The barrier between us and biological immortality

[CerealGuy]

Cancer. and it has ben since the beginning of multicellular organisms

if we cured it the major barrier would be cut down because now I could get the enzyme (I forgot what it is called) that cancer has that lengthens the telomere and allows the cells to replicate as much as needed

now if we had nanobots it could circulate killing cancerous cells, repairing DNA (they carry a perfect set of DNA), and just keeping the body in check

also Stem cells could aid like if you go blind , they recreate a new eye in lets say a dish and sugically implant it



A good example is a lizard if I cut off its tail it would grow back at the risk of cancer now if we cure it somhow We could allow people who lets say had their arm paralyzed to grow it back or even regrow sections of the heart after a heart attack

[Theseus1234]

What about the collagen stuff? Or have we already solved that problem?
Immortality is overrated anyway. It's good that humans die after some time. Not to say I don't support stem cell research, though. Cancer is a cancer on our health.

[Solid Snake]

I´m optimistic taht we will find a way of killing cancer in the next 20 years. But I wont really like immortality.

[Gordon Freynman]

If I was given the chance I'd take it.

[skh1]

Recent research has suggested a link between the shortening of telomeres and aging.

What are the prospects for human immortality?

Human lifespan has increased considerably since the 1600s, when the average lifespan was 30 years. By 1998, the average U.S. life expectancy was 76. The reasons included sewers and other sanitation measures, antibiotics, clean water, refrigeration, vaccines and other medical efforts to prevent children and babies from dying, improved diets and better health care.
Some scientists believe average life expectancy will continue to increase, although many doubt the average will exceed 90. But a few predict vastly longer lifespans are possible.
Cawthon says that if all processes of aging could be eliminated and oxidative stress damage could be repaired, "one estimate is people could live 1,000 years," and they would die from causes like accidents, suicide, murder and pneumonia and some other infectious diseases.

[Solid Snake]

yeah, thats been known for at least a good 15 years.

[skh1]

yeah, thats been known for at least a good 15 years.

The first observations connecting telomeres directly to aging were made in 1986 when Cooke and Smith noticed that the average length of telomere repeats capping sex chromosomes in sperm cells was much longer than in adult cells… For the first time, the aging of cells could be linked to readily detectable and reproducible changes in genomic DNA. Similar observations were subsequently made with cells from many other human tissues.

http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/88/2/557

Recent on a geologic time scale or, alternatively, news to me.

This discussion brings the myth of Tithonus to mind.

[Gelgoog]

immortality would destroy human society.



seriously the only way you could manage human immortality would to have an oppressive world government who severely restricted population growth. Meaning you would have to get a licenses to have a kid. Suicides would be off the charts, and psychotic killers would be everywhere due to huge numbers of people losing their minds or getting bored with life and going on killing sprees.

[Simon Cashmere]

immortality would destroy human society.



seriously the only way you could manage human immortality would to have an oppressive world government who severely restricted population growth. Meaning you would have to get a licenses to have a kid. Suicides would be off the charts, and psychotic killers would be everywhere due to huge numbers of people losing their minds or getting bored with life and going on killing sprees.

Random chance would kill plenty of people still. Maths and probability will kill you, eventually, even if aging will not.

What is the chance of dying in an automobile on the way to work? In a year? In 100 years? Or all manner of accidents that can befall you. If you live long enough, the maths will get you. In the end. But it would be nice to have the future or possibility of living forever, if one is careful, then the certainty of death, no matter how careful one is.

Biological immortality is not impossible - it's only a question of when it is figured out. It is more difficult than just having cells that perfectly divide without errors or cancer, it is making complicated cells divide as needed on cue, and then stopping again rather than dividing uncontrollably. That is very difficult. I believe it was in another thread I spoke of the hydra, which is biologically immortal. Certain cancer also is - producing the immortal cell line.

[roy34543]

I dont think id like immortality much. Imagine that if you annoyed someone, they would literally have infinity to get back at you. And even if you could die that doesnt mean they would let you.
and imagien those 150 year sentences like those mafodd got, Im not sure those would be reasonable if people actually didnt die..

One way or another though, I think the issue is more complex then just letting our cells replicate. I doubt we will be ever able to make all of them do it properly.

[hellheaven1987]

Please define "immortality"; does that mean even losing the skulls would not mean the death??

And we can ignore OP's post mostly, since apartly OP has little understanding how difficult to cure temporary suppress genetic diseases.

[Gelgoog]

Please define "immortality"; does that mean even losing the skulls would not mean the death??

And we can ignore OP's post mostly, since apartly OP has little understanding how difficult to cure temporary suppress genetic diseases.

I believe immortality just means our bodies do not died from lack of cell regeneration, however destruction of certain organs could still cause death.

however will we be able to bring people back after death with cloning and new organs? That is even more scary...that would be true immortality.

[6644kp]

I believe immortality just means our bodies do not died from lack of cell regeneration, however destruction of certain organs could still cause death.

however will we be able to bring people back after death with cloning and new organs? That is even more scary...that would be true immortality.

Not really since that would not be you but a clone even if it had the same body and memory it still woudnt be you. Unless you preserve your brain say it wont feel as if 'waking up' after you died.

[hellheaven1987]

Not really since that would not be you but a clone even if it had the same body and memory it still woudnt be you. Unless you preserve your brain say it wont feel as if 'waking up' after you died.

That bring up a question - if we have technology that simply transfer brain into a robot can we achieve immortality in that way??

[Claudius Gothicus]

I wish we could have extended life-spans with little aging, something like being 80 is like today's 50's.

But immortality seems way too risky.

[Nimthill]

Unfortunately, ageing is a bit more complex than just telomeres renewal. We'd first have to be able to grow new neurons; cardiac myocytes and striated myocytes (cells that don't regrow; only form scar tissue.) Otherwise; even the basement radiation of the earth would still kill you within a couple of hundred years. I do think we'll continue to increase our expected lifespan to the point where the main causes of death aren't old age anymore... oh wait; we're already there ;-)

In sum; we'd need massive advances in the medical field before we can even start thinking about telomeres. You will catch some nasty disease if you live long enough, artherosclerosis kills just as hard as cancer does.

[Elfdude]

Cancer isn't really an obstacle to biological immortality. The biggest issue is we don't know exactly why we age. Telomeres seem to explain some things but we find that mice with different lengths live no different lives.

The best guess theory out there IMO is simply that as a machine our body has a .0X error rate (I have no clue what actual number it is). Essentially we start out with nearly 0 errors. As we age our bodies begin to begin the task of building us. Our genetics provide us with a perfect blueprint for what our body should look like but it never happens exactly like our genetics describe. This is because of the building blocks which we use to build our new and replace our old bodies. Eventually a analog or isomer or etc will for example get incorporated into the bone. While this isn't the normal chemical they use it's total effect is rather low.

Unfortunately just like a blue screen of death, your own body trips over these errors and can't figure out how to undue them. In some cases the wrong chemicals they use cause permanent errors which the body has no method to disassemble. In other cases the body ignores the errors all together with no real way to detect that these progressive errors have built up in the entire structure of the body.

[Alex-ander]

I don't think many people would like to live forever even if it was medically possible one day. I think most of us would settle for living 90 -100 years but in good health like a 20 year old. Instead of like now where you may live to be 100 but unless you are very lucky your quality of life will be low and your body health will be poor.

I remember reading a SF book where when you died you conciousness was uploaded into a computer and the internet so you continued to exist. Maybe that's how we will achieve immortality.

[Detective Mittens]

As far as I am aware, the main cause of death is Cardiovascular (heart attacks e.t.c), followed by infections. All cancers totting up to around 10% of all deaths. Which both the former outweigh by about double. Another popular C.O.D is dehydration, this from Diarrhea and other forms of loss of fluid - but anyway. So for true ballsy facts, Cancer is far from the barrier of immortality, when failure of Cardiovascular is far more common in death than that of cancer. So, if we can stop these Cardiovascular problems we would be closer to this "extended" life we all dream.

But on the topic of Death... I think it is necessary :/ You would get bored of being old, as you would not be at a physical peak as you are in your mid twenties, even at 80 the metabolic system is unable to properly disgest the nutrients as you are able to in youth.

Furthermore, diseases in the metabolic systems are more of a C.O.D than lung cancer (the most death causing cancer) and respiratory systems is higher too...

Sorry if that was choppy.

[mrmouth]

There was an amazing documentary on mortality and why people age, and ultimately die, exclusive of disease, etc. I saw it awhile back, but I think it was saying that the cells and organs like the lungs oxidize. That every breath we take is actually killing us.