So basically the theory goes: there are a dozen or a few dozen basic biological reasons for aging and ultimately dying. The current science is making advances that with high probability will be able to solve a few of those in the not so far future. For example a few months ago if I'm not mistaken some scientists were able to make their mice live 25% longer by injecting them with some enzyme or whatshallmecallit thingy. The details here aren't relevant. The fact is that advances like that are being made. And again the theory goes that if you're lucky and rich enough and all that and get that first incremental treatment that causes you to live longer you might live long enough to get a second treatment (of a different kind) that causes you to live even longer and so on until eventually you get into a car accident or you're struck down by lightning no doubt originating from some rather furious gods. But in theory by getting these solutions or drugs people of today would be able to live forever.
Now I started thinking about it ... (this is the good part) ... and I spotted a few rather obvious flaws in this plan. Specifically 'I' won't be able to live for a thousand years because of a few simple probabilistic reasons. So I think that while no doubt this Aubrey de Grey guy is a better scientist than me he's far too optimistic in his approach and the whole "Longevity escape velocity" is bogus because it's only a small part of the equation and obviously too simplistic because it assumes that we are able to come up with these incremental solutions in regular and sufficiently short intervals.
1) The problem is that people die of different causes and although conceptually irrelevant here, most of these causes are not considered natural. I would go as far to guess that these few dozens of basic biological reasons don't affect all people in the same order. This in turn means that if we are able to come up with a solution or drug to some of those causes in 30 years and extend the average life expectancy by 30 years it would only work for a fraction of all subjects. This again means that the next 'patch' so to say while extending the average life expectancy of all subjects will only help a fraction of the ones who were helped by the first patch. And so on until none of the original beneficiaries survive. Being among the last ones to survive is highly improbable.
2) The second biggest problem as I see it is that this theory assumes absolute reliability and success of the treatments and the order in which they are developed. I'm not talking about immediate effectiveness. Every one of those treatments may extend the life of someone by a number of years but it is almost impossible to know whether they will work in a succession and whether they don't change something for the worse in the long run. Perhaps they will change something that we just don't have enough time to fix and a generation or two of 170-year-olds will die.
So basically I think that in moderately distant future the average lifespan of a person will be extended by a significant amount but it's just too bold to assume that any of us will be able to benefit from the whole chain of incremental advances/drugs/solutions. It's just too improbable that things will turn out this way. Still a fun thing to fantasize about
Didn't bother to watch the TED video (not a fan), but I don't see why we can't fix parts of our bodies over and over; we do it already, just not well enough to prolong life indefinitely. IIRC the estimated European life span two hundred years ago was closer to about half what it is now. Travelling is also statistically "safer" than it was in the past - a lot of activities are. there are only speed bumps, IMO, no stop signs.
The word "immortality" is being misused a bit here, as it general is. Technically speaking, "immortal" means "undying." Generally, though, it is used to mean the type of immortality that Highlanders and Tolkien elves possess--not subject to aging, but able to die through other methods. What we're really talking about here, I think, is being able to stop or overcome the effects of aging. Even if we were to make life completely safe, we still wouldn't be immortal, because we could still be killed.
Anyway, I would tend to agree with reisio--I don't really see any reason why we would not eventually be able to overcome the effects of aging in one way or another. Whether or not our planet would be able to support the accompanying population growth is another story--plenty of areas are having a hard enough time as it is with people dying in (on average) well under a century.
[Edit: Oh, I didn't watch the TED video either. Sorry.]
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 03-02-2009 14:33
I know that Mankind will find scientific ways to extend life expectancy.
This is because it is a PRIMAL drive - to survive. It is something that Mankind has pursued since
time immortal. And as scientific knowledge drives back the unknown, especially in biology, and more specifically,
in the area of the human body, ways to repair cells, DNA, nerves, etc will come into existence, as will treatments that rejuvenate the
human body as well.
The real question is how much time will it give, how optimized will it become, and will it be economically feasible?
I think the first types of treatments will be crude, of course (and probably are already being done, or experimented with for humans). But
as advances are made, things will get more and more optimized.
I mean, here is where the money is - if you can offer a type of rejuvenation (and it actually works), people will be prepared to pay anything to obtain it.
To that, comes the societal impact of such a thing, of course. This is where we should really be focusing our questions and thoughts - rejuvenation of the human body and the extention of life expectancy will become a reality. We need to start seriously considering the ramifications of such.
How do we deal with a workforce that is retiring at age X, but can life 10 times longer than that? To that, what does money really mean, when I can save a paltry sum (10$, say, a year) and live for thousands of years - eventually I will be a millionaire. In that sense, just about anyone will become rich with just a paltry amount of savings. What about the impact that has on the population?
The way I see it, something like this will of course drive Mankind to the stars. For there will not be enough space and resources on this planet to support such an advance.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
in my view immortality is juts a fascination from the concept of heaven and hell. i guess deep down we all realize that we have to die and life in this world has to end but our yearning for an eternal life makes us search for immortality.
From: Czech Republic via Bristol UK Insane since: Feb 2002
posted 12-11-2010 22:49
Hmm I prefer to think of immortality as something different, if you achieve something in life that you will be remembered for whether it be simply a great parent or artist, playwrite as long as you are remembered or talked about then really you have become immortalised.
Ok perhaps this is a little bit of a broad subject ... so lets talk about living 1000 years through incremental advances in medical science instead.I was reading this fascinating piece of fiction while my train of thought drifted away to a specific TED Talk that I had watched a while back: watch this to continue.So basically the theory goes: there are a dozen or a few dozen basic biological reasons for aging and ultimately dying. The current science is making advances that with high probability will be able to solve a few of those in the not so far future. For example a few months ago if I'm not mistaken some scientists were able to make their mice live 25% longer by injecting them with some enzyme or whatshallmecallit thingy. The details here aren't relevant. The fact is that advances like that are being made. And again the theory goes that if you're lucky and rich enough and all that and get that first incremental treatment that causes you to live longer you might live long enough to get a second treatment (of a different kind) that causes you to live even longer and so on until eventually you get into a car accident or you're struck down by lightning no doubt originating from some rather furious gods. But in theory by getting these solutions or drugs people of today would be able to live forever.Now I started thinking about it ... (this is the good part) ... and I spotted a few rather obvious flaws in this plan. Specifically 'I' won't be able to live for a thousand years because of a few simple probabilistic reasons. So I think that while no doubt this Aubrey de Grey guy is a better scientist than me he's far too optimistic in his approach and the whole "Longevity escape velocity" is bogus because it's only a small part of the equation and obviously too simplistic because it assumes that we are able to come up with these incremental solutions in regular and sufficiently short intervals.1) The problem is that people die of different causes and although conceptually irrelevant here, most of these causes are not considered natural. I would go as far to guess that these few dozens of basic biological reasons don't affect all people in the same order. This in turn means that if we are able to come up with a solution or drug to some of those causes in 30 years and extend the average life expectancy by 30 years it would only work for a fraction of all subjects. This again means that the next 'patch' so to say while extending the average life expectancy of all subjects will only help a fraction of the ones who were helped by the first patch. And so on until none of the original beneficiaries survive. Being among the last ones to survive is highly improbable.2) The second biggest problem as I see it is that this theory assumes absolute reliability and success of the treatments and the order in which they are developed. I'm not talking about immediate effectiveness. Every one of those treatments may extend the life of someone by a number of years but it is almost impossible to know whether they will work in a succession and whether they don't change something for the worse in the long run. Perhaps they will change something that we just don't have enough time to fix and a generation or two of 170-year-olds will die.So basically I think that in moderately distant future the average lifespan of a person will be extended by a significant amount but it's just too bold to assume that any of us will be able to benefit from the whole chain of incremental advances/drugs/solutions. It's just too improbable that things will turn out this way. Still a fun thing to fantasize about
The Japanese as a people live the longest...stats is 100 yrs. With them its all about attitude, diet and exercise..but i wouldn't want to live any longer than I have to. Even with new advancements in the sciences, most of our bodily functions will give out. Especially our bladders.. been to a nursing home? You will smell the pee all over the place no matter how clean they keep it. When u age you cannot digest like you us too. It gets stuck. You have to live on metamucil. Can't eat the spicy foods either or it will send u to the hospital. So..who wants to live way past 100 with the weak bones and arithitis and wearing diapers all the time.
My aunt who is 89 and is still active wears those stretchy pants and u can see she is wearing a diaper.
On the outside, there is so much plastic surgery that can prolong in the asthetics..but I would hate to be sliced and prodded all the time. Many of the movie stars faces are so stretched they look like aliens. Or really un-attractive. They may find a wonder shot or treatment to rejuvinate the skin cells, but to me that is only a temporary.
My family on both sides live very long lives. I have 3 aunts that are in the early 90s and don't need a cane to walk. Many have died at a very old age..This can be because of genetics. So far, there have been no cancers in my family even the elderly thank God.
I do hope they find a wonder pill the keeps us thin or at an ideal weight where we don't have to worry about weight.
It's definitely a neat concept but it's probably a concept which will always remain science fiction.
Our monumental step forward in science and technology has coincided with virtually no real gain in lifespan in 200,000 years and I don't see that changing any time soon. We might be able to delay the inevitable by a decade or two into the future but that's about it, IMO.
Advances in stem cell research has done practically nothing to increase the average lifespan and I just don't think it ever will to any significant extent. Treating illness or regrowing a limb is certainly ground breaking and important but it hardly brings us any closer to immortality. The ability to grow a rejection free leg is a great comfort to someone who lost their leg but it's not all that different than a wooden peg in regard to immortality. I don't know what the future will bring but I tend to believe the human body is only designed for a certain amount of years and we're already getting close to that limit.
I honestly doubt regeneration and/or regrowth will come to fruition in any major capacity.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-15-2011 16:47
Jestah, the ability to regenerate damage to the body is the key to immortality here - at least, when talking about the human body.
Basically, the body has most of these functions when growing, then reaches an apex, and then starts to decline as the cells themselves reach their limits of being able to divide (re: produce new ones) and die.
Stem cells are like "blank cells" - they are the building blocks of cells so to speak, the foundation, but are like blank slates waiting to become a certain cell. They are fresh, new cells, so to speak.
Being able to control this aspect of the human body, without including the ethic aspect of the Stem Cell debate, was (and now is) paramount to moving forwards in this exciting new field of medical science. As it is now possible to create Stem Cells from human skin cells, the ethic aspect has been removed.
I know of several new applications of this science that has been applied, successfully. For example, those with Parkinsons disease. I suspect that Stem Cell research will produce some fairly interesting things in the near future. Research for more.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:So, is euthanasia acceptable to you Jade?
Just wondering.
no...why would I want another person to put me out of my misery. If I want to die I will just let myself die if I can.
quote:So how would you feel about living longer in the body of a 20 year old, Jade?
I could honestly say,,I wish I could go back to 20 to re-do things I have done better or make different choices I have made but in regard to the vanity thing, who wouldnt like to look younger or feel better. But.....I am thinking I want to see what the end has in store for me. I will be ready to checkout when the time comes.
I blame evolution for death. I mean, death is a key element of the system.
In quite a few ways we have already out-grown evolution. Will we be able to out-grow death and keep the rest? How does consciousness fit into evolution? It is quite the monkey wrench.
It is hard to say if we will be able to truly smirk at death. Our brains may not be capable of it. Literally. When brain cells die, the others grow to fill the space. You will eventually be left with a handful of brain cells that are absolutely huge and complex. Will consciousness be the same in such a state? How will it change the individual over long periods of time? Even if stem cell research can fill the voids with new cells, the same kind of conundrum still exists: how will the individual be affected?
I would love to keep a great deal of my memories and my mental capabilities. Is there a point to being immortal if I am a completely different person every few centuries? Will this kind of mental death be worse than physical death?
The time of death is a choice. Given the ability of some monks to extend their capabilities and produce enough heat to dry out wet blankets in a cold room (see "The mystical minute" thread),
what if I told you aging can be controlled the same way.
And what if I showed you things about the topic? Let's start with science and one of the finest psychologists, Carl Jung. A medical doctor who changed the face of science forever.
Find me a book, that he commented from Chinese, and I will show you the way to
the method described in that book.
you can live a 1000 years without any food or shelter. though that's the idea. everyone wants to live at least a 100 years without clothing and water. but noone can even last a day without TV and a car.
So why does everyone think that living is going to be easy when they have money? I'd say that you can have at least 1 meal a day with 1 car trip a day and 1 shower a day with $100 to spend in a week. Scared to try it? I've seen it on those TV survivor shows. Like the ones where it goes 'you have no food and water and live in a canopy' for a whole month. That's the closest thing to hitting rock bottom to living an immortal life.
But then again, what if being wrong about immortality proves that you've wasted your years on alcohol only to get drunk in the latter years? This would be due to intoxication for remedial clauses on your behalf. It didn't mean that it meant anything more than to try and use these chemicals or adhesives or daily consumptions for your pleasure, no. It was meant that you would survive at least a week with money and that you'd take care of yourself knowing that what you're doing is more of a morality issue rather than a self indulging gig.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-01-2011 14:57
quote:but noone can even last a day without TV and a car
I beg to differ - my family lived in the Northern California mountains (wilderness) for over a year without electricity, warm water, etc. We grew our own food, had animals, and used wood to heat with. Water came from a spring.
Those times are among the strongest of my memories, and the most pleasant.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Nah. It is not real. The life that you live isn't real unless you would call a home job real. That wouldn't make life worth living for.
So, most time is spent thinking of how to make money or use it. Living at your job is what makes life real. Your home is where you get to shrink your ego in front of your masculinity. There's never any shortage of that.
Wow, that's like living other people's lives. For me, living your life is what makes life real.
Like WebShaman, I don't live at my job. It's just something that I do. I live at home with a family. That's where my heart and my life is and I have never been happier..
I once lived in a remote place with no electricity and no TV or anything.. It was liberating..
posted 03-02-2009 00:54
... (this is the good part) ... and I spotted a few rather obvious flaws in this plan. Specifically 'I' won't be able to live for a thousand years because of a few simple probabilistic reasons. So I think that while no doubt this Aubrey de Grey guy is a better scientist than me he's far too optimistic in his approach and the whole "Longevity escape velocity" is bogus because it's only a small part of the equation and obviously too simplistic because it assumes that we are able to come up with these incremental solutions in regular and sufficiently short intervals.
