Want to live to 150? How about 1,000?

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110704/lf_nm_life/us_ageing_cure

LONDON (Reuters) – If Aubrey de Grey's predictions are right, the first person who will live to see their 150th birthday has already been born. And the first person to live for 1,000 years could be less than 20 years younger.

A biomedical gerontologist and chief scientist of a foundation dedicated to longevity research, de Grey reckons that within his own lifetime doctors could have all the tools they need to "cure" aging -- banishing diseases that come with it and extending life indefinitely.

"I'd say we have a 50/50 chance of bringing aging under what I'd call a decisive level of medical control within the next 25 years or so," de Grey said in an interview before delivering a lecture at Britain's Royal Institution academy of science.

"And what I mean by decisive is the same sort of medical control that we have over most infectious diseases today."

De Grey sees a time when people will go to their doctors for regular "maintenance," which by then will include gene therapies, stem cell therapies, immune stimulation and a range of other advanced medical techniques to keep them in good shape.

De Grey lives near Cambridge University where he won his doctorate in 2000 and is chief scientific officer of the non-profit California-based SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) Foundation, which he co-founded in 2009.

He describes aging as the lifelong accumulation of various types of molecular and cellular damage throughout the body.

"The idea is to engage in what you might call preventative geriatrics, where you go in to periodically repair that molecular and cellular damage before it gets to the level of abundance that is pathogenic," he explained.

CHALLENGE

Exactly how far and how fast life expectancy will increase in the future is a subject of some debate, but the trend is clear. An average of three months is being added to life expectancy every year at the moment and experts estimate there could be a million centenarians across the world by 2030.

To date, the world's longest-living person on record lived to 122 and in Japan alone there were more than 44,000 centenarians in 2010.

Some researchers say, however, that the trend toward longer lifespan may falter due to an epidemic of obesity now spilling over from rich nations into the developing world.

De Grey's ideas may seem far-fetched, but $20,000 offered in 2005 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Technology Review journal for any molecular biologist who showed that de Grey's SENS theory was "so wrong that it was unworthy of learned debate" was never won.

The judges on that panel were prompted into action by an angry put-down of de Grey from a group of nine leading scientists who dismissed his work as "pseudo science."

They concluded that this label was not fair, arguing instead that SENS "exists in a middle ground of yet-to-be-tested ideas that some people may find intriguing but which others are free to doubt."

CELL THERAPY

For some, the prospect of living for hundreds of years is not particularly attractive, either, as it conjures up an image of generations of sick, weak old people and societies increasingly less able to cope.

But de Grey says that's not what he's working for. Keeping the killer diseases of old age at bay is the primary focus.

"This is absolutely not a matter of keeping people alive in a bad state of health," he told Reuters. "This is about preventing people from getting sick as a result of old age. The particular therapies that we are working on will only deliver long life as a side effect of delivering better health."

De Grey divides the damage caused by aging into seven main categories for which repair techniques need to be developed if his prediction for continual maintenance is to come true.

He notes that while for some categories, the science is still in its earliest stages, there are others where it's already almost there.

"Stem cell therapy is a big part of this. It's designed to reverse one type of damage, namely the loss of cells when cells die and are not automatically replaced, and it's already in clinical trials (in humans)," he said.

Stem cell therapies are currently being trialed in people with spinal cord injuries, and de Grey and others say they may one day be used to find ways to repair disease-damaged brains and hearts.

NO AGE LIMIT

Cardiovascular diseases are the world's biggest age-related killers and de Grey says there is a long way to go on these though researchers have figured out the path to follow.

Heart diseases that cause heart failure, heart attacks and strokes are brought about by the accumulation of certain types of what de Grey calls "molecular garbage" -- byproducts of the body's metabolic processes -- which our bodies are not able to break down or excrete.

"The garbage accumulates inside the cell, and eventually it gets in the way of the cell's workings," he said.

De Grey is working with colleagues in the United States to identify enzymes in other species that can break down the garbage and clean out the cells -- and the aim then is to devise genetic therapies to give this capability to humans.

"If we could do that in the case of certain modified forms of cholesterol which accumulate in cells of the artery wall, then we simply would not get cardiovascular disease," he said.

De Grey is reluctant to make firm predictions about how long people will be able to live in future, but he does say that with each major advance in longevity, scientists will buy more time to make yet more scientific progress.

In his view, this means that the first person who will live to 1,000 is likely to be born less than 20 years after the first person to reach 150.

"I call it longevity escape velocity -- where we have a sufficiently comprehensive panel of therapies to enable us to push back the ill health of old age faster than time is passing. And that way, we buy ourselves enough time to develop more therapies further as time goes on," he said.

"What we can actually predict in terms of how long people will live is absolutely nothing, because it will be determined by the risk of death from other causes like accidents," he said.

"But there really shouldn't be any limit imposed by how long ago you were born. The whole point of maintenance is that it works indefinitely."

Fascinating stuff. Doesn't this have to do with the manipulation of telomeres and telomerase?

The implications of the elimination of aging for humanity are going to be enormous. THAT will cause a population explosion.
 

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,019
156
106
Living to be 150? Everyone loves the idea of living longer but who wants to work until they are 100 years old? That's what it would take in order to save enough to finance a 50-year retirement.

The alternative is to save like crazy and retire at 65, run out of money at age 90, then live in a government-subsidized home for 60 more years.

We think the unemployment rate is high now... wait until people need to work 40 more years than they do now.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
This article doesn't contain anything new, unfortunately, and that disappointed me when I read it yesterday. The article's headline a few years ago was "If you're alive in 20 years, you may live forever."

This scientist (and a couple of others) have been saying this for years but I am very, very skeptical. Even if we assume for a moment that it becomes reality in our lifetimes, would it be allowed? Or would you have to agree not to have children in order to have the treatment? There are huge societal implications and I don't think we're advanced enough in other areas at this time to allow something like this to happen.

Don't get me wrong -- I do believe that at some point in human history, biological immortality will be reality. However, I just don't think it is going to happen without significant advances in other areas.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
147
106
Living to be 150? Everyone loves the idea of living longer but who wants to work until they are 100 years old? That's what it would take in order to save enough to finance a 50-year retirement.

The alternative is to save like crazy and retire at 65, run out of money at age 90, then live in a government-subsidized home for 60 more years.

We think the unemployment rate is high now... wait until people need to work 40 more years than they do now.

Yeah, a much higher life expectancy has social issues that I don't think most people understand. When 80 becomes the new forty, things start to look a lot different.

That being said, this is pure speculation. There is no way to predict how life expectancy will go. (didn't it go down slightly in recent years?).
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
Living to be 150? Everyone loves the idea of living longer but who wants to work until they are 100 years old? That's what it would take in order to save enough to finance a 50-year retirement.

The alternative is to save like crazy and retire at 65, run out of money at age 90, then live in a government-subsidized home for 60 more years.

We think the unemployment rate is high now... wait until people need to work 40 more years than they do now.

I read an interview with this scientist (or another one working on "curing" aging) a few years ago, and they were asked similar questions. Once of them brought up the notion that if you could live to 500, for example, and you had the body of a 30 year-old that never aged or aged extremely slowly, you'd probably have several retirement/work cycles in your life. For example, you'd grow up, go to school, and then work 40 years. Maybe at the point, you'd retire for a few years, enjoy life, and go back to school for a new trade. You'd then start a new career and rinse and repeat.

The big issue, of course, would be overpopulation. There would need to be some sort of rules governing how many (if any at all) kids you could have if you get this treatment. Maybe in the future, man will expand out to the stars and find dozens or hundreds of inhabitable worlds with virtually limitless resources and at that point, overpopulation wouldn't be a realistic concern. That point, however, is hundreds, if not thousands/tens of thousands of years away.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,585
3,796
126
I read an interview with this scientist (or another one working on "curing" aging) a few years ago, and they were asked similar questions. Once of them brought up the notion that if you could live to 500, for example, and you had the body of a 30 year-old that never aged or aged extremely slowly, you'd probably have several retirement/work cycles in your life. For example, you'd grow up, go to school, and then work 40 years. Maybe at the point, you'd retire for a few years, enjoy life, and go back to school for a new trade. You'd then start a new career and rinse and repeat.

Thats pretty much how I would do it

The big issue, of course, would be overpopulation.

I also think the job market would be much worse. You think the experience requirements are high now... I think you'd see an expanding 'good ol boys' network and perhaps a lack of innovation - people's risk/reward motivation changes when they get older
 

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
Population explosion?

I doubt this will be released to the masses. Rich people who want to rule for 1,000 years will benefit from this. I also doubt those with "criminal traits" will be supplied with this "cure" as well.

Imagine life in prison actually meaning, life in prison,... for 1,000 years.

Also, the mental effects of something like this are in the dark for us. How do we know people won't go insane and manipulate those who are lessers to them in their lives? Imagine one person, or persons, ruling over a group of people that live for approx 60 to 70 years, for a 1,000 years. Nations and it's generations could very well be enslaved.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,923
10,251
136
Call me when its real.

and you had the body of a 30 year-old that never aged or aged extremely slowly, you'd probably have several retirement/work cycles in your life. For example, you'd grow up, go to school, and then work 40 years. Maybe at the point, you'd retire for a few years, enjoy life, and go back to school for a new trade. You'd then start a new career and rinse and repeat.

Imagine having to pay for all your maintenance. You'll never stop working.

What maintenance? Well for starters.. what does skin do over time? Hah. You thought 60+ looked bad.
 
Last edited:

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Call me when its real.



Imagine having to pay for all your maintenance. You'll never stop working.

What maintenance? Well for starters.. what does skin do over time? Hah. You thought 60+ looked bad.

I think you are missing the point. If we live for these long times we won't look like that as we age. When we are 60+ we will most likely still look 25 or something along that line.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,923
10,251
136
I think you are missing the point. If we live for these long times we won't look like that as we age. When we are 60+ we will most likely still look 25 or something along that line.

That's hilarious. As if all the effects of age would be stopped at once.

More to my point, I do not attribute skin sagging due to cellular decay. Am I mistaken there?
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Yeah, a much higher life expectancy has social issues that I don't think most people understand. When 80 becomes the new forty, things start to look a lot different.

That being said, this is pure speculation. There is no way to predict how life expectancy will go. (didn't it go down slightly in recent years?).

I'd much rather be solving the problem of overpopulation and socialization of older unemployed people than death. I'd gladly work to 100 for an extra 70 years of life.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Call me when its real.



Imagine having to pay for all your maintenance. You'll never stop working.

What maintenance? Well for starters.. what does skin do over time? Hah. You thought 60+ looked bad.

You'd rather die than have ugly skin? really?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,923
10,251
136
You'd rather die than have ugly skin? really?

You could actually try reading what I first said. To continue with that foolish thought though, you really think the effects stop at skin? How about joints...or tooth decay. Your eyes?

Since you may find it difficult to follow a link, here's what I said:

and you had the body of a 30 year-old that never aged or aged extremely slowly, you'd probably have several retirement/work cycles in your life. For example, you'd grow up, go to school, and then work 40 years. Maybe at the point, you'd retire for a few years, enjoy life, and go back to school for a new trade. You'd then start a new career and rinse and repeat.

Imagine having to pay for all your maintenance. You'll never stop working.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
Imagine having to pay for all your maintenance. You'll never stop working.

Well, I think that's too soon to say to be honest. We don't know what will be involved. It might be a once-per-month vaccine for all we know.

And just because they stop aging doesn't mean you won't die. This process/cure won't magically make you immune from plane/car crashes or certain diseases.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
You could actually try reading what I first said. To continue with that foolish thought though, you really think the effects stop at skin? How about joints...or tooth decay. Your eyes?

Since you may find it difficult to follow a link, here's what I said:



Imagine having to pay for all your maintenance. You'll never stop working.

I read what you said. I still don't get it. I would rather wear dentures than die. I'd rather get repeated eye surgery than die... hell I'd rather be blind than die.

The attitude is unnecessary don't you think?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Either do this, or else have the ability to backup and restore your brain's contents on a regular basis.

Got in a car accident on the way to work? Darn...restore your mind from a backup into a fresh clone, and get back going.

The flipside of this: If you can backup and restore your mind freely, you might as well just have a clone at work and one at home, and telecommute.
(Problem then: Copying your mind into new clones could be done pretty easily, and Calvin and Hobbes already explored what can happen then. Solution? Genetic modification to eliminate the ego. :))

The future could be fun, or else all the new tech will overwhelm our poor little primate brains, and we'll start getting nuttier than a kitten in front of a mirror.


And a way around all this: Create an AI singularity which supersedes us. Various species come and go. Our way out could be a nice legacy - a highly-advanced intelligence, unbound by our own narrow restrictions with respect to life support and mental capacity. (People always want their kids to be better and smarter than they were, right? So maybe these kids won't be all squishy and organic. Oh well. :))
 
Last edited:

epidemis

Senior member
Jun 6, 2007
794
0
0
Living to be 150? Everyone loves the idea of living longer but who wants to work until they are 100 years old? That's what it would take in order to save enough to finance a 50-year retirement.

The alternative is to save like crazy and retire at 65, run out of money at age 90, then live in a government-subsidized home for 60 more years.

We think the unemployment rate is high now... wait until people need to work 40 more years than they do now.

It doesn't work like that. If you save 25 years for 25 years retirement, then if you save 35 years you can get on retirement for 43 years and etc... Compound interest.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
If you were to live for 1000 years or more think about how different you would see things in 500 years. Short term and long term would have total different meanings. The amount of things you could do and see would be huge. The amount of knowledge you would have gained, and lost would be astounding.
 

dpodblood

Diamond Member
May 20, 2010
4,020
1
81
Wouldn't the population completely explode? Assuming that we were able to "cure" aging wouldn't that mean we would be able to have children at age 100, 150, 200, 500, etc as easily as we could at 20-30 years of age now?
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Either do this, or else have the ability to backup and restore your brain's contents on a regular basis.

Got in a car accident on the way to work? Darn...restore your mind from a backup into a fresh clone, and get back going.

The flipside of this: If you can backup and restore your mind freely, you might as well just have a clone at work and one at home, and telecommute.
(Problem then: Copying your mind into new clones could be done pretty easily, and Calvin and Hobbes already explored what can happen then. Solution? Genetic modification to eliminate the ego. :))

The future could be fun, or else all the new tech will overwhelm our poor little primate brains, and we'll start getting nuttier than a kitten in front of a mirror.


And a way around all this: Create an AI singularity which supersedes us. Various species come and go. Our way out could be a nice legacy - a highly-advanced intelligence, unbound by our own narrow restrictions with respect to life support and mental capacity. (People always want their kids to be better and smarter than they were, right? So maybe these kids won't be all squishy and organic. Oh well. :))

There's an awesome book based on this concept... Altered Carbon... highly recommend it.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
yeah I trust this crap from a profession that keeps telling me are conquering cancer
 

epidemis

Senior member
Jun 6, 2007
794
0
0
I read what you said. I still don't get it. I would rather wear dentures than die. I'd rather get repeated eye surgery than die... hell I'd rather be blind than die.

The attitude is unnecessary don't you think?

People need to read the article, sigh.

"This is absolutely not a matter of keeping people alive in a bad state of health," he told Reuters. "This is about preventing people from getting sick as a result of old age. The particular therapies that we are working on will only deliver long life as a side effect of delivering better health."
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,895
8,482
136
So many concepts that we now operate under will have to be drastically changed along with the dramatic increase in longevity, if and when it happens.

The chain reaction that occurs with much longer lifespans will affect every facet of life as we now know it.

The institutions of religion will get hit hard by the changes that will occur.

The spillover from the ability to "artificially" extend our lives may include related technologies that might alter the world balance of power if used selectively and not released to the world's population.

The power elite will, of course, attempt to capitalize on this newfound fountain of youth and will either restrict its use for maximum profit, or reserve it for themselves by making the technology too expensive for the common man to avail themselves of its benefits.

New laws will have to be created to regulate the potential abuse this technology will create.

Bottom line: As ever, the richest of us will benefit the most from this technology, whereas the poorest will only suffer from it.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Wouldn't the population completely explode? Assuming that we were able to "cure" aging wouldn't that mean we would be able to have children at age 100, 150, 200, 500, etc as easily as we could at 20-30 years of age now?

For guys, yes. For women, no.



When I read the article the novels by Peter F Hamilton came to mind.