180 years old? Experts debate limit of aging: CNN

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
"I think we are knocking at the door of immortality," said Michael Zey, a Montclair State University business professor and author of two books on the future. "I think by 2075 we will see it and that's a conservative estimate."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/19/aging/index.html
 
196
0
I definitely don't think it would be good, even if possible, for most people to live to be a 100.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
100 is not long enough. We need an indefinite life span. ONly then will everyone be forced to start to really deal with the consequences of their actions.
 

bjklein

Originally posted by Tail
I definitely don't think it would be good, even if possible, for most people to live to be a 100.
Tail, any specific reasoning behind your assertion?

Bruce
ImmInst.org ~ For Infinite Lifespans
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by Another God
100 is not long enough. We need an indefinite life span. ONly then will everyone be forced to start to really deal with the consequences of their actions.
$7,000,000 fees from the library on books overdue for 1200 years. 950 children to buy for at Christmas. Marriage for life...or even worse, 300 ex-wives? It could get ugly.

Can a 900 year old marry a 20 year old? When do you finally tell the family that all 55,000 can't come to the reunion?

Do we keep the "life in prison" sentence? Could we justify the death penalty? And most importantly, what about the Pope! He would never die, but he would effectively be out of a job; except for the really unlucky.

Ok really, if we assume that all disease is also cured, it would seem that the average lifespan would be governed stricly by the odds of dying in an accident. This stuff makes for great sci-fi.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
950 children because one couple will have that many kids, or because your kids have kids have kids have kids etc?

I don't think people will start having more kids than we currently have (people are limiting themselves to 0, 1, or even 2 kids now when we could be having 20 if we wanted), and if you mean the extended family version, then you would say it much the same way as we say it now. You just invite those who you want. I mean, if you look back in history, even though they are dead, you can trace the descendants of your great great great great grandfather, and find a huge extended family and invite all of them....but you don't do you?

meh, this is silly. I shouldn't have replied, I don't think you were really being serious.
 

bjklein

People will not insist on having immortality through their children when they can have the real thing.

Today, using the past to predict the future is not as helpful as it used to be. Not only does change continue to happening in strange ways, but it's accelerating (Kurzweil). That's something which is missing when talking about the future. The next 25 years of progress will likely be comparable to the last 1,000 years, thus, leading us up the Singularity.

Another God, the only objection of genuine concern brought up by Ivan is the problem of accidents and risk associated with living inside a biological body for thousands of years. However, in time I think we'll become better at avoiding risks. Also, risks will be dramatically mitigated when we successfully upload our consciousness to more durable and networked substrates.

Bruce
ImmInst.org ~ For Infinite Lifespans
 

BoulderHead

Originally posted by Another God
100 is not long enough. We need an indefinite life span. ONly then will everyone be forced to start to really deal with the consequences of their actions.
I agree with this 100%

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Ok really, if we assume that all disease is also cured, it would seem that the average lifespan would be governed stricly by the odds of dying in an accident.
I had seen a show a long time ago dealing with this. I freely admit I don't know if their numbers were correct or not, but they claimed the statistics indicated an average of 600 years prior to being killed in an accident of some type. That's a sorry figure for an immortal, but I'm leaning towards the optimism expressed by bjklein when he said;

"However, in time I think we'll become better at avoiding risks. Also, risks will be dramatically mitigated when we successfully upload our consciousness to more durable and networked substrates."

Yeah, I like every bit of that!!!
 

bjklein

Interestingly, Aubrey de Grey, anti-aging scholar at Cambridge University, has recently made a prediction worth noting. He made his prediction taking in to account that in time humans will become more risk averse in time, yet will still be exposed to overall risks that will ultimately lead to death.

"Our life expectancy will be in the region of 5,000 years" in rich countries in the year 2100...
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=69&t=1559&st=0

Aubrey also answered some direct questions about the possibility of immortality here:

IMMINST: Among qualified scientists, you are one of the most outspoken
proponents of the likelihood of 'extreme' life extension. For what do
you accredit your outspokenness in comparison to other scientists?

ADG: Two main reasons, I guess. Firstly, I am more outspoken because I am
more optimistic about the timeframe for developing 'extreme' life
extension. The reason I'm more optimistic is...
http://imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=114&t=1857&st=0
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by Another God
950 children because one couple will have that many kids, or because your kids have kids have kids have kids etc?

I don't think people will start having more kids than we currently have (people are limiting themselves to 0, 1, or even 2 kids now when we could be having 20 if we wanted), and if you mean the extended family version, then you would say it much the same way as we say it now. You just invite those who you want. I mean, if you look back in history, even though they are dead, you can trace the descendants of your great great great great grandfather, and find a huge extended family and invite all of them....but you don't do you?

meh, this is silly. I shouldn't have replied, I don't think you were really being serious.
Sorry Another God, I sometimes mix silliness with seriousness. In fact, I jest about issues that could be interesting. I can imagine that such a revolution would completely change the dynamics of the family and personal relationships. Much of our way of life requires our eventual deaths.
 

bjklein

Much of our way of life requires our eventual deaths.
Can you explain?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by BoulderHead
they claimed the statistics indicated an average of 600 years prior to being killed in an accident of some type."However, in time I think we'll become better at avoiding risks.
Did you ever read Ring World? Niven conceived of a race - my gosh, I want to say they were called the puppeteers or something like that..I read this nearly 25 years ago - that had proven mathematically that they have no afterlife. As a result, they had beaten natural, biological death, and lived in a society based on extreme caution. They built the safest transport systems known.
 
7
0
Genesis 3:22 Says "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." It would have been something if man had ate of that tree. We would be little gods, according to GOD! Of course we are not because "the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Meaning Death. So, to imagine life forever isn't far from reality. You can live forever, if you accept christ as your savior! Only then can we live forever and ever!
 
Last edited:
7
0
Why would you want to live forever on this crappy planet anyway! Too much sin and violence for me to want to live here!
 
171
0
Why are you still here then?
 
7
0
Because I'm here to make it better! That's what Christians are called out for!
 
The oldest person currently in the world is only 114 or so.

These people however really tend to look like they are 114. And that is with all this supposedly wonderful science in age research. Is it really reasonable to assume we can increase the timespan of a human life?

Nothing much has changed over a century (or in its entire history) in the maximum lifespan of a human being.

And what did this guy mention: nanotechnology. We don't even understand the basics of aging. How is he going to cure something we don't understand with something that doesn't even exist.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
CyrusMcC said:
Genesis 3:22 Says "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." It would have been something if man had ate of that tree. We would be little gods, according to GOD! Of course we are not because "the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Meaning Death. So, to imagine life forever isn't far from reality. You can live forever, if you accept christ as your savior! Only then can we live forever and ever!
First, religious postings are frowned upon here, please keep your religious zeal to yourself. :smile: Secondly, I am unaware of eternal life for christians.

CyrusMcC said:
Because I'm here to make it better! That's what Christians are called out for!
There are christian forums on the internet, this is not one of them. Please refrain from religious outbursts in respect for other's beliefs. Thank you.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
CyrusMcC said:
Because I'm here to make it better! That's what Christians are called out for!
So if Christianity ever succeeds in making the world a wonderful place to live, would you then not mind spending so much time here?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
I am posting this because I am tired of seeing the size of the human penis at the top of my page. I think it is in poor taste, and frankly, it hits just a little too close to home.
 
911
0
The basics of aging - glycation and mitochondrial degradation

spuriousmonkey said:
We don't even understand the basics of aging.
Glycation is understood. That is why people take antiglycation agents.

Mitochondrial degradation is understood. That is why people take mitochondrial protectants.
 
hitssquad said:
Glycation is understood. That is why people take antiglycation agents.

Mitochondrial degradation is understood. That is why people take mitochondrial protectants.
Read the animal experiments with>
http://www.plaquex.ch/Studies/anti-aging-study.htm [Broken]

Plaquex is a mix of essential phospholipids derived from soy beans. It is the treatment of choice for atherosclerosis - the deposit of fatty plaques in the arterial and capillary lining of the blood vessels.

The most important effect of Plaquex is its remarkable ability to reduce plaque depositions in the arterial walls. It also lowers cholesterol and homocystein levens. Studies in lab animals have shown that it increases their life span by up to 36 %.

An inmportant therapeutic application of the Plaquex treatment program is increasing an individuals ability to withstand cardiac stress. This application is valuable for the individuals who have suffered cardiac trauma, such as myocardial infarction or who are at high risk of heart trauma.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These questions are addressed to everyone:

Do you think someone like me (16 yrs) is young enough to reach a time when we will have access to genetic age enhancement? How much enhancement would you estimate it would bring? Would I be young enough to reach the time of possible immortality?

Do you believe revival is possible? Sorry about all the questions.
 
911
0
Current and future potential of anti-senescence technology

Dooga Blackrazor said:
Do you think someone like me (16 yrs) is young enough to reach a time when we will have access to genetic age enhancement?
Technological development is hard to predict since it is tied to political, economic, and other social processes.



Do you believe revival is possible?
Reversal of the major aging pathway called glycation is already possible via administration of alagebrium
chloride. Also, mitochondrial energy production -- whose drop-off constitutes another major aging pathway -- can be returned to youthful levels via administration of NtBHA, ALCAR, lipoic acid, CoQ10, idebenone, EUK-189, PBN, S-PBN, STAZN, etc. Major organ/tissue damage such as worn-out knees, bad teeth, worn-out liver, kidney, etc, may require stem cell therapy to fix.
 
Why in the world would you want to live forever? What makes life so great is that there's always something to lose. If there were nothing to lose, what would there be to live for?
 

Related Threads for: 180 years old? Experts debate limit of aging: CNN

  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
26K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
29K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
913

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top