23 replies to this topic

[henri]

I think the idea of enhancing lysosomes is really good. However, I'm not sure if it's so smart to market it as a means to heal Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, because there may be simpler alternatives and the accumulation of "stuff" may not even be the central issue here. Marketing it as a means to achieve immortality makes more sense (heh) to me.

[Ghostrider]

Who is going to fund a cause promoting immortality? The government and business world do not want you to live longer. They are perfectly happy with you dying. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease are regarded as more serious because there is more opportunity for the government to lose money caring for patients who have such a disease.

[John Schloendorn]

Either seems reasonable, and is being done, depending on whom we are trying to market it to.

[henri]

Well yeah, I don't actually disagree with you that much, and maybe you'll be able to get some funding by saying you're going to heal neurogenerative diseases.

[Karomesis]

Who is going to fund a cause promoting immortality?

eccentric and highly intelligent people.

The government and business world do not want you to live longer

you have quite the Machiavellian perspective. I like it. [thumb] which s exactly why I do not give a rats ass what the authorities say I can and cannot ingest for my own use. So long as I harm no one else, leave me to my own devices [ang]

I don't suppose the pyridoxamine controversy had anything to do with a diabetes pharma company attempting to patent a drug with it as the active ingredient [mellow]

[Ghostrider]

eccentric and highly intelligent people.

Well, I am eccentric, but I am also practical. Aging simply is not economical. It's like taking a Jet aircraft to go 20 miles. I don't know why governments do not fund anti-aging campaigns based on economics alone. Oh, I remember why, some of your neighbors who happen to be voters don't want you to live forever. I think they fear that you could get too far "ahead". They also think that since it has never been successfully implemented, then it is not possible. Afterall, everything that is possible has already been done.

[Karomesis]

I think they fear that you could get too far "ahead"

a justified fear indeed. I will , given enough time, get VERY far ahead. competition is a part of the evolutionary process, it's quite natural for others to fear being succeeded. but it's also natural for the ambitious to crush the weak and give not a second thought to it.

aside from that ruthless perspective, I think those who wish me to die fear me, and as machiavelli said " if it be of choice, it is better to be feared rather than loved".

[Ghostrider]

The pragmatic realization that Immortalists should adhere to is that we are navigating in completely uncharted waters and if we are to be taken the least seriously by non-Immortalists we should adopt a conservative stance. Governments do not fund anti-aging campaigns because, at this time, the consensus is that the aging process cannot be altered.

However, it is in places like ImmInst were we can deliberate on how we can convince Governments that the aging process can be altered.

I agree that more funding would be diverted to anti-aging solutions if the right people truly believed that it could be solved. Generally, people are biased to donate to those causes that are most easily solved as well as those causes which they feel would do the most good. Most of the people I know claim that they would not want to live forever and view aging as an undesirable, but a natural and necessary process to avoid overpopulation. They see it as a part of life.

Do government avoid funding anti-aging research because they believe that aging cannot be altered or because they do not know how to increase longevity? If they believe that it cannot be altered, then that would imply that they would know why it cannot be altered -- why aging is an unsolvable problem. Do you know why aging is an unsolvable problem?

There is a growing number of old people who would benefit from longevity research and old people have the highest voting turnout. They are politically significant, however, many old people, at least in the US, are religious and many believe that the afterlife is better. So I am not sure how much push we will get from that end.

I agree though that in order to get any traction in the areas of government or academic, we need a more conservative stance. I don't really like the term immortalist because I think it might turn people off into thinking that we are some kind of cult. It just sounds too religious and fantastic to me. My goal is not immortalism, it is to live as long as possible in my current or hopefully enhanced health.

Back to you: what evidence do you have that the aging process can be altered in humans such that lifespan and healthspan can be extended?

Well, I do not know that much about biology. I do know that I am made out of matter. I am simply a configuration of matter that changes dynamically with time. It is therefore possible to restore me to the exact same configuration that I was in last night. This would be a repair strategy that would essentially allow my level of health to remain constant. Of course, this would not be very desirable because I would be mentally reset daily, always beginning in the same mental state. But yes, this is one way to live forever...not the suggestion that I would use when asking for anti-aging research, but in theory, there are no reasons why humans cannot be fully repaired. Perhaps some repair mechanism can be built into us so that we can be continuously repaired or prevent damage from occurring in the first place. I don't have all the answers, but I know much more knowledge can be gained through funding. Throw a trillion dollars at the problem and I bet we could learn a lot. It's a better use of a trillion than for example, trying to establish democracy in a country before knowing if democracy is possible there. What evidence did the US have that democracy could be established in Iraq before they began to fight the war for democracy there? (Not trying to divert the topic -- just showing another example of how large sums of government money are spent before knowing whether the desirable outcome is possible, also given that there are better uses for the funding.)

[Karomesis]

Make no mistake: if someone like Gates for one moment believed that the aging process could be modulated I would not be surprised if he were to pour billions into such an effort

Harold are you aware of the huge amount of influence ray kurzweil has on gates? and as you know ray isn't known for his consrvative views on the topic. I remember reading a review with gates and he told the person he'd put money into whatever technology kurzweil reccomended given his track record and their freindship.

[Ghostrider]

Make no mistake: if someone like Gates for one moment believed that the aging process could be modulated I would not be surprised if he were to pour billions into such an effort.

I don't know if he would actually. He may believe as some others do that aging is necessary to avoid over-population. Or he may feel that other causes such as AIDS / malaria, etc. are more deserving of his funding support. Maybe on this topic he agrees with Leonard Hayflick that aging is something that should not be cured even if it could be. It's hard to speculate on how others, Gates or others like him, feel.

[Lazarus Long]

Currently Gates is funding one of the largest private endeavors in the world to prevent, treat, and/or eradicate many of the most infectious and devastating diseases in the Third world.

He appears to have a strong interest in prevention and curing of existing diseases. He is getting the most bang for the buck by saving the most lives worldwide and helping to ameliorate some of the poverty induced mortality due to disease. This includes civil works to improve local standards of living in terms of civil engineering too.

His program support includes research into not only vaccine tech etc but could be directed at general immune system improvement and stem cell research to advance tissue repair treatments. The real coup is to get the Gates Foundation to classify aging as a disease. The rest will follow.

The strategy is to sell it as important to stabilizing the third world by finding important members of the developing technologies that are really helping the people and suggest provide longevity tech to prolong their effectiveness.

[Lazarus Long]

Here is a strategy to get the Gates Foundation to come on board with longevity research.

Because aging is still accelerated in the third world compared to the industrialized world;

Because the impact of large scale infrastructural improvements require a minimum of two generations (and historical more) to provide real social benefit in terms of the significant lower age of mortality in the third world;

Because of the necessity of promoting stability and preserving positive cultural aspects and these depend on social leaders, artists, and the professional classes of the third world;

Because much of Africa is facing a critical shortage of experienced trained professionals over the next two decades due to the present impact of disease, which is contributing the the rampant destabilization we are witness to. This phenomenon is well documented, it is accelerating and expected to create a catastrophic redistribution of the age related demographic over the next decades with a disproportionate number of uneducated youth in relation to experienced elder population;

It is necessary to classify Aging as a Disease and promote treatments that can reverse or stabilize the aging process in order to protect the dwindling elder population that is critical to maintaining and directing the transition of the Third World into becoming emergent technologies, which are socially stable and self sustaining. This is critical to applying major civil improvements and sustaining them through the critical developmental period while training a generation to become competent to manage it and preserving uniting cultural aspects.

[Ghostrider]

I would just argue that aging is a disease because it alone will eventually kill people. In fact it has killed more people than all the other causes of death combined...but I am just preaching to the choir. The right people have not bought this argument yet. So I would argue that an economic benefit can be gained by curing aging. With longer lives, people would be able to obtain a higher level of education and contribute more back to society. Consider that about 1/3 of one's life is spent training or preparing to die, that's not very productive. With a cure or repair strategy for aging, technical progress would happen faster due to gains in human productivity. I don't buy the argument of waiting for an answer before we start researching how to implement the solution. Knowledge comes only through research. Research comes only through funding. Give the funding and we will eventually have the answers.

[Lazarus Long]

(ghostrider)
I would just argue that aging is a disease because it alone will eventually kill people.

You are preaching to the choir. It should be obvious that here we are all (well most of us anyway) essentially in agreement with this idea but that is too idealistic to sway the Gates Foundation, that want *practical reasons*. This is the basis of properly packaging the meme.

Instead of starting with a philosophical debate, or being simply logical; we create a set of incrementally consistent objectives that parallel already existing ones. More and more we will find like minded interests.

Also first getting an organization like the Gates Foundation to accept that premature mortality is a disease is an easier first step to getting the idea of aging as a disease accepted.

[John Schloendorn]

There still seems to be to some degree the misunderstanding that aging were a single process. It's really a mess, a slow death by a thousand different cuts. A single activity aimed at fixing aging per se is therefore not possible. The thousand cuts need to be fixed one at a time. It seems that before people can start living longer, a great number of cuts will need genuine fixes. But most of the time, fixing a single cut has limited benefits.

Therefore, Gates, governments and everybody are right now funding several things that can genuinely be counted as attempted fixes for such "cuts". The problem is that most other things they are funding aren't aiming at genuine fixes for their favorite "cut", but are either aiming to postpone the problem rather than solve it, to suppress its symptoms for as long as that may be sustainable, or to simply understand the problem better first.

The reason for this could be that the limited benefit of genuinely fixing one among many age-related problems may look indistinguishable from the limited benefit of suppressing its symptoms for a while, to those with a short term interest.

There is no simple solution to this situation. Knowing how to best act here is very hard for the immortalist.

Edited by John Schloendorn, 17 January 2007 - 09:41 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

(John S.)
There still seems to be to some degree the misunderstanding that aging were a single process. It's really a mess, a slow death by a thousand different cuts. A single activity aimed at fixing aging per se is therefore not possible. The thousand cuts need to be fixed one at a time. It seems that before people can start living longer, a great number of cuts will need genuine fixes. But of the time, fixing a single cut has limited benefits.

Agreed, which is why I said ghostrider was preaching to the choir, or *converted* might be a better way of saying this. Nevertheless there are sill optimal methodologies versus ineffective ones to concentrate on.

There are various degrees of severity with potential treatment regimens but I suspect some will contribute together to a sum greater than the whole (synergy) and others will possibly work but not go very far in actually prolonging life.

I use the chain metaphor to describe this.

Since a chain is only as strong as the weakest link to make a chain stronger we must find the weakest links and eliminate as many as possible. Consider the chain our total life expectancy and each of the thousand cuts is a weak link.

Therefore, Gates, governments and everybody are right now funding several things that can genuinely be counted as attempted fixes for such "cuts". The problem is that most other things they are funding aren't aiming at genuine fixes for their favorite "cut", but are either aiming to postpone the problem rather than solve it, to suppress its symptoms for as long as that may be sustainable, or to simply understand the problem better first.

This was the primary gist of my post; that and trying to encourage organizations like the Gates AND Hughs Foundations to begin to triage the thousand cuts and recognize the big picture.

The reason for this could be that the limited benefit of genuinely fixing one among many age-related problems is indistinguishable from the limited benefit of suppressing its symptoms for a while to the short-sighted.

This is a real problem and will continue to be for some time.

[Ghostrider]

Agreed, which is why I said ghostrider was preaching to the choir, or *converted* might be a better way of saying this.  Nevertheless there are sill optimal methodologies versus ineffective ones to concentrate on.

Laz, even I mentioned above that I was preaching to the choir. The first reason that I gave is probably my most concise summary of why aging is bad. To align with existing mainstream charity objectives, I would cite economic benefit as the primary motivation. Because afterall, everything comes down to economics. I agree with all your points.

Good point though. Isn't Kurweil a MF donor?

Yes, he is.

[jaydfox]

Last I checked (over a year ago), he donated $1,000 in direct funds, $4,050 matching funds, and of course he donated himself for a charity auction which brought in another $4,050 plus perhaps a little bit of press among people trafficking his site.

[Ghostrider]

Here's an example of why I think there is more stopping the policy makers than just the "can we do it" question. It's the "should it be done" question. Read this piece of trash:

http://www.livescien...ity_social.html

I guess we need to do a better job of pointing out fallacies that much of the public adopts such as the following:

Bioethicist Daniel Callahan, a cofounder of the Hastings Center in New York, didn't share Stock’s enthusiasm. Callahan’s objections were practical ones. For one thing, he said, doubling life spans won’t solve any of our current social problems.

"We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don't think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," Callahan said in a recent telephone interview. "The question is, 'What will we get as a society?' I suspect it won't be a better society."

First the author states his doubt that longer life will fix the human condition plagued by war and poverty. Well, he might be partially correct, but having a longer life will likely mean a more productive life as well (less age-related cognitive decline and more years spent working). So I suggest that additional longevity could only help those factors that he is concerned about. In fact, as the first author mentioned, I think longevity would make society a lot less "desperate" as the time limit for accomplishing one's goals would be extended. To say anymore here would just be preaching to the choir, but this represents one fallacy that needs to be addressed.

Others point out that a doubling of the human lifespan will affect society at every level. Notions about marriage, family and work will change in fundamental ways, they say, as will attitudes toward the young and the old.

Regarding the final few words, "attitudes towards the young and old", yes, these will probably be challenged, but I think for the better.

The rest of the article goes on to persuade people that change is bad:

Furthermore, if life extension also increases a woman's period of fertility, siblings could be born 40 or 50 years apart. Such a large age difference would radically change the way siblings or parents and their children interact with one other.

"If we were 100 years younger than our parents or 60 years apart from our siblings, that would certainly create a different set of social relationships," Hackler told LiveScience.

Anyway, prometheus, as the final sentence points out, there is more limiting anti-aging research than just the question of feasibility -- having evidence to prove that lifespan can be extended:

"If this could ever happen, then we'd better ask what kind of society we want to get,” Callahan said. “We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figured those problems out."

The attitude expressed in the reference article may be stopping major donors of the size of Gates. Perhaps he shares some of the same reservations as mentioned in the article. This is something that we can address.

[Lazarus Long]

Daniel Callahan has long been a detractor of what we are trying to accomplish. His comments here are only consistent with things he has said before. He is and has been for some time, a member of the *informed* opposition.