How many lives do you think you can save in your lifetime? This is not a play on words, but a very serious question, according to the online edition for girls and women from 14 to 35 years old Pannochka. net When we talk about saving a life, we mean that as a result of our actions, the “rescued” is given a chance to live longer than he otherwise would have lived.

However, if one asks about the importance of saving lives, then one must take into account that lives are not equal.

For example, they saved a drowning 80-year-old man, thanks to which he will live on the strength of a few more years, and then die from something else. If the drowning person is a child, then, saved, he will live another 70 years or more. The quality of life of the rescued should also be taken into account, especially the state of health. And the question asked above will sound like this: how many years of healthy young life can you give people in general in your life?

It is in your power to add much more time to life than you think (so much more that it does not interfere with deciding whether you want it). The path to this is to help accelerate the victory over aging. How specifically will you help - donate money for research, for example, to the Methuselah Foundations Mprize Fund or take part in its activities or in the SENS research program.

Statistics.

Approximately 150,000 people die every day around the world. almost two per second. Of these, two-thirds are from old age.. That's right, 100,000 a day. That's about 30 times more than the number of deaths at the World Trade Center, 60 times more than Hurricane Katrina killed - every day. In industrialized countries, the proportion of people dying of old age is 90%, t. , for each death from any other cause (murder, accident, AIDS, etc.). ) accounts for approximately ten deaths from old age.

Take a look at the revised wording of the question posed at the beginning of this chapter and note the two definitions of life - healthy and young.. Many, when thinking about extending life, make the “Typhon mistake”, believing that the fight against aging means only increasing the duration of the last period of life - the dull years of infirmity and disease that end the life of most people.. In fact, quite the contrary - the victory over aging should eliminate this period, pushing it to an indefinitely older age, which is now unattainable in practice.. There will simply not be people decrepit and sickly because of their age..

This is not about lengthening life as it is, but about the elimination of countless infirmities associated with old age, from which not only the elderly themselves suffer, but also their relatives and friends.. And there is - albeit not so important, but still significant - the financial aspect of the problem: the disappearance of aging will save society a lot of money. Indeed, in industrialized countries, the \; here we can talk about trillions of dollars a year.

In the 21st century, perhaps in a few decades, during the lifetime of living people who can take advantage of this, it will be possible to eliminate aging as a cause of death.. But first you need to interest you - not in the sense of entertaining with an entertaining story, but to help you realize a wonderful perspective. For most people, it will not be convincing enough if you start counting the lives saved and painting the suffering that people will get rid of by banishing aging from their lives..

In the UK, as in all Western countries, the anti-tobacco movement is growing.. Every pack of cigarettes has a health warning printed on it, not in small print and in vague scientific terms, but in a catchy, punchy manner.. The simplest and shortest slogan of this kind consists of just two words, usually printed in black on a blinding white background: " And slowly but surely, smoking is losing popularity.. Like drunk driving, smoking is becoming frowned upon in society. True, this is a long and difficult path - not only because addiction to nicotine is, in fact, a drug addiction, but also because young people start smoking contrary to public opinion..

It is this latter circumstance, namely, the continuing influx of young neophytes, that is what we are talking about.. The fight to stop young people from starting to smoke is supported by essentially all adults, whether they smoke or not. The struggle is still going on, challenging us, so that the contradictions in people's attitude towards the problem - both individually and at the level of society as a whole - are clearly visible, which is why it is so difficult to win. With regard to specific diseases, the matter is indisputable: the more you can do to get rid of them, the better..

But with regard to smoking, despite the fact that, as you know, it leads to certain diseases, there is a kind of addiction in society that levels out reasonable concern about the younger generation joining the ranks of tobacco abusers.. Every day we are faced with the contradiction that, on the one hand, everyone sees how smoking worsens and shortens life, and on the other hand, they condon the advertising and sale of tobacco products.. The situation is the same in relation to people to aging..

There are two significant reasons for the loss of popularity of smoking and the decrease in tolerance for it.. One of them is that many people find smoking unattractive, in particular because of the smell (or, closer to the body, taste). But it is unlikely that this is the only reason why attitudes towards smoking have recently changed, because modern tobacco is probably no more disgusting than that produced a century ago.. The main reason that most people now disapprove of smoking is its " Most importantly, it significantly increases the risk of fatal lung cancer, which not only catastrophically shortens life, but turns the last years of life into torment..

We need to promote a shift in public opinion about aging. Most people don't view aging the way they view cancer, diabetes, or coronary heart disease.. They are entirely " The idea of \u200b\u200beliminating aging, t. ensuring an indefinitely long, in the full sense of the word, young physical and mental functioning of the body causes an avalanche of fears and reservations. But in the most important sense, aging is like smoking: it is harmful, it shortens life, it worsens the quality of life in its last years, it spoils the life of relatives and friends.. Let's take a closer look at the reasons for this strangely impassioned advocacy of aging..

Motives for the paradoxical attitude to aging.

There is a profound difference between the attitude of people towards a moderate delay in aging and towards the complete elimination of aging as a cause of infirmity and death.. There is a whole industry of anti-aging products (which, we note in parentheses, are very different in their effectiveness, sometimes very different from what is claimed), because no one likes to get old, and even know that others notice it.

However, the prospect of eventually defeating aging, as many infectious diseases have been defeated, seems terrible to most, in other words, eliminating aging as a cause of death.. When it comes to such a prospect, most often the first and often downright hysterical reaction is painting the negative consequences - uncontrolled overpopulation, immortal tyrants, the elite use of anti-aging drugs and other "

These hazards should be taken seriously and prepared in advance to deal with them.. What amazes me is not that such fears are expressed, but how they are expressed People, even quite rationally minded and able to discuss on any other topic, when an interlocutor tries to discuss the victory over aging, show an indescribable immunity to arguments. With incredible stubbornness, they seek to get away from the topic or reduce the conversation to an exchange of witty phrases or expose the opponent of aging to deluded dupes..

There is a very simple reason why people are so zealous in defending aging.. This reason has now lost its solidity, but until recently it was quite reasonable.. Until recently, no intelligible concepts for combating aging were proposed, which means that it was completely inevitable..

And when a person is faced with an inevitability, moreover, as terrifying as aging, with which he can do nothing for himself or for others, the best psychological way to cope with an impossible task is to simply put it out of your head, if only for the sake of your own peace of mind,. In order to stay in this state of mind, the easiest way is to reject the slightest semblance of reasonableness in the subject - and, inevitably, resort to dubious irrational conversational techniques..

On skepticism about SENS.

The SENS concept is an engineering negligible aging strategy, a forward-looking anti-aging plan. In particular, if you have had an interest in life extension for some time now, then most likely you are already familiar with SENS through the media.. If so, you know that while many credible gerontologists have welcomed the concept of SENS, others have met it with harsh criticism to the point of derision..

It should be noted that any radically new concept causes increased attention and sharp controversy among specialists in this field.. It often happens that conservative critics are absolutely right and newfangled ideas are actually wrong.. But often, however, skeptics are unable (and sometimes avoid) to understand what they are criticizing, and / or they are driven by economic considerations rather than scientific arguments.. If you are not a person of science, then you may consider the following assumption unfair, but the mental and mental costs of older scientists for their beliefs prevent them from being objective; everyone admits this, if not publicly, then privately.

A number of eminent researchers of the past expressed this with bitter humor in catchy formulations.; for example, physicist Max Planck noted 80 years ago that " Haldane put it this way: "

The speed of implementation of SENS depends largely on the acceptance of the idea of \u200b\u200bits effectiveness, both in the scientific community and among the general public.. Published in 2005. rather negative essay on SENS, its publisher found that the leading gerontologists on whose opinion they relied were unwilling to back up their assessment with any scientific data. The magazine then proceeded in an admirable manner: taking the risk of " To win the prize, reputable biologists had to write scathing comments about SENS.. This commission had to be, of course, obviously and undeniably impartial, but be sufficiently knowledgeable in the field of relevant technologies..

The journal was able to find five members for such a panel, including biotechnology luminary Craig Venter.. A prize of 10,000. dollars, and the same amount was added by the Methuselah Foundation. A group of nine very reputable biogerontologists kindly offered co-authorship, and two more scientists - independent participation; all three members were anonymous. And they categorically failed to show that SENS is worthless.

The concept of SENS is so implausible that it makes no sense to even try to implement it.. However, this opinion is unambiguously refuted by the aforementioned contest.. And if there is someone else who wants to convince you that SENS is an empty fantasy, especially if this someone boasts of their knowledge in this field, then you now, like the publishers of Technology Review, know very well: what such a skeptic thinks.

Dee Gray Aubrey.

medbe. en.