Indefinite Life Extension Therapies

[Yossarian]

http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html

I have mixed feelings about this talk. I do like the idea, and I do think it is possible eventually, but I think this speaker is way too optimistic about the prospects of accomplishing this so soon.

A few things.

-Biotech is damn expensive. If you wanted to have world-class scientists, facilities, equipment, materials, clinical trials, etc, 100 mil a year is pushing it for such a short time frame.*

-The steady decline of the human body is not fully understood. The speaker makes it seem like a simple set of 7 or so "problems" that, if rectified, grant immortality. This is not correct. There is not accounting for the number of unforeseen breakdowns that can and will occur should these problems be fixed. It would be like saying if I change the oil, gas, and tires of my car every X number of miles, the car will last forever. Not so, but in the short run it would appear that way. It will only make it last long enough to uncover another breakdown which may or may not be easy to fix and may or may not be easy to elucidate in sufficient time that it will not kill the car/person. This type of escalation throws a monkey wrench into any estimation of how long it will be before indefinite life extension is possible.*

-Every cell that divides or has the potential to divide in your body is a time bomb for cancer. Based on your DNA polymerase (the enzyme that copies your DNA) error rate, and the number of genetic mutations it will take to turn a cell cancerous (genetic disposition), you can have a higher or lower probability. Mutagens in the environment, drugs, and diet can affect this probability. The longer you live, the greater and greater your risk is that you will develop cancer. Living forever means that, quite possibly, you will at some point develop every type of cancer possible. Curing every form of cancer is a very large and unmentioned addendum to the indefinite life extension therapies 'to do' list, essentially making the task much more difficult. Just improving the DNA polymerase error rate isn't even enough, it is a numbers game, as long as cells are dividing, errors can and will be made. So a cure would be necessary, yet this is omitted.*

And now that I approach the end of this, I am worried that I am bashing a speaker for brevity and "dumbing-down" when he does in fact have to be brief and dumb it down for the audience's and time's sake. Well, oops.


What do you think of this talk? Is it possible? How long do you suppose it will take? Am I off base in my disparaging remarks?


*If I missed a part where these issues are addressed I apologize.

 

[Jah]

I'm intrigued by de Grey

And if it, now that the research is started, turns out that his proposed techniques are plausible, I'm very open for this.


If his calculations are correct, 1000 years is not an underestimation.
It seems plausible, but needs more research.
And depending upon research and funding it may take from 20-30 years and up, if possible.
The limitations on time does hinder him in going in-depth in his concepts and propositions. If you look into the Methuselah foundation or SENS you may find that he is able to go into this deeper explanation that you may have felt was missing in his brief Talk.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

Apparently cancer cells don't die. Within the advancement of DNA research, it might be possible to find some part of the DNA that allows for that, and to replicate it it animal cells. This said, I think that's a horrible idea. The person who made it would copyright it and sell it at a really high price. Then only the rich would be able to afford it. The rich already have too much power.
If testing started well, people might rush the stuff into production and we might end up with bad effects later on. And if that was true, there might be a potential for a "I Am Legend" (the movie storyline, not the book) scenario.
And besides that, if we all lived indefinitely, a life sentence in jail would be a huge burden on taxpayers because being locked up alone means a lesser chance of harm coming to you. People like Hitler might never die if they go away, and they could keep coming back for more. The entire thing is just dangerous and favors the rich. I'm all for keeping people healthy, but messing with the natural occurrence of death could really hurt the rest of us. Why not let things take their natural course and just try to make the best of them where we can?

 

[Cognisant]

Personally my money's on the "brain in a jar" method, i.e. you don't need to keep your whole body alive, just your brain, and creating an artificial life support system that can maintain the necessary conditions to keep a brain alive is already feasible now. The whole idea of this is that an artificial life support system can have numerous redundancies, making it incredibly unlikely for the brain to die if the system is properly maintained, and by reducing the biological tissue involved to only the brain the chances of cancer or some other form of disease occurring are significantly reduced.

Of course said brain in a figurative jar would need some way of interacting with the outside world, hence the term "proxy" which I use describe a remotely operated humanoid robotic body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Warwick#Project_Cyborg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Applications_of_entanglement

Melatonin, stem cells, antioxidants, and various life extension drugs could be used to prolong the brain's functional lifetime, for how long exactly I have no idea, but a period of 200 years would be sufficient as to allow other options become available.

 

[Alice?]

Personally my money's on the "brain in a jar" method

Spoiler

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Welcome to the forum, Yossarian!

I've read Aubrey de Grey's book "Ending Aging", and me and my bachelors of science in biochemistry say you're misinformed. But I'm glad you're thinking about this topic critically!

The 7 problems are broad categories. So yes, there might be other problems arising. And Aubrey de Grey expects there to be other problems arising.

But here's the thing: First we'll solve the problems that appear first. Maybe once we have 150 year olds we'll start realizing other problems that accrue. And fix those. And there's no guarantee that those 150 year olds will survive that period.

Remember that we're not immediately going to have "immortality treatments". It will be a series of separate treatments, appearing at different times, slowly extending life.

Yossarian, have you heard of the technological singularity? I feel that this concept plays a very significant role with Aubrey de Grey's predictions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

-Every cell that divides or has the potential to divide in your body is a time bomb for cancer. Based on your DNA polymerase (the enzyme that copies your DNA) error rate, and the number of genetic mutations it will take to turn a cell cancerous (genetic disposition), you can have a higher or lower probability. Mutagens in the environment, drugs, and diet can affect this probability. The longer you live, the greater and greater your risk is that you will develop cancer. Living forever means that, quite possibly, you will at some point develop every type of cancer possible. Curing every form of cancer is a very large and unmentioned addendum to the indefinite life extension therapies 'to do' list, essentially making the task much more difficult. Just improving the DNA polymerase error rate isn't even enough, it is a numbers game, as long as cells are dividing, errors can and will be made. So a cure would be necessary, yet this is omitted.*

Yes, we will get cancer. It is a tough problem. But one of the things with cancer is that it often spreads so much more in old people is because their non-cancerous cells are not dividing as fast, and aren't performing as well. The cancer starts out-competing the cells even more. But yeah, that is only one factor. I feel like there is going to be more very novel treatments that will be able to broadly treat cancer, rather than having to hunt down each specific type.

Apparently cancer cells don't die. Within the advancement of DNA research, it might be possible to find some part of the DNA that allows for that, and to replicate it it animal cells. This said, I think that's a horrible idea. The person who made it would copyright it and sell it at a really high price. Then only the rich would be able to afford it. The rich already have too much power.

First of all, your science is off. We're not looking for cancer-cell strategies to make our cells immortal, except possibly with telomeres.

And as for the rest: Really? You're going to make this an anti-rich argument? Doesn't an organization that extends life this far DESERVE to be rewarded? For being such a humanitarian?

Yes, we should punish the geniuses who are going to dedicate to their life to discovering this. They could be living off welfare, smoking weed everyday, fucking prostitutes and stealing whatever they need. Instead they're dedicating their lives to helping others! I'm so fucking sick of the anti-rich rhetoric.

But. Let's say that they PATENTED it (you copyright books, you don't copyright treatments/drugs) and were abusing their power with it. If they were abusive enough with it, and if I have the skill to do it, then I PROMISE you that I will violate patents and do black-market immortality treatments.

Patents are good, but when it comes down to it human life is more important than patents.

If testing started well, people might rush the stuff into production and we might end up with bad effects later on. And if that was true, there might be a potential for a "I Am Legend" (the movie storyline, not the book) scenario.

Too much hollywood for you. You don't understand biology enough. Or research & FDA approval, for that matter.

And besides that, if we all lived indefinitely, a life sentence in jail would be a huge burden on taxpayers because being locked up alone means a lesser chance of harm coming to you. People like Hitler might never die if they go away, and they could keep coming back for more. The entire thing is just dangerous and favors the rich. I'm all for keeping people healthy, but messing with the natural occurrence of death could really hurt the rest of us. Why not let things take their natural course and just try to make the best of them where we can?

The burden on the government will be real. But who said we had to give these treatments to prisoners? If there is any burden on the government, it's going to be pensions and medicare. Because even if people are paying privately for their life-extension treatments, they will still be on the government payroll for the rest of their health issues.

If you think life extension is dangerous, that's fine. But I'm not going to take you seriously until you complete swear off all western medicine and doctors. Until then, you are a hypocrit. You are the recipient of countless improvements in quality and length of life, but for some reasons those are okay? Aren't you happy that you didn't get polio?

Personally my money's on the "brain in a jar" method, i.e. you don't need to keep your whole body alive, just your brain, and creating an artificial life support system that can maintain the necessary conditions to keep a brain alive is already feasible now. The whole idea of this is that an artificial life support system can have numerous redundancies, making it incredibly unlikely for the brain to die if the system is properly maintained, and by reducing the biological tissue involved to only the brain the chances of cancer or some other form of disease occurring are significantly reduced.

Personally, my money is against yours. I just feel that my body is the product of millions (if not billions) of years of research and development and perfection for encasing my brain. If I can keep my body healthy, then that would be preferable to being put in a jar.

 

[Cognisant]

The human body was never meant to be immortal, for example we only have one heart, and if that heart, just that one organ, stops working for even five minutes, you're dead.

If I can keep my body healthy, then that would be preferable to being put in a jar.

I agree that it's preferable, but in the pursuit of immortality there will be sacrifices.

 

[CoryJames]

I have a feeling that even if these therapies were able to me created, and wouldn't cause harbor awful consequences, (which I doubt), they would be expensive to the point of ridiculousness, and commercialized. You are thinking "I am legend", I am thinking I am legend with a side of Repo Men.

Either way, would you honestly want to live that long?

 

[Cognisant]

Do you want to die?

 

[CoryJames]

I want to know that an end is coming so I can appreciate the now. The sooner you think your end is coming, the more you appreciate things.

 

[Cognisant]

You want to die so you can appreciate life, I don't want to die because I already do.

The reason I can appreciate life without succumbing to the horror of potentially losing it, a horror derived directly from the appreciation of life, is because I don't take life itself for granted, i.e. I was never meant to live, so why should I expect anything more than the lifetime I get?

Of course this sentiment is based in nihilism...

 

[CoryJames]

Yes, well I am a catholic (open-minded, but practicing) not a nihilist. If I knew that I was going to live for 1000 years, I would not be able to appreciate the now as much. That is just my outlook. Perhaps it is a misjudged one, but I do not see the reason that anyone would appreciate every second as much if they knew they had 10+ times as many.

 

[Cognisant]

I do not see the reason that anyone would appreciate every second as much if they knew they had 10+ times as many.

I don't see why not

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Philosophy & bullshit aside, when CoryJames is old and it comes down to it: he'll probably take the treatment(s). Because it won't be sold to him as extending his life 920 more years, it'll be sold to him as extending his life 10-20 more years.

And then again. And again. And it'll become the social norm.

 

[Jah]

The whole idea that "Knowing I will die makes me appreciate the now" and/or "...take better care of myself in order to live better the limited time I have" are inadequate insofar as arguments go,

This is a proposition that we, if we are serious about it, will keep pushing the boundaries of when death must occur until the boundaries exceed 1000+ years. (If at all possible)


All those arguments that plead that the immortal gods envy the mortals etc. are all manifest from accepting that which is unavoidable, Death.
They are consolidation for that which is inevitable, and an acceptance of death. (In other words, these come from people who have come to terms with mortality, and seek to comfort others on the matter)

If Death can successfully be circumvented, these arguments cease their value, and won't be found anymore.


(I mean, come on. Do you really mean that given the alternative you will choose not to live, and stick to it (if given time to think, can't change your mind after the fact. )?
Remember, this is the life, and this is the only moment in time You will exist. Even 1000 years will be a mere blip on the eternity of the universe.)

 

[CoryJames]

Looking at it that way, if I felt as though and believed it was 10-20 more years, I might take the treatment, because I would think since its a short time I could still appreciate it. Thats a paradox in my philosophy. Hm...

 

[CoryJames]

And endless set of short steps forward which would allow me to view it as a finite period of life left as opposed to the infinite time it would really be.

But it also depends on what I would feel like/how my state of being would be at the time. Would I be preserving my hold on life as a dependent old guy who can barely walk? Or would I be prolonging the life of a 20-40 year old, where I can still play sports and get it up in bed?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

And endless set of short steps forward which would allow me to view it as a finite period of life left as opposed to the infinite time it would really be.

But it also depends on what I would feel like/how my state of being would be at the time. Would I be preserving my hold on life as a dependent old guy who can barely walk? Or would I be prolonging the life of a 20-40 year old, where I can still play sports and get it up in bed?

Yeah, the goal is to extend healthy life. Aubrey sees the potential goal as everyone maintaining the fitness level of someone in their 40s. Who knows if that is actually how it will play out.

You could probably play golf, tennis and bowling, but you might not want to play football.

 

[Himself]

I don't know if any of you have read Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga, but this discussion reminds me of his concept of "rejuvenation," and how widespread adoption of the technology changed society. He's really quite insightful in his discussion of how our economy and other societal norms would change in response to the idea, although you wouldn't necessarily guess it from the blurb I linked to above.

 

[CoryJames]

I really doubt we will reach any level of serious life expectancy increase within the next 50 years. It would be cool though.

 

[Cognisant]

Personally my money's on the "brain in a jar" method, i.e. you don't need to keep your whole body alive, just your brain, and creating an artificial life support system that can maintain the necessary conditions to keep a brain alive is already feasible now. The whole idea of this is that an artificial life support system can have numerous redundancies, making it incredibly unlikely for the brain to die if the system is properly maintained, and by reducing the biological tissue involved to only the brain the chances of cancer or some other form of disease occurring are significantly reduced.

Of course said brain in a figurative jar would need some way of interacting with the outside world, hence the term "proxy" which I use describe a remotely operated humanoid robotic body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Warwick#Project_Cyborg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Applications_of_entanglement

Melatonin, stem cells, antioxidants, and various life extension drugs could be used to prolong the brain's functional lifetime, for how long exactly I have no idea, but a period of 200 years would be sufficient as to allow other options become available.

Ahem?

This technology exists now, granted it's neither practical nor proven, but in another fifty years I figure this technology isn't just going to be practical, it'll be societal standard.
And luckily I'm probably going to live that long (I'm 20 now).

 

[CoryJames]

Yea, sweet, your brain will survive, while your body will be dead.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

I really doubt we will reach any level of serious life expectancy increase within the next 50 years. It would be cool though.

I'm friends with two people who know Aubrey de Grey. They say that Aubrey expects his mother to receive the benefits of radical life extension.

I'm 23, and my grandfather is turning 94 in a week. So, even if your (unfounded) guess is right, I am going to be golden.

 

[CoryJames]

Yes, of course Aubrey expects that. He is the one who wants funding for it. I am speaking from am objective standpoint. I am not against life extension, but I am not for it either. I have no stake in it.

 

[Cognisant]

Yea, sweet, your brain will survive, while your body will be dead.

Great isn't it, I could potentially hook my brain up to any number of different bodies, some robotic, some cloned (modified), heck anything with a CPU and some form of two way communications would potentially be a part of me.

Why should I care what happens to the body I'm in now?

 

[Black Rose]

I think that Human Body 3.0 will be available by 2025 (speculative guess) when self replicating nanobots are invented.

 

[WhoAmI]

To add to this I have read that in 1-4 years we will have the choice to buy pills to help our bodys live longer than anyone has ever thaught because we know enough information about how cells die we can prevent it so i guess step 1 complete? another tidbit of info breast cancer will be fixed in a few years perfect lab trials on mice have shown this and anyone see the 160 something old indian women in india and the other indian who can live successfully without food and water? All stranger than this and yet its true......