Daily Effort: Pharmacodiligence plus, potential, positive lifespan side effects on drug labels?

Attempting a new post series called Daily Effort: a dense expression of an Open Lifespan/Open Healthspan related idea (question, argument, proposal …) in a couple of sentences. Without context or tight, detailed argumentation. Consider these as drafts, some of them will be elaborated upon, some of them will be revoked if don’t stand up to scrutiny. In any case, these are my drafts here am working on, reaching a stage where it might be interesting for others too. Let’s go.

Today’s idea is simple and I phrase it as a question (and a  bundle of follow-up questions), rather than a proposal as originally intended: if a drug has reported and potential lifespan and/or healthspan lengthening benefits, should this information be printed on the label too amongst potential side effects? Think of metformin here as a prime example where observational evidence suggests longer survival time for metformin user diabetics compared to non-diabetic, non-users. Continue reading “Daily Effort: Pharmacodiligence plus, potential, positive lifespan side effects on drug labels?”

Open Future: Open Life(span) as a foundation to reinvent liberalism

The political challenge

In this post I navigate the boat of Open Lifespan to the dangerous waters of politics and looking for land to anchor it nearby. This is going to be a longer exploration but what makes our adventure much easier is that we have a great compass in our hand and only one direction to look for: life-bound. Open Lifespan measures all politics with one measure: how can it support, maintain and amplify human lives. Let’s dive in.
The Economist’s 175th anniversary issue edition makes the case for reinventing liberalism by publishing an essay that is called a manifesto for a liberal revival. They say liberalism as a political philosophy cannot live by its glorious past, it needs to ‘promise a better future’. They think it’s time ‘to rekindle the spirit of radicalism’ and they claim that the ‘true spirit of liberalism is not self-preserving, but radical and disruptive’. In short, some new big ideas are needed, some intellectual fresh plasma transfusion to rejuvenate the liberal creed. However, when reading through their offering carefully, recommendations for new-ish liberal alternatives through different domains, like free markets, tariff systems, immigration, open societies, welfare states, new social contract, a ‘liberal world order’ the curious mind has a problem finding those big, radical, disruptive new ideas that would reinforce and amplify the liberal values, like individual freedom, self-dignity, diversity, continuous, gradual progress and constant search for the common interest.

The new foundation

Let me offer here one such idea that could form the foundation of liberal reinvention.
The idea is Open Lifespan, an open-ended, indefinite lifespan. I will also call it, simply ‘Open Life’. It is the opposite of our current, closed lifespan. Open Life is a way, we can frame our mortality, and also avoiding the trap of immortality. Open Lifespan is based on Open Healthspan a technological possibility to counteract ongoing biological aging processes in the human body, to keep age-associated functional decline and increasing mortality continuously at bay.
I’d like to show how Open Lifespan can be the main foundational and structural principle of a reinvented, renewed liberalism, the cohesive centre glueing together different aspects of the creed, from which different policies can be extracted. But am remaining mostly on the theoretical (philosophical) level here.[1]

Continue reading “Open Future: Open Life(span) as a foundation to reinvent liberalism”

Fighting aging and fighting ageism: two sides of the same coin?

Here I’m republishing an edited version of my earlier post from this year on my earlier blog. This post expresses an important political position/consequence of the Open Lifespan philosophy.

A quick answer to the post title question

Sure, but only if we know what types of aging we are talking about. My original, more boring but less sensational post title elaborates on this: Counteracting biological aging and neutralising chronological ageism should go hand in hand.  (For the record, am not a big fan of using military/aggressive terms such as fighting). We desperately need to use the proper terms and choose the right type of aging we talk about depending on the context we talk about it.

Personal Intro

I’m into Open Lifespan/Healthspan since I was 14 and am several decades older now, in early middle age. Since my teenage commitment got me into aging research and science, I became sensitive and appreciative towards the issues that arise with aging so I was sensitised towards the issues of older people early on. I’ve always looked at them as forming the forefront, the avant-garde of experiencing and understanding accelerated biological aging and trying to counteract the biological, physiological decline and metabolic damage that accompanies it. So that meant respect, by default. Continue reading “Fighting aging and fighting ageism: two sides of the same coin?”

Open Lifespan opens up for others too

Antonei Benjamin Csoka is an early wave hardcore life extensionist and scientist, well known in life extensionist circles. He is also an admin of a facebook group dedicated to the topic with more than 1000 members. And I’ve learned today that he has changed the name of the group from ‘Life Extension Science’ to ‘Open Lifespan Institute’.

I’m happy about this Continue reading “Open Lifespan opens up for others too”

Open Lifespan and knowing our age in Rawls’s Original Position

Another quick post, from the beach of Lake Balaton, stealing some precious family vacation time, also our train leaves soon for Budapest [1]. On the other hand I’ve been thinking on this topic for a while now. In our last post entitled Open lifespan as a coherent life plan enables super-agency we already mentioned one important concept of John Rawls, the concept of rational life plan. Today we go much deeper into Rawls, behind the life plan concept, at the heart of his foundational justice theory.
Our foreground argumentation deals with the Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ in the ‘original position’: a thought experiment leading to a just society.
Our background deeper question: How would knowing our chronological age impact our impartiality, self-interest and our self-assessment?

Continue reading “Open Lifespan and knowing our age in Rawls’s Original Position”

Open lifespan as a coherent life plan enables super-agency

Similarly to my previous post, Open lifespan needs an open narrative: life as a series, the indirect philosophical background of this post is the meaning of life question. But the direct philosophical foreground is ‘agency'[1].


In ‘Agency, Life Extension, and the Meaning of Life‘, professional philosopher Lisa Bortolotti argues that the so-called agency objection against a loosely defined life extension technology should be rejected.

Briefly put, the agency objection argues that one important component of the meaningfulness of human life is being constrained as an agent and since ‘life extension’ removes these constraints it undermines this meaningfulness of lived lives. Continue reading “Open lifespan as a coherent life plan enables super-agency”

Open lifespan needs an open narrative: life as a series

Trying a quicker, less detailed blog format now, maybe because I’m writing from the beach, by Lake Balaton, and using family vacation time. The philosophical background of this post is the ‘meaning of life’ question, and I will be dealing a lot later with this question in the context of open lifespan. The foreground is aesthetic, uses analogies from cinematography.

1. Closed Lifespan -> Closed Narrative -> Life as a Feature Length Movie

Philosopher Joshua Seachris thinks ‘narrative ending links closely with the meaning of life’.  Continue reading “Open lifespan needs an open narrative: life as a series”

Open or Closed Lifespan: that is the question, not mortality vs. immortality

Perhaps the most frequent, most misleading and hence, most annoying framing problem around biomedically achieved healthy lifespan extension is that the headline making machinery is using the term immortality without any restrictions when only discussing the first detailed technological plans and the articulating will behind breaking the closed lifespan barrier of ~120 years or so. What do I have in mind? Here’s some pointed questions to consider when deciding you might be one of the people tempted to scream immortality too soon: Continue reading “Open or Closed Lifespan: that is the question, not mortality vs. immortality”

Can you imagine a world without disease but with biological aging? Neither can I

One default philosophical question about counteracting biological aging is whether those interventions would qualify as enhancements or medical therapies/medical preventions. The answer to this question depends on the status of biological aging, whether it can be considered as a natural process or an actual broad-spectra disease.
In what follows I sketch a simple, reductio ad absurdum argument to show that disease and biological aging cannot be conceptually separated from each other. I’ll make the connection between the two clearer throughout argumentation. If they are connected through a conceptual continuum then biological aging cannot be considered a natural process so interventions counteracting it cannot be considered enhancements, but medical interventions, either preventive techniques or therapies.

Continue reading “Can you imagine a world without disease but with biological aging? Neither can I”

Reading Mark Johnston: the problem of leftover, future personites and open lifespan

I spent yesterday on a philosophical pilgrimage to Oxford and the zenith of the day was attending the talk of Mark Johnston, of Princeton, called ‘How the Liquid Self Corrodes Ethical Life’ held at Merton College.

The real moment came after the talk when I managed to ask a question from Johnston on the way walking out of college. Continue reading “Reading Mark Johnston: the problem of leftover, future personites and open lifespan”