Living Forever

[All Seeing Eye]

Ive read somewhere that a human being has the potential through healthy eating etc to live to an age of 120 years but as technology and science progress what age could a human live to? are we forever destined to die of old age or could we one day have the ability to live forever?

Now I understand that cells can only replicate themselves so many times and then they die off which is the reason we grow old but what about the brain? brain cells dont divide and have been seen to regenerate so should humans gain the ability to replace dieing organs with new healthy ones would the human brain live forever or would this too require technology to ensure its survival?

Im interest to learn about different ways the human lifespan can be extended through science and technology, does anyone here believe that during our lifetimes that scientists could come up with a way to stop the ageing process? Ive certainly got my fingers crossed!!

 

[FordSVT]

I think that with gene and cell therapies and advanced medicines, organ replacement, etc., biological humans as we know us could potentially live to be at least 200 years old, with 150 years of that being in peak condition.

It's anyone's guess what types of technologies might come to be to prolong life, both technological and biological. Like we discussed in another thread, it might get to the point where you simply throw away your old body and put your brain or at least your "mind" in a brand new grown or robot body and live "forever".

 

[Zachary Smith]

I believe we are "programmed" by nature to age at a certain rate. That programming will eventually be able to be re-written and aging avoided entirely.

Here's a lnk to a simplified article on telomeres and their role in aging.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/features/telomeres/

I think they are key and when they can be replenished/ reinvigortated, even very aged cells will return to a state of youth. It really is, literally, a potiential fountain of youth.

(Sadly, probably NOT coming about in my lifetime.)

 

[USS KG5]

FordSVT said:
It's anyone's guess what types of technologies might come to be to prolong life, both technological and biological. Like we discussed in another thread, it might get to the point where you simply throw away your old body and put your brain or at least your "mind" in a brand new grown or robot body and live "forever".

The question very quickly becomes more a "should we" than a "can we" - are humans meant to live forever?

There is no harm in prolonging life as much as possible (I have heard ages like 140 bandied around) but all life seems to have a natural end point - maybe this is meant to be that way?

 

[Zachary Smith]

USS KG5 said:

FordSVT said:
It's anyone's guess what types of technologies might come to be to prolong life, both technological and biological. Like we discussed in another thread, it might get to the point where you simply throw away your old body and put your brain or at least your "mind" in a brand new grown or robot body and live "forever".

The question very quickly becomes more a "should we" than a "can we" - are humans meant to live forever?

There is no harm in prolonging life as much as possible (I have heard ages like 140 bandied around) but all life seems to have a natural end point - maybe this is meant to be that way?

By whom?

 

[USS KG5]

Zachary Smith said:

USS KG5 said:

FordSVT said:
It's anyone's guess what types of technologies might come to be to prolong life, both technological and biological. Like we discussed in another thread, it might get to the point where you simply throw away your old body and put your brain or at least your "mind" in a brand new grown or robot body and live "forever".

The question very quickly becomes more a "should we" than a "can we" - are humans meant to live forever?

There is no harm in prolonging life as much as possible (I have heard ages like 140 bandied around) but all life seems to have a natural end point - maybe this is meant to be that way?

By whom?

I don't know! I am merely pointing out that there is that pattern in the way the world works, in the words of the Doctor: "Everything has its time and everything dies".

I am not implying there is some divine control, I have little time for organised religion and associated dogma.

 

[Zachary Smith]

USS KG5 said:

Zachary Smith said:

USS KG5 said:

FordSVT said:
It's anyone's guess what types of technologies might come to be to prolong life, both technological and biological. Like we discussed in another thread, it might get to the point where you simply throw away your old body and put your brain or at least your "mind" in a brand new grown or robot body and live "forever".

The question very quickly becomes more a "should we" than a "can we" - are humans meant to live forever?

There is no harm in prolonging life as much as possible (I have heard ages like 140 bandied around) but all life seems to have a natural end point - maybe this is meant to be that way?

By whom?

I don't know! I am merely pointing out that there is that pattern in the way the world works, in the words of the Doctor: "Everything has its time and everything dies".

I am not implying there is some divine control, I have little time for organised religion and associated dogma.

While I beleive things happen for a reason, particularly when you're considering a process as complex as evolution, I also believe that the particulars can be controlled and even altered.

I think within two hundred years, we will be able to control the aging process to the point of reversing it to the period of maximum vitality--for those with means to acquire the treatment. Society will change more fundamentally in the next 300-400 years than it has in the last 4000, I believe.

 

[USS KG5]

Zachary Smith said:
I think within two hundred years, we will be able to control the aging process to the point of reversing it to the period of maximum vitality--for those with means to acquire the treatment. Society will change more fundamentally in the next 300-400 years than it has in the last 4000, I believe.

I think you are right - though I find the idea of the super-rich being able to afford to "buy" extra life is a little disturbing!

 

[Novitas]

Zachary Smith said:
Society will change more fundamentally in the next 300-400 years than it has in the last 4000, I believe.

Ironically though, a society made up of eternals or just very long lived people would probably become very set in its ways and societal change would almost grind to a halt.

It may well be that one reason we die is so that humanity can be enriched by the best of what we are without having to be indefinitely burdened by the worst of what we are.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Animals die because the planet wouldnt be capable of sustaining life if they could live forever, the planet would be over-run by billions of each animal and insect, this is why I believe evolution working in conjunction with the earth made sure we all die but the way I see it is that when you die chances are thats it, theres nothing else and i'm afraid that doesnt sit well with me whatsoever so the sooner scientists get to work on a cure for ageing the better!!!

 

[Crewman47]

What about the people in Biblical times when we had men living for anything up to a 1000 years, I think the oldest was around the 900 odd year mark. Do you think we'll ever get back to that type of longeity?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Crewman47 said:
What about the people in Biblical times when we had men living for anything up to a 1000 years, I think the oldest was around the 900 odd year mark. Do you think we'll ever get back to that type of longevity?

I don't want to get into a deep Biblical discussion here but the Bible isn't exactly a piece of factual evidence and its unlikely people lived to be 900, if people did live that long something has seriously gone to shit with our biology in the past 18,000 years.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

People often fail to look on the bright side of clinical immortality. What are the good things that could come from being able to live forever?

Assuming your keep your mental faculties intact, you're talking about people who can develop not just decades of experience, but centuries. Imagine researchers of various stripes who live for centuries or even millennia. It's tantalizing to think about how science could advance under the leadership of people who've had the time to learn everything there is to know about their field.

Imagine a historian who has lived long enough to see the rise and fall of numerous cultures. That's the sort of perspective we simply don't have today.

I think people unfettered by a ticking clock would have the ability to transcend the biases and prejudices of their own generation.

There are certainly downsides. I could foresee a future in which humanity is divided between the "eternals" and the "temporals." People who can't afford to extend their lives would have to compete for low-quality jobs because all the really interesting ones would be taken by the eternals who have the time and money to spend centuries simply learning their field of expertise.

I also think there are very basic tenets of human existence that would appear violated by the prospect of extending human life to such great lengths. We might even go as far as outlawing it as a result.

I'm one of those people that doesn't think research should be halted, though, even if we find its implications frightening. We're talking about living a long time, not building devastating weapons. As long as we keep that distinction, I think science should be allowed to proceed.

 

[FordSVT]

USS KG5 said:

Zachary Smith said:
I think within two hundred years, we will be able to control the aging process to the point of reversing it to the period of maximum vitality--for those with means to acquire the treatment. Society will change more fundamentally in the next 300-400 years than it has in the last 4000, I believe.

I think you are right - though I find the idea of the super-rich being able to afford to "buy" extra life is a little disturbing!

It might be like that at first, but almost all technology eventually trickles down to the little guy.

 

[FordSVT]

Robert Maxwell said:
People often fail to look on the bright side of clinical immortality. What are the good things that could come from being able to live forever?

Assuming your keep your mental faculties intact, you're talking about people who can develop not just decades of experience, but centuries. Imagine researchers of various stripes who live for centuries or even millennia. It's tantalizing to think about how science could advance under the leadership of people who've had the time to learn everything there is to know about their field.

Imagine a historian who has lived long enough to see the rise and fall of numerous cultures. That's the sort of perspective we simply don't have today.

I think people unfettered by a ticking clock would have the ability to transcend the biases and prejudices of their own generation.

There are certainly downsides. I could foresee a future in which humanity is divided between the "eternals" and the "temporals." People who can't afford to extend their lives would have to compete for low-quality jobs because all the really interesting ones would be taken by the eternals who have the time and money to spend centuries simply learning their field of expertise.

I also think there are very basic tenets of human existence that would appear violated by the prospect of extending human life to such great lengths. We might even go as far as outlawing it as a result.

I'm one of those people that doesn't think research should be halted, though, even if we find its implications frightening. We're talking about living a long time, not building devastating weapons. As long as we keep that distinction, I think science should be allowed to proceed.

It must be said that any technical system that could be used to stop aging could probably be used for more nefarious purposes. Almost any technology can be used for bad or good.

 

[flux_29]

I can remember hearing some tv programe go on about how as we get older, the repairs or bodies need mount up, thus age. but if we had a boosted imune/repair systems like nanites for cell repair, then mabye a human could live to 200, but would prob' need to recive nanites to keep their bodies heathy after their 50's. (and regular bosster shots)

 

[TerriO]

FordSVT said:

USS KG5 said:

Zachary Smith said:
I think within two hundred years, we will be able to control the aging process to the point of reversing it to the period of maximum vitality--for those with means to acquire the treatment. Society will change more fundamentally in the next 300-400 years than it has in the last 4000, I believe.

I think you are right - though I find the idea of the super-rich being able to afford to "buy" extra life is a little disturbing!

It might be like that at first, but almost all technology eventually trickles down to the little guy.

The thing is, will the little guy live long enough for it to trickle down to him? Therein lies the rub.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

FordSVT said:

Robert Maxwell said:
People often fail to look on the bright side of clinical immortality. What are the good things that could come from being able to live forever?

Assuming your keep your mental faculties intact, you're talking about people who can develop not just decades of experience, but centuries. Imagine researchers of various stripes who live for centuries or even millennia. It's tantalizing to think about how science could advance under the leadership of people who've had the time to learn everything there is to know about their field.

Imagine a historian who has lived long enough to see the rise and fall of numerous cultures. That's the sort of perspective we simply don't have today.

I think people unfettered by a ticking clock would have the ability to transcend the biases and prejudices of their own generation.

There are certainly downsides. I could foresee a future in which humanity is divided between the "eternals" and the "temporals." People who can't afford to extend their lives would have to compete for low-quality jobs because all the really interesting ones would be taken by the eternals who have the time and money to spend centuries simply learning their field of expertise.

I also think there are very basic tenets of human existence that would appear violated by the prospect of extending human life to such great lengths. We might even go as far as outlawing it as a result.

I'm one of those people that doesn't think research should be halted, though, even if we find its implications frightening. We're talking about living a long time, not building devastating weapons. As long as we keep that distinction, I think science should be allowed to proceed.

It must be said that any technical system that could be used to stop aging could probably be used for more nefarious purposes. Almost any technology can be used for bad or good.

This is true. Technology itself is morally neutral. Sometimes, we forget that. It's all in how we use it.

One thing I just thought of was in the realm of criminal justice. If we did gain fine control over human lifespan, could we replace jail time with a simple shortening of a convict's life? Rather than twenty years in prison, shave twenty years off the offender's life. For particularly long sentences, this would be tantamount to a death penalty.

But that's just one thought, off the top of my head.

 

[Venardhi]

Prison is for rehabilitation and isolation from society, not simply a punishment. Simply shortening their life would neither rehabilitate nor take them off the streets.

 

[M'Sharak]

USS KG5 said:

Zachary Smith said:
I think within two hundred years, we will be able to control the aging process to the point of reversing it to the period of maximum vitality--for those with means to acquire the treatment. Society will change more fundamentally in the next 300-400 years than it has in the last 4000, I believe.

I think you are right - though I find the idea of the super-rich being able to afford to "buy" extra life is a little disturbing!

To a certain extent, isn't that just what the rich have been able to do, all along, though?

Sure, the technology or the science involved has improved, over the years, and sure, all the money in the world has never carried with it an iron-clad guarantee of immunity from all the world's ills, but hasn't one of the main points of being rich always been the relative insulation it can provide from a lot of the nasty stuff which affects the "common folk"? The availability of a little work under the genetic hood for purposes of longer and healthier life (for those who can afford to pay) would be just be another example in a long line of historical examples.