Ending Biological Aging?

[Veritas21]

In my academic travels I happened upon a most curious book, "Ending Aging" by Dr. Aubrey de Grey. Dr. de Grey describes a unique engineering approach to tackling biological aging in human beings that is receiving increasingly positive feedback from the academic community.

The idea that human beings are biological organisms and can be manipulated and "maintained" through biotechnology indefinitely has considerable face validity. De Grey's strategy is called SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Scenescence), and literally is intended to exist as a "catch all" plan to eliminate biological aging.

I recently attended an academic conference at UCLA hosted by De Grey's $10 million non-profit organization (the Methuselah Foundation, see mfoundation .org). Among the presenters was Jerry Shay (a world expert on telomeres and telomerase), Bruce Ames (a biochemist that is among the few hundred most-cited scientists in all fields), and Ana Maria Cuervo (lysosomal pathway researcher) to name a few. Their message rang loud and clear in conjunction with the dozens of scientists that presented, and even more in attendance. "Aging is a disease. Aging can be cured. There is a strong chance it will happen soon."

The purpose of my posting here, aside from increasing awareness of these undertakings, is to ask people's opinions about some of the issues surrounding radically extended human lives, and of course, what impact such technologies would have on religion.

 

[mpok1519]

aging is a disease eh? that sounds a bit, i dunno, crazy.

what happens when we're all immortal then? Clone all our food so theres enough of it?

Or is this just a thing that'd be avaliable to the richest ten ercent of the world? great; thats what we need; the richest ten percent of the world controlling the rest of the world forever and never dying. lol

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Like all medical advances, the rich would benefit first, but more and more people would get it as time went on.

There would be a backlash from the fundy side of the Church, like there always is, but I see no major theological problem with it. There might be something like the Amish colonies we have today, set up by those that disagree with it. But they will continue to die and they will likely fade to small numbers like the Amish have.

It will be interesting to see the social changes that this will bring. Reproduction will have to be limited to avoid over population, that is certain, but in almost all industrial nations, this is happening anyway, without governmental limits.

It is a fun thing to ponder though.

 

[keeptrying]

Interesting. I don't think it is possible.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Interesting. I don't think it is possible.

Interesting. Why do you think aging is impossible to stop?

 

[mpok1519]

oh, its possible; I don't think one can become immortal through technology, lest they actually BECOME a piece of technology rather than a person, but it is possible to live to be beyond a hundred years+ or so with the latest medical advances.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

oh, its possible; I don't think one can become immortal through technology, lest they actually BECOME a piece of technology rather than a person, but it is possible to live to be beyond a hundred years+ or so with the latest medical advances.

That is another interesting side bar to this topic, where does person-hood begin and end. If one could transfer every thought process that made them like they are into a computer do they stop being a person? What is lost?

If the soul does not follow, how much of our body can we loose and keep an intact soul? If I loose a leg and replace it with a mechanical one is that enough or is it the brain that is what one needs to keep?

Interesting questions.

 

[Vene]

Interesting. I don't think it is possible.

It may be more possible than you think. There are human cells which are effectively immortal, at least ageless. They are called cancer cells. They are able to divide infinitely due to changes in their telomeres. Normal cells stop dividing after about 50-70 'generations,' cancer cells do not have this restriction. It may be possible to use this knowledge to either increase our lifespan, or even to make all of our cells immortal.

As for whether it's a good idea, who can say?

 

[Veritas21]

aging is a disease eh? that sounds a bit, i dunno, crazy.

what happens when we're all immortal then? Clone all our food so theres enough of it?

Or is this just a thing that'd be avaliable to the richest ten ercent of the world? great; thats what we need; the richest ten percent of the world controlling the rest of the world forever and never dying. lol

I am curious why you would consider the notion that aging is a disease, and therefore treatable to be crazy. I would encourage you to look over the SENS website (sens .org) and read up on it a bit. I am actually a SENS student researcher and I am thoroughly convinced that although such a think WASN'T possibly even a mere decade ago, such a thing is very possible within our lifetimes.

I would like to note that there is a distinct different between true immortality and biological immortality. True immortality cannot be achieved with modern medical technology, but biological immortality can. Just because we do not die of old age does not mean we cannot be hit by a bus.

You feel that only the richest would benefit from such a system. While the rich would probably be the first recipients, there is no reason to think such technologies would not go mainstream. For everyone that lives within a democratic society, I fail to see how anyone could be elected to office that did not support this idea if the populous wants these treatments available. The projected costs of such treatments are manageable by industrialized nations and would certainly trickle down to everyone if that was what the public wanted.

I have personally investigated the need for population controls if such technologies are developed. I have posted these findings on the MF's forums under Social Issues / Overpopulation revisited. I suggest you check those out if you feel that overpopulation is an issue. However, as noted by LewisWildermuth, industrialized nations are reducing population presently without government intervention so population management is not unrealistic.

As far as the soul issue, thats a very curious question that I don't think anyone really has the answer to. For me, I have read extensively on the soul and so called free will, and I feel that there is no evidence for a soul and have read empirical studies that clearly reject the notion of free will. Most of the theories proposed to deal with aging according to SENS will not involve any sort of cybornetic or computerized alterations. They are all meant to defeat aging on a biological level. I won't explain the plan in detail here because it is clearly defined on the website, but I would certainly be pleased to answer any questions about it.

 

[mpok1519]

ever hear of Shadowrun and cyberware?

sci-fi preceeds sci-fact

 

[lawtonfogle]

While making us immortal, it would be biological immortality, not immortality (which I hope everyone already knew). As such, cancer would still be a problem, and the longer we live, the more chance we have of getting it. We would need to cure it as well. Also, if you ever got AIDs... well your kinda screwed on the living forever scene. Probably, the best way to do this would be to put people into a strictly controlled environment, but we know that won't go over well.

Really, I think we are close to far extending human life time past the norm, even the max, but not all the way to biological immortality. We will just eliminate a few of the things that kill us, and as a result we will live longer.

Then again, maybe I'll just go make myself a machine. Maybe I could go and Deus ex Macina society... that would be fun.

 

[Veritas21]

As such, cancer would still be a problem, and the longer we live, the more chance we have of getting it. We would need to cure it as well. Also, if you ever got AIDs... well your kinda screwed on the living forever scene. Probably, the best way to do this would be to put people into a strictly controlled environment, but we know that won't go over well.

Cancer is easily cured according to WILT, but the difficulty lies in the ability to enhance stem cell technology to match the need. WILT basically involves genetically altering humans to eliminate the telomere gene, thus preventing all forms of cancer from replicating uncontrolably. The problem of course is that our normal cells could not reproduce as long as we need them to. The simple solution to this is the application of advanced stem cell technology to rejuvenate tissue where needed. Unfortuneatly, the Bush Administration has foolishly botched our efforts in that area for the present (although I believe California just approved $6 billion from the state to fund stem cell research, congrats!).

Really, I think we are close to far extending human life time past the norm, even the max, but not all the way to biological immortality. We will just eliminate a few of the things that kill us, and as a result we will live longer.

Longevity Escape Velocity is why biological immortality can theoretically be achieved. Suppose we find a way to fix a person and buy them 20 more years than they would normally have. Well, they certainly won't live forever. However, thats 20 years that they are around for science to continue to develop additional therapies and technologies. What if at the end of that 20 years, science has upgraded the first round of treatments and can increase the lifespan yet another 20 years? The cycle continues. This model is called Longevity Escape Velocity, and explains (in more detail than I have provided here) how biological immortality could be achieved.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

That is another interesting side bar to this topic, where does person-hood begin and end. If one could transfer every thought process that made them like they are into a computer do they stop being a person? What is lost?

If the soul does not follow, how much of our body can we loose and keep an intact soul? If I loose a leg and replace it with a mechanical one is that enough or is it the brain that is what one needs to keep?

Interesting questions.

i pretty much see it as this. You are not the same you you were 15 years ago. just about every single cell in your body has replaced itself (not sure about grey matter)

are you your skin or those replaced cells? no?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

i pretty much see it as this. You are not the same you you were 15 years ago. just about every single cell in your body has replaced itself (not sure about grey matter)

are you your skin or those replaced cells? no?

Oh, I agree, I think the whole loss of person-hood is scare tactics, but being a sci-fi fan it is fun to think about.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Cancer is easily cured according to WILT, but the difficulty lies in the ability to enhance stem cell technology to match the need. WILT basically involves genetically altering humans to eliminate the telomere gene, thus preventing all forms of cancer from replicating uncontrolably. The problem of course is that our normal cells could not reproduce as long as we need them to. The simple solution to this is the application of advanced stem cell technology to rejuvenate tissue where needed. Unfortuneatly, the Bush Administration has foolishly botched our efforts in that area for the present (although I believe California just approved $6 billion from the state to fund stem cell research, congrats!).

Getting rid of telermerase. Sounds like a bad idea basing it off of what I know about it.

Longevity Escape Velocity is why biological immortality can theoretically be achieved. Suppose we find a way to fix a person and buy them 20 more years than they would normally have. Well, they certainly won't live forever. However, thats 20 years that they are around for science to continue to develop additional therapies and technologies. What if at the end of that 20 years, science has upgraded the first round of treatments and can increase the lifespan yet another 20 years? The cycle continues. This model is called Longevity Escape Velocity, and explains (in more detail than I have provided here) how biological immortality could be achieved.

Makes sense, and once we approach the singularity, it should happen.

P.S. Being the singularity I am speaking of is a computer term, it is when we make an A.I. which can improve itself and which is better than a human. This A.I. would in turn make a even better A.I., so on and so on. Knowledge in all areas of science should increase drastically during this event.

 

[Veritas21]

I agree that WILT is a highly radical theory. Telomerase is essential according to our present biology, but is only used to allow cells to continue to reproduce. By eliminating it, we have cured cancer and can utilize stem cells to let the body replace itself as needed. Check out the MF website mfoundation .org for more info, or buy de Grey's book. It's only like $20 online.

 

[max1120]

I agree Dr de Grey's work will one day soon lead us to a point where biological aging will be a stoped and then reversed. With the use of embryonic stem cell technology we will be able to cure/prevent cancer, heart disease and a host of other diseases that kill tens of millions every year.

Yes it will require changes in society such as a limit on reproduction but look at the benifits! NO MORE death! No more growing old and weak!

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, the thing is, I expect that extending the human life span will encounter diminishing returns the further we go out. Every ten years we extend our lives will force us to overcome new challenges that will require still more effort on our part. It'll be like pushing a car up an ever-steeper slope. So sure, it might be possible to dramatically extend our lives, but only if we also significantly reduce the human population at the same time, so that fewer people have access to more resources. That means that despite living longer, we'll have to have fewer children. And that's going to be difficult to maintain.

 

[max1120]

Chalnoth, you make some good points. However we need to limit the population anyway as resources get more and more scares on this planet. We will need to begin to colonize the other planets starting with Mars. I know already of several people doing research on that very subject. We will most likely have some people also living on the moon but that will be a smaller population since the moon is not a good candidate for terrafroming.

I agree with Veritas21. We will buy time buy curing cancer, heart disease,diabetes, and alzheimer's. I believe we would add 20 years just by curing or preventing those four things. So we would have an average life span of 105 or so years. That could buy us time to find even more cures and even reverse aging technology could be developed.

I admit it will not come over night. But it will come and it will be more than worth the wait!

 

[max1120]

lawtonfogle, I disagree. I would suggest that with the advent of stem cell technology we will be able to cure HIV/AIDS if not treat it in such a way as it becomes a non issue as far as longevity is concerned.

If we were able to reprogram CD4 cells and reconstitute the immune system of a person infected with HIV in such a was as to delete two receptors on the surface of the CD4 cell (these people lack both co-receptors on the surface of the CD4 cell where the virus usually attaches itself to the cell) then over time these new cells would become the dominate population of CD4 cells in the body and the virus while still in the body(at least for a while) would not cause harm to the patient as it could not attach to the CD4 cells as easy as before. Further work would most likely lead to eradication of the virus or other means of limiting the virus's ability to attack cells in the body.