De Grey has been indefatigable as a missionary in his own cause, joining the appropriate professional societies and evangelizing in every medium available to him, including sponsoring his own international symposium. Though he and his ideas may be sui generis, he is hardly an isolated monkish figure content to harangue the heavens and desert winds with his lonely philosophy. In addition to everything else, he has a remarkable talent for organization and even for his own unique brand of fellowship. The sheer output of his pen and tongue is staggering, and every line of that bumper crop, whether intended for the most scientifically sophisticated or for the general reader, is delivered in the same linear, lucid, point-by-point style that characterizes all his writings on life prolongation. Like a skilled debater, he replies to arguments before they arise and hammers at his opposition with a forceful rhetoric that has just enough dismissiveness -- and sometimes even castigation -- to betray his impatience with stragglers in the march toward extreme longevity.
De Grey is a familiar figure at meetings of scientific societies, where he has earned the respect of many gerontologists and that new variety of theoreticians known as "futurists." Not only has his work put him at the forefront of a field that might best be called theoretical biogerontology, but he swims close enough to the mainstream that some of its foremost researchers have agreed to add their names to his papers and letters as coauthors, although they may not agree with the full range of his thinking. Among the most prominent are such highly regarded figures as Bruce Ames of the University of California and the University of Chicago's Leonid Gavrilov and S. Jay Olshansky. Their attitude toward de Grey is perhaps best expressed by Olshansky, who is a senior research scientist in epidemiology and biostatistics: "I'm a big fan of Aubrey; I love debating him. We need him. He challenges us and makes us expand our way of thinking. I disagree with his conclusions, but in science that's okay. That's what advances the field." De Grey has by his vigorous efforts brought together a cohort of responsible scientists who see just enough theoretical value in his work to justify not only their engagement but also their cautious encouragement. As Gregory Stock, a futurist of biologic technology currently at UCLA, pointed out to me, de Grey's proposals create scientific and public interest in every aspect of the biology of aging. Stock, too, has lent his name to several of de Grey's papers.
De Grey enjoys increasing fame as well. He is often called upon when journalists need a quote on antiaging science, and he has been the subject of profiles in publications as varied as Fortune, Popular Science, and London's Daily Mail. His tireless efforts at thrusting himself and his theories into the vanguard of a movement in pursuit of a goal of eternal fascination to the human mind have put him among the most prominent proponents of antiaging science in the world. His timing is perfect. As the baby boomers -- perhaps the most determinedly self-improving (and self-absorbed) generation in history -- are now approaching or have reached their early 60s, there is a plenitude of eager seekers after the death-defiant panaceas he promises. De Grey has become more than a man; he is a movement.
I should declare here that I have no desire to live beyond the life span that nature has granted to our species. For reasons that are pragmatic, scientific, demographic, economic, political, social, emotional, and secularly spiritual, I am committed to the notion that both individual fulfillment and the ecological balance of life on this planet are best served by dying when our inherent biology decrees that we do. I am equally committed to making that age as close to our biologically probable maximum of approximately 120 years as modern biomedicine can achieve, and also to efforts at decreasing and compressing the years of morbidity and disabilities now attendant on extreme old age. But I cannot imagine that the consequences of doing a single thing beyond these efforts will be anything but baleful, not only for each of us as an individual, but for every other living creature in our world. Another action I cannot imagine is enrolling myself -- as de Grey has -- with Alcor, the cryonics company that will, for a price, preserve a customer's brain or more until that hoped-for day when it can be brought back to some form of life.
With this worldview, is it any wonder that I would be intrigued by an Aubrey de Grey? What would it be like to come face to face with such a man? Not to debate him -- a task for which, as a clinical surgeon, I would in any case be scientifically unqualified -- but just to sound him out, to see how he behaves in an ordinary situation, to speak of my concerns and his responses -- to take his measure. To me, his philosophies are outlandish. To him, mine would seem equally so.
With all of this in mind, I contacted de Grey via e-mail this past fall, and received a response that was both gracious and welcoming. Addressing me by first name, he not only had no hesitation in offering to give up the better part of two days to speak with me, but moreover suggested that we spend them close to the lubricating effects of invigorating fluids, as follows:
I hope you like a good English beer, as that is one of the main (open) secrets of my boundless energy as well as a good part of my intellectual creativity (or so I like to think...). A good plan (by which I mean a plan that has been well tested over the years!) is to meet at 11:00 a.m. Monday 18th in the Eagle, the most famous pub in Cambridge for a variety of reasons which I can point out to you. From there we may (weather permitting) be able to go punting on the Cam, an activity with which I fell in love at first sight on arriving here in 1982 and which all visitors seem to find unforgettable. We will be able to talk for as long as you like, and if there is reason to meet again on the Tuesday I can arrange that too.
The message would prove to be characteristic, including its hint of immodesty. And in a similar vintage was his response when I expressed hesitation about punting, based on friends' tales of falling into the Cam on a chilly autumnal day: "Evidently, your friends did it without expert guidance." As I learned, de Grey is not a man who allows himself to be less than expert at anything to which he decides to devote those prodigious energies so enthusiastically trumpeted in the e-mail, nor does he allow himself to hide his expertness under a bushel.
Of course, to conceive of oneself as the herald and instrument of the transformation of death and aging requires a supreme self-confidence, and de Grey is the most unabashedly self-confident of men. Soon after we met, this unexampled man told me that "One must have a somewhat inflated opinion of oneself" if success is to crown such great endeavors. "I have that!" he added emphatically. By the time he and I had said our good-byes after a total of 10 hours together over a period of two days, I was certain many would accept his self-estimate. Whether one chooses to believe that he is a brilliant and prophetic architect of futuristic biology or merely a misguided and nutty theorist, there can be no doubt about the astonishing magnitude of his intellect.
Comments
Guest (Eddie Zeng) on 11/22/2005 at 10:38 AM
1
Guest (gobbeldy BEEEEP!!!) on 07/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Josh McNeil) on 12/06/2005 at 8:56 PM
1
My email adress is jhmc_07@hotmail.com
I hope to hear from yu soon regarding this topic.
Thank you, Sincerely yours
Josh McNeil
Guest (j keith) on 12/16/2005 at 10:47 PM
1
Guest (Peter Miller) on 01/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Infinity) on 01/25/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Joe) on 04/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
thewizard on 03/08/2008 at 1:37 PM
3
(NO INSULT INTENDED). I AM 78 AND HAVE BOTH TRAINING IN THEOLOGY (MINISTER FOR 41 YEARS) AS WELL AS IN QUANTUM PHYSICS. I AM CONDUCTING A FIVE
WEEK SEMINAR END OF MAY, WHERE I COACH PEOPLE HOW
TO BE 10-30 YEARS YOUNGER AND EXTEND THEIR LIFE FOR 10-30 YEARS. ALL BASED ON QUANTUM PHYSICS. THOSE MEDICAL SCIENTISTS DO RESEARCH ON ANIMALS,
I DO THE REAL THING - REJUVENATION AND LIFE EXTENSION IN YOUTHFUL EXUBERANCE NOT 20-30 YEARS
FROM TODAY, BUT IN MAY 0F 2008,
Karoly Fuevessy,
fountainofyouthwizard@gmail.com
tonyreno on 05/07/2008 at 5:13 AM
4
We do have a problem with people wanting things that they are unwilling to work hard enough to earn. But when people do decide to do the work there's plenty there for many more people, many many times as many people are there are there now.
It take a little more work to get better at living renewably, but we are already far better at it than our much vaunted ancestors.
Also keep in mind that not-dying does not add to the population. Not-dying only keeps the population the same.
It was a stupid ending to the article. You have to read way way way between the lines to find some reason why not dying is a bad thing. It's like calling up, down. Not-dying staying young is one of those things that only a person with no imagination at all could favor.
Now if you want to extend that argument to not having children (I don't, by the way) then you might have an argument. But there is no argument made anywhere in the article that made any sensible connection between staying young and the world somehow getting worse for that.
Guest (f.leblanc) on 01/01/2006 at 9:25 PM
1
Thanks for ur article. hope u followup on some of the ethical issues involved.
thewizard on 03/08/2008 at 1:54 PM
3
AND IN ADDITION I AM CONDUCTING A FIVE WEEK SEMINAR ON HOW TO EXTEND YOUR LIFE 10, 20, 30 YEARS THIS COMING MAY/2008. ETHICS? WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF ETHICS ANYWAY. UNETHICAL IS TO DIE. IF YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE OR TORA, YOU WOULD NOT BRING UP ETHICS.
Karoly Fuevessy,
fountainofyouthwizard@gmail.com
Guest (N.B.) on 05/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Anyway, not only that, but would the cells survive it? taking the simple exsample of trying to clean a stain out, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes the stain spreads and sometimes you ruin the cloth...
so much more to say, but it would go too far... anyway, incase you want to reply, my adress is GothicDray@web.de
Guest (Dave) on 05/26/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
thewizard on 03/08/2008 at 1:47 PM
3
REPLY OF 03/08/08. I AM NOT A GERENTOLOGIST OR
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL (THEY HOPE TO ETEND LIFE IN 20-30 YEARS). THE STORY OF "THE ELEPHANT AND THE
FIVE BLIND MEN", DESCRIBES THE MEDICAL SCIENTISTS
WELL. I AM CONDUCTING END OF MAY A FIVE WEEK
SEMINAR, WHERE I REJUVENATE PARTICIPANTS 10-30
YEARS IN REAL TIME NOW, NOT IN 20-30 YEARS.
Karoly Fuevessy,
fountainofyouthwizard@gmail.com
jiggaj on 08/04/2008 at 3:14 PM
1
tonyreno on 05/07/2008 at 5:18 AM
4
Unlike cloths, cells have 2 big advantages over everything else. With the exeception of brain cells, almost every other type of cell need only take an inventory, find the cells in the best shape, reproduce those, and kill off the others.
There's nothing scientifically impossible about reversing aging. In fact, if it were impossible people would be unable to have children, or your childred would all be born with all the age damage that we have.
It is a hard problem, but I don't think it is nearly as difficult for our technology, given de Grey's engineering approach, as it was for the 60s technology to make it to the moon.
Guest (J.c.) on 12/19/2005 at 4:26 AM
1
Guest (Josh McNeil) on 12/06/2005 at 8:56 PM
1
My email adress is jhmc_07@hotmail.com
I hope to hear from yu soon regarding this topic.
Thank you, Sincerely yours
Josh McNeil
Guest (Craig Bruce) on 01/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Eric) on 01/31/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Dr.keyvan Abasi , M.D. / Ph.D.) on 02/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
" Technology of Taught "
if you have please ?
i'm keen interested in this case
if you can help me to get more information then i'd appreciate you
yours faithfully Dr keiyvan
Guest ( Dr keiyvan) on 02/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
" Technology of Taught "
by email to :
NJ_SHAH14@YAHOO.COM
Guest (patrick) on 02/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mel) on 02/06/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
point out all potential risks and that is good, assume failure in managing such risks and that is ignorance or, in case of informed people, plain malvolance.
Guest (Jim G) on 04/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Jairo Barbosa) on 05/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Kathy Rusniak) on 05/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Markus) on 06/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
We have and always will create technological monsters with horrible potential, but they don't outweigh all the good solutions that we have created as well.
Progress will continue and indeed I believe one thing that makes us human is our hope that we can improve ourselves and our surroundings.
Guest (David J) on 06/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Jeff) on 06/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Frank Smith) on 06/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Yossi) on 06/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
This is what G-d originally and always intended for all humankind: So that He could "dwell", so to say, in this physical world, together with us. We need to show Him (and also, perhaps mainly ourselves) that we are really, truly worthy of His wonderful GIFT of life, that He continually grants us and the entire Universe every instant. All that He wants from us that we should be eternally grateful and show a little respect for ourselves and creation.
Let all Creation please thank the Only One True G-d Almighty for every single breath...
Guest (me) on 07/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Reaon) on 07/28/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Email ReaonIam@hotmail.com for discussion, but not about religion.
thanx
Guest (jmviggi) on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
PEACE
jak177 on 08/17/2006 at 9:03 AM
1
MKM