Wolfram
Hazard to Others
Posts: 133
Registered: 13-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Cure for Aging!!!!
We have come to a point were serious scientist are aiming for actually find a Cure for Aging!!!!
Just the thing that there are sane people that have a such goal, and think it could be realizable, is for me amazing and inceadible. 
I can not really belive it..
And one day it will happen...ofcourse..
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/
Here is some information how this is PRACTICALY thougth to be achieved.
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/IBGcase.htm#media
If this isn´t Real Mad Science I dont know what could be Real Mad Science..
(Acctually I wanted to post this as a answer to a old post I made but that forum is now locked so I can not read my own post. Any )
|
|
|
Dominus
Harmless
Posts: 27
Registered: 6-6-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have never been able to find a reason as to why people die. With the way our bodies heal themselves, life is a never-ending cycle it seems.
I don't know what makes our bodies decide "its time to die" Especialy with evolution.
|
|
|
Organikum
resurrected
Posts: 2337
Registered: 12-10-2002
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: frustrated
|
|
The only thing imaginable to me which is more boring than immortality is immortality AND neverending happiness.
Ever realized that there would be no evolution without death?
You would be a immortal bacteria then, have fun enjoy!
Thy wheel of life turns over and over - if you are afraid to die you have forgotten to live.
|
|
|
blazter
Hazard to Self
Posts: 71
Registered: 3-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Seems like I remember reading that some of the most advanced anti-aging research surrounds the telomeres(sp?) that are at the ends of chromosomes.
Apparently, with each cell division, the telemeres get clipped, or are truncated in some way, that inhibits the rate of cell division. With time the
cells divide slower than they die off. Supposidly, mice with modified telmerones age slower as they have been created to loose their chromosome tips
slower. Someone a bit better versed in biochem could probably explain this better, but thats the basic idea as I understand it.
|
|
|
Dominus
Harmless
Posts: 27
Registered: 6-6-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Affraid? I do things daily that will surely bring my death by the age of 30 and welcome it with both arms open and two middle finger up.
I just find it amazing and intreiging that one could live for atleast 500 years....I do think it's possible with tomarows technology.
[Edited on 8-6-2004 by Dominus]
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
Dominus.. your spelling is getting atrocious... are u stoned? 
Anyway... Orgy!
You are taking the philosophical path here... if you are happy AND immortal, then it couldnt be boring by necessity because you are happy... and if
you are bored you wouldnt be happy!
As to evolution without death - you are right, and wrong at the same time. For one thing, some species live centuries, if not millenia, and still
evolve (yet they die of course). What I mean to imply by this is that an (artifically) prolonged life span of a member of a species (humans) does not
necessarily mean NO evolution.
More importantly, what matters is the reproductive period of a given species, not the time it lives. The longer the reproductive period (which
approximates generation time), the smaller the rate of evolution. Conversely, the longer-living, the more successful at reproduction a species member
is, the greater the evolutionary advantage of that species member becomes.
Now, if you are taking the stance that death facilitates evolution by generating turnover, then consider this: I reckon (and some others, more
reputable ) that some levels of human evolution have essentially stopped. Why?
Due to the medical revolutions. People who are genetically more likely to become infected by pathogens used to die at early age, these days they live
like most other people, and reproduce, thereby passing on their 'faulty' genes. People who had easily curable cancers (such as
Hodkins) now live, and reproduce. In fact a lot of the genetic diseases are cured, and those affected can more or less live normal lives. What does
this mean to the gene pool? It means a widening of the spectrum of the diseases, as there is no selective elimination of the affected
ones.
Similarly, you can expand that argument to other human attributes... intelligence for one. Is there selection for intelligence, in the modern world? I
would say, most definitely not. Clever people dont reproduce more (they would have in stone age, due to a better ability to get food etc i.e. set up
traps etc), much rather, they reproduce less because they i.e. wouldnt like to harm their living style.
| Quote: |
Thy wheel of life turns over and over - if you are afraid to die you have forgotten to live. |
This is very philosophical, and I like to philosophise - but who really is looking forward to die? Surely not many... except the suicidal, or those
who are very old (and they want to die because they are in pain, suffer physica or mentall weaknesses etc).
Anyway.. I don't get your statement - it basically means that anyone who knows to live isn't afraid to die? To me it seems the opposite - if
you know how to live well and happily, surely, you wouldnt look forward to die? Doesn't make sense somehow....
Wolfram: Somehow, looking at this site... I remain skeptical... care to tell me why?
As to telomeres.... I seem to remember that it isnt the holy grail of youth after all.... I remember reading about mouse experiments where the
telomerase gene was artificially switched on (and thereby preventing chromosomal disintegration) - and instead of the cells growing old, they became
IMMORTAL, which means, these poor mice developed cancers all over! Telomerase by itself is definitely not the solution to the problem.... it's a
lot more complex than you think!
Anyway... I got heaps of info on ageing... shall post that one day 
PS again, I think that belongs to the Biochem section .... despite its philosophical ideas
[Edited on 8-6-2004 by chemoleo]
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
EvilClone
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 10-5-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ok I'll Bite
You asked who is looking forward to dying Chemoleo. I for one happen to be. This however doesn't mean I'm in a rush too. I would like to
know exactly what awaits me or if it is even possible to know. (Speaking of getting philosphical eh?) This doesn't have anything to be with me
being depressed or suicidal, I also am quite egar to live life to to greatest extent I can.
Sorry for straying off topic a bit.
[Edited on 8-6-2004 by EvilClone]
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
Looking forward to die is a different thing to wanting to know what it is like to die, and what happens afterwards , is it not???
Yet, I DO think that 80% of all people DO wish to prolong their material existence as long as possible (given that no major pain/cognitive losses are
involved etc)... just like yourself...
So where is the contradiction? It is here: 'You asked who is looking forward to dying Chemoleo. I for one happen to be.' and this 'I
also am quite egar to live life to to greatest extent I can. ' 
But yes... maybe this belongs into the philosophy section after all ...
particularly if this continues going off topic... washing my hands in innocence
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
Organikum
resurrected
Posts: 2337
Registered: 12-10-2002
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: frustrated
|
|
| Quote: | | You are taking the philosophical path here... if you are happy AND immortal, then it couldnt be boring by necessity because you are happy... and if
you are bored you wouldnt be happy! |
Tz, tz. I wrote it is the most boring I now can imagine chemoleo....
I also think we should dyeing chemoleo - in black ink?
150 to 200 years can be achieved in the long run for humans by good food and if pollution of the environment is stopped completely. If this will be a
positive achievement for mankind - the single persons may believe it being so of course - is another question.
We who are now living wont reach such high ages - for where we live, in the industrialized countries the load by pollution is already to high for
this. (it got less in the last 30 years btw. but nevertheless).
For me gettin extremly old is out of question anyways, I was born in the years when the radioactive fallout from the big thermonuclear bombs in the
50´s hit the earths surface - to much strontium-96 in the bones I guess  .
(a good part of the fallout was blown up to the stratosphere and came down between 1958 and 1962 again)
|
|
|
tom haggen
Hazard to Others
Posts: 488
Registered: 29-11-2003
Location: PNW
Member Is Offline
Mood: a better mood
|
|
| Quote: |
More importantly, what matters is the reproductive period of a given species, not the time it lives. The longer the reproductive period (which
approximates generation time), the smaller the rate of evolution. Conversely, the longer-living, the more successful at reproduction a species member
is, the greater the evolutionary advantage of that species member becomes.
|
Eureka!!! thats just what our planet needs, more humans! If we could expand our habitat to outerspace then I would say lets add to our population
count. As of now I think it's too crouded. But I have a feeling that colonizing outer space will probably take place during the same time
period when this type of technology will be developed. Since there would be such a great demand for such a technology considering how long space
flight will take. As for evolution being stopped by medical revolutions, funny thing about nature, once you think you have it under control it will
jump up and bite you in the ass. I think allowing all these genetic diseases to pollute the human gene pool is a bad Idea. I guess we just have to ask
ourselves is a saved life today better than 5 lost tomorrow. It's a known fact that our species is on the verge of a pandemic, and drug resistant
bacteria aren't helping this problem. I do think that the idea of a prolonged life span is a great one. I also agree that it's achievable.
[Edited on 8-6-2004 by tom haggen]
[Edited on 8-6-2004 by tom haggen]
N/A
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
