Talk:Life extension

A summary of this article appears in death.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Life extension article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Longevity B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Progress

I agree with the recent split of content by Phenylalanine, and suggest it be extended to some of the other sections of the article--this general article is not the place to discuss the details of the different methods. However, care should of course be taken to ensure that the remaining stub of the section summarizes the relevant controversial elements--I'm not sure this was done fully, and a summary paragraph in addition to the prize material needs to be added. Equally important, all the necessary material should be moved. I have therefore gone to the Engineered negligible senescence article, and added the deleted material there. I p[resume it was not the objective to remove the material regarding the specific scientific obijections from both places. DGG (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the material on criticism of the SENS theory moved from here, but not reinserted there, has been removed there. There must be a criticism section here in proportion to the section describing the theory. I hope someone who actually understands the topic better than I can write it--I am here mainly to maintain NPOV, not from any interest in the subject. But if nobody else does, I'll give it a try. DGG (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with DGG on that but have a slightly more drastic plan in mind that hopefully will improve the life extension of the article. While I can't "add" or comment on the subject from a technical viewpoint I took a look at Life extension#SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence). My immediate perception is that it's without any citations/references though there's an implicit reference in that Aubrey de Grey and his book Ending Aging are mentioned. I also saw that while other LE methods have a "Ethics and politics" sub-section that it's now missing from SENS. One concern with the recent edit history besides the blanket removal of SENS criticism by User:Phenylalanine is he/she appears to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, at minimum under Campaigning. The evidence, besides removing the criticisms here, include using Aubrey de Grey quotes on his home page and nominating competing systems such as NeoSENS for deletion. Having an agenda is fine with me but it needs to be applied in an even handed way.

I'd be inclined to just revert the deletion but something that bothers me about the Life Extension article is that it's complicated and made more so by people posturing for/against various LE methods. A thought is to take a look at the religion article where what could be an enormously controversial and divisive subject that many hold dear to heart is handled in a pretty even handed way. I see that it was done, not by dividing the article into sections on "major religions," but rather into divisions of types or categories of religions. Even the better known religions are mentioned in the body text and not even as sub-sub-sections. I've found WP:MOS to be good reading too.

In looking at the article in a way it's already close to just showing ways of LE with the exceptions being that Chemical and genetic interventions in non-human animals seems to be all about Resveratrol and the entire subject of SENS is a one-person concept and not a general body of knowledge. Thus I'd vote for removing both of those sections with Resveratrol, SENS, NeoSENS, all being mention passing as "see also." Like the religion article, sweep through and remove anything that is pushing a particular person or group's views, beliefs, and/or theories. NPOV does not mean we need to present argument / counterargument.

Another problem I have with the article is that it puts far too much attention on the what seem like "snake oil" methods. Basically they are unproven for humans concepts. Very little of the article is about the proven stuff such as exercise and a diet that has fruits, veggies, and all the other things most of our parents said was good for us such as to not take up smoking, drugs, etc. The article says "Currently, the only widely recognized method of extending maximum lifespan is calorie restriction." and yet calorie restriction only gets 165 words out of a 5,602 word article followed by 195 words of criticism. That's not even three percent for CR and it's the *only* widely recognized method of LE? I know I'm talking about a pretty dramatic change to the article and am interested in seeing what the thoughts are. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar containing foods

I'm not so happy about this "..avoidance of hazards such as smoking and excessive eating of sugar-containing foods.." in the lead. Smoking is well documented but "excessive eating of sugar-containing foods" ?! I guess it refers to sucrose but this statement on sugar-containing foods implies that, if taken to the logical conclusion, we shouldn't eat any carbohydrates. I've removed it. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]