Where Is Thy Sting? - quote by Aubrey de Grey

Aubrey has granted ImmInst permission to post the following about his work on anti-aging. Aubrey, he has been a strong advocate in the fight against death. As he says in his biography, "The central goal of my work is to expedite the development of a true cure for human aging." ~ BJK

---

Aubrey hopes to bridge the gap between theory and application in anti-aging from an engineer's perspective.



An Engineer's Approach to the Development of Real Anti-Aging Medicine
Aubrey D. N. J. de Grey
The author is in the Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EH, UK. E-mail: ag24@gen.cam.ac.uk
PDF Version


Fig. 1. The difference between archetypical gerontologists, geriatricians, and engineers, placed in a more familiar context.



Read more of Aubrey's publications at his website:

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
A network of projects to expedite the defeat of human aging


Aubrey was instrumental in setting up the Methuselah Mouse Project.






ImmInst member, Kevin Perrott was kind enough to post the following article which prominently features Aubrey's prediction concerning the future success of anti-aging medicine.

---

This article hits many of the developments in life-extension research. Coming from a yet another high profile journal, this is quite a thought provoking article which introduces the reader to concepts such as not only living longer, but living EXTREMELY longer. We've seen articles from respectable sources which talk about 120 year and 150 lifespans. This is the first one I've seen that mentions 5000 years. The author has taken current developments in research and literature to present concepts like 'risk aversion' and 'xeno transplanation'. He also underlines what is an obvious lack of knowledge as we move towards extreme life-extension on the part of the government in forming regulations and the fear of eugenics. He ends saying we should 'embrace' the technology, but prudently, and perhaps not pursue immortality. Aside from the 'deathist' undertones at the end, it is a good article which will introduce the average New York Times reader to some not so common concepts. ~ Kevin




---------------------------------------------------
Where Is Thy Sting?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Psst. Wanna live to the age of 600?

This may not be as absurd a question as it sounds. Genetic medicine is making enormous strides, and it may hold the promise — or maybe it's the peril — of eventually making us something closer to immortal.

"Our life expectancy will be in the region of 5,000 years" in rich countries in the year 2100, predicts Aubrey de Grey, a scholar at Cambridge University. (This is, of course, a great prediction to make because none of us will be around in 2100 to mock him if he's wrong.)

At a moment when we're all fretting about whether we'll be blown up tomorrow by nuclear terrorists, it may seem odd to worry instead that we'll someday survive forever. But just to give you something new to bite your lip about, let me tell you about roundworms.

Roundworms are ideal specimens for geneticists to play with because they grow old and die in less than three weeks. By tinkering with two genes, scientists have produced roundworms that live six times as long as normal. The catch is that the worms are unusually sluggish — imagine the globe as a nursing home for sluggish Methusalehs.

Other research on aging concerns human cells. Scientists generally think there is a natural constraint, the Hayflick limit, on how many times such cells can divide in tissue culture before they decay and die. But some work indicates that human cells given a copy of the telomerase gene can divide indefinitely, a step toward immortality on a cellular scale.

"The high priests of our secular age, the molecular biologists, have begun to address mortality in a way no group, no generation and no society has ever dreamed of before," Stephen Hall writes in his new book, "Merchants of Immortality."

Sure, our organs may give out. But scientists are now breeding special kinds of pigs that may be able to grow replacement hearts and lungs — and one day pigs will grow human hearts and lungs, with human DNA, not their piggy equivalents.

"Immortality, in many mythologies, is the defining difference between gods and mortals and, even if the myths are incorrect, not an attribute to be assumed lightly," notes my Times colleague Nicholas Wade in his fascinating book "Life Script." "Would one dare do anything so risky as carouse, drive a car, hit the ski slopes, if three hundred years of life would be thereby imperiled?"

It feels as if we are drifting along toward new genetic technologies without thinking through where we are headed, without an adequate regulatory structure and without enough scientific education so citizens can make well-informed decisions. Life extension is not everything, after all. Near-starvation and castration both bring unusual longevity, but few of us choose either option.

Congress has still not gotten around to banning human reproductive cloning (partly because the bill that would do that goes too far). But the fundamental questions that we face in genetics go far beyond cloning.

"We've evolved now so that we can master our own evolution," said Charles Cantor, chief scientific officer at a gene discovery company called Sequenom. "I don't think we have the wisdom to manage it, but we have the tools."

What does it mean that we humans could master our own evolution?

Consider dogs. DNA tests show that all modern dogs evolved from wolves and were initially bred by cavemen who knew nothing about the genome. Yet the dogs were rapidly transformed into everything from toy poodles to Great Danes. If we begin to reshape our own genetic code, we could presumably achieve even greater variation among our human descendants.

Partly I'm worried because I lived in China in the early 1990's when a much more modest technology, ultrasound scans, became widely available. Used properly by doctors, ultrasound machines can save lives, but in China they were used to find out fetuses' sex so females could be aborted. Now one-sixth more boys are born in China than girls.

We are now blundering in a similar way toward genetic manipulations, a technology that we should embrace — but prudently. It will reshape humanity far more than fire, electricity, space exploration or any other branch of science we have encountered. We might remember the wisdom of Odysseus, who was offered immortality by a luscious goddess, Calypso, but turned her down to grow old and die with his wife, Penelope.


Author :: Nicholas Kristof
BIO: http://www.nytimes.c...RISTOF-BIO.html

Edited by kevin, 27 August 2003 - 10:04 PM.

This is not a favorable article (Kristoff's) per se but it in its cautionary tone it is at the same time treating the topic respectfully and guess what ladies and gentlemen it doesn't get much more mainstream than the New York Times editorial pages.

I must assume from the phrasing and character of the prose that this writer has visited our humble abode or similar ones and is doing his research in a manner that will inevitably discover our work regardless. Every time an article like this is presented to the general public we can expect numerous curiousity seekers to come in search of fuller answers and find our site.

So much is clearly about to change yet the character of that change itself is still not clear. This op-ed is cautionary but also curious and wistful, it isn't asking for legislation as much as wisdom for determining our course.

What it also demonstrates is someone that has heard our voice and takes our message seriously.

Maybe he'll respond....

---

Dear Nicholas,

Thanks for your article, "Where Is Thy Sting?". The topic of immortality seems to be growing in the media, and it's educational to see varied views on the issue.

You may wish to know there is a group focused specifically on making physical immortally a practical reality, while overcoming associated problems of extended life span. If you'd like more information, I'd be happy to help.

Bruce Klein
Founder, Immortality Institute For Infinite Lifespans
http://www.imminst.org

They don't call 'em "letters to the editor" for nothing. I hope you sent it to them, I know you can and in fact we all can, that is how it is done traditionally to lobby a political idea.
[":)] [!]

Ah, yes.. I usually send a quick email to as many writers as I can. Usually, the ratio of response is about 1 or 2 out of 10.

ah Kristof! He use to make me froth at the mouth [lol] . I remember many a days when I would write him absolutely rabid letters tearing apart his foreign policy approach. Admittedly, he has a lot of skill as a journalist, even though he is a true bleeding heart...not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld reference).

Another thing that should be noted is that this guy isn't a rookie. He is probably in the top 5 at the NYT. Just thought I'd mention that.

Edited by Kissinger, 12 August 2003 - 11:23 PM.

5000 years, eh?

That is about 1, 700, 000 times for brushing your teeth, for taking a daily crap, for preparing your dinnner, for washing, and cleaning, and maintenance of your living qaurters.

Or do you plan to have all the chores done for you including nanobots to clean your teeth?
What makes you think you will be in the economic class to afford mechanical servants?
5000 years as a slum dweller won't be fun.
But of course, the techno-magic faith says that there will be no poor in the future. We must have faith in that grace, from the all bountiful techie god.

Are you going to download yourself into a computer? Wishful fantasies, and pinning your hopes on faith, and belief, in the magic god of technology, once again.
Downloading the mind into a computer is conjecture, assumption, and finger-crossing. It is magical thinking, in the manner of South Sea Islanders wishing for manna from heaven.
Numbers churning in a computer, are just numbers churning in a computer, and they will never become conscious, and self-aware.
Forget it.

Are you going to use genetic engineering to keep yourselves at 20 years of age. Where will you get the money for it? What makes you think you will ever have enough money for it, or even be allowed to have such body changes made? Are you rich, right now?

In the next 5000 years, what makes you think that there will not be devastating wars, crazy dictators, natural disasters of all kinds, hatred, fear, greed, power craving, selfishness, .....

I forgot;
you all have faith, and belief, in the God of Technology. He will provide. He will eradicate all evil from human nature, and create a paradise on earth, where no one will be bored, and the partying will last forever, and everyone will look like a kid, and think like a kid, and behave like a kid.

Come on, you all believe in God, too, but your God is the Technical God, the Digital God, and you pray to him, you seek grace, and guidance, from him.

The belief, and prayer, that nanobots will resurrect the cyro-frozen to full capacity, is a nothing but faith, and belief, and magical thinking.

Wave the magic wand of technology, and humanity will be peaceful, and kind.

Yeah, sure; ever heard some idiot woman gabbing into her cellphone in the middle of a movie, or stage play, or in a crowded bus, or train, ...

Technology, alone, doesn't mature us, and the persons living for 5000 years, assuming that it is possible, and considering the unlikelyhood that we will survive the next 20 years, will be as unwise as the rude cellphone idiots. as the countless wreckless maniacs, roaring down the streets, as the morons who crave violent movies, and music.

Winston Churchill, said something like, "to understand how the future will be, look at how human beings have acted in the past."

Most human beings were morons in the past, most humans beings are morons today, and most human beings in the future, will be morons.

Wise up you naive optimists.

Listen to Rod Serling's opinion on humanity, at the beginning of the Twilight Zone episode, "No Time Like the Past". A real hoot.
The 1960s Twilight Zone.

Serling was a wise man, and knew that the future would mirror the past, and vice versa. There are no Serling's today, because America is now tthe land of the imbeciles.

But nothing I say can change your stupid happy faces. Even when the nuclear missles are in the sky above the city you live in, you will still be grinning like idiots.

Why I am so hostile? Because it is fools like you, who make it a certainity that humanity will exterminate itself. Denial kills; it kills alcoholics, and it kills naive, unrealistic, dreamers who place their faith in technology to solve all the worlds problems.

Technology will solve the human problem by exterminating humanity.

The only hope lies in the kind of wisdom offered by a C. S. Lewis; but of course you will call him a hack, a crazy moralizer, an old fart who is irrelevant to todays computer generation.

C. S. Lewis was an atheist, turned Christian, for those of you who haven't read his writings.

I will have the last laugh, when your atheist house of cards comes tumbling down on top of you. And it will.

My goodness, somebody's a little bit grumpy... [sfty]

I wonder if there may not be some form of societal risk aversion that will arise from all of these articles on living forever that are bound to become more numerous? People who think they may be around a century or two longer than they would normally might be a little more prone to trying to keep the peace...

[quote]5000 years, eh?[/quote]

No, FOREVER.

[quote]That is about 1, 700, 000 times for brushing your teeth, for taking a daily crap, for preparing your dinnner, for washing, and cleaning, and maintenance of your living qaurters.[/quote]

I would rather complete the mundane chores of life than face the oblivion of death.

[quote]But of course, the techno-magic faith says that there will be no poor in the future. We must have faith in that grace, from the all bountiful techie god.[/quote]

You are misrepresenting the Immortalist position and you are also being condescending.

[quote]Are you going to download yourself into a computer? Wishful fantasies, and pinning your hopes on faith, and belief, in the magic god of technology, once again.
Downloading the mind into a computer is conjecture, assumption, and finger-crossing. It is magical thinking, in the manner of South Sea Islanders wishing for manna from heaven.
Numbers churning in a computer, are just numbers churning in a computer, and they will never become conscious, and self-aware.
Forget it.[/quote]

You are being condescending, again.

[quote]In the next 5000 years, what makes you think that there will not be devastating wars, crazy dictators, natural disasters of all kinds, hatred, fear, greed, power craving, selfishness, .....[/quote]

Kevin, you beat me to this point, if only because the power went out in my house. ) Many of the sociological problems we are facing are the result of our mortality and the short sighted world view it creates. When we are able to stop the aging process and our societies becomes filled with vastly more intelligent, unimaginable more mature individuals; humanity will be in a much better position to solve its societal woes. Hopefully, one day we will look back on all of the problems we are having now as "growing pains".

[quote]I forgot;
you all have faith, and belief, in the God of Technology. He will provide. He will eradicate all evil from human nature, and create a paradise on earth, where no one will be bored, and the partying will last forever, and everyone will look like a kid, and think like a kid, and behave like a kid.[/quote]

Condescending.

[quote]Come on, you all believe in God, too, but your God is the Technical God, the Digital God, and you pray to him, you seek grace, and guidance, from him.[/quote]

Condescending.

[quote]The belief, and prayer, that nanobots will resurrect the cyro-frozen to full capacity, is a nothing but faith, and belief, and magical thinking.[/quote]

Condescending

[quote]Wave the magic wand of technology, and humanity will be peaceful, and kind.[/quote]

Condescending

[quote]Technology, alone, doesn't mature us, and the persons living for 5000 years, assuming that it is possible, and considering the unlikelyhood that we will survive the next 20 years, will be as unwise as the rude cellphone idiots. as the countless wreckless maniacs, roaring down the streets, as the morons who crave violent movies, and music.[/quote]

You seem to be trying to imply that living longer would make you less mature, less responsible. This is a false dichotomy. Besides, technology doesn't mature, but living does.

[quote]Most human beings were morons in the past, most humans beings are morons today, and most human beings in the future, will be morons.[/quote]

It's official, your new nickname is Mr. Grumpypants. [B)]

[quote]Wise up you naive optimists.[/quote]

Wise up you naive pessimist. You represent nothing but doom, gloom and decline.

[quote]Serling was a wise man, and knew that the future would mirror the past, and vice versa. There are no Serling's today, because America is now tthe land of the imbeciles.[/quote]

Man you have a chip on your shoulder. Is there anyone that doesn't suck?

[quote]But nothing I say can change your stupid happy faces. Even when the nuclear missles are in the sky above the city you live in, you will still be grinning like idiots.[/quote]

Ad hominem attack.

[quote]Why I am so hostile? Because it is fools like you, who make it a certainity that humanity will exterminate itself. Denial kills; it kills alcoholics, and it kills naive, unrealistic, dreamers who place their faith in technology to solve all the worlds problems.[/quote]

Condecending, bordering on AH attack. You're hostile because you suffer from a psychosis. It's called dickfor.

[quote]Technology will solve the human problem by exterminating humanity.[/quote]

Human problem?? [huh] Buddy, here's a wake up call, you're part of humanity.

[quote]I will have the last laugh, when your atheist house of cards comes tumbling down on top of you. And it will.[/quote]

Whatever you say Mr. Grumpypants.

Keep up the mindless ranting! I find it refreshing to have you back at our forums to grace us with worthless AH attacks and bleak fatalism. In response to your next hostile post I will flame you back to hell, where you belong. You have been warned.

Good Night Mr. Grumpypants, [B)]

Kissinger

Closing in on the Cure for Death
Time is on your side if you're under 30, suggests biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey in an optimistic discussion of life extension


Shannon Foskett
Betterhumans Staff
Monday, August 25, 2003, 8:45:41 AM CT




Aubrey de Grey

If you're interested in living long, talking to Cambridge academic Aubrey de Grey is more than inspiring -- it offers reasonable ground on which to build a case for true life extension.

His personal goal is nothing less than achieving an indefinite lifespan for human beings, and he's fairly confident that he knows how to do it in about 25 years with the right funding.

With more than 20 first-author publications in the past six years and no major competitors working directly on solving the aging problem, de Grey is a leader in turning life extension hope into reality.

Betterhumans Associate Editor Shannon Foskett spoke with de Grey to learn more about his work, as well as his thoughts on life and death.

-Life extension is coming soon
-Should we extend our lifespan?
-Pursuing the end of aging
-Achieving the "impossible"
-Going against the grain
-Seven-point plan
-Scientific and technological challenges
-Social and political obstacles
-Antiaging prize
-Prospect of immortality
-Getting involved

EXCERPT :: Prospect of immortality

SF: Are you as hopeful about the prospect of immortality?

ADG: Um...your "as" has thrown me. As hopeful as what? I could also ask what you mean by "immortality" -- indefinite lifespan, or infinite lifespan? Please elaborate.

SF: Well, are you as optimistic about the prospect of immortality -- the possibility that one could live forever if one wanted to -- as you are about life extension?

ADG: Ah, okay. There's a difference between an indefinite and infinite lifespan. An indefinite lifespan is like a radioactive atom -- one day it will decay, but at any time that we find it hasn't decayed we can say that its average remaining time before decaying is the same as it ever was. Using this analogy, an infinite lifespan is like a stable atom which never decays. So if we fix aging completely but we still die of accidents and so on, our lifespan is indefinite but not infinite.

Of course, an infinite lifespan is physically impossible (heat death of the Universe, that sort of thing), but the difference between not dying of aging and not even dying of accidents etc is still so vast that it seems reasonable to call the latter "an infinite lifespan." I'm easy with calling that "immortality." I don't like "immortality" as a description of just not dying of aging, though.

So, am I optimistic? Certainly with regard to indefinite lifespan, yes. As I said earlier, I think there will be only a short interval between the time when we first have genuine life extension treatments and the time when we're improving those treatments faster than we're aging, which is all that's necessary to give us an indefinite lifespan. We currently have no idea what sort of treatments we'll need to keep us going when we're 200, but that's okay, because we won't need those treatments for over another 100 years. So long as we look hard at 180-year-olds as soon as we have any, and also at 80-year-old chimpanzees once we have them (which will be sooner, of course) for signs of trouble on the horizon, we'll have time to head off that trouble before it kills anyone.

With regard to an infinite lifespan, the approach that I think most likely to appear is "slow teleportation." By this I mean a noninvasive scan of the brain that records the pattern of synaptic connections and so on in such good detail that a new brain could be built, of new neurons, and micromanipulated to have the same synaptic interconnections. There is a fair chance that that would be enough to reproduce the persistent parts of the identity of the person -- not what they were thinking about when the scan was done, but possibly a pretty good rendition of the person's personality, memories, tastes. Such rebuilding would in principle only be done as and when the person died.

I think most people (once they got used to the idea) would probably regard this as a genuine continuation of their existence (much like waking up from a long coma), and would be getting these backups every month or so. The idea that continuity of identity requires corporeal continuity is actually pretty arbitrary.

Am I optimistic about that development? No idea. All I know is that I can't think of any biology that we know now that says it's impossible. It's obviously far, far harder than the sort of stuff I'm proposing we develop now. But we have to look at the timescales. If my plan works in the timeframe I have mentioned, no one presently under 30 in wealthy nations need have a life expectancy under about 1,000 years (which is how long we'd live now if our risk of death per unit time at any age were the same as it currently is at age 15 or so). In practice we will be a lot more risk-averse, so I expect life expectancy to be at least 5,000 years. So, even if it takes 500 years to develop, most of us who stick around long enough to get an indefinite lifespan will still be around for "slow teleportation" (presuming it's possible at all).



Complete Article

This guy is a true inspiration. Absolutely phenomenal stuff! I think he is spot on in his analysis of the 'fatalism problem' as the major obstacle facing us. I urge everyone to follow the link to the complete article on betterhumans. The man is superb at explaining complex ideas in an easily comprehensible manner.

Here's 30min of Aubrey talking at Transvision 2003 about causes and cure for aging...

Aubrey de Grey Ph.D. "Foreseeable, radical life extension: the biology to inform the philosophy"
http://www.transhuma...ubreydeGrey.mp3

Other TV2003 Talks: http://www.transhuma...03usa/audio.htm