 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2004Kurzweil's "Live Long Enough to Live Forever" book
Ray Kurzweil has a new book out called "Fantastic Voyage : Live Long Enough to Live Forever" (here's the URL -- http://tinyurl.com/5hf8p ), that's all about strategies for longevity (and, of course, has lots of futuristic speculations about cool new medical technologies). Has anyone here read it? Anything new in it? Is it worth the money? > Ray Kurzweil has a new book out called "Fantastic Voyage : Live Long Enough > to Live Forever" (here's the URL -- http://tinyurl.com/5hf8p ), that's all > about strategies for longevity (and, of course, has lots of futuristic > speculations about cool new medical technologies). > > Has anyone here read it? Anything new in it? Is it worth the money? Here's a sample: http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=21 > > Ray Kurzweil has a new book out called "Fantastic Voyage : Live Long Enough > > to Live Forever" (here's the URL -- http://tinyurl.com/5hf8p ), that's all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=21 That isn't representative of the whole book, which is more of a tour (with specifics) of the authors view of current best practices for health optimization. See my comments here: Pre-reading: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000262.php Post-reading: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000294.php I think the step forward that this book represents is in successfully presenting the transhumanist view of radical life extension to the large community of people exclusively focused on present day health optimization. A small step forward, but still progress - it's that view that I wanted to present in the article. On the other hand, it's still legitimate to bemoan the way that life extension futurists seem to turn away from supporting medical research and focus more and more on present day optimization...understandable from a human point of view, but still a problem. We already have a Life Extension Foundation et al for that stuff - we don't need more of the same. What we do need is far more support, education, publicity and advocacy focused on developing the technologies of radical life extension. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme reason@longevitymeme.org http://www.longevitymeme.org "Reason" <reason@longevitymeme.org> wrote or quoted in message >>> Ray Kurzweil has a new book out called "Fantastic Voyage : Live >>> Long Enough to Live Forever" (here's the URL -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>> Has anyone here read it? Anything new in it? Is it worth the money? Yes! >> Here's a sample: http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=21 > That isn't representative of the whole book, which is more of a tour > (with specifics) of the authors view of current best practices for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Post-reading: > http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000294.php Some of "Reasons"'s comments I find rather odd: "Future technologies to greatly extend your healthy life span won't come about any faster if you are spending your time and money tinkering ever-finer gains out of 20th century supplements and lifestyle options." This seems to *entirely* miss the point of LE and Kurzweil's book; taking the supplements *now* increases the probability that you will be around to take advantage of the Brave New World tomorrow. > I think the step forward that this book represents is in successfully > presenting the transhumanist view of radical life extension to the > large community of people exclusively focused on present day > health optimization. Agreed. > A small step forward, but still progress - it's that > view that I wanted to present in the article. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and focus more and more on present day optimization...understandable > from a human point of view, but still a problem. "understandable"? Surely more than that. How about "the only rational approach for any immortalist" since any money you donate to research will have almost no effect on your survival (unless you're Bill Gates), whilst your money spent on a personal anti-aging supplements will probably make a huge difference to your own prospects. > We already have a Life Extension Foundation et al for that stuff > - we don't need more of the same. "we"? The message of the book is for individuals to optimise their own anti-aging activities; about 6 billion people could benefit from such activities. > What we do need is far more support, education, publicity > and advocacy focused on developing the technologies of radical > life extension. I think most of the relevant technologies are driven by commercial pressures. Effort trying to change society is effort wasted. I'm more concerned *my* survival and what I can do about it *now*. Your advice (not quoted) about saving money spent on supplements today to spend, instead, on expensive technology tomorrow ignores the whole thrust of the book, which is that prevention today is the most cost effective strategy to follow, as opposed to treatment tomorrow. My only nitpick with the book (so far) is on page 178/318 where they fail to point out that extra riboflavin (vitamin B2) is completely effective-- much more so than the extra folate they recommend -- in ameliorating the homocysteine-elevating effects of the MTHFR 677 C->T thermolabile mutation, which 40% of the population are heterozygous for and 10-15% are homozygous for. A surprising omission since the co-author (Terry Grossman MD) is homozygous with the MTHFR defect; I would have thought he would be motivated to research the topic in some depth. See [115a] Impaired functioning of thermolabile methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase is dependent on riboflavin status: implications for riboflavin requirements. McNulty H, McKinley MC, Wilson B, McPartlin J, Strain JJ, Weir DG, Scott JM in Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Aug;76(2):436-41 PMID: 12145019 "The high tHcy concentration typically associated with homozygosity for the 677C-->T variant of MTHFR occurs only with poor riboflavin status." The mutant, thermolabile version of MTHFR, present in 10-15% of the European genotype, renders the co-enzyme FAD prosthetic group ~10 times more likely to disassociate. Extra riboflavin stabilises MTHFR. [115b] Riboflavin as a determinant of plasma total homocysteine: effect modification by the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism. Hustad S, Ueland PM, Vollset SE, Zhang Y, Bjorke-Monsen AL, Schneede J in Clin Chem 2000 Aug;46(8 Pt 1):1065-71 PMID: 10926884 "The riboflavin-tHcy relationship was modified by genotype (P = 0.004) and was essentially confined to subjects with the C677T transition of the MTHFR gene [homo- *and* hetero-zygous]. . CONCLUSIONS: Plasma riboflavin is an independent determinant of plasma tHcy." Cheers, Michael C Price ---------------------------------------- http://mcp.longevity-report.com http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm > http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=21 > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that you will be around to take advantage of the Brave New > World tomorrow. A little more context: I see folks like Ray Kurzweil as taking the rate and degree of future advances far too much for granted. On the largest scale, science only produces what large groups of people call for. The more resources an advance requires, the more people need to be aware, educated and calling for it. That doesn't happen without effort. We could have irrigated the Sahara by now if the support was there. We could have a serious commercial space presence by now - if the support was there. Just because things are possible does not mean they will come about - or come about rapidly enough. > > On the other hand, it's still legitimate to bemoan the way that life > > extension futurists seem to turn away from supporting medical research [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > whilst your money spent on a personal anti-aging supplements will > probably make a huge difference to your own prospects. > > What we do need is far more support, education, publicity > > and advocacy focused on developing the technologies of radical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > most cost effective strategy to follow, as opposed to treatment > tomorrow. I have to disagree with you on these points - effort to change society is not only not wasted, it is absolutely essential. Far more so at this juncture than ever-more-recursive healthy optimization strategies. The cancer research of the past 30 years did not stem from nothing, or the feelings of just a few people. AIDS funding was largely pushed by activism. None of that *had* to happen - it happened because small groups of people worked hard to generate and educate large groups of people, who then worked hard to make it happen. Science is a dynamic, driven process - the future doesn't make itself. http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=16 Focusing on health optimization now is essentially a matter of putting on blinkers and confidently assuming that the medicine of the future will turn out just fine and on schedule. Not a good bet to take. Reason Founder, Longevity Meme reason@longevitymeme.org http://www.longevitymeme.org In sci.life-extension Reason <reason@longevitymeme.org> wrote or quoted: > > I think most of the relevant technologies are driven by commercial > > pressures. Effort trying to change society is effort wasted. I'm [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > large groups of people, who then worked hard to make it happen. > Science is a dynamic, driven process - the future doesn't make itself. I would guess that most of the funding for dealing with cancer has ultimately come from those suffering from the disease (or their loved ones). I presume much the same is true of AIDS - though there the disease strikes at the young and fit - and so governments have a much greater incentive to get involved - since an AIDS-striken country will gradually become bereft of happy workers; and there will be economic repurcussions. It seems likely that funds to cure senescence-related disorders will ultimately come mainly from similar sources as cancer - i.e. those suffering from the diseases in question, and their loved ones.  Signature__________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. > > http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=1&article_id=21 > > > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > on blinkers and confidently assuming that the medicine of the future > will turn out just fine and on schedule. Not a good bet to take. I don't see any point in framing these issues as "either or," "all or nothing." Why not both personal health optimization now and promotion of anti-aging science? > Reason > Founder, Longevity Meme > reason@longevitymeme.org > http://www.longevitymeme.org "Reason" <reason@longevitymeme.org> wrote in message >> Some of "Reasons"'s comments I find rather odd: >> "Future technologies to greatly extend your healthy life span won't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > A little more context: I see folks like Ray Kurzweil as taking the > rate and degree of future advances far too much for granted. I agree that RK is a tad optimistic on timescales, but I think his general vision is correct. > On the largest scale, science only produces what large groups of > people call for. The more resources an advance requires, the > more people need to be aware, educated and calling for it. I prefer to think in terms of markets and profitability -- a more potent driving force than pressure groups. Transistors and IC development and rest of the whole IT shebang were/are driven by market forces. > That doesn't happen without effort. But it doesn't need any input from *us*. > We could have irrigated the Sahara by now if the support was > there. If it was commercially viable, it would have happened. It hasn't happened, therefore it wasn't viable. > We could have a serious commercial space presence by now - if > the support was there. Again, I doubt that spaceflight & exploration is currently commercially viable; I expect that with machine intelligence and robots it will become so. Until then it is a waste of time, money and effort. > Just because things are possible does not mean they will > come about - or come about rapidly enough. [.....] >> I think most of the relevant technologies are driven by commercial >> pressures. Effort trying to change society is effort wasted. I'm [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > strategies. The cancer research of the past 30 years did not stem from > nothing, or the feelings of just a few people. I remain underwhelmed by the so-called-progress in treating cancer. The whole "war on cancer" has been a very expensive, state-initiated farce. And I see the same thing happening with the "war on aging" movement. Prevention (for both aging and cancer) is a much more cost-effective approach. > AIDS funding was largely pushed by activism. And it hasn't got very far, either. > None of that *had* to happen - it happened > because small groups of people worked hard to generate and educate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on blinkers and confidently assuming that the medicine of the future > will turn out just fine and on schedule. Not a good bet to take. Strange that, I would have said just the same of anyone *not* focusing on personal health optimisation and age retardation *now*. They are the ones assuming that futures advances are coming along quickly to bail them out. Cheers, Michael C Price ---------------------------------------- http://mcp.longevity-report.com http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm Something (I will assume it is a human) that posts under an anonymous name and is thus unwilling to allow others to examine the whole of the life information about him/herself, has not provided adequate information so that others can decide the degree to which s/he should be given consideration, and therefore should not be either read or replied to. However, since many Internet readers have not yet learned to appreciate and understand this fact about the optimal methods of human interaction, I will address a few of the statements which this person who [snip] > On the other hand, it's still legitimate to bemoan the way that life > extension futurists seem to turn away from supporting medical research > and focus more and more on present day optimization. This is an incorrect view of what most life extensionists are doing. There is no need for any dichotomy between focusing on currently available life extension methods *and* supporting all possible research into developing more and better life extension methods. Any reasonable life extensionist is first focusing on enhancing both the quality and the quantity of his life. Are you not doing this? Secondarily, any reasonable life extensionist knows that he is not going to have an unbounded vital lifespan (not even an unbound dysfunctional lifespan) based on currently available methods. Therefore, he also earnestly wants more and better methods to be researched and developed. > ..understandable > from a human point of view, but still a problem. Why? Do you not want life extensionists to be *human*? They are trying to maximize the integrated lifetime happiness as any human worth the name *should* be doing. > We already have a > Life Extension Foundation et al for that stuff - we don't need more of > the same. What we do need is far more support, education, publicity > and advocacy focused on developing the technologies of radical life > extension. Agreed on this last. However, in a free market innovative entrepreneurs will arise to fill the desires of the consumers because those desires translate into money to be made. The reason why this is not happening for life extension methods is two fold: 1) An insufficient number of people have yet been convinced that it is really a possible and beneficial achievement to desire and support. 2) In the current society there never has been a truly free market and the lack of responsiveness of the market to the desires of the consumers has gotten far worse in recent decades as government intrusions and distortions have grown. Both of these reasons have to be addressed and forcefully combated if sufficient advances in life extension methods are ever to become adequate to allow any of us to have an unbounded healthy life. And even functional cryopreservation will not solve this problem, since it is of little ultimate value if unbounded life extension is not sometime attained. --Paul Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting >Something (I will assume it is a human) that posts under an anonymous >name and is thus unwilling to allow others to examine the whole of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and understand this fact about the optimal methods of human interaction, >I will address a few of the statements which this person who What nonsense! Usenet discussions stand on the information posted, and is worth exactly what you paid for it. That you put three names up top and someone else puts one, is the shallowest reason to believe or not believe what is written. Information gained here requires rigorous confirmation elsewhere. In sci.life-extension Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote or quoted: > Paul Antonik Wakfer <tom@morelife.org> posted: > >Something (I will assume it is a human) that posts under an anonymous > >name and is thus unwilling to allow others to examine the whole of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > believe what is written. Information gained here requires rigorous > confirmation elsewhere. In practice I find I filter /heavily/ on the basis of who is posting. I don't care much if someone posts anonymously, provided they have an identifiable "handle". If someone posts under a name I've never seen before, their post is much more likely to get ignored by me - and probably by many others. This is, of course, more likely to happen in groups where shape-shifting idiots use anonymity to escape from kill files, and post spam or garbage. As for the idea that information on usenet is worth exactly nothing - if that were true, I sincerely hope that none of us would be here in the first place. Signature__________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. > Something (I will assume it is a human) that posts under an anonymous > name and is thus unwilling to allow others to examine the whole of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and understand this fact about the optimal methods of human interaction, > I will address a few of the statements which this person who Paul, I love what you do, information-wise, in the areas of your expertise. Many thanks for your efforts. But I think your strongest overall impact would be made by just sticking to those areas. As to talking down to people about anonymity, optimal human interaction, and presumptuousness, perhaps there are other people who are better suited to comment on those areas. >> Something (I will assume it is a human) that posts under an anonymous >> name and is thus unwilling to allow others to examine the whole of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >presumptuousness, perhaps there are other people who are better suited >to comment on those areas. Of course you mean this considering his past use of a pseudonym. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.