Its implausible that that is true. It might be a complication but one that can obviously be overcome.

I wonder what happens to lifespan if you can grow from your own DNA new kidneys, liver, heart etc (how is a good question but probably eventually doable) and transplant them back to you without risk of rejection when you are like 70 or 80 as needed (obviously no innocent humans are victimized for this like clones etc).

How much of the aging is the result of pure DNA deterioration in cellular division and how much is because organs eventually fail. Add to that also artery cleaning processes.

Too many old people die due to kidneys and heart failure, strokes etc.

If you can somehow help with the organs decay plus clean arteries and do something to delay the brain decay as well(this will prove tougher) then you can get a significant boost.

But the real deal is to redesign DNA and introduce corrective processes that keep the system fresh like other life forms do.

I can imagine for example a repairing process that takes place inside you constantly.

Good timing on this bump, as the last surviving MALE born in the 19th century JUST died, like an hour or two ago apparently

Does the "Age/2+7" equation still work when you're over 110? I wanna bang some 62 year olds when I'm a supercentenarian

I read this post the other day, then saw last night on the news this dude died. Ironic timing. Glitch in the matrix.

Maybe we should be asking where OP was the other night?

I don't know if it is obviously implausible. One of the things that telomere shortening prevents is runaway cell growth (aka cancer).

Preventing cells from dividing excessively by removing telomere shorting is problematic since it is pretty hard work for cells to not divide. Someone will probably figure it out at some point. I think that cell repair (instead of "fixing" the telomere problem) is probably the way to go, but that is just a guess.

It isn't like there aren't smart people working on all this from multiple angles.

That's basically what I mean*


*its simply implausible that its cant be solved so either it will become irrelevent due to a different solution or it will have so much effort thown at it that progress will be made.

The thing about this sort of thing is its not a case of if it can be done. We know it can be done we just dont know how to do it.

until dna is fully understood and it's causality, it's mostly a random walk around fixing our cell aging

we all hope someone will by luck observe some correlation and deduce a correct solution (like penicillin killing germs) for the time being

Its not pure luck, research is directed.

There already seems some progress with mice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22585399

The thing is there is always a DNA damage - adverse effect of information loss that makes the cell get all cancer on us after all relevant information is lost withing the defense mechanisms. Telomere shortening is a nice demonstration of information loss withing the DNA division cycle. Also telomeres are highly susceptible to oxidative stress - additional information loss as an environmental example.

thank god

wow, we are further then I thought, tnx for the link.

Some simplified (and trivialized i am sure but necessary to get one started if not a biologist) summary of the above chezlaw linked "Telomerase gene therapy in adult and old mice delays aging and increases longevity without increasing cancer" paper.




Start dreaming i suppose lol



And then "waste" 1-2 hours in more dreaming and hope to get it back later in 30 years lol.




A Scientific Society would be very interested in human happiness. Not getting weaker as you age even if you died anyway (but say 1.5 times later) would radically change the world (because right now economies worldwide as they are running will collapse inevitably as the people working are getting far less (relative terms in advanced economies) than the ones that are not employed (plus those employed are not always in jobs that are net positive for society) or the old who get paid for many decades for prior work (social security etc) cost a ton of money in drugs and treatments without being particularly happy in general or productive.

But something that will change the world even faster is to actually sit down and cooperate to solve our problems and send to hell current structure around money and self serving culture (vindicated of course by inept corrupt governments and risk ie not a true democracy) that divides us...If this stupid planet had any sense it would find ways to accelerate cooperation between countries to eliminate the permanent need for defense expenses, eliminate terrorism and misery and cultural hatred and promote education and responsibility and efficiency and use all the saved money (= read as resources) to research all kinds of cool things that would themselves eliminate the reasons we humans fight each other over wealth/power and those very limited (without proper technology) resources...

How about if in the future we created a new kind of currency that buys extra age and body quality through treatment if you devote some of your time doing things that improve the world, solve some problems and improve happiness for all and only for that behavior, not because you could afford it with wealth (we can make that well defined dont worry). Maybe then we could find it is possible to have a world where the population increases and the environment doesnt get destroyed and we expand to the rest of the solar system or use the earth far more efficiently or have only 1-2 children per family until we found ways to live in space in systems equally fascinating as earth itself, a direction that i think is attainable with enough technological focus even if it looks unrealistic today.

I am prepared to imagine the unthinkable. We can even build a new super earth planet in the solar system using the gas giants for resources with engineered properties to have the ideal gravity strength at surface and amazingly huge surface area (by controlling the density properly) where new people could live and have no population growth problems for thousands of years until we got even better at everything.

A level 1-2 civilization can easily synthesize a planet using machines working and expanding in numbers geometrically continuously. Creating all elements from hydrogen will be a piece of cake one day. I can imagine a planet with such internal low density (a non trivial but solvable problem) that could support a radius 10 times that of earth and a surface area 100 times larger. If our population were to grow in the future at only 0.5% per year (get it together and not behave like idiots) we would go on for many centuries without a problem using Earth and when the new system was finally available with full external ecosystem like that of Earth if not even better, we would have a true Eden Earth II or mega Earth in place at some properly selected location in the solar system to not effectively perturb earth I orbit. This would allow our civilization to grow to amazingly strong levels of expansion without any loss of quality and enhancement of prosperity. Madness??? Lets not think if that is madness and think instead if not trying to do it and all those other big things is the real madness. It is actually something very little (home, security, education ,love, family, friends, safety, ability/freedom to do within reason and ethics things you like and be creative, entertainment, adventure, challenges etc) that makes most people happy. The resources for that little are available easily with proper usage of science. And then the coordinated cooperation of those happy people and the machines they created can give you the unthinkable with dedicated large scale coordinated effort...

So yes i am prepared to imagine that in 300-400 years we could have a life expectancy that is huge and still not a real problem because of that rising population because we took all the other steps to indeed become larger than level I civilization.

Bump.

I have seriously neglected this thread, mainly because there hasn't been much change over the past year. Here is my poorly maintained table:

January 2009-------100-130
November 2010-------70
December 2011-------37
November 2012-------21
June 2013-------------11
November 2014-------6

Each of the remaining 6 has a reasonably detailed Wikipedia entry, sometimes discussing their current health.

Number 1 (now 116) "was able to walk until she was 110, when she began using a wheelchair to prevent falls. She can however, propel herself in her wheelchair."

Number 2 (now 116): "Her health has declined some since her 115th birthday but she still goes out of her room for meals and activities at the nursing home. Weaver does not have any chronic health problems typical of people her age, sleeps well and does not drink or smoke"

Number 3 "bowled until she was 104, when her legs got too weak, but still goes on annual fishing trips with her friend Michael Kinloch and his son Tyler (who is also her Godson). In May 2013, at age 114, she caught 7 catfish."

Number 4 "is blind, partially deaf, cannot say much, and uses a wheelchair. She also does very little for her health. She only takes high-blood pressure medication and a multivitamin."

Number 5 "does not take any medicine nor a daily vitamin."

Number 6 "currently lives alone, and takes care of herself and her house independently."


In order, they are Japanese, four Americans, and the youngest is Italian, who I would say is the clear favourite given the descriptions and her age advantage.

not a supercentenarian, but pretty cool

http://www.businessinsider.com/ameri...ry-day-2014-11

Only 5 months later, 3 of the remaining 6 have died. What are the odds that none of them make it to the end of 2015?

I hope two make it into 2016. Remember there has been a lady aged 122. Outlier, yes, but they kind of show what's reasonable a few notches downwards.

Ummmm. Why two?

LOL yes one should hope for all of course surviving assuming they do not suffer living or megatorture those around them (lol again). I bet plaayande estimated the expected is less than 2 and hoped for 2 to improve it as optimistic defeat of the trend that says 117 is some barrier number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ercentenarians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian

( i mean look at their ages and you will see what i mean. One would imagine a few making it over 117 but it drops real fast doesnt it?)

4 115s
5 114s
11 113
19 112s


Fast isnt it?

317000 over 100y worldwide estimated around now (2012+).

And 1 in 1000 that make it to 100 it says go over 110. So its like from over 300 at 110 (of the above say) we go to ~1 at 116 or so (the 117 barrier thing, very rapid ). Looks like 1000^(1/10)~2. So you lose a factor 2 every year. That suggests each person that sees 115 has less than 50% chance to see 116. Real bad numbers.

Another projection is; those born today in England (so i guess most of Western world) will have a 33% chance to make it to 100+ (that is remarkable projection wow).

Also over 80% of them women lol. So we are doomed!

With these numbers, it even starts to make a difference when in the year of 1899 you were born. May, July and November are the months of birth of the remaining. Born in May? You will more probably reach 116 years (obviously). But also, to a lesser degree though: Born in November? You will be more likely to survive into year 2016.

wiki/List_of_oldest_living_people#Verified_living_super centenarians

He probably knows something really bad about one of them.

Courtesy guys, courtesy.

Would it help if I bought a frock?

semi-Grunching, might have missed something, but the two oldest people in the world are African American women who grew up on farms in the south. Third oldest is an Italian lady who was poor (worked in kitchens). 4th oldest is a African-Jamacian lady. 5th oldest is a American lady from Puerto Rico.

Pretty much in line with the mouse studies.

Good grunching, btw