Lindaland
  Oranges And Hyacinths
  Immortality Institute (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Immortality Institute
zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 01:12 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
FAQ

Ok, first off, what is the Immortality Institute?

The Immortality Institute is a non-profit organization with the goal of defeating the disease we call aging. Our official mission is "to conquer the blight of involuntary death." We think that this has the possibility of being accomplished through a variety of means, some more radical than others.

We try to further the goal of defeating aging through a variety of means, including debate and discussion (in our forums (http://www.imminst.org/forum/)) among scientists and researchers in the various anti-aging related fields, the production of various informational materials (films, books, etc.), the hosting of conferences dedicated solely to various aspects about the war on aging, funding of research related to curing aging, and many other ways that we think will provide the most benefit to curing aging as quickly as possible.


Why would you want to live forever?

"Forever" is a long time, and we're not suggesting that. Most people who enjoy life can't get enough of it. Even most of those who claim they don't want to live longer than "natural" will go to the ends of the earth to cure themselves of cancer, heart disease and injuries when they get stricken. Modern drugs, surgical techniques and diagnostic tools are life extension technologies that few refuse.


Is death inevitable?

Death, as a whole, can never be totally eliminated. There will always be car crashes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and other things that we do not have control over. However, it is possible to slow down, stop, and eventually reverse the aging process. This is contrary to how most of us were taught growing up, so it comes as a surprise to some people that there will be treatments available in the foreseeable future to stop and reverse the aging process.


Why would I want to live a long time as an old/frail person?

Also you may be asking: Won't there be a lot of old/frail people hanging around if this works? The answer is that that there is a difference between "old" and "frail". If I showed you someone that by all outward appearances appeared to be 30 years old, would you tell me that they were "old"? What if I then told you that the person you were looking at was actually 120 years old? "Old" is a relative term to the observer (when you were 6 or 7 years, did you not think being 21 was "old"?). In the near future when people are living longer and longer life spans, what will "old" be? Almost all of the research currently going on is meant to increase healthy lifespans. "Frail" people (those who are sickly, at the end of their life today) can never have their lifespans dramatically extended because they are much more susceptible to things such as accidents or disease. If it is easier to think about, think of it as extending the "middle" part of your life.

We generally acquire more experience, knowledge, wisdom and skills as we age. Rather than putting people "out to pasture" or in nursing homes, wouldn't society be better off if we kept people youthful and productive? 32% of our country's medical expenses are spent on the elderly (over age 69). Annual health care costs for people over 65 years of age are 400% of those 65 years of age and younger. What if we could eliminate not only the suffering associated with old age, but the expense to society as well?


Won't life get boring if I live for a long time?

It depends, does life bore you now? If life bores you now, then chances might be good that it will continue to bore you, but living a long time should not affect that. Many people have commented that given all they know about today, there is enough to keep them busy for 10 lifetimes (of current time spans). Think of all the wonderful things that you have yet to experience in today's world. Can you honestly say that you have traveled everywhere, tried everything, and experienced life as much as you would want, just given today's state of affairs? Wouldn't you like to stick around to see a society of unlimited resources, energy, health and wealth? Think of anything and everything that you have ever wanted to do. Now, take into account anything and everything you will think of to do in the next 10, 100, 1000 years. Over a long enough time period, anything is possible. Imagine the possibility of private space travel, undersea exploration, few survival pressures, and anything else you can imagine. Society has been progressing faster and faster (think all the accomplishments in just the last 100 years), why is there any reason to believe that you will get bored if you live a long time? The answer is, there is no reason.


Ok, but wait a minute. Who says stopping the aging process is possible?

Most molecular and cell biologists feel that once we have a good understanding of the majority of our genes and the proteins they produce, controlling the aging process is inevitable. The human body is a wonderfully complex machine. Deciphering the aging process is simply a matter of figuring out how that machine works. There is a lot of research going on at this very moment by a lot of very smart scientists into the processes of aging, and how to "cure" aging (we here at the Immortality Institute view aging as a disease, and therefore are constantly talking about "curing" aging).


So, bottom line, Can aging be cured?

The answer is a resounding YES! Aging, as we view it today, is a matter of a lot of different things going wrong. Some people have these things go wrong faster, and live shorter lives, whereas some people have these things go wrong more slowly, and live longer lives. There is a lot of research going on at this very moment that will someday lead to "curing" aging.


You seem to be beating around the bush. What, specifically, does it take to cure aging?

Well, I was trying to keep the technical (and possibly more complicated) aspects to a minimum since this is meant to be an "overview" FAQ, but since you asked here it goes.

There are seven things that lead to aging, period. It may come as a surprise to some people that there aren't more, or that I didn't say something more complicated, but there really are only seven things. (I promise!) There is research going on into every one of the seven things right now (some more than others), and once those seven things are "fixed", aging will stop. I know you are saying at this point, what are the seven things? Well they are (in no particular order):

1) Loss and atrophy or degeneration of cells.
2) Accumulation of cells that are not wanted.
3) Mutations in chromosomes.
4) Mutations in mitochondria.
5) The accumulation of “junk” within the cell.
6) The accumulation of “junk” outside the cell.
7) Cross-links in proteins outside the cell.

If we can fix all seven of these things, then that's it!, we are done curing physical aging! Now, to be fair, each of these seven things is very complex in and of themselves. Some are closer than others to being fixed, but there is research going on into each of them right now.


Wow, this is really exciting! When do you guys expect aging to be cured?

This is a very tough question to answer accurately, but we can make a few educated guesses based on past progress and the way research is progressing. Some very optimistic estimates put the time frame for stopping aging at about 10 years, and begin reversing aging in about 20 years. This is the optimistic viewpoint, and some more conservative scientists set their sights on a 20-40 year time frame, while some others see it taking even longer. So much depends on the amount of funding for different types of research, and how it is utilized. Most scientists agree that it will be done in stages, first slowing aging, then stopping it... then reversing it! Also, extending the average life span before extending the maximum life span is seen as something that is easier. The main thing to remember is that, for most people reading this, it could happen in your lifetime! ( you can help speed up the process)


How much will it cost to control human aging?

Like setting a time frame for curing aging, this is another point at which the best we can do is estimate. Some people set the figure as low as $100 to $300 million, which is less than it takes to develop and bring a new drug to market. Others think it will take $100 billion or more, so as you can see there are a wide spectrum of estimates. Some of the most respected experts in the field put the figure at around $1 billion, but there is likely no way to know for sure.

Interestingly enough, there have been various official and unofficial proposals over the years espousing the benefits for society of extended lifespans to policy makers, in the hopes of increasing public funding for initiatives aimed at increasing lifespans. (one example being an article (http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/28/1/) in the March 2006 issue of The Scientist magazine. Free text only version of article. (http://www.grg.org/resources/TheScientist.htm) Which was followed up with an "official" proposal to congressmen in the United States by several top scientists in the world.) Contacting your elected officials and telling them that funding anti-aging related research is something that interests you is one way to get the ball rolling on funding this type of research with public finances.


What about overpopulation?

Now that I have convinced you that aging is going to be dramatically slowed, and eventually stopped and reversed, you are probably wondering (as most people do), What about overpopulation? Well, let me put your mind at ease by saying this: Overpopulation is not a problem! I will try to give an overview of just a few reasons why this is the case (bear with me, I will try not to get too technical)

First off, if aging is not slowed down dramatically in the next few years, not only will overpopulation not be a problem, the reverse (shrinking population) will likely be true! World population growth rates have been steadily declining since the year 1960 (see this chart (http://www.maxlife.org/images/growthrates.jpg)), and are expected to stabilize (read: equal 0%) around the year 2050, and some estimates show it actually begin falling into the negatives at that point. Basically, throughout history the more technologically advanced a society has become, the lower their population growth. This is due to a wide variety of reasons (birth control, people deciding to wait later in life to have kids, more people deciding not to have kids, people having less kids when they do decide to have kids, etc.), but suffice it to say that population growth is declining (in fact, almost every developed country, including the United States, would right now have a declining population if it were not for immigration).

Secondly, technology will provide for supporting increasing levels of population. Simply put, as technology extends lives, it makes life more livable for larger populations of people. Since the Industrial Revolution, alarmists have screamed doom and gloom about overcrowding and limited resources (backed by misinterpreted "statistics"). However, the opposite has happened. The population increased by 750% since then, and standards of living soared (would you want to live hundreds of years ago before sanitation, modern conveniences, etc.?). It's not so much a question of resources as education, individual productivity and distribution - social engineering problems, not life extension problems. As long as people produce more than they consume, it's impossible to run out of resources. Even if we stayed where we are right now, with no technological improvements whatsoever, we could support at least 6 billion more people than are on the planet right now! Technology is increasing at a rate faster than population is increasing. It is estimated that we increase the amount of people that we can support at a rate of 20-40% faster than population actually increases.

Third, it is a question of morality. I do not think many people today would advocate mass genocide to reduce populations, do you? Then why do we support approximately 100,000 people dying of the disease of aging daily? Let me pose a hypothetical situation to you (credit to Aubrey de Grey, Ph.D. for coming up with this scenario): Put yourself in the position of someone powerful, for instance the prime minister of France, in, say, 1870 or so, when Pasteur was going around saying that hygiene could almost entirely prevent infant deaths from infections and death in childbirth. In your position, you have some influence over how quickly this knowledge gets out, and thus how quickly lives start being saved. But, you realize that the sooner people start adhering to these principles and washing their hands and so on, the sooner the population will start exploding on account of all those children not dying. What would you have done? 1) Got the information out as soon as possible, or 2) Held it back as best you could in order to delay the population crisis? I have yet to meet anyone who says they would have done the latter. With curing aging, there is no difference. None.

This explanation at this point has probably been long winded enough for a brief overview, but it is simply just scratching the surface. I hope you are convinced now, however, that overpopulation is not a problem.

Won't there be a net cost (or loss) to society of keeping these old people around?
No! In fact, there will be a net benefit to society from keeping people around longer. Think of all the wisdom that is lost every day from people that are dying. What if some of the great scientific minds of our era had another 20, 40, 100 years or more to explore possibilities and benefit society with their accumulated knowledge? The increased health and longevity that we are proposing is not to be confused with drawing out "end of life" frailty and suffering. As stated earlier in this FAQ, we want to increase "healthy" lifespans, which would have tremendous positive returns for society.

So, we would have to spend less on all of the "individual" diseases caused from aging (cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc.) since slowing down or stopping aging would slow down or stop the "individual" aging diseases. Also, it has been shown time and time again by many studies (by the International Longevity Association, and various universities) that the extension of healthy life creates wealth for individuals and the nations in which they reside. Another thing is that health care costs that burden society the most normally come at the end of life, and if these end of life burdens were eased or eliminated, society would greatly benefit.

There are a myriad of societal benefits (in addition to the moral ones) for working towards life extension.


What can I do NOW to increase my lifespan?

There are a number of things you can do to increase your healthy lifespan right now. These things are nothing compared to what we will be able to do when the available research and technology progress further, but they are the best we can do now, and may make it possible for you to make it to the time when more advanced therapies are available to keep you young. Some things you can do to increase your lifespan can be thought of as "stuff mom always said to do". This includes eating right, getting plenty of rest and exercise, and generally just living a healthy lifestyle. Beyond these things, another step people have taken is adding supplements to their diet. Still more extreme routes people have taken are hormone supplementation and taking selected drugs that may have "anti-aging" properties. I would direct you to look at the website of the Life Extension Foundation (http://www.lef.org/), which is one of the most comprehensive sources on current health and longevity issues in the world. Also, a more simplistic view might be Maximum Life Extension Foundation's document SALADS™ - Owner's Manual For The Human Body (http://www.maxlife.org/ownersmanual.pdf)(.pdf document).

more at http://www.imminst.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

***zanya was formerly known here as naiad.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 01:14 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
this i thought well worth repeating ~

What about overpopulation?

Now that I have convinced you that aging is going to be dramatically slowed, and eventually stopped and reversed, you are probably wondering (as most people do), What about overpopulation? Well, let me put your mind at ease by saying this: Overpopulation is not a problem! I will try to give an overview of just a few reasons why this is the case (bear with me, I will try not to get too technical)

First off, if aging is not slowed down dramatically in the next few years, not only will overpopulation not be a problem, the reverse (shrinking population) will likely be true! World population growth rates have been steadily declining since the year 1960 (see this chart (http://www.maxlife.org/images/growthrates.jpg)), and are expected to stabilize (read: equal 0%) around the year 2050, and some estimates show it actually begin falling into the negatives at that point. Basically, throughout history the more technologically advanced a society has become, the lower their population growth. This is due to a wide variety of reasons (birth control, people deciding to wait later in life to have kids, more people deciding not to have kids, people having less kids when they do decide to have kids, etc.), but suffice it to say that population growth is declining (in fact, almost every developed country, including the United States, would right now have a declining population if it were not for immigration).

Secondly, technology will provide for supporting increasing levels of population. Simply put, as technology extends lives, it makes life more livable for larger populations of people. Since the Industrial Revolution, alarmists have screamed doom and gloom about overcrowding and limited resources (backed by misinterpreted "statistics"). However, the opposite has happened. The population increased by 750% since then, and standards of living soared (would you want to live hundreds of years ago before sanitation, modern conveniences, etc.?). It's not so much a question of resources as education, individual productivity and distribution - social engineering problems, not life extension problems. As long as people produce more than they consume, it's impossible to run out of resources. Even if we stayed where we are right now, with no technological improvements whatsoever, we could support at least 6 billion more people than are on the planet right now! Technology is increasing at a rate faster than population is increasing. It is estimated that we increase the amount of people that we can support at a rate of 20-40% faster than population actually increases.

Third, it is a question of morality. I do not think many people today would advocate mass genocide to reduce populations, do you? Then why do we support approximately 100,000 people dying of the disease of aging daily? Let me pose a hypothetical situation to you (credit to Aubrey de Grey, Ph.D. for coming up with this scenario): Put yourself in the position of someone powerful, for instance the prime minister of France, in, say, 1870 or so, when Pasteur was going around saying that hygiene could almost entirely prevent infant deaths from infections and death in childbirth. In your position, you have some influence over how quickly this knowledge gets out, and thus how quickly lives start being saved. But, you realize that the sooner people start adhering to these principles and washing their hands and so on, the sooner the population will start exploding on account of all those children not dying. What would you have done? 1) Got the information out as soon as possible, or 2) Held it back as best you could in order to delay the population crisis? I have yet to meet anyone who says they would have done the latter. With curing aging, there is no difference. None.

This explanation at this point has probably been long winded enough for a brief overview, but it is simply just scratching the surface. I hope you are convinced now, however, that overpopulation is not a problem.

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 01:01 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 01:58 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
very interesting.

i would like to point out the obvious however ~

quote:
suffice it to say that population growth is declining (in fact, almost every developed country, including the United States, would right now have a declining population if it were not for immigration).

it is the question of 'immigration', of those "others" that keeps the over-population theory popular. it becomes the twisted reasoning for the "compassionate" theory of population-reduction...to alleviate the suffering of the "others", usually third world others, because of the disinformation regarding limited resources. actually, those who control the resources control the world. esp, the enormous resources of third world regions. usa was once a third world region, overflowing with resources, populated with indigenous people.

combined with this, is a very real race issue. in controlling resources, so are ethnic groups controlled, and even eliminated.

so the above quote is very relevant in relation to the beloved over-population fear spreading theorists. it's a thinly veiled attempt to keep fewer of the 'immigrants' from sharing the bounty of the planet, based upon racial and ethnic beliefs.

it's also a popular platform of politicians...the closing and containment of borders, for these purposes. it's due to race issues and beliefs, as is the over-population fallacy.

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 02:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 02:45 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
sorry it's confusing.

after reading your response on the population piece, i considered more fully the quote in the article...about the nature of immigrating people, and the perceived threat of such.

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 02:47 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 03:12 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i recall seeing a clip of the sex pistols on a television show in the late seventies....safety pins in their mouths and all that. a shocker at the time, esp to the rest the family watching as well.

brings to mind the tragico-romance film Sid and Nancy.

punk is essentially anarchic. can't have that disrupting society, now can we?

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 03:16 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i didn't see the additional parts of your post until after i had posted the above response.

interesting how much human behavior resembles the hive behavior of bees isn't it?

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 03:29 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 03:41 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
and the neo-punk movement alive today carries the same underlying social movement aspects beyond into the world of continuing social change ~ advocating veganism and non-cruelty in the same socio-politico punk-art context as those before.

once i read an essay, author -- Umberto Eco, that was a very convincing treatise about how our society is still very much a feudal society, in the historical sense of the word. my thoughts are that we still are very much a tribal society...living and thinking in tribe-like fashion.

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 04:05 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 03, 2007 04:48 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the Eco essay i found in a book featuring a collection of his essays. i'll have to find the title of the book.

funny how the original punks simply stabbed safety pins through the skin as a social statement....the legacy today is all the facial and body piercings done in a very established, antiseptic atmosphere...a booming industry, all in keeping with a very healthy consumerist economy.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 05, 2007 01:40 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
funny how this website isn't a very sympathetic place for the ideas of LG these days, esp ones such as posted in this forum.

interesting.

and, since i've posted here recently, my neighbors have all engaged in all night noise campaigns (apts beside, behind and below us)....our water has been turned off today (no cooking, no bathing, no housecleaning, no bathroom)...my rent has been stolen, and it's my responsibility to file for the refund....etc...

all within the time i've been posting in the last few days.

interesting phenomenom.

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 08, 2007 11:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 08, 2007 01:19 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i think there are those who bent the safety pins back, as well as those who actually pierced the skin. i think the ideas was to exhibit body parts that were pierced with something, whether they actually were or not, as a significator of social discontent.

thanks for your sympathy. i didn't mean to imply that it was specifically members of this board who stole my rent and turned off my water. just a phenomenon, in a vague sense of the word.

i suppose that anti-Linda Goodman sentiment is to be found at a place commemorating her. but it isn't a problem really, just an observation.

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 08, 2007 11:26 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 08, 2007 11:55 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
scratching my head. i have the same questions. would that i were capable of answering them.

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 09, 2007 12:17 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 09, 2007 12:38 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
lol, well, really, my sole purpose here is simply to catch the eye of the elusive maklhouf. i think. but he's a sophisticated european and i'm a texas hillbilly. so i suppose i traipse about here in search of some strains of banjo or bluegrass, and hope that i might accidentally learn something in my wanderings.

and you?

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 09, 2007 12:53 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 09, 2007 01:38 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
well, you can go to my myspace page if you want and i'll add you as a friend.

i should find the carnegie book and the secret movie also, but probably won't.

(i doubt that anyone other than myself has never seen the secret. )

IP: Logged

artlovesdawn
unregistered
posted November 09, 2007 09:52 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 09, 2007 10:03 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
haha...i'm frequently much more facetious than is appropriate. my views are highly unpopular here, but c'est la vie. it's not my intention to be contentious.

IP: Logged

zanya
unregistered
posted November 09, 2007 10:05 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
how did you find my page?

IP: Logged


This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a