Is it possible to live forever?
What does it mean to grow old and die? Can we overcome this process and hence forth live forever?
Neilos
What does it mean to grow old and die? Can we overcome this process and hence forth live forever?
Neilos
Is it possible to live forever?
Of course it's possible. We don't have the technology for it yet though.
Though, actually, there is a chance of you suddenly being killed in some sort of accident. (hit by a bus, hit by a meteor, hit by an explosion caused by half of your chair spontaneously turning into antimatter, et cetera) This chance cannot be reduced to 0%. Therefore, if you live forever, you're 100% certain to meet an end like this sooner or later.
For example:
You're very careful, so you've reduced these possibilities down to .0001% per year.
In 2 years, that probability becomes .0002%
In 10: .001%
In 100: .01%
In 10,000: 1% (So there's a 1% chance that you'd be dead after 10,000 years)
In 1,000,000: 100% (So, after a million years, it's almost a sure thing that you would have been killed by an accident. (Given a .000001 per year deadly accident rate))
If you can make accidents less likely, that makes it more likely that you'll live longer, but there's no way you could reduce that probability to 0%.
Though, actually, there is a chance of you suddenly being killed in some sort of accident. (hit by a bus, hit by a meteor, hit by an explosion caused by half of your chair spontaneously turning into antimatter, et cetera) This chance cannot be reduced to 0%. Therefore, if you live forever, you're 100% certain to meet an end like this sooner or later.
For example:
You're very careful, so you've reduced these possibilities down to .0001% per year.
In 2 years, that probability becomes .0002%
In 10: .001%
In 100: .01%
In 10,000: 1% (So there's a 1% chance that you'd be dead after 10,000 years)
In 1,000,000: 100% (So, after a million years, it's almost a sure thing that you would have been killed by an accident. (Given a .000001 per year deadly accident rate))
If you can make accidents less likely, that makes it more likely that you'll live longer, but there's no way you could reduce that probability to 0%.
I think that is a question that there are few absolutes related to. One is the fact that our bodies over time corrupt and die. But the essence of who we are, well where does that go? Is there more to us than the physiology we present to the world? The nishmat-chayim ( soul of life) is needed in Genesis to create the nefesh-chayah ( the living being) Adam. The soul when it is within the body is called the tzelem Elohim or the state of existance that connects the physical body with the soul. Nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya and yechida are the 5 levels of the soul within Judaism, the last of which the yechida is thought to never totally separate from G-d. Therefore from this perspective we can never truly completely die. Nephesh is the lowest level of the soul, this is the one we are aware of and deal with in the physical world. While this post deals with a "spiritual" answer to a physiologically based question, they are innately intertwined and cannot be separated. Science has no answer as to the absorption of the life force at death, even science requires faith. So we choose where we place our faith. Free will to choose is a wonderful thing. 
Yep, all well and good, but doesn't really belong in the science section. Basically this area is for discussion of scientific hypothesis/theory, not untestable metaphysics/religion.
If you can suggest a way to test this 'hypothesis' then fine, we can discuss it. If not then it belongs in the religion/philosophy forum, not the science area.
If you can suggest a way to test this 'hypothesis' then fine, we can discuss it. If not then it belongs in the religion/philosophy forum, not the science area.
| Quote: |
| A Russian theorist Alexei Olovnikov was the first to recognize (1971) the problem of how chromosomes could replicate right to the tip, as such was impossible with replication in a 3’ to 5’ direction. To solve this and to accommodate Leonard Hayflick’s idea of limited somatic cell division, Olovnikov suggested that DNA sequences would be lost in every replicative phase until they reached a critical level, at which point cell division would stop |
Cells can only replicate a certain number of times due to the shortening of telomeres. Can we overcome the process of cell deteriation? Slow it down? Or increase the length of telomeres (perhaps through genetic modification)
| Quote: |
| Damage to DNA, protein cross-linking and other changes have been attributed to free radicals. Over time, this damage accumulates and causes us to experience aging. |
Free Radicals are produced by cells when they create energy (This is why anti-oxidents are good for us). Can we isolate the free radicals that are causing harm without snaring the ones that are helping to sustain our life?
I fail to see why this question doesn't belong here. I intend to discuss the theories for why we grow old. What science has been formulated to uncover the process and how might we 'sneak' a way round it. Let's face it, I don't want to look old when I get there! But I certainly don't want to look like Jackie Stallone after I try to stay young!!!
Neilos
It will be possible one day when brain transplantation is possible.
You will remember why WE keep brain of great persons still safely
You will remember why WE keep brain of great persons still safely
| Neilos wrote: |
|
Cells can only replicate a certain number of times due to the shortening of telomeres. Can we overcome the process of cell deteriation? Slow it down? Or increase the length of telomeres (perhaps through genetic modification) |
or through repetitive gene therapy. longer telomeres will not help. they WILL run out (so to speak).
one way could be go into the human genetic structure and modify it in such a manner that the telomeres are carried on into the next division.
Do remember that some forms of amoeba are strictly speaking immortal. (because they divide till eternity).
Of course they are much simpler genetically, so the challenge is much bigger. But hypothetically speaking, given sufficient advances in genetic engineering, why not. Whether we will still call ourselves human after that is another matter.
| chiragpatnaik wrote: |
| Whether we will still call ourselves human after that is another matter. |
Of course you wouldn't be human... Humans don't live forever.
Why do people have such a problem with not being human?
Tobe or not tobe . . . by Bluedoll
I always just considered aging to be how well cells could maintain a healthy diet. Natural aging and death are always a result of the ability to reproduce cells which is attributed in turn to nutrient consumption. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies is the common characteristic of all natural deaths.
Free radicals are naturally produced by the body to combat disease and unless there is an extreme imbalance, this is a healthy activity to sustainable living. Also the ability for cells to utilize chain-breaking antioxidant nutrients are necessary for growth and reproduction. Therefore what inhibits a cell from having a healthy diet might be the question for longivity?
Shortening of telomeres seems to be natural protective process also as can be observed in abnormal cancer cells where it does not occur. So I am not sure modifications in any of these areas is indeed possible for successful results or even desired?
_____________________________________________________________
To understand life and to understand if life was designed to go on forever or not has been in the past and will most liking be a lively question in the near future. To consider this question is to consider what is normal by design? What is natural and normal to me would be a very important perspective to work from!
It is impossible at some point not to at least consider what is normal in the sense that at least one generic blueprint is possible for life. Yes, that could lead to philosophical and even religious discussion.
I for one believe that life in the universe is attributed from one unique source (God) and that knowledge in this area can only enhance the way we think about life and science. Separating subjects from another can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on how the users like to organize information.
To clarify, what I mean is that points can be made more clear by discussing one topic at a time or it can be in some cases inhibiting to separate them - like being told not to talk free radicals because that belongs in the chemistry section and not the biological section.
Often language and mathematics, science and philosophies do merge. Perhaps a separate section for the topic "where do things go?" would be in order.
I always just considered aging to be how well cells could maintain a healthy diet. Natural aging and death are always a result of the ability to reproduce cells which is attributed in turn to nutrient consumption. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies is the common characteristic of all natural deaths.
Free radicals are naturally produced by the body to combat disease and unless there is an extreme imbalance, this is a healthy activity to sustainable living. Also the ability for cells to utilize chain-breaking antioxidant nutrients are necessary for growth and reproduction. Therefore what inhibits a cell from having a healthy diet might be the question for longivity?
Shortening of telomeres seems to be natural protective process also as can be observed in abnormal cancer cells where it does not occur. So I am not sure modifications in any of these areas is indeed possible for successful results or even desired?
_____________________________________________________________
To understand life and to understand if life was designed to go on forever or not has been in the past and will most liking be a lively question in the near future. To consider this question is to consider what is normal by design? What is natural and normal to me would be a very important perspective to work from!
It is impossible at some point not to at least consider what is normal in the sense that at least one generic blueprint is possible for life. Yes, that could lead to philosophical and even religious discussion.
I for one believe that life in the universe is attributed from one unique source (God) and that knowledge in this area can only enhance the way we think about life and science. Separating subjects from another can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on how the users like to organize information.
To clarify, what I mean is that points can be made more clear by discussing one topic at a time or it can be in some cases inhibiting to separate them - like being told not to talk free radicals because that belongs in the chemistry section and not the biological section.
Often language and mathematics, science and philosophies do merge. Perhaps a separate section for the topic "where do things go?" would be in order.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Free radicals are naturally produced by the body to combat disease and unless there is an extreme imbalance, this is a healthy activity to sustainable living. Also the ability for cells to utilize chain-breaking antioxidant nutrients are necessary for growth and reproduction. Therefore what inhibits a cell from having a healthy diet might be the question for longivity?
Shortening of telomeres seems to be natural protective process also as can be observed in abnormal cancer cells where it does not occur. So I am not sure modifications in any of these areas is indeed possible for successful results or even desired? |
Certainly it's possible. What you're thinking about - the Hayflick Limit which describes how many generations a cell can reproduce before shortened telomeres start leading to cancer cells, and free oxygen radicals damaging cells - both of these things are easily prevented or repaired in theory. We lack the precision tools necessary to actually make the repairs... but we do know that these things are not inevitable. Stem cells have no Hayflick Limit - they can reproduce as many times as necessary - and if free radicals are causing too much cell damage just introduce an antioxidant to take care of the radicals, then use stem cells to replace the damaged cells.
In other words, we know that these things are possible - and we can even witness them in action in certain situations (stem cells, and there are some cases where telomeres lengthen, and there are biologically immortal organisms). They can be done, we just need to make better tools to make them happen.
Now, is it desired? That's a tricky question. If we developed immortality - or even just greatly extended life spans - that would force us to make massive changes to our society, worldwide. Some hard choices will have to be made, such as enforced sterilizations on people that choose to have life extensions... and what are we going to do with dangerous criminals? Denying them immortality when anyone else can have it is not really different than sentencing them to death. You might as well just execute them summarily rather than lock them up to die slowly over 20 years. And should the sentence for someone that has murdered someone that has chosen immortality be greater than for someone who has murdered someone who hasn't? If immortality treatments have to begin in childhood, should we allow parents to refuse them for their children on religious grounds? Etc. etc. Our society, and our philosophies, really aren't ready to handle immortality.
But we should go for it anyway. Even if immortality destroys the structure of our society... ****** it. We can rebuild societies. We can't replace people.
| Indi wrote: |
| We can't replace people. |
^.^
To (mis)quote Obama, "Yes we can!"
With a population increasing at an ever increasing rate, replacing people is easy.
Trust in test tube living . . . by Bluedoll
I am not sure if I understand stem cell research completely. My question is if we are able to use tools to repair our natural cells, will this effort to extend life eventually fail also? Would unwanted mutations or something we are not aware of occur to sabotages our pursuits?
In reference, to living forever are we only able to produce some kind of morphed mutated monster (our cells in our body naturally regenerate every seven years so we are completely reborn but have the same characteristics we started out with in general) or a borg creation (star trek sci fi but a good imagine of what is possible?) which would not be our desirable achievement?
What is actually possible I will consider, depending on if science has actually discovered all the information required to sustain life in a ‘natural’ way and not in an artificial way?
Just not convinced yet that we are even close to understanding life but really like learning about this exciting research.
I am not sure if I understand stem cell research completely. My question is if we are able to use tools to repair our natural cells, will this effort to extend life eventually fail also? Would unwanted mutations or something we are not aware of occur to sabotages our pursuits?
In reference, to living forever are we only able to produce some kind of morphed mutated monster (our cells in our body naturally regenerate every seven years so we are completely reborn but have the same characteristics we started out with in general) or a borg creation (star trek sci fi but a good imagine of what is possible?) which would not be our desirable achievement?
What is actually possible I will consider, depending on if science has actually discovered all the information required to sustain life in a ‘natural’ way and not in an artificial way?
Just not convinced yet that we are even close to understanding life but really like learning about this exciting research.
but surely the bigger question is... why would you want to....
I'm quite happy in my life, but the way the world is going I am glad I will not live forever.... (which is another reason why I do not (and will not) bring children into this world.)
Malcolm
I'm quite happy in my life, but the way the world is going I am glad I will not live forever.... (which is another reason why I do not (and will not) bring children into this world.)
Malcolm
If it were possible to live forever, I think it would have already happened (or be happening). The longest confirmed life span is 122 years and that person is dead. The oldest person in America recently died at 113 years of age. It has been estimated that 106 billion people have ever lived - 6 billion of those (us) are still breathing, but expected to live to 67 on the average, but probably not older than 106 at best. The human shell is built to last 120 years, so it would be highly unlikely to live forever in one's original skin. So now we are switching bodies to keep our brain alive. Older people's skills definitely degrade with age. Like malcompreen said we probably wouldn't want to - and will to live would have to be an enormous factor. So I'm running with : No.
Immortality is tempting. But if we keep on improving ourselves, so we feel no pain, we catch no disease or so we pass through no death, aren't we changing or violating what it means to be human?
| upcirculohispanico wrote: |
| Immortality is tempting. But if we keep on improving ourselves, so we feel no pain, we catch no disease or so we pass through no death, aren't we changing or violating what it means to be human? |
Yes we would be changing what it means to be human... Changing it for the better. Is that so horrible that it is worth dying to avoid?
no it is not possible to live a life of immortalllllllllllll
i think imortality is imaginetion of our brain .........
its hard to belive.......
and
think if we willl immortal
then
whats about age
mean child ,,, teenage,,,,, old?????????
why we do hardwork to earn?????????
as we need nothing
because we willlllll immortttaaaaaaaalllllll
i think imortality is imaginetion of our brain .........
its hard to belive.......
and
think if we willl immortal
then
whats about age
mean child ,,, teenage,,,,, old?????????
why we do hardwork to earn?????????
as we need nothing
because we willlllll immortttaaaaaaaalllllll
| rajpk wrote: |
|
i think imortality is imaginetion of our brain ......... |
So was space flight once. All human inventions have to start first in the imagination before they can become reality.
| Neilos wrote: |
| Is it possible to live forever?
What does it mean to grow old and die? Can we overcome this process and hence forth live forever? Neilos |
You can, if you are a cancer cell
| Kopernikus wrote: |
|
You can, if you are a cancer cell |
That might just be a little more philosophical than you meant it to be.
If society as a whole was a body, and we the cells in it, an immortal person might literally become a 'cancer' of society...
dont know the possibility, but i'm pretty sure that if we do become immortal, we'll have to build a whole lot of new houses!! probably on other planets, and even solar systems...
We probably will have to change completely physically as the cycles on earth are of the kind that requires humans to "come and go", i.e. live and die. So much so that we have a different perhaps non-organic form that does not have any bodily needs, cannot be injured and can transcend earth's limitations.
In which sense are you talking? In the sense of body or soul? If you want your body to be alive then try to do some great work and madam Tussuad building is there. and if you want to make your soul alive then start reading philosophy.
Again there is a way to keep the bacteria alive for 100s if year by putting them on liquid nitrogen. Ask your teacher for any kind of facility. he.. he.....
Again there is a way to keep the bacteria alive for 100s if year by putting them on liquid nitrogen. Ask your teacher for any kind of facility. he.. he.....
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Of course it's possible. We don't have the technology for it yet though.
Though, actually, there is a chance of you suddenly being killed in some sort of accident. (hit by a bus, hit by a meteor, hit by an explosion caused by half of your chair spontaneously turning into antimatter, et cetera) This chance cannot be reduced to 0%. Therefore, if you live forever, you're 100% certain to meet an end like this sooner or later. |
apart of probability consideration, biologically I think it is not possible to live forever, the internal organs of our body will not sustain forever. Taking this issue to a broader scope, like can any other animal, or any living creature live forever, also might face the same biological issue.
in other words, if there were a world where risks of accident was 0%, then still death would be unavoidable because of the biological wear and tear
In our teenage years, our bodies are very much capable of living into the 600 -700's. But the reason we don't is because when we age, our cells are programmed to die, because if they don't, small errors within the cells can be reproduced to large scales inflicting a little condition called cancer.
Related topics
 |