He seems to think that anti-aging science has speeded up drastically recently, both in terms of the science itself, the funding and the popularity. I really love what the SENS Foundation is doing in terms of spinning research avenues into startups, since most investors are far more likely to fund high-risk investments than non-profit ones.
He also mentions other positive developments in terms of legislation and advocacy.
I'm still not sure if SENS should stay non-profit. It produced great results, it would get much more money if it would convert to a for profit company. At the same time it's important to keep the control near Aubrey de Grey, as he has a great track record of staying focused.
This is a great news. Fighting aging is one of the most important challenge of our time.
This is also encouraging:
"Gazette: Are there regulatory hurdles? When we've spoken in the past, you've mentioned that the FDA considers aging a natural process and therefore won't approve drugs to treat it.
Sinclair: I've been part of a group that talked with the FDA, and they are willing and also quite enthusiastic about considering a change that defines aging as a disease."
And not climate change? In my mind's model of the future we're going to die within 50 years, this research is useless when the infinitely aged doesn't have clean water to drink.
"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging:
Imagine a world in which Stalin was still in power. That is what amortality looks like.
I can't help but think that this would also completely retard scientific progress. Imagine tenure that lasts a milenium or more. We would still be discussing scholastism.
This makes no sense. Longer productive lifespan means that people can acquire more expert skills and become more proficient at what they do. Or for example switch professions if the economic climate has changed - which will be still much faster than teaching a completely new individual to learn that profession, if there is even a little overlap between them.
I'm not saying that economics should even have any say in making people live longer (I don't think the purpose of life is to make the economy work well, it's the other way around), but even from the point of view of economics, we would want to make everyone live longer.
There is a theory that some math problems are not solved because people who are solving them have to few time to think on them.
Other theory states that 100 years war between France and England lasted so long because there were left 0 leaders older than 30+ years old and these guys were not good at negotiation.
The main point of anti-aging is not to keep people around longer, but to keep them healthy since they're going to be around for quite a while anyway. Lifespan increase is a possibility, but might also turn out to be quite hard; health-span increase is the real low-hanging fruit of anti-aging research.
Saying the only motivation to create is urgency through the fleeting nature of life is hardly different from a religious person claiming someone non-religious can't have morals because they don't believe in God.
It is entirely subjective and for all I care wrong until proven otherwise.
Having a treatment that allows 20 year olds to live healthily to 120 likely helps the contemporary 85 year olds to live a few more years without being dependent on other people. Ageing populations are a huge problem in many first world countries.
There is a very good recent more informal-type long-format discussion with this doctor (David Sinclair) discussing a lot of longevity topics on the Joe Rogan channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4
If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get sterilised at the same time.
Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused by people having too many babies. It is also not a problem in countries where anti-aging treatments are likely to be available first and even less of a problem in the rich population that will be able to afford them at first.
On the other hand, the promise of remaining able bodied until you die from an accident might reduce the number of children because you don't have to have children that take care of you when you're too old to take care of yourself.
The rich and powerful would not allow this. They will be the first in line for anti againg treatment, and also they will be the first who can afford this.
So prepare for some very old rich people ruling the planet who will live much longer than the serfs.
I think this line of reasoning is probably too simplistic. It's like suggesting vaccines or antiobiotics would lead to greater overpopulation, when it's not necessarily the case in reality. A couple of the major motivating factors in having children are to have someone to look after you when you're old, and leaving a legacy. With factors mitigated I think it's possible you'd find the population relatively stable.
What you actually see if you study aging carefully is that it isn't anything like accumulation of damage the body cannot repair, it's the accumulation of damage the body can repair.
In fact, among the most consistent things you can see is the accumulation of iron, and to a lesser extent other minerals, such as calcium. The body seems to have a really big trouble regulating those minerals, it doesn't even have its own way to get rid of excess iron, the only way you can get rid of it is blood loss.
Now, what does it mean? One thing, the body doesn't really makes much distinctions when absorbing metals so that when there is excess iron, it cannot absorb other divalent metals without poisoning itself with iron. So it cannot absorb manganese without absorbing too much iron, and manganese is essential for preventing oxidative damage.
A second thing is, the experiments on rats show that lanthanum (and possibly other rare earths) change the homeostasis in the brain so that the amount of iron decreases, while it normally accumulates with age. Multiple rare earths have been shown to bind preferably to proteins, usually over calcium, but possibly also other metal ions, zinc seems to be a kind of universal element that can bind to almost any place that isn't taken. Neurons even seem to dramatically increase in capacity (with each neuron carrying its own signal, instead of many almost exactly the same thing over and over) as the concentration of lanthanum increases in vitro. (it's worth noting though, that lanthanum has been seen as an essential nutrient for decades in China, so if it cured aging, it would be known)
I thing we need to consider the possibility that there is no such a thing as aging, but is the result of some sort of imbalance caused by early agriculture, metallurgy, or whatever human activity that changed the environment in a way that our bodies, and other mammal bodies have no way of dealing with. The rumors of longevity from history and various isolated places are seen as myths, but they may not all be.
[+] [-] kristofferR|7 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk (1.5x speed is fine)
He seems to think that anti-aging science has speeded up drastically recently, both in terms of the science itself, the funding and the popularity. I really love what the SENS Foundation is doing in terms of spinning research avenues into startups, since most investors are far more likely to fund high-risk investments than non-profit ones.
He also mentions other positive developments in terms of legislation and advocacy.
[+] [-] agumonkey|7 years ago|reply
The longevity field might be seeing an EV tipping point moment. Nobody cared until everyone spins.
[+] [-] xiphias2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanxiyn|7 years ago|reply
This is also encouraging:
"Gazette: Are there regulatory hurdles? When we've spoken in the past, you've mentioned that the FDA considers aging a natural process and therefore won't approve drugs to treat it.
Sinclair: I've been part of a group that talked with the FDA, and they are willing and also quite enthusiastic about considering a change that defines aging as a disease."
[+] [-] guzik|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netsharc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dtujmer|7 years ago|reply
Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging:
https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html
And here it is in video form as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY
[+] [-] antt|7 years ago|reply
I can't help but think that this would also completely retard scientific progress. Imagine tenure that lasts a milenium or more. We would still be discussing scholastism.
[+] [-] raugustinus|7 years ago|reply
edit: I think Neil deGrasse Tyson says it a lot better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3G9LOJZTmM
[+] [-] Erlich_Bachman|7 years ago|reply
I'm not saying that economics should even have any say in making people live longer (I don't think the purpose of life is to make the economy work well, it's the other way around), but even from the point of view of economics, we would want to make everyone live longer.
[+] [-] lxmorj|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jvln|7 years ago|reply
Other theory states that 100 years war between France and England lasted so long because there were left 0 leaders older than 30+ years old and these guys were not good at negotiation.
[+] [-] 0815test|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akvadrako|7 years ago|reply
Elderly Researchers Are a Drain on Publicly Funded Science [ https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/03/16/elderly... ]
[+] [-] MildlySerious|7 years ago|reply
It is entirely subjective and for all I care wrong until proven otherwise.
[+] [-] PavlikPaja|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buboard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antepodius|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jz_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grondilu|7 years ago|reply
People already live quite long, so it takes a long time for longevity to take any significant effect.
If a 20yo man became immortal today, he will be 100 in 2099. Who knows what kind of world we'll be living in then?
My point is : longevity is such a slow motion process that its impact on society is not as relevant as the pace of technology in other fields.
[+] [-] adrianN|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] braincrush7|7 years ago|reply
I'd much rather be able to learn like an 18 year old for my while life and die at 70 then be a senile man and live till 100
[+] [-] Erlich_Bachman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aaargh20318|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianN|7 years ago|reply
On the other hand, the promise of remaining able bodied until you die from an accident might reduce the number of children because you don't have to have children that take care of you when you're too old to take care of yourself.
[+] [-] dmortin|7 years ago|reply
So prepare for some very old rich people ruling the planet who will live much longer than the serfs.
[+] [-] dagw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AQuantized|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LinuxBender|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c1sc0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justanegg|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RickJWagner|7 years ago|reply
With every advance in medicine, your chances of outliving your money go up as well. Better feed the pig!
[+] [-] magduf|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PavlikPaja|7 years ago|reply
In fact, among the most consistent things you can see is the accumulation of iron, and to a lesser extent other minerals, such as calcium. The body seems to have a really big trouble regulating those minerals, it doesn't even have its own way to get rid of excess iron, the only way you can get rid of it is blood loss.
Now, what does it mean? One thing, the body doesn't really makes much distinctions when absorbing metals so that when there is excess iron, it cannot absorb other divalent metals without poisoning itself with iron. So it cannot absorb manganese without absorbing too much iron, and manganese is essential for preventing oxidative damage.
A second thing is, the experiments on rats show that lanthanum (and possibly other rare earths) change the homeostasis in the brain so that the amount of iron decreases, while it normally accumulates with age. Multiple rare earths have been shown to bind preferably to proteins, usually over calcium, but possibly also other metal ions, zinc seems to be a kind of universal element that can bind to almost any place that isn't taken. Neurons even seem to dramatically increase in capacity (with each neuron carrying its own signal, instead of many almost exactly the same thing over and over) as the concentration of lanthanum increases in vitro. (it's worth noting though, that lanthanum has been seen as an essential nutrient for decades in China, so if it cured aging, it would be known)
I thing we need to consider the possibility that there is no such a thing as aging, but is the result of some sort of imbalance caused by early agriculture, metallurgy, or whatever human activity that changed the environment in a way that our bodies, and other mammal bodies have no way of dealing with. The rumors of longevity from history and various isolated places are seen as myths, but they may not all be.
[+] [-] lawlessone|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raubtier|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mms1973|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] killjoywashere|7 years ago|reply