Rhetoric 3302 Questions

I have a comment and a question, and since I am unsure how to structure it I will post the question I have about Mr. Nuland's article in another post. My comment is this: I dispute one of Mr. de Gray's precepts, that humans have a fundamental desire to live forever. As morbid as this may sound, I hope to die one day. Not today, nor tomorrow, but someday. Maybe it's just me, but I think there will be a day when I've seen all I'm going to see, do all the things I've wanted to do, a day when I grow tired and want to stop. But that's just me.

Comments/Questions: Aubrey De Grey sounds like quite a head-strong person! In response to the question in the title: "He's brilliant, but is he nuts?" - I would have to say he's nuts! The idea of living forever seemed like an interesting concept at first; but after further contemplation, having humans live for over a thousand years would pose many problems to our society. If this "experimentation" ever happens to become a regular "procedure" - who would we allow to 'live a thousand years' and who would we restrict? Obviously, celebrities would want to get their hands on this new "anti-aging" remedy, but what about the Average Joe? And how would we handle an extended overpopulation problem? I do not agree with De Grey's statement that, "We will deal with these problems as they come up." I think that De Grey is overlooking the negative side of the entire concept a little more than he should.

At first it’s easy to dismiss De Grey’s ideas as impossible and that “living forever” will bring on too many problems. I’ll admit that I don’t think that De Grey’s methods of cell rejuvenation will work (or at least any time soon) and I also think that extending life to an almost infinite length is a bad idea. However, I think it’s easy to denounce De Grey’s ideas before really understanding his message. De Grey thinks that if given the option, society as a whole will choose to live longer, but as he states, “…I don’t know and I don’t need to know.” I think this is important to understanding his frame of mind. It’s not about whether or not everyone chooses to live forever, it’s the idea that you have a choice to begin with. If you want to live forever, while De Grey believes this to be everyone, you should be able to have the choice to do so. He believes that by not researching the possibilities of life rejuvenation, we’re essentially taking away that freedom of choice for future generations. If you follow the link provided to the SENS website, De Grey addresses some of the negative impacts of rejuvenation. He brings up the example of the Pasteur “hygiene revolution” and how infant mortality rates were dramatically decreased. The response to the population increase showed how previous generations may not have anticipated how future generations would react. While I think this is not the best of examples, it is similar to De Grey’s ideas, suggesting that our current generation might find life rejuvenation to be radical and wrong but future generations may not think so.

My question about Mr. de Grey's work is simple: who's going to pay for this? Medical technology is expensive. It can be hard to convince insurance companies to pay for, well, anything, so are they going to be willing to pay for something like moving mitochondrial D.N.A. into the nucleus of a cell in order to protect it from mutation? Am I, as a blue collar worker, going to be able to afford the sophisticated microbiology that these proposals require? If I can't am I and all of my family, for generations, going to be relegated to an underclass, or even an underspecies? I admit that last one is purely rampant speculation, but I also think it is the logical extension of that basic economic question.

I believe that we should take care of ourselves, keeping our bodies healthy and such. But creating bodies that live for thousands of years? I think that is insane. I don't believe we were intended to live that long, and creating bodies like that would be somewhat immoral. Another thing that seems odd is the fact that de Grey is all into the science of living for thousands of years, but he doesn't seem to care about his present health. Patato chips for lunch? I thinks he should worry more about keeping the body he has healthy.

I think De Grey's theory sould inturn work!! If he had the right medical tools and the right research to do it I believe that it could be possible to have humans live forever!! But inturn I don't think that we should try to do it, it could be very expensive and also I would like to die some day!! That's a pretty funny concept that I would actually want to die!! Another thing is it would be very hard to live forever because of the natural aging in a body it would be very hard to slow down the bodys aging!! I have a couple questions for you!! Who is going to be paying for all the tools and medical research that there going to need to make this even remotley possible? Would they require every one to live forever or will it be the persons decision whether or not they want to? Is De Grey going to do all of this research by himself or is he going to find some people to help him? To me De Grey sounds kind of biased, he seems to only want to believe his research and his explanations and every one else is wrong thats what it kind of seems like!! Does De Grey have a problem with other peoples opinions if they are not like his? He does include some down falls on the extending life of people!! Another question though is he going to allow parents to put there kids through it if they are dieing and the parents want them to live? Well these are the comments and questions I have they may be very random, but here they are!!

Comment "Do You Want to Live Forever"

The assignment was to comment on de Grey being brilliant but nuts and if you agree with the statement. I total agree with the statement that de Grey was nuts. I don’t think he realizes what he is trying to accomplish with living forever. It is against nature. If we were made to live forever then why don’t we. And if we did live forever why would we have kids (de Grey says we don’t want them). I find that statement completely wrong it is in our genic code to be maternal and make a family. I think that the only reason de Grey says that people don’t want children is because his wife and him don’t and he is assuming that everyone wants the same. Then there is that fact that even if is theory works, I don’t believe he will get the money to fund it. No matter what de Grey says or what most people feel, inside everyone wants to die at some time. And with that belief in people souls, de Grey will never get the money to work through his theory, or at least in his lifetime.

Comments/Questions on "Do You Want to Live Forever?" by Sherwin Nuland:
What a guy, Aubrey de Grey?! He has strong goals with is preposition on living a longer life, but are they really real? Can we in fact, get enough research money together, to try and pursue each one of de Grey's solutions to living a longer life? I think it will be tough. Many of his solutions or answers to each one of his elements of aging, require a substantial amount of research. I do think though, we should try to prolong such things as cancer or other mutations in chromosomes, to help people live longer. But once again, it will be tough to do so. Researchers are messing with the genetics and cellular processes in the human body, which could face serious consquences in the future. Also with each one of de Grey's solutions, there are more factors that may need to be considered. Such as the threat of overpopulation, the effect on relationships within families and whole societies, or even the need for employment of people. De Grey believes that each problem can be dealt with and solved as it becomes recognized. I don't think you can just deal with them as they come up. They are big issues; issues that need to be considered far in advance. Would you not agree?
Another issue that was brought up in the article was that de Grey commented on the way the majority of people would rather choose life extension than having children. I don't know about anyone else, but someday, I would like to die, not today or tomorrow, but many years down the road. Everyone is given a life that needs to be lived with excitement, memories, goals, love, and etc. I believe that we are given the opportunity in life to have enough time to do all those things, without living forever. I would also like to have children. Children would carry on their family name, once their elders passed away, and so would their children. People always say, "Life is too short", but I think it is just right the way it is.

I have some comments and questions about the article. I'm not sure how de Grey can be so enthused about something that is not even close to becoming reality. His motivation to solve the aging problem is great, but I remember reading that none of the 7 problems have been even close to solved. It almost seems as if de Grey's idea is more of a fantasy now than an experiment or research project. I also would like to die someday, I believe that dying is just another part of life. As well as old age, which will bring new experiences as well. I cannot picture living the same age for such a long time, it certainly would not be as interesting or exciting as living to be only 80 or 90 years old. I believe that the aging process brings new experiences and new interests in different things, which makes for the anticipation that life holds. Not knowing what is going to happen or how long I could be here is what drives me to live the way I want to, and experience as much as I can.

In my first post in response to the article, I tried to defend de Grey for the sake of argument (I was the third post, sorry for the lack of last name), I did that rather poorly, so here’s my second attempt.

I think the process to be improbable, not impossible. I can easily point out flaws of de Grey’s ideas, but it doesn’t really matter. Years ago no one really thought we would be able to catalogue the entire human genome, people thought it would cost too much, take too long and provide hazards to the current state of life. People believed that discrimination would occur if it was possible to test for a predisposition to a genetic disease. Last time I checked, none of those worries really came true. As de Grey believes, once advancements have been made in cell rejuvenation, someone will want that technology and will pay to fund it. I don’t know what’s going to happen 20 years in the future, but I think it’s foolish to completely dismiss the possibilities.

To finally reach the meat of de Grey’s point of view, and as I mentioned in my first response, it’s all about the freedom to choose. As a general question to all who oppose de Grey’s idea, are you saying that if I wanted to “live forever” that I shouldn’t be able to? Who am I hurting by extending my lifespan? But you’re thinking, “What about overpopulation,” right? I think to say that we are genetically wired to have children is incorrect. If that was the case, why don’t all couples have children? And why don’t people have as many children as possible so we can pass our genes to the next generation? It’s the nature vs. nurture argument, how much is genetic disposition and how much is societal norm? So instead of living to 70 years old and having 2 kids at 30, what’s the big deal if I live to 150 years old and have 2 kids when I’m 60?

I’ll be completely honest; I would consider extending my natural lifespan. Perhaps not to something as extreme as a few thousand years, but what’s wrong with making sure I can physically make it to 80 years old, or even 100? It would be entirely my choice to pursue rejuvenation or not. If problems arise, then that society will have to figure out how to deal with it. Not this one. And that’s de Grey’s point, by not pursing research in this field, we’re making the decision for every generation to come after us.

my first response to this piece was to the character of the writing of the paper. Though the words were large and somewhat technical, everything including the quotes were quite vague. The author seemed to add more mystery to de Grey than she shed light on either his beliefs or the man himself.

Well I think that de Grey's possible solutions for increasing the human lifespan seem reasonable now, but once you start to mess with certain aspects of cellular structures, more problems will occur. Also, I think he was right by saying that people will base future decisions on the possibility of living longer since the instinct to live beats out all others. Therefore, I do think that people may choose not to reproduce if they themselves could live longer. However, I think there will be massive problems for society, the environment, and family life if people were living hundreds of years. Everything is connected and affects something else whether it is the human body or the environment.

I think de Gray has lost it by trying to fight the process of life and death as we know it. The way I see it the human brain is constructed to go through certain phases in life as it ages, how does he plan to change this? Sure we might be able to physically exist longer, maybe not as long as he claims, but that still doesn't change the fact that human life evolves with experience, that is why we could not just live forever without getting mentally old.

I think de Gray has lost it by trying to fight the process of life and death as we know it. The way I see it the human brain is constructed to go through certain phases in life as it ages, how does he plan to change this? Sure we might be able to physically exist longer, maybe not as long as he claims, but that still doesn't change the fact that human life evolves with experience, that is why we could not just live forever without getting mentally old.

I believe that the most interesting part to this piece was its reference to baby boomers. IMHO, this man and his work epitomizes the baby boomers of both countries. Nuland glorifies a man's fanatasism of himself and his ego. The boomers believe that everything is theirs by birthrite. this piece is a sign of the times. there was an article in time magazine that for the boomers that 60 is the new 45. every year the average life expectancy is seemingly pushed back a few years, grandmothers and grandfathers are parenting children, the very same that refused to sire children during their 20s and 30s. what did Methusela accomplish in his tenure on earth? like many debates in science this author glossed over any rational about should we live forever, but devoted to ego stroking a man who wants to live forever.

I think de Grey is a nut. I do not think his theories will prove implementable (though none of us is qualified to challenge him, I still "feel" his ideas and presumptions are ridiculous). Reading the article, a couple points came to mind:

-- de Grey has never, ever attempted a single experiment in a lab to bring him closer to his goal. The estimation that it could be accomplished in seven to twenty years sounds like a naïve timeline of a novice. Kind of like the first-time homeowners who cutely think they can remodel their entire kitchen in a single weekend. This timeline accounts for no errors or failed methods in all of the seven factors of aging. If he isn’t a nut, he is overly-confident! Microsoft couldn’t even get their new version of Windows out yet, and it’s multiple years overdue now :)

-- It seems to me that history is full of examples in which trying to “fix” a problem creates problems worse then those solved. Ecosystems of the world have been ravaged by individuals naïvely thinking they can solve problems with “quick fixes”, and the forceful spread of religions throughout time has destroyed cultures in an effort to “better” the world. Trying to fix the problem of death and dying would almost certainly (in my mind!) create a host of new social, cultural, religious, political, and economic problems.

-- Perhaps de Grey is a boastful, self-absorbed man bent on building himself up to fulfill personal fantasies of power. Even if his theories are just those – theories – he is still getting the world attention and intellectual consideration he craves. And if his theories do prove implementable, then he will become simultaneously a sort of “world savior” and an “antichrist”, the embodiment of society’s downward spiral. Those who wish to and can afford his treatments will love him, and those with religious and ethical reservations, as well as those who can’t afford his brand of “salvation from death” will hate him. Either way, he has all the power and glory he needs in his lifetime, however long that may be :)

-- Additionally, those who can’t afford his life-extending treatments do not have the “choice” he claims all of humanity deserves. For example, countries lacking the resources to combat such immediate threats as AIDS cannot even begin to implement this kind of option for its citizens. And what good would it do, ultimately, under those conditions? de Grey says, “What does count is that the right to live as long as you choose is the world's most fundamental right.” I would argue that “rights” dependent on wealth and social status are just privileges of the fortunate. And we cannot even begin to argue that this could be provided free of charge to the world!

-- Do we want both good and bad world leaders (the pope, or dictators) to not die in a timely manner? Good leaders would probably be corrupted by time and power, and bad leaders are, well, bad. In any case, a pope or a dictator who lives thousands of years cannot be good for their respective constituents and the rest of the world!

-- This scenario reminds me of a chapter from ‘Einstein’s Dreams’ by Alan Lightman, in which nobody dies. Whenever one person has to make a truly difficult decision, one naturally asks their parents for advice, who in turn ask their parents, who ask their parents, and so on. My view of the world is built on the comfort that one’s parents have good answers in many of life’s situations – answers earned through a lifetime of experiences. Don’t your parents and grandparents sort of lose their “inherited” authority when ancestors no longer die in a timely manner?

After reading this article, I think that de Grey’s ideas seem a bit impractical. In order to reach his goal, this would take a long period of time. De Grey said himself that it would be 100 years before we begin to significantly extend human life. There are also a lot of legal and ethical issues that would need to be addressed along the way. I don’t understand the appeal of living forever and I am guessing that most people feel the same way. Even the author points out that he does not plan to pursue such longevity. In the future, if someone is given the opportunity to live forever, what are the odds that they will get hit by a bus and die?

Nuland’s fondness for de Grey is very obvious. He goes out of his way to emphasize de Grey’s greatness--most of the article consists of the author praising de Grey’s many brilliant qualities.

this topic sort of tears at some of my beliefs. on one hand, i do think that people have the right to choose, if the technology permits, to prolong their life for as long as they'd like. on the other hand, the act of doing this does sort of defy a natural occurance, which is of course the life/death cycle. i also think that Dr. de Grey is slightly crazed. every quote from him in the article brought to mind the image of a mad scientist. i just think that it's hard to fully understand the motives behind something like this, or rather whether they are good or bad ones. also, something to consider is the consequences of this technology. de Grey said something like "every human being is entitled to live as long as they can, regardless of the consequences". the only thing that bothers me about that statement is the "regardless of the consequences" part. it seems like a prelude to a terrible outcome. although, once again, i do agree that people should have the right to pursue this technology if they feel so compelled, but i only believe this based on principle. this doesn't erase the thought from the back of my mind that some terrible outcome is a possibility.

Hello, may I get your permission to post this article in my site ?
Thanks.

I think we can do much things to live longer in a good quality. Nobody wants to be 100 and ill.