The Problem with Focusing on Healthspan

There are numerous ways to go about advocacy for the cause of treating aging as a medical condition, for the production of therapies to address the aging process. One might focus on talking about extended health, or the goal of greatly increased longevity, or the details of aging as a novel target for medicine, or discard aging as a topic in favor of the development of cures for common, well-recognized age-related diseases - something that can only be achieved through addressing the causes of aging, but many people are more receptive to treating age-related disease rather than treating aging, no matter that these must be one and the same in the end.

The advocates, researchers, and supporters in our small community are largely here because of the possibility of radical life extension and working rejuvenation therapies, especially those who were involved early on. The SENS rejuvenation research programs were initially supported because they are the most viable path forward towards the long-term goal of escaping the bounds of aging. SENS is the best of current plans for aging research because it aims to fundamentally change the human condition by bringing aging under control. Those who have over the years materially supported SENS to the greatest degree are also doing so precisely because the project aims high, not just because it is credible, but also because it isn't just another group of aging researchers talking about small changes to the aging process.

Once engaging with the broader community of larger, more conservative funding bodies, and scientific institutions, and high net worth individuals, however, these are near entirely people who either do not subscribe to transhumanist views of what is possible to achieve through medical science in our lifetimes, or who are not willing to be seen to adopt that minority viewpoint, or to espouse any viewpoint significantly different from those of their peers. Even when it is correct. Even when it is useful. Even when it is the only practical way forward to address aging and age-related disease. This is politics in all its prosaic ugliness. So as advocacy for the treatment of aging as a medical condition has spread over the years, the message has been watered down. We go from the goals of radical life extension and rejuvenation to a focus on modest increases in healthspan with no mention of longevity.

There is a faction in our core community that believes we should go along with this, and dial back our public positions. Talk about healthspan and only healthspan, because it will pull in more supporters and more conservative funding, those who are not comfortable with the topic of greatly extending longevity. Or at least we can point to aging research institutions much larger than the SENS community, who only talk about healthspan, and seem to do quite well on the funding front - the Buck Institute is a good example. Why can't we do that? If we did, the funds will still go to the same projects that are the foundation of rejuvenation therapies, stepping closer to an end to degenerative aging. Those projects will certainly do a good job of increasing healthspan: the only way to achieve radical life extension is to maintain youth, after all. Why care if goals are misaligned, if the funding sources think they are helping to achieve marginal, tiny gains in healthspan, because that is all they believe to be possible, and instead the result is large gains in both health and longevity?

I think that this argument misses the reality of what will happen in an environment where the rejuvenation research message is the same as that of people pushing supplements, trials of metformin, calorie restriction mimetics, boosted autophagy, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and so forth. When the greater conversation surrounding aging research is that it is a way to extend healthspan, and no-one talks about longevity, then the existing well-connected research groups that only work on slightly slowing aging will trample all over more radical groups like SENS researchers, by weight of numbers if nothing else. Those involved in research that aims to slightly slow aging can set a target of adding five years via some form of metabolic adjustment, and when it is achieved present the outcome as a great victory, task accomplished.

They will say that most people die by 90, with the unspoken assumption that this is set in stone. By adding five years of health, they can claim to have removed 20%-30% of the period of significant decline at the end of life, and isn't that amazing progress? Armed with this message of compression of morbidity, such marginal strategies will continue to dominate the research community, just as they do today. Those of us who see further and want the implementation of rejuvenation to significantly extend both health and life, not just a slight slowing of the aging process, will continue to struggle to move the field of aging research beyond paltry efforts. So much of what goes on in the field today is near meaningless, a waste of effort when considered against what is possible to achieve through rejuvenation: additional decades and then centuries and longer of health and vigor.

The problem is that this field of research already spends near all of its time on marginal, unambitious goals. The problem is that the vast majority of advocacy and public engagement is focused on painting tiny gains as large gains, via the vision of compression of morbidity that talks only of healthspan. When longevity is not open to improvement, small increases in healthspan can be made to look large. But it is an illusion. These increases are not large, vastly greater gains are possible, and this present state of affairs must change. Creating that change requires that we distinguish ourselves and our message. All of the progress to date in establishing SENS rejuvenation research as an important part of the field has been achieved by distinguishing ourselves, by talking about greatly increased health and longevity and an end to aging, rather than hiding that view simply because some people would rather not engage with it. Further progress requires that we persuade more people to the goal of radical life extension, not that we make ourselves look just like the many other groups whose research strategies cannot possibly do more than add a couple of years to health or life span.

If you are running with the one viable, best, most effective way forward, then the worst thing you can do is to make your efforts, your plan for the future, look like the initiatives undertaken by everyone else. The point is to upend the world, revolutionize the research community, drag the field kicking and screaming into this 21st century of endless potential in biotechnology, to defeat aging and all of the death and suffering it creates completely and comprehensively. Aim high. Do what the others are not doing. Bring the world to your point of view. You can't do that in camouflage, with the light under the bushel.

Comments

Reason, i agree that we should not change our message just like everybody else and should convey to people that great health and radical longevity is achievable. But then our funding is not increasing and our community of people who promote rejuvenation is still small. As an advocate how do you suppose we can pull in more people to our side from the general public and aging research community and increase our funding while at the same time reducing the amount of focus research conducted by health spanners receives? it seems like a situation that is tough to turn around as people are pretty much set in their ways and changing their minds seems especially difficult. Any solution or advice to solve this problem anyone!?

Posted by: Akschith at May 26th, 2017 5:04 PM

I think if people really started thinking about the meaning and implications of extended healthspans without life extension, they would realise how absurd the concept is: who on earth wants to die in good health? It would make death even more of a tragedy.

Posted by: Barbara T. at May 26th, 2017 5:46 PM

You wont catch LEAF talking about Healthspan being a worthy goal, it isnt. We also dont pitch radical messages either because they dont work. SENS has the right of us for the most, they focus on health and diseases and any increased longevity is a side effect. We think this is the right way to go and we are busy refining that message and improving upon it if we can. Healthspan is not a worthy goal and we oppose it being considered consensus because it isnt.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 26th, 2017 5:46 PM

In fact a couple of days ago I put an embargo on using the word in a supportive way at LEAF. It isnt a worthy goal, its a timid conservative one. We avoid highlighting longevity as the primary selling point of repair therapies but we wont be supporting healthspan as consensus.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 26th, 2017 5:50 PM

I'm sorry, Reason, but I have to dispute your assertion on simple psychological grounds. People don't believe that the extreme position is more reasonable than the conservative position.

Therefore, when we posit the extreme position, it makes the conservative-position people look reasonable.

That's just how people work.

Posted by: Slicer at May 26th, 2017 5:59 PM

Better to walk the line I think Slicer dont promote the conservative but avoid promoting the radical too.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 26th, 2017 6:02 PM

@Slicer: I've long advocated planting a flag way out there in these debates, pushing forward with a suitably outrageous extreme. We need to be arguing for radical life extension and the logical consequences of actuarial escape velocity not just because it is right and correct, but also because it stops the middle position in the conversation from being somewhere between nothing (the opposition) and ten to twenty years of extra health (the most radical of the Longevity Dividend style healthspan types).

From way back when: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/02/longevity-meme-newsletter-february-21-2005/

"The middle of the road, 'reasonable' position in public or political debate tends to gravitate to midway between what are perceived to be the two opposite outrageous extremes, regardless of the actual merits of any of these positions. With this in mind, it is occurring to me that part of the ongoing problem in the modern political debate over healthy life extension is that our "outrageous extreme" has always been a tentative, reasonably proposal that medical research carry on and that near-term technology would seem to allow us all to live a little longer ... say, to 150. ... We need a better outrageous extreme. Over the past 18 months of public discussion of thousand-year life spans and biological immortality, I think that the position of near term healthy life extension research - with the aim of understanding the aging process and fixing age-related damage to give us a few extra decades - has become a lot more palatable for the public and funding entities. It's now harder for opinion makers to laugh at 150 when scientists and futurists are touting the prospects of 1000, 5000, or as long as like."

It was something like eight years after I wrote that when Prudential put up their living to 150 advertising campaign: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/08/signs-of-progress-insurers-talk-of-radical-life-extension/

Posted by: Reason at May 26th, 2017 6:20 PM

For SENS to lose its radical genius it would be a sad defeat. People are getting increasingly, if slowly, acceptant of life extension, so mellowing could lead to damaging delays to what is a scientific revolution that will inevitably come to pass.

Perhaps rather than walking the line too tightly - e.g. failing to push even very reasonable 120-150 year lifespans - the community should make a concerted effort to educate people about how historically conservative positions in science kill, as well as how radical innovations are routinely looked at with incredulity or horror before being labelled "miracles".

This is how the psychology of the masses works: when their system of belief is challenged insecurity ensues, creating rejection of the proposed change and even open hostility to it, before the personal (people are selfish) benefits that this laboured paradigm shift produces are recognised.

Just a few weeks ago I was at Christiaan Barnard museum in Cape Town and this was an actual letter - sent by one Ms Slattery from Chicago to the surgical team after news of the first heart transplant spread - on display:

"I've heard of human vultures but this is the first time I ever saw one with a name on it. I don't speak your name. No one can give you permission to take a man's heart out of his body. A man in life is no more important than a man in death. What do you get out of your pseudoscience? Loot? Notoriety? Kicks? My father was a physician and surgeon with a fine ability; he wouldn't have been a de-gutter for anything".

So this is someone that today pretty much everyone in Europe and the US would consider a mentally disturbed bigot, but that 50 years ago represented perhaps a relatively small but certainly vocal segment of the educated western population.

Here's another one, by one S. Peschel from Arlington, Virginia, sent in December 1967:

"It is my profound conviction you are amoral. A bunch of ghouls, all of you".

Now, fast forward 10-20 years, and I am sure that both Ms Slattery and S. Peschel would have been banging on Christiaan's door had they had the misfortune of being struck down by heart failure. People do change - but they need to be pushed hard.

Posted by: Barbara T. at May 26th, 2017 6:55 PM

The problem is the research by Partridge and Pew and Harrison does not support the radical messaging approach and is exactly why we avoid it as its counter productive. We are not hiding that we hope to live longer and we talk about that in our blog but our primary pitch is health, longevity and cures for age-related diseaes as this is what people get behind. We however do not suggest healthspan is the worthy goal we just dont suggest 1000 year lifespans are the aim either. In our case walking the line doesnt mean being conservative but it means appealing to what studies show works and is what SENS is doing too.

A common mistake advocates also make is jumping into complexity before they explain the simple things like, what is aging? and how is it linked to age-related diseases. They often fail to make that connection before moving to talking about repairing aging and this alienates potential supporters.

I think there is a fine line between being too conservative like healthspanners and too radical like uploaders. There is a balance point where meaningful progress and support meet and its somewhere between the extremes of healthspan and radicalism. At least how I see things anyway and it appears SENS is using a similar message as LEAF is.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 26th, 2017 7:05 PM

Correction: "but our primary pitch is health, independence and cures for age-related diseases" - sorry its late here brain failing to work properly.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 26th, 2017 7:06 PM

But what particular study has determined where the line between too radical and not radical enough is?

While it is quite obvious that 1000 year lifespans would be considered very radical, 120-150 ones are probably in that grey zone between "too radical" and "not radical enough" that could be the line to walk for achieving maximum gain with minimal loss.

Point is, while studies pointing to how radical messaging is counterproductive are certainly valid, what is or isn't too radical in this particular case still needs to be defined, and in my opinion being on the conservative side of this grey zone is not conducive to achieving our desired results.

It is quite conceivable that when placed in the context of life expectancy having doubled over the past century, a 120-150 year lifespans (so a 30-50% increase) would fail to offend enough people to be counterproductive, while exciting enough people - people who would donate their charity money to a dogs shelter rather than to yet another bland initiative promising something as vague and overused as "health" - to give the field momentum and funds for research.

How would SENS even compete with all the other longevity dividend-type initiatives if its message is barely different? While this branding may appeal to more people overall, failing to stand out may very well end up watering down contributions from more conservative sources.

Posted by: Barbara T. at May 26th, 2017 7:33 PM

And this is exactly what A B testing is for and what we are doing as part of that process We are testing messages and formats to see where the line is. If you are familiar with our work you will know we are not selling vague and bland health but we actually put things in context and in a language anyone can relate to instead of jargon that is inaccesible to most people (this is a mistake many in LE make), scientific accuracy means nothing if the person doesnt understand it.

In brief we follow this format:

1: Explain what aging is.
2: Show the association between aging and age-related diseases.
3: Explain the repair approaches to these diseases.
4: Put that into a personal context that related to their health, independence and preventing diseases and yes we do mention this may also lead to longer lives.

We are not shy about what our aim is but we are searching for the sweet spot and we are out there testing audiences and doing our market research as well as looking at relevant social studies and so on. We know there is a sweet spot and its somewhere in the grey area between extremes and we will find it.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 26th, 2017 7:49 PM

Barbara, you are absolutely correct. Right now the aging research community is small and top it off rejuvenation is even smaller and we have a culture deathists or fatalists in our country who have the power to impede research and make things worse for everyone. Not everyone can travel overseas to get these treatments. So, that forces people into being mild with their message rather than radical to get funding. I myself have had a hard time making my family and friends to buy in into radical life extension and it bogles my mind. So, this is what i tell people. The goal is to prevent ill health and longevity is the side effect. And to people who are deathists i tell look its your choice if you want to die but nobody has the right to deny someone else the right to be free from ill health, be biologically younger and live longer. As for how long i tell them that large mammals like bowhead whales like for more than 200 years and clams and some other creatures with a beating heart live for 500 years which is what we should be aiming for. This i am hoping we be non controversial message. this way i am sticking to Reason's message of promoting radical life extension and at the same hoping that i don't sound unreasonable to people. Personally though i really do want to live a 1000 years and it would be amazing but we never what might happen in the future so i am always thinking in a span for 100 years. so once i complete my first 100 years successfully, then look forward to the next 100 and so on.

Posted by: Akschith at May 26th, 2017 7:54 PM

That's very interesting. I personally would do a carefully designed survey (sampling would be crucial and probably the hardest part) and then a smaller qualitative study to find out why, say, 130 is good but 150 isn't.

On what audiences do you test your messages and do you have any available information on methodology? Do you use a marketing approach rather than an epidemiological and / or anthropological one?

Posted by: Barbara T. at May 26th, 2017 8:02 PM

2 cents, Great Post Reason !

I think the biggest problem that has come out (and you do give a good point - that we should uphend the status quo and 'make the them change their minds'; or the more of us the more the 'society' will 'accept it' (this is akin to assimilation/naturalization 'of thought')) is how do you convince someone 'to stay' on earth (alive); as Peter has said : some (many, like the whole mass) don't give a sh...they Don't Want to live above 90-120...how do you convince them 'to stay' ? It's (near) impossible - their mind is made up already; they can change their minds - but it would take one hell of a good solution - for they don'T care beyond a certain age.

Know matter how much 'you will get health' we send to them, they associate it with 'longevity/life extension'; It's like this part needs to 'disappear' altogether so we can convince them.

As I specified - They Want to Die. And they choose : 90-120.... so what do you do/say ?

You can only convince them in a sens by tricking them with omission : as Peter and Steve said,
sort of pass the message that focus on - Diseases (which is about Health)
and omit the part (written in very small characters, that a 'side effect' of longevity
could happen.........), just don'T say it altogether....or pass in under the radar as like something that could happen but is not the focus and like not talked about (almost).
In french we say : 'Tiens ├ža mort' (Keep it dead (silent)).

I mean there is Already Anti-Aging stuff...do you see people wanting to live immortal...no, they still don't give a ... they buy this stuff to make their skin pretty and have better health - and when 90 comes - they are Done. Lights Out.

IT makes me think of people that 'ready to die' or some that try to do 'suicide'.....

it comes the person alone - you can be there for them - but if their mind is made up;

it's very hard to make them change; Only THemselves can do that, and if they are Dead Set on killing themselves; not much you can do.

Same for people deadset on dying at 90-120 - as long they keep healthy for the remainder of their lives (that sounds so bad..'the reaminder of their lives...' yeah they want to die).

You could handled them 'immortality dish' on a silver plate,

they would refuse it.

2c

Posted by: CANanonymity at May 26th, 2017 9:05 PM

What about appealing to vanity? My personal experience is it's very hard to get people interested about anything life extending, but when you mention their wrinkles going away, instant excitement.

Posted by: Corbin at May 26th, 2017 9:31 PM

Barbara, the audiences i test my message are firstmost my family, friends and people who i meet that i think might be interested in life extension. As for methodology, i am not sure what you mean by that since i simply talk to them through a conversation, try to make it feel as natural as possible and try not to make myself sound like i am a desperate salesmen. I guess yo could call it a marketing approach since i am just trying to persuade them. As for an epidemiological and / or anthropological approach, i try to make ill health and the horrors of it and accounts of personally witnessing my grandparents or friends suffering when talking to them but don't overblow it and just use them as a conversation tool. The thing is i can only make conversation with the individuals that are around me and those i can meet. I don't have a targeted approach like sampling a group of people and conducting a survey though.
As for your corbin , i think it could work on people who are so into themselves but if that could work in a wider audience where they might see that what we are trying to achieve is life extension and not something simply cosmetic.
Everyone, I think once we have actual drugs on the market and people start benefiting from them by going overseas and seeing remarkable improvements or taking treatments in a local clinic. I have a feeling that the deathists or fatalists will have a change of heart after seeing a change in the quality and quantity of the life of others. of course there is a strong chance they might protest against the technology and turn it into a pro choice/ pro life like debate but once the technology is out there and some portion of the population are using it, it will be hard to get rid of and will be there to stay.
So, I will have to say i am cautiously optimistic since if the attitudes of the people change then so will the focus of the researchers. it just whether things will turn out in reality as portrayed by me remains to be seen and therefore the reason for my cautiousness. Hopefully things work out , since i want to live in the era where rejuvenation are as easy as going to the clinic and getting a personalised checkup!! Either Way, I am always going to fight for rejuvenation treatments so that me and people of similar mindset to mine can achieve their dream of being biologically younger and living radically long.

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 12:12 AM

Appealing to the public for donations is probably a dead end. It's becoming increasingly likely that significant donations from the public for SENS research won't materialize before actual breakthroughs happen in mice. So, pursuing other approaches for funding might be more productive.

Here's my take on the public perception of different kinds of messaging:

Immortality/longevity: unappealing
Healthspan/health: too vague, too crowded
Aging: unappealing
Disease: appealing, but too crowded

Posted by: Florin Clapa at May 27th, 2017 1:06 AM

@ Corbin : Yeah, people pay top money for dozens of useless creams and whatnot. Tell them that what you're working on will also address their wrinkles - in a better manner than any cream could ever do - and you'll be able to tap into their purse.

Posted by: Spede at May 27th, 2017 1:47 AM

Im an organ transplant recipient and as Barbara T. writes in the beginning it was a new idea to people. I think when organs becomes available to all in vitro (3D printed) people's ideas will change. When you can get new organs, why not get new cells and repair the body in other ways. That was what changed my mind and get me interested in life extension/regenerative medicine. Science has to advance first. I donate $ 118 each to Solving Organ Shortage (SOS) and Organ Preservation Alliance (OPA). I think those dollars works more efficient towards life extension by getting more people on the wagon than donating to aging research. It will also in the short run produce more lifespan (in lived population years). Why not billions are donated to these causes I dont understand.

Posted by: Norse at May 27th, 2017 3:40 AM

I also think it is important for longevity advocates to invest their money not in houses, luxury car or boat but in biotech companies. I would like to invest in egenesis bio if I have the chance. They are working on xenotransplantation which became more relevant/realistic after invention of CRISPR/Cas9 in 2013.

Posted by: Norse at May 27th, 2017 3:45 AM

I don't think that addressing health and addressing longevity are mutually exclusive. The community as it stands has a lot of different websites and you can put up fundraisers for the same project with slightly different messages at different sites. In fact if you take the framing into account that's what happens already.

Take a fictitious example:
Let's say a young scientist has an idea to create a SETI@home-like neural net that's looking for a small-molecule glucosepane breaker drug.

Vivian's beauty palace (fictitious) says it will be the best wrinkle reduction ever.
LEAF sees a lot of potential for diabetics, hypertension and presbyopia.
Fightaging advertizes it as another step towards the full SENS catalogue.

The same for stem-cells, senolytics, etc. - and suddenly the diversity of the community is a big advantage.

Posted by: Matthias F at May 27th, 2017 4:20 AM

There is also the option of getting the people who have donated to SENS/Lifespan.io to do their own fundraisers, which could also be a gentle way of introducing a donors peer group to the idea of lifespan extension/regenerative biotechnology.

547 people donated to the Lifespan.io OncoSENS campaign. If 500 of those people did a $500 fundraiser each that would be quarter of a million dollars. If each of them in the process convinced 1 friend to also do a fundraiser next year that would be half a million dollars.

Posted by: Jim at May 27th, 2017 4:53 AM

I've been thinking about this for years - How to get money and not change our message? I don't think there's one right answer to that question, but I think the best way is to subvert when we gather funding.

Concentrate on diseases when you're collecting money from the mainstream. And concentrate on utility - one therapy a lot of targets - lessens the burden on healthcare. Say the therapies can be prophylactic in nature as well. Obvious things. Just like Mathias says, have a different message for different groups.

Posted by: Anonymoose at May 27th, 2017 6:12 AM

Anonymoose,

While I agree with your sentiment, the one therapy for a lot of targets doesn't seem to fit into the current one treatment, one disease mindset of regulatory agencies. Unless we're talking about (proven) medical tourism, then it's probably fair game.

Posted by: Ham at May 27th, 2017 7:08 AM

@Ham

I don't think it's a completely new idea for them. Surgical procedures typically can treat multiple conditions. In the USA as far as I know the "21st century cures" act has allowed for re-purposing of drugs without prolonged trials for every condition.
Not to mention that it has a large fund aimed at cancer research - I know it's a long shot but SENS can try to get some government funding for their ALT program.

The possibilities are there.

Posted by: Anonymoose at May 27th, 2017 7:23 AM

I'm still hoping for some real FDA reform. I'm very cautiously optimistic about the 21st century cites act. But like everything else, all we can do is sit back and watch what happen. I agree that it's a long shot on your last point though.

Posted by: Ham at May 27th, 2017 7:31 AM

Ham,I also think the FDA needs reform and I can't understand for the love of god why people can't get behind SENS Research which will allow the elderly to spend an exponentially longer time with their children, grand children and their families all the having great youth and vigor due to rejuvenation treatments. Will we ever see a change in public opinion and they realise what a good thing they are throwing away?

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 8:34 AM

@Akschith: Extremely good point. David Sinclair has said that with the therapies he develops there will be 5 generations around Christmas dinner table and the last going at College. If statements of SENS are to radical to people to support (centuries of life), why aren't people throwing money after Sinclair? It was said by the physicist Stanton T. Friedman (who believes in UFOs) when asked what he thinks they do here: "That I thought about.They are studying biology. They are stydying aging. They are living long lives and developing wisdom." That tells that both advanced/smart civilisations/individuals should have this as their main goal ans its not selfish.

Posted by: Norse at May 27th, 2017 8:59 AM

Norse,

What you say Sinclair said is exactly part of the problem some (many?) people seem to have with longevity and rejuvenation. I've seen arguments that say things like "You could have so many generations alive at once, that you couldn't possibly know all of your family members". Or "What about the inheritances from one generation to the next", or "Then children won't be able to get out from under their parents' shadow, and truly come into their own". I don't necessarily buy into these arguments, but I've seen them a lot. I fear that this is ultimately going to turn into a pro life/choice debate among people, and remain that way for a very long time, like someone else recently mentioned.

Posted by: Ham at May 27th, 2017 9:11 AM

Great post:

'I have a feeling that the deathists or fatalists will have a change of heart after seeing a change in the quality and quantity of the life of others. of course there is a strong chance they might protest against the technology and turn it into a pro choice/ pro life like debate but once the technology is out there and some portion of the population are using it, it will be hard to get rid of and will be there to stay.'

Very good point, Exactly. They will protest, if you saw the debate with AdG a couple of months ago where he was 'pitted' against 'pro-deathist' fatalists who have more 'ethics' and 'more soul' of course...wow... it was an eye opener. And that was a very small of people...imagine an entire football field or stadium of them...and AdG right int he middle - Big Tackle.
I felt sad for him because he was not being like 'Yo. I go this. 1000Y-LifeSpan (c). Got it'.
He was really like : 'We live in a new age and I believe firmly in rejuvenation, saving family's lives and building a better, longer future in greath health'.

So when the fatalists said : 'But why do it .... ? We die...you know', it's IN-evit-able and Want-ed then almost saying:
''Are you ready to die Aubrey de Grey ? Accept it, we will make you spit it out and Accept it. That we all die so leave that 'Selfish' dream alone, immortality if for selfish people who don't care of others and/or ethics/have no soul. You're tempering with Natural Death - you'Re artifical and fake human''.

AdG : ''huh....'' (crickets)

So that's where we are at. The Pro-Death are becoming More Focused on their message that dying Has a Purpose and is Thoughtful/Conscience, and life extension is a Lie, Fakery, Construction,
Bad for the Planet, Overcrowdind, Selfish Teenager dream, and Unpurposeful etc (and all the more ethic bs words just to make you 'want' to die...).

It's a good idea to make them see that Special Anti-Aging Creams - should not just be a cosmetic job...but I'm getting the feeling they are SO thick (on the cream) that it seems they can't (or won't) understand that longevity could be had - and that beautiful skin too - all thanks to that 'Pro-Life' cream.

No, to them : Give a 'Dead-at-90' cream. I'm not even convinced that the whole 'remove wrinkles, or diseases - DISEASES...or make skin/body health MUCH BETTER - is STILL enough to make them change their mind'.. (because there is tons of Anti-Aging Creams and SUpplements - and they STILL hold the same ideas; they don't care and if these therapies are going to be in god forsarken place (like overseas but really shady area doing things 'private') do you think they will go ? It Co$ts...only if their life was Endangered (like a fatal disease) would they travel to get a '30,000$ transplant' to have a chance on life.

But then from the Same Stroke - can'T Understand that THAT's the point of Rejuvenation so that THey Don't go to some place and pay 30K$ for their dying family member of some disease - BY using Rejuvenation to cure DEATH; that'S a hell of a lot better than 'playinh catch-up mop-up game' in HEALTH (transplants, ending up at the hospital,a BIG PHARMA INDUSTRY$$$ that des not like YOU HEALTHY - BUT SICK AND UNHEALTHY, and in the hospital - to get $$$$$$$, until you're dead and it's - NEXT PATIENT. RINSE. REPEAT).

it's a Deeper problem : it touches their core soul - THeir Life. That's a very ETHIC thing.
When you ask people how long they want to live some say 90-120, but if offered very long life they reject it - BUT by the same stroke 'JUST HEALTHY ENOUGH' to live to 120....and then DIE.

?????
Da Fuq.... it's so Auto-Defeatist and like 'oh it'S too long 120, 120 is enough, 120...IS SO LONG...in fact, I WANT TO DIE AT 60 - BUT WITH GOOD HEALTH. GO WITH A BANG'.

'sigh....'

That's what you hear,...

I tried to convince my family too....oh boy...Clearly the humanity think long lifespan is absolute bs (and that's because IT NEVER happened in EVER in humanity and it's a GUT feeling - your body speaks to you - in each of us, it's a BIOLOGICAL response, like you can reject it right away because not natural 'we ALL ''AGE''' ...right ?...Because We Must ??? of course...)
We all LOVE to age....
oh and we die...small detail (and once it lasts...for ONLY - forever...) sarcasmm)

Talk about trying to change people's mind, as near impossible.

Posted by: CANanonymity at May 27th, 2017 9:21 AM

True Norse, I don't understand why people don't support SENS but are raving after sinclair. I am mean look at the articles on Sinclair, all talking about who is the coolest geneticist around? But even then i guess he is not feeling well funded. I want to be the cool grandpa who is 500 years old and feeling like one of those beings that we only see in fiction. I mean its an amazing feeling to see your future generations right in front of you. It like there are multiple versions of you because they all have some part of you in them. That is an incredibly exciting thought. And i can't understand how others can't feel the same excitement. People should relate to this since a lot of people love their children and want to see them grow up into successful individuals and when our kids do become successful we are sitting in a wheelchair just hoping our son or daughter visits before we disappear permanently. I mean if we had rejuvenation, instead of praying to their ancestors we would right in front of them and it's incredibly depressing to not have that. I mean we are too busy nowadays to enjoy the company of our children due to long work hours and top it off we don't get to spend time with our wives and risk our marriage and losing our partner to some other person. If we had rejuvenation not only would we get spend time with our future generations, we would not risk our marriage due to us being far apart from our wives due to work. I am sure any man or women alive today who work for long hours and are disillusioned with their lives can relate to this. while this might sound selfish, i know these therapies will come at some time since society changes, but i don't want to be one of the sacrifices that paves the way but rather i wish all of us alive with our already accumulated damage will live to see the day. You know what i tell people who are afraid of boredom. Don't worry your future generations will be alive to keep you entertained. This is what i try to do if i can ease in into a conversation about rejuvenation with someone. People nowadays seem to have a love affair with tragedy. Right now my biggest concern is how do we overcome this situation and mindset and bring in more members into our radical life extension community who truly believe in our cause. Because no matter what i say, the deathists act like it all going on deaf years and feel like some characters in a shakespeare book. do we have make a mouse live for a 100 years or what?

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 9:29 AM

Sinclair is doing important work. DNA damage may be a driver of aging and it is far from clear if it is or isnt yet. I would not be quick to pooh pooh his work.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 27th, 2017 9:46 AM

CANanonymity,

Let the pro aging people believe what they want, and practice what they preach. Though it may seem like it, their beliefs and their 'ethics' aren't universal, nor do they need to be. Why is it that the ones who are against it are so ready and willing to force their choices on everyone who doesn't agree with them? "I don't want it, so you can't have it!" That said, given that their numbers are vast compared to the people interested in anti aging and longevity, I admit their persistence can really muddle things up.

Anyway, I'm tired of people trying to make you feel bad because you dare to be 'selfish' with your 1 life, and want to live as long and in as good health as possible. It'll be like anything else controversial where there are some people extremely for it, and some extremely against it. Unless of course true rejuvenation just gets outright banned, which seems unlikely, as it wouldn't come all at once.

Posted by: Ham at May 27th, 2017 10:01 AM

@Ham

Hi Ham !

''Why is it that the ones who are against it are so ready and willing to force their choices on everyone who doesn't agree with them? "I don't want it, so you can't have it! That said, given that their numbers are vast compared to the people interested in anti aging and longevity, I admit their persistence can really muddle things up''

True that. True to that. The answer to that question is there : their numbers are vast compared to the people interested in anti-aging.

They feel entitled - because they are a majority. It's sad, but understandable and a very 'human' thing when you think about it : we always 'want' what's best for others -
IF we are in A Majority group.

The minority is seen as 'outliers' 'who don'T fit in the majority mold' - thus, Should stay a minority (they are Marginals/Outliers who 'don't Assimilate' to the Majority mass (aka Become Deathist/Fatalist),

only if we have 'more people' on our side....do we become a majority and then we have possibility to changer - Their minds (since now they are a Minority).

And, Unlike them, we Don't Enforce/Coerce our Thing of Radical Lifespan Extension - We Offer IT and Surely, there will be many who like it - But a Ton who won't.

And we Respect That, they will become a minority; and this has always been like that in history with nation formation :the majority vs minority (in it)). THe minority could be wiped-out
or 'allowed/Tolerated' to live on..thank goodness we can at least emit our opinions that radical lifespan extension is worth in (in the first place).

So it's number's games (money, people, resources, etc....). One more thing :

Parents - Children - There were need to convince the parents and we need to GET to those kids on the bandwagon, the children will totally change the world/society in the future for they will adopt the Majority's views - but will be open to minority's new views, if they feel it's worth it (and so far kids are not really towards that (thanks to The Family's/parent teaching outlook not helping), then they will adopt that YES in the future humans can live longer and these children will becom our future scientist that Work Tirelessly to end aging and Cure (age-caused) death (we can't do anything about 'accidental death' (like a car accident).
But we can cure age-cause death.

Posted by: CANanonymity at May 27th, 2017 10:42 AM

Hi Akschith ! Good text,

''True Norse, I don't understand why people don't support SENS but are raving after sinclair. I am mean look at the articles on Sinclair, all talking about who is the coolest geneticist around?''

JUst a 2 cents, I think because the message of longevity/life extension has 'reached' the mass now (in the news) and like they associate with it - so they hold negative thoughts (because it aims are improving health but they know you will liver Longer....Ohnooo!!! NOT longerrr (kidding)). :) Mr. Sinclair, who is about SIR/Sirtuins/IGF/Calorie Restriction and such (one of the best), is more a 'mild message' of
only 'health' improvement; that's why money will go to him and people too. But they will
flee 'life extension rejuvenation' of SENS. And that'S why, they (SENS) are trying to change the message to appeal to them with one single concern :

Diseases (Health).

Posted by: CANanonymity at May 27th, 2017 10:57 AM

I would first like to apologize on dissing of Dr.Sinclair's work. it was only my intention to point out the contradiction in treatment between him and Dr.Aubrey. A lot of misstatements on my part. Also Ham i second your point , tired of the deathist crowd but we need to move past them. And like you said , rejuvenation is periodic treatment and its not like you just pop a pill and be done with it. I also feel a lot of people are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if they should buy into the hype surrounding rejuvenation. Maybe once we have concrete results( hopefully not a 100 year old mouse) , they will jump onto the rejuvenation bandwagon and we will have a considerable force to oppose the deathist crowd. we just have to help people realise the benefits of rejuvenation by talking and relating to them on a personal scale. When we show them that everything they hold precious can be saved as in their loved ones, friends and themselves, they will turn around and it is my hope that things turn out this way. Also in the worst case, us proponents would have built a global network by then and can help each other. we need to teach people to embrace the joy and gift of life and also relate to them on a spiritual level so its easier for them to come over to our side.

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 11:02 AM

CANanonymity SENS has never "sold" Life Extension they have always been about treating age releated diseases and health.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 27th, 2017 11:03 AM

CANanonymity, i just found out that Dr.Sinclair is working on DNA repair which is critical for longevity as it the code of life. Dr Aubrey doesn't feel the need to repair DNA according to some of the people i am in contact with and so i apologized. But Dr.Sinclair is not a health spanner and is a good friend of Dr.Aubrey. I on the other hand agree, it's all about the messaging. he in fact wishes to be biologically younger if you watch the through the wormhole episode on aging in its latest season. I think the work of both Aubrey and Sinclair are important. So, please suport both of them guys!

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 11:10 AM

Totally agree with your message, Reason. I myself try to advocate for indefinite lifespans or immortality, not health.

About the studies on people's reactions on advocacy: they are correct in their results, but they are very short-term focused too. They only consider people's first reaction to life extension advocacy, like the first 5 minutes or so. People don't decide what they will support for a significant part of their life in only 5 minutes. It's a first filter, yeah, but you can't design your whole advocacy strategy around those 5 minutes only!

I certainly didn't became a cryonics and SENS supporter in only 5 minutes. I knew about cryonics for a decade or so before I took a deeper look at it (by chance) and became a supporter. I came to SENS through indirect routes, not by advocacy but through the Wikipedia article on human lifespan records. That brought me to articles about what aging is, whether immortality is feasible and finally to de Grey's work.

In the recent Madrid conference, many of the most applauded presentations where the more radical ones, talking about cryonics and LE as a means for cheating death indefinitely, and many people in the public where exposed to cryonics and RLE for the first time on this conference (for example, there were many medicine students invited by their teachers, that spoke in the conference about cryopreservation of tissues for cardiac surgery).

Posted by: Antonio at May 27th, 2017 11:11 AM

NAD is very important in DNA research and he is doing exactly that!

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 11:13 AM

ANTONIO THAT IS VERY HEARTENING NEWS THAT people accept radical life extension messages. i am on the ropes regarding cryonics because they cannot get rid of the toxicity and other problems and many things can go wrong with resuscitation which is not yet possible. By the way my NAD comment was referring to Dr.Sinclair

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 11:19 AM

Akschith: I think we will have very good news on cryonics soon. Greg Fahy was there to give a presentation about (according to the chairman) a very important result he obtained recently, but finally, when the day come, Fahy told us that he had to change the presentation's title and contents to a more general, introductory-type talk due to publication embargo. So stay tuned!

Posted by: Antonio at May 27th, 2017 11:27 AM

I don't know what the Madrid conference was about, but I imagine that some selection bias was involved. Why not just advocate for 150 year lifespans?

Such a goal could make people happy anyway, since it could bring even an 80 year old (and there are plenty of rich old people around) to the dawn of the 22nd century, at which point between AI, synthetic biology, space exploration, and the dramatic changes that society will have undergone, the debate about the appropriateness and feasibility of indefinite lifespans will be obsolete.

Basically, while I myself would love the option of living indefinitely, I don't think there's any need to talk about lifespans in the 4 digits just as yet, since the cons of doing it likely outweigh the pros. Those who do want to live to be a thousand know that reaching 150 will very likely get them there.

Posted by: Barbara T. at May 27th, 2017 11:40 AM

@Steve

Hi Steve ! Thanks for that,

I meant really in the terms of AdG had created something, not from notthing, he built a paper LEV and from this he built his company. He was a genetics (that became, although every other genetist or biologist thought he was a nobody - who learned 'by self/autodidact' the medical research like no other, so an outlier). The LEV paper was manifestation that showed us the intentions of where it was going - I am - for - it, many are not. If I mention LEV, it's bogus to them. SENS has backed down on that and is more about curing health (and I applaud all you do tirelessly to make it work!). When AdG spoke : 'I believe there is a 1000-year old person born or going to...' it was there, as teh SENS creator, how things would unfold as they did.

But it's good you are trying to make them change the message to be focused on disease (health).
Because, clearly, great longevity doesn't gel with the majority.

Posted by: CANanonymity at May 27th, 2017 11:42 AM

Barbara: It was a conference on cryonics and life extension http://longevitycryopreservationsummit.com/ but there were a lot of talks about surgery too, focused on cryopreserved tissues for cardiac surgery and how to make donated organs (like lungs) survive longer during transport. Indeed, one of the chairmen said at one moment something like "I know at least 8 cardiac surgeons on this room, so probably this is the better place in the city to be if you are old and worried about your immediate survival."

Posted by: Antonio at May 27th, 2017 12:02 PM

@Barbara

Hi Barbara ! 2 c,

''Why not just advocate for 150 year lifespans?''

I am for it too, I would advocate full life - for However Long that Person Chooses (which can be 30 years or 3000 years (or eternal life)) How ridiculous soundind as it sounds, I would offer them Sole CHoice of their Life and Body - of staying on Earth or Leaving, when They wish.

But, as Peter's message hit like brick for many of us (and for the others outside they see us as having 'rosy-colored glasses' on and almost think we are into unicorns also) because
the large mass of the public (especially in areas that are poor and represent a lot of people)
they don't care, 120 is sufficient. You can put them in their head 150 but no, they care of Health and Diseases, not of 150 year lifespan - to them

150 Years = Innnnfinnnnitee Lifessspann.... soooo long.. I mean their grand-mother did not even reach 76 years old...and you talk about 150....(sarcasm).

They don't 'assimilate' it, it like's 'Computer Errorrrr' up in brain.

Or when a doctor tells you : 'you have cancer and 6 months to live'....it is hard to fathom.

The Reality hits you - it us Unreal, that you have to Accept it, that it will end wether you like it or noy. Same for telling 150 to average people on street : they think you're a weirdo and laught it off.

I am, like you, for 150 year lifespan; but for them is sounds so 'off-sounding'. They want to die......at 120 or below.

Posted by: CANanonymity at May 27th, 2017 12:09 PM

So, in particular about the selection vias, the LE outsiders were mostly medicine students (graduate and undergraduate), physicians, lawyers and psychologists, at least that was my impression according to the people I talked to and the conversations I heard around me between presentations.

Posted by: Antonio at May 27th, 2017 12:17 PM

@ Barbara T. I agree with you 150 is more reasonable at this point in time. We were also at Madrid this week and gave a presenation about messaging and advocacy. I am sure it put some folks noses out of joint but it is what it is, social studies and research data show how people react and so our messaging is based on a similar format to SENS. Immortality does not sell that is for sure.

At least most of us here agree that Healthspan being the goal is very poor so we all have this is common even if some of our approaches vary.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 27th, 2017 12:59 PM

@Akschith

Thanks for that, I truly believe in this researcher (I mean I just looked it up and stomached when saw he was born in 1969, he looks biologically young, clearly he is taking his SIRTUIN activating agents in himself to look this ageless). But Mr.Sinclair is very focused on the nucleotide approach (NAM/NAD/NAR, which are the basic of DNA (since DNA is made of nucleotide and nucleosides (same thing for telomeric repeats) in chromosomes which contain the nuclear DNA; and the mitochondrial circular DNA).

from NAR study:
''Aged mice (24 months old) treated with nicotinamide riboside for 6 weeks survived, on average, 5% longer than control mice.1''

I checked the last study on NAM (nicotinamide mononucleotide) - it increased healthspan a alight bit lifespan too;as such both are good for improving health (they increase mitophagy and improve redox a little bit).
NAD/NAM are electron donors and increase chromosome/histone activation, genetic activation of the SIR/DAF-16 pathway (which is quite essential, DAF NRF2 ARE is translocated to Nucleus) and then the body can repair itself. They also said NAM/NAD increase the old adult stem cells regenerative potential anwe to be capable of differentiating again and rebuild old tissues/injuries.

NAM/NAD...give approximately 5 years extension (because if give about 5% in mice - normal mice wild type ones...not sick ones or ones with progeria).

Thus us 'healthy' people can expect that (Roughly...again, nothing is certain, it could be stronger in humans (highly doub it), or (more likely) it could absolutely nothing. Perhaps, a 5 years lifespan increase by his discovering

I wish great luck for him but if that is the research to say : '5 generation will be aroudn the table' that's overoptimistic (because of the results), it is too weak to give 20 year extension.

But, it is a lead, and will improve our Health - very important so I would take NAD even so.
But, sadly, no this is not stuff that will make us live 150 (it seems, from their mouse study result).

Posted by: CANanonymity at May 27th, 2017 1:16 PM

CANanonymity, based on the results you found, Dr Sinclair's research could increase our health and lifespan a little bit but he isn't finished with his research on NAD/NAM/NAR and sirtuins. The important thing here is that he is focusing on DNA repair which SENS does not. And i have heard from Mr. Steve that DNA repair is very important because if your DNA crumbles then no SENS therapies could save you. So maybe the idea here is that Dr.Sinclair's research helps us maintain our DNA and stop it from screwing itself and the SENS therapies help extend our life and make us biologically younger at the same time. What i am worried about is whether all this research into mouse is going to translate well into humans because things work a certain way for short lived species compared to long lived species. After all Humans are a lot more complex than mouse and our gains in life extension might not necessarily look like how things works out in mouse. Even though this might sound a bit cruel, I think we need to test the research on people who are on their last legs or are in old age who might not have a choice but participate in clinical trials since they are going to die for certain if they don't. That way if the research works, they benefit from it and we get to know the potential of current life extension techniques both from SENS and Dr.Sinclair's lab and see how far we can truly extend life. Because right now what we are doing is all speculation based on mouse results. And the depressing thing is even in mouse we haven't significantly extended their life. if we prove that we can significantly extend mouse lifespan and healthspan , then i am sure SENS and other teams would get increased funding from investors like peter thiel and michael greve and so on. I also second Barbara's point that we talk about 150 year lifespans. It would be good messaging and not too radical for people who are potentially interested in life extension to get them on boat into our community.

Posted by: Akschith at May 27th, 2017 4:38 PM

@Akschith I merely pointed out that DNA damage is a suggested hallmark of aging and that the jury is still out on if it is or is not. Even if it isnt important in aging during the normal human lifespan it will be a tool we need later if we want to live beyond 120. I consider Sinclair's work important is all.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 27th, 2017 4:55 PM

@Ham,

You wrote:

"You could have so many generations alive at once, that you couldn't possibly know all of your family members". Or "What about the inheritances from one generation to the next", or "Then children won't be able to get out from under their parents' shadow, and truly come into their own."

Here is the "problem" I think. Thats the strongest arguments I've heard. Most of the opposition comes from that thinking. That's scares me.

@Akschith:

You wrote:

"I want to be the cool grandpa who is 500 years old and feeling like one of those beings that we only see in fiction. I mean its an amazing feeling to see your future generations right in front of you. It like there are multiple versions of you because they all have some part of you in them. That is an incredibly exciting thought. And i can't understand how others can't feel the same excitement."

Im one of those that doesn't feel the same excitement. Here all we who are positive towards longevity, immortality need to discuss. It is here the community are divided. Over having children or not. AdG at BBC Documentary "Do You Want To Live Forever", says he's not going to have children. He says he hasn't time. My feeling says it is something more. Almost as he feels he are diluting himself if he have children. There's only one original AdG and I agree. I decided when I was 6-8 years old that I will never have children based on that reasoning. Its a scary feeling that 50% of my DNA combined with 50% of DNA from another person are creating a new person that acts and thinks in a way same as I but growns up in another space-time with more opportunities. I read UK cryonics some years ago about one of the active members a male. He sad when you have children you are supposed to die. He didn't have children and then the woman in his life came and they got children. He said: "I knew it were going to happen!" (Angry). Then his interest and focus on cryonics waned. I also think some similar are going to happen with many cryonics and immortalists and thats scary. First you have focus on living forever, you got children, grand-children and so on at age 150 you decide you want to die. That I think is a major concern. Also for cryonics organisations, who are going to care if many lost interest.

Posted by: Norse at May 28th, 2017 6:56 AM

NORSE, WHY DO WE have to die if we have children? Who created this rule? Is it a biological rule? I don't understand men in cryonics who think this way. I mean you are not losing your DNA when you pass it on right?

Posted by: Akschith at May 28th, 2017 8:37 AM

I don't care about children, I will never have any, even when the perfect woman comes along. I'm not here for that. I know that it has not any meaning to have any, even when some people think so. Sexual reproduction has been only one of multiple mechanisms for genes to survive which had however fitness advantages in the complex and everchanging environmental settings throught earth history experienced by our lineage ancestors.

There are some somatic cells that define us more than genes, and they lie in the brain. They cannot be passed on through the germline in the unique combination that define what and who we are. They get destroyed once we die and with them unique personalities and beloved persons, which can never be restored. But this has no meaning in evolution as it is a cold bruteforce mechanism with no feelings or intention, as opposed to us. For us, these people do actually mean something and it hurts to lose them. There's nothing more I want than deprive my germline of its immortality and give them to my somatic cells. I will never see my germline in front of me.

Posted by: K. at May 28th, 2017 9:24 AM

The conversation is moving into completely unrelated topics now.
And worse off I feel like a lot of the people posting completely missed Reason's point.

"The problem is that this field of research already spends near all of its time on marginal, unambitious goals. The problem is that the vast majority of advocacy and public engagement is focused on painting tiny gains as large gains, via the vision of compression of morbidity that talks only of healthspan. When longevity is not open to improvement, small increases in healthspan can be made to look large. But it is an illusion. These increases are not large, vastly greater gains are possible, and this present state of affairs must change. Creating that change requires that we distinguish ourselves and our message. All of the progress to date in establishing SENS rejuvenation research as an important part of the field has been achieved by distinguishing ourselves, by talking about greatly increased health and longevity and an end to aging, rather than hiding that view simply because some people would rather not engage with it."

Concentrate on this, not on any other imaginary or real problems.

Posted by: Anonymoose at May 28th, 2017 9:52 AM

Anonymoose, I agree with you. I stand with SENS, and do not make small gains sound like big ones. It's frustrating that the healthspanners of the aging research community have a bigger mouthpiece than us and negate our efforts in promoting rejuvenation.i believe the day we become a sizable portion of the aging research community and have a greater say in things will be when small gains are not representated as a large gains. Until then, we just have to work harder in adding more more members to our community and building up in strength.

Posted by: Akschith at May 28th, 2017 11:06 AM

Norse,

I don't think there's anything special about those arguments i mentioned. Especially about the inheritances and becoming your own person. There's something to be said about "making it" on your own. In my opinion at least. No one should be expecting an inheritance. I find that to be an incredibly weak argument to be honest. Same thing with becoming your own person. If a person can't become their own person, and come out from under their parents "shadow" before their parents die (somewhere usually between when you're 35-50, sometimes sooner or later than that, obviously), then that's on them.

I also don't think there's much merit to what that U.K. Cryonics member said. No one is "supposed" to do anything. Not that I'm advocating for people to have 5 kids each and all go on to live forever or anything. I just don't think it's a disqualifier.

Posted by: Ham at May 28th, 2017 11:36 AM

I would like to know why people think healthspanners have consensus? From talking to researchers the majority I encounter are interested in repair based approaches not small gains. Could it be that this situation is being exaggerated? I find the same with programmed aging, some people say its the dominant view but my experience has been the opposite. I am just curious how this conclusion was reached?

Quite aside from the likely fact that healthspan and lifespan are almost certainly linked and it would be very hard to have one and not the other. Push lifespan out you will push healthspan out. I saw a recent study in Australia showing that as people are living longer they are also gaining more healthy years so I am not overly concerned once repair technology arrives such people will revise their skepticism and get on the longevity train anyway.

Posted by: Steve Hill at May 28th, 2017 12:32 PM

@Akschith:

I also stand with SENS, have done since 2004 and will always do. Im a recurring jobless donor.

you wrote: NORSE, WHY DO WE have to die if we have children? Who created this rule? Is it a biological rule? I don't understand men in cryonics who think this way. I mean you are not losing your DNA when you pass it on right?

In biology there seems to be an "unwritten" rule or norm that once an organism have procreated nature doesn't care about you any longer. Nature dont need you. The brute force of evolution. And it seems to me that there are a same "unwritten" universal rule in universe. Second law of thermodynamics. Things wither away atoms takes new structures. After a discussion wit a woman she said to me: So you are planning to become biologically younger? What about your children are you going to be as young as them when they reach your 20-ies? She said it is the way it should be. Children should live and survive after your death not that I should continue living. I answered I'm not going to have children.

@Ham

Argument on not coming out of your parents shadows. I also think its a weak argument. I have a mother who are acting like Staling. But often I visit them and get a free meal (drains on their money), and Im sure if I got cancer they would support me with money for treatment if needed. You will have a stronger economic position in live if you have many generations that are older than you. Money "rains" down on you. You should not wish for their death to get inheritance because that inevitable comes down the generations.

Posted by: Norse at May 28th, 2017 3:08 PM

At the documentary youtube commentary field. One wrote about AdG: Funny how this man who are talking about living forever are chosing to be an evolutionary dead end.

Posted by: Norse at May 28th, 2017 3:16 PM

@Steve Hill "Could it be that this situation is being exaggerated?"
I don't think it's exaggerated, most of the prominent policy makers seem to go for that option. Doesn't mean there's a consensus, but you have to remember prophylactic treatments for old age are not something a regulatory agency in the West or anywhere on the planet currently will give the greenlight for.

I'm sure there are enough people on the research end willing to try it, but when faced with law and funding, they can't do what they want to do.

Posted by: Anonymoose at May 28th, 2017 3:57 PM

I read this comment at FA!

I had a colleague whose grandmother was in a nursing home for ten years bedridden. Tired of the visits, my colleague hoped that her grandmother would die.

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2016/11/predicting-the-order-of-arrival-of-the-first-rejuvenation-therapies/

I understand this, however who wants grandchildren when this is the most likely outcome? Your are struggling all your life not to die and your grandchildren hoping for your death. Better not to have children.

Posted by: Norse at May 28th, 2017 4:30 PM

@ Norse :

Dying if we have children : with indefinite lifespan, mortality rates will drop dramatically. So if we let people have as many children as they want, the famous threat of overpopulation will become real, real quick. The solution against that is to either forbid child-making for those who choose to have an indefinite lifespan, and/or develop interplanetary colonisation, which thankfully Elon Musk is working on.

Parents shadow : yeah this argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. However it's hard to speculate on the generational links given our societies have tended to be atomised, so there no guarantee at all of a strong intergenerational bond. Not that this will be needed if a sound Basic Income policy is implemented.
On the other hand, mobile software to quickly check one's lineage will be needed, so as to avoid inbreeding (already exists in Island).

Grand children : many people want them ; they don't think about the possible consequences down the road. That's why it will be both important and difficult to educate them.

Posted by: Spede at May 28th, 2017 11:03 PM

I know about a social worker who also teaches students. One family she worked with there were "disease" in the form of germline mosaicism with T21 - Trisomy 21 (Down syndrom), which were passed down the germ line. The grandfather from which it were passed down from didn't knew it. But his grandchildren had found it out taking chromosomal tests. This family were particularly angry at the grandfather since he had passed it down but didn't show it openly. When he passed away it didn't heart anyone. I think if having children one should take all tests, whole genome sequencing of our own genome and embryo selection as karyomapping and Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) to assure that nothing passes down.

Posted by: Norse at May 29th, 2017 6:22 AM

Mosaicism can't be passed down the germ line. By definition, a gamete can never have mosaicism nor transmit it, since it's only a feature of cell populations, not single cells.

Posted by: Antonio at May 29th, 2017 7:04 AM

Uh... neither T21, nor Down's are inherited. That family was a bunch of idiots.

Posted by: Anonymoose at May 29th, 2017 7:17 AM

Having children as a cryonicist is almost as in The Phantom by Lee Falks. He have 20 generations that have worked for the same cause. Many thinks the Phantom is the same person who have lived for centuries but it isn't. Having children/grandchildren is only positive if they are loyal to the cause (cryonics/longevity). If not they can cause a lot of trouble.

Posted by: Norse at May 29th, 2017 8:04 AM

I personally don't want children, but I can't see the point of the argument here: overpopulation will be a problem regardless if we all live forever, unless we impose a firing squad ban on reproduction to every single person on this planet, which is clearly absurd and impossible.

Society will change in due time, and in fact in developing nations birth rates have been plummeting for the last few decades. Like thousand years lifespans, at the moment this is also a non-issue and people should be allowed to make their own choices.

Posted by: Barbara T. at May 29th, 2017 8:17 AM

Good god, you've gone a very long ways since I use to watch this place 2 years ago and the highest number would be like, 13 people with a average of 1-2. Good

Posted by: thatoneguy at May 29th, 2017 8:37 AM

Argumentatively, I think it first helps if you get people to agree with you on the core ideas behind life extension. One is the acceptance that death and suffering are bad things. If someone accepts that, it's easier to get them to accept the idea of fighting aging (The main cause of both).

Another argument that, IMO, helps to open minds to the cause is explaining no one can ever save a life, we can ONLY extend life. Cure an old man's cancer and you haven't saved his life, you've just extended it a few years. Push a child out of the way of a speeding car and you've haven't saved his life, you've just extended it decades.

Radical life extension is just the logical next step in really the only main things medical science has been trying to do for centuries: reduce suffering and extend life. Once you lay this groundwork it then becomes easier for people to accept ideas like escape velocity and 1000-year lifespans.

Posted by: kel at May 29th, 2017 5:59 PM

Great point Kel,you put what was in my mind pretty eloquently!

Posted by: Akschith at May 29th, 2017 6:36 PM

The problem why more are not YET behind the science is lack of an outcome that people can see that they will DIRECTLY benefit from. Great to talk and talk and talk about some nebulous great life extension treatments but no one believes it until there is something tangible that they can get and use to either look or feel better. That is why Sinclair gets attention he talks about a tangible product that people know that they will be able to buy.
You want support? produce a product, sell it, use the funds to produce a better product. People will buy it (as long as it is not BS but even if it is marginal). Shooting for the moon type products are best because even if you fail they are likely to have some demonstrable benefits.
People do want to live longer, look better and be healthier - give them the choice (not words) and I guarantee they will jump at it.
People hate feeling like they're foolish or their hard earned money is going to waste - to many research is a money pit that will provided no direct benefit to them - even if it may save the world someday...

Posted by: Superhuman at May 30th, 2017 10:04 AM

Superhuman, fundamental science is a risk because we are widening the scope of civilization to a much more amazing and advanced world. these things don't happen overnight and funding is needed. always looking for products is narrow minded consumerism and short termism. it like saying people want to know they are guaranteed to make massive amounts of money once they start investing. what i mean to say is its not as simple as you think. Sorry if my language seemed a little rough. i definitely see your point but i just wanted to present a different viewpoint.

Posted by: Akschith at May 30th, 2017 1:54 PM

This is a recent video interview with Apollo VC founder James Peyer. If you want funding and to know what the big money is looking for please listen (17:50 if you have no time but still care).

https://youtu.be/7uPO5mmr32Y

Posted by: Robin at May 31st, 2017 1:02 PM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.