As is my habit, I attended Health Extension #12 at the new Hacker Dojo in Mountain View this past week.   The new Hacker Dojo location seems bigger and more professional than their old place.  This hackerspace has a clean, organized air about it which reflects its location in Silicon Valley.  NoiseBridge in SF and SudoRoom in Oakland both seem more anarchistic.  I want to go back sometime and check it out more thoroughly though.  I love hackerspaces.  But one of the Hacker Dojo members was complaining to me about freeloaders.  So it seems that Hacker Dojo is subject to the same problems that plague all attempts at direct democracy. Saying that everyone is in charge is equivalent to saying no one is in charge.  The direct democracy folks will need to work a bit harder to outdo the framers of the Constitution.  Representative democracy, get into it.

Hacker Dojo’s new digs at 599 Fairchild in Mountain View, CA.  It’s more built-out than this now.

Joe Betts-LaCroix gave a summary of the Health Extension mission and an update on their current activities.  The bottom line is that aging research is seriously underfunded.  Health care costs consume 17% of US GDP, and up to 90% of that spending is on age-related diseases.  We simply can’t afford to continue ignoring the biochemical processes of aging.  We need to spend on effective preventative medicine.  He also reported that the Health Extension pipeline is operational.   So researchers with great aging research ideas that are vetted by the HE Scientific Advisory Board will get assistance with funding and support from a variety of potential sources such as venture capital or philanthropic funds.

Joe next trotted out a fancy new refactoring of the word “aging”:

Degenerative Precursors – Any process, condition, or diagnostic result that, if unchanged, correlates with a high probability of subsequently developing any of a list of at least two, otherwise disparate age-related diseases.

He ran this by a bunch of biologists and they came up with a big honking list of “degenerative precursor” candidates, so let’s see where they go with this.  The HE 2013 internship project already produced “the world’s first comprehensive database of all known genetic variations in humans that pertain to lifespan and aging characteristics.”  It’s available online now, and they have submitted the results to a prestigious journal for review.  So these people don’t mess around.  I’ve heard many researchers suggest that a vast store of answers lay undiscovered within the massive corpus of existing research.  Don Swanson pioneered this sort of literature-based discovery which I learned about at a Samuel Arbesman talk last year.    This sort of meta-study is probably going to be more and more important as the amount of research explodes.

Joe also gave a plug to the upcoming SENS Reimagine Aging Conference in Cambridge, UK.

This month’s Health Extension featured leading Alzheimer’s researcher J. Wesson Ashford, MD, PhD.  Dr. Ashford was instrumental in developing anticholinesterase therapy, which is now standard treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.  He is now the director of the War Related Illness and Injury Study Center the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, and clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University. He is chair of the Memory Screening Advisory Board of the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America and clinical editor of the Journal of Alzheimer’s disease.  So this guy knows his Alzheimer’s.

Ashford started out his talk by telling the crowd that we were all going to die, which wasn’t well received by a bunch of life extension enthusiasts.  However, he tried to put things into perspective by pointing out that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are due to collide in about 4 billion years, which certainly makes me feel better about dying.

He went on to point out that one of Joe Betts-LaCroix’s standard slides showing age-related diseases would be more clear if plotted on a logarithmic scale.  He referred to the Gompertz Law of Mortality, which states that mortality increases exponentially over time starting around age 30.

 So the chart above would look like the chart below if mapped to  log scale, get it?

Simply put, the older you get, the more likely you are to die.  And this is a regular progression, not a sudden jump as the first slide might make it seem.  Wesson seemed to be making a fatalist point: time kills – period.  But Health Extension might be able to use this point of view to tweak their message.  Folks ought to take aging more seriously if they consider that our risk of death is doubling every year over thirty.

Dr. Ashford pointed out that the exact cause of Alzheimer’s is still not known, but there are several schools of thought on the matter.  The Beta-Amyloid theory has been the prevalent theory for over 100 years and suggests that the plaques that build up in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients are the cause of the condition.  However, several drugs have successfully removed these plaques, but failed to improve the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.  So that has lead some, including Ashford, to conclude that this theory is flawed and that billions of dollars have been wasted by drug companies.  He made the reasonable point that the role of factors should be understood before attempts were made to remove them from the body.

The Tau theory is that a process called “Tau hyperphosphorylation” leads to tangles that clog up the neuron and prevent it from functioning.  This occurs in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease and is related to dementia.  Ashford himself subscribes to a theory which I didn’t really understand.  But he seemed to suggest that attention should be focused on another protein that is created when beta-amyloids are cleaved from their precursor protein.  I couldn’t find the name of this creature, but I will ask around.  But it seems that Ashford thinks that the real action is happening inside the cell and the extracellular plaques are a red herring.

Dr. Ashford made some provocative comments that people don’t care about genetics, cost-benefit analysis, or the future.  His case for genetics centered around his assertion that not enough people are using 23andMe.  Also, he lamented that not enough of the papers being submitted to Journal of Alzheimer’s disease are controlling for the apoE gene, which has a major impact on Alzheimer’s risk.  This gene has three variations: APOE-2 reduces likelihood of Alzheimer’s, APOE-3 has average risk, and APOE-4 confers increased risk.  I checked my 23andMe report and was relieved to find an APOE-2 in there.  But of course, if I had an APOE-4 I wouldn’t… err, what was I saying?  Never mind.  Actually, I shouldn’t joke about this stuff.  Folks with a couple of APOE-4’s should consider taking extra preventative measures.

Here are the preventative tips I got from Dr. Ashford’s website:

THE TOP TEN TREATMENTS FOR PREVENTING ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE
J. Wesson Ashford, M.D., Ph.D. (November, 2006)

1. Take your blood pressure regularly; be sure that the systolic pressure is always less than 130.

2. Watch your cholesterol; if your cholesterol is elevated (above 200), talk to your clinician about appropriate treatment. Consider “statin” medications a d besure your cholesterol is fully controlled. Increase your dietary intake of omega-3-fatty acids (eat deep-sea finned fish at least 3 times per week) and nuts (especially almonds).

3. Exercise your body, mind, and spirit regularly. Physical exercise best 10-30 mins after each meal for 10-30 minutes, 3 times per day. Do aerobic and strengthening exercises. Maximize your education. If you have spare time, do mental puzzles (like crossword puzzles). Stay active with your friends and in your community.

4. Physically protect your brain. Wear your car seat-belt. Wear a helmet when you are riding a bicycle or participating in any activity where you might hit your head. Work to decrease your fall risk through physical exercise, making your environment safe.

5. Keep your BMI (Body Mass Index) in the optimal range (19-25):
   ——– BMI = 703 * weight (pounds) / height (inches) squared ——–
   To optimize your BMI, control your food intake and exercise. Decrease your risk of type II diabetes. Monitor your fasting blood sugar yearly. If you have diabetes, make sure that your blood sugar is optimally controlled.

6. Consult your clinician about your joint and muscle pains (treat arthritis with ibuprofen, sulindac, or indomethacin).

7. Take your vitamins daily (folate – 400mcg, B12 – 25mcg, C – 250 mg, and E – 200iu’s). Check with your clinician yearly to be sure your homocysteine levels are not high and you have no signs of or risk factors for B12 deficiency (ask your doctor to make sure your B12 level is above 400. If diet doesn’t help, take oral supplement. If oral supplement doesn’t work, get monthly B12 shots additionally. Maximize your vegetables.

8. Keep your hormones stable. Check with you clinician about your thyroid hormone. Discuss sex-hormone replacement therapy with your clinician (such therapy is not currently recommended for Alzheimer prevention, but may help memory and mood).

9. If you have difficulty getting to sleep, consider trying 3 – 6 milligrams of melatonin at bedtime. If you snore, consult your clinician about sleep apnea.

10. Monitor your memory regularly; have your memory screened yearly. Be sure the people around you are not concerned about your memory. If you think that you have significant difficulty with your memory, talk to your clinician about further evaluation. Consider therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine.

source: http://www.medafile.com/top10tr.htm
more tips here: http://www.memtrax.com/en/yourBrainHealth

It was also suggested that low doses of ibuprofen might be preventative of AD in a way similar to the way that people take small regular doses of asprin.

Ashford has developed a memory diagnostic tool at http://www.memtrax.com to help detect memory degradation associated with Alzheimer’s as early as possible.  I signed up and tried it out, and it involves viewing a series of pictures and hitting the space bar when a picture is repeated.  It was fairly easy and more of a test than a task, like Dual N-Back or Lumosity.com.  It seems to be free and it’s cool that Ashford is putting it out there to help folks out.  He also sees huge potential for big data and web applications to enable memory testing across broad populations.  This is the sort of area where Quantified Self type data can cross over into real science.

After the talk, I got into a discussion with a Silicon Valley entrepreneur type who was skeptical about Health Extension.  It’s illuminating to discuss your beliefs with a skeptic that doesn’t listen very closely.  All of the sloppiness and jargony shorthand which is acceptable when preaching to the choir gets called into question.

So why am I in favor of health extension after all?  I think the key lays in the distinction between life extension and health extension.  No one wants to live 50 additional years in the poor health of a typical 80 year old today.  The goal is to extend the period of health for humans.  That’s a big deal.  It would lead to a huge reduction in suffering worldwide, massive economic benefits for states burdened with high health costs, and it’s just what I want for myself and my own loved ones here and now.

Of course this skeptic brought up the standard Malthusian argument that the earth couldn’t sustain humans with extended health spans.  In response, I brought up the Haber process which is an example of how human ingenuity throws a wrench into Malthusian calculations.  The Haber process extracts nitrogen from the air in the form of ammonia.  Big deal, right?  Well fertilizer generated from ammonia produced by the Haber process is estimated to be responsible for sustaining one-third of the Earth’s population.  So when we consider the sustainability of life extension, we should consider what other breakthroughs like the Haber process lay around the corner.

The flip side of this argument is that a ballooning Haber enabled population is degrading the earth at a more rapid pace.  I might argue that folks who oppose health extension on sustainability grounds should consider that the poverty induced high reproductive rates of the developing world probably dwarf any environmental impact that health extension might have.  Arguments about the stagnation of innovation notwithstanding, I will assert that humans are inventive enough to increase efficiencies, and sensible enough to reign in fertility, as their conditions improve.  So let’s go help pull the Global South out of poverty so that their fertility rates go down to more manageable levels and work on health extension.

Another point that came up that evening was this common Silicon Valley refrain that startup founders need to stop focusing on minor first world problems and start tackling the real problems of the world.  At the same time we hear that VCs have turned cowardly and are now demanding that startups have an established customer base and revenue before they will dip a tremulous toe into the water and risk their precious cash.  So the problem is probably not founders without vision, as much as capital without guts.

Overall this was an interesting evening that touched on a range of topics.  Alzheimer’s disease is a serious illness that will probably increase in frequency as the population ages and lifespans continue their historical increase.  It may be that the big drug companies need to slow down and dig deeper into the fundamental biological processes underpinning this disease in order to come up with truly effective treatments.  I admire the work of researchers such as Dr. Ashford, who tirelessly probe into the maddening complexities of human biology looking for these answers.  Even if he is a fatalist who insists that we are all doomed to die in the nearing galactic traffic accident.

I went to a Humanity+ networking event at Zero1 Garage in San Jose this week.  It was organized by Humanity+ magazine editor Peter Rothman.  Presentations were given by seminal transhumanist Natasha Vita-More, media artist Jason Wilson, and writer Zoltan Istvan.  I missed the beginning of Vita-More’s talk (which was delivered via Skype) and had a hard time picking up the gist of it, but she seemed to be discussing ways in which people could promote the idea of transhumanism.  She mentioned some books that she recommends: Design of Everyday Things, Art of Innovation, and her own Transhumanist Reader.

I don’t really get the point behind advocating for transhumanism myself.  To me transhumanism is a misnomer.  Humans have always augmented themselves and always will.  To augment is essentially human.  It’s what technology is all about.  I guess one can imagine some significant thresholds where technology has been integrated into our bodies, like pacemakers or artificial hips or something.  Just kidding, a significant threshold would probably be something like the ability to perform Google searches by merely thinking about a query.  But we have crossed similar technology thresholds in the past like language, the written word, and the internet, without feeling the need to come up with new species classifications.  Nonetheless, I’d rather hang out with transhumanists than a bunch of sports fans or something.

I met Peter Rothman a couple of times and he is a cool guy.  He is more cultural than a lot of the computer people one is apt to meet.  I like how he invited Jason Wilson to speak at this event.  I have seen Wilson’s Outer Body Labs at various events like the Singularity Summit or DEF CON.  They provide technology assisted “out of body” experiences by putting you into video goggles that block your normal view of the world but give you a view of yourself transmitted from a nearby camera.  You are basically seeing yourself move around and perform tasks from outside of your body, which I imagine is very disorienting.  Wilson describes the experience as, “breaking the agency of eyesight.”  You can’t control where the camera points, and this helps to put your own subjectivity into perspective.  Given that humans seem better at judging others than judging ourselves, experiencing an outside view of yourself might increase your sense of objectivity.  I plan on heading over to Wilson’s studio one of these days to check it out firsthand.

Following Wilson, Zoltan Istvan gave a talk on his book, The Transhumanist Wager.  I guess it’s about a guy who takes over the world in order to live forever.  I didn’t read it, and from the various book reviews I have found online, I don’t think I will.  Istvan is basically arguing that transhumanists should form cells and start combating religious groups directly.  I’m not kidding; here is an excerpt from his interview with Serious Wonder:

Z: I’m currently creating networks of transhuman activists across America and beyond that will begin systematic confrontations against those that are hostile to life extension and human enhancement science. I plan to use aggressive tactics that will garner media attention for spreading transhumanism. Of course, I’m also using my novel, The Transhumanist Wager, as a tool for how passionate that activism should be …

Now you might be thinking, “Why are you bothering to dig into this madness?”  But the fact is that Istvan doesn’t come across as crazy in person.  I stayed and spoke with him after his presentation.  He is an intelligent and articulate person.  During his talk, Istvan lamented the lack of funding being applied to research into aging.  One hears the same point made at the Health Extension Salon, and this is a good point which I agree with.  Aging research should get more funding.  But Istvan seems to think that confronting religious people is the way to bring that about.  I told him that I don’t think any of the elites controlling policy in this country are actually religious, but he asserted that I am living in a Bay Area bubble.   He thinks the elites in this country are religious, and he pointed to the suppression of stem cell research by the Bush administration as an example of that.

My sense has always been that policy makers use the religious views of the population to craft wedge issues that can be used to distract the public from more important problems and to win elections.  Gay marriage is a good example, and I assume that stem cell research is just an unfortunate casualty of such a strategy.  I don’t believe that Bush or any of the elites running this country hold actual religious beliefs that affect their decision making.  The very idea seems ludicrous.  It seems clear that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief.  I also assume that that it takes smarts to operate in the ranks of policy makers.

So to me it’s deeply misguided to go picking fights with a bunch of poor, muddled religious folks and try to beat them into submission to their transhumanist overlords.  Because, you know, religious folks are probably more tolerant of dying for their beliefs than rationalists will tend to be.  Just saying.  I’m no activist, but if you want to get funding for life extension, focus on the billionaires that really pull the strings in society.  I’m sure some of those plutocrats would cough up some cash if you could convince them that there was some chance they could benefit directly.  But as I said, I’m not an activist.  People that adopt the technology characterized as transhumanist will simply outcompete those that don’t.  No one can stop this technology from being created.  Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cells might have just pushed more research into adult stem cells (iPSC), and it certainly didn’t stop stem cell progress.

Istvan’s cognitive framework is fraught with inconsistencies.  He’s a big proponent of individual freedom, but then advocates a global law enforcing secular education.  That’s just incoherent from any angle you look at it.  I would expect an individual freedoms guy to go for Sudbury style schooling (free schooling, in which kids teach themselves) or something.  Certainly the top-down, global law approach is inconsistent with individual liberty.  Also this intense advocation for the primacy of the individual offends my embedded cognition sensibilities.  Consider Nicholas Christakis’ work, which shows that human behavior is deeply influenced by the behavior of those around us.  I am sympathetic to those monarchists who point out the shortcomings of decision by committee.  I see that there are some inherent coordination costs that impact group decision making.  But I will still assert that advanced cognition is impossible in the absence of social interaction.  Cognitive agents cannot be formed without social interaction and cannot operate for extended periods of time in isolation.  So it seems that cognition is a network dependent process.

My Less Wrong friends may tell me that this empirical “outside view” is susceptible to the Black Swan effect; you can’t predict a new thing by examining the things you have seen already.  It may be that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) agents will not be constrained by network limitations and will have a totally different sort of cognition.  Go on Less Wrong and you will find much talk of utility functions.  But there is a wide gulf to cross between the natural language utility function of “maximize paper clips” and the computer code that describes that function and can actually act on it in the real world.  This gulf is only crossed by much handwaving.  I’m not trying to beat up on Yudkowsky et al, I actually like and admire those folks.  I will leave the LW bashing to Alexander Kruel who has some bug in his rear about them.  I just remain unconvinced of the viability of agents that are not network constrained.  Thus, hard individualism is invalid.

Another one of Istvan’s inconsistencies showed itself when he complained that the older generation was holding back progress toward immortality.  Now this strikes me as somewhat ironic.  If immortality is so great, I asked him how he imagined that society would progress in the absence of successive generations.  Istvan declined to speculate about that and made some vague reference to AI changing how progress would occur, which isn’t such a bad cop out.  Sure, AI will do the thinking for us, no problem.  But this very point was brought up by a young woman at a recent East Bay Futurist meetup.  She pointed out that each generation is uniquely positioned to understand the era they matured in.  This is not a concern that I readily dismiss.

It may be true that immortal humans will be more flexible than the crystallized old folks of today.  However, I suspect that they will tend to hold on to core aspects of their identity.  Why live forever if the entity that exists isn’t in some way recognizably you?  A sense of identity is that which we develop over time as we draw a border around what is and is not within ourselves.  It is probably a function of synaptic pruning.  It may be that a society of immortals will be less evolvable and less able to address changing conditions as I discussed previously.  I am sympathetic to the view that AI or Intelligence Amplification (IA) can mitigate this risk, but it’s a real risk posed by immortality that futurists should take into consideration.

I have other problems with Istvan, like the way he holds the radical views of his book at arm’s length, claiming that he doesn’t fully subscribe to the views of his characters.  I would accept that if he was just another fiction author and not promoting the same basic agenda as his book does.  At the end of the day though, Istvan seems like a starry eyed idealist unaware of the political realities of the real world.  This is hard to reconcile with the fact that he is a world traveller and person of action.  Nonetheless, I am glad that I met him because at least it helped me to clarify my own position.  I just hope he doesn’t go triggering some huge public backlash against transhumanists by doing something rash.  Because if that happens, I want the religious police to notice that I have publicly disavowed the word transhumanist many times.  I am just a regular human who likes tools, ok?