Viser arkivet for mars, 2013

Lobbyering for foryngelse-vitenskap.

E-post sendt til helse- og omsorgsdepartementet 25 mars 2013.

Emne: Sens foundation sitt satsingsområde.

Hei. har fått ny nettside som forklarer hva de gjør svært godt for ikke-initierte i fagene de bruker. Spesifikt feks disse to: og
I og med at vi bruker 139 milliarder på helse og omsorg må det Sens Foundation gjør være en fundamental del av statsbudsjettet. Og også en grunnleggende del av helse- og omsorgsdepartementet i de neste hundre år. Sitat: “Scientific developments in the last few decades have laid the foundation for a new class of medicines: rejuvenation biotechnologies. Rejuvenation biotechnologies are targeted therapies that apply the principles of regenerative medicine across the entire scope of the damage of aging. In other words, instead of merely slowing down the accumulation of aging damage in our tissues, rejuvenation biotechnologies will remove, repair, or replace the damaged cellular and molecular machinery. This means that with every round of therapy, a person’s eyes, hearts, arteries, and bones will not just suffer less ongoing degradation of their structures, but will actually become more youthful and healthy in their structure and function, as the fine cellular and molecular order of these and other tissues are progressively restored to their youthful integrity.” Sitat slutt. Uten denne form for helse- og omsorg er det en matematisk sikkerhet at vi vil til slutt ha mindre BNP enn helse- og omsorgsutgiftene vil være, fordi vi blir stadig bedre å holde folk levende uten å reparere det underliggende problemet som Sens forsøker å delvis reparere. I gen-terapier i mus og en rekke andre arter har man sett økning i levetid på tosifret antall prosent med svært lite kostnader. Så selv la oss si 1:100 forhold mellom foryngelse-teknologi (noen må finne opp et bedre ord for det) og resten av helse- og omsorgsbudsjettet, vil over to-tre tiår gi mye mer effekt enn å øke resten av helse- og omsorgsbudjsettet med 1/100.

Vi må selvfølgelig ha andre ting også, smi på alle jern, frukt og mindre kjøtt, mer trening osv, men uten foryngelse-medisiner (dvs økelse i Healthspan) vil pensjonsalderen måtte forbli der den er samtidig som at folk kun vil leve lengre og lengre forbi pensjonsalderen. Og det vil effektivt bety slutten på velferden og det relativt lave skattenivået vi nyter i Norge.
Healthspan = Tiden man kan forvente å leve i så god helse som mulig. Øker man den, som foryngelses-medisiner vil gjøre, så vil man effektivt leve lengre i arbeidsfør tilstand, i så god helse at man ikke vil ha lyst å pensjonere seg før flere år senere enn i dag. Uten foryngelses-medisiner vil vår helse ved dagens pensjonsalder være lik, men vi vil kunne overleve lengre enn i dag i for dårlig helse til å arbeide.

Det er også en slags ukultur i verden å anta foryngelses-medisiner vil føre til overpopulasjon og en haug andre dårlig gjennomtenkte argumenter, men overpopulasjon forhindres med å produsere færre unger, ikke med å la være å forhindre dødsfall.

Det burde anses som uetisk å produsere unger og sløse penger på vei og alt vi vil ha “fordi vi er et rikt land” så lenge vi ikke satser på foryngelses-vitenskap.

Ronny Hugo Hansen Warelius.


What is intelligence? I propose an answer to this question.

My definition of free will opens up a new possibility for what is and is not correct to do, to conclude, to believe, etc. My definition of free will is: Free will is to use an infinite amount of energy deciding what to do or what is true. Or using a system that gives the same result as spending an infinite amount of energy deciding what to do or what is true." -
Clarification: “do” includes thinking, saying, etc. And “true” includes what is false etc.
Compared to a decision that resulted from an infinite amount of energy worth of thought, any other decision is quite unlikely to be the better decision of the two. So we can assume all thoughts, conclusions, decisions, opinions, beliefs, are not correct after they occurred. The second after that conclusion have been made, the amount of energy spent on the problem goes up by some amount of energy, and so there should be a better conclusion available in the second after the conclusion was made.

Now, from this idea, we can make a few usefull conclusions:
1. intelligence of a species can be measured in how many joules of energy the brain of the average individual consumes in an average lifetime. The recording of the results of spent energy is preservation of intelligence and the cause of civilization (books).
2. Genius is the individuals in a species that make the best decisions, conclusions, thoughts etc, in the present moment. But they are not nessesarily the most intelligent, as intelligence is measured in joules (if the genius spend little time thinking, a genius is less intelligent than someone stupid thinking a lot).
3. The result of the scientific method that makes it such a powerful tool, is that it makes geniuses and everyone else, spend more than one moments on a particular problem. A dozen hours of thought about a problem by a fool might be better than a knee-jerk thought from a genius.
4. Wisdom is to use this energy that the brain consumes, on the right problems, and to think as much as possible.

Clarification: Infinite is never ending, its not a real number. You add one, and then add one, and then add one, forever. without stopping, ever.

Equality for all.

A set of twins live in Oslo, they have a family, children, grandchildren, jobs, hobbies. Maybe they have your exact life. Now they each get struck by a disease, a deadly disease if not treated.

Twin A is put in a hospital with a thousand staff-members that work on shifts to treat and cure the disease with every expensive option available. This is done because people think it is wrong that this particular disease kills people. The disease is looked on as unnessesary, and even if there is just a snowballs chance in hell that Twin A survives, they will put all their resources into making sure Twin A survives.
It is hoped that if they spend enough money researching and treating Twin A then Twin A can eventually go home and continue his/her life. Working, playing, perhaps even treating others so they also can be cured of the diseases that strike them.

Twin B is put in a room where there are no efforts made to treat or cure the disease. The idea is that Twin B shall remain there until the disease kills him/her. It will take months, years, before Twin B dies. Months, years, that could have been spent treating the disease. The reason for this is that this particular disease that Twin B suffers from is not thought of as bad, it is in fact considered positive that it kills people because of cultural reasons. I repeat, it is considered positive that this particular disease kills people. That is like if you get sick by E.Coli and we cheer-on E.Coli instead of helping you win over E.Coli.

The even more baffling thing is that Twin A has the same disease as Twin B, but it is asymptomatic in Twin A for several more years. So Twin A is kept alive through disease only so that Twin A can be kept in a place to suffer the same agonizing fate as Twin B. We will help Twin A with an enormous amount of resources to add a decade of good health before the Twin B disease hits Twin A. We will cure one disease, only to give up on the next. We will spend lots of resources treating a disease, and then turn completely around and only keep the person comfortable while we intentionally do not treat the disease.

What would you feel like if you were Twin B? What if you were now diagnosed with lets say Cancer, and you were put a home with others with cancer, but you never got surgery, never got chemotherapy, never got any medical treatment whatsoever to try to cure your cancer. The government would not even earmark a penny to find effective treatments against your type of cancer. What would that feel like? It would feel like being buried alive while no one tries to stop it. On your deathbed you will lack the energy to protest, and because of that you will accept death literally over your dead body.

Now, if you have not figured it out, Twin A and B is suffering from a set of processes that progressively reduce the time before the individual is likely to suffer a permanent loss of physical or mental capacity. Also known as Aging. Twin A is first struck by a disease not commonly associated with aging, while Twin B is struck by what is commonly associated with aging.

We speak of equality between men and women, equality between races, equality between rich and poor, equality between species even. Why the hell do we not speak of equality between young and old? An old person has just as much right to live as a young person, that we spend practically no money at all on certain portions of the aging process is unethical, its despicable. We intentionally spend a small amount of money on aging (and subsequently old people), and give tax-incentives for people that make new people.
The most common argument against treating aging is overpopulation, but the way to stop overpopulation is by limiting the amount of children we produce. NOT by letting people die of diseases that we do not bother researching. To use overpopulation as an excuse against treating aging while NOT enforcing limitations on procreation is also despicable. And also, babies become old people, at which point do we stop caring about babies? When they are 90 years old? If age killed babies would we do something about it? Will it really take such extreme events before we research this fundamental part of life?

Click the bar at the top and help research on the aging process with the goal of developing treatments that add years to our healthspan (the amount of time it takes before we get noticeably bad health).