We will be able to live to 1,000(news.bbc.co.uk)
news.bbc.co.uk
We will be able to live to 1,000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm
29 comments
Before donating you should ask yourself whether Aubrey de Grey is a crackpot or not. I'm not sure myself. Can somebody shed some light on this?
He used to be a lot more controversial a few years ago (Technology Review even had a challenge, asking biogerontologists to debunk his claims, though none really did a convincing job). He's slowly but surely making his ideas more mainstream by tirelessly speaking, debating anyone who wants to, organising conferences and editing a respected peer reviewed journal (Rejuvenation Research, iirc).
If you think you have a good argument that would invalidate his theories, please first make sure that he hasn't answered it a thousand times first.
As usual, Wikipedia has mostly neutral info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey
If you think you have a good argument that would invalidate his theories, please first make sure that he hasn't answered it a thousand times first.
As usual, Wikipedia has mostly neutral info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey
What are the results of his research or related research? How much money does he think he'll need to meet his goal?
You might look at the mitochondrial work which recently focused on Corral-Debrinski's lab as the most likely prospect for getting the job done. A brief outline is at the end of this page:
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/mitosens
and you can look at Corral-Debrinski's breakthrough here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771762
Basically it's now shown possible to move a mitochondrial gene into the nucleus and then have the proteins produced pushed back to the mitochondria for use. When done for the 13 important mitochondrial genes whose mutation damages us, then this will make it possible completely remove their contribution to aging.
There is good reason to think that this is a large contribution.
Context:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-damaged-m...
How much money: $1 billion over ten years to implement SENS fully in mice. Incremental amounts obtain incremental progress.
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/mitosens
and you can look at Corral-Debrinski's breakthrough here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771762
Basically it's now shown possible to move a mitochondrial gene into the nucleus and then have the proteins produced pushed back to the mitochondria for use. When done for the 13 important mitochondrial genes whose mutation damages us, then this will make it possible completely remove their contribution to aging.
There is good reason to think that this is a large contribution.
Context:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-damaged-m...
How much money: $1 billion over ten years to implement SENS fully in mice. Incremental amounts obtain incremental progress.
How much of that money has been donated already? i.e. how much more is needed?
It's interesting stuff. It makes me wonder whether I should be studying biology :)
It's interesting stuff. It makes me wonder whether I should be studying biology :)
I don't know how much SENS Foundation has raised since it diverged from the Methuselah Foundation. For the period prior to that, you can look at the Methuselah Foundation records:
http://www.mfoundation.org/?pn=mj_donations_funding
http://www.mfoundation.org/?pn=donors
These are just ("just") a few millions - though I'm sure the folk reading HN will appreciate how much work went into raising those funds for a visionary project. By any account, a grand success in putting forward a new idea and bringing on board people who think the same way. Like all grand successes, it's the first step on a much longer path.
(You may or may not know that one of the largest donors is Peter Thiel).
In essence, SENS is still looking for the big hit, the scale up to mid-7-figures. By donating modestly now you add your name to hundreds of others who have already stepped up to help make the ramp needed for that goal.
http://www.mfoundation.org/?pn=mj_donations_funding
http://www.mfoundation.org/?pn=donors
These are just ("just") a few millions - though I'm sure the folk reading HN will appreciate how much work went into raising those funds for a visionary project. By any account, a grand success in putting forward a new idea and bringing on board people who think the same way. Like all grand successes, it's the first step on a much longer path.
(You may or may not know that one of the largest donors is Peter Thiel).
In essence, SENS is still looking for the big hit, the scale up to mid-7-figures. By donating modestly now you add your name to hundreds of others who have already stepped up to help make the ramp needed for that goal.
Another line of research that has been progressing since the early days of fundraising (because it was cheap to get started) is the search for bacterial enzymes that can break down the gunk that builds up in your cells with age, and as a consequence destroys the cellular garbage-collection mechanisms. You might have heard of lipofuscin and its effects on autophagy, for example:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/12/lysosomal-activit...
The links at the bottom of this page outline progress to date - some potential enzymes are found, which could feed into a larger scale project to develop them if funding arrives:
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/lysosens
Meanwhile, small scale funding can keep people working on screening bacteria for more enzymes to break down more types of chemical gunk that cause your cellular systems to fail with advancing age.
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/12/lysosomal-activit...
The links at the bottom of this page outline progress to date - some potential enzymes are found, which could feed into a larger scale project to develop them if funding arrives:
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/lysosens
Meanwhile, small scale funding can keep people working on screening bacteria for more enzymes to break down more types of chemical gunk that cause your cellular systems to fail with advancing age.
"How much money does he think he'll need to meet his goal?"
That question doesn't make a lot of sense. This is not a Web 2.0 startup. It's a lot more fundamental than that, and a lot of the required tools and technologies have not been invented yet - that's what they are trying to do.
That question doesn't make a lot of sense. This is not a Web 2.0 startup. It's a lot more fundamental than that, and a lot of the required tools and technologies have not been invented yet - that's what they are trying to do.
Of course, but he should be able to give a ballpark figure. Are we talking about millions, billions or trillions?
afaik, in the millions. Mostly, once enough progress has been made, the money should pour in because people will now know it's possible and demand it.
He sounds like a crackpot when his theories are misrepresented. He's not saying "here's how I'll make you live to 1000". He's saying "If we solve this list of things, medical science will be able to give you on maybe another 30 healthy years of lifespan - and by doing this I can convince the world that ageing is so important, we will use those 30 years figuring out how to give you the next 30, and so on".
Edit: for what it's worth, the 1000 year figure is something that was calculated by estimating the chances of a person with the health characteristics of a young adult dying of any reason other than age - about 1 in 1000 per year, or an average of 1000 years life. That's just an average though - after early die-off of careless people, you might reasonably expect a 200-year-old to easily outlive 1000. And of course during that time technology won't have stood still - 1000 years ago, it was the dark ages.
Edit: for what it's worth, the 1000 year figure is something that was calculated by estimating the chances of a person with the health characteristics of a young adult dying of any reason other than age - about 1 in 1000 per year, or an average of 1000 years life. That's just an average though - after early die-off of careless people, you might reasonably expect a 200-year-old to easily outlive 1000. And of course during that time technology won't have stood still - 1000 years ago, it was the dark ages.
As it is, your expected lifespan is based largely on a finite clock, so any fatal risk factors are of limited value--if your odds of dying in a car crash are 1/1000/yr that barely affects your life expectancy, and if your odds of birth control failing are 1/100 you can go your entire fertile lifespan (30-40 years) without expecting to conceive.
If you get rid of aging (and other time-clock issues like menopause, though it would be stupid to get rid of menopause if people are going to be essentially immortal), life expectancy will be dictated almost entirely on these remote risks. Being more risk-averse might change your expected lifespan from 100 to 1000 to 10,000. And the less risk-averse people will die sooner, while the less risk-averse people (who are still unaging) will have free reign to change social norms in the long run.
This doesn't only apply to fatal risks. If you can work for 100 years at a day job and save up enough salary to live off the interest perpetually (and quite well), people are going to think it's crazy to do a startup. There's no sense of urgency when you don't age.
I think a world of immortal people would be very boring. And I haven't even gotten into the "slow-to-change" part (if someone living in the Middle Ages was still alive today, they'd probably be some kind of violent religious fanatic or something).
If you get rid of aging (and other time-clock issues like menopause, though it would be stupid to get rid of menopause if people are going to be essentially immortal), life expectancy will be dictated almost entirely on these remote risks. Being more risk-averse might change your expected lifespan from 100 to 1000 to 10,000. And the less risk-averse people will die sooner, while the less risk-averse people (who are still unaging) will have free reign to change social norms in the long run.
This doesn't only apply to fatal risks. If you can work for 100 years at a day job and save up enough salary to live off the interest perpetually (and quite well), people are going to think it's crazy to do a startup. There's no sense of urgency when you don't age.
I think a world of immortal people would be very boring. And I haven't even gotten into the "slow-to-change" part (if someone living in the Middle Ages was still alive today, they'd probably be some kind of violent religious fanatic or something).
Perfect use of the COCP lands your odd of getting pregnant at 0.3% in a year. However typical use lands you at about 8% (condom is 10-18% of typical use) risk, meaning you're doing good if you get a decade without getting pregnant (on average).
An indefinite lifespan will change the world ridiculously, however you're completely ignoring human nature. Those who take risks tend to be the ones who reproduce the most, and assuming fertility remains sustainable throughout life, those risk-averse will be quickly out bred. However, even considering the considered longevity of frozen sperm and embryos (women can still carry a child post-menopausal through egg donation - incidentally same odds as a younger woman).
You're considering risk aversion as the winner, when in reality it will be those who procreate frequently. If a couple produces 2 kids roughly every 20 years, that's 100 children they will produce meaning the risk averse will have to last 100,000 years just to match the genes of those who reproduce if their offspring never reproduce. Assuming a predisposition to reproducing at 20 (I've known all too many people with 4-generations of teenage mothers in their family, so it's certainly not an absurd prospect) and each two children produce two children in 20 years, you'd hit 1 peta-offspring by the 1000 year mark.
Your risk-averse would be marginally existent, similar to a dust mite next to an elephant. Their effect on society would be negligible to none existent. Compound interest has got nothing on exponential birthrates vs death rates.
An indefinite lifespan will change the world ridiculously, however you're completely ignoring human nature. Those who take risks tend to be the ones who reproduce the most, and assuming fertility remains sustainable throughout life, those risk-averse will be quickly out bred. However, even considering the considered longevity of frozen sperm and embryos (women can still carry a child post-menopausal through egg donation - incidentally same odds as a younger woman).
You're considering risk aversion as the winner, when in reality it will be those who procreate frequently. If a couple produces 2 kids roughly every 20 years, that's 100 children they will produce meaning the risk averse will have to last 100,000 years just to match the genes of those who reproduce if their offspring never reproduce. Assuming a predisposition to reproducing at 20 (I've known all too many people with 4-generations of teenage mothers in their family, so it's certainly not an absurd prospect) and each two children produce two children in 20 years, you'd hit 1 peta-offspring by the 1000 year mark.
Your risk-averse would be marginally existent, similar to a dust mite next to an elephant. Their effect on society would be negligible to none existent. Compound interest has got nothing on exponential birthrates vs death rates.
I think you're making a lot of big assumptions. First, the combination of indefinite lifespan, indefinite fertility, and high reproduction rates (which is necessary for your scenario) would cause rapid overpopulation. You have to give up at least one of those.
Second, there's no necessary reason fecundity should be related to risk aversity.
Second, there's no necessary reason fecundity should be related to risk aversity.
He's looking for cures to issues that are real problems. If you fix any of the problems, even partially, they show great promise for helping older people to be decrepit, even if they don't actually extend lifespan. His hope is curing these types of damage will cause humans to functionally stop aging, but curing these types of damage are useful in and of themselves:
Cell loss, tissue atrophy
Nuclear [epi]mutations
Mutant mitochondria
Death-resistant cells
Tissue stiffening
Extracellular aggregates (Cleaning crap out of our bodies that shouldn't be there and isn't in cells)
Intracellular aggregates (Cleaning crap out of cells that shouldn't be there and is in cells)
Cell loss, tissue atrophy
Nuclear [epi]mutations
Mutant mitochondria
Death-resistant cells
Tissue stiffening
Extracellular aggregates (Cleaning crap out of our bodies that shouldn't be there and isn't in cells)
Intracellular aggregates (Cleaning crap out of cells that shouldn't be there and is in cells)
In some areas we are making rapid progress on some rather less but solutions are know to all 7 causes of aging as outlined below.
1. Cell death and atrophy: Treatable with exercise, stem cells, and chemicals which stimulate cell division.
2. Cancerous cells: Theoretically treatable with a type of gene therapy being developed, called Whole Body Interdiction of Lengthening of Telomeres (WILT).
3. Mutant mitochondria: Mutated DNA in the mitochondria causes a number of diseases. These can be prevented by moving the mitochondrial DNA into the cell nucleus, where the rest of the DNA resides.
4. Death Resistant Cells or Cell senescence (unwanted cells): Fat cells and other unwanted cruft can be removed surgically, or by stimulating the immune system to attack unwanted cells.
5. Tissue stiffening or Extracellular crosslinks (loss of elasticity): Certain proteins, such as those in cells making up the arteries, become too rigid over time because they bond to each other. These bonds can be broken with certain chemicals (some in clinical trials even today).
6 Extracellular aggregates or junk: “Plaque” which collects between cells can be eliminated by stimulating the immune system, and/or by using peptides called “beta-breakers.”
7. Intracellular aggregates or junk: Molecular garbage can be prevented from overwhelming certain cells by introducing enzymes which are known to be effective against such molecules.
In my opinion aging is no different to any other disease and like all diseases aging is ultimately treatable given the requisite technology. We cannot afford to sit back and simply accept that because everyone in history has lived and died we must follow the same path. It is a mistake to view aging as a fact of life set in stone when science has progressed to the level where we have the ability to begin the search for a cure. We might not be there yet but we are within striking distance of adding 20 or 30 years to our life expectancy and as Aubrey himself points out increases in life expectancy will be incremental and there is not going to be a sudden magic pill which you take and live forever. The essence of the engineering approach advocated by Aubrey is to manage aging, what he proposes is not a cure but a case of repairing the damage that occurs as we age at various intervals and not to stop the process but to allow the aging process to continue and repair the damage as it arises in the same way you maintain a house or car. This engineering approach is a case of taking advantage of improvements in technology as they occur and not to attempt to cure aging in its entirety and it is in this area that people fail to grasp what Aubrey de Grey is seeking to achieve. I recommend the two books below as great reading and all will be revealed!
Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime (Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rae) ISBN-10: 0312367066 ISBN-13: 978-0312367060
Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman MD) ISBN-10: 1605299561
I would also check out the following regarding Aubrey de Grey http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/retirement/news-and-fea...
and also the following about Ray Kurzweil if this lot does not wet your appetite for joining the war on aging nothing will!
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DtQitQH8Fu_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntY01qoIdus
1. Cell death and atrophy: Treatable with exercise, stem cells, and chemicals which stimulate cell division.
2. Cancerous cells: Theoretically treatable with a type of gene therapy being developed, called Whole Body Interdiction of Lengthening of Telomeres (WILT).
3. Mutant mitochondria: Mutated DNA in the mitochondria causes a number of diseases. These can be prevented by moving the mitochondrial DNA into the cell nucleus, where the rest of the DNA resides.
4. Death Resistant Cells or Cell senescence (unwanted cells): Fat cells and other unwanted cruft can be removed surgically, or by stimulating the immune system to attack unwanted cells.
5. Tissue stiffening or Extracellular crosslinks (loss of elasticity): Certain proteins, such as those in cells making up the arteries, become too rigid over time because they bond to each other. These bonds can be broken with certain chemicals (some in clinical trials even today).
6 Extracellular aggregates or junk: “Plaque” which collects between cells can be eliminated by stimulating the immune system, and/or by using peptides called “beta-breakers.”
7. Intracellular aggregates or junk: Molecular garbage can be prevented from overwhelming certain cells by introducing enzymes which are known to be effective against such molecules.
In my opinion aging is no different to any other disease and like all diseases aging is ultimately treatable given the requisite technology. We cannot afford to sit back and simply accept that because everyone in history has lived and died we must follow the same path. It is a mistake to view aging as a fact of life set in stone when science has progressed to the level where we have the ability to begin the search for a cure. We might not be there yet but we are within striking distance of adding 20 or 30 years to our life expectancy and as Aubrey himself points out increases in life expectancy will be incremental and there is not going to be a sudden magic pill which you take and live forever. The essence of the engineering approach advocated by Aubrey is to manage aging, what he proposes is not a cure but a case of repairing the damage that occurs as we age at various intervals and not to stop the process but to allow the aging process to continue and repair the damage as it arises in the same way you maintain a house or car. This engineering approach is a case of taking advantage of improvements in technology as they occur and not to attempt to cure aging in its entirety and it is in this area that people fail to grasp what Aubrey de Grey is seeking to achieve. I recommend the two books below as great reading and all will be revealed!
Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime (Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rae) ISBN-10: 0312367066 ISBN-13: 978-0312367060
Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman MD) ISBN-10: 1605299561
I would also check out the following regarding Aubrey de Grey http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/retirement/news-and-fea...
and also the following about Ray Kurzweil if this lot does not wet your appetite for joining the war on aging nothing will!
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DtQitQH8Fu_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntY01qoIdus
In fact, the SENS foundation is ignoring some of those - because medical research is already attacking them as problems in their own right.
Yep, SENS isn't duplicating already existing research. If you support them, you are supporting research that might not take place otherwise.
That's complicated. My criticism of Aubrey de Grey is one I have of transhumanism in general, which is that it's mostly CS people taking Moore's law and applying it to biological problems without having any experience in biology. Aubrey de Grey's degrees are not in the life sciences, and to my knowledge he's never been directly engaged in a biological research project. Those of us who have done aging research understand how ridiculously difficult it can be to do things that sound simple on paper, and De Grey isn't even making proposals that are simple on paper.
On the other hand, he seems to be a smart, well-intentioned guy who has spent a lot of time developing a theoretical knowledge of how biological systems work. De Grey's not going to spend your money on coke and whores, and he's not going to spend it developing the ultimate power crystal. He's just underestimated the difficulty of solving the problem.
So if you think aging is a disease and not a natural process, it's probably underfunded and you should consider giving him money. Just understand that you're probably going to die of an aging-related complication regardless of how much money you or anyone else gives him.
On the other hand, he seems to be a smart, well-intentioned guy who has spent a lot of time developing a theoretical knowledge of how biological systems work. De Grey's not going to spend your money on coke and whores, and he's not going to spend it developing the ultimate power crystal. He's just underestimated the difficulty of solving the problem.
So if you think aging is a disease and not a natural process, it's probably underfunded and you should consider giving him money. Just understand that you're probably going to die of an aging-related complication regardless of how much money you or anyone else gives him.
Aging certainly is a natural process. So is Aids. I always assumed that a disease can be both and most of time is both. I don’t even know whether it makes sense to define disease with the help of a term like “natural”.
I would define a disease as something which harms people (i.e. curtailing their cognitive or physical abilities) or kills them. Then I exclude a bunch of stuff which has traditionally not been called disease (like accidents, murder, suicide, etc.). Using that definition aging is most definitely a disease.
I would define a disease as something which harms people (i.e. curtailing their cognitive or physical abilities) or kills them. Then I exclude a bunch of stuff which has traditionally not been called disease (like accidents, murder, suicide, etc.). Using that definition aging is most definitely a disease.
Well, unless you exclude it, and it's pretty biased not to. I think you need a better definition.
1913 Webster has: 1. Lack of ease 2. An alteration in the state of the body or of some of its organs, interrupting or disturbing the performance of the vital functions, and causing or threatening pain and weakness
Now that does fit aging.
1913 Webster has: 1. Lack of ease 2. An alteration in the state of the body or of some of its organs, interrupting or disturbing the performance of the vital functions, and causing or threatening pain and weakness
Now that does fit aging.
Yeah, my definition is not that great, should have thought more about that.
In my opinion conquering aging is pretty much the same a beating any other disease albeit aging is a complex issue involving many different processes. What is comes down to is the realization that there is no magic bullet and that it is a case of chipping away at the root causes and making progress incrementally until we have them all brought to a position where they are manageable. Aging is no different to any other process and we are starting to understand the root causes and the changes which arise as the body ages. I agree that Aubrey makes it sound simpler than it actually is by breaking the causes down to seven factors as set out below but that does not mean that it is not a realistic proposition to render aging a treatable although chronic condition within 25 to 30 years! The key is funding and for more on that check out http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/
As Aubrey points out we have already discovered the seven biochemical processes which are the root cause of aging. The first was discovered in the mid 1950s, the last almost 30 years ago in 1981. The importance of the amount of time that has elapsed since the discovery of the last of the seven is that it took less time to discover the entire list than has passed since and nothing else has been found. Now factor in the massive increase in our knowledge of biology that has taken place over that time and it seems virtually certain that these seven causes are all there are - cure those and you cure aging! The following is the list with potential solutions some of which are either confirmed or where progress is already at an advanced stage.
1. Cell death and atrophy: Treatable with exercise, stem cells, and chemicals which stimulate cell division.
2. Cancerous cells: Theoretically treatable with a type of gene therapy being developed, called Whole Body Interdiction of Lengthening of Telomeres (WILT).
3. Mutant mitochondria: Mutated DNA in the mitochondria causes a number of diseases. These can be prevented by moving the mitochondrial DNA into the cell nucleus, where the rest of the DNA resides.
4. Cell senescence (unwanted cells): Fat cells and other unwanted cruft can be removed surgically, or by stimulating the immune system to attack unwanted cells.
5. Extracellular crosslinks (loss of elasticity): Certain proteins, such as those in cells making up the arteries, become too rigid over time because they bond to each other. These bonds can be broken with certain chemicals (some in clinical trials even today).
6 Extracellular junk: “Plaque” which collects between cells can be eliminated by stimulating the immune system, and/or by using peptides called “beta-breakers.”
7. Intracellular junk: Molecular garbage can be prevented from overwhelming certain cells by introducing enzymes which are known to be effective against such molecules.
In my opinion aging is no different to any other disease and like all diseases aging is ultimately treatable given the requisite technology. We cannot afford to sit back and simply accept that because everyone in history has lived and died we must follow the same patch. It is a mistake to view aging as a fact of life set in stone when science has progressed to the level where we have the ability to begin the search for a cure. We might not be there yet but we are within striking distance of adding 20 or 30 years to our life expectancy and as Aubrey himself points out increases in life expectancy will be incremental and there is not going to be a sudden magic pill which you take and live forever. The essence of the engineering approach advocated by Aubrey is to manage aging, what he proposes is not a cure but a case of repairing the damage that occurs as we age at various intervals and not to stop the process but to allow the aging process to continue and repair the damage as it arises in the same way you maintain a house or car. This engineering approach is a case of taking advantage of improvements in technology as they occur and not to attempt to cure aging in its entirety and it is in this area that people fail to grasp what Aubrey de Grey is seeking to achieve. I recommend the two books below as great reading and all will be revealed!
Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime (Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rae) ISBN-10: 0312367066 ISBN-13: 978-0312367060
Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman MD) ISBN-10: 1605299561
I would also check out the following regarding Aubrey de Grey http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/retirement/news-and-fea...
and also the following about Ray Kurzweil if this lot does not wet your appetite for joining the war on aging nothing will!
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DtQitQH8Fu_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntY01qoIdus
As Aubrey points out we have already discovered the seven biochemical processes which are the root cause of aging. The first was discovered in the mid 1950s, the last almost 30 years ago in 1981. The importance of the amount of time that has elapsed since the discovery of the last of the seven is that it took less time to discover the entire list than has passed since and nothing else has been found. Now factor in the massive increase in our knowledge of biology that has taken place over that time and it seems virtually certain that these seven causes are all there are - cure those and you cure aging! The following is the list with potential solutions some of which are either confirmed or where progress is already at an advanced stage.
1. Cell death and atrophy: Treatable with exercise, stem cells, and chemicals which stimulate cell division.
2. Cancerous cells: Theoretically treatable with a type of gene therapy being developed, called Whole Body Interdiction of Lengthening of Telomeres (WILT).
3. Mutant mitochondria: Mutated DNA in the mitochondria causes a number of diseases. These can be prevented by moving the mitochondrial DNA into the cell nucleus, where the rest of the DNA resides.
4. Cell senescence (unwanted cells): Fat cells and other unwanted cruft can be removed surgically, or by stimulating the immune system to attack unwanted cells.
5. Extracellular crosslinks (loss of elasticity): Certain proteins, such as those in cells making up the arteries, become too rigid over time because they bond to each other. These bonds can be broken with certain chemicals (some in clinical trials even today).
6 Extracellular junk: “Plaque” which collects between cells can be eliminated by stimulating the immune system, and/or by using peptides called “beta-breakers.”
7. Intracellular junk: Molecular garbage can be prevented from overwhelming certain cells by introducing enzymes which are known to be effective against such molecules.
In my opinion aging is no different to any other disease and like all diseases aging is ultimately treatable given the requisite technology. We cannot afford to sit back and simply accept that because everyone in history has lived and died we must follow the same patch. It is a mistake to view aging as a fact of life set in stone when science has progressed to the level where we have the ability to begin the search for a cure. We might not be there yet but we are within striking distance of adding 20 or 30 years to our life expectancy and as Aubrey himself points out increases in life expectancy will be incremental and there is not going to be a sudden magic pill which you take and live forever. The essence of the engineering approach advocated by Aubrey is to manage aging, what he proposes is not a cure but a case of repairing the damage that occurs as we age at various intervals and not to stop the process but to allow the aging process to continue and repair the damage as it arises in the same way you maintain a house or car. This engineering approach is a case of taking advantage of improvements in technology as they occur and not to attempt to cure aging in its entirety and it is in this area that people fail to grasp what Aubrey de Grey is seeking to achieve. I recommend the two books below as great reading and all will be revealed!
Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime (Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rae) ISBN-10: 0312367066 ISBN-13: 978-0312367060
Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman MD) ISBN-10: 1605299561
I would also check out the following regarding Aubrey de Grey http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/retirement/news-and-fea...
and also the following about Ray Kurzweil if this lot does not wet your appetite for joining the war on aging nothing will!
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DtQitQH8Fu_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntY01qoIdus
I don't think there's any debate on the fact that, given enough time, research will eventually figure out how to stop and reverse the changes brought by aging.
The debate is - whether this can be done soon, as opposed to 10000 years from now.
I certainly wish that AdG was right. But is he? I'm not sure. Maybe he is (yay!), maybe not.
The debate is - whether this can be done soon, as opposed to 10000 years from now.
I certainly wish that AdG was right. But is he? I'm not sure. Maybe he is (yay!), maybe not.
I've met him and he seems like a crackpot. Extremely nice, gentle and loveable; but a crackpot.
I've met mikedmiked and he seems like a crackpot. Extremely nice, gentle and loveable; but a crackpot.
Thank you. I added them to my list at givv.org
[deleted](2)
When I donate to research, I like to see what the "partial failure result" is.
One of the neat thing about sens research is that if you happen to even get one or two of the parts of damage fixable or even moderated, then you have a much less inactive old age period, even if no actual longevity is gained.
I find decrepit old age to be one of the biggest issues of our time (who cares if grandma is 80 if she can move like she's 50; the issue society faces today with the elderly is one of them not being able to take care of themselves).
Additionally, with the aging of Europe and Japan, prolonging the useful life of the workforce is a big worry.
One of the neat thing about sens research is that if you happen to even get one or two of the parts of damage fixable or even moderated, then you have a much less inactive old age period, even if no actual longevity is gained.
I find decrepit old age to be one of the biggest issues of our time (who cares if grandma is 80 if she can move like she's 50; the issue society faces today with the elderly is one of them not being able to take care of themselves).
Additionally, with the aging of Europe and Japan, prolonging the useful life of the workforce is a big worry.
prolonging the useful life of the workforce is a big worry
Not in my world. The world where we are at the tail end of the largest recession in two or three generations, with danger of double-dip; we have lots and lots of surplus productive capacity, productivity just keeps going up, and unemployment is between 10% and 25% in the US depending on how you count it.
Not in my world. The world where we are at the tail end of the largest recession in two or three generations, with danger of double-dip; we have lots and lots of surplus productive capacity, productivity just keeps going up, and unemployment is between 10% and 25% in the US depending on how you count it.
Think about how much more efficient and productive an economy could be if the oldest members didn't have to retire due to old age?
More poignant to the current recession-- imagine how much better things would be now if people who lived through the great depression were still around (in large numbers) and running for office.
More poignant to the current recession-- imagine how much better things would be now if people who lived through the great depression were still around (in large numbers) and running for office.
Think about how impossible it would be for the young to get a job if they had to compete against people who had been doing a job for 50, 100, 500 years.
How many jobs actually exist for more than 100 years?
Also, just like we've seen in the last 200 years, people's education requirements would continue to grow. If you live to 1000, maybe the first 50 years of your life are spent as a student.
Also, just like we've seen in the last 200 years, people's education requirements would continue to grow. If you live to 1000, maybe the first 50 years of your life are spent as a student.
Raise taxes, do make work projects.
The growth of productivity will always be an issue.
The growth of productivity will always be an issue.
When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years.
This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but the details are nasty. Frankly, I think there's a reason complicated life evolved so that it would age. The standard reason given is that eventually errors in replication accumulate and cancer results. I.e. we age to avoid cancer. But that is a ridiculous reason. There is a chance we might die of cancer if we grow too old, so we trade that possibility of death by cancer for a certainty of death by aging? It just doesn't make evolutionary sense.
I have a feeling that whatever the real reason for aging is, it will take us a long, long time before we find a way around it.
This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but the details are nasty. Frankly, I think there's a reason complicated life evolved so that it would age. The standard reason given is that eventually errors in replication accumulate and cancer results. I.e. we age to avoid cancer. But that is a ridiculous reason. There is a chance we might die of cancer if we grow too old, so we trade that possibility of death by cancer for a certainty of death by aging? It just doesn't make evolutionary sense.
I have a feeling that whatever the real reason for aging is, it will take us a long, long time before we find a way around it.
I think part of it might be that evolution only cares about how successful you are in passing on your genes. Why do salmon die after mating (its due to exhaustion)? There isn't really any reason they have too, but they successfully passed on there genes so there is little evolutionary pressure on what happens afterward.
I think it is the same for aging. There isn't really a reason for aging, it just happens because there is less evolutionary pressure once humans pass the age when they normally procreate.
Of course I don't have any qualifications and this is just my hypothesis so take it as you will.
I think it is the same for aging. There isn't really a reason for aging, it just happens because there is less evolutionary pressure once humans pass the age when they normally procreate.
Of course I don't have any qualifications and this is just my hypothesis so take it as you will.
I believe the predominant evolutionary theory actually does have an explanation - sexual reproduction serves to produce offspring that are different from their parents and have a better shot of being adapted to a constantly changing environment on average (particularly relevant to parasites/diseases). These children still carry their parents' genes, though, so it is in the parents' best genetic interests to die once the kids are self-sufficient so as to avoid out-competing their own offspring.
W.R.T. humans, the predominant evolutionary theory does have an explanation, and it's exactly what jwegan said. Your scenario is only relevant to organisms who live in niches very far from our own. Humans have always lived in ecosystems large enough that our kids' share of the burden of our claims on resources is infinitesimal, and certainly no comparison to benefit that kids derive from their alive parents.
[deleted]
The reason for sticking around after mating is to protect your children. In this sense, there is definitely an evolutionary pressure to live longer. The longer an organism takes to mature, the more advanced it can become. Consequently, the longer you live as a mature individual, the longer you can mate to produce more children and protect the ones you already produced.
IIRC, either Kurzweil or de Grey said exactly the same thing.
And there's the beauty of Aubrey de Gray's plan: it's not about finding a Cure for Aging. It's about finding a number of techniques that will allow us to extend people's life-spans long enough to find out how to extend their life-spans more, which will give more time for research, and so on.
It's a much more realistic approach than "finding a way around aging," which is how the problem is usually miscast.
It's a much more realistic approach than "finding a way around aging," which is how the problem is usually miscast.
And Achilles never really overtook the hare right ?
The "reason" for aging seems almost self-evident to me. The goal is to pass on [mutated] genetic information. Post-reproduction, you're simply a drag on local resources.
Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food.
Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food.
Anything that happens after reproduction is in an evolutionary blind spot. Aging is the result of evolutionary neglect, not design.
I disagree. If my parent stays around and eats all my food, I'm carrying bad genes that cause me to die pre-reproduction.
That would be the case, and what I said up-thread was badly formulated. But it still remains that in the way things happened, aging is evolutionary neglect. We've evolved repair mechanisms that help us pass our genes, and also parents who take care of their children (since it takes quite a while for a human child to become self-sufficient), but through most of history, humans died pretty young and so we never had time to evolve repair mechanisms for the kind of damage that happens when you are 50-60, etc.
I'm sorry, cite your evidence please. Humans have never 'died young', it's complete bullshit, our life expectancy has changed not our longevity. Genghis Khan died at 65 in 1227. Julius Caesar was murdered at 56 years old in perfect health in 44BC. Augustus died at 77 in 14AD. Ramesses The Great is believed to have died between 90-93 years old, in 1213BC.
I'm sorry, that's 3000+ years where we know our longevity hasn't changed, especially considering all of these men entered warfare. People living to 100 with all their mental and physical strength is rare, however people living to their 60's is not and has never been.
Our genes evolved to fight childhood diseases and injuries, so that those who make it through have the potential to live well into their 60's without a problem. Incidentally, those who get sick less frequently in childhood tend to have a longer lifespan as is. However the whole notion that humans only lived till 30 is absurd, because it's simply not true for any of recorded history. Yes it was the average, however that was under a very different culture.
Ramesses II successor was his 13th son, who lived to his early 80's. Many of his other children either died very early or died through injury or mid-life disease. His first born for instance died from a blow to the head in his 40's.
Please, don't confuse life expectancy and longevity, the two are vastly different. The former has changed drastically, the latter hasn't. Regardless of whether we avoid disease today or 3000 years ago, we'll likely hit 90 years before dying of old age 'naturally' (IE from a lack of longevity).
I'm sorry, that's 3000+ years where we know our longevity hasn't changed, especially considering all of these men entered warfare. People living to 100 with all their mental and physical strength is rare, however people living to their 60's is not and has never been.
Our genes evolved to fight childhood diseases and injuries, so that those who make it through have the potential to live well into their 60's without a problem. Incidentally, those who get sick less frequently in childhood tend to have a longer lifespan as is. However the whole notion that humans only lived till 30 is absurd, because it's simply not true for any of recorded history. Yes it was the average, however that was under a very different culture.
Ramesses II successor was his 13th son, who lived to his early 80's. Many of his other children either died very early or died through injury or mid-life disease. His first born for instance died from a blow to the head in his 40's.
Please, don't confuse life expectancy and longevity, the two are vastly different. The former has changed drastically, the latter hasn't. Regardless of whether we avoid disease today or 3000 years ago, we'll likely hit 90 years before dying of old age 'naturally' (IE from a lack of longevity).
True. The thing I wonder about is whether the development of sentience and culture is swinging evolution's pendulum away from the resource needs of the young, and toward valuing the experience and knowledge of the elders.
Maybe not blind spot... maybe just peripheral vision?
A non- or post-reproducing individual can still improve the fitness of their genome by supporting closely related individuals, or even simply their species by supporting any other member.
A non- or post-reproducing individual can still improve the fitness of their genome by supporting closely related individuals, or even simply their species by supporting any other member.
"evolutionary neglect"
I agree. That's the only mechanism that seems to have the power to explain aging, other than magic or the Invisible Hand of the Creator (but the latter two have a huge assortment of other issues).
I agree. That's the only mechanism that seems to have the power to explain aging, other than magic or the Invisible Hand of the Creator (but the latter two have a huge assortment of other issues).
"Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food."
Starvation is not the only way living creatures can die.
Just up the aggression a little, for example, and the death rate returns to a self-sustainable level.
Starvation is not the only way living creatures can die.
Just up the aggression a little, for example, and the death rate returns to a self-sustainable level.
So we're perpetually closer to curing aging than we are to energy-positive fusion? If only they were reversed, we'd be able to support the population explosion in millenarians before they got here...
Hee hee. All in support of my cynical hypothesis: the predicted future is always at least ten years away because that's slightly longer than the longest research grants. [1]
See, if you predict a breakthrough in five years and are then awarded a seven-year grant, you're setting yourself up for a lot of embarrassment when it comes time to apply for a renewal.
The future is in the future, and until you're absolutely certain of success it's important to keep it there. ;)
---
[1] that's the predicted future. The actual future isn't in the future at all. It arrives every day, without warning, as a fait accompli. There's no money in predicting the near future: you must either predict the far future, or make the near future.
See, if you predict a breakthrough in five years and are then awarded a seven-year grant, you're setting yourself up for a lot of embarrassment when it comes time to apply for a renewal.
The future is in the future, and until you're absolutely certain of success it's important to keep it there. ;)
---
[1] that's the predicted future. The actual future isn't in the future at all. It arrives every day, without warning, as a fait accompli. There's no money in predicting the near future: you must either predict the far future, or make the near future.
I doubt that we'll ever find a "reason" for aging. It's the result of an imperfectly optimized biological system - after all, humans are the result of one great big evolutionary algorithm.
We've proven time and again that those run exponentially and are not perfectly accurate, especially in the presence of a dynamic environment.
We've proven time and again that those run exponentially and are not perfectly accurate, especially in the presence of a dynamic environment.
If it's an imperfect mechanism, then look back at the huge chain linking you to the first living creature: adult body / sperm & egg / adult body / sperm & egg / adult body / ...
How come that chain hasn't failed?
Basically, you're just rephrasing the "aging through accumulation of errors" hypothesis. The problem is, errors should accumulate along the chain mentioned above, too. Yet they don't.
How come that chain hasn't failed?
Basically, you're just rephrasing the "aging through accumulation of errors" hypothesis. The problem is, errors should accumulate along the chain mentioned above, too. Yet they don't.
The chain gets to weed out errors by starting with cells that got through functionally unblemished courtesy functioning error correcting mechanisms. Each new cycle gets a fully functional error correction mechanism, and is fault tolerant to the theoretical point of repopulation from a small point of individuals.
An individual human body has error correcting mechanisms that do not benefit from being renewed every cycle- they deteriorate over time, Individuals suffer from problems larger systems don't - a few cancerous cells can poison the whole individual, but a few cancerous individuals are likely to die with few offspring, and their offspring are also more likely to die with few offspring. If an individual is left with only a few correctly functioning cells, they have no recourse for rebuilding themself.
Species get a constant influx of fresh water, as it were, and individuals have to make do with a set quantity.
An individual human body has error correcting mechanisms that do not benefit from being renewed every cycle- they deteriorate over time, Individuals suffer from problems larger systems don't - a few cancerous cells can poison the whole individual, but a few cancerous individuals are likely to die with few offspring, and their offspring are also more likely to die with few offspring. If an individual is left with only a few correctly functioning cells, they have no recourse for rebuilding themself.
Species get a constant influx of fresh water, as it were, and individuals have to make do with a set quantity.
Where does the fresh water come from? Your assumption is that sex cells are magically exempt from the accumulation of errors.
It's not that they are magically exempt, but that the error filled ones are less reproductively viable, and die out. That contrasts directly with e.g., cancer cells, that become more prolific and lead to the death of the organism.
(There's several points of 'selection' for sex cells- error free ones are, loosely speaking, more likely to successfully fertilize/get fertilized, and more likely to create viable offspring that themselves reproduce.)
Edit: It's like the difference between being able to select the top 10% and selecting those with a score above 90%. The chain gets to "select" only those that perform above a set threshold, but the organism has to play out every hand it's dealt.
(There's several points of 'selection' for sex cells- error free ones are, loosely speaking, more likely to successfully fertilize/get fertilized, and more likely to create viable offspring that themselves reproduce.)
Edit: It's like the difference between being able to select the top 10% and selecting those with a score above 90%. The chain gets to "select" only those that perform above a set threshold, but the organism has to play out every hand it's dealt.
I honestly don't think we're throwing very much effort into the work.
"I think there's a reason complicated life evolved so that it would age. The standard reason given is that eventually errors in replication accumulate and cancer results. I.e. we age to avoid cancer. But that is a ridiculous reason."
Exactly. Any justification along those lines falls flat on its face when you realize it should also apply to the sperm and egg. Yet it doesn't apply in that case.
Exactly. Any justification along those lines falls flat on its face when you realize it should also apply to the sperm and egg. Yet it doesn't apply in that case.
I think it likely that aging has evolved, that is, nature wants us to die (or some organisms at least). It certainly doesn't care how long we live.
That doesn't mean that we can't come up with out own motivations and schemes.
There is also (afaik) at least one organism that can live forever, a jellyfish.
That doesn't mean that we can't come up with out own motivations and schemes.
There is also (afaik) at least one organism that can live forever, a jellyfish.
There's a book by Asimov, Please Explain, that has a list of science questions.
I remember the very last question is about "what point does getting old has?".
He argues that without aging and dying, populations will stop getting better and will stagnate.
It seemed very appropriate to link here, but I couldn't get a link. Other than a Spanish translation :-(.
I remember the very last question is about "what point does getting old has?".
He argues that without aging and dying, populations will stop getting better and will stagnate.
It seemed very appropriate to link here, but I couldn't get a link. Other than a Spanish translation :-(.
Curing the diseases of aging might cause problems, but what we must ask ourselves is: Are those problems bigger or smaller than the problems caused by the diseases of aging in the first place?
If your problems aren't worse than 100-150k people dying per day after a prolonged period of frailty and suffering, causing suffering to their families and friends too and costing tons in healthcare, then I'd say it's worth it.
However long you live, you live one day at a time. If you are happy today and in good health, you'll want to live until tomorrow, and so on. But if for some reason you want to stop taking the rejuvenating therapies or throw yourself off a cliff, that's your choice. Let's just not make the choice for everybody else and all future generations by not developing these therapies...
If your problems aren't worse than 100-150k people dying per day after a prolonged period of frailty and suffering, causing suffering to their families and friends too and costing tons in healthcare, then I'd say it's worth it.
However long you live, you live one day at a time. If you are happy today and in good health, you'll want to live until tomorrow, and so on. But if for some reason you want to stop taking the rejuvenating therapies or throw yourself off a cliff, that's your choice. Let's just not make the choice for everybody else and all future generations by not developing these therapies...
A specific concern I've always had about this idea of indefinite lifespan is that of monoculture. How often have you heard a phrase along the lines of "this is a temporary problem; once the 'old guard' is no longer in charge, society can move forward on issue XYZ"? Make "XYZ" any major social issue we've had in the past thousand years; from fiefdoms to gay rights to democracy.
It's effectively the end of generational cultural change, which might be a good or bad thing, depending on which generation you most identify with.
It's effectively the end of generational cultural change, which might be a good or bad thing, depending on which generation you most identify with.
People still die, from accidents and what have you. In terms of multiples of the average death rate, generational change will be exactly the same. But generations are 10+ times as long in this view.
That's an explanation that rests on group selection, which tends not to be taken very seriously by most biologists. Similarly, group selection explanations of why we age are held only by a handful of researchers in the field of aging.
Most biologists in the field of aging hold that aging is the result of the decreased force of natural selection with age. This is somewhat difficult to explain even with diagrams, but I'll try anyway.
Let's imagine three forms of a gene. One causes you to die at the age of eight, another causes you to die at eighty, and the third never causes you to die. We would expect that the form of the gene that causes you to die at eight would be removed from the population very quickly, since anyone who has it will die before they can reproduce and pass it on. In contrast, the gene that causes you to die at eighty will be rather prevalent, since by that age you'll have already passed on your genes to your progeny. In fact, it will probably exist at about the same frequency as the gene that didn't cause you to die at all.
This is the mutation accumulation theory of aging. Because natural selection acts more strongly early in life, we tend to accumulate genes with mutations that are detrimental later in life. There's also a variant called antagonistic pleiotropy, where you have genes that have a beneficial effect early in life having a negative effect in old age.
Most biologists in the field of aging hold that aging is the result of the decreased force of natural selection with age. This is somewhat difficult to explain even with diagrams, but I'll try anyway.
Let's imagine three forms of a gene. One causes you to die at the age of eight, another causes you to die at eighty, and the third never causes you to die. We would expect that the form of the gene that causes you to die at eight would be removed from the population very quickly, since anyone who has it will die before they can reproduce and pass it on. In contrast, the gene that causes you to die at eighty will be rather prevalent, since by that age you'll have already passed on your genes to your progeny. In fact, it will probably exist at about the same frequency as the gene that didn't cause you to die at all.
This is the mutation accumulation theory of aging. Because natural selection acts more strongly early in life, we tend to accumulate genes with mutations that are detrimental later in life. There's also a variant called antagonistic pleiotropy, where you have genes that have a beneficial effect early in life having a negative effect in old age.
"There's also a variant called antagonistic pleiotropy, where you have genes that have a beneficial effect early in life having a negative effect in old age."
That makes a lot of sense. Passing on the genes seems to over-ride a lot of other things, just look at the crazy stuff most (all) creatures do to find and attract a mate.
That makes a lot of sense. Passing on the genes seems to over-ride a lot of other things, just look at the crazy stuff most (all) creatures do to find and attract a mate.
Also check out "The Immortal" by Borges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal
That article is from 2004 (from top of page)
Last Updated: Friday, 3 December, 2004, 00:01 GMT
This kind of sensationalism is silly.
http://xkcd.com/678/
Falls under: It has not been conclusively proven impossible.
We don't know what kind of roadblocks there will be for this kind of development, we can't even guess - claims of 10-20 years are beyond silly, they are crazy and ignoring the concept of "what we don't know".
ps. Can you imagine how overpopulated the world would be?
How we would strip every resource bare?
Last Updated: Friday, 3 December, 2004, 00:01 GMT
This kind of sensationalism is silly.
http://xkcd.com/678/
Falls under: It has not been conclusively proven impossible.
We don't know what kind of roadblocks there will be for this kind of development, we can't even guess - claims of 10-20 years are beyond silly, they are crazy and ignoring the concept of "what we don't know".
ps. Can you imagine how overpopulated the world would be?
How we would strip every resource bare?
Can I bet on the opposite side of this? I bet that nobody who is 60 now will live to 1000.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to live to 1000... but I would be pretty surprised if my kids live past 150. I will be surprised if I live to 100. It's sad to think about, but our bodies wear out over time (cosmic rays and whatnot), and we don't have the technology to repair them efficiently yet. People still die from the flu!
Don't get me wrong, I would like to live to 1000... but I would be pretty surprised if my kids live past 150. I will be surprised if I live to 100. It's sad to think about, but our bodies wear out over time (cosmic rays and whatnot), and we don't have the technology to repair them efficiently yet. People still die from the flu!
A fun exercise for a high school class: Get some basic mortality tables off the Internet. Now, tell me -- to first order, of course -- all the causes of death we'd have to eliminate in order for, say, 25% of the population to live to be 1000.
What I really want to know is what common everyday activities we'd all have to give up. I bet motorcycling and scooter-riding are right out, but what about, say, swimming? Horseback riding? In a world where life expectancy is ten times longer, is everything an order of magnitude more dangerous?
What I really want to know is what common everyday activities we'd all have to give up. I bet motorcycling and scooter-riding are right out, but what about, say, swimming? Horseback riding? In a world where life expectancy is ten times longer, is everything an order of magnitude more dangerous?
It would be a good idea if safety laws, such as speed limits, where constructed around formula with life expectancy as one of the variables. Plug in 70 years and get out 30mph. Plug in 140 years and get out 25mph.
Since you are going to grow old and die anyway, spending too much time trying to avoid accidental death is self-defeating. Acknowledging this would provide a check on the tendency towards super-safety in public policy.
Since you are going to grow old and die anyway, spending too much time trying to avoid accidental death is self-defeating. Acknowledging this would provide a check on the tendency towards super-safety in public policy.
I don't see how humanity could handle something like mass distribution of a magic treatment that allowed people to live to 1,000. The world would quickly get over crowded, resources would dry up, world wars would follow, and who knows what else.
This is silly.
Everyone was worried in the 1970's that the 1990's would have massive overcrowding and famines, but it didn't happen. Instead, the world population growth rate has begun to level off.
Why? In affluent countries, people no longer have children out of necessity, but of desire. In fact, many first-world nations are actually now undergoing population contraction (Japan, much of Europe).
If you eliminate aging across the world, the necessity of children will go away. People will only have children if they want them.
Everyone was worried in the 1970's that the 1990's would have massive overcrowding and famines, but it didn't happen. Instead, the world population growth rate has begun to level off.
Why? In affluent countries, people no longer have children out of necessity, but of desire. In fact, many first-world nations are actually now undergoing population contraction (Japan, much of Europe).
If you eliminate aging across the world, the necessity of children will go away. People will only have children if they want them.
If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically (my rudimentary math would assume that it would require 10% of the amount of births we have now) or you'd risk overcrowding.
We'd end up with government controlling the number of children, possibly even a lottery system. The overcrowding worries of the 70s and 90s were not because of a 1200% increase, rather a 10-20% increase.
We'd end up with government controlling the number of children, possibly even a lottery system. The overcrowding worries of the 70s and 90s were not because of a 1200% increase, rather a 10-20% increase.
> If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically
And it would, if you knew you'd live that long most wouldn't tie themselves down with kids while they're still young, they'd wait much much longer and go out and live life.
As it stands now, if you don't have kids by the time you're 30 you risk not being able to have them at all and having to suffer though months of fertility treatments and such just to try.
And it would, if you knew you'd live that long most wouldn't tie themselves down with kids while they're still young, they'd wait much much longer and go out and live life.
As it stands now, if you don't have kids by the time you're 30 you risk not being able to have them at all and having to suffer though months of fertility treatments and such just to try.
The fact is, society would change drastically if this were to happen, so we can speculate all we want :)
People could want kids for a variety of reasons (to pass on their genes, the utility of having children, etc) and you'd have to maintain that you could only have two children max at one point in your life to effectively replace yourselves and not increase the population.
Not to mention if you'd want to have kids 2 or 3 times over, now that they're growth is only a small percentage of your total life.
People could want kids for a variety of reasons (to pass on their genes, the utility of having children, etc) and you'd have to maintain that you could only have two children max at one point in your life to effectively replace yourselves and not increase the population.
Not to mention if you'd want to have kids 2 or 3 times over, now that they're growth is only a small percentage of your total life.
You're assuming most children are planned :)
It's not just the first world. Women in even the poorest countries are simply just choosing to have less children.
But people die! Wouldn’t you want to stop that if you could? I don’t know how you could consider death some sort of necessary evil. That seems like a pretty cynical and cruel view to me. Think of all the intelligent, experienced and capable people who die every day (or are slowly losing their intelligence due to aging). Wouldn’t it be great if Shakespeare were still alive? Newton? Darwin? Einstein? Crick?
Death is wasteful and it’s monstrous. Those problems you mentioned seem like small obstacles compared to the much bigger problem of death.
Death is wasteful and it’s monstrous. Those problems you mentioned seem like small obstacles compared to the much bigger problem of death.
His argument is that there would be overcrowding. Then, we potentially wouldn't be able to sustain the large population... then people would die from lack of food/water. This can probably be overcome with new technology, much like in Asimov's robot books (the "Cities").
Anyways, while death from old age is sad, I think premature death is worse. The 5 year old kid with leukemia, the car accidents, wars. There are tons of things that kill people before they can live a "whole life" which I think we should work on first (not that we can't do both).
Hopefully with some of these aging technologies, quality of life for the 'elderly' would also improve. I would hate if I couldn't play sports for 90% of my life.
Anyways, while death from old age is sad, I think premature death is worse. The 5 year old kid with leukemia, the car accidents, wars. There are tons of things that kill people before they can live a "whole life" which I think we should work on first (not that we can't do both).
Hopefully with some of these aging technologies, quality of life for the 'elderly' would also improve. I would hate if I couldn't play sports for 90% of my life.
It seems pretty logical to me to put some serious resources into fighting the leading cause of death (which is aging [1]).
I absolutely do agree with your last line. We shouldn’t just add years, we have to increase quality of life.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate
I absolutely do agree with your last line. We shouldn’t just add years, we have to increase quality of life.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate
Newton wasted the bulk of his life on theology. I don't think giving him a few more hundred years would have given the world anything else that was useful. I suspect the others would have been disappointments to keep around as well--except for Shakespeare, all of them did a finite number of interesting things early in their lives and already seemed to have retired. You can't conflate indefinite lifespan with indefinite creative steam.
But even if you could? Shakespeare as a Hollywood screenwriter makes for an intriguing idea, I admit. But I think we would get sick of even him.
But even if you could? Shakespeare as a Hollywood screenwriter makes for an intriguing idea, I admit. But I think we would get sick of even him.
So they should die because they probably wouldn‘t be geniuses all their life? Wow, that’s cruel :)
I don’t know how productive Newton with hundreds of years to live would be, nobody really knows. It’s just that losing perfectly good brains to death (or disease) seems like such a waste to me.
We developed pretty good methods of storing some brain content for posterity (writing still seems like the dominant one) and just look at what kind of leverage that gave us. We truly stand on the shoulders of giants but it sure would be damn cool if the giants could still be among us.
I don’t know how productive Newton with hundreds of years to live would be, nobody really knows. It’s just that losing perfectly good brains to death (or disease) seems like such a waste to me.
We developed pretty good methods of storing some brain content for posterity (writing still seems like the dominant one) and just look at what kind of leverage that gave us. We truly stand on the shoulders of giants but it sure would be damn cool if the giants could still be among us.
I'm just addressing the point of "society would be better off with great geniuses living for centuries". I don't think we'd be so much better off with 300 years of Newton than we were with 84 years of Newton. Scientists in particular can and should be replaced every few decades. Look at the history of geology: the acceptance of plate tectonics pretty closely tracked the history of young geologists replacing old ones due to retirement and death.
We gain a lot by standing on the shoulders of giants, but we also gain a lot by having fresh eyes look at their work. Slow the rate of population churn and you slow the rate of fresh eyes. Newton was the man, but wasn't it awesome to have Lagrange come along with a fresh eye and make things a little easier and simpler? I think we get a lot more work done in 200 years of science if we have more generations of scientists, not fewer.
We gain a lot by standing on the shoulders of giants, but we also gain a lot by having fresh eyes look at their work. Slow the rate of population churn and you slow the rate of fresh eyes. Newton was the man, but wasn't it awesome to have Lagrange come along with a fresh eye and make things a little easier and simpler? I think we get a lot more work done in 200 years of science if we have more generations of scientists, not fewer.
Eh... humanity will always find a way. We've done pretty good so far. If nothing else, spending a few years flying to mars seems a lot more reasonable when you've got 1,000 to spare. Space colonization is one solution to overpopulation.
The problem is that we have no evidence that any planet/moon/etc. that we have discovered can support the level of ecosystem required for humans on that planet to be self-sufficient.
You don't have to be a strong Singulatarian to recognize that projecting out, say, 100 years into the future with the hidden assumption that technology won't advance is a waste of time. You don't know what will be necessary for human life then, with a much stronger nanotech base and who knows what else.
He's not talking about a magic treatment, he's talking about raising the life expectancy gain per decade by more than 10.
All that said: Then if that happens, war will happen. I predict population will stabilize still (remember, accidents and unsolved diseases and violence and suicide will still kill). If it doesn't happen then we condemn the whole world to die.
I for one am for giving the chance for us or our children the chance to make it work, and find it overwhelmingly arrogant to think we know well enough to judge they won't handle it.
All that said: Then if that happens, war will happen. I predict population will stabilize still (remember, accidents and unsolved diseases and violence and suicide will still kill). If it doesn't happen then we condemn the whole world to die.
I for one am for giving the chance for us or our children the chance to make it work, and find it overwhelmingly arrogant to think we know well enough to judge they won't handle it.
I bet that cure would be so expensive only a few people could access it.
While I was interning at Google in 2006 I heard the guy speak in one of the Google Talks there. Going to the talk I thought this would just be some outrageous crackpot theory, but he seemed very thoughtful and the approaches he talked about sounded very sensible (although I knew and still know too little about the subject to invalidate his claims).
I wonder if this would change the popular morality of suicide? What if you're 800 years old, and you truly feel that you've had enough? Should you be forced to keep on going, potentially indefinitely?
Or even just knowing when to step aside and let the next (evolved) generation take over? (or will that still naturally just happen, via accidental death or death by lack of resources to live)
Or even just knowing when to step aside and let the next (evolved) generation take over? (or will that still naturally just happen, via accidental death or death by lack of resources to live)
Just FYI: This article is from 2004.
I can't believe no one has called out the bogus math in the article:
"If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000."
If you assume 1/1000 chance of death in a year, and 1000 years (1000 trials), your probability of living to 1000 is only 37%, not 50%. I don't know if I would trust the scientific analysis of someone who doesn't understand basic binomial probability.
"If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000."
If you assume 1/1000 chance of death in a year, and 1000 years (1000 trials), your probability of living to 1000 is only 37%, not 50%. I don't know if I would trust the scientific analysis of someone who doesn't understand basic binomial probability.
You are assuming this based on a mainstream media article. First of all, you have no idea if he knows the right answer and is just dumbing it down for those who don't understand basic binomial probability. Second, the quote says "well under one in 1000", not "one in 1000". The correct value of one in 1415.8 as calculated by Retric in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368664 is, in fact, under one in 1000.
"If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000."
I know there is a shortcut to this but for this to be true you need a constant rate of 1 death in 1415.78389 per year.
1 / (1 - 10 ^ ((log .5) / 981)) = 1415.78389 so (1-1/1415.78389) ^ (1000-19) = .5
I know there is a shortcut to this but for this to be true you need a constant rate of 1 death in 1415.78389 per year.
1 / (1 - 10 ^ ((log .5) / 981)) = 1415.78389 so (1-1/1415.78389) ^ (1000-19) = .5
Just going based on the title here. But if we let people live to 1000, that will deny many people the right to have children. The long term consequences of such a change could be a drastic slow down in technological innovation as the super-elderly are able to accumulate vast sums of wealth. Just think of the advantage you'd have as a 500 y/o over a 25 y/o.
Why is childbirth a right? Would you accept a trade of a parent's life for a child's life, perhaps with a time delay?
There's also several financial methods that could be used to prevent undesirable wealth accumulation.
There's also several financial methods that could be used to prevent undesirable wealth accumulation.
You may be right -- it is not currently guaranteed under the constitution that I'm aware of.
A trade off would be ok but hard to enforce, as right now we don't even let people want to die, die legally for the most part.
A trade off would be ok but hard to enforce, as right now we don't even let people want to die, die legally for the most part.
You, and nobody else, own your body. I.e., nobody should be able to say you're not allowed to have children.
You've simply asserted that, though.
I own my own body, does that mean nobody should be able to say I'm not allowed to, say, defecate? What if I'm positioned directly above them?
Simply being able to do something doesn't make it a right.
(I, and nobody else, own my car. I.e., nobody should be able to say I'm not allowed to max out the speedometer?)
I own my own body, does that mean nobody should be able to say I'm not allowed to, say, defecate? What if I'm positioned directly above them?
Simply being able to do something doesn't make it a right.
(I, and nobody else, own my car. I.e., nobody should be able to say I'm not allowed to max out the speedometer?)
Childbearing age may also be increased though. SO if you can have a kid at 200 who's perfectly healthy, why would you necessarily spurt one out at 20?
I don't think the parent post was talking about childbearing age; I interpreted it as being more of a society-imposed restriction based on the practicality of having a population that can be up to 1000 years old.
I'd say that's not really going to be an issue. Children, as is, are already encouraged by tax subsidies. You'd at worse have to take those away; people the world over are already limiting the birth rate (even places where birth control and a nice standard of living are unavailable). Additionally, the SENS plan isn't about a magical 1000yr life expectancy treatment, it's about increasing the rate of life expectancy gain up to an excess of 10 years per decade (for non-violent/non-accident deaths).
If you can live to 1k, and give birth for most if not all of your life, I think many people would think "being a parent" is something that could be put off a couple decades/centuries. Birth is not a pleasant process, and women aren't usually eager to have 10 kids.
If you can live to 1k, and give birth for most if not all of your life, I think many people would think "being a parent" is something that could be put off a couple decades/centuries. Birth is not a pleasant process, and women aren't usually eager to have 10 kids.
It's amazing to think that just 500 years ago things were so bad that people awaited death patiently and willingly because they believed life was a punishment rewarded with an afterlife.
Now we're trying to extend the amount of time that we live 10 fold because things are so great right now. I'm not saying either is right, just an observation.
Now we're trying to extend the amount of time that we live 10 fold because things are so great right now. I'm not saying either is right, just an observation.
Maybe you don't talk to religious folks much, but that attitude hasn't changed all that much.
I just have to shake my head at this. The only adequate word for this is arrogance. The arrogance to believe that we know enough about the processes of life to extend them indefinitely.
We don't even know what we don't know. How many times have we been at this place in the history of biology, where we honestly believe that we are just "that" close to figuring out the processes of life. We were wrong then, and we are wrong now.
We do not know or understand the over-arching cause of cancer, nor the cause of its radical increase. Similarly with heart disease: after a generation of assurances that the cause is a high-fat diet, the premise itself is being rejected. I could go down the list of major congenital diseases, and tell the same story. Even the most basic assumptions which we have about disease are being overturned. And whatever replaces them will likely be overturned yet again.
We don't even know what we don't know. How many times have we been at this place in the history of biology, where we honestly believe that we are just "that" close to figuring out the processes of life. We were wrong then, and we are wrong now.
We do not know or understand the over-arching cause of cancer, nor the cause of its radical increase. Similarly with heart disease: after a generation of assurances that the cause is a high-fat diet, the premise itself is being rejected. I could go down the list of major congenital diseases, and tell the same story. Even the most basic assumptions which we have about disease are being overturned. And whatever replaces them will likely be overturned yet again.
> We don't even know what we don't know. How many times have we been at this place in the history of biology, where we honestly believe that we are just "that" close to figuring out the processes of life. We were wrong then, and we are wrong now.
Aubrey's point is that we don't need to understand metabolism to repair the damage of aging, just like you can maintain and repair a house or a car without understanding in detail all of the mechanisms that cause damage and failure. You just clean up some of the damage and change some parts periodically so that it never reaches a threshold at which failure is possible.
Our bodies already do this quite well for the first 20-30 years of our lives, but after that, we're in an evolutionary blind spot and long-lived molecules accumulate and eventually make maintenance and repair mechanisms stop working for long enough to lead to pathologies. If we clean up these long-lived molecules, that'll be a very good start.
Aubrey's point is that we don't need to understand metabolism to repair the damage of aging, just like you can maintain and repair a house or a car without understanding in detail all of the mechanisms that cause damage and failure. You just clean up some of the damage and change some parts periodically so that it never reaches a threshold at which failure is possible.
Our bodies already do this quite well for the first 20-30 years of our lives, but after that, we're in an evolutionary blind spot and long-lived molecules accumulate and eventually make maintenance and repair mechanisms stop working for long enough to lead to pathologies. If we clean up these long-lived molecules, that'll be a very good start.
I disagree with your perspective. Scientists don't need to understand everything about life to make meaningful contributions to our lifespan. This stuff isn't magic - there are sound, repeatable principles at the bottom of everything you mention, and the principles are possibly within our grasp. The technology needed for making these discoveries only gets better with time, never worse.
Look at it this way: crude principles applied at the macro level have extended our lifespan by decades. As scientists get better and better at piecing together the building blocks from the bottom, they'll likely find principles at the micro level that improves our lifespan as well
Look at it this way: crude principles applied at the macro level have extended our lifespan by decades. As scientists get better and better at piecing together the building blocks from the bottom, they'll likely find principles at the micro level that improves our lifespan as well
From TFA: "And each method to do this is either already working in a preliminary form (in clinical trials) or is based on technologies that already exist and just need to be combined."
Totally agreed-- it's insane to think that because you can do some stuff in isolated cases, the combination is a trivial extension.
Totally agreed-- it's insane to think that because you can do some stuff in isolated cases, the combination is a trivial extension.
Hubris is the hallmark of entrepreneurial endeavors. I don't know how many sympathetic ears you'll have here if you're concerned about the "arrogance" of scientists.
The article claims that to suggest we should NOT defeat aging is ageism and denying people the right to live.
I disagree. Until we find a way to support a population that grows at a rate like that, we would be forced into one of several possible situations, none of which are pleasant:
1: starvation
2: endless war
3: iron-fisted birth regulation, only allowing one new child per legally documented death
3.5: The implications of couples who really want children + a rule saying they can have one, if someone has died
Until the question of resources is answered, granting people the right to live (longer) equates to denying other people either quality of life (starvation/war) or the chance to live at all (birth regulation). Which brings up another interesting question; if everyone alive has a right to life, do those who have not yet been born have a right to live as well?
I disagree. Until we find a way to support a population that grows at a rate like that, we would be forced into one of several possible situations, none of which are pleasant:
1: starvation
2: endless war
3: iron-fisted birth regulation, only allowing one new child per legally documented death
3.5: The implications of couples who really want children + a rule saying they can have one, if someone has died
Until the question of resources is answered, granting people the right to live (longer) equates to denying other people either quality of life (starvation/war) or the chance to live at all (birth regulation). Which brings up another interesting question; if everyone alive has a right to life, do those who have not yet been born have a right to live as well?
I'm not saying we shouldn't extend our lifespans- I would love to live to see a lot of things come to pass, like leaving our own galaxy- but to blindly proclaim anyone who opposes the goal is ageist is to ignore that the benefits have costs, especially considering we already have population issues looming on the horizon.
Call me utilitarian and get pissed that I might stand in your way of living forever, but we have to consider the bigger picture.
Call me utilitarian and get pissed that I might stand in your way of living forever, but we have to consider the bigger picture.
This article, and a few others covering exactly the same thing keep getting posted here ever few months. I hope Mr. de Grey is right, and I hope I live long enough to find out. That said, until there's some progress to announce, please stop re-posting this here.
Someone smarter than me noted that all predictions of living forever always have one thing in common: it places the time when people start living forever within the lifetime of the predictor.
Aubrey de Grey is 43, and he's predicting that this might be in place in 20 years.
Aubrey de Grey is 43, and he's predicting that this might be in place in 20 years.
Could you care to point out the number of correct predictions that take place well after the point of time they were made?
A number of Da Vinci's "inventions" were really just predictions of things that were invented much later (like his helicopter).
I think that's setting a low bar for "prediction" next to dated predictions like "In the next x years, we will be able to extend human lifespan by y years every z years."
I don't know that anyone can reasonably object to the theoretical possibility that an individual human life could be sustained indefinitely.
I don't know that anyone can reasonably object to the theoretical possibility that an individual human life could be sustained indefinitely.
Hell, give us another 50 years and I'm sure we'll all have our minds cloned into an army of robot bodies and computer brains for, uh, let's say longevity.
I heard some interesting insight recently. I am not sure how correct it is but it suggested that while we have made a lot of progress in living longer (allowing us to be old for longer) we have not made much progress at slowing down the process of aging (making it take longer to get old).
If we want to live long and fruitful lives, how do we slow down aging? I prefer that question over, how do we live until 1,000?
If we want to live long and fruitful lives, how do we slow down aging? I prefer that question over, how do we live until 1,000?
Life expectancy has increased a good amount in the past 50 years, raising by ~8.5. That is to say, for the exponentially increasing abilities of modern medicine, we have increased linearly in life expectancy. Maybe there is some breaking point, such as a universal cure for cancers and/or the end of heart disease, but regardless it seems like a huge leap to go from ~78 to ~1000 in life expectancy.
Much of life expectancy gains though are for the area south of 70. Much of SENS research hold's promise for the area north of 70. That's what's exciting. Especially if that we can live a healthy older age, even if it's not any longer.
(Truthfully, some cancer research benefits older people, as cancer has a much higher incidence as you age, however, much research out there is for middle of life diseases).
If my grandmother could play basketball again, she's love to.
Remember, people lived to 70 thousands of years ago.
Remember Ben Franklin lived to 84.
(Truthfully, some cancer research benefits older people, as cancer has a much higher incidence as you age, however, much research out there is for middle of life diseases).
If my grandmother could play basketball again, she's love to.
Remember, people lived to 70 thousands of years ago.
Remember Ben Franklin lived to 84.
Let's say that life expectancy is now increasing at a rate of 2 years per decade. If you want to live to 1000, you just need to increase that to 10 years per decade. You don't have to go from 78 to 1000 all at once.
Maintaining two per year for 500 years is more than sufficient.
Personally, I expect false starts in the next couple centuries. The beta testers will be healthy and fit into their hundreds, but those that follow may get to 200-400, then possibly further. There are just too many engineering issues to work out in a single iteration.
Personally, I expect false starts in the next couple centuries. The beta testers will be healthy and fit into their hundreds, but those that follow may get to 200-400, then possibly further. There are just too many engineering issues to work out in a single iteration.
Very true.
Is there any practical ways to apply some of this research today? It seems like there must be something out there we can be doing right now to help ward off aging?
Also what is the most promising research being done?
Also what is the most promising research being done?
instead, let's engineer away our anxieties about not existing.
And after living a 1000 years one is going to walk into the central computer, edit their memories and be born again a few millenniums later.
I am a pretty big fan of Arthur C. Clarke.
I am a pretty big fan of Arthur C. Clarke.
I'm pretty sure that beard will need a trim by 3010.
Where do I donate to ensure I don't live till 1,000? Nuclear weapon research?
I understand you might not want to live that long, but why would you want to take that away from others?
Yesterday my goal was to live 150 years. I am expanding it to 250 now :D
Ignoring any claims that the man is a crackpot and any other problems one might have with the science. Does anyone really want to live to 1000? I think you might get a little bored :-/
I've always preferred the idea of immortality on the installment plan -- get frozen/stored/whatever, then woken up every couple hundred or couple thousand years, do stuff, go back into freeze/storage/whatever.
Which, at least for me, is less about avoiding death (which doesn't actually scare me all that much) and more about just getting to see what sort of cool stuff the future holds.
Which, at least for me, is less about avoiding death (which doesn't actually scare me all that much) and more about just getting to see what sort of cool stuff the future holds.
You will live in a perpetual state of cultural shock. You can't possibly be useful to the society in that situation.
Meh. If the technology existed to do that, society would have to find ways to cope with it anyway.
"Does anyone really want to live to 1000? I think you might get a little bored"
Boredom is infinitely better than nothingness.
Boredom is infinitely better than nothingness.
http://www.sens.org/
Sadly, because aging isn't considered a disease by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, there is actually very little research being done on it if you take into consideration the fact that it kills more people than anything else in the rich countries (100-150k/day, usually after a long period of suffering).
If you want to learn more about what they are doing and why they think their engineering approach has a chance of success, check out Aubrey's book (the paperback version contains a new chapter, afaik):
http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Breakthrough...
It contains a lot of biology, but should be understandable to the lay person.
And if all you want is a really quick intro, check out his TED talk (it's a bit old now (2005), but the general concepts have stayed mostly the same despite recent progress):
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_ag...
or the talk that he gave at Google (2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEyguiO4UW0