tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37932483.post2092902598997285317..comments2007-04-18T08:39:27.405-04:00Barry Mahfoodhttps://profiles.google.com/108630062563152702964noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37932483.post-6046394591647487422007-04-18T08:39:00.000-04:002007-04-18T08:39:00.000-04:00spaceman, barry, leonid,<BR/><BR/>check out "quantity vs. form" in wendell berry's <I>the way of ignorance</I>. no doubt you'll find it interesting, and hopefully instructive.<BR/><BR/>(spaceman, just holla if you wanna borrow my copy. barry, ask spaceman for it this weekend, if you're interested)manley pointerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13248120852660320418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37932483.post-50930967079245441152007-04-15T12:49:00.000-04:002007-04-15T12:49:00.000-04:00Thank you for your interesting post!<BR/>I thought perhaps you may also find this related story interesting to you:<BR/><A HREF="http://longevity-science.blogspot.com/2007/01/sens.html" REL="nofollow">Longevity Science: SENS</A><BR/><A HREF="http://longevity-science.blogspot.com/2007/01/sens.html" REL="nofollow">http://longevity-science.blogspot.com/2007/01/sens.html</A>Dr. Leonid Gavrilov, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16532399504488774882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37932483.post-61490070502547613052007-04-08T22:43:00.000-04:002007-04-08T22:43:00.000-04:00Dr. de Grey seems to assume that immortality has always been the goal of medicine, but of course it hasn't. The accepted goal of medicine has always been to heal and present disease, disease being an abnormality , so that people can be free to have a "natural" human life as it would be without the disease. The next step, augmenting human abilit or lifespan, is *clearly* a qualitatively different thing. <BR/><BR/>Medicine exists to promote health, but health is only good insofar as it is good for human beings. But physical health is clearly not the highest good, since cruelty to others in the name of prolonging my own life is an evil. So one cannot assume a priori that immortality would be good unless someone proves it bad. The whole question of whether it would be good or bad is open. <BR/><BR/>Also, aging doesn't just include the physical difficulties that old people complain about, it also includes growing from infancy to childhood to adolescence, and from adolescence to adulthood and adulthood to maturity. And people rarely say "I wish I could be ignorant again like I was as a teenager." <BR/><BR/>Lastly, I really resent Dr. de Grey's condescending and arrogant tone here. On the topic of aging, I'd rather take the ethical and reflective judgment of someone who has come to terms with it and learned how to live well in life as it is than someone who is so afraid of it that they devote their lives to preventing it. We've all met people like that. The type who are meticulous about what they eat to the point of rejecting what is set before them by hosts, who spend way too much time exercising, who are always in fear of gaining a pound or an inch. <BR/><BR/>People like that haven't figured out how to live with life as it is, and I somehow doubt they'd be much better off if death were somehow no longer a factor. <BR/><BR/>And Dr. de Grey seems to place him/herself in the latter category with language like this: "putting the horror of aging out of our minds and getting on with our miserably short lives..." I wonder if Dr. de Grey has considered the possibility that s/he uses science and the hope that aging can be eliminated as a coping mechanism? Somehow I doubt the good doctor has subjected his/her own beliefs to the same scrutiny the "anti-anti-aging" crowd seems to get even in a "charitable" moment.Spaceman Spiffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02195067716296117149noreply@blogger.com