Viser arkivet for stikkord rejuvenation

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.

How people fail to notice they are being proven wrong in arguments.

Often people ask questions like “Why don’t people fight climate change? Why don’t people fight ageing? Why don’t people fight AIDS? Why don’t people fight poverty?” and lots of other similar “good fights” they themselves undertake.
On the face of it fighting climate change, aging, AIDS, poverty, all seem like no-brainers. So why don’t people do these things?

1. They think doing something won’t help enough.
2. They think the outcome would not be good.
3. They think it is not a problem of theirs at this moment in time.

Number One is easy to understand. If you think what you yourself can do is not enough to fight climate change, ageing or AIDS then you will not do anything. Number two is present even when it comes to AIDS and aging in some cases. Three is also somewhat easy to understand, most often people have not been thinking about the problem and so it is like an uninvited object they don’t consider theirs. Like if you go up to someone with a random dog-poo bag and say “is this yours?”; they say no if its just a tiny bit negative or something that seem quite out-of-place (there’s a time and a place for everything, it seems).

Ageing:
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop ageing (no one yet have managed to stop ageing, they think no one has managed to affect ageing, they think no one has a theory of how to succeed, they think ageing is a feature of humans untouchable by biotechnology, they believe this technology will come at the same time in the future no matter what they do).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping ageing will not be good (They think there will be overpopulation, that bad people will live forever, that science will progress slower if the old don’t die and make room for the new, they believe there will be lack of resources, they believe people should die to make room for the next generation, they believe stopping ageing will result in very poor quality of life because of boredom or very poor health, etc).
3. They think ageing is not a problem that they should concern themselves about right now (They believe they can’t do anything anyways, they believe it won’t be in time for them, they believe they have more pressing things to take care of first, they believe they might do it at another time and place when they can consider the question more, etc).

Climate change:
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop climate change (fex because they think its not manmade, or because they think everyone else will just continue to pollute even if they themselves stop).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping climate change will not be good (They believe it will bankrupt the nations to stop it, and a whole bunch of other things).
3. They think climate change is not a problem that they should concern themselves about now (They believe it is still so far away they have more pressing things to take care of first, or that the climate is not changing at all, or that climate change is not due to man).

The same three points can be written for any number of things, including but not limited to:
-Crime.
-Education.
-Personal Health.
-Personal intelligence.
-Specific personal abilities.
-Roads.
-Healthcare.
-Laws.
-Public opinion.
-Traditions.
-Norms.
-Opinions (personal and others).
-What leaders do (prime ministers, presidents, CEO, social group leader etc).
-Pretty much anything, even atheism and agnosticism and ignosticism (“I can’t imagine how life formed” is Type One, Type Two; “I don’t think atheism/agnosticism/ignosticism gives a good quality of life even if I became one” and Type Three is that they don’t feel they have to do all this intellectual work about this particular problem right now).

Most people are not consciously aware of which of these three Types need to be argued in order for them to change their minds. If the main reason they don’t stop aging is type One, Two or Three. And as such, most people fall into the others once one type has been argued against. If you argue against Type One they retort with Type Two or Type Three as if that makes your argument against Type One invalid somehow. If you then argue against the Type they retorted with they retort with either of the other two Types again, as if your first argument against Type One was invalidated.

Quite frankly, I’m tired of meeting this phenomenon every time I argue for rejuvenation biotechnology. People want to force people to die of repairable decay because of three reasons they don’t notice have been proven to be bad reasons. They hop from Type to Type and in-doing so maintain the delusion of not being argued wrong.
I can imagine people that try to get people to stop climate change and cure AIDS and Religion and so forth also could do without this fundamental flaw in human being’s self-proclaimed rationality.

It can be summarized as such;
For something to be done it must be considered feasible, desirable and undeferable.
And subsequently, if it is not considered to be feasible, desirable and undeferable, it will not be done.

Aging.

We learn nothing about aging in biology class until very specialized higher education degrees. And without knowledge, we have only emotions to base our opinions about aging on. What does our emotions make us think about the aging process? Usually, our emotions make us think that we can not do anything about aging. We have such negative emotions about aging that we convince ourselves that aging is a natural way of life, that we can not avoid aging no matter what we do. The reason we do this is because if we think we can avoid aging, then we would spend all our time trying to avoid aging, and no time reproducing. And if your parents spent all their time trying to avoid aging, you would not have been made. So you have inherited the idea that aging can not be avoided, from parents who are not educated in the biology of aging. That’s like inheriting a disease if you ask me.
We think aging can not be avoided without knowledge about how aging works, and the result is that we can continue our current way of life. We can continue to buy a new phone every six months, a new car every three years, and so on. But if we think we can avoid aging, then the rational thing to do would be to spend all resources otherwise spent on phones and cars, on avoiding aging. One would think this was not a high price to pay, after all its just stuff, and life is far more valuable. But our genes make us extremely interested in reproduction. And to males that mean having symbols of status and wealth. Cars, fancy clothes, phones, expensive wines, etc. And to females it means thinking a lot about male symbols of status and wealth, because it is a sign that the male can support children. So it is understandable that it is difficult to let go of the aquisition of wealth and status symbols in favor of trying to avoid dying of aging.
The reason why we easily conclude aging can not be avoided when we know nothing about aging, is that no one has avoided aging thus far in history. But we also consider aging a change that occurs in the body, not something that accumulates. We think of aging like growth, like going from a baby to an adult, and then to an old person. And we can’t imagine a way that can be reversed. Rightly so, making an adult person revert to a fetus is impossible. But this is not what aging is. Aging is not growing up from a fetus into an adult, and then into an old person. You grow up, from a single cell into adulthood, but what happens from there on in is just lack of maintenance. In a way, you come out of the womb as a small car which grows for 25 years to become a Hummer H1. But once you are 25 years old the change that occurs is just rust and poor maintenance. Its not growth, as in “growing old”. The H1 Hummer you are at 25 gets worn down for 55 years or so until you are 80 years old and need diapers. You as you were meant to be when you are 25. That you change from age 25 is a disease called aging. Growth happen until age 25 (approximately), decay happens from that point on. Aging is 7 things that we accumulate over time, starting from before we are born.

These are the 7 aspects of aging:
1. Cell loss or atrophy (without replacement).
2. Oncogenic nuclear mutations and epimutations (mutations in the cell nucleus (DNA), and mutations that affect how the DNA functions).
3. Cell senescence (Death-resistant cells and cells that no longer are able to replicate).
4. Mitochondrial mutations (the mitochondria grows shorter for every cell-division, fex).
5. Intracellular junk or junk inside cells (lysosomal aggregates).
6. Extracellular junk or junk outside cells (extracellular aggregates).
7. Random extracellular cross-linking.

These seven things accumulate over time. And for 25 years we show no sign of them. But then some skin cells begin showing signs of fex, accumulated oxidized cholesterol and a lack of mitochondrial length. The cells don’t replicate evenly, so they all replicate different amounts in 25 years. Some 50 times (the aproximate maximum), others zero times. And the junk inside the cells move mostly over to just one of the two cells when they divide, so after a dozen cell-divisions some cells will have lots of junk in them, and other cells will have no junk in them. When you are only 25 years old the amount of cells with lots of junk in them are few, but they are many enough to start to show on your skin. The first set of wrinkles appear. This is not growth, its decay due to lack of maintenance. This occurs in all the organs, we just can’t easily see the “wrinkles” there. For example the liver starts declining in function, and the liver is quite important, hence the name.

Support Sens Research Foundation who are working a treatment that removes 7-Ketocholesterol from the human body. 7-KC is one of those types of junk that accumulates in us. It is the main cause of cardiovascular disease. Click the bar at the top of the screen.
And read this book if you wish to have a detailed description of all seven aspects of aging and a possible strategy to fight each one, and if you wish to know how to contribute. The book is written for the none-scientist so its not hard to understand with lots of fancy words. Reading the book is the single greatest thing you can do for yourself, greater than buying a Ferrari, greater than climbing Mount Everest.

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.

The next divide. The yoke of short lifespans.

All throughout history society has been divided into those who has more than enough to survive, and those that dont have more than enough to survive. The next divide can make this old wealth-divide far less prominent in well-regulated nations (for example nations with free healthcare). But it can also make the wealth-divide even more prominent if the correct laws are not in place.
The next divide will be age. Les mer…