Dr. Aubrey de Grey – Advanced Rejuvenation Technologies

by on April 22, 2011      

in Health & Wellness, Science & Technology

Dr. Aubrey de Grey

Dr. Aubrey de Grey

Dr. Aubrey de Grey is a co-founder of the SENS Foundation, which is committed to developing, promoting, and ensuring widespread access to rejuvenation biotechnologies that address aging-related disabilities and diseases. As the organization’s Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Aubrey de Grey’s research is focused on the metabolic processes (which he refers to as “damage”) that contribute to aging. He is also the editor-in-chief of the academic journal Rejuvenation Research and the co-author of Ending Aging, which brought his research to a broader audience. Join us as Dr. Aubrey de Grey outlines his mission for life extension and broadening our perspectives on illness, aging, and death.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

1 John Samsen April 20, 2011 at 7:27 am

I see the upcoming talk on lengthening lifespan. This strikes me as being a little ironic, as the primary human-caused threat to our culture, in my opinion, is population increase at a time when global wages for workers are falling, (except in some areas like India and China) and food costs are rising. Growing population requires a continued growth of energy, food, and all the things people want for their lifestyles. Our economy is based on continual growth, But the planet is not growing.

We feel for the starving, the sick, the homeless, and much aid is given. We want to reduce abortions, increase survival of infants in third world countries. Unfortunately, This adds to the population, as does prolonging lifespan. I am 83, and would like to live a little longer, if my body can take it. But I think perhaps it would be a little elitest, and ego centered, to spend time, energy, and effort in increasing life spans for, lets face it, the favored few in the world, when so many are facing extinction. Nero practicing his music as Rome burns.
John

Reply

2 Andrew Abang (Site Admin) April 20, 2011 at 11:23 am

John,

Thank you for commenting. The interview will go live on Friday – so your commentary is a bit premature, although you’ve raised completely valid points here.

Without giving too much away, I’m happy to tell you that Dr. Aubrey de Grey thoroughly addresses the issues you raised in the interview. We hope you’ll come back to review it when it’s up.

A variety of interviews available on this site suggest that the issue you raised is a bit more complicated. It is difficult to separate the needs of a growing population and the capacity to meet those needs from the issue of control. For example, Kim’s interviews with Jeffrey Smith and the Health Freedom Foundation indicate an increase in the amount of control being leveraged over the food supply by organizations like Monsanto; legal (i.e. zoning) issues in cities surrounding one’s right to produce their own food on their property also play a role here.

Public backlash against these strictures is evidence that sizable segments of the population are interested in self-reliance, which seems to be out of sync with the agendas of dominant political and corporate entities. The primary implication of the increasing control such entities wield over the food supply is, essentially, maintaining a condition of lack. Most of the regulatory issues surrounding agriculture and food production are really only applicable to industrial food production. Furthermore, it is not difficult to find reports about industrial farmers being paid *not* to produce, or of crops being discarded at sea; given that greater supply means lower prices (basic supply-and-demand), the obvious result of such activities is artificially keeping prices up.

Great-Depression-Era arguments about ruining the soil by over-farming are essentially irrelevant in a permaculture framework, as the decline in soil quality in that respect is specific to monoculture (again, industrial farming). That so much viable land is reserved for growing grain for industrial livestock (for which their digestive systems are simply not fit) is another factor here. The fact is that focusing so heavily on producing meat is unhealthy for the environment *and* humankind, and that we could more easily feed the entire planet by using cropland primarily to produce food for humans.

As far as energy issues are concerned – that’s an entirely different (but similarly over-politicized) can of worms. Kim’s interview with J Dwight suggests that some alternative energy sources (specifically, wind) that are championed by political groups have more to do with the desires of industry than truly viable solutions for humanity. Nikola Tesla’s goal was to make energy free; he was ostracized and attacked for that view by the very same interests, who were concerned with profit and power – not universal prosperity. It could happen so quickly if there was any interest in it on the part of those with the wherewithal to put it into place!

A picture emerges that external interference by political and business interests – in other words, unjustified regulation that supports those interests, rather than ours – plays a critical role in these dire predictions about the planet not being able to support us.

Your point about “the favored few” is well-taken, of course; but knowledge and science are not inherently bad – that comes from how they are used. Increased lifespan does not necessarily imply cataclysmic population growth – if the right consciousness and educational framework were in place, one might reasonably conclude that we would make more sensible decisions about reproduction.

Reply

3 Augusta July 20, 2012 at 8:16 pm

The “favored few in the world” is people who work hard for long hours and many years to have what they have. Most of the worlds’ population make bad choices, especially having offspring that they are not capable to care for. The world is full of opportunities for everyone thus no excuse for the millions that choose not to take it. Good for those who have the means to take advantage in the future of rejuvenation science they deserve it and sorry the world would be better off without the millions who only keep on reproducing and expect the rest of the world to care for them. Thumbs up to all scientists who work on rejuvenation! I would definitely donate towards their hard work. And hopefully it would be so expensive that only a “favored few in the world” would be able to afford it!

Reply

4 Lee Kennedy August 25, 2018 at 7:41 pm

This should be worded: “…it would be so restricted to those ascended few” that only the ascended few could access it!”

Reply

Leave a Comment