Today live from Cooper Union, NYC, the June edition of Journal Club is being broadcast on our Facebook page at 13:00 EST / 18:00 UK.
We are discussing the recent paper “Common Telomere Changes during In Vivo Reprogramming and Early Stages of Tumorigenesis.” by Blaso et al.
Tune in today and get involved in the discussion. Journal Club is made possible thanks to the support of our Lifespan Heroes.
Introducing Lifespan Heroes our new campaign.
Here at Lifespan.io we are funding research to help extend healthy human lifespan, supporting nonprofits and companies working to overcome age-related diseases. By becoming a “Lifespan Hero” you can join us in this humanitarian and necessary effort — http://www.lifespan.io/heroes — and help us end age-related diseases for good.
In this video Lifespan.io / LEAF President Keith Comito explains the work Lifespan.io has done thus far in funding research, educating the public, and building a grass roots movement in support of healthy human lifespan, as well as the work that can be done in the future with the support of heroes willing to stand up and fight against the diseases of aging, like Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and cancer, by addressing their shared root causes.
Together we can do this; please join us.
This video is presented by LEAF. Please support our work to overcome the diseases of aging: http://lifespan.io/hero
If you are not sure why you should support rejuvenation research, or know people who aren’t, this article explains why rejuvenation would be good for you as an individual.
The reasons why rejuvenation would be good for any given individual should be bleeding obvious. However, you’d be surprised how often people think it all boils down to ‘You’d live forever!’—which by the way is not granted and can be a bit of a controversial concept. The real reasons why rejuvenation would be good for you as an individual are the following.
The elderly of today aren’t exactly famous for their good health, nor for their ability to go about their lives easily and without help in even the simplest tasks. Old people have weaker bodies, weaker immune systems, are prey to a number of horrible diseases and chronic pain, and cannot take care of themselves with the same ease as they did when they were young. Pay attention next time you go downtown. You’ll see elderly people walking slowly and with difficulty, perhaps with the aid of a walker or a cane. They can’t hear well and they can’t see well. Climbing the stairs for them feels like more climbing a mountain. A young person can shake off the flu after a few days of discomfort; an old person may well die of the complications of it, because their weak immune system did not do a very good job. This is, in a nutshell, why young people can take care of themselves and old people end up in hospices or have to be watched over by their families.
Since the moment humans became aware of their existence, they have been haunted by the knowledge that it will inevitably come to an end and the hope to change this unfortunate fate.
This month, during Brain Bar Budapest – Europe’s leading conference on the future – Stephen Cave talked about the four immortality stories we tell ourselves and how they are changing in the context of new scientific discoveries and technological advancements. Stephen Cave spent a decade studying and teaching philosophy, and was awarded his PhD in metaphysics from the University of Cambridge in 2001. He is Executive Director of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence and Senior Research Associate at the University of Cambridge.
Overpopulation is the most common objection people make to developing rejuvenation biotechnology and potentially increasing healthy human lifespan. We take a look at why that is and if the figures support this concern.
Any discussion of rejuvenation biotechnology almost certainly includes the subject of overpopulation and that objection medical advances that directly address the various processes of aging will lead to an overpopulated world. Such dire predictions are a common theme when advances in medicine that could increase human lifespans are concerned.
Overpopulation is a word that gives the simple fact of population growth a negative connotation. It implies that an increase in the number of people will harm our lives in different ways: it might be famine, scarcity of resources, excessive population density, increased risks of infectious diseases, or harm to the environment.
This concern, first raised by the work of 18th century Reverend and scholar Thomas Malthus, has been a constant theme in both popular fiction and early foresights related to population growth. But is it actually well-founded? Let’s take a look at the issues behind these concerns from a scientific point of view.
Can we live to 1,000? It was outrageous when he said it at ideacity in 2008… and again in 2015. Now he’s back to update us on the incredible progress that has been made toward life extension.
Michael Kramer of Zoomer Radio talks with Aubrey de Grey at ideacity 2017. Aubrey de Grey is an English author and biomedical gerontologist, currently the Chief Science Officer of the SENS Research Foundation. Find out more about ideacity at http://www.ideacity.ca/ideacity-2017/
LEAF Director Elena Milova recently attended the International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit in Madrid and gave a talk about effective advocacy and how we can engage better with the public as advocates for rejuvenation biotechnology.
Her talk touches upon effective message delivery as well as the basic principles of teaching, known as the didactic principles.
If we can learn to master this techniques it will help us all become better advocates and champions of rejuvenation biotechnology. Her talk is available below and for those who prefer reading, there is a text version of the main points addressed during the presentation. The presentation slides used in the video are available here or here for pdf.
Excellent lightning round questions below the audio. Between Dune and Hitchhikers Guide, Liz is indeed a nerd.
In this episode we talk about aging. It’s a condition that everyone experiences and indeed, one thing is certain: when it comes to aging, our condition is terminal. Our guest today is challenging that and fighting aging head on. We’re speaking with Liz Parrish, the CEO of BioViva, a biotech company dedicated to advancing gene and cell therapies to treat the diseases of aging. We dive into her work and learn about the results of the treatment that she received to slow and maybe even reverse the effects of aging.
Liz is a passionate advocate for patient access to these revolutionary treatments, and a couple years ago, Liz decided to take her own medicine – literally. In September 2015, Liz underwent genetic therapy with the aim of slowing and even reversing the effects of aging. She believes that aging should be classified as a disease to open up entirely new and untapped pathways to extend human lives and allow us to be healthier, longer.
Gene therapy to treat aging as a disease. Is this something that will catch on? Should we be tinkering with our own genes in this way? If not, why not? We’re already extending the lives of animals from earthworms to mice – why shouldn’t we work to extend our own lives through applying this technology? But if we do that, will these treatments only be available to the elite and wealthy of our society, or is this something that can benefit all of society by making it available to anyone who wants it?
A conspiracy theory article that I think is spreading semi-fake news (but it’s interesting to see how some people react to #transhumanism):
While the title of this article may sound like it belongs on a strange and dark science fiction movie, it doesn’t. Unfortunately, it seems that as the technological world continues to advance, the more the old adage ‘the truth is stranger than fiction’ becomes true.
Throughout the past year or so, we have heard Google’s leading futurist tell us that it will one day be possible to live forever. His belief is that it will start with nanobots in the human body which would work to defeat deadly disease, in place of our immune system. Kurzweil maintains that the human immune system is inadequate and that,
“Your immune system, for example, does a poor job on cancer,” he told Playboy.” It thinks cancer is you. It doesn’t treat cancer as an enemy. It also doesn’t work well on retroviruses. It doesn’t work well on things that tend to affect us later in life because it didn’t select for longevity.”
He also believes that the nanobots will enhance humanity and bring us to a point we could never have reached on our own. “We’re going to be funnier. We’re going to be sexier. We’re going to be better at expressing loving sentiment.”
An article discussing why extreme risk aversion deriving from indefinite lifespans is neither very likely, nor rational.
There’s a theory suggesting that, if we could live indefinitely, we might become extremely risk-averse. Presently, regardless of when you die, you ‘only’ lose a handful of decades of life at worst, because you would have died of old age eventually anyway. However, the reasoning goes, if you could live for an indefinitely long time, your untimely death would cost you no less than eternity; the conclusion is that, in order to avoid such an unimaginable loss, people wouldn’t dare taking even the most insignificant risks, such as crossing the street, ultimately making their own lives quite miserable.
The problem with this argument is that it hinges on a flawed assumption. The assumption is that we dare taking any risks at all only because we know that in a few decades at best we’re going to be dead anyway. Why do you take a plane for a holiday at the Antipodes? Because you’re going to die anyway when you’re old. Why do you go on a rollercoaster ride? Because the reaper would get you sooner or later anyway. Why do you go out without an umbrella even though it looks like it might rain? Because pneumonia would cut your life only a few decades shorter. Note that this argument also answers the age-old question, ‘Why did the chicken cross the street?’ Because YOLO.
This is not how smart people (or chickens) think. The question is one of magnitude of benefits and risks of a certain course of action. Consider the case of John, 40 years old, taking a plane from New York to Madrid for a two-week holiday. There is a chance the plane might fall into the Atlantic Ocean during the flight, in which case John would die. The chance isn’t very big, but it’s not zero nonetheless. If the plane doesn’t fall, then John gets his holiday (the benefits); however, if the plane falls, not only does John not get his holiday, but he also loses his life. At age 40, John isn’t exactly a youngster any more, but he does have some 40 years of life left, though. While the perceived value of the holiday and the remaining 40 years of life are subjective, it is quite reasonable to say that two weeks in Madrid aren’t worth losing 40 years of life.