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!
I've been reading a lot about this. I assume you mean Sinclair, maybe De Grey. Some of my next articles are about this.
Also, would you be interested in looking at my drafts for the next articles? Another pair of eyes would be helpful. If so, just respond to the newsletter email and I'll know your email address!
Yes, Sinclair, who changes his mind (not a terrible thing, but Resveratrol was the end-all, be-all for anti-aging. He has been able to raise a great deal of money for his various companies, he has Harvard attached to his name which adds to his credibility, but the reality is that so far, he has not moved the bar much. As to Aubrey, he has had some negative publicity of late, but has dealt with it well, and he at least is sincere, but his work is more about what is happening in the anti-aging/regenerative medicine space than actual high-level research. George Church, another Harvard professor, is focused on gene therapy for reversing aging. for which Peter Diamandis of the X-Prize has high praise. George is well known, has raised an enormous amount of money to focus on his approach and like Bezos and others, they have significant skin in the game to look at ways to increase life span. The father of all this work was Ray Kurzweil, who if you look at him today and photos of him 10 years ago, you see a notable change (for the good). He has a regimen of about 100 pills per day, which is close to a million dollars a year (https://www.businessinsider.com/google-futurist-ray-kurzweil-live-forever-2015-4)
None of these individuals or their teams are inherently bad, but there are other vital and important institutes doing serious and important work. The Buck Institute (https://www.buckinstitute.org/), Johns Hopkins, the Cleveland Clinic (Dr. Michael Roizen and Patrick Cox) are quietly going about making a significant impact on the discipline. Dr. Michael West, who founded Age-X, did early work on tissue engineering, the application of machine learning to biological data, and halting the aging process with stem cells and gene therapy. There are others, but those are the ones that come to mind.
I am unfortunately unable to give you the details on the project that I spoke of because they are in a phase that they feel is too important to be shown without rigorous scientific data that has been peer reviewed, and all of that takes time. I can, however, tell you that the few that have been involved thus far in human trials are beyond reproach. From a personal standpoint, it is almost creepy to see the before and after on these folks. It is one thing to see a lab mouse that has never had a life span beyond two years continue to be active and physically in their prime of life after five years, something that has never been seen before anywhere.
What I can say is there are several ways to get multiple types or ranges of regeneration and/or anti-aging that could be ranked by degree. But to see the potential for immortality is another issue altogether, and until those mice no longer are alive, it remains to be seen if that is the first step in seeing this for humanity not that far down the road. It's really humbling to think that even at the age of 73, I am not yet out of the game yet. I expected this for my children and certainly my grandchildren, but this is moving quickly enough that even I may yet see this in my own lifetime. If you can think of anything more exciting than that, please let me know. I can't imagine anything more exciting and equally more challenging than living in good health well beyond any actuarial table yet known to exist.
Tomas, I can't think of a single article that you write that hasn't been worth sharing. I don't have a clue how you do it, but just keep on doing it. I never miss any of your masterfully written articles. How you do it while running a business and having a family is beyond mortals like myself. Of course, if I can be of any help to you, I am more than happy to offer my humble abilities to the cause.
This is all so fascinating. Thank you for sharing the details!
I knew about Aubrey and could tell about Sinclair. How adamant he was about resveratrol clearly taints his current excitement. I didn't know about the other ones, so thank you! I'm glad to hear funding is coming for so many of them, but we're so close that it's frustrating there's not more. I believe one of the reasons is because there's not enough demand for it. So hopefully articles like these will keep pushing awareness up.
On the unnamed project, do you have orders of magnitude of time we need to wait to hear more about it? I'm jittery just to hear about it!
Thank you, that's super kind to say! Thanks also for accepting to help! I'm finishing a draft of a long piece. I'll send it to you as soon as I'm done.
I wrote you a long note thinking that it would go to the substack email address, but it came back as undeliverable. My error.
I am happy to help in any way you like. I also know that my good friend, Patrick Cox, who happens to be a writer as well, would be happy to get on the phone to speak about the projects he has been involved in. He just finished a book that he is publishing under the aegis of Dr.
With your range of articles, this is one black hole that you could get lost in. I know because I have been lucky to be a good friend of Patrick and he tells me things he shouldn’t, but he is on the front lines of seeing the latest ideas in the space. I can only imagine how busy you are, but I am going to get you up to speed quickly in the area to be able to show that this is a burgeoning area that is not just a group of crazies, but profoundly serious people that are making incredible advances.
One of the most interesting things I forgot to mention is the Conboy discovery, something that has been around for almost forty years that has enormous potential. I have also included some primers and general work that my friend Patrick has written in the past that served as a stepping off point for me, which really jump started my interest. They do an excellent job of getting to the meat of what all of this means, what the differences between anti-aging and age reversal and the like. I think it will help you get a jump start quickly.
I also have attached a couple of links to a free magazine called Neo, which was created by a super nice person, Jane Metcalf, whom I met at TED (not TEDx) several years ago. She paints the space with an even larger stroke. It’s free, you can check it out at NEO.LIFE (list-manage.com) They are out of Berkeley. If you find it of interest, you might want to check out the last few years of articles on aging…there are a lot of ideas out there and some of them will astound you. I can’t wait to see the next few years and what it can bring for all of us.
My very best,
Ed
P.S. I now realize I am not able to send you any attachments, as I noted in the email, but if you can suggest a way to get them to you, I believe you would find them of significant help to craft some of your thinking in future posts. I think you would find them especially useful. I also included a new technique that the Conboy's (husband and wife team) have learned about a 40-year-old process that is already FDA approved that can be repurposed for the area of anti-aging. This is one thing you will learn. Many of the tools we need are already available to us if we only can see the trees from the forest.
Wishful thinking about a magical drug or sudden gene manipulation working like a simple switch without providing basic human evolutionary food plus proper vitamin & hormonal balance.
1 solution my offset some toxic & unnatural to human habits, factors surrounding him everyday but it's at best going back to point zero. Unnatural way is usually ineffectively & blind without idea of possible long term side effects.
Psychologically it boost comfort making lazy & preventing from doing the rest of needed work for a real qualitative change.
First thing is to stop doing wrong things and compounding small good steps.
Anybody can achieve a similar effect without any special drugs or radical alterations. Simple things as moving out from city - clean air, water without plastic & natural food, limiting pathological stress.
Plus lifestyle - intermittent-fasting with occasional longer fasts(for growth hormone and brain cells regeneration kicking in), cutting off carbs, hot & cold exposures, daily 5minute HIIT training & 2 times a weak heavy training - the best with protocol for maximizing natural testosterone lvl, exercises breathing & blood oxidization technics (for NO supply), red grass-fed meat in diet, proper supply of vitamin C, D3+K2(1st activates huge nr of repair and anticancer genes, 2nd reverses metabolic disease reverting veins calcification), K2, Mg, Potassium, Omega3, Zinc as well as variety of living probiotics in natural superfoods - processed by fermentation Kefir, Sauerkraut, SauerCucumber, Kimchi, Natto. I think the first guy who started thinking like this was the one who wrote the 4h body book.
No artificial treatment will fix anything if body do not have compatible resources to take advantage of it. And there is so wide range of feedback loops & systematic multirelations that your magical thing may like with B vitamins work for a while and bring a huge headache afterwards. Because only the body itself knows how it should work and how to regain balance without screwing up falling into another extreme.
A simple thing as being born through the wrong hole sets you up for being dysfunctional & prone to sickness. Every decade is a crazier rate of loss of our biom variety. Humans do not even fix the most basic deficiencies but dream about living longer than ancestors? What kind of joke is it? And there is a space to easily regain not only the old humans natural bacteria variety but to revert to original mammals richness - since other branches in the wild still preserved what we lost.
And fixing errors accumulated for decades... good luck with that without understanding exactly what was broken.
BTW good luck fixing your arteries since if you consume carbs, grains & plant oils the slowly progressing metabolic disease usually catch person very late and in state then nearly impossible to reverse. And i mean fixing the cause not replacing parts artificially prolonging the inevitable for a half-dead corpse. Lots about it & new diagnostics on Ivor Cummins channel.
PS. Those mouses are probably preselected. Most of us are after long phase of derailing natural processes as selection through "civilization" & "progress". That's why despite eating more a random virus still has ability to occasionally wipe out 50%+ of population of farming societies, especially in cities. What normally would not happen.
That's basically how Indoeuropeans (cordedware culture) from european steppe colonized whole Europe after a plague - and somehow they were healthier, taller, resistant to diseases, "coincidentally" on more natural to human animal-based grass-fed meat+dairy(also fermented milk kumys) diet.
You spoil your lifespan daily. It's enough to stop most of those factors.
I have no faith in any scientist with a thick medical stocks portfolio. This basic intuition serves me well. And 2019+ experiences were more than enough to see reality of modern science.
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.
@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.
As for the other ones.... This will teach me not to commit to anything specific :)
The article is 80% written, but its companion premium article isn't, and I still need a bunch of research before I can publish both, so it will still take me some time!
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.
I’d love to live forever Mark and am rarely accused of derangement. That said if the experience is anything like some recent endless Zoom meetings I’ve been in I’ll let Tomas try it first!
Of course nobody would accuse you of that, because your derangement is internal ;) It wouldn't interfere with your ability to make friends, start a family, or advance in your career. You can be materially successful and still fail spiritually.
Now, I don't know you, and I'll back down from the generalization of "all people who want to live forever are emotionally deranged." I'll make a weaker statement: the desire to live forever comes from a spiritually unenlightened place.
I think we are on the same page Mark. As a student of Buddhism I’ve come to see death as the greatest teacher and loss as the greatest lesson. Without death we’d likely be as spiritually disciplined as my trust fund friends took their careers (although perhaps the wisdom of no escape would take on new meaning). Even though I know this living forever still has some appeal to the fragile ego.
Relax, guys, there will still be plenty of pain and suffering in the world to go around even if eternal life is an option.
I'm not of the opinion that more death and pain is better for people and the world. Otherwise, I would favor more senseless death to teach even more lessons.
Since you’ve asked, here are some generalizations.
There’s a cult around the technological singularity, transhumanism, and immortality. The cultural center of this movement is located in Silicon Valley. On the supply side, you’ve got biotech innovators who develop increasingly creepy ways to cheat death, as well as rationalists who claim to be working on “responsible” AGI, as though there were a responsible way of unleashing an immensely powerful and unpredictable AI on the planet. On the demand side, you’ve got wealthy tech socialites who, no matter how much money and resources they manage to hoard, are constantly living in fear, and assume that they can buy salvation. I say emotionally deranged because most well-adjusted adults understand that there are forces beyond their control, that they are finite, and that death is part of life.
History is full of examples of people chasing immortality, and it is usually considered foolish, arrogant, and based in deep fear. I’m not saying the technologies you mention won’t someday exist - perhaps soon even - and I know the buyers are out there. But it doesn’t sound like a spiritually satisfying existence.
"biotech innovators who develop increasingly creepy ways to cheat death". --> What's creepy about that?
"who claim to be working on “responsible” AGI, as though there were a responsible way of unleashing an immensely powerful and unpredictable AI on the planet." --> I think their argument is "AGI will happen and if we're not prepared, it will be terrible. So we are working on it to understand it and prevent it." Do you disagree with that goal? I assume not. Then, maybe you disagree with how they're approaching this problem. What, exactly, do you disagree with? If you think like Eliezer Yudkowsky, then you and I agree. But that's a far cry from thinking that working on AGI is bad.
"most well-adjusted adults understand that there are forces beyond their control, that they are finite, and that death is part of life." --> I believe they also understand this. But they objectively see that, for the first time in history, they might not need to accept this. And, unlike most, they have the resources to act on it. Why would that be bad?
There are researchers at Johns Hopkins growing literal brains in vats, soaking them in chemicals and making them perform tasks. This is considered medical research, and part of that is reversing aging. I can't demarcate exactly why this is creepy whereas a robot prosthetic arm that allows an amputee to regain much of their previous abilities is cool and awesome, except I know creepy when I see it.
My take on AGI is that it's not inevitable, and there's no safe way of doing it.
BTW since you mention Eliezer Yudkowsky, I'll paraphrase his argument about death: Death is bad, and we should want less of it, and none if possible. He says not to overthink it. (This appears to be the argument Richard is making here as well.) I don't have a good counter-argument, but I also don't need one. I'm speaking from the soul here -- or if you prefer a more rational-friendly term, "the ancient part of the brain shaped by thousands of millennia of evolution." The soul is not always adaptive, but it contains much wisdom. It's limited in what it can tell us, but this a topic that happens to be in its purview. You ignore this internal voice at your own peril: it is this part of the brain where true happiness resides, yet it is impervious to rational arguments, data, and evidence. So while I can't provide a good rational argument against immortality, I definitely can say that it's not for me.
I saw your Twitter poll. It would be interesting to correlate personality traits with the desire to live forever. My hunch is that people who don't accept death are less deep, less happy, less grateful, and less soulful than those who do.
Why the fact that there is some creepy research in the field means that the field is creepy?
Thank you for that definition of “speaking from the soul”. It sounds to me like the type of heuristics that this part of the brain has learned don’t apply in a world without death, so you might want to actively avoid its suggestions.
Although I’m pretty sure the more primal part of you says “I totally want to live forever” (as no young-feeling animal wants to die), and the part of you that feels repulsed might come more from an acquired disgust (most disgust is in fact acquired culturally).
Most people don't have the skills for the supply or the resources for the demand, but if you ask most people if they'd like the option of living forever (or at least the option to live for as long as they want) for little cost, I doubt many would turn to it down. There are few people to whom life and death are equally attractive.
Firstly, the 'community forecasting' - asking a bunch of people what they think the answer to an unknowable question is will not give you any approximation of the true answer. In other words this kind of market like a betting market works only if the participants can make a good estimate. The questions posted are ones where we have far too little data, so even if the participants are experts in the field, the answers are to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Secondly, the measure of AGI intelligence - we don't really have a very good handle on how intelligence really works, why would anyone assume that it continues increasing exponentially with number of 'neurons'? Of course connections increase exponentially with increasing nodes, but there could be other limiting factors (eg distance between nodes, energy consumption) that bend the curve the other way, including a potential upper limit.
Thirdly, the notion that a superintelligence can solve any problem - we already know, mathematically, that some problems cannot be solved. We also know that there are certain physical limitations that are hard limits and cannot be overcome with higher intelligence
Fourthly, the 'capture brain state' issue - our consciousness doesn't arrive only from our minds but also our bodies, so we need to capture not only the 'neural map' of the brain but also every single chemical/hormonal interaction. I'm aware that I say this without any data to back it up, but my feeling is that this is centuries rater than decades in the future
In both cases you’re in a hermetically closed box. In both cases you’ll be remembered just as long as somebody decides to keep you around. That’s about it.
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).
The question is not whether we can thaw people now. Or soon. The question is if we ever will.
And odds are we will be able as long as the information has disappeared.
We can’t revive cleopatra because there’s not enough quality of her remains. But it’s possible that a brain that wasn’t destroyed contains enough atomic information to reconstruct it back.
I doubt that we ever will, at least in the short or medium term (or considering next generation). We are what we are (our "conscious mind") thanks to our brain. But our brain is not only genetics, nor even epigenetics, but the interaction with the environment. Two twins have completely different brains. So, any damage to the brain may change everything, as well as the lack or excess of other interactions. You can clone a human being (that will be indeed possible in the future, it is actually possible), but it won't be the same person, that's for sure.
So, you're saying that there is a vast conspiracy to convince us that we have frozen and successfully thawed eggs, sperm, embryos, skin, and heart valves?
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.
Now that you say that, I remember reading it. I also remember what I thought about it: humans’ genes are what they are. They have hyperbolic discounting. It might increase risk-aversion, but I highly doubt this is going to be true of a majority of people.
Plus, 3 of these options solve for most, if not all, accidents.
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.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. What is it about living far longer that would make millions of women choose to have third children? Even if you are relatively youthful in your 100s or 200s or beyond, there are essentially no eggs left after menopause.
This simple question hides a lot of complexity. Layer by layer:
If you add suddenly 10 years of life and nobody died of old age for 10 years, population would grow during that time. After that, the secular trend would take over again. Since the secular trend is one of decline, we would be back to a declining population, but starting at a higher maximum ( say 12B ppl instead of 11B as the max).
If instead of expanding 10 years you expand life a million years, now suddenly population grows dramatically during that time. Even if after that you still have a population decline, you’ll start declining once you’re a trillion ppl, which is not much of a decline, in the grand scheme of things.
Then additionally, if you dramatically increase ppl’s age, it’s because they remain young for longer, which means they’re also fertile longer. If women could live 80 years before having children, and then they would still have 80 fertile years, odds are they would eventually have more than 2 on average. That’s my guess.
So you’d have the double whammy of more ppl who don’t die and more ppl born per woman.
Okay, I follow what you're saying now. Interesting thoughts.
I would probably assume that the jump from ~100 year lifespan to much longer lifespan would not be instantaneous, though, and that would allow time for the population of humanity to adjust to the new reality. And of course you wouldn't *know* if the life extension therapies were good for a decade extra, a century extra, a millennium extra, or whatever, until that time had passed. But I see what you're saying - it doesn't just spread out the peak, although it does do that, but it also pushes it higher, assuming the therapies become available prior to "peak people" in 2040-2060 or so.
I hope they do; I'll be 60 this year.
I believe fertility is a different question altogether. Menopause is a function of a finite number of eggs at birth and a monthly cycle during the childbearing years. Although a generalized therapy of youthfulness would make those years more congenial, and perhaps lead to women choosing to have children right up to the threshold of menopause, I don't think it would delay menopause and hence extend fertility. I suspect some *different* therapy might be able to do that, but it would be something different from life extension.
So, I will wager that you are mistaken and will wager you one bottle of 1993 Petrus to be delivered at the second nicest bar in Luna City on the moon in mid-June of 2222, which is a Saturday. That should be enough time for these trends to become apparent.
I made a mistake. I said “women”, which implies they would birth these babies, which you’re right is limited biologically to the 10ks of eggs they have at birth.
But creating new gametes from other cells, and using artificial wombs, will also be something we’re going to discover in the coming decades, so having children will be untethered from biological constraints.
As for your bet, well I’m sorry but I plan to keep you accountable for it, so you’ll have to be more precise ok the claim that I’m wrong (what about exactly, and how to phrase it in a provable way). And I appreciate the Perry’s 93, but just in case it’s turned vinegar you’ll have to get a 2093 too
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.
Because the more predators you have, the more you have to focus on growing fast and reproducing before you're eaten. If you're massive, you don't need to worry about that, so your body can evolve to live for a very, very long time.
This is why the biggest terrestrial mammals have all disappeared (a sudden predator killed them, us), and why the biggest ones left are in Africa (where they co-evolved to be scared of us).
Put another way: there's nothing magical about our age. We've just evolved to live to this age.
2. The elite
Everything points at this working for everybody, not just the elite.
I mean, you and anyone else can always feel free to choose death at any time. No one's stopping you.
BTW, even with the superheated planet, as someone with a parent who lived in a time and place without refrigerators (or indoor plumbing, or antibiotics), I'd gladly take my childhood and life over his.
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?
The supercomputers are no substitute because of model size and data input: we can't measure the position of every molecule at moment X, and we can't calculate the statistical interactions between them. This is the source of the lack of modeling.
But as you know, models are getting even better, because our better model and more processing power allow for smaller and smaller finite elements in the calculations.
You can imagine a world where the finite elements are as small as a molecule. The models will be much better then. But you'll still have a measurement issue.
For brains, you will also have models and processing that become good enough. Unlike the weather, you will eventually not have a problem of measurement, since we'll likely be able to physically scan the brain in a way we won't be able to scan the molecules of air.
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!
TELL ME MORE!
I've been reading a lot about this. I assume you mean Sinclair, maybe De Grey. Some of my next articles are about this.
Also, would you be interested in looking at my drafts for the next articles? Another pair of eyes would be helpful. If so, just respond to the newsletter email and I'll know your email address!
Yes, Sinclair, who changes his mind (not a terrible thing, but Resveratrol was the end-all, be-all for anti-aging. He has been able to raise a great deal of money for his various companies, he has Harvard attached to his name which adds to his credibility, but the reality is that so far, he has not moved the bar much. As to Aubrey, he has had some negative publicity of late, but has dealt with it well, and he at least is sincere, but his work is more about what is happening in the anti-aging/regenerative medicine space than actual high-level research. George Church, another Harvard professor, is focused on gene therapy for reversing aging. for which Peter Diamandis of the X-Prize has high praise. George is well known, has raised an enormous amount of money to focus on his approach and like Bezos and others, they have significant skin in the game to look at ways to increase life span. The father of all this work was Ray Kurzweil, who if you look at him today and photos of him 10 years ago, you see a notable change (for the good). He has a regimen of about 100 pills per day, which is close to a million dollars a year (https://www.businessinsider.com/google-futurist-ray-kurzweil-live-forever-2015-4)
None of these individuals or their teams are inherently bad, but there are other vital and important institutes doing serious and important work. The Buck Institute (https://www.buckinstitute.org/), Johns Hopkins, the Cleveland Clinic (Dr. Michael Roizen and Patrick Cox) are quietly going about making a significant impact on the discipline. Dr. Michael West, who founded Age-X, did early work on tissue engineering, the application of machine learning to biological data, and halting the aging process with stem cells and gene therapy. There are others, but those are the ones that come to mind.
I am unfortunately unable to give you the details on the project that I spoke of because they are in a phase that they feel is too important to be shown without rigorous scientific data that has been peer reviewed, and all of that takes time. I can, however, tell you that the few that have been involved thus far in human trials are beyond reproach. From a personal standpoint, it is almost creepy to see the before and after on these folks. It is one thing to see a lab mouse that has never had a life span beyond two years continue to be active and physically in their prime of life after five years, something that has never been seen before anywhere.
What I can say is there are several ways to get multiple types or ranges of regeneration and/or anti-aging that could be ranked by degree. But to see the potential for immortality is another issue altogether, and until those mice no longer are alive, it remains to be seen if that is the first step in seeing this for humanity not that far down the road. It's really humbling to think that even at the age of 73, I am not yet out of the game yet. I expected this for my children and certainly my grandchildren, but this is moving quickly enough that even I may yet see this in my own lifetime. If you can think of anything more exciting than that, please let me know. I can't imagine anything more exciting and equally more challenging than living in good health well beyond any actuarial table yet known to exist.
Tomas, I can't think of a single article that you write that hasn't been worth sharing. I don't have a clue how you do it, but just keep on doing it. I never miss any of your masterfully written articles. How you do it while running a business and having a family is beyond mortals like myself. Of course, if I can be of any help to you, I am more than happy to offer my humble abilities to the cause.
My best,
Ed
This is all so fascinating. Thank you for sharing the details!
I knew about Aubrey and could tell about Sinclair. How adamant he was about resveratrol clearly taints his current excitement. I didn't know about the other ones, so thank you! I'm glad to hear funding is coming for so many of them, but we're so close that it's frustrating there's not more. I believe one of the reasons is because there's not enough demand for it. So hopefully articles like these will keep pushing awareness up.
On the unnamed project, do you have orders of magnitude of time we need to wait to hear more about it? I'm jittery just to hear about it!
Thank you, that's super kind to say! Thanks also for accepting to help! I'm finishing a draft of a long piece. I'll send it to you as soon as I'm done.
I wrote you a long note thinking that it would go to the substack email address, but it came back as undeliverable. My error.
I am happy to help in any way you like. I also know that my good friend, Patrick Cox, who happens to be a writer as well, would be happy to get on the phone to speak about the projects he has been involved in. He just finished a book that he is publishing under the aegis of Dr.
With your range of articles, this is one black hole that you could get lost in. I know because I have been lucky to be a good friend of Patrick and he tells me things he shouldn’t, but he is on the front lines of seeing the latest ideas in the space. I can only imagine how busy you are, but I am going to get you up to speed quickly in the area to be able to show that this is a burgeoning area that is not just a group of crazies, but profoundly serious people that are making incredible advances.
One of the most interesting things I forgot to mention is the Conboy discovery, something that has been around for almost forty years that has enormous potential. I have also included some primers and general work that my friend Patrick has written in the past that served as a stepping off point for me, which really jump started my interest. They do an excellent job of getting to the meat of what all of this means, what the differences between anti-aging and age reversal and the like. I think it will help you get a jump start quickly.
I also have attached a couple of links to a free magazine called Neo, which was created by a super nice person, Jane Metcalf, whom I met at TED (not TEDx) several years ago. She paints the space with an even larger stroke. It’s free, you can check it out at NEO.LIFE (list-manage.com) They are out of Berkeley. If you find it of interest, you might want to check out the last few years of articles on aging…there are a lot of ideas out there and some of them will astound you. I can’t wait to see the next few years and what it can bring for all of us.
My very best,
Ed
P.S. I now realize I am not able to send you any attachments, as I noted in the email, but if you can suggest a way to get them to you, I believe you would find them of significant help to craft some of your thinking in future posts. I think you would find them especially useful. I also included a new technique that the Conboy's (husband and wife team) have learned about a 40-year-old process that is already FDA approved that can be repurposed for the area of anti-aging. This is one thing you will learn. Many of the tools we need are already available to us if we only can see the trees from the forest.
Wishful thinking about a magical drug or sudden gene manipulation working like a simple switch without providing basic human evolutionary food plus proper vitamin & hormonal balance.
1 solution my offset some toxic & unnatural to human habits, factors surrounding him everyday but it's at best going back to point zero. Unnatural way is usually ineffectively & blind without idea of possible long term side effects.
Psychologically it boost comfort making lazy & preventing from doing the rest of needed work for a real qualitative change.
First thing is to stop doing wrong things and compounding small good steps.
Anybody can achieve a similar effect without any special drugs or radical alterations. Simple things as moving out from city - clean air, water without plastic & natural food, limiting pathological stress.
Plus lifestyle - intermittent-fasting with occasional longer fasts(for growth hormone and brain cells regeneration kicking in), cutting off carbs, hot & cold exposures, daily 5minute HIIT training & 2 times a weak heavy training - the best with protocol for maximizing natural testosterone lvl, exercises breathing & blood oxidization technics (for NO supply), red grass-fed meat in diet, proper supply of vitamin C, D3+K2(1st activates huge nr of repair and anticancer genes, 2nd reverses metabolic disease reverting veins calcification), K2, Mg, Potassium, Omega3, Zinc as well as variety of living probiotics in natural superfoods - processed by fermentation Kefir, Sauerkraut, SauerCucumber, Kimchi, Natto. I think the first guy who started thinking like this was the one who wrote the 4h body book.
No artificial treatment will fix anything if body do not have compatible resources to take advantage of it. And there is so wide range of feedback loops & systematic multirelations that your magical thing may like with B vitamins work for a while and bring a huge headache afterwards. Because only the body itself knows how it should work and how to regain balance without screwing up falling into another extreme.
A simple thing as being born through the wrong hole sets you up for being dysfunctional & prone to sickness. Every decade is a crazier rate of loss of our biom variety. Humans do not even fix the most basic deficiencies but dream about living longer than ancestors? What kind of joke is it? And there is a space to easily regain not only the old humans natural bacteria variety but to revert to original mammals richness - since other branches in the wild still preserved what we lost.
And fixing errors accumulated for decades... good luck with that without understanding exactly what was broken.
BTW good luck fixing your arteries since if you consume carbs, grains & plant oils the slowly progressing metabolic disease usually catch person very late and in state then nearly impossible to reverse. And i mean fixing the cause not replacing parts artificially prolonging the inevitable for a half-dead corpse. Lots about it & new diagnostics on Ivor Cummins channel.
PS. Those mouses are probably preselected. Most of us are after long phase of derailing natural processes as selection through "civilization" & "progress". That's why despite eating more a random virus still has ability to occasionally wipe out 50%+ of population of farming societies, especially in cities. What normally would not happen.
That's basically how Indoeuropeans (cordedware culture) from european steppe colonized whole Europe after a plague - and somehow they were healthier, taller, resistant to diseases, "coincidentally" on more natural to human animal-based grass-fed meat+dairy(also fermented milk kumys) diet.
You spoil your lifespan daily. It's enough to stop most of those factors.
I have no faith in any scientist with a thick medical stocks portfolio. This basic intuition serves me well. And 2019+ experiences were more than enough to see reality of modern science.
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.
I had never heard about it until now. Just looked it up. Tell me more!
@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.
I'm glad you didn't forget!
And I'm glad you're keeping me accountable!
The premium article was this one:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/what-will-happen-if-we-never-die
As for the other ones.... This will teach me not to commit to anything specific :)
The article is 80% written, but its companion premium article isn't, and I still need a bunch of research before I can publish both, so it will still take me some time!
Tomas, Thank you!! No, it will teach you to commit but remember your commitments! :-) Yes, please take your time.
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.
I’d love to live forever Mark and am rarely accused of derangement. That said if the experience is anything like some recent endless Zoom meetings I’ve been in I’ll let Tomas try it first!
Of course nobody would accuse you of that, because your derangement is internal ;) It wouldn't interfere with your ability to make friends, start a family, or advance in your career. You can be materially successful and still fail spiritually.
Now, I don't know you, and I'll back down from the generalization of "all people who want to live forever are emotionally deranged." I'll make a weaker statement: the desire to live forever comes from a spiritually unenlightened place.
I think we are on the same page Mark. As a student of Buddhism I’ve come to see death as the greatest teacher and loss as the greatest lesson. Without death we’d likely be as spiritually disciplined as my trust fund friends took their careers (although perhaps the wisdom of no escape would take on new meaning). Even though I know this living forever still has some appeal to the fragile ego.
Relax, guys, there will still be plenty of pain and suffering in the world to go around even if eternal life is an option.
I'm not of the opinion that more death and pain is better for people and the world. Otherwise, I would favor more senseless death to teach even more lessons.
What makes you say that?
Would love some categories of these types of ppl, examples to illustrate them, and any data you have (if any) to suggest this is common
Since you’ve asked, here are some generalizations.
There’s a cult around the technological singularity, transhumanism, and immortality. The cultural center of this movement is located in Silicon Valley. On the supply side, you’ve got biotech innovators who develop increasingly creepy ways to cheat death, as well as rationalists who claim to be working on “responsible” AGI, as though there were a responsible way of unleashing an immensely powerful and unpredictable AI on the planet. On the demand side, you’ve got wealthy tech socialites who, no matter how much money and resources they manage to hoard, are constantly living in fear, and assume that they can buy salvation. I say emotionally deranged because most well-adjusted adults understand that there are forces beyond their control, that they are finite, and that death is part of life.
History is full of examples of people chasing immortality, and it is usually considered foolish, arrogant, and based in deep fear. I’m not saying the technologies you mention won’t someday exist - perhaps soon even - and I know the buyers are out there. But it doesn’t sound like a spiritually satisfying existence.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate the thoughtful answer.
"biotech innovators who develop increasingly creepy ways to cheat death". --> What's creepy about that?
"who claim to be working on “responsible” AGI, as though there were a responsible way of unleashing an immensely powerful and unpredictable AI on the planet." --> I think their argument is "AGI will happen and if we're not prepared, it will be terrible. So we are working on it to understand it and prevent it." Do you disagree with that goal? I assume not. Then, maybe you disagree with how they're approaching this problem. What, exactly, do you disagree with? If you think like Eliezer Yudkowsky, then you and I agree. But that's a far cry from thinking that working on AGI is bad.
"most well-adjusted adults understand that there are forces beyond their control, that they are finite, and that death is part of life." --> I believe they also understand this. But they objectively see that, for the first time in history, they might not need to accept this. And, unlike most, they have the resources to act on it. Why would that be bad?
There are researchers at Johns Hopkins growing literal brains in vats, soaking them in chemicals and making them perform tasks. This is considered medical research, and part of that is reversing aging. I can't demarcate exactly why this is creepy whereas a robot prosthetic arm that allows an amputee to regain much of their previous abilities is cool and awesome, except I know creepy when I see it.
My take on AGI is that it's not inevitable, and there's no safe way of doing it.
BTW since you mention Eliezer Yudkowsky, I'll paraphrase his argument about death: Death is bad, and we should want less of it, and none if possible. He says not to overthink it. (This appears to be the argument Richard is making here as well.) I don't have a good counter-argument, but I also don't need one. I'm speaking from the soul here -- or if you prefer a more rational-friendly term, "the ancient part of the brain shaped by thousands of millennia of evolution." The soul is not always adaptive, but it contains much wisdom. It's limited in what it can tell us, but this a topic that happens to be in its purview. You ignore this internal voice at your own peril: it is this part of the brain where true happiness resides, yet it is impervious to rational arguments, data, and evidence. So while I can't provide a good rational argument against immortality, I definitely can say that it's not for me.
I saw your Twitter poll. It would be interesting to correlate personality traits with the desire to live forever. My hunch is that people who don't accept death are less deep, less happy, less grateful, and less soulful than those who do.
Why the fact that there is some creepy research in the field means that the field is creepy?
Thank you for that definition of “speaking from the soul”. It sounds to me like the type of heuristics that this part of the brain has learned don’t apply in a world without death, so you might want to actively avoid its suggestions.
Although I’m pretty sure the more primal part of you says “I totally want to live forever” (as no young-feeling animal wants to die), and the part of you that feels repulsed might come more from an acquired disgust (most disgust is in fact acquired culturally).
Most people don't have the skills for the supply or the resources for the demand, but if you ask most people if they'd like the option of living forever (or at least the option to live for as long as they want) for little cost, I doubt many would turn to it down. There are few people to whom life and death are equally attractive.
https://twitter.com/tomaspueyo/status/1536108178987003913?s=20&t=oHH1Mj2SWNHO7P-LlrIWqQ
I have a few quibbles with the logic...
Firstly, the 'community forecasting' - asking a bunch of people what they think the answer to an unknowable question is will not give you any approximation of the true answer. In other words this kind of market like a betting market works only if the participants can make a good estimate. The questions posted are ones where we have far too little data, so even if the participants are experts in the field, the answers are to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Secondly, the measure of AGI intelligence - we don't really have a very good handle on how intelligence really works, why would anyone assume that it continues increasing exponentially with number of 'neurons'? Of course connections increase exponentially with increasing nodes, but there could be other limiting factors (eg distance between nodes, energy consumption) that bend the curve the other way, including a potential upper limit.
Thirdly, the notion that a superintelligence can solve any problem - we already know, mathematically, that some problems cannot be solved. We also know that there are certain physical limitations that are hard limits and cannot be overcome with higher intelligence
Fourthly, the 'capture brain state' issue - our consciousness doesn't arrive only from our minds but also our bodies, so we need to capture not only the 'neural map' of the brain but also every single chemical/hormonal interaction. I'm aware that I say this without any data to back it up, but my feeling is that this is centuries rater than decades in the future
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?
In both cases you’re in a hermetically closed box. In both cases you’ll be remembered just as long as somebody decides to keep you around. That’s about it.
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).
The question is not whether we can thaw people now. Or soon. The question is if we ever will.
And odds are we will be able as long as the information has disappeared.
We can’t revive cleopatra because there’s not enough quality of her remains. But it’s possible that a brain that wasn’t destroyed contains enough atomic information to reconstruct it back.
I doubt that we ever will, at least in the short or medium term (or considering next generation). We are what we are (our "conscious mind") thanks to our brain. But our brain is not only genetics, nor even epigenetics, but the interaction with the environment. Two twins have completely different brains. So, any damage to the brain may change everything, as well as the lack or excess of other interactions. You can clone a human being (that will be indeed possible in the future, it is actually possible), but it won't be the same person, that's for sure.
So, you're saying that there is a vast conspiracy to convince us that we have frozen and successfully thawed eggs, sperm, embryos, skin, and heart valves?
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.
Now that you say that, I remember reading it. I also remember what I thought about it: humans’ genes are what they are. They have hyperbolic discounting. It might increase risk-aversion, but I highly doubt this is going to be true of a majority of people.
Plus, 3 of these options solve for most, if not all, accidents.
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.
This is true of life extension in the dozens of years, but not in the hundreds or beyond
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. What is it about living far longer that would make millions of women choose to have third children? Even if you are relatively youthful in your 100s or 200s or beyond, there are essentially no eggs left after menopause.
This simple question hides a lot of complexity. Layer by layer:
If you add suddenly 10 years of life and nobody died of old age for 10 years, population would grow during that time. After that, the secular trend would take over again. Since the secular trend is one of decline, we would be back to a declining population, but starting at a higher maximum ( say 12B ppl instead of 11B as the max).
If instead of expanding 10 years you expand life a million years, now suddenly population grows dramatically during that time. Even if after that you still have a population decline, you’ll start declining once you’re a trillion ppl, which is not much of a decline, in the grand scheme of things.
Then additionally, if you dramatically increase ppl’s age, it’s because they remain young for longer, which means they’re also fertile longer. If women could live 80 years before having children, and then they would still have 80 fertile years, odds are they would eventually have more than 2 on average. That’s my guess.
So you’d have the double whammy of more ppl who don’t die and more ppl born per woman.
Okay, I follow what you're saying now. Interesting thoughts.
I would probably assume that the jump from ~100 year lifespan to much longer lifespan would not be instantaneous, though, and that would allow time for the population of humanity to adjust to the new reality. And of course you wouldn't *know* if the life extension therapies were good for a decade extra, a century extra, a millennium extra, or whatever, until that time had passed. But I see what you're saying - it doesn't just spread out the peak, although it does do that, but it also pushes it higher, assuming the therapies become available prior to "peak people" in 2040-2060 or so.
I hope they do; I'll be 60 this year.
I believe fertility is a different question altogether. Menopause is a function of a finite number of eggs at birth and a monthly cycle during the childbearing years. Although a generalized therapy of youthfulness would make those years more congenial, and perhaps lead to women choosing to have children right up to the threshold of menopause, I don't think it would delay menopause and hence extend fertility. I suspect some *different* therapy might be able to do that, but it would be something different from life extension.
So, I will wager that you are mistaken and will wager you one bottle of 1993 Petrus to be delivered at the second nicest bar in Luna City on the moon in mid-June of 2222, which is a Saturday. That should be enough time for these trends to become apparent.
🙂
I made a mistake. I said “women”, which implies they would birth these babies, which you’re right is limited biologically to the 10ks of eggs they have at birth.
But creating new gametes from other cells, and using artificial wombs, will also be something we’re going to discover in the coming decades, so having children will be untethered from biological constraints.
As for your bet, well I’m sorry but I plan to keep you accountable for it, so you’ll have to be more precise ok the claim that I’m wrong (what about exactly, and how to phrase it in a provable way). And I appreciate the Perry’s 93, but just in case it’s turned vinegar you’ll have to get a 2093 too
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.
1. Evolution
Interestingly, smaller animals live less time.
The bigger the animal, the more they live.
Some whales and sharks live centuries.
Why?
Because the more predators you have, the more you have to focus on growing fast and reproducing before you're eaten. If you're massive, you don't need to worry about that, so your body can evolve to live for a very, very long time.
This is why the biggest terrestrial mammals have all disappeared (a sudden predator killed them, us), and why the biggest ones left are in Africa (where they co-evolved to be scared of us).
Put another way: there's nothing magical about our age. We've just evolved to live to this age.
2. The elite
Everything points at this working for everybody, not just the elite.
I mean, you and anyone else can always feel free to choose death at any time. No one's stopping you.
BTW, even with the superheated planet, as someone with a parent who lived in a time and place without refrigerators (or indoor plumbing, or antibiotics), I'd gladly take my childhood and life over his.
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?
The supercomputers are no substitute because of model size and data input: we can't measure the position of every molecule at moment X, and we can't calculate the statistical interactions between them. This is the source of the lack of modeling.
But as you know, models are getting even better, because our better model and more processing power allow for smaller and smaller finite elements in the calculations.
You can imagine a world where the finite elements are as small as a molecule. The models will be much better then. But you'll still have a measurement issue.
For brains, you will also have models and processing that become good enough. Unlike the weather, you will eventually not have a problem of measurement, since we'll likely be able to physically scan the brain in a way we won't be able to scan the molecules of air.
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
You'll enjoy my next article about this!
Quickly: it's very unlikely that rejuvenation treatments will be expensive and inaccessible.
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:)
I read the book and will talk more about this. Thx!
By “the other methods” you mean the other 3, cryonics, mind-uploading, and AI?