We’re either the last generation to ever die, or the first generation to live forever. I’m not talking figuratively here. You, reading this, might have an eternal life.
Some of the folks that are best known for longevity research are more interested in publicity than moving science forward. Unfortunately, they are not necessarily the best examples of work being done to achieve age reversal, which is no longer on the wish list, but has been done in several cases that are still secret due to intellectual property considerations. I have seen lab mice with an average life of two years live beyond five years at present with no sign of aging and those that were in bad shape prior to this innovative technology have de-aged within months of the first treatment. This is not pie in the sky technology, but here and within the next decade it will be available assuming that the ethical and legal issues can be dealt with. Aging is a complicated problem that is not just about the length of life, but the quality as well. It also involves what impact it will have on a wide range of issues that include bioethics. In other words, it's more complicated than turning an 80-year-old into a 40-year-old, hair grown back, healthy and vigorous with some signs of disease that have simply gone away. It is a bit like UFO's. You find it impossible to believe it until you see it with your own eyes. And even then, as a skeptic, you want to still see it as impossible, but it isn't. This is real, at least for five year old lab mice, and a few elderly folks that have chosen to be human lab rats that when you see the before and after (in person), you still have to ask yourself, is this really possible. It defies belief, but we are already there.
I will most likely be asked when we can see this available in general use, but I can't possibly give any timeframe due to the other issues that surround the de-aging prooces that are not tied to the physiological aspects, but it would not surprise me to see this offering in limited numbers within five to ten years. But believe me, I have seen it with my own eyes and it is a stunning reversal that is now over two and a half years from when I was able to see it for myself.
We have so much to look forward to, and as a 73-year-old, I strongly believe I have a chance at living to a healthy and vigorous 125-150 years of age. I certainly hope that will turn out to be the case!
@Tomas, You wrote "I’ll cover the first in this week’s premium article, and the 2nd in next week’s." But, I didn't get either of those 2 next articles. Hope it's not forgotten.
Curious to see such resistance to the prospect of dramatically extending life expectancy in the comments. I'd love to see these technologies materialize, although, having played SOMA, I won't be an early adopter. Interesting read, Tomas. Thanks for putting this together.
Whichever immortality tech wins out, I can tell you I will not be an enthusiastic adopter. Forget about the philosophical arguments that you could make about life requiring death; people who want to live forever are seriously emotionally deranged.
Regarding freezing, it's not that simple since freezing actually kill and damage cells. And we are not yet able to give life back (probably this is quite difficult even in the long term).
Yuval Noah Harari wrote about this in his book Homo Deus. The thing I most remember was him speculating that nobody would take any risks if they could live forever. If a car crash could destroy your brain beyond repair, you'd never get off the couch.
Something I find interesting about life extension is that it does not represent a solution to the long term problem of demographic decline, which Tomás has discussed in previous articles. While it might spread out the curve of population with respect to time, the death rate will always be constant at one apiece.
There are several comment threads to pursue. One is that we, as humans have been around for several hundred thousand years, in one form or another, that closely resembles what we are today, if not visually, then certainly genetically extremely similar. We evolved with a lifespan, it is what shapes us. That the end comes to us all, defines the way we live our life. But now, because we can, we may be able to restructure our fundamental relationship to everything we understand- everything that makes up our brief time here- where man "... struts and frets his hour upon the stage."
Oppenheimer had serious reservations about harnessing the atom bomb, geneticists have serious reservations about cloning humans. Science is an unstoppable juggernaut, always questing, always questioning. "Because we can", is not a solid justification for doing a thing. Look at the wonders of releasing the power of fossil fuel. We got refrigerators and a super heated planet.
Second thread: We are soon to be at 8 billion with Hans Rosling seeing us peak at 10 or so. The prospect of the financial elite being able to live indefinitely throws our planet's carrying capacity into a realm it has not heretofore sanctioned. Our planet developed a system whereby each successive generation slightly improved upon the previous one- and gave us the marvels of evolution. Now we would be supplanting millions of years of a proven method with another one; to keep the financial elite alive well beyond their allotted time. I'll wrap this up. I don't know about any of you but the financial elite I have witnessed in my lifetime are a vile bunch. But if they were Mother Teresas and Einsteins they would embrace death the way the rest of us must try to do, with dignity and some grace.
I wonder whether consciousness is more than infrastructure. We like to think of ourselves as fixed identities but anyone married knows their partner is rarely the same as yesterday. As a pilot I look at supercomputer generated weather models but they still are no substitute for the real world with infinite model inputs. Perhaps the physical world is just the best sim ever built and it’s the fuzzy logic that counts?
Obviously the first to afford this will be the rich followed by the politicians
Just imagine a future trump or hitler rejuvenated and carrying out his plans for 159 or more years Or a 150 year old Nancy Pelosi still in congress We assume the brain organs and bone structures are equally improved and durable with these treatments
Even in a brain with billions of connections there must be a limit to its inventiveness
Some of the folks that are best known for longevity research are more interested in publicity than moving science forward. Unfortunately, they are not necessarily the best examples of work being done to achieve age reversal, which is no longer on the wish list, but has been done in several cases that are still secret due to intellectual property considerations. I have seen lab mice with an average life of two years live beyond five years at present with no sign of aging and those that were in bad shape prior to this innovative technology have de-aged within months of the first treatment. This is not pie in the sky technology, but here and within the next decade it will be available assuming that the ethical and legal issues can be dealt with. Aging is a complicated problem that is not just about the length of life, but the quality as well. It also involves what impact it will have on a wide range of issues that include bioethics. In other words, it's more complicated than turning an 80-year-old into a 40-year-old, hair grown back, healthy and vigorous with some signs of disease that have simply gone away. It is a bit like UFO's. You find it impossible to believe it until you see it with your own eyes. And even then, as a skeptic, you want to still see it as impossible, but it isn't. This is real, at least for five year old lab mice, and a few elderly folks that have chosen to be human lab rats that when you see the before and after (in person), you still have to ask yourself, is this really possible. It defies belief, but we are already there.
I will most likely be asked when we can see this available in general use, but I can't possibly give any timeframe due to the other issues that surround the de-aging prooces that are not tied to the physiological aspects, but it would not surprise me to see this offering in limited numbers within five to ten years. But believe me, I have seen it with my own eyes and it is a stunning reversal that is now over two and a half years from when I was able to see it for myself.
We have so much to look forward to, and as a 73-year-old, I strongly believe I have a chance at living to a healthy and vigorous 125-150 years of age. I certainly hope that will turn out to be the case!
@Tomas, You wrote "I’ll cover the first in this week’s premium article, and the 2nd in next week’s." But, I didn't get either of those 2 next articles. Hope it's not forgotten.
Curious to see such resistance to the prospect of dramatically extending life expectancy in the comments. I'd love to see these technologies materialize, although, having played SOMA, I won't be an early adopter. Interesting read, Tomas. Thanks for putting this together.
Whichever immortality tech wins out, I can tell you I will not be an enthusiastic adopter. Forget about the philosophical arguments that you could make about life requiring death; people who want to live forever are seriously emotionally deranged.
Future guy here the world still have to get there, but is 2045 nut 2076
Zero interested in this or transhumanism
Is going in an airtight casket in a masoleum at all comparable to being cryogenically frozen?
Regarding freezing, it's not that simple since freezing actually kill and damage cells. And we are not yet able to give life back (probably this is quite difficult even in the long term).
Yuval Noah Harari wrote about this in his book Homo Deus. The thing I most remember was him speculating that nobody would take any risks if they could live forever. If a car crash could destroy your brain beyond repair, you'd never get off the couch.
Something I find interesting about life extension is that it does not represent a solution to the long term problem of demographic decline, which Tomás has discussed in previous articles. While it might spread out the curve of population with respect to time, the death rate will always be constant at one apiece.
There are several comment threads to pursue. One is that we, as humans have been around for several hundred thousand years, in one form or another, that closely resembles what we are today, if not visually, then certainly genetically extremely similar. We evolved with a lifespan, it is what shapes us. That the end comes to us all, defines the way we live our life. But now, because we can, we may be able to restructure our fundamental relationship to everything we understand- everything that makes up our brief time here- where man "... struts and frets his hour upon the stage."
Oppenheimer had serious reservations about harnessing the atom bomb, geneticists have serious reservations about cloning humans. Science is an unstoppable juggernaut, always questing, always questioning. "Because we can", is not a solid justification for doing a thing. Look at the wonders of releasing the power of fossil fuel. We got refrigerators and a super heated planet.
Second thread: We are soon to be at 8 billion with Hans Rosling seeing us peak at 10 or so. The prospect of the financial elite being able to live indefinitely throws our planet's carrying capacity into a realm it has not heretofore sanctioned. Our planet developed a system whereby each successive generation slightly improved upon the previous one- and gave us the marvels of evolution. Now we would be supplanting millions of years of a proven method with another one; to keep the financial elite alive well beyond their allotted time. I'll wrap this up. I don't know about any of you but the financial elite I have witnessed in my lifetime are a vile bunch. But if they were Mother Teresas and Einsteins they would embrace death the way the rest of us must try to do, with dignity and some grace.
I wonder whether consciousness is more than infrastructure. We like to think of ourselves as fixed identities but anyone married knows their partner is rarely the same as yesterday. As a pilot I look at supercomputer generated weather models but they still are no substitute for the real world with infinite model inputs. Perhaps the physical world is just the best sim ever built and it’s the fuzzy logic that counts?
Obviously the first to afford this will be the rich followed by the politicians
Just imagine a future trump or hitler rejuvenated and carrying out his plans for 159 or more years Or a 150 year old Nancy Pelosi still in congress We assume the brain organs and bone structures are equally improved and durable with these treatments
Even in a brain with billions of connections there must be a limit to its inventiveness
https://youtu.be/EKa9eEotA54
Prof Sinclair has been talking about this for atleast 2 years now. The other methods are also mind-blowing and mind-numbing almost literally:)