8 ms·

Anyone 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 ago
I'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 ago
  The beard says it all
- Beltiras 7y ago
  Well, 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 ago
    okay 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 ago
      It'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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Your list lacks detail where AdG includes very specific things to solve.
      - nudpiedo 7y ago
        First 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 ago
    Solve those 7 problems and we'll probably find an 8th.
    - Beltiras 7y ago
      Perhaps. But solving those 7 will increase longevity by leaps and bounds.
    - snvzz 7y ago
      This list has been stuck at 7 for a _very_ long time.
- amelius 7y ago
  Could 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 ago
    Newton published plenty of crackpot works on Alchemy and Biblical exegesis in addition to the Principia. Smart people often say the stupidest things.
- kristofferR 7y ago
  He'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 ago
  His 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 ago
  People 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 ago
Or 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 ago
  That'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 ago
    Try eating dark chocolate with minimal added sugar. It contains fewer calories and if you buy the good stuff it's quite tasty.
    - phonypc 7y ago
      Darker chocolate should trend towards being higher in calories, containing proportionally more fat.
      - newnewpdro 7y ago
        You'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 ago
        100% 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.

ggambetta 7y ago

I'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 ago
The beard says it all
Beltiras 7y ago
Well, 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 ago
  okay 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 ago
    It'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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Your list lacks detail where AdG includes very specific things to solve.
    - nudpiedo 7y ago
      First 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 ago
  Solve those 7 problems and we'll probably find an 8th.
  - Beltiras 7y ago
    Perhaps. But solving those 7 will increase longevity by leaps and bounds.
  - snvzz 7y ago
    This list has been stuck at 7 for a _very_ long time.
amelius 7y ago
Could 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 ago
  Newton published plenty of crackpot works on Alchemy and Biblical exegesis in addition to the Principia. Smart people often say the stupidest things.
kristofferR 7y ago
He'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 ago
His 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 ago
People 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 ago

Or 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 ago
That'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 ago
  Try eating dark chocolate with minimal added sugar. It contains fewer calories and if you buy the good stuff it's quite tasty.
  - phonypc 7y ago
    Darker chocolate should trend towards being higher in calories, containing proportionally more fat.
    - newnewpdro 7y ago
      You'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 ago
        100% 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.