Re: Just semantics (was: Re: Aging isn't a disease)

From: J. Goard (
Date: Fri Oct 12 2001 - 23:37:59 MDT

At 11:52 PM 10/12/01 -0700, Technotranscendence wrote:

>With the FDA the problem is that labeling something a disease or not a
>disease for them has policy implications -- not labeling something a disease
>is akin to saying it's a nonproblem -- while for most people, I think, it
>would seem to be something different. I bet this standard is only applied
>to life extension claims. After all, broken bones are not diseases (in most
>cases), yet we do treat them.

Imagining people for whom, absent extensive and new medical treatment, it
is somehow known that they will age to death by about 60, I can easily see
the masses supporting a "cure". It seems to me that the issue isn't with
the mechanics of aging vs. "disease", but with transcending "normalcy" as
opposed to returning to it.

J. Goard,
e-gold account #100592 (
The Beyond outside us is indeed swept away, and the
great undertaking of the Enlightenment complete;
but the Beyond *inside* us has become a new heaven
and calls us to renewed heaven-storming.
                                      --Max Stirner

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT