Wix comments on Brain Preservation - Less Wrong

22 Post author: jkaufman 28 March 2012 12:56PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (108)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 28 March 2012 09:44:16PM *  4 points [-]

You, I, and everyone we know have bodies that are incredibly unlikely to make it past 120. They're just not built to last.

That used to be the standard wisdom, but it is now disputed. There is evidence that aging stops. True, for humans it does so only when we are already decrepit and stand a substantial chance per year of dying, but some other animals stop aging before that point. So it is not beyond hope that we might make our bodies last much, much longer.

ETA: Googling further, I found Michael Rose's 55 theses.

At the heart of the challenge of the 55 theses is this idea – That most of our health is not dependent on the health institutions but on evolved biology. If we fit our lives closely to our evolutionary design, then we will age well.

And one of the things he writes about is the cessation of aging, of how earlier cessation can be bred for in experimental animals (don't let them breed after a certain age: the earlier they stop reproducing, the earlier their cessation of aging evolves to be), and of measures the individual can take to promote their personal cessation of aging.

I have only glanced through this enough to think it worth posting here.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 April 2012 04:10:39PM *  0 points [-]

There is evidence that aging stops. True, for humans it does so only when we are already decrepit and stand a substantial chance per year of dying.

Interesting, if it's true the implications would HUGE, but then what mechanism would mediate aging and the eventual stop of it? It all seems rather counter intuitive - at lest to me and reading the preview made me no wiser:

First, aging is not a cumulative physiological process. Second, the fundamental theory that is required to explain, manipulate, and probe the phenomena of aging comes from evolutionary biology. Third, strong-inference experimental strategies for aging must be founded in evolutionary research, not cell or molecular biology. But there are also significant consequences of this work for human aging. First, biomedical strategies that are founded on the traditional cell-molecular theories of aging are bound to fail, because their fundamental premises are incorrect.

BTW here is a video about the long lived flies aka Methuselah Flies

Edit: I looked through the 55 thesis, and got a somewhat satisfactory answer.