[extropy-chat] BOOK: The Art of Aging Gratefully

[Robert Bradbury]

On 4/5/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> _The Art of Aging Gratefully_: *<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12110380/site/newsweek/>
> ***
> In her new book, "The Denial of Aging: Perpetual Youth, Eternal Life, and
> Other Dangerous Fantasies" [1], Harvard professor Dr. Muriel Gillick urges
> readers to stop denying the aging process and focus instead on making the
> most of it. ...
>
By Karen Springen
> Newsweek [2]
>

[Snip...]

Ok, now I'm pissed.

While I agree with the sentiment that one should "make the most of it" --
because there is wisdom in the concept of "live for today -- for tomorrow
you may die" because the hazard function *isn't* going to go away -- I
disagree with any arguments that aging, and to a large extent death, are
either (a) inevitable or (b) should be accepted.

To begin with, Dr. Gillick, according to [3], is a person with scholarly
interest in "medical ethics and care near the end of life".  She has an MD
from Harvard Medical School.  Great.  That says nothing with respect to
whether she has studied or is an expert in the preservation of or
restoration of "information" (which is after all the basis of "life").

Without going into the long winding road that a computer scientist such as
myself, Aubrey de Grey, or perhaps people such as Steve Coles, Ralph Merkle,
would follow [this involves going into Shannon's theory of information and
principles of thermodynamics] [4]) would present, I will simply assert that
the indefinite preservation of an information state (i.e. an organized
information state capable of being 'alive') is a function of how much energy
and resources one is willing to dedicate to preserving that state (in the
face of physical processes that would otherwise cause its information to be
lost beyond recovery).

Thus, in an abstract sense, in the current "reality", there is no "end of
life" -- there is only a termination of the will and investment required to
maintain the information necessary for life to exist.  The secondary effect
of this is effectively an "end of life" (as we currently commonly define
it).  I will go somewhat further and assert that there is no longer a "death
sentence" hanging over the heads of *most* individuals who currently reside
in developed countries and who have reasonable opportunities, means and will
to stand in front of "Death" and say "Oh no you don't."  I place some
restrictions on making this a blanket statement that "Death is not the
inevitable fate of all humans" because there are people for whom the
technologies and means are simply not currently, and will not in the near
future be+, available to stop death at the threshold [5].

So I utterly reject on the basis of information theory that "aging" and
"death" are inevitable and would suggest that people such as Dr. Gillick who
are either indirectly or actively promoting such perspectives can reasonably
be viewed as promoting generic genocide [6].

Sooo... my question for Dr. Gillick, and people who would promote her
perspective is, "So, how many people have you condemned to death today?"

Robert Bradbury

1. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674021487/
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12110013/site/newsweek/
3. http://www2.edc.org/lastacts/archives/archivesMay03/gillickbio.asp
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_theorem<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%2527s_theorem>
5. Which of course, for any human being alive who believes in the
fundamental "right to life" for all human beings, presents the question of
what one is personally doing to level the playing field between those who
are able (whether they choose to do so or not) preserve their life -- and
those who simply do not have any reasonable possibility of, but might desire
to do so.
6. Dr. Gillick is promoting the concept that people should accept the fact
that information (i.e. life) at the point of "death" has irrevocably decayed
to a state (i.e. it has effectively become 'noise') from which it cannot be
recovered -- *without* any mathematical proof that the information has in
fact transitioned to such a state.  Dr. Gillick is promoting the concept
that "humans must die" at the current "line in the sand" where "death" is
defined.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060405/47d8cfea/attachment.html>