I’ve heard you are interested in the topics of aging and longevity. This is very cool, because fighting for radical life extension is the wisest and most humanitarian strategy. I would like to tell you what needs to be done, but, unfortunately, I haven’t got your email address, or any other way to be heard.
Great article, Maria, and a wonderful strategy. People like Sergey Brin have more than enough money to advance life extension, and it’s wise to ask them for help, directly. Well done. I hope your petition is successful!
Posted by Sonya Wiley on 08/15 at 04:18 PM
That open letter was a bold and dedicated move, I commend your affords. Progressive determination for research to expand the longevity of life could be an epiphany to combat old age diseases up until now has always been consider a part of growing old.
Just recently, a research group poled a group of people, I think a 100 people or so and asked, would you want to live to be a 120 years old? 80- 90% said ‘no’ crazy right?
For me the answer would be ‘200’ years old and then some, to combat aging and slow down the progression of related diseases, I believe is a noble cause.
He just funded the first test tube burger, that’s why you’re here ‘smart’ to also combat diseases related to processed meats that could have an affect on the longevity of your life. And to keep the dignity of the animals specifically ‘cows’ he not comfortable with the way some animals are treated plus to eliminate the extra additives that processing meats can bring before it hits selves for our consumption.
Most importantly the great Sergey Brin with that brilliantly blissful mind of his, it shows he cares. Research is key on a plethora of life changing modification, one comes to mind right now: Sergey also has been tested by his wife and shares a genetic mutation himself later in life that could be catastrophic on the longevity of his life, there making advancements but there not there yet, maybe this could be an eye opening experience and add a another dimension to the data that already exist.
Good luck, I see you have me in your corner already, the brilliance of your words should open hearts and minds on such sensitive research.
Posted by Winston T. Cope, M.D. on 08/17 at 11:24 AM
I certainly agree that developing life extension techniques is a most noble cause, and applaud research along all the lines that you mentioned.
However, at the same time we need to control chronic inflammation, the main cause of cardiovascular disease, arthritis, dementia, etc. We induce these problems ourselves by smoking, improper diet, and tolerating a toxic environment.
Winston T. Cope, M.D.
Posted by nerd1024 on 08/17 at 09:04 PM
Yes, we should by supporting Aubrey de Grey’s SENS project (tax deductible scientific research chatty in the US) and also the Mprize project (also tax deductible). Aubrey’s group has grown to supporting researchers major word class universities. And I propose that we establish world treaties to impose limits to the worlds military sizes, their R&D budgets (you would not realize the colossal waste that programs like Regans Star Wars budget wasted, that’s just a small example)...millions of people have been killed and damaged by wars and colossal fortunes wasted in just the last 100 years alone!! Aubrey proposes to defeat aging given 1 billion over 10 years, the worlds militaries spend that in just a few hours!!!
Posted by markt on 08/18 at 12:58 AM
Everything gets old and dies… *EVERYTHING*. Stars perish, and even protons themselves have a half life, and eventually decay.
I have no problem with dedicating efforts to combating age-related illnesses, or trying to improve the qualify of life for people as they do age, but to suggest that aging itself is somehow a “curable disease” is to turn a blind eye to some very fundamental physical properties about this universe.
It’s called entropy, by the way… and no… it’s not curable. Not unless somebody who claims otherwise knows of some other universe that we could just magically pop ourselves into.
As far as we know the universe has not had intelligent life in it though the probability of such is extremely high.
Why cant intelligent life figure out a way to refuel the sun, upload brains/minds to computers, even reverse a big crunch, etc…?
Posted by Damion Lunin on 08/18 at 08:05 PM
The cycle of generations provides a species with adaptability on a genetic level, so enabling human immortality would shutdown humanity’s biological adaptation engine, which would eliminate our species’ natural ability to adapt genetically to change and eliminate our species’ natural ability to recover from a sufficient catastrophe. With our natural adaptation engine shutdown, the entire burden of adaptation would then fall upon the shoulders of scientists. The question becomes whether to continue with an adaptive engine evolved over millions of years, or to gamble the future survival of our species entirely on a body of knowledge which is so much younger that its timeline is miniscule by comparison. The human mind is a wonderfully powerful tool, but the collective of all human minds understands only a fraction of the mysteries which nature employs effortlessly.
The point is, is that we will understand most everything about the universe, consciousness, world, and biology.
Posted by Sam Thursfield on 08/20 at 11:22 AM
As someone who lives in the most overpopulated country in Europe, it seems an extraordinary suggestion that the most important thing for us to research is how to live longer. I would prefer a happier, more comfortable, and shorter existance.
Human population has quadrupled in the last 50 years and the rate of growth is still enourmously high. At what point do we stop? When all the forests have been cut down to grow food?
Posted by Damion Lunin on 08/20 at 01:25 PM
The notion that humanity has been close to understanding everything about the universe has been proclaimed by optimists several times throughout history, and each such proclamation has been followed by discoveries which demonstrated how little we actually know. The pool of such humbling discoveries is inexhaustible. Even if our body of knowledge [somehow] becomes infinite, there will still be an infinite remainder of things that we do not know.
I do not understand your reasoning to think that there is “infinite” body of knowledge out there. Even Kuhn said that with each scientific paradigm we get closer and better to understanding the universe.
Posted by Damion Lunin on 08/23 at 01:07 PM
Mathematics, the foundational layer of all science, contains not just one infinite-axiom theory, but an infinite number of infinite-axiom theories. Throughout history mathematicians have devised purely abstract branches of mathematics with no practical application in sight, then decades later scientists discover that said previously impractial mathematical branch serves to accurately model an observed phenomenon. History so far has demonstrated that even the most obscure and esoteric mathematics describe real-world phenomenon, and mathematics is an infinite body of knowledge.