How the World Defeats Aging by 2035 – Aubrey de Grey Interview

90 thoughts on “How the World Defeats Aging by 2035 – Aubrey de Grey Interview”

1. Exactly my man. Very well put – pretty much what I've thought although I do indulge in a bit of gaming myself. This is a human right to make sure anti aging is available soon. Much more important than the latest console or space tech.

2. Yes, you do have to start rolling it over. Nothing stops you from rolling it over into non-'retirement' instruments, though, perhaps even tax sheltered ones. But the law that permitted the tax deferral does require that the money start being disbursed. Starting at age 70.5 or 72, depending on your birthday.

   If you don't disburse on schedule, the penalties are pretty severe, like 50% of the money you should have disbursed.

3. The 'voice of aging' is a complete idiot who's entirely off the mark with regards to how to stop it. The aforementioned 7 factors are irrelevant to the problem, though research may (or may not) benefit those already suffering from an advanced age. I expect that with sufficient funding and willing talent, aging to be resolved within the next decade. Of course, it would require a team lead by the smartest humans on the planet: Californian Coastal Elites!

4. "Overpopulation isn't just about food."

   Who said it is? Certainly not me.

   Again, 100,000 deaths a day from aging. Have you got anything worse than that? That's the bar you need to clear. If you can't, what are you even talking about?

5. A major problem of aging that we mostly overlook is how much education and experience is retiring and dying all the time. As I near retirement, I know for a fact that I am worth (as a worker) at least five times what I was worth fresh out of college.

   But if I had another 50 or 100 years likely, then I probably wouldn't be retiring. If my body was still young, it might never even occur to me to do more than take an extended leave of absence every so often.

   Consider, even most rich people work. They don't have to, but they do. The primary difference is they work at what they want to work at, and on their own terms.

6. Ya, assuming that the little operating system we call our minds is up to going into centuries of extended overtime, and people don't suffer from final ennui and start practicing terminal thrill-seeking, then the likely half-life of a human population would still only be somewhere between 400 and 1000, depending on how many sources of accidental death we can lower and by how much.

   Eventually, you will just find yourself standing under a meteor, passing by a surprise super-volcano, or annoying a psychopath.

7. The fact that a man named Aubrey de Grey is working on anti-aging therapies proves that we are living in a simulation. Don't worry folks. We are all computer programs, and Jesus saves…often.

8. Overpopulation isn't just about food. An experiment with rats was done where they were given all the food they needed but the rats decayed into rampant disfunctional behavior. You don't need to invent robotic cars if you don't have cities above half a million people. You don't need to build desalination plants if you don't increase to that limit. Is this rational thinking to continually stress yourself to a limit and beyond having nothing but faith that it's all going to work out peachy keen? Everything has a limit beyond which it starts to break down. No one says lets crowd 50 people onto an elevator because there is enough room to do so. What is the harm in backing off to 1 billion instead of 10? Would that be a horrible fate? Would there be too much open wilderness for you to handle? We are heading to 10 billion with no relief for over a century due to population inertia. We are currently already paying a price in species loss. Future generations are going to have to suffer this crowded morass because the people before them were unconcerned and didn't care.

9. Has anyone thought of overpopulation? What do you think? 🙂

   Of course they have. This work has been ongoing for decades. Literally everybody asks about overpopulation. It is usually the very first thing they ask.

   So, here's the answer to this very common question:

   Firstly, overpopulation is not the problem you think it is. The world isn't overpopulated and it's not about to be. In regions that appear to be overpopulated the real issue is mismanagement and misallocation of resources; not raw numbers.

   However, even if overpopulation were a realistic concern, worrying about it right now would still be a mistake. Approximately 100,000 thousand people die of age related disease every single day, and many more suffer with chronic health problems. The only reason we don't treat that like an absolute emergency is because we're used to it. If literally any other cause had such a devastating impact upon our civilization we'd be throwing absolutely everything we had at it: it would be akin to a world war (or a global pandemic, for that matter). It's okay to think about consequences of reversing aging, but you have to remember to maintain a sense of proportion. Is overpopulation going to kill more than 100,000 people a day? Unlikely. So let's get to work.

   We need to solve this problem urgently, then we can deal with the consequences. If overpopulation does occur, we'll handle it. But don't worry, because it won't; certainly not for hundreds of years.

   And yes, we'll regrow teeth.

10. You can always try senolytics.

11. This is probably the wrong website to ask the question but here goes. Let's assume something like Greg Fahy's results pan out; you reverse 1.5 years of ageing for every year you take his treatments (his results). What if you decide to not retire at say 68-70.5 years old? At 70.5 years (think it is actually 72 as of January '21) old my understanding is under current law you have to start mandatory distribution of your 401K; "rolling it over" to pay your deferred taxes. My question is if you elect to not retire do you still have to start rolling it over? What if "rejuvenated" you decides to continue to work an accumulate more into your 401K? Do you still have to begin rolling it over? After all you might decide if your health/energy is holding up that it makes more sense to keep accumulating wealth so you can afford the 2nd generation epigenetic reprogramming tech that might be available (but expensive) after say 2035.

12. I've been taking metformin for anti-aging benefits for 6 years now. But I have developed arthritis in my knees, hands and feet over this time. Brian, Aubrey de Gray – what's the intervention approach for arthritis? Will mesenchymal stem cells be the solution?

13. The actual protocol is hard to pull off, because HGH is legally locked down, no off label uses are legal. So I'd have to do it with HGH release stimulators. All I really need is a metaformin prescription, which I could probably swing given my 'pre-diabetic' blood sugar. (A1C is fine, though.)

14. From an interview with the guy who developed it:

    "He does not offer his service to anyone else — and people have asked — for the reason that, from a medical perspective, it’s effectively useless. There is not much value in knowing you only have 10 years (or five years, or six months) to live, because “clinicians only order tests if they have a treatment strategy.”"

    Well, that's fairly stupid. Like the only thing it was useful for was treatment plans, nobody wants to know if they should blow their retirement on some nice vacations, or should live cheaply because it's going to last decades.

15. What a coincidence I turn 62 this year. He (Fahy) suggested somewhere that it would be more like 5 years give or take before we know whether it works for sure or not. The first TRIIM experimental study only used 9 volunteers the 2nd phase TRIIM-X https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04375657 currently active is using a larger (85 participants) more diverse group. The key as you alluded to would be finding a health care professional in your area willing to administer the protocol. Even a modest success in any area of life extension/age reversal might be enough to trigger the "Manhattan Project" sized funding effort to get us to Actuarial escape velocity by 2035 that Aubrey de Grey alludes to.

16. Very exciting stuff. HGH, metaformin, and DHEA.

    DHEA, of course, is available as a supplement. HGH and metaformin are prescription, but you can get supplements that will stimulate HGH production.

    That just leaves the metaformin part of the protocol. That needs a prescription. But not a hard to get one, if you've got marginally high blood sugar, like me.

    Back in 2019 I was looking for a life extension doctor in the area who would help me try to replicate that protocol. But Covid kind of got in the way of that. Right now I'm relying on a nurse practitioner, my family doctor retired. Might be time to resume that search.

    Of course, Fahey says, "don't try this at home!". Well, that's great if you're in your 40's, and can wait 10-15 years for the treatment to become available.

    I'm 62, right in the age range when immune collapse begins. And, there's a reason he qualified his, 'don't try this at home' with 'for people who are ridiculously young'. The risk benefit considerations shift considerable when 10-15 years might be your whole remaining lifetime.

17. You should look into having your GrimAge DNA methylation clock measured; if you can find a good source for such testing. Would give you an idea how you are doing as far as reversing ageing. Also what to you think of Greg Fahy's Thymus Regeneration results? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pwkYCPuUvY

18. Alan Harrington (Died just too soon to see the effort to 'hunt down death like a dog" begin.) had it right: The problem is that people can't get behind the fight for immortality, because that requires thinking about the fact that they're going to die. And it's much more comfortable to just ignore that until it's staring you in the face in old age.

    Particularly because the hunt will take long enough that the people who start it will likely never live to see it finished.

    Only a small minority are capable of bringing themselves to engage this topic. We'll have to do it ourselves, the general public won't help until the fight is nearly done, and the promise overcomes the fear.

    Myself, I lost what fear of death I had during chemotherapy for a deadly cancer, a decade ago. That doesn't mean I don't want life extension, there are a lot of things I'd like to do yet. But I'd support this venture even if I knew for an absolute fact it would never benefit me, just to free my son of this terror.

19. Sure, we've considered it. So Canada and Siberia become the breadbaskets of the world, how horrible.

    The problem with books like that is that they just assume everybody goes on doing exactly the same thing, growing the same crops in the same places, as conditions change. People drown as the sea level changes, instead of moving as the coast moves. So the only admissible solution is to make sure conditions don't change.

20. Give me several hundred years, I'll save up and emigrate to Mars, or maybe help colonize Ceres. Problem solved!

21. I'm currently using Quercetin, 5g once a month. (Couldn't get any Dasatinib.) I had a troubling spot on my hand, the skin was so thin it was like tissue. The first couple of doses, it became inflamed, and then healed to be more like normal skin. The last dose, I really didn't notice anything, so the Quercetin may have taken out all the senescent cells that were vulnerable to it.

    I may try Fisetin next. Maybe in conjunction with the Quercetin?

    The problem with these flavonoid supplements is that absorption is really, really poor. You practically have to take enough to risk intestinal blockage to get a decent amount into your bloodstream. I take mine as pancakes, with a good deal of butter in the batter, since both fats and carbohydrates are supposed to aid absorption.

    I wonder if you could increase the half-life in the blood (Only a couple hours!) by consuming something at the same time that competed with the enzymes that aid in eliminating it? Worth looking into.

    Monday I start my periodic fasting.

22. Sure, sure, we've all read Malthus. Spherical ball of people expanding at the speed of light, yada yada.

    Meanwhile every developed country in the world would have rapidly declining populations were it not for immigration from the undeveloped nations. Which are starting to develop. Meanwhile, nobody starves anywhere except as part of a genocide disguised as famine, because we actually solved hunger decades ago, except where it's deliberate.

    You're preaching the need to avoid dying of thirst to people drowning in Lake Superior. The threat of global warming to people dying of exposure in the winter.

    You're obsessed with yesterday's problem.

23. "Do you go door to door trying to engage people in talk about O'Neill, like some bizarro version of a Jehovah's Witness?" – probably.

24. "when we're closer to it being technologically feasible." That was 1977. The proposal was to land a small robot that would scoop a small amount of equatorial rego and see if O2 could be extracted and captured. Glass and metal containing slag would perhaps also be separated. As you know, altho I rarely mention it, getting O2 is very nearly as good as getting water. There would then have been check the poles idea while we are there. Starting O'Neill IS O'Neill. Start now, unless you have a time machine. I'm so sick of Mars I could puke. The question now is whether the lunar base will be in Halo orbit or on the lunar surface. To most, the idea of a base in orbit makes no sense. See the problem I face, O'Neill not even considered.

25. Basically, yes, for over 40 years. But more like coffee shop or, lately, sitting in the yard and talking to distant people. I have a flyer with my SSI id # printed on it that I made as a printer in the early 80s. One side is an O'Neill ad, the blue line print looking drawing, and the other is an excerpt from the charter of the SSI, something like "we look forward to a time when the free choice of individuals rather than the dictates of gov will decide . . . " Did meet a new neighbor, already well versed on O'Neill, AI grad student. Complains about Kerbal shutting out O'Neill and how people are doing orbital stuff anyway. But see geoengineering/cooling reports, nothing to do in/from Space? 2100 pop projections, all on Earth still? Global weirding discussions (now starting to be in the military space solar, but even then, launched). Which best represents Galileo: "The Earth goes around the Sun" or "The Earth moves in Space"?

26. Agree.

27. As long as the people have only 2 children each (on average), it will be linear growth, not exponential. If it is less than 2 each, it will be a decreasing rate of growth. And if they have their 2 children at advanced ages (because why rush into it when you have centuries) then it would take awhile for even these low rates of growth to manifest.

28. I agree not literally forever but as far as population growth goes, long enough to create long term problems. When Brian talks about producing 20 times more food any non-zero exponential growth is going to eat that all up. And if you're going to live for centuries you better have a better strategy than assuming there is always going to be a gas station another 20 miles down the road because the last three times we did.

29. "It is absolutely the government's job to do this"

    It's a job for the private sector, there will be no "massive crash program". The private sector are almost universally working on short term projects that can be brought to market in the near term.

30. Honestly, no, I do not recall agreeing to do that. But, no, no mention.

    Expect more mention when we're closer to it being technologically feasible. But doubtless never as much mention as you'd like.

    Do you go door to door trying to engage people in talk about O'Neill, like some bizarro version of a Jehovah's Witness?

31. How are people going to live forever? Something's going to get you eventually, even if aging and disease were completely abolished

    Probability of death hits a minimum at about 10 years of age, at about 0.0001 chance of dying per year. If we all maintained that, the average person would live 'only' 7,000 years, not "forever". But 10 year olds are pretty protected, so say we went with the mid twenties probability, 0.002. 350 years. Definitely not forever.

32. It is absolutely the government's job to do this, we are already seeing the result of the private sectors participation in Operation Warp Speed, they are now looking forward to jacking up prices as soon as this is considered endemic instead of pandemic! Whenever capitalism is involved the people will pay more in the end! Considering that healthcare costs would plummet if life/health extension were used instead of our current pay or die system, Medicare for All would be the best approach.

33. Actually, I think that was spot on parody, not sarcasm.

34. Does anyone think of inevitable consequences? If people live forever then at some point population growth will have to become zero and it will become illegal to have children otherwise overpopulation will occur. Neither the Earth nor the observable universe will escape the inevitable consumptive reality of any non-zero population growth rate. I can't even imagine the political problems of an ever growing old population that will use its numbers to overwhelm the political/societal beliefs of the younger. They better be able to regrow teeth that's for sure!

35. I am a pathologist. My take-
    Cells make up probably 75-85% of the pathologic process of aging. A lot of it is stroma, which has already been laid down by the previously turned over cell population and needs to be replaced due to chronic damage.
    Solar elastosis of the papillary and reticular dermis secondary to chronic UV damage is one such example. Arteriosclerosis from chronic hypertension is another. Not entirely a cell problem but can be from hylanizing membranes that stiffen the vessels, worsen the hypertension and may cause downstream effects (eg, infarction).

36. (I'm not convinced it's a good idea)

    You would have standardized containers. Akin to comparing a moving truck's contents vs. a house furnished with everything from that truck one year later with everything lived in/on etc.

37. Might work for something like the liver, but let's just say I don't envy the surgeon who'd have to implant that, nor the patient who'll have to recover from that.

38. Yeah, but can the other generations put up with us Boomers for several hundred more years?

39. The benefits of healthy living can be felt within weeks.

40. that being said: a big AGI program is to create first fuly independent 'Clinic Researcher' – able to review, experiment, observe, and start to rudminetarily discuss. This is the breakthrough in AGI.

41. agreed. front line staff need to promote and inform.

42. there are medical programs with engineering options – most likely one would collaborate

43. agreed. but it is in the interface to humanity in which lies the Value. Does AGI simply toil for us or makes it own decisions? More like Iain Banks AI ships – creatures who seek their own path.

44. woah. woah. woah. "…retirement pleasuring upgrades…" that wasn't in the Brochure.
    Also, ageing lifestyles? if you are living to 120 – are you working 25 – 105? – methinks not. You are working 45 – 85 and coasting on extended family basement privileges and possible family legacies -of the not -so lucky-. I don't see huge productivity boosts just buffer time — with all the huge extra humanity 'holding' costs. Not a 'best for humanity' no-brainer as many would think.

45. I am also believer in AGI. I believe in theory that intelligence arises from complexity, and that, bigger those GPT-3 like systems will get, more intelligence will "emerge"
    Some experts say that net with around 10-100 trillion parameters could be as intelligent as average human. We are now at around 200B(GPT-3)
    Can't wait for GPT4(should be released this year) to see if this theory is really the case. If it will become order of magnitude better than GPT-3 and make it look like a joke, then there's hope that we will have AGI soon. And quickly after that ASI/Singularity, which should speed up things (including solving aging) 1000's to billion fold in near future.

46. G7 countries will do fine.

47. Yeah. Except the solution probably costs more than all those other 'break-through' technologies combined with probably 1/10 the initial public interest -and- what is the exact path? keep fixing the existing Human 1.0 by taking it into the shop for hours of work every week and $10,000s to touch-up the latest deteriorated organ, circulatory run, or skeletal flaw (aka bladerunner back-alley clinics)???; or are we doing total tear-down with upgraded organs at 20+ years out???; or are we talking brain upload because-hey the wet-works and sensors are sooo…20,000 years ago – likely 30-50+ years in the future???. And who gets what when? The socio-cultural roll-out of human upgrades/ fixes against all the religio-NIMBY(not on my Body-yo)-cultural cromagnons of the mid-2000s. Not a chance dude. Its the super-healthy 1% being attended to at the mayo-clinic professional exec program at $10k per visit-year with slight nudges toward 110ish with slight retirement pleasuring upgrades. Its top 1% with 20 year upgrades until 2100 – the near-immortal 'flight path through regular upgrades' passenger list haven't even been born yet. The key issue: do we leave it to public-supported companies to roll-this-out or do we privatize and hush-it-up under NDAs, etc., so that we can actually get the first clinical trials of multiple therapies before 2035?

48. Ah yes, Musk comes to mind also. He is wrong about Mars, I am right about O'Neill (that is his name). So, I will of course be rejected. It is the way of the World, historically. In fact, you do not have to go far back in the Galileo/O'Neill lineage of the idea to find just such an example. We all know the Earth is the center of the Universe. Or, do we?

49. Think gadfly, if you get the reference.

50. Good point, you only live once!

51. Huge shortage in a artificial organ upgrade/ replacement/ design/ install — academic, professional, industrial — not even sure what it is called, maybe: bio-mechatronics. Not even sure on the ideal country/ school – wave of the future… if you have a physics background with some bio .. this is it.

52. If you're dead you've stopped aging… lol.

53. They, and I, or perhaps only Brian and I, are discussing population problems, not just extra population due to life extension, which are minimal it turns out. If there were no background population problem, the LE addition would never come up. The *small world* outlook that saturates all media is false. I'm the guy at the construction site who keeps pointing out that the building is being put in the wrong place! An absolutely overpowering consideration. Then, everybody continues building as if there is no problem.

54. Cosmetic surgery is very litigative. Lots of drama. Wouldn't do it for anything.
    Better to be Family Doctor who refers people to Geronotlogy specialists.. but hey.. Family Doctors are front-line.. if you want to promote pro-active anti-aging intervention… these are the folks to push your pharma and therapies… if HMOs are still a thing in your area… start networking with them…

55. All those grandiose plans for colonizing Mars, building futuristic cars, hyperloops, futuristic gadgets, lifelike VR, even figuring out interstellar travel.. all those you can say are… irrelevant, meaningless, for mortal beings. These are just temporary entertainments for humanity as a whole and a bunch of us here, reading about them, debating, agreeing/disagreeing.

    There is basically one, ultimate problem which is worth solving ASAP, most important of them all – CURING/REVERSING AGING. And importantly, our tech/science is advanced enough that I think, it's within our capabilities to solve it during the next 10-30 years.

    We need to accelerate this field 100 fold, increase investment, popularize fact that aging is worst disease in existence, disease that killed all our ancestors

    Until we won't be living indefinitely, then there is no point of having all those. If we won't be able to experience this exciting advanced future and just disappear(die) after 80-100 or even 150 years, it's all pointless and irrelevant

56. Random idea- replace wholesale or in large part the general layout of organs with many smaller specialized organs for each part of our natural organs' many/complex functions.

57. its 20+ years out. I'm sure many have other issues on their mind.

58. understood. The world is littered with Grad labs that replicate work of others and do not collaborate well so as to protect their 'intellectual stake'. Some kind of consolidation and united vision(ary) is needed.

59. when the anti-ageing conferences and speaker circuits open up, a lot of attention, cash, and exchange of ideas happens—

60. seems easy enough to just loosen up the pre-clinical a bit – allow self-testing, late stage 'use' for volunteers/ variety of animals, and some 'low reg FDA' zones where the super-costly clinical and reg-compliance set-ups can be boot-strapped/streamlined. Encourage the 'working out of garage' mentality to some degree. Point: Manage grassroots research since pharma hates grassroots.

61. You think food production will increase? Did you consider global warming? https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/eye-of-the-storm/new-book-food-or-war-outlines-how-to-avoid-a-soylent-green-future/

62. agreed. it has a very UBI/ PBS/ NBR feel to it. Very weak business plan. Very emotionally based pitch and optimistic/ vague view of its timeline, consumer pricing, and widespread appeal.
    It seems to me that Great Causes such is this need very little widespread acceptance – It Will Make It – It appeals to the aging mega-rich, a devote base of 1%+, is technically based, and has some compelling tech/ theories — they should just set up an Institute in a low-reg, high-tech country and just push it for all its worth based on the concentrating of funds, talent, and facilities. This public appeal doesn't make sense to me — it is a very controversial topic, especially in something as fraught as healthcare; coming at a time of great suffering, and appears to attack the most sacred and irrational thing: "Status Quo".
    Hope it works – but geez the Optics are less than Ideal.

63. hard call. I lean towards: its not the Government's job to make the World a Better Place, only to stop it becoming a Worse Place (protecting people from each other, working against destruction of common properties, facilitating grand fights against outbreaks, defense, etc) .. But.. how much of Big Tech's big Ideas could have come to fruition without Government's financial support – Big Energy, Big Aviation, Big Buildings (commercial/ industrial real estate), etc (not counting infrastructure such as roads, utilities, etc)…
    Perhaps, it's Big Business' job to make a case for the Total Good of an idea and that funding/ regulatory relief is temporary -until it gets its feet.
    Though cosmetic surgery just financially crushes everything and is very lightly regulated and needed no start-up though many would argue on its crucial 'self-esteem' benefits. Point: Cosmetic S is supported by demand alone.

64. Opinion: Though I believe that the availability of Anti-Ageing intervention is a Fundmental Good, I am not a big fan of aggressive advocacy (bordering on zealous activism but not quite verbal/written terrorism) -or- diversion of a huge amount of public resources to such a cause. One may argue that without modifying regulations, clinical and nomenclature, etc.; pushing for grand subsidies that would otherwise be spent, perhaps, on other treatments during a person's regular life span, such as anti-malarial, various cancers, etc.; and otherwise undertaking government-lead programs of focus and support; this entire program of development, in its most robust form, is generations away. The reality is that there are too few Over120-or-bust enthusiasts (demand), far too few knowledgeable geronotologists willing to extend healthy life span before serving current pathologies (supply), far too few investors who see real 'return' in the next 3 – 7 years (supply), far too few doctors and front-line medicals who see the 'immediate' need for life span irrespective of the pro-active nature of the work (supply). It is most likely that the few supporters of this -noble heroes that they are- are fully aware of this lack of 'real' foundation for such work (and likely don't care much whether the world gets it as long as they get their treatment — knowing more general support is needed to at least get a few doses – a cynical view, yes)

65. It's not obvious because it's a non sequitur.

    ONeill with anti aging is better than without.
    Among many obvious reasons (being alive is better than being dead), also because people who outgrow the culture of an aging-dependent world will also be more likely to accept new paradigms like O'Neill's

66. poor crappy people. always left behind.

67. Agreed. It's turning me anti-ONeil just on principle. Self-righteousness and unending promotion is the worst way to achieve sympathy or develop a following to an Idea — it just leads people to believe that the fanaticism and 'one true way' proselityzing will be unceasing even after the choice possibly comes available — strict unity in purpose and path is one of the few things people everywhere can commonly agree on that 'Humanity is Not about'. Also, few things turn off a curious bystander more than a Tech-Evangelist without dignity or sense of moderation – it is more likely to radicalize and polarize — though, i suppose, some might agree that 'hate' attention is better than no attention to assemble the flock. Though, whether it would be considered a mental illness in One to believe that a cause is so noble that all must give up their objections and future plans to embrace it.. thereby justifying the mosquito-ear-buzz level of annoyance.. is up for debate.

68. > O'Neill is so counter intuitive that even having learned something of Island 3 is not understanding O'Neill.

    That's why. If you bring up O'Neill, you have to turn it into a whole nother talk just to explain that properly.

69. I am not convinced that the long-term answer is trying to replicate humanity's mediocre organs – for all their moderate healing and adaptability, their complexity and maintenance and just basic material choice is flawed. The goal shouldn't be to best 'hide' and match, as it should be to upgrade and transform with 'space-age/ nano-tech'-whatever design. Sentamentality in design, medicine, and engineering is the worst waste of resources. Yes, design to the comfort and aesthetic – reasonably, of the individual — for that's how markets are built and development continues -> demand -> but it's efficient, appropriate, and practicable specs that fill the need.

70. Then, why not do the obvious thing if you are Brian, or the interviewee, or you for that matter, and mention O'Neill when people worry about population. Giving a knockdown permanent answer to pop problem is much better to get moving on than saying that it won't really be that much worse. It is already that much worse, by far, and we need to do O'Neill starting in 1977. O'Neill is so counter intuitive that even having learned something of Island 3 is not understanding O'Neill. Wanting to start mining Moon, NEOs and TCOs NOW is understanding O'Neill, esp if you intend primarily ISM. As I continue to see slow progress, thank the gods for Bridenstein, my efforts will make more sense.

71. Yeah, people living twice as long as normal (for example) is equivalent to each person having one extra child. But with a lag time of several decades, because it's the population who were born decades ago who will be the first to live longer. Compared to the ongoing natural growth in the third world, it's nothing.

    Now, if people live longer than twice a normal lifespan, that could be worse, but that would by definition be a problem we don't have to worry about for a very long time.

72. Actually the overpopulation angle was included because that was one of the questions that were brought up here when Brian asked what to ask Aubrey a few days ago. It's addressed entirely by Brian, as I understood, it's not part of the interview.

    I was at one of Aubrey's talks in person some years ago. He wasn't particularly concerned about the population angle. But it keeps being brought up by the audience.

    The actual impact of anti-aging on population is pretty small. Moreover, anti-aging is just as relevant/important/etc regardless of whether we live on Earth or in space and regardless of whether we apply O'Neill or not. And likewise, O'Neill is just as relevant/important/etc regardless of whether we apply anti-aging or not. They're independent of each other.

    But if you notice, I did add "almost" in the previous post. That's because of that population angle. But as I said here, that connection is small, since the effect on population is much smaller than most people think.

73. Sometimes sarcrasm is unintentionally spot on.

74. Have you found any mention of O'Neill in the common press? Remember, you were going to tell me if you did. I have not, except some Bezos stuff. Did you read the interview?

75. The interviewed author was quite concerned with Earth pop. If that ain't O'Neill, nothing is! Living longer impacts that. You are welcome.

76. Personally, I think the use of "organoids" to produce or scavenge substances in the blood is kind of interesting. A lot of otherwise injectable treatments could be semi-permanently replaced that way. An off the shelf, one time cure for diabetes, for instance.

    But I agree, long term, it will probably be easier to replace than rejuvenate a lot of organs. Once tissue printers are advanced enough, you might just do a brain transplant into a new body, then you'd only need CNS rejuvenation.

77. you need janov primal therapy brett

78. Give it a rest on the O'Neill stuff: It doesn't have to be the center of every single topic.

79. All the interesting ones are complex. We can just about print a trachea replacement, or maybe a bladder, but how many life-threatening conditions happen in those (or even serious illnesses)? Even a proper bladder has several layers of distinct cell types.

    For the immune response we can use cells from the target patient. That's one of the easier problems of organ printing.

80. For some organs you need all that complexity. For others, you can get by with cells encapsulated to prevent immune response.

81. Those are (almost) orthogonal topics. Anti-aging is independent of O'Neill, and vice versa.

82. The hype has been around for at least 15 years. The tech hasn't. Right now the best we can do is a miniature proof-of-concept with a very limited number of cell types. Functional organs require multiple cell types, complex vasculature and other microstructures, and for all of that to hold together properly. We're not there yet, and we're not close.

83. Please stop using the same header picture as averyone else.

84. He spends most of his time showing that he does not know anything about O'Neill, trying to justify staying alive on a small world, the tiny Earth. He should read "The High Frontier" because it is important to know these things about the future before making decisions.

85. that being said, replacement parts and slight re-design may be a better intervention than trying to optimize and tweak Human 1.0.

86. don't forget medical treatments are a service. Big money and big time commitment are not worth it to some people — similar to exercise regime and eating right or keeping your cancer/ diabetes in check. We have to provide an intervention/ therapy/ treatment that is 'worth' living long for. There are many things worse than death – being bed-ridden or stuck in a supportive-machine, for two. Being in a state of perpetual poverty to medical debt trying to 'eke' out an extra few years could be another. People are a lot less likely to 'sacrifice', even for a perceived 'universal good'. I think the Anti-Ageing community has to try to do the best with the money and resources they have (proving that there is demand and government 'easing' of regulation) rather than insisting on an 'immortality' tax against All.

87. agreed. no big time and money to vague projects. Spend-not $50B on thousands of researchers 'taking their shot' at the SENS 'special 7'. Better to pick 3, spend $500M and get some definable success in the next 10 – 15 yrs. In many cases Focus and Precision Hit is better than Medical Advance 'Shock and Awe'.

88. vascularity.
    The complexity of getting blood to all the little bits – hard to xerox or factory-fabricate – some things just need to be grown.

89. Ageing is somewhat a function of how 'hard' you live. Super healthy = most likely treatable = small population = small customer base to fund treatments. Need to find out what the smallest amount of money, researchers, and time to break 150-year old barrier –> then world wakes up – interested people increases 10 – 100x — we can then fix the crappier people and go forward.

90. Printed organs. What happened to these? The tech has been around for at least 15 years so why is this not mainstream now?

Comments are closed.