I get beat up in The Guardian today a bit with a ham-fisted review. But make no mistake, the book Radicals by journalist and Immortality Bus rider Jamie Bartlett, which is coming out in a few days, is important and brilliant: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/16/radicals-outsiders-changing-the-world-jamie-bartlett-review #transhumanism
This thoughtful study of radical movements explores politics, sex and drugs.
The results of the collaborative research, published today in Investigative Opthamology and Visual Science, could spell the end of painful injections directly into the eye to treat the increasingly common eye disorder known as age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
AMD affects more than 600,000 people in the UK and predictions suggest this figure could rise sharply in future because of an ageing population.
Sometimes, albeit rarely, people object to rejuvenation biotechnologies saying that ageing has its pluses too, thus subtly implying that we should leave it alone in order not to lose these pluses. The thing is, they’re not talking about the same kind of ageing that science is trying to undo. They’re mixing up chronological and biological ageing, and they’re not at all the same thing.
This objection is very simple to explain and even simpler to dismantle, because it boils down to a gross misunderstanding.
Whoever raises this objection generally says that with ageing comes experience, that later in life people are generally happier, more accomplished, and so on. I have nothing to object to that, except that all those nice things are a (possible) consequence of chronological ageing, most definitely not of biological ageing. It is not very often that people mix the two up, but at times they do, so let us clarify once and for all what the difference is.
Chronological ageing is nothing more, nothing less than the passing of time. Becoming chronologically older simply means that the time you’ve existed for is getting longer. There’s nothing wrong with it, and no one (to my knowledge) wants to stop, ‘cure’, or reverse chronological ageing—especially because that would be a bit complicated to do and it would have annoying side-effects, such as time freezing or rewinding your life back to your elementary school years, possibly dragging the entire universe along, and would do nothing to eliminate the ill health of old age. Doesn’t sound like a lot of fun—and I speak as a chap with a thing for time travel.
Happy Birthday to Elie Metchnikoff the father of modern Gerontology and an inspiration to those working on rejuvention biotechnology.
May 15th is the birthday of Elie Metchnikoff, famous Russian/French scientist, a vice director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1908 (together with Paul Ehrlich) for his work on Immunity in infectious diseases. But healthy longevity supporters know him for another achievement: a strong statement he made regarding aging, that helped to ignite interest in aging research for the next century. In his 1903 book “Studies of optimism” he wrote: “Aging is a disease that should be treated like any other”. Today to commemorate Elie Metchnikoff’s input in the development of gerontology we will talk with Dr. Ilia Stambler, the author of the book “A History of Life-extensionism in the Twentieth Century” and likely the only expert on the history of the longevity movement in the world.
Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Stambler. First, could you please tell us a little more about the studies of Elie Metchnikoff? He is most of all recognised as a pioneer in immunology, what are the main discoveries he made? And how are they related to his understanding of aging as a disease?
Metchnikoff is the founder of the cellular theory of immunity, who showed for the first time that cells (such as phagocytes) play a vital role in immune defense. Remember that until about mid-19th century, slightly more than 150 years ago, people did not even know that cells existed or that diseases were caused by bacteria. It was just another step forward for Metchnikoff to understand that aging is a part of life that needs to be studied, and that cellular immunity, especially the immunity against one’s own organism (that we now call “auto-immunity”) also plays a crucial role in the aging processes.
My own diet is eggs and hashbrowns and Raisin Bran cereal along with water, Ensure, and one scoop of whey protein. Lunch is usually Subway(veggie patty), and dinner is a smoothie currently consisting of broccoli, avocado, peanut butter, banana, yogurt, spinach, and two scoops of whey protein with 18 oz of water. i also take one 500 mg tablet of quercetin each day.
Aubrey de Grey, Judith Campisi, J. Craig Venter and David Sinclair, who all work on anti-aging research, describe their own life-extension practices.
The Buck institute is in the spotlight today.
Located in Novato, California, not too far from Mount Burdell Preserve and Olompali State Historic Park, is one of the world’s leading research centres for ageing and age-related diseases—the Buck Institute for Research on Aging.
Opened in 1999 thanks to the substantial bequest of American philanthropist Beryl Hamilton Buck, the Buck Institute set to fulfill her wishes that her patrimony be spent to “extend help towards the problems of the aged, not only the indigent but those whose resources cannot begin to provide adequate care.” Over the years, the Institute has certainly honoured its commitment: The Buck can boast some of the most eminent experts on ageing among its research staff, and a number of laboratories that push forward our understanding of age-related pathologies every day—such as the Campisi Lab and the Kennedy Lab, just to name a few.
The Buck’s approach to investigating ageing is a multifaceted one. The institute rightfully acknowledges the necessity to bring together experts from disparate fields of science—from physics to engineering, from mathematics to anthropology—in order to properly understand the complex networks of biochemical processes underlying ageing and ultimately leading to pathology. Biochemistry, molecular endocrinology, proteomics, genomic stability, and cell biology are only some of the areas of investigation of the Buck, and the medical conditions researched by their teams range from Huntington’s disease to ischemia, to Parkinson’s, to cancer and Alzheimer’s. The three main questions the Buck set to answer are why do ageing tissues lose their regeneration capacity, why do stem cells fail to function with ageing, and how do tissues change during ageing so that they no longer support normal regenerative processes.
A new story out on #transhumanism:
In the Basic Income America Facebook group, Zoltan Istvan, a transhumanist who recently ran for president, shared his Wired article, Capitalism 2.0: the economy of the future will be powered by neural lace. He (along with many others) argues Wall Street, law offices, engineering firms, and more will soon be mostly void of humans.
I think I mostly agree with him. Algorithms will far surpass human ability to achieve the best possible outcomes (Nash equilibrium). Having read Super Intelligence, the Master Algorithm, The Age of Em, books on evolution, lectures, interviews, etc… I think we’re approaching an important moment in human history where we have to figure out morality so we can build it into the proto-AI children we are giving birth to. I’ve even toyed around with a fun idea related to the simulation hypothesis. Maybe we exist as a simulation, repeating the birth of AI over and over again until we figure out a way to do it without destroying ourselves or turning the universe into computonium.
I’ve argued the world may need a Universal Basic Income and Steem Power might power it. I’ve also discussed the morality of artificial intelligence. I’m a big fan of Ray Kurzweil and love hearing him lecture about the future longevity we might enjoy, but I also recognize how fragile biological life is compared to exponentially growing super intelligence. I’ve heard the concerns by Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and others, and to me, they are convincing.
So where does this leave us? What do you think of Zoltan’s article? Are we approaching the “If you can’t beat them, join them” moment in our evolution as a species? Will we one day all become transhumanists?
A critical article on my work by The Rouser with some mangled facts in it for effect. But still worth reading: https://rousernews.com/2017/05/08/why-zoltan-istvan-isnt-a-true-libertarian/ #libertarian #transhumanism
Zoltan Istvan is a journalist and blogger who strongly supports transhumanism, a concept that promotes the idea that humans can utilize the advancement of technology in order to live forever. His rise to stardom began after writing a controversial sci-fi novel called The Transhumanist Wager, but he is also well known due to some of his rather outlandish statements. In 2016, Istvan ran as an independent candidate for president with very little support. He is now running for California governor as a libertarian, and though he is promising a libertarian platform, some of his ideals and scientific views seem to promote another worldview. This could be because he lacks experience of either a scientific or political background.
While transhumanism promotes the idea that humans can advance technology to eventually live forever, it also suggests that this goal will be achieved without any ethical consequences.
Its proponents believe that humans will take this next step through robots, which will require a rewriting of ethical codes for the new species. Most transhumanists also avoid mentioning the ethical problems of making civilization hackable or the potential of a technological enslavement. Unfortunately, some people, like Istvan, are actually going into politics based off of this transhumanist mindset.
