1,000 year life span

Taken From:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm

'We will be able to live to 1,000'
By Dr Aubrey de Grey
University of Cambridge

Life expectancy is increasing in the developed world. But Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey believes it will soon extend dramatically to 1,000. Here, he explains why.

Ageing is a physical phenomenon happening to our bodies, so at some point in the future, as medicine becomes more and more powerful, we will inevitably be able to address ageing just as effectively as we address many diseases today.

I claim that we are close to that point because of the SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) project to prevent and cure ageing.

It is not just an idea: it's a very detailed plan to repair all the types of molecular and cellular damage that happen to us over time.

And each method to do this is either already working in a preliminary form (in clinical trials) or is based on technologies that already exist and just need to be combined.

This means that all parts of the project should be fully working in mice within just 10 years and we might take only another 10 years to get them all working in humans.

When we get these therapies, we will no longer all get frail and decrepit and dependent as we get older, and eventually succumb to the innumerable ghastly progressive diseases of old age.

We will still die, of course - from crossing the road carelessly, being bitten by snakes, catching a new flu variant etcetera - but not in the drawn-out way in which most of us die at present.

So, will this happen in time for some people alive today? Probably. Since these therapies repair accumulated damage, they are applicable to people in middle age or older who have a fair amount of that damage.

I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already.

It is very complicated, because ageing is. There are seven major types of molecular and cellular damage that eventually become bad for us - including cells being lost without replacement and mutations in our chromosomes.

Each of these things is potentially fixable by technology that either already exists or is in active development.

'Youthful not frail'

The length of life will be much more variable than now, when most people die at a narrow range of ages (65 to 90 or so), because people won't be getting frailer as time passes.

The average age will be in the region of a few thousand years. These numbers are guesses, of course, but they're guided by the rate at which the young die these days.

If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000.

And remember, none of that time would be lived in frailty and debility and dependence - you would be youthful, both physically and mentally, right up to the day you mis-time the speed of that oncoming lorry.

Should we cure ageing?

Curing ageing will change society in innumerable ways. Some people are so scared of this that they think we should accept ageing as it is.

I think that is diabolical - it says we should deny people the right to life.

The right to choose to live or to die is the most fundamental right there is; conversely, the duty to give others that opportunity to the best of our ability is the most fundamental duty there is.

There is no difference between saving lives and extending lives, because in both cases we are giving people the chance of more life. To say that we shouldn't cure ageing is ageism, saying that old people are unworthy of medical care.

Playing God?

People also say we will get terribly bored but I say we will have the resources to improve everyone's ability to get the most out of life.

People with a good education and the time to use it never get bored today and can't imagine ever running out of new things they'd like to do.

And finally some people are worried that it would mean playing God and going against nature. But it's unnatural for us to accept the world as we find it.

Ever since we invented fire and the wheel, we've been demonstrating both our ability and our inherent desire to fix things that we don't like about ourselves and our environment.

We would be going against that most fundamental aspect of what it is to be human if we decided that something so horrible as everyone getting frail and decrepit and dependent was something we should live with forever.

If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which God made us in His image.

Aubrey de Grey leads the SENS project at Cambridge University and also runs the Methuselah Mouse prize for extending age in mice.

I really like how fast development in this field is going along. I for one want to be around as long as possible, I hope i could one day be a candidate for this.

Very interesting. But itsn't it just glorified cosmetic surgery? Plus, living for 1,000 years? That would get boring eventually.

Life is only as interesting as you make it, 1,000 years of life could be very interesting if you wanted it to be. But, how is this "glorified cosmetic surgery" ? Sure if you look at the fact of not getting frail and weak, but in that case so be it. There is no need or reason to get weak with old age.

Living that long would be great but then what about population control. I personaly would not want to live that long, a 100 years is enough for me. God does have a plan for man and, what ever it might be living that long would just be putting off imortality in its finest. Christ said in order to live for ever you must first die. I'm not tring to preach to anyone or anything but what eles do we have to judge this from. If God was not real then maybe there might be a reason to live in this phisical world for ever, but I dont think there would be to many happy people. some where in the old testement God speaks about all the people that are living to like 700 or 900 years of age and, God says look at these humans living so long they are not gods so I will limit thier lives to 121 years. maybe we would be playing God but then people would just say if God did not want us to live that long then he would not have given us the ability to create technoligy to do so. it is a matter of choice I say. Create the technoligy and do so and if you want to live that long then do it but, I do not want to live in this body for that long. It is a great thing I gess that we have that kind of medical technoligy.

But my biggest thing on this is what to do about population control. we already have a problem with it.

Bull. Our bodies can only live to a maximum of 260 years. That is the true maximum. What this guy is talking about is severe optimism. As he himself stated, one would have to address so much issues, so many problems. For a dominant species like us, disease is the main killer on old age.

Perhaps God wants us to conduct research and live older, just to do him proud. As we are his children, I know my parents always are very proud when I make an accomplishment.

Mr U

OK leaving out the reference to God:
I agree with HU. Firstly his statement sounds more like an advertisement than something with true backup. There's not a bit of explanation available. His explanation for that: 'It's complicated because ageing is.'
Then, his answers to the big problems to living longer even if it were possible are poor rhetoric. 'Denying a person's death is denying his right to live'? 'Playing God alright because we were made in his image'? This stinks.

Man can live longer. The Bible talks about Methuselah, who lived to over 900 years of age. Good point about population control, though, Chalf.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Bull. Our bodies can only live to a maximum of 260 years. That is the true maximum. What this guy is talking about is severe optimism.


What do you mean 260 years? Where did that come from?
How do you know that we can only live 260 years? Why is that the maximum? Or was that just a blank statement and you really don't have any idea how long we can live?
Please make this statement more clear. :D

The human lifespan (in the scientific realm) has been increasing at an exponential rate.

"Over half the baby boomers here in America are going to see their hundredth birthday and beyond in excellent health," says Dr. Ronald Klatz, founder and President of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. "We're looking at life spans for the baby boomers and the generation after the baby boomers of 120 to 150 years of age." The quote I just used is from the following site:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=680&s=

The Bible's take on the issue of the human lifespan:
Psalms 90:10 - "The days of our years are threescore years and ten." or 70 years for those of you not familiar with the score.
Gen 6:3 - "Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." 120 years.
Take your pick.

There are also several sites on the net that claim to sell life extending products yet their research has not been confirmed by the FDA.

After 260 years vital functions of your body are no longer able to function, and can not be replaced by the body itself. We can reach that age through perfect diets, perfect breathing, zero stress, et cetera, et cetera, live in a laboratory.

I call Klatz an optimist. Food patterns in the Western world are worse than ever. Most die at their fifties with clogged veins/arteries. It's true that people are getting older and older, but that's because we have improved hygiene, improved diet-awareness.

Life-extending products, in my view, are nonsense. I see it just like I see advertising. There are so many influences, it's near impossible to prove it was the advertisement/medicin that did the trick.

Mr U

Indeed. One thing about today's life I'm sure of: if anything needs improvement, it needs change, not an addition of some miracle cure.
Now I'm perfectly aware of your references Archangel. Though I doubt the Biblical ones of course; I don't see how they would support the claim, if that's what you're doing. Sure we can extend our lifetimes...but 1000 years? Not hardly likely.

Many people hope to live eternally, but think again, living too long...like 1000 years, i think it's too boring

Well if you take the whatever treatment and indeed get the possibility to live >1000 but no longer want to because you're bored or you cant bear living without your loved ones anymore,you can still blow your head off!That should settle it.

One of the major things that has not yet been mentioned are 'centrioles', tiny organelles that determine the maximum amount of times a cell can divide. This literal biological clock is set by genes, and if this could be "reset", or changed to some astronomically high number.

Many people hope to live eternally, but think again, living too long...like 1000 years, i think it's too boring

Ive talked to several people about this '1,000 year lifespan' topic, and all the time I keep getting back awnsers of how that long of a lifetime means bordem later in life. And I still have the same awnser, Life is only as "boring" as you make it. In a millenium of life you could bear witness to the social and physical evolution of your species. That alone would be simply amazing for me, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of technological advances in that period. The 21st century will seem like the stone ages in 1000 years.

Ok, tell me, imagine you are so old and weak, and u aren't that active, What On Earth Are You Gonna Do? Sit there and watch TV? Walk slowly, or even in a wheelchair? Cannot do vigorous stuff? Man, this is what I meant by boring! :)

While as an obvious fan of Highlander I'm in no objection to life being interesting if made longer, I however still doubt the science. I read an article on it some time ago...even if certain things like those centrioles are altered, other complications will arise. For example, the nose, as well as perhaps a few other things, is a part of the body that constantly grows. So the older we get, the bigger the nose we have to end up with-imagine a 100-year old nose. Of course, that sounds minor enough to be dealt with, but its only one of several other complications that I can't remember. Complications that have to be addressed altogether.

Altogether, or slowly perfected? After all, if we can remove the centrioles, people can already live longer, and we will have already, in a way, established our goal.

OA, what frightens me most about old age will not be not able to lift a crate, or even walk, but not being able to fully use my mind anymore. Even if I become 1000 in a state Stephen Hawking is right now, I would not object. Being paralysed in a chair and unable to speak only move one's finger is, to me, not as frightening as vanishing.

Living a 1000 years is, to me, not at all a long time. Imagine you can see your children grow up, get children of their own, live their own happy lives, and pass away when it is their time. To me, solitude would never be a problem, neither would boredom. Frankly, at the age of 17 I find myself at a constant fight against time, constantly trying to pick up more information, and constantly trying to become wiser.

Still, let's not turn this into a 'what I would do if I became 1000'-thread, lol. I agree that there are complications, but I do not feel they need be resolved all at a time. Experiment away, there are plenty of human Guinneepigs left!

Mr U

I agree that there are complications, but I do not feel they need be resolved all at a time. Experiment away, there are plenty of human Guinneepigs left!

Mr U

Very true, as history has shown...yet it still curdles my blood to think of the trials and errors to come...especially the errors. :p Anyway, I just needed to raise the fact that there are indeed still easily-overlooked complications to be considered.
And I agree very much also on your view: to have your mind waste away is the worst fate possible in growing old. But then again to have your mind intact in a wasting body is conducive to madness. Only folks like Hawking can be said to take it well. In the end its all subjective. I'd really like to hold on to both my body and mind, thanks a lot.
Now about your point on seeing your children and grandchildren and so on...now that raises a good question: it'll be interesting to have yourself live real long, but it'd be a nightmare to have everyone do that all at once. Imagine: resource consumption would skyrocket; cultures would tumble as the timeframes needed to define theme dissolve radically...
Ah, but then again...there're always the eternal patience and perfection in a culture like the Protoss. :D

Ah, but then again...there're always the eternal patience and perfection in a culture like the Protoss. :D

:D Aha!!!! At last!! My bretheren!!! Someone else who knows of the protoss!!! I agree with MacLeod. We could eventually evolve into something like the Protoss, if we mix aour genes and mess around with them properly. We might even evolve to the height of something like maybe the Xel' Naga!