Bob, seems skeptical, but not dismissive of transhumanism. He said one thing that is scientifically incorrect. He sites studies that claim fundamental lifespan limit at 110. Obviously he is trusting of mainstream scientists, but skeptical of radical. I think he is wrong to believe Leonard Hayflick camp who believes that natural aging cannot be slowed and aging is irreversible in principle. I personallu thing Hauflick has gone set in his ways due to his advanced age. While I know neither of you share Aubrey's optimism, I too more on the side of Pete Estep, who is sketpcial of Aubrey's claim (which I hope Aubrey is right and Estep is wrong, and therefore hope to be wrong but see Pete's assessment as more realistic) that any interventions we have today can slow natural aging, let alone reverse it and can only impact environmentally or lifestyle caused aging, however, he is critical of mainstream biogerontologists who site Hayflick that no medical intervention will slow natural aging or reverse it. He said that they carry the burden of proof because while current medical interventions will likely not slow natural aging, let alone reverse it, there is no physical law that prohibits it from being done in principle. And arguing that complexity of human body makes it unrealistic assumes human bodies, biological processes and aging are infinitely complex and that is not the case. Do I believe that any current medical interventions will ever advance to slow natural aging, I hope to be wrong, but I doubt it, I don't have that confidence. But I am confident that future medical intevrentions and technologies, that I cannot imagine what they will be, will do just that as nobody proved it is impossible. Citing second law of thermodynamics won't do it as there is no proof it makes it impossible, only that it can be an obstacle to be overcome. It is wrong for Haylfick camp to view anti-aging as pseudoscience when it is not proven to violate physical laws just because the idea is bizzare and not proven. Pseudoscience should be reserved for ideas that demostratably violate physical law and not simpy bizzare and lack evidence. As person claiming something (even bizzare) is impossible carries the burden of proof. It seems that mainstream scientific community, particularly those in chemistry, biology and cognitive sciences, has an allergic reaction to astrology, parapsychology and ufology that they try to be as far from it as possible and dismiss any claim that sounds bizzare without properly examining them and look for the reason and sometimes throw laws of physics they can invoke to say why it MUST be impossible. That being said I am skeptical that any interventions we have today are sufficient to slow natural aging let along reverse it as much as Aubrey and other biohacks want it not to be the case.
Bob, seems skeptical, but not dismissive of transhumanism. He said one thing that is scientifically incorrect. He sites studies that claim fundamental lifespan limit at 110. Obviously he is trusting of mainstream scientists, but skeptical of radical. I think he is wrong to believe Leonard Hayflick camp who believes that natural aging cannot be slowed and aging is irreversible in principle. I personallu thing Hauflick has gone set in his ways due to his advanced age. While I know neither of you share Aubrey's optimism, I too more on the side of Pete Estep, who is sketpcial of Aubrey's claim (which I hope Aubrey is right and Estep is wrong, and therefore hope to be wrong but see Pete's assessment as more realistic) that any interventions we have today can slow natural aging, let alone reverse it and can only impact environmentally or lifestyle caused aging, however, he is critical of mainstream biogerontologists who site Hayflick that no medical intervention will slow natural aging or reverse it. He said that they carry the burden of proof because while current medical interventions will likely not slow natural aging, let alone reverse it, there is no physical law that prohibits it from being done in principle. And arguing that complexity of human body makes it unrealistic assumes human bodies, biological processes and aging are infinitely complex and that is not the case. Do I believe that any current medical interventions will ever advance to slow natural aging, I hope to be wrong, but I doubt it, I don't have that confidence. But I am confident that future medical intevrentions and technologies, that I cannot imagine what they will be, will do just that as nobody proved it is impossible. Citing second law of thermodynamics won't do it as there is no proof it makes it impossible, only that it can be an obstacle to be overcome. It is wrong for Haylfick camp to view anti-aging as pseudoscience when it is not proven to violate physical laws just because the idea is bizzare and not proven. Pseudoscience should be reserved for ideas that demostratably violate physical law and not simpy bizzare and lack evidence. As person claiming something (even bizzare) is impossible carries the burden of proof. It seems that mainstream scientific community, particularly those in chemistry, biology and cognitive sciences, has an allergic reaction to astrology, parapsychology and ufology that they try to be as far from it as possible and dismiss any claim that sounds bizzare without properly examining them and look for the reason and sometimes throw laws of physics they can invoke to say why it MUST be impossible. That being said I am skeptical that any interventions we have today are sufficient to slow natural aging let along reverse it as much as Aubrey and other biohacks want it not to be the case.