[extropy-chat] Longevity Meme: Activism for Healthy Life Extension

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> >From Longevity Meme, a very good article on life extension that
> >everyone should read: Despite widespread apathy, disinterest and
> >ignorance of science in our society, there has been a real growth in
> >size and sophistication of healthy life extension communities in the
> >past few years. The Life Extension Foundation, the Immortality
> >Institute and the Longevity Meme are but a few of these.

Ahem....  Let us not forget Aeiveos Corporation and Aeiveos
Sciences Group!  They were working on this in a very robust
way -- doing both web sites and science *long* before The
Immortality Institute or the Longevity Meme were developed --
from circa 1993-1997.  In fact Aeiveos Corporation hosted the
first web sites for both The Life Extension Foundation
and A4M.  In terms of personal resources spent on longevity
research I think I am probably in the top 10 along with
Larry Ellison, Paul Glenn, Saul Kent and Sam Barshop.

Though neither company was successful, they did lead
to the spread of a number of ideas very early on in
the development of "longevity memes" which were acted
on and continue to spread.  Weindruch and Prolla have published
a series of papers on changes in gene expression with age starting
in 1999.  ASG had the first results in this area using a much
more difficult technology in 1997.  The genotyping in centenarian
studies were first started by ASG in 1996 and were continued by Tom Perls
(with whom we were working) at Centagenetix which has now been
incorporated into Elixir.  Though Aubrey's plan for the IBG and
Methuselah Mouse projects were created independently you could
go back and find very similar elements in the scientific research
plan of Aeiveos Sciences Group.  The emphasis that the Ellison
Medical Foundation places on aging -- probably to the tune of
$10-20 million/year would probably not exist without my influence.

So BJ and Reason I just want to point out that the roots in
the evolution of this effort that may be deeper than you realize.

> Today, humanity stands on the brink of real, meaningful anti-aging
> medicine. Scientists talk of 200-year life spans, ...

Only scientists who don't know what they are talking about.  If one
*really* understands aging and defeats it you are talking about
2000-7000 year lifespans limited by ones accident rate.

> of defeating cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

Cancer we will defeat gene by bloody gene (witness Gleevec and
the current set of angiogenesis inhibitors).  Heart disease is going
to be a bit more difficult as it involves a complex process --
but we have a good handle on it.  Solutions for Alzheimer's are
still emerging but it appears (finally) to be a problem we
can understand and deal with.

> Far longer, far healthier lives are possible.

Claim without facts in evidence.  Brain cells *do* die at some
rate (perhaps this rate may vary during ones lifetime).  Have you
ever done the calculation to see how long it takes before you
have 1/2, 1/4, 1/10, etc. of your normal number of brain cells?
[This is distinct from situations involving cell loss from
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, strokes, etc.].

I did the calculation once and the numbers are not good
(though I don't remember the exact result).  It isn't clear
how much of your brain you can lose before become someone
significantly other than who you once were (you might be able
to get away with 1/2 -- but I doubt you could get away with 1/10).
The same would be true if one adopts a therapy of replacing the lost
cells with neuronal stem cells.  Sooner or later (unless one spends
an extreme amount of time reprogramming the new neural connections
with old neural connections -- a questionable exercise as I recall
very little of my childhood from ages 2-10) one ends up being a
different person.

Food for thought,
Robert