Something I run into occasionally is people comparing the idea of healthy life extension to the idea of faith in an afterlife, or similarly, making the assumption that anyone interested in superlongevity believes that it is somehow a "given".
Well, superlongevity is not a given. It certainly won't be for a long, long time, if ever, since each time someone crosses a new "upper limit" of human age, new challenges at keeping that person alive are going to present themselves. And remember that aging is only one challenge sentient beings face; surely in the future there will be new and unanticipated threats to sustaining our lives, but for now, age-related death is an immediate concern for so many that it can scarcely be ignored. Supporting longevity research is a way of addressing this concern, and this sort of support has nothing to do with blind faith.
Blind faith in longevity science coming to "rescue" you is just as silly as blind faith in the notion of pink rabbits coming to make you breakfast tomorrow morning. Supporting longevity research is acknowledging that there is nothing special about aging that makes it any less solvable than any other complex engineering problem -- it's not a mystical force or a cosmic directive, it's a biological process. And the means of counteracting this process won't be mystical forces either -- they'll be the result of a lot of hard work and scientific inquiry.
Most modern articles are written with the daily-paper reader in mind: someone who skims articles, notices one or two things that make him go, "Hmm, wow, I didn't know that!", before going off to watch the latest nighttime drama. It is essential that anyone who takes life extension seriously learn to read scientific literature and develop good critical thinking skills.
Get familiar with common logical fallacies and cognitive biases. This is not only good for the brain and reasoning faculties, but a lot of fun. One thing I've always done as an excercise in this regard is make a point to listen to, and read, viewpoints I know I am not inclined to agree with. Things like that can help guard against confirmation bias, which nobody who seriously wants to see healthy life extension pan out can afford. There's a lot of quackery out there, and a lot of products being advertised as "anti-aging" with no supporting data and no real long-term verifiable promises.
But, some might say, isn't all longevity science therefore quackery, since its claims have not yet been verified? Of course not. There is a difference between making a positive claim (as a quack would) and presenting an hypothesis (as a scientist studying mitochondrial DNA might). Nobody doing real longevity science is currently saying that what they're doing is definitely going to do exactly what we want it to. Rather, they're looking at the available data and trying to see what can be extrapolated from that data, whether toward the development of interventions or the design of further experiments.
"Intelligent Design" advocates often claim that since science doesn't deal in absolutes, it doesn't work as a foundation for interpreting reality. But people who make that sort of statement are ignoring the fact that it is the process of science which serves as the foundation, not the claims science might make at any given time!
There's nothing absolute about the scientific method. Reason wrote recently about the iterative nature of scientific progress: that is, failures and setbacks are part of the package. Negative data is still data, after all, and every time we learn more about what doesn't work, this information can help us move toward finding something that does.
There's a big difference between believing something will happen because it makes you feel better to do so, and having a goal in mind, not knowing whether it's possible or not, but being motivated to work to see if it is possible. Life extension science falls into the latter category for me. It isn't a fantasy or a daydream or an existential palliative. It's an experiment, and a project, and something well worth exploring. Whatever we can learn about anatomy and health represents data for the scientific memepool, which can translate to the potential for better lives for everyone, now and in the future.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Healthy People Don't Die In Their Sleep
Well, they might if a meteor crashes through their roof and lands in their bedroom. But they don't die of illness or infirmity.
I've never understood people who say things like, "Well, I want to live to be 100 in perfect health, and then die peacefully in my sleep". The contradiction in that sort of statement should be obvious. Healthy people don't die in their sleep, "peacefully" or otherwise. You don't hear about too many 25-year-olds dying suddenly of heart attacks or strokes during their nightly slumber. There are a few -- some people end up expiring suddenly in their twenties or thirties due to undiagnosed cardiovascular dysfunction and other similar conditions, but the majority of people found dead in their beds are elderly.
When people in their twenties die, it's usually considered tragic. When babies are found dead in their cribs, it's referred to by a name ("Sudden Infant Death Syndrome"). But when elderly people die, in bed or otherwise, there tends to be a curious tone of, "Well, at least they went peacefully".
On one hand, I see this as somewhat tasteless; after all, why should Sudden Grandma Death Syndrome be any less undesirable than Sudden Infant Death syndrome? But on the other hand, I do understand where this reaction is coming from -- a sudden death is considered more desirable than a long drawn-out period of pain and suffering. Healthy life extension research aims to combat the pain and suffering -- not just the death part of the equation.
Quality and length of life are inseparable in my estimation: a quality life will last a long time by definition (barring accidents) since it won't include terrible illness and deterioration, and people living these quality lives won't have any reason to wish for the hastening of death.
Nevertheless, there's an important bit of cultural engineering to be done here that I think could go a long way toward improving support for longevity research. This cultural engineering involves recognizing the value of our elderly citizens.
First of all, elderly people are still persons -- self-aware beings with the ability to learn, love, and take joy in living. They're not any more "expendable" than any other sentient person, and my own personal philosophy (which is not religious, but ethical) does not allow for the consideration of any sentient individual as expendable. No matter how old they are.
Second of all, people who have lived a very long time tend to have accumulated considerable knowledge and have had many years to reflect on and combine this knowledge. That is, they possess wisdom, and wisdom is something that you can't inject, simulate, or substitute for. Wisdom develops over time as a result of experience and learning.
I'm sure many readers can think of an elderly person they've known over the course of their lives -- a grandparent, a neighbor, a great-uncle -- who brought the sort of fascinating perspective to their existence that only comes from years of reflection and observation. It is my contention that many humans never even get the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their own accumulated wisdom, because as soon as it starts becoming significant, their bodies fail them and they pass into oblivion.
Third of all, the presence of retired persons in volunteer work is a testament to the fact that older people still want to participate and make a positive difference in the world. My boyfriend's parents have a neighbor who is in her nineties who still volunteers at a local hospital, drives her great-grandsons around (and often spends the day running after them), and is certainly not interested in slowing down.
Endeavors like the Supercentenarian Research Foundation point in a very positive direction as far as both the cultural engineering and the scientific aspects of longevity research go. From their website:
This is an excellent mission, not only because it seeks to find means to direct action to improve the health of older persons, but because it recognizes the value of all lives, regardless of how long the person has already lived. Obviously, people are living longer than ever before. There are an estimated 300 people worldwide aged 110 years or older -- and these people deserve the same right to good medical care as anyone else. People of different ages have unique health needs, and recognizing these unique needs can improve health care across the board for all individuals.
Two centuries ago, pediatrics wasn't even a field of medicine; children were simply treated as "smaller versions of adults", and the unique developmental characteristics of children were not taken into account to the degree necessary. However, it became clear over time that people in different stages of life required different care in order to maintain health optimally. It's time to fully recognize the personhood and health needs of people of all ages, and researching the biology of supercentenarians seems like an excellent start toward such ends.
I've never understood people who say things like, "Well, I want to live to be 100 in perfect health, and then die peacefully in my sleep". The contradiction in that sort of statement should be obvious. Healthy people don't die in their sleep, "peacefully" or otherwise. You don't hear about too many 25-year-olds dying suddenly of heart attacks or strokes during their nightly slumber. There are a few -- some people end up expiring suddenly in their twenties or thirties due to undiagnosed cardiovascular dysfunction and other similar conditions, but the majority of people found dead in their beds are elderly.
When people in their twenties die, it's usually considered tragic. When babies are found dead in their cribs, it's referred to by a name ("Sudden Infant Death Syndrome"). But when elderly people die, in bed or otherwise, there tends to be a curious tone of, "Well, at least they went peacefully".
On one hand, I see this as somewhat tasteless; after all, why should Sudden Grandma Death Syndrome be any less undesirable than Sudden Infant Death syndrome? But on the other hand, I do understand where this reaction is coming from -- a sudden death is considered more desirable than a long drawn-out period of pain and suffering. Healthy life extension research aims to combat the pain and suffering -- not just the death part of the equation.
Quality and length of life are inseparable in my estimation: a quality life will last a long time by definition (barring accidents) since it won't include terrible illness and deterioration, and people living these quality lives won't have any reason to wish for the hastening of death.
Nevertheless, there's an important bit of cultural engineering to be done here that I think could go a long way toward improving support for longevity research. This cultural engineering involves recognizing the value of our elderly citizens.
First of all, elderly people are still persons -- self-aware beings with the ability to learn, love, and take joy in living. They're not any more "expendable" than any other sentient person, and my own personal philosophy (which is not religious, but ethical) does not allow for the consideration of any sentient individual as expendable. No matter how old they are.
Second of all, people who have lived a very long time tend to have accumulated considerable knowledge and have had many years to reflect on and combine this knowledge. That is, they possess wisdom, and wisdom is something that you can't inject, simulate, or substitute for. Wisdom develops over time as a result of experience and learning.
I'm sure many readers can think of an elderly person they've known over the course of their lives -- a grandparent, a neighbor, a great-uncle -- who brought the sort of fascinating perspective to their existence that only comes from years of reflection and observation. It is my contention that many humans never even get the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their own accumulated wisdom, because as soon as it starts becoming significant, their bodies fail them and they pass into oblivion.
Third of all, the presence of retired persons in volunteer work is a testament to the fact that older people still want to participate and make a positive difference in the world. My boyfriend's parents have a neighbor who is in her nineties who still volunteers at a local hospital, drives her great-grandsons around (and often spends the day running after them), and is certainly not interested in slowing down.
Endeavors like the Supercentenarian Research Foundation point in a very positive direction as far as both the cultural engineering and the scientific aspects of longevity research go. From their website:
The mission of The Supercentenarian Research Foundation (SRF) is to promote scientific research into the causes of aging initially by funding investigations into its effects in supercentenarians (people who have attained the age of 110 years or greater). The knowledge gained from this research can then provide the opportunity to develop methodologies to improve the health and longevity of supercentenarians, their children, centenarians (those aged 100-109 years), and those of us who would otherwise never achieve such an exceptional life span.
This is an excellent mission, not only because it seeks to find means to direct action to improve the health of older persons, but because it recognizes the value of all lives, regardless of how long the person has already lived. Obviously, people are living longer than ever before. There are an estimated 300 people worldwide aged 110 years or older -- and these people deserve the same right to good medical care as anyone else. People of different ages have unique health needs, and recognizing these unique needs can improve health care across the board for all individuals.
Two centuries ago, pediatrics wasn't even a field of medicine; children were simply treated as "smaller versions of adults", and the unique developmental characteristics of children were not taken into account to the degree necessary. However, it became clear over time that people in different stages of life required different care in order to maintain health optimally. It's time to fully recognize the personhood and health needs of people of all ages, and researching the biology of supercentenarians seems like an excellent start toward such ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)