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

Photo

Changing the View of Aging: Are We Winning Yet?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 241
  • Location:US

Posted 26 June 2015 - 01:05 PM


Peter Thiel, who has invested millions into the SENS rejuvenation research programs over the past decade, has of late been talking much more in public on the topic of treating aging. Having wealth gives you a soapbox, and it is good that he is now using it to help the cause of treating aging as a medical condition. One of Thiel's recent public appearances was a discussion on death and religion in this context.

In the struggle to produce meaningful progress in rejuvenation research, the tipping point can come from either a very large amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars at least, dedicated to something very similar to the SENS research programs, or from a widespread shift in the commonplace view of aging. At the large scale and over the long term medical research priorities reflect the common wisdom, and it is my view that public support is needed to bring in very large contributions to research. Philanthropists and institutional funding bodies follow the crowd, they don't lead it. They presently give to cancer and stem cell research precisely because the average fellow in the street things that both of these are a good idea.

So it is very important that we reach a point at which research into treating degenerative aging is regarded as a sensible course of action, not something to be ridiculed and rejected. Over the past decade or two a great deal of work has gone into this goal on the part of a small community advocates and researchers. It is paying off; the culture of science and the media's output on aging research is a far cry from what it was ten years ago. When ever more authorities and talking heads are soberly discussing the prospects of extended healthy life and research into the medical control of aging, it is to be hoped that the public will follow. Inevitably religion is drawn in as a topic in these discussions once you start moving beyond the scientific community:

The Venn diagram showing the overlap of people who are familiar with both Peter Thiel and N.T. Wright is probably quite small. And I think it is indicative of a broader gap between those doing technology and those doing theology. It is a surprise that a large concert hall in San Francisco would be packed with techies eager to hear a priest and an investor talk about death and Christian faith, even if that investor is Peter Thiel.

Thiel has spoken elsewhere about the source of his optimism about stopping and even reversing aging. The idea is to do what we are doing in every other area of life: apply powerful computers and big data to unlock insights to which, before this era, we've never had access. Almost everyone I talk with about these ideas has the same reaction. First there is skepticism  - that can't really happen, right? Second, there is consideration  - well those Silicon Valley guys are weird, but if anyone has the brains and the money to do it, it's probably them. Finally comes reflection, which often has two parts - 1. I would like to live longer. 2. But I still feel a little uneasy about the whole idea.

The concept of indefinite life extension feels uncomfortable to people, thinks Thiel, because we have become acculturated to the idea that death, like taxes, is inevitable. But, he says, "it's not like one day you'll wake up and be offered a pill that makes you immortal." What will happen instead is a gradual and increasingly fast march of scientific discovery and progress. Scientists will discover a cure for Alzheimer's and will say, "Do you want that?" Of course our answer will be "Yes!" They will find a cure for cancer and say, "Do you want that?" And again, of course, our answer will be "Yes!" What seems foreign and frightening in the abstract will likely seem obvious and wonderful in the specific. "It seems," Thiel said, "that in every particular instance the only moral answer is to be in favor of it."

One of Wright's objections was to articulate a skepticism about whether the project of life extension really is all that good, either for the individual or for the world. "If [I] say, okay I'll live to be 150. I'll still be a sinner. I'll still be conflicted. I'll still have wrong emotions. Do I really want to go on having all that stuff that much longer? Will that be helpful to the world if I do?" This roused Thiel. "I really have to disagree with that last formulation...it strikes me as very Epicurean in a way." For Peter Thiel, Epicureanism is akin to deep pessimism. It means basically giving up. One gets the sense he finds the philosophy not just disagreeable but offensive to his deepest entrepreneurial instincts and life experience. "We are setting our sights low," he argued, "if we say everyone is condemned to a life of death and suffering."

Link: http://www.forbes.co...e-end-of-death/


View the full article at FightAging

#2 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 26 June 2015 - 03:14 PM

The next fight is to beat fake pills informations like rapamicyn, metformin slow aging... All the useless things that increase mouse's lifespan by 12%.

 

I think everyday life for the mass is incredibly hard, many see death as an hope to escape their work. And they don't even joke. Everyday is a massive struggle all over the world. That not an excuse, but i can understand how much the problem of aging, the mistery of the universe and all that are secondary to so many, so many people. Because that's the reality of the situation : life for most is just marginaly better than the total void. Some billionaires may say "it's too bad we die, i would not be able to do what i love anymore", but the mass never do what they love, imo.


Edited by Florian Xavier, 26 June 2015 - 03:33 PM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 372 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 June 2015 - 03:33 PM

I agree with the doubts about life extension. The only thing that seems worth it to me is health extension. So if lifespans rise and heathspans rise too, that can only be good.

 

But in terms of our awareness of life, we can only live in the moment. That is the same whether we are fifty or a hundred. Would we be happier NOW if told we could live longer? Perhaps occasionally, but most of the time we would not think about it--we would just get on with the living. This is the reverse phenomenon to telling young people they will have shorter lives unless they improve their lifestyles. Mostly, they will take no notice--and insofar as they try to improve, it will be to live better in the moment.

 

*

 

I do not think we have the ability to imagine the future, except as an abstract concept. We can only live in this moment. I want to make sure my health is good for as long as possible, not so much because I want to live longer in years but because I want to avoid as many life-impairing conditions as possible when I am in my later days.

 

The worst thing must be to be taken ahead of your time. But it seems as if we adapt to aging as we get older, meaning very old people are often surprisingly resigned to their forthcoming departure. How pleased would a ninety year old be if they were told they could be kept alive for another forty years? We would need to evolve a different psychology for that not to feel slightly worthless. We seem designed to accomplish what we want to in a normal lifespan. Eventually there is likely less and less that one wants to do. I fear lengthening lives without a change in psychology would lead to a great increase in geriatric depression. It would be unnatural, as would be an acceleratedly overpopulated world unwieldy with inhabitants who could not contribute to the workforce.


Edited by Gerrans, 26 June 2015 - 03:39 PM.

  • Disagree x 2
  • Agree x 1

#4 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 26 June 2015 - 03:35 PM

 We seem designed to accomplish what we want to in a normal lifespan. After that there is likely to be less and less that one wants to do.

 

 

Most people don't have power. They don't do what they want until it is friday' s night. 


Edited by Florian Xavier, 26 June 2015 - 03:37 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#5 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 372 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 June 2015 - 03:42 PM

 We seem designed to accomplish what we want to in a normal lifespan. After that there is likely to be less and less that one wants to do.

 

 

Most people don't have power. They don't do what they want until it is friday' s night. 

 

It is true. But telling someone they might live longer is not going to change the difficulties involved in living life from day to day.



#6 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 26 June 2015 - 03:53 PM

It is only when you escape the 9-5 or when it's saturday that you don't resent life too much.

 

And this :

 

"With a higher dose of 15.6 µM, the flies lived 12% longer on average. "

 

http://www.longecity...spans-in-flies/

 

Exactly 12% again^^


Edited by Florian Xavier, 26 June 2015 - 03:55 PM.


Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 372 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 June 2015 - 03:58 PM

It is only when you escape the 9-5 or when it's saturday that you don't resent life too much.

 

I am starting to feel sorry for you, Florian. I have always enjoyed my life, including work. I have had difficulties, like everyone, but I am lucky enough to have a non-resentful personality. Even so, I do not love life so much that I want it to go on ad infinitum, while I fall apart inch by inch like a Vauxhall Viva.



#8 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 26 June 2015 - 04:02 PM

You know last time i lost my keys.

 

It took me 4 hours of frustration to finally find them.

 

Then i felt a big positive sensation of pure pleasure for about 15 secondes.

 

The only thing i remember vividly is these 15 secondes.


Edited by Florian Xavier, 26 June 2015 - 04:04 PM.


#9 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 26 June 2015 - 06:19 PM

 

It is only when you escape the 9-5 or when it's saturday that you don't resent life too much.

 

I am starting to feel sorry for you, Florian. I have always enjoyed my life, including work. I have had difficulties, like everyone, but I am lucky enough to have a non-resentful personality. Even so, I do not love life so much that I want it to go on ad infinitum, while I fall apart inch by inch like a Vauxhall Viva.

 

 

The point is to have the choice.


  • Agree x 1

#10 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 26 June 2015 - 06:49 PM

The worst thing must be to be taken ahead of your time. But it seems as if we adapt to aging as we get older, meaning very old people are often surprisingly resigned to their forthcoming departure.

 

A very popular delusion. I've personally known at least 3 people in their 80s who were not content with the inevitable. Of course the problem is exactly that it is inevitable right now so some people choose to resign themselves, but others don't. The change in psychology will come with the possibility to amend the situation.

 

 

telling someone they might live longer is not going to change the difficulties involved in living life from day to day.

 

I disagree.
Consider a family working for 30 years to pay out a house loan. By the time they pay it they are in their 60s. They have no money. All the money they had they gave it to educate their kids - living the same dead end lives. Their life is basically over and all they have left is a house and at that point it's an old house in need of a serious overhaul. They can't work anymore (quite untrue my grandparents worked well into their 70s but that's beyond the point). No way of getting money.

Who wouldn't be depressed?

Now imagine the same life. But you pay out the house and you have 40 more HEALTHY years to live. You think that won't change their outlook?

 

And an indefinite lifespan? That's a completely different ballpark. If you had all the time in the world, why would you ever get depressed? You can always look for another job. You can always learn a new trade. You can meet new people. You can have more children. You can do something which was not possible to do previously. Endless possibility.

 

I could be too optimistic, but I truly believe a longer life will make people universally happier.

Of course it has a lot to do with the culture as well, my millenial generation is not content with anything, I've seen people whine over the most trivial things, #firstworldproblems as they say, of course now it's turned into a joke but it's also undeniable the truth.



#11 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 26 June 2015 - 08:43 PM

Yeah lol, the bad sides of life extension is clearly a #firstworldproblems, i mean come on !

 

It may even be a #civlisationtype1problem  ( https://en.wikipedia...Kardashev_scale )


Edited by Florian Xavier, 26 June 2015 - 08:45 PM.


#12 niner

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

Posted 27 June 2015 - 01:03 AM

I am starting to feel sorry for you, Florian. I have always enjoyed my life, including work. I have had difficulties, like everyone, but I am lucky enough to have a non-resentful personality. Even so, I do not love life so much that I want it to go on ad infinitum, while I fall apart inch by inch like a Vauxhall Viva.

 

Gerrans, you're making the Tithonus error here.  The only way that we are going to get substantially longer lives is if we overcome aging.  That means, when it is completely perfected, you STAY YOUNG.  You don't grow "old" and fall apart, you get chronologically older, but physically you are like a young adult.  I don't think that we will need any new psychology here.  Our current psychology is based on the way we look and feel when we are old.  Change that and the psychology will change with it.



#13 Gerrans

  • Guest
  • 372 posts
  • 60
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 June 2015 - 10:57 AM

 

I am starting to feel sorry for you, Florian. I have always enjoyed my life, including work. I have had difficulties, like everyone, but I am lucky enough to have a non-resentful personality. Even so, I do not love life so much that I want it to go on ad infinitum, while I fall apart inch by inch like a Vauxhall Viva.

 

Gerrans, you're making the Tithonus error here.  The only way that we are going to get substantially longer lives is if we overcome aging.  That means, when it is completely perfected, you STAY YOUNG.  You don't grow "old" and fall apart, you get chronologically older, but physically you are like a young adult.  I don't think that we will need any new psychology here.  Our current psychology is based on the way we look and feel when we are old.  Change that and the psychology will change with it.

 

 

Aging changes us moment by moment. I believe that process contains the essence of life. A life in which one does not age makes no sense to me. It is wonderful to be young, but I enjoyed life more when I was older. If it would feel just the same to be fifty as it does to be twenty, where would be the pleasure in that? One would have started to tire by then of being the same all the time. Where would be the progress, the momentum, the mental development?

 

I am sixty, and for me the beauty of life has been the way it changes subtly through the years. If you asked me today if I want to go to a wild party or a rock concert I would say no, because I have grown out of such things. And I would not say it with regret, because I genuinely prefer quieter pursuits now. A lot of this change has biological dynamics, as I am no longer motivated at a compulsive level by the urge--subliminal or otherwise--to reproduce, or by the connected urge to make money or be a success.

 

Whether it is an error or not, I feel happier than I have ever done. I want to live as long as I can, but in practice I can live only in the present moment--and so whether I am to live a long time or not makes no difference to my happiness today.


Edited by Gerrans, 27 June 2015 - 11:12 AM.


#14 niner

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

Posted 27 June 2015 - 01:07 PM

I'm glad that you have "aged well", as they say.  Some of us aren't so lucky, and have various dysfunctions and chronic pain that makes life difficult.  When I say you would stay young, I don't mean that you would have the brain or lack of wisdom of a 20-year old, or the same interests you had at that age.  If I could trade my body for my 20-year old body while keeping my present mind, I'd do it in a heartbeat.  If you still wanted to have the outer appearance of an elderly person, I'd imagine that could be arranged by electing not to use certain treatments, or even by re-damaging certain parts of your body. 

 

Here is an explanation of the term "Tithonus error", which I forgot to link in my previous post.


  • Agree x 1

#15 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 27 June 2015 - 02:07 PM

 We seem designed to accomplish what we want to in a normal lifespan. After that there is likely to be less and less that one wants to do.

 

Yeah, and our noses seem to be designed to bear glasses... If we didn't use glasses, we certainly will not have noses...


Edited by Antonio2014, 27 June 2015 - 02:08 PM.

  • like x 2

#16 BobSeitz

  • Guest
  • 81 posts
  • 109
  • Location:Huntsville, AL

Posted 27 June 2015 - 11:56 PM

I realize that "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here... ", but I can't resist weighing in on this topic.

The first, most important contribution of this post would seem to me to be its role in eliciting Florian Xavier's and Gerrans' reservations about the value and advisability of radical life extension. I'm grateful that they're willing to set forth what may be unpopular positions in these forums. We need to know their considered concerns.

Florian, I've been where you are, and I empathize and sympathize with you. My notion is that for most of us, life is divided into three segments: the preparation phase, the working phase, and the retirement phase. The preparation phase has its joys and dissonances, but the working phase is when, I should think, most of us live Thoreau's "Lives of quiet desperation". A lot of us don't have the luxury to prepare for, and then find the kind of work that interests us most. In rapid succession, we start our first 8:00-to-5:00 jobs (if we're lucky), get married, sire our first children, and often, buy our first homes. Most of us don't get enough sleep except on weekends. Life is frantic and woefully insecure. We face obligatory expenses for pediatricians, orthodontists, and a laundry list of required tasks that we can never properly finish. We can be laid off or fired at any moment. We can be incapacitated at any time and forced to depend upon disability insurance and/or relatives to feed our families. Sometimes, work is exciting enough that we can push the "heartache and thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to" out of our minds, but that may be the exception rather than the rule. (My job was great for the first ten years, but "the pits" for the last 24 years I worked.)

The financial demands on us typically peak when our children reach college and/or marrying age. But after our children have grown and flown, things begin to ease. Hopefully, we've built part of our retirement program by then. If we're laid off, at least we won't go hungry when employers are no longer interested in paying for our services. With just the two of us to support, we have much more disposable time and income.

The third phase of life is Nirvana (retirement, with financial independence). We don't need anywhere nearly as much money as we did when we had children to support. During our working years, a sizable chunk of our earnings had to be set aside for retirement savings. Once we're financially independent, we no longer need to buy life insurance and disability insurance.  Hopefully, our home mortgages have been paid off, so we have no mortgage payments. The trick then is to arrive at this state with the best health we can muster and with the prospects for a lo-o-o-ong retirement.

One very important point that I haven't seen mentioned is that the amount of treasure we must lay up to finance our retirements for twenty years is almost enough to support our retirements for forever and a day. If we assume a 4% rate of return on our retirement assets, then we need to invest enough to provide a nest egg equal to 25 years of current income to afford a "forever income" equal to our present income. But we don't normally need anywhere nearly as much income in retirement as we did when we were working. For one thing, we don't have to set aside 15% to 20% of our earned income for retirement. Generally, working somewhere between 30 years and 50 years and setting aside 15% to 20% of our income should be enough to buy our permanent financial independence without depending upon government or institutional sources of retirement money.

A proper discussion of this would take a while, and probably belongs in another thread.

Questions like "What will radical life extension do to population control?" and "If everyone is retired, who will do the work?" are, I should think, premature, and the stuff of other threads. (I personally suspect that even given radical life extension, under-population rather than overpopulation will be our future bugbear, while AI and robotics will gradually replace human workers.)

With respect to rodent studies that show only a 12% lifespan extension over their controls, I think one shoud bear in mind that laboratory environments are tightly controlled. Human environments are not. This means that by adopting merely the kinds of lifestyle constraints that are imposed on the control mice, we could probably add years to our health spans before adding an additional 12% average for whatever life extension maneuver was being tested. Also, there presently exist multiple independent life extension techniques, one or more of which may be synergistic. Twenty-five percent calorie restriction will shave about 15 years off the age of your cardiovascular system (search on "Luigi Fontana"). Intermittent fasting might possibly enhance total calorie restriction Metformin, pterostilbene, and other SIRT1 activators which dial up the AMPK pathway might also amplify the effects of calorie restriction. Some anti-aging physicians such as Dave Waynarowski, Al Sears, and Ed Park are reporting dramatic reductions in age-related biomarkers compared to their chronological ages. A visit to a Calorie Restriction conference is an eye-opener simply in terms of the appearances of the some of the elderly participants. (They look decades younger.) (I'm personally seeing a decade-plus differential between some of my physiological age parameters and my chronological age.)

When we talk life extension, we're talking about avoiding cancer, heart attacks, strokes, arthritis, diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, and Parkinson's Disease. These are diseases devoutly to be avoided.

We're talking about feeling in your nineties approximately the way you did in your twenties or thirties. I believe this is quietly happening now, but I think that for now, it must be earned rather than bought.

To respond directly to your predicament, Florian, I hope that much better days are coming for you.

Granted, the problems I'm describing are first-world problems. Hopefully, within another century, virtually all the world will be first-world. From the standpoint of mobilizing support for life and health extension research, the ball will probably be carried by first-world countries.
 

Gerrans, I don't know what to say. For my part, I've lived under the shadow of aging and death from childhood onward. The idea of life without a self-destruct timer has historically evoked unbearable longing fror youth extension in me. When I was in graduate school in the fifties, I flirted with the idea of switching from physics to biology in hopes of helping find a cure of aging. As for a finite life span being just about the right span to fulfill our aspirations, I'm with Corb: I couldn't disagree more. Had I world enough and and time, there's no end to the projects to which I'd aspire. And I see the best years of our lives consumed by the demands of parenthood, and by having to rent ourselves out for service for our thirty or forty best years.
 

I few decades ago, I entertained the hope that as I grew older, I wouldn't dread death the way I did then. But at 24 days shy of 86, life is still as sweet as it was at 26. I'm no readier to say goodbye than I was then.

Yes, we live in the fleeting moment, but how I feel in the fleeting moment depends upon what I anticipate. I can  get busy and forget about my mortality, but sooner or later, I'm rudely reminded of it.

Most young folk can take their health for granted, and are forced to scramble to gain a footing. Until recently, there wasn't much they could do about aging, and I don't think that most people are aware even now that aging is already tractable and in a major way.
 

I also think that an awareness of the role of superfoods and exercise is making it into the mainstream.
 


  • like x 4

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#17 Florian Xavier

  • Guest
  • 242 posts
  • 37

Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:10 AM

Yeah but death anxiety is so maleable. To me, working totally alleviate it :D 

 

What i don't like with the little studies about metformin and the like is that it gives the illusion of controle over aging, wich humanity definitely don't have.


Edited by Florian Xavier, 02 July 2015 - 10:13 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users