Thoughts on cure for aging?
Aubrey de Grey
Liz Parrish
Bio viva, telomerase activators, myostatin blockers.
When?
Within 20, 40, 100 years? Never?
Related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et3yOSvOVCU
Liz Parrish is patient zero for anti aging treatments: telomerase activators and myostatin blocker. Let us see if she gets cancer or gets younger:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/10/prweb12995323.htm
technologically will be made if you look forward enough.
But eternity comes at a price.
Surpopulation, if eternals aren't sterile.
Lack of natural evolution if eternals are.
>>7864309
^this
i imagine that in the next 100y,
we will be able to extend human lifespan to 150y
But that would seriously effect us population-wise.
We already have issues with overpopulation,
imagine if people had children at the age of 100?
>>7864309
>Surpopulation, if eternals aren't sterile.
My arguments:
> More developed nations have lower birth rates.
> Deaths from accidents will still occur.
> Governments can impose one child policies like China.
>>7864313
>We already have issues with overpopulation,
We really don't have problems with overpopulation. China got it under control, why wouldn't the rest of the countries?
>>7864333
Hahahahaha man, how far up your own ass are you?
>>7864350
What actual arguments do you have against my statements? Can you please elaborate?
>>7864333
sterilization or child policy, its the same on a systemic pov.
>>7864309
our brain can only hold finite amount of information.
Will we go crazy trying to cram too much information or will we just forget everything past the last 100 or so years
>>7864309
>Surpopulation, if eternals aren't sterile.
Ship older people to a far off planet periodically, since they live for eternity a long journey is no problem for them.
>>7864440
You will just keep forgetting old info that you are not refreshing.
>>7864305
Why do you anti-aging freaks refuse to realize that the ONLY known 100% safe anti-aging regime that works is: daily exercise, healthy body weight, lots of daily sleep and moderate fasting a few times a year.
>>7864548
We're talking about indeterminate lifespan here, honey.
>>7864548
I am already doing all of that, I will still get old at 90 in best case and die at 100 as a wrinkled man.
The whole point here is to stop natural aging processes. If fitness worked, then Jack Lalanne would be still alive, but he died at 90, because cell senescence is a bitch.
>>7864555
>indeterminate lifespan
It can not be done... we evolved to be at maximum health for child being age and a nurturing period for the young. There is NOTHING in out genetic code for perpetual regeneration... we have massive redundancy and long lived parts but every part degenerates over time... all people will die, no exceptions...
the BEST you can do live a healthy lifestyle.
If you want to be evil... you could clone yourself and use clone for body parts, if a head/brain transfusion was possible you could extend life significantly by using your clone body. NOTE your clone is technically your identical twin and using it for body parts is evil... like burn in the lowest depths of hell evil
>>7864548
Not only that: people who die before 70s (half of the population) die not from aging related causes, but because of the damage the body sustained during lifetime due to bad lifestyle.
>>7864582
What about stopping cell senescence via telomerase activators?
Please provide arguments why it would not work.
>>7864582
Why grow a whole clone when you can grow stem cells ?
Are you sure you should be in this thread ?
You sound like worthless contrarian trash or worse, a luddite.
I'm certain you'll use the treatments when they are disponible, you hypocritical piece of shit. No offense.
>>7864593
Even better, why grow cells and organs when you fix the underlying cause of them aging?
You can't clone skin, you can't clone bone tissue.
You can't clone brain.
But you theoretically can prevent cells from reaching Hayflick limit.
The trick is not to get cancer while doing it.
>>7864305
Chemists currently have a meme going around stating that oxidation could play a role on the aging of skin. Whether or not if it's true is the question.
>>7864598
Sources on that?
>>7864598
You can't remove oxidation without fucking up the metabolism though.
>>7864592
>What about stopping cell senescence via telomerase activators?
Yes, you can extend life of individual cells but you miss the big picture our bodies are an entire ecosystem... the system itself is non sustainable... example, are you going to hormonally lock someone to an "age", how are you going to solve the elimination of heavy metals... what about simple plaque buildup in the blood system... there are a HUGE list of problems that will become apparent to a body that lives beyond 100 years... just stopping cellular aging will not lead to immortality
>>7864593
>Why grow a whole clone when you can grow stem cells ?
Because a body is best thought of as an eco system... ALL the parts need to work together and work best if at the same "age"
surpopulation ain't a problem, too many subhumans are
>>7864613
It's a self-solving issue through war and then starvation when not enough humans are left to feed to subhumans.
We're in an r world right now, it's just how it is. Wait for the collapse to get a K world.
>>7864608
>HUGE list of problems
Yes but no reason to think we wont be able to solve a huge list of problems.
>>7864651
>Yes but no reason to think we wont be able to solve a huge list of problems
No.. that is the point you can NOT solve the problems... I will pick a simple easy example.. plaque buildup in the blood steam... even the healthiest person will slowly build up plaque in the veins/arteries there is NO way to clean ALL the veins/arteries... the body had/has no reason to have such a system built into it.. the problem manifests long after reproduction age so there was no need for a cleaning system to be produced... and that is just one of a HUGE list of problems... humans were not made to be immortal... not at all.. ever... not going to happen.. we ALL die
>>7864573
He died at 96 actually and was still quite healthy and capable at that age. Truly a man one can aspire to
>>7864673
Yes, but he died.
He didn't even live up to 100, no matter how healthy his lifestyle was.
He looked old, he did not look like a person in 30s or 40s.
>>7864673
>He died at 96 actually and was still quite healthy and capable at that age. Truly a man one can aspire to
True.. the thing about death is that any one vital organ fails for about 10 minutes and you are dead.. even if the rest of the body is in perfect shape.. one failure of critical organ for a short time and you die... if Jack was being monitored perhaps he would still be alive.. modern medicine is EXTREMELY good at emergency life reservation
>>7864684
>>7864689
Are you people serious? This isn't about longevity is it? This is an undercover immortality thread. When will you deluded babies realize that literally every young person who has ever lived thought that they could live forever because you think you're invincible when you're in your 20s. Get to middle age and such a stupid notion rapidly disappears. It's nature, you WILL die. That guy getting to 96 on exercise alone is fucking amazing seeing as the average life expectancy is 80. Hardly anyone lives to 96, therefore what he did worked.
>>7864667
This guy has his head screwed on. I'm all for getting everyone to 96 but immortality nuts can fuck off, we literally have more chance of getting to Alpha Centauri on a nuclear rocket.
>>7864839
>Are you people serious? This isn't about longevity is it? This is an undercover immortality thread.
What is wrong with immortality?
Technically, people cannot be immortal. Sooner or later you will get hit by a nigger or a truck.
> When will you deluded babies realize that literally every young person who has ever lived thought that they could live forever because you think you're invincible when you're in your 20s.
Ok, they did not have the science developed that we have now. Look up Liz Parrish, Aubrey, telomerase, myostatin inhibitors, etc...
>Get to middle age and such a stupid notion rapidly disappears. It's nature, you WILL die.
I'm 30 and I'm more interested in this than ever. It actually seems feasible. Not to live forever, but to prolong my life dramatically within the following 20-30 years.
>It's nature, you WILL die.
Not a very scientific argument to make.
Examples:
>It's nature, you will go blind!
>It's nature, you will get flue and die!
>It's nature, you will get cancer! Don't fight it!
>It's nature, your hair will fall out, don't take finasteride!
>It's nature, you are supposed to have acne! Don't fight it!
>It's nature, your loved ones are supposed to suffer from illness, don't do anything!
See how stupid that sounds?
>That guy getting to 96 on exercise alone is fucking amazing seeing as the average life expectancy is 80. Hardly anyone lives to 96, therefore what he did worked.
It did not work. He died. His skin was wrinkly, he was old. He got a flu and died.
The whole point is to prevent you from aging, so you can live until 100, 200, whatever (until some accident happens).
>This guy has his head screwed on. I'm all for getting everyone to 96 but immortality nuts can fuck off, we literally have more chance of getting to Alpha Centauri on a nuclear rocket.
Explain with solid arguments, why we have higher chance of getting to Alpha Centauri than finding cure for cell aging. I'm waiting, this will be fun.
>>7864592
enjoy you're cancer
>>7864908
I'm not a cancer.
Please provide detailed arguments.
>>7864667
Nanobots m8
>>7864548
Well if nothing works then we make something that works, that's the point you retard
>we don't know how to make flying machines so we'll never know how to make flying machines
- you, if you were born before the 1900s
>>7864865
Blindness, cancer and hair loss are all things that aren't guaranteed to happen to everyone. It is stupid to compare them to death.
It did work he lived 20 year longer than he would have without the fitness
>>7864305
Most of /sci/ is too autistic to discuss anything but maths. Biology is seen as retarded here, for whatever reason. I think we're a very long ways away from radically extending life. Then again, there's so little funding for it and the idea of getting old and dying is ingrained into all of us in every culture. People just cannot take it seriously, for right or wrong reasons. That said, I like De Grey's strategy for combating it. Bioviva is so shady and non-specific that I can't take them seriously. SENS is where it's at, and maybe if they had more people and funding, they could get somewhere in like 30 years.
>>7864305
When I see science allow a 70 year old bald man to grow thick dark hair and a 80 year old woman have smooth spot free wrinkle free (make a 16 year old girl jealous) skin... THEN I will believe that maybe science can do something about aging
Stop eating junkfood and staying inside
Move far away from the city and live somewhere rural
>>7864963
It's not gonna happen over night like that. Progress will happen in tiny increments. Some species of animals can live for hundreds of years, and some don't live that long, but are cancer-resistant. I think that age reversal is definitely in the realm of human possibility. When will it happen? Probably not for a very long time unless it gets a huge boost in funding and researchers. And aspects of life extension have been conducted on mice, so it is in the very earliest of embryonic stages right now. I'd suggest doing a bit more research before implying it's not happening.
I'm going to assume to everyone in this thread who isn't being open minded to this being possible is in fact trolling or retarded.
Yes there would be a ridiculous amount of things to overcome, however the whole fucking point of science is to push the limits of what we can do in the first place.
With that out of the way, maybe the cure for aging is just entirely changing our biology or ceasing to be biological all together but at that point, we probably wouldn't be "human" anymore,
>>7864952
>Blindness, cancer and hair loss are all things that aren't guaranteed to happen to everyone. It is stupid to compare them to death.
Listen, idiot. Death does not happen on its own, it happens via injuries, cancer or heart attacks.
People don't just "die", they get sick and die.
>It did work he lived 20 year longer than he would have without the fitness
It did not work, because he didn't live forever. There is little use of prolonging suffering and wrinkles by 20 years. The point is to eradicate aging on a cellular level.
>>7864963
>When I see science allow a 70 year old bald man to grow thick dark hair and a 80 year old woman have smooth spot free wrinkle free (make a 16 year old girl jealous) skin... THEN I will believe that maybe science can do something about aging
They did it on mice.
They are currently testing it on humans. Liz Parrish specifically. We will see results within a year.
>>7864973
>Stop eating junkfood and staying inside
>Move far away from the city and live somewhere rural
Yeah, that will make you live up to 500...NOT
>>7864305
Pretty hyped.
I'm really curious how will it turn out. We still need cure for cancer, and other illnesses though, stopping aging process isn't enough.
I wonder what effects on economy would it have, if they offered to stop anyone's aging process for really high but still achievable price for middle/high class. It surely would boost market since everyone would like to get as much money as they can to effort it. But it also might create lots of large loans and a crisis.
>>7865061
>I'm really curious how will it turn out. We still need cure for cancer, and other illnesses though, stopping aging process isn't enough.
I had a chance to personally speak with a chemist who is working on cancer drugs.
She told me that cancer has been cured about 30% through (there are thousands upon thousands of cancer variations).
I asked if she believes cancer will be 100% cured within this century.
She said that most likely not. Sorry.
>>7865061
>We still need cure for cancer, and other illnesses though, stopping aging process isn't enough.
Thing is, majority of these illnesses would be cured, because they are caused by cell aging and deterioration.
Generally these technologies become accessible to mainstream soon enough if there is money in it
>A therapy that retrains the body's immune system to fight cancer has provoked excitement after more than 90% of terminally ill patients reportedly went into remission.
>White blood cells were taken from patients with leukaemia, modified in the lab and then put back.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35586834
Getting closer to licking cancers ass. Will they someday be able to make a vaccine that works on all types of cancers? If they do, would this eliminate the only barrier preventing us from using more aggressive cancer inducing anti-aging techniques to become immortal?
>>7865073
Well, I think 100 years is such a long time that we shouldn't make predictions about how technology/medicine will advance. Maybe we will create nanomashines that will be able to just precisely kill cancer cells and everything will be solved at once. I dunno.
>>7865076
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cancer caused by undetected errors in DNA duplication when the cell is dividing?
Also from what I've heard telomerase activators, doesn't stop cell aging, but allows them to divide endlessly. Naturally this limit let organism to prevent some cancer, but using telomerase removes this line of defense.
>>7865184
>Also from what I've heard telomerase activators, doesn't stop cell aging, but allows them to divide endlessly.
That is pretty much the thing that stops aging. When cells reach Hayflich limit, chromosones get fucked up and broken, DNA starts mutating, cells are not able to repair themselves as fast and body starts deteriorating.
If you activate telomerase in a way that it doesn't stimulate cancer growth, you have achieved infinite regeneration basically.
The cancer thing is the big issue. Some scientists say shorter telomeres contribute to cancer, some say it is longer ones that cause cancer. It is up for discussion and Liz Parrish is currently experimenting on herself, we will see how it goes.
>>7864667
>>7864865
I was talking about cure for ageing in 100-1000 years. I certainly dont think immortality will be achieved in my lifetime, I dont want to be live forever anyway, kinda tired already.
But unless something is prohibited by physics(like ftl) I refuse to believe it cant be solved. For example I accept that if someone smashes his brain there is no way to recover the lost information.
Anything body related looks just a engineering problem to me, unless you can prove immortality is prohibited by some fundamental laws of nature then I think we will achieve immortality.
>getting to Alpha Centauri on a nuclear rocket.
Thats actually a fairly easy task, given enough money, we can do it in within 50 years.
>>7864985
I'm all for extended lifespan, 150, 200 years whatever, but immortality is as dumb as FTL. It's a fundamental law you cannot break, everything must end one day.
It'd be pretty amazing if you could regress your age to that of an early teen and have the opportunity to 'reboot' your life.
Total pipe dream unfortunately, best you could probably do is revert to your early 20s
>>7865257
>but immortality is as dumb as FTL. It's a fundamental law you cannot break, everything must end one day.
Please post your arguments and reasons.
"Law you cannot break" and "everything must end one day" is not a scientific statement in the slightest. Which law you cannot break exactly?
>And what do you propose to do with all these people who live forever?
They will still get killed and get in traffic incidents.
Also, have less kids.
>You fool plebs seeing a bunch of rich fucks living forever will cause massive social unrest.
Companies have most to make by selling to everybody, so most likely the treatments will be affordable for middle class eventually.
Cells degrade naturally.
Replication is lossy.
Mutations happen over time due to oxidation and other damage.
When this happens, fuckups occur. Some of it causes aging. Sometimes it causes cancer. This is just how it goes. A limit on replication is necessary to prevent cancer cells from going nuts.
The only solution to aging would be to magically reset every cell in a person's body all at once. In other words, 100% body replication.
And sorry, without continuity of the brain there is no way to tell if you are still alive, or whether or not you died and a clone with your memories took over. For all you know, your experiential frame of reference ended and an impostor fucks your wife now.
>>7865254
>cause massive social unrest
Yeah sure. Because everyone already do riots all the time because rich people have money to cure current illnesses and can live comfortably.
There won't be any mortal masses that witness "rich fucks living forever", anyway. After they start selling aging cure at large scale to the rich, it won't even take one human lifespan until they will make so much money and advance their technology. Then they will be able to sell it to middle class for smaller price.
>>7865257
>It's a fundamental law you cannot break, everything must end one day.
>>>/lit/
>>7865288
>The only solution to aging would be to magically reset every cell in a person's body all at once. In other words, 100% body replication.
Not true. Every cell except for things like brain cells dies and got replaced with new ones. There is no reason why this would be the only way to stop aging. Let's say maybe use nanomashines to fix everything, or just cute all the illness.
>And sorry, without continuity of the brain there is no way to tell if you are still alive, or whether or not you died and a clone with your memories took over. For all you know, your experiential frame of reference ended and an impostor fucks your wife now.
You are still alive if your consciousness exists. If you clone yourself atom by atom, then there will exists two frames of references that have common origin, but diverges later. Both are as much you. If you stop your consciousness while cloning and killing one of the organisms, your frame of reference will be seamless, and you didn't die at all, but eventually changed position. You can never tell if you died, since your consciousness ends with your death. There is no soul.
>>7865272
>>7865291
It's funny I talk about aliens and I get "lol fuck off FTL is impossible" but when it comes to something as equally incredulous as immortality /sci/ goes full "I want to believe" mode.
>They will still get killed and get in traffic incidents.
Exactly you have proven why this is unworkable. So instead of the chance of a peaceful death in your bed you have to wait for a gory traffic accident?
>>7865360
>people don't want to talk about fictional technology that breaks multiple physical laws
>people enjoy talking about technology that is being currently developed and was tested with multiple positive results
Jeez, I wonder why.
>>They will still get killed and get in traffic incidents.
>Exactly you have proven why this is unworkable.
No one is talking about being invincible. Read the OP you idiot.
>So instead of the chance of a peaceful death in your bed you have to wait for a gory traffic accident?
Yeah. I prefer to live for centuries until I get killed by Japanese truck than to live 70 years and spend last years stuck in bed, painfully fighting cancer.
>>7865360
How often are deaths of old age "peaceful"? Is getting old and having your body gradually shut down over the course of a decade really that much more pleasant than a random accident?
If you're that concerned how you're going to die, choose the method personally and kill yourself to avoid the trouble and potential agony of waiting.
telomerase
>>7865360
>It's funny I talk about aliens and I get "lol fuck off FTL is impossible" but when it comes to something as equally incredulous as immortality /sci/ goes full "I want to believe" mode.
>incredulous
Incredulous is not an objective term.
Technically speaking, someone knows his shit, will tell you that cell immortality is feasable, studies have been done. Inject telomerese and you are done. Trick is not to get cancer. That's it. It still does not mean total immortality, you can still die of other causes.
>Exactly you have proven why this is unworkable. So instead of the chance of a peaceful death in your bed you have to wait for a gory traffic accident?
Yeah, except I can die at 700 and not 70.
>>7865487
>immortality is still impossible
Yes and water is wet.
Truly great observation anon.
>>7864309
M8 this is the last of the problems.
You speak like every human is brainless and just desires to reproduce until forever.
At best a couple would make 1 x human - and people will still die of random occurrences - diseases will still exist and so on.
You won't see Africans as immortals... it would take a civilized country to develop such a technological breakthrough - and look at countries with many technological breakthroughs going on - couples either don't make kids or make 1... it's the immigrants from third worlds or poorer people that make 5 + kids.
Immortality is something every living human being deserves. Only absolute degenerates that threat the life of others deserve death.
>>7864305
Honestly the only reason why I want to stop aging is to be able to finally make my waifu real using immersive Virtual Reality or an android.
If not her, I wouldn't really have any reason to live longer.
>>7865609
>Immortality is something every living human being deserves. Only absolute degenerates that threat the life of others deserve death.
So fucking stupid you can't even phrase your bullshit right.
Fact is maybe normie morality isn't compatible with the continuation of the human race. In which case your actual degeneracy is evident, you'd rather we face apocalypse with proper manners intact.
I've studied Genetics and at that level practically everyone is totally redundant. There is no reason to threaten planetary stability with the absurd hope that we can somehow reason with everyone who can't even into literacy. Its sad, but unavoidable. Or, if you're sociopathic, just unavoidable.
inb4 redundant God believers
>>7865657
0 points the post.
>>7864305
My earliest records show it was some time around 2205.
This thread gives me Deja Vu
>>7864309
>Lack of natural evolution if eternals are.
I'd pay this price readily. If we can make people immortal, we're already at the point that we're doing better (for our purposes) than nature at altering humans.
>>7864440
By the time neglible senescence is possible, not doubt improved neurology wouldn't be unrealistic.
>>7865680
That is because I have created it before.
>>7865487
When people say "immortality" what they actually mean is "indefinite lifespan" not literally never dying.
>>7864440
>our brain can only hold finite amount of information.
that is just outright false. The brain does not store information like a computer.
It's pretty obvious rich people are already extending their lives unnaturally. Look at George Bush Sr. guy is like a fossil and still clinging on. George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Chenney, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger. What you think it's a coincidence that the richest and most powerful people of the last century are somehow still alive in their 80s and 90s in this century? Clutching to levers of power with bony dessicated hands.
No they all just have good genetics anon. WHAT A COINCIDENCE.
They clearly are using methods, techniques, therapies, technologies, to take their life and stretch it. It possible, it can be done, it will probably add 20 years onto your life, 40 years to your children's lives and so on.
>>7865924
Superior Jewish genes.
>>7865690
>>7865740
Depending on how the information is stored it might not be possible to read data from brain without disturbing the information or heating it up too much.
frankly I think we will achieve immortality before gaining capability to read brain. The body is just mechanical, no worries about preserving any information.
>>7865845
the brain is a finite space with finite number particles so it can only hold finite amount of information. Since humans have evolved to live roughly 70/80 years it makes sense to assume that the brain also evolved to hold only that much experience in data.
>>7866027
>the brain is a finite space with finite number particles so it can only hold
The brain is an active metabolic organ that holds information by running constantly. It's not a noun in the physical sense, so it's not restricting by the idiocy that is your reasoning. Not for the rest of us anyway.
Also: Evolution isn't an engineering process. Tons of vestigial structures can be found in every avian, reptile, and mammalian species on Earth. Go back to LessWrong with your "rationalist" bullshit.
>>7865924
Once you're old you're more likely to surpass the average life expectancy, and older people are more likely to be in positions of power/rich. Also, this is just an example of selection bias since you aren't taking into account all the powerful, rich fags who died.
>>7866047
>not restricted by
>>7866047
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/DownloadingConsciousness/landp.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
scroll down to the the part whre the bekenstein bound for human brain is calculated.
>Evolution isn't an engineering process. Tons of vestigial structures can be found in every avian, reptile, and mammalian species on Earth
yes every 5 year old is aware of vestigial structures, that is why I only made an assumption.
Most organs in any animals body is not vestigial so obviously vestigial organs are exceptions rather than norm. anyway its only an assumption and I wont argue about it any more.
>>7866047
>>the brain is a finite space with finite number particles so it can only hold
>It's not a noun in the physical sense, so it's not restricting by the idiocy that is your reasoning.
>Go back to LessWrong with your "rationalist" bullshit.
How can someone on /sci/ be this retarded.
Bump for interest and discussion
