7 ms·

Unusual Ways to Live Forever

35 points by jaltucher 16y ago

reasonattlm 16y ago
I am very used by now to seeing people who think as ambitious technologists in all other parts of their life fall over and fail to think clearly and ambitiously when it comes to aging. The pall of long-standing societal attitudes towards aging is hard to overcome. But really - a whole screed on what to do about aging and you don't mention biotechnology once? That is a hot startup market, in which amazing things are taking place, and there are at least three competing visions of how to significantly extend human life currently battling it out in the scientific press and pop-science translation of that. As your future arrives, there are two things you can do: either (a) accept suffering and death and do only the things you list in your article, or (b) materially help the nascent industry of rejuvenation biotechnology. We are entering an age in which you can turn money into years of life. If you aren't noticing that, and you don't understand how to do that, then you have not been doing your research. If you can buy time with money, then the worth of money becomes very different, and you should be giving a lot more of it to the right sorts of science: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/10/the-rational-use-for-excess-money-is-longevity-science.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/10/the-rational-use-... And all technologists should have a better grasp of what aging is, and how it can be ameliorated within the next 20 years with the right research path: http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes It isn't as complex as you might think - it only takes a couple of years of reading around to come to a good understanding as to why most of what you read is unscientific nonsense, and why despite that fact there are still functionally useful paths ahead: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/09/the-scientific-debate-that-will-determine-how-long-we-all-live.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/09/the-scientific-de... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/12/magical-thinking-abounds-in-the-antiaging-marketplace.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/12/magical-thinking-... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/money-making-websites-and-the-cause-of-longevity-science.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/money-making-webs... ---- And finally: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/is-prevention-of-aging-within-our-grasp.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/is-prevention-of-... "Yes, prevention of aging is within our grasp - in the sense that a package of foreseeable medical technologies could enable repair of the low-level biochemical damage that causes aging, and those technologies might take only twenty years or so to develop. Unfortunately, that timeline is dependent on a large amount of funding and a dedicated research community, neither of which presently exists for many of the essential parts of this research program. While the regenerative medicine and cancer research communities are populous, well funded, and achieving progress, very few researchers are presently working on other goals necessary to halt the aging process - such as repair of mitochondrial DNA. "So when I say "within our grasp," I mean "if we all get up and do our part to make it happen." It takes a wave of public interest and advocacy to steer the scientific community and large funding institutions - and they presently need steering towards repair-based strategies to deal with aging, otherwise the first working rejuvenation therapies will arrive too late for those in middle age today."
- sayemm 16y ago
  Interesting links... maybe the OP didn't mention biotech at all because it's not within his domain of expertise? And nowhere in there does he claim to be an ambitious technologist. I think this post does a great job at highlighting those stats of the top 10 killers and showing how little things and some common sense everyday can go a long way at improving your odds at preventing them. I'm a huge Buffett fan, and I really dig the analogy of looking after your own health and lifestyle the same way you would with your finances. Interest accruing on your bank account doesn't seem like much in the near-term, but compound it over several years and it yields a huge reward, hand-in-hand with having the common sense to steer clear from risky disasters. The same is true of developing good long-term habits like exercising, watching your nutrition, having a positive mentality, etc. Sure, it doesn't sound all cool and sexy, and it doesn't gratify you in the short-term, but they're time-tested principles and they put time (or the effect of compounded growth) on your side - just like Buffett's investing habits.
- feral 16y ago
  >The Rational Use For Excess Money is Longevity Science Depending on how you calculate it, something like one quarter of the world's population live on less than 2$ a day. Many of them die due to a lack of absolute basics, like food, or basic, cheap, medicines. Surely, the place to put 'excess money' is towards improving the lifespans of the people dying in their 30s, rather than of the people dying in their 70s? Poverty problems are really hard to solve, and longevity research is good stuff; but you can't make global arguments about where we should put our resources, to improve overall human well-being, and ignore the vast numbers of people barely surviving.
  - AngryParsley 16y ago
    Aging kills significantly more people than poverty. Of the 150,000+ people who die every day, 100,000 of those are due to aging or age-related illnesses.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    The rational use of excess money depends on what you care about. If you place more value on living an extra few decades than on the welfare of people you don't know, then from that set of priorities, spending your extra cash on longevity research is perfectly reasonable. You can argue that people shouldn't feel that way -- that we should be more consistent in caring about the people we know and the people we don't -- but you'll be fighting our instincts every step of the way, which is kind of difficult in practice. (Note that I'm not taking a position here one way or another. If I were, I might point out that new technology generates jobs that can alleviate poverty more effectively than most forms of aid. Then I might argue with myself, saying that there are some forms of aid which are actually very, very cost-effective, and link to GiveWell. Then I might point out that we can do more than one thing, and that it's probably most effective to try to get people to more effectively contribute to things they do care about, rather than trying to change what they value. If you want to directly help people living in poverty, consider going to http://givewell.org/ http://givewell.org/ and looking at what they recommend. If you want to live longer, the SENS Foundation is doing some good work there and could definitely use donations. Damn, I thought I wasn't going to take a position, and now I just took three of them.)
jaltucher 16y ago
I don't mention biotech for a vey important reason: that good , common sense techniques can prolong life as easily if not better. Biotech is there for the tails. I believe the article clearly states that and cites all of the relevant statistics
- kragen 16y ago
  The title is a lie; none of the techniques you mention will enable someone to live forever. None of them even stop aging; a few of them might slow it down, but there's no good evidence that they do. You don't even mention caloric restriction, and there's good evidence that caloric restriction can slow aging substantially. ("No snacks" is not caloric restriction; we're talking about cutting your intake well below 2000 calories a day.) By contrast, techniques that reverse aging damage would allow biological humans to survive for many centuries. Nothing on your list comes close. In short, your comment is also a lie.
  - zeroplus 16y ago
    All of the techniques slow the things that increase aging. I encourage pele who are focused on anti aging techniques to start with their bodies and minds first and then focus on the external. Calorie restriction is not realistic for most people but all of my techniques are
    - kragen 16y ago
      > All of the techniques slow the things that increase aging. That sentence fails to rise to the level of coherence. What are "the things that increase aging"? What is their usual velocity? How much do they increase aging? What's the relationship between their velocity and the speed of aging? If you mean "all of the techniques slow the processes of aging", you're absolutely wrong. Exercise accelerates your metabolism, which accelerates some of the known aging processes. Of the other 11, most have no known connection to aging at all. > Calorie restriction is not realistic for most people but all of my techniques are Caloric restriction is easier for many people than quitting smoking, having sex, sleeping a lot, avoiding hospitals, or avoiding accidents.
diego 16y ago
Decent article, common sense for the most part. What does it have to do with living forever though? With a reasonable amount of effort you can avoid a few things that shorten your life span. The problem is that the long tail is huge, and it WILL kill you. By following your advice you add maybe 10 years to your life expectancy. Not bad, but "forever" is a long time.
- jaltucher 16y ago
  Of course, but to an 80 year old man, ten years is a long time also
  - thwarted 16y ago
    10 years to an 80 year old man is 1/8 of his life. 10 years to a 20 year old is 1/2 of their life. As I get older, I find that time seems to pass faster (and right now, I don't see how it could perceptively pass any faster than it currently is).
deno 16y ago
Please note that the author is not a medical professional (he's an investor) and some of his advice may be harmful to your health. “[Instead of surgery], find out first if there’s any other non-surgical procedures. (…) first check with an acupuncturist (a good one that is recommended by friends who were actually helped by that acupuncturist) or a chiropractor.” He refers to some pop-science articles here and there, but overall it's just a ‘common sense’ advice, which you must decide for yourself whether is valuable or not. For example, although probably everyone here would agree that tobacco is very bad for you, please note that his method of arguing for that (“Of the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke...”) is one that can be (and has been[1]) used to argue against vaccines. [1] http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html
- jaltucher 16y ago
  I'm not arguing against vaccines though. And, btw, I'm not advocating people avoid surgery. But there are many well-documented stats (read any Gawande book) of when surgery is recommended but not the best solution.
  - deno 16y ago
    > I'm not arguing against vaccines though. I didn't say you were. I've said that your argument can be (and has been) used to prove or disprove almost any theory—including that of vaccines conspiracy. You have to either accept all the conclusions and uses of said argument or you must acknowledge that said argument was flawed to begin with. And I'm sorry but you can't start your sentence by saying that you're not advocating people to avoid surgery and then go ahead and do exactly that. Furthermore, dr. Gawande is not arguing what you do by a long shot. Your medical treatment options are always presented to you and you're free to chose a non-invasive one if you wish to. You're however advocating for choosing a non-medical treatment instead of a medical one, and in case of both acupuncture and chiropractic, ones that have no scientific basis whatsoever, and have not been proven to work or have been proven to not work.
mhp 16y ago
Posted November 18, 2010: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/11/how-to-live-forever/ http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/11/how-to-live-forever/ Posted March 5, 2011: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/03/12-unusual-ways-to-how-to-live-forever/ http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/03/12-unusual-ways-to-how-... Isn't this the same article, republished?
- shadowpwner 16y ago
  Yup, I'm sure it's in the blogger's rights to republish his own articles with a more link-baity title.
dhughes 16y ago
Risk of death from #1 heart disease and #8 pneumonia can be greatly reduced quite easily by getting a pneumonia vaccination shot, it protects you against the viral form of pneumonia and halves the chance of heart attack. I'd say most people want to live a long healthy life but only if it's easy instead of consuming fewer calories and exercising so really a pneumonia vaccination is as easy as it gets. Vitamin D is also a fantastic thing, being in a northern climate and inside most of the time it's hard to get enough vitamin D. I started taking a 1,000IU chewable chocolate vitamin D each day and haven't been sick once. It's not a cure it's long term prevention but its effects are quickly noticed.
rubashov 16y ago
Moderate drinking will help stave off a heart attack if you're already sclerotic, which most older industrialized people are to some extent. The evidence that moderate drinking will do you any good if your veins and arteries are squeaky clean is slim. Moderate drinking and aspirin and so forth are only ameliorative.
ctdonath 16y ago
Nothing in the article is unusual. Same old "eat right and exercise" variations. Nothing in the article approaches immortality. Same old "do this and you might last another decade" variations.

35 points by jaltucher 16y ago

I am very used by now to seeing people who think as ambitious technologists in all other parts of their life fall over and fail to think clearly and ambitiously when it comes to aging. The pall of long-standing societal attitudes towards aging is hard to overcome. But really - a whole screed on what to do about aging and you don't mention biotechnology once? That is a hot startup market, in which amazing things are taking place, and there are at least three competing visions of how to significantly extend human life currently battling it out in the scientific press and pop-science translation of that. As your future arrives, there are two things you can do: either (a) accept suffering and death and do only the things you list in your article, or (b) materially help the nascent industry of rejuvenation biotechnology. We are entering an age in which you can turn money into years of life. If you aren't noticing that, and you don't understand how to do that, then you have not been doing your research. If you can buy time with money, then the worth of money becomes very different, and you should be giving a lot more of it to the right sorts of science: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/10/the-rational-use-for-excess-money-is-longevity-science.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/10/the-rational-use-... And all technologists should have a better grasp of what aging is, and how it can be ameliorated within the next 20 years with the right research path: http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes It isn't as complex as you might think - it only takes a couple of years of reading around to come to a good understanding as to why most of what you read is unscientific nonsense, and why despite that fact there are still functionally useful paths ahead: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/09/the-scientific-debate-that-will-determine-how-long-we-all-live.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/09/the-scientific-de... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/12/magical-thinking-abounds-in-the-antiaging-marketplace.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/12/magical-thinking-... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/money-making-websites-and-the-cause-of-longevity-science.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/money-making-webs... ---- And finally: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/is-prevention-of-aging-within-our-grasp.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/is-prevention-of-... "Yes, prevention of aging is within our grasp - in the sense that a package of foreseeable medical technologies could enable repair of the low-level biochemical damage that causes aging, and those technologies might take only twenty years or so to develop. Unfortunately, that timeline is dependent on a large amount of funding and a dedicated research community, neither of which presently exists for many of the essential parts of this research program. While the regenerative medicine and cancer research communities are populous, well funded, and achieving progress, very few researchers are presently working on other goals necessary to halt the aging process - such as repair of mitochondrial DNA. "So when I say "within our grasp," I mean "if we all get up and do our part to make it happen." It takes a wave of public interest and advocacy to steer the scientific community and large funding institutions - and they presently need steering towards repair-based strategies to deal with aging, otherwise the first working rejuvenation therapies will arrive too late for those in middle age today."

sayemm 16y ago
Interesting links... maybe the OP didn't mention biotech at all because it's not within his domain of expertise? And nowhere in there does he claim to be an ambitious technologist. I think this post does a great job at highlighting those stats of the top 10 killers and showing how little things and some common sense everyday can go a long way at improving your odds at preventing them. I'm a huge Buffett fan, and I really dig the analogy of looking after your own health and lifestyle the same way you would with your finances. Interest accruing on your bank account doesn't seem like much in the near-term, but compound it over several years and it yields a huge reward, hand-in-hand with having the common sense to steer clear from risky disasters. The same is true of developing good long-term habits like exercising, watching your nutrition, having a positive mentality, etc. Sure, it doesn't sound all cool and sexy, and it doesn't gratify you in the short-term, but they're time-tested principles and they put time (or the effect of compounded growth) on your side - just like Buffett's investing habits.
feral 16y ago
>The Rational Use For Excess Money is Longevity Science Depending on how you calculate it, something like one quarter of the world's population live on less than 2$ a day. Many of them die due to a lack of absolute basics, like food, or basic, cheap, medicines. Surely, the place to put 'excess money' is towards improving the lifespans of the people dying in their 30s, rather than of the people dying in their 70s? Poverty problems are really hard to solve, and longevity research is good stuff; but you can't make global arguments about where we should put our resources, to improve overall human well-being, and ignore the vast numbers of people barely surviving.
- AngryParsley 16y ago
  Aging kills significantly more people than poverty. Of the 150,000+ people who die every day, 100,000 of those are due to aging or age-related illnesses.
- pjscott 16y ago
  The rational use of excess money depends on what you care about. If you place more value on living an extra few decades than on the welfare of people you don't know, then from that set of priorities, spending your extra cash on longevity research is perfectly reasonable. You can argue that people shouldn't feel that way -- that we should be more consistent in caring about the people we know and the people we don't -- but you'll be fighting our instincts every step of the way, which is kind of difficult in practice. (Note that I'm not taking a position here one way or another. If I were, I might point out that new technology generates jobs that can alleviate poverty more effectively than most forms of aid. Then I might argue with myself, saying that there are some forms of aid which are actually very, very cost-effective, and link to GiveWell. Then I might point out that we can do more than one thing, and that it's probably most effective to try to get people to more effectively contribute to things they do care about, rather than trying to change what they value. If you want to directly help people living in poverty, consider going to http://givewell.org/ http://givewell.org/ and looking at what they recommend. If you want to live longer, the SENS Foundation is doing some good work there and could definitely use donations. Damn, I thought I wasn't going to take a position, and now I just took three of them.)

jaltucher 16y ago

I don't mention biotech for a vey important reason: that good , common sense techniques can prolong life as easily if not better. Biotech is there for the tails. I believe the article clearly states that and cites all of the relevant statistics

kragen 16y ago
The title is a lie; none of the techniques you mention will enable someone to live forever. None of them even stop aging; a few of them might slow it down, but there's no good evidence that they do. You don't even mention caloric restriction, and there's good evidence that caloric restriction can slow aging substantially. ("No snacks" is not caloric restriction; we're talking about cutting your intake well below 2000 calories a day.) By contrast, techniques that reverse aging damage would allow biological humans to survive for many centuries. Nothing on your list comes close. In short, your comment is also a lie.
- zeroplus 16y ago
  All of the techniques slow the things that increase aging. I encourage pele who are focused on anti aging techniques to start with their bodies and minds first and then focus on the external. Calorie restriction is not realistic for most people but all of my techniques are
  - kragen 16y ago
    > All of the techniques slow the things that increase aging. That sentence fails to rise to the level of coherence. What are "the things that increase aging"? What is their usual velocity? How much do they increase aging? What's the relationship between their velocity and the speed of aging? If you mean "all of the techniques slow the processes of aging", you're absolutely wrong. Exercise accelerates your metabolism, which accelerates some of the known aging processes. Of the other 11, most have no known connection to aging at all. > Calorie restriction is not realistic for most people but all of my techniques are Caloric restriction is easier for many people than quitting smoking, having sex, sleeping a lot, avoiding hospitals, or avoiding accidents.

diego 16y ago

Decent article, common sense for the most part. What does it have to do with living forever though? With a reasonable amount of effort you can avoid a few things that shorten your life span. The problem is that the long tail is huge, and it WILL kill you. By following your advice you add maybe 10 years to your life expectancy. Not bad, but "forever" is a long time.

jaltucher 16y ago
Of course, but to an 80 year old man, ten years is a long time also
- thwarted 16y ago
  10 years to an 80 year old man is 1/8 of his life. 10 years to a 20 year old is 1/2 of their life. As I get older, I find that time seems to pass faster (and right now, I don't see how it could perceptively pass any faster than it currently is).

deno 16y ago

Please note that the author is not a medical professional (he's an investor) and some of his advice may be harmful to your health. “[Instead of surgery], find out first if there’s any other non-surgical procedures. (…) first check with an acupuncturist (a good one that is recommended by friends who were actually helped by that acupuncturist) or a chiropractor.” He refers to some pop-science articles here and there, but overall it's just a ‘common sense’ advice, which you must decide for yourself whether is valuable or not. For example, although probably everyone here would agree that tobacco is very bad for you, please note that his method of arguing for that (“Of the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke...”) is one that can be (and has been[1]) used to argue against vaccines. [1] http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

jaltucher 16y ago
I'm not arguing against vaccines though. And, btw, I'm not advocating people avoid surgery. But there are many well-documented stats (read any Gawande book) of when surgery is recommended but not the best solution.
- deno 16y ago
  > I'm not arguing against vaccines though. I didn't say you were. I've said that your argument can be (and has been) used to prove or disprove almost any theory—including that of vaccines conspiracy. You have to either accept all the conclusions and uses of said argument or you must acknowledge that said argument was flawed to begin with. And I'm sorry but you can't start your sentence by saying that you're not advocating people to avoid surgery and then go ahead and do exactly that. Furthermore, dr. Gawande is not arguing what you do by a long shot. Your medical treatment options are always presented to you and you're free to chose a non-invasive one if you wish to. You're however advocating for choosing a non-medical treatment instead of a medical one, and in case of both acupuncture and chiropractic, ones that have no scientific basis whatsoever, and have not been proven to work or have been proven to not work.

mhp 16y ago

Posted November 18, 2010: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/11/how-to-live-forever/ http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/11/how-to-live-forever/ Posted March 5, 2011: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/03/12-unusual-ways-to-how-to-live-forever/ http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/03/12-unusual-ways-to-how-... Isn't this the same article, republished?

shadowpwner 16y ago
Yup, I'm sure it's in the blogger's rights to republish his own articles with a more link-baity title.

dhughes 16y ago

Risk of death from #1 heart disease and #8 pneumonia can be greatly reduced quite easily by getting a pneumonia vaccination shot, it protects you against the viral form of pneumonia and halves the chance of heart attack. I'd say most people want to live a long healthy life but only if it's easy instead of consuming fewer calories and exercising so really a pneumonia vaccination is as easy as it gets. Vitamin D is also a fantastic thing, being in a northern climate and inside most of the time it's hard to get enough vitamin D. I started taking a 1,000IU chewable chocolate vitamin D each day and haven't been sick once. It's not a cure it's long term prevention but its effects are quickly noticed.

rubashov 16y ago

Moderate drinking will help stave off a heart attack if you're already sclerotic, which most older industrialized people are to some extent. The evidence that moderate drinking will do you any good if your veins and arteries are squeaky clean is slim. Moderate drinking and aspirin and so forth are only ameliorative.

ctdonath 16y ago

Nothing in the article is unusual. Same old "eat right and exercise" variations. Nothing in the article approaches immortality. Same old "do this and you might last another decade" variations.