• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

LifeStar


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 April 2009 - 12:32 AM


Anyone hear about the LifeStar Institute before?

Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?

Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.

#2 Anthony

  • Guest, F@H
  • 87 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Virginia (U.S.)

Posted 26 April 2009 - 02:35 AM

The "Longevity Meme" website had a piece on the Life Star project a couple of weeks ago. The Millard family is sponsoring it (or at least partly funding it) via their foundation. I don't know how much money the Millards and others are putting into the project; however, it does appear that they are serious about trying to spread the meme. For instance, take a look at the project's advisory board; it includes several top notch researchers. I'm more excited by the fact that someone, who is close to the Millard family, is sitting on the SENS.0rg's board of directors. Let's hope that relationship continues to grow.

#3 Mariusz

  • Guest
  • 164 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hartford, CT

Posted 26 April 2009 - 03:23 AM

Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?
Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.


Great.. Like we need another institute/society/fundation.
Same faces, same results.

Mariusz

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 April 2009 - 04:17 AM

Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?
Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.

Great.. Like we need another institute/society/fundation.
Same faces, same results.

It's ok as far as I'm concerned. More money is more money, and though some of the marquee names are the same, this also brings in new people. I recall Duke Nukem suggesting "StarLife" as a possible new name for our institute. Maybe the LifeStar guys were reading...

#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:08 AM

Anyone hear about the LifeStar Institute before?

Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?

Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.

I don't see Aubrey on their Advisers page. (Beard too long? Degree insufficiently impressive?) It looks like a pretty straight organization, without the scary quackiness that might deter stodgy donors. They talk around the "curing aging" point on their site. They primarily come at it from a fiscal angle, i.e. we can't afford to keep on as we're going, longevity dividend, etc. They do address "the usual objections". Aside from the New-Agey pics from the Hubble, their public persona appears to be purposefully staid. They leave us free to pursue our course staking out a path somewhere between LifeStar and FuckDeath.org...

#6 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 April 2009 - 11:00 AM

I don't see Aubrey on their Advisers page.


Maybe he is not on the AdvisErs page, but he is on the AdvisOrs page. Maybe someone should send them a message about the repetition/confusion.

Duke's "Starlife" name occurred to me as well, which made me wonder how they came up with the name.

#7 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:48 PM

Well, Methuselah has long discussed the hang ups of their name too. "Methuselah" has religious connotations, and is kind of long and hard to spell.

It seems to me that this is their initiative to remedy that. I wouldnt be suprised to see the SENS Foundation, and maybe even the Methuselah Foundation, incorporating under its roof soon.

LifeStar also seems to be an alternative to our name. Its pretty much us, with out the grass roots side and forums isnt it?

If this is true then this should be just the synergy we need. We can use imminst for certain memeing, and lifestar for other.

Now we just need to network them all together a little better. As one example of that, could we use a "LifeStar" team sub forum?

#8 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 26 April 2009 - 07:49 PM

Life* , a little like H+ ! excellent name indeed

#9 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:38 PM

I don't see Aubrey on their Advisers page.


Maybe he is not on the AdvisErs page, but he is on the AdvisOrs page. Maybe someone should send them a message about the repetition/confusion.

Duke's "Starlife" name occurred to me as well, which made me wonder how they came up with the name.


Thanks Mind,

the old "advisors" has been redirected.

The LifeStar name arose during an intense kick-off meeting last September in Belgium, coming to the fore as a consensus from numerous suggestions from William Millard and others. The name was chosen for its powerful inspirational positive connotations to many people and the personal connection people have to them. Duke definitely has a marketing mind. :p

Edited by kevin, 26 April 2009 - 10:56 PM.


#10 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 27 April 2009 - 12:07 AM

Anyone hear about the LifeStar Institute before?

Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?

Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.


Hi Mind (et al.),

I don't get a chance to comment much here at my ol' stomping grounds as I'm hard pressed keeping myself upright with the things I'm involved in but I thought I would pipe in here and offer some background and make myself available to answer questions as best I can.

As you may have noted from the "Who" page of the LSI site, I'm working on helping develop LifeStar. Indeed we are *just* getting going and Aubrey is on our Advisory Board, among others who we are very happy are willing to offer their deep expertise and assistance. The LifeStar Institute was a twinkle in the eye of William Millard in February of 2008 when he became convinced that the potential for bonafide rejuvenation therapies existed and possibly there were therapies waiting on the vine, so to speak, that merely needed picked up on. Determining whether there were therapies ready for prime-time was the focus of an intense four-day workshop in Belgium last September. The workshop was organized by Aubrey and featured some of the most hands-on stem cell researchers in the world. I was lucky enough to be invited to this meeting and participate and seeing the conviction and commitment of William and his group to the mission inspired me to offer my assistance. I was pleased that indeed, William and his group offered new faces, skills and resources that did not exist in the sphere before and I felt that there would be some value in helping them navigate some of the landscape with which they were not yet familiar. I'm happy to say that my experience as Director of ImmInst and with the Methuselah Foundation among others has proven useful thus far in that regard. Never did I think back in 2003 that I would find myself using what I learned then to this advantage.

The result of the workshop made clear that indeed, stem cell therapies are not ready for distribution and that there was really a tremendous amount of work to be done before stem cells or any other purported "disruptive" rejuvenation therapy could be. Undeterred, our group looked at the current progress and the best estimates of experts as to when such technologies would be available given the current trajectory and it was thought about 50-100 years we might begin to see truly 'regenerative' therapies widely available. There were two problems with this, the first is that 50 years is too long for many, including William Millard who is hoping for a shorter timeline, and the second is something which became obvious after only a cursory examination of the future, and it is an impending crisis that make irrelevant many of the plans we are hoping will materialize for the future. I'm almost embarrassed at the lack of attention I paid to this issue before it impinged itself upon me in my working with LifeStar.

The world is faced with multiple crises but there is one which does not receive the consideration in keeping with its certainty and magnitude. That crisis is not due to global warming or global debt, but one much more personal and more immediate. This crisis is the “silver tsunami” of global aging whose height, velocity and other aspects have been predicted by experts the world over for decades. They are now measuring its ongoing economic destruction, building the charts and graphs describing the impact of the wave of elderly sweeping the globe. In the U.S. alone in 2003, the degenerative diseases associated with aging had an economic impact of 1.3 trillion dollars, and this will increase to 4.1 trillion by 2030. There will be precious little leftover for much else other than dealing with the immense pressure of an aging population.

Beyond the economics, this demographic shift will see 1 in 4 individuals in the world over the age of 60 by 2030. The young will have humanity’s future on their side, but the old will have the vote on theirs. Political unrest and intergenerational conflict have the potential to fracture economies and disrupt global security, yet, despite the clear danger global aging represents, the people and governments of the world have no coherent response. Even futurists largely relegate the importance of global aging to a lower priority, when actually, unless we can do something to alter the trajectory of the "global aging asteroid" the numbers themselves suggest a certainty of a dramatically different future than the scenarios the transhumanist community would like to see come to pass.

Global aging is a massive "bump in the road" that the world feels it can (and which I used to) largely ignore or at least just must not acknowledge. On the contrary, as it occurred to us at LifeStar, the possibility of the development of therapies available to many becomes almost non-existent if global aging is left to unfold as it is projected and the attendant problems of degenerative disease are left unanswered, but technologies are being developed that CAN answer it.

Medical technologies now collectively known as “regenerative medicine” have recently shown themselves capable of addressing age-related disease. Bioartificial organs, stem cells, tissue engineering, gene therapies and more, have exciting potential, but a lack of focus means years before therapies arrive. The LifeStar World Health Initiative proposes to be the lens to provide that focus and accelerate the development of regenerative medical protocols to restore function and prevent age-related disease. Supported by the public will coupled to the promise of new technologies, the LSWHI will bring disconnected international efforts together into a single, purpose-driven, collaboration with the mandate to ensure the development and distribution of therapies as quickly and as widely as possible.

There really is no alternative. This is the path that must be taken for the best result and we cannot sit and wait for others to take it. I used to think time was short given my expected remaining lifespan is less than 40 years. I am even more inspired given that if we can't turn the development of therapies for age-related disease into a global mandate on the scale of global warming, the barrier of global aging may ensure that it does not happen at all.

We look forward to working with all existing and emerging entities who share a common vision of a world where getting old doesn't have to mean getting sick. Together a small group of dedicated individuals can accomplish incredible feats, and this is one task we must not fail, for everyone's sake.

I hope everyone has a chance to go to the website and have a look at some of the articles on the resources page. It may be as eye-opening for you as it was for me.

Cheers,

Kevin
  • like x 2

#11 Anthony

  • Guest, F@H
  • 87 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Virginia (U.S.)

Posted 27 April 2009 - 02:16 AM

"The world is faced with multiple crises but there is one which does not receive the consideration in keeping with its certainty and magnitude. That crisis is not due to global warming or global debt, but one much more personal and more immediate. This crisis is the "silver tsunami" of global aging whose height, velocity and other aspects have been predicted by experts the world over for decades. They are now measuring its ongoing economic destruction, building the charts and graphs describing the impact of the wave of elderly sweeping the globe. In the U.S. alone in 2003, the degenerative diseases associated with aging had an economic impact of 1.3 trillion dollars, and this will increase to 4.1 trillion by 2030. There will be precious little leftover for much else other than dealing with the immense pressure of an aging population.

Beyond the economics, this demographic shift will see 1 in 4 individuals in the world over the age of 60 by 2030. The young will have humanity's future on their side, but the old will have the vote on theirs. Political unrest and intergenerational conflict have the potential to fracture economies and disrupt global security, yet, despite the clear danger global aging represents, the people and governments of the world have no coherent response. Even futurists largely relegate the importance of global aging to a lower priority, when actually, unless we can do something to alter the trajectory of the "global aging asteroid" the numbers themselves suggest a certainty of a dramatically different future than the scenarios the transhumanist community would like to see come to pass."--Kevin


Kevin,

A couple of quick questions/comments:

1) A project of this magnitude requires significant funding. Do you think LifeStar will be able to generate the money necessary to achieve (or at least to stand a chance of achieving) its goals?

2) Optimally, you hope that this effort, in coordination with other, pro-longevist advocacy and biogerontological research efforts, will help spur the discovery and rapid dissemination of rejuvenation interventions within a 15-20 year time frame? I want to make sure I have the proposed timeframe correct. I assume that it is correct given Millard's current age and the time remaining before the "silver tsunami" hits.

3) For what it's worth, my initial reaction upon reviewing the website is positive. It appears that this group might have the will and the funding necessary to get the job done.

4) With that in mind, would you mind if I included a link to your post on my Facebook page?

Thank you for taking the time to give us more info. on the LifeStar initiative.

Anthony

Edited by Anthony, 27 April 2009 - 02:17 AM.


#12 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 27 April 2009 - 02:22 AM

Just wanted to pop into the discussion here and say any exposure and expansion on the life extension movement is good overall.

Also they have a pretty good board of advisers there. Keep up the good work!

#13 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 27 April 2009 - 05:51 AM

"The world is faced with multiple crises but there is one which does not receive the consideration in keeping with its certainty and magnitude. That crisis is not due to global warming or global debt, but one much more personal and more immediate. This crisis is the "silver tsunami" of global aging whose height, velocity and other aspects have been predicted by experts the world over for decades. They are now measuring its ongoing economic destruction, building the charts and graphs describing the impact of the wave of elderly sweeping the globe. In the U.S. alone in 2003, the degenerative diseases associated with aging had an economic impact of 1.3 trillion dollars, and this will increase to 4.1 trillion by 2030. There will be precious little leftover for much else other than dealing with the immense pressure of an aging population.

Beyond the economics, this demographic shift will see 1 in 4 individuals in the world over the age of 60 by 2030. The young will have humanity's future on their side, but the old will have the vote on theirs. Political unrest and intergenerational conflict have the potential to fracture economies and disrupt global security, yet, despite the clear danger global aging represents, the people and governments of the world have no coherent response. Even futurists largely relegate the importance of global aging to a lower priority, when actually, unless we can do something to alter the trajectory of the "global aging asteroid" the numbers themselves suggest a certainty of a dramatically different future than the scenarios the transhumanist community would like to see come to pass."--Kevin


Kevin,

A couple of quick questions/comments:

1) A project of this magnitude requires significant funding. Do you think LifeStar will be able to generate the money necessary to achieve (or at least to stand a chance of achieving) its goals?

2) Optimally, you hope that this effort, in coordination with other, pro-longevist advocacy and biogerontological research efforts, will help spur the discovery and rapid dissemination of rejuvenation interventions within a 15-20 year time frame? I want to make sure I have the proposed timeframe correct. I assume that it is correct given Millard's current age and the time remaining before the "silver tsunami" hits.

3) For what it's worth, my initial reaction upon reviewing the website is positive. It appears that this group might have the will and the funding necessary to get the job done.

4) With that in mind, would you mind if I included a link to your post on my Facebook page?

Thank you for taking the time to give us more info. on the LifeStar initiative.

Anthony


Thanks Anthony,

1) We do believe that LifeStar can mobilize the funds necessary. The amount available should be at least equal to the amount that could be saved which is in the many trillions of dollars by 2030. Even a fraction of that total amount would be orders of magnitude more than what is currently being allocated and could create a global collaboration more significant than the Large Hadron Collider. Gathering the consensus of experts that forseeable barriers to success in all areas of execution can be at least approached will be key to the development of a compelling argument that can be taken to the public. This is the stage we are at now.

2) We are working on the premise that if the only limiting factor is time, it would take a minimum of 15-20 years to develop protocols to comprehensively restore function to aging tissues and prevent the degenerative diseases of aging. We have a number of leading experts who agree that the science is at a state where it is clear, even at this early point, that such protocols could be developed and would significantly lower the economic impact of age-associated dysfunction. More certain is what will happen if we do nothing which is a strong motivator of itself.

3) Thanks for the vote of confidence! We're a reflection of your own efforts in attempting to help those in your own sphere understand the implications of new technologies and apply them to correct a source of immense human suffering and loss.

4) Please feel free to link to us and thanks for doing so. :p
  • like x 1

#14 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 27 April 2009 - 09:37 AM

A few negative comments plus suggestions (btw, i might be wrong) so that you can prepare wrt what people might perceive:

L*'s leitmotivs:

  • The current leitmotivs of L* are i) "look at this terrible coming economical crisis due to global aging" and ii) "we can solve it by coordinate anti-aging research". IMHO one need to dig a little to grasp them so you could think of one or two sentences to say it and put it at the beginning of your documents.
  • Laymen haven't heard of them so people might feel they are being tricked: L* is a bunch of anti-aging researchers that use the current fear of crisis to take our money.
  • i) Economists might fear you are right concerning the crisis and will try to read your financial arguments... that are currently extremely weak in your presentations (see your poster). I'm in this field and interested in aging so i personnally think it is plausible, but you need better economical presentations - if possible a respected economist among your advisors - for better presentations/arguments/respect. If some economical arguments (treating aging reduces costs) are obvious you should make them obvious to understand
  • ii) Non- anti-aging researchers may think that too much focus (research project organization) prevents findings. I'm also in this field and i believe that freedom of research shall not be neglected
L*'s extraordinary solution:

  • The web site talks about a great solution (to an issue that somehow looks fake, as discussed) and it takes time to see whether you indeed have a solution.
  • When one understands that it is an "Apollo project", the unanswered question is: "what is the content of the project?" Here you will have to agree together!
  • One content for instance could be to derive a specie of very long-lived mice, as suggested by M. Rose, to compare it with the initial specie, test which differences do extend lifespan, and make it to humans.
  • Another one would be to get more SENS researchers
  • Another one would be to make a jointure with the Global Integrative Multilevel Multisystem Aging Cure Plan and to implement it/smthg
  • Btw if L* is restricted to the US it should say so, otherwise there should be more non-US advisors
This said, personnally i think you are on a right track. Good luck, if we may help don't hesitate to ask.
(PS: "LifeStarProject" appears in your documents. If it is a former name, change that)

Edited by AgeVivo, 27 April 2009 - 09:56 AM.


#15 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 27 April 2009 - 05:09 PM

A few negative comments plus suggestions (btw, i might be wrong) so that you can prepare wrt what people might perceive:

L*'s leitmotivs:

  • The current leitmotivs of L* are i) "look at this terrible coming economical crisis due to global aging" and ii) "we can solve it by coordinate anti-aging research". IMHO one need to dig a little to grasp them so you could think of one or two sentences to say it and put it at the beginning of your documents.


Thank you for that feedback. We are always evaluating our messaging and welcome all constructive criticism and suggestion.

  • Laymen haven't heard of them so people might feel they are being tricked: L* is a bunch of anti-aging researchers that use the current fear of crisis to take our money.


  • What should help avoid this is highlighting the participation of a much broader group than just aging researchers in the creation of LifeStar plans. Although research is the answer, the support and plan to support the research on a global level will require leaders from many others fields other than aging research.

  • i) Economists might fear you are right concerning the crisis and will try to read your financial arguments... that are currently extremely weak in your presentations (see your poster). I'm in this field and interested in aging so i personnally think it is plausible, but you need better economical presentations - if possible a respected economist among your advisors - for better presentations/arguments/respect. If some economical arguments (treating aging reduces costs) are obvious you should make them obvious to understand


  • Although we do have noted economists Richard Jackson and Neil Howe (both experts in the impact of global aging) on our board and we have their writings available as well as others who describe the value and potential of medical research in addressing the threat of global aging, I understand and take your comment to indicate that this is inadequate and we agree, there is much work to be done in formatting this information so that is accessible.

  • ii) Non- anti-aging researchers may think that too much focus (research project organization) prevents findings. I'm also in this field and i believe that freedom of research shall not be neglected

  • We do not anticipate this is a significant concern but thank you for the observation.

    L*'s extraordinary solution:

    • The web site talks about a great solution (to an issue that somehow looks fake, as discussed) and it takes time to see whether you indeed have a solution.


    Well the issue of "global aging" is a priori a widely recognized and bonafide issue, at least that's what all the medicare and pension socioeconomists have been discussing for decades so I am understanding your comment to mean that our presentation of the issue and solution is suboptimal and with that I of course have no argument as there is certain room for improvement and that is actually the job at hand.

  • When one understands that it is an "Apollo project", the unanswered question is: "what is the content of the project?" Here you will have to agree together!


  • Agreed! It is the creation of the first "roadmap" of the project which will take the input of many and as we all know, achieving consensus is not always easy. Still, that is where the unique skills of project managers can be brought to bear.

  • One content for instance could be to derive a specie of very long-lived mice, as suggested by M. Rose, to compare it with the initial specie, test which differences do extend lifespan, and make it to humans.
  • Another one would be to get more SENS researchers
  • Another one would be to make a jointure with the Global Integrative Multilevel Multisystem Aging Cure Plan and to implement it/smthg


  • All worthy suggestions and examples. I have noted them, thank you.

  • Btw if L* is restricted to the US it should say so, otherwise there should be more non-US advisors

  • We will be obtaining the input from other jurisdictions, certainly.

    This said, personnally i think you are on a right track. Good luck, if we may help don't hesitate to ask.
    (PS: "LifeStarProject" appears in your documents. If it is a former name, change that)


    Thanks again for your input. It will be useful as we go through our evolving iterations (and yes thanks, the name was changed and the materials will be updated).

    KP
    • like x 1

    #16 AgeVivo

    • Guest, Engineer
    • 2,111 posts
    • 1,555

    Posted 27 April 2009 - 07:35 PM

    It is the creation of the first "roadmap" of the project which will take the input of many and as we all know, achieving consensus is not always easy. Still, that is where the unique skills of project managers can be brought to bear.

    And you seem to be good at that :p Good luck

    #17 Mixter

    • Guest
    • 788 posts
    • 98
    • Location:Europe

    Posted 12 September 2009 - 11:23 AM

    Hi,

    I've put up the recent LifeStar Institute video in HD at a free file hoster: Lifestar-HD.mov - 491.16MB

    It also seems there is already an official Youtube version:

    This is one of the best approaches of introducing a general audience to the importance and urgency of life extension and related research (it should work great for a medical and scientific one as well).

    Everyone, please make sure to show it to your friends and contacts, and please make it a youtube favorite and make sure to upvote

    :)

    Edited by Mixter, 12 September 2009 - 11:24 AM.

    • like x 1

    #18 kevin

    • Member, Guardian
    • 2,779 posts
    • 822

    Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:50 PM

    Thanks mixter,

    it sure was an experience at SENS4 to be approached by some quite "macho" guys and being told that the video brought a tear to their eye and they wanted a copy to use in their presentations and to show their friends.

    I think the film does evoke a certain emotional response in that the facts are pretty stark but at the same time, there is such hope and room for optimism in a message that brings people together. I hope we can see a similar effect on everyone who is open to it.

    Thanks for your own efforts.. it will take all of us doing everything we can to create the "phase change" in public opinion about the potential of new technologies to address and acute and perennial problem.

    #19 Anthony

    • Guest, F@H
    • 87 posts
    • 0
    • Location:Virginia (U.S.)

    Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:04 PM

    Thanks mixter,

    it sure was an experience at SENS4 to be approached by some quite "macho" guys and being told that the video brought a tear to their eye and they wanted a copy to use in their presentations and to show their friends.

    I think the film does evoke a certain emotional response in that the facts are pretty stark but at the same time, there is such hope and room for optimism in a message that brings people together. I hope we can see a similar effect on everyone who is open to it.

    Thanks for your own efforts.. it will take all of us doing everything we can to create the "phase change" in public opinion about the potential of new technologies to address and acute and perennial problem.


    I put a link on my Facebook site.

    #20 Anthony

    • Guest, F@H
    • 87 posts
    • 0
    • Location:Virginia (U.S.)

    Posted 12 September 2009 - 11:09 PM

    By the way Kevin, how has the LifeStar initiative been progressing during the past few months (since the last time we had a discussion on this forum about it)? Anything new to report?

    #21 kevin

    • Member, Guardian
    • 2,779 posts
    • 822

    Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:43 AM

    By the way Kevin, how has the LifeStar initiative been progressing during the past few months (since the last time we had a discussion on this forum about it)? Anything new to report?



    Sure....

    As you likely know, LifeStar's goal is to be the international organizing entity for the development of "restorative medicine" and that includes everything from discovery to delivery.

    It is our assertion that the science necessary to restore and maintain function against the degeneration of the aging process will get done. It is the "when" that we are most concerned with and removing barriers so that the urgent need for therapies can maximally accelerate their development. Such barriers of course include funding and human resources but moreover they are inherent in the way technology is developed after discovery in the issues surrounding intellectual property and commercialization just to name a couple of critical areas. Indeed, the hardest part may not be the science, but making sure that the HUMAN components of the development equation are not the "rocks in the road". Each community of experts associated with a vital part of the technological development process needs to be approached and engaged to invite their thoughts on building their part of the program for maximal chance of success. In order to have a compelling reason for such communities to become engaged, we need to first ensure that the scientific community is able to assert that such an engagement would be worth their effort and thus the very first part of LifeStar's efforts involve gaining that support.

    The first thing any non-scientific community is going to ask before they get involved will be "Is it really possible that we have the science to make aging an approachable challenge?" and "Why should we be concerned when there are so many other important global issues to address?". In order to be prepared to answer those questions we approached the world's recognized experts in the biology and social policy of aging and asked them to meet with us to discuss those questions and how an international collaboration might be built that could be the beginning of the LifeStar World Health Inititative's Science Program.

    We thus met with George Martin, Caleb Finch, Judy Campisi, Jan Vijg, Aubrey de Grey, Robert Butler, Michael Gough as well as Michael Rae, myself and Barbara Logan at the Buck Institute in Novato California to discuss late-onset interventions and building the collaboration necessary. The result of the meeting was a very interesting gestalt which I don't think could have happened with any other group of people. I think we achieved something really unique and special, not so much because the discussions outlined anything radical or different than what can be heard in pieces in many other conversations, but because each of these individuals brought their best and truly is an example of the whole being greater than the sum of their parts.

    We are working on a draft of the meeting which we hope will provide much food for thought and the nucleus of our next efforts to engage more scientists in different disciplines to apply their expertise to the creation of the therapies of restorative medicine.

    You can read a bit and see a photo on the first meeting here.

    http://www.lifestari...science_mtg_001

    Onwards and Upwards!

    #22 niner

    • Guest
    • 16,276 posts
    • 2,000
    • Location:Philadelphia

    Posted 13 September 2009 - 05:25 AM

    Kevin, it sounds like you guys had a truly great meeting. I hope that you make rapid progress with the meeting draft and that we can soon be reading it. I'll be interested in seeing the relative amount of effort that went into the questions of 1) Can We?, 2) Should We?, and 3) How Shall We? I'd like to think that we are largely past #1, but suspect that #2 will require the most effort as far as the lay public is concerned.

    Thanks for your efforts on this.

    #23 bio123

    • Guest
    • 86 posts
    • 3

    Posted 13 September 2009 - 09:56 AM

    I liked your 'Regenerative Medicine' video; I'm curious to know what intervention in particular William Millard is thinking
    of when he makes the following statement near the end:

    "...I have come to believe that the arrival of the first regenerative protocol will occur between now and 2011."

    That's not a long time - is he thinking of a SENS treatment, Dr. Sinclair's work or something else please?

    #24 kevin

    • Member, Guardian
    • 2,779 posts
    • 822

    Posted 13 September 2009 - 06:13 PM

    Kevin, it sounds like you guys had a truly great meeting. I hope that you make rapid progress with the meeting draft and that we can soon be reading it. I'll be interested in seeing the relative amount of effort that went into the questions of 1) Can We?, 2) Should We?, and 3) How Shall We? I'd like to think that we are largely past #1, but suspect that #2 will require the most effort as far as the lay public is concerned.

    Thanks for your efforts on this.


    It's hard to say whether (2) will be the hardest to convince people as those at the meeting never even mentioned it as a problem and were in agreement that with the proper level of support in keeping with the potential of the science and size of the problem, aging is an approachable challenge. I think that the public will hear that and accept it and say.. "okay.. so it will be hard.. what can we do.. ?"... at least that is the theory... :)

    #25 niner

    • Guest
    • 16,276 posts
    • 2,000
    • Location:Philadelphia

    Posted 13 September 2009 - 09:11 PM

    Kevin, it sounds like you guys had a truly great meeting. I hope that you make rapid progress with the meeting draft and that we can soon be reading it. I'll be interested in seeing the relative amount of effort that went into the questions of 1) Can We?, 2) Should We?, and 3) How Shall We? I'd like to think that we are largely past #1, but suspect that #2 will require the most effort as far as the lay public is concerned.

    Thanks for your efforts on this.


    It's hard to say whether (2) will be the hardest to convince people as those at the meeting never even mentioned it as a problem and were in agreement that with the proper level of support in keeping with the potential of the science and size of the problem, aging is an approachable challenge. I think that the public will hear that and accept it and say.. "okay.. so it will be hard.. what can we do.. ?"... at least that is the theory... :)

    I agree that it's an approachable challenge with huge potential payoff, but it worries me that they aren't even talking about #2. Whenever these ideas are presented to the unwashed masses, the opposition is significant. I base this on comments to news articles, blog postings, and the like, along with the views of some of the more well-known bio-luddites. If the only result of anti-aging research is that people will routinely live to 100 in good health then die quickly and cheaply, society will be able to adapt easily. If the ultimate outcome is that we live for a millenium or more, then society will need to undergo some large changes. This strikes me as a major bone of contention among many, and something that could raise significant barriers. Have we all convinced ourselves to such an extent of the overwhelming good of ending aging that we are no longer considering the opposition we might face on it?

    #26 kevin

    • Member, Guardian
    • 2,779 posts
    • 822

    Posted 13 September 2009 - 10:44 PM

    I agree that it's an approachable challenge with huge potential payoff, but it worries me that they aren't even talking about [why we should intervene in aging]. Whenever these ideas are presented to the unwashed masses, the opposition is significant. [...] If the only result of anti-aging research is that people will routinely live to 100 in good health then die quickly and cheaply, society will be able to adapt easily. If the ultimate outcome is that we live for a millenium or more, then society will need to undergo some large changes. This strikes me as a major bone of contention [...]


    If you've been following the dialogue in the media over the past decade you'll have noticed a distinct shift with a lot less of the type of rhetoric you describe and a lot more positive. Of course there is a lot more education to go, but ultimately the need for these therapies will overwhelm any nonproductive psychology. LifeStar is not about "curing aging", we are focused entirely on the restoration and maintenance of function. What issues may result from such restoration and maintenance are ones which we welcome the opportunity to face. If you ask someone with a degenerative disease if they care if the cure for the disease will mean that people in society will live longer, the question becomes quite academic very quickly.

    Edited by Michael, 30 September 2009 - 11:57 AM.
    Trim quotes


    #27 EmbraceUnity

    • Guest
    • 1,018 posts
    • 99
    • Location:USA

    Posted 16 September 2009 - 03:23 AM

    I love that all the work will be going into the public domain!! Patents are one of the primary reasons healthcare costs are so high, yet this fact usually goes unspoken.

    #28 valkyrie_ice

    • Guest
    • 837 posts
    • 142
    • Location:Monteagle, TN

    Posted 16 September 2009 - 06:00 AM

    Hello Kevin.

    Would like to make a suggestion for you which I made once for BP as well, but had no idea how to begin making it work.

    If it's funding for rejuvenation you are looking for, might I suggest Hollywood as a possible source? If you can convince actors that there is a real, legitimate possibility for rejuvenation, that there is a possibility that they may be restored to youth, health and beauty, I believe you may find billions of dollars might become available, not only from the actors themselves, but from much of the movie industry, in which Vanity is, above all, King.

    Imagine Harrison Ford being able to look like he did in Raiders, or Arnie always being able to look like he did in Terminator. Imagine how many various female stars would pay anything to remain 25 forever, or to return to how they looked when they first got their big break.

    When it comes to rejuvenation, be it Biological, Nanotechnological, or plain old waving a magic wand, Hollywood has the Demand in need of a Supply.

    #29 valkyrie_ice

    • Guest
    • 837 posts
    • 142
    • Location:Monteagle, TN

    Posted 16 September 2009 - 06:10 AM

    Whenever these ideas [on intervening in aging[ are presented to the unwashed masses, the opposition is significant. ... If the only result of anti-aging research is that people will routinely live to 100 in good health then die quickly and cheaply, society will be able to adapt easily. If the ultimate outcome is that we live for a millenium or more, then society will need to undergo some large changes.


    Niner, the changes society will have to face with the advent of a economy of abundance far outstrips the changes faced by immortality. The fact that AI and robots will in the not to distant future replace most of humanity in the work force will cause for more changes than immortality. The changes of human augmentation will by far change society more than immortality will.

    The opposition to curing aging are going to be lost amid the rest of the social upheaval all of that will bring.

    Edited by Michael, 30 September 2009 - 12:00 PM.
    Trim quotes


    #30 kevin

    • Member, Guardian
    • 2,779 posts
    • 822

    Posted 16 September 2009 - 04:16 PM

    Hello Kevin.

    Would like to make a suggestion for you which I made once for BP as well, but had no idea how to begin making it work.

    If it's funding for rejuvenation you are looking for, might I suggest Hollywood as a possible source? If you can convince actors that there is a real, legitimate possibility for rejuvenation, that there is a possibility that they may be restored to youth, health and beauty, I believe you may find billions of dollars might become available, not only from the actors themselves, but from much of the movie industry, in which Vanity is, above all, King.

    Imagine Harrison Ford being able to look like he did in Raiders, or Arnie always being able to look like he did in Terminator. Imagine how many various female stars would pay anything to remain 25 forever, or to return to how they looked when they first got their big break.

    When it comes to rejuvenation, be it Biological, Nanotechnological, or plain old waving a magic wand, Hollywood has the Demand in need of a Supply.


    Hi Valkyrie,

    Thanks for your thoughts. Personally, I do see great value in appealing to "vanity" as from a strictly practical perspective, the motivation to maintain one's appearance is strong. I've often said that "vanity could possibly save the world" in that the same biological mechanisms underlying technologies able to regenerate hair and skin are technologies that could ultimately be put to use regenerating other "more important" tissues. However, although I maintain that appealing to vanity is potentially valuable, it is ultimately less powerful than appealing to the "survival instinct" and "pain aversion reflex". I've noted that even within myself, although I recognize the immense suffering that accompanies the death of 100,000 people per day due to degenerative disease, I have up until recently, failed to recognize that suffering as the real wellspring of the energy that is needed to create the global phase change needed to effect real progress. In comparison, the angst that people feel when they see another wrinkle or the growing bald spot is but a shadow. Still, one must tailor the message to the audience and there is something for everyone in the message of better technologies to prevent degenerative disease, no matter if all you want to do is save an economy, save your face, or save 100,000 lives per day.

    Thanks again!

    KP




    1 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users