Say Forever! retweeted
On their latest podcast episode, the Academy of Geroscience Fellows asked a top aging scientist how long he wants to live.
His answer had nothing to do with a number.
Hear the full conversation on their podcast — Inside Geroscience, available on all major platforms.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…
#longevity #healthyaging #meaningfullife #geroscience
Say Forever! retweeted
Longevity meme contest, sponsor—@strygah, prize—$140!
• What to do?
Publish a meme in the comments to this post, quoting it or tagging @memortalism in a tweet with your meme.
• Deadlines
Memes are accepted until the end of the week (January 26, 23:59:59 UTC).
The results of the competition will be announced on Monday, January 27.
• Prize
The author of the best meme will receive $140 in USDT (TRC20) wallet.
Meme topics: longevity, vitalism, immortality, longevity economics, aging, transhumanism.
The meme must be original: not seen anywhere before.
The winner will be determined subjectively. Judges @yangranat, @strygah, @MikhailBatin, @DanilaImmortal. But if your meme gets a lot of likes, views, comments, then this will be taken into account.
Powered by @OpenLongevity. If you want to become a sponsor of the next contest, then write @MikhailBatin or @yangranat.
Say Forever! retweeted
I see no other way to extend life than by changing our attitude towards the idea of immortality.
Towards the very word itself, towards the desire to live forever,
towards openly stating that death is unacceptable.
We will achieve nothing if we don’t speak the truth, if we choose compromise, if we try to please those who don’t like us.
Not wanting to die is normal. It’s the stance of a sensible, reasonable person. Seeing the prospects of immortality in technology is a rational view of the world.
Striving to reduce the number of deaths at any cost is the truly humane position—and no other.
Those among us who scold us and claim there’s another tactic—that we should tell people what they want to hear about health improvements—overlook the fact that this tactic has already been used for the past 40 years and it failed.
Just show that supporters of immortality are very rational people: IT engineers, AI developers, individuals competent in many other areas.
Right now, immortality has a weak brand. In fact, it has none. We need to distance ourselves from all sorts of dietary supplements and the desire to age gracefully. We need intellectual courage to tell ourselves and those around us what we are doing and why.
For nothing less than survival!
Say Forever! retweeted
If you don't want eternal life, then what do you want? What are your terminal goals/values? What are you ultimately aiming for? What is your existence reduced to?
My point is that there is no worthy alternative to eternal life.
At best, you'll just want to live forever under condition X.
This could be, for example, health or happiness.
But the truth is that maximizing lifespan involves not just health or happiness, but becoming techno-gods, conquerors of galaxies, beings of entirely new intellectual horizons.
In the short term, in theory, it may be necessary to sacrifice something, but eternity is worth it.
In practice, I think that the pursuit of eternity is a win-win. We will not lose anything, we will only gain. It is very unlikely that efforts to prolong life will lead to prolongation of an unhealthy period of life, most likely the opposite. And the willingness to be unhappy makes happy.
There is nothing that so clearly points the way for humanity and for each individual in particular as immortalism.
Say Forever! retweeted
Why U.S. presidential candidates don’t talk about life extension is understandable; voters aren’t demanding increased longevity.
But why does the longevity community say so little about the importance of a candidate’s position on aging research?
Even a small community can influence an agenda if it is active.
No one from the longevity community is traveling to Pennsylvania to canvass voters to support a pro-longevity candidate. There are no petitions demanding increased funding. Why?
1.There is no clear recognition that life extension is a political issue.
2.There is a lack of desire within our community to collaborate.
Why?
Because there is little discussion about the best collective course of action for advancing life extension. Everyone is busy promoting their own projects, and others’ projects are seen as competitors.
There is almost no money in lobbying and political promotion of life extension. Where there is no money, there is no desire to spend time talking.
This results in a paradoxical situation. Collecting, say, 50 million dollars in a fund for scientific research sets the benchmark that this fund can solve the problem of aging. But that’s absurd. That money could go toward longevity policy. However, this approach fosters overoptimism and the illusion that a cure for aging will be developed imminently.
Here’s the dichotomy: If we are overly optimistic, we might believe that no policy change is necessary, focusing solely on who can develop a cure for aging the fastest. If we believe that existing technologies cannot defeat aging, we must maximize political efforts.
Why can’t we do both?
Again, because of a lack of honest discussion. We must consistently find the courage and persistence to engage in this dialogue. Otherwise, even in the next election, the theme of life extension will not appear in the rhetoric of the candidates.
Say Forever! retweeted
Can we solve aging in our lifetimes? Check out my 1-hour overview of longevity science and technology:
youtube.com/watch?v=rulTgIHY…
Want to get involved? Help us build a utopian post-aging future - apply to the LBF: longbiofellowship.org
Say Forever! retweeted
In Flagstaff, I met Savanna, who was collecting signatures in support of an independent presidential candidate.
I asked her how many years she would like to live. She said, "85." I asked her if she would be willing to change her mind if she knew that many people in the world were interested in her wanting to live for 1,000 years, as it would increase their own chances of living for 1,000 years. She replied, "Maybe."
Why is Savanna's opinion so important? Because she knows how to collect signatures, and that means she can act to change the world in the way she wants.
How many people like her are needed in America to change attitudes towards life extension? I would guess that a thousand people collecting signatures in favor of funding research could form a political force.
Say Forever! retweeted
A week ago it turned out to be a cool day by summer standards, it was +28°C, I decided to organize a Say Forever campaign.
Hired a photographer.
It was 11 am, there weren’t many people and part of the time was spent on a photo shoot, but we still managed to interview 35 people in exactly an hour. I think it is quite possible to interview 100 people per hour.
9 out of 35 people, when asked how many years they would like to live if scientists found a cure for old age, answered - forever.
It is important to understand that you should not attach too much importance to these statistics, because when I asked one person if he knew what transhumanism was, he replied that he did not.
And in general, I most likely already know the majority of people who want to live forever, there are no more than a thousand of them, because such a person will do something for this.
Nevertheless, surveys show that we are not in a hopeless situation, there is something to work with.
In my opinion, if you spend $100,000-200,000 on the development of Say Forever, hire a couple of dozen full-time activists, establish organizational processes, maintain social media and regularly create content, then Say Forever can change the world.
Say Forever! retweeted
My DJ set at the inaugural Longevity Rave in London yesterday!
soundcloud.com/alexey-strygi…
Say Forever! retweeted
On Sunday, June 24th at 6:00 pm in San Francisco, we are hosting Lifeforce Longevity Connect. Join us to discuss the most important actions we can take to extend life
lu.ma/zvedh0gq
Say Forever! retweeted
Today at Edge Esmeralda, @Replacing_Aging Jean Hébert defeated @ydeigin Yuri Deigin in the debate "How to Defeat Death?" with a score of 5:3.
The idea of brain tissue replacement won over partial epigenetics.
Say Forever! retweeted
Here's a really nice description of my upcoming debate with Peter Fedichev, written by the person who proposed it. Come and see us in person next Monday if you can, or else view the debate online.
openlongevity.org/debates
Say Forever! retweeted
A debate titled "How to Defeat Aging" will be held on May 27, 2024, in San Francisco, featuring two distinguished scientists, @fedichev and @aubreydegrey , both proponents of radical life extension with biotechnology, with opposing views. Fedichev believes aging in humans is irreversible but can be slowed or stopped, while de Grey argues for the potential of rejuvenation to reverse aging. The debate will discuss the feasibility of these approaches in light of recent scientific advancements and growing clinical evidence, aiming to determine which method can deliver clinical therapeutics that can significantly extend human life within the next 10 years. The event, hosted by the Foresight Institute, Say Forever, and Open Longevity, will be accessible both offline and online. The winner, chosen by a jury, will receive a $10,000 prize to further their research.
Luma sign-up link lu.ma/k3h8rdsb
Youtube live broadcast youtube.com/watch?v=g7UwkfoL…
Save event to your calendar
Say Forever! retweeted
Talked to 39 ppl at Rejuvenation Startup Summit in Berlin last week. Here’s what they were saying:
Say Forever! retweeted
Hi all, let’s ask ourselves what are the most important questions in the aging field that we need to discuss and clarify?
As you all know, aging is a huge Enigma not only for every human but also for biologists who study it. There is a myriad of theories as to why aging happens and how to cope with it, but a consensus on the paradigm of aging is missing. In academia, people rarely criticize or argue with each other fearing to gain enemies that will anonymously kill grants or papers down the road.
Gerontology falls victim to this custom since in a field lacking a paradigm, intellectual competition of a certain type is essential. We think that something like a debate may contribute to purifying the streams of thoughts and in addition, make aging research an engaging topic for the lay audience. Hence, we would like to invite top speakers and find some points of disagreement between their models or approaches and discuss these disagreements in a friendly and respectful way.
Open Longevity is thrilled to announce the first round of Longevity Debate that will take place in San Francisco on May 27.
We will invite top-notch scientists and business champions to both roles to create intellectually intense, excitable, impactful events.
To facilitate our conversation, we've drafted some potential discussion topics. Of course, the exact choice of questions will depend on the contestants and their points of disagreement.
Potential questions:
• What is aging?
• Do we have a scientific definition, and is it necessary to defeat aging?
• Are there contradictions in the mainstream theories of aging?
• Is aging a programmed or entropic process? Is entropy the primary cause of aging?
• Why didn't evolution eliminate aging?
• What reliable facts and experimental data can we rely on?
• Is it possible to stop aging?
• Is it possible to rejuvenate the body?
• Do we create a theory first and then find a cure, or do we first find a cure and then create a theory?
• To cure aging, do we have to fix something or break something down?
• What are the criteria for choosing priorities in aging research?
• What does rapamycin tell us about aging itself? Why is this an outstanding drug?
• Can we extrapolate small invertebrate data to mice and humans?
• Should the anti-aging therapies target all the organs or only some of them to stop aging?
• Are senescent cells a good target for therapeutic interventions?
• What is the biological role of senescent cells?
• What are the limitations to the use of aging clocks? What are the differences between different clocks and which ones should we use?
• What should we do to get a person’s life extended as soon as possible?
• What bottlenecks do you see?
• How do we prioritize directions in aging research?
• How to double human lifespan?
What would you like to be discussed? Are there some topics that we did not cover here? Share, contribute, discuss, argue, make your brain melt!
Say Forever! retweeted
This week in Dubai is buzzing with crypto conferences, and we've kicked off SayForever!
We're engaging attendees on their desired lifespan, advocating for the importance of extending life. At Blockchain Life, we polled 108 people, with 67 stating they want to live Forever!
We also posed the question: "Would you choose a million dollars or immortality?" Astonishingly, only 10 chose the million.
The atmosphere here is overwhelmingly positive, and the crypto community is highly receptive to the idea of life extension. It’s hopeful that anti-aging efforts will receive increasing funding from the crypto world, especially as funding remains a critical hurdle in this field.
If you're currently in Dubai and eager to discuss the challenges of life extension, feel free to DM me!
I'll be here until the Akshay Summit, which is happening on the 20th. It will probably be the main event of the month! Can't wait to meet like-minded people there!
#SayForever! #BlockchainLife2024 #AkshaySummit
Say Forever! retweeted
What, in your opinion, is the most feasible experiment in the field of life extension that could also have the broadest impact?
I'd like to offer my perspective.
Let’s begin with philosophy. What exactly suggests that life extension is possible? Primarily, the fact that human organs and tissues are replaceable. Ideally, we'd create a bio-constructor to replace as much as possible in a large mammal's body.
Tissue replacement seems simpler than tissue rejuvenation.
But the brain is the stumbling block. Replacing it would mean losing self-awareness. What's the solution?
Gradual change. After all, adults already lose about 1-2% of their brain mass annually. Why not supplement this with new neurons? Sometimes significant portions of the brain are lost, yet the person's identity, skills, and memories remain intact.
It would be beneficial to determine the mode and extent to which the brain can be augmented.
Theoretically, it's possible to transplant one's brain into a new body, perhaps that of a clone whose brain was not allowed to develop. But that's a conversation for another time.
Brain transplantation is a complex task. It can be divided into two major phases: preparing the transplant and ensuring the transplanted section engrafts to the new location.
In the first phase, we must learn to grow brain tissue; in the second, we must ensure the old brain connects with the new structure.
Actually, we should start with the second phase and simplify it: ensure the old brain reconnects with an old structure (specifically, with a previously existing part of the brain).
In short, we transplant a part of a pig's brain, cut it out, and remove it from the skull. (We could maintain its viability in a bioincubator, or not.) Then, we reinsert the removed part and attempt engraftment using various growth factors.
What could engraft better than something that was already there? It's like the urgent reattachment of a severed hand. If that's possible, maybe it could work with the brain too.
Voilà. Technically, we've performed a partial brain transplant. In subsequent experiments, we increase the volume of the removed part.
If we succeed, we proceed to the next experiment. Clone the old pig. Now we have two pigs, and we exchange brain parts between them. We transplant identical parts to the other pig.
If we achieve engraftment, it would be intriguing to see if a small piece of a young clone's brain could rejuvenate the older brain.
We don't stop there and aim for a full-fledged exchange of animal brains. But, of course, that will be very expensive.
The most crucial step is the first: to prove that even a pig can have a partial brain transplant to itself.
Feel free to use this – at San Francisco, CA
Say Forever! retweeted
What kind of person are you? Let's get acquainted, tell your story. We need to increase the connectedness of the life extension community.
My name is Yan Granat, I am from Kharkov, Ukraine, I am 25 years old.
I have long been interested in the topic of radical life extension. Even as a child, I loved programs about space and quantum physics, and since then I have had a very physicalist view of the world.
Man is a set of atoms. We (humanity), thanks to science and technology, are learning better and better how to manipulate matter. We can do stuff with photons, ions, electrons and other very small particles.
Therefore, there was nothing strange for me in thoughts about somehow transforming the cells of my body in the future so that it would become better, for example, stop aging.
I don't even know when I became an immortalist, the desire to improve myself on a cellular/molecular level to stop aging, it's such an obvious thought that I don't know when it came to my mind, it feels like I've always thought that way, just as I always knew that things are attracted to the Earth, and day follows night.
What surprised me was that many people not only don’t believe in victory over aging, they are against it. I learned about the existence of such people probably 6-8 years ago, it really surprised me.
People often become an immortalist not when they learn about the possibility of immortality (non-aging), but when a person finds out that someone does not believe in this possibility and there are even those who actively resist it.
I used to think that I was just an ordinary person, that like everyone else I didn’t want to die, but it turned out that this is not a very popular point of view.
And around the same time, I learned that scientific and technological progress was not moving as well as I thought. Apparently, there is no reason to believe that aging will be defeated in my lifetime.
Then I began to slowly think about how to change the situation. After some time, I came across lectures and articles by @MikhailBatin. There is no turning back after several years of reading Mikhail, you become a hardened immortalist, you begin to want to act.
A year ago, in January 2023, I began volunteering with @OpenLongevity. Namely, to generate transhumanistic pictures in Midjourney. Then I was very interested in it. I still do this sometimes.
I began to communicate very closely with @DanilaImmortal and Misha, and also spend a lot of time in our chats and forums. I began to have new responsibilities and I asked for a job.
I don’t have any expertise or hard skills, so the salary is modest, $150-300, but this allowed me to quit the factory where I worked before the war and to which I had to return after 8 months of the war, when the money accumulated from cryptocurrency trading ran out . I once managed to make about $1200 from $100. It was luck, I don't understand cryptocurrency, I'm just an enthusiast who got a little lucky.
I ended up at the plant after I had to leave the University, where I was studying to become a programmer, due to hydronephrosis of the right kidney. This illness greatly reduced my productivity and drove me into depression due to constant severe pain (which I still have, but every year it bothers me less and less), so I lost my scholarship and I had to look for a job. Then the person closest to me died - my grandfather. It was a difficult time.
Only now I understand how bad I felt then, at that moment I did not realize how suppressed my desire to live was, it seemed to me that everything was normal, that I was coping, but it was not so.
Now, although there is a war, I am much happier because I am doing what I love - the fight for radical life extension, this really saved me: promoting the idea of radical life extension on Twitter, building the Open Longevity community, organizing lectures and public discussions at our YouTube channels and the development of the @SayForeverOrg project. There are still many projects that are at the stage of internal discussion and planning. But now there are financial difficulties in their implementation and financial instability with salaries.
I wouldn’t really want to go back to my old life, now I’m doing what I believe in and I’m doing pretty well. Unfortunately, there is no certainty that this will last long; it is a little demotivating.
Having a regular income of $150 would help me a lot. I need $300 to live, I already have $150 a month, I agreed with @SF_Longevity for this amount in exchange for help in developing his account. If I had another $150 in regular income, I could focus 100% on what I consider important, fully devote myself to the fight for radical life extension.
This is my story, to keep it going please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/yangranat
❗️ And tell us about yourself in the comments, how you came to the idea of radical life extension, what are you doing now, what are your plans?
Say Forever! retweeted
The highlight of 2023 for me was meeting @MikhailBatin, volunteering at @OpenLongevity, and participating in the creation of @SayForeverOrg.
Meeting with Mikhail is the most important event in my life at the moment. He is a sincere radical transhumanist who has been calling for the fight against death for many years.
There's something sad about it, too, because what Mikhail wrote 15 years ago is not outdated to this day.
And the point here is not that Misha wrote about the “eternal”: about the value of life and the unacceptability of death.
No, Misha was also describing the field of life extension and trends in the science of aging.
I was horrified when I decided to read his old materials, because what was described there is still relevant to this day.
The search for biomarkers of aging, etc., all this was in trend even then and nothing has changed since then, not even the names of scientists.
The field of life extension is in deep crisis. Even if there are some results, they do not correspond to the scale of the problem being solved. We, living people today, will not live to see a cure for aging.
You need to realize this and give up all unimportant matters and start fighting death. Even if you are, for example, 25.
I'm 25, and I think the likelihood of beating aging, in my lifetime, is extremely slim.
Behind a bunch of marketing and wellness, there are no real breakthroughs or at least promising hypotheses; the science of aging is developing extremely slowly.
Where is the 10-fold increase in the duration of mice? You can do almost anything with them, there are no ethical barriers.
We need to try to do what the immortalists of the past could not - a mass movement to extend life.
The task turned out to be more difficult than anyone thought; we need to try to focus our efforts not on the fight against aging itself, but on increasing the scale of this fight.
2 million dollars for science is almost guaranteed to yield no results. But if the same money is used for lobbying or the creation of immortalistic media, then the chances of changing something are more than zero.
The same goes for effort and time spent. I'm going to focus my attention and time on activism, social media, community building, etc.
Many people do not share this approach; they consider everything other than doing science to be useless. But it seems to me that this is the only way to really do something, because a lot of people who bet on science lost.
Because there were too few of them, it is normal when 9999 out of 10,000 hypotheses do not work, it is not normal that in the field of aging there are so few people with any worthwhile hypotheses. One day someone will actually come up with a good theory/technology, but before that there will be 9999 failures.
We need to find funding for 9999 failures. Some of these hypotheses are worth millions to test, so we really need to create a public demand and start funding these failures from government budgets.
If you have an idea on how to defeat aging, believe in it, do everything to try to implement it.
But if you are watching this from the outside, then understand that no matter who tells you that aging is about to be defeated, most likely it is not true. Most likely this is hypothesis number 2398, which really needs to be tested, it’s just absolutely incredibly important to test it, but which most likely will not work.
Get ready to work, we will have to work very hard.
In the field of social change, we will also need to try many hypotheses before we know what to do. I don't believe in a simple solution, even if there is one, it's not easy to find, I believe in long-term will + hard work.
Say Forever! retweeted
Back to usual business: saying forever whenever I travel #sayforever – at Paris, France


































