Immortality

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
Belongs to Turritopsis nutricul

hydrozoa.jpg


The Curious Case of the Immortal Jellyfish | Discoblog | Discover Magazine

Jellyfish that can age backwards are invading the world's oceans | Worldhealth.net

This tiny, 5mm-wide hydrozoan is the only known animal capable of rolling back the clock, willfully reverting to its immature stage, thus living indefinitely.

More fascinating still, this particularly species, native to the Carribean, has slowly been conquering the world, and now can be found in most of the world's oceans.

What a wonderful world!


The good news? We're getting much closer to clinical regeneration:

Humans Could Regenerate Tissue Like Newts By Switching Off a Single Gene | Popular Science

Scientists have long been stymied by human regenerative healing -- that is, wholesale regrowth of, say, a severed limb -- an ability inherent in some species but lost on humans. But new research suggests the ability to regenerate isn't based on something newts and flatworms have that we don't; rather, it's something we do have that's keeping us from regenerating tissues. Researchers think a gene called p21 may control regenerative healing, and that by switching it off, humans could perform our own regeneration.

The new research suggests that the potential to heal without scarring -- or possibly even to regrow a limb, albeit in a limited manner -- may lie dormant in human cells, kept in check by the p21 gene. A group of lab mice engineered to lack p21 were able to regenerate surgically removed tissue to the point that no evidence of the surgery remained. Holes punched in their ears -- a standard procedure for tagging lab animals -- also healed perfectly, leaving behind no traces of scar tissue or previous damage.

The downside? The genes that prevent us from regenerating limbs like other species, also prevent us from rapidly developing cancers. Catch-22?
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
58,261
Reaction score
16,447
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
i saw a thing on the discovery channel that said, the next life expectancy on humans is going to be a THOUSAND YEARS.....say what? yes, a thousand years....it showed how close we were to actually making that a reality....

for goodness sakes.... the world could not accommodate or support that, and they know it...so why pursue this?
 
OP
eagleseven

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
In nature, the shorter-lived an organism, the faster it reproduces.

You could argue that, with a lifespan of 1000 years, we'd have much less motivation to reproduce. A combination of reduced reproduction rates and renewable energy would make this practical, assuming we can biologically make it happen.

Also, living 1000 years, we would have plenty of bodies to put into space. There is no commodity with more potential uses than the human brain.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,003
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
i saw a thing on the discovery channel that said, the next life expectancy on humans is going to be a THOUSAND YEARS.....say what? yes, a thousand years....it showed how close we were to actually making that a reality....

for goodness sakes.... the world could not accommodate or support that, and they know it...so why pursue this?

There is a reason why we have such things as cancer, AIDS, etc. IMO
 
OP
eagleseven

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
While I'm not optimistic enough to suggest that I will live to be 1000, given the current rate of advance, I think it is reasonable to plan for a retirement starting at 100.
 
Last edited:

Tom Clancy

Clancy for Ron Paul
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
616
Points
48
Location
North Carolina.
Seeing how Technology and Medicine are advancing pretty fast i wouldn't doubt seeing the life expectancy to be over 100-110 when i get to my 50's.
 

JW Frogen

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
6,220
Reaction score
1,239
Points
155
While I'm not optimistic enough to suggest that I will live to be 1000, given the current rate of advance, I think it is reasonable to plan to plan for a retirement starting at 100.

I am surprised I made it to 45.

I tell you right now, the second I am condemned to bingo and applesauce Tuesday, I am going to take it shotgun-standing just like Hemmingway.
 
OP
eagleseven

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
While I'm not optimistic enough to suggest that I will live to be 1000, given the current rate of advance, I think it is reasonable to plan to plan for a retirement starting at 100.

I am surprised I made it to 45.

I tell you right now, the second I am condemned to bingo and applesauce Tuesday, I am going to take it shotgun-standing just like Hemmingway.
I...I don't what to say. I have relatives in nursing homes, and thought they seem happy when I visit, I cannot help but wonder if they resent us for keeping them around in this condition.
 
Last edited:
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
The downside? The genes that prevent us from regenerating limbs like other species, also prevent us from rapidly developing cancers. Catch-22?
Well, cancer is simply runaway growth,yes?

So it follows that a mutation that limited growth could aid in preventing many cancers while also severely limiting the ability to heal and that a mutation which enables the regeneration of whole limbs might also lead to a higher risk of such uncontrolled growth, yes?

Of course, unless you plan to somehow deactivate it in living persons (is there any known way to achieve such a thing? Perhaps epigenetics is the key? My knowledge here is very limited and that of a mere curious layman), you face to moral/ethical dilemma of whether to test it on new humans.
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
In nature, the shorter-lived an organism, the faster it reproduces.

You could argue that, with a lifespan of 1000 years, we'd have much less motivation to reproduce. A combination of reduced reproduction rates and renewable energy would make this practical, assuming we can biologically make it happen.

Also, living 1000 years, we would have plenty of bodies to put into space. There is no commodity with more potential uses than the human brain.

Hole in your logic: stupid people reproduce like rats.
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
i saw a thing on the discovery channel that said, the next life expectancy on humans is going to be a THOUSAND YEARS.....say what? yes, a thousand years....it showed how close we were to actually making that a reality....

for goodness sakes.... the world could not accommodate or support that, and they know it...so why pursue this?

There is a reason why we have such things as cancer, AIDS, etc. IMO
Aids is a virus. While some cancers can be caused by viruses (such as HPV and cervical cancer), most are a combination of genetic and other environmental factors- many, if memory serves,are still largely a mystery.
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
I...I don't what to say. I have relatives in nursing homes, and thought they seem happy when I visit, I cannot help but wonder if they resent us for keeping them around in this condition.
.
I imagine it depends on the individual and their exact state of health and the environment where they are staying. I suppose elderly people, like most humans, desire social contact with friends and relatives and some amount of mental and physical exertion to avoid monotony and ennui.
 
OP
eagleseven

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
☭proletarian☭;2113062 said:
The downside? The genes that prevent us from regenerating limbs like other species, also prevent us from rapidly developing cancers. Catch-22?
Well, cancer is simply runaway growth,yes?

So it follows that a mutation that limited growth could aid in preventing many cancers while also severely limiting the ability to heal and that a mutation which enables the regeneration of whole limbs might also lead to a higher risk of such uncontrolled growth, yes?

Of course, unless you plan to somehow deactivate it in living persons (is there any known way to achieve such a thing? Perhaps epigenetics is the key? My knowledge here is very limited and that of a mere curious layman), you face to moral/ethical dilemma of whether to test it on new humans.
We do have limited methods for temporarily modifying the human genome in a specific area (used to treat cystic fibrosis), and so perhaps those techniques could be modified for other organs.

To treat cystic fibrosis, we use an engineered virus to delete the cystic-fibrosis causing genes from the patient's lungs.

Now that I think about it, once that we have identified the genes responsible for preventing regeneration, we could easily develop a virus that would temporarily knock them out, thus enabling short-term regeneration!

A viral mechanism would be ideal, as it can be localized via a viral paste, is short-term, and painless (since it utilizes the body's machinery). We are very close, at least conceptually!
 
Last edited:
OP
eagleseven

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
☭proletarian☭;2113063 said:
Hole in your logic: stupid people reproduce like rats.
True, but I don't think the European population is inherently wiser than everyone else. The trend of negative population growth seen in Europe and Japan could be expanded throughout the world, despite foolish outliers.

There are also immunological contraceptives to consider, as well.
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
Now that I think about it, once that we have identified the genes responsible for preventing regeneration, we could easily develop a virus that would temporarily knock them out, thus enabling short-term regeneration!

Or that stopped them altogether, leading to any number of cancers, or that somehow turned them up to the nth degree, preventing the body from healing and, combined with some means of triggering runaway apoptosis throughout the body...

A very dangerous weapon, indeed.
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
☭proletarian☭;2113063 said:
Hole in your logic: stupid people reproduce like rats.
True, but I don't think the European population is inherently wiser than everyone else. The trend of negative population growth seen in Europe and Japan could be expanded throughout the world, despite foolish outliers.

There are also immunological contraceptives to consider, as well.

Here we enter into the very murky waters of population control, rife with moral and ethical hazards and tainted with the dark history of the evil side of eugenics (much of what you speak of could be aptly called positive eugenics).
 
OP
eagleseven

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
☭proletarian☭;2113075 said:
Now that I think about it, once that we have identified the genes responsible for preventing regeneration, we could easily develop a virus that would temporarily knock them out, thus enabling short-term regeneration!

Or that stopped them altogether, leading to any number of cancers, or that somehow turned them up to the nth degree, preventing the body from healing and, combined with some means of triggering runaway apoptosis throughout the body...

A very dangerous weapon, indeed.
That's the case with every significant advancement...every world power had (or still has) a bioweapons program, at one point.
 
OP
eagleseven

eagleseven

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,517
Reaction score
1,370
Points
48
Location
OH
☭proletarian☭;2113077 said:
True, but I don't think the European population is inherently wiser than everyone else. The trend of negative population growth seen in Europe and Japan could be expanded throughout the world, despite foolish outliers.

There are also immunological contraceptives to consider, as well.

Here we enter into the very murky waters of population control, rife with moral and ethical hazards and tainted with the dark history of the evil side of eugenics (much of what you speak of could be aptly called positive eugenics).
Murky waters that must be forded, if we are to maintain our standard of living without depleting the Earth of our essential resources.

I am no environmentalist, but it is obvious that the Earth only has so many resources to go around. Until we discover ways to harvest incredible amounts of energy from extremely limited mass (probably through nuclear fusion), and convert that energy into sustenance, limiting the human population is essential for long-term survival.

Ideally, we could eventually develop fusion-powered space facilities that produce all of the resources required for human survival and comfort, unchaining us from the Earth.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
i saw a thing on the discovery channel that said, the next life expectancy on humans is going to be a THOUSAND YEARS.....say what? yes, a thousand years....it showed how close we were to actually making that a reality....

for goodness sakes.... the world could not accommodate or support that, and they know it...so why pursue this?

Can you imagine the cost of healthcare then? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top