It is interesting that since he changes the focus of his approach from a biological to an engineering approach, the typical biological counterarguments objected to his views seem to be weakened, or to simply miss the point.
Still, there is no denying, I would argue contra Grey, that at least part of aging is a biological process. Of course, this is subject to empirical confirmation that aging is not simply a process in which biological molecules break down but one in which our genetic material itself actually codes for this process to take place. Then again, I suppose Grey could make the argument that this genetic problem is also an engineering problem and not a biological one, and that, accordingly, it could be solved using corresponding measures.
Whether Grey is right or not (and as far as I know, the jury is still out on this one), I really enjoyed the beginning of his talk, as he swiftly challenges the accepted resignation toward the inevitability of senescence and death, and even more so when he makes the brilliant argument that deciding not to support his campaign is morally reprehensible, since we would be imposing our values on future generations instead of allowing them to make that choice for themselves.
.
check out some interesting stuff on my blog:what is life?all depends on the observer
ReplyDelete