1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

120 or 180 Yrs Old? Limit of Aging Debated

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by eyelikeart, Jul 20, 2003.

  1. Moderator emeritus


  2. macrumors 604


    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.
  3. macrumors 68020


    Wow, that long would be kind of depressing...

  4. macrumors 68000


    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.
  5. macrumors 68000


    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.
  6. macrumors 6502a

    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..
  7. Moderator emeritus

    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
  8. macrumors 603


    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...

  9. macrumors 68020


    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?
  10. macrumors 603


    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...

  11. macrumors 68000


    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.
  12. macrumors P6


    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!
  13. macrumors 65816


    Well, now we know Bob Barker's secret... ;) :cool:
  14. macrumors 68030


    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.
  15. macrumors 68000


    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.
  16. macrumors 68020


    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
  17. Moderator emeritus

    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?

  18. macrumors 68020


    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:)
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Jerry Spoon

    I don't know man. Last week I saw him looking pretty worn down just watching a contestant play PLINKO ;)
  20. macrumors 65816


    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.
  21. macrumors 604


    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. :)

  22. macrumors 6502

    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.
  23. macrumors 65816


    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.
  24. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    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.

  25. macrumors P6



Share This Page