Aubrey de Grey, how plausible is he?

[thorgrim29]

I was watching a few of Aubrey de Grey' videos on youtube, and while what he promises is very cool, I'm wondering is his criticism comes from, as he says, the resistance to change all visionaries face, or if it comes from the fact that he's nuts. What he wants to do is stop ageing, and he foresees the first step, adding about 30 years of "useful life" to already middle aged human, to be possible within a few decades, and afterwards the exponential advancement of technology and human knowledge will allow us to reach what he calls longevity escape velocity.

here's a TED talk from him explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ

Now to me, e seems to make sense, and his foundation's website looks legit and all, but I have basically no formal learning in biology, so I ask the Playgrounders who know more: Is he plausible?

[_Zoot_]

Gah, there are many problem with his argument, may of his ethical ideas on what is right for us to do to future can be turned around on him and he relies on the idea that we will get a breakthrough when he (and the rest of us for that matter) have utterly no idea how we could go about doing these things.

[Mando Knight]

Within a hundred years? A longevity vaccine might be possible. According to my sources, it'll generally happen after we develop extremely expensive rejuvenation systems that I'll call "Lazarus Pits" for now, just after we develop miniaturized fusion power systems. But before we get quantum reactors or singularity drives.

[raitalin]

Within a hundred years? A longevity vaccine might be possible. According to my sources, it'll generally happen after we develop extremely expensive rejuvenation systems that I'll call "Lazarus Pits" for now, just after we develop miniaturized fusion power systems. But before we get quantum reactors or singularity drives.

I see what you did there.

And "plausible" is a pretty low bar in science.

[KuReshtin]

I think the Spaghetti Sauce (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y) lecture was a lot better.

[Narmoth]

The problem with aging is that non-aging dividing cells have a sad tendency to become cancerous
The dividing cells makes copies of DNA, but the copies can be made only a limited amount of time for most cells to prevent cancer. The fact that you can only get a limited number of replacement cells means that when you accumulate cell damage, you will have to loose cells or develop cancer

His idea of fixing things up is not realistic at present, but cloning of stem cells could be used to make replacement organs that could prolong the use of damaged organs, preventing death from organ failure

Also, notice how he brings in "step two" which is simply an up-selling of the idea by adding years without bringing science into it, making us to want this method to work.

The main problem is the amount of "damage", to use his words, to fix this by replacing the cells

[Extra_Crispy]

A while back I read an article about how scientists found the terminal gene. Basically think of it as a reverse rattle snake tail. As a cell split small sections on this gene would fall off as the cell thus the cell aged and each cell it created would have a shorter tail leading to "old" and not working as good cells, thus aging of the person. They found these by studing, i cant think of the name, the disease where people age very fast. Like a 10 year old being in the body of a 70 year old and the very very very rare reverse. There was this girl that was like 20 years old but was litterly in the body of a 5 year old. Anyway they say they are working on a way to either slow the drop of the tail which would slow the aging process alot or to even place these little sections back on thus reversing the aging process some.

With the use of retro viruses I can see this as a possibility in the fairly near future. Is this a good thing? I cant say but with our population already out of control and there being food shortages in many areas of the world imagine what it will be like if people start to live to around 200.

Could you imagine the retirement age to be 165. Having a working life time of 140+ years. :smalleek:

[Lord Raziere]

A while back I read an article about how scientists found the terminal gene. Basically think of it as a reverse rattle snake tail. As a cell split small sections on this gene would fall off as the cell thus the cell aged and each cell it created would have a shorter tail leading to "old" and not working as good cells, thus aging of the person. They found these by studing, i cant think of the name, the disease where people age very fast. Like a 10 year old being in the body of a 70 year old and the very very very rare reverse. There was this girl that was like 20 years old but was litterly in the body of a 5 year old. Anyway they say they are working on a way to either slow the drop of the tail which would slow the aging process alot or to even place these little sections back on thus reversing the aging process some.

With the use of retro viruses I can see this as a possibility in the fairly near future. Is this a good thing? I cant say but with our population already out of control and there being food shortages in many areas of the world imagine what it will be like if people start to live to around 200.

Could you imagine the retirement age to be 165. Having a working life time of 140+ years. :smalleek:

that and many younger people wouldn't be able to get jobs and our population is exponentially increasing..... leading to an entire generation of criminals....

[Gorgondantess]

I think the Spaghetti Sauce (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y) lecture was a lot better.

That was amazing. Who cares about aging- spaghetti sauce is the key to true happiness!:smallbiggrin:

[Narmoth]

A while back I read an article about how scientists found the terminal gene. Basically think of it as a reverse rattle snake tail. As a cell split small sections on this gene would fall off as the cell thus the cell aged and each cell it created would have a shorter tail leading to "old" and not working as good cells, thus aging of the person. They found these by studing, i cant think of the name, the disease where people age very fast. Like a 10 year old being in the body of a 70 year old and the very very very rare reverse. There was this girl that was like 20 years old but was litterly in the body of a 5 year old. Anyway they say they are working on a way to either slow the drop of the tail which would slow the aging process alot or to even place these little sections back on thus reversing the aging process some.

Except that it happens with every dna-thread on every chromosome. It's not just one gene



With the use of retro viruses I can see this as a possibility in the fairly near future.

How would you keep the cells from dividing uncontrolled?
You can't control it for each cell in the whole human body

[DarkMaster]

Except that it happens with every dna-thread on every chromosome. It's not just one gene

How would you keep the cells from dividing uncontrolled?
You can't control it for each cell in the whole human body

Well the telomere isn't actually that important for controlling cell division (i know that it's a part of the system to avoid cancerous cells but it's not a crucial part of it). Besides most of the cancerous cells reactivate the telomerase (enzyme that makes telomeres longer(larger?)).

[Narmoth]

the teleomere is important because when it gets to short, the cell won't be able to divide anymore
so any treatment to prevent cell destruction would have to re-activate the teleomerase, which as DarkMaster said, is activated in cancerous cells

so any treatment would in fact make the cell cancerous

[DarkMaster]

It will make more probable, it will not make cells automatically cancerous...
But i see your point, anything that makes you more prone to cancer is probably not the best solution.

[Asta Kask]

the teleomere is important because when it gets to short, the cell won't be able to divide anymore
so any treatment to prevent cell destruction would have to re-activate the teleomerase, which as DarkMaster said, is activated in cancerous cells

so any treatment would in fact make the cell cancerous

It is active in sperm and egg cell progenitors, and they are not cancerous.

Aubrey de Grey is interesting, but I've got the impression that he's like Kurtzweil. Huge visionaries but reality never really catches up with their visions. I've read quotes from Kurtzweil predicting what life would be like in 2010 and it was embarrassing.

It's important to listen to these people, but don't believe them. Add a zero at the end of any time period they give...

[Pyrian]

You see, there's aging, and there's lifespan. They're really different things. Most of the effects we call "aging" (seneschence, really) are your body attempting to extend your lifespan, and most things we could do to slow down, prevent, or even reverse "aging" will make you die earlier. (You might enjoy life more in the meantime, though, but nobody really expects such a "nova" drug to get approved!)

In practice, we have to tackle cancer first. If we can really get a handle on cancer, that alone will extend lifespans considerably, and then we can take steps to reduce "aging".

Cancer is tough, though. It's a catch-all term in the first place. It's basically like biological entropy. But really, it's evolution. Specifically, it's a living cell within your body that evolves to become better suited to exploiting the environment within its host (you)! The way life inherently functions, that's essentially inevitable, given enough time.

[Asta Kask]

Yeah, immortality is impossible in a universe where the Second Law of Thermodynamics is enforced... but I'd settle for a few thousand years. (Actually I don't want to extend my lifespan - three-score and ten is enough for me.)

[Narmoth]

It is active in sperm and egg cell progenitors, and they are not cancerous.

Yes, it's active in many cells.
The problem is to come up with a treatment that let's you control which cells in addition to those supposed to have active teleomeres get active teleomeres.

[DarkMaster]

Yes, it's active in many cells.
The problem is to come up with a treatment that let's you control which cells in addition to those supposed to have active teleomeres get active teleomeres.

If they use retroviruses maybe they can control it, the cells can't be infected if they don't have the right receptor. So, if they modify the virus to infect only certain cells, they may control which cells will reactivate their telomere.

But then we have the little problem of retroviruses being... unstable, whit really high mutation rate.

[Mystic Muse]

We're currently overpopulated.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that overpopulation+lifespans being doubled/tripled or just extended= Bad.

[Pyrian]

That's already becoming a problem. Half the reason social security in the U.S. is going into the red, is because people live so much longer past retirement these days.

[kpenguin]

Yeah, immortality is impossible in a universe where the Second Law of Thermodynamics is enforced... but I'd settle for a few thousand years. (Actually I don't want to extend my lifespan - three-score and ten is enough for me.)

"I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice. ":smalltongue:

[thorgrim29]

Thing is, if people had 40 to 50 years "old" bodies till they hit 150 or so, why retire? If you have money set aside, sure, take a sabbatical here and there, change careers, whatever, but I don't thing people will just stop working at what would be, proportionally, 40 or so.

Jobs is a bit trickier, as it's to my knowledge almost impossible to accurately predict the job market over more then 5 years or so.

And overpopulation: If the trends hold true, I thing the world population will top at around 20 billion or so, but frankly, if a few future generation have to not exist so I can live through the human race colonizing other planets, not to mention all the other wonderful things the future holds for an optimist, then that's just too bad.

[Narmoth]

If they use retroviruses maybe they can control it, the cells can't be infected if they don't have the right receptor. So, if they modify the virus to infect only certain cells, they may control which cells will reactivate their telomere.

But then we have the little problem of retroviruses being... unstable, whit really high mutation rate.

Exactly.
And it's not a type of cells, it's various cells around the whole body, so that it's hard to treat.
I think a stem cell bank taken from every child at birth would be more effective, and still not good enough

[Asta Kask]

Exactly.
And it's not a type of cells, it's various cells around the whole body, so that it's hard to treat.
I think a stem cell bank taken from every child at birth would be more effective, and still not good enough

Interview with Aubrey de Grey. (http://c4.libsyn.com/media/19482/skepticast2010-08-11.mp3?nvb=20100814152727&nva=20100815153727&sid=f65942d8f77619905d5e4311ddde16e1&t=09f27f113d5e5f9733126) Begins at about 35-40 minutes.