Editing Life extension (section)

==Ethics and politics ==

===Scientific controversy===
Some critics dispute the portrayal of aging as a disease. For example, [[Leonard Hayflick]], who determined that [[fibroblast]]s are limited to around 50&nbsp;cell divisions, reasons that aging is an unavoidable consequence of [[entropy]]. Hayflick and fellow [[biogerontologist]]s [[S. Jay Olshansky|Jay Olshansky]] and Bruce Carnes have strongly criticized the anti-aging industry in response to what they see as unscrupulous profiteering from the sale of unproven [[anti-aging supplements]].<ref name="PositionStatement">{{cite journal | vauthors = Olshansky SJ, Hayflick L, Carnes BA | title = Position statement on human aging | journal = The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences | volume = 57 | issue = 8 | pages = B292–B297 | date = August 2002 | pmid = 12145354 | doi = 10.1093/gerona/57.8.B292 | doi-access = free | citeseerx = 10.1.1.541.3004 }}</ref><!--This may be a good place to link into the broader social debate on life extension ethics. Hayflick is not the only one to object to the portrayal/treatment of aging as a disease. Many doctors, social scientists, feminists, etc. do-->

===Consumer motivations ===
Research by Sobh and Martin (2011) suggests that people buy anti-aging products to obtain a hoped-for self (e.g., keeping a youthful skin) or to avoid a feared-self (e.g., looking old). The research shows that when consumers pursue a hoped-for self, it is expectations of success that most strongly drive their motivation to use the product. The research also shows why doing badly when trying to avoid a feared self is more motivating than doing well. When product use is seen to fail it is more motivating than success when consumers seek to avoid a feared-self.<ref>{{cite journal | year = 2011 | title = Feedback Information and Consumer Motivation. The Moderating Role of Positive and Negative Reference Values in Self-Regulation | url = http://www.basmartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/S-and-M.pdf | journal = European Journal of Marketing | volume = 45 | issue = 6 | pages = 963–986 | doi = 10.1108/03090561111119976 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140818073959/http://www.basmartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/S-and-M.pdf | archive-date = 2014-08-18 | vauthors = Sobh R, Martin BA | hdl = 10576/52103 }}</ref>

===Political parties===
Though many scientists state<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imminst.org/cureaging/ |title=Scientists' Open Letter on Aging |publisher=Imminst.org |access-date=2012-10-07}}</ref> that life extension and radical life extension are possible, there are still no international or national programs focused on radical life extension. There are political forces working both for and against life extension. By 2012, in Russia, the United States, Israel, and the Netherlands, the Longevity political parties started. They aimed to provide political support to radical life extension research and technologies, and ensure the fastest possible and at the same time soft transition of society to the next step – life without aging and with radical life extension, and to provide access to such technologies to most currently living people.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/07/a-single-issue-political-party-for-longevity-science.php |title=A Single-Issue Political Party for Longevity Science |publisher=Fightaging.org |access-date=2012-10-07|date=2012-07-27 }}</ref>

===Silicon Valley===
Some tech innovators and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have invested heavily into anti-aging research. This includes [[Jeff Bezos]] (founder of [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]]), [[Larry Ellison]] (founder of [[Oracle Corporation|Oracle]]), [[Peter Thiel]] (former [[PayPal]] CEO),<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQHrJvwnOzo&list=PLCNNepS_4NcyOSlUdWOcTUCeUbK8nuywQ | title = Veritas Forum Q&A with Peter Thiel | work = YouTube | date = 25 June 2015 }}</ref> [[Larry Page]] (co-founder of [[Google]]), [[Peter Diamandis]],<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/silicon-valleys-quest-to-live-forever|title=Silicon Valley's Quest to Live Forever|date=April 3, 2017| vauthors = Friend T |magazine=The New Yorker}}</ref> [[Sam Altman]] (CEO of [[OpenAI]], invested in [[Joe Betts-LaCroix#Biotechnology_&_biomedicine|Retro Biosciences]]), and [[Brian Armstrong (businessman)|Brian Armstrong]] (founder of [[Coinbase]] and NewLimit),<ref>{{cite web |title=Sam Altman invested $180 million into a company trying to delay death |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069523/sam-altman-investment-180-million-retro-biosciences-longevity-death/ |website=MIT Technology Review |language=en |date=8 March 2023}}</ref> [[Bryan Johnson]] (Founder of [[Kernel (neurotechnology company)|Kernel]]).<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=ALTER |first1=CHARLOTTE |title=The Man Who Thinks He Can Live Forever |url=https://time.com/6315607/bryan-johnsons-quest-for-immortality/ |magazine=TIME |date=20 September 2023 |publisher=Time |access-date=31 March 2024}}</ref>

===Commentators===
[[Leon Kass]] (chairman of the US [[President's Council on Bioethics]] from 2001 to 2005) has questioned whether potential exacerbation of [[Human overpopulation|overpopulation]] problems would make life extension unethical.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Smith S |date=3 December 2002 |title=Killing Immortality |url=http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Forward_Thinking/column.aspx?articleID=2002-12-03-4 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20040607195722/http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Forward_Thinking/column.aspx?articleID=2002-12-03-4 |archive-date=7 June 2004 |publisher=Betterhumans |access-date=17 July 2009}}</ref> He states his opposition to life extension with the words:
{{Blockquote|"simply to covet a prolonged life span for ourselves is both a sign and a cause of our failure to open ourselves to procreation and to any higher purpose ... [The] desire to prolong youthfulness is not only a childish desire to eat one's life and keep it; it is also an expression of a childish and [[narcissistic]] wish incompatible with devotion to posterity."<ref>{{Cite book | vauthors = Kass L |author-link= Leon Kass |year=1985 |title=Toward a more natural science: biology and human affairs |publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]] |location=[[New York City]] |isbn=978-0-02-918340-3 |oclc=11677465 |page= 316}}</ref>}}

John Harris, former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, argues that as long as life is worth living, according to the person himself, we have a powerful moral imperative to save the life and thus to develop and offer life extension therapies to those who want them.<ref>Harris J. (2007) ''Enhancing Evolution: The ethical case for making better people''. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.</ref>

[[Transhumanist]] [[philosopher]] [[Nick Bostrom]] has argued that any technological advances in life extension must be equitably distributed and not restricted to a privileged few.<ref>{{Cite news | vauthors = Sutherland J |date=9 May 2006 |title=The ideas interview: Nick Bostrom |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/may/09/academicexperts.genetics |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date= 17 July 2009 |location=London}}</ref> In an extended metaphor entitled "[[The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant]]", Bostrom envisions death as a monstrous dragon who demands human sacrifices. In the fable, after a lengthy debate between those who believe the dragon is a fact of life and those who believe the dragon can and should be destroyed, the dragon is finally killed. Bostrom argues that political inaction allowed many preventable human deaths to occur.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Bostrom N | title = The fable of the dragon tyrant | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 31 | issue = 5 | pages = 273–277 | date = May 2005 | pmid = 15863685 | pmc = 1734155 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.009035 }}</ref>

===Overpopulation concerns===

Controversy about life extension is due to fear of [[Human overpopulation|overpopulation]] and possible effects on society.<ref name="Superlongevity Without Overpopulation">{{cite web|url=https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/02/superlongevity-without-overpopulation-1.php|title=Superlongevity Without Overpopulation|work=Fight Aging!|date=2005-02-06}}</ref> Biogerontologist [[Aubrey De Grey]] counters the overpopulation critique by pointing out that the therapy could postpone or eliminate [[menopause]], allowing women to space out their pregnancies over more years and thus ''decreasing'' the yearly population growth rate.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-ethics-of-anti-aging-by-peter-singer|title=Peter Singer on Should We Live to 1,000? – Project Syndicate|work=Project Syndicate|date=2012-12-10}}</ref> Moreover, the philosopher and futurist [[Max More]] argues that, given that the worldwide population growth rate is slowing down and is projected to eventually stabilize and begin falling, superlongevity would be unlikely to contribute to overpopulation.<ref name="Superlongevity Without Overpopulation"/>

===Opinion polls===

A Spring 2013 [[Pew Research]] poll in the United States found that 38% of Americans would want life extension treatments, and 56% would reject it. However, it also found that 68% believed most people would want it and that only 4% consider an "ideal lifespan" to be more than 120 years. The median "ideal lifespan" was 91 years of age and the majority of the public (63%) viewed medical advances aimed at prolonging life as generally good. 41% of Americans believed that radical life extension (RLE) would be good for society, while 51% said they believed it would be bad for society.<ref name="pewforum.org"/> One possibility for why 56% of Americans claim they would reject life extension treatments may be due to the cultural perception that living longer would result in a longer period of decrepitude, and that the elderly in our current society are unhealthy.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = de Magalhães JP | title = The scientific quest for lasting youth: prospects for curing aging | journal = Rejuvenation Research | volume = 17 | issue = 5 | pages = 458–467 | date = October 2014 | pmid = 25132068 | pmc = 4203147 | doi = 10.1089/rej.2014.1580 }}</ref>

Religious people are no more likely to oppose life extension than the unaffiliated,<ref name="pewforum.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-beyond-americans-views-on-aging-medical-advances-and-radical-life-extension/|title=Living to 120 and Beyond: Americans' Views on Aging, Medical Advances and Radical Life Extension|date=6 August 2013|work=Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project}}</ref> though some variation exists between religious denominations.

===Aging as a disease===
Most mainstream medical organizations and practitioners do not consider aging to be a disease. Biologist [[David Sinclair (biologist)|David Sinclair]] says: "I&nbsp;don't see aging as a disease, but as a collection of quite predictable diseases caused by the deterioration of the body."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Hayden EC | title = Age research: a new angle on 'old' | journal = Nature | volume = 450 | issue = 7170 | pages = 603–605 | date = November 2007 | pmid = 18046373 | doi = 10.1038/450603a | doi-access = free | bibcode = 2007Natur.450..603H }}</ref> The two main arguments used are that aging is both inevitable and universal while diseases are not.<ref>Hamerman D. (2007) ''Geriatric Bioscience: The link between aging & disease''. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.</ref> However, not everyone agrees. Harry R. Moody, director of academic affairs for [[AARP]], notes that what is normal and what is disease strongly depend on a historical context.<ref>{{cite journal| vauthors = Moody HR |title=Who's afraid of life extension?|journal= Generations|volume=25|issue= 4 |year=2002|pages= 33–7}}</ref> [[David Gems]], assistant director of the Institute of Healthy Ageing, argues that aging should be viewed as a disease.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Gems D | year = 2011 | title = Aging: To Treat, or Not to Treat? The possibility of treating aging is not just an idle fantasy | journal = American Scientist | volume = 99 | issue = 4| pages = 278–80 | doi = 10.1511/2011.91.278 | s2cid = 123698910 }}</ref> In response to the universality of aging, David Gems notes that it is as misleading as arguing that [[Basenji]] are not dogs because they do not bark.<ref name=Gems2>{{cite journal | vauthors = Gems D | title = Tragedy and delight: the ethics of decelerated ageing | journal = Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences | volume = 366 | issue = 1561 | pages = 108–112 | date = January 2011 | pmid = 21115537 | pmc = 3001315 | doi = 10.1098/rstb.2010.0288 }}</ref> Because of the universality of aging he calls it a "special sort of disease". Robert M. Perlman, coined the terms "aging syndrome" and "disease complex" in 1954 to describe aging.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Perlman RM | title = The aging syndrome | journal = Journal of the American Geriatrics Society | volume = 2 | issue = 2 | pages = 123–129 | date = February 1954 | pmid = 13129024 | doi = 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1954.tb00884.x | s2cid = 45894370 }}</ref>

The discussion whether aging should be viewed as a disease or not has important implications. One view is, this would stimulate pharmaceutical companies to develop life extension therapies and in the United States of America, it would also increase the regulation of the anti-aging market by the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA). Anti-aging now falls under the regulations for cosmetic medicine which are less tight than those for drugs.<ref name=Gems2/><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Mehlman MJ, Binstock RH, Juengst ET, Ponsaran RS, Whitehouse PJ | title = Anti-aging medicine: can consumers be better protected? | journal = The Gerontologist | volume = 44 | issue = 3 | pages = 304–310 | date = June 2004 | pmid = 15197284 | doi = 10.1093/geront/44.3.304 | doi-access =  }}</ref>