Viser arkivet for stikkord foryngelse

Hvordan blir man gammel?

Når man går fra befruktning til å bli voksen rundt 25 år alderen, så vokser man. Hvordan vokser man? Cellene signaliserer mellom seg på en måte som instruerer cellene til å dele seg fortere enn celler dør. Det blir derfor flere celler totalt og man vokser. Men hvordan eldes man? Sier cellene “på tide å bli gammel og slutte å fungere”? Sier hudcellene “på tide å danne rynker”? Sier hjernecellene “på tide å lage plakk for å få alzheimers”? Nei.

Den eneste årsaken til at kroppen eldes over tid er at cellene mister evnen til å gjøre sin jobb slik som når de er helt friske. Men siden aldring er å miste en egenskap, kan man bli yngre med å gi cellene tilbake denne egenskapen! Les mer…

Kan man gjøre folk yngre?

Det har alltid vært den store drømmen å kunne gjøre seg selv yngre. Hva vet vi om aldringsprosessen og er det mulig å gjøre folk yngre?
Les mer…

What is the meaning of life?

What is the meaning of life? The right thing to do? The right choice? And so on, are questions that bother many, and rightly so.

I realized just now that I have thought about this problem quite extensively for 7 years, and would like to share my current thinking on the subject.

Extending life is the only thing I have been unable to argue against as the right thing to do.
Finding “the best stuff” or “the right stuff” and experiencing “the best stuff” or “the right stuff” can always be argued against. But if one extends life enough, at some point you can do it all. You may have to extend life for a decade every decade for a trillion decades, putting off old age by ten years every ten years, but sooner or later you have extended life enough.
At that point you can have all property, and you can do everything that is to do. And by extending life so much you cheat, because by proxy you do the right thing, the perfect thing, the meaningful thing, the meaning of life, sooner or later. Its just a matter of time before you do it, you don’t even have to know what the meaning of life is to be sure you will one day fulfill the meaning of life, even though you can pass the moment not knowing it was the meaning of life moment.

This is a feature no other option has. There’s no guarantee the right thing to own, the right house or the right car, exists today, it may exist a thousand years from now. Same goes for the right thing to DO. It may be something that will not be possible for another million years. And how much does that suck? Knowing the meaning of life could exist a million years from now, or a billion years ago, and that all the time I have to do the meaning of life- if there is a meaning of life -is 81 years.
That sucks. But luckily I stumbled upon a tiny fact; It is scientifically feasible to reverse age within yours and my lifetime if we put a few billion dollars worldwide into it annually.
Age is not coupled to growth, so don’t worry, you won’t become younger than your 25-30 year old self. But you will have the cancer and stroke risk of a healthy fetus. How is not as complicated as you would think, its no small feat of engineering, but its far from impossible. There are only 7 types of accumulating factors that lead to aging as it occurs from age 25 onwards (the main changer before that is growth, not aging). If you then remove all those accumulated things every now and again, you reset age to zero (while not resetting growth to zero, so you’re 25 with perfect tight skin and a perfectly working brain, even if you were born 150 years ago). Read the book Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey, PhD, if you wish to know more. And send e-mails and letters to the government about putting rejuvenation biotechnology on the agenda with a billion dollars annual budget (foryngelse bioteknologi in Norwegian).

The case for Rejuvenation Biotechnology in 872 characters.

Growth stops at around age 25, after that decay is the sole changer of your body. Seven types of decay, one of them are akin to rust on cars. Rejuvenation biotechnology is to remove this rust after it has occurred, without having to know how the rust is made.
The case against rejuvenation biotechnology is often “but its good that people die of aging to make room for new people”. But is it good that the car rusts and eventually have to be scrapped in favor of a new car? Perhaps for you, but the car ends up being crushed into a cube, so its not a good thing for the car.
Similarly, aging and making room for the next generation is very bad for you, because you end up in a box-shape whether you want to or not.
Support Sens Research Foundation by clicking the bar at the top of the screen, and if you wish to know more, read the book Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey, PhD.

Scaling of tax income/expenditure.

We subsidize that which give a tax income in the future. More specifically in this case we subsidize making children because more population provides more tax income.
This is a practice that provides diminishing returns. I will explain how.

Things scale up differently. For example, weight of a bone scales up as a volume (X*Y*Z), but the strength of a bone scales up as a surface (X*Y), because the strength of a bone is that of the cross-section of the bone, but the weight is that of a three-dimensional structure of bone-molecules.
Similar differences in scaling up exist in society. More importantly for our case, how the infrastructure and population scales up.
The population scales up in an exponential curve. And there’s really not much to limit growth in industrialized countries, not taking future housing and infrastructure into account.
The work-ability of the population does not increase exponentially at the same time as the population. Each new child has to grow for X number of years before the child can join the workforce. So While you can double population in 7 years, if you did so, you would have at least 50% of the population consisting of 1-7 year old children that can’t join the work-force for another 10 or so years.
Infrastructure also has problems with scale. Road-networks gain capacity as a function of area used, with slight diminishing returns due to an increasing number of stops and traffic-lights etc. Electricity grids gain capacity as a function of area of the cross-section of the connection between the consumer and producer. Water and sewage gain capacity as a function of height from source to destination as well as pipe cross-section area.
Buildings also do not scale linearly. So as population increases housing becomes more and more expensive at an increasing rate, not even counting psychological market forces, and hospitals become exponentially more expensive to build and run as they grow in height and area.
If how all these things scale up are put on a chart it is easy to spot the cause of many of the problems we have today. Algorithms can also be used to calculate optimal population growth/stagnation/decline. There may be conditions in which a declining or stagnating population provides an improvement in the potential tax-income-growth/tax-expenditure-growth ratio (I say potential to indicate that this tax income/expenditure growth is only based on population growth, infrastructure growth, etc, not tax law or actual welfare expenditure).
The country with the highest potential tax income growth to potential tax expenditure growth ratio is the country that can increase the quality of life of its citizens most in a set time period.

Another emerging series of technologies together termed Rejuvenation Biotechnology will allow scaling up of the lifespans of populations with drastic consequences. It is a competitor to subsidizing children to ensure future tax income.
Children costs 20 years of growth and education and tax cuts to parents, and then start at the bottom in pay-scale. If however a 60 year old person is made to be 40 years old, that person will have the paycheck of a 60 year old and tax-expense of a 40 year old. This may sound far-fetched, but it does not require reversing growth or spinning the planet backwards. Because growth stops at around age 25, the only thing that changes the body after that is accumulation of 7 types of damage. One substance that accumulates over time is 7-Ketocholesterol, it accumulates in the cells and eventually makes the cell-processes not function properly like they do when you are young. All that is required to “reverse age” is all else being equal to remove some of that 7-Ketocholesterol. No understanding of the underlying system that made the 7-Ketocholesterol is needed, and no intervention in how the body actually works is needed. It is like removing rust on a car to make it usable for another ten years, instead of going into all the expenditure of making a new one.
This also does not have the increased tax expenditure from all the things that must be scaled up when scaling up population by childbirth.
Over the next hundred years Rejuvenation Biotechnology will become the main way that governments assures and predicts future tax income. The fools who do not will die of 7-Ketocholesterol and leave the world to the new superpowers: The nations that successfully controls the health of their population can have the most welfare, lowest taxes, best business incentives, largest and most modern army, all at once.
Any nation (even poor ones) that implement Rejuvenation Biotechnology will outclass the best possible nation that does not implement Rejuvenation Biotechnology.

For more information about Rejuvenation Biotechnology, read the book Ending Aging, by Aubrey de Grey, PhD. And click the bar at the top of the screen and donate to Sens Research Foundation, who are in the process of developing a way to remove 7-Ketocholesterol from humans safely.

EDIT 02 August 17:14. Changed a piece to better convey the point without an inaccuracy in how populations scale. The new section reads as follows:
The population scales up in an exponential curve. And there’s really not much to limit growth in industrialized countries, not taking future housing and infrastructure into account.
The work-ability of the population does not increase exponentially at the same time as the population.

What will I live to see?

I woke up this morning and had four healthy slices of whole-wheat bread and a cup of green tea. I sat down to try to think up a letter that convinces the Norwegian government that substantial funding of rejuvenation biotechnology is feasible, desirable and not deferable until a later time. But my mind kept wandering.
You see, I think the only worthwhile use of my life is to extend my life as much as possible. It is the hunter-gatherer of today, instead of hunting and gathering to live another month, I lobby and exercise to live another hundred years, preferably even more.
My mind then kept wandering into what I might live to experience if I just managed to get one more person to donate to Sens Research Foundation. I already know that if I live as long as current medicine allow, I will live to be about 80-85 years, if I am of average health. This means I will live to see the year 2070-2075.
As this timeline of predicted events will tell you, that means I will almost live to see the world population reach 10 billion, which is predicted to occur in 2083.
I thought, what if I got a thousand people from now and until 2030 to donate monthly to Sens Research Foundation? Would I then live to see the world house 10 billion people? What if I did even better, could I possibly see near light-speed travel which Arthur C. Clarke thought would occur in 2095? Will I see a trans-atlantic railway? Will I see a mile-high skyscraper? Will I be able to go to Mars if I just do a little bit more than I normally would to extend my life? If I stand in a street-corner every afternoon telling people to support rejuvenation biotechnology, will I then be able to live to see humans make first contact with alien civilizations? If I get a million other people to also clamour for rejuvenation biotechnology, will I then be able to live so long in my current configuration that I can go skiing in another solar-system?
I concluded that I will redouble my efforts in extending my life, and the first order of business is to not buy a new phone and continue to use my 7 year old K810i, instead I will donate to the cause of rejuvenation biotechnology, and buy a couple extra Ending Aging books, and send them to various political parties inscribed “pass it on after a week” on the title page.

What about you, what would you like to live to see?

Support Sens Research Foundation by clicking the bar at the top of this website. And read the book “Ending Aging” by Aubrey de Grey, PhD. That book explains the difference between the growth that make you change until you are about 25, and aging, which makes you decay hence forth. But not only that, he explains a very feasible way of how scientists with realistic amounts of funding can repair and rejuvenate your decayed body, so you can potentially live forever as you were when you were about 25 years old.

By the way, there really is no other way of saying it, but you don’t know what aging is, we all think we do, but we don’t, its a biological process that accumulates 7 types of decay/damage, and if you repair that decay/damage, you reverse your biological age. That does not reverse your growth, so you don’t become a fetus if your biological age is reversed. And crucially, its not about slowing down how the complex biological process makes 7 types of decay/damage, that would lead to dangerous side-effects, it is about repairing the decay/damage after it has occurred. That is far easier. And does not impact the complex biology that is our body. Any fool can remove rust, but not everyone can make stainless steel, as it were. If we spent 1% of government budget on rejuvenation biotechnology we would in 20 years be able to remove the pension system, and your children would no longer blame you for their shorter-than-need-be lives.
You can always have the bad-assest car if you outlive the ones who have a bad-ass car now.

If not to chase the fountain of youth, what else?

If we are not to chase the means to live forever, what is a good enough endavour for our nonrefundable lives? Just drink and be merry until we die and then it didn’t matter? Or make children that suffer the same finite fate as us? Nay, I say we focus our resources on researching the aging process, cardiovascular disease, cancer, in order to find medicines against it, so we have younger, healthier bodies, even when our chronological age (clock-age) is over a hundred.
When your final day comes, would it not be nice to think “I live today because I did all that I could to live as long as I possibly could” instead of “If only I did all that I could to live as long as I possibly could, then I would have another day to drink and be merry”.

I could have a motorcycle, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could have a large house, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could study hard to become the best in something that gets me money and fame and a place in the history books, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could have children, a huge family, who I shape and educate to become world-leading chess players, artists, mathematicians, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could have a beer on a saturday night, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could have a party on a saturday night, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could take a drive, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could go fishing, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could do what I want, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I could do what you want me to do, or I could spend more time getting funding for rejuvenation biotechnology research.
I think I am right in choosing the latter as much as I do. I only wish people were so intelligent I did not have to argue with them in order to get them to agree that more life in a young body is a good thing. They choose cars, phones, jobs, houses, clothes, based solely on their own wants and needs, almost without regard for the future or the rest of the world. But if you sell them a way to live longer in a younger body, then they are suddenly worried about the year 2100 when they think it will be overpopulation, lack of resources and energy.
Somehow people have decided before you mention it, that aging is set in stone, yet they know nothing about it, its not in any textbooks before very specialized college degrees, its not in many popular science books, its not on TV in documentaries, its not in the news, its almost unheard of. People know nothing about the aging process. All people have to go on, is myths and what they can deduct from their extremely poor knowledge-base on the subject.
Aging is plastic, calorie-restriction proved as much in numerous species, all it takes is the right technology, the right knowhow, and we can mold it. We can repair the 7 types of cellular damage that constitute aging.

We need a new genome project of sorts. The Human Rejuvenation Project. It needs a few billion dollars and 15 years. If we can repair just a little of each type of damage, which there are 7 types in total, then the rejuvenation project will figure out how for further development and implementation as a part of industrialized countries’ pension plans. The Human Genome Project took 10 years, from 1990 to 2000, and cost 5.5 billion United States Dollars (inflation adjusted 2013 dollars). Today you can sequence a human genome for under 7 000 USD.

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.