Transhumanists, REJOICE!

[Havet]

... and everyone else who's interested in reverse aging.

Excellent news in the field of medicine:

http://www.vimeo.com/7339349

Here's (http://www.sens.org/) the link to the foundation.

Here's Auberey de Grey explaining Longevity Escape Velocity and Singularity (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/people-blog/?p=192)

[Demogorgon]

I've only watched a third so far, but I can see a problem already and that is that aging is far from the be all and end all of dying. You can see this in the fact that we have a different maximum and average life span. It is estimated maximum life span for the luckiest people may be in the region of 125 whereas average life span in the most developed parts of the world is around 80.

The reason for this is old age is very rarely the cause of death. My mother (a Geriatrician) has only ever signed one death certificate where she put old age down as the primary cause of death. It is an exacerbating factor as it lowers immunity, weakens bones and so forth, but the main reason getting older can have such an effect is that over the years damage to our lungs builds up from breathing in pollution (and tobacco if we smoke), our arteries get clogged from eating unhealthy food, damage is done to our bodies from alcohol use, various illnesses leave their mark and so on. Over the years it builds up. To be sure we can mitigate that a long way through healthy lifestyles (but how many do?) and decent medical care, but you can't undo it completely.

Next there are causes of death that have nothing to do with aging at all-accidents mostly-and ones that while more likely with age can happen at any time, frequently without warning-strokes to take one example.

Now of course if we go back to aging, if we can slow it or reverse it, certainly our lifespan may increase as our immune systems will stay strong for longer and our bodies will be better equipped to withstand damage, but it probably won't add more than a few decades at best.

You also have to bare in mind that this "maintenance" will get harder over time as well. After all with cars to use his example, the older they get, the more work it is, so we can't expect rejuvenation, should methods be discovered, to work too many times.

So yes, average and maybe even maximum lifespan will be extended, just don't expect too much. And that there is just the medical problem. The other problem of course is social conditions. People from less privileged backgrounds live shorter lifespans already.

I have to give him credit for that amazing beard though.

[Havet]

You also have to bare in mind that this "maintenance" will get harder over time as well. After all with cars to use his example, the older they get, the more work it is, so we can't expect rejuvenation, should methods be discovered, to work too many times.

It now takes less effort to maintain an old car than what it used to take years ago.


I have to give him credit for that amazing beard though.

lol

[Havet]

I forgot to address some points




Next there are causes of death that have nothing to do with aging at all-accidents mostly-and ones that while more likely with age can happen at any time, frequently without warning-strokes to take one example.

This is mentioned in the video


Now of course if we go back to aging, if we can slow it or reverse it, certainly our lifespan may increase as our immune systems will stay strong for longer and our bodies will be better equipped to withstand damage, but it probably won't add more than a few decades at best.

Again, watch the rest of the video. it shows the data they came up with in their assertions that people will be able to live more than a few decades (they predict unlimited natural biological life with regular maintenance)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

*sighs*

You meant Transhumanists, not Technocrats. Technocracy has nothing to do with preventing aging or other modifications of the human species.

[Demogorgon]

Again, watch the rest of the video. it shows the data they came up with in their assertions that people will be able to live more than a few decades (they predict unlimited natural biological life with regular maintenance)
No, he didn't explain it. He claimed it would be possible to fully rejuvenate the body and reverse all aging (something I doubt incidentally, it is one thing to slow the process and partly restore (something I think will be achieved one day, though not for a while) and stopping it entirely. But that does not address my point at all. My point was that there is damage cause by living that has nothing to do with aging. It is just that they build up over time and as I say these are far more likely to kill than old age. After all, as I say old age is almost never the cause of death, it just makes people less likely to withstand blows to their health. So while slowing aging will certainly increase survival rates, these problems will still catch up eventually.

TO illustrate as well, forty year old people are generally in good health and not expected to die, but if say you take a heavy smoker you might say they have an eighty year old's lungs. Therefore you would not expect them to be in such good health. Now if we take an actual eighty year old and rejuvenate them so that the process of aging is mitigated to the extent they are biologically forty, they will actually look like that heavy smoker forty year old. That is reversing or stopping the aging process won't change the fact that eighty years of damage have been done to the lungs.

Now of course we may find ways of caring for lungs better and so forth, but I just use that as way of example, there are lots of things that affect us as we get older that are the bumps and bruises of living a long life, not aging itself.

Aging is still quite poorly understood, so I don't want to make strong statements here, but it is the case as I understand it, that it almost never kills, it is just that the body deteriorates in a manner that makes it less likely to successfully fight off illness or injury. But these things still come and if they happen often enough they will finish off a younger person too.

So those are my two primary objections: a) that aging is only part of the problem of getting older, the other part is accumulation of damage and b) aging rarely kills rather it makes other maladies more likely to. Mitigate aging and the death rate from almost all maladies will fall, but given time they will still carry people off.

So presuming we can find a way to slow down aging (it is extremely unlikely it can be stopped altogether but let's presume it can), life expectency will certainly increase, but we won't live forever.

The other thing of course is that all of this will remain theoretical for quite some time. The process of aging simply isn't well enough understood yet for a means of mitigating it to come along soon.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So will this stop old people looking old, because when im old I imagine that along with floppy syndrome would turn me into an old age nun.

[Havet]

No, he didn't explain it. He claimed it would be possible to fully rejuvenate the body and reverse all aging (something I doubt incidentally, it is one thing to slow the process and partly restore (something I think will be achieved one day, though not for a while) and stopping it entirely. But that does not address my point at all. My point was that there is damage cause by living that has nothing to do with aging. It is just that they build up over time and as I say these are far more likely to kill than old age. After all, as I say old age is almost never the cause of death, it just makes people less likely to withstand blows to their health. So while slowing aging will certainly increase survival rates, these problems will still catch up eventually.

So those are my two primary objections: a) that aging is only part of the problem of getting older, the other part is accumulation of damage and b) aging rarely kills rather it makes other maladies more likely to. Mitigate aging and the death rate from almost all maladies will fall, but given time they will still carry people off.

He never claims aging is the problem per se.

What he says is that aging increases damage which accumulates until it reaches a pathology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathology)

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7071/sensn.jpg



The other thing of course is that all of this will remain theoretical for quite some time. The process of aging simply isn't well enough understood yet for a means of mitigating it to come along soon.

Hence his emphasis on using the metabolism's own actions to reduce damage (through external intervention aka maintenance), rather than trying to understand all the extremely complex mechanisms of our metabolism, which we know very little off.

It's basically the limbo between acting too early that we don't know what to do, or acting too late that the damage accumulated will not be able to be reversed so easily, hence reducing the future lifespan forever.

[Havet]

*sighs*

You meant Transhumanists, not Technocrats. Technocracy has nothing to do with preventing aging or other modifications of the human species.


What is the purpose of a Technocratic society?

The stated goal of a Technocratic society is to provide the highest standard of living possible to all citizens for the longest period possible.

Certainly increasing the lifespan of people is increasing their highest standard of living, assuming the general freedom is increased and exploitation is decreased in a society?

[Havet]

So will this stop old people looking old, because when im old I imagine that along with floppy syndrome would turn me into an old age nun.

This will (potentially and hypothetically) make you live healthily past 1000 years

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Il probably get bored by then / hit by a car / hit over the head / shot / stabbed.

[Havet]

Il probably get bored by then / hit by a car / hit over the head / shot / stabbed.

Probably

[Demogorgon]

He never claims aging is the problem per se.

What he says is that aging increases damage which accumulates until it reaches a pathology[/URL]
That isn't satisfactory though. As I explained the build up of a lot of damage in a younger person will still be enough to kill them without the process of aging weakening them. If you slow down the aging process then what you will get is people eventually reaching the state where they look like a young person who has accumulated a lot of damage. Now that will mean an increase in lifespan, but not one longer than a few decades.

Of course at the same time treatment for these things will improve, and of course that is a lot more certain than being able to find a way to mitigate aging. After all, humanity has yet to achieve anything at all in terms of extending maximum lifespan but has had extraordinary success in increasing average lifespan. Improved medical abilities means that is probably isn't long before life expectancy amongst the most privileged people exceeds a hundred* so that kind of medical advance combined with a means of mitigating aging could well give people a significant boost. We aren;t talking crazy numbers here though


Hence his emphasis on using the metabolism's own actions to reduce damage (through external intervention aka maintenance), rather than trying to understand all the extremely complex mechanisms of our metabolism, which we know very little off.

It's basically the limbo between acting too early that we don't know what to do, or acting too late that the damage accumulated will not be able to be reversed so easily, hence reducing the future lifespan forever.Well the thing is he is insanely optimistic about what he can achieve, which is actually quite a good quality in a scientist as it will help drive him, but the rest of us should keep our expectations realistic. The thing is, until you understand aging, you aren't going to be able to do a great deal about it. He does have proposed techniques and they may or may not work as he intends but if they do they will still be only partially successful and will experience diminishing returns.

I think what we have to bare in mind here though, is that so far no progress has ever been made in this field. All increases in human lifespan have been extensions in average lifespan as I pointed out. Now it is great that some scientists are pushing at the boundaries here and looking for a way to make breakthroughs, but until they start to get results, it would be unwise to make any predictions of what might happen.

On a different but related note, it occurs to me that talking about greatly extending people's lives will all be a bit meaningless anyway until a cure for cancer is discovered. That's not mentioned as a criticism of the concept of life extension. Just a thought worth pondering.

*Presuming things like the rise in obesity don't slow this down too much.

[Jazzratt]

[/I]

Certainly increasing the lifespan of people is increasing their highest standard of living, assuming the general freedom is increased and exploitation is decreased in a society?

Technocrats, and the technocratic idea, is more concerened with the creation of and distribution (i.e not trade) of abundance toward this end. This is no more interesting to technocrats than it is to any other ideology that attempts to make the world a better place for mankind. I'm with NoXion, Transhumanists would be your lads for this kind of thing if you don't mind me changing the title.

[Havet]

Technocrats, and the technocratic idea, is more concerened with the creation of and distribution (i.e not trade) of abundance toward this end. This is no more interesting to technocrats than it is to any other ideology that attempts to make the world a better place for mankind. I'm with NoXion, Transhumanists would be your lads for this kind of thing if you don't mind me changing the title.

Well then, I suppose you ought to know more about Technocracy than me.

I apologize for the inconvenience. Can you change the title?

[Led Zeppelin]

That isn't satisfactory though. As I explained the build up of a lot of damage in a younger person will still be enough to kill them without the process of aging weakening them. If you slow down the aging process then what you will get is people eventually reaching the state where they look like a young person who has accumulated a lot of damage. Now that will mean an increase in lifespan, but not one longer than a few decades.

Of course you are right, to a certain degree. I believe you aren't paying enough attention to the ability of tissue and cells to regenerate though. In young people, the regeneration of tissue is pretty constant. When you get bruised, the tissue heals. When you break a leg, it heals. And so on and so forth. If you stop aging, biologically you will also prevent the degeneration of tissues and cells which occurs when you're older (more cells die than are created to replace them).

But then where you do have a point is biological processes like the build-up of fat in the arteries and so on. But isn't it the case that things like the latter are also relatively easily preventable if you only live a healthy lifestyle? If you work-out regularly, have a healthy diet, and no longer age when you are, say, 25, then you can theoretically live for a very long period of time before the tissues are so damaged by externalities that they become useless.

I think the idea is though to be able to use stem-cells to basically re-create all human tissues, whereby even the impacts of external wear and tear will be curable.

[Demogorgon]

Of course you are right, to a certain degree. I believe you aren't paying enough attention to the ability of tissue and cells to regenerate though. In young people, the regeneration of tissue is pretty constant. When you get bruised, the tissue heals. When you break a leg, it heals. And so on and so forth. If you stop aging, biologically you will also prevent the degeneration of tissues and cells which occurs when you're older (more cells die than are created to replace them).

But then where you do have a point is biological processes like the build-up of fat in the arteries and so on. But isn't it the case that things like the latter are also relatively easily preventable if you only live a healthy lifestyle? If you work-out regularly, have a healthy diet, and no longer age when you are, say, 25, then you can theoretically live for a very long period of time before the tissues are so damaged by externalities that they become useless.

I think the idea is though to be able to use stem-cells to basically re-create all human tissues, whereby even the impacts of external wear and tear will be curable.Quite possibly, so long as you did live a healthy life (though occasionally things like heart attacks still happen) but in reality most people find it difficult to do so. People will always drink, smoke and eat unhealthily. You are right that young people can withstand that better, but they can't withstand it forever. People interested in life extension focus naturally on the aging process, but make the mistake of looking at it as a cause of death when it rarely kills itself.

The other reason to be skeptical of this though, as I say, is that no progress has been made so far. I find it difficult to get excited over technology that doesn't exist yet. Until solid evidence comes that we are achieving something, I prefer to wait. Certainly without any way of reversing aging life expectancy will level off in the early to mid 90s, so that is what we should presume people will be able to live to on average until breakthroughs in this field start to appear.

[Led Zeppelin]

Quite possibly, so long as you did live a healthy life (though occasionally things like heart attacks still happen) but in reality most people find it difficult to do so. People will always drink, smoke and eat unhealthily. You are right that young people can withstand that better, but they can't withstand it forever. People interested in life extension focus naturally on the aging process, but make the mistake of looking at it as a cause of death when it rarely kills itself.

Yes of course, it's ridiculous to think that you can live whatever lifestyle you want (including a healthy one) and become immortal just because you no longer age.

There are a lot of variables which play a part.


The other reason to be skeptical of this though, as I say, is that no progress has been made so far. I find it difficult to get excited over technology that doesn't exist yet. Until solid evidence comes that we are achieving something, I prefer to wait. Certainly without any way of reversing aging life expectancy will level off in the early to mid 90s, so that is what we should presume people will be able to live to on average until breakthroughs in this field start to appear.

I'm not really excited about this either. I'm more excited about the prospects of stem-cell research because there's actually been some very successful tests with it, so it has shown its promise in practice. There's a lot more to gain from there anyway. I'd rather live for 90 years in a healthy body than for 200 years in a crappy one.

[Demogorgon]

Yes of course, it's ridiculous to think that you can live whatever lifestyle you want (including a healthy one) and become immortal just because you no longer age.

There are a lot of variables which play a part.

I'm not really excited about this either. I'm more excited about the prospects of stem-cell research because there's actually been some very successful tests with it, so it has shown its promise in practice. There's a lot more to gain from there anyway. I'd rather live for 90 years in a healthy body than for 200 years in a crappy one.
You are right. Stem Cell research shows a lot of promise indeed, but is of course about repairing damage, curing illnesses and so forth, not about undoing aging. What we need to always remember is that average and maximum lifespan are two different things and whereas average lifespan continues to increase, maximum lifespan never has which means we will hit a glass ceiling with life expectancy until some means of halting or reversing aging occurs. And as nothing has been achieved there yet, we had best not get our hopes up.

Also as I mentioned in passing, until we find cures for presently incurable diseases like cancer and HiV, all of this will only have limited benefit.

Also to bring up another problem again, if we do extend lifespan, we don't know what new problems that will throw up, particularly with regards to the mind. Little point in living longer if we all suffer dementia (which eventually kills anyway as eventually it takes away the swallowing reflex). They are apparently not too far away from a cure to Alzheimer's, which is great, but Vascular Dementia is probably incurable because it is not a disease or anything but rather a symptom of a series of small strokes. The longer we live, the greater our chances of suffering that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

[/I]

Certainly increasing the lifespan of people is increasing their highest standard of living, assuming the general freedom is increased and exploitation is decreased in a society?

Jazzratt gave a good answer, but I will add that, strange as it may seem, some people might not want to live for as long as possible. Such people and their choices must also be taken into account.

[Havet]

Jazzratt gave a good answer, but I will add that, strange as it may seem, some people might not want to live for as long as possible. Such people and their choices must also be taken into account.

Certainly. Nobody would like to be forced to live more than they wish to. Take voluntary euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_euthanasia), for example.