83 replies to this topic

[nuzz]

Diminishing returns happens to all accelerating trends because each doubling is twice as hard as the previous one.

Huh? While there may be some diminishing returns, each doubling is certainly not twice as hard as the previous one. Even if the current rate of technological increase was linear, I doubt that we would have a life expectancy of less than 100 by the year 2030, and possibly 130-140 by the year 2050.

[kismet]

Diminishing returns happens to all accelerating trends because each doubling is twice as hard as the previous one. De Grey's thinking (like all Transhumanists') is Malthusian in that he merelyassumes that the trend will go on forever.

You are wrong, escape velocity for SENS does not necessarily require exponential growth, we can only savely assume that it requires increased growth for a certain period of time - until the problem is solved. The problem they try to solve is only as finite, as the underlying system, the human body, is.

reasons also exist for optimism regarding our ability to continue to combat new sources of aging damage … we will be taking advantage of … the accelerating rate of progress in biomedical research generally. 

Follow that? Biomedical research won't decelerate because it is accelerating.

Biomedical research is accelerating and there is reason for optimism because it is still its infancy. Either way there are two ways to keep up its exponential growth - assuming that level of growth is required, which I don't believe in the first place - either through exponential growth per se or through exponential funding. If one fails there's still the other and we cannot predict how long the exponential growth will last, it could be way longer than necessary or much shorter than that.

Weinstein:

.... In reality, everything around us is interacting in a complex combinatorial non-linear way that almost always defies description by 'scientific laws and mathematical theorems'.

That's why sometimes we simulate things, we don't need any definite scientific laws.

Weinstein:

Yep. These Transhumanists want to believe it and nothing you can say will change their minds. This only reinforces my feeling that I shouldn't be wasting my time with this nonsense. I'm not one to argue with religious believers since it is nearly impossible to change their minds and the main reason they believe is because it makes them feel good about themselves, so let them be.

Concluding your argument with a lie, an insult and a refusal to debate does not help your argument.

The lie: "These Transhumanists want to believe it and nothing you can say will change their minds"
To begin with, Aubrey is not a transhumanist nor are most supporters of the mfoundation. Neither are all transhumanists as optimistic as you imply.
Refusal to debate: "This only reinforces my feeling that I shouldn't be wasting my time with this nonsense."
The hidden insult: Comparing scientific work to religion.

The argument boils down to "it might not work, so let's not try". How naive. Even slightly slowing down aging would save an enormous amaount of money and pay for that kind of "failue". Even if we can't defeat aging, but only manage to extend human life span by 50% (or any other arbitrary number) - it will be one of the biggest achievements of mankind!

More damning though is that as far as I can tell, de Grey has never actually collected a data point. He has no experimental background whatsoever.
In fact, since he was never educated as a biologist, he literally has never done any laboratory work at all. If he had, he might have some humility about
what can be done in the real world using science and technology.

This is an interesting assumption, which, however, is getting old pretty quickly. He adresses the issue himself (maybe even in Ending Aging), as it is brought up very often.
Aubrey works with and talks to "real biologists" and experts of all fields who do the experiments, so he should have a pretty good idea of what is doable.

Thank god you are wrong, but at least your post proves that our perception of science is not wrong: 
If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
Science advances funeral by funeral.

[Cyberbrain]

In fact, since he was never educated as a biologist, he literally has never done any laboratory work at all.

He has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology.

[kismet]

In fact, since he was never educated as a biologist, he literally has never done any laboratory work at all.

He has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology.

I think he got a Ph.D. for his mitochondrial theory of aging I think, but he did not study biology or any such subject. However, I hope no one focuses on this one fact (ignoring the fact that Aubrey has worked in the field for at least 10 or 20 years, even though he has not studied it formally). Actually I believe many people use this argument on purpose these days - as a polemic rhetorical device. Although I'm not accusing the OP of doing so.

Edited by kismet, 30 January 2009 - 10:41 PM.

[Mixter]

I propose a new meme: De Grey's tarpit. Some concept (and/or person) that attracts negative attention from skepticists (including for religious/ethical reasons), but is so well founded and thought out, that this just results in a stream of new opponents showing up and wasting their time on reinventing and reiterating the same arguments that have already been refuted or at least sufficiently dealt with as to not rule out credibility of the concept/person. All praise De Grey's tarpit

[Michael]

All:

Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology.

What about that thing with the mitochondria?

See (1,2) for proof-of-concept of allotopic expression in rat models in vivo ((1) is Methuselah Foundation-funded work, BTW). See (3) for another, less-advanced strategy in vivo, and (4) for a yet-less-advanced (and, to be frank, prima facie, somewhat difficult to swallow) approach.

if i can rephrase with greater specificity: 1. what is the known technology that can enable the mitochondrial genes to be relocated in the nucleus per se.

(1,2) above; also cell models not exploiting the mRNA localization trick, and other tricks proposed to facilitate AE (inteins, protein evolution to reduce hydrophobicity), but only in cell models or conceptual. However, if AE per se doesn't work, that's fine: if Adhya's method can be done (and more clearly demonstrated) for larger mRNAs, or any other method of obviating mtDNA deletions looks more promising than AE, the Foundation will fund that route instead. We're looking for operational outcomes, not wedded to specific biotechnologies.

2. then for this to be done in an adult organism.

I would be cheating, of course, to point back to (1), since we certainly won't use electroporation. But the answer is reasonably obvious: somatic gene therapy, which is already reasonably easy in mice and beginning to show fruits in humans (the recent progress in using gene therapy in children with Leber congenital amaurosis type 2, postmenopausal women with advanced rheumatoid arthritis). I take it that you would agree that nuclear gene therapy in humans is itself foreseeable biotech ...?

3. and finally to make sure the transplanted gene regulation isnt altered?

You have to remember that the majority of the OXPHOS machinery is already nu-encoded; we can either actively make use of the same machinery for regulation of expression (since there are nu-encoded OXPHOS proteins in the same Complex as (and thus requiring fixed stoichiometry with) mt-encoded ones), or rely on existing mechanisms whereby mt control the level or activity of nu-coded proteins (regulating their importation rate or modulating enzyme activity allosterically, eg (5)). Some of the main arguments about the regulation of allotopically-expressed mitochondrial proteins were discussed a while ago on these Forums.

Elrond, why is there a replenisens section if sens does not actually have a research program/strategy in this area?

Because they're part of SENS: cell loss and tissue atrophy is one of the seven classes of aging damage that we need to repair to arrest aging, and RepleniSENS (cell therapy and tissue engineering) is the 'engineering' solution. As Elrond indicates,

At no point does aubrey or anyone make the claim that the MF will be doing all of it. You realize he came up with it before there was such a thing as an MF?

The Foundation is using a critical-path analysis to target its research dollars to the areas under least vigorous pursuit by existing funding bodies. RepleniSENS is presently receiving a great deal of vigorous research, and thus is a low priority. (Similarly, not a dime of Foundation money is going into immunotherapy for beta-amyloid protein -- though there is an RFP out for another subclass of AmyloSENS (immunotherapy for TTR), because no one is working on that yet (except indirectly, through a possible cross-reactivity with an Ab targeting light-chain amyloid (6,7)).

my point is, why is there such a thing as replenisens if there is no project behind it? particularly given there's a 'donate' button on the same page.. its confusing. i mean say someone obtains the view they are donating to replenisens?

You wouldn't get this confusion by clicking through into or out of this page, or on the 'Donate' button; in any case, the button is on every page of the website, as with the equivalent link on every page of other medical research charities like the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, or American Cancer Society, irrespective of whether the organization is funding the work described on a given page.

-Michael

References
1. Ellouze S, Augustin S, Bouaita A, Bonnet C, Simonutti M, Forster V, Picaud S, Sahel JA, Corral-Debrinski M.
Optimized allotopic expression of the human mitochondrial ND4 prevents blindness in a rat model of mitochondrial dysfunction.
Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Sep;83(3):373-87. Epub 2008 Sep 4.
PMID: 18771762 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Qi X, Sun L, Lewin AS, Hauswirth WW, Guy J.
The mutant human ND4 subunit of complex I induces optic neuropathy in the mouse.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Jan;48(1):1-10.
PMID: 17197509 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. Mukherjee S, Mahata B, Mahato B, Adhya S.
Targeted mRNA degradation by complex-mediated delivery of antisense RNAs to intracellular human mitochondria.
Hum Mol Genet. 2008 May 1;17(9):1292-8. Epub 2008 Jan 18.
PMID: 18203752 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4. Development of mitochondrial gene replacement therapy.
Khan SM, Bennett JP Jr.
J Bioenerg Biomembr. 2004 Aug;36(4):387-93. Review.
PMID: 15377877 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5. Bender E, Kadenbach B.
The allosteric ATP-inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase activity is reversibly switched on by cAMP-dependent phosphorylation.
FEBS Lett. 2000 Jan 21;466(1):130-4.
PMID: 10648827 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6. Solomon A, Weiss DT, Wall JS.
Therapeutic potential of chimeric amyloid-reactive monoclonal antibody 11-1F4.
Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Sep 1;9(10 Pt 2):3831S-8S.
PMID: 14506180 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7. Wall J, Schell M, Hrncic R, Macy S, Wooliver C, Wolfenbarger D, Murphy C, Donnell R, Weiss DT, Solomon A.
Treatment of amyloidosis using an anti-fibril monoclonal antibody: Preclinical efficacy in a murine model of AA-amyloidosis.
In: Bély M, Apáthy A (eds). Amyloid and Amyloidosis. The Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Amyloidosis. 2001; Budapest, Hungary; David Apathy, 158-60.

[brokenportal]

There are many points I agree with here, like these:

So accelerating returns are not a guarantee. So what.

The problem with mr Lalancette is not his skepticism. .......The problem with him is his attitude.

The attitude seems mostly good though. I hope this topic keeps leaning that way because it makes great insightful discussion.

Perhaps you should meet or at the very least have a telephone conversation..

It is good to see another skeptic on here,

I definitely dont agree with this though:

Yep. These Transhumanists want to believe it and nothing you can say will change their minds. This only reinforces my feeling that I shouldn't be wasting my time with this nonsense. I'm not one to argue with religious believers since it is nearly impossible to change their minds and the main reason they believe is because it makes them feel good about themselves, so let them be.

Decelerate, accelerate, level off, explode, implode, revert back to the stone age, anything could happen, but one thing is for sure, we definitely wont move forward if we stand still. Some people compare transhumanism and life extension to religion. There is a difference between religion and pioneers, pioneers forge forth. Come what may, they work to blaze trails and prove or disprove their destinations. They take wrong turns and get attacked by “lions” and “Indians”, and their ships get caught in storms and sink along the way, but they forge forth. They aren’t sure if they are going to find solid ground, but they prepare and set sail anyways. With out them we wouldn’t have any of the stuff we have today. We wouldn’t have explored the world or gone to the moon or have the industrial expansion or the tech expansion etc.. This topic is the ancestor of the same concepts you would hear in say, the 1800s talking about how these “metal horses” are for dreamers and they will break down and cause head aches and divert attention from horse care etc… Heres one quote that goes a long with this kind of thing:

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and
reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum
against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge
ladled out daily in high schools."
--1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's
revolutionary rocket work.

There is an even better one about somebody talking about Watson and Crick being second rate yahoos before they made their discoveries, but I cant find it. These are the same kinds of people that said Kennedy was a fool and a naïve dreamer who thought that his presidency gave him the right to assume anything he wanted. Nasa told Kennedy that it was impossible to get the things necessary to go to the moon done by the end of the decade. These are the same people that said, even in the 70s and 80s, that cell phones were a naïve fantasy and would never happen. There’s also a quote that goes something like this, but I cant find it. ‘The attempters of the “impossible” are routinely scoffed until the impossible is achieved at which point the detractors of the thing pretend as though they knew it all along and then treat it as unremarkable.’ There’s a whole page full of some quotes like this at this link: http://www.interesti...0/msg00038.html

Transhumanists logic and deGreys logic may not be air tight, but there is not much logic I can think of that is, what with deconstructionism and the precariousness of existence and all constantly looming. You often see in the news, “Scientists are left scratching their heads as long time theory is proven wrong.” What is important is that we forge forth. Transhumanism and SENS hold a lot of weight and they dare to believe, they are well constructed boats that set sail. Will they make it? We don’t know. Everything could use constructive criticism, but definitely not destructive criticism. If somebody doesn’t support transhumanism or SENS, of if they think transhumanism or SENS or and things needs more work, that’s great, help build on, or build another boat and set sail. Most of us support the whole fleet. If you want to build a boat youll have a good chance of finding a crew and support around these longevity communities.

The detractors of transhumanism and SENS, and everything really, may be right though, so I hope everybody keeps the discussion going. Even if one side of this turns out to be blatantly wrong I hope you and everybody keep the discussion moving until all the details are discussed, because it’s invaluable to our perspective. It sharpens people’s insights and pushes them to research all the finer points and angles that may have been hard to spot and find from other angles. I think most of this topic didnt insinuate ad hominem stuff and I applaud and welcome the skepticism despite potential ad hominem as most of us do.

Everybody has to keep as much of, and hopefully all of, the ad hominem and insinuations of ad hominem out of it though. If you present somebody with two arguments: 1. a science argument, and 2. a question of their intelligence, they are going to be torn between arguing them both. Stick to the subject and you’ll get a lot further and we will all be better off for it. This reminds me of this quote:

“The most difficult thing for any human seems to be to admit being wrong—to confess error of belief and conviction—to unlearn false knowledge as well as to learn true knowledge.” Herbert W. Armstrong

Not to mention that if a person argues against somebody’s intelligence and they turn out to be wrong then they, or anybody that does that would be hard pressed to admit it, and then they’re in a real mess. They have to keep defending the point that has been proven wrong lest they risk the “big idiot” light they’ve been trying to shine on other people, turning on them. Im most interested in your response to Michaels response here and I look forward to the great discussion.

Onward and upward, together we sail away from the grave and on toward the stars.

Edited by brokenportal, 31 January 2009 - 02:39 AM.

[Cyberbrain]

I have to agree with brokenportal that transhumanism is certainly not a religion. Neither is life extension. Theists are static, preying for humanity to get better. Transhumanists are progressive, working to make humanity better.

[Prometheus]

Michael, thanks for the references you've provided on allotopic expression - the Ellouze study is cool. but you haven't made your case, because:
1. Methodologically, the technology required to implement allotopic expression in an adult human does not exist - albeit in vivo, the study you mentioned looked at electroporation with plasmid DNA for transient expression in limited cell numbers
2. Despite some evidence of intracellular localization of nuclear-expressed mitochondrial mRNA, there is no evidence of sufficient understanding on the regulation and expression of the transferred genes.

[Prometheus]

I remain dubious about why you would use the name 'replenisens' when you're not actually conducting any research in this area, or at least have a plan..

de Grey's sens is about engineering strategies, isn't it? Where's the associated proposed engineering solution?

In the corporate world this would be regarded as bullshit.

[Prometheus]

... following from my previous post,

It's occurred to me, that what is particularly interesting, is that if you were to actually apply the 'engineering' approach as per de Grey's interpretation, the quickest way to treat aging and associated disease given the practical restrictions of methodological implementation, is to use stem cell treatments, which can be used, incidentally, also to correct genetic defects. In fact, there's a stem cell based solution for all of the '7 causes'.. This is not to say that I agree with 7 but that the 7 described can be addressed with stem cell treatments..

Surprisingly, the greatest paucity of activity as regards to sens is in this area (stem cell therapies)..

I suspect that at the time sens was conceived, stem cell research was very different to where it is today. Which supports the notion that sens, like some sort of 10 commandments handed down from God, has crystalized, in principle, to the time it was first conceived and appears to take no notice of ongoing scientific developments.

[kismet]

I remain dubious about why you would use the name 'replenisens' when you're not actually conducting any research in this area, or at least have a plan..

de Grey's sens is about engineering strategies, isn't it? Where's the associated proposed engineering solution?

In the corporate world this would be regarded as bullshit.

Did you get the part with "funding critical-path research"? I'm not sure what this would be called in the corporate world, but it certainly would feature the words: maximising return on investment, corporate people like that. There is enough funding for most stem cell research already. By the way I hope you are aware of the bullshit-level in the corporate world, if yes, you will agree that the Mfoundation is the epitome of sincerity in comparison to big business.

I believe - at least to me it is quite obvious - that "repleniSENS" exists, because it was proposed by Aubrey as a solution to one of the problems within the SENS framework and will be incorporated as a therapy one day. (corporate world slang: forward-looking statement)

Dr Manhattan, I will be frank with you and I am pretty sure I am speaking on behalf of most people: Would you please stop constantly insinuating insults?

Those are just examples from this thread:
"In the corporate world this would be regarded as bullshit." - you say that, even though corporate predictions are known to be most dishonest you can get.
"Which supports the notion that sens, like some sort of 10 commandments handed down from God, has crystalized, in principle, to the time it was first conceived and appears to take no notice of ongoing scientific developments." - comparing science with religion, ouch.
"indeed he [MR] appears to act as scientific journalist - albeit with a penchant for senscentrism - who is developing content for those forums." - saying that to any scientist is not in the least derogatory, now is it?
"why you would use the name 'replenisens' when you're not actually conducting any research in this area, or at least have a plan.." - so are you implying that Aubrey & co do not even have a plan how to incorporate stem cell technology? I'm pretty sure the last time I read Ending Aging, the 'new cells for old' chapter sounded like a plan, but your statement sounds as if the repleniSENS section at the mfoundation was a wasteland.

I'm sure, as a long-term member, you can express your opinion against SENS without this sardonic undertone. You see it may hurt the very people you want to discuss, if you keep throwing insults in disguise you are just wasting their (and our) time. Instead you could try to source such controversial statements like: "a stem cell based solution for all of the '7 causes'" or the mfoundation being without a plan to use stem cell innovations.

Edited by kismet, 30 January 2009 - 11:30 PM.

[HP Lalancette]

Proconsul,

Of course, we can't know for sure if these technologies will succeed. For that one would need the classic magical crystal sphere… But it's reasonable to hope that they will. Similarly, it seems reasonable to hope that progress in biology and related fields will achieve a significant lengthening of healthy human life span, both by implementation and development of current technologies, and by development of new ones. The odds may be more difficult than in some other fields, but it's at least reasonable to hope that progress will be achieved. Reasonable hope is very different from blind faith.

Let's first distinguish between de Grey's SENS ideas and the longevity escape velocity (LEV). SENS will only give you 20-30 more years. LEV will give you at least 1000 and at most you will be immortal since all the extrinsic causes of death (car accidents, suicides, supernova, etc) will be solved too thanks to accelerating technology.

I suppose it is reasonable to hope that we can extend life expectancy by 20 years. After all, we already extended it over the last 150 years by 40 years. Another 20 seems reasonable. Also, many of de Grey's detractors apparently believe that we can get an extra decade or so. Here is Olshansky. Also, some of the signers of the EMBO Reports attack on de Grey also believe that a few more decades could be possible. They say so in that article.

So, that is a reasonable hope of yours. There is no guarantee of course.

That said, the second aspect of de Grey's claim, the LEV, constitutes Blind Faith. de Grey has admitted in print that he has no idea what the problems will be after SENS succeeds let alone what the solutions might be. Therefore, his prediction that all future problems will be solved is not based on science at all but on extraploating trends that he barely bothers to describe. He recognizes that other technologies seem to have entered diminishing returns (as you point out with aviation) but his explanation for this is that society lost interest in developing them further. While sociopolitical factors are very important in determining technolgical growth one can not ignore physical limits that the universe and it's laws impose on us. In the case of supersonic commercial aircraft, the sonic boom hugely limited their use by preventing them from being used over land. (Actually, I can already hear the response to this: sonic booms are an example of a society-imposed limit; one that aging research will not be hindered by) Maybe a better example would be the yield strength of superalloys turbine blades at high temperatures.

Since we don't know what the future holds, we have no idea what mundane problems it holds. To merely assume that all problems are solvable is Blind Faith. In fact, I will name the faith: Techno-Gnosticism.

We don't know if these partial results will be realized, let alone the final goal, but there are at least some reasonable chances that they will. From my point of view – and I guess from that of most of the members here – what is at stake is so important that it is definitely worth to give a try to those chances.

I agree.

It sounds like you are moved by an intense hatred towards Transhumanism and – I guess – life extensionism in general. Whatever are the reasons behind this attitude, they certainly are not to be found on scientific or technological grounds.

I do hate Transhumansism. I have my reasons and they aren't religious. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

-HP LaLancette

[HP Lalancette]

At the end of the day, is he harming anyone with some of his more scientifically substrateless notions? No. Yet he has captured the imaginations of many, some of which may be drawn into learning about science and health, which is a good thing.

At the least, he is wasting people's time. Think about all the people on this forum who have little background in science but who have memorized minute details about SENS. Isn't this harmful? Think about all the lost time that could've been more productively spent reading a book or taking a walk.

For the record, the 28 scientist in the EMBO reports article think this:

It is, however, our opinion that pretending that such a collection of ill-founded speculations is a useful topic for debate, let alone a serious guide to research planning, does more harm than good both for science and for society.

According to these experts (all of whom have higher h-indexes than de Grey) de Grey is slowing down progress towards effective aging remedies and is therefore costing lives by making the field of gerontology appear like the realm of crack-pots.

[Prometheus]

I remain dubious about why you would use the name 'replenisens' when you're not actually conducting any research in this area, or at least have a plan..

de Grey's sens is about engineering strategies, isn't it? Where's the associated proposed engineering solution?

In the corporate world this would be regarded as bullshit.

Did you get the part with "funding critical-path research"? I'm not sure what this would be called in the corporate world, but it certainly would feature the words: maximising return on investment, corporate people like that. There is enough funding for most stem cell research already. By the way I hope you are aware of the bullshit-level in the corporate world, if yes, you will agree that the Mfoundation is the epitome of sincerity in comparison to big business.

sounds like more bs to me.. and this time you're shoveling it! lol..
is relpenisens a real project or not? dont you get it?

I believe - at least to me it is quite obvious - that "repleniSENS" exists, because it was proposed by Aubrey as a solution to one of the problems within the SENS framework and will be incorporated as a therapy one day. (corporate world slang: forward-looking statement)

are you kidding yourself or me? replenisens exists because aubrey said so? look up what looking statement means - replenisens is sounding more like vaporware

Dr Manhattan, I will be frank with you and I am pretty sure I am speaking on behalf of most people: Would you please stop constantly insinuating insults?

Those are just examples from this thread:
"In the corporate world this would be regarded as bullshit." - you say that, even though corporate predictions are known to be most dishonest you can get.
"Which supports the notion that sens, like some sort of 10 commandments handed down from God, has crystalized, in principle, to the time it was first conceived and appears to take no notice of ongoing scientific developments." - comparing science with religion, ouch.
"indeed he [MR] appears to act as scientific journalist - albeit with a penchant for senscentrism - who is developing content for those forums." - saying that to any scientist is not in the least derogatory, now is it?
"why you would use the name 'replenisens' when you're not actually conducting any research in this area, or at least have a plan.." - so are you implying that Aubrey & co do not even have a plan how to incorporate stem cell technology? I'm pretty sure the last time I read Ending Aging, the 'new cells for old' chapter sounded like a plan, but your statement sounds as if the repleniSENS section at the mfoundation was a wasteland.

I'm sure, as a long-term member, you can express your opinion against SENS without this sardonic undertone. You see it may hurt the very people you want to discuss, if you keep throwing insults in disguise you are just wasting their (and our) time. Instead you could try to source such controversial statements like: "a stem cell based solution for all of the '7 causes'" or the mfoundation being without a plan to use stem cell innovations.

dont concern yourself with my tone, which is rather harmless my intention is not to hurt people feelings. if i have hurt anyone's feelings i apologise. but legitimate scientists, scholars, etc. would not take offense but look at addressing the points. therefore be concerned, very concerned about addressing the science.

i'm asking again - what is the replenisens project? is it an idea that - heck, a decrease in cellularity accompanies aging and should be addressed... by hummm, lets see what fits .. stem cells! that it! is that it? now lets add that suffix and were set! c'mon, you want to be taken seriously?

[HP Lalancette]

Should we all stop working on a better future? Just sit around, accept our fate, and die. Every human generation has investigated, explored, and engineered things toward the goal of a better future. Is this the generation that gives up? Is that what you are hoping for?

Of course not. This is an exciting time to be an engineer. Although, I do think that we need to accept our fate and eventually die.

Also, most human generations did not investigate, explore and engineer. The periods that they did do these things in the past represent brief spurts in human history and are quickly forgotten.

To hope that transhumanism is dealt a mortal blow is to hope for the end of evolution on this planet.

Transhumanism has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is change not progress. As long as there is life there will be evolution, with or without intelligence.

[HP Lalancette]

The problem with mr Lalancette is not his skepticism. Skepticism and doubts are generally good things, they help to develop critical thinking and to keep in touch with reality. The problem with him is his attitude. Most of us - me for sure - are here because they think that aging and death are bad things that are going to affects us, and we hope to be able to do something about it. Mr Lalancette comes here and tell us: 'Hey guys, don't even bother. I'm here to prove that you are wrong and to crush your hopes. And I really hope I will'. Even if he were right and wanted to tell us, I believe he should use a little more tact and respect. I may be blunt, but that's not the kind of attitude that's going to gain my simpathy (even if he probably doesn't give the classic rat's s**t about it anyway). Perhaps I should just grow a thicker skin.

There is no way that this won't sound terribly condescending, Proconsul, but have you considered Religion? I understand the need most people have to live by illusions. Life is hard and people die. My point is that if you need an illusion, at least choose a beautiful one. de Grey's illusion is ugly, coated, as it is, with lots of technical jargon designed to give it a thin veneer of scientific credibility.

[HP Lalancette]

Huh? While there may be some diminishing returns, each doubling is certainly not twice as hard as the previous one.

Maybe not twice as hard but harder anyway. Look at the cost of chip fabs for instance which started off in the tens of thousands of dollars and are now approaching 10 billion.

[Prometheus]

At the end of the day, is he harming anyone with some of his more scientifically substrateless notions? No. Yet he has captured the imaginations of many, some of which may be drawn into learning about science and health, which is a good thing.

At the least, he is wasting people's time. Think about all the people on this forum who have little background in science but who have memorized minute details about SENS. Isn't this harmful? Think about all the lost time that could've been more productively spent reading a book or taking a walk.

lol.. you seem to have been affected personally by all this.. anyway, i find it rather fascinating, i must admit from an anthropological/sociocultural perspective.. i have rarely encountered such an asymmetrical and disproportionate knowledge of science. so many people here, evidently with little graduate scientific training are talking about mitochondria and telomeres and aging like they are football statistics! it has more to do with the internet than de grey, i think. anyone can fall victim into thinking they can become an expert by reading a few tidbits on the internet and regurgitating without having any idea about where all of this stuff fits in. mix it in with wishful thinking and boredom.. i suppose it can become problematic when this type of asymmetrical knowledge can displace a more balanced perspective but only until the individual seeks some formal training upon which time things should become clearer.. being generally optimistic, i would think that perhaps more individuals may be drawn towards a science education as a result of being exposed to sens than not. many scientists harbored a fascination with science fiction which led them to science..

For the record, the 28 scientist in the EMBO reports article think this:

It is, however, our opinion that pretending that such a collection of ill-founded speculations is a useful topic for debate, let alone a serious guide to research planning, does more harm than good both for science and for society.

According to these experts (all of whom have higher h-indexes than de Grey) de Grey is slowing down progress towards effective aging remedies and is therefore costing lives by making the field of gerontology appear like the realm of crack-pots.

im aware of this statement.. you need to be mindful that the only reason it was made was because de grey was incessant in being taken seriously and constantly needled and criticized scientists as being in a death trance or something if they did not acknowledge him.. he seems to have calmed down since and is in respectable harmony with the scientific community, as editor of a nice science journal and organizing conferences on aging research..

[HP Lalancette]

You are wrong, escape velocity for SENS does not necessarily require exponential growth, we can only savely assume that it requires increased growth for a certain period of time - until the problem is solved. The problem they try to solve is only as finite, as the underlying system, the human body, is.

That's true. But it doesn't change my point. How do we know we will have enough growth?

Biomedical research is accelerating and there is reason for optimism because it is still its infancy.

Are you sure? The pharmaceutical industry seems to be winding down. So does life expectancy.

.... In reality, everything around us is interacting in a complex combinatorial non-linear way that almost always defies description by 'scientific laws and mathematical theorems'.

That's why sometimes we simulate things, we don't need any definite scientific laws.

But the simulations can only handle so much complexity.

The argument boils down to "it might not work, so let's not try".

Wrong. For the record, I think we should spend way more money on aging research than on cancer or heart disease. Richard Miller's article is pretty damn convincing on that point. We will only get 3 more years of life expectancy from a cure for cancer but much more life from mimicking caloric restriction proportional to the 40% life span increase that mice get.

[Prometheus]

My point is that if you need an illusion, at least choose a beautiful one. de Grey's illusion is ugly, coated, as it is, with lots of technical jargon designed to give it a thin veneer of scientific credibility.

i can think of much worse.. consider the middle east.

but why do you find it ugly? it is hopeful and peaceful and compassionate. does not make any judgements.

and more seriously, when it was first conceived, back in 1997, i think, it was spot-on from a scientific perspective. if it has any failings it is that it has not kept up with the fast moving world of science. but, i suppose, in order to stay on message, he had to stay on message literally.. and look it paid off from a funding perspective. there is a small but loyal - as you can see - following

[Prometheus]

For the record, I think we should spend way more money on aging research than on cancer or heart disease.

Well, at least an equal amount anyway. There are always the issues of acute medicine..

[HP Lalancette]

There's a whole page full of some quotes like this at this link: http://www.interesti...0/msg00038.html

Many of the quotes never were actually said or are taken out of context. There are also lots of quotes from the other side where people were way too optimistic about the future of technology which then fell flat. The movie 2001 was considered an accurate prediction of the future when it came out in 1968.

[HP Lalancette]

and look it paid off from a funding perspective. there is a small but loyal - as you can see - following

The amount of money that he has raised is a pittance in comparison to NIH funding. Thanks to his belief in inevitable immortality (which apparently includes technologies for re-engineering stars to prevent them from going supernova) he has assured that any chance of NIH funding is slim. However, there's no doubt that it has been lucrative for Mr. de Grey.

I don't know. Have government agencies funded SENS work?

[HP Lalancette]

For the record, the 28 scientist in the EMBO reports article think this:

It is, however, our opinion that pretending that such a collection of ill-founded speculations is a useful topic for debate, let alone a serious guide to research planning, does more harm than good both for science and for society.

According to these experts (all of whom have higher h-indexes than de Grey) de Grey is slowing down progress towards effective aging remedies and is therefore costing lives by making the field of gerontology appear like the realm of crack-pots.

im aware of this statement.. you need to be mindful that the only reason it was made was because de grey was incessant in being taken seriously and constantly needled and criticized scientists as being in a death trance or something if they did not acknowledge him.. he seems to have calmed down since and is in respectable harmony with the scientific community, as editor of a nice science journal and organizing conferences on aging research..

Really? That's the only reason? He was already editor of that journal and organized conferences when that paper was written. Has the assertion that de Grey is slowing down scientific progress been retracted by these scientists? How many people on this forum have even bothered to read this paper and digested its implication?

The implication is that if you want life extension then you should be fighting against de Grey. He is the main enemy!

[Prometheus]

The implication is that if you want life extension then you should be fighting against de Grey. He is the main enemy!

I can see how you are connecting the dots but I disagree.
Rather his passion should be realigned towards interventions that have a higher chance of working in the near future.

[niner]

You are wrong, escape velocity for SENS does not necessarily require exponential growth, we can only savely assume that it requires increased growth for a certain period of time - until the problem is solved. The problem they try to solve is only as finite, as the underlying system, the human body, is.

That's true. But it doesn't change my point. How do we know we will have enough growth?

I'm afraid it changes your point rather substantially. How do you know we will not have enough growth?

Biomedical research is accelerating and there is reason for optimism because it is still its infancy.

Are you sure? The pharmaceutical industry seems to be winding down. So does life expectancy.

The rapidly increasing cost of NCEs that you point out in your blog post is something of a red herring. The Big Pharma business model is running out of steam, and is already giving way to more efficient schemes. Any winding down of increases in life expectancy that you may have observed is a phenomenon we call 'curve squaring'. It is the inevitable effect of our improving ability to prevent and cure disease, but eventually we run up against conventional limits to lifespan. All this does is point out that we need to start shifting resources from curing disease to preventing or reversing aging. Since we have yet to see such a shift in any significant amount, we are not yet observing the fruits of such investment. The phenomena you observe via this data are real, but you are taking away the wrong meaning.

The argument boils down to "it might not work, so let's not try".

Wrong. For the record, I think we should spend way more money on aging research than on cancer or heart disease. Richard Miller's article is pretty damn convincing on that point. We will only get 3 more years of life expectancy from a cure for cancer but much more life from mimicking caloric restriction proportional to the 40% life span increase that mice get.

OK, you and I are on the same page here. Still, such tinkering with metabolism will only get us so far. de Grey's approach, if successful, should ultimately lead to greater gains. Where I differ with you and the signatories to the '05 EMBO paper is in my interpretation of the "danger" that de Grey presents. I don't think that he will result in reduced funding to conventional biogerontology. On the contrary, he may ultimately increase it. In addition, he provides some signposts for research direction. "Look over here...", if you will. This is helpful. It would be interesting to see where the signatories to that paper stand on the question today. At least one of them is a member here, perhaps we should ask him.

[HP Lalancette]

The implication is that if you want life extension then you should be fighting against de Grey. He is the main enemy!

I can see how you are connecting the dots but I disagree.
Rather his passion should be realigned towards interventions that have a higher chance of working in the near future.

Fair enough. de Grey is a missed opportunity. His SENS ideas might be worthwhile but we won't find out because his LEV idea makes him a fool. However, I doubt he ever would have bothered to come up with SENS if he didn't believe in LEV. Catch-22.

[HP Lalancette]

I'm afraid it changes your point rather substantially. How do you know we will not have enough growth?

We might cure aging some day. No one can predict the future. My point is that it is not inevitable. In short, I am preaching agnosticism about LEV, not atheism. This changes things substantially because it means you should wait for some evidence before you believe in LEV and even in SENS. If you are not a biogerontologist then the least you can do is wait for the robust mouse rejuvenation before you waste your time with de Grey.

The Big Pharma business model is running out of steam, and is already giving way to more efficient schemes. Any winding down of increases in life expectancy that you may have observed is a phenomenon we call 'curve squaring'. It is the inevitable effect of our improving ability to prevent and cure disease, but eventually we run up against conventional limits to lifespan. All this does is point out that we need to start shifting resources from curing disease to preventing or reversing aging.

When will the more efficient schemes start producing results? 2005-2007 were the worst three years for drug output since the early 80s. I agree with the rest of your comment.

I don't think that he will result in reduced funding to conventional biogerontology. On the contrary, he may ultimately increase it.

I suspect he won't make a bit of difference one way or another. My experience with funding is that there is no predicting or controlling it.

It would be interesting to see where the signatories to that paper stand on the question today. At least one of them is a member here, perhaps we should ask him.

I agree.

[brokenportal]

DeGrey doesn’t lecture about Immortalism as far as I know. Also from what I gather, when he talks about LEV, he is talking about agnosticism toward it too. It seems to me that outlining it as an option is a balance to the naysayers who want to insinuate to the world that there is no hope for getting this in our life times at all, and inspires a more healthy balance of determination and focus.