When, i first heard Aubrey talk, it was about 20 years ago. No one else was saying what he was. His goal was to increase awareness and get funding in this area. He has increased awareness to the point that now Alphabet, Bezo, Saudi money 💰 are now investing billions a year. The mindset of the science community had changed. He really has accomplished a lot.
Obviously we don't know with 100% certainty when (or if, even) we can reach LEV. Even AdG himself says 50/50 in the next 15 years. However, this field needs way more people like AdG, who are educated on this topic and have an extremely radical mind at the same time.
Nice to see Aubrey after so long. He was so exciting and dynamic back in the day. Frankly, I had kind of forgot about him and Sens. Seems like they fell off their perch some time ago and perhaps lost some of their relevance. This appearance is causing me to look at Sens again.
Aubrey had some legal issues. He's actually a lot more relaxed in his interviews now because his message has finally gotten out in the past five years or so.
If you had said in the early 2000s when Aubrey started giving his public speeches that he would still be experimenting on mice in 2023, I think most would've agreed that the longevity industry had failed. Very depressing that we still havent moved into larger mammals and humans in that time. Let us hope that the next 20 years proves to be significantly more fruitful than the last 20....we're all running out of time.
I’ll be around 50 by then. I still have a few decades of “youth” before old age even hits. But we can die any day. It would be nice to live a few more decades and pursue more to life.
@@DragonBallZuper I'm not expecting ADG to address absolute immortality - if we step out in front of a truck that's our fault. I do however believe that he has been entirely (and perhaps cynically) too optimistic in his predictions (as far as how quickly these technologies will be developed), with the intention of securing future investment.....a good strategy from his perspective, but wholly underwhelming for the rest of us. Hes a very convincing public speaker, salesman and advocate....but as such I'm not convinced by or to tied to any of his predictions. Now I do believe that some therapies will come to market within the next decade or two, albeit not necessarily as a result of ADG.....my concern however is whether or not any of them will be comprehensive enough to set us on the path to LEV within say the next 30 years. I should add that I'm only about 6/7 years older than you and have closely followed the 'progression' of this science for well over a decade.....and I have absolutely no confidence in LEV coming to fruition within my lifetime. The next 20 years will go quickly, so will the 20 after that......
I'd say there has been some progress in humans. Some therapies such as senolytics are already in clinical trials - not great results yet, but we'll learn lots and 2nd generation senotherapeutics should do better. Also, and the radical front, the Conboys have finished a phase 1 clinical trial of plasma dilution which resulted in a dramatic drop in biological age of the participants - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9398900/ I bumped into Aubrey at a conference last week and he is sticking with his prediction of (50% chance of) longevity escape velocity (i.e. even then we won't have stopped ageing entirely) by 2033-5
@@Live-Forever-Club Indeed, but its debatable as to whether or not these synthetic senolytics are any more powerful or comprehensive than their natural counterparts i.e. Fisetin, Astragalus, Fucoidan etc. Overall I would argue that all things being equal progress has not just been slower but significantly slower than what was predicted a generation ago - obviously I wish this wasn't the case, literally tens of millions of people have died as a direct result of the diseases of aging in that time, but it is the (very) sad fact of the matter. As for ADGs predictions - they have always been the first and biggest red flag in my mind to be honest. If he keeps telling investors (especially VCs) that we have a "50% chance within 15 years", thats just inticing enough for them to consider investing, especially when considering the inevitably astronomical ROI. However, if he says that we have virtually no chance within 50 years, guess what? The money dries up, who's going to invest in something that wont be realised in their lifetime? Its an ingenius tactic on his part, but I'm dubious as to whether that truly reflects the reality of the science in 2023 and beyond. I dont believe ADG to be nefarious in his intentions, if he is hoodwinking investors than hes going the entirely the wrong way about it - but I certainly believe that he is at least partially embellishing or overstating the reality somewhat in order to maintain his position within the industry. Only time will tell, and I certainly hope that he proves me completely wrong....but I have my doubts.
@@johnniejay all great points. I have to fight my natural positivity, especially as it seems statistically unlikely that as a 53-year-old I'm pretty much on the cusp of (biological) immortality - given the thousands of years people have considered it, I happen to be there at the right time?! But then I remember about exponential growth and how rapidly our understanding of aging in progressing. And am then knocked back by just how complicated it is. So, to twist your summary... I hope I'm right, but I have my doubts!
@@longevity.technology4067 I supposed it's superficial psychologry, but it would be hard for me to watch and take this individual seriously. But at least he isn't some con like Sinclair trying to sell stuff and make a mint off his "research" and celebrity. Nothing new ever comes from this stuff that tops common sense: Eat right, exercise, sleep, have social interaction, wear a seat belt, don't smoke, don't drink much, etc. All the rest of the science, other than stopping a few major diseases as well as the invention of antibiotics, has brought us marginal progress at best. And even the so called experts don't agree. And even if there were a solution to aging tomorrow: 1) do you think pharma companies would let that secret out of the bag and kill off their business model, and 2) it would be so cost prohibitive except for the ultra rich that the rest of us would never be able to afford it.
I know Aubrey and he's very positive about the multi therapies his biggest problem is combining these therapies into one treatment, this field of genetics was started with the Nazi's with growth hormones and steroids now we have stem cell research into repairing older problems, this topic needs to be state sponsored
@Countplato yes ethics are the backbone of our science and rightly so(clintons radiation tests), mice not to surprising as we evolved from a shrew like mammal, Aubrey is positive but he is trying to bring different fields in to share mutual dollars approach, sir Francis crick(DNA) switched to Obama's brain initiative(state) with some steady gains on brain diseases, human genome with all the promises of new technologies didn't live up to public's expectation it will need a project on the scale and scope of a space-station type cooperation and investment $50-100 billion because it will be genesis.
Lots of trials related to longevity treatments have moved to human and primates, so this isn’t remotely the case. What are you specifically talking about when you say ‘longevity’, as the entire field is broad. NMN and NR are two examples where human trial data is continuously being published.
I would buy a rejuvenation ticket now to access the therapies later if that funds the research. and it has to be personally guaranteed by the scientists.
I am very pessimistic about the timelines. My only hope now is that artificial super intelligence will figure it all out for us within the next couple of decades. Or we are just super lucky and someone figures it all out.
Until I saw the extremely rapid progress being made in compressing drug discovery with fairly standard (as of 2020) narrow AI, and then the remarkable 2024 update, I was more pessimistic too. If they can do this already with 2024 AI, what will they be able to do with 2030 AI, or 2040 AI. That's not even assuming AGI or ASI. Even hardened biologists with decades of experience of being burned by slow progress in their fields are shocked. DeepMind, which was the first one to make a breakthrough with this with AlphaFold, has an approximately 2030 timeline for AGI. But a bunch of companies have followed since. If only they could keep AI confined to what we actually need, better healthcare, no more car crashes and robots to take over mindless and body-destroying jobs, I would feel better than what is actually happening, AI also spreading everywhere and being used to upend democratic systems with fake everything and superpowered social media.
Abrey this is Daddy writing you have a year to come up with a reverse aging therapy that is applicable to human beings., nice job by the way. We all apricciated
he is not even close to 87% accurate, that is something he made up himself. He counted the prediction that driverless cares will exist by 2009 as accurate to get that number. Many authors have noted that his predictions are often so incredible vague so as to alow him to say they are accurate no matter what
@@fatboydim.7037 That number comes from his report 'How My Predictions Are Faring'. New york times got that number from him. Meanwhile you have other sources, like forbes, which said his predictions for 2009 were mostly inaccurate. one of the predictions from his own report he counts towards the statistic on accurate predictions was "Interactive brain-generated music, which creates a resonance between the user’s brainwaves and the music being listened to, is another popular genre" That is not even remotely accurate. He also said a lot of his predictions were accurate because the technology was right around the corner back in 2010, when said predictions still haven't happened today
Ray Kurzweil's pattern is that he makes outlandish predictions, they ultimately prove to be wrong, then he says they were "essentially correct" and refers to some other adjacent but totally non-revolutionary technology as evidence of their essential correctness. Artificial intelligence is going to change the world, but it's a mistake to place your confidence in Kurzweil's predictions.
In some ways it's almost not the noble thing to do because this is only going to be for people who can afford it. How much suffering of kids is going on in the world? The world can help out those 800 million or 100 million with basic needs: medical care, food, and water. People matters. I general don't think people with bad personalities should gravitate towards anti-aging,. This seems like it is going to be ultra competitive to get accepted into the protocols. I don't think the majority should coast and rely on the few figureheads out there in longevity res. It should be more of a concerted effort and poor people should be valued also. Aubrey is right about keeping the population low so that we can take better care of the people already here. Also the experts out there such as Simon Michaux and others tell us we are past peak oil production we run out of crude oil and renewables are not enough to fully replace fossil fuels. I have reason to believe in time travel to parallel universes anyhow. I'm working on coding a forum with my cousin in Portland Oregon. Facebook is basically a total wasteland for anti-aging communities.
If people get younger again probably won t do any children in the next future. So the prédiction of growing population in the next decades is not so sûre. Demografs and statisticand don t take into considération the progresse of technology
Organ transplants are a miracle, from one perspective. The miracle is that they're successful at all. it's truly a modern marvel. But you can't look at it without thinking that, good gawd, there has to be a better way.
Aubrey "all talk,no show" De Grey. He has been saying this since he started giving TED Talks way, way, way back in 2004/2005. Every time he is pressed on actually showing something, he reverts to either: 1. Progress has been done but it's all in the lab. 2. We.Gut.Noh. Muney. *Always* the same shit for almost 20 years now. Aubrey is always complaining about lack of funding, but he completely misses the point. In order to get funding, he *first* needs to deliver some hardcore evidence that this can be done, if not some therapy that you can demonstrate reverses some aspects of ageing in Humans. Carl Sagan used to say: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." The claim that we can defeat ageing with early 21rst Century regenerative medicine and biotechnology is *extraordinary* .Hell, dentists can't even make a new tooth grow in your mouth if you lose it. In fact, they are not even *close* to being able to grow a new tooth. And making a new tooth grow is a *piece of cake* compared to repairing all the damage done to the body by the ageing process. So when some guy comes along and says that we can have ageing figured out and fixed in 15 years, or at least that we can fix damage so well as to prolong lifespan by 30 years or more, nobody is going to give money to that guy becausee his claim is *outrageous* .It is way, way, WAY sbove and beyond what is possible in the foreseeable future. The issue here is *trust* .Not that Aubry will huckster them out of money, because Aubrey has proven that he really doesn't care about money for himself. People don't give Aubrey money because they don't trust him that he is capable of solving the problem. And they don't trust him that he can because the problem is ridiculouslyu difficult and very far above what regenerative medicine and biotech can do in their current primitive state. You need "Star Trek" levels of technology to solve ageing, and Star Trek takes place 200-300 years into the future. Here are the *facts* :even in the 22nd Century, we might still not have put the final nail in the coffin of ageing. Lifespand of 120 or longer might be common around the year 2150, but people will still be conking out at 130-140 regardless. True biological immortality might only happen by the mid 23rd Century to early 24th Century. Solving ageing is *unfathomably* difficult. Imagine the Manhattan Project, now imagine something 1,000 X more difficult, efort-consuming and expensive. Aubrey is out of his dockers.
I agree that we are very unlikely to see this technology in our lifetimes. But the harder we work on it, the higher the chances are. I would gladly take 10% instead of 1% chance of LEV. People are working on all sorts of meaningless things, so why not work on something that has a huge potential upside.
You know nothing about this. There's been enormous progress. Read all of the studies and results from the Methuselah foundation for example. See the progress in reversing each type of aging damage. You mentioned teeth. As of 2021 we've regrown animal teeth. Human trials are underway and if successful we'll be able to regrow human teeth by 2030. Seriously, stop watching youtube videos if you feel like this and start reading research papers, and experiments to learn about the subject and the progress being made in reversing all types of first cause aging damage. We've already reached LEV btw. If you read the papers and translate protocols from animal studies to be relevant for humans you'll age at a tiny fraction of the speed you would have otherwise.
I think you're ignoring or not aware of all the progress that's been made in the last 20 years. You complain that Aubrey hasn't personally delivered therapies during that time while maintaining that the problem is "unfathomably difficult" and won't be solved within a century. Those are wildly incompatible statements.
@@jfehrle1 How is it incompatible, dummy? I said that Aubrey has not delivered results *because* it can't be done. My whole criticism of him is that he's lying. Learn how to read please.
When, i first heard Aubrey talk, it was about 20 years ago. No one else was saying what he was. His goal was to increase awareness and get funding in this area. He has increased awareness to the point that now Alphabet, Bezo, Saudi money 💰 are now investing billions a year. The mindset of the science community had changed. He really has accomplished a lot.
💯
Actually, he’s accomplished nothing. He has not advanced this field one inch.
Obviously we don't know with 100% certainty when (or if, even) we can reach LEV. Even AdG himself says 50/50 in the next 15 years. However, this field needs way more people like AdG, who are educated on this topic and have an extremely radical mind at the same time.
Thanks for this, Panda!
how could one get the information into those peoples heads the fastest possible?
Nice to see Aubrey after so long. He was so exciting and dynamic back in the day. Frankly, I had kind of forgot about him and Sens. Seems like they fell off their perch some time ago and perhaps lost some of their relevance. This appearance is causing me to look at Sens again.
All hands for longevity research!
Aubrey had some legal issues. He's actually a lot more relaxed in his interviews now because his message has finally gotten out in the past five years or so.
@Hail2MasterChief Remember it can't be disruptive and half the battle is being backed, and not doing the work itself
He is not with SENS anymore. He is running the LEV Foundation now.
If you had said in the early 2000s when Aubrey started giving his public speeches that he would still be experimenting on mice in 2023, I think most would've agreed that the longevity industry had failed. Very depressing that we still havent moved into larger mammals and humans in that time. Let us hope that the next 20 years proves to be significantly more fruitful than the last 20....we're all running out of time.
I’ll be around 50 by then. I still have a few decades of “youth” before old age even hits. But we can die any day. It would be nice to live a few more decades and pursue more to life.
@@DragonBallZuper I'm not expecting ADG to address absolute immortality - if we step out in front of a truck that's our fault. I do however believe that he has been entirely (and perhaps cynically) too optimistic in his predictions (as far as how quickly these technologies will be developed), with the intention of securing future investment.....a good strategy from his perspective, but wholly underwhelming for the rest of us. Hes a very convincing public speaker, salesman and advocate....but as such I'm not convinced by or to tied to any of his predictions. Now I do believe that some therapies will come to market within the next decade or two, albeit not necessarily as a result of ADG.....my concern however is whether or not any of them will be comprehensive enough to set us on the path to LEV within say the next 30 years. I should add that I'm only about 6/7 years older than you and have closely followed the 'progression' of this science for well over a decade.....and I have absolutely no confidence in LEV coming to fruition within my lifetime. The next 20 years will go quickly, so will the 20 after that......
I'd say there has been some progress in humans. Some therapies such as senolytics are already in clinical trials - not great results yet, but we'll learn lots and 2nd generation senotherapeutics should do better. Also, and the radical front, the Conboys have finished a phase 1 clinical trial of plasma dilution which resulted in a dramatic drop in biological age of the participants - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9398900/
I bumped into Aubrey at a conference last week and he is sticking with his prediction of (50% chance of) longevity escape velocity (i.e. even then we won't have stopped ageing entirely) by 2033-5
@@Live-Forever-Club Indeed, but its debatable as to whether or not these synthetic senolytics are any more powerful or comprehensive than their natural counterparts i.e. Fisetin, Astragalus, Fucoidan etc. Overall I would argue that all things being equal progress has not just been slower but significantly slower than what was predicted a generation ago - obviously I wish this wasn't the case, literally tens of millions of people have died as a direct result of the diseases of aging in that time, but it is the (very) sad fact of the matter.
As for ADGs predictions - they have always been the first and biggest red flag in my mind to be honest. If he keeps telling investors (especially VCs) that we have a "50% chance within 15 years", thats just inticing enough for them to consider investing, especially when considering the inevitably astronomical ROI. However, if he says that we have virtually no chance within 50 years, guess what? The money dries up, who's going to invest in something that wont be realised in their lifetime? Its an ingenius tactic on his part, but I'm dubious as to whether that truly reflects the reality of the science in 2023 and beyond.
I dont believe ADG to be nefarious in his intentions, if he is hoodwinking investors than hes going the entirely the wrong way about it - but I certainly believe that he is at least partially embellishing or overstating the reality somewhat in order to maintain his position within the industry. Only time will tell, and I certainly hope that he proves me completely wrong....but I have my doubts.
@@johnniejay all great points. I have to fight my natural positivity, especially as it seems statistically unlikely that as a 53-year-old I'm pretty much on the cusp of (biological) immortality - given the thousands of years people have considered it, I happen to be there at the right time?! But then I remember about exponential growth and how rapidly our understanding of aging in progressing. And am then knocked back by just how complicated it is.
So, to twist your summary... I hope I'm right, but I have my doubts!
How do you warm them up safely?
This fellow's beard will live forever.
Thanks for watching!
do we do helium liquid or gas
Imagine sitting across the table from this individual while he eats soup.
That would be one insightful meal!
@@longevity.technology4067 I supposed it's superficial psychologry, but it would be hard for me to watch and take this individual seriously. But at least he isn't some con like Sinclair trying to sell stuff and make a mint off his "research" and celebrity. Nothing new ever comes from this stuff that tops common sense: Eat right, exercise, sleep, have social interaction, wear a seat belt, don't smoke, don't drink much, etc. All the rest of the science, other than stopping a few major diseases as well as the invention of antibiotics, has brought us marginal progress at best. And even the so called experts don't agree. And even if there were a solution to aging tomorrow: 1) do you think pharma companies would let that secret out of the bag and kill off their business model, and 2) it would be so cost prohibitive except for the ultra rich that the rest of us would never be able to afford it.
@@1122redbirdall faux talking points smh
@@1122redbird He hasn't gotten obvious plastic surgery or a dye job like Sinclair either.
I know Aubrey and he's very positive about the multi therapies his biggest problem is combining these therapies into one treatment, this field of genetics was started with the Nazi's with growth hormones and steroids now we have stem cell research into repairing older problems, this topic needs to be state sponsored
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 👍
@Countplato yes ethics are the backbone of our science and rightly so(clintons radiation tests), mice not to surprising as we evolved from a shrew like mammal, Aubrey is positive but he is trying to bring different fields in to share mutual dollars approach, sir Francis crick(DNA) switched to Obama's brain initiative(state) with some steady gains on brain diseases, human genome with all the promises of new technologies didn't live up to public's expectation it will need a project on the scale and scope of a space-station type cooperation and investment $50-100 billion because it will be genesis.
Aubrey de Grey looks like he's already lived forever.
Lots of trials related to longevity treatments have moved to human and primates, so this isn’t remotely the case. What are you specifically talking about when you say ‘longevity’, as the entire field is broad. NMN and NR are two examples where human trial data is continuously being published.
Thanks for sharing your point, David.
I would buy a rejuvenation ticket now to access the therapies later if that funds the research. and it has to be personally guaranteed by the scientists.
Nice, thanks for sharing!
No guarantee. But contact him. Otherwise you remain mundane
good point. @@joestitz239
Does intermitted fasting is even scientifically proven to slow aging ? Can someone confirm ?
No. Intermitted excersizing tho :)
Slow aging? Yes. Increase your likely overall lifespan? No. But many, many people note that it makes them feel _better._ It makes me feel better.
Would it be able to unfreeze an animal brain?
I had an idea for a cryonics experiment without toxic cryoprotectants. Cryonet is defunk now.
Why is Aubrey now doing R&D with donor transplants? That's not really longevity research, is it?
He isn't. He's reporting on others progress.
RnD is always longevity
I am very pessimistic about the timelines. My only hope now is that artificial super intelligence will figure it all out for us within the next couple of decades. Or we are just super lucky and someone figures it all out.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Until I saw the extremely rapid progress being made in compressing drug discovery with fairly standard (as of 2020) narrow AI, and then the remarkable 2024 update, I was more pessimistic too. If they can do this already with 2024 AI, what will they be able to do with 2030 AI, or 2040 AI. That's not even assuming AGI or ASI. Even hardened biologists with decades of experience of being burned by slow progress in their fields are shocked.
DeepMind, which was the first one to make a breakthrough with this with AlphaFold, has an approximately 2030 timeline for AGI. But a bunch of companies have followed since.
If only they could keep AI confined to what we actually need, better healthcare, no more car crashes and robots to take over mindless and body-destroying jobs, I would feel better than what is actually happening, AI also spreading everywhere and being used to upend democratic systems with fake everything and superpowered social media.
Abrey this is Daddy writing you have a year to come up with a reverse aging therapy that is applicable to human beings., nice job by the way. We all apricciated
🙌 🙌
Ray Kurzweil has already predicted LEV as roughly 2030. He has an 87% pass on his technological predictions.
Thanks for this! :)
he is not even close to 87% accurate, that is something he made up himself. He counted the prediction that driverless cares will exist by 2009 as accurate to get that number. Many authors have noted that his predictions are often so incredible vague so as to alow him to say they are accurate no matter what
@@briandiehl9257 87% is ffrom the New York Times who reviewed his predictions and the predictions that he was wrong on most we out by 10%.
@@fatboydim.7037 That number comes from his report 'How My Predictions Are Faring'. New york times got that number from him. Meanwhile you have other sources, like forbes, which said his predictions for 2009 were mostly inaccurate.
one of the predictions from his own report he counts towards the statistic on accurate predictions was
"Interactive brain-generated music, which creates a resonance
between the user’s brainwaves and the music being listened to, is
another popular genre"
That is not even remotely accurate. He also said a lot of his predictions were accurate because the technology was right around the corner back in 2010, when said predictions still haven't happened today
Ray Kurzweil's pattern is that he makes outlandish predictions, they ultimately prove to be wrong, then he says they were "essentially correct" and refers to some other adjacent but totally non-revolutionary technology as evidence of their essential correctness. Artificial intelligence is going to change the world, but it's a mistake to place your confidence in Kurzweil's predictions.
He looks like Gandalf the white.
😄
I have 36 and for me i would stay with this age or perhaps 4 or 5 years less but i hope that i'll can renew in 20 years
Let's hope for the best!
In some ways it's almost not the noble thing to do because this is only going to be for people who can afford it. How much suffering of kids is going on in the world? The world can help out those 800 million or 100 million with basic needs: medical care, food, and water. People matters. I general don't think people with bad personalities should gravitate towards anti-aging,. This seems like it is going to be ultra competitive to get accepted into the protocols. I don't think the majority should coast and rely on the few figureheads out there in longevity res. It should be more of a concerted effort and poor people should be valued also. Aubrey is right about keeping the population low so that we can take better care of the people already here. Also the experts out there such as Simon Michaux and others tell us we are past peak oil production we run out of crude oil and renewables are not enough to fully replace fossil fuels.
I have reason to believe in time travel to parallel universes anyhow. I'm working on coding a forum with my cousin in Portland Oregon. Facebook is basically a total wasteland for anti-aging communities.
If people get younger again probably won t do any children in the next future.
So the prédiction of growing population in the next decades is not so sûre.
Demografs and statisticand don t take into considération the progresse of technology
Organ transplants are a miracle, from one perspective. The miracle is that they're successful at all. it's truly a modern marvel. But you can't look at it without thinking that, good gawd, there has to be a better way.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Ronald!
Wow.
I could hardly understand anything he's saying
Hi, Ernest! You can try clicking the 'Subtitles/closed captions' beside the 'Settings' to guide you while watching the video. Hope this helps! :)
No forreal tho
just slow down the video or learn english.
Aubrey...you only talk nothing else...waste of time.
=fullofshit
Lol without theoretical pjysics there wont be any major health
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@longevity.technology4067 infinity is the name of da game
Aubrey "all talk,no show" De Grey. He has been saying this since he started giving TED Talks way, way, way back in 2004/2005. Every time he is pressed on actually showing something, he reverts to either:
1. Progress has been done but it's all in the lab.
2. We.Gut.Noh. Muney.
*Always* the same shit for almost 20 years now. Aubrey is always complaining about lack of funding, but he completely misses the point. In order to get funding, he *first* needs to deliver some hardcore evidence that this can be done, if not some therapy that you can demonstrate reverses some aspects of ageing in Humans.
Carl Sagan used to say:
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
The claim that we can defeat ageing with early 21rst Century regenerative medicine and biotechnology is *extraordinary* .Hell, dentists can't even make a new tooth grow in your mouth if you lose it. In fact, they are not even *close* to being able to grow a new tooth. And making a new tooth grow is a *piece of cake* compared to repairing all the damage done to the body by the ageing process. So when some guy comes along and says that we can have ageing figured out and fixed in 15 years, or at least that we can fix damage so well as to prolong lifespan by 30 years or more, nobody is going to give money to that guy becausee his claim is *outrageous* .It is way, way, WAY sbove and beyond what is possible in the foreseeable future.
The issue here is *trust* .Not that Aubry will huckster them out of money, because Aubrey has proven that he really doesn't care about money for himself. People don't give Aubrey money because they don't trust him that he is capable of solving the problem. And they don't trust him that he can because the problem is ridiculouslyu difficult and very far above what regenerative medicine and biotech can do in their current primitive state. You need "Star Trek" levels of technology to solve ageing, and Star Trek takes place 200-300 years into the future. Here are the *facts* :even in the 22nd Century, we might still not have put the final nail in the coffin of ageing. Lifespand of 120 or longer might be common around the year 2150, but people will still be conking out at 130-140 regardless. True biological immortality might only happen by the mid 23rd Century to early 24th Century. Solving ageing is *unfathomably* difficult. Imagine the Manhattan Project, now imagine something 1,000 X more difficult, efort-consuming and expensive. Aubrey is out of his dockers.
!RemindMe in 2029
I agree that we are very unlikely to see this technology in our lifetimes. But the harder we work on it, the higher the chances are. I would gladly take 10% instead of 1% chance of LEV. People are working on all sorts of meaningless things, so why not work on something that has a huge potential upside.
You know nothing about this. There's been enormous progress. Read all of the studies and results from the Methuselah foundation for example. See the progress in reversing each type of aging damage.
You mentioned teeth. As of 2021 we've regrown animal teeth. Human trials are underway and if successful we'll be able to regrow human teeth by 2030.
Seriously, stop watching youtube videos if you feel like this and start reading research papers, and experiments to learn about the subject and the progress being made in reversing all types of first cause aging damage.
We've already reached LEV btw. If you read the papers and translate protocols from animal studies to be relevant for humans you'll age at a tiny fraction of the speed you would have otherwise.
I think you're ignoring or not aware of all the progress that's been made in the last 20 years. You complain that Aubrey hasn't personally delivered therapies during that time while maintaining that the problem is "unfathomably difficult" and won't be solved within a century. Those are wildly incompatible statements.
@@jfehrle1 How is it incompatible, dummy? I said that Aubrey has not delivered results *because* it can't be done. My whole criticism of him is that he's lying. Learn how to read please.
Hi are you both using Zoom or Google Hangouts?
Hello! We've used riverside.fm for this interview. :)
Within 2 years ChatGPT6 will help Aubrey with evwrythig ;)
What a vision! 🙌