in Search
0 members online
Immortality

Simon

Ageless thinking in the year of the big 3-0

So this year, I and many of my friends are turning 30. And don't think people aren't noticing. This month and next month alone, three close friends will mark the birthday. And this has brought on the inevitable anxiety about aging, getting older, leaving youthful days behind, and various other manifestations of ageist bullshit that, thankfully, is being driven further and further out of our culture with each new development in antiaging medicine, and each fresh take on what it means to mark birthdays in a transhuman era.

I joke that if 40 is the new 20, as some have argued, then 30 is the new 10. Obviously, this isn't quite true. After all, I had no pubic hair at 10. But I do truly believe that our chronological age increasingly doesn't reflect our biological age when compared with previous generations. While the notion of your "real age," as opposed to your chronological age, has become commercialized, this doesn't undermine its truth. Because even with our limited interventions today--which mostly consist of the right exercise, diet (including caloric restriction), supplementation, sun avoidance and modestly effective drugs (such as Lipitor, perhaps the most successful antiaging drug to date, as it fights various age-related cardiovascular ailments and possibly Alzheimer's)--we're able to make a huge impact on our biology.

And this is just the beginning. With each year you add to your life with today's interventions, as Aubrey de Grey has noted, you add one more year in which to benefit from future interventions. So, say today's interventions give you an extra 10 years. That means 10 more years of antiaging research from which you can benefit. If those interventions give you another 10 years, you have 10 more years in which to benefit from new interventions. And since the pace of scientific and technological advancement appears to be speeding up, there's a good chance that within those 10 years you'll see more progress than in the previous 10. Eventually, the development of new interventions outpaces your aging--you start to see 15 years added for every 10 years of aging, then 20 years added for every five years of aging, and so on--and we reach escape velocity into an indefinite lifespan.

If you don't believe this is possible, or happening, take a good look around. Several companies, such as Elixir Pharmaceuticals, are already developing life-extending drugs. And de Grey's Methuselah Foundation is already funding research into SENS, de Grey's engineering program for slowing and reversing aging, as well as organizing the Methuselah Mouse Prize for antiaging research. And we're not talking small operations; the Methuselah Foundation has received high-profile support and now has more than eight million dollars to play with, a number increasing rapidly as the organization's profile and success grows.

So as people around me start turning 30, and my birthday approaches, it's become strikingly apparent that beliefs and attitudes about age and aging will take longer to change than aging itself. Rather than resign themselves to a defeatist and depressing position, and hasten bodily decline through unhealthy behaviors born of negativity, people need to adopt ageless thinking and do everything they can with existing interventions in order to see the next round of interventions and, ultimately, a day when chronological age means less to your self- and societal- perception than the color of your hair. 

This isn't to say that we shouldn't value the experience and wisdom that comes with age. Nor that we shouldn't realize differences in maturity between those who are 20 and those who are 40. But in such case, we're not associating chronology with biology. We're associating it with psychology. What I'm talking about is the increasing error in judging our own and others' biological functioning based on a number that appears on their driver's license.

So let's change the culture, beginning with ourselves. For my 30th birthday, I'll strive to give myself the gift of ageless thinking, and do what I can to encourage a similar attitude amongst my friends. 

Published Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:08 PM by Simon

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

 

advancedatheist wrote on February 12, 2007 9:08 AM

Consider that Robert Anton Wilson, who died last month pretty much on schedule, predicted in 1978 (around the time you still wore diapers) that people of his generation would benefit from an actuarial breakthrough:

http://www.futurehi.net/docs/RAW_Immortality.html

Why should we believe the current round of such predictions?

 

Gully Foyle wrote on February 12, 2007 4:52 PM

Yes, the timing on all of this is very tricky. I think a big difference between now and 1978 is that we now have the means to identify which genes are responsible for aging and the means to change our DNA through gene therapy. Seeing as how gene therapy still has a long way to go, and our understanding of aging is probably off a bit (so we'll still find a few surprises), I think that the current late-twenties, early-thirties people should be only *cautiously* optimistic. The analogy I like to make is waiting for a test result. It is all too easy to fall into one of two traps. The first being, the belief that everything is okay and all will be right in the end. The other is throwing up your hands and declaring defeat as a psychological defense against potential false hope. I don't know why stances in, the what I see as the rational, middle-ground are so rare.

 

Mr. Farlops wrote on February 13, 2007 2:57 AM

Citing one specific example is not enough to refute a general trend, AA. Maybe Wilson was wrong about his own survival but was he really wrong about his generation?

On the other hand, I have to be careful and discount my own personal experiences too. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but older people seem to look more and more healthy and vigorous these days? Maybe it's just me (I'm 43 and perhaps my perceptions have changed.) or wishful thinking.

But the actuarial trend is incontrovertable. The governments and private sector know this. That's why there is a social security crisis. Back in the Thirties the powers that be counted on most of us dropping dead by the age of 64 and never collecting our old age stipends. The number of people living past 64 has been growing steadily ever since then. The problem never really was fewer and fewer young workers. The problem has been the growing ranks of eldery past the age of retirement.

No wonder the money is running out.

We learn more and more with each passing decade. Maybe I won't live to see it (But I might freeze my head.) but aging will be cured one day.

 

Simon wrote on February 13, 2007 5:10 PM

I'm aware that I might be optimistic. In fact, I'm partly making a *choice* to be optimistic. Not irrationally so, however. But even by today's statistics, barring an unfortunate accident, and not accounting for my life extension practices, my expected lifespan exceeds 70, which means I have more than 40 years in which to benefit from life extension advances. (And by the way, I am signed up for cryonics to tip the odds even more in my favor, if only slightly.) I would imagine, even pessimistically, that we'll see some significant antiaging advances in that time. And I think that having a positive, optimistic attitude will increase the odds of success, because I--and those I motivate around me--will be more likely to get active, such as by supporting the Methuselah Foundation, if we believe we'll benefit from success.

 

adbatstone wrote on February 13, 2007 11:30 PM

Sadly, I think today's twentysomethings may have to be one of the last (if not THE last) generations to die the old-fashioned way. It IS too late for us. We are NOT going to make it, whatever we do.

 

Sideways wrote on February 14, 2007 11:33 AM

I almost hate bringing it up, but if the whole quantum immortality thing turns out to be true, somehow you (or in my case, I) *will* slip in under the wire to some life extension advances.

In that case, it's *other* people you should be worried about.

 

Gully Foyle wrote on February 14, 2007 6:54 PM

@adatstone

Your attitude is precisely what I am talking about. If you think you are going to be so close to the goal, why don't you allow for the *mere* possibility of a margin of error that might allow you to make it in the nick of time? I find your brand of incredulity odd; you accept much of what "normal" people would find absurd (i.e. radical life-extension), but then insist that it will all be developed the day after you kick the bucket and refuse to believe otherwise. I'm afraid that none of us in that age group gets off the hook that easily, the nail-biting time has only just begun.

Simply declaring defeat, OR victory, is the easy way out. Or, in other words, we're like people in a waiting room trying to find out if our brand spanking new medical procedure worked and our cancer was eradicated. This situation with life-extension is bit different because the medical emergencies we are trying to find cures for don't presently affect us, and the proposed interventions do not yet exist. However, the main point remains; we don't have any way to ascertain probabilities of success when dealing with treatments or ideas of treatments that are new. This is not surprising because probabilities can only be determined for *established* treatments, seeing as how you need actual data.

 

Anne wrote on February 14, 2007 10:53 PM

I'm probably what you might call a "middle-grounder" when it comes to appraising the current state (and future promise) of effective longevity medicine.  See the following:

http://rationallongevity.blogspot.com/2006/12/vulnerable-but-not-doomed.html

and:

http://rationallongevity.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-vulnerability-longevity-and.html

Overconfidence and defeatism are two sides of the same coin: the common human drive toward certainty-seeking.  Overconfidence is dangerous because it can encourage complacency, but defeatism is dangerous because it's so easy -- anyone can do nothing and then say, "I told you so" when something bad happens (or when something good doesn't happen).  If you want to make waves in the world you can't live in terror of making a mistake.

 

Pacey wrote on February 25, 2007 6:40 PM

This may require a thread of it's own but what the hell.  If you can try and watch this programme on BBC1 Tuesday 27th Feb.  It's about body builders who are 60+.  May not appeal to some, but for me personally, this has got to be a physical representation of ageless thinking.  

http://forums.digiguide.com/topic.asp?id=19420

 

Pacey wrote on February 25, 2007 6:42 PM

This may require a thread of it's own but what the hell.  If you can try and watch this programme on BBC1 Tuesday 27th Feb.  It's about body builders who are 60+.  May not appeal to some, but for me personally, this has got to be a physical representation of ageless thinking.  

http://forums.digiguide.com/topic.asp?id=19420

Join or sign in to post a comment
Submit

About Simon

I aim to understand, apply and develop science, technology and communications to achieve positive change. To this end, I am the owner and operator of Betterhumans, which I founded in 2002. I also work in interactive healthcare marketing, helping pharmaceutical and other healthcare organizations effectively use interactive technologies. Currently, I'm also working part-time on a masters degree at the University of Toronto in the history and philosophy of science and technology.
Advertise | Help | Contact | About | Terms | Privacy | Copyright © 2007 Betterhumans | Powered by Community Server | Partners:
World Transhumanist Association Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Immortality Institute Methuselah Mouse Prize Foresight Institute Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Lifeboat Foundation