digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at wired.com

The Fight to End Aging Gains Legitimacy and Funding

wired.com — Less than a decade ago, de Grey was a relatively unknown computer scientist doing his own research into aging.Now, though, some scientists are beginning to view his approach looking at aging as a disease and bringing in more disciplines into gerontology as worthwhile, even if they still look askance at his claims of permanent reversible aging.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • throtmorton, on 06/26/2008, -2/+38Aubrey de Grey is right - we're already seeing that skin cells can mimic stem cells, that's a huge step towards the engineering approach that he advocates. Changing basic biology is years and years away, but trying to aggressively maintain the body, like a car, can start yielding amazing results in the next decade. That's the key to me, that we don't need a magic wand to have all of this happen simultaneously, just enough to buy time for the next wave of advances. Life expectancy was 40 years a century ago, and the rate of advances now is ever accelerating, so there's no reason people in their 40's shouldn't expect to live well past 100 - if we don't of course globally warm or thermonuclearify ourselves off a perfectly good planet. This is revolutionary stuff, and we'll see it happen in our (nice and long) lives.
    • jascination, on 06/27/2008, -0/+12There's a fantastic talk by de Grey from TED in 2005, check it out:

      http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_ ...
    • NgrHader, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Now we just need to pass this over to Old Snake and hope he goes back to normal
    • Janizzary, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6I wonder what Ray Kurzweil thinks of it.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -4/+2But watch! Great opportunity for the same people who deny, smoking risks, peak oil, climate change, corrupt republicans, Bush war crimes - the same grayface bastard conservatives - to deny the possibility of robust life extension and rejuvenation therapies. When Aubrey starts showing results we'll see the denying crowd come out like hornets, attempting to block progress.
    • logic11, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Check out some of the research into reservatol and life extension for concrete examples of what can be achieved right away. I have been taking medium doses of reservatol for a short time now, and have felt the differences in my own recovery times and fitness levels (almost like I went back a decade or so in health terms).
      Reservatol is one of many areas that are leading to life extension right now. Taken all together, it may be that my generation is the first one that doesn't die (at least not of old age). Having said that, most of my generation will die... it will probably be only early adopters with a decent amount of money who don't die.
      • bradspangler, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1I swear that I'm not a spelling-nazi. It's just that I want people to look up "resveratrol". Lives are depending on it.
  • kevinperrott, on 06/26/2008, -2/+18The search for cures for age-related diseases individually will resolve logically to the search for ways to remove the damage that results in cellular malfunction and these age-"related" diseases. Using competitive prizes is a prove way to accomplish difficult goals and the Methuselah Foundation is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to doing the actual work with predictable success borne of the enthusiasm and dedication of its members. I am proud to be associated with such a group of altruists who envision a future where the aging process enriches, rather than diminishes, the individual and society.
  • skipthefrog, on 06/26/2008, -2/+14Gotta save the aging brain first.
    • whiskers, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Dealing with the junk that builds up inside and outside our cells (one of de Grey's primary focuses) may give us new ways of dealing with diseases like Alzheimer's.
    • tehbored, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but there are already a number of potential Alzheimer's cures out there. Alzheimer's isn't our biggest concern right now.
      • tarjan, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Exactly, but I think alzheimer's isn't our biggest concern right now.

        Hey, is that a starbucks?
    • desertDenizen, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6I'm all for it if we can simultaneously boost the neuroplasticity of the immortals' brains. We'd never want to see a bunch of crusty out-moded can't-use-computers old farts with their concentrated wealth and power rule the world forever. Generational death is a good thing when it clears the road for progress from the next generation.
  • reljoy55, on 06/26/2008, -3/+13This is an extremely exciting initiative and de Grey's theories and research are fascinating. I look forward to Aging 2008 to hear about these other luminaries in the field of regenerative medicine as it specifically relates to aging.
  • WalterSear, on 06/26/2008, -2/+16The conference Aging 2008 is happening this weekend at UCLA. Aubrey de Grey is hosting it. The friday evening event is >free< and open to the public. If you want to find out more, hear presentations by the leaders in this field, and ask Aubrey any questions you have, you should come.

    Here's more info on the conference:

    http://www.mfoundation.org/Aging2008/
  • crxvfr, on 06/26/2008, -22/+3Even if they had the technology to live forever, nobody but the rich and powerful would be given the opportunity. Without God, man is not, nor will he ever be immortal.
    • whiskers, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Eventually, anti-aging treatments will become a commodity; there's simply too much money to be made to keep it exclusive to the rich and powerful.
      • crxvfr, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1My boss has colon cancer. He's starting his second round of chemo, 12 treatments each round. Each treatment costs $12,000.00. Pills to prevent nausea from the chemo costs $60.00 each. This is almost a quarter of a million dollars ...just to survive, let alone, live longer.
      • jcraig949, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1In 10 years it will be $25,000 and someone with cancer will live 2x as long with cancer. In 20 years it will be $2,500 and cancer patients will live 4x as long, etc, etc. Eventually cancer will be like treating a bacterial infection.
    • WalterSear, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10crxvfr - you used to be able to say the same thing about airplanes, telephones and indoor plumbing.

      Without God, man may not, nor will he ever, be able to crap indoors without a draft coming in under the door.
    • grkn, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Nobody is talking about living forever here except you.. So that's not what he's after.

      History tells us that progress in the medical field for most part becomes available to most people in industry countries, and with democracy this would also hold true for any effective anti-aging treatment.
      That being said, developing countries will certainly not have the resources to give their inhabitants such treatment to begin with, but it doesn't make sense not to help oneself if one cannot help everyone, and this is the way it is today; average life expectancy in industry countries are often twofold higher than in the developing ones.

      Now, if we were able to get rid of biological aging, we would actually save a lot of money (no elderly, no retirement etc), actually putting us in a better place to help less developed countries. So then it just depends on if we really want to do this, and of that I am uncertain, but I certainly hope that we do and I will do my part in reaching that goal.
    • dildoolielly, on 06/27/2008, -2/+12------------"Without God, man is not, nor will he ever be immortal."---------


      Where do you get the authority to speak? Lemme guess, out of your ass? Typical self-righteous nutbar response.

      Where is the proof of this "God" fella you idiots keep babbling on about all the time!

      Listen, 24000 people die EVERY DAY from hunger or hunger-related causes! 75% of them are children!!

      800 million people do not have enough food to eat at this very moment even in this modern age!! America is only 280 million people!

      5700 Africans die each day of Aids!!

      We have Cancer, Aids, Polio, Yellow Fever, Influenza, Spanish Flu, Measles that wiped out billions and continues to do so!!

      Why do you expect us to believe this "Almighty God" *****?

      Piss off!!
      • crxvfr, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Where do you get the authority to speak? Lemme guess, out of your ass? Typical self-righteous nutbar response.
        >> I wasn't aware I needed you approval to speak

        Where is the proof of this "God" fella you idiots keep babbling on about all the time!
        >>>Have you ever heard of the Bible? In it, most of the current events facing the world today has been prophesied, including climate changes and current events in the middle east.

        Listen, 24000 people die EVERY DAY from hunger or hunger-related causes! 75% of them are children!!

        800 million people do not have enough food to eat at this very moment even in this modern age!! America is only 280 million people!

        >>>Do you mean famine?

        5700 Africans die each day of Aids!!

        We have Cancer, Aids, Polio, Yellow Fever, Influenza, Spanish Flu, Measles that wiped out billions and continues to do so!!

        Why do you expect us to believe this "Almighty God" *****?

        >> If you knew what was in the bible, you would know why all of this is happening. Man is helpless without God. ...and btw, I am not a bible thumper per say, there are lots of things I wish were different but I didn't make the rules and I do not presume to know better than God.
    • PabloIV, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Everything you said was wrong.
      I almost feel like rebuking your arguments, but when you're as wrong as you are it's really not worth it.
      • crxvfr, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Aubrey de Grey is no where near qualified to be making these claims. Your family doctor has more medical training than he does. In fact, de Grey was kicked out of Cambridge as a teacher because he was acting as if he were a researcher and authority in the medical field. His wife is better qualified than he.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2This whole "god" hypothesis is starting to offend me. There might actually be people who based their behevaiour on that whole "god" NPC and Reli-LARP the rest of the world straight into a psychotic episode of their fantasy world. Armageddon anyone? Next you know they will be enforcing laws to implement Inferno.
  • megapolisomancy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Defeating aging is only one piece of the challenge to defeat death:

    http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2008/06/22/radi ...
    • Ceryn1126, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3The question is who really cares about those deaths, we can fight those at a social level. Its not like there is a causual relationship between living longer and getting murdered or dying in a fire. Although the risk of those things is marginally higher as you have been alive longer, the prospect of long life is more likely to solve more social ills then it causes.
  • mindwalker, on 06/26/2008, -2/+15It would be nice to be able to live at least enough years to grow a beard that long, plus a few thousand more.
  • ShannonVyff, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8Yay, for more articles addressing the fact that humans can and should end aging! This would help with many of the world's problems, and would eventually benefit all. At first perhaps the more wealthy will benefit, but they do invest back into programs to help society--and as history shows most technologies and advancements in health care soon become ubiquitous -- to the more wealthy nations, then slowly become available to the rest of the world.

    Aubrey knows that we could defeat aging if we put billions into it, but that may be difficult to do in our own life-time, and there is a possibility that even if we did put billions in--it may still take longer, that is why he is also signed up for Cryonics through Alcor, as is my family. Just in case it works, doesn't matter to me otherwise--and I'm leaving 6 times the amount I pay for it out of my life insurance to my children, and non-profits I support (one of them being Methuselah Foundation where I'm currently a 300 member, but also my church, UNICEF, Amnesty International, True Majority, Human Rights Watch, La Leche League and others I currently support annually).

    I appreciate all the thoughtful comments on this timely article! Thanks to all whom take the time to post :-).
  • Morphenius, on 06/26/2008, -3/+14The fact is that even if de Grey's details about science turn out to be erroneous, his overall point is still valid. The sooner we put serious effort into advancing research regarding the reversal and prevention of aging, the sooner human beings will be able to benefit from it. It therefore behooves us to put power into research about this material NOW even if we turn out to be too old to benefit from its ultimate fruition.

    However, I agree with de Grey and those like him. I think that many of us alive today will live to see the end of aging - and with it, the death of the dark era of human mortality.
    • halfdirt, on 06/27/2008, -5/+2I wouldn't call it a 'dark era' of human mortality. I mean, it's 100% natural and not unique to humans. Our ancestors were able to deal with it OK.

      And if we get rid of death, that itself could do all sorts of nasty 'dark' things like accelerate overpopulation, and it could spark wars if the rich or a certain country or group gain the power of immortality first. We do not live in a happy Gene Roddenberry future - we still have greed and ambition powering a great deal of the global situation.
      • TheMoniker, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Our ancestors weren't able to deal with with it at all. Much of literature, philosophy and religion is devoted to attempts at coping with death.

        That something is natural holds no bearing on whether or not it is positive (and hence, whether or not we should do away with it): high infant mortality rates, murder and rape are all natural inasmuch as we see them in our closest primate "relatives" and they have been a part of human history.
      • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5C'mon be serious, you can't try and stew up arguments to declare death aceptable. And as for this odd "natural" argument, I have seen "natural" and it has polio, six pounds of tapeworms, is blind and begs "all naturally" in calcutta.

        FO with your sense of natural.
    • wavenger, on 06/27/2008, -3/+0Believed it or not, immortality is the default position. Death evolved because stagnant, immortal lifeforms were outcompeted by lifeforms who died and evolved. While bad for the individual, it seems that for the group death is a highly adaptive trait.

      Culturally, we humans evolve the same way. Each generation has a revolution, fights this radical movement, then lives to see itself become the establishment and dies. Cultures and peoples and ideas evolve. Think about it. If they'd discovered the immortality serum in 1800, would people still be working cotton fields in chains? The oldest group tends to have the most power, and the oldest group in that case would have probably remained a-o-k with chattle slavery. And think of how afraid of change - nay, of everything - you would be if you didn't just stand to lose 50 or 100 more years of life, but ten thousand? Without fundamental changes in human psychology, immortal human beings would be cowardly, craven, and horrified of change. You think your boss is a self-righteous, inept prick now? Imagine what a blowhard he'll be when he's been working in middle management for 100,000 years.
      • Risingashes, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Or: with a fixed population and an ever increasing technological advancement- forced employment could be a thing of the past.

        And instead of being stuck in a largely needless profession everyone could do what they actually want to do. Middle management exists to coordinate and motivate an unwilling workforce, get rid of the unwillingness and everyone is happy.
  • grkn, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4I'm in favor of anything that can help deal with gradual brain damage (e.g. Alzheimer), and any potential "cure" for aging would just be conventional medicine applying a more preventative strategy for curing the diseases we all get with time and ultimately die from.

    And medicine today is also about life extension remember? When you save a persons life you're extending his lifespan, and the strategy that extends life the most would be the one I'd put most energy into. It's rather obvious if you just _think_ about it :)
    • kecher, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Not so obvious if you really think about it. Medicine today indeed extends life, but its main problem that De Grey notes is that it usually tries to fix the consequences when the cell damage has already occurred ( e.g. Alzheimer ), and not to prevent the actual conditions that allowed for this damage to occur.
      The approach here is less than conventional and that's why he fights this uphill battle with the establishment to get his ideas across. Check out one of his talks at http://www.ted.com
      • grkn, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I meant preventative in the sense that he wants to repair this damage before it leads to pathology.

        My point is that life extension could in some cases be better advocated by saying that it is medicine with a different and for many reasons more powerful strategy, that will prevent many people from getting common aging related diseases and possibly also extends their lives.

        In my experience this makes more sense to both laymen and scientists and dodges some of the inbuilt skepticism towards the words anti aging and life extension.



  • MarianaPeyton, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5This story was quite interesting - I am all in favor for longer lives. Anyway, this story will be frontpaged at Digg because it was frontpaged at Wired.
  • GACaveDiver, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10I enjoy every day of life and wish to continue to enjoy life to its fullest for as long as possible. I am now over 50 years of age and would like for the next 50 and perhaps many centuries to come to be as exciting as the first 50 years of my life. I have many things in life that I enjoy and wish to seek out many new experiences. I like to scuba dive, explore caves, also scuba dive in caves, canoe, hike, backpack, camp, art (paint pictures), ride motorcycles and travel the world. There are so many things to do that a mere lifetime is insufficient time to accomplish the things that are available for one to do. I enjoy trying to learn a new skill every year regardless if I will ever practice that skill again once I have learned it. Life is so exciting and rewarding that I believe I would never tire of it for thousands of years. So, the prospect of reversing and/or stopping aging is very agreeable to me! I would encourage everyone to check out de Gray's Methuselah Foundation and help support the fight to end aging.
    • CosmicJustice, on 06/27/2008, -5/+1Yeah, well future generations don't need or want your saggy ass hanging around for the next hundred years. Maybe if you put some energy into something other than self gratification you would be at peace with the fact that you are way past the half way point.
      • GACaveDiver, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1CosmicJustice, Why the anger and name calling? I take it, by your comments, that you are not interested in living past the normal lifespan? Nobody is forcing you to do so. Just don't try to impose your ideas on those of us who would like to see and do more than can be done in one life time.
    • nextyoyoma, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I admire your enthusiasm for life, but I question how thoroughly you have thought this through. If you are to live for hundreds of years, how many of those years will you spend working? Most people today spend about 40-45 years working, saving for retirement. But if you are to live longer, you will have to work longer. If you live to be 150, you will probably need to work for 100 years or more to be able to save for the last 50 years of retirement. In my experience, many people are already fed up with their work after just half that time.

      What I'm trying to say is that the economic impact of drastically longer lives is unpredictable. Also, I have to disagree with those who have said that any life-prolonging measures are good. Modern medicine may be about prolonging life, but so far it has not focused on prolonging it past a natural length. My grandfather is 84. He has been in the hospital once in his life, for hernia surgery. He takes one pill every day for high blood-pressure. Whenever he goes for a physical, the doctor tells him he is healthier than most 20 year-olds. He is physically stronger than I will every be, and spends most of his time traveling around the south doing disaster relief and helping build churches and homes. I would certainly not be surprised if he were to live paste 100 years old, but I don't think its realistic to expect him to live much longer than that. The point of all this is that even though he takes only a minimal amount of medication, he is quite healthy. When he dies, it will (hopefully) be because he has run the natural course of his life. I don't think he would want to take a pill that would make him live to 150, and I wouldn't want to take that pill either.
      • GACaveDiver, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1nextyoyoma, Yes, I do have enthusiasm for life. If I could live for 100's of years, I would have the chance to explore new careers. I may not want to retire. If I did decide to retire I would have plenty of time to prepare and probably retire rich. Even a low paying job with small amounts of money invested over time will eventually make one a millionaire. I agree with you that any life-prolonging measures are not necessarily good. If you don't have healthy productive years then you aren't living - you are just existing. I think it is great that your Grandfather is still enjoying life at 84, has his health and is being productive. This says to me that retirement doesn't mean you retire from life. It gives you an opportunity to change course in life and take on something new. You might want to ask your Grandfather if he would take that pill to make him live to 150 if it meant that he would be in perfect health and not decrepit. It seems to me that if I have my health today I would want to continue living tomorrow. It seems strange to me that someone would say "I've been around for 150 years and am in great health. However, I think I've lived long enough. I'll end it today." That doesn't seem logical to me.
  • mcentraigues, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4I really wish this works, I love life, is all we have and aging is a terrible end to it. I feel very lucky to be seeing this change happening during my lifetime. Science and technology are growing at a very fast pace now and more and more scientists confirm that the process of deterioration that causes our death can be controlled or even stopped like we do with many other degenerative processes that we call diseases. Well, there's no difference between many of those diseases and aging.
    I always believed aging got to be wrong and now they are starting to prove this to me. I support Aubrey's work and ideas with all my life! Thank you Aubrey! :-)
  • jcraig949, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Many scientists vastly overestimate how difficult it is to slow and reverse aging. While the biological processes are complex, we should be able to map out every damaged endpoint and devise therapies for each. With rapidly advancing biotech and computational horsepower, this will become a reality this century.
    • s2ao, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Many scientists who spend decades studying this stiff are wrong and you 'jcraig949' are right...
      • Frostek, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2I disagree - I think the problem is considerably more difficult than you believe it to be. Any achievements in life extension so far have all been the easiest to solve. Everything remaining will take a lot longer to work out and then overcome. I'd be very surprised if anyone living today ever saw this technology.
      • jcraig949, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I'm not alone. There are other scientists that have spent decades studying aging that also believe that aging is a tractable problem to solve with currently emerging technology and our rapidly increasing knowledge of the genome, epigenome and proteomics.
      • jcraig949, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1@Frostek. I believe the causes of aging to be extremely difficult but not intractable. As biology is transformed from a reductionist science of labeling parts to a systems biology approach of building models and simulations we will start to see exponential returns.
    • jcraig949, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Our ability to intervene at the molecular level is directly tied to our ability to build predictive models which is bound simply by our working knowledge x computational horsepower. If Moore's Law holds we'll be capable of simulating major interaction networks within a decade or two. If gene, RNAi therapy and stem cells show a fraction of their promise, we'll be able to slow and reverse aging processes within a few decades.
  • michaelwong38, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6saw his talk on TED, I only have to make it for 15 years more and then I'll live forever
    • Frostek, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2That is just so unlikely. Fusion power as a problem (for example) will be easier to achieve than immortality, and that won't be resolved in 15 years. I love your optimism, but I think it's misplaced in this case.
  • dshatto, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5I think Aubrey's on to something here!

    I'm definitely going to Aging 2008 tomorrow. It should be a great event!
    http://www.mfoundation.org/Aging2008/promote/
  • hkhenson, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0I can't make it to Aging 2008, but if you are anywhere close it's an event you don't want to miss. Aubrey is a great speaker with an amazing depth of knowledge on aging and how we might defeat it.
  • finnbjorn, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Ever since I came to understand the beauty of the Living Beings through the science of biology, I knew that technology could defeat death in my life-time (baring head-destroying events). I'm glad to see persons with the brain power and resources are finally making it happen.
  • lokisphoenix, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4On a more practical note, the USA is basically bankrupt with Medicare and Medicaid, the US should invest heavily in this because improving aging will allow the most productive members of society to work longer and greatly eliminate long term and other expenses associated with aging.
    • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1not to mention the retirement of otherwise possibly productive workers
    • Frostek, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Somehow I don't think it will necessarily go to the most productive people for some time. Like any other advance in the past it will go to those who can afford it first.
  • xxpostrockxx, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Aubrey's initiative is extremely important and his research is fascinating.
  • Malchiah, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6Hey I heard of this guy from a PopSci article a few years ago. Kinda weird but cool at the same time.

    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-01/prop ...
  • EricPortal, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Amazing, the press is picking up, we are approaching that critical threshold. Make sure you get to, and enjoy the UCLA conference this weekend everybody. Its "Aging: the disease, the cures, the implications". Its monumental, like the million man march and Ghandi sit ins but amplified by like 50 times the importance. Fridays confrence presentations are free, and the rest is like 150 for students. So get there, its cheap, and huge!!!
  • reason, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3All those folk who worked hard to get the Methuselah Foundation off the ground and funded back in 2004 should be feeling pretty happy right around now. It looks set to be the boulder that leads the avalanche, gathering legitimacy and researchers at an accelerating rate to the task of repairing the biochemical damage of aging.
  • HighBar, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3I will be at the Friday night session. I can't wait to meet Aubrey and hear the latest on his ongoing work to defeating aging.
  • rz8472, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Now we only need some sort of 10,000 year-old Emperor of Man given artificial long life by a host of machines and genetic alterations and we're set.
  • Tumble23, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1If you are a UK tax payer and would like to donate in a tax efficient way please visit:

    http://aging-management.com/methuselah_foundation_ ...

    For every £100, the Methuselah Foundation can get £174!
  • jayobear, on 06/27/2008, -1/+7Does anyone else find it a little ironic that his name's de Grey and his research is in aging?
    • NanoStuff, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1I think it's great, straight out of a book about goblins and dragons.
  • STPZ, on 06/27/2008, -4/+5So in the future my only excuse for dying will be that I'm poor.

    I wouldn't want to live in such a society anyway.
    • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -2/+5You already do.

      Most people on the planet die these days because they are poor.
      • STPZ, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1sorrowfully so,

        but to discourage impending suicidal thoughts I rationalized....in the future this will be entirely supported by hegemony...***** way to ruin my night Walter
        • TheMoniker, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0The price performance of related technologies is increasing daily and exponentially; I wouldn't hang my head just yet.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Well, if I had predicted you in 1980 you would carry around every day, a computer with a million times the calculation capacity of the saturn V rockets, and you would be able to reach a guy in Zimbabwe as well as play pacman on it, you would be laughing and claiming "these things would only become available for the rich".

      Yet in a short while 3 billion people will be carrying a mobile phone. And (even though most telecompanies suck to high hell) affordably so.

      Many technologies, of which life extension is one, will be affordable to many.

      But yes, you are right. Poor children in poor countries will still be dying of malnutrition in 2150. It will take a long long while for all these technologies towards the "economical luddites".

      And every year we lose in developing these technologies, we lose millions of human beings. The sooner we have it implemented, the sooner the year is here where all who want to can be saved from the effects of terminal aging.
      • grkn, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0It doesnt make sense to not give a good to someone if you cannot give it to everyone, common sense really.

        I view it in a positive light, if we are able to cure aging our economy will grow at least as costs of therapy goes down, and we will in a better position to help others, not all of us will want to do this, aging or no aging, but the ones that do will have more power to help.
  • StewieGriffin16, on 06/27/2008, -7/+2Living forever isn't possible w/o food. We'd probably run out because of overpopulation.
    • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4Perhaps you'd find it interesting that the people most serious about living long enough to experience the cure eat less than half what you do (on a safe guess) and several times less than your regular fattie.
    • TheMoniker, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3These changes won't be happening in a vacuum. The exponential gains that we are making in information technology and knowledge in virtually every field will very likely help us to feed the world's population.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Well, I have a good argument - I won't breed.
  • hapax, on 06/27/2008, -2/+8Getting rid of death will sure fsck up a lot of religions. I can see the Church banning this.
    • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Great!

      Then all us heathens can wait a few decades until they all go to heaven and leave us in paradise.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Evolution in action!
    • tehbored, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Great! Let the religious ***** die and we can live.
    • div2n, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Slight correction: You are getting rid of death by old age and related illnesses.

      Essentially with proper diet, exercise, advanced medicine and anti-aging he envisions, we can conquer the most common forms of death.

      Car accidents, murder and such will still apply.

      But the most troubling problems won't be religion related but rather population control. Reproduction takes on a whole new context if you expect you and your children will live hundreds or even thousands of years.
      • btud, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0This is a short term problem, which can ultimately be dealt with in China style. That is one family one child. But this is the worst scenario. Developped countries don't even need this restriction, as they naturally tend towards low natality rates. Longer term, we don't have to worry too much as existence will tend to happen in the most resource optimal way, which means we'll all live in some kind of virtual realities, whith the physical substrate concentrated in ever expanding posthuman computer networks/clouds.
  • j33buscr1p3s, on 06/27/2008, -6/+4It's amazing to me that no one has brought up the ethical concerns this presents. Our scarce resources (oil, water, and now even food) are dwindling all from the same problem of overpopulation. Is it really responsible for us to want to live to be 100 with all of the problems we face? I think money would be a lot more responsibly spent figuring out how we're going to support the population we have on the planet before we look into keeping people around longer.
    • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1If people live longer, we won't have to deal with successive generations remaking the same mistakes every few decades.

      And people will value their environment and resources more, since they will need them to last longer.
      • CosmicJustice, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1No, we'll have to deal with the same dumb asses making the same mistakes over and over.
    • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Uh, dude, ethics and policy is likely to take up a large portion of the discussion at this conference. Its been thought about very seriously longer than the science behind it.
      • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0About 1/2 the speakers are focusing on ethics and politics, from the schedule anyway.
    • Azerael, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Just stop having children. Only grow humans as they are needed. Problem solved.
    • kecher, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4De Gray himself in fact addresses this issue in his talks. It is amazing to me how some people don't care to look into the subject before posing such 'big' questions. Check out his talk in entirety:

      http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_ ...

      In fact Azarael's comment is the right answer to the question, lower your rate of reproduction and that's it.
    • fohktor, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1100?
      I want to live to be 1000.
    • TheMoniker, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0These changes won't be happening in a vacuum. The accelerating, exponential gains in information technology, general knowledge in nearly every field and price performance are promising for not only medicine, but agriculture and alternative fuel research as well.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Actually no - the generations living longest NOW consistently take LESS children than is needed to replace themselves. And the generations living shortest (in third world countries) produce the most ghastly, iresponsible litters.

      Plus if your point were correct, how long would it take to implement global laws against excessive breeding?
      • s2ao, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Maybe a bit longer than it takes to implement a global law on excessive carbon emissions?
    • ConfirmedCynic, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1If dying is the solution, then why wait? Why wouldn't people presenting your argument simply choose to "off" themselves right away?

      (Note: I am not advocating that anyone do such a thing here, just pointing out the inconsistency of the argument).
    • btud, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0This is a short term problem, which can ultimately be dealt with in China style. That is one family one child. But this is the worst scenario. Developped countries don't even need this restriction, as they naturally tend towards low natality rates. Longer term, we don't have to worry too much as existence will tend to happen in the most resource optimal way, which means we'll all live in some kind of virtual realities, whith the physical substrate concentrated in ever expanding posthuman computer networks/clouds.
  • n8o8, on 06/27/2008, -8/+2And you think class warfare is bad now?!
  • xtractor, on 06/27/2008, -5/+3Now Putin is never going to go out of power...
    • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -2/+0Nah - the research is only on reversing >human< aging processes. :>
  • dlsspy, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4He gave a great tech talk on this at google for those who need it broken down: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8554766938 ...
  • pandikukka, on 06/27/2008, -5/+1"The following day, Oprah Winfrey will be saying, aging is a disease and let's fix it right now," de Grey said.

    why do you have to end your statements with some thing little dicky..

    *Courtesy Jon Stewart to President Bush*
  • chrisduser, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5A cure for aging is one puzzle piece needed to jump start intra-solar and extra-solar space exploration. I hope I live long enough.
  • thebrinkman, on 06/27/2008, -9/+4Christ... get over yourself and die like the rest of the animal kingdom. The earth will thank you.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4Speak for yourself. You are free to volunteer.
    • TheMoniker, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Please, by all means, lead by example. We'll see how many will choose to follow you. We don't look to the animal kingdom for our ethics, or our views on illness and infant mortality--nor should we look there for our stance on aging and death.
    • thebrinkman, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1sure, because animals don't have ethics. what they do each have is a stable position in nature's harmonious equilibrium, or at least until ingrown apes decide to cover the earth in garbage and multiply like the plague.

      don't get me wrong, i include myself. why fight it? if there's no afterlife, you won't be around to lament it.
  • tikited, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I remember reading about this guy 4 or 5 years, glad he still working on it. Who wants Plastic Surgery just look (scary) young.
  • sunyata76, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Yay de Grey! Met him at the BIL conference. He's brilliant, and I'm happy to see him getting coverage and support on Digg.
  • theeEqualizer, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3I find de Grey's ideas more than plausible. I believe they are going to happen if we can keep from destroying ourselves that long. Anyone who thinks that it can't be done needs to read a number of Lord Byron quotes regarding cutting age technology of the 1800s to understand that they need to shut up.

    My issue with it is the effect on over-population. We are sorely lacking resources and we are grossly inefficient with the ones we have as it is. I firmly believe that we can "cure" aging, and that we will. But we then have to really be thinking forward quickly to solving our energy, water, hunger, and social problems. People who don't die are going to make this place awfully crowded.

    It occurs to me that Americans scarcely wants to listen to the opinion of anyone over 40 anyway. Will they listen to the wisdom of a 140 year-old?
  • colasrtney, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3I like doing very detailed drawings so I'm looking forward to doing self portraits when I'm old. That, and flipping off everyone and getting away with it because, hey, I'm old.
  • Tiltmenot, on 06/27/2008, -4/+0-
  • UnMannedMission, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Anyone think it's a bit funny that this guy looks like death warmed over?
  • slearwig, on 06/27/2008, -2/+5I think aging is a toxemia, not a disease.
    I think eliminating excess anions like Phosphorous, Nitrogen, and inorganic sulfur compounds from the metabolism that work against electrolytes and CoEnzyme A is a start.
    For instance, the body produces trace levels of Phosphoric Acid during sleep to process wastes back to carbohydrates, but if a person loses sleep or has their sleep disrupted frequently, the body will continue to produce Phosphoric Acid and the volume can exceed safe levels resulting in retention by the kidneys and recycled back to the stomach through the liver thereby increasing the concentration.
    I suspect that, because Phosphoric Acid is a strong oxydizer, that it may be responsible for bleaching the hair to white in old age and damaging Pantothenic Acid/Pantothenate which is essential and used to produce CoEnzyme A.

    For sure, I would like our food manufacturers to stop using Phosphates which can damage mucous membranes, and Ammonium compounds in baked goods and other foods which, when adding one molecule of oxygen to the compounds become urine and a second molecule of oxygen becomes Uric Acid responsible for Arthritis and other diseases. It's funny but in the 1970's Ammonium compounds were not used in foods because they were considered toxic. These days the food manufacturers and the government think ammonium compounds belong in cookies and hexametaphosphates belong in Hawaiian Punch and ready-to-drink canned teas. In the old days Hawaiian Punch was sold as a syrup concentrate containing no additives, no preservatives. The concentrated fruit acids and sugar were enough to preserve the syrup and I miss that version of the product.

    It might also help to stop eating six-month-to-two-year-old food products bought at the store and return to eating fresh, but not food grown from manure, phosphate or petroleum fertilizers.
    • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1People have been dying for way longer than they have been eating modern preservatives though.
    • slearwig, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Yes, however, there is the consideration that microorganisms have only been identified and dealt with as the cause of true diseases for about 150 years while at the same time mass production of foods and their adulterations by fertilizers and additives came into use.

      I was thinking about how Big Tobacco was hit by the U.S. government for using ammonium additives in cigarettes. Now they still do it and everything is O.K. as long as they list the ammonium compounds in their ingredients. Yet these same compounds, for instance Ammonium Carbonate, are added to cookies and baked goods as a replacement for Sodium Bicarbonate leavening, I assume to lower the sodium level listed in the Nutritional Facts data on the package, and the U.S. government turns a blind eye.
      I guess as long as the manufacturers list any possible "objectionable ingredients" in their products, then it is perfectly acceptable to the FDA *sarcasm*.
      • slearwig, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I want to add one comment about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It may be off-topic, though it is relevant to the health and safety of people who may be affected.
        Did you know that the FDA does not accept food samples from the general public? There is no address or regional office where you can walk in with a suspected product and turn it in.
        I know this because on several occasions I have bought Lays and Ruffles Potato Chips which were clearly doctored with phosphates and had a dry bleachy taste. The phosphates may have been used to oxydize an under-ripe crop of potatoes or to dry an over-ripe crop of potatoes, but the problem was that the phosphates were not listed in the ingredients. So I called the FDA to get information on how to send them the suspect chips and they told me there was no address to send my samples to; no front desk for the public. Then the problem becomes this. The FDA might investigate, but the doctored product lot was in stores last week. The current stock of products on store shelves are of a different sample or lot which may not be doctored, in which case the FDA easily misses the older mislabeled stock.
        • tarjan, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1You send the sample to a lab (preferably a reputable one) and pay for the initial investigation. If the lab finds something, you then take that finding to the FDA. That takes the crackpot and cost issue out of the situation and gives them a footing to start work. Once that is done either work with their public office and the findings, or take the offender to court stating that their ingredients are not listed.

          Your taste buds are not considered "reliable scientific equipment."
      • zombiebettie, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I agree with you. I hope that someday people will put eating real food ahead of eating cheap food with weird ingredients.
  • phenolholic, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1aww *****! does this mean mccain wont die in office? (if he wins, granted)
    • WalterSear, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Worry not - there are some things beyond powers of science.
    • tehbored, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1McCain is way over the hill. He's not gonna make it to life extension technologies given his age and current state of health.
  • hollywoodphony, on 06/27/2008, -8/+3Is Digg only allowing crazy people to comment on this story? I think this is just what we need: for the billions of miserable people of the world to live longer. I was just thinking, earlier today, "How can I both give nature the finger AND contribute to over-population?"
    • Stevethegreat, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4You can only contribute to overpopulation by breeding like a rabbit. Look at the countries who overpopulate (pollute) our world and you'll see it's not those where people have long life spans but in those countries where every one of them making 10 ***** kids for a measure. If we want to stop overpopulation we should stop people from breeding as much, if we want to stop depression (as you put it) we have to make people to learn thinking by the time they're still in schools, by teaching them methods of thought, instead of letting them littering the world with their idiotic way to "pursuit happiness" .
    • witchaven, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Dude, we've been giving nature the finger ever since we started making stone tools.
  • HumanRecall, on 06/27/2008, -5/+2I can't wait to talk to plants and poop myself when i'm 90 :)
  • namar777, on 06/27/2008, -7/+2That is definitely a research area i don't want to waste my time in... oh well, good luck guys :)
  • mydingaling, on 06/27/2008, -4/+3Sorry can't make it to Aging 2008. Can I book for 3008?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.