Fighting Death

маша бак 10.04 036

The most significant event in a person’s life is death. It changes everything. More precisely, it takes everything that a person had. If he was in love, he no longer is. If he was aspiring to pleasures, there will be none any longer. The world will be gone for the person. Every single neuron will disappear that was responsible for the wishes, desires, and feelings. We don’t realize this, but everything single thing we accomplish, we do so looking in the face of inevitable death. Death takes away the sense of a person’s life.

That little human being that you were once, who looked at the world with eyes wide open, got surprised, laughed, sometimes cried, this human being will cease to exist. Will disappear. Forever.

Death is the triumph of unfairness. It is bloodcurdling that everybody will die. Kids, olds people, adults, women, men. Every person’s life is a tragedy, because it ends bad every time.

Death is so horrible that a man denies the very fact of its existence to protect himself. He simply doesn’t think he is mortal or comes up with a unproven theory that there is no death whatsoever.

The inevitability of death is defined by the fact people age. Therefore, the most rational behavior will be to study aging, and to try to slow it down and stop.

In this picture I am standing in the middle of the hall in the institute where aging will be defeated. When? When there is enough funding. When there are large-scale scientific projects. When a lot of people understand that aging has to be eliminated without proposing any additional requirements. For now the majority of wealthy people approach developing a cure for aging as another investment project.

The desire to make money on defeating death is laughable. It’s the same as when death comes to beg it to come later, and when it asks: “On what conditions?” to answer: “I’d like to make money on it”.

My whole like is devoted to fighting death. I have a very good plan. I only have to implement it.


Filed under Life

51 responses to “Fighting Death

  1. Implement as you say mighty Woman of Science… Because this is the era of deaths end… Respect and there will be much money needed.. Respect

  2. Great article. Most people remain very defeatist about aging and death, unfortunately. It’s good to have people like you fighting the good fight and raising consciousness.

  3. Adam Perrotta

    How can we help you implement your plan (besides giving you moral support on internet threads)? I have wanted to fight aging for 20 years, but the opportunity has eluded me.

    • There are many things one can do: starting with spreading the word on the internet and ending with participating in street actions and organizing events promoting life extension. There is a whole variety of things you can do depending on the amount of your resources that you can devote.

  4. Always thought that the most significant event in a person’s life is birth. It changes everything. More precisely, it gives everything that a person has.
    Being dead is irrelevant for the one who has died, except you follow religious beliefs of an afterlife that enables you looking back on your life. But I guess we both agree that “The world will be gone for the person” who has died. What I don’t agree on is your claim of vanishing of everything a person was. To be honest, Nietzsche still makes me think, Picasso still makes me think lough and Link Wray still makes me dance. Without Elvis I would have never started playing ukulele. Hence, Death isn’t able to take away the sense of a person’s life.
    I wonder why your are so concerned with death. There are so many people suffering alive. We first-worlders live a pretty long and peaceful time compared to many other people [1]. We have so much time and menas to help the living or to create some piece of Art that will inspire our descendants far beyond many lifetimes


    • “I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”–Woody Allen

      I utterly disagree with your views, Kptn Blizz.

      • Got me. I love Woody Allen. Even after his death he’ll be immortal. But all this wishful thinking is a mindset of the living. The dead won’t bother ’bout apartments. I really recommend Eugene Thacker “In The Dust Of This Planet”. But: Do I understand you right? You really disagree on the need to focus ending suffering of the alive that is not primarily related to ageing? Issues like discrimination, hunger, pollution/toxication, cruelty, war, homelessness, posttraumatic stress disorders, etc.

        Don’t we face way more urging problems than chasing the ghost of ageing? Notably that ageing is a term void of any true meaning: It relates to the aggregation of numerous physical changes – not exclusively – in biological entities. Or do we exclusively talk ’bout human senescence? What about environmental factors? Although there are many theories the biological basis of ageing is still unknown.

        On death: What about the killing of estimated annually 100 million vertebrates and about 80 million invertebrates in scientific research that has a poor transmissibility rate to humans of less than 10% in clinical studies? We could easily end this “mass mortality”. Is non-human life less valuable than human life?

        Sorry but all of this hipster-transhumanist longevity chat is so mindless about the terminology it adopts or other related issues. It really hurts.

        • Do you disagree with all of medicine, or just anti-aging medicine? All of medicine is intended to increase the quality and quantity of life, and to prevent death. Which kinds of medicine are illegitimate in your opinion, and why does it trouble you so much that others pursue anti-aging medicine in particular? I’m a scientist, and do not have any trouble at all understanding the meaning of aging. I have a lot of trouble understanding your incoherent and illogical argument that biological immortality which already exists in many species, should not be extended to humans because we have horrible inequality. We can walk and chew gum. We can address the terrible injustices and advance medical science. Inequality applies to every kind of medicine, not just anti-aging medicine. Yet you specifically have a problem with the quest for indefinite lifespans. You’re extremely illogical and not very bright at all.

          • I primarily disagree on imprecise tech-lobby terminology and more or less useful and expensive “anti-aging” dietary supplements they aim to promote.
            I have no problem with any therapeutic purpose. But no serious scientist or medic would claim “ageing” a disease that needs treatment in the first case.

            I’m a philosopher, and do not have any trouble at all understanding the meaning of living. 😉

            I have made no argument yet that could be “incoherent” or “illogical”. I just pointed towards some related factors longevity-terminology affects. And: there’s many more to consider, e.g. demographic issues. But we all know that “immortality” is more a religious domain than a real possibility for humans. Hence all this doesn’t trouble me at all.

            What really troubles me is the blindness of Scientism and the a sheer ingnorance on consequences like adverse effects and related social issues when the chat comes to “Implementation” – what i call “tech-optimism”.

            If you are a scientist you should know that in most cases the technologies/meds discussed in anti-ageing hold the status of laboratory science or experimental pharmacy. And you should know that in a laboratory situation it is nearly impossible to recreate the complex interrelationships of versatile mutually reacting systems and taking adequate account to all related conditions. As well as the accessibility of new treatments which first need to establish themselves in a complex economy. Hence: most of the solutions – I avoid to speak of “possible solutions” – are discussed in a twilight zone somewhere between science and fiction. This is what I call imprecise.

            When it comes to implementation we know that everything evidently has influence but with limited control. In many cases – especially in a long term – the extend of adverse- or rebound-effects is far from certain and often turn out to major issues. Pure optimism either underestimates complexity or overestimates existing knowledge. Aspects like wishful thinking or misinterpretations, the distance to focused events, the incompleteness of sufficient knowledge or narrow perspectives like egocentric thinking contribute to the problem of optimism bias. We should feel less confident with that.

            • ps: you might call me “incoherent”, “illogical” or animal names. But this is just your opinion. And: that does not discredit the fact that death is not exclusively a human resort and the many facts that cause death beyond that misty “ageing”.

              • x

                If you are a philosopher your arguments do not make me think you are a good one. Survival is ingrained in the nature of all species. We are just more intelligent and resourceful. I tend to favour the existence of people already alive than those who are yet to be born. That’s why birth control would be a solution to overpopulation. And you do not seem to be reading the latest ideas on aging in the biotechnology community. Aging is seeimg as the main cause of all diseases of aging and is now a target for many treatments now in development. And yes, most humans value human lives over animal lives, and we value the lives of those who live near us and are our family/friends over the rest. If we kept theorising about things like many philosophers do, we would still be in the stone age. No matter what philisophers say, if a treatment against ends up being successful in humans, most people in developed countries will buy them and our lives will be better, with less aging and diseases. It is ludicrous to find people like you working to discredit people working for their own good.

                • Right: Survival of the SPECIES – not the individual. My philosophy seems to be not that bad at all. So you plea for Social Darwinism by technological superiority? I dont aim to discredit people but to discredit their imprecise terminology and wishful thinking. Thats a big difference!

              • Where to start with all the ignorance you spew? You operate from ignorant, hostile, contemptuous stereotypical straw men which you spew one after the other. Those of us who look to cure aging and have indefinite lifespan overwhelmingly don’t consume or promote weird supplements. I have practiced long-term calorie restriction and moderate exercise for the last 20 years. As a result I’m a 50 year old who can sprint faster, run further and lift heavier than the average teenager. I don’t take any weird supplements, and am very skeptical of them. Aging is a disease by any reasonable definition of disease, and it is disease which heavily causes most other disease. You are so stupid and ignorant that I’m not going to waste any more time on you. You have absolutely no idea what transhumanism and immortalism are, other than your foolish ideas about gobbling supplements. Good bye.

                • Whatever you call me. You have made no argument to tackle my plea for a more precise and including terminology/thinking about aging and death.
                  Its common that best-agers are able to lift more than teens. You prove nothing. Strengzh doesn’t exclusively depend on diet or workout.

                  (Tech-)Transhumanism has absolutely no idea what transhumanism and immortalism is [1]. It is a loose pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious tech-lobby for venture capitalists or people who are afraid of limitations or determination and hence try an inverse technocratic approach to overcome limitations.


                  • x

                    Kptn Blizz, I encourage you to read the works of Nick Bostrom or Anders Sandberg, transhumanist philosophers who have worked in the field and their terminology. While you think that humans work for the survival of their species only, this general drive is by no means greater than the desire individuals have to prolong their own specific lives if they are healthy and not suffering. If you tell someone if the want to live forever, many people will thell you the do not, but NONE of them will give a specific date they consider to be the right time to die if that date is very close to their actual age, provided that they are healthy and not in pain of depressed. No hundred year old will tell you dying next week is the best. If there are some who do, they are a extremely small minority. I am not afraid of my limitations as a human being, I just reduce those limitations as much as possible, and technology has proved to do so in the past, and with the help of social changes it think it could be reduced further.

                    • Nick Bostrom? You mean this pseudo-philosopher Popstar of the Tech-lobby? His last book was highly speculative and lacking rational foundation. Like your claims on (old) people’s desires.

                      Technology is ambigious: it has also proven to harm our environment in many ways (not to forget medical adverse effects). We (or others) always pay a high price for some benefits. That’s the way the world rotates my friend.

                      I encourage you to read Paul Virilio: The Original Accident (L’accident originel), Cambridge: Polity, 2007

                    • x

                      You are right, I have no data on the views of old people regarding when they would like to die. I would like you to ask any old person (who is no frail and unhealthy: most old people are unhealthy becase they are old) if they would like to die next week because it is the right time, since they have led a long life. You say Nick Bostrom is a not a real philosopher, but you provide no reasons or evidence for that. He has published extensively on the topic of transhumanism, and I would like you to provide real reasons, not just epithets. I could say you are not a real philosopher as well and it would have the same credibility. Let’s back our claims with data rather than simple accusations then.

        • Antonio

          Kptn Blitz said: “But: Do I understand you right? You really disagree on the need to focus ending suffering of the alive that is not primarily related to ageing? Issues like discrimination, hunger, pollution/toxication, cruelty, war, homelessness, posttraumatic stress disorders, etc.”

          2/3 of world’s population, and 90% in developed countries, die from ageing.

    • If you can save a Life from Suffering you do it.. If you can end ageing and death and save the suffering of Millions you are obligated to do it… We have the means to now end ageing and death.. And as Maria always says, and is the true of Development.. Financing/Funding is Key.. Examine ageing end at and learn more about the process and formula at .. Respect to the Hostess of this Site and all Commentators

  5. The industrialists who are putting money into defeating death have so much money that the sums involved are meaningless in terms of buying things, going on holiday and so on. Bill Gates set his target lower (defeating Malaria) which will benefit many people, but all the people this saves will still die in the end, as you pointed out. I suspect his motivation is not a means of making even more money.

    If you start counting, the left most digit moves one to the left fairly quickly. But as the number increases any change to the left gets more and more infrequent, and eventually it becomes really hard to get the total to increase by a factor of 10. Note “a factor”, not by adding 10.

    I would imagine that the phenomenon persists with regards to making money by business manipulation. Put simply, merely making money gets boring once you have passed a certain point.

    Therefore those with trillions seeks some other challenge, and what better than defeating death itself.

    A lot of people like babies and children, and think that defeating death is against babies and children. But I think you may have seen that when an old woman dies it is also the baby and the girl she once was that have also died.

    Some gain comfort that they have lived on in their works, or people’s memories, or bits of DNA they have left lying about or merged with other people’s DNA. But this is no more than comfort. It isn’t reality.

    Woody Allen is once quoted as saying that he wanted to live on in his apartment. This is good for a laugh, but it encompasses a profound truth that most people seem to miss.

  6. I guess the lifes Bill Gates investment saves from malaria may die of old age and without suffering. Is it about living in general or the mode of living specifically?

    • x

      That is highly unlikely. The vast majority of people who die of old age suffer from a series of disease as a consequence of the accumulated damage of old age. An extremely tiny minority migh not suffer very much, but the diseases of old age diminish their quality of life as well. Dying old without disease is just a contradiction in terms for most people. There are many studies on morbidity and age who show this to be the case. Actually, the majority of people die of old age in most countries nowadays, (60 percent of them in developing countries and 90 percent in developed ones). Nowadays, aging is the biggest driver of suffering in the world.

      • seems to be a first world problem then. I recommend including every single human in that status quo. Waht exactly proofs that “aging is the biggest driver of suffering in the world”? I suspect this is utterly wrong and we face way more urging global issues people suffer or die from pretty young (compared to expectation of life in the first world).

        • x

          Globally, the disease of aging are the most commmon diseases in the world. Only low income countries (mainly African countries below the Sahara desert) have more deaths resulting from infectious and other diseases not directly related to aging (although they are indirectly related, because aging damages the immune system and a 50 year old is likelier to die from infectious diseases compared to a 20-year-old in subsaharan Africa). In low.-middle and middle income countries (India, China, Pakistan, Iran: the majority of the world’s people) the disease of aging are the leading cause of death. I am not saying money should not be spent on infectios diseases as well, but very little money is being spent on the diseases of aging as such, but on fake supplement companies which try to sell things that do not work, instead of real biotechnology.

          And calorie restriction is on the best (if not the best) method known to increase maximum lifespan and works better for many other interventions to ameliorate aging profiles (even better than exercise) in most cases (except for people who have ALS, but exercise is not good for everyone either). For more information, read the latest review in Cell:

          if you do not have access to the whole paper, I could e-mail it to you.

        • It is highly unlikely that solving the problem of ageing to death would not also produce important spin-offs that would apply to younger people with serious medical problems such as cancer.

          Whether these solutions could be applied to a wide number of people would most likely depend on the actions of patent lawyers, import tax specialists, sales tax specialists, and similar peripheral professions. But if the source funding was profits from unrelated industries such as computers then there isn’t the same need to reimburse research work in the same way as with a pharmaceutical company which is self funded (ie funded from profits on those few of its products that are successful.)

  7. x

    Paul Virilio’s views do not necessarily contradict many the ideas of Transhumanism. Technology has a lot existential risks, but this idea of massive catastrophes has not become real as of today, and famines and wars were more prevalent in the past than today (and they still are quite prevalent in tribal societies, where you can find more violent deaths that in modern states). For more info on this topic:



    I know we face emerging threats which need to be taken care of,, but that does not mean we really need to stop using technology, and recognition of its benefits over not using it is needed. Do you usually refrain from using technology in any way even though you do not trust it? You do not have a mobile phone/computer/undergo modern medical treatments? I know we have to adapt our technology to modern threats, but your arguments do not appear to be constructive, implying that we should not pursue life extension biotechnologies at all in order to focus only on third world issues which do not affect the majority of the world’s population.

    I also doubt you would like it if that truly happened, given the effects it would have on your own well-being.

    • x

      Just a side note, I have been reading some criticism on his work, and he seems to use terms from Physics without actually knowing what they truly mean. Being a war child affected by WWII , it’s only normal that he emphasises the negative sides of technology. And he seems to be against using modern technology (not having a TV, a cellphone or a computer). All technologies have their own risks, but they need to be managed properly and we are all for that (even you Nick Bostrom you criticise so much without any reasons expoused here). Transhumanism does not mean we equate progress with Neoliberal policies or the idea that progress will never end. It is a struggle to improve technology while managing their risks to minimize them. The risk of death in the vast majority of people has been reduced during this century and this is undeniable even in most places in Africa. In the history of the world periodic famines were usual and technology has helped in many ways. This post-modernist philosopher provides very little actual data and much theorising and confuses basic concepts in physics such as speed and acceleration. Even though I partially agree with him, he is not in contradiction with transhumanism. Technology should be promoted and we also need to be aware of their risks.

      • Of course Virilios work is hermeneutic phenomenology and not empirical science. It’s deductive does not claim evidence but gives a pretty interesting alternative view on tech-induced crises (accidents), acceleration, information flood, etc.

        The kind of “Transhumanism” you talk about is better described with “Tech-Transhumanism” or “Extropianism”. By the way: There are other approaches in “Transhumanism” who describe alternatives to the extensive use of technology. But unfortunately these are not the main canon.

        The most powerful institutions promoting “Tech-Transhumanism” or “Extropianism” in Silicon Valley are intrinsically neoliberal lobbyist of venture capitalism [e.g. 1]. It would be really surprising if such actors like ROCHE et al. track altruistic aims (remember TAMUFLU/bird flu). Or leading global capital ventures with investments in high growth and large sector industries namely in emerging markets of newly industrialized countries. This is by far no development aid. In this view “Transhumanism” and “Singularitarianism” rather appears as lobbying for economic targets, using a powerful tool for our affirmation: The hope of salvation.

        The problem with awareness of risks as well as awareness of actual disasters is the biased tech-optimism [2] these ventures generally adopt. See long term consequences of Deepwater Horizon disaster or Asse II mine. It is not their intention to indicate those threads, just because they want to maximize profit not wellbeing.

        On Africa your are unfortunately wrong. While hunger declined worldwide it increases in Africa due to population growth, poverty, rising food prices (speculation) as well as to increasing conflicts.

        1) cf.
        2) cf.

  8. Pingback: Between two worlds | Climate Under Control

  9. This is the kind of death we should fight in the first instance:

  10. What you write is absolutely true. Ironically, fundraising is more important a function than the actual work longevity institutes do. In particular, defeating senescence ought to be more important than any other priority to big donors, so why are other causes getting all the big bucks? In my opinion, the longevity community ought to approach fundraising in the same way that major political parties do in the US – which means hiring the best fundraisers, not just the best scientists. Until want to the best in the fundraising profession hired at longevity institutes, not just the best scientists.

  11. Maria, I support your intention to make something in this this field of science and to fight death. This is extremely complex task. As a pathologist I performed more than 3,000 autopsies myself and I realize that fighting death is almost unreal. But we still have a chance to do something.
    When I attended the Sochi Conference I understood that, despite of enormous efforts to resolve the problem of aging, we are still far away from real success.
    I wish you to achieve success in your efforts.

  12. It should be noted that many species have already beaten aging. Transhumanists just seek to add one more species to that list:

  13. This is one of the most impressive and true letters that I have read this year. Maria you write from your heart, and I see that the efforts made into curing aging are beginning to matter to more and more people.

    Obviously it would be optimal to reach the older people, who are millionaires or billionaires, they are the ones that will benefit immediately from rejuvenation and stoping aging. They also have the money to finance research. It is true that all starts with a paradigm shift: everyone to realize how important our human lives are, and how the focus of our society should be on eliminating death from aging and aging related diseases.

    Reaching through twitter to celebrities and millionaires and billionaires,
    can be the first step that all of us can do, to make our voices and our message heard.

    Keep up the amazing work Maria!

    • The billionaire money is getting there, if the dead hands of the socialists and tax police don’t get it first and turn it into socialist grey goo of mediocrity.
      Elections in the UK and USA in 2015 and 2016 may decide the issue.

      • Very odd complaint on an internet originally built by the socialist grey goo of taxation and government spending.

        • … and the Socialist utopia of the USSR did have something akin to cryonics, but for just one person, Vladimir Lenin.
          Government money has kick started many worthwhile things, such as space flight and renewable energy, but I would be really surprised if much of it will go into research to make lifespan indefinite. This is despite the fact that government would get much better return on public education programmes by so doing, and have to pay out nothing for old age care and benefits. (Although there will inevitably be people so severely disabled by accident that some will still need such benefits.)
          Most of modern science and engineering is standing on the shoulders of giants who were individuals endowed with an unequal share of the wealth of their time.

          • Thanks for these arguments for hereditary aristocracy and economic segregation. That’s not how civilized people roll these days, unfortunately. Best of luck in gov’t-free Somalia or wherever it is you’re broadcasting from.

            • And best of luck in finding a socialist utopia that will equal the work being funded as discussed here
              Which country do you think may come up with funding for a similar project?
              If we end up dead it really doesn’t matter that sort of definition for the roll of civilisation we used.
              (Off topic: Somalia may have a weak government, but there are plenty of freelance tax collectors around, but they are usually called “pirates”.)

              • I’ve already had the good fortune of being able to communicate on this socialist internet, along with all the other benefits I get from gov’t. So have you, yet you’re singularly ungrateful and desirous of the Somalia scenario which is exactly what drives people all over the world to form governments in the first place. Governmental funding for anti-aging is suffering from the onslaught of tax-hating anti-socialists who are also generally very anti-science. Many are creationists. It’s not clear when this phase will pass and research funding will pick up speed again.

                • It is too generalist to say all Republican supporters are science hating just because some have irrational beliefs, making a virtue of “believing” something for which there is no repeatable evidence.

                  I am not sure of the overall politics of Milan Panic’s brief period of the presidency of Serbia, but I think he did make a central issue of life extension. In answer to my own question, I suppose Sweden may be an example of the most successful high tax country, but whether their leaders place importance on radical life extension I don’t know.

                  Nevertheless the people are fact and come from a USA with a Democrat president, although some people may still think the tax penalties on successful industry and industrialists are insufficient if people can amass so much wealth.

                  There is the niggling problem that they may come up with something that requires elaborate and expensive surgery, and therefore only a few can benefit. However the process that gets people from 25 to 65 in reasonable health ought to be extendable with a bit of adjustment on a cellular level, which isn’t inherently expensive unless someone charges development costs. The development costs may already have been met by the different industries with which the principals have already made their (untaxed or after tax) money.

                  However democratic a government is, there will inevitably fewer people making the decisions than if, as is at present, there are many self selected people based on the excellence of their abilities. If the elected politicians make what life extensionists think is the right decision (an all out effort to solve the aging problem) then, with the hindsight of our great ages, yes we are all taxophiles. However they may decide that the right decision is to put the bulk of the collective’s funds into all out war on substance addition or one of the many other pressing problems that face the world.

                  Then with so few people making decisions, life extensionists are out of luck.

  14. Jeremy

    Who are you? I could not have put it better myself. This is the issue I feel most strongly about and your words are validating to me.

    I’m sure you are aware how few people dare to agree with us. In order to get people to throw in with what must be done, you would first have to get them to fully digest the Sartrean realizations that you and I already have already accepted. Most are not even half way there. And then there are those who do not believe in an afterlife and still, unfathomably, would oppose radical life extension. And then there are those people who think that curing aging irreversibly condemns us to internal life whether we want it or not which is silly.

    I hope you move forward with your plans.

  15. Good article, wonderful writer 🙂 Compliments!

  16. Some are stating that all drugs/medicines as some call, are for extending a Life… 80% of the poisons on the market are there to make money off of sick people before they die.. “First Do no Harm” they learn in College.. Then explode onto the Pharmaceutical scene with poisons… And so Oddly that is what the Pharmacological Universities curriculum states, that in essence all drugs are poisons… The cure found, and is only a poison to the infection we all have called ageing… Respect

  17. Maria…I have been following your work for quite some time and I applaud everything you are doing. I have always fought against naysayers and I know it’s not easy to stay focused when you are being ridiculed by those who have no understanding of what you are trying to achieve.

    As a disabled person, I have always remained optimistic that there would be a day when no child is born with a disability and where those who are, would be given new leases on life. I am 62 years old and don’t think I will make it to a time when life extension or immortality will be available. However, I have faith in the human quest for knowledge and in science. If I am unable to avail myself of such medical advancements, I plan on being cryogenically-preserved so that, perhaps, one day, I can be regenerated and live again, in a body without pain; a body that will let me experience running and jumping and all of the other things I have not experienced in this life.

    I believe in you, your work and the movement you are helping to create! Stay focused…I’m counting on you! 😉

    • Thanks, Ron! I think cryopreservation is an excellent choice. I’d like to be cryopreserved if something happens or if progress is not acceleraeted enough for me to benefit from life extension technologies. I am really hoping this will not be the case, but you never know what going to happen tomorrow. We are trying to push aging research forward and that’s why we are working on our Longevity Cookbook prject that we are going to crowdfund. The campaign starts on May 14. We can use as much help spreading the word as possible.

  18. Poppy

    I agree with this comment I read on :

    “Her arguments are visual. Every picture tells a story, etc. I believe there is a substantial segment of the populace who do not believe that anti-aging rejuvenation is possible. Reading about it is similar to flying cars. It is always “someday” and most people dismiss that someday as within their lifetimes.

    It is my firm belief that for a visually driven culture -like this one in 2013- we need also images of rejuvenation. That is, treatments that address the “superficial” aspects of aging such as grey hair, hair loss, skin wrinkling, etc. Not just masking such as botox or toupees, but actual reversal of aging that can be seen and touched with human eyes.

    This will open minds in the general public in ways that a tissue engineered trachea will not. They will see a visual reversal of aging. They will want these treatments for themselves because we are such a visually driven culture and when told that “Rejuvenation like this is possible for your entire body” it will be believed.

    This I believe will be a tipping point in getting mass support from those who believe it is not possible and never will be; that it’s “too good to be true.” Because so much of what is sold in life is too good to be true. Thus I think money spent on such cosmetic and non life threatening things as hair and skin will in fact accelerate funding for other areas of anti-aging research and would advance their arrival, though it may seem counter intuitive.”

    • There are many people about who try to be what they are not. Toupees, hair dye, botox etc are the tip of an iceberg that includes all sorts of much weirder things such as those practiced by Michael Jackson and other celebrity entertainers. Then there are people who try to be the gender they are not.

      True age reversal isn’t that. It isn’t hiding appearance, it is actually reversing the biomedical changes that have lead to the undesirable appearance. If you joints don’t work on account of age related arthritis, then this is a disease that can be treated. So if “age” can be treated, it should go away.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s