Is Aging a Disease That can be Cured?

[phyzik]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ured.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 ( , 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 ( , 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. (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]

[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 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 ( , 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. (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. Re post of the day. Wanting to live a long life is vanity?

[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 ( , 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 . Every day above ground is a good one.

[I. Hustle]

LMAO. Re post of the day. Wanting to live a long life is vanity?

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 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. , 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?



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.

[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.