• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Want to live to 150? How about 1,000?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HumblePie said:
For guys, yes. For women, no.



When I read the article the novels by Peter F Hamilton came to mind.
Click to expand...

Why not for women too? If we are able to prevent aging shouldn't we be able to stop the process which prevents women from getting pregnant as they age as well?
 
dpodblood said:
Why not for women too? If we are able to prevent aging shouldn't we be able to stop the process which prevents women from getting pregnant as they age as well?
Click to expand...

You really didn't pay attention in either sex ed or biology class did you?

Women have these things call ovaries. Ovaries are an organ of their body which contains eggs. When they run out of eggs, roughly around the age for 40 as an average for women, they go through menopause. At which point they can no longer have babies. They have no more eggs to make babies from.
 
HumblePie said:
You really didn't pay attention in either sex ed or biology class did you?

Women have these things call Ovaries. They are an organ of their body which contains eggs. When they run out of eggs, roughly around the age for 40 as an average for women, they go through menopause. At which point, they can no longer have babies. They have no more eggs to make babies from.
Click to expand...

No need to get all bent out of shape 🙂. I was asking the question sincerely, and got my answer thanks.
 
These articles are useless. We've heard these kinds of predictions for years now. News outlets should STFU until the therapies are actually available.
 
Infohawk said:
These articles are useless. We've heard these kinds of predictions for years now. News outlets should STFU until the therapies are actually available.
Click to expand...

haha, no shit. This kind of "search" for longer life has been around for as long as mankind has. Imagine if current media outlets had been around at the time of Ponce De Leon?

news headline - "Want to live forever? Explorer Ponce De Leon says that we will in our lifetimes as he believes to have finally found the fountain of youth! Read for more details."


Same shit, new details.
 
HumblePie said:
You really didn't pay attention in either sex ed or biology class did you?

Women have these things call ovaries. Ovaries are an organ of their body which contains eggs. When they run out of eggs, roughly around the age for 40 as an average for women, they go through menopause. At which point they can no longer have babies. They have no more eggs to make babies from.
Click to expand...

Eggs can be frozen down.
 
The first thing to do would be term limits for all politicians including limits on how many years total they can serve in all public offices combined. Already you would have a stagnation of society as older generations hang in there. Imagine 500 years later there are still radio stations playing songs from 2000.

Wonder what marriages would look like. How many could stand the same person for hundreds of years? What do you get someone for their 500th anniversary?
 
dpodblood said:
Wouldn't the population completely explode? Assuming that we were able to "cure" aging wouldn't that mean we would be able to have children at age 100, 150, 200, 500, etc as easily as we could at 20-30 years of age now?
Click to expand...

Why? Will people have more children if they live to the age of 500?

"...but."
No but, by postponing death the pop will increase in the near-term - proportional to the rate of life span increases - however that coincide with the supposedly pullback of the world pop is the UN models of demographics. If we can indeed cure aging, perhaps will just see a stabilization of the overall problem. That it's too many anyway is another problem 😀
 
Would the brain and nerve system still able to function properly? I sure don't want some 600 years old grandpa and ma driving around on the interstate.
 
If China or India will get this technology, we'll have to make 'em move to the Moon or something.
 
nobodyknows said:
So who the hell is Aubrey de Grey and why should anybody put any creedence in his predicition?
Click to expand...

de Grey is a smart guy. He gave a TED talk a while back. Everyone should be skeptical of his ideas.

However, he approaches this from a completely different perspective than most researches. He believes that extending life is similar to fixing a car.

We will never be able to prevent a car from eventually breaking down. No preventative maintenance will prevent that. However, we could technically keep a car running indefinitely. It becomes an engineering and mechanical issue.

de Grey wrote a great book called the Ending Aging.

http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-R.../dp/0312367066

He basically goes through the things we need to solve to extend our lifespan. Researches have not been able to say he is wrong. His ideas are sound. The question is more about will research bear the fruits to solve the 7(if memory serves) areas that are needed to extend our lifespan.


EDIT: here is his TED talk. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
 
And people complain about Baby Boomers not retiring and making their jobs available to the younger generation now...
 
Howard said:
Don't worry, the pressure to adopt eugenics will increase.
Click to expand...

Well I would hope so, as having a kid would become a bigger and bigger decision, and you'd want them to come out right. You could even severely restrict the right to breed to keep population levels under control. But how will that address a working population that essentially never grows old, and thus never quits their jobs or gives up their thrones at the top of empires?
 
I would think you would have reprogram our DNA in order for us to live longer. Like many mentioned already it is not just us looking older, but our organs wearing out over time as well and preprogrammed cylces like menopause kicking in. I don't know how you would repair a persons DNA over time without having it designed to last longer from the start. At 1,000 years old you would just be one big tumor on life support.

If we change human DNA to live longer I would believe it could happen, but I don't think any of the bullshit this article contains will go any where.
 
I have heard this for years. If you keep saying it every year eventually you get it right.

I still want to know when I get my flying car!
 
KB said:
I have heard this for years. If you keep saying it every year eventually you get it right.

I still want to know when I get my flying car!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Medical science has been working to extend live for a long time and they are succeding, but lok at the quailty of life for people over 90 one has to wonder, why would you want to live another 30 years?
 
I think people are missing the point of what a lot of this new research is moving towards. It's not to just make it so we live our normal lives and where it would normally end we would just live longer because we can cure problems that would normally be fatal at that age. It's to make it so the DNA errors don't happen and that it corrects it's self, deal with cell degradation over time,... So that aging wouldn't happen the way it does now. You may be 100 but have the body of a 20 year old because all the of degradation of your body wouldn't happen.

Now there would be things that you would need replacement organs, or replenishment of certain parts due to external forces. But this is also being addressed with organs being grown in the lab using your own DNA. If we have figured out how to deal with DNA breaking down as we get older those organs would be brand new.
 
Yeah, I remember reading in 1990 that vastly more effective treatments for cancer were just around the corner, within 5 years and certainly no later than 2000...

The problem with predictions like these is they are always on the optimistic side. They literally never come true within the timeframe the predictor specifies. It isn't that we aren't headed to where they say we are. It's that it will take vastly longer than they say.

I'd be surprised if this prediction is off by less than 1:2 on time.

- wolf
 
Paul98 said:
I think people are missing the point of what a lot of this new research is moving towards. It's not to just make it so we live our normal lives and where it would normally end we would just live longer because we can cure problems that would normally be fatal at that age. It's to make it so the DNA errors don't happen and that it corrects it's self, deal with cell degradation over time,... So that aging wouldn't happen the way it does now. You may be 100 but have the body of a 20 year old because all the of degradation of your body wouldn't happen.

Now there would be things that you would need replacement organs, or replenishment of certain parts due to external forces. But this is also being addressed with organs being grown in the lab using your own DNA. If we have figured out how to deal with DNA breaking down as we get older those organs would be brand new.
Click to expand...

LMK when they can do brain transplants.
 
Hey, dude. How old are you again?

997.

And how many grand grand .... grand grand kids do you have?

73627362
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top