MirariNefas:
Your part 1 makes sense to me. However, I am not qualified to have a real opinion. But it makes sense.
Your part 2 is interesting. Assuming there are better adapted individuals in each group (parents, off spring, grand kids) and those individual tend to produce more kids, I guess it wouldn't matter where the mutation came from. There would be a very tight malthusian ecosystem and the best adapted would tend to have more offspring.
What if we add wisdom to age? That is, we have critters that can learn, and the longer they live, the better they can compete with others in their cohort group and, especially, with the younger generations. Can you imagine a situation where the younger generations, even with some very nice mutations, might not produce as many kids of their own? They simply cannot compete with the experience of the old folks. Of course, if a young critter appears with a very good ability to learn, maybe it wouldn't matter.
Methuselah Mouse
-
MirariNefas
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am
I agree, wisdom would raise a large difficulty. If humans could live forever, I'd expect the old (or at least, many of the old) to raise up financial empires and the like based on decades of business acumen and accumulated contacts. It would be very difficult for the young to penetrate into that, even with good genes.
A while back, I calculated the human life expectancy if we would not have sickness nor aging, but keeping death by accidents, suicides and murders. It turn out that if you live in Chicago, you can expect to live about 100 years more ( a 50% chance, call it the human half life). So, there is still a mechanism to get rid of the old guys.MirariNefas wrote:I agree, wisdom would raise a large difficulty. If humans could live forever, I'd expect the old (or at least, many of the old) to raise up financial empires and the like based on decades of business acumen and accumulated contacts. It would be very difficult for the young to penetrate into that, even with good genes.
Then again, the half life for my home town was 1200years, but it would be quite boring there!
Autophagosomes.
They clean out the cytoplasm. Stress and starvation signal the cell to speed up the assembly of autophagosomes. A breakdown in this process is suspect in Alzeimers and Huntingtons.
In an aging brain the autophagosomes fail to mature, tend to collect at neurites, swelling the neurites. This may play a key role in the plaque formation associated with Alzeimers.
They clean out the cytoplasm. Stress and starvation signal the cell to speed up the assembly of autophagosomes. A breakdown in this process is suspect in Alzeimers and Huntingtons.
In an aging brain the autophagosomes fail to mature, tend to collect at neurites, swelling the neurites. This may play a key role in the plaque formation associated with Alzeimers.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
IIRC the human brain only has enough storage space for about 1000 years worth of memory.MSimon wrote:Isn't that the way it always is.Then again, the half life for my home town was 1200years, but it would be quite boring there!
Knowledge.Roger wrote:Autophagosomes.
They clean out the cytoplasm. Stress and starvation signal the cell to speed up the assembly of autophagosomes. A breakdown in this process is suspect in Alzeimers and Huntingtons.
In an aging brain the autophagosomes fail to mature, tend to collect at neurites, swelling the neurites. This may play a key role in the plaque formation associated with Alzeimers.
Thanks Roger.
Aubrey de Grey seems less of a nut with each passing year.
Vae Victis
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Glad I caught up with this thread. As it happens, I've been watching Aubrey de Grey for longer than I've been watching Polywell. I've been fascinated by his work.
And who wouldn't be. It's the search for the Fountain of Youth. No, not something to prolong old age, but literally something to keep us from aging at all.
The question of cancer, therefore, is moot. Doesn't matter whether or not aging is a response to cancer (there's interesting work being done in apoptosis right now with cancer, however). The fact is that the first thing Aubrey de Grey says is that if you want to have consistent replication for a long time, the first thing you need is "a really good cure for cancer."
Yes, SENS is predicated on that happening. Given that there's more money for cancer research than for just about anything else in the world, however, he's not too concerned about that. It'll come eventually.
What's more important, then, is coming up with ways to clean out the inter- and intra-cellular "junk" that accumulates as we age. There are some interesting approaches that they're looking at right now.
Calorie restriction, while proven to have some small effect with humans, is not a solution to aging. It just slows it down a little. De Grey endorses it only in that it's a way to achieve "escape velocity" for more people. That is, how to live long enough until the technology exists to unage you.
In any case, it's fascinating because of the allegory of the Fountain of Youth (there was a movie about this, recently...). That is, is it better to accept what seems unchangable, or to go off in chase of something that might be unchangable, hoping to change it? There are deep questions of epistemology and the soul embedded here. I think, as technologists here, we're all likely to fall under Aubrey's spell. And, if he's right, then we probably should. But one wonders...
Anyway, before arguing about things like overpopulation and such, check out the SENS pages linked at the top of the thread to see the arguments laid out. Aubrey de Grey has, if nothing else, thought out the ethical arguments involved. And it's hard to deny his logic on basic questions like overpopulation and the like. Once you've read that stuff, then you'll have a more advanced jumping off point from which to argue these sorts of points.
Now, that said, keep this in mind. Aubrey de Grey is a shaman. He really doesn't know all that much about the sciences he talks about himself (and he admits as much). He's really more about a method of development, than any particular hypothesis. As such, the story he tells may well be just another wild goose-chase for the Fountain of Youth. What he's doing is challenging the rest of us to change our mind-frames, and accept that maybe we should be chasing this particular dream.
Because with science, maybe it is possible. Nobody can point out why it's not, interestingly, or are willing to get into a debate about it... (interestingly it's not in the interest of any legit gerontologist to debate him, because his claims are so general as to be hard to debate - as such the best you could hope would be not to be made a fool of - SENS has no Art Carlson, because it has no Nebel).
This is why we have the research now at the level of the Mouse Prize. The mouse prize doesn't specify any particular technology or way to achieve longevity. It merely gives out the award for those that come up with it by any method. It's another "X' prize sort of deal.
What SENS would need to really take off is some first rate scientist in the field to come out and say that he thinks that it can be done. Better yet, a few. But until the hypotheses are better, that's unlikely to happen. So we'll continue on with the mPrize for a while, I'd guess.
Mike
P.S. on the Chicago lifespan... if you knew that you could live without aging, would you continue to participate in life-threatening technologies like driving a car? I mean... you have a long time... what's the rush? Why risk it?
And who wouldn't be. It's the search for the Fountain of Youth. No, not something to prolong old age, but literally something to keep us from aging at all.
The question of cancer, therefore, is moot. Doesn't matter whether or not aging is a response to cancer (there's interesting work being done in apoptosis right now with cancer, however). The fact is that the first thing Aubrey de Grey says is that if you want to have consistent replication for a long time, the first thing you need is "a really good cure for cancer."
Yes, SENS is predicated on that happening. Given that there's more money for cancer research than for just about anything else in the world, however, he's not too concerned about that. It'll come eventually.
What's more important, then, is coming up with ways to clean out the inter- and intra-cellular "junk" that accumulates as we age. There are some interesting approaches that they're looking at right now.
Calorie restriction, while proven to have some small effect with humans, is not a solution to aging. It just slows it down a little. De Grey endorses it only in that it's a way to achieve "escape velocity" for more people. That is, how to live long enough until the technology exists to unage you.
In any case, it's fascinating because of the allegory of the Fountain of Youth (there was a movie about this, recently...). That is, is it better to accept what seems unchangable, or to go off in chase of something that might be unchangable, hoping to change it? There are deep questions of epistemology and the soul embedded here. I think, as technologists here, we're all likely to fall under Aubrey's spell. And, if he's right, then we probably should. But one wonders...
Anyway, before arguing about things like overpopulation and such, check out the SENS pages linked at the top of the thread to see the arguments laid out. Aubrey de Grey has, if nothing else, thought out the ethical arguments involved. And it's hard to deny his logic on basic questions like overpopulation and the like. Once you've read that stuff, then you'll have a more advanced jumping off point from which to argue these sorts of points.
Now, that said, keep this in mind. Aubrey de Grey is a shaman. He really doesn't know all that much about the sciences he talks about himself (and he admits as much). He's really more about a method of development, than any particular hypothesis. As such, the story he tells may well be just another wild goose-chase for the Fountain of Youth. What he's doing is challenging the rest of us to change our mind-frames, and accept that maybe we should be chasing this particular dream.
Because with science, maybe it is possible. Nobody can point out why it's not, interestingly, or are willing to get into a debate about it... (interestingly it's not in the interest of any legit gerontologist to debate him, because his claims are so general as to be hard to debate - as such the best you could hope would be not to be made a fool of - SENS has no Art Carlson, because it has no Nebel).
This is why we have the research now at the level of the Mouse Prize. The mouse prize doesn't specify any particular technology or way to achieve longevity. It merely gives out the award for those that come up with it by any method. It's another "X' prize sort of deal.
What SENS would need to really take off is some first rate scientist in the field to come out and say that he thinks that it can be done. Better yet, a few. But until the hypotheses are better, that's unlikely to happen. So we'll continue on with the mPrize for a while, I'd guess.
Mike
P.S. on the Chicago lifespan... if you knew that you could live without aging, would you continue to participate in life-threatening technologies like driving a car? I mean... you have a long time... what's the rush? Why risk it?
Last edited by Mike Holmes on Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's maybe worth noting that one of the simplest, most effective things you can do to extend life is consume green tea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_ ... _on_health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_ ... _on_health
Awesome post, Mike!
Something I wonder about is how few people are actually registered as competing for the M prize. I would have imagined that a lot more researchers (and CEOs) would be feeling their ages and trying to speed things up. Why is it that I, a 20-something undergrad, seem to be more interested in it than them?
Something I wonder about is how few people are actually registered as competing for the M prize. I would have imagined that a lot more researchers (and CEOs) would be feeling their ages and trying to speed things up. Why is it that I, a 20-something undergrad, seem to be more interested in it than them?
-
MirariNefas
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am
Because this is even harder than rocket science. Developing, testing, and marketing a new drug costs on average about a billion dollars. That's just one drug, for doing one thing slightly better than the last drug, and we're not even getting into cutting edge stuff like stem cells.
Development of spaceshipone was estimated at something like $25 million. That's a pretty stark difference.
That said, I know there is a fair amount of university research into aging, and usage of rodents as test organisms is pretty standard. I'm sure a number of them have their eyes on the M prize, though they may not have the funding to do it quickly. And being government funded, they won't be doing it as flashily as the private space industry. You hear about corporations trying to generate interest and investors, you don't hear about some lab in oklahoma writing a grant application.
Development of spaceshipone was estimated at something like $25 million. That's a pretty stark difference.
That said, I know there is a fair amount of university research into aging, and usage of rodents as test organisms is pretty standard. I'm sure a number of them have their eyes on the M prize, though they may not have the funding to do it quickly. And being government funded, they won't be doing it as flashily as the private space industry. You hear about corporations trying to generate interest and investors, you don't hear about some lab in oklahoma writing a grant application.
Does it?MirariNefas wrote:Because this is even harder than rocket science. Developing, testing, and marketing a new drug costs on average about a billion dollars.
How much of that is the CYA regulation put in place after the thalidomide disaster?
According to a late friend of mine who worked for Merck, 2/3 to 75% of Pharma expenses are advertising. So how much do the research programs really cost?
Duane
Vae Victis
I worked at a pharmaceutical company for a couple of years in a support role. This is a "No product" new start up, La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, ticker symbol LJCP. They have been working for years to develop a drug treatment for Lupas kidney disease. I bought stock and followed them closely since. They have absolutely nothing to sell. Every year they sell more stock to raise another year's worth of working capital. They raise about $6 million per year. I would estimate that this company has been working for 12 years and are still in the final stages of phase 3 clinical trials. That means $72 million and counting to completely establish the laboratory and supporting facilities, hire staff, do research, hire industry experts for the drug development phases, build manufacturing facility and manufacture production drugs for clinical trial, rent and everything else, for a single product. Of course now they have lines on a couple more products, but they didn't for a long time. So you figure out how much of the cost is one time start up cost, and how much is recurring for each drug development.
My point? A new drug costs less than $50 million if it is successful, and very few go that far then fail. I think $100 million is a very high estimate for the cost of the actual drug development, and $1 billion is a lie.
My point? A new drug costs less than $50 million if it is successful, and very few go that far then fail. I think $100 million is a very high estimate for the cost of the actual drug development, and $1 billion is a lie.
Aero