This line from the song 7 presents an important question. Is aging an inevitable part of life, or is aging itself a disease that can be cured?

When aging is rapidly accelerated, it's considered a disease for which a cure is sought. The disease Progeria, where the average age of death is 13 and where people exhibit many of the issues normally attributed to "natural" aging, including wrinkled skin, atherosclerosis, kidney failure, loss of eyesight, hair loss, and cardiovascular problems including stroke and heart attack. Musculoskeletal degeneration causes loss of body fat and muscle, stiff joints, hip dislocations, and other symptoms generally absent in the non-elderly population. Individuals usually retain normal mental and motor development.

This suggests that these medical issues aren't so much diseases themselves, but rather are symptoms of a disease called aging. Thus if aging could be slowed, halted or reversed, these issues would diminish as a result. So a treatment or cure for aging would reduce or improve a wide range of medical issues.

There are people who believe we are headed to something called a "singularity" that is a result of Moore's Law (a doubleing in computing power about every two years) being more broad than just applying to the advancement of computer technology. There is a believe that Moore's law applies to all technology. And that it will all converge around 2035, the year when computers will have the processing power equivalent to a human brain, the year when green energy will provide all of the power we need, etc. Combine that with moore's law applying to biology and medical knowledge and ability, and the belief is that if aging is a disease that can be treated or cured, we should have a breakthrough around that time.

For many people, you don't have to have an immediate "cure", just slowing the process to allow enough time for further advances should be enough. If this is the goal, it doesn't mean waiting around for 2035, it means starting now. What can be done today to slow aging? It could be slowing aging itself, it could be slowing or diminishing the chances of diseases generally associated with aging (i.e. the things listed above when talking about Progeria, as well as things like alzhiemers, cancer, etc.

I have some things I'll talk about later in the thread, but first i was curious what other people thought.

so we could have a world of baby geniuses? Sounds scary

NDRU said:

so we could have a world of baby geniuses? Sounds scary

I'm not sure where you got that from.

"The young so educated they never grow old" suggests everyone would stay young indefinately. People would still die - accidents, murder, war, yet uncured disease, etc. I'm defining young as in late 20s, early 30s physcial/mental prime of life. Why should your abilities decline just because you are 50, 60, 70 or even 100+ years old? At that point, why shouldn't your life experiences make you even better at living?

that's a LONG post

not gonna read it

A well-written, interesting thought.

I'm too hungover to contribute anything right now, but I honestly want to return to this thread, because I've thought about that a couple of times myself.

JoeTyler said:

that's a LONG post

not gonna read it

i got to the part where it said '7',

i'm sure there was more.

somebody let me know how it came out!!!

I don't think they'll ever be able to prevent aging. Period.

I believe humanity is arrogant enough to TRY, though - probably with really dire consequences.

Dren5 said:

I don't think they'll ever be able to prevent aging. Period.

I believe humanity is arrogant enough to TRY, though - probably with really dire consequences.

the consequences of not trying are pretty dire - unless something is done, every person alive today will be dead before 2150. 7 billion lives gone. And living in a universe that's 13 billion years old, that's really not very long from now.

Given that there are animals that don't age (google "Negligible Senescence" or "Biological immortality"), how can you be so certain that a solution can't be found? There are three potential goals

- slow aging

- stop aging

- reverse the negative effects of prior again

well, if obesity is a virus…

So I saw that shit movie what was it called? With Justin Timberlake where nobody got older than the physical age of 25. You didn't know who was someone's daughter, mother or wife and therefore better not hit on anyone to be on the safe side

I believe slowing is where we'll end up. Very long lives through the use of science; bionics, cloning (parts and pieces), nano tech and possibly even dna/gene alterations.

However, what difference will this make if we continue to so wastefully destroy the planet we inhabit? The Earth is going to expel us and go happily about it's own business whether we like it or not. This is also going to happen far sooner than people realize. Even if we make drastic changes on a global scale TODAY, there's very little chance that human beings as we are now will inhabit the Earth in a couple hundred years.

alandail said:

Dren5 said:

I don't think they'll ever be able to prevent aging. Period.

I believe humanity is arrogant enough to TRY, though - probably with really dire consequences.

the consequences of not trying are pretty dire - unless something is done, every person alive today will be dead before 2150. 7 billion lives gone. And living in a universe that's 13 billion years old, that's really not very long from now.

Given that there are animals that don't age (google "Negligible Senescence" or "Biological immortality"), how can you be so certain that a solution can't be found? There are three potential goals

- slow aging

- stop aging

- reverse the negative effects of prior again

Are you serious?

You do know that more folks are being born everyday.

There isn't anything different going on now than in the past. People were born, reproduced, and died. Same thing is going on now, and will be in the future. There's no way in hell that things will be 'dire' by 2150 because there will be plenty of new people born (and being born) to take our place.

I'm not sure where the age of the universe factors into any of this at all, either?

This whole concept of trying to solve aging is just dumb to me. It's natural and life isn't meant to be permanent anyway.

Cerebus said:

I believe slowing is where we'll end up. Very long lives through the use of science; bionics, cloning (parts and pieces), nano tech and possibly even dna/gene alterations.

However, what difference will this make if we continue to so wastefully destroy the planet we inhabit? The Earth is going to expel us and go happily about it's own business whether we like it or not. This is also going to happen far sooner than people realize. Even if we make drastic changes on a global scale TODAY, there's very little chance that human beings as we are now will inhabit the Earth in a couple hundred years.

...And?

It's weird to me that no one ever stops to think that maybe that's supposed to happen and that humanity isn't supposed to exist indefinitely anyway.

And no, I'm not contradicting my last post. What I'm saying is this - I think that odds are more likely that humanity will just go on as it has. But if it doesn't, the concept doesn't really strike me as all that horrible or shocking so much as probably just a natural course of things - stars explode, other species die out all the time. Death and change is a part of the game.

alandail said:

Dren5 said:

I don't think they'll ever be able to prevent aging. Period.

I believe humanity is arrogant enough to TRY, though - probably with really dire consequences.

the consequences of not trying are pretty dire - unless something is done, every person alive today will be dead before 2150. 7 billion lives gone.

So what?

Dren5 said:

alandail said:

the consequences of not trying are pretty dire - unless something is done, every person alive today will be dead before 2150. 7 billion lives gone. And living in a universe that's 13 billion years old, that's really not very long from now.

Given that there are animals that don't age (google "Negligible Senescence" or "Biological immortality"), how can you be so certain that a solution can't be found? There are three potential goals

- slow aging

- stop aging

- reverse the negative effects of prior again

Are you serious?

You do know that more folks are being born everyday.

There isn't anything different going on now than in the past. People were born, reproduced, and died. Same thing is going on now, and will be in the future. There's no way in hell that things will be 'dire' by 2150 because there will be plenty of new people born (and being born) to take our place.

I'm not sure where the age of the universe factors into any of this at all, either?

This whole concept of trying to solve aging is just dumb to me. It's natural and life isn't meant to be permanent anyway.

I mean dire for the 7 billion people alive today. I know more people will be born.

And who says life wasn't meant to be permanent? Who is to say were weren't meant to solve the problem of aging? As I posted earlier, there is life on this planet that doesn't age.

I think it's interesting that the oxygen we need to live is also killing us.

Dren5 said:

Cerebus said:

I believe slowing is where we'll end up. Very long lives through the use of science; bionics, cloning (parts and pieces), nano tech and possibly even dna/gene alterations.

However, what difference will this make if we continue to so wastefully destroy the planet we inhabit? The Earth is going to expel us and go happily about it's own business whether we like it or not. This is also going to happen far sooner than people realize. Even if we make drastic changes on a global scale TODAY, there's very little chance that human beings as we are now will inhabit the Earth in a couple hundred years.

...And?

It's weird to me that no one ever stops to think that maybe that's supposed to happen and that humanity isn't supposed to exist indefinitely anyway.

And no, I'm not contradicting my last post. What I'm saying is this - I think that odds are more likely that humanity will just go on as it has. But if it doesn't, the concept doesn't really strike me as all that horrible or shocking so much as probably just a natural course of things - stars explode, other species die out all the time. Death and change is a part of the game.

alandail said:

Dren5 said:

Are you serious?

You do know that more folks are being born everyday.

There isn't anything different going on now than in the past. People were born, reproduced, and died. Same thing is going on now, and will be in the future. There's no way in hell that things will be 'dire' by 2150 because there will be plenty of new people born (and being born) to take our place.

I'm not sure where the age of the universe factors into any of this at all, either?

This whole concept of trying to solve aging is just dumb to me. It's natural and life isn't meant to be permanent anyway.

I mean dire for the 7 billion people alive today. I know more people will be born.

And who says life wasn't meant to be permanent? Who is to say were weren't meant to solve the problem of aging? As I posted earlier, there is life on this planet that doesn't age.

How is that 'dire' for us?

What, you actually expected to live forever? I figured out a long time ago that eventually I'd die one day too and don't see it as abnormal.

Okay, you do have a point. No one can say for a fact which is the 'default' and what's 'meant' to be...but, I'm inclined to think that aging and death are natural and intended because every living thing does die, and everything that exists, eventually doesn't anymore. Everything comes to an end, that's not unique to humanity, so I'm inclined to think that it's intentional and 'by design'.

Cerebus said:

Dren5 said:

...And?

It's weird to me that no one ever stops to think that maybe that's supposed to happen and that humanity isn't supposed to exist indefinitely anyway.

And no, I'm not contradicting my last post. What I'm saying is this - I think that odds are more likely that humanity will just go on as it has. But if it doesn't, the concept doesn't really strike me as all that horrible or shocking so much as probably just a natural course of things - stars explode, other species die out all the time. Death and change is a part of the game.

[img:$uid]http://www.veracode.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/i-dont-care.jpg[/img:$uid]

i'm sure mother nature has her reasons for letting us age, everything in the universe ages and evolves, no use debating about it or making such hype surrounding it. it's a natural course of events.

Dren5 said:

alandail said:

I mean dire for the 7 billion people alive today. I know more people will be born.

And who says life wasn't meant to be permanent? Who is to say were weren't meant to solve the problem of aging? As I posted earlier, there is life on this planet that doesn't age.

How is that 'dire' for us?

What, you actually expected to live forever? I figured out a long time ago that eventually I'd die one day too and don't see it as abnormal.

Okay, you do have a point. No one can say for a fact which is the 'default' and what's 'meant' to be...but, I'm inclined to think that aging and death are natural and intended because every living thing does die, and everything that exists, eventually doesn't anymore. Everything comes to an end, that's not unique to humanity, so I'm inclined to think that it's intentional and 'by design'.

I already pointed out a few times that there is life on tihs earth that does not age and does not die because of aging. I also said in the original post that stopping aging isn't going to stop death. People will stil die because of various reasons including accidents, murder, war, natural disasters, etc.

But why should we mentally and physically decline simply because we've been alive a few decades. While you're busy living your life, time passes fast. People talk about diseses of aging, perhaps they should be viewed as symptoms of aging. Fix aging and many of those diseases stop happening.

Let's talk about a small case - aging related vision loss. Your eyes age, your ability to focus on things close to you, such as reading a book, diminishes. It's so common, it's considerd "natural". For 250 years the "solution" has been bifocals. I'm old enough now that I've experienced this. I was ready to go the bifocal route, then decided to see what other options there were. I found a supplement that reversed the aging effects on my eyes and I now have no need whatsoever for bifocals. And it only took one week to see the improvement.

flyorra said:

i'm sure mother nature has her reasons for letting us age, everything in the universe ages and evolves, no use debating about it or making such hype surrounding it. it's a natural course of events.

Jellyfish don't age

Hydra don't age

Lobsters don't age

alandail said:

flyorra said:

i'm sure mother nature has her reasons for letting us age, everything in the universe ages and evolves, no use debating about it or making such hype surrounding it. it's a natural course of events.

Jellyfish don't age

Hydra don't age

Lobsters don't age

yes they do, don't believe everything you read. they might die before they age old enough but everything ages, come on.

flyorra said:

flyorra said:

alandail said:

Jellyfish don't age

Hydra don't age

Lobsters don't age

yes they do, don't believe everything you read. they might die before they age old enough but everything ages, come on.

At a minimum you'd have to agree that some forms of life age slower than other forms of life, right? Slow the rate of aging by half and you double our life expectancey. Human life expectancy has already doubled since the 1850s, does anyone view that as an unnatural thing?

[Edited 5/28/12 6:55am]

alandail said:

flyorra said:

yes they do, don't believe everything you read. they might die before they age old enough but everything ages, come on.

At a minimum you'd have to agree that some forms of life age slower than other forms of life, right? Slow the rate of aging by half and you double our life expectancey. Human life expectancy has already doubled since the 1850s, does anyone view that as an unnatural thing?

[Edited 5/28/12 6:55am]

yes i do view it as unnatural, because then the planet could not sustain us. if 9 billion people lived twice as long as they do, that would bump up our numbers first of all, and no doubt our quality of life because we don't have the resources. it does not make sense.

flyorra said:

alandail said:

alandail said:

There are not any food shortages. There are just food distributin issues. More people don't cause unemployment.on the contrary, people need goods and services which creates employment. I just read about labor shortages in china.

space/room is limited, can you imagine...our planet full of junk. not everything can be recycled.