Will aging be "cured"?

[Galaxy]

Interesting article I came across:

Author asserts that aging can be cured
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON | Aubrey de Grey may be wrong but, evidence suggests, he is not nuts.

This is a no small assertion. De Grey argues that some people alive today will live in a robust and youthful fashion for 1,000 years.

In 2005, an authoritative publication offered $20,000 to any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that de Grey’s plan for treating aging as a disease — and curing it — was “so wrong that it was unworthy of learned debate.”

Now mere mortals — who may wish to be significantly less mortal — can judge whether de Grey’s proposals are “science or fantasy,” as the magazine put it. De Grey’s much-awaited Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime has just been published.

The judges were formidable for that MIT Technology Review challenge prize. They included Rodney Brooks, then director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer of Microsoft; and J. Craig Venter, who shares credit for first sequencing the human genome.

In the end, they decided that no scientist had succeeded in blowing de Grey out of the water.

Dodging death has long been a dream.

Our earliest recorded legend is that of Gilgamesh, who finds and loses the secret of immortality.

Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey, 44, recently of Britain’s Cambridge University, advocates not myth but “strategies for engineering negligible senescence.” It means curing aging.

With adequate funding, de Grey thinks that scientists may, within a decade, triple the remaining life span of late-middle-age mice. The day this announcement is made, he thinks, the news will hit people like a brick as they realize that their cells could be next. He speculates that people will start abandoning risky jobs, such as being police officers, or soldiers.

De Grey’s original academic field is computer science
and artificial intelligence. Peter Thiel, the co-founder and former CEO of PayPal has dropped $3.5 million on de Grey’s Methuselah Foundation.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/341483.html


This article is from last year's Fortune: http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/maga...tune/index.htm


It sounds too sci-fi, but I think medical progresses faster and faster each year. With stem cell research (Connecticut is the first state to allow public funding) and all of the growing research, is it just a crazy view? Or will we reach that point (not in the next 20 years likely) where it could become a reality?

[st.cronin]

The answer is obviously yes.

[CU Tiger]

Death cures aging....


Of course if we do cure the ills of aging, cancer will really get us all.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Man's never ending quest to play God. IMO the human life will undoubtedly continue to be improved and extended but not to the tune of 1000 years.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Ultimately, I would expect cancer or other systemic malfunctions to claim the lives of most people far before 1000.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Ultimately, I would expect cancer or other systemic malfunctions to claim the lives of most people far before 1000.

This is the logical conclusion to the "cure" for aging, since we curently have a few thousand versions of debilitating and deadly diseases running amok, death will still be quite relative to everyone. however, if this man's assertions should come to reality, then the time and effort put into curing THOSE diseases will be trumped up by a factor of 1000 easily with the projected lifespans of the rich and stupid leading the way.

[RendeR]

DOLA

I also believe that should this "cure" become reality, that it will be the first step into the world coming into a new age of exploration. Funding will suddenly appear for space exploration and colonization as well as the building and development of undersea cities for study and exploitation of those resources.

[Kodos]

Don't forget cities in the clouds! And Personal Jetpack Units (PJU's).

[Logan]

"Breaking news: Aging Cured!"

to be followed by:

"10 Billion Die Due to Lack of Food/Shelter/Resources!"

[flere-imsaho]

I think it can and that it will be, eventually, barring some major catastrophe that curtails technological advancement and/or the human race.

It's unlikely to be through the curing of diseases, though. I think a lot of people think "well, if we cure cancer, and a few other things, we'll live forever". This ignores the fact that there are always diseases, and also that after a while the body just runs down.

No, the future human will live longer and longer and eventually as long as he/she/it wishes due to a combination of genetic modification/tailoring so that their initial body is well-prepared for a long life, and some sort of augmentation (nanobots in the body?) that a) maintain organs, replacing as necessary, b) fight off diseases/bacteria/viruses/toxins/etc and c) repair damage (obviously up to a point).

We're already seeing some of this now. Like it or not, we can test babies shortly after conception for serious birth defects and choose to abort if they're going to be too horrific. We can even analyze the parents' genetic makeup and, in some cases, argue against them conceiving if they're likely to have a baby with serious defects.

Vaccines now make certain diseases obsolete for parts of populations (or whole populations) and any number of artificial substances are put into bodies to augment natural defenses against viruses/bacteria/toxins/etc.... We can even replace body parts.

The ramifications upon civilization are huge, of course, and one could go on for pages about them. To take a simple example from the present, consider the advancing age of retirement. With people living well into their 80s and 90s now, many are also working longer to fund their retirement (or just because they like their careers). Once upon a time, when you expected to die by 70 or so, retiring in your 60s was a priority, and so getting tracked into your career as soon as possible after college (or a trade school) was so important.

Now? Not so much. What's the point of slaving away during your 20s when you still have your 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and possibly 70s to complete your career, and then even have another 10-20 years of retirement?

I think one of the big changes this century along these lines will be people (obviously this applies to developed countries only) spending the first 15-20 years after college doing a great number of things they find interesting, as opposed to tracking directly into a career, and then working "normally" only after that.

Anyway, ramblerambleramble....

[RendeR]

Realize that one of the main driving forces for humanity is survival. If we eliminate the aging threat, what becomes a priority? Food. Fresh water, Shelter. These things aren't a priority right now for those in affluent nations because there is no shortage of food. At least not where we are.

The starving millions in this world aren't starving because we don't have food, they're starving because it is not fiscally expedient to get the food to them in the amounts and with the security necessary to end hunger. vast reaches of the US, Canada and Russia lie dormant instead of being used for food production. There is no real shortage of food on this planet.

Now If aging is no longer a threat, then disease and overpopulation become an issue. People stop thinking of their lives in terms of decades and realize they can devote 20 years to, say, humanitarian efforts, and then still live the rest of their extended lives as they wish.

I have no doubt there will continu to be self indulgent people who will see this as just another excuse to party for a thousand years. At some point though, every human being should come to realize that an eon of indulgence is just as empty and worthless as a decade or three of it and will move on to more productive exploits.

yeah, maybe I'm an optimist on this front, but I've grown up with Gene Rodenberry's view of the universe being preached at me for an hour at a time on the TV.

Humanity can overcome its selfishnes and pettines, but not until its individual needs are met so thoroughly that they have no further reason to BE selfish and petty. I think this would be a big first step towards that evolution.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

yeah, maybe I'm an optimist on this front

Understatement of the year.

[st.cronin]

I agree with Render, but I think he doesn't go far enough.

[Desnudo]

Sure why not

[Marc Vaughan]

I think it will be ..... and hopefully before I'm senile

[Mustang]

Extend peoples lives to 1,000 years? Like hearing Cubs fans piss and moan for the last 100 wasn't bad enough?

[Galaxy]

I think it can be done.

1) The amount of private money, better-orgazined resources and a wealth of talent provids a lot of tools to get it done. I think that globalization will make this process move faster.

2) Medicine seems to be like pushing a big ball down the hill. As you first push, it rolls slowly down the hill. As it moves, it rolls faster. Medicine is like that in a lot of ways. It progresses faster and faster each year.

3) If you cure "aging", you are likely able to cure a lot of the other things such as cancer, Parkisons, Alheimzers Disease, and such. I don't think it will prevent you from getting them, but I think you be able to cure them.

4) Having children? Marriage? Impact on money? Other social issues.

[molson]

Accidental deaths and murders would be way more sad if you were expecting to live another 1,000 years. I wonder if everyone would be more careful.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by molson

Accidental deaths and murders would be way more sad if you were expecting to live another 1,000 years. I wonder if everyone would be more careful.

The age of consent would be brutal. You'd be a dirty old man at 600 oogling 250 year olds....

[vex]

That's hot.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mustang

The age of consent would be brutal. You'd be a dirty old man at 600 oogling 250 year olds....

Freaky.

[Noop]

If this becomes a reality I hope they limit the amount of kids a parent can have. Also what about marriage? Wow this can change alot of things.

[Brillig]

Not a chance in hell.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

3) If you cure "aging", you are likely able to cure a lot of the other things such as cancer, Parkisons, Alheimzers Disease, and such. I don't think it will prevent you from getting them, but I think you be able to cure them.

The thing is, these are diseases with vastly different causes. The cures are not likely to be linked.

I think what is most likely being discussed in the context of "curing aging" is figuring out how to turn off parts of our cellular/genetic lifecycle that cause cells to undergo aging processes when they haven't suffered other damage. That's a far different matter from cancer (reproduction that goes out of whack and isn't trapped by our self-regulatory processes intended to short-circuit such things) and other age-related diseases.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Brillig

Not a chance in hell.

Should have went with that argument. You could have won $20,000

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Should have went with that argument. You could have won $20,000

Apparently the committee wasn't paying off on common sense. Besides, scientists think everything is worthy of debate.

[Groundhog]

If you want to live forever, you got to sacrifice your ability to breed.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Theres no time for us
Theres no place for us
What is this thing that builds our dreams yet slips away
From us

Who wants to live forever
Who wants to live forever....?

Theres no chance for us
Its all decided for us
This world has only one sweet moment set aside for us

Who wants to live forever
Who wants to live forever?

Who dares to love forever?
When love must die

But touch my tears with your lips
Touch my world with your fingertips
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today
Who wants to live forever
Who wants to live forever?
Forever is our today

Who waits forever anyway?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

If you want to live forever, you got to sacrifice your ability to breed.

See this makes absolutely no sense. Why should those choosing to go this route have to give up having a family?

Actually, I'd want this type of person to be the only one breeding. I'd also line these folks up to be our deep space pioneers and explorers/colonists if we ever manage to get that far.

People who scoff at such things make me wonder why. Whats so frightening about being alive? Why is the idea so rediculous as to garner such comments?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

See this makes absolutely no sense. Why should those choosing to go this route have to give up having a family?

I don't know if this is what he had in mind, but if you're going to live 1,000 years or whatever, you're putting a putting an unnatural and severe strain on natural resources. If you're reproducing all that time as well - things would get pretty crowded here in a hurry.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RendeR

See this makes absolutely no sense. Why should those choosing to go this route have to give up having a family?

Actually, I'd want this type of person to be the only one breeding. I'd also line these folks up to be our deep space pioneers and explorers/colonists if we ever manage to get that far.

People who scoff at such things make me wonder why. Whats so frightening about being alive? Why is the idea so rediculous as to garner such comments?

Um, for a few reasons.

Colonising space is not an option now, and might never be. We assume that one day we'll have the technology to allow us to settle on another planet, but really, who wants to live on a barren rock?

So, if we never successfully leave the planet, and everyone lives forever and breeds like bunnies, well... see where I'm getting at??

There's nothing "scary" about living forever, or about dying either. Anyway, I'd imagine that it'd only be atheists that would have any interest in living forever right?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if this is what he had in mind, but if you're going to live 1,000 years or whatever, you're putting a putting an unnatural and severe strain on natural resources. If you're reproducing all that time as well - things would get pretty crowded here in a hurry.

I assume that was his intent, but I disagree on the result, I think the very fact that we know we can live such extended lives will actually keep people from breeding like rabbits of their own volition. you'll find many folks decide not to bear children for centuries. And wile the population growth would be vast, it would also focus the world on developing ways to cope with said growth as well.

Food isn't an issue as I stated in my earlier post. We can feed many factors of our population more than we have, I think that the growth woul spur huge developments in the arts, in science and in philosophy. Everywhere to be honest would benefit from people free to spend decades in study and research instead of trying to cram that effort into a few years before settling in with wife 2.5 kids and a job.

If we constantly see only the negative, we'll miss every opportunity to embrace the positive. This is what makes politicians such ignorant fools. They embrace the negative because thats what wins elections.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Um, for a few reasons.

Colonising space is not an option now, and might never be. We assume that one day we'll have the technology to allow us to settle on another planet, but really, who wants to live on a barren rock?

So, if we never successfully leave the planet, and everyone lives forever and breeds like bunnies, well... see where I'm getting at??

There's nothing "scary" about living forever, or about dying either. Anyway, I'd imagine that it'd only be atheists that would have any interest in living forever right?

Your assumption of a barren rock is completely baseless, as technology advances so do teh chances of finding suitable worlds to live on. Colonizing space, given the longevity this "cure" might provide BECOMES possible right now. We have the technology to build a ship able to sustain a dozen or 3 humans over the decades it would take to reach another world. Now landing and getting off that world, yeah we need to work on that. But going, and exploring is limited only by the fact that we live such short pathetic lifespans right now.

I understand the population issue, but again, thinking positively, Such growth would force-focus us on solving the issues that arise from it.

Nothing makes humans learn, grow and evolve faster than adversity. Give us the challenges of surviving in a new environment(long lifespans) and I guarentee you'll see huge growth and discovery in medicine, food development, transportation, and civil engineering that you will never see in centuries if we did not have such a situation to deal with.

[st.cronin]

Actually, space colonization is possible right now, and we don't actually have to go far. Its estimated that there are enough natural resources in just the asteroid belt to provide us with all our needs.

[Groundhog]

I once read an interview with Arthur C Clarke on this very topic. He made some great points, in particular on how many people would want to travel for decades and decades to settle on a new planet, and what *kind* of people would they be?

As for finding another planet that is habitable, IMO the chances of that are very slim. All the millions and millions of variables that make this planet habitable to humans make it unlikely to happen elsewhere -- unless we find someway to break the universal laws and can travel amazingly fast, at least.

[ThunderingHERD]

"Aubrey de Grey may be wrong but, evidence suggests, he is not nuts."

Really, what evidence?

"offered $20,000 to any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that de Grey’s plan... was 'so wrong that it was unworthy of learned debate.'"

$20,000? I'm guessing the necessary experiments would cost upwards of that. And what the heck do you have to show for so that its "so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate"? So what does it mean that this "prize" wasn't claimed? Congratulations, we can't conclusively prove that you're totally full of shit yet!

"He speculates that people will start abandoning risky jobs, such as being police officers, or soldiers."

If he was the least bit familiar with research on this sort of thing he would know better. Based on this article it doesn't sound like he's very familiar with any of the fields he's playing at. This article makes me want to vomit.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

"Aubrey de Grey may be wrong but, evidence suggests, he is not nuts."

Really, what evidence?

"offered $20,000 to any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that de Grey’s plan... was 'so wrong that it was unworthy of learned debate.'"

$20,000? I'm guessing the necessary experiments would cost upwards of that. And what the heck do you have to show for so that its "so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate"? So what does it mean that this "prize" wasn't claimed? Congratulations, we can't conclusively prove that you're totally full of shit yet!

"He speculates that people will start abandoning risky jobs, such as being police officers, or soldiers."

If he was the least bit familiar with research on this sort of thing he would know better. Based on this article it doesn't sound like he's very familiar with any of the fields he's playing at. This article makes me want to vomit.

Care to support that with...anything? Come on now, give us some supporting information, not just an opinion. What fields is he "playing at" what evidence do you have from the article or refuting it that makes you want to vomit?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

The thing is, these are diseases with vastly different causes. The cures are not likely to be linked.

I think what is most likely being discussed in the context of "curing aging" is figuring out how to turn off parts of our cellular/genetic lifecycle that cause cells to undergo aging processes when they haven't suffered other damage. That's a far different matter from cancer (reproduction that goes out of whack and isn't trapped by our self-regulatory processes intended to short-circuit such things) and other age-related diseases.

Good points. I think the research and process you gain from this process, along with stem cell/ cloning (if we allow it), advances in genetic and biotech R&D, will provide an incredible array of research and knowledge.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I assume that was his intent, but I disagree on the result, I think the very fact that we know we can live such extended lives will actually keep people from breeding like rabbits of their own volition. you'll find many folks decide not to bear children for centuries. And wile the population growth would be vast, it would also focus the world on developing ways to cope with said growth as well.

I think you overestimate the ability of guys to keep their dicks in their pants. And even assuming that there is a 100% foolproof contraceptive, there will still be huge portions of society that presumably won't use it for belief, poverty or health reasons.

If third world countries can't keep their population down as it is, I think people living for 1,000 years with no aging is freaking Armegeddon on the overcrowding front. You have to introduce controlled breeding into the equation somewhere.

[StarBuck]

I'm with Render on this one.
Aging is in the cell, everytime your cell duplicates it loses it's integrity and ages, and if the cell duplicates itself perfectly it can also resist diseases.

But think of what you could accomplish if given the time. All those dreams and goals, and more importantly, what we could contribute to the planet.

If people lived longer I would think it would dramatically change how we view and live on the planet and how we treat it and how we use it's resources. I believe it would have a positive impact and not a negative one. Our view is so selfish and short sighted, one reason is due of our life span and because of our current limitations. People would have more of a vested interest in getting it together here.

Sign me up. They can experiment on me.

Aging Legend & Lore: Think of how long he major players in the Old Testament lived. It's said it is because at that time, the human body still had it's spiritual energy connection to God, closer to perfection if you will,and did not corrupt as fast as it does now. There is an old legend that St.Germain lived over 500 years and was said to go into the Great Pyramid and meditate for years to rejuvenate his cells.It's also said he never ate anything but fruit and water and sparingly at that.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by StarBuck

Aging Legend & Lore: Think of how long he major players in the Old Testament lived. It's said it is because at that time, the human body still had it's spiritual energy connection to God, closer to perfection if you will,and did not corrupt as fast as it does now. There is an old legend that St.Germain lived over 500 years and was said to go into the Great Pyramid and meditate for years to rejuvenate his cells.It's also said he never ate anything but fruit and water and sparingly at that.

Uh yeah. I'm sure Bible-oriented science is on the very brink of making these ground-breaking discoveries. And how old is the earth again?

Please, we're trying to talk about actual science here.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Care to support that with...anything? Come on now, give us some supporting information, not just an opinion. What fields is he "playing at" what evidence do you have from the article or refuting it that makes you want to vomit?

TH has a good point, albeit...incompletely articulated.

Presumably, these three judges agreed to judge this competition. That very fact suggests that they have some inherent bias towards viewing this approach as worthy of spending time on otherwise why even waste time judging the contest? And since they had to discuss any proposal shooting down this idea, doesn't that de facto mean that the idea was worthy of learned debate?

This was as obviously rigged as "I'll give you a dollar if you're not thinking of an elephant right now."

Besides, take a good look at those panelists. A computer scientist? CTO of Microsoft? WTF do those guys know about biological processes and innovation in the life sciences? Now I grant you, Venter is a little closer to the mark (although to most insiders, he has a better reputation as an administrator than as a scientist,) but there are many, many experts who have spent decades studying aging processes. Why weren't any of them on the panel?

Obviously, they were all trying to pick up an easy (so they thought) twenty grand. That fact in itself should tell you something.

[astrosfan64]

You guys ever see futureramia. The heads living in the jars?

On a serious note, all you need to do to extend life is figure out a way to keep the brain alive. The rest are just parts on the car.

I imagine it will be possible to move brains around to bodies.

Yes all this will be possible one day.


Could you imagine all the things someone like Einstien could of come up with if he lived a 1000 years instead of 75?

I wonder if we start living to 1000 or 2000 years old, if we would start using a greater percentage of our brains?

I wish I was born in the year 3000.

Ahh well.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I wonder if we start living to 1000 or 2000 years old, if we would start using a greater percentage of our brains?

I know this is kinda offhand as a joke, but... I think I've seen it proposed that a lot of intelligence comes from paring down how much of our brain is used to make it as efficient as possible. Using more of our brains would, then, be a bad thing.

[rkmsuf]

Can they hurry up all ready while my pecker still works.

[OldGiants]

Any serious discussion of aging should begin by attempting to answer the question, "Why do we get old and die?"

For me, aging is a basic human evolutionary process that guarantees the old will no longer 'waste' resources needed to nurture the next generation of humans. In simpler terms, if old folks didn't die, they would eat the young's lunches. That would make it dicier for the young to survive.

The upshot? It will be a lot harder to cure aging than our current experts think because natural exvolutionary forces will kick in to over-ride the cures until we decipher the genetic code that causes us humans to age. That's what will prove harder to do than current molecular biology theorists posit.

Until they solve the RNA side of things, I don't look for any huge life extending stuff to come along. Folks routinely living 100-150 years? Sure, that can happen. 1000 years? Sounds as empty as Hitler's Thousand Year Reich boast does today.

[StarBuck]

Originally Posted by Brillig

Uh yeah. I'm sure Bible-oriented science is on the very brink of making these ground-breaking discoveries. And how old is the earth again?

Please, we're trying to talk about actual science here.

I titled that "Legend & Lore" for a reason, Einstein. Guess you won't be on the details team.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by Brillig

Apparently the committee wasn't paying off on common sense. Besides, scientists think everything is worthy of debate.

Read the article in this month's Scientific American about the bioligist who is studying Big Foot footprints outside Walla Walla for a differing view.

[Passacaglia]

I thought aging was cured in 1948?

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by StarBuck

I titled that "Legend & Lore" for a reason, Einstein. Guess you won't be on the details team.

It doesn't matter what you titled it, it still has no place in a discussion about science. You posted it in the thread, ergo, you thought it had some relevance - or were you just wasting everyone's time?

OG, it's not really a question of evolution. For starters, evolution works on a much longer time-scale than this. Also, evolution really doesn't care much what's happened to you after you've reproduced (and raised the kids, to some extent.) And once we're talking about tampering directly with the genome, issues of evolution are moot.