Choosing Science vs. Choosing Sides

This is a slightly expanded version of a comment I attempted to post to this article from Fight Aging!. I got a "questionable content" warning at my attempt to post, which seemed to be a spam-prevention measure, probably related to the fact that my e-mail address is web-based. I'm not about to give up my webmail e-mail, however, I'm quite annoyed at the spam-plague for making webmail less versatile.

My tendency toward "long, long posts" is an expression of how I process information and experiences -- I have experiences, and thoughts, and I write about them extensively. It's a childhood habit that has only more recently made its way onto the Internet. I figure if anything, I can at least help with the proliferation of healthy life extension memes by using this particular habit. So hopefully this blog doesn't come across as something that represents "too much talk and not enough action". Writing IS action if it results in change, and I've seen so many instances of writing being able to alter attitudes and perceptions for the better that I can't see it as a pointless endeavor.

One thing that has been rather unexpected to find in longevity and enhancement discussions is the apparent political conflict between the more libertarian sorts, and the more democratic (or socialist, or whatever you want to call it) sorts. In my mind, discussions of politics are just as potentially "miring" as continued ethical discourse. What matter is, as Reason often notes, "getting things done".

I do think it is something of a mistake to assume that one particular political orientation (e.g., libertarianism, socialism, etc.) represents the quickest and clearest path to assuring that life extension becomes a reality sooner. However, from my experience working in companies of various sizes (perhaps analogous to governments), I will say that large companies and small companies each have their own set of problems.

Large companies seem more wasteful, less efficient, and less likely to promote and absorb innovative ideas generated by creative individuals. Small companies tend to be better at getting down to the basics of what needs to be done, and things tend to happen much faster, but there is also much greater risk that tomorrow the company might not exist.

Another analogy is that of education: one can be homeschooled, or attend a large public school, and in either case end up either highly educated and equipped to deal with the real world or grievously ignorant. Different people learn and function better in different environments, and plus, some people are better teachers than others, and some people are more motivated to learn than others.

I don't know how well either of these analogies works, however, I do think that there needs to be a way for people to support and promote "longevity memes" and longevity science without necessarily getting caught up in endless arguments over the perceived dangers or promises of libertarianism or socialism.

In each case, there is risk of the desired outcome not happening, and in each case, whether that outcome happens at all depends much more on the individuals involved (and how educated / innovative those individuals are) than on the structure intended to produce the favored outcome. Yet structures cannot be ignored as truly meaningless, and I'm not saying they should -- after all, there are some people and ideologies that end up dominant and stay dominant due to inertia and ignorance rather than any inherent value, and this is extremely problematic.

I'm currently finding politics to be an annoyance more than anything else; to me it's obvious that we just need to do what it takes to fight aging, and if anyone is interested in determining the political-agenda aspect of that action, they ought to perhaps wait until the aging problem is taken care of. I almost feel a sort of pressure to take sides, and there's a new (to me) sort of question emerging in transhumanist circles: "Are you a democratic transhumanist, or one of those libertarians / extropians?"

Do I really have to take a side, or can I just keep writing, donating, participating in projects as I find myself able, working, and just plain staying alive? I realize that this entire post might come across as woefully ignorant of politics, but I'm trying to learn more about what sorts of things I should be placing as highest priority in terms of contributing to a future devoid of age-related death. I'm much more interested in science (and ethics) than politics, and I believe that ethics are, and should be, independent of politics.

Choosing a side politically seems to be something of a grab-bag endeavor: I don't believe in "signing on" to something without fully understanding what you're getting. And aside from a minority that studies politics as fervently as if it were a beloved personal hobby (which I'm sure it is for some), I get the impression that most people tend to just join a party which represents 1 or 2 things they strongly believe in, without examining the rest of the party's "belief system" and evaluating it for examples of contradiction and dissonance.

Though I agree with Reason that we ought to be wary of "talking rather than doing", I think that talking and doing are by no means mutually exclusive. And I do think there is value in attempting to understand the psychologies of those who oppose life extension; though some arguments can be dismissed handily and easily (such as the "boredom argument", which is quite possibly the silliest opposition to life extension I've ever heard -- if you're too bored to live, that isn't my problem!), the simple fact is that people who oppose life extension on whatever grounds do have the potential to influence policy that will result in yet more meaningless deaths. This is a horrifying thought, and one that definitely lends itself to a need for ethical discourse.