politics – Open Lifespan

Open Lifespan and the economy of time, part 1: introduction, literature

(Observing) History is funny, in the horror movie sense of funny. Something’s funny going on, either as an external or an internal observation, sensation or impression. This is the second sense of funny, the strange, the odd, the weird. This is not the first sense of funny, the humorous one. The second sense of funny turns full creepy at the time of a crisis. In the current world situation we know exactly what causes this funny feeling, a pandemic that endangers our lives, livelihood, values and default societal structures in yet unknowns ways besides the known ones.

History-making, or changing the course of history by humans on the other hand, is not particularly funny, but can derivatively be, in both senses, when observed from the outside. Making history is … hard, in the first place. But, it can still be simple if the historical problem’s particularity suggest a fix, the universality of which can be recognised along that particular dimension. I believe that the proper reaction to the coronavirus pandemic is conceptually simple, but practically it’s not easy. Simple, but not easy.

In brief, the Coronavirus pandemic is the single most important practical argument I’ve ever seen emerging, to develop a robust healthy longevity technology protecting people of all ages & put that into the centre of human society and politics. In the pages of this book blog, I’ve worked out several such arguments myself but philosophical depth pales in comparison to this single actual biological reason. In my number one professional life, as the Founder of an aging/longevity startup I now work on a combined COVID-19 and immunosenescence targeted proteomics molecular test. Connecting biological survival to healthy longevity.

Apologies for this detour. It does not seem to me a detour anyway, but a way of showing the connection to what follows.

The bulk manuscript notes of the following project has been compiled together during fall/winter season of 2019. Last time I worked on this more seriously was in this January, when I could still afford that in the evenings, as my secret pet philosophy sub-project. It had ~2 readers so far, coming from the specific philosophical tradition, the texts of which my text is using. For many it might seem esoteric, because of the concepts and references. Am just going ahead and break it into parts to be able to share it here and make on-the-fly corrections, addendums, re-writes, logical re-grouping to lighten it up.

Here it goes. Continue reading “Open Lifespan and the economy of time, part 1: introduction, literature”

When the best answer is that we don’t know

To Aubrey de Grey who dared to put a number on our uncertainty concerning the prospect of comprehensive biological rejuvenation

In the early 90s as a high school student interested in the natural sciences, I went to listen to a talk by Ede Teller, the controversial ‘father of the hydrogen bomb’. Much to my surprise, Teller, in his early 80s & sitting on the top of a table at the ELTE University in Budapest, answered one question the following way: ‘Erre tudom a pontos választ. Nem tudom.’ which translates as: ‘I know the exact answer to this question. I don’t know.’ This honest bon mot captures an epistemological puzzle: sometimes acknowledging well informed uncertainty is the adequate form of a valid answer. How come?

One problem with seasoned experts in science and technology is that exactly what makes them experts in the first place is what limits them acknowledging when sometimes the exact answer just cannot be provided. But when the scientific and technological question has a potentially long running impact on human society and Planet Earth, acknowledging the lack of a definite scientific position becomes even more challenging. In these cases, not just individual professional credit is at stake but pre-scientific moral integrity and post-scientific political responsibility.

An emerging prime example for such a problem is scientists, technologists commenting on the possible limits of what we can achieve in terms of human longevity with ever more advanced biomedical technology. How far can we extend healthy life expectancy? Can we possibly break the maximum human lifespan barrier? If yes, when are we going to hit the next roadblock, if ever? Please note that these questions are usually take the form of what philosophers call modal questions, asking about the practical possibility, the feasibility of some science intensive technological scenario. Continue reading “When the best answer is that we don’t know”

The missing political philosophy of microstates: longevity, between survival and luxury; conclusion and action

In the first part of our study we have summarised and introduced our ‘thesis’ and provided context for the study in terms of literature and the reasons for the lack of satisfactory research in political science and philosophy in terms of microstates.

In the second installment we’ve detailed the components of the longevitarian political philosophy of microstates.

Today we re-phrase and enrich those features in the conclusion and mention some flash points for action. Continue reading “The missing political philosophy of microstates: longevity, between survival and luxury; conclusion and action”

Are Social-Liberal-Democracies exclusively suited to improve health and longevity of their citizens? The Jonathan Floyd series, part 5

This is the 5th post inspired by Jonathan Floyd’s book, Is political philosophy impossible? that started a new methodology (paradigm, revolution?) called normative behaviourism (NB). The posts so far can be read here.

Today we are going to do a little empirical exercise (DATA!) to show that while social-liberal-democracies (SLDs) are doing good when it comes about being top performers in health/life expectancy but this performance is by now means limited to SLDs. There might be some confounding variables at play here and the conclusion poses a problem for NB. Continue reading “Are Social-Liberal-Democracies exclusively suited to improve health and longevity of their citizens? The Jonathan Floyd series, part 5”

If EU elections were to happen in the UK this spring, I might as well be a candidate to represent longevity politics

Current political climate is crazy. What’s alternative and what’s not in terms of the near future concerning the country I live in is as clear as a warthog in a mud bath. As a result am getting radicalised (better term would be practicalised) on the inside to do something for actual longevity politics. Here’s the idea in 2 tweets.

The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Tens of arguments

This is the 4th post inspired by Jonathan Floyd’s book, Is political philosophy impossible? that started a new methodology (paradigm, revolution?) called normative behaviourism (NB). The posts so far:

Open Lifespan and Green political philosophy as single-trend approaches; reading Jonathan Floyd

The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations

Blind spot of academic political philosophy: not recognising health as a political incentive and healthy longevity as a political goal

Floyd has used NB in his book to argue for social-liberal-democracy (SLD) as the (only) convincing and meaningful answer to the organising question of political philosophy: how should we live?

Our post today is the most relevant one concerning Open Lifespan, the main reason I studied Floyd’s book in the first place. Today, I’m going to demonstrate through a series of arguments that Open Lifespan as a political philosophy also picks out social-liberal-democracy as a compelling (convincing) and politically determinate (meaningful) answer to the foundational question of political philosophy, Floyd poses: how should we live?

Briefly put, the Open Lifespan answer to the question of how should we live: We should live indefinitely longer and healthier as by doing so we ‘exponentially’ enhance all the core elements of social-liberal-democracy (SLD): making it more democratic, more liberal, and more social (egalitarian). Continue reading “The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Tens of arguments”

Blind spot of academic political philosophy: not recognising health as a political incentive and healthy longevity as a political goal

This post is the continuation of The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations post and takes up the story where the earlier one ended.

On the other hand, the reason I gave it a separate, focused title is that this is also a standalone, and I think quite relevant, piece in terms of the political philosophy Open Lifespan is aspiring for.

Introducing Health as a political incentive NB style, examples

As mentioned earlier, Floyd introduces 2 behaviourist measures to judge, justify success of existing (or past) political systems: plainly put, the more disincentives to political insurgence and crime a system enables the more successful it’s going to be.

‘minimising inequality, by way of a more social or egalitarian set of policies, minimises crime’
p169, Is political philosophy impossible? Jonathan Floyd

So less crime according to Floyd is the behavioural expression of the political preferences of people who do not commit crime due to the egalitarian policies implemented by the institutions of the political system they live in. Notice the negative, indirect aspect here, the inference is that if you do not commit crime it means you approve the system more.

My main suggestion is that ‘public and personal’ health considerations are as much a political incentive (or disincentive, see later) already today and due to increasing life expectancy are increasingly become so in the near future. Continue reading “Blind spot of academic political philosophy: not recognising health as a political incentive and healthy longevity as a political goal”

The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations

Introduction

This is my second, and far more relevant mini-study, that takes inspiration from Jonathan Floyd’s book ‘Is political philosophy impossible?’. In the first one, called Open Lifespan and Green political philosophy as single-trend approaches; reading Jonathan Floyd I tried to carve out some space within political philosophy to single trend approaches, like the philosophy of longevity and green political philosophy.

With the current study, I’m going to put Floyd’s study to a much better and more detailed use. My final aim is to demonstrate through a series of arguments that Open Lifespan as a political philosophy picks out and relies on social-liberal-democracy as a compelling (convincing) and politically determinate (meaningful) answer to the foundational question of political philosophy, Floyd poses: how should we live?

Briefly put, the Open Lifespan answer to the question of ‘How should we live?’: indefinitely longer and healthier and an Open Life Society would ‘exponentially’ enhance all the core elements of social-liberal-democracy (SLD): it makes it more democratic, more liberal, and more social (egalitarian). Continue reading “The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations”

Ecolongevity: connecting Open Lifespan with Ecological Thought

Interesting thing happened with ecological thought and green political philosophy in the last couple of years: it became mainstream. It might have something to do with all the strange earthly things lots of humans experienced in these years from heat waves to droughts, from floods to smogs.

Earlier I posted several posts and mini-studies to connect ecological thought to the main study of this book blog, the philosophical investigation of longevity.

Today I’d like to debut the term ecolongevity to refer to these connections between Open Lifespan philosophy and Ecological Thought and to summarise some of them. The scope of connections is stretching from the theoretical, conceptual, aesthetical level to practical and political philosophy. Since it is summary, the pointers are brief, some of them not detailed so far will be elaborated later. Continue reading “Ecolongevity: connecting Open Lifespan with Ecological Thought”

Towards a Grey New Deal: Longevity World Resolution

Ecological thinking and politics had a long way to go, but longevity thinking and politics has an even longer way to go. The good news is that ecological thinking and action provides a template for longevity thinking and action.

Many of us heard about the Green New Deal proposal by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ed Markey & co., dated back this past February, less than a month ago. I doubt that most of those who heard about it, actually read the foundational document. I read it and you can read it here. Technically (legally), it is a resolution.

This Green New Deal document is a trigger and inspiration for me to start working on a foundational document on World Longevity I call the Grey New Deal.

It’s not just grey as in grey hair but more importantly it is grey as in ‘grey area’. It is currently uncertain how far we are going to be able to push human health- and lifespan with the help of biomedical and any other kind of technology. Continue reading “Towards a Grey New Deal: Longevity World Resolution”