Life extension

Jose Cordeiro on Longevity and Cryonics Summit: The World Will Be A Better Place Tomorrow

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Jose Cordeiro, MBA, Ph.D., is an amazing person with endless supplies of energy and optimism. In fact, I have never met a more involved and proactive person than Dr. Cordeiro because he is literally always traveling across the world and is directly involved in a variety of cutting-edge fields and projects from Japan and Korea, spanning all over Europe and all the way to South America and Silicon Valley. I honestly have no idea how Jose Cordeiro is able to sustain his restless schedule but it is very clear that he absolutely loves what he does and is incredibly passionate about making the world a better place. So, following his generous invitation to attend the Longevity and Cryonics Summit in Madrid I could not pass such a rare opportunity to interview Dr. Cordeiro in-person. Hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

During our 45 min conversation with Jose Cordeiro, we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: why he is a futurist, transhumanist, singularitarian, and energularian; living in the best time to live and always travelling; escaping one dictatorship after another and becoming a citizen of the world; the biggest issues of our time; what is a kaka and why talking and even humanity might be the kaka’s of the future; the Longevity and Cryonics Summit in Madrid and the upcoming RAAD Festival in San Diego; the story of Spain from non-plus-ultra to plus-ultra; the religious complications of life extension and cryonics; immortality, amortality and receiving death-threats; Jose Cordeiro’s upcoming book The Death of Death; his seminal meetings with Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov; why the world will be a better place tomorrow…

As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support you can write a review on iTunes, make a direct donation or become a patron on Patreon.

Who is Jose Cordeiro?

José Cordeiro, MBA, Ph.D., is a world citizen in our small planet in a big unknown universe. He was born in Latin America, from European parents, was educated in Europe and North America, and has worked extensively in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. He has studied, visited and worked in over 130 countries in 5 continents.

Mr. Jose Cordeiro studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, USA, where he received his Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) and Master of Science (M.Sc.) degrees in Mechanical Engineering, with a minor in Economics and Languages. His thesis consisted of a dynamic modeling for NASA’s “Freedom” Space Station (the “International” Space Station of today). He later studied International Economics and Comparative Politics at Georgetown University in Washington, USA, and then obtained his Masters of Business Administration (MBA) at the InstitutEuropéen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD) in Fontainebleau, France, where he majored in Finance and Globalization. During his studies, Mr. Jose Cordeiro worked with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna, Austria, and with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC, USA. He started his doctoral degree at MIT, which he continued later in Tokyo, Japan, and finally received his Ph.D. at Universidad Simón Bolívar (USB) in Caracas, Venezuela. He is a lifetime member of the Sigma Xi (ΣΞ, Scientific Research) and Tau Beta Pi (ТΒΠ, Engineering) Honor Societies in North America, is also an honorary member of the Venezuelan Engineers College (CIV), and his name has been included in the Marquis Edition of Who’s Who in the World.

At present, Jose Cordeiro is chair of the Venezuelan Node of the Millennium Project, Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of Developing Economies (IDE – JETRO) in Tokyo, Japan, and Founding Faculty and Energy Advisor at Singularity University (SU) in NASA Ames Research Park, Silicon Valley, California, USA.

Mr. Jose Cordeiro is founder and president emeritus of the World Future Society Venezuela Chapter (Sociedad Mundial del Futuro Venezuela); director of the Single Global Currency Association (SGCA) and the Lifeboat Foundation; co-founder of the Venezuelan Transhumanist Association and of the Internet Society (ISOC, Venezuela Chapter); board advisor to the Brain Preservation Foundation (BPF) and Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN); member of the Academic Committee of the Center for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge (CEDICE), the Foresight Education and Research Network (FERN), the World Future Society (WFS) and the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF); expert member of the TechCast Project and ShapingTomorrow; former director of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA, now Humanity+), the Extropy Institute (ExI), the Club of Rome (Venezuela Chapter, where he was active in promoting classical liberal ideas and the idea of “World Opportunitique” beyond “World Problematique” and “World Resolutique”) and of the Association of Venezuelan Exporters (AVEX), where he participated in the original negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). He has also been an advisor to the Venezuelan Business Association (AVE) and other companies and international organizations.

Which will come first, social change or life extension?

by

Advancing ConversationsIt may be hard to remember, but the aim of facilitating human progress, of expanding the range of human power and improving already established facilities, has historically been the defining aim of the political left. Today other aims seem more dominant. Our left is concerned with inequality, with correcting social attitudes, and with conserving the natural environment rather than with transforming the world and improving the fundamentals of the human condition. In an attempt to return to this more fundamental aim we at Zero Books have started a line of interview books called “Advancing Conversations” wherein our authors reach out to many different kinds of “progressives.” We are interested in techno optimists, left philosophers, modern artists, heterodox economists, and so on.

What we’ve discovered is that, if we on the left want to transcend society’s present circumstances and make substantial changes in the world, we’d do well to take transhumanists and techno-optimists seriously. But it’s also true that the techno-optimist vision needs the critiques and ideas usually associated with the left.

For example, towards the end of the upcoming interview book Advancing Conversations: Aubrey De Grey – Advocate For An Indefinite Human Lifespan the radical biomedical gerontologist describes some of the roadblocks and problems that plague the scientific community, and he states how his research group SENS was founded as an attempt to get around these problems.

De Grey says, “Most scientists are ultimately careerists. They may have been idealists at the beginning of their careers but they lose their ideals very quickly under the tyranny of the system. The fact of having to bloody, you know, get their next grant funded. Get their next promotion. Get their PHD students and postdocs in a position to get promoted themselves, and so on…If you get a senior scientist wickedly drunk and you ask them to give you a straight answer with regard to whether they’re actually doing what they’d like to do, whether they’re doing the science that they would do if they had unlimited funds that were completely secure and under their own control indefinitely, then they will tell you no way. They will tell you that they are compromising all the time, in terms of what they are actually choosing to do.

The whole reason that SENS exists is precisely because we need this compromise not to happen. We go out and get money and we spend it the way we think it needs to be spent.”

Imagine how much sooner we’d be able to accomplish indefinite life extension if the problems Aubrey de Grey describes were overcome. Imagine how much faster, how much more progress, we’d have if we didn’t live in a society wherein even the most accomplished and elite people end up doing work they do not care about. Ask yourself, is this social order that limits the imagination and abilities of people in the service of economic and political imperatives that are outside of anyone’s control, inevitable or natural? Is it more difficult to imagine overcoming the logic of our own institutions than it is to overcome the biology of aging?

De Grey was chosen as the subject for the first book because he and his project are extremely optimistic and forward looking. He was chosen because the editors and authors at Zero Books hope to combat pessimism on the left, to work against a backwards looking negativism that has become nearly toxic. And yet, during this conversation with de Grey it became clear that the scientific progress we hoped might serve as antidote and inspiration for us was not entirely untouched by the social, economic, and political problems that we’d grown accustomed to railing against.

The left and the techno-optimists need each other. As great as scientific and technological advances have been within this society, there are many ways wherein science and technology is limited by our political and economic systems.  Careerism in the scientific community is just one example. Optimism about reshaping our society, about overcoming our political and economic alienation, might well be as necessary as optimism about technology if Aubrey de Grey and others are going to win the day.

 

About the Author:

Doug LainDouglas Lain is a science fiction writer whose recent novel “After the Saucers Landed” was nominated for the PKD award. He is also the publisher of a critical theory imprint called Zero Books and the voice behind the Zero Squared podcast.

 

Related Articles

If Death Is Natural Then Why Are Some Immortal?

by

Fotolia_46534404_XSWoody Alen famously quipped that he doesn’t want to accomplish immortality through his work but through not dying. But we are often told that death is natural. Much of the time the statement is left hanging without support as if it is totally obvious. Occasionally, someone will go the extra mile by repeating the (Buddhist?!) mantra that everything and everyone born will die and become food and/or raw material for the next generation – the proverbial great circle of live.

But the above claim is at best incomplete. And, at worse, totally false. First of all it doesn’t acknowledge or explain the great variability of life spans we find out there in the “natural world.” Why, for example, some creatures live many times the average human life? What is it that makes them better, more natural, more suited to or worthy of longer lives than us? Why is it natural for a sea shell or a sponge to live for 400 or 1,500 years respectively, while humans are “naturally” capped at 100 or so?

Secondly, and more importantly, what about the growing list of organisms that have skipped the philosophical debate altogether and have already embraced different versions of biological immortality?! Is that a sign that, having realized they will never achieve immortality through their work, those organisms had no other option but to go for the real thing?!

If death is natural then why do some organisms seem to be immortal?

If you are not familiar with those creatures here is a short list:

Immortal-Jellyfish-thumb1. The Turritopsis Nutricula aka the Immortal Jellyfish: Technically known as a hydrozoan, it is the only known animal that is capable of reverting completely to its younger self. The jellyfish does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation. Scientists believe the cycle can repeat indefinitely, rendering it potentially immortal. [The main issue often raised by critics with this process is one of identity – is the offspring considered to be the same specimen or not. Most biologists argue that it isn’t. In fact, bacteria are also said to be biologically immortal, but only at the level of the colony, since the two daughter bacteria resulting from cell division of a parent bacterium can be regarded as unique individuals.]

Hydra2. The Hydra is a genus of small, simple, fresh-water animals that possess radial symmetry. Hydra are predatory animals belonging to the phylum Cnidaria and the class Hydrozoa. They can be found in most unpolluted fresh-water ponds, lakes, and streams in the temperate and tropical regions and can be found by gently sweeping a collecting net through weedy areas. They are multi-cellular organisms which are usually a few millimeters long and are best studied with a microscope. Biologists are especially interested in Hydra due to their regenerative ability; and that they appear not to age or to die of old age.

Echiniscus3. Tardigrades (commonly known as waterbears or moss piglets) are small, water-dwelling, segmented animals with eight legs. Tardigrades are notable for being one of the most complex of all known polyextremophiles. (An extremophile is an organism that can thrive in a physically or geochemically extreme condition that would be detrimental to most life on Earth.) For example, tardigrades can withstand temperatures from just above absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water, as well as pressures greater than any found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation — at doses hundreds of times higher than would kill a person and have lived through the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for nearly 120 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.

Candy stripe flatworm4. Planarian flatworms: Planarian flatworms appear to exhibit an ability to live indefinitely and have an “apparently limitless [telomere] regenerative capacity fueled by a population of highly proliferative adult stem cells.”

Planaria can be cut into pieces, and each piece can regenerate into a complete organism. Cells at the location of the wound site proliferate to form a blastema that will differentiate into new tissues and regenerate the missing parts of the piece of the cut planaria. It’s this feature that gave them the famous designation of being “immortal under the edge of a knife.”

Very small pieces of the planarian, estimated to be as little as 1/279th of the organism it is cut from, can regenerate back into a complete organism over the course of a few weeks. New tissues can grow due to pluripotent stem cells that have the ability to create all the various cell types. These adult stem cells are called neoblasts, which comprise around 20% of cells in the adult animal. They are the only proliferating cells in the worm, and they differentiate into progeny that replace older cells. In addition, existing tissue is remodeled to restore symmetry and proportion of the new planaria that forms from a piece of a cut up organism. The organism itself does not have to be completely cut into separate pieces for the regeneration phenomenon to be witnessed. In fact, if the head of a planaria is cut in half down its centre, and each side retained on the organism, its possible for the planaria to regenerate two heads and continue to live.

Lobster5. Lobsters: Because they are prized as a delicacy seafood, most people are familiar with those large marine crustaceans – they have long bodies with muscular tails, and live in crevices or burrows on the sea floor. Three of their five pairs of legs have claws, including the first pair, which are usually much larger than the others. What most people don’t know, however, is that older lobsters are more fertile than younger lobsters. Lobsters also keep growing throughout life, don’t show any signs of ageing and have been reported to live 100 or even 200 hundred years before ending on someone’s dinner table.

In addition to the above five examples, there are a few other potential candidates that may have accomplished biological immortality. Some of the best known applicants are the Rougheye Rockfish, the Aldabra Giant Tortoise, the sea anemone and others. And chances are that we will continue to discover other similarly fascinating biologically immortal organisms.

Now, we have to be clear that biological immortality doesn’t mean actual immortality. There is a full spectrum of other causes that can lead to death. [For example, you can be a 200 year old fish or lobster and still get caught and eaten.] It is with this recognition in mind that Dr. Aubrey de Grey is very careful with the language he uses when describing his work – prolonging healthy life-span, defeating ageing etc. De Grey often stresses that he is not working on immortality because, for example, perfectly healthy people can and do get run over and killed by cars every day. So Aubrey insists on being clear that his work focuses on the internal, biological factors, and not the external ones, which are outside of his control. And it is the former that are usually associated with “the natural causes for death.”

But if they are so “natural” then why do some organisms seem to avoid them altogether?! And, more generally:

If death is natural then why are some biologically immortal?

To me the answer is clear – there is no such thing as “natural”! The world is full of diversity and organisms do what they can to adapt in the best way possible to ensure survival. Therefore I see absolutely nothing wrong or unnatural with us using smart technology to achieve biological immortality. There is not such thing as “natural death”. There is only death and a variety of causes that can lead to it. Just like we managed to eliminate death from the plague, we would eventually be able to eliminate death from old age. This may not mean the death of death proper but it will certainly go a long way because it will be the death of “natural death”!

 

Related articles

Christine Peterson on Nanotechnology: Push the Future in a Positive Direction

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Christine Peterson is not only the co-founder and past president of the Foresight Institute for Nanotechnology but also the person credited with coining the term open-source software. More recently her interests have evolved to include longevity and life extension technologies and she is currently the CEO of Health Activator.

During my Singularity 1 on 1 interview with Christine Peterson we discuss a variety of topics such as: how she got interested in nanotechnology and the definition thereof; how, together with Eric Drexler, she started the Foresight Institute for Nanotechnology; her interest in life extension; Dr. Drexler’s seminal book Engines of Creation; cryonics and chemical brain preservation; 23andMe and other high- and low-tech tips for improved longevity; whether we should fear nanotechnology or not; the 3 most exciting promises of nanotech; women in technology; coining the term “open source” and using Apple computers; the technological singularity and her take on it…

As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support you can write a review on iTunes, make a direct donation, or become a patron on Patreon.

 

Who is Christine Peterson?

Christine Peterson writes, lectures, and briefs the media on coming powerful technologies, especially longevity and nanotechnology. She is CEO of HealthActivator, which provides online videoconferences on science-based health, brain fitness, and longevity.

She is Co-Founder and Past President of Foresight Institute, the leading nanotech public interest group. Foresight educates the public, technical community, and policymakers on nanotechnology and its long-term effects.

She serves on the Advisory Board of the International Council on Nanotechnology, the Editorial Advisory Board of NASA’s Nanotech Briefs, and the Advisory Board of Singularity Institute, and served on California’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Nanotechnology.

She has often directed Foresight Conferences on Molecular Nanotechnology, organized Foresight Institute Feynman Prizes, and chaired Foresight Vision Weekends.

She lectures on nanotechnology to a wide variety of audiences, focusing on making this complex field understandable, and on clarifying the difference between near-term commercial advances and the “Next Industrial Revolution” arriving in the next few decades.

Her work is motivated by a desire to help humanity and Earth’s environment avoid harm and instead benefit from expected dramatic advances in technology. This goal of spreading benefits led to an interest in new varieties of intellectual property including open source software, a term she is credited with originating.

Related articles

Long for this World: Live Forever or Die Trying [Teaser Trailer]

by

The search for immortality is as old as humanity. One of the first documented attempts to defeat death was the Epic of Gilgamesh, where in the end Gilgamesh discovers that “The life that you are seeking you will never find. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping.”

Long For This World: Live Forever or Die Trying is an upcoming documentary about the contemporary quest for, and the science and philosophy behind, finding the fountain of youth. It is a film by Jason Sussberg and David Alvarado that follows the work of three scientists such as Aubrey de Grey and Terry Grossman, who are working to turn science fiction into reality and help us reach indefinite lifespans.

The Debate of the Ages: This House Wants to Defeat Ageing Entirely

by

This house wants to defeat ageing entirely was a fantastic public debate held last Wednesday (April 25th, 2012) at Oxford University. The two interlocutors were Dr. Aubrey de Grey and Prof. Colin Blakemore, who is a high-profile neuroscientist and science communicator as well as the ex-head of the Medical Research Council, UK’s largest funding body for biomedical research.

This house wants to defeat ageing entirely addressed both the feasibility and the desirability of bringing aging under comprehensive medical control. Moreover, one can claim it was quite a watershed event, since it was the first time that a bona fide grandee of the British biomedical establishment has risen to the challenge of describing publicly, in a forum where he can be challenged, why intervention against aging is not in fact medicine’s most pressing priority.

Now, I am not a scientist or a medical expert so I can’t judge the accuracy of the scientific details. However, from a logical or rhetorical point of view I have to say that Dr. Aubrey de Grey clearly won the debate. Thus it was unfortunate when the moderator didn’t even bother to actually count the votes accurately after the debate because I am willing to bet that Aubrey de Grey did win a substantial number of the audience as compared to their original pre-debate predispositions.

What annoyed me immensely was that Prof. Colin Blakemore not only took substantially more time to lay out his position than Aubrey, but also did not restrain himself to claim that “Aubrey had opinions beyond his expertise” while himself committing a number of logical fallacies such as appeal to authority, strawman, ad hominem, appeal to nature, circular reasoning etc. To sum up Colin Blakemore’s position in one sentence – defeating ageing can’t be done because it hasn’t been done before and shouldn’t be done because it is both a waste of resources and will lead to a global Malthusian apocalypse. I can’t resist using Colin’s own words against himself and note that he is clearly “beyond his expertise” when it comes to both economics and rhetoric.

Keep up the good work Aubrey! Your debate reminded me of President of the Royal Society Lord Kelvin’s 1895 statement that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”. Less than a decade later two bicycle manufactures demonstrated that his Lordship was, in fact, totally wrong.

The Debate of the Ages: This House Wants to Defeat Ageing Entirely

 

Related articles

Sonia Arrison: Make Regenerative Medicine A Top Priority

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Last week I interviewed Sonia Arrison for Singularity 1 on 1.

I met Sonia at the Singularity University, where she is a founder and a trustee, and there I picked up a copy of her seminal book 100 Plus: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, from Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith. The book is very well researched and deals with the most profound implications of life extension and super-longevity. In the author’s own words, the main question is: “how long science will extend our lives and how that, in turn, will change our ecological, social, and religious worlds.”

During our conversation with Sonia, we discuss issues such as: how and why she got interested in technology in general and transhumanism and regenerative medicine in particular; how science and technology will allow us to live longer and healthier lives; the most common objections against increased longevity; the implications thereof on major religions; cryonics; Sonia’s take on the technological singularity and our chances of surviving it; the fact that we cannot simply sit down and wait for longevity to happen.

As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support you can write a review on iTunes, make a direct donation, or become a patron on Patreon.

Who is Sonia Arrison?

Sonia Arrison is a founder, academic advisor, and trustee at Singularity University, located in Mountain View, CA. She is also a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) and a columnist for TechNewsWorld. As a frequent media contributor and guest, her work has appeared on CNN and in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. She lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

To find out more about Sonia visit SoniaArrison.com

Related articles

Dr. Aubrey de Grey: Better Funding and Advocacy Can Defeat Aging

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

Last time I had Dr. Aubrey de Grey on Singularity 1 on 1 the interview turned out to be a hit. In fact, it is still by far the most popular podcast that I have done and the audio file has been listened to or downloaded over 30,000 times.

Given Aubrey’s popular appeal and the importance of his work, it is no surprise that I am thrilled to have him back for a second interview. However, please keep in mind that this interview is aiming to supplement and not replace the first one. Thus, this time around, we cover some topics that we did not have time to go over the previous time, so if you haven’t heard the first podcast, you may want to begin here.

During this conversation, I ask Dr. de Grey to discuss issues such as the term natural death and its impact; the publicity and importance of two long-awaited documentaries about Ray Kurzweil – Transcendent Man and The Singularity is Near; traditional metabolic and more recent DNA tests such as the ones done by 23andMe and others; the slow developmental process of new drugs and therapies, and the problems of taking them from testing in lab rats to humans;  the Thomas Malthus argument of overpopulation and Aubrey’s reply to it.

As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support, you can write a review on iTunes, make a direct donation, or become a patron on Patreon.

To find out more about Dr. Aubrey de Grey click here.

To see Christopher Syke’s full documentary about the controversial gerontologist watch Do You Want to Live Forever?

To find out more about the SENS foundation click the banner below.

Related articles

Regenerative Medicine And Gambling: Is Longer Life Of Greater Value?

by

A funny thing happened to me when I first heard of the SENS Foundation and their program to develop strategies that will make it possible to live indefinitely.

The day before, if you had asked me to take a free ride on NASA’s Space Shuttle I would have accepted with elation. But when I fully realized that I might live a thousand years (provided that I don’t die in an accident) I realized I would only want to go on a Russian Soyuz Spacecraft, which is far safer and has not had a fatal accident in 39 years. The Shuttle is reusable but its R & D budget was cut in half by President Nixon, so the final design did not get an emergency escape system. Given that there is a strong probability that I may live longer than originally anticipated, I feel my life is worth more now. Thus I am not willing to risk it as much as I used to because I have more to lose.

Does knowing that I could live much longer turn me into a coward?

The life of a child is, I think, widely assumed to be worth more than the life of an adult, and I presume this is at least partially because a child has a longer future to look forward to…

The Challenger Explosion

Well, to be honest I don’t really feel like a coward, but, for sure, I have become more responsible, since I now am of the opinion that my life is worth more.

Recklessness is defined as “a disregard for or indifference to the dangers of a situation or for the consequences of one’s actions.” Now I ask myself the question: Why have I become less reckless? Well, if you are making a decision to gamble in any situation the odds are not the only factor but also the amount that you are willing to bet on those odds. You would not be too worried to bet seven dollars to buy a lottery ticket to win a million dollars, but you would be less inclined to buy a lottery ticket worth 70 dollars to win a million dollars without the more expensive ticket having better odds then the 7 dollar ticket. If I go to space I would be gambling on the possibility that my life might be in danger with odds of 1/17 because so far historically one in seventeen astronauts have died on the job. This also makes me realize that, at least in my case, my life is now worth more, since I know it will likely be much longer than I originally thought.

If the thought that I would live longer is now making me more risk-averse, will this be also the case with a significant percentage of the population? Does it imply that when regenerative medicine becomes fully available to all it would be less likely for people to risk their lives in dangerous endeavors, not just in space travel but also in other things such as war. Without any doubt being a soldier is a very risky occupation for it increases immensely the odds of losing one’s life prematurely. When everyone can live for 1,000 years (or more) then many may not want to risk their lives for any cause or reason because of the greater value their life will be worth to them. Consequently the incentives to find peaceful outcomes to all forms of disagreements may become significantly higher. However, this would not apply to fundamentalist terrorists who do not have any doubt that after death they will have a more luxurious existence than anyone could ever have alive. Still it might provide a much added incentive for the rest of the world to defeat terrorism and achieve peace…

Can universally available regenerative medicine promote world peace? Or are we all just going to become cowards?

About the Author: Kieran Griffith is a voluntary consultant to the SENS Foundation for developing medical techniques that extend lifespan indefinitely. He has degrees in psychology, the Humanities and Space Science and is planning a future career in the field of commercial spaceflight.

Related articles

Terry Grossman on TRANSCEND: Live Long Enough To Live Forever

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

In today’s podcast episode, I am very privileged to have Terry Grossman. Terry generously agreed to do this interview from his office in Colorado, and for about an hour, we covered a number of very useful and interesting topics, such as the story and motivation behind his work; the most important medical tests that we all need to do to find out where we are and thereby figure out what we need to do to improve longevity; Terry’s top tips for a healthy lifestyle and achieving maximum life-span;  his positions on religion, the singularity, and artificial intelligence. I have to admit that I not only enjoyed immensely my interview with Terry, but I also learned a ton of very useful information that will help me personally to live a healthier and longer life. I believe that you, too, can benefit from listening to Terry’s advice and reading his books.

Who is Terry Grossman?

Terry Grossman is one of America’s leading authorities in anti-aging and longevity medicine. He has co-authored two books with the famed inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, TRANSCEND: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (2009) and Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever (2004). Grossman has written numerous articles for health-related magazines and lectures frequently on topics related to anti-aging medicine nationally and internationally to lay and professional audiences.

A 1968 graduate of Brandeis University, Dr. Grossman received his M.D. from the University of Florida in 1979. Following his postgraduate training at St. Joseph Hospital in Denver, he spent 15 years as a community family doctor in the Colorado mountains before opening Grossman Wellness Center in Denver in 1994. His clinic emphasizes advanced nutritional therapies and preventive, anti-aging medicine. Grossman has developed numerous cutting-edge protocols for measuring and modifying biological age and promoting longevity. To learn more see GrossmanWellness.com

Related articles

Do you want to live forever?

by

Humanity has achieved huge progress in life-extending and anti-aging technologies.

Just weeks ago the BBC reported that today half of the babies born in the advanced world are likely to live to 100.

A quick comparative review shows us the following life expectancy change in years:

Cro-Magnon Era: 18 years
Ancient Egypt: 25 years
1400 Europe: 30 years
1800 Europe and USA: 37 years
1900 USA: 48 years
2002 United States: 78 years

The trend is hard to miss: since our Cro-Magnon times we have managed to increase our longevity fivefold and in the last 100 years we have managed to double it. Both of those trends are important to note for they reveal that we are not only living longer but this change is happening at an accelerating pace.

For example, it took tens of thousands of years to simply double the Cro-Magnon longevity from 18 to the 37 years of 18th century Europe. However, it took only 100 years to double longevity from 48 years in 1900 to 78 in 2002 (and notably more in 2009). Thus by extending life expectancy more and more, transhumanists such as Ray Kurzweil, Nick Bostrom and Aubrey de Grey believe that eventually we shall live forever.

But how will future anti-aging technologies impact human evolution?

Can our understanding of neuro-anatomy get to the point where neuro-technologies based on biogenetics, nanotechnology or brain uploading help us transcend biology and become post- or transhuman?

Can technology indeed discover the legendary and ever elusive Holy Grail of immortality?

Eternal Life Road Sign

Some people say that eventually it will.

Others say that it will not and, more importantly, that it should not.

How about you? Do you want to live forever?

Related articles by Zemanta