Immortality?

tallaght01

asdasd wrote: »

I didnt give an example of where "they did". That is an assumption you make, a priori, that Free Radicals cause aging. The children who age faster are subject to the same amount of Free Radicals as everybody else, and age faster because their genetic bodyclock makes them age faster. the other patholigies you mentioned - where free radicals affect some children, must have genetic factors as underlying cuases since it clearly is a small subset of children affected.

Free radicals have some affect, but the underlying cause is built in senescence.

I think people are so used to aging, that they miss the woods for the Trees.

At 0 a baby is helpless. At 25 he is a Lions Prop Forward.

Clearly everything - in the non-pathological cases - has gotten better. Better muscles, memory, recall, strength, etc. So cell division and aging from 0 - 25 are not just benign but massively beneficial to the human ( and most other animals although very few are born as helpless as us). From then on the human being begins to decline, and that may cause Free Radicals to have more effect, but decline is built in.

Could we make ourselves immortal then? Yes, I think so, or at least stop seneseance.

Other lifestyle related diseases - heart conditions and cancer - could still happen even if we "turned the clock off" at 25 because arteries could still be clogged, and cel division continue. And people will die from external factors.

I think that it is theoretically possible to fight aging though.

So, to go back to the point I made, you agree it doesn't take cells 7 years to regenerate, and free radicals can harm us at a young age?

CerebralCortex

asdasd wrote: »

Um, no it isnt. The primary cause of aging is built in senescence. I already posted that link.

There are diseases where kids age rapidly. Do they attract and absorb more free radicals?

Assuming you are a doctor, you conform my prejudices about most Doctors. It is a academic disicpline largely learned by rote - with the exception of medical research students and professors, doctors need be, by definition, conservative. They keep to what they learned until someone tells them that isnt true, wins a nobel prize, and then the general uniformity of medical opinion changes. Like the embarrassment about what causes ulcers.

Seriously, aging is in-built and evolutionary.

Nope it really isn't and from what I've read here sens.org and other sources the scientific concencus is the opposite. Mainly because the only selection that matters is for replication. We're brilliant at replicating but inadequate at self maintenance. IMO I don't care about being immortal, aging is disgusting and I don't think anyone really looks forward to it I know I'd rather not do it if possible. I think it will be possible.

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, to go back to the point I made, you agree it doesn't take cells 7 years to regenerate, and free radicals can harm us at a young age?

I'm not sure if asdasd was refering to this, but I'll say it anyway. I've read once that it takes an organ 7 years to completely regenerate (i.e. for every cell to be completely replaced). I'm not sure of the validity of this claim -- 7 years seems like an arbitrarily chosen number -- but perhaps it's what asdasd is referring to.

A Neurotic

I'm not sure how valid a source this is, but I seem to recall reading a similar 7-year claim in Bill Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything.

tallaght01

My understanding of that claim is that it's been around a LONG time, but no one has ever been able to prove it.

It doesn't make sense, as organs are all different sizes, and their cells are all different.

To my understanding, there's nothing in the scientific literature to prove that wrong.

Has anyone got a reference that's not an opinion piece?

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

Has anyone got a reference that's not an opinion piece?

I have no references, anyway (by the way, I'm not claiming it to be true -- 7 years just seems too arbitrary of a number -- as I've never seen any evidence, but I've seen it written in a few pop. science books, which is probably how the idea propagates).

asdasd

The seven year idea is not necessarily true. However human cells do regenerate.

Nope it really isn't and from what I've read here sens.org and other sources the scientific concencus is the opposite

the opposite of what, exactly?

CerebralCortex

asdasd wrote: »

The seven year idea is not necessarily true. However human cells do regenerate.



the opposite of what, exactly?

The concencus afaik is that aging comes from a lack genetic information not the presence of it. Genetic evolution provides us enough to stay alive long enough to reproduce aging is just the damage and junk that accumalates over time which we are incapable to deal with. I really urge you to read this http://sens.org/index.php?pagename=sensf_faq_challenging#nb6

Minder

Anybody have any thoughts on the ideas of Raymond Kurzweil.... clinical immortality is close - we just have to live long enough to see it.

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology is a 2005 update of Raymond Kurzweil's 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines and his 1987 book The Age of Intelligent Machines. In it, as in the two previous versions, Kurzweil attempts to give a glimpse of what awaits us in the near future. A movie with the same name is set to be released on September 1, 2009. Kurzweil's reasoning rests on the combination of four postulates:

1 A technological-evolutionary point known as "the singularity" exists as an achievable goal for humanity (the exact nature of the point is an arbitrarily high level of technology).

2 Through a law of accelerating returns, technology is progressing toward the singularity at an exponential rate.

3 The functionality of the human brain is quantifiable in terms of technology that we can build in the near future.

4 Medical advancements could keep a significant number of his generation (Baby Boomers) alive long enough for the exponential growth of technology to intersect and surpass the processing of the human brain.

CerebralCortex

Minder wrote: »

Anybody have any thoughts on the ideas of Raymond Kurzweil.... clinical immortality is close - we just have to live long enough to see it.

Interesting indeed, but I don't think either immortality or the singularity imho is as important and interesting as subject as SENS(stratagies for engineering senesence).

jumpguy

Back to the claims about cell regeneration taking 7 years (and I only read the first few posts on the debate). 7 years to me sounds like a baseless layman's claim. It's like claims of if you drop something on the floor it takes 5 seconds for it to become unsafe to eat. As Tallaght said, all organs are different sizes and are made up of different sorts of cells. Also, everyone is different, for example, an elderly person would have much slower regeneration and a younger person might have much faster.

If human immortality is indeed close (as in within 200 years), we'll destroy the planet. However, I think it's impossible. All we can do is slow down death, by medicine or leaving machines take over the function of an organ. The lower levels of death and higher birth rates we have has already overpopulated the Earth. Death is a built-in feature nessicary to secure the future of our species, and all others. It also provides food for plants...which are the beginning of all food chains.

asdasd

lets not get stuck on the seven years claim. Cells do regenerate. Thats enough.

CerebralCortex

jumpguy wrote: »

Back to the claims about cell regeneration taking 7 years (and I only read the first few posts on the debate). 7 years to me sounds like a baseless layman's claim. It's like claims of if you drop something on the floor it takes 5 seconds for it to become unsafe to eat. As Tallaght said, all organs are different sizes and are made up of different sorts of cells. Also, everyone is different, for example, an elderly person would have much slower regeneration and a younger person might have much faster.

Yep.

jumpguy wrote: »

If human immortality is indeed close (as in within 200 years), we'll destroy the planet.

By whose decree?

jumpguy wrote: »

However, I think it's impossible. All we can do is slow down death, by medicine or leaving machines take over the function of an organ.

jumpguy wrote: »

The lower levels of death and higher birth rates we have has already overpopulated the Earth.

Gross assumption here that people will have more kids if they live longer, when in fact if you look at western civilisation people are living longer and birth rates are slowing even declining. Ever hear of the concept that we're an aging population? Besides there is a clear resource distribution problem (thats an educated guess I'm making).

jumpguy wrote: »

Death is a built-in feature nessicary to secure the future of our species, and all others.

Not true.

jumpguy wrote: »

It also provides food for plants...which are the beginning of all food chains.

asdasd wrote: »

lets not get stuck on the seven years claim. Cells do regenerate. Thats enough.

Yes cells do regenerate when needed.

A Neurotic

CerebralCortex wrote:

Ever hear of the concept that we're an aging population? Besides there is a clear resource distribution problem (thats an educated guess I'm making).

Interesting side note: within 10 years, the global population of 65+ year olds will outnumber children under 5 for the first time in human history.

Article.

jumpguy

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yep.



By whose decree?


Overpopulation. The population won't age and die. Just keep growing until demand exceeds our food supply


Gross assumption here that people will have more kids if they live longer, when in fact if you look at western civilisation people are living longer and birth rates are slowing even declining. Ever hear of the concept that we're an aging population? Besides there is a clear resource distribution problem (thats an educated guess I'm making).

The world is already overpopulated by humans. If oil were to dry up tomorrow, intensive farming would stop. We would not be able to sustain our current population. When animal populations exceeds what nature can supply without chemicals, I consider us overpopulated.
Many countries are now entering the second/middle stages of their demographic transition. Only a handful of countries in the world are at the end of the demographic transition. Don't kid yourself, just because population is static or slightly declining in some European countries, doesn't mean we're out of the woods.

Not true.

Fine, don't bother telling us what you think.

...

tallaght01

asdasd wrote: »

lets not get stuck on the seven years claim. Cells do regenerate. Thats enough.

Every schoolchild knows that cells don't last forever.

It was only your response:

asdasd wrote: »

Assuming you are a doctor, you conform my prejudices about most Doctors. It is a academic disicpline largely learned by rote - with the exception of medical research students and professors, doctors need be, by definition, conservative. They keep to what they learned until someone tells them that isnt true, wins a nobel prize, and then the general uniformity of medical opinion changes. Like the embarrassment about what causes ulcers.

that made me push the issue.

CerebralCortex

jumpguy wrote: »

Fine, don't bother telling us what you think.

I think I already did tell you what I think in post #39, but I'll try again. Aging is the acummulation of damage which eventually causes frailty and pathology due to the fact that we have inadequate mechanisms for dealing with the damage thus we die from amongst other things aging. Seems pretty simple to me. The suggestion that genetic evolution has made some kind of concious decision to build in a gene for rotting the body in my opinion suggests that you don't fully understand evolution and if I'm completely honest I don't fully understand it either perhaps not even a small bit. But from what I do understand it is impossible through natural selection to select for death unless that confers an advantage on the organism in question for replication.

asdasd

I think I already did tell you what I think in post #39, but I'll try again. Aging is the acummulation of damage which eventually causes frailty and pathology due to the fact that we have inadequate mechanisms for dealing with the damage thus we die from amongst other things aging. Seems pretty simple to me.

But wrong. If the accumulation of damage theory were true then all animals would decline at the same rate, an all animals would decline from birth. I have now posted that rebuttal three times.

The suggestion that genetic evolution has made some kind of concious decision to build in a gene for rotting the body

Nobody says that evolution is conscious of anything.

in my opinion suggests that you don't fully understand evolution and if I'm completely honest I don't fully understand it either perhaps not even a small bit

You dont. heres the thing about evolution. It selects for genes that are advantageous up until the animal's ability to procreate is ended. All that the gene needs to do to survie is get a copy to the next generation. Then we can age, and die.

Prof.Badass

asdasd wrote: »

But wrong. If the accumulation of damage theory were true then all animals would decline at the same rate, an all animals would decline from birth. I have now posted that rebuttal three times.

Damage starts occuring before we are even born. However, animals that begin to show this ageing before they reach reproducing age will be heavily selected against. Therefore most animals will age slow enough to still look undamaged when they reach reproducing age. However this damage will continue occuring at the same rate and the animal will begin to eventually show signs of decline.

Different animals age at different rates due to more/less selective pressure on ageing defenses.

asdasd

Therefore most animals will age slow enough to still look undamaged when they reach reproducing age. However this damage will continue occuring at the same rate and the animal will begin to eventually show signs of decline.

i really find arguments like this nonsensical. Sure the word are there, and it is gramatical, but like a medieval text there is no there there.

What do you mean by

this damage will continue occuring at the same rate

If that means all animals are "damaged" by free radicals ( or whatever) at the same rate, then the fact that some of them handle it better means sensence is genetic.

Different animals age at different rates due to more/less selective pressure on ageing

Are you trying to refute my point about senesecence being built-in with that statement? If so read it again...

Free radicals are only a "cause" of aging because our body stops its defence against them. The damage correlates with aging, but the cause is built in senesence.

jumpguy

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think I already did tell you what I think in post #39, but I'll try again. Aging is the acummulation of damage which eventually causes frailty and pathology due to the fact that we have inadequate mechanisms for dealing with the damage thus we die from amongst other things aging. Seems pretty simple to me. The suggestion that genetic evolution has made some kind of concious decision to build in a gene for rotting the body in my opinion suggests that you don't fully understand evolution and if I'm completely honest I don't fully understand it either perhaps not even a small bit. But from what I do understand it is impossible through natural selection to select for death unless that confers an advantage on the organism in question for replication.

I agree that accumulated damage will reduce life expectancy, for example being obese for most of one's life, smoking, having harmful diseases, etc. Gene damage is probably a big factor as well.
However, it could be argued it's pre-programmed for more than a few reasons. For example, why do males reduce testosterone production gradually as they get elderly? After millions of years of evolution, why has the body not countered this?
I have an interesting theory. The human body was designed for the stone age. We know this due to the detrimental effects modern living has on our bodies. When a mother and father had children back in the stone age, the mother took care of the children while the father hunted. Food was limited. However, as the children got older they could fend for themselves. The father and mother would then die, thus increasing food supplies to the remaining children. Their children would then have children and use the surplus food supply...and so on.

CerebralCortex

asdasd wrote: »

But wrong. If the accumulation of damage theory were true then all animals would decline at the same rate,

Why on earth would that be the case when no two animals of different species have the exact same genetic expressions?

asdasd wrote: »

an all animals would decline from birth.

We may not decline from birth but we're still subject to the exact same damage due to metabolism. Evolution has provided mechanisms to take us reasonably well to reproduction age even with this damage but starts to lose its grip after damage starts to accumulate overwhelm the organism.

asdasd wrote: »

I have now posted that rebuttal three times.

Isn't that a convincing enough a message that you're not making a valid point? I'd love to know if you've actually read anything on the causes of ageing because to be honest most sources I've read would flatten your arguments. Would you please watch this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
(I actually don't think that this presentation is the best one but its a starting point).

asdasd wrote: »

Nobody says that evolution is conscious of anything.

But thats the impression I'm getting when say things like senesence is "built-in".

asdasd wrote: »

You dont. heres the thing about evolution. It selects for genes that are advantageous up until the animal's ability to procreate is ended.

And which mechanism decides that? The organism keeps replicating until it can't not because its programmed to but because of a point at which accumulated damage impedes or stops it or kills it. Damage starts to have an impact as early as the end of teenage life yet people sucessfully have kids in thirties some even in their forties. Plus from what you've said our understanding of evolution is the same.

asdasd wrote: »

All that the gene needs to do to survie is get a copy to the next generation. We do age, and die.

Corrected that for ya.

CerebralCortex

jumpguy wrote: »

I agree that accumulated damage will reduce life expectancy, for example being obese for most of one's life, smoking, having harmful diseases, etc.

Yes some sources call them secondary aging.

jumpguy wrote: »

Gene damage is probably a big factor as well.

One of a multiple sources of aging. Mitocondrial dna damage, accumulated junk in the lysosome, Advanced glycation endproducts etc.
Again look up Aubrey de Grey on the different different causes.

jumpguy wrote: »

However, it could be argued it's pre-programmed for more than a few reasons. For example, why do males reduce testosterone production gradually as they get elderly? After millions of years of evolution, why has the body not countered this?

Becuase of damage to the organism. How could evolution select against it when men with reduced testosterone still have kids?

jumpguy wrote: »

I have an interesting theory. The human body was designed for the stone age.

Hypothesis.

jumpguy wrote: »

We know this due to the detrimental effects modern living has on our bodies. When a mother and father had children back in the stone age, the mother took care of the children while the father hunted. Food was limited. However, as the children got older they could fend for themselves.

Why then do some species, after their children can look after themselves, go of and produce more offspring? Dawkins has a whole chapter dedicated to it in the Selfish Gene.

jumpguy wrote: »

The father and mother would then die, thus increasing food supplies to the remaining children. Their children would then have children and use the surplus food supply...and so on.

See my previous point.

Prof.Badass

asdasd wrote: »

i really find arguments like this nonsensical. Sure the word are there, and it is gramatical, but like a medieval text there is no there there.

If that means all animals are "damaged" by free radicals ( or whatever) at the same rate, then the fact that some of them handle it better means sensence is genetic.

Are you trying to refute my point about senesecence being built-in with that statement? If so read it again...

Free radicals are only a "cause" of aging because our body stops its defence against them. The damage correlates with aging, but the cause is built in senesence.

I do not think our body stops any defenses. I think damage is occuring at the exact same rate when we are 1 year old as when we are 80 years old. It's just that it takes a long time for this damage to accumulate enough to become noticeable. If the damage becomes noticeable before reproducing age you won't get a mate and your genes won't be passed on.

I don't know much about this topic, but isn't a main cause of aging the fact that telomeres shorten each time the cell replicates? And thus after a certain number of replications the cell ceases to work properly.

If you slowly put back in new stem cells into every organ you could probably defeat aging. Or am i missing something?

I think by the time i am old medicine will have advanced at least to the point where everyone can expect to live long enough to go demented before they die. A frightening prospect.

However if there was a big international effort into stoping brain degeneration this could be avoided.

CerebralCortex

vinylmesh wrote: »

I do not think our body stops any defenses. I think damage is occuring at the exact same rate when we are 1 year old as when we are 80 years old. It's just that it takes a long time for this damage to accumulate enough to become noticeable. If the damage becomes noticeable before reproducing age you won't get a mate and your genes won't be passed on.

I'd agree with that.

vinylmesh wrote: »

I don't know much about this topic, but isn't a main cause of aging the fact that telomeres shorten each time the cell replicates? And thus after a certain number of replications the cell ceases to work properly.

You're correct but it's just one of several. Cancer cells actually can relengthen their dna telomeres through the use of an enzyme called telomerase a mutation that allows them to replicate endlessly killing you.

http://sens.org/index.php?pagename=mj_sens_repairing

vinylmesh wrote: »

If you slowly put back in new stem cells into every organ you could probably defeat aging. Or am i missing something?

Again its just one avenue as its just one type of aging.

vinylmesh wrote: »

I think by the time i am old medicine will have advanced at least to the point where everyone can expect to live long enough to go demented before they die. A frightening prospect.

Why? Don't you think dementia is just another symptom of aging?

vinylmesh wrote: »

However if there was a big international effort into stoping brain degeneration this could be avoided.

See my last point.

jumpguy

jumpguy wrote: »

I have an interesting theory. The human body was designed for the stone age. We know this due to the detrimental effects modern living has on our bodies. When a mother and father had children back in the stone age, the mother took care of the children while the father hunted. Food was limited. However, as the children got older they could fend for themselves. The father and mother would then die, thus increasing food supplies to the remaining children. Their children would then have children and use the surplus food supply...and so on.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but as CerbralCortex has pointed out, it has one fatal flaw. How can nature select for genes that "help" an animal to die? I cannot think of any mechanism of selection that would do so.

jumpguy

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes some sources call them secondary aging.



One of a multiple sources of aging. Mitocondrial dna damage, accumulated junk in the lysosome, Advanced glycation endproducts etc.
Again look up Aubrey de Grey on the different different causes.



Becuase of damage to the organism. How could evolution select against it when men with reduced testosterone still have kids?

Reduced testosterone is usually a sign of reduced fertility (and libido, to make it more difficult).

Hypothesis.

Right, thanks.


Why then do some species, after their children can look after themselves, go of and produce more offspring? Dawkins has a whole chapter dedicated to it in the Selfish Gene.

An interesting argument alright. Perhaps it would be clearer if we could understand exactly how humans survived, their environment and threats in prehistoric times...Perhaps mammals are different in that they need a father as protector and mother as nurturer. When cell damage has accumulated to the point the father/mother was only a burden to the survival of a family (too weak to defend properly, yet still had to be fed) he was killed off. Remember, life expectancy back then meant you'd be lucky to live until 40.

...

asdasd

Remember, life expectancy back then meant you'd be lucky to live until 40.

So how long had a 35 year old to live?

jumpguy

You'd probably be dead. In the poorest countries today the life expectancy is extremely low (40 - 50). Imagine how it must've been without organised farming or even basic medicine, and basic shelter.

asdasd

That misses the distinction between life exptectancy and life span. The use of Life Expectancy ( which implies at birth) generally annoys me. In the Observer yesterday they pointed to statistics saying that pensions are an issue because life expectancy has risen from 65 in 1945 to 80 in 2009.

So thats alright then? The people born in 1945 will be dying off soon, huh?

What they mean and what they should be measuring is Life Expectancy at 60.

In general it is infant morality, child mortality, that reduced the numbers in the 19th century and inthe developing world today. If that was the case for hunter gatherers then a 35 year old had more than 5 years to live. We know that the Native Americans had elders, and they were older than 30 something.