i've just participated in a thread about eternal youth in some forum, which probably wasn't such a wise decission. it is hard to know how far you can go with certain people ....

so, this guy says "ageing is not a disease, since a disease is defined as an abnormal condition of an organism" and "Ageing, like dying, is part of life. Accept it."

the only question that goes through my mind right now is: why are people so unprogressive and narrow-minded? how do you cope with all those deathists in everyday life? how far do you go when arguing with somebody, or do you even argue with them?

#2 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 28 January 2010 - 12:37 AM

I could be wrong, but Ive come to realize that, Im pretty sure that what is happening is in part, probably many times at the least, that your just triggering the devils advocate switch in people unless you word it right. I used to get that a lot too, Im sure we all do. Ive been getting that a lot less now because what Ive been doing is, rather than just straight up say its a disease, I give the reasoning, and try not to even directly refer to it as a disease, let it sink in for them, make them think they think its a disease, as though it were matter of fact, and it is, they just dont know it yet.

Like this, "What do I mean 'indefinite life extension'? Well, there are 7 forms of damage that accumulate to cause aging. There are forms that are like them that have already been worked on with success in other diseases and disorders and things. Its only a matter of how fast we go to make it happen now, how quickly we inform the world about this."

Thats been working pretty well for me. I cant remember anybody rebutting that with "Aging isnt a disease, snivel snivel snarl, drip ignorance, and reckless bias, and closed mindedness." Although Im sure its not fool proof, pun intended.

The technique seems to work remarkably when trying to convey all parts of the cause. You want to avoid phrasing that makes it sound like your asking for their input or opinion. You want to phrase it as though your informing them, which you are, and you want to inform that with as much appeal to authority as you can. You want to site the biggest numbers, the best references, the best media breaks, etc.. when you can.

If I had more time I would try to help work all this kind of stuff out in some kind of manual. The Immortalist and a few others have expressed interest in such a thing lately. I think the topic about it is in the project ideas section.

#3 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 January 2010 - 07:39 AM

I usually say, "Fine, maybe death is right for you. Go ahead and die then." j/k

so, this guy says "ageing is not a disease, since a disease is defined as an abnormal condition of an organism" and "Ageing, like dying, is part of life. Accept it."

- Stockholm Syndrom

I would use the analogy of slavery -- 200 years ago here in the US, most people thought it was fine to own slaves:

find/replace aging -> slavery, disease -> problem, organism -> society with aging: "Slavery is not a problem, since a problem is defined as an abnormal condition of a society" and "Slavery, like dying, is part of life. Accept it."

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 28 January 2010 - 08:06 AM

People only see it as normal because they can't yet cure or understand it well.
Just like swelling is normal but we cure it or a even a cut, the same will come to aging.

Aging isn't as as abnormal just because of that, they are used to it and they can't change it yet. Eating raw meat used to be normal, then we look as it as disgusting and unhealthy. Why is it easier to accept? because it already came to change, that's why.

People used to die of aging at age 20 and 40, now this is "abnormal".

Usually if you can't convince them that they are just used to it and need to see things differently, your best is to leave them alone and let change show it.
Another way is to see if there is another reason why they tend to accept dying. "Wouldn't you like to keep living?" "Do you want to die?" "If you stay healthy, or even healthier, and have less problems, why die?"
If they fail giving you answers that say they want to live, it means something weird is going on there.

Most people I know started with aging is normal, gone to ok but there will be problems like food, over-population or bad people might use it.
They also say a lot of people are dying from starvation or massacre in africa. You need to remind them that defeating aging is not instead of helping troubled societies and that you would too wish them to be able to enjoy all benefits and live well. But if you have the opportunity to get a cure, it doesn't mean you shouldn't use it just because they can't. Until lately they didn't have treatments for AIDS while we had them. We made the effort to bring it to them, we did not decline using it just because they couldn't.

You might also need to try to replace aging with being old and having the diseases. Being healthy. It needs to be tailored for each person in special but once you get the hang of it you'll know how to deal with everyone. Do keep in mind, some people are just really hard and might seem to be set in stone - it doesn't mean that they are, I doubt any person is really set in stone but sometimes you might need to wait and come back later with a better approach :-D

#5 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 28 January 2010 - 08:42 AM

I usually say, "Fine, maybe death is right for you. Go ahead and die then." j/k

so, this guy says "ageing is not a disease, since a disease is defined as an abnormal condition of an organism" and "Ageing, like dying, is part of life. Accept it."

- Stockholm Syndrom

I would use the analogy of slavery -- 200 years ago here in the US, most people thought it was fine to own slaves:

find/replace aging -> slavery, disease -> problem, organism -> society with aging: "Slavery is not a problem, since a problem is defined as an abnormal condition of a society" and "Slavery, like dying, is part of life. Accept it."


I like the analogy, but they might just respond that society is not analogous to an organism.

How about obesity? If everything that is normal is good, and in many countries most people are overweight, then doesn't it follow that obesity is a part of life?

#6 ben951

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 15
  • Location:France

Posted 28 January 2010 - 03:31 PM

hello,

this is my first post, although i have been following the forums for some time already. i've just participated in a thread about eternal youth in some forum, which probably wasn't such a wise decission. it is hard to know how far you can go with certain people ....

so, this guy says "ageing is not a disease, since a disease is defined as an abnormal condition of an organism" and "Ageing, like dying, is part of life. Accept it."

the only question that goes through my mind right now is: why are people so unprogressive and narrow-minded? how do you cope with all those deathists in everyday life? how far do you go when arguing with somebody, or do you even argue with them?

But is it really important if it's a disease or not ?

Not fight aging because it's not disease does not make more sense to me.

I'm not sure that saying we must fight aging because it's a disease really is the right approach.

We must fight it because it kill 100 000 people each day, if aging fit the definition of a disease or not should not be that important in comparison.

Edited by ben951, 28 January 2010 - 03:32 PM.


#7 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 28 January 2010 - 08:52 PM

Ben951 brings up a good point: classifying aging as a disease is just a possible method to get more researchers, biotech, and pharma companies working on the problem. Whether or not aging is - or can fit into the traditional definition of - a disease is a secondary issue. Aging sucks. Aging is painful. Aging destroys minds and bodies. Aging tears families and friends apart. Aging kills. These are the reasons why we fight.

Also, you could mention to the deathists that many age-related diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, what-not, used to be thought of as "natural". In the past, we just didn't have the tools and knowledge to know what was going on inside the body that caused these conditions. Little by little we are finding and classifying all of the things that make us decrepit as we age and classifying them as diseases. No need to stop with heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc...

#8 Animal

  • Guest
  • 689 posts
  • 158
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 January 2010 - 09:31 PM

I'm curious to know whether you actually believe you will live forever, and if so is that dependent on other individuals providing you with the means to immortality or you achieving some personal breakthrough?

Death (or at least the dissolution of your coherent consciousness) is inevitable, whether it comes from age related deterioration of your body or some other source. Accepting death isn't the same as accepting the inexorability of senescence.

#9 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 30 January 2010 - 12:34 AM

hello,

this is my first post, although i have been following the forums for some time already. i've just participated in a thread about eternal youth in some forum, which probably wasn't such a wise decission. it is hard to know how far you can go with certain people ....

so, this guy says "aging is not a disease, since a disease is defined as an abnormal condition of an organism" and "Aging, like dying, is part of life. Accept it."

the only question that goes through my mind right now is: why are people so unprogressive and narrow-minded? how do you cope with all those deathists in everyday life? how far do you go when arguing with somebody, or do you even argue with them?


My approach is usually just to outline what constitutes a disease and then point out how it clearly coincides with aging.

And of course many aspects of aging are the predominant debilitating factor in other diseases which obviously broaches the question of how you differentiate between what's a disease and what isn't. Eventually they paint themselves into a corner in which case they'll either concede or throw snide remarks. From experience I can say it's usually the latter. :(

#10 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 January 2010 - 11:02 PM

I'm curious to know whether you actually believe you will live forever, and if so is that dependent on other individuals providing you with the means to immortality or you achieving some personal breakthrough?

Death (or at least the dissolution of your coherent consciousness) is inevitable, whether it comes from age related deterioration of your body or some other source. Accepting death isn't the same as accepting the inexorability of senescence.


That's the thing, we don't know if it is or isn't, we hope it isn't but if we won't do anything about it just because we give up then it won't change and really be. So better try even if we don't know and even if chances seems super slim. What have you got to lose, what have you got to gain?

#11 Teixeira

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • -1

Posted 07 February 2010 - 11:00 PM

Let´s analyse all this.
If aging is a disease, you are born with that disease, because beeing alive is aging everyday.
So, our nature has a disease, the aging process. Now let´s suppose we have a cure for that disease. Can we garantee that the nature is still the same after the cure process?
And we need to know one thing:where is the problem that produces the aging disease? Why does it happen that way?
If it is a disease, when did the human nature get that disease and why?
So, it´s a very good question but there is no easy awnser.

#12 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 07 February 2010 - 11:27 PM

Aubrey has gone over how theres a good possibility that we are born with aging because evolution never had a chance to select against it. People have always traditionally died from diseases like plagues and influenza and dysentary and the like, and been eaten by animals, succumbed to the cold and wars and things before the generations could live very long on average. Evolution may have never had a good enough chance to select against aging. Im sure there may be a lot of other factors as well. I think theres a good chance that our bodies have just been waiting for the opportunity, for that force to come along to make it happen, and I think that force is the tools that humanity has built and accumulated over time, and the wills in their soul power to make it happen.

#13 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 15 February 2010 - 07:07 AM

Let´s analyse all this.
If aging is a disease, you are born with that disease, because beeing alive is aging everyday.
So, our nature has a disease, the aging process. Now let´s suppose we have a cure for that disease. Can we garantee that the nature is still the same after the cure process?
And we need to know one thing:where is the problem that produces the aging disease? Why does it happen that way?
If it is a disease, when did the human nature get that disease and why?
So, it´s a very good question but there is no easy awnser.


Semantics. =/

And we're simply just periodically reversing age-related damage. Nothing will change aside from our biological clocks being reset again and again.

Aubrey has gone over how theres a good possibility that we are born with aging because evolution never had a chance to select against it. People have always traditionally died from diseases like plagues and influenza and dysentary and the like, and been eaten by animals, succumbed to the cold and wars and things before the generations could live very long on average. Evolution may have never had a good enough chance to select against aging. Im sure there may be a lot of other factors as well. I think theres a good chance that our bodies have just been waiting for the opportunity, for that force to come along to make it happen, and I think that force is the tools that humanity has built and accumulated over time, and the wills in their soul power to make it happen.


Agreed

#14 JJN

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 18
  • Location:.

Posted 15 February 2010 - 06:54 PM

I'm not sure how to answer this question. I think to start, frame it as a discussion, not an arguement. Don't label anyone as a deathist. I think it's a confrontationally loaded word. Really, the fact of existance has always been, and is currently that people live for a length of time, then they die. People's sense of stability is framed around this, in dealing with it, and making the best of the one life they have. It is speculation that this can be different.

Another current fact of existance, is that people have more immediate concerns about addressing the diseases that currently do take them out. They want to see research and progress in treating diseases, so that they may have some extra, perhaps healthy years of incrementally lengthened life.

Consider that the research 'pie' is of a certain size. Would people like to see a bigger slice be given over to viewing ageing as a disease, and perhaps detracting from research that can help fight diseases that they are immediately faced with? The other thing that can happen is to make the pie bigger, and not detract from research into current diseases as they stand now. But if the pie is made bigger, I think people would like to see the extra effort go into fighting current, immediate diseases. I guess that whatever the size of the pie, some of the basic research into fighting current diseases will have some utility in fighting ageing as a disease.

The other thing to do is to create a whole new research pie, given over to fighting ageing as a disease. I think this is kind of happening with the Mprize, and SENS. There may be some other efforts out there like this as well.

It just is difficult to get mainstream science diverted from fighting immediate diseases. I'm not sure what the ethics of this whole situation really is. Would you take away a certain number of people's chances at a somewhat lengthened life today, so that more may one day have a more lengthened life in the future? I really don't know. I'm not sure if I've even framed the question correctly.

I guess I try to look at things as objectively as possible as they stand now.

#15 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 16 February 2010 - 02:52 AM

I'm not sure how to answer this question. I think to start, frame it as a discussion, not an arguement. Don't label anyone as a deathist. I think it's a confrontationally loaded word. Really, the fact of existance has always been, and is currently that people live for a length of time, then they die. People's sense of stability is framed around this, in dealing with it, and making the best of the one life they have. It is speculation that this can be different.


Exactly, kind of like I was saying earlier in this topic, you dont want to trigger the devils advocate reflex in people. Sometimes just by labeling people at the outset of an other wise nuetral conversation you turn them into what you label them.

I do like the concept of deathist though and I think its a worthwhile concept to extrapolate on. For example b0gger is looking for people to help work out a deathist wiki page. You dont want to call people deathists directly in most situations, but when people go digging for the info, or stumble upon it, then if youve planted the seeds of indefinite life extension in their head, or its been planted through some other means, then deathist info like that can help them grow that seed.

Another current fact of existance, is that people have more immediate concerns about addressing the diseases that currently do take them out. They want to see research and progress in treating diseases, so that they may have some extra, perhaps healthy years of incrementally lengthened life.


Nah, well, sure, they do, but thats not a problem. To phrase it in an analogy; thats like were the civil rights people were walking before the civil rights march leaders came and got them to march on the most important path.

It just is difficult to get mainstream science diverted from fighting immediate diseases.


Its not difficult really, just more like a process, one foot in front of the other and we are going there, the more feet we can get involved the more ground we can cover and faster.

Its not difficult in the same way that we wouldnt say that building a sky scraper is difficult. Its just a process. People build sky scrapers all the time. That reminds of a quote, to paraphrase, "Any project no matter how complex, is rendered simple if you divided it up into a lot of small parts and divide it up amongst enough people."

I'm not sure what the ethics of this whole situation really is. Would you take away a certain number of people's chances at a somewhat lengthened life today, so that more may one day have a more lengthened life in the future? I really don't know. I'm not sure if I've even framed the question correctly.


This reminds me of the concept that if your being chased by a lion, you dont have to run faster than it, you just have to run faster than the other guy. Your first responsability is to yourself. Once youve got yourself settled and situated, no lions in your kitchen, no lions in your back yard, no lion in your neighborhood, then you can go out and help people in the other towns (diseases) shoot their lions. Im sure I speak for most of us when I say that we will gladly be helping others shoot their lions as well. We all do a little, or residually, but I mean much more directly.

#16 n25philly

  • Guest
  • 88 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Holland, PA

Posted 17 February 2010 - 01:36 PM

disease? I would consider it a plague. Does anyone know of anything as widespread and deadly as aging?

#17 JJN

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 18
  • Location:.

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:01 PM

disease? I would consider it a plague. Does anyone know of anything as widespread and deadly as aging?


Good question! I've read just a little so far about it. From the SENS site:

http://www.sens.org/...sf_faq_concerns

"Roughly two people die every second, worldwide, and more than half of those people die of causes that young people more or less never die of. So we're talking about the fact that aging kills one person a second, it kills a hundred thousand people a day, it kills thirty million people a year."

It seems, that if you can give people a 'young' metabolism of some sort, so they didn't develop diseases which derive from failing metabolisms, then you would hypothetically cut the number of deaths in half. Doesn't obviate the need to address the other causes of death, obviously. But it could definitely be defined as "widespread and deadly".

I'm not sure what the critics say about it. Maybe they think it's only 10%, or 25% or something. But it still, I think under any circumstance, is significant. And I can't imagine any scientist that would argue that there is no disease that is cause by a failing metabolism.

Another thing they mention there, is that no matter if you name ageing as a disease or not, our metabolisms do fail, and it can be corrected. Just so happens, that correcting it would give you a definite life extension as a side-effect of it...

There is a lot more info on the SENS site about why and how mainstream science isn't addressing it more, and what can be done about it.

Edited by JJN, 17 February 2010 - 08:03 PM.


#18 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:02 PM

Hmm, good one. I wonder why I hadnt thought of that. When people say, "Its not a disease!" You can say, "Oh, sorry, your right, I meant plague."

Remember though people, you can work in there that aging is a disease with out directly saying so, and get much less resistance by doing it. Its basics again are,

"Damages and afflictions that are just like the forms of damage and affliction that cause aging have already been worked on with success. In other words, agings number has been drawn and now its not a matter of "can we?" we can, its now just a matter of time, a matter of how long it takes for us to get people like you to join this budding cause and support it."

The new imminst pamphlet uses this method of working to get through to people for anybody interested, please do spread that, and continue to add tools like these to your arsenals.

#19 JJN

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 18
  • Location:.

Posted 18 February 2010 - 12:57 AM

Hmm, good one. I wonder why I hadnt thought of that. When people say, "Its not a disease!" You can say, "Oh, sorry, your right, I meant plague."

Remember though people, you can work in there that aging is a disease with out directly saying so, and get much less resistance by doing it. Its basics again are,

"Damages and afflictions that are just like the forms of damage and affliction that cause aging have already been worked on with success. In other words, agings number has been drawn and now its not a matter of "can we?" we can, its now just a matter of time, a matter of how long it takes for us to get people like you to join this budding cause and support it."

The new imminst pamphlet uses this method of working to get through to people for anybody interested, please do spread that, and continue to add tools like these to your arsenals.


Hehe, I beat your post by 1 minute...

Where is this pamphlet by the way? Forgive me, I'm too lazy to do a lot of searching for it. Would be good to have a pointer to it here.

We really are on the cusp of beating ageing as a disease. It *will* happen in the near future (maybe 25-50 years or something). I guess the trick is, in all of the life extension activities, be it definite or indefinite, is to 'bring it forward' as much as possible. Many who are passionate about it view it as a matter of life and death. And if it is technically feasible to attain, and it is, then it truly is a matter of life and death.

I need to read and think a lot more about what Imminst does to help things along. I know that public awareness and advocacy is extremely important. I don't know the wisdom of hitting people with the immortality gambit, or if something more sublime is called for. SENS seems to take the more "Not afraid of confrontation approach". Some will be reached that way, but some are turned off by it. I imagine the efforts, as most things are, will be some sort of mishmash. People can contribute in different ways to achieve a given goal.

#20 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 18 February 2010 - 02:59 AM

disease? I would consider it a plague.

ditto

#21 JJN

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 18
  • Location:.

Posted 19 February 2010 - 10:42 PM

Maybe another way to describe a deathist is using the real term fatalist. It currently means someone who is submitting to fate, but maybe we could stretch it to mean those who accept fatal terms in their lives as well...

I do understand the term deathist. For some reason, there are people who think that death is a good thing, gives the lives we have more meaning and so on. Blah blah, I think it is just a bunch of rationalizing, not seeing that there may be an alternative, or even trying to see the future possibilities, or even, it seems to me, recognising that the past increase in human lifespan has given more value to life. I do suspect though, that there really are not many devout deathists, per se.

Life extension, in general, will grow by leaps and bounds in the coming decades. There will be those who won't accept it until it is a fait accompli. Then, I think they will change their minds, if they're not insane :)

P.S. I wanted to start a discussion about the different types of people that can be reached, and how they can be reached by various means. Luna had mentioned that "It needs to be tailored for each person in special... ", and I think it is generally true. There are different types of people in the world. Some think in terms of logic, or sequence, or verbal, or visual-spatial, and so on. I think most fit into the verbal/logical/sequential types. Immortalists, in general, are probably more of the visual-spatial 'dreamer' types. Ah, I'm outta steam at the moment, but I think this may have some relevance... I'm not sure how to make it 'go viral' as Brokenportal mentions.

Edited by JJN, 19 February 2010 - 11:14 PM.


#22 Arcanyn

  • Guest
  • 54 posts
  • 31

Posted 20 February 2010 - 10:20 AM

so, this guy says "ageing is not a disease, since a disease is defined as an abnormal condition of an organism"


In the 14th century, being infected with bubonic plague was normal - so by that definition, bubonic plague wasn't a disease back then. Basically the idea seems to be "if enough people have a condition, suddenly its not a disease"

Although aging is probably best not considered to be a single disease, but rather a collection of diseases with related causes.

eg.
Progressive skin degeneration syndrome; all afflicted with this disease suffer a progressive decline in the condition of their skin. It loses elasticity, becomes more susceptible to cancer, and becomes a less effective barrier at preventing infection.
Immune deterioration syndrome; causes the body to produce lesser quantities of white blood cells.
Chronic cardiovascular degeneration; arteries become less elastic and more prone to blockages. People suffering from this illness become increasingly prone to heart attacks and strokes.
etc.

When you think about it, most of the major diseases which cause the most deaths per year are ultimately as a consequence of aging; how many people get heart attacks, strokes, Alzheimer's and cancer in their 20s? Finding a solution to aging is the best strategy for dealing with these conditions, as it would almost completely eradicate them.

#23 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 20 February 2010 - 02:17 PM

The best argument is the 'product of nature' one. The first defense of deathists is that 'it is a natural process'. This stupid logic completely ignores the fact that we too are products of nature and as such our products (such as anti-aging, life extension therapies) are also products of nature, for better or worse. This argument usually puzzles them and makes them shut up, realizing they have no grounding.

Edited by TheFountain, 20 February 2010 - 02:17 PM.


#24 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 20 February 2010 - 02:21 PM

Also, you could mention to the deathists that many age-related diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, what-not, used to be thought of as "natural". In the past


A typical deathist response to this would be to point out that the disease itself, whilst being natural, should not be dealt with by a cure (or unnatural product of humanity). The best argument for this and the one I find shuts them up the most is to state that, considering that humanity is also a product of nature so are our products (disease cure, etc) products of nature. And then to clarify this to them one would state how not all products of nature are pleasant, and that indeed, some do kill, such as tsunamis, earthquakes etc. Therefor we as a species must take the good with the bad as we discover and invent. This is the only thing that shuts them up in my experience.

Edited by TheFountain, 20 February 2010 - 02:22 PM.


#25 ArgusEritaramis

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 February 2010 - 08:07 AM

It doesnt matter if age is a disease or not, it doesnt matter if aging is natural or not.
Aging is damn inconvenient and unpleasant.

Clothing is not something we are born with, yet we wear it because the very natural thing called freezing is damn inconvenient and unpleasant.
So anyone feeling so strongly that we should not meddle in the natural order of things should immediately strip naked.

Also the argument that man should not meddle in the lifespan of mankind due to various reasons - well thats a bit late, we already extend life a lot, through things such as penicillin, surgery and basic hygeine.
Anyone thinking that it is bad to extend a life beyond what it would naturally be, should refrain from accepting any medication, and basically live like we would in the stone age. Pre-stone age, actually, since it could be argued that using any kind of tools is augmenting our natural abillities, and must therefore be bad.

Modern medicine is about letting humans live as comfortably as possible for as long as possible, to postpone death for as long as possible, and preferably letting people live pleaseant wholesome lives at the same time.

So... back to how to stop an argument about aging.

"We should not try to stop aging because aging is natural."
"freezing is natural, and dying from pneumonia is natural, when you cant get the unnatural penicillin - please remove all your clothes and get out of this unnatural manmade construction called a house."

"We should not call aging a disease, and therefore not seek to cure it"
"freezing is not a disease, but i prefer to stay warm, thankyou - disease or problem, its unpleasant and unconvenient, and should be stopped."

"Aging is not a disease"
"Neither is getting your head cut off with a chainsaw, but I'd like to avoid that too, thank you very much. Semantics aside, you can call it anything you like, its still going to kill you in the end, if we dont fix it first. Me, im going to call it a disease to put things in perspective."

"Aging is not a disease, aging is good for you and brings wisdom"
"Maybe its just the living longer that brings wisdom, I think I will try that first, and then we can compare notes."

#26 MoodyBlue

  • Guest
  • 144 posts
  • 13
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 03 March 2010 - 11:55 PM

Some people might have the perception and therefore make the argument that if everyone who was ever born lived forever, there would eventually be no room left for new people to live were they to be born. I realize that argument can be countered by claiming that with future technology it likely will become possible for humans to travel to other inhabitable planets in the universe and to populate those. Of course, then while taking eternity into consideration, and presuming that not only is space infinite but that there are also an infinite number of stars and planets scattered thoughout space, it would allow for everyone who is ever born between now and an endless future eternity to have plenty of space to live. Now, it gets more complex from here, because as Stephen Hawking said in his "A Brief History of Time", infinity is the most difficult thing to think about.

Firstly, if let's say the earth were the only planet throughout infinite space with life on it, and there were an infinite number of them which could be populated by humans (and eventually by whatever humans might evolve as), that would allow for a finite population to endlessly increase in numbers without limit. However, the number of them could never reach infinity because it still would take time to procreate, and no matter what the future increased population were is size (which means the rate of increase would increase exponentially, i.e. the acceleration of population increase would through time have a second derivative, which would then have a third derivative, and would keep gaining another derivative of the former derivative without limit except that there would not ever be an infinite number of derivatives at any point of time). It would only continue to approach infinity without limit.

Secondly, if there are a finite number of other planets in an infinite universe which are presenly populated with humanoid life, or it will evolve in the future, the same basic principle applies as above. The population would always be finite and have an infinite amount of space to increase endlessly.

The third thing to consider if a bit mind boggling. What if there are already an infinite number of planets (though an unknown percentage of all of the infinite number of planets) which have humanoid types of populations? Look at it from the point of view of an infinitely long one dimensional line to make it easier to picture. If there were inhabitable planets spaced along this line 1000 light years apart and 1% of them were populated, that would mean that an infinite number would be populated (one percent of an infinite quantity is an infinite quantity) and an infinite quantity 99 times as great would be available for an infinite number of humanoid to populate endlessly throughout a future eternity without ever running out of room for more.

This brings to mind the big question of "What is the purpose of life?". If we only exist to ensure the survival of the species, but no individual member of the


To be continued!

#27 rollo

  • Guest
  • 205 posts
  • -6

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:41 PM

Aging is not a disease.

It's the breakdown of a any living organism; we simply did not evolve to live forever.

Crying about how unpleasant it can be, won't change the fact that it is a natural process that all living things go through.

Trying to prevent or delay aging, and whether it's desirable to do so, are completely different matters.

#28 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:56 PM

rollo is right (though I guess that depending on the definitions of disease, you may say that aging is a disease or not)

#29 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 05 March 2010 - 08:56 PM

Death is natural, and I'm sure I'll die. Just as we've already extended life, there is much to do in the world to help end inequality and get some of the billions out of poverty. We also have a long way to go with our science to end aging-but we are are working on it. If I get further life through cryonics happening to work, or some breakthrough before my natural legal (but not information) death--then I'll still give back to the world, or other worlds in what way I see as possible or useful. Every since I was a young child I've had a lot of empathy for other living creatures, as I grew my world view expanded--I give 5% of my income to non-profits, and volunteer my time in various ways (by helping moms with breastfeeding, helping at my kids' school, educating kids and spreading awareness of life extension and future tech). I also feel that promoting nano-tech, bio-tech and info-tech will help end some of the extreme problems humanity has--not just the wealthy nations.

#30 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 16 March 2010 - 06:01 PM

Crying about how unpleasant it can be, won't change the fact that it is a natural process that all living things go through.



So true.

But action will.

combat the prevailing uninformed state on the nature of aging in the public by helping discuss the development of this plan
volunteer at imminst
volunteer at mfoundation
donate money,
help the new fundraiser system become complete
help show growing support by becoming a member
enter the Imminst writing contest
help keep important topics in circulation by filtering your active topics
keep literature to give out in your car at all times and even things from the store
help recruit people
develop a positive attitude toward making a difference and spread it
help lobby the government
do undergraduate research for the cause help imminst develop this proposal to facilitate the expansion of strategies to fight aging and support for them all.
stay informed and up to date.
and many many other things.


But by all means, your right, please dont cry. We desperately are screaming, dying, fighting for the need for that energy elsewhere.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users