Abstract
“At the moment it seems quite effectively disguised”—Winston Churchill, in response to his wife's suggestion that his 1945 election defeat might be a blessing in disguise
F
But the job remains incomplete. The terror of aging that has so utterly cowed humanity since the dawn of civilization remains strong, in the form of a profound compulsion to put it out of our minds. Unfortunately, as beings who rely for our self-esteem on faith in our own rationality, we can only do that by constructing excuses for aging: arguments for why it is a blessing in disguise. Thus, we cling to those arguments as though our life depended on it, even though in fact it is our death that depends on it.
It is time, therefore, for a new onslaught. And this time, the onslaught must be on the straw men: on the seductiveness of arguments that consist of proposing something and then letting ignorance and fear take the place of analysis. This tactic very often takes a canonical form: conflating two distinct topics in a manner that uses dismissal of each as the basis for dismissal of the other. To an uninvested audience, the invalidity of such “logic” is easily exposed—but in our case, the audience is desperate to believe that the conclusion (that aging is both immutable and ultimately desirable) truly stands up to scrutiny.
Accordingly, a forthcoming issue of Rejuvenation Research will consist of articles attempting to defend one of a defined list of propositions, each of which is a plank of the argument that rejuvenation biotechnology is the most high-priority focus of humanity. The call for articles consists of a description of that list, along with how it fits together to lead to the core conclusion. It will not be a stand-alone, one-off effort; rather, our aim is to position this set of articles as the kernel of an ongoing collection of contributions giving structure to a debate that has for too long been mired in obfuscation.
Here, then, is the structure of propositions that we will follow: 1. Rejuvenation research is the #1 priority for human endeavor 1.1. Rejuvenation research is the most promising route to improving health at ages >50 1.1.1. Rejuvenation research will probably give big results within a few decades 1.1.1.2. All damage that contributes to ill-health >50 is amenable to repair 1.1.1.3. Repair of age-related damage is more feasible than slowing its creation 1.1.2. Thereafter, it should improve fast enough to keep people youthful indefinitely 1.2. Ill-health at ages >50 is the #1 cause of human suffering worldwide 1.2.1. Ill-health causes more suffering than any other widespread human experience 1.2.2. Most ill-health worldwide is from causes that mainly affect older people 1.3. The elimination of suffering is the #1 priority for human endeavor 1.4. Improving the health of those >50 will not create more suffering than it eliminates 1.4.1. Specific problems created by solving aging will be avoidable 1.4.1.2. Overpopulation will be outrun by clean tech 1.4.1.3. Inequality of access will be pre-empted by economic payback 1.4.1.4. Boredom will be prevented by education 1.4.1.5. Cognitive ossification will be eliminated by giving incentive to retrain 1.4.1.6. Any other example 1.4.2. Unavoidable problems will be less bad than the solved problem (aging) 1.4.3. Since we do not know the future, we must give future society maximum choice
And here is the list of links between the mentioned claims: A. The apical proposition 1 is true if ALL of its subpropositions are true B. Proposition 1.1 is true if ANY of its subpropositions is true C. Proposition 1.1.1 is true if ALL of its subpropositions are true D. Proposition 1.2 is true if ALL of its subpropositions are true E. Proposition 1.4 is true if ANY of its subpropositions is true F. Proposition 1.4.1 is true if ALL of its subpropositions are true
The purpose of this structure is to eliminate the obfuscation that has so impeded debate around this topic. As we can see, the list of links describes a logical map of the paths through the tree of assertions: the apical proposition follows by unambiguous logic from the links and propositions. Articles will, therefore, be considered if, and only if, they present a case against the apical proposition “rejuvenation research is the #1 priority for human endeavor” that is explicitly based on a refutation of a logically joined-up path through the tenets already enumerated. For example, an article will be acceptable if it explicitly disputes item 1.3 (that the elimination of suffering is the #1 priority for human endeavor), but not if it challenges item 1.4.1.2 without challenging items 1.4.2 and 1.4.3. Alternatively, an article can be acceptable if it explicitly challenges one of the links: for example, if it presents a case that rejuvenation research is not the #1 priority for human endeavor even if all of propositions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 are true.
We await submissions. We also, of course, welcome all enquiries seeking any needed clarification of these ground rules.
In closing: you may have noticed that this is a decidedly one-sided call for articles—reaching out only to critics, not to defenders, of the rejuvenation research mission. That is deliberate. My position is that the most insidious opposition to the rejuvenation agenda is actually self-inflicted by those who most seek to pursue that agenda: put simply, we interrupt our detractors before they get the chance to shoot themselves in the foot. Whether that is an accurate assessment remains to be seen, but the way that it will be seen is by “our side” keeping quiet for long enough to give our critics time to speak.
Bring it on!