/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11519444
based

Good idea anon. Here is a link of good resources: https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/e2q84z/textbooks_courses_and_resources_on_aging/

>>11519467
>https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(13)00645-4
Reading link related from that list, seems to be a good introduction to the scientific details.

I can barely keep my car running for more than 10 years what makes you think I can keep this piece of shit body online for more than 100?

>>11519444
klotho, an enzyme known to be beneficial for th brain

>>11519529
Yep, I've heard about that one. Should be coming out soon. Potent nootropic and age delayer.

>>11519444
Death isn't possible. It's technological resurrection all the way up.

There is a current of thought that appears to be carrying many technophiles out of the realm of science and into that of science fiction. For convenience, let's refer to those who ride this current as "the techies." The current runs through several channels; not all techies think alike. What they have in common is that they take highly speculative ideas about the future of technology as near certainties, and on that basis predict the arrival within the next few decades of a kind of technological utopia. Some of the techies' fantasies are astonishingly grandiose. For example, Ray Kurzweil believes that " [w]ithin a matter of centuries, human intelligence will have re-engineered and saturated all the matter in the universe." The writing of Kevin Kelly, another techie, is often so vague as to border on the meaningless, but he seems to say much the same thing that Kurzweil does about human conquest of the universe: "The universe is mostly empty because it is waiting to be filled with the products of life and the technium... " "The technium" is Kelly's name for the technological world-system that humans have created here on Earth.

Most versions of the technological utopia include immortality (at least for techies) among their other marvels. The immortality to which the techies believe themselves destined is conceived in any one of three forms:

(i) the indefinite preservation of the living human body as it exists today;
(ii) the merging of humans with machines and the indefinite survival of the resulting man-machine hybrids;
(iii) the "uploading" of minds from human brains into robots or computers, after which the uploaded minds are to live forever within the machines.

Of course, if the technological world-system is going to collapse in the not-too-distant future, as we've argued it must, then no one is going to achieve immortality in any form. But even assuming that we're wrong and that the technological world-system will survive indefinitely, the techies' dream of an unlimited life-span is still illusory. We need not doubt that it will be technically feasible in the future to keep a human body, or a man-machine hybrid, alive indefinitely. It is seriously to be doubted that it will ever be feasible to "upload" a human brain into electronic form with sufficient accuracy so that the uploaded entity can reasonably be regarded as a functioning duplicate of the original brain. Nevertheless, we will assume in what follows that each of the solutions (i), (ii), and (iii) will become technically feasible at some time within the next several decades.

It is an index of the techies' self-deception that they habitually assume that anything they consider desirable will actually be done when it becomes technically feasible. Of course, there are lots of wonderful things that already are and for a long time have been technically feasible, but don't get done. Intelligent people have said again and again: "How easily men could make things much better than they are-if they only all tried together!" But people never do "all try together," because the principle of natural selection guarantees that self-prop systems will act mainly for their own survival and propagation in competition with other self-prop systems, and will not sacrifice competitive advantages for the achievement of philanthropic goals.

Because immortality, as the techies conceive it, will be technically feasible, the techies take it for granted that some system to which they belong can and will keep them alive indefinitely, or provide them with what they need to keep themselves alive. Today it would no doubt be technically feasible to provide everyone in the world with everything that he or she needs in the way of food, clothing, shelter, protection from violence, and what by present standards is considered adequate medical care-if only all of the world's more important self-propagating systems would devote themselves unreservedly to that task. But that never happens, because the self-prop systems are occupied primarily with the endless struggle for power and therefore act philanthropically only when it is to their advantage to do so. That's why billions of people in the world today suffer from malnutrition, or are exposed to violence, or lack what is considered adequate medical care.

In view of all this, it is patently absurd to suppose that the technological world-system is ever going to provide seven billion human beings with everything they need to stay alive indefinitely. If the projected immortality were possible at all, it could only be for some tiny subset of the seven billion-an elite minority. Some techies acknowledge this. One has to suspect that a great many more recognize it but refrain from acknowledging it openly, for it is obviously imprudent to tell the public that immortality will be for an elite minority only and that ordinary people will be left out.

The techies of course assume that they themselves will be included in the elite minority that supposedly will be kept alive indefinitely. What they find convenient to overlook is that self-prop systems, in the long run, will take care of human beings-even members of the elite-only to the extent that it is to the systems' advantage to take care of them. When they are no longer useful to the dominant self-prop systems, humans-elite or not-will be eliminated. In order to survive, humans not only will have to be useful; they will have to be more useful in relation to the cost of maintaining them-in other words, they will have to provide a better cost-versus-benefit balance than any non-human substitutes. This is a tall order, for humans are far more costly to maintain than machines are.

It will be answered that many self-prop systems-governments, corporations, labor unions, etc.-do take care of numerous individuals who are utterly useless to them: old people, people with severe mental or physical disabilities, even criminals serving life sentences. But this is only because the systems in question still need the services of the majority of people in order to function. Humans have been endowed by evolution with feelings of compassion, because hunting-and-gathering bands thrive best when their members show consideration for one another and help one another. As long as self-prop systems still need people, it would be to the systems' disadvantage to offend the compassionate feelings of the useful majority through ruthless treatment of the useless minority. More important than compassion, however, is the self-interest of human individuals: People would bitterly resent any system to which they belonged if they believed that when they grew old, or if they became disabled, they would be thrown on the trash-heap.

>>11519444
I heard good things about Rapamycin

But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

Even though the technological world-system still needs large numbers of people for the present, there are now more superfluous humans than there have been in the past because technology has replaced people in many jobs and is making inroads even into occupations formerly thought to require human intelligence. Consequently, under the pressure of economic competition, the world's dominant self-prop systems are already allowing a certain degree of callousness to creep into their treatment of superfluous individuals. In the United States and Europe, pensions and other benefits for retired, disabled, unemployed, and other unproductive persons are being substantially reduced; at least in the U. S., poverty is increasing; and these facts may well indicate the general trend of the future, though there will doubtless be ups and downs.

It's important to understand that in order to make people superfluous, machines will not have to surpass them in general intelligence but only in certain specialized kinds of intelligence. For example, the machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation (the "Turing test"), they will not have to exercise tact or understand human nature, because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems. So, even without going as far as the techies themselves do in assuming intelligence on the part of future machines, we still have to conclude that humans will become obsolete. Immortality in the form (i)-the indefinite preservation of the human body as it exits today-is highly improbable.

The techies of course will argue that even if the human body and brain as we know them become obsolete, immortality in the form (ii) can still be achieved: Man-machine hybrids will permanently retain their usefulness, because by linking themselves with ever-more-powerful machines human beings (or what is left of them) will be able to remain competitive with pure machines.

But man-machine hybrids will retain a biological component derived from human beings only as long as the human-derived biological component remains useful. When purely artificial components become available that provide a better cost-versus-benefit balance than human-derived biological components do, the latter will be discarded and the man-machine hybrids will lose their human aspect to become wholly artificial. Even if the human-derived biological components are retained they will be purged, step by step, of the human qualities that detract from their usefulness. The self-prop systems to which the man-machine hybrids belong will have no need for such human weaknesses as love, compassion, ethical feelings, esthetic appreciation, or desire for freedom. Human emotions in general will get in the way of the self-prop systems' utilization of the man-machine hybrids, so if the latter are to remain competitive they will have to be altered to remove their human emotions and replace these with other motivating forces. In short, even in the unlikely event that some biological remnants of the human race are preserved in the form of man-machine hybrids, these will be transformed into something totally alien to human beings as we know them today.

The same applies to the hypothesized survival of human minds in "uploaded" form inside machines. The uploaded minds will not be tolerated indefinitely unless they remain useful (that is, more useful than any substitutes not derived from human beings), and in order to remain useful they will have to be transformed until they no longer have anything in common with the human minds that exist today.

Some techies may consider this acceptable. But their dream of immortality is illusory nonetheless. Competition for survival among entities derived from human beings (whether man-machine hybrids, purely artificial entities evolved from such hybrids, or human minds uploaded into machines), as well as competition between human-derived entities and those machines or other entities that are not derived from human beings, will lead to the elimination of all but some minute percentage of all the entities involved. This has nothing to do with any specific traits of human beings or of their machines; it is a general principle of evolution through natural selection. Look at biological evolution: Of all the species that have ever existed on Earth, only some tiny percentage have direct descendants that are still alive today. On the basis of this principle alone, and even discounting everything else we've said in this chapter, the chances that any given techie will survive indefinitely are minute.

I wonder who programmed the bot that looks for keywords and then spams terrorist propaganda. It’s kinda cringe to advocate for killing billions of people, but such is anarcho-primitivism.

>>11519534
Why no red meat. Some form of animal protein is kind of crucial for the body, you can substitute with fish but red meat isn’t too bad unless you continuously eat it

The techies may answer that even if almost all biological species are eliminated eventually, many species survive for thousands or millions of years, so maybe techies too can survive for thousands or millions of years. But when large, rapid changes occur in the environment of biological species, both the rate of appearance of new species and the rate of extinction of existing species are greatly increased. Technological progress constantly accelerates, and techies like Ray Kurzweil insist that it will soon become virtually explosive; consequently, changes come more and more rapidly, everything happens faster and faster, competition among self-prop systems becomes more and more intense, and as the process gathers speed the losers in the struggle for survival will be eliminated ever more quickly. So, on the basis of the techies' own beliefs about the exponential acceleration of technological development, it's safe to say that the life-expectancies of human-derived entities, such as man-machine hybrids and human minds uploaded into machines, will actually be quite short. The seven-hundred year or thousand-year life-span to which some techies aspire is nothing but a pipe-dream.

>>11519560
Tier 4: Dying in jail because you’re an evil terrorist

Singularity University, which we discussed in Part VI of Chapter One of this book, purportedly was created to help technophiles "guide research" and "shape the advances" so that technology would "improve society." We pointed out that Singularity University served in practice to promote the interests of technology-orientated businessmen, and we expressed doubt that the majority of technophiles fully believed in the drivel about "shaping the advances" to "improve society." It does seem, however, that the techies -the subset of the technophiles that we specified at the beginning of this Part V of the present chapter-are entirely sincere in their belief that organizations like Singularity University will help them to "shape the advances" of technology and keep the technological society on the road to a utopian future. A utopian future will have to exclude the competitive processes that would deprive the techies of their thousand-year life-span. But we showed in Chapter One that the development of our society can never be subject to rational control: The techies won't be able to "shape the advances" of technology, guide the course of technological progress, or exclude the intense competition that will eliminate nearly all techies in short order.

In view of everything we've said up to this point, and in view moreover of the fact that the techies' vision of the future is based on pure speculation and is unsupported by evidence, one has to ask how they can believe in that vision. Some techies, e.g. , Kurzweil, do concede a slight degree of uncertainty as to whether their expectations for the future will be realized, but this seems to be no more than a sop that they throw to the skeptics, something they have to concede in order to avoid making themselves too obviously ridiculous in the eyes of rational people. Despite their pro forma admission of uncertainty, it's clear that most techies confidently expect to live for many centuries, if not forever, in a world that will be in some vaguely defined sense a utopia. Thus Kurzweil states flatly: "We will be able to live as long as we want... ." He adds no qualifiers-no "probably," no "if things turn out as expected." His whole book reveals a man intoxicated with a vision of the future in which, as an immortal machine, he will participate in the conquest of the universe. In fact, Kurzweil and other techies are living in a fantasy world.

The techies' belief-system can best be explained as a religious phenomenon, to which we may give the name "Technianity." It's true that Technianity at this point is not strictly speaking a religion, because it has not yet developed anything resembling a uniform body of doctrine; the techies' beliefs are widely varied. In this respect Technianity probably resembles the inceptive stages of many other religions. Nevertheless, Technianity already has the earmarks of an apocalyptic and millenarian cult: In most versions it anticipates a cataclysmic event, the Singularity, which is the point at which technological progress is supposed to become so rapid as to resemble an explosion. This is analogous to the Judgment Day of Christian mythology or the Revolution of Marxist mythology. The cataclysmic event is supposed to be followed by the arrival of techno-utopia (analogous to the Kingdom of God or the Worker's Paradise). Technianity has a favored minority-the Elect-consisting of the techies (equivalent to the True Believers of Christianity or the Proletariat of the Marxists). The Elect of Technianity, like that of Christianity, is destined to Eternal Life; though this element is missing from Marxism.

Historically, millenarian cults have tended to emerge at "times of great social change or crisis." This suggests that the techies' beliefs reflect not a genuine confidence in technology, but rather their own anxieties about the future of the technological society-anxieties from which they try to escape by creating a quasi-religious myth.

>>11519536
This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g

>>11519565
>Some form of animal protein is kind of crucial for the body

Wrong. All essential amino acids can be found elsewhere, without the murder of animals.

>>11519568
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO BOMBER MAN BAD! NOT THE HECKIN TECHERINOS NOOOOOOO!

>>11519591
>A terrorist is bad

Yes.

>>11519568
this

>>11519591
>primitivist using a computer
heh

>>11519597
Maybe it’s some Gilligan’s Island bamboo technology, but even that would probably violate the tenets of the tree-worship faith.

>>11519600
you know what i don't get about primitivism, is that technically any tool is technology. like a rock on a stick, a fire pit and spoken language is tech. it's like they cut themselves at an arbitrary pt like the amish, "this much tech and no further." so pure primitivism would be bending over and taking it up the ass from nature.

>>11519585
In less quantities. Don’t forget that your amino acids from plants tend to be filled with anti nutrients too, thus rendering you from absorbing anyway. Our guts aren’t that of a cow, therefore it’s better to acquire nutrients from animals but at 20% of your caloric intake according to Dave asprey.

>>11519580
Meh, nothing too crazy honestly, but I don't see the big problem. System eventually evolve to the point where they have little apparent resemblance to their former selves.
If we don't do it then some grey aliums will so might as well give it a shot and see what happens.

>>11519626
You're not being very honest, ted just seems to cut the line very clearly where we are handing over control to entities that aren't even human.
Although he seems to think that point actually started during the industrial revolution or something like that, I'm not a ted fag myself.

>>11519534
Plan A seems to already be underway, with more research needing to be done. I advise fixating research there, for now. Plan C, at least for the body and not the brain will be doable once we figure out good interfaces between the nervous system and artificial limbs, and ways to inject nutrients into the nervous system without a digestive tract.

As far as the brain though, I think consciousness is an important question. The safest bet is to biologically immortalize the brain, robotize the body. However, this leaves the brain weak. The next idea would be to piecewise replace the brain with machine so that consciousness would be continued from bio to robo, making the brain more resilient to damage. This seems to be a long ways off, maybe 100-150 years given the complexity of the brain, but bio immortality can let us get there. Also useful in being radiation resilient for space travel. The next thing is cryonics. At low enough temperature, chemical processes don't occur. Consciousness would be empty or frozen in state, functional after. I don't presume qualia would be swapped to another space though, guessing based on those in low-activity comas. How are the latter different from disassembly and reassembly?

Last up is digital immortality. Going with the theme of continuity, "uploading" to a cloud does not preserve it, it just creates a copy. Do copies share qualia? Regardless, I see one way to create non-localized continuity: electromagnetic interfacing. If we have a secondary (or tertiary, etc) mechanical brain that can feed stimulus to the initial robotized brain, and the initial able to control the secondary, there should be no "preference." They perceive eachother, and perception should be able to flow from one to the other. With a large number of copied brains, we have backups to survive if the initial gets damaged, decentralizing sentience from one to the others and allowing it to move on the active one's command if destruction is near

>>11519658
>In less quantities.

Eat more.

>>11519672
>You're not being very honest, ted just seems to cut the line very clearly where we are handing over control to entities that aren't even human.

So what? There’s no reason to attach special significance to “being human”. Becoming something else sounds pretty cool.

>>11519677
Idiot then you’re only consuming more anti-nutrients and completing fucking up your digestive system

>>11519682
That's a personal preference, but the point is his "line in the sand" is pretty clear and not exactly arbitrary.

>>11519685
>Idiot then you’re only consuming more anti-nutrients

Negligible presence in modern crops, and reduced by food preparation.

>>11519685
>anti-nutrients

>>11519672
>where we are handing over control to entities that aren't even human.
wouldn't that mean we should be developing more tech since otherwise we're controlled by nature? seems like teddy didn't think things thru.

>>11519688
>out the point is his "line in the sand" is pretty clear and not exactly arbitrary.
it's still an arbitrarily chosen line. just because it's better defined than what the amish do doesn't make it any less of an arbitrary restriction.

>>11519697
partly, but thus far humans still had a fair degree a control and "nature" doesn't really have an explicit goal that goes against our own, there are just components of it competing with us, those components are also inferior.

>>11519705
If you're going to be such a sophist than any line fis arbitrary. It's not arbitrary compared to how people usually make these kinds of distinctions.

>>11519707
>doesn't really have an explicit goal that goes against our own
irrelevant if it is conscious or not. it doesn't have our best interest in mind either and is actively doing things that kill us.

>>11519711
>sophist
that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
>It's not arbitrary compared to how people usually make these kinds of distinctions.
non-sequitur.

>>11519707
>but thus far humans still had a fair degree a control
because of technology. we build it and thus exert control through it.

>>11519720
>irrelevant if it is conscious or not.
I never said such thing, it's about the behavior, the pattern, and how you can deal with that, overall when nature gets in our way it's just by happenstance because "nature" overall isn't driven by a process of natural selection, components of nature are by the natural environment, but a lion is pretty fucking easy to kill nowadays. Machines, if the futurists are right and they became that advanced, would be more intelligent than us and more capable than us and wouldn't necessarily have an interest in keeping us around.
>that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
>non-sequitur.
You're an imbecile.

>>11519723
Sure, tools are pretty useful, but in most cases they don't act out of their own volition and are entirely predictable at lease when they work.

>>11519733
>Machines, if the futurists are right and they became that advanced, would be more intelligent than us and more capable than us and wouldn't necessarily have an interest in keeping us around.

Become more intelligent and more capable yourself. That’s much more plausible than creating some kind of vague “machines” that are smarter than humans and have “interests”. “””machines””” can never be more intelligent than humans because transistors are pathetically less efficient than neurons.

>>11519733
>I never said such thing,
liar. you were talking about an explicit goal.
>it's about the behavior, the pattern, and how you can deal with that,
wishy washy amish-tier bs.
>Machines, if the futurists are right and they became that advanced, would be more intelligent than us and more capable than us and wouldn't necessarily have an interest in keeping us around.
depends on its objective function. you seem to have a profound misunderstanding of what ai actually does.
>You're an imbecile.
lol rich.
>>11519737
neither does ai. we program how it behaves.
>and are entirely predictable at lease when they work.
and nature is? lol

>>11519517
There aren't many cars that have run for 100 years. There are animals similar to us which live significantly longer than us.

>>11519748
>can never be more intelligent than humans because this specific piece of technology we use today for computers is less efficient than neurons.
Ted and the futurists themselves define the the term machines pretty broadly and they should because a specific type of machines is pretty irrelevant. It's mostly a refutation to the delusions of a lot of futurists and so if they're wrong and machines will never become that advanced than who cares? They're still deluded either way.

>>11519753
Yeah you're underage or retarded.

>>11519770
not an argument. you got owned lil bitch by someone you claim to be underage and/or retarded..

>>11519764
> Ted and the futurists themselves define the the term machines pretty broadly and they should because a specific type of machines is pretty irrelevant.

Yes, be vague enough and no one can refute whatever bullshit you’re talking about.

> It's mostly a refutation to the delusions of a lot of futurists

It isn’t. “Machines” that somehow have “interests” are just another kind of person bumbling around. Expecting them to hold monolithic positions is delusional and expecting “””humans”””, which is also vaguely defined in this context because vague bullshit is not possible to actually disprove, to not be improved to remain on par with imagined vague “machines” is also delusional.

>>11519788
>machines can't be better than humans because then I wouldn't call them a machine.
I'm done with you morons. You base your arguments on purely linguistic bullshit and can't say anything of value about the world you live in, it's purely an exercise in public masturbation, utterly pointless.

Kacsynski's view of society is pessimistic in the extreme. If history is any example the people/machines/whatevers of the future may well be so cooperative and understanding that we'd look like savages killing each other over some rotten garbage to them.

>>11519797
oh this lvl of assblasted rektage.

>>11519797
>machines can't be better than humans because then I wouldn't call them a machine.

Strawman. Yawn

You guys realize you've let the spammer succeed in derailment right? Let's get back on topic.

Nuclear and especially mitochrondrial DNA accumulate damage from Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), also known as free radicals. These are also used in the immune system to damage cancer cells and fight infection's DNA/RNA. They work by reacting with nucleotides to damage them.

Antioxidants reduce their quantity in the body, but should not be overdone to keep the immune system healthy. Can we invent localized antioxidants that only perform within healthy sells, removing ROS where its harmful but still letting the immune system use it extracellularly?

>>11519800
>Kacsynski's view of society is pessimistic in the extreme

He was tortured as part of some weird study in college, and this made him a weirdo freak. Literally decided to become a terrorist because a road was built. Big schizo.

>>11519814
this, but we drove him off in the end too. had to step in or he'd just keep on spamming his retarded tree worship shit. so lets get this train back on the tracks.

>>11519814
Maybe it'd be easier to replace the immune system with something artificial than to control free radicals. Has the method you described been attempted at all?

>>11519676
>Going with the theme of continuity, "uploading" to a cloud does not preserve it, it just creates a copy.
This only makes sense if you assume that Closed Individualism is true. There might not even be a continuous "you" at all.

>>11519820
Replacing the immune system is a much larger undertaking as it interacts with 500 million gut neurons, our gut bacteria, our brains and bodily signaling, and is made of several cell types, while free radicals are just a few molecules.

I'm not sure if my method has been attempted or if it would work. Maybe a bio/chem student could shed some light. One idea is an antioxidant bound to a damper that is only activated by enzyme only existing within cells, unable to escape maybe being nonpolar and thus unable to pass through phospholipid bilayer. A system for its regulation and disposal would have to be created though, so maybe a more "natural" solution is in order? We also wouldnt want cancer cells getting ahold of it, so maybe we would want it to be carried by immune cells who only give the proto-antioxidant to cells it deems healthy.

>>11519815
>He was tortured as part of some weird study in college
No he wasn't

>>11519830
Let's deal with the philosophical issues after we figure out how to actually upload people. Or at least something bigger than a worm.

>>11519834
MK Ultra was declassified, you can probably look up whether he's telling the truth here, at least as far as the CIA is concerned.

>>11519830
I dont think there is a continuous self, though it seems scary to risk not maintaining continuity. But stopping (as in cryonics) and replacing (piecewise replacing the mind) both keep the thing tied to your consciousness initially physically intact, while a copy of you was never tied to your physics. I will say this though, you would be unable to distinguish between your experience and a perfect copy's experience, assuming perfect includes sensations of the moment. So maybe, convince me? Either way, continuity seems like a safe bet at least.

>>11519836
Baka, the philosophical issues are the whole issue. Why would we upload people if we deem it is likely to end their sentience?

>>11519834
Oh, I guess he was just naturally evil then.

>>11519853
>Why would we upload people if we deem it is likely to end their sentience?

Why would you deem that likely? The only reason you perceive any continuity between you today and you a year ago is memories.

>>11519853
>>11519851

No, the issue is creating the actual technology. We would do it because it's practically useful and of significant scientific interest. Enjoy your unproductive circle jerk.

>>11519859
>if

>>11519862
The issue of immortality is multifaceted. If you want concrete science see>>11519814

>Waste products: remove using immune system
Great idea, Einstein.

How do older people handle metabolism? If they can't produce as many cells due to telomeres shortening to the point of apopting whole lineages, they presumably wouldn't digest as much of the food they eat, explaining why after he 30s, one tends to pack on fat. Telomere-lengthening in healthy cells but avoiding cancerous overgrowth seems to be necessary, though not the entire puzzle, shown below as the bird still dies (though lives 4x its peers. Imagine a 240 year old human)

>https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/25/1/220/1096525
In one species, Leach's storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa), a long-lived seabird that lives 4 times longer than expected based on body mass (Haussmann et al. 2007), telomere length did not shorten with age but instead appeared to lengthen across the bird's life span (Haussmann, Winkler et al. 2003).

>>11519854
>thinking that the end justifies the means means that you are naturally evil

>>11519849
>unironically thinking CIA niggers are more trustworthy than Ted

>>11519912
Both the means and the end are evil.
Please stop defending terrorists, anon.

>>11519540
>>11519543
>>11519545
>>11519552

based, and true.

>>11519940
Why is wanting to end the psychological suffering caused by industrial civilization evil?

>>11519941
>Terrorism is totally cool dude. I hate da ebul technology despite actively using technology because it improves my life

>>11519941
>technology bad
>is on internet

>>11519949
>Why is wanting to end the psychological suffering caused by industrial civilization evil?

Industrial civilization does not cause psychological suffering, at least not to any extent that isn’t your own fault.

>>11519800
>the people/machines/whatevers of the future may well be so cooperative and understanding that we'd look like savages killing each other over some rotten garbage to them.
And what makes you think this?

Ted is cool and all. But do you really want to die? When you get your immortal robot body you can float through space for all eternity and enjoy any planet you wish as a transient that runs on solar energy, harms nothing, and needs nor fears for anything.

Lets get to work then!

>>11519975
this

>>11519975
>Ted is cool and all.

Hairy bearded terrorists who want billions of people to die to protect some trees aren’t cool. Bin-Laden if he was a wood elf.

>>11519949
Wanting to scrap technological progress because of a rough socio-psychological adjustment period is evil. It represents a desire to doom the species to early death because you can't handle a transitional state. As long as we exist solely on this planet, humanity is sitting with its head in a guillotine, and the people who want to bring an end to industrial civilization would prefer that we all just wait for the blade to fall.

>>11519987
It’s not “rough” lol life is fun

>>11519994
Speaking from their perspective, not mine

>>11519967
The first part of that sentence. We've become less violent over time.

>Mice with hyper-long telomeres show less metabolic aging and longer lifespans
Miguel A. Muñoz-Lorente, Alba C. Cano-Martin & Maria A. Blasco
>Strikingly, we found that hyper-long telomere mice showed a significant increase of 12.75% in median longevity as well as an increase in maximum longevity of 8.40% compared to normal telomere length controls.

This is not too promising on first glance. However, these mice started off with longer telomeres, without continual regeneration it seems. Telomeres get removed approximately exponentially however, meaning starting off with extra telomeres makes the telomeres decline faster, offsetting some of the benefit and explaining at least partially the meager life gains. Given the other study about the birds who continually regenerate telomeres, it makes sense that initial telomere length isn't as important. Regardless, telomeres are necessary to ensure survival if other factors are accounted for, so they must be considered. All in all, I think the discussion on telomeres should focus on seeing how much benefit they can bring us (a lot I would say), and how we can safely continue their regeneration long term. One bet is to blast the body with telomerase however is possible and only stop the treatment if cancer appears, resume after cancer. This seems like it would work and be safe, but further testing and other methods are necessary.

Had to give study name rather than link because the link made the bot flag spam.

>>11520069
>Given the other study about the birds who continually regenerate telomeres

Huh

>>11520074
This>>11519907

Also saw another study, not linked here, about how initial telomere length didnt statistically effect bird longevity, but rate of telomere deletion (adjusted to logarithm aka inverse exponential) did predict longevity. Also, larger animals live longer and I think they also delete telomeres more slowly (not 100% sure on that one yet though, and not sure why either -- interesting relationship to insulin, metabolism vs/bodyweight, and caloric restriction ideas about longevity though -- metabolism as a stressant?).

>>11519770
I dont think so. Go back to your rocks & sticks cavebitch.

>>11520086
Thats pretty cool. Nature URLs seem to trigger it because of the string of numbers.

Finally found a good thread on here.

I've never really though of cryonics as anything more than science fiction. Any new promising studies on it? I heard they suspended some guy for a couple hours after death and brought him back but idk where I saw the report.

>>11520156
Couldn't find anything but Wiki did give me this:
>Revival would require repairing damage from lack of oxygen, cryoprotectant toxicity, thermal stress (fracturing), freezing in tissues that do not successfully vitrify, finally followed by reversing the cause of death. In many cases extensive tissue regeneration would be necessary.

Cryoprotectives are meant to prevent ice crystals forming. Maybe safer substances, and oxygen tubes can be worked out though to make only the death cause the issue. Genetic engineering to reverse senescence, as well.

>>11520156
Vitrification is fine for organs for transplantation but it's not ready for use on the whole organism.

>>11520175
Aren’t there frogs that can freeze during winter?

>>11520196
They could be useful in learning how they get oxygen into their organs while frozen, and how they keep ice crystals from forming without toxic chemicals. Cryonics is much colder than Earth's winters though, so there could be other things needed to account for. I think cryonics research is important though as a safety bet, but other issues include having faith in the companies. If they go belly up, you might be thawed, its happened. if theres a war, your building could be blown up, etc.

>>11520203
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24737762

>>11519975
Do you have absolutely no reading comprehension? You're not going to get a robot body and float through space for eternity, and Ted explained why.

>>11520156
Read about Rudy Goya. He's doing research in order to improve cryonics techniques.

>>11519444

Better that the entire species go extinct than that a single individual escape into biological immortality. The crabs in a bucket mentality is metaphysically correct in this case, and this apprehension of truth has nothing to do with old notions of class warfare, the environment, etc.

The most encouraging thing on this head is that humans are helplessly dependent upon one another (supply chain, security) and trapped together on what amounts to a small piece of turf, so that the would-be Elect will not escape into space, as in Elysium to take one popular example. But this isn't good enough. So long as human beings exist, they will continue to putter along, incrementally improving technology. Unfortunately, the horror which you discuss might even be effectuated, and this is what must be obviated. Every scientist being a possible life-cuckold to the later one who might, in principle, outlive him for arbitrarily many years. All because the cuckold was all about coulda, not about shoulda. The only logical alternative is to effect the extinction of the species before things get too out of hand. Unfortunately, the current situation offers no real hope of extinction.

About this point, some clever readers are beginning to sneer: "what about other aliens?" This is beside the point. To invert Voltaire, "we must all destroy own garden". I hope that I live just long enough to learn of Aubrey De Gray's death, and then myself expire a moment later.

>>11520156
Here's a calculator you can use to estimate the odds of cryonics working:
https://www.cryonicscalculator.com/

>>11520288
Wood frogs in Interior Alaska survive freezing to extreme limits and durations compared with those described in animals collected in southern Canada or the Midwestern United States. We hypothesize that this enhancement of freeze tolerance in Alaskan wood frogs is due to higher cryoprotectant levels that are produced by repeated freezing and thawing cycles experienced under natural conditions during early autumn.

They keep themselves naturally "lubricated" and somehow nutrified. Would be difficult to port this system to humans but I think it'd be doable.

>11520309
>11520296
See pic related.

>>11520309
Seething lifespan-let

>>11520296
>You're not going to get a robot body and float through space for eternity, and Ted explained why.

Ted’s schizo ramblings don’t explain anything. He assumes closed individualism for no real reason and then babbles from there.