CDZ Indefinite Life Spans for Human Beings Could be Less Than 10 Years Away

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,753
2,220
Part of the response to the Robotics Revolution could be the enhancement of human beings to new abilities and longer life spans.

Here Dr. George Church discusses the increase of human life spans through improvements in adult genetic engingeering techniques we already have.

Next Big Future: George Church indicates reversal of aging will be a reality within ten years

Fahy: If aging is driven by changes in gene expression, then the ability to control gene expression using CRISPR technology could have profound implications for the future of human aging. Why do you think aging may be at least partly driven by changes in gene expression?

Church: We know that there are cells that deteriorate with age in the human body and that we have the ability to turn those back into young cells again. This means we can effectively reset the clock to zero and keep those cells proliferating as long as we want. For example, we can take old skin cells, which have a limited lifetime, and turn them into stem cells (stem cells are cells that can turn into other kinds of cells) and then back into skin cells. This roundtrip results in the skin cells being like baby skin cells. It's as if my 60-year-old cells become 1-year-old cells. There are a variety of markers that are associated with aging, and those all get reset to the younger age.

Fahy: That's fantastic. Does this mean that reversing skin cell aging in your face would allow you to rejuvenate your entire face?

Church: If you rejuvenate at a molecular level, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything else rejuvenates. So, for example, if my face has a scar on it, it's not going to necessarily reverse that (although theoretically it's not out of the question). But we can reverse the tendency of your cells (and therefore of your whole body) to deconstruct when you reach your life expectancy.

Fahy: If aging is driven by changes in gene expression and those changes in gene expression can be reversed, then we need to be able to find all of the important age-related changes in gene expression as quickly as possible. How can this be done?

Church: Gene expression results in each cell having specific RNAs and proteins, and these can be surveyed. You don't necessarily have to define every single RNA in a particular cell to understand that cell, but you can, and we have in fact developed a new method to do this that allows us to see all of the tens of thousands of RNAs in a single cell at one time, and to see the RNAs in neighboring cells as well. So now we can see how different cells relate to one another in context. This new method, called fluorescent in situ sequencing, or FISSEQ, allows us to count all the RNAs in a cell while simultaneously counting all of the RNAs in all of the cells it touches. Plus, we get the 3D coordinates for every RNA molecule in every cell.

Fahy: That's unbelievable. How can you use this method to search for changes that are related to aging?

Church: Suppose there are two different kinds of cell, and we want to know what gene expression states make them different from one another. We can first compare the two cells using FISSEQ in order to determine the differences in gene expression between them. Next, we can pick specific differences we think cause the cells to be different cell types, and change the expression of those particular genes in either or both cells using, for example, CRISPR, and see if we can change one kind of cell into the other. Even if we don't get it right the first time, we can take many guesses as to what the important RNAs are and just how much to tweak them until we do get it right.

The same principle can be applied to any pair of cells. By comparing old cells to young cells, we can find out what makes an old cell an old cell, and how to turn an old cell into a young one.

The future isnt what she used to be.

:D
 
Infinite?...

... Granny says, "Dat is...

... till Jesus comes back."
Not infinite, but indefinite. Something will eventually still kill you whether it is an accident, choosing to die or just a really bad flu.
 
I see a need to put everyone on birth control if this happens. Children may become a rarity.
Actually, there are studies that show that at most indefinite lifespans will only double the population and then level off.

It has to do with something about middle class life styles and its progression toward single child families and how that is barely enough, when including other-than-natural causes of death in a demographic growth rate..
 
I see a need to put everyone on birth control if this happens. Children may become a rarity.
Actually, there are studies that show that at most indefinite lifespans will only double the population and then level off.

It has to do with something about middle class life styles and its progression toward single child families and how that is barely enough, when including other-than-natural causes of death in a demographic growth rate..
How could such a thing be studied before it exists? It could be modeled. Perhaps a computer simulation. However, such studies are only as good as the assumptions used in the models.
 
I see a need to put everyone on birth control if this happens. Children may become a rarity.
Actually, there are studies that show that at most indefinite lifespans will only double the population and then level off.

It has to do with something about middle class life styles and its progression toward single child families and how that is barely enough, when including other-than-natural causes of death in a demographic growth rate..
How could such a thing be studied before it exists? It could be modeled. Perhaps a computer simulation. However, such studies are only as good as the assumptions used in the models.
Here is one article I found a while back that addresses this issue of population over crowding with indefinite life spans.

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare?

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely.

"In other words, a population of immortal reproducing organisms can grow indefinitely in time, but not necessarily indefinitely in size, because asymptotic growth is possible," Gavrilov said in an interview with Rejuvenation Research (Volume 12, Number 5, 2009).

"The startling conclusion is that fears of overpopulation based on lay common sense and uneducated intuition are, in fact, grossly exaggerated."​
 
Scientists reverse ageing in mammals and predict human trials within 10 years

Using a new technique which takes adult cells back to their embryonic form, US researchers at the Salk Institute in California, showed it was possible to reverse ageing in mice, allowing the animals to not only look younger, but live for 30 per cent longer.

The technique involves stimulating four genes which are particularly active during development in the womb. It was also found to work to turn the clock back on human skin cells in the lab, making them look and behave younger....

Scientists hope to eventually create a drug which can mimic the effect of the found genes which could be taken to slow down, and even reverse the ageing process. They say it will take around 10 years to get to human trials.

"Our study shows that ageing may not have to proceed in one single direction," said Dr Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a professor in Salk's Gene Expression Laboratory. “With careful modulation, aging might be reversed.

"Obviously, mice are not humans and we know it will be much more complex to rejuvenate a person. But this study shows that ageing is a very dynamic and plastic process, and therefore will be more amenable to therapeutic interventions than what we previously thought."​
 
Up to this point all I see and read is, "the blind leading the blind". Count me and my 77 years out. Go back and re read post #5. I am no glutton for punishment and am not interested in continually "doing it all over again". Nuff said for my part, except, if that is your thing, go for it!
 
Up to this point all I see and read is, "the blind leading the blind". Count me and my 77 years out. Go back and re read post #5. I am no glutton for punishment and am not interested in continually "doing it all over again". Nuff said for my part, except, if that is your thing, go for it!
I will live as long God gives me the grace to live.

But I agree; growing old isnt for the weak of heart.
 
I see a need to put everyone on birth control if this happens. Children may become a rarity.
Actually, there are studies that show that at most indefinite lifespans will only double the population and then level off.

It has to do with something about middle class life styles and its progression toward single child families and how that is barely enough, when including other-than-natural causes of death in a demographic growth rate..
How could such a thing be studied before it exists? It could be modeled. Perhaps a computer simulation. However, such studies are only as good as the assumptions used in the models.
Here is one article I found a while back that addresses this issue of population over crowding with indefinite life spans.

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare?

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely.

"In other words, a population of immortal reproducing organisms can grow indefinitely in time, but not necessarily indefinitely in size, because asymptotic growth is possible," Gavrilov said in an interview with Rejuvenation Research (Volume 12, Number 5, 2009).

"The startling conclusion is that fears of overpopulation based on lay common sense and uneducated intuition are, in fact, grossly exaggerated."​
Interesting model.....but it's based on assumptions that may not be true. For example, if life is extended indefinitely and a couple's child bearing years are thus extended indefinitely (my assumption), will a couple limit themselves to 1.2 children per couple (on average). Perhaps a couple will have one child while in their thirties and then want to have childen again in their 200s. Also, if people live thousands of years, they may be more likely to divorce and remarry many times over. Each marriage could prompt a decision to have more children.
 
Last edited:
Up to this point all I see and read is, "the blind leading the blind". Count me and my 77 years out. Go back and re read post #5. I am no glutton for punishment and am not interested in continually "doing it all over again". Nuff said for my part, except, if that is your thing, go for it!
I don't think I would mind living for thousands of years if I could maintain the body and brain of a twenty year old. I'm sure I could find positive ways to keep myself busy.
 
Scientists reverse ageing in mammals and predict human trials within 10 years

Using a new technique which takes adult cells back to their embryonic form, US researchers at the Salk Institute in California, showed it was possible to reverse ageing in mice, allowing the animals to not only look younger, but live for 30 per cent longer.

The technique involves stimulating four genes which are particularly active during development in the womb. It was also found to work to turn the clock back on human skin cells in the lab, making them look and behave younger....

Scientists hope to eventually create a drug which can mimic the effect of the found genes which could be taken to slow down, and even reverse the ageing process. They say it will take around 10 years to get to human trials.

"Our study shows that ageing may not have to proceed in one single direction," said Dr Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a professor in Salk's Gene Expression Laboratory. “With careful modulation, aging might be reversed.

"Obviously, mice are not humans and we know it will be much more complex to rejuvenate a person. But this study shows that ageing is a very dynamic and plastic process, and therefore will be more amenable to therapeutic interventions than what we previously thought."



A 30% increase would be a great place to start.


But, I've been hearing about exciting medical advances that are 10 years away, for a nearly 40 years now, and I've seen very few of them actually happen yet.
 
For example, if life is extended indefinitely and a couple's child bearing years are thus extended indefinitely (my assumption), will a couple limit themselves to 1.2 children per couple (on average). Perhaps a couple will have one child while in their thirties and then want to have childen again in their 200s.
roflmao, you dont have any kids, do you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top