So You Want to Live to be 1,000?

Picture by Kevin Perrott

Looks can be decieving... This man is Dr. Aubry de Grey from Cambridge University, UK, with 14 years experience with the department of genetics. You may have seen him in the news or even on 60 Minutes last January, but for those of you who don't know, he is the co-founder of SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) and founder of the Methuselah Mouse Prize (or MPrize). The "central goal of [his] work is to expedite the developement of a true cure for human aging."

Yes, that's right. His work's ultimate goal is to speed along the research for extending life beyond the boundries of what has previously been unthinkable, and even now seems slightly crazy.

When I first came across this information, I started to think that this is just another quest for the fountain of youth, and in some respects it still maybe. But here's a rundown of what my research has come up with.

First, how does he propose that we can live longer. Well, aging is caused because we live; apparently being complex beings has its side effects. Simply put, the very thing that keeps us alive also kills us, metabolism. de Grey proposes research into genetics (which are already underway, and have been for some time) alongside the already popular sciences of Gerontology and Geriatrics. Proposed methods suggest that we may be able to reverse damage on cells, in effect keeping us young and healthy. de Grey believes it is much more important to extend healthy life than frail life. If you can't already tell, stem cell research is obviously going to play a major role in this (way to go China!).

Does this sound nuts? Just wait. The Methuselah Mouse Prize is a foundation that gives a monetary prize to research groups that can extend the life of mice that have an average life span of 2 to 3 years, they can only start treatment on the mice once they have reached 20 months old (or 60 years in human terms). de Grey also calls this project Robust Mouse Rejuvenation (RMR). If you think that there is no holder of the prize so far, you're wrong. Dr. Stephen Spindler of the Unversity of California treated mice of an average life span of about 2 years, and the mouse that has claimed the prize thus far lived 5 years.

Hmm... that's around twice as normal life expectancy. Dr. Spindler and Dr. de Grey both seem to agree that it maybe possible to achieve a human life expectancy of 1,000 years. Yes, 1,000 years.

How soon would this kind of treatment become available? Well, de Grey believes that (money and researching pending) within the next 10 to 15 years there will be a suitable understanding done with the RMR project to move into Robust Human Rejuvenation. His guess-stimation is approximately 20 years before the first Human trials. However, the first treatments would not make life expectancy 1,000 years of age, but would be a gradual process. de Grey said in his presentation at the TedGlobal conference the first human to live to 1,000 maybe 10 years younger than the first to live to 150. He pointed to the evolutionary leaps in the science of flight over the course of the 20th century. If you think about it, at the beginning we weren't able to fly and by the end we have supersonic jets.

Should we do this? Aging is a natural process and will this create overpopulation? de Grey gave an interesting argument to this. He believes that humans are pro-aging because its our natural way to cope with aging and death. But he said that the fact is that aging is "ghastly". What's fun is being able to hike mountains and play sports, what's not fun is all the ailments that come from aging... e.g. heart disease, cancer, so on and so forth. In response to the overpopulation problem he said that the generation that had to deal with the problem would, and that we shouldn't go ahead and make the decision for them.

He's an interesting man with provocative ideas. If he's right, we'll see. I hesitate to believe in it fully, but I think that it is important to at least entertain the possiblity. And if you're interested in learning more he's written an article for the BBC and here is an "in a nutshell" interview by Bloomberg Encounters.

My question is... Would you want to live to be 1,000?

Stephen

On Fear and Government

Thomas Jefferson once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

The more power we give our government the better they can control our liberties for political and profit gain. We've become too reliant on government to handle all of our problems, thus giving the Federal Government absolute control over everything from our health care to the Patriot Act. The government was created to PROTECT our freedoms, not monitor our telephone conversations or wiretap the Internet .

Essentially, the founding fathers created a constant court battle with the Senate and House of Representatives, a battle-royal for lawyers who want to express their political knowledge (not just of the "game" of politics, which our leaders now have stumbled there way into, but the philosophy of government as well). They also gave the Federal Government a leader to direct them to keep them in check with the people, a mob smoother basically. The president should be the buffer between the people and Capitol Hill. That is the reason that the president CANNOT create laws. If the president could create laws it would lead to something like that of the Pericles revolution in Ancient Greece, mob rule.

The current administration used political tactics (fear, mostly) to obtain mob rule. Since the Senate and House were both Republican Majority they played ball with the President, effectively giving the administration the ability to CREATE LAWS (such as the Patriot Act). It should be noted, however, that the President can issue Executive Orders (click to see Bush's EOs). Executive Orders are similar to "decrees" but ARE NOT LAWS (as seen in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case against Truman) and in fact, there is no direct statement in the Constitution that allows for Executive Orders other than the brief statement in article two that says "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The people of the United States need to keep a close eye on what power the President thinks he has, and what power he actually has.

The current administration also used fear to implement imperialistic moves throughout the world. With support from the US Military and Sen. Lieberman, the United States is now considering an invasion into Iran. While this may not be surprising, or even considered old news, using the context of what Jefferson said, this should make everyone think twice. Does the Founding Father's quote apply to creating fear in other nations as well? Because let's face it, no country wants a direct conflict with the United States. There are only approximately 30% (or less probably now) that support our current administration within our country, that's bad.

Who then, would support an invasion into another Middle Eastern country, when our last invasion did not work so well? Not me, screw that. Iran does NOT have nukes yet, and nor will they have them in the near future. Even if they did, there is no way they'd be able to lob one over Africa and the Atlantic. Not to mention that Israel DOES have nukes and if Iran ever went postal I'm sure they'd be the first ones to wipe them off the planet. Supporting a move further into the Middle East will destroy the United States economically. Any Senator who supports that move is not doing it for our protection and they are not looking at the long-term affects it will have on the region.

While they say that this move will make us safer, or while they say that this move will end the war in Iraq... do not believe them. We are creating a hatred and contempt in the Middle East (more than there already was) that will not only make us suffer in the short term (by resistance and insurgency within both countries)... this move will effectively create a long-term hatred of the United States in the region (which has already begun to happen). Why is it that we let this BS continue? Our administration wants the war to end just as much as we do (or I hope they do, it is a political nightmare for them), and yet they ignore what the people in that country are saying. Are there no educated men or women on Capitol Hill? It's like our nation is a gas-guzzling SUV, driven by a retarded monkey who can't reach the peddles.

Iran is NOT a threat to the US at this moment in time, but we sure are on our way to having a unified Middle East against the United States. If our government was serious about wanting the insurgencies to end then they would listen to what the region is saying to them. Let's not forget that all it took for the American Revolution was taxation and military occupation in residential areas by a foreign power.

Stephen

In Memoriam

James Patrick Boynton, my grandfather, at the age of 98, passed away yesterday.

"I held it truth, with him who sings
To one clear harp in divers tones,
That men may rise on stepping-stones
Of their dead selves to higher things.

But who shall so forecast the years
And find in loss a gain to match?
Or reach a hand thro' time to catch
The far-off interest of tears?

Let Love clasp Grief lest both be drown'd,
Let darkness keep her raven gloss:
Ah, sweeter to be drunk with loss,
To dance with death, to beat the ground,

Than that the victor Hours should scorn
The long result of love, and boast,
'Behold the man that loved and lost,
But all he was is overworn.'"

--In Memoriam, Alfred Lord Tennyson

Living with the Elderly

"Getting old isn't for pussies." My dad said, remarking about his parents who now live with us.

To me, my grandparents were always old; when I was born my grandfather was already 76 years-old. Now he's 98. I've seen him lose his sight, his hearing, and his ability to move around easy. I've seen how daunting it can be just to get up on the sidewalk in front of a convenient store and even how hard it is to put pants on in the morning.

On the other side of the coin, my cousin just had a baby. I now know that living to be in the 90s (some even younger) face the cyclical nature of life, that you will become a baby again in your old age. You'll need endless patience to care for them, and maybe even more patience to be that old. The difference between being a baby and being old is that you've had a life that you were always dependant on yourself and to watch that wither away, not being able to do anything about it, is extremely difficult.

Everyday we complain about things in our life: that we have bills over due, that we hate that jackass that cut us off, that we keep getting called into work: but the truth is that without those things, we wouldn't have much to live for. Life is made of complications, and when you get old they are abundant, but none of them are yours alone. The children that you raised are going to be the ones helping you then. Privacy is a thing of the past. In the end, we may lose our dignity, just to live another few years. Living with with the elderly has taught me one thing, humility, because in the end you're going to go out with nothing but the love of the people that you raised, the generation that followed you. All the friends that my grandfather had made in his life are gone now. He has lived through two world wars, people landing on the moon, the invention of the TV, radio, Internet, computer.... He still has his memories and the love of his family, but for a lot of people they have neither.

My grandfather has lived a long and caring life. He never hesistated to help those in need around him. Which proves to me that those that constantly destroy the relationships around them, that try not to mend ties between broken family members or friends, are going to find themselves desperately alone in the end. That should be enough to scare anyone, I know it scares me.

It is hard to watch the people that you love, the people that took you fishing, the people that taught you how drive, the people that taught you a lot about life, get old. Part of it is a selfish thing, that you know you will be in those same shoes one day. Mostly though, its watching someone whose life seemed so bright to you, start to dim, knowing that you can't do anything about it but make them as comfortable as possible.

The relationship between my grandparents uplifts me . They are a team, constantly looking out for each other. My grandmother has a tumor in her leg and for a long time my grandfather looked after her, now she looks after him as best she can. Without that tie, I know that both of them would have a much harder time. The divorce rate in this country is very high, but if people knew that in the end your going to want someone that you've known for a long time by your side, a lot of them might think differently... Because without each other, we have nothing.

Battlefield: Scientology?

For those of you who haven't been following the ongoing war between the BBC Panorama Film Maker John Sweeney and the Church of Scientology... You guys are missing out.

I first found out about the BBC doing a documentary on Scientology from Digg.com. Most of us have gotten our view of Scientology from South Park... So at the time I did not know much about Scientology, so I decided (like anyone who would rather find potentially boring information by watching something, than by reading it) to look the subject up on Youtube to see what I could find out. Well, that's where I found that during the taping of the BBC documentary, the host John Sweeney had gone ballistic on some Scientologists at one of their compounds. As pointed out in that video there are two separate versions of the John Sweeney outburst: the Scientology version and the BBC Version (Part I, II, III).

The Scientology version of the events makes them seem very passive, that it was actually Sweeney's own manipulative techniques that failed him. I'm a fair guy for the most part, and I can understand not wanting your religion to be referred to as a cult; but that's when I started finding out that the situations Sweeney had gotten into were not far and few between.

Xenutv.com producer, Mark Bunker, had videotaped an international demonstration against the Church of Scientology on March 13th, 1999. By the following day, Scientologists were at his door protesting Bunker as a religious bigot... that was fast. On July 2nd, Bunker decided to go to a Scientology fair being hosted in LA. Guess who Bunker ran into at this fair. Yes, that's right, the same guy that was protesting Bunker at his house. This time Dan, the protestor, was much braver with lackies following behind.

What other religion would try and goad people into becoming angry? There is a clear difference between people like Ray Comfort and Scientologists.

The war online is still raging on... Youtube actually being in the forefront. One of the editors from the BBC, Kevin Marsh, wrote in his blog that he believed the Scientology backlash against the BBC documentary to be a good thing, saying, "Journalism that has integrity and honesty in the first place has nothing to fear." Marsh believes that we should continually question the integrity of the journalists who are feeding us the "facts". Amen to that.

I believe the same should be said of people who follow any religions. While you might not want to question your faith, make sure to continually question those who would try to lead your faith. No matter how you look at it, religion will always come down to personal belief, and because of that, I believe that you should question anyone who would impose their beliefs on you.

Stephen

Canadian Scientists May Have Found Cure for Cancer

Yep, the Canadians are at it again. The University of Alberta DCA site has announced a potential cure for several types of cancer using their non-patented DCA compound, meaning that it is not owned by any pharmaceutical companies and is relatively cheap to manufacture. While there haven't been any tests on humans yet, the laboratory tests and animal tests are very promising.

They say that it may take several months before human testing begins.

Kudos to you UoA!

Stephen

The God Debate - Atheists v.s. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron

So the debate, hosted by ABC's Nightline, has come and gone. Finally we may have the answer to the question that has plagued humanity for a long long long long time.

Who won? Was it the Godless Atheists with their reason and logic or was it the well mannered and kind, yet naive, followers of God? Well, here is the run down.

Ray Comfort is the man with all the answers. He teams up with "Growing Pains" star Kirk Cameron to deliver the proof in God's existence to the heathen Atheists.

Let's step back for a second to look at Mr. Comfort's earlier proof of God's existence. In this series of videos Comfort and Cameron try to show proof in the Almighty with a farm banana. Yes, that's right, a mere banana wields the power of the Alpha and Omega. Look how easy it is to grasp with its non-slick surface. How it points right at the face for quick consumption. Not to mention it has a tab at the top for easy access to its 'naner goodness.

Well, many pointed out on Youtube that real banana's come in many shapes and sizes:



Some brought up the point about God's creation of pineapples and coconuts. Seriously, God that's a good point. Why did you make those tasty pineapples so hard to get into!?

While the banana can be used to prove God's existence, ordinary jarred Peanut Butter can disprove science. That's right, whoever that old geezer is has a damned good point, Atheists. Why isn't their random occurrences of new life inside my peanut butter jar? I think that if life were to be created by your difficult-to-understand processes that it should happen in my food jars as well. I want life spewing from everything, that would be a true survival of the fittest. Imagine what kind of Jelly-like life forms could be made inside my peanut butter jar! That would make my sandwich making so much easier.

Thank God for grocery stores, or else we'd never have a solid foundation for Christianity.

What new proof will Comfort bring to the debate? Maybe a miracle could be in store? Maybe some healing like Jesus and his apostles did in the New Testament? Moses got a whole bunch of plagues... what could Mr. Comfort get... Oh my God... it's Coca Cola? Comfort believes that if you see a can of tasty soda that there must have been someone who made it, that if you see a building that someone must have built it, and that if you see a person someone must have f***ed them into existence.

......

In this longer cut of the video (which you don't really have to watch), Comfort believes that our eyes and hands just suddenly appeared on the human body.

I wonder how those unbelieving Scientists think our magic seeing spheres got into our heads...


That easy to see progress from left to right must be some sort of scientific magic trick! It may not be convincing to everyone, but damn it almost seems to make sense...

Alright, maybe you Evolutionists have a point about the eye, but what about the hand, I bet you ain't got proof on that...

Hmm... Damn you Science! Really, that many animals have that similar of an arm structure? That many have 5 finger bones? You Scientists are witches! Photoshopping life by the genes!

But wait, Comfort has MORE proof, yes more! (which again, you don't really have to watch). This time he is a lot more preachy.... He had said that he wouldn't use the Bible or faith to prove God. Well, he uses the 10 commandments as proof to God's existence because it "mirrors" our conscience.

He seems to agree that we are born with a conscience, as does Science to an extent, and that it acts as God's voice. The 10 Commandments reflect our conscience as instructions of what we already know to be true... (don't lie, don't steal, don't f*** your neighbor's wife/husband/both) Well, if we are born with a conscience that is God's voice, why would He need to give us the Commandments? He seems to have left that part out.

If you're interested in seeing what the heathen Atheists have to say, here you go. They really dumbfounded the two disciples a few times. I think that everyone was disappointed with the outcome of Comfort's Coca-Cola proof...

Neither side could prove one way or the other, but I have to admit that the heathens brought up a few good points.

Stephen

Knowledge is Free

This may sound dorkish, but I actually enjoy learning new things. If knowledge is power then wouldn't free knowledge equal free power? Hell yeah it do.

Free University Lectures and Courses Online

More Free Lectures

Open Source, Free Medical Journal

Some of these lectures you can watch or listen to. And for those pot smokers out there you can even get high and go to class. These are classes and lectures offered by HARVARD, BERKLEY, CAL-TECH.... etc. The "top" colleges the US has to offer. What usually costs thousands of dollars to attend you can now watch online for free. If you try a class/lecture and you don't like it, no money lost to you. Their classes and lectures are constantly growing too, so you might find something that is interesting to you.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, so if you promise to at least look at one of those links you can also look at this:

TV Links - Free TV

If anyone asks, you didn't link that from me, heh.

God: A Social Debacle II? (Sarcasm warning)

Evangelist Challenges Atheists to Bible-Less Debate

Read this, if you like, just to get a feel for what Ray Comfort is saying. You don't have to read it to understand this blog.

Hollywood Blasphemy

In this video, Ray Comfort (stage name? Rays of Comfort?), a man who can give us all proof to God's existence, goes around asking people whether they enjoy a good blasphemy.

"Would you go to a movie that has blasphemy in it?" he asks.

"Yeah, I guess, it's a part of our culture these days," says the unsuspecting Christian.

"Would you go to a movie that used your mother's name as a curse?"

Haha, how witty. He got mostly everyone with that; he's a genius! It's not just that he put a video camera in their faces and approached supposed Christians about their belief in God and their belief in a good time. On May 5th he'll be hosting a debate against two atheists to prove God's existence "once and for all".

I was raised as a good, God-fearing, Southern Baptist... and I happen to recall that God said that there would never be proof of his existence, that only faith alone is needed. Here we have Mr. Rays-of-Comfort coming to prove not only that God was wrong, but that God is also right by being wrong. That's a complex argument, but thankfullly he's good at video editting software.

While I may not be a practicing Christian any longer, I believe that its jackasses like this douche who give Christianity a bad name. People like him are the ones that fuel these debates between Science and Religion; a new crusade. But let's all be honest... no one can PROVE anything. Our world is made up of things that neither science nor religion can explain. The more science explores certain questions, the more questions arise. Does this mean that everything science does is completely evil? Well, I don't think most Christians would refuse a liver transplant if they needed to get one... There is a physical basis in science. Religion is metaphysical. Trying to debate the two only boils down to semantics. This really is a petty squable. Yes, yes, I know everyone wants to have proof, but if it were that easy everyone in the world would believe in one being.

Ray Sunshine is not only an attention seeker, he's also niave. He asks "Why does Hollywood use God's name in vain and not Gandhi or Buddha?" (Gandhi isn't considered a god and Buddha isn't a deity in Buddhism either, dumbass) I think that's a simple question with a simple answer... THE UNITED STATES IS MOSTLY CHRISTIAN. Say you were living in America(you were born and raised here) and you wanted to write a movie script. You have this moment in a movie where your atheist character is about to get into some serious trouble... you're trying to find the right dialogue for the moment--and you stop and think, "I sure do hate Buddha"--suddenly the line of dialogue hits you like a bolt from Zeus' hand itself.

"Buddha damn it!" he cries "Buuuuuuuddddhhhaaaaaa why?"

Perfect! Now, only if Buddha cared about American movies. I'm not a renowned expert on Buddhism but I think that if someone had used his name in vain he would have "turned the other cheek" so to speak... oh, what? That's what Jesus would have done too? Hmm, what we need is a wrathful God, one that comes up with a list of commandments... He could strike down those heathen Hollywood bastards. Screw all this new-age love your neighbor crap, lets try to piss all over their beliefs too, just like ours has been for centuries. I mean, it really isn't like Christians have ruled the world for generations.

Ok, enough with my sarcasm. What I'm really saying is that... the debate between Science and Religion always comes down to your sole (soul?) belief. In this day in age we are able to believe in whatever we want, and I'm not saying that Comfort is completely wrong for what he is trying to do. Seriously though, there is no reason for a good Christian to attack anyone else's faith because there is that Golden Rule. And yes I truly believe that Atheism is a form of religion, a religion of no religion. I just wish everyone would shut up and get along. We can see who's right when we're all dead.