logo.jpg

Live to see it.


Main

April 20, 2009


More on Sexy Immortal Etc.

I started writing a comment in the thread on my Better All the Time piece from Friday when I realized that, length-wise, it was growing into a post of its own. So here we go.

Leo wrote:

Until humans know that happiness results from virtuous behavior and that such knowledge informs and directs our own behavior, we will continue to pursue the gratification of our sensory appetites. Such behavior leads to an every increasing level of vice, accelerating one on the downward spiral into the abyss of despair and unhappiness. It is happiness, so understood, that is the basis of the phrase in our Declaration of Independence, "Pursuit of Happiness".

Sally responded:

[T]he kind of capabilities Singulatarians are projecting for future people and societies allow people to pursue all kinds of fun and take care of their responsibilities and themselves. They want more, more, more, and they get it.

The dissipation of alcohol, sex, drugs noted yesteryear and today are a function of comparatively low level of technological capability as expressed in our amusements rather than punishment for sinners.

I agree. While we do see individuals from time to time falling into the spiral that Leo describes (and that's a tragedy), humanity as a whole pushes on.

If anything, I believe that material progress has aided humanity in becoming more virtuous. I pointed out in my post that we are less violent than our primitive ancestors. Look at how much progress has been made over the past few centuries in recognizing and realizing the idea of human rights. The abolition of first the slave trade and then the practice of slavery was a by-product of the industrial revolution. History shows that more capable people, with better resources at their disposal, tend to be nicer than less capable people with fewer resources.

This doesn't mean that there aren't still bad people, nor does it mean that those same resources never get used to do terrible things. But the trend is towards greater empathy with our fellow human beings. Our future selves are highly compassionate beings -- that's one of the things that makes them so darn sexy.

Mark wrote:

If you extrapolate the evolution from single cell to human (more power, knowledge and longevity) into the future, you eventually get to omnipotence, omniscience and immortality which is a common definition of God. So, perhaps God did not create man, but man's destiny is to evolve into God.

Tracing the progression of humanity towards godhood is something akin to tracing the the progression of our present state of affairs towards "the most wonderful world imaginable." The closer we get to any one conception of it, the more we have to refine what we mean by the term. Let's just take one of your characteristics of God, omnipotence, and give it a fairly standard definition: infinitely powerful. (Omnipotent actually means "all-powerful," not "infinitely powerful," but I think most of us would agree that God is widely described as having infinite power.)

Eliezer Yudkowsky (no fan of the God meme) does an excellent job of showing the fallacy of glibly tossing the term "infinite" around, when in reality we can barely get our heads around very large numbers. He writes:

Graham's number is far beyond my ability to grasp. I can describe it, but I cannot properly appreciate it. (Perhaps Graham can appreciate it, having written a mathematical proof that uses it.) This number is far larger than most people's conception of infinity. I know that it was larger than mine. My sense of awe when I first encountered this number was beyond words. It was the sense of looking upon something so much larger than the world inside my head that my conception of the Universe was shattered and rebuilt to fit. All theologians should face a number like that, so they can properly appreciate what they invoke by talking about the "infinite" intelligence of God.

If human beings are currently at a capability level represented by the number 1, perhaps the powerful beings I described in my piece would be represented by the number 100. If those sexy immortal billionaires with super powers then become a thousand times more powerful than that, and then a million times more powerful than that, and then a billion times more powerful than that, they are still roughly as far from being infinitely powerful as we are right now. Going back to my analogy of a one-celled organism trying to figure out what it needs to do to become human, that woefully simplistic creature is much, much closer to us than we are to an infinite being. (In fact, it is infinitely closer.)

Interestingly, if we were to reach a capability level represented by the vast-beyond-imagining number that Yudkowsky describes above, we would be much more powerful than "God" as conceived in the minds of most believers. In fact, we wouldn't need to go nearly that far to achieve a level of capability that far transcends what most people picture when they think of "God." I don't think this means that we're moving in on divinity. Rather, I think we need vastly expanded imagination when it comes to contemplating human potential, much less the nature of God.

sexyimmortals.jpg

Some sexy immortals / folks with super-powers.
Unfortunately, the only actual billionaire pictured is not immortal,
but you get the idea. (Bet he would be a big contributor, though.)

Hitnrun wrote:

"I think they would laugh at that question. The answer is so obvious. Likewise, if we had even a rough approximation of what life will be like for people in the future, we would be equally amused at the suggestion that those folks might be less happy than we are."

That's quite an amazing fallacy. Just because something seems "obvious" to an outsider with no data doesn't make it true.

Of course, in the examples I gave there is some data although it's hardly exhaustive. However, these people aren't entirely "outsiders." Human beings of any era will agree that being eaten by bears is negatively correlated with happiness, while having a warm and dry place to sleep is positively correlated with happiness. The net human experience is that over time we have fewer of the former type of factor to contend with and get many more of the latter as given.

In any case, if it's a fallacy to make assumptions about the level of happiness of people living in other eras, then those who claim that people were happier or just as happy in the past are committing precisely that fallacy.

SparcVark wrote:

Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.

. . . Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.

-Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution

Is the "new transhuman man" just the "new socialist man" with slightly updated wishful thinking?

Sally responded:

Good prognosis from Trotsky, but Marxism was a very bad treatment.

Turns out Trotsky was right for all the wrong reasons.

Marx KNEW technological development was accelerating in the 19th century, but failed miserably by not studying the tech itself and not extrapolating those trends.

Well, that was ONE of his many mistakes.

Marx looked at human history and saw an ancient power struggle between classes. He saw technology as an enabler of conducting and winning a war between classes rather than as an evolutionary catalyst to societal change. In his view, it takes an armed uprising to put the means of production into the hands of the workers. Wrong. It turns out that technological development ultimately puts the means of production into the hands of the workers, and that a capitalist system fully supports the transition. The singularity, particularly the economic variety, promises to bring about much of what 19th century communists and other Utopians envisioned. Are we just touting a new version of their "wishful thinking?" I suppose we are, in much the same way that the Wright brothers carried forward a new version of Leonardo's "wishful thinking" about heavier-than-air flight.

Donald Fagen wrote:

A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellas with compassion and vision
We'll be free when their work is done
We'll be eternaly free, yes, and eternally young

What a beautiful world this will be!
What a glorious time to be free!

You know, Donald, I always assumed that your namesake was being sarcastic with this song. But the idea suggested here is pretty much where I think we're headed. The basic programming for that machine ought to be something along these lines.

March 18, 2009


A Different Idea About Retirement

Well, as Harvey observes in the comments to my March on Washington post, it looks like my suggestion that we raise the retirement age has not been greeted with too much enthusiasm. I can't blame people for not being excited about the idea of a delayed retirement. However, I did think people would have more enthusiasm for the idea of healthy life extension.

I guess, as a marketing guy, I should have known that "let's raise the retirement age" is not the most appealing way to package longevity research.

I should take a lesson from J. Storrs Hall who tells us that we should stop talking about "the singularity" and start talking about "early retirement" for humanity. He makes a good case -- we are potentially just a few generations of technology away from human labor being rendered obsolete. I've suggested that one possibility, in a world where the machines do all the productive labor, would be for human beings to all have BS jobs. Josh notes that there are other, perhaps more well-thought-out ideas about how we will handle wealth distribution in a roboconomy.

Anyhow, "early retirement" sounds like something we could all go for -- a chance to get out of the rat race and pursue our dreams. Will people stop working? Of course not. People will work at things they care about, irrespective of economic need.

I have to admit, that sounds a lot better than delayed retirement. Here we have a future we might get people marching towards. What say you, Harvey?

earlyretirement.jpg

March 14, 2009


Here's a March on Washington They Wouldn't Expect

For a number of reasons that we've gone over and over, we don't talk about politics at The Speculist. But no politics and no religion is Rule 2. Rule 1 is that we can talk about whatever we want.

So with that in mid, let me make the odd foray into politics and suggest that its time for a march on Washington. We'll call it the MMAMWM: the Million Middle-Aged Men and Women March. Inspired by Glenn Reynolds' recent Forbes essay on longevity, we'll assemble the aforementioned million-or-so 40-and-uppers* to march on Washington and demand that the retirement age be raised.

I'm 46 -- I'd like to see them raise the retirement age to 80 or higher. All things being equal, having people stay in the work force those additional 15-20 years would be a tremendous boon to productivity and would significantly ease the strain (or delay the meltdown, depending on whose rosy scenario you want to follow) of Social Security and Medicaid.

But there's a catch. The plan to delay retirement has to come with a commitment to fund longevity research. Funding would be distributed through a series of push prizes aimed at achieving very aggressive goals related to extending healthy, viable lifespan. As Glenn points out, you can't just have people living longer. For this delayed retirement scheme to work, we need to remain vital and healthy. In fact, each incremental addition to the retirement age would be tied to a specific aging breakthrough. Possible examples

Develop reliable preventative treatments for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, retirement age goes up to 67.

Breakthroughs in preventing heart disease and diabetes**, retirement age goes up to 70.

Breakthroughs in preventing and treating cancer**, retirement age goes up to 72.

Breakthroughs in extending and enhancing cognitive ability, retirement age goes up to 75.

Breakthroughs in restoring and maintaining muscle and bone tissue, retirement age goes up to 80.

Heck, if we did all that we could probably raise the retirement age to 100. But let's not get carried away. With the initial march, we'll only insist that it be raised to 80.

marchonwashington.jpg


* Is that a valid definition of middle-aged? The term seems so arbitrary.

** We would have to be very specific, as these are occurring all the time anyhow.

September 12, 2008


Room for Improvement

Being human, we are always trying to find a way to improve our condition. We're never satisfied with the status quo.

One very important metric for improvement is life span.

lifespan graph.gif

I found the above graph in a paper by Marvin Minsky. It shows that only about 20% of people lived to see age 45 in ancient Rome. By 1900, 20% of people lived to just above age 70. By 1960 20% made it to age 85.

Check out that last "all diseases cured" curve. If we cure all diseases (all diseases, that is, except aging itself) 20% will make it to 95. So if you're part of that lucky 1 in 5, curing all disease would give you only 10 years more than you would have had in 1960. And the maximum life span hasn't increased at all.

Continue reading "Room for Improvement" »

August 28, 2008


A Message From Aubrey de Grey

Methuselah Foundation needs your help now - we are supporting a project named "Undergrads Fighting Age Related Disease" which has been submitted as part of the American Express Members Project initiative.

To advance this critical project please go to http://www.membersproject.com/project/view/BVVE2C

We need to get only 1,000 more votes in the next 4 days (by Sept 1, 2008) so please support your cause and vote now. Here are the instructions.

1. Go to: http://www.membersproject.com/project/view/BVVE2C

2. Log in either as an Amex Card Member or as a Guest Member on the top right side (any US resident can vote)
[ Note: Commenter Lauri, below, says that in fact anyone can vote, not just US residents.]

3. Complete the Registration Form, which will give you your login ID

4. Click the Nominate button at:
http://www.membersproject.com/project/view/BVVE2C
and post a supportive comment

Cheers,

Aubrey de Grey
Chief Science Officer and Chairman
Methuselah Foundation

August 14, 2008


Sounds Too Good to Be True

But, hey, it might be worth a shot.

First, let me say that I have nothing but admiration for those who have adopted a restricted calorie diet in the hopes of realizing some of the health and life extension benefits that have been demonstrated repeatedly in the lab with animals (mostly mice) following similar diets. The only reason I haven't personally tried to adopt the CR lifestyle is fear of failure.

I think I could manage it for six months, maybe a year at most, and then I expect would fall seriously off the wagon. Even following a much more modest program over the course of a couple of years, my weight has been gradually creeping back up -- probably through a combination of metabolic changes and not sticking with the program as carefully as I might have.

A few months ago, I wrote about an emerging critique of diet and exercise as a cure for obesity:

In study after study over the course of the past century, the number of clinical trial subjects who have kept more than 40 pounds off for a period of five or more years is vanishingly rare. The number that's thrown around on Dean's World is 0.1%, although I haven't seen where Dean specifically raised this number, only where people arguing with him have. So if we can name people who have met the criteria -- Jared comes to mind -- we have only found an example of that 0.1% of the population for whom diet and exercise is an effective long-term obesity cure. Likewise, the participants in the National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) study were asked to participate if they had already achieved a certain level of long-term weight loss -- it's just another example of this same selection bias.

It's like "proving" that the lottery is a smart bet because somebody won!

So diet and exercise become a real double-bind for the obese. Typically, it doesn't work out; but it's the only "cure" out there, so people try again and again, and you get the dreaded yo-yo effect. People who want to argue that diet and exercise are an ineffective cure only because fat people are lazy or undisciplined or lack self-esteem aren't really contributing much to the discussion, other than venting. Show me an effective way to combine diet and exercise with acquiring discipline or self-esteem -- and by effective, I mean one that has been demonstrated to work with a significant population of obese people, not more anecdotes about Jared or your aunt -- or shut up.

And if the normal, moderate diet-and-exercise cure proves too difficult for most people, how much progress can we expect from the much more ambitious calorie restriction lifestyle?

Continue reading "Sounds Too Good to Be True" »

April 18, 2008


None a Day

From KurzweilAI.net:

Vitamins 'may shorten your life'

BBC News, April 16, 2008

Copenhagen University research has suggested that certain vitamin supplements do not extend life and could even lead to a premature death.

A review of 67 studies with trials involving 233,000 people found "no convincing evidence" that antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying," and suggested that vitamins A and E could interfere with the body's natural defences, and that beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to increase mortality.

The researchers linked vitamin A supplements to a 16% increased risk of dying, beta-carotene to a 7% increased risk and vitamin E to a 4% increased risk.

More details here. This sounds kind of like when they figured out that, with trans fatty acids and all, margarine is worse for your heart than butter.

Sheesh. Be careful out there.


February 11, 2008


Now He's Slumming

First Aubrey de Grey was on 60 Minutes.

Then he was on FastForward Radio.

I guess all glory is fleeting. Poor Aubrey is reduced to doing Stephen Colbert. Well, what the hey -- let's tune in anyhow.

UPDATE: Aubrey did great. I figured Colbert would tear him to shreds, but not at all. He held his own and then some -- recommended that McCain should get serious about funding the Methuselah Foundation before being elected president seeing as "he doesn't have much time."

Good stuff.

UPDATE II: Here's the clip...


January 23, 2008


Things to do...

...while waiting for real life extension (like maybe SRT501) to be developed:

102 Ways to Slow Down Aging
- Christina Laun at "Bootstrapper"

It's a good collection of old school advice on taking care yourself. Some are these things are more fun than others.

November 29, 2007


Anti-Aging Drug Going into Human Trials

Back in 2004 I predicted that we'd have life extension by 2014. I have on several occasions reaffirmed this prediction. Last year I added:

This idea - that progress in life extension science continues regardless of its description - is part of the reasoning behind my prediction that we will have some form of life extension by 2014. Perhaps I should modify this prediction to say that it will be an off-label treatment - something gerontologists know extends life, but won't publicly admit extends life.

I was responding to the timidness of some gerontologists to admit that the they are engaged in life extension science. But there's more than timidness at work here. Life extension will, I think, turn out that the best treatment for a host of diseases. What physical problem would not benefit from a younger biochemistry?

Phil said in our most recent FastForward Radio show that solutions for diseases will "come along for the ride" when we get life extension. It could also work the other way around. Especially with the earliest incarnations, life extension could come along for the ride while we are searching for treatments for specific diseases. Case in point:

Human clinical trials to test [SIRT1 activating] compounds in diabetes are slated to begin early next year, according to Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, based in Cambridge, MA, which developed the drugs. "As far as I'm aware, this is the first anti-aging molecule going into [testing in] man," says David Sinclair, a biologist at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, and cofounder of Sirtris. "From that standpoint, this is a major milestone in medicine."

If these trials prove this drug to be effective, it will be marketed as a drug for diabetics and people who are at risk of diabetes. But the truth is that it could be good for everybody because it will duplicate the chemistry of caloric restriction for those of us who would perfer not to live on starvation rations.

For several years, scientists have been on the hunt for a drug that could bring the benefits of caloric restriction without the strict diet. Last fall, Sinclair and his colleagues took a first step when they showed that mice given resveratrol, a molecule that activates SIRT1, stayed healthy when fed high-fat foods. But there was a catch: mice were dosed with the human equivalent of more than 1,000 wine bottles' worth of the compound, an amount not possible for humans to imbibe or take in pill form.

Now a team at Sirtris, led by CEO Christoph Westphal, has identified a group of compounds that activate SIRT1 1,000 times more potently than resveratrol does. According to findings published today in the journal Nature, the compounds bind to the enzyme and dramatically increase its activity. Because the new compounds are more powerful, much lower doses are likely needed to achieve the same beneficial effects. "We believe doses needed in humans for the novel compounds are probably on the order of hundreds of milligrams, similar to many marketed drugs," says Westphal.

October 31, 2007


Article on Aubrey / Life Extension in Washington Post

A lengthy and mostly positive portrayal. Check it out.

September 26, 2007


Ending Aging -- Get a Signed Copy

Stephen has been blogging up a storm on the subject of Aubrey de Grey's landmark new book, Ending Aging, which I will be reviewing in the near future. If you haven't bought a copy yet (or even if you have!) and would like to get a copy of the book signed by the author, here's your big chance.

So you can get a signed copy of the book while actively helping to end aging. That's a pretty good deal!

September 23, 2007


Moving to a Better Neighborhood

Long, long ago in the primordial soup, before the arrival of multicellular life, single-celled life was eating and being eaten. Normally this is the starkest of all zero-sum games. When the lion wins, the wildebeest loses - big time.

But there was a notable exception in the soup. One prey species evolved a remarkable defense. They became indigestible. Once they were ingested they made themselves at home within their predator. They became mitochondria.

There must have been conflict at first. The cell probably did try to digest the mitochondria and the mitochondria probably sickened the cell.

But at some point a truce was called and a partnership flourished. Cells with mitochondria could out-compete their neighbors because the mitochondria devoted itself to being an energy factory for the cell. The cell returned the favor by protecting the mitochondria and taking over more and more of the other tasks that, formerly, the mitochondria did for itself.

For awhile the two partners were still individuals. Like our intestinal flora, mitochondria had a home, but maintained their own DNA.

But the mitochondria had a good reason for giving up even this function. Being an energy factory is a dirty, toxic job. The DNA kept within mitochondria was (and is) constantly bombarded with mutagens. And mutated mitochondria become less efficient and eventually quit working.

Evolution responded by moving mitochondrial DNA out of the mitochondria and into the relative safety of the cell nucleus. When mitochondrial genes work from the safety of the nucleus its called allotopic expression. The more that mitochondrial DNA moved to the nucleus, the risk for mitochondrial failure was reduced. This pressure has served as a one-way ratchet pushing the migration of mitochondrial DNA to the nucleus.

Even now this process is not complete. Human mitochondria still maintains a few of its own genes. And this is a problem. Aubrey de Grey has identified mitochondrial mutations as one of the seven reason we age.

His proposed solution is elegant - finish the job that evolution started. Put the rest of mitochondrial DNA into the nucleus. De Grey is not suggesting that we do away with mitochondrial DNA. Instead of a "cut and paste," we do a much simpler "copy and paste." Then when the mitochondrial DNA becomes too damaged to work, the backup copy of those genes in the nucleus does the job. With complete allotropic expression even a mitochondria with gibberish DNA would, in theory, continue to work just fine.

Until recently all the research in this area was aimed at a group of diseases called mitochondriopathies - congenital defects in the mitochondrial DNA.

Picking up the ball, Eric Schon and his coworkers from the Department of Neurology at Columbia took the next step, inserting a cloned copy of the algae's TP6 gene into the nucleus of human cells whose mitochondrial DNA harbored the same mutations that cause these neuromuscular diseases in humans. The cells decoded the genetic instructions, turned out the protein in the main chamber of the cell, imported it into the mitochondria...rescuing the cells from the destructive effects of the mutation.
Ending Aging, page 91.

Aubrey de Grey believes that this research – though aimed at a group of rare diseases - will help us battle the mitochondrial problems that we all get as we grow older. Now research sponsored by the Methuseleh Foundation – with which Aubrey de Grey is affiliated - is beginning to bear fruit.

PhD candidate Mark Hamalainen of Cambridge University presented the initial success in his Methuselah Foundation-funded work on allotopic expression, showing evidence that his allotopically-expressed genes could encode the relevant proteins and that these were taken up into the mitochondria. In this case, the genes encode healthy and defective versions of the protein that is miscoded in Neuropathy, Ataxia and Retinitis Pigmentosa (NARP), a hereditary mitochondrial disease characterized by blindness and weak and uncoordinated muscles. Well done! It is good to see Foundation-funded research make such solid progress; many thanks go to the generous donors who have made this possible.

FuturePundit Randall Parker has started reviewing Ending Aging (like me, he's having to publish his thoughts in installments). His first post is covering ground I've neglected - the pro-Aging trance. Check it out.

September 19, 2007


A Cancer-Fighting GIFT

Aubrey de Grey has stated that aging is caused by seven problems:

  1. Cell loss, cell atrophy
  2. Junk outside cells
  3. Crosslinks outside cells
  4. Death-resistant cells
  5. Mitochondrial mutations
  6. Junk inside cells
  7. Nuclear mutations that cause cancer

Each of these problems got a chapter in Aubrey's new book Ending Aging. In each chapter de Grey explained the problem and then outlined the most promising methods for conquering each. Although the book was only released a couple of weeks ago, at least two chapters already need major revisions - chapter 12 on cancer, and chapter 6 on mitochondrial mutations.

That's how fast the state of the art is moving now. I'll bet Aubrey de Grey couldn't be happier. Both of these developments were announced at de Grey's own SENS3 conference last week.

Attendees at SENS3 heard first-hand about an extremely exciting approach to cancer treatment that has not yet hit the scientific literature or the press. In 2003, Dr. Zheng Cui and his colleagues at the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University reported the discovery of mice with immune cells that rendered them invulnerable to cancer: they had been intentionally giving mice cancer by injecting them with virulent cancer cells as part of a separate study, when they discovered a single mouse in the colony that was completely immune to the invasive cells.

His curiosity piqued, Dr. Cui went on to show that it could resist multiple rounds of such injections, and were so impressed that they used him to father a whole colony of mice, all of whom shared this remarkable invulnerability to cancer. Based on that ability, he calls them spontaneous regression/complete resistance (SR/CR) mice.

I'm glad Dr. Cui put that mouse out to stud. And not just because his decendents may help us cure cancer. That mouse earned it. I'm reminded of the plot to Unbreakable.

Amazingly this ability to fight off cancer is transferable to normal mice with a simple transfusion. It both prevented cancer and fought off cancer that had already started. And a single dose is sufficient to give a lifetime - a mouse's lifetime anyway - of cancer protection.

Then Dr. Cui went looking for these special immune system cells in humans. He found them.

...there appears to be a classical bell-shaped distribution of cancer-killing ability in the granulocytes of people in the population: a few people have white blood cells extremely weak cancer-killing activity, the great majority have an 'average' competence, and a very small group of outliers have the kind of overwhelming search-and-destroy activity (at least in a test tube!) that is seen in the SR/CR mice.

Dr. Cui now has FDA approval for human testing of his proposed "GIFT" (Granulocyte InFusion Therapy). He will transfuse granulocytes from cancer resistent people to people who are battling cancer. He just needs funding.


Next post: why the mitochondrial chapter of Ending Aging needs an update.


UPDATE:

Aubrey de Grey has just published an excerpt from Ending Aging at KurzweilAI:

Bootstrapping our way to an Ageless Future

May / December

It appears that old guys hooking up with younger women may be a key to increasing human lifespan:

Women often lose their reproductive capacity around age 50, but if men can still reproduce into their 70s, Darwin would say it's advantageous for males to live longer lives providing they can hook up with a woman capable of reproducing. Natural selection should favor longevity-boosting genes, which would get passed down from fathers to both sons and daughters. So women would benefit as well in future generations, the scientists say.

Result: Over time, the older-guy-with-younger-gal lifestyle would lift the lifespan ceiling for both men and women in the next generations and so on.

"By increasing the survival of men you have a spillover effect on women because men pass their genes to children of both sexes," said Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University.

At a mere 12 years older than my bride, I'm apparently not doing that much to help. It turns out that a 5-15 year age difference within married couples has been the norm in traditional societies throughout history, so Suraya and I are just normal (or perhaps old school).

Anyhow, this probably isn't going to prove a very effective means of extending human lifespan going forward -- seeing as we have more direct methods available -- but it might explain how we got here.

September 06, 2007


Why don't graveyards glow in the dark?

Aubrey de Grey from Ending Aging:

There were actual land sites all over the planet that should be very badly contaminated by lipofuscin [waste byproducts of metabolism that our cells can't break down and, therefore, contribute to aging.], because their soil has been seeded with the stuff for generations. I speak, of course, of graveyards.

...

there was no accumulation of lipofuscin in cemetaries - and if it were there, we certainly ought to be aware of it, because lipofuscin is fluorescent.

-page 121

Aubrey de Grey's answer: Xenocatabolism. If there is a food source available, bacteria will evolve that can eat it. And if bacteria can do it, why can't we steal that ability for ourselves?

You must get this book:

September 04, 2007


"Ending Aging" published today

Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey has been published today. Phil got his hands on an advanced copy and has promised a review. With luck, the copy I ordered will arrive in the next day or so.

This is the book that those of us who have followed life extension closely have been eagerly awaiting. In case you don't know what all the fuss is about, the following is some indispensible Aubrey:

  • Phil's email interview with Aubrey de Grey.

  • Our Fast Forward Radio interview with Aubrey:

    Download this podcast episode (35.17 MB)   


    Here are the show notes for this episode of Fast Forward Radio.

  • Aubrey's Seven Deadly Things (that cause aging).

  • Lastly, don't miss this documentary about Aubrey de Grey. I have mixed feelings about this program, but I think that its a (mostly) fair introduction to Aubrey and his ideas.

And make sure to pick up a copy of Ending Aging.

UPDATE:

Alright! My copy was in today's mail. I'll be reading all night.

August 31, 2007


In the Mail

Aubrey de Grey's new book, Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime. Looks to a be thorough explanation of SENS and the work of the Methuselah Foundation. I can't wait to get started; will provide a full report when finished.

endingaging.jpg

July 31, 2007


Exponential Life

In his speech at the World Transhumanist conference, Ray Kurzweil claimed that life expectancy is currently increasing by 3 months per year. If that rate of improvement stayed constant, my two-year-old son would have a life expectancy nine years longer than my current expectancy when he reaches my current age of 38.

That sort of linear improvement does not upset the status quo. Career and retirement plans would gradually change to accommodate slightly longer lives, but not much else would change.

Fortunately Kurzweil doesn't expect us to stay at the current rate of improvement. He believes that in 15 years life expectancy will increase more than one year for each year that passes. For every year that passes the average person would get at least another year added to their life expectancy. That would be an indefinite lifespan very soon - by the year 2022. That would change everything.

If we placed our progress on a life expectancy calendar – presently we're at March 31... three months into the life expectancy year. December 31 represents the threshold of indefinite lifespans. If Kurzweil's right, how many days improvement in life expectancy will we see added each year until 2022?

365 days – 91 days = 274 days.

274 days / 15 years = approximately 18.25 days/year

But that's linear. When it comes to technological advancement, Kurzweil never thinks linear.

If Kurzweil's forecast is right (that we get 3 months of life expectancy improvement per year now and that we will pass 1 year of life expectancy improvement per year in 15 years), AND if life expectancy improvement is subject to the same doubling trend that we've seen with computers, what would this look like?


life expectancy improvement.JPG


Obviously, this was a job for a spreadsheet. Columns A and B represent the years in Kurzweil's forecast. Column C shows a simple annual doubling trend. Notice that column C is totaled at the bottom. I generated D in reverse order. Starting at the bottom, I calculated 2022's doubling as a portion of the sum of all progress made since 2007. Working backward I did the same with 2021 on up.

The closer I got to the current year, the smaller the percentage. Excel had to resort to scientific notation for 2009, 2008, and 2007.

At the bottom of column E, I placed the number 274 – the number of days improvement in life expectancy per year needed to achieve an indefinite lifespan. Again, working backwards in column F, I showed the number of days improvement we could expect to see each year if Kurzweil is right (and if this improvement were subject to doubling). Column G is where we fall on the life expectancy calendar.

Notice how this could sneak up on us. Imagine some critic writing an article in 2013 about how we're 6 years into Kurzweil's forecast timeframe and we've seen no real progress, "Obviously good ol' Ray is just a lovable crank."

By 2018 the critic might admit that there has been modest improvement, but indefinite lifespans are perhaps a century away, not four years, "Kurzweil's optimism obviously got the best of him with that prediction he made back in 2007."

The progress of the last four years is so explosive that it might take the critic several years after 2022 to admit that we achieved indefinite life spans in 2022.

June 05, 2007


Aubrey de Grey at Google TechTalks

On May 29, 2007 Aubrey de Grey spoke to Google about defeating aging. If you haven't heard him speak before, you really need to:

An odd thing happens at the beginning of this video. The Google M.C. got up and reminded the audience that this talk was going to be recorded for public consumption so "Please don't ask any Google confidential questions."

Ummm. I'm sure Google has some very important secrets that it needs to keep – like its search engine algorithms. But what subject would Aubrey de Grey touch on or have an expertise in that would elicit a "Google confidential question?"

If we live 1000 years, do you think Google come up with a better search algorithm than yada yada yada?

I guess that this is something the M.C. says at all the Google TechTalks. But really, it's almost enough to make me suspect some nefarious Google conspiracy.

That aside, don't miss Aubrey's presentation. It's a brilliant summation of his work.

UPDATE:

On the other hand, how cool would it be to work in a place that hosts speakers like Aubrey de Grey? That audience (which I'm sure was just dying to ask Google-confidential questions) was probably on the clock.


And don't miss our FastForward Radio interview of Aubrey de Grey from last August.

H/T to Michael Anissimov.

March 29, 2007


Reasonable Expectations

`Bear in mind then, that Brag is a good dog, but Holdfast is a better. Bear that in mind, will you?' repeated Mr Jaggers, shutting his eyes and nodding his head at Joe, as if he were forgiving him something. `Now, I return to this young fellow. And the communication I have got to make is, that he has Great Expectations.'

Dickens, Great Expectations

In the upcoming current edition of FastForward Radio, Stephen and I spend some time talking about our recent discussion about The Secret, and what our views on that matter have to say about where The Speculist fits on a scale from the completely skeptical to the completely mystical/credulous. Without giving too much away about a show that's still in production that you can just go listen to, I will just say that at this site, we are quick to entertain any idea that entertains us, but we don't spend a lot of time on ideas that don't have a solid basis in science and technology.

Which isn't to say that science and technology are the only worthwhile subjects that might be discussed. The folks who write for The Speculist would probably have a lot to say about religion, for example -- seeing as we are mostly people of faith -- but along with politics, it is one of the two topics we generally avoid. (With a few notable exceptions.) Those subjects are taboo not because they aren't interesting or because we wouldn't have a lot to say about them, but rather because:

1. They already get plenty of coverage elsewhere in the blogosphere, and

2. They tend to take over, leaving little time or room for other discussions.

Anyway, there are plenty of other topics that we haven't spent a lot of time on, except to have some fun with them. Things like UFOs, for example. We don't write about UFOs because they aren't particularly interesting to us; and they aren't particularly interesting to us because we don't think there's much of anything there. The real world can prove much more exhilarating than imaginary substitutes. Take sea monsters: an actual sea monster captures the imagination in a way that the mythical one can't.

Likewise, The Secret offers us a world of infinite possibility accessible by means of the fact that our minds control physical reality. That's nice, but speaking as someone not yet thoroughly convinced that my mind does control physical reality, I am nonetheless astounded by the future of limitless possibility that lies before us. In one of the earliest entries at The Speculist, written about three and a half years ago, I dashed off a list of items that I believed we have a pretty good shot at being able to live to see. At the time, I labeled these items the "extremely good news."

On the one hand, that's correct. It is good news that all of these items lie within the possibility space of humanity. But on the other hand, there's nothing particularly extreme about this list. These are just a few possibilities that lie far beyond the scope of what most practitioners of The Secret ever think about, and yet they lie well within the scope of what is attainable by humanity. These are not our Great Expectations; they're just our reasonable expectations.


Preserving and Nurturing the Biosphere

1. Methods of production that generate zero pollutants

2. Energy sources that produce zero pollutants

3. Reversing of previous environmental damage

4. Human population levels with zero negative environmental impact

5. Preservation of natural habitat for all living species

6. The long-term survival of all living species

7. The retrieval of lost species

8. The creation of new species and new biospheres


Standards of Living

1. Eradication of hunger worldwide

2. Adequate clean water, housing, clothing, for all

3. Medical care for all

4. Access to technology and knowledge for all who want it

5. Total economic independence for individuals and groups who desire it


Indefinite Human Lifespan

1. Eradication of aging and infectious disease

2. Quick, effective treatment for any kind of cancer

3. Effective prevention/cures for heart disease, diabetes, other chronic diseases

4. Suspension of life not sustainable by current means

5. The transfer of human consciousness to new media


Work

1. Work necessary for economic viability, not for economic survival

2. Continued blurring of line between work and play

3. Full immersion VR to eliminate distance

4. Artificial Intelligences to assist us in work


Recreation

1. Artificial Intelligences to entertain and befriend us

2. Full immersion VR to simulate any experience

3. Consumer model of entertainment rivaled by producer/participant model


(Amazing how much things can change in such a short period of time. Look at item 3 in the immediately preceding category. I'd say we're well on our way with that one.)

Stephen was taken to task in the comments section of the aforelinked discussion of The Secret for suggesting that a person's goals should be "realistic." But I think he would agree that everything on this list is not only realistic, but quite reasonable. With a future this bright within our grasp, who needs spooky magic powers?

December 14, 2006


The FOUR Million Dollar Mouse

Well, the MPrize has achieved another milestone in their efforts to help you live longer. The Methuselah Mouse Prize now sits at four million dollars. That's a four followed by six zeroes, folks.

If you haven't visited the MPrize site in a while, stop by. There's a lot of great information there. Take a moment to read up on opportunities for membership and other ways you can help them in their quest to extend your lifespan.

We've been tracking the progress of the MPrize for some time:

$0.5 million

$1 million

$2 million

$3 million

The current progress is encourging, but there's still a long way to go. So what are you waiting for?

Pay him a visit.

December 03, 2006


Life Extension is Gaining Acceptance

The blogger Reason at Fight Aging is giving reasons why he thinks that life extension is gaining acceptance from an important group - the scientists that will deliver it.

Exhibit A: Interview of Mark Hamalainen, PhD student working in the mitochondrion lab at Cambridge University:

Mark Hamalainen: ...it is good to be alive today, so why not tomorrow? I could write a book on all the things I'd like to do that one lifetime isn't enough for. I can understand how it is culturally advantageous (or at least inevitable) to come up with justifications for aging being ok when there is no prospect of intervention. But to maintain those beliefs when intervention is foreseeable is irrational. Any pro-death argument is vastly out of proportion with the horrible reality of aging: the gradual decay of your body that culminates in the ceasing of your existence.

Exhibit B: Older researchers lamenting the conservative culture that is holding back life extension research

"The cure for aging" is the instant-death third rail of grantsmanship and we stay away from it.

Note to researchers - I know you guys have already figured this out, but just a reminder - if "the cure for aging" is "instant death" ...don't call it that. Add to everyone's life expectancy with "sirtuin" research or "mitochondria" research, and let the marketers name it.

Exhibit C: The publication last March of the cover article "The Longevity Dividend" in The Scientists.

Why are we so optimistic now? The primary reason is that science has revealed that aging is not the immutable process it was once thought to be. Interventions at a variety of genetic, cellular, physiological, and behavioral levels not only increase longevity in laboratory organisms, but also dramatically increase the duration of disease-free life. The realization that some humans retain their physical and mental functioning for more than a century suggests that genes associated with the extension of healthy life already exist within the human genome. Biogerontologists have now gone from merely describing cellular aging and cell death to manipulating the mechanisms responsible for these phenomena.

I'd add an Exhibit D, the resveratrol/SIRT1 developments Randall Parker has been writing about:

There will probably be a distinguished but elderly scientist professing that life extension isn't possible even as the first treatments become available. But the cumulative effect of all these developments is already convincing enough scientists that improvement of the status quo is not only possible, but imminent. As this process goes on, gerontologists will rush to deliver "the cure for aging."

November 27, 2006


Time is Money

When I started Phil's last post I was thinking: "Wow, a movie that moderates Phil's Death Sucks position toward Leon Kass! This I gotta see."

But by the end of the post I was left with the impression that Phil's position is much the same.

Phil's Stranger than Fiction spoiler ahead:

The Will Ferrell character chooses to tow the Leon Kass line – he decides that the novel’s ending will add meaning to his life that it lacked before. In so deciding, he displays a courage and a stoicism – and most importantly, a desire that his life be worth something – that is both compelling and deeply moving.

And from Phil's comment:

[If Will Ferrell's character Crick] did it as presented -- to preserve the integrity of the story -- it's a very different thing. I can't say that I would do the same, but I admired Crick for making that choice.

I'm sure Phil will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that his post-Stranger Than Fiction position is, "I'll grant that a meaningful death may lend meaning to a life that was formerly coasting along. While this fact is a challenge to my 'Death Sucks' philosophy, I'm looking forward to discovering how meaningful a long life, perhaps even an indefinitely long life, can be."

Imagine we're all living someplace like North Korea where we're all equally miserable. Phil, being a courageous guy, publishes a pamphlet entitled "Poverty Sucks" and passes it around. I get a copy and have an epiphany: "You know, Phil's right. This one-turnip-a-week ration stinks!" Pretty soon there's a little movement going that gets the attention of the regime. Predictably Phil's hauled in by the secret police.

Thinking that Phil could produce great propaganda for the state if he's spared, Phil's would-be executioners are told to try to convert him. So they show Phil a film montage of great paupers - Jesus, Ghandi, and many others. Then they show him films of flawed rich people - citizens Kane... and Paris Hilton. At the end of the day Phil is asked who he'd rather be like, the self-actualized poor people, or the miserable, worthless rich people.

If Phil could be convinced that those were the only two alternatives I'm sure that Phil would embrace his life of poverty and stop being such a trouble-maker. But Phil would realize that it's a false choice.

I've known poor people as obsessed with money as any rich person could ever be. And I've also met some very mature and happy wealthy people. Money does not buy happiness, but if Abraham Maslow is correct, then people tend to forgo spiritual development until their basic needs are met. Having some money - enough to cover basic needs - provides the freedom to mature and grow that those mired in poverty might never have.

Likewise, additional time could also provide the freedom to grow and mature. And it would be a false choice to have to decide between a meaningful life and a long life. Life is not a commodity like gold where scarcity adds value. Our lives are precious because it's what we are. That fact is true whether you're 3, 33, or 333.

I also have admiration for those who make the ultimate sacrifice. Heroes don't risk their lives because they hate life or think that dying at age 25 would be great.

My father-in-law was recently given full military honors at his funeral. This was many years after his military service had ended. The officer said at the grave side that "Don McFaul answered his country's call during a time of war." That "freedom is not free." That "some gave all."

I've thought about that last line many times since then. Does it take anything away from my father-in-law's heroism that he survived the war? That he was not one of those who gave all? Absolutely not. Saying "some gave all" honors both those who "gave all" and those who, like my father-in-law, risked all. Death doesn't make heroes. Death is the unfortunate price that some of our heroes pay.

The value and meaning of our lives doesn't depend on our lifespan. That's fortunate because we will never know - even with life extension technology - how long we have left. Our lives are valuable because it's what we are. And our lives have meaning because of the things we do.

November 04, 2006


Important Questions About Life Extension

Fight Aging! links and passes on some important questions to ponder about life extension. Here are the questions plus my quick answers:

  1. What is the story of your life extension commitment?

    I've been blogging on the subject for three years. I actively support organizations that are working on life extension (MPrize) as well as those that support development of the infrastructure that will make it possible (Foresight).

  2. Is it a commitment for moderate or maximum life extension?

    Maximum. Moderate life extension is just a step along the way.

  3. What is your favourite argument supporting human life extension?

    Answered here.

  4. What is the most probable technological draft of human life extension, which technology or discipline has the biggest chance to reach it earliest? (regenerative medicine, nanotechnology, gene therapy, caloric restriction, bionics, hormones, antioxidants, …)

    Hard to say. My take is that things like calorie restriction (or at least a chemically derived simulation thereof) and antioxidants are the staging grounds. They will get us started. But serious life extension will come about via gene therapy, nanotechnology,etc.

  5. When?

    Soon. Faster, please.

  6. What can blogs do for LE?

    Keep fighting the fight.

September 21, 2006


The Multi-Million Dollar Mouse

This is just fantastic news:

Peter A. Thiel, co-founder and former CEO of online payments system PayPal, and Founder and Managing Member of Clarium Capital Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund, today announced his pledge of $3.5 Million to support scientific research into the alleviation and eventual reversal of the debilities caused by aging, to be conducted under the auspices of the Methuselah Foundation, a charity co-founded and Chaired by Dr. Aubrey de Grey.

Peter A. ThielMr. Thiel commented, "Rapid advances in biological science foretell of a treasure trove of discoveries this century, including dramatically improved health and longevity for all. I'm backing Dr. de Grey, because I believe that his revolutionary approach to aging research will accelerate this process, allowing many people alive today to enjoy radically longer and healthier lives for themselves and their loved ones."

Hey, I guess that interview that Stephen and I did with Aubrey de Grey is really starting to pay off!

July 12, 2006


SENS Survives

In 2005 Technology Review announced that it would award $20,000 to any geriatric researcher that could show that Aubrey de Grey's SENS project was "so wrong that it was unworthy of learned debate."

Five attempts were made to win the prize. Three submissions were found to be acceptible for consideration. None of the three won. The judges decision was summarized at Technology Review:

"At issue is the conflict between the scientific process and the ambiguous status of ideas that have not yet been subjected to that process.

"The scientific process requires evidence through independent experimentation or observation in order to accord credibility to a hypothesis. SENS is a collection of hypotheses that have mostly not been subjected to that process and thus cannot rise to the level of being scientifically verified. However, by the same token, the ideas of SENS have not been conclusively disproved. SENS exists in a middle ground of yet-to-be-tested ideas that some people may find intriguing but which others are free to doubt.

"Some scientists react very negatively toward those who seek to claim the mantle of scientific authority for ideas that have not yet been proved. Estep et al. seem to have this philosophy. They raise many reasons to doubt SENS. Their submission does the best job in that regard. But at the same time, they are too quick to engage in name-calling, labeling ideas as 'pseudo-scientific' or 'unscientific' that they cannot really demonstrate are so.

"We need to remember that all hypotheses go through a stage where one or a small number of investigators believe something and others raise doubts. The conventional wisdom is usually correct. But while most radical ideas are in fact wrong, it is a hallmark of the scientific process that it is fair about considering new propositions; every now and then, radical ideas turn out to be true. Indeed, these exceptions are often the most momentous discoveries in science.

"SENS has many unsupported claims and is certainly not scientifically proven. I personally would be surprised if de Grey is correct in the majority of his claims. However, I don't think Estep et al. have proved that SENS is false; that would require more research. In some cases, SENS makes claims that run parallel to existing research (while being more sensational). Future investigation into those areas will almost certainly illuminate the controversy. Until that time, people like Estep et al. are free to doubt SENS. I share many of those doubts, but it would be overstating the case to assert that Estep et al. have proved their point."

Technology Review continued:

[Judge Craig Ventor] wrote, "Estep et al. in my view have not demonstrated that SENS is unworthy of discussion, but the proponents of SENS have not made a compelling case for it."

In short, SENS is highly speculative. Many of its proposals have not been reproduced, nor could they be reproduced with today's scientific knowledge and technology. Echoing Myhrvold, we might charitably say that de Grey's proposals exist in a kind of antechamber of science, where they wait (possibly in vain) for independent verification. SENS does not compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists; but neither is it demonstrably wrong.

In an apparent effort to outclass each other, Technology Review has agreed to pay their half of the $20,000 to the writers of the best submission; and those "winners" (who have filed a dissent arguing that they should have won the full $20,000) are donating the proceeds to the American Federation for Aging Research.

I think this is a pretty good outcome. It should serve as a rebuke to those scientists who would rather name-call than think and test. On the other hand, it should also remind those of us who support de Grey that many of de Grey's proposals are beyond the ability of contemporary science to test. Not that de Grey and most of his supporters haven't already acknowledged that fact.

By necessity SENS leads contemporary science. But what great engineering projects have ever been started where the science was completely known ahead of time? Certainly not the Manhattan, Apollo, or Human Genome projects. The Human Genome Project was started knowing that it would take a century to complete with the computers and methods then available, but they went ahead with confidence that better computers and sequencing methods would develop during the project. They were right.

The details of Aubrey de Grey's SENS proposal are important - we have to start somewhere. But when (not if, but when) some detail of the present SENS proposal is proven incorrect, SENS will no more falter than any of those other projects when technical obstacles were encountered.

The eternal tension between engineers and scientists may be the fundamental problem here. Scientists want cold, hard proof. But engineers know that in order to do any great thing you got to have a little faith.

UPDATE: Reason at Fight Aging has much to say on this topic.

June 28, 2006


Love that Curry

Turns out it loves me back:

Curcumin is an inexpensive dietary supplement that offers powerful protection for aging brains. It has been used as a food additive for thousands of years in the East as the active ingredient in turmeric, or yellow curry spice. Recently, curcumin's many benefits are being uncoverd by Western and Eastern gerontologists (scientists and clinicians who study the aging process). Curcumin has many effects when we eat it as a nutritional supplement, but the most important one seems to be that it reduces the buildup of Alzheimer's-related amyloid in our brains as we age.

Tastes great. Wards off Alzheimer's. That's a pretty good combo. Apparently, it does turn your brain yellow, but I can live with that.

Read the whole thing.

June 13, 2006


The SENS Challenge

Via Fight Aging!, here's a well-thought-out analysis from George Dvorsky on what the SENS Challenge might mean for the future of aging research:

So, my pre-interpretation of the judge’s decision should they vote against SENS is that they will likely take issue with the inner working of SENS and de Grey’s methodology. And as I said, on this point they may be right – an outcome that may cause de Grey to go back to the drawing board to come up with SENS 2.0. If they declare, however, that speculations into anti-aging interventions per se are “beyond learned debate,” then they will have made a significant judgemental error.

If, on the other hand, the judges vote in favour of SENS, it would represent a clear victory for those who continually push the boundaries of science into uncharted and controversial areas. It’s artist as scientist, drawing outside the lines to conceive of new possibilities and charting all the terra incognita. Perhaps this is why de Grey is happy with the current set of judges; like himself, the panel is filled with visionaries and big thinkers.

Frankly, I don't see how Aubrey can lose. Unless the panel of judges buys into the "de Grey is a fraud and SENS is pseudo-science" tirade, -- which seems highly unlikely -- he will have gained some valuable serious criticism of his work and additional exposure for his ideas.

Ideas which, by the way, we've been exposing for some time.

May 19, 2006


Disagree? Die Anyway!

That's really the argument, when you get right down to it:

I do not see why the "death is meaningful" folks should get to decide the lifespans of those who disagree. As far as I am concerned, people who want to die are welcome to do so, but those who would rather stay around longer should have that option.

Via Fight Aging!


Eat More Fish for a Healthy Heart

Or maybe you should eat less fish.

Or maybe eating fish puts you at greater risk for one particular heart problem, but overall makes you less likely to have heart problems in the first place.

Or maybe it's not a good idea to generalize.

Anyhow, I sure like fish.

What were we talking about?

May 16, 2006


Mice, Molecules, and Cures

Well, here's a development:

In the study of Alzheimer's disease, the smallest steps forward have sometimes led to the most exciting breakthroughs.

In the case of a recent study from Novato's Buck Institute, it's a molecular step forward -- specifically, modifying a single amino acid in the brains of lab mice that could prevent the frightening memory loss and dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease.

In the Buck Institute study, a protein was altered in the brains of lab mice. The mice that received the treatment showed all the pathological signs of suffering Alzheimer's disease -- most notably, a buildup of sticky plaque that scientists believe is related to the disease -- but had none of the memory-loss symptoms or brain shrinkage.

We'll certainly take this is a nice step along the way to a cure. And note that this step forward involves moving molecules around.

FuturePundit, commenting on the announcement of the new Johns Hopkins Institute for NanoBioTechnology, makes not of this relationship between molecular nanotechnology and the future of medicine:

The functional components of cells are molecules. To measure and manipulate small components requires the development of technology that operate on the same scale as the target systems. Nanotechnology for biological systems therefore is the right approach for the development of great diagnostics, disease treatments, and enhancements.

There you have it, folks -- Spock's chessboard in action.

May 03, 2006


The Quarter-Mile Test

This very simple test reveals a lot:

If you can walk a quarter-mile, odds are you have at least six years of life left in you, scientists announced today.

And the faster you can do it, the longer you might live.

While walking is no guarantee of health or longevity, a new study found that the ability of elderly people to do the quarter-mile was an "important determinant" in whether they'd be alive six years later and how much illness and disability they would endure.

"The ability to complete this walk was a powerful predictor of health outcomes," said study leader Anne Newman of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. "In fact, we found that the people who could not complete the walk were at an extremely high risk of later disability and death."

I would guess that before long we'll see something like this standardized, with a well-defined checklist of what to work on for those who are not able to complete the walk.

April 20, 2006


Death Takes a Nose Dive

Here's some really encouraging news:

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that "the age-adjusted death rate reached a record low 801.0 per 100,000 U.S. standard population. This value is 3.8 percent lower than the 2003 rate of 832.7."

Read the whole thing. Check out the graph showing the rapid decline in death; it's dropping faster than my weight.

March 30, 2006


Distinction Without a Difference?

Most medical research is done by trying to prevent people dying. And Aubrey says we should simply extend this into ageing. Actually, now, we are in a situation of being able to harness what comes from the basic biomedical research to try to devise a better way to age.

And if that leads to life extension, that's great. But it's difficult to see the path to make that happen.

-Professor Tom Kirkwood

Dr. Kirkwood is gerontologist with a very impressive resume. So it's discouraging to to see him discounting the possibility of life extension.

Fortunately for all of us, researchers don't necessarily have to see "the path" to make a contribution to it.

I wonder also how sincere Kirwood is being in his assertion that "it's difficult to see the path to make that happen." The path looks long and difficult, but it seems obvious too. Aging is a complex group of problems. If any treatment makes any of Aubrey de Grey's "seven deadly things" less deadly, then you have life extension.

The problems that cause aging can and probably will be addressed initially as preventative medicine. Established medicine will stoop to calling it "life extension" only after it's blatantly obvious to every 100-year-old on the tennis courts.

I support efforts to devise "better ways to age" the same way I support efforts to devise better ways to hit yourself in the head with a hammer. Both projects would be good, but wouldn't it be better to avoid the underlying activity?

More seriously, "better ways to age" and "life extention" is a distinction without a difference. Now I suppose that there are some problems of old age that can be addressed without extending life. Viagra and Rogaine are drugs that address two problems that are often associated with advancing age. Neither will extend your life.

But any treatment that directly addresses the aging problem - something that slows degeneration - will extend life. Unless Kirkwood's hopes are limited to palliatives like Viagra and Rogaine, "better ways to age" is just "life extension" by another name.

March 25, 2006


The Tithonius Error

Reason at Fight Aging! has a follow-up to Stephen's post from earlier this week:

Advocacy is certainly a spectrum - it's quite possible to be supporting efforts to obtain large-scale funding for the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) with one hand, while trying to dispel widespread and elementary myths with the other. Still, one would hope that some progress can be made in banishing the Tithonus error to the past. If half the population no longer knee-jerks in opposition to healthy life extension based on a false conception of "older for longer" - well, that can't be a bad thing for the prospects of raising a broad platform of support for research, can it?

Nope, sounds like a good thing to me. I think what will really slow the knee-jerking -- and in fact might start them jerking in the other direction -- is when people begin to realize that a few (at first a very few) of their friends and loved ones are enjoying longer and longer lives. The operative word there being enjoying.

A lot of folks cling to life even when it becomes painful and undignified. Few will hang on to the delusion that some law of nature or moral obligation requires us to be happy about our eventual demise when they see an alternative of more productive, healthy, happy years in their lives. At some point, the largely unspoken truth will be acknowledged more or less universally.


New Stem Cell Source?

This looks promising

Researchers in Germany have identified a potential source of reprogrammable cells in adults that could be used for regenerative therapy. The cells would be taken directly from the testis and cultured. No cloning or destruction of embryos would be necessary.

The discovery opens up the possibility, at least for men, of having an endless source of fresh stem cells tailored to one's genetic makeup, which could be turned into any kind of body tissue and used for treatment. This has been the promise of stem cells taken from cloned embryos, but the use of cloned embryos has run into considerable ethical and technical problems...

The big question is whether human males have the same cells. And, as the article explains, even if this stem-cell-source pans out in humans, it's only good for half of the species. So far, no corresponding source of cells has been found in women.

March 24, 2006


Tortoise Telomeres: Requiem for Addwaita

capt.xbd10303231550.india_tortoise__xbd103.jpgWhen I learned that the oldest known living animal, a 250 year old Aldabra tortoise (geochelon gignatea) residing at the Calcutta, India zoo, had died, I wondered if anyone had studied tortoise telomeres to learn the secrets of their delayed senescence. I didn't find a study specific to tortoises, but my search uncovered a reptile study right in my own back yard, as it were.

A group of researchers from Iowa State University, Drake University and Des Moines University studied the
"HAYFLICK LIMIT IN REPTILES, A TEST OF POTENTIAL IMMORTALITY",specific to several turtle, snake and reptile species indigenous to Iowa. Their most interesting finding came from snapping turtle tissue:

"Our cultures of fibroblasts from snapping turtles appear to be immortal and untransformed having exceeded 190 cpds with no indication of senescence...Our analysis of the snapping turtle tissues indicates almost no telomerase except in the gonad where it is almost always present. Obviously the telomere is being maintained by some other mechanism."

They conclude that reptiles may reveal mechanisms that have implications for longevity and maintenance of tissue repair.

I can't determine the date the abstract was published. The latest citations are from 1998. I wonder if anyone has read or heard of similar studies?

In the meantime, may Addwaita's venerable telomeres rest in peace.

March 21, 2006


Paging Dr. Tithonius

Last week, after hearing a prediction of 1000-year life spans from Aubrey de Grey, Roger L. Simon expressed concern about the possibility of living too long.

112 years, say, of retirement doesn't sound exactly enthralling. That's a lot of checkers and parcheesi. One of the scientists interviewed in the article said people are living vigorous lives these days in their 70s. Ho-hum. What about in their 140s? Anybody for120 and over tennis?

I can understand why Roger Simon wouldn't want extra drooling years. The typical response to this concern from life extension advocates is to point out that it's not just life extension, but healthy life extension that is the goal. Bill Quick commented:

Roger. the biggest problem in talking - and thinking - about news like this is shaking the three-score-and-ten mindset. The question is not "120 and over tennis," but, "tennis for 120 year olds who are physically only twenty years old?"

We think of physical debility as the primary handicap of advanced age. The real problems will probably be for those raised to think of themselves as old at seventy who find themselves young at 100.

And the Warrior Class Blog (h/t) mused:

[T]ennis for the 120's set might well be played out on center court at Wimbledon. That determination would result from their ability as tennis players, not their age.

Certainly that is the goal - young until hit by a bus. But will it play out like that?

I suspect that life extension will come in three major stages (with many, many incremental advances moving us forward). Stage one life extension will slow aging, stage two will halt aging, and stage three will reverse aging - essentially allowing us, with maintenance, to stay whatever age we choose. I think most life extension advocates would agree with this outline.

If I'm right about that, there is the possibility that some older people in the early years of life extension will have additional years of disability.

Let's use, as a hypothetical, an average woman retiring today at age 65. She would obviously be concerned about the number of years she has left to live - she doesn't want the money to run out before her death. Assume also that with this person's general health and today's medicine she could expect to live to be 80 and that the last five years she would be effectively disabled - unable to do many of the things she likes to do. That means that her health would begin to decline in 2016 and she would die in 2021.

But we won't have today's medicine in 2016 or 2021. Let's assume that by 2014 we reach (as I've predicted in the past) stage one life extension. Our retiree is now 73 and is only a couple of years away from serious decline. But, if she is like most people she is still enjoying life. She has grandchildren and friends and she plays a mean game of Parcheesi. So, she begins stage one treatment - attempting to hold on to as much health as possible as long as possible.

With treatment the two years before decline are stretched to five. After that time she is disabled, but she chooses to continue treatment. The technology continues to improve and by the time she would have died without treatment, 2021, we've reached stage two.

Stage two, the point at which doctors can arrest aging, probably won't be an obvious point in time. It will be a vague milestone between stage one and stage three.

She would be frail during these years. But, aging arrested, she lives on hoping that the treatments improve before bad luck strikes - an accident or illness that kills her.

Her hope pays off. Stage three is obtained in 2030. Her treatments now reverse the damage of aging. By 2035 she is effectively a young woman again - at age 94.

Here's the point. This woman's years in serious decline are lengthened by life extension treatment. Instead of being disabled five years followed by death, she is disabled about 12 years followed by indefinite youth. Which is best?

In the history of the world, this is not a decision that many will face. Obviously those who are already dead never had a choice. And hopefully people who are young today will get stage three care when they need it. This is one generation's dilemma.

For someone faced with this decision, there will be no "right" answer. This will be a very personal decision. And its also a decision that people will have to make without all the facts. This lady could not know when she started the treatments that she would live to benefit from stage three, or even when stage three would be achieved.

I suspect that, like today, people will tend to seek the best medical care possible until they grow tired of fighting. Some people that start life extension treatments won't live to see stage three. But I think many people will try. Perhaps most people will try.

These optimists won't need to have hope for another tennis championship. They might just hope for some more games of Parcheesi - and a few more visits with the grandkids.

March 12, 2006


Timeline for Aging Cure?

Aubrey de Grey speculates that the serious work will begin in about 10 years and may be substantially finished in about 25. FuturePundit has the details.

March 08, 2006


The Longevity Dividend

The current issue of The Scientist, sporting the catchy phrase "Fight Aging" on the cover,* features an article on the reality of life extension in the near future:

Imagine an intervention, such as a pill, that could significantly reduce your risk of cancer. Imagine an intervention that could reduce your risk of stroke, or dementia, or arthritis. Now, imagine an intervention that does all these things, and at the same time reduces your risk of everything else undesirable about growing older: including heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer and Parkinson disease, hip fractures, osteoporosis, sensory impairments, and sexual dysfunction. Such a pill may sound like fantasy, but aging interventions already do this in animal models. And many scientists believe that such an intervention is a realistically achievable goal for people.

The experience of aging is about to change. Humans are approaching old age in unprecedented numbers, and this generation and all that follow have the potential to live longer, healthier lives than any in history. These changing demographics also carry the prospect of overwhelming increases in age-related disease, frailty, disability, and all the associated costs and social burdens. The choices we make now will have a profound influence on the health and the wealth of current and future generations.

Reason, of that blog with the catchy name, observes that the authors of the piece, S. Jay Olshansky, Daniel Perry, Richard A. Miller, and Robert N. Butler, are not exactly radicals or firebrands; no, they "collectively stand as core and representative of mainstream gerontology and aging research." These are the folks who are usually on the other side of the debate with people like Aubrey de Grey.

Now, lest we get carried away, it's important to note that the life extension they're talking about isn't the variety that we normally talk about around here. They suggest that it would be realisitic to slow the aging process by about seven years, making tomorrow's 75-year-old the equivalent of today's 68-year-old.

Seven years doesn't sound like all that much, but we'll take it. Much more exciting, as Reason points out, is not the amount of life extension being discussed, but the very fact that the mainstream has shifted and is now seriously talking about it all. Progress!

* A cover featuring the words Death Sucks seems almost inevitable, doesn't it?

February 21, 2006


Losing the Edge?

I do my best to stay on the cutting edge with gutsy predictions. My personal favorite "gutsy prediction" is that we'll have true life extension therapy by 2014.

But then I'm one-upped by a Stanford biologist.

The trend is expected to start in 2010 as human lifespan begins expanding at an unprecedented rate, says biologist Dr Shripad Tuljapurkar...

His research indicates that the acceleration will continue until 2030. During this time, typical age at death could increase by 20 years, raising life expectancy in industrialised countries such as the US and UK from around 80 to 100.

So, he's saying that we'll get an average of one additional year for every year for 20 years starting in 2010, and then, apparently, nothing more. I don't buy it.

Apparently he foresees no leaps from accelerating change - no De Grey escape velocity. It's a odd combination of optimism and linear pessimism.

UPDATE:
Being a good scientist, Tuljapurkar has data to back up his prediction.

Dr . Tuljapurkar arrived at his estimate by selecting representative populations from different countries and examining patterns of ageing, population growth and economic activity.

These data were combined with predictions about the future of anti-ageing treatments from leading researchers.

Examples of therapies with the potential to hold back ageing include drugs that lower cholesterol and blood pressure, or tackle cancer and degenerative brain disease.

Economists often qualify their predictions with the Latin phrase ceteris paribus. It means "all other things being equal." The problem is that in the real world "all other things" are never equal. In the long run you are always blindsided by something unexpected.

Now more than ever. A big part of the reason I enjoy researching and writing for The Speculist is that I'm surprised every day. Every day there are more interesting stories than I have time to write about (yesterday it was the blob eating Los Angeles, and cancer stem cells stories). Developments have a cumulative affect on the world beyond what any one of them would achieve. Our ability to predict grows shorter as the speed of development grows faster.

I think that Tuljapurkar's prediction is accurate in the short run. He sees near-term solutions to some of the problems that kill people as they get older. But today's data, no matter how good, can't account for the cumulative impact of all surprise developments to come.

February 16, 2006


While We're on the Subject...

Seeing as we've launched an unplanned mini blogwave on the subject of push prizes over the past few days, this is an excellent time to remind our readers that not all such prizes are about space or mechanical computers or flying cars. The Methuselah Mouse Prize is now over $3.2 million. In the words of the prize organizers:

For the price of a cup of coffee a day you can join a select group of visionaries who are standing shoulder to shoulder as the first vanguard in the real war on aging.

Now who wouldn't want to be a part of that? Maybe you should check them out before sending me your $20 towards the flying car prize.

Meanwhile, Speculist UK correspondent Robert Hinkley directs us towards some possible entries for our suggested push prize for achievements in mechanical computing. Check out this difference engine made from a Mechano set (what we used to call an "erector set" back in the dark ages). Here's an even more impressive one.

Rob reports:

The Science Museum in London built a full size Difference Engine from the original drawings. They even gave it some sums to do, cranked the handle and it worked. I saw it on a visit in 1998: I've never seen so many cogs and shiny brass levers in one place before.

Though Babbage's original project failed it had valuable spin-offs - at least according to some of the literature at the exhibit. The need to mass produce so many intricate parts to high tolerances meant that much of the effort of Babbage's project went into developing new and improved tooling and manufacturing technologies.

This echoes a point Stephen made about push prizes in the new edition of FFR -- even when no one wins the prize, the fact that people have entered and made an effort leads to developments that otherwise might not have happened.

Rob continues, quoting some material from the Science Museum in London:

To explore the thesis that the limitation of Victorian engineering was a contributory factor in Babbage's failure to complete any of his machines the Science Museum set about constructing Babbage's Difference Engine No. 2 in 1985. Before the engine could be constructed the original design drawings were redrawn and expanded to provide the engineering detail needed for modern manufacture. In addition a small trial piece was built to verify the original addition mechanism and the mechanism for carrying tens.

The calculating section of Difference Engine No. 2, has 4,000 moving parts (excluding the printing mechanism) and weighs 2.6 tonnes. It is seven feet high, eleven feet long and eighteen inches in depth and built to original designs using materials closely matching those available to Babbage. Modern techniques were used in the manufacture of repeat parts but care was taken to restrict limits of precision to those achievable by Babbage.

Difference Engine No. 2 was the first full sized Babbage calculating engine to be completed. It was made as a research machine for display at the 1991 exhibition commemorating the bicentennial year of Babbage's birth.

How interesting that we can now make with children's toys what was beyond the limits of the manufacturing infrastructure of less than two centuries ago.

Of course, the end game of the mechanical computer prize would not be to reproduce what Babbage did in an exciting new medium like Lincoln Logs (cool as that might be) but rather to tak steps towards nanomechanical computers.

UPDATE FROM STEPHEN: A Babbage spin-off is also a good example of "Spock's chessboard" in action - back when the world was on the first squares.

February 09, 2006


Sure, They're Nice Now...

Glenn Reynolds on the comparison/contrast between Eric Drexler and Aubrey de Grey:

I think that de Grey is a bit naive in saying that because people are cordial and give him intellectual respect, he's safe. Drexler got the same respect and courtesy, until he didn't. The nanotechnology industry folks decided to try to marginalize Drexler because they didn't want people talking about "spooky" advanced technologies for fear that such talk would lead to pressure for more regulation. That was, as I've said before, a deeply unwise move that may still come back to harm the industry. De Grey is probably safe from such attacks, but it's because the political configuration is different.

I wonder if Aubrey is treated better because this issue strikes closer to home? We all have a vested interest in life extension. And it may be true that we also all have a vested interest in nanotechnology, but that isn't as readily apparent to most observors.

Speaking of life extension, we have been remiss in not noting the second blogiversary of one of our favorite sites, Fight Aging! (Too much business travel lately.)

Congrats, Reason, and please do keep up the good work.

January 09, 2006


We are the Children...

In my last post, "Robots: The Next Generation" I presented three options to help with the depopulation problem Europe and Japan are facing. Option 1: encourage your population to have more kids (nothing draconian - use tax credits). Option 2: open up the gates to immigration hoping for a melting pot effect (this is not going smoothly in France right now). And option 3: do what Japan seems set to do - build robots.

There's a fourth option that appeals to many of us alive today - avoid death. If Aubrey de Grey and those he inspires successfully deliver life extension, we'd have longer productive lives. People who would have been satisfied to bide their last work days in do-nothing jobs would, if their youth were restored, retrain for more productive jobs. People who are presently discriminated against because of their age would come to be valued for their experience.

Even if people had to retrain every few years, such a society would be vastly more productive because they wouldn't have to start from scratch as with children. The basic skills would already be mastered.

Those who are concerned that this could mean fewer children (it would) should take a closer look at much of the developed world. Children are already rare in much of Europe and Japan. Since that is the case, don't these countries have a great incentive to keep their older population healthy longer?

It wouldn't have to be an anti-child world. With scarcity comes added value. More resources could be devoted to each child to insure them the best education possible.

Also, the demographics in Europe and Japan answer those life extension critics who fear over-population. It's not logical to worry about overpopulation when your country is losing a third of its population every generation.

So perhaps we have four options for dealing with depopulation. And none of them are mutually exclusive.

January 02, 2006


Aubrey de Grey on 60 Minutes

I caught only the last few minutes of Aubrey de Grey on 60 minutes last night, with the "opposing view" guy making the case that since some phony-baloney life extension elixir sold to celebrities 50 years ago didn't work, blah blah blah. Actually, he wasn't so bad. His defense of Aubrey's approach was right on the money.

For those who missed it, Glenn has a link to a transcript of the show, while Reason has a blog roundup of responses.

December 20, 2005


Have You Sent Your Soil Samples Yet?

It's important:

Researcher John Schloendorn is still looking for soil samples from around the world to screen for useful bacterial enzymes as a part of his work on LysoSENS research. He, and other researchers, are looking for enzymes that can break down age-related by-products that accumulate in and around cells, leading to a range of age-related conditions and general loss of function. If scientists can find a safe way to break down these damaging by-products - such as by using engineered bacterial enzymes - then they will have found a way to repair and prevent one part of age-related degeneration.

Reason has all the details over at Fight Aging! So what are you waiting for?

December 12, 2005


Death Sucks On

Yesterday I got word that my good friend Maynard Blake had died. Maynard had a brain tumor removed several months ago and had had clear MRIs ever since -- the cancer was not coming back. However, the recovery was just too much for him. In the end, it was a host of little infections culminating in pneumonia that took him down. For all the medical progress we've made, it is still all too common an occurrence that an operation is a complete success, except for losing the patient.

Maynard was just a great guy. A talented musician. A good husband and father. A good friend. He worked for the last few years counseling people with substance abuse problems, making a real difference in the lives of who knows how many people. He will be sorely missed.

As these things often happen, just shortly after learning about Maynard's passing, I found this e-mail from reader Robert Vreugde:

Just read your essay at link

I attend what would probably be best described as a fundamentalist, bible believing church and generally share most of the beliefs of the people in the church. But I do not share the belief that death is a good thing, a time of "going home", etc.

Exactly one year ago yesterday my father died after being wasted away in a hospital for six months. He was well educated with engineering degrees from Stanford and Cal Tech, hard working and very creative in a variety of fields. All that he was as man, all that he had learned and was still capable of doing - all that rotted away and was destroyed. As you say, death sucks.

Even the bible presents the idea that humans were not originally created to die. Supposedly our physical systems were designed to continue living on indefinitely.

Scientists may not be able to devise a means to halt aging BUT at the least, we ought to eventually fully understand what aging is.

I am glad that there are people like you who are raising the voice that it is time that we start treating death as a (potentially) curable disease and not just resigning ourselves to death as some sort of inevitable fate.

500 years ago humans dreamed of flying but had no idea of how. Only gods or angels were thought to have that ability.

Then perhaps 200 years ago people began to develop technologies that suggested that flight might be possible.

120 years ago people realized that flight was possible - all we had to do was refine the technology.

And then in Dec. 1903 powered flight was accomplished.

And now we fly all the time. We don't think of ourselves as gods or angels or master race supermen.

We just fly.

Well said. Here's looking forward to the day when we "just fly" -- when we don't just assume that we'll be losing those we care about any day now, or that they'll be losing us.

(For anyone who's interested, the original version of Death Sucks can be found here.)

December 09, 2005


Know Your Enemy

This is one of our worst, in action.

The better we understand it, the more resourceful we will be in overcoming it.

Via GeekPress.

December 01, 2005


Unexpected

This is interesting:

Alzheimer’s disease may be a new, third type of diabetes that shares common features of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, according to a new study.

Researchers found that insulin and the cells that process it in the brain drop sharply in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. They also found that insulin levels continue to decline as the disease progresses and becomes more severe.

Diabetes is a terrible disease, but it's treatable. And in the case of type 2, sometimes preventable. This discovery could lead to some very positive developments.

Hat-tip: Transterrestrial Musings

November 06, 2005


As the Fourth of Five Kids

...I'm bummed:

Predictors for exceptional human longevity may include birth order, place of birth and early-life living conditions, according to a recent Society of Actuaries (SOA) study that suggests there are several factors linked to one’s longevity. The data indicates that first-born daughters are three times more likely to survive to age 100 compared to later-born daughters. The chances for exceptional longevity are minimal for sons having a birth order of four to six compared to those born earlier or later.

Although this isn't great news for me personally, there is a very nice upside: my mother, my wife, and my daughter are all first-born daughters. But why would birth order make such a difference? Randall Parker has some thoughts on that:

...one could imagine ways that a woman's body could treat an earlier pregnancy differently than a later pregnancy. During a first pregnancy a woman could have a larger store of minerals and vitamins to give to a fetus. So a woman could compensate with vitamin supplements. But alternatively the immune system of a woman's body could could respond to a succession of pregnancies differently and become poorer at avoiding immune responses to a pregnancy. That'd be harder to do something about.

That's a possibility, but it doesn't explain why daughters seem to benefit more from birth order than sons. There are environmental and other factors to be considered. Since people who live to be a hundred were all born a century ago, there's no question that a lot has changed, and that the prospects for someone born only a few decades ago might be very different from those of a person born in the late 19th or early 20th century.

Birth order and environment will probably not have the same predictive power for the longevity of younger generations as it currently does for older ones. Work is being done to skew the numbers in everyone's favor.

November 03, 2005


The THREE Million Dollar Mouse

Our good friend Reason reports on an exciting development: $1 million donation just received by the Methuselah Mouse Prize:

Yes, you read that right: Mprize, $1 million donation, and I have it from Dave Gobel that the cashier's check just cleared today. Wow. This was somewhat out of the blue, and certainly far ahead of our expectations for progress in the rest of 2005!

Let me be one of the first to thank the anonymous donor for his or her generosity and for greatly raising the level of vindication experienced by the Mprize volunteers and other donors. This is a big step forward for efforts to vitalize serious scientific progress towards a cure for aging. There is a long way to go yet - and more seven figure donations, I hope - but thank you, anonymous donor, for pushing the best present day effort into the major leagues.

We'll second those thanks. Unlike other prizes where all the drama and intrigue derive from who is going to win, the Methusaleh Mouse Prize continues to be intriguing on both ends. Watching the prize amount grow like this is really quite exciting.

August 23, 2005


They Went So Young

The series finale for Six Feet Under aired earlier this week on HBO. SFU isn't really the kind of TV show we talk about here at the Speculist. Not to say that it wasn't a good show, or that it never got into speculist subject matter. As a matter of fact, it did. Twice. The first time, they pulled it off fairly well. It was the opener for season three. Nate Fisher, on his death bed, witnesses multiple versions of his own life and death while his deceased father gives an accurate, if sketchy, explanation of quantum immortality.

(SPOILERS ahead for those planning to watch the show.)

This time out, Allan Ball and company didn't do so well. The final scenes of the show are a montage of flash-forwards to the deaths of all the principal characters. It's actually a very nice piece of TV/filmmaking, a touching and satisfying end to the story of the Fisher family.

There's just one problem.

They all die too young. Check the obits for yourself.

With the exception of Keith, who we see dying at the hands of armed robbers, and Claire, who makes it all the way to 102, the rest of the characters die of natural causes in their 70's and 80's. Okay, so maybe life extension won't have caught on by the year 2025, and there would be nothing that could be done to save Ruth Fisher from dying in her early 80's. But David, Rico, and Brenda all die over the next 25 years after that. Even so, aging and death are shown to be pretty much what they are today.

Then we come to Claire, on her deathbed in the year 2085. She is 102 years old, and looks every year of it by our standards. Over the next 80 years, we can't even expect any cosmetic victories over aging.

Or maybe those kinds of treatments are available, but no one in the Fisher or Chenowith families takes advantage of them. Maybe cosmetic aging treatments will be viewed the way Botox (or even, say, breast augmentation) is today. Some do it, most don't.

I could almost believe that about cosmetic treatments. But real anti-aging treatments? No way. When they're available, people will use them. If not for themselves, then for their loved ones. Consider Rico dropping dead from (apparently) a heart attack somewhere around the year 2050. I think such deaths will be very rare by then and there is no way that Vanessa would allow Rico not to be prepared for such an eventuality.

Likewise, even if Claire was too "granola" to go for life extension, what about her husband, Ted the Republican? He would probably have extended his own life just to be sure he was there with her when she died.

Ultimately, it's families, loved ones, and friends who will drive the acceptance of life extension technologies. Randall Parker and Glenn Reynolds do an excellent job of outlining the economic and political cases for life extension. These arguments will be persuasive and will play an important role in the eventual acceptance of life extension. But I don't think they'll be determinative.

As Glenn explains it:

I've watched people I love age and die, and it wasn't "beautiful and natural." It sucked. Aging is a disease. Cataracts and liver spots don't bring moral enlightenment or spiritual transcendence. Death may be natural -- but so are smallpox, rape, and athlete's foot. "Natural" isn't the same as "good."

Yep. Death sucks all, right.

Throughout all the generations of humanity, people have watched their loved ones age and die, and deep down wished they could do something about it. When options are available, people will use them. Of course they will.

The question isn't really one of "How long should people live?" It's more like "How long should my parents live?"

Over the weekend, my parents celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. In proposing a toast, my father thanked my mother for 50 wonderful years and said that he looked forward to -- who knows? Maybe 50 more.

Who knows, indeed? What I do know is this: if I could give them the ability to celebrate their 100th anniversary, looking and feeling more like they did at the original wedding than they did over the weekend, I would. Would they take it? Based on his toast, I'm pretty sure Dad would. And if anyone could talk Mom into it, he could. Then again, she probably wouldn't need all that much convincing.

Who would?

Utlimately, Ball ends his series on a death-affirming note. For a TV show about a funeral parlor, that's probably about par for the course. Plus, to be fair, life extension would have been a very strange idea for him to introduce now. Although certainly no stranger than quantum immortality.

I was watching a show about the making of SFU last week wherein Ball and some of the writers were talking about how our culture "avoids" death and "is afraid of it" and "doesn't deal with it," etc. So he wanted to do a show about that affirmed the reality of death.

But as others have pointed out, our culture is highly accepting of death in general. We may not affirm it, but we certainly accept it as reality...for everyone else, anyway. We only want to deny it or avoid it when it applies to us and to the people we care about. But far from being some defect that needs to be corrected, I would say that that resistance is what will eventually make death a mere shadow of the threat it is today, and death from aging or disease virtually unknown.

August 12, 2005


Good News on Stem Cells

Randall Parker has obviously been busy lately, keeping his FuturePundit blog up to date with some very encouraging developments on the stem cell front.

Earlier this week, Randall reported on how the notion that stem cells will play a major role in soon-to-come life extension efforts is gaining broad acceptance among researchers. He quotes at length from a recent article in the journal of the European Molecular Biology Organization which begins with this hopeful scenario:

It is the year 2053. A mere century after James Watson and Francis Crick resolved the structure of DNA, scientists at the forefront of medical research have just announced the first successful regeneration of a human heart. After re-routing the blood of Jón Sigurdsson, a terminal heart-failure patient, to an advanced cardiac assist device and removing most of the damaged organ, doctors thawed a frozen tube of Jón's personalized stem cells—established in 2013 from embryonic stem cells created through somatic nuclear transfer—and injected them into his chest. Thanks to a sophisticated cocktail of growth factors, the new stem cells target the damaged area and rapidly get to work, perfectly rebuilding a youthful heart. Several weeks later, Jón is discharged in excellent health. Regenerative medicine provided him with a new kidney ten years ago, and subsequent double knee regeneration gave him renewed mobility. Now his new heart will soon have him running a six-minute mile again. Jón Sigurdsson is 100 years old.

Randall points out that, in order to realize this kind of scenario, we have to make substantial progress in our understanding of and ability to manipulate both adult and embryonic stem cells. He notes that the "either-or" debate about the ethical superiorty of the former over the latter often distracts from this very real fact.

And speaking of that debate (and all ancillary tiresome arguments), today Randall reports on some encouraging developments:

Cellular dedifferentiation means turning a cell from a specialized state (e.g. muscle cell or liver cell) into an unspecialized cell that has the ability to become other cell types. At the most extreme dedifferentiated state embryonic stem cells are so dedifferentiated that they have the ability to become all more specialized cell types. This extreme state is called pluripotency. Ethical opposition to the use of cells harvested from human embryos to create pluripotent cell lines has led scientists to look for other ways to create pluripotent stem cells. A major figure in stem cell research says a number of labs are getting close to announcing successful techinques for dedifferentiating cells.

Excellent news. This capability might just put this particular argument to bed once and for all. It doesn't solve the ethical problem of creating an cloned embryo for therapeutic purposes, but it just might make such an approach redundant.



ADDITIONAL READING: Here's what FuturePundit and Instapundit were saying just last month.

Links from Carnival of Tomorrow 4.0!

July 01, 2005


T-Minus 10, 9...

Last year I speculated that a simple form of life extension therapy would be available within a decade. With less than nine years left to go, I stand by this prediction.

Aging is a very complicated problem. But age therapy is coming soon because the beginning of the answer to aging will be much simpler than a more complete solution that addresses all seven of Aubrey de Grey's age problems.

As Aubrey de Grey has repeatedly pointed out, we don't have to have a complete solution to benefit. In fact, we might live to see a complete solution to the age problem if we live to see the first true therapy for aging. This "bootstrapping" idea means that the time we gain from the first age therapies might help us live to benefit from second-generation therapies, second-generation therapies bootstrap us to the third generation, etc.

From last year's "Life Extension Soon" post:

Michael West's book, The Immortal Cell, gives me reason to hope for some form of life extension - something less than escape velocity - within the next ten years. Dr. West is a pioneer in the field of therapeutic cloning. His studies have shown that when the genetic material of an adult somatic cell is used in cloning, infant stem cell results. Our aging is reversed in the "time machine" of conception.

It's not difficult for Dr. West to imagine effective life extension therapies resulting from this and related technology:

…I am particularly intrigued about the possibilities of making young bone marrow stem cells. These cells normally reside inside our largest bones…and give rise to all of our blood cells. As we age, these cells progressively lose their telomeres and become dysfunctional. As a result, the elderly have greater difficulty mounting immune responses to the flu and other infections…

…young bone marrow stem cells made by therapeutic cloning would be indistinguishable from those that you and I had when we were born. And these cells are relatively easy to transfer back into the body of an older patient. They can be simply infused into the blood vessel in the arm, and they will migrate through the blood and eventually take up residence in the bone marrow to make young blood cells instead of the old ones. This single application of therapeutic cloning in geriatric medicine could improve the lives of millions. If so, it would be the first time in history that geriatric medicine applied scientific knowledge of the aging process in such a profound manner.

Dr. West also speculates that a similar process would allow us infuse the bones of elderly patients with endothelial precursor stem cells. These cells are involved in replacing the cell linings of blood vessels. Aging of these cells is thought to be a cause of coronary artery disease.

The impact of such an exciting new therapy [infusion of endothelial precursor stem cells] could extend beyond atherosclerosis to heart failure, geriatric skin ulcers, and many other manifestations of the aging process.

Yesterday, June 30, 2005, Wired reported that this idea has now been tried in cows, and the results are astonishing.

Stem cells were injected into elderly cows -- animals whose age was equivalent to an 80-year-old human. Tests showed boosted immune systems and rejuvenated blood vessels more than a year after an injection of a tablespoonful of stem cells taken from cloned bovine fetuses.

scientists who performed the study believe embryonic stem cells taken from days-old embryos in a petri dish, perhaps some leftover post-in-vitro fertilization, could impart the same benefits.

"The cells are so competitive and youthful that they just take over," said Robert Lanza, vice president of medical and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts.

It's not too surprising that Advanced Cell Technology would be working on this problem. It is Michael West's company.

June 01, 2005


Live Long OR Prosper

Life Extension enthusiasts (and I'm one) always talk about how short life is. But in a world where body size correlates closely with life span, we humans live a lot longer than we should expect. By that rule we should live about as long as pigs.

In his answer to the question "why do animals have different life spans?" Dr. James Goss of the University of Pittsburg listed several general rules.

1. Body size - the bigger the animal, the longer it lives.

2. Fecundity - the more offspring that an animal is capable of producing, the shorter it lives.

3. Brain size/body size ratio - the greater the ratio the longer the life.

Continue reading "Live Long OR Prosper" »

May 02, 2005


Live To See It

Last year Phil wrote a post entitled "Death Sucks." No argument here. It does. But for some reason there's no shortage of people who ask, "Why would you want to live indefinitely?"

Aubrey de Grey thinks it's a fair question, but he has a good answer. You don't have to decide today to live 1000 years. If life is rewarding now, you probably don't want to die today. Chances are you'll still be in no hurry to die if 100 years from now life is still rewarding. You may still feel the same in 1000 years. This is also an answer to those who might not want life extension. De Grey is not arguing for mandatory immortality. He's arguing against mandatory age-related death.

In his book, "More Than Human," Ramez Naam had another thought. He argued that we shouldn't consider life extension technologies in isolation from other transformative technologies:

When we contemplate the three years that a mouse may live, we don't mourn its short time on this earth. In three years, a mouse lives and learns as much as it's able, and more years wouldn't add meaning or quality to its life. Today a human life span may provide enough years for a man or woman to learn and grow as much as we're able. But in the decades to come, we'll increase our capacity to learn, grow, and change over time. Eventually one hundred years may seem like a brief adolescence...

More Than Human - page 126

I think we could continue to find life rewarding for many more years even with current mental limitations. It's not life that gets old. It's the getting old that gets old. As the body fades it takes more effort to reach diminishing goals. Little wonder that the elderly grow nostalgic for "the good old days." They may not have had indoor plumbing, but their body's plumbing worked great.

People also get bored with their jobs. It might not make financial sense to retrain late in a career - particularly if age will affect job prospects after retraining. But an ageless workforce wouldn't be stuck like that. You could work for a time, take a sabbatical (in lieu of permanent retirement), retrain, and then work in a new position.

I suspect, though, that Naam is correct. If we understand the human body well enough to fix a problem as complex as aging, what's to keep us from enhancing the body as well? Given the option, most of us would choose to be smarter, stronger, more agile, and resistant to toxins and disease. We would want sharper vision and better hearing. We would like to eat what we want without adding pounds.

We may be within 25 years of real treatment for aging. We will see advancements in all of these other areas in the interim. Beyond that...all bets are off.

Live to see it!

March 18, 2005


Alternating Fast Extends Life?

FuturePundit takes a look at research indicating that alternate-day fasting may produce the same life-extension benefits for mice as calorie restriction:

A new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, raises such a possibility. It shows that healthy mice given only 5 percent fewer calories than mice allowed to eat freely experienced a significant reduction in cell proliferation in several tissues, considered an indicator for cancer risk. The key was that the mice eating 5 percent fewer calories were fed intermittently, or three days a week.

What is encouraging about the findings is that the reduction in cell proliferation from that intermittent feeding regimen was only slightly less than that of a more severe 33 percent reduction in calories. Until now, scientists have been certain only of a link between a more substantial calorie reduction and a reduction in the rate of cell proliferation.

Randall speculates:

Would even shorter fasting periods provide any benefit? It would be interesting to see if any benefit could be derived by eating very day but having at least 12 hour stretches every day when no food is consumed. That might be more achievable. Don't eat before bedtime and then entirely skip breakfast and make lunch be the first meal of the day.

In the past, I've thought about using an approach like this for achieving weight loss. And I've lamented that simple calorie restriction is too difficult. I wonder if something like what Randall is suggesting could be made workable?

March 16, 2005


Kass Employment Watch - Day 1

Leon Kass has an obvious bias against life extension. This is no state secret. So when Kass announced last week that he is abandoning the "tiresome question" (whether a cloned blastocyst is a person) in favor of an offensive strategy, Phil and I jumped on the logical inconsistency:

If the ethical question of "is it a baby or isn't it" is discarded by Kass and company, all the anti-life extension guys have left is an old geezer mumbling, "why in my day we dropped dead at 45 and we were dang proud to do it!"

But we missed (at least I missed) a big political problem that Kass' "coming out" may cause him. He is exceeding his mandate as Chairman of The President's Council on Bioethics.

According to The Washington Post, Dr. Kass has teamed up with Eric Cohen, editor of the excellent journal of science, politics and philosophy The New Atlantis, to devise "a bold and plausible 'offensive' bioethics agenda…[aimed at] tak[ing] advantage of this rare opportunity to enact significant bans on some of the most egregious biotechnological practices."

The merits of Dr. Kass's preferred policies are irrelevant here. The problem is that by hitching his star to a particular set of policies he has breached the trust set in him by the President, whose executive order creating the council asked it to "explore specific ethical and policy questions related to these developments; [and] to provide a forum for a national discussion of bioethical issues."

Tech Central Station via Instapundit

You'll want to read the whole thing.

I'm sure that Kass knows that this policy is exactly what the President wants. But we are a nation of laws, not men. Let's see if we will live up to that ideal in this case. Today is DAY 1 of the Kass Employment Watch.

March 14, 2005


Million Dollar Mouse

I'm late in getting something up on this, but it's big news:

In a move that will push the Methuselah Foundation's M Prize over the $1 million mark, Dr. William Haseltine, biotech pioneer of Human Genome Sciences fame, has joined the Three Hundred, a group of individuals who pledge to donate $1000 per year to the M Prize for the next 25 years. "I am delighted that my decision to join the Three Hundred has pushed the prize fund over its first one million dollars, which I trust is only the first of many millions," said Dr. Haseltine of his decision. "There's nothing to compare with this effort, and it has already contributed significantly to the awareness that regenerative medicine is a near term reality, not an IF."

Go, mousie, go!

Via our good friend Reason, of course.

March 09, 2005


Bloody Pragmatist

Virginia Postrel:

If there's one thing Leon Kass isn't, it's pro-life.

Heh. You go, girl.

Postrel refers to a Washington Post article (annoying registration required) outlining The Luddite General's new "offensive" on cloning and human embryo research. She comes to the above rather startling conclusion by pointing out that Kass is more interested in preventing life extending therapies from being developed than he is in protecting the lives of human embryos.

Admittedly, that's a pretty odd stance for a "pro-life" leader such as Kass to take. And far be it from me to leap to the defense of perhaps the biggest Buzzkill of our era.

However.

This paragraph kind of got my attention:

But Kass and others have concluded that Brownback's approach has been a strategic mistake, causing the debate to degenerate into endless discussions about whether a cloned human embryo is a cloned human, and whether an embryo in a lab dish has the same moral standing as one in a womb. Kass advocates separating the issue of cloned embryos for research from related issues of technological baby-making.

So apparently Kass is trying to do what good he can (from his point of view) while avoiding getting dragged down a particularly nasty rat hole which I have dubbed The Tiresome Argument. While I don't agree with Kass's motives or tactics, much less his ends, I can certainly understand that impulse.

But here's a warning for you, Leon Old Friend. If you try to take anything like a pragmatic approach to these kinds of issues, you risk subjecting yourself to the scorn of the those who question your definitions. Moreover, it's only a matter of time before some blogger or one of his buddies accuses you of being an advocate of slavery, a nazi, a guy who eats babies for breakfast, etc.

Actually, I've just checked both of those sites, looking for an outraged condemnation of Kass and his bloody pragmatism. Nothing so far, but just you wait. After all, for the sake of consistency if nothing else, these guys are bound to come down pretty hard on their old hero.

<crickets-chirping> So I'll just keep checking back to see what they have to say...</crickets-chirping>

via Rand Simberg

March 04, 2005


Why Live Longer?

Sure, this seems to be good news, but what's really the point in adding years to our lives? Healthy life-extension advocate Reason has some thoughts:

What would I do with a thousand-year lifespan? I'd probably spend some of it trying to find a way to live longer. But I would not otherwise lack for things to do. It would take me at least 200 years to read my way through my book collection. I would like to gain mastery of mathematics, physics and chemistry. I would like to learn and practice medicine. I want to understand jurisprudence and practice law. I would like to master carpentry, plumbing and electrical skills -- and build houses. I would like to master industrial design & fabrication, computers and biotechnology so as to start & operate productive businesses. I want to build financial empires. I want to learn to play musical instruments and explore the many worlds of music. I want to join and organize communities for social experimentation. I want to write great books. I want to do experimental scientific research. I want to explore the planet Earth with a deep enough knowledge of flora & fauna & geology that I can appreciate what I am seeing, hearing, smelling and touching.

He goes on to point out that it's difficult to sell the idea of a longer lifespan to people who aren't all that excited about life right now. Read the whole thing.

Reason's comments about living longer remind me of what Aubrey de Grey had to say on the subject a while back:

Well, first of all I have a lot of catching up to do — all the films I haven't seen, books I haven't read, etc.— while I've been spending every spare minute in the fight against aging. But in addition, there are masses of things that I enjoy doing and will always enjoy — spending time with my wife and friends, taking a punt out on the river Cam, playing a game of Othello, etc.— and I reckon I'll just carry on doing those things forever.

At root, the reason I'm not in favor of aging is because I like life as I know it.

Here's to life as we know it, and life as we've only imagined it. I'm not sure when this place closes, but I suggest we all have at least one more round.

March 01, 2005


Life Expectancy on the Rise

LifeSpanmedium.jpgThe CDC is reporting a 3.6-month increase in life expectancy for children born in 2003 over children born just a year earlier.

Those born in 2003 can expect to live 77.6 years on average, up from 77.3 years in 2002 and a record high for U.S. life expectancy, according to preliminary figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Life expectancy is a misleading concept. It is not a good predictor of whether a child born in 2003 will die at age 77 because it doesn't predict the state of health care at that time (or in the intervening years). It is a picture of health care today. If health care were to remain static, no improvements (or new health challenges) for the next 75 years, then it would be a decent predictor.

Even Aubrey de Grey's most impassioned critics don't accept a static future. There are always new developments and new challenges. Historically, our advances have outpaced the challenges:

People of both sexes born in 1900 could expect to live 47.3 years on average...

That's a 30-year improvement in the twentieth century. Two data points don't equal a trend, but the 3.6-month improvement between 2002 and 2003 is consistent with the 30 year per century improvement. [3.6 * 100 = 360 ; 360 / 12 = 30]

Most of the improvement in life expectancy during the twentieth century came as a result of a decline in infant mortality.

Infant mortality [between 2002 and 2003] remained relatively steady at 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2003 compared with 7 deaths per 1,000 in 2002.

Since infant mortality remained steady between the 2002 and 2003, the 3.6-month improvement had to be made at other points in the life span. That's good news for we non-infants. But should we think of an annual improvement of 3.6 months good news? That's sooo twentieth century. I'm expecting better as we move further into the twenty-first century.

January 28, 2005


Here's the Rage

Reason over at Fight Aging! (a blog I've been neglecting lately; I promise to do better) directs us to a passionate new blog called Longevity First, where Jay raises some fundamental questions:

Where Is the Rage?

Every year, over 50 million people die. Over 30 million of those deaths were not caused by murder, or suicide, or accidents, or war, or starvation, or contagious diseases. Rather, those 30 million deaths were caused by aging. To be more specific, those deaths were caused by the diseases that increase exponentially with age, diseases tied in a seemingly inextricable way to aging itself.

Where Is the Sorrow?

So where is the sorrow? Why does society seem content with apathy? Why does society seem so unfeeling about the outrage that is aging and death? Why don't people mourn the loss of countless thousands of people every day.

It is utterly frustrating to know that a cure for aging is possible, and in fact would probably cost less than what we are spending to cure cancer. It is utterly frustrating, because society is in denial. Not only a denial that such a cure is even possible, but in denial that such a cure is necessary and desirable. In short, society is content with letting aging and death continue to decimate the world's population every decade or so. (Note hear that I use the traditional meaning of decimate, to systematically kill one of every ten people.)

I look at this situation, and I can't help but wonder, where is the sorrow? Why don't people have empathy for the hundreds of thousands of people who lose a parent, sibling, child, or close friend, each and every day.

First off, I'm not sure it's fair to say that people "don't have empathy" for the masses who die every year, or every day. When the greatest monster of the 20th Century (a title hard won against fierce competition) cynically quipped that a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic, he was tapping into the fact that empathy tends to diminish with distance and that a very large loss of life is a difficult thing to grasp.

A lady I know from a community organization lost her husband (essentially to old age) about a month ago. He was a neat guy, and I was only just getting to know him when he died. I have to say that I feel his loss more deeply than I do any of the individual deaths resulting from the Tsunami tragedy (which occurred at about the same time.) And I'm probably more empathetic to his widow than I am to those who lost loved ones in the tragedy.

Does that mean I'm an uncaring lout? Possibly. But I believe that, somewhere along the line, empathy has to become more detached and intellectualized or we would all just drown in despair. The acceptance of death (and worse, the insistence that it is somehow a "good thing") which Jay rightly pleads against is no doubt a defense mechanism that our ancestors adopted thousands of years ago. As I have argued previously, our ancestors were rational creatures, as keenly aware of the fact that death sucks as we are — if not more so.

Our ancestors engaged in a war against death that we're still fighting today. They threw everything they had and everything they could think up at the enemy, and as a result we now have science and medicine and religion and, really, the whole of human culture. They were relentless and tenacious fighters, but (being rational creatures) they understood the limitations of the war they were able to wage. As a group, the clan/tribe/people would fight on until the end of time, making what progress they could against death. But as individuals, it had to be acknowledged that each and every soldier would one day fall to the enemy.

That was a terrible thing. An unacceptable thing. But it had to be accepted anyway. Refusing to acknowledge the inevitability of death would have made as much sense as refusing to acknowledge the inevitability of gravity. It was pointless, and you would go crazy if you thought too much about that kind of thing.

It's only within the past couple of centuries that human beings have had our first real victories in the war with gravity. Getting to the first hot air balloons, much less to Kitty Hawk, required an enormous paradigm shift on the part of a few visionaries. Only after these heroes showed the rest of the world that gravity could be beaten did the mass of humanity come around to shifting paradigms.

That's encouraging, but the "inevitability of death" paradigm is far more entrenched that the "inevitability of gravity" paradigm. There's so much more at stake. To acknowledge that life might go on for decades or centuries longer than we've ever known it to is to kindle a hope that lies hidden in the heart of every human being.

No, it isn't hidden. It's buried.

And why is it buried?

It's buried because the sum of human history (up to this point) shows us that it's a false hope, that those who engage in it stand to be crushed by disappointment. Life extension advocates need to realize that the opposition they encounter has less to do with ignorance or superstition or callousness as it does with this lingering (once rational, but now less so) fear. As Aubrey de Grey put it:

But the deeper question is, why do people find that sort of thinking attractive? I think the only reason is denial: people know they can't escape aging, so they find ways to convince themselves that it's okay not to escape it. When people cease to "know" that aging is inevitable, this whole way of thinking will vanish overnight.

Aubrey's right. And, unfortunately, I think the only way we'll get to the point where people no longer "know" that death from aging is inevitable is when we have some very youthful 80-120 year olds who can attest to it personally. Yes, a lot of people will needlessly die between now and then. But again, we're talking about an unprecedented paradigm shift. Once we cross that particular chasm, my guess is that things will happen very fast. The rage that Jay is looking for will be awakened, and it will completely reshape our world.

January 16, 2005


Death Still Sucks

On the one-year anniversary of its original appearance, here's one of my favorite entries from the old site:




Death Sucks

Reader Mary (Definitely on the Outer Ring) posed the following question in a recent comment:

Why are you so scared of dying?

(She wrote some other provocative questions as well, but I want to focus on this one for now.)

From the context, I'm going to assume that what Mary is asking is a philosophical question. She doesn't want to know why I would get out of the way of a speeding truck. All mentally healthy human beings are "scared of dying" in that sense; it's something we share with virtually every living being on the planet.

What Mary wants to know is this: why am I not resigned to my own mortality? Why would I want to engage in this unseemly practice of exploring alternatives to dying?

I'll tell you why, Mare.

Death sucks.

Some say that dying is as natural as being born. I say, so what? Vomiting is as natural as eating, but I happen to like eating a lot more.

Some say that death is a part of life. I contend that, by definition, it is not.

Some say that death is the threshold to the next stage of existence. I say maybe so. But this stage seems to have a natural built-in aversion to the threshold to that stage, and I'm going to go with that.

Many believe that the fear of death is a primitive relic, a lingering superstition. Fear of death, they will tell us, is what originally led humanity to irrational thinking. We invented gods and spirits primarily to assuage this fear. Now we live in an age when rational thinking might once again hold sway, although irrationalism persists all around. To differentiate themselves from the irrational throng, rational thinkers proudly state that they are not afraid of dying.

I remember years ago, when I went to see Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ, there were two groups of sign-carrying protestors standing out front of the theatre. One group was Christian, the other was Atheist. The box office line was rather long, and those of us standing in it were stuck between these two groups: one warning us not to go see this shocking piece of blasphemy, the other encouraging our support of free speech. Needless to say, there was a good deal of verbal sparring between the two camps. Some comments were good natured and even a little funny, but it got heated from time to time. I remember one exchange ended with these very words:

Yeah? Well, I'm not afraid of dying.

Hey, good one. Sign-carrying atheists, one; sign-carrying fundamentalists, zero.

Unfortunately, that's a load of crap. No, I don't mean that I doubt that guy's sincerity when he said that he was not afraid to die. I'm sure he meant it, and wasn't just trying to score points against those polyester-clad, big-haired fundamentalists in front of his cool sign-carrying atheist friends. But the notion that the fear of dying is uniquely linked with irrational thinking is just about as wrong as it can be.

Let's go back 50,000 years or so ago and take a look at our primitive ancestors. It's true that somewhere along the line they developed burial rituals and a belief in an afterlife. Maybe this was just an irrational response to their fear of death and the grief of losing a loved one. But it was just a small part of what they were doing. What, then, were they spending most of their time doing?

Figuring out how the world worked.

These plants will make you sick. These are good for food. Spears with sharp stone heads are better than pointed sticks at bringing down game and warding off predators. This is a good place to stay; predators don't usually come here. After the moon changes three more times, we'll start heading south. We used to wait until it got cold, but this way works better and we lose fewer members of the tribe.

Our ancestors relentlessly pursued an empirical investigation into the nature of...everything. Science didn't begin with Newton or Bacon or the ancient Greeks. It started way back when. All mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy — all rational human thought — has as its foundation the pioneering work of these our ancestors.

Now what do you suppose motivated them to do all this hard investigative work, to engage in all this rational thinking. Could it have been the fear of death?

Absolutely. They were besieged by threats on all sides. A rational, empirical approach to the world emerged as the soundest way of warding off those threats. If our fundamentalist-taunting friend could go back in time and somehow convey to a group of his ancestors his basic credo of intellectual superiority — "I'm not afraid of dying" — they'd think he was nuts. And not because they were so irrational.

But we're only halfway there.

Paradoxically, the self-satisfied volley of "I'm not afraid of dying" might just as easily have come from the religious side of the ticket line as it did from the non-believing side. Religious and spiritually oriented people are often quick to tell you that they have no fear of death. And if you really got it, — whatever that means to the particular believer — you wouldn't be afraid of death, either. If you only understood about Jesus' victory on the cross, or reincarnation, or nirvana, or even just the Natural Order of Things, you would be as resigned to your own eventual demise as the rest of us.

Yeah, well, that's a load of crap, too.

I'm going to restate that so I'm not misunderstood. Any religion that teaches that you should be okay with the fact that you're going to die is a load of crap. Christianity (to use the religion I'm most familiar with) most assuredly does not teach this. As C. S. Lewis famously put it:

But here is something quite different. Here is something telling me -- well, what? Telling me that I must never, like the Stoics, say that death does not matter. Nothing is less Christian than that. Death which made Life Himself shed tears at the grave of Lazarus, and shed tears of blood in Gethsemane. This is an appalling horror; a stinking indignity. (You remember Thomas Browne's splendid remark: "I am not so much afraid of death, as ashamed of it.)

I believe that all human beings, including people of faith, share the same natural revulsion for death. We can blot these feelings out and cover them up, but to do so is to become like those rabbits in Watership Down who sang melancholy songs while trading their lives for some lettuce and carrots.

Those who claim to have no fear of death, whether they be an Objectivist or the Dalai Lama or some Palestinian strapping dynamite to his chest, have lost touch with a primary truth of human existence: a truth which has lead us both to science and to faith. Those who seek to prolong human life — whether via antioxidants or cryonics or standard medical procedures — have tapped into that same fundamental truth:

Death sucks.

Posted by Phil at January 16, 2004 09:32 AM | TrackBack
Original Comments

I guess the issue could be rephrased: Death should be as voluntary as possible. If a person elects not to extend their life through artificial means, they should be allowed to. Just so long as the rest of society doesn't have to pay for their indulgences. If a person decides after a few eons, that all the books worth reading have been read, that human existance is really rather dull, they should be free to snuff it if they want to. Of course even in this future age of brain taping, biostasis and soma augmentation, death may still come involutarily. Someone may still fall into a star without any backups anywhere. But for those that want it, death can be made rare.

On the other hand, we can also admit that we die all the time, from planck interval to planck interval. As we change and gain new experiences the old us is destroyed irrevocably. Perhaps Change == Death and so we are never free of it even in the future of brain taping.

Posted by: Mr. Farlops at January 16, 2004 01:19 PM

You are probably familiar with this:

Aubade

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.

The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
-- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused -- nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear -- no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anaesthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision.
Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape,
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house.

Philip Larkin. From the amazing Plagiarist.com website.

Posted by: scott at January 16, 2004 01:36 PM

Good post! And you are right about Christianity and death; Xty sees death as an enemy, but one that will in the eschaton be overcome.

It must be noted that Jesus in the garden before his arrest was so fearful of the ordeal to come, including death, he bled through his skin. (It is a documented but rare medical condition.)

However, I should note that one's philosophy about death seems to change as one ages. Older people tend to be much more accepting of the concept of their own demise than middle aged or young adults.

In ministering to old folks suffering from the cornucopia of age-related diseases and dysfunctions, I have discovered that an awful lot of them are more than ready to die. My own grandmother told me she was waiting to die at age 90; the burden of daily - indeed, hourly - life had become to great to bear.

What they fear more than death is losing control of their bodies and minds. Also, it was not death per se they fear, but the long, laborious and painful process of dying.

Last year I attended the funeral of an 84-year-old man who was killed in a car accident. He was sound of mind and body at the time. A handful of his peers told me that the man had gone out the best way and they really wished they might die like that, too.

Posted by: Donald Sensing at January 16, 2004 01:40 PM

Not dying is infinitely more frightening than dying, Phil. To have a body that can no longer naturally support life lingering is not all that appealing.

Each cell in our body, and in every living thing, has a limited lifespan. Why? Because the parts that perform all the activities to keep that cell going can only last so long - they can only perform functions for a finite time.

I've seen men and women try to defy aging with plastic surgery, human growth hormone injections, special diets, and adhering to a narrow regime of activities - all in an effort to live longer. But what of the quality of their lives? Following all those rules and having those surgeries, taking those injections....is that truly living?

The key to life is to live it fully and experience the joy, wonder, sorrow, and all the other moments as they happen.

In the end, it won't matter if you remembered your 5 or 9 or 27 vegetables a day. What matters is that you have lived and loved and FELT to the full extent of your being.

Dying is a part of living. Outliving one's usefulness and joy isn't what I'd call life.

Posted by: Da Goddess at January 16, 2004 01:45 PM

What a great post! Whether from a Christian perspective or otherwise, death is always an outrage.

When asked how he would prefer to die, my father (now 81) always says, "shot by a jealous husband."

Posted by: Christopher Jones at January 16, 2004 01:51 PM

Sure, death sucks.

But for every human being in the history of mankind thus far (with a few possible exceptions, depending on your religion, etc), death has been absolutely, undeniably inevitable, and it is likely to be so for at least some time yet (a few decades at least, even for the ultra-wealthy).

Acceptance of one's own eventual demise is good for one's sanity. Being AMBIVALENT towards death at any time is insane. Being willing to die for some causes in the mean time is normal, and I think it is healthy. It is better to risk death or even go to certain death than to be unwilling to die for anything.

Posted by: Deoxy at January 16, 2004 01:52 PM

I'm reminded of that old, and slightly sick, joke that goes:

I want to die quietly, in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.

Ed.

Posted by: Ed Becerra at January 16, 2004 01:55 PM

I'm not afraid of death, exactly. The idea of not existing anymore, that is. I'm concerned about the manner of my death, the mechanism of it. I'd much rather die in bed in my sleep than in a fire, or for example, as so many did on 9/11 - jumping from a tall building because the alternative was worse.

But at the moment of my death, if I'm conscious, I'm certain I'll have at least a bit of fear. After all, I won't know what's coming, if anything, will I? Not being a believer in any faith, I'm hopeful that death isn't just "the end" but doubtful that "the other side" resembles anything like heaven or hell.

I guess to be specific, I'm not afraid of death, but dying concerns me.

Posted by: Kevin Baker at January 16, 2004 02:01 PM

I think the point is rather like the 'Bushido' code. It's not that death is not to be feared. Death is inevitable. We make the inevitable, death, more palatable by edifice we have created with our existence.

To breath one's last breath with the awesome revelation that one's life did not even deserve one's own respect would be more devastating than to die with the belief that one had lived in such a manner as to feel a personal pride.

Anyway, that's how I'm approaching the matter.

Posted by: T. Hazlewood at January 16, 2004 02:03 PM

D'OH! Should have read Rev. Sensing's comment first.

Posted by: Kevin Baker at January 16, 2004 02:03 PM

What a great blog. Death is a certainty but not well-defined. As a knowledge-based individual with some experience in association with the dying, the act of dying is to be feared. However, the comfort of the possiblity of reward after physical death is real. Most people need to be reassured and I think that speaks to our evolution as a species;our "need to know "to plan to move ahead. Humans are forward looking as a species; religion plays into this and I think in a postive way.

Posted by: lulubillman at January 16, 2004 02:42 PM

Reminds me of that Woody Allen quote,

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be around when it happens."

Personally, I'm not afraid of dying, it's the pain that precedes it that scares the crap out of me.

Posted by: Moxie at January 16, 2004 02:44 PM

From a religious point of view, I believe immortality is born in the heart of man. Death is a curse. But natural death is not so much an event, as a process. Slowly, we lose the ability to do what we once found easy. At some point, it becomes possible to embrace death, because on some level, we are more dead than alive.

But death is still a curse. I hate it. I hate the thought of it.

Posted by: Scott Harris at January 16, 2004 02:46 PM

What a great blog. Death is a certainty but not well-defined. As a knowledge-based individual with some experience in association with the dying, the act of dying is to be feared. However, the comfort of the possiblity of reward after physical death is real. Most people need to be reassured and I think that speaks to our evolution as a species;our "need to know "to plan to move ahead. Humans are forward looking as a species; religion plays into this and I think in a postive way.

Posted by: lulubillman at January 16, 2004 02:48 PM

OK - If you're tired of taking death lying down, make a donation to the Methuselah Foundation (www.methuselahmouse.org) already! It's funding a prize to bribe scientists for the reversal of human aging (set up like the X Prize).

Yes this is a shameless appeal. Sheesh...

Posted by: Dave Gobel at January 16, 2004 02:48 PM

Geez! You posters need to wake up and smell the future! Death is headed for the scrap heap with the advent of nanotechnology. I for one plan to live forever in a healthy and young posthuman body. To make absolutely sure of that, I'm signed up for cryonic suspension with BOTH U.S. cryonics providers (1 is backup in case anything happens to the first one). Take all this "death is natural" stuff and shove it where there's no direct dialing - what crap. Anyone who REALLY advocates "getting back to nature" should be living in cave, sleeping on a pile of sticks, and doing without clothing and fire, NOT posting on the internet! Technology helps us CONQUER "nature" - so just get over it.

Posted by: Janessa Ravenwood at January 16, 2004 02:59 PM

This song by Carolyn Arends always comforts me when I think about death... The Song is called, We've Been Waiting for You, and it is about the birth of a child.

-----

Let me hold you close, I know you're frightened
Go ahead and cry, I understand
You were safe and you were warm
And then suddenly without a warning
Things began to change
It must have seemed so strange

To all at once be traveling a journey
All the way to this delivery room
But baby you are not alone
Your room is ready, let's go home
You're gonna like it here
Let me make it clear that

We've been waiting for you
We're so glad you came
We've been looking forward
To showing you the place
There's so much in store and
We've been waiting for you

I know it can take some getting used to
But this old world is where you're meant to be
Life is something not to miss
The taste of ice cream, your first kiss
And when love takes your hand
You will understand why

We've been waiting for you
We're so glad you came
We've been looking forward
To showing you the place
There's so much in store and
We've been waiting for you

And watching you come into this world
Baby, you've made me believe
Another journey awaits us
So when I have to leave

I am pretty sure that I'll be frightened
But even if I cry, please understand
I will know I'm not alone
When my room is ready I'll go home
And when I reach the gate
I'm going to hear them saying

We've been waiting for you
We're so glad you came
We've been looking forward
To showing you the place
There's so much in store and
We've been waiting for you

Posted by: Katherine Prouty at January 16, 2004 03:02 PM

If the core of the prevailing ethos was aversion to things that "suck," nobody would ever take out the garbage.

Grown-ups have to do things that suck, and to experience things that suck. It's a hallmark of being an adult.

An American soldier in Iraq told a reporter, "Yeah, it sucks, but sometimes you have to embrace the suck."

That's an attitude that contributes to survival and happiness.

Posted by: Scott at January 16, 2004 03:17 PM

Janessa:

If being immortal means suffering through eternity with someone as shrill as yourself, I'll gladly takes Death's boney hand in mine and follow him wherever he may lead. Sheesh.

Posted by: sligobob at January 16, 2004 03:18 PM

I'd rather be dead than a metallica fan

Posted by: heeby jaco at January 16, 2004 03:19 PM

The Speculist. Hmmm. Are you handy with specula?

(That sounds like a Korean car... "Hey baby, I'll pick you up in my new Hyundai Specula.")

Posted by: Scott at January 16, 2004 03:21 PM

I've come to the conclusion over the years that the horror of death is not that you cease to exist -- it's that the world continues to exist without you.

Thinking about it in depth leads me to a gnawing depression, that there will always be new things to love in the world, new experiences to cherish, but most of those are out of reach in a future without me.

Selfish, but then ... life is selfish.

Posted by: truesper at January 16, 2004 03:38 PM

Sure, death sucks. So what.

Posted by: Jerry at January 16, 2004 03:41 PM

How do you know death sucks?

Are you dead?

Posted by: MD at January 16, 2004 03:43 PM

Not sure I liked that last comment about Objectivists. I agree with most of what Ayn Rand said, and I find it incontestable that death sucks ass.

Posted by: Brian at January 16, 2004 03:52 PM

I'll agree with the Phil on this one. I'm an evangelical Christian - with an aversion to death. To me, to focus on death can stop you from living and I'm not buying a statement saying I'm not afraid to die...

Jesus himself said, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done." Obviously, God gave us an aversion to death.

But, I do have a problem with folks who claim no God. Their problem is they start with an immediate bias against the supernatural (forgetting the creation of the universe for a minute) not realizing they walk in it every day. This universe is so infinitely complex it's mind numbing.

Good comment Phil overall. Though, the "Last Tempation of Christ" was in my opinion, heresy for any Bible believing Christian. If Christ was no more than that, then all is lost...doubt God was tempted to beget God, if you catch my drift.

Posted by: OK Rocks... at January 16, 2004 03:53 PM

Donald Sensing wrote:

"...Jesus in the garden before his arrest was so fearful of the ordeal to come, including death, he bled through his skin. "

It wasn't just death that He was fearful of, it was the ordeal leading up to it. (That passage could be troubling to some Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ.)

"What they fear more than death is losing control of their bodies and minds. Also, it was not death per se they fear, but the long, laborious and painful process of dying. "

That's it exactly. Indeed, death sucks, especially when it's caused by a drunken idiot running a red light and plowing into the side of your Geo Metro.

On the other hand, sometimes life sucks, too.

There's a difference between being afraid of death, and realizing that it's utterly, implacably, inevitable. We just try to put it off as long as possible.

The hard thing about death is that it happens first to those around us.

Hazlewood makes a very good point. It's not so much whether you die, or even how, but rather how you lived.

For Janessa: Go for it!

But that leads to a diffrent thread: What would you do if you were immortal (or even guaranteed a life-span of 1000 years). Make any reasonable assumptions (i.e. physical condition, state of mind, &c). Consider also the possibility that everyone has the same immortality.

Then there's the realization that death will make you leave a lot of things undone, unfinished. I would hate to have to miss "Star Wars XXII". I will hate not being able to see colonies on Mars, exploration beyond our solar system, and a VCR that programs itself.

Posted by: Mike at January 16, 2004 03:59 PM

Death is a disease like any other. There's nothing inevitable or unavoidable about it. Research into the genetic reasons for aging will undoubtedly lead to solutions for the problems of aging and natural death. I expect these solutions to become widely available shortly after I drop dead.

Posted by: Milo Minderbinder at January 16, 2004 04:04 PM

"Our ancestors relentlessly pursued an empirical investigation into the nature of...everything."

True. And believe it or not, you can actually learn to travel outside your body and know firsthand that you are not your body, and that when your body dies, you do not cease to exist. It's actually true -- if you want to learn more, I'd suggest checking on The Monroe Institute (http://www.monroeinstitute.org), which was founded by a very sober businessman who began spontaneously having OOBE's (out of body experiences) in the late 1950s and over the next several decades learned to control and trigger the experience at will. He also pioneered sound technologies that can be used to trigger the experience; you can learn about opportunities for workshops at the Institute where you too can learn to go OOBE. I'm not kidding.

I know this sounds like crackpot stuff, but as a very logical computer software engineer (and former atheist) who has personally experienced this, take it from me that it's worth at least investigating. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the "death expert", came upon this technology very late in her career as well and found it profoundly life-altering.

It hasn't eliminated my fear of a painful death, and it hasn't eliminated the deep-seated fear-of-dying reflex that I believe we're all born with, but it has immeasurably soothed the worries I used to have about the meaning of life and my survival of it.

I don't believe that we'll ever find technologies that will keep our physical bodies from dying, but I do believe that in the next millenium we will make OOBE-travel a common, everyday experience. (Actually it already is, because we all do it every night during deep sleep.)

Posted by: MarkJ at January 16, 2004 04:10 PM

Been there. Done that. Dying, that is. Heh heh heh.

Some say that once people reach 50 they're pretty much ready to accept death (the concept) and dying (the act).

I had a heart attack and faced immediate death. I didn't mind the death part at all. I minded the pain of the dying part. I had absolutely no fear of death as The Big Sleep, a la Nothingness.

In fact, I knew it wasn't a problem. I had complete trust in my survival as a coherent being. Why? Well, when you've actually met your Creator face to face, person to person, you eventually get to the truth about things; and it breeds confidence.

Animals have a way of submitting to death when it can no longer be escaped. That applies to humans as well. The drowning man succumbs, the wounded soldier sighs.

The faithful man with some real insight into Spirit has no fear of death.

Posted by: mark butterworth at January 16, 2004 04:52 PM

Very thoughtful post.

Death sucks, but sometimes, so does the fear of death.

And sometimes, so does life!

Fear of death may be a healthy motivator, but it can go too far. To live each day as if it were your last -- yet at the same time not live in fear of death -- that strikes me as an ideal. Healthy fear is good (I am not recommending suicidal lifestyles) but wasting too much time fearing the inevitable can prevent the enjoyment of life, thus calling into question the value of fearing its loss!

What I cannot stand is to have self-appointed "leaders" like Leon Kass lecture me or anyone else on the need for a "natural" lifespan, how the "dignity" of life is to be defined, or the immorality of extending it any way I might want.

If it isn't my life, then it isn't my death. No one really ought to assign values (or fears) to either -- other than the person living or dying.

Don't mean to sound too morbid, but I lost twenty friends to AIDS and this stuff was much "in my face" for years. This forced me to develop tougher-than-normal death calluses -- and a sort of gallows humor.

At times, I have found it most beneficial to turn off the natural fear of death. Far from missing out on anything, I honestly feel that I gleaned new insights -- and (quite paradoxically) saved my life, which I now value more than I did before the experience.

With all respect to the wisdom of this excellent post, I do not agree that negating the fear of death causes one to "lose touch with a primary truth of human existence." It brought me closer!

(On the other hand, those who claim falsely to have no fear of death only confirm the truth of your assertions, for obvious reasons. Their fear is infinitely greater than those who admit the fear honestly.)

A very minor point: vomiting was once combined with eating, and considered quite pleasurable!

Posted by: Eric Scheie at January 16, 2004 05:00 PM

Great post, and I can't believe I have found someone else who has used those fat and self delusional rabbits in Watership down as an analogy! Fabulous!

That whole passage has struck me something deep within my core since I read it as a kid 10 years ago. It probably means similar things to other people who are drawn to knowledge even if it hurts them.

Posted by: taspundit at January 16, 2004 05:07 PM

sligobob: No big loss, you won't be missed.

Mark J: Oh please, spare us the mysticism and do yourself a favor by trading it in for some hard science instead. Regarding the NDE nonsense, see http://www.csicop.org/ for some good mysticism debunking. And your statement about not finding the technology to live forever is laughable. Nanotechnology will give us that almost certainly in less than a century, possibly within a few decades. Start dealing with the concept of global immortality - it's coming whether you want it to or not.

Posted by: Janessa Ravenwood at January 16, 2004 05:10 PM

I think it would have been interesting to be able to interview Lazarus. Then again, maybe not.

As far as nanotechnology and all of that goes, you'll still die eventually. Pretending that it isn't going to happen isn't a wise approach, either.

Posted by: Stephen B at January 16, 2004 05:24 PM

I concur absolutely with the posters who say they abhor the dying process. Especially, if it can't be with dignity. For someone to die after losing control of their bodily functions, possibly wracked with pain, and who has no family left to comfort them, death can be an unqualified blessing.

I DO NOT fear death, but I fear dying alone and not being sentient. Let me make my transition in peace and free of pain.

My mother lived until she was 90 years old. She played golf three times a week until she broke her hip at age 88. She lived a full life, being a teacher, mother of four, grandmother of many and wife of 56 years.

We discussed dying and our feelings. She wanted only to die at home; her living will specified that no extraordinay measures be employed to revive her; she arranged and prepaid for her funeral. The family honored all of her requests.

She looked forward to reuniting with her friends and loved ones on the other side, particularly my father. She was cheerful but anxious to get on with it, as she was confined to a wheelchair and unable to look after herself. If you had offered her a magic pill to extend her life she would have laughed and said "You take your pills and shove 'em", I'm leaving". And she did.

Did she get to the reunion? I don't know, but even if there is no life after life, I look forward to finding out. I hope that euthanasia is an option by the time I'm ready to go.

Posted by: Ed P. at January 16, 2004 05:36 PM

You need to read some Lucretius my man...he will show you how irrational the fear of death really is. Just imagine that time reversed itself and you lived your life backwards, but your mind operated normally. Would you be afraid as you were sucked back into your mothers womb, reduced to a collection of cells and then torn apart into two seperate pieces and into oblivion? No. Why? Because we've all already been there. Death is only scary if it represents the unknown...but we all know the state of death all to well.
Everyone remembers what it was like before they were born.

Posted by: Jason at January 16, 2004 05:39 PM

Stephen B: WHY will I still die eventually? Just because you say so? I swear, virtually none of the Pro-Deathists and/or Luddites have viable arguments...

Posted by: Janessa Ravenwood at January 16, 2004 05:44 PM

Deoxy: I agree with you that functional immortality is "decades away, at least". But, see, I'm in my early thirties. I expect to live another sixty years at least. If it happens in "decades", I expect to be there for it. In any case, it seems entirely possible that the generation being born now might never have to deal with age-related illnesses and death.

Janessa: yes, out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences are bunk, but you could be a lot nicer about it. Especially since your "nanotech" rant is itself based in science fiction and wishful thinking, not in science itself.

Posted by: Dan at January 16, 2004 05:54 PM

I don't think, therefore I am not.

Posted by: Buster at January 16, 2004 05:56 PM

StephenB writes: "As far as nanotechnology and all of that goes, you'll still die eventually."

How about if we make archival backup copies of ourselves? Clone new body; restore from save file. Obviously still very much in the realm of fiction, but there's no known reason it's not doable. Sure, eventually we'll have to deal with the heat death of the entire universe, but who knows... maybe it's preventable somehow. :)

Jason writes: "Would you be afraid as you were sucked back into your mothers womb, reduced to a collection of cells and then torn apart into two seperate pieces and into oblivion?"

Hell yes! For starters, I'd be terrified of who it was, exactly, who had the power to do that to me -- and what it had planned for me next.

Posted by: Dan at January 16, 2004 06:04 PM

My law practice is primarily estate planning and most of my clients are 65+ and quite a few 80+... Every once in awhile, someone will say they're ready to go, but it is very rare... even those who are sick and suffering aren't (usually) looking to go soft into that good night.
And by the way, you shouldn't believe them when they say they don't want life support... for the vast majority, as long as they're able to make their own decisions, they decide for life... not absolutely all, but almost... The only difference between older and younger people is that the older ones are slowing down and they can hear the Reaper's footsteps, so they're more willing to talk about it...
Death really does suck.

Posted by: jagcap at January 16, 2004 06:18 PM

>>>>>"...Jesus in the garden before his arrest was so fearful of the ordeal to come, including death, he bled through his skin. "

It wasn't just death that He was fearful of, it was the ordeal leading up to it. (That passage could be troubling to some Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ.)


Jesus had to experience the full wrath of God, and the separation from God, to make the price He was paying real. Though in the mystery of the Godhead Jesus is God, in the work and payment on the cross He was fully human. There's also a question of Jesus suffering in hell (not necessarily actual fire, but extreme or total separation from God) as well as part of the payment. Yet He was ultimately triumphant in defeating death, and is our Forerunner if we have faith... Jesus Christ is actually more heroic and suffered even more on the behalf of His followers than is generally known even by believing Christians...

Posted by: ct at January 16, 2004 06:18 PM

Dan: I don't see any reason to tread lightly around baseless mysticism and hallucinations. And "science fiction?" I see you haven't been keeping up on current events. I USED to think a mature nanotechnology might not arrive until around 2050+. Right now 2020 is starting to actually look realistic. I can't believe what we've accomplished in 2003 alone. Start doing some more research if you think nanotechnology is science fiction.

Posted by: Janessa Ravenwood at January 16, 2004 06:20 PM

Well, at my age I doubt that nanotechnology or anything else will progress fast enough to allow me to live forever. I'd like to avoid dying until I've taught my grandchildren how to saddle a horse and track a deer. I hope my health allows me to teach the boys how to low crawl within range of an antelope and it would be nice to show them how to field dress and quarter an elk and get the carcass and trophy back to the truck.
When my grandaughters are proud and strong and are going through their lives secure that they'll never be someone's sex toy or punching bag, then I shall have finished my job in this life.
If something comes up before then it won't be fear but rage. I've work to do.

Posted by: Peter at January 16, 2004 06:23 PM

Well, I've been dead for twenty years, and I really must agree with Phil.

Posted by: Ian Wood at January 16, 2004 06:48 PM

Peter: that's why you sign up for cryonics. I hope you live to see all of that, and more!

Posted by: Janessa Ravenwood at January 16, 2004 06:57 PM

This was a post that makes the blogworld worth the trouble.

Thanks

Posted by: Matt at January 16, 2004 06:58 PM

I'm pretty young, and the thing I fear most about dying is inflicting grief on people who love and need me. I'd hate to be hit by a car and be lying there, dying, and thinking about how horrible things were going to be for my family (and my dog).

If I live to 90 and don't have anyone who really needs me anymore, it won't be so bad.

Posted by: Sarah e.g. at January 16, 2004 07:41 PM

I am attracted to math. I enjoy solving differential equations more than anything. Sad perhaps, but true. So, if I was free of death, then I could spend all my waking hours solving differential equations. Perhaps I could do that for 10,000 years before I finally had solved them all. Of course I would remember each one, because forgetting is also a kind of death.

After that, I would have to go on to my second favorite thing, which is Integration. I really enjoy integration, and like it almost as much as solving differential equations. Alas, after another 10,000 years, I would have completed integrating all the integrals, and would have to go on to my third favorite thing.

With eternal life, I would progress further and further down the list of things that I like, to things that I like less and less. Eventually I would be forced, just to find some novelty, to begin to do things that I don't really like, but at least don't dislike as much as some other alternatives. Still, I would eventually complete them, and would have to either repeat myself endlessly, or would have to progress further down the list. Eventually I would plumb the bottom of my finite or infinite list, and spend 10,000 years doing that which I hate above all things-arguing philosophy

Doubtless a a deathless species would fill its literature with longing for death, and escape from immortality. In the end, the G-ds themselves would envy brief, transient, and insubstantial humanity.

To die is to be free of all problems. Death is a solution, particularly for those who die. It is the living who must face all problems, who are faced with the need to find their daily bread, and find reason for enduring their continued toil and suffering.

Posted by: Don at January 16, 2004 07:53 PM

I'm 57, the men die around this age from heart attacks, in my family. Until a few years ago, I used to make it a point to eat, sleep and exercise right, and tho I've been an inveterate smoker since teenhood, I did control it, until lately, when I've gone to smoking as much as possible, all day and all night long. About two years ago, mom had the worst stroke possible, left her alive in name only. I tended her for 15 months, until she died a few months ago. Since she had the stroke, I haven't exercised a bit, have gotten to where for the last few months i sleep only three or four nights a week, only for two or three hours. I sold my business, and just read, smoke, and drink gallons of coffee, loaded with sugar, and eat maybe a sandwich all day long long. I don't answer the phone, nor open my mail, nor go anywhere non-emergency. I think being that close to mom that long in that condition shook me so bad I want to just get it the hell over with. Only problem is the kids and a brother and sister and a few others I haven't yet been able to chase off, they'll miss me. So I'm making sure they get used to me being nothing much to miss. The timing is perfect. What a mess, huh? But, is it? I'm all done here, did my life's work, and am too vain to chase youth like the heroically pathetic oldsters we all act like we so admire for the tenacity with which they hang onto life. I always wonder, do they ever feel like they ought to get out of the way and preserve some capital for the kids? A couple has a different dynamic, but what if there's only an ex? My ex-wife is not a factor in my or the kids' lives, having moved to Arizona years ago to worship the sun or something. I can't care about life, because it is almost over, and caring will just make me apprehensive and miserable. As is, I'm in control, and although I know I sound classically depressed, I feel fine; actually sort of enjoying myself. When I finally get the news, (provided I don't just blink out suddenly) of the Big Illness, I'll just leave a note explaining to everyone that I have terminal whatever, and have made the rational decision, and, whatever put the pistol to the temple. I guess I must be crazy, huh?

Posted by: Buddy at January 16, 2004 08:17 PM

Don: just because you believe yourself inadequate to survive an immortal existence, it doesn't follow that you should project that onto everyone else. In other words, speak for yourself!

Posted by: Janessa Ravenwood at January 16, 2004 08:43 PM

"I don't want to gain immortality through my work. I want to gain immortality by not dying."

Woody Allen

Posted by: Doug at January 16, 2004 08:51 PM

One important thing is that we can actually work on the concept of death, as demonstrated by these perspicacious posts, that is, how we look at it, which then modifies what death is -- or at least we can hope to do so.

Death is our non-being, which was in fact the situation for an infinity of time prior to our life. Or was it? We do have this awareness now, which creates the possibility that we have had it before, although we assume this must not have been really us. But we do not know.

We have an infinity of time to re-exist, although we again assume that our awareness will not re-exist as we currently experience it. Maybe this is not true. We do have this awareness now. Who knows?

Then we realize that my awareness of self is the same as yours, at least as to our awareness of existence. So perhaps if anyone exists, our exact awareness of existence and maybe self also exists, even if it is not exactly us who is being aware. Is this any consolation? I don't know but am attracted to thinking about it.

We can also argue, that since the Universe is infinite, there is an infinite chance that an infinity of exact replicas of us exist now with our exact same awareness. Say hello to yourselves.

There is thus an infinite chance that exact replicas of each of us at all ages exist, have existed, and will exist. Thus we can be tempted to conclude that we always exist, though in separate places. Again, is this any consolation? I don't know.

Looking at life as dualistically separate from death is not quite definitive. These life-death/non-life manifestations of the Universe are in fact quite connected, though the connection is mysterious.

It is interesting at least that we have been created by the Universe, as a formation of its forces, with a thought capacity which wants to understand the forces of its own creation. The Universe cannot understand itself but through us, as a part of itself. Therefore, in a way we are the Universe, and we can know this. [Though I don't think the Universe cares if it knows itself, as it is otherwise not alive.]

Understanding seeks to contact the forces which created it, even immediately. This involves some kind of meld, possibly.

I am afraid of death. But then if I look at the fear, it is possible to see it as irrelevant, that is, as an impediment to life, which can produce a life worse than death, maybe.

Or at least we can get into the fear to perhaps break it down into other facets. Having had several near death experiences, I have noted that when confronted with these situations immediately, I have never been afraid. Others I have observed in acute situations which might lead to their deaths [acute diseases which threaten life immediately] have never manifested fear. This helps me.

When confronted with my possible death in the certain near future, as in the face of a disease, I have been initially sickly afraid, then evolving into a peaceful yet powerful acceptance, as has been documented in many other cases. Luckily in my case the disease was cured. The process was instructive, in the sense that maybe next time I can skip right to the phase of acceptance. It is a real state.

It is the nonspecific consideration of my ultimate death as a general fact of life which seems most fear-producing. Functionally, then, I have concluded that this kind of consideration of death should be avoided unless it is carried out further everytime it comes up. If this is temporarilly unsuccessful or a background fear remains, the only thing to do is to bring it up front again to see what it is. J. Krishnamurti is a wonderful source to read regarding facing such fears, which tends to resolve them by the full focus of awareness upon them, which is the same as being alive in the sense of using thought as an activity constituting what we are to see what we are, at the time that we are. That is, now. [See, for example, "Total Freedom", J.Krishnamurti]

Using our thought capability to be aware is, strangely, the same activity we do as forces of the Universe trying to understand the Universe, that is, ourselves.

Krishnamurti also believed that thought was a factor of extreme divisiveness if the thoughts themselves were taken as solid structures which then limited thought, or acted as ultimate truths. These do not exist. Nor should we want them to, because then we would be done wondering. The concept of death, then, should be dealt with similarily -- as not a solid structure but a source of wonder. Some American Indians saw it this way.

Thus there is probably no answer to death except living in as an aware way as possible so that we are always "confronted with the Great Mystery". [Luther Standing Bear] Good luck to us all.

Posted by: Joe Peden at January 16, 2004 09:30 PM

The mystics are just coming out of the woodwork here to ramble on and on about nonsense. Someone call Penn & Teller...

Posted by: Janessa Ravenwood at January 16, 2004 10:33 PM

Don, I'd like to think that with an eternity of time on our hands and a whole universe ahead we'd come up with new things to be interested in. My list of favorite things gets longer every day.

And I do believe in an afterlife, but I don't think God wants us to hurry up and die any faster to get there. He's in no rush.

Posted by: Bryan C at January 16, 2004 11:29 PM

I'm a firm beliver in the saying, "It's not the years in your life, but the life in your years." I work at a hospital. Evey day I see the folks that are in their 80s or 90s, hooked up to a bank of equipment to keep them hanging on that much longer. No. Frickin. Way. If nano-tech makes it so that I can live forever with a good quality of life, great. In the meantime, I'm going to eat what I want, consume moderate amounts of alchohol, and enjoy the occasional cigar. Unless the exotropians' hopes pan out (or if the Hindus are right about re-incarnation), we only get one shot at this & I mean to enjoy my time here.

Posted by: Cybrludite at January 16, 2004 11:56 PM

Within this night
We see a spark,
Beyond the edge
That cuts the flesh
Of we who reach
Into the dark.

With lessons taught,
And less ones learnt,
With held and brought,
On crosses burnt,
Hang those who sought,
And those who weren?t.
And... bit by bit,
And... piece by piece,
And... cut by cut,
We lose ourselves
To life?s decay,
Too soon to pray
For our release.

Within this light,
We see the dark,
Beyond the edge
That cuts the flesh
Of we who reach
Towards the spark.
-------------------------

Death sucks.. but dying sucks worse.

Luckily we've 'naturally' evolved an intelligence level which allows us to regard the pursuit of knowledge and its propagation for the betterment of ourselves and others as being beneficial to our continued existence.

Luckily, our 'naturally' evolved intelligence is finally delivering the goods and we have arrived at a time when we will be able to disconnect ourselves from the biological imperative of aging and death.

Our body is a machine, incredibly complicated to be sure, but not so much so that it will prevent us from repairing it like we would an old car that needs a few new parts to stay on the road.. indefinitely.

That people are willing to accept the creeping and sometimes sudden debilitation that comes with age is only a testament to the level of hopelessness that anything can be done about it. After all, so many have died before, how can we possibly escape?

Well... let me see.. What is so different that one might hope we could escape death by aging..

Everything is different... and its going to get more different rapidly. From the Human Genome to the high speed internet connected supercomputers, there is very little in this world that is the same than in the time which spawned an attitude of the acceptance of death.

Possibly not in mine, but certainly in the lifetime of the next generation, death will come to be seen as even more of a tragedy than it is today as virtually everyone will be able to escape their biologically imposed expiration date.

I hope I'm here to see what the world becomes when the wisdom of the healthy aged is applied to the problems associated with short term perspectives.

Death sucks... dying is worse.. and that is why I have to put in a shameless plug for the Methuselah Mouse Prize..

The Methuselah Mouse Prize


Posted by: Kevin Perrott at January 17, 2004 12:16 AM

Men say my years are few, but I am old,
And worn, with scars from endless wars,
And long to rest on some brown and windswept wold,
Unknown of men, beneath the quiet stars.

The greybeards prattle, while I hold my tongue,
And flaunt their callow wisdom drearily;
White headed babes, to me, who they brand "young",
With knowledge gained through ages wearily.

Shape upon shape returning, land on land,
Loosed by the ripping axe, the arrow's tooth,
Through endless incarnations, till I stand,
A tired, old man, wrapped in the guise of youth.

(Robert E. Howard)

Posted by: Don at January 17, 2004 01:26 AM

As other posters have pointed out, what some of us mean when we say, "I'm not afraid of dying" is not, "I'm not afraid of those last few moments of life, within which I might suffer immeasurably, or be 'taken' instantly," or whatever. We?re not saying we?d shrug off a slow and painful death.

We're also not saying that we *want* to die, that we want our lives to be cut short, that we want to live anything less than our three score and ten?plus a few more years than that in this age, I should hope!

No, what we're really saying is "Don't try to spook me. I'm not afraid of what comes *after* death. I'm not going to be scared 'straight' with some fiery vision of eternal hell, where ?the worm dieth not.? In fact, we?re saying that once death comes, we may just surrender to it, hopefully having lived a full life and having earned the right to rest eternally.

And by ?rest? I mean sleep the sleep from which you never awake, neither in this world, nor in any other.

Ironically, yes, many religious folks should be able to say the same, since they're promised an eternity in heaven. Unfortunately, their own doubts and the guilt trip they're sometimes expected to endure often has them fearing they may wake in hell, despite any commitments they've made to Christ or any other consolations of eternal bliss they've been offered.

I speak from experience. It was nice to cast of those fears, and I miss neither the threat of hell nor the promise of heaven.

So, I agree with Kevin Baker (above) who says, ?I'm not afraid of death, but dying concerns me.?

Posted by: Robert Stribley at January 17, 2004 05:48 AM

No discussion of death would be complete without reference to Kierkegaard's little essay, A Bit of Spice.

http://www.heartrose.com/gaarden/skspice.htm

[Oh, the Governance of the world is an immense housekeeping and a grandiose painting. Yet He, the Master, God in heaven, behaves like the cook and the artist. He says: "Now there must be introduced a little pinch of spice, a little touch of red." We do not comprehend why, we are hardly aware of it, since that little bit is so thoroughly absorbed into the whole. But God knows why.]

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Posted by: John Ballard at January 17, 2004 06:20 AM

Ms. Ravenswood:

Sooner or later, the universe will catch up with you. Abolish disease and decrepitude, and death will still find you. It may come in the form of a nut with a gun, or an exploding gas tank, a car wreck, or an icicle falling from a skyscraper; or, if you live long enough, a falling meteor, the sun going nova, or the heat death (or collapse) of the universe. You can run, but you can't hide.

Still, do run as hard as you are able. Use your technology. Drink life as long and as deeply as you possibly can. Of the many people I've known in my life (I'm 51), I cannot think of any who died sated with life. Most were dragged into the grave kicking and screaming; the others surrendered, worn out by pain and decrepitude; but none went willingly, saying "I've had enough, thank you." No, they all echo that line from "Blade Runner": "I want more life, fucker!" So, use your nanotechnology: sate yourself with life.

Great blog, by the way. Many thanks. The Larkin made my day.

Posted by: Brown Line at January 17, 2004 06:50 AM

Interesting how the folks who say the body is nothing but a machine, decry others own personal experiences as "mysticism", delude themselves that their bodies are going to live forever through cryonics and then nanotechnology (a field the majority of which is science fiction dreams).


November 01, 2004


The Scientific Conquest of Death

Now available on Amazon.

Read Stephen Gordon's review.

October 15, 2004


Book Review: The Scientific Conquest of Death

sod7.jpg

When I heard this summer that the Immortality Institute was publishing its first book, The Scientific Conquest of Death: Essays on Infinite Lifespans, I asked for an advanced copy to review for the Speculist.

I was surprised and honored when Bruce Klein and Reason from FightAging emailed me a working draft. This was a valuable blog-lesson for me: ask and you shall (sometimes) receive.

I'm happy to report that the book is a complete success.

This book is a collection of essays divided into two parts: Science and Perspectives. The Science half of the book is written by scientists well-known to life extension enthusiasts: Aubrey de Grey, Michael West, Robert Freitas, Ray Kurzweil, and Marvin Minsky to name a few.

These authors work in different fields but share a vision of a future where degenerative aging is a choice - and a rather unpopular choice. For most of these scientists, it's not so much a question of "if," but "when:"

We can no longer pretend that we know so little about how to cure aging that the timing of this advance will be determined overwhelmingly by future serendipitous discoveries: we are in the home straight already.

-Aubrey de Grey

While I found the Perspectives half of the book a little slower going, ultimately it may prove to be more important than the first half.

While the authors of the Science section outline potential paths to the goal, the Perspective authors ask whether the goal is worthy. Will we be plagued by overpopulation or lethargy if death is removed from the picture?

The objections [to eternal youth] can be divided into two different categories: practical and philosophical. Practical worries might include: the population problem, the problem of scarce resources and environmental pollution, eternal youth that is only available to the wealthy, the accumulation of too much wealth and power by an elite group of immortals�

A philosophical objection to life extension is the worry that the longer we lived, the less we would value our time. After all, a basic economic principle is that the value of a resource tends to increase the more scarce it is. Would we somehow value each moment less if we lived longer? Another worry that people may have is that a desire for life extension is somehow selfish. Perhaps budding immortals would become really self-centered and narcissistic?

-Marc Geddes

To its credit the Immortality Institute allowed debate on these issues. Several of the Perspective essayists are quite critical of the goal of life extension.

But if the authors of the Science portion the book are correct that radical life extension is coming, any philosophical arguments against life extension will ring hollow when it arrives. The Perspectives section is of greater value when it debates how to adapt our society to life extension, rather than whether we should pursue it.

The publication of this book is certainly a landmark for the Immortality Institute. The Institute should be proud of this accomplishment. More importantly, this book is a milestone in the quest for life extension. The depth of the bench here, the willingness of respected scientists to contribute to such a book, is an important development.

These contributors and others that follow can now investigate the possibility of radical life extension without the fear of being thought unserious. This alone could make all the difference.

The Scientific Conquest of Death: Essays on Infinite Lifespans, will be available within the next couple of weeks at Amazon.com.

Click here for the Table of Contents, introductions for both the Science and Perspective portions of the book, biographical sketches of the authors, and additional resources.

September 28, 2004


The Million Dollar Mouse

Well, we're halfway there. The Methuselah Foundation has now raised half a million dollars towards the Methuselah Mouse Prize.

The Methuselah Foundation, creators of the Methuselah Mouse Prize, the worlds first scientific prize for research on extending longevity, today announced that it has secured $500,000 in funding commitments and a long term support commitment from an anonymous supporter making his donation in the name of the X PRIZE Foundation, the multi-million-dollar bounty which has successfully encouraged the development of private passenger space travel.

Weve seen how prizes such as the X PRIZE and the Methuselah Mouse Prize can dramatically increase competition and innovation, and create interest for the public, said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Founder and Executive Producer of the X PRIZE. With this contribution, were signaling our belief that Prizes can not only take us into space, but help bring about breakthroughs in the way we live and age.

Were thrilled to have the support of the X PRIZE, said David Gobel, Director of the Methuselah Foundation and the Methuselah Mouse Prize. This landmark contribution will further swell the size of the Prize, and encourage scientific research teams around the world to develop breakthrough techniques for extending the healthy human lifespan. It will create a needed impetus and focus for the development of new rejuvenation therapies.

Wow, a major donation to the life extension effort made in the name of the X Prize. One good turn deserves another, it seems.

(via FuturePundit)

September 17, 2004


Things Fall Apart

I meant to link to this earlier this week. (Kudos to Paul at GeekPress for reminding me.)

CHILDHOOD IS A SPECIAL TIME INDEED. If only we could maintain our body functions as they are at age 10, we could expect to live about 5000 years on average. Unfortunately, from age 11 on, it's all downhill!

The problem is that our bodies deteriorate with age. For most of our lives, the risk of death is increasing exponentially, doubling every eight years. So, why do we fall apart, and what can we do about it?

According to the article, what we can do is look to the field of reliability engineering for an eventual solution. Reliability engineering is the study of why systems fall apart and what can be done to keep them working longer. From the engineer's perspective, the human body is a defective system from the start, and it only gets worse. However, understanding what's wrong with a system is the beginning of understanding how to fix it.

Those who are pursuing strategies for engineered negligible senescence understand this very well.



Be a Speculist

Share your thoughts on the future with more than

70,000

Speculist readers. Write to us at:

speculis-at-speculist-dot-com

(More details here.)



Blogroll



Categories

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2