“Reason” has a link roundup of Russian coverage of an Aubrey de Grey visit, and some thoughts on cryonics from Robin Hanson. It’s encouraging to hear from de Grey that the first man who will live to a hundred and fifty is probably alive, and sixty today. And that people currently living will hit a thousand, if they wish (though I think it would be tough to go that long without some non-aging cause of death).
22 thoughts on “Fighting Aging”
Comments are closed.
Once we’ve stopped and/or reversed the aging process itself, we can focus on hardening the organism to withstand more damage than it can now. Better immune systems, faster regeneration, stronger tissues, and perhaps even continuous mind uploads so even if your body gets vaporized, your identity can be downloaded into a new chassis.
Actually, I saw a life extension special on the Science Channel, probably a year ago, in which they stated that statisticians who had looked at the subject had calculated that — baring diseases and aging — the average person could expect to live about a thousand years before some fatal accident caught up with them.
This involves all kinds of assumptions — both negative and positive — of course.
The development of anti-aging therapies will necessarily involve regenerative medicine that will allow repair from injuries that currently kill or main people today. Thus, we will be much more resilient from injuries (car crashes, sports injuries) than we are now.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
This is the kind of subject that is tailor-made for wishful thinking.
I’d settle for a car that can drive itself (preferably by 2035 or so, when my kids will want to take away my license).
Well, to speak seriously for a moment, and as someone familiar with the basic science involved here, I think soberly speaking there is quite a decent chance that cancer may become as treatable a diabetes, if not pneumonia, by 2100.
But it will only happen if the huge apparatus that is engaged in that hunt is not cut off at the knees by some appallingly short-sighted stuck on stupid “health care reform,” including, worst of all possibilities, a nationalized health care.
If you want miracles, they cost money. You need to pay fat profits to pay fat salaries and offer big financial incentives to clever people to get involved. You need waste. (Where’s Jim with his homilies about why we should all pay huge taxes for our social benefits? If we switch the labels on the containers, “taxes” for “profits” he’ll never notice.)
Furthermore, you need the wealthy to be able to buy better health care, so that they can keep the initially “too expensive for the net benefit” therapies alive and developing, so they can get more efficient and cheaper. Just like you need wealthy people to buy Teslas and Prii, so the companies can survive long enough to figure out how to make cheaper versions.
Let the current insanity for efficient and fully equitable health care come to pass, and not only will you not see the slightest bit of “life extension” — you won’t even see the fruition of the promising developments in basic life sciences that are evident today. You’ll always have 2009 medicine, even in 2109 or 2209.
If this stuff does come to pass we will need to amend the Constitution to put an end to lifetime judicial appointments. The founders weren’t expecting the Supreme Court membership to go unchanged for a century.
I expect to live much longer than 1,000 years. Besides the health improvements, self-driving cars and other technological solutions for human stupidity will make life much safer. Not deliberately engaging in stupidity (e.g., I don’t bungee jump or skydive) is the other part of that puzzle.
Jim says: I’d settle for a car that can drive itself (preferably by 2035 or so, when my kids will want to take away my license).
Or hopefully by 2020 when my kids will want to drive!
If this stuff does come to pass we will need to amend the Constitution to put an end to lifetime judicial appointments.
Yes, you’re not the first person this has occurred to….
Actually, I saw a life extension special on the Science Channel, probably a year ago, in which they stated that statisticians who had looked at the subject had calculated that — baring diseases and aging — the average person could expect to live about a thousand years before some fatal accident caught up with them.
The classic analysis of this is here:
http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MisadventureAsACauseOfDeath.html
“Yes, you’re not the first person this has occurred to….”
The title escapes me, but I recall a Ben Bova novel wherein whomever ascends to the throne (or whatever it was) was required to accept no exceptional life-extension therapies, even though they were available to everyone else.
Talk about term limits…!
Rand: good article!
Thank you, Jim.
I, for one, am failing to see the positives of life extension.
Likely, it will only be available to the very rich, and the only thing that curbs bad people sometimes, is natural death. Soros, Castro come to mind.
Likely, it will only be available to the very rich
There’s no rational reason to believe that. Certainly it will be the case initially, but it will eventually become affordable to all, just as most luxury goods (e.g., VCRs, HDTV, computers, etc.) will.
Unless, of course, we shut down research in this area, which the current policies of the current administration could very well do, for exactly as stupid a reason as that…
I expect to live much longer than 1,000 years. Besides the health improvements, self-driving cars and other technological solutions for human stupidity will make life much safer.
You’re overlooking another major cause of death: homicide.
What are your chances of being killed in a war every year? If you live in the United States, at present, very low; but that’s historically atypical. Warfare is bound to change dramatically over the next 1000 years, so you can’t simply extrapolate from present death rates. Your risks might be much greater or much less than they are at present.
On the other hand, living to 1000 has some severe downsides:
1) What about rights of inheiritance? Are the kids going to want to wait that long, or will they see about “early retirement” for Grandad?
2) Older workers making room for younger workers, or do the waiting lists for jobs extend for centuries?
3) What job is going to last that long? Do we retrain into something else every 20 years or so? Do we have to have personal education funds to afford it?
4) Having to put up with intrusive government thieves who want to take our savings so we won’t be able to buy retraining, etc.
Just off the top of my head. Maybe I’m blowing smoke, but, while living that long SOUNDS fine, I’m not sure the practicalities of it would be very pleasant. We’d better get off the planet fast, to make room, and to stave off centuries of boredom.
Ok folks, take your shots! Just to keep the conversation going. 😉
I think we need a life-extension pilot program, just to see how all of these objections play out. At present there’s only enough budget for one volunteer.
I volunteer.
Unfortunately, McGehee, the rest of us will never know how it worked out. . .
Send us a transmission from the future, ok? You should have the technology by then. 🙂
MESSAGE SENT MON 14 OCT 23,548,329,456
Sorry, guys. It just ain’t working. Back to the drawing board.