On Saturday, September 04, 1999 10:48 AM Brian Manning Delaney
b-delaney@uchicago.edu 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
future
> > 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.
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.
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!:)
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.
> Getting confidence behind these numbers would help a great deal.
Indeed!
Daniel Ust
See the latest updates to my minimal graphics site at: http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/