Just what the hell does this guy think that we will be working on in 2100 to 2150 that it will take an additional 850 years to cure aging? Is this guy for real?

I also think that developing AI will prove to be more difficult than curing aging. I think that Aubry de grey's estimates are spot on but I think that Ray Kurzweil's predictions are optimistic.

[Posted by: Kurt at June 29, 2005 1:45 PM]

Shermer doesn't know what he's talking about. Hasn't he ever heard of the concepts of 'exponential growth' and 'accelerating change'?

I personally think that artificial general intelligence is the best route to immortality and we'll have AGI by 2030 at the latest. AGI by 2030 and indefinite lifespans to follow shortly thereafter.

Actually I'm puzzled why virtually everyone isn't having a go at coding an AGI in their basements ;) We know *a lot* more about intelligence than we currently know about aging.

The skeleton out-line (starter ideas) for my own AGI design can be viewed here:

http://www.sl4.org/wiki/MarcGeddes/UniversalDataTypes

To those wanting to give the AGI route a crack, happy coding!

[Posted by: Marc_Geddes at June 29, 2005 10:49 PM]

I see the seeds of an interesting discussion here - GAI versus a cure for aging; what is harder and what do we know more about. It seems to me that we know far more about aging than the foundation of intelligence, however.

[Posted by: Reason at June 29, 2005 11:06 PM]

Hmm. Let's just leave aside the question of what we know more about for the moment and focus on what is harder.

Reason, you must admit that it is currently much easier to manipulate code than it is to manipulate DNA right? When writing software we have total control over the program. The tools for effectively manipulating DNA on the other hand, are only now beginning to be developed. Aging may be well be a simpler in *conceptual* terms, but in *practical* terms the AGI problem seems to be proving easier to tackle.

Coming back to the question of what we know about, I do think our knowledge of the foundations of intelligence is *at least* as good as our knowledge of aging. Although the AGI problem is conceptually more complex, researchers have been working on the problem for longer and have better tools for doing so. As I pointed out above, the bio-tech tools for tackling aging are still at a primative stage. Info-tech is more advanced.

A read of the supurb book :

'The Race For Consciousness' , by John Taylor
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262700867/qid=1120114381/

should convince skeptics that the foundations of intelligence are now quite well understood.

Finally, note that once we AGI, it would help solve the problems of aging and develop all the neccessery tools (for instance adanced nano) far faster than would occur without it.

[Posted by: Marc_Geddes at June 29, 2005 11:54 PM]

Michael Shermer is a biased numbnut. Supplements are merely a part of an overall longevity program, and will only add a few years on their own. Also, the majority of supplements I take (120+ daily) and Kurzweil takes are merely concentrated food and plant extracts, or boosters of what's already in your body, such as CoQ10 (which declines as part of our programmed aging process). Vitamins/minerals are actually only a small part of supplementation.

The idea behind supplementation is:

[1] You cannot possibly get enough of key supplements via eating, such as vitamin C (we should get 8-10 grams daily, for example).

[2] Daily full coverage of beneficial anti-oxidants and polyphenols.

[3] Beneficial manipulation of pro-aging hormones, such as cortisol and insulin.

[4] Maintaining optimal amounts of self-made molecules that decline with aging, such as superoxide dismutase, CoQ10 and phosphatidylserine, to name only a few.

That's really about it. Those who do not supplement are clearly at a disadvantage to those that do, in terms of maintaining optimally health body chemistry, and protection from free radicals, DNA damage, and numerous other ailments.

[Posted by: Scott Miller at June 30, 2005 12:55 PM]

You have to view Shermer's comments in the context of where he's coming from. His life is concerned with combating the ~70%(?) of the population that believe in snake oil, astrology, crystals, faith healing, psychic powers, the list is endless. The tiny % that know about real anti-aging research are of little interest to him. He is fighting the battle against the anti-science majority who want creationism taught in the schools and believe that homeopathy is better than a hospital and lose their money to every fraudulent scam that gets advertised.

He is not against real anti-aging techniques. He just hasn't met any. :) He probably feels that if he edges open the door to anti-aging, then thousands of scammers and frauds will rush through.

[Posted by: BillK at July 2, 2005 3:45 PM]

I don't think it's an either/or choice - you can be careful and precise in your discussion about healthy life extension. In attacking frauds and nonsense, you don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater - and Shermer's latest was not in any way careful. He's done better on other topics, so why not this one? His comments on the future of healthy life extension science are in no way different in character from those he attacks - unscientific, unfounded, there as fodder for the credulous. If you're in the business of skepticism, you have to do better than that.

[Posted by: Reason at July 2, 2005 4:03 PM]

When talking about Shermer, one must consider the source. SciAm is a left wing sheet with a little science thrown in. They lost me back in 1983 when they came out with Carl Segan's nuclear winter theory, which was discredited one year later.

[Posted by: Kurt at July 3, 2005 12:29 AM]

shermer cultivates smugness as a virtue

[Posted by: ty at January 18, 2009 4:41 PM]