Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:

Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view

whats new at ieet

The Future of News? Virtual Reality

Future Fiction: To an Antique Land

Could You Survive Nuclear Fallout?

Star Trek Philosophy: “Killing Is Wrong, No Matter Who’s Doing It”

What About Me?

How Digital Media Finally Enables Distributed Enterprise

ieet books

The Brain: The Story of You
David Eagleman


balom on 'Obfuscation: protect privacy by destroying the Web!' (Nov 29, 2015)

instamatic on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 28, 2015)

spud100 on 'Viewpoints on Modern Cosmism' (Nov 28, 2015)

spud100 on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 28, 2015)

Giulio Prisco on 'Viewpoints on Modern Cosmism' (Nov 28, 2015)

instamatic on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 27, 2015)

Rick Searle on 'Obfuscation: protect privacy by destroying the Web!' (Nov 27, 2015)

Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List


Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Why it matters that you realize you’re in a computer simulation
Nov 14, 2015
(67827) Hits
(14) Comments

The Future Business of Body Shops
Nov 15, 2015
(8028) Hits
(0) Comments

Crypto Enlightenment: A Social Theory of Blockchains
Nov 1, 2015
(7101) Hits
(0) Comments

Is Anyone Competent to Regulate Artificial Intelligence?
Nov 21, 2015
(4043) Hits
(1) Comments

IEET > Life > Fellows > Mike Treder

Print Email permalink (1) Comments (4964) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg

Aging, Death, and Nanotech

Mike Treder
By Mike Treder
Responsible Nanotechnology

Posted: Dec 28, 2005

Among the most intriguing research of our time is the effort to understand the process of aging, and perhaps to arrest or even reverse its effects.

Impressive progress is being made:

Genes that control the timing of organ formation during development also control timing of aging and death, and provide evidence of a biological timing mechanism for aging, Yale researchers report in the journal Science.

“Although there is a large variation in lifespan from species to species, there are genetic aspects to the processes of development and aging,” said Frank Slack, associate professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology and senior author of the paper. “We used the simple, but genetically well-studied, C. elegans worm and found genes that are directly involved in determination of lifespan. Humans have genes that are nearly identical.”

A microRNA and the developmental-timing gene it controls, lin-4 and lin-14, affect patterns of cellular development at very specific stages. . .

According to Slack, [there is] strong evidence of an “intrinsic biological clock” that runs for aging as well as for normal organ development.

“This microRNA is conserved in humans leading to the enticing idea of being able to beneficially affect the results of aging including diseases of aging,” said Slack. Work is under way to identify other microRNAs regulators and genes they target, to determine where they function and whether they behave the same way in mice, and to see if they are altered in human diseases of aging.

Genetic therapy holds great promise for treating several serious health problems, as well as possibly stopping natural deterioration altogether. However, the current state of the art can also cause problems, including cancer. Eventually, with the use of advanced nanotechnology, scientists may be able to directly edit the DNA of living cells in the body.

But even without that level of sophistication, massively parallel scanning—made possible with tools built by molecular manufacturing (MM)—may enable the sorting of cells modified outside the body. The ability to inject only non-cancerous cells would make some kinds of genetic therapy much safer. Microsurgical techniques could allow the implantation of modified cells directly into the target tissues.

Health improvement and life extension do not depend on MM, but it certainly will make them accessible to more people. Any treatment that can be automated can be applied to any number of people at low cost; such efficient research will speed the development of cures for complex problems such as aging.

What about the common objections to radical life extension?

If everyone were healthy and lived a long time, we’d overpopulate the earth.

Once infant mortality is minimized, birth rate contributes far more to population than lifespan, because children grow up to have children of their own. But as people get healthier, richer, and better educated, they have fewer kids. The birth rate is already below the replacement level in several rich countries.

Overpopulation is a centuries-old problem. Traditionally, it’s been solved by infanticide, plague, and vicious war. MM will allow us to develop far more sustainable lifestyles and figure out better solutions for living in greater numbers on and beyond the Earth.

Life extension is immoral and we should resist it.

Smallpox vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusions also were said to be immoral. Today it’s obvious that that’s crazy. No one wants to be sick, and life extension is a natural result of health extension. Anyone who visits the doctor is working to improve their health and often trying to increase their lifespan as well.

Death is a natural part of life and it shouldn’t be shunned.

Since when does natural equate with good? Tooth decay is natural—should dentistry be outlawed? Polio is natural—should we ban the Sabin vaccine? Cholera is natural—should we allow epidemics to rage unchallenged?

In response to these questions, which I posed in The Scientific Conquest of Death, TechNewsWorld’s Sonia Arrison writes:

It is an entirely human response to try to fix problems that are harming people—including death. Some 150,000 people die globally every day. In the U.S., it’s about 200,000 a month (6,500 a day). Given these numbers, it does seem rather odd that we aren’t demanding a solution now. Perhaps one reason is that we live in a culture of death—a culture that has convinced us that death is natural, good, and impossible to fight against, so we shouldn’t even try.

But we should try, and as this book shows, some very smart people are currently engaged in finding the solutions. In the Bible, people were said to have lived for upwards of 900 years, and it would be nice to get back to that kind of run on life. As Rabbi Neil Gillman once said, “There is nothing redemptive about death. Death is incoherent. Death is absurd.”


Mike Treder is a former Managing Director of the IEET.
Print Email permalink (1) Comments (4965) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


and if no one dies anymore we need
also a more sophisticated “religion”
and the advaita (nondualistic) idea just
comes in handy.

YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Aubrey profiled at Damn Interesting

Previous entry: Quantity of Experience: Brain-Duplication and Degrees of Consciousness


RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

East Coast Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @     phone: 860-428-1837

West Coast Contact: Managing Director, Hank Pellissier
425 Moraga Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Email: hank @