Jump to content
Moreno

Aging genetic therapy - how soon???

Recommended Posts

Don't you think that insufficient funds are allocated to combat aging and this technology is coming late for a common public? This is a problem which affects everyone. What funds could be allocated if every person in relatively developed countries would give $1000 USD to combat aging and how soon some sound results will appear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Don't you think that insufficient funds are allocated to combat aging and this technology is coming late for a common public?

No, it would be a waste of money.  

16 minutes ago, Moreno said:

This is a problem which affects everyone.

It is not a problem.

 

17 minutes ago, Moreno said:

What funds could be allocated if every person in relatively developed countries would give $1000 USD to combat aging and how soon some sound results will appear?

I wouldn't give a $1000.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any current funding figures to share? Otherwise, aren't you assuming funding is not enough based on the fact that you still age? Why assume there's not enough interest in a "fountain of youth"? 

Also, I don't see how anyone could give you any accurate timeline based on "Let's spend $1000/person on this". I would imagine funding is not the biggest problem with extending life. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is basically impossible to say how soon results would appear, there are still many unknowns. Even if we could stop bodily ageing (by replacing cells with newer cells through stem-cell regeneration or something like this (just some speculation that sounds at least partially realistic)), what would we do about the brain? Replacing cells most probably means losing memories and personality. But maybe if we also find a way to read memories/upload them, it wouldn't be an issue. But both of those things are highly speculative and probably not something we will see in the near future (or ever). 

In case people mention that we may be able to upload some thoughts to the internet, there is a large difference between storing thoughts, and placing the entire neural network with all its nuances onto a computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything ends, get used to it... 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

what would we do about the brain? Replacing cells most probably means losing memories and personality. 

Are there any scientific experiments which prove it? For now I don't know proves memory and personality are stored at the cellular level. According to some studies new brain cells are created until death. Also it may not be necessary to replace cells but just stop aging at the cellular level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moreno said:

Are there any scientific experiments which prove it? For now I don't know proves memory and personality are stored at the cellular level. According to some studies new brain cells are created until death. Also it may not be necessary to replace cells but just stop aging at the cellular level.

I would say that studies on synaptic plasticity and the molecular basis of memory (Kandel has a nice book on it, and some nice articles on the molecular basis of memories) , do definitely the notion that memories are the result of differing strengths between the connections of neurons (in my opinion). And although I wouldn't know how a study could 'prove' that personality is an emergent property of brain connections, I can't really see any other place where your personality would come from, especially based on all the neuroscience I know. 

One article:
https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-6606-5-14

(the book is 'The principles of neuroscience)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dagl1 said:

do definitely the notion that memories are the result of differing strengths between the connections of neurons

In this case it is more important how neurons are connected to each other than the cells themselves. There seem exists copying mechanism in the brain which transfers the old connections to a new regions of a brain. Certain "brain plasticity". For example there are many cases when after destruction of some narrow brain region other regions took the functions of the destructed region and person almost completely recovered. I think there are not too many cases when after a stroke all the memories and personality would gone forever and completely.

Edited by Moreno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Moreno said:

In this case it is more important how neurons are connected to each other than the cells themselves. There seem exists copying mechanism in the brain which transfers the old connections to a new regions of a brain. Certain "brain plasticity". For example there are many cases when after destruction of some narrow brain region other regions took the functions of the destructed region and person almost completely recovered. I think there are not too many cases when after a stroke all the memories and personality would gone forever and completely.

But it's about the strength/adaptation of the synapses, so you would have to copy those strengths. Which is modulated by proteins, their modifications, their positions in the synapse, and RNA levels. It's not just the connections, it's each individual synapse, and the strength of each of those synapses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

But it's about the strength/adaptation of the synapses, so you would have to copy those strengths. Which is modulated by proteins, their modifications, their positions in the synapse, and RNA levels. It's not just the connections, it's each individual synapse, and the strength of each of those synapses.

So what is the problem if we would be able to stop neuronal aging at the cellular level? 

7 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

But maybe if we also find a way to read memories/upload them, it wouldn't be an issue.

Even if it would be possible, it is very dangerous because if human personality could be digitalized and stored "at the server" it means it could be easily enslaved. But for now I don't see how it could be done with any technology I can imagine because brain functions are closely connected to a physical and chemical properties of the brain matter. 

Edited by Moreno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moreno said:

So what is the problem if we would be able to stop neuronal aging at the cellular level? 

Okay but... how.... My initial point was that we could possibly replace all cells, but then a problem would occur with neurons... How do you propose that we stop neuronal ageing at the cellular level? I mean... it seems pretty difficult, we don't really understand ageing, let alone know how we could reverse it, let alone reverse it in neurons... 

I understand that more research may find ways to stop ageing, but I feel it is one thing to reverse ageing in most organs, it's another thing to then just do that in the brain as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

Okay but... how.... My initial point was that we could possibly replace all cells, but then a problem would occur with neurons... How do you propose that we stop neuronal ageing at the cellular level? I mean... it seems pretty difficult, we don't really understand ageing, let alone know how we could reverse it, let alone reverse it in neurons... 

I understand that more research may find ways to stop ageing, but I feel it is one thing to reverse ageing in most organs, it's another thing to then just do that in the brain as well.

Why do you think if it would be possible to stop aging in all the cells in general, neurons are going to be the exception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moreno said:

Why do you think if it would be possible to stop aging in all the cells in general, neurons are going to be the exception?

Because I don't think that we can stop ageing in cells, but it may be feasible to replace them (see quote):

16 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

Even if we could stop bodily ageing (by replacing cells with newer cells through stem-cell regeneration or something like this (just some speculation that sounds at least partially realistic))

Sure, if we could reverse ageing in every cell, and have an easy means to deliver that miracle treatment to every cell so that it also reaches every neuron, then I don't think that neurons would be an exception, however at the moment, I very much doubt a miracle drug/treatment will reverse the ageing process of a cell (sure maybe in another 50-100 years maybe, but not soon). 

I could of course be entirely wrong and it is just a year away, and I just don't know it, but knowing how complicated things get, and how many unknowns there still are regarding general cell function, I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Still crude but they have found they can erase epigenetic damage.

Mothers can gain cells that turn into  neurons from their children so adding to the brain is doable in theory. No idea how a larger scale version impact the mind however.

Not sure keeping the mind the same is really even feasible in the longterm as new memories keep being added.

We'll probably need to add defect free clone cells while limiting the numbers of defective cells in the body. In theory just need everything to stay the same. Complexity of the task is the daunting part.

 

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Moreno said:

Don't you think that insufficient funds are allocated to combat aging and this technology is coming late for a common public? This is a problem which affects everyone. What funds could be allocated if every person in relatively developed countries would give $1000 USD to combat aging and how soon some sound results will appear?

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Everything ends, get used to it... 🙄

Issac Assimov tackled the pro's and con's of "extended" life; it didn't end well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

It is not a problem.

 

It causes death so I think an argument can be made that it is a "problem". We tackle other factors that cause death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It causes death so I think an argument can be made that it is a "problem". We tackle other factors that cause death.

What is or can be an argument for immortality? 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What is or can be an argument for immortality? 

Why die due to imperfect maintenance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It causes death so I think an argument can be made that it is a "problem". We tackle other factors that cause death.

It is a problem relative fantasy I suppose.  Maybe we should try to cure sadness, so everyone will be continuously happy.  

If we cure aging then we will have to cure reproduction to prevent overpopulation.  Except I will bet part of the curing old age fantasy also means we will colonize the galaxy or some such nonsense. 

You are born, you grow up and you die.  That's the plan.

Thousands of years ago it was possible for a person to live to about 120 years old, in this modern age it is possible to live to about 120 years old.  Hmmm, kinda seems like a hard stop.  Modern medicine has greatly increased our quality of life, it has decreased infant mortality and increased our average life expectancy, it has done nothing to allow people to live beyond about 120 years.

I get it dying is scary, but the fantasy of curing aging is about as useful as the fantasy of going to heaven and living for ever and ever

Edited by Bufofrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

It is a problem relative fantasy I suppose.  Maybe we should try to cure sadness, so everyone will be continuously happy.  

If we cure aging then we will have to cure reproduction to prevent overpopulation.  Except I will bet part of the curing old age fantasy also means we will colonize the galaxy or some such nonsense. 

You are born, you grow up and you die.  That's the plan.

Thousands of years ago it was possible for a person to live to about 120 years old, in this modern age it is possible to live to about 120 years old.  Hmmm, kinda seems like a hard stop.  Modern medicine has greatly increased our quality of life, it has decreased infant mortality and increased our average life expectancy, it has done nothing to allow people to live beyond about 120 years.

I get it dying is scary, but the fantasy of curing aging is about as useful as the fantasy of going to heaven and living for ever and ever

But why should we not strive for it anyway? We can definitely put people in space, and yes curing sadness (or any part of the human condition) would be worth it. All is it only for the pursuit of science? 

We have changed many things using science, why is THIS thing the part where we throw in the towel? Why not pursue it, fix the next issue (overpopulation) on the way. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I rather see us pursue the things that now seem impossible, than to throw in the towel. 

-Dagl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Maybe we should try to cure sadness...

Ever heard of anti-depressants? Psychiatry?

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

If we cure aging then we will have to cure reproduction to prevent overpopulation. 

Red herring.

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

You are born, you grow up and you die.  That's the plan.

If you are going to invoke God then we are done here.

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I get it dying is scary, but the fantasy of curing aging is about as useful as the fantasy of going to heaven and living for ever and ever

You can't invoke God when it helps your argument then deny God to discredit someone else's argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.