New section: Reasons for rejuvenation

In the past few weeks, I’ve been working on a new section of Rejuvenaction: the Reasons for rejuvenation. As I said in that section, the motivation behind it is that this blog goes to great lengths to answer objections and concerns, but it had no dedicated section to explain why rejuvenation would be good. Newcomers, or people who aren’t on board yet, might well think that this idea needs a lot of defending while giving no reason to endorse it. I hope the new section will solve this problem.

As a side note, to prevent the horizontal menu from breaking down, the section Ageing and SENS has been moved under The problem of ageing. It’s a temporary arrangement, meaning—spoiler alert—that entire section too is due for a full rewriting, with a lot more science and a lot more details, plus a shorter summary, in the same style as those included in the Reasons for rejuvenation and Answers to objections sections. That’ll take a while, though. Other updates are underway too, and they’ll likely arrive sooner.

Additionally, I retouched a few answers to objections—most notably the everliving tyrants objection, which has been rewritten entirely—because some of my older articles used to have a far too condescending and inflammatory tone which was not only detrimental to the cause; I didn’t like it any more either. You know, I’m against growing old, not up. Hopefully those articles are better now, and further revisions are not out of the question.

Finally, you might have noticed that two new answers to objections have been added: the Ageing has its good sides objection, which dates a few weeks back already but I didn’t bother announcing, and the Living ‘forever’ would cause extreme risk aversion objection. Apparently, I never run out of objections and concerns to address. 😛

Not all discriminations are born equal

It’s been quite a while since I posted anything new. I’ve been quite busy lately with a lot of things, including rebooting looking4troubles, my other blog. As a result, my topic list for Rejuvenaction has been growing dangerously long, so I decided it’s about time I tackled some of the lengthiest items on my list.

People like talking about justice, equality, and discrimination a lot. I mean a lot. In my experience, though, most tend to focus mainly or entirely on the type(s) of discrimination they’re more interested in for whatever reason, sometimes minimising others or not even noticing they exist in the first place. Some other times, they even end up endorsing one type of discrimination for the sake of warding off another.

As if poor people cared

Take the good ol’ ‘only the rich‘ objection against rejuvenation. Its essence is that, to forestall the possibility of rejuvenation being available only to a few wealthy ones, rejuvenation should not be created at all—if not everyone can have it, then no one should have it.

The core misconception behind this argument is obvious. Given a certain gap between rich people and poor people, if you better rich people’s lives in any way you do widen the rich-poor gap, but you do not change the poor’s quality of life at all. In other words, if you develop any new technology and only rich people have access to it, you make rich people better off than they were before, while nothing changes, in absolute terms, for the poor people. They are worse off than before with respect to the rich, but this hardly matters. Their living conditions are exactly the same as before, for good or bad. Rich people’s quality of life is not the yardstick by which we should measure everyone else’s quality of life. If extreme poverty didn’t exist and the poorest person in the world was as wealthy as a typical middle-class person in the western world, I think we’d have little to complain about the existence of all the Elon Musks and Mark Zuckerbergs. (Except perhaps for some who seem to be unable to lead a happy life if they don’t have something to be unhappy about.)

Even without bothering with rejuvenation, poor people don’t really care if Mark Zuckerberg has one Ferrari, or two, or three, or none—they’re likely more concerned with whether they have food for one day, or two, or three, or none. It could be argued that Zuckerberg could spend more money on the poor rather than on Ferraris (which he probably does—I just needed a rich guy’s name), but while I’m okay with prioritising poor people’s needs over buying Ferraris, I’m not okay with prioritising the lives of starving people over the lives of geriatric patients. They’re both in danger and they’re both suffering. Rich or poor doesn’t matter: Any elderly person is just not as healthy as a young one, irrespectively of their wealth, and they’re possibly closer to the grave than a young starved person is. I’m not saying we should prioritise rejuvenation over combating world hunger; I’m saying they’re equally important, and they can and should be fought simultaneously.

Discriminating discriminations

Ah, but I’m neglecting an important factor at play here, am I not? If rejuvenation was only for the rich, that would be discrimination against the poor. You would have right to good health only if you were rich enough, and that would be unjust. It would indeed, and I am the first to say that we need to make sure that equal access to rejuvenation is granted to everyone as soon as possible. That is why we should discuss these topics already now, when rejuvenation is mostly on the drawing board and partly in the lab: We’ve got all the time in the world to make things work out nicely.

To some, however, this is not enough, and they’d sooner have everyone wilt and die than let only the rich benefit from rejuvenation. Sometimes I have the feeling that, in the collective imagination of people, ‘the rich’ are evil incarnate. Are all rich people so bad that they deserve to age to death? Why? And who gets to decide it? Even if not everyone was able to benefit from rejuvenation from the very beginning, as compassionate and caring human beings as we should be, what should we decide about rejuvenation’s fate? That it should be created and save at least some lives in the present, and hopefully every life in the future, or that it should never be created and save no life at all? What about those future generations that we seem to worry about so much in terms of climate change and pollution? They deserve a clean world, but not a disease-free existence?

In case it went unnoticed, the type of discrimination that rejuvenation opposers are trying to fight off with the ‘only the rich’ objection is income/wealth discrimination; the form of discrimination they’re endorsing (whether they realise it or not) is a form of ageism; whatever their reasons may be, whenever people say that rejuvenation should not be developed, they’re saying that elderly people should not have the chance of equally good health as younger people.

Some opposers are not only concerned that rejuvenation would not be available to all; they’re also concerned that being rejuvenated or not might in itself become a discriminating factor. For example, suppose that not everyone wants to undergo rejuvenation treatments and prefer to age and die ‘normally’. What if—I was asked once—an employer denied you a job on these grounds?

This question betrays a lack of understanding of several things—the fact that rejuvenation is not a single-shot therapy that you take now or never, or only once and for all, for example—but anyway the point here is not the answer to this particular concern. The point is that some people seem very concerned about the potential discrimination that rejuvenation might cause, but not very much about the concrete discrimination against elderly people, actually taking place here and now each time we question and postpone the development of comprehensive anti-ageing therapies that could fully restore chronologically old people’s health. While we ponder this and that hypothetical future problem, elderly people suffer from all sorts of ailments.

Equality in a cloak and a scythe

Going back to the ‘for all or for no one’ argument that some people like to make, I wonder if they would still make it if the matter being discussed was something other than rejuvenation. In the case of rejuvenation, they would prefer it not to be developed at all rather than risk unequal access to it. Would they think the same of human rights, for example? Unfortunately, human rights are not respected everywhere. By the ‘for all or for none’ logic, for the sake of avoiding inequality and injustice it would be better to take human rights away from everyone rather than have only some people enjoy this privilege. Even better, perhaps, human rights should never have been invented to begin with. A more fitting example is an evergreen: vaccines. Even today they’re not equally accessible everywhere, let alone when they were first invented. Maybe, if vaccines hadn’t been invented in the first place, we would have experienced less inequality; at the same time, though, a lot of people, rich and poor alike, would have died of infectious diseases before age 2 in the past decades.

Here I’m touching another point that some advocates of ageing like to make: Death is the ‘great equaliser’. If vaccines had not been invented, then not only the poor who could not afford vaccines would die of infectious diseases; everyone would, even the rich. If nothing else, like some authors suggest, the poor can take comfort in the fact that the rich will die too, just like them. If we developed rejuvenation, for example, we’d run the risk of depriving the poor of this ‘comfort’ and would make the world a much too unequal place. I am frankly quite amused at how nonchalantly some people call schadenfreude ‘equality’ or ‘justice’: Be happy, dear poor person, for even if you and your children have suffered many privations, rich people will one day die, just like you will! Wohoo. If that ain’t a reason to throw the wildest party, I don’t know what is.

I would really like to ask a simple question to all the poor people whom the advocates of death like to speak for: Would you rather take the chance that rejuvenation might be available to everyone, including you, or the certainty that both you and all the rich will age to death? I wonder how many would actually find the second option more enticing than the first.

Women, reproduction, and rejuvenation

I’m not really a children person. I know some people really are into having children and think that it’s the most wonderful thing in life, but I’m just not one of them. This is perfectly fine. Whether having children is a wonderful thing or not is a matter of opinion, and it is not true or false in an absolute sense. What’s more, it’s not necessarily set in stone forever: I don’t like the idea now, but I can’t be 100% sure I never will; conversely, people who love the idea now might not like it any more in the future.

However, having children is a bit more serious than a simple matter of personal taste. A child is not a toy or a dress that you buy and just put away if it turns out you don’t like it as much as you thought you would: It’s a living human being whom was brought into the world because of someone else’s intentions and/or actions, and it’ll need love and care for quite a while. For this very reason, I think you should have children only if you’re pretty damn sure you really want to and are prepared to do all it takes to raise them. It’s not an easy job, and if it turns out you hate it, you’ll probably end up doing it wrong, messing up the child’s life and your own in the process. This is true of women and men, though women definitely picked the shortest straw. I’ll tell you why I think so in a moment.

Even if you think you are ‘pretty damn sure’ that you want children, you could still be wrong for a number of reasons that aren’t necessarily your fault. If you do decide to have children and then realise you don’t like it, you have good 18+ years ahead of you of bearing with the consequences of your wrong decision. The decision to not have children is, in a sense, safer, because it can easily be undone: Later on, you can change your mind and have children. If you already did make a child, changing your mind about it will not undo the child. However, not having children is only marginally safer, because as things stand you can postpone parenthood only so long before it becomes impossible or impractical (again, especially if you are a woman). The bottom line is that the current state of affairs imposes you a risky choice—having or not having children—that cannot easily (or at all) be undone. Whatever you choose, you might wake up one day at age 60 and wonder how different your life could have been if you only had made a different choice—a choice that is now too late to make.

As I was saying, women got the worst end of the reproduction deal. Their fertility window spans from late teenage to late 30s, with a peak in their early 20s and a drop around age 35. Pregnancy is still possible after age 35, of course, but it gets increasingly more difficult, and eventually it becomes impossible. Late pregnancies are not recommended for health reasons, and taking care of a child when you’re no longer in your prime can be quite challenging. Men too experience similar problems: Their fertility, albeit longer, is not in top shape forever; having a child as an old man becomes hard—because something else doesn’t, among other reasons.

The fear of missing the baby train can easily push you into having a child, even if you’re not sure you really want it. Social pressure is another big factor at play here—at the cost of being redundant, especially for the ladies. As a man, I can only imagine how annoying it must be to be a woman in her 30s surrounded by people wondering why she hasn’t had any children yet. What is she waiting for? Well, perhaps she just doesn’t want any, and all she’s waiting for is the moment they’ll finally stop asking her about it. Just because all of her friends had children it doesn’t mean she should too, but I understand how social pressure might make her feel ‘abnormal’ and push her to be like all the other ‘normal’ women of the same age who already have churned out a baby or two. Hordes of mothers, fathers, sisters, aunts, and grandmothers begging to have (grand-)grandchildren and/or nephews and nieces probably only make it worse.

I have no idea how many regretted pregnancies, if any, are effectively due to these factors, partly or wholly. I do know, though, that mothers who regret motherhood are a thing, to the point that a book was written about it. (Possibly not the only one.) They’re neither bad mothers, nor ‘abnormal’ women. They’re simply women who, for a reason or another, became mothers and ended up wishing they never had. There’s nothing wrong with them. Women don’t ‘have’ to like motherhood, and motherhood isn’t necessarily a ‘natural’ call for women.

Even though this lengthy introduction might make you think otherwise, this post isn’t about whether or not you should have a child, or when, or whether it is okay to regret motherhood. This post is about how rejuvenation biotechnologies can make all these issues moot.

If you’re already familiar with the concept of rejuvenation, you can safely skip to the next paragraph. If you’re not, I’ll briefly explain what we’re talking about here. Rejuvenation biotechnologies are an emerging class of drugs aimed at repairing or obviating the ‘damage’ your body inflicts to itself with time as a side-effect of its normal operations. The effect of a fully working rejuvenation platform would be that, whether you’re 50, 70, 80, or 150, your body looks, feels, and functions as though you were in your 20s; thanks to rejuvenation, your health would not decline with age. I’m not going to discuss here the details about what ageing is or how rejuvenation could be implemented; what matters is that we’re talking about existing, on-going medical research whose first clinical trials are about to begin (for example, those by Unity Biotechnologies and Ichor Therapeutics), and with some luck, it could become fully established science within few decades. If this is news to you, it probably sounds unbelievable or even scary; therefore, I ask you to set doubts aside for now, and take my word for it. I want to show you how these technologies have the potential to solve the issues I was talking about.

Whether you’ve heard about it or not, science is looking into ways to reverse menopause, or indefinitely postpone it, to allow older women to bypass biology and have a child. Recent studies suggest it might be possible to turn skin cells into egg cells, which would be a convenient way to get around the fact that women apparently run out of egg cells entirely around the time they hit menopause. Another possibility (and this is my guess), might be freezing some of your own egg cells when you’re 20 for later use. Whatever the means, the objective is to allow women to have children later than they otherwise could. According to Aubrey de Grey, the very scientist who is fostering the whole field of rejuvenation biotechs, we might soon be able to turn menopause on and off.

You probably think that a woman having a child in her 90s is a terrible idea, and under normal circumstances I would agree. But here we’re not talking about a 90-year-old woman as we would intend her today; we’re talking about a 90-year-old woman in a world where comprehensive rejuvenation therapies exist. In other words, this 90-year-old woman’s health would be the same as that of a typical 25-year-old; she would look like a 25-year-old and her body would feel to her as though she was still chronologically young. Put next to a woman who was actually in her 20s, you wouldn’t be able to tell who’s the 90-year-old.

Now, imagine what would be the advantages of combining rejuvenation therapies with the ability to reverse menopause, or even switch it on and off. I can think of a few.

  • No more rushed decisions. If there’s no expiration date on your fertility, you needn’t fear missing your chance to have a baby, and you don’t need to rush into it if you’re unsure.
  • Reduced social pressure. I’m not going to say that rejuvenation plus extended fertility would eliminate social pressure entirely. People might still (wrongly) think that there’s something wrong with a woman who hasn’t had children already by her 30s. However, I think this combo would considerably reduce social pressure: If you can have children at any point, you can give your pestering family their long-yearned-for grandkids at any point. Your parents can’t play the trump card of their impending death by old age to pressure you, because rejuvenated people don’t die of old age. They’re healthy as ever, with an indefinitely long lifespan ahead of them—which, by the way, probably means that becoming grandparents wouldn’t be their one and only goal left in life.
  • You can always start over. Say you decided to have children and ended up regretting it. Right now, once your kids are independent and you’re free to go back to your life as it was before parenthood, there generally isn’t much life left for you to go back to. Two, maybe three decades, and your health gets worse year after year. However, in a post-rejuvenation world, you’re not sick and decrepit after you children have grown up; you’re biologically young, healthy, and with no limit on how much you’ve got left to live. You can go back to your pre-parenthood life and make of it what you wish. On the other hand, if you loved having children, you can do it again. How old you are doesn’t matter. (Afraid of overpopulation? Read here.) Notice that this point applies to both men and women, for pretty much any choice they make. In a post-rejuvenation world, it’s never too late to change careers, to go back to studying, to start travelling, or to rethink your life entirely.
  • Longer life experience. As a rule of thumb, we’re much wiser in our old age, for obvious reasons. If we could have children in our 100s or later, we would have much more to give and teach to our children, and we could be much better parents. Younger generations would be able to benefit from the wisdom of older ones for much longer.
  • No unwanted or accidental pregnancies. If we really are going to be able to turn menopause on and off (which I don’t dare taking for granted), that’d pretty much be the ultimate contraceptive. For example, you could decide to keep it ‘switched on’ all the time, making any unwanted pregnancy virtually impossible, and ‘switch it off’ only when you want to have a baby. (Of course the ‘switch’ wouldn’t prevent STIs, for which old-school prevention methods would still apply.) This ability would also make the lives of victims of sexual abuse a little easier. Being raped is bad enough as it is, and I’d imagine that having to bear your rapist’s child is even worse. Having menopause ‘switched on’ would not heal the wounds or the devastating psychological effects of abuse, but it would prevent a horrible situation from becoming worse.
  • You can have the cake and eat it. Even though it is not advisable to do so, more and more women today are postponing their first pregnancy because there are other things they’d like to accomplish first. In a post-rejuvenation world, you could postpone pregnancy for as long as you like and dedicate yourself to whatever your priorities are, without making it any harder or unadvisable to bear a child.

There’s a small problem, of course: Rejuvenation isn’t here yet, and neither is the ability to switch menopause on and off. What’s worse, we’re not 100% sure that we’ll actually pull it off. As you read these lines, researchers all over the world are endeavouring to create a world where growing old doesn’t mean being sick and unable to have children any more. Their efforts might fail, but given the payoff, I think it is definitely worth trying.

If this is all new to you, you might be interested to know more in detail what rejuvenation is, or you might have some concerns about it that need an answer. If so, have a look at what ageing and SENS are, why ageing is a problem, and the Answers to objections section.

Some concerns on US politics and rejuvenation

Sometimes, bad news are good news in disguise. Some other times, it might be the other way around. I’ve been concerned for a while about certain turns that the situation of anti-ageing research might take in the future, and perhaps is already taking right now.

So. Donald Trump is President of the US.

My personal opinion of Trump is that he’s an incompetent, self-absorbed buffoon with the mental capacity of a retarded 5-year-old and the scientific understanding of a dead ant. His lack of respect for basic human rights is appalling. He possesses no moral or intellectual integrity to be spoken of, has a despicable habit of providing ‘alternative facts‘, and his ego is far too large to fit in this universe. My understanding is that he’s also accused by some of certain crimes, but I don’t really know if it’s true, so I will suspend my judgement on that. Anyway, my opinion of Trump isn’t important. What is important is that a lot of people have a similar opinion of him. When you have such a low opinion of somebody, it’s very easy to have a similarly low opinion of anything they do or that is associated with them, regardless of the actual merits of what they do or are associated with. In other words, it’s very easy to reason like this: ‘Trump is an idiot, therefore anything he does or is associated with is idiotic,’ whence ‘If Trump did X, or is somehow associated with X, then X must be idiotic.’ Especially in the case of Trump, it’s tempting to think like this. However, this reasoning is incorrect, and I don’t think I need to explain why. Two important consequences of this reasoning might be the following:

  • The public opinion on measures, changes, or initiatives taken or implemented by Trump could become extremely negative. This could be especially true if people thought said measures were already controversial to begin with, whether taken by Trump or others.
  • Future administrations might wish to distance themselves from Trump’s administration as much as possible, particularly if he screws up really badly or if he falls before the end of his mandate. To this end, they might want to undo changes operated by Trump and do the opposite of what he did. Again, this might be especially true in case of controversial measures on which public opinion was divided or largely negative.

Okay. Maybe it is like that. Why should you care? Well, Peter Thiel is an advisor to Donald Trump. I’m not sure what the exact title of Thiel’s position is, or how official or permanent it is, but it is pretty clear that he has the ear of the President.

I don’t have an opinion on Peter Thiel. All I know is that he co-founded PayPal and that he’s pretty much in favour of all sorts of technological and scientific progress, including, but not limited to, the defeat of ageing. As a matter of fact, Thiel is notoriously a strong supporter of SENS and has donated tons of money to SENS—something like over 6 million dollars. So far, so good. One could argue that people like Thiel (and Elon Musk, who’s also on Trump’s advisory board) might be able prevent Trump from fucking everything up, and in the case of Thiel, even help give a little push to anti-ageing research. Indeed, Thiel may be able to have his associate Jim O’Neill appointed as head of the FDA. Do you know where Jim O’Neill sits? On the board of directors of SENS.

So? What’s my problem? A board member of SENS might become the head of the FDA. This is cause for celebration, right? He could speed up the development of rejuvenation biotechs like never before, right? Yes, in theory. I would be celebrating this news if it wasn’t for two lingering concerns bothering me ever since I heard about it.

My first concern should be pretty clear. As much as we wished otherwise, rejuvenation is still a controversial idea that most people welcome with extreme scepticism at best; associating it with Trump might be a bad thing in the long term. Imagine O’Neill really becomes head of the FDA and really pushes the idea forward. The political adversaries of Trump might well make use of this against him. They could accuse him of wasting taxpayers’ money on pipe dreams, of attempting to undermine the natural order of things, and could raise all the usual objections to rejuvenation we’re used to hear. As advocates of rejuvenation, we all know that even perfectly reasonable people tend to fall for these objections without even questioning them; if they’re blinded by political hatred, I fear they’ll be even more likely to buy into these arguments and become well persuaded that rejuvenation is an impossible goal that only a fool like Trump could ever try to pursue. Some of the least bright minds might even believe that he wants to achieve immortality to rule the world forever, or some other crazy nonsense like that.

A possible result is that the opposition against rejuvenation might increase. Trump’s successors might undo any pro-rejuvenation initiative he might have enacted and steer clear from the cause. Crowdfunding efforts might become more difficult, and the fear of bad publicity might drive private investors away. Remember how Aubrey de Grey always says there’s at least a 10% chance that we won’t get rejuvenation for another 100 years? This might be the most direct way to pump that percentage all the way up to 50%.

But wait—it gets worse. If you’ve read some of the articles I linked above, you might have got the same creeping feeling that authors are trying to present Thiel as more of a weirdo than an innovator. Maybe that isn’t their intention; still, a fervent opposer of Trump reading that one of his advisors is into building cities on the sea, has a ‘well-documented obsession with life-extension technologies, including extending his own lifespan with blood transfusions from young people’ (cit. from Vanity Fair above), and thinks the FDA is in the way of drug innovation, may easily conclude that these are the hallmarks of a nutcase. Jim O’Neill isn’t in a better position, really, because he’s into pretty much the same things, and more than one article present him as a dangerous radical who speaks at biotech meetings without being a physician. They’re not very upfront about it, but I do think they’re subtly implying he’s incompetent at best and crazy at worst. How much, if at all, is their opinion of Trump influencing their opinion of Thiel and O’Neill? How will this influence their opinion of rejuvenation?

Some papers may be deliberately misrepresenting Thiel and O’Neill, and I don’t necessarily share such extreme opinions on them. I don’t know enough about them to even have a clear opinion. To be honest, I have my doubts about their idea that drugs should be approved right after passing safety tests, even if efficacy isn’t proved; this is my second concern. This idea is quite controversial, yet it seems to be shared by many within SENS (including Aubrey de Grey—he’s pretty upfront about it in Ending Aging) and others within the movement (most notably FA!). I’m willing to bet this is another argument that Trump’s opposers could easily use against him—for example, they could argue that loosening drug approval criteria may end up flooding the market with placebos and potentially dangerous medicines. True or not, this argument’s appeal to fear could be very powerful, especially among Trump’s opposers, and could do an even better job at convincing them that supporters of rejuvenation are dangerously crazy. (As a side note, if something did go wrong as a consequence of a hastily approved anti-ageing drug, I fear the shockwave would be felt throughout the entire field for decades to come.) However, I haven’t made my mind up about this whole FDA thing. I need to do more research and ask for more opinions before I come to a conclusion; therefore, I’ll leave this matter for another post.

Under different circumstances, I’d be extremely happy to know that a SENS board member might be part of the US President’s entourage. Further research might make me less worried about O’Neill’s proposals for the FDA, but I’d really prefer the first President to endorse SENS to be someone else than a total moron with great chances to be remembered as the worst and most hated US President in history.

Maybe I’m blowing it out of proportions. I certainly hope so.

PS: It’s okay if you disagree with my opinions. It’s okay if you want to comment to say it. However, I’m not interested in debating if Hillary, or any other candidate, would have been better than Trump or anything like that. I don’t know, and I don’t even care.

Reductio ad absurdum

If you’ve ever tried to advocate for rejuvenation, you know it is hard. Usually, people deem the idea as crazy/impossible/dangerous well before you get to finish your first sentence. Living too long would be boring, it would cause overpopulation, ‘immortal’ dictators, and what you have. However, you’ve probably never heard anyone use the same arguments to say that we should not cure individual age-related diseases. This is largely because people have little to no idea about what ageing really is, and how it cannot be untangled from the so-called age-related pathologies. These are nothing more, nothing less, than the result of the life-long accumulation of several types of damage caused by the body’s normal operations. Unlike infectious diseases, the diseases of old age are not the result of a pathogen attack, but essentially of your own body falling apart. As I was saying, people are largely unaware of this fact, and therefore expect that the diseases of ageing could be cured one by one without having to interfere with the ageing process itself, as if the two weren’t related at all. The result of this false expectation would be that you could cure Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc., but somehow old people would still drop dead around the age of 80 just because they’re old. That’s like saying they died of being healthy.

Back to reality, this can’t be done. To cure the diseases of old age, you need to cure ageing itself. If, for whatever reason, you think that curing ageing as a whole would be a bad idea and it should not be done, the only option is to not cure at least some of the root causes of ageing. Consequently, some age-related pathologies would remain as untreatable as they are today.

Now, the typical objections raised against rejuvenation tend to sound reasonable at first. To some, the statement ‘We should not cure ageing because it would lead to overpopulation’ sounds self-evident. However, if we consider the implications of this statement, things start getting crazy. As said, not curing ageing implies not curing some of its root causes, which in turn implies not curing some age-related diseases. Therefore, the sentence ‘We should not cure ageing’ implies ‘We should not cure [insert age-related disease here]. What happens when we reformulate typical objections to rejuvenation in this fashion?

  • Generic:
    We should not cure ageing, because otherwise fewer people would die and this might lead to overpopulation.
  • Specific:
    We should not cure Alzheimer’s disease, because otherwise fewer people would die and this might lead to overpopulation.

  • Generic:
    We should not cure ageing, because it would be unnatural.
  • Specific:
    We should not cure atherosclerosis, because it would be unnatural. (The f*ck did I just read?!)

  • Generic:
    We should not cure ageing, because it would be only for the rich and cause inequality.
  • Specific:
    We should not cure cancer, because it would be only for the rich and cause inequality. (THE F#CK DID I JUST READ?!?!)

  • Generic:
    We should not cure ageing, because there are more urgent issues.
  • Specific:
    We should not cure type 2 diabetes, because there are more urgent issues. (Right. Now let me watch this new Hollywood mediocre blockbuster whose making was an absolute priority.)

  • Generic:
    We should not cure ageing, because longer lifespans would be boring.
  • Specific:
    We should not cure cerebrovascular diseases, because longer lifespans would be boring. (Well, I can see how an ischemic attack would spice your life up.)

  • Generic:
    We should not cure ageing, because the future looks too grim to live.
  • Specific:
    We should not cure arteriosclerosis, because the future looks too grim to live. (We should not cure all age-related diseases—effectively making the future worse than whatever it looks like right now—because some people think the future will be so horrible that THEY won’t want to live any more and for some weird reason specifically prefer to be killed by an age-related disease, even though all of this incidentally implies that most of the rest of the world too will die of age-related diseases, including those who disagree with this crazy argument. Sounds reasonable.)

I don’t think I need to point out why the statements listed under ‘specific’ are utterly ridiculous. (Which, in case you were wondering, is the reason for the title of this post. It’s latin for ‘reduction to absurdity’ and it is a type of mathematical proof, also known as proof by contradiction. What I did here is not a proof by contradiction, but the ‘reduction to absurdity’ bit is definitely there.) I’m all for discussing potential problems brought about by the defeat of ageing, so that we can prevent them from ever happening; however, I’m not going to buy a pig in a poke and accept blatant nonsense as valid objections to rejuvenation. Also, choosing which age-related diseases should be left untreated for the sake of not curing ageing as a whole is not an interest I’m planning to pick up any time soon.

The point of rebutting objections to rejuvenation

If you’ve hung around here long enough, you probably know I have two pet peeves: ageing and money. If we assume the saying ‘Only two things are certain in life: death and taxes’ is true, then we’re forced to conclude that I advocate for the (indirect) elimination of the only two certainties in life. So, if you came here looking for certainties, I’m afraid you’re in the wrong place.

I’m (mostly) not joking. Lately I’ve been working a lot on the Answers to objections section, which together with a few discussions I’ve had on the Internet, got me thinking about the point of rebutting objections to rejuvenation. Generally, when I discuss the subject with somebody who’s not at all sold on the idea of rejuvenating people, I get the feeling they expect me to prove beyond doubt that nothing can possibly go wrong, either along the way between here and an ageless world or once that world has been reached. If my feeling is correct, opposers to rejuvenation may expect that my rebuttals are meant to prove that neither a post-ageing world, nor the journey to it, will present any problems or challenges.

This expectation is utterly unrealistic. It’s actually worse than that—it’s completely wrong. There’s no way in hell I (or anyone else) could guarantee that we won’t have a dictator ruling a nation for six centuries, or that environmental problems won’t be exacerbated, etc. The reason I can’t promise none of the above will happen is the very same reason why rejuvenation opposers can’t promise any of the above will happen: Nobody can actually predict the future.

Arguments against rejuvenation only sound reasonable because they appeal to our fears and to the blame-the-humans attitude of so many people. If you trust only your gut feelings and don’t bother examining facts and data, anti-rejuvenation arguments can easily seem obviously true. Accepting an anti-rejuvenation argument requires far less mental work than understanding why the same argument isn’t as sound as it appears, but that doesn’t make anti-rejuvenation arguments any more ‘obviously true’ than their rebuttals. It is impossible to know for a fact whether or not rejuvenation will cause any given problem before we get there.

Proving that no problems will arise as a consequence of defeating ageing is not the point of rebutting objections to rejuvenation. That’s not what any of my answers does. All they do is showing that objections to rejuvenation rely more often than not on fallacious reasoning, ignorance, fears, misconceptions, and wrong assumptions taken for established fact. In short, what we do when rebutting objections to rejuvenation is showing they aren’t valid reasons to let ageing continue crippling and killing us. At the same time, answers to objections show why all those predictions of doom and gloom aren’t as likely as they may appear. There’s no certainty to be found anywhere, but this doesn’t really matter—had we refrained from doing anything that wasn’t proved to be 100% risk-free throughout history, we’d probably still be living in caves.

Remember: Objections to rejuvenation are about hypothetical future problems that are far from being certain. Ageing and all the suffering and deaths that come with it are a very tangible fact, happening here and now. This alone should be sufficient to forget about objections altogether and focus only on putting an end to ageing. However, rebutting objections has also another purpose: It fuels discussion. Apart from raising awareness of the problem of ageing and the feasibility of its defeat, discussion prepares us to face the new challenges an ageless future might bring. The way to a world without ageing is still long, which gives us all the time we need to prevent eternal dictators, overpopulation, and all sorts of dystopian scenarios from ever materialising.

Update bundle #3

Last update: 20.01.2017.

Happy New Year! Yes, I realise I’m a bit late for that one, but I’ve been quite busy in the last month. I spent good part of my Christmas holidays and of January working on some improvements to Rejuvenaction, and yet others are planned. Let me tell you about them.

The largest change is the new version of the overpopulation objection. I’d been wanting to revise it for some time already, and I added a lot more meat to it in the process. I split it into three separate sections dealing with different aspects of the problem; each of them goes much more into detail than before. Comments and suggestions are welcome, especially if you notice any mistakes that I may have overlooked.

I answered two more objections, namely Rejuvenation will be too expensive to create and Rejuvenation won’t happen within my lifetime.

I also created a page containing all answers in short, whose purpose should be self-explanatory. Each short answer on this page links to the corresponding full answer both on Rejuvenaction and LEAF (if available). More generally, each time you see this icon

leaf

it means the article you’re reading has a counterpart on LEAF which I linked to and you may want to check out.

I also retouched some other articles here and there, and shortened the titles of menu items for the sake of navigability. Should you find any broken links anywhere, please let me know. With all the changes I made, it’s bound to have happened somewhere.

Next, I’m planning to add more content to the section about ageing and SENS, but it’ll take a while before I even begin, so don’t hold your breath.

On an unpleasant note, the crowdfunding campaign for CellAge has only two days left to go and has reached only 29% of the goal. If you can help push that percentage a bit higher, please do.

UPDATE: The CellAge fundraiser has been extended until February 24th, and is currently 30% funded. We’ve got over a month’s time to make it 100%!