X-Message-Number: 18585 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 01:14:12 -0800 From: "John Grigg" <> Subject: AGING: perhaps we are over the hump These are extrolist posts which I think are very relevant for Cryonet considering the goals of the people here. The first post by Robert Bradbury is very optimistic, while Hal Finney's response is rather questioning. best wishes, John Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:05:41 -0800 (PST) From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <> [add to address book] [add to spam block list] Subject: AGING: perhaps we are over the hump To: Extropy List <> Reply To: Text Size: smalldefaultlargeextra large The list has previously discussed the possibility that we may get to the point where medical technology may be extending the average lifespan at a rate of greater than one year per year. This is in contrast to the ~0.25 year/year of the last century in developed countries. The exowomb article had a pointer at the end to this article: Discovery of 'Methuselah gene' unlocks secret of long life http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,644020,00.html which I'm surprised people didn't pick up on given that its over a week old. Now, IMO, it is quite likely that the Decode discovery is the gene on chromosome 4, previously reported by Tom Perl's group. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/18/10505 (For those who are unaware of it, Aeiveos Sciences Group initiated the first genotyping studies of the oldest-old that Tom works with.) I'd be very surprised if the specific gene isn't pulled out within the next year. Now, given the genetic technologies I expect will develop within this decade, there is a reasonable chance that we will be able to give everyone the benefits of the Methuselah gene. If so we will be bumping average longevity from ~75 to ~90 within this decade, or ~15 years / decade. If that proves to be the case, then the expected longevity of everyone on the list under the age of ~65 just became *much* greater! Now, the "harsh" reality of this brings up an interesting question. I've always thought that there should be a fundamental shift in personal economic planning that takes place when people begin to realize they are likely to live hundreds of years. I call this "The no-brainer strategy to becoming wealthy". It requires taking $100-$1000 and depositing it in a savings account or mutual fund and never withdrawing any funds from the account until the annual increase in the account value exceeds what one reasonably needs to live in the world. It is based on the idea that it doesn't require sophisticated investment strategies to become wealthy, it simply requires living long enough. It would seem that Extropians/Transhumanists should be the first to recognize the paradigm shift and adopt this strategy. But I don't see any evidence that any of these individuals that I know have done so. So the "interesting question" is "Why is this the case?" Possible explanations I can think of are: a) We don't really believe lifespan extension of more than 1 yr/yr is feasible; b) We believe the NanoSantas will make all wealth creation strategies irrelevant; c) We believe the SysOp AI will make all wealth creation strategies irrelevant; d) We belive the singularity will so totally disrupt things that all wealth creation strategies are irrelevant. There are probably some others but I think this may cover most of the positions. We could have a long discussion about the synergistic effects of biomedical technology, computers, Moore's Law, AI, etc. that make it impossible to disentangle lifespan extension from NanoSantas from SysOps from singularities, but in the end the question would remain -- Do you want to bet your future survivability on the requirement that the Nanosantas, Sysops or singularities manifest themselves? Does one want to be in a position in 30-50 years of having an extended lifespan (through in-the-trenches advances in medical technology) but not have the ability to live independently and dedicate ones resources to such things as the development of NanoSantas or SysOps or Singularities? To my mind, what may be needed is the establishment of an "I-Will-One-Day-Be-A-Millionaire Foundation" for people who adopt and promote this perspective. It is a fundamental shift from the: "I'm born, I work, I may have children, I retire, I die" to an "I'm born, I work, I may have children, I retire, I contribute my time and energy to the benefit of humanity for an indefinite period, someday an accident may catch up with me." framework. Please note that I'm not suggesting this be "imposed" on people as there may certainly be those who do not have this perspective. But given the social perspectives that most humans seem to have at a genetic level, I think it is likely to be a strategy many would adopt. So I'm curious... Who wants to join the "I-Will-One-Day-Be-A-Millionaire Foundation?" and is willing to walk their talk? Robert Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:42:55 -0800 From: [add to address book] [add to spam block list] Subject: Re: AGING: perhaps we are over the hump To: Reply To: Text Size: smalldefaultlargeextra large Robert Bradbury writes: > Now, given the genetic technologies I expect will develop within > this decade, there is a reasonable chance that we will be able > to give everyone the benefits of the Methuselah gene. If so > we will be bumping average longevity from ~75 to ~90 within > this decade, or ~15 years / decade. I don't see how a gene discovered today could be affecting everyone within 10 years. Will we perfect a method of genetic insertion into all of the relevant cells, get government approval, and administer it to the entire Western world within 10 years? I'm sure we all agree that this is impossible. A better prospect would be to find out what the gene does and hope that it is something which can be turned into a pill. But even then there is no proof that the pill would accomplish the same thing until you have studied it for decades, so there is no way that everyone will be swallowing the pill within ten years. (BTW I think animal models are of limited use in human longevity studies, since people already live something like 3 times what they should compared to similar animals, implying that they are already benefiting from some biochemical longevity genes which are absent elsewhere.) > If that proves to be the case, then the expected longevity of > everyone on the list under the age of ~65 just became *much* > greater! Even if somehow everyone had the effects of this gene inside them within 10 years, that would not necessarily increase longevity to a large degree. It is plausible that the effects are spread out over a lifetime, slowing aging constantly, so that, say, a 70 year old with the protection is like a 60 year old without it. Hence someone who was already an adult, let alone 65 years old, would not get much benefit from adding the effects of the gene so late in life. A 65 year old with a life expectancy of 15 years might get his expectancy increased to ~18 years. The effects on young people would probably be correspondingly greater. > Now, the "harsh" reality of this brings up an interesting question. > I've always thought that there should be a fundamental shift > in personal economic planning that takes place when people begin > to realize they are likely to live hundreds of years. I call > this "The no-brainer strategy to becoming wealthy". It requires > taking $100-$1000 and depositing it in a savings account or > mutual fund and never withdrawing any funds from the account > until the annual increase in the account value exceeds what > one reasonably needs to live in the world. It is based on > the idea that it doesn't require sophisticated investment > strategies to become wealthy, it simply requires living long > enough. I see two problems with this investment strategy. One is that it might not work. Savings accounts can lose value to inflation, and mutual funds can lose value to crashes. Some people will prefer to use their judgement and move their money around among investments, depending on economic conditions. The other is that even if the account value does grow in absolute terms, it may not grow relative to our desires. In other words, as the world grows wealthier, although we can get more in the future if we save our money today, it may not be as much as we would like. Over the course of my career, which began 23 years ago, my income has grown by a factor of 7. If I had saved $100 back then in a savings account, it would have grown, but not by that much. So in a sense I would have lost money. Now granted, I have been moving through the fastest-growing part of my career, and this will probably not be sustained over the long term. But it makes sense that our perceived needs will grow proportionately to the total wealth of society. Hence any investment which grows more slowly than that is actually a net loser. > It would seem that Extropians/Transhumanists should be the first > to recognize the paradigm shift and adopt this strategy. But > I don't see any evidence that any of these individuals that I > know have done so. So the "interesting question" is "Why > is this the case?" I'm not sure what you mean that no one has applied this. Are you saying that no one is saving money? Surely that is wrong. Are you saying that none of the people saving money are putting it into savings accounts and/or mutual funds? I can't believe that either; I for one have money in both of those categories. Or maybe you're just saying that no one sees this saving in the way you do, as "the" strategy for getting rich in the long term? That might be, but I think the reasons are different from what you give. > Possible explanations I can think of are: > a) We don't really believe lifespan extension of more than 1 yr/yr > is feasible; > b) We believe the NanoSantas will make all wealth creation strategies > irrelevant; > c) We believe the SysOp AI will make all wealth creation strategies > irrelevant; > d) We belive the singularity will so totally disrupt things that > all wealth creation strategies are irrelevant. > > There are probably some others but I think this may cover > most of the positions. I think the right answer is a variation on (a), which is that we think it will take quite a while to get to 1 year/year, and may not be within our lifetimes. And even if it does happen before we die and we are able to benefit from it, we would still prefer to have more money rather than less at that time, and in fact at all times. Hence we look for the best investment opportunities we can find. It's possible that some people do believe in (b)-(d), mostly young people who have a greater likelihood of seeing these changes before they get old. But I would hope that most Extropians would want a contingency plan in case none of the Singularity scenarios pan out. Generally, having more resources will give you more options. Hal Check out Cupid School where you will learn from Matchmaker's best and brightest. Good Luck! http://ecard.matchmaker.com/cupid0202/cupid0202.html Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18585