Rosemarie Tong: "Feminist Reflections on Looking Better and Living Longer" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

Rosemarie Tong, Professor of Philosophy at UNC-Charlotte, discussing Feminist Reflections on Looking Better and Living Longer.

Betty Friedan's perspective: rejects the idea that to be old is to be spent. She instead presents an integrating process, an opportunity to live properly and make peace with oneself. No longer feeling the need to outdo others, to prove onself, "what does it really matter?"

Cosmetic anti-aging is big business and demand is through the roof.

But there are also biogerontologists. (1) They're working to prolong healthy lifespan; to extend quality of life until shortly before the moment of death, (2) They're looking to increase human lifespan significantly.

One practice is caloric restriction, but it's not likely to catch on. Another approach is in genetic manipulation.

A third group of biogerontologists are looking to halt the aging process altogether.

What do feminists have to say about this? But the problem of feminists is that they're are so many varieties. But for the most part they support the notion that we should improve and extend quality of life into old age. We should also work to ensure that the marginalized have access to these interventions, namely poor people, black people and aboriginals.

Any life-extension breakthrough that is not accompanied by attempts to improve socio-economic disparities is deficient. Also risk that women's caregiving responsibilities will only increase. Far fewer jobs for far fewer people. Perennial beauty trap.

Cosmetic surgery for women now has been so normalized that it's expected. Women are asked, "Why don't you want to look better?"

Tong makes the case that radical life extension may compel people to live indefinitely long lives for fear of what lies in the hereafter. [never heard that argument before]

Repudiation of the body is a repudiation of women. This especially holds true of women and childbirth. Thus, feminists are suspicious of transhumanism. They may "get lost in the translation."

Senior athletes and the longevity link

Cool NYT article, "The Incredible Flying Nonagenarian," about the rise of senior athletes and accompanying efforts to study the factors for their success--studies which could have implications for longevity research and future therapies:

Scientifically, this is mostly virgin ground. The cohort of people 85 and older — the fastest-growing segment of the population, as it happens — is increasingly being studied for longevity clues. But so far the focus has mostly been on their lives: the foods they eat, the air they breathe, the social networks they maintain and, in a few recently published studies, their genomes. Data on the long-term effects of exercise is only just starting to trickle in, as the children of the fitness revolution of the ’70s grow old.

Though the world of masters track offers a compelling research pool, Taivassalo may seem like an unlikely scientist to be involved. Her area of expertise is mitochondrial research; she examines what happens to the body when mitochondria, the cell’s power plants, are faulty. Her subjects are typically young people who come into the lab with neuromuscular disorders that are only going to get worse. (Because muscle cells require so much energy, they’re hit hard when mitochondria go down.) Some researchers now see aging itself as a kind of mitochondrial disease. Defective mitochondria appear as we get older, and these researchers say that they rob us of endurance, strength and function. There’s evidence that for young patients with mitochondrial disease, exercise is a potent tool, slowing the symptoms. If that’s true, then exercise could also potentially be a kind of elixir of youth, combating the ravages of aging far more than we thought.

Be sure to read the entire article and learn about Olga Kotelko, a 91 year old athlete who can run the 100 meter dash in 23.95 seconds -- which is faster than what's currently being run in the 80 year old classifications. You go, girl.

NYT: The financial time bomb of longer lives

A rather sobering article from the New York Times: "The Financial Time Bomb of Longer Lives":

Unless governments enact sweeping changes to age-related public spending, sovereign debt could become unsustainable, rivaling levels seen during cataclysms like the Great Depression and World War II...If the status quo continues...the median government debt in the most advanced economies could soar to 329 percent of gross domestic product by 2050. By contrast, Britain’s debt represented only 252 percent of G.D.P. in 1946, in the aftermath of World War II...

Serious stuff—and not the kind of thing we can just sweep under the carpet. Despite the warnings, the Times offers some solutions:

• Governments should extend the retirement age
• The crisis will require a mass-scale collaborative response akin to the Manhattan Project or the space race
• Influential international organizations, government agencies, companies and academic institutions should take up aging as a cause, the way they have already done for the environment
• Governments with national health programs or other state coverage could start curbing the growth in medical spending ahead of the looming elderquake
• Governments and companies may need attitude adjustments so they can view aging populations not as debt loads but as valuable wells of expertise

And on that last note, the article ends with a great quote: "In the long run, I’d like to see age irrelevance where people aren’t just labeled by their birthdays.”

Hear, hear.

Study: Resveratrol does not extend lifespan

The National Institute for Aging in the United States has concluded that resveratrol does not extend lifespan. Ouch.

Sleep right, extend healthy life

If you're serious about engaging in life extension practices, then you'd better include sleep in your list of lifestyle factors. Getting proper sleep is crucial to your health—and there's more to it than just getting "enough" sleep; you need to know exactly how much sleep to get (and not get) and under what conditions.

Specifically, studies have shown that there is a goldilocks zone for sleep duration each night, namely between seven and eight hours. And it's crucial you sleep in a completely pitch black room. Stick to these two rules of thumb and you could make a significant contribution to your overall health and longevity.

And yes, the research is in: Studies have shown that if people sleep less than seven hours a night, or more than eight hours a night, they have an increased risk of death. Specifically, researchers discovered that for short sleeping women the increase risk of death over a two decade span was 21% and for men 26%. In terms of oversleeping, increased risk of death increased 17% in women and 24% in men.

Uh, wow.

If these numbers are accurate—and the study appears to be legitimate—that is a rather shocking revelation. It's certainly possible that underlying conditions may cause undesired shifts in sleep duration, but it's clear that changes in sleep or unexplained short/long sleep duration should be taken seriously. But what is also known is that lack of sleep inhibits the production of prolactin and melatonin which can damage our immune systems and cause depression, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

And indeed, a separate study appears to corroborate these conclusions, but with a different minimal threshold. A UC San Diego School of Medicine study concluded that less than five hours a night is probably not enough, but that eight hours or more is probably too much.

Interestingly, it's also crucial that we sleep in pitch black rooms. Our brains and bodies are very carefully honed to the cycling of day and night, and many of our cognitive and hormonal processes are dependant on the preservation of that cycle. Because the circadian clock in humans has a natural day length of just over 24 hours, the clock must be reset to match the day length of the environmental photoperiod—that is, the light/dark or day/night, cycle. Mess that up and you get problems, including an impaired release of melatonin which is normally triggered by darkness. Melatonin has a number of benefits, including its role as a cancer fighting agent.

Negative effects of not sleeping in the dark can include disrupted sleep cycles, depression, and myopia. Women have also been told to sleep in the dark as there appears to be a correlation between inadequate sleep, artificial light, and breast cancer.

And yes, by sleeping in the dark that means sleeping in a completely dark room devoid of artificial light from night lights, bedside clocks, street lighting, and so on. You can always wear sleeping eye patches if you can't get the room dark enough.

Now, I realize that not everyone can get the required sleep each night. But if you're consistently getting less than six to seven hours of sleep each night you need to seriously reconsider your lifestyle and ask yourself if your health is really worth it. And turn out the lights!

Want to feel good at 100? Here's how.

Good news: Studies are increasingly showing that the rate of physical decline caused by aging can be advantageously tweaked by a variety of interventions, and it often doesn't matter whether you're 50 or 90 when you start tweaking. You just have to get started—something I noted in my recent article, Get Stronger, Live Longer. And as Dr. Mark Lachs notes, author of the book, Treat Me, Not My Age, "The embers of disability begin smoldering long before you’re handed a walker."

For more along these lines, check out the recent NYT article, What to do now to feel better at 100:

Muscle strength also declines with age, even in the absence of a muscular disease. Most people (bodybuilders excluded) achieve peak muscle strength between 20 and 30, with variations depending on the muscle group. After that, strength slowly declines, eventually resulting in telling symptoms of muscle weakness, like falling, and difficulty with essential daily tasks, like getting up from a chair or in and out of the tub.

Most otherwise healthy people do not become incapacitated by lost muscle strength until they are 80 or 90. But thanks to advances in medicine and overall living conditions, many more people are reaching those ages, Dr. Lachs writes: “Today millions of people have survived long enough to keep a date with immobility.”

The good news is that the age of immobility can be modified. As life expectancy rises and more people live to celebrate their 100th birthday, postponing the time when physical independence can no longer be maintained is a goal worth striving for.

Wired interview with life extensionist Aubrey de Grey

Wired has posted an excellent interview with biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey. The discussion covers a lot of ground, including recent advancements in the field, the NewOrgan Prize, funding issues, the media and insights into Aubrey's personal life. Here are some highlights:

Wired.com: So you’ve obviously put a lot of effort into messaging. Yet, you say your ideas are often misconstrued and misrepresented.

de Grey: I’ve found it frustrating the media, especially, are pretty much fixated on the longevity aspects and not on the health aspects. It wouldn’t annoy me so much if it was not so overdone. But even the most highbrow write-ups, like one in The Economist a couple of years ago for example, every single one has the word “immortality” or “living forever” in the title of the article. It does wind me up a little bit.

Wired.com: Why do you suppose they do that?

de Grey: Sells papers. You don’t have to ask me, you’re the journalist.

Wired.com: Press also helps get funding, no?

de Grey: No, rather the opposite. It makes it sound like entertainment. It sounds like science fiction and not real science. It really actively detracts from my ability to get funding.

-------------

Wired.com: You’ve said that when these treatments become a reality, they should be free and available to all.

de Grey: It’s not a matter of should. I’m not making a political opinion here. I’m saying it’s inevitable they will be.

Wired.com: Right. Governments would minimize the costs of taking care of the elderly by investing money up front.

de Grey: Right. The developing world is more fragile, but certainly within the industrialized world — and that of course will include China and India at that point — I think we can be absolutely certain the ability to pay will not be an issue.

Wired.com: Do you think people who engage in risk-heavy behavior — say, smoking — should be given rejuvenation treatments regardless?

de Grey: Absolutely. But the reason I can say that so confidently is simply because risks like smoking or overeating will simply not be so risky anymore. It’s possible those therapies will need to be applied somewhat more frequently to such people than to other people. But still we’re talking there about something that’s happening to everybody. So it’s something that won’t be the subject of insurance, it will be something preventative that will be provided routinely.

Wired.com: It’s difficult to imagine a time where people who have more money won’t have access first.

de Grey: Oh yeah. The question is what will the interval be. Remember, these are going to be experimental treatments. If I was Bill Gates I wouldn’t want to be first, right? There are going to be risks. Things are going to go wrong early on. And as far as I’m concerned, the more goes wrong the better, in the sense I sure as fuck don’t want all of these treatments to be made restricted to only people in clinical trials until Phase III is over.

------------

You’ve had what you consider huge breakthroughs in hotels in California, a pub in Italy, a hotel in Dresden. How does being away from home and hanging out in pubs inform your thinking?

de Grey: It is important both in terms of how I think and also especially in terms of how I actually do my work; how I actually get the idea out and so on. I’ve given a talk on How To Be a Successful Heretic. It’s a 10-point plan. And one of them is “Be everywhere (a pint is worth 1,000 words).” You know, beer just works for me. I’m just lucky that way.

Wired.com: What do you mean?

de Grey: It just helps me to think. I just communicate well in the context of alcohol, somehow as well as thinking. Also, it’s a bit of a role model thing. As I mentioned, the Methuselah Foundation had a bit of a problem with looking a bit too much like a fan club. But one could go too far the other way. I think having a bit of a personality cult around what I do works well. I have to obviously give a positive impression at many levels. I have to know my stuff, but you don’t do that in superficial interviews. You do that in the literature.

So I think it is important to show I enjoy my life. [Jason] Pontin in Technology Review tried to basically say I was this very circumscribed individual, and I looked as though I wasn’t enjoying my life, drinking too much beer. Outrageous. That pissed me off a lot. [laughs]

Wired.com: That you drink too much beer?

de Grey: Yeah, I mean how would they know how much is too much?

Wired.com: Yeah, especially since you’re basically a 30-year-old on the inside.

de Grey: Quite. It works. I drink exactly the right amount of beer evidently. [laughs] It’s ridiculous, really. Yet, I have to show I’m enjoying my life. It’s public knowledge I am polyamorous as well. That’s something that goes down not so well with some of my more politically sensitive friends and colleagues. But it goes quite well with some other people. [laughs]

Get stronger, live longer

There's an article over at BrainBlogger that has reaffirmed something I've suspected for quite some time now: Physical strength predicts mortality. Makes sense when you think about it. Building up physical strength and pocketing it for our later years seems like a smart life extension strategy—and clinical research is now indicating that this idea works.

Frailty inexorably leads to increased vulnerability, decreased tolerance for internal and external stressors, and an inability to maintain physiologic and psychosocial equilibrium. And as s a clinical syndrome, frailty is characterized by low physical activity, low muscle strength, increased fatigue, slowness of gait, and weight loss, and it is associated with adverse health outcomes, including dependency, disability, hospitalization, institutionalization, and mortality. Weaker elderly people experience a significantly higher risk of falls, decreased mobility, disability, hospitalization, and death.

So the message is clear: get going on your strength work and get going now—and the younger you start, the better. Cognitive and physical markers of physical performance and frailty are evident as early as childhood. Research shows that men and women with the highest cognitive performance and slowest memory decline throughout life perform better on tests of standing balance and chair rising speed. Additionally, children who performed better at milestone attainment in childhood, cognitive ability, and motor coordination showed better physical performance and muscular strength later in life.

It would appear, therefore, that healthy living in later life begins in childhood.

Why life extensionists need to be concerned about neurological diseases

I'm having a hard time getting excited these days about apparent advances in longevity medicine. Don't get me wrong, many of these breakthroughs are truly fantastic, such as a potential pill to mimic the effects of caloric restriction, or the ability to reverse aging of human muscle tissue. What troubles me, however, is that many of these advances don't address the single most important aging related problem we face today: neurological diseases. Until we can meaningfully treat age-related cognitive decline, many of these other life extending advances are a moot point; what we're in danger of doing right now is extending lifespan, but not necessarily healthy life span.

The human brain degrades quickly with advanced age and, as a result, represents the weakest link in the life extension chain; as far as I'm concerned it's full stop until we can meaningfully fix the cognitive problems associated with aging.

Yes, age-associated diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease are clearly bad, but the most devastating of these involve the nervous system—diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. These diseases take a brutal toll on individuals and their families, often virtually killing the person well before they die.

That we are facing a looming epidemic of neurological diseases shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. But what is surprising is that very few people are actively doing anything about it. And it's not that the writing isn't on the wall—it is. The time to act is now.

The problem

In 40 years a significant proportion of the world population will be 65 and over, a combination of surviving Baby Boomers and Generation X'ers. Collectively, this demographic might outnumber the remaining population, meaning that elderly persons will make up the majority. That's rather astounding when you think about it, not to mention precedent setting.

The reasons for this trend are well documented. Average lifespan has more than doubled since 1840 and is steadily increasing at a rate of five hours every day. We are healthier, safer and more vibrant over the course of our lives than ever before—a factor that is leading to increased longevity. And not only are we staying physically healthier for longer periods, we are also remaining mentally sharper into our eldery years; a recent study showed that 70-year-olds are smarter than they used to be.

But the double-edged sword that is extended life is not without its limits.

The chances of acquiring a neurological disease like Alzheimer's increases exponentially after the age of 65, and it is estimated that within the next 50 years approximately 30% of the population will be aged 65 years or older. Of those between 75 and 84 years of age, 6 million will exhibit some form of Alzheimer's symptoms, and of those older than 85 years, over 12 million will have some form of dementia associated with it. Disturbingly, many cognitive changes occur even in the absence of specific age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Common components thought to contribute to the manifestation of these disorders and normal age-related declines in brain performance are increased susceptibility to long-term effects of oxidative stress and inflammatory insults. Should we fail to reduce these age-related decrements in neuronal function, health care costs will continue to rise exponentially, as will the amount of human suffering.

Solutions

There is currently no cure or (meaningful) prevention for most of these diseases. At least not yet.

Age-associated cognitive decline is currently costing the healthcare system a third of a trillion dollars per year. It is estimated that by 2050 this figure will exceed a trillion. As it stands, the largest benefactors to these lines of research are philanthropies. Governments, on the other hand, have largely ignored the issue. This has obviously got to change.

In terms of research, there are a number of teams tackling this problem from different angles, including Gregory Petsko, professor of biochemistry and chemistry at Oxford University. He is working to untangle misfolded proteins responsible for neurological decline. He is trying to develop a kind of "molecular scotch tape" to help proteins keep their shape and prevent tangles.

It's these tangles of misfolded proteins that Petsko believes is responsible for not just Alzheimer's, but possibly all age-associated cognitive decline. If true, then finding a treatment for any of them should help in treating all of them.

Other possible approaches include the use of phytochemicals to improve age-related neurological dysfunction, or, in the case of Parkinson's, coaxing dormant neurons to take on the dopamine-producing role of damaged neurons and to restore the brain's control of movement. There are obviously many more approaches, and there's no telling which line of inquiry will prove to be the most effective, but it's early days. The prevention and curing of cognitive decline will likely involve a host of treatments as it's likely caused by a multiplicity of factors.

Solutions for today

In the meantime there are things you can do today. For Parkinson's prevention, be sure to ingest caffeine and avoid head injuries. For those at risk of Alzheimer's, be sure to eat lots of fish oil, keep your blood pressure down (as it appears to be the single most important risk factor), and keep yourself mentally stimulated (use it or lose it, as they say).

And lastly, do what you can to either fund or promote research that works to reduce or eliminate the effects of age-associated neurological diseases. Your future mental health will likely depend on it.

Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+

Dan Buettner gives a TED talk about the practical things we can do today to extend our healthy lifespans. Nothing too radical or out-of-the-box here, but what he says makes sense (but I think I'll pass on joining a faith-based community); these are lifestyle changes we can make in the here-and-now as we wait for more substantive life extending interventions.

Buettner's talk reminds me of an article I wrote a while back, "Eight tips to dramatically improve your chances of living forever."

Convergence08: Day 2 closing panel on longevity

Bruce Ames: Whenever you're short of any micronutrient you're aging faster. High calorie food with no nutritive value is a bane, things like chips and soda pop.

Terry Grossman: "I treat the condition of aging." It's possible to make a significant impact on your longevity by your lifestyle choice, eating in particular. Aging has one purpose: To destroy our health and result in our death. It's a unique disease in that it afflicts 100% of us and has thus far proved 100% fatal. New book coming up in April: Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Longer. We can reprogram our biochemistry to rewrite our outdated stone age code. Our ancestors were well suited to a world of scarcity, while we are in a world of abundance.

Gregory Benford: Benford talks about his research and its implications -- working to augment their genes in the defense of aging. Diabetes is a predictor of Alzheimer's; we share 75% of our genome with fruit flies. Fruit flies get diabetes and Alzheimer's.

Aubrey deGrey: Describes himself as being the most ambitious of the group. But he qualifies that by saying it's because he's the most pessimistic. We need a new approach that's more preventative than the geriatric approach. This has led Aubrey to the belief that we need to apply regenerative medicine to the problem of aging. He said that Terry Grossman and Ray Kurzweil recapitulated many of his views in their book."

Christine Peter, the moderator, asks the question that, given limited resources, what should people be doing? Testing? Supplements? Perfect diet? Give all money to Methuselah?

Bruce Ames answers that we can do a lot by improving our diets. "Micronutrients are dirt cheap." Our "awful" diets are impacting on our bodies and our brains -- a disaster to our health -- more cancer, diabetes, and so on.

Terry says we should begin with the things that are free, like exercise. Another thing we can do is reduce your calories -- even think about caloric reduction. Cut calories by 10-20%. We should take a multi-vitamin or mineral and supplement fish oil. We also need more vitamin D. Heart disease is the #1 cause of death, so get tested and get screened (coronary calcium squirt test). Also consider standard cancer screening.

Benford says that too many people in middle age go down hill quickly and say, "the game's not over, but at least I get to watch it." He says middle agers need to snap out of this and not give up at that critical stage.

Aubrey applauds all things mentioned. In addition, a lot can be done by simply raising awareness in time to make serious benefits to those who are alive today. People should work to help by raising the legitimacy of these discussions; ensure that people don't change the subject. This is about keeping people health and not sick. Advocacy can cost money, however.

Ames recommends a multivitamin mineral drink from Costco.

[Q&A from the audience begins]

Ames doesn't feel that organic foods give you any advantage, feels that environmental claims are over-stated.

Keith Henson wants the naked mole rat's genome sequenced. Aubrey agrees and makes the case that systems biology is improving and will be better applied to longevity science.

Aubrey agrees with the next questioner that it's important to be concerned about quality of life and not just sheer longevity.

[Five minute wrap-up]

Bruce goes over the importance of micronutrients again. We need to fix up our conceptions about nutrition big time.

Latest podcast posted: 2008.03.04

The latest Sentient Developments Podcast episode is now available. You can also access alternative audio formats.

This episode features my talk about Popular Arguments For and Against Longevity which I delivered at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology's Longevity Dividend symposium on July 23, 2007.

CBC's The Nature of Things episode on 'Living Forever'

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's The Nature of Things will be airing a documentary on Thursday October 18 called "Living Forever: The Longevity Revolution." The episode will feature gerontologist Michael Rose and Edmontonian life extensionist Kevin Perrott.

You can watch the one minute promo video here.

Blurbage:

Immortality. Life Extension. The Fountain of Youth. Real science or simply wishful thinking? Is it hope or is it hype?

Find out in Living Forever: The Longevity Revolution. Scientists from around the world are racing to answer one of humanity's chief questions: can we turn back the human clock? Hitch a ride on this controversial roller-coaster with charismatic gerontologist Michael Rose as he leads us to where the cutting-edge science in life extension is happening: biotechnology, genetic research, therapeutic cloning and stem-cell research – fields which have moved to the outer reaches of our wildest imagination.

In Living Forever we also meet the “believers” among us: the colourful characters who refuse to succumb to the grim reaper. And let's not forget the specialists who predict whether their clients have what it takes to live past 100.

Just to be clear, Living Forever is not a documentary about 60-year-olds who want to look like young and sexy 25-year-olds. This is a film about stopping, slowing down – even reversing – human aging. It is about the modern quest to create a longer, healthier old age, or – the Holy Grail – eliminating old age altogether.

So, what happens if humans are able to live for another 100 or 500 years? Should we create a race of immortals, just because we have the know-how? At what evolutionary cost? What about the ethical issues? Given humanity's trajectory thus far, it's likely that most people will say ethics be damned: let The Longevity Revolution begin.