Slashdot Mirror


The Fight To End Aging Gains Legitimacy, Funding

oddwick11 writes "Aubrey de Grey and other leading scientists and thinkers in stem cell research and regenerative medicine will gather in Los Angeles at UCLA for Aging 2008 to explain how their work can combat human aging, and the sociological implications of developing rejuvenation therapies. From an article today in WIRED Magazine '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 within a lifespan. The Methuselah Foundation now has an annual research funding budget of several million dollars, de Grey says, and it's beginning to show lab results that he thinks will turn scientists' heads.'" The conference is free, though registration is required; L.A. area readers who can attend are encouraged to post their thoughts. Update: 06/27 05:18 GMT by T : Dr. de Grey notes that you can also simply show up and register on-site. Look forward to a Slashdot interview with de Grey in the near future.

22 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So there is hope for John McCain after all!

    1. Re:Hope by Aphoxema · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's nothing ridiculous about trying to fight off the same thing we fight our whole lives.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    2. Re:Hope by Merusdraconis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure I'm up for supporting research that would make Rupert Murdoch or Fred Phelps live forever.

      In all seriousness, if humanity lived forever we'd be screwed. We're not built, physically or mentally, to be able to survive more than a hundred years of changes, and we're terribly poor at letting go of things that don't match the facts unless they physically hurt us. Bad ideas would never die. Bigotry would never fade. Bad people would never go away unless they crossed the line and had an 'accident'. How many people who undergo this procedure would end up trying to change the world to reflect the way it was when they were kids, being too unwilling to accept the world changing underfoot?

    3. Re:Hope by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would recommend you read Methusela's Children. The point there is that immortality for the few will not be accepted by the common man, and it's true. If you find yourself one of the favored few we will have the secret from you even if disassembly is required -- even if it's not a secret but an accident of birth. Who are you to say who is deserving?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Hope by Arethan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Yes...I DO want to live for ever."

      As do I. The 'natural' order of things, the 'circle of life', whatever bullshit label you want to stick on it, is lofty, naive, short-sighted, and obsolete. To those that claim the existence of a higher power, perhaps you're right. But did you ever stop and think that one of the major steps your deity intended for humanity to take was the leap to immortality? Suddenly all of the problems that we've been handing off to other generations, shady business practices and volatile economies, dependence on fossil fuels, deforestation, global warming, destruction of ecosystems, they all suddenly fall right back into our own lap. Having to live with your decisions forever certainly changes your perspective on matters.

      Not to mention the scientific gains to be had if we stopped losing the top researchers. Hell, given enough time, we'd all be a hell of a lot wiser. A few hundred years of slacking off and you'll find yourself ready to start doing something more useful. Learn to play the piano, write some dissertations on quantum physics, learn a new language, get a structural engineering degree, explore the world, finally finish that piece of software you started writing 50 years ago...

      With the right perspective, this world would suck a lot less. As for the religious fanatics that want the opportunity to meet their maker, no one said you would be forced into the program. Go ahead and die. The rest of us will probably be happier without hearing you spouting off in public about how we're all sinners for cheating death.

    5. Re:Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree here. While anti-aging-solutions for individuals might be already not so far, anti-aging for the masses will take us pretty long, and I think that's good - not everyone deserves immortality, and some may even lead a better life without.

      Heil Hitler, my friend, the Master Race strikes back.

      Seriously, I couldn't disagree more. Saying that somebody does not deserve to live (long, healthy, or just live) is such an 33-45ism. If it's just the money that decides who can afford some medications, this will only lead to some minor ... social problems. But if the question is who deserves to live, this is righteously offending.

      No, thanks.

    6. Re:Hope by oldhack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...In all seriousness, if humanity lived forever we'd be screwed. We're not built, physically or mentally, to be able to survive more than a hundred years of changes...

      We were not "built" to live till 70 and go senile, but we managed to do that by adaptation. Things change, we change things, and we adapt - none of us are "built" according to particular specs. I fail to see why people insist on dragging in their moral/religious belief onto everything.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    7. Re:Hope by destor · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Good news everyone, I'm still technically alive."

      --
      In the game of chess you must never allow your opponent to see your pieces.
  2. Wow... by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    500 years from now, just think how out of touch the elderly will be! I can't wait to shake a cane and tell the youth that in my day we had Atari 2600s, not AI-merged universal consciousness!

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Wow... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What on earth possesses people to think that progress will be so slow?

      Because it's going to be hard. Damned Hard. We have picked the low lying fruit (clean water, decent nutrition, vaccination, appropriate lifestyle) and are making small amounts of progress on the most common age related diseases (heart disease and cancers).

      The rest is going to either require 1) a "magic bullet" - some relatively simple pan organism aging switch that we can engineer a mechanism to interfere with and hope to hell it doesn't cause more problems downstream or
      2) a much better understanding of the extremely complex interactions that cause the human body to age.

      The first possibility is pie-in-the-sky, it's what many of the researchers are working on now and my wild ass guess is that it will fail. The second is going to require time, and a lot of it since doing the "experiment" on increasing aging will take close to a century and we will have to do many such experiments to make sure it works. Even if you find an aging model in a mammalian organism such as the dog with a normal lifespan of a decade or so, it will take quite a long while to figure out what's going on.

      And I haven't even begun to think about the ethical issues involved. Since "aging" starts the moment you are conceived, you will likely have to interfere with the process early, say in a person's teens or twenties. That's going to be fun getting past Institutional Review Boards.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. NOOOOO! by NerveGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please, please, no.

    The hope that my mother-in-law will someday die is one of the few things that allows me to be around her. PLEASE, don't take that away from me.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  4. Very rewarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been in attendance at the last 134 annual conferences and found it to be very rewarding.

  5. Methuselah's Children, etc. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Heinlein wrote extensively in his novels on the subject of aging, treating it as a syndrome that was inherently cureable, including the anhedonia (loss of the joy of life) that came from that multitude of minor pains that take up so much of your attention as you get older. Pain is terribly distracting, from minor itching all the way up to opiate-resistant terminal conditions. It's a lot of nerve noise. Anything that can solve the complex of symptoms that lead to age-related death will also have to deal with pain and anhedonia as well.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  6. Boon for the news by mrami · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Imagine a world where all deaths are either by tragic accident or homicide...

  7. Overpopulation... by duckInferno · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... won't be an issue as long as anyone who opts in for clinical immortality is also stripped of their fertility. In fact, i'd imagine underpopulation would be a significant risk if enough people take it.

    I for one would love to live to see the day where we roam freely amongst the stars. With all the advancements in almost every area of existence that we are experiencing today, I don't forsee myself getting bored any time soon.

    --
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
  8. I cut my nail too short and it hurts by Aphoxema · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'living forever' really seems like it should be possible. Our bodies have a process, and that process can get altered by diseases and malnourishment and improving how we keep clean and what we eat has given us much more time to live.

    Why should aging be any different? Nobody really dies of 'natural causes', it's always something specific that breaks homeostasis in the end (sometimes starting from the beginning), natural causes is another name for 'there's no worth in investigating exactly why this person died because they're too damned old, but it's probably heart failure, even though that's a symptom of a mode of death'.

    Our bodies aren't designed on a basis of 'right' and 'wrong', it's designed on what worked best to getting the next generation across. Unfortunately, renewing certain kinds of cell tissue was never vital to that goal.

    We already know electronics and stuff are prone to getting old and eventually failing themselves, but there's no reason to use our artifice as an analogy, we have yet to create something that is constantly replacing itself on the cellular level, essentially becoming a whole new thing over and over.

    I hope this research makes some serious progress, even if it will be only our descendants that enjoy the results.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  9. Re:What a Great Idea, Not by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People don't give a shit about the planet because they know they will be dead long before it is.

    Give them eternal life and watch how quickly they become militant greenies.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  10. Humans out-evolved by other Earthling animals? by maiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Assume they stop or reverse aging and take it to the next step: never dying. Also assuming that we don't kill ourselves by overpopulation, what does that mean for the humans as an evolving species? We would stay the same while the rest of earth's species continue to develop? Death may be disastrous for the individual, but it allows the species to continue to adapt to changing conditions, no?

  11. Re:No no by lobiusmoop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. " - Susan Ertz

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  12. Re:No no by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The solution: make old people grow asparagus on mars.

  13. Re:No no by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The big question is how it would affect us psychologically: If death was no longer inevitable, would we give life more value? Would men still march to war? Would terrorism become a far more compelling tool? Would we spend eternity cowering inside private fortresses, fearing the slightest risks to our fragile immortality?

    We already do —and don't do— this, in industrialized countries life expectancy is already twice as much as 200 years ago and 20+ years more than 30 years ago [No citation, Google is your friend] and because of this we are already cowering in our living rooms afraid of the dark, of the darks, of the unknown, of the different...

    Terrorism is already a very effective tool. It's used by those on power to scare those outside the elites into submission. We're already sue and lock up parents because they fail to protect their children from stuff that we did when we were kids. There are already booming industries that feed on our fear of getting sick to sell us everything from pills, to methods to simple comforters (such as food, toys, drugs).

    So, while we're not immortal, life is much more valuable now so on the one hand we value it more and are more afraid of losing it to the point of being afraid of living; and on the other humanity continues to kill, maim and destroy as it always has. I would like the opportunity to live longer while in use of my mental capacity and physical might (?) but I don't think it's a great idea just now. I'd personally rather die "young" if that meant that more people on the current undeveloped countries got a better shot at enjoying some of the stuff that I do.

    Redistributing/spreading wealth and health is not as sexy or popular because is harder to care about Petey J. Random dying of malnutrition or dysentery in Africa/Asia/the Sprawl than it is to care about ourselves. Not criticizing, just my opinion.

    --
    +Raider of the lost BBS
  14. Get offa my lawn by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds funny, but imagine the implications.

    Politics in a democracy is hanging on the sentiments of the majority. Now realize that this majority would be well over 100 years old when you can reach 500 years. Now imagine how slowly any political change can happen when the average voter is so fully entrenched in his stance that you need a major earthquake to move him.

    Think back 200 years and ponder what people deemed "good values" and beneficial. Do you think we'd have female suffrage? End of slavery?

    If you think politics move slowly today, just imagine what it would be like if not only politicians are old, but also the majority of their voters.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.