In this new post series I utilise my philosophical training and formulate, collect and re-phrase arguments around what is aging and what is not. Since aging is conceptualised with the help or in the context of other heavyweight, loaded and complex concepts like health, disease, biomarkers, and last (but also first) time, those concepts will be touched upon too. The first couple arguments will deal with the basic question: is aging a disease or not? This question is a fundamental one but has serious regulatory, practical consequences concerning potential drugs, treatments and technologies aiming to counteract aging. My current task is to introduce these arguments, but not to resolve the actual underlying issue. So when presenting the argument, assess the argument for the argument’s sake and ignore what the author’s actual belief might be concerning the correctness of the argument. Yes, I am a die-hard healthy and robust lifespan extension supporter, as this >10 yo blog can prove it. But what matters in these series are the arguments and your quality time spent with them. For the first phrasing I will stay informal but maybe I formalise the structure of the arguments a bit more later by modifying the original phrasing (post).
This series is motivated by 4 things:
- Philosophical: I have a philosophy MS degree and my philosophy thesis was about the consequences of a robust lifespan extension technology (see early blog posts here on Pimm).
- Practical, moral: Ever since I founded AgeCurve I need to reflect more and more about what aging means from various angles.
- Informational: I started to read the relevant and current literature.
- Philosophical: I realised that there is a middle position that is not worked out yet somewhere between over-naturalising and over-medicalising aging and I am aiming to exploit this position in a balanced way cause that’s what a philosophical analysis means. Maybe I personally will change my opinion throughout this process but that won’t invalidate the results.