FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


How long can we live?





zarky
How many years do you think a human can live.
wumingsden
zarky wrote:
How many years do you think a human can live.


At least up to 122 ~ http://www.wowzone.com/calment.htm
jaysen
Would that be how long can we live with or without medical intervention? I'm sure with medicine they way that it is, and they way it's evolving, your live spans will be greatly increased....
now if you go the au natural route.... well .... good luck with that.
assex
I honestly think that the lifespan of humans will keep on decreasing because of two reasons:-
1.) As science advances, humans shall start taking more and more precautions and medicine shall be so advanced that people shall know how to cure most deadly diseases. Therefore, I thinkl that humans shall overlook those small and easily curable diseases and die out due to their symptons.
2.) Even according to the Bible, it is like that. Have you ever read the story of Jacob and Joseph. Jacob lived till the age of 142, do you know that? Now, is it virtually possible for a human to live that long? No. So, I think that the lifespan of a human being shall keep on decreasing as time passes.

I know I'm a little of the head to think in such a way, but, honestly, what do you think about my theories?
Lennon
If you want a quick test to give you your estimate see this link
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/calcs/n_expect/main.asp

Check this diagram out.

The limit is age 122 as we know, and then there's the average life expectancy.

The limit is affected by genetic mutations in our chromosomes, leading to failure of some kind.
the average life expectancy is a result of violence, disease, poverty etc. Medicines can cure diseases and medicines increase the average life expectancy - fact. War decreases the life expectancy and this can be seen in war-torn countries like ethiopia. Poverty, malnutrition and starvation all lead to early deaths as well.
Nyizsa
Yes, you can enlenghten your lifespan without taking drugs, alcohol, tobacco, extensive sexual intercourses and so ... but then, what for? What will you tell your grandosns about?
myucel
Humans are the longest-living mammals. The maximum human life-span is 120 years, but the length of life varies a lot from place to place.
Panthrowzay
... take in to acount that we are poisning ourself, *CORN* by fungus inducing cancers (know the casue)
wumingsden
I'd just like to add that life expectancy is based on the median, my life expetancy is around 14, I am now 16, so this goes to show that all is not what it seems
GDG
I do not know I mean on average I am guessing about 70 to 80. But then 122 is pretty long. But seriously I would only want to live until 75 maybe or around there because after that you just get weak and need someone elses help to do things!
bigzero
With science advancing as fast as it is, human lifespan will greatly increase. I remember reading about a project that someone is working on (can't remember at the moment where I found it) to prolong life. There were like 5 or 7 steps you had to take, some of them are not aailable yet. One of them I remember was gene therapy where they keep extending telomeres (the ends of chromosomes) to their original size, since currently the decrease in their size is believed to be the #1 cause of aging. There was another step where they clean your body off of toxic chemicals and other such stuff. Anyway, the end result of the whole procedure is a doubled lifespan, so like 160 years or so. I'll try to find the paper again.
odiumxp
More money you have the longer u live. Have heart attack get a pace-maker loose a leg, arm, hand get a prostedic. Hell donate money to kriogentics freeze your self live forever.
Billwaa
err, not very long at the rate of us destorying our environment. Even tough our technology can make up for that, eventually, we will reach a point which we can't survive.
bluefossil
According to Einstein's theory, we can live pretty much forever if we live in space Razz
Talk2Tom11
We cannot live forever. Within our dna we have a 6 base pair pattern that is replicated about 2500 times on each end. The reason for this pattern is because during dna replication (within Cell replication), since our dna is linier and not circular, it falls off the ends. Since it falls off the ends, it does not replicate a few of the final base pairs. We have 2500 of these to last use our lives. Onces those are gone, would thenstart to lose DNA that actually codes for important stuff. That was the problem that happened with dolly, the sheep that was cloned. Unless however, people can live while losing important DNA, which i doubt is possible.

Although it is know none as to what age the 2500 will run out.
saiyeek
Isn't what we have now enough for us???
sethead
zarky wrote:
How many years do you think a human can live.
Hi i`ve just joined and its an interesting fact on just how long the human body can actualy live for.
It is said that the human body can live for 120 years , well this got me thinking how come nobody usually lives this long. it stated that throughout our lives we do our body damage by drinking, smoking, inhaling unclean or polluted air and over eating. so a conclusion to this is that: 1. we knock about 49 years off this life span leaving the average age somewhere between 69-78.

hope ive helped Cool
Lennon
I'd love to be cyrogenically frozen and then revive when they've found a way of repairing your body to full youth.
illini319
there is a theoretical limit called the Hayflick limit. look it up all of you Google fiends! Anyway, there is a limit. Some would argue that it is due to telomere shortening... as another post alluded to (Talk2Tom11), or it may be due to a growing number of age related diseases (parkinson's, alzheimer's etc) which as a class are essentially protein misfolding diseases. Some may also argue that free oxygen radicals lead to increased aging; therefore if you dip yourself in anti-oxidants (eat, slather on... etc.) then you are doing yourself a favor. Then there are the caloric restrictors who argue that a reduction of daily caloric intake makes the body more energy efficient and hence able to combat all the effects that I have just talked about. With the exception of Freezing (which nothing greater than a dog has been successfuly done), all of us will die sometime!
enricoc
I think the problem is not How long can we live but How can we inproove our life?
Would you like to live 122 in the same conditions of Biafra's children?
ocalhoun
Quote:
"And Methuselah lived 187 years and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after begetting Lamech 782 years, and he begat sons and daughters. And all of the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died" (Gen. 5:25-27).

Since I believe the bible to be true in every respect, this is my answer.
Lennon
I think before Noah's flood the world atmosphere was more humid and UV-radiation safe. The DNA could survive for much much longer. Maybe the atmosphere was dehumidifying over time until the climax of the flood brook loose. As the dehumidifying process continued, lifetimes shortened.
raman
Well if Science keeps advancing, maybe there is no limit Smile
skaccomatto
zarky wrote:
How many years do you think a human can live.


Never enough.
silentpark
what is living of a human?
after this you can get an answer how long 'human' can live.

so if you define human as the human mind (the possibility to go on thinking)
well it would be possible to put your brain in some kind of nutrient solution to safe the mind (if brain cells have a longer 'living' then other cells for example)
there are allready today achievements in using brains (in this case of lampreys) to control little roboters so maybe in a while it would be possible to do this with a human brain, well its a bit abnormal to do something like this but it could be possible)

also cancer cells are nearly deathless... so if you will manipulate or modify the genom of an embryo (or more precise on fertilized ovum) that you efface these genes that make our cells dieable (well these wich made our cells to divide limited)

so this human will be biological undieable (but maybe it will be unable to propagate with 'normal' humans (with or without this modification))


so this all got a bit of topic but to answer this question it should be clear what a human is (definition could be: special percent of genetical match (99.99999... % ? Razz ..

oh sorry again zoned out *gg
deleenheir
assex wrote:

2.) Even according to the Bible, it is like that. Have you ever read the story of Jacob and Joseph. Jacob lived till the age of 142, do you know that? Now, is it virtually possible for a human to live that long? No. So, I think that the lifespan of a human being shall keep on decreasing as time passes.

I know I'm a little of the head to think in such a way, but, honestly, what do you think about my theories?


I think you shouldn't use the Bible as an argument. Probably when Jacob lived, they didn't even count age. So I do believe he was a very old, old looking man. But I doubt they knew exactly how old the was.
Gieter
myucel wrote:
Humans are the longest-living mammals. The maximum human life-span is 120 years, but the length of life varies a lot from place to place.


Turtles live longer I think (average.)
altec
I think to achieve longer life, one needs to eat natural food (no preservatives, low fat) and take things easy. City life is stressful and you tend to eat food which is processed.
bladesage
A glass of red wine every day will make you live longer (the scientists obviously mean a single, standard, 8 fl oz wine glass).

It depends on where you live, and your lifestyle. If you treat your body well, you will get more years out of your life. The physiology of the body is fascinating, in how it can recover from so many things. It's not neccesarily diet-related, but don't do anything stupid (like daredevil kinda stupid).

People in Japan have been known to live longer than people from other parts of the world. Women tend to live longer than men, and it's not known exactly why, unfortunately. Stem cell research offers to extend it exponentially, but at the cost of our morality.
Indi
Talk2Tom11 wrote:
We cannot live forever. Within our dna we have a 6 base pair pattern that is replicated about 2500 times on each end. The reason for this pattern is because during dna replication (within Cell replication), since our dna is linier and not circular, it falls off the ends.

That may be true naturally, but with artificial means, it may not. If we ever develop nanotechnology to the point that we can repair replication degradation as it happens (say for example, by nanobots inside us that rebuild shortened DNA strands right in the cell), why couldn't we then live practically forever?
altec
bladesage wrote:

People in Japan have been known to live longer than people from other parts of the world.


That's because they practically eat everything raw. Raw fish, raw beef, raw chicken, raw egg, raw vegetables, everything raw.

Maybe that's their secret?
menhao
the lifespan will decrease? you must be kidding. completely i cant agree with this point.

For sure, the life span will increase, it is really too many reasons we could list, so i thought what we should discuss or could discuss will be mainly on how long we could live, yet not increase or decrease. use you imagination, guys.
fkmax
it depends on what people eat and how they live there life....if the people were to eat healthy and exercise daily i think they could live up to 130 years of age......and as tecknology in medical is improving there is a chance that one day we could live longer than we dream of....
william
Well, hard to say. I'm not really sure how long a human can live. One person did live to be a little over 122, but the average is around 70. Um, I think a human can live for hundreds of years. Not very likely, but it can happen. But, I really am not sure how long a human being can live.
Gieter
altec wrote:
bladesage wrote:

People in Japan have been known to live longer than people from other parts of the world.


That's because they practically eat everything raw. Raw fish, raw beef, raw chicken, raw egg, raw vegetables, everything raw.

Maybe that's their secret?


I don't think that's their secret. Eating meat raw may be unhealthy.

I think the reason is because they eat more fish than in Western cultures. Unsaturated fats don't stick to the the "wall" of veins (excuse me for not knowing the correct translation for it), saturated fats do. Unsaturated fats are found in fish, saturated in (red) flesh.
altec
Gieter wrote:

I don't think that's their secret. Eating meat raw may be unhealthy.

I think the reason is because they eat more fish than in Western cultures. Unsaturated fats don't stick to the the "wall" of veins (excuse me for not knowing the correct translation for it), saturated fats do. Unsaturated fats are found in fish, saturated in (red) flesh.


I agree with you. That is why, eskimos, having fish as their primary source of food, have lower incidences of heart attack. Fish oil is a blood thinner actually and it prevents blood from clotting which benefits people suffering from heart disease.
dark_lard
Well, since we were designed to live forever, I'm going to say that it's possible to live forever. Although I don't think that we'll see the average age going up much at all and it'll probly keep going down.


And for someone who says that the bible should not be used in an argument as evidence, think about this.

What are you basing your facts from? Most likely its some sort of published source. Either a post on the internet, a news story, article in a magazine, or even a scientific paper. You take these things for granted until they are proven wrong. Which happens a bit and that okay.

Now, why do you want to reject the published work that I cite? because you dissagree with my philosophy or beliefs.

The fact is that the bible today has NOT been proven wrong to date. And, like anything you would cite yourself, until it is proven wrong there should be no reason for objections in using it in a friendly discussion. But that's another topic that'll be fun to discuss, just not here. In fact I think i'm going to start one, I like hearing people's thoughts on it.
redace
zarky wrote:
How many years do you think a human can live.


I think there is no upper limit, if we can think of some method that will disable the shortening of telomerase, which is responsible for cell reproduction. But there are many other parametres that have impact on the human life. So, my tip for the next century is 200 years.
iglooxue
agree, 120 something, possibly in the near future. but if you really think about it, 120 is 60*2, so it's double the age of your grandma...or grandpa.
reddishblue
wumingsden wrote:
I'd just like to add that life expectancy is based on the median, my life expetancy is around 14, I am now 16, so this goes to show that all is not what it seems


Please dont spam these forums
wiggy
I think a human could live until the sun dies and the Earth is destroyed in a supernova unless we invent a way to travel out of the solar system and into unknown. We could live forever if the technology of science keeps on advancing and we can go and live on a different planet we could live forever!
malcolmiles
I think it is only a matter of time that computer storage and parallel processing power will be great enough to down load the connections in the brain. You would then continue to run even after physical death.
maki_03
Quote:
Well, since we were designed to live forever, I'm going to say that it's possible to live forever. Although I don't think that we'll see the average age going up much at all and it'll probly keep going down.


And for someone who says that the bible should not be used in an argument as evidence, think about this.

What are you basing your facts from? Most likely its some sort of published source. Either a post on the internet, a news story, article in a magazine, or even a scientific paper. You take these things for granted until they are proven wrong. Which happens a bit and that okay.

Now, why do you want to reject the published work that I cite? because you dissagree with my philosophy or beliefs.

The fact is that the bible today has NOT been proven wrong to date. And, like anything you would cite yourself, until it is proven wrong there should be no reason for objections in using it in a friendly discussion. But that's another topic that'll be fun to discuss, just not here. In fact I think i'm going to start one, I like hearing people's thoughts on it.


Well, I respect your opinion. but although the bible is not proven wrong, its hard to base facts when you have "divine intervention" backing you up. the problem when you use the bible as reference is a lot of people react when the ideas in the bible are opposed. and we can't prove anything because it boils down to faith. if you really want to believe the facts in the bible, then good for you. Smile
maki_03
Just want to ask... What is your definition of living???

Just got a little curious when I read malcolmiles post:

Quote:

I think it is only a matter of time that computer storage and parallel processing power will be great enough to down load the connections in the brain. You would then continue to run even after physical death.


Do you still consider yourself living if your inside a computer?
(I think this will be a matter of opinion, since no one (that i know of) has continued to live after physical death.)[/quote]
malcolmiles
Seeing the sort of worlds being created in these multi player games I think that virtual worlds could be created that you could exist after death and lead prehaps a more fufilling existance doing sports and visiting places that you didn't have the time and money to do before death. There would need to be a way of moving your virtual being between realities and keeping in touch with loved ones in the real world. Of couse it would depend on computing power and storage to completely copy the connections in the brain and I can't see it in my lifetime.
largelyobscure
I wonder if preventing DNA replication degradation would completely fix the problem. I wonder that if you would actually look young or if there are other factors too. Even if you could stop cellular breakdown at the genetic level one would still think that eventually something else in the body would break-down. It would be nice to live 150 years or so, but only if the quality of life was decent and respectable. The last thing I would want would be to live as a virtual vegetable for the last 80 years of my life, or go through frequent and painful treatments where each time recovery would be slow and the periods of good health become shorter and shorter.

I am so sorry if I came across so negative, as I believe that there would be a limit as these bodies that we are in would eventually breakdown I believe.

Have scientist had any luck in trying such a theory, as this repair of DNA in simpler animals (something with a great deal simpler genetic matter than us).? I wonder if there is anything out there on the web...

Nanoscience, now that is a really fascinating idea... Very much so. The idea of microscopic robots working at the cellular level or smaller to make repairs that could only be made that way, working in unison and actually fixing things right... Ever since I heard of this idea I've been fascinated with it. I wonder if it would make us any less human full of nano's? Smile

Anyhow, I'm no geneticist, but I'm sure that if you could cause the integrity of the DNA to actually stay in tact, or stay in tact longer by any signicant measure that at the very least we would look younger and would probably help with the onset of age-related disease but I doubt it would be a fix-all as I think that mutations could still occur causing cancer if things were not exactly right... (Sorry, I am rambling)

Bottom line, I think we could live quite a bit longer like 50% more than now... but I don't think we could ever live forever... Anyway you would end up with a major population problem then... (I'm sorry that's morbid.) ... I guess people could just procreate less if lifespans increased dramatically... (Okay, I'm sorry.) ... as it would be a big stress on the macro... everything. Anyway, I think we could live a lot longer as there are advances assuming of course that we don't go and end up killing all of each other first... Gee... Can't we all just get along?
Jinx
Perhaps it would be possible to use some sort of gene therapy - say, preserve a DNA sample when you are young, like age 16 or so, then alter a virus to deliver copies of your younger DNA to replace older, worn out DNA?

The problem with a longer life span for individuals is overpopulation. When the older members of a speices won't get out of the way to make room for the young what happens? Would we stagnate as a speices? No new and possibly benificial mutations, no evolution, no new generation full of fresh ideas?

So I guess the question is : When does it become ethicaly wrong to lenthen the lifespan of individuals?

Sure, I'd love to see what the world would be like 200 years from now, but if all us old farts are still hanging around, stuck in our ways, would it really be that different? Could an overpopulated world be a better place?
adpc88
The limit is 122, but im sure that most of the people live less than 80 years
younameit
I think that after an average of 80-110 years, our bodies are designed to stop regenerating cells regardless of how well we take care of ourselves. Its just nature.
bluecradle
In Japan the average lifespan for people are 80-84, while on other countries like Cambodia it's only 55-60 (these are just rough estimates ok). So it means technological advances in medicine, and also their lifestyles, are key players that affects one's lifespan.

But can it be genetically inherited? thanks in advance for answering Very Happy
crimson_aria
Wow, so far it's 122? That's something. Before, I used to think that a 100+ years of living is too much for a person. But now, I think differently. I think even if I live for hundreds of years, it wouldn't be enough because there're many things that will happen in the future. But don't get me wrong, I don't wanna live that long. XD From my perspective, humans are polluting the earth so much so it won't take much more than a hundred to live. But yes, science continues to upgrade and maybe someone might discover a way to live longer than what we can imagine. We'll never know.
UHF123
I think 120-130 is probably the maximum. If you think about it, it's what is currently observable. Despite silly claims, no one has lived beyond the late 110's mark. If you could keep tissue from degenerating including brain tissue, then a person could age more slowly. I think some people decide when to give up living.
Gundamxxg
i wonder if those little tests you can take are ever really accurate. no matter what one i take and no matter how much my answers fluctuate it always tells me that i will live to be 84 years old lol. i still got a while to go so im good =D.
raghu.steppenwolf
Death is simply when you stop breathing. In Indian Yoga, longevity is sen as based on the number of breaths you take. Time yourself for a minute, see how many times you inhale and exhale : Yoga says the average human being breathes 21,600 times in 24 hours. So, obviously, the yogic adepts in the Himalayas who defy death have mastered breathing....if you can breathe less frequently, you live longer because you're extending the time taken to use up your destined number of breaths. Again, if you look at some of the longest living animals (some species of turtles for example, can live up to 300 years) they all breathe much less frequently than humans do. Dogs, on the other hand for instance, are supposed to age by 7 human years for every dog-year, and they breathe much faster than humans-there could be something with the number of breaths theory there...
schnitzi
raghu.steppenwolf wrote:
Death is simply when you stop breathing. In Indian Yoga, longevity is sen as based on the number of breaths you take. Time yourself for a minute, see how many times you inhale and exhale : Yoga says the average human being breathes 21,600 times in 24 hours. So, obviously, the yogic adepts in the Himalayas who defy death have mastered breathing....if you can breathe less frequently, you live longer because you're extending the time taken to use up your destined number of breaths. Again, if you look at some of the longest living animals (some species of turtles for example, can live up to 300 years) they all breathe much less frequently than humans do. Dogs, on the other hand for instance, are supposed to age by 7 human years for every dog-year, and they breathe much faster than humans-there could be something with the number of breaths theory there...



There is NO hard evidence that yogic adepts have "defied death", through breathing or any other technique. They do get a lot of attention for such claims, though, so they keep making them.

Interestingly, rather than breathing rate, there does seem to seem to be some correlation between the number of heartbeats in animals and their lifespan...
m_w_a_r
maki_03 wrote:
Just want to ask... What is your definition of living???

Just got a little curious when I read malcolmiles post:

Quote:

I think it is only a matter of time that computer storage and parallel processing power will be great enough to down load the connections in the brain. You would then continue to run even after physical death.


Do you still consider yourself living if your inside a computer?
(I think this will be a matter of opinion, since no one (that i know of) has continued to live after physical death.)
[/quote]

Roger penrose deals with the subject of "what is life?" in his book, "Shadows of the Mind:
A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness". His answer at a layman's level is
that there is new physics to be understood at the boundary seperating "Quantum Mechanics" and "Classical Mechanics", which may answer this question.

Regards.
Bikerman
dark_lard wrote:
Well, since we were designed to live forever, I'm going to say that it's possible to live forever. Although I don't think that we'll see the average age going up much at all and it'll probly keep going down.

There is no evidence that we were designed at all, let alone for eternal life. There is a huge amount of evidence, however, that we were not designed and have evolved.
Quote:

And for someone who says that the bible should not be used in an argument as evidence, think about this.

What are you basing your facts from? Most likely its some sort of published source. Either a post on the internet, a news story, article in a magazine, or even a scientific paper. You take these things for granted until they are proven wrong. Which happens a bit and that okay.

They are rarely proved wrong at all, that's why science is much more reliable than any other system for explaining things. Theories evolve and get incorporated into larger theories. Take Newton's laws of motion. They are still what we use today for nearly all applications. They are wrong, true, but only at incredible speeds or very high accelerations. The openess of scientific theory to being refuted is not a weakness - it is a strength.
Quote:

Now, why do you want to reject the published work that I cite? because you dissagree with my philosophy or beliefs.

What published work ? The bible ? Hardly a scientific publication, more a collection of stories and parables surely
Quote:

The fact is that the bible today has NOT been proven wrong to date. And, like anything you would cite yourself, until it is proven wrong there should be no reason for objections in using it in a friendly discussion. But that's another topic that'll be fun to discuss, just not here. In fact I think i'm going to start one, I like hearing people's thoughts on it.

The bible has been proved 'wrong' so many times it is beyond counting.
It has been constantly 're-interpreted' over time as new science has contradicted previous certainties. As far as I know the reverse has never happened (ie theory had to be changed in the light of some scriptural contradiction). 3 obvious examples would be :
the creation, age, position, shape, movement and size of the earth;
the creation, age and history of life on earth;
Noah's flood

If you want to believe the bible account then fine, but don't imagine there is no evidence to refute the claims made, since there is plenty. You sound like a creationist (ie the bible is literally and historically true) and experience has taught me that debating creationists (or ID as it likes to be called nowadays) is difficult and irritating because they frequently present distorted, invalid or partial accounts of scientific theories which they claim support their case and often lack the intellectual honesty to debate openly. I have debated them frequently on the net and a few times in public forums, so this is not an ill-informed opinion. The latest example would be the Australian ID'er John Mackay who recently toured the country. He was debating a 'scientist' locally so I went to represent CAMRES (Campaign for Real Science) with a colleague. He was exactly what we expected. He had no arguments other than scriptural quotes, and when he tried to use scientific or historical material in support he used a combination of out of context quotes, misapplied references and outright fabrication (it must have been knowingly because the mistakes must have been pointed out before we did so).
I will not say that all creationists are like this, I don't know, but the ones I have met and debated are. The reason is clear - they take a literalist view of testament which is directly contradicted by biology, paeleontology, geology and cosmology. In order to remain viable their only recourse is to setup pseudo-science facilities like Creation Research and the like; publish a huge volume of 'scientific papers' criticising current theory (non of which are ever published in the journals of course), and rely on the few genuine scientists in their camp way beyond their professional and scientific competences - Behe and Dembsky being the cardinal examples.

The religious can believe whatever they like and that is how it should be. When their belief system intrudes on the domain of science, however, and makes claims which can be tested, then they should also expect to be challenged vigorously and, if they are wise, they should get ready for defeat in such cases.

Regards
Chris

PS this is a bit 'strong' for me I know, but this is a subject I have spent a long time on over the years.
I do not mean any of this as a personal attack on Dark Lard or his own beliefs and I would like that to be clear.
Since, however, this is the science forum rather than the religion forum, I consider any religious contributions (ie based on theology or scripture rather than proper peer-reviewed science) to be fair game for proper comment and rigorous critique, and I do not think that religious sensitivities should be spared in such comment.
Inferno619
I think that humans can live up to 100-120 years. But it all just really depends on where you live and how well your health is as you get older and older. If someone takes care of himself well, then he will probably live a pretty long life. If someone is careless and eats whatever he wants to, though, he will not live up to the potential he could have lived.
tijn01
It is an interesting question. I once saw a documentary on telivision where they looked at the aging process as just another disease humand kind has to overcome. To be honest I thought those people were quite weird, and I didn't agree with them at all.
Humankind is already pushing the limits I would say. I think modern medicine still values the quantity of life (age) over the Quality of life. I personally think the emphasis should be on the quality of life. The diffecult aspect in this is that the quality of life is more challenging to measure than the quantity, and even more harder to predict. A surgeon can make a sound indication wether the patient will survive or not, if you ask him the question what will the quality of life be.... he often will fail to give a good indication.
billys
Indi wrote:
Talk2Tom11 wrote:
We cannot live forever. Within our dna we have a 6 base pair pattern that is replicated about 2500 times on each end. The reason for this pattern is because during dna replication (within Cell replication), since our dna is linier and not circular, it falls off the ends.

That may be true naturally, but with artificial means, it may not. If we ever develop nanotechnology to the point that we can repair replication degradation as it happens (say for example, by nanobots inside us that rebuild shortened DNA strands right in the cell), why couldn't we then live practically forever?


Wow, I can't even imagine a world where people will have the ability to live forever. It raises so many ethical questions!!
chrismen
I think that humans can live upward of 100 but not much more than that. Would you even want to?
everyman
adpc88 wrote:
The limit is 122, but im sure that most of the people live less than 80 years


How did you come up with that 122?
age of Jeanne Calment?

Some sources say that oldest people has lived 125 years.
Bikerman
Mdme Pampo of Dominica was supposedly 125-126 yrs old but there is some doubt over the claim. The next would be 122 for Calment.

The average age depends on the sample group and on the measure employed (whether mode {age at which most people die}, median {the middle value} or mean {the average over a group}). The current mean lifespan globally is (I think) around 72/76 (m/f). The modal stats are quite interesting.
A full paper on modal mortality specs is here:
http://camres.frih.net/resources/biology/mortalitystats.pdf (pdf - best version)
http://camres.frih.net/resources/biology/mortalitystats.htm (html - a bit scruffy)

A summary graph is :


Chris.
quadre-squad
depending our food, i think the human age is shorter and shorter than before because we are eat poison every day.
tuncay
I guess the important question then turns out to be how long can we live happily. Now that's the most important thing of all.

When it comes to the extent of the human being's life quota, I think with enough advancement, I do not see a reason to limit the life, unless one can sustain it with necessary hormones, refreshments and such..
minsusales
did any one know how people age. well i according to this documentary called human series. its because of oxygen. oxygen is a very reactive substance that destroy our body cell when we use. these oxygen m,olecules sumtimes even form oxygen radicals creating tremendous damage to our bodies. these oxygen molecules will also destroy our genes and that is why we age
sarapicoazul
Only god knows !
vanille
You know, it says in the Bible that we're only allowed to live 112 years...but aren't there people who've lived longer?

I think that I could assume over a 100 but less then 200 years, considering medical advancement and improving lifestyle. But then it also counts on where you leave (pollution, etc.) and genetics.

Turtles don't die of old age right? They only die because of sickness and such. I wouldn't mind learning that secret!
Infensus
Wow I never realized we could live to 122 years
sarapicoazul
trees live longer
TrappedInAPsychosBody
zarky wrote:
How many years do you think a human can live.
If you believe in the Bible; one person lived to be over 700.
Regular; somewhere over 110?
Revvion
i think it depends on both our technological level and at how we will evolve, you never know how humans will change now we get older then before, who knows maybe in some very distant future we are still as healthy on the age op 80 as we are 20 now.
watchftp
People are living longer than before ... average life expectancy is going up with advance in healthcare...
After retirement used to be just a wait for the end of life.... but now we can have a life after retirement.
buihuuloc
I think, we can't defind exactly, how long you and me can alive in the world. Because, If you still live but everyone don't think you live, it's mean they don't care everythings of you, then you die.
That's so
therimalaya
As much as we want to... Feel happy, You will be living then.
enilsoncba
zarky wrote:
How many years do you think a human can live.



We know that the goal of life is the pursuit of happiness, that everyone already knows, but ...
And you know what your purpose? The response of the purpose of life is survival and reproduction.
Then answer those days live on average a human being? If you think it is millions, billions is very wrong.
Well the average is 77.4 years of world population, then respond as if 28,251 days. Even if you live up to its 100 years it would only be 36,500 days. So live life intensely! You spend one third of your life sleeping, so you spend 9417 days sleeping. And about 5,500 days watching television or playing video games, or the Internet. He left over 13,334 days for sightseeing, dating, traveling. The problem is how many of those 13,334 days we stressed, disappointed or sad? Some 3334 days played out. Even if you still happy you about 10,000 days. Of these 28,251 spent on average 6 hours working doing 1/6 to 4708 hours working. He left over 5292 days HAPPY! Or 14 happy years.
linux1993
About 150 years in a country in Japan. People there all live very carefully~~
mazito
linux1993 wrote:
About 150 years in a country in Japan. People there all live very carefully~~


check this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

surprisingly among the oldest 10, 5 are usa , 1 canada, 1 france, 2 japan and 1 ecuador

and there is 2 calims both in usa
Johnlord
I watched a documentary on centurions. People who have lived beyond 100. One of the more facinating people on there was a woman who lived to be 115. The facinating part was that she smoked a pack a day for the last 95 years of her life. How well we take care of ourselves certainly has impact, but the main factor governing longevity is genetics. Living to be 122 and resembling the crypt keeper bound to a chair with fading senses seems more a curse than a goal. Be careful what you wish for.
spinout
The longest reach is if you are vegetarian and never stress. But what kind of life is that?
Pippo90
Transhumanism is an intellectual movement which believes that, thanks to the amazing fast improvements in our science and technology, we may even be able to see immortality becoming true in 50 years or so. Personally, I truly hope so! Cool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
Bikerman
'Intellectual' is a relative term - personally I don't regard transhumanism as an intellectual movement, rather a movement of a half-dozen academics who have basically driven it, That would include More, Morrow, Bostom, Drexler & Pearce (can't remember any more and can't be bothered googling it).
I don't think you can really call it a movement until there is a bit more 'muscle' behind it than this small number - more of a movement in waiting - I suppose we could call it a restless stasis Smile

Personally I think they are mainly talking crap, and they do piss-me-off somewhat. I remember reading a paper by a group from the main TH organisation - (Human Plus, or something of the kind) and thinking it was a rather fatuous and completely speculative piece of fancy, especially when it turned to consider post-enlightenment ethical/moral development. Give me a break. We haven't sorted HUMAN ethics/morality and they would be better employed, in my opinion, addressing some current and near-future issues of ethics, rather than imagining a possible future where humans can live forever. Even if it proves possible, and I have many doubts, then that doesn't make is desirable. We can't deal NOW with food and water allocation globally - and we currently have millions dying and keeping the problem in some sort of manageable bounds. I find it rather unsettling and uncomfortable to hear Western thinkers talking about living hugely extended lifespans (and be clear, this is very much a developed-country 'thing') when we can't even manage to ensure that 6-8 Million kids per year can survive to enjoy the 60 or 70 years we currently have. It feels a bit narcissistic, self-regarding and...well other words, involving arses and being up them.....
That's a very personal take - and others might feel very differently, of course....

I WILL make one strong prediction. It won't happen, or be anywhere close to happening, in the next 50 years, or the next hundred.....I won't be around to check either way, but if I'm wrong then someone reading might well be....
abhinavm24
as long as i'm here to reply to ur post!!!
Wink
Bikerman
Well, I don't say it is impossible, but I wouldn't put the odds in integers.
Remember, the last great excitement in this area was over cryogenic 'freezing'. Thousands of people had themselves frozen, expecting to 'come back' when the technology catches up....,silly sods. All they had to do was put a cucumber in the freezer for a few hours, defrost it, and see how much of the original was still around Smile
The biological hurdles are enormous and may possibly be insurmountable. I think the only possible hope you might have is with consciousness transfer - transferring your memories and consciousness to a mechanical or biological 'backing store' which could be maintained indefinitely. That isn't, however, immortality in any meaningful sense because the backing store is NOT you and you still die.

In fact it isn't, to my mind, a sensible thing to do, since humans are pretty cheap to make, so why spend huge amounts trying to run old and obsolete models when it is much easier to simply make some new ones?

People sometimes use the 'we could have saved Einstein' argument, but that is a poor argument. By the time Einstein reached the last decade of life he was already a spent force in physics and if it HAD been possible to keep him going indefinitely then it would probably have retarded science noticeably.
Bikerman
Well, I don't say it is impossible, but I wouldn't put the odds in integers.
Remember, the last great excitement in this area was over cryogenic 'freezing'. Thousands of people had themselves frozen, expecting to 'come back' when the technology catches up....,silly sods. All they had to do was put a cucumber in the freezer for a few hours, defrost it, and see how much of the original was still around Smile
The biological hurdles are enormous and may possibly be insurmountable. I think the only possible hope you might have is with consciousness transfer - transferring your memories and consciousness to a mechanical or biological 'backing store' which could be maintained indefinitely. That isn't, however, immortality in any meaningful sense because the backing store is NOT you and you still die.

In fact it isn't, to my mind, a sensible thing to do, since humans are pretty cheap to make, so why spend huge amounts trying to run old and obsolete models when it is much easier to simply make some new ones?

People sometimes use the 'we could have saved Einstein' argument, but that is a poor argument. By the time Einstein reached the last decade of life he was already a spent force in physics and if it HAD been possible to keep him going indefinitely then it would probably have retarded science noticeably.
harrer
Theoretically, there is no defined age limit.
Bikerman
Really? Which publication or institute of theoretical gerontology did this come from?
asnani04
We CAN live for more than a hundred years, or may die a natural death even before we turn 50, and it all depends on multiple factors like the environment where we live, our health and nutrition status right from childhood, and our mental state and general outlook towards life.
chatrack
In a good healthy person, up to 120 years in average.. I think
Ankhanu
chatrack wrote:
In a good healthy person, up to 120 years in average.. I think

That would be a maximum, not average... in most advanced societies averages are in the high 70s to low 80s, with most other nations being below that.
122 is the oldest verified human lifespan, with 119 being the runner up. These are crazy exceptions, not averages by any means. (see, that right there was a pun...)
back_to_grandma
I'm currently a medical student and my professors have stated that an average generation X'er with health insurance can reasonably expect to live between 90-100. Granted, some people have genes that are going to screw them over in ways medicine is in no way ready to deal with.
mshafiq
I think it totally depends on nature.We cannot determine how long we gona survive.
Bikerman
mshafiq wrote:
I think it totally depends on nature.We cannot determine how long we gona survive.
I'll be kind and say that this is a rather naive statement, rather than being less kind and saying it is an idiotic one.
OF COURSE we can influence the human lifespan and WE HAVE. The average lifespan has more than doubled over the last couple of centuries. The figure cited by back_to_grandma doesn't seem to me to be far wrong. Certainly life expectancy is in the 80s - the exact figure depends on which stats you select.
Related topics
what about the frihost's free hosting ?
Rate us at ClickHereFree!
Mad Cow
My list of musics
haven of metal fans
What would you do with your life if you can live forever ?
MIT's $100 laptop
My complaint with today's music
Nirvana
South Park
Share your experience on frihost
Welcome to Alrofaee Graphics website !
Have you given up on FM radio?
Free Full Game comming out soon
Stanley "Tookie" Williams
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.