3 months ago I have put this question in google mylot which has now 70223 members now. There is not even a single reply to it.

How many of you are interested to prolong life youthfuly?

3 months ago

People desire to live longer.But living longer with suffering is no good. There are many ways which are claimed to be ending sufferings. But are there sure ways by which sufferings can be ended and one can live a youthful long life? Please post your wisdom.

Prolonging life and even finding a way to end death is ethical....it would be unethical to allow death.  The only problem is religious dogma is hindering this.  You have a majority of people out there that believe death is a neccessity to their salvation...With this kind of outlook we have many obsticles to overcome before we reach the end we desire.  I for one am all for longer life and even immortal life if that is possible.

 Regards,

 The Mentalis

Thank you Mentalis. Here too there is one reply out of 2541 members. But is it not a fact that there is roaring business of anti-aging products though none are proved to have prolonged life beyond 122?

regards

I'm in favor of prolonging life, though I'd prefer to be middle aged for centuries.

Nobody has lived beyond 120 or so because that is the genetically programmed upper limit for humans. We will not have people living much beyond that until we are able to manipulate the genetic basis of the life span -- probably after the middle of this century.

There may be treatments for some facets of age that will enable people to live to, say, 140 or so and to alleviate some of the effects of age, but they will be prosthetics like giving insulin to a diabetic and robotic limbs to amputees. Nobody contributing to this forum will escape age and death, even any children who may be here. Our grandchildren or great-grandchildren may have vastly extended lives if all goes well.

Religious objections will largely vanish with success. So called "test tube" babies -- those conceived in vitro and reimplanted in the mother -- were supposed to be "without souls" because of the procedure. Religious leaders said this. Now people have such babies all the time if they want children and can't conceive naturally. The objection is forgotten because the results were desirable. The children, many now adults, are just like any "natural" persons. The same will be true of clones, who "will not have souls" according to the same pundits. The same will be true of greatly extended life spans.

CP:

Nobody has lived beyond 120 or so because that is the genetically programmed upper limit for humans.

What makes you think this?  Perhaps Darwin thought the same of a younger age.   

"Our grandchildren or great-grandchildren may have vastly extended lives if all goes well"

 

this will happen due to global health culture and may not be so much due to anti-aging products.

regards

ideal:

CP:

Nobody has lived beyond 120 or so because that is the genetically programmed upper limit for humans.

What makes you think this?  Perhaps Darwin thought the same of a younger age.   

 

I too have the same question.

regards

My feeling is that the general public doesn't care about this for several reasons, in order of importance:

1. They lack an interest in science in general.
   
2. They tend to stay focused on the trivial, the personal and the immediate future.
   
3. They really don't know how far medicine has advanced in the last 25 years.
4. They look at the current frailty of senior citizens and think more years means more frailty.
5. Having never given the matter serious thought, they often fall for the cliched and easily refuted but easily raised objections to the idea.

Think of how little press the NIH's bold statement that all forms of cancer should be fully treatable within 10 to 15 years. Hardly anyone noticed this.

ideal:

CP:

Nobody has lived beyond 120 or so because that is the genetically programmed upper limit for humans.

What makes you think this?  Perhaps Darwin thought the same of a younger age.   

Darwin likely did not think the same of an age much younger than that.

There's a difference between life expectancy and life span. There were people in the 1800s who lived past age 100. The average age at death was lower than today because infectious diseases weren't adequately controlled, because there were no or few antibiotics and they weren't as effective as today's, and because trauma medicine wasn't as advanced as today.

On the other hand, since records were still comparatively poor people tended to accept accounts of extreme age more readily than today.

Further, people in the 1800s in part aged at different rates due to their wealth and social position -- a poor man at 70 probably looked more decrepit than a rich one at 70. How can we know this? Photography existed at the time. There are limits to the ability of  "lifestyle" factors that can lengthen life and prolong youthful appearance. I have yet to see any person whom I could not tell was 90 or so, though I did meet a man I thought was 90 who was 107, but I've seen people 50 I thought were 70.

If you look at really old writings they all tend to claim that the earliest people lived for centuries, which is myth, but to agree that fortunate people (usually those that kept this or that god's rules) lived to 100 or 110. The difference is that more people have the opportunity to live so long because they don't die of smallpox or staph as children and can get (in Western countries at least) immediate, effective trauma treatment.

There is an observable upper limit to the human life span, and it is around 120. We may alleviate some symptoms and extend our lives artificially so more people attain that and some live beyond it, but the fact that the oldest people (except for legendary and mythical heroes) don't live past it shows that such has long been known and is universal.

Further, it's easily observable that mammals and birds, at least, have species specific life spans. If not, pampered protected dogs who are correctly fed and exercised would not age and die. The same would hold for others. It doesn't happen. Minimal calorie intake has an effect, but they still eventually age and die. (Some reptiles seem to be potentially immortal, but they are always killed by disease or injury or predation.)

It's comforting to believe the life span is infinitely plastic and that if you eat boiled fish or raw cereal or whatever you either won't die or will live to 125, and permissible as long as it doesn't interfere with real efforts to modify the built-in life span.

My guess is that limited lifespans developed because such creatures evolve faster when conditions change. We will soon no longer have to worry about that. But not yet.

Mr. Farlops:

My feeling is that the general public doesn't care about this for several reasons, in order of importance:

1. They lack an interest in science in general.
   
2. They tend to stay focused on the trivial, the personal and the immediate future.
   
3. They really don't know how far medicine has advanced in the last 25 years.
4. They look at the current frailty of senior citizens and think more years means more frailty.
5. Having never given the matter serious thought, they often fall for the cliched and easily refuted but easily raised objections to the idea.

Think of how little press the NIH's bold statement that all forms of cancer should be fully treatable within 10 to 15 years. Hardly anyone noticed this.

Yes, that's all right. Incredible.

What about the wisdom on longevity?

Is it the dark area?

regards

CP:

I'm in favor of prolonging life, though I'd prefer to be middle aged for centuries.

Nobody has lived beyond 120 or so because that is the genetically programmed upper limit for humans. We will not have people living much beyond that until we are able to manipulate the genetic basis of the life span -- probably after the middle of this century.

It could be starting now.

The same thing that the sports world is worried about is the beggining of superlongevity.

It isn't going to be that we wake up one day and go from a normal life span to centuries, it will be first a couple of things that exist as of now, and than maybe two or three years from now, two or three more will be added.

First, we have gene doping that can increase strength, up to doubling the muscle mass. This has been done in mice, and the sports world is seriously worried about this turning up in the '08 Olympics.

second, for impotence.

The first one I cited would increase the viability of elderly people. One of the problems many who are 80 plus have is declining strength.

I can see myself in 15 years with some muscle enhancement and possibly greater strength than I have ever had. Also, over the course of time, the genetic therapy will be expanded in effectiveness many fold over what is available today.

Failing organs can be enhanced, thinning bones, skin made less susceptable to cancer, more youthfull.

Perhaps in less than 20 years, gene doping for aging brains will improve the function.

Superlongevity may already be starting, but it appears to be more piecemeal at the moment, but with A.I., better gene sequencing, the potential of adult genetic modification to extend life spans of, first, failing organs, and than the whole system, appears to be almost certain when this reaches the top of it's "s" curve in the paradigm shift 

 

 

CP:

I'm in favor of prolonging life, though I'd prefer to be middle aged for centuries.

Nobody has lived beyond 120 or so because that is the genetically programmed upper limit for humans. We will not have people living much beyond that until we are able to manipulate the genetic basis of the life span -- probably after the middle of this century.

It could be starting now.

The same thing that the sports world is worried about is the beggining of superlongevity.

It isn't going to be that we wake up one day and go from a normal life span to centuries, it will be first a couple of things that exist as of now, and than maybe two or three years from now, two or three more will be added.

First, we have gene doping that can increase strength, up to doubling the muscle mass. This has been done in mice, and the sports world is seriously worried about this turning up in the '08 Olympics.

second, for impotence.

The first one I cited would increase the viability of elderly people. One of the problems many who are 80 plus have is declining strength.

I can see myself in 15 years with some muscle enhancement and possibly greater strength than I have ever had. Also, over the course of time, the genetic therapy will be expanded in effectiveness many fold over what is available today.

Failing organs can be enhanced, thinning bones, skin made less susceptable to cancer, more youthfull.

Perhaps in less than 20 years, gene doping for aging brains will improve the function.

Superlongevity may already be starting, but it appears to be more piecemeal at the moment, but with A.I., better gene sequencing, the potential of adult genetic modification to extend life spans of, first, failing organs, and than the whole system, appears to be almost certain when this reaches the top of it's "s" curve in the paradigm shift 

 

 

"Superlongevity may already be starting, but it appears to be more piecemeal at the moment, but with A.I., better gene sequencing, the potential of adult genetic modification to extend life spans of, first, failing organs, and than the whole system, appears to be almost certain when this reaches the top of it's "s" curve in the paradigm shift"

This is what those of us now alive can expect. Most of what's listed here are such "prosthetic" treatments. They will certainly benefit people and make lives better and somewhat longer, but they still depend on the availability of a complex and highly organized medical industry. People will have to take medicines or repeatedly get treatments, and in the event of disaster people "artificially" age 50 at 110 will rapidly begin to decline and weaken. 

Once the genetic factors are understood a disaster or a major catastrophe will not have that effect. People will naturally live for centuries and age slowly without the need for special medications and treatments. This will also help speed recovery from some major catastrophe such as an asteroid strike since some of the people alive before it will be alive centuries afterwards and will not necessarily lose their skills  and knowledge as happened, say, with even a small disaster such as the cold spell that came at the time of the Roman Empire's decline, when people who were literate and had refined habits perished from disease and old age and their descendants had to reconstruct everything.

 

Jogeshwar:

What about the wisdom on longevity?

Is it the dark area?

regards

I don't know what that means.