Human longevity

would take hours to explain how many shit there is
anyone can see this stuff emanates only propaganda and shekelbait, no facts no methods no nothing

????

So is it snakeoil? Or is he actually potentially able?

How much longevity you giving?

>I mean there is a reason why evolution made us how we are.
No there isn't.

So do you think he'll be successful?

I hope so.

Grey and his organization are serious about his work. He even put majority of his millions into his own research.

Whether he is successful or he fails is a matter of time and progress.

Altruistic, I watched a few videos of the guy and he seems very driven by his work.

Optimism aside, what is your opinion that we will reach this? The ability to do the maintenance he speaks of?

>tfw because of people like Aubrey de Grey there is a non-zero chance that I will be immortal

Even the slightest thought of this makes me smile uncontrollably and overfill my heart with joy. It's as if my life instantly feels full of meaning and endless posibilities.

Pursuers of immortality might be taken seriously if they weren't all massive baby-men nerds.

It was respectable for him to put a massive portion of his inheritance into this work.

Recently there has been a spike in companies/people investing in rejuvenate medicine and gene editing since 2012, Google itself has started its own Calico to research ageing and its effects.

Doesn't help the fact that ageing can be reversed a bit as proven in mice. We do not know all the things that affect ageing, but we know telomarse is one key part of it.

If you want my best guess on the maintenance: Maybe 20-30 years.

Existential crisis lad?

I know, I just found out about him when I was volunteering for old folks homes. Makes me hopeful that my parents, maybe even my grandparents won't have to experience the horror of old age.

HERO
E
R
O

Please be real.

>massive baby-men nerds
all the real scientists are

I say 10. 20 at most. What they do costs thousand times cheaper in 10 years. and there're more routes which are travelled now by other people.

I honestly hope so, for the sake of my family.

20 years to make these technologies widely available. But it already started in humans:
youtube.com/watch?v=r286OkqU8E8
youtube.com/watch?v=87OUb8TBwX0
youtube.com/watch?v=YxO9l8_UEuw
(she said that one of her science consultants did this secretly to himself five years ago. it was made in mice over ten years ago)

>Honestly why would you want to live forever anyway? Life is pain.

This is an argument I see a lot whenever anti-aging comes up, but it's not that simple.

First off, living forever would mean that we'd be removing the biggest source of "pain" associated with life. You wouldn't have to watch your loved ones die, etc...

Second, if anyone really believes that life isn't worth living because it's just so awful, then why haven't they killed themselves?

Third, as Aubrey DeGray said it, "Do you believe that curing Polio was a good thing?" It's a really good point. Why do we bother to cure diseases and extend our lifespan at all? Humanity has always worked toward living forever.

The only tricky thing in my mind is that curing aging does not mean living forever. There's still the problem of being hit by a bus. But I don't think it's unthinkable that even things like being hit by a bus can be solved. Maybe we put nanobots in our blood stream that can very quickly repair our cells, etc... But if that type of technology comes *after* we cure aging, then there is a very strange period of time where humans are afraid to even go outside their homes because they don't age but can't risk being struck by lightning or whatever.

So a spitting distance away from eternity?

That second video is pretty good. Her biggest issue seems to be that FDA approval costs billions of dollars and takes 15 years. So why doesn't she just move her company to a decent country? She could make plenty of money selling her cure outside the US. The US government would pull its head out of its ass pretty quickly when the life expectancy of the rest of the world suddenly leapfrogs the US.

Actually they had to make this procedure somewhere in Latin America. And she's saying these technologies are going to be available in garages all over the world in 5 years. and it was a year ago.
Here I found a new interview on a totally related channel:
youtube.com/watch?v=uTpIWLGsGP4

How will this be available for the masses?

How are we certain this isn't modern day snake oil?

Neat, but why hasn't she released anything for peer review?

Gib

If he can do it, he'll be a hero.

The storm hasn't wake you up, ne?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

all science should be open source (because information wants to be free, it's literally impossible to conceal anything in the internets aeon)

(here used to be few more reasons why peer review sucks, but it would only cloud the issue)

Then why not kill yourself right now you fucking retard
Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? Do you think humans live the optimal life span? No? Is it too short? Then get an increase on your lifespan by 40 years. Are you saying that we live exactly the right amount of time?

Don't waste your time on that bozo. He's the type of idiot who thinks he's smart

I used to be really into immortality. As I advanced in my career as a cell biologist and learned more and more about life, I have come to think that immortality is a lot further off than many enthusiasts would think. I don't think that it is necessarily impossible, but I've started to try to make peace with the likelihood of not living to see longevity research really take off. We should always strive to improve medicine, but there's something to be said for coming to terms with the grim realities of the world and facing them with a certain stoic dignity.

Could you tell something in particular, because your message is very emotional yet empty. What is the unperceivable obstacle standing on our way?

It's not so much one small thing as it is dozens of 'little' things (I use the word lightly, because these 'little' things are still huge problems and deadly.) The top ones that I know of are the accumulation of amyloid plaques in the brain (a problem we still haven't made good progress trying to solve despite decades of concerted efforts,) susceptibility to infectious diseases (which will become a bigger problem in the coming century as microbes evolve around antibiotics and zoontic viruses keep emerging from the tropics,) cancer (this is a particularly thorny one, because cancers can affect all the organs and treating each one , heart failure (which can only be partially mitigated by dietary and lifestyle changes, as even if you keep your coronary artery clean your cardiomyocites still get worn out,) and the hayflick limit (upregulating telomerase is very dangerous, as it can lead to cancer.) Those are the biggies, but there are more obscure problems, too.

>(this is a particularly thorny one, because cancers can affect all the organs and treating each one
'treating each one is often a separate issue entirely, in terms of biochemistry' I meant to write

> The top ones that I know of are the accumulation of amyloid plaques in the brain (a problem we still haven't made good progress trying to solve despite decades of concerted efforts,)
Thank you, I will get over it right now.
> susceptibility to infectious diseases (which will become a bigger problem in the coming century as microbes evolve around antibiotics and zoontic viruses keep emerging from the tropics,)
here's a solution: mahead.livejournal.com/13665.html
> cancer (this is a particularly thorny one, because cancers can affect all the organs and treating each one
it's funny, that's the same topic is solved in the same blog:
mahead.livejournal.com/12991.html
> heart failure (which can only be partially mitigated by dietary and lifestyle changes, as even if you keep your coronary artery clean your cardiomyocites still get worn out,)
The lifestyle change, yeah, as shown in the first link. Also by switching off the myostatin they got rid of atherosclerosis (I guess because veins are made of muscles)
And as for cardiomyocytes they just finished crowdfunding for cell aging research: lifespan.io/campaigns/cellage-targeting-senescent-cells-with-synthetic-biology/
(it looks as if the campaign didn't rich the goal, but it used to be 20000 first, and they expanded it in the name of the second phase of three.
> and the hayflick limit (upregulating telomerase is very dangerous, as it can lead to cancer.)
your information is obsolete. search for telomerase doesn't cause cancer

>accumulation of amyloid plaques
it's funny, that the same potic is solving the same bug

>here's a solution: mahead.livejournal.com/13665.html
You'll have to spell it out for me, because I've read over this page twice and haven't found any mention of infectious disease. If I understand correctly, are you saying that we can avoid infectious disease by hermetically sealing ourselves in artificial wombs? That's simply not feasible, because eventually as you age you will need to undergo surgery, and surgeries are one of the major causes of infections, especially in the elderly. This problem will only get worse as hospitals continue to be breeding grounds for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

>it's funny, that's the same topic is solved in the same blog:

It isn't solved at all. Like I said, there are hundreds and hundreds of types of cancer. Yes, they often have a few things in common (a mutation in the p53 gene the telomerase gene, the BRCA genes, etc) but different tissue types have very different specific mutations, and we discover a handful of new cancer genes every year. The problem is that in a lot of these cases we don't even know why the gene even contributes to cancer. I was talking to a biochemist a few weeks ago during an interview, and she was telling me about how she has more information than she knows what to do with. She was studying an obscure glioma. She talked about how the RNA-seq data she was collecting showed up or down-regulation of hundreds of genes that code for things as varied as cell-surface receptors, inteleukins, the histone proteins, cell-adhesion proteins, mitochondrial genes, and a bunch of other things I don't even remember. The point is that cancer isn't like some sort of 1-etiology problem that can be treated with a silver bullet like, say, diabetes or phenylketonuria, it's a catch-all that covers pretty much every biochemical pathway in the cell. Like the problem of infectious disease, it's a problem that gets worse becaue tumors essentially evolve as you try to treat them.
cont.

>your information is obsolete. search for telomerase doesn't cause cancer

My information is not obsolete. All the information suggests that telomerase mutations are one of the most common types of mutations found in cancers. I never said they were the main cause, but there rarely is a single cause of cancer. Typically, cancer is a multiple-hit phenomenon. The body has many ways of keeping cancer in check but eventually it's a problem of simple entropy. Cancer can arise from mutations in any number of genes, and mutations WILL happen, because even if you avoid mutagens, your DNA polymerase isn't infallible. If you imagine that your body is a car, it's not like cancer is just a problem with the carburetor or the transmission, but rather a problem with every piece not being built to last; if you fix one problem, you buy yourself a few years before a different tissue becomes susceptible.

>hermetically sealing ourselves in artificial wombs? That's simply not feasible, because eventually as you age you will need to undergo surgery, and surgeries
Did you even read this thread? youtube.com/watch?v=87OUb8TBwX0
> It isn't solved at all.
Here's another collection of pubmed articles (the first one is in that link I gave you)
higherperspectives.com/there-are-now-100-scientific-studies-that-prove-cannabis-cures-cancer-1429984852.html
Here's a couple of mustsee documentaries:
youtube.com/watch?v=khkEpKM93k8
youtube.com/watch?v=jBqD_XHA_nI
> All the information suggests that telomerase mutations are one of the most common types of mutations found in cancers. I never said they were the main cause
It's enough that you call it a cause. It's the way journalists (those professional dilettantes) wrest the reality.
I know of the replication crises, but that's the best I know:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370415/
In summary telomere shortening may be a common underlying cause of chromosomal rearrangements in cancer [28].

If you're talking about immortal tyrants, then Death Note is already being invented too. But I would recommend expose them to another inventions. Such as new level of virtual reality where they'd be gods not just paranoids. Or they could consider a way of living as actual god among actual gods instead of living as a farmer among shit and sheep.

>Did you even read this thread?

I can't sit through that entire presentation but I can guarantee you that it is a scam. Look at how much they're charging to attend events. Actual scientific lectures are fairly boring. This woman is making a sales pitch while offering basically nothing in the way of actual technical details. I'm looking through the website and there doesn't seem to a be a single tangible result.

> journalists (those professional dilettantes) wrest the reality.
I can assure you that I am no dilettante, and neither are my colleagues. I've discussed this with many cell biologists and microbiologists I know and the general consensus is that advances in medicine suffer from diminishing returns in terms of expanding lifespan.

>In summary telomere shortening may be a common underlying cause of chromosomal rearrangements in cancer [28].
I don't understand. This is what I was saying.

Look, I'm not saying that immortality is impossible. What I am saying is that marijuana is not a panacea for cancer and that a relatively small start-up is not going to make significant headway in the fight against aging. This assessment isn't controversial or pessimistic, it's common sense.

A feasible longevity project would cost billions, and involve thousands of scientists. Bioviva appears to employ a small handful of extraordinary researchers. It doesn't add up.

Look, I get that you don't want to die, but can you at least be humble enough to acknowledge that the experts are a lot less optimistic? What is the extent of your formal education in biology, anyways? I get the impression that most people who buy into these ideas haven't gotten past an undergraduate level. What's your field?

>This woman is making a sales pitch while offering basically nothing in the way of actual technical details.

It's you the one who gives no technical details (other then oh I'm so educated, trust me people)
And on her site there's scientific information, so she's the living proof of those articles being legit.
bioviva-science.com/aging-and-disease
She's approved by Aubrey de Grey. He's approved by Craig Venter. What are your experts?

The two biggest things we have to figure out are:
1. Cloning. We have to be able to replicate biological structures, without carrying over any cellular damage. Most cancers are the result of cumulative cellular damage, and doing something as simple as swapping somebody's blood out could greatly reduce the risk, but it has to be their own blood they are receiving to have a significant effect.

2. Surgery. We have to actually be able to remove damaged parts from a body and insert the undamaged parts. What causes organisms to "shrivel up" and slow down over time is the scar tissue formed in their cardiovascular system. From the day an organism is born, their blood vessels constantly sustain damage and form scar tissue. This formation of scar tissue slowly decreases the efficiency of blood circulation, until parts of the body are effectively choked to death(strokes). The body already has the ability to grow additional blood vessels to deal with strokes, so gradual removal of old ones might be the only thing necessary. It is still a very difficult task.

What exactly is the nature of Craig Venter's endorsement of de Grey? This is news to me.

How long do you think you could go actually living your life before you got hit by a car?

I mean, when set against eternity, eventually, something is going to smash you beyond repair. You still need to eat and breath, are still subject to toxins. Even if you seal yourself underground in a self-sustaining life support pod, sun's gonna eat you eventually. Still got at least another 80 billion years after that before the galaxies even begin to dim, so no, no where near eternity.

Biological immortality is useful, sure, but it doesn't make you a god.

Well, there may not be a "reason", but there's an obvious functionality to aging - it prevents overpopulation. That is a thing you'll have to address if and when you manage to pull off biological immortality.

I'd rather figure out the way how to restore organs without surgery. I believe people are working in this direction.
> doing something as simple as swapping somebody's blood out could greatly reduce the risk, but it has to be their own blood they are receiving to have a significant effect.
Could you please share some info on that? I say placenta! Maybe in few decades, just as computers grew small from cupboards to notebooks, we'd be able to fit those artificial placentas inside our bodies with feeding from electromagnetics or maybe even light.

In 2005, MIT's Technology Review, in cooperation with the Methuselah Foundation, announced a $20,000 prize for any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that SENS was "so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate." The judges of the challenge were Rodney Brooks, Anita Goel, Vikram Sheel Kumar, Nathan Myhrvold, and Craig Venter. Five submissions were made, of which three met the terms of the challenge. De Grey wrote a rebuttal to each submission, and the challengers wrote responses to each rebuttal. The judges concluded that none of the challengers had disproved SENS

>He's approved by Craig Venter.
I hadn't heard that. I do know he has Anthony Atala and George Church endorsing him though.

OK, I actually found a quote from Venter.

>"Estep et al. in my view have not demonstrated that SENS is unworthy of discussion, but the proponents of SENS have not made a compelling case for it."
This isn't an endorsement.

>You wouldn't have to watch your loved ones die,

ok. fair point. you and your loved ones never die, like mom and pop and all your siblings, your wife and your kids.

So now your kids are all grown up and decide to have kids of their own, and life goes on in bliss, your great grandkids are now grown and everyone in your family is still alive and well and in their primes.

Not only that, but every body else's family is also doing just as well and growing at a pretty good rate of 1 or two kids per generation.

every family on the face of the earth, living forever, having kids, who in turn have kids, who in turn have kids, who in turn have kids, on and on and on......indefinitely

>but that's dumb obviously they would put a limit on how many kids you could have/population control

that implies that if they even went slightly over the maintenance level, the government would need to do some "population control" to even things out a little. Next thing you know grandpa and grandma were on that list so now a few of your loved ones are gone, and you feel the pain associated with that, hundreds of years later.

and the scary thing is that we are closer to solving immortality faster than we are getting close to solving the problems that arise from it. This implies that not everyone would even get the opportunity to live forever. Just the few lucky bastards rich enough to afford it.

>This isn't an endorsement.
What is it then? Craig is pretty accurate about this topic because he tells of that being unethical to give people even 200 years (considering our barbaric way of life I suppose, but that only makes the change of lifestyle more essential)

this. very much this.

I think the goal in life is to die of old age in peace...just fall asleep and not wake up as an old grey man. Any other death just seems like it would either cause me or someone else a lot of pain.

>now your kids are all grown up and decide to have kids of their own
Why would they do it? Why share your energy, property with someone who's even not necessarily a nice person if you don't need them to leave your genes in the pool? If you can afford them, we have lots of space even on this planet. If they don't fuss around but sit calmly where only empty rock was before them, then why do you care. And if they make a mess, they eventually end under a truck or an artificial virus (another good reason to change our lifestyles)
youtube.com/watch?v=6dskZEPhPIM

>not having the motivation or permission to have children in an immortal society

just kys already

The goal of any living being is pleasure on the one side of the coin and avoiding discomfort on the other. What you're saying is the most favourable outcome there is today. But these guys are working for the future. The meaning of life (if we consider meaning not goal) is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. it's leaving, avoiding damage. Like they say "movement is life" is pretty much true. Only the proper movement, too much of it may harm the living device.

I said if you bring someone in this world, you should afford to support the child on the early stages, or else you're not any better than the mad scientist performing cloning just to have some fun. Here's where our species split. Yours stays on the human level just as cults members prefer to stay in medieval times.

>What is it then?
It's a statement of agnosticism. He's saying he doesn't think SNES' goals are impossible but that he also doesn't think they have a credible game-plan to reach their goals.

so it's a choice (in reality it's less of a choice and more of a price)

if immortality exists, there would be a cap limit on how many people got to be immortal. that would jack up demand to infinitely priced levels. Only the most wealthy individuals would be able to afford it.

so what's the price?

>so what's the price?
Millions today are thousands in ten years (moor's law is applied here too)
They're planning to make governments pay for everybody, because budgets pay lots for senile people. I say fuck governments and teach the people, but who am I to say something like this, duh.

>moore's law

True. I read opponents instead of proponents (it's funny the inertia of our minds working both ways)
But as I said, he has his reasons to be not completely honest, but there's a video with him on Wired named "Craig Venter Wants to Tackle the Ultimate Disease: Ageing" but the sound is so poor that I don't even give a link neither have I watched it through. If I find that video where I saw him saying about extreme longevity being unethical today, I will bring it here.

If anything, Venter (a genius whom I admire very much) is in the habit of OVER-selling future advances. For example, he was very optimistic about designing genetically-modified algae to clean up oil spills, but his collaboration with Exxon-Mobil seems to have fizzled. If Venter thought that SENS showed promise, he would invest in them directly or at least offer a more explicit endorsement. He has never been shy about backing huge, ambitious projects, like the synthetic mycoplasma project.

I think he's more complecated than that.
Here's that review contest itself for everyone to make their own minds about it:
www2.technologyreview.com/sens/
> However, I don't think Estep et al. have proved that SENS is false; that would require more research.
And it's been over 10 years ago, and now they're actively working towards their goal and never did I hear anyone worth mentioning spoke badly about them.

>complicated
sorry, not native speaker here

>And it's been over 10 years ago, and now they're actively working towards their goal and never did I hear anyone worth mentioning spoke badly about them.
Can you point to one significant advancement they've produced in the ten years?

This is how science works:
sens.org/research/publications
I'd say first genetically modified human is their fruit, but it's only my interpretation of reality.
We here speaking about this as a goal and many of us working towards it now is maybe even more significant advancement.

>I'd say first genetically modified human is their fruit, but it's only my interpretation of reality.
Just what is the extent of your schooling in Biology, anyways?

Not SENS directly, but related to their research, it was established that removing senescent cells increases life and health span.
newscientist.com/article/2076248-mice-live-25-per-cent-longer-when-worn-out-cells-are-cleared/
Jeff Bezos' invested over 100 million dollars in the research too.

Overpopulation is not an inherent problem and does not even make sense as something evolution would select against. Life will fill any habitat to its carrying capacity. Overpopulation is inherently temporary and self-defeating. Aging is simply all kinds of decay and can't be fully prevented through any known means. It happens like it does in humans because having 20-30 good years is enough to make offpring and ensure they grow up successfully, so it is not selected against. Different species have different aging patterns depending on their environment and evolutionary strategy.

To put it simply, there is no reason for aging, there is only reason for holding it back as long as we do.

duh...
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2690&v=bqRJL7PveWs
(you should watch it through though)

(44:50)

I'm only asking because you seem to have a lack of proportion in terms of what you think is feasible and what you consider promising evidence. What is the most advanced biology class you're taken?

It would save us lots of chatting if you just explained why Liz cannot be called genetically modified human.

I'm not going to contradict you on that. I'm just saying that it seems that you're pulling together many disparate strands of biology as evidence of some upcoming breakthrough. Look, I work with CRISPR, and I can tell you that while it's an amazing tool, we're decades away from even beginning to put a dent in aging. I'll say it again: you don't have any sense of proportion. You don't understand how difficult it is to induce just one targeted mutation, let alone re-work an entire genome. It's not a question of 'is it possible?' it's a question of 'do we have the money, man-hours, will, and vision?' The answer to the first question is 'maybe' and the answer to the second question is 'almost certainly no.' Honestly, I can't go into why it is unfeasible, but Estep explains it much better. Just read his critique:

www2.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf

Don't you yourself find that "rebuttal" arrogant yet empty? And sometimes even plainly wrong:
> One of the proposed therapies of SENS is “Whole Body Interdiction of Lengthening of
Telomeres” (WILT) [18]. The goal of WILT is to delete from a large fraction of somatic cells
several individual genes involved in telomere extension in order to prevent cancer for an
extended period beyond a normal life span. This requires multiple independent gene deletion events for each of several trillion cells of many different types. To accomplish this in such a large number of cells without causing serious side effects, these deletion events must be extraordinarily efficient and specific. Any expert in gene therapy or genome engineering can attest to the fact that, for even one such event in such a large number of cells, the most specific and efficient methods currently available for allelic deletion or replacement fall many orders of magnitude short of this requirement, even in vitro. To propose that technology allowing in vivo somatic genome manipulations of this sort will be available in the near future is completely outside the realm of responsible speculation. For those with sufficient knowledge and training, it is difficult to contemplate an enzyme or method with suitable specificity and efficiency to safely accomplish such a task. Finding enzymes or vectors with greater specificity and efficiency for DNA manipulation or delivery does not follow the predictable developmental schedules of other technological advances, such as those described by Moore’s Law, and we do not expect to find these several orders of magnitude any time soon—if ever.

What part of this paragraph strikes you as wrong?

Are you plebs brainlets just larping or seriously believing this trash? Keep playing with math dont stick your nose where you shouldnt

Molecular biofag here.
There are a lot of issues other fields of biology have to solve before this can be done. What they aim is not impossible. A lot of mathfags shitposting around here btw.

Doesn't it contradict what BioViva did?

>There are a lot of issues other fields of biology have to solve before this can be done.
Elaborate, please.

BioVivia created a stable cell line with multiple targeted deletions in telomere-associated genes? That sounds really far-fetched. Even with CRISPR, the difficulty of making targeted modifications increases exponentially as you increase the number of changes. Can you cite a paper?

Immortality for single cells has already been achieved, but doing it for a whole body is as different as night and day. Just to put a problem, if all cells were immortal the degenerating ones couldnt suicide or be killed by immunity, generating a few dozen cancer spots every day

Nah dude we solved that. Just smoke weed. Read the thread.

Wups i skipped some replies so i missed that, nvm then as this guy says

Haven't they used vectors with greater specificity and efficiency for DNA manipulation?