people living to be 180 years old

N

Nebuchadnezzaar

Registered Senior Member
Generations fighting each other

By the end of this century we are expected to live to 180, meaning five more people on earth for every one we have now. This could devestate the environment and start a war between generations.

The tweaking of a single gene from a fruit fly doubles it's lifespan.
 
By the end of this century we are expected to live to 180, meaning five more people on earth for every one we have now. This could devestate the environment and start a war between generations.

The tweaking of a single gene from a fruit fly doubles it's lifespan.
 
"Expected" is the keyword not "Will". Everyday another one of miraculous, life saving remedies are found which ensure us a lenghtened lifespan but soon dispappear because either they are slowly put into practice or were excited foundings published too early.

I doubt we'll live to 180 and to be fair there are too many annoying parasites on this planet that do not deserve such a gift. The muses, the artists, the wonderments, the leaders, the exceptional die and will continue to die young due to overbearing gift of creativity or overdosing. Most of those that live to great number of years are those that are forgotten in 2 weeks by everyone other than their families.

More faceless people who beat the odds of entropy.

Why couldn't Jimi Hendrix live up to 180? or Van Goeh? ;)
 
Man. Who the hell would want to live to be 180?

If I'm 50 and still not dead, I'm going to make progressively more and more stupid risks until I die doing something really funny/stupid/noteworthy like pissing off a wild boar. Or set myself on fire. Dive off the grand canyon.

Personally, with the speed of our developing technology, I think we'll get to live to be older than 180 by the end of the century. Think about it. That's not just one hundred years. Or yes, maybe it is a hundred years. And that's a friggin' long time. 100 years ago most women didn't even live long enough to experience menopause. Because the acceleration of the acceleration of the rate of technology development is still accelerating, the next 100 years are going to be interesting indeed.
 
Nebuchandnezzar:
The tweaking of a single gene from a fruit fly doubles it's lifespan.
Click to expand...
Drosophila?

Say something like this and back it up. I'm not being nasty- I love science in that it can say something by basing it on observation, let's be scientists here. So what gene and why?

What is absoultely fascinating is the immortality of the genome, but not the body itself. There is a four billion year history of genes photcopying themselves over and over with the message almost as crystal clear as it was in the beginning (parameciums have been largely left undisturbed in their genome since the Cambrian explosion, mammals and reptiles have almost always been what they are only varying in their phenotype due to mutations) yet the organism carrying it is discarded in a petty few years.

So, if we are to think of the genes as selfish tryants whose only goal is that of its own immortality, then why kill off its carriers? And so soon?

Sarge:
More faceless people who beat the odds of entropy
Click to expand...
Yes, but a world of Einsteins and Chopins would be boring.

Man. Who the hell would want to live to be 180?
Click to expand...
I would.

180,000 or at least roughly 40,000 (or 20?)- the amount of time it takes us to reach our nearest star systems, Vega or Centauri.
 
I’m sure being born in a lab doubles a Drosophila’s lifespan and its life expectancy….the average life expectancy in Zimbabwe, it is it is just under 38 years… :rolleyes:
 
To live indefinitely is a dream as old as mankind itself. The idea of immortals dwelling clandestinely among us pops up on religion and literature over and over again.

The oldest proven age for a humn so far is 122 (I think). That's well over twice the average lifespan in most nations today. Why not add another 60 years or so onto that? Assuming one could retain vigour and astuteness for most of it - I wouldn't want to senile and bedridden for 90 years or more!

We have a limited lifespan for a reason, or a variety of reasons. Mankind has improved on its natural condition ever since we started wearing clothes and making tools. Why shouldn't it be another logical step to overcome our genetic limitations and improve our bodies' durability? Certain anatomical modifications might be needed for a healthy second century, however - like a lower center of gravity, a thickened spine, knees which could bend both ways, a third and fourth dentition, regenerative eyes and nerves.

As for the obvious overpopulation potential associated with lengthening our lifespan: the nations with the highest standards of living are those with the lowest population growth today. People who live vastly longer will need fewer children; commensurate advances in agriculture, recycling and manufacturing techniques should make civilisation as whole more ecologically sustainable.

The population of First World countries may even SHRINK in the next 50 years as birthrate drops, and eventually the majority could be over 50. What of it? If medicine does enable people to stay healthy and capable for another 100 years, 50 or 90 will seem barely mature.
 
I seem to remember reading a thread on this site that said the protiens that we consume slowly destroy our genes which leads to what we call aging. Given this theory is true, wouldn't that mean that when we reproduce we pass on partially damaged genes to our children? If that's true, then it would mean that our genes will eventually become so damaged that not even medicine will help us to live longer.
 
If genes were cumulatively degraded generation after generation, children would be born old, and eventually there could be no viable embryos.

The theory that aging is a result of accumulated genetic errors involves the steady replacement of our somatic cells throughout a lifetime. Reproductive cells, however, produced in the ovaries or testes, will only acquire genetic defects induced in the cells of those specific organs. If the reproductive organs are heavily degraded, they will no longer generate eggs or sperm.

Even a very old man will have plenty of cells left with undamaged copies of his original genome. Therefore he can still produce perfectly healthy sperm.
 
cookiedude said:
I seem to remember reading a thread on this site that said the protiens that we consume slowly destroy our genes which leads to what we call aging. Given this theory is true, wouldn't that mean that when we reproduce we pass on partially damaged genes to our children? If that's true, then it would mean that our genes will eventually become so damaged that not even medicine will help us to live longer.
Click to expand...

brain experiment:

In order to evolve into longer living animals we would have to start reproducing at later ages, and keep pushing this age. At this point there will be a selection that favours late-reproducers. Now keep this up for many, many generations, and maybe you will end up with humans that will live longer.

Needless to say, it could be of course that the time between reproductive age and death decreases during this process and that we don't actually get older. Unless we keep selecting to go past the total age of reproductive stage and post-reproductive stage.
 
We could live forever if we simply throw away our bodies and live only as data running in a machine. Space and energy requirements would be several fold lower if we lived like this over our present mortal form, thus rendering overpopulation null. As for emotional side effects from existing for all eternity that easy to solve just turn off or reprogram your emotions.
 
Would there be artificial environments such as in the matrix? (but without the requirement of physical bodies of course) Or would we be there just by ourselves?
 
If a person was reduced to a software intelligence sustained within the global computer network, it would be his/her/its choice as to what environment was provided. A cyberspace environment could be designed to resemble external reality, including a virtual body for the software consciousness; or it might to perceive an accurate representation of the datastreams and computer architecture it inhabited. When it wished, it could download itself into a mobile robot body to interact physically with the real world, as normal humans do.
 
spuriousmonkey,

If you want to live in a VR as a god ruling over your sims go right ahead, some might just want to extended their intelligences a few fold and do research and development, some may just set them selves to bliss/orgy mode and jerk off for all eternity. Its up to you what you want to do, the limitations are not even perceivable yet.

see science can promise us a heaven just like religion, except this heaven is far more realistic.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
see science can promise us a heaven just like religion, except this heaven is far more realistic.
Click to expand...

What science basically needs is a better Public Relations department? Learn some lessons from how religion attracts people to the cause.
 
Religions probably began with early humans trying to explain the nature, activity and origins of the World around them - they invented analogies and imaginative anthropomorphizations, which became dogmas. Science has the same goals, just a more objective and empirical approach. It also has its stubborn dogmas and unpopular heresies.

Many religions converted whole populations by force. Science cannot do this, or it loses its rationality and logical persuasion.
 
Woohooo, posthuman omnipotech babble is making a showing on sciforums. WEllcookedfetus, I thought you were beyond that. Theoretically its almost possible, but the time scale for much of it is in teh order of 100 years or more, most likely. And im on the squishies (ie our) side. Have you read any Charles Stross? I saw him today at my writers group.
 
Actually the time scale is within 100 years. Read "Beyond Humanity" by Gregory S. Paul. If you don't think you can live up to that time we can just cryogenically freeze you.
 
naw, I still think 100 years is a bit too soon for post humanism. Maybe 150, if we dont kill ourselves first. I gave up reading wibble years ago, except in the case of science fiction.
 
There is a difference between scientific speculation and science fiction. You can beleive what you want, but even a 150 is not to long as todays biotech will have many of us living to that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top