Curing aging and cannabis.

[Betruger]

In its own thread.

Again, it's not my issue. Curing aging is as fundamental as getting past material scarcity. As the Singularity, if it were feasible. Cannabis as you argue it is a subset of curing aging - it's everyone's issue.

I'm not really angry. Just exasperated at this point. How can people be so indifferent? In literally any other subject, it's a pretty sensible reaction. But curing aging, for something like 10M$ a year in a decade? How are the implications not computing?

And no anger and frustration would be a lack of integrity, I reckon. Something has to be done. Choosing not to live longer, given a choice, is fine. Choosing not to give ourselves that choice is immoral, period. It is no less fundamental and imperative as anything the Constitution stands for, for instance.

Have you looked at this TED talk by de Gray? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0lvxTm2iLg

A LOT of what he discusses is treated by cannabis. 80% of medical costs are aging related. He names cancer. If cancer pops up - even in its very late stages - a few hundred $$ worth of cannabis (grown yourself) cures it. And cannabis adds brain cells. And protects the ones you already have and..... And we can use it now until we get something better.

Something is being done. It is just not in the direction you think is the correct one. I think your $1E7 a year in a decade is a very high number few will find it affordable. I think you could get at least 80% of what you desire for $100 a year per person. NOW. With cannabis. If the government would back off. Think of all the people who could afford that. In the 1st world that is pocket change.

Ten mil a year is nothing in a national budget. Never mind the world's. Which is the demographic concerned. Even less when it's about something as non-trivial as multiplying the amount of everything the government stands for. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and whatever people want to do with them. It's not an analog or a closely related thing, it's the same thing. All of politics, all of legislation, tax codes, municipal ordinances, all of it is supposed to maximize people's life.

It isn't my cause; it's not any one's cause; it's not a niche concern. All of civilization is about life.

[MSimon]

In its own thread.

Again, it's not my issue. Curing aging is as fundamental as getting past material scarcity. As the Singularity, if it were feasible. Cannabis as you argue it is a subset of curing aging - it's everyone's issue.

I'm not really angry. Just exasperated at this point. How can people be so indifferent? In literally any other subject, it's a pretty sensible reaction. But curing aging, for something like 10M$ a year in a decade? How are the implications not computing?

And no anger and frustration would be a lack of integrity, I reckon. Something has to be done. Choosing not to live longer, given a choice, is fine. Choosing not to give ourselves that choice is immoral, period. It is no less fundamental and imperative as anything the Constitution stands for, for instance.

Have you looked at this TED talk by de Gray? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0lvxTm2iLg

A LOT of what he discusses is treated by cannabis. 80% of medical costs are aging related. He names cancer. If cancer pops up - even in its very late stages - a few hundred $$ worth of cannabis (grown yourself) cures it. And cannabis adds brain cells. And protects the ones you already have and..... And we can use it now until we get something better.

Something is being done. It is just not in the direction you think is the correct one. I think your $1E7 a year in a decade is a very high number few will find it affordable. I think you could get at least 80% of what you desire for $100 a year per person. NOW. With cannabis. If the government would back off. Think of all the people who could afford that. In the 1st world that is pocket change.

Ten mil a year is nothing in a national budget. Never mind the world's. Which is the demographic concerned. Even less when it's about something as non-trivial as multiplying the amount of everything the government stands for. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and whatever people want to do with them. It's not an analog or a closely related thing, it's the same thing. All of politics, all of legislation, tax codes, municipal ordinances, all of it is supposed to maximize people's life.

It isn't my cause; it's not any one's cause; it's not a niche concern. All of civilization is about life.

But what is the cost per person? And if it is $10 Mil a year why doesn't some one just start a foundation? Or crowd fund it?

What exactly is niche about a cure for cancer? Age related dementia? Diabetes - treatment- prevention? I could go on. It looks niche to you because of prejudice. But covering all the degenerative diseases of the body is not niche. And it is life extension.

[Betruger]

It doesn't look niche to me. I'm arguing the opposite. Hence why, even if it's a niggle, it's flat out wrong to suggest curing aging as "my" cause, versus cannabis.

Another niggle there, cannabis has to be offered as something else than smoke. I like my lungs and probably most people will simply refuse to smoke.

if it is $10 Mil a year why doesn't some one just start a foundation? Or crowd fund it?

You're screwing with me right?

This is from the vid you asked if I'd seen.

But what is the cost per person?

I don't know how to parse that, exactly.

Yes I've seen that talk, in one or two of its other iterations already [edit- that's a 20min version of the ~1h version I've seen]. Pretty much all of his talks, from around 2004 or so. Then I was studying biochemistry to get into life extension. I changed career plans since and I've forgotten almost everything. I'm only at the stage of compiling a reading list right now. Really wish I'd kept my study notes and books from back then.

[tomclarke]

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org ... ce-so-far/

http://cannabis-med.org/index.php?tpl=f ... 274&lng=en

(1) the evidence so far for cannabis curing cancer looks positive but not wonder-drug. Cannabinoids do have some anti-tumour activity - but so do many other molecules.

(2) there is definitely evidence for cannabis being effective at alleviating symptoms of many things: and while this is important anecdotal evidence can't be trusted because of this.

(3) There is active research going on into possible therapeutic uses of cannabis. It is not being ignored.

Virtually all the research into cannabinoids and cancer cells has been conducted so far using cancer cells grown in the lab or in animal models. Many scientific studies have reported that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) exert a wide range of growth-inhibiting effects on cancer cells, including:
- Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosis.
- Stopping cells from dividing.
- Preventing new blood vessels from growing into tumours –a process termed angiogenesis.
- Reducing the chances of cancer cells to metastasize through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissue.
- Speeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ –a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death.

Conclusion: Cannabinoids are efficacious drugs to treat at least some types of cancers in laboratory animals –mice and rats.

Do cannabinoids inhibit cancer growth? (Clinical research)
Results have been published from only one Phase I clinical trial testing whether cannabinoids can treat cancer in patients. Nine people with advanced, recurrent glioblastoma multiforme –an aggressive brain tumour– that had previously failed standard therapy were given highly purified THC through a catheter directly into their brain. Under these conditions cannabinoid delivery was safe and could be achieved without significant unwanted effects. In addition, although no statistically-significant conclusions can be extracted from such a small cohort of patients and without a control group, the results obtained suggested that some patients responded -at least partially- to THC treatment in terms of decreased tumour growth rate, as evaluated by imaging and biomarker analyses. These findings were encouraging and substantially reinforced the interest on the potential use of cannabinoids in cancer therapies. However, they also highlighted the need for further research aimed at optimizing the use of cannabinoids in terms of patient selection, combination with other anticancer agents and use of other routes of administration.

Conclusion: There are still many unanswered questions around the potential for using cannabinoids as anticancer drugs, and it is necessary and desirable that exhaustive clinical studies are conducted to determine how cannabinoids can be used, other than for their palliative effects, to treat cancer patients.

The cannabinoids that are effective as anti-cancer agents do not seem to be the same as those which are psycho-active. So whether you view societal prejudice against the psycho-active effects of cannabis as good or bad, using cannabis for cancer treatment is probably a separate issue.

Whether self-dosing on cannabis as a home-brew cancer treatment should be legalised everywhere is another matter. Without isolating the active agents, dosing is likely to overdose on all the other stuff, since cancer drugs are always a balance between high enough dose to have effect on the tumours and low enough to avoid side effects.

[MSimon]

Tom,

From what I have read the cannabinoids potentiate each other. And andamide (the body's THC analog) has a receptor on cancer cells that causes apoptosis in those cells. Look up " biochemist Dennis Hill cancer " - he explains it.

B,

Smoking cannabis is known to reduce tumors in the lungs. You can look it up. There are vaporizers, edibles, and oil for different methods of ingestion.

=====================

We are just at the beginning of all this and the research is fragmentary at best. Due to government interference.

Suppose cannabis is only good for 40% of that 80%. That is at minimum $ .8 trillion. Not too far off from my BOE of $1 to $1.5 trillion.

I think we will cover most of the 80% when our knowledge base is better.

And then the plant will be modified for specific maladies. Like Charlotte's Web.

=====

There are at least 60+ cannabinoids in cannabis. Some are agonists. Some are antagonists. I'm guessing different mixes will do different things. As of now we have a slight understanding of maybe 5 or 8 of the compounds. We do know that CBD + THC is currently the best mix against cancer. But it is early days. We may find something better. When unfettered research is possible.

My guess is that if they prove life extending we will find people using this stuff their whole life. Wouldn't that be amusing?

=====

We do know that endocannabinoid production peaks in the 15 to 25 age range. Now if we could figure how to stimulate the body.....

[Betruger]

.. There's no way I can get thru this much reading in the week I have left before my holidays are over.

What is the financial benefit of cannabis as above, compared to that of SENS? You have to be fair in comparing.

[williatw]

How Close Are Humans to Immortality?

The question How close are humans to immortality? has been studied at great lengths by different scientists in different fields. However a consensus has been achieved by a specific community of these observers on the answer to the question. Scientist Ray Kurzweil and his followers all agree that humans are about 20-25 years away from being able to live as long as they wish.


Yet what will enable the inhabitants of earth to do so? Kurzweil, a notable predictor of the milestones humanity achieved, believes that the key to immortality is nanotechnology. He thinks that given the trend of computers becoming smaller and more efficient, people will be able to have nanobots circulating in their veins, cleaning and providing perpetual maintenance. He also hypothesizes that robots will replace our organs when they fail. These advances would mean that so long as the robots are powered and working well, they will keep their humans alive and kicking.

Sounds good...trouble is Kurzweil has being making these kinds of over-the-top predictions for years; well we can but hope. Imagine a thousand years worth of posts by GIThruster, Diogenes, & MSimon arguing for and against the legalization of drugs...

http://guardianlv.com/2014/07/how-close ... UoVBuVj.99

[MSimon]

.. There's no way I can get thru this much reading in the week I have left before my holidays are over.

What is the financial benefit of cannabis as above, compared to that of SENS? You have to be fair in comparing.

Since no one knows the cost of SENS that is not possible. Hot house tomatoes cost about $5 a lb retail. Let us say cannabis with a whole lot of manual labor costs $50 a lb.

So there you have it - regular use (fairly heavy) for prevention - $50 a year. Let us say you got cancer and required very extreme amounts for a short time. That would then be $500 per episode.

Now those estimates are high end and assume no government taxes above ordinary (tomatoes). So life time costs - about $100 a year - assuming you get cancer once every 10 years. And that is probably high end. Or it may be low. But it is in the ball park. The medical system is then reduced to repairing accidents. About $500 bn a year. vs $2 trillion.

But we HAVE to get government out of the way. Of ALL of it.

[MSimon]

Sounds good...trouble is Kurzweil has being making these kinds of over-the-top predictions for years; well we can but hope. Imagine a thousand years worth of posts by GIThruster, Diogenes, & MSimon arguing for and against the legalization of drugs...

Well let me see. While GIThruster and Diogenes are arguing a rear guard action, me and a few million of my friends are actually legalizing.

So you are being unfair to GIThruster and Diogenes. They are losing the real argument. Badly.

[Betruger]

There's no way govt is going to get out of the way. Curing aging = a longer lived workforce (more taxes; before big pharma income), and reduced cost of elderly healthcare, and people less dependent on govt if longer lifespan after formative part of life does (as it ought to) increase cumulative income.

That goes against the practical reality of govt. It using any excuse for more govt bureaucracy. Judging by how people seem to hate the idea that they and others (or maybe just others) would get to live longer, the culture change will only really (meaning more than pioneering minority) happen after life extension's become commonplace. That's part of why I don't see cannabis as such a good bet. Too much cultural friction. In the public and in govt. People don't wonder at and adapt to the implications. They just blue screen and obsess about everything that needs to change; everything they need to lose. Nevermind if it's dwarfed by how much they stand to gain.

Whereas something like the SENS agenda is those seven types of damage. Method-agnostic. No drug, and thereby political, connotation. "Drug" in the illegal drug sense.
--
What a stupid, stupid status quo. This pre-post-aging era's going to be a real treat, in retrospect. Thousands of souls gone to waste daily, for literally no good reason. It's just revolting.

--
There's no way I can even scratch the surface in a single week of reading. Consider me withdrawn from detailed, thorough arguing.

[MSimon]

What a stupid, stupid status quo. This pre-post-aging era's going to be a real treat, in retrospect. Thousands of souls gone to waste daily, for literally no good reason. It's just revolting.

Well now you know why I'm so adamant in my position.

But cavalry to the rescue: Rand Paul On Ferguson - Policing Skewed By Race
and
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/08/rand ... d-by-race/ where I discuss the drug war explicitly.

[Betruger]

The war on drugs is just one of many symptoms of the root causes: material and energy scarcity, and aging. Too little time to make too few things happen using too little energy; if you're lucky enough that money's no object.

Time is the only thing that single-handedly changes everything in the world. No war on drugs doesn't give Man the maturity of centuries, and it doesn't give us the universe. The war on drugs is a 20th century issue, while the war on aging is the first step to eternity.

A drug corruption free groundhog day is still a groundhog day.

[MSimon]

The war on drugs is a war on the immediate cure for cancer. It is not quite over. So it IS a 21st century issue.

But no matter. It is not your issue. It is mine. And that seems to be more than enough.

[williatw]

Bill Andrews on Singularity 1 on 1: Ageing is not going to cure itself!


by Socrates



Bill Andrews and Aubrey de Grey are “The Immortalists”

My favorite quotes that I will take away from this conversation with Bill Andrews are:


“Cure Ageing or Die Trying” [I just cannot not start with this one ;-]

“In my opinion nature wants us dead as soon as we’ve raised our young”

“Ageing is not going to cure itself – it requires funding. People think that the government is funding all the research in ageing but the government is not interested… Large pharma is not interested. If people are really out there wondering why nobody is curing ageing right now it’s because we need the private individuals that are passionate about this subject to be funding the research. And not just my research – everybody’s research.”

http://www.singularityweblog.com/bill-a ... ign=buffer

[williatw]

Well let me see. While GIThruster and Diogenes are arguing a rear guard action, me and a few million of my friends are actually legalizing.

So you are being unfair to GIThruster and Diogenes. They are losing the real argument. Badly.

I said argue the point (for the next thousand years)...I didn't say win the argument.