…with stem cells.
I don’t think that people really appreciate the potential for life extension and rejuvenation from these technologies, or its societal implications (including entitlements, and lifetime tenure).
[Update a couple minutes later]
Aubrey de Grey versus David Brin on the subject.
[Monday afternoon update]
Life expectancy of 200 years and beyond?
[Bumped]
The entire pro “life extension” argument is dealt, I think, a fatal blow by the fact that if such technologies became practicable, political abominations like Ted Kennedy and Robert (grand octopus) Byrd would still be in office.
It is interesting that not all of the advancements with stem cells rely on harvesting human embryos.
I did see an interesting mention in comments of an old rat having its blood supply linked up to that of a younger rat. Some rejuvenation in the older rat being a result. I had not seen/thought of this previously but presumably it would have a significant effect and it might be somewhat practical in an artificial nightly dialysis kind of way (clone a younger blood supply similarly to how other tissues can now be cloned). It might also be a way of overcoming various diseases – borrow a younger immune system, so to speak.
It is often mentioned that higher rates of cancer come with more aggressive cell repair/rejuvenation systems. However young people seem to get cancer less than older people so I am not sure this need be so.
All advances to date have involved allowing ever-greater percentages of humanity to hit the “wall” at age 100…
Every time I read something like this I think about how biblically early humans lived to up to just under 1000 years. Then an age of 120 seems to be the new limit. It really would be something if 200 is achieved. However, the dispersal of wealth and power by death does seem to have some practical benefits in the world we live in today.
However, the dispersal of wealth and power by death does seem to have some practical benefits in the world we live in today.
Even if this were true, I’m not about to sacrifice my health, vitality, and open-ended personal future for this. As long as I’m “young” and healthy, I will always find a way to get what I want regardless of socio-economic systems.
Can you imagine the riots in France if they tried to raise the retirement age to 162?
Wodun: Actually, I don’t believe that I’ve heard of a single advance, a single medical application, that came from embryonic stem cells or research into same.
Remember when embryonic cells were THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE US? You know, back before the 2008 election?
Ken, I can’t decide if you’re tongue-in-cheek or serious about the lifespans in the old testament; hope it’s the former…(desperately trying not to snark on this one)
Agree with Big D that, from everything I’ve read (which may not be all of the relevant material), adult stem cell techniques have been developed to the point where there is no substantial advantage to using embryonic stem cells. If we are correct on this, then I think GW Bush is owed a serious vote of thanks for forcing the biology industry to figure out how to use adult stem cells.
And did anybody else think of the “new blood for old” in Heinlein’s Methuselah’s Children when reading Pete’s comment?
K, the US isn’t the whole world. (even Aubrey deGray isn’t a US citizen). When we see it happening elsewhere, but not here, the groundswell will be very hard to fight.
And it would be most interesting to witness the absurdity of trying to criminalize that which demonstrably allowed living healthier and longer.
“…political abominations like Ted Kennedy and Robert (grand octopus) Byrd would still be in office.”
No, it’s because enough people continued to vote for them. Unless you contend that that, too, would have continued into the indefinite future…
Brin’s presumption is impressive. Aubrey has buried himself in the biological science of rejuvenation for decades, but Brin merely has to be a “smart guy” and science fiction author to refute him. Riight.
But that’s consistent with Brin’s personality. I’ve actually corresponded with him on other topics, and he’s a typical “smartest guy in the room” Leftist, who (by powers of his indomitable intellect) comes to the same conclusions as the rest of the Left.
I don’t see any need for thorough nanotech to crack the rejuvenation nut. That would be one way to do it (just reach in there and “fix” things), but I’m pretty sure it will be far easier to simply tap into the tools that nature has already developed to do these things. The salamander’s ability to regrow nearly any tissue is simply the obvious example, but I know plenty of species that have developed a solution or two for something. A certain sub-species of mole rat for instance is entirely immune to cancers as far as we can tell, thanks to specific adaptations. Useful, no? And without nanotech.
But that’s consistent with Brin’s personality. I’ve actually corresponded with him on other topics, and he’s a typical “smartest guy in the room” Leftist, who (by powers of his indomitable intellect) comes to the same conclusions as the rest of the Left.
He’s worse than that. He is actually quite obnoxious in person. I used to make a specific point to avoid being around him at SF cons (yes, I attended a few of these in the late 80’s). I dislike his personality sufficiently that I cannot read his novels (some of which are quite good) because they remind me of him too much. I avoid reading his blog for the same reason.
You will note that his arguments against radical life extension are mostly hand waving that do not involve discussion of molecular biology, unlike Aubrey de Grey’s arguments.
Ken, I can’t decide if…
cthulhu, when I read something incredible from an credible source (a fair assessment of the bible with regard to historical accuracy that no other source even comes close to) I am capable of suspending judgement (think of it as a quantum state until further observation.)
Moses wrote Genesis and, like other bible writers, was meticulous about dates. These were real people, his grandparents, and their lives overlapped quite a bit. My experience doesn’t include people living more than six score but my experience doesn’t rule out the possibility that some did for whatever reason. If you never knew of limbs regrowing and someone told you about starfish you might claim they are lying. I think it presumptuous to call Moses a liar without further evidence.
Note also, unlike fantasies, these fantastic ages weren’t scattered willy nilly through a tale; there was some order to it consistent with a possible environmental change. I wonder if new data will one day shed more light.
Nanotechnology is pretty fantastic until you realize that’s what biology is… then it’s mind blowing.
That would be like noting that the sky is blue. Living past 100 is sci-fi, yet “uploading” is plausible option #4? VTOL-grade hand-waving. (Did he forget the /sarc tag?)
That’s a shame. I’m glad my exposure to him is limited to email then, as I still enjoy re-reading some of his Uplift novels occasionally.
That’s a logically sound argument. But it ignores the present-day existence of an archeological record. I didn’t know Moses (or his grandparents) but I do know people who have carbon-dated the bones of our ancestors. They didn’t live 1,000 years.
In fact, I don’t think any animal lives that long naturally. Some plants, certainly, but even long-lived animal species can’t seem to make it past 200.
That’s a shame. I’m glad my exposure to him is limited to email then, as I still enjoy re-reading some of his Uplift novels occasionally.
Be glad you have not met him in person. It means that you can actually read and enjoy his novels which I cannot. His Uplift novels are quite good. I read the first set, prior to meeting him in person. I have not read the second set. I tried to read “Kiln People” but gave up after the first 30 pages or so.
They didn’t live 1,000 years.
How would carbon dating say anything about the age of the person whose bones are tested? I understand it can tell when biological process ceased but that doesn’t give an age of the person themselves?
The archeological record has consistently supported the bible even turning over long held beliefs by the establishment. Currently egyptologists disagree with bible chronology, but I expect that will change with further research over time. In any case, the archeological record is incomplete. So missing things found in other records is no proof of non existence.
Moses wrote Genesis and, like other bible writers, was meticulous about dates. These were real people, his grandparents, and their lives overlapped quite a bit. My experience doesn’t include people living more than six score but my experience doesn’t rule out the possibility that some did for whatever reason. If you never knew of limbs regrowing and someone told you about starfish you might claim they are lying. I think it presumptuous to call Moses a liar without further evidence.
Actually there’s probably at least two authors of Genesis since the tale is told twice in that book. Also, the thing has been copied innumerable times. I think it more likely that someone erroneously confused months down as years. Describing someone’s life in months makes sense in a primitive culture, if you can’t measure a year exactly. Then I imagine someone rationalized the mistake after the fact with the six score thing.
Looking through Genesis, I see that Noah would have been alive for roughly 50 years after Abraham was born. In fact, every one of the chain of ten descendants from Noah to Abraham was still alive at the time of Abraham’s birth, according to Genesis, yet we hear nothing of them. As a result, I think it would be a big mistake to take these numbers literally.
likely that someone erroneously confused months down as years
Thought of that myself, but this would introduce an even worse inconsistency…
Adam a father of Seth at 10 years old? Seth father of Enosh at 8? Enosh father of Kenan at 7?
Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared and Enoch fathers at 5? …and so forth.
…the chain of ten descendants from Noah to Abraham was still alive at the time of Abraham’s birth, according to Genesis…
Which actually gives the story more credence since things can be confirmed by others still alive.
yet we hear nothing of them
Which means nothing. This is actually an amusing filter we all have. “If I haven’t heard of it, it doesn’t exist.” As an example, my stepfather, retired from the airforce, thought I was absolutely wrong that operational jets flew during WW2. He didn’t know about the Me262 and others.
Don’t knock Ted Kennedy. Fifteen months sober — quite a feat, if you ask me!
Ken, sorry but I cannot give any credence to anything citing that original work of speculative fiction (in Harlan Ellison’s memorable phrase) as anything even approaching history. Some lines are uncrossable…
There’s nothing obviously impossible about human beings (or at least some related anthropoid species) living to be 600 long ago. The interesting question is, if they did, why the change? There’s a difficulty for your philosophy, ken. The old-fashioned answer used to be the degeneration of men, whether moral or physical, which struck ancient thinkers as plausible because degeneration over time seemed to be a fact of life in general (iron rusts, wood rots, the Roman Empire fell).
But the process of evolution argues this is essentially impossible with respect to species: species either improve through competition and natural selection, or they may not improve, if there isn’t competition or, like modern humans, have eliminated natural selection as a serious constraint on our fertility. But there’s no known mechanism for devolution — for a species becoming less fit over time.
Which means we must contemplate two hypotheses: (1) there is some unknown process (divine intervention would qualify) that has forced human beings to degenerate since then, or (2) loss of lifespan is in fact an improvement to the species, i.e. we derive some powerful advantage as a species from having lifespans shorter than 100 years.
ken, I thought you were one of the more sensible people on here.
There’s a difficulty for your philosophy, ken.
I’m well aware. Here’s the situation that I see. We have a record that makes a claim. Details are missing. I can claim it to be wrong based on my observational prejudices or I can suspend disbelief which is what I choose.
ken, I thought you were one of the more sensible people on here.
I do try to be Trent, but like most people there are areas where other people might think me nuts.
that original work of speculative fiction
If you were to take everything out of the bible that anyone considers speculative you would be taking out a pamphlet and would have essentially the same book remaining. It is the most scientifically analysed text in existence and have come out well. Over time it’s become even better supported by evidence… not something that usually happens with texts.
It claims that people during a specific age lived long but no longer than a thousand years. That’s an incredible claim, yet people that find that hard to believe are quite willing to believe science studying telomeres will allow us to live forever. Now that seem inconsistent to me.
More proof that I’m nuts. FWIW, I believe in angels but not in ghosts.
I’m not sure if Brin was the only one they could get to disagree with deGray, or the only one they could get to do it in public, but not really a useful read in any case.
Another thing to consider about raising life expectancy is it hasn’t been about raising the limit higher. It’s been more about more people reaching the current limits. Some people throughout recorded history have reached ages like those today. I don’t know that there is much reason to be optimistic about hitting 200 or 300 anytime soon.
I prefer and share the worldview Ken professes, where the universe has a Creator and that Creator has a purpose for our lives that extends into eternity. There is always going to be a lot of debate over interpretation of biblical texts (does a day in Genesis represent a literal 24 hour period or is it figuratively describing something significantly longer) but those debates will always be secondary (and non-essential to be perfectly frank) to your decision to accept or reject God and His purpose for your life.
Regarding the theory of evolution itself, the bible does speak to this pretty specifically in Genesis 1 as the various forms of life are created…ocean species, plant life, land-based animals. Each was created “according to its kind.” Life can adapt to changes in its environment but that one specie will not transform into other species, such as a single celled organism evolving into a staggering array of multicellular life forms.
Carl raises interesting points, as usual. I should read Origin of the Species and will do so some day (just got a Kindle and that ebook is free from Amazon)…I have often wondered if Darwin spoke about how human use of increasingly sophisticated tools factors into his concepts of competition and natural selection.
It is at least plausible that some mutation for (somewhat) extended lifespan existed within the population of Old Testament Jews. Contemporary studies of Ashkenazi Jews indicate an increased prevalence of the IGF1R mutation which appears to be associated with relative longevity: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methuselah-mutation-linked-to-long-life
However, I treat OT claims of extremely long lifespan with great skepticism. Why did the supposed Old Testament ‘Methuselah’ mutation only exist in that geographical area? Why did it disappear? Why didn’t it subsequently reappear anywhere else (particularly with a much larger subsequent population pool to select mutations from)? Why did it not appear in any other mammalian species? Why did it leave no unambiguous trace in the archaelogical record?
If the Methuselah mutation caused child development to be slowed, so that an individual spent a century or more as a dependent child, this may put an undue strain on the resources of a preindustrial society, where the risk of premature death through accident, violence or disease is everpresent. Similarly, a localised population boom resulting from extended lifespan would also put a strain on resources. Unexpected changes in resource usage, population size or (apparent) age distribution should show up in the archaeological record.
Of course, you may choose to believe that the Methuselah phenomenon had a non-physical (divine magic) cause, but then we have nothing useful to discuss.
I find suspension of disbelief is useful for enjoying works of fiction. For everything else, there’s William of Ockham 😉
While I understand and appreciate the motives for Ken’s view (the desire to see the universe as serving some purpose, imposing ultimate justice on an inherently unjust universe and promising life eternal (wow!)) I cannot share it. One can argue that secular philosophers have failed miserably at offering alternatives, but honestly, who could possibly promise all the perks that Jesus offers? He’s Billy Mays on steroids. Fundamentalism also has horrible baggage like mysticism, essentialism (demonstrated by Jiminator) elitism and other things antithetical to the scientific method. On a personal level, I find nothing at all appealing about the rituals of religion, public or private. It’s mind-control at worst, nonsense at best.
You have no idea how disappointed I was after getting married to find out my atheist wife was into spiritism! While I have beliefs that are difficult to defend I believe religion is filled not just with fools but is as the bible says the lurking place of demons. So I do believe as the scripture says that as there is a physical body there is also a spiritual body. Angels (and demons) being of that type.
Physicists believe we live in a world of 11 dimensions (which is a bit more than the four I grew up with.) What makes that belief scientifically legitimate but a greater reality than the four physical dimensions we see not?
There are lots of nuts and they believe a lot of nutty things. I’ve never seen a ghost and most people that say they have are probably nuts in my opinion. But there are many credible reports that indicate it’s not just all the imagination of nuts (but I can’t stand to watch that stupid show ghost hunters. The credible reports are significantly in the minority.)
I don’t believe in UFOs, but again there is a minority of reports that can not so easily be dismissed. The credibility of witness testimony is often a question, but I find it difficult to just dismiss everything I don’t believe in when many people have an alternate view.
Did you know people have six fingers and six toes? Not many, but some. However, I’ve never seen it myself. Should I just go on thinking anybody that believes humans have six digits are nuts? We’re not talking a random mutation here and there, while a low percentage it’s actually quite a large number of people.
Also (not to beat this dead horse) I’m not saying that everyone in that old age lived so long. Apparently living to 200 some time in the near future is not so hard for scientific types to accept. What if one person in that old day lived to be 200. How old might his children live to be?
Make it 600 (if you can imagine 200 why not 600?) How about those children?
Is it really so hard to give Moses the benefit of the doubt about the one lineage he recorded? Sure, if could have just been a family boast. Except it’s not recorded as a boast but a record of lineage which was something they considered rather important to get right.
I tend to wait for actual contrary reports before I dismiss things. I have been fooled (Frank and Christine never were actually married which came as a surprise to Mary) but that’s how I roll.
Fundamentalism also has … things antithetical to the scientific method.
Titus, my calculus teacher in high school, who happened to be a catholic priest thought I had fundamentalist beliefs which in my usual way I accepted as data.
It turns out my views are not fundamentalism. I think fundamentalist are the worst kind of lazy thinking people. I can see disagreeing that every pronouncement of science regarding dates and times is accurate, but to claim six literal days for the creation of the earth doesn’t even agree with the bible (you have to be very careful in your reading and consider Gen 2:4 ‘the day’ consisting of all the creative days.) Also noting that Gen 1:1 is a simple declarative statement giving no indication of when.
I’m not sure if Brin was the only one they could get to disagree with deGray
That could be the case, Dante. Personally I think de Gray is a charlatan, but he’s a very good arguer, and the snake oil he’s selling is very precious, something people really really want to believe will work as advertised. You don’t want to get in front of Juggernaut, even if he is just a big carved stone.
In re the main point, I think it’s abundantly clear that H. sapiens, along with every other species on the planet, has a design lifetime, id est about 75 years in captivity, 40 to 50 in the wild. Why that seems hard to credit, when we so easily accept that mice are designed to live fewer years than elephants, but far more than flies, I do not know. Does anyone doubt that it’s possible to design a mouse that lives 50 years instead of 3? If you tried to breed mice for longevity, are you doomed to failure? Surely not.
Can we change our design lifetime? Why not? I don’t doubt that, with sufficient understanding of genetics, it would be relatively trivial to induce the appropriate mutations. We could even have done it already in a crude way, as Heinlein pointed out, by breeding humans specifically for longevity, the way we bred turkeys for the amount of breast meat or greyhounds for speed. That won’t help anyone already born, but I find it unlikely it won’t be possible in, say, AD 2100, to have your children infected while still an embryo with a special virus that conveys genes that extend their design lifetime to 150 years or so. (Going much over 150 seems like it might require substantial changes to the way our body works; tortoises are noticeably different than elephants.)
But I find it unlikely that it would ever be both technologically and economically possible to repair and patch up every ordinary specimen of the race well past 100. For all the odd little inspiring medical miracles we see here and there, the grim plain fact is that most of us continue to travel the obvious trajectory of our genetic destiny. If our parents and grandparents died of heart disease in their 60s, that is almost always what is going to happen to us. Modern medicine may get us to our 70s (which is precious indeed), but it is not going to get us to 150, not without fantastic and fantastically expensive intervention — which is simply not going to happen, any more than the entire planet is going to give up eating on Tuesdays and Fridays to fly one of us to Mars and back.
I do not mean by this to counsel simple despair. There’s no reason to give up on improving human longevity. As I said, I see no obvious reason why we can’t quite cheaply extend design lifetime by 50% with some tweaking of the DNA. But I do think we should be realistic. We are not the generation for whom this is going to be possible, any more than the generation born in 1680 could have realistically dreamed of spaceflight to the Moon. We should, I think, focus our efforts where they will pay off for our children or grandchildren: in understanding the genetic basis for our nature, including our longevity and health, and in understanding how to improve it.
…any more than the generation born in 1680 could have realistically dreamed of spaceflight to the Moon
I would have… right before they burned me as a witch.
Speaking of mice…
http://singularityhub.com/2010/11/30/harvard-scientists-reverse-the-aging-process-in-mice-total-bullsht/
Hey Titus, while I did use the word “essential” I am not sure that my intent fits your description of the horrible baggage of fundamentalism. Basically when I used that word it meant that I would not argue or get upset if we have a difference of opinion on certain aspects of faith (not that I would necessarily boil over on any difference). Things like how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, is God capable of creating an object so large that even He can’t move it, the ‘proper’ way to baptize, etc. The timeline of the creation story in Genesis would also fall into that arena.
I doubt we will have many opportunities to discuss my faith so I hope that clarifies things, and if there is a next time I will try to choose my words more carefully.
Jiminiator, I was talking about this:
That is essentialism, the dead hand of Plato, and just plain wrong. And no, I’m not going to get involved in Internet Evolution Wars MDCLXVI right now over it.