Immortality is a Distant Challenge, not the Immediate Issue
The media throws around the term "immortality" when talking about efforts to extend healthy life, with little concern for the dictionary definition. Advocates for radical life extension have in the past used physical immortality as a alternative term for the concept of agelessness, in which aging is controlled but all other causes of death still exist - which is another change of meaning. Some people find this a distraction, an annoyance, something that makes it harder to conduct advocacy and fundraising for current and prospective longevity science. Convincing the world that rejuvenation therapies are a viable near term prospect, given sufficient funding, is challenge enough without the peanut gallery.
It isn't clear whether or not dictionary definition immortality is possible in this universe, and if it was the entities enjoying it would be very different from the present human model of existence. Even scaling up to a reliable life expectancy of a million years would require considerable technology-assisted change and expansion. Such long-lived beings would probably be something akin to distributed collections of hardened, space-faring, automated computational factories. In that sense, we stand a long way removed from even the lesser challenges of living for a very, very long time. The problems of today, in which we take the first steps towards treating aging as a medical condition, so as to add the first few additional decades of healthy life, are those of the first rung on an extremely long ladder - and they are hard problems. If we don't focus on them, there is every chance of failure to progress soon enough to matter for most of us.
It's not uncommon, especially for outsiders of a given field, to use an inappropriate word to indicate a more complex concept than the word itself conveys - maybe because they think that the two are close enough or possibly because they just don't see the difference. For this reason, it's likely that each field has its own unspeakably profane word; in the field of rejuvenation, that word is the dreaded I-word: immortality.
Whether or not immortality is possible is an intriguing question, but it is decidedly off-topic in the field of rejuvenation, because rejuvenation is not immortality. If a universal antiviral drug existed, able to wipe the floor with every conceivable virus, you wouldn't call it an immortality drug, because right after leaving the doctor's office where you got your miracle shot, a grand piano might happen to crush you after a 50-story free fall, and the antiviral drug wouldn't be especially effective against that particular cause of death. Similarly, rejuvenation would save you from death by age-related diseases, but again not by falling grand pianos.
Yet, both people and the media keep talking about "curing death" and "immortality pills" when the actual topic is rejuvenation biotechnology; this is a cause of particular annoyance to Dr. Aubrey de Grey, whose pioneering work is constantly called an "immortality quest" and similar things. Since immortality reasonably seems a pipe dream, this results in a gross misrepresentation of the entire field and a lot of unwarranted bashing of completely legitimate medical research whose only fault is that it aims to prevent the diseases of aging rather than just coping with them.
The same story is true of negligible senescence. If a successful rejuvenation platform were implemented, people would still age biologically, but we would have therapies capable of undoing such aging. Through periodic reapplication of these therapies, the hallmarks of aging would always be kept well below the pathology threshold. In other words, we would still senesce (that is, age), but our level of senescence would stay negligible - that's where the term comes from. Yet, many people keep calling negligible senescence immortality just like they do rejuvenation biotechnology, whether deliberately or by genuine mistake, thereby providing an excellent strawman for needy critics to beat.
Negligible senescence is the expected result of truly comprehensive rejuvenation biotechnologies, and yes, if we got there, our healthspan would be vastly increased, and consequently, so would our lifespan; if you were in perfect health for longer than, say, 100 years, it is a disarmingly trivial consequence that you would live for longer than 100 years. However, whether a negligibly senescent person then lives on forever or not, or ten thousand years from now, someone beats the odds and comes up with a fancy immortality switch, is an entirely different matter that is beyond the scope of the field of rejuvenation biotechnology.
Link: https://www.leafscience.org/for-the-last-time-rejuvenation-is-not-immortality/
Sorry, but I'm here for the immortality. Maybe it's a bad marketing strategy, maybe not, but I'm not here for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or sarcopenia. If all this were only about compression of morbidity, I'd never had come here.
I prefer the term biologically immortal.
A problem with the term most people seem to ignore is the feeling of immediacy - when people talk immortality in regards to what SENS is supposed to be doing for instance, they get the idea that once SENS is done we've achieved immorbidity, which is by the way the proper term.
Well that is probably not going to be the case because even Aubrey admits that we can only fully predict types of damage which accumulate within a current standard human lifespan. As we've discussed recently SENS doesn't cover DNA mutation load for that reason as one example.
So if you want to use the term use the proper term - immorbidity, and use it sparingly and more importantly correctly.
@Antonio
You do realize that immortality requires indestructibility of your whole body, right? Stopping or reversing aging won't make you immortal, and it's nevertheless very difficult to achieve. How would you achieve immortality (exclude all kinds of catastrophic death)? That's what also written in the article.
I would be happy if we achieve real rejuvenation sometime in the future. That's damn hard, but I want to live in a world without aging, disease and pain.
All in all I agree with the article (also regarding advocacy).
No, it doesn't require it. By immortality I mean 'not dying'. I don't mean 'can't die'. For example, the life expectancy of a population can be infinite even if some individuals of the population die. I understand immortality as a continous improving of your body and your environment (like LEV) that gives you a non-zero probability of not dying ever. But that doesn't mean that you can't have bad luck and actually die.
Of course, there is eventually the problem of the heat-death of the Universe, but maybe we can find a solution to that, as we found a solution to aging. After all, we barely know how the Universe works (we don't even know what the 96% of it is made of).
I like the word 'immortality' because it is very beautiful. Sadly, it is also very confusing. People underatand it as an inability to die. The right word is 'biological immortality'.
Hi all, Just a 2 cent...
I think I'm bit guilty of this too, but I believe in it so much (I don't think I have believe in something so much as that), we're not trying to be 'immortalists' as they call us; rather, we trying to solve aging and death; I don' think there is something wrong with that. It is when we talk about the Effect of that : Immortality. If death is cured than indeed you are immortal. IN the text, they talk about extrinsic elements, like dying from a car accident, or drowning, or electrocuted by lightning or with a toaster in your bathtub - or very luckily by a big piano falling on your head. But...what if you don't go out, what if you live a cloistered life, like a monk - you Could very well live a 1000 years like AdG said, and well no you will not die of car accident, die of lightning or whatever else 'RISkS' you take when you step out of your doorstep when leaving home 'into the world and exposing your life to said dangers'.
NO one wants to live as hermit for a million years or be scared 'of living'; but rather we wish to minimize these risks as best as possible to ONLY leave the 'AGING' part that kills you.
That is what is missing from this text. Risks are always there, you accidentally fall in your own home and die...a slip in your baththub or you killed yourself with a kitchen knife while cutting food or some 'kitchen' accident (the motto is :stay out of the kitchn and buy plastic utensils leaving the sharp oones out). You could even die - Stopping breathing/holding your breath longer than 5 minutes or jump in bathtub and play 'drown' your ownself.
People can do that, or they can also be more cautious (calculated risks, minimizing risks); and avoid these things; So that the largest element that determines when they die is MAINLY controlled by their AGING.
So then we are left with 'Aging'...what happens is that we die. That is point, very point that might Bother them and Irritate them, because 'we are searching 'for cures' to diseases' and we don't talk about 'outlandish b*llshit' of living as immortals.
Well no, we are going to Talk about it and it will irritate you because you cannot Evade this prospect; we all die - but what if WE DID NOT - let'S talk about it, why so scared of talking about that - because people laugh at rejuvenation, no we wish to understand it and talk about the real things. Such as DEATH. When is it going to happen, is it 120 or 1200 ?
You just want to keep people healthy...we very much respect that and we congratulate you.
It does not change anything about the very point we make : Death, life, mortality, aging - Immortality. They are TOGETHER and you cannot just dissociate them because you don'T like us talking about it becaysue 'it twists' your endeavors. No I say, don'y be shy let's talk about it and you , as rejuvenation, will hear it and have to respond. Because it concerns us and you know what it concerns you too - but you don'T want to look yourself in the mirror. You just want to accept defeat and die. Accept death as it is and say rejuvenation will sovle health, period. Thanks for that really that 's very helpful on LIFE and DEATH which are Mainly controlled by the single element thank kills us ALL - aging (and diseases we get from it over time).
Why is it that certain animals are immortal or extremely long-lived and its 'A-OK' for them, humans, nah, it's bs we are meant to die of corus 'because it's like that and because because 0 humans, good humans die right said every ethicitis.
We need a SERIOUS brain unclogging and deconstruction (kind of like unindoctrinating an indoctrinated human populace who behave the same rigged way), I've done it, apparently others haven'T.
It's infuriating, because we wish only to live how long we can - than means forever if it would be allowed; which LEV would Techincally in theory allow - though very doubtful. why is it so wrong to say that 'because because because...but but but but'
It's like this, we are at a turning point : we have to talk about it, in respect and openness, humanity will for the Very First Time it its history be faced with the prospect of eternal life or rather Very long lives (Centuries) as such, let'S talk about it ,we are there now. We are not trying to stir sht up and make charlatanism grow, no we want to talk truth. We are IN that new revolution in the making. Please. Do. Because I have a couple of years left of life and one life only before death, I wanna hear it.
Just a 2 cent.
My thinking is that we as a society should try to minimise risks from accidents and disease. Im 100% sure that in the future there are going to be near zero automobile accidents and we will cure all disease, aging and cancer included. What I dont understand is that there are not more focus on this from a societal standpoint. Im sure when we reduce mortality we will see back and ask ourselves why didn't we do this earlier? I dont want to be part of them that are lost.
@CANonymity: If you have only a couple of years before you die you should sign up for cryonics if you haven't already. Future society need people like you.
However, I think immortality is possible within this universe with mind uploading if you set aside the end of the universe (cold/heat death).
Mind uploading isn't immortality.
And by the way that is why I don't like people using the term immortality when we talk about life extension. It's not life extension if you're dead. Copies are copies. Enough semantics.
@Anonymoose: I can agree/disagree with you that mind uploading is a copy/not a copy and if it is it might not be you. And if it was possible to make a "copy" that was you that copy/copies are not indestructible and so there might as you wrote not exist a state of immortality in this universe.
@Gekki
Hi Gekki ! Thanks for that, and to you too; we need people like you in our future. I am positive we can work things for the benefit at large if we come truthfully and tell it like it is.
@Anonymoose
Hi Anonymoose ! (TL DR : immorbidity is nice word and could work in the mean time, the conversation will switch to 'how long' at some point though; it's 100% sure because people will wonder how far can it go; though immorbidity is not curing death or life; it's only curing diseases - you still age and die on clock from 'intrinsic aging' (replicative senescence and so forth))
I fully understand your point, there is stigma and bad connotation attached to immortality word because it is attached so many bad points; which I am sure many people attach it to:
selfish(ism), 'i want it all', overpopulation, it's not natural, immortality/joke/hinders the potential of life extension and 'real' rejuvenation, immortalists are backstabbers teenagers living in la-la-land utopia as unicorns, it makes biological scientist 'fool' like or selling snake-oil/charlatan...like making SENS look like a joke when it isn't.
all of this understandable but it does not change the real fact and obvious 'veil' that put on this at all cost: that you will die or so will i; and that if you continue to settle for healthspan/disease therapies well you are Sure that you will die.
And that'S not something I think is productive if our aim is to make lifespan extension Above the maximal lifespan of 122 (because one human Already reached that (I'm coming back with that number because it is the current recorded human MLSP), it,S already attainable, it's what's After that is concerning and should be talked about because now you enter into the extreme lifespan (over 122/centuries or yes 'immortality')
Immorbidity is actually a nicer way to put it and I understand why we could use this word to soften this (as in not make people laugh/freak out and think they mad scientist charlatans in twilight zone episode); as long as it does not shy away from the very point that life as an end and if your word means that; then's it's no good because it only seeks to make a certain lifespan extension without saying How Long it will last (122 or 1222); Immortality is far clearer on that point there is no ambiguity, such is the case with many other words who fear talking about death (this is a cultural phenomenon, 'don't talk about death' yet 'die a good person'...don'be fatalistic-talking or rather non-fatalistic talking, yet Be fatalistic by giving up on extreme lifespan extension and embracing your end). Immorbity is simply 'about diseases' that you dont' get diseases (which I fully agree with you, we must concentrate on improving health...but not stop from the former goal which was to have lifespan extension - and this lifespan extesnion (above the 122 MLSP) could possily become LEV (which is techinaly eternal life, not just lifespan extension)). People don'T want to hear about 'Extreme' lifespan extension it scares them; yet what's more scary, ironic, is them accepting death and just saying it is so. I have known that scientists, biogerontologists, don't want to 'spread' false infos, give false hopes of a miracle cure, but what they have missed (as a point) is they will die too (much earlier than they mighjt wished, for they don't do anything but support this fatalistic bias or saying 'in society today, aging is uncurable, you die, and we will help have a soft death with rejuvenated health'.......).
Negligible senescence and immortality are not the same thing and the public does not react well to the word immortality. There is a very good reason Aubrey does not like the word and take it from those of us working on the frontline of advocacy, it is a damaging word, a religious word, and a word that causes us no end of grief in trying to popularize the field.
Just to remind you what Aubrey has to say about this subject:
"The first thing I want to do is get rid of the use of this word immortality, because it's enormously damaging, it is not just wrong, it is damaging," de Grey told me. "It means zero risk of death from any cause-whereas I just work on one particular cause of death, namely aging. It is also a distraction, it causes people to think this whole quest is morally ambiguous and technologically fanciful." -AdG
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9akmp5/has-the-first-person-to-achieve-immortality-already-been-born
"Don't use the word immortality when you talk about my work. It's taken; it's a religious word. Immortality means zero risk of death from any cause, but I don't work on stopping people from being hit by trucks. I work on keeping them healthy." -AdG
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mgbb9v/meet-aubrey-de-grey-the-researcher-who-wants-to-cure-old-age
But by all means, keep using the word, but if you do then know that you are shooting yourself in the foot.
@Ariel
PS:
Hi Ariel ! Just a 2 cent, Biological immortality could also be a coinage that works although I think it scares people too because they suddently get these ideas - 'where did 'death' go'...and then know immediately it means one word : (true) immortality; as in never mortal, never dying Ever. That scares them immensely because it touches on core human values (which are nearly all linked to ethics/society/how we want our life to be like - and how we want it 'to end').
Please understand me, I'm not for that at all; I'm very much For biological immortality or rather ''biological preservation the longest possible/feasible/capable whether we die at 200 or 2000 years old - whichever I support because we love much longer lives if we are Capable to do so''.
Of course, I would prefer 2000 years over 200 like any person wishing to live how long they can. I know ethicits will say 'but you are not thinking for the others, just yourself''.
It is Catch 22 with the argument put forth.
It is what it is (death) and the sooner we get used to it the sooner people give up their fatalistic biases and societies transforms (though that will take a lonnng while because you have billions of people who will oppose that - while Other billions of people will oppose them too (meaning 'Pro-Life' vs 'Pro-Death'); I have predicted large wars ahead akin to Revolutions or even maybe world war III. The point is people would want to 'control' how long you live and many people will disagree with that; for as said, No One lives In you but you; and it should always be like that and your say because your life/your body/your soul...and certainly not 'owned' by any entity gov or person whom want to decide for you because 'it's like that (see the China example of low birthing pop restricted to 1 child only...that is our future I fear, if let huge bodies/gov/entities decide for us 'that we must die' for the contribution of the society. Again, as 'good' humans who don't do 'overpopulation' (again with teh China example, restricted to 1 child offspring per family = overpopulation control. They can do what they want, but do you think people will just sit back and be told : Well on your 121st birthday you get a cake, but on your 122nd birthday you run out of cakes whether you like it or not; which means that we will come for you and ask you to kneel down; say one last prayer and go forth into oblivion))).
The point is we must not fear talking about death because it touches us all one day, we must try to be 'ahead' of it and say we will twarth it and beat this with extreme lifespan extension /biological preservation/biorejuvenation - Not Just Health improvement - Biorejuvenation as in Reversing Aging and thus reversing/post-poning Death itself; that will allow us Much Much Muchhh longer lives than anything ever possible in human history.
Just a 2 cent.
It does not matter if you put the word biological in front of immortality, same reaction because the word immortality triggers people and conjures up totally wrong ideas about what it means. This is the problem with such words, they mean different things to different people, and on the whole, the majority thinks it means undying comic book sci-fi stuff.
So using it is basically shooting yourself (and the rest of us) in the foot.
@Steve Hill
Hi Steve ! Thanks for that, it's very appreciated (I meant it seriously), these words from Aubrey I can fully understand and if I was in his position, I would be hurting of course (he started this quest, I know he feels deeply about this and from these words it is clear he is trying to dissociate his work/himself/his endeavors as SENS, from this 'snake-oil' that is attached to immortality word).
I just wish to specify one thing, and before saying it I am not against AdG, I admire him so much for all he did to the advnacement of society and humans; which I wish to say is that in his words he is saying that he is not about 'stopping death' and I fully understand that.
I can understand this point, but I feel is less understood is that most people on here don't really mean - extrinsic elements, we are not talking about that. Though, I fully comprehend why people think 'immortal' like some superhero that cannot die even a 18-wheeler truck rams them on the highway....
it's not about that. Extrinsinc factors will kill us all, it's a Fact; we can die being hit by a car, a truck, lighting, you name it...we can die.
'immortality' in the sense we meant it :
is that you not die of 'aging' that is the meaning we mean - Excluding all extrinsic factors that will kill you 'by accident'.
I am for using any other word than immortality no problem but taht word that we use should be careful to not imply death. Meaning it should not ambiguously mean that 'you have an end' because you will die of 'aging'. This needs to be clarified so that the therapies allow us to live as long as we can - and yes it could mean immortality/eternity or much less, not even 30 years....you see what I mean there is nuance and we have nuance more our words.
Immortality as it is not nuanced enough/as stigma attach to it that hinders the funds going to SENS (I understood that because it undermines their goals and makes it a bad joke/charlatan in scientific eyes) and I am for nuancing it with something else. But we must not make a word that simply implies that you have this possibiliy of dying - of aging - I do not say of dying of extrinstic factors - Only about aging.
Ariel's word of biological immortality is somewhat there (minus the immortality word).
Biorejuvenation is also there, but even thee it'S vague and ambiguous :
does this mean I live 100 years or a 1000 years when I hear biorejevuenation...I dunoo it'S vague and simply implies 'it will make you live long supposedly (3 years, 30 years.. who knows) - but don't ask how long and yes, you will die on clock aroudn 122 MLSP or so'...Immortality is not vague : it means you don'T die and people catch that quick. But there is much badness to it, it hurts the good people who are making this. I say we must strike a middle ground, I am for it but rejuvenation endeavors must also strike a middle ground and be more specific forthcoming and not keep people in the dark about specifics - because right now it's as vague as a cloud in meaning on your lifespan.
Just a 2 cent.
PS: don't read anything I wrote wrongly, I,m on your side and wish it for us all, to have greatest longevity possibly ever in humanity - I will avoid the dreaded I-word but I think we must talk about things I don'T want rejuvenation endeavors to shy away from the truth.
Just a 2 cent,
''Negligible senescence is the expected result of truly comprehensive rejuvenation biotechnologies, and yes, if we got there, our healthspan would be vastly increased, and consequently, so would our lifespan; if you were in perfect health for longer than, say, 100 years, it is a disarmingly trivial consequence that you would live for longer than 100 years. However, whether a negligibly senescent person then lives on forever or not, or ten thousand years from now, someone beats the odds and comes up with a fancy immortality switch, is an entirely different matter that is beyond the scope of the field of rejuvenation biotechnology. ''
I can fully understand this wording but I think it is slightly 'shying' away from the main point, which is the ''disarmingly trivial consequence'' that you would live over a 100 years.
I am sorry, it is not trivial at all. What is there trivial about death ? or life/lifespan extension ? Nothing whatsoever - if you lived through hell, as I did (try having atherosclerosis and be on your death bed and come back to me), than no it'S not trivial. Ethicists will say it's trivila, 'life is trivial..it's just a 'moment' and then your gone..be good and 'go'...be trivial, just like your life''.
Yeah I had ot 'Get A Life again.
This 'trivial' thing is beyond words can explain, it is not trivial, do you not realize the Immenseness of this; you just made someone live much longer - in perfect health as you say.
It is no small thing and certainly Not a tiny trivial thing 'as 'trviail consequeence' that happens from rejuvenation therapy.
You are talking about Life. and Death. you know...what's trivial about that, it'S makes you right now, because without it you would not even exist. Trivial, seriously...
''However, whether a negligibly senescent person then lives on forever or not, or ten thousand years from now, someone beats the odds and comes up with a fancy immortality switch, is an entirely different matter that is beyond the scope of the field of rejuvenation biotechnology''
That's where I think we must stop and say : look you cannot just 'Separate' this as you wish; because you don'T like talking about death. This is again your fatalistic bias at work to avoid being branded 'immortalist' and hurt the funds going to your research because people will think you are full of it. It might be an 'entirely different' matter if someone lives forever from rejuvenation..though it is still linked to it; it is not trivial at all and might be 'entirely different matter beyonf the scope' - who cares we will deal with this matter and bring it forth because It Is a Matter than needs resolving. Biorejuvenation may not capable of answering these questions we seek because they are precise, it answers what it can and the rest is pretty much 'in the dark' talk that means very little. I fully agree with you that since the scope of forever lifespan - as a result of rejuvenation - is not really possible 'to tell' or predict in any way until a mice is rejuvenated somehow; we can work on just 'improving health'..
I agree with that but trust me, it will come, we will ask later about what happens with your life - since health is connected to life and life is connected to health; to aging, to death and all connected so you can'T just untangle them as you wish on a whime; they will talked all of them (later though, for now we stick to health improvement and maybe loifespan extension up to MLSP))).
Just a 2 cent.
There is a bit of Catch 22 to trying to live forever too. Lets say you have lived several hundred years using rejuvenation and longevity technology, and were at the same time hyper-aware of accidents that might do you in. To keep your wits about you, and allow rejuvenate to repair you, you become religious to be sure to get your 8 hours of sleep every night. Then sleep apnea suddenly takes you out when you were getting your rejuvenation sleep and couldn't be conscious to stop what will kill you.
@ Biotechy : I find it hard to believe that sleeping issues, sleep apnea and other such things won't be solved within a few hundred years. People should instead become more carefree regarding their health, thanks to medical advances.
If you were so extremely conscious of your well being to the point that sleep apnea was making you paranoid you'd probably take care of the problem. Losing weight isn't that hard.
There is a drug for sleep apnea in clinical trials: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/nu-scd112817.php
@Biotechy
Hi Biotechy (merry christmas one day in advance and happy new year!) !
It's true it really is a catch 22...it's not easy resolving this, it's the old 'd*mned if you, d*mned if you don't...sigh...
Well for christmas, in oneday, and the new years 2018, I wish us all great health and long lives, and possibly a cople of new glucosepane breakers that work (like the rabbit antibodies reinjection method to circmvent glucosepane's stubborn nature)
I tihnk you hit a solid point, hyper awareness of our one life, our own death...this is at the core of humanity; we fear our emminent death everyday yet go about our life, it's also called the uncanny valley (Japanese computer concept of the 1970s, where humans may feel certain things that robotic that 'look too human' (kind of like CGI is 'too real' you know, or a sexbot that is too real and replaces a human for sexual intercourse, it freaks out people and creeps them that they can replaced by a machine)...well we are there now in this twilight zone uncanny valley), except now it's the 'zombie uncanny valley'...where humans think of the zombies as metaphors of humans plight - death life (George Romero's film touched on that, where there was an underlying message of humans being 'drones' and just 'zombies' and 'numbers' in a food chain and just 'Dying'...and 'living dead/zombie''). A zombie is neither dead nor alive, it,s a Living Dead in 'limbo' caught between supposedly the purgatory/hell and stuck on earth but creating 'overpopulation' (zmobies virus lkie cancer cells taking over) - all a metaphore for death. And humans have long 'brushed' with 'death'...because it our 'next thnig' at the end. Why is death so present in life, in the news, in films, in medias...because of our fascination of what happesn 'after death'...we don't know yet...
But here we are trying to Stop that, as in not focus on dying, but be aware (hyperaware if you will) of your own mortality. Be aware of your end. Do the Right Things..such as, talking about SENS or other rejuivvenation because their aim is to help your health and thus, make you live longer, and thus again, post-pone your own death - From Aging - not from extrinsic factors (getting hit by car, drwoning.. these are Out Of Our Control, except doing things to reduce the accidental Risks of dying in life (that are extrinsic elements 'that happen' spontaneously by odds/the risks you take when leave home 'and gamble your life odds')...like not jumping in your bathtub with an connected toaster...I think you know i mean...etc.).
Sleep apnea will happen mostly (For people who do not experience apnea) aroudn 8 hours of sleep. That is why studies said always aim for 7 hours - Exactly. It is the Gold number, this was shown on stat graphs, bell curve that showed that 7 hours of sleep was least mortality of all number of hours. 6 hours or less means 2 to 3 to 5 fold higher morbidity - even half an hour less if bad (sleep 6 h 30.. is not best, that 30 min extra (To get a rounded 7) counts in your circadian clock). And OVer 8 hours of sleep - it rises too to over 5 fold of morbidity (because of sleep apnea and dying 'in your sleep'). 7 hours flush was most protective. I would not even dare go to 7 h 30 either. With that said, sometimes you need more sleep than 7 hours, to recuperate, it should not be a habit or else it could take your life. Elderly people die because of that (sleep apnea) or in the inverse they don'T get enough sleep, which just as bad on your health and aging.
As Spede said, this sleep apnea prob is a lesser problem (I'm not saying it's not imoprtant, i'ts important) I mean, it will be solved for sure. Sleep apnea is mostly due to a combination of things, tiredness, age, or, mostly, mucosal problems (like snoring), the mucosa in the back mouth 'jam' each expiration/inspiration breath in sleep and create this snoring, this jams O2 flow and has damaging consequence; it is aking to sleep ischemia. I had a colleague friend who suffered from apnea, he was in his 50s...and it was serious problem and he looked older than his age because of that (getting no good sleep he was accelerateing in aging), it was due to mucosal layers jamming problems; if this is fixed this reduces a large % of the problem.
Just 2 cent.
PS: I understand yor point though, that we 'are hyperaware' almost to a crazi level it's scary...if we think about our death or living forever...we are 'way out there/spaced out'.
I think we must not shy away from lifespan extension being more precise and giving us answers on 'Aging' (excluding the extrinsinc factors of dying by risk/accidents in life).
PPS: ''Why is death so present in life, in the news, in films, in medias...because of our fascination of what happesn 'after death'...we don't know yet...''
Well, technically, I should mention on what I said, we now do know (sort of an idea). A Japan study had showed 'what happens' after death and it was pretty revealing. We go in this sort of 'nirvana' where it's not light at the end of the tunnel but pretty much. They call it the 'out of body' experience that people get when 'die' and come back to life to tell you about to them (they litterally 'die' and go to the morgue, their body is arrested...yet they 'wake up' in the morgue...a la zombie rising from the grave... or in this case, the morgue...and they scream...what is going on..I'm trapped in a coffin (buried alive..well sort of..they died....buried after 'thinking they had rigor mortis' (their body stopped breathing which would have caused serious damage to cells/brain/organ failure from lack of O2..yet they siurvived somehow. Oftenly they were in Cold Cryosis 'sort of' this protects organs from damage and thus the person 'revives'/''comes back to life'').
The study said that the brain has a last ditch 'last stage' if you will, in a sense that the whole body has shutdown but certain cells keep on working and 'close shop'...thus, in simple words, you are 'stuck' in your brain for maybe 30 minutes ??? All there 'is' to you is your brain..which is doing at last 'stage cleaning' and then 'lights out'. They say it is akin to people whom can 'hear' Other People say 'Hey..that person died...'...litterally, they are cadaver..and can 'hear' the poelpe 'talk' aroudn their corpse - they need a functioning brain for that. And that is what is said, that the brain is capable of 'continuing' living for a little while after rigor mortis ('death' as been pronounced/heart stopped beating/no more O2 respiration). That is After you die (technical rigor mortis in medical terms), that this 'last stage' happens in your brain. The closest analogy is Robocop being stuck in his old 'face/brain' 'real' part... while the rest of body is all cyborg electronic fake body..
"Immortality" has the same problem that "life extension" has or any idea that's connected to the concept of radical longevity—most people assume that they'll live in a decrepit state for a very long time.
I can understand that the word immortality triggers some people, and I can imagine that including it in a business goal might make it harder to attract and retain some employees and directors. But so what? You have to make some comprises when it comes to marketing. "negligible senescence" may be the nerdiest sounding cause ever. I think "The Immortality Project" or even "The Longevity Project" or "the Life Project" attracts 5+ times as many donation dollars as "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Research Foundation"
Those are nice names for someone selling pills or immortality rings.
"Rejuvenation" sounds good enough. It says it all about the goal, prevent people from assuming they'll live longer in a decrepit state, and at the same time doesn't overpromise (i.e. becoming "immortal" as in "indestructible").
I have a feeling peoples' resistance to the idea of radical life extension (or as they see it, immortality) is an evolved trait. A tribe where everyone was willing to starve to death so their King and Queen say, would survive a famine, would outcompete a more democratic,everyone is equal tribe. As civilisation has advanced and resources have become more abundant this has changed, as people now want it all and all want to be Kings or Queens (I.e. celebrity worship, etc.). The original ingrained response is still there however (dying for a 'greater cause') and that is why appealing to the masses before rejuvenation treatments are available will be problematic (more so in poorer countries). It is also why Aubrey is right to try and target Kings and Queens (I.e. multi millionaires) as they are self made and by some definitions selfish, so feel fine to extend their lives indefinitely. But of course Aubrey is betting on market forces and democratic forces to step in once those billionaires get their treatments and therefore it will be available to everyone with a short delay. Sorry if this is uncomfortable reading for some, but basically we only think along the lines evolution has permitted to help the survival of the species, not the individual, hence the resistance to something that we could solve quite quickly if only for a few billion dollars.
On a more amusing note, I almost electrocuted myself the other day doing some ill advised DIY. All I could think of was, 'best laid plans' of making it to LEV were almost blown to pieces there!
Don't do anything too risky people, I believe we are not far away now!
@JohnD "I can understand that the word immortality triggers some people, and I can imagine that including it in a business goal might make it harder to attract and retain some employees and directors. But so what?"
So what? I will tell you what. It makes the job of people working in the field and those out there engaging with the public directly a bloody nightmare that is why!
It is far easier to market rejuvenation biotech than immortality, which isn't taken seriously. The bottom line here is this, if you want SENS to get more funding and progress to happen faster then the entire community needs to learn to play the game and use words that are suitable.
Studies have been done showing public attitudes to life extension, many studies and we read them all at LEAF. Getting funding to the field is all about using the correct messaging and those who insist on using words they know are damaging are shooting us all in the foot. Simple as that.
I fully agree with Steve although I do not work in the field. Those of you who insist on using the word immortality actually should understand that the ultimate goal at SENS is immortality in a biological (not aging) sense, but the advocacy on which funding also depends must be pragmatic and consider which strategies are effective and countereffective in raising acceptance and thus funding. Choosing the correct messaging (even if it means avoiding the I-word) will accelerate progress towards immortality.
I think some people here are too stubborn and should be more pragmatic. I think if they really worked in the field like Steve, that would happen automatically. Just my opinion.
@Mark: I fully agree. I too believe we are not to far away now!
In regards to the publics wishes -
Didn't that Donner et al paper (from 2016 I think?) show that most of the people surveyed actually wanted at least 120 years, or indefinite years of life with the stipulation of good health the entire time? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. I think that's a step in the right direction, as long as I didn't misinterpret the study.
I don't advocate for the masses, I advocate for the people that can join our community. The masses are stupid and they will contribute only a few amount and for a few time. Too much pain for too little gain, discussing overpopulation, boredom and all that BS.
And I'm not the only one thinking that way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4b19vZ57U4&feature=youtu.be&t=1217
The shortsightedness of some people in our community is ... well it's not a surprise, this is why we've gotten pretty much nowhere in 20 years.
The moment you use the word immortality NO ONE will take you seriously.
Let's ignore the general public if your pumped up ego somehow levitates above every other human on the planet.
What about the scientists? Can you produce progress without those?
What about big investors? Ultimately they listen to professionals from the field they want to invest in - the scientists from the previous paragraph. And when those tell them you're crazy they won't invest.
What about policy makers? So much progress in biology in the last decade has been stone-walled because morons were allowed to talk whatever the hell they wanted in public.
And I don't need to tell you a field with so much regulation, it's not a very good sector to invest in, after all - investors invest with expectations of a good monetary return. As fast as possible. And biology is slow.
So how much more fucking harder do you want to make this for all of us exactly?
Ultimately people like Olshansky and Kirkland, when they saw how well senolytics work in test they got on the train, they're scientists, as long as you don't use hyperbole they can see reason. To some degree.
But there are enough people in healthcare ,whom Reason very rarely posts about, those even after the data still very much don't care for senescent cells and I've even seen a sizable push back against what Unity is doing for instance - "premature" being the tamest epithet used in some of the reviews I've read. This is a field with a lot of philosophies and a lot of financial interests. You really don't want to be stepping on any toes, even if you have 200M$ in investment capital let alone if you're trying to get funding for a small foundation.
Blaming everyone else is cute but, you're not "immortal" yet. So I very much doubt you're stuck in the state of a perpetual teenager. If you want to get something from people (in this case it's their money and time - the hardest things to get on top of it) then you should probably learn to work with them rather than considering yourself some sort of a rebel.
Basically - grow up. And that starts by not using the I word.
A single policy about whether to emphasize longevity or not might not be the best solution, because no one has figured out how to significantly increase funding regardless of what terms they use. A mix of initiatives could be better; some are attracted to superlongevity, while others like to hear only about curing disease.
Merry (pre)Christmas yall. TLDR it's christmas no TLDR
@Florin Clapa
Hi Florin ! That word you used could be more precise than rejuvenation; superlongevity; like relativity, hyperlongevity (though whenever people hear hyper, duper, extreme, super hyperlatives they freak out or laugh it off because it's not 'reasonable' oftenly and is hyperbolic),
but superlongevity could actually work since it is SIMPLE just like the dreaded i-word; ther is no ambiguity or let's say less, while rejuvenation is very powerful because you sort of feel that you are 'de-aging'/rejuvenated; Re-Juvenation comes from the word juvenile which means child(ish) or is synonym for Neoteny in humans; I think I could add to superlongevity
superneotenous (though it's not as good because ut just means you keep your childish features; while superlongevity is clear you will LIVE LONG very long; but for me it's not clear enough because super could mean 5 years for someone and the next one mean 500...it'S ambigous again. So for now rejuvenation is the only one because it offers the potential of infinite life or even very little lifespan extension - it has no say on how long it wil last; neither does superlongevity word but at least it's more 'super' like you know (like people who 'superheroes' from comic books...it's obviously bad...but you know what I mean it sounds 'more super' than it is..but if rejuvenation endeavors could somewho say yes, we aim to give you 150 years extra...superlongevity then becomes much more attractive and true). I would prefer hyperlongevity or ultralongevity, but these are way too 'extreme' like. Superlongevity is half-way/softer/more decent/approachable/reasonable and better in that sense (even if it sounds super dumb K.I.S.S. simple and cheezylike (''I Am SuperMan TM I have Superlongevity''; doesn't matter it's clearer, less ambiguous).
I guess we will be in this search for a long time for a suitable word; and right now, rejuvenation is good enough (even If I don't enjoy staying in the dark with this word but it offers 'possibilities' yet ambuiguity because of that - it's its ambuiguity that 'allows' it more room and being taken seriously; the minute you are Less ambiguous people scream at the top of their lungs because you are TOO TRUE and many can't take truth and will lash out if you tell like it is (it shows that we live in a world of 'don't talk/don't say (the truth) or you will die for it', a constant illusion and a self-manipulation at all levels; we rigg ourselves to behave nice and always 'say good' - don'T say something bad or else fan the flames of internet ire/or bring SJWs' (though that word is impregned with much comtempt, but there is a point why it exists)). Or as Al Gore said: An Inconvenient Truth)).
@Antonio
Hi Antonio ! Too true, I'm guilty too I know, I want to use a correct word, I just don'T wish people to have this idea that all this is done just so you end up with a 5-year lifespan extension of your health and call it a day (because that can be done with antiaging supplement, running, exercice, and whatnot; it's so poor in results, I don,t wish they 'settle' for that, they need a bit of 'shaking' to be told : 'Wake the..f UP...you will die in not so long and your 5-year boost won'T change anythin. Ok...get it ? Now can we fix this and get sht done'
@Mark
Hi Mark ! Merry Christmas !
That was a very great comment you wrote ! And really caught my attention;
Very very thoughful. It's true, you raise a very interesting point. I guess we are in this model tug of war; which model will the future go with:
-monarchism
-democratism
-capitalism
-republicanism
-societalism
-marxism
-fascim
-totalitarianism
-dictatorialism
-communism
-anarchism
-tribalism
...
I don't know, but when I watch China in action with curfewing 'children per couple' it tells me pretty much what's coming for they are +1 billion people and you can bet that in a few centuries; most likely, the langauges that will survive are mandarin and hindi; because they are so populous while many languages/dialect will become extinct (I predict around 3000 AD (in a thousand years) mandarin or hindi stick around; the rest good bye unless there are major demographic changes and adoption/preservation of that language and culture; like right now, english being spoken by about 1 billion people or so; yet it is not 'conserved' it is a 2nd language while mandarin/hindi are mother tongues thus will stay and be thaught to children; while 2nd languages can die; And english countries aren't numerous enough on their own to support the survival/demographically by making enough children/teaching. USA could be the exception for with 350 million people it could later become 1 billion but I doubt it; you need high birthing (10 kids+ per family or so) and it's not there anymore).
It's true that people 'willing to die' for they king/queen or their country...will do just about aynthing, including letting go of their own life to let the top topper of the pecking order to be spared.
It's where I am 'in the middle' sort of, I am not saying that monarchy is necessarily worse or selfish; but there is a inherent element of that to it because these people oftenly are 'born' rich in rich families which is pure luck and well they are family traditions - it's great when you are Born in That family; but what if you are not. That is where I am like; well yes and no;
You protect the Chiefs of the tribe it's understood; but these chiefs were just 'born' chiefs and did not earn it because had a pampered rich life. I'm not saying all rich are like that, some were never born rich and had to get 'rich' and earn their sht....Still, even so, the point is that there is a problem all of this : money.
Oftenly thus a capital problem; of the capitalism model; but in the end it's the same; it is as you said : the resources. We need the resources but we must have/earn Another resource first : financial resource (money)). It is at the heart of the problem. BEcause if you are rich king queen you become 'superior' and 'worth more'; which make an imballance (at least in the eyes of people who chose to elect democratically someone whether of rich or poor background, thus irrespectively of their resources).
When all that said, it becomes a battle of resources. It's true that it also because on micro-level an Individual vs Specie problem. The I-word offers you infinite life, since you only have Your life, in you - it's aBout You, not about a king queen or any body else; they don't live in your 'home' body; but you. Thus, it is selfish, but life Chose it that way : life did not choose you to live with 5 people in your body (except people born siamese twins or 'joined' people at birth that 'lived in the same body'); you live as 1 Individual - the word is IN-dividual; you cannot be divided (in-dividual) because you are already at lowest number 1 and 'in' you; and your body is a multiple collection of cells and organs all 'in collectivity' just like a tribe/society. THus, you are already full of 'youS' in you; you don't need anyone else but you in you as selfish it sounds plus you only have 1 life to live - Yours...
So when I hear the ethicists 'but, you have t odie for king queen and people whom want it all, they are higher class than you, so die for them and greated good/for them, this couple will make children and make the survival of specie.....'
I sort of backaway a little and think hum...k so I'm no individual then, and my life, is not important. I'm a nobody thus 'here, and gone, makes no difference'. I got it. Message understood.
When you are in your own body, all of this bs of preserving the greater good falls short because it does not preserve you only the others; which I fully agree is an extremely unselfish act/very noble and 'giving you life' freely. But humans are now much more selfish and it will not end; because you are now touching on their very soul and if you think it is important and they should just die for 'the others'; they will retaliate for sure. That is what I believe a Altruistic Individualism is our future. IT's a in between and it will work; even outcompete the 'die for the chief king queen'.
Trying telling 1 billion people they live to 122 no more; it won't work, or let's say there will be many sheeps who will abide and then others who will say :
over my dead body and will fight this to preserve their life (since it'S all they have).
Everyone of us have a life, and all of ours, is important, when you die for someone else you give it in a selfless act but your gone and thus you thought were not important but others were More; it'S a decision very pesronal just like suicide. Everyone comes to life, and so when I hear, that person has more 'worth', I sort of think; huh no, you are born from mother, and so everyone else; nothing special about you nor of your life; you have 1 life and its equal to the others because you both came from mother's womb, poor mom, rich mom, priviledge mom, bad mom, nice mom, whatever (which certain people will say no no no it's not equal you are worth less at birth...whatever lol).
Just a 2 cent. (It's a christmas-long message sorry).
@CANanonymity
"Trying telling 1 billion people they live to 122 no more"
Here's the thing though... most people live to ~80 in the developed world. Everyone hitting 122 would be an absolutely huge achievement. I'm not suggesting that number should be the end goal, or the limit... hell, I'd like more than that, as I'm sure everyone here would, but 122 would be a massive increase from whats expected now. We know that number is actually possible. I want to strive for more, but I wouldn't be upset if someone told me I could expect 122 now, either.
Exactly. We can't even prove we can get a sizable part of the population to 120 currently, let alone beyond. And currently, I'd be surprised if we can achieve that. As I said before, the I word brings a very wrong feeling of immediacy.
I'll be the first person to admit we don't need everyone to be on board with us for radical life extension (and as far as I'm concerned 50% increase in healthy median lifespan is quite radical currently) to happen. But we need SOMEONE to be on board.
It takes people like Kelsey Moody who get this for actual progress to happen. The lipofuscin research SENS funded was in limbo for close to 5 years until he found investors to do proper preclinical research on the enzymes. Not sure how that research is going but I hope Ichor's trial is successfully on it's way.
I don't think I'd be terribly surprised if 120 became normal, or at least happened with a degree of regularity (like centenarians today) in the next 40-50 years or so... but I think people really underestimate how long 40 additional years really is and how much more time that leaves for science and technology to advance in that time.
@Ham
Hi Ham ! Thanks for that, merry christmas/happy new year (in advance/in a few days) btw.
I agree with you, 122 is no small number either and we should be very grateful if we get that; it's not nothing, I agree. It'S an impressive achievement adding 42 years on top of 80 average.
Still, as you said so, I think we can expect more, and not look 'needy' and 'i want more' you know, why would people want more ? (than 122 for example) right...we should not settle and aim a but hugher this time; this is a revolution and so so so immense, there is little words to say how big and it is; and how totally oblivious those who completely miss the point (that death is still there at 122 too) and that we would hope life would live - for as long as you in your capacity - that completely twarths the 122; and thus, you Could/might live infinitely (excluding dying of accidents..), thus 'not age' or put another away - continuously push back death. That, is what we must strive for, not we give you 15 years extra lifsepan, we think it will allow you to reach 122; perhaps. You know, we don't know, but we should try to get more answers (in animals models, especially long-lievd ones). Remeber, 1 life, 1 death. You don't have 9 lives like a cat or can press reset button on supermario bros '50-lives' nes console...
Let's make it 1 LONG life, 1 LATE(RRRR) death. I think you know what I mean. In the mean time, let'S support the endeavors and hope for the best, to get a centenarian expectancy out of the future rejuvenation therapies; later, this will 'perfect' itself and allow much longer lives (I'm positive we will beat the 122 y and 164 days record, 100% sure; humans possibly have already beatean it because you can actually reach 130-150 without any rejuvenation therapie; such as J.Calment nearly did it; but other 'unrecorded' super-super-super centenaraisn May have reached 130-140 (some supercentenarians in south america or africa said : yes I am 130+, could be bs (most likely) but could be truth; and it IS possible because of replicative senescence and telomere allow it/you could make it to 130 though you would be the 1 exception ouf ot 7 billion people just as she is (J. Calment. Still, as I said before, one supercentenarian black african descent woman from Haiti (in Canada died here not long ago) lived to 120 (proven/recorded), only 2 years shy of J. Calment (a caucasian descent woman) - it will repeat itself in african black/caucasians white/hindus/asian han chinese/arabic any ethnicity for biology cares none of that - it's a collection of cells 'at cell level' no matter your facial morphology or skin pigment - it is controlled by oxidatives stress/cell limits imposed In ALL human bodies, all primates/apes, biped triped quadruped polyped noped... in All Animal Lifeforms.....it is a sign of what is coming without no therapy whatsoever; I say 122 is beaten in the next 50 years for she came from 1876 - life then/medical cares where poorer/less advanced and she Still got through (though, not so surprisingly, she came from a rich family - and rich family of people who lived long/family longevity inherited genetics (thus, money/being rich buys 'you years' and 'healthcares' and 'special therapies nobody can afford' - if you're poor, you can only haev 'your family genetics' and hope for best)); a good sign meaning You Can strive Long despite the hurdles and if someone lived that long from past centuries; it'S a good sign for us (such as compensating if you Don't have a Long-Live family and everyone dies at 55 years old in Your family), we have All This now and Much More Ahead))).
Just a 2 cent.
I don't understand the Either / Or argument here: can't we just concentrate on the pretty radical project of extending average lifespan by 50% and then cross the next bridge when we get there? Let's get people to 120. Then to 150. Then to 180. Then, when aging is totally under control, or when computational power allows mind uploading, or when synthetic biology is advanced enough to gradually replace the brain, or when Dmitry Itskov has appeared to us in hologram form - THEN we can start talking about immortality.
Radical life extension and immortality are not mutually exclusive, but obsessing about it now serves neither the cause nor one's mental health. Instead, let's talk about giving a few more healthy decades to those who want to try a new career, travel the world, have a family etc. and keep our wet dreams of immortality to the level of philosophical speculation. Those impaired by their thanatophobia can sign up for cryonics or start a Church for quantum immortalists.
When people ask for money for African children, they ask for preventing thousands of deaths by starvation.
When people ask for money for cancer research, they remind how much people die from cancer every year.
But, if someone asks for money for fighting aging, then strangely death is not important at all, and more strangely, mentioning it is damaging; one should not say at all that he/she wants to prevent those people from dying.
How stupid...
That's ageism for you: African children = young people; cancer patient = the young mother in the soppy ads. People resent old folk, see them as a burden, and aren't keen on throwing tax money to them. Oh, you say that they are going back to work? First of all: are you sure? Maybe they would rather sit on their rejuvenated arses and live off their now infinite pension money. Or maybe they won't find a job, especially if they retired years ago and their skills are now obsolete. And if they do find work... what?? STEALING those precious few opportunities from the young? The message "let's prevent death from aging" is doomed to fail.
Antonio,
Not that I necessarily agree with the sentiment, but I believe the rationale behind the money for African children that are starving versus money for aging is that they are children with their whole lives ahead of them, whereas the older people have already lived their lives, so it's not as sad when they die, compared to a child. I don't really fully agree with that argument but I believe that is the prevalent thought.
Well, it's official, merry christmas. Just a 2 cent,
I think that in the future, there will be certain changes (unforeseen or rather foreseen but not sure if they would materialize; now, they will be fait accompli). I think that our future is with automatization, robotization and a lot of the things will be automatized which will reduce the number of jobs available (this was foretold and is already in the making). In simple terms, many people will not work anymore and the whole 'race' to 'get a job' and 'live paycheque to paycheque' poverty line (because that's 'great') will become less and less as you see more automatizing and it's possible more welfare/pension living from gov tax. Or, more autonomous workers whom will be the 'last of the worker breeds' while the rest will be extinct and mostly replaced by automated processes (robots who knows...sounds very sci-fi but there is a bit of truth behind this. Just recently, Ford as made an automated card/driver-less car/truck..and soon cargo-trucks and delivery trucks (heck even delivery man/delivery woman will be gone) will 'drive themselves' driver-less by remote automatization and careful driving - yes a robot more careful than you ever can be and analyzing surrouding drivers micro-patterns/the spatial surroundings and never makes 'a human error' that costs a life by 'accident' (and if it does one, à la I Robot or Robocop, well it's goodbye to that robot and it will be 'replaced/rewired' to not make such error again ever))). I think humans will want to curfew 'robots taking over' but yet will be Constrained/Forced to using automatization (More, no other way...) for Speed, Efficiency, Money-Saving, and Human-Sparing - which will more humans not working and be replaced by Robo/automatization). This is both good and bad, olderpeople will not necessarily need to work again and 'be useful' as they are seen as a tar in work force; thus the market wants them to go away (right now) and thus live remainder of life not working (while young ones come in as fresh new blood to use). Work will be 'different'. Work as a word will not mean what we think now - go to school, do shtty jobs on the side to pay your school debs, 'rise' and then work the place you wanted...to ahve a purpose (all this a race to finish line, from birth; completely different from old days of being 8 years old and on the 'farm work' cultivating the crops; total contrast or even Farther back in time, native living, you know living, and like work ? that's word, it was not really work as we think it, it was finding the food and what you needed scavenging the forests to help feed the tribe). Yes, having a purpose through your career makes sense - when there are jobs available but what if there are too many people for too few jobs (offer vs demand), too many 'old people' whom are rejuvenated and keep 'on living' and don't 'away' for good like the system wants them to go away to be replaced'. And too few young people (birthing numbers are dropping, thus more people Live longer and less children are coming to life to replace old people; thus more Old People Later and now, they will Live Longer by rejuvenation).
IT means there is a shift in the societies towards old life and youth life will be less and less (unless the birthing changes but from CHina example, no not gonna happen, gov will curfew number of kids per couple; thus less and less children coming and more and more old people 'surviving/living long' and 'staying' - thus this is more about 'overpopulation of 'old people'' then of your youngsters (since many of these old people 'staying around and not dying' will not be capable of having children anymore at their late-rejuvenated age (although on that point I am somewhat dubious thinking, studies have shown, for example, that aged women post-menopausal ovaries could be 'remade' to 'work/fertilely competent' and you know I would not surprised to see a 111 year old woman to 'have child' now at 111....you know, and some men have kids at like 95 years old (that's because sperm has telomere rise with age/mature sperm has taller telomeres then immature sperm of a young man, despite the DNA defects that aging brings to sperm and because men have continuous supply of sperm (thanks to telomerase in testicles) unlike women eggs in finite number)...so no you can work it out and hormones can stick around/sexual senescence is fixable but what is less fixable is the gov deciding you can,t because too many already/overpopulation)). Plus long-live animals push back their puberty/adulthood entry by becoming sexual capable; which means some of them have 'kids' at like...155 years old...
Thus, it is trait of ultra long-lived animals (to push back 'having kids' as late as possible because it coincides with adulthood entry and thus the decline of growth/and onset of faster 'aging'' (and loss of neoteny when puberty hits and sexual hormones kick in (13-25 years old) or rather they start to wane (25-35) and then fall off 35 and over (menopause/andropause at 40-50+ years old)))).
I think Antonio and Ham have a point, we should not be so fearful of giving towards aging and stop it with the fatalistic bias/and always just avoid 'death/life' talk because it's too 'heavy'; and yet at the same time we have to realize that our future is of long-lives so Grand-Ma and Great-Great-Great-Great Grand-Ma might be around ;....still...oh no..oh Yes, get used to it she/he is not going away anytime soon and she/he will need more Love from you and as in, finding a space for them too; we will have to 'make space' and I know ethicists will say'we will lack space' overpopulation and planet earth and Africa so fulll and China doing curfewing - Earth Explodes.
Fun to read this when I read such, a good laugh but they are so serious about that. As in, 'there are no SOlution to htis problem of Alll of Us Living Forever, the Old Must Go They Had Long Lives Now Time Pull Plug and Sacrifice SElf to Late More Room for Youngins'.....
Oh well we are not out of the woods yet but soon in the robotic industry woods that will work for you and you will not anymore so get used to it or learn autonomous work (the last' work'() and govs may see Serious Overhaul as in Disappear or Transform/transmutate altogether in somethinh else because unsustainable Models (as in democratism, monarchism, capitalism... blablabla, so long,
AUTOMATISM hello).
Just a 2 cent.
"When people ask for money for African children, they ask for preventing thousands of deaths by starvation."
Yes, and it works because there is an identifiable victim. This is why people donate. Also people often take pity on children and donate to help them because they have their whole lives ahead of them.
"When people ask for money for cancer research, they remind how much people die from cancer every year."
Again identifiable victim plays a role here. This is why the Jimmy fund and other cancer initiatives that include people in their marketing approach are often successful.
"But, if someone asks for money for fighting aging, then strangely death is not important at all, and more strangely, mentioning it is damaging; one should not say at all that he/she wants to prevent those people from dying."
No, people are not against the idea of health and curing age-related diseases by targeting aging processes. Once this is explained properly they tend to react reasonably to the idea of doing something about diseases. What they do not react well to and is proven in various studies is Life extension, augmentation, immortality and so on.
Welcome to the world of cognitive bias and how the public is. We do not need to convince everyone but we need to convince enough. Anything that harms those chances should strongly discouraged.
@Barabara "The message "let's prevent death from aging" is doomed to fail."
It has already failed and has continued to fail for the last decade or more. It is absolutely essential to use the right messaging. T
I am not sure what it will take to convince those in the community that Immortality and similar are damaging. Aubrey says the same thing about such wording. What is it going to take, another public survey before everyone admits we have to play the game to progress?
As far as I'm aware, most people which support the curing of aging are also attracted to immortality, and no one has figured out how to reach the much larger specific disease/health-only group. So, like it or not, the immortality message has been the most effective, thus far.
@Florin Clapa: Not sure what you are saying here. There is no evidence whatsoever that most people in the anti-aging community support anti-aging because they want to be immortal, rather than due to a desire to live much longer and in optimal health.
Rejuvenation and immortality are two very different things - if not mutually exclusive - and if one were to aim for the latter they'd better be looking at data-driven, silicon-coated solutions.
Pushing immortality is misleading (= can't be achieved with rejuvenation), pointless (= insofar we are talking about thousands of years, it can't be achieved in the foreseeable future - period), and irrelevant (= most people aren't interested in making million year life plans).
On the latter point, that's when people start fretting about stuff like the sun going cold. Not helpful at all.
In the context that journalists, medical researchers, and some of us use it, immortality simply means living a very long time. Claiming that it can only mean being unable to die of any physical cause including the end of the universe seems disingenuous.
I use 'physical immortality' in my books. Yup, a distributed being has more chance of surviving for a very long time. Or we have backup drives for our minds and/or bodies that are just avatars of something more rugged.
This is an interesting post, and human's immortality becomes real today after being discovered by Allen Omton and Serge Dobrow.