February 11, 2008
Aubrey de Grey On Colbert Report

Dave Gobel tells me Aubrey de Grey (he of Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence fame on how to make our bodies youthful again) will be on the Colbert Report tonight. For those with access to the Comedy Central channel check it out. Steve Colbert should find some new humorous angles on living young for many centuries.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2008 February 11 07:15 PM  Aging Debate


Comments
Bob Badour said at February 12, 2008 5:49 AM:

I am glad I checked the site one last time before going to bed so I didn't miss it. I would have been pissed if I read this article this morning after the show.

Well, I would have been pissed until somebody posted a link to it on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nwvEnOmKJs

Rahein said at February 12, 2008 8:55 AM:

I didnít know he was going to be on last night. It was quite a surprise when I heard Colbert announce him. I think that the memes are starting to change.

I know the Clintonís read Kurzweil at least, anyone know if Obamaís been spotted with any Kurzweil or de Gray books?

averros said at February 12, 2008 4:31 PM:

> anyone know if Obamaís been spotted with any Kurzweil or de Gray books?

Hopefully not, because the surest way to kill a good research program is to make it a priority item on the government's wish list.

(Fifth Generation computers, anyone? Climate Change (what happened to the global cooling, anyway)? Space exploration? Supersonic civilian transport? The Internet (which started to fluorish only after it managed to escape from under the government with its AUPs)?)

Besides, the only thing worse than a socialist is an immortal socialist; so far untimely[*] deaths of the various people's leaders were one of the major drivers of change to the better. There's already a precedent of keeping the "always alive" corpse of a leftist high priest, thank you.

[*] in a sense "way too late"

aa2 said at February 13, 2008 12:09 AM:

One thing I notice is the younger generation many are open to these kinds of radical ideas. They've grown up seeing technology have really fundamental change like the internet developing and cell phones so they don't immediately say thats impossible. And they seem more open minded about a lot of things, just as an example look at Dr. Ron Paul's popoularity among 20 somethings.

Rahein said at February 13, 2008 9:21 AM:

> Hopefully not, because the surest way to kill a good research program is to make it a priority item on the government's wish list.

Well the current government is actively retarding scientific research in all fundamental areas. If the government is going to throw money around they should at least throw it in productive directions.

>(Fifth Generation computers, anyone?

We are stuck in the x86 days that is what keeps new computers from entering the market.

>Climate Change (what happened to the global cooling, anyway)?

Got to give you that one. Got to love all these January and February tornadoes we are getting.

>Space exploration?

Them Mars rovers seem to be doing pretty good to me. And soon (2012-13) the James Web Space Telescope will be launched. Bush is trying to kill space exploration with his manned moon base. If we learned anything in the space race vs. post space race is that robotic missions are cheaper and better.


>Supersonic civilian transport?

Supersonic air travel is not practical over land with current tech. NO new rail money has been spend by the government in years. Bush took the little funding Amtrak got away.

> The Internet (which started to fluorish only after it managed to escape from under the government with its AUPs)?)

The Internet showed a pretty steady rate of growth since its earliest days. Bandwidth in the US is stagnate, while the rest of the world keeps growing. The rest of the worlds governments spend more on network expansion. So I will give you that the US gov retards bandwidth.

As long as our government spends money people will use it as a confidence indicator and they will be unconfident in anything the government is not will also invest in.

Case and point if the FDA declared aging a disease millions of PRIVATE dollars will stream to real anti-aging therapies. Not counting the public money that would now be spent on it. Until then the anti-aging industry will be full of nuts and cosmetic dealers. Smart people like de Grey will get bunched in with the nuts instead of being regarded as visionaries.

Rob said at February 13, 2008 12:28 PM:

Just think how long De Grey's beard will be if he lives a thousand years.

Bob Badour said at February 13, 2008 6:27 PM:

Damn those viacom people! Asserting ownership of their intellectual property and stuff!

averros said at February 14, 2008 12:48 AM:

Rahein - you may want to read something on the subjects I mentioned other than self-congratulatory reports from people on government salaries. They are quick to take credit for things they did everything they could to ruin.

Couple of the items on the list I know from the first-hand involvement with the above mentioned "programs".

James said at February 14, 2008 4:27 PM:

"Case and point if the FDA declared aging a disease millions of PRIVATE dollars will stream to real anti-aging therapies."

Isn't it the opposite: Because government regulations make it almost impossible to get drugs to people for things that it doesn't approve of, there's currently almost no money going into anti-aging research. So we're basically hostage of whatever the FDA decides is worth doing.

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©