15 replies to this topic

[Eternal Life]

Does anyone believe De Grey's theory which he mentions that the first 1000 year-old person is already 60 now?
Plz discuss + evidence

[niner]

I hardly think that qualifies as a "theory". Wild-eyed speculation, perhaps.

[maestro949]

I think he's talking about potential and rather than prediction.

He's suggesting that if specific investments were made towards his 7 SENS engineered fixes that within 30 years those 60 year olds would have achieved what he refers to as escape velocity.

Normally your chances of living decreases as you age. Because the march of technological progress continues to move forward, as you engineer more fixes, each year you live you have access to better engineered repair mechanisms meaning that this decreasing chance of survival becomes less significant, eventually stabilizes and then reverses such that the longer you live, the better your chances are that you live another year. If you're lucky enough to be alive during this period of time, you have a chance to live for 1000 years or more.

I believe this is feasible as a concept however many things need to line up just right for us to get onto this trajectory in the nearterm.

[Live Forever]

Yeah, it just depends on how much money and effort is poured into research. Escape velocity will come sooner or later, it just depends on what point it hits at what age people currently alive (or if anyone currently alive) will benefit from it.

[maestro949]

The mere possibility that it might be feasible within our lifetime makes it worth pursuing IMO. What's the worst that can happen?

[John Schloendorn]

just depends on how much money and effort is poured into research.

We can't know this before anybody did "pour the money". I side with Maestro's here. It's a simple decision matrix. Worryingly reminiscent of Pascal's wager. The moment I start becoming convinced that this will happen, I'm off to the beach...

[Live Forever]

The mere possibility that it might be feasible within our lifetime makes it worth pursuing IMO.  What's the worst that can happen?

Well I of course am fully with you on that. The only descent might come from people worried about shifting resources to aging research and away from other areas. Of course I (and probably just about everyone here) would say it would be a good tradeoff, but there are still lots of people out there that need some convincing, unfortunately.

The moment I start becoming convinced that this will happen, I'm off to the beach...

...to tide you over till then. )

[Liquidus]

The mere possibility that it might be feasible within our lifetime makes it worth pursuing IMO.  What's the worst that can happen?

Well, aside from the sci-fi scenarios of crazy mutant zombies unleashed in the event of a mistake somewhere (ala Resident Evil, etc...), nothing I can really see.

The fact is, it should, and will be a choice. If Sens and Dr. de Grey's work happens to fall short, singularity and nanotechnology are right around the corner. Keep in mind that there will be new ideas and initiatives to anti-aging that we cannot possibly predict right now. Remember, relatively speaking, the anti-aging movement is the wild-west. We haven't even really begun to touch the realm of potential.

It's hard for any of us to predict that either 'it will work, we have nothing to worry about' or 'it can't work, ah well'. Technology and the unpredictability of social situations make it nearly impossible to truly 'know' what will happen, it's even harder for us to predict what future technologies/innovations might contribute. Sens might not work, Nanotech might not work, Singularity might never happen, but one thing WILL happen (barring earth being destroyed/under an extreme dictatorship), and that is the progression of technology. If we use the current progression of technology as a measuring device, we should feel absolutely confident that technology alone should provide the avenues needed for the progression of anti-aging in the foreseeable future.

I'm not saying that Sens advocacy should be stopped merely because it 'might' not work (although I'm leaning more towards the possibility that it will), the whole point of even just exposing people to the reality of technology and people who actually want the anti-aging movement to prosper is a good enough reason to support it.

The worst that can happen is we do nothing and have 'faith' that something good will happen. People have adopted that mode of thinking since civilizations began, exactly how many of them have survived to validate their complacency? None.

Using strictly the current progression of technology as a model, I, personally, am confident that we should be in good shape in the next 20-30 years (maybe a little longer). So unless you're in your 70's now, you have a fairly good chance of seeing this movement succeed. The younger you are (like me) the better your chances are obviously. So the question really is dynamic to the observer, the older you are, the more skeptical you'll be, the younger you are, the more optimistic you might be. These are obviously just my rough observations.

Edited by G Snake, 15 August 2007 - 07:31 PM.

[Andrew Shevchuk]

Keeping in mind of course that some of those 60-year-olds will live at least another fifty years under today's technology, it seems likely that he's correct. Although, the vast majority of people 60+ may not have that much hope. It's difficult to say.

[forever freedom]

Does anyone believe De Grey's theory which he mentions that the first 1000 year-old person is already 60 now?
Plz discuss + evidence

I would really like to believe so, but i think that's too far fetched. Of course i might be wrong (damn i hope i am) but if today's 60 y.o are expected to live to around 110 y.o, that's 50 years in the future; while a lot of stuff can happen in half a century, i'm really not very optimistic that either the singularity or SENS (with it being functional, making people live indefinitely) will play in by then.

I think that we will start being able to live indefinitely by 2080-2100, that's my guess (maybe it's based on my wishful thinking, since by 2100 i'll be 112 y.o, therefore around the current limit of my lifespan).

[basho]

I'd tie this too the advancement of general machine intelligence. If we get (friendly) AGI within the next 30 to 50 years, followed immediately by a technological singularity, then he will definitely be correct. Well, correct maybe that the potential will be available for someone to live a 1000 years or more in either real-time or accelerated subjective time if their consciousness is mapped to a faster substrate.

[Mind]

There are most certainly a few 60 year-olds living today that will live past 110 without any medical invervention what-so-ever. Even if you assume only minor (less than linear) progress in medical technology and aging theory over the next 50 years, those 60 year-olds have a good shot at adding another 10 years to their life. Ruling out a global catastrophe, who among us thinks we will be no closer to curing aging by 2067 than we are today? Not many I suppose.

[Cyberbrain]

How about if someone is 18? Would they have a chance to be a 1000?

[Liquidus]

How about if someone is 18? Would they have a chance to be a 1000?

Like I've mentioned, I think it's fair to assume that even without any advancements whatsoever in the anti-aging field, the life expectancy of someone 10-20 YO is probably 90-100 YO at this current time. If you're still alive in 2070, I would be hard pressed to be believe that some revolutionary things didn't happen in that time span, of course unless all of humanity is rendered extinct.

[missminni]

There are most certainly a few 60 year-olds living today that will live past 110 without any medical invervention what-so-ever. Even if you assume only minor (less than linear) progress in medical technology and aging theory over the next 50 years, those 60 year-olds have a good shot at adding another 10 years to their life. Ruling out a global catastrophe, who among us thinks we will be no closer to curing aging by 2067 than we are today? Not many I suppose.

I'm one of those 60 year olds (62 this Jan.) who plan on being around another 100 years.
No doubt in my mind. 1000 sounds good too.
I see "programmed to die" not so much as a genetic program, as a psychological one.

Edited by missminni, 02 December 2007 - 01:21 AM.

[forever freedom]

who among us thinks we will be no closer to curing aging by 2067 than we are today? Not many I suppose.

Maybe we will be closer, but we probably won't have made it yet. Maybe it would take a few more decades, and this time would be critical for old people by then. The only way i see of this working is if Kurzweil's prediction on the singularity happening around 2045 be right, but i doubt it.

People who are 60 year old now do hold good chances of making it, i think. Even if by 2067 we don't have the means to extend lifespan dramatically, maybe we will be able to get some more 10 or 20 years, possibly reaching the escape velocity.