Do You Feel Lucky?
I'm traveling at full highway speed toward a red light. Some have are already stopped ahead of me at the light. Others in front of me are slowing drastically. But I'm still about a quarter of a mile out. I haven't started slowing down yet, but I see that I'll need to start slowing soon. And the fact that I'll have to stop is hardly questioned.
But now I see that the cross traffic is beginning to stop for their signal light. My light is still red, but now I have reason to hope. There is no guarantee that the light will turn green before I have to stop, but I feel confident that the people driving behind me will not have to stop. I realize that if I get too close to the intersection I will have to stop even if the light turns green before I get there. So I let off the accelerator to slow my approach to the intersection.
This is where we are today with radical life extension.
I watched
Aubrey de Grey's debate with Dr. Sprott for the first time today.
The problems that Dr. de Grey proposes to solve (to end and reverse aging by way of radical life extension) are the most complex and difficult that humans have ever attempted. He doesn't deny this. But I was struck by the confidence he has that these problems will be solved by 2030.
He framed the debate nicely. He described the seven problems that he feels need to be solved and described generally how these problems can be solved and what is being done to solve the problems even today. He challenged his opponent to give a concrete reason why any of these seven problems are in the short run unsolvable. Or, in the alternative, he challenged his opponent to offer another problem (other than the seven) that must be solved.
Dr. Dick Sprott didn't take him up on this challenge. Dr. Sprott argued semantics - senescence is not a disease. Honestly, who cares? Whatever you call it, it's undesirable.
Dr. Sprott tried to show inconsistency in Dr. de Grey's position by bringing up a paper that de Grey had signed off on. De Grey was able to quickly explain that he signed off because he was in agreement as to the characterization of our current ability to extend life (which is nil), not because he agreed that these problems are insoluble for all time.
Surely Dr. Sprott's position - that we won't overcome aging in the next few years - could have been better argued.
I do agree with Dr. Sprott that there is some danger in discussing radical life extension - snake oil salesmen and a disillusioned public when science doesn't deliver. Snake oil has always been with us. Many will use the statements of people like de Grey to give credibility to their quackery. Before radical life extension becomes a reality many, and probably myself included, will buy some snake oil. But I say that as long as the snake oil is not harmful, a placebo is not a terrible thing.
A little snake oil waste is a small price to pay for the mobilization of the scientific community. This appears to be Dr. de Grey's motive for coming forward with these startling predictions at this time - to mobilize the scientific community (and perhaps all of western civ).
Dr. Sprott seemed to believe that his position is the mature, adult position. That acceptance of the inevitability of death is ennobling. Certainly this fatalism has been a useful adaptation for the generations that have gone before. The first line of the "
Serenity Prayer" is:
"God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I Cannot change…"
Live and love what life you have. Don't give thought or worry to things that are beyond your control. This has been useful wisdom because it put the focus back on doing things that could be productive. But here's the next line of the "Serenity Prayer."
"Courage to change the things I can."
Clearly Dr. de Grey is a courageous man. He is risking his reputation to bring about change. The big question is whether this is something that can be changed or is this folly? The last line of the prayer is:
"And Wisdom to know the difference…"
Which brings us to
Pascal's Wager. Pascal (the famous mathematician who had a computer language named after him) argued that to believe in God is a good bet because if God exists, you'll go to heaven and avoid hell. If you don't believe in God [and there is a God], you might lose all this. If God does not exist, you'll have nothing to lose. So it's a smarter bet to believe in God than not to.
Aubrey de Grey is making a wager. If he's right then he will be recognized as one of history's greatest visionaries. By mobilizing science he will be credited for saving countless lives. Even if it takes 100 years to accomplish radical life extension (rather than de Grey's predicted 26 years), he will probably be thought of as "a man ahead of his time."
If, on the other hand, de Grey is completely wrong and radical life extension proves to be impossible for all time, then what has been lost? Mobilizing science even to chase an illusory goal will lead to progress. Other discoveries will be made. Life will be improved and life expectancy (within current limits) will be increased. He will thought of as the
Percival Lovell of genetics - a man with eccentric and silly notions who nevertheless made great contributions to science.
Dr. de Grey has made a good bet. Can I get in on that action?
Posted by Stephen Gordon at February 8, 2004 01:51 AM
| TrackBack