PDA

View Full Version : 120 or 180 Yrs Old? Limit of Aging Debated


eyelikeart
Jul 20, 2003, 10:04 AM
I don't know what I think about this. The way healthy lifestyles don't seem to be a motivator in this country, I think it would take a lot of effort to make this a reality.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20030719/sc_nm/health_aging_dc_1

MrMacMan
Jul 20, 2003, 10:32 AM
Meh, I think living that long is just sooo un natural.

After 100 your body loses almost all non-nessary functions.

I hope I can live to mid 80-90 range, but never that old, geez I don't want to be spoon feed, I was that when I was a baby.

P-Worm
Jul 20, 2003, 11:12 AM
Wow, that long would be kind of depressing...

P-Worm

hvfsl
Jul 20, 2003, 11:47 AM
It is peoples diet and lack of exercise that is the problem. If people just eat vegtables, drink water and do lots of exercise, they can easily live well over 100. (Nasa did a study a while back) But would you actually enjoy life as much if thats all you eat.

Although having said that my grandma is almost 80 and is massively overweight and manages to go out every day to meet friends/shops etc without any problems.

Anyway immortality still does not mean not ever dieing, I expect someone would come along and kill them at some point if you lived long enough. I don't think people will ever be able to live much beyond 200 and everything in the Universe has a life span, even the sun is meant to die in a few million years. I would also cause so many problems because if everyone were immortal, there would be an even bigger poluation problem than there is now. The Earth does not even have the resources to support the present number of humans.

hvfsl
Jul 20, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by P-Worm
Wow, that long would be kind of depressing...

P-Worm

Thats why so many people believe in an after life since excistance would be pointless if people just lived for a few years then no longer excist.

Megaquad
Jul 20, 2003, 12:14 PM
200 years that's just sick. All we need are walking-talking mutants that have half organs removed.
I would so beg for death at 90..

Mr. Anderson
Jul 20, 2003, 12:38 PM
The biggest issue here is quality of life. I f you could live longer at a relative age of 40, say, that would be great. But to be 120 and look it wouldn't be worth it.

Personally, if I could live longer and not have to worry about my mind or body going, I'd have no problem sticking around for an extra century or so.

D :D

rainman::|:|
Jul 20, 2003, 12:43 PM
i wonder if people thought, 3000 years ago, that living a day past 35 was "unnatural" and "sick"...

I personally expect people to start living a few hundred years not long after nanotechnology gives us little healing machines... We might not be talking about extensive modificiations-- i envision 200 year olds that have all their organs, teeth, and bodily functions intact... we've just rooted out organ failure at it's most basic... Oh, and gotten really good at cosmetic surgery...

pnw

mymemory
Jul 20, 2003, 01:07 PM
In my opinion poeple that look for that is a sick as Michael Jackson.

There is a time for everthing and the entire humanity is working in such a way that if you do not do what you have supost to do at certain age forget about it.

There is one age to have kids, one age to fall in love like crazy, etc. we have a biological clock inside that tell us most of the time what to do, adding the double of years to that just won't work as they expected, you are gonna watch all your friends and relatives die, more wars, more of the same good things and bad things and you are gonna get a huge ammount of knowledge that will be missundertood for others.

If you do not pay attention to a 70 years old man what make you think you are gonna do it to a 170 years old one?

What else can ypou do in life when your metabolism and society is fixed for people up to 65 years old?

rainman::|:|
Jul 20, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
...you are gonna watch all your friends and relatives die...

What else can ypou do in life when your metabolism and society is fixed for people up to 65 years old?

Well, I'd imagine if there becomes a treatment to keep one living for extended periods, one's friends and family would probably elect to have it done as well... And such a thing would revolutionize the world, society would be redefined to accomodate it...

Suggested reading (to all) on the subject-- Kurt Vonnegut, he has a few stories about extended-life and world overpopulation... It's not a pretty picture... In about all scenarios, the government has to intervene and force sterilization, among other population controls...

pnw

topicolo
Jul 20, 2003, 01:47 PM
Personally, I wouldn't mind living until 170--if I can be healthy and not senile otherwise forget it, I'll just be taking up resources and not contributing back. I think dukestre... errr Mr. Anderson :) is right about the quality of life.

I'd rather live until 60 feeling like a 20 year old than live until 170 feeling like a 170 year old.

wdlove
Jul 20, 2003, 02:09 PM
I also agree that quality of life is very important. I have taken care of many elderly and in many cases it is quite sad. Modern science had lengthened life expectancy, but not as much with quality of life. All you need to do is visit a nursing home!

NavyIntel007
Jul 20, 2003, 03:20 PM
Well, now we know Bob Barker's secret... ;) :cool:

medea
Jul 20, 2003, 05:33 PM
I don't think it's out of the question for someone to live that long and be healthy at the same time, a few months ago I saw a feature on an elderly gentleman who was in his 100's and still walked everywhere and went out all the time and he wasn't senile at all. It all depends on your lifestyle and if I could live healthily and with sound mind past 120 and up then great.

hvfsl
Jul 20, 2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
i wonder if people thought, 3000 years ago, that living a day past 35 was "unnatural" and "sick"...

I personally expect people to start living a few hundred years not long after nanotechnology gives us little healing machines... We might not be talking about extensive modificiations-- i envision 200 year olds that have all their organs, teeth, and bodily functions intact... we've just rooted out organ failure at it's most basic... Oh, and gotten really good at cosmetic surgery...

pnw

I don't think you quite understand biology, all the nanobots can do is fix things, they can't stop the cells from aging because of what they are made of. The only way to make humans live more than about 130 is to make cells out of a longer lasting matterial like steel, but then we would be machines and no longer human. The DNA also decays so it is imposible to 'rebuild' someone after a certain age, thats why bringing dinosaures back to life Jurrassic Park style is impossible.

Also 3000 years ago people were living way past 100, it was only from about the 16th century AD that people started living 30 years.

bennetsaysargh
Jul 20, 2003, 09:40 PM
i wouldn't mind living to be 180 years old as long as i don't look it, and don't act like it. i mean, think about it.
all of your favorite bands would definatly be dead by then, we would always be sought after for 20/20, and we would have a lot of attention by the media.

on the plus side, we could see Apple's chips break the Thz barrier a few years after PCs:p

Mr. Anderson
Jul 20, 2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
on the plus side, we could see Apple's chips break the Thz barrier a few years after PCs:p

ha! I think we won't have to wait 100 years for that....:D

The bigger question would be - Will Apple still be around in 100 years?

D

bennetsaysargh
Jul 20, 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
ha! I think we won't have to wait 100 years for that....:D

The bigger question would be - Will Apple still be around in 100 years?

D

good question.
i guess i'll need that nanochip and we can see! of course you can't really do that, i'll try and make it! im still young:)

Jerry Spoon
Jul 20, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Well, now we know Bob Barker's secret... ;) :cool:
I don't know man. Last week I saw him looking pretty worn down just watching a contestant play PLINKO ;)

tpjunkie
Jul 20, 2003, 10:51 PM
even the sun is meant to die in a few million years. *snip* The Earth does not even have the resources to support the present number of humans.

Er, you're off by a factor of about a thousand....the sun is set to keep shining at its present rate for another 4 to 5 billion years...The Earth can easily sustain the current number of humans living on the planet; the amount of surplus food produced by the united states alone could feed most of the starving people in the world; only lack of effort on humanity's part is preventing the hungry from eating.

Well, now we know Bob Barker's secret...

And Dick Clark's as well.


The only way to make humans live more than about 130 is to make cells out of a longer lasting matterial like steel, but then we would be machines and no longer human. The DNA also decays so it is imposible to 'rebuild' someone after a certain age, thats why bringing dinosaures back to life Jurrassic Park style is impossible.

Also 3000 years ago people were living way past 100, it was only from about the 16th century AD that people started living 30 years.

I'm not sure you understand the composition of animal cells; the phospholipid bilayer membrane that makes up the cell membrane is constantly being repaired and rebuilt by the cell, as are the proteins and cholesterols embedded in it (cholesterols are actually responsible for the flexibility and some of the strength of the membrane). The other parts of the cell such as the cytoskeleton and various organelles are also repaired and replaced through the life of the cell, by the cell (some of the organelles, like mitochondria actually replicate and repair themselves independently of the cell).

DNA in healthy cells is constantly being repaired and "proof-read" to correct mistakes from random mutations and replicational errors, (in an average cell, point mutations in nuclear DNA occurs at the rate of about 100 per day. However, due to the cells ability to repair its DNA through the action of DNA polymerase 1, 2, and 3 (only 1 has proof-reading activity though) the rate of mutation not corrected by the cell is around (sorry i can't remember exactly, molecular bio was a total drag) 1 in 10^12 mutations.) The main limiting factor in the life of the cell is how many times the chromosomes can replicate before information is lost. Information is lost on the ends of the chromosomes during mitosis, however the ends of chromosomes are repetitive noncoding DNA known as telomeres. after enough replications the telomere DNA has been lost, and DNA coding for proteins begins to get lost. In experiments with cells treated to replicate and replace their telomeres, scientists have created cells that are in effect immortal, and they do not exhibit signs of aging. What I'm saying here is that its not the individual parts of the cell wearing out, or the fragility of DNA (in a cellular environment it will last quite intact for an extremely long time...there are Redwood trees over 1,000 years old, and they're DNA based life forms just like us), that is the limiting factor in human life

As for people 3,000 years ago living "way past 100" I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for proof positive of that. I'm sure a very, very, very select few individuals hit the 100 mark, but they are extremely few and far between. I believe there are verified records of an Egyptian pharoh living to the age 92, and that was an extraordinary event. "way past 100?" I don't think so. In any event, the life expectancy in the Roman Principate, which was pretty much the height of western civilization at the time, from (sorry about the inexactness of the dates, I really hated Roman history) ~40 BC to ~530 AD the average life expectancy was around 45, which wasn't a whole lot higher than it was in the previous centuries. In fact it wasn't until the 20th century that the average life expectancy increased to over 60 for anyone.

scem0
Jul 21, 2003, 12:20 AM
I want to die when I become unhappy because of my age.

I am very sure that will come before I'm 180.

But if there are drugs and technology (stuff like HGH) that can keep me full of vitality and youth till I'm 180 then I say bring it on. :)

scem0

unfaded
Jul 21, 2003, 02:44 AM
I think the references to the living past 100 may be biblical, in which people lives for hundreds of years. This, of course, has been debunked by countless historians as translational errors and calendar differences.

maradong
Jul 21, 2003, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Megaquad

I would so beg for death at 90..
so do i,
but well i take what comes ,)

some days ago i saw a report of a man living near the black sea, who was 106, drank every day a "water" glass of vodka, smoked a cigarrette a day since he was 21, and cut the grass with a sense . ;-) pretty cool.

Mr. Anderson
Jul 21, 2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by maradong
some days ago i saw a report of a man living near the black sea, who was 106, drank every day a "water" glass of vodka, smoked a cigarrette a day since he was 21, and cut the grass with a sense . ;-) pretty cool.

That's a unique individual, and its more than just drinking a cup of vodka a day, etc.

My wife's grandmother is 98 and she's doing pretty good as well. Besides having good genes, you need to have a decent lifestyle and a moderate to light diet.

Research has shown that reducing you caloric intake and exercise will greatly increase your chances of living longer.

D

wdlove
Jul 21, 2003, 10:51 AM
Research continues, but more is needed with humans. A 30-40% decrease in caloric intake was needed to make a difference in longevity.

http://chealth.canoe.ca/health_news_detail.asp?news_id=4197

Okinawa region of Japan has the world's highest average age for longevity, and a decrease in diseases.

http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=2&article_id=4

unreg
Jul 21, 2003, 02:06 PM
Don't forget the work being done in AI http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56448,00.html, human-machine interface http://www.kevinwarwick.com/, human genome mapping and more esoteric pursuits indicate we who live for another 20 years might live extended healthy aware lives.

Stelliform
Jul 21, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Research continues, but more is needed with humans. A 30-40% decrease in caloric intake was needed to make a difference in longevity.


:) So for someone who loves to eat like me.... I think I would jump my healthy body off a bridge at 40. :p

Right now, I think I just want to live longer than my Parents. It would kill my Mom for me to kick the bucket first, I guess I would like to see some of my grandkids too.... I sure my opinions will change as I get closer to buying the farm.

Now I really think I would take matters into my own hands if I became dependent on someone else to take care of me. (regardless of how old I was.)

jkojima
Jul 21, 2003, 04:00 PM
My great grandmother lived to well over 100 (we think it was 104, but nobody knew her exact birthdate.)

Problem was, she lived the last 10-15 years having no short-term memory, and only the vaguest understanding of her surroundings.

I would personally love to live as long as possible, but like others who have posted, I would want to retain enough of my senses and physical abilities to actually *live* those extra years.

One thing that needs to be addressed in longevity is not just physcal and mental health, but also the "unnatural" ways of prematurely dying. Like car accidents, or violence. And what of the overcrowding? Imagine what having hundreds of millions of births with few deaths would do to the planet's population, and our drain on its natural resources.

So what I'm getting at is I don't think this issue is a simple matter of technology - it's a whole wealth of social issues as well.

Good discussion. I've enjoyed reading people's posts on this issue.

MrMacMan
Jul 21, 2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
The biggest issue here is quality of life. I f you could live longer at a relative age of 40, say, that would be great. But to be 120 and look it wouldn't be worth it.

Personally, if I could live longer and not have to worry about my mind or body going, I'd have no problem sticking around for an extra century or so.

D :D

Yeah I mean if my mind is gone at 100, I totally don't want to live much longer.

If they are gonna put some nano devices in me that is totally cool and if my body stays intact I believe thats great, but if I'm like a skeleton using technology to surivie kill me now.

hvfsl
Jul 21, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by tpjunkie
Er, you're off by a factor of about a thousand....the sun is set to keep shining at its present rate for another 4 to 5 billion years...The Earth can easily sustain the current number of humans living on the planet; the amount of surplus food produced by the united states alone could feed most of the starving people in the world; only lack of effort on humanity's part is preventing the hungry from eating.



And Dick Clark's as well.




I'm not sure you understand the composition of animal cells; the phospholipid bilayer membrane that makes up the cell membrane is constantly being repaired and rebuilt by the cell, as are the proteins and cholesterols embedded in it (cholesterols are actually responsible for the flexibility and some of the strength of the membrane). The other parts of the cell such as the cytoskeleton and various organelles are also repaired and replaced through the life of the cell, by the cell (some of the organelles, like mitochondria actually replicate and repair themselves independently of the cell).

DNA in healthy cells is constantly being repaired and "proof-read" to correct mistakes from random mutations and replicational errors, (in an average cell, point mutations in nuclear DNA occurs at the rate of about 100 per day. However, due to the cells ability to repair its DNA through the action of DNA polymerase 1, 2, and 3 (only 1 has proof-reading activity though) the rate of mutation not corrected by the cell is around (sorry i can't remember exactly, molecular bio was a total drag) 1 in 10^12 mutations.) The main limiting factor in the life of the cell is how many times the chromosomes can replicate before information is lost. Information is lost on the ends of the chromosomes during mitosis, however the ends of chromosomes are repetitive noncoding DNA known as telomeres. after enough replications the telomere DNA has been lost, and DNA coding for proteins begins to get lost. In experiments with cells treated to replicate and replace their telomeres, scientists have created cells that are in effect immortal, and they do not exhibit signs of aging. What I'm saying here is that its not the individual parts of the cell wearing out, or the fragility of DNA (in a cellular environment it will last quite intact for an extremely long time...there are Redwood trees over 1,000 years old, and they're DNA based life forms just like us), that is the limiting factor in human life

As for people 3,000 years ago living "way past 100" I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for proof positive of that. I'm sure a very, very, very select few individuals hit the 100 mark, but they are extremely few and far between. I believe there are verified records of an Egyptian pharoh living to the age 92, and that was an extraordinary event. "way past 100?" I don't think so. In any event, the life expectancy in the Roman Principate, which was pretty much the height of western civilization at the time, from (sorry about the inexactness of the dates, I really hated Roman history) ~40 BC to ~530 AD the average life expectancy was around 45, which wasn't a whole lot higher than it was in the previous centuries. In fact it wasn't until the 20th century that the average life expectancy increased to over 60 for anyone.

I know about the first bit, how DNA works extra, I was just trying to cram to much into too little space and missed a lot of my thinking behind my post out.

Also I would like to know where you get these ages of how long people live from. It is only the polution and bad hygene of people that caused people to not live very long. There is no reason why people can't live past 100, Asian people (especially the Chinesse) have been living past 100 for thousands of years. It is only in western society where we had all the hygene and health problems that people did not live very long. I learnt this all at collage. Maybe US schools are only teach about Europe and US history. Also the reason Romans did not live very long is that they used lead pipes for drinking water. I have never come across anyone else before that believed what you do about age.

hvfsl
Jul 21, 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by unfaded
I think the references to the living past 100 may be biblical, in which people lives for hundreds of years. This, of course, has been debunked by countless historians as translational errors and calendar differences.

No it is not, it is common sense and looking at peoples fossels. It is only the Europe that had the problems with age for various reasons (e.g. Romans using lead for water pipes), the Europeans then passed their bad health all around the world. The Arabs had a much better tec than the Romans, before the Romans.

Also about the Bible bit, I have looked at some documentaries on the subject and the people trying to debunk the ages of the bible were not doing a very good job and relieing too much on secondary and thirtary sources for the results, most of them didn't seem to have ever read the bible themselves which, reading primary sources is very important. This kind of research is would not even get a passing mark if done for a Uni project. You may not agree with the people living past 500 years bit, but there is no reason why the parts about people living past 100 is not correct.

I would like to know where people are getting the idea that people did not live past 100 from.

hvfsl
Jul 21, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by tpjunkie
Er, you're off by a factor of about a thousand....the sun is set to keep shining at its present rate for another 4 to 5 billion years...The Earth can easily sustain the current number of humans living on the planet; the amount of surplus food produced by the united states alone could feed most of the starving people in the world; only lack of effort on humanity's part is preventing the hungry from eating.



I also have to disagree with this, there was a recent survay and they worked out that if all the resources of the world were shared, then each person would have $250 worth of earths resources.

tpjunkie
Jul 21, 2003, 07:01 PM
I also have to disagree with this, there was a recent survay and they worked out that if all the resources of the world were shared, then each person would have $250 worth of earths resources.

Well, I'm not sure what you're including with the term "resources," but 6 billion people multiplied by 250 dollars works out to there being only 1.5 trillion dollars worth of "resources" in the world. I think most people would agree that the world resources sum to a great deal more.

Also the reason Romans did not live very long is that they used lead pipes for drinking water. I have never come across anyone else before that believed what you do about age.

The vast majority of Roman citizens did not have plumbing where they lived, the city of Rome was the exception, not the rule. Here is a University of Texas page illustrating ancient roman (I'm not sure what period though) life expectancies.

http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utexas.edu%2Fdepts%2Fclassics%2Fdocuments%2FLife.html

Lead poisoning is not the reason these figures look the way they do. As for people living way past 100 in ancient china, this article here:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DI18Ad04.html

says that (about midway down the article) "Living more than 70 years was regarded as rare in ancient China, but it is common these days."

Hygiene was relatively the same the world over, until the discovery of bacteria by Joseph Lister in the 19th century, there were no major leaps and bounds made in keeping people healthier and more hygienic.

EDIT: Spelling

topicolo
Jul 27, 2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by tpjunkie
Er, you're off by a factor of about a thousand....the sun is set to keep shining at its present rate for another 4 to 5 billion years...The Earth can easily sustain the current number of humans living on the planet; the amount of surplus food produced by the united states alone could feed most of the starving people in the world; only lack of effort on humanity's part is preventing the hungry from eating.



And Dick Clark's as well.




I'm not sure you understand the composition of animal cells; the phospholipid bilayer membrane that makes up the cell membrane is constantly being repaired and rebuilt by the cell, as are the proteins and cholesterols embedded in it (cholesterols are actually responsible for the flexibility and some of the strength of the membrane). The other parts of the cell such as the cytoskeleton and various organelles are also repaired and replaced through the life of the cell, by the cell (some of the organelles, like mitochondria actually replicate and repair themselves independently of the cell).

DNA in healthy cells is constantly being repaired and "proof-read" to correct mistakes from random mutations and replicational errors, (in an average cell, point mutations in nuclear DNA occurs at the rate of about 100 per day. However, due to the cells ability to repair its DNA through the action of DNA polymerase 1, 2, and 3 (only 1 has proof-reading activity though) the rate of mutation not corrected by the cell is around (sorry i can't remember exactly, molecular bio was a total drag) 1 in 10^12 mutations.) The main limiting factor in the life of the cell is how many times the chromosomes can replicate before information is lost. Information is lost on the ends of the chromosomes during mitosis, however the ends of chromosomes are repetitive noncoding DNA known as telomeres. after enough replications the telomere DNA has been lost, and DNA coding for proteins begins to get lost. In experiments with cells treated to replicate and replace their telomeres, scientists have created cells that are in effect immortal, and they do not exhibit signs of aging. What I'm saying here is that its not the individual parts of the cell wearing out, or the fragility of DNA (in a cellular environment it will last quite intact for an extremely long time...there are Redwood trees over 1,000 years old, and they're DNA based life forms just like us), that is the limiting factor in human life

As for people 3,000 years ago living "way past 100" I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for proof positive of that. I'm sure a very, very, very select few individuals hit the 100 mark, but they are extremely few and far between. I believe there are verified records of an Egyptian pharoh living to the age 92, and that was an extraordinary event. "way past 100?" I don't think so. In any event, the life expectancy in the Roman Principate, which was pretty much the height of western civilization at the time, from (sorry about the inexactness of the dates, I really hated Roman history) ~40 BC to ~530 AD the average life expectancy was around 45, which wasn't a whole lot higher than it was in the previous centuries. In fact it wasn't until the 20th century that the average life expectancy increased to over 60 for anyone.

Another point about mutations: most of them will have no effect on the functioning of the cell. The vast majority of our DNA does nothing and only short segments are genes. In all probability, the mutations will occure in these "useless" regions (also called exons). Even if a mutation occurs in a useful region, it could just modify the nucleotide pattern to a different pattern that codes for the same amino acid in a protein.

If people ever lived to 200 or longer, the biggest killer will still be cancer and heart disease. Until we can cure both without any problems, it'll still be hard to reach those ages

tpjunkie
Aug 5, 2003, 11:47 AM
Well, exons are not exactly useless, there are strong indications that they have a yet unkown role in cellular function.