Undoing Aging

[jp1]

I don't do the quote for quote response thing. Let me just address a couple things.

I never said anything that even remotely resembles an assertion that you shouldn't have the right to grow to be as old as you want. Embrace that change if you like, it's no dirt off my shoulder. I was simply stating my outlook on it.

Living infinitely or for extremely long periods of time removes the challenges of life because you have enough time to reach the pinnacle of your potential without the downfall of mistakes holding you back. Losing a decade for being stupid with your choices for instance would not be much of a deal in a lifespan extrapolated by potentially thousands of years. In theory you could reach the level of excess in such a short period of time (comparatively) that you would find the same tedium as those who live with it now. Hence the comparison.

I'm not saying that I can't see any potential benefits to an extension of our life, I'm simply saying they aren't for me. I have no romanticism towards such an idea because it defies all the things I find romantic. It's simply a personal choice. I have religious reservations as well, but I'll leave those out of it. Like most anything I support other peoples freedom of choice in the matter.

The statement you said does not seem to fit about the envy of the rich was in place to directly correlate with the following bit of the same statement. In so much as when we are afforded more time, it will be appreciated less. It's the nature of things.

Lastly, you seem to take this all very personally. Perhaps I'm off base on that, but just in case. I understand you are passionate about it, but I'm simply throwing in my two cents on the matter. I didn't say they were worth more than anyone else's.

Please don't see my own personal beliefs as a direct adversarial stance against yours, that is not my intention at all.

[Overload]

I never said anything that even remotely resembles an assertion that you shouldn't have the right to grow to be as old as you want. Embrace that change if you like, it's no dirt off my shoulder. I was simply stating my outlook on it.

Not explicitly, but it's what's implied when you make arguments on an objective basis as opposed to personal desire, but then again, it's not like you really want to get sick, so the only way to defend your position is to make half-hearted attempts at an objective argument.

Living infinitely or for extremely long periods of time removes the challenges of life because you have enough time to reach the pinnacle of your potential without the downfall of mistakes holding you back.

But it doesn't, because there are always going to be new problems to solve, new fields of study, new skills to master. Master one field, and you can pick up something else with the benefit of prior knowledge, which brings insights only available to someone coming from that other field of study. It'll mean a wider cross-pollination of ideas.

Why is being held back by mistakes a good thing?

Losing a decade for being stupid with your choices for instance would not be much of a deal in a lifespan extrapolated by potentially thousands of years.

Why is this a bad thing? If anything, it means we can afford to make more mistakes, to explore more avenues, learn more. You're saying that a bigger penalty for our mistakes is somehow better?

In theory you could reach the level of excess in such a short period of time (comparatively) that you would find the same tedium as those who live with it now. Hence the comparison.

There's no excess of life, because it's not something you own, because there's no "you" without it. There are only excesses of things IN life. If it's just about boredom, I'd rather be bored than dead.

I'm not saying that I can't see any potential benefits to an extension of our life, I'm simply saying they aren't for me.

Are cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease for you? Are you honestly telling me you'd choose to suffer those illnesses if given the choice not to? And it's not like it's a choice you make once, because these treatments would be periodically applied, so if you really wanted to, you could choose to continue your march toward ill health.

I have no romanticism towards such an idea because it defies all the things I find romantic. It's simply a personal choice.

You don't have to romanticize it, but at least admit that you prefer to be in a state of good health to ill healthy. You're focusing too much on "how long" when it's more about health. Again, the point of rallying against aging is because there needs to be a shift in how the illnesses of old age are treated, to prevention.

The statement you said does not seem to fit about the envy of the rich was in place to directly correlate with the following bit of the same statement. In so much as when we are afforded more time, it will be appreciated less. It's the nature of things.

Don't people generally appreciate life more the older they get? As we experience more highs and lows, we can begin to see larger patterns. A child's toy breaks, and it's the worst thing he's ever experienced. Your concern is not invalid, but I think it's more a matter of individual personality than a general rule, and certainly not a worse fate than aging.

Lastly, you seem to take this all very personally. Perhaps I'm off base on that, but just in case. I understand you are passionate about it, but I'm simply throwing in my two cents on the matter. I didn't say they were worth more than anyone else's.

Please don't see my own personal beliefs as a direct adversarial stance against yours, that is not my intention at all.

Your personal desire to live however long or to be however healthy wouldn't matter to me if we already had that choice, but because we don't, it does matter to me when people actively argue against the development of these medicines. It's one thing to say you'd personally not make that choice if given the opportunity (which is doubtful), but it's another entirely to say things about how life would be appreciated less, that an "excess" of life is bad. Those are arguments that try to justify the existence of aging, not your personal desire to age. What you should be saying is "I would appreciate life less if I lived longer, so I choose to die" (though that would sound ridiculous [and for good reason], which is why you never hear it phrased that way, an instead passed off as a universal truth). That's what irks me, because it pulls me into the whirlpool. It's similar to how anti-vaxxers see what they're doing as personal choice, but their decision is allowing things like measles to resurface. But then again, it is in my best interest to convince you to want to remain alive and healthy because it would turn you from either an active hindrance or passive observer to an active progressor, and that's good for everyone, because at least those of us that want to have that choice will get to choose, while those who wouldn't make that choice in the first place lose nothing.


I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll leave it at that.

[jp1]

Ok, well I'm not sure what else to add. If you are going to turn my responses into "universal truths" or statements of fact when I've already asserted they are personal preference, I can't really make any headway.

I am not looking to actively hinder you from prolonging your life, and of course I want to remain healthy during my remaining life...who wouldn't? The fact that I do not wish to prolong it past it's natural progression really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is a valid choice for you. I'm sorry I don't word things in a satisfactory manner for you though. Generally when I'm talking about matters of preference I feel like the intent is implied. If I was arguing a moral issue with you, perhaps I could see your point.

I see nothing morally or even philosophically wrong with your opinions on the matter. I do think it is a bit of a slippery slope to point fingers of blame about casting aspersions when you are posting in a very "matter of fact" manner about issues that are not universal truths.

Which part of me not wanting to live to be five hundred years old bothers you? That is what I am honestly baffled by. You see, I have personal beliefs on the matter which I have made a very specific point not to bring into the conversation, because they have no place in the discussion and I don't feel entitled to push them on you. Also, comparisons to people who refuse vaccinations are invalid as they are not only putting themselves in harms way but the health of public at large. If I choose to turn away artificial methods of prolonging my life past it's natural limit, I am not placing any sort of inconvenience on you at all.

[Overload]

Ok, well I'm not sure what else to add. If you are going to turn my responses into "universal truths" or statements of fact when I've already asserted they are personal preference, I can't really make any headway.

Fair enough. Perhaps I too quickly jumped to that conclusion based on dozens of others I've talked to.

I am not looking to actively hinder you from prolonging your life, and of course I want to remain healthy during my remaining life...who wouldn't?

That's just not possible, because there's no such thing as healthy aging. Aging is, by definition, degeneration. If we were healthy, we wouldn't die. You seem to view aging as something separate from health, something immutable. That's just false.

The fact that I do not wish to prolong it past it's natural progression really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is a valid choice for you.

Don't you realize that this exact argument is made against every single new medicine and technology? History repeats itself. Where do you draw the line between natural and unnatural? How is anything we do separate from nature? Do think it's God's will for us to get sick and die when we do? Aren't we supposed to have free will? Are those working to remedy the situation working against God's plan? Isn't God's plan infallible? Wouldn't anything we do be part of it? Occam's razor. God doesn't need to enter the equation.

I see nothing morally or even philosophically wrong with your opinions on the matter. I do think it is a bit of a slippery slope to point fingers of blame about casting aspersions when you are posting in a very "matter of fact" manner about issues that are not universal truths.

The only universal truth I need to invoke is that we'd all prefer to remain healthy, and that aging robs us of our loved ones and our own lives and opportunities. We're not above this desire to live. It's been programmed into us for millenia. We can pretend we're okay with dying, but when faced with an immediate threat, we fight for our lives. If we get sick, and there's a medicine available to remedy the illness, we take it.

Which part of me not wanting to live to be five hundred years old bothers you? That is what I am honestly baffled by.

It's because I don't think you're being honest. I think you just can't admit that you'd rather not die. Not necessarily because of anything you've said in this thread, but because I've had this exact conversation countless times and have noticed commonalities, and even more so because you contradict yourself every time you utilize modern medicine. I want to know how you distinguish between natural and unnatural medicine.

Also, comparisons to people who refuse vaccinations are invalid as they are not only putting themselves in harms way but the health of public at large. If I choose to turn away artificial methods of prolonging my life past it's natural limit, I am not placing any sort of inconvenience on you at all.

It's not so much that you'd choose not to take the medicines if they already existed, because that wouldn't affect my choice to do so, it's that I don't think you'd really make the choice you claim you would, for reasons I mentioned above. I think you only see it as "unnatural" because you need to be okay with not having that choice. I think you believe what you're saying though, so don't think I'm calling you a liar. It's an irrational belief that's rational to hold given the situation we find ourselves in. Patronizing as hell, I know.

If there were a pill that would guarantee a year of good health, that was freely available to all, that you could either choose at the end of every year to take or forgo, can you honestly tell me that you'd not take that pill even once? Can you directly answer this question with a no? If not for yourself, your loved ones? Do you have kids, by any chance?

And no offense, but not bringing your religious beliefs into it is kind of a cop-out. It's as if you know they're a weak spot, so you'd rather conceal them, but MrPoPo made probably the only point needed on that: What's the harm in living for as long as possible, even if you have an afterlife to look forward to?

[jp1]

So. You believe I am lying but I am unaware of it. As well as me showing you the respect of not shoving my beliefs in your face being a cop out. All because my entire outlook is invalidated due to the fact that (according to you) it is false?

Well, I guess nothing I can say will matter. Place me in that box of literally dozens of others that have given you a direct insight into my soul.

I'm being a smart ass of course. But damn, abrasive much guy? I've tried on several occasions to let this horse die peacefully.

I'll go ahead and ignore how condescending that last post was and quit while I'm behind. Good luck with eternal life brother.

[Overload]

What about your outlook did I saw was false? Are you referring to your religion? Why do you assume I'd consider your expounding on that to be the same as shoving it down my throat? I want to know where you're coming from, mainly what in your mind constitutes natural and unnatural. I also still haven't heard a direct answer to my hypothetical.

I could be less abrasive, but I don't have the patience/empathy, or at least it's not a priority to me in this type of setting. A character flaw, no doubt, but I can't help but feel that your calling me out on this and playing the "victim" card is a way to avoid answering the few direct questions that I've repeatedly asked, which are at the core of our difference in opinion. If you're not willing to engage me on those, then I'll stop here too.

[Exhuminator]

Perhaps a video game forum isn't the best place in the world to have this kind of discussion. I am sure there are other forums on the internet, which will be more than happy to debate you Overload, on this subject for pages and pages on end. Not telling you to get lost or anything! Please put this level of fervor into debating game design with us and I'm there with gusto.

If the only way to cure these (and all of the lesser known illnesses of old age) is to prevent them, thus leading to an indefinite lifespan, are you saying we shouldn't? Even though that is the majority consensus and everything points to it being true, answer that question as if it were a thought experiment. I want your answer.

I said I was done with this thread, and really I am! But I will give you this answer because I admire how passionate you are about this subject. But I truly am done with this thread after this post, no offense Overload, it's just totally gotten redundant in here.

My answer is, I do not believe it is wrong to prevent disease which kills people before they merely die of natural old age. Cancer kills children, AIDS kills children, diabetes kills children, and heart disease kills children, all before they have a chance to become elderly. At the same time, all of those diseases are not necessarily caused by mere age, but rather contributing factors which are not necessarily impended upon by simple chronological aggregation. Now, could anti-aging stop Alzheimer's? Probably, but so could avoiding the risk factors that are scientifically shown to contribute to its causation during a typical human lifespan. I know the typical human lifespan has gotten longer, but there accounts of humans living to be 100 years old in the far reaches of the past as well. So even though on average 35 years was the typical human death age, that's just an average. Folks living to be 70+ years was not uncommon even before modern medicine, it just wasn't as likely.

ANYWAY. For personal philosophical and spiritual reasons, I don't think living to be 500 years old is better than living to be 100 years old. It's not better for your actual soul, even if it's better for your fleshy vehicle's maintenance. For your soul it is entirely overkill, and ultimately retards the time you should spend beyond that on the next level of advancement. TOTALLY IMO, I know.

Now, I imagine you don't believe in a "soul" because science hasn't proved it yet. Well, perhaps if we spent even a quarter of the massive amount of money spent on espionage, the military industrial complex, and political campaigning, and instead put that quartered money towards developing specialized equipment to specifically test for the soul concept, we might get somewhere on that front scientifically. As it stands now, since the technology for proving a soul exists is even more complex than proving a higgs boson exists, it's just not happening any time soon. For now then, to know a soul exists requires personal experience, philosophical leanings, or pure aught faith. Well, I am not a religious person, so it was the former two for me.

You said that if you'd had personal experiences that could have lead you to believe in an afterlife, you would have turned to science to prove it's not true. Maybe you would! Or maybe you would try that like I did, but still not find adequate answers, and spend the next 18 years researching the hell out of what happened to you, only to find out the rabbit hole goes much deeper indeed. Ultimately after so much research, experiments with others, and interacting with incorporeal souls, you'd find that science actually doesn't know everything yet. Because sometimes universal truths are too obfuscated to so easily be demonstrable in a mere laboratory with trite repetition.

Yes I have reasons that I believe we are incarnated into this particular existence. My reasons are not rooted in science, they are rooted in experiences, occult research, and thought experiments which I've literally run through my mind while sitting on top of a mountain.

Because my reasons are not rooted in pure aught dry science, you will only find them wrong immediately, and dismiss them out of hand as pure ignorance. I'm not going to bother going down that road with you. No amount of arguing with you on a forum will change your mind on that front.

And I don't blame you! I once did not believe in an afterlife either. But after I moved into a very old house, alone out in deep woods, very non-scientific things happened to me I could not explain. They sent me down a very different path of thought. You haven't experienced this, so I can't blame you for thinking I'm just a superstitious imbecile.

I enjoy this because I get to refine my arguments and maybe this convinces someone reading it down the line.

Let me give you a bit of advice about that. Try having less of a condescending tone when you're debating a subject, even if it is one you're truly passionate about.

Truly if I wanted to spend the time, I could poke all kinds of holes in the things you responded to me with, which you clearly see as absolute truths, but are in fact mostly absolutely opinionated points of view. And in turn, you'd do the same to me, and on and on we'd ride that merry-go-round. I have better things to do, like play video games.

But I don't begrudge you for having your strong opinions, I am a king of strong opinions . Yet I am not so forward as to assume no one else could possibly be correct but myself about something. That sort of stance gets you nowhere in a hurry. And maybe I am totally wrong and there is no life beyond this one, I guess when I die it won't matter if I was wrong anyway. Nor would it matter if I had lived a 1000 years before I died either. It wouldn't matter for myself personally in that case. Because all I was, all I experienced, and everything I ever knew, would be just cosmic dust scattered across the galaxy. And if that's the case after all, so be it.

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
―Carl Sagan

[jp1]

What about your outlook did I saw was false? Are you referring to your religion? Why do you assume I'd consider your expounding on that to be the same as shoving it down my throat? I want to know where you're coming from, mainly what in your mind constitutes natural and unnatural. I also still haven't heard a direct answer to my hypothetical.

I could be less abrasive, but I don't have the patience/empathy, or at least it's not a priority to me in this type of setting. A character flaw, no doubt, but I can't help but feel that your calling me out on this and playing the "victim" card is a way to avoid answering the few direct questions that I've repeatedly asked, which are at the core of our difference in opinion. If you're not willing to engage me on those, then I'll stop here too.

What makes you think I am playing a "victim" card. I don't care if you have patience or empathy on the internet, nor do I care if you are condescending towards me. I find the exercise of having a discussion with you futile because you simply dismiss my opinions flippantly and without merit based on your limited experiences. You don't know anything about me, you don't know what I've lived through, you don't know what is true to me or what I believe. You simply make assumptions about my character and then with broad sweeping generalizations dismiss everything I say as weak or unfounded. I did not chime in so that I could be endlessly trying to prove my point of view to you. I stand by my posts, the truth behind them, and their validity (as applied to me).

You have been far more crass with me than I have with you, I'm happy to have you debate until you're blue in the face. I'm not accustomed to, nor am I willing to engage in a conversation in which I am talked down to by anyone. Let alone a twenty four year old. Yes, it is a dick move to pull that card, but as you so adamantly pointed out wisdom increases with age. Some of that wisdom may be treating people, even those on the internet, with a little bit of dignity and respect. I appreciate how passionate you are about the subject and I truly and sincerely wish you the best in your endeavor to prolong your life.

I'm not dodging any questions at all, I simply don't believe there is an answer I can give you that will be satisfactory or solicit any other response than mockery or condescension. I stated already my personal reasons for being satisfied with the cards I've been dealt, engaging in a debate about my religious beliefs is not something I'm going to entertain with you. I hope you can respect that.

[Overload]

My answer is, I do not believe it is wrong to prevent disease which kills people before they merely die of natural old age. Cancer kills children, AIDS kills children, diabetes kills children, and heart disease kills children, all before they have a chance to become elderly.

Never said they didn't, but they're more prevalent in older age for a reason, because they're the results of processes we all undergo. Some have detrimental mutations that make them get one or another at a younger age, while others have beneficial mutations that let them smoke like a chimney their entire lives and live to be 110+.

At the same time, all of those diseases are not necessarily caused by mere age, but rather contributing factors which are not necessarily impended upon by simple chronological aggregation. Now, could anti-aging stop Alzheimer's? Probably, but so could avoiding the risk factors that are scientifically shown to contribute to its causation during a typical human lifespan.

I'm sure we could reduce the likelihood of Alzheimer's with a healthier lifestyle, but we'd only be slowing it down. Eventually, if you live long enough, you're going to get it. Even around 30 we already have some of the plaque in our brains.

I just want to reiterate that there's no "mere age", or anti-aging treatments to cure Alzheimers, or disease x. Treatments to prevent Alzheimer's are what is meant "anti-aging" treatments. Anti-aging is just preventative and rejuvenative medicines into the various illnesses we develop over time. It's a whole board of treatments. But you're not willing to hear it from the experts, so I don't know why a layman like me is trying to convince you.

I know the typical human lifespan has gotten longer, but there accounts of humans living to be 100 years old in the far reaches of the past as well. So even though on average 35 years was the typical human death age, that's just an average. Folks living to be 70+ years was not uncommon even before modern medicine, it just wasn't as likely.

No disagreement here. I assume this is why you draw a distinction between natural an unnatural, while I see it as the next hill to climb.

Now, I imagine you don't believe in a "soul" because science hasn't proved it yet. Well, perhaps if we spent even a quarter of the massive amount of money spent on espionage, the military industrial complex, and political campaigning, and instead put that quartered money towards developing specialized equipment to specifically test for the soul concept, we might get somewhere on that front scientifically. As it stands now, since the technology for proving a soul exists is even more complex than proving a higgs boson exists, it's just not happening any time soon.

Science can only really disprove things, and the soul is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There's not enough to suggest to me there is a soul, while I do see a lot of evidence for consciousness being tied to the brain, such as personality changes after brain injury, or how days can go by in an instant if you're blacked out enough to not form any new memories. I see consciousness as an emergent property of a very complex biological system that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Money sure could be spent better.

You said that if you'd had personal experiences that could have lead you to believe in an afterlife, you would have turned to science to prove it's not true.

Not exactly. I just wouldn't be able to, myself, prove that they weren't just subjective experiences. The brain's capable of some neat tricks. Put someone in a sensory deprivation tank, and they'll begin to hallucinate within an hour.

Maybe you would! Or maybe you would try that like I did, but still not find adequate answers, and spend the next 18 years researching the hell out of what happened to you, only to find out the rabbit hole goes much deeper indeed.

I don't think I'd feel the need to find "answers" per say. Because there's no real way to prove the experiences are true, or false for that matter, I'd have to concede that it's not impossible, but I don't think I'd be confident in saying they definitely were. Any investigation into these subjective experiences, which cannot be objectively verified, would also be subjective. I'd be forced to live with the ambiguity, which imo is more interesting anyway.

Ultimately after so much research, experiments with others, and interacting with incorporeal souls, you'd find that science actually doesn't know everything yet. Because sometimes universal truths are too obfuscated to so easily be demonstrable in a mere laboratory with trite repetition.

Science doesn't know everything sure, but it doesn't claim to, either. Though some follow it like gospel, it's nothing more than a methodology to test what's "real." It works well in the practical world. There's a tendency to see it as nothing but dull facts and rote testing, but that's only part of it. Imagination is where it really happens, and that's spiritual in its own way.

Things like universal spiritual truths can only be experienced subjectively, but I think if you were to measure someone's brain in all the ways we know during one of these moments, we'd see distinct patterns, and could likely replicate them, as we've replicated OBEs. Does that make the experience any less valuable? I don't think so. If anything, I think it enhances it. To think that nothing but the laws of physics have led to everything we are today, creatures capable of contemplating their very existence and the nature of reality itself. People talk about having profound religious experiences, and I've had what I'm sure is that very feeling when thinking about the story of our existence from a naturalistic point of view. Different strokes, I guess.

Yes I have reasons that I believe we are incarnated into this particular existence. My reasons are not rooted in science, they are rooted in experiences, occult research, and thought experiments which I've literally run through my mind while sitting on top of a mountain.

I'll admit, sometimes I wonder if we're all just in a simulation. I'll sometimes consciously try to "contact" our "creators."

And I don't blame you! I once did not believe in an afterlife either. But after I moved into a very old house, alone out in deep woods, very non-scientific things happened to me I could not explain. They sent me down a very different path of thought. You haven't experienced this, so I can't blame you for thinking I'm just a superstitious imbecile.

I don't think you're an imbecile, so if I've given that impression, I apologize.

I enjoy this because I get to refine my arguments and maybe this convinces someone reading it down the line.

Let me give you a bit of advice about that. Try having less of a condescending tone when you're debating a subject, even if it is one you're truly passionate about.

Noted.

[Overload]

I'm not dodging any questions at all, I simply don't believe there is an answer I can give you that will be satisfactory or solicit any other response than mockery or condescension.

I stated already my personal reasons for being satisfied with the cards I've been dealt, engaging in a debate about my religious beliefs is not something I'm going to entertain with you. I hope you can respect that.

You can be okay with the hand you've been dealt, but still answer a hypothetical. I wanted to know your answer, given a set of hypothetical parameters, but you answered with why you are okay with never having the opportunity to have that hypothetical choice. Again, that's fine, but I don't see why it precludes you from answering a hypothetical, and the hypothetical is not if you want to live forever, but if you'd choose, at the end of the day, to take a pill that guaranteed another day of health. Pill supply is never a problem, and you are guaranteed one every day should you choose it. I want to know if you'd even take the pill for even a day, or if you'd never touch it. I care less about your answer than I do your willingness to answer it. If you say you wouldn't take the pill, even for a day, I might be inclined to disbelieve you, but I'll respect your answer.