TomBAvoider Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 I just watched the BBC4 show from The Big Think series, "How To Live Longer" - if you can find a way to view it, you might find it of interest, though honestly, I only found about the last 10 minutes or so worthwile, where they discuss the CHICO gene, its rough counterpart in mice and the search for the equivalent in humans. Nothing really new, but an upbeat "we're getting there" take on aging. A general FYI alert for fans of such stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sthira Posted April 21, 2017 Report Share Posted April 21, 2017 Thanks but I can't watch it since, well, them reasons. But when I need some of that upbeat hey we're getting there thing I listen to Bill Falloon. He's chipper. Have you been to his church? Me neither, but I'd like to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted April 21, 2017 Report Share Posted April 21, 2017 Good video Sthira, never heard of that guy or his "church". I kind of wonder if the whole church thing hurts what he is trying to do... Longevity research as "religion"? This guy needs to meet with Trump, seriously... and bring the casket, I'm sure it will work! Trump is down there in Florida often. Silicon Valley is already into this, maybe he could help direct their funds more appropriately (this was one criticism Aubrey de Grey had of silicon valley's efforts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomBAvoider Posted April 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2017 Oh yes, I think you know who that is :)... I believe Bill Faloon is the guy behind Life Extension Foundation (LEF), the supplement maker who is (or was) big among CRONies. A mixed bag. On the whole reasonable wrt. quality control, and actually kicked in some $ to some health-oriented research. Good amount of papers referenced with their stuff and educational efforts. On the other hand, make no mistake, it's all oriented toward making money - they never outright lie that I saw, but can be somewhat selective, all in the interests of selling more supplements. Prices on the high side. Big advocate for no regulations on the supplement industry and general foe of any regulatory agency (like the FDA) that might stand in the way of selling more and more supplements. The Church thing I suspect is tax related, but I don't know. Obviously, these are just my opinions based on the impression I gathered over the years. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sthira Posted April 22, 2017 Report Share Posted April 22, 2017 He's fun and quirky. And seems to have his eye on the ball. Like Aubrey he's probably despised by mainstream scientists, and also like Aubrey appears to understand that we don't need to nail down 100% scientific certainty in order to try to fix aging ("...We eradicated small pox before we even knew that viruses existed, but while we waited for the vaccine to be developed decades later more than 300 million people died of small pox..."). He's focused on what's emerging as best bets now (risky by nature, obviously, and sometimes outlandish to the mainstream peeps -- kinda like what many of us here did by experimenting with CR -- my parents still think I'm nuts for "starving yourself"). So for now he's focused on rapamycin, senolytics like short term D+Q treatments, thymus regeneration a la Fahy, parabiosis, plasma infusions, GDF-11 and any other blood protein, maybe soon CRISPR... all of this will change, of course, and hopefully no one will get hurt. Is he "ahead of the science?" Yup. But he's 60 and he's plucky and he has the necessary sense of urgency. "I have access to more than 10,000 high net worth individuals who can drop a quarter million dollars to help fund anti aging studies," he says. He spoke at RAADFest '16: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMDelaney Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 [bill Fallon] seems to have his eye on the ball. Agree completely. I had the pleasure of meeting Bill last night. We had a very productive discussion, and I learned even more about the numerous projects he has spearheaded recently. I'll write more about his efforts when I've digested things a bit more. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibiriak Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 In our world of vast and ever-increasing inequality, the rich, the top 1%, should spend all their hard-earned wealth pursuing... immortality. It's their moral obligation, really. Noblesse oblige! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMDelaney Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 I'd say, rather, they should do want they want. Many want to invest in longevity research. Wonderful for all of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomBAvoider Posted July 14, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 And I'd say it is the society that should get to decide what they do. Nobody is an island. It is the society that nurtured you, gave you opportunities and fostered your success - or the opposite. For example a person who was born into the 1% or 0.0001% through no merit of their own, but dumb luck, then goes on to have a disproportionately distorting effect on the economy and well-being of the rest of society, perhaps limiting the prospects of much more deserving and productive members (through regulatory, economic and political capture) - perhaps society decides that this is undesirable, and that this person should be taxed at extremely high levels (confiscatory in effect), because that is ultimately beneficial to the society at large. The effect might be far more beneficial to the progress of humanity through economic prosperity and providing the means for research on things like longevity. Rather than "do what they want", and a wastrel who lucked into being born to riches goes on and destroys not only that wealth, but more wealth potential in the rest of society, impeding progress all around. My take is that it is the society that should get to decide how much any one individual gets to impact the rest of us. Because it is the society that fosters the conditions for the individual to thrive - or not - in the first place. A billionaire or the 1% exists only in a societal structure, not as an individual in a jungle - there is a price to pay for that, and that obligation runs BOTH ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMDelaney Posted July 15, 2017 Report Share Posted July 15, 2017 [T]here is a price to pay for that, and that obligation runs BOTH ways. Of course. You may be making an incorrect (though natural!) assumption about the subject of "want" in my sentence. Long story there, but your analysis squares with one interpretation of Hegel's analysis of the social constitution of the individual in the early parts of his Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit (Geist). The question is what follows from that. I'd like to discuss that in detail, but I'd prefer, for now, to put energy into securing more time to discuss the matter. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.