Interesting to get your perspective on this and I couldn’t agree that the pushback is unnecessary.
However one paragraph really stuck with me: „By the way, even if I could get 30 years of extra “bad life” with pain and diseases, I would still take it. So would most other people—they don’t want to die and want to see a bit more life. Anyone who argues otherwise should logically be arguing for euthanasia or mandatory termination after reaching the end of their healthspan.”
When working on geriatrics on oncology wards you are seeing so much pain and suffering. I’ve meant numerous patients who didn’t want to go on like that, they said „they’d had enough” and were „ready”. Perhaps our fear of death changes as years go on.
Maybe you are not talking here about living with pain and disease to such extent but my life lessons from geriatrics medicine came to mind immediately.
I also agree that euthanasia should be optional. If you do not want to live, you should be have the right to go with maximum pleasure. I am a bit different - I want to see progress in science and technology or at least hear about it.
Quality of life is absolutely critical to me, thus "healthspan" has been my focus (even though I'm personally aiming to make it to 120). This article was a bit of a wake up though, in that the two can't really be separated.
The "woke" logic seems idiotic. Of course new technologies will be expensive and only available to the wealthy. You covered that wonderfully.
Great article! Another manifestation of the 'pro-aging trance' unfortunately seeping even into the enthusiasts "I don't care about lifespan, only healthspan", they say until they receive a terminal diagnosis, then suddenly every day is precious and they will spend everything and more to get even a few more hours or days. Similarly, no one who was healthy and happy and fully functional today would suddenly decide they want to die tomorrow (sure after many centuries or millenia maybe one wants to see an afterlife etc. but key word 'suddenly').
It's one thing for the wider world to quote this rhetoric, but its a serious problem when our front liners of the field are doing it. All of us as longevity enthusiasts (scientists, researchers, clinicians, founders, investors etc.) must unify on the logical point that there is no separation between 'healthspan' and 'lifespan' extension when it comes to advanced therapies beyond lifestyle optimization, and nobody in their right mind would want that separation.
This is also a major subject of an upcoming event RejuveAI is co-hosting with Infinita City in Prospera, Roatan, Honduras in 2 weeks time--forgive the shameless plug :D https://www.rejuve.ai/longevitybiomarkersconference
My guess is that plenty of people will reject lifespan technology. One of the reasons for rejection will be that such technology is 'unnatural'. And it is unnatural because it increases lifespan without improving health. Something that people do not want.
In reality, this is just an excuse to justify sticking to status quo. The alternative is to make an effort. Much easier to stick with the way things are, while claiming moral superiority.
The worst case scenario would be for lifespan technology to be met with the same resistance vaccines are facing. I hope it doesn't come to that - although I think there are some similarities between the two, conceptually. At least lifespan tech can remain individual choice, as it doesn't have population health implications.
Tbh I’ve thought these debates were stupid for a long time.
Inside the field, people don’t debate overpopulation, or whether there’s real need and a market for gerotherapeutics, or other basic questions. But for some reason, many people still debate lifespan vs healthspan. I've even heard one side mocking the other side as “healthspanners.”
I totally agree with you that it’s worthless without the technology. And given what we know today about the biology of aging, I’d bet all my money that even first-gen gerotherapeutics will improve both healthspan and lifespan.
Interesting to get your perspective on this and I couldn’t agree that the pushback is unnecessary.
However one paragraph really stuck with me: „By the way, even if I could get 30 years of extra “bad life” with pain and diseases, I would still take it. So would most other people—they don’t want to die and want to see a bit more life. Anyone who argues otherwise should logically be arguing for euthanasia or mandatory termination after reaching the end of their healthspan.”
When working on geriatrics on oncology wards you are seeing so much pain and suffering. I’ve meant numerous patients who didn’t want to go on like that, they said „they’d had enough” and were „ready”. Perhaps our fear of death changes as years go on.
Maybe you are not talking here about living with pain and disease to such extent but my life lessons from geriatrics medicine came to mind immediately.
I also agree that euthanasia should be optional. If you do not want to live, you should be have the right to go with maximum pleasure. I am a bit different - I want to see progress in science and technology or at least hear about it.
Quality of life is absolutely critical to me, thus "healthspan" has been my focus (even though I'm personally aiming to make it to 120). This article was a bit of a wake up though, in that the two can't really be separated.
The "woke" logic seems idiotic. Of course new technologies will be expensive and only available to the wealthy. You covered that wonderfully.
Great article! Another manifestation of the 'pro-aging trance' unfortunately seeping even into the enthusiasts "I don't care about lifespan, only healthspan", they say until they receive a terminal diagnosis, then suddenly every day is precious and they will spend everything and more to get even a few more hours or days. Similarly, no one who was healthy and happy and fully functional today would suddenly decide they want to die tomorrow (sure after many centuries or millenia maybe one wants to see an afterlife etc. but key word 'suddenly').
It's one thing for the wider world to quote this rhetoric, but its a serious problem when our front liners of the field are doing it. All of us as longevity enthusiasts (scientists, researchers, clinicians, founders, investors etc.) must unify on the logical point that there is no separation between 'healthspan' and 'lifespan' extension when it comes to advanced therapies beyond lifestyle optimization, and nobody in their right mind would want that separation.
This is also a major subject of an upcoming event RejuveAI is co-hosting with Infinita City in Prospera, Roatan, Honduras in 2 weeks time--forgive the shameless plug :D https://www.rejuve.ai/longevitybiomarkersconference
My guess is that plenty of people will reject lifespan technology. One of the reasons for rejection will be that such technology is 'unnatural'. And it is unnatural because it increases lifespan without improving health. Something that people do not want.
In reality, this is just an excuse to justify sticking to status quo. The alternative is to make an effort. Much easier to stick with the way things are, while claiming moral superiority.
The worst case scenario would be for lifespan technology to be met with the same resistance vaccines are facing. I hope it doesn't come to that - although I think there are some similarities between the two, conceptually. At least lifespan tech can remain individual choice, as it doesn't have population health implications.
Tbh I’ve thought these debates were stupid for a long time.
Inside the field, people don’t debate overpopulation, or whether there’s real need and a market for gerotherapeutics, or other basic questions. But for some reason, many people still debate lifespan vs healthspan. I've even heard one side mocking the other side as “healthspanners.”
I totally agree with you that it’s worthless without the technology. And given what we know today about the biology of aging, I’d bet all my money that even first-gen gerotherapeutics will improve both healthspan and lifespan.
How many penniless waifs were among the WEF attendees asking these questions?
Great article