Gompertz does not set an actual limit, it just makes longer lives really improbable.

I will repost this. This illustrates limitations with using current data for predictions without factoring in PROGRESS.
In medieval England life expectancy was 31 years, once you made it to 25 then average became about 51 years old. The records were very poor back then but living in to 80’s was rare. Maximal lifespan was probably around 90. Now 600 years later, same place average age is 80’s and maximal lifespan recorded was 115. So that’s about 25-30 year shift. All mostly due to proper nutrition and sanitation.

So what would a statistician 1200 A.D. predict as a maximal lifespan. Things that every child knows now that pathogens exist was completely unbeknownst to the scholars back then.

So what is unbeknownst to our scientists NOW that could extend lifespan in a simple manner. I think it’s extremely arrogant on scientist part to ASSUME that we solved all mankind’s ills. We are so far from it.

Who knows maybe a simple vaccine against Porphyromonas gingivalis, CMV, EBV, etc. can move the needle.

7 Likes

There are counterexamples like Kissinger who kept himself alive with statins and pure hatred.

6 Likes

We just need fortify our oat basecereal with taurine and creatine, and use methylene blue to dye it.
Long live blue Smurfs cereal. :rofl:

5 Likes

Sounds like Blueprint meal.

3 Likes

I prefer to put my methylene blue into waffles

1 Like

methylene blueprint honey O’s :rofl: We should create a start up.

The example of the 117 year old woman mentioned seems indicate a significant number of genetic stars all lined up in her favor. The next major advancement in the hands of man, in my opinion, will be identifying every genetic contribution to longevity and manipulating it. The rise of Khan will be the future.

4 Likes

It’s hard imagine a significant improvement in lifespan without genetic engineering

8 Likes

Replacement is one other way

Someone’s brain being transplanted from a sick, or aged body, to a new and healthy one would probably feel like a 1000 pound weight were lifted, probably very blissful. It would I bet cure a bunch of unrelated diseases as well that seemed to originate from the brain.

Not sure if I’ve posted this before (deja vu).

1 Like

Replacement of? I would think you’d have to replace everything?

1 Like

@KarlT snd others

Yes the gold standard would be to do that - that could perhaps deliver hundreds (and hundreds) of extra healthy years (in a youthful state)

You’d probably get many, many decades if you just replaced your body

Perhaps up to a few decades if you “just” replaced vital organs, bone arrow and thymus

Perhaps a decade or two from just doing your own young bone marrow

See for example this post and overall thread:

We already have the technology which combines genetic and replacement ways to rejuvenate the body.
Yamanaka factors retroviral vector delivery with selective activation via administered signal. The cell reverts back do differentiated stem cell. It just had to be done in a controlled fashion so the tissue doesn’t lose function during the the YF factor activation. I believe they managed to double mice lifespan. Gene Therapy-Mediated Partial Reprogramming Extends Lifespan and Reverses Age-Related Changes in Aged Mice - PubMed.

1 Like

Whole body (ex-brain) replacement might become real naturally from real GDP per capita doubling 2 or 3 times from this point if I guess, it feels like it. At some point there’s so much wealth few things become hard to do? From this level of wealth looking back it would probably seem obvious in hindsight and that total body replacement is a common thing.

I wonder if there’s any curves that can map this progress like Dario et al saw in LLM scaling from 2017, or if the curves start at some other thresholds of wealth or w/e…

It goes the other way too

Replacing (“no pun”) old, sick parts of the population with them reaching a healthy/healthier state would transform the wealth of nations that have access to such medical procedures

And btw, the cost of growing brainless human bodies (once the technologies has been optimized) should not really be more expensive that growing a pig or cow for the food industry…

The transplant will be advanced but can partially be done with robotic surgery (especially in 15-25 years from now)

2 Likes

I’m not convinced that any of that would work to actually extend maximum lifespan by much. You’d be limited by your aging brain even if everything else was replaced?

There are a couple of pillars to a complete answer but below is a sketch

(@KarlT would love to hear your thoughts, perspectives and if you think I missed anything in the three responses to your question that I invested in posting for you below)

  • if your own head/brain is moved onto/into a genetically identical, but young version of your own body that will itself almost certainly lead to some form of rejuvenation. I will be like young plasma exchange/parabiosis on steroids!!! It would be like a continuous systemic stem cell therapy, it would be like optimal GFD11, klotho, etc therapies and there will be additional benefits from each of your organs having perfect young function without any of the impairments from age - from your kidneys, to your microbiome, to even having a young and fresh spinal CNS to help cleanse and provide a healthy environment for your brain. This argument might be even stronger than just based on those mechanisms, see a post I will come back with

  • above will likely increase the time that your brain will last and those extra years or (many) decade(s) will enable more time for you to access more medical advancements

  • and if body replacement becomes widely used, there will be much less need to study most non-brain disease processes - as most of them can be solved by a body replacement. Perhaps that is too extreme, but it would absolutely shift the incentives and funding and market dynamics to reward work focus on neurological health and neurological aging - probably by several orders of magnitude

  • Think about it…. no need to invest in liver, pancreas, colon, breast, prostate cancer… no need to invest in type 1 and 2 diabetes…, no need to investment in kidney, liver, pancreas, lung and heart impairment…, no need to invest in things like Crohn’s or any other digestive tract type of disease…, no need to invest in thing like sarcopenia, osteoporosis…, and so on and so forth…

  • Above is further accelerated by the fact that people will (a) be living longer lives and (b) care much about their brain, so the willingness for both the government and individuals to invest in brain health would go up by a lot

  • So beyond a mass shift in resources to Alzheimer’s and other dementia, etc, etc, any of the other longevity therapies that show promise, like partial reprogramming, CRISPR editing can now in a more focused way target brain health and rejuvenation without having to be diluted towards every other system and disease process in our body

And it might be that none of above is needed, because as I laid out in the first post of this thread:

We could even gradually replace parts of the brain in a gradual, continuous way such that you still are you even after we over say a decade or so have replaced your entire brain with healthy neuron and other brain tissue.

See for example:


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41536-017-0033-0

And

Neuroscience News – 21 Jul 23

Rejuvenating the Brain: Healthy Cells Replace Diseased Ones - Neuroscience News

Transplanted healthy glial cells can outcompete and replace diseased or aged brain cells, potentially restoring normal brain function.

And

https://www.amazon.com/Replacing-Aging-Jean-Hébert-Ph-D/dp/1513663763?
IMG_6928

1 Like

@KarlT

Part 2 of my answer that began in the previous post:

It is actually not known if a maximum lifespan exists for any postmitotic cells of mammals, including neurons.

To address this issue, scientists published in the top journal PNAS a study that exploited the differences in maximum lifespan of different strains of mice and rats.

In short neurons from mice lived twice as long as the mice live - when transplanted into longer lived rats.

While we are not rodents, this *supports the conjecture that your mammalian brain could live significantly longer if your old body is switched out to a young one.

“The lifespan of neurons is not limited by the maximum lifespan of the donor organism, but continues when transplanted in a longer-living host,” according to the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Fierce Biotech – 27 Feb 13

Mouse neurons live longer than the brains they came from

A team of researchers at the University of Pavia in Italy has discovered that mouse brain cells can outlive their bodies. | A team of researchers at the University of Pavia in Italy has discovered that mouse brain cells can outlive their bodies.

From the actual paper:

Lifespan of neurons is uncoupled from organismal lifespan

Neurons in mammals do not undergo replicative aging, and, in absence of pathologic conditions, their lifespan is limited only by the maximum lifespan of the organism.

Whether neuronal lifespan is determined by the strain-specific lifetime or can be extended beyond this limit is unknown. Here, we transplantedembryonic mouse cerebellar precursors ***into the developing brain of the longer-living Wistar rats.**The donor cells integrated into the rat cerebellum developing into mature neurons while retaining mouse-specific morphometric traits. In their new environment, the grafted mouse neurons did not die at or before the maximum lifespan of their strain of origin but survived as long as 36 mo, doubling the average lifespan of the donor mice.

Thus, the lifespan of neurons is not limited by the maximum lifespan of the donor organism, but continues when transplanted in a longer-living host.

Our results suggest that mouse cerebellar neural and glial precursors, xenotransplanted into the rat CNS, integrate into the host tissue and differentiate, maintaining species-specific morphometric traits, but survive as long as the surrounding host rat neurons, doubling their expected average survival in the mouse.

Those increases are larger than the relative increases in organismal lifespan induced in mice by dietary (30), pharmacologic (31), and most genetic manipulations (32)

Our results suggest that neuronal survival and aging are coincidental but separable processes, thus increasing our hope that extending organismal lifespan by dietary, behavioral, and pharmacologic interventions will not necessarily result in a neuronally depleted brain.

PubMed 中心 (PMC)

[Lifespan of neurons is uncoupled from organismal lifespan

@KarlT you also find this

brain health was in this recent paper in top journal linked more to aging of the immune system (with mostly would be reset by a body transplant) than to the agin of the brain itself

See @RapAdmin post

And a key quote