7 ms·

We’re tackling aging

95 points by exratione 12y ago

exratione 12y ago
Disappointingly, but expectedly, the stub website for Calico further reinforces the point that they are not likely to soon take any path that will produce meaningful results for human longevity. They are following the Longevity Dividend [0] approach in essence, which at the high level aims to increase understanding of the intersection of genetics, metabolism, and aging to produce ways to slow aging gently. Ambition here is to aim for an increase of 7 years of life expectancy over the next two decades, a figure given a couple of times by Jay Olshansky. Examples of research include work on sirtuins, that has consumed a billion dollars and produced nothing of use, and other attempts to produce caloric restriction mimetic drugs. The near future in the Longevity Dividend vision is basically more of the same: vastly expensive attempts to alter the operation of metabolism in order to slow down aging. Genetics is hot, and it is easy to raise funds for nowadays. See the launch of Venter's Human Longevity Inc, for example. But I see this in connection with work on longevity as looking for the keys under the lamp, because that is where the light is, not because it is where you are likely to obtain results. The comparative genetics of human longevity should be irrelevant to work on aging: we all age because of the occurrence of the same forms of cellular and molecular damage. Outside of rare mutations, genetics has nothing to do with that - the same damage happens to everyone. The target should be repair of that damage, not trying to expensively slightly slow the pace at which it arrives. That the metabolic manipulation approach to treating aging has such popularity despite the lack of results is a mystery. The other way, the repair approach, has the same lack of results - but that is because next to no money is heading in that direction. We have the early demonstration that targeted removal of senescent cells extends life in accelerated aging mice [1], for example, and ample reason to believe it is beneficial for ordinary individuals, but it took philanthropic funding to move that research forward at all. Institutions want to see standard issue drug development and manipulation of metabolism because it is the mainstream of medicine and the expected thing: the round peg for the round hole of regulation. This has nothing at all to do with whether it is the best path forward. This all further points to the fact that if we want to see meaningful results in longevity science, measured in years of health gained for people who are already old, then we need to produce results that demonstrate the futility of the mainstream path taken by Google, the sirtuin researchers, and Human Longevity Inc, etc, and deonstrate that repair approaches can do far more for far less money. The senescent cell targeting is probably the closest work to that point. Based on what I've seen of Calico to date, I'm expecting it to be a more publicized version of the Ellison Medical Foundation as an initiative: an extension of work already taking place at the NIA and in companies like Human Longevity Inc, and something that fails to step outside that box. It will produce general benefits in terms of data and knowledge, and absolutely fail to meaningfully extend human life. This will continue until someone changes the approach to this work to focus on repair of the causes of aging [2] rather than metabolic tinkering to slow aging. The latter is a slow road to marginal end results that can do next to nothing to help the people who grew old waiting for them to arrive. [0]: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/10/advocating-the-longevity-dividend-view.php https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/10/advocating-the-l... [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10600 [2]: http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research
- dannyr 12y ago
  This comment and some of the others show the ugly side of HN. Judging a company just based on a web site. Also the company is still very young that it should be given time to prove itself. mindless contrarianism
  - jebus989 12y ago
    This guy is an Aubrey de Grey fanboy who shows up in every ageing related thread shilling for SENS, wouldn't worry about it.
    - th0br0 12y ago
      Interesting point. Wonder where the downvote comes from? Googling the nick + sens leads to quite a lot of SENS-related comments.
      - jebus989 12y ago
        I've enquired about a link between him and SENS in the past and also received a few quick downvotes, possibly HNers don't like the tone (fair enough) but I'd suggest it's possible he is using multiple accounts.
      - kybernetikos 12y ago
        I downvoted because an enthusiasm for SENS is irrelevant to the accuracy or otherwise of the points made, and commenting on it doesn't add to the conversation.
    - xaa 12y ago
      Well, he also was the OP of this (interesting) link, so without this "shill", you wouldn't have anywhere to put this ad hominem comment. I don't really agree with all of what he's saying either, but at least address the content...
      - jebus989 12y ago
LukeB_UK 12y ago
That white text against the tree rings is pretty much unreadable...
- jqm 12y ago
  Yes it is. I had to squint and blow up the screen. Then I scrolled down a bit to get a better view and it was gone.
hashtag 12y ago
I've always been confused by Calico as a company. Are they part of Google or an independent company funded by Google. They seem to be sharing office space at one of Google offices and there are obvious ties but is working for Calico independent i.e. none of the Google benefits and perks or is it suppose to be a division of Google
- btian 12y ago
  It's a separate company, not Google.
  - varelse 12y ago
    It's a boondoggle in the making. Solving ageing is hard, and it's going to require fresh ideas, not throwing insane amounts of money at the same old, same old. The Scumbag 2nd law of thermodynamics is a really harsh mistress (Solved ageing? Die of cancer anyway etc.). But hey, the digerati elite are showing touches of grey and most of them wouldn't have any better use for their money anyway once they've got the mansion, the yacht, the jet, and the mistress(es) half their age.
    - chc 12y ago
      Are you suggesting cancer is a necessary consequence of the way heat transfer works? I have trouble believing that.
      - varelse 12y ago
        No I'm suggesting that the body is a complex system and if you solve one component of the problem, another component ultimately fails until you run out of components (hint, just like software) Every time a cell divides, it has a chance of turning malignant. Live long enough and one of those cells will win the cancer lottery and take you down if you don't catch it in time. Many forms of cancer are symptom-free long enough for this to happen (pancreatic for example) and we do not yet have the technology to easily detect this until it's late in the game. And that's just one way to go. Then there are aneurisms and all sorts of other odd bodily defects that will eventually manifest. Ageing is tough. That said, eat right, exercise, and get enough sleep, and you'll stand the best chance to max out your time clock.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- rictic 12y ago
  This isn't reddit. Sarcastic one liners and an expectation of downvotes make for bad comments here. You've been here long enough on the site that you should know this.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jqm 12y ago
    I understand your point on the original post (not the original poster btw) but I wish people wouldn't say "this isn't reddit" so much. Of course it isn't. It isn't slashdot either. Just make the point without unnecessary references. Or at minimum use an original reference rather than one I see appearing every 5 pages on HN. Or better still how about just a silent downvote rather than appearing a content prune?
gordon_freeman 12y ago
so if Calico is independent company funded by Google then what would Google gain by it? I mean how does this relate to Google's mission to "organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." Is it a long term strategy to increase the age of humanity so they search more, use more of android, and earn Google more revenue because their search business is saturating? or is there a truly altruistic motive behind funding Calico? Seeing on their website an executive with title VP of Business Development seems interesting and just wonder how would he benefit Google through Calico's business.
- turing 12y ago
  First, I would guess that part of the reason Calico is a separate company instead of just a team within Google is that they don't fit within Google's central mission. Second,I don't know if there really needs to be an altruistic motive; is Larry's concern for his own health and the health of those he cares about not enough?
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    > Larry's concern for his own health People died to make room for Larry. For him to try and cheat the system when it's his turn is the ultimate act of disrespect. So no, that isn't good enough.
    - xaa 12y ago
      Er, they died because they had no choice. They probably wouldn't have chosen to do so if they had a choice. Larry, and others working on this problem, want to give people a choice in the matter.
      - fred_durst 12y ago
        A choice to screw over the generations that come after them.
        12y ago
justboxing 12y ago
I hope they undertake work in Geriatrics. According to several articles I've read on NYTimes and other places, Geriatricians is sort of a dying specialization within the medical field. "Geriatrics is one of the lower-paid medical specialties, in part because virtually all its patients are on Medicare, which pays doctors less than commercial insurers." Source: http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/even-fewer-geriatricians-in-training/ http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/even-fewer-ger...
closetnerd 12y ago
I don't think theres much point to anti-aging if we can't understand what it even means for the brain to age. As children, we have billions of neurons more than we do when we reach adulthood and everyday after that we loose something like 10k neurons a day. Which is a scare because as people age, they become more rigid in general perspectives and beliefs. Its already hard enough bringing about change such as accepting gay people into our society and avoiding wars waged by old bitter people.
- coldcode 12y ago
  Please, this stupid stereotype has to die. People of all ages can be stupid and ignorant and pigheaded and whatever negative you want to throw out. If you read history this has always been the case. But the worst idiocy is thinking whatever age you are is superior to any other. You can find "proofs" by looking at some narrow slice of any age group to demonstrate whatever you think is true and I can show exactly the opposite with another. There is no way to lump an entire grouping of people and say they are all the same, young or old or whatever. I'm sorry people's attitudes aren't boolean they are floating point.
  - closetnerd 12y ago
    You've seriously misunderstood what I was saying. Its not a matter of stupidity, its a matter or rigidity. As you mature, specially through puberty, you experiment with many different personalities. You gauge your environment and try to figure out the type of person that will be most successful in your environment. All of these personalities are represented by competing neural networks especially in your prefrontal cortex. But obviously exploring different personalities, characteristics, ambitions, and developing different interests has to slowly be focused and narrowed into something that you can pursue with full confidence. Biologically, this is one of the reasons that when you loose a neuron you don't ever get it back. And the growing age till just after puberty is the fasted period in which your brain sheds neurons that pertain to competing networks that don't pan out as well. There after, neuronal loss averages out to a steady constant but a rate which contributes to a fairly significant loss of the number of neurons for todays life expectancy. Now if it wasn't already immediately obvious to you, the number of neurons is very directly correlated with intelligence. It isn't the only factor but it definitely is a hugely important factor in terms of capacity of intelligence. > But the worst idiocy is thinking whatever age you are is superior to any other. I must say, that perhaps an even worse idiocy is when someone quickly reads something and responds brashly without actually bothering to think. It isn't a matter of superiority. Its a matter of evolution. Certain advantages rest with certain age groups. Yes is a fact that the capacity for a young adult absorb completely new material is very likely higher than someone of a much older senior. However, a much older senior has the advantage of experience which allows him her to gauge new material as something worth wasting time over. But as cultures evolve, as philosophies change, age (and by "age" I hope I've already made clear that I'm referring to effects of age on total neuronal loss) makes it difficult to change at the same pace. Do you think its just chance that a younger person brought up with the same strong cultural exposure as his/her equivalent senior end up having much easier time accepting new cultures, ideas, peoples? Just because you believe "people of all ages can be stupid and ignorant and pigheaded and whatever negative you want to throw out" doesn't address the serious problem of needing to understand how the brain ages. Its biological fact that neuronal cells, unlike other cells in your body, ARE NOT replaced by new neurons (though there is some evidence of very slow neurgensis in various parts of the brain). And its important for you to understand why that is because its servers a very important function. Biology didn't anticipate such long life expectancy on its discourse of evolution. > I'm sorry people's attitudes aren't boolean they are floating point. What on gods green earth are you on about there?
JacksonGariety 12y ago
maybe we should just leave aging alone?
- raldi 12y ago
  Why?
  - JacksonGariety 12y ago
    It is the fundamental process of life and is natural and beautiful. What could be more amazing than transcending death? How about transcending our own desires to control nature. Maybe learning to leave things be? That would be a real feat.
    - vbuterin 12y ago
      Okay how about I'll send you a contract to transfer all of your property to me and then you'll be free to spend the rest of your life in the Amazon rainforest. If you get malaria, don't worry, it's natural. Just learn to leave things be. Exactly the same argument applies here.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >How about transcending our own desires to control nature. Maybe learning to leave things be? That would be a real feat. That's actually not a feat at all. There's no grander harmony of nature that needs to be preserved by killing people off at a fixed age. Hell, there never was: we evolved, suffered an ice age, drove the large land mammals to extinction, and emerged from an ice age, all before even inventing writing or agriculture. Nature is the cruelest thing in the world.
    - raldi 12y ago
      Your comment could apply equally to any medical research; do you believe any medical research is a good idea? If so, how do you decide where to draw the line?
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
kika 12y ago
I actually think that IBM just did more to fight aging than any aging science can do in the foreseeable future. Biological cells are "designed" for failure, they can not live forever (except in some simplest forms). What would happen eventually, I think, is this: biological aging research will progress until some practical limit and we will live until like 150 years or something, then we will dump backup to some future S3 and restore from there to ever advancing neuro-chips. So if I were Larry I'd invest billions into neurophysiology, developing means to actually do this backup. The first restore would be to device the size of the Google datacenter, drawing megawatts of energy and with the run rate of $10.000/hour. That's okay, we've been there before and we'll fix it rather quickly. What's really interesting is what would happen next: let's say I died, my last backup was restored into some device and it costs a mere $5000/month to support. Of course I need to work to earn these money. I don't need sleep, I don't feel tired, I'm directly connected to the Internet (I don't need to type into Google, I _know_ everything Google knows) and I have 250 years of experience developing, hm, C++ applications for, hmmm, Windows. Now, what are the chances for a mortal, organic fresh grad to get a job (even if he can connect to Google directly too)?
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  Three things. First, I have been to a conference a year ago when the researcher claimed to have restored senescent cells back to a "young" state. This kind of things completely bypasses any "programmed to die" scheme, and gives hope for actual biological immortality. Second, I call the future you outlined a "Hansonian dystopia", with rich people running at a faster rate than poorer people, and mass duplication/murder in the name of productivity. I'd rather avoid those drawbacks. Third, if we ever get to full blown mind uploading, we will probably have de-novo AI to contend with, and the intelligence explosion that it will likely imply. At this point, we can throw out just everything we know about economics and politics, and pray the AI is programmed for our own good (lest it turns Skynet and kills us all in 5 seconds —if we're lucky). Oh, and one last thing: backup is already an option right now: it's called cryonics. It's not exactly reliable (no one has been revived yet), but that's a genuine cause for hope (unlike joining your hands and look up the sky).
  - 12y ago

95 points by exratione 12y ago

Disappointingly, but expectedly, the stub website for Calico further reinforces the point that they are not likely to soon take any path that will produce meaningful results for human longevity. They are following the Longevity Dividend [0] approach in essence, which at the high level aims to increase understanding of the intersection of genetics, metabolism, and aging to produce ways to slow aging gently. Ambition here is to aim for an increase of 7 years of life expectancy over the next two decades, a figure given a couple of times by Jay Olshansky. Examples of research include work on sirtuins, that has consumed a billion dollars and produced nothing of use, and other attempts to produce caloric restriction mimetic drugs. The near future in the Longevity Dividend vision is basically more of the same: vastly expensive attempts to alter the operation of metabolism in order to slow down aging. Genetics is hot, and it is easy to raise funds for nowadays. See the launch of Venter's Human Longevity Inc, for example. But I see this in connection with work on longevity as looking for the keys under the lamp, because that is where the light is, not because it is where you are likely to obtain results. The comparative genetics of human longevity should be irrelevant to work on aging: we all age because of the occurrence of the same forms of cellular and molecular damage. Outside of rare mutations, genetics has nothing to do with that - the same damage happens to everyone. The target should be repair of that damage, not trying to expensively slightly slow the pace at which it arrives. That the metabolic manipulation approach to treating aging has such popularity despite the lack of results is a mystery. The other way, the repair approach, has the same lack of results - but that is because next to no money is heading in that direction. We have the early demonstration that targeted removal of senescent cells extends life in accelerated aging mice [1], for example, and ample reason to believe it is beneficial for ordinary individuals, but it took philanthropic funding to move that research forward at all. Institutions want to see standard issue drug development and manipulation of metabolism because it is the mainstream of medicine and the expected thing: the round peg for the round hole of regulation. This has nothing at all to do with whether it is the best path forward. This all further points to the fact that if we want to see meaningful results in longevity science, measured in years of health gained for people who are already old, then we need to produce results that demonstrate the futility of the mainstream path taken by Google, the sirtuin researchers, and Human Longevity Inc, etc, and deonstrate that repair approaches can do far more for far less money. The senescent cell targeting is probably the closest work to that point. Based on what I've seen of Calico to date, I'm expecting it to be a more publicized version of the Ellison Medical Foundation as an initiative: an extension of work already taking place at the NIA and in companies like Human Longevity Inc, and something that fails to step outside that box. It will produce general benefits in terms of data and knowledge, and absolutely fail to meaningfully extend human life. This will continue until someone changes the approach to this work to focus on repair of the causes of aging [2] rather than metabolic tinkering to slow aging. The latter is a slow road to marginal end results that can do next to nothing to help the people who grew old waiting for them to arrive. [0]: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/10/advocating-the-longevity-dividend-view.php https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/10/advocating-the-l... [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10600 [2]: http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research

dannyr 12y ago
This comment and some of the others show the ugly side of HN. Judging a company just based on a web site. Also the company is still very young that it should be given time to prove itself. mindless contrarianism
- jebus989 12y ago
  This guy is an Aubrey de Grey fanboy who shows up in every ageing related thread shilling for SENS, wouldn't worry about it.
  - th0br0 12y ago
    Interesting point. Wonder where the downvote comes from? Googling the nick + sens leads to quite a lot of SENS-related comments.
    - jebus989 12y ago
      I've enquired about a link between him and SENS in the past and also received a few quick downvotes, possibly HNers don't like the tone (fair enough) but I'd suggest it's possible he is using multiple accounts.
    - kybernetikos 12y ago
      I downvoted because an enthusiasm for SENS is irrelevant to the accuracy or otherwise of the points made, and commenting on it doesn't add to the conversation.
  - xaa 12y ago
    Well, he also was the OP of this (interesting) link, so without this "shill", you wouldn't have anywhere to put this ad hominem comment. I don't really agree with all of what he's saying either, but at least address the content...
    - jebus989 12y ago

LukeB_UK 12y ago

That white text against the tree rings is pretty much unreadable...

jqm 12y ago
Yes it is. I had to squint and blow up the screen. Then I scrolled down a bit to get a better view and it was gone.

hashtag 12y ago

I've always been confused by Calico as a company. Are they part of Google or an independent company funded by Google. They seem to be sharing office space at one of Google offices and there are obvious ties but is working for Calico independent i.e. none of the Google benefits and perks or is it suppose to be a division of Google

btian 12y ago
It's a separate company, not Google.
- varelse 12y ago
  It's a boondoggle in the making. Solving ageing is hard, and it's going to require fresh ideas, not throwing insane amounts of money at the same old, same old. The Scumbag 2nd law of thermodynamics is a really harsh mistress (Solved ageing? Die of cancer anyway etc.). But hey, the digerati elite are showing touches of grey and most of them wouldn't have any better use for their money anyway once they've got the mansion, the yacht, the jet, and the mistress(es) half their age.
  - chc 12y ago
    Are you suggesting cancer is a necessary consequence of the way heat transfer works? I have trouble believing that.
    - varelse 12y ago
      No I'm suggesting that the body is a complex system and if you solve one component of the problem, another component ultimately fails until you run out of components (hint, just like software) Every time a cell divides, it has a chance of turning malignant. Live long enough and one of those cells will win the cancer lottery and take you down if you don't catch it in time. Many forms of cancer are symptom-free long enough for this to happen (pancreatic for example) and we do not yet have the technology to easily detect this until it's late in the game. And that's just one way to go. Then there are aneurisms and all sorts of other odd bodily defects that will eventually manifest. Ageing is tough. That said, eat right, exercise, and get enough sleep, and you'll stand the best chance to max out your time clock.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rictic 12y ago
This isn't reddit. Sarcastic one liners and an expectation of downvotes make for bad comments here. You've been here long enough on the site that you should know this.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jqm 12y ago
  I understand your point on the original post (not the original poster btw) but I wish people wouldn't say "this isn't reddit" so much. Of course it isn't. It isn't slashdot either. Just make the point without unnecessary references. Or at minimum use an original reference rather than one I see appearing every 5 pages on HN. Or better still how about just a silent downvote rather than appearing a content prune?

gordon_freeman 12y ago

so if Calico is independent company funded by Google then what would Google gain by it? I mean how does this relate to Google's mission to "organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." Is it a long term strategy to increase the age of humanity so they search more, use more of android, and earn Google more revenue because their search business is saturating? or is there a truly altruistic motive behind funding Calico? Seeing on their website an executive with title VP of Business Development seems interesting and just wonder how would he benefit Google through Calico's business.

turing 12y ago
First, I would guess that part of the reason Calico is a separate company instead of just a team within Google is that they don't fit within Google's central mission. Second,I don't know if there really needs to be an altruistic motive; is Larry's concern for his own health and the health of those he cares about not enough?
- fred_durst 12y ago
  > Larry's concern for his own health People died to make room for Larry. For him to try and cheat the system when it's his turn is the ultimate act of disrespect. So no, that isn't good enough.
  - xaa 12y ago
    Er, they died because they had no choice. They probably wouldn't have chosen to do so if they had a choice. Larry, and others working on this problem, want to give people a choice in the matter.
    - fred_durst 12y ago
      A choice to screw over the generations that come after them.
      - 12y ago

justboxing 12y ago

I hope they undertake work in Geriatrics. According to several articles I've read on NYTimes and other places, Geriatricians is sort of a dying specialization within the medical field. "Geriatrics is one of the lower-paid medical specialties, in part because virtually all its patients are on Medicare, which pays doctors less than commercial insurers." Source: http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/even-fewer-geriatricians-in-training/ http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/even-fewer-ger...

closetnerd 12y ago

I don't think theres much point to anti-aging if we can't understand what it even means for the brain to age. As children, we have billions of neurons more than we do when we reach adulthood and everyday after that we loose something like 10k neurons a day. Which is a scare because as people age, they become more rigid in general perspectives and beliefs. Its already hard enough bringing about change such as accepting gay people into our society and avoiding wars waged by old bitter people.

coldcode 12y ago
Please, this stupid stereotype has to die. People of all ages can be stupid and ignorant and pigheaded and whatever negative you want to throw out. If you read history this has always been the case. But the worst idiocy is thinking whatever age you are is superior to any other. You can find "proofs" by looking at some narrow slice of any age group to demonstrate whatever you think is true and I can show exactly the opposite with another. There is no way to lump an entire grouping of people and say they are all the same, young or old or whatever. I'm sorry people's attitudes aren't boolean they are floating point.
- closetnerd 12y ago
  You've seriously misunderstood what I was saying. Its not a matter of stupidity, its a matter or rigidity. As you mature, specially through puberty, you experiment with many different personalities. You gauge your environment and try to figure out the type of person that will be most successful in your environment. All of these personalities are represented by competing neural networks especially in your prefrontal cortex. But obviously exploring different personalities, characteristics, ambitions, and developing different interests has to slowly be focused and narrowed into something that you can pursue with full confidence. Biologically, this is one of the reasons that when you loose a neuron you don't ever get it back. And the growing age till just after puberty is the fasted period in which your brain sheds neurons that pertain to competing networks that don't pan out as well. There after, neuronal loss averages out to a steady constant but a rate which contributes to a fairly significant loss of the number of neurons for todays life expectancy. Now if it wasn't already immediately obvious to you, the number of neurons is very directly correlated with intelligence. It isn't the only factor but it definitely is a hugely important factor in terms of capacity of intelligence. > But the worst idiocy is thinking whatever age you are is superior to any other. I must say, that perhaps an even worse idiocy is when someone quickly reads something and responds brashly without actually bothering to think. It isn't a matter of superiority. Its a matter of evolution. Certain advantages rest with certain age groups. Yes is a fact that the capacity for a young adult absorb completely new material is very likely higher than someone of a much older senior. However, a much older senior has the advantage of experience which allows him her to gauge new material as something worth wasting time over. But as cultures evolve, as philosophies change, age (and by "age" I hope I've already made clear that I'm referring to effects of age on total neuronal loss) makes it difficult to change at the same pace. Do you think its just chance that a younger person brought up with the same strong cultural exposure as his/her equivalent senior end up having much easier time accepting new cultures, ideas, peoples? Just because you believe "people of all ages can be stupid and ignorant and pigheaded and whatever negative you want to throw out" doesn't address the serious problem of needing to understand how the brain ages. Its biological fact that neuronal cells, unlike other cells in your body, ARE NOT replaced by new neurons (though there is some evidence of very slow neurgensis in various parts of the brain). And its important for you to understand why that is because its servers a very important function. Biology didn't anticipate such long life expectancy on its discourse of evolution. > I'm sorry people's attitudes aren't boolean they are floating point. What on gods green earth are you on about there?

JacksonGariety 12y ago

maybe we should just leave aging alone?

raldi 12y ago
Why?
- JacksonGariety 12y ago
  It is the fundamental process of life and is natural and beautiful. What could be more amazing than transcending death? How about transcending our own desires to control nature. Maybe learning to leave things be? That would be a real feat.
  - vbuterin 12y ago
    Okay how about I'll send you a contract to transfer all of your property to me and then you'll be free to spend the rest of your life in the Amazon rainforest. If you get malaria, don't worry, it's natural. Just learn to leave things be. Exactly the same argument applies here.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >How about transcending our own desires to control nature. Maybe learning to leave things be? That would be a real feat. That's actually not a feat at all. There's no grander harmony of nature that needs to be preserved by killing people off at a fixed age. Hell, there never was: we evolved, suffered an ice age, drove the large land mammals to extinction, and emerged from an ice age, all before even inventing writing or agriculture. Nature is the cruelest thing in the world.
  - raldi 12y ago
    Your comment could apply equally to any medical research; do you believe any medical research is a good idea? If so, how do you decide where to draw the line?
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago

kika 12y ago

I actually think that IBM just did more to fight aging than any aging science can do in the foreseeable future. Biological cells are "designed" for failure, they can not live forever (except in some simplest forms). What would happen eventually, I think, is this: biological aging research will progress until some practical limit and we will live until like 150 years or something, then we will dump backup to some future S3 and restore from there to ever advancing neuro-chips. So if I were Larry I'd invest billions into neurophysiology, developing means to actually do this backup. The first restore would be to device the size of the Google datacenter, drawing megawatts of energy and with the run rate of $10.000/hour. That's okay, we've been there before and we'll fix it rather quickly. What's really interesting is what would happen next: let's say I died, my last backup was restored into some device and it costs a mere $5000/month to support. Of course I need to work to earn these money. I don't need sleep, I don't feel tired, I'm directly connected to the Internet (I don't need to type into Google, I _know_ everything Google knows) and I have 250 years of experience developing, hm, C++ applications for, hmmm, Windows. Now, what are the chances for a mortal, organic fresh grad to get a job (even if he can connect to Google directly too)?

loup-vaillant 12y ago
Three things. First, I have been to a conference a year ago when the researcher claimed to have restored senescent cells back to a "young" state. This kind of things completely bypasses any "programmed to die" scheme, and gives hope for actual biological immortality. Second, I call the future you outlined a "Hansonian dystopia", with rich people running at a faster rate than poorer people, and mass duplication/murder in the name of productivity. I'd rather avoid those drawbacks. Third, if we ever get to full blown mind uploading, we will probably have de-novo AI to contend with, and the intelligence explosion that it will likely imply. At this point, we can throw out just everything we know about economics and politics, and pray the AI is programmed for our own good (lest it turns Skynet and kills us all in 5 seconds —if we're lucky). Oh, and one last thing: backup is already an option right now: it's called cryonics. It's not exactly reliable (no one has been revived yet), but that's a genuine cause for hope (unlike joining your hands and look up the sky).
- 12y ago