15 replies to this topic

[Eternal Life]

Have any one read this book? What do you think with the suggestions in this book? Are these methods valid in extending human life, or even achieve human imortality?

[Athanasios]

Have any one read this book? What do you think with the suggestions in this book? Are these methods valid in extending human life, or even achieve human imortality?

Yes.

Great, however I think something else will come to fruit besides WILT.

Extend life, yes, but by how much, who knows? These suggestions lead to functional immortality? Not in themselves, but it may buy time, as Dr. ADG suggests, to figure out more which will buy time to figure out more which will..

[Shannon Vyff]

I've read it and it does not give you advice for how to personally end aging, other than what sort of research we as humans need to be doing, and the main suggestion is that we can end aging (not all forms of death--but the aging process) and we can support that now, by contributing to either the Methuselah Fondation, or entering the field of research ourselves.

[Live Forever]

Yep, get it donated to your library or something if you can.
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=17268

[niner]

I think that it's tremendously important in terms of changing a very deeply held mindset. It also provides a signpost for people with varying degrees of scientific knowledge, though not necessarily gerontology, regarding what directions research might profitably take. I think that most of it, with the exception of WILT, is entirely sensible. (no pun intended...)

[caston]

Does Aubrey had a view that SENS should be available to all people even pack-a-day smoker, heavily drinker and obese yet mal-nurished types?

Edited by caston, 20 February 2008 - 01:00 AM.

[Live Forever]

Does Aubrey had a view that SENS should be available to all people even pack-a-day smoker, heavily drinker and obese yet mal-nurished types?

If you could totally eliminate the negative effects of that stuff, I might partake of some of that kind of stuff more often. I don't see why anyone would be against access to any such future technologies. (Aubrey seems to be all about saving lives; I don't think he discriminates about which lives he is saving)

[caston]

Ahh but assuming limited resources would an 80 year old that is facing death due to aging have more right to SENS therapies than a 40 year old that wants to be 30 again? If it's about saving lives not looking pretty

[Live Forever]

Ahh but assuming limited resources would an 80 year old that is facing death due to aging have more right to SENS therapies than a 40 year old that wants to be 30 again? If it's about saving lives not looking pretty

Why do we always have to assume limited resources? That is so depressing...

If only one out of the two could get it, I'd say give it to the person closest to death, but I'm hoping we don't have to make those decisions.

[resveratrol]

Have any one read this book? What do you think with the suggestions in this book? Are these methods valid in extending human life, or even achieve human imortality?

I think his suggestions are spot-on (though I'm not sure I'm a fan of the WILT approach specifically). Aubrey has a better grasp of the potential engineering solutions to aging than just about anybody.

I can't argue with anything in his book; it's clearly far closer to a solution to the problems of aging than anything else that's ever been presented.

My only question would be whether his timeline is reasonable and exactly how far off the goal of negligible senescence really is. I'm skeptical of exact dates or of making overly ambitious promises ... Aubrey is talking about engineering, and engineers are notorious for our overly-optimistic scheduling. But no one can really answer than question at this point, and we won't know how long the road is until we've traveled further along it.

Edited by resveratrol, 20 February 2008 - 08:28 PM.

[samantha]

Ahh but assuming limited resources would an 80 year old that is facing death due to aging have more right to SENS therapies than a 40 year old that wants to be 30 again? If it's about saving lives not looking pretty

Really? Are the producers of the anti-aging processes and procedures to work according to someone or others dictates of what is the best or most ethical by their understanding? Saving the life of someone who may have lost a large part of cognitive capability and be in poor health just to save a life is not obviously better in my book than keeping that 40 year old in full functioning capacity and optimal health indefinitely. That is far more of a difference than the dismissive "looking pretty". In the end it is not your opinion or mine that should decide but whatever is agreeable to those who are producers and would be consumers of the technology.

[Michael]

Does Aubrey had a view that SENS should be available to all people even pack-a-day smoker, heavily drinker and obese yet mal-nurished types?

From my contact with him, I can say with absolute confidence that the answer is 'yes:' leaving aside selfish stuff (his very beloved wife is a pack-a-day smoker, he himself could fairly be described as a heavy drinker (though he handles it remarkably well and I have never seen or heard tell of him actually drunk), and while slim, his diet leaves a lot to be desired), it's quite clear to me that his mission is to save lives and alleviate suffering -- not to choose who 'deserves' a long and healthy life.

Ahh but assuming limited resources would an 80 year old that is facing death due to aging have more right to SENS therapies than a 40 year old that wants to be 30 again? If it's about saving lives not looking pretty

That, I would personally say, is a good point.

Really? Are the producers of the anti-aging processes and procedures to work according to someone or others dictates of what is the best or most ethical by their understanding?

Not directly, but (a) insurers (whether private or public), through whom most people get their health care, are initially only likely to fund age-reversing therapies where there is a clear cost-savings over conventional therapies, which there will be once people hit their 60s or so but certainly not at age 40, and (b) these companies will have to first run clinical trials, and then get regulatory approval, for their interventions as therapies for specific diseases, not for application in young and relatively healthy folk. Indeed, very early versions of the SENS biotech will likely be relatively crude -- too crude to risk its use in clinical trials to all but the sickest sufferers of specific diseases. It's not likely that ethics boards will allow human experimentation in young, basically healthy people, no matter how far back their hairlines creep .

Once they're proven in the very sick, there will doubtless be some off-label use, but this will largely happen in private with no proper evaluation or control, which could potentially greatly delay our ability to really know whether they are safe and effective in younger, healthier people. The existence of wealthy early adopters of these interventions for life extension purposes will provide a good second-best to a clinical trial: their prominence will make them relatively easy to keep track of; their wealth will ensure that they are being very carefully monitored and cared-for, increasing the odds of catching problems early; and their successful use will greatly rouse the population at large to demand (on both obvious biomedical and also on equity grounds) the broader deployment of the tech.

SENS will eventually be an evidence-based, accepted intervention for everyone over the age of ~40-50, but that will take a significant amount of time and clinical experience, IMO.

Saving the life of someone who may have lost a large part of cognitive capability and be in poor health just to save a life is not obviously better in my book than keeping that 40 year old in full functioning capacity and optimal health indefinitely.

In some scenarios, with conventional, disease-specific medicine or life support, that might well be true; but SENS therapies will not just keep frail elderly people from dying, but rejuvenate them. That said, very biologically old people who get the very first, very crudest wave of SENS may not make it, because they won't be bought enough time to catch the second wave and enjoy 'longevity escape velocity' -- see Figure 5 in:

Phoenix CR, de Grey AD.
A model of aging as accumulated damage matches observed mortality patterns and predicts the life-extending effects of prospective interventions.
AGE. 2007 Jan;29(4):133-89.

But once LEV takes hold, we'll all have indefinite, healthy life when the cellular and molecular damage of aging is removed, repaired, replaced, or rendered harmless, whatever our chronological age when we first start the therapy.

[caston]

SENS is a wonderful idea and i'm certain that it or therapies based on it will make up the future of medicine but we cannot control this technology. While most of us here don't breed like rabbits for all we know we could have long lost brothers that do. We assume people will have less children once SENS is here but what if the opposite is true?

The use of rejuvenation technologies in a world that is also carrying out a populations arms race (either between nations or between communal hives) could make this planet a very crowded and hellish place.


There are some spiders that are consumed by their female mate soon after mating with them. We consider this to be the act of selfish genes in the genes vs host situation. It could be perhaps that these are actually not selfish, but merciful, genes. Really selfish genes keep the host alive and refuse to let it ever die.

What is really important is that we enjoy our lives. That we are not selfish, not jealous and praise other people with kind words of encouragement because they cost us nothing to give yet they are nourishing. We feed those who are hungry not those who are thieves. We love because without love there is no life just a bunch of people fighting and stealing emotional energy from each other.

[Nova]

If to replace DNA mitocnndrion in a kernel that there will be no mutations and the person will live as much time, no more.

SENS - Nonsense

[GoodFellas]

This sounds very interesting. When however ciraa does Dr De Grey's predict that this tool will be available? 2060-2080?

[brokenportal]

I think one of the most valuable parts of the book is how it outlines things we can do, and things they are working on, and then you start to get a little bit like, "well, thats awfully full of variables" but then you see examples outlined about how stuff like these things is already happening.

Like gene therapy for certain kinds of diseases can already modify parts of genes for mitochondria and transport them to various degrees. Then with lipofuscin, you can already modify enzymes to break down freviously undigestable stuff, and laser ablation has already worked in cosmetic application.

Even if parts of this stuff werent already demonstratable to different degrees, we would still push forward with this, but we can already see that things like it are possible.