I really don't understand the opposition to this. It's hard to know what advancements will be made while working towards this goal. To extend life we need to address many of the degenerative processes that take place in the human body. Almost certainly each step forward in this research will benefit all of us. I was thinking of it like the space program. Many of the advancements made helped in areas outside of NASA.

I have not read Kass' full argument, but from what I've understood from the quote in your article, Kass comes close to a concern which I have,

If Objectivism is in the general school of Virtue Ethics (i.e. not Utilitarianism or Deontology) then there must be a place for the Aristotelian view that morality for a given species is driven by what that species *is*.

I am a man.
Intrinsic to my species is the fact that I will one day die (this is actually a fortuitous conversation as I am currently, due to a very elderly family member, grappling with notions of my own mortality).

If the very large defining factor of death is taken away, then what are we as a species, what am I as a man?

I am not making a claim that removing death would be moral or immoral, and I am certainly not deifying or worshiping death.
Rather, I am claiming that removing death would be so fundamental that what we now as men consider moral and immoral would eventually become irrelevant.

We would *be* something different, which is kind of what the whole transhumanist movement is about (at least as I understand it).

I find that concerning.

As an imperfect example, consider the relationship between a species' average lifespan and average age of procreation (they are linked).
In a reciprocal fashion, as our lifespan increased, we as a species have waited to procreate.
Now "30 is the new 20", which in real terms means we are taking longer to mature.
Will this new species be irrational children for decades, centuries?
And what would that mean?

Who knows?
Who could know?
It is so different that it is not in the realm of our experience and we can only guess.

Dr. Hudgins, I look forward to your comments.

The Post cites physician and ethicist Leon Kass who asks: “Could life be serious or meaningful without the limit of mortality?”

Could a man with such a statement supposedly couched in his concept of ethics and the desire for understanding of the frailties of human life, possibly make a statement so contradictory, with any integrity left. To actually find value in and worship death, and the transition from healthy, vitality to lingering and painful death--to have to see genius be debilitated by the failure of the cells in his body and lose the possible insights and discoveries into the very fabric of our existence--and to imply that the sluggish, often mistaken, steps of natural selection driven by naturally occurring accidents or environmental change, is a better determiner and limiter of what we can ultimately do to not only adapt our environment to our needs, but also life--and then to think that Leon's judgement in those matters is of any import to rational logic of a thinking human mind, is demented arrogance of the worst sort.

I can't imagine anything better than to have the years to learn everything that I've desired to learn, and had to pass over much of that, in order to learn and apply what I needed in order to become productive I my life. I can only dream of the man that can learn as much as possible and apply that to the world around him and of what could be achieved.

Yes I'm excited by the challenges being tackled by those that have the ability and capitol to move that science forward. I may be too old to benefit much from their efforts, but my children may-- but not if those men are stopped by the fearful, jealous, and socially conscious among us.

I think the idea is worth pursuing. However, government does not, as they already want to "reduce" the population by millions, per Bill Gates. How can we live healthy lives without solutions to disease? We all know it is not in the best interest of drug companies to cure cancer, and they lobby government to help prevent that cure. Several problems need solved anyway, but this would make it more pressing. How does SS handle the longer life span? Would a 140 year old at some point need more education? What would be retirement. At this point, over 70 and you will not be eligible for cancer treatment, so we had better be disease free as well. Life extension is certainly a more hopeful concept than what the environmental one worlders are giving us.

This is an excellent summary of the hodgepodge of irrational arguments against the search for the truths of life extension, and the reasonable rebuttals in response. If ever there were a case for "more is better," healthy longevity is right up there with money.

The only flaw in this presentation actually has little to do with the arguments presented: the idea that life expectancy has been greatly expanded in the past century. This has been shown to be a statistical artifact of increased survival past early childhood. While the "average" person lives longer, once an individual has lived a few years he is no more likely to reach advanced "healthy" old age than in the past.

My personal interest in this general area is in the "healthy" part of aging. Again, statistics may not be a useful tool for evaluating an individual's prospects. There are currently so many people throwing away their chances by being obese and/or engaging in unhealthy habits like smoking and drinking to excess, it will be difficult to discern trends in population-wide longevity possibilities.

First, what a great article. Next I can only think of many "Generational Ships" leaving orbit to seek out and inhabit the far corners of this wonderful Universe. Being able to bring back lessons learned and technologies learned for the betterment of all humankind. There will always be those that will find a problem with anything that is attempted.

I agree with Zenphamy that what we have is a 'worship of Death'. We humans always deify the most powerful elements in our landscape - including pharaohs and Caesars. So it is no surprise that we have, in the past, deified Death. What is notable is that now, when we can challenge aging, we see this as an affront to that deity and rationalize why we should not do this.

Ending aging and producing a limitless life span is not challenging Death. Poul Anderson said it best (Tau Zero? I paraphrase): If the only thing that can kill Superman is a Kryptonite meteorite moving at near light speed striking him directly between the eyes...eventually, this will happen.

What delaying or ending aging will do is overturn the replacement model of our culture, where age obsolescence opens spaces in the rank structure that are then filled by younger folk. There is cause for concern were this model to end: what if a politician never died, never lost his grasp on his crony group? We will have to figure out how to deal with these things. We can do this.

I very much liked the way the article pointed out that as life span has increased we have had an increase, not a decrease, in technology and innovation. (Many people do not realize that life span for Americans has increased from "40's" to "80's" between 1900 and now.) Agification does not mean ossification.

I take about 25 nutrient supplements a day. Some of them probably do not do any good; I am pretty darn sure that none of them do harm. I am fighting back against aging and I enthusiastically applaud the entry of self-interested billionaires into this field - their resources will make my life better and longer.

Jan, so far so good

Yeah- stop degeneration and let me live longer. Great idea. Just keep the government out of it. They will only mess things up like they do other things. How people in this country believe government IS the answer to everything really surprises me.

Living longer per se is not that interesting, but stopping the aging processes is. When do you think the ideal age would be to stop the aging process? 18? 25? 40?

I for one completely endorse any effort or enterprise aimed at conquering physical death, or at the very least, extending human health-span.

It makes so much financial sense too. What's the point of working so hard and earning all that money, only to get it prised from your cold dead hands!

I've been a fan of immortalist philosophy for 20 years, I have a very elaborate longevity regimen, and am often estimated at 10 or more years younger than I am. It's the ultimate selfishness, and I say that in a good way. It's also very selfless - saving your loved ones from the horrible heart-shredding grief of losing you.

I say, give it a shot. Regimes, products and techniques that actually work are like needles in a haystack of fake quackery, but well worth the search.

If you choose to embark on your own search, you will be periodically gob-smacked as you realise just how much our culture is predicated on human mortality.

Physical immortality is the ultimate form of Going Galt - lets DO IT! :D

As I understand it, the current challenge to longevity lies in the "iteration" markers that get attached to critical chromosomes upon cell division. The current theory is that if we could affect these markers we could affect body chemistry by removing the markers that introduce old age. The trick is in figuring out #1 how to isolate these markers, #2 how to read them, and #3 determine the "proper" value for these markers so the body doesn't freak out. And it has to be controlled as the body progresses, as not all cells divide at the same time.

Very complex indeed.

To me, the objectors cited in the article were asking the wrong question entirely. What they should have been asking was "Why are the markers present at all?"

I often joked with my wife that I wanted to live to be a hundred. I have since retracted this statement after having come down with a bad back (disks, etc.). Before they extend life indefinitely, I'd like them to have a few more remedies in place for common ailments. I'm not so hot on the idea of living hundreds of years with sciatica or fused vertebrae. :S

People have been thinking about this since Gilgamesh, the oldest story in human history. In the end the most powerful man in the world can't become immortal, but he sees the things he helped build will go on after his life.

Most diseases are associated with age. If you could some how slow it down, that would reduce cancer, cardio-vascular diseases, and neurological problems.

Slowing aging or reducing its effects would be very valuable.

For those interested, here's an interesting story about Google and other cutting-edge companies being targeted by European political powers. I hope it beings to dawn on our Silicon Valley friends that they need economic liberty and need to promote both free markets and the values of achievement. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2eeb470-ecca-...

A little bit of a different take, if I may.

In my 60 odd years on this planet, I haven't noticed anything getting better on the subject of the human nature front. In fact it's gotten and continues to get far worse seemingly by the day. Why would I want to live another 200 years or so? That's too depressing to contemplate.

How different is increased lifespan from wealth?

Just another Capitalist/Socialist argument.

Which of you would want eternal life? And if so why?

Inside the body, natural killer cells (part of the immune response) are the grim reapers that tell other cells that it is time to die (commit cell suicide, or apoptosis). The unintended (and good) consequence of Reagan's and GW Bush's stance regarding abortion was that biomedical engineers have now discovered just how critical several aspects of the immune system are not only to minimizing rejection of implants and regenerated tissues, but engendering acceptance.

An extrapolation of this recent understanding is the study at Duke about how the polio virus is being used to hyperstimulate the immune system to kill cancer.

http://www.cancer.duke.edu/btc/modules/R...
(with apologies to those who will not like this site given that it comes with a plea for cash donations)

I would argue that such goals are no longer fantastic possibilities, but realistic possibilities in the next 10 to 20 years.

I have no problem with those who advocate strict limits on the human lifespan, as long as they practice what they preach. :-)

All I can say is that, at my age, they'd better hurry up because I'd like to get in on it. If life extension is available, I'll settle for that until immortality is ready to go.

If one stops aging, and that is exciting, would one continue to mature psychologically? Most 18 year olds are pretty immature. I have two great grand children, I would love to see them grow up!

The practice of medicine should exist to keep people productive...not just to keep them alive.