Archive for the ‘Pharmaceutical Research’ Category

Younger Generations in West Losing Touch with Physical Reality: 1

April 23, 2021 19 comments

Regular readers of my blog know that I have written numerous post in past couple of years about how various factions, institutions and entire countries in west seem to have lost touch with physical and material reality. What makes this progressive loss touch with of reality in west especially interesting is that most of people outside its borders haven’t lost touch with reality- and this says a lot about the rapidly and terminally declining influence of western countries. Which brings me to the next and inevitable question- will this loss of touch with reality continue to its inevitable conclusion or will it stabilize and perhaps even reverse itself. While anything is possible on a long enough time-span, it appears unlikely that any significant deviation from current path of self-abasement will occur in near future.

But why am I so pessimistic about the ability of younger generations in west to correct the loss of their touch with physical reality in near future? Well.. there are many reasons for my skepticism and here are some examples of why I think that they might be (in many cases) even more detached from reality than previous generations. Of course, I also recognize that sooner or later a significant minority of this generation will almost certainly go against the current trend of pretending that physical reality does not exist or matter. However, I don’t think that their numbers or influence will be sufficient, barring some violent revolution, to affect the current course of events. Here are a few examples of why I maintain that belief..

1] Some of you might have wondered about why so many, especially in younger age groups, seem to believe that widespread use of electric and truly self-driving automobiles is inevitable in near future. If you ever go to message boards of sites frequented by autistic programmer-types such as ycombinator, slashdot, arstechnica etc, you will see tons of people who firmly believe that widespread adoption of electric cars and truly self-driving automobiles are around the corner. Fun fact- these people were saying the same things a decade ago. So why didn’t things change to any worthwhile extent over that decade? Some of you might say that the share price of Tesla suggests that I am wrong. Well.. what percentage of automobiles sold today are electric or truly self-driving? And do you really think that this state of affairs will change over next two decades- if ever?

To understand what I am talking about, let me ask you a simple question- why does a new technology replace an older one? Why were steam engines the dominant mode of traction for trains (all over the world) until after WW2 and why was the switch to electric and diesel so quick after 1950? Why did turbojets and turbofans rapidly become the main power-plant of airliners after the early-1960s? Why did the adoption of personal computers explode after mid-1980s? Why did smartphones displace older types of cellphones so quickly after 2008? Conversely, why do we still use Ibuprofen and Naproxen to treat inflammation and fever- even though they are over 50 years old? Why does the toilet look and work almost identically to one from almost 100 years ago? Or why does your refrigerator function and even look very similar to one from over 50 years ago?

It all comes down to a simple question- Does the “new” technology work significantly better than “older” technology and cost about the same or less. Steam engines were dominant until after WW2 because they were relatively inexpensive to build, reliable, easy to fix and had amazing torque. Diesel locomotives became competitive with steam in terms of cost and reliability once the diesel-electric transmission was refined by late-1940s. Once that occurred, replacing steam with diesel locomotives became a no-brainer as they had good horsepower, decent torque and required much less maintenance. Similarly, using electric locomotives on main routes became far more viable once an increase in widespread electrification of many countries occurred in aftermath of WW2.

Turbojets and then Turbofans became dominant power-plant of large airliners as it was much easier to build and maintain such engines with power outputs high enough to propel airliners capable of carrying over 100 people. This is also why turboprops are nowadays restricted to smaller airliners (cost-effective) or military transports (slower but rugged). Also, there are mechanical reasons why piston aeroengines making over 4,000 hp (or equivalent thrust) were never built in any significant numbers. Similarly personal computers boomed after mid-1980s once they became relatively affordable and able to do useful things such as help compose documents, spreadsheets or play games. Similarly smartphones displaced older types of cellphones after 2008, because they opened up entire categories of new possibilities for what users could do with a handheld device.

Did you notice a pattern? If not, let me spell it out for you- Newer technologies displace older ones when they can do stuff better or cheaper or, ideally, both. This is why, for example, LCD/LED TVs replaced CRTs so quickly after 2005. Or why power plants using natural gas exploded in popularity compared to coal-powered ones in past two decades. Hint: it was the cost of building, maintenance and fuel, and not lower CO2 emissions, which made natural gas the fuel of choice for generating electricity in north america within past two decades. That is also why coal-powered power plants will maintain their dominant position in countries such as China, India and many others without ready and reliable access to natural gas. This is also why we use older drugs such as Ibuprofen and Naproxen over more newer drugs or why toilets and refrigerators haven’t changed much in over 50 years.

But what does any of this have to do with the loss of touch with physical reality exhibited by, what appears to be a majority of, younger generations in west? Well.. because almost nobody is asking questions such as what are the theoretical and practical limits to rechargeable battery technology, where they are going to get all that lithium for so many batteries or rare-earth elements for modern brushless electric motors. Very few of them seem to be concerned by issues such as the problems inherent in removing automobile wrecks containing damaged lithium batteries off the road or the logistics chain problems involved in building, maintaining and repairing electric cars on the same scale as ICE-powered ones.

Even fewer seem to understand the problems caused by such decisions to the entire chain of crude oil refining which is necessary for supplying starting chemicals for everything from plastics and agricultural chemicals to drugs and specialty chemicals for a gazillion different industrial processes. And best of luck trying to run military vehicles, airplanes and container ships on lithium batteries. To put it bluntly, trying to stop production and use of of ICE-powered cars is a suicide move for any country larger than a city-state or micro-country. And here is what makes this even more interesting.. a majority of younger generations in China, India, Russia, Japan etc have a far better appreciation of these issues than their equivalents in the west. This is not to imply that China or India will ignore electric-powered automobiles. In fact, they will likely adopt them at decent percentages in future for specialized uses.

It is just that no large country outside west will replace ICE-powered automobiles until an option which is cheaper and more rugged/dependable than internal-combustion engines come along. Sure.. they may give lip-service to that idea and sign non-enforceable agreements, but when push comes to shove they are going to keep building ever more internal combustion engine-powered automobiles. However for some “odd” reason, a lot of supposedly “educated” young people in west don’t seem to understand this reality. Even more curiously, they think that the demographically decrepit and technologically stagnant west has any leverage over anything beyond small third-world countries. This belief is even laughable as the ability and infrastructure to make stuff on a large scale has already shifted to countries such as China.

In the next parts of this series. I hope to tackle issues such as the reasons behind younger generation refraining from having kids, acting “woke” and going along with other stupid “intellectual” fads, believing in inevitable major technological breakthroughs which will revolutionize lifestyles when none have occurred for almost 50 years and believing in laughably stupid bullshit such as the viability of peaceful but real political change.

what do you think?

A “Final Solution” for the Human Condition

September 18, 2012 12 comments

I had once written a post suggesting that the real reason behind the lack of communication with extra-terrestrial beings has a lot to do with the fact that humans are primitive and unstable scum who revel in zeros-sum contests of no particular significance. It is unlikely that any sane trans-human intelligence would reveal its presence to humans, let alone interact with them.

The sad reality is that humans, especially the “civilized” type, are too delusional and fucked up to transcend their pathetic existence.

Every large-scale attempt by human beings to transcend their sad existence is either based on outright delusions and lies (traditional religions) or clever rationalizations (capitalism, communism.. any -ism) of their zeros-sum mentalities. It seems that humans in large groups are incapable of being anything other than psychotic apes. There are those who believe that human beings can change for the better. My observations of human beings suggest otherwise. Furthermore, it is simply far easier to get rid of all human beings than try to reform them.

Achieving human extinction is easy since people throughout human history have spent most of their ingenuity at finding better ways to con, steal from, abuse and kill each other. However, for most of that history people also lacked the means and opportunity to do so. Today we have much better technology to kill each other and a far more fragile socio-economic system. Of course, I am not suggesting that one could openly recruit people to kill each other till the last human is dead. Most people would not participate in something so upfront.

The trick is to give humans very useful tools and technologies that will cause their downfall.

You have to understand that most human beings are driven by ego, greed, status seeking and sadism. They have no interest in uplifting themselves in a manner that does not involve screwing over someone else. You just have to give people the means to engage in intractable and continuously evolving conflict.

Give people the means to destabilize the lives of others in a milieu of social atomization, and make sure that every group and individual can screw over every other group individual.

Such enabling technologies and behaviors can be disguised with appeals to ego, “profit” and vanity. While a minority of non-delusional people will see through such traps, human history suggest that most will not. Indeed, the majority will create new ideologies, belief systems and hierarchies that celebrate their own downfall. Even serious setbacks and damage will not stop them for destroying themselves as each shrinking group of survivors will think they are that much closer to claiming the “grand prize”.

Some of you might wonder if the not-totally nuts minority might spoil such a scheme. However human history suggests that human ego, greed, status seeking and sadism will always win over rationality. The dominance crazed majority will most likely persecute and kill those who points out the flaws in their designs, because most people have fragile egos and tons of insecurities.

What do you think? Comments?

Nicotine Patches, Lucid Dreams and Jared Loughner

March 2, 2011 8 comments

You may have heard about Jared Loughner and his obsession with lucid dreaming, and the possible role it may have played in the shooting of Rep. Giffords. You may also have heard about Loughner’s interest in drugs, especially Marijuana. Some have speculated that his “illegal” drug use might have exacerbated any underlying mental illness.

I have another theory..

Nicotine patches used before bedtime are known to cause vivid dreams with considerably better recall of events in those dreams. Indeed, they are often used for by people interested in exploring lucid dreaming for that effect. It seems that dreams in people using nicotine patches are often MORE vivid, bizzare and just weird than one would expect if they just improved dream recall.

Drugs that stimulate (directly or indirectly) either Muscarinic (M-types) or Nicotinic (N-types) Acetylcholine receptors in the brain are known to have this effect on dreams.

What do you guys think? Comments?

Guest Post by Nestorius: Your Parents Want to Starve You!

February 9, 2011 2 comments

In many countries the young are being crushed by a gerontocracy of older workers who appear determined to cling to the better jobs as long as possible and then, when they do retire, demand impossibly rich private and public pensions that the younger generation will be forced to shoulder.

So who is this gerontocracy that wants to crush the young ones?

These are your parents. That generation that was born after WW II. All those lame assholes who were indoctrinated during the 60s and 70s. But what is the common thing among them? Well, one thing is common: they think that they don’t owe their kids anything (except suckling them with powder milk). With them, it’s parental piety in one direction only.

Your parents have been fooling you with lots of things. Why do you think they kept telling you to get out of their houses, find a job, be on your own, and if you don’t do that you will not be men? It’s all part of the scam, that is designed in order to allocate all the resources to themselves. In short, your parents don’t care about you. They don’t care if you starve.

It appears inevitable that this favor will be returned.


Feed Back is Appreciated: New Site Design

January 3, 2011 3 comments

I recently acquired a new domain with a simple, catchy and apt name. The idea is to create a more SFW version of this website, however this one will keep on going in its current form.

The new website will have articles derived from my older posts on this website. But they will undergo more editing and polishing. Old comments shall be integrated into the articles. Obviously the rate of article publishing will be closer to one a day instead of the 2-4/ per day on this website.

So here are my questions..

1. I am leaning towards using wordpress, however other suggestions are welcome.

2. I am considering creating some sort of forum, but one that is much easier to navigate than your standard bulletin boards. Any suggestions?

3. The new site will be designed and optimized for internal search, unlike this one. Any suggestions on what you like- examples?

4. Readers using mobile devices , for obvious reasons, will be considered in any design scheme. Any suggestions on sites that work well for mobiles?

5. Any other suggestions? Two column vs three column vs four column? Layout? Templates? Themes?

I do not foresee any immediate need for donations, but I might monetize it later. However, the readability of the new site shall not be hindered by unsightly ads.

As you know, my motivations are not monetary.


Exposing CONservatism: “Working Hard Makes You Rich”

October 7, 2010 8 comments

I had first mentioned this meme in an older post- Stop Believing in Myths: 2.

In that post I had written-

“Seriously, how can people still believe this crap? Study the life history of any 10 random rich people and you will realize that chance, luck, government largess and scams are the major factors determining “success”. Working hard is for suckers like you, who believe that it will help them become rich. Now this does not mean that working hard will not make somebody rich- just not you. But keep killing yourself to line the pockets of others.

Working hard would only work for you in a world where most people did not become wealthy from legal theft. Look around you- do we live in that world yet?”

The reason many CONservatives push the “working hard makes you rich” meme is that it sounds so reasonable. But like all CONservative memes, its true nature is exposed once you have an objective look at reality.

Consider the following-

1] Has anyone consistently made money in the stock market through anything other than luck, insider information or ‘investing’ other peoples money?

2] Name one large or even medium-sized business that is not subsidized by the taxpayer overtly or through covert means like tax-breaks, anti-competitive laws or other means.

3] Ever seen rich people work hard? even if such work is not physical. Now think of all the ‘wannabe rich’ idiots who shorten their lives through hard work. See the problem?

4] Who works harder- the lucky and connected government contractor who quotes Ayn Rand or the people who actually do the work for him?

I can give you many more examples, but the gist is:

CONservatives want others to believe that they deserve their ill-gotten money. You could either-

a] Point out the disconnect with reality and try to fuck them and their progeny over at every opportunity


2] You could believe their self-serving crap.


Stop Believing in Myths: 2

August 16, 2010 12 comments

More myths, continued from the previous part of this series: Stop Believing in Myths: 1

6] Richer or smarter people are more trustworthy.

Your financial advisor, stock-broker, doctor, lawyer, builder, head of your company is MUCH LESS trustworthy than the shifty-looking guy trying to steal from a big box store. Not only can these “respectable” professionals cause more financial and non-financial damage per scam, but they feel entitled to rape your ass. At least the average criminal knows that he is doing something wrong..

The “respectable” professional considers cheating, scamming and misleading you as part of his/her business. They are actually upset if you complain and demand accountability. I have never understood how average white people can be stupid enough to concentrate on the non-white shoplifter when they are being pauperized, lied to, stolen from and given poor treatment by the trustworthy educated “professionals”.

7] Working hard is the path to riches.

Seriously, how can people still believe this crap? Study the life history of any 10 random rich people and you will realize that chance, luck, government largess and scams are the major factors determining “success”. Working hard is for suckers like you, who believe that it will help them become rich. Now this does not mean that working hard will not make somebody rich- just not you. But keep killing yourself to line the pockets of others.

Working hard would only work for you in a world where most people did not become wealthy from legal theft. Look around you- do we live in that world yet?

8] Government is bad, private enterprise is good. Regulations are bad, the free market is self-correcting.

While I am no supporter of the public sector, it is hard to ignore that the private sector often fucks up even more. While the idea of bureaucrats running hotels, restaurants and malls is nightmarish, we know what happens when harvard MBAs try to manage the very utilities that make civilization possible. Do you want your power plants, electricity grid, road network, water and sewage systems built and run by for profit shysters with no regulatory oversight?

In any case, there is no “real free market” and there never was one. What we have is an uneasy compromise between legalized looting of people and fear of anarchy. Concepts in eCONomics such as “free market”, “rational actors” etc are theoretical concepts with no links to reality.

9] The wisdom of ‘famous’ people from previous eras is useful.

NO, it is not! While humans might not have evolved much in the last three thousand years, the technology and possibilities inherent in its use have made a lot of older maxims and concepts worse than useless. Even a simple and evolutionary advance such as free or inexpensive blogs has changed the way news is created, read and understood. To say that the loss of monopoly by mass media has no significant effects on the way people perceive, understand and react towards events is disingenuous.

Much of the ‘wisdom’ of earlier eras was based in social systems with very different living standards, attitudes, possibilities, opportunities and consequences than what we currently have. You cannot fly a 5th generation supersonic airplane with the flying manual of a WW1 era biplane, though they are both flying machines with similar basic controls and paradigms.

10] We should all try to lead normal lives.

Normal, as defined by whom? and when? Why should you try to achieve something or emulate a behavior that is not in you best interests? While they may have ‘worked as advertised’ in the past, do they still ‘work as advertised’?

LTRs with women, marriage, having kids, financial frugality, loyalty etc once used to work as advertise or gave a reasonably good outcome in most previous eras. They were rarely suicidal.. can you honestly say that now? The only people who benefit from your wish to have a normal life is EVERYONE BUT YOU. You want to be the sucker? go ahead..

You do not want to pay for sex? Fine- pay child support for a kid you rarely see. Want to enjoy matrimony? Hey, someone has to create business for the wedding, divorce and housing industry. Want to be financially frugal? Watch your savings melt away as financial advisors make money for themselves while destroying your capital. Want to be loyal to a business, person or institution- Enjoy the screwing you are going to get.

I will tackle more myths in the next part of this series.


Stop Believing in Myths: 1

August 16, 2010 6 comments

I believe that most human suffering is the result of believing in readily falsifiable myths. However, since most people do not like to think or act on their thoughts, they allow these destructive myths to ruin their lives.

Consider this post an introduction-

1] People can predict the future.

This myth is destructive in more ways than one. Not only does a belief in the ability to predict the future make you overestimate your control on events, but it also makes you take chances and do things that you otherwise might not do.

However this myth is at the basis of all forecasting, however scientific it may sound. This myth makes people invest in the stock market, believe climate predictions, think eCONomics is a science, believe in the growth of their retirement savings and trust “experts” to make “informed” decisions for them.

If you truly understood how little we know about the universe, and how it works- you would be very humbled. Unfortunately most scientists, who should know better, tend to believe in this myth more so than the common man.

2] Experts know..

A continuation of the “we can predict” myth, this one synergies with the first to produce truly awful consequences.

Doctors throughout human history have killed many more than they have helped, because of the belief that they knew what they were doing. Since WW2, the medical profession kills fewer people than it helps- but that is due to new drugs and technology that they had no part in developing. However that does not stop them from trying to go back to the old ways..

Consider how many soldiers died in WW1 and WW2 because of poor decisions by educated and trained experts. It seems that these idiots had no clue about the effect of modern technology on the nature and extent of warfare. But were they not the best and the brightest.

I can give, and have previously given, many examples to illustrate this particular myth.

3] Rich people are necessary..

While some degree of income inequality is necessary to make humans innovate, are the grotesque inequalities we see necessary?

Most people will not ‘hate’ if a person who finds a better way of doing things, invents a new appliance, drug, service makes more money than them- even a lot more money. But what about those who use monopoly, oligopoly, regulatory capture, buying legislators, ‘law and order’ and financialism to make more money?

Do such people contribute to social stability, progress, innovation or anything other than lining their pockets? and do they really invest in innovation-other than by accident?

4] Frugality is good.

In a zero sum world, frugality is good- but we no longer live in one. In a world where present consumption determines economic and social stability which in turn creates the conditions for progress, it is consumption NOT production that is the driver for innovation.

But frugality (‘paradox of thrift’) affects consumption and thereby creates social and economic instability- deflation. Countries such as Germany, Japan and China depend on the ‘profligate spending’ of the ‘consumption addicted american’ to grow and prosper- NOT the other way around.

I plan to explore this theme in future posts.

5] Poor people are stupid, greedy, ungrateful, unnecessary etc

So are most rich and middle-class people- but it takes an extra helping of hubris to see those faults in others, but not in yourself. Infact the motivation of HBD can be summed up as- Poor people are stupid, greedy, ungrateful, unnecessary etc because of -“insert scientific sounding reason”.

I would argue that a black woman who scams welfare creates many more well paid jobs, directly and indirectly, than a white man worth a few million. You see, the black woman spends money on services and goods from many different sources. Her unwillingness to save money creates more jobs by circulating money. Even indirectly, a considerable bureaucrats and “experts” are employed because of a welfare scamming black woman.

In contrast your average white millionaire uses his “extra” money for speculation on property, goods and other ponzi schemes. They just do not create as many jobs as poor and indigent people.. and by the way, who buys most of the crap that keeps the economy moving?

I have a few more myths to expose in upcoming parts of this series- and they will get much more nastier. The ones in this post are just a starter..


How Men Shortchange Themselves: 1

August 10, 2010 20 comments

I was reading a post on the concept of sexual peak. The article and comments on it, reminded me of something that I have preached for a long time.

Most men shortchange themselves all the time.

Before going into the reasons behind such self-destructive behavior, let me enumerate the ways men fuck themselves.

1] Working hard, dangerous jobs and stressing themselves.

Seriously, who or what are you killing yourself for? Is it even worth it or still relevant? In the past, people lived a precarious and unstable existence in tribes, villages, small towns and your willingness to work yourself to death was rewarded with something. In the world we live in, working yourself to an early death is unrewarded and the mark of suckers who bought the Calvinist Koolaid.

2] Listening to women and valuing their beliefs.

Are you that stupid? Why should you care about anything a woman says? What is in it for you? Trying to appeal to women or caring about their beliefs was always a bad idea. Don’t do it! Everything that a woman tries to tell you or makes you believe is to further her agenda at your loss.

3] Not caring about your physical wellbeing.

Once again, utilize every single real advance in medicine for your own benefit. But learn to distinguish the hype and fakery from measurable reality. I will write about this in detail in the next part of this series.

4] Live on your own terms and enjoy it.

Don’t waste your life living for others, or pleasing them. Enjoy your life as you see fit, and do what you want (or close to it). Be interested in your life and do what YOU want. Don’t let yourself be held back by public ridicule or concerns about your status. You are never too old to do anything you can do.

Don’t be afraid of learning new things and exploring the world.

Ever wondered why innovators in areas from science, arts, war, have always been functionally single or gay men?

Heterosexual innovators are almost without exception one of the following types- young and single (many.. many), single virgins (Issac Newton, Christian Huygens), single widowed (Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Alois Alzheimer, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson), single by choice (Adam Smith, Beethoven, Voltaire, Wright Brothers), promiscuous rouges (Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Julius Caesar), men with unusual sexual practices (Mozart, Rousseau), men with dysfunctional wives (Oppenheimer) or men with very traditional supporting wives (Max plank, Ernst Mach, Werner Von Braun). Only men who could truly focus on their inner world have lived what most of us would see as truly worthwhile lives.

Creativity in men often died by 30 because most of them USED TO BE married by that age. After getting the wife and kids package, they became slaves to the needs, wants and drama of their family and stopped following their true calling.

Most married men have always been tools! Don’t join their ranks.


Negligible Senescence: 3

August 5, 2010 2 comments

In the previous part of this series, I talked about why some species might become ageless or retain that ability. This part of the series attacks a misinterpreted idea about “natural limits” to cell division and repair. Some of you may have heard about the Hayflick limit for cell divisions.

Let us refresh our memories-

The Hayflick limit is the number of times a normal and differentiated cell population will divide before it stops, presumably because the telomeres reach a critical length.

Irrespective of what you think about this limit for cell divisions, two issues about this ‘limit’ are almost never discussed.

1] It best applies to, and has been studied most extensively in, differentiated mammalian cells.

Another way of putting that is- the hayflick limit has been poorly studied in long-lived reptilian, archosaurian and other ageless species.

2] Even in mammals, it really applies to terminally DIFFERENTIATED cells, not stem cell (embryonic or tissue) or transformed (cancerous) cells.

So what are the implications of these two issues, as far as longevity is concerned?

The first is the most obvious- namely that species other than terrestrial mammals likely have terminally differentiated tissue cells that can (and do) exceed the Hayflick limit. Indeed, this has been documented for terminally differentiated tissue cells from lizards, turtles and tortoises. Research_Proposal_with_References_2001

The second possibility is that even simply increasing the number of tissue stem cells (semi-differentiated) could potentially slow down or stop aging in mammals- as long as we had ways to stop them from becoming cancerous. It is worth noting that ageless animal species have a negligible incidence of cancer INSPITE of superb mechanisms for tissue growth, regeneration and repair. It seem that their repair systems are either error-free or they have additional mechanisms to stop malignant transformations.

The implications of this for increasing human longevity are easy to see, and almost any method to boost the levels of tissue stem cells (semi-differentiated) could in themselves decrease tissue aging in most tissues (muscle, skin, flesh, organs, blood vessels, testes and even the brain). The eye and the ovaries are a tougher nut to crack because there are significant differences amongst these two organs between mammals and non-mammalian species.


Negligible Senescence: 2

August 4, 2010 7 comments

If you have read the first part of the series, you might have thought..

No way, all the animals I know about age like humans.

and that is precisely the perception problem – all the animals you are most familiar with are, by and large, small or large terrestrial mammals or insects. Sure there are some exceptions like chickens and small lizards but you are focusing on the one group of animals that age in a very reliable manner.

Terrestrial and arboreal mammals are unique in that they all age in a very peculiar way that crosses species. Essentially their bodies gradually lose the ability to repair themselves.

Here is an old and concise review on that subject-
The-Evolution-of-Mammalian-Aging (PDF File)

So why do almost all terrestrial mammals age? and why do birds of a similar size and higher metabolism age much slower than mammals?

To understand this problem, we have to ask ourselves the seldom asked question.

Can a cell repair itself so well that it does not age? and the related question- is this ability universal or is there a built-in mechanism that prevents true agelessness.

The simple answer to the first question is a resounding YES, and the answer to second question- based on what we have learnt over the last 25-odd years is a resounding NO. There is no built-in universal mechanism to prevent true agelessness.

It is the lack of a fully functional cell repair system that causes aging.

The implications are that astounding- if you think about them. It means that pretty much any species could after some tinkering have a fully functional cellular repair system and thereby become ageless.

So what makes some species ageless or long-lived?

The lack of significant predation as adults- either because of size (whale, crocodile), ability of flight (birds), location (tuatara, deep-living rockfish) or the ability to scare predators off (apes, humans).

Plants such as the Bristlecone Pine, which can live for thousands of years, also lack predation through living in isolated and harsh environments.

A related factor is – How much physical conflict does the adult lifestyle of that species involve- wolves, lions have far more physically hazardous lifestyle as adults when compared to say apes and humans. I cannot resist pointing out that the original ‘alpha, beta and omega’ concept comes from studies of wolves and lions- not humans. Get it?

Animals that have to reproduce quickly because of high adult mortality tend to gradually lose the cell repair mechanisms that would have made them ageless. So high fecundity is selected over agelessness. That is not to say that the genes which allow perfect cell repair disappear in these species. It just so happens that are mutated, quiet or are expressed at sub-optimal levels.

The more adult mortality due to predation- the less functional the cellular repair system.

Humans are fairly long-lived for mammals because most of our cellular repair mechanisms are very good- for a mammal. We are, however, pathetic compared to crocodiles or whales.

Whales might have become ageless precisely because of their size. Their ancestors were large otter sized animals. But once they became truly aquatic, the principal restriction on their size was removed. Hence many of the cell repair mechanisms that may have been suboptimal in their amphibious ancestors, were selected back into their (almost) fully functional form.

Who is going to go up against a fully grown blue whale or a bowhead whale- except humans in the last 200 years?

However through biotechnology it may be possible for us to copy/adapt in a few years what evolution took millions of years to redevelop. Given the nature and commonality of housekeeping genes across species, it may be much easier than most of you realize.

But success along those lines will certainly bring its own ethical and other dilemmas. However, that is a question best reserved for the time we can make it work in humans.

Negligible Senescence: 1

August 4, 2010 3 comments

What if I told you that while all animals are mortal, more than a few species are ageless. Think about the implications, and more importantly how it could be engineered in human beings.

Future posts in this series will also discuss about why current research on aging is focused on, and going down, the wrong path.

So first let us define the concept-

While all animal species can die, not all species age past their reproductive peak. That is not to say that they are immortal- and indeed food shortages, diseases, toxins, predators and combat can and does kill them eventually.

But not aging..

Consider for a moment that we have solved most of the problems that kill ageless animal species, and you will see what I am talking about.

Whales, Turtles, Salt-water Crocodiles, Yelloweye Rockfish, Sturgeons and Tuataras are essentially ageless. Even other species like large eagles and old-world vultures (Accipitridae), African Grey Parrots and even Lobsters age very gradually or not at all.

The question then becomes-

What is common amongst all of these ageless species, as they span the whole range of multicellular animals from invertebrates (lobsters), fish (deep living rockfish), reptiles/archosaurs (tuataras, turtles, crocodiles) , birds (vultures, grey parrots) to mammals (whales). There is a peculiar answer to that question, which I will talk about in the next part of this series and try to show you that it also applies to plant longevity.

That reason also explains a few other peculiarities such as- why do apes and humans live so much longer than say wolves or lions (same or larger size).

I am going to stop this post here because the amount and range of information is such that it must be broken down in parts that are small enough for most of you to understand and assimilate.

A Word about Dopamine and Desire

July 20, 2010 7 comments


Many people who have read about ‘game’ understand the connection between danger, impulsiveness, novel sensation and the feelings they create in women. Monoamine neurotransmitters in the ‘normal’ brain (serotonin, noradrenaline and dopamine) exist in a dynamic equilibrium. Depending on moods, conditions, challenges, amount of sunlight etc.. the balance can shift around. Since this dynamic balance works nicely in most people, there is no need to alter it. However conditions like serious depression, hypomania etc can change the balance requiring drugs to treat it.. yadada.

Many of you are aware of the libido dampening effects of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like fluoexteine- prozac, paroxetine-paxil etc. But here is a question, what if you could block dopamine reuptake instead of noradrenaline or serotonin. Well, there are exclusive (or almost exclusive) dopmaine reuptake inhibitors (SDRIs) , however these compounds are not generally approved as drugs. The drugs listed in the previous link are not pure DRIs, and instead closer to selective dopamine-noradernaline reuptake inhibitors (SDNRIs).

Dopamine agonist such as apomorphine, bromocriptine and L-Dopa could work but carry the unpleasant side effect of significant nausea and some effects on body movement with chronic use (rebound/ adaptive effects).

Commonly available prescription drugs that are reasonably selective dopamine reuptake inhibitors are few-

Amphetamine (Adderall)
Methylphenidate (Ritalin) and
Bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban)

While methamphetamine and cocaine could also have similar effects, their pharmacokinetic characteristic + legal issues make them unsuitable. Moreover cocaine has a strong direct vasoconstrictor effect in addition to a autonomous nervous system mediated effect- resulting in the well-known adverse effects of cocaine on erections.

Note that methamphetmaine, amphetamine and cocaine also cause neurotransmitter release in addition to blocking its reuptake. That is why an addict can mistake amphetamine for methamphetamine (or vice versa), but rarely will they mistake methylphenidate or bupropion for either.

While methylphenidate and bupropion can be mistaken for each other by a casual user, bupropion’s effects last much longer than is desirable for certain uses.

Realistically, your choice is between amphetamine (Adderall) or methylphenidate (Ritalin).

Note that all three drugs (amphetamine, methylphenidate and bupropion) have been successfully used to treat female sexual dysfunction. However they also make people feel happy, and your greedy puritan overlords and their ‘capitalism’ believing slaves (right wingers) do not like that.

An interesting question is:

What type of synergistic effect can be obtained with alcohol (3-6 beers) and say.. 1/4th of 1/2 a daily dosage of these compounds in an otherwise healthy woman – when used occasionally (not daily).

In any case, most people with ADHD, atypical depression, narcolepsy and partial brain damage can take them for years without any significant side-effects.

While alcohol relaxes the person (partly through GABA receptor activation) it also makes people drowsy and clumsy. These drugs counteract the drowsy and clumsiness induced by alcohol, and in turn alcohol reduces the edginess and nervousness caused by noradrenaline reuptake- leaving behind a more purer dopaminergic effect.

So you have a relaxed person, who is very alert, lucid (maybe even more than normal) who has an acute need and strong desire to have sex and otherwise experience human touch. This state is very different from that caused by MDMA-Ecstasy. The person will remember every minor detail of the experience, even more vividly than otherwise and is not consent impaired.

Of course, the person who is taking this combination has to be attracted to the other person, to begin with. If there is no chemistry beforehand, nothing will happen as only consent and pre-existing willingness will focus that desire on the other person.

But once the focusing starts, it is hard to stop because it feels so good and amazing.


How Drugs are Discovered: 01

January 6, 2010 3 comments

This is a spoof series made by a “retired” blogger known as PharmaGiles. It was collected and compiled by someone I know..

Please download the pdf, and have a laugh.. use the “scroll” setting on slide to a quick glance, and the “slide” setting (with Fullscreen) for maximum effect.