4 ms·

>The article is dull, but the fact that the "ball" of aging science is finally starting to roll is interesting and very welcome to me. I'm also quite keenly in

>The article is dull, but the fact that the "ball" of aging science is finally starting to roll is interesting and very welcome to me. I'm also quite keenly interested in not dying, and I'm also sick of people talking about "a cure for cancer" being possible but "a cure for aging" somehow not, let alone a healthy discussion of researching mitigation for aging to keep people alive long enough to receive the cure. But, I feel like that - the ideology, even if I quite like and agree with said ideology - is the only thing this article has going for it. The article's link could 404 and nothing of value would be lost, as long as nobody touched the title.

esperent 6y ago
> I'm also sick of people talking about "a cure for cancer" being possible but "a cure for aging" somehow not The scope of these two things is wildly different. To cure aging, we would have to solve seven* or so problems of a similar scope to curing cancer - and one of those problems is, in fact, curing cancer. * According to the sens foundation: http://www.longlonglife.org/en/transhumanism-longevity/aging/aubrey-de-grey/transhumanism-aubrey-de-greys-causes-of-aging-with-sens-foundation/ http://www.longlonglife.org/en/transhumanism-longevity/aging...
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  I am not sure if "curing cancer" is the best description of the problem to solve. A possible answer is "keep the immune system in its youthful state and it will take care of any emerging cancer cells and terminate them with extreme prejudice without you even noticing". Natural killer cells are basically unstoppable once they home in on a target. E.g. prevention, not a cure.
  - Retric 6y ago
    People of every age still get cancer. It’s unclear how much youth is really helping vs cancer simply requiring multiple mutations which become more likely with age.
    - the__alchemist 6y ago
      Not in equal amounts - cancer is highly correlated with senescence.
      - Retric 6y ago
        The requiring multiple mutations bit is correlated with senescence. For the simplest model assume you need 2 mutations each at 1 in 1 billion odds from 1 of 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body. After 1 year, there are 60,000 cells 1 mutation away from cancer. Year N there are N * 60,000 cells. Such a simple model results in linear increases in cancer risks over time without any other effects from age. More complex models can get very close to the observed annual risk of cancer adjusted for age etc. The question is how much this is just over fitting the data.
        inglor_cz 6y ago
        In a healthy organism, damaged cells may be forced to kill themselves (apoptosis) before they do any harm, or killed outright by NK cells during their surveillance patrols. There are corrective mechanisms that animals including humans use to control cancer; even if a cell mutates into something dangerous, it does not mean that a malignant tumor follows. Mice, who have much fewer cells than humans, get cancer much earlier than we do. Elephants and whales, whose cell count exceeds that of humans by several orders of magnitude, seem to be actually less prone to cancer than humans are. This is all about the ability of the body to squash individual cancerous cells or smallish tumors into nonexistence before they have a chance to take hold. As long as this self-defensive mechanism works, everything is fine.
        Retric 6y ago
        Detecting errors requires cellular machinery to detect them, which are themselves susceptible to mutation. Conceptually, disabling the checksum doesn’t directly cause cancer, you need more mutations after that point. Thus the multiple mutation model. That said, it’s not like these risks are identical in all species, just that their related. A nematode can spend less energy lowering cancer risks than a blue whale.
  - bitwize 6y ago
    Keeping the immune system working is a viable strategy provided your immune system works properly in the first place. In today's world, that's a big if; autoimmune disorders are surprisingly common. So with that in mind, another problem that needs solving is "curing autoimmune disorders", a thing about which we currently know sweet fuck all. I'm sure we'll run into other totally huge, near-intractable problems that we need to solve before curing aging. So if you're in your 40s like me, it's still prudent not to get your hopes too high for a nice long extended life, let alone remaining "forever young".
  - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
    >A possible answer is "keep the immune system in its youthful state and it will take care of any emerging cancer cells and terminate them with extreme prejudice without you even noticing". Natural killer cells are basically unstoppable once they home in on a target. So does anyone know what actually happens if the body's neuro-endocrine-immune systems are too damn smart? What is an overly well-regulated body like? Is that medically good or bad?

esperent 6y ago

> I'm also sick of people talking about "a cure for cancer" being possible but "a cure for aging" somehow not The scope of these two things is wildly different. To cure aging, we would have to solve seven* or so problems of a similar scope to curing cancer - and one of those problems is, in fact, curing cancer. * According to the sens foundation: http://www.longlonglife.org/en/transhumanism-longevity/aging/aubrey-de-grey/transhumanism-aubrey-de-greys-causes-of-aging-with-sens-foundation/ http://www.longlonglife.org/en/transhumanism-longevity/aging...

inglor_cz 6y ago
I am not sure if "curing cancer" is the best description of the problem to solve. A possible answer is "keep the immune system in its youthful state and it will take care of any emerging cancer cells and terminate them with extreme prejudice without you even noticing". Natural killer cells are basically unstoppable once they home in on a target. E.g. prevention, not a cure.
- Retric 6y ago
  People of every age still get cancer. It’s unclear how much youth is really helping vs cancer simply requiring multiple mutations which become more likely with age.
  - the__alchemist 6y ago
    Not in equal amounts - cancer is highly correlated with senescence.
    - Retric 6y ago
      The requiring multiple mutations bit is correlated with senescence. For the simplest model assume you need 2 mutations each at 1 in 1 billion odds from 1 of 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body. After 1 year, there are 60,000 cells 1 mutation away from cancer. Year N there are N * 60,000 cells. Such a simple model results in linear increases in cancer risks over time without any other effects from age. More complex models can get very close to the observed annual risk of cancer adjusted for age etc. The question is how much this is just over fitting the data.
      - inglor_cz 6y ago
        In a healthy organism, damaged cells may be forced to kill themselves (apoptosis) before they do any harm, or killed outright by NK cells during their surveillance patrols. There are corrective mechanisms that animals including humans use to control cancer; even if a cell mutates into something dangerous, it does not mean that a malignant tumor follows. Mice, who have much fewer cells than humans, get cancer much earlier than we do. Elephants and whales, whose cell count exceeds that of humans by several orders of magnitude, seem to be actually less prone to cancer than humans are. This is all about the ability of the body to squash individual cancerous cells or smallish tumors into nonexistence before they have a chance to take hold. As long as this self-defensive mechanism works, everything is fine.
        Retric 6y ago
        Detecting errors requires cellular machinery to detect them, which are themselves susceptible to mutation. Conceptually, disabling the checksum doesn’t directly cause cancer, you need more mutations after that point. Thus the multiple mutation model. That said, it’s not like these risks are identical in all species, just that their related. A nematode can spend less energy lowering cancer risks than a blue whale.
- bitwize 6y ago
  Keeping the immune system working is a viable strategy provided your immune system works properly in the first place. In today's world, that's a big if; autoimmune disorders are surprisingly common. So with that in mind, another problem that needs solving is "curing autoimmune disorders", a thing about which we currently know sweet fuck all. I'm sure we'll run into other totally huge, near-intractable problems that we need to solve before curing aging. So if you're in your 40s like me, it's still prudent not to get your hopes too high for a nice long extended life, let alone remaining "forever young".
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  >A possible answer is "keep the immune system in its youthful state and it will take care of any emerging cancer cells and terminate them with extreme prejudice without you even noticing". Natural killer cells are basically unstoppable once they home in on a target. So does anyone know what actually happens if the body's neuro-endocrine-immune systems are too damn smart? What is an overly well-regulated body like? Is that medically good or bad?