The people who've written them have all continued to age, and many of them have died pretty much on schedule, like Roy Walford. The people who write them clearly don't know how to stop aging any more than the rest of us.
You sound almost like a redneck. Better yet, you are an ignoramus. People like De Grey, have not cured aging, not the point. But they have put a spotlight on scientifc and FACTUAL truth that aging is a process that can be understood and possibly reversed. Research a bit about stem cells, telomeres, free-radicals, antioxidants, and mitochondiran and DVD mutation. Reversing aging has not been ruled out scientifically by any credible person. I firmly believe it will happen, within this century, possibly within 30 years.
Just because we don't know how to stop aging doesn't mean we're not on the path to finding out how. Aubrey de Grey presents a good overview of the roadblocks some possible solutions. Technological advancement will allow us to slow then stop the aging process. It's inevitable unless science halts entirely. The human body is just a biochemical machine that can be reverse engineered like any other system. Once we've done that we can intervene and fix or replace any process.
Years ago, infectious disease was the cause of aging and death.
In more recent years it has been proven that toxicity plays a role.
Are we so sure we got rid of the first cause though?
I have Lyme Disease, and there are docs out there who think we all have chronic, subclinical parasitic infections. Toxicity is also a problem with parasitic infections, and who here has never been bitten by a mosquito at least?
Add manmade sources of electromagnetic radiation to the mix - cell phone towers, wireless internet, even ordinary house current - and these infectious diseases are in heaven, and we're sicker than ever at a younger age - living longer, but not necessarily healthier.
The answer to me is obvious - get rid of the technology that is giving these infections the upper hand. We are electrmagnetic beings who receive 'instructions' from the universe, and even the computer I'm typing on right now, is interfering with these signals to regenerate - which would be available to all of us if we'd turn off all this electromagnetic noise.
>You sound almost like a redneck. Better yet, you are an ignoramus.
Excuse me. I turn 48 in November, and I remember predictions by fringe scientists back in the 1970's that we'd have a cure for aging "by the year 2000," along with reversible cryonic suspension, power beamed to Earth from solar power satellites and colonies on the moon and at the Langrangian points. What happened to all that stuff in the real 21st Century?
I've also had cryonics arrangements since 1990, and Ray Kurzweil in "The Singularity Is Near" credits me with coining the word "Singularitarian" in the early 1990's. I don't know your age, but I would bet money I've studied the writings from this transhumanist-futurist subculture from before the time you were born. I have heard so many false promises of "life extension breakthroughs" that I no longer find them credible without extraordinarily good evidence. Perhaps you'll understand my perspective when you reach your 40's and realize that most people still die by their 80's.
My parents are in their 50s. They are skeptical just like you, and I understand where you are coming from. So you are 100 percent right that there is no CURE for aging right now, and that many "futurist" goals have not come true (However, I think a lot of the ideas you mention COULD have happened but our society has other priorities. We COULD have had moon bases by now, we COULD have had solar power satellites, but our global society spends a lot on war and armanents instead) There is REAL science and research backing up the THESIS that AGING CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AT A CELLULAR LEVEL, AND THAT AGING IS NOT FIXED AND IS A BYPRODUCT OF EVOLUTION THAT CAN BE REPAIRED. Scientists have discovered that free radicals damage cells and DNA. Scientists have discovered that over time, telomere caps get shorter and cause DNA damage and a lot of problems. Telomerase can regrow caps. Stem cells in the body are less effective over time, and research is showing that human cells can be reclocked back to an emryonic state, providing youthful regeneration to a aging body.
If you stay healthy, within 10 years you will be ready to benefit.
What does "discovering the basis of anti-aging" mean, and what measures of it would be adequate to make the case? Since good nutrition and public health have extended the average life-span in developed countries in the past century, we DO, in fact know how to ameliorate anti-aging to some extent. Would techniques that further extended life-span be examples of anti-aging? According to my definition, I would say yes - and they are occuring! Is there a "ceiling" on these techniques? That would be equivalent to a "genetic clock" for each person or species. When I first heard about this metaphor of a genetic clock (30 years ago) I was determined to find a way to "turn the clock off!" Arthur C. Clarke, the most eminent of all futurists, predicted we would achieve immortality (in his book Profiles of the Future). Every day in life-span that is contrived by technique is a partial fulfillment of that prediction - so it doesn't (ultimately) matter if those anti-aging advocates actually die themselves! If in their work they extend the boundaries, they are helping our species succeed with the anti-aging agenda. Is it possible that we are actually a lot closer to Clarke's goal than is generally recognized? Yes, I think so. The problem as de Grey concedes, is that the biological inter-relationships involved are so complex that practically no one can use existing knowledge to derive an effective anti-aging stragtegy - so, if only we knew what we know! Perhaps (just perhaps) there are a few out there who CAN and are actually DOING it!
You are so right, we could have had so much more if we had spent the money better. It is not just military spending, but if the public would support scientists as they support sports teams or show even half the interest in science that they show on what Lindsey or Britiney will do next, we likely could accomplish many things...
Are you sure about that? in the 1700's life expectancy was 25. Now currently it is almost 80 in developed worlds. Give new stem cell therapies and new drugs what do you think will happen? Maybe 200 years of age. Oh but wait! Maybe you are too old and are suffering already and near death. sucks to be you. Being skeptical is going to kill you early.
Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rae are, in their well-documented book, "Ending Aging" fixated on "repair" and bio-mechanical remediation as a source for longevity and health. But they are ignoring the overwhelming data that tie health and a long, disease-free life to diet. Blindly accepting the industries' (e.g. meat, dairy) hand in molding protein and calcium RDA has led to five decades of decline in western health, as evidenced in the dramatic rise of heart diseases, cancers and diabetes. What is not needed is engineering to remediate symptoms, but rather an attack on the cause of illness and aging. A vegetarian or vegan diet is no longer scorned as "unhealthy" as it was 25 years ago by most physicians, dieticians and nutritionists. Because the evidence is clear and documented. The scales are slowly but surely falling from the eyes of the public, just as in the 70s there was a return to natural health practices such as breast feeding (which in my parents' time was scorned as "not necessary" and "inconvenient for the mother". The real "paradigm shift" would be more critical thinking of so-called "modern medicine" or "miracle drugs" and less of the deGrey/Rae biological "band-aid" approach.
Your argument that we have not yet found a cure for aging, and so every scientist who envisions that there might one day be a cure for aging is mistaken, is logically and foundationally erroneous. The idea for the most amazing inventions and achievements that now exist, (the television, the telephone, the airplane, the automobile, must I go on?) were not invented overnight. Thank God that all the naysayers, (people like you have existed in every generation, regardless of your assumption that because you are the oldest of this generation you must know more than the younger of ours and any previous generation) were not taken into account by Edison, the Wright Brothers, and Ford, because although during the research and development processes for these inventions people said it could not be done, it was. While you and the other skeptics of the older generation complain and attempt to ensure that the younger and more passionate generation doesn't try to innovate and create, we are busy inventing. So stay out of our way...
Sadly, you and those like you might someday benefit from the accomplishments that we achieve through our hard work...
While an improved diet, positive attitude, and vigorous exercise can indeed help one to age more gracefully, one who ages gracefully still ages. The goal here is not to age more gracefully but to stop aging altogether.
Perhaps, the missing element was the information revolution, and the fact that genetics are the software code for life.
No guarantees of a future super acceleration in AI developements that can sequence and program our flawed dna, in which just recently geneticists have found a "time bomb" terminator gene, but the scenerio is different now than just 10 years before.
Please, just stop spreading false ideas about Aubrey and Michael. In fact, Michael Rae is a prominent advocate of calorie restriction, a powerful dietary measure that's been the only proven measure to extend lifespan in mammals. The calorie restriction that's proven to be more powerful is the one that consists of moderate protein and methionine intake (thus heavily restricting animal protein, which is high in the aminoacid protein) and eat plenty of vegetables along with some legumes fruits and nuts. The problem is that calorie restriction may buy you some time, but aging will catch eventually, killing you with an age-related disease, or just by making your immune system or bones so weak you die next time you fall or catch a flu.
To M.A.Plus: May I ask whether you'd also give ZERO STARS to those organizations who've proposed a Fair Tax or Flat Tax? Because despite those companies' lengthy existence, the middle-class are still subjected to Unfair Tax and Unflat Tax. Ditto for many other such organizations. Does it mean they're all on the wrong track? Or rather, that they're getting NEAR-ZERO support? I suggest you grab a Zero Bar, and chew on it, as food for thought.