Two Kinds of Friends

I divide my close friends into two general groups.

1. The Miscellaneous Group: This includes lifelong friends as well as recent acquaintances. I share either/or history and some values with this group. I see some frequently but most infrequently. All-in-all, group is shrinking in size. That’s because many of us have grown or are growing apart. In other words, we don’t have much in common anymore. And outside of rehashing old times (which I find more-and-more boring), hanging out together is pretty much a waste of time. The few that I do enjoy spending with share common goals and typically look forward rather than backwards.

2. Life Extensionists/Futurists: This is my favorite and larger group of the two. It’s also expanding rapidly. It’s rare to hear these members talking of the past, and they are far more stimulating. They typically live actively in the present with long-term positive views of the future. And for the most part, they do their best to insure a profound future for all of us. They may take various paths and contribute in a number of ways such as doing research, volunteering for various future-focused movements, building positive value-laced enterprises, running companies and foundations, marketing positive products and services and actively participating in events, seminars and workshops that point toward noble goals such as (my favorite) radical life extension.

All too often, I get bogged down in the sea of minutia and the distractions of business and life that tends to bury us if we’re not constantly on guard. One of the challenges in my life is to evaporate that sea to a puddle. I’m gradually succeeding, but I’m not there yet. So when I have the chance to shut everything else out and spend time with Group #2, it breathes new life into me. I enjoyed that pleasure the past two weekends.

Two weeks ago, I and a couple of M.D.s got to address a group of life extensionists.

Pure rapture.

Just associating with like-minded people energizes me beyond description. It also validates and reinforces my resolve to conquer aging in our lifetimes.

This past Saturday, I took part in a life extension workshop in Las Vegas. The personal and business challenges that sometimes consume me did not enter my mind the entire weekend. How could they? Almost every minute was spent with some very close friends and with some not as close, but still enormously treasured acquaintances. Every single one of them shares most of my deepest goals and aspirations.

Most people take a two week or longer vacation to recharge. For me, it only takes a day in the company of members of Group #2. If you consider yourself a member of this group, you’re invited to a get-together at my home in Huntington Beach, CA, tentatively scheduled for Sat, Nov 22nd. If so, email me for directions and a final date and time.

Next week I’ll tell you a little about last weekend’s workshop.
________________________________________
LATEST HEALTHY LIFE EXTENSION HEADLINES

Thinking About Replacing the Brain (August 29 2008) http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger/show/827-our-future-brain-damage-resistant-with-unique-new-abilities
Some thoughts on the decades following the biotechnology revolution from FutureBlogger: Once nanotechnology is as far advanced as biotechnology is today, what sorts of capabilities start to look plausible? "By the mid-2030s, we could be replacing brain cells with damage-resistant nanomaterials that process thoughts much faster than today's biological brains. The new brain would include our same consciousness, memories and personality that existed before the conversion, but it would run much faster and would increase our memory a thousand-fold. A daily pill would supply nanomaterials and instructions for nanobots to format new neurons and position them next to existing biological brain cells to be replaced. These changes would be unnoticeable to us, but within six months, we would be enjoying our new brain. Should a person with the new damage-resistant brain die in an accident, their body could be a total loss, but the brain would survive. Biological brains die within minutes after the heart stops; our new brain will simply turn itself off and wait for a new power supply. All memories and consciousness would remain intact after a fatal accident. Rescue workers would remove the brain from the deceased body and reinstall it into a newly-cloned body." A lot of work remains to be accomplished before the golden future becomes a reality - first things first.

Vote For Amex Funding For Longevity Science (August 28 2008) http://www.membersproject.com/project/view/BVVE2C
The Methuselah Foundation volunteers are looking for more signatures in the next five days to help put the "Undergrads Fighting Age Related Disease" project high in the top 25 Amex Members Projects - and thus eligible for some of the $2.5 million in funding offered by American Express. There are five days left to put your name to this project in support: 1200 signatures have been gathered in the past two weeks, putting longevity science solidly in the running. At least that many more votes are needed before voting closes - which is where you and your friends come in. Visit the Methuselah Foundation blog or the project Facebook group to find out how to sign up - or just click through to this project and follow the directions. You don't have to be an American Express member, but you do have to be a US resident. One last thing: it's important to note that of all the projects submitted to date, Undergrads Fighting Age Related Disease has by far the most comments. This counts heavily in the final selection, so jump into the project comments section and tell the world why you support longevity science and the defeat of age-related disease.

Another Advance In Reprogramming Cells (August 28 2008) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828082819.htm
As ScienceDaily notes, researchers "report having achieved what has long been a dream and ultimate goal of developmental biologists - directly turning one type of fully formed adult cell into another type of adult cell. The team is able to turn mouse exocrine cells, which make up about 95 percent of the pancreas, into precious and rare insulin-producing beta cells. Unlike the process involved in creating induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) [this] direct reprogramming technique does not require turning adult cells into stem cells and then figuring out how to induce them to differentiate into a desired cell type. We're intrigued by the possibility that this approach, which has worked for pancreatic insulin-producing cells, could be more widely applied to many kind of cells, especially those that are lost in disease or following injury. And at the same time, we are exploring the possibility of using this general approach in a clinical context to make new beta cells for patients."

An Interview With Doug Melton (August 27 2008) http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=21307
The Technology Review interviews researcher Doug Melton: "If a patient has Parkinson's disease, their dopamine-producing cells are gone. We don't understand anything about what makes those cells go away - the field is kind of stuck because you can't watch the progression of the disease. Stem cells can make neurons in a dish. Imagine you have iPS cells from a healthy person and from a Parkinson's patient. If you make dopamine neurons from both sets of cells in separate dishes, you can look at what went wrong with the diseased stem cell. The same approach will work with different degenerative diseases, such as diabetes or ALS. I think it will change the way degenerative diseases are studied - we'll reduce the whole process of disease to a petri dish. Within a few years, researchers the world over should have access to disease-specific cells that can be turned into cell types defective in a particular disease. Science clearly works best when you have a lot of bright, motivated people working on these problems. The institute has sent thousands of human embryonic stem-cell lines to hundreds of labs all over the world. We like to think that has been helpful in encouraging basic research on embryonic stem cells."

Microglia Versus Alzheimer's (August 26 2008) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825194705.htm
Researchers are attempting to convince the body's defenses to attack the amyloid plaques of Alzheimer's disease (AD): "by stimulating a brain cell called a microglia the cells will partially engulf the senile plaques ... [this is] the first time that this phenomenon, believed to take place in living brain, has been duplicated in the laboratory. The plaques themselves are not sufficient microglial activators. But when the microglia were treated with inflammatory stimulants, they attacked the plaques. In AD patients, microglia are not coping with the plaque build-up. Therefore plaques accumulate faster than the microglia can digest them. If we can enhance microglial digestion of these plaques, we will have a fighting chance to eliminate AD. The next step is to find a therapeutic drug that will stimulate the microglia to devour the plaques." Time will tell whether new methods of

The Bad Trends (August 25 2008) http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005479.html
There are plenty of good trends in medicine research and development. The trend in bioinformatics and computational power, for example. Unfortunately, some of the bad trends are blocking movement of research into the clinic. Via FuturePundit: "Why do terminally ill patients have to wait so long to get access to the only treatments that hold any promise of saving their lives? And why is it not their right to decide? The FDA approved just 16 new drugs last year, and is on pace to approve only 18 this year. That's down from a high of 53 in 1996 and 39 in 1997. This trend does not bode well for the development of rejuvenation therapies. The FDA will hold off approval of an anti-cancer drug for people who have a fatal disease. Never mind that people who have a fatal disease are going to die anyway. The FDA won't let people take a risk when they have little to lose. That makes no sense to me. Rejuvenation therapies are going to treat that fatal disease called aging. Absent those therapies we are all going to die from complications of aging. Faced with rising risks of death combined with increasing pain and disablement people should be given wider latitude to try new and unproven therapies." The FDA should turn down completely; it is a roadblock to progress, and the cause of great and ongoing suffering.

Network Your Way to Immortality

Dear Future Centenarian,

Saturday evening, I enjoyed life extension and stem cell technology conversation and dinner at an incredible couple’s home. Their guests were incredible as well. Not only were they bright, well informed and enthusiastic about extreme life extension, but they were a mix of savvy and successful scientists and business people. The latter will have as much to do with your longevity as the former. Maybe more. You’ll see what I mean when you read the attached PowerPoint.

Since 2000, Maximum Life Foundation designed a scientific and financial roadmap to reverse the human aging process. The attachment illustrates an aggressive approach to solving aging in your lifetime. You’ll notice what a surprisingly small investment we think it will take. But we can back up our scientific and financial assumptions. Now it’s time to implement the plan.

The Inevitability of Open-Ended Lifespans

Dear Future Centenarian,

Here’s an excellent commentary from Reason at LongevityMeme.org:

“The choice of living a healthy, youthful life of centuries and more is inevitable. That much is obvious, written in the present breadth of human civilization, knowledge of what is possible under the laws of physics, and pace of progress in biotechnology. The burning question in this case is whether or not it will happen soon enough to benefit you reading this today:

Replacement biological organs are a decade away, and commercial efforts to develop sophisticated repairs to age-damaged cells and vital biomechanisms will be rife in the 2020s. Computational power will be so great and so cheap that tens of thousands and then millions of research programs will be accomplished in simulation for a tiny fraction of their cost today; the priesthood of bioscience will dissolve and progress will be as diverse, energetic and imaginative as it is for open source software at present. Redesigning human biochemistry and greatly augmenting our biology with nanomachinery will be hot areas for venture funding.

I see development of the baseline technologies required for greatly extending the healthy human life span as a given for the next few decades. The biotechnology revolution is roaring ahead, and there's no halting the relentless advance of computational power. But just because we can doesn't mean we will - there is still the need to take that baseline technology and turn it to a desired use.

Given that there is no massive, serious life extension research and development community in existence today - and here, I'm thinking of a community to match the cancer research establishment in breadth and support - the future we'd like to see is still in doubt. If we want the awe-inspiring biotechnologies of the 2020s promptly put to use in repairing the damage of aging, right out of the starting gate, then we'd better get working on that now.”

Life is Everything. Death is Nothing

Dear Future Centenarian,

To seek to provide the choice of healthy longevity for all who want it is an aspect of the better side of human nature:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/001254.php

"Helping to make life longer and better, one action at a time, is a core human ideal. There are no special cases, no magical transition point at which it's fine and dandy to write people off or justify their deaths.

Healthy life extension flows quite naturally from the same mindset that helps neighbors and appreciates modern medicine. We all recognize that which is unpleasant in commonplace life, and it's only natural to work to remove that unpleasantness. Seeking equality of opportunity by helping people to overcome the limitations of their own personal human condition is a worthy goal today, and will be just as much so in a future of far greater opportunity. The foundation of opportunity is life - is being alive, and possessed of the vigor to take advantage of that fact. Without that, there is nothing. So I think we really have to start there, with aging, a great injustice blindly inflicted upon humanity by chance, physics and evolution.

To not seek the cure for aging would be just as strange as to fail to seek a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's - it would be inhuman and unnatural for the species that helps its neighbors and appreciates the good things in life."

What is Your Life Worth… Really?

Dear Future Centenarian,

If you knew technologies over the next few decades could deliver to you a chance for an open-ended youthful lifespan, how much would you donate to the research?

Say you want to live a much longer, healthier life. Would you help to achieve that goal by donating 90% of your net worth in support of research? If so, when? When you are terminally ill when it would probably be too late? Years or decades down the road? How about now? If not, how much?

There are no right answers in consideration of personal economic choices, but these are question you might ask yourself. Wealth at any level is worthless to the dead, and being alive and healthy allows you to generate more wealth. Logically we should all be willing to devote most of our net worth to longevity research at the most effective time. If we can buy time with money - and we can begin to now in earnest, for the first time in history, by supporting the research that will lead to the first healthy life extension medicine - then we should all be in that market.

MaxLife believes the tiniest fraction of most wealthy individuals’ net worth or annual income could reverse aging in less than 30 years. It also believes most of the money could be invested… not donated… in for-profit enterprises. More on this topic in a week or two.

Who Doesn’t Want to Live Longer?

Dear Future Centenarian,

Casual deathists are everywhere. I'm sure you all know someone who responds to the concept of healthy life extension with "I can't see why anyone would want to live past 100." This is what they have been taught throughout their lives, implicit in the way their peers and parents plan, act and talk. Perhaps "learned deathism" is a better term. A longevity revolution is right around the corner, yet we structure our lives in the same way our grandparents did:

There's nothing wrong with choosing not to strive for more healthy life, but I believe it's our responsibility to at least point out the lazy assumptions and false information that forms the basis of most casual deathism. Kevin Perrott, organizer of the Edmonton Aging Symposium, recently did a sterling job of this in a letter to the Globe and Mail, reproduced in this Fight Aging! post:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/001332.php

With Friends Like This…

Dear Future Centenarian,

Admittedly, I’m a wild eyed optimist, especially regarding the prospects of indefinite youthful lifespans for you and me. But since I KNOW I’m an optimist, I try to take special efforts to see and understand pessimists’ points of view. Ten I try to balance the input and come to my own conclusions. In other words, I try to be objective about what our chances really are. I sent you my timeline and budgetary estimates several issues ago and stand by them.

So here’s an opinion from one who may be the most pessimistic of all well known gerontologists, followed by Reason’s commentary:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/001354.php

"'We're all going to croak,' says Richard Sprott, the Ellison Medical Foundation's director, who expects that humans may eventually live as much as 30 years longer, but only in the distant future."

Read the full post; I find it incredible that anyone with Sprott's background can stand in the midst of the present outright revolution, of wild, foaming progress in bioscience, and say that things just aren't going to change all that much. It's an outlandish position - and an outlandish position held by someone who directs a fair amount of funding for aging research:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/001331.php

It's a sad state of affairs we're in, wherein so much of the research establishment has declared defeat and stasis before even setting goals for aging science. How is it that we have an establishment community disbursing so much in the way of funds to exactly the people who are not going to make significant progress - those who say that progress is impossible or far distant in advance of any initiative?

The advance of science and technology is change itself, is the growth of opportunity and choice, and is the opening of new doors in the halls of the human condition. The hidebound and defeatist are not really contributing - if you want things done, if you want bold new progress, fund the people willing to set goals and shake trees.


NOTE: Sprott’s stance makes we want to toss my cookies. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. In his case though, I believe it will cost lives. Lots of lives. I say that not only because he may control more of the scarce “life extension” funding than almost all the administrators and researchers in the free market combined… but also because he is influential. With 100,000 people dying every day from aging, the last thing we need is anyone standing in the way of those who refuse to “go silently into the night”.

If someone were drowning and a lifeguard stood in the way of a would-be rescuer, what would you call the lifeguard? Multiply that by millions.