LONGECITY

I haven't got this one figured out yet. When i tell people how little curing cancer and heart disease is worth in the grand scheme of extending human life expectancy (7 yrs), so that I can tell them why I see so much value in working on technologies that can lead to 8, or 10 yrs.

After reading "ending aging" I came to a conflict. curing cancer and curing heart disease appear to be major components of 2 of the 7 legs of SENS.

So I do I tell peopel we should be working on longevity instead of curing cancer or heart disease, and then transition into sens where curing cancer and heart disease are 2 major components?

I think the resolution is to devide out the part of SENS which have a higher than 7 years life expectancy increase when achieved.

Amongst the 7 legs, some of the legs are worth more life up front than others. It would be nice to see estimates for which of those legs will result in gains in life expectancy in excess of curing cancer or heart disease.

Another good metric by which to look at the legs of SENS would be which of the 7 legs is more easy to achieve in a short time frame? Then compound in, which of those legs already have the most working for them (stem cells).

Then you have to decide whether it's better to help push the ones that already have great funding, or whether it's better to try and address the ones that aren't getting looked at well already.

Would you be better off pushing stem cells and seeing benefit from it in your lifetime, or dying because progress didn't happen there or in any of the other places you put your effort (one of the other 7...)

Hard hard hard questions, and ones I'm entirely amazingly unqualified to address. Who to turn to?

the trick is to find out which leg of SENS harmonizes with the personal experiences and motivations of the person.. ie. if it's cancer.. than talk about WILT.. if its overall degeneration.. talk about stem cells and mitochondrial mutations.. etc.. there's something in it for everyone.. people will eventually get it that all the strands work together but at this juncture baby steps getting them to look at SENS in a personal light would be a step in the right direction..

I think regeneration worth most, then lyso-sens and then cancer.

I find it easiest to talk about lyso-sens since it can be easily couched in terms that the layman understands. Junk builds up and causes problems. Get rid of the junk and extend your life.

Which one (7 deadlies) should be "pushed" the most? Difficult question. I guess the one that has the highest chance of success in the shortest amount of time. 1 success story will propel the rest.

So I do I tell peopel we should be working on longevity instead of curing cancer or heart disease

Doing SENS doesn't mean to stop working on cures for degenerative diseases. It means doing it in new ways that have a theoretical chance to achieve a sustainable cure. The mainstream alternatives typically merely aim at slowing their progression, trying to ease the suffering while ignoring about its causes, or finding out a little bit more about how these diseases are caused in various messed-with animal models..