Life extension and technology

If a true elixir of youth existed, would you drink from it?

  • Yes, I would love to live this long.

    Votes: 34 87.2%

  • No, I can't stand myself now.

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • I think I would, but I think people are not capable of filling their lifes that long.

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Total voters
    39
At some point the world would become extremely populated if age was to extend greatly.

Then . . .
countermeasures

Enter - Life clocks

:eek:


attachment.php




Logans run
 

Attachments

Seriously I have wondered how great extending life would be for the benefit of all humans.

Given a great mind like Einstein the ability to live decades more, what a contribution to the world he would have made above and beyond what he did.
Not only him but all those who contribute genious. Their additional time here would have tremendous impact to a greater world.
 
Pressure groups pushing for more widespread funding of life-extension technology research seem to be constantly frustrated by the fact that major global scientific institutions seek to contain progress within very selective parameters and are very reticent to encourage more open access to the field.

Those who advocate the necessity to mainstream life-extension technology research are keen to tackle the red herring of overpopulation, which is often cited as a reason to restrict the availability of such advances.

As the Fight Aging organization is keen to stress, the specter of overpopulation is a con game used by the elite to keep their subservient and enslaved population in poverty.

The fact is that population growth naturally declines and reverses with increasing wealth, industrialization and the creation of a strong middle class
 
Right now the impediments to living longer (at least in industrialized societies) are cardiovascular disease and cancer. Now suppose we could fix those things--a big "if." Then, new impediments would appear.

Thinking back, 150 years ago, cardiovascular causes were a much rarer cause of death. And 1000 years ago, cancer was probably a rare cause of death. So if we could extend life by 50 or 100 years, we would probably find that some disease that is currently an uncommon cause of death would become common.
 
I think the study of the human metagenome will turn the current anti-aging research on its head. You might have heard that bacterial cells outnumber human cells 10 to 1. Also, courtesy of the Human Microbiome project, it turns out that 99% of the genetic material in the body is non-human. Do you think all these critters are 100% symbiotic and helping your life processes? Do you think the bulk of the critters are even 50% symbiotic vs. parasitic? Do you think you would need to feel sick, or maybe it is in the bacteria/virus best interest to not harm you too much, the damage occurring over years and decades?

Considering this, it seems silly to have a primary concern that the body (which has an amazing ability to repair & heal itself) will just "decide to shut down" or run out of heartbeats.
 
Quote from nitro:

I have been studying why we age. It turns out that basically we are programmed to live and there is no genetic basis for aging, but it is damage to our cells that causes aging.

I believe that in the future, nano-technology will create extremely small robots that will be programmed to go into the body and repair cellls en-masse, extending life.

From another direction, people like

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

are identifying at the genetic and molecular level what actually happens and how we can extend life, to the point where we could live to be 1000 years old, and for much of that time we would be young.

The question is, would you want to live this long?
More...

You're going on ignore for starting too many useless, dumb-ass threads. Don't you have some back testing or something you could do when you're bored?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top