Clinical immortality- Do you want to live forever?

[Iam_a_Maid]

Originally Posted by The_Q

Ok, if we're going to argue the validity of this mystical statement to begin with...

No, there's no possible way that anybody is near this. If there was so much as a report that some scientist might be just a few steps away, it would have hit major news, people would be sending money in to help it along...etc. People want to live forever. Not me, but people. The economic impact of something that big so close would be huge and yet, it's not felt at all.

Wonder why?

It isn't happening. Back to your tabloids, men!

Q

Do you think one field will magically come up with a solution, this will be culmination of various fields work that will lead to longer lives. I already said that in one of my posts, read, please.

EDIT: Iam_a_maid...actual the very title of this thread mentions eternal life. Sorry, you're wrong.

You seems to be very inflexible, and try to interpret things to how they suit you, sorry to tell ya but world doesn't revolve around any one individual.

[church_pk]

Yeah, i kinda agree with Maid, just because it says eternal life doesn't mean the whole thread is closed to that one thing, after all, this is critical thinking, every idea is welcome if it suits the topic.

[The_Q]

Originally Posted by Iam_a_Maid

Do you think one field will magically come up with a solution, this will be culmination of various fields work that will lead to longer lives. I already said that in one of my posts, read, please.

Which proves me right one more time, this just isn't happening anytime soon. Even in following generations. If it were possible, people would be clamoring to get it done faster.

And, to you church, this thread is titled and mentions quite frequently the use of this technology for eternal life. Sure, you can bring up other things, but the topic of the thread is using the technology for that purpose. Posts in this thread are supposed to regard this, otherwise they don't belong in the thread. I don't make the rules, guys, I just think they're a good way to keep discussion from flying around into nonsense (like arguments over how broad we should argue).

While we're on rules, if you have a problem with me, Iam_a_Maid, don't bring it up in a thread. Tell me personally. It doesn't belong out here. Thanks for reading the rules, guys.

Q

[jburden]

I've read several articles mentioning people who's life work is to try and allow immortality, and personally, its got a long way to go.

From what I've read, each person had a different outlook to gain this immportality. Me, personally, feels that the only way to really allow immortality is in the effects of something we could call ying and yang.

Our body ages through a certain, say "clock", which strides us forward. Finding a way to oppose the force of this clock with a equal force would then allow the growth rate to cancel to null with this opposite force, hence in theory allow your body to stay at the same state.

Some people have gone a natural way in which herbs and other things of mother earth is a way for immortality, others have suggested nanobots that regulate the body and use nutrients as its main source of fuel to keep going, others suggest that a new generation of humans will eventually gain immortality, and others have been brought up.

Generally, with all the methods and theories revolving around this immortality, I just see it as people not knowing which way to approuch immortality in the first place. The only "path" people have considered was Nicholas Flame and his stone, but those were during his times....though there still exist today some faithful who believe the stone and his family members still exist today.

I...just don't see it coming soon, dispite what strides we take for science. Its something that takes too much energy to accomplish, too much funds, and as of right know we don't have some infinate source of energy nor a stable "world economy" to look up to, so generally if we assume its going on some path to being accomplished, it still will be sluggish.

I'm not throwing the idea of immortality out the window, just I don't think we will be seeing it for the next fifty to one hundred years.

[_A2P]

I have thought about living forever. It seems sweet. However, as selfish as this sounds, the condition would be that I would be the only immortal person in society. Why?

Because I dont want to be with the same people forever. Sure, you'll stay connected, but if everyone's doing it, then what's the point of seeing how stuff can change?

[Iam_a_Maid]

Originally Posted by The_Q

Which proves me right one more time, this just isn't happening anytime soon. Even in following generations. If it were possible, people would be clamoring to get it done faster.

And, to you church, this thread is titled and mentions quite frequently the use of this technology for eternal life. Sure, you can bring up other things, but the topic of the thread is using the technology for that purpose. Posts in this thread are supposed to regard this, otherwise they don't belong in the thread. I don't make the rules, guys, I just think they're a good way to keep discussion from flying around into nonsense (like arguments over how broad we should argue).

How do you know they aren't clamoring? ;o I doubt you ever actively sought answers to this. All you are doing is saying something you wish to be true to suit your own wants.

While we're on rules, if you have a problem with me, Iam_a_Maid, don't bring it up in a thread. Tell me personally. It doesn't belong out here. Thanks for reading the rules, guys.

Q

Why would I have problem with you? I simply disagree with your point of view, learn to handle critique. There is nothing personal. Just when you post in CT. Think.

[GuidoHunter]

Were there a clamor, anyone who pays any sort of attention to the news would have heard about it. Remember, this is a world-changing treatment/drug/whatever. The onus is still on you and church, maid, to provide one iota of evidence that we could live forever or at least significantly beyond a human's life expectancy.

Until then, this thread is practically worthless.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Iam_a_Maid]

This thread is indeed worthless to some degree. It either will happen within reasonable time or not, regardless of what we type in here. This is CT though, it's just interesting to talk about things even if we can't do anything at all.

[GuidoHunter]

Well, the problem is that the OP stated that this will indeed be possible in the very near future. I think that it's not true. He has yet to back up his claims at all. That makes for poor discussion. Had he just asked what we would think if it were possible, that would have been avoided.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[church_pk]

Ok, The thread is not worthless unless you contribute ideas and thoughts towards the topics within the thread. I've done a little research now and i think i can add a little more to the i guess broad or vague description i gave of the topic. From what i've found:

As a follow up to the wisdom of actuaries on the near future of healthy life expectancy, Reuters sent a reporter to chat with biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey: "Ultra-long lifespans are so far the stuff of science fiction, [but] it is no longer just a dream that people may live decades longer than they do now, de Grey said. The gerontologist said that while some people are skeptical, or even hostile, to the idea that the average lifespan will lengthen, scientific advances are likely to make this a reality. As a result, lifestyles will change. ... decades-longer lives may change traditional patterns of family life, careers, retirement, education and child-raising and force radical changes to pensions. ... These are things that people with expertise with financial planning need to take on board now." Not to mention the rest of us as well - don't expect other people to look after your future health and financial stability. It's up to you to craft the best possible future for yourself.

Says: Tom Burroughes

Now,from what i can understand, a lot of the articles Tom Burroughes has written, a lot of it has to do with the cures for cancer, heart disease, and a lot of other types of illnesses that the elderly are often plagued with. There is also this other type of evolution, called "longevity evolution", which is ppurely just the stduy of humans and we we age, and just getting to understand it to the fullest. To figure out how to stop your cells and stop the aging process you must first overcome the mechanisms for longevity.

Stated:

Good basic science in this paper, relating biochemistry, evolution and mechanisms for longevity: "The amino acids sequences of the mitochondrial DNA-coded peptides of placental mammals evolved at different rates in different branches of the mammalian phylogenetic tree. ... Mitochondria generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) that appear to constrain the life span of many species. Therefore, I tested the hypothesis that the evolution of mammalian longevity drives the accelerated evolution of mitochondrial DNA-coded peptides. ... It is suggested that, in mammals, adaptive selection of mutations that decrease the rate of production of reactive oxygen species, [directly or indirectly], increases longevity." Longevity need not be selected for directly. Reliability theory suggests that gains in health and function during youth selected for in this manner will incidentally lead to increased longevity - less oxidative damage leads to a longer life.

From where we sit, at the dawn of the biotech era, it is encouraging for our own prospects that species such as tortoises (and some whales) are capable of such extreme longevity. They aren't that different from us in the grand scheme of things, which would suggest that radical life extension via advanced biochemical and genetic manipulation - a large step beyond the present tinkering with metabolism - is a viable strategy for research in the decades ahead.

Like it or not, "anti-aging" now has a number of quite different common meanings and connotations. Each is championed by a particular group or loose coalition of interests, but advocates for these groups have a way of diving into the fray without defining their terms. This makes reading about anti-aging techniques, technologies, medicine, products, and debates very confusing for the newcomer.

* For the scientific community, anti-aging research refers exclusively to slowing, preventing, or reversing the aging process. There is, as of 2005, no medical technology that allows this to be done - although the jury is still out on calorie restriction in humans. Nor is there any currently available method (short of waiting for people to die) to accurately measure the effects of an alleged anti-aging therapy.

* In the medical and more reputable business community, anti-aging medicine means early detection, prevention, and reversal of age-related diseases. This is quite different from tackling the aging process itself, and a wide array of strategies and therapies are currently available. Calorie restriction, for example, is a demonstrated way to lower risk for a wide range of age-related degenerative conditions.

* The wider business community - including a great many fraudulent and frivolous ventures - views "anti-aging" as a valuable brand and a demonstrated way to increase sales. At the worse end of the scale, this leads to snake oil salesmen, "anti-aging" cremes that may or may not make your skin look younger, and infomercials that tout the "anti-aging" benefits of exercise machines. Broadly, and very charitably, we can look at these varied definitions of anti-aging as meaning "to look and feel younger in some way" - which has no bearing on how long you live or how healthy you actually are.

The confusion of most interest is between the first two definitions. Many interventions lengthen life span for individuals by preventing or curing specific age-related diseases that would otherwise prove fatal. For example, ask yourself whether preventing heart disease or diabetes is anti-aging medicine. This would have no effect on the aging process, but it would help many people to live longer, healthier lives. Is this anti-aging research? Scientists say no, some medical and business groups say yes.

It is very difficult to attain the EXACT information about the subject, because most of the theories haven't really been tested, or had much time put through to them. I can tell you that it is no longer a dream, and is starting to become realistic, scientists predict that their goal will be reached or accomplished in a few decades, most likely 50 or 60 years, (like Maid said) and with the proper fundings and put forth time it can succeed. The whole thing that got this spark to start in technology is the thought that disease is what is cuasing mankinds life span to be cut short and not used to it's full potential.However, I am not an expert on the subject, I just expressed my thoughts and views and in hope for someone to contribute to help keep the ideas going. I've done the most research i can..and yeah i'll see what you guys have to comment on it. By all means correct me if i'm wrong at any time, which i expect anyway.

[Reach]

If it were possible, people would be clamoring to get it done faster.

This stuck me as udderly false and illogical.

Can I even begin to list of the implications of making someone immortal? The problems that would immediately arise, both moral, political, interpersonal, economical? Who's going to fund this research when there are more immediate things that can be developed? Who's going to fund it when the majority of the politcal party would be against it in the first place?

I don't even think right now, if we were able to immortalize ourselves it would even take off. It would be burried as fast as it rose. Cloning, anyone?

For example... Water as a fuel? I was reading some more information on it and a lot of people have been getting into it, it's definitely possible to run a motor on water.

Will it take off? Hah, I doubt it. Can you imagine how many money making fiends would go bankrupt? I mean, politics here. It'll never happen, atleast, not quickly. It will slowly emerge into the system as it HAS to, not because it can.


We can go to Mars. Hell, I'd say if we had to, 3 years. But we don't have to, which is why it will be prolonged as long as possible. The russians already said it would be possible in like 2 years as I recall, yet we probably won't put men on it untill 2040.


I wouldn't expect anyone to seriously start investing in developing something to make us immortal <_>


It'll come anyway. Just not in the way we think it'll come.

Immortality won't be a pill. It won't be cloning. It won't be anything like that. It'll be artificial intelligence ;o Assuming, which it should be, that it is possible to create something more intelligent and efficient than ourselves I don't see why it wouldn't begin to integrate into us and eventually replace us. Organs will begin to be replaced. People will start genetically modifying children. Artificial modifications to organs and body parts will begin to replace real ones ( pace maker is just the beginning ^_^)...and from there it will only continue.

Not like it's going to happen fast, but to me, it seems inevitable... unless it is impossible, but I doubt it. If completely natural processes eventually formed our brain, then it is possible to create one of equal or greater intelligence (much greater once we figure out how to replicate 'conciousness')...though I mean, if I was to guess we won't be artificial beings untill like, closer to 12000 AD maybe.

[talisman]

so how long could you keep someone in a coma alive? I feel like one could do it for quite some time.

[church_pk]

Well, according to Wikipedia, the longest period of time spent in a coma was by Elaine Esposito. She never woke up after being anaesthetized for an appendectomy on August 6, 1941, when age 6. She died on November 26, 1978 at age 43 years 357 days, having been in a coma for 37 years 111 days.

Comas generally last a few days to a few weeks, and rarely last more than 2 to 4 weeks. After this time, some patients gradually come out of the coma, some progress to a vegetative state, and others die. Many patients who have gone into a vegetative state go on to regain a degree of awareness. Others may remain in a vegetative state for years or even decades. Predicted chances of recovery are variable due to different techniques used to measure the extent of neurological damage. The most common cause of death for a person in a vegetative state is secondary infection such as pneumonia which can occur in patients who lie still for extended periods.

However this is more or less off topic, and we should try to stick to the subject.

[aperson]

Kilga wanted me to respond in this thread but I gotta admit, this is a pretty stupid discussion.


Carry along kids.

[The_IT]

Did not a single person even look at my contribution to the discussion? I delt with all of the major issues that are being unneededly rehashed, and hence making the conversation after my post irrelevent. Not to sound self conceted or anything like that, but seriously. Forums are here for all of us to learn from all of us around and inside this community. Not to bypass others who have something to say.

[Iam_a_Maid]

Originally Posted by The_IT

Did not a single person even look at my contribution to the discussion? I delt with all of the major issues that are being unneededly rehashed, and hence making the conversation after my post irrelevent. Not to sound self conceted or anything like that, but seriously. Forums are here for all of us to learn from all of us around and inside this community. Not to bypass others who have something to say.

Well, you used words such as 2 billion, "gaurentee" and anyone. I thought ignoring that was the best possible course of action.

[The_IT]

Originally Posted by Iam_a_Maid

Well, you used words such as 2 billion, "gaurentee" and anyone. I thought ignoring that was the best possible course of action.

Sorry, I haven't built up much of a reputation here yet, even though I've been around since 2003. When I post, I mean it to be taken seriously. I don't joke around. Now, the figures I mentioned are indeed high, but I hope you understand the fact that the technology to which I am refering is quite expensive, and is very difficult to obtain. I have no doubts on if the thing will work or not, only that there is a certain dollar figure in the way.

[Patashu]

This probably isn't too relevant to the discussion at hand, but 'Clamour' is an awesome word.

[gerbi7]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

The onus is still on you and church, maid, to provide one iota of evidence that we could live forever or at least significantly beyond a human's life expectancy.

Until then, this thread is practically worthless.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I seriously doubt it's possible either.

Natural selection did not make us to live forever, but for people less able to survive to die, and for the more able to survive people to live.

We've already gotten into problems with trying to go against natural selection. 10% of europeans have a natural resistence to aids. If the rest of the 90% died from aids, then there would be no aids problem in europeans.

Immortality isn't going to work, because we're simply not made for it.

[Hr2]

We have not had any opportunites to discover what happens to the brain when it reaches very old ages, even saying it is plausible to live to 200 years old at the moment would be a foolish statement. We might be able to stop our body from deteriorating in the near future, but we still have no idea about the brain.

I'll tell you a story, I have a cousin who got a very serious concussion. After his concussion, he started getting headaches, all the time. He went to his doctor and asked him if he had any way to stop it, he didn't. Medicine didn't help it. He waited for months in line to get opinions from doctors at top hospitals (I forget where he went, but I remember it being somewhere famous) he went in and did some tests, and they said "Well, we don't really know much about the brain, we can't help you at all, wait 2 or 3 years and it'll probably stop", they were right, after a few years the headaches stopped. But this just shows how little we know about our brains. Thinking we are on the verge of being able to stop them from deteriorating all together is silly.

Cave men died of natural causes before they could get sick enough to die.
People in the middle ages died of plagues before they could get cancer and heart disease.
People today die of cancer, heart disease, or organ deterioration before their brain deteriorates enough to kill them.

Don't take those statements literally, I'm just saying we have to take this in steps. We don't even know what kind of problems a 120 year old brain might face let alone a 1000 year old.