35 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
35 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

A roadmap to end aging

by whateverpedia
29 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Here's an interesting TED talk from a controversial figure, Aubrey de Grey.

From his TED bio page, Aubrey de Grey:

Aubrey de Grey, British researcher on aging, claims he has drawn a roadmap to defeat biological aging. He provocatively proposes that the first human beings who will live to 1,000 years old have already been born.
Why you should listen

A true maverick, Aubrey de Grey challenges the most basic assumption underlying the human condition -- that aging is inevitable. He argues instead that aging is a disease -- one that can be cured if it's approached as "an engineering problem." His plan calls for identifying all the components that cause human tissue to age, and designing remedies for each of them — forestalling disease and eventually pushing back death. He calls the approach Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS).

With his astonishingly long beard, wiry frame and penchant for bold and cutting proclamations, de Grey is a magnet for controversy. A computer scientist, self-taught biogerontologist and researcher, he has co-authored journal articles with some of the most respected scientists in the field.

But the scientific community doesn't know what to make of him. In July 2005, the MIT Technology Review challenged scientists to disprove de Grey's claims, offering a $20,000 prize (half the prize money was put up by de Grey's Methuselah Foundation) to any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that "SENS is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate." The challenge remains open; the judging panel includes TEDsters Craig Venter and Nathan Myhrvold. It seems that "SENS exists in a middle ground of yet-to-be-tested ideas that some people may find intriguing but which others are free to doubt," MIT's judges wrote. And while they "don't compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists," they're also "not demonstrably wrong."

What others say

"Aubrey de Grey is a man of ideas, and he has set himself toward the goal of transforming the basis of what it means to be human." — MIT Technology Review
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Wow - that guy talks fast. He was hard for me to listen to. The accent was hard for me to cut with one eardrum...then he talked like a buzz saw. LMAO. I had to back it up a few times to catch parts of it.

    However - I think he's right. In my family the usual lifespan is between 90 and 110. There have been two exceptions - my mother and her mother, both had intervening disease. The lifespans are accompanied by physical agility and mental acuity. Some time between 90 and 110, the heart gives out.

    Now this guy was talking an extra 30 years after 55. That would actually cut our line's span. If he's talking 30 beyond normal, that puts me in the running for between 120 and 140.

    One thing he fails to mention is the amount of toxicity of the environment, though. My relatives were born before most toxins were present. Is it possible to achieve the rates of longevity he is speaking of now when we are practically embalmed alive in poison?

    I do have to say I think the man already has a few secrets - he's 58. While the beard makes him look a tad older - if you look at the thickness of his hair, the quality of his skin and his general body structure - he seems to have aging pretty well under control already. I'd like to hear more of what he has to say.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9294251].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      We aren't extending life. We are just increasing the number of people that live closer to our maximum life span. It's about 120 years. The Telomeres at the end of our chromosomes get shorter every time our cells divide. Eventually, the calls make bad copies..and then no copies. And we die. This process happens at a fairly regular rate. We are increasing the number of people that live to 100, but we are not increasing the number of people that live past 120.

      How many people have you ever heard of that lived past 120? One? Two? On the whole planet, throughout history? It's a real brick wall.

      There have been successful attempts to strengthen the Telomeres in mice, but the result is a massive growth of cancer cells.

      The talk was a sales pitch. It was there to sell us on the idea of raising money to fund his research. But he gave no real ideas, no solutions.

      Scientists can't refute what he says...because he isn't saying anything concrete enough to refute.

      Maybe eventually, we'll figure out how to live hundreds of years. Solving the Telomere-Cancer problem may be one way.

      The closest real method we have to slow down aging is in calorie restriction. It slows the cell divisions, and extends life....but still not beyond 120 years.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9294872].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        We aren't extending life. We are just increasing the number of people that live closer to our maximum life span. It's about 120 years. The Telomeres at the end of our chromosomes get shorter every time our cells divide. Eventually, the calls make bad copies..and then no copies. And we die. This process happens at a fairly regular rate. We are increasing the number of people that live to 100, but we are not increasing the number of people that live past 120.

        How many people have you ever heard of that lived past 120? One? Two? On the whole planet, throughout history? It's a real brick wall.

        There have been successful attempts to strengthen the Telomeres in mice, but the result is a massive growth of cancer cells.

        The talk was a sales pitch. It was there to sell us on the idea of raising money to fund his research. But he gave no real ideas, no solutions.

        Scientists can't refute what he says...because he isn't saying anything concrete enough to refute.

        Maybe eventually, we'll figure out how to live hundreds of years. Solving the Telomere-Cancer problem may be one way.

        The closest real method we have to slow down aging is in calorie restriction. It slows the cell divisions, and extends life....but still not beyond 120 years.
        There are two fields of study we are just beginning that we didn't have in the past that could rewrite how long we can possibly live:
        DNA
        Biomechanics

        What will happen when we can clone our own body parts and organs, maybe splice DNA of long-living trees, and/or combine these with body parts that are half living, half machine?

        And from what I've read, it isn't so much calorie restriction but more a case of not storing much body fat. It's possible for those that have high muscle mass can eat plenty of calories and still (possibly) benefit from longer life.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9294901].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          There are two fields of study we are just beginning that we didn't have in the past that could rewrite how long we can possibly live:
          DNA
          Biomechanics
          Not quite sure if stem cell research comes under the biomechanics banner, but this is another area that may contribute to longevity.
          Signature
          Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
          So that blind people can hate them as well.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9294938].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          What will happen when we can clone our own body parts and organs, maybe splice DNA of long-living trees, and/or combine these with body parts that are half living, half machine?
          .
          We may soon be able to clone organs that are useful as replacement parts. But what about the brain? If we replace it, then we are someone else.

          Most of this is far into the future. At least beyond our lives.




          Oh yeah, I forgot about the international conspiracy to keep us dying before we are old enough to figure out what ...they...are doing (I almost forgot where I was)
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9295065].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            We may soon be able to clone organs that are useful as replacement parts. But what about the brain? If we replace it, then we are someone else.

            Most of this is far into the future. At least beyond our lives.
            Some people think it's possible we could download our memories, experiences and knowledge to a hard drive-type device, then reupload them to another brain. If this brain was cloned with our own DNA, it would be an interesting debate as to if it was the same or another person, since it's genetic make up and memories would be identical.

            I have a feeling many advancements will be beyond our life times.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9295101].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Some people think it's possible we could download our memories, experiences and knowledge to a hard drive-type device, then reupload them to another brain. If this brain was cloned with our own DNA, it would be an interesting debate as to if it was the same or another person, since it's genetic make up and memories would be identical.

              I have a feeling many advancements will be beyond our life times.
              It isn't a debate. It would be a genetically identical person as you...with exactly the same memories. But the original person...me and you...would still be our original brain, that would eventually die.

              We've had this discussion on this forum months ago (maybe a year or two ago even).

              Something that i find fascinating is that readers can't see that uploading your memories to a hard drive...or transporting them to a different brain... simply creates a copy of us. The original us....with the original brain cells...still exists..and eventually dies.

              Everyone else may believe that it's us, but it isn't. It's a perfect...conscious... replica. But we would be dead.
              you could create 100 identical Kurts, each with exactly the same memories...and they could all be living conscious humans...every bit as human as you are. But they would not be you. The same way an identical twin isn't you.

              You would still exist, in your original brain...until you grew old and died.

              I should be a motivational speaker.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9295197].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                It isn't a debate. It would be a genetically identical person as you...with exactly the same memories. But the original person...me and you...would still be our original brain, that would eventually die.

                We've had this discussion on this forum months ago (maybe a year or two ago even).

                Something that i find fascinating is that readers can't see that uploading your memories to a hard drive...or transporting them to a different brain... simply creates a copy of us. The original us....with the original brain cells...still exists..and eventually dies.

                Everyone else may believe that it's us, but it isn't. It's a perfect...conscious... replica. But we would be dead.
                you could create 100 identical Kurts, each with exactly the same memories...and they could all be living conscious humans...every bit as human as you are. But they would not be you. The same way an identical twin isn't you.

                You would still exist, in your original brain...until you grew old and died.

                I should be a motivational speaker.
                It's NOT the same as identical twins. Identical twins have different thoughts and memories. While this person may or may not be the same person, with the same "essence", it's definately not like identical twins, only similar because of the DNA.

                However, this is just one situation. It could also be possible to splice the longevity DNA of a redwood tree that lives for thousands of years into a person.

                All mamals have the same life expectancy of about 1 billion heart beats. Except humans, which have a life expectancy of about 3 billion heart beats. There's already something in our DNA that allows us to live longer using this criteria. It may be possible to increase this even more.
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9296028].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                  It's NOT the same as identical twins. Identical twins have different thoughts and memories. While this person may or may not be the same person, with the same "essence", it's definately not like identical twins, only similar because of the DNA.
                  .
                  True. it would be an identical person with our exact memories. And we would still exist. Nothing would be transferred to the second person (as far as conscience), but would be replicated. The atoms that make up our brain are not traveling anywhere...they are still us, and still in our head.

                  But now there is an identical second brain, with identical memories. This second Kurt wouldn't gain your essence, anymore than the first Kurt would lose his.


                  They would have their own essence. They would have their own mind. Identical to ours (up to the point of replication)....but they wouldn't be us.

                  My son and I had a long conversation about transporter beams. He said that if we could catalog every bit of information about a person...every position of every atom, we could send that pattern to anywhere to re-create that person at another location.

                  And then I reminded him, that the original person would still be there. So now there would be two identical people at two locations. Both believing that they are the original.
                  The only way that you would be the same person, is if the same atoms that made you up originally, were sent to a different location. But that would literally be the same as just traveling somewhere.

                  This is a problem in logic that, for some reason, is almost universally hard to grasp. It may be that we fervently want to believe that we are something in addition to brain function. But for whatever reason, I've only met one other person that grasped the concept that copying a person, doesn't transfer us anywhere. It just creates another identical you, with identical memories.

                  And you could keep making copies, all believing that they are the original, and all being equally as human. Like identical twins, that have identical memories, intelligence, feelings, everything...except maybe tattoos and scars

                  And, if we recorded all the brain waves and neural patterns, just before death...we would still be the one dying. And then the copy would live on, with its own set of memories, which are identical to ours.



                  Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                  I have no memory of discussing this before, you must have been talking to our clones! :-)

                  The number is tattooed on the back of the neck.

                  Is it not said that we are genetically programed to shut down within 120 years by our genes which regulate and slow down, eventually stopping the regeneration of all aspects of our body?

                  So switching that regulation off by manipulation could one day happen perhaps.

                  One biologist a long time ago said well you could conceivably replace/repair organs and body parts but the central nervous system would be a difficult one, it would wear out. But, that was quite a while back.
                  It's more than switching off a gene. The very structure of our nervous system builds mistakes over time. But maybe these can be treated. The fact that our telomeres shorten after every cell replication may be eventually figured out and stopped. I don't know enough to say if Kurt's "Use tree DNA" idea would work, but it's thinking in a good direction...at least, as far as I know.


                  But if we want to live for centuries, we would have to, in addition to stopping the aging process...
                  Cure all diseases that affect the brain. It's the one organ we can't replace. Alzheimers, cancer, edema, anything that will eventually hurt the brain would have to be cured.

                  There is an awful lot of wishful thinking, with regards to living very long lives.

                  Sales pitches may get funding, but to really accomplish lifespans of hundreds of years....means solving lots of problems other than the actual lifetime gain. Honestly, I can't see the effort. Maybe genetic manipulation at conception.....but wouldn't that be popular with everyone else.
                  Signature
                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9298160].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                    True. it would be an identical person with our exact memories. And we would still exist. Nothing would be transferred to the second person (as far as conscience), but would be replicated. The atoms that make up our brain are not traveling anywhere...they are still us, and still in our head.

                    But now there is an identical second brain, with identical memories. This second Kurt wouldn't gain your essence, anymore than the first Kurt would lose his.


                    They would have their own essence. They would have their own mind. Identical to ours (up to the point of replication)....but they wouldn't be us.

                    My son and I had a long conversation about transporter beams. He said that if we could catalog every bit of information about a person...every position of every atom, we could send that pattern to anywhere to re-create that person at another location.

                    And then I reminded him, that the original person would still be there. So now there would be two identical people at two locations. Both believing that they are the original.
                    The only way that you would be the same person, is if the same atoms that made you up originally, were sent to a different location. But that would literally be the same as just traveling somewhere.

                    This is a problem in logic that, for some reason, is almost universally hard to grasp. It may be that we fervently want to believe that we are something in addition to brain function. But for whatever reason, I've only met one other person that grasped the concept that copying a person, doesn't transfer us anywhere. It just creates another identical you, with identical memories.

                    And you could keep making copies, all believing that they are the original, and all being equally as human. Like identical twins, that have identical memories, intelligence, feelings, everything...except maybe tattoos and scars

                    And, if we recorded all the brain waves and neural patterns, just before death...we would still be the one dying. And then the copy would live on, with its own set of memories, which are identical to ours.





                    It's more than switching off a gene. The very structure of our nervous system builds mistakes over time. But maybe these can be treated. The fact that our telomeres shorten after every cell replication may be eventually figured out and stopped. I don't know enough to say if Kurt's "Use tree DNA" idea would work, but it's thinking in a good direction...at least, as far as I know.


                    But if we want to live for centuries, we would have to, in addition to stopping the aging process...
                    Cure all diseases that affect the brain. It's the one organ we can't replace. Alzheimers, cancer, edema, anything that will eventually hurt the brain would have to be cured.

                    There is an awful lot of wishful thinking, with regards to living very long lives.

                    Sales pitches may get funding, but to really accomplish lifespans of hundreds of years....means solving lots of problems other than the actual lifetime gain. Honestly, I can't see the effort. Maybe genetic manipulation at conception.....but wouldn't that be popular with everyone else.
                    If the brain is the lone thing the determines who a person is, how about if a person's memories and personality were replaced with those from another person? Would this be the same person because the brain was the same?

                    PS. Make it two other people that understand your theory. However, understanding and agreeing with are two different things. I believe our "spirit" and our "essence" are beyond our understanding at this point in time and that these concepts of self and life are more than simply gray matter found in a brain.
                    Signature
                    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9298188].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                      If the brain is the lone thing the determines who a person is, how about if a person's memories and personality were replaced with those from another person? Would this be the same person because the brain was the same?

                      PS. Make it two other people that understand your theory. However, understanding and agreeing with are two different things. I believe our "spirit" and our "essence" are beyond our understanding at this point in time and that these concepts of self and life are more than simply gray matter found in a brain.
                      Was that you Kurt who said that last bit just then? :-)
                      Signature

                      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9298361].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                      If the brain is the lone thing the determines who a person is, how about if a person's memories and personality were replaced with those from another person? Would this be the same person because the brain was the same?

                      PS. Make it two other people that understand your theory. However, understanding and agreeing with are two different things. I believe our "spirit" and our "essence" are beyond our understanding at this point in time and that these concepts of self and life are more than simply gray matter found in a brain.
                      Hey Claude,

                      I need to explain this further. I agree with your points about cloning and tranfering memories to another brain not extending the life of the same person.

                      What I disagree with is the theory that the brain activity is the lone measure of life. The problem I have with this theory is that plants and many simple animals, such as jellyfish, don't have brains. Yet a jellyfish and a tree can both live and die. Because of these facts, "life" has to be something other than brain activity. "Life" may affect brain activity in living beings that have brains, but that doesn't mean brain activity IS life.

                      If we extend this to include "nervous systems" which jellyfish and even plants seem to have, cutting a head off a chicken or snake will disprove this theory too. Cockroaches can "live" for quite a while without a head (brain). So while the animal is dead, their nervous system can live on for a while.
                      Signature
                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9299124].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                      If the brain is the lone thing the determines who a person is, how about if a person's memories and personality were replaced with those from another person? Would this be the same person because the brain was the same?

                      PS. Make it two other people that understand your theory. However, understanding and agreeing with are two different things. I believe our "spirit" and our "essence" are beyond our understanding at this point in time and that these concepts of self and life are more than simply gray matter found in a brain.
                      Then that person, that had his memories changed, would be the same person...except with different memories. Just as a person with a traumatic brain injury is the same person, even though they may radically change in abilities, memories, temperament.


                      The difference, I think...is that you believe that there is something beyond our physical brain. Something you might call a soul or spirit. I do not. I get now where the impasse is.

                      I hadn't thought of that.

                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                      Hey Claude,

                      I need to explain this further. I agree with your points about cloning and tranfering memories to another brain not extending the life of the same person.

                      What I disagree with is the theory that the brain activity is the lone measure of life. The problem I have with this theory is that plants and many simple animals, such as jellyfish, don't have brains. Yet a jellyfish and a tree can both live and die. Because of these facts, "life" has to be something other than brain activity. "Life" may affect brain activity in living beings that have brains, but that doesn't mean brain activity IS life.

                      If we extend this to include "nervous systems" which jellyfish and even plants seem to have, cutting a head off a chicken or snake will disprove this theory too. Cockroaches can "live" for quite a while without a head (brain). So while the animal is dead, their nervous system can live on for a while.

                      I get it now. I was meaning "Original consciousness" and you were meaning life.

                      It was a matter of my not being clear. Brain activity isn't life. But brain activity is awareness. Of course things are alive without being conscious (as we would think of it)
                      Signature
                      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9299326].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                It isn't a debate. It would be a genetically identical person as you...with exactly the same memories. But the original person...me and you...would still be our original brain, that would eventually die.

                We've had this discussion on this forum months ago (maybe a year or two ago even).

                Something that i find fascinating is that readers can't see that uploading your memories to a hard drive...or transporting them to a different brain... simply creates a copy of us. The original us....with the original brain cells...still exists..and eventually dies.

                Everyone else may believe that it's us, but it isn't. It's a perfect...conscious... replica. But we would be dead.
                you could create 100 identical Kurts, each with exactly the same memories...and they could all be living conscious humans...every bit as human as you are. But they would not be you. The same way an identical twin isn't you.

                You would still exist, in your original brain...until you grew old and died.

                I should be a motivational speaker.
                I have no memory of discussing this before, you must have been talking to our clones! :-)

                The number is tattooed on the back of the neck.

                Is it not said that we are genetically programed to shut down within 120 years by our genes which regulate and slow down, eventually stopping the regeneration of all aspects of our body?

                So switching that regulation off by manipulation could one day happen perhaps.

                One biologist a long time ago said well you could conceivably replace/repair organs and body parts but the central nervous system would be a difficult one, it would wear out. But, that was quite a while back.
                Signature

                Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9296347].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                  Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                  Is it not said...
                  By who?

                  Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                  we are genetically programed to shut down within 120 years by our genes which regulate and slow down, eventually stopping the regeneration of all aspects of our body?

                  So switching that regulation off by manipulation could one day happen perhaps.
                  We are not engineered to shut down by 120 years any more than a car is engineered to quit running when it runs out of gas. Systems failures and/or fuel deprivation will cause either vehicle to cease operations, your body or your car.

                  Joe Mobley
                  Signature

                  .

                  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9298382].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                    Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                    By who?



                    We are not engineered to shut down by 120 years any more than a car is engineered to quit running when it runs out of gas. Systems failures and/or fuel deprivation will cause either vehicle to cease operations, your body or your car.

                    Joe Mobley
                    Joe; not a great analogy. Cars don't reproduce, and they aren't alive. They don't have DNA or genes with telomeres at the end, that degrade at a steady rate.

                    120 isn't like a clock. It isn't exactly 120 years. But the cells divide just so many times before the defects are insurmountable. So far, that limit is about 120 years...assuming we don't die from a disease.

                    That's why lots of people live to 90, few to 100, and almost nobody to 120.
                    Lots of real research has been done to try to lengthen the life expectancy. So far, we can make our useful years longer.....but not really our total potential years.

                    This may change eventually, but not yet. Sorry.


                    Any current book on aging (not written by someone selling something) pegs our max lifespan at about 120....maybe a few years more or less. But out of 7 billion people on Earth today, nobody is 130. That seems to be pretty indicative of a maximum lifespan.
                    Signature
                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                    What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9299980].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              I have a feeling many advancements will be beyond our life times.
              I have a feeling we'll screw up any serious age-related advancements.

              Human technology may continue to advance, but the human mind has evolved over millions of years - it isn't going to change much over the next thousand. I don't expect us, as a species, to deal with the implications of a much-extended lifespan - population and resource management for example, not to mention a host of other social factors - without it causing more problems than it solves.

              We might already be living through the good times.


              Frank
              Signature


              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9295209].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                I have a feeling we'll screw up any serious age-related advancements.

                Human technology may continue to advance, but the human mind has evolved over millions of years - it isn't going to change much over the next thousand. I don't expect us, as a species, to deal with the implications of a much-extended lifespan - population and resource management for example, not to mention a host of other social factors - without it causing more problems than it solves.

                We might already be living through the good times.


                Frank
                This may be possible or even likely. However, it really doesn't address the theroretical question of if we can increase our life spans or not. We still need to address these issues regardless of longer life spans because of growing population.

                Longer life spans will obvoiusly create other problems. Possible solutions would be to inhabit other planets. Or allow only those without children to live longer, which brings up another morals debate.
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9296045].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post


        Scientists can't refute what he says...because he isn't saying anything concrete enough to refute.
        There's a quote for the ages. How often does this apply in life? (Replace the word Scientist as appropriate.)

        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9298400].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author chavez
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        How many people have you ever heard of that lived past 120? One? Two? On the whole planet, throughout history? It's a real brick wall.

        There have been successful attempts to strengthen the Telomeres in mice, but the result is a massive growth of cancer cells.

        The closest real method we have to slow down aging is in calorie restriction. It slows the cell divisions, and extends life....but still not beyond 120 years.
        Feed them 30% less calories they live 30% longer. But it's not just calories, another factor is radiation, esp. Potassium-40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which has a very long half-life.

        In fact there are a lot of people who lived beyond 120. Unless this is all made up
        List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Hunza VAlley in Pakistan and 3 regions in Caucasus, Russia are interesting. There have been reports that most people in villages live beyond 115. It might be due to the water (melt ice) they drink, which is structured and full of minerals.

        Russian Czar Peter the Great ordered to destroy old graveyards to erase the evidence of people who lived to 120 - 150 years. It could be seen on the old gravestones. I hope not all were destroyed. Not sure if this counts as good enough evidence.

        This old man talks in 2012 interview that he took part in Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905) and his father lived 150 years.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...b1930gRM#t=389

        For Russian scientist Ivan Filimonenko it is pretty clear why ancient people lived for thousands of years. Who is Filimonenko? http://pesn.com/2011/07/21/9501873_T...ng_1957_Start/

        The radioactive particle of Potassium-40 travels in the body the distance of 6,1 tenths of a millimeter (or 6.1 mm?) and on it's path ionizes over 200,000 atoms, and as a result 1125 cells die. Today, hundreds of nuclear, thermal and hydroelectric power plants burn 10 billion tons of hydrocarbon fuel. Their smoke contains sulfur, uranium-235, radium-226, and most importantly, potassium, which enters the ground with rain.
        As Filimonenko calculated, if the human body contained 0.7 grams of Potassium-40, it's lifetime would be ... 25,310 years. At 7 grams - 2,531 years, and at 245 grams the life expectancy would be 61 years, which we can currently observe. They measured the concentration of Potassium-40 in the layer where old Sumerian clay tablets were found and the concentration was 175 times less than is today dispersed over the earth's surface. It is the substance, that decaying in the human body, emanates the majority of high-energy particles that kill living cells. The human genetic program is set to replace cells no more than 100 times (other scientists say 64 times) and the sooner the limit is exhausted, the shorter the lifespan will be and vice versa.
        There is entire documentary. (Turn on the subtitles)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...UEHnSA9g#t=521

        What do you think of K40 and it's impact on lifespan? Does it sound more like a science fiction?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9299473].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by chavez View Post

          In fact there are a lot of people who lived beyond 120. Unless this is all made up
          List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          First sentence reads;
          "This is a list of people who have been reported to have lived beyond 130 years. The oldest person whose age was verified by modern standards was Jeanne Calment, who lived to 122."

          The rest, I'm assuming, are myths, legends, and lies to claim fame. For some reason, some people at 75, who want to be thought of as wise and amazing...sometimes claim to be much older. I see it a lot in China. Mostly men from small villages who keep bad records. And this mostly happened when you could claim such things without records revealing the reality.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9299666].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author chavez
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            First sentence reads;
            "This is a list of people who have been reported to have lived beyond 130 years. The oldest person whose age was verified by modern standards was Jeanne Calment, who lived to 122."

            The rest, I'm assuming, are myths, legends, and lies to claim fame. For some reason, some people at 75, who want to be thought of as wise and amazing...sometimes claim to be much older. I see it a lot in China. Mostly men from small villages who keep bad records. And this mostly happened when you could claim such things without records revealing the reality.
            What about the radioactive Potassium-40 isotopes impact on lifespan?

            P.S.That Wikipedia list is actually the last thing I am interested to discuss. Wiki is full of legends and myths.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9303379].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      I would be a pair of Lexy's shoes that the longevity in your family comes from a happily active FOXO3a gene.

      Association with longevity

      A variant of FOXO3 has been shown to be associated with longevity in humans. It is found in most centenarians across a variety of ethnic groups around the world.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXO3

      Joe Mobley


      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      In my family the usual lifespan is between 90 and 110.
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9298394].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    A roadmap to end aging
    For those that don't know, the guy with the beard in the video is only 11 years old.











    [j/k]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9294969].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Methuselah lived 900 years...

    Methuselah lived 900 years...

    But who calls that living, when gals are not giving...

    to a guy who's...

    ... 900 years?

    From the stage production Porgy & Bess.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9295489].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, Jelly fish DO react in a possibly unpredictable way. One could argue they DO have a nervous system. new things are being learned all the time.

    The idea of living forever may sound good, but it really IS like the thread about what would happen if the sun blew up.

    IMAGINE insurance! For one, costs would SKY ROCKET! There would be a greater chance of all sorts of problems. And things would be like gallactica in that people that had the treatment would be PREFERRED for insurance and employment. Unemployment would SKYROCKET! Inflation would SKYROCKET! Realestate sizes would PLUMMET. HECK, they may get rid of the idea of owned realestate all together. HEY, REMEMBER?

    Over Population Nightmare from 1960s - Star Trek's Mark of Gideon - YouTube

    ALSO, realize that every person on the planet uses maybe 2acres of space. You NEED that space for movement, breathing, food, etc... Oh SURE, you may stay in a 10x10 room your ENTIRE life as an invalid, but WHERE is the cow raised for hamburgers? Fish? Plants? So how much space is on the planet?

    FORGET about inheritance! WHY have pensions or retirement?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9299222].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      Hey Claude,

      I need to explain this further. I agree with your points about cloning and tranfering memories to another brain not extending the life of the same person.

      What I disagree with is the theory that the brain activity is the lone measure of life. The problem I have with this theory is that plants and many simple animals, such as jellyfish, don't have brains. Yet a jellyfish and a tree can both live and die. Because of these facts, "life" has to be something other than brain activity. "Life" may affect brain activity in living beings that have brains, but that doesn't mean brain activity IS life.

      If we extend this to include "nervous systems" which jellyfish and even plants seem to have, cutting a head off a chicken or snake will disprove this theory too. Cockroaches can "live" for quite a while without a head (brain). So while the animal is dead, their nervous system can live on for a while.
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Well, Jelly fish DO react in a possibly unpredictable way. One could argue they DO have a nervous system. new things are being learned all the time.
      Please read my entire post.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9299237].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yeah, THIS ONE: Anna Persdotter died in 1689 in Leksand at a reported 1024 years.[23] Sounds laughably phony! She was born in 665? MAN, if she were lucid, and lived that long, she could become a historian of sorts, be very smart, etc..... She would be FAMOUS. Why isn't she? She went from a time where people were apparently kind of tribal to a feudal time to kingdoms to a time more like ours. IMAGINE! The moslems were just STARTING all the stuff they have now. Mormons didn't exist yet.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9300003].message }}

Trending Topics