Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 18, 2008, 04:17:35 am
-
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/08/11/2331197.htm?site=science
I might actually be able to live forever after all......
-
I don't know if I'd want to, really
-
I imagine that given enough time, everything eventually becomes boring. Living longer? Sure, count me in, there's more stuff to do than can fit into the 50-60ish years I'm likely to have left if I don't screw up and get myself killed early. Forever though? Nah.
-
I imagine that given enough time, everything eventually becomes boring. Living longer? Sure, count me in, there's more stuff to do than can fit into the 50-60ish years I'm likely to have left if I don't screw up and get myself killed early. Forever though? Nah.
Well, I seriously doubt it's forever. It's stopping aging, not immortality... You're bound to get into a car accident or super-AIDS or whatever somewhere down the line.
-
I think it's more a question of health than immortality, whilst I still believe that life can probably go on for 3-4 times the current average age of a human, I'm still not convinced that ageing can be eliminated entirely, and, to be honest, nor do I think it should be, there's a reason old people die and new generations are born, and, quite frankly, this planet is crowded enough as it is.
-
I don't want to live forever. Imagine having to see your family and your closest friends die while you live.
And besides, if everyone lived forever, there won't be enough free space on Earth to accommodate all.
-
I disagree completely: If you have the power to stop the ones you love from dying, then you should use it, even if that means falling to the Dark Side.
-
You'd see a lot of tragedy if you lived forever, sure. But you'd also have literally forever to get over it.
However stopping aging in the end probably means screwing around with programmed cell death, and this goes to Bad Places. Cancer of the whole entire body, anyone?
-
oh look another fake solution to anti aging.
-
This shouldn't be for a person or a small group of important people to decide. If someone wants to live forever, you should let them. It's not fair for them not letting them do what they want if it's something this important. If he wants to screw up his life by living forever, let him. When he gets bored, he can commit suicide. No harm done.
-
I'm still not convinced that ageing can be eliminated entirely, and, to be honest, nor do I think it should be, there's a reason old people die and new generations are born, and, quite frankly, this planet is crowded enough as it is.
Well this was a good first step. I think the key to living forever is to live long enough for them to push back the clock by a few hundred years, then repeat. Frankly, I don't want to die. If you want to that is your choice.
It's stopping aging, not immortality...
Next best thing. At least it gives you time to work on all the other stuff.
-
Pft.
The human lifetime is ling enough as it is. We don't need no more.
If human lifetime is ever extended so much, then it's the beginning of the apocalypse. we do enough damage as it is - if we live even longer...youch. Talk about population problems too... pensions. ...retirement homes.
-
Pft.
The human lifetime is ling enough as it is. We don't need no more.
If human lifetime is ever extended so much, then it's the beginning of the apocalypse. we do enough damage as it is - if we live even longer...youch. Talk about population problems too... pensions. ...retirement homes.
That's not for you to decide. To be honest, when people say stuff like this it makes me want to strangle them with their own Ethernet cable (or, if they're using wireless internet, just stab them).
Just because you think that the human life span is long enough doesn't mean that other people don't want to live. Only when you're an old fart, living in an old-folks home, lonely and wishing you had done something better with your life, can you say that.
I've seen death, it's no fun, mate.
-
That's not for you to decide. To be honest, when people say stuff like this it makes me want to strangle them with their own Ethernet cable (or, if they're using wireless internet, just stab them).
Just because you think that the human life span is long enough doesn't mean that other people don't want to live. Only when you're an old fart, living in an old-folks home, lonely and wishing you had done something better with your life, can you say that.
I've seen death, it's no fun, mate.
So have I, only that I was too young to recognise him/her/it/whatever.
-
You're not the only one, and yes, death is a horrible thing.
However, I've also seen kids, and if we have old people who aren't going to die, and kids, who are never going to die, then we're all going to die. Not of old age either.
-
You're not the only one, and yes, death is a horrible thing.
However, I've also seen kids, and if we have old people who aren't going to die, and kids, who are never going to die, then we're all going to die. Not of old age either.
Cull them.
(a bit contradictory to my death ain't fun comment, but what the hell)
-
If he wants to screw up his life by living forever, let him. When he gets bored, he can commit suicide. No harm done.
Actually I think dying would screw up your life more than anything else. :P
I've seen death, it's no fun, mate.
Indeed, I'm 23 and I only have one of my grandparents left. My mom is almost 60, and my dad is almost 65, I'll probably outlive them by a pretty wide margin in anycase.
-
It only says it prevends risks of certain diseases by cleaning out harmful protines. This is not much different from being able to clean the lungs from years of smoking. Hey, I'd be glad if they could, but I wouldn't call it the secret to eternal life.
Meh.. IIRC Cells have a fixed number of divisions due to some sort of marker. Ahh.. here it is from wiki:
Multicellular organisms replace worn-out cells through cell division. In some animals, however, cell division eventually halts. In humans this occurs on average, after 52 divisions, known as the Hayflick limit. The cell is then referred to as senescent. Senescent cells deteriorate and die, causing the body to age.[citation needed] Cells stop dividing because the telomeres, protective bits of DNA on the end of a chromosome, become shorter with each division and eventually can no longer protect the chromosome.[citation needed] Cancer cells, on the other hand, are immortal. An enzyme called telomerase, present in large quantites in cancerous cells, rebuilds the telomeres, allowing division to continue indefinitely.
This is basically our genetically build in mortality. Let'm fix that and I'll be impressed. :D
-
When we start ****ing up such fundamental processes like dying, innovation stops and perversion starts.
Hello? Nature MEANT for us to die, we are NOT supposed to live forever. Where's the respect for nature, people?
-
When we start ****ing up such fundamental processes like dying, innovation stops and perversion starts.
Hello? Nature MEANT for us to die, we are NOT supposed to live forever. Where's the respect for nature, people?
Nature meant for us to wander in the plains hunting and scavaging for food, not using computers and posting replies on forums... Go out there and do your part then. :rolleyes:
-
Nature does have us existing on a rather small ball with rather small continents however.
-
i think its a chinese plot to stop buddist being reborn.........
-
I disagree completely: If you have the power to stop the ones you love from dying, then you should use it, even if that means falling to the Dark Side.
Goooooooooooooooooooooood... goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood!
-
Hello? Nature MEANT for us to die, we are NOT supposed to live forever. Where's the respect for nature, people?
You're a fool if you really believe that. There's always a few short-sighted idiots who really believe that sticking to nature will help us all, or, in some cases, knows that sticking to nature limits us but still insist on going back in time and becoming primitives. Sorry, but I feel rather strongly on this point so this will probably be a ranty, incoherent post.
Sticking to nature is idiotic. As Ghostavo has already said, nature did not intend us to construct buildings or computers or whatever. Nature intended us to be hunting and scavenging for food, starve when we couldn't do that and then die when we were inept. For people like me, who have asthma or whatever, are more or less dead by default by nature's choosing. People like me who have 'faulty genes' are supposed to die: It's called natural selection. Would you like to die because your parents had some anomalies in their genes or whatever? Really? Would you?
I'll give you that natural selection was a beautiful system - Those who couldn't survive died, those who could lived on and supposedly their children shared their strength, thus making the human race better on the whole with the sacrifice of the weak ones. But now that we've evolved, we've more or less reached a standstill. Because no one is dying anymore with all these modern medicines, the weaker ones are surviving too as opposed to only the strong ones.
Nature had us evolve in a certain way. And unless you're a creationist, you'll understand that we evolved to have the best attributes for survival. Somewhere down the line, evolution dictated that the smart people lived and the stupid ones died. The smart ones then formed the bulk of human civilization. We evolved to a point where we were smart and could think for ourselves instead of just dying all the time when we were weak. So natural selection affects us a lot less than it affects other animal species.
So we're at an evolutionary dead end, but we're very far from perfect. We got brainz, but we're pretty weak, and we age and then we die. Evolution gave us the power to conquer time by the spoken word so things learned by one person can be passed on to the next generation instead of being lost until someone else learns it, and then dies (after which it is lost again, and lalala, it goes on forever). Ironically, we evolution had us become so smart that we can make evolution happen for ourselves.
And if you think of it, in a weird roundabout way, it is natural. Nature made us evolve so that we had brains. And through this evolution, it indirectly gave us the power to allow ourselves to evolve. So really it was inevitable that we'd become this smart on the path we were going. Nature made us evolve this way. It is idiotic just to ignore something like this because of the convictions of a few people who believe that we're breaking nature by doing this. It's the same with stem cell research. It's not doing any harm to anyone giving us these things. It's just a few freaking idiots who think stem cell research and this anti-aging thingy are immoral that are holding us back.
If they want to die so much, kill them.
-
That's not for you to decide. To be honest, when people say stuff like this it makes me want to strangle them with their own Ethernet cable (or, if they're using wireless internet, just stab them).
Just because you think that the human life span is long enough doesn't mean that other people don't want to live. Only when you're an old fart, living in an old-folks home, lonely and wishing you had done something better with your life, can you say that.
Well who should decide? You?
When people want to live forever it makes ME want to strangle them.
Actually, it makes me want to do FAR, FAR worse things to them, so they start BEGGING for death.
No one really wants to die (mostly). But death is there for a reason. The old gives way for the new. People should just accept it and move on.
-
Hello? Nature MEANT for us to die, we are NOT supposed to live forever. Where's the respect for nature, people?
You're a fool if you really believe that. There's always a few short-sighted idiots who really believe that sticking to nature will help us all, or, in some cases, knows that sticking to nature limits us but still insist on going back in time and becoming primitives.
... as Ghostavo has already said, nature did not intend us to construct buildings or computers or whatever. Nature intended us to be hunting and scavenging for food, starve when we couldn't do that and then die when we were inept.
... It's called natural selection. Would you like to die because your parents had some anomalies in their genes or whatever? Really? Would you?
Nature had us evolve in a certain way. And unless you're a creationist, you'll understand that we evolved to have the best attributes for survival. Somewhere down the line, evolution dictated that the smart people lived and the stupid ones died. The smart ones then formed the bulk of human civilization. We evolved to a point where we were smart and could think for ourselves instead of just dying all the time when we were weak. So natural selection affects us a lot less than it affects other animal species.
So we're at an evolutionary dead end, but we're very far from perfect. We got brainz, but we're pretty weak, and we age and then we die. Evolution gave us the power to conquer time by the spoken word so things learned by one person can be passed on to the next generation instead of being lost until someone else learns it, and then dies (after which it is lost again, and lalala, it goes on forever). Ironically, we evolution had us become so smart that we can make evolution happen for ourselves.
And if you think of it, in a weird roundabout way, it is natural. Nature made us evolve so that we had brains. And through this evolution, it indirectly gave us the power to allow ourselves to evolve. So really it was inevitable that we'd become this smart on the path we were going. Nature made us evolve this way. It is idiotic just to ignore something like this because of the convictions of a few people who believe that we're breaking nature by doing this. It's the same with stem cell research. It's not doing any harm to anyone giving us these things. It's just a few freaking idiots who think stem cell research and this anti-aging thingy are immoral that are holding us back.
If they want to die so much, kill them.
for someone who is strongly agains't nature speeches, you seem to be making an arguement towards nature instead of your intended point which you stated.
no one will ever discover the age cure, whether you like it or not, no god will take you into a wonderful place. you will just simply stop and thats it, then either burnt up and turn into a diamond, put in a coffin and buried, or thown into a tip somewhere. and nothing will ever stop this from happening, everyone can try come up with some excuse to live longer or believe in something after you die. but the fact is as humans, evolution or no evolution we will will just stop functioning and die, no amount of drugs will change that. whoever comes up with anything else to say otherwise doesn't have a real clue what they are saying.
-
Hello? Nature MEANT for us to die, we are NOT supposed to live forever. Where's the respect for nature, people?
You're a fool if you really believe that. There's always a few short-sighted idiots who really believe that sticking to nature will help us all, or, in some cases, knows that sticking to nature limits us but still insist on going back in time and becoming primitives.
... as Ghostavo has already said, nature did not intend us to construct buildings or computers or whatever. Nature intended us to be hunting and scavenging for food, starve when we couldn't do that and then die when we were inept.
... It's called natural selection. Would you like to die because your parents had some anomalies in their genes or whatever? Really? Would you?
Nature had us evolve in a certain way. And unless you're a creationist, you'll understand that we evolved to have the best attributes for survival. Somewhere down the line, evolution dictated that the smart people lived and the stupid ones died. The smart ones then formed the bulk of human civilization. We evolved to a point where we were smart and could think for ourselves instead of just dying all the time when we were weak. So natural selection affects us a lot less than it affects other animal species.
So we're at an evolutionary dead end, but we're very far from perfect. We got brainz, but we're pretty weak, and we age and then we die. Evolution gave us the power to conquer time by the spoken word so things learned by one person can be passed on to the next generation instead of being lost until someone else learns it, and then dies (after which it is lost again, and lalala, it goes on forever). Ironically, we evolution had us become so smart that we can make evolution happen for ourselves.
And if you think of it, in a weird roundabout way, it is natural. Nature made us evolve so that we had brains. And through this evolution, it indirectly gave us the power to allow ourselves to evolve. So really it was inevitable that we'd become this smart on the path we were going. Nature made us evolve this way. It is idiotic just to ignore something like this because of the convictions of a few people who believe that we're breaking nature by doing this. It's the same with stem cell research. It's not doing any harm to anyone giving us these things. It's just a few freaking idiots who think stem cell research and this anti-aging thingy are immoral that are holding us back.
If they want to die so much, kill them.
for someone who is strongly agains't nature speeches, you seem to be making an arguement towards nature instead of your intended point which you stated.
no one will ever discover the age cure, whether you like it or not, no god will take you into a wonderful place. you will just simply stop and thats it, then either burnt up and turn into a diamond, put in a coffin and buried, or thown into a tip somewhere. and nothing will ever stop this from happening, everyone can try come up with some excuse to live longer or believe in something after you die. but the fact is as humans, evolution or no evolution we will will just stop functioning and die, no amount of drugs will change that. whoever comes up with anything else to say otherwise doesn't have a real clue what they are saying.
And you base this on what? Fact is that there are complex organisms with a lifespan much longer than humans.
Interesting bit about turtles whose organs seem to not age, Land Turtles can live up to 190 years:
Researchers have recently discovered a turtle’s organs do not gradually break down or become less efficient over time, unlike most other animals. It was found that the liver, lungs, and kidneys of a centenarian turtle are virtually indistinguishable from those of its immature counterpart. This has inspired genetic researchers to begin examining the turtle genome for longevity genes.
Fact is, longevity is a real subject in science. Biological immortality is a very realistic possibility in our future. Get used to it, and do your homework before you claim to speak facts.
-
It's not physical age that is the problem, it's mental age, and there simply aren't enough Nintendo DS's around to fix the problem.
As we get older, our brains fix themselves into certain patterns of thought, certain beliefs, each new generation challenges those beliefs, pushes the border of what we consider 'known'.
If you believe in God, then Death is not to be feared.
If you believe in Evolution, then you understand why constant growth and change is necessary to prevent stagnation.
Yes, death is a scary, unpleasant thing, birth isn't exactly a picnic either, though preferable to death. But that is because we see the world from a 'me' point of view, not an 'us' one. I've lost about half my relatives in the last 5 years to various things, Motor Neuron Disease, Cancer, Car Crashes, Organ Failure and, most notably, simply losing the will to live, yes, I hate death, but the idea of a world where people like Bush, Putin, Brown, Bin Laden and others never get old and pass the mantle on to younger, more open minds is a terrifying one.
-
Biological immortality is a very realistic possibility in our future. Get used to it, and do your homework before you claim to speak facts.
No, it's not.
We are genetically hardwired to a fairly inflexible lifespan. Circumventing that would require modification of thousands of different and interconnected genetic systems which also perform a variety of other functions.
Extending the lifespan of the human being is certainly possible - delaying the aging process is already something we're familiar with. However, to say we will eventually be able to produce biological immortality at any juncture in time is not only naive, it's supremely arrogant. We understand perhaps a billionth of how human genetic systems actually work, nevermind interact. Molecular genetics has expanded rapidly since 1953, but the more we start to understand the more it becomes obvious that we know very, very little. Take a look at issues of Nature and Science over the past 50 years - where once you saw articles dealing with whole gene systems, now we're down to studying individual gene products - and in many cases, just one product out of a possible thousand generated by the same gene. The sheer amount of knowledge required for any type of genetic modification or therapy makes any prediction impossible.
While television and movies make genetics out to be this sexy science that we can manipulate at will, the truth of the matter is that we know precisely squat and can actually do even less.
-
Fact is, longevity is a real subject in science. Biological immortality is a very realistic possibility in our future. Get used to it, and do your homework before you claim to speak facts.
"Living longer" and being immortal (living forever) are two different things.
Assuming we manage to extend our life span, it will still be finite.
There is no such thing as infinite for anything material. All things must come to an end sooner or later.
EDIT: MP Ryan said it better :P
-
There's also a difference between "biological immortality" and "immortality". And no, I'm not saying that this generation will see it.
We are genetically hardwired to a fairly inflexible lifespan. Circumventing that would require modification of thousands of different and interconnected genetic systems which also perform a variety of other functions.
I disagree. Your hardwired "inflexible lifespan" is most likely the result of natural selection, based on it lowering the chance of cancerous growth. Theoretically it could be possible to change the human Hayflick limit at the stage where the egg gets impregnated. We're dealing with a single cell, not a full grown human.
If you can prevent organ failure through aging and find the cure for all sorts of cancer, can you point me to another way one can die a truly natural death that doesn't involve unhealthy lifestyle? Even then.. you can still die of countless bacteria's and viral infections I'm sure.
But then you completely misunderstand the concept of biological immortality. I'm not going Duncan McLeod on you.
-
I'd just like it to be like in the book series Honor Harrington where everyone has a lengthened lifespan and everyone has the body of a late teenager (17 or 18) until late in life where the aging process picks up again. I think they lived longer as well...maybe well over 100 years but not much more than that and everyone looked damn good doing it :)
-
Heheh, if everyone also lived like a late teenager for all those years, I wouldn't give much for their lifespan. :D
-
FOREEEEEEEEEEEVER YOOOOOUUUUUUUUUNG, I WAAAAAAAAAAANT TOOOOOOOOOOOO BEEEEEEEEEEEEE FOOOOOOOOOREEEEEEEEEVEEEEEEEEEEER YOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUNG!
Had to be done Bob, had to be done.
That's not for you to decide. To be honest, when people say stuff like this it makes me want to strangle them with their own Ethernet cable (or, if they're using wireless internet, just stab them).
Just because you think that the human life span is long enough doesn't mean that other people don't want to live. Only when you're an old fart, living in an old-folks home, lonely and wishing you had done something better with your life, can you say that.
Well who should decide? You?
When people want to live forever it makes ME want to strangle them.
Actually, it makes me want to do FAR, FAR worse things to them, so they start BEGGING for death.
No one really wants to die (mostly). But death is there for a reason. The old gives way for the new. People should just accept it and move on.
Wow, you're one sick puppy.
Made that text smaller, it was breaking the formatting - Flipside
That's not my goddamn problem.
I want it HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGE!
HOOOGE I SAY!
-
:lol:
Well, at least that one fits ;)
-
There can be only one.
Battles are to be fought one on one, and no fighting on Holy Ground. :nervous:
...Ahem.
We are genetically hardwired to a fairly inflexible lifespan.
Yes. Currently. And what happens if the genetical code is changed so that this limitation is removed or reduced in effectiveness?
The DNA aging in itself is due to telomere sections shortening slightly by every cell division, eventually causing the functionality and structure of the cells decline and bring forward some of the symptoms associated with old age - metabolism slows down, resistance to infections is lowered, things like that. It's kinda like what happens to a file when you repeatedly save it with a lossy compression format. Random mutations obviously add to the whole degradation, kinda like if you applied a slight noise filter to the image in between of the saves too... (exaggereted example, not an analogy - there are similarities but not equivalencies here).
Some species, however, have mechanisms that repair the damage to their DNA, be it caused by cell division, radiation or other mutagens. If such feature could be embedded to human DNA, well, let's just say that it would definitely need to come with a fenotypical modification that gives the carrier of the gene pointy ears, slender body structure, fair facial features, ability to see in infra-red wavelengths and high resistance to magic.
Of course, with our luck we end up just giving ourselves elongated lifespan, increased constitution, increased facial hair growth for both genders, and shortened posture... or if we're really unlucky we end up turning ourselves to Orcs rather than Eldar. :shaking:
-
Shaddap everyone and accept it!
[Kane]This is the next step in our evolution as a species![/Kane]
And I'm being serious. Those who don't want to live forever ( or at least MUCH longer ) are sick. The only people who want to die are emos and old people who suffer every day.
-
Mortar Kombat!
Seriously though, I think extending lifespans at this particular moment in time would cause more death than it cures, we are already fighting over limited or unevenly distributed resources, more people alive means more demand, and as we get older we will look more to our own luxury.
Shaddap everyone and accept it!
[Kane]This is the next step in our evolution as a species![/Kane]
And I'm being serious. Those who don't want to live forever ( or at least MUCH longer ) are sick. The only people who want to die are emos and old people who suffer every day.
Actually, I'm neither Sick, an Emo, nor do I suffer every day, except possibly from comments like that.
Edit: To be blunt, if it is a choice between the life of a human or the death of humanity, which is what it would pretty much lead to right now, I'll take option 1.
-
More people means faster and greater advancing. And if the tech is distributed only to allied/friendly countries, it could give a big enough advantage to beat the terrorist nations and etc.
Eitherway, I see only gain. Except from those whiners who are afraid of new technologies.
Alright. One vision, one purpose. Peace through power, kids. I'm off to sleep.
-
New technologies are one thing, pissing in the gene pool is another altogether.
If you want to consider me a 'whiner' then that's your choice. I don't want to die, no-one does, but maybe it's because you are viewing life from a 'Me first!' point of view and refusing to even consider the effects that such things would have.
As for 'distributing only to the West and 'beating Terrorist nations', well, you've proved my point for me really. Mindsets like that need to get old and die for change to take place.
-
More people means faster and greater advancing. And if the tech is distributed only to allied/friendly countries, it could give a big enough advantage to beat the terrorist nations and etc.
Eitherway, I see only gain. Except from those whiners who are afraid of new technologies.
Alright. One vision, one purpose. Peace through power, kids. I'm off to sleep.
Whiners? Afraid of new technologies? More people means more advancement?
We're not feeding all the people we have now. And the most advanced countries have smaller populations (see Sweden).
I think you all are sick, you'd be willing to risk all of humanity just so you can go on living your little lives. I love life, but I don't want to live forever, because it would really suck.
Part of what makes life great, is that there's a time limit on it, you age, you gain experience, and eventually you die.
-
I disagree. Your hardwired "inflexible lifespan" is most likely the result of natural selection, based on it lowering the chance of cancerous growth. Theoretically it could be possible to change the human Hayflick limit at the stage where the egg gets impregnated. We're dealing with a single cell, not a full grown human.
If you can prevent organ failure through aging and find the cure for all sorts of cancer, can you point me to another way one can die a truly natural death that doesn't involve unhealthy lifestyle? Even then.. you can still die of countless bacteria's and viral infections I'm sure.
But then you completely misunderstand the concept of biological immortality. I'm not going Duncan McLeod on you.
The DNA aging in itself is due to telomere sections shortening slightly by every cell division, eventually causing the functionality and structure of the cells decline and bring forward some of the symptoms associated with old age - metabolism slows down, resistance to infections is lowered, things like that. It's kinda like what happens to a file when you repeatedly save it with a lossy compression format. Random mutations obviously add to the whole degradation, kinda like if you applied a slight noise filter to the image in between of the saves too... (exaggereted example, not an analogy - there are similarities but not equivalencies here).
Some species, however, have mechanisms that repair the damage to their DNA, be it caused by cell division, radiation or other mutagens. If such feature could be embedded to human DNA, well, let's just say that it would definitely need to come with a fenotypical modification that gives the carrier of the gene pointy ears, slender body structure, fair facial features, ability to see in infra-red wavelengths and high resistance to magic.
Two responses in one, because its easier.
Telomere length is the often-cited Holy Grail of aging but the fact of the matter is that telomeres are merely one relatively minor cause. Organ failure doesn't occur as a result of simply telomeric length or protein-buildup but as a result of a complex series of multiple factors to which it is exposed over time. organs do not, as a rule, contain completely totipotent cells. All their cells thus degrade over time. This process begins even before birth. Now, if you can conceive of a way to build an infallible DNA repair system (and I assure you nature hasn't, not even with the several hundred protein and enzyme components the human one uses) then perhaps we're a tiny step closer. DNA aging is not all due to telomere length, and telomeres aren't nearly as important as some individuals like Oprah's favorite Dr. Oz will tell you. Organ failure is also caused by many things other than DNA degradation, which I won't even begin to delve into because its an enormous area and some distance outside my area of expertise.
You also say find a cure for all the various types of cancer - this is patently impossible. Cancer is a natural condition of multicellular organisms, particularly those in phylum Chordata and more specifically, mammals. Cancer is merely our word for cellular decay; every cell will have it occur eventually provided something else doesn't kill it first. We can temporarily cure it in specific areas and we can certainly prolong the impact of its effects, but if nothing else kills you your own body eventually will. Curing cancer means finding a way to kill every cell that becomes cancerous (prevention is a useful means of delaying cancer but it will never be 100% effective). There are two practical ways of doing this: (1) immunocompetency boosting which allows the body's immune system to target and attack cancer in all areas of the body (difficult, as there are a few areas in which the immune system does not and cannot operate, such as the eyes), or (2) viral or chemical destruction of cancer cells. Both ways are plausible. Neither will cure cancer because it can always emerge - again - at a different site, in a different way, and eventually overwhelm the rest of the body. In point of fact, cancer only results when something has already gone seriously wrong within the cell - it's not the cause of aging, it's the effect.
I spent five years studying genetics and immunology and in that time drew one basic inescapable conclusion: if something else doesn't get you first, your biology will in the end. We can prolong life and forestall death, and eventually we may see human lifespans reaching several hundred years, but we will never lose the ability to die a natural death - the way our genetic systems work makes cancer an inescapable result. Whether or not it will be the direct cause of your death depends on a great many other factors too.
EDIT: And I understand the idea behind biological immortality quite well I just think that, frankly, it's horsehit. It presupposes we can address all the causes of natural death which combine to form the plateau at which the rate of mortality stops increasing. As I've already stated, that is essentially an impossible task unto itself.
-
The thing is, such treatment would have one immediate effect, it would transfer the Class-gap into an vast chasm. You would have a long-living 'Elite' of those who can afford the treatment, and the short-lived 'Poor' who cannot, and that will, almost certainly lead to another World War
Edit: And considering how most Pharmaceutical companies behave, I doubt most of the people in this Forum would fall into the 'Elite' segment of that situation.
-
Or even worse, assuming anyone could get the "super-longevity-cure"..
With would that do to the population growth? Old people would stop dying till they reach 500 years, but babies would continue to get born. You'd have a population explosion the likes of which the world has never seen.
Have you any idea what that would do to the economy? To the power, water and food requirements? To the enviroment?
-
So if someone discovered the cure for the common cold, cancer and aids would you withdraw treatment from those who are afflicted by it? After all, "you'd have a population explosion the likes of which the world has never seen".
I'm afraid I cannot see why discovering a way to prolong life is unethical. If it turns out to be expensive, so be it. It's not like it's existence will shorten the lives of those without it. Of course, if there is one thing history has shown us, is that new inventions will get cheaper as the years go by.
The potential problems with biological immortality are not to be solved by eliminating it. Otherwise you run into a slippery slope line of thought until you reach genocide so others have the resources to live.
-
I'm not saying it should never happen, what I'm saying is that we have enough problems to deal with, let's sort those out before making more.
Sure, we'd all love to live for 500 years, I know I would, but right now, that would do more damage than good. If I was viewing this from a personal perspective only then my response would be 'Hell, Yes!', but I'm trying not to, even though I want to, half the problems on this planet come from humanities habit of thinking that the 'needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many'.
Right now we have more important things to worry about, it may not seem that way from the point of view of an individual human, but from the point of view of humanity as a whole, this is really something that needs to be dealt with after we've dealt with Food/Water/Fuel and a host of other crisis, otherwise we are only making the problem worse.
I'm afraid I cannot see why discovering a way to prolong life is unethical. If it turns out to be expensive, so be it. It's not like it's existence will shorten the lives of those without it.
Do you think those with 'normal' lives will view it that way?
-
I'm afraid I cannot see why discovering a way to prolong life is unethical. If it turns out to be expensive, so be it. It's not like it's existence will shorten the lives of those without it.
Do you think those with shorter lives will view it that way?
They'll view it in the same way every person with a disease will see a medicine that will cure their condition being discovered. It's the same thing with everything new. Every product when first discovered will be ridiculously expensive. It's a consequence of it being discovered. It's far better than the alternative of the medication never being discovered in the first place.
-
But people will, quite literally, see it as fighting for their lives, there will be a rich section of society who are benefitting from the Holy Grail of human existence. Those who go without will see it as being deliberately withheld to 'keep the little guy down'.
Just as the people on here wouldn't have patience to let the next generation be long-lived if they themselves had short lives, they want it now, for themselves, after all, if anyone is going to live 500 years, it should be 'me'. Those who are unable to afford treatment will feel exactly the same way, and it would, in my opinion, create a disaster of unprecedented proportions.
-
But people will, quite literally, see it as fighting for their lives, there will be a rich section of society who are benefitting from the Holy Grail of human existence. Those who go without will see it as being deliberately withheld to 'keep the little guy down'.
Just as the people on here wouldn't have patience to let the next generation be long-lived if they themselves had short lives, they want it now, for themselves, after all, if anyone is going to live 500 years, it should be 'me'. Those who are unable to afford treatment will feel exactly the same way, and it would, in my opinion, create a disaster of unprecedented proportions.
And how does that differ from what happens in the same situation that I just described in my last post besides it involving more people?
People will think what they will, there are nutjobs who see a conspiracy in every part of human knowledge, so it's not adding more fuel to the fire than any other invention or discovery ever made.
-
I disagree, this is above and beyond anything we have done before, and far far closer to the core of human fear.
Look at the posts on here, most of them are supported not by a wish for the best for humanity, but by the wish for the best for the individual. We fear death, all of us, yes, we fear illness etc as well, and the seperation between rich and poor countries in that respect has already caused much strife, and that is nothing more than 'a bit disgruntled' compared to what the reaction would be to this. I'm not talking about 'nutjobs', I'm talking about entire countries of frightened people who think they are being consigned to death while the Fat Cats grab the money from them to keep on living.
It touches the very core of what is important to mankind, of what scares us, and of what we want for ourselves, and for it to exist, but be out of peoples' reach would cause nothing but suffering, panic and death.
-
If such a treatment appears, it will become commonplace in time.
But still, for people to wish for something that can prolong life not to exist... that is what is truly unethical. It's not the medicines fault that it "cures" such a very long standing "desease" that it has become a sure way for people to die in everybody's mind. If such a medicine is found, "natural death" will become just another fatal desease in the eyes of everybody. So no fear mongering.
It will bring just as much panic, suffering and death as discovering aliens, perpectual energy sources and the ability to land a toast butter side's up.
-
Personally, I've never heard of a frightened mob being logical about things, alas.
Better, at this moment in time, for it not to exist at all than for it to exist for a chosen few. That's more a matter of psychology than medicine.
I'd love to see it done one day, but right now, to quote Kosh's Babylon 5 namesake, 'You are not ready for immortality.'. This generation and probably the next several have a lot of work to do before we can really start considering ourselves ready.
Edit: Just wanted to add, I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation, it's not often we start exploring humanities darkest fears, or comparing Personal ID with the species as a whole, and I find the subject fascinating, not only does it teach us about ourselves, but it teaches us about each other as well :)
-
It will bring just as much panic, suffering and death as discovering aliens, perpectual energy sources and the ability to land a toast butter side's up.
Wanted to add, I disagree again. Discovering Aliens, I suspect, will have far less impact than people think, even the Churches have been gently preparing themselves for the fact that God didn't just make Humanity for the last few decades. Perpetual energy is not going to cause as much strife as the lack of it, and toast landing butter side up would signal the end of the universe anyway.
-
Why is the genetic code and the aging process held to be sacred or taboo? Both are chemical processes and nothing more. Physically speaking, we are for that matter chemical processes and nothing more. If altering the process of aging or some other part of the human genome can be done, odds are it will be done. And why not? Those advances could easily lead to to other discoveries leading to the cure for cancer, or Alzheimers, or Parkinson's.
I do believe in ethics with regard to altering genes--but not to recognize the value of some possible advances is an exercise in blind stupidity.
-
Why is the genetic code and the aging process held to be sacred or taboo?
Because the pope said so, I expect.
-
I do believe in ethics with regard to altering genes--but not to recognize the value of some possible advances is an exercise in blind stupidity.
Agreed, as is not recognising the dangers.
It's not about religion, or race, or colour, or creed, it's about being 'you' looking out from inside your head, and realising that everyone is a 'you' looking out from inside theirs.
Theoretically, the idea is a great one, in practice, it is a Pandoras box right now, and one I think we are not prepared to open, not through ethics, but through the much cleaner practices of Mathematics, and the not so much cleaner practice of Psychology.
-
If people want to live forever, that's their business.
I, however, want to die a happy person. No point living forever and getting bored. :)
-
I, however, want to die a happy person. No point living forever and getting bored. :)
When you get bored, commit suicide. Simple as that.
-
And if not enough people commit suicide? If there are too many people for our resources to support, should we start culling?
A tyrant who taxes and mistreats his people is a rich man, and as long as he remains a tyrant, he can afford the treatment, as long as he can afford the treatment he remains a tyrant.
We don't have the resources, the space or the ethical capability to start making judgements on who lives longer and who doesn't.
-
It's certainly interesting to think about the effect it would have on our laws, our social life, and everything in general.
Think high school is vicious now? Think again. People talk about how it shapes the person you'll be for the rest of your life. Imagine when centuries are at stake - parents, kids, and teachers all fighting to get out alive and make the best of those early years of life.
Suddenly a DUI doesn't mean you're restricted from working for 40 years - it dictates your life for the next 300. Do people really deserve that?
Term limits become ridiculous. You can't serve for more than eight years as a US President, but you can serve for hundreds of years as a senator.
Job security and being laid off suddenly becomes a high-stakes issue, with people with 140 years at a company finding themselves out of work or disagreeing with a company's moral stance on an issue. Health benefits become a stranglehold.
Car accidents become terrifying. People begin to avoid the roads to protect their lives, having valued them like never before.
War becomes atrocious for civilian casualties, but perhaps ever more justifiable to some, because the men and women they're sending to battle have only had a few short years to live. To others, the practice is abhorrent for their lack of concern for the tragic loss these people are having, even more than ever before.
Great things can be accomplished in life. With digital storage, people have perfect records of all of the events in their life, the historic events that they've witnessed, but have no way of remembering it all save videos.
Loss becomes ever more profound as people can live with and live past irreplaceable people in their lives to a degree unimaginable today.
Astronomical and geological events seem more apparent, as people live long enough to witness such changes. Evolution and acceptance gain greater acceptance as people can watch for themselves what happens over centuries.
Sports begin to lose their turnover rate as massively experienced players can outcompete younger but no more fit players.
Countries' governments hardly change except for assassinations and wars. The outgoing generation is no longer concerned with the up-and-coming generation, but with the people still with 150 years to go.
I can't imagine what kind of impact it would have on the art and entertainment industries. Would people flock to their favorite directors' movies long after they had lost their novelty out of habit, or would it be possible to remain fresh and creative for so long?
It's fun thinking what would happen if it were to happen. But at the same time, I have the feeling that humanity would grow to adapt after the initial growing pains. You'd have people griping about the young, inexperienced 75-year-old upstarts. You'd have people *****ing about a degree taking 20 years to complete, rather than 4 to 7 years, with total ignorance of the fact of how inconceivable that would seem to someone today.
In some ways, living longer may be a critical factor for technological development, as things become more complex and take more time to master.
-
As for whether humanity is ethically and morally capable of making the judgment, I call bull. :p Humanity has gotten itself in the worst situations for moral and ethical dilemmas. In the middle of a war started by unprovoked attacks and characterized by international backstabbing and ethnic cleansing, we invented a new way to blow ourselves all to hell.
Somehow, it hasn't come to pass yet. Given humanity's track record at holding off from guns and open warfare, that's pretty good. *crosses fingers*
But regardless, I'd hardly say that humanity is "ready" for many things yet, especially in the utilitarian way that you're advocating. You can always find evidence of corruption etc in the highest levels of government and business, people still abuse their position in regard to others on a daily basis, people still do things that they should know better about, people still practice racism, etc. If you take the stance that humanity has to be "ready" for things before they're invented, humanity will never be ready for anything. Humanity usually gets off its lazy arse in response to something new, and terrifying, makes angry demands briefly, and then finds a common equilibrium and plops back down on its couch and contentedly watches the world fly past.
It's the few people that are the movers and shakers and mess things up for everybody else by forcing them to change that keep the process going. Or mother nature does it for us. In this case, somebody is going to invent some kind of lifetime-extending thing, eventually, and it will come into the world with all the grace and poise and perfect timing of a screaming newborn infant on a TV drama.
-
It's not a question of 'ready' as in 'ready, steady, go', it's a case of the fact we are totally unable to support the population with our already extended lifespan, since it has pretty much doubled in the West over the last 100 years.
To increase that more over a large portion of the population would create a demand we simply cannot meet, and to increase it over a small percentage of the population would create an Elitist society that would resented, feared and hated by those not part of it. A situation not a million miles from the situation we face today, but on a much larger scale.
Yes, it will get done eventually, but to throw this out into a world that cannot even support the people who are already alive would create chaos, I'm afraid I've never been particuarly proud of the fact that we as a race view things as 'Just because it's a bad idea, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it before someone else does.'. We have some wonderful weapons based on that exact theory.
As for ethical side of things, true from a personal ethics point of view, it doesn't matter, but what about from a country-wide ethics point of view, if we go back to that tyrant situation, it's not just the tyrant living for hundreds of years, it's the people suffering from it for an equal amount of time, and, since it has already been proved that Superpowers are more than happy to leap in guns blazing in the name of 'ethics', whether we like it or not, they play a role.
Edit: The real irony with 'someone else will do it if we don't' is that, once one group does it, everyone else will follow, so, rather than prevent something bad, it actually propagates it.
-
So if someone discovered the cure for the common cold, cancer and aids would you withdraw treatment from those who are afflicted by it? After all, "you'd have a population explosion the likes of which the world has never seen".
Death isn't a illlnes.
There is a big difference between finding cure for the sick and spending money and research on crap like this.
You all are chicken. Death is not to be feared. It happens. It's part of life.
People should focus on living what years they have in a good fashion, instead of wasting time trying to prolong those years.
-
So if someone discovered the cure for the common cold, cancer and aids would you withdraw treatment from those who are afflicted by it? After all, "you'd have a population explosion the likes of which the world has never seen".
Death isn't a illness.
There is a big difference between finding cure for the sick and spending money and research on crap like this.
You all are chicken. Death is not to be feared. It happens. It's part of life.
People should focus on living what years they have in a good fashion, instead of wasting time trying to prolong those years.
If there's an hypothetical medicine that prevents natural death, it becomes a disease/illness/condition/whatever just like any other. What prevents us from immediately thinking so is because it's such a long standing... illness! :p
If people didn't focus on prolonging life, we wouldn't live past 20 or 30. And if I'm chicken because I welcome a way to prolong life, so be it. You on the other hand would get the same merit for being afraid of change. It happens. It's part of life. :p
-
If there's an hypothetical medicine that prevents natural death, it becomes a disease/illness/condition/whatever just like any other. What prevents us from immediately thinking so is because it's such a long standing... illness! :p
If people didn't focus on prolonging life, we wouldn't live past 20 or 30. And if I'm chicken because I welcome a way to prolong life, so be it. You on the other hand would get the same merit for being afraid of change. It happens. It's part of life. :p
This is a good post. Melikes.
-
Those advances could easily lead to to other discoveries leading to the cure for cancer,
Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to the wall.
-
Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to the wall.
Speak for yourself. I feel that I get that most of the time in Off-Topic Discussion and General FreeSpace Discussion.
-
If there's an hypothetical medicine that prevents natural death, it becomes a disease/illness/condition/whatever just like any other. What prevents us from immediately thinking so is because it's such a long standing... illness! :p
bullcrap.
Everything dies. Everything has an end. It's the law of the universe...entropy, chaos. You're just afraid to accept that fact.
If people didn't focus on prolonging life, we wouldn't live past 20 or 30. And if I'm chicken because I welcome a way to prolong life, so be it. You on the other hand would get the same merit for being afraid of change. It happens. It's part of life. :p
bullcrap again. Teh human lifespan has changed little since the beginning. Humans reached 80 years even in ye old times.
-
Everything dies. Everything has an end. It's the law of the universe...entropy, chaos. You're just afraid to accept that fact.
Hey. As I said before, this isn't about eternal life. This is just elongating your lifespan until you trip and fall, get into a car accident, catch super AIDS, get mauled by a pitbull, etc. etc. This isn't immortality. This is just adding a few extra years onto your life. It's like taking medicine. No difference, it's just on a larger scale.
bullcrap again. Teh human lifespan has changed little since the beginning. Humans reached 80 years even in ye old times.
Evidence for this fact?
-
If there's an hypothetical medicine that prevents natural death, it becomes a disease/illness/condition/whatever just like any other. What prevents us from immediately thinking so is because it's such a long standing... illness! :p
bullcrap.
Everything dies. Everything has an end. It's the law of the universe...entropy, chaos. You're just afraid to accept that fact.
If there is a medicine that prevents natural death, people will not die natural deaths. Starvation and other diseases are another thing entirely. It's not about fear, it's about prolonging life. Just because you don't like it, and I do, doesn't mean it's about fear of dying.
If people didn't focus on prolonging life, we wouldn't live past 20 or 30. And if I'm chicken because I welcome a way to prolong life, so be it. You on the other hand would get the same merit for being afraid of change. It happens. It's part of life. :p
bullcrap again. The human lifespan has changed little since the beginning. Humans reached 80 years even in ye old times.
Because if people focus on prolonging their life, they will. Just because you don't see the minor ways to do this, doesn't mean it's not true. Personal hygiene comes to mind. So does having a balanced diet, exercising, etc... The only civilizations with such a great recorded longevity I remember are the ancient Greeks and Romans. Who took this very seriously.
-
Lets all stab ourselves!
-
Lets all stab ourselves!
If the world continues to pervert like this, I'm in.
-
Extending life using hygiene etc is a completely different thing to tinkering with things at a genetic level on a perfectly healthy organism.
Even those extended lifespans through hygiene have put pressure on humanity in general, the UK currently has far more old people than young and this is going to be a dilemma by the time I retire, there won't be enough people working to support out pensions which companies are happily spending.
It's not a question of what is 'ethical' or 'right' or anything, it's the fact that we simply aren't in a position to do it, and we certainly don't understand enough about the situation to do it safely, it's playing dice with genetics of an entire species that already makes higher demands of the environment than it can meet.
Playing with genetics is fair enough, we need to practice to learn, but the problem with many scientists is that they live so much in the world of hypothesis that some do not bother to look out their window and see fact.
-
If the world continues to pervert like this, I'm in.
Hopefully you won't have to stab anyone. Chances are we're gonna f*** ourselves up bad enough without any personal help from you.
But hey, be my guest. Go stab people.
*dons a titanium full plate armor*
-
Extending life using hygiene etc is a completely different thing to tinkering with things at a genetic level on a perfectly healthy organism.
That distinction is arbitrary and subjective.
-
Extending life using hygiene etc is a completely different thing to tinkering with things at a genetic level on a perfectly healthy organism.
That distinction is arbitrary and subjective.
Not to mention that you don't build up a strong immune system by killing every sort of bacteria in your surroundings.
-
No it isn't, it's factual and definite.
We aren't talking about removing a parasite from on or in a cell here, we are talking about tinkering with things at a sub-cellular level. Like Stem Cell treatment etc, they are a completely different ball game from pasteurisation, antiseptics and other hygeine based products, one focuses on preventing infection, the other on treating them, one has no impact on the cells themselves, other than preventing infection, the other is all about affecting the cells directly.
And the whole 'sterile society' reducing immunity thing has been a subject of discussion for years.
I'm beginning to understand how MP-Ryan feels, people don't want to understand.
-
Why are you surprised? They never do.
After all, such things would wreck their dreams of ruling the world from a mighty throne for centuries.
-
Why are you surprised? They never do.
After all, such things would wreck their dreams of ruling the world from a mighty throne for centuries.
And the rest of creation be damned. Very depressing, but ultimately, very human.
It's not often I agree with you, but I do now, though we both approach the same conclusion from different directions ;)
-
I disagree with the both of you.
I think.. to everyone posting in this thread, this is all about things that may happen way in the future. We're all pushing daisies for quite some time so to speak.
I mean.. can you truly say these kind of things aren't possible in 200 years.. maybe 500? You base this on what? To think we have all the answers in this age, is frankly foolish. But I'm sure people will make that claim well into the future, as they have for hundreds of years.
There are much smarter people in the world who see this kind of research as a real discipline in its own right. Yet you're saying that it is never going to happen? Never, ever?
-
Well, as I've said previously, I'd like it to happen, but not yet, we aren't capable of dealing with it from either a resource or a social point of view.
I have no doubt whatsoever that it WILL happen one day, but I think it's going to be good few generations before it does, and I think that is for the best on the large scale, even if it isn't from a personal perspective.
Edit: One place I can see such treatments being utilised is if we choose to start using things like 'Generation ships' to find other habitable planets etc, once we have the space and resources to live longer as a race, then things will be a lot less pressured on Earth.
-
There are much smarter people in the world who see this kind of research as a real discipline in its own right. Yet you're saying that it is never going to happen? Never, ever?
It would require a complete restructuring of our gene, chromatin, and chromosome repair systems coupled with the ability to make in vivo changes in whole organisms, plus a reprogramming of both the antibody- and cell-mediated immune responses (to deal with cancer). I personally don't believe such advances are possible, because for each system altered we're required to alter all its component and related systems - and this is just at the nucleotide/gene level, nevermind physical structure. Essentially, you'd have to recreate the entire human organism from the genetic level.
Considering our evolution to date took approximately 2.8 billion years from a single cell to the present and our current level of advancement, I don't see biologic al immortality as a realistic possibility in the future of the human species. In order for such a thing to be possible, the species would not be able to exist in its present genotypic or phenotypic form.
-
I never claimed cancer could be prevented, see my earlier post. I do think that in the future, we can specifically target cancerous cells during treatment.
-
I think extension is possible, I don't think immortality is, however, for all we know, cutting out the problems we know exist will create a whole batch that we didn't, but if you consider that, less than 70 years after the first powered flight we were strolling around on the moon, I suppose making definitive comments on the future is difficult to do with accuracy.
-
I think extension is possible, I don't think immortality is, however, for all we know, cutting out the problems we know exist will create a whole batch that we didn't, but if you consider that, less than 70 years after the first powered flight we were strolling around on the moon, I suppose making definitive comments on the future is difficult to do with accuracy.
Well, some people did think, 13 years ago, that we'll be using much more modern transport by now... :nervous:
-
This thread is screaming to have a science fiction novel written around it.
-
We aren't talking about removing a parasite from on or in a cell here, we are talking about tinkering with things at a sub-cellular level. Like Stem Cell treatment etc, they are a completely different ball game from pasteurisation, antiseptics and other hygeine based products, one focuses on preventing infection, the other on treating them, one has no impact on the cells themselves, other than preventing infection, the other is all about affecting the cells directly.
How is saying outside cell good, inside cell bad not entirely arbitrary?
-
This thread is screaming to have a science fiction novel written around it.
It's a Brave New World with such people in it. ;)
-
We aren't talking about removing a parasite from on or in a cell here, we are talking about tinkering with things at a sub-cellular level. Like Stem Cell treatment etc, they are a completely different ball game from pasteurisation, antiseptics and other hygeine based products, one focuses on preventing infection, the other on treating them, one has no impact on the cells themselves, other than preventing infection, the other is all about affecting the cells directly.
How is saying outside cell good, inside cell bad not entirely arbitrary?
I didn't make a judgement on 'Good' or 'Bad', I said they were different, and that extending life in the current world-situation is not a wise course. Good or Bad doesn't even come into it, for about the eighth time.
-
They are different in method, but rather the same in goal.
-
It's the difference between lubricating the engine, and redesigning it.
-
They are different in method, but rather the same in goal.
One is prevention, the other is treatment. You could say that anything medically related has the same goal, that doesn't mean they are all the same thing.
-
It's the difference between lubricating the engine, and redesigning it.
Good, this engine needs a good redesign. It's obviously poorly designed; whichever supreme being came up with it should be very ashamed.
One is prevention, the other is treatment. You could say that anything medically related has the same goal, that doesn't mean they are all the same thing.
Isn't prevention usually better than treatment?
And why is any of this a reason not to pursue this area of research? Just in case it leads to something bad?
-
Hygiene is prevention, sub-cellular alteration would probably best be described as immunisation, and like all immunisation, there's no promise that the 'disease' being treated won't adapt to it.
Like antibiotics, there's no promise that anything we do will be permanent, biology changes constantly, which is another reason why we have to understand precisely what we are doing before we start fiddling on any large scale, the worst case scenario is that we put ourselves back at square one, or make some change that leaves us vulnerable in another way, or does some damage that doesn't even reveal itself until much later.
That's why we have to be careful, and we have to be sure.
Edit: It's a trap even a fair number of scientists fall into frequently, they assume that Man is the end product of evolution, and forget that our own bodies are evolving and mutating with each generation, as well as every organism around it.
-
This thread is screaming to have a science fiction novel written around it.
Isaac Asimov's Elijah Baley novels explore the sociological effects of the idea, to some extent. I wouldn't read them just for this, but I would read them because they're totally awesome. :p
-
Also, check out some of the stuff by Kurt Vonnegut Jr, particuarly his short stories like 2BR02B.
-
Good, this engine needs a good redesign. It's obviously poorly designed; whichever supreme being came up with it should be very ashamed.
"Hello? Yes we can reserve a table for one. What name? Spicious? Allright, done..Yeah Chief, we'll make sure he has a pleasant stay at Hell's Inn."
-
I could give examples, but in the spirit of this thread I have to go with not a problem, I plan to live forever.
-
*readies pistol*
You sure about that? The living forever part? :snipe:
No, seriously, humanity is not ready for this. It probably never will be.
-
I never claimed cancer could be prevented, see my earlier post. I do think that in the future, we can specifically target cancerous cells during treatment.
We can do that now.
However, ALL types of cancer treatment rely on an immune system that is still capable of killing cancerous cells because (1) no treatment reaches every part of the human body and (2) treatment doesn't catch cells on their way to becoming cancerous. People think of cancer as a discrete disease - it's not. Cancer is an ongoing process that happens to cells in our body every single day of our lives. It's when that process gets out of hand and is not countered by the immune system that things get ugly.
So regardless of cellular targeting, the immune system must be an integral component of any comprehensive strategy to combat cancer. As I already mentioned, viral solutions are very real and a promising means of destroying manifest cancer cells. Most current research is focussing specifically on adenovirus as a delivery mechanism.
-
If this goes to the UK Gordon Brown will start forcing it on people, then somehow we'll find out it dumbs down people's brains, and Britain will become a country of retards, just like its leaders.
-
New technologies are one thing, pissing in the gene pool is another altogether.
People would still have children, maybe not as many as now but it will still happen.
I'm not saying it should never happen, what I'm saying is that we have enough problems to deal with, let's sort those out before making more.
We'll always have "problems" of some kind or another. At the turn of the 20th century the top causes of death were TB and pnuemonia. Now it's heart disease, cancer, and for an increasing number of people old age.
But people will, quite literally, see it as fighting for their lives, there will be a rich section of society who are benefitting from the Holy Grail of human existence. Those who go without will see it as being deliberately withheld to 'keep the little guy down'.
Which is a political and economics problem.
As for the resources issue you mentioned, I think in such a situation that this would more than anything justify further expansion and exploitation of space.
Health benefits become a stranglehold.
Not if healthcare is socialized, like in every other developed nation.
Suddenly a DUI doesn't mean you're restricted from working for 40 years - it dictates your life for the next 300. Do people really deserve that?
I'm going to assume you meant driving and not working. 40 years is still a long time to go without driving, and no doubt it would have a major influence on someone's habits
Think high school is vicious now? Think again. People talk about how it shapes the person you'll be for the rest of your life. Imagine when centuries are at stake - parents, kids, and teachers all fighting to get out alive and make the best of those early years of life.
For the most part my high school wasn't vicious at all, in fact it might be less so because you would have a lot more time in your life to learn the same stuff.
Countries' governments hardly change except for assassinations and wars. The outgoing generation is no longer concerned with the up-and-coming generation, but with the people still with 150 years to go
The outgoing generation in many countries (especially the US) already doesn't care about future generations. If the current generation in the US really cared about us, the up and coming generation then why spend $1 trillion a year on a bloated military while at the same time running up massive debts and cutting back on education? By the end of next year the debt is expected to be $10 trillion, and I've heard estimates of $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities for future medicare and social security. Guess who is expected to foot the bill? That's right, our generation. Do our leaders offer any real solutions to this? Not really. Why should they? It won't affect them too much since when the ****storm really hits they'll be dead and dying.
I think that a much longer lifespan would force us to finally take a longer view on things since our choices would affect US, not someone else at some point in the future.
Really what this article was about was that they held back aging for a relatively long while on a rat organ, and while that isn't biological immortality by a long shot, it's a good step in the right direction.
Although honestly, if I had to choose my path to immortality, I would probably choose the Deus Exian way: merging with our technology. Cookie to anyone who understands what I'm talking about.
-
People would still have children, maybe not as many as now but it will still happen.
Can you be certain of that? Do we have room for that? There are already countries in the world that have far more people than they can feed, and they haven't stopped having children yet. Humans aren't sensible.
We'll always have "problems" of some kind or another. At the turn of the 20th century the top causes of death were TB and pnuemonia. Now it's heart disease, cancer, and for an increasing number of people old age.
Than ask yourself why there is an increasing number of people dying of old age, could it possibly be because there are an increasing number of old people to do so?
As for resources etc, that's my entire point, I'm not quite sure how many times I have to say that I don't think it's impossible or even immoral, just a really bad idea at this moment in time before people actually read it, we need to grow, mature and expand first.
-
As for resources etc, that's my entire point, I'm not quite sure how many times I have to say that I don't think it's impossible or even immoral, just a really bad idea at this moment in time before people actually read it, we need to grow, mature and expand first.
Children who are always sheltered seldom become mature.
Than ask yourself why there is an increasing number of people dying of old age, could it possibly be because there are an increasing number of old people to do so?
It's just another problem, people are still dying but just a little later than before.
Can you be certain of that? Do we have room for that? There are already countries in the world that have far more people than they can feed, and they haven't stopped having children yet. Humans aren't sensible.
If they were limited either by the treatment or by regulation then it wouldn't be a problem. But either way, we really will need to push into space big time in order for this to be practical. Space has plenty of space and resources.
-
Children who are always sheltered seldom become mature.
And letting them go off and do anything that looks like a good idea at the time reduces the chance of them becoming adults.
In essence I agree with you, we need space, we need resources, and until we have those, this is adding to the very problem of people dying later than before, it takes a problem and makes it into a catastrophe.
-
I think the problem with resources doesn't have to do with the number of people, just that they are divided unevenly. In the western world, the amount of resources that gets wasted on a yearly basis would easily fill what's missing in third world countries.
Some of those resources, perhaps a lot, come from those same third world countries. Rather a result of weak local governing than too many people on this world.
Another example are plantations that focus on resources like cotton, which can not feed the hungry. The fact that such fertile ground is used for such is a result of commercial interest and again bad governments.
Consider the discrepancy in the relationship between population density and lack of resources to feed the population. The problem is not the amount of people, but how the resources are allocated.
-
Indeed, there is a high level of imbalance in the spread of the worlds resources, always has been, even back when the UK were stripping India of anything they wanted.
It's things like that which need to be resolved first, we have countries where people are lucky if they make it to 25, to me, that's more important than people hitting 500.
-
Indeed, there is a high level of imbalance in the spread of the worlds resources, always has been, even back when the UK were stripping India of anything they wanted.
It's things like that which need to be resolved first, we have countries where people are lucky if they make it to 25, to me, that's more important than people hitting 500.
100% :yes:
-
If people live longer then obviously they'll accumulate more financially, the mortgage market will suffer in the longterm as more and more people who would normally die and free up space in the property market, don't. And we're forced into concrete and steel "habitation cubes".
-
Health benefits become a stranglehold.
Not if healthcare is socialized, like in every other developed nation.
Then healthcare would become a stranglehold, which has equally potent ramifications. With the ability to provide a treatment to prolong life, the government has regulatory ability over how long people live.
Suddenly a DUI doesn't mean you're restricted from working for 40 years - it dictates your life for the next 300. Do people really deserve that?
I'm going to assume you meant driving and not working. 40 years is still a long time to go without driving, and no doubt it would have a major influence on someone's habits
No, working. If you get a DUI it will influence your ability to get hired for jobs. The same holds true for other things - you could be excluded from certain careers for centuries just because a job's requirements are written so that if you ever did one thing, you can never have that job. For instance, suppose one job states you have to be a natural-born citizen of that country. What if you've lived in that country for 180 years? Does that still mean you can't take the job? With current regulations today, probably. But that makes less sense when there's much greater time for people to change and develop, and also to form new emotional connections.
Here's a fun question - what if a 40-year-old living in jail got a 160-year sentence (without parole, etc), and now he can outlive that sentence if he's provided treatment to extend his lifetime? Since the sentence he got was effectively a death sentence, does he have a right to that treatment or must the original intent of the ruling be respected? Can he be retried or his case reviewed in some manner?
On the plus side, copyright laws would be a bit more reasonable.
-
Children who are always sheltered seldom become mature.
And letting them go off and do anything that looks like a good idea at the time reduces the chance of them becoming adults.
In essence I agree with you, we need space, we need resources, and until we have those, this is adding to the very problem of people dying later than before, it takes a problem and makes it into a catastrophe.
We do, but we dont have the will power to get to it. There's plenty of room and resources on the moon, mars, and the asteroid belt.
Then healthcare would become a stranglehold, which has equally potent ramifications. With the ability to provide a treatment to prolong life, the government has regulatory ability over how long people live.
At least in government we have a voice, and if they fail to provide good care the officials either get voted out of office or face a revolution. The best healthcare systems in the world are socialized, particularly western european.
Would you rather have this treatment be distributed by a private, for profit corperation that answers to no one? That would no doubt charge outragous prices for it that only the elite can afford? Looks like even less of a solution to me.
-
well then it would seem the new world would favor people who think in the long term, people have there whole lives organized around making enough money to retire, what if they organized there lives around making enough money to afford a life extension allowing them to continue there productive lives.
and the world is overpopulated, with what are quite frankly stupid and thus poor people. the parts of the world who would be receiving this in any great quantity would be the parts of the world wich are currently experiencing population decline. the rich smart people already plan ahead, don't have many kids cause they are a financial burden. this only becomes a world wide recource problem if you insist on giveing it away to anyone who didn't earn it.
human evolution has come to a standstill, if we are going to advance we must do it ourselves, this halfway bull**** is going to get us killed.