If aging is regarded as a disease, we have more motivation to strive for
a cure. Do not the elderly have the same short sentence as do those with
AIDS? Hundreds of dollars are being funded to cure that disease, or to
avoid conflict of syntax, that condition.
Aging = "condition". Would use of that term dilute the urgency to find a
relief or cure or antidote. Terminology is not to be underestimated.
Correct choice of terms, can ignite motivation and, conversely, establish
a barrier to communication.
Population 'management' is a term that elicits creative thought, while
population 'control' activates a subconscious resistance to authority,
slashing any productive communication.
Refer to a4m usage of "disease" below.
On 20 Feb 1995, Dr. Hans J. Kugler wrote:
> In <199502141304.FAA05748 at net.bio.net> LITVAK at VMS.HUJI.AC.IL writes:
>> >
> >I've been reading this newsgroup for several months and this is my first
> >posting. I'd like to relate to the latest discussion about life extension
> >via genetic engineering and ask more general question. I think, Patrick's
> >arguments against life extension are very persuasive. Right now even minor
> >changes in human lifespan would cause a demographic disaster.
> > But if so, what is the ultimate goal of aging research? May be I missed
> >something but I don't remember any serious discussion about this subject.
> >In my opinion there can be several possibilities:
> >1) The aging research is being carried out because of pure scientific curio-
> >sity. I think no one really believes that this is so. Any real progress in
> >this research will be immediately implemented. Even if there are some people
> >claiming that they are satisfied with their current lifespan there will always
> >be plenty of those who want to live longer. We are talking about lot of money
> >here and this argument can beat both moral and demographic calculations in our
> >society.
> >2)The purpose of aging research is to find a way for people to remain healthy
> >and active till their death without increasing their lifespan. The two obvious
> >questions are:"Who will want to die if this is achieved?" and "Why would people
> >die at all?"
> > It's unlikely ,I think, that the scientists will only know how to make an 80
> >years old man look young and healthy and won't know how to make him live longer.
> >In any case such situation will only make people unhappy because many of them
> >are now ready to accept death because of aging and it's consequences.When this
> >reason is taken from them they may feel better physically but not psychologically.
> >3)We really want to increase human lifespan ,perhaps even become immortal. This
> >is the possibility that has been discussed here at the last few days and I don't
> >think there is much to add. Even those who are optimistic about conquering other
> >planets etc. would agree that if some radical breakthrough in aging research
> >happens before we find a solution to the population problem, it won't bring any
> >blessing to humanity. It'll be demographic bomb that can be even worse than
> >nuclear one.
> > I don't see other possibilities except what I mentioned. If anyone does I'll be
> >glad to hear.
> > My personal suggestion is that researchers should focus on alternative ways to
> >prevent death. First of all the question that should be answered is: What is death?
> >Until now no one has proved scientifically that there is life after death,
> >however, no one has proved the opposite as well. It seems like this question is
> >being avoided by the official science because of it's religious and mystical
> >connotations. But there are some facts requiring explanation and such
> >explanation has to be provided. Announcing anyone who is trying even to collect
> >those facts pseudo-scientist won't help. If we discuss the possibility of
> >colonizing other planets and changing completely human genom, why can't we
> >imagine that afterlife really exists. And anything that exists can be studied
> >by science. If we prove that our identity will be in some form preserved
> >after death we'll be able to give up the desperate attempts of making people
> >live longer and start studying aging out of pure curiosity (and it'll be
> >really possible).
> > If we prove that there is no afterlife, then we should answer a new question:
> >What part of ourselves should be preserved in order to make us immortal? Is it
> >our body, our mind, our soul (what is it?), our memory or all together.
> > Let's say we managed to copy all the information stored in person's brain
> >into a computer and make a machine think in the same way. Does it mean that we
> >made this person immortal?
> > May be if there is no other form of human existence except in biological body
> >we should create such form. It can be computer, a combination of biological
> >tissue and some artificial parts or something completely different which we
> >can't even imagine right now.
> >This all sounds like science fiction but the computer which I'm using to write
> >this and the Internet itself would seem a science fiction to any reasonable
> >man some 30 years ago. But here they are and this is just the beginning of
> >their development.
> > This is about all I wanted to say. I really want to know what you think
> >about it.
> >
> > Vladimir Litvak litvak at vms.huji.ac.il> >
> >
> >To all you anti-aging enthusiasts:
> First let's starts by re-defining aging as a disease. Dr. Ron Klatz, at the 1994 Amer.
> Acad. Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M):"Aging is not an immutable reality of human existence,
> but a complex pathology of degenerative disease that is preventable, controllable, and,
> in some cases, reversible." A4M, a respected medical society, proclaimed this position
> loudly at the Las Vegas (more than 1,000 attending) meeting.
> OR; Read my latest book, "TRIPPING THE CLOCK, a practical guide to
> anti-aging and rejuvenation" (HQ publ., 1994, $ 19.95), avail. from:
> IAHHM, 218 Ave. B, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. OR: read Preventive Medicine UP-DATE (empha-
> sis on alternative med. and anti-aging. Send s.a.s. envelope (2 stamps) for - - we won't
> charge you - - sample copy.
> Hans J. Kugler, PhD, IAHHM President.
> >
> >
>>>
