4 ms·

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 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.
reasonattlm 16y ago
No present day biotech can do better for a healthy person that calorie restriction and exercise. This is true, and backed up by a great weight of science. Also true: nothing mentioned in your article can do as well as calorie restriction and exercise. But calorie restriction and exercise cannot enable a person to live much longer. It helps you reach what will be your maximum optimal natural life span under today's medical technology, which might be a century if you are exceptionally fortunate. The thing that will determine your life span is none of the above, however. It is future medical technology. Therefore the thing happening today that most greatly determines your future longevity is the level of investment and progress in the right sorts of technological development. This is a stark change from the 50s or the 70s. There, no amount of foreseeable technological progress was going to impact the future life course of a 40 year old to the same degree as exercise and calorie restriction. Today, however, whether you die at 80 or whether you life for hundreds of years is absolutely a function of the degree to which rejuvenation biotechnology is realized over the next two to three decades. This degree of realization can be swayed, now, today, by sufficiently motivated individuals. Such as the people who founded the SENS Foundation, or the Methuselah Foundation, or who persuade million-dollar donations into fundamental research into the repair of biochemical damage that drives aging. This is an important era, and to focus on health in the sense that your parents did is to bury your head in the sand.
- jaltucher 16y ago
  No smoking, no drinking, crap on a regular basis, and sleep 8 hours a day (and enjoy sex) will be much better for your quality of life (and quantity!) than calorie restriction. Look at the stats. Imagine if simply people avoid smoking: average age would go up 10 years immediately across the country.
  - rubashov 16y ago
    The centrality of smoking to these models seems a little suspicious considering all the ancient people in Japan who have smoked all their lives. Also, cancer rates in the west, including lung cancer, have continued to rise despite major declines in smoking. Not that I'd suggest smoking; I'm just suspicious of the models.

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.

reasonattlm 16y ago

No present day biotech can do better for a healthy person that calorie restriction and exercise. This is true, and backed up by a great weight of science. Also true: nothing mentioned in your article can do as well as calorie restriction and exercise. But calorie restriction and exercise cannot enable a person to live much longer. It helps you reach what will be your maximum optimal natural life span under today's medical technology, which might be a century if you are exceptionally fortunate. The thing that will determine your life span is none of the above, however. It is future medical technology. Therefore the thing happening today that most greatly determines your future longevity is the level of investment and progress in the right sorts of technological development. This is a stark change from the 50s or the 70s. There, no amount of foreseeable technological progress was going to impact the future life course of a 40 year old to the same degree as exercise and calorie restriction. Today, however, whether you die at 80 or whether you life for hundreds of years is absolutely a function of the degree to which rejuvenation biotechnology is realized over the next two to three decades. This degree of realization can be swayed, now, today, by sufficiently motivated individuals. Such as the people who founded the SENS Foundation, or the Methuselah Foundation, or who persuade million-dollar donations into fundamental research into the repair of biochemical damage that drives aging. This is an important era, and to focus on health in the sense that your parents did is to bury your head in the sand.

jaltucher 16y ago
No smoking, no drinking, crap on a regular basis, and sleep 8 hours a day (and enjoy sex) will be much better for your quality of life (and quantity!) than calorie restriction. Look at the stats. Imagine if simply people avoid smoking: average age would go up 10 years immediately across the country.
- rubashov 16y ago
  The centrality of smoking to these models seems a little suspicious considering all the ancient people in Japan who have smoked all their lives. Also, cancer rates in the west, including lung cancer, have continued to rise despite major declines in smoking. Not that I'd suggest smoking; I'm just suspicious of the models.