1
Can we stop aging?
So as I was learning my biology this came to my head, can we stop aging? To make death only be possible if something was about to happen, for example a lethal car crash or some kind of disease or what ever?
For me I would be glad if we could do it, stop the aging and maybe even revert it so we are growing younger instead of older. I for once can safely say I would not mind living until real "death" parts me away from this word as I want to live to the day we can go from space to earth like like you were to use a bus today from station to X location.
For me I would be glad if we could do it, stop the aging and maybe even revert it so we are growing younger instead of older. I for once can safely say I would not mind living until real "death" parts me away from this word as I want to live to the day we can go from space to earth like like you were to use a bus today from station to X location.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
49
1
my friend, if the world of miss peregrine was real, life would be easier
1
In my opinion, immortality humanity is not a good idea. At least for this world, anyway.
1
If no one would die of age the planet would overpopulate too much and lead to extinction
1
Even if we did what would we gain? In science breakthroughs are really only made after the scientists who made the previous breakthroughs die. Science would not progress if we had the ability to be immortal. Also, chances are due to high demand these services would be expensive, and restricted to societal elites. And even then, we would possibly have to deal with a struggle of overcrowding.
1
NitwickKnightsunderNitwick
What scientific reasoning do you have for humans to be unable to modify cells sometime in the future to slow aging to be at the same rate of growing as death?
Note that I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime, or at least in a form that I could use it. I'm hardly that lucky ;p
He never said it was impossible for it to happen, but rather, that it was essentially extremely immoral. I think.
If that's the case, I dunno what the whole biblical thing was about since it wasn't really the point of the thread to ask about the morality...
Immoral in the sense of disrespecting a benevolent omnipotent force; "if you're immortal too, what power do I have". Kind of the whole "don't play God" concept.
1
KnightsunderNitwick
What scientific reasoning do you have for humans to be unable to modify cells sometime in the future to slow aging to be at the same rate of growing as death?
Note that I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime, or at least in a form that I could use it. I'm hardly that lucky ;p
He never said it was impossible for it to happen, but rather, that it was essentially extremely immoral. I think.
If that's the case, I dunno what the whole biblical thing was about since it wasn't really the point of the thread to ask about the morality...
1
Long story put really short, the info we have at the moment suggests that the majority of the effects of old age (assuming you live a healthy lifestyle) are the result of the breakdown of your DNA over time as it replicates during cell division. Some cells like the ones in your brain which don't replicate are a different story, but generally for most of your body, this is the case.
There are some animals who have genes that code for enzymes that fix DNA to some extent, but I'm not sure if any of those repair it completely, which would mean that while they might live longer, eventually the damage would catch up to them too.
Even if we assume that we can engineer a similar enzyme within your lifetime that could completely repair DNA in humans, there's still the problem of how people who are already alive would be able to use it. New humans could be genetically modified before birth to have the code for the enzyme added to their DNA so that every cell in their body would be able to create it for themselves, but you've already developed without the code, so either we'd have to find a way to edit the DNA of every single cell in your body, or constantly deliver the enzyme to every single cell in your body 24/7, both of which are pretty unlikely to happen within your lifetime.
There are some animals who have genes that code for enzymes that fix DNA to some extent, but I'm not sure if any of those repair it completely, which would mean that while they might live longer, eventually the damage would catch up to them too.
Even if we assume that we can engineer a similar enzyme within your lifetime that could completely repair DNA in humans, there's still the problem of how people who are already alive would be able to use it. New humans could be genetically modified before birth to have the code for the enzyme added to their DNA so that every cell in their body would be able to create it for themselves, but you've already developed without the code, so either we'd have to find a way to edit the DNA of every single cell in your body, or constantly deliver the enzyme to every single cell in your body 24/7, both of which are pretty unlikely to happen within your lifetime.
1
Nitwick
What scientific reasoning do you have for humans to be unable to modify cells sometime in the future to slow aging to be at the same rate of growing as death?
Note that I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime, or at least in a form that I could use it. I'm hardly that lucky ;p
He never said it was impossible for it to happen, but rather, that it was essentially extremely immoral. I think.
1
Prof_Jake_MQYour defense against the Bible is that it didn't describe things we have now. Doesn't seem very sound.
It does when you realize there's too many plotholes in the bible to use it as the end-all identifier for our hard limits in science. Forgive me, but I'm going to throw the Bible out of all future discussion and disregard it as a source for these reasons.
What scientific reasoning do you have for humans to be unable to modify cells sometime in the future to slow aging to be at the same rate of growing as death?
Note that I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime, or at least in a form that I could use it. I'm hardly that lucky ;p
1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2 ... ouncement/
interesting stuff, ye.
If scientests could discover more things like this, with the knowledge that they have at the moment, I'd say immortality would assist those who continue looking for places suitable for human life.
interesting stuff, ye.
If scientests could discover more things like this, with the knowledge that they have at the moment, I'd say immortality would assist those who continue looking for places suitable for human life.
1
If you're wanting to live until the point to where travel to space is quick and average, you'll be waiting for a while. We won't have that technology for quite the tens of years.
1
That was said about computers yet look at us now.
1
Maybe we could, if we lived in a kind of bubble. Where food and drink was purified, and nobody was allowed in. We'd live a really long time, and we wouldn't get sick or shot, but I guess age would still stop it. If you want to live, but be in a sleeping state, maybe we could evolve cryogenic chambers, and stay in those. People could 'wake' us up when something big happened, and we could go back to 'sleep' afterwards.
1
are you referencing miss peregrine????
1
Let's keep this on topic, this is a post and discussion about stopping aging and possibilities around that, don't start arguing about the Bible or Gods will. This thread doesn't need to devolve into conflict on that subject so keep it civil.
1
candycane_By what metrics can we know what is and is not "Playing God," though? These guidelines aren't really laid-out clearly and I could understand people being confused and interpreting it in a variety of ways. In my opinion any sort of immortality is, as of now, scientifically infeasible and not even something anyone should desire. That said, is trying to hamper the effects of aging and extend human lifespans similarly playing god? Where is the line drawn? Scientific progress, especially modern scientific progress comes with a variety of ethical questions that must be considered - Trying to be more like God is not even an inherent evil. In many parts of the bible it's encouraged, to a degree. Ephesians 4:24, 1 John 2:6, 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2
Granted, playing God is a somewhat gray area, there are some obvious examples. Playing God and playing doctor are two different things, however. There is nothing wrong with trying to help people, but death is something that must come. Seeing as the "end times" have been on the horizon for at least a century, a good many more people are going to die before then, and many more before Time comes to a close.
As for your point about trying to be like God being a good thing, there is a catch to it: it applies to Believers, not just any person. Those verses were written to the Church, and not to make Christians sound like an exclusive club, but the stuff in the Bible isn't simply applicable to everyone. Well, not all of it.
candycane_Basically, where do we cross the line from making medical advances that save and extend lives to playing God? Have we already crossed it? Some of the most devastating and dangerous diseases we face are types of cancer. We do not actually die of "old age" - We die of conditions related to it, cancer being one of the big ones. Aging is one of the greatest risk factors for cancer. If we were to find a hypothetical cure for all cancers, would that be playing god? Would curing aging-related conditions in general be playing god?
I don't know if I have any real disagreement that trying desperately to attain immortality is ethically wrong, but I personally don't always care for "Playing God" to be used as an argument against something. It's become a bit of a philosophical cliche with little substance to it without significant support beyond that. I can claim just about anything sufficiently advanced is playing God for a variety of reasons. I'd prefer additional support. Immortality, for example, has many, many issues - Ones I won't even delve into here for fear of textwalling. At the most basic level, though, what about children? Overpopulation? Who gets immortality? What societal upheaval does it bring? What if people want to die? What would that do to the human psyche? How would murder be handled? Wars? And what about Barb?
It particularly bothers me, though, because it can even be used against things like modern medicine which saves lives through utilization of the natural world. I don't even mean, like, esoteric experimental treatments. Some groups refuse to receive medical treatment, and while I respect their beliefs, I am also profoundly sad. I don't want people to die when they don't need to.
Medical advances are not cursed by God, nor is receiving cures for ailments. You took what I have said and delved into things much too deeply. I'm not saying it is evil, nor that slowing aging wouldn't be great. I'm just thinking that if it did happen, immortality would be the next step. This means that it can't be.
As I said before, immortality isn't meant for this world. Not since the Fall of Man. Immortality would, as you described, end up being more a curse than a blessing, but that is only true for this world.
You argue against my cause for argument, but share similar concerns. Let's agree to disagree that it would just be bad news and settle this.
1
NitwickProf_Jake_MQ
Imagination cannot describe what is contained in one of the most resilient publications of all time; that is to say, the Bible. Have you ever read the Bible?
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7) This passage mentions the hydrologic cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.
“For He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees under the whole heavens, to establish a weight (pressure) for the wind, and apportion the waters by measure.” (Job 28: 24-25) This one mentions atmospheric pressure.
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22) This mentions the roundness of the Earth (circle) and the constant expansion of the universe (stretches out the heavens like a canopy).
These are all "scientific" discoveries mentioned in the Old Testament. These were told to man by God thousands of years before modern science, especially before the times of their alleged "discoveries."
So forgive me if I am amused by your claim that you believe in science more than God. Read the Bible for yourself and see just what kind of 'imagination' the 40 or so writers had across about 4000 years.
The same publication failed to describe computers, cars, lasers, and a multitude of other technologies present today, so I'm not sure how it could be a good source for what will and will not happen technologically.
Your defense against the Bible is that it didn't describe things we have now. Doesn't seem very sound.
1
Prof_Jake_MQ
Dear human being, are you not familiar with the concept of free will? God gave us such a gift so we would be free to honor or reject Him. But this is the wrong topic for this thread, so I"ll spare you that bit.
Anyways, because we have free will, God isn't going to just step in and stop us. He is going to let us find out on our own that such a thing is feeble and cannot be accomplished.
There are plenty of times where the Bible discourages trying to become equal to God. (Anyone know the story of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel AKA the Devil?) Also, trying to reach what is not meant for us to attain. (Like the Tower Babel, which was supposed to reach Heaven.)
By what metrics can we know what is and is not "Playing God," though? These guidelines aren't really laid-out clearly and I could understand people being confused and interpreting it in a variety of ways. In my opinion any sort of immortality is, as of now, scientifically infeasible and not even something anyone should desire. That said, is trying to hamper the effects of aging and extend human lifespans similarly playing god? Where is the line drawn? Scientific progress, especially modern scientific progress comes with a variety of ethical questions that must be considered - Trying to be more like God is not even an inherent evil. In many parts of the bible it's encouraged, to a degree. Ephesians 4:24, 1 John 2:6, 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2
Basically, where do we cross the line from making medical advances that save and extend lives to playing God? Have we already crossed it? Some of the most devastating and dangerous diseases we face are types of cancer. We do not actually die of "old age" - We die of conditions related to it, cancer being one of the big ones. Aging is one of the greatest risk factors for cancer. If we were to find a hypothetical cure for all cancers, would that be playing god? Would curing aging-related conditions in general be playing god?
I don't know if I have any real disagreement that trying desperately to attain immortality is ethically wrong, but I personally don't always care for "Playing God" to be used as an argument against something. It's become a bit of a philosophical cliche with little substance to it without significant support beyond that. I can claim just about anything sufficiently advanced is playing God for a variety of reasons. I'd prefer additional support. Immortality, for example, has many, many issues - Ones I won't even delve into here for fear of textwalling. At the most basic level, though, what about children? Overpopulation? Who gets immortality? What societal upheaval does it bring? What if people want to die? What would that do to the human psyche? How would murder be handled? Wars? And what about Barb?
It particularly bothers me, though, because it can even be used against things like modern medicine which saves lives through utilization of the natural world. I don't even mean, like, esoteric experimental treatments. Some groups refuse to receive medical treatment, and while I respect their beliefs, I am also profoundly sad. I don't want people to die when they don't need to.
1
Prof_Jake_MQ
Imagination cannot describe what is contained in one of the most resilient publications of all time; that is to say, the Bible. Have you ever read the Bible?
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7) This passage mentions the hydrologic cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.
“For He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees under the whole heavens, to establish a weight (pressure) for the wind, and apportion the waters by measure.” (Job 28: 24-25) This one mentions atmospheric pressure.
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22) This mentions the roundness of the Earth (circle) and the constant expansion of the universe (stretches out the heavens like a canopy).
These are all "scientific" discoveries mentioned in the Old Testament. These were told to man by God thousands of years before modern science, especially before the times of their alleged "discoveries."
So forgive me if I am amused by your claim that you believe in science more than God. Read the Bible for yourself and see just what kind of 'imagination' the 40 or so writers had across about 4000 years.
The same publication failed to describe computers, cars, lasers, and a multitude of other technologies present today, so I'm not sure how it could be a good source for what will and will not happen technologically.
1
To not die would probably be possible in 50+ years when cryostasis is invented. You can suspend your cells to point where they wont be able to move but still have a function.
1
You do realize that it is a very precise process to put someone on ice without freezing them, right? Because if you freeze someone, you kill them. Also, we can't produce cold fusion, how can we can people-sicles that can be thawed on command?
Also, the 50+ years makes it seem even less likely.
Also, the 50+ years makes it seem even less likely.
1
Actually, I read a book about this recently. It's called "The Post Mortal" by Drew Magary. I had to read it for school, and dang, I really hate books I read for school, but this ended up being one of my all time favorite novels. It doesn't go too deep into the science of aging, but more the societal effects it would have. Yes, it is probably possible. But is it something we want to achieve, is the question. 7.5 billion is our nearing population, and if we stopped aging that would become a terrible terrible problem.
The theory for aging lies in a piece of our genetic code called Telomeres. In definition, "A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at each end of a chromosome, which protects the end of the chromosome from deterioration or from fusion with neighboring chromosomes"
This basically means that telomeres are responsible for the repetition of constant cell growth. Cell growth is what makes us up almost completely. It's why your hair keeps growing, why your skin stays healthy, and why scabs and cuts and wounds heal. It's also why most of your inner functions keep going as well. Telomeres keep cell growth in check, but as you grow older, they shorten. When they shorten, Telomeres begin to stop aiding the production of cell growth which is why a lot of diseases are age dependent, why old people usually go bald, why brain diseases are linked with age, heart disease alike. The theory, however, is that if we are able to lengthen, or stunt the shortening of telomeres, we might be able to stop aging.
Personally, I think that's an incredibly bad idea though, given what 7.5 billion of us have already done pollution-wise and climate-wise. All species have a carrying capacity at which something stops us from getting too big, such as famine, disease, and disaster.
But to answer your question, it's most likely possible, with where our scientific progress and technology is headed.
I just question the morality of it. If you read The Post Mortal, you will too.
The theory for aging lies in a piece of our genetic code called Telomeres. In definition, "A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at each end of a chromosome, which protects the end of the chromosome from deterioration or from fusion with neighboring chromosomes"
This basically means that telomeres are responsible for the repetition of constant cell growth. Cell growth is what makes us up almost completely. It's why your hair keeps growing, why your skin stays healthy, and why scabs and cuts and wounds heal. It's also why most of your inner functions keep going as well. Telomeres keep cell growth in check, but as you grow older, they shorten. When they shorten, Telomeres begin to stop aiding the production of cell growth which is why a lot of diseases are age dependent, why old people usually go bald, why brain diseases are linked with age, heart disease alike. The theory, however, is that if we are able to lengthen, or stunt the shortening of telomeres, we might be able to stop aging.
Personally, I think that's an incredibly bad idea though, given what 7.5 billion of us have already done pollution-wise and climate-wise. All species have a carrying capacity at which something stops us from getting too big, such as famine, disease, and disaster.
But to answer your question, it's most likely possible, with where our scientific progress and technology is headed.
I just question the morality of it. If you read The Post Mortal, you will too.
1
[/quote]I know this might not what you want to hear but I believe more in science than in God. Imagination cant replace what science has proved. As with computers and technology we never know what can happen in next few years. People 15 years ago didn't even think of what we have right now on this scale yet it evolved.[/quote]
Imagination cannot describe what is contained in one of the most resilient publications of all time; that is to say, the Bible. Have you ever read the Bible?
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7) This passage mentions the hydrologic cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.
“For He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees under the whole heavens, to establish a weight (pressure) for the wind, and apportion the waters by measure.” (Job 28: 24-25) This one mentions atmospheric pressure.
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22) This mentions the roundness of the Earth (circle) and the constant expansion of the universe (stretches out the heavens like a canopy).
These are all "scientific" discoveries mentioned in the Old Testament. These were told to man by God thousands of years before modern science, especially before the times of their alleged "discoveries."
So forgive me if I am amused by your claim that you believe in science more than God. Read the Bible for yourself and see just what kind of 'imagination' the 40 or so writers had across about 4000 years.
[/quote]The way I see it if it's that important to not mess with, any god would simply prevent it from being researched.[/quote]
Dear human being, are you not familiar with the concept of free will? God gave us such a gift so we would be free to honor or reject Him. But this is the wrong topic for this thread, so I"ll spare you that bit.
Anyways, because we have free will, God isn't going to just step in and stop us. He is going to let us find out on our own that such a thing is feeble and cannot be accomplished.
[/quote]There's not really, as far as I know, many sections of any holy books forbidding research into extending life/attaining biological "immortality" (A concept I find to be somewhat misconstrued in general anyway.)[/quote]
There are plenty of times where the Bible discourages trying to become equal to God. (Anyone know the story of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel AKA the Devil?) Also, trying to reach what is not meant for us to attain. (Like the Tower Babel, which was supposed to reach Heaven.)
[/quote]I mean, it might happen eventually. I can't really predict that sort of thing.[/quote]
I wouldn't expect you would be partaking in a scientific conversation if you claimed to be clairvoyant.
Imagination cannot describe what is contained in one of the most resilient publications of all time; that is to say, the Bible. Have you ever read the Bible?
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7) This passage mentions the hydrologic cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.
“For He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees under the whole heavens, to establish a weight (pressure) for the wind, and apportion the waters by measure.” (Job 28: 24-25) This one mentions atmospheric pressure.
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22) This mentions the roundness of the Earth (circle) and the constant expansion of the universe (stretches out the heavens like a canopy).
These are all "scientific" discoveries mentioned in the Old Testament. These were told to man by God thousands of years before modern science, especially before the times of their alleged "discoveries."
So forgive me if I am amused by your claim that you believe in science more than God. Read the Bible for yourself and see just what kind of 'imagination' the 40 or so writers had across about 4000 years.
[/quote]The way I see it if it's that important to not mess with, any god would simply prevent it from being researched.[/quote]
Dear human being, are you not familiar with the concept of free will? God gave us such a gift so we would be free to honor or reject Him. But this is the wrong topic for this thread, so I"ll spare you that bit.
Anyways, because we have free will, God isn't going to just step in and stop us. He is going to let us find out on our own that such a thing is feeble and cannot be accomplished.
[/quote]There's not really, as far as I know, many sections of any holy books forbidding research into extending life/attaining biological "immortality" (A concept I find to be somewhat misconstrued in general anyway.)[/quote]
There are plenty of times where the Bible discourages trying to become equal to God. (Anyone know the story of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel AKA the Devil?) Also, trying to reach what is not meant for us to attain. (Like the Tower Babel, which was supposed to reach Heaven.)
[/quote]I mean, it might happen eventually. I can't really predict that sort of thing.[/quote]
I wouldn't expect you would be partaking in a scientific conversation if you claimed to be clairvoyant.
1
i think i deleted my first post by accident. here it is again.
i think there was something called biological immortality, i heard it some time ago. basically, there are things called stem cells, that scientists believe hold the secret to creating infinite regeneration (cause of death can be injury or disease though).
if this was possible, immortality could be given to those who are intelligent and will live on to continue research and gather knowledge on how to expand onto other planets, or manage space on earth in a way that people can be granted immortality under certain conditions.
either way, the chances of it becoming a totalitarian society, the chances of those granted immortality aren't able to figure out how to manage populations, are rather high.
perfectness is not linked to immortality. and i dont think human inclinations and feelings are something that can be erased, even if you were immortal.
the balance of life is something that's very beautiful. the time scientists spend on figuring out immortality should be first spent on curing most diseases and shaping a healthier and well rounded society. then when people can have a taste of what an actual longevity is, the idea of immortality could be worked on, and eventually... yeah.
humans have done rather impressive things since the last century. all we can do is hope, ye?
i think there was something called biological immortality, i heard it some time ago. basically, there are things called stem cells, that scientists believe hold the secret to creating infinite regeneration (cause of death can be injury or disease though).
if this was possible, immortality could be given to those who are intelligent and will live on to continue research and gather knowledge on how to expand onto other planets, or manage space on earth in a way that people can be granted immortality under certain conditions.
either way, the chances of it becoming a totalitarian society, the chances of those granted immortality aren't able to figure out how to manage populations, are rather high.
perfectness is not linked to immortality. and i dont think human inclinations and feelings are something that can be erased, even if you were immortal.
the balance of life is something that's very beautiful. the time scientists spend on figuring out immortality should be first spent on curing most diseases and shaping a healthier and well rounded society. then when people can have a taste of what an actual longevity is, the idea of immortality could be worked on, and eventually... yeah.
humans have done rather impressive things since the last century. all we can do is hope, ye?
1
candycane_ big thing
Candle's quote actually got me thinking a little bit.
I agree with it not being reliable to expect our advancements in the past to affect how quickly we create new technology; there is a threshold for human capability and comprehension, and while there are certainly very, very few things we can never achieve, we can't maintain an incredible pace of innovation forever.
I think it's more feasible within the next 100 years that we find a method for slowing time down on a digital level; putting on an advanced VR headset that allows us to experience things faster, and thus have more time to spend in a simulated habitat, a la Sword Art Online or that "live out your life" game from Rick and Morty.
Aka, it's far, far easier to deceive the brain and unlock it's full potential than it is to literally grow cells faster than they can die. At least, I think it is. I'm no scientist.
1
Prof_Jake_MQ
Consider how long it took us to get here. Immortality is not something man is meant to achieve in this world. It isn't possible. To mess with this stuff in such a way is to mess with God.
The way I see it if it's that important to not mess with, any god would simply prevent it from being researched. There's not really, as far as I know, many sections of any holy books forbidding research into extending life/attaining biological "immortality" (A concept I find to be somewhat misconstrued in general anyway.)
NitwickProf_Jake_MQTo cease aging is a scientific impossibility. We may be able to prolong life and slow aging, but not completely stop it.
You don't believe the rate of cells dying can be changed to meet an equal balance or reverse entirely in the future?
Before answering, consider the advancements of tech today compared to a hundred years ago, and the general advancements of tech in the past few centuries in comparison.
I mean, it might happen eventually. I can't really predict that sort of thing. Even so, I don't think it's always best to gauge potential scientific progress based on how far we've gone. Science provides accurate, verifiable results, yes, but making discoveries isn't always so clear-cut. Science can, somewhat paradoxically, be really messy. Certain things might be unobtainable. Still worth researching, of course.
I guess I'm just trying to say science isn't a guarantee. I think it's good to look back on our achievements but at the same time I don't think advancements can be accurately based off of past breakthroughs. Scientific progress in general has been a long history of rude awakenings and realizations that we actually have no idea what's going on in certain fields.
Still, when you look at certain conditions and how the body works, understand to a significant degree what causes the problems, and still can't fix it, it can be really frustrating and hopeless. It seems so, so close - It feels like there's some obvious answer waiting just beyond the veil if only you think a bit harder - And yet it constantly eludes us.
I mean, we struggle with our ineffectual cures for horrible ailments in petty attempts to eradicate diseases for the betterment of humanity. We are genuinely trying to improve human lives. And yet it all seems to be in vain.
Except when it isn't.
I'd quite like to begin a few more articles on devastating illnesses with the word was.
1
Prof_Jake_MQNitwickProf_Jake_MQTo cease aging is a scientific impossibility. We may be able to prolong life and slow aging, but not completely stop it.
You don't believe the rate of cells dying can be changed to meet an equal balance or reverse entirely in the future?
Before answering, consider the advancements of tech today compared to a hundred years ago, and the general advancements of tech in the past few centuries in comparison.
Consider how long it took us to get here. Immortality is not something man is meant to achieve in this world. It isn't possible. To mess with this stuff in such a way is to mess with God.
I know this might not what you want to hear but I believe more in science than in God. Imagination cant replace what science has proved. As with computers and technology we never know what can happen in next few years. People 15 years ago didn't even think of what we have right now on this scale yet it evolved.
1
NitwickProf_Jake_MQTo cease aging is a scientific impossibility. We may be able to prolong life and slow aging, but not completely stop it.
You don't believe the rate of cells dying can be changed to meet an equal balance or reverse entirely in the future?
Before answering, consider the advancements of tech today compared to a hundred years ago, and the general advancements of tech in the past few centuries in comparison.
Consider how long it took us to get here. Immortality is not something man is meant to achieve in this world. It isn't possible. To mess with this stuff in such a way is to mess with God.
1
Prof_Jake_MQTo cease aging is a scientific impossibility. We may be able to prolong life and slow aging, but not completely stop it.
You don't believe the rate of cells dying can be changed to meet an equal balance or reverse entirely in the future?
Before answering, consider the advancements of tech today compared to a hundred years ago, and the general advancements of tech in the past few centuries in comparison.
1
We are nowhere near the tech necessary to live in space, at least not in a way that is sustainable. They do have a space station up there that is being manned, but the people come down from time to time. Being in space is not quite safe enough yet for us to all just go flying out in rockets to interplanetary colonies (which we also don't even have a place to begin with those). Also, to stop people from aging, they would have to be kept much too young to reproduce in order to prevent overpopulation, which could lead to it's own problem.
The oldest person who has ever lived was Methuselah, and he was an old man of 969 years. That was when the Earth still had an ideal global climate and people were able to live long, healthy lives. In our current world, we cannot sustain such long lives, let alone hope to achieve them. And before you say anything, people back during that time would probably have still been in their prime long after we would.
To cease aging is a scientific impossibility. We may be able to prolong life and slow aging, but not completely stop it.
The oldest person who has ever lived was Methuselah, and he was an old man of 969 years. That was when the Earth still had an ideal global climate and people were able to live long, healthy lives. In our current world, we cannot sustain such long lives, let alone hope to achieve them. And before you say anything, people back during that time would probably have still been in their prime long after we would.
To cease aging is a scientific impossibility. We may be able to prolong life and slow aging, but not completely stop it.
1
It would catastrophic to stop ageing. We already have a massive overpopulation problem. Within our lifetime, we will likely see wars waged over food and resources. That is unless something is done or a good percentage of the population dies off.
1
Even If we Could, It would Be a bad idea, Do you Imagine all those humans in earth? And even if we could expand to other planets, the cycle would be each time faster and more.
1
You can make it slower by going to other planets. Planets that are slower to rotate than Earth. That is also why only robots can go to other planets, I think. (Sorry if I'm spamming, Thats because of our weak internet connection. I don't know whats happening. )
1
We can't stop aging per say, but there could be a way to regenerate old/traumatized cells. Neurons however are much harder/impossible to regenerate because of the synapses between neurons.
1
Can we stop aging? most certainly not possible, but if we did it probably be not a good idea to be honest... Some countries as it is like China already have a population problem... If we stopped aging there would be even more chaos, there would be even more countries in poverty due to resources that have limits, there would be even less farming areas etc. Also if a plague were to start... It would spread easier due to more people everywhere....
No it will never happen, I'm sorry, but you can slow aging down and live longer, but you wont be able to stop it, that would only happen in a sc-ifi movie.. If it was possible we would have to do extreme population control....
No it will never happen, I'm sorry, but you can slow aging down and live longer, but you wont be able to stop it, that would only happen in a sc-ifi movie.. If it was possible we would have to do extreme population control....
1
Or move to space, what I hope will happen in my life span at least. I currently feel that we are in some age where we have everything and anything and nothing interesting is happening.
1
Sadly I dont think that will be in our life time as although musk and nasa are focusing on trying to get people there. There are yet to address building, and resource problem that would have to be overcome. Mabey the next generation will see it happen.
1
TL;DR : No. There are too many factors to be taken care of before that question could be asked. Stopping aging would actually be more damaging for humans that what it is currently.
To be honest, having the ability not to age and die due to events out of our control could cause more problems for humans.
Sadly for this to be even a thing, you would have to consider several aspects that would have to be met. Transportation, housing, resources. Or at least their lack IF people where to age up to 200+ lets say.
As an example, lets take China as its most overpopulated area in the world. Unless you will create some lab food that meets every requirement and can be easily access. Over population will cause deaths. As the example; In 1958 and 1961 food shortage between an excess of approximately 20 million people died.
Another scare resource that would have to be addressed is land. Unless musk finds a way to safely colonize space we will have to do with Earth where you have only 30% land. China already had to implement a law that limits amount of kids you have to slow down population.
To be honest, having the ability not to age and die due to events out of our control could cause more problems for humans.
Sadly for this to be even a thing, you would have to consider several aspects that would have to be met. Transportation, housing, resources. Or at least their lack IF people where to age up to 200+ lets say.
As an example, lets take China as its most overpopulated area in the world. Unless you will create some lab food that meets every requirement and can be easily access. Over population will cause deaths. As the example; In 1958 and 1961 food shortage between an excess of approximately 20 million people died.
Another scare resource that would have to be addressed is land. Unless musk finds a way to safely colonize space we will have to do with Earth where you have only 30% land. China already had to implement a law that limits amount of kids you have to slow down population.
1
Also just to clear this out I am satisfied with my life, I love my life, I just want to discuss this!
1
No we cant stop aging -snip-
1
Scientists have already started working on it though, and since some other animals age slower it might be possible in the future
1
It is going possible. Whether it's with machines, or biology. Within the end of this century or the next.
1
To Transcend Death is to Outlive Life.
1
Yes, indeed.
It should be possible to stop ageing. The current average lifespan of 70-80 years is indeed too short a time for most. One hundred or two hundred years would likely be welcomed by most, but then after millennia pass infinite life will likely not be that appetising for most.
It should be possible to stop ageing. The current average lifespan of 70-80 years is indeed too short a time for most. One hundred or two hundred years would likely be welcomed by most, but then after millennia pass infinite life will likely not be that appetising for most.
1
[deleted]
1
the way i see it, this could be a good thing. but in addition, to prevent overpopulation, birth rate would need to be a tiny fraction of what it is now, not necessarily cease completely (taking into account all the other causes of death). because of a significantly lower mortality, civilizations would become more mature, smarter, more advanced and this would be existentially scary.
1
I can imagine it happening, but I think humanity would be screwed if it did. No death = more and more humans = we simply expand and take over all resources like the parasites we've proven to be.
1
Well yes but by the time if we will be alive we will probably expand to space (hopeful) and move on from living only on earth so overpopulation wont be the problem. Earth would became like some starter area on MMO RPG game.
1
If you can't live in that time, just prepare it for others. The life cycle is there for a reason.