Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

paperburn1
Posts: 2428
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby paperburn1 » Sat May 18, 2019 2:51 am

breakthrough it determining cell degreation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gxogiUvVkk
telomeres and triggers
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

williatw
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Thu May 23, 2019 11:32 am

22May2019

Considering the Experience of Being One of the Last Mortals


Ever-growing lifespans are the result of regular advances in medical science. In 1900 the three leading causes of death in the United States were pneumonia/influenza, tuberculosis, and diarrhoea. Only a century and a bit on, many of the major acute illnesses are tractable. Every month brings striking new medical advances. Increasingly, medical research is shifting from acute conditions such as influenza towards chronic conditions including diabetes and Alzheimer's. Ageing is the ultimate chronic condition, and there seems to be no reason, in principle at least, that would prevent us from discovering a means of halting or reversing ageing itself.

What if that all happens sooner rather than later? But what if it's not soon enough? Imagine that, after a few more breakthroughs, a scientific consensus emerges that we will have conquered illness and ageing by the year 2119; anyone alive in 2119 is likely to live for centuries, even millennia. You and I are very unlikely to make it to 2119. But we are likely to make it relatively close to that date - in fact, relative to the span of human history, we've already made it very close right now. Think that through, carefully. What would it mean to realize that you very nearly got to live forever, but didn't? What would it mean if, in our looming senescence, we were increasingly forced to share social space with young people whose anticipated allotment of time massively dwarfs our own? We would then be the last mortals.


https://www.fightaging.org/archives/201 ... t-mortals/


The comments (some of them) are more interesting than the article they are commenting about:

Sadly and however much life extensionists are loath to admit it, the real doom line isn't chronological age but income, since those who can afford experimental therapies and are cued in enough to know that they exist (education is in itself a marker of wealth) will be able to reduce their yearly risk of death much sooner than the frey. Which means that it's entirely plausible for the odds to LEV of a population of rich 60 (or even 70) year olds to be higher than those of a population of poor 40 year olds.


There's a scary little word at the end of the TLS article, one that isn't as much as whispered in our community even though it nags at the back of everybody's mind. Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will.


Posted by: John S at May 22nd, 2019 9:23 PM

To me it doesn't make sense at all to draw the line of doom at 40, which is the conventional beginning of middle age. In fact, it doesn't make much sense to draw it at 60, since as Antonio said a 40 year old woman in Spain is already expected to live to 90. This includes smokers, the obese, couch potatoes etc. so it's reasonable to believe that a clean living woman will reach 95. But wait, I was talking about a 60 year old, which means adding another couple of years to the total since we have already eliminated all the deaths occurring between 40 and 59.

To this intervention-less life expectancy of 97 we can add the 3 years or so (very, very conservative estimate) that will be brought on by a combination of NAD+, metformin, rapamycin, and cancer immunotherapy - just to mention stuff that exists. Plus 5 years from senolytics, if we are being conservative too, for a grand total of 105.

So now we can expect 50% of all 60 year old women in Spain to make it to 2064. Does anyone really believe that in almost half a century we will be stuck with the same therapies of today? SENS is supposed to repair the damage caused by aging, so by then we should have enough first or even second generation treatments not to slow the rate at which these centenatians keep aging, which would be pointless, but to shave off at least 20-30 years from their biological age (= statistical risk of death).

Of course the yearly risk of death of an 80 year old woman is pretty high, so without any additional breakthrough she wouldn't last much longer, and precisely, according to current mortality rates which are a gross underestimate, 11 years. Now it's 2075... at which point there will likely be a bunch of ways to avoid death in addition to cell repair, from mind uploading to reliable suspended animation, via more esoteric stuff like body transplants and robotics.

The usual objection here is that SENS may repair damage comprehensively enough only in those who aren't literally aged to death, which would disqualify our 105 year olds... IF these therapies went from being fantasy in 2063 to hitting the market all at once in 2064, which clearly won't be the case. My point is, the 105 year old women queuing for the latest rejuvenation trearment in 2064 will be biologically younger than any current 105 year old thanks to the cumulative rejuvenating effects of all the post-senolytic therapies that will gradually become available from, say, the mid 2020s onwards.

Sadly and however much life extensionists are loath to admit it, the real doom line isn't chronological age but income, since those who can afford experimental therapies and are cued in enough to know that they exist (education is in itself a marker of wealth) will be able to reduce their yearly risk of death much sooner than the frey. Which means that it's entirely plausible for the odds to LEV of a population of rich 60 (or even 70) year olds to be higher than those of a population of poor 40 year olds.

What I am getting at is that we shouldn't be talking about odds to biological immortality in terms of generations. Firstly because the thinking is flawed, and secondly because it doesn't help our cause given that the vast majority of radical life extension supporters - and those we need the help of - are already middle aged, close to it, or well above.

There's a scary little word at the end of the TLS article, one that isn't as much as whispered in our community even though it nags at the back of everybody's mind. Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will.



https://www.fightaging.org/archives/201 ... /#comments


The last mortals may be ghosts before their time, destined to look on in growing envy at the enormous stretches of life left to their near-contemporaries. In one sense, it will be the greatest inequity experienced in all human history.


https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/publ ... mortality/


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests