/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11998811]

Is this guy a charlatan or am I living to be 1 000?

I'm not scared of death but 80 years really doesn't feel to be enough to fully experience life.. Any significant improvement to life expectancy within my lifetime would help.

[Anonymous No.11998828]

>>11998811
I dont want to love past 1k

[Anonymous No.11998853]

I fear old age more than death.

[Anonymous No.11998860]

>>11998853
same

[Anonymous No.11998882]

>>11998853
man that image really hit home

[Anonymous No.11998888]

>>11998811
speak for yourself. People in my family commonly live to 100+, my female cousin is 45 and noticeably missed the wall.

[Anonymous No.11998895]

>>11998811
distance from singularity = (futurist's expected lifespan) - (futurist's age)

[Anonymous No.11998903]

>>11998811
Aubrey De Grey is hack fraud and a drunkard.

[Anonymous No.11998976]

He's a merchant with bad speech.

[Anonymous No.11999010]

meth immortality

[Anonymous No.11999040]

Jeanne Calment was a charlatan

[Anonymous No.11999069]

>>11998882
I don't get the point of being an individual in life: You learn, you adapt, you do things and then everything is lost when you die because your character isn't passed on. Only DNA is passed on to create the next body, eventually. It's just cruel: People are sealed in their body for live decay or a hurtful death. Evolution doesn't even treat the most worthy, the best, those of wisdom or fine character any better than common scum. Neither do they life longer or are healthier. Only mass reproduction and variety matters to evolution to spread like some cancer that cancers into other cancer. I don't really care what has worked for evolution so far as evolution itself is going nowhere: Turtles and sharks are concepts that are "done" by evolution and don't really change anymore but both are endangered by human technology and the change we bring to the world. So despite being oh-so-well adapted it's not working and will eventually have been all for nothing if those go extinct by accident and carelessness. Within a lifetime people aren't even allowed by evolution to adapt with features of their choice. You can't just regrow a lost arm to get your normal state back, improve night vision as some useful extra in your life or even do simple and harmless things as changing hair- or retina color. So you may be an individual that knows what's going on and would be useful, you exist and understand but to evolution you don't matter other than as basic AI to find a fuckmate for offspring.

[Anonymous No.11999812]

>>11998811
He is a charlatan. He is not actually 1000 years old, more like 40. He just looks like he is 1000 because of the Merlin hair.

[Anonymous No.11999816]

>>11999069
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11999939]

>>11998811
https://www.quantamagazine.org/decades-old-graph-problem-yields-to-amateur-mathematician-20180417/

No, he is definitely not a charlatan. He is very intelligent and has even caught Terence Tao's attention for his progress on the Hadwiger Nelson problem. I'm currently doing my phd in molecular bio and I have been following Aubrey for a long time now. In 2005 Aubrey was heavily criticized by a small group of scientists in a piece by MIT Technology Review. I've read all of the criticisms and Aubrey's rebuttal regarding this and you can find it all here at the bottom of the page: https://www2.technologyreview.com/sens/

Keep in mind this was back in 2005 and long story short, all of these guys turned out to be dead wrong and simply didn't bother to fully understand what Aubrey was saying. The main critics, namely Estep et al did nitpick a few subtleties, but nothing was actually enough to actually refute Aubrey's SENS approach. Other critics of Aubrey were total loonies, like Bret Weinstein, a total pseud who constantly shilled his schizo theories of "histological entropy" and "brain data fragmentation" being main drivers of aging.

Since then, however, Aubrey has had a lot of credible bio-gerontologists and scientists get behind his SENS approach. The SENS approach is now pretty much mainstream. In 2013 a group published a paper titled "The 9 Hallmarks of Aging" (practically a copy of Aubrey's '7 categories of damage') which has now garnered over 2000 citations. This number "9" as opposed to Aubrey's "7 categories of damage" refers to the same underlying damage; they simply re-categorized it into 9 categories instead of 7.

I think Aubrey's predictions are possible; and regardless, even if Aubrey is wrong, an extra 20 years of healthy life would be great anyways. We're seeing a lot of progress recently on all 7 hallmarks and we've especially seen progress with stem cells and senolytics w/ companies like unity.

[Anonymous No.11999959]

>>11998811
Depends on how old you are OP. If you are less than 20 years old, and you have good genetics, you are basically guaranteed to live to 1000 if you don't die from others means. Just think about it. Let's say your current genetics allow you to live to 110 and you are 20 right now. Do you really think by the year 2110 there won't be a way to extend lifespan by 20 years? Most likely, there absolutely will be. Hence, at that point you have achieved Longevity Escape Velocity. I'm 18 years old and my grandma is 106. I feel pretty good knowing that I'm probably going to be part of the first generation of ageless humans if all things go well. Good luck OP & anons. I'll be seeing you all at the singularity.

[Anonymous No.11999969]

>>11999959
>Do you really think by the year 2110 there won't be a way to extend lifespan by 20 years?
peak oil is gonna hit you hard lmao

[Anonymous No.11999993]

>>11998811
1. You're assuming you'll make it to 80.
2. Obviously not a charlatan as SENS has made contributions. However, it's also obvious that he bluffs when he gives speeches and all that bullshit.
3. If we make it 40 more years at this rate then I would assume there would be some kind of anti-aging technology/medicine/treatment. The real question is, could you afford it?

[Anonymous No.11999996]

>>11999959
Given your hypothetical scenario you're assuming life extension would work on someone that's >100 years old. I don't think so. The best we could probably do is slow down aging not reverse it.

[Anonymous No.12000047]

>>11999959
>I'll be seeing you all at the singularity
>yay transhumanism ruuules
not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.12000066]

>>11999959
>get a 20 years age extension by strategical injection of growth hormones
>come back 20 years later for your new life extension
>"uh sorry boomer, but your telomeres are still fucked, guess it's off to the grave with you"

[Anonymous No.12000738]

>>11999993
Governments should give it to working adults for free if it means you can keep more people working longer and lower the strain on all age related hospital cases.
It would pay for it self just by not having pensioners anymore.

[Anonymous No.12000763]

>>11999959
>If you are less than 20 years old, and you have good genetics, you are basically guaranteed to live to 1000
They have literally been saying this since the 80s.
When I was 15, I was told the exact same line, word for word.
I'm 35 now, and I still hear the same thing: If you're young now, you'll live forever.

Even though 20 years have passed, nothing has changed.

Oh wait, yes it has.

Life expectancy in the US is going down because people refuse to put down the fork and are getting obese and are not exercising.

Longetivity does not exist in a vacuum. Medicine CANNOT save you if you don't exercise regularly, eat healthy, and sleep well. Not doing this thing has counteracted decades of scientific progress, so that it pulls your life expectancy to nill. You are responsible for how long you'll live.

[Anonymous No.12000858]

>>12000763
>implying it's been 100 years since the 80s

[Anonymous No.12000863]

How come there are so many threads here about Aubrey but I haven't seen a single post about David Sinclair?

[Anonymous No.12001071]

>>12000863
Because the difference between fasting vs biotechnology is immense

[Anonymous No.12001072]

>>11999996
There will be better brain preservation devices by 2100.
But yeah its hard to predict the future. For example, I thought seems would be more liberal in the future but it seems everyone is more conservative (on both sides).

[Anonymous No.12001104]

>>12000858
People with good genetics who were 20 in 80's are now 60 and dying

[Anonymous No.12001107]

>>11999993
>Obviously not a charlatan as SENS has made contributions.
Can someone link me some materials?
I was looking for materials to know what's been already done to focus on something important while doing my research, but couldn't find anything.
I'm going to study genetics.

[Anonymous No.12001315]

>>11999939
This
When you hear him actually stop the popsci and talk about the real science of what he's doing and why he makes a lot of sense. He's clearly a very smart guy.

[Anonymous No.12002621]

>>12001104
People with good genetics dying at 60 aren't dying of ageing.

[Anonymous No.12002623]

>>12001107
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2020/02/request-for-startups-in-the-rejuvenation-biotechnology-space-2020-edition/

[Anonymous No.12002649]

a)They will most likely be unable to invent the immortality technology.
b)If they will, it will be reserved for the top elite.
c)And even if it will be shared to the underclasses, imagine the extent of slavery you will be put through to get another rejuvenation dose.
I like living and I once was very interested in life extension, but the arguments above make it improbable and undesirable.

[Anonymous No.12002650]

>>11999816

[Anonymous No.12002671]

>>12002649
a) Increasing healthspan is even more important than immortality. Who wants to live to be 100 if that means your last 40 years are in increasingly worsening health? The treatments discovered so far improve healthspan more than lifespan.
b) Again the majority of the current technologies explored are very low cost and could be afforded by anyone with access to alibaba.
c) Doesn't really work when the cost of goods is <$100 for a dose of most senolytic and other treatments in development.
That said, this is also a good argument for why more people need to look into FI/RE. If you're going to live healthily for a long time it'll be a shitshow relying on a pension, you should be ensuring your own ongoing financial independence.
I have little sympathy for anyone in the first world who isn't financially independent by middle-age, excluding the unlucky few who undergo life upending tragedies in countries which don't have adequate safety nets (though an argument could be made that they should have been more aware of the risks of where they live and insured against that, I've seen mixed data of how reliable insurance can actually be in those countries).

[Anonymous No.12002704]

>>11998811
Who else here a FISETIN CHAD?

[Anonymous No.12002714]

>>11998811
You won't become immortal even if the technology is invented.

[Anonymous No.12002718]

>>12002714

[Anonymous No.12002721]

>>12002718

[Anonymous No.12002725]

>>12002721

[Anonymous No.12002748]

>>12002714
>>12002718
>>12002721
>>12002725
The post above you about the strawberry is somehow better than this retarded book.

[Anonymous No.12002752]

>>12002704
Hell yeah man.
>cheap as fuck
>bought some fisetin and quercetin from purebulk
>safety tested it on myself and my partner (both nearing 30 so not much actual benefit expected but wanted to double check that we don't have any allergies)
>gave it to elders at the start of the year
>none of them have been sick since

[Anonymous No.12002756]

>>12002714
>>12002718
>>12002721
>>12002725
Absurd arguments. It reads like a pseud 4chan post.

There are many valid points here, but the idea that any of them proves biological immortality will never happen is ridiculous and very reductionist. The correct question to ask is how we should address these issues, since they do pose real risks; not to simply accept that they're insurmountable and we might as well give up before even trying.

[Anonymous No.12002789]

Any of you work on the ageing immune system?
I've been wanting to start a PhD and want to do it on selective clearance of the adaptive immune system. It's one of the steps necessary for clearing out the damaged immune system under SENS.
I also have a somewhat biased reason for wanting it as an allergic asthmatic :^)

[Anonymous No.12002942]

>>12002649
a) Nobody claimed this. But it is VERY LIKELY we will have some set of therapies that extend healthy lifespan by ~20 years by the end of this century. And in those extra 20 years something even better will be developed, and so on.
b) Wrong. Governments will have a large incentive to subsidize the treatments because it will ultimately end up saving money because a smaller portion of our population would be old, sick, and draining our GDP because of medicare and geriatric homes.
c) Why would that be the case? A recent study said even a modest 5 extra healthy years of life would save 7 trillion dollars over 50 years. Governments will be clawing to get this; why would they make people slave away?

[Anonymous No.12003395]

>>11999812
Does that dude claim to be 1000 or are you just misinterpreting OP?

[Anonymous No.12003415]

>>11999959
Haha ok kid

[Anonymous No.12003425]

>>12000000

[Anonymous No.12003505]

>>12002789
The thymus is destroyed by excess calcium. This was already discovered during the WWII.

[Anonymous No.12003643]

>>11998811
>80 years really doesn't feel to be enough to fully experience life
Looks like you'd never appreciate life even if you lived for a thousand years.

[Anonymous No.12003650]

>>11998811
What if grandma had balls?l.... you be fine. He isn't. Every little bit counts.