Topic: Biological Age Locks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article … 91296a.pdf


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16080560


Basically, there's a biological cap on age here.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit


The Hayflick limit[Note 1] (or Hayflick phenomenon) is the number of times a normal human cell population will divide until cell division stops. Empirical evidence shows that the telomeres associated with each cell's DNA will get slightly shorter with each new cell division until they shorten to a critical length.[1][2]


Now there's work being done to deal with this issue.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5349/349


Normal human cells undergo a finite number of cell divisions and ultimately enter a nondividing state called replicative senescence. It has been proposed that telomere shortening is the molecular clock that triggers senescence. To test this hypothesis, two telomerase-negative normal human cell types, retinal pigment epithelial cells and foreskin fibroblasts, were transfected with vectors encoding the human telomerase catalytic subunit. In contrast to telomerase-negative control clones, which exhibited telomere shortening and senescence, telomerase-expressing clones had elongated telomeres, divided vigorously, and showed reduced staining for β-galactosidase, a biomarker for senescence. Notably, the telomerase-expressing clones have a normal karyotype and have already exceeded their normal life-span by at least 20 doublings, thus establishing a causal relationship between telomere shortening and in vitro cellular senescence. The ability to maintain normal human cells in a phenotypically youthful state could have important applications in research and medicine.


Here in mice we have actual reversal of aging:


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 09603.html


The Harvard team that published that said:

Accumulating evidence implicating telomere damage as a driver of age-associated organ decline and disease risk1, 3 and the marked reversal of systemic degenerative phenotypes in adult mice observed here support the development of regenerative strategies designed to restore telomere integrity.


Now of course these things are all far from understood, but we're gaining some headway in these areas. That's only a single bio-marker, however, and there are many more natural caps to be overcome to extend aging. Not all of which even need to be totally understood for them to work.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4801728.stm


Here we have hamsters who scientists severed the optic nerve of leaving them blind, and what they did was build peptide based tiny "nano" particles, made a cut, injected them, and they bridged the gap of the severed nerve, allowing the nerve to effectively regrow and allow for sight to function again. That's already a thing.


There's also these girls who seemingly age extremely slow:


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014052 … -never-age


Like infants but getting on to 10 years old or so. No discernible aging.



Idk I think we'll probably solve aging in the next 200 years. If not biologically perhaps technologically. I think most of us will hit at least 120 age-wise.

Re: Biological Age Locks.

woot.

Hopefully somewhere in between they perfect that plan to make a drug or treatment that allows teeth to grow. It'd certainly help "repair" those badly damaged teeth and stuff.

We'd probably get shit done faster with embryonic stem cells. We should just harvest from women who want abortions. They gonna kill the fetus anyone, it might as well be beneficial to science ya know.

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Also


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.4578v3.pdf


http://static.darknedgy.net:8080/imagehost/up/dc71d8cee143705ecef7293a7c101207.png


This has me optimistic. I'd imagine population growth and increasing scientific discovery is going to keep this trend going. We're looking at exponential scientific growth at 3% a year and our knowledge doubling every so often. That is, we're learning new shit faster and faster every year. We're increasing the rate of scientific discovery. It's hard to know where we'll be in 20 years, let alone 200. I'm hoping and thinking it's not far off base to believe we *can* (not will, but could), solve aging within our life times.

Re: Biological Age Locks.

I read somewhere that like every 2 years, whatever you learned in science becomes outdated because of new advancements (well either outdated or you need to learn the new stuff to complement)

Over the last 50 years or so our scientific growth has been exponentially increasing is another thing read. Before it took a few years between inventions and discovery, and decades before that, but now we're on high gear and the discoveries just keep coming (so much in fact its not easy keeping up...)

Course what happens when we hit that plateau? The point where the science gets so advanced and complex, it ends up taking longer to overcome it? Will such a thing even happen?

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Eventually we'll run out of shit to learn, or humanity will die out. Science is incremental, and the amount of things there is to learn is like... Beyond thinkable. The human body will not be even close to being understood in our lifetimes. It just won't even get close. We'll keep learning incremental things about it, we'll build huge databases about it, we'll know a lot about it, but there's too many details. Given any one square inch of space shooting through your body, there's more information in there than any one person can possibly know about.


I don't think we're going to run out of things to keep learning and discovering for a very long time. Will our learning curb and become less exponential and more sustained? Who even knows. Depends on the amount of researchers pretty much. I'd think. And our social institutions. Like we could increase scientific output if we wanted, or decrease it. That's a matter of funding the right people and streamlining education and other institutional affairs. I think for the foreseeable future we're not going to level off.


Once we do the world is literally not conceivable for us. Human technological merging, solving aging / copying the mind / interstellar travel ????


We just have no idea what the world will be like at that point, if we ever make it that far.

Re: Biological Age Locks.

naked mole rats don't get cancer because of some special genes and shit so idk if you can give them infinite hayflick limit or if they already have it. but they do live way longer than normal rodents so that's interesting.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 093255.htm

This has me optimistic. I'd imagine population growth and increasing scientific discovery is going to keep this trend going. We're looking at exponential scientific growth at 3% a year and our knowledge doubling every so often. That is, we're learning new shit faster and faster every year.

i've seen it said about neuroscience that all the papers that keep pouring out  increasingly are just adding to the heap without advancing the field in any meaningful way. with biology in general, the rise in life-expectancy for adults probably isn't keeping up with this exponential growth in research publication output.

and economic growth has slowed down in the US (great stagnation thesis) because of the deceleration in tech development outside of computing

I'm hoping and thinking it's not far off base to believe we *can* (not will, but could), solve aging within our life times.

aging, or the first guarantee of death, is still a problem worth devoting one's life to assuming pascal's wager is a mathematically valid argument. so aubrey de grey's one of the only people doing something that makes sense.

I read somewhere that like every 2 years...

for psychology lolol

Re: Biological Age Locks.

fukin lobsters and jellyfish being immortal

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

https://i.imgur.com/WsEkePS.png

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Why do you want to live to 120?

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Why don't you? Ya'll pussies be afraid of life like a dog's afraid of a vacuum cleaner. This is America damnit. Ammmmuuuurrriiiikkkkkaaaaaaa. I can't wait to see the future. Dig all the people and things. One time in the 90's I pissed on an Amish guy's fence and it was electric! Shocked my dick!

Re: Biological Age Locks.

I'd like to be 120 only if it meant being 120 but still being like 40 or 50 max.

Being 120 @ 120 would suck shit. Dat weak bones and half-broken organs.

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Presumably it would be like you're 80 near the end, and 60 at 80 or w/e. Life extension without quality is pointless.

Re: Biological Age Locks.

I've read about some nasty things that happens to your body as you become elderly. It ain't pretty...

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Inhibiting aging is one thing. A big problem is memory retention and mental erosion. I'd wager at some point down the line you'll be unable to remember much beyond the present and the very recent past, due to not having evolved to attain such long lifespans. Another thing is the potential for psychological scarring. People who are 80 years old can routinely be haunted by their memories. Imagine if you have 600 years worth of them (assuming you're not a child in an adult body by then).

Furthermore, the entire concept of a generation would disappear overnight. Think about it - the gaps between one generation is wide enough as it is, and between two even worse. Now if you live to be hundreds of years old, you'll be interacting with dozens of different generations a day. How the fuck do you communicate? The rate of global change is unlikely to slow down.

Would you really have the desire to partake in society once you're so old? Would you bother to follow youth trends, when you're young only physically, but mentally a fucking limestone? Wouldn't you lose the desire to learn and just take an indefinite sabbatical as some recluse? By the time you come back, you'll be really far behind, but it's even worse because you know there's not gonna be any moment where this is "it". You're doomed to trail behind with decades or centuries, unless you choose to commit suicide, which I assume will happen at astronomically high rates.

"Humanity Is Overrated" - Shrek

Re: Biological Age Locks.

"According to the old story, King Midas had long hunted wise Silenus, Dionysus' companion, without catching him. When Silenus had finally fallen into his clutches, the king asked him what was the best and most desirable thing of all for mankind. The daemon stood still, stiff and motionless, until at last, forced by the king, he gave a shrill laugh and spoke these words: 'Miserable, ephemeral race, children of hazard and hardship, why do you force me to say what it would be much more fruitful for you not to hear? The best of all things is something entirely outside your grasp: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second-best thing for you — is to die soon.'"
--Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

https://i.imgur.com/WsEkePS.png

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Give people long-life drug, put em on spaceship, launch them into space.

problem probably-but-not-so-likely solved.

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

I would like to live for hundreds of years.

Re: Biological Age Locks.

SaintVicious wrote:

I would like to live for hundreds of years.

I'd like to live as long as I wanted with the ability to morph my age. Course I'd also like to be able to terminate my existence at my own wish(though not through physical manner like suicide. Preferrably some sort of metaphysical switch)

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

You mean suicide?

Re: Biological Age Locks.

MEtApHYSICAl switch wow that's d33p br0

sloth wrote:

Comfy does not provide challenge, challenge provides success, success provides happiness. Our world is not comfy, although we tried to make it so. Slaves of our own inventions, yada, yada. Not only on a technological level, also on a social and political level. Nothing more but apes. Apes with psychosomatic disorders.

Re: Biological Age Locks.

No. Not suicide per se. I still want to be able o blow myself up, or jump off a bridge, or shoot myself in the end and whatever and not die. This way I can persuade people Im some physical incarnation of a deity and that I should be worshipped (then fake my death and enjoy the chaos when things get boring. Maybe even change my face and lead the change)

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

God wrote:
brainiac3397 wrote:

I just want to be God.

ooh you got me.

For that, you can be one of my messengers. I promise you won't be the one that gets crucified or whatever!

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

brainiac3397 wrote:
God wrote:
brainiac3397 wrote:

I just want to be God.

ooh you got me.

For that, you can be one of my messengers. I promise you won't be the one that gets crucified or whatever!


A god that can't even think of something new. I will slay such a god.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

God wrote:

A surprising amount of insight can be gleamed from sitting on the toilet. More concerning, however, is the amount of nostalgia. neutral



When in doubt, move north. God bless suomi.

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Hey, when the past present and future exist in the same space up here, the only original thing will be me.

"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol

Wes wrote:


^^ funny
this guy
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Inhibiting aging is one thing. A big problem is memory retention and mental erosion.

cognitive decline is covered under the umbrella term "aging."

giving old mice young blood reverses aging by activating stem cells:

At Stanford, researchers were investigating whether the blood of young mice altered the brains of old mice. In 2011, Saul Villeda, then a graduate student, and his colleagues reported that it did. When old mice received young blood, they had a burst of new neurons in the hippocampus, a region of the brain that is crucial for forming memories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/scien … aging.html

but most parts of the brain don't have stem cells so that could be a problem

Re: Biological Age Locks.

Potato wrote:

Inhibiting aging is one thing. A big problem is memory retention and mental erosion.

cognitive decline is covered under the umbrella term "aging."

giving old mice young blood reverses aging by activating stem cells:

At Stanford, researchers were investigating whether the blood of young mice altered the brains of old mice. In 2011, Saul Villeda, then a graduate student, and his colleagues reported that it did. When old mice received young blood, they had a burst of new neurons in the hippocampus, a region of the brain that is crucial for forming memories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/scien … aging.html

but most parts of the brain don't have stem cells so that could be a problem

The problem of generational explosion still remains.

"Humanity Is Overrated" - Shrek