Re: Long term genome (was Re:Is crypreservation a solution?)

Henri Kluytmans (
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:05:00 +0000

>> There are much less complex (however still not simple) ways to create
>> physical immortality without requiring any genetic alterations (to
>> the original code).
>> Just restore all the cells back to their original situation at the age
>> of 25 years (assumed they already have passed the age of 25 years).
>Less would be best, it's better 19 years or the high of sexual
>performance (for men, for women I would have to think about it). BTW,
>I'm 19, see the smile in my face?
OK, whatever age you prefer.

However the body is required to have stopped growing. Otherwise
you will also have to alter tissue structures (i.e. you will have to
add (and/or remove) cells). This makes everything even more

The question if you're a full-grown human (for every body-part) I'll
leave for you to decide. :->

> How to do this : use cell-repair-machines as described by the molecular
> nanotechnology concept. These machines should be able to repair all
> possible molecular damage created by aging (or diseases), by deducting
> the original structure from the damaged structure left.
> Damaged DNA can be repaired by comparing the DNA of several different
> neighboring cells. Crossbonds can be repaired if detected.
> Damaged proteins can be repaired because the cell repair machines
> will have the programmed knowledge to detect damaged proteins
> and to restore the original proteins. Etc.

>Okay, here's my problem: if you don't change the DNA, after 19/20 years
>(assuming the repair process to be perfect) you would have to do all the
>same thing again.
Indeed, naturally this was a simplified visualization. In reality
the repair of the cells will continue for ever, and you won't
age at all.

>Wouldn't it be easier to change the DNA errors?
DNA errors? I thought your claim was "For extending the human life
it is required to rewrite the DNA." ?
i.e. not just correcting the errors, but designing a completely
new DNA.

>It's also not going to be cheap but at least it lasts more than
>nanotechnology repair.
As I said before, in reality the repair process will continue for ever.
Just like the (much less perfect) biological repair processes that go on
in our cells.

>Overall, I think that we don't know if any of these processes will be
>possible at accessible prices.
One of the basic principles of Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) is (self)
reproduction (just like in biology). Therefore the costs for MNT
(like cell-repair-machines) will be very cheap.

>gene therapy is here, I know genetic engineering is here, I know the
>Human Genome project will be completed in the near future
Ok, we have read out all genes, but that doesn't mean that we understand
the program that is written in the genes. I can print out the bits (or
bytes) of a computer program. Everybody can read the ones and zero's,
copy them. But do they understand what they are reading, do they
what the program will do? NO!!!

Before we can start rewriting the humane genome to render an immortal
being we will have to understand completely how the program of the genes
is working. The fact that the programming in the genes is a kind of
feedback system makes it even more complicated. I personally think it's
likely that this will take even longer than creating MNT.

Furthermore you will have to design new molecular machines (i.e.
enzymes) to make the cells repair themselves perfectly. And program the
instructions for making these machines in the DNA!

Actually we're both presenting the same method to reach immortality.
We're both assuming the cell will have to be repaired continuously.
Only you're counting on designing new biological machines
to do the repairing, using the programming language of the DNA.
While I'm counting on designing completely new artificial machines
(which are much more capable and also easier to design!).

Why do I think artificial MNT cell-repair machines are more capable?
Because you're not limited using biological materials. Because you
can build a computer in the cell-repair machine to control it.
(They can have a database, they can move in an coordinated manner,
etc...) This all, is totally out of reach for conventional
biological repair machines.

Why do I think artificial MNT cell-repair machines are easier to
design? Because you don't have to use DNA gene programming !!

>but I don't know nothing of present or reliable near future technologies
>to do what you propose.
I could make an argument just as weak as yours, and tell you that
at this moment we can already move separate atoms. Now, what is
only left to do, is to find out how to grab them and put them
together. (In reality, of course, there's a bit more to it.)

>Perhaps is ignorance of mine but I think that genetic
>transformation is the most likely choice for the future of life
Ignorance? Probably.... ;->

>> Such a procedure of using cell repair machines should also be able to
>> repair damage created by cryonic preservation. Remember, damage is not
>> the same as destruction. Most (if not all) damage, created by cryonics,
>> that will render a cell biologically non-functional, can still be
>> repaired by cell-repair machines because the original structure
>> can still be DEDUCTED. I might add that cell repair machines will
> >be easily able to do that, because they will be controlled by
>> computers (with dimensions of cubic micrometers).
>where did you come up with the ideas that the original neurons will be
>deducted and that cell repair machines will be able to do that?

Actually I was referring to deduction of the original internal structure
of a cell (a neuron in this case) from the damaged structures still
present inside that cell. (I was talking about A cell, not tissues.)

Almost al damage created by cryonic suspension still leaves the cell's
in place. (Read the cryonics articles I've mentioned below.)

However if the cell's are not in place, because the tissue was
teared apart by cracking at low temperatures, even then, in most
cases the original structure can still be deducted. Because the tissue
was already frozen when the cracking occurred, the separate
peace's will fit together. (i.e. see it like a jigsaw puzzle, if
you scramble all the peace's, you're still able to restore the
original structure.)

>I don't know much of nanotechnology but, from what I know, I think
>it has some interesting applications, including computers and
>repair of cells, but from there to deduct, repair and/or rebuild a
>neuron goes a long way.
You, guessed it, I'm betting quite a lot on nanotech. However I'm
still interested in other scientific fields.
(And I also want to see an end to aging, just like you.)

> read some information concerning molecular
> nanotechnology, to start with the books "Engines of Creation" and
> "Unbounding the Future", which are both available online! Many
> articles written by Ralph C. Merkle should also prove interesting.
It's important to understand Nanotech because then you will look at
(especially biological) issues from a different perspective.

>Probably, the only extropian area where I feel comfortable is life
>I'll try to find the books you recommend.

They're all ONLINE !!! Here they are :

<a href="">Engines of Creation
<a href="" >
Unbounding the Future </A>

<A HREF="" > The
Feasibility of the Molecular Repair of the Brain</A>
<A HREF="" > Alcor Life Extension Foundation,
Cryonics, & Cryogenics</A>

Have fun reading!!!

If, after reading these, you still have arguments against cryonics
and/or nanotech (MNT) I will be happy to see them posted on this list.

>>>Natural selection, selects the genes that can produce the higher numbers
>>>of the most fit offspring whereas fitness is defined as the
>>>capacity to produce fit offspring.
>> Shouldn't that be:
>> Natural selection, selects the genes that can produce the highest
>> numbers PER UNIT OF TIME of most fit offspring .
>Let's suppose 2 organisms with a reproduction cycle of 1 year, one of
>them has an offspring of 100 in the first year and an offspring of 150
>in the second year and then dies. The other organism has an offspring of
>200 in the first year and then dies.
For simplicity I was assuming a constant number of offspring per unit
of time. (Not a varying one as in this last example.) And I also was
assuming an equal period of time to reach the reproduction age.
(Sorry, I should've added all these assumptions.)

> Indeed, the human brain is more complex than that of a frog (or a
> mouse). But
>Let me see, important, vital organs, the endocrine system is more
>complex, presumably (I'm not sure) the immune system is more complex,
>perhaps the digestive system and the circulatory system too and probably
>others that my (very) limited knowledge of frog biology don't know.
Yeah, OK. Actually I was having the comparison between a mouse and a
human in mind. You're probably right about the frog-human comparison.
Maybe it should be an amphibian-mammal comparison.

>Also, like Geoff noticed, not only we are more complex but we are
>different and it is this differences (is our circulatory, respiratory,
>digestive system, etc) that might create incompatibilities between us
>and the frog's antifreeze.
That's a point.

>Hkl  -------------- 
Because the future is where we will spend the rest of our lives ...
You see things and ask "Why?"  ;  I dream things and ask "Why not?"