Re: Complete List of Non-CR Experiments Showing An Increase in Maximum Life Span

Technotranscendence (
Sat, 4 Sep 1999 23:31:40 -0700

On Saturday, September 04, 1999 10:48 AM Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
> (Far more forgivable than my obnoxiousness!)

No problem. I dish it out and I can take it too.:) Not that I'd want to encourage it.

> Most people find it hard. In fact, I would contend that
> virtually everyone would find more than mild CR difficult.

I've not seen any numbers on this, but my gut agrees with you in more ways than one.:)

> > Of course, you can do everything else that is easier than CR and hope to
> > live long enough for the research to pay off -- or for your favorite
> > scenario (nanotech, AI, farming cloned organs, uploading, etc.) to come
to pass.
> Yes, though my question is about the warrant for the hope, and
> the _degree_ to which we can hope, that is: numbers, dates,
> probabilities, etc.

Hmm. I don't have any numbers and I'm not prepared to guess... but why should that stop me. Look at the past 2 decades' advances in chemical life extension. Certainly, there are more strategies around now and a better understanding of the chemical basis of aging.

Also, the human genome project is already paying off in identifying many genetic roots of various diseases. I believe this project will be complete around 2002. That doesn't mean all the data will be analyzed by them, but a lot of the analysis proceeds with the mapping. Nor is all of aging just a matter of genes -- or so I've been led to believe.:/

Add to this that computer processing power is increasing, which will allow us to better model biochemistry as well as, perhaps, upload minds. Processing power increases are almost mathematically predictable, though that is just one measure of overall efficiency. I won't go into details here as the literature on this is vast and I'm tired. I've heard of one company which intends to make a model of the detailed human body for medical students to use.

Hopefully, such models will make testing therapies much quicker. Late last year/early this year, I wanted to create a simple computer model of a cell with the express purpose of modeling aging, then using virtual strategies -- even random generated ones -- to combat aging. Such a model would be easier than modeling the whole body. We need not have a perfect model -- that would be an oxymoron, right?:) -- just one that works and can be incremenatally improved.

It could be a great project for any who'd like to work on it with me, though my skills are not in biochemistry but in process organization and management. (I.e., I won't go it alone as it will consume too much time and probably wind up not working without some help.) I'd also like to know if anyone else is working on such already.

> If we knew with a high degree of probability that the research
> was going to pay off within, say, ten years, then many people
> would decide doing CR now wouldn't be worth it (though the
> disease-prevention effect might motivate some to stay on it
> until the pill is available). The reasoning might be: "Yes, it
> means losing ~1-2 years as a result of five years of non-CR,
> but, starting in 2009, I'm aging at a CR rate again, so will
> likely make it to 2025, when I'm aging even more slowly (better
> pill/injection/suspended animation/whatever), which in turn
> means I'm even more likely to make it to 2040..., etc.

I am aware that CR studies seem to show an increase maximum lifespan, but do they show increased longevity at every turn? I'm aware there's a certain window of opportunity -- late adolescene/early adulthood, I believe -- and the effect tends to decline with age. After that, there might be, ceterus paribus, a decline in effectiveness, since elder members of any species often suffer from lower nutrient absorption of both macro- and micro-nutrients. (Help me out here Doug Skechy!:)

But what I mean is does CR also have an impact on early and middle age causes of death or just late age causes of death? It would seem it has an overall impact, but I'd like to be sure.

Also, CR has been studied up and down in animals of very different species, from rats to spiders, I believe, but has there really been any extensive, long-term study of it in humans? To my knowledge, there has not, but am I correct? (I hope I'm not. i'm not a voracious reader of the literature on this, but I think I'm fairly well informed on the major stuff. Please prove me wrong!:) Though I've every confidence in CR in humans, I'd hate to find out it doesn't work in our species and people like Brian are wasting their time.

Even if this were the case, there is lots of evidence to point to a lower calorie diet being healthy, provided proper nutrition is maintained. In other words, if CR doesn't work in humans, that's not equivalent to ringing the dinner bell on junk food.:)

> Getting confidence behind these numbers would help a great deal.


Daniel Ust

See the latest updates to my minimal graphics site at: