Talk:Life extension/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

More non-technical content needed

The article would benefit from content that goes beyond a mere item-by-item list of causes of ageing and suggested therapies (in the long term causes of ageing probably better belong in another article and should only be minimally reviewed to the extend it is needed).

Who are the people in life-extension? What are the main players? Is this a new moment growing in momentum or is it simply the age-old search for the fountain of youth? Is significant life-extension possible in our life-time?

Filur 02:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Resveratrol Mistake

The article calls resveratrol a sirutin.

However resveratrol is not a sirutin, but a chemical that stimulates the production of sirutin enzymes. Sirutin enzymes repair damage to DNA.

This misleading information should be edited. EDIT: Just done it. now reads "Resveratrol is a sirutin stimulant"

Removing Waking Life

OK, Waking Life was a great film and all, but it has nothing to do with Life extension. Why is the link there? I wouldn't miss it if it were to go. MShonle 08:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, no response, so I'll just remove the link to waking life. It's quite a stretch to consider it a related article. Maybe the link could be in the lucid dreaming article instead, but even then you'd have to make a good case for it MShonle 23:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Intro

"Life extension consists of attempts to extend human life beyond the natural lifespan. So far none has been proven successful in humans." --That's just not true. People's "natural" lifespan in the wild (i.e. no/crude tools) is about 40 years old, I believe (with outliers, but average age of death was much lower than today). Anybody think of a better way to phrase this? Meelar 20:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At some point this got changed to "maximum lifespan", however that's no better as "maximim lifespan" doesn't much make sense as a concept for humans since it is indeterminate. Scott Ritchie 04:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to the "cleanup tag" that had been applied to this article I re-wrote the entire article from scratch at the end of October, except I did not remove any of the external links. So the disussion point of 2004 which you responded to is not relevant. Concerning maximium lifespan, this article deals with mammals as well as humans, although is of greatest interest to humans wishing to extend their lives (like me). The definition of "maximum lifespan" for rodent experiments is well established: the average lifespan of the most long-lived 10% of the cohort. For humans the entire human race is a cohort, in a sense. As a rule-of-thumb, most biogerontologists tend to put the human maximum lifespan as 110-120, closer to the age of the most long-lived documented human lifespans. Even if maximim lifespan is not precisely defined for humans, the term has biogerontological utility and is widely used in the community. Your claims that it is "indeterminant" and "does not make sense" are different claims, and are both at least somewhat incorrect. The change you made to the Wiktionary reference was OK, but I restored the maximum lifespan language. If you still disagree about this, I invite you to argue your point rather than to have a "revert war". --Ben Best 06:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd not heard that definition for "maximum lifespan" before. I just finished off a class on biodemography and longevity, and to me it sounded an awful lot like a repeat of the concept of there being a fixed limit to lifespan (indeterminate does not imply eternal). In any case, we should at least define the jargon we use at the start of the article. Scott Ritchie 06:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have added a note defining maximum lifespan as the term is used in biogerontology. Hopefully there are not too many "jargon" words in this piece that calls for a definitions section -- which can be very messy.--Ben Best 07:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The concept of maximum lifespan is probably so important that it deserves its own Wikipedia entry. It is not at all obvious that there should be a maximum lifespan. If, for example, a species has constant senescence (and I have it on good authority that at least one such species may exist) it would not have a well-determined maximum lifespan as, according to the definition, it would simply increase indefinitely with the size of the group. --Filur 06:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no mammals which would not have a maximim lifespan because all mammals have post-mitotic cells (in heart and brain, notably) which can accumulate damage to DNA, organelles and macromolecules. Hydra do not have a maximum lifespan because they have no post-mitotic cells and they can dilute-away macromolecular damage by continued cell division. Lobsters are among the higher species which have this characteristic -- they have neither a maximum lifespan nor a maximum size. But they cannot continue to grow indefinitely. Eventually movement must become too difficult and something will kill them. This could be described in a note in the Senescence entry, and I may do so in a few days. --Ben Best 14:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I finally decided to create a new article for Maximum lifespan and after putting a lot of work into it I discovered that there already existed an article called Maximum life span. So I incorporated all of my text into the pre-existing article and created a re-direction from Maximum lifespan to Maximum life span --Ben Best 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

half again as long

"removed lived half again as long as unmodified mice"

um. half as long or 1 1/2 times as long? - Omegatron 00:16, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

"Half again" means 1.5 times. I doubt it would be misunderstood as 0.5 times. [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 02:09, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Annelid

I removed a statement to the effect that C. elegans is an "annelid worm", since I'm pretty sure it's not. Check the NCBI taxonomy database [1] to confirm if you like.

Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag since this article is in its current state is just a messy list, and I've moved away the mechanisms of aging section that don't belong here. Fuelbottle | Talk 03:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In a fit of hubris I re-wrote almost the entire article, although I did keep certain portions. I hope others will not be too offended, but with the above threat concerning the cleanup tag I felt I had some justification. Others should feel free to re-insert important points which I may have deleted in my grand sweep. Ben Best 03:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The article looks much better now. Many thanks for doing all this work and rewriting the article! Having said this, however, I think that it is currently not NPOV and will open a separate thread below to discuss this. Hopefully, this will not distract from my overall impression that the current revision is a significant improvement. --Filur 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes to the subsection on anti-aging medicine so it would read better, but I am not sure if in the end it consititutes an improvment or not. I think it would be nice to have a short introductory paragraph directly after the "Strategies ..." heading to help orient the reader before going into the specifics. Maybe simply state that so far only caloric restriction has been consistently shown to extend maximum lifespan, that there is a lot of current interest around SENS and that cryonics offer a small chance for longevity even if new technological advances arrive to late. --Filur 08:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The orienting comment seems more relevant at the end of supplements and right before calorie restriction, so I put it there. Both SENS and cryonics are heavily dependent upon future technology and are therefore more speculative approaches. This point is made in various ways in the sections on the topics. --Ben Best 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe Lord Jim is right in stating that the current revision of the article is biased. Telling readers what they should be reminded of is hardly NPOV and the same can be said about calling Leon Krass a "so-called ethicist". Either he is an ethicist or not. Furthermore, I think it was wrong of Ben Best to call Lord Jim's edits "deathist vandalism" when it was clearly a well-intended attempt to improve the article. Always assume good intentions. --Filur 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, Filur, which is a more civilized approach than the wholesale deletions by Lord Jim and my irritated reversion. You may see Lord Jim's deletions as well-intended, but I can tell you that the material he deleted of mine was well-intended also. Lord Jim's edits can only be said to be a move toward a NPOV insofar as it went radically to the opposite POV of the of most life extensionists. And it was unconstructive, consisting of deleting material he disliked. I admit to hostility to Kass and his point of view, but Kass is hostile to life extension. If I am to discuss controversy, I quote from someone hostile to life extension, which is what I did. I do admit that the phrase "so-called ethicist" is definitely not a neutral description of the man. Most life extensionists do not feel neutral about our enemies. My point was to tell the story of the conflict. To be more precise about my terminology, however, I believe that Kass is a terribly unethical man and life extensionists typically shiver at the presumption that he can speak on the subject of ethics. If you have a way of depicting this issue that is more objective, I'd like to hear it -- but I don't buy the idea that an anti-life extensionist POV is a NPOV. Ben Best 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As a first step I suggest that the section starting with "One is reminded ..." is rewritten as "Many cryonicists ...", that "so-called ethicist" is changed to a more neutral description and that the section about conformists in the Society for Cryobiology is either removed or rewritten to make it clear who proposes this explanation. I think the section about fascists is too extreme (and could perhaps even be counter-productive for the life-extension movement) and that it at the very least should be written "some life-extensionistd" rather than "a life-extensionist". Finally, "hate" can prefereably be substituted with "have strong negative feelings towards" and some possible explanations for this given (reminds them about death?). What do you think about these changes? --Filur 10:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have made changes in all of the areas you mentioned. Ben Best 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I made one more change in the SENS paragraph. --Filur 08:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cryonics section revisions

I have just reverted the edits by Clapaucius in the cryonics section of this page. Although Clapaucius claims this was a NPOV edit, in fact it an edit based on standard misconceptions about cryonics. I do not want to get into a fruitless revert war. I invite Clapaucius to educate himself/herself more on the subject of cryonics, at least initially by reading and understanding the cryonics section in Wikipedia. It would be preferable also read the "Cryonics FAQ" given as the first external link in the cryonics entry. With this familiarity I would then invite Clapaucius to discuss the subject with me here in this talk page to see if we can come to a mutual understanding. --Ben Best 01:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Revisions by Tyciol

I have reverted all of your revisions, which was simplest, although they are not all equally bad. I know you invited discussion, and I am open to discussion, but the fact that you had misinformation necessitated the revert. Your claim that calorie restriction increases metabolism is simply false. Where did you get that idea? What are the "aging indicators" of GH, DHEA, etc.? The levels of these hormones change with age, and that is what is relevant. People who achieve calorie restriction HAVE willpower, they don't just "strive". If they only stove, they would have no success. The edit about preserving the brain is correct, although somewhat self-evident. Were it not for the other edits, I would have left it. But I don't think it adds much. I am open to discussion of all of these issues. I don't want a "revert war". --Ben Best 09:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Calorie Restriction increases metabolism, I think it decreases it. Did I write that? Was I extensive or could it have been a typo? The aging indicators of GH and DHEA are that they drop in levels as people age. Yes, that's relevant, peopel use the levels as an indicator of health and 'real age' which is becoming a more prominently used term. I'm not sure I believe in it, but the view should be represented along with its flaws, not just eliminated, or people think it's getting censored. What I'm saying is that people who are on the website or in the group do not necessarily have willpower. Being in the group doesn't mean they're actively engaging in caloric restriction at all. Those who do engage in CR do have willpower, I agree. It's sort of like saying people who are members in a fitness gym have willpower, when in reality they only have willpower if they go regularly and exert significant effort at said gym. I'm also not in favour of revert wars, but would like to revert it back to my edit, and then I can make an additional edit changing things you'd like to see changed. I'm not sure a total revert is called for, because I did bring up new points. Never said I worded them perfectly, I sometimes depend on others to fine-tune it for me.

--(Tyciol, don't know how to do the fancy sig thing)

No you didn't write that CR increases metabolism, my mistake. You say "I think it decreases it", which gets me quickly to my main point. I don't think that you are very well informed on the subject of life extension. I am open to compromise on many matters, but I want to defend this article against misinformation and irrelevant material. Others have corrected mistakes I have made, have added information I have not known and I have negotiated when I was being too emotionally biased. But misinformation is another matter, not something I am ready to compromise about. Even speculation must be grounded on knowledge of the facts, so for that reason some speculations are much better than others. Speculations based on misperception or ignorance of known facts are worse than valueless. To return to your question, CR reduces metabolism in nematodes, but not in mammals. GH and DHEA are what declines with age and that is what matters. I think that your comments confuse the issue as they are written. Yes, you are correct that not everyone in the CR group actually practices CR, so if you want to change "These people have the willpower and determination" to "*Those in the group who practice CR* have the willpower and determination..." that is OK. You can sign by following "--" with 4 tildes (the squiggly line, uppercase on the leftmost key of the numberline on my keyboard). --Ben Best 20:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Further to my comments on your revisions, I must admit that I don't agree with your theory for why Calorie restriction works and I think there is much evidence against it, such as the fact that antioxidants do not increase maximum lifespan. There is a section of the Calorie restriction article that is devoted to speculations about why CR works (called "Why might CR increase longevity"). I believe that this is a more appropriate place for your speculations. --Ben Best 13:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Next time, I should read the entire thing through before making edits, I wasn't aware at the time that a separate section existed for that. Sometimes summaries of things that have their own pages get way too long. Anyway, while antioxidant content alone isn't the reason it would work, I never said it was. I mentioned that it's actually a blend of a myriad of effects, and that it contributed. --(Tyciol)

I see that you have already made edits in the Calorie restriction page. I think that is the most suitable place for your speculations. I am taking no responsibility for that page. I don't think your speculations are very well informed, so I ask that you not make them here. I do appreciate that you have such an interest in this subject, I appreciate your desire to make a positive contribution and I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues in a civilized manner. So I hope that you do not take too much offense at my attempts to keep the contents of this page to what I believe is a high standard of quality. --Ben Best 20:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I had not noticed that all the erroneous speculation and misinformation about why Calorie restriction works had been introduced by Tyciol in his 31-October edits, rather than later -- which made my comments about modifications irrelevant. There have been ample experiments done with antioxidants and lifespan, with little evidence that they can extend maximum lifespan. This is a well established principle in Biogerontology. I am very familiar with the literature in this field and I know of nothing to substantiate the claims of the paragraph I deleted. I am willing to be shown that I am wrong, by appropriate citations. After all of this disussion, the erroneous paragraph is now deleted --Ben Best 11:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?

I thank those who have written this article, which contains a lot of good information on an important topic. But i have to say i find it clearly outside Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View. I first went right to the section of most interest to me, 3 Scientific Controversy about Life Extension 3.2 Calorie Restriction. There i found bias of tone (both paragraphs open with "despite [something positive about cr]..."), incomplete coverage of the criticism (as ive gathered it as a newcomer to the topic), apology for cr ("Proving that the results are valid is difficult..."), and complaint about cr's lack of credibility, complete with a statement of fact that i would like to see referenced: that there are "thousands of scientific papers demonstrating the efficacy of calorie restriction on a wide range of animals". I wouldn't doubt hundreds, but thousands? Meanwhile, apparently there is not one paper to the contrary? That can't be true, IM beginner's O. This would fail NPOV in any case, but is esp inadequate in a section on the scientific controversy.

I then read the rest of the article, and tho several sections were much better, others were also not NPOV, such as 4 Ethics and Politics of Life Extension 4.1 Anti-Aging Medicine and 4.3 Cryonics, which ends the article in a dramatically defensive way.

Having now also read the talk section, and seen how strong and "politicized" the debate has been at times, i'd like to repeat my appreciation for the article, and also say that i'm a transhumanist and quite sympathetic to life extension. And i'm a newcomer to wikipedia, so i hope i'm handling this (my first major NPOV concern) well -- that's why i've only written here, and not tagged the article for POV -- i'll wait to see the reaction first. Finally, i'm too new to the subject to suggest rewrites (and IMO enough are needed so that i didn't copyedit the minor things i saw). Thx again, and hope this helps, "alyosha" 00:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignorant cryonics revisions

I thought that I would abandon any support for this page, but the massive revisions of Go for it in the cryonics section was more than I could stomach. I suggest that Go for it learn something about cryonics before vandalizing this page with his ignorance. For starters, ice crystal damage is not caused by vitrification procedures in cryonics. PLEASE read the cryonics page. --Ben Best 01:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

They have not completely eliminated the formation of ice crystals, nor the rupturing of cells during the freezing process. And like I said, the section still needs work. Go for it! 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my insulting tone, but it is nonetheless true that you (Go for it!) are greatly misinformed about cryonics. Hypothermia research is of marginal relevance to cryonics, especially compared to vitrification which is by far the key area of cryonics technological advance in the last decade. I hope that my current revisions will enlighten you. --Ben Best 20:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Life extension (sugars)

Hi Ben, I'm concerned about using the term sugar because the link is somewhat misleading (implying the disaccharide sucrose). You are correct about reverting the edit to carbohydrate. However, I'd like to propose that we edit it to monosaccharide. The glycation article states: Endogenous glycations occur mainly in the bloodstream to a small proportion of the absorbed simple sugars: glucose, fructose and galactose.

By the way, it's nice to see that that Wikipedia has gained a great contributor in having you here. I've read your excellent scientific reviews at your personal website when I was first reading up on life extension.

--Uthbrian (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Uthbrian, I will not argue if you want to change sugar to monosaccharide. It is a trade-off between simple language for a broader audience and more technically correct language for those who have had a smattering of biochemistry. The best solution would be use of the word sugar followed by an explanation that it means monosaccharide, but that also has the drawback of complicated digression. Another approach is to use the word sugar with a footnote that explains. Does this influence your opinion?

And by the way, I appreciate the initiative you took in wikifying all of those SENS terms -- an activity which I continued, as you could see. --Ben Best 07:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I went ahead and made the explanation you recommended, without being overly long-winded. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine, Uthbrian. Good work. I should note that I used the "&nbsp" between "Mr." and "Kent" -- ie, "Mr. Kent" -- to protect against edits that could put the "Mr." at the end of one line and the "Kent" at the beginning of the next line. It is a standard trick of mine. It certainly doesn't hurt, so I am not sure why you felt the need to remove it. --Ben Best 10:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I was wondering about that... good idea. I went ahead and inserted the non-breaking spaces where necessary. --Uthbrian (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying terms

Hi Ben, I see you've been busy wikifying terms, and just wanted to make a comment. Generally, I only wikify the first instance of a term, so it doesn't appear too cluttered. --Uthbrian (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Uthbrian. I might have gone overboard this time, but I don't think that it makes for "clutter" -- at least from the reader's point of view -- because there are no additional words on the page. When the term occurs in different paragraphs (sometimes different sentences) it may be difficult to notice the first occurrance of the term -- or troublesome to look for it. The reader may have skipped the earlier paragraph or have been interested in specific material or only have had reason to question the term because of the context. I am not eager to make pointless work for myself, but I don't think overwikifying does too much harm, if I err in that direction. --Ben Best 14:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a good common ground that can be met on this issue is that it's first occurance, but in cases with large articles with a table of contents at the beginning, it can be linked again at the first occurance in each content? This would account for those who click solely upon a specific section, while not cluttering each section with every occurance of the word, right? --Tyciol 10:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think both you and Ben are right; it's probably helpful to the reader to wikify the term again, especially if it would fall on a separate screenful of content. --Uthbrian (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On mass changes

I'd also like to add, WOW, you two Benbest and Uthbrian (hi again) have made a LOT of changes in the past 12 days since I last visited. I'm going to take some time to look at them all. Generally, it's hard to evaluate mass changes like this since you have to read the whole thing point by point to find the changes, as opposed to microchanges where the changes easily stand out through Wikipedia's highlight system. You two both so far seem to be very competant editors and nothing glares as wrong just now, so I feel comfortable procrastinating my normal paranoia of biased editing and vandalism ;) --Tyciol 10:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I prefer to make many changes in one edit, instead of having the wikipedia server save the page again and again for small edits. (Hope you don't mind that I separated out your message into a different section.) --Uthbrian (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure no problem. I do it for the many changes thing too. The only thing that's confusing is when articles are shifted around, I usually do em separately, but then again... sometimes I don't.... Tyciol 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor deletion of event?

In the year 2006, a confrence for anti-aging was held among docters in Las Vegas, U.S.A., which included among the Anti-aging medicines (term used loosely here) ideas such as Inversion therapy, The Body Charger, and a hyperbarometric chamber. --User:198.101.43.83

Benbest, I noticed you deleted User:198.101.43.83's entry. While I don't like IP addresses much either, and he should have provided explanation, and possibly sourced it, I noticed you also didn't explain why. So I was curious, is it that you didn't like the addition, or that it has not occured at all? If this did occur, it should be relevant like any other anti-aging conference. I also wouldn't class it as a minor deletion, unless explained. It is rather large, even if a relevant modification. --Tyciol 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tyciol, yes, I could have said something besides revert in my note (too late to edit a change note). A4M is the top of the list of External links (for alphabetical reasons only!). They have had conferences every year since 1996 and there was nothing noteworthy about the latest conference (which should have been "2005") -- including the items mentioned (two of which were red wikilinks). A4M is more on the huckster/snake oil side of life extension, anyway, but they aren't all bad. The items mentioned by the IP address poster were particulary unnoteworthy. Frankly, I did not much repect the poster's sophistication, and I prefer to say nothing rather than start a fight with derogatory remarks. If I did it again, I would say "A4M already listed". --Ben Best 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks, that makes sense. I've actually heard that said of A4M before but I wasn't sure about the source. I guess my problem is that it's referred to a lot, I think I heard it from ImmInst or something, and I guess they're my primary place to go to, what sources are better for such research conferences without biased product pandering? Listed in this wiki? --Tyciol 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the best conferences for anti-aging research (by scientists, not hucksters) are the conferences of the American Aging Association, the SENS conferences and the IABG conferences. I don't mean to pan the A4M conferences too much, because there is good research along with the huckstering and the not-so-good stuff. However, to mention one year of the annual A4M conference as if it is a singular event (giving the wrong year, at that) shows a lot of cluelessness, in my opinion. --Ben Best 03:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Telomerase activation

I have reverted to delete the section added by 65.171.255.181 on telomerase activity. Most biogerontologists now recognize that this is not a good life-extension strategy. In fact, telomerase deletion is one of the SENS strategies. See the comments by Aubrey de Grey in his LIFE EXTENSION magazine interview, for starters. If 65.171.255.181 wants to argue the case, please let us do it here on this Talk page. --Ben Best 07:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

restoring GH levels??

From the article:

Restoring youthful levels of growth hormone, melatonin or DHEA (all of which decline with age) has also been tried as means of reducing aging.

I cannot believe this. It seems sheer inanity to increase growth hormone levels, unless you want to die earlier. All experiments show that growth hormone shortens lifespan. And it makes perfect sense: growing is, in a sense, the opposite of fasting, and we know that fasting extends lifespan. Growing means getting closer to death. Has anyone really tried to increase growth hormone levels? AxelBoldt 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on Growth hormone treatment and HGH controversies. Not only is HGH controversial, but the article about the controversies has a label indicating disputed neutrality. It is worthwhile mentioning the use of Human Growth Hormone (HGH) by would-be life-extensionists, but there is no need to drag that controversy into the life extension article. Perhaps a wikilink to the other pages within the life extension article would be appropriate.--Ben Best 16:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Note how much longer the Talk:HGH controversies page is than the article itself.--Ben Best 16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Insulin

I removed the following recently added sentence:

Insulin, however, helps control blood glucose, and the right amount of insulin at the right time, whether this is endogenous or injected, helps prevent large availability of insulin.

It doesn't make sense to me, and it certainly isn't related to life extension. AxelBoldt 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it, AxelBoldt. If you look at all of the changes made by 201.98.11.88, they look more like spam than like contributions: [2]In particular [3] looks like a spamlink. I hesitated to remove it, but it should probably be removed. --Ben Best 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the link. And yes, the insulin comment makes little sense. --Ben Best 23:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Transhumanist's changes

I vehemently disagree that life extension has as its goal "immortality". Life extension means exactly what it says -- extension of life. Many life extensionists call themselves "immortalists", but not all life extensionists are "immortalists". I do not disagree with all of the other edits, but to impose your opinions in the first lines of the introduction without discussion warrented a complete revert in my opinion. Let's discuss this if you want to make changes. --Ben Best 00:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't disagree with all of the edits, you shouldn't have reverted the whole thing. (It makes it appear that you are being lazy, or that you think you own the page. You aren't lazy are you? If not, then give others' edits proper consideration and treatment). The history of your edits for this page makes you look like its self-appointed authority, and your comment on the reversion and your statement above imply that anybody who wants to alter the article has to get your permission first. As for the subject, the ongoing purpose of life extension is to counter the aging process and continually improve anti-aging technology, the eventual result of which (given successful advancement over time) would be the total defeat of aging. "Immortality" (indefinite lifespan) may not be the stated goal of every life extensionist, but it is (at the very least) the defacto objective of the entire field (due to its on-going open-ended nature) and of the movement, and it is the direction in which they are both pointed. As for the life extension movement, it is vehement in seeking a total cure, i.e., indefinite lifespan, and most if not all of the big names in life extension propound this often. An acid test for this issue would be the existence of a field-wide finite objective, that is, a specific age-target. Is there such a goal? Is there a body of scientists (who represent the field as a whole) who are pushing for an increase of human life span to a specific age (such as 121 years) and no further, and who support a moratorium on extending life beyond that limit? I'm widely read on the subject, and I haven't encountered anything of the sort. So my addition to the description of the field is not off the mark nor inaccurate -- the goal of the field is indefinite in this regard. I'm reverting your revert until a solid argument can be made that the objective and current direction of the life-extension field and movement is not ongoing and open-ended. --Transhumanist 01:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for reverting your entire revision. Now I have only reverted the first lines of the introduction, the references to "social movement", "immortality", etc. If there is a "social movement", it would be called "life extensionism". But you are trying to foist the meaning of "transhumanism" onto the phrase "life extension". It does not work. And you already have your word "transhumanism". Aubrey de Grey and most biomedical gerontologists speak of life extension, not "immortality". A large portion of the Life Extension Foundation staff support life extension, but believe that "immortality" is in the province of religion, because they are Christians. de Grey, myself and many other life extensionists do not believe that it is possible to avoid death by accidents, even if it is possible to extend life. Life extension is by definition "indefinite", but "immortality" is too definite in the allusion to the eternal. I did write the foundation of this article, so I don't want to see it corrupted. If I don't "own" it, does that mean that you do? However, I invited discussion, which is my preference over "revert wars". --Ben Best 07:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Transhumanist 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert for now, but I strenously object to your changing the term from mammals to humans. You reveal your lack of biogerontological background. Very little life extension research is done on humans, and upon reflection, I think I was mistaken in stressing the terms applicability to mammals, considering how much research has gone into nematodes, Drosophila and yeast. You are mixing motivation with science and it is a bad mix. --Ben Best 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are resorting to rhetoric. Your accusing me of not being aware of the nature of biogerontological research is just you being petty. Aren't you better than that? Aren't you capable of participating in a conversation without getting personal or making unfounded accusations? The fact that a small proportion of the overall volume of research has been done on humans does not diminish the primary context of the term "life extension" as being human oriented. That depends entirely on how people use the word. "Life extension" is a popular term, with a wider context than your exclusive interpretation of it (above) as "biogerontology research". In fact, the term was popularized as the title of a book for laymen, and that book focused on the practical application of the science upon people. And today, the vast majority of uses of the term on the internet are about life extension as it applies to humans: its applications and implications. So, when someone says I'm using "anti-oxidants as the foundation of my life extension program", he isn't referring to biomedical research he is conducting on stray cats in his basement -- he is referring to the application of the technology upon himself! While most medical research is done on other species, it is as a prelude to developing therapies for humans, or to benefit humans in some other way. The same applies to life extension research. And at the application end of the spectrum, where most people are, they talk about life extension as it pertains to what they are, and what it can do for them, as humans. So to say that life extension refers an increase in human lifespan correctly reflects how people use the term, and though I'm not saying the other contexts should be excluded from the article, the term's applicability to humans should definitely be emphasized, including in the intro. --Transhumanist 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)       P.S.: Do you practice life extension?

Definition of life extension

Life extension is not merely an increase in life span, which can happen incedentally without purposeful intervention (moving to a different country could unintendedly affect life expectancy, for instance, when you adopt the region's diet). Life extension includes purposeful research and application of methods to increase life span. This isn't conveyed in the definition of the term at the beginning of the intro to this article. And while "immortality" may be overstepping the semantic bounds of the term, the current definition as presented in the intro isn't semantically accurate either. The definition should include a statement of the goal of life extension. Nowhere in the article is life extension referred to as a goal or objective. --Transhumanist 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. But I don't know how you can say that "life extension is not merely an increase in life span", because that is exactly what it is. Life has been extended. You are correct that the article does not have material on motivation for extending life, except in the last of the external links: my essay Why Life Extension or Why Live at All?. I think references to "immortality", even if that is a goal, beg the question (ie, assume the answer without really answering). Why aspire to immortality? Common reasons for life extension might be love of life, hatred of death or even fear of death. Materialism is often part of the picture. Many religionists see no need of extending life when they are in a hurry to get to heaven, although there are many religious people who see a value in life extension. I don't think the first paragraph is a good place to discuss these issues. Possibly it could be squeezed into the Ethics and Politics section or in an entirely distinct section called "Motivations for Life Extension". But I don't think there is enough to be said to justify a separate section, so putting such comments at the end of the introduction might be most appropriate. How would you feel about collaborating on a paragraph here on the "Talk" page? Care to give it a try? As I say, "immortality" refers to eternal life and does not explain the motivation for living longer, so I hope we can avoid that word. --Ben Best 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Life extension is not merely an increase in life span", because it is an activity as well as an event. So "life extension is the increasing of life span" would be the flip side of the coin. Now, how do you present both of those in the same sentence without it being long and awkward? I think I did this as well as I can with the qualifying phrase I added previously ("by slowing down or reversing the processes of aging"), which carries the connotation of intervention. By the way, you're right about "immortality", since that word includes the connotation that one is impervious to all causes of death, not just aging. Eternal life means the same thing, while eternal youth fits better but may also carry the connotation of immortality. (How can you be eternally youthful if you get splatted by a bus and killed?). "Eternally youthful" also implies that you don't age at all, rather than age, get rejuvenated, age some more, get a heart transplant, then your liver needs replacing, etc. Yo-yo youth. And what about the person who hovers at the biological age of 90? He'd be eternally old, yet life-extended. As for your offer, I wouldn't mind collaborating on a new opening paragraph here, but if I come up with something I think you wouldn't mind, I'll insert it into the article instead and skip the extra step. Feel free to do the same thing, or start a paragraph here, whichever you prefer. --Transhumanist 07:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your unscientific, populist background is coming across too strongly. I guess that is to be expected from the "anti-elitism" of Wikipedia. Life extension is not an activity for the vast numbers of experimental animals that are the subject of biogerontological research. rejuvenation is a reputable strategy for life extension, and Aubrey de Grey's life extension strategy included periodic and piecemeal rejuvenation. The comments you make about "immortality" are true enough, but there are still the bigger issues of religious implications and the meaning of "infinite life", which is definitely not a scientific concept. "Biological immortality" is an unfortunate piece of technical jargon which refers to cellular overcoming of replicative senescence, as by cancer cells. I think the opening paragraph should be completely scientific, and that the motivational considerations should go into the third or fourth paragraph. What you propose is a somewhat "good-natured" "revert war" as a way of skipping the "extra step". I will keep that in mind. --Ben Best 13:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, aren't you full of yourself, Mr. Elite. But your rhetoric is coming across too strongly. And stop making blatantly snobbish remarks and insults, it's not becoming of a Wikipedian (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). By the way, your conclusion that life extension is not an activity nor ongoing effort is incorrect. It doesn't matter if it is an activity for the experimental animals, though it is certainly an activity for the researchers, and humans don't get euthanized for autopsy at the end of human-based studies, so it is certainly an activity for human subjects. Piecemeal advancements, taken on a field level, represent on-going and open-ended effort. There's an army of researchers, their combined effort continually progressing technological advancement. A contributor of a single experiment doesn't hope his study will be the final word on life extension - each experiment is a building block for the cause to build upon. It's activity and effort aimed at pushing human limitations. In this discussion, you have been focusing on a single context of the word, while the term is at the same time synonomous with the field of biogerontology and the application of the methods it has developed, both of which are encompassed by the article, and therefore deserve to be treated in the definition of the term at the beginning of the article. Whether or not it is the "populist" view is irrelevant, as it still exists, which makes it eligible for coverage in Wikipedia. --Transhumanist 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Refraining from trading insults is a two-way street. Concerning the goals of biogerontologists, you are apparently unaware how many of them regard the subject of aging as purely a matter of academic interest. In fact, Leonard Hayflick, one of the most famous names in biogerontology is hostile to the idea of using science to extend human life. --Ben Best 23:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then you agree to refrain. That's nice of you. I accept your albeit implied offer. As for your argument on pure academics, Leonard Hayflick doesn't represent the whole field. As long as there are enough researchers building on each others' work and advancing the state of the art, it becomes an ongoing and open-ended endeavor, and whether that is the objective or the result, it is still the direction, and therefore (at the very least) the defacto objective of the field: indefinite lifespan. --Transhumanist 23:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

List of life extension-related topics is up for deletion

The list that supports this article is up for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of life extension-related topics. --Transhumanist 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Aging Medicine Review

For a comprehensive Review of Anti-Aging Medicine including an extensive bibliography and many links to on-line sources, see http://greenwdks.tripod.com/longevity.html .

This is encyclopedia, not fiction

Hey guys, I know "mind uploading" and related topics are really nice to think of and many people hope they will happen. However this is an encyclopedia which should be objective. If you think something sounds great it doesn't mean it will happen - especially if there's no existing scientific basis for it. Planned technologies cannot promise mind uploading when there is no existing scientific theory what consciousness / the human mind is.

So try to avoid making "mights" "wills", "hypothesis" "promises" etc.

I agree with your effort, however, I made some tweaks. See Consciousness - Cognitive neuroscience approaches for a basis of theory. If consciousness exist only as physical aspects of the mind interacting with each other, then we must only duplicate this communication and neurological responce. Such basis in science is that of neuroscience to explain the function of the brain and thus the basis for consciousness in "mind uploading" discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article requires clean-up.

It seems heavily biased towards the side which supports Life Extension.

Also, a good deal of the article is about a legal dispute; while it carries importance, it's something that's best put in a separate article.

Furthermore, the article discusses many methods for Life Extension that exist purely as fantastical and theoretical ideas. Fantastical in the sense that it's what we would hear about in sci-fi soap operas and movies, while more tangible/technical/practical details and discussions are lacking.

Additionally, a note should exist in the article warning readers that this field is in-development and that there are no real guarantee that it'll succeed; that science and technology will advance to the point where Life Extension will become feasible is hopeful wishing and indefinite. It could take 100 years, it might as well require 10000. While people have been (successfully?) frozen, there's none who has undergone the reverse process. Making people believe that Life Extension will soon be a reality ***and*** convincing them to pour their money on it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.

Lastly, there should be a greater mention of the Ethical and Moral challenges presented by Life Extension (though it should be separate from the main article). The article currently states there are challenges; yes, but what are those?

201.29.183.182 14:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Life extensionist

The article Life extensionist should be merged to this one; any objections? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 11:02Z

1. Support - Morphh ^(talk) 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 07:03Z

Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach (AfD discussion)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 11:17Z

In fiction?

Should we add a section on life extension in fiction? Alx xlA

Those sections tend to become a target for cruft, but if you feel it would improve the article go ahead. Richard001 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I've added a couple of citation tags to the lead section just now - for example it states life extension is rapidly gaining popularity without citing any source. How do I know this is fact and not just the claim of some life extensionist? I've also added a summary of the article in death. I believe summary style works best where material is moved from and edited at the main article instead of just editing at the summarizing article. If citations can be added to the sentences in question feel free to add them to the death article's section as well. Richard001 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Speculations vs. Fiction

I have removed the references to the article "I OF PERSISTENCE". A factual, or potentially factual, discussion on life extension strategies and technologies is not the place for SPAM URLs from anonymous authors related speculative concepts of identity transfer or preservation. It is nothing more than blatant web site promotion. If one wants to extend the Life Extension article in that direction any such discussions should involve non-anonymous articles in peer reviewed philopsophy journals. Any similar references belong in an entirely separate article on "life extension in fiction" or perhaps "philosophy of identity" pages if Wikipedia has such.

There is nothing wrong with documenting how concepts of life extension have evolved in fiction as our understanding of human physiology, the human genome, the technologies of basic medicine, molecular biology and nanotechnology, etc. have evolved or are likely to develop. But it should be a complete work, documenting many, if not all, attempts at lifespan extension strategies found in science fiction books (or articles). Yes, it may attract cruft but if written well the "history" component should remain relatively free of pollution. Having such an article would allow a clearer separation of the "history" and "speculative" concepts from the "scientific" and "technological" concepts. Robert 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-addition of link

I re-added a link to the Vitae Institute because there is a wealth of information on aging research there, eg. http://www.vitaeinstitute.org/mission.php

The info is directly pertinent to the LE wiki material. Figured I would just leave a comment due to the reversion of my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xris0 (talk • contribs)

Is there not a page devoted to anti-aging or life-extending supplements?

I've been searching Wikipedia looking for a page listing anti-aging or life-extending supplements, but found nothing. I would have thought there would be such a page, listing the different types of supplements or pharmaceuticals, and then listing individual supplements within each category along with references to published studies. What do people think of this idea? Ali del mundo 02:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Justify your deletions

To User:MastCell, your choice of deletion and inclusion shows ignorance of the subject matter and ignorance of Wikipedia standards. Two of the sites you left, the "American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine" and "Life Extension Foundation" are commercial sites (the former borders on hucksterism, but the latter has lots of valuable peer-reviewed articles). You deleted ALL of the cryonics links, yet cryonics is an essential part of life extension, an essential part of this article and the references you deleted are key to the field.

You have deleted many valuable links which have stood the test of time and which contribute to an understanding of life extension beyond the scope possible to explain on this page. Many are valuable references which have been on this page for over a year. I think the burden of proof is on you to justify every single link deletion that you wish to make. Let us not get into a revert war. Let us discuss this matter on this TALK page like civilized Wikipedians. Please give your case for deletion of EACH INDIVIDUAL LINK you wish to delele. I am willing to discuss each link and why it should remain, on the basis of my knowledge of the subject matter. How about you? --GirlForLife 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have things a bit backwards. Links need to justify their inclusion - as does all content on Wikipedia - rather than vice versa. A large external links section of questionable links is a sign that the article needs work. If there is encyclopedic material in these links, then it should be worked into the article and the links used as citations. If there is no unique encyclopedic information in the links, then it's very questionable whether they belong here in any capacity. There are cases where links contain encyclopedic information, but are not suitable to be worked into the article - and so there may well be useful external links here - but their inclusion needs to be justified, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not a collection of potentially "useful" or interesting links. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is fairly convenient for you to have shifted the burden of proof without addressing the question of the individual links. The fact remains that you made a judgment about the appropriateness and inappropriateness of the links and imposed that view on this page. Nonetheless, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter rather than engage in a revert war. I have tried to give a thoughtful response.

I expected that others might join in this discussion, but that has not proven to be the case. This does support the view that many of the links are added by promoters who take no special interest in the content of this page. Unfortunately, the subject of life extension has been tainted for most of its history by snake oil salesmen. But I think that the external links section of this page has been fairly well policed in terms of reducing spamlinks, under the circumstances.

I took it upon myself to trim the list, and I will justify every inclusion and exclusion. If you disagree with my judgment, I suggest that you argue the case for your inclusions and exclusions.

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine -- included because of the news and professionalism, despite the fact that it reeks of hucksterism.

Aging Research Centre -- retained. Has research resources too extensive to include on this site.

Aubrey de Grey: 'We will be able to live to 1,000' -- interview, could be made into a reference link somehow, but for now OK to leave it.

Biogerontological and Anti-aging Resources -- deleted with mixed feelings. The presence of Google ads gives the site an excessively promotional appearance. It links to Vitae Institute, however, so perhaps relevant material can be found there.

Immortality Institute -- deleted. There is some relevant discussion on this site, but it is not very focused and requires a much searching.

Life Extension, Caloric Restriction and Scientific Philanthropy -- deleted. Leonid A. Gavrilov is an academic, but he promotes his point of view like a spammer. Anyone carefully watching life-extension related pages on Wikipedia can see that his main contributions have been to "External links", often on Wikipedia pages of tangential relevance.

Life Extension Foundation web site -- retained. This is a commercial site, but it is surely the largest life extension organization in the world, and its magazine is always loaded with articles containing many dozens of references to good peer-reviewed journals. A case could be made for linking to the magazine, rather than the site, but I have not made this alteration.

Life Extension Values Clarification Survey -- deleted with mixed feelings. A Wikipedia entry is not a survey, and surveys can often provide the basis for self-examination.

Lifespan Test at MyLongLife.com -- deleted with less mixed feelings. This site is more obviously promotional and the survey is hard to find from amongst the promotion. It does have a news area.

Living Forever -- a link to Kurzweil's website. If Kurzweil is to be included, the link should be more relevant to the page, so I substituted Kurzweil Biomed/Life Extension News. The first link might be more appropriate on the Immortality page (which can be found in the extensive See also section)

Longevity Meme -- retained. A good source of life extension news.

Mechanisms of Aging -- retained. This is a book-length treatise loaded with references to peer-reviewed articles which contains far too much detail and science to be included in a Wikipedia entry. Typing Mechanisms of Aging into almost any search engine brings up this piece at the top of the list

Nanotechnology and Life Extension -- deleted, an unreferenced essay

Ouroboros Anti-Aging Research News -- added. I don't know why this was not listed before. It is the very best scientific source of information on the latest developments in biomedical gerontology. Unlike many of the other news sources, this is written by scientists for scientists.

Partial immortalization - Pimm -- deleted. This is a blog, and much of the material is not relevant to life extension, although some of it is relevant.

Senescence.info -- retained. Has good biomedical gerontological information as well as references to the biomedical gerontologists, biographies and contact information.

Vitae Institute -- retained. I must admit, I don't know a great deal about this organization, but it appears to be scientific, with references, and devoted to raising money for scientific life-extension research.

Why We Age -- deleted. The site has advertising and seems like a personal blog with not much substance.

I have also retained the cryonics section. Although I initially protested, I would not object if this section was deleted and the "Anti-Aging" header dropped for the remainder. There is a separate page on cryonics in Wikipedia, and the external links are there for those who want to see them. GirlForLife 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a detailed look at these links. I think your reasoning is solid and I don't have a problem with your decisions on which links to keep and which to delete. I would favor deleting the cryonics links and moving the most relevant ones to the cryonics article if they're not already there. On an article like this, where links have grown by gradual accretion and often with a promotional motivation, I think it's best to start from scratch and justify the links on a one-by-one basis, and I appreciate the work you've put in to reviewing them. My main concern was differentiating the promotional, unencyclopedic chaff from genuinely encyclopedic links, and you've addressed that concern. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for agreement and agreeableness. I decided to delete the cryonics links, as we discussed. They are all on the cryonics page. I am glad that we have resolved this matter amicably and I must admit I think the External links section is better now. It is popular with link-spammers, however, so vigilance is required. GirlForLife 23:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of External links (re: folding)

My link on "Guaranteed Human Life Extension" is not SPAM. It is a method to advance medical research by convincing people to join folding@home. IMHO this is the only method of "human life extension" that will really work for people currently alive. I've read many books and articles on other forms of "life extension" and they are all just wishful thinking as far as we're concerned. So, as suggested by (some overzealous) article moderators, here is my updated contribution along with external links:

Improvements in many disciplines including nutrition, hygiene, medicine, and surgery (a short and incomplete list) have contributed to extending human life from a natural value of 40-years to an average current value of 80. One guaranteed way to extend the lives of people who are currently alive is to participate in folding@home.

[SPAM REMOVED] --Neilrieck (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, please don't spam these links. I understand you believe in them, but Wikipedia is not a forum to recruit people for a life-extension project, regardless of how well-founded you believe it to be. MastCell ^Talk 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to deal with a person hiding behind a pseudonym I will comply with your instructions. But a review a your talk page indicates to me that you are possibly a power-mad control freak --Neilrieck (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. In the future, please comment on content, not the contributor. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Links

I think the External link section is ready for another purge. The template wording was challenged --see discussion at Template Talk:NoMoreLinks, and I modified it to the present form. DGG (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to "purge", please be prepared to first justify your deletions as per above. Specifically, state why you think the judgments I made above were incorrect for each link you wish to delete. This means a real explained reason, not an unexplained link to a Wikipedia resource. Wikipedia links should be accompanied by explanations, because they are not self-evident explanations. --GirlForLife 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine

One of a strategies of life extension, the "Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine", has been removed by IP user 81.178.99.129 on 27 November 2007 16:13. Personally, I think that anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine is a very important issue on Life Extension and should be included. Does anybody have any opinion on that? Joe3600 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The edit by 81.178.99.129 is the only edit made in Wikipedia by that IP address, and it borders on vandalism (and may well have been vandalism). Not only was the information deleted, but the section headers were deleted, leaving the inappropriate section "Aging" above the material that followed, which are Strategies. I have restored the deleted material. Thank you very much for making this observation. --GirlForLife (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

some of this material was unsourced, and had fact tags for several months. I have removed it. Please feel free to add it back when you have specific references. DGG (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

General References section

This should be restricted to major general works published by reliable publishers. It is not a section for miscellaneous bibliographical references, from various peseudo-science and internet sources. DGG (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring/cleanup

I just took a look at the article and one area I found confusing is that the sections about Scientific controversy and Ethics and politics are separated from the article sections that introduce the topics of controversy. At first I thought there had been an accidental copy/paste that duplicated sections. I'm not proposing to add/delete any material but rather to rearrange it so that everything on a subject such as Cryonics is together rather than splitting it out among three sections of the main article.

Background - It appears that the Strategies of Life Extension section was started in May-2005 and that the Scientific Controversy about Life Extension and Ethics and Politics of Life Extension sections were added in October 2005.

The current layout is

1. Aging
2. Strategies of life extension
   1. Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine
   2. Calorie restriction
   3. Chemical and genetic interventions in non-human animals
   4. Cloning and body part replacement
   5. Cryonics
   6. SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence)
   7. Suspended animation
   8. Mind uploading
3. History of life extension and the life extension movement
4. Scientific controversy about life extension
   1. Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine
   2. Calorie restriction
   3. Cryonics
   4. SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence)
   5. Mind uploading
5. Ethics and politics of life extension
   1. Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine
   2. Cloning and Stem Cell Research
   3. Cryonics
   4. SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence)

The layout I'm proposing is:

1. Aging
2. Strategies of life extension
   1. Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine
      • Scientific controversy
      • Ethics and politics
   2. Calorie restriction
      • Scientific controversy
   3. Chemical and genetic interventions in non-human animals
   4. Cloning and Stem Cell Research (section renamed to reflect contents)
      • Ethics and politics
   5. Cryonics
      • Scientific controversy
      • Ethics and politics
   6. SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence)
      • Scientific controversy
      • Ethics and politics
   7. Suspended animation
   8. Mind uploading
      • Scientific controversy
3. History of life extension and the life extension movement

To make it easier to understand what's being done I'd propose separate edits with the first to roll up Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine, the second for Calorie restriction, etc. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that you mean to include the introductory/descriptive material before the subsections. For example, I hope that you mean that within the structure:

2. Strategies of life extension

1. 1. Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine
      • Scientific controversy
      • Ethics and politics

that material previously in Section 2 under the old system -- ie, general overview material that explains the concepts, would be after the header

Anti-aging nutritional supplementation and medicine

but before the subheader

Scientific controversy

If so, I think that the restructuring you are proposing is a good idea. And I am the person who was responsible for the old structuring (as you can see by looking at the article before my edits on 28-Oct-2005 and after my first round of edits on 29-Oct-2005). Maybe if I was a bit smarter I could have done it your way from the beginning. --Ben Best (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done The Transhumanist 19:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I just had a chance to get back to this article and it seemed a lot easier to read as now all of the stuff about a topic is together. Yes, I meant to keep the introduction material followed by the controversy/ethics sub-sections. I was recently reading the WP:MOS, learned that section headings should be unique, and so just did that edit. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ben - I just took a look at the before/after your edits links. You did a lot of work and breaking it up into sections which improved the article greatly. At the time you finished the structure you used made perfect sense and the article was also readable as there were only four sub-topics and each was a single paragraph. The current article has eight sub-topics, many of them have more than one paragraph, and so the structure was mentally taxing. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)