6 ms·

attacking 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

attacking 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 ago
Do you not see how there just might be a few unintended social consequences with people living forever?
- inklesspen 18y ago
  So your argument is "Let's not fix a horrible problem, because fixing it might expose other problems with our civilization"?
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    Why and how is aging a "horrible problem"?
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      Why 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 ago
        Hm, 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 ago
        Why 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
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        This loss of productivity hurts everyone. Sorry, so let me make sure I understand you: Aging is bad because it hurts productivity? I must say that if life is simply an application of productive output, you are missing the point.
        TooMuchNick 18y ago
        Aging is bad because it hurts quality of life. Right now, people live longer than their bodies can perform at full capacity. Most people would prefer to remain healthy for their entire lives. No matter how ready someone is to die, no one wants to spend ten years in a nursing home. So everyone could find a way to die before then, or they could find a way to stay healthy even if that doesn't increase their life expectancy. You can guess which option is more likely to catch on. The argument over whether we should fight aging is one worth having, but only as a philosophical exploration. The reality is that we always have fought aging, and we always will, because those who think otherwise have a tendency to die first.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      Is that a real question? The answer seems rather self evident, let me guess... still in your 20's?
  - dasil003 18y ago
    No, my argument is "let's not classify a universal constant of all known life as a horrible problem, because the repercussions of messing with fundamental biological imperatives will probably open a can of worms bigger than anyone can anticipate"
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      You're being a fear monger. No other species has had the capacity to take control of their own evolution, that doesn't mean doing so would be bad. We're in a unique position and the natural order of things sucks, if we can fix it we should.
      - dasil003 18y ago
        Look, I truly hate fear-mongering, and I see where you are coming from, but I'm not being a luddite here or arguing against science out of dogma. I believe it's hubris to think we can change the fundamental natural order of things, and by fundamental order I am setting the bar extremely high. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that qualifies in fact. Of course that doesn't matter. If people can do it they will do it. But if I could place a bet I'd say it will do us more harm than good in the long run. That's all I'm saying, nothing more nothing less.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  Squaring an aging curve is not the same thing as extending maximum lifespan. Simply because, after substantial squaring of the aging curve, the average 100-year-old might be as healthy as -- and physically indistinguishable-from -- the average 20-year-old, does not imply that any 100-year-old will live past the age of 120. It could be the case instead that biologically youthful 100-year-olds tend, from around that age, to decline rapidly.
- Hexstream 18y ago
  Technology always brings a few unintended social consequences. But the pros often outweight the cons.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    We only have to destroy ourselves once for it to matter.
comatose_kid 18y ago
I 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 ago
  Many 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 ago
    Notice the word 'many' above. I choose to eat well and exercise. To each his own.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      Notice 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 ago
        I don't think I'm able to communicate my point any better. Let's leave it at that.
  - rsheridan6 18y ago
    In 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
  How 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 ago
    Apologies 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.

dasil003 18y ago

Do you not see how there just might be a few unintended social consequences with people living forever?

inklesspen 18y ago
So your argument is "Let's not fix a horrible problem, because fixing it might expose other problems with our civilization"?
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Why and how is aging a "horrible problem"?
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    Why 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 ago
      Hm, 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 ago
        Why 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
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      This loss of productivity hurts everyone. Sorry, so let me make sure I understand you: Aging is bad because it hurts productivity? I must say that if life is simply an application of productive output, you are missing the point.
      - TooMuchNick 18y ago
        Aging is bad because it hurts quality of life. Right now, people live longer than their bodies can perform at full capacity. Most people would prefer to remain healthy for their entire lives. No matter how ready someone is to die, no one wants to spend ten years in a nursing home. So everyone could find a way to die before then, or they could find a way to stay healthy even if that doesn't increase their life expectancy. You can guess which option is more likely to catch on. The argument over whether we should fight aging is one worth having, but only as a philosophical exploration. The reality is that we always have fought aging, and we always will, because those who think otherwise have a tendency to die first.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    Is that a real question? The answer seems rather self evident, let me guess... still in your 20's?
- dasil003 18y ago
  No, my argument is "let's not classify a universal constant of all known life as a horrible problem, because the repercussions of messing with fundamental biological imperatives will probably open a can of worms bigger than anyone can anticipate"
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    You're being a fear monger. No other species has had the capacity to take control of their own evolution, that doesn't mean doing so would be bad. We're in a unique position and the natural order of things sucks, if we can fix it we should.
    - dasil003 18y ago
      Look, I truly hate fear-mongering, and I see where you are coming from, but I'm not being a luddite here or arguing against science out of dogma. I believe it's hubris to think we can change the fundamental natural order of things, and by fundamental order I am setting the bar extremely high. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that qualifies in fact. Of course that doesn't matter. If people can do it they will do it. But if I could place a bet I'd say it will do us more harm than good in the long run. That's all I'm saying, nothing more nothing less.
gravitycop 18y ago
Squaring an aging curve is not the same thing as extending maximum lifespan. Simply because, after substantial squaring of the aging curve, the average 100-year-old might be as healthy as -- and physically indistinguishable-from -- the average 20-year-old, does not imply that any 100-year-old will live past the age of 120. It could be the case instead that biologically youthful 100-year-olds tend, from around that age, to decline rapidly.
Hexstream 18y ago
Technology always brings a few unintended social consequences. But the pros often outweight the cons.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  We only have to destroy ourselves once for it to matter.

comatose_kid 18y ago

I 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 ago
Many 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 ago
  Notice the word 'many' above. I choose to eat well and exercise. To each his own.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    Notice 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 ago
      I don't think I'm able to communicate my point any better. Let's leave it at that.
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  In 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 ago

Yes, 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 ago
How 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 ago
  Apologies 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.