From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 14:34:52 MST
---> nanowave
> Anders writes:
>
> >> Meanwhile, Fukuyama and Kass are continuing their stated mission of
> >> preventing a posthuman world. Do not underestimate the opposition, they
> >> have some very good strategic thinkers that fully realize that today is
> >> just the first step towards eventual mortalist triumph. While
> some short
> >> sighted conservatives do not think about antioxidants, telomeres and
> >> uploading, there are others who do. If the transhumanists are asleep
> >> (ahem) the rug rats will end up living (and *dying*) in a world defined
> >> by somebody else.
>
> Reason writes:
>
> >Yes. As Anders points out, these people are not anti-cloning, nor do they
> >have a narrow view. Both Fukuyama and Kass have stated clearly
> and up front
> >that they are pro-status-quo in terms of human capabilities. This means
> >pro-death, pro-suffering, pro-disease, pro-aging (all of which,
> again, has
> >been clearly stated on numerous occasions). They want there to be no
> >expansion of the capabilities of mind and body on their watch.
> Since these
> >bioethicists and hangers-on are in essence Statists, they believe
> >that is is
> >perfectly fine to use the engine of the State to coerce, force
> and impose.
> >In other words, they advocate and *actively work towards* mass
> murder on a
> >scale dwarfing anything that humans have "achieved" to date.
> >
> >As Anders also points out, they are doing a better job of killing
> >us than we
> >are doing of staying alive at this point in time.
>
>
> Ok, it's obvious that you both have given this topic FAR more
> thought than I
> have.
>
> Previously I had imagined these biofundies were not a serious
> threat because
> I couldn't see how anyone might effectively stem the tide of scientific
> progress - a perspective which predicted trans/posthumanism as the logical
> end result of progress. This conclusion was supported by the fact that,
> while Kass IS the President's chief bioethicist, funding for NBIC science
> continues unabated, and is clearly on the rise. These two facts seem to be
> at odds if one postulates the existence an all encompassing
> technoscientific
> meta-policy which is the only regulatory model I could conceive of that
> might seriously throttle progress. That one arm of the government
> is driving
> progress forward at breakneck speed, while another is sourly
> pecking away at
> the most contentious ethical issues, led me to the perhaps hasty
> conclusion
> that such a meta-policy does not (and perhaps cannot) exist.
The problem is not in the amounts of money redirect by government; that is a
very small fraction of source for typical large medical research efforts.
The problem is that the memes propagated by the FukuKass side of things (and
what a fun contraction that is) lead to a societal mindset that doesn't
encourage investment by the mountain of non-government money on the
sidelines. That mountain of money is largely corporate and is waiting for
the clear signs of a market in the final product.
> Yet your words, taken in the context of the present American led drive
> toward near-term globalization, do indeed ring a warning. I have
> been forced
> to ask myself - might the process of evolution itself be hijacked by this
> kind of irrationality?
>
> And the answer I come up with is an unsettling MAYBE.
>
> Therefore I'm in on this fight, though sadly I'm distracted by the
> ever-pressing need to accumulate a small quantity of those damnable social
> tickets in order to alleviate such mehum concerns as food and heat, and
> child size bicycle helmets. But if you are dead serious about
> fighting, and
> it seems you are, AND if we can come up with a viable plan to mobilize
> against this FukuKass mindset (polite nod to Natasha's aborted ProAct
> effort) which ALSO has the potential to generate a few bucks on the side,
> I'll throw myself into it 100%.
>
> I does seem logical to presume that more than a few corporate
> entities might be willing to fund this particular fight, no?
I see getting the major corporate entities in on the research funding game;
provoking them into seeing the future market in anti-aging and regenerative
medicine is essential. Since they're generally not stupid, the best way
forward is to create that market in actual fact through awareness raising
and education.
Here is my short take on it from the last two Longevity Meme
(www.longevitymeme.org) newsletters:
-------
#1
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY
Or is there? There has been some discussion on mail lists and in forums
regarding comments made by Michael Jackson during recent television spots.
The
pop star (and very rich person, according to some sources) wants to live
forever; something he briefly spoke about in a very matter-of-fact way. This
cropped up as a couple of throwaway lines in many, many articles. The
following
link is representative of many:
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,11228,00.html?tnews
The actual quote:
"Elsewhere, in the ITV documentary, Jackson ruminates about life and
death--actually, mostly about life. Jackson's not big on dying.
'I would like to live forever,' he tells Bashir."
As you should all know by now, I'm very big on publicity and public
awareness
for live extension. Given the low profile that life extension has, I'm all
for
the possibility of life extension being put forth in any way in the mass
media.
Was this Michael Jackson thing good, bad, or a non-event? I have no idea.
I sometimes look at this whole situation from the marketing director point
of
view: life extension is a wonderful product with no downside that everyone
would
want if they only realized just how great it actually is. When you have a
product like this, you are in an enviable position: there really is no such
thing as bad publicity. If people lambaste your product as a terrible thing,
all
they are doing is spending their money to educate more of the public of the
existence of your wonderful product!
That is what I would like to believe, in any case. It would make it easy to
dismiss comments of the sort that show up near the end of this Washington
Post
article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39931-2003Feb7.html
Look for the section entitled "The President's Ethicist." Dr. Leon Kass,
Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics is in fine form as usual,
decrying life extension technology in any number of ways.
Unfortunately, we cannot dismiss Kass. While he is helping (in his own
backwards
way) to raise awareness of the possibilities of life extension, he and his
bioethicist cronies have a real ability to damage and hold back research in
the
US. He offers the justification for legislation currently under debate that
would shut down or criminalize vast swathes of anti-aging research in this
country. France has already done this: it's not as though we can pretend
that it
can't happen here.
WHY IS PUBLICITY IMPORTANT?
Research and research funding ebbs and flows on public awareness and public
opinion. Government funding is usually a small amount of the whole if a
field is
popular or well known. If the market sees a dollar to be made by selling
people
what they want, then companies will bloom and research funds will pour
forth.
Life extension, aging and anti-aging research is currently seriously
under-funded in comparison to, say, cancer, heart disease or AIDS research.
When
you stop to think about it, this is a very strange state of affairs. After
all,
everyone ages. Almost everyone is prepared to pay money to slow or halt the
progress of aging. Witness the success of vendors claiming to supply
"anti-aging" products!
So why is anti-aging, aging and life extension research languishing? One
answer
is that the wider public really doesn't understand the possibilities that
life
extension research could bring in the near future. This isn't an
insurmountable
barrier, however. We can look at what happened in the 80s and 90s for AIDS
research, for example. Activist groups were well aware of the possibilities
that
future research could bring. They worked long and hard, and raised a great
noise
to the heavens. Lo and behold, the flow of money to AIDS research increased
dramatically. Today, AIDS in Western countries is almost a manageable,
chronic
condition rather than a death sentence. This happened in only 20 years. When
political and economic barriers are overcome, AIDS patients elsewhere in the
world will enjoy the same benefits.
So something like this could - and indeed should - happen for aging. We need
to
organize, speak up and make ourselves heard.
-------
#2
I spoke briefly in the last newsletter on how persistent publicity for a
cause (such as fighting AIDS or cancer research) directly influences the
amount of money flowing into that cause. In a nutshell: framing, placing and
keeping a problem front and center in mainstream culture is hard work, but
it unlocks purses far and wide. Government money is usually the least of
this; far more funding comes from venture and corporate concerns. They see
mainstream culture explicitly in terms of needs and markets for future
products. If a need is shouted loudly enough, money will be directed to
answer that need.
AIDS funding in the 80s and 90s is the obvious crowning example of a victory
of activism. In a comparatively short few years, AIDS moved from obscure
disease to the center of media attention. The floodgates of research funding
opened and AIDS progressed from death sentence to manageable condition for
those with access to treatment.
In 1992, when I was in the UK, the mother of my girlfriend at the time was
an academic AIDS researcher (one of the few). Activists and prominent
members of the local gay community would constantly call on her at home;
there was a very close relationship between the activists and the
researchers by that time.
The point of this all is that, of course, we should be trying to do the same
thing for aging and anti-aging research. This branch of science is woefully
under-funded (largely by the government) and the major corporate concerns do
not yet see a potential market worth sinking funds into. Why is this? I
believe that it is because we don't see the loud clamor and noise of people
demanding a real cure for aging. There is no ACT UP (one of the loudest
early AIDS activism groups) to cultivate, shape, channel and present the
nascent demand for anti-aging research, medicine and technology.
Active advocacy groups are the sharp tools that can only result from the
actions of a large supporting community. They don't exist in a vacuum.
Longevity Meme, Immortality Institute, Betterhumans, CR Society,
KurzweilAI.Net, Extropy Institute, World Transhumanist Association, and
other diverse pro-life-extension organizations, commentators, and online
communities didn't spring into existence from nothing. They interact with
and are encouraged and supported by diverse, overlapping communities of
people who are interested in life extension: in living healthily for longer.
This includes all of you reading this newsletter today, of course.
There has been a real growth in size and sophistication of communities
interested in life extension in the past few years, largely thanks to the
power of the Internet and the actions of a core of motivated individuals
(kudos to you all). I think that we, as a community, have come to the point
of being able to say: "Ok. Real, meaningful life extension is what we want.
What do we do to make it happen?"
TAKE ACTION
Which is an interesting question. What do we do? I point you to the "Take
Action" page at the Immortality Institute, for example:
http://imminst.org/action/
This page essentially advocates expanding the life extension community (in
this case, the radical life extension community). This is one of the worthy
and necessary goals of any activist. A larger life extension community can
have a larger impact on mainstream culture, and thereby on funding for
research, medicine and technology. A larger community produces more leaders
and activists.
There has to be more than this, however. I would be the first to admit that
this is where those of us who seem to have become voices, leaders and
activists are falling down. We are talking up a storm, building online
communities and acting as focal points for the ideas and discussions of a
growing community. We have yet to provide the community with meaningful
suggestions and channels for activity that go beyond internal talk and
recruitment. As I pointed out above, there is no ACT UP for life extension
at the present time.
I think I have talked long enough on this topic for one newsletter. Next
time, I can examine some practical ways for us to move beyond talk and
growing the community.
FINAL THOUGHTS
For a final thought, let's come back to growing the community. If you stop
to think about it, every extra person contributing to the life extension
community directly increases all our chances of living a much longer,
healthier life.
Everyone can help, and it doesn't take much effort. Every wall is built one
brick at a time. Have you mentioned life extension to your friends today?
Show the Longevity Meme to a neighbor. Introduce someone to the Immortality
Institute. Mention Betterhumans around the office. Post these URLs or clips
of Longevity Meme articles to bulletin boards, online or on the wall of the
office. Forward this newsletter to everyone you think would like it. After
all, this is no different from sharing the normal run-of-the-mill health
advice. Go ahead! You'll be helping people.
We're not a niche community anymore, and we haven't been for a while. So
let's stop behaving like one. And that's all for this newsletter. See you
next time.
------
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 14:34:48 MST