Actuarial escape velocity - b.s.?

[revots33]

Read an interesting article recently about people trying to increase their lifespan through extreme calorie-restricted diets. At one point the author discussed Kurzweil's "Actuarial escape velocity". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_escape_velocity) Is there any merit at all to this idea, or is it just a bunch of sci-fi nonsense?

[FortunaMaximus]

You could stretch the lifespan almost indefinitely, but I don't know about infinite lifespans...

Heh. It'd have to be comparable to .99999999 c...

[Borodog]

Human beings, and indeed all life, have the inherent capacity for immortality. Every cell in your body is in a very real sense at least 3.5 billion years old, maybe as old as 3.9 billion. Every cell in your body is connected by a continuous unbroken chain of cellular division that stretches back to the very first auto-replicating compound.

Cells are machines. Complex machines that are both programmed to die and that also fail. Machines can clearly be fixed, repaired, redesigned, replaced; it's simply a matter of knowledge and technology. The technology can clearly exist; cells themselves have all the necessary machinery. The knowledge is coming at an exponentially increasing rate.

My estimate on the over-under on immortality: 30 years.

[FortunaMaximus]

That's not too pessimistic, Boro, but I'll still take the over on that, a bit. I'm guessing the Gates Foundation is pouring huge funding into this project on a black-bag basis.

I could be wrong though. You'd probably know better, working in the RTP.

Aside: Check my postulate in Cosmology, will ya?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The knowledge is coming at an exponentially increasing rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only thing I disagree with.

I also think we're talking about several centuries before any viable cell altering life extension scheme exists. And immortality will be far longer.

Besides the technical knowledge required to alter cells, there are real issues dealing with the complexity and structure of the brain.

As for the OP, "Actuarial Escape Velocity" is just a concept, and very simplistic one at that. It just says that there will eventually be a point where humans learn to extend life faster than we age. The idea is silly because it assumes that

1. There will be a steady progression of anti aging technology, as opposed to "steps" at infrequent intervals as various problems are solved

2. The mechanism involved will be turn back the aging of individual cells in ever increasing amounts. The practical problems with various tissues and organs that need to be solved independently make this assumption kind of ridiculous.

[PLOlover]

the thing is that with nanotechnology and being able to manipulate individual atoms, mankind will soon be able to do things that today would be totally considered magic.

The interesting thing is the social ramifications, and how society will have to be changed, and in whose interest it is that it change a certan way, etc.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The knowledge is coming at an exponentially increasing rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only thing I disagree with.

I also think we're talking about several centuries before any viable cell altering life extension scheme exists. And immortality will be far longer.

Besides the technical knowledge required to alter cells, there are real issues dealing with the complexity and structure of the brain.

As for the OP, "Actuarial Escape Velocity" is just a concept, and very simplistic one at that. It just says that there will eventually be a point where humans learn to extend life faster than we age. The idea is silly because it assumes that

1. There will be a steady progression of anti aging technology, as opposed to "steps" at infrequent intervals as various problems are solved

2. The mechanism involved will be turn back the aging of individual cells in ever increasing amounts. The practical problems with various tissues and organs that need to be solved independently make this assumption kind of ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you underestimate the effect of positive technological feedback.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The knowledge is coming at an exponentially increasing rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only thing I disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

In January 1998 researchers announced that they had extended the lifespan of human cells "indefinitely" in a laboratory experiment in which telomerase was added to the cells. Telomerase is the enzyme that essentially builds new telomeres.
Cancer cells produce plentiful telomerase. Normal human cells do not -- even though they have the telomerase gene in their DNA. In normal human cells, that gene is suppressed, deactivated. The researchers, from Geron Corporation and the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center, inserted an activated telomerase gene into the cells. The cells reproduced well past their Hayflick limits, giving powerful evidence that telomeres have a decisive influence on cellular senescence and may indeed be "the clock of aging."
Writing in the prestigious journal Science, biologist Titia de Lange, of Rockefeller University's Laboratory for Cell Biology and Genetics, commented, "The doubt [about telomeric influence on aging] has now come to an end with a report...describing direct evidence for a causal relation between telomere shortening and cellular senescence

Cancer cells and sperm cells are immortal - the answer is there. If scientists make just a little more progress, I think most of the human race will focus on making it a reality.

I'll take the under.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you underestimate the effect of positive technological feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of sounding overblown, I would bet the lives of everyone on the planet that we will not have the technology for immortality within 100 years (barring alien help or similar). That's how absolutely certain I am.

Let me guess, you believe we'll see the (computer) singularity in our lifetimes as well?

[Phil153]

John,

I am aware of the research you quoted. Keeping cells alive in a test tube and keeping them a functioning part of an enormously complex system such as the human body are two very different things. How precisely will halting telomerase shortening make people immortal?

And then there's the issue of the brain. I'd like to see how you propose to keep that normal and functioning for even 200 years, given the way connections formed at childhood and adolescence are extremely persistent.

[Phil153]

^ That should be telomeres btw.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you underestimate the effect of positive technological feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of sounding overblown, I would bet the lives of everyone on the planet that we will not have the technology for immortality within 100 years (barring alien help or similar). That's how absolutely certain I am.

Let me guess, you believe we'll see the (computer) singularity in our lifetimes as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

But do you think we can get life expectency up to 200 years within the next hundred? And 300 years within the next 200?
We just need it to go up by more than one year per year.

I need to stop all these high risk behaviors, like driving and eating taco bell.

I really think there is someone alive now who will be alive in 12000 AD. I also expect to die, and probably well before then.

Let me qualify that a tad. If there is anyone left at all then someone will make it to 12000.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me guess, you believe we'll see the (computer) singularity in our lifetimes as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on who's been detonating the pseudologic bombs across the public 'nets for the past half-decade, but, you're right, if there's a singularity, you can be sure the bloody monkeys will never notice it. Why would an emergent bother announcing itself? It could play God at will, and trend towards benevolence.

I'm told CreditSuisse is a nice place to take a nap. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you underestimate the effect of positive technological feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of sounding overblown, I would bet the lives of everyone on the planet that we will not have the technology for immortality within 100 years (barring alien help or similar). That's how absolutely certain I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not, that's not overblown at all. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'm still putting the over/under at 30 years.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, you believe we'll see the (computer) singularity in our lifetimes as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.