Is Aging a Disease That can be Cured?

[phyzik]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/is-aging-a-disease-that-can-be-cured.html#more

"It's a repair and maintenance approach to extending the functional life span of a human body. It's just like maintaining the functional life span of a classic car, or a house. We know -- because people do it -- that there is no limit to how long you can do that. Once you have a sufficiently comprehensive panel of interventions to get rid of damage and maintain these things, then, they can last indefinitely. The only reason we don't see that in the human body now is that the panel of interventions we have available to us today is not sufficiently comprehensive."
~ Aubrey de Grey, molecular biologist and author of End of Aging




Cambridge University researcher Aubrey de Grey argues that aging is merely a disease — and a curable one at that. Humans age in seven basic ways, he says, all of which can be averted.. De Grey is 46 years old, going on 1,000. He says old age is optional and why any rational being would choose it, is nuts. But others think de Grey is the one who’s “nuts”. Even so, no one has been able to show that de Grey does not have plausible scientific theory on his side. His well-thought argument that some people alive today could live in a robust and youthful state for 1,000 years is theoretically possible. Possible maybe, but will it happen?

There are people with a lot of money who are betting that it can happen—if the cause gets enough funding. In fact, they’re willing to support the “mad” scientist in his ambitious goal to end ageing for mankind. De Grey, whose original academic field is in computer science and artificial intelligence, has become the darling of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who believe changing the world is just something you do. Peter Thiel, for example, the co-founder and former CEO of PayPal has already dropped $3.5 million on de Grey's Methuselah Foundation.

"I thought he had this rare combination—a serious thinker who had enough courage to break with the crowd," Thiel says. "A lot of people who are not conventional are not serious. But the real breakthroughs in science are made by serious thinkers who are willing to work on research areas that people think are too controversial or too implausible."

Back in 2005, the MIT Technology Review 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."

The judges for the MIT Technology Review challenge prize were accomplished, respected, and highly intelligent scientists including 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. What they found was that no one could punch any serious holes in de Grey’s unconventional ideas.

"In our judgment none of the 'refutations' succeeded," Myhrvold noted. "It was a bit ironic because they were mostly the work of established scientists in mainstream gerontology who sought to brand de Grey as 'unscientific”, but the supposed refutations were themselves unscientific.

"The 'refutations' were either ad hominem attacks on de Grey, or arguments that his ideas would never work (which might be right, but that is what experiments are for), or arguments that portions of de Grey's work rested on other people's ideas. None of these refute the possibility that he is at least partially correct.” Continues Myhrvold.

"This is not to say that the MIT group endorsed de Grey or thinks he has proven his case. He hasn't, but admits that upfront. All of science rests on ideas that were either unproven hypotheses or crazy speculations at one point. . . . The sad reality is that most crazy speculations fail. . . . We do not know today how to be forever young for 1,000 years, and I am deeply skeptical that we will figure it out in time for me!"

Even so, there is some reason to hope. There is plenty of precedence for “crazy” ideas changing the face of the planet. Here’s a classic example: On Oct. 9, 1903, the New York Times wrote, "the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years."

But it wasn’t ten million years later. In fact, on that very SAME DAY, on Kill Devil Hill, N.C., a bicycle mechanic named Orville Wright wrote in his diary, "We unpacked rest of goods for new machine."

One man’s version of crazy is another man’s version of “all in a day’s work.” But even if de Grey can conquer ageing, is it madness to want to live forever. Some people look forward to dying. But de Grey says that’s only because we all believe getting old and frail is inevitable—something he refers to as the “pro-aging trance” society is currently “trapped” in.

De Grey's version of the future is where everyone can stay perpetually healthy and young through a combination of innovative longevity sciences, and he believes it will be more affordable alternative to caring for elderly, frail bodies. He has nothing against old people, he just thinks people should have the option to avoid ageing and death if they want to. There could be other benefits, as well. He says people would welcome eternity if they understood the benefits.

"If we want to hit the high points, number one is, there will not be any frail elderly people. Which means we won't be spending all this unbelievable amount of money keeping all those frail elderly people alive for like one extra year the way we do at the moment. That money will be available to spend on important things like, well, obviously, providing the health care to keep us that way, but that won't be anything like so expensive. Secondly, just doing the things we can't afford now, giving people proper education and not just when they're kids, but also proper adult education and retraining and so on.

"Another thing that's going to have to change completely is retirement. For the moment, when you retire, you retire forever. We're sorry for old people because they're going downhill. There will be no real moral or sociological requirement to do that. Sure, there is going to be a need for Social Security as a safety net just as there is now. But retirement will be a periodic thing. You'll be a journalist for 40 years or whatever and then you'll be sick of it and you'll retire on your savings or on a state pension, depending on what the system is. So after 20 years, golf will have lost its novelty value, and you'll want to do something else with your life. You'll get more retraining and education, and go and be a rock star for 40 years, and then retire again and so on."

For anyone who has ever felt that there’s not enough time to “do it all” in one lifetime; de Grey’s vision of the future is certainly intriguing.

[phyzik]

Now, Im really curious. I have people in my personal circle of friends and coworkers that say they wouldnt want to live "forever" and Im on the side of wanting to live as long as possible. Not because Im afraid of death (Hell, I jump out of perfectly good planes for fun sometimes). I, personally, just want to see whats in store for us as humans in the future. I wouldnt mind living to be 1000 years old if I could keep my 30, 40 or 50 year old body.

Keep in mind, this doesnt mean your invincible or anything.... You could still die from a gunshot, disease, car crash, ect... this is strictly age.

If it where possible to live that long, by choice, in your current state of age, would you do it?

[Rogue]

Honestly I've pondered it for quite a long time and the only conclusion i've summarized is that aging isn't only caused by pure physical processes but deeply influenced by mental activities. Long story short the cure is right buried in everyone's mind but there hasn't been one human recorded to have activated it.

[Rogue]

Now, Im really curious. I have people in my personal circle of friends and coworkers that say they wouldnt want to live "forever" and Im on the side of wanting to live as long as possible. Not because Im afraid of death (Hell, I jump out of perfectly good planes for fun sometimes). I, personally, just want to see whats in store for us as humans in the future. I wouldnt mind living to be 1000 years old if I could keep my 30, 40 or 50 year old body.

Keep in mind, this doesnt mean your invincible or anything.... You could still die from a gunshot, disease, car crash, ect... this is strictly age.

If it where possible to live that long, by choice, in your current state of age, would you do it?
it's not a matter of whether here IMHO, it's an issue of how to live for ever. No one would maintain a peaceful mind when dying despite what they claim when healthy, to young and healthy people deaths are more often like ambulances for others and they never mind how prodigal their bravery is exaggerated. And unfortunately they suddenly turn pussies when death comes to their own beds.

Leaving alone the curiosity for how the future world looks, the fear of death alone is well enough to drive each and everyone of us to work hard seeking a way to avoid death, which has been taken as a fate for humans as well as any other living species on the earth.

Honestly I would rather live 1,000 or more years as a turtle than die heroically like a well respected scientist like Elbert Einstein, who definitely had missed a lot like the modern computers and the gorgeous beauties born after his death. Halle Berry is the currently grandest beauty worldwide but you'd probably miss a lot more beauties who're possibly even prettier than halle yet born after your lifetime. I deeply feel regretful for Elbert the lecherous Einstein to miss so much.

[Rogue]

hypothetically we got two humans with identical genes one of whom is aged 30 while the other 90, provided our medical technologies permit, where would it proceed if we transplanted the younger head onto the older body while doing the same with the younger body and older head?

we've got two new-constructed individuals and now it's time to scout how these two develops. theoretically the torso and head should naturally adjust to each other through a gradual conformation and finally reached a certain biological age, like two bottles of water at different temperatures mixing together. Assuming the two new-built humans both survive the operation and live long enough for the completion of this process, then each body should appear as a human of one certain age when it's all finalized. There're 3 scenarios and only 3 that may possibly come to occurrence.

1. they finalize at two different ages both of which, however, are between 90 and 30 and not too close to either.

2. the old-body young-head individual ends at 30 or nearly 30 while the other ends at 90, which indicates age is majorly determined by head and its functions

3. opposite to 2, which then indicates human's age is mainly dependent on the major part of the whole body, or in other words the part of body that weighs most.

[mookie2001]

What imprints on time a distinct directionality?

[TheManFromAcme]

Living a long time and seeing your loved ones go before you would be painful. When God calls you, it's his call not ours. :nope (Sorry if it offends you lame atheists out there)

Extending life and insisting that you want to extend your life is selfish in my opinion. Vanity in it's purest sense.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

5L8-FTvSVxs

[MiamiHeat]

I want to live forever

Much to accomplish, much to do. Removing time constraint of human life cycle, that would be great. Give myself more freely to my ideas. As it is now, no time. Must make money, prepare quickly...

[gatoloco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTHypbLlkE#t=03m08s

[DarkReign]

I remember reading and seeing some research on the subject and they all basically boiled down to cell reproduction.

That is, it seems our cells are programed to die. Once you are born, cell division slows down incrementally up until adulthood, where then it drops like a rock. As you enter late adulthood, your cells relatively speaking (that is, if one out of every 100 cells divides, it really doesnt mean shit overall), dont divide at all.

If there were a way to counteract this very basic, cellular process, living 1000 years might be a bit pessimistic, really.

Its an interesting field.

[z0sa]

Nanomachines will cure the aging problem.

[I. Hustle]

I want to live forever

Much to accomplish, much to do. Removing time constraint of human life cycle, that would be great. Give myself more freely to my ideas. As it is now, no time. Must make money, prepare quickly...

Dude eventually you will see every gay porn movie ever made. Then what? Are you going to just watch them all over again? Why live forever just to jack off to gay porn in your apartment?

[IronMexican]

Living forever sounds pretty lame.

[RandomGuy]

Now, Im really curious. I have people in my personal circle of friends and coworkers that say they wouldnt want to live "forever" and Im on the side of wanting to live as long as possible. Not because Im afraid of death (Hell, I jump out of perfectly good planes for fun sometimes). I, personally, just want to see whats in store for us as humans in the future. I wouldnt mind living to be 1000 years old if I could keep my 30, 40 or 50 year old body.

Keep in mind, this doesnt mean your invincible or anything.... You could still die from a gunshot, disease, car crash, ect... this is strictly age.

If it where possible to live that long, by choice, in your current state of age, would you do it?

yes, for exactly those reasons.

I would love to see what happens next.

[The Gemini Method]

I don't want to outlive people that I hold dear...

I've also seen death so many times that I've kind of became immune to it...

I don't want to feel the ravages of time and to be dependent on the help of others...

[baseline bum]

Living a long time and seeing your loved ones go before you would be painful. When God calls you, it's his call not ours. :nope (Sorry if it offends you lame atheists out there)

Extending life and insisting that you want to extend your life is selfish in my opinion. Vanity in it's purest sense.

LMAO. Retard post of the day. Wanting to live a long life is vanity? :lmao

[baseline bum]

Now, Im really curious. I have people in my personal circle of friends and coworkers that say they wouldnt want to live "forever" and Im on the side of wanting to live as long as possible. Not because Im afraid of death (Hell, I jump out of perfectly good planes for fun sometimes). I, personally, just want to see whats in store for us as humans in the future. I wouldnt mind living to be 1000 years old if I could keep my 30, 40 or 50 year old body.

Keep in mind, this doesnt mean your invincible or anything.... You could still die from a gunshot, disease, car crash, ect... this is strictly age.

If it where possible to live that long, by choice, in your current state of age, would you do it?

No shit. Every day above ground is a good one.

[I. Hustle]

LMAO. Retard post of the day. Wanting to live a long life is vanity? :lmao

Actually yeah. What other reason would you want? I mean 1000 years is ridiculous.

[z0sa]

Living 1000 years would have affects on your brain that can't be predicted.

[baseline bum]

Actually yeah. What other reason would you want? I mean 1000 years is ridiculous.

Because there's so much shit to do on Earth that 70-80 years really isn't enough. Not to mention I'd love to be able to do things like go in space that might be feasible for normal people 1000 years down the line. I'd love to see what dark energy and dark matter are, or if our laws of physics are just way off. Or see the Earth change in geologic time. Shit, I'd love to go 5 billion years and see what it looks like when the sun turns into a red giant and starts swallowing the inner planets whole. That would be the way to go out.

[baseline bum]

I mean, who wouldn't want to live to see something like this go off?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0f/CrabNebulaHubble.jpg/675px-CrabNebulaHubble.jpg

It was supposedly so bright people could see it in the day for nearly a month in 1054 when the light from the supernova reached us!

[Stringer_Bell]

Nanomachines will cure the aging problem.

If we ever get to that point, but yes nanotechnology could probably stop our organic bodies from declining at the rate we do. We also do suffer decline because of our minds tho, so there's at least a partial element nanomachines couldn't correct -- mind over matter.

I wouldn't fight the short life span if I could live totally healthy and physical active until 80, then I'd gladly make room for the next recycled soul. :toast

[z0sa]

If we ever get to that point, but yes nanotechnology could probably stop our organic bodies from declining at the rate we do. We also do suffer decline because of our minds tho, so there's at least a partial element nanomachines couldn't correct -- mind over matter.

Nanomachines could fix anything. Our mind IS matter. Humans simply must have the knowledge to tell our machines what to fix.

IMO, nanomachines will cure almost any disease or virus and aging. This will occur within the next 50-75 years. Most civilized countries' humans will eventually have preventative/protective nanomachines coursing through their bloodstream assisting our cells and repairing problems they cannot. At least, that's my hope.

[Stringer_Bell]

Nanomachines could fix anything. Our mind IS matter. Humans simply must have the knowledge to tell our machines what to fix.

I really wish I had the energy to talking about imprinting, Jung, and how nanomachines wouldn't be able to account for everything. I feel like I'm cheating us out of a decent discussion.

I also agree that nanomachines will be a huge help to preventative medicine, but what happens with the cost and moral questions it raises. Does everyone get them? What happens when people live longer and take up more resources? How do we decide who gets them and who doesn't? We might be better off just rotting away instead of damning others to a limited existence when there's something out there that could make them near perfect.

[MiamiHeat]

Yes yes, this is normal, age can be stopped. There is no reason why a human cannot live indefinitely.

There is something else I am interested in :

The day that we solve this, obviously, only the rich will benefit.

This will create another sort of moral debate. Everyone cannot live forever, overpopulation, resources... even if we leave Earth, still there would be a resource problem.

Who decides who is fit to live forever and who dies? The common folk die, the rich survive? Interesting debates will come

[RandomGuy]

I really wish I had the energy to talking about imprinting, Jung, and how nanomachines wouldn't be able to account for everything. I feel like I'm cheating us out of a decent discussion.

I also agree that nanomachines will be a huge help to preventative medicine, but what happens with the cost and moral questions it raises. Does everyone get them? What happens when people live longer and take up more resources? How do we decide who gets them and who doesn't? We might be better off just rotting away instead of damning others to a limited existence when there's something out there that could make them near perfect.

What "resouces"?

Our solar system has, for our practical purposes, limitless resources, in both energy and mass. The sun puts out more energy in two seconds than we have ever used as a civilization, and we have several ways of capturing this energy, both on planet and off.

There is enough iron in the asteroid belt of our solar system to coat the surface of the earth in a layer some hudreds of yards thick, let alone an amount of useful industrial metals that can be extracted with virtually NO pollution footprint on the earth.

Birth rates in every major industrialized country on earth are negative, implying that modest amounts of industrialization will bring down birth rates to a very flat or even negative rate. I think it is more possible that in coming centuries, we will be pressured to bring this up to at least replacement rates.

Technology and getting out into the rest of the solar system will reduce the amount of earthbound "resources" we need to sustain each individual human.

Malthusian dysotopias are far from a certainty, and more likely, less probable than not.

[z0sa]

I feel like I'm cheating us out of a decent discussion.

You seem knowledgable on the subject, perhaps you could just point me in a direction of mutual interest..


I also agree that nanomachines will be a huge help to preventative medicine, but what happens with the cost and moral questions it raises. Does everyone get them? What happens when people live longer and take up more resources? How do we decide who gets them and who doesn't? We might be better off just rotting away instead of damning others to a limited existence when there's something out there that could make them near perfect.

I dunno. I think nanomachines will be cheap enough, by nature, to help most people live a much longer period of time with only minimal calibration by doctors/officials. However, knowing humans, we'll purposely make shitty nanomachines so people constantly have to pay the doctor for calibration/new treatment and to get new ones injected or whatever..

[DarkReign]

Standing on RG's shoulders for a moment, humans with an extended lifespan overcome one of the great difficulties in tapping these system resources, too. It just takes too long to get there.

But, if an average human lives 1000 years, he/she would spend less than 1/5 of their lifespan getting there, harvesting and getting back using even humanity's crude means of space travel we use today.

[MiamiHeat]

oh wow thats lame, i posted the same thing stringer did and didnt read his post

[Drachen]

Living a long time and seeing your loved ones go before you would be painful. When God calls you, it's his call not ours. :nope (Sorry if it offends you lame atheists out there)

Extending life and insisting that you want to extend your life is selfish in my opinion. Vanity in it's purest sense.

Ok, so no medicine or surgery for you. Check.

[Rogue]

Ok, so no medicine or surgery for you. Check.
it's not necessarily a surgery or a medicine that could cure aging IMHO. The body cells aren't complex enough to record ages and subsequently to control the process of aging, instead it's all due to the brain function IMHO. It's like there's an imaginary clock in brain kicking second by second to record the span of time one lives through, and breaks down the human body as aging processes. To shut the shit down one needs to make most use of his own mental power and to take full control of his brain. Aging is like heart beating IMHO, both of which aren't naturally able to be controlled by human consciousness, but it's not too impossible today for humans to take over the control from God's hands as our brains are way more complex and powerful than those of ancestors.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Living 1,000 years would give a whole new meaning to the term MILF.

"Check out that hot 725 year old...damn!"

[Stringer_Bell]

Standing on RG's shoulders for a moment, humans with an extended lifespan overcome one of the great difficulties in tapping these system resources, too. It just takes too long to get there.

But, if an average human lives 1000 years, he/she would spend less than 1/5 of their lifespan getting there, harvesting and getting back using even humanity's crude means of space travel we use today.

Okay, let's say we consume less resources in our longer life spans, learn to do more with less in terms of building infrastructures for our cities, and we stop raping the planet's resources...I wonder what effect a trend toward minimalism would have on the entire world and how our ADVANCED MINIMALIST NANOMACHINE SOCIETY would interact with the more PRIMITIVE MINIMALIST SOCIETIES of the world (tribes and forest people). Do they simply go extinct because they find value in the limitations of their bodies...how do we react to watching cultures die within our lifetime? Sure, we can preserve the memories of dead cultures, but would we as human beings really be cool with that? I don't buy into the idea that we'd be too busy enjoying nanomachine existence to not shed tears for those that don't embrace the technology, and some reasons are discussed below...

@ z0sa: I'm actually not confident in my ability to explain the points about imprinting and Jungian...but I'll give you some questions to pursue: What effect would a world where everyone is basically a superman (das Übermensch, from Nietzsche, if you will), where we've created ourselves to reflect what we believe to be perfection have on our archetypes of sexuality and power/competition. What becomes of sensory experience and seizing the moment? Since we won't eat much food anymore, what happens to the experience of eating...sitting around with our families at dinner, spending hours cooking thanksgiving. Our customs could come to an end, or be reserved for only a few days a year, if we even view time the same way. I just think that our human condition is one of the most glorious/absurd things ever, and tampering with it might change what it means to be human to the point where we won't be humans anymore. We could make humanity extinct and be witnesses to our own evolution...or something like that. :p:

/if that makes no sense, don't hurt me cuz I have no idea how to argue back lol

[Rogue]

No one can live forever. It goes against the laws of nature. However, we can slow down the decaying process to to the point of living much longer than we currently live. The proper eating habits, exercise, (physical and mental) and a culture that thrives on a slow, clean life would go a long ways torwards holding off good ol death.
it's also against the law of nature for a species to fly in sky except for birds/bats/insects. It's against the natural law for a male to stick to one single female...

[DarkReign]

I don't buy into the idea that we'd be too busy enjoying nanomachine existence to not shed tears for those that don't embrace the technology, and some reasons are discussed below...

I usually dont use such a short answer to a person who clearly has an interest, but...this is where you and I will disagree.

Never underestimate the audacity of the caste system.

[DarkReign]

No one can live forever. It goes against the laws of nature.

Please do not use the phrase "Laws of Nature" so loosely, please.

You might give other people the impression you know what youre talking about.


However, we can slow down the decaying process to to the point of living much longer than we currently live. The proper eating habits, exercise, (physical and mental) and a culture that thrives on a slow, clean life would go a long ways torwards holding off good ol death.

I would venture to guess that even if you had an entire, viable, diverse gene pool to breed these Nutritionists for generations, you might see only incremental age elongation.

Nanomachines, gene therapy (maybe), something more direct is quite viable, theoretically, of course.

It is no small measure that science has actually isolated physiological aging to certain, quantifiable cell attributes. Identifying this and that enzyme are the direct action that ages lifeforms of every kind (possibly).

Know thy enemy.

[phyzik]

Good discussion on both sides so far.

In my opinion, just look at the diverse opinions in this very thread to get your answer as to how it will regulate itself. There are those that simply would not want to live that long. In fact, I would guess that most wouldnt due to various concerns, all of which are valid... many of which already mentioned (religious beliefs, not wanting to outlive those close to you, ect).

Also, who is to say once the "proceedure" is done that it cant be undone? Decide to live at the age of 30 for several hundred years then "kill" the nanomachines ( if, indeed, that would be the technology used) to start the aging process again and die "naturally".

Look at what we, as humans, have accomplished in just the past 100 years (especially in just the past 20 years). How anyone wouldnt be the least bit curious what we could accomplish in the next 900 years baffles me. Curiosity is one of the core values of being human. Its a major trait that made us what we are today.

My only hope is Ray Kurzweil's technological singularity analysis is correct and it happens around 2045. I'd be 65yrs old at that point. Of course, I also hope that at that point 65 will be the new 35. :lol

[Stringer_Bell]

I usually dont use such a short answer to a person who clearly has an interest, but...this is where you and I will disagree.

Never underestimate the audacity of the caste system.

You're probably right, but I'm too much of a dreamer to resign myself to that path. For me, science always goes back to philosophy and I don't think I could want to "will" the world to be a better place if I knew my "will" was just a tool for being efficient in my social tier. There's always gotta be someone to rebel, even if the nanomachine future. That thought is probably more audacious than the caste system :p: