3 ms·

Through your own argument, you've conceded that aging happens when the body doesn't invest enough resources in controlling damge, and that the amount of investm

by dfranke 17y ago

Through your own argument, you've conceded that aging happens when the body doesn't invest enough resources in controlling damge, and that the amount of investment made can vary widely between species and even within a species. So then what in the world leads you to believe that, provided with appropriate medical support, the body can't be made to invest far more?

araneae 17y ago
I conceded nothing. You're confusing investment on an evolutionary timescale with investment on an individual timescale. A male spider couldn't spontaneously decide to live another 6 years- it would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to achieve that. On a physiological level, increasing investment in the individual is difficult because so much about how we are built is developmentally fixed. You can't cure a kid with Down's Syndrome by taking out every extra third chromosome in every cell. However, we know what genotype would produce a non Down's baby. In the near future, we might be able to clone a trisomy 21 person and produce a non Down's syndrome clone. But we can't produce a clone of that person that won't age. We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life.
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  Here's you've just shown that you have no idea what Aubrey and SENS are proposing. Maybe, like with Hofstadter's book, you've just "read the introduction" and then stopped? >We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life. The whole point of SENS is that it DOESN'T try to fiddle with metabolism (our genes). All of the genetic diseases you mention are different from the diseases of aging, so they're a bad example. SENS is all about maintenance and periodical repair (like with an antique car, for example). Every, say, 10 years you go in and they remove accumulated damage (which can only be present in a limited number of long-lived molecules) BEFORE it causes pathologies. Most of this can probably be done with your own immune system (you train it to recognize some molecules), and some of it will have to be done other ways (gene therapy to make your body produce certain enzymes, etc).
  - araneae 17y ago
    I know exactly what he's proposing. What I am saying is that it won't work, because aging has to do with developmentally fixed processes. Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest.
  - MikeCapone 17y ago
    > I know exactly what he's proposing. What I am saying is that it won't work, because aging has to do with developmentally fixed processes. No you don't know "exactly" what he's proposing, and you don't understand what senescence is, as you've made clear many times here. I'm starting to feel this isn't very productive so we should probably stop this conversation. > Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest. Here you show again that you have no idea what SENS is proposing and you are making up strawmen. If you want to criticize something, please learn about it first.

by dfranke 17y ago

araneae 17y ago

I conceded nothing. You're confusing investment on an evolutionary timescale with investment on an individual timescale. A male spider couldn't spontaneously decide to live another 6 years- it would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to achieve that. On a physiological level, increasing investment in the individual is difficult because so much about how we are built is developmentally fixed. You can't cure a kid with Down's Syndrome by taking out every extra third chromosome in every cell. However, we know what genotype would produce a non Down's baby. In the near future, we might be able to clone a trisomy 21 person and produce a non Down's syndrome clone. But we can't produce a clone of that person that won't age. We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life.

MikeCapone 17y ago
Here's you've just shown that you have no idea what Aubrey and SENS are proposing. Maybe, like with Hofstadter's book, you've just "read the introduction" and then stopped? >We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life. The whole point of SENS is that it DOESN'T try to fiddle with metabolism (our genes). All of the genetic diseases you mention are different from the diseases of aging, so they're a bad example. SENS is all about maintenance and periodical repair (like with an antique car, for example). Every, say, 10 years you go in and they remove accumulated damage (which can only be present in a limited number of long-lived molecules) BEFORE it causes pathologies. Most of this can probably be done with your own immune system (you train it to recognize some molecules), and some of it will have to be done other ways (gene therapy to make your body produce certain enzymes, etc).
- araneae 17y ago
  I know exactly what he's proposing. What I am saying is that it won't work, because aging has to do with developmentally fixed processes. Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest.
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  > I know exactly what he's proposing. What I am saying is that it won't work, because aging has to do with developmentally fixed processes. No you don't know "exactly" what he's proposing, and you don't understand what senescence is, as you've made clear many times here. I'm starting to feel this isn't very productive so we should probably stop this conversation. > Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest. Here you show again that you have no idea what SENS is proposing and you are making up strawmen. If you want to criticize something, please learn about it first.