28 replies to this topic

[Marios Kyriazis]

I have initiated a relevant discussion here:

 

https://www.academia.edu/s/a3ec5b7040

 

This about the feasibility of biomedical rejuvenation therapies. You may be interested in the exchange of views between Aubrey de Grey and myself, among others.

 

 

 

[Mind]

Of course there is no "elixir", "potion", or "magic bullet". Hardly anyone here believes that. What is needed is a comprehensive set of interventions, including, but not limited to, supplements, medicines, bio-engineering, lifestyle changes/enhancements.

[nightlight]

Can you provide document without asking for my email, name, FB/Google profile,... ?  Who needs a tollbooth on every new link one clicks.

[Mind]

Can you provide document without asking for my email, name, FB/Google profile,... ?  Who needs a tollbooth on every new link one clicks.

 

I did not read the article either because of the request for all of my info.

[sthira]

Me neither

[corb]

Of course there is no "elixir", "potion", or "magic bullet". Hardly anyone here believes that. What is needed is a comprehensive set of interventions, including, but not limited to, supplements, medicines, bio-engineering, lifestyle changes/enhancements.

 

So few understand this. Even most professionals in the field.

Repair and fine-tuning is the first step, but we need it to go further. It's doable with our technology so there's no excuse not to do it.

Right now we can only theorize. If we get repair therapies we will have empirical data we can work with.

[niner]

Of course there is no "elixir", "potion", or "magic bullet". Hardly anyone here believes that. What is needed is a comprehensive set of interventions, including, but not limited to, supplements, medicines, bio-engineering, lifestyle changes/enhancements.

 

Those of us who know the field are aware that there is no elixir today, and that future solutions to the problem of aging will be multi-factorial, but in the paper Marios directs us to above, he posits that no biomedical solution to the problem of aging is even possible.  Like most people here, I don't agree.  I read the paper, and was not swayed.  Aubrey has responded extensively, and says that the paper is a collection of straw men and faulty logic.   I'm afraid that I can not disagree with his assessment.

[Marios Kyriazis]

 

Can you provide document without asking for my email, name, FB/Google profile,... ?  Who needs a tollbooth on every new link one clicks.

 

I did not read the article either because of the request for all of my info.

 

Unfortunately, the discussion and paper are only accessible if you log in to academia.edu. If the paper is published, I will make it available, together with the discussion, in a more suitable forum.

[Marios Kyriazis]

 

Of course there is no "elixir", "potion", or "magic bullet". Hardly anyone here believes that. What is needed is a comprehensive set of interventions, including, but not limited to, supplements, medicines, bio-engineering, lifestyle changes/enhancements.

 

 Aubrey has responded extensively, and says that the paper is a collection of straw men and faulty logic.   

 

... Although he did not explain why the logic was faulty.

[corb]

 

 

Of course there is no "elixir", "potion", or "magic bullet". Hardly anyone here believes that. What is needed is a comprehensive set of interventions, including, but not limited to, supplements, medicines, bio-engineering, lifestyle changes/enhancements.

 

 Aubrey has responded extensively, and says that the paper is a collection of straw men and faulty logic.   

 

... Although he did not explain why the logic was faulty.

 

 

I only have one question to you. You didn't answer last time I asked you.

 

If we disregard biomedical engineering - genetics, therapeutics, bionics, tissue engineering, etc... what else is there left in medical science?

I'm just wondering if you're misusing the word biomedical.
 

[xEva]

I read the paper and liked the first part very much. It is very well written and researched. Regarding the second part (the feasibility of rejuvenation therapies) I must admit I have hard time following hypothetical scenarios. So far the "treatments" exist only as ideas and worrying about their delivery problems.. ..let's just say that the pragmatist in me just could not care enough to follow. But I really enjoyed the first part, especially about the cellular cross-talk and cellular networks. Some of it was new to me and I will follow up with the references. Very interesting! Indeed, the complexity that emerges makes the simplistic definitions and approaches of SENS look pretty dumb

[Marios Kyriazis]

 

 

... Although he did not explain why the logic was faulty.

 

 

I only have one question to you. You didn't answer last time I asked you.

 

If we disregard biomedical engineering - genetics, therapeutics, bionics, tissue engineering, etc... what else is there left in medical science?

I'm just wondering if you're misusing the word biomedical.
 

 

 

I  don't recall you asking me this question but I have no reason not to answer. An objective answer is:

 

Maybe there is nothing else. Maybe all our efforts are in vain. It is not an absolute requirement in nature to have a treatment for aging. However, I personally don't agree with this answer.

 

My belief is that we can achieve a life without age-related degeneration not through biotechnology but by intentionally trying to change our evolution as intelligent beings. This may be a difficult concept to grasp for those who are used to sit back and wait for others to come up with biomedical treatments.  

 

See here for some thoughts:

 

http://www.eurekasel.../122290/article

https://www.academia...human_lifespans

[corb]

My belief is that we can achieve a life without age-related degeneration not through biotechnology but by intentionally trying to change our evolution as intelligent beings.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
I consider medicine as part of human evolution. Medicine is the most direct method of introducing stimulus to an organism so following the logic of your theory it will be the fastest method to produce improvement.

[Mind]

 

 

by intentionally trying to change our evolution as intelligent beings

 

Given that every human advancement in history, that has conferred healthy life extension to individuals has come from sustained engineering efforts (both bio-medical or otherwise, such as better sanitation), I will cast my lot with continued efforts in that direction.

 

If you are saying that "intelligent being evolution" is part of our increasing success in living longer and healthier, or that our advances are an indication of this evolution you are speaking of, then this argument is only one of semantics.

[niner]

Marios, are you hinting at a World Brain / Noosphere concept, where we would all achieve immortality as figurative cells in the World Brain?  I suppose that the WB would go on and on, but in living organisms, cells die all the time, and are replaced by new ones.  I'd rather achieve immortality by not dying, to paraphrase Woody Allen.  (Actually my real goal is to remain healthy for a very long time; immortality isn't the goal, but an approximation of it would be a reasonable outcome.)

[Marios Kyriazis]

 

 

 

by intentionally trying to change our evolution as intelligent beings

 

Given that every human advancement in history, that has conferred healthy life extension to individuals has come from sustained engineering efforts (both bio-medical or otherwise, such as better sanitation), I will cast my lot with continued efforts in that direction.

 

If you are saying that "intelligent being evolution" is part of our increasing success in living longer and healthier, or that our advances are an indication of this evolution you are speaking of, then this argument is only one of semantics.

 

 

It is not merely our engineering efforts which has lead to  an increase in life extension, but also developments which depended on other spheres such as culture, language, societal interactions, beliefs, arts, sexuality, and many others.  Our evolution as intelligent beings depends on all of these areas, and now, also on technology.

 

And it is not a question of semantics. You are saying that our developing culture has given us biomedical technologies which will eventually lead to increased lifespans. I am saying that this increased lifespan can be achieved through a scenario where biomedical technologies, medicine and engineering play a very small part, perhaps 10 or 20% of the total. See also my answer to niner.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Marios, are you hinting at a World Brain / Noosphere concept, where we would all achieve immortality as figurative cells in the World Brain?  I suppose that the WB would go on and on, but in living organisms, cells die all the time, and are replaced by new ones.  I'd rather achieve immortality by not dying, to paraphrase Woody Allen.  (Actually my real goal is to remain healthy for a very long time; immortality isn't the goal, but an approximation of it would be a reasonable outcome.)

 

No, not at all. I am not talking about figurative immortality but about real biological changes which can make each participating individual less likely to die through aging. You would be the same person as you are now.

 

The repairs to age-related biological damage would occur, not through active biomedical SENS-type treatments, but through evolutionary pressures which force the body to repair itself (because it is needed in the grand scheme of things).

 

Think of the example of exercise: if you want to develop muscle mass, stamina and endurance, you have two choices: 

 

1. Either take supplements, exercise-mimetics and also go and have muscle implants with genetically engineered tissue, stem cells etc.

Or

2. Exercise. Nature will do the rest. 

 

The same analogy can be applied here. I prefer to go with option 2, when natural, evolutionary-depended mechanisms will maintain me, not because anybody or anything cares, but because it would be more economical in energy terms to maintain me rather than allow me to die and invest more resources in developing a new replacement through sexual reproduction.

[Antonio2014]

I can't read the paper/discussion either.

[Antonio2014]

 

It is not merely our engineering efforts which has lead to  an increase in life extension, but also developments which depended on other spheres such as culture, language, societal interactions, beliefs, arts, sexuality, and many others.  Our evolution as intelligent beings depends on all of these areas, and now, also on technology.

 

Not at all. By far, the larger contribution to human lifespan has come from science and technology, not arts, sexuality, beliefs, language, ... The real influences in longevity are other things: vaccines, antibiotics, sanitation, better food security through agriculture, freezers, etc. All the monks, painters, poets, cathedral constructors, etc. could not make people live longer, but scientists like Pasteur, Koch, ... doubled our life expectancy in less than two centuries.

 

https://www.fightagi...n-outrage-1.php (see the life expectancy graphics)

 

I find it hard to believe that a XXI century person that is versed in medicine and biology can think that way.

Edited by Antonio2014, 17 February 2015 - 09:45 PM.

[Antonio2014]

The repairs to age-related biological damage would occur, not through active biomedical SENS-type treatments, but through evolutionary pressures which force the body to repair itself (because it is needed in the grand scheme of things).

 

Do you know how "evolutionary pressures" operate? They operate by DEATH. The bigger the number of individuals that die before reproduction, the stronger the evolutionary pressures are. I correct myself about what I said before. You aren't versed in biology at all, you don't know even basic things, or either you know but don't have any morals at all and prefer that a huge amount of people die in order to improve the human species.

[niner]

 

Marios, are you hinting at a World Brain / Noosphere concept, where we would all achieve immortality as figurative cells in the World Brain?  I suppose that the WB would go on and on, but in living organisms, cells die all the time, and are replaced by new ones.  I'd rather achieve immortality by not dying, to paraphrase Woody Allen.  (Actually my real goal is to remain healthy for a very long time; immortality isn't the goal, but an approximation of it would be a reasonable outcome.)

 

No, not at all. I am not talking about figurative immortality but about real biological changes which can make each participating individual less likely to die through aging. You would be the same person as you are now.

 

The repairs to age-related biological damage would occur, not through active biomedical SENS-type treatments, but through evolutionary pressures which force the body to repair itself (because it is needed in the grand scheme of things).

 

Think of the example of exercise: if you want to develop muscle mass, stamina and endurance, you have two choices: 

 

1. Either take supplements, exercise-mimetics and also go and have muscle implants with genetically engineered tissue, stem cells etc.

Or

2. Exercise. Nature will do the rest. 

 

The same analogy can be applied here. I prefer to go with option 2, when natural, evolutionary-depended mechanisms will maintain me, not because anybody or anything cares, but because it would be more economical in energy terms to maintain me rather than allow me to die and invest more resources in developing a new replacement through sexual reproduction.

 

Ok, I understand how to exercise.  What steps do I need to take in order to remain healthy for, say, 150 years?  Since it appears that no one has done this in recorded human history, I of course have to wonder if it's possible.  Have you discovered a method to access these natural, evolutionary-depended mechanisms?  Is this something anyone can do?  How does it work?
 

[Marios Kyriazis]

 

 

 

Ok, I understand how to exercise.  What steps do I need to take in order to remain healthy for, say, 150 years?  Since it appears that no one has done this in recorded human history, I of course have to wonder if it's possible.  Have you discovered a method to access these natural, evolutionary-depended mechanisms?  Is this something anyone can do?  How does it work?
 

 

 

You, like most people, assume that there is an answer I can give you in a few words, like other people have done in the past: take this pill, follow this method, do this operation.  But the whole point of my discussion is that the answer is complex.

 

In general terms:

 

Natural mechanisms tend towards survival, against a background of continual damage and degeneration.

 

If survival of the individual is not economical (because it is necessary to invest huge resources for repairs), then the individual will die and a new/fresh one will take its place in the niche.

 

There is the issue of ‘usefulness’, i.e. if something is useful to the function of the system, then this something is preferentially repaired and maintained for longer.

 

We need to adapt to our environment. When the environment changes, we need to absorb those changes and change ourselves accordingly. One way of doing this is through natural selection which takes a long time to operate. Another way is through epigenetic mechanisms which take a much shorter time.

 

For the first time in human history, we are now exposed to a new environment, that of intense technology and information-sharing. We need to adapt to this environment.

 

If certain elements within this environment are useful to the function of humanity, then they will be maintained and will last longer. Their usefulness will have more value than the cost of their continual repair.

 

So, if we take an active part in this, we will last longer because that is how natural mechanisms operate.

 

See here for some practical advice on how to do this:

https://www.linkedin...=3gdzhsSYJLd6E1

 

Also: https://www.linkedin...y-and-longevity

[niner]

Well, thanks for those links, Marios.   It sounds like you're saying that if we live our lives like a highly useful Renaissance [Person], we will live longer.  Much longer?  I'm kinda thinking not...  I don't see how this is a replacement for SENS.

[adamh]

My 2 cents worth is that immortality will ever be beyond our grasp due to a host of things. Until and unless we can construct new bodies to put our consciousness into, we will always be mortal. However, I think that life extension is a very realistic goal, one that has already seen tons of progress, as has been said. There may be no magic elixir but vitamins and minerals in proper proportions have helped a lot along with lifestyle changes including diet. What about ghk and gdf-11? Aren't those longevity elixirs? Granted they are new and not fully studied but they seem to have those properties.

 

I doubt any one thing will be the magic bullet and neglecting diet, exercise and other things will counteract the benefits of any new compound. But isn't everyone a little bit excited about the new compounds and therapies that have come out in recent years? What about c60 evoo? Many other things too. So I say there are "elixirs" that will improve longevity to some degree.

[albedo]

@Marios

I am checking on Academia. I cant find the original paper. Which title I need to look for? I have seen Aubrey's reply to your criticisms on LinkedIn but would like to read your original text.

[MightyMouse]

I can't believe the amount of smart, educated people claiming that complete rejuvenation is impossible even in theory. How can one say that? Throughout our lives no atom in our body stays the same, everything is being replaced and rebuilt continuously, old cells die and new cells are  born. Human being is not a blob of unreplaceable "stuff". It's a clockwork, a set of information if you will. Sure, at this moment we do not have 100% understanding of how the clockwork operates, neither do we have means to manipulate it to our will entirely. I don't think it will happen in nearer future either. But saying it's theoretically impossible in the future... that just doesn't sound like a statement an intelligent person should make.

[Marios Kyriazis]

@Marios

I am checking on Academia. I cant find the original paper. Which title I need to look for? I have seen Aubrey's reply to your criticisms on LinkedIn but would like to read your original text.

Here are some links. Let me know if these don't work

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4142774/

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/26135528

https://docs.wixstat...ccebb33b83c.pdf

[albedo]

 

@Marios

I am checking on Academia. I cant find the original paper. Which title I need to look for? I have seen Aubrey's reply to your criticisms on LinkedIn but would like to read your original text.

Here are some links. Let me know if these don't work

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4142774/

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/26135528

https://docs.wixstat...ccebb33b83c.pdf

 

 

Thank you. All links work. It will be an interesting read.

 

[Never_Ending]

Marios, I saw your paper ("Reversal of Informational...") that you mentioned earlier, very interesting. Based on the replies I think not everyone will fully appreciate the point of the article.  Some people might misunderstand your meaning as if you are against "anti-aging" when it's quite the opposite. The only concern I have is regarding the potency of this approach.