There are several ways of positioning the ideas of radical life extension:
1. Defeating aging
The main objection here is that this kind of presentation of the problem scares people, since it looks non-scientific. And it does this especially to people who are in no way involved with science or to those who have never dealt with studying the mechanisms of aging.
2. Controlling aging
3. Fighting age-related pathologies
I belive if you put it this way, the message looks wrong. It’s medicine that fights diseases. We propose to fight the causes.
4. Body rejuvenation
Well, this formulation kind of associates with folk-medicine.
5. Getting rid of age-related changes in an organism
Some people, especially in the western world, believe this presentation of the issue to be the optimal one. It doesn’t seem that way to me, though. Maybe science will follow the path of improving the regenerative potential of the body. This formulation sounds more acceptable, but I’m afraid it doesn’t really motivate people to make a personal effert to solve the problem.
The majority of people state that this word sounds scary and not clear. Same thing about immortality. But on the other hand, people who support the ideas of immortalism are much more motivated to actually achieve the result.
Oh, this one sounds even more scary. But as a matter of fact, it’s about maximum possible lifespan extension and maximum possible improvement of one’s abilities. Maybe the term should be different; maybe it’d be better to go back to the word “humanism,” but I’m not sure.
8. Healthspan increase
Sounds really formal and official, for governmental use. And it’s absolutely not clear that we speak not about jogging, but about research in genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.
9. Radical life extension