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