A World with Successful Reversal of Aging will first see twenty year old mice and young Stallone

When will we know that antiaging rejuvenation using damage and age reserval really works? In such a world we will see 20 year old mice and a young Sylvester Stallone. Stallone is a wealthy famous person who uses human growth hormone and other treatments to stay youthful. George Church is a scientist deeply involved in founding and running many companies developing antiaging.

This is the standard for the robust mouse rejuvenation program. Aubrey de Grey believes that about 15 years after the robustly rejuvenated mouse there will be multiple rejuvenations of the same mice and many could have combinations of aging reversal treatments.

The aging reversal work of Rejuvenate Bio and the removal of accumulated aging cells from Oisin Biotechnology are treatments that can and will need to be re-applied every year or so.

There was a presentation about multiple reversal of aging damage treatments.

The gene therapy that is being used are injections of DNA plasmids (for changing genes) encased in lipid spheres. Re-application will be like an immunization booster shot. They have tracked the material spreading throughout the body of adult mice. This means there are delivery mechanisms for whole body wide genetic modification.

If one powerful combination of rejuvenation could enable mice that live to 5-years of age, then if those reversal of aging damage treatments could work three to four times then we could see 8-year old mice. The number of reversal of aging treatments and tests would rapidly expand with the first robust mouse rejuvenation. If it took 15 years for the reversal of aging treatments to be applied in humans then the multiply rejuvenated mice would have reached about 20 years of age.

Recent research suggests we could be near to have two-year-old mice reach 5-year lifespans.

Oisin Biotechnology is a leader in removing senescent cells for antiaging. They have injected a combination of two gene therapies into mice. The two-year-old mice would normally live to 3 years of age. Instead of only 50% surviving to 2.5, there are 90% of the treated mice living to 2.5 years with single treatment. Perhaps 80% could live to 3 and 50% could live to 4.

There is more reversal of aging tests with Rejuvenate Bio on mice and dogs. The research has not been published yet but they are working on 60 gene therapies to reverse different aspects of aging.

George Church has stated that the scientific results of the mice gene aging reversal work is eye-popping. It has also been stated that the dog aging reversal work has already started. George Church has indicated that he will be among the first humans to trial the aging reversal procedures.

What will the procedures be like for aging reversal

Successful rejuvenation needs to be repeated to continue to clear away the re-accumulated damage.

There will be regular injections of combination gene therapy treatments that clear away aging damage.

There is many billions of dollars in research to boost the t-cells of the immune system to fight cancer. There are many different kinds of cancer that are being targeted. Enhancing the immune system to fight cancer and replacing the immune system cells with rejuvenated cells will be another part of antiaging treatment.

There will injections of rejuvenated immune system cells.

If there is successful development of full human regeneration from the companies AgeX and Biotime, then the number of anti-aging injections could be reduced.

174 thoughts on “A World with Successful Reversal of Aging will first see twenty year old mice and young Stallone”

  1. REJUVENATION
    After 16 years, a person usually grows old and by the end of his life becomes frail. Why?
    The informational space diagnostics of ICD (diagtor.com.ua) has established that with aging, the number of nerve cells and all tissues, except epithelial and connective, decreases, which becomes larger. The aging process is laid down by the Creator and is carried out strictly by all living organisms. By the age of 100, the nerve cells become 14%, with a smaller number of cells a person cannot live and die.
     How to rejuvenate the body? Rejuvenation can only be realized by the Creator through the complete restoration of all nerve cells from any old age to the age of 16, when the body will contain all 100% of nerve living cells. There is one problem in the way of implementing such technology – people do not have a connection with the Creator. Only two people on Earth have a connection with the Creator, and only they can agree with the Creator on the possibility of implementing the information doctrine of the rejuvenation of the EDI, while not every person can the Creator allow rejuvenation. For violators of cosmic laws, the Creator does not allow rejuvenation and punishes such people. The process of implementing the EDI takes 29 months during which there is a gradual rejuvenation of the whole organism to the level of 16 years. A rejuvenation experiment is being successfully conducted with people of different ages from 32 to 90 years.
    Ermakov P, Professor

    Reply
  2. …but if people virtually stop dying, we would double that number within a decade.” Aside from natural reductions in birth rate that seem to be happening in many developed countries (Japan and Italy ought to be leading the charge on this research), especially with more education and opportunities for women, this only takes aging and age-related conditions off the table (including subtle things like slowing reflexes). There will still be accidents and mayhem (including wars). Continue to look before crossing the street, pay attention to the flight attendant’s emergency procedure talk, know first aid (the bleed-out you prevent may be your own) try to avoid war zones (difficult in a world of ICBMs, I know) try not to have homicidal friends/lovers, etc…

    Reply
  3. Yep, the time we live is after all, the most valuable thing in the universe for us mortals. The only thing we have, actually.

    Reply
  4. A very slow growing but big, virtually unaging and healthy population, distributed across the Solar System, making knowledge, wealth and interesting things with their very long lives. A civilization where every person is a super-expert (many decades in the making) in whatever they know and do, and hence needed and incredibly valuable monetarily and socially, is pretty much my definition of utopia. No need for interstellar travel, but such a civilization will probably produce that too.

    Reply
  5. It’s been such a relief to see someone like Church go all in on curing aging. Not that long ago it was only Aubrey de Grey trying to be heard.

    Reply
  6. I am thrilled they are getting close on this. The simple fact is industrialized societies have aging populations, and in 30 years there may not be enough of a replacement demographic to make the difference. Then alone could be disastrous. However, the simple fact is that 80 years is not enough! Most of us only become productive in our mid-thirties. We need much more time that that. I agree with MTCZ. With more time – we can plan further ahead; accomplishing amazing things! For instance, it may take someone a hundred years to crack all the aspects of a drive that could take us to another galaxy… Go Mr. Church go!!!

    Reply
  7. I would love to live forever, I could finally pay off my mortgage! lol But seriously, the downside of this is pretty obvious, we currently have over 7.5 billion people, all piled onto one rock. The Earth can sustain several billion more, but if people virtually stop dying, we would double that number within a decade. Which hopefully just means we would push out into our solar system even faster.

    Reply
  8. Nothing in the mortal world comes close to being as important as curing aging. Not politics, not religion, not money or even engineering. With time on our side, anything is possible. With time on our side we can start planning for centuries instead of a few decades, and politics can be reduced to what it really is: crowd control, instead of some magic savior.

    Reply
  9. …but if people virtually stop dying” we would double that number within a decade.””Aside from natural reductions in birth rate that seem to be happening in many developed countries (Japan and Italy ought to be leading the charge on this research)”” especially with more education and opportunities for women this only takes aging and age-related conditions off the table (including subtle things like slowing reflexes). There will still be accidents and mayhem (including wars).Continue to look before crossing the street pay attention to the flight attendant’s emergency procedure talk know first aid (the bleed-out you prevent may be your own) try to avoid war zones (difficult in a world of ICBMs I know) try not to have homicidal friends/lovers”” etc…”””

    Reply
  10. Such a strange and absurd concept it is to cure”” aging. We come up with new ways to ensure the future is hell every week!”””

    Reply
  11. A very slow growing but big virtually unaging and healthy population distributed across the Solar System making knowledge wealth and interesting things with their very long lives. A civilization where every person is a super-expert (many decades in the making) in whatever they know and do and hence needed and incredibly valuable monetarily and socially is pretty much my definition of utopia.No need for interstellar travel but such a civilization will probably produce that too.

    Reply
  12. It’s been such a relief to see someone like Church go all in on curing aging. Not that long ago it was only Aubrey de Grey trying to be heard.

    Reply
  13. I am thrilled they are getting close on this. The simple fact is industrialized societies have aging populations and in 30 years there may not be enough of a replacement demographic to make the difference. Then alone could be disastrous. However the simple fact is that 80 years is not enough! Most of us only become productive in our mid-thirties. We need much more time that that. I agree with MTCZ. With more time – we can plan further ahead; accomplishing amazing things! For instance it may take someone a hundred years to crack all the aspects of a drive that could take us to another galaxy…Go Mr. Church go!!!

    Reply
  14. I would love to live forever I could finally pay off my mortgage! lolBut seriously the downside of this is pretty obvious we currently have over 7.5 billion people all piled onto one rock. The Earth can sustain several billion more but if people virtually stop dying we would double that number within a decade. Which hopefully just means we would push out into our solar system even faster.

    Reply
  15. Nothing in the mortal world comes close to being as important as curing aging. Not politics not religion not money or even engineering.With time on our side anything is possible. With time on our side we can start planning for centuries instead of a few decades and politics can be reduced to what it really is: crowd control instead of some magic savior.

    Reply
  16. Aging being cured is no obligation on anyone to stick around. Curing aging is more humane than not, because it allows a choice where there was none. Corollary: you will choose not to go on while others will. Win win.

    Reply
  17. Aging being cured is no obligation on anyone to stick around. Curing aging is more humane than not because it allows a choice where there was none.Corollary: you will choose not to go on while others will. Win win.

    Reply
  18. The global birth rate is 18.5 births per 1000 people, or 1.85% (2016 data). At that rate, if all deaths were eliminated, it would take 38 years to double the population. For comparison, with current death rate (0.78%), it takes 66 years to double the population. If we cut the death rate in half, it would take 48 years with birth rates unchanged. But as others have mentioned, the birth rates are in decline, and a longer lifespan (especially a longer reproductive age range) would encourage further birth rate decline. More importantly, we’re gradually getting better at reducing our environmental footprint, so we’ll be able to sustain more people in the future.

    Reply
  19. As far as “super-expert” goes…I don’t think that will be a human. AI is progressing fast, a few decades from now, it will be able to out-think the best of us. Scary times, we might find the cure for age, while at the same time, AI will find the “cure” to eradicate humans.

    Reply
  20. we currently have over 7.5 billion people” all piled on…””A couple of points. The population is predicted to level off soon with normal death rates. But”” with older people staying vital their increasing knowledge and abilities would add tremendously to the wealth and technological ability of society”” which would easily enable us to take advantage of new spaces on the planet.We aren’t really “”””all piled up”””” despite congested urban areas. And cheap energy and new technology should allow us to utilize space like deserts to make comfortable accommodations. So I’m not worried about any population issues if we did”” amazingly”” defeat aging.”””

    Reply
  21. The global birth rate is 18.5 births per 1000 people or 1.85{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} (2016 data). At that rate if all deaths were eliminated it would take 38 years to double the population.For comparison with current death rate (0.78{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) it takes 66 years to double the population. If we cut the death rate in half it would take 48 years with birth rates unchanged. But as others have mentioned the birth rates are in decline and a longer lifespan (especially a longer reproductive age range) would encourage further birth rate decline. More importantly we’re gradually getting better at reducing our environmental footprint so we’ll be able to sustain more people in the future.

    Reply
  22. I get that. And that should also be the selling point for such treatments: reducing age-related illness and suffering. But then you have two scenarios: either you still get the same problems but at a later age; or you don’t. In the 1st case, you get some life extension as a side effect, but you still haven’t really solved the age-related suffering. You’ve just delayed it. In the 2nd case you basically get an indefinite lifespan. As long as your body is functioning like a 40 y/o, you’re not likely to die from age-related causes. So you end up staying alive for as long as medicine can keep you functioning like a 40 y/o. And we’re likely to only get better at it as time goes on. We might run into some sudden death mechanisms along the way, but each one we remove translates to a jump in life expectancy. So my point was that a feel-good-till-the-end-then-drop-dead scenario is unlikely.

    Reply
  23. True, but the point was feeling 40 when people are 90. If we lived longer than that cool, but my father is 94. When you see what they have to go through, it’s heart wrenching. Going to the nursing home to visit just breaks my heart seeing what is happening to people. If we can just get rid of the decrepitude that comes with aging, it’s a win. Considering that most of our national debt is tied to aging related issues, fixing this would be good for the country too.

    Reply
  24. There are natural senolytics you can buy now — tocotrienols (other forms of vitamin E) and Quercitin (from apples and onions). Both have been shown to facilitate the clearing of senile – non-dividing – cells. It is important I think to point out that while senolytics may reduce inflammation, generally make you healthier, and even potentially make you look younger … they are not likely to allow you to live longer … for that we need to do some additional tweaks. Even so, senolytics promise to increase our ‘health-span’ dramatically and that’s a really great thing. Dosing of each senolytic is important and not fully researched yet – but there are some guides on the net if you have a look around.

    Reply
  25. There are very few sudden death triggers like that, other than severe injury. If you feel like a 40 y/o, that usually means your body is functioning close to that level, which means you’re not likely to keel over anytime soon.

    Reply
  26. I don’t really care about living forever, not sure if that’s a good idea. Living to 90yrs old and looking and feeling 40yrs old before falling over dead would definitely be something worth having though.

    Reply
  27. a healthy population, distributed across the Solar System” As I said in a previous comment, I think that super cheap energy and incredible futuristic technology would allow us comfortably live in new areas on earth itself, like deserts (imagine easy desalination and near costless transport of masses of water) . So I don’t see a problem with running out of room for people, even if just on earth. Plus, yes, 100 years (or less) from now I’m sure we could branch out!!

    Reply
  28. we currently have over 7.5 billion people, all piled on…” A couple of points. The population is predicted to level off soon with normal death rates. But, with older people staying vital, their increasing knowledge and abilities would add tremendously to the wealth and technological ability of society, which would easily enable us to take advantage of new spaces on the planet. We aren’t really “all piled up” despite congested urban areas. And cheap energy and new technology should allow us to utilize space like deserts to make comfortable accommodations. So I’m not worried about any population issues if we did, amazingly, defeat aging.

    Reply
  29. I get that. And that should also be the selling point for such treatments: reducing age-related illness and suffering. But then you have two scenarios: either you still get the same problems but at a later age; or you don’t.In the 1st case you get some life extension as a side effect but you still haven’t really solved the age-related suffering. You’ve just delayed it. In the 2nd case you basically get an indefinite lifespan. As long as your body is functioning like a 40 y/o you’re not likely to die from age-related causes. So you end up staying alive for as long as medicine can keep you functioning like a 40 y/o. And we’re likely to only get better at it as time goes on.We might run into some sudden death mechanisms along the way but each one we remove translates to a jump in life expectancy. So my point was that a feel-good-till-the-end-then-drop-dead scenario is unlikely.

    Reply
  30. True but the point was feeling 40 when people are 90. If we lived longer than that cool but my father is 94. When you see what they have to go through it’s heart wrenching. Going to the nursing home to visit just breaks my heart seeing what is happening to people. If we can just get rid of the decrepitude that comes with aging it’s a win. Considering that most of our national debt is tied to aging related issues fixing this would be good for the country too.

    Reply
  31. There are natural senolytics you can buy now — tocotrienols (other forms of vitamin E) and Quercitin (from apples and onions). Both have been shown to facilitate the clearing of senile – non-dividing – cells. It is important I think to point out that while senolytics may reduce inflammation generally make you healthier and even potentially make you look younger … they are not likely to allow you to live longer … for that we need to do some additional tweaks. Even so senolytics promise to increase our ‘health-span’ dramatically and that’s a really great thing. Dosing of each senolytic is important and not fully researched yet – but there are some guides on the net if you have a look around.

    Reply
  32. There are very few sudden death triggers like that other than severe injury. If you feel like a 40 y/o that usually means your body is functioning close to that level which means you’re not likely to keel over anytime soon.

    Reply
  33. I don’t really care about living forever not sure if that’s a good idea. Living to 90yrs old and looking and feeling 40yrs old before falling over dead would definitely be something worth having though.

    Reply
  34. a healthy population” distributed across the Solar System””As I said in a previous comment”” I think that super cheap energy and incredible futuristic technology would allow us comfortably live in new areas on earth itself like deserts (imagine easy desalination and near costless transport of masses of water) . So I don’t see a problem with running out of room for people even if just on earth. Plus yes”” 100 years (or less) from now I’m sure we could branch out!!”””

    Reply
  35. In which case someone like Jstepp590 is still better off: he gets the arbitrary lifetime he wants (e.g. 90 years healthy), which was not possible beforehand. Possibly morbidly (I don’t know and don’t judge) he can then judge it a life well lived. It’s really hard to see how this new chapter in humans lives, with arbitrarily long healthspans, isn’t going to force a major worldwide reckoning in terms of human values and ideals, both day to day and thru centuries overarching.

    Reply
  36. The main obstacle is public support. Most people have faulty pro-aging ideas about the world that results from aging as-is vs. aging “cured” (for simplicity’s sake). Many people are thus mistaken in very large part because of the dread of dying. Most of the other erroneous objections to reduced aging are specious, but survive again because people would rather not go there. It’s emotionally, existentially taboo.

    Reply
  37. Just because they can live a long time doesn’t make them immortal. I you feel so strongly about a political figure that you think they should die you can always sacrifice YOUR life to stop them from doing evil. You go hero.

    Reply
  38. Those poor European peasants surely thought similarly about their unavoidable deaths from the black plague. Until we knew we could prevent that with hygiene and removal of plague carrying pests. Aging and aging related death are seen as an unavoidable things nowadays, until we have solutions and cures stopping them. Death itself seems to be unavoidable, though, if not by aging, by accidents. Given the likelihood of fatal accidents approaches 1 the more you live. But in the meantime, you can have a good run of several decades or centuries more, depending on your luck.

    Reply
  39. I concur. We won’t go to space because we have to, but because we want to. And that’s the best way it can happen. Earth evacuation plots are only good for science fiction dramas and alarmist click bait articles.

    Reply
  40. I’m not that concerned. The future is shaping towards having super-human AIs removing repetitive tasks from our shoulders, but the problem space of nearly all jobs is growing even faster than the solutions space. That is, even if we have much more automation today, the number of potential problems pending to be solved grows bigger day by day, requiring people with multiple talents and all the help from computers they can muster. Besides consciousness is not very useful as a commercial product, and it won’t be produced by accident. While we don’t have a viable/falsifiable scientific theory of consciousness, we simply won’t have truly sentient machines. Which is fine with me.

    Reply
  41. In which case someone like Jstepp590 is still better off: he gets the arbitrary lifetime he wants (e.g. 90 years healthy) which was not possible beforehand.Possibly morbidly (I don’t know and don’t judge) he can then judge it a life well lived.It’s really hard to see how this new chapter in humans lives with arbitrarily long healthspans isn’t going to force a major worldwide reckoning in terms of human values and ideals both day to day and thru centuries overarching.

    Reply
  42. The main obstacle is public support. Most people have faulty pro-aging ideas about the world that results from aging as-is vs. aging cured”” (for simplicity’s sake). Many people are thus mistaken in very large part because of the dread of dying. Most of the other erroneous objections to reduced aging are specious”” but survive again because people would rather not go there. It’s emotionally”” existentially taboo.”””

    Reply
  43. Just because they can live a long time doesn’t make them immortal. I you feel so strongly about a political figure that you think they should die you can always sacrifice YOUR life to stop them from doing evil. You go hero.

    Reply
  44. Those poor European peasants surely thought similarly about their unavoidable deaths from the black plague.Until we knew we could prevent that with hygiene and removal of plague carrying pests.Aging and aging related death are seen as an unavoidable things nowadays until we have solutions and cures stopping them.Death itself seems to be unavoidable though if not by aging by accidents. Given the likelihood of fatal accidents approaches 1 the more you live. But in the meantime you can have a good run of several decades or centuries more depending on your luck.

    Reply
  45. I concur. We won’t go to space because we have to but because we want to.And that’s the best way it can happen. Earth evacuation plots are only good for science fiction dramas and alarmist click bait articles.

    Reply
  46. I’m not that concerned. The future is shaping towards having super-human AIs removing repetitive tasks from our shoulders but the problem space of nearly all jobs is growing even faster than the solutions space.That is even if we have much more automation today the number of potential problems pending to be solved grows bigger day by day requiring people with multiple talents and all the help from computers they can muster.Besides consciousness is not very useful as a commercial product and it won’t be produced by accident. While we don’t have a viable/falsifiable scientific theory of consciousness we simply won’t have truly sentient machines. Which is fine with me.

    Reply
  47. More realistically it will mean someone can bide their time to get out from under that dictator, whether escaping themselves or waiting for the dictator to be removed. If today the populations oppressed by dictatorships are considered an aberration worth intervention, what will the weight of that same moral obligation be when everyone of those oppressed people are not merely 1 century but potentially being robbed of hundreds or thousands of years of liberty and happiness (to pick one prevalent metric)? It also means that people can take their time to sample and contribute to a sort of Cambrian explosion of social organisations. 100 years or even 50 years per experiment is impossible today but much more feasible with a few billion or a few tens of billions of people who may on average live the better part of a thousand years, and who lived in a sort of buyer’s market in terms of government.

    Reply
  48. More realistically it will mean someone can bide their time to get out from under that dictator whether escaping themselves or waiting for the dictator to be removed. If today the populations oppressed by dictatorships are considered an aberration worth intervention what will the weight of that same moral obligation be when everyone of those oppressed people are not merely 1 century but potentially being robbed of hundreds or thousands of years of liberty and happiness (to pick one prevalent metric)?It also means that people can take their time to sample and contribute to a sort of Cambrian explosion of social organisations. 100 years or even 50 years per experiment is impossible today but much more feasible with a few billion or a few tens of billions of people who may on average live the better part of a thousand years and who lived in a sort of buyer’s market in terms of government.

    Reply
  49. My cure is from nature amazingly. I just did a some what quick video about how my death and being revived brought me to find the causes and a cure for aging. You can examine my group page and video {on the book of faces} at “The Evolution of Science and Technological Life extension” on again the book of faces.. Respect AEWR

    Reply
  50. I don’t have enough time for a thought out reply (more work than time).

    I would off the top of my head point at the inhumaneness of condemning so many people to die for the sake of a foolish and archaic status quo. There should be a sort of Manhattan project to free people from this unnecessary and massive burden, even if it means an interim period preparing society for the inevitable changes it’ll have to adopt.
    Closely related – doubling or tripling govt HSF budget to give people some breathing room and channel their newfound (healthy) lifespans towards their inevitable destiny. Outer space settlement done right – accommodating gravity and everything else than humans want as their biosphere (incl editing ourselves to better conform to space’s gravity, radiation etc – though I think that’s a different argument for now).

    Reply
  51. “The scarcity of matter and space and energy [as] used by economic actors friendly and unfriendly” = one of the specific dynamics that anti-aging deprecates.

    If (simplifying for arguments sake) you have your Mr Fusion, Drexler, and anti-aging treatments is in the Drexler’s catalogue, then you can basically build your spaceship and leave to whatever greener pastures you wish. Society’s iron grasp of scarcity, and consequent bondage of economic labor, evaporates.

    Reply
  52. I am articulating how the argument fails no matter who or what you choose as boogie man, how it’s fallacious across the entire spectrum.
    The vote with your feet bit is further down the road of democracy: in the future you could have states competing for citizens. Just like nowadays at a smaller scale, many people can choose their neighbors.

    Reply
  53. Reagan and Nixon, even if you don’t like them, were out of power long before they died. Them still being alive today would have zero effect on the public at large.

    That is why there is this whole democracy thing, remember?

    Why mention them? It isn’t as though we can’t find people who WERE brutal threats up until the day they died of old age.

    Reply
  54. Actually it’s often easier to get around my town by bike than car. Especially during the busy times.
    If anything, it’s PARKING that is more troublesome with a bike. Not because I can’t find a spot (that is usually easier with a bike) but because a locked car is a fairly secure steel box while a locked bike is still very vulnerable.

    Reply
  55. The world then is not the world with negligible/arbitrary aging. Nixon and Reagan you could simply vote with your feet. Franco and Stalin you would probably be able to as well, today. More so in a future where people live at least twice as long.

    Aging is part of the power that dictators have over people. The scarcity of time. Much like the scarcity of matter and space and energy is used by those dictators and by economic actors (friendly or unfriendly).

    Reply
  56. Some of those free health interventions are made easier or harder by the way civilization is arranged. Eg: making it easier to get around town by walking or biking rather than car would increase the amount of exercise people get.

    Reply
  57. Alan Harrington discussed this decades ago in his book, “The Immortalist”. The problem is that hope and fear are linked. Accept that something might be done about aging, that it doesn’t have to be inevitable, and you have to THINK about aging, and fact the fear that it might not get done in time for you. Whereas if you deny it’s possible, then you don’t have to worry about the disappointment of it failing.

    Can’t lose the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket.

    It really annoys me: All this research, probably coming in time for my son, but likely not for me. If I hadn’t gotten over my fear of dying while undergoing chemo, (Nothing like an onrushing train of death being derailed at the last instant to get you to confront and overcome your fear of death.) I might avoid the whole topic.

    Reply
  58. If you are left feeling 40 at the age of 90, that’s one thing.
    But if you are left feeling 16 at the age of 90, but now you have the ability to buy a turbo porsche, you can afford to spend all day snow boarding or parasailing. You no longer have parents or teachers to control your 16-year-old-hormone-addled-behaviour…
    Well sudden death rates might turn out to kill us fairly quickly after all. Dead at 127 in a tragic drunken mountain e-biking accident.

    Reply
  59. Is public support really necessary at this stage? Sufficient private support is all you need for R&D.

    Think of it this way: If I discover a rejuvenation treatment tomorrow (not likely, but here’s hoping) then I would make a few 10s of billions selling it to make women look younger before they start to notice that actually, it has made them younger in all sorts of ways. At that point any attempt to ban it would have to deal with the fact that every wealthy woman over the age of 45 will already be a deliriously happy customer.

    Reply
  60. You are being too generous with your blaming the need for a profit on why fasting isn’t sufficient and we need a pill.
    The fact is that there are heaps of health interventions that can be done for free: exercise more, sleep more, eat better and (often) less, don’t smoke, don’t slut around without layers of rubber on you, wash your hands, don’t inject heroin, brush your teeth, never read Twitter, etc. etc.
    And the medical establishment regularly tells everyone this. All the time. There are posters, there are TV ads. They tell kids in school.
    And some proportion of the population follow the advice.
    And a huge proportion of the population ignore some or all of the advice. And then they develop predictable health issues. And it turns out we aren’t going to just abandon them on an ice floe, so then society as a whole now has to deal with these problems.

    And the sort of thing that we can actually get just about everyone to follow is popping a pill or having an injection. (Not everyone, because there’s some people who would stick their hand in a mincing machine if they could get a selfie doing it.)

    So it turns out that yes, you do need a pill to replicate the effect of not eating a pizza every day, or to replicate the effect of doing 30 minutes exercise. Because 50% of the population will only take the pill.

    Reply
  61. It is seeing things in a vacuum. Things would not merely be longer lives, but a world of people thinking hundreds of years ahead instead of a few decades. Hundreds of years past a near future that already will look very different because of accelerating technology.

    And so on.

    Mussolini and co are products of miserably extreme levels of scarcity. Material, cultural, etc.

    Reply
  62. Any value to current human life would be multiplied or many orders of magnitude larger if people weren’t merely 100 years of wisdom and economic power at best, but hundreds or thousands.

    Reply
  63. That is true. The future could hold some weird unforeseen circumstances where such a dictator managed it though, even if for a time. There’s already a lot of that going on – advanced countries allowing genocides and whatnot.

    Reply
  64. Knew the end of that sentence before halfway. Nature is not the anti-destroyer. Look outside of the Earth’s biosphere and skip to black holes and hypernovas.

    Unless the OP was really full-on mystical?

    Reply
  65. You don’t have to see Saddam, you can see Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Reagan or JFK.

    Of the 5, only Reagan died of old age, he was out of power for years by then, and he is only scary to left wing crazies anyway.

    Reply
  66. I’m going to guess that cold hard numbers add up to the US Military spending an ABSOLUTE fortune training each dog. So that’s some real return right there.
    Plus, dogs are good.

    Reply
  67. True, it is logically impossible to say that the internet, plastics, transgender furry anime and other man-made things are not “natural” unless you don’t believe that humans are a naturally evolved species.

    And for anthropic’s benefit, I’ll even note that “evolved” doesn’t have to mean “evolved by means of natural selection through survival of the fittest”.

    The problem of course is people who have the equation {natural = good} lurking in their heads. To whom I advise cuddling a king cobra and then get back to us.

    Reply
  68. Fasting…honest fasting…water only, has been claimed to clear senescent cells. The health benefits are not disputed whether that’s borne out or not. The problem is the difficulty in monetizing simply not eating for a few days. So the emphasis is on the development of the magic pill. That may or may not be here soon, nor be effective. Meantime there’s plenty you can do…Duh! Need we repeat? Exercise, diet, sleep, attitude and luck are what your best bet is until proven “Senolytics” come along, hopefully soon! Tick Tock!

    Reply
  69. More realistically it will mean someone can bide their time to get out from under that dictator, whether escaping themselves or waiting for the dictator to be removed.

    If today the populations oppressed by dictatorships are considered an aberration worth intervention, what will the weight of that same moral obligation be when everyone of those oppressed people are not merely 1 century but potentially being robbed of hundreds or thousands of years of liberty and happiness (to pick one prevalent metric)?

    It also means that people can take their time to sample and contribute to a sort of Cambrian explosion of social organisations. 100 years or even 50 years per experiment is impossible today but much more feasible with a few billion or a few tens of billions of people who may on average live the better part of a thousand years, and who lived in a sort of buyer’s market in terms of government.

    Reply
  70. In which case someone like Jstepp590 is still better off: he gets the arbitrary lifetime he wants (e.g. 90 years healthy), which was not possible beforehand.

    Possibly morbidly (I don’t know and don’t judge) he can then judge it a life well lived.

    It’s really hard to see how this new chapter in humans lives, with arbitrarily long healthspans, isn’t going to force a major worldwide reckoning in terms of human values and ideals, both day to day and thru centuries overarching.

    Reply
  71. The main obstacle is public support.

    Most people have faulty pro-aging ideas about the world that results from aging as-is vs. aging “cured” (for simplicity’s sake). Many people are thus mistaken in very large part because of the dread of dying. Most of the other erroneous objections to reduced aging are specious, but survive again because people would rather not go there.

    It’s emotionally, existentially taboo.

    Reply
  72. Just because they can live a long time doesn’t make them immortal. I you feel so strongly about a political figure that you think they should die you can always sacrifice YOUR life to stop them from doing evil. You go hero.

    Reply
  73. Those poor European peasants surely thought similarly about their unavoidable deaths from the black plague.

    Until we knew we could prevent that with hygiene and removal of plague carrying pests.

    Aging and aging related death are seen as an unavoidable things nowadays, until we have solutions and cures stopping them.

    Death itself seems to be unavoidable, though, if not by aging, by accidents. Given the likelihood of fatal accidents approaches 1 the more you live. But in the meantime, you can have a good run of several decades or centuries more, depending on your luck.

    Reply
  74. I concur. We won’t go to space because we have to, but because we want to.

    And that’s the best way it can happen. Earth evacuation plots are only good for science fiction dramas and alarmist click bait articles.

    Reply
  75. I’m not that concerned. The future is shaping towards having super-human AIs removing repetitive tasks from our shoulders, but the problem space of nearly all jobs is growing even faster than the solutions space.

    That is, even if we have much more automation today, the number of potential problems pending to be solved grows bigger day by day, requiring people with multiple talents and all the help from computers they can muster.

    Besides consciousness is not very useful as a commercial product, and it won’t be produced by accident. While we don’t have a viable/falsifiable scientific theory of consciousness, we simply won’t have truly sentient machines. Which is fine with me.

    Reply
  76. I get that. And that should also be the selling point for such treatments: reducing age-related illness and suffering. But then you have two scenarios: either you still get the same problems but at a later age; or you don’t.

    In the 1st case, you get some life extension as a side effect, but you still haven’t really solved the age-related suffering. You’ve just delayed it. In the 2nd case you basically get an indefinite lifespan. As long as your body is functioning like a 40 y/o, you’re not likely to die from age-related causes. So you end up staying alive for as long as medicine can keep you functioning like a 40 y/o. And we’re likely to only get better at it as time goes on.

    We might run into some sudden death mechanisms along the way, but each one we remove translates to a jump in life expectancy. So my point was that a feel-good-till-the-end-then-drop-dead scenario is unlikely.

    Reply
  77. True, but the point was feeling 40 when people are 90. If we lived longer than that cool, but my father is 94. When you see what they have to go through, it’s heart wrenching. Going to the nursing home to visit just breaks my heart seeing what is happening to people.

    If we can just get rid of the decrepitude that comes with aging, it’s a win. Considering that most of our national debt is tied to aging related issues, fixing this would be good for the country too.

    Reply
  78. There are natural senolytics you can buy now — tocotrienols (other forms of vitamin E) and Quercitin (from apples and onions). Both have been shown to facilitate the clearing of senile – non-dividing – cells. It is important I think to point out that while senolytics may reduce inflammation, generally make you healthier, and even potentially make you look younger … they are not likely to allow you to live longer … for that we need to do some additional tweaks. Even so, senolytics promise to increase our ‘health-span’ dramatically and that’s a really great thing. Dosing of each senolytic is important and not fully researched yet – but there are some guides on the net if you have a look around.

    Reply
  79. There are very few sudden death triggers like that, other than severe injury. If you feel like a 40 y/o, that usually means your body is functioning close to that level, which means you’re not likely to keel over anytime soon.

    Reply
  80. I don’t really care about living forever, not sure if that’s a good idea. Living to 90yrs old and looking and feeling 40yrs old before falling over dead would definitely be something worth having though.

    Reply
  81. “a healthy population, distributed across the Solar System”

    As I said in a previous comment, I think that super cheap energy and incredible futuristic technology would allow us comfortably live in new areas on earth itself, like deserts (imagine easy desalination and near costless transport of masses of water) . So I don’t see a problem with running out of room for people, even if just on earth. Plus, yes, 100 years (or less) from now I’m sure we could branch out!!

    Reply
  82. “we currently have over 7.5 billion people, all piled on…”

    A couple of points. The population is predicted to level off soon with normal death rates. But, with older people staying vital, their increasing knowledge and abilities would add tremendously to the wealth and technological ability of society, which would easily enable us to take advantage of new spaces on the planet.

    We aren’t really “all piled up” despite congested urban areas. And cheap energy and new technology should allow us to utilize space like deserts to make comfortable accommodations. So I’m not worried about any population issues if we did, amazingly, defeat aging.

    Reply
  83. The global birth rate is 18.5 births per 1000 people, or 1.85% (2016 data). At that rate, if all deaths were eliminated, it would take 38 years to double the population.

    For comparison, with current death rate (0.78%), it takes 66 years to double the population. If we cut the death rate in half, it would take 48 years with birth rates unchanged. But as others have mentioned, the birth rates are in decline, and a longer lifespan (especially a longer reproductive age range) would encourage further birth rate decline. More importantly, we’re gradually getting better at reducing our environmental footprint, so we’ll be able to sustain more people in the future.

    Reply
  84. As far as “super-expert” goes…I don’t think that will be a human. AI is progressing fast, a few decades from now, it will be able to out-think the best of us.
    Scary times, we might find the cure for age, while at the same time, AI will find the “cure” to eradicate humans.

    Reply
  85. Aging being cured is no obligation on anyone to stick around. Curing aging is more humane than not, because it allows a choice where there was none.

    Corollary: you will choose not to go on while others will. Win win.

    Reply
  86. “…but if people virtually stop dying, we would double that number within a decade.”

    Aside from natural reductions in birth rate that seem to be happening in many developed countries (Japan and Italy ought to be leading the charge on this research), especially with more education and opportunities for women, this only takes aging and age-related conditions off the table (including subtle things like slowing reflexes). There will still be accidents and mayhem (including wars).

    Continue to look before crossing the street, pay attention to the flight attendant’s emergency procedure talk, know first aid (the bleed-out you prevent may be your own) try to avoid war zones (difficult in a world of ICBMs, I know) try not to have homicidal friends/lovers, etc…

    Reply
  87. A very slow growing but big, virtually unaging and healthy population, distributed across the Solar System, making knowledge, wealth and interesting things with their very long lives. A civilization where every person is a super-expert (many decades in the making) in whatever they know and do, and hence needed and incredibly valuable monetarily and socially, is pretty much my definition of utopia.

    No need for interstellar travel, but such a civilization will probably produce that too.

    Reply
  88. It’s been such a relief to see someone like Church go all in on curing aging. Not that long ago it was only Aubrey de Grey trying to be heard.

    Reply
  89. I am thrilled they are getting close on this. The simple fact is industrialized societies have aging populations, and in 30 years there may not be enough of a replacement demographic to make the difference. Then alone could be disastrous. However, the simple fact is that 80 years is not enough! Most of us only become productive in our mid-thirties. We need much more time that that. I agree with MTCZ. With more time – we can plan further ahead; accomplishing amazing things! For instance, it may take someone a hundred years to crack all the aspects of a drive that could take us to another galaxy…
    Go Mr. Church go!!!

    Reply
  90. I would love to live forever, I could finally pay off my mortgage! lol
    But seriously, the downside of this is pretty obvious, we currently have over 7.5 billion people, all piled onto one rock. The Earth can sustain several billion more, but if people virtually stop dying, we would double that number within a decade. Which hopefully just means we would push out into our solar system even faster.

    Reply
  91. Nothing in the mortal world comes close to being as important as curing aging. Not politics, not religion, not money or even engineering.

    With time on our side, anything is possible. With time on our side we can start planning for centuries instead of a few decades, and politics can be reduced to what it really is: crowd control, instead of some magic savior.

    Reply

Leave a Comment