Aubrey de Grey

[Kadajenova]

Here's some videos about Aubrey de Grey (gerontologist), leader of a new
generation of gerontologists who claim that aging is a disease and will be cured in our lifetime.

Part 1
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Td-ImgIn_cQ

Part 2
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=bYj8lNjmlqo

Part 3
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=jqAYbz9Tdtc

Part 4
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIMUT2hbiso

Part 5
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=CdLrWjd_mr4

Part 6
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=h-DDVhLX8Mw

Part 7
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=CbCG_KOvfAQ

Part 8
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=zMWcPmpH74M

[AC9breaker]

lmao, I stopped watching after 5 minutes of the video.
"I knew that once I saw his picture, I wanted to make a movie about him"
(Picture of a guy with a Lord of the Rings Dwarven Beard"

[Kadajenova]

Aubrey de Grey at TED conference

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ

[Toadthroat]

A little off topic but this is a good reason as to why YT embedding should be optional.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

<_<;

Just how much more quickly will human population increase, if people stop dieing? For that matter, how much more quickly will human population increase if people remain perpetually in breeding-condition? Is this truly something that we want? The whole idea seems rather half-baked, to me.

[AC9breaker]

<_<;

Just how much more quickly will human population increase, if people stop dieing? For that matter, how much more quickly will human population increase if people remain perpetually in breeding-condition? Is this truly something that we want? The whole idea seems rather half-baked, to me.

Just imagine the strain it would put on Social Security. It's quite a selfish ideal imo.

[Kadajenova]

<_<;

Just how much more quickly will human population increase, if people stop dieing? For that matter, how much more quickly will human population increase if people remain perpetually in breeding-condition? Is this truly something that we want? The whole idea seems rather half-baked, to me.

Well, aging kills 100,000 pple per day, means 35 millions per year, 3,5 billion in 100 years. But don't forget that population was 1 billion only at 1900, now we're almost 7 billions (so natural increase of population is x2 more than with no aging at all). Plus tobacco/alcohol/accidents/AIDS/cancers/ect... kills more than 100,000 pple per day, and if we find a way to cure AIDS/cancer it will save more pple than save pple from aging. And like I said, our population were only 1 billion and now 7 billions, if pple complain about overpopulation, they should have though that before.

[Sinue_v2]

<_<;

Just how much more quickly will human population increase, if people stop dieing? For that matter, how much more quickly will human population increase if people remain perpetually in breeding-condition? Is this truly something that we want? The whole idea seems rather half-baked, to me.

I guess it depends on how things play out. One thing I've noticed is that as a nation gets richer and lives longer, they naturally tend to have less children and spend more time focusing on careers and building their own lives up. Many decide not to have children at all. In the past 50 years we've seen the size of the average American (and European) families drop significantly along with an upswing in average lifespans. However, this can be a two fold problem. While food likely won't be as much an issue (especially with new production techniques like lab-grown meat and more vercitile GM crops), richer societies tend to consume more raw materials than second and third world countries.

However, I would argue that we still have PLENTY of room left to grow on this planet. 75% of this world's surface is covered in water - and it's resources lay untapped on the ocean floor. As another speaker at the TED conference pointed out - we have better maps of Mars than 50% of the US's own territories. We know these resources are down there, as analysis of hydrothermal vents show some of them spewing commercial grade Iron, Gold, Zinc, Methane, Silver, Copper, and other resources. There's also power generation and habitation opportunities in the ocean which we are neglecting. To make no mention of farming.

We may eventually have to implement some form of child birth restriction. Like, say, two children per household per 80 years. Or something of that manner. Even without the death of death, we will still eventually have to find a way off this planet and colonize other worlds. Once that becomes a reality, then we can safely expand with little regard to overpopulation.

I think Aubrey de Grey is a bit fanciful in his speculations, but people like him, Vernor Vinge, and Ray Kurzweil lay out an enticing roadmap for the future of technology and humanity. I don't doubt that what they claim will eventually come to pass, but I'm not sure if it will happen in our lifetimes. Much will depend on how much progress is made with BCI's (Brain Computer Interfaces), Stem Cell Research, Nanotechnology, and human cloning.


Just imagine the strain it would put on Social Security. It's quite a selfish ideal imo.

The problem with Social Security is that we have far more people drawing out than putting in. We have more old people than young people. To stop aging would negate this issue as it would allow younger people to stay in the workforce longer (or indefinately) and accumulate workers as the next generation of children grow up and join the labor force. If we can reverse aging, we can put some of those old people back to work. You wouldn't even NEED Social Security anymore if you can keep people youthful and able bodied. We may even keep it around to provide for a reformed sort of "retirement" - in which people don't so much stop working, but take turns with extended 10-20 year vacations which can be spent going to school, raising a child, adventuring, etc.