Who Wants to Live Forever?

Or cryogenic suspension? Historians could be frozen and revived periodically to review events and experience a little of the time period, write about it, then be frozen again.

Oh, that's cold.

Yep, that's cold. Talk about feeling like a book.

Well, of course if would be a *voluntary* thing. Some historians might think it cool. Only problem is, what if nobody remembers to wake 'em up.

Ofcourse they should be frozen in a controlled enviorment, not in their closet. And a list on wich person to wake up on what question.

No, it's still to cold. I don't think anyone would like that. Just to live to tell other people what that thing about that thing is.

There would have to be come kind of plaque over their cylinders that explains the mission of the project, as well as thawing and freezing schedules, etc. And perhaps some kind of institutional system to employ, train and reward those who maintain the project--some way of maintaining continuity after the enthusiasm and market for the idea has died out.

Irene Cara

Hey Brandon9000,

What have you read on theories of ageing/longevity research?

I'm looking for stuff to read.

Slowing the Ageing Process
Wouldn't it become incredibly boring (and crowded) to live more than 100 years?

If slowing the ageing process meant that I could be more youthful-looking, productive, and healthy past my 80's, that would be great. But let's face it, the upcoming younger generation would still want the older ones to move over and make room for them (because no matter how youthful, there still would be age brackets). How could there possibly be enough jobs or resources or to support an "ageless" population? Oh yeah, by that time no one would have jobs, everyone would eat paste, live in slots, and everyone would be bored.

No, I think would prefer to look and feel younger longer, but still die at a normal age. By age 85 or 90, I probably would have had all the fun I could stand. :wink:

Brandon . . . what are your thoughts on HGH?

Iwan, I agree generally, except that 85 and even 90 are a bit too young. I know people in their late nineties who are too creative, active and alive to begin giving up. Not that giving up is not alright, especially when ill.

JLNobody, you're right, but I was using 85 or 90 as a general point of reference. My family has a history of longevity, with five living generations in my lifetime until only a few years ago. And this was not accomplished by giving birth during the teen years, but near or after age 21.

My grandmother died "young" at 98 and was active and healthy up until near the time of her death. She was around for most of the 20th century and proclaimed that television and the microwave were, in her opinion, the greatest inventions of the century.

But, the point is . . . she became bored and simply tired of living. Would she have wanted to live longer if she looked and felt younger? I don't know, but I really don't think so. And, if science-fiction movies are an indication of the lifestyle of the future - no plants, trees or open spaces, living in cubicles, nutrition from tubes - I'm not interested.

Living "forever" is not the object of slowing the ageing process; however, even if people could live much longer, healthier, and youthful lives, eventually, both the birth rate and the death rate would be highly-regulated . . . i.e., you'll have a specific time for both your arrival and your departure. Otherwise?????

iwan, I agree completely. The only reason I would like to extend my healthy/active life is to do more things. I would not want more time if I had nothing to do with it but extend the duration of ego.

JLNobody, again we agree. Even with today's life expectancy, if people could live out their life span with healthier, more youthful bodies and minds, their "golden years" would be so much happier and productive.

This is probably the first time in their lives that they have had the freedom to simply enjoy life without all the responsibilities of making a living and raising children. Sadly, most are not able to do so because even if the mind is willing, the body is not . . . not to mention that any money they managed to save is spent primarily on health care instead of the enjoyment of their final years.

Well, most of what I know is from reading bits and pieces of hundreds of books and articles on nutrition, or aging, but "How and Why We Age" by Leonard Hayflick was pretty good.

In case you didn't already, please read the post with which I started this thread, because it describes some of the principles involved.

Yes, I did read the beginning.

Would you believe my public library system doesn't have the Hayflick book? It has dozens of other pop science books on the topic, but not that one. I read one of those and skimmed through half a dozen others. I also have a textbook, Biology of Aging / Arkin, which I haven't finished reading yet. So I really shouldn't be looking for more to read...

There's also an article recently published in the journal, Gerontology, which discusses a new theory of aging. Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to get my hands on it.

Gerontology. 2004 Sep-Oct;50(5):265-90.

Living and dying for sex. A theory of aging based on the modulation of cell cycle signaling by reproductive hormones.
Bowen RL, Atwood CS.

A mechanistic understanding of aging has yet to be described; this paper puts forth a new theory that has the potential to explain aging in all sexually reproductive life forms. The theory also puts forth a new definition of aging - any change in an organism over time. This definition includes not only the changes associated with the loss of function (i.e. senescence, the commonly accepted definition of aging), but also the changes associated with the gain of function (growth and development). Using this definition, the rate of aging would be synonymous with the rate of change. The rate of change/aging is most rapid during the fetal period when organisms develop from a single cell at conception to a multicellular organism at birth. Therefore, 'fetal aging' would be determined by factors regulating the rate of mitogenesis, differentiation, and cell death. We suggest that these factors also are responsible for regulating aging throughout life. Thus, whatever controls mitogenesis, differentiation and cell death must also control aging. Since life-extending modalities consistently affect reproduction, and reproductive hormones are known to regulate mitogenesis and differentiation, we propose that aging is primarily regulated by the hormones that control reproduction (hence, the Reproductive-Cell Cycle Theory of Aging). In mammals, reproduction is controlled by the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis hormones. Longevity inducing interventions, including caloric restriction, decrease fertility by suppressing HPG axis hormones and HPG hormones are known to affect signaling through the well-documented longevity regulating GH/IGF-1/PI3K/Akt/Forkhead pathway. This is exemplified by genetic alterations in Caenorhabditis elegans where homologues of the HPG axis pathways, as well as the daf-2 and daf-9 pathways, all converge on daf-16, the homologue of human Forkhead that functions in the regulation of cell cycle events. In summary, we propose that the hormones that regulate reproduction act in an antagonistic pleiotrophic manner to control aging via cell cycle signaling; promoting growth and development early in life in order to achieve reproduction, but later in life, in a futile attempt to maintain reproduction, become dysregulated and drive senescence.

What nonsense. The effect of free radicals as a major component has been accepted for decades.

Brandon9000 - What about all the hype about HGH? Do you think it is commercial quackery . . . Or, does it have merit for extending longevity and/or reversing the ageing process to some degree?

I would say that with HGH, you are intervening in aging fairly far down the chain of cause and effect, rather than at the root cause.

That's what I thought, too. But... They might be trying to be sensational, so as to get attention.
Or, they might mean that cells should be able to deal with free radical damage, it's just that repair pathways are not being used at maximum levels. It seems that some asexual unicellular critters can just keep on and on, after all. I won't know unless I read the article... (I wish I had it!).

~~~

HGH - can make you feel younger. You'll put on more muscle and be less prone to storing fat. Your skin will look better.
But... You'll get a big nose and ears, your eyesight might go bad and you might damage your kidneys (or is it the liver, I forget. It might be both). Personally, the neanderthal look is not for me.

Let's forget about the commercially available HGH that's out there and does not have not be administered by a doctor. We know it's potentially dangerous because too many folks think that if a little is good, a lot is better, greatly increasing the risk of serious side-effects.

But, instead of intervening at a time when the body has already slowed its production of HGH, what if the switch that slows or stops the body's natural production could be programmed to produce this hormone for a longer period of time? Since it would be produced naturally by the body, do you think the result would be hairy giants with liver problems, arthritis, and diabetes who look young, but have no endurance . . . Or, would a person maintain his vigor and youthfulness into what is now considered an advanced age?

I have no interest in living forever, but I would like an opportunity to be healthier and more youthful in my later years (beyond what I can control with diet and exercise) so that my final years have some quality of life . . . Not spent bedridden in a nursing home and/or as a financial and emotional burden to my children.