we might live till 1000

[somone uk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm
i know the article is old but still interests me

the theory is quite solid, the body refreshes just about all of it's cells every so often depending on what cell but but everyone here is technically the best part of 6 weeks old because our old cells die and new ones are produced so the process of ageing is literally our bodies killing itself slowly

i know his idea may seem a little controversial but his research is mostly treating age related illnesses such as alzheimer's

though ironically i think the man himself could age well, if he grayed his hair and beard, he could look like god

maybe he could cure male pattern baldness!
what do you think?

 

[vauxall]

There was a documentary in 2007 on C4 about this guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's an alcoholic and he is not even a scientist. He's a PC tech support at Cambridge University and used his University account to pose as a researcher but he's not. That invalidates the whole shebang.

http://evolutionlondon.wordpress.com/20 ... charlatan/

Wait, isn’t he a PhD? From Cambridge University?

PhD, yes, but in computer science, not in biochemistry, or any of the life sciences. In fact, in a documentary called “Do you want to live forever?â€￾ broadcast on Channel 4 last year, it seems de Grey was just a computer technician working in one of the Cambridge labs. It seems he was passing himself off as a scientist to anyone who wanted to listen.

 

[Ouroboros]

His theories are indeed solid. People often attempt to discredit him for BS reasons like his attire, but his work on the understanding of how mitochondria influence aging (different than previously thought) is now canon. His ideas have also weathered assault and an MIT Technology Review, which came to the conclusion that his work is worthy of continued debate.

If you want to learn more about this read here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... xjNvLKG8JQ

Let me close by saying that Dr. de Grey is an acquaintance of mine; and as a fellow scientist it is my opinion that he is no quack; the fact that his work is gaining momentum (he was recently on a half hour CNN special with Gupta, for instance), is a measure of testament to that.

 

[Dashtoronto]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

99% of the guys and girls on these forums are struggling with hairloss and can't even barely manage to regain solid, thick hairs to grow back on their heads. Many people on these forums don't even manage to achieve to grow back any hairs on their head...

and you're saying this guy is going to figure a way to achieve to live 1000 years?

ha ha.

 

[somone uk]

There was a documentary in 2007 on C4 about this guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's an alcoholic and he is not even a scientist. He's a PC tech support at Cambridge University and used his University account to pose as a researcher but he's not. That invalidates the whole shebang.

http://evolutionlondon.wordpress.com/20 ... charlatan/

Wait, isn’t he a PhD? From Cambridge University?

PhD, yes, but in computer science, not in biochemistry, or any of the life sciences. In fact, in a documentary called “Do you want to live forever?â€￾ broadcast on Channel 4 last year, it seems de Grey was just a computer technician working in one of the Cambridge labs. It seems he was passing himself off as a scientist to anyone who wanted to listen.

computer science is more than just electrical computers it covers many methods of computation including biological, chemical and quantum computers
also computers are playing a huge role in modern advancements in medicine (folding@home and the Human Genome Project just to name 2) since current medicine has been essentially trial and error computers will most probibly take over all medical research with a small amount left to people, actually it's already happening
so all this man is really doing at the moment is setting up a ton of computers that model the behaviour of human cells and the human body as a whole

and he said human trials might start in 30 years time so he has a lot of time to read biology books

 

[vauxall]

He sent emails from Cambridge Uni claiming he has a PHd as a geneticist. He sent letters from the Uni claiming he's a geneticist. I wouldn't trust a liar.

 

[Ouroboros]

There is a lot of misinformation here (both positive and negative); again I recommend reading his book "Ending Aging" to see what he's up to. Yes his original background was in engineering and computers; that is why he was able to see a different approach to this issue. Before him the field was approaching the issue by either trying to interfere with metabolism (which usually has unintended consequences because our understanding of metabolism is still relatively poor) or trying to treat the pathology of aging, which is always a losing battle (far too late). The basis of his ideas is to periodically remove the damaging byproducts of metabolism, instead of interfering with metabolism itself; the body already has means of replenishing itself, but the accumulation of these byproducts eventually outweighs the regenerative capabilities of the body; remove the byproducts or prevent their accumulation and the body can enjoy increased longevity.

He is actually now mainly a coordinator, directing funds to biologists who are currently doing work that will tie into the eventual goal of ending aging (curing Alzhiemer's for instance, all of us would eventually die of plaque build up in the brain (Alzhiemer's) if nothing else killed us first).

His research organization is here www.sens.org

 

[s.a.f]

With the state of the planet I dont even believe they'll be any humans here in 1000 yrs time. Let alone ones who have already been born, its taken millions of years to get to a level where we're living to not even one 10th of that time.

 

[The Gardener]

With the state of the planet I dont even believe they'll be any humans here in 1000 yrs time. Let alone ones who have already been born, its taken millions of years to get to a level where we're living to not even one 10th of that time.

I somewhat agree.

I think there will be humans around, but, I think the population is going to be a LOT smaller.

I just hope these survivors are cool, and not a bunch of Beverly Hills douchebags... or we'll be fated to repeat the same stupid apocalyptic mistakes.

 

[somone uk]

With the state of the planet I dont even believe they'll be any humans here in 1000 yrs time. Let alone ones who have already been born, its taken millions of years to get to a level where we're living to not even one 10th of that time.

it's taken millions of years to arrive to finesteride yet HM will be avalible within the next 10 years or so
for the first time we are actually treating the aging rather than the symptoms of ageing
[youtube:zvc1il2n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ[/youtube:zvc1il2n]
and there already people talking about it's economic benefits

[youtube:zvc1il2n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS2PS6bPeLY&feature=response_watch[/youtube:zvc1il2n]

 

[HughJass]

I think there will be humans around, but, I think the population is going to be a LOT smaller.

How do you think that will come about?


I guess we can dismiss any idea that it will come about by people voluntarily surrending their 'right' to pump out kiddies

 

[Ouroboros]

As overcrowding becomes more of a concern it is not unthinkable to imagine government incentives for having fewer children.

 

[The Gardener]

I think there will be humans around, but, I think the population is going to be a LOT smaller.

How do you think that will come about?

A big-*** global resource war, famine, intentional depopulation via introduction of foreign substances into food that reduce human fertility

 

[BitchBoy]

There was a documentary in 2007 on C4 about this guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's an alcoholic and he is not even a scientist. He's a PC tech support at Cambridge University and used his University account to pose as a researcher but he's not. That invalidates the whole shebang.

http://evolutionlondon.wordpress.com/20 ... charlatan/

Wait, isn’t he a PhD? From Cambridge University?

PhD, yes, but in computer science, not in biochemistry, or any of the life sciences. In fact, in a documentary called “Do you want to live forever?â€￾ broadcast on Channel 4 last year, it seems de Grey was just a computer technician working in one of the Cambridge labs. It seems he was passing himself off as a scientist to anyone who wanted to listen.

I've known about this guy and sense for years.

He has a PhD in Biology from Cambridge. He has a BSc in computer science from Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He got his PhD in Biology from Cambridge by submitting a body of peer reviwed research like any other PhD candidate would. What's interesting is that he wasn't on a PhD program, he taught himself. He was also head of software development in the Cambridge Genetics department for 14 years.

The theory he has proposed and the theory that he was awared his PhD for "The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging" are serious science. He believes that curing aging is now within out technological reach and we should do eveything we can to get there sooner than later as over 100 000 people are dying everyday of age realted diseases.

What he gets alot of flak for are his timescales and also because people can not get their head around the idea of what aging is.

Us guys on this forum should know better. Most people think that hairloss is age related it's just part of growing old. But we know better don't we? we understand something about the process of hair loss and what we can do to upset this process. Well every aspect of aging is really the same thing. It's a process and if you know how to upset that process you can stop that aspect of aging and you can "maintain" indefinitely.

The 1000 year figure comes from the same mindset that most of us have about finasteride or minoxidil. We jump on these meds knowing that they only slow the process down but that if we buy enough time there should be some better meds that are more effective in the future. He as this same idea with aging. As soon as we get the first technology to extend life it will buy us some time while the technology gets refined to be more effective and we can keep doing that until we get to a point were we can cure aging permantly. Then you just have to worry about dying in car accident of something. Statisticaly this will about 1000 years.

Of course once preventing aging is shown to work in the lab public pressure on the govenment to fund the technology will be massive as everyone is effected by aging.

I think this guys is right in so much as that if there is any possibility that we can reach this goal soon we should be doing our level best to do so. I

 

[s.a.f]

I think this guys is right in so much as that if there is any possibility that we can reach this goal soon we should be doing our level best to do so. I

Why would we want to do that? :dunno:

 

[BitchBoy]

I think this guys is right in so much as that if there is any possibility that we can reach this goal soon we should be doing our level best to do so. I

Why would we want to do that? :dunno:

To have more sex.

 

[squeegee]

Aubrey de Grey rocks! [youtube:3ggygj0d]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Qw3EcrAho&feature=related[/youtube:3ggygj0d]

 

[Ouroboros]

Aubrey de Grey rocks!

Lol, yes he does. I think this video might be a few years old; as I believe he has refined the theories presented here a bit. Here's a more recent video (though it doesn't get into as much detail): http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/interna ... tality.cnn

 

[Hammy070]

I'm at university now studying biomedical engineering.

Dr De Grey is not a quack.

In simpler terms, the reasoning is - we will eventually reach a point where the rate of medical sciences' ability to repair cumulative damage will be faster than the rate of ageing itself. There will not be an announcement such as "Ageing Cured!" or "Life Expectancy Now 1000".

Rather when one is for example 50 years old, therapies applied will repair damage and optimize ones' health to that of a 40 year old. The ageing process continues, but after 10 years, developments and refinements will repeat the process, theoretically indefinitly. It basically buys you enough time for science to address issues not possible 10 years earlier. The hard bit is then over.

We see this in most areas, took hundreds of thousands of years to fly for about 11 seconds. It took only 4-5 decades to build the concord and land on the moon.

The way the biomedical field is progressing, that stage where we take the first step in reversing biological cumulative damage even modestly, will simply be the first step of a long, radical journey.

As a student directly in this field, it's immensely exciting to be a part of it. We can already build a bladder, an artificial heart, heart valves, skin and bone grafts, restore very basic sight (light and dark) target tumours more accurately etc.

It's to me, an inevitability. The unspoken destination of medical science is indefinite healthy lifespan.

Engineering is an ideal way to tackle this, it doesn't require full understanding of the human body, just a way to deal with damage. For centuries we knew coffee keeps us alert, that wheels go in a predictable direction and peat is good for arrow fire. We didn't need to know about caffeine metabolism, Newtonian physics or chemical reactions to make it work.

The most important thing for me is the preservation of the brain, we can replace or repair everything but the sense of self is really what matters.

 

[Ouroboros]

+1 to everything, Hammy. To me the only issue that will remain a challenge in the coming decades is Cancer. De Grey has an answer for that as well (eliminating the ability to reproduce from all of our cells; requiring us to get frequent stem cell infusions); but he's not happy with it because it is scary as hell.