Open Letter Calling for Engineering Negligible Senecence!

[elfs]

54 scientist working in the biomedical field have signed a letter calling upon the rest of the research community to take seriously the project of engineering a neglible senecence. Instead of tackling diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimers, etc., we should go to the root of the problem and figure out why the body doesn't repair itself. Instead of looking for a cure for cancer, we should understand why the body's cellular mechanisms fail and intervene early.

We sometimes hear about "premature death," but the fact is all deaths are premature: almost everyone has something more to offer.

Comments

[omahas.livejournal.com]

...we should go to the root of the problem and figure out why the body doesn't repair itself.

Why doesn't the body repair itself in all cases? Because if it did, we wouldn't have 6 billion people on this planet. We would have 6 trillion trillion trillion people on this planet.

In a completely overpopulated planet, no one has anything to offer...except for misery.

[mo-hair.livejournal.com]

yeah, ixnay on all that immortality talk. it sounds like a fascinating scientific challenge, but if we can't figure how to live on this planet in a sustainable manner with it's current populace, then i don't think we should be mucking about with immortality.

[voidrandom.livejournal.com]

Why would you want to stay here?

[talek.livejournal.com]

Why do you think there'd be sufficient resources to get even a small fraction of the people off the planet?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I'm curious to know how you make a moral distinction between (a) "It's good that we cured smallpox, because before we did the average lifespan was 30 years. Now we live much longer." and (b) "It's bad if we we extend our lifespan beyond our current 100 years because there'll be too many people. Peoples shouldn't live that long."

[omahas.livejournal.com]

1) I don't believe anyone actually said that "it's good that we cured smallpox, because before we did the average lifespan was 30 years. Now we live much longer."

2) There is a big difference between "Yea! Now we live past 100 years!" and "Yea! Now we live forever, and no one will die, but we'll continue to breed!"

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Your second is a false dichotomy. We're talking about diseases (not bacteria, germs, viri, cancers, gene failures, but diseases, a word that has a very specific definition), and searching for the cures for them. The quest for cures inevitably leads to a prolongation of life; at some tipping point, the rate at which diseases are cured will overwhelm the rate at which they do damage, and we will effectively have a population that can live as long as it desires, barring accident or violence.

As I understand your argument, the consequence of easing people's pain and suffering is, ultimately, a bad thing. So where will you draw the line, and which forms of pain and suffering would you like to persist to avoid this "bad thing"?

[omahas.livejournal.com]

Your second is a false dichotomy. We're talking about diseases (not bacteria, germs, viri, cancers, gene failures, but diseases, a word that has a very specific definition), and searching for the cures for them.

So, what you are saying is that you believe that no one ever dies from body part failure (in other words, the body part is simply too old and cannot function anymore, not because it has been affected by any outside source like disease)?

I'm afraid you know nothing about the realities of growing old love. Do a little research.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

It would need a whole string of miracles for this to make any difference to me, but there are parents reading this who have smart kids, curious as all heck, who might be able to use an extended lifespan.

And it does seem that sopcieties react to the perception of a reduced need for children. Life expectancy goes up, and birth rate goes down.

I may be some sort of cock-eyed optimist, and there are a lot of things that could make life hell for the next generation, but I don't think life extension is likely to happen soon enough or quickly enough to matter. And if there ends up a pool of long-lived, well-educated people, maybe that's our civilisation's Encyclopedia Galactica.

Immortality as the prize for winning Scrapheap Challenge?

The solution may be within the problem.

[laplor.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that if humans had a reasonable expectation to live long enough to see the results, it might be easier to justify investment in very long term projects. Projects like creating actually viable alternatives to fossil fuels; finding ways to get required food to those of us who are here now; establishing places to live in currently uninhabitable areas of our planet, in space, or on other planets.

For now, nobody seems to be able to justify the huge gambles required. I'm not necessarily saying that colonizing is a good thing, but it does seem to be what we do when we feel a bit crowded.

[talek.livejournal.com]

For me, death is a religious issue. Specifically, I believe that the cycle of life should be maintained... and the cycle includes death. Trying to eliminate death is literally heretical for me.

I can give all sorts of reasons why it's good for people to die: giving opportunity to the younger generations, supporting progress by elimination of the old guard, making resources available for other people, etc. But those are all just distractions from my fundamental religious position. As I'm not generally one to proselytize, I've gotten out of the habit of arguing the issue.