Two interesting links for your perusal:
1. From Edge: Scientists, philosophers, engineers, technologists, scholars, etc. describe something they've changed their minds about over the course of their studies and/or careers. Very interesting to see how some people went in one direction (e.g., toward a more reductionistic view of the universe) whereas others went in the opposite direction.
2. Descriptions of how various people (a lot of artists and writers, in particular) get their work done.
(h/t to friend Andrew, Peep-jouster extraordinaire, for the second one.)
7 comments:
I haven't looked at your post yet (I will in a moment), but I have another remark in reference to longevity studies. One concern I have is that these studies seem to strike me in some ways as being ageist. Furthermore, some seem to be more about not looking older than about living to a greater age. I know from some of your posts that you yourself do not hold these views, but the studies themselves seem to present the potential to develop that mindset. Also, there is a comparatively recent book that my cousin (also deaf, a graduate student in Deaf education at Gallaudet), gave me called "Mindfield" about what would happen (or not happen) to the US if the majority of the people suddenly went deaf. It's sort of in the same vein of Thought Experimentation as "The World Without Us" (a GREAT book, if you haven't already read it). You might be interested.
Hmmm, not a lot of women in the Digerati...I counted four, though I might've missed one (I doubt it). A very interesting organization though. I'll be keeping an eye on it.
kakalina wrote: One concern I have is that these studies seem to strike me in some ways as being ageist. Furthermore, some seem to be more about not looking older than about living to a greater age. I know from some of your posts that you yourself do not hold these views, but the studies themselves seem to present the potential to develop that mindset.
Yes, I've thought long and hard about that issue (as you probably know, since you acknowledge that based on posts you've read that I don't hold hold those views). And I don't think studies of aging, per se, are likely to lead to ageist attitudes. There are some who employ their rhetoric carelessly in how they describe older people, and that needs to be addressed, but I certainly don't think that researching effective treatments for age-related health problems in and of itself poses an ethical quandary.
I do imagine that some of the treatments that will allow older people to avoid the things that tend to kill them (heart disease, stroke, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc.) will also result in a more "youthful" appearance for those who take them. But I don't see that (or the fact that some people might seek longevity medicine for the sake of appearances) as anywhere near a good reason to not research such treatments.
It doesn't follow that because older people are sometimes devalued/neglected due to their appearance or perceived functionality, we shouldn't take measures to improve health care for the elderly because there's a chance that improved health care will result in more older people looking and acting in ways that are currently associated with youth.
There are a number of contemporary cases that illustrate a similar principle, but the one that comes to mind is that of steroid-based drugs. The presence of steroid drugs can create unfortunate social conditions (i.e., in sports where people might be compelled to put their health in danger for the sake of a competitive edge) -- but on the other hand, steroid-based medications can sometimes save people's lives when nothing else will (such as in the case of severe asthma). In other words, yes, social problems can be perpetuated by certain drugs and other technologies, but fighting the social problems must go on in conjunction with the application of those technologies to lifesaving endeavors.
In the future I like to imagine (perhaps idealistically, but still), people will not be deemed more or less valuable based on whether or not they have wrinkles or white hair or tentacles or whatever, and nobody will be "written off" on the basis of disability or non-normative functionality -- but people will also not be suffering and dying from things like cancer, heart disease, stroke, immune collapse, etc. simply by virtue of having reached their eighth or ninth decade.
I thought it was interesting that you noted that people are often judged as more or less valuable based on their number of wrinkles or white hairs. As everyone is aware of, there is a paradox concerning Men, Women, and aging. Men are considered to be in their prime in their 50's and 60's, whereas women, who have since gone through (or are in the process of going through) menopause, are considered less valuable due to having lost their ability to give birth to more children. This is also the reasoning behind refusing to allow women to work in such fields as the Military, Police, Air Force, or Fire Fighting (I like the French term better--translated back into english, it turns into something like "Water People"). If you have one man and a hundred women, you can theoretically have hundred babies within a year. If you have one woman and a hundred men, you can have (barring the possibility of twins or triplets) one baby within a year. This is assuming that none of the men in either group are transsexuals or transvestites.
I liked your example of Steroid drugs (*cough* Marion Jones *cough cough*). Another good example would be Marijuana, which some US states allow medicinal use of (I think Canada does too, though I'm not sure). The idea is that those who will be using the drug in that form are probably going to be so ill and close to death anyway that using Marijuana isn't going to matter, and that you might as well just spare them the pain of whichever disease they are suffering from.
Do you know of any sites concerning the legal rights (theoretically vs. reality) of disabled people in the US? I'm doing a research project on the subject for a Sociology class. It doesn't matter if it concerns Mental or Physical disabilities--both are fine.
Just FYI for when you have time to do nitpicky site management... the Buck Institute for Aging Research revamped their website and your link doesn't work any more. Here's the homepage... don't know what you originally wanted.
http://www.buckinstitute.org/
I'd love to work for them someday. They are definitely about fixing the big health problems like Alzheimer's and diabetes, not about "anti-aging" cosmetic stuff. I've met some of the researchers at conferences and they seem like they'd be really good colleagues (and the research is interesting and related to my thesis).
When you have time to deal with nitpicky site maintenance, you might want to fix the broken link for the Buck Institute. They're pretty amazing--but their webmaster screwed up all the links when they rolled out the fancy Flash site.
http://www.buckinstitute.org/
I've met some of their researchers, and I assure anyone that they are interested in preventing suffering from things like Alzheimer's and diabetes, not fixing wrinkles or gray hair.
Kathryn, Thanks for the URL correction, I will fix it right away!
The Buck Institute does indeed seem really cool. I wish there was something like that closer to where I live...
Post a Comment