Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Anti aging thread


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#21
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

Even with the anti-aging that's currently being tested on rats, you'll get a couple more decades(10-30%)...

 

Instead of 75, you may live to 90.

 

There's nothing currently being tested that will make you live hundreds or thousands of years.



#22
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Even with the anti-aging that's currently being tested on rats, you'll get a couple more decades(10-30%)...

 

Instead of 75, you may live to 90.

 

There's nothing currently being tested that will make you live hundreds or thousands of years.

Actually ameliorating the processes underlying the aging phenomenon do have the potential to extend your life for hundreds or thousands of years. Also that couple of decades could potentially enable you to reach longevity escape velocity. 


  • Sciencerocks likes this

The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#23
The Odyssey

The Odyssey

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

For someone who is under 20 years old currently, it will be really interesting to see where Anti-aging treatments go. However I do have my concerns.

 

If we master anti-aging treatments and reach the public by mid century, it seems that the majority of people right now have no clue that they might live A LOT longer than they are expecting, This is going to change our entire way of planning our lives, and what our end game in life is/retirement. It's very hard not to imagine that people will have a hard time adapting to this new culture of profound health and youth.


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#24
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,019 posts
  • LocationLondon

For someone who is under 20 years old currently, it will be really interesting to see where Anti-aging treatments go. However I do have my concerns.

 

If we master anti-aging treatments and reach the public by mid century, it seems that the majority of people right now have no clue that they might live A LOT longer than they are expecting, This is going to change our entire way of planning our lives, and what our end game in life is/retirement. It's very hard not to imagine that people will have a hard time adapting to this new culture of profound health and youth.

This is true, and I think its a big part of the weird hostility a lot of people feel towards the idea of not having a life expectancy of <100 years. 

 

When you discuss with people their first statement often seems to be something like "oh I wouldn't want to live longer, I'd get bored/All my friends would die/I feel old enough as it is" or other totally absurd objections. 

 

What is really happening is people are saying "I have lived my whole life this way, its too much effort to rethink things at this point, easier to just keep going as planned"


  • Casey, Yuli Ban and The Odyssey like this

#25
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

http://www.dailymail...coffee-day.html

 

Thoughts on the article Matthew posted? I take it with a heavy dose of skepticism, obviously, but... I dunno. I guess some of the anecdotes posted are intriguing enough. Don't know anything about David Sinclair or whether he's reliable at all. If there's enough credibility here for me to at least halfway believe this across the next few years, then meh, that's good enough for me even if turns out to be bullshit in the end.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

#26
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

David A. Sinclair, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and co-Director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for the Biological Mechanisms of Aging. He is best known for his work on understanding why we age and how to slow its effects. He obtained his Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics at the University of New South Wales, Sydney in 1995. He worked as a postdoctoral researcher at M.I.T. with Dr. Leonard Guarente where he co discovered a cause of aging for yeast as well as the role of Sir2 in epigenetic changes driven by genome instability. In 1999 he was recruited to Harvard Medical School where his laboratory’s research has focused primarily on understanding the role of sirtuins in disease and aging, with associated interests in chromatin, energy metabolism, mitochondria, learning and memory, neurodegeneration, and cancer. He has also contributed to the understanding of how sirtuins are modulated by endogenous molecules and pharmacological agents such as resveratrol. Dr. Sinclair is co-founder of several biotechnology companies (Sirtris, Ovascience, Genocea, Cohbar, MetroBiotech, ArcBio, Liberty Biosecurity) and is on the boards of several others. He is also co-founder and co-chief editor of the journal Aging. His work is featured in five books, two documentary movies, 60 Minutes, Morgan Freeman’s “Through the Wormhole” and other media. He is an inventor on 35 patents and has received more than 25 awards and honors including the CSL Prize, The Australian Commonwealth Prize, Thompson Prize, Helen Hay Whitney Postdoctoral Award, Charles Hood Fellowship, Leukemia Society Fellowship, Ludwig Scholarship, Harvard-Armenise Fellowship, American Association for Aging Research Fellowship, Nathan Shock Award from the National Institutes of Health, Ellison Medical Foundation Junior and Senior Scholar Awards, Merck Prize, Genzyme Outstanding Achievement in Biomedical Science Award, Bio-Innovator Award, David Murdock-Dole Lectureship, Fisher Honorary Lectureship, Les Lazarus Lectureship, Australian Medical Research Medal, The Frontiers in Aging and Regeneration Award, Top 100 Australian Innovators, and TIME magazine’s list of the “100 most influential people in the world”.

 

http://medapps.med.h.../staff/sinclair

 

https://genetics.hms.../david-sinclair


  • Casey likes this

#27
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

That's promising. Regardless of how long I want my own life to be, it's great to see these kinds of advancements. 


  • Sciencerocks likes this

#28
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

This guys is at the top of his field at a major university and is already using it on himself and family with real results.

 

I feel pretty damn good about it.



#29
The Odyssey

The Odyssey

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

That's promising. Regardless of how long I want my own life to be, it's great to see these kinds of advancements. 

Personally I don't care how long I live. I just don't want something like Alzheimer's. It's a fate worse than death that no one should have go through.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

#30
spartans2015

spartans2015

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
How long do you predict untill everyone is using anti aging

#31
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

How long do you predict untill everyone is using anti aging

 

 

If the anti-aging is what this Harvard professor says it is and he is already using it on his family. Well, within 5-10 years. Heck, if it is easy to get maybe much sooner for the black market.

 

Kind of sucks that you have to take it daily! It would be better to just get a yearly injection.



#32
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,704 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

untill everyone is using anti aging

Never. 

As for when enough people will be using it, that depends on:

 

  • Year introduced
  • Price
  • Ease of procedure
  • Depreciation in price
  • How long your life is extended
  • How long your youth is extended

Roughly in that order from least to most important factors. Whether meaningful life extension arrives tomorrow or in the year 3000 doesn't really matter as long as it eventually arrives and humans get to enjoy it, even if I don't. Though I want to. And that can depend on the price. There's little doubt that it'll be expensive at the start, so I probably won't be able to afford treatments unless my writing career really takes off, like to J.K. Rowling levels. That also doesn't quite matter to me because I personally don't care much if only billionaires get to extend their life in the beginning as much as some do as long as the treatment is actually there. Sure, it's not fair, but such is life sometimes. I would've been upset that only the elite got to play with digital computers in the 1940s and 1950s, but there wasn't much anyone could do about that. What's more, I probably would have been turned off once I saw just how technical it was to use a computer. Just like how some people might not be willing to undergo life-extension if the treatment isn't easy. Especially if it's very painful or reduces your quality of all that extra life you're getting. Still, some will be willing to undergo such torment if they paid a lot for it. Then the question is "by how much does the price reduce year over year?" I personally don't need life extension right now. Hell, I won't need life extension for another 60 years. So if it only takes 30 years for the price to come down from its initial astronomic levels to something more akin to a typical hospital visit, I personally wouldn't mind. From there, it comes down to just how much life I'm getting. If it's only an extra five years, I don't know if I'd bother even if I only needed to pop the treatment like candy mints. If it's another twenty, now that's more enticing. If another fifty, you've sold it to me. But even then, I'm going to pause because now the question comes down to "will I enjoy any of those fifty years?" 

 

And that, I think, will be the deal breaker for billions of people. We all would love to live longer because we all suffer from the fear of death, even if we say we don't. Some may not want to live indefinitely, but they don't have to. Funnily enough, the people most optimistic about living a longer life are the young. Why are the elderly so cynical? Is it because they've mostly lived in a time before such a procedure was even considered as being possible? Or, perhaps, is it because they are old and know that old-age is a special kind of hell they'd never wish to extend? 

There's a reason so many geriatrics kill themselves and why so many people have a kneejerk reaction towards the thought of living much longer: do you really want to live to age 200 and look the age? Just look at most 70-year-olds! I'd already be depressed if that was my existence and thankful for every moment of clarity and energy I could muster. I can only imagine just how degenerated a 200-year-old human would become. Their bones might snap just by applying a modicum of pressure. They lack the energy to open their eyes. They can't walk, can't talk, can barely breath, and their brain is a fog they cannot penetrate. It's like that old Metallica lyric, but through pure age rather than a landmine or mortal shell. Do you really want to live if the limit of your existence will be a barely-conscious shriveled pile of flesh and bones on a bed, whose senses are so dulled that they can't even tell the difference between wakefulness and sleep? That sounds like a fate worse than death. 

 

That's why youth extension is the most important factor of all. People would love to live ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times longer than normal if they could be assured that they'd spend that time as they were when they were teenagers or young adults. Their senses are extremely sharp, their mind is quick, their sexuality is primed, and the world is theirs for the taking. 

 

If everything is right— life extension is available soon, it's not painful or difficult to experience, becomes cheap enough within at least 10-15 years, and extensions youth and vitality as well as one's lifespan— then the majority will adopt it within a generation of its first usage.


  • Alislaws likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#33
The Odyssey

The Odyssey

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

 

untill everyone is using anti aging

Never. 

As for when enough people will be using it, that depends on:

 

  • Year introduced
  • Price
  • Ease of procedure
  • Depreciation in price
  • How long your life is extended
  • How long your youth is extended

Roughly in that order from least to most important factors. Whether meaningful life extension arrives tomorrow or in the year 3000 doesn't really matter as long as it eventually arrives and humans get to enjoy it, even if I don't. Though I want to. And that can depend on the price. There's little doubt that it'll be expensive at the start, so I probably won't be able to afford treatments unless my writing career really takes off, like to J.K. Rowling levels. That also doesn't quite matter to me because I personally don't care much if only billionaires get to extend their life in the beginning as much as some do as long as the treatment is actually there. Sure, it's not fair, but such is life sometimes. I would've been upset that only the elite got to play with digital computers in the 1940s and 1950s, but there wasn't much anyone could do about that. What's more, I probably would have been turned off once I saw just how technical it was to use a computer. Just like how some people might not be willing to undergo life-extension if the treatment isn't easy. Especially if it's very painful or reduces your quality of all that extra life you're getting. Still, some will be willing to undergo such torment if they paid a lot for it. Then the question is "by how much does the price reduce year over year?" I personally don't need life extension right now. Hell, I won't need life extension for another 60 years. So if it only takes 30 years for the price to come down from its initial astronomic levels to something more akin to a typical hospital visit, I personally wouldn't mind. From there, it comes down to just how much life I'm getting. If it's only an extra five years, I don't know if I'd bother even if I only needed to pop the treatment like candy mints. If it's another twenty, now that's more enticing. If another fifty, you've sold it to me. But even then, I'm going to pause because now the question comes down to "will I enjoy any of those fifty years?" 

 

And that, I think, will be the deal breaker for billions of people. We all would love to live longer because we all suffer from the fear of death, even if we say we don't. Some may not want to live indefinitely, but they don't have to. Funnily enough, the people most optimistic about living a longer life are the young. Why are the elderly so cynical? Is it because they've mostly lived in a time before such a procedure was even considered as being possible? Or, perhaps, is it because they are old and know that old-age is a special kind of hell they'd never wish to extend? 

There's a reason so many geriatrics kill themselves and why so many people have a kneejerk reaction towards the thought of living much longer: do you really want to live to age 200 and look the age? Just look at most 70-year-olds! I'd already be depressed if that was my existence and thankful for every moment of clarity and energy I could muster. I can only imagine just how degenerated a 200-year-old human would become. Their bones might snap just by applying a modicum of pressure. They lack the energy to open their eyes. They can't walk, can't talk, can barely breath, and their brain is a fog they cannot penetrate. It's like that old Metallica lyric, but through pure age rather than a landmine or mortal shell. Do you really want to live if the limit of your existence will be a barely-conscious shriveled pile of flesh and bones on a bed, whose senses are so dulled that they can't even tell the difference between wakefulness and sleep? That sounds like a fate worse than death. 

 

That's why youth extension is the most important factor of all. People would love to live ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times longer than normal if they could be assured that they'd spend that time as they were when they were teenagers or young adults. Their senses are extremely sharp, their mind is quick, their sexuality is primed, and the world is theirs for the taking. 

 

If everything is right— life extension is available soon, it's not painful or difficult to experience, becomes cheap enough within at least 10-15 years, and extensions youth and vitality as well as one's lifespan— then the majority will adopt it within a generation of its first usage.

 

Very good points, however I believe a major principle to anti aging components is that there will not be a single procedure/cure to aging but multiple breakthroughs in different branches of meds  (Biological, Cosmetic, Regenerative, ect) , All anti-aging treatments i assume will follow the trend of becoming less expensive with time, but it will be more complex than a single pill cures all.

 

I think it'd be good advice for anyone living in this century to follow a healthy lifestyle and diet to ensure the best possibility of taking advantage of any of these procedures, because it does seem like it's going to be at least a plausible goal in this century.



#34
WritingPaperSucks

WritingPaperSucks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

I'm sure soon we will live for 40-50 years longer medcine and technology development so fast. I hope our planet will stand this :cool:



#35
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
This is a portion of an interview that Joe Rogan did with David Sinclair earlier this year:

YouTube video of the interview

Sinclair talks about NMN, NR, and NAD+, among other things. He takes metformin and large doses of NMN and Resveratrol every day.

It turns out that he is about 50 years old, and Rogan says he finds that surprising, as he says Sinclair looks like he should be in his early 40s, like maybe 41 or 42.

Sinclair also eats only 1 or 2 meals a day, but they happen to be low in protein. He says that high amounts of protein trigger another aging effect (he calls it the TOR pathway or something). He says this after Rogan asks him about Branched-Chain Amino acids (maybe in the whole interview, not in the clip I posted above).

I happen to take branched-chain amino acids to build muscle (it's in whey sources, and the protein drink I use contains them). My biceps, triceps, shoulder and traps, and pecs are coming along nicely, and I'm not sure I'd be willing to give it up. Sinclair looks pretty boyish; my goal is to look ever more manly -- but I guess he'll live a lot longer.

....

As I've said before, living a long time is not my goal. Looking good and feeling good while I'm alive is my goal. My goal is anti-aging, not longevity.
  • Yuli Ban likes this

#36
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
I'm not sure if people have seen this before:

https://www.esquire....grey-hair-dark/

A group of cancer drugs appears to have an unexpected side-effect: they turn gray hair dark, back to the original color (and maybe darker, in some cases).

If the drug has this effect, I imagine it probably has other positive effects -- but that these have not been noticed. Aging is a tricky thing, and you can't always tell what is breaking down, behind the scenes, until several years of damage has accumulated. Gray hair is unusual in that regard, in that you can tell immediately when there is a problem.

This seems to be a pattern: drug X is used to treat problem Y, but then has unexpected positive side-effect Z. It's great when that happens, as it means regulators already know the drug is safe to use, which speeds up applying it to Z.

Apparently, there are drugs under testing that can at least partially reverse gray hair. Perhaps there are also ones to reverse skin aging, to make people look younger.
  • Yuli Ban and Alislaws like this

#37
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts

Assessment of cumulative exposure to UVA through the study of asymmetrical facial skin aging

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2946854/

The photos are pretty striking. Even through a car window that blocks UV, or indoors, sun can damage your skin. Most of the visible signs of skin aging are due to UV damage.

There is a way to prevent it: use a broad-spectrum sunscreen every day, and your skin will barely age.


  • Casey and Yuli Ban like this

#38
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
https://www.onegreen...fying-vitality/

Article about old vegetarians that look young.

I don't believe that a vegetarian diet is the only secret. Genetics obviously plays a role.

It's really shocking how young some of them look. Annette Larkins, Mimi Kirk, and Jim Morris are especially good looking for their age.

Morris died shortly after this article was published, at 80 years old. But he looked like someone maybe 55 or 60 years old. I suspect he had a testosterone and/or HGH prescription; but it still required doing a lot of exercise to maintain that physique. Here's a video made when he was 78:

YouTube video

Probably by the time I'm 60+ (thankfully many years away yet) there will be new treatments to improve the look of hair and skin, and to tighten everything up. People will routinely look 10 years younger than their actual age. There already are some treatments, but they seem just the tip of the iceberg.

#39
Cloned

Cloned

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • LocationEU

longevity = survival to 90+ years;

anti-aging = being young forever (still mortal);

immortality = impossible to achieve using a conventional thinking;

cloning = a simple enough way to live thousands of lives;

---------------------

I always wonder, why people put their faith on an outdated ideas that failed so many times? Like the "Elixir of Immortality" or the Digital God (AI) that will save us?
We have a final solution - let's work towards it. The goal could be reached in a reasonable time frame. 



#40
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,904 posts

I originally posted this in another thread, but I think it is also highly relevant to this thread.  Now, if I could only find the time to read through this thread.

 

 

DNA testing companies offer telomere testing – but what does it tell you about aging and disease risk?

 

https://theconversat...ase-risk-118019

 

Introduction:

Quote

 

(The Conversation) Over the past few years direct-to-consumer genetic tests that extract information from DNA in your chromosomes have become popular. Through a simple cheek swab, saliva collection or finger prick, companies offer the possibility of learning more about your family tree, ancestry, or risk of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s or even certain cancers. More recently, some companies offer tests to measure the tips of chromosomes, called telomeres, to learn more about aging.

 

But what exactly are telomeres, what are telomere tests, and what are companies claiming they can tell you? Age based on your birthday versus your “telomere age”?

 

Telomeres play a big role in keeping our chromosomes and bodies healthy even though they make up only a tiny fraction of our total DNA. The Greek origins of the word telomere describes where to find them. “Telo” means “end” while “mere” means “part.” Telomeres cap both ends of all 46 chromosomes in each cell, and protect chromosomes from losing genetic material. They are often compared to the plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces that prevent fraying.

 

We are molecular biologists studying how chemicals, agents from the environment and metabolism damage telomeres and affect their lengths and function, and how damaged telomeres affect the health of our cells and genome. The idea of offering telomere length as part of a genetic test is intriguing since telomeres protect our genetic material. But equating telomere length with something as complex as aging struck us as tricky and overly simplistic.

file-20190617-118539-130f0e2.jpg?ixlib=r

 

Telomeres get shorter with each round of cell division.

 Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock.com


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users