Well then I'd say your chances are way better than mine are. You have to know that keeping people alive is big business, so the rich always come before the masses. If there is a line you will be up towards the front if you have enough money.
Does not matter to who? You? Or the OP who asked if there was any work being done to try to combat aging? No-one is saying that we can reverse aging now. But there are people who are working on it, which is the topic of this thread, isn't it?
The point I was trying to make is that comments on any near future treatments for ageing are entirely speculative. It is not as if this has not been discussed before. People were suggesting medical science would 'cure' ageing within 20 years, a good 50 years ago. And nothing. It may happen within another 20, perhaps, or it might take 200. It is entirely speculation at this stage. I have two reasons for thinking it will not be easy. 1. Evolution has already pushed the bounds. Humans live an extraordinary length of time already, compared to other mammals in our size range. The reason evolution has done this is because we have a very long, vulnerable childhood, and carers of those children need to live a long time. This is combined with the fact that grandparents also have a role in raising children, meaning that evolution works to permit people to live long enough to become, not just grandparents, but healthy grandparents who will stay healthy long enough to assist raising a grandchild. The point though, is that the normal metabolic mechanisms for longevity have already been pushed - possibly close to the limit - for humans, by evolution. 2. There are numerous mechanisms leading to ageing. To generate an effective therapy to stop ageing would require attacking the problem by attacking all those causes. De Grey lists seven causes. That means at least seven therapies. Not easy.
Damn! Skeptical, not to long ago in another thread you were a major optimist, now you seem to be backsliding into pessimism. Anyway getting back to the subject at hand, you are no doubt aware of the huge market in supplements. Vitamins, minerals and other so called life extension nutrients. It does seem reasonable that the right nutrients at the right time might work wonders. But how does anyone like you or me sort through the tons of hype and bullshit to really know which products might really have something going for it? Then even if you can narrow the field down to some core nutrients, how can you be sure your getting correct dosages and time intervals needed to maximize the benefits? When any given body cell needs a nutrient and it's not available. What does it do and does that impact overall health? Is it cumulative over time and does it affect your total lifespan? It seems to me the answer has to be yes it does. To maximize lifespans of any organism, every body cell needs to have everything it needs at the time it needs it, and we don't yet even know everything the body needs, let alone how to supply it when needed. Just think of all the people going out of business if we ever get it figured out.
Well working on this problem is not something I plan on doing, but I do plan on doing should get the money I need to get the treatment when it's discovered and the bugs have been worked out so thanks.
You know I never did ask why this subject is so important to you? Death is a normal function of nature and humans living longer lives will throw everything out of balance for a while.
Well for one thing it'd give scientists more time to finish their research projects. Also, yes, it is a normal thing, but it can be a very sad thing (especially, for example, to someone when their parents die) A personal example for me would be I have certain discoveries I want to make before I die, this treatment would give me more time to achieve them, which I think I'll need. (and no I will not share them, I've learned my lesson from what I've already shared)
To KK Hi. I would tend to dispute being either optimist or pessimist in these matters. I just call it as I see it according to the data I have available. I am 'optimistic' about humanity's ability to solve potential disasters because history is full of examples where that happened, and so I consider it likely that will happen in the future. I do not think an effective treatment for ageing is likely in the near future (though I hope I am wrong) because of the data I gave in the previous post. On nutrients. Again, I play the 'pessimist'. Millions of people have been trying all sorts of nutrient supplements for the last 50 odd years, and none have shown any signs of living to 140. If any such treatment will work, it will have to be novel, since existing supplements have failed. I think that eventually researchers will find a way to extend human life. It would be nice if it happened early enough for me to benefit, but I see no signs at the moment. If and when such a treatment does get discovered, it will not be something as simple as vitamins. It will be a sophisticated treatment based on an intimate knowledge of the ageing process.
de Grey provided a reasonable answer to a similar question (from an audience member) at the end of his presentation, here. In short, slower aging requires more genetic sophistication, and genes don't care anyway, as long as they are passed on. See also the Antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis. Certainly not easy, at all. But de Grey's projections are based on the idea that we all start getting serious about it right now. That means throwing more money and resources at the problem than we ever have before. This starts, of course, by changing the public perception, which is what he's trying to do. Imagine if, sometime in the next few years, we actually manage to reverse normal aging in mice (not artificially induced aging, which we already have been able to reverse). Suddenly it's not going to seem so impossible to do it in humans, and that's when I think the additional funding is going to start rolling in, most likely from private investors I would imagine.
From who or wear did you hear this 50 miles a week thing? I think exercise is good too, but people tend to assume that a link between telomeres and lifespan has been definitively proven when that is not the truth. Most aspects of aging don't seem to have anything to do with molecular level changes in DNA causing a change in grosser function. The majority of changes which affect function take place at a more macro level. Osteoarthritis for example is due mainly to repetitious mechanical wear and tear upon a given joint. Also, people tend to assume that there is a single, mystifying mechanism (like telomeres) that underlies all the manifestations of "aging" -- which is really just an overly weighty word to describe change in function and structure over time. People give more meaning to it than its reality implies, and I think that is because simplifying all of the changes to a single term makes the process seem more "solveable" and even curable. People don't want to die, and they want to think there's an answer. But truly, there probably is no one aging mechanism that can be miraculously reversed. Most loss of function and disruptions in structure occur due to a combination of many factors (such as mechanical wear and tear from activity, DNA damage, and other environmental stressors) that given enough time, overcome the body's ability to repair itself. It's really not that mysterious, when you look into each change. We already know the pathophysiology of a lot of age-associated changes in function and structure. Asking why some of them take place is not wholly different than asking why a rock weathers. This approach of asking how we can cure "aging" probably won't be productive. If we want to mitigate the ravages of age, then I think addressing each manifestation specifically is our best bet.
I'd like to think this research is on the right track, however those comments about stimulating tumor growth didn't add to my confidence.
Okay now that you mentioned research projects I'm curious, but I do understand your reluctance to share, and it's also okay to want to live longer without any good reason to do so.
But no matter how much you pay you will end up dead just as everyone else does. I've known some relatives of mine who lived to be in their 90's and had a very nice life and they weren't rich at all. It isn't how much you pay in many cases but how you treat yourself and those around you.
Failed, are you saying that because of any studies that have been done or because we haven't seen a dramatic increase 100 plus year old people running around yet? New supplements are coming out almost every day and it might be years before we know if they are working or not. There must be something to supplements or athletes wouldn't bother with them to improve performance.
There's a lot of truth to what you say, but having lots of money doesn't mean you have to give up those good qualities of character if you have them and it doesn't guarantee that you will get to live longer. But it does make you a little more flexible when opportunities come along.
Precisely. Whenever we intervene in a natural system, we must be aware that all cause and effect will be impacted, not only the cause we are wishing to effect.
Perhaps I need to explain the point I made about human longevity already being pushed close to the limit. I will use analogy. Imagine you are a fast car enthusiast and a pretty good mechanic. You buy an old family car and get to work souping it up to make it go faster. How much extra speed will you get? Now compare that to buying a Formula 1 racing car. Can you soup that up to get a lot of extra speed? Human longevity is like that racing car - already tweaked to close to its maximum. Very difficult to further improve upon. On money. While it is easy to find lots of exceptions, on average, the richer you are, the longer you live. This is partly due to access to good health care. Partly to having the resources to take greater care of yourself. Partly psychological - successful people seem to have a better self image and lower stress. If medical interventions are developed which will increase lifespan, it will be the rich who gain access first, and will live a lot longer. Of course, as with all innovations, the price will come down, and eventually the poor will gain access also.
Through natural selection, sure, especially when there might not be a significant amount of selective pressure too far beyond the age of reproduction. But current efforts aren't about trying to improve upon evolution (genetics) but are instead focused on repairing damage on an ongoing basis. So it's not so much about trying to make the car go faster as it is about coming up with an effective servicing regime so that it can remain fully operational for longer.
