Um no, it’s much easier to fix oxidative modifications before they all irreversibly clump together into weird aggregates that become inaccessible to most enzymes. See figure at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5536880/bin/gr1.jpg . Early intervention >> late intervention. “The reduction of lipofuscin/ceroid formation by pharmacologically decreasing oxidative stress may represent a more promising approach to the problem. ”
Again, better tools are nice-to-have, not must-haves.
The scope of the aging problem is so vast that we need all possible routes to discover all of the interventions (including ALL the > 200+ oxidative modifications that happen to proteins), and we may never get at all of the interventions without better tools. They might theoretically not be must-haves, but better be at the safe side and use all techniques.
From Allen Brain Institute and Janelia and other institutes, we’re seeing significant advances in our ability to image the cell and to get high throughput “-omic” data from cells, without needing too much human intervention [ever notice how Ed Boyden and Adam Marblestone are all into making better tools, even though they don’t directly do bioscience research the way other biomedical researchers do it?]. Better tools help reduce the intense labor and time costs involved in figuring out the mechanism of an intervention. They also need to be paired with better post-PDF-publication platforms as the data they generate is not easily made available via PDFs. They’re also the only way we can get to developing nanotechnology that can also play a role in identifying and removing damage.
How are you going to be able to fix every single modification? That seems physically impossible. At best, you’re only going to slow down the rate of aggregate formation, but aggregates will still accumulate and kill you.
200+ oxidative modifications
How many of those actually matter? I’d expect that most get degraded, and the rest float around doing bad stuff or form aggregates.
The scope of the aging problem is so vast
use all techniques
This would only matter a lot if you want to disentangle what metabolism is doing (which is vast) and try to get it to do the impossible: prevent every single lipid and protein from going bad. I doubt even an AI god could make that happen, nevermind mere mortals equipped with what amount to fancy expert systems.
Better tools help reduce the intense labor and time costs
Better funding is better than better tools. If SENS got $100 million per year starting in 2004 or even as late as 2010, we’d already have immortality in the bag or know that SENS couldn’t deliver the goods and moved on to something else.
This would only matter a lot if you want to disentangle what metabolism is doing (which is vast) and try to get it to do the impossible: prevent every single lipid and protein from going bad. I doubt even an AI god could make that happen, nevermind mere mortals equipped with what amount to fancy expert systems.
Preventing every single lipid and protein from going bad is precisely a problem that “AI” could help solve—one could envision artificially designed enzymes that can get into the cell and specifically modify every unnecessary oxidative modification.
Better funding is better than better tools. If SENS got $100 million per year starting in 2004 or even as late as 2010, we’d already have immortality in the bag or know that SENS couldn’t deliver the goods and moved on to something else.
This is a bold claim that presumes that you and others know “all the right things to do” (rather than are adaptive) + underestimate the pure complexity of biology and very few people would believe you/SENS, and the tendency of SENS foundation people to make such claims are a reason why many doubt its credibility (some of the doubt is clearly unjustified, and stems from the uncharitable motivations of skeptics, but SENS people could at least be better at qualifying their claims).
I don’t see how it would ever be physically possible to prevent every single lipid and protein from becoming oxidized or otherwise damaged in certain ways. And how will your enzymes prevent every single lipid and protein from ever forming aggregates? This seems only slightly less impossible.
Aubrey doesn’t talk about immortality that much anymore and says that it’s all about health, but that doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference.
Um no, it’s much easier to fix oxidative modifications before they all irreversibly clump together into weird aggregates that become inaccessible to most enzymes. See figure at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5536880/bin/gr1.jpg . Early intervention >> late intervention. “The reduction of lipofuscin/ceroid formation by pharmacologically decreasing oxidative stress may represent a more promising approach to the problem. ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5536880/
The scope of the aging problem is so vast that we need all possible routes to discover all of the interventions (including ALL the > 200+ oxidative modifications that happen to proteins), and we may never get at all of the interventions without better tools. They might theoretically not be must-haves, but better be at the safe side and use all techniques.
From Allen Brain Institute and Janelia and other institutes, we’re seeing significant advances in our ability to image the cell and to get high throughput “-omic” data from cells, without needing too much human intervention [ever notice how Ed Boyden and Adam Marblestone are all into making better tools, even though they don’t directly do bioscience research the way other biomedical researchers do it?]. Better tools help reduce the intense labor and time costs involved in figuring out the mechanism of an intervention. They also need to be paired with better post-PDF-publication platforms as the data they generate is not easily made available via PDFs. They’re also the only way we can get to developing nanotechnology that can also play a role in identifying and removing damage.
How are you going to be able to fix every single modification? That seems physically impossible. At best, you’re only going to slow down the rate of aggregate formation, but aggregates will still accumulate and kill you.
How many of those actually matter? I’d expect that most get degraded, and the rest float around doing bad stuff or form aggregates.
This would only matter a lot if you want to disentangle what metabolism is doing (which is vast) and try to get it to do the impossible: prevent every single lipid and protein from going bad. I doubt even an AI god could make that happen, nevermind mere mortals equipped with what amount to fancy expert systems.
Better funding is better than better tools. If SENS got $100 million per year starting in 2004 or even as late as 2010, we’d already have immortality in the bag or know that SENS couldn’t deliver the goods and moved on to something else.
Preventing every single lipid and protein from going bad is precisely a problem that “AI” could help solve—one could envision artificially designed enzymes that can get into the cell and specifically modify every unnecessary oxidative modification.
This is a bold claim that presumes that you and others know “all the right things to do” (rather than are adaptive) + underestimate the pure complexity of biology and very few people would believe you/SENS, and the tendency of SENS foundation people to make such claims are a reason why many doubt its credibility (some of the doubt is clearly unjustified, and stems from the uncharitable motivations of skeptics, but SENS people could at least be better at qualifying their claims).
I don’t see how it would ever be physically possible to prevent every single lipid and protein from becoming oxidized or otherwise damaged in certain ways. And how will your enzymes prevent every single lipid and protein from ever forming aggregates? This seems only slightly less impossible.
Aubrey doesn’t talk about immortality that much anymore and says that it’s all about health, but that doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference.