Experts Say Humans Can Live to 1,000

Off Topic
1

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/11/can-humans-live.html

What do you guys think of this?

To be honest I think 1,000 is a bit of a strange figure to pull out of their hats but I think eventually there is possibly going to be someone out there to reach 200 or more.

They’re going about it in the wrong way also, there is no pill to prevent you being unhealthy and unfit.

If anyone could do it I think it would be someone from a fitness background look at Jack LaLanne.

There is such a large amount of supplements available today I believe a good diet and supplementation will go an extremely long way alongside regular exercise.

A few things I have come across that I have not heard so much about here is the Coenzyme Q10 check it out it supposedly has great benefits then you have the synthetically produced supplement of this called Idebenone.

Anyway your thoughts?

2

yeah i suppose if you have enough money you can do it.

3

I’ve learned that the process of aging could also be related to the telomeres in your DNA. When DNA replicates, it’s not 100% perfect in the fact that the new replicated DNA is 1 nucleotide shorter (due to the creation of DNA from 5’ to 3’1 end and DNA polymerase I unable to change a piece of the RNA primer on the new synthesized DNA).

The telomeres are a bunch of repeating nucleotide sequences (arrangement of 6 nucleotides in humans) that get shortened when cell replication occurs. However, in germ cells, these telomeres are regenerated by telomerase.

So maybe, there might be something in that area. However, cancerous cells also tend to have increased telomerase activity.

4

[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:
I’ve learned that the process of aging could also be related to the telomeres in your DNA. When DNA replicates, it’s not 100% perfect in the fact that the new replicated DNA is 1 nucleotide shorter (due to the creation of DNA from 5’ to 3’1 end and DNA polymerase I unable to change a piece of the RNA primer on the new synthesized DNA).

The telomeres are a bunch of repeating nucleotide sequences (arrangement of 6 nucleotides in humans) that get shortened when cell replication occurs. However, in germ cells, these telomeres are regenerated by telomerase. So maybe, there might be something in that area. However, cancerous cells also tend to have increased telomerase activity.[/quote]

I think you left out the part that when you run out of telomeres, that is the point where the cell dies. Cancer on the other hand either does not lose these? or can rebuild those telomeres. I think the cure to immortality actually resides in cancer or a virus.

This is all based off a conversation I had with a 9th grade bio teacher,not sure how accurate I am.

5

I don’t think immortality would be all it is cracked up to be. Just because I can live for 1000 years, does not mean that I will actually have any real memory of those 1000 years. As it stands, I can barely remember things that happened to me 5 years ago.

Sure, I have ‘memories’, sure, some are stronger than others, sure, I learned things, but, I think that overall, our ability to remember long-term is not quite refined enough to last for over 100 years. In effect, although you might be 1000 years old, your memories of life 500 years ago would be so vague as to be functionally useless.

Now, couple immortality with being able to literally download and upload your brain into a machine, and then you might be onto something… although that raises all sorts of other problems, relating to false identities and consciousness and blah blah blah.

In short, one lifetime should be more than enough for anyone.

6

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
pzehtoeur wrote:
I’ve learned that the process of aging could also be related to the telomeres in your DNA. When DNA replicates, it’s not 100% perfect in the fact that the new replicated DNA is 1 nucleotide shorter (due to the creation of DNA from 5’ to 3’1 end and DNA polymerase I unable to change a piece of the RNA primer on the new synthesized DNA).

The telomeres are a bunch of repeating nucleotide sequences (arrangement of 6 nucleotides in humans) that get shortened when cell replication occurs. However, in germ cells, these telomeres are regenerated by telomerase. So maybe, there might be something in that area. However, cancerous cells also tend to have increased telomerase activity.

I think you left out the part that when you run out of telomeres, that is the point where the cell dies. Cancer on the other hand either does not lose these? or can rebuild those telomeres. I think the cure to immortality actually resides in cancer or a virus.

This is all based off a conversation I had with a 9th grade bio teacher,not sure how accurate I am.[/quote]

Yeah, I believe you’re right. When the telomeres completely degrade, the cell goes through apoptosis. Cancer cells have activated telomerase while normal cells (except gametes) have their telomerase inactivated.

7

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I don’t think immortality would be all it is cracked up to be. Just because I can live for 1000 years, does not mean that I will actually have any real memory of those 1000 years.

As it stands, I can barely remember things that happened to me 5 years ago. Sure, I have ‘memories’, sure, some are stronger than others, sure, I learned things, but, I think that overall, our ability to remember long-term is not quite refined enough to last for over 100 years.

In effect, although you might be 1000 years old, your memories of life 500 years ago would be so vague as to be functionally useless.

Now, couple immortality with being able to literally download and upload your brain into a machine, and then you might be onto something… although that raises all sorts of other problems, relating to false identities and consciousness and blah blah blah.

In short, one lifetime should be more than enough for anyone. [/quote]

I agree with this post for the most part - I’m not sure if you’ve ever played the game Lost Odyssey, but a lot of what you’re talking about is discussed in the game. One biggie is the fact that everyone you know and learn to love with die.

They’ll eventually come and go, just like the seasons. Long lives are bound for loneliness and isolation… probably even immorality. Think about the kind of things people’d [try to] get away with if they couldn’t die.

I guess the only real reason I’d ever want to be immortal is just to see how shit goes down, you know?

Sorry I can’t comment more on the physiological aspects of living to 200, I’d pretty much be making shit up as I went.

8

I feel a Queen song coming on.

9

[quote]Travacolypse wrote:
I feel a Queen song coming on.[/quote]

You know how I know you’re gay?

10

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Travacolypse wrote:
I feel a Queen song coming on.

You know how I know you’re gay?[/quote]

I watched too much Highlander? :stuck_out_tongue:

11

Total bullshit. We are not on the brink of any major discoveries that will reverse aging or prevent death. And if we were, why stop at 1000? If you can extend the human lifespan by a factor of 10, why can we not expand it infinitely?

12

Jeanne Calment lived to be 122-I think that stands as a world record. And there is twenty five documented people past 115 years.

I believe it may be possible one day to make it to a 100 for more people.

Living to a thousand, I’m not sure I can even fantasise such a notion-and besides we will destroy the earth- for habitation long before that.

13

Imagine trying to save for retirement.

14

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
Imagine trying to save for retirement.[/quote]

Hah!!

There are a few things I want but livin’ to 100, let alone 1,000 ain’t one of 'em.

15

If they can do it… it would make intergalactic space travel possible in one life time. Although I would not want to spend 900 years in space.

16

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
If they can do it… it would make intergalactic space travel possible in one life time. Although I would not want to spend 900 years in space. [/quote]

What galaxy do you think could be reachable in 1000 years?

The Andromeda Galaxy which is the closest galaxy to our own is 2.5M light years away. Even being able to travel at light speed (which to current knowledge is impossible) it would take 2.5 million years.

On the other hand, the closest star to our own, Proxima Centauri, within the Milky Way is only 4.2 light years away. This could be done in one 1000 year lifetime though it would still take about 200 years to travel 40E12 Km. Not only that it would take tons of fuel to accelerate to a decent speed and an equivalent amount of fuel to decelerate – forget about coming “home”.

The creepy thing would be knowing that the light coming from Proxima is 4.2 years old so it could be long gone and we wouldn’t know it until 4 years after the fact.

17

[quote]DickBag wrote:
living to 1000 would be lonley.

youd get bored of yourself thinking, “back in my day”

bla bla bla.

[/quote]

Why do you assume that? I don’t see how it would be any different that doubling ones life from 25 to 50 and so on. You probably wouldn’t be capable of remembering anything but the most significant pieces of your past. You would really be able to “recreate” yourself many times over if you were able to live to 1000 years-old.

18

you’d have to work for 900 yrs, that’s sounds like real fun, lol

as said, saving for retirement would be interesting

19

That article seems a bit silly.

Ageing is now classed as a disease?
They are thinking pretty far ahead of themselves, and really I don’t see how the human body could witstand 1000 years.

Not to mention that the population would be rather useless if it were populated with people over 100 years.

But who knows what will be possible in the next 50 years

20

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
you’d have to work for 900 yrs, that’s sounds like real fun, lol

as said, saving for retirement would be interesting[/quote]

Well assuming that we would have offspring it is quite possible that we would have a much wider network of support to help the aged. Imagine the size of your family at 900 years of age.

If you had two children and each of those children had 2 children (and only 2) within the first three decades of life there is a potential for 30 generations or a total family population of 2^30. That might actually be enough to give humanity a perspective about what it means to be connected with the entire human species.

At some point you should be able to acquire enough wealth that you do not need to worry about saving because you are now economically self sufficient – all of your property creates more than you can possibly consume. Your offspring would also have this base of support. The longer one lives the better the potential for a material quality of life.

Besides, many people would drop off long before that due to their own stupidity.