Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

Void · 2014-05-14 10:51:01

I guess this is a form of science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0lvxTm2iLg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJzvo0Jekc

However it could contribute to the arguments for space travel, missions that must be very long.

On of the seven causes of damage that he mentions is old cells accumulating in the body which cause problems.

Interestingly when I was younger, it was felt that since old people have more Oxydents in their bodys, Oxydents cause aging damage. However, I recently read that the reason the Oxydents are increased is because the aging body is trying to get the old cells to commit suicide. So the old notion of taking anti-Oxidents to postpone aging was wrong.

This type of discovery interests me.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-07-15 13:26:55

I'd say, beware of snake oil salesmen! There is no vitamin supplement that will stop you from growing old and dying, and if there was such a discovery that halts or reverses aging, you are not going to learn about it through an advertisement or a radio infomercial if it really works!

Void · 2014-07-15 16:23:02

I do believe that he said Vitamins would not do it.

I have looked, I see what I like.

Pretty cool, to say lets find something that digests collesteral that our bodies cannot, look for it in grave yards around the world, find it, put it into lab animals, and it works!

Alternate answer;

Mmmmmm.

Alternate answer;

I like snake oil

Alternate answer;

If only I could spell better.

Alternate answer;

use better bait

RobertDyck · 2014-07-15 19:04:05

The Nature of Things -- Living Forever: The Longevity Revolution
originally aired 2007-10-18

Void · 2014-07-15 21:02:54

I have watched some of the video. It's also good. It's getting late though. Maybe another day for the rest of it.

All of this could also relate to space activities, since a improved breathing system could make the habitation of Mars, eventually more probable.

Of the seven items that the Sens foundation has helped to speak about as being the classes of damage that cause aging, one is cells that don't die when we would want them to. Some cases are cancer, some are just old cells that sit around being toxic.

I did think about using viruses to attack cancer a couple of days ago, and sure enough it looks like a lot of research like that is happening in Canada. You can look for it yourself if you care to. I choose not to mention the political entity that did a lot of research on giving bacterial infections a viral infection, but it does not exist now. Please no politics here. With radiation a hazard in space, then treating cancer with viruses has to be of interest.

I am thinking about this some more and thinking in fact what if you could give a human cell with a viral infection a second viral infection.
If as in the case of viruses selectively attacking cancer cells, you could get a second infection to attack cells already infected another disease, such as HIV or a more contagious illness, then the second infection could either kill the cells incubating the first virus, or render it's reproductive activity damaged, or attract the humans immune system to attack the double infected cells,

Where the first infection might burn slow, so as not to quickly kill it's host materials, so that it can spread it's genome. The second human created infection could be like wild fire, designed to find it's host cells and kill them as fast as it could.

RobertDyck · 2014-07-16 07:03:08

I had argued for a particular lab experiment, but no one I spoke with wanted to do it. That is genetically engineer a laboratory mouse for longer life. The approach I wanted was genetic modification to add an activation sequence for the existing gene that produces telomerase. Telomeres are the ends of chromosomes, they get shorter with every cell division. Telomerase is the enzyme that repairs them. Normally that enzyme is only produced during meiosis; the special type of cell division that produces a gamete cell: sperm or ovum. So sperm and ova have full length telomeres, and when they come together at conception the zygote does, but after the first cell division all cells have shortened telomeres. To ensure this causes minimal disruption, and doesn't cost excessive cellular energy, I do not want a new copy of the gene, just to express the existing gene. And do so only during cell division. The sheep called Dolly was a clone, engineered to produce a human hormone in its milk. To ensure that hormone didn't interfere with its development, the scientists ensured the gene was only expressed when the genes to produce milk were expressed. That way the sheep produced the milk in its milk. It only produced a few grams per litre of milk, but that hormone cost thousands of dollars per gram to synthesize, and you can go to the grocery store to see how much a litre of milk costs. This tells me genetic engineers know how to control a gene so it is expressed when some other gene is. So do the same thing with telomerase; have the gene expressed during mitosis as well as meiosis. That way telomeres will be repaired during normal cell division. That's when they're shorted, so that's when they should be repaired.

The ideal would be genetic engineering for an adult human. But to start with, I want to engineer a laboratory mouse. And to make it simple, engineer the mouse zygote. That way you don't have to worry about how to deliver the gene to every cell of an adult body.

The problem is no one I spoke with wanted to do this. One researcher does not work with animals at all, only bacteria. Many others argued against the principle of life extension. Others argued that doing anything is "unnatural", or that it would interfere with the human body causing unpredictable problems. I tried to argue this is why I want the experiment on a mouse: so we can do the research and find out. Don't guess, do the research. But I encountered a lot of people who argued that anything that hasn't already been done, can't be done. Just because no one has done it yet.

However, perhaps I did get some notice. The "Methuselah Mouse Prize" was created after trying to get someone to do this. Is that just a coincidence, or a response to my efforts?

RobertDyck · 2014-07-16 07:05:20

I remember an episode of "The Nature of Things" that first dealt with this topic. It was titled "Living Forever" with no further qualifcation, and first aired in 2002. I can't find a copy online.

Void · 2014-07-16 08:10:24

Telomerase:
I actually saw something on T.V. where an old persons cells that were weak and blobby in appearance, after having the Telomerase redone, took on a young and apparently more healthy appearance.

However I think you would want serious treatments for cancer, just in case it went wrong some of the time.

The irrational resistance to these changes, will eventually wane I think. From a practicle point of view, what if instead of putting people in assisted living, and nursing home situations, and possibly end of life very costly medical procedures, persons could be rehabilitated to work 20 hours a week? I think that would really turn around American debt problems.

The following is not for or about you Robert.
However don't get messed up on this. My entitlements are because I am am entitled. In other words, guess what I/We the Baby Boomers are becomming the owners. How about that. What should I think of an investment advisor, that mandates that I invest in a fund, and then when the fund matures, wants to keep the money, because they spent it? I am going to be OK, but you see we have a problem here Houston.
It seems that there is a class of people who think of us as livestock, when they should be thinking of us as the OWNERS.

RobertDyck · 2014-07-16 10:36:28

Yea, I've encountered a number of government civil servants who want to treat citizens as livestock. Another issue I've pushed in Canada is to treat the federal debt as a mortgage, pay the whole damn thing off, then completely abolish federal personal income tax. I came up with a whole budget to do it. It's not magical, the biggest thing is to pay off the debt. That won't be quick: 15 years. But the sooner we start, the sooner we're finished. We would also have to raise corporate income tax and GST (federal sales tax) back to what they were on election day 2006, the last time the Liberal Party of Canada was in power. No higher than that. And shift tax on dividends from personal income tax to corporate, just so it stays taxed. And double the GST Credit while we're paying off the debt, but abolish it when personal income tax is abolished. This starts by reducing government spending, but not by any extreme extent, just to the level it was on election day 2006. Details: do not cut federal spending for healthcare, in fact continue scheduled increases, but no further increases beyond that. Do not cut transfers to provinces for social programs; Liberals believe in social programs. But again no increase beyond what is currently scheduled. Everything else would be cut to the last Liberal budget, then add inflation from that year to when we're elected. The last Liberal budget was March 2005, the next scheduled election is October 2015, so that means inflation from 2005 to October 2015. That isn't complicated.

But some people have argued against this. I point out Canada didn't have any income tax when it was founded. Both corporate and personal income tax were introduced in 1917 to pay for World War 1. It was called the "Temporary War Income Tax Act". One of my friends points out the acronym is the TWIT Act. We still have income tax today. Canada had federal sales tax since before Confederation: when Canada was just a colony. Actually, I think the colonies that are now Canada had federal sales tax since the Boston Tea Party. GST replaced Federal Sales Tax on January 1, 1991. We do have healthcare, and airplanes have been invented so an air force. But my plan eliminates personal income tax, not corporate and not GST. In fact to eliminate personal income tax, those other taxes will have to go back up to what they were under the last Liberal government, but no higher than that.

The Laffer Curve is a chart devised by economist Mr. Laffer. He pointed out as taxes rates increase, eventually the economy is suppressed so much that total revenue to the government is reduced. The peak of the Laffer curve is maximum revenue to the government. The government is trying to find that point. That means they aren't trying to benefit citizens, they're trying to treat us as cattle. The only time they consider reducing taxes is when they think it will result in more money in their pockets.

Other people have argued that it's personal taxes that make us Owners of the government. Yea, right! How many civil servants treat you as if you are the owner? This isn't working. So just give it up. Voters have authority over politicians. That's what makes them Owners.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-07-18 03:17:47)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-07-17 08:01:57

Why should the Corporate Income Tax go up? Why not just leave it where it is if you eliminate Personal Income taxes? According to Laffer. a reduction in taxes eventually leads to an increase in revenue as the economy grows. So What I would do is have a scheduled decrease in personal income taxes to zero and leave Corporate Income taxes where they are. I'd say reduce Personal Income taxes by 1 percentage point a year for every bracket, this will give the economy time to grow to make up for the lost revenue for each percentage point reduction. First the lower income tax brackets will be reduced to zero, and then the higher ones will zero out. If the higher tax brackets are something like 35% then perhaps they ought to be reduced by more than one percentage point per year so it doesn't take 35 years. The 15% tax bracket should take 15 years to be reduced to zero. If you reduce the 35% tax bracket by 2 percentage points a year, it would take 18 years to get them down to zero. I think Corporate taxes should be left alone, as the government needs some revenue, and as the economy grows faster in reaction to lower personal income tax rates the revenue for corporate taxes should go up with the economy, but the percentage of profits should stay the same, the increased profitability would be channeled towards more and higher paying jobs. I would much rather corporations grow faster than for he government to take increasing slices of their profits. The Purpose of Government should be to maximize growth in the economy, not to maximize revenue, they should take only the revenue they need in order to operate and efficiently govern. I think a gradual decrease in personal income taxes down to zero would not necessitate a countervailing increase in corporate taxes. I want those corporations growing and providing jobs, I don't want to give them a reason not to.

That is my take on taxes.

RobertDyck · 2014-07-17 08:55:03

I responded to Void's comment. Let's keep this discussion thread on topic. It's about Life Extension. If you want to talk about taxes or individuals treating the public as livestock, create a new topic under "Not So Free Chat".

Void · 2014-07-17 10:22:08

I kind of set that up I guess. Why I did it was to emphasize that I though that with life extension, later it might be reasonable to expect that some of the financial burdens of retired people on society could be reduced. However there are people out there that would say OK, put them to work, take away their SSI, but they would not then divert money to life extension. I am convinced that our government would be investing well to give grants to some of the people and organizations working on these issues, provided that they also did not interfer with the work, or load the system down with deadheads (Because they want it to fail).

But if they were rational they would see that most people if they were reasonably healthy would like to work a 20 hour work week even late in life and have extra money, and a feeling of worth, while not being burnt out from an excessive work load.

Void · 2014-07-17 10:24:00

Getting back to topic, stem cell work, where cells missing are replaced is another of the seven categories of damage that can be addressed.

Going beyond that and presuming the Mars might have a pressurized but still toxic atmosphere at some point, I might speculate on a placenta type implant perhaps having biological and mechanical characteristics to store Oxygen in your body.

Crocodile blood? Or nano storage chemicals. Put the new organ in your abdomen somewhere, and maybe able to hold your breath for 10-15 minutes?

Last edited by Void (2014-07-17 10:28:22)

RobertDyck · 2015-09-21 13:41:48

In another discussion, Tom expressed concern he would live long enough to see space colonization. That reminded me of this discussion. Here is a video I saw on Facebook. It's an 86 year old woman doing a gymnastic routine on parallel bars.
https://www.facebook.com/LOLMovie2012.P … 504031179/

Terraformer · 2015-09-21 15:11:59

Re. indefinite lifespan, I do not think we're that far off being able to produce organs for transplant in labs, which will allow us to deal with organ failure. Other than that, I think it's cancer and dementia that will have to be dealt with. The former is likely to be a lot easier than the latter.

I want to start a campaign to encourage people to invest 1% of their income in dementia research. It's an investment, not a donation, because they're going to need the fruits of the research at some point; the money will directly benefit them.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-09-25 20:53:34

Actually cancer cells are eternally young, that is why they divide endlessly and kill the patient. The problem is how to reset each cells genetic clock without turning it into a cancer cell, basically you want to turn old cells into young cells and thus make old people young. Maybe nanotechnology can do this, or maybe something else.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2014-05-14 10:51:01

Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#2 2014-07-15 13:26:55

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#3 2014-07-15 16:23:02

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#4 2014-07-15 19:04:05

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#5 2014-07-15 21:02:54

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#6 2014-07-16 07:03:08

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#7 2014-07-16 07:05:20

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#8 2014-07-16 08:10:24

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#9 2014-07-16 10:36:28

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#10 2014-07-17 08:01:57

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#11 2014-07-17 08:55:03

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#12 2014-07-17 10:22:08

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#13 2014-07-17 10:24:00

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#14 2015-09-21 13:41:48

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#15 2015-09-21 15:11:59

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

#16 2015-09-25 20:53:34

Re: Life Extention - Aubury De Grey.

Board footer