So far, so good. But it appears that the view we hold about our life, our worldview, has a direct impact on our biology. We know that thinking positively may help improve the immune system. But research also shows that people who aim for pleasure (Hedonia) may have an impaired genetic profile, compared to those who aim for higher virtues (Eudaimonia). There is a distinction between these two terms and it is worth providing a definition here:

Hedonia is an exclusive search for pleasure and avoidance of discomfort. It may involve increased emphasis on eating well, drinking, dancing, playing, and generally enjoying simple pleasures in life. It is contentment, gratification, fun, merriment, satisfaction and, perhaps necessarily, a lack of motivation to search for a nobler aim in life. One may argue that hedonia involves a risk that leads to bad health due to a tendency to excesses (smoking, alcohol, coffee, sweets), a general inclination to avoid uncomfortable physical activity, and a lack of challenging cognitive effort. The risk of addiction may be increased. Erosion of social bonds become a possibility when a hedonist is more concerned about his/her own pleasure and is less sensitive to the needs of others.

Eudaimonia is a term reflecting the highest ‘intellectual good’. It is virtue plus excellence, superior ethical refinement, cognitive sophistication, as well as other qualities such as persistent motivation, wisdom, imagination, creativity, vision and a feeling of purpose. The term has been discussed by many ancient Greek philosophers particularly Aristotle and the Stoics. In modern times and in a wider sense, eudaimonia may be equated with meaningful technological hyperconnection, or ‘Intentional Evolution’, an attempt to constructively improve the human condition in all respects (including those relating to the wider universe). Hedonia is found both in animals and in humans, whereas eudaimonia is only found in humans.

The above descriptions deliberately avoid the mention of the term ‘happiness’. People may fulfil either hedonic or eudaimonic characteristics and still be happy or unhappy nevertheless. Although hedonia and eudaimonia are distinct concepts, both are philosophical notions of happiness.

It has been suggested that eudaimonic well-being is associated with increased volume of a specific part of our brain, the right insular cortex although it is not known if this increase is the cause or the result of eudaimonia. The insula has been implicated in higher abstract functions such as self-awareness, self-reflection, cognitive control and intentional, creative goal-directed behaviour.

Eudaimonia is influenced by genetic factors and not so much by the environment. In a classic paper, high eudaimonic well-being was associated with a decreased risk of depression, improved physical health, improved sleep patterns, a reduction of inflammation and stress markers, together with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. By contrast, high hedonic well-being was not associated with any of these.

We know that the immune system may have an impact on social behaviour. In a study published yesterday, scientists have shown that a component of the immune system, namely interferon-γ, can control neuronal connectivity in areas of the brain which are implicated in social interactions. This is the new science of Social Genomics, which may help us understand the mechanisms involved in the interaction between our social and emotional self and our biology. Social Genomics study the influence of social factors such as loneliness, stress, conflict, cooperation, and interaction with technology, upon our genetic profile and gene expression. Scientists in social genomics have analysed gene expression in the white blood cells of healthy adults, and showed that those who fulfilled the hedonic criteria exhibited a higher expression of stress-related and inflammation-increasing factors. We know that stress and inflammation are implicated in ageing. In contrast, those people who fulfilled primarily the eudaimonic characteristics showed the opposite genetic features, namely a down-regulation of inflammatory markers and an improvement of certain immune factors. These findings were confirmed again. Although both hedonia and eudaimonia may contribute to a feeling of subjective well-being, it appears that eudaimonia is associated with a measurable health effect which is defined by objective genetic and biological characteristics.

This begs the question: Does ageing and early death have something to do with hedonism? And at the same time, is the pursuit of eudaimonia one of the prerequisites for long, healthy life? I addressed this issue from different perspectives in a blog and a paper. Over the past years I have argued that being meaningfully hyperconnected and searching for a nobler aim in life are characteristics associated with longevity (because such characteristics increase the information content of the individual and may improve cellular repair – the Indispensable Soma hypothesis).

Evolution tends to follow a trajectory defined by survival and, in the case of humans, it is biased towards achieving a higher common good, a stage which is better than the previous one. If this is the case, there should be conserved signalling pathways and other biological mechanisms which favour a continuation of survival AND the ability to contribute to the universal good. Merely seeking pleasure is seen, from an evolutionary perspective, as just surviving without the need to achieve anything higher. Thus, hedonia appears to be in conflict with the basic trajectory of evolution. In addition, there is another puzzling question: Why is eudaimonia found only in humans and not in other animals? If eudaimonia is a pathway that leads to an improvement in the human condition we may need to espouse it fully, in order to improve ourselves and achieve longer life as a result. In fact, it could be the ONLY path towards achieving extreme longevity. Waiting for others to come up with pills and treatments to ‘cure’ ageing, is just…hedonic, it reflects an avoidance of effort and unwillingness to deal with the matter ourselves.

So, here is a concept for debate: People who live within a cognitive ecosystem and actively pursue eudaimonic characteristics are likely to enjoy better health, and have increased chances of living longer, compared to those who merely seek personal pleasure. This makes sense from clinical, biological, evolutionary and philosophical standpoints.

For the past several decades, the Disposable Soma theory of ageing has been enjoying good publicity and a lively interest from both academics and the public alike. It stands up to scientific scrutiny, makes conceptual sense and fits well within an evolutionary framework of ageing. The theory basically suggests that, due to energy resource constraints, there is a trade-off between somatic cell and germ cell repair. As a result, germ cells are being repaired effectively and so the survival of the species is assured, at a cost of individual somatic (bodily) ageing and death. To put it very simply, we are disposable, we age and die because all the effective repair mechanisms have been diverted to our germ cell DNA in order to guarantee the survival of our species.

The theory accounts for many repair pathways and mechanisms converging upon the germ cell, and also for many of those mechanisms being driven away from somatic cell repair just to ensure germ cell survival. In the past two or three years however, it is increasingly being realised that this process is not unidirectional (from soma to germ), but it is bi-directional: under certain circumstances, somatic cells may initiate damage that affects germ cells, and also that germ cells may initiate repairs that benefit somatic cells!

I can’t even begin to describe how important this bi-directionality is. Taking this in a wider and more speculative sense, it is, in fact, the basis for the cure of ageing. The discovery that germ cells can (or are forced to) relinquish their repair priorities, and that resources can then be re-allocated for somatic repairs instead, means that we may be able to avoid age-related damage (because this would be repaired with greater fidelity) and, at the same time, avoid overpopulation (as our now damaged genetic material would be unsuitable for reproduction).

Ermolaeva et al. raised the further possibility that DNA damage in germ cells may protect somatic cells. They suggested that DNA injury in germ cells upregulates stress resistance pathways in somatic cells, and improves stress response to heat or oxidation. This is profoundly important because it shows that, in principle, when germ cells are damaged, they produce agents which can then protect somatic cells against systemic stress.

This mechanism may reflect an innate tendency to reverse the trade-offs between germ cell and somatic cell repair: when the germ cells are compromised, there is delay in offspring production matched by an increased repair of somatic cells. In Nature’s ‘eyes’, if the species cannot survive, at least the individual bodies should.

In addition, it was shown that neuronal stress induces apoptosis (orderly cell death) in the germ line. This process is mediated by the IRE-1 factor, an endoplasmic reticulum stress response sensor, which then activates p53 and initiates the apoptotic cascade in the germ line. Therefore germ cells may die due to a stress response originating from the distantly-located neurons.

If this mechanism exists, it is likely that other similar mechanisms must also exist, waiting to described. The consequence could be that neuronal positive stress (i.e. exposure to meaningful information that entices us to act) can affect our longevity by downgrading the importance of germ cell repair in favour of somatic tissue repair. In other words, the disposable soma theory can be seen in reverse: the soma (body) is not necessarily disposable but it can survive longer if it becomes indispensable, if it is ‘useful to the whole. This, as we claimed last week, can happen through mechanisms which are independent of any artificial biotechnological interventions.

We know that certain events which downgrade reproduction, may also cause a lifespan extension. Ablation of germ cells in the C.elegans worm, leads to an increased lifespan, which shows that signals from the germline have a direct impact upon somatic cell survival, and this may be due to an increased resistance of somatic cells to stress. Somatic intracellular clearance systems are also up-regulated following signals from the germ line.

In addition, protein homoeostasis in somatic cells is well-maintained when germ cells are damaged, and it is significantly downgraded when germ cell function increases. All of the above suggest that when the germ cells are healthy, somatic repair decreases, and when they are not, somatic repair improves as a counter-effect.

In an intriguing paper published last month, Lin et al. showed that under certain circumstances, somatic cells may adopt germ-like characteristics, which may suggest that these somatic cells can also be subjected to germ line protection mechanisms after their transformation. A few days ago Bazley et al. published a paper elucidating the mechanisms of how germ cells may induce somatic cell reprogramming and somatic stem cell pluripotency. This is an additional piece of evidence of the cross-talk mechanisms between soma and germ line, underscoring the fact that the health of somatic tissues depends upon signals from the germ line.

In all, there is sufficient initial evidence to suggest that my line of thinking is quite possibly correct: that the disposable soma theory is not unidirectional and the body may not, after all, be always ‘disposable’. Under certain evolutionary pressures we could experience increased somatic maintenance at the expense of germ cell repairs, and thus reach a situation where the body actually lives longer. I have already discussed that some of these evolutionary pressures could be dependent upon how well one makes themselves ‘indispensable’ to the adaptability of the homo sapiens species within a global techno-cultural environment.

1. Problems with Stem Cell Therapies

One methodology for delivering biotechnology rejuvenation therapies (such as stem cell therapy) is bone marrow transplant. This is a complex, clinically risky, and administratively complicated procedure. It is well beyond the technical issue of artificially manipulating and repairing cells in the laboratory. Cells need to be harvested from a patient, manipulated in the laboratory, and then re-transplanted in the patient.

Consider what happens during an autologous cell harvest. The patient has to attend a clinic and this may involve a pre-procedure physical assessment, followed by administration of a Colony-Stimulating Factor which is given as an injection every day for up to 14 days, (the patient must be instructed on how to do this at home). A course of chemotherapy may be needed in order to regulate the production of stem cells. The patient returns for another visit for the harvest. The harvesting process takes three to four hours and it may have to be repeated every day for up to five days in order to collect enough cells for the transplant. It involves an epidural or a general anaesthetic (with all the associated risks), punctures over the pelvic bone and withdrawal of marrow material. Alternatively, intravenous access and blood withdrawal need to be arranged. The amount to be withdrawn must be assessed from person to person. The patient needs to recover from the anaesthetic.

After appropriate laboratory treatment of the cells, the patient needs to return for the transplant itself. The patient will again need to have a pre-treatment visit and (a full day) assessment, pre-treatment conditioning with insertion of an indwelling central venous access line, followed by intravenous (or intra-bone marrow) injection of primed stem cells, (which may need to be repeated the following day or more times soon after).

Following the procedure, it is necessary to observe the patient due to the risk of infection, and the patient must be kept in a germ-free environment, in some cases for up to three months (in hospital). The follow-up period can be one or two years in some cases, and there is a need for specialist nutritional input, home care, occupational therapy, medical follow-ups and regular clinic appointments. Even then, the fate of the injected stem cells remains unclear, both in functional and in duration terms. For instance, the injected stem cells need to develop cross-talking pathways with existing mesenchymal and endothelial cells, which involves a precise, co-ordinated, dynamic and hierarchical expression of genes and proteins, many of which are based upon stochastic elements, which are impossible to predict. This may influence the lifespan of the injected stem cells and require an earlier-than-planned re-treatment.

2. Problems with Tissue Engineering

Another proposed biotechnological therapy against age-relate degeneration such as abnormal tissue function due to cell loss, is tissue engineering. Although the technology necessary for developing large amounts of viable engineered tissue such as bone, skin or even heart can be achieved, a major problem is the transplantation of this engineered tissue to the appropriate organ in humans. Autologous cells must be harvested from the patient, either surgically or through a bone marrow procedure as discussed above, and then, following appropriate engineering interventions, transplanted surgically in the patient. The clinical sequences of the procedure, particularly those involving more advanced techniques such as in situ or in vivo tissue engineering may take a year from beginning to end. Therapies involving allogenic tissues will require lifelong immunosuppression. This would be a therapy for one type of tissue, and therefore the entire procedure would need to be repeated for other types of tissue, until all tissues affected by age-related damage would have been repaired. Questions about the number of qualified surgeons needed in order to carry out these procedures en masse would need to be addressed. Pre and post procedure assessments, physical rehabilitation therapy, follow up meetings, risk of infection or thromboembolism, and other intrinsic consequences of surgery would add to the existing difficulties.

3. Problems with Genetic Therapies

As a concept, gene therapy appears ideal in treating ageing changes. However, this is an oversimplification fraught with clinical obstacles. It is known there are several hundred genes that can modulate the ageing process. In mice alone there are over 100. Issues with pre-existing immunity to the vector, choice of vector, costs, dose, and many others need to be addressed. Non-viral vectors such as liposomes or methods based on nanotechnology need to be given to the patient via an intravenous route with all the problems discussed above. The new gene may not be inserted correctly on the DNA, or it may be overexpressed, causing more problems than it resolves. The risk of introducing infection or inducing a cancerous change remains.

For these and other reasons, the progress with gene therapy has not been as vigorous as expected. New techniques such as CRISPR cannot easily be applied in clinical situations involving humans. The current administration technique involves a hydrodynamic injection method which in mice has been proven effective in some experiments, but remains unusable in humans.

Discussion

These methods of administration are likely to remain the same (with minor, irrelevant to this argument, technical modifications) in the near-term (10–15 years) and perhaps the medium-term (20–50 years) future. Bone marrow transplant, is currently an appropriate method for patients who have one specific disease, but its applicability must be rigorously questioned when it is intended for people who have many co-existing age-related conditions. Our medical systems can tolerate this type of treatment if it is directed at a few patients having one disease each. But a single stem cell therapy will not have an effect on multiple conditions or organs, therefore if we consider that there are many organs needing treatment against ageing, then this becomes a clinical and administrative nightmare. However, it becomes an impossibility when, in addition to the above, we aim to treat large numbers of people. Worldwide, there are approximately 60,000 bone marrow transplants (BMT) performed each year. If we assume that, over a 10 year period, an arbitrary minimum 1% of all humans could possibly be treated with BMT-dependent rejuvenation biotechnologies each year, then there will be a need to provide 70,000,000 BMT a year! Or, viewing this from another angle, assuming a reasonable yearly 20% increase in our clinical capability to deliver rejuvenation biotechnologies, it will take us 10 years to reach a mere 1 000 000 target patients, (and at that point, the procedures would need to be repeated in the same patients, in order to maintain the status quo). Therefore, even in the best case scenario, we could only possibly treat 0.015% of humans, ever.

In addition, patients would need to undertake other rejuvenation procedures such as vaccinations, cytotoxic and other drugs, multiple crosslink breakers (drugs or enzymes), intravenous immunotherapy, apoptotic-modulators, and other treatment modalities. And this has to be repeated until all organs or tissues where there is accumulation of age-related pathology have been treated. But this is not the end, as all of these procedures will need to be repeated in the same patient in perpetuity (in order to achieve a continual absence or age related pathology for an indefinite time). Let me look at the matter in a different way: One cycle of treating one aspect or group of damages via bone marrow transplant, realistically takes a minimum of 2–3 months. It is likely that the same patient will need to undergo the bone marrow stem cell transplant procedure again in order to treat different organs such as brain degeneration, pancreatic or liver damage, or visual age-related damage. If each such cycle takes 3 months, then there will not be enough months in the year for any patient in order to have the full treatment for each and every organ or tissue. The quality of life of the recipient will be reduced to a minimum, and it will be a miserable and endless cycle of hospital and clinic visits, treatments and follow-up appointments repeated into perpetuity, a kind of dystopian, dehumanised society. The above discussion refers to the difficulties encountered during a scenario where we aim to treat just 10% of humanity. If we now consider the difficulties associated with treating the other 90%, then it must be obvious even to the most ardent advocate of rejuvenation biotechnologies that this method of addressing the ageing problem becomes an impossible delusion.

We should also acknowledge the possibility that, although some therapies could be developed, these may not by themselves result to any appreciable benefit for the patient until other therapies have also been developed and deployed. For instance, if a therapy is devised against atherosclerosis but not against cancer, the patient will perish from cancer-related damage, even if their arteries are healthy. So all of the above interventions need to be developed at an appropriately advanced clinical stage.

At this point it may be worth reiterating that I fully recognise the value of biomedical regeneration technologies but only insofar these are applied on specific and isolated diseases, and not on the biological process of ageing itself. Rejuvenation biotechnologies will not be of any value for the great majority of us who are aiming to avoid ageing and live a life without chronic degeneration.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25072550

Our inability to find a physical cure for ageing is explained by a simple fact: We cannot find it because it does not exist. It will never exist.

Those who believe that someday some guy is going to discover a pill or a remedy and give it to people so that we will all live forever are, regrettably, deluded.

I should highlight here that I refer to a cure for the ageing process in general, and not a cure for a specific medical disease. Biotechnology and other physical therapies are useful in alleviating many diseases and ailments, but these therapies will not be the answer to the basic biological process of ageing.

In a paper I published in the journal Rejuvenation Research I outline some of the reasons why I think biotechnology will not solve the ageing problem. I criticise projects such as SENS (which are based upon physical repairs of our ageing tissues) as being essentially useless against ageing. The editor’s rebuttal (being weak and mostly irrelevant) proved and strengthened my point. There are insurmountable basic psychological, anatomical, biological and evolutionary reasons why physical therapies against ageing will not work and will be unusable by the general public. Some of these reasons include pleiotropy, non-compliance, topological properties of cellular networks, non-linearity, strategic logistics, polypharmacy and tolerance, etc. etc.

So, am I claiming that we are doomed to live a life of age-related pathology and degeneration, and never be able to shake off the aging curse? No, far from it. I am claiming that it is quite possible, even inevitable, that ageing will be eliminated but this will not be achieved through a physical intervention based on bio-medicine or bio-technology. Ageing will be eliminated through fundamental evolutionary and adaptation mechanisms, and this process will take place independently of whether we want it or not.

It works like this: We now age and die because we become unable to repair random background damage to our tissues. Resources necessary for this have been allocated by the evolutionary process to our germ cell DNA (in order to assure the survival of the species) and have been taken away from our bodily cells. Until now, our environment was so full of dangers that it was more thermodynamically advantageous for nature to maintain us up to a certain age, until we have progeny and then die, allowing our progeny to continue life.

However, this is now changing. Our environment is becoming increasingly more secure and protective. Our technology protects us against dangers such as infections, famine and accidents. We become increasingly embedded into the network of a global techno-cultural society which depends upon our intelligence in order to survive. There will come a time when biological resources spent to bring up children would be better spent in protecting us instead, because it would be more economical for nature to maintain an existing, well-embedded human, rather than allow it to die and create a new one who would then need more resources in order to re-engage with the techno-cultural network. Disturbing the network by taking away its constituents and trying to re-engage new inexperienced ones is not an ideal action and therefore it will not be selected by evolution.

The message is clear: You have more chances of defying ageing if, instead of waiting for someone to discover a pill to make you live longer, you become a useful part of a wider network and engage with a technological society. The evolutionary process will then ensure that you live longer-as long as you are useful to the whole.

Further reading
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/kyriazis20121031
https://russian.lifeboat.com/blog/2013/12/the-seven-fallacies-of-aging
https://russian.lifeboat.com/blog/2013/04/the-life-extension…-to-ageing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25072550
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6910

At first, it may appear strange to suggest that living longer has something to do with using pseudonyms online. However, it is true. I am suggesting that people who are well known online, those who are hyper-connected, and those who facilitate others to have access to relevant and meaningful information, are more likely to live longer.

It works like this: Humans are continually evolving and adapting to their environment. Our current environment is one of technology, digital communication, intense information-sharing and hyper-connection. Within this society we are exposed to vast amounts of both trivial and relevant information, which reaches our brain and may alter our basic biology causing a series of beneficial cellular and molecular changes which promote healthy lifespan (http://benthamscience.com/journal/abstracts.php?journalID=ca...=122290").

Looking at this from a different perspective, it is known that agents which are useful to the collective are retained longer within the system (http://xxx.tau.ac.il/abs/1402.6910). This can be true of any agent (i.e. any autonomous actor) such as a computer node, a human neuron, or an entire human. In this case, humans are digitally connected to other humans within a higher entity called the Global Brain (http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/03/16/francis-heylighen-on-the…l-brain/). The more well-connected you are, and the more useful you are to the evolution of the Global Brain, the more likely it is that you will be retained by the system, i.e. you will live longer within this system.

It follows, that in order this to happen you need to be hyper-connected and share meaningful and insightful information.

First, in order to hyper-connect you need to:
• Develop a strong social media base, in diverse forums
• Stay continually visible on line
• Be respected and valued in the virtual environment
• Increase the number of your connections both in virtual and in real terms.
• Increase the unity of your connections by using only one (user)name for all environments and across all platforms.

Second, in order to facilitate the flow of meaningful information you need to:
• Avoid spending too much time on trivial use of internet platforms
• Share your thoughts with your peers
• Create and share meaningful information that requires action
• Don’t worry too much about privacy

The issue of privacy is contentious. However, it is also grossly overrated. As long as you stay on the right side of the law, you have nothing to fear. If the CIA knows how many cups of coffee you have each day, or if your photo has been shared by others (for legal purposes), or if the world knows that your birthday is today, this is hardly important to anyone. The only limited area where privacy becomes relevant is when it is abused for criminal or illegal purposes. But, let’s face it: how frequently does this happen? It is like arguing for the suppression of knife sales in case a knife is used to injure you.

As we develop more technologies and become increasingly more involved with them, our society and culture will change, and this will have a direct impact upon our biology. It is inevitable that this will eventually lead to an increasing lifespan, in order to accommodate basic evolutionary principles.

1. The Fallacy of words

Eliminating aging will make us ‘immortal’ and we will live forever.

No, it won’t. If we eliminate aging as a cause of death, we may be able to live for an indefinite (not infinite) period, until something else kills us. Even in a world without aging, death can happen at any time (at age 10, 65 or 1003) and for any reason (a shot in the head, malaria, drowning). If we manage to eliminate aging as a cause of death, the only certain thing would be that we will not necessarily die when we reach the currently maximum lifespan limit of around 110–120 years. We would certainly NOT live for ever, because something else will kill us sooner or later. Our organs cannot be repaired if we perish in a nuclear explosion for example, or in a fire. Some statisticians have mentioned that, without aging, we may be able to live to 1700–2000 years on average before death happens due to some other catastrophic damage. This is a long time, but it is not ‘forever’.

2. The Fallacy of numbers

Eliminating aging will result in overpopulation.

No, it won’t. This is based on spurious, even naïve, thinking. Aging happens because we need to reproduce. Or, we need to reproduce because we age. If aging is eliminated, the need to reproduce will also be broadly eliminated. It is a cyclical, reciprocal argument.

3. The Fallacy of loneliness

“I don’t want to live dramatically longer because I will have to witness the deaths of all my family and friends”.

No, you won’t. If you live longer because aging has been eliminated, then your family and friends will too. In any case, this counteracts fallacy number 2: if everybody else dies, how come we would have overpopulation? And fallacy number 2 counteracts this one: if we do have overpopulation, then it is likely that your friends and relatives will be alive too.

4. The Fallacy of the pill

Aging will be eliminated by taking a pill (or a combination of pills, injections, something physical).

No, it won’t. It will be eliminated through a change in the direction of human evolution, when billions of humans continue to engage with technology (or via other, abstract global technologically-dependent means). As the general direction of evolution is towards a more complex state which makes us better adapted to our environment, there would come a point when our hyper-technological environment would select individual longevity instead of aging and degeneration, as a more thermodynamically efficient situation.

5. The Fallacy of money

Research into the elimination of aging is not progressing fast due to lack of appropriate funding.

No, funding is not the main bottleneck. The main problem is the widespread adoption of the wrong approach. The idea that aging can be eliminate through pharmacological intervention dates back to the time of the Alchemists. It has no place in a modern, highly technological and intellectually sophisticated society, and certainly not with respect to defying such a fundamental process as aging. It is reductionist instead of integrative.
Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed. Aging happens because within a tendency to progress from simple to complex, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species

6. The Fallacy of the rich elite

Only a few rich people will have access to the treatment.

This is a combination of fallacies number 4 and 5, a fallacy based on fallacies. People who adapt and fit within an upwards moving technological environment will be more likely to survive. Money is irrelevant. What is relevant is intellectual effort and aggressive engagement with our environment (hyperconnectivity is an example). If a large number of humans (in the order of hundreds of millions) actively engage with their increasingly technological environment, there would be no reason to age/reproduce at the current rates, as survival can be assured through the individual rather than the species. Therefore, there could be no secrets about the process, due to the very fact that a significant section of humanity must necessarily participate.

7. The fallacy of frailty

Living dramatically longer will mean a long life with debilitating illnesses.

No, it won’t. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. A life without aging necessarily means a life without age-related degeneration. You cannot have one without the other.

Here, the term ‘Radical Life Extension’ specifically means the abolition of aging. Without the process of aging, however it is defined, people will not suffer age-related degenerative conditions, and they will not die of old age. Therefore, the terms ‘Radical Life Extension’,’ Indefinite Lifespans’, and ‘cure of age-related diseases’, all convey the same meaning: a life without aging. It is important to emphasize that I consider the process of aging to be directly related to that of reproduction. I argue that the process of reproduction is necessarily implicated in the process of aging (in other words, aging happens because we need to reproduce), as explained in my argument number 3 below.

In this context, I would also like to remark that by ‘reproduction’ I specifically refer to sexual (i.e. genetic) reproduction. Evolution may still continue to use (or begin to use) other forms of reproduction such as memetic reproduction and reproduction of noemes.

The main thrust of my discussion is that we are now beginning to witness the first tentative steps leading away from the significance of procreative sexual intercourse and towards the global emergence of other, sustained, non-procreative sexual preferences.

Let me explore a series of logical arguments which lead to an inescapable conclusion. Note that I do not imply a sentient deity in my discussion. I do not infer any entity that possesses any conscious awareness which transcend the laws of nature.

Argument 1
Nature, through evolution, tends to progress towards higher levels of complexity. To put it another way, within natural laws there are basins of attraction which necessarily tend to cause a transition from simple to complex, and therefore lead to the emergence of new characteristics. The Belgian Cyberneticist Francis Heylighen has listed these characteristics in increasing order of complexity, as follows:
* mobility
* sensation
* learning
* intelligence
* morality
* mimicry
* language
* culture
* technology.

He states that “The idea is that all life, wherever it occurs in the universe, will develop those traits of universal fitness, in roughly the same chronological order. It means that those traits are built into the laws of nature. They are statistically inevitable. It is as if nature ‘wants’ us to go in a certain direction. This is what gives biological evolution its clear directionality”.

The above list is not final, and there is no implication that technology is the end stage of human evolution. The point I am making here is a general one: that evolution tends to higher complexity, whatever this complexity might be, in order to ensure survival within a specified niche.

Argument 2
Based on this list, it is obvious that we are currently on the highest stage of natural evolution, that of technology. There will certainly be higher end-points in the future. In fact, I can think of at least two such stages which we have not yet achieved, but at this point I argue that this has profound implications on the issues of aging and radical life extension. If the general direction of evolution is towards increasing complexity and survival, why do we age and die? The answer is straightforward. Within a tendency to progress from simple to complex, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging – see argument 3) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species.

Argument 3
Until now, the clear role of reproduction was to maximise the chances of survival and thus progress to a higher stage in the list above. However, in order for reproduction to be successful, the genetic code (germ-line) must be maintained. An inequality of resources available for repair and maintenance between germ line and somatic cells means that, while the integrity of the germ-line is fully guaranteed, that of somatic cells is not. Therefore we (our bodies) must age and die through aging. Survival is thus assured, albeit it is the survival of the germ-line and that of the species, and not the survival of our own individual selves.

Argument 4
The main tendency in nature (i.e. the direction of evolution), through a relentless progress of increasing complexity, is to stay alive. Ultimately, what matters is to survive. The basins of attraction mentioned above exist because they ensure survival. Reproduction is just a means for assuring survival in the face of adverse thermodynamical resources. If there was a way to survive without reproduction, then the process of reproduction would be drastically downgraded. We may be now able to survive, i.e. live (dramatically) longer, through the use of technology and not necessarily through reproduction. There are three types of technology that is relevant here:
* Biomedical Technology
* General mechanical technology (includes AI)
* Digital Communications Technology

I have argued elsewhere that it is this last type of technology that is the most promising in achieving Radical Life Extension. In humans, technology is both the result of natural selection and the cause of the end of natural selection.

Argument 5
If there are any signs that reproduction is being downgraded then it means that the above arguments are likely to be correct, and that the process of long individual survival has begun. One such preliminary sign is the decline in procreative sexual practice and the relatively widespread emergence of other practices or preferences. If nature somehow ‘senses’ that survival is now being assured through technology, then the pressure for finding a mate of the opposite sex and reproduce would be eased, allowing the widespread emergence of other non-reproductive sexual practices such as homosexuality, non-procreative polyamory, hedonist polysexuality or pansexuality. It is likely therefore that we are now entering a period of human evolution which will not entirely depend on reproduction. Reduced reproduction means that more resources are available to be passed on to the soma (body) and thus radical longevity becomes more likely.

Discussion
How can the technological environment in which one finds themselves impact sexuality? There is a train of logical arguments which answer this question:
• If we accept that evolution generally tends to higher complexity and sophistication (including technological sophistication) in order to increase survival, and
• If we accept that a stage of significant technological achievement has now been reached (or is likely to be reached within 20 years), and
• If, as long as the human species survives, it is immaterial whether its survival is achieved through reproduction or through any other means, and
• If one of these other means is technology,

then, it is also logical to assume that genetic reproduction is now less important than before because high complexity/intelligence can be achieved through technology and through the prolonged survival of the individually- enhanced human, and not necessarily through a random process of natural selection (birth/procreation/death). If genetic reproduction is now not as important as before, any tendency to conventional procreative sexuality will diminish. Thus, other sexual preferences and practices will become more common place.

And just to push the discussion further into the realms of speculation, one should wonder if the progressive global reduction of sperm count, the increased incidence of undescended testicles, and the first signs that men are becoming less ‘macho’, have any relationship with my argument. It may be hypothesized that, as the reproductive practice is now being downgraded, the health of male sexual organs has begun to be affected, in preparation for a procreative shutdown, at least in some sections of humanity.

Finally, I have been asked: Can using computers make me gay? This is a captious statement which is both true and false, but it helps illustrate a point. Based on the arguments above, increased engagement with technology at a significant level, and by a significant number of people, will have an impact on natural selection and thus on procreation. It will diminish the hitherto immense pressure to find a mate and have offspring, and so other sexual preferences will emerge globally. The discussion does not refer to single isolated individuals but to humankind as a whole.

For more information on our research in these areas see www.elpisfil.org.

This article was originally published here:
http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/11/26/sexuality-evolution-and-…-of-aging/

The foundation’s research methodology is based mainly upon the ELPIS hypothesis (www.elpistheory.info). The initials stand for ‘Extreme Lifespans through Perpetual –equalising Interventions’. I developed this hypothesis in 2010 whilst trying to examine the reason behind the presence of aging. It was clear that aging is not an essential component of our evolutionary development, and if we find ways to study why nature has developed it, we may then be able to eradicate it. Currently, the chances of us dying from aging are heavily against us. By developing suitable interventions, we may be able to equalise the odds against us dying (i.e. remove aging as a cause of death).

Our method is different from most existing approaches aiming to eliminate aging. We are mainly interested in the ‘connection-approach’ and not so much in the ‘component-approach’. We believe that it is important to study how the different components of the organism are interconnected and regulated, rather than just repair the individual components. It is the ‘why aging happens’ rather than the ‘how it happens’ that interests us most. In order to make this clear let me mention an analogy with poliomyelitis.

Polio
*How it happens? There is inflammation and necrosis leading to damage of motor neurons and, ultimately, muscle weakness and paralysis
* Why it happens? Because the poliovirus causes it

Aging
* How it happens? There is cellular and molecular damage through oxidation and glycation, as well as damage to mitochondria, DNA etc.
* Why it happens? Because evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so ensure the survival of the species.

In this analogy, the obvious cure for polio is to somehow eradicate the poliovirus itself, and not just keep repairing the already damaged motor neurons. And in the case of aging, the best tactic is to somehow change the reason why aging happens, instead of just keep repairing already existing damage.

Attempts such as SENS and similar, aim to repairing existing damage, were as we aim primarily to eliminate the evolutionary reasons behind aging in the first place. This is not to say that we are not at all interested in damage repair. In fact, one of our main projects deals with the repair problem. But, overall we want to explore the evolution of aging and not its secondary effects.

We see aging as a specific and well-defined process. Our aim is unambiguous: we seek to eliminate this particular process. By eliminating aging we will have a life without age-related disease and degeneration, and a lifespan without a predetermined end. We do not seek immortality. In order to be immortal, one has to totally and permanently eliminate all causes of death (not just reduce their incidence). We seek to eliminate aging as one of the causes of death. People will still die from any other cause. In this case, our lifespan would be ‘indefinite’ because the current absolute limit of around 110–120 years will be lifted. There would not be a pre-defined limit; therefore the lifespan would be indefinite. It will not be infinite. This distinction is crucial because it clarifies any ambiguity and vagueness in the terminology. We do not seek eternal youth. We merely concentrate on the process of aging as one of the many other causes of death, the same as other researchers concentrate on the cure for cancer or the cure for HIV infection.

Within ELPIs Foundation we have scientific advisors from a wide range of disciplines, including biomedicine, transhumanism, social sciences, neurosciences, complex systems, and systems biology. Our affiliate researchers are scientists who conduct research in their own facilities and share information and ideas with each other. We are always looking for visionary, ‘out-of the box’ scientific thinkers, those who ‘zoom out’ of reductionist views, and see aging in a wider perspective without being uncritically blinkered by existing dogma.

We ask questions such as: If aging happens because nature withholds resources from the soma and diverts these to the germ-line, how can we reverse this process and divert resources back to the soma in order to maximise biological repair? What is the role of digital hyperconnectivity of billions of humans (the Global Brain) in facilitating such a transition? Where does aging and the elimination of aging fit within an ever-evolving technological tendency of nature? Some ideas we currently explore are:
* Induced Whole-Body Somatic Cell Turnover, for regenerative repair
* Aging and evolutionary changes as applied to human sexual patterns, reproduction, ecosystems, society and the planet
* The role of energy, entropy and thermodynamics in metasystem transitions with regards to human longevity
*Theoretical aspects of Germ-line penetration

May symposium

In May 2014 we will be organising the second symposium on ‘Pathways to Indefinite Lifespans’ in Larnaca, Cyprus. This is a small, very select, highly focused meeting exploring the most cutting-edge research and ideas with regards to the total abolition of aging. We aim to discuss new insights and hypotheses in the fields of biomedical technology, evolutionary anthropology, complex systems, a hyperconnected society, and digital communications technology. The meeting will be accessible live online and will include both local and remote presentations. Those interested in coming need to contact me at: [email protected]. We are also exploring the possibility of offering PhD positions to exceptional candidates, in order to facilitate research in this area.

This article was originally published here: http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/11/05/defying-aging-the-elpis-…lifespans/

For some time now I have been advocating the notion that exposure to meaningful information may be one way of achieving radical life extension. By meaningful information I mean anything that requires action, and not just feeding your brain with routine sets of data. Examples of this include being hyper-connected in a digital world, an enriched environment (both in the personal space and in society as a whole), a hormetic lifestyle, behavioural models such as a goal-seeking behaviour, search for excellence, and a bias for action, as well as the pursuit innovation, diversification, creativity and novelty. Most importantly, the avoidance of routine and mediocrity.

This information-rich lifestyle up-regulates the function of the brain and may have an impact upon cell immortalisation. In my latest paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2734 I provide an explanation of the exact mechanisms. I argue that the relentless exposure to useful information creates new and persisting demands for energy resources in order for this information to be assimilated by the neurons. If this process continues for some time, there will come a point where our biological mechanisms will undergo a phase transition, in effect creating a new biology. Not one based on sex and reproduction but one based on information and somatic survival.

One possible mechanism involves the immortalisation sequences of germ cells. As we know, the DNA in germ cells is essentially immortal because it is somehow able to repair age-related damage effectively. Recent research shows that some of these immortalisation mechanisms do not originate from the germ cells but from the somatic cells! In other words, our bodily cells create biological material such as error-free sequences of DNA and instead of using this themselves for their own survival, they pass it on to the germ cells to assure the survival of the species. This means that the germ-line remains immortal whereas the bodily cells eventually age and die.

The process may be forcibly changed, by overloading the system with high quality actionable information. As explained above, the assimilation of this information demands so much energy and resources from the organism that there will come a point when nature will have to make a choice: is it more economical from the thermodynamic point of view to continue the current cycle of birth, aging and death (with an immortal DNA), or is it better to downgrade this model and favour a new process of somatic survival and improved development in the same individual who would be able to live much longer? The force of evolution in a modern technological, information-laden niche may eventually favour the latter.

Also see here: http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/12/06/the-longevity-of-real-human-avatars/

In the case of radical life extension, there is a tendency to an ‘idealistic trance’ where people blindly expect practical biotechnological developments to be available and applied to the public at large within a few years. More importantly, idealists expect these treatments or therapies to actually be effective and to have a direct and measurable effect upon radical life extension. Here, by ‘radical life extension’ I refer not to healthy longevity (a healthy life until the age of 100–120 years) but to an indefinite lifespan where the rate of age-related mortality is trivial.

Let me mention two empirical examples based on experience and facts:

1. When a technological development depends on technology alone, its progress is often dramatic and exponential.

2. When a technological development also depends on biology, its progress is embarrassingly negligible.

Developments based solely on mechanical, digital or electronic concepts are proliferating freely and vigorously. Just 20 years ago, almost nobody had a mobile telephone or knew about the internet. Now we have instant global communication accessible by any member of the general public.

Contrast this with the advancement of biotechnology with regards to, say, the treatment of the common cold. There has not been a significantly effective treatment for the public at large for, I will not say a million, but certainly for several thousand years. The accepted current medical treatment for the common cold is with bed rest, fluids, and antipyretics which is the same as that suggested by Hippocrates. Formal guidelines for the modern treatment of cardiac arrest include chest compressions and mouth- to- mouth resuscitation (essentially the same as the technique used by the prophet Elisha in the Old Testament) as well as intra-cardiac (!) atropine, lignocaine and other drugs used by physicians during the 1930’s. In my medical museum in Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriazis_Medical_Museum) I have examples of Medieval treatments for urinary retention (it was via a metal urinary catheter then, whereas now the catheter is plastic), treatment of asthma (with belladonna then, ipratropium now – a direct derivative), and treatment of pain (with opium then, with opium-like derivatives now).

About a hundred years ago, my grandfather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoklis_Kyriazis) wrote a book on hygiene, longevity and healthy life for the public, which included advice such as fresh air, exercise, consumption of fruit and vegetables, avoidance of excessive alcohol or cigarette smoke. These are of course preventative treatments advised by modern anti-ageing practitioners, hardly any progress in a century. In fact, these are the only proven treatments.  Even the modern notion of ‘antioxidants’ can be encountered as standard health advice in medical books from the 1800’s. With the trivial exception of a handful of other examples, there has hardly been any progress in healthy longevity at all that can be applied to the common man in the street. Resveratrol?  Was a standard health advice in ancient Greek medicine (red wine). Carnosine? Discovered and used 100 years ago. Cycloastragenol? Used in Chinese medicine 1000 years ago.

My question is: how do we expect to influence the process of ageing when we cannot even develop bio-technological cures for simple and common diseases? Are we really serious when we talk about biotechnological treatments that can lead to radical life extension, being developed within the next few years? And if we are really serious, is this belief based on empiricism or idealism? The manipulation of human biology has been particularly tricky, with no significant progress of effective breakthroughs developed during the past several decades. Here I, of course, acknowledge the value of some modern drugs and isolated bio-technological achievements, but my point is that these developments are based on relatively minor refinements of existing therapies, and not on new breakthroughs that can modify the human body in any positive or practical degree. Importantly, even if some isolated examples of effective biotechnology do exist, these are not yet suitable for use by the general public at large.

If we were to compare the progress of general technology with that of life extension biotechnology, we could see that:

A. The progress of technology over the past 100 years has been logarithmic to exponential, whereas that of life extension biotechnology has been virtually static.

B. The progress of technology over the past 20 years has been exponential, whereas that of life extension biotechnology has barely been logarithmic.

It is one thing to talk about future biotechnology developments as a discussion point, and to post these in blogs, for general curiosity. But it is a different thing altogether if we actually want to devise and deliver an effective, practical therapy that truly affords significant life extension.

A different approach is needed, one that does not depend exclusively on biotechnology. It would be naïve to say that I am arguing for the total abandonment of life extension biotechnology, but it is equally naïve to believe that this biotechnology is likely to be effective on its own. A possible way forward could be the attempt to modify human biology not via biotechnology alone, but also by making use of natural, already existing evolutionary mechanisms. One such example could be the use of ‘information-that-requires-action’ in order to force a reallocation of resources from germ-line to somatic cells. This is an approach we currently aiming to describe in detail. My final remark with regards to achieving indefinite lifespan is this: we must engage with technology without depending on biotechnology.

For some general background information on how to engage with technology see:

http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/12/06/the-longevity-of-real-human-avatars/

http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/03/04/indefinite-lifespans-a-n…bal-brain/

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/kyriazis20121031