Axing Aging
Aubrey de Grey is an age theorist and gene database manager at Cambridge University. He's currently placing himself at the centre of a scientific maelstrom with his theories on staving off the natural process of aging. In his own words, the purpose of his work is "to expedite the development of a true cure for human aging." He elaborates by saying that the ultimate goal of his SENS ("Engineered Negligible Senescence") initiative is "the availability to the entire human race of technology that will restore them to whatever degree of youth they desire and keep them there for as long as they want."
De Grey has answers for absolutely every counter-argument that can be raised, and he details every single one of them on his site. Some of them are very serious, many are very thought-provoking, and one of them, is just plain humourous. When dealing with the supposed problem of tyrants being able to live for far too many years, de Grey's response is "Tyrants who aren't aging can be assassinated just as easily as tyrants who are aging..." Questions about whether or not we could ever afford to retire; the technology being available only to the rich; and if escaping the natural process of aging is playing God are all handled by de Grey as easily as a toddler playing with their favourite toy.
The last objection "is possibly the most absurd of all" says de Grey, since humankind has always worked to change themselves and their environment when they were unhappy with either. Certainly, he is right on that count. Ever since our species has walked the earth, it has been natural, for instance, for us to freeze to death in extreme cold, and yet I doubt that very many people think of themselves as playing God when they turn on their furnaces in the winter.
A major problem at the moment is that medical science's advances in what de Grey terms "the war on aging" are doing little more than prolonging the years of frailty, and the suffering through those years that seniors might have to do before current technology is forced to allow them to die. He posits intriguing theories about the possibility of doing away with frailty altogether.
De Grey feels sure that we are poised on the brink of making the discoveries necessary to begin nudging the age of our demise upward. He "pluck(s) the number 1,000 out of the air" as the upward age limit we could perhaps reach. It's just all too much for me to get my mind around, to be honest. What do you think?
I do know one thing, however. There is one concern that de Grey has not addressed on his site, or in his theorizing. If we do reach such ages, where will we get a cake big enough to hold 1,000 candles, and how will we get them all lit without the first ones burning out before we get to the last ones?
De Grey has answers for absolutely every counter-argument that can be raised, and he details every single one of them on his site. Some of them are very serious, many are very thought-provoking, and one of them, is just plain humourous. When dealing with the supposed problem of tyrants being able to live for far too many years, de Grey's response is "Tyrants who aren't aging can be assassinated just as easily as tyrants who are aging..." Questions about whether or not we could ever afford to retire; the technology being available only to the rich; and if escaping the natural process of aging is playing God are all handled by de Grey as easily as a toddler playing with their favourite toy.
The last objection "is possibly the most absurd of all" says de Grey, since humankind has always worked to change themselves and their environment when they were unhappy with either. Certainly, he is right on that count. Ever since our species has walked the earth, it has been natural, for instance, for us to freeze to death in extreme cold, and yet I doubt that very many people think of themselves as playing God when they turn on their furnaces in the winter.
A major problem at the moment is that medical science's advances in what de Grey terms "the war on aging" are doing little more than prolonging the years of frailty, and the suffering through those years that seniors might have to do before current technology is forced to allow them to die. He posits intriguing theories about the possibility of doing away with frailty altogether.
De Grey feels sure that we are poised on the brink of making the discoveries necessary to begin nudging the age of our demise upward. He "pluck(s) the number 1,000 out of the air" as the upward age limit we could perhaps reach. It's just all too much for me to get my mind around, to be honest. What do you think?
I do know one thing, however. There is one concern that de Grey has not addressed on his site, or in his theorizing. If we do reach such ages, where will we get a cake big enough to hold 1,000 candles, and how will we get them all lit without the first ones burning out before we get to the last ones?
1 Comments:
A lot of his critics think he's out to lunch. I don't think he should hold out hopes of immortality in his lifetime though. For some reason, the prospect of living forever scares a lot of people. I'm not sure why. I wouldn't mind. Immortality also doesn't mean we won't die -- I think if we become immortal, we may end up placing a higher value on life, because then it will really dawn on people that this is the only life you have. Just one. Screw it up and it's gone. It may also serve to give some people chances to relive their lives -- do things differently, etc. Psychologically, we would have quite the hurdle to surpass before immortality becomes a way of life. I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime -- and there I agree with de Grey. It's a crime that I won't have that chance. Murder actually.
Post a Comment
<< Home