Curing aging – feasibility and desirability

Scientists have discovered a new way to edit DNA that could fix “broken genes” in the brain, cure previously incurable diseases and potentially even extend the human lifespan.

.

In what is said to be a breakthrough for genetic engineering, scientists have restored sight in partially-blind rats by using a new technique that may even extend the human lifespan.

.

Longer Life in a Pill May Already Be Available at Your Local Drug Store. The FDA green lighted an audacious proposal that seeks to test in 3,000 volunteers a drug that — based on animal studies — could extend human lifespan by up to 40 percent and decrease chances of getting age-related diseases.

.

http://raadfest.com/

Scientists develop way to remove cellular damage that causes aging

A new method to fight aging may be one step closer to reality, after researchers developed a new way to remove cellular damage that accumulates as one gets older. It could slow or reverse one of the major causes of aging, and even help those with Parkinson’s disease.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of California Los Angeles and the California Institute of Technology, developed a new approach to remove mutated DNA from mitochondria, the small organelles that produce most of the chemical energy within a cell.

@mortein: Personally, I don't think anyone who is alive today is going to see 1,000 years old. The technology that could make it happen is still in its infancy and, unfortunately, hasn't been proven.

Not only that, but one of the nations that showed the strongest promise with their scientific research just elected a decidedly anti-science president.

This is coming from someone who would really really like to live to be at least 1,000.

Probably, but still there is a chance, and it's not negligible. But I guess it is more important that we develop this for the humanity, regardless of whether we'll make the cut or not. For every SINGLE day that we speed up the development of effective rejuvenative treatments we are saving 100 000 lives.

I'm actually optimistic regarding Trump and anti-aging research. If you would like to know why, check out my posts on the previous page of this thread.

@mortein: Oh I absolutely agree that we should strive towards it even if we can't enjoy the fruits of the labor. I think that we should for the same reason I think we should continue to try to develop technologies that will allow us to travel the stars. Progress is the hope of mankind.

Interesting video from Dr. David Sinclair about what we might be able to do about aging in the near future.

Researchers in California will attempt to change levels of proteins in older blood, believed to hamper growth and maintenance of healthy tissues, basically reset the blood proteins in attempt to slow ageing process

Effect of Low-Dose Rapamycin on Senescence Markers and Physical Functioning in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: Results of a Pilot Study. Some correlation between some senescence markers and physical performance was observed, but no improvement in frailty with rapamycin was noted.

Low feasibility, zero desirability.

Would you like to share with us specific reasons why you think it's highly unlikely we will ever develop therapies by which we might postpone (maybe even indefinitely) the ill health of age? And why would that be a bad thing?

Nathaniel David, CEO of Unity Biotechnology, speaks at Hello Tomorrow Global Summit 2016 senolytic medicines, which clear senescent cells from the human body.

For as long as humans have existed, people have always desired life unending. A life after death. An unlimited experience.

Hence why we created religions, gods, the ideas of an afterlife and heaven, and so on in an attempt to appease these desires.

Now, this idea won't make us immortal by any means. A bullet to the head is still a bullet to the head. But it will tackle one of the biggest aspects of death.

@mortein said:

For us to be immortal, we'd need to figure out more than just how to cure every illness that plagues humanity, which is already a daunting and nigh-impossible task. We'd have to prevent or perfectly repair long-term cell damage or, basically, the wear and tear of the body. We'd also have to figure out how to remove the cell division cap inherent in almost all cells in the human body. What's great is that we don't even know why it's there to begin with. The list goes on and on...

A biological organism isn't a perfectly efficient system and therefore we are eventually always going to be doomed to die. Of course, there are theoretical ways to retain our consciousness after death, but that's a whole 'nother story.

As far as greatly increasing lifespans goes, sure, that's great. I highly doubt a single human will ever live to be a thousand, but I do believe that to be within the realm of possibility.

Now, as for why immortality is undesirable...

This is why. In order to combat the obvious problem of overpopulation, very uncomfortable and, frankly, downright inhumane laws would have to be instituted. What I find baffling is that you think people would follow these laws in the first place. You do realize governments have tried to establish and enforce one-child policies before right? *cough *cough China *cough It was a disaster. Human rights violations were rampant, enforcement was, of course, unequal, infanticide became a problem, etc. It never works because, get this, it's literally the purpose of life to reproduce. It's a fundamental urge that very, very few people can resist, and who would want to anyway? Birth, sex, children, love; that's all magical.

I suppose when you concern yourself with the impossibility of immortality, these problems seem pretty small in comparison, but you should remember that all of the things you listed are huge, huge issues. Lowering the birthrate, developing nuclear fusion, inventing cleaner, better, and more efficient ways of producing food, and technologies that could clean up our environment are all goals that many scientists predict we might never be able to fully reach. Don't get me wrong; I do think that these are all very possible, and seeing as we've beaten the odds as a species on more than one occasion, I'm sure we can make these things happen. However, your time limit of a few centuries is impractical. For example, scientists aren't ruling out the possibility of us humans might never be even able to harness the power of nuclear fusion, not on such a small scale, at least. The pressures and temperatures required for nuclear fusion to work are mind-boggling, and many engineers and physicists think that it would never be an affordable option. Many say that we're going to have to use the stars themselves as nuclear reactors, but at that point, we'd already have interstellar travel. Do you see my point? Even if we somehow managed to increase life spans tenfold or maybe even achieve immorality, we wouldn't have enough time and resources to manage the serious problem of overpopulation before things got out of hand.

Right, but keep in mind that what religious people are looking for is a metaphysical, spiritual life. They don't want to live here on Earth forever. According to an international poll conducted by Reader's Digest,

Most respondents to our latest global survey are just fine with their limited shelf life here on earth. Not even the younger crowd consistently chooses immortality. In fact, more than 50 percent of those 45 and under in seven countries (including the United States) report that they don't want to live forever. Brazilian youth buck the trend, with 74 percent preferring no expiration date. Two surprises: In the Philippines, everyone over 45 wants life everlasting; in China, not a single older survey-taker does.

Most people don't want to live on Earth in their mortal bodies forever. They may not want to stop existing altogether, but they certainly wouldn't want to have a heart beat for eternity.

@echostarlord117:

People are looking for a metaphysical, spiritual life because that's the only answer or solution they have regarding their fears and desires.

Most people don't want to live on Earth in their mortal bodies forever because the only solution they've known is religion, so the only answer you can expect them to give is that "Yeah, I'd want to go to a heaven and live there."

However, when a more feasible and realistic solution is introduced into the equation, you can expect people's thoughts and opinions change, especially once it becomes widespread and normal.

@mysticmedivh: That's pure conjecture. Most people I know, including myself, would say that they wouldn't want to live forever even if their loved ones could with them, and the people I know aren't religious. If you can take my word for it, I just asked a friend of mine if they would rather live in this universe with all of their friends and family for eternity with eternal health and they said no.

The reasoning they gave, actually, was quite interesting. The person claims that the human mind isn't equipped to deal with vast lengths of time like a millennia, for instance. They believe that eventually, we will forget our childhoods, where we were born, and if we manage to avoid lethal physical trauma for long enough, our own planet. It's a pretty depressing thought. The person I asked is also a tad bit spiritual (but by no means religious), and they said that the concept of dying fascinates them. They want to know for sure what lies on the other side, if there is another side. Regardless, from just asking a single person, I got the predictable answer: no.

@echostarlord117:

Personally, and I can't speak with experience, I'd want to live as long as I could.

With that said, at the very least, perhaps people would want to live 100 healthy years without aging. Perhaps they'd want to live 200, or 250, or 300 before they got tired and decided to go to some sort of medical center and put themselves down.

Let's say we achieve the technology. Who are we to deny someone to want to live longer than the lifespan? Who are we to deny someone to live as long as they wanted? Maybe they'd want to live for a very long time. Who knows.

The reasoning they gave, actually, was quite interesting. The person claims that the human mind isn't equipped to deal with vast lengths of time like a millennia, for instance. They believe that eventually, we will forget our childhoods, where we were born, and if we manage to avoid lethal physical trauma for long enough, our own planet. It's a pretty depressing thought.

While at this point in time it's science fiction, having our memories in the cloud or nanocomputers in our brain would be a hypothetical solution.

But I am not really talking about immortality here, I'm talking about aging, and ways to prevent it or reverse it. I see it well within the realm of possibility that we might develop rejuvenation therapies within this century which would then increase our expected life span by couple of decades, then within those additional decades we might improve the old therapies and develop the new ones, adding several more decades to our remaining life span. Basically adding more than 1 year of expected life span per a year. As long as science and technology keeps on improving, we'll be able to stay one, or sever steps ahead of the problem.

I find it baffling that people view few uncomfortable laws as worse than deaths of billions of people, usually preceded by decades of suffering, which is what aging will do to us before the end of this century, unless we do something about it.

I have talked to about a thousand people about his subject, and for most of them the first concern they had was overpopulation. This shows me that people are aware that as long as they are not aging, they probably won't be able to reproduce as often as they would like, unless we make bigger improvements in space flight and colonization, creation of clean energy and overall decreasing the carbon foot print on our planet.

You do realize governments have tried to establish and enforce one-child policies before right? *cough *cough China *cough It was a disaster. Human rights violations were rampant, enforcement was, of course, unequal, infanticide became a problem, etc. It never works because, get this, it's literally the purpose of life to reproduce. It's a fundamental urge that very, very few people can resist, and who would want to anyway? Birth, sex, children, love; that's all magical.

China's One Child policy was effective in stabilizing China's population at 1.3 billion. Still, I have yet to hear a single problem which will come about as the side effect of curing aging, which is worse that deaths of billions of people, usually preceded by decades of suffering.

Also you seem to be able to notice only negative side effects. People will be motivated to start caring about our carbon footprint and development of space technologies, once this starts effecting them directly. They will start voting for politicians who will want to invest in clean energies and colonization of space, because consequently that will also mean that we will be able to have more children.

Then again, once we remove aging out of the picture, I'm assuming big percentage of people will choose not to have kids during the first hundred or 2 hundred years. It's possible that people will choose by themselves to have fewer children, as the life spans and life standard increases, which is a trend we are seeing all over the developed world.

Also, I see no reason why people couldn't have a choice between using anti-aging technologies and not be able to reproduce as often as they would like, or not using anti-aging technologies and remain free to reproduce as often as they would like.

Even if we fail to solve some of these problems, the consequences still won't be as dire as what will happen to us if we fail to solve the problem of aging.

If we solve the problem of aging, even the worst case scenario, which we will almost certainly be able to avoid, will be only as bad as the best case scenario in case we do noting about aging.

Nuclear fusion is just one suggestion for a clean energy, there are plenty other way to go about this if that one path fails. As long as people understand that without aging the overpopulation will become a problem if we keep reproducing and/or living as we have so far, we'll be motivated to elect politicians who are willing to invest resources to develop clean technologies, space technologies and reduce the birth rates. And overwhelmingly people are aware of this.

Article and podcast about the development of anti-aging therapies.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2016/nov/29/big-unknowns-can-we-stop-ageing-science-weekly-podcast

@mortein:

Chances are that by the time common people do happen to acquire such technology and treatment, they'll most likely have high standards of living. I don't mean rich or wealthy by high standards of living.

What I'm saying is that places like Germany and Canada have very low birth rates as they live longer, are more educated, have better healthcare, and so on.

The person who gets this would also be the type of person who would have a background such that they would've had very few or no children whether this technology existed or not.

And once it is created and given to such people, since there's no rush, I'd imagine they'd really take their time and not have children for quite a while.

That is possible, maybe even probable.

I feel I might not have properly illustrated the connection between Peter Thiel and anti-aging technologies, and the potential that he, as Trumps main guy for technology might influence the future government to invest into this field. So I'll present to you what he wrote in his book "Zero to one".

In this book, after loathing how static and inefficient the government has become, he went on to glorify the big projects a government was able to accomplish in the past, like Manhattan project, and several others.

And then he wrote the following chapter:

-Thiel P., Zero to One, 2014

Peter Thiel: the billionaire tech entrepreneur on a mission to cheat death

In other news

Google’s Calico hires computing chief to add machine learning

We are on the cusp of the first rejuvenation biotechnology therapies arriving.

https://www.lifespan.io/…/cellage-targeting-senescent-cell…/

I'm not suggesting this therapy alone will add 25 years to the human life span, but it's likely it will have a visible effect on our life span and health-span, and it might be just several years away.

Additionally drugs which boost NAD levels have also shown to increase the life span and health-span of mice, and could also be available soon.

Why would anyone want to live forever?

• Instead of dying from old age you'd be waiting around to die from disease or injury.
• The world would become unsustainably overpopulated in a couple hundred years (or less) unless we all agree to stop reproducing when this breakthrough happens... fat chance.
• You'd never get to find out what happens in the afterlife.
• It'd be boring. Eventually nothing will give you that "once/first in a lifetime experience" feeling.

Imo they should be using that wasted research money to ensure a peaceful, natural death by finding cures for age-related health problems.

I don't know if I want to live forever. I can't even comprehend infinity. I don't even know if I want to live to a 100, but I do know I want to have the option to live to a 100 once I'm 99, rather than to have that choice progressively removed from me by my declining health.

While this statement is likely true, it's also completely irrelevant. If we were in a burning house, you wouldn't say "Why should we get out? We're gonna die from something else later anyways." For most of us, right now aging is the biggest threat to our existence and to our health.

I have yet to meet a person who is not aware or is not capable to understand that if we "cure" aging, we won't be able to reproduce as often as we have been, unless we make bigger improvements in space flight and colonization, creation of clean energy and overall decreasing the carbon foot print on our planet. So if everyone is able to understand this, who is going to oppose the necessary actions?

Again, we are not talking about the immortality here. But even if we were able to remove all the unwanted death from the world, you'd still be able to end your life, if that option is preferable to you.

The universe might be infinite, which means we might be able to avoid the boredom indefinitely. But even if we were able to remove all the unwanted death from the world, you'd still be able to end your life, if that option is preferable to you.

Age-related health problems ARE aging. "Curing" aging is about keeping people healthy, and longevity is just a side-effect. If you are healthy that essentially means all of your organs are functioning optimally, and if all of your organs are functioning optimally chances are you are not going to die.

What you are saying is that you are all for the development of treatments for the ill health of old age, as long as those treatments don't work very well. Who exactly wants to waste research money here?

1. The only way I'd even consider supporting this is if it became legal to decide you're ready to die and opt for euthanasia. No way this would be a good thing if we were forced to live for thousands of years against our will.
2. Very poor comparison. Of course no one wants to burn/bleed/drown/starve/etc to death. Dying from old age (peacefully) is a completely different thing.
3. Good luck telling the world to stop having sex and expecting them to listen.
4. Same response to this as point 1. Many people consider euthanasia to be murder and/or suicide, so that attitude would have to seriously change.
5. You're predicting a future where everyone can explore the universe as they please? That would be cool but it's much too soon to be saying that with certainty.
6. No, they are not the same thing. I meant we should focus on what's actually feasible and make sure people age naturally while retaining all of their mental health and most of their physical health. This can be done without making people semiimmortal.

I would also like to have the option to die. There's no law forbidding you to kill yourself.

It is excellent comparison. Some people die relatively peacefully in the burning building, smoke inhalation is the most common cause of death in house fires. And some people die relatively peacefully from aging, but majority of us will die only after more than a decade of suffering, discrepancy, pain, dependency, loss of dignity, gradually decreasing mental capabilities, and overall misery.

Having sex and reproducing are two different things.

Overpopulation was mention 20-30 times in this thread alone.

Who is going to oppose the laws which will temporary limit our reproductive rights, if everyone is so paranoid about the overpopulation?

If it so happens that people keep on reproducing at the same rate even though they can live indefinitely long, and if we fail to increase the carrying capacity of the Earth, will you be the one opposing the temporary law which would state that you have to chose between having more than 1 child and using anti-aging therapies?

Keep in mind that once you can live for 1000+ years, waiting for a 100 years to have your second child will not be such a big deal.

Sure, many attitudes will have to be changed, and adjusted to our new reality.

I'm not saying it with certainty, but it is one of the highly probable possibilities, and we will be especially motivated to built this future if we solve the problem of aging first.

But if after thousands of years of youthful life you get so bored you start believing death is preferable to life, you'll be able to kill yourself, and then you'll die. This is the worst case scenario regarding boredom, that you'll get too bored after having lived for thousands of years, and that you will then end your life in some cool way, like jumping out of plane into a volcano. How is this still not better than living for less than 100 years, almost half of which in a poor health?

When I talk about aging, I'm referring to the lifelong accumulation of various types of molecular and cellular damage, which body does to itself as a side-effect of it normal operation. Eventually that damage accumulates beyond the point our body can tolerate and this results in various diseases and disabilities of old age.

I'm not sure which point do you disagree with?

-Healthy organs are those which function optimally

-If all of your organs function optimally it means you are healthy.

-If you are healthy it's likely you're not going to suddenly die for no reason.

When you say most of their physical health, which parts of their body do you think we should skip?

1. The key here is euthanasia. You're talking nonsense if you think it's fair to say the options are to live thousands of years or kill yourself in the standard gruesome ways like hanging or with a gun.
2. First of all it may have been mentioned 20-30 times but I didn't read 6 pages of this. I just came to share my own thoughts on why near-immortality is a terrible idea. Second, sex and reproduction are not really different things. To ensure sex doesn't lead to reproduction the government would have to do something crazy like forced sterilization or forced abortions. If that was the case how would they decide who can and can't reproduce? Obviously 100% can't be sterilized or we'd eventually go extinct. Also, what are you talking about waiting 100 years to have a second child??? Did anyone ever teach you how womens' bodies work? Stopping aging wouldn't mean they are born with more eggs or have less frequent periods. Yes eggs can be frozen, but there isn't any amount of proof that they'd still be good after hundreds of years.
3. Elimination of mental decline and physical conditions. You act like every death is caused by some sort of illness. There is such a thing as just getting old and dying in your sleep without having anything wrong with you. That's the way it should be.

When can I become a cyborg a la Metal Gear?

How is an instant death head-shot more gruesome than slowly falling apart for decades, developing diseases, becoming disabled, forgetful, dependent on others? Besides, I agree with you that people should be allowed to get euthanized especially if their life permanently becomes unbearable. There are plenty of western countries where euthanasia is not illegal.

I wasn't reproaching you for not reading all the 6 pages of this thread, I was simply trying to show you that virtually everyone understands that in post-aging world we won't be able to reproduce at the same rate as we do now, unless we increase the carrying capacity of the Earth, or colonize the space. This means there will be no one to oppose the temporary laws which would limit our reproductive rights, in case we, the people, fail to reduce our reproductive rate on our own.

Yeah, they are identical sarcasm, except for the fact that you can have sex without reproducing, and you can reproduce without having sex. Today vast majority of sex is not performed for the reproductive purposes, and in the future it's likely that majority of reproduction will be performed without having sex.

What kind of laws will be created will likely vary from place to place. In the EU, where I live it's likely we won't need any kind of laws, as our birth rates are falling, and this trend is likely to accelerate dramatically in the post-aging world.

Some countries might implement 1 child policies, so that people with more than 1 child will have to pay higher taxes, money from which might go into fonds indented for funding the projects which would increase the carrying capacity of the Earth.

If the situation becomes really drastic, then it's possible some countries will forcefully serialize those people who make more than 1 child, despite using anti-aging therapies.

I don't know what exactly will happen, these are the problems we'll have to deal with in the future. But what I can tell with certainty is that these problems won't be as horrible as billions of people suffering and dying before the end of this century, which is what will happen to us if we fail to do something about aging.

The whole point of this is elimination of mental and physical decline, longevity is just a side-effect, a really good side effect, but still just a side-effect. The thing is that people likely won't die unless their body is damaged in some way, on a macroscopic, cellular or molecular level.

There is no such a thing as dying in your sleep without having anything wrong with you.

But if you disagree with this last point that's fine. Just support this research because if it becomes successful, we'll be able to keep people healthy regardless of how long ago they were born, and if one day, at the age of 80-110 they just start dying despite their perfect physical and mental health , I'll admit you were right, and congratulate you on your insightfulness.

I would like it if could watch this video, it explains a lot about my position on this subject.

David Andrew Sinclair is an Australian biologist and Professor of Genetics best known for his research on the biology of lifespan extension and driving research towards treating diseases of aging.

.

It seems like Thiel will be able to put his man to be the head of the FDA.

"President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is considering a Silicon Valley investor close to billionaire Peter Thiel to head the Food and Drug Administration, according to people familiar with the matter.Jim O’Neill, the Thiel associate, hasn’t been officially selected, according to the people, who asked to remain anonymous because the decision process is private, and the Trump team could still go in another direction. Jim O’Neill advocated anti-aging medicine, saying he believed it was scientifically possible to develop treatments that would reverse aging, though the drug industry’s approach to the idea was “long overdue for innovation.”"

I don't really know who Jim O’Neill is, so I searched him on you tube and this video pooped out.

The article about Google Calico and development of anti-aging therapies.

Why does a mole rat live 30 years but a mouse only three? With $1.5 billion in the bank, Google’s anti-aging spinout Calico is rich enough to find out.

I hope someone does find a way to extend our lifetimes.

Right now the most exciting thing that's going on is connection Peter Thiel has with Trump.

It has never been more likely that the US government might start investing serious resources into this.

@mysticmedivh said:

@mortein:

Have you heard about that Russian billionaire who's taking immortality from a mechanical/robotics point of view?

He's trying to transfer brains into robots, and then plans on uploading consciousness, and then creating holograms.

I prefer retaining my biological form. I'm not all too keen on holograms, mind uploads, and robot bodies.

This honestly, would be my preferred direction for a nigh immortal solution. Because, it helps take away the reproduction process which in turn takes away over population. Though it does take away the pleasure of having sex if sex would even be possible. Among the 4 options "Avatar D" seems like it would be the least desired choice. most people I would think(myself included) would want to touch feel and move things around. Which is something that cannot be done with Holograms. Though as a Hologram those that chose the option would have a much deeper connection to our technology.

Some interesting research just came out.

Cellular reprogramming slows aging in mice

Summary:

"Scientists have rolled back time for live mice through systemic cellular reprogramming, according to a new study. In mice carrying a mutation leading to premature aging, reprogramming of chemical marks in the genome, known as epigenetic marks, reduced many signs of aging in the mice and extended their lifespan on average from 18 weeks to 24."

-

Media coverage:

Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible

Ageing process may be reversible, scientists claim

Aging Is Reversible—at Least in Human Cells and Live Mice

This could be big.

If overpopulation wasn't a problem it soon will be.

(Looking back I am aware this has already been addressed)

'Pregnancy fluid' reverses ageing bones

Pregnancy fluids

Pregnancy fluids

Peter Thiel said to be playing key role in filling health, science posts under Trump

https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/20/peter-thiel-donald-trump-science/

Thiel was very focused in particular on the FDA, NIH, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. He has tapped Jim O’Neill, a libertarian member of his investment staff, as a possible candidate to be the FDA commissioner.

Entrepreneur Peter Thiel is helping President-elect Trump vet individuals to run the FDA, National Institutes of Health and other medical science related institutions. link

Is Putin trying to unlock the secret to eternal life? Vlad tours anti-ageing pill factory working on formula that could see people living for 130 YEARS

Unnecessarily sensationalist title of the article.

Nicotinamide mononucleotide, which has been proven to extend the life expectancy and reverse signs of aging in mice, including decline in eyesight, metabolism, and glucose intolerance, is set to be tested in ten human volunteers in Japan next month.

I've been saying this for well over a month now, and it seems I'm no longer the only one who can see it.

Your tax dollars could be tapped to make billionaire Peter Thiel immortal

The article is written in a negative way since Thiel seems to be recognized as the enemy number 1 in the liberal media.

As someone who's well versed in futurology myself, it's funny to go back and read comments from 2014/2015 saying it'd be centuries before we colonize Mars. That's the linearity of the human brain for you, it takes current technological potential and development and extends it into the future. Biological Brains just can't handle exponential doublings very well. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just how it evolved. Time and time again this is the case.

I'm hoping Musk can get us to start colonizing Mars in the 2020s, with the current gains in accelerated returns, it's looking like that will be the case. With Artificial General Intelligence on the horizon, it/he/she should be able to solve any problems that humans face today. It will be more intelligent than the entire Human race combined. To put into into a retrospective for you fellow comic/manga fans, it'll make Brainiac look like nothing.

Indefinite Life Extension or Biological Immortality is nice, but it doesn't make you immortal. The real deal is nanotechnogical mind uploading, via a gradual method. Of the sort that Drexler proposed. Along with a mix of Quantum Archaeology(It's actually proven btw, but that's a whole other discussion). The dead will come back. We just have to get QA working on a macro scale. As of now, we've only brought back molecular structures.

At any rate, you'll be more conscious, more alive, and more "Human" than a Human ever was after you ditch the primate/monkey suit. AGI will more than solve this problem, probably during the 2020 or early 2030s.

Anyways, carry on...

Michio Kaku touched on this subject in his recent interview.

.

.

Critics Blast Star-Studded Advisory Board of Anti-Aging Company

The Obsession With 'Curing' Aging Is Now Big Business

And article from the entrepreneur.com about Peter Thiel, Bill Maris, Arthur Levinson, Davel Gobel, Craig Venter and Martine Rothblatt.

I like to listen to this guy, but I just can't take him seriously. lol