Over the last 4-5 years I have been an outside observer to a movement known by several names. Some call it transhumanism, others extropianism or even anti-agism (not towards seniors but rather the physiological condition of aging). In truth these all describe different concepts that tie together. Some forward looking academics and scientists (i.e. Futurists) suggest that in reality medical doctors are really engineers and that our bodies are simply a composite of hundreds of interdependent systems. One in particular is a Englishman by the name of Aubrey de Grey. Over the past several years he has published numerous articles detailing what he believes are the seven ways in which aging can be prevented, reversed and ultimately fixed (i.e. a permanent cure for aging). This of course runs contrary to the line of thinking that no matter what happens in life, we all cease to live at some point: “it is the natural way.”
Members of the anti-aging movement argue that this mentality is negative, cynical, backwards and simply flat out wrong. They note that discovering how to fix these systems, these tiny engines of life, is not a matter of if, but when.
And not everyone agrees with them, including Jason Pontin, the editor of the magazine MIT Technology Review. He has put together an independent board of inquiry, along with a sizable purse ($10,000) to prove that Dr. de Grey & Co. are incorrect in every facet of the word.
While I certainly consider myself an educated layman in this debate, I would note that I do not believe that there is anything magical, mystical or otherwise unexplainable in the form or function of the human anatomy. In other words, every function can be quantified in some manner and ultimately, described in engineering terms. Thus, while the board of inquiry may find Dr. de Grey’s postulates and publications to be invalid, the central meme, of physiological engineering will still remain when the dust settles.
Round 1, fight.