The original post about 'immortality' and 'Curing The Old Age Disease'
was a request to find acceptable terminology for communication to the
general public.
The general public needs to be enlightened about current research that
may 'stop the aging process' so that people may live to be 100's of years
old.
The reason people need to be informed is so they can make decisions about
voting for and support public (gov't) funding to accelerate the research.
Others would be motivated to invest venture capital in research projects
for the possibility of windfall profits.
$6,000,000 is needed to add an additional research lab designated for
this research. That is one lab. $30 billion would put labs in several
universities and in other countries that are not inhibited by US regulations.
Cures for cancer, heart disease, AIDS, viral invasions, may be a side
result of these labs.
If the 'aging process is stopped' humans would be more resistant to those
diseases. The death rate for traumatic events is less than 5% of total
deaths. Automobile collisions and other 'accidents', violence account
for 5% max of all fatalities. 95% of deaths are non-traumatic, which may
be elimated with the termination of the aging process and the
perpetuation of healthy immunization systems.
Advances in social communication and motivation will eventually eliminate
diseases of choice such as those caused by over-consumption and unmanaged
stess and emotions.
Each of the terms or phrases used to communicate the idea of 'arresting
the aging process' is criticized by technologists for its lack of
scientific documentation and definition.
There is controversy about what is 'aging' as well as what is the correct
way to say 'not grow old'. All challenges have merit. All criticism is
justified when the technical analysis of the terms or phrases actually
say in scientific arena.
The public is left to think that since we can't come up with something in
our English language to communicate the concept, then why bother with
supporting research or even promoting safe, healthy lifestyles until the
breakthrough is made.
The concept today is that safe, healthy living will only extend one's
life a few years, maybe 10%. The idea is that by maintaining fitness and
careful driving and managing our emotions during stress we will only
extend our existence another 10 years in the convalescent home. So why
bother to make difficult changes and eat healthy food and exercise
regularly and cooperate in traffic with rude drivers if all we do is
expand our chances to live longer in a nursing home with breathing
difficulties and aching joints.
This is a request to develop a universal terminology to communicate the
concept of 'eliminating the aging process in the human life'.
For those who would 'care to live an extra hundred years'.
There have been some very clear explanations and clarifications of
existing terminology on this thread. We still need something for the
influential voting and spending public.
On Thu, 4 May
1995, Oliver Bogler wrote:
> In article <g4QqvALFBh107h at chambers.ak.planet.co.nz>,
>steve at chambers.ak.planet.co.nz (Steve Chambers) wrote:
>>> > >immortal: the cell never undergoes senescence or apoptosis spontaneously
> > >(note: it could be quiescent)
> >
> > >These are the definitions of the common terms used by people working in
> > >the field. It has to be understood that some of the same words are used by
> > >laypeople to mean different things. This is common in English, I'm afraid.
> > >I hope I have helped in clarifying this difficult area.
> >
> > Do you really think that it's appropriate for a small group of biologists
> > to usurp the common meaning of a term? Science is about creating clarity,
> > not confusion. I, for one, refuse to perpetuate these lingual inaccuracies.
>> I am sorry if I gave the impression that biologist usurped the terms we
> were dicussing. I believe there is room for all of us, and words can carry
> many shades of meaning without confusion. The way this works is by
> context. I think that when you come across words like immortal in a news
> group called *bionet*.*molbio*.ageing that you might expect scientific
> usage. Rest assured that I wouldn't use the word the same way if I posted
> to a newsroup discussing, say, the possibility of an afterlife.
>> I find the accuracy of Alberts et al., laudable and highly appropriate for
> a text book. I don't think it is necessary among a group of individuals
> holding a conversation. You may have observed similar shorthand in other
> conversations you have had.
>> You hold forth on what science is about. I hope that this forum will soon
> be about discussing the molecular biology of ageing, and not whether the
> word immortal should be reserved for certain meanings, according to the
> preferences of one member. Please understand that the usage of the word
> for scientific purposes is a fact, no matter how much you dislike this.
> Your cooperation in returning this newsgroup to its original purpose would
> be appreciated.
>> Oliver
>> --
> Oliver Bogler
>obogler at ucsd.edu>>
