Mrs Zeta

Physica: the fact that you were an unsuccessful medical doctor is not of my concern. Please do not reflect your inner hatred at me, I do not appreciate it. Most importantly, it is not scientifically constructive, and you should not be posting personal disparaging comments in a science forum. If you don't like my 'science' then respond with specific critical points and we will discuss it. Otherwise please direct your anger at something else. I would only answer one of your comments which shows how muddled you are in your thinking about ageing, and I will try to make it simple. With the passage of time, we sustain damage, and our organism tries to repair this damage. When it fails, and the damage accumulates, there is dysfunction which is evident at a clinical level. People may suffer from diabetes, arthritis etc. This is called age-related disease. Clinical medicine aims to treat these diseases with drugs or other therapies. But these do not affect the cause of the illness which is the inability of the organism to repair the damage. My comment was about this part of the equation (sorry to mention maths). Dealing with the continual onslaught of damage requires a different approach than those based on drugs etc. It is like, cause and effect. In this case, medicine treats the effect. I am talking about treating the cause. Two different things. Once again, please try to answer in scientific or clinical terms, otherwise don't answer at all. Thank you.

The concept of psycho-neuro-immunology may be helpful. Also check psychosomatic medicine for general information.

You are now saying that you are better informed about the global brain than a group of 25 university researchers and professors, with dozens of publications between them, and several million euro budget. And the example I mentioned (the Global Brain Institute) is just one such organisation. Come on, where is your vision?

I can’t see how you can decide that I have no vision. One (not I) may argue that the concepts I presented here are brimming with vision, but that is irrelevant. What matters in the emergent phenomenon of the global brain is the degree and extent of information-sharing, the value of that information (it must be both trivial and non-trivial), its speed of transmission, how many people interact with it, and what happens to that information after it has been assimilated. Writing, speech and printing have played a part in defining our culture, but we can now move one step higher. If you compare the global brain with the human brain, then in your example, writing and printing are equivalent to the parasympathetic nervous system, or to other, slower and more primitive neurological functions. The global brain (digital communication) contains many other components which are more relevant to cognition, intelligence and creativity.

I can't see the validity of this comparison. Writing and printing are static forms of communication and cannot at all be compared to the fluid, fast, global and immediate communication by digital means. The fomula you mention is not mine. It is cited from another peer-reviewed and published paper. And my 'amateurish' paper has been critically reviewed in detail by several academic experts who do this for a living, and it has been deemed suitable for publication.So I am confident that their opinion is more valid than the opinion of an unknown person who is hiding behind intentional anonymity. Nothing personal mind you. To be fair, you read the draft, working paper, and not the final post-review version (in press). People can be clinical doctors and also have additional life-long training in other science disciplines such as biology. One does not preclude the other. One does not diminish the value of the other. Regarding your last comment about manipulating ageing, you misunderstood the argument. Of course I am not talking about clinical age-releated degeneration. Clinical disease can be treated with reductionist approaches. Instead, I am talking about the basic, background and global process of time-driven damage. From the interventional point of view there is a distinction between age-related clinical disease (diabetes, arthritis), and the underlying process of senescence itself.

Thank you for taking the trouble to go into some detail. I am using my original account to reply, since the guys at SF would not allow me to use the one with my real name (for administrative reasons). 1. Evolution operates generationally on a population level. Individuals do not biologically adapt to their environment. They either are adapted to it or they are not, and they live and die by the adaptations they are born with. Humans have the exceedingly important advantage of being able to culturally adapt to new environments within a generation by learning new behaviors. We both agree here, I am talking about the ability of *humans* to adapt to new environments, particularly now with the help of technology. I am not talking about any other organism. These sorts of adaptations operate on an individual level, but we're born with the capacity to learn, and entering or excelling in a new environment induces no biological changes in an individual whatsoever, regardless of cultural or behavioral changes. I disagree. A new environment may induce biological changes and some of these may also be heritable. These changes are most likely to be epigenetic modifications. Here is a passage (with references) from one of my working papers: (Information-sharing, adaptive epigenetics and human longevity http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6030) “…, repeated stress early in life can protect against more sustained stress later in life [48] and social factors can play a role in epigenetic regulation the effects of which not only persist throughout life, but can also be transmitted to the offspring via epigenetic inheritance [49]. In addition, there are specific epigenetic profiles associated with longevity [50] which can be transmitted to the offspring. Gentilini et al. [51] have shown that centenarians have certain specific DNA methylation characteristics (such as those found in nucleodite biosynthesis, and control of signal transmission) which are also found in their offspring, suggesting that these characteristics are heritable. 48. Natt, D (2011) Heritable epigenetic changes to environmental challenges. Linkoping studies in science and technology, dissertation 1383, Linkoping University, Sweeden 49. Thayer ZM, Kuzawa CW. (2011) Biological memories of past environments: epigenetic pathways to health disparities. Epigenetics 6(7):798-803 50. Gentilini D, Castaldi D, Mari D et al. (2012) Age-dependent skewing of X chromosome inactivation appears delayed in centenarians' offspring. Is there a role for allelic imbalance in healthy aging and longevity? Aging Cell 11:277-83 51. Gentilini D, Mari D, Castaldi D et al. (2013). Role of epigenetics in human aging and longevity: genome-wide DNA methylation profile in centenarians and centenarians' offspring. Age (Dordr) 35:1961-73 2. Piggybacking off of that, the environment does not induce adaptations that are beneficial to living in the environment. In fact, unless it happens in the germline, and therefore only affects your offspring rather than you, the only changes the environment is going to make to your biology that will have any noticeable impact are broken things, generally resulting in cancer. That's what we call the most common significant result of an environmentally induced alteration to an adult individual's DNA. See my answer above which addresses this point 3. You haven't proposed a mechanism by which what you're describing could happen. Things don't happen just because. Evolution, for instance, works and a fairly straightforward and almost tautologically simple principle: The more something makes copies of itself, the more of that thing there will be, and the better a thing is at making copies of itself, the more copies of itself it will make. That's all that is required to be true for natural selection to function, because that's really all natural selection is: The better something is at copying itself, the more copies of it there will be. I take the term ‘Evolution’ to mean adapting to your environment, surviving and improving (yourself or your species). You may talk about evolution by natural selection, but there other types of evolution, for example, intentional or directed evolution. I talk about the latter 4. Off the evolution point now, or at least tangential to it, you're proposing that people will live longer because they are more useful to a global brain network. The issues with this are A: can you demonstrate that there exists a global brain in any meaningful way The issue of the existence of a meaningful global brain is not my own proposition, it is a well-accepted and studied area (https://sites.google.com/site/gbialternative1/) and B: that there are any feedback mechanisms that would cause this network to improve the life expectancy of "useful nodes." Because contrary to your assertion, networks don't just spontaneously retain useful nodes. I am not claiming that networks spontaneously retain useful nodes. I am claiming that they retain them because there are specific reasons and defined principles at work. In networks that do, there is some mechanism that defines what is and isn't a useful node and a further mechanism for retaining those nodes. These things don't just happen. I know there is a mechanism for retaining useful nodes. However, I don’t know what it is in the case of humans within the global brain. There is some good research going on but from this point, I am just speculating and this area needs further study. It does not mean however that my hypothesis is necessarily wrong because it is based upon principles which have been proven correct in all other networks studied so far. Once again thank you for raising some relevant points. Marios Kyriazis

We are attempting to better understand how the futurist scientific and philosophical community perceives the possibility of radical life extension (RLE). Radical Life Extension refers to the elimination of age-related degeneration, and a life without ageing. Regardless of your thoughts and feelings on the possibility of RLE we want to understand how these ideas impact behaviour. If you would be willing to take 5-10 minutes of your time to fill out this survey, we would appreciate your time: (www.theadvancedapes.com)

Telomeres are involved in ageing but this is not the only issue. Epigenetic changes are becoming increasingly recognised. There are many people who take telomere enhancing supplements in the mistaken belief that they will live longer, Unfortunately, ageing does not only cause wrinkles but also urinary and faecal incontinence, loss of memory, crippling joint pain, etc. The quest to live longer is, in fact, a quest to eliminate age-related degeneration. Did this poet get out of the way when a car (horse) was racing towards him? If he did, he was a hypocrite. I am guessing, you are not yet a 69 year old.

From the ageing/longevity point of view, I and some people in my group believe that as technology progresses, we will tend to move away from monogamy/procreation and become more polyamorous (non-procreative). See here for some general ideas: http://cadelllast.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/last-c-2014-radical-life-extension-and-the-end-of-biological-reproduction1.pdf http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/11/26/sexuality-evolution-and-the-abolition-of-aging/. This refers to the Point number 3 of the OP

It is a matter of how people define the terms. When you are well, you are in a far-from-equilibrium state, your functional complexity and information content are high and entropy is also high. When you are ill, there is a state of reduced functional (but sometimes increased structural) complexity, energy loss continues to be high until it slows down to eventually zero, a point of (physical, but not biological) equilibrium and maximum predictability i.e death.

I can answer this here, as it refers to the original posting (although my view opposes it). I wrote a few non-scientific essays discussing this, for example here: http://ieet.org/index.php/ieet/more/kyriazis20121031 and here: https://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/04/the-life-extension-hubris-why-biotechnology-is-unlikely-to-be-the-answer-to-ageing also a more scientific paper discussing the hypothesis that the treatment will be more related to global communication and evolutionay mechanisms, rather than physical treatments: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2734 Finally, we are formalising the whole thing here:http://benthamscience.com/journal-files/special-issue-details/cas/CAS-SII20140109-01.pdf (due for publication in March 2014). I hope this helps.

Biotechnology may well help us cure diseases, but unfortunately it won't help us reverse aging. The cure for aging won't be anything physical and, contrary to what peope say, it won't depend primarily on biotechnology.

Is the internet an extension of our nervous system? YES, in the sense that we can gather information from it, elaborate it and re-transmit it Is addiction to the internet a reflection of an underlying nervous disorder? NO, but most addictions are bad Is it a symptom of social anxiety? NO lthough some people prefer the anonymity And will it really replace real socialization? YES, in great part, but not fully Can a chat bot replace a mentor or benefactor? NO, I don't think this will happen in the forseeable future What does the future presage? (as the internet grows will it become a social anathema like obesity?). NO, it will become a necessity

I am not advocating to go and get yourself injected with the active flu virus, but it could be because the infection stimulated your immune system which 'over-reacted' and thus reduced the asthma. It is known that mild doses of poison act through hormesis to boost the immune system. In the times before antibiotics, people used to drink small amounts of dirty water to fortify themselves against typhoid, or inject themselves with cowpox pus in order to avoid smallpox.

Would you like to post something interesting about sirtuins, perhaps something that has practical relevance to people interested in healthy ageing?

Unfortunately for you (for your argument) there will not be a choice. A life without ageing will mean living for an indefinite time (no a priori limits) which could be 10 years, 18 years or 1000 years. There won't be any 'natural causes' unless you mean natural disasters or natural infections. A cure for ageing will mean the elimination of all age related conditions, but people will still die from any other cause (cholera, malaria, accidents etc). Also, unfortunately for your argument is the fact that, some theorists predict that once the cure for ageing has become reality, a majority of humanity will necessarily have to experience it. It will not be a matter of choosing to have the treatment or not. Something like the equivalent of the treatment of cardiac arrest today. If you have a cardiac arrest 'the system', will without your consent, put you through certain steps wich are likely to revive you.

Those who are intelligent know it, and this provides a certain inner happines/satisfaction. From the evolutionary point of view I prefer to be intelligent, as this is the main criterion for evolutionary fitness (in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens). Being happy does not have any evolutionary value.

Thanks for the link, very interesting 3D printing is very relevant and promising development in all areas of medical science, although the technology is not fully there yet.

Nature does things without any intention, although there is a general tendency to higher complexity. We are one with nature (i.e. we are subjected to the same laws as anything else) so it is not surprising that we find symmetry, order and beauty in natural things. The laws of mathematics and physics/biology are emboddied in all natural things and it is up to us to discover and describe them. Fractal geometry exists in living biologial organisms including humans, and it goes far deeper than generally appreciated.

Ending ageing will NOT mean ending death. People will still die from other causes such as infections, accidents, suicide, cancer, etc. We will never be able to live 'forever'. We would however live a life without ageing, which means that we will not get age-related degeneration. Some theorists believe that the treatment for ageing would have to be used by a substantial section of humanity (hundreds of millions) in order to be effective. So this would be available to anyone.

Many believe that the search for extreme lifespan prolongation is unethical on several grounds, citing overpopulation, depletion of resources etc. I want to live for centuries. In order to achieve this I need to eliminate ageing as a cause of death, and hope that I won't die from an accident or injury. But if ageing is eliminated, then it would necessarily mean that all age-related degenerative diseases would be eliminated as a consequence. So, those who oppose the search for an indefinite lifespan are de facto opposing the elimination of these degenerative diseases. Or, looking at this from another angle, many people I ask say that they would like to live healthy for many years and accept that their time is up and die when they are old. What these people fail to realise is that if they are OK to die through ageing, it necessarily means that they would suffer age-related degeneration and are likely to spend their final years incontinent, demented, in chronic pain and disability. So, when someone asks you: "do you want to live to be 1000 years?", think twice before you answer 'no'.

This 'Global Brain' is not some giant brain floating above the Earth. It is merely another term for the total digital connections between all hyper-connected individuals (the total number of people using the internet and the emerging concequences of this usage). It is impossible not to exist, unless we all stop using digital communication completely. Also, the increase in lifespan mentioned earlier is not specifically with regards to the elderly. It is for all of those who use and share meaningful information (i.e those who are active 'components' of the Global Brain).

Also imagine billions of people living and working indefinitely, and as a consequence, paying taxes indefinitely. Governments will earn a lot of money!

Yes it is anthropocentric, and I am proud to be human.That is why I believe that it is a waste for me to die of ageing, whereas if mice or blackbirds die, so what? Sorry, but I am deliberately arrogant, in order to prove my point.

I mean 'complex' as related to intelligence (i.e.the ability to select a correct option out of many choices). I can't see any comparison whatsoever between the brain of a mouse and that of a human. And I truly believe that my brain is cleverer than my stomach (on most occasions). If I had to choose to have any complex organ I like, I would go for the human brain. Without it, nothing exists. But this is the issue here. Procreation will not continue at the current rate, in a society in which its members live for several centuries. Procreation is only needed because we die, and so the survival of our species needs to be assured.