That argument is flawed: there are prizes going for all sorts of crazy things.

Anti-aging and immortality is a perfect breeding ground for quackery. Everyone is getting older, and many people view the coming of old age with fear (perhaps with cause). This particular case of idiocy is harder to refute than most because a) it is mostly based on unrealistic extrapolations from real science and b) it doesn't claim to have any firm answers yet.

Perhaps I can refer you to a "Position Statement on Human Aging" (Olshansky et al. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.2002; 57: 292-297.) which argues the opposing view far better than I ever could.

Then, getting to the root of the problem, we have Do You Want to Live Forever? and Against Transcendence. It really doesn't get more damning than that. de Grey isn't even working in the field.

I could go on, and on, and on, but is there really any point? The truth is readily available for anyone who cares to get their science the peer reviewed way, and I doubt that I have the powers of persuasion needed to lever the truly dogmatic out of their rut.

Just one more article I came across: I found this article to be particularly illuminating, and to express my viewpoint with clarity, as well as representing the majority scientific opinion.

The science will undoubtedly be done, but not by rabble-rousers like de Grey. He seems to be succeeding in turning a non-topic into tabloid-worthy junk science :-(

you touched on most of the issues I alluded too when I asked if we would/could/should allow ourselves to achieve immortality.

A few issues come to mind that mitigate some of the "growing pains" as the world transits to an immortal population:

1) In general terms, social security will be unnecessary as we won't need to retire. We aren't looking to enjoy the "twlight years" of our life because we won't have any. Sure, I'd love to put in 30 or 40 years at work and then spend eternity (still in my prime!) being provided for, but if living an extremely long, healthy life means keeping a job, sounds like a fair trade to me.

2) Other than geriatrics (and obstetrics, more on that later), people will still keep getting sick; we'll still need the medical profession. As a race, we'll always have better recovery rates from what ails us because we're at the peak of health, but unless death is *the* last cure that science provides, then doctors will still be around and will only gradually have to find other work as their respective fields *gradually* become anachronistic.

3) Other jobs will continue as they do now: unpleasant jobs will command higher rates of pay, everyone tries to earn more than their neighbours, trends in employment, hiring, firing and rates of pay will continue to be variable yet somewhat cyclical. Even if everyone has PhD's, we'll still need trash collectors, it will still be an unpleasant job and they'll still make more money than they would if they were handling roses in bloom. We can't all be researchers and university professors so some of us will still have our regular jobs. Our PhD's will make us overqualified for those jobs, but not as overqualified as the PhD's that got the better jobs. In short, nothing will change in the larger scheme of things, at least in that respect.

4) If I'm not mistaken, Western civilisation is in a general population decline. It is perhaps exaggerated by the Boomers entering their golden years, but the trend is real nonetheless. Most of the western world has a population growth only due to immigration from other (largely third world) countries. These countries themselves, while still having rapidly expanding populations, are seeing a slowing of those growth rates that project to a stable population a few generations from now (last projection I heard was a peak population of 8-9 billion). If not for the prospect of immortality, the world might, in a few centuries time, face a noticeable decline in population (which would likely be a good thing, but that's another thread). My point is that, relative to the overpopulation problems we already have, immortality might not add significantly, at least at first.

5) Imprisonment wil vary by country as it does now. Many "life" sentences still allow for parole, which all but the most predatory would earn. Those sentences that do not allow for parole would likely be thrown out as "cruel and unusual", at least after a certain amount of time served. It is a matter that will need to be addressed, but not one that affects the bigger picture. Many would argue that eternal life w/o parole is fitting for some criminals, others would not. We already argue about this in our respective countries, and even the most hardline among the democratic countries abhor the criminal justice systems of certain other countries...immortality just adds another log to the fires.

6) As far as God's plan, I'm not Him/Her/It, I don't pretend to know. I could argue that immortality is part of the Plan. If your Supreme being is a parental figure, then achieving immortality might be akin to growing up to be like Father/Mother. Perhaps not. Like most other religious issues, I would expect the choice to be up to the individual. I have no personal issues with the concept of physical immortality, but would respect someone else's wish to die of natural causes. I wonder though, where a spiritual person draws the line. We already live longer thanks to science, due to nutrition, hygiene, medical treatment, etc. Why would this be different; why would you failing to avail yourself of the opportunity to spend many, many more years of enjoying your Creator's world be wrong? God (or whomever) still can take you when it's your time. Besides, as you pointed out: if it's not meant to be, it won't be. What then does a spiritual person make of the fact if it *does* come true? A sign to jump on the bandwagon? Or test one passes by resisting the temptation? That's just my take, I mean no disrespect nor do I think the decision is necessarily easy.

That's enough for now, I haven't added my 2 cents for the downside of an immortal race, just wanted to point out that some of the negatives may not be as bad (if they're at all bad) as they might seem.

Cheers.

i support the idea of viewing aging as a 'disease'. even if not accurate by some definitions, it does fit others.

for example prostate cancer is a disease, but in most cases it is so slow-growing that the victim dies a long time before the cancer kills him.

still, there is no need to argue about words. we know what the idea is.

Didactylos why act the shill for this thread?

Let it die a death so we may be done with it.