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.. 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.

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]

Ok I'll Bite

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

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)