Living to 150 or so...

[kandrathe]

I heard a news story yesterday, about a book on life extension. It's a topic I've studied quite a bit, and an area I enjoy having informed discussion about with my sister (a Ph.d researcher in molecular biology).

But, one item Resveratrol is new to me. "The CR mimetic resveratrol may even prevent cancer and keep your coat glossy." Has anyone else heard of this? Generally, it slows protein growth at a cellular level, mimicking the calorie restriction effect. It might also act as a mild anti-inflammatory, which has also been found to prolong healthy life span.

[Jester]

I'm not holding my breath. Senescence is a complicated process. All sorts of things start to break down as one ages. Extending lifespans more than a few years isn't a matter of stopping one of them, but of stopping them all.

If average lifespans go over 100, I'll be damned impressed. I think it's unlikely they'll go that high before a century. Of course, fat tails apply. Who knows what miracles and wonder they'll cook up in the next few decades, and there is always Clarke's First Law. But I think those are small probabilities, not large ones.

I hope to live for thousands of years. But I doubt I'll live much more than 100, even if I live a charmed life.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I hope to live for thousands of years. But I doubt I'll live much more than 100, even if I live a charmed life.

I've long suspected that our first immortals are already alive. I think there will come a time when medical technology will just stay ahead of aging, and the people living in that time will get the cures, treatments, processes, they need to keep them alive. And I think that time may be now.

Of course, death by accident or misadventure will continue to exist.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'm not holding my breath. Senescence is a complicated process. All sorts of things start to break down as one ages. Extending lifespans more than a few years isn't a matter of stopping one of them, but of stopping them all.

Yeah. Namely telomere issues, mutations, and some various enzymes involved in RNA and cellular repair. Keeping pretty fit is also a crucial factor, so it'll be the Jack Lalanes of the present who are first to live with a high quality of life beyond 100.

[Jester]

I've long suspected that our first immortals are already alive. I think there will come a time when medical technology will just stay ahead of aging, and the people living in that time will get the cures, treatments, processes, they need to keep them alive. And I think that time may be now.

Maybe. It just seems like fusion power to me - we're always on the brink of it, but it's always just beyond our reach. The real progress comes in tiny increments, and the increments don't add up to a whole lot so far. We're less likely to be killed by all sorts of diseases when we're young, or even old, but living to 100 was possible (albeit very rare) throughout all of history. 110 is still incredibly rare, and 120 is basically unheard of. We have not yet really begun pushing back against our fate - we're only more likely to get to the outer ranges.

-Jester

[ShadowHM]

I've long suspected that our first immortals are already alive. I think there will come a time when medical technology will just stay ahead of aging, and the people living in that time will get the cures, treatments, processes, they need to keep them alive. And I think that time may be now.

So there are some issues that overwhelm your inner cynic?

I am not at all hopeful on that front. I think we have little to no hope of actually "solving" this one. We have been tinkering with our bodies in increasingly complex ways for some time and are still 'just about at a breakthrough'.

Additionally, my crystal ball says this is another route to hell for the rest of humanity who won't qualify for the 'cures, treatments, processes'.

Keeping pretty fit is also a crucial factor, so it'll be the Jack Lalanes of the present who are first to live with a high quality of life beyond 100.

And that almost certainly precludes most of those who might otherwise afford the treatment.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So there are some issues that overwhelm your inner cynic?

Check out NuurAbSaal's signature.

I am not at all hopeful on that front. I think we have little to no hope of actually "solving" this one. We have been tinkering with our bodies in increasingly complex ways for some time and are still 'just about at a breakthrough'.

I think the understanding and the technologies in this field are really only a couple of decades old. We've just begun to understand disease and aging from the bio-chemical and genetic levels. A ten year old now will have sixty or more years before she needs anti-aging. Who knows what the developments of the next sixty years will bring.

Additionally, my crystal ball says this is another route to hell for the rest of humanity who won't qualify for the 'cures, treatments, processes'.

Of course. The number of issues wrapped around this concept are vast, including population control, economic control, etc. I simply claim we probably have the intelligence to do it. I do not claim that we have the wisdom to do it right.

--Pete

[Lissa]

I remember hearing a doctor not too long ago state that with the increase in nanotech in medicine, he believed that by 2050 at the latest, we would effectively be able to stop the aging process and actually reverse it. He stated that by 2030, he thought that we could definitely stop the aging process. How true he is I don't know, but it is an interesting paradigm with the use of nanomachines fixing people at the cellular and molecular levels.

[kandrathe]

I remember hearing a doctor not too long ago state that with the increase in nanotech in medicine, he believed that by 2050 at the latest, we would effectively be able to stop the aging process and actually reverse it. He stated that by 2030, he thought that we could definitely stop the aging process. How true he is I don't know, but it is an interesting paradigm with the use of nanomachines fixing people at the cellular and molecular levels.

Mostly, in a way, we already have all the little repair robots in our systems. I could see a role for other nanomechanical systems helping out, though. In a way, as crude as they are now, drug pumps dramatically change peoples lives already, just by releasing a consistent micro dose of a particular medicine can be so much better than the peaks and valleys (over/under dose) of pills or injections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

There appear to be endocrine systems that shut down with age, and a part of that is a decrease in the mechanisms of cellular repair. If we can figure out how to trick our endocrine system into running at the same rate, regardless of age, then that is one step to longevity.

Telomere shortening becomes a problem with skin, digestive system lining, and other fast growing/dying cells. They divide quickly, and so the telomerase enzyme is an important discovery in figuring out how to keep these cells "forever young".

The trick here is to find enough of these types of natural repair systems, and keep them in good working order.

[Taem]

So what's the optimum age then, if you can pick and choose your age? I'd say for most, it would be somewhere around their peak physical condition. For me, I feel that was between the ages of 28-30, around the time I stopped doing more physical exercise and instead had to focus on helping my children with their scholastics. But who want's to live forever?

I'd personally choose a regular lifespan with no illnesses, disease, or cancers over immortality any day. I would not want to outlive my children or increase the likelihood of them passing unfortunately before my time - which after enough time, would most likely occur.

If everybody was in their primes, I think that the world would turn into a real live "party" planet, as I'm sure people in these ages brackets tend to desire procreation above all else, that age being the bodies peak physical time and ideal mating period. I can't even imagine how much this world would change - all the elected officials would be between 25-35. Their mentality would change everything! It would be change, yes, but there is some comfort to knowing you have a finite amount of time on this Earth. I'd gladly stick with that over immortality.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So what's the optimum age then, if you can pick and choose your age?

Knowing what I know now, or knowing what I knew then? If the first, I'd want to go back to my preteen days and try to arrange to stay in Wilkes Barre. If the second, Spring of '64. I'd join the Army right away instead of wasting the next eight months.

But who want's to live forever?

Forever? No. But there's still many books I want to read, movies I want to see, math and languages I want to learn, problems I want to work on and perhaps even solve. The big question is "Live how?" The way I was at forty, when I could beat 20+ year olds at racquetball, work 72 hours without rest, and learn a subject as fast as I could read about it? Or the way I am now, hardly able to walk 20 feet without resting, sleeping 14+ hours a day and still tired, unable to read more than a little at a time and even that penetrating slowly?

I'd personally choose a regular lifespan with no illnesses, disease, or cancers over immortality any day.

I'm not sure the two are really different,

I would not want to outlive my children or increase the likelihood of them passing unfortunately before my time - which after enough time, would most likely occur.

If all have access to the longevity treatment, then the only way you'd outlive your children is if they died by some misfortune. Exactly the same as it is now.

It would be change, yes, but there is some comfort to knowing you have a finite amount of time on this Earth. I'd gladly stick with that over immortality.

There's always the rope, the overpass, the gun. Immortality doesn't mean living forever. It means having a choice for when to die. Suicide is painless.

--Pete

[Jester]

But who want's to live forever?

Me. And CEO Nwabudike Morgan!

"I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice."

I concur.

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

I'd personally choose a regular lifespan with no illnesses, disease, or cancers over immortality any day.

DISCLAIMER: I'm emotionally involved. Might not be contributing much.

This.

I have three grandparents over the age of 85. My dad's parents are in relatively good health (with stuff like successful glaucoma surgery in their pasts) and live an active life. My granddad still goes for regular 1h walks around town and my grandma still enjoys cooking (spectacularly!) for 6+ people.

My mom's mother though has two bad knees, two bad hips, occasional ultra-high blood pressure to the point of near-fainting and bad eyesight. She can barely manage her daily life unassisted. A 20m walk exhausts her (she's walking with two crutches). The recent temperatures here (around 35°C/95°F) more or less confine her to her bed if she doesn't want to take the risk of fainting. Basically her quality of life sucks. She has occasionally stated that "I have enough".

So woo-hoo if you can theoretically reach 120, life's got to be at least a modicum of fun. Imagine a game with 120 levels, but the last 30 are nothing more than a pain (heh... ). What's the point?

take care
Tarabulus

[Jester]

Imagine a game with 120 levels, but the last 30 are nothing more than a pain (heh... ). What's the point?

Unless you are a believer in some form of afterlife, the alternative is a game with infinite levels, and you don't get to play any of them.

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

Imagine a game with 120 levels, but the last 30 are nothing more than a pain (heh... ). What's the point?

Unless you are a believer in some form of afterlife, the alternative is a game with infinite levels, and you don't get to play any of them.

-Jester

Hm. I don't get it. But it's late and I am sleepy.

take care
Tarabulus

[--Pete]

Hi,

Imagine a game with 120 levels, but the last 30 are nothing more than a pain (heh... ). What's the point?

Unless you are a believer in some form of afterlife, the alternative is a game with infinite levels, and you don't get to play any of them.

Hm. I don't get it. But it's late and I am sleepy.

It's early, I'm not sleepy, and I don't get it, either. Perhaps it's the dichotomy between no afterlife and an afterlife that you don't get to play?

Color me confused, too.

--Pete

[Jester]

Perhaps it's the dichotomy between no afterlife and an afterlife that you don't get to play?

I don't mean to confuse with the concept of a "game you don't get to play". I just mean that, no matter whether you die now or later, oblivion presumably stretches on to eternity. You simply cease to exist, and if that seems like a good thing to you, then you're in luck, because it's going to happen sooner or later.

So, however crappy those 30 years might seem relative to your best years, they're the last 30 years of sentience you get. I'd say enjoy them. Or even if you can't, at least experience them.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't mean to confuse with the concept of a "game you don't get to play". I just mean that, no matter whether you die now or later, oblivion presumably stretches on to eternity. You simply cease to exist, and if that seems like a good thing to you, then you're in luck, because it's going to happen sooner or later.

So, however crappy those 30 years might seem relative to your best years, they're the last 30 years of sentience you get. I'd say enjoy them. Or even if you can't, at least experience them.

Ah, I see. Remember the old saying, before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got his shoes.

Kidding aside. There have been times in the past five years when I've doubted my decision to go for the cure. Most of the time, I'm pretty upbeat and enjoy doing what I can. But if the rest of my life were to be like those times were, then I'd rather go now. Lack of health is bad, but lack of hope is deadly.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Ah, I see. Remember the old saying, before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got his shoes.

Kidding aside. There have been times in the past five years when I've doubted my decision to go for the cure. Most of the time, I'm pretty upbeat and enjoy doing what I can. But if the rest of my life were to be like those times were, then I'd rather go now. Lack of health is bad, but lack of hope is deadly.

My dad suffered a little in the end, but he used his time well. I appreciated that he fought hard, to give us all just a little more time.

[NuurAbSaal]

Perhaps it's the dichotomy between no afterlife and an afterlife that you don't get to play?

I don't mean to confuse with the concept of a "game you don't get to play". I just mean that, no matter whether you die now or later, oblivion presumably stretches on to eternity. You simply cease to exist, and if that seems like a good thing to you, then you're in luck, because it's going to happen sooner or later.

So, however crappy those 30 years might seem relative to your best years, they're the last 30 years of sentience you get. I'd say enjoy them. Or even if you can't, at least experience them.

-Jester

I respectfully disagree. Off to a game of 9-a-side Footy now, elaboration later today.

take care
Tarabulus