120 or 180 Yrs Old? Limit of Aging Debated

[unreg]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/dynam...utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.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]

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]

Well, exons are not exactly useless, there are strong indications that they have a yet unkown role in cellular function.