🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C04E76.80BAB100
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I couldn't agree more, Aubrey.

The fact that the editors at Nature would not publish your response =
shows
how deeply resigned most are to their own quick demise. =20

Some taboo is operating in this situation.

How peculiar it is that such eminent people are actually discouraging =
efforts
to defeat the greatest scourge of mankind.  One has to wonder what =
motives
are working in the collective subconscious to cause such people to =
continually=20
disparage and thwart efforts to delay aging.  Perhaps it is some vestige =
of religious
training or a "misery loves company" effect.

No matter. If all the amazing advances in biotech are directed toward =
nothing more
than solving niche diseases, the human condition will not be improved =
very much.
Our average lifespan will increase only modestly and an enormous amount =
of ingenuity
and effort will have been misdirected.

Regards,
Lou Pagnucco

Aubrey de Grey wrote in message <8urn6o$e83$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
>
>The following is in response to Len Hayflick's Commentary in last =
week's
>issue of Nature.  (Nature have declined to publish it).
>
>Aubrey de Grey
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The dangers of over-confidence that ageing is immutable
>
>Sir -- Hayflick rightly draws our attention [1] to the many tumultuous
>social challenges which would confront civilisation were we to develop
>a way of greatly extending human maximum lifespan -- an advance which,
>in its extreme form, has been termed "engineered negligible senescence"
>or ENS [2].  However, he also argues that this scenario is vanishingly
>unlikely to come about in the foreseeable future.  His reasons for that
<...>
>We in biogerontology owe it to society to avoid engendering either a
>false sense of security regarding social matters or a false sense of
>despair regarding biomedical ones.
>
>Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey
>Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge,
>Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EH, UK
>email: ag24@gen.cam.ac.uk
>
>1. Hayflick, L. Nature 408, 267-269 (2000).
>2. de Grey, A.D.N.J. The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging
>   (Landes Bioscience, 1999).

------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C04E76.80BAB100
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I couldn't agree more, Aubrey.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The fact that the editors at Nature would not =
publish your=20
response shows</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>how deeply resigned most are to their own quick =
demise.&nbsp;=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Some taboo is operating in this =
situation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>How peculiar it is that such eminent people are =
actually=20
discouraging efforts</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>to defeat the greatest scourge of mankind.&nbsp; One =
has to=20
wonder what motives</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>are working in the collective subconscious to cause =
such=20
people to continually </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>disparage and thwart </FONT><FONT size=3D2>efforts =
to delay=20
aging.&nbsp; Perhaps it is some vestige of religious</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>training or a &quot;misery loves company&quot;=20
effect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>No matter. If all the amazing advances in biotech =
are directed=20
toward nothing more</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>than solving niche diseases, the human condition =
will not be=20
improved very much.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Our average lifespan will increase only modestly and =
an=20
enormous amount of ingenuity</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>and effort will have been misdirected.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Lou Pagnucco</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Aubrey de Grey<AG24@MOLE.BIO.CAM.AC.UK> wrote in =
message=20
&lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:8urn6o$e83$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk">8urn6o$e83$1@pegasus.c=
sx.cam.ac.uk</A>&gt;...</FONT></DIV><FONT=20
size=3D2>&gt;<BR>&gt;The following is in response to Len Hayflick's =
Commentary in=20
last week's<BR>&gt;issue of Nature.&nbsp; (Nature have declined to =
publish=20
it).<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Aubrey de=20
Grey<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;-----------------------------------------------------=
---------------<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;The=20
dangers of over-confidence that ageing is immutable<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Sir =
--=20
Hayflick rightly draws our attention [1] to the many =
tumultuous<BR>&gt;social=20
challenges which would confront civilisation were we to develop<BR>&gt;a =
way of=20
greatly extending human maximum lifespan -- an advance which,<BR>&gt;in =
its=20
extreme form, has been termed &quot;engineered negligible=20
senescence&quot;<BR>&gt;or ENS [2].&nbsp; However, he also argues that =
this=20
scenario is vanishingly<BR>&gt;unlikely to come about in the foreseeable =

future.&nbsp; His reasons for that<BR>&lt;...&gt;<BR>&gt;We in =
biogerontology=20
owe it to society to avoid engendering either a<BR>&gt;false sense of =
security=20
regarding social matters or a false sense of<BR>&gt;despair regarding =
biomedical=20
ones.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey<BR>&gt;Department of =
Genetics,=20
University of Cambridge,<BR>&gt;Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EH,=20
UK<BR>&gt;email: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:ag24@gen.cam.ac.uk">ag24@gen.cam.ac.uk</A><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;=
1.=20
Hayflick, L. Nature 408, 267-269 (2000).<BR>&gt;2. de Grey, A.D.N.J. The =

Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Landes=20
Bioscience, 1999).</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C04E76.80BAB100--

Aubrey,

I fully agree with you Aubrey. When I read of various achievements being 
made by university research labs and biotech firms I get the sense that 
the rate of progress is accelerating dramatically. Cell therapy and gene 
therapy advances seem to be coming almost every week if not every day. 
What seems to be especially speeding things up are advances in automation 
of lab techniques that allow orders of magnitude more assays and tests to 
be done per unit of time than was the case just a few years ago. 

Even if we limit ourselves to gene therapy I don't see why all of aging 
won't become fully reversible. Then if one throws in cell therapy and the 
growth of replacement organs the possibilities for reversal of various 
forms of aging become staggering.

What I want to ask someone like Hayflick is just what part of the aging 
process does he think is immutable. Are we not going to be able to 
deliver any gene to any selected target cell type? Is there some cell 
type that is just not going to be amenable to gene therapy and if so why? 
Or is there some age-caused changes that will not be reversible with gene 
therapy? Is there some waste product of aging that will not, for some 
reason, be removeable for instance?

On 14 Nov 2000 15:54:00 GMT esteemed Aubrey de Grey did'st hold forth 
thusly:
> Sir -- Hayflick rightly draws our attention [1] to the many tumultuous
> social challenges which would confront civilisation were we to develop
> a way of greatly extending human maximum lifespan -- an advance which,
> in its extreme form, has been termed "engineered negligible senescence"
> or ENS [2].  However, he also argues that this scenario is vanishingly
> unlikely to come about in the foreseeable future.  His reasons for that
> view are critically flawed, based as they are upon extrapolation from
> past (lack of) changes in lifespan.  In 1900, similar logic would have
> firmly predicted that the minimum time taken in 1950 to travel between
> London and New York would be several days; in fact, the advent of
> powered flight made that estimate wrong by over an order of magnitude.
> Current and imminent biotechnology, particularly somatic gene therapy,
> has the potential to do for human ageing exactly what powered flight
> did for long-distance travel.
> 

The following dEbate essay "Intimations of Immortality" was published in
Science online:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5463/59
Though it is not exactly the same issue being discussed in this newsgroup,
I am sure there are some overlapping points. It is worth looking at the
responses as well.


M. Prakash Hande
Columbia University,
New York, USA.
Pubmed search keyword: Hande MP, Hande P OR prakash hande

Aubrey de Grey wrote:

> The following is in response to Len Hayflick's Commentary in last week's
> issue of Nature.  (Nature have declined to publish it).
>
> Aubrey de Grey
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The dangers of over-confidence that ageing is immutable
>
> Sir -- Hayflick rightly draws our attention [1] to the many tumultuous
> social challenges which would confront civilisation were we to develop
> a way of greatly extending human maximum lifespan -- an advance which,
> in its extreme form, has been termed "engineered negligible senescence"
> or ENS [2].  However, he also argues that this scenario is vanishingly
> unlikely to come about in the foreseeable future.  His reasons for that
> view are critically flawed, based as they are upon extrapolation from
> past (lack of) changes in lifespan.  In 1900, similar logic would have
> firmly predicted that the minimum time taken in 1950 to travel between
> London and New York would be several days; in fact, the advent of
> powered flight made that estimate wrong by over an order of magnitude.
> Current and imminent biotechnology, particularly somatic gene therapy,
> has the potential to do for human ageing exactly what powered flight
> did for long-distance travel.
>
> It is imperative that cogent warnings of the social consequences of
> intervention in human ageing not be smothered by reassurances that the
> question is purely hypothetical.  The longer we perpetuate the notion
> that ENS is illusory, the less time society will have to adjust to
> its changed circumstances when biomedical advances prove that notion
> wrong.  Nor will such misapprehensions prevent the occurrence of those
> advances: history has consistently shown us that technology which can
> happen, does happen.
>
> Furthermore, elimination of the present leading causes of death is very
> probably unachievable without reversing the major components of ageing
> itself, since that is their underlying cause.  Thus, as long as efforts
> towards ENS remain impeded by the misconception that they are futile,
> the suffering caused by age-associated diseases may well be little
> reduced by future biomedical advances.  Conversely, if it is plausible
> that ENS could be developed in a matter of decades, investment in such
> a project is incomparably the most cost-effective approach to reducing
> the incidence of age-related diseases in the long term.
>
> We in biogerontology owe it to society to avoid engendering either a
> false sense of security regarding social matters or a false sense of
> despair regarding biomedical ones.
>
> Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey
> Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge,
> Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EH, UK
> email: ag24@gen.cam.ac.uk
>
> 1. Hayflick, L. Nature 408, 267-269 (2000).
> 2. de Grey, A.D.N.J. The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging
>    (Landes Bioscience, 1999).

ag24@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Aubrey de Grey) writes:

> The following is in response to Len Hayflick's Commentary in last week's
> issue of Nature.  (Nature have declined to publish it).

I'm not suprised. The non-sequitur about travel time between New York
and London is unforgivable. Otherwise I am in full agreement with the
contents of your letter, with the following exception: Tactically it's
the wrong move. The more attention directed to the social effects of
increasing life-span, the less money will be spent on aging research.

--
 Julian Assange        |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
                       |together to collect wood or assign them tasks
 proff@iq.org          |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
 proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery

"Lou Pagnucco" <pagnucco@oeonline.com> writes:

> to defeat the greatest scourge of mankind.� One has to wonder what motives
> 
> are working in the collective subconscious to cause such people to continually
> 
> disparage and thwart efforts to delay aging.� Perhaps it is some vestige of
> religious
> 
> training or a "misery loves company" effect.

Most people don't like old people. The idea of more unproductive old
people, competing for resources, is distasteful. Further old people
are a disempowered group and thus unable to inject their own views into
the politically relevant discourse on the subject.

The debate needs to be argued in terms of keeping people young and productive,
rather than extending life-span if it is to be politically acceptable.

--
 Julian Assange        |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
                       |together to collect wood or assign them tasks
 proff@iq.org          |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
 proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery

Julian Assange wrote:

> The non-sequitur about travel time between New York
> and London is unforgivable.

I'm surprised at your view: others have found the analogy quite apposite.
Could you please elaborate?

> Tactically it's the wrong move.  The more attention directed to the
> social effects of increasing life-span, the less money will be spent on
> aging research.

I don't agree.  The more attention is directed to the social effects,
the more people will conclude that there WILL be ways for society to cope
when it happens, and the less cogency will be seen in arguments such as
Hayflick's that very substantial postponement of aging is to be avoided.
Those arguments weigh heavily with policy-makers at present, coming as
they do mainly from very senior and prominent members of the field.

> The debate needs to be argued in terms of keeping people young and
> productive

Absolutely.

Aubrey de Grey

There's a worry:

People can discuss and legislate all they like, if the technology is
possible it is going to be implemented legally or illegally; probably both.
What is not heard but I believe to be a real worry is that any significant
anti-ageing strategies will require substantial external support via
specialists, lab reports, etc. The older a person gets, the more chronic
assistance will be required. Eg. We're all slowly going blind, imagine a
world filled with 120 year blind people? Health systems are flat out and
failing to care for kids even ... .

Who really cares about the social effects? How many other technologies are
introduced with the "we'll worry about that later" attitude to the same?
Most? The bait of universal life prolongation will be held out, in reality
it will be for a minority and may never be feasible for the vast majority.
It's easy to make a machine that lasts a long time and functions well, but
bodies are very different, there were never designed to last a long time in
the first place.

As for me, I'll stay on my restricted caloric diet, I intend to be around a
while yet.

John H.
Remove 4x in reply.

Aubrey de Grey <ag24@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:91d4gv$gre$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Julian Assange wrote:
>
> > The non-sequitur about travel time between New York
> > and London is unforgivable.
>
> I'm surprised at your view: others have found the analogy quite apposite.
> Could you please elaborate?
>
> > Tactically it's the wrong move.  The more attention directed to the
> > social effects of increasing life-span, the less money will be spent on
> > aging research.
>
> I don't agree.  The more attention is directed to the social effects,
> the more people will conclude that there WILL be ways for society to cope
> when it happens, and the less cogency will be seen in arguments such as
> Hayflick's that very substantial postponement of aging is to be avoided.
> Those arguments weigh heavily with policy-makers at present, coming as
> they do mainly from very senior and prominent members of the field.
>
> > The debate needs to be argued in terms of keeping people young and
> > productive
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Aubrey de Grey

John,

Effective anti-aging therapies will _reverse_ aging. There will be less 
need for constant care.

As for the work involved in delivering anti-aging treatments: That will 
be fairly easy. The most effective will be gene therapies. Most of them 
will be delivered by injection. 

Caring for kids is a lot easier than caring for people who are in their 
80s. But if people in their 80s can have the damage repaired by 
injections that reprogram the cellular DNA most of the damage will be 
reversed.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:11:01 +1000 esteemed John H. did'st hold forth 
thusly:
> People can discuss and legislate all they like, if the technology is
> possible it is going to be implemented legally or illegally; probably both.
> What is not heard but I believe to be a real worry is that any significant
> anti-ageing strategies will require substantial external support via
> specialists, lab reports, etc. The older a person gets, the more chronic
> assistance will be required. Eg. We're all slowly going blind, imagine a
> world filled with 120 year blind people? Health systems are flat out and
> failing to care for kids even ... .
> 
> Who really cares about the social effects? How many other technologies are
> introduced with the "we'll worry about that later" attitude to the same?
> Most? The bait of universal life prolongation will be held out, in reality
> it will be for a minority and may never be feasible for the vast majority.
> It's easy to make a machine that lasts a long time and functions well, but
> bodies are very different, there were never designed to last a long time in
> the first place.
> 

"John H." <johnhkm@netsprintXXXX.net.au> writes:

> There's a worry:
> 
> People can discuss and legislate all they like, if the technology is
> possible it is going to be implemented legally or illegally; probably both.

This widely used argument is arrant nonsense. It's important to
recognise it and shoot it down where-ever it is seen; for it leads to
complacency and fatalism.

In every science/engineering development process there are many (i.e
thousands or millions) of decisions to be made. Many of these
decisions are finely balanced enough such that even small external
forces (including the perception of external forces) can tip them one
way or another.

Every student, researcher and investor must decide to spend their time
and money on one thing or another and it is rare that the difference
between the top choices is large. When large differences
occur, they are quickly exploited by market forces and made small.

So, public perceptions, tax (dis)incentives etc do make a difference.
Sometimes a very large difference.

In fields that require substantial capital, educational and time
investment, the participants are notoriously conservative and
responsive to government censure. The best way to quell a revolution
is to give people assets they can lose.

> the more chronic assistance will be required. Eg. We're all slowly
> going blind, imagine a world filled with 120 year blind people? 

Perversely, the most effective anti-aging technique yet invented might
be UVA/UVB/IR screening sunglasses.

> Most? The bait of universal life prolongation will be held out, in reality
> it will be for a minority and may never be feasible for the vast majority.

Like small-pox and oral sabin vaccine? 

Recombinant lactobaccilus bifidus and other gut flora could produce
significantly beneficial anti-oxidative pre-cursors
in-vivo. Automatic dosage control via feedback of cellular production
of oxidative markers could make such treatments extra-ordinarily safe
and as cheap as eating a container of yogurt every few months.

There are dozens of potential solutions like this one, that have
insignificant marginal cost. Some are achievable right now.  All
that's needed is money and public acceptance. We have magic bullets in
terms of delivery. If we had more money for micro-array experiments
on the abnormally long lived, perhaps we would have more magic in
the payload too.

> It's easy to make a machine that lasts a long time and functions well, but
> bodies are very different, there were never designed to last a long time in
> the first place.

On the contrary, we were designed to last as long as possible, given
certain reproductive trade-offs. This is why the problem is hard;
evolution has already found all the easy solutions. Yet, we can see
that evolution needs gradual increments in its fitness landscape and
does not take advantage of large scale co-operation. Vaccines take
advantage of both our ability to think ahead and co-operate. They
demonstrate that it is possible to significantly augment natural
abilities by applying what was not within our evolutionary grasp.

--
 Julian Assange        |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
                       |together to collect wood or assign them tasks and
 proff@iq.org          |work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
 proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery

thanks julian.......this is neat writing.
hope you have more to chck down th hatch. all the best joe.

Julian Assange wrote:

> "John H." <johnhkm@netsprintXXXX.net.au> writes:
>
> > There's a worry:
> >
> > People can discuss and legislate all they like, if the technology is
> > possible it is going to be implemented legally or illegally; probably both.
>
> This widely used argument is arrant nonsense. It's important to
> recognise it and shoot it down where-ever it is seen; for it leads to
> complacency and fatalism.
>
> In every science/engineering development process there are many (i.e
> thousands or millions) of decisions to be made. Many of these
> decisions are finely balanced enough such that even small external
> forces (including the perception of external forces) can tip them one
> way or another.
>
> Every student, researcher and investor must decide to spend their time
> and money on one thing or another and it is rare that the difference
> between the top choices is large. When large differences
> occur, they are quickly exploited by market forces and made small.
>
> So, public perceptions, tax (dis)incentives etc do make a difference.
> Sometimes a very large difference.
>
> In fields that require substantial capital, educational and time
> investment, the participants are notoriously conservative and
> responsive to government censure. The best way to quell a revolution
> is to give people assets they can lose.
>
> > the more chronic assistance will be required. Eg. We're all slowly
> > going blind, imagine a world filled with 120 year blind people?
>
> Perversely, the most effective anti-aging technique yet invented might
> be UVA/UVB/IR screening sunglasses.
>
> > Most? The bait of universal life prolongation will be held out, in reality
> > it will be for a minority and may never be feasible for the vast majority.
>
> Like small-pox and oral sabin vaccine?
>
> Recombinant lactobaccilus bifidus and other gut flora could produce
> significantly beneficial anti-oxidative pre-cursors
> in-vivo. Automatic dosage control via feedback of cellular production
> of oxidative markers could make such treatments extra-ordinarily safe
> and as cheap as eating a container of yogurt every few months.
>
> There are dozens of potential solutions like this one, that have
> insignificant marginal cost. Some are achievable right now.  All
> that's needed is money and public acceptance. We have magic bullets in
> terms of delivery. If we had more money for micro-array experiments
> on the abnormally long lived, perhaps we would have more magic in
> the payload too.
>
> > It's easy to make a machine that lasts a long time and functions well, but
> > bodies are very different, there were never designed to last a long time in
> > the first place.
>
> On the contrary, we were designed to last as long as possible, given
> certain reproductive trade-offs. This is why the problem is hard;
> evolution has already found all the easy solutions. Yet, we can see
> that evolution needs gradual increments in its fitness landscape and
> does not take advantage of large scale co-operation. Vaccines take
> advantage of both our ability to think ahead and co-operate. They
> demonstrate that it is possible to significantly augment natural
> abilities by applying what was not within our evolutionary grasp.
>
> --
>  Julian Assange        |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
>                        |together to collect wood or assign them tasks and
>  proff@iq.org          |work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
>  proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery

Julian,

That's a pretty neat idea. Could such engineered bacteria be assured of 
not surviving outside the digestive tract?

On 07 Jan 2001 16:50:18 +1100 esteemed Julian Assange did'st hold forth 
thusly:
> Recombinant lactobaccilus bifidus and other gut flora could produce
> significantly beneficial anti-oxidative pre-cursors
> in-vivo. Automatic dosage control via feedback of cellular production
> of oxidative markers could make such treatments extra-ordinarily safe
> and as cheap as eating a container of yogurt every few months.
> 

Julian Assange wrote:

> "John H." <johnhkm@netsprintXXXX.net.au> writes:
>
> > There's a worry:
> >
> > People can discuss and legislate all they like, if the technology is
> > possible it is going to be implemented legally or illegally; probably both.
>
> This widely used argument is arrant nonsense. It's important to
> recognise it and shoot it down where-ever it is seen; for it leads to
> complacency and fatalism.
>
> In every science/engineering development process there are many (i.e
> thousands or millions) of decisions to be made. Many of these
> decisions are finely balanced enough such that even small external
> forces (including the perception of external forces) can tip them one
> way or another.

Absolutely right.  But I think John was right too, because he was talking
about the risk of ENS happening, not the risk of it not happening.  It's
just as silly to sit back (as Hayflick encourages us to do) in the false
confidence that ENS is impossible as it is to sit back and wait for it to
happen in the false confidence that it'll definitely arrive soon enough.

> Perversely, the most effective anti-aging technique yet invented might
> be UVA/UVB/IR screening sunglasses.
>
> > Most? The bait of universal life prolongation will be held out, in
> > reality it will be for a minority and may never be feasible for the .
> > vast majority
>
> Like small-pox and oral sabin vaccine?

Again, I think you're both right.  Such treatments will become universally
available in the end, but the period of non-universal availability may be
dangerously long unless careful forward planning is undertaken.

> > It's easy to make a machine that lasts a long time and functions well,
> > but bodies are very different, there were never designed to last a long
> > time in the first place.
>
> On the contrary, we were designed to last as long as possible, given
> certain reproductive trade-offs. This is why the problem is hard;
> evolution has already found all the easy solutions. Yet, we can see
> that evolution needs gradual increments in its fitness landscape and
> does not take advantage of large scale co-operation. Vaccines take
> advantage of both our ability to think ahead and co-operate. They
> demonstrate that it is possible to significantly augment natural
> abilities by applying what was not within our evolutionary grasp.

Exactly.  Evolution is very very clever, but we have more tools.

Aubrey de Grey