17 ms·
With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent
- BuildTheRobots 7y agoAnyone interested in the idea of living longer (without the detrimental effects of aging) should check out any Aubrey De Grey talk/video/interview.
- ggambetta 7y agoI'm extremely interested in the topic (as I get older but happen to like living). However some people seem to think De Grey is a bit of a crackpot?
- kkarakk 7y agoThe beard says it all
- Beltiras 7y agoWell, we've had some wonderful crackpots through the ages. Tesla comes to mind. Whatever you think about his idea of escape velocity you can't doubt the engineering approach he advocates makes sense. Solve these 7 problems [1] and there will be no reason the organism should die. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types_of_aging_damage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types...
- WilliamEdward 7y agookay thats great but how do i solve these problems? I don't have encyclopaedic knowledge on all things that can cause mutations and cell damage.
- Beltiras 7y agoIt's important enough a "discovery" in and of itself to come up with the definitive list. You can't solve a problem if you don't know what it is.
- naasking 7y ago> okay thats great but how do i solve these problems? de Grey's list is about guiding research directions, it's not for ordinary people to use.
- nudpiedo 7y agoI can doubt of the engineering approach he advocates, because I am aware that people like me is completely an outsider in this branch of science and I cannot differentiate a charlatan from an actual scientist. You could fool a person ignorant enough in a speciality with statements such as: - To fly we just need a way to defeat gravity. - To resurrect a body we just need to insufflate the soul back to the body. - To make a head transplant we just need to reconnect the nerves and wait the meat to glue. - An artificial intelligence will solve our company's problem. This ver same person could be highly skilled or smart in other aspects. The more technical or scientific we sound the more a subject will give authority to the charlatan. I ignore if these statements made by this person are overall valid, if the list is exhaust and if the things there are additional factors I ignore. Even in such case we also ignore the deepness of the problem and circumstances related. Most of people, including myself, are no biologist or cryonogists and have not enough knowledge on that level, in addition it is in the human nature to have high hopes in self perpetuating ourselves. Thats the perfect ground for charlatans to grow.
- Beltiras 7y agoYour list lacks detail where AdG includes very specific things to solve.
- nudpiedo 7y agoFirst of all, being specific doesn't mean irrefutable, correct or that it makes actual sense. My statements only seem unspecific because they are ridiculous for an educated person in our current century (although many educated people from our century felt for the last one.) I don't want to turn that example in an exaggerated dichotomy, but my point is that for someone who lacks skill or knowledge on a deeply complex topic, most of the time by using the specific jargon the person will sounds specific, professional, serious,... they will automatically sound like an expert or authority in the subject. In other words, I don't think most of people here in this forum, and for sure not myself, is qualified enough to say whether the first sentence is more specific or realizable than the second one: - We need to find a way to fix mutations in mitochondria by looking at the telanoma and several teams of scientists are looking at that. - To resurrect a body we just need to insufflate the soul back to the body and several teams of sorcerers are looking at that. And even if my examples are not good enough, this whole thing could be the "detox" fashion that happened a years ago, just on a different level/topic for a different target audience who needs more complicated words in order to be tricked.
- nradov 7y agoSolve those 7 problems and we'll probably find an 8th.
- amelius 7y agoCould be but he also published a well-received paper on graph coloring, so at least he's not stupid. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02385 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02385
- foldr 7y agoNewton published plenty of crackpot works on Alchemy and Biblical exegesis in addition to the Principia. Smart people often say the stupidest things.
- kristofferR 7y agoHe's far from a crackpot (negative connotations), eccentric would be a better term. Don't forget that De Grey has been one of the main popularizer of anti-aging science, and largely thanks to him there's now serious momentum behind it. This recent interview with Aubrey de Grey is really worth listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk He seems to think that anti-aging science has speeded up drastically recently, both in terms of the science itself, the funding and the popularity. I really love what the SENS Foundation is doing in terms of spinning research avenues into startups, since most investors are far more likely to fund high-risk investments than non-profit ones. He also mentions other positive developments in terms of legislation and advocacy.
- nabla9 7y agoHis research agenda and goal is outrageously challenging and controversial and he might be a too overconfident. There is good reason to be skeptical, but he is not a crackpot. Attempting to do something that may turn out to be impossible or wrong approach is not crackpottery. His work of identifying reasons of aging seems really reasonable. Trying to reverse every one of those is incredible challenge. It's the biggest moonshot ever attempted.
- solveit 7y ago> and he might be a too overconfident It's pretty much a law of nature that the pioneers in any field will be overconfident. If they weren't, they never would've tried.
- ilaksh 7y agoPeople were saying he was a crackpot just because he was saying that it was possible to defeat aging before it was cool to say that. He is the leader who put himself out there and made it possible for all of these mainstream scientists to pursue anti-aging research seriously in the open. By the way,his theory is still better than a what many of the mainstream scientists propose because he attributes aging to a more comprehensive (and therefore more realistic) set of problems. Take a look at http://sens.org http://sens.org Its actually similar to how people claimed Ben Goertzel was a crackpot, just because he was willing to promote AGI research when it wasn't cool. It always takes some 'crackpots' (i.e. leaders) to do something unfashionable before it can become fashionable and accepted. Notice how this article doesn't mention de Grey. That is another unfortunate social aspect. The true leaders in science often go unacknowledged. Because society operates as a popularity contest, not a meritocracy.
- hannob 7y agoOr get a gym membership, actually use it and eat less crap. This may only give you a few years, but chances that it'll actually work are much higher.
- RickJWagner 7y agoThat's my plan. I've got the gym membership and use it often. I struggle mightily with eating less crap, though. (Especially chocolate.) Food is one of the great pleasures in life, and I haven't found really healthy food to be a good replacement for tasty junk. Maybe advances in food production will bring hope?
- nradov 7y agoTry eating dark chocolate with minimal added sugar. It contains fewer calories and if you buy the good stuff it's quite tasty.
- phonypc 7y agoDarker chocolate should trend towards being higher in calories, containing proportionally more fat.
- newnewpdro 7y agoYou're confusing Dark and White chocolate. 100% Dark chocolate isn't 100% cocoa butter, it's the non-fat solids. If you eat some it's quite obviously not fatty, it's bitter and dry like a burnt coffee bean. Edit: I'm mistaken here, dark chocolate is half fat, TIL.
- phonypc 7y ago100% chocolate is roughly half fat by weight, easily verified by looking at the nutrition information on the packaging. Not to be confused with cocoa powder, which is indeed just the non-fat solids. As you add sugar to chocolate, the proportion of total weight that is fat goes down, and fat being more calorie dense than sugar, calories per unit weight go down.
- novaRom 7y agoYes we can. Calorie restriction is well known slowing biological aging process. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
- hannob 7y agoThe existing research on CR seems to indicate that the closer you get to human-like animals the lesser it works. It worked very well in small organisms, once you go to apes the results are much less clear: https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/17/14287708/caloric-restriction-diet-monkey-health-longevity https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/17/14287708/caloric-restrict...
- whatshisface 7y agoOne thing is for sure, the average Western diet has so many calories than most people could probably do with a little restriction. (Not even to do anything special, just to return to a healthy state.)
- RappingBoomer 7y agoI am a cryonicist, meaning I want to live forever by having my brain frozen and then revived in the distant future (and I think it may be possible in the distant future to live forever). That means I am also a transhumanist. But a large segment of transhumanist activism is focused on this life extension movement, which in turn is focused on dietary supplements. This life extension via supplements is wrongheaded and a bit of a scam. Just my opinion. We are nowhere near to extending our lifespan. If you want to a chance at a longer life, sign up for cryonics/
- m4r35n357 7y agoBy living longer you are merely stealing resources from those that follow you. You can have immortality or reproduction - choose.
- corobo 7y agoImmortality please
- TelmoMenezes 7y agoI wonder if you would enjoy it as much as you imagine.
- corobo 7y agoWell if the comparison is existing vs not existing I definitely wouldn't enjoy the latter due to not existing.
- sicariusnoctis 7y agoSure, why not? Then I could study all of mathematics, physics, computer science, or whatnot at my leisure! Right now, I can only experience the smallest of glimpses into incredibly interesting fields.
- TelmoMenezes 7y agoOk, so you are assuming that you would be immortal and free to pursue intellectual endeavors forever. This implies that all of your problems would be solved. You would be forever chasing the dopamine hit of understanding more of the fields that interest you. Or you could just shoot heroin. Without mortality or problems to confront, all meaning would be lost. Math, heroin, sex, all the same. Consider the dissolution of meaning, and the fact that infinity is a very very long time.
- magduf 7y agoIt's weird how people like you somehow think that immortal people would somehow be immune to gunshots or speeding buses. In reality, you'd have at most 1000 years before you were the victim of some tragic accident or murder.
- RichardHeart 7y agoIn this thread I've seen the overpopulation argument framed as theft. Here are all the others I've found. Summary of pro death arguments: Fairness Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done this.) Better to give money to the poor than science. (family, city, state, nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.) Bad for society Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.) Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistent) Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.) Stop having kids Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136) Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age) Old people are expensive (50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your final year. Delay is profitable.) Old people suck. (death is an inferior cure to robustness.) Bad for individual You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related) You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?) You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.) Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.) People will force you to live forever (they aren't able to do this now, why would they begin to be?) Do you think less people make progress faster? What's your target level of depriving life of existence? How do you plan to keep mankind robust from extinction events on a single planet? You might just need more people. What do you think our technology would look like if we had 10x less people for the last 100 years? More people make more progress faster. Aren’t you glad your parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without you in it? If great minds like Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc., were still alive and productive today, the world would be a better place. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then. Man up, save your family, save yourself. P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horrible things comes true, even earlier.
- Nasrudith 7y agoNot to mention the other flaw of the "theft" framework or one or the other. Even if there was a fixed limit we would run against in spite of all innovations it is more efficient resource wise to build one person for 1000 years than 20 generations that live to 50. Growth and death itself has more expenses.
- johnydepp 7y agoI wish we lived little less, resulting in, less knowledge transfer, less technology, less of the destruction caused by humans on nature. We live longer than most of the creatures of our size, and we have larger brain. That's the reason of the damage we create to the earth like swarms of locusts do to the green grass fields [1]. And still we wish more life! Sad! On a serious note, the most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want the product to remind that they are old. So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bx5JUGVahk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bx5JUGVahk
- onorton 7y ago> So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation. Aren't a lot of products you see on infomercials exactly that? I've seen people argue that it's a market failure or an inefficiency of capitalism that people are trying to market products for elderly and disabled people to younger people and families. From this it seems more likely the opposite. They are designed for the elderly or disabled but are falsely marketed to everyone in order to get their real target audience to buy it.
- kristofferR 7y agoSo many people think anti-aging science is just about living more years, but that's missing half the picture. Anti-aging science is not just about living more years, it's about being able to live healthy and fulfilling lives both physically and mentally even as you age. Way too many people are broken by age before they die, to prevent that would be fantastic.
- johnydepp 7y agoSo the title shouldn't be 'Can we Live Longer..". As the actual article is about anti-aging not living longer..
- coldtea 7y ago>So many people think anti-aging science is just about living more years, but that's missing half the picture. Anti-aging science is not just about living more years, it's about being able to live healthy and fulfilling lives both physically and mentally even as you age. Thats's 2/3rds of the picture. The other 1/3rd of "anti-aging" is selling snake-oil fads to suckers and for people with anxieties to obsess over.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> and for people with anxieties to obsess over One man's lack of anxiety is another man's Stockholm syndrome. That in this day and age, anti-aging research is still considered fringe and frowned upon by the overarching culture, instead of being one of the top priorities of R&D worldwide, is pretty damn shameful.
- coldtea 7y ago>One man's lack of anxiety is another man's Stockholm syndrome. Well, people have escaped kidnappers. None has escaped death, and until this happens (which very well could happen technically at some point) it's just anxiety over the inevitable.
- 7y ago
- johnydepp 7y agoThe most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want the product to remind that they are old. So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation.
- coldtea 7y ago>The most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want the product to remind that they are old In the modern society, that is. In previous eras/societies, it was a badge of honor to be among the elderly, and there were products/lifestyles associated to that that did fine.
- dTal 7y agoHence, infomercials with ludicrously clumsy (but young) people.
- sylk 7y agoWow that explains a good majority of infomercials to me... Thank you.
- cr0sh 7y ago> So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation. And thus, "Where did the soda go?"...
- maxxxxx 7y agoI don't think that's necessarily true. It's just that items designed for the elderly are designed by young people who think this is what elderly people need. My mom uses quite a few items that are supposed to be designed for the elderly. Only a few really work whereas others simply don't work. I don't think most elderly don't want to be reminded that they are old. They will happily use stuff that actually works for them.
- babuskov 7y agoI found Joe Rogan iterview with David Sinclair really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4
- paideic 7y agoSomewhat off-topic, but I always thought the most prominent real-life reenactment of The Fox and the Grapes was all of the media and thinkpieces that people have written about how living for an extended period of time would be just _awful_. You wouldn't find many people who think that 40 years would be an acceptable lifespan, and most people would probably like to live to 100 if they got there in good health, but as soon as the idea of living potential centuries is floated, it's all "it would drive you crazy with boredom!" It seems like a good-sized contingent of people believe that extending the human lifespan wouldn't be impossible or immoral so much as it would be _undesirable_. Boy, it sure is convenient that our "natural" longevity (whatever that means) is right at the limits of what humans can reasonably enjoy, huh? I could understand the impulse people would have to not extend their lives if that's truly what they wanted, but the almost _cultural_ belief that seeking immortality is Bad and Wrong, something only pursued by cartoon villains and insane emperors seems like a collective agreement among people to throw their hands up and go "well, fine! I don't even _want_ to live longer, who'd like that?" All of this, of course, doesn't touch on the moral, economic, environmental, etc. problems that crop up with greatly extended longevity, for which there are a number of altogether more palatable arguments that would need to be engaged with more fully. Still, it's an odd piece of ideology that makes people feel like they don't need to deploy any of these in the conversation - why would they, when they _totally_ don't even want to live much longer than 100 anyways?
- vict00ms 7y agoI think the rapid mental and physical decline in your twilight years dissuades most people from wanting to live much longer than that, not some inane moral compulsion to live within our "rightful" lifespan.
- Retra 7y agoThat decline is what kills you. If you live longer, it is necessary that this decline be inhibited. Saying you don't want to live longer is basically the same as saying you want to be less healthy.
- 7y ago
- agumonkey 7y agoI don't see discussion about the natural emotional maturation process. Even with a much better body, I don't feel about life and things the same way. We might as well take care about not misaligning somatic health with mental health too much. It would be fruitless.
- Youcandothis 7y agoMaturation means improvement. If something is getting worse, then it's not maturation.
- agumonkey 7y ago... your evolution towards life is neither better or worse.
- m23khan 7y agoisn't this happening already? From totally unscientific perspective, if you look at pictures of people from olden days (say high school seniors from 1970s/1980s vs from 21st century) as well pictures of 60+ people from 1940s/1950s, you will notice people now look a lot younger. It isn't only the sense of grooming/clothing but also physical attributes which have changed
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- slothtrop 7y agoWhat I'd like to more accurately identify is the point at which we get diminishing returns to health from strenuous exercise, in measurable form. Exercise of course provides enormous health benefits, but progressive overload for instance demands ever increasing caloric intake which runs counter to health recommendations. This is probably easier to track than high intensity cardio except in terms of pure caloric need. I deadlift twice my bodyweight at up to 5 reps and consume somewhere in the range of 2000-2500 calories a day. But is reaching the 1000 pound club worth it from a health standpoint? I doubt it, but the evidence surrounding this is sorely lacking.
- ZeroFries 7y agoIt would vary depending on type of exercise. Giving my opinions based on being very interested in the subject for years, without bothering with citations. For muscle-mass, the health benefits come from having higher glycogen storage (helping to prevent diabetes), as well as maintaining function late into life. The latter is subject to diminishing returns, and maintenance is more important than the amount when you peaked. Also, having too much muscle mass would put a strain on the heart. Daily light movement is important for circulation. 10-12k steps seems to about ideal. 15-20 minutes of moderate-intensity (120-140 bpm) or 4 total minutes of high-intensity (> 160 bpm) cardio improves heart function, blood-flow, and mitochondrial density. Any more seems to be subject to diminishing returns. Stretching around 10 minutes per day may help prevent cancer and preserve function. This leads me to the following recommendations: 1-3 weekly strength training sessions of around 45 minutes 10-12k daily steps 2-4 weekly cardio sessions of around 15 minutes 10 minutes daily stretching
- slothtrop 7y agoThis closely approximates what I've gunned for. I'm not aiming to be a maximalist, but want my investments to be worthwhile. My intuition has suggested to me that with cardio (moderate/intense), a little goes a long way and long sessions can eventually yield injury. You mentioned not bothering with citations but if you recall any sources I'd check those out. You didn't mention it, but the other benefit of strength training is higher testosterone levels.
- TYPE_FASTER 7y agoYes. Don't eat sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Eat fruits and vegetables. Exercise regularly. Walking counts, but you probably want to throw some upper-body stuff in there as well. Working in the garden counts. That's about 80-95% of "how to stay healthy using forces under your control" as far as I can tell.
- fizwhiz 7y ago> Don't eat sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Oh but where's the fun in that? :)
- AstralStorm 7y agoVegetables are delicious, most low in sugar. If you really want to ingest nicotine, use gum or patches.
- evanagon 7y ago+ have a lot of close friends. According to an 80 year Harvard study, the quality of close relationships was among the biggest factors in long term health. “The surprising finding is that our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health,” said Robert Waldinger, director of the study, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “Taking care of your body is important, but tending to your relationships is a form of self-care too. That, I think, is the revelation.”
- dllthomas 7y ago"but"?
- Shutaru 7y agoI've seen this sort of argument many times before, most notably from Francis Fukuyama. The common thinking on the subject seems to be a deeply inaccurate decoupling of longevity and health. Yes, we fear death, but we also fear the image of ourselves spending the final years of our lives bedridden and in pain. What we don't seem to understand is that patients in such poor health don't survive very long (despite the inevitable anecdotes about relatives who survived far too long in feeble condition, more a matter of perception than fact). In other words, unhealthy people tend to have poor longevity.
- maxxxxx 7y agoEspecially with dementia you can live a very long time. I have watched this with my dad now for more than 10 years and he may outlive my mom even though his mental capacity is not there anymore.
- dwaltrip 7y agoOnly a minor reduction in this coupling could be sufficient to cause significant misery.
- Proven 7y agoWouldn't that result in even more longevity, making the problem worse? Folks at some point this has to stop, except for Jess Bezos and a few others who can afford to live longer.