Aging Potentially Solved?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Who wants to live forever? Scientist sees aging cured - Yahoo! News

Interesting article. They say the first person to live to 150 has probably already been born. They also think they are close to being able to have people live 1000 years. Personally I think this is a road better left untraveled by humanity.

[WarrenG]

Well, I'm strangely up for it.

However, if we increase the lifespan, we need have less babies. As Bill Hicks says "Let's work out this food/air deal first"...

Maybe it's part of the deal, you go for longevity maintenance and you also get the snip. Then you're just using up the resources your kids would use.

However, that would also slow the rate of genetic mutation and mixing and what not, potentially making us more vulnerable to parasites.

[Mariana Trench]

I've been following Aubrey DeGrey for a while. There a lot of people who don't think he can do it, putting aside the "should" for a moment. But I'll continue following him because if he can, that's really exciting. Perhaps even if they're developed, we'll decide not to use them. Maybe it'll be a reproduction trade-off, for resource purposes; or maybe it won't even be properly distributable until we're part way through the process of inhabiting Mars.

Who knows.

I'll be looking forward to whatever happens, though.

Originally Posted by WarrenG

However, that would also slow the rate of genetic mutation and mixing and what not, potentially making us more vulnerable to parasites.

That's really a game of luck, though, unless everyone who has the parasite dies, and the ones who are resistant reproduce. I think it's better to come up with solutions that work on people who are already alive.

[justhopingandsearching]

People don't know what to do with their 50-70 year life spans as it is, and now scientists want to tack on hundreds more ... okay?

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Personally I think this is a road better left untraveled by humanity.

Why?

I want to be the first person who out lives Adam. Nah!

I think the idea is exciting because it would have so many 'ripple effects' on how our society operates. Change can be a cause for anxiety, but it can also be cool. I'm not sure if I'd actually want to to live to 1000 though (Adam can keep his record ).

I don't know how realistic it would be for someone to live to 1000 though. Even if it were possible, you would probably get offed via an accident or what not before you actualy hit that mark.

[WarrenG]

Would you guys take the maintenance or not? I would.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Would you guys take the maintenance or not? I would.

I would. Time Enough for Love.

I keep up with deGrey, Kurzweil, and forums like Immortality Institute/Longecity to see what people are coming up with, while doing what I can for now to improve my chances of still being around for serious advances. I'd like to maintain a fit body indefinitely, choosing when I hit the pause/stop button.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

However, if we increase the lifespan, we need have less babies.

Or we could simply be much more efficient & organised in using the earth's resources. With minimal pollution etc.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Or we could simply be much more efficient & organised in using the earth's resources. With minimal pollution etc.

But that would mean using common sense.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by elucidate

But that would mean using common sense.

Which is probably lacking due to our limited lifespans. The Christian right-ie the Rapture Ready crowd-are responsible for a lot of the waste and pollution. Countless people fully expect Christ to come back in their lifetimes so their motivation to do anything about the problems we face on this planet are next to nil. Extend our lifespans and something tells me people would be a lot less tolerant of them.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Cado

Which is probably lacking due to our limited lifespans. The Christian right-ie the Rapture Ready crowd-are responsible for a lot of the waste and pollution. Countless people fully expect Christ to come back in their lifetimes so their motivation to do anything about the problems we face on this planet are next to nil. Extend our lifespans and something tells me people would be a lot less tolerant of them.

I just think it's like the apendix, an atrophied part of the brain that people have forgotten they can use. Couple that with all the distractions that dull our senses and all the nutrient-lacking food people are consuming and that equals up to a world full of dumbed down people who don't know how to think for themselves and don't see what's right in front of them.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by justhopingandsearching

People don't know what to do with their 50-70 year life spans as it is, and now scientists want to tack on hundreds more ... okay?

This.

Maybe only the ones who actually have common sense and want to make things better can do this and the rest can just live out their "lives" to it's natural conclusion.

[supertom]

I think it's impossible to live forever, the chances of death in the backdrop of eternity is 100%. I believe a increase of lifespan will mean a increase of fear, paranoia and procrastination, people will see it has more to lose not that have gained, the world will be wrapped in cotton wool.


I think I'll take a pass on this, I hope death didn't think he could escape me this easily.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by supertom

I think it's impossible to live forever, the chances of death in the backdrop of eternity is 100%. I believe a increase of lifespan will mean a increase of fear, paranoia and procrastination, people will see it has more to lose not that have gained, the world will be wrapped in cotton wool.


I think I'll take a pass on this, I hope death didn't think he could escape me this easily.

Without that tension of knowing your life is gonna end, where's the motivation to live it to the full and experience everything. I agree, it would breed even more laziness in humans.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by supertom

I think I'll take a pass on this

Well, you always have the option to make an exit. The medical discoveries and technologies just increase the scope of your option.

Like, if your life has become too long and tedious at age 30 or 50 or 70 or 100 or 120 or 150 or 180 or 250 years, you could just .... kill yourself then.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

you could just .... kill yourself then.

I think I'll take a pass on this.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Without that tension of knowing your life is gonna end, where's the motivation to live it to the full and experience everything.

A greatly increased lifespan actually expands the ability to experience "everything".

Like this - right now, it's not possible for you to go on holiday to the moon. Well, if you can stick around for another 50 or 100 years, that could become a viable option.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, you always have the option to make an exit. The medical discoveries and technologies just increase the scope of your option.

Like, if your life has become too long and tedious at age 30 or 50 or 70 or 100 or 120 or 150 or 180 or 250 years, you could just .... kill yourself then.

Or you can simply decide to stop doing whatever it is that is making your longevity increase and die naturally.

It's good to have options.

[VinceG]

As I've progressively been moving to a less linear and more non-dual outlook, I've come to greatly appreciate death and its function as the great equalizer and catalyst. I don't believe death is the end of consciousness, more like getting to the end of a book. I hate books that are overly long, and I would hate for my life to be overly long.

[Acting Like Godot]

Actually I remember a series of comic books where Conan the Barbarian finds his way to a land (Hyborea) where, through magic, the people are able to extend their lives indefinitely.

They were, in many ways, an amazing people, because each person had lived so long that he had had vast amounts of time to experience different things, accomplish many, many things etc.

However, the general pattern was that around the age of 600 to 700 years, the individual would begin to suffer terribly from the boredom of life. Basically by that time, there would be almost nothing that the individual hadn't already done or experienced before.

Around that time, he would opt for a certain ceremony. People would come to say goodbye, and then the individual would jump off a cliff to kill himself.

It's just a comic book, but the idea makes sense, if people really could live forever.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Or you can simply decide to stop doing whatever it is that is making your longevity increase and die naturally.

Well, you see, in the end, it comes down to the same thing.

Lots of things that we now take for granted and view as normal & mundane are actually things that have greatly expanded human lifespan from what it once was, to what it now is.

For example, hand soap, potable water, warm clothes and electrical heating (assuming you live in a colder climate country). If you stopped doing these things, you could die naturally quite quickly.

Meanwhile, Aubrey's concepts may be startling today, but 20 or 40 years from now, many of these newfangled life-lengthening techniques will be regarded as mundane as hand soap, potable water etc, today.

[elucidate]

Yes, I agree.

It's like when my father would tell me how when he was a boy and the comic books had pictures of doors that opened all by themselves. Now you can walk into any mall and it barely registers that there is anything amazing about automatic doors that open on their own.

Whatever the human mind can conceive it can create, and it loses it's awe factor pretty quickly too.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, you see, in the end, it comes down to the same thing.

Lots of things that we now take for granted and view as normal & mundane are actually things that have greatly expanded human lifespan from what it once was, to what it now is.

For example, hand soap, potable water, warm clothes and electrical heating (assuming you live in a colder climate country). If you stopped doing these things, you could die naturally quite quickly.

Meanwhile, Aubrey's concepts may be startling today, but 20 or 40 years from now, many of these newfangled life-lengthening techniques will be regarded as mundane as hand soap, potable water etc, today.

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Without that tension of knowing your life is gonna end, where's the motivation to live it to the full and experience everything. I agree, it would breed even more laziness in humans.

The flip side is that people tend to do everything better when they think long-term. For example, children learn to play the violin about four times faster if they think of it as a long-term endeavor, rather than a short term one-regardless of whether they like the lessons or not!

And personally I don't find the idea of death that motivating :P.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Cado

Which is probably lacking due to our limited lifespans. The Christian right-ie the Rapture Ready crowd-are responsible for a lot of the waste and pollution. Countless people fully expect Christ to come back in their lifetimes so their motivation to do anything about the problems we face on this planet are next to nil. Extend our lifespans and something tells me people would be a lot less tolerant of them.

Many of them resent environmentalists because "the good Lord'l take care'a the weather". I know someone who wrote a letter to one of our senators saying that melting ice caps aren't an issue because God promised never to flood the Earth again...

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

A greatly increased lifespan actually expands the ability to experience "everything".

Like this - right now, it's not possible for you to go on holiday to the moon. Well, if you can stick around for another 50 or 100 years, that could become a viable option.

This is what I was thinking. I think it would be incredibly hard to actually get bored for a long time, though that like most things depends on your mindset. I know there a lot I want to do that really requires more than ~70 years.

[Wax Frog]

1000 years in this fragile body? Nah.

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

1000 years in this fragile body? Nah.

If you live for 1,000 years, you can work out more :P

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by SatvikBeri

If you live for 1,000 years, you can work out more :P

Haha. If Aubrey DeGrey's vision becomes reality, it also means that those bodies will have fantastic health, because of the regeneration. I'm...cautious...about how good his predictions are, though. I'd certainly be looking forward to a body without aging and/or a thousand year life.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

1000 years in this fragile body? Nah.

Why would it be fragile? It could get an overhaul every 100 years or so.

The way to think about it is that the body is constantly regenerating itself anyway. For example, if you cut yourself, the skin heals. If you break a bone, the bone heals. If you lose some blood, your body makes new blood.

Aging is what occurs when the rate of regeneration cannot keep up with the rate of deterioration.

What medical science is already doing, and hopes to do better, is to increase the rate of regeneration or find other ways to compensate.

Do you know how old elephants often die? Their teeth wear out, after decades of use. Then they are no longer able to eat effectively (they can't chew all those tons of leaves and shoots), and they weaken due to malnourishment, and that's how they die. Thats

False teeth would completely solve that problem. Hey presto, humans already have that.

I think that to a large extent, old age can be analysed in terms of a wide variety of discrete symptoms - each of which medical science can specifically seek to treat.

[Mariana Trench]

De Grey identifies seven causes of aging damage, and his solution to aging would be to treat each one. From Wikipedia:

The seven types of aging damage proposed by de Grey
Main article: Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence

1. Cancer-causing nuclear mutations/epimutations:

These are changes to the nuclear DNA (nDNA), the molecule that contains our genetic information, or to proteins which bind to the nDNA. Certain mutations can lead to cancer, and, according to de Grey, non-cancerous mutations and epimutations do not contribute to aging within a normal lifespan, so cancer is the only endpoint of these types of damage that must be addressed.

2. Mitochondrial mutations:

Mitochondria are components in our cells that are important for energy production. They contain their own genetic material, and mutations to their DNA can affect a cell’s ability to function properly. Indirectly, these mutations may accelerate many aspects of aging.

3. Intracellular aggregates:

Our cells are constantly breaking down proteins and other molecules that are no longer useful or which can be harmful. Those molecules which can’t be digested simply accumulate as junk inside our cells. Atherosclerosis, macular degeneration and all kinds of neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer's disease) are associated with this problem.

4. Extracellular aggregates:

Harmful junk protein can also accumulate outside of our cells. The amyloid senile plaque seen in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients is one example.

5. Cell loss:

Some of the cells in our bodies cannot be replaced, or can only be replaced very slowly - more slowly than they die. This decrease in cell number causes the heart to become weaker with age, and it also causes Parkinson's disease and impairs the immune system.

6. Cell senescence:

This is a phenomenon where the cells are no longer able to divide, but also do not die and let others divide. They may also do other things that they’re not supposed to, like secreting proteins that could be harmful. Immune senescence and type 2 diabetes are caused by this.[citation needed]

7. Extracellular crosslinks:

Cells are held together by special linking proteins. When too many cross-links form between cells in a tissue, the tissue can lose its elasticity and cause problems including arteriosclerosis and presbyopia.[11]

[Rezzy7]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I'll be looking forward to whatever happens, though.

Same for me.
If all that is achieved is that older people are able to remain in better health up until death, I'm in favor of science.

That's really a game of luck, though, unless everyone who has the parasite dies, and the ones who are resistant reproduce.

Couldn't they just get labs on the resistant people and develop a vaccine or something? Then they don't have to repro.

Originally Posted by justhopingandsearching

People don't know what to do with their 50-70 year life spans as it is, and now scientists want to tack on hundreds more ... okay?

Scientists want to? Don't people want to?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Or we could simply be much more efficient & organised in using the earth's resources. With minimal pollution etc.

Well, they'll figure out how to maximize the shelf-life of food, too, maybe.

Originally Posted by elucidate

But that would mean using common sense.

lol.

Originally Posted by Cado

Which is probably lacking due to our limited lifespans.

For one thing, there would still be people around from almost back to Bible times, and they'd tell us first hand what Jesus did or didn't do or say, and whether or not certain "facts" were added or discarded.

Originally Posted by supertom

I believe a increase of lifespan will mean a increase of fear, paranoia and procrastination,

For many people learning is lifelong. So it stands to reason the longer those people live, the more they will learn, the wiser they may become, and the more personal development they can do.

Originally Posted by elucidate

Or you can simply decide to stop doing whatever it is that is making your longevity increase and die naturally.

Yes. Well, assuming the longer lifespans didn't become the natural way.