111 replies to this topic

[John Doe]

JMorgan said:

I'm curious to know what you mean by these statements.  What is it exactly that bothers you about the concept of "indefinite" life extension?  Is this not a worthwhile goal, assuming it's possible?

(Perhaps point me to where you might have already answered these questions to avoid derailing this thread.)

Thanks for your involvemenet, by the way, both here and on 60 Minutes.

I too would very much appreciate a pointer to a place where the dispute between Jay and Aubrey is discussed in more detail.

[sjayo]

Dear JMorgan
    Aubrey and I squared off at a meeting in Montreal last Spring. We agreed to draft articles representing our views and publish them as a debate. Aubrey's article is entitled "Extrapolaholics Anonymous: reasons why demographers’ rejections of a huge rise in life expectancy this century are overconfident";my article is entitled "Science fact and SENS fiction".  Aubrey's article was submitted to a scientific journal, but it didn't pass independent external peer review.  I haven't heard anything about that paper in more than 6 months.  My article is on the back burner given my other commitments for the remainder of this calendar year (2 grants, 3 book chapters, 4 articles, teaching, etc.), and the fact that it should only be published next to Aubrey's article.  Maybe 2007, and I would now need to spend a considerable amount of time updating it.  Perhaps Aubrey and I will appear on a podium together in the next year on this topic -- that would be a good place to hear the differences and similarities in our arguments -- which, by the way, have little to do with the central question asked above about "indefinite" life extension.  We will be together at Oxford in March, but I think the only person to be talking about Aubrey's ideas at that meeting will be Aubrey.
S. Jay Olshansky

[Mind]

Quote

it's all about public health. The idea to modulate aging in humans began long ago, well before Aubrey and Ray entered the scene, and in the end the work that will lead to an ability to modulate aging in humans will be done by the very researchers that Aubrey criticizes. This is Aubrey's biggest mistake

Jay, I have read many statements by Aubrey's critics, and I must say he has every right to be critical of them. The critics have mostly produced emotional tirades filled with ad hominen attacks (except for you). They do not sound like learned scientists but spoiled children who aren't getting enough attention. It is quite sad. We are at a point to make real progress. There are so many new tools at our disposal, and yet so many people in a position to do something about it, are being unreasonable.

Also, Aubrey isn't peddling snake oil. He is peddling research ideas, as you eventually pointed out in your 60 minutes interview.

[ag24]

The manuscript Jay mentions is now in press in the proceedings of the International Association of Biomedical Gerontology 11th Congress, which will appear as a volume of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences in a few months.  The reviews it received at J. Gerontol Biol Sci last year were, shall we say, insufficient discouragement to me to publish it elsewhere.

I expect a few people will comment on SENS in Oxford, even if only in response to questions.

[Karomesis]

"insufficient discouragement" [lol]  [lol]  I love that one, That paper wouldn't happen to be the one where  the main authors asked every scientist on the planet to co-author, but only a few were willing to do so?

Aubrey, were you privy to Rays interview? Did he start talking about uploading and scare the crap out of 60 minutes staff?

[reason]

Randall Parker's comments:

http://www.futurepun...203.html#003203

"Those of us who promote the idea of full body rejuvenation as an achievable goal have seen this cause come a long way from the fringe to the mainstream. About 8 or 9 years ago Aubrey was discussing rejuvenation with a small handful of us on the Usenet group sci.life-extension. Gradually he's made it into major print publications and TV with the idea that aging is curable."

[JonesGuy]

I'd be really curious regarding hits on the MPrize web site after this airing.  Did it immediately help exposure, or did people (once again) say "That's neat, I hope 'they' cure aging soon"?

[kevin]

I don't have the stats at hand but from what I recall the unique hits increased by  a factor of 10 over the following week and tailed off.   More importantly, we got some donations (I think two Three Hundred Members joined as a result), offers of help of expertise and some very interesting contacts which are now being handled with an eye to how they can be leveraged.  Although it didn't bring the 'big money' which one could have thought it might, we can see that it made deep inroads into areas and minds which had not yet been touched and got a lot of people thinking.  This will certainly benefit us in the future.  2006 is going to be even more interesting!

[JonesGuy]

Couldn't ask for more!

Kevin, I was looking at the mprize site, and I see that you got exposure through various local news channels.  I didn't realise you did all that work.  Well done, and thanks.

A couple hundred members ain't so bad!

[kevin]

Quote

I see that you got exposure through various local news channels..

one of my biggest assets is my mouth..

Quote

A couple hundred members ain't so bad!

We are far exceeding our own expectations and the pace set by the X-Prize in their early days...

One of my favorite quotes..

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. " - Margaret Mead

edit:  I just got it that when I said a couple three hundred members you took it to mean two to three hundred members when actually I was referring to the the "Three Hundred" which is a group of soon to be three hundred individuals who are donating a couple bucks a day 25 years..   The program encouraged two individuals to sign up in that special capacity..

[mrfesta]

A thanks goes to liveforever22 for uploading this to www.youtube.com.  Please go and make your vote, 1-5 stars.

Video URL:   http://www.youtube.com/?v=_0jO5okttC4

[Live Forever]

Oh wow, I woke up this morning and it has 38,000 views and is on the "top viewed" page. I guess it is more popular than that other Aubrey one. I also uploaded a higher quality version of this interview to Google Videos (YouTube has a 100MB limit, so I had to decrease the quality by more than half, Google Videos has no such limit), but Google is still verifying it, so it may be a couple days till it is up.

Anyways, the more votes this one gets (at 5 stars), it will move up to being a "top rated" video and more exposure.

Edited by liveforever22, 04 February 2006 - 10:19 PM.

[laterlmv]

Great things are to come

[jaydfox]

sjayo said:

Quote

By the way, keep your eyes open for the March issue of The Scientist -- you're in for a shocking (pleasant) surprise!!!

Quote

The Scientist article will surely get your attention!!

Quote

However, for an important new development on this issue, I would direct your attention to a forthcoming issue of The Scientist -- as I said earlier, you're about to be pleasantly shocked!!!

Jay, you were practically giddy to tell us of this forthcoming article; do you know when exactly it's supposed to be available? Will you post a link here at ImmInst for those who don't trawl The Scientist's website daily? Can we get more of a sneak preview than what little you've already said in this thread?

[kevin]

It's a full anti-aging spread of four feature articles scheduled for print and online release Feb 26.  More than that I could not find out..

[sjayo]

It appears that Kevin knows even more than me -- I didn't know the exact release date.  When you put those three quotes together it is evident I was tantalizing.  Sorry about that.  Well, not really I guess -- it's just not appropriate to discuss details before publication.  The issue will have one main article written by four people, and this will be surrounded by sidebars focused on specific issues associated with aging.  To make a long story short, in the main article we will articulate issues that are right at the heart of what this forum is all about -- but there will be significant differences in the overall goal.  In my view, and for reasons that should be obvious, this should not matter one bit.   In a way, I've been working on this topic for 24 years since the central issue we address is exactly what brought me into this field to begin with, and the irony is that I'll actually be using arguments right out of my disseration.  It's quite gratifying to come full circle, especially given that the conclusion reached this time around is the right one.  I hope you enjoy the read.
S. Jay Olshansky

[Live Forever]

Sounds great!

Jay, as a reward, I created a wikipedia page for you: http://en.wikipedia....._Jay_Olshansky

[kevin]

Quote

Well, not really I guess -- it's just not appropriate to discuss details before publication.

No matter how hard I tried to pry.. this was the response I got from the sales editor..

Quote

I'll actually be using arguments right out of my disseration

More than a few researchers I've talked to say that pretty much all of their work is based on the fundamental ideas they worked up in their thesis.   Just think how gratifying it will be to see things evolve over the next 50 years ..  you may have to revisit your roots a few more times..

[Live Forever]

Only 8 more days till the article is released.

[MethuselahMouse]

Brief article on Drudgereport - which as you know is the most popular internet "tabloid". Great coverage for LE.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

Dave

[Bruce Klein]

Hiya, liveforever22.

As you've done so beautifully for S. Jay Olshansky, I'm having trouble adding my pic from here: http://www.imminst.org/bjklein/  to http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bruce_Klein  ...would you have time to help in this regard?

[opales]

MetuselahMouse said:

Brief article on Drudgereport - which as you know is the most popular internet "tabloid". Great coverage for LE.

Either that was a dynamic link you provided or we just have a completely different notion about LE [tung]

Quote

Hold on to your condoms!

Oprah interviewed a woman on Thursday who had engaged in sex with more than 90 men during her life and who was keeping an ongoing list and a video diary about these encounters!

Not to be confused with Howard Stern, Oprah asked: "So you've had men ejaculate in your face?"

[Live Forever]

BruceKlein said:

Hiya, liveforever22.

As you've done so beautifully for S. Jay Olshansky, I'm having trouble adding my pic from here: http://www.imminst.org/bjklein/  to http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bruce_Klein  ...would you have time to help in this regard?

Sure thing mack daddy, tis done.

[Bruce Klein]

Shweet... thanks!

[kevin]

heh..  looks like the link is "reusable" and is no longer pointing to the story that dealt with Aubrey.   Maybe someone would be kind enough to edit the post and remove it.. wouldn't want anyone unnecessarily  titillated or anything.

[MethuselahMouse]

SHEESH!

[wassname]

They just played it on 60 minutes in New Zealand! Finally. It was after something about pre-teen prostitution too, which is a big issue at the moment.

I was watching it with some mates. Two reckoned that they would only want to live to 80 unless everyone was living longer too, a few got bored and left. And they agreed 'hes a nutter' as soon as they say Aubry.

[opales]

Kevin Perrott said:

It's a full anti-aging spread of four feature articles scheduled for print and online release Feb 26.  More than that I could not find out..

It's already March 2. When is this coming out?

[sjayo]

The articles should be available online at any moment.  Frankly, I thought they would have already been published.  I have a PDF of the articles already in hand, and a hard copy of The Scientist should be available shortly as well.  I cannot make the PDF available for 90 days, but you should be able to view the articles online at any time now.

We are calling for a massive national and international effort to slow aging in humans under the premise that by doing so, humanity would reap a series of "Longevity Dividends" -- a gift to humanity from our generation to most current and all future generations.  What is new here is the articulation of the "dividends" and the "target".  I'll present this idea formally at the World Forum meeting in Oxford on the 15th of this month, but this is just the beginning of our effort to make this happen.
S. Jay Olshansky

[opales]

sjayo said:

We are calling for a massive national and international effort to slow aging in humans under the premise that by doing so, humanity would reap a series of "Longevity Dividends" -- a gift to humanity from our generation to most current and all future generations.  What is new here is the articulation of the "dividends" and the "target".  I'll present this idea formally at the World Forum meeting in Oxford on the 15th of this month, but this is just the beginning of our effort to make this happen.
S. Jay Olshansky

Welcome home Jay, welcome home [thumb] I knew you had it in you all along.