#1

Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist who wrote a famous essay in the '90s called “The End of History,” now argues that life extension “will be disastrous on the social level.”

1 Like
#2

Since it’s not going to happen in my lifetime, we can kick this one down the road :slight_smile:

8 Likes
#3

Good planning and voluntary euthenasia will take care of most of these problems.

3 Likes
#4

voluntary euthenasia will take care of most of these problems.

Has Fukuyama volunteered? I could get behind that.

3 Likes
#5

Looking at what he says:

I am not looking forward to living in such a world, and indeed I think that such a world might constitute an immense disaster for humankind. There are two basic reasons for this.

… Its advances are likely to be episodic and narrowly focused, leaving people with increasing debilities even as their life spans increase. …

… An optimist may hope that there will be cures for these diseases over time, but survival is not the same thing as having treatments that restore a functioning and flourishing life.

This brings us to the second issue that is not widely discussed, but which is at the core of the problem of life extension. Among the cognitive debilities that occur over time is rigidity in one’s fundamental outlook and assumptions about life. …

This is quite a mainstream view that people don’t want a long ill life with people totally rigid in their outlook.

If, however, people are healthier then this is a different issue.

2 Likes
#6

I’ll agree with @Steve_Combi that there is very little threat of life extension at this time on a societal basis. Now, hopefully for those of us on this forum, we improve our healthspan and when that fails, die quickly and inexpensively without trying exotic treatments to drag ourselves along in a serious degree of disability.

One of the many problems with modern medicine, is that we are doing things to people to artificially extend lifespan while not taking an objective look at what are the dollars spent per additional QUALITY year of life for a therapy. At the point it goes above a certain cost, which I’d say so many of our therapies are absurdly expensive and for bugger all benefit in the bigger scheme of things, the therapy shouldn’t be covered by any type of insurance or government program.

In the ER, where I sit right now, the majority of individuals that I treat by the time they are in their late 40’s have almost no teeth left, are mentally slow, obese, multiple comorbidities such as already in renal failure, already had a stroke, diabetes, already had bypass surgery or other vascular procedures. I have worry about the therapies and expense that we put into individuals with very poor long term prognoses. In Australia, it was always a consideration of benefit vs. costs when admitting someone to ICU, here, it seems to not even be a consideration - totally fine to start down a pathway that will cost $100,000 with a patient who has 10 comorbidities including end stage dementia.

A focus on healthspan would make sense, and with this focus, you live as long as you take care of yourself well, and if something happens, if there is a reasonable likelihood of success with some therapy and decent further healthspan on the other side - I’m all for it. However, this isn’t the thought process today.

9 Likes
#7

Elon Musk also argues against it. He said, society needs young blood, new ideas without baggage from past.

1 Like
#8

New ideas, LOL! What happens when the idea is no longer new, due to the simple passage of time?

What about the idea that we need new ideas? What happens when that idea becomes “old”? Does it mean that in 50 years we will no longer need new ideas, since needing new ideas is now an old idea?

Oh wait, that already happened. The idea that older people have bad ideas and therefore should not be trusted was famously expressed in 1964 as “don’t trust anyone over 30”. And then many promoters of that principle, such as Abbie Hoffman got older than 30 and miraculously changed their minds.

Oops, that “over 30” idea itself is 61 years old, close to retirement age, it can draw on social security (itself a very old idea).

In short it’s a lot of nonsense. Ideas are not distinguished by age, but by being good or bad.

I’d say, we need good ideas, regardless of age, not necessarily new ideas.

Btw. the very idea that there even exist new ideas is a questionable idea. The ancients, as so often, where onto it way back when - hey, old idea again - “nihil sub sole novum”, latin for “there is nothing new under the sun”, the point being that there are no truly novel ideas, as everything has already been inherent in the totality of existence, and we only express it.

I feel sorry for those that think being old, the passage of time itself, renders people’s ideas invalid, their thinking rigid, incapable of innovation, creativity and contribution. Don’t judge people by their age, judge them by the quality of their minds and their output into the world.

Funny too, that in order to get those great “new ideas” we need to limit human lifespan. Because guess what… we’ve already had the results of that idea for a long time, in a natural experiment, the best kind: back when the average lifespan was in the 20’s and 30’s was not a time of especially rich intellectual life in the caves. So there. And what’s old enough to shove people into the grave and pull out those “new ideas”, 40’s? 50’s? 80’s? I suspect it’s 10 years into the future from whatever age the proponents of this approach (such as Elon Musk) reach, just like Abbie Hoffman. It’s like that quip “what age is old” “always 10 years older than me”.

How long should we live before we are discarded? We should live long enough so bad new ideas can grow old and be discarded. Like the idea that longevity is harmful to civilization, since history has verified that the opposite is true.

4 Likes
#9

Personally I’m not against extending a healthy lifespan. Unfortunately that is extremely difficult and will most likely be very expensive. I feel the greatest risk is billionaires will be the only ones who can afford it and they will use that to rule as they please. Altered Carbon is a good blueprint for that. The book is much better than the TV show.

That concept, that new ideas only come from young people is interesting, for there to be new ideas all we need is pure, unadulterated new people.

But… new people need older people to raise them, feed them, educate them and pass along a modicum of wisdom, then the newer people can come up with their great new ideas, maybe.

For Elon’s concept to work, you would need new people to never be raised by old people with old ideas rooted in experience and history. History, that thing that someone said failing to learn from was not a good way for humanity to progress. ‘Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’ The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana. I’d hate to learn from an old guy like that :slight_smile: can you imagine what the great minds could contribute to society if they were still alive. Carl Sagan comes to mind as one example, as does Frank Zappa.

Baby factories controlled by Elon’s Grok may be the answer :slight_smile: Maybe the show Raised by Wolves is another blueprint for the future.

It’s not like Elon has had any truly new ideas. Electric cars are an old idea, space travel is an old idea, satellite constellations are an old idea, etc. Sure the companies he purchased and the people who actually run them are very innovative and technically competent in executing those old ideas :slight_smile:

7 Likes
#10

Besides, in the early '90s, in those halcyon, pre-Putin days, Fukuyama misinterpreted the end of the Cold War as the end of ideological conflict, prematurely declaring victory for Western style democracy. He may be bringing the same lack of foresight to this essay on life extension.

4 Likes
#11

I agree 1000%. I literally had to stop working in my chosen area of the medical field because I couldn’t stomach seeing and participating in it anymore. My heart goes out to all people in that condition but particularly those my age and younger (in diapers even!). It could have easily been me if I hadn’t consciously chosen in my forties to make major changes and put in the hard work required to increase my chances of healthy aging. I’ve made plenty of mistakes but at least I keep trying. More people really need to focus on the basics because most of what I dealt with was completely preventable.

5 Likes
#12

In reality all that will happen is that young people continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

3 Likes
#13

Yes, no pill, no supplement, will prevent the young–and their aging, flabbier selves–from engaging in unhealthy practices.

2 Likes
#14

Never read anything Fukuyama has ever written yet but think tank liberals love the guy as far as I can tell (Chomsky is probably number one). That could spell bad news on that side of the aisle.

1 Like
#15

Hahaha. I guess we should all do seppuku to satisfy him. Did he never hear about Malthus predicting a growing population would starve to death. He doesnt get how healthspan works.

2 Likes
#16

Frank Zapper!!?? Holy Waka/Jawaka! That made me laugh so hard I almost spit out my Burnt Weeny Sandwich!

Fran zappa- Hot Rats and Burnt Weeny Sandwich

2 Likes
#17

Saw him at the Maple Leafs Gardens (Toronto) in the 70’s amazing!!

Here is why I referenced Frank…

1 Like
#18

Sheik Yerbouti: : “Don’t eat that yellow snow.”

1 Like