30 replies to this topic

[Marios Kyriazis]

Some people become incredibly confused about the effort to eliminate aging, which they see as a nebulous, ill-defined process. I refer to the concept of radical life extension, when aging as a process has been abolished. I am not referring to simple healthy longevity (the effort to live a healthy life until the current maximum lifespan of 110-120). Here are some common misconceptions:

1. The Fallacy of words

Eliminating aging will make us ‘immortal’ and we will live forever.

No, it won’t. If we eliminate aging as a cause of death, we may be able to live for an indefinite (not infinite) period, until something else kills us. Even in a world without aging, death can happen at any time (at age 10, 65 or 1003) and for any reason (a shot in the head, malaria, drowning). If we manage to eliminate aging as a cause of death, the only certain thing would be that we will not necessarily die when we reach the currently maximum lifespan limit of around 110-120 years. We would certainly NOT live for ever, because something else will kill us sooner or later. Our organs cannot be repaired if we perish in a nuclear explosion for example, or in a fire. Some statisticians have mentioned that, without aging, we may be able to live to 1700-2000 years on average before death happens due to some other catastrophic damage. This is a long time, but it is not ‘forever’.


2. The Fallacy of numbers

Eliminating aging will result in overpopulation.

No, it won’t. This is based on spurious, even naïve, thinking. Aging happens because we need to reproduce. Or, we need to reproduce because we age. If aging is eliminated, the need to reproduce will also be broadly eliminated. It is a cyclical, reciprocal argument.


3. The Fallacy of loneliness

“I don’t want to live dramatically longer because I will have to witness the deaths of all my family and friends”.

No, you won’t. If you live longer because aging has been eliminated, then your family and friends will too. In any case, this counteracts fallacy number 2: if everybody else dies, how come we would have overpopulation? And fallacy number 2 counteracts this one: if we do have overpopulation, then it is likely that your friends and relatives will be alive too.


4. The Fallacy of the pill

Aging will be eliminated by taking a pill (or a combination of pills, injections, something physical).

No, it won’t. It will be eliminated through a change in the direction of human evolution, when billions of humans continue to engage with technology (or via other, abstract global technologically-dependent means). As the general direction of evolution is towards a more complex state which makes us better adapted to our environment, there would come a point when our hyper-technological environment would select individual longevity instead of aging and degeneration, as a more thermodynamically efficient situation.


5. The Fallacy of money

Research into the elimination of aging is not progressing fast due to lack of appropriate funding.

No, funding is not the main bottleneck. The main problem is the widespread adoption of the wrong approach. The idea that aging can be eliminated through pharmacological intervention dates back to the time of the Alchemists. It has no place in a modern, highly technological and intellectually sophisticated society, and certainly not with respect to defying such a fundamental process as aging. It is reductionist instead of integrative.

Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed. Aging happens because within a tendency to progress from simple to complex, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species


6. The Fallacy of the rich elite

Only a few rich people will have access to the treatment.

This is a combination of fallacies number 4 and 5, a fallacy based on fallacies. People who adapt and fit within an upwards moving technological environment will be more likely to survive. Money is irrelevant. What is relevant is intellectual effort and aggressive engagement with our environment (hyperconnectivity is an example). If a large number of humans (in the order of hundreds of millions) actively engage with their increasingly technological environment, then there would be no reason to age/reproduce at the current rates, as survival can be assured through the individual rather than the species. Therefore, there could be no secrets about the process, due to the very fact that a significant section of humanity must necessarily participate.


7. The fallacy of frailty

Living dramatically longer will mean a long life with debilitating illnesses.

No, it won’t. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. A life without aging necessarily means a life without age-related degeneration. You cannot have one without the other.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Just to clarify: my point hgihighted in some of the above is that it may be better to go ahead and try to adapt to our technological environment (by increased exposure to information), instead of waiting for a future pharrmacological treatment against aging. It is something we can do now, instead of merely waiting for future developments.

[Julia36]

pretty good Marios,

I wonder if

Eliminating aging will make us ‘immortal’ and we will live forever.

No, it won’t. If we eliminate aging as a cause of death, we may be able to live for an indefinite (not infinite) period, until something else kills us.

is itself a fallacy.

It is logically unknowable whether you will live or die ever until it happens:
eg you might clone yourself as insurance against death:
.

Lernaean Hydra

[Marios Kyriazis]

Maybe we will find a way to cheat death (by cloning etc). But here I am talking about aging as one of the many causes of death. My aim is to eliminate aging. Other people's aim is to eliminate cancer, or infections or other causes of death.

And, of course, it is not known whether we will live or die until it happens. That is why the lifespan is called 'indefinite' (there is no definition of its length).

[albedo]

I liked it. Thank you, Am I right assuming, in Fallacy n. 5, "..Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed..." could possibly be implemented via Aubrey's 7 attack approaches?

[Marios Kyriazis]

I liked it. Thank you, Am I right assuming, in Fallacy n. 5, "..Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed..." could possibly be implemented via Aubrey's 7 attack approaches?

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, the SENs approach is mostly directed at repairing existing damage, and has no impact on the actual evolutionary cause of aging. It may, one day, help us reach our maximum lifespan (around 120 years) but I cannot see how its benefits could possibly be extended beyond this.

[Julia36]

Maybe we will find a way to cheat death (by cloning etc). But here I am talking about aging as one of the many causes of death. My aim is to eliminate aging. Other people's aim is to eliminate cancer, or infections or other causes of death.

And, of course, it is not known whether we will live or die until it happens. That is why the lifespan is called 'indefinite' (there is no definition of its length).

I see this as requiring A.I.
That is expected to dawn in 2022 (iys precursors are already here in SiRi and A.I. apps, and billions is at last being placed into A.I. research after the long
AI winter

Reprogramming a body is very complicated. The processes have to be reverse engineered and simulated.

No one technology is important, but the whole of it interacting.

I argue to eliminate ageing you need A.I.

Aubrey de Grey has one of the clearest minds I've met

[Jackemeyer]

Just to clarify: my point hgihighted in some of the above is that it may be better to go ahead and try to adapt to our technological environment (by increased exposure to information), instead of waiting for a future pharrmacological treatment against aging. It is something we can do now, instead of merely waiting for future developments.

Hi Marios K,
The Title sounds interesting, with "fallacies" & "aging".
But I am confused by your introduction:

Some people become incredibly confused about the effort to eliminate aging, which they see as a nebulous, ill-defined process.

Could you define aging here?
I can see why many would be confused.
If you told me that you could stop my daily commuter, 1985 Honda Prelude from aging (and Aubrey has used automobile restoration as an analogy), I would argue back and suggest that you were confused about the definition of "to age". I can easily correlate increasing travel amount/time w/ increasing loss of metal from friction-bearing engine shafts.

I refer to the concept of radical life extension, when aging as a process has been abolished.

This is where I am most confused.
Are you referring to fallacies of aging after the aging process is no longer a fact of reality?
But then you would be addressing an audience already convinced, no? The audience would be living "when aging as a process has been abolished".

I am not referring to simple healthy longevity (the effort to live a healthy life until the current maximum lifespan of 110-120).

"Current maximum lifespan" is based on data, n=1, Jeanne Calment, no?
122+.

Could you clarify why you're not referring to (snipped) healthy longevity?
"Aging", as far as I know, is by definition just one general effect during "the effort to live a healthy life".

meta
I've snipped your descriptions of the seven and left your list of fallacies, to be brief. Upon understanding your responses to the above, I will be better able to understand why you chose the following seven. BTW, is this your original list, or borrowed, or expanded, etc.?
/meta

Curiously,
--
Jack

Eliminating aging will make us ‘immortal’ and we will live forever.
Eliminating aging will result in overpopulation.
“I don’t want to live dramatically longer because I will have to witness the deaths of all my family and friends”.
Aging will be eliminated by taking a pill (or a combination of pills, injections, something physical).
Research into the elimination of aging is not progressing fast due to lack of appropriate funding.
Only a few rich people will have access to the treatment.
Living dramatically longer will mean a long life with debilitating illnesses.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Jackemeyer, thank you for your comments.

There are different ways to define 'aging' depending on what we decide to discuss. In my posting, 'aging' is time-dependent damage to the human body which is not repaired properly, leading to degeneration. It is therefore an increase in the rate of mortality as a function of time. You mention the automobile analogy, but to compare the human body to a machine is grossly and plainly wrong. We are complex adaptive systems, not mechanical systems. We change and adapt according to our environment and society, but this is another matter.

When I talk about the elimination of aging I mean exactly that, a world where aging does not exist (or if it does exist, it is irrelevant to most people). It is the same analogy with smallpox: the smallpox virus still exists but its existence is irrelevant to most of us. (Here, bear in mind that I don't talk about the entire human population, but a substantial part of it. There would always be people, societies and cultures where aging is still present).

The maximum lifespan is just the most any human has managed to survive. I take radical life extension to mean BOTH longevity and health. This is for granted, as the mechanisms for longevity and for age related degeneration are, of course, the same.

Finally, yes, this is my original list, which I devised in order to stimulate discussion.

[Jackemeyer]

Hi Marios Kyriazis,

Jackemeyer, thank you for your comments.

There are different ways to define 'aging' depending on what we decide to discuss. In my posting, 'aging' is time-dependent damage to the human body which is not repaired properly, leading to degeneration.

Sounds reasonable, given our situation on Earth in a time-space continuum undergoing entropic decay and most people's distaste for the changes associated with degeneration. You and I are concerned to avoid degeneration, not time passing per se. Agreed.

My next question would be to ask for examples of "time dependent damage to the human body" or any body, becoming repaired properly.
Do you have any evidence that such is happening? Any "pilot study"?

It is therefore an increase in the rate of mortality as a function of time. You mention the automobile analogy, but to compare the human body to a machine is grossly and plainly wrong. We are complex adaptive systems, not mechanical systems. We change and adapt according to our environment and society, but this is another matter.

Similar to comparing elimination of aging to the elimination of a single member of a virus family

Remember, the concern was the following (which is why replying in-line directly is vital to a discussion):

Marios Kyriazis, on 23 December 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

Some people become incredibly confused about the effort to eliminate aging, which they see as a nebulous, ill-defined process.

Could you define aging here?
I can see why many would be confused.
If you told me that you could stop my daily commuter, 1985 Honda Prelude from aging (and Aubrey has used automobile restoration as an analogy), I would argue back and suggest that you were confused about the definition of "to age". I can easily correlate increasing travel amount/time w/ increasing loss of metal from friction-bearing engine shafts.

My point, and one of de Grey's, is that I cannot reverse the shaving off of metal from the engine shafts _if I want to drive_; instead, I must liberate resources, invest time & effort to build a _replacement_ shaft, take the engine apart (no driving for a bit), replace the part entirely, cleanup the associated damage caused by circulating (in engine oil) metal flakes, repair damage from vibrations caused, and so on.

Such a relatively simple mechanical system, but one that ages as a whole, and if you attempt to bring it back to "New" or Improved condition, you and most individuals would agree that it's not "original".

You can see where an individual would become confused if this simpler example were compared to restoring a once-aging CNS, the local host to the mind.

When I talk about the elimination of aging I mean exactly that, a world where aging does not exist (or if it does exist, it is irrelevant to most people). It is the same analogy with smallpox: the smallpox virus still exists but its existence is irrelevant to most of us. (Here, bear in mind that I don't talk about the entire human population, but a substantial part of it. There would always be people, societies and cultures where aging is still present).

The maximum lifespan is just the most any human has managed to survive. I take radical life extension to mean BOTH longevity and health. This is for granted, as the mechanisms for longevity and for age related degeneration are, of course, the same.

I predict similar correlation between aging and longevity.

Statistically, in spite of populations living healthier (and thus supposedly avoiding or delaying age-related degeneration (aging, as we defined above), this maximum is yet to be challenged. The late friend and mentor of mine and many on this forum Mr Heward would begin many of his talks with the square curve problem, which I understand to be related to hypotheses that genes and the regulation thereof were to blame, and regardless of prevention or reversal of dysfunction ("aging", as we defined earlier), death would still occur before 122.

Again, I agree with you: the two will be intimately linked.

Finally, yes, this is my original list, which I devised in order to stimulate discussion.

Cool Great initiative!
One important question for you -- are you willing to adjust the list, in case you were incorrect at the onset?
Including, would you add more or subtract?

Best!
Jack

[Marios Kyriazis]

My point, and one of de Grey's, is that I cannot reverse the shaving off of metal from the engine shafts _if I want to drive_; instead, I must liberate resources, invest time & effort to build a _replacement_ shaft, take the engine apart (no driving for a bit), replace the part entirely, cleanup the associated damage caused by circulating (in engine oil) metal flakes, repair damage from vibrations caused, and so on.

Cool Great initiative!
One important question for you -- are you willing to adjust the list, in case you were incorrect at the onset?
Including, would you add more or subtract?

Best!
Jack

Hi Jack
I agree with most of your comments.
However, as you seem to be fond of the automobile analogy, consider this: Why are you interested in repairing the car? The answer must be, because you need to use it, i.e. you need it to ‘function’. There is no point if you have a newly repaired car in the garage that does not ‘function’. So, the repairs you mention may help initially, but this does not achieve your aim. You need to open your mind and consider:

* Who is going to drive it?
* Do they have a driving licence? Does the car have a road tax license, insurance, permits?
* Is there petrol in it?
* Is there a road?
* What is the environment the car is going to be in? If you put it at the bottom of the sea or in the desert, then it won’t function.
* Is there a petrol station nearby for refuelling, and are there more stations along the road (in suitable distances) in order for you to have enough petrol to get to your destination?
* Are there road signs, to help prevent accidents and to give you directions?
* Does the society at large accepts the driving conventions, and the concept of car ownership?

And many other related questions. The mere repair of the damage is a very, very small part of the entire picture.

Project after project and paper after paper support the view that aging will not be conquered by merely repairing a few cells or tinkering with some mitochondria (or other components of the cell). The SENS approach is OK for people who want to sit back and feel comfortable that someone will discover a pill and give it to them in order to live longer. But it does not reflect the reality of aging.

You seem to have a great interest in truly conquering aging, and it is a pity to see you blindly believing that aging is a simple matter of component repair.

Finally, yes, I am willing to adjust, add or subtract comments from my list. Science is based on the ability to falsify, and if there is evidence contrary to my comments then I will consider it.

Thank you for your input.

[Jackemeyer]

My point, and one of de Grey's, is that I cannot reverse the shaving off of metal from the engine shafts _if I want to drive_; instead, I must liberate resources, invest time & effort to build a _replacement_ shaft, take the engine apart (no driving for a bit), replace the part entirely, cleanup the associated damage caused by circulating (in engine oil) metal flakes, repair damage from vibrations caused, and so on.

Cool Great initiative!
One important question for you -- are you willing to adjust the list, in case you were incorrect at the onset?
Including, would you add more or subtract?

Best!
Jack

Hi Jack
I agree with most of your comments.
However, as you seem to be fond of the automobile analogy, consider this: Why are you interested in repairing the car?

Hi Marios,

I am waiting for the auto analogy to hit a wall CRASH!

Just as in maintaining the living individual human, unbounded, I am interested in maintaining this particular (1985 Prelude, VIN# J1000etc...), preserving it and maintaining its identity & ability to drive, also unbounded. Though Prelude not be self-aware & lacking other vital human characteristics (arguably, a wall CrasH!), I thought it reasonable to argue that the auto is an existent that undergoes aging and that "ending" such a process has not occurred yet, even for this simpler existent.
Thus:
Why do you suppose "ending" such processes in humans might be possible, feasible, worth discussion etc.?

NOTE: this returns us to my original questioning of your claim/assumption/postulate in your first post:

Marios Kyriazis, on 23 December 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

Some people become incredibly confused about the effort to eliminate aging, which they see as a nebulous, ill-defined process

Jack wrote:
Could you define aging here?
I can see why many would be confused.

Now that you defined it (in the past), I am curious to know why you think "ending" aging is possible.

The answer must be, because you need to use it, i.e. you need it to ‘function’. There is no point if you have a newly repaired car in the garage that does not ‘function’. So, the repairs you mention may help initially, but this does not achieve your aim.

I think I have been maintaining an analogy of two essentials:
1) maintain existence
2) function as a Prelude (zippy, fuel efficient, unsafe)

I think the (negatively stated) goal "to end" aging is captured positively above and the following fragment:
to continue the life of an individual in a way that does not interfere with living!

(Cryonics preserves existence of the individual to some unknown extent; but throughout suspended animation, falls short in the "living" department, AFAIK.)

You need to open your mind and consider:
* Who is going to drive it?

I don't care "who" drives it -- any human, any monkey currently being studied in Wisconsin or the NIH, Google's AI, etc.
The Prelude must continue to exist and be drive-able.

* Do they have a driving licence? Does the car have a road tax license, insurance, permits?
* Is there petrol in it?
* Is there a road?
* What is the environment the car is going to be in? If you put it at the bottom of the sea or in the desert, then it won’t function.

Yes, to all of the above.
Note: It's in the desert now, and gets 29.8 mpg.

* Is there a petrol station nearby for refuelling, and are there more stations along the road (in suitable distances) in order for you to have enough petrol to get to your destination?
* Are there road signs, to help prevent accidents and to give you directions?
* Does the society at large accepts the driving conventions, and the concept of car ownership?

And many other related questions. The mere repair of the damage is a very, very small part of the entire picture.

All of these are answered, "Yes".

Why is "the mere repair of damage" not essential?
(I have driven several "Dune Buggies" through my family farm, woodlands, and fields in Indiana, without any of those above considerations, except that the fuel, vehicle, and myself emerged in societal context.)

Project after project and paper after paper support the view that aging will not be conquered by merely repairing a few cells or tinkering with some mitochondria (or other components of the cell).

Presupposing that the question is even reasonable. Is Ending Aging a concept that can occur for any complex system? For the auto in comparison to the human, such seems relatively "easy". Yet, I am arguing my Prelude has always been aging. I cannot imagine what it means to End that process.

The SENS approach is OK for people who want to sit back and feel comfortable that someone will discover a pill and give it to them in order to live longer. But it does not reflect the reality of aging.

You seem to have a great interest in truly conquering aging, and it is a pity to see you blindly believing that aging is a simple matter of component repair.

For some odd reason, you wrote that you think:
1) I have beliefs, one of which is
2) even worse than a belief per se, that is: I blindly follow an idea that "Ending Aging" = simple matter of component repair.

Your premises (about me) are malformed.
No offense taken. Merely a step backward for us, IMO.

Would you add your own conviction? What is "Ending Aging"?

Finally, yes, I am willing to adjust, add or subtract comments from my list. Science is based on the ability to falsify, and if there is evidence contrary to my comments then I will consider it.

Good, then we are both curious to broaden our understanding of aging in the context of scientific inquiry.

Sending sunny smiles from Arizona,
Jack

Thank you for your input.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Aging = time-dependent damage to the human body which is not repaired properly, leading to degeneration.

Nobody and nothing can escape time-dependent damage. This is based on the laws of physics. The second part of the definition is about repair. Something is interfering with the repair processes and if we manage to inhibit this ‘something’ then the repair processes will be free to repair the time-dependent damage, and so aging will not ensue. SENS-inspired approaches aim to effect the repairs directly, ignoring this ‘something’. Our approach is to study and manipulate this ‘something’ and eliminate it.

This ‘something’ is explained as : Within a tendency to progress from ‘simple to complex’, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species.

[Jackemeyer]

Marios,
Thank you for your patience as I learn the language of your ELPIs approach. One comment about the splash page: upon reading 'theory' followed by acknowledgement that the word was incorrect, I braced myself for a load of make-believe. I am not patient for uses of theory in place of hypothesis, especially when it is clear that the writer understands the same -- are you trying to trick someone?

Aging = time-dependent damage to the human body which is not repaired properly, leading to degeneration.

Nobody and nothing can escape time-dependent damage. This is based on the laws of physics. The second part of the definition is about repair. Something is interfering with the repair processes and if we manage to inhibit this ‘something’ then the repair processes will be free to repair the time-dependent damage,

I think most people that are skeptical of anti-ageing hypotheses have an intuitive recognition that such strategies gloss over the details and always refer to a vague 'something'. In contrast to vague something, you write 'repair' as though it were obvious, but most rational people know that you still have nothing without defining the something.

and so aging will not ensue. SENS-inspired approaches aim to effect the repairs directly, ignoring this ‘something’. Our approach is to study and manipulate this ‘something’ and eliminate it.

... and the obvious question from a skeptic will be, 'do you have any examples?'
So far no one can even repair a simple engine shaft in my Honda -- why tackle the human being as the first project?

This ‘something’ is explained as : Within a tendency to progress from ‘simple to complex’, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species.

Clearly, some individuals are able to reproduce and many have similar enough phenotype to constitute a Species, and thus many Species have evolved (and most have 'gone extinct'), but the Evolution of Species certainly has no insurance! (play on words)

Is not the skeptic's understanding of Theory of Evolution one where emerging properties are unpredictable, unplanned, hence no guidance system (thus no mathematical predictability, no long-term view, no 'setting' of "maximization of thermodynamic resources"), and certainly no concept of survival or species.

I think some skeptics would agree that the use of "tendency" is OK, but then they would point out exceptions to the rule you propose: "progressing from simple to complex", and in acknowledging this weakness, you're either a) back to the drawing board or b) adding this fallacy to the list and thereby ignoring their critique.

--
Jack

[Florin]

Jack, a discussion on Facebook that I had with Marios about his theory might be informative.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 25 March 2014 - 06:36 PM.

[Bogomoletz II]

We would certainly NOT live for ever, because something else will kill us sooner or later.

Actually, this is a fallacy in its own right. Consider the concept of inertia. If nothing is there to cause the thing to happen, then the thing doesn't happen at all; if nothing is there to kill you, to make you die, then you don't die at all.

Some statisticians have mentioned that, without aging, we may be able to live to 1700-2000 years on average before death happens due to some other catastrophic damage. This is a long time, but it is not ‘forever’.

These are interesting numbers. However, statisticians of the actuary kind deal with computation of cetainty, and absolute certainty is always false when dealing with the real, physical world -- with reality, if you will. Einstein put it well: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

No, it won’t. This is based on spurious, even naïve, thinking. Aging happens because we need to reproduce. Or, we need to reproduce because we age. If aging is eliminated, the need to reproduce will also be broadly eliminated. It is a cyclical, reciprocal argument.

The devil's advocate here many people will want to have children anyway. (And there is no rational need for reproduction among biologically mortal individuals either, but let's not get there.)

Still, there are plenty enough flaws to the overpopulation argument to show its irrelevance.

No, you won’t. If you live longer because aging has been eliminated, then your family and friends will too. In any case, this counteracts fallacy number 2: if everybody else dies, how come we would have overpopulation? And fallacy number 2 counteracts this one: if we do have overpopulation, then it is likely that your friends and relatives will be alive too.

Right, except some of your friends and relatives maybe older than you, so here's one reason to hurry up.

Aging will be eliminated by taking a pill (or a combination of pills, injections, something physical).

No, it won’t. It will be eliminated through a change in the direction of human evolution, when billions of humans continue to engage with technology (or via other, abstract global technologically-dependent means). As the general direction of evolution is towards a more complex state which makes us better adapted to our environment, there would come a point when our hyper-technological environment would select individual longevity instead of aging and degeneration, as a more thermodynamically efficient situation.

How come you're categorically opposed to the idea of pharmacological therapy for aging?

Also, you don't mean artificial pseudo-evolutionary trans-generational selection, do you? Because that wouldn't be of much help for those who have already been conceived and born.

No, funding is not the main bottleneck.

Funding is the limiting factor. No funds? No R&D.

The main problem is the widespread adoption of the wrong approach. The idea that aging can be eliminated through pharmacological intervention dates back to the time of the Alchemists. It has no place in a modern, highly technological and intellectually sophisticated society, and certainly not with respect to defying such a fundamental process as aging.

Just because something is old or ancient, doesn't mean it's bad -- or good, for that matter (ditto about the new or novel).

Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed.

Would you suggest that it's necessary to establish the cause(s) before anything can be done? The causes of a disease are rarely known before the disease is made curable.

Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed. Aging happens because within a tendency to progress from simple to complex, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species

This is an evolutionary explanation. Proximate explanations would be more helpful.

Just to clarify: my point hgihighted in some of the above is that it may be better to go ahead and try to adapt to our technological environment (by increased exposure to information), instead of waiting for a future pharrmacological treatment against aging.

Can you please provide an example of that? What do you mean by "adapt to our technological environment"?

[Marios Kyriazis]

I am not patient for uses of theory in place of hypothesis, especially when it is clear that the writer understands the same -- are you trying to trick someone?

I find the implication of your question quite demeaning. I think that the discussion is not constructive any longer, so I will stop here.

[Marios Kyriazis]

We would certainly NOT live for ever, because something else will kill us sooner or later.

Actually, this is a fallacy in its own right. Consider the concept of inertia. If nothing is there to cause the thing to happen, then the thing doesn't happen at all; if nothing is there to kill you, to make you die, then you don't die at all.

Right. So you think that a human being is 'inert', or that it lives in an 'inert' world?

[Marios Kyriazis]

Can you please provide an example of that? What do you mean by "adapt to our technological environment"?

This has so many ramifications, it needs an extensive explanation. But generally, we are adaptive systems, continually changing according to our environment. The changes are reflected in the epigenome, ie. short term changes that depend on epigenetic regulation. If our environment is technological rather than say, agricultural, this will be reflected on our biology. If we need to adapt to a continual influx of meaningful information (via internet, TV and other technology) plus if we are protected by technology against common threats (illnesses, starvation, accidents), if it is more relevant for us to have intelligence rather than physical strength, then all of these denote a change in our evolution and in our adaptive patterns. People who are able to adapt to this technology will be better able to survive compared to people who are alienated from it.

Edited by Marios Kyriazis, 26 March 2014 - 10:46 AM.

[Bogomoletz II]

Right. So you think that a human being is 'inert', or that it lives in an 'inert' world?

Certainly. Inertia is a law of physics, of this physical world we all inhabit. A physical object will move only if moved; once moving, a physical object will stop moving only if hindered. This is a simple rewording of Newton's first law of motion.

This has so many ramifications, it needs an extensive explanation. But generally, we are adaptive systems, continually changing according to our environment. The changes are reflected in the epigenome, ie. short term changes that depend on epigenetic regulation. If our environment is technological rather than say, agricultural, this will be reflected on our biology. If we need to adapt to a continual influx of meaningful information (via internet, TV and other technology) plus if we are protected by technology against common threats (illnesses, starvation, accidents), if it is more relevant for us to have intelligence rather than physical strength, then all of these denote a change in our evolution and in our adaptive patterns. People who are able to adapt to this technology will be better able to survive compared to people who are alienated from it.

Do you mean hi-tech or technology in general? Pre-industrial agricultural tools are technology just as smartphones are -- not as advanced, but that doesn't change the fact. Technology is a very broad concept. If one goes by the broadest definitions, even pharmaceutical products themselves, let alone the machinery they're manufactured with, can be categorized as pieces of technology.

I admit that it's still unclear to me what solution you advocate, and I'm starting to think you mean people will automatically stop aging without any medical intervention. What am I missing?

[Marios Kyriazis]

Do you mean hi-tech or technology in general? Pre-industrial agricultural tools are technology just as smartphones are -- not as advanced, but that doesn't change the fact. Technology is a very broad concept. If one goes by the broadest definitions, even pharmaceutical products themselves, let alone the machinery they're manufactured with, can be categorized as pieces of technology.

I admit that it's still unclear to me what solution you advocate, and I'm starting to think you mean people will automatically stop aging without any medical intervention. What am I missing?

It is in human nature to always try to improve ourselves. This is now translated as high technology in general, as well as digital communication technology (internet) and biomedical technologies. Pharmaceutical products are part of this, as well as pollution, global warming, and many other consequences of technology. Humans who live within this environment are subjected to both the good and the bad effects of it. Myself, as well as other scientists believe that even if we don't purposefully intervene in aging we will still eventually conquer it. This will be a consequence of many inter-related factors, such as a drive to find therapies for cancer, a drive to improve architecture in megacities (which will have an indirect effect on lifespan) an adaptation to pollution (via for example a decrease in male sperm counts and therefore lower rates of reproduction), a change in cultural expectations (such as an increase in non-heterosexual relationships which, again, contribute to a decrease in reproduction), political changes such as conflict resolution, and many, many others. This is why I am arguing that curing aging is not a matter of taking a few pills, but is a more global issue.

[Jackemeyer]

I am not patient for uses of theory in place of hypothesis, especially when it is clear that the writer understands the same -- are you trying to trick someone?

I find the implication of your question quite demeaning. I think that the discussion is not constructive any longer, so I will stop here.

Dear Marios,

I was being explicit here.
Even to this very moment of posting, after thinking long and hard, "Am I missing something?" about your writing "theory" and intending "hypothesis", I am still stuck thinking you are playing a trick.

Understood that you want to end the discussion for now; I, continuing to investigate and grow, will be available into the future if you decide to continue.

Best in your own growth
--
Jack

[Bogomoletz II]

Myself, as well as other scientists believe that even if we don't purposefully intervene in aging we will still eventually conquer it.

Aren't you worried that it would be too late? Our time is limited. I'm 19, and even with longevity escape velocity considered I definitely do think that even though aging will almost positively be eliminated eventually, it's quite likely that it will not be conquered in my lifetime. Whoever counts on it, has to act.

[...] a change in cultural expectations (such as an increase in non-heterosexual relationships which, again, contribute to a decrease in reproduction) [...]

Does acceptance of homosexual relationships decrease population growth (it seems imaginable that various dictators have believed that, discouraging it perhaps out of the intention to increase the population of workers and soldiers)? If so, how? Perhaps, most homosexuals choose not to have biological children regardless of whether homosexuality is socially accepted? It's even possible that novel technologies will one day give same-sex couples the option to have biological children together.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 02 April 2014 - 07:43 PM.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Aren't you worried that it would be too late? Our time is limited. I'm 19, and even with longevity escape velocity considered I definitely do think that even though aging will almost positively be eliminated eventually, it's quite likely that it will not be conquered in my lifetime. Whoever counts on it, has to act.

Although very speculative, see here for an estimate:
https://lifeboat.com...ty-in-50-years.

Obviously, if we actively try to improve aging, we will achieve it sooner, but it will still be achieved as it is hard-coded in human nature.

Does acceptance of homosexual relationships decrease population growth (it seems imaginable that various dictators have believed that, discouraging it perhaps out of the intention to increase the population of workers and soldiers)? If so, how? Perhaps, most homosexuals choose not to have biological children regardless of whether homosexuality is socially accepted? It's even possible that novel technologies will one day give same-sex couples the option to have biological children together.

See here for some recent discussion

http://hplusmagazine...ition-of-aging/

http://theadvancedap...l-reproduction/

And for an example of how attitudes in society are slowly changing :
http://www.longecity...-minded-people/

[addx]

Please comment if these are fallacies.

 

 

 

1. Eliminating ageing will cause a "lack of time pressure" in some people that will degenerate progress. "I can do it tomorrow.." being the theme.

 

2. If some people still retain competitive drives - it will enable people to invest not decaded but centuries of their lives into things. It will make them increasingly invested and thus more disconnected from sociality and insane.

 

And the point 2. brings me to another even tougher point

 

3. Is insanity an illness that will be cured by anti-ageing? If it is, that means an anti-ageing "tecnique" would invariably have to result in depression/anxiety free thinking. It would have to be a nootropic infact and a perfect antidepressant(depression beind inflammation of the brain).

 

You would have to function at 100% or otherwise it means you're degenerating and ageing. So, being all nice a happy without actually working for it - I don't think it will support the people under 2. to even exist. All human drive is a drive away from unhappiness to happiness. If anti-ageing provides this on itself, why would anyone do anything any more?

 

 

[Marios Kyriazis]

Please comment if these are fallacies.

 

 

 

1. Eliminating ageing will cause a "lack of time pressure" in some people that will degenerate progress. "I can do it tomorrow.." being the theme.

 

 

 

 

It is correct that this is a fallacy. Eliminating aging will not make people procrastinate more. This is based on the previous suggestion that aging will be eliminated through a global change of human evolution, which will be directly proportional to human intellectual development. For example, a world without aging will only happen if people are always active and mentally astute, always trying to achieve something better and higher, and striving to generally improve themselves through technology and society. So they will not be procrastinating, because if they do, then there will be no progress and so aging will not be conquered.

[addx]

Please comment if these are fallacies.
 
 
 
1. Eliminating ageing will cause a "lack of time pressure" in some people that will degenerate progress. "I can do it tomorrow.." being the theme.

It is correct that this is a fallacy. Eliminating aging will not make people procrastinate more. This is based on the previous suggestion that aging will be eliminated through a global change of human evolution, which will be directly proportional to human intellectual development. For example, a world without aging will only happen if people are always active and mentally astute, always trying to achieve something better and higher, and striving to generally improve themselves through technology and society. So they will not be procrastinating, because if they do, then there will be no progress and so aging will not be conquered.

The idea that you can subjectively comprehend immortality is a fallacy.

"We would all be always active". Sure, I'll be active. I'll be stealing your money or having sex with your wife while you're working for a better future being mentally astute. Because I like cocaine and I don't give a shit what it does because I'm immortal and I can get fixed forever. As said, I don't think you have it figured out.

It seems that immortality for you is synonimous with utopia as soon as the right question is asked. And then it seems like we're building a stairway to heaven here. So, you're really here telling everyone that every argument against utopia being good is a fallacy. I do agree, it's in the definition of utopia - it is good.

So, what are we doing here?

Edited by addx, 09 April 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[Marios Kyriazis]

 

 

Please comment if these are fallacies.
 
 
 
1. Eliminating ageing will cause a "lack of time pressure" in some people that will degenerate progress. "I can do it tomorrow.." being the theme.

It is correct that this is a fallacy. Eliminating aging will not make people procrastinate more. This is based on the previous suggestion that aging will be eliminated through a global change of human evolution, which will be directly proportional to human intellectual development. For example, a world without aging will only happen if people are always active and mentally astute, always trying to achieve something better and higher, and striving to generally improve themselves through technology and society. So they will not be procrastinating, because if they do, then there will be no progress and so aging will not be conquered.

 

The idea that you can subjectively comprehend immortality is a fallacy.

"We would all be always active". Sure, I'll be active. I'll be stealing your money or having sex with your wife while you're working for a better future being mentally astute. Because I like cocaine and I don't give a shit what it does because I'm immortal and I can get fixed forever. As said, I don't think you have it figured out.

It seems that immortality for you is synonimous with utopia as soon as the right question is asked. And then it seems like we're building a stairway to heaven here. So, you're really here telling everyone that every argument against utopia being good is a fallacy. I do agree, it's in the definition of utopia - it is good.

So, what are we doing here?

 

I think you are being silly here, and you know it.

 

'Active' doesn't mean to have sex with somebody's wife, but to  "always trying to achieve something better and higher" as I said above. You can't just take a few words at random and try to build up an argument. Also, who is talking about immortality? I am not. Why do you mention it in this argument? (see my fallacy number 1).

[addx]

Please comment if these are fallacies.
 
 
 
1. Eliminating ageing will cause a "lack of time pressure" in some people that will degenerate progress. "I can do it tomorrow.." being the theme.

It is correct that this is a fallacy. Eliminating aging will not make people procrastinate more. This is based on the previous suggestion that aging will be eliminated through a global change of human evolution, which will be directly proportional to human intellectual development. For example, a world without aging will only happen if people are always active and mentally astute, always trying to achieve something better and higher, and striving to generally improve themselves through technology and society. So they will not be procrastinating, because if they do, then there will be no progress and so aging will not be conquered.

The idea that you can subjectively comprehend immortality is a fallacy.

"We would all be always active". Sure, I'll be active. I'll be stealing your money or having sex with your wife while you're working for a better future being mentally astute. Because I like cocaine and I don't give a shit what it does because I'm immortal and I can get fixed forever. As said, I don't think you have it figured out.

It seems that immortality for you is synonimous with utopia as soon as the right question is asked. And then it seems like we're building a stairway to heaven here. So, you're really here telling everyone that every argument against utopia being good is a fallacy. I do agree, it's in the definition of utopia - it is good.

So, what are we doing here?

I think you are being silly here, and you know it.
 
'Active' doesn't mean to have sex with somebody's wife, but to  "always trying to achieve something better and higher" as I said above. You can't just take a few words at random and try to build up an argument. Also, who is talking about immortality? I am not. Why do you mention it in this argument? (see my fallacy number 1).

No, I'm not being silly.

And I am talking about biological immortality. Nothing from the realm of absolute immortality was used to prove your fallacy so there's no reason for you to correct this.

You are talking of biological mortality, the inital post even tried to stress this exact point:

In the introduction
 

I am not referring to simple healthy longevity (the effort to live a healthy life until the current maximum lifespan of 110-120

And fallacy point number 7
 

Living dramatically longer will mean a long life with debilitating illnesses.

No, it wont. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. A life without aging necessarily means a life without age-related degeneration. You cannot have one without the other.

You have been given a valid expansion of the premises YOU have given

Is insanity an illness that will be cured by anti-ageing? If it is, that means an anti-ageing "tecnique" would invariably have to result in depression/anxiety free thinking. It would have to be a nootropic infact and a perfect antidepressant

To arrive at the question

So, being all nice and depression free without actually working for it, what will drive people to work for anything? They CANT be unhappy.

You give the answer

 

For example, a world without aging will only happen if people are always active and mentally astute, always trying to achieve something better and higher, and striving to generally improve themselves through technology and society

Which is completely outside the initial premises and a kind of utopian deux-ex-machina. You basicly replied: "All that I said about aging holds true if people simultaneously achieve utopian standards of society."

Your inital argument that elimination of aging is not an ill defined process seems quite self-defeated. Because you're the one ill-defining it.


So, I'm not being silly, if we'll all be "brainswashed" by an anti-aging process not to have insanity issues (in which case I will not have painful repressed memories that I resolve by having mindless sex with prostitutes on cocaine) then the same process inevitably results in eliminating any incetive to do ANYTHING, not just mindless sex with prostitutes. The other possibility is that of society achieveing utopia as a prerequisite. And your argument that utopia will support biological immortality is of course in irrational/utopistic conception - undefeatable.

It seems you're thinking your motivation is separable from your angst? Which is a sign of utopian reasoning which is not within the realm of reality. Yin without the yang.

Edited by addx, 09 April 2014 - 01:40 PM.

[Jackemeyer]

 

I am not patient for uses of theory in place of hypothesis, especially when it is clear that the writer understands the same -- are you trying to trick someone?

I find the implication of your question quite demeaning. I think that the discussion is not constructive any longer, so I will stop here.

 

 

Dear Marios,

 

Following ongoing discussion with two friends, I now understand that my uses of "make-believe" and "trick" are normally taken as accusations of duplicitous intentions, and I now think my word choices were poor at best. One problem is that I did not clearly communicate my intention from the very beginning - that I am always trying to be helpful in aiding communication between those w/ interests or concerns about radical life extension. Unfortunately, I sometimes forget that my enthusiasm (and word choices) can be taken in several other ways.

 

I also learned from my two friends that "hypothesis" and "theory" can each have many overlapping meanings, the use of either potentially problematic for anyone. I still hope you can find the best words to express your thoughts, and in the spirit of teamwork, I apologize for my contribution to any negativity.

 

Best,

Jack