Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti-aging has nothing more to do with immortality than does, say, curing a particular disease. Aging is only one of many causes of death; if we solve that one, there's still heart disease, stroke, getting hit by a bus...
I can't recall the source (probably a special on the Science channel or somesuch), but I heard that if we "cured" aging and no one died from getting old, that the average lifespan would be between 1.5k and 2.5k years where one would die of an accident or disease. I'd take my chances with that :)
Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
161–170 of 243 posts
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Personally, I’ve been hearing all my life about the Serious Philosophical Issues posed by life extension, and my attitude has always been that I’m willing to grapple with those issues for as many centuries as it takes.” -Patrick Hayden
It's funny, I have a friend who is a full-time professional philosopher (teaches at a university) and you would not believe the amount of earnest essay writing there was in the philosophy community about Miley Cyrus's performance at the VMAs (something I've not actually seen myself). All sorts of theories about Freud and Hegel and this and that. Look Philos, I said to him, she got up on stage and did a little dance a…
You'd be surprised. A lot of pulp philosophy is indeed crap.
But most peoples lives, and the systems we structure our everyday and working lives on, are analysed, to a T, from various angles, and found lacking and wanting.
And when you find you are being crashed by those systems (as people eventually do), or that they don't work properly, there's a philosophical explanation of their workings written 100 or 2000 years ago that's perfectly logical.
To put it in another way, reading into (good) philosophy, is like reading the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programmers among Java people struggling with Java EE in early 2000, and understanding things from 10 levels higher and also that there are far better ways to go about it.
Oh, and no, good philosophy is not just about technicalities of reality and understanding, like Hume or Kant or Quine etc -- the only kind some geeks will accept. Regular moral, political, ontological, existencial etc philosophy, with seemingly "imprecise" language, is just as isnightful in other ways, if you spend the time to understand it.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny, I have a friend who is a full-time professional philosopher (teaches at a university) and you would not believe the amount of earnest essay writing there was in the philosophy community about Miley Cyrus's performance at the VMAs (something I've not actually seen myself). All sorts of theories about Freud and Hegel and this and that. Look Philos, I said to him, she got up on stage and did a little dance a…
More accurately, professional philosophers don't have any particular standing to discuss "serious philosophical issues." At any point in the discussion on whether people have a right to die, or whether it was ok to use tissue from aborted fetuses for stem cell research or whether we need universal health care, has anyone ever asked, "Well, what do the philosophers think?" (I have nothing against philosophers, btw. I…
Yes, many people. In civilised countries that are not all about "pop culture" and where science is not supposed to be half about marketing stuff to people -- people very much care what philosophers think about those issues.
In fact, what people care is what THEY think about those issues (that is, they want to make up their mind).
In this context, philosophers are essentially just more devoted thinkers, with a better command of the history of ideas, so people use them as guides.
Now, in the US, it's mostly pop culture, low quality op-eds and marketing/advertising driving the popular understanding of such matters.
I guess the equivalent would be NYT best-seller non fiction books (still, quite a low standard).
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#164As for $50K/Day price tag, it makes it loud and clear, this drug is for the filthy riches at least for couple of years, my average joe and jenny will remain old and ugly. :/
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny, I have a friend who is a full-time professional philosopher (teaches at a university) and you would not believe the amount of earnest essay writing there was in the philosophy community about Miley Cyrus's performance at the VMAs (something I've not actually seen myself). All sorts of theories about Freud and Hegel and this and that. Look Philos, I said to him, she got up on stage and did a little dance a…
The flip side to that argument is that right now life is short, and so I try and fit as many wonderful experiences into it as I can. If life were long I could put everything off until tomorrow. And that doesn't sound good to me.
What would happen to religion? Do you choose to continue aging, die, and take your chances with the heaven you've been saying exists, or do you take the new pill, and live forever? If you take the pill, what does that say about your faith in the afterlife?
Do we fear death even more? If I'm going to die in a few decades of old age as my health deteriorates, I might as well enjoy my prime, and take some risks now. If I die, well, no big deal, I was going to die soon enough anyway. If I'm married, 60 years old, and my wife dies, that would be a sad day, but let's not kid ourselves, we're getting old. If your grandma passes away, well, it was her time, she lived a long life.
But, if we live forever, we fear those accidents. If your wife dies in a plane crash age 60, how does that affect you? You might have expected to spend the next ten thousand years together, and she's gone. Do we stop taking these risks? Do I step in a car, or on a plane? I'm willing to take that risk now, but if I knew I could potentially live forever, I wouldn't want to risk dying with so much time still remaining.
Do we enter the world of virtual reality? Why leave my home, I could get hit by lightning, I could get shot walking down the street, hit by a car, or attacked by animals. Why don't I lock myself in an underground bunker facility, and connect to the world through virtual reality? I toss on the goggles, and I enter the VR world where I meet with friends and family, and go on wild adventures, because I can take these risks in the VR world. If I die, I respawn. My body is safe in the bunker, while I pretend to be outside.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#166Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny, I have a friend who is a full-time professional philosopher (teaches at a university) and you would not believe the amount of earnest essay writing there was in the philosophy community about Miley Cyrus's performance at the VMAs (something I've not actually seen myself). All sorts of theories about Freud and Hegel and this and that. Look Philos, I said to him, she got up on stage and did a little dance a…
More accurately, professional philosophers don't have any particular standing to discuss "serious philosophical issues." At any point in the discussion on whether people have a right to die, or whether it was ok to use tissue from aborted fetuses for stem cell research or whether we need universal health care, has anyone ever asked, "Well, what do the philosophers think?" (I have nothing against philosophers, btw. I…
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
Actually, before we started to "poop in the hole", the rates of infectious diseases were way lower.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
if they are successful (which I hope they are) then we're talking about pushing back retirement until 90 or maybe 95 right? Which I would be totally OK with. Imagine how much more scientific progress we could make if we had 70-year veterans of their field with the sharp mind of a 27-year-old!
Is that the goal of life? Incessant scientific progress?