Lifeboat Foundation

If you are not sure why you should support rejuvenation research, or know people who aren’t, this article explains why rejuvenation would be good for you as an individual.

The reasons why rejuvenation would be good for any given individual should be bleeding obvious. However, you’d be surprised how often people think it all boils down to ‘You’d live forever!’—which by the way is not granted and can be a bit of a controversial concept. The real reasons why rejuvenation would be good for you as an individual are the following.

The elderly of today aren’t exactly famous for their good health, nor for their ability to go about their lives easily and without help in even the simplest tasks. Old people have weaker bodies, weaker immune systems, are prey to a number of horrible diseases and chronic pain, and cannot take care of themselves with the same ease as they did when they were young. Pay attention next time you go downtown. You’ll see elderly people walking slowly and with difficulty, perhaps with the aid of a walker or a cane. They can’t hear well and they can’t see well. Climbing the stairs for them feels like more climbing a mountain. A young person can shake off the flu after a few days of discomfort; an old person may well die of the complications of it, because their weak immune system did not do a very good job. This is, in a nutshell, why young people can take care of themselves and old people end up in hospices or have to be watched over by their families.

Since the moment humans became aware of their existence, they have been haunted by the knowledge that it will inevitably come to an end and the hope to change this unfortunate fate.

This month, during Brain Bar Budapest – Europe’s leading conference on the future – Stephen Cave talked about the four immortality stories we tell ourselves and how they are changing in the context of new scientific discoveries and technological advancements. Stephen Cave spent a decade studying and teaching philosophy, and was awarded his PhD in metaphysics from the University of Cambridge in 2001. He is Executive Director of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence and Senior Research Associate at the University of Cambridge.

Continue reading “The Four Immortality Stories We Tell Ourselves” »

Overpopulation is the most common objection people make to developing rejuvenation biotechnology and potentially increasing healthy human lifespan. We take a look at why that is and if the figures support this concern.

Any discussion of rejuvenation biotechnology almost certainly includes the subject of overpopulation and that objection medical advances that directly address the various processes of aging will lead to an overpopulated world. Such dire predictions are a common theme when advances in medicine that could increase human lifespans are concerned.

Overpopulation is a word that gives the simple fact of population growth a negative connotation. It implies that an increase in the number of people will harm our lives in different ways: it might be famine, scarcity of resources, excessive population density, increased risks of infectious diseases, or harm to the environment.

Continue reading “Will increased lifespans cause overpopulation?” »

Can we live to 1,000? It was outrageous when he said it at ideacity in 2008… and again in 2015. Now he’s back to update us on the incredible progress that has been made toward life extension.

Michael Kramer of Zoomer Radio talks with Aubrey de Grey at ideacity 2017. Aubrey de Grey is an English author and biomedical gerontologist, currently the Chief Science Officer of the SENS Research Foundation. Find out more about ideacity at http://www.ideacity.ca/ideacity-2017/

Continue reading “About Michael Kramer” »

LEAF Director Elena Milova recently attended the International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit in Madrid and gave a talk about effective advocacy and how we can engage better with the public as advocates for rejuvenation biotechnology.

Her talk touches upon effective message delivery as well as the basic principles of teaching, known as the didactic principles.

Continue reading “Why Life Extension is not Popular with the Public Yet” »

Excellent lightning round questions below the audio. Between Dune and Hitchhikers Guide, Liz is indeed a nerd.

In this episode we talk about aging. It’s a condition that everyone experiences and indeed, one thing is certain: when it comes to aging, our condition is terminal. Our guest today is challenging that and fighting aging head on. We’re speaking with Liz Parrish, the CEO of BioViva, a biotech company dedicated to advancing gene and cell therapies to treat the diseases of aging. We dive into her work and learn about the results of the treatment that she received to slow and maybe even reverse the effects of aging.

Continue reading “Liz Parrish on Therapies to Slow and Reverse the Effects of Aging” »

A conspiracy theory article that I think is spreading semi-fake news (but it’s interesting to see how some people react to #transhumanism):

While the title of this article may sound like it belongs on a strange and dark science fiction movie, it doesn’t. Unfortunately, it seems that as the technological world continues to advance, the more the old adage ‘the truth is stranger than fiction’ becomes true.

Continue reading “The Elite Want to Transfer Consciousness Into a New Body and Live Forever” »

An article discussing why extreme risk aversion deriving from indefinite lifespans is neither very likely, nor rational.

There’s a theory suggesting that, if we could live indefinitely, we might become extremely risk-averse. Presently, regardless of when you die, you ‘only’ lose a handful of decades of life at worst, because you would have died of old age eventually anyway. However, the reasoning goes, if you could live for an indefinitely long time, your untimely death would cost you no less than eternity; the conclusion is that, in order to avoid such an unimaginable loss, people wouldn’t dare taking even the most insignificant risks, such as crossing the street, ultimately making their own lives quite miserable.

The problem with this argument is that it hinges on a flawed assumption. The assumption is that we dare taking any risks at all only because we know that in a few decades at best we’re going to be dead anyway. Why do you take a plane for a holiday at the Antipodes? Because you’re going to die anyway when you’re old. Why do you go on a rollercoaster ride? Because the reaper would get you sooner or later anyway. Why do you go out without an umbrella even though it looks like it might rain? Because pneumonia would cut your life only a few decades shorter. Note that this argument also answers the age-old question, ‘Why did the chicken cross the street?’ Because YOLO.

This is not how smart people (or chickens) think. The question is one of magnitude of benefits and risks of a certain course of action. Consider the case of John, 40 years old, taking a plane from New York to Madrid for a two-week holiday. There is a chance the plane might fall into the Atlantic Ocean during the flight, in which case John would die. The chance isn’t very big, but it’s not zero nonetheless. If the plane doesn’t fall, then John gets his holiday (the benefits); however, if the plane falls, not only does John not get his holiday, but he also loses his life. At age 40, John isn’t exactly a youngster any more, but he does have some 40 years of life left, though. While the perceived value of the holiday and the remaining 40 years of life are subjective, it is quite reasonable to say that two weeks in Madrid aren’t worth losing 40 years of life.

Continue reading “Living ‘forever’ would cause extreme risk aversion” »

Another LEAF interview from the International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit in Madrid with Didier Coeurnelle of Heales.

LEAF director Elena Milova was recently at the International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit in Madrid. During the conference she caught up with life extension advocate Didier Coeurnelle.

Continue reading “Didier Coeurnelle – Life Extension and Existential Risks” »