51–60 of 119 posts
Are there rich/powerful people who are benefiting from anti-aging technology already? I'm thinking of Robert Mugabe (age 93) who regularly goes to East Asia, as an example, for medical treatment, but there seem to be others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're welcome to die whenever you want, just don't speak for the rest of us.
A better way to put is that, without death we wouldn't have progressed as a race as much as we have done. We need new people with fresh ideas to come to top, take higher roles and make radical decisions. People living longer will stay in power longer and keep the status quo alive. In a longer stretch, conservationism, which grows like age, is an impediment for innovation and progress, IMHO.
How many wars do you think anyone would want to fight if we didn't have an endless streams of the young who are willing to die on the battlefield?
How many murders are committed by people over 30 vs under? How many people die in car accidents after 30?
There's something to be said for having a world dominated by people who are mature and understand the value of their own lives.
This is going to sound slightly tin-foilish, but the question needs to be asked: Are there rich/powerful people who are benefiting from anti-aging technology already? I'm thinking of Robert Mugabe (age 93) who regularly goes to East Asia, as an example, for medical treatment, but there seem to be others.
The phase 2 study primarily looked at safety. There was no correction for multiple hypothesis testing on the efficacy endpoints. So it seems that the only conclusion that is warranted is that the study shows no adverse health effects and that "larger clinical trials are warranted to establish the efficacy of hMSCs in this multisystem disorder." as they state in the conclusion. It is interesting if it works, but lets…
“In the first trial 15 frail patients received a single MSC infusion collected from bone marrow donors aged between 20 and 45 years old. Six months later all patients demonstrated improved fitness outcomes, tumor necrosis factor levels and overall quality of life. The second trial was a randomized, double blind study with placebo group. Again no adverse affects were reported and physical improvements were noted by th…
This work is a prime candidate for being misrepresented as showing that this stem cell treatment is effective for age related health issues.
There are 30 participants in the phase 2 trial. There are two treatment groups (100M and 200M) with different dose and one placebo group. Each group has 10 participants.
None of the treatment groups showed adverse effects.
There is a difference between asking "Are there any adverse effects?" and "are there positive effects for parameter 1 to n"? If you ask the second kind of question and do not correct for multiple hypothesis testing, you will make many errors.
The small dose treatment group (100M) showed improvement in many parameters vs placebo, whereas the other (200M) showed improvement in fewer parameters vs placebo. Since no corrections where made for testing, this only tell us that there where no statistically significant adverse effects.
As I noted initially, I think it is interesting. Once we have seen the results of a couple of large studies, we can talk about the effects of this treatment.
This comment on reddit (and all the subchildren) shines a different light on that study: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/78f3wg/antiaging_s...
Let's hope he's right. Life is a cycle and without death the world will be a very boring place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're welcome to die whenever you want, just don't speak for the rest of us.
Imagine a world in which Xi, Kim Jong *, and a host of other wealthy dictators were immortal, and the rest of us pee-ons were not. I believe that is the future of high tech immortality.
At any rate, very few people are actually working on “immortality”. Most of us squander our time bullshitting on the Internet. There’s little danger of solving immortality for several generations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this thinking is any different than banning abortions. It's not your problem so shush.
Should you ban murder? (I leave this as food for thought and an explanation of why I downvoted you. We're off-topic though and shouldn't continue this thread.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been thinking about this lately too, it almost feels like we're here already. I often read stories about innocent younger people dying from something tragic; However, why do I almost never wake up to, " has unexpectedly and peacefully passed away in their sleep?" Brave new world I guess?
Lots of innocent young people, not many dictators
Earlier quoted context omitted.
could you consider the notion, that all the progress and innovation impediments you link to age-related conservatism are actually at least partly related to the disease of aging itself? how would that change your opinion?
Only partly agree. Even adults are very conservative. A bunch of forever-40 wouldn't work very well. Luckily this can be fixed. Experimental brain plasticity drugs also increases forgetfulness, which is what we really want. Knowing the old ways of doing things means that new ways won't be explored.
experience gives, sometimes false, impression of knowing with some degree of certainty that a certain direction is wrong or won't yield results. young people don't have that bias.
conservatism is instead aversion to even agree with the results themselves if they don't conform with one's worldview.
this is pure speculation on my part though.