What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
176 Comments
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -2/+72The problem with immortality is that you have to spend all your time going around cutting off other immortal's heads, and in the end there can be only one.
- redgiemental, on 06/11/2009, -5/+46Give this man more money!!
- WanderOn, on 06/11/2009, -11/+49Don't we have enough of an overpopulation problem as it is?
- kartman2001, on 06/11/2009, -8/+42Somebody's been watching Oprah.
- Kstha1, on 06/11/2009, -4/+34All that you know is nothing compared to all that is yet to be discovered.
- Nairebis, on 06/11/2009, -1/+29They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
- rjey, on 06/11/2009, -0/+21Long life gives us the ability for people like Hawking to figure out how to travel the galaxy faster than we can now so we can populate other planets. 200 years away is feasible if you don't age. Might be boring as hell without some sort of suspended animation but it is doable.
- chadsexingtime, on 06/11/2009, -0/+20My plan is to live forever. So far, so good.
- smitas, on 06/11/2009, -2/+21Not yet!
- roostersheep, on 06/11/2009, -0/+15Excellent attitude towards the possibility of an indefinite lifespan!
- derek20cali, on 06/11/2009, -1/+14*Woosh*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander:_The_Serie ... - str1fe, on 06/11/2009, -4/+17Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is what's optional
- omgwtflawl, on 06/11/2009, -4/+17I'd like this to be true, but is it possible this guy put forth an unfalsifiable proposition, and that is why no one could disprove it? This smacks of a "Well you can't PROVE that their aren't any unicorns!".
- Peantoo, on 06/11/2009, -0/+13This is exactly the reason I'm getting my phd in Bioengineering. Going to learn how to fix them body parts.
- durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -0/+12
"Having said that, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon."
Aubrey's point isn't that you have to solve everything overnight. You just have to continually buy more and more time. If someone whose 30 years old today lives another 50 years, then that's 50 years of medical advancements, and by the time they're 80, they can prolong their life until 120, during which there's another 40 years of medical advancements.
Think of how far we've come in just the past 15 years with stem cells. Now give us 20, 30, 50, 70, 90 more years of research.
The goal is constant improvements, not overnight miracles. - durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -5/+15I feel like you didn't actually read the article. Aubrey De Grey isn't talking about growing old without dying, he's talking about halting and reversing the aging process. So a 500 year old would look like a 25 year old.
"However I'd need to see a lot more evidence of any kind before I'd consider this guy plausible."
How about you read his books:
The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging
http://www.amazon.com/Mitochondrial-Radical-Molecu ...
Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime
http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Br ... - BigManOnCampus, on 06/11/2009, -3/+12Having seen a few 60+ year-old dojo masters who could probably outrun me, and out push-up me, and kill me all before I knew what was happening... I can definitely say that much of aging is optional.
- tao52nyc, on 06/11/2009, -2/+11I'm 55 now, have read both Aubrey's and Ray Kurzweil's work, and am diligent in my diet, exercise, and supplement programs. In another 20-25 years, I expect true age reversal tech. I just have to stay healthy and active long enough to take advantage of it. I'm planning my 150th birthday party in 2104. At 200, I'll do a long-term review.
- Nairebis, on 06/11/2009, -1/+10Wow! [slaps forehead] No one has EVER tied immortality to overpopulation before! Brilliance!
Dude, you ought to write a newsletter or something so I could subscribe to it. - icecoldtrashcan, on 06/11/2009, -0/+9Did you even read the article? The person that karl interviews is not the person in this article. The guy in the interview genuinely thought he was immortal, which is clearly not the case, and stupid.
This article is about how de Grey postulates that if we develop the science, we can prevent aging - which seems to me like an entirely possible idea. Much more so than many people in this thread think. - akula89, on 06/11/2009, -0/+8at the very least, life can be prolonged if not 'cured'
far from pointless! - inactive, on 06/11/2009, -0/+8Death is inevitable, but what's bad about wanting to delay it?
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7Peanut butter. And lots of it.
- chadsexingtime, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7You're an idiot.
- Russelllucid, on 06/11/2009, -1/+8Well its an engineering problem. A very tough one but none of the steps is impossible..
Actually making a unicorn is probably not impossible either.. - alpha88, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6@Pixelante:
"how to travel the galaxy faster than we can now"
How does that translate to light speed to you? We haven't even begun to approach light speed, so it's certainly feasible that we could travel faster than we currently can. - brainache, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6A limit on the number of children you can have (similar to the china one child policy) in a lifetime. Its relatively easy to control the population if you control the birth rate. 1 child per person per lifetime, population remains roughly steady give or take children being hit by buses (maybe you could have another child if your child dies before the age of say 20?). One child per family/couple and the population should shrink nicely to a more sustainable level. One and a half children per couple, perhaps you could then sell (on a free market of children-bearing rights?) the 'half a child' that you have to another couple so they can have 2 rather than one? Or you could buy a half a child.
Just a few solutions, I am sure there are others. - wannarto, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6lend him money, ask him to return in 1000 years...
- FlyinRyan89, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6"retirement will be a periodic thing.
You'll be a journalist for 40 years or whatever and then you'll be sick of it and you'll retire on your savings or on a state pension, depending on what the system is. So after 20 years, golf will have lost its novelty value, and you'll want to do something else with your life. You'll get more retraining and education, and go and be a rock star for 40 years, and then retire again and so on."
sounds cool to me! haha - fragMasterFlash, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6I want more life, f*cker.
- PsychoticX, on 06/11/2009, -0/+6Religion eh? Fine, I'll play ball.
People in the bible started off living to be hundreds of years old. According to that, long life is the way God designed it. Pretty ironic for a bunch of "Atheist scientists" to bring us closer to biblical form. - burrgrinder, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5The earth, sun and your house and car are not sentient beings. They can't solve problems, make predictions or alter their path. They're very much just pendulums set in motion. They don't know they're going to age and decay.
Given what cancer, stem cell, and artificial organ growth and gene research has accomplished in the last 20 years, it's not a big leap of faith to assume in 50 or 100 years we can reverse or replace aged, cancerous or malfunctioning parts of our bodies. Think of immortality as the wooden ships of history. Slowly replacing rotting wood and damaged parts as needed, the ship may age, but it doesn't become decrepit.
The longer you live, the better your outlook becomes. Life is an incredibly complex set of mechanical, chemical and electrical mechanisms, but it's not magic either. It can be figured out, improved, rebuilt and altered. The elements of our bodies that cause aging can be stopped or fixed, given enough time to solve the problem. But I do agree, to live beyond the length of time earth can sustain life, we'll have to get off the planet, out of the solar system, and possibly out of our galaxy. - pr0t0, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5Aubrey de Grey is no crackpot. He's a well-respected scientist and funded. Since the article was light on details, I think all can be forgiven for basing their opinions on what dailygalaxy had to offer.
The reason de Grey thinks we can halt aging is due to a sub-cellular structure known as the mitochondria. The mitochondria acts like a vacuum; sucking up all the contaminants that enter the cell. As we grow older, we show the physical signs of aging due to the mitochondria getting "clogged" to continue the comparison. The mitochondria can clean the cell, but not itself. Over time, it's ability to function properly diminishes and eventually stops, so bones become brittle, skin starts to wrinkle, the synapses don't fire as well as they used to, etc.
de Grey conducts and proposes research into ways to keep the mitochondria clean. Aging isn't a disease; it's a natural process that is the direct result of mitochondrial decay. If you can stop the decay, you can stop the aging. As long as we take in energy we should be able to extend our lifespans to a length that is directly proportional to how clean our cells are.
As to whether the human body can last 1000 years given maladies like bone breaks and dementia, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying. The brain and bones are of course made of cells. A bone that was once broken is weaker, but is that weakness due to a problem with the cells in the affected area, or the bonds between them? Were those cells perfectly clean, would it make a difference in the strength? I certainly don't know. I feel that should de Grey succeed, it would seem you could say any healthy tissue would remain that way.
I don't think it's a worthless pursuit. There are plenty of people on this planet doing research into all kinds of scientific endeavors. Sure, some are more attainable or even more important than others. But I think it's outside our nature as a species to focus all of humanity's efforts toward one task. If de Grey fails, he will have either created a foundation for others to build upon, or added to our knowledge a way in which something does not work. I for one do not believe the latter is devoid of merit. - Nairebis, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5I don't think anyone doubts that it's *possible* to regenerate our bodies into a youthful state. After all, that's basically what a child is. The question is whether it's practical to repair all the accumulated damage and "reset" the aging clock.
One thing I've always found fascinating is that dogs and people, both roughly the same weight class, age at *very* different rates. I have a 15 year old dog, and he has all the symptoms of an 80 year old man. Yet a 15 year old human is not even mature yet. Both are mammals with roughly the same physiology. - Russelllucid, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5This man likes Beer, I've shared a few pints with him in Cambridge. Good real ale too, so I definitely believe him! Especially after pint 3 or 4...
- Russelllucid, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5Luckily you can, donate here http://www.mprize.org
- Tyrfang, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5If we can stop aging, we can probably switch people from being fertile to sterile on order to control overpopulation problems.
Besides, most of the developed world would already have shrinking populations soon due to the low birth rates, if it weren't for immigration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_ferti ...
Granted, should this ever develop into reality, I suspect massive barriers would be put up to stop immigration from 3rd World Countries, assuming they still exist at that point.
In any case, solving aging would not prevent all causes of death, simply degenerative diseases or diseases where the body goes awry, such as cancer, auto-immune, most cardiovascular diseases, and things such as Alzheimer's. These account for the majority of deaths, but there are still things like suicide, car accidents, war, etc. that claim a large percentage of lives. - tao52nyc, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4Not in the "developed" western countries. So the key to overpopulation is to get China, India, and the "developing" world up to speed ASAP. Because it seems the more wealthy, comfortable, and well-fed a nation is, the less its citizens feel pressured to reproduce.
- bryon, on 06/11/2009, -3/+7The longer you live, the higher the likelihood of getting hit by a car.
- renesisx, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4I'm doing the best I can! I already set up to donate $25,000 as one of the original "300" for the Methuselah Foundation.
- davdev, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4My plan has always been to be sired by a vampire, but if this works it's cool too, plus I could still go to the beach
- blubolt, on 06/11/2009, -1/+5Telomeres - look it up........
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4Of course it is optional, just not optional at the present time.
It is inevitable as science develops, one possible fix i can see is nanotechnology, imagine nanobots constantly working to fix problems in the body, collecting minute waste products and depositing them in the intestines, and absorbing free radicals to keep themselves running. - tao52nyc, on 06/11/2009, -1/+5I have. The answer: TA-65. Look THAT up...
- Dugular, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4Don't think you've got the right definition of irony :) The dude knows he will die until he finds the answer, therefore, not really ironic.
- tao52nyc, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4I read an article years ago that claimed, even if senescence could be reversed (hope so!), the average lifespan of a human would be "only" 850 or so. Simply given the law of averages, sooner or later (unless we lived inside Iron Mountain or something) we'd do something dangerous, make a mistake, zig when we should have zagged, or simply boarded the wrong plane or train. Cellular regen can't prevent choking on food, drowning, a bad parachute, failed brakes or steering, bad weather, or pilot error.
But it MIGHT give us a little more wisdom - as we'd live to see the results of the policies we put in place. I'd love to hear what the Founders would think of America today, instead of just assuming they are all spinning in their graves. - pbuschma, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4here is a link to the guy's TED talk
Good news .. I don't think he is crazy
Bad news ... If you can read this it won't apply to you
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aubrey_de_grey_s ... - ChrisOrr, on 06/11/2009, -32/+36I don't want to sound like one of those ad hominem attackers of his ideals, but really? Does this guy think he knows something about time that the rest of us are missing?
"It's just like maintaining the functional life span of a classic car, or a house. We know -- because people do it"
Yeah, all those 1000 year old cars out there are pretty cool, and I plan on my wooden beam house to be here for the next 20,000 or so. (/s) Can the earth choose whether it ages or not? how about the sun? Did this guy miss the memo that living and nonliving things here are subject to things like, the laws of science? In chemistry they teach you about the rates of chemical equations under different conditions. And we have things like bacteria and other micro-organisms around: some make sure you die, some devour your body so the world isn't a pile of gross old/dead things. So I'm pretty sure in order for any of us "earthly" beings to live for the 1000s of years this guy promises we'd have to live somewhere that isn't earth, or we have some serious evolving to do. And, since last I checked it takes millions of years to evolve, I'm pretty sure were not gonna see it in his lifetime.
I'm not saying that I'm smarter or know more about science than this guy. However I'd need to see a lot more evidence of any kind (of which there is none in the article) before I'd consider this guy plausible. 1000 years? Lets try to break like 130 first, look at the oldest person ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
It looks like she's already been dead for 10 years in that picture. If I had to live 1000 years looking like that than no thanks. - wolfkeeper, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4That's what did it.
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -1/+5Most people do not want to live forever or even a very long time. I mean take look around at Americans you see on the street every day. How many people do you know who make a daily effort to keep their health in tip top shape and avoid the intake of things which are harmful to their body? Maintaining your health over an extended period of time is an investment of effort so large that normal people are not willing to put forth the effort or make the sacrifices necessary.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 181 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is