Similarly to Hacker Newsletter there is a weekly digest of Lesswrong posts on Rational Newsletter.
Interesting, thanks! My thinking is that:
Those points mean that epigenetics at least partially causes all hallmarks dependent on protein synthesis (loss of proteostasis, intercellular communication, etc). Meaning that epigenetics is at least partially upstream of at least a few hallmarks.
Not sure what being correct about information theory of aging would exactly mean or what other evidence to expect. Intuitively it feels that our efforts should focus upstream and that there are more low hanging fruits in epigenetics than in most of the other hallmarks.
Very curious to hear a bit more about why you are skeptical about epigenetics and information theory of aging as the primary cause. But I completely agree that it's not the only cause!
"Being sufficient to slow aging" is a pretty low bar, I have virtually no doubt that reprogramming will slow aging (it already has been done experimentally with mice).
Thanks for an amazing post, Jack!
I think it's worth mentioning that damage accumulation as the root cause is not the consensus view anymore.
To quote Josh Mitteldorf, there are three views:
(from the “programmed” school) Aging is programmed via epigenetics. The body downregulates repair mechanisms as we get older, while upregulating apoptosis and inflammation to such an extent that they are causes of significant damage.(from the “damage” school) The body accumulates damage as we get older. The body tries to rescue itself from the damage by upregulating repair and renewal pathways in response to the damage.(also from the “damage” school) Part of the damage the body suffers is dysregulation of methylation. Methylation changes with age are stochastic. Methylation becomes more random with age.My belief is that (1), (2), and (3) are all occurring, but that (1) predominates over (2). The “damage” school of aging would contend that (1) is excluded, and there are only (2) and (3).
My belief is that (1), (2), and (3) are all occurring, but that (1) predominates over (2). The “damage” school of aging would contend that (1) is excluded, and there are only (2) and (3).
There has been a lot of progress with (1) in the last years which makes me more optimistic in short longevity timelines.
I am using https://scite.ai/ with a plugin for browsers, but I would love a similar service with user-generated flags.
I'm not pretending to even remotely understand the math in question, but, subjectively, his team is doing novel research. The initial results look promising and it looks like they are constantly making progress even though they started pretty recently. The papers are being peer reviewed and they are actively engaging with community.
I know that they are constantly trying to find areas which could generate novel predictions, but maybe it's a bit too early to demand so much rigor at this point?
Not directly related to your comment, but I don't understand why there is so much negativity coming from our community and I don't see why objections could not be respectful.
Thanks for the article!
How could such a brilliant individual let personal dogma and rigid belief (overconfidence, in fact), supersede rational discussion
I would not go as far as to say that his beliefs were not rational or dogmatic. One can also argue that Einstein's intuition was correct and that he was right to challenge the Copenhagen interpretation.
Have you looked at the claims that whey protein contains NR? I briefly looked at the commonly referred papers but I could not see anything relevant, let alone specific numbers.
I'm not 100% sure this article is in tune with LW
It absolutely is! Thank you for writing this post and I'm looking forward to your follow up articles.
Thank you, the newsletter is alive and well :) I've managed to keep the updates weekly and I'm planning on continuing doing that.
There are a couple of hundred people subscribed so far.