39 replies to this topic

[VictorBjoerk]

Many people say that aging is not a disease,only the consequences of it eg resulting damage-related health problems like Alzheimers should be considered diseases.

Do you consider non-dangerous things like grey hair and wrinkles diseases? Remember,grey hair can naturally occur in teens and wrinkles can be apparent already at 30 if the person has sun-damaged skin.

Do you consider a 70-year old person with full mental capabilities and no obvious problems healthy?Eg he can run and do most things a young person can but he has of course decreased reaction time,grey hair and wrinkles etc...

So can a biologically "old" person be "healthy"?

This is a bit of a philosophical question since it's about your personal definition of "healthy"

[Mind]

Of course you will run into problems of definition here. Many people have different definitions of "aging", "health" and even "healthy aging". I am going to take a stand and say that being healthy is having as close to 100% of your body's capabillity as possible. No one is ever truly at 100% optimum, but aging certainly brings you down a long way. I am in my late 30s and my maximum oxygen capacity, maximum heart rate, hormone levels, etc, are all in decline. There is nothing healthy about it. Therefore I voted that there is no such thing as healthy aging.

[forever freedom]

Aging is bad and i need to beat it, that's all i know.


After we turn 30, we slowly lose our capabilities. Just because some may lose their capabilities slower than the average person, they can't be considered to be aging "healthily" simply because they're still, as slow as it may be, losing their capabilities. And just because everyone currently goes under this proccess doesn't mean that "that's the way it's supposed to be".


Of course i don't have to say all this because i'm sure this is the way virtually everyone here thinks but since it was asked...

[bgwowk]

To paraphase something Steve Harris said many years ago:

"If there were a disease that suddenly turned healthy 20-year-olds into 'healthy' 70-year-olds, we would think it was worse than AIDS."

Humans have an amazing capacity to rationalize and even praise the most horrible indignities when they are perceived as universal and unavoidable.

[Athanasios]

70 is a good time to phrase the question since it seems you can get on quite well til your 60s. CRs preservation of muscle past your 60s is the reasoning for my timing of planning to start CR around that time if need be.

Aging is well worth curing.

[niner]

This is almost entirely a semantic issue. Obviously none of us thinks aging is a good thing, or wants to pretend that it's just fine and natural. Certainly, at any given age, a person could be more or less healthy than the average person at that age, and I'm sure all of us intend to be on the "more healthy" side of average if we can possibly help it.

[caston]

Viewing ageing as a disease may not be the best approach. It is certainly not an infectious disease. If I had sex with a person older than me would I hasten my ageing process? I doubt it.


Aging is perhaps closer to an immune function than a disease.

Lets define unhealthy ageing as interfering with metabolism be it through unclean air, electromagnetic radiation, chlorinated water, stress, infection, transfatty foods, antibiotics, drugs or to many supplements. Unhealthy ageing is an accumulation of damage that is extra to those of the bodies metabolic processes or unhealthy practice that has accelerated them.

[VictorBjoerk]

Viewing ageing as a disease may not be the best approach. It is certainly not an infectious disease. If I had sex with a person older than me would I hasten my ageing process? I doubt it.


Aging is perhaps closer to an immune function than a disease.

Lets define unhealthy ageing as interfering with metabolism be it through unclean air, electromagnetic radiation, chlorinated water, stress, infection, transfatty foods, antibiotics, drugs or to many supplements. Unhealthy ageing is an accumulation of damage that is extra to those of the bodies metabolic processes or unhealthy practice that has accelerated them.

How do you think a healthy aging process should be like?

[bgwowk]

Infectiousness is irrelevant. Most diseases, especially diseases affecting people in the developed world, are not infectious. Before the Internet and the mistaken belief that Web surfing could replace organized knowledge, most health-conscious people would have a personal hardcopy of the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, from which this would be obvious.

Progeria is a disease. Although there are some biological distinctions, the main difference between progeria and "normal" biological aging is rate of onset. If a variant of progeria emerged that quickly turned healthy 20-year-olds into what we currently consider "healthy" 70-year-olds, it absolutely would be considered a disease.

The mortality rate of even the healthiest of 70-year-olds is higher than that of healthy 20-year-olds. There are numerous quantifiable attributes of 70-year-olds that would be considered unhealthy if the same conditions were found in a 20-year-old. Whenever someone says "healthy 70-year-old", it is always implicit that they mean healthy for their age, not anything close to the health observed in biologically young adults.

I don't know whether at this point in time it is politically useful to call aging a disease. But let's call a spade a spade. Healthy biological aging is an oxymoron.

Edited by bgwowk, 03 June 2008 - 06:50 AM.

[bgwowk]

If I had sex with a person older than me would I hasten my ageing process? I doubt it.

Actually it could possibly hasten one aspect of biological aging. There is evidence that some aspects of immune senescence are caused by depletion of immune cells fighting chronic CMV infection. The incidence of CMV seropositivity in young adults in the developed world is approximately 50%, rising to near 100% in old age. The virus is endemic because it is transmitted very easily, even just by saliva when the infection is active. It's theoretically possible that if you can manage to postpone or avoid CMV infection, you might have a healthier immune system in later life.

[forever freedom]

Viewing ageing as a disease may not be the best approach. It is certainly not an infectious disease. If I had sex with a person older than me would I hasten my ageing process? I doubt it.


Aging is perhaps closer to an immune function than a disease.

Lets define unhealthy ageing as interfering with metabolism be it through unclean air, electromagnetic radiation, chlorinated water, stress, infection, transfatty foods, antibiotics, drugs or to many supplements. Unhealthy ageing is an accumulation of damage that is extra to those of the bodies metabolic processes or unhealthy practice that has accelerated them.

How do you think a healthy aging process should be like?

There is no healthy aging proccess

A healthy aging proccess would be where people "age" but don't get older lol..

[Agarikon]

Come over to my house and talk to my granpa who just moved in because of aging. Only, he'll probably answer a different question than the one you'll ask him because he won't be able to hear you because of aging. He just fell in the bathroom 2 weeks ago and broke his shoulder because of poor balance due to aging. He's recovering from bladder cancer from aging. Thankfully the man can still walk, but he only goes about .5mph and has to use a walker. His skin is falling off of his face. He is so miserable he doesn't want to live. I just don't understand how anyone can associate the word healthy with aging. It's a goddamn oxymoron excuse my language.

Edited by Agarikon, 03 June 2008 - 09:13 AM.

[caston]

OK healthy ageing may be an oxymoron but I'm just trying to say that from an ethical perspective it is alarmist to tell people they have a disease. The worst thing that can happen is they make things worse for themselves while contributing almost zero to the established body of scientific knowledge about the ageing process.

Edited by caston, 03 June 2008 - 10:12 AM.

[maestro949]

Lets define unhealthy ageing as interfering with metabolism be it through unclean air, electromagnetic radiation, chlorinated water, stress, infection, transfatty foods, antibiotics, drugs or to many supplements.

You don't need any of these, or lack thereof, for the aging process to occur. Even if you lived in a sterile bubble encased in a mile thick lead casing, exercised, didn't smoke and ate a perfectly balanced diet you'd still suffer aging's consequences. Aging is mostly due to error rates in cellular processes and less than 100% efficiency in damage repair rather than environmental factors.

OK healthy ageing may be an oxymoron but I'm just trying to say that from an ethical perspective it is alarmist to tell people they have a disease.

I say ring the alarm bell then. The slow accumulation of damage are the events leading to the numerous diseases of aging so the aging process is effectively analogous to precancer symptoms. We are rapidly approaching a point where we can measure and treat many of the early but undetectable presymptomatic states. We already have all of the base technology to do so, we simply need to invest heavily in building it out to point where cost effective therapies can be brought to market.

Edited by maestro949, 03 June 2008 - 11:17 AM.

[caston]

The technology needed to keep us young and spritely need not be developed in the name of curing aging. Likely the first people to benefit from rejuvenation stem cell therapies could be bald men that would like a new head of hair but don't even think about curing aging.

http://www.dailymail...owing-hair.html

Edited by caston, 03 June 2008 - 12:16 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

Why should it be alarming to tell people that they have a disease?They maybe would want to contribute more then to aging research.......

[caston]

Why should it be alarming to tell people that they have a disease?They maybe would want to contribute more then to aging research.......

Well that sounds like a major scam. There is something wrong with you. Give us money for what appears to be a major pie in the sky project and one day you might see some benefit from it. Really we need to break all the engineering requirements down to smaller modules and sell them as solutions to other problems which people will find they immediately benefit from.

I remember once in an episode of "family ties" Alex went to see a friend of his that was in hospital with AIDS and he said "is there anything I can get for you" and the guys response was "how about a new immune system". Why not use things like repleniSENS to give people with diseases like AIDS new immune systems. That way AIDS research becoming aging research and vise versa.

Give people with diabetes new insulin producing cells. Those with diabetes will be thankful for the procedure even if they have never heard of SENS.

Unlike us most people don't spend most of their thought cycles thinking about the ageing process. Why should we make them? If we do convince them to listen to us then suddenly they have to worry about aging rather than just enjoying their life and using it to live and love.

People with other age related conditions live in constant reminder of their situation. We cannot make things worse for these people we can only make them better. These are the people that SENS therapies could benefit.

Edited by caston, 04 June 2008 - 04:11 PM.

[mentatpsi]

is this a koan? because it takes the form of a koan, perhaps we're supposed to achieve some grand realization from pondering this question... lol.

People accept death simply because they don't see an alternative, self defense mechanisms do the rest. I don't think you'll find a single rational person deny anti-aging treatment if given the option unless there were some really severe consequences. So no there isn't any healthy forms of aging, I believe caston, though, is referring to the psychological dimension of aging.

Edited by mysticpsi, 04 June 2008 - 05:21 PM.

[caston]

is this a koan? because it takes the form of a koan, perhaps we're supposed to achieve some grand realization from pondering this question... lol.

People accept death simply because they don't see an alternative, self defense mechanisms do the rest. I don't think you'll find a single rational person deny anti-aging treatment if given the option unless there were some really severe consequences. So no there isn't any healthy forms of aging, I believe caston, though, is referring to the psychological dimension of aging.

Well there are less healthy ways to age. I think we don't need to interrupt people unless we have something that can improve their quality of life.

We can go out and spread out genes by having sex with people or we can go out and spread our memes. What's important is not genes nor memes but individuals. We need to ask what is really best for the person.

Edited by caston, 05 June 2008 - 03:05 AM.

[maestro949]

I think we don't need to interrupt people unless we have something that can improve their quality of life.

A large number of potential treatments from advancing technology are emerging that, with enough investment, will improve both quality and quantity of life. We need the public's support in steering more research money towards the molecular causes of aging and government support of the biotech industry that develops age-slowing and rejuvenational therapies.

caston, I think you need to give people a little more credit in what they can emotionally handle regarding the possibility of a longer and higher quality life rather than shelter them like children. If we're approaching a point where drastic changes to lifespan can be engineered then every person on the planet should be made aware so they can voice their opinion as to whether they'd like to pursue these technologies, otherwise the decision defaults the the status-quo power brokers.

[caston]

A large number of potential treatments from advancing technology are emerging that, with enough investment, will improve both quality and quantity of life. We need the public's support in steering more research money towards the molecular causes of aging and government support of the biotech industry that develops age-slowing and rejuvenational therapies.

There is already widespread public support for organisations that focus on specific organs for instance the Lions Eye Institute.

http://www.lei.org.au/

At the moment we are using our male brains and drowning ourselves in the task and the details. Instead we should draw up a chart of the human body with all the organs listed and organisations devoted to the health of those organs. We could from there work out how to lobby and introduce rejuvenation research and technologies to these organisations. For instance LysoSens and Enzyme Replacement Therapy (ERT)
It will be far more sensible to debate and thus discover the value of these therapies with research people form organisations like Lions Eye that it would be with the general public. We can find out if these therapies will work.

At some point though organs have just to many AGE's, to much calcification, lysomal junk, to much epi-genetic dysregulation and the entire organ needs to be replaced which will bring me to my next point soon.

caston, I think you need to give people a little more credit in what they can emotionally handle regarding the possibility of a longer and higher quality life rather than shelter them like children. If we're approaching a point where drastic changes to lifespan can be engineered then every person on the planet should be made aware so they can voice their opinion as to whether they'd like to pursue these technologies, otherwise the decision defaults the the status-quo power brokers.

The public debate could hold us back decades if you compare it to the existing public debates around genetic engineering and cloning. In fact there are
strains of rice genetically modified to produce carotenoids that could save millions of lives lost to vitamin A deficiency. There are pigs engineered to contain enzymes allowing them to break down phosphorous making their waste much less toxic. These breakthoughs are being held back because of the public debate. Where could stem cell research be now if it weren't fiercely debated?

I worry that when the public debate about aging finally comes we will fact have created a pissing contest where various major self-interest, religious groups, corporate bodies etc battle it out using the media to manipulate the public rather than allowing people to form their own opinions.

But no one can disagree with a person that needs a new heart or a new kidney or a new pancreas.

That's why we should fork the Reprap project to make an open source 3D printer for ECM's.

http://reprap.org/bi...ew/Main/WebHome

This still leaves us with the brain of course but neurodegeration should be slower if we can rejuvenate the body and keep it young and healthy. There would be less dementia if the immune system gets reset every so often.

Edited by caston, 05 June 2008 - 10:14 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

Just a note,The degeneration of the human brain isn't as obvious like the other organ problems.As you can see in the movie "au-dela 120 ans avec Jeanne Calment" her brain was scanned and extensive studies were done showing that she did not suffer from the slightest amount of dementia.

[caston]

Thanks Shonghow

[maestro949]

These breakthoughs are being held back because of the public debate. Where could stem cell research be now if it weren't fiercely debated?

So what are you suggesting? Doing the research in secret with no funding and then springing new therapies on an unsuspecting public? That doesn't sound very realistic. The debate will start immediately as soon as the cloak of secrecy is lifted and will still have to run it's full course. Might as well start that debate well before the technology emerges and get it out of the way.

[caston]

These breakthoughs are being held back because of the public debate. Where could stem cell research be now if it weren't fiercely debated?

So what are you suggesting? Doing the research in secret with no funding and then springing new therapies on an unsuspecting public? That doesn't sound very realistic. The debate will start immediately as soon as the cloak of secrecy is lifted and will still have to run it's full course. Might as well start that debate well before the technology emerges and get it out of the way.

I'm not suggesting doing research in secret. The research will still be publically available and the press will write about it. I'm just saying that we shouldn't go out there and try to convince people to our way of thinking especially if they are minding their own business. I'm also suggesting developing the tech to complete other smaller goals (like restoring eye sight) which no one would even argue against.

If we did get this public debate you are pinning for and the debate turned sour. People that were once neutral (and had no biotech skils or inclination anyway) were forced ot pick a side and they chose the other team would you accept the outcome?

I say if a big public debate pops up then we will deal with it then but we shouldn't put energy intro trying to kick start the debate. That's like trying to start a fight.

Edited by caston, 06 June 2008 - 06:13 AM.

[maestro949]

If we did get this public debate you are pinning for and the debate turned sour. People that were once neutral (and had no biotech skils or inclination anyway) were forced ot pick a side and they chose the other team would you accept the outcome?

Public perception of the possibility of anti-aging medicine can't get any worse. Even the mention of it instantly gets you branded as a kook, charlatan or utopian dreamer that is out of touch with reality.

I say if a big public debate pops up then we will deal with it then but we shouldn't put energy intro trying to kick start the debate. That's like trying to start a fight.

Start it. The general public's negative perception and ignorance of the possible changes that can be brought forth in aging therapies are blocking factors in obtaining the large-scale funding to do the necessary research. The slow creep of advancements across a diverse range of disease endpoints that simply provide palliative care rather than curative therapies is not going to deliver rejuvenating therapies in our lifetime nor for the next few generations.

We need big concerted efforts that rival the space programs of past. CERN-like projects that focus on nanomedicine, systems biology, stem cells, gene therapy, etc are needed rather than billions of dollars sprinkled over an array of thousands of diseases.

[caston]

Maestro: It's not all doom and gloom. Remember the law of unintended consequences. Something that gets developed for one purpose could have it's technology repurposed for something else.

And were making breaks throughs all the time. Rejuventation therapies are especially big in the military.

Check out the following article that could be a breakthrough for ERT:
http://technology.ne...line-news_rss20

Public perception of the possibility of anti-aging medicine can't get any worse. Even the mention of it instantly gets you branded as a kook, charlatan or utopian dreamer that is out of touch with reality.

More likely they are bullying you for not trying to have sex with them (especially if they are a blood relative and have the same genes as you) but in all seriousness who cares what people think. Society uses reproduction and young people as vehicles to pass down genes and memes. Society allocates resources to men that help women reproduce not to men that want to live forever. We just need to understand the rules of how the system works and use it to our advantage.

Edited by caston, 06 June 2008 - 11:20 AM.

[maestro949]

Maestro: It's not all doom and gloom.

I would argue that presently it IS all doom and gloom. We're collectively committing mass suicide by not taking action. It's like we're standing in front of a bus and choosing to not step out of the way or falling from a plane and simply choosing to not pull the ripcord. We have the ability to halt aging but are simply choosing not to.

Remember the law of unintended consequences. Something that gets developed for one purpose could have it's technology repurposed for something else.

We can't rely solely on the LUC though. We just don't have the time. We have to engineer targeted and specific solutions.

And were making breaks throughs all the time.

Not nearly enough and not at a pace that will save anyone alive today.

Rejuventation therapies are especially big in the military.

Replacing blown off limbs is one thing. Rearranging the molecular makeup of a 90 year old such that she functions as a 20 year old is quite different.

Check out the following article that could be a breakthrough for ERT:
http://technology.ne...line-news_rss20

These articles don't comfort me, they simply lead to frustration, reminding me that future generations will live a disease and aging free life whereas we get to suffer and die simply because we were born too soon. Born during a time where mass laziness, ignorance and apathy reign.

We think of ourselves as enlightened, progressive and advanced but future generations will consider our time in history as the darkest of dark ages. Our stupidity will be mocked for not choosing to invest our wealth, resources and abilities into the life-saving technologies that futurions commonly enjoy as commodity. We will be regarded far worse then say the middle ages or ancient civilizations because those eras didn't have any real opportunity for advancing whereas we have potential. Instead of using our abilities to achieve our potential, we use it to conjure cop-out slogans like "healthy aging." The only definition of "healthy aging" that I'll accept is that for the passage of time, there are no deleterious symptoms that affect me.

[forever freedom]

We think of ourselves as enlightened, progressive and advanced but future generations will consider our time in history as the darkest of dark ages. Our stupidity will be mocked for not choosing to invest our wealth, resources and abilities into the life-saving technologies that futurions commonly enjoy as commodity. We will be regarded far worse then say the middle ages or ancient civilizations because those eras didn't have any real opportunity for advancing whereas we have potential. Instead of using our abilities to achieve our potential, we use it to conjure cop-out slogans like "healthy aging." The only definition of "healthy aging" that I'll accept is that for the passage of time, there are no deleterious symptoms that affect me.

Agreed 100%. People out there really don't see the possibilities that our current technology is starting to allow us to see. It's like we continuously buying better cellphones yet we don't know half of what they can do.

[caston]

sam988: Then it's time to brush up on your leadership skills

Maestro: Who cares what future generations think. Our time is now. If anything those future generation might get annoyed because the only people interested in life extension in our time got depressed and moped around. Cheer up emo kid