6 ms·

Well, that's another data point to suggest that we remain a culture of suicidal, negligent barbarians - quick to accept the suffering and death of billions, and

• soup10 14y ago
  Nobody is quick to accept aging or death. But it's understood that we are very far from medical technology that can tackle the problem. Aging is deeply ingrained in our DNA. So far the world has spent countless billions trying to cure cancer and has largely failed. We can't even control the growth of a few measly cells with mutated DNA. Yet we are composed of trillions of cells, all 'programmed' to deteriorate over time. The idea that we can cure aging with some miracle cure is a pipe dream until we have a far better understanding and control of biological processes.
  • MikeCapone 14y ago
    > Yet we are composed of trillions of cells, all 'programmed' to deteriorate over time. That is incorrect. The diseases of aging are the result of evolutionary neglect, they aren't 'programmed in' as if there was a timer running. They're a bug, not a feature. I suggest you have a look at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0312367066 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0312367066 http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_ag... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbA1pFvfNp4&feature=gv&hl=en http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbA1pFvfNp4&feature=gv&#3... http://michaelgr.com/2011/10/24/aubrey-de-grey-on-the-diseases-of-aging-video/ http://michaelgr.com/2011/10/24/aubrey-de-grey-on-the-diseas... The lack of progress so far certainly doesn't mean that we can't make progress, especially if we take a different approach and we use tools that weren't available before (and never underestimate using a different angle/mindset -- as long as we consider aging itself 'normal' and just something to be slightly delayed, we certainly won't make progress). The SENS 'engineering' approach mean that we don't have to understand metabolism or fix everything that goes wrong, just to periodically do repairs on whatever long-lived molecules are accumulating over time to cause pathologies. That's a lot easier than the past gerontological approaches of trying to understand and cure everything.
    • ChuckMcM 14y ago
      This is where I think we're headed. We're going to figure out exactly what all the moving bits do in our DNA and mitochondria and we'll be in a position to re-write it at will. When that happens, the question of what it means to be 'you' is going to get very pertinent, a safe example if it turns out your love of certain foods is a result of wiring in your brain due to your DNA makeup, do you change it? Do you add new foods? Do you delete old foods? What happens to social justice when one person can afford gene therapy to make their children 99% more capable than average and others can't? If you ever saw the movie Gattica (not a great movie but it tried) don't worry about people who are born 'perfect' or born the 'natural' way, think about people who re-write their own genetics to have the mutation that gives Sherpa in the Himalayas more, and more efficient red blood cells. Very scary tech talk at Google on this once where a researcher in gene therapy was getting approached by trainers already.
      • rosser 14y ago
        Pedantry: The title of the flick is GATTACA; it's a play on those being the four bases in DNA. Quite agree with the rest of your comment, though.
      • brador 14y ago
        Got a link to that tech talk?
        • ChuckMcM 14y ago
          I scanned through Youtube but it does not look like that one made it out of the Googleplex, sorry.
      • maxerickson 14y ago
        I don't think I care at all if genetic modifications ruin athletic exhibitions (or the list of great mountain climbers or ...). (I would say the potential for experimentation gone wrong is a much bigger concern;)
    • lutusp 14y ago
  • reasonattlm 14y ago
    Please see the following links on the two broad and very different approaches to research into interventions in aging. Your comment is only reflective of one of them, the slow and very hard task of slowing aging by reprogramming metabolism and epigenetics, which is an immense and very poorly understood challenge at this time. The research community is struggling to fully figure out calorie restriction - a billion dollars on sirtuin biochemistry alone, and next to nothing to show for it - which itself is just a tiny slice of the realm of evolved alterations to aging: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/02/enthusiasm-for-the-slow-road.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/02/enthusiasm-for-th... 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... The other path ahead is much more clear, however: it is based on identifying and reversing fundamental changes/damage/lesions at the level of cells and biomolecules, and sidesteps much of the complexity of metabolism by focusing only on reversing these changes, not on the vast networks of reaction in our biochemistry that spiral outward from these comparatively few changes. There is in fact a very detailed set of proposals out there on how to reverse aging and make its root causes go away, including everything from broad cost and time estimates through to exact descriptions of the biotechnologies needed, some of which are partially realized already. See this is a starting point for a layperson's overview, and then feel free to delve as deeply into the papers and ongoing research as you like: http://sens.org/sens-research/research-themes http://sens.org/sens-research/research-themes
    • soup10 14y ago
      People who offer solutions and timetables are researchers trying to get funding(always overly optimistic). The fact is that we have a relatively tiny amount of understanding and control over organic matter. And far more basic research breakthroughs are required before aging can seriously be discussed. SENS and transhumanists are like a primitive civilizations enchanted by the prospect of landing a man on the moon before the horse and buggy was invented, which is why most biologists don't take them seriously.
      • thronemonkey 14y ago
        I agree with the gist of your comment (that we're VERY far away from anything like conquering mortality) but I am a biologist and I would describe myself as a transhumanist — not the Ray Kurzweil, this-is-happening-in-the-next-50-years sense, just in the sense that I think the transhumanist vision is something we should strive for (however far away it may be) and use an inspiration.
  • adrianN 14y ago
    Well, the people were asked how long they wanted to live, not what they believe is medically achievable within their livetime. Only one percent wanted to live forever. That sounds like acceptance of death for me.
  • mistercow 14y ago
    >But it's understood that we are very far from medical technology that can tackle the problem. That's not what the question in the survey was. The question was "how long do you WANT to live?", not "how long do you think you WILL live?". Saying you don't want something just because you can't have it is just sour grapes. >The idea that we can cure aging with some miracle cure is a pipe dream until we have a far better understanding and control of biological processes. I don't think any informed people believe that some "miracle cure" is going to come along and cure death and aging. Curing death and aging is going to be a slow, incremental process because aging is made up of many components (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types_of_aging_damage_proposed_by_de_Grey_.28The_Seven_Deadly_Things.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types_...)
• anthonyb 14y ago
  There may be some long-term bias going on here. It would be interesting to see what correlation there is between current age and preferred age of death. You'll might find that 60 year olds (with death only 20 years away) would answer differently to 18 year olds.
  • learc83 14y ago
    The author mentions that in his surveys there was no real difference based on the average age of the attendees.
    • anthonyb 14y ago
      Can you point me to where it says this in the article? Because I don't see it - he mentions talking to people from "all walks of life", but that's different to having no correlation.
      • learc83 14y ago
        >These percentages have held up as I’ve spoken to people from many walks of life in libraries and bookstores; teenagers in high schools; physicians in medical centers; and investors and entrepreneurs at business conferences. The percentages are the same for groups of teenagers, and for groups of physicians investors and entrepreneurs. There could be a jump at 60+, but based on his data there isn't a difference between teenagers and working adults.
        • anthonyb 14y ago
          He's not explicitly saying that there's a correlation though, is he?
• raazputin 14y ago
  I loathe arrogant, neomaniacal comments like this. So ignorant of unintended consequences, so naive in thinking more of everything must be better. You have _no idea_ what the consequences of extending lifespan indefinitely will be, but here you are openly deriding people who are happy to stick with what's worked well-enough in the past.
• Gatsky 14y ago
  Does anti-ageing = universal good for everyone? Most of the major causes of suffering have already been fixed by 'biotechnology' eg vaccines, condoms, sanitation, basic nutrition, obstetrics. But we still fail to apply them in many places due to well, negligent barbarianism as you put it. Will it really fix these problems if we start embalming billionaires and dictators? Your blog seems free of any consideration of the social consequences of anti-ageing technology. Do you worry about it? For example, Neil Armstrong died today, and by all accounts he was a great man. But recently he stood up and decried NASA funding private space ventures like SpaceX. Now if the next dragon probe punches a hole in the ISS he may turn out to be right. But all these historical figures who are proven to be wrong or misguided won't be historical figures if you make them live forever... is this unequivocally positive? And if it isn't, how do we deal with it?
  • tryitnow 14y ago
    Doesn't your Neil Armstrong argument kind of undermine itself given that Armstrong did live long, did decry private space venture, and yet private space ventures are happening anyways? I don't follow your point.
    • rosser 14y ago
      I think the GP's point is that, as more people live longer, more people with "antiquated", or even "Luddite" world-views will be around, creating friction for the technophiliacs and their notions of how things "should be." Yes, my characterization is hyperbolic, and pretty blatantly so. I'm trying to stand out from the subtle ageism, couched as progress-ism, in the GP post and countless other poorly thought-out screeds like it. Your point that progress occurs regardless of that friction is exactly the right counter-argument. In fact, I'd even suggest that the friction being decried is a necessary sanity check on our progress. With every advance we make, we should be asking ourselves how it improves the world, and if the improvement it brings is worth its cost, or its consequences. For private spaceflight, that's a pretty unqualified yes in most peoples' books (Armstrong notwithstanding), but consider all the pharmaceuticals given fast-track approval that turn out to have horrible side-effects, which even token further testing could have uncovered.
• pacala 14y ago
  In the bigger picture of the species, death and birth are what prevents stagnation and enables the next generation tackle new challenges. We are imperfect copying machines, both at biological and intelectual level. Stop the renewal cycle and not enough copy errors happen anymore, leading to the ultimate failure of the species in front of the fast pace of change in the surrounding environment.
  • JoshTriplett 14y ago
    That sounds nice and tidy in the abstract. Make it more concrete: do you, personally, want to die to fulfill some perceived evolutionary imperative? If so, feel free. I don't, ever.
    • pacala 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
      • JoshTriplett 14y ago
        On the contrary, I can easily see a pile of fascinating societal consequences if everyone lives forever. Sounds like an awesome set of problems to have; bring them on.
    • grannyg00se 14y ago
      Are you saying you don't ever want to die at all? That's interesting because there are some people who feel very strongly that they should die, and there are those who feel that they would never want to and should not need to. Some people faced with certain death will go to very extreme lengths to prolong their lives by the tiniest amount. Others will accept it. There's a sort of "natural way of things" mentality that is very pervasive. People believe that we are meant to die. I think this is another very difficult barrier that the SENS community faces.
      • actsasbuffoon 14y ago
• batista 14y ago
  >Well, that's another data point to suggest that we remain a culture of suicidal, negligent barbarians - quick to accept the suffering and death of billions, and happy to condemn our future selves to the same. Actually it's a sign that we are NOT a culture of negligent barbarians. It's a sign that we are mature individuals, with an understanding of the cycle of life, and not me!me!me! egoists that seek to prolong their lives forever, earth, resources and other generations be damned. How you approach death is the ultimate test of a civilisation's sophistication.
  • mistercow 14y ago
    >It's a sign that we are mature individuals, with an understanding of the cycle of life, and not me!me!me! egoists that seek to prolong their lives forever, earth, resources and other generations be damned. Not hardly. Keep in mind that most people believe in some form of afterlife, so they don't actually think they're going to die at all. If the approach to death is the ultimate test of a civilization's sophistication (which, frankly, is just a silly thing to say, even if it does sound Deeply Wise), then surely it would be the infantile civilization that deals with death by making up a bunch of fairy tales to convince itself that death doesn't really happen after all.
    • batista 14y ago
      >Not hardly. Keep in mind that most people believe in some form of afterlife, so they don't actually think they're going to die at all. I don't think people believe that "realistically" to that afterlife, including religious people. Else they would not be sad at funerals. >If the approach to death is the ultimate test of a civilization's sophistication (which, frankly, is just a silly thing to say, even if it does sound Deeply Wise Actually it's a common theme in philosophy and religion, far for a "silly thing to say". One might hope for some Kurzweil like magic cure, but for several millennia of civilisation we had to make do without it (and will have to for quite a while). And people that couldn't accept that cycle made society hell. How a civilisation approaches death says the most about their way of life as well (e.g clinging to money, sex and stuff like it's the be all end all instead of creating things). >then surely it would be the infantile civilization that deals with death by making up a bunch of fairy tales to convince itself that death doesn't really happen after all. Nothing infantile about it. Those 'fairytales' are the basis of civilisation. They were forms of reasoning about the universe and existence, but their utility was not on their validity in the physics sense, but on the lessons they gave about current life. Put another way, they really were morals, philosophy and law, not physics and cosmology, even if they seemed like the latter. The important part of the Bible was not "god created this or that in x days", but the keeping-a-civilisation-together part (the creationist loonies in the Bible Belt mostly keep the first part of course). So, if you think the 10 commandments are silly, you should have witnessed the society without them or something analogous. It's easy to pass judgement upon such things with some milleniums of hindsight and the benefit of a modern upbringing.
• stiff 14y ago
  There is only a finite number of living beings this planet can sustain at any given moment - if there really is a possibility to "disable" aging, how do you think we should decide which of all those potential beings will be given a chance to live? Who are we to consider ourselves more worthy of life than any of the previous or possible next generations?
  • nohat 14y ago
    "on this planet." Maybe that would give people motivation to get off it. Regardless if you want to weigh counter-factual people against living people your moral system will have some curious implications which you might not like. If someone threatens to not have children if you don't give them your money are you going to take into account the non existent future lives snuffed out and give in?