How long do you want to live?

[Minionman]

There is a philosophical issue even though you don't want to recognize it.The meaning of one's life is more important than a lifetime.Things of life would have a different meaning if one were able to live 1000 years instead of 100 years;one should think twice about it before taking advantage of it.
[right][snapback]62424[/snapback][/right]

With me it's a simple survival question, and I'll find things to do if I live that long. Guess that's a different thought process between us two.

[kandrathe]

I find it incredibly hard to believe - there's just too many variables involved in the process. Everything from UV light to basic transcription/translation errors to your DNA naturally shortening with time causes the events which eventually lead to your death. The amount of repair and upkeep that just a single human being would need to guarantee a life free of natural death would just be staggering. The latest journals I've read on Alzheimer's suggest that everyone actually technically has the disease, just that your genetics determine the onset time (which, for most people is beyond their life span). We have no cure for Alzheimer's... how would that be addressed?

Then you also get into strange theories involving entropy and the body as an ordered system and such.
[right][snapback]62304[/snapback][/right]

However, there are enzymes that do RNA repair, and even repair transcription errors in existing DNA strands, or extend to "tails" as needed. The aging problem as I understand is that we are programmed to die. Endocrine processes go through cycles which slowly decline and cellular repair then suffers as a result. My sister and brother in law are pretty significant in the molecular biology sciences (NAS), and I study up to be able to communicate with them on topics of interest. One area they are involved in is understanding the processes of cell division. For instance, many cancers are caused by the cell division process gone awry where cells do not mature before beginning division again. Or, then again you might want to induce adult cells to "think" they are again juveniles (like stem cells) to be used to repair nervous system damage, or regrow lost limbs.

"We have no cure for Alzheimer's... how would that be addressed?" And, technically, the same is true for many cancers. At some future time we will understand how to prevent the formation of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. We know, for instance, that abnormal changes involve the proteins beta-amyloid and tau.

Genetics and the biology research performed in the past 20 years has already revolutionized modern medicine. Another 20-50 will continue to unlock the mysteries of "life" and allow us to, as the article refers, "play God".

To answer the original post; I would want to continue to live as long as I felt my contribution to humankind justified my consumption of resources. But, then again, I've always lived a fairly spartan lifestyle. :)

Edit: I found some fairly good sources of what I understand to be the problems.
Theories on Aging
Mechanisms of Aging

[Occhidiangela]

Interesting article. Just imagine where you would be in 1,000 years.
[right][snapback]62254[/snapback][/right]

Where will I be in one thousand years? Parts of my genetic code will be in my great (many times) grandchildren. The rest will have long since been scattered as ashes over the Pacific Ocean. If I have a soul/spirit, it will be wherever those things go, and hopefully my dog Figaro's spirit and Mrs Occhi's along with it. If we get there, I'll try to post and tell you all how things are . . . ;)

How long do I want to live?

Long enough to see my son and daughter through college, and well on their way to being good citizens, good neighbors, good people, and good parents -- depending on how fast they leap into that briar patch.

Anything after that is pure gravy. I have spent various sections of my life cheating Death, I imagine he'll catch up to me eventually.

Always remember: The longer you live, the sooner you bloody will die.

1000 years, eh? Right, 930 of them wearing Depenz! No thanks.

Occhi

[whyBish]

The cynic in me says that if/when that sort of technology was available only the rich would be able to afford it. The rest of us would go on as usual.

The funky thing in my head though is you hear of parents not wanting to die before their children, but this brings up the possibility of your great-great-great-great-great- ... -great-grand-children dieing before you.

[Armin]

One question, you don't think stem cells (or some derivative) can be used to slow down (by at least 50%) degenerative diseases, Within the next 10 years or so?
[right][snapback]62365[/snapback][/right]

Certain diseases to some extent: yes, absolutely. We worked on rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative heart muscle conditions, and bone degeneration. I know some folks that can do amazing things (in a model system :P ) with neural tissue regeneration.

The things we're talking here are all limited in scope, have a very specific "application window" and will usually work fine, but not do miracles.

All those things have one in common though: they are pathological conditions (aka: actual diseases, failures of a natural system) NOT plain old mortality... B)

Oh, and: none of the conditions mentioned above, where there will be actual treatments possible within realistic time frames, requires embryonal stem cells.

[Any1]

Thanks again.

Certain diseases to some extent: yes, absolutely. We worked on rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative heart  muscle conditions, and bone degeneration. I know some folks that can do amazing things (in a model system  :P ) with neural tissue regeneration.

The things we're talking here are all limited in scope, have a very specific "application window" and will usually work fine, but not do miracles.

All those things have one in common though: they are pathological conditions (aka: actual diseases, failures of a natural system) NOT plain old mortality...  B)

Oh, and: none of the conditions mentioned above, where there will be actual treatments possible within realistic time frames, requires embryonal stem cells.
[right][snapback]62509[/snapback][/right]

[AtomicKitKat]

Long enough to scatter my toenail clippings on the grave of everyone who has ever pissed me off enough to come to blows. Auditions open for a lifetime enemy. If you die before I do, you forfeit all (material)property to me. I don't need it, I just want to deny your genes any advantage in the future. I'm already planning to live to at least 700(before factoring in any of this genetic stuff), so choose wisely.

[LemmingofGlory]

1000 years, eh?  Right, 930 of them wearing Depenz!

Welllll.... you can always choose not to wear them. :whistling:

And don't discount the possibility of newfangled "Future Tech" colostomy bags that are so comfortable (and convenient), you'll want to use one all the time! :w00t:

-Lemmy

[Occhidiangela]

  :whistling:

And don't discount the possibility of newfangled "Future Tech" colostomy bags that are so comfortable (and convenient), you'll want to use one all the time! :w00t:

-Lemmy
[right][snapback]62585[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for that visual, I just finished eating a kippers and cracker snack. It nearly came back up. :lol:

Cheers

Occhi

[Guest]

Always the optimist, aren't we?  :P

I, for one, have a little more faith in humanity than that. I would like to live a Long time, though.  :whistling:
[right][snapback]62380[/snapback][/right]

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic,just realistic.
I have no faith in humanity,but still waiting for miracles from Man.Naive ? Maybe.

[--Pete]

Hi,

1000 years, eh?  Right, 930 of them wearing Depenz!  No thanks.
[right][snapback]62451[/snapback][/right]

Ah, but the article is not just about extending life, it is about extending *youth*. Ageing has always been the fly in the 'eternal life' ointment.

I don't know how much of the article to believe, although based on my reading I've been saying for thirty years or so that the first 'immortals' are probably among us. But from the little bit of scientific literature I still read, I get the distinct impression that the 'death clock' is still poorly understood. We seem to be wired for about 115 to 120 years, and if nothing gets us before then, we just kinda 'drop dead' when the clock runs out.

Be interesting (but not interesting enough that I plan to do so) to calculate the life expectancy if one tossed all 'medical' causes and just kept the various forms of misadventure. I suspect that that 1,000 year figure thrown around in the article probably assumes no skiing, no hang gliding, not even commercial flights. That is, if it is really meaningful and not just a figure plucked from the air.

Some SF authors (Niven comes to mind) have examined the idea of perpetual youth. Would the possibility of a very long life span make us more or less cautious? It seems that, at least in America, as progress is made towards reducing one cause of death, a great part part of the population then demand that work be done on the next. No degree of 'safety' (much of it illusionary) seems enough for the bulk of the population. Meanwhile, more and more people seem to be taking up high risk sports, perhaps because life without any excitement is too boring.

Personally, I suspect that most people would just self distruct (by suicide or by extreme sports) when the 'been there, done that' feeling gets too powerful.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,


Personally, I suspect that most people would just self distruct (by suicide or by extreme sports) when the 'been there, done that' feeling gets too powerful.

--Pete
[right][snapback]62834[/snapback][/right]

Since unlike the Noldor, they have no ships to take them across the sea and into the undying lands, I'd guess the same. Did not Tolkein suggest that mortality was a gift, and not a curse? :D

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

if the average number of children is n<2 per family ,then world population will decrease;if n>2 ,it will increase.[right][snapback]62369[/snapback][/right]

Not that simple. Consider a forty year life expectancy and each person engendering one replacement. In effect, there are only two generations alive at any one time and that gives you a certain fixed population. Now change only the life expectancy to, say, eighty years. Same replacement rate but the population will double because there are now four generations alive at the same time. What needs to be balanced to maintain a fixed population is the number of births versus deaths. If, as this thread implies, we are in for a vast increase in life expectancy, we will need a corresponding great decrease in childbirth to maintain a stable population. Otherwise, an increase in life expectancy by a factor of 17 will mean an increase in population by at least that much (and more, since we still have a worldwide population growth).

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Since unlike the Noldor, they have no ships to take them across the sea and into the undying lands, I'd guess the same.&nbsp; Did not Tolkein suggest that mortality was a gift, and not a curse?&nbsp; :D

Occhi
[right][snapback]63056[/snapback][/right]

Indeed, the gift of the Valar to men. I find it interesting that Tolkein gave the elves both immortality and the ability to procreate. Says much about his attitude towards life.

To cross thread topics, real estate in the undying lands would be one fantastic investment ;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Indeed, the gift of the Valar to men.&nbsp; I find it interesting that Tolkein gave the elves both immortality and the ability to procreate.&nbsp; Says much about his attitude towards life.&nbsp;

To cross thread topics, real estate in the undying lands would be one fantastic investment ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]63108[/snapback][/right]

Jumping in. Perhaps the undying lands for us will be the colonization of new planets. If we can solve the dying problem, then a few thousand years in "hibernation" would not be that daunting. Leave Earth for the youngsters under 100 years old, then prepare to go a viking across the galaxy.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Jumping in.&nbsp; Perhaps the undying lands for us will be the colonization of new planets.&nbsp; If we can solve the dying problem, then a few thousand years in "hibernation" would not be that daunting.&nbsp; Leave Earth for the youngsters under 100 years old, then prepare to go a viking across the galaxy.
[right][snapback]63111[/snapback][/right]

Good thought. The radiation problem is still severe and gets moreso with increased speed. Still, the relativistic effects makes the journey of resonable duration in the time frame of the 'vikings'. Will people with an infinite lifespan, barring accidents, be willing to risk themselves?

The present -- that moment in time which seperates speculation from history :)

--Pete