7 ms·
Why We Need a War on Aging
- jsmcgd 18y ago<cynic>Alternative title: "Concepts, that if accepted by many people, would make funding much easier"</cynic> <devil's advocate>Death by old age is there by (non-intelligent) design. It's no accident (leaving aside the process of natural selection).</devil's advocate> I've said it before on Hacker News, I'm indifferent towards life extension. The pros and cons are very evident but one doesn't seem to trump the other. I'm very much undecided on the issue and would like to be otherwise.
- dasil003 18y agoI find this longevity research very disconcerting, especially the tone of this page in particular. It's thinly veiled egotism to say "people should not grow old and die". What the advocate is really saying is, "I'm terrified of death and I will do anything to prevent it, no matter the consequences to society or humanity". I'm reminded of Tolkien's Akallabeth. Death is the fundamental strength of all species. Sure we should try to pursue advances in health care that improve longevity, but attacking the cause of aging itself is abhorrently idiotic.
- gravitycop 18y agoattacking the cause of aging itself is abhorrently idiotic. Because it is good for society that 30-year-olds, because of aging-related processes, tend to have lower IQ's (and worse joints, poorer eyesight, poorer hearing, etc.) than 20-year-olds?
- dasil003 18y agoDo you not see how there just might be a few unintended social consequences with people living forever?
- inklesspen 18y agoSo your argument is "Let's not fix a horrible problem, because fixing it might expose other problems with our civilization"?
- run4yourlives 18y agoWhy and how is aging a "horrible problem"?
- gravitycop 18y agoWhy and how is aging a "horrible problem"? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cost+of+aging%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cost+of+aging%22 http://news.google.com/news?q=cost+aging http://news.google.com/news?q=cost+aging People do not retire (become unproductive members of society) because they simply want to. People retire because they become physically degraded. Many nations outlaw old car-drivers. Many professions force retirement at threshold ages. This loss of productivity hurts everyone.
- stuaxo 18y agoHm, I often say "I would do X if I had infinite time and motivation"... if De Grey and Sens comes to pass I may have to just stop procrastinating and do these things.
- gravitycop 18y agoWhy wait? Your glycation-blocking benfotiamine is just a few mouseclicks away: http://www.easycart.net/BeyondACenturyInc./B_Vitamins.html#1170 http://www.easycart.net/BeyondACenturyInc./B_Vitamins.html#1... BENFOTIAMINE (S-benzoylthiamine-o-monophosphate) is a lipid form of thiamine, Vit B1. A natural substance found in trace amounts in roasted garlic, onions, chives, etc. Glycation, the cross-linking of proteins by sugars, is a major cause of aging [...] Benfotiamine acting like a time-released thiamine with increased ability to get into brain and muscle cells, helps protect against the formation of AGEs by glycation
- comatose_kid 18y agoI am against youth-related processes (eg, birth), because younger people generally tend to be less wise, and not as mature. More seriously, I find it dubious that proponents of 'longer, better life' don't focus on the low hanging fruit: how to get people to eat better, eat less, and live a less sedentary lifestyle. Many of the ailments of aging could be 'cured' in this way.
- gravitycop 18y agoMany of the ailments of aging could be 'cured' in this way. How does one cure glycation and mitochondrial decay? http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/apr2008_Protecting-Against-Glycation-High-Blood-Sugar-With-Benfotiamine_01.htm http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/apr2008_Protecting-Again...
- comatose_kid 18y agoNotice the word 'many' above. I choose to eat well and exercise. To each his own.
- gravitycop 18y agoNotice the word 'many' above. There aren't very many basic processes of aging: * Glycation * Mitochondrial decay * Oxidative stress * Pathological inflammation * Organ decline Perhaps I am forgetting one. Were you thinking of superficial aging-processes? Which ones?
- comatose_kid 18y agoI don't think I'm able to communicate my point any better. Let's leave it at that.
- rsheridan6 18y agoIn the worst case, nanobots. I don't expect them to be ready in time to immortalize anybody reading this, certainly not codgers like de Gray and Kurzweil. When my 5-year-old asks me what the world will be like in 100 years, I tell him we'll most likely all be dead. But it's theoretically possible. You don't even need them to reduce glycosylation. There are drugs in development that reverse it. Here's one that looked promising, but the company ran out of money before they ran out of red tape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alagebrium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alagebrium ISTR that there are supposedly better medications that do the same thing in the works.
- run4yourlives 18y agoYes, because it allows that batch of 20-year-olds to fine new solutions to the same problems the 30 year olds faced, moving the society itself forward. Repeat ad-infinitum. How egocentric of us to assume that what is good for an individual is always good for the society as a whole.
- DanielBMarkham 18y agoHow egocentric of us to assume that what is good for an individual is always good for the society as a whole. logic alert. It would be egocentric to believe that what is good for me is good for society as a whole. To believe what is good for individuals in general is good for society as a whole is the opposite of egocentric. I'm like a tiny speck on the face of humanity and my fate would not affect the general state of "what is good for the individual" Besides, this is all a moot point guys. We already have answered this question when the first doctor cured a disease. Death is no fun. We have a moral obligation not to allow our fellow members of society to die if we can help it. Life extension in some fashion or another has been around since the first herbal cures. Now if there is some magic line where suddenly you're ruining the human race by letting people live a year longer -- and we haven't already reached it -- where is it? And if we have reached it, what do you guys propose? Keeping medicine away from old people? Perhaps denying flu vaccines after the age of 80? There is no right time to die. Society is doing just fine with people living 5x what they did ten thousand years ago. We can go another 5x easy. After that -- we'll figure it out when we get there.
- run4yourlives 18y agoApologies for the poorly worded statement. I believe you understood my meaning, however. There is a difference in preventing death and eliminating it (or extending life in such a way that the same side effects are achieved). While I certainly don't have all the answers, I can't help but be struck by the rather narcissistic and frankly immature tone that dominates the debate, particularly with those in favour of enhanced exploration. Perhaps it is because of this attitude, and not the life extension itself that I find myself put off. The human condition is what it is primarily because of death. We can't possibly accept that we can remove death and not significantly alter what it means to be human. While that might not be an issue, and may even be desired, that's not what we discuss; in fact it is often dismissed.
- asciilifeform 18y ago> Death is the fundamental strength of all species. I hope you increase the fundamental strength of our species really soon.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 18y agoAging is a degenerative disease most lifeforms have that's 100% fatal. It's somewhat like that xkcd strip, http://xkcd.com/203/ http://xkcd.com/203/
- run4yourlives 18y agoOne concern I see with destroying aging is that it will most certainly result in the destruction of a very precise cycle of evolutionary innovation, even within our species. It's like a giant "no retirement" program, never allowing younger generations to be placed into positions were they are forced to create change, innovate and fail; all the while bettering the human race. It's no accident that innovation comes mostly from youth - the inexperience that makes you foolish occasionally creates species changing progress. This is the Pandora's box of unintended consequences, all in the name of refusing to accept a key aspect of the human condition. Evolution has almost exclusively adopted destructive aging processes in every form of life on the planet. The fact that we can't conclusively answer why this is so is reason enough not to temp fate in this way.
- Jebdm 18y ago"Evolution has almost exclusively adopted destructive aging processes in every form of life on the planet. The fact that we can't conclusively answer why this is so is reason enough not to temp fate in this way." I'd say it's pretty obvious, although I'm no biologist: natural selection doesn't "care" how long you live, as long as you live long enough to have (and possibly raise) kids.
- dasil003 18y agoIf you live too long you take resources away from your offspring.
- Jebdm 18y agoSure, but I don't think this effect is enough to be significant to most evolutionary processes, especially if (and I believe this is the idea) in aging you don't become feeble. As long as there are enough resources to go around, there isn't a big problem, especially since people are resources themselves. (If this weren't the case, you would think that evolution would drive us to die shortly after we had children, or at least after we lost our ability to have children.)
- jacquesm 18y agoDeath is probably what is driving us towards all our progress, after all if you live forever why do anything today, you might as well put it off until tomorrow. Fear of death is a natural thing, just as natural as dying. Long term my money is on the grim reaper, he'll just have to get a bit more inventive in case we breed out of control. If we haven't already passed that point.
- jodrellblank 18y agoJust as natural as dying of diarrhea, exposure, septicemia, TB, polio, contaminated water, aids, starvation... "Natural" != "good" or "desirable". I don't want to give up clothes, shelter, clean water and farming just to be 'natural', nor do I want to accept aging just because it's 'natural'.
- jacquesm 18y agoWell, wanting to accept it and having to accept it are two very different things. The age of something is simply the measurement of elapsed time since something came into its present configuration. A 'war on aging' makes as much sense as a war on pi or a war on stone, aging is a simple fact, easily observed and unavoidable.
- jodrellblank 18y agoOh come on, now you're changing the terms. I've never heard anybody wanting a war on the measurement of aging. It's the human bodily degeneration and weakness, physical and mental, that results from the biological processes of life running for tens of years that's the undesirable part. Commonly known as "old age" and "aging".
- gravitycop 18y ago>> The age of something is simply the measurement of elapsed time >now you're changing the terms. Ambiguous use of terminology (e.g. age defined one way vs. age defined another way) is equivocation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy May I suggest the term senescence, or biological senescence, be used instead of the term age? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence
- cmars232 18y agoHmm, not without space colonization to match the demand for real estate and natural resources.
- MikeCapone 18y agoBirth rates are falling rapidly in the developed world, and they'd be a lot more spaced out if we had bodies like 30-years old for a long time. More than enough time for technology to increase out productivity to support these people.
- jodrellblank 18y ago3001: The Final Odyssey. Skyscrapers to geostationary orbit.
- gravitycop 18y agoMost of the space humans take up is accounted-for by farming. Farming need not take up as much space as it currently does: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR06.txt http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0... PhytoFarm techniques could feed a hundred times the world's present population - say 500 billion people - with factory buildings a hundred stories high, on one percent of present farmland. To put it differently, if you raise your bed to triple bunk-bed height, you can grow enough food on the two levels between the floor and your bed to supply your nutritional needs. [...] Only two hundred years ago, half of the diet of Sauk and Mesquakie Native Americans came from hunting, and "It took 7,000 acres to support one human." Phytofarm's one acre, which supports 500 or 1,000 people, represents an increase in productivity per acre a million times over compared with the Native Americans. [...] Nor is this any "ultimate" limit. Rather, these gains are just the result of research over the past few decades [...] It is likely that before the world gets to 500 billion people, or even to 10 billion, the maximum output per acre will be increased much beyond what PhytoFarm achieves now.
- brianobush 18y agowell, at least real-estate prices would rise.
- MikeCapone 18y agoIf you want to actually help with scientific research in areas that traditional big pharma DOESN'T cover, please donate to the Methuselah Foundation: http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=mj_donations_donate http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=mj_do... Thanks!
- asciilifeform 18y agoIf you oppose anti-aging treatments, refuse to take them. But of course, you want to decide for the rest of us. Well, death lovers: you first! How about right now? For the good of the species! What, no takers? I smell rancid hypocrisy. Anyone opposing anti-aging research should be seen as trying to kill you and treated accordingly. On a different note, "war" is very much the wrong metaphor to use when promoting a research effort: http://yarchive.net/med/conspiracies.html http://yarchive.net/med/conspiracies.html
- peregrine 18y agoI'd rather have this only for the smartest, to keep them immortal during their prime.
- jacquesm 18y agoWhat you'll get is the opposite, geriatrics with the vote making laws against 'newcomers'.
- juliend2 18y agoI think a good start would be to do some physical exercise... Ah well, just give me this pill so i can live longer!
- dmm 18y agoThus you can throw yourself flat on the ground, stretched out upon Mother Earth, with the certain conviction that you are one with her and she with you. You are as firmly established, as invulnerable as she, indeed a thousand times firmer and more invulnerable. As surely as she will engulf you tomorrow, so surely will she bring you forth anew to the new striving and suffering. And not merely "some day." Now, today, every day she is bringing you forth, not once but thousands upon thousands of times, just as every day she engulfs you a thousand times over. - Erwin Schroedinger, My View of the World, 1964, p.21
- dmm 18y agoYou can never live forever. If we don't die of old age we will die accidentally. I imagine car accidents alone would restrict most people to a few hundred years.
- gravitycop 18y agoI imagine car accidents alone would restrict most people to a few hundred years. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled: 1.37 At that rate, if one drove 10,000 miles per year of his life, he could expect to live around 7,300 years. Also, accident rates do not exist in a vacuum. They are affected by other risk factors, such as heart-disease and cancer, such that a world with less death from disease could be expected to be less risky in other ways as well. If the number one risk of death in your world were accidents, wouldn't you try to compensate for that by being more cautious?
- weavejester 18y agoIf we ever get to the point where we can back up our consciousness, we could ensure there was enough redundant storage to make an accidental erasure of all copies a very unlikely event.
- fdschoeneman 18y agoI think we have too many wars going on right now: The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on teenage pregnancy, the war on illiteracy. Plus the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And they all seem to have Czar's, you know? But the thing about wars is that they're black & white. Us against them. Good vs. bad. And aging just isn't like that. I mean it's cool having a war to go after Osama Bin Laden. I think most of us can get behind that one. But I don't think that most of us can get all motivated and suited up to fight, claw, struggle and sacrifice so that baby boomers can have a few more years in charge. So Sylvester Stallone can make Rambo 18. So tenured professors can keep their jobs forever. Or so that a bunch of dirty hippies can sit around in their nanotechnology enhanced 150 year old bodies telling kids about how awesome the 60's were and how lucky those kids are to have all that debt.
- eru 18y agoA war on wars?
- jamesbritt 18y agoor maybe just a war on "war on"
- c1sc0 18y agoI completely and wholeheartedly disagree. Here's why: it is uncertainty, pain and infirmity I am afraid of, not death. We don't need a war on aging, we need a war on suffering. Not because of some wishy-washy feel-good philosophy, but simply because it is crucial for the survival of our species. Which currently depends as much on innovation as it does on adaptation (evolution). We need to improve overall quality of life so we can tackle the challenges ahead instead of worrying about food, shelter, resources, infirmity and old age. I'd be even more ambitious and say we need a war on long-term, trans-generational suffering. Why? Because it seems like some of the problems we are facing today as a species cannot be solved in a single lifetime, not even an enhanced lifetime. Let's solve the natural resources problem first, then tackle aging, maybe ... I'll concede this: the 'death problem' is worth solving, but who said it needs to be solved in your generation?
- gravitycop 18y agoI [...] disagree. [...] it is uncertainty, pain and infirmity I am afraid of, not death. [...] We don't need a war on aging, we need a war on suffering. You don't think it is possible to be aged (senesced), but not dead? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=466749 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=466749 Could you call your war on suffering, a war on senescence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence