The success of Aubrey de Grey baffles me | Hacker News Reader

The success of Aubrey de Grey baffles me

freethoughtblogs.com

37 pointsbigbillheck65 comments

The actual news in this post: the SENS foundation has placed de Grey on indefinite leave following the allegations in the past few days: https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/11/anti-aging-research-pion...

I don't think Aubrey de Grey is a good guy, and for anyone that is seriously interested in longevity research, it is known that he is mostly an old mascot that has kicked off a lot of (public, though not so much scientific) discourse in that field, but he and his foundation hasn't produced much by themselves.

Having said all that, the dismissal of longevity(/rejuvenation) research in general by the author (and many of the comments here) is incredibly shallow. While Aubrey de Grey highlights his mitochondiral research in his book "Ending Aging"[0], he never claims that it is a silver bullet for aging and most off the book revolves around different parts to the puzzle that have all to be solved in order for consistent rejuvenation to succeed.

A few years later "The Hallmarks of Aging"[1] (which outlines a similar approach to the book) was published in Cell and is widely recognized as a milestone paper and "roadmap" on what problems need to be tackled on the road to longevity. There are also now many biotech startups tackling exactly those problems outlined, producing real drugs that are currently in trials (e.g. Unity Biotechnology[2]), and the rate of more of them popping up is only accelerating.

I could try to write even more here to convince you that longevity research is a worthwile pursuit (and not just vaporware), but it's probably better if you read up on the topic for yourself, for which I can strongly recommend /r/longevity[3] and the resources listed there.

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Breakthroug...

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174/

[2]: https://unitybiotechnology.com/pipeline/

[3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/

One more link that tries to collect current clinical trials: https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/

And an example for success for treating mitochondrial disease: https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/g...

https://www.gensight-biologics.com/product/gs010-for-lhon/

Sure, it's not moving mitochondrial DNA to Nucleus directly, but the vector allows a specific mitochondrial gene to be expressed inside the nucleus. In the future base / prime editing (which didn't exist 10 years ago) can be used to fix mitochondrial DNA damage, which is probably much better solution: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02054-5

So far the car maintainence metaphore of curing aging seems right.

He might be a crank but certainly not the usual sort, he solved a longstanding open problem in mathematics: https://www.quantamagazine.org/decades-old-graph-problem-yie...

I see him as a fraudster rather than a crank and there is no reason why people that are good at mathematics would not be able to commit fraud. In fact, they're probably better at it.

Being good at mathematics also does not preclude crankery. Quite the opposite really, if you can see the theoretical underpinnings of reality it’s a short step to believing you know everything.

Gödel was famously on the far side, suffering from an obsessive fear of being poisoned and starving to death when his wife was hospitalised because he refused to eat anyone else's food.

That's when you assume that the person involved is ethical, but ethics and intelligence are not necessarily aligned.

Gödel was very mentally unwell (what seems like severe hypochondria and probably other things as well) but he definitely was not a crank.

This, crankery (in mathematics) has a rather specific meaning, there's even a book: https://bookstore.ams.org/spec-4

Crankery is crankery.

The book you link to talks about mathemathical crankery, but a mathematician would most likely be a non-mathematics crank, as crankery usually requires a lack of / limited understanding of the field and subject. Although there are some strange cases e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Branges_de_Bourcia

The point still stands that Gödel was not a crank. He was mentally ill, but his scientific and mathematical work was about as far removed from crankery as possible.

This article is full of blatantly faulty "logic." Maybe de Grey is guilty as charged, but this article is just irresponsible, reprehensible noise.

It's OK up to the cryonics comment, as far as I can tell; after that it just becomes sarcastic. For example, making sarcastic comments about a person's alibi does not mean the alibi is actually false.

Another example - the author states that he will judge de Grey based on some moron commenting on his blog - which is obviously faulty and shows that the author has suspect motivations.

Adding emotionalistic junk to the Internet puts you into the same kind of camp as, well... the normal people that we complain about (QAnon, etc.). I mean, seriously. Practice intellectual hygiene. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be listened to, you are contributing to the overall problem.

That's a fair criticism of the article, it would have been a lot stronger without all the junk.

I don't think it even starts off that well. Close to the beginning it makes it sound like AdG is telling people he can make them immortal, which is a flat out lie. In podcasts and interviews as recent as a few weeks ago I remember he has corrected questions along those lines, saying nothing will stop a bus from flattening you for example. Ending ageing and ending death are completely different things.

I've been hearing a lot about this guy lately, and he does sound like a crank. But if you want to write an article saying that's definitely the case, you should not say, "I wonder what new flaky idea he’s telling audiences of rich old people, but unfortunately I don’t care enough to try and find out..."

The light, flakey tone of this article is inappropriate to an attempt to destroy someone's career, no matter how justifiably. That's a matter to take seriously.

From a laymen perspective, I see David Sinclair as the clear leader in this field with actual lab results to back it up. https://sinclair.hms.harvard.edu/research I only remember Aubrey de Grey talking and presenting a lot but there wasn't the level of substance that seemed satisfactory to me. Ad hominem alert... Aubrey gives me the sensation of scratching a chalkboard with his strange social life and terrible hygiene but is obviously intelligent. In stark contrast...David has all the admirable hallmarks, socially and academically.

Substance really only matters to me but it is worth mentioning Aubrey's oddness as it seems quite extreme and entertaining. I think Aubrey's weirdness actually had the opposite effect of making me give him more credit of a potential mad genius than now seemingly deserved but maybe that will change.

The kind of research Sinclair does is quite plausibly complementary to de Grey's in many ways. Sinclair focuses on epigenetic changes in nuclear DNA as a key factor, which SENS would probably classify more broadly as "senescent cells causing trouble" aka ApoptoSENS. OTOH Sinclair's research does not have many tie-ins to the broader field of regenerative medicine, which is where de Grey's approach might have more value.

People want to live forever and there weren’t many people in this space when de Grey started.

I don’t think he’s a crank, but it is surprising that people invest in him.

It's the billionaire's dillema: you can't take it with you, so here's this guy who for a - to you - paltry sum of money claims that he can make you live forever. Since it doesn't harm you in any way you might as well make that bet. See also: Pascals' wager.

His success is mostly limited to milking gullible people, as far as I know not a single usable item is the result of this fraudsters activity over the years.

That whole field - and the associated cryo preservation proponents / entities - are simply religion warmed over, sell the eternal life in return for your money today. No proof required and never any complaints.

> His success is mostly limited to milking gullible people, as far as I know not a single usable item is the result of this fraudsters activity over the years.

Really? SENS research is pretty niche in the broad field of regenerative medicine - that's kind of their schtick after all - but it appears to follow the well-known pattern from medical research where it's amazingly useful for mice, with results on humans being either inconclusive or many years away from practical usefulness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENS_Foundation#Research

I think you confirmed my point.

Perhaps, but by that standard all basic research in medicine with no short-term application to humans is "just milking gullible people". There's not much in there that's specific to SENS.

Not really, because the bulk of that research is at least based on solid scientific principles whereas what de Grey has been peddling always read as 'made for investors' rather than aiming for specific results. I always figured that Mollers sky car would fly long before de Grey would deliver a result (and I consider Moller to be longest running investor scam in history besides the Catholic church).

The fact that the SENS approach can even lead to "made for investors", plausibly-viable biotech spinoffs is, if anything, a validation of its scientific plausibility. Don't get me wrong, you could fairly describe it as a niche, fringe, unpopular approach and perhaps discount it on that basis, but it's at least not so fringe as to be entirely useless.

No, it's mostly a proof of the fact that investors do not usually have a good grasp of what they are investing in. See also: Theranos, Moller, uBeam and many others besides.

And in the case of de Grey specifically, that Pascal's wager is alive and well.

I think he, like many techno-utopians, provides something more valuable than truth: identity

This reads like someone with a personal grudge against AdG, having a tantrum.

Judgement of Aubrey de Grey aside, I constantly find it weird that so many people, even on HN, don’t understand why some would want to live an especially long time.

You might want to live for a very long time, but I don't want you to live for a very long time (beyond your normal life-span, that is). After all, we already have the problem of those that have been around for a bit longer owning pretty much everything that's worth owning and renting it out at a premium to those that are born later.

Besides of course the resource consumption problem, the fact that these treatments - assuming they ever really materialize - will further increase the gap between rich and poor and so on. I honestly believe that the world as we know it would not be able to deal with a bunch of billionaire immortals. We'd be slaves in all but name.

And I don't believe that such a medical advance would be made available to all.

That's not a problem with longevity. Mortality isn't even a solution; it barely qualifies as a workaround, what with dynasties.

Now that’s an interesting take. Aside from the likelihood that aging treatments are likely to be free or subsidized by governments to avoid having increasingly old populations, what do you define as my normal lifespan? Should I avoid cancer treatments if I get it later in life? What about heart disease? Or Alzheimer’s?

For better or worse, you cannot make those value judgements on others.

No, feel free to get all those. But the moment that your life-extension becomes the shortening of someone else's is where the problems really begin. Resources are finite, we are already straining our eco-systems to (and beyond) the breaking point. At some point we will need some limits to avoid losing it all. Quite possibly we are already past the point of no return in that sense.

I think the first time when humanity will really be ready for a major boost in longevity is when we go interstellar, until then it would just complicate matters.

And whether or not I'm allowed to make those value judgments of others does not bother me, I am happy to apply the same judgments to myself.

Still, why are those okay when treatments for the causes of age related diseases are not?

Humans didn’t commonly live to 90 in the past, yet we do now. An 80 year old getting cancer treatment could be using a bed that a 25 year old with COVID could have used.

Fair enough. But it's a bit of a difference between tackling disease that also can affect the younger generations versus fixing aging itself. That's on a different level.

It's the difference between a quantitative change and a qualitative one, the one is merely an improvement, the other is revolutionary and will have many unintended side-effects that we are likely not going to be able to accurately predict.

I'm not looking forward to a world ruled by a gerontological elite that we can not get rid of who hold all the cards as well as the levers of power.

At least right now we have death as the limit to how much power an individual can amass, if you take that limit away I suspect that it will not end well and it might get us into a situation that we can no longer back out of.

The SENS programme, as speculative as it might be, is really about rejuvenation as opposed to mere life extension. And younger, healthier people put a lot less strain on resources than if they were older and sicker.

Great, bring it on, a world with 150 year olds who look like they're 30, what could possibly go wrong.

Either it will be very few ultra wealthy people (in which case the resources argument wouldn't matter so much anyway) or we are in for a population explosion the likes of which we've never seen.

350K people are born every day, 150K people die every day (lots of those children in the developing world). For a net of 200K, in other words, the world population increase would be roughly double what it is today without death.

> Resources are finite, we are already straining our eco-systems to (and beyond) the breaking point.

That has simple solution - you could have either life extension or children, but not both.

Are you proposing forced sterilization of people that have received their longevity treatments?

There's a good sci fi novel by Bob Shaw that has this trade off.

"One Million Tomorrows"

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1025074.One_Million_Tomo...

So that's a 'yes' then.

I'm not condoning or condemning, just offering it as a story that explores some of these issues.

In this story, the sterilisation (and complete loss of sexuality) is an inevitable consequence of the treatment, not something forced on you. But only males lose sexuality, while women do not. It sets up some interesting tensions.

> Aside from the likelihood that aging treatments are likely to be free or subsidized by governments to avoid having increasingly old populations, what do you define as my normal lifespan?

Pessimistic/dystopian take: what about in a future with much more automation and robotics to take care of the older wealthy-elite class? Do they really need that many young people, aside from their own offspring? In this possible future, perhaps they merely need enough to service the machines, which can each do the work of hundreds or thousands of humans each.

Are you grandstanding opposition to life extension just to make a statement about capitalism? You really would ditch immortality right off the bat rather than try to solve the wealth inequality in some other way?

No, I've been around long enough to be cynical. Immortality with humanity's present state of ethical development, inequality and resource exhaustion would introduce problems, it would not solve anything.

Had you caveated your original post with the second sentence I would have agreed

It would give strong incentives for long term thinking, which would help solve many of the issues we currently face.

Alternative take. The 'haves' would get rid of the have nots because the have nots are the biggest risk to their continued existence. And in one fell stroke also solve all those issues. Why bother will billions when a few million slaves will do?

Seriously though, this is all just wishful thinking, it isn't going to happen. You, like all those before you will die, probably at an age well below 100. And by that time you'll be cynical, old and tired, if you're very lucky not even disease ridden.

The biggest medical breakthrough in the field of life extension was doctors washing their hands and a couple of vaccines.

You want some life extension advice, here it is free of charge: get rid of your car, buy a bicycle. Eat healthy. Go live in the countryside rather than in a city. If you smoke stop doing that. If you drink alcohol, stop doing that.

There, added at least a decade to your life which is more than de Grey will ever do for you.

You're welcome.

You haven't actually responded to my rebuttal of your assertion that life extension has no positives.

I'm getting the feeling that you aren't interested in debating it at all. You've made your point repeatedly that you think it's a bad idea. So I guess we'll just leave it there.

It does puzzle me that most reactions to these problems are not "let's solve them", it is "I want people to die".

Let's have your proposed solutions then given our present day limitations. I'm all ears.

“Horse shit piling up in the roads is just our way of life. What would you have us do? Stop riding horses? How would we ever get anywhere? If you’re so smart, let’s have your proposed solutions given our present day limitations. I’m all ears.” ~ Someone a century or two before 1914 probably.

Sarcasm and condescension do nothing to drive the conversation forward and really just mask your own ignorance to solving the problem as well. If a solution already existed to the degree that it was common knowledge in public forums then I guess there wouldn’t be a problem would there?

The fact that massive divisions of companies like Alphabet (Calico) are dedicated to solving these problems seems to indicate that not all of us are deathists satisfied to recuse ourselves to mortality on the basis of some flimsy naturalistic fallacy.

Edit: Typo, changed our to are

> Someone a century or two before 1914 probably.

Given the degree to which industrialization has gotten us in trouble they may well have had a point. Good luck re-designing all your cities for non-motorized transport once that luxury becomes unaffordable.

Billionaires trying to extend their life-spans is as old as the Pharaos, 'deathists' is a great way to spell 'realist'. You too will die, get used to it and make your peace with it lest you die frustrated and old.

Oh, and don't forget to give your fortune to de Grey, after all, if he can't nobody can, better to have him succeed and then allow you access to life eternal. In fact, everybody should give all their money to de Grey, that will all but guarantee success.

This is how you spell immortality: cancer. The one thing that keeps us in check right now is death. Without that safeguard there would be very little standing between us and eventual total collapse. Right now we still have a chance.

I didn't say I had solutions to propose. Lots of other people have though, I can do some googling for you if you like. What problems trouble you most?

I have also noticed this. Obviously life extension would create a bunch of problems (wealth accumulation, overpopulation) as well as solving others (short term thinking, cost of medical treatment in old age).

But the vast majority of people in my experience instantly reject it citing some possible problem that might arise, and no further discussion can usually be had with them.

I've come to believe that the subject of mortality just triggers a huge irrational reaction in most people. They don't want to think about it at all.

It's very funny to call those that don't believe life extension should or will happen irrational. I think you have your parties mixed up. Thinking about something does not automatically make you rational, nor does thinking that something should happen.

I don't think it is realistic, if for whatever reason it does happen I think we are not ready for it. That's all there is to it.

You misunderstand the point I am making. I am not calling all those who don't believe in life extension irrational.

I am saying that in my experience, most people do not want to discuss it at all. They will bring up some obvious possible problem that might be caused by it, and then refuse any further discussion.

I think (but don't know) that this is an irrational reaction to the topic of mortality.

Some of us are so so damn tired, and end is something to look forward to.

That’s deeply depressing and I hope you figure out why that is and make changes if necessary to enjoy living.

Nature hates this one trick which guarantees free unlimited lifetimes! Click here to read.

I don't want to live forever. I do want to live a good 500+ years while having the option to end it at my pleasure sooner than that if desired.

I think if you can live long enough in a healthy state, eventually you'd acquire enough wealth to change your circumstances (configuration?) however you want. I think that would add at least 50 years of novelty.

I tend to agree it probably would get tiring after a while, but I think the point is being able to go out on your own terms.

The author sounds just as cranky, ironically.

The more I read about this guy the more it reads like a cult leader rather than a scientist.

Sounds like a grifter, though uncharacteristically grifting very rich people around the one thing their money can not really buy them.

Though it’s a similar grift to many religions, promising eternal life based on random technobabble instead of magic man.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com