Human life extension vs. Self-loathing
Aspirant
Somewhere along the line and very early on, we self-conscious creatures
made some inevitable observations about our existence. It is painful to
come in to, for both mother and child, and it is generally painful to
leave (and can take a long and torturous time), for the individual and
everyone else who's left. The stuff that happens in between birth and
death is, for many, like a hen house ladder: short and covered with
crap. Of course, a significant amount of that crap is what we
unnecessarily inflict upon each other, but that's another topic.
Since there seemed to be so little (if anything) we could do about it,
we mistakenly concluded that this was all somehow our own fault, a
punishment inflicted upon us by some creator(s) for something very bad
that we had done a long time ago. Accepting this as fact then became a
societal imperative, and a sign of having achieved adulthood, maturity,
a cold and realistic view of the "nature" of life on this planet.
Accepting this view then became a point of pride.
The very prospect, the mere suggestion, of the extension of the human
lifespan on a scale that Aubrey de Grey says is possible and worth
persuing results in reactions from some people which reveal how deeply
they actually loath themselves, their own lives, and the rest of
humanity as a whole. This is one profound reason for the vociferous
objections to de Grey's ideas.
The reactions of Nuland, Pontin, Hayflick, and countless others, reveal
such individuals for what they really are: people acting upon a
fundamental, archaic self-loathing that they have accepted, and
consider part of their virtue, experience, and expertise. This is to
say nothing of the financial investment they have in things staying
more or less the way they already are, but that, again, is another
topic.
Any thoughts?
Curious
> Submitted for approval, or disapproval, as the case may be:
May i suggest you try www.imminst.org 's forum? There are many receptive
listeners there interested in debate of tangential nature. also
www.betterhumans.com is a nice place to discuss more philosophic topics.
I might be mistaken but the august readers of this newsgroup are rather
into the technicalities it would seem. (I have no problem with that, i
see it as practical view to achiev a long life enables you to profoundly
think on a long life with even some hands-on experience :-) )
Regards
Curious
--
I'll live forever or die trying
Aspirant
post an earlier email here asking about the appropriateness of more
philospohical topics, but no one replied to that one. It seemed like
there were a few of such here, but I could see that this board was of a
much more technical nature overall than I am close to comprehending at
this point.
I still ask, is there anything approximating a "Gerontology for
Dummies" resource(s) by which I might begin to get up to speed?
Anyway, thanks again.
Curious
> I still ask, is there anything approximating a "Gerontology for
> Dummies" resource(s) by which I might begin to get up to speed?
Well, try to read the stuff at www.sens.org though many will point out
it is reductionistic and flawed but that is open for discussion. I'd
just hang in and follow stuff for a while and consult google and
wikipedia a lot for everything you don't understand :-)
> Anyway, thanks again.
You are most welcome, i hope i have been of some assitence
No One
>
>I still ask, is there anything approximating a "Gerontology for
>Dummies" resource(s) by which I might begin to get up to speed?
>
The Life Extension Revolution : The New Science of Growing Older
Without Aging (Paperback)
by Philip Lee Miller, Monica Reinagel