Viser arkivet for stikkord right
What is the meaning of life? The right thing to do? The right choice? And so on, are questions that bother many, and rightly so.
I realized just now that I have thought about this problem quite extensively for 7 years, and would like to share my current thinking on the subject.
Extending life is the only thing I have been unable to argue against as the right thing to do.
Finding “the best stuff” or “the right stuff” and experiencing “the best stuff” or “the right stuff” can always be argued against. But if one extends life enough, at some point you can do it all. You may have to extend life for a decade every decade for a trillion decades, putting off old age by ten years every ten years, but sooner or later you have extended life enough.
At that point you can have all property, and you can do everything that is to do. And by extending life so much you cheat, because by proxy you do the right thing, the perfect thing, the meaningful thing, the meaning of life, sooner or later. Its just a matter of time before you do it, you don’t even have to know what the meaning of life is to be sure you will one day fulfill the meaning of life, even though you can pass the moment not knowing it was the meaning of life moment.
This is a feature no other option has. There’s no guarantee the right thing to own, the right house or the right car, exists today, it may exist a thousand years from now. Same goes for the right thing to DO. It may be something that will not be possible for another million years. And how much does that suck? Knowing the meaning of life could exist a million years from now, or a billion years ago, and that all the time I have to do the meaning of life- if there is a meaning of life -is 81 years.
That sucks. But luckily I stumbled upon a tiny fact; It is scientifically feasible to reverse age within yours and my lifetime if we put a few billion dollars worldwide into it annually.
Age is not coupled to growth, so don’t worry, you won’t become younger than your 25-30 year old self. But you will have the cancer and stroke risk of a healthy fetus. How is not as complicated as you would think, its no small feat of engineering, but its far from impossible. There are only 7 types of accumulating factors that lead to aging as it occurs from age 25 onwards (the main changer before that is growth, not aging). If you then remove all those accumulated things every now and again, you reset age to zero (while not resetting growth to zero, so you’re 25 with perfect tight skin and a perfectly working brain, even if you were born 150 years ago). Read the book Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey, PhD, if you wish to know more. And send e-mails and letters to the government about putting rejuvenation biotechnology on the agenda with a billion dollars annual budget (foryngelse bioteknologi in Norwegian).
Is underfunding of research into the aging process against the European Convention on Human Rights?
The European Convention on Human Rights reads as follows:
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ARTICLE 2
Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
( c ) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Age related disease daily deprive life from over 100 000 people worldwide.
Are these deaths caused intentionally by not funding research into the aging process? All the arguments against funding research on the aging process are irrelevant to this discussion, as they are not mentioned in the second part of Article 2 of ECHR.
Is life adequately protected by law? The law of most nations protect rather well against war, which only accounts for 0.3% of annual deaths in 2002. See list of causes by death by rate link. But the law of most nations protect extremely poorly against cardiovascular disease, infectious and parasitic diseases, ischemic heart disease, cancers and stroke, which account for 29.34%, 23.04%, 12.64%, 12.49% and 9.66% of annual deaths in 2002 respectively.
It could be relevant to this discussion that Article 13 reads:
Right to an effective remedy.
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Here is the European Convention on Human Rights in its full, from the European Court of Human Rights website: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/Convention_ENG.pdf
To summarise: Is life protected by law? Are people being deprived of life intentionally? (Intentional inaction/action)
What do you think?
This survey finds that 79% of Americans wish that life-extending treatments should be given to all who want them. This implies they also want us to develop life-extending treatments for those who want them.
Short about life-extending treatments: Aging is not to be mistaken as growth, they are two separate things that both change the body. But growth stops when the body is fully-grown (around 25 years for humans). At which point aging becomes the sole changing force of the body. Aging can be described as decay, like a boat that slowly fills with seawater due to imperfections in the hull. All you need to do to turn back aging a bit is to remove some of the seawater in the boat. It still fills slowly, but as long as you bail fast enough you can have a low chance of sinking for quite some time. There are only 7 types of decay. A guesstimate for how expensive it is to develop life extending treatments (that extend life substantially, by decades), puts it at around what the human genome project cost. So in todays money 5.5 billion NOK annually for 15-20 years. See the book Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey, PhD, for a thorough walkthrough of strategies for how to develop these treatments. If you work in the Norwegian government, ask the Norwegian ministry of Health to borrow a copy, I have made sure they have eight. But really if those don’t work, its just a matter of trying other strategies. 5.5 billion Norwegian Kroners annually gets a lot of research. When the human genome project was started many experts did not think it was possible, because none of the technology they needed, existed. But today, 8 years after they had mapped the first human genome completely, a human genome can be read for only 35 000 NOK. Much of biotech research is done with computers and machines.
I think life is inadequately protected by law, and that inaction daily deprives 100 000 people who die of what we call “natural causes”. Article 2 does not add that people can be deprived of life from “natural causes” either. No doubt because certain states would argue that “natural causes” include a vast amount of unethical things.
Click the button at the top of this website that says “SENS Foundation”.
The Monty Hall problem is when you have 3 doors, behind two are goats, behind one there is a car. You do not know which door have the car behind it, but the gameshow host knows. See this video for an explanation.
Now, given n number of doors, each with a belief behind it (christianity behind one, islam behind another, string-theory behind another, M-theory behind another, that the superbowl is on a sunday etc, all beliefs a human can hold). If you choose lets say door X, and another door is opened behind which the theory is disproven (lets say Newtons theory of gravity which is indeed not entirely correct), it will increase your chances of having the correct belief (door), if you choose another door. This holds true for every time a belief is disproven and a door is opened. Regardless of what belief there is behind your door (You don’t know the belief is correct, you simply believe it has not been disproven). If we have lets say 10 doors, we choose one door, the odds of having the right belief is 1 in 10, if another belief is disproven (lets say we find a flaw in one sentence in the bible that simply is not true), and we choose another door, then our chances of having the correct belief goes up, if we then do this until we only have two doors left, and switch all the time, the chances of having the correct belief is 9 out of 10, instead of 1 out of 10 if you never switch belief. Switching doors every time makes sure your chances of having the right belief goes up every time a belief is disproven. If there’s a million doors, there’s a 999 999 in 1 000 000 chance of having the correct belief if you always switch, and only a 1 in 1 000 000 chance to have the correct belief if you don’t switch (and we manage to disprove 999 999 beliefs in a lifetime).
I wonder when the Monty Hall religion turns up in the Facebook choices of faith.