"Be fine with dying of old age or else you're a villain" is this weird, fundamental, Christian part of our common mythos/ethics/stories. The evil villain seeks immortality. The kindly old witch or wizard or Pope dies peacefully because it is right.
Aging is bad. We might be able to fix it. There are a thousand downsides and challenges that come with a solution to old age, but that doesn't mean leaving aging in place is better.
Would you be comfortable slamming other religions in the same causal way? If not, why not?
If there is a tiger chasing you, wouldn't you try to escape or fight? Or just give up and let the tiger eat you? It is natural, tiger also want to eat, right?
I mean, if an elder gets into a car accident, shouldn't we try to save them? If a fire starts in a nursing home, shouldn't the residents be evacuated and the fire put down? How come that everyone understands the importance of saving lives, but some flip 180 degrees on it if the cause looks "natural" enough and the victim is old enough?
People who support the notion of death seem not to constantly fear it themselves, but view it as something hypothetical, that they wouldn't have to face themselves in the near future (likely several decades).
Human brain can make that judgment wherever it wants. I think the general case that shitty medical routes are just not worth it is often true.
Isn't that a bit like supporting the notion that there is a sky above us?
Perhaps you are referring to people who reject the notion that death is to be avoided in all circumstances, whatever the consequences.
Sure, not by default, but on the merits of those downside, you probably should conclude that it is in fact better to have people age. Especially if it serves to only be available to the rich and powerful. That's just a shortcut to utter dystopia.
I think most people would think that a poor person under the rule of a despotic king is still better off alive than dead. So how come that, if the king were to live for hundreds of years, that poor person would suddenly be better off dead?
I feel this line of reasoning boils down to, "if we can't have perfect equality, everyone should die".
Better 100 good years than 500 bad ones.
Following the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, leading to an expansion of the provision of care. Among the earliest were those built ca. 370 by St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), by Saint Fabiola in Rome ca. 390, and by the physician-priest Saint Sampson (d. 530) in Constantinople, Called the Basiliad, St. Basil's hospital resembled a city, and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[7] There was a separate section for lepers.[8] Eventually construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun.
Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals after the end of the persecution of the early church.[9] Ancient church leaders like St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) emphasized medicine as an aid to the provision of hospitality.[10] 12th century Roman Catholic orders like the Dominicans and Carmelites have long lived in religious communities that work for the care of the sick.[11]
Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[12] Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician (archiatroi), professional nurses (hypourgoi) and orderlies (hyperetai). By the twelfth century, Constantinople had two well-organized hospitals, staffed by doctors who were both male and female. Facilities included systematic treatment procedures and specialized wards for various diseases.[13]
Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern to the Byzantine. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (An old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.") Some were attached to monasteries; others were independent and had their own endowments, usually of property, which provided income for their support. Some hospitals were multi-functional while others were founded for specific purposes such as leper hospitals, or as refuges for the poor, or for pilgrims: not all cared for the sick.
When and where the first hospital was established is a matter of dispute. According to some authorities (e.g. Ratzinger, p. 141), St. Zoticus built one at Constantinople during the reign of Constantine, but this has been denied (cf. Uhlhorn, I, 319). But that the Christians in the East had founded hospitals before Julian the Apostate came to the throne (361) is evident from the letter which that emperor sent to Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, directing him to establish a xenodochium in each city to be supported out of the public revenues (Soxomen, V, 16). As he plainly declares, his motive was to rival the philanthropic work of the Christians who cared for the pagans as well as for their own. A splendid instance of this comprehensive charity is found in the work of St. Ephraem who, during the plague at Edessa (375), provided 300 beds for the sufferers. But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools. St. Gregory of Nazianzus was deeply impressed by the extent and efficiency of this institution which he calls "an easy ascent to heaven" and which he describes enthusiastically (Or. 39, "In laudem Basilii"; Or. fun. "In Basil.", P.G., XXXVI, 578-579).
It's like that old joke about a group of PMs that have "invented the general AI". Now all that's left to do is for some researchers and engineers to create it.
Until the general public accepts the necessity of the age-related research, there won't be any effective mechanism for age reversion.
NIH yearly budget is 35B dollars. Half of that they spend on cancer research, the other half divides between the other diseases. Age research is a tiny fraction of this budget.
Until NIH spends at least 1/3 of their annual budget on fighting aging, there won't be any significant progress.
And uncontrolled regeneration can give you tumors [citation needed], so there is no easy path other than your own genetics or having a good lifestyle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
Even rivers and stars have an end...
I doubt they are the primary cause of ageing.
I prefer the theory explaining ageing as an epigenome misregulation that David Sinclair describes.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I feel like that is the classic hubris of mankind to aspire to become gods. We want to control nature and life, yet our limited knowledge prevents us from understanding the ramifications of our actions until it is too late. (Under a White Sky is an interesting read on the subject)
Gods were invented by people who refused to admit their ignorance of things they couldn't understand or explain.
Every year the list of unexplainable things gets shorter and shorter. Maybe we'll never be able to explain everything, but I do believe it's within reach to understand the aging process to the point of being able to reverse or even halt it. It may not happen in our lifetimes, and the society that figures it out may not be able to deal with the ramifications properly, but they will learn over time. Just as we've done with scientific and technological advancements in the past. Sometimes you can't figure out how to deal with something until you have to deal with it.
But we are becoming gods. The problem isn't with the aspiration, the problem is that we currently suck at being gods and need to get better at it.
Aging is not natural? I certainly understand why someone would not consider it a disorder.
> I want a few million years of a healthy young life.
I would avoid literal genies if I were you.
We should treat aging the same way. Some people's bodies fail them at 80, but others live to be 100+. If we develop good treatments there's no reason that everyone can't live to be 100 in relatively good health.
How are heart disease and cancer not natural?
Aging is also slightly different in that it's how our bodies are supposed to work as far as I understand it, which is not very well (Possibly as a cancer prevention mechanism).
Telomeres and Aging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Association_with_agin...
Telomeres and Cancer prevention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Telomerase
The parent isn't claiming that; they are pointing out that heart disease and cancer are just as natural as aging. We spend a lot of effort to cure heart disease and cancer, so why not do the same with aging?
Everybody but a few enthusiasts refuse to treat ageing instead of cancer or heart diseases. People in general refuse to treat ageing as a disease, thinking it is something natural.
I would not want a couple more miserable years on earth, I want a few million years of a healthy young life.