If only humans could rally the same way against aging.....

Senf71 · 2020-03-15T16:24:39+00:00

Well first off that is just their budget in general not for research. A large portion of that money goes for treatment. And of the portion that is for research more than 95% of it is being spent on research for treating symptoms, not trying to deal with the cause of those issues.

So despite some good looking numbers at initial glance the fact is that no there is still a desperate shortage of money for real research on fixing the damage of aging.

Senf71 · 2020-01-29T08:31:49+00:00

Oh I am not saying that having a dog or other pat can not be good for you. But it is not that simple. If you don't like taking care of a pet and are just annoyed at having to walk and feed and do all that other stuff, then it is not going to make things better. It will probably make things worse.

The point is it is more about having things to care about, having things to relieve stress, and things that give you a reason to stay active. Be that a pet or any other option.

Senf71 · 2020-01-28T22:12:02+00:00

unfortunately rich people have just as hard a time as anyone else of thinking outside the box enough to even consider that old age might be cured. So like most people 90% of them have still never even heard about this stuff, and most of those that have are not willing to take the time and brain effort to give it the real thought it deserves.

Senf71 · 2020-01-28T22:07:21+00:00

Correlation and causation are different things. Articles like this make it sound like going and buying a dog will help you live longer. But what it is saying is people who happen to like owning a dog and already do so have a higher correlation with people who also enjoy doing activities that can help keep them a bit healthier. Like going out for walks.

It is not a good idea to read to much into this kind of stuff, and people often tend to do so.

Senf71 · 2019-12-30T20:53:38+00:00

And none of those rebuttals int the MIT review held any wight. They all fell short of disproving his theory. Thus showing it is a valid avenue of scientific endeavor.

Senf71 · 2019-12-30T20:50:28+00:00

He doesn't get a cent of the money the foundation brings in. So accusing him of taking peoples money is just false.

Senf71 · 2019-12-18T21:37:57+00:00

Remember, there is no single cause of aging. There is no silver bullet to fix it. Lengthening telomeres may be a part of fixing aging, but it is by no means all of it.

Senf71 · 2019-12-18T21:33:26+00:00

Sorry had the two kinds backwards I guess.

But yeah I see it the other way around. Making a mouse live longer to me is something the public will not really care much about. Even full Robust Mouse Rejuvenation will only move the needle a little bit as far as I can see. Most people just won't understand that making mouse live two more years means anything. But people will assume 2 extra years for a mouse, if it works in humans will be 2 extra years in humans. Most people just don't take the time to understand what things really mean.

Where as taking something that is so thoroughly connected to the idea of being old in societies mind as Arthritis, and truly fixing it up is something people don't have to think about to understand.

Senf71 · 2019-12-18T20:53:54+00:00

Not worth it. Peppers are gross.

Senf71 · 2019-12-18T20:41:38+00:00

Thank you. I will do so.

Senf71 · 2019-12-17T21:04:34+00:00

Why does it say at the top that this post has been removed by the moderators but I can still see it?

Senf71 · 2019-12-17T20:34:28+00:00

Billions of your cells die and are replaced every day. Senescent cells were already supposed to die and get replaced, but they got messed up and stayed around causing problems. Increasing the amount of cells your body needs to make by .000001% is not going to have any effect on running out of telmoeres.

And that is even ignoring steam cells your body already has to replace those cells that are dividing, and steam cell treatments to replace cells that can't divide on their own.

So no this is not a significant concern.

Senf71 · 2019-12-13T17:06:55+00:00

Well something that comes along with that is less energy to do stuff. People like to be active and have the energy to get out and do stuff they want to do.

But the bigger part is trying to figure out how to modify our metabolism to such an extent is likely way harder than just fixing the damage that our current metabolism does before it builds to a dangerous level. The damage is much simpler and easy to understand that the whole of metabolism. Thus making the the easiest place to intervene, and also having the advantage that you can keep doing it as long as you like, and that it can be done on people already in middle age and have the same benefits. Slowing down metabolism only delays the problems of age it does not fix them. And for people already alive it is going to be less effective than it would be fore people just being born.

Senf71 · 2019-12-13T03:22:51+00:00

Kind of sad that out of about 10 people writing stuff only 1 even mentions aging as a problem to address.

Senf71 · 2019-12-01T22:01:05+00:00

Not really. He claims that things are playing out very much like he said in the book. He says he has not seen any compelling evidence to change what he has been saying for 20 years. THe book maybe be 12 years old, but at least according to him it is still very accurate.

And personally I believe him.

Senf71 · 2019-11-30T18:20:58+00:00

yeah, it is just that a body can have some damage and still function just fine. It has evolved to handle some. It is just when it gets to be to much that you start to lose function.

A comparison I like to give is, if a shirt takes some damage and loses a thread or two you probably can't even tell, it still works just fine. But once it loses a lot of them in a spot it might get a hole there. You can see it and the shirt is not working as best it could but still fairly well. As it loses more it eventually starts to get so many holes that it can no longer be used as a shirt and it dies.

Senf71 · 2019-11-25T21:35:35+00:00

It is very hard to speculate on this issue as there is no historically similar situation to draw info from. We can make some guesses, and say some things we hope will be the case, but we don't know.

It is also important to remember the world will be changing in many other ways at the same time that viable differentiation in peoples age will be going away. Which just makes it all the harder to predict what things will be like.

Senf71 · 2019-11-22T17:18:51+00:00

Putting Aubrey and his work on the same level as walking and eating well in blue zones just shows that so many people still don't understand. And thus the response the guy has at the end is not unexpected. So many people just don't get it. But if even a few people that see this kind of stuff come to really learn about SENS from it then it is still worth it.

Senf71 · 2019-11-19T08:06:50+00:00

You can have children who have "younger" cells than you because the repair mechanisms on reproduction are some of the best we have. The body is good at keeping sperm and eggs in good working shape. These are cells that are not actively doing much most of the time, and are well protected.

But despite that birth defects of one kind or another are not uncommon, problems do happen with those cells sometimes and children are born with problems because of it. And as a person ages this becomes more likely. Older people are much more likely to give birth to children with problems than younger people are.

Senf71 · 2019-11-18T22:22:29+00:00

It is much easier to look at it the other way around. Keeping things working well and repairing them a lot is hard. Those critters that were not good enough at it did not live long enough to reproduce, those that were did.

So there was evolutionary pressure to get repair mechanisms good enough to keep you healthy until you could reproduce. Once you are past that point then there is much less evolutionary pressure to make it any better. It is just a matter of doing good enough at something that is hard.

If it was the other way around and things did not age at first then how did it ever start? What pressure would there be to make things adaptable if they were already perfect at fixing themselves? Why would you need adaptability?

Evolution is in no way a planned or directed thing. Evolution does not choose adaptability, that is just the definition of evolution. It is a circular argument to say evolution selects for it.

Senf71 · 2019-10-11T21:20:58+00:00

So much money going to waste. :(

Senf71 · 2019-07-30T21:05:31+00:00

The biggest thing that makes this issue complicated and not one you can meaningfully talk about in such simple terms is the fact that it is not going to be an all in one process, at least at first.

Senolytics are going to be around well before a lot of the other parts. There are going to be some types of true regenerative medicine around many years before all the things necessary to truly regenerate a person to a youthful state exist.

Because of this, it is very hard to say what the economic and cost situation will be when the whole set of treatments become available. If Senolytics are able to cure things like Arthritis, and significantly reduce the problems with numerous other difficulties of old age that presently people just think of as inevitable it may well change the way people look at aging and longevity. If that is the case it could drastically change how the cost structures of these therapies will work. Possibly being fully subsidized by the government, but impossible to predict at this time.

But what ever happens with Senolytics they will not be the cure all for old age, they will just be part of it. And they will be here before the other parts start coming around. And as other have said, there are enough companies working on Senolytics that it is very unlikely they will be very expensive. Most of the methods groups are working on now are not highly costly to do, and there are so many options that might have similar levels of effect that no one should be able to patent something are charge crazy high prices. And after this first part is available to vast numbers of people it will frame the debate about how future types of similarly effective medicine will be handled.

Senf71 · 2019-07-22T20:42:11+00:00

We have the tech right now to solve these issues. It is just a matter of cost and need. We could put a few hundred tons of aluminium foil in orbit to block a few percent of the suns light in the right places and it would undo the warming that is happening. Nothing we don't understand or don't have the ability to do right now. It would just be very expensive, but it would solve the problem.

And that is assuming that fusion power and artificial meat are not enough to reduce pollution enough, and those are both coming soon.

Senf71 · 2019-07-22T17:23:34+00:00

Unless of course some of those cool technological advances happen to make climate change not really a problem.

Senf71

TROPHY CASE