Full Version: Living to be 1,000
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
On Friday the BBC posted this article:
'We will be able to live to 1,000'
It features a top scientist at Cambridge University, Aubrey de Grey, who is confident we are close to reducing the aging process to a treatable condition.
So far, business as usual. But the article departs from formula by also giving prominent billing to a second article, by S Jay Olshansky, who plays devil's advocate on the issue. He has even written a book about the follies of longevity prognostication.
On the one hand, we are now living in the midst of a dramatic and sustained "revolution" in biology. Replace the quoted word with your favorite hyperbola. No one will notice.
On the other hand, predicting the progress or fruits of ongoing and future "revolutionary" discovery seems like a leap.
Certainly, things are happening. Where they will lead, and when ... who knows?
Questions for debate:
1.) Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
2.) Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
3.) Might we arrive at a point where the general public senses impending victory, and becomes emotionally caught up in the effort, to the extent that it drives political process and gives the research a life of it's own?
'We will be able to live to 1,000'
It features a top scientist at Cambridge University, Aubrey de Grey, who is confident we are close to reducing the aging process to a treatable condition.
So far, business as usual. But the article departs from formula by also giving prominent billing to a second article, by S Jay Olshansky, who plays devil's advocate on the issue. He has even written a book about the follies of longevity prognostication.
On the one hand, we are now living in the midst of a dramatic and sustained "revolution" in biology. Replace the quoted word with your favorite hyperbola. No one will notice.
On the other hand, predicting the progress or fruits of ongoing and future "revolutionary" discovery seems like a leap.
Certainly, things are happening. Where they will lead, and when ... who knows?
Questions for debate:
1.) Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
2.) Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
3.) Might we arrive at a point where the general public senses impending victory, and becomes emotionally caught up in the effort, to the extent that it drives political process and gives the research a life of it's own?
This quote basically sums up my opinion after reading both articles:
I believe S Jay Olshansky when he states that gerontology has increased by "leaps and bounds" over the years, but I also believe that Aubrey de Grey may be jumping the gun here. There's no reason a Cambridge University researcher would publish this unless he was gunning for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and thought this would be a good hook.
Has anyone actually thought about what would happen if we lived to 1000? The overcrowding? The depletion of resourses? Maybe having the capacity to live that long would be good (I certainly enjoy living), but something tells me that at a certain point it may not be worth living that long. I also feel that even if we could live to be that old, no one would make it to 1000 before we ended up destroying ourselves through war, pollution, or anything else.
I think my friend put it best with: We're all going to die of cancer.
1.) Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
The article itself didn't illustrate this happening. It stated that "it" was working in mice, but there were no numbers given or anything of substance stated. So for those reasons I'm skeptical that we're on track.
2.) Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad one per se. What if Mozart had lived 500 years, or Dali, or Plato? The world might be a better place with more works of masters; but as I stated before I think that more problems could be created by people than solved.
3.) Might we arrive at a point where the general public senses impending victory, and becomes emotionally caught up in the effort, to the extent that it drives political process and gives the research a life of it's own?
Um....uh...I don't know how to answer this. I guess? Maybe? It depends? It seems that if a politician was smart he would say his side was for "extending life to all peoples" or something like that, but then others would be against it because this might entail playing God. This issue could be like the stem-cell research where it's a hot topic that politicians have to walk a thin line to keep everyone happy.
QUOTE
What do the ancient purveyors of physical immortality all have in common? They are all dead.
I believe S Jay Olshansky when he states that gerontology has increased by "leaps and bounds" over the years, but I also believe that Aubrey de Grey may be jumping the gun here. There's no reason a Cambridge University researcher would publish this unless he was gunning for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and thought this would be a good hook.
Has anyone actually thought about what would happen if we lived to 1000? The overcrowding? The depletion of resourses? Maybe having the capacity to live that long would be good (I certainly enjoy living), but something tells me that at a certain point it may not be worth living that long. I also feel that even if we could live to be that old, no one would make it to 1000 before we ended up destroying ourselves through war, pollution, or anything else.
I think my friend put it best with: We're all going to die of cancer.
1.) Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
The article itself didn't illustrate this happening. It stated that "it" was working in mice, but there were no numbers given or anything of substance stated. So for those reasons I'm skeptical that we're on track.
2.) Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad one per se. What if Mozart had lived 500 years, or Dali, or Plato? The world might be a better place with more works of masters; but as I stated before I think that more problems could be created by people than solved.
3.) Might we arrive at a point where the general public senses impending victory, and becomes emotionally caught up in the effort, to the extent that it drives political process and gives the research a life of it's own?
Um....uh...I don't know how to answer this. I guess? Maybe? It depends? It seems that if a politician was smart he would say his side was for "extending life to all peoples" or something like that, but then others would be against it because this might entail playing God. This issue could be like the stem-cell research where it's a hot topic that politicians have to walk a thin line to keep everyone happy.
Devils Advocate nails it: "Has anyone actually thought about what would happen if we lived to 1000?"
His implication, that this hasn't started, and involves big issues, is the principle motive for raising this debate topic.
It's true, as Olshansky and DA note, that people have been getting hyped up about not dying for a long time, without making much progress.
The same can be said for most of medicine. Everything that ever ailed us, we reach for some equivalent of the Fountain of Youth, trying to put the juju on it. Aging of course being the mother of all ailments.
This magazine article doesn't get into the details of where we are and how we're doing, technologically. It is basically just a 'debate focus', which is why I thought it suitable for an AmericasDebate topic. Getting into the technology is fascinating, but it's another topic.
When I thought about the questions to pose for debate, I wanted to plug into different levels of consideration, or concern. Those who see the scientists as deluded might say 'No' to the first question, making the other two irrelevant.
I might have fumbled the 3rd question. I meant to ask, might ordinary folks get really excited about this thing, if they start seeing that it looks like a go? So that their own interest and desires could begin to push it, instead of just science and the government.
A few generations ago, we passed through a heady period during which many ghastly diseases were conquered at a high rate of speed. Though average people were far less educated and involved in technical issues, still, there was a serious amount of public excitement over what was happening.
In addition to finding out more about the aging process all the time, we are also making dramatic progress with cancer. If conquering aging sounds just to wild, image doing to cancer in the next few years, what we did to infectious diseases in the early 20th century.
His implication, that this hasn't started, and involves big issues, is the principle motive for raising this debate topic.
It's true, as Olshansky and DA note, that people have been getting hyped up about not dying for a long time, without making much progress.
The same can be said for most of medicine. Everything that ever ailed us, we reach for some equivalent of the Fountain of Youth, trying to put the juju on it. Aging of course being the mother of all ailments.
This magazine article doesn't get into the details of where we are and how we're doing, technologically. It is basically just a 'debate focus', which is why I thought it suitable for an AmericasDebate topic. Getting into the technology is fascinating, but it's another topic.
When I thought about the questions to pose for debate, I wanted to plug into different levels of consideration, or concern. Those who see the scientists as deluded might say 'No' to the first question, making the other two irrelevant.
I might have fumbled the 3rd question. I meant to ask, might ordinary folks get really excited about this thing, if they start seeing that it looks like a go? So that their own interest and desires could begin to push it, instead of just science and the government.
A few generations ago, we passed through a heady period during which many ghastly diseases were conquered at a high rate of speed. Though average people were far less educated and involved in technical issues, still, there was a serious amount of public excitement over what was happening.
In addition to finding out more about the aging process all the time, we are also making dramatic progress with cancer. If conquering aging sounds just to wild, image doing to cancer in the next few years, what we did to infectious diseases in the early 20th century.
QUOTE
1.) Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
Nope. I think this article is in print because it's a slow-news month. Weren't we supposed to have personal air cars by now? Or some such fantasy.
QUOTE
2.) Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
It's a terrible idea. There comes a point of being tired of living -- the hoey limit has been reached.
QUOTE
3.) Might we arrive at a point where the general public senses impending victory, and becomes emotionally caught up in the effort, to the extent that it drives political process and gives the research a life of it's own?
No. The general public is in the throes of denial so much that it can't feel much emotion at all. The general public is eating itself to death, for ** sakes.
I think the hoey limit has been reached.
1.) Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
Yes, but I think the latter clause is the more important one. I don't think it'll usefully happen in my lifetime, by which I mean that unless they can't just stop people ageing, but reverse it so we can all be physically 25-35 (rather than stuck at however we were when got "cured", like some sort of Bladeverse vampire), I don't think I'll bother, thanks. Who wants to be 65 forever?
2.) Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
In itself, such research is neutral.
What we do with it, on the other hand, is up to us (and far from neutral). I'd say that if we do go down this route other than as an academic exercise we have our priorities badly wrong.
Do we really want to live in a world where rich Westerners live to be 1000 years old, poor Westerners are all 500-pound wobbling behemoths, and the poorest third of the world are at constant risk of death because they have no access to clean water? If we in the rich west think so, I think we'd deserve to put up with the fruits our own stupidity and selfishness for 1,000 years when the poor world finally got fed up of carrying us.
3.) Might we arrive at a point where the general public senses impending victory, and becomes emotionally caught up in the effort, to the extent that it drives political process and gives the research a life of it's own?
Given that most of the cosmetic surgery industry is predicated on the desire of people to look perpetually like an athletic 25 year old (men) or 18 year old (women), I'd say significant sections of the population already are emotionally caught up in the effort, they just don't know it yet.
More philosphically,
Yes, but I think the latter clause is the more important one. I don't think it'll usefully happen in my lifetime, by which I mean that unless they can't just stop people ageing, but reverse it so we can all be physically 25-35 (rather than stuck at however we were when got "cured", like some sort of Bladeverse vampire), I don't think I'll bother, thanks. Who wants to be 65 forever?
2.) Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
In itself, such research is neutral.
What we do with it, on the other hand, is up to us (and far from neutral). I'd say that if we do go down this route other than as an academic exercise we have our priorities badly wrong.
Do we really want to live in a world where rich Westerners live to be 1000 years old, poor Westerners are all 500-pound wobbling behemoths, and the poorest third of the world are at constant risk of death because they have no access to clean water? If we in the rich west think so, I think we'd deserve to put up with the fruits our own stupidity and selfishness for 1,000 years when the poor world finally got fed up of carrying us.
3.) Might we arrive at a point where the general public senses impending victory, and becomes emotionally caught up in the effort, to the extent that it drives political process and gives the research a life of it's own?
Given that most of the cosmetic surgery industry is predicated on the desire of people to look perpetually like an athletic 25 year old (men) or 18 year old (women), I'd say significant sections of the population already are emotionally caught up in the effort, they just don't know it yet.
More philosphically,
- What would 1,000 year-olds be like?
- Could the human brain, even one chemically or genetically enhanced not to age, physically hold 1,000 years' worth of memories, emotions, friendships or learning?
- Would riding a bicycle become something you could forget how to do?
- Would 1,000 year-old women be able to, or want to, have children?
- Imagine a world where your great-great-great-great-great-great (and 42 other greats)-uncle was the same age as you. Would you be able to keep track of your family genome well enough to avoid inbreeding? Wouldn't people want to do so genetic matching before even going on a date?
- Would electoral terms of office not need to be expanded proportionately - maybe to 50 years per term?(!)
- In a world where people live longer than traditional buildings, what would our houses or offices be like?
- If the bulk of the 1,000 years were spent in peak physical condition, wouldn't we have to work for (1000-21-15=) 9964 years? What effect would that have on the economy? Would we not have to invent an entirely new economic and political system? (And would that be a bad thing?)
- When would we be old enough to be considered mature adults? Still 18/21? 250? What?
- If there was a rich/poor split, and thinking that Homo sapiens sapiens became a separate species perhaps as little as 200,000 years ago, wouldn't the poor evolve into a different species in a timespan that would seem to "old humanity" something more like a single millennium feels to us now? If they did, who would be the "superior" group? Would they be smarter/stronger/hardier than us? Would they be able to live in peace? (Our history would suggest probably not.)
AuthorMusician says of the longevity theme:
1.) Slow news month? The BBC online has a very decent science-page. You won't miss anything that'll be on the test, bookmarking their sci-tech portal. BBC Science & Nature
If the pace at the BBC isn't fast enough, try EurekAlert!.org, "A Service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science". Nice layout, and they have a monster archive going back several years that works very well.
Because of the separation of scientific publication from popular media, it can sometimes seem like there isn't much happening. Lots of important technical stuff does not meet the needs of the commercial publishing industries. Slow news months have been a luxury of the past for a long time, in science & technology.
2.) Tired of living. Denial. Emotional lethargy. Ennui is a problem. It should have a higher profile. When the life we have is a dud, it is hard to be enthusiastic for more. It varies from region to region, and in different social settings.
Julian raises the points:
1.) Not in my lifetime. Not so long ago, the standard sci-tech wisdom was that unraveling what is going on with aging would a slow, gradual process. It was foot-noted that several of our other key advances in biology and medicine were actually more like sudden avalanches, but this reality was downplayed. Now, in the last 15-20 years, leading workers and educators have changed their tune, saying the case with aging looks more like the older biology breakthroughs we have seen - once we get ahold of the key threads in the matter, the story will come out in a rush.
2.) Social disparities. Right now, the principle problem for charitable organizations trying to address ongoing and emerging human disasters around the world is "donor fatigue". Not that we are bad people, or uncaring, but it gets to be such a drag hearing about all these miseries all the time. Part of this has to do with living in an Information Age. In the past, we just didn't hear about it - or not until after it was done & over with - but it still happened.
How we share the benefits of medical progress is an issue. When aging goes the route of polio, will we retire to our castles to live for centuries, and let the poorer stretches of the planet fall through the cracks? A key factor in this question may be the element of "time". Given time - and that's what we're talking about - more & better solutions to the needs of the Rest of the World have a better shot at being worked out.
Pharmaceutical corporations, for example, presently being allowed to reap windfall profits, will one day go the route of Ma Bell. The stock-in-trade they now dominate will be more widely distributed, and a lot cheaper.
3.) Beauty lust. Yes, agreed, the concern for appearances and with projecting that certain youthful vigor is a big deal, and could well expand into major driving force for the pursuit of aging research.
4.) Philosophy. At this point in history, the conquest of aging remains mainly a philosophical debate ... since anti-aging is not yet a reality. Philosophy is highly appropriate.
What will a 1,000 year old be like? First, we live 100 years, then 150. Some will make poor choices. What works, and what doesn't, will show up early in the game. A few centuries out, this will be old history, and the nature of the survivors will be guided by the findings.
Can the brain handle it? It does not appear that we use all of our past to mold ourselves, right now. We appear to select scraps & icons from along the way, and make them proxies for the great mass of experience that we simply ignore, or perhaps did not get recorded at all.
Reproduction? Does it just go on & on? This is a major point. Population growth is of course already an issue. Presently, we are congratulating ourselves on having dodged the Population Bomb. That might be premature. In the very long term - centuries - present growth patterns become absurd. For example, extrapolating present modest growth rates out to 700 years yields about 1 million persons for each one alive today. I don't think anything remotely close to that will actually happen. There will be fundamental changes in reproduction - reduction.
Work?! Undoubtedly. It's already happening. Society can't afford retirement, when 'everybody' is retired.
Concept of Maturity? Fascinating...
New species? If reproduction slows - and I think it must - evolution slows. However, biotechnology now gives us the option of redefining ourselves, individually or collectively, without waiting for evolution - or even living any longer than we do now.
Nice points raised here. Thanks!
1.) Slow news month? The BBC online has a very decent science-page. You won't miss anything that'll be on the test, bookmarking their sci-tech portal. BBC Science & Nature
If the pace at the BBC isn't fast enough, try EurekAlert!.org, "A Service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science". Nice layout, and they have a monster archive going back several years that works very well.
Because of the separation of scientific publication from popular media, it can sometimes seem like there isn't much happening. Lots of important technical stuff does not meet the needs of the commercial publishing industries. Slow news months have been a luxury of the past for a long time, in science & technology.
2.) Tired of living. Denial. Emotional lethargy. Ennui is a problem. It should have a higher profile. When the life we have is a dud, it is hard to be enthusiastic for more. It varies from region to region, and in different social settings.
Julian raises the points:
1.) Not in my lifetime. Not so long ago, the standard sci-tech wisdom was that unraveling what is going on with aging would a slow, gradual process. It was foot-noted that several of our other key advances in biology and medicine were actually more like sudden avalanches, but this reality was downplayed. Now, in the last 15-20 years, leading workers and educators have changed their tune, saying the case with aging looks more like the older biology breakthroughs we have seen - once we get ahold of the key threads in the matter, the story will come out in a rush.
2.) Social disparities. Right now, the principle problem for charitable organizations trying to address ongoing and emerging human disasters around the world is "donor fatigue". Not that we are bad people, or uncaring, but it gets to be such a drag hearing about all these miseries all the time. Part of this has to do with living in an Information Age. In the past, we just didn't hear about it - or not until after it was done & over with - but it still happened.
How we share the benefits of medical progress is an issue. When aging goes the route of polio, will we retire to our castles to live for centuries, and let the poorer stretches of the planet fall through the cracks? A key factor in this question may be the element of "time". Given time - and that's what we're talking about - more & better solutions to the needs of the Rest of the World have a better shot at being worked out.
Pharmaceutical corporations, for example, presently being allowed to reap windfall profits, will one day go the route of Ma Bell. The stock-in-trade they now dominate will be more widely distributed, and a lot cheaper.
3.) Beauty lust. Yes, agreed, the concern for appearances and with projecting that certain youthful vigor is a big deal, and could well expand into major driving force for the pursuit of aging research.
4.) Philosophy. At this point in history, the conquest of aging remains mainly a philosophical debate ... since anti-aging is not yet a reality. Philosophy is highly appropriate.
What will a 1,000 year old be like? First, we live 100 years, then 150. Some will make poor choices. What works, and what doesn't, will show up early in the game. A few centuries out, this will be old history, and the nature of the survivors will be guided by the findings.
Can the brain handle it? It does not appear that we use all of our past to mold ourselves, right now. We appear to select scraps & icons from along the way, and make them proxies for the great mass of experience that we simply ignore, or perhaps did not get recorded at all.
Reproduction? Does it just go on & on? This is a major point. Population growth is of course already an issue. Presently, we are congratulating ourselves on having dodged the Population Bomb. That might be premature. In the very long term - centuries - present growth patterns become absurd. For example, extrapolating present modest growth rates out to 700 years yields about 1 million persons for each one alive today. I don't think anything remotely close to that will actually happen. There will be fundamental changes in reproduction - reduction.
Work?! Undoubtedly. It's already happening. Society can't afford retirement, when 'everybody' is retired.
Concept of Maturity? Fascinating...
New species? If reproduction slows - and I think it must - evolution slows. However, biotechnology now gives us the option of redefining ourselves, individually or collectively, without waiting for evolution - or even living any longer than we do now.
Nice points raised here. Thanks!
1. Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
I found this (below) interesting hypothesis…not being into biological science, I have no way of determining the veracity. Most of the anti-aging sites I found are akin to snake oil pitches. But it does pose an interesting explanation of aging.
If something like this is actually true, then great! Where do I sign up? (That last sentence tends to make me more than a little skeptical-make your own stem cells!
) There's a big difference between cells in a nice, sterile petri dish and a human living in the nasty ol' real world.
I seriously doubt that medical science is on track to “cure aging”, or even if that is a stated goal. I believe the first step to slowing down aging is to quit wanting to reach adulthood so quickly. It seems that children reach puberty at an earlier age than ever (as early as 7 or 8, according to this, at WebMd!! ); what if medical science were able to postpone puberty until age 18, or 20? A 30-year old would be more like today’s 15-year old. There have been all kinds of explanations for early onset puberty (hormones in our food, etc), but the aging process starts there, and if it started later, wouldn’t aging also start later? Makes sense to me.
2. Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
Like I said, a lot of these anti-aging and “immortality” sites reek of snake oil. I don't think it's a good idea to take them too seriously. Each generation already lives longer than the last (the oldest woman in America recently died at age 114, and the world’s oldest man –also from America - died at 113), and I don't see that small increase dramatically increasing in my lifetime, or even the next generation's lifetime. My question about "living to 1,000" is, will those extra years be quality years? If a 500-year old would be equivalent to a 40-year old today, cool! If 900 of those years is as a drooling, incontinent vegetable, then what's the point?
I do think lifespan will keep increasing as medical research finds cures for diseases and conditions that afflict humans as they age (Alzheimer’s, heart disease, glaucoma, spinal stenosis). What medical science certainly can do is improve the quality of life and therefore extend lifespan. And I'm all for that.
I found this (below) interesting hypothesis…not being into biological science, I have no way of determining the veracity. Most of the anti-aging sites I found are akin to snake oil pitches. But it does pose an interesting explanation of aging.
QUOTE
The maximum possible life span of a species is determined mainly by the length of its telomeres, strands of repeating subunits that determine the number of remaining cell divisions, found at the end of each coiled DNA. Each time a cell divides, the telomere is shortened by one sub-unit; when they are all used up, the cell has come to the end of its living potential and dies. When a child is conceived, an enzyme - telomerase - sets the telomeres back to their maximum potential.
About two years ago, scientists shattered the sound barrier of aging research when they inserted the telomerase gene into human cells, making those cells go far beyond their normal division potential. As of today, such cell cultures are going strong, without cancer, and are equivalent to 500 year old cells (Science, 1998).
"But this is just the beginning! Learn more about how it all works, from making your own embryonic stem cells to using them to treat literally any disease - - Section 24. Anti-Aging
About two years ago, scientists shattered the sound barrier of aging research when they inserted the telomerase gene into human cells, making those cells go far beyond their normal division potential. As of today, such cell cultures are going strong, without cancer, and are equivalent to 500 year old cells (Science, 1998).
"But this is just the beginning! Learn more about how it all works, from making your own embryonic stem cells to using them to treat literally any disease - - Section 24. Anti-Aging
If something like this is actually true, then great! Where do I sign up? (That last sentence tends to make me more than a little skeptical-make your own stem cells!
) There's a big difference between cells in a nice, sterile petri dish and a human living in the nasty ol' real world.I seriously doubt that medical science is on track to “cure aging”, or even if that is a stated goal. I believe the first step to slowing down aging is to quit wanting to reach adulthood so quickly. It seems that children reach puberty at an earlier age than ever (as early as 7 or 8, according to this, at WebMd!! ); what if medical science were able to postpone puberty until age 18, or 20? A 30-year old would be more like today’s 15-year old. There have been all kinds of explanations for early onset puberty (hormones in our food, etc), but the aging process starts there, and if it started later, wouldn’t aging also start later? Makes sense to me.
2. Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
Like I said, a lot of these anti-aging and “immortality” sites reek of snake oil. I don't think it's a good idea to take them too seriously. Each generation already lives longer than the last (the oldest woman in America recently died at age 114, and the world’s oldest man –also from America - died at 113), and I don't see that small increase dramatically increasing in my lifetime, or even the next generation's lifetime. My question about "living to 1,000" is, will those extra years be quality years? If a 500-year old would be equivalent to a 40-year old today, cool! If 900 of those years is as a drooling, incontinent vegetable, then what's the point?
I do think lifespan will keep increasing as medical research finds cures for diseases and conditions that afflict humans as they age (Alzheimer’s, heart disease, glaucoma, spinal stenosis). What medical science certainly can do is improve the quality of life and therefore extend lifespan. And I'm all for that.
DaffyGrl Goes to the lab.
Snake oil Dang ... I should have mentioned, it is very difficult to get anything constructive, doing direct searches for "anti-aging", "aging", "longevity", "fountain of youth", etc. The scam artists will eat you alive.
Better to identify a serious source of information first. Starting with the names of known researchers works good ... "aubrey de grey", "olshansky", "sweeney". Going to places like Scientific America or Discovery or EurekAlert!, and then using their search box is a good way to get rolling.
Telomeres Absolutely. Remember the "Hayflick Limit" from biology class? It was found decades ago that when cells are cultured in dishes, they do fine for a while ... then after a certain number of cell-division generations, they begin having problems successfully dividing anymore. The telomere is a molecule that facilitates the separation of the chromosomes during mitosis (cellular division). Each time a cell divides, this molecule loses a piece off the end. Eventually it becomes too short to properly guide the chromosomes during division, causing duplication to fail. The cells cannot replace themselves, and the organ of which they are a part deteriorates.
Stem Cells "Embryonic stem cells" are in the news a lot. This is a controversial topic, because the cells are gotten from human embryos. There is no way to make this a nice thing.
Fortunately, there is a parallel thread call "adult stem cells". It turns out that not all our embryonic-type stem cells disappear as we mature, after all. Actually, adult stem cell research has existed all along. Recently, there is a raft of reports coming out, describing the successful isolation and culturing of adult stem cells. Usually, they are found in follicles (hair-roots) or epithelial tissues (the lining of our cheek).
Stem cells are "undifferentiated". They can become ... anything. New nerve cells to bridge a severed spinal cord. T1 cells to jump-start and AIDS-ravaged immune system. Stem cells are a huge part of the picture, and adult stem cells let us entirely retire the ugliness of embryonic sources.
Quality of (long) life. The BBC article mentions that a key part of the emerging anti-aging picture is that achieving the longer lifespan is not done by prolonging geriatric debilitation, but by restoring adult bodies to tip-top condition. For example, it may soon emerge that such therapies will be adopted by elite athletes to give them the ultimate edge.
... "Better than every": The literal truth?
Snake oil Dang ... I should have mentioned, it is very difficult to get anything constructive, doing direct searches for "anti-aging", "aging", "longevity", "fountain of youth", etc. The scam artists will eat you alive.
Better to identify a serious source of information first. Starting with the names of known researchers works good ... "aubrey de grey", "olshansky", "sweeney". Going to places like Scientific America or Discovery or EurekAlert!, and then using their search box is a good way to get rolling.
Telomeres Absolutely. Remember the "Hayflick Limit" from biology class? It was found decades ago that when cells are cultured in dishes, they do fine for a while ... then after a certain number of cell-division generations, they begin having problems successfully dividing anymore. The telomere is a molecule that facilitates the separation of the chromosomes during mitosis (cellular division). Each time a cell divides, this molecule loses a piece off the end. Eventually it becomes too short to properly guide the chromosomes during division, causing duplication to fail. The cells cannot replace themselves, and the organ of which they are a part deteriorates.
Stem Cells "Embryonic stem cells" are in the news a lot. This is a controversial topic, because the cells are gotten from human embryos. There is no way to make this a nice thing.
Fortunately, there is a parallel thread call "adult stem cells". It turns out that not all our embryonic-type stem cells disappear as we mature, after all. Actually, adult stem cell research has existed all along. Recently, there is a raft of reports coming out, describing the successful isolation and culturing of adult stem cells. Usually, they are found in follicles (hair-roots) or epithelial tissues (the lining of our cheek).
Stem cells are "undifferentiated". They can become ... anything. New nerve cells to bridge a severed spinal cord. T1 cells to jump-start and AIDS-ravaged immune system. Stem cells are a huge part of the picture, and adult stem cells let us entirely retire the ugliness of embryonic sources.
Quality of (long) life. The BBC article mentions that a key part of the emerging anti-aging picture is that achieving the longer lifespan is not done by prolonging geriatric debilitation, but by restoring adult bodies to tip-top condition. For example, it may soon emerge that such therapies will be adopted by elite athletes to give them the ultimate edge.
... "Better than every": The literal truth?
QUOTE(TedClayton)
DaffyGrl Goes to the lab.
I never took biology...
lucky me. Funny thing, I was browsing the news at lunch, and Time magazine has a cover story about stress and how it ages people, and it mentions those pesky little telomeres as culprits.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
I never took biology... lucky me.
Q: What's the most important discovery they made in biology lab? lucky me.A : The smartest mice are the ones that escape!
I had forgotten about the problems of finding good, basic sources for aging topics on the Internet, without wandering into the wrong part of town, etc. And if we manage not to get mugged, there is still the problem of find the right level. Often, articles like the BBC piece at the start of this debate say a few interesting things, but then leave us wondering about the details. Then, seeking more particulars, we are likely to end up lost in a trackless polysyllabic techno-jungle.
Many big-name magazines have lots of good articles on aging topics, but they are subscription services. Most of them do have 'abstracts' that they let visitors view. These can be very useful, especially while surveying, trying to get the big picture.
Scientific American - Hundreds of quality, quick-intro abstracts. Just use the search box: 'aging'; 441 returns.
PBS is a nice place. Sharp website!
Stem Cells - Intro
- - Stem Cell Basics
- - Adult Stem Cells
Telomeres - Interview with telomere researcher Calvin Harley - PBS
Longevity - PBS interview with aging-research guru Roy Walford. Participant in Biosphere II.
Walford practices calorie restriction, the only thing presently known to produce significant life extension. Now known to work for adults too, even old adults.
Living Longer - Stealing Time - A PBS series that looks at notable long-lived people.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Take a walk in the Polysyllabic Jungle? The bastion of raw science ... and actually, pretty readable.
Accelerated telomere shortening in response to life stress
This is DaffyGrl's stress-induced telomere-damage article, on PNAS. "Uncooked."
Interesting topic... I have limited knowledge in science and biology so perhaps I can shed a little light on this discussion.
Aside from the "snake oil"... the science of what causes aging and how to prevent it has advanced significantly in the last decade. Most noteably is the process in which humans gather energy from air. Some scientists call it "the pact with the devil" because it provides a cheap source of energy at the expense of the deteriation to bodily functions. "Antioxidants" are able to "fight" to slow down this process in which air deteriates our bodily functions though it cerianly will not allow us to live to 1000. I believe that this is part of the experiment that the article refer's to.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=antio...s+aging&spell=1
http://www.eyesight.org/Reports/Report-Ant...tioxidants.html
http://www.lef.org/anti-aging/chap2.html
There is also research in gene replacements that have produced a 40-50% increased lifespan in certain mice.
http://genomics.senescence.info/genes/clues.html
This is not "snake oil" science, it's real. However humans are much more complex. We certianly are not "on the verge" of a scientific breakthrough that will allow humans to live to 1000, but it is possible through DNA and genetic research because that is the basic foundation of life itself and fully understanding it can produce immortality. For instance the human brain is essentially organic matter that transmits, recieves, and interprets information much like a computer. The problem is that we cannot concieve the basic interpretations that lead to human intelligence (though we are making progress). It's certianly not far fetched to say that one day the human brain can be duplicated with the exact information that another deteriorationg brain held.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/ai/future.shtml
Tree's live thousands of years. If it's possible humans one day may discover it and advance the science of nature essentially "tweaking" nature. Humans are an intelligent form of evolution.
Aside from the "snake oil"... the science of what causes aging and how to prevent it has advanced significantly in the last decade. Most noteably is the process in which humans gather energy from air. Some scientists call it "the pact with the devil" because it provides a cheap source of energy at the expense of the deteriation to bodily functions. "Antioxidants" are able to "fight" to slow down this process in which air deteriates our bodily functions though it cerianly will not allow us to live to 1000. I believe that this is part of the experiment that the article refer's to.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=antio...s+aging&spell=1
http://www.eyesight.org/Reports/Report-Ant...tioxidants.html
QUOTE
Some normal metabolic processes produce reactive byproducts which can do damage if not kept under control. Among these reactive byproducts are three forms of oxygen: molecular oxygen, peroxide and superoxide . They all react by taking electrons from other molecules, a type of reaction called oxidation.
The body prevents damaging oxidations by providing compounds with which the oxidants can react harmlessly. These compounds are called antioxidants.
Researchers have found that, as we get older, our bodies' systems for controlling potentially harmful oxidants by reacting them with antioxidants, become less effective. The enzymes which catalyze the reactions may not be as abundant, or the antioxidants consumed in the reactions may not be as abundant, as they are in younger bodies.
The body prevents damaging oxidations by providing compounds with which the oxidants can react harmlessly. These compounds are called antioxidants.
Researchers have found that, as we get older, our bodies' systems for controlling potentially harmful oxidants by reacting them with antioxidants, become less effective. The enzymes which catalyze the reactions may not be as abundant, or the antioxidants consumed in the reactions may not be as abundant, as they are in younger bodies.
http://www.lef.org/anti-aging/chap2.html
QUOTE
Harman's first experiments tested several drugs for effects on the lifespan of AKR and C3H mice. He obtained a lifespan increase in his mice of about 20 percent.
There is also research in gene replacements that have produced a 40-50% increased lifespan in certain mice.
http://genomics.senescence.info/genes/clues.html
QUOTE
growth hormone receptor (Laron mouse) Increase in lifespan of 40-50% in homozygous knock-outs.
This is not "snake oil" science, it's real. However humans are much more complex. We certianly are not "on the verge" of a scientific breakthrough that will allow humans to live to 1000, but it is possible through DNA and genetic research because that is the basic foundation of life itself and fully understanding it can produce immortality. For instance the human brain is essentially organic matter that transmits, recieves, and interprets information much like a computer. The problem is that we cannot concieve the basic interpretations that lead to human intelligence (though we are making progress). It's certianly not far fetched to say that one day the human brain can be duplicated with the exact information that another deteriorationg brain held.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/ai/future.shtml
QUOTE
A computer program developed at Brandeis University in Massachusetts has learnt how to design and build bridges, cranes and tables all by itself. It reinvented support structures such as the cantilever and the triangle without prior knowledge of them.
Tree's live thousands of years. If it's possible humans one day may discover it and advance the science of nature essentially "tweaking" nature. Humans are an intelligent form of evolution.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Dec 8 2004, 06:54 PM)
Antioxidants - Nice antioxidants article at EyeSight.org. I guess it's actually a fairly weird thing that life manages at all in an oxygen atmosphere. Pretty corrosive stuff. There is something inherently satisfying about the fact that the best sources of antioxidants and protection from the damage of oxygen and free radicals, is from the simplest and most humble foods: green leaves and natural seeds.
Humans can't make their own vitamin C (an important antioxidant) but other animals do. As a rule, the levels of vitamin C that are produced internally are very high compared with the amounts our health officials recommend we get in our diet.
Dogs Don't Lie: Vitamin C is Man's Best Friend - - ... "Dogs -- along with every other animal besides apes, bats, guinea pigs, and humans -- produce vitamin C naturally at a far greater rate than we can ingest it. In fact, a 154-pound human needs 10 grams of vitamin C per day to keep pace with the natural production of larger animals. Furthermore, animals produce additional amounts of C in times of stress."
Earlier, DaffyGrl pointed out a current research article reporting a link between the presence of stress and accelerated aging. Antioxidants protect the cellular machinery responsible for the regenerative capacity of our tissues...
Antioxidants inhibit nuclear export of telomerase reverse transcriptase and delay replicative senescence of endothelial cells.
[This link, into the NCBI, PubMed, Entrez domain, is another great source of info.]
The article that Vampiel links to at LifeExtension, by Dr. Harmon, deserves some more attention. Dr. Harmon was impressed by the results of early radiation therapy experiments that showed antioxidants protect the body from the effects of heavy radiation exposure. It had also been noticed that large radiation exposures led to marked signs of accelerated aging. Harmon pursued the connection between aging and antioxidants. I recommend this article, and repeat the link to it here. Chapter 2: Antioxidants as Drugs against Aging
(I am a military nuclear power plant operator, trained in radioactive materials handling, radioactive decontamination and emergency 'nuclear medicine'. This LifeExtension article uses substantial portions of the literature used in my training. It's valuable stuff, and hard to find.) Good score, Vampiel!
In the LifeExtension paper you will see the name Alex Comfort. He was a major early researcher into the biology of aging, regeneration and organ transplantation. He captured the attention of Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator, and they partnered in research for some years. If you have access to a major library, there are extensive records of this work. There are other names in the document, also important early workers.
Fascinating index of Genes that Appear to Modulate Mammalian Ageing . - from Vampiel. Genetics and the Human Genome Project of course play a huge role in ageing, anti-ageing research.
Excellent debate elements, Vampiel. Thanks!
QUOTE("TedClayton")
Excellent debate elements, Vampiel. Thanks!
So is everyone going to goto the store and hoard antioxidants now?
Just something to think about.... they certianly seem to be promising (though you need to take quite a bit of them but not to much).Thanks, I try to keep up on scientific research. Antioxidants was the first thing to come to mind when I read the topic. Followed by genetic research (which also leads to Bionics).
Are we basically on track to cure aging - just a matter of time?
It's hard to determine at this point but recent research is promising. If human history has anything to say about it I would conclude that the answer is yes. Primarily due to DNA mapping, understanding gene's and what causes aging. Given this is the most basic stepping stones that make up a human life I believe we just discovered the puzzle that is made up of trillions of peices. However computer's can analyze these peices but cannot connect them, but can help to determine their contents. I like to think of it as a three dimensional puzzle. Computers can only display the trillions of peices of the puzzle and tell us what they contain, we have to put them together, one peice at a time. This process will likely take decades if not hundreds of years. Though even with only a small portion of the puzzle put together we can still reap the limited "benefits" of the peices that have been connected.
Is this a good idea? Should we try to put the brakes on? Can we?
Of course it's a good idea! Why should we "put the brakes on"? This come's down to the question of to what end it would produce. Human's living to be 1000 years old is not about us being "stuck" at the age of 70. It's about aquiring the wisdom of someone at the age of 70 while physically able to do the same task's of a 25 year old. In fact it's about exceeding current human abilities. Excellerated information gathering combined with decreased aging. This isn't LOL what a crazy scientist folks, it's well within the human ability to aquire the knowledge. Cloning is a reality. DNA mapping is a reality. Computers are a reality. Decompiling the genetic and DNA code is a reality. It's only a matter of time for them to emerge as an intergral component which would be considered Bionics. Though I do not believe we will live to 1000 anytime soon but it is achievable. The person in the article looks like he's stoned with a dream (which isnt necessarily bad, but unrealistic).
Off topic but here's an interesting web site.
http://www.r50rd.co.uk/research/internal/v2i/engin/
http://www.r50rd.co.uk/research/internal/v...s/stop_test.htm
BTW by all accounts it's fake.
Look's real though.
I think you guys are missing the point, all this does is cure us of AGING. It can't help you if you get hit by a car or catch some type of incurable disease. I think it would be a miracle if a person could go for 1000 years accident and disease free, and us smokers will probably still be lucky to make it to 60. 
And who looks forward to going to work for 900 years, and then retire for the last 100.
And who looks forward to going to work for 900 years, and then retire for the last 100.
QUOTE(Rev_DelFuego @ Dec 8 2004, 10:59 PM)
... all this does is cure us of AGING
Well, we have to start somewhere! 
Today we conquer aging, tomorrow we tackle city buses and smoking.You do underscore a valuable point that tends to get obscured in the dust-up. Open-ended longevity, the 'curing' of aging, is not the same as immortality. Fix aging, and there are still plenty of ways to die.
The original magazine article that I used to start this debate, 'We will be able to live to 1,000', discusses the statistics of accidental, non-aging-related death. We have about a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting suddenly snuffed, in any one year. Thus, folks would live an average of about 1,000 years, if all that took them out was accidents. That's where the 1,000 years figure came from.
In one of the earlier posts, Julian lists several "Philosophy" points. In this message, you allude to another: As we gain the ability to delay or fix the effects of aging, and have the potential to live longer, will we then become more cautious about physical risk of all sorts?
And you raise another philosophy-issue: Work: We can't all just retire at 65 and then live forever. Who will take the garbage out? The thought of slogging on in some unsatisfying employment which we now force ourselves to perform strikes many as a good reason to bag the whole idea of curing aging. Look for major changes to the work-scene.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.