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


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


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Each Person Really can make a Difference!

longecity sens activism outreach research

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 Griff

  • Guest
  • 68 posts
  • 30
  • Location:California

Posted 15 January 2016 - 08:38 AM


The next Tesla or Einstein of Human Biological Aging, could already be out there in the World. Especially not woken up to the fact of Aging Science and that the Cause exists. They might live their own life devoted to another field such as Music, Art, Finance, Law, Environment, NASA, etc, but only if that one person or team of people had been steered this direction, then Humanity could thus have the first Major Breakthrough in Longevity + Life Extension.
 
Even if we ourselves, anyone of us, might not end up being the Scientist, it is still a team effort, of a very complex system that the World is and Human Civilizations. Each of us must do our part; and yes, even one affecting thing that you do, will be part of the web of actions that made it happen! Believe in your abilities that make you unique and what you are capable of doing!
 
 
Please Share / Like / Comment :)

  • Cheerful x 4

#2 Antonio2014

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

Posted 15 January 2016 - 09:17 AM

We need a new Rockefeller, not a new Einstein ;)


  • Disagree x 2
  • like x 1

#3 mcleodx

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 25 March 2016 - 07:27 AM

@Griff Hi Griff, I'm new to Longecity, but have been actively interested in scientific enhancement such as tDCS and Nootropics for the last 5 years.  I'm now following my interest and studying Adv. Computing and Biotechnology, and as a student what you posted is incredibly profound.  I'm actually in the process of designing a concept for the systematic introduction of h+, biohacking and life extension ideologies to students, within Australia, and also hopefully globally.  The real boom in these technologies will come when areas like Cybernetics and Genetics become commonly understood by a large percentage of undergrads, and when talented students in areas like Computer Science and Biological Sciences realise the potential to direct their path towards the most significant body of information that mankind in it's current form could ever hope to discover.


  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 Griff

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 68 posts
  • 30
  • Location:California

Posted 27 March 2016 - 04:10 AM

Thank you for the later reply couple months later, and I love it. You definitely raise my spirits!


  • Agree x 2

#5 mcleodx

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 27 March 2016 - 11:08 AM

No probs at all Griff, thanks for an inspirational thread.



#6 Antonio2014

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

Posted 28 March 2016 - 09:09 AM

@Griff Hi Griff, I'm new to Longecity, but have been actively interested in scientific enhancement such as tDCS and Nootropics for the last 5 years.  I'm now following my interest and studying Adv. Computing and Biotechnology, and as a student what you posted is incredibly profound.  I'm actually in the process of designing a concept for the systematic introduction of h+, biohacking and life extension ideologies to students, within Australia, and also hopefully globally.  The real boom in these technologies will come when areas like Cybernetics and Genetics become commonly understood by a large percentage of undergrads, and when talented students in areas like Computer Science and Biological Sciences realise the potential to direct their path towards the most significant body of information that mankind in it's current form could ever hope to discover.

 

Genetics influence in human longevity, as demographical studies show, is really tiny. As for cybernetics, do you refer to nanobots? I think purely biomedical life extension (based on enzimes, antibodies, stem cells, etc.) will come much sooner than treatments based on nanobots. We are still far away from the later, but the former is reachable soon if enough funding is provided.

 


Edited by Antonio2014, 28 March 2016 - 09:10 AM.


#7 Griff

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 68 posts
  • 30
  • Location:California

Posted 28 March 2016 - 05:31 PM

I wanted to talk about the funding issue.

 

Money cannot buy happiness and is just a tool and it itself cannot create cures and new ideas. Most people and organizations just want money for either, A. they want a decent normal living of that of a school teacher salary or that of a university professor's salary. B. They definitely want money and want to be partially wealthy and have always wanted to. C. They want a massive groundbreaking sized lab and campus for research, of almost mass production lines and economy of scale research.

 

People talking about money are generally lazy or on the support side, and are not the lead researcher genius or handful of geniuses to actually solve the problem itself.

 

A TRULY passionate person who's pure life goal is to solve Aging, by making the first major breakthrough, will do it regardless if they get funding or not, or whether they live a life of canned food and ramen and fastfood.

 

The person to solve aging, the Scientific researcher person and discoverer, is almost unhuman-like genius and near Godlike ability to connect the dots and logic, they do it out of passion and their love for the topic, this person is basically like a Tesla or Einstein or Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

Unless someone in our movement and here steps up to the plate, of devoting many hours and most of their life to battling it out of researching this, or if someone that is a child right now living their life, or not even born yet, comes along and does it.; until then we are just a bunch of folk around the world throwing money at it.



#8 Antonio2014

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

Posted 28 March 2016 - 08:03 PM

Money cannot buy happiness and is just a tool and it itself cannot create cures and new ideas.

 

Huh?? Money does can create cures. Lack of funding is the bigger bottleneck for medical research, or any research, for that matter. As people in the aerospace industry say: no bucks, no Buck Rogers.

 

Most people and organizations just want money for either, A. they want a decent normal living of that of a school teacher salary or that of a university professor's salary. B. They definitely want money and want to be partially wealthy and have always wanted to. C. They want a massive groundbreaking sized lab and campus for research, of almost mass production lines and economy of scale research.

 

A and B are quite insulting, apart from unfounded. And certainly false for SENS. Most of SENS funding ($13M) comes from Aubrey's own money.

 

 

People talking about money are generally lazy or on the support side, and are not the lead researcher genius or handful of geniuses to actually solve the problem itself.

 

Again, huh?? Medicine is not mathematics. No matter how smart are you, you will need a lot of money to produce a drug. Currently, developing one drug, from chemical research to human trials, costs around 1-2 billion.

 

 

A TRULY passionate person who's pure life goal is to solve Aging, by making the first major breakthrough, will do it regardless if they get funding or not, or whether they live a life of canned food and ramen and fastfood.

 

image.jpg


Edited by Antonio2014, 28 March 2016 - 08:04 PM.


#9 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,408 posts
  • 1,406
  • Location:UK

Posted 30 March 2016 - 05:44 PM

Money does not buy happiness but it buys a whole lot of resources and it does help immensely whatever your goals. More money = better technology and more bright minds being brought to the cause. Let's not argue too much and all focus on the REAL enemy that we are fighting - that evil thief, misery maker and cruel disease called ageing!


  • Agree x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 mcleodx

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 30 March 2016 - 06:35 PM

@Antonio2014 Can you explain this: "Genetics influence in human longevity, as demographical studies show, is really tiny." As in, which demographical studies show this?



#11 Antonio2014

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

Posted 30 March 2016 - 09:11 PM

It's not a single study or a few studies, simply all studies show tiny effects, and when they are repeated in differente populations, often the results can't be reproduced. The biggest effect seems to be that of APOE, but even that is small. So I can't point to a few studies to prove it, it's a negative proof. Anyway there are some review papers, like this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3898394/


Edited by Antonio2014, 30 March 2016 - 09:13 PM.


#12 mcleodx

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 30 March 2016 - 10:11 PM

@Antonio2014 I'm only just starting in my study of the sciences now, so I'm by no means an expert, but..

a) Don't you need to have more of a basis to make a claim like that than one study?  Surely if you knew of a wide range of studies that all support that theory, or if you knew of a research paper based upon the compilation of the results of a number of different studies, then what you said would be a fair statement.  As it is it seems like a pretty broad statement to make without proof (the only thing I could find on negative proof was that it's used in pseudo-science, and by people to 'prove' the existence of God).

b) The second line of the paper that you provided a link to is "the heritability of age in death in adulthood is approximately 25%".  Which is not 'tiny' but actually significant.  It also goes on to say that as age increases so does the heritability, therefore the genetic influence on lifespan increasing further into our later years.

 

Here are two more studies that support that genetics accounts for around 25% of the variation in adult lifespan: 

http://demogr.mpg.de...1_fulltext.pdf 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2726954/

 

This long term study of individuals over 100 at the Boston University has identified hundreds of genes that can be assessed together to predict with up to 85% accuracy how old someone is just by their genotype:
http://www.bumc.bu.edu/centenarian/

Being that genes are essentially just computer code for living beings, and that they determine our physiology, it appears that genetics actually has quite an important role in human longevity.
 


Edited by mcleodx, 30 March 2016 - 10:14 PM.


#13 mcleodx

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 30 March 2016 - 10:21 PM

@antonio2014 Also, this point here that you made: "It's not a single study or a few studies, simply all studies show tiny effects, and when they are repeated in differente populations, often the results can't be reproduced"

 

One of the foundations of scientific research is that research should be designed in order to be able to be reproduced.  In fact that's the only way that other researchers can validate the findings of any research, and so if the studies that you're talking about can't be reproduced, I think that the findings may be identified as being relatively invalid unless the research methods were modified to allow for others to repeat the studies.

Also, saying that "
simply all studies show tiny effects" is a generalisation, because I've just shown a number of studies where the influence of genetics on longevity is actually shown to be significant.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#14 Antonio2014

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

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:29 PM

@Antonio2014 I'm only just starting in my study of the sciences now, so I'm by no means an expert, but..

a) Don't you need to have more of a basis to make a claim like that than one study?

 

No. The non-existence of something can't be probed by showing some examples. Only the existence can probed. That is, if you think that genetics has a big influence, it's you who has to show an example. I have never seen one such example. It's not psedoscience, it's knowledge of the literature.

 

 

b) The second line of the paper that you provided a link to is "the heritability of age in death in adulthood is approximately 25%".  Which is not 'tiny' but actually significant.

 

Nope. What 'tiny' means is that, by having a very good genome, the longevity you gain is small and also the probability to gain something is small. To reach 110 you need a good genome, but even so, almost all people with such a good genome don't pass 90. And, anyway, 110 is not so far from the 84 years of life expectancy in Japan.

 

The 25 % only means how strong is the correlation between aging and genetics, it tells nothing about how big is the longevity gained by genetics.

 

I you continue reading the abstract you can see this:

 

 

Candidate gene studies have identified variants at APOE and FOXO3A associated with longevity; other genes show inconsistent results. Genome-wide association scans (GWAS) of centenarians vs. younger controls reveal only APOE as achieving genome-wide significance (GWS);

 

Here is a presentation by Aubrey de Grey on the topic:

 

 

He reviews the literature and states the same conclusion. But he also talks about new developments that maybe, or maybe not, can find very rare alleles than can have a similar effect than APOE.


Edited by Antonio2014, 31 March 2016 - 07:45 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: longecity, sens, activism, outreach, research

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users