30 replies to this topic

[ImmInst]

Oxford University in the UK has a long tradition of formal public debating, and this week the Oxford University Scientific Society will be hosting a debate on longevity science between Aubrey de Grey of the SENS Foundation and Colin Blakemore former head of the Medical Research Council. This will be the first time that a fellow of the British biomedical establishment has risen to the challenge of describing publicly, in a forum where he can be challenged, why intervention against aging is not in fact medicine's most pressing priority - an area of debate in which the UK lags behind the US: "Oxford University Scientific Society is hosting a debate on Wednesday, 25th April, 2012. The debate will begin at 7pm local time (11am Pacific, 2pm Eastern) in the University of Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre; doors open 45 minutes earlier. Dr. Aubrey de Grey will propose the motion 'This house wants to defeat ageing entirely' and Professor Colin Blakemore will be opposing. The debate will be chaired and moderated by Professor Sir Richard Peto. This debate will address whether it is feasible and appropriate to consider ageing as a target of decisive medical intervention, raising the possibility of substantial extension of human lifespan. Aubrey de Grey is currently Chief Science Officer of SENS Foundation, a biomedical research charity that aims to develop, promote, and ensure widespread access to rejuvenation biotechnologies that address the diseases and disabilities of ageing. SENS Foundation aims to bring ageing under comprehensive medical control. Its research agenda consists of the application of regenerative medicine to ageing - not merely slowing the ageing clock, but resetting it to early adulthood. Colin Blakemore is Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences. He is an expert in vision, development of the brain and neurodegenerative disease. He is active in communication of science and is president and adviser to several charities concerned with brain disorders. Prof. Blakemore was formerly Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, the UK's largest public funder of biomedical research."

Link: http://sens.org/node/2714

View the full article

[Mind]

Given all the progress in recent years in understanding aging and rudimentary treatments for ageing, I can't imagine Blakemore mounting much of a defense, except for the trite and worn out "death and ageing are natural" argument.

Edited by Mind, 23 April 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

If ImmInst is right, and this debate will be about whether it is appropriate to consider ageing as a target of medical intervention, then according to me it is very important to be reached the conclusion, that the aging is such a target. I consider aging as a disease, and the aging changes as a disease.

[brokenportal]

This debate seems more key than usual, reminiscent of the Technology Review debate. Stay tuned for its release on youtube and spread it if you remember.

 debate of the ages, aubrey de grey, colin blakemore, oxford university sheldonian theatre ouss scientific society.jpg   130.69KB   18 downloads

[CaptainFuture]

The debate has not been uploaded on youtube, yet. This comment however is from the [FightAging] site and it scares me because HR could be right after all. New scientific facts do not get translated into clinical practice for about 17 years after their finding. We have great theories about aging but there are no treatments. Diet, exercise, supplements and rapamycin, that's all we have for decades now. What makes anyone think that this will change tomorrow?

http://www.fightagin...re.php#comments

You need to watch the debate for yourself really, rather than relying on my snippets of information from it. Please watch it with an open mind and then come to a conclusion. The majority of the audience, 80 percent, voted against Aubrey de Grey. Professor Blakemore is a real scientist and has headed the UK's version of the NIH - he knows these things well. I think Aubrey de Grey is rather cruelly trying to sell us something he knows to be false.
Professor Blakemore at one stage did raise Ray Kurzweil's speculative theories, showing that he understands them, and did in fact dismiss them. A man of his knowledge and experience would be aware of accelerating returns, but does not see evidence of their beneficial impact in the medical realm. In fact, he stated that lifespan has increased over the past 20-30 years due to people stopping smoking, not any medical improvement. These are the facts of the world and, although it has been hard for me, I have come to the conclusion that I and all my family and friends will die. Accept your own mortality and move on from this pseudoscience.
Posted by: HR at April 27, 2012 11:32 AM

[Mind]

The fact that the debate occurred means that advocates for defeating aging are winning. Oxford would not have held the debate if they didn't think it was an important issue. Just another sign of progress. Good job spreading the word everyone!

[Mind]

20% voted for Aubrey in the debate. A smashing success! Ten years ago, I doubt he could have gotten 1%. We are getting closer to convincing a critical mass.

[niner]

I think this is a very significant event. As for the significance of the 80/20 split, that would depend at least in part on who was in the audience. A bunch of sclerotic professors or a house full of brilliant grad students?

The debate has not been uploaded on youtube, yet. This comment however is from the [FightAging] site and it scares me because HR could be right after all. New scientific facts do not get translated into clinical practice for about 17 years after their finding. We have great theories about aging but there are no treatments. Diet, exercise, supplements and rapamycin, that's all we have for decades now. What makes anyone think that this will change tomorrow?

Oh, you know... stuff happens. This is the nature of scientific progress. It moves in fits and starts, and sometimes leaps. Take the recent fullerene paper: If that pans out, it's nothing less than a revolution in health. That might be a big if, but one member of our community has already obtained a quantity of C60 and dissolved it in olive oil. So much for the 17 years, eh? Prior to the internet age, it's unlikely that would have happened; we're in an era of accelerated application of knowledge.

Accept your own mortality and move on from this pseudoscience.
Posted by: HR at April 27, 2012 11:32 AM

Hear hear! Await the Rapture!

[TheFountain]

It's important for Aubrey to equate aging with disease, this is where his entire argument will reside. Because nobody can debate that disease is an issue of pressing concern. Now it's up to Aubrey to frame disease and aging as closely related associates, not separate components like most people see it.

[The Immortalist]

20% voted for Aubrey in the debate. A smashing success! Ten years ago, I doubt he could have gotten 1%. We are getting closer to convincing a critical mass.

Are you serious??!!

What are the 80% against? Why do they think that it is not important to reverse aging? Are they dumb or something? "I don't think it is worth it to try to extend my life. Death is good and life is bad".

[Musli]

I agree with Mind, 20% is great ! But... But it all depends on the total number of voters. You know, it makes a difference whether it was 20 or 200 voters. When you extrapolate 20%, it gives you a lot of people. Think about it. 20% of the UK? 20& of Europe? 20% of Earth? Yeah, I know. I'm dreaming Still, looking forward to the youtube video.

[The Immortalist]

20% voted for Aubrey in the debate. A smashing success! Ten years ago, I doubt he could have gotten 1%. We are getting closer to convincing a critical mass.

I just watched the video and to clarify 20% voted for Aubrey, 35% voted for the other guy and 45% were neutral.

[Brainbox]

20% voted for Aubrey in the debate. A smashing success! Ten years ago, I doubt he could have gotten 1%. We are getting closer to convincing a critical mass.

I just watched the video and to clarify 20% voted for Aubrey, 35% voted for the other guy and 45% were neutral.

That's good.

This environment probably is main stream dogmatic. The fact that it is academic will skew the result towards our side, medical professionals that are less at the forefront of research and open minded thinking would have voted even more for Blakemore.

I will watch the video tomorrow and would like to find out my verdict as based on the merits of the discussion itself.

In fact, he stated that lifespan has increased over the past 20-30 years due to people stopping smoking, not any medical improvement. These are the facts of the world and, although it has been hard for me, I have come to the conclusion that I and all my family and friends will die. Accept your own mortality and move on from this pseudoscience. Posted by: HR at April 27, 2012 11:32 AM

I think someone is right about the fact that someone's generation will probably die if he or she think it will. Self fulfilling prophecies only work towards the passive side of choices one can make.

And eeuh, no increase of lifespan and quality of life as a result of medical improvement? Wouldn't just that itself call for a radical paradigm change in medical research and practice? It's almost a regret that this is a BS argument.

Edited by Brainbox, 28 April 2012 - 11:30 PM.

[Mind]

20% voted for Aubrey in the debate. A smashing success! Ten years ago, I doubt he could have gotten 1%. We are getting closer to convincing a critical mass.

I just watched the video and to clarify 20% voted for Aubrey, 35% voted for the other guy and 45% were neutral.

WHOA!!!

That is even more incredible. Let us wrangle in that 45%. They are just waiting to be swayed.

[CaptainFuture]

I just watched the video and to clarify 20% voted for Aubrey, 35% voted for the other guy and 45% were neutral.

Can you post a link to the video? I just checked the 'sens' youtube channel, but still couldn't find it.

[Musli]

Can you post a link to the video? I just checked the 'sens' youtube channel, but still couldn't find it.

Here's the link to part 1:
Part 2 has not been uploaded yet.

[CaptainFuture]

Thanks.

[CaptainFuture]

Now that I saw the first part, my opinion changed. I think that Aubrey de Grey did a very good job. After listening to Blakemore for only one minute and hearing all the funny accusations he made, I have to wonder what kind of people study and teach at Oxford. I would highly recommend to repeat this debate when these people have cancer or other serious diseases that come with aging. The current lack of experience favors Blakemore and I find it disgusting that healthy humans oppose research that on a objective and logical basis, would be highly desirable.

EDIT: I only saw the first part but why did Blakemore get over 25 minutes and Aubrey only around 17 minutes for their intro statements? There were lots of ad hominem attacks by Blakemore, lots of blabla and lots of reading from his prepared papers. This was anything but a useful discussion, it was not about content but much more about selling oneself to the unprepared audience.

Edited by CaptainFuture, 29 April 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[Musli]

That is where the 45% undecided came from, I think. The concept of rejuvenation was probably new to most of them, so they haven't decided yet what position they actually have on rejuvenation. But, I guess, they were rather pro-aging till Aubrey swayed them a bit (at least planted a seed of doubt) and they ended up voting 'undecided'. If Blakemore was a better debater, I'm sure there would have been fewer undecided people. Still, this also means that only 35% were definitely against ending aging and only 35% can't be convinced otherwise because they are too narrow-minded, as it is usually the case with most deathists.
And, I think, most of those 45% can be swayed only to one side, our side. It's similar to the situation when people start having real doubts about their religion. Much more often than not they end up as agnostics/atheists than they stay theists. Once you open your mind, that is, you are able to logically, but with empathy consider points of view that differ from your understanding of any given subject, the side with better arguments usually wins you over. And, I think, our side has the better arguments. Plus, once aging kicks in, most of those undecided people will experience first-hand that there is no such thing as 'healthy aging' and that aging is definitely bad and will be of the opinion that aging should be dealt with.

Edited by Musli, 29 April 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[Musli]

Part 2 of the debate:

[Invariant]

Thanks for posting! Very interesting.

I think its clear that Aubrey is the superior intellect and a better, more honest debater. Blakemore's arguments were mostly of the derogatory ad hominem or strawman type. By the latter I mean that Blakemore seemed to attack the idea of fixing every single age related disease seperately, when Aubrey made quite clear that the idea is to attack the "root causes" of aging, from which each individual disease emerges.

That being said, it is also clear that Aubrey is either delusional or strategically over-optimistic. The argument that each of the seven SENS targets is in fact a major challenge, and together comprise almost all of medical science seems justified. Also regarding desirability, the idea that (paraphrasing) "if we succeed, we can always choose to (or how to) use the technology, whereas if we dont attack the problem we will have no choice but to die", overlooks one crucial point: if we succeed and each individual is indeed allowed to make his own choice (or at least the rich are..), then the result may be exhaustion of natural resources, and possibly undermining the possibility of any life on the planet. Hard-core Kurzweilians will dismiss this by saying that we will fix all this in the future, but this then comes down to a probability judgement.. Will the exponential growth of technology outpace our problems, or will our problems (and the stakes) continue to grow exponentially as well?

[geo]

without seeing the video, I have my own opinion (but I am going to see the video when I have time). Choise is a fundamental value in the western world. In that sence, making death a choise, and not a necessity imposed by nature, will be a tremendous victory for the human race. Overpopulation is simply the next problem to solve, and it cannot be used as an argument for not fighting old age and death. I can think of a simple solution right now. if a couple decides to have children, then they also decide to die, because their children are going to oppupy their place in the planet. Such death, which could occur (in a painless manner) some years after their children become adults, would also be a gift of life, an act of love towards their children. A person that has not reached this state, is simply not suitable for having children. Having children will then be a hard choise, but again, choise is a fundamental value in the western world. Thus what are we really afraid? Overpopulation, or the fact that we are going to choose our life instead of the existence of our children? And if this happens, it will be due to our victory over death, or due to our selfish nature? And if it is our selfish nature that we are afraid of, isn't this selfish nature present, here, now? In that sence, we are using our fear of our selfish nature as an argument for stopping progress that will bring this selfish nature to the surface. Isn't this a bit hypocritical? We should always do the opposite. We should always challenge ourselves in order to become better, and the only way to become better, is by choise.

[Musli]

That being said, it is also clear that Aubrey is either delusional or strategically over-optimistic. The argument that each of the seven SENS targets is in fact a major challenge, and together comprise almost all of medical science seems justified. Also regarding desirability, the idea that (paraphrasing) "if we succeed, we can always choose to (or how to) use the technology, whereas if we dont attack the problem we will have no choice but to die", overlooks one crucial point: if we succeed and each individual is indeed allowed to make his own choice (or at least the rich are..), then the result may be exhaustion of natural resources, and possibly undermining the possibility of any life on the planet. Hard-core Kurzweilians will dismiss this by saying that we will fix all this in the future, but this then comes down to a probability judgement.. Will the exponential growth of technology outpace our problems, or will our problems (and the stakes) continue to grow exponentially as well?

Yes, each SENS strand is a major challenge, but nothing suggests they can't be dealt with. Challenges are what humans excel at. Also, nobody says the strands will be dealt with all at once. Some strands will be solved earlier than others, sometimes way earlier. But to finish, you have to start.
It is because of people who believed they could achieve the impossible that humanity is where it is now. And we could be even farther had it not been for the naysayers and pessimists.
Don't be satisfied by incremental progress. Be like Peter Thiel, demand more.


As for the desirability. You can't give up on saving people's lives just because it may cause some problems in the future. Problems can be dealt with, but you can't bring dead people back to life. Change always brings some problems, but it doesn't mean we should avoid it if it is for the better.
"Will the exponential growth of technology outpace our problems?" Yes, it will, eventually. Otherwise, we wouldn't have faith in progress.
Progress is change. And change always brings some problems...

[Invariant]

Good points all.

You can't give up on saving people's lives just because it may cause some problems in the future.

This depends on what specifically "some problems in the future" means. If it is true that we substantially raise the probability of a total apocalypse (i.e. no life or no intelligent life survives), then "sacrificing" human lives is a good choice, especially since they would die anyway in the apocalypse (tongue in cheek).

Problems can be dealt with, but you can't bring dead people back to life

We know neither of those for sure, and especially the former is far from certain. The most certain type of knowledge we have stems from empirical observation. In the case of futurism, there is no such thing because there is no experiment that can be reproduced, and so we can only rely on deduction. As you know, knowledge gained by deduction is only as certain as the premises are, and those are very uncertain in this case.

"Will the exponential growth of technology outpace our problems?" Yes, it will, eventually. Otherwise, we wouldn't have faith in progress.

This is not a rational argument. Yes, if we believe that exponential growth of technology does NOT outpace our problems, then that does indeed constitute a lack of faith in progress. Unless you are part of a church, a lack of faith in something is not a sin, and we must seek arguments for or against this belief regardless of our emotional attachments to any particular conclusion. The reasoning that "we must have faith in progress" and therefore this or that must be true is backwards.

To make it clear: I am not arguing that curing aging is undesirable, merely that there is some uncertainty regarding its desirability. As I stated in my previous post, I think the question "is it desirable to cure aging?" boils down to the question "can we keep up with our problems?". As I explained above, there simply is no precedent on this question, so the answer is uncertain (unless we rely on faith, which is emotionally pleasant but logically weak).

We can see that so far our technological progress has not lead to an apocalypse. But as I alluded to in my previous post, the stakes are certainly higher now than 10,000 years ago: we can destroy everything in an instant with nukes, create bioweapons that wipe out humanity, malicious AI, etc. If half the planet is in a water-war because of global warming, have we really protected freedom of choice? Again, I'm not saying that will definitely happen if we cure aging, just that it is a possibility to be reckoned with. And given that the stakes are so high, we may reconsider even if the probabilities are low.

I think we can agree that total destruction is worse than people dying (since all people will die if we destroy the planet). So therefore as humanity we must allocate our resources towards things that reduce existential risks, and not to curing aging IF it increases existential risks.

Incidentally, my reasoning only makes sense if you believe the continued existence of all of humanity is more important than your own continued existence. If all you care about is your own immortality, then it makes sense to take the gamble and go for curing aging, because if you dont you will certainly die. To each his own..

Edited by Novotropic, 30 April 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Musli]

To make it clear: I am not arguing that curing aging is undesirable, merely that there is some uncertainty regarding its desirability.

The thing is, there is always some uncertainty regarding desirability of many technological advances: nuclear energy vs nuclear weapons, advanced medicine vs biological warfare, nano tech vs nano warfare, etc. The more powerful the technology, the more risks it poses. But pros usually outweigh cons and we decide to go for it. We need to have faith in humanity, that it will not try to destroy itself, otherwise we should abandon all progress ;p So far, so good.
What is more, we don't know how long will it take for overpopulation to happen, if it happens at all. We don't know how many people will decide to undergo the rejuvenative therapies - some might decline because of faith, many will not be able to afford it, since they barely have sth to eat.
Too many uncertainties against a certainty - people WILL die from aging. I'll take the chances, will you? ;]

[Danail Bulgaria]

By the way, why was this debate made?
What could happen if the debate was won from Aubrey de Grey?
What will happen now when he got 20% and his opponent Colin Blakemore got 35%?

[Musli]

To spread the word about rejuv. med., to show it is taken seriously these days, to win more supporters, to advertize SENSF, etc.

[EMC]

I just watched this. Aubrey has really polished everything about his arguments and presentation. Good stuff.

[Inkstersco]

By the way, why was this debate made?

Tradition, the spread of ideas etc.

What could happen if the debate was won from Aubrey de Grey?

News, and maybe a little reconsideration from his detractors.

What will happen now when he got 20% and his opponent Colin Blakemore got 35%?

Less interesting and favourable headlines and word of mouth.

[albedo]

I followed the debate and would have voted for Aubrey. I think however, several arguments of Blakemore deserve a more thoughtful consideration and reply. I read Aubrey's great book Ending Aging (co-authored with Michael Rae) which I found fascinating and written in the peculiar style of scientists really trying to let non-specialists to understand but also not skipping details.

Between Aubrey's talks I found this one particularly complete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcP5kNDXjw

with the interesting and long Q&A session (several objections were replied):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jIOH9apOU0

For being a little closer to the scientific world and few visionary characters and theories, I cannot avoid, when listening to his talks and opponents, to think as Arthur Schopenhauer's "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. "

http://www.brainyquo...8c2ka0BzBtXk.99

I wonder if Aubrey is already on stage 2!