10 replies to this topic

[Bogomoletz II]

Indisputably, the dogma — worse, the indifference — with which the scientific community chanted the "inevitability" mantra in the past was a grave mistake; however, so many of us here are succumbing to a similar weakness by subscribing so uncritically to the faith that aging is stoppable, or even permanently reversible. Well, what makes you so sure? The truth is that nobody knows. In fact, not only do we not know whether it's possible to cure aging, but we don't even know yet if it's possible to find out whether it's possible to cure aging.
What would we have to do to determine that? Well, Leonard Hayflick thought he had proved aging incurable back in 1961 by showing that there was a limit to the number of times a cell could divide (the Hayflick limit). Elizabeth Blackburn's subsequent discovery of the telomere led to the finding that the limit was, namely, telomere length. In later studies, mice genetically engineered to have greater endogenous production of the enzyme telomerase, which promotes telomere length, lived longer. Of course, there's also the pesky question whether telomerase is carcinogenic in humans. Telomeres are apparently not the last word on aging, as telomere length in various species/taxa doesn't correlate perfectly with lifespan, but it is a huge piece of the puzzle when it comes to aging theory.
In 1971 Richard Nixon declared a "War on cancer." 43 years later our options for treatment are surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy — cut, poison and burn — the same old triad. Assuming that the aging process is more complicated than cancer, what can we hope for when the amount of funds allocated to research on the latter malady is just a fraction of the amount of funds allocated to research on the former malady? Likely, a final solution to the problem of aging would be much more difficult than a final solution to the cancer problem — or not. Putting a person on the Moon turned out to be easier than saving that person from certain kinds of cancer. You don't know until you try. But society is not even trying, because it has other priorities — false priorities — for obvious reasons: the pro-aging trance.
In analogy with the presumption of innocence in law, medicine has an unwritten presumption of curability: "Theoretically curable until proven otherwise." There is no such diseases that would make a researcher look in the microscope and decide, "Nah, you're screwed, Mister Patient. Absolutely nothing we could ever do about this one!" Personally, I'm willing to fight to my last breath for even the slightest, snowball's-chance-in-hell likelihood of bringing the curse of aging to an end; and that likelihood will never go away, because absolute certainty is always false when dealing with the real world. "Cure aging or die trying," as the saying goes.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 23 February 2014 - 04:57 AM.

[niner]

however, so many of us here are succumbing to a similar weakness by subscribing so uncritically to the faith that aging is stoppable, or even permanently reversible. Well, what makes you so sure? The truth is that nobody knows. In fact, not only do we not know whether it's possible to cure aging, but we don't even know yet if it's possible to find out whether it's possible to cure aging.

You could say that about anything. How do you really know that atoms exist? We will attack the problem of aging the same way we attack all problems. Experiment. Try things. We know a number of things that contribute to aging- the "seven deadly things" of SENS. We will devise methods of dealing with each of them, try them out, and see what happens. At least some of that will probably work, and will buy us time until we figure out the rest of it.

What if we don't figure it all out, or there is some unknown "law of nature" that prevents us from ever fully reversing aging? Well, so what? We'll still be in a better place than we are today.

[forever freedom]

Aging is not a law of physics therefore it is not inevitable. It is just a huge challenge.

[Bogomoletz II]

You could say that about anything. How do you really know that atoms exist? We will attack the problem of aging the same way we attack all problems. Experiment. Try things.

Oh, but that's not the same thing. For once, your example is about whether x exists, whereas the question in the title is more concerned with whether a cure, or at least an efficient treatment, for aging can ever exist. Next, one is a descriptive issue, and the other normative: you need to achieve x, but it's unknown if x is achievable; "is" would necessarily imply "ought" (even though "is not" would not necessarily imply "ought not"). The difference, also, is in the amount of evidence, of course. There is ample evidence that such physical particles as atoms do exist, but little evidence that a cure for aging can come to existence, because it hasn't been addressed extensively enough, because people are disturbingly apathetic. And, obviously, this is frustrating.

We know a number of things that contribute to aging- the "seven deadly things" of SENS.

Ah, Aubrey de Grey's hypothesis. Good, any hypothesis is better than no hypothesis. With all due respect to Dr. Grey, you don't strengthen a true hypothesis by lauding it, but by criticizing it.

According to Dr. Grey, (1) each of the "seven deadly things" contributes to aging, (2) each can be solved and (3), quite audaciously, there is no other ultimate form of aging damage, so a solution to these would be a solution to aging itself. The last point is the one bothering me most. Is there proof? If not, then at this point you can't infer from Dr. Grey's plan that aging is theoretically curable.

As you probably know, the MIT-owned Technology Review held a prize competition where the participants had to prove SENS "so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate." SENS withstood (or MIT just cheaped out, lol). I have, however, stumbled across an interesting critique by Olexiy Boyko, the developer of the astrocytic hypothesis, written in response to the Technology Review challenge. It's written in Russian; I should probably translate it and post it here, since it will be useful to have it floating on the English internet.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 23 February 2014 - 05:54 PM.

[Bogomoletz II]

Aging is not a law of physics therefore it is not inevitable. It is just a huge challenge.

Wait a minute. You seem to be hinting at the enthymeme that only laws or physics (or, more accurately, those occurrences that are described by the laws of physics) are inevitable. If oxygen delivery is impeded, it's inevitable that necrosis will occur. On the top of that, you have to ask yourself what in the physical world is not dependent on the laws of physics. This is, after all, the physical world. Aging is not physical? The quoted sentence, unfortunately, remains groundless.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 23 February 2014 - 06:01 PM.

[Bogomoletz II]

As you probably know, the MIT-owned Technology Review held a prize competition where the participants had to prove SENS "so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate." SENS withstood (or MIT just cheaped out, lol). I have, however, stumbled across an interesting critique by Olexiy Boyko, the developer of the astrocytic hypothesis, written in response to the Technology Review challenge. It's written in Russian; I should probably translate it and post it here, since it will be useful to have it floating on the English internet.

Another one of those moments when you wish the forum you're on had more flexible editing options. Turns out a translation is already present on the interwebs, but on second thought, although some points made in it deserve further examination, the critique has its flaws.

[niner]

You could say that about anything. How do you really know that atoms exist? We will attack the problem of aging the same way we attack all problems. Experiment. Try things.

Oh, but that's not the same thing. For once, your example is about whether x exists, whereas the question in the title is more concerned with whether a cure, or at least an efficient treatment, for aging can ever exist. Next, one is a descriptive issue, and the other normative: you need to achieve x, but it's unknown if x is achievable; "is" would necessarily imply "ought" (even though "is not" would not necessarily imply "ought not"). The difference, also, is in the amount of evidence, of course. There is ample evidence that such physical particles as atoms do exist, but little evidence that a cure for aging can come to existence, because it hasn't been addressed extensively enough, because people are disturbingly apathetic. And, obviously, this is frustrating.

The similarity lies in the fact that they are both questions of epistemology- asking "how do you know?"

We know that aging is not fixed, but rather is mutable, based on a variety of experiments where, through genetic, chemical, or nutritive interventions, we have significantly extended the lifespan of a wide variety of animals. We could ask ourselves "How do we know that aging is inevitable?". We don't really know that, either. It is, however, a pretty safe bet that without intervention, aging is in fact inevitable.

We know a number of things that contribute to aging- the "seven deadly things" of SENS.

Ah, Aubrey de Grey's hypothesis. Good, any hypothesis is better than no hypothesis. With all due respect to Dr. Grey, you don't strengthen a true hypothesis by lauding it, but by criticizing it.

According to Dr. Grey, (1) each of the "seven deadly things" contributes to aging, (2) each can be solved and (3), quite audaciously, there is no other ultimate form of aging damage, so a solution to these would be a solution to aging itself. The last point is the one bothering me most. Is there proof? If not, then at this point you can't infer from Dr. Grey's plan that aging is theoretically curable.

If you look at the timeline over which each of the seven forms of damage was discovered, you will see that the last one was discovered in 1982, thirty two years ago. This is a period in which molecular biology has advanced dramatically. The fact that none have been discovered since then, while certainly not proving that no more exist, at least suggests that other forms of damage are either very subtle or would only arise at a greater age than humans can currently access.

Biology is not a field that is known for certainty. We'll just have to do the best we can with the knowledge we have.

[Bogomoletz II]

If you look at the timeline over which each of the seven forms of damage was discovered, you will see that the last one was discovered in 1982, thirty two years ago. This is a period in which molecular biology has advanced dramatically. The fact that none have been discovered since then, while certainly not proving that no more exist, at least suggests that other forms of damage are either very subtle or would only arise at a greater age than humans can currently access.

I think you might be onto something. What exactly does that timeline look like? What year was the first one discovered?

[niner]

I think you might be onto something. What exactly does that timeline look like? What year was the first one discovered?

These are the seven type of aging damage as described by SENS, with the year of discovery.

Cell loss, tissue atrophy..........1955
Cancerous cells....................1959,1982
Mitochondrial mutations............1972
Death-resistant cells..............1965
Extracellular matrix stiffening....1958, 1981
Extracellular aggregates...........1907
Intracellular aggregates...........1959


With the exception of extracellular aggregates, all of these were discovered in the 27 year span from 1955 to 1982. Considering the advances in molecular biology since then, the fact that we've not yet discovered another form of damage is quite compelling.

[Bogomoletz II]

With the exception of extracellular aggregates, all of these were discovered in the 27 year span from 1955 to 1982. Considering the advances in molecular biology since then, the fact that we've not yet discovered another form of damage is quite compelling.

It is compelling. To explain what's going on, one would have to have a sufficient command of the history of molecular biology, which is not the case for me personally. However, having decided to look into it, I ran into a pretty revealing statement (yes, I do know it's unfashionable to quote Wikipedia): “The chief discoveries of molecular biology took place in a period of only about twenty-five years. Another fifteen years were required before new and more sophisticated technologies, united today under the name of genetic engineering, would permit the isolation and characterization of genes, in particular those of highly complex organisms.” Now, this piece of information is neutral in regard to the argument we're discussing, but at least it lends an inside into the historical context of these disocveries, which is significant.

You don't happen to know why the row on the discovery about cancerous cells and the one on the discovery about extracellular matrix stiffening each have two different years listed, do you?

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 04 March 2014 - 03:10 AM.

[niner]

You don't happen to know why the row on the discovery about cancerous cells and the one on the discovery about extracellular matrix stiffening each have two different years listed, do you?

No, not without tracking down the references and taking a look at them. They're probably two papers that deal with different aspects of the same subject- perhaps they need to be considered as a whole to get the full picture, or something like that.