/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10367393
Negligible senescence is far less complex than the interplay between genotype, phenotype and enviroment in relation to human cognition.
For instance, we have a pretty good idea what needs to be done in terms of negligible senescence, "engineering it" is the issue. Yet, we hardly even understand human cognition, and have very little idea about how to engineer it, which is why we still use primitive fields like psychoanalysis, rather than connectome scanners, or fMRI.

>>10366907
Immortality is an impossibility.
However, negligible senescence isn't, and is already present in some not-so complex, and some complex lifeforms.
Not only that, because through Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, we understand what needs to be done, all that remains is the technological limitation.
See here the list of treatments proposed:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence#Types_of_aging_damage_and_treatment_schemes
Not only that, but whilst many have criticized the idea, none have been able to offer enough proof to actually discredit the theory, and sizeable cash prizes have been offered for those that can:
>During June 2005, David Gobel, CEO and Co-founder of Methuselah Foundation offered Technology Review $20,000 to fund a prize competition to publicly clarify the viability of the SENS approach. In July 2005, Pontin announced a $20,000 prize, funded 50/50 by Methuselah Foundation and MIT Technology Review, open to any molecular biologist, with a record of publication in biogerontology, who could prove that the alleged benefits of SENS were "so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate."[37] Technology Review received five submissions to its Challenge. In March 2006, Technology Review announced that it had chosen a panel of judges for the Challenge: Rodney Brooks, Anita Goel, Nathan Myhrvold, Vikram Sheel Kumar, and Craig Venter.[38] Three of the five submissions met the terms of the prize competition. They were published by Technology Review on June 9, 2006. Accompanying the three submissions were rebuttals by de Grey, and counter-responses to de Grey's rebuttals. On July 11, 2006, Technology Review published the results of the SENS Challenge.[7][39]
Cont.