Immortality

[jamesr]

Rezwan wrote:

This is textbook selfishness. Memetic or genetic. There’s this book called, ” The Selfish Gene“. Own it.

@Jamesr, memetic vs. genetic, a fun novel about that is Fluke.

I hadn’t come across Christopher Moore before – looks like fun.

Moving on from The Selfish Gene, the book I found very compelling was Susan Blakmore’s The Meme Machine

[Lerner]

I think it is relevant, and it is not selfish if what we are talking about is slowing aging. It’s not selfish to want to stick around longer—even a couple of centuries longer– assuming you are doing the world some good. We would all very much miss you, Rez, if you weren’t around! People having much longer lives would actually make advances like fusion easier in some ways—I wish I could ask some questions of Bostick and Nardi, pioneers of the DPF, who are now dead.
Clearly aging can be radically changed—look at the differences in life spans among dog breeds, which are all the same species.
But to have longer life spans, you need a rapidly growing population. Otherwise, you have too many old people relative to young ones. Even if there were very slow aging, people do get stuck in their ways for social, not biological, reasons. If there is rapid population growth—say 2% per year, the 200- year old people are a very small fraction of the population and most people are young. That’s what you get if the average couple has two kids by age 35. The median age will also be 35.
A rapidly growing population with a decent standard of living requires aneutronic fusion. Also eventually space travel to someplace nice, but we won’t run out of actual living space on Earth for a long time.

[jamesr]

Lerner wrote: I think it is relevant, and it is not selfish

Exactly. It is the genes & memes which are acting selfishly (not that they are aware), resulting in altruistic behaviour by us to ensure our own longevity by helping others solve humanities problems, such as cancer.

2% a year is huge – in just 100 years that’s more that a seven-fold increase in population. I think that would be pretty crowded and would maybe make people think working on issues such as colonising Mars may come ahead of curing cancer. Of course with all those extra people working to solve problems then those problems will get solved that much quicker.

I think 0.5% average growth is more than enough for now. The changing demographics of developing and developed countries can be offset a little by large scale immigration/emmigration to & fro. As we allow the median age to slowly rise.

[Lerner]

This 2% assumes an insignificant death rate. 1.5% per year is probably more likely even if the median age at death moves up to 100. Remember, msot people actually want two kids if they can afford them.

[Rezwan]

To me it seems like a toss up. I see two main possibilities.

The first is the rosy picture you paint, the happy people with long lifespans who are vested in having a nicer universe to stick around in. Overcoming their pettiness, having greater perspective. Magnanimous, relaxed.

The second is a universe of wild inequality in which the genes of some are leveraging memes to sever the connection with other genes so that they don’t have to be altruistic any longer. Altruism has always been a necessary evil for them. And now you have a conscious person aligned with his genes. Twice the selfishness.

Knowing the darkness in my own heart, and realizing the value of term limits on presidents – I’m inclined to suspect sinister motivation for people who want to stick around a long time.

Clearly, you are all good people, not as dark as me. I’m going to self-select out of here. Perhaps that’s even more selfish. Depriving y’all of my magnificence : )

Y’all feel free to stick around! Pursue life-span extensions, hair extensions, memory chips and plastic surgery. God bless you. Hope your dreams will all come true.

Peace, out. DNR.

[TimS]

What Rezwan just said points out a distinction between genes and memes. Successful memes take many forms and evolve in many interesting ways, that I have not thought about much. This is the same for genes, however for genes evolution requires a very large amount of variation. If a small number of organisms has its connection severed with the larger population, that is very bad for the evolutionary potention of those organisms by the nature of genetic evolution and how individual variation is more a function of genetic variation than mutation. Genetic mutation is usually fatal, memetic mutation is a new religion. Genetic evolution has a much stronger pressure for altruism than memetic evolution. One would think there might be some feedback in this, that genetic mechanisms that encouraged genetic mechanisms that encouraged … diversity would be more successful, since diversity is such a basic part of evolution.

In other words, is it the genes leveraging the memes to sever the connection between individuals, or memes with maybe a slight influence on genes through short term evolution? And which is stronger? And when She finally decides we’re making too much of a mess of things, will She just knock us all off and try a different social experiment where memes propagate in another way that is more in line with genetic evolution?

[Rezwan]

The She meme.

Might I recommend Galapagos, by Kurt Vonnegut. Includes a bit about how the brain really wants to kill you (meme on gene violence). Fun read.

Shememe sounds like a cool name.

Speaking of

realizing the value of term limits on presidents

Qaddafi bites the dust! Memetically, as a ruler. 42 years! Go Libya! May useful memes guide you on your way!

[JimmyT]

de wrote: A little more on the Methuselah Foundation (and related SENS Foundation)…Aubrey de Grey identified seven components of aging, which they’re tackling in various ways.

For example, excess junk accumulates inside and between cells, which the body can’t get rid of. But it decomposes in soil, so they’re surveying soil microbes looking for enzymes they can use to clean that stuff up.

Mitochondrial DNA takes a lot of oxidative damange, so they’re looking at using gene therapy to insert the mitochondrial genes into the nucleus, where they’ll be protected.

Cross-linking between sugars and proteins happens over time and makes everything stiffen up, so they’re looking for ways to dissolve those links.

His basic idea: fixing aging is like restoring an old car. You don’t have to figure out in detail why it rusts, you just need to apply rust cleaner and maybe replace some parts.

There’s a book de Grey wrote which goes into the science in great detail. He’s actually not a big fan of the telomere approach, but there are other people pursuing that pretty vigorously. Regenerative medicine with stem cells is another approach with a lot of promise that’s not really part of SENS.

Yes! I’ve watched that video. Absolutely fascinating! I’ll try to get links to that video and some other material as soon as I get some free time.

Since I won’t be alive 100 years from now why should I care about (insert virtually any item here). Nothing promotes good stewardship like self interest.

[Rezwan]

JimmyT wrote: Since I won’t be alive 100 years from now why should I care about (insert virtually any item here). Nothing promotes good stewardship like self interest.

Very few people on the planet to date have lived over 100. Have they all been bad stewards?

I don’t know why I care about (insert the random group of things and people i care about), I just do. Call it a compulsion. I really would rather not care, and go get a beer and watch it all burn. But it’s here, and I find myself engaged despite my nihilistic laziness. Partly because it’s novel. Also, I find the shelf life manageable (“well, it’s only for another few decades, tops.”). And I like to cultivate autonomy in others so they can take care of themselves and I can check out. Seriously, you guys don’t find existence exhausting? It’s a lot of work to give things their proper focus. Haven’t you seen groundhog day? Every day has infinite possibilities. And you want to stretch this out?

But like I say, be my guest. It’s just a preference. No right or wrong here.

Maybe it all comes down to attention span 🙂

[JimmyT]

Rezwan wrote:

Since I won’t be alive 100 years from now why should I care about (insert virtually any item here). Nothing promotes good stewardship like self interest.

Very few people on the planet to date have lived over 100. Have they all been bad stewards?

I don’t know why I care about (insert the random group of things and people i care about), I just do. Call it a compulsion. I really would rather not care, and go get a beer and watch it all burn. But it’s here, and I find myself engaged despite my nihilistic laziness. Partly because it’s novel. Also, I find the shelf life manageable (“well, it’s only for another few decades, tops.”). And I like to cultivate autonomy in others so they can take care of themselves and I can check out. Seriously, you guys don’t find existence exhausting? It’s a lot of work to give things their proper focus. Haven’t you seen groundhog day? Every day has infinite possibilities. And you want to stretch this out?

But like I say, be my guest. It’s just a preference. No right or wrong here.

Maybe it all comes down to attention span 🙂

Do I really need to spell this out?

I wouldn’t be involved with lots of projects If I were entirely selfish. I’m not going to live long enough to reap the entire benefit of most projects I am involved in. And I certainly won’t benefit from the life extension efforts currently underway. Others will and that makes these projects worthy of my support.

Having longer lifespans leads to inherently better stewardship. Because it is people’s own future they are caring about.

This may not be true for everyone, but it is obviously true for many. This tripe about people not wanting to leave messes for their children to inherit is obviously not true for a lot of people. Otherwise we wouldn’t be running a 1.6 trillion dollar annual deficit here in the United States. Words speak so much louder than actions And it’s obvious from their actions that many people would gladly enslave their children and grandchildren in order to live more comfortable themselves.

Yeah, life sucks sometimes. I HATE my current job. I deal with it. I also try to make the world a better place.

When you get sick do you seek medical attention? You don’t have to. Must be because you want to live longer. Others do too.

Big suprise!

[TimS]

Do I really need to spell this out?

I wouldn’t be involved with lots of projects If I were entirely selfish. I’m not going to live long enough to reap the entire benefit of most projects I am involved in. And I certainly won’t benefit from the life extension efforts currently underway. Others will and that makes these projects worthy of my support.

Having longer lifespans leads to inherently better stewardship. Because it is people’s own future they are caring about.

This may not be true for everyone, but it is obviously true for many. This tripe about people not wanting to leave messes for their children to inherit is obviously not true for a lot of people. Otherwise we wouldn’t be running a 1.6 trillion dollar annual deficit here in the United States. Words speak so much louder than actions And it’s obvious from their actions that many people would gladly enslave their children and grandchildren in order to live more comfortable themselves.

Yeah, life sucks sometimes. I HATE my current job. I deal with it. I also try to make the world a better place.

When you get sick do you seek medical attention? You don’t have to. Must be because you want to live longer. Others do too.

Big suprise!

This really gets into the whole memes versus genes thing we were talking about above. Thoughts regarding the 1.6 trillion dollar annual deficit, whether it is the end of the world or a temporary fact of the ongoing economic crisis, are part of our social circumstance and beliefs, basically involving our memes. This meme is causing a lot of conflict in our society, causing people not to seem to care as much about each other, essentially making them more selfish.

As I explained above, I think the extra gene pool diversity requirement for genetic evolution over memetic evolution causes genetic evolution to push individuals to try to connect with, and survive with, more other individuals than memetic evolution does. Genetic mutations are usually fatal, memetic mutations are new religions. Genetic evolution depends on larger gene pool diversity, memetic evolution can use mutational changes in the memes for necessary adaptation. The selfish gene may be selfish, but since that book was written I think the theory has gone more towards evolution of the entire gene pool, or even system of interacting gene pools, which may drive mechanisms to “unselfish” the individual gene. There is a word evolution theorists are using for “entire gene pool of a species” but it escapes me. These mechanisms may not be so driven in the case of memetic evolution, since it does not require as diverse a gene pool for adaptation, so memes are likely more selfish.

Certainly, people want to live a long, healthy life. Everybody I know wants to get to know their grandchildren (if any), maybe their greats. But in the long run, if individuals in our society evolve through their memes, not their genes, the world will become a more selfish place, according to the analysis in the previous paragraph. Would this be a good thing?

Sometimes the economic argument (ownership equals better stewardship, if people are not around in the future they can not own it, therefore infinite lifetimes will make the best possible world) is obvious, simple, and wrong because it does not account for the actual details of the mechanisms involved, such as genetic adaptation versus memetic adaptation.

[Rezwan]

JimmyT wrote: I wouldn’t be involved with lots of projects If I were entirely selfish. I’m not going to live long enough to reap the entire benefit of most projects I am involved in. And I certainly won’t benefit from the life extension efforts currently underway. Others will and that makes these projects worthy of my support.

Didn’t mean to cast aspersions 🙂 I shall endeavor to be more supportive of the longevity efforts of others. That does sound like I want folks to croak :). No! Live long and prosper! May the sun never set. May the transition be easier than that envisioned by Albert Brooks.

Maybe I just need a good rest (sleep = mini-death). Things have been taking a toll, and extending this out in perpetuity is an overwhelming thought. But I still expect to check out in a modest amount of time. Will try to leave the planet all the nicer for those of you who stick around for the after-party!

Also, agree that deficit thing sounds like a fabrication. It’s being conned by other people in the present I worry about. Plus we don’t want to make it too easy for the future generations. Give them some challenges.

When you get sick do you seek medical attention? You don’t have to. Must be because you want to live longer. Others do too.

Y’know a lot of my family is of the Christian Science persuasion. Avoid doctors like the plague. I think the religion selects for healthy people. The infirm “backslide” and go to doctors. The healthy stay Christian Scientist and credit it to their righteousness.

Ironically, they also want to be immortal. Just without the medicine. I find them amusing as well. But you can all have the last laugh and dance on my grave. Speaking of which, did I mention I have a business idea for disco-graveyards? For those people who want to have people dance on their graves. Since I haven’t gone out enough to dance during my life.

[Rezwan]

I was told about a brilliant book relating to longevity, evolution, etc. Nick Lane’s Oxygen: The Molecule that made the world.

Apparently, oxygen enables predators.

And radiation and oxygen toxicity work the same way – need to read that chapter to see if we can leverage this for getting some perspective on those who have fears of radiation.

I got the book from the library because my cousin says there’s a bit in there comparing photosynthesis and the sun’s fusion energy in a weird way.

[JimmyT]

I came across this story some time ago and I am just now getting around to posting it. Its subject may become a significant break through in longevity research. Or not. Time will tell. It apparently involves something secreted by stem cells. At the very least it’s good news for the mice involved in the research. 🙂

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/factor-x-have-finally-found-fountain-youth/

Just read the article on the linked page. The video embeded on the page seems to change. So it may not be about the same subject.

[JimmyT]

Rezwan wrote: I was told about a brilliant book relating to longevity, evolution, etc. Nick Lane’s Oxygen: The Molecule that made the world.

Apparently, oxygen enables predators.

Oxygen enables predators just because it allows creatures to grow to be sufficiently large size to be predators. Without oxygen organism size is single cell or perhaps just a few cells. And similarly higher oxygen concentration allows larger body size and higher metabolic rates in those organisms which do exist.

[Author]

Posts