Interesting video that a friend showed me, located here (http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html). What do you all think about this? Can't really speak to the credibility of the source/presenter, but its an interesting presentation.

We live, age, and die for a reason....to make room for those following us.

Reason #1 not to work too hard on extending life spans is the finite amount of resources available, and the increasing competition for them. You think we have shortages now, let's imagine what it would be like with folks living to 150, or 200. And that is not to mention the limited amount of space available on the planet for habitation.

Reason #2 not to keep folks around longer is the amount of changes that occur over one's lifetime. It might be slowing somewhat now, but I know the old man (born in the 20's) saw more technological advances than he wanted to, or was able to fully grasp. Unless we find a method for unlocking more of our brain's potential, there is a point where continued change and growth can become overwhelming.

Research to make lives more fulfilling and comfortable as we ease into our final years is great, but extending life artificially just to say we can would cause far more potential problems than it might solve, IMO.

No reason you can't live forever, but you need to keep in mind that at no point in billions of years of natural selection was the longevity of an individual past the point of reproductive success of any importance. We're not so much built to age and die as we are built to be successfully young and that's it.

I do see it in the realm of possibility. doubt we'll see much progress in our lifetimes but....

We can greatly slow down the physiological aging process in people right now, and for virtually no cost - unfortunately, it happens that people are rather miserable living on starvation-level whole food diets and very few people can abide by them - we also have too many people on the planet to feed in this manner given current food incentivization and distribution patterns (we could feed this low on the food chain, but it'd paradoxically be too expensive for many people because of what is subsidized vs what isn't).

We have a pretty good idea at this point as to how fast (to keep this simple) metabolism related free radical damage and mutation rates can be expected to cause aging; and one has only to look at how the push, starting in the Nixon administration, for 'cheap food at any price' has affected American quality of life as evidenced by obesity, diabetes and heart disease, and despite our continuing incremental progress (at a very high cost) against cancer and heart disease, life expectancy in the US is actually *dropping*.

I read the transcript of Aubrey de Grey's talk and there's a lot of glossing over and very little substance here. The simple fact of the matter is that organisms live a lifespan that is inversely proportional to their metabolism: energy conversions > free radicals > entropy > destruction. Animals on starvation diets live longer not only because they're struggling less to care for (and carry) the extra mass but because they're doing fewer total conversions; natural selection has tended to favor us preferentially feeding on high energy foods and being good at storage because having no margin for famine got you dead.

I don't think it's practical, nor possible, to get to 'practical immortality', but some sensible changes in food policy in this country and elsewhere, as well as research into how to trick humans into being physiologically satisfied with healthy portions of healthy foods (ghrelins, leptins, among others), would go a long way towards improving both quality and quantity of life.

And Malse is correct about natural selection favoring maintenance just as long, and no longer, as it takes for an organism to successfully raise its young; we've been made, over these millions of years, not 'as good as we could make you' (to rip off Blade Runner) but 'as good as is necessary' (from a cost/benefit standpoint).

Regards,
Nydia

I think space travel/colonization and longevity are going to go hand in hand.

I'd be interested in reading the research Aubrey is using to support the claim. For myself, I'm more interested in improving quality of life, rather than quantity of life. Until we can make our limited lifespans more successful in our advanced years (Alzheimers research, Parkinsons, cancer, gene therapy), I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of trying to prolong our lifespan when most of the time because of the diseases/conditions I listed, they don't live to a normal human lifespan anyways.

Interesting ideas academically I guess. I'm probably going to try to find some of his supporting research.

I wonder if the Kurzweilian vision of immortality isn't more feasible.

There is nothing wrong with living long lives, if people were not breeding like fucking rabbits. This will change as hopefully poverty decreases, the silly no birth control religious stuff goes away. Birth rates are already declining.

That said, lives will continue increasing. Our lifespan has virtually doubled in the last hundred years. I will only continue. Someone born in Japan today can expect to live 87 years. I don't think we will ever become immortal, but I don't think life spans in the hundreds of years is far off. I would not be surprised to see us eventually have a thousand year lifespan a long way down the road. Technology is crazy and wonderful.