It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will we live to be in our late hundreds? It is becoming possible!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
With all of the modern advancements in medicines and such, will it be possible for us humans to live to be in our mid to late hundreds? I believe so. To many aging is like every other disease. There has to be a cure for it. anti aging shot? There is already research being done on this. Me personally I would love to lkive to be 175
And the best part these researchers say that it wont be like you think it would be at 175. they say you'll be youthful and be able to go do things. possibly at 80 go to college and change careers. here is the link please give me your opinion.
artical bbc news

[edit on 26-6-2006 by l0rds0fcha0s]




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   


Source

At some point in the future, as medicine becomes more and more powerful, people will inevitably be able to address ageing just as effectively as they address many other diseases, says Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey.

As a result none of our old age would be lived in frailty, debility and dependence. People would be youthful, both physically and mentally, right up to the end, he says.


Until researchers learn how to reverse the effects of aging, I can’t see any reason to live that long. There are just too many things that can go wrong with the human body. I’m almost 53. If someone told me that I still had almost 125 years left, I’d probably freak. As I grow older, my conditions worsen. Knowledge in medical science is very limited.

Another consideration is overpopulation. Jobs and housing for all those people will be in short supply. And if people will be youthful, both physically and mentally, right up to the end, what causes the end? I’d rather have quality of life rather than quantity.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I wouldnt mind living forever. Would be cool to see and be involved in the future.
Of course if I am a robot with my head attached, I dont know.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Humans can't even cure cancer, how would we be able to live up to 150+ years...



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
uh we an cure cancer,but cancer is a huge money making industry. if scientist gave the cure cancer specialist, chemotherapy. would all be out of business an there would be no reason for people to spend millions a year on medicine to keep down symptoms.

as a matter of fact there could be cure to hundreds of things uncureable.

if u had the cure to cancer but i gave me a million dollars every couple days to radiate u while on a table,what would u choose



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DalairTheGreat
uh we an cure cancer,but cancer is a huge money making industry. if scientist gave the cure cancer specialist, chemotherapy. would all be out of business an there would be no reason for people to spend millions a year on medicine to keep down symptoms.

as a matter of fact there could be cure to hundreds of things uncureable.

if u had the cure to cancer but i gave me a million dollars every couple days to radiate u while on a table,what would u choose


thats rediculous. You've spent to much time on conspiracy boards. I suppose you also believe we have free energy...but are keeping it secret, and anti-grav vehicles...but are keeping it secret.



Many cancers are curable...whether that means surgery, kemo, or radiation treatments. Were getting better at detecting different types of cancers, which is an important step. I hope by 2025 that cancer will be a solvable problem...by perhaps a simple shot, or a pill. nanotechnology is whats changing the game.


and things like the common cold...its a virus, which are ever changing...hence why we cant just cure it.

I dont thing that we will be able to live till were in our upper hundreds. But I do think that people living longer, that number will continue to rise. But not as fast as you think. I believe that average death age is around 75-80. And in around 50 years or so...I think it will be around 100.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I have heard about this before. The real fact is that at age 94 (i do believe) the physical condition of the body stops aging. You dont more wrinkly or smaller, your done 'growing up' until you die. If scientists, (which is what the study is about) can lower the non-progression age from 94 to say 40, at the age of 40 we'd all stop aging. Physically. Still, your mind and memory would still keep slumping, and ammonia levels in your body would still continue to rise, which would still cause death. (thats what causes it now, people dont die from 'old age'.)

Besides that, people cannot ever ever live forever, you can never become immortal. Falling off a building or getting hit with a car bomb or being decapitated would end your life, no matter what.

Since ive got the physical aspect of it out of the way and the immortality subject cleared off, time to get to my opinion. I would love to live to 500, i know i;d be one hell of a drummer and guitarist, and id be awsome at everything i did, as well as everyone else. But why? whats the point of living for a couple hundred years? youd get crowded, bored, and you'd really miss the good old days. As said before, it would get over populated and the earth would run out of resources.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
i thought aging was due to proteins mutating or something like that..
anyway would be really cool if we where still healthy at say 200 years.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Isn't aging caused by the wearing down of cells quality as they reproduce.
Like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy etc.
So if you could stop the degeneration you could live until you're done in by something else.

[edit on 063030p://41066 by The Anti Chris]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
To live even to 100 is an acheivement, considering we only lived to our 40's around 1000 years ago. If we ever do live to 150+, would robotic implants be the norm? Artificial heart, prosthetic legs, synthetic skin, like some sort of cyborg.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf


Source

At some point in the future, as medicine becomes more and more powerful, people will inevitably be able to address ageing just as effectively as they address many other diseases, says Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey.




Did anyone else catch that phrase "as effectively as they address many other diseases,"?

Do we consider ageing to be a disease? I don't, it's a part of the natural course of things.

As for living so much longer, maybe it's because I developed chronic illness in my early 30's, or maybe it's because we are currently watching the world come apart at the seams, but no, I am perfectly happy with the human condition as it was meant to be, I have no interest in extending my life that far.

The irony of it would be being able to extend our lives to that extent all the while continuing to take for granted the world we live on. Living forever on a compromised earth holds no attraction for me.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
While we often hear reports of a lengthening lifespan, I believe the opposite is the reality, despite all of our technical/medical advances.

While my Mother and Grandmother, and a good many others in their 'peer groups', are commonly living into their nineties.....albeit, thru semi artifical means, I believe those of us who are children of this group will not live nearly so long.....nor be as hardy as they were.

I find that when I read the obituaries, there will be MORE people in their 50's and 60's than there are in the 90's or even 80's. Perhaps one could say this happens because there are just more people in the younger group, and fewer left of the older folks. Yet it seems to follow this pattern, even in a small town where so many of the younger people have moved away, leaving a somewhat older population in the majority. ( four to one in last weeks paper )

I think a large part of this may be that the 'children of the fifties and even sixties' were exposed to more untested chemicals, ( food additives, preservatives, and even medicines) than our parents and grandparents ever were. We were Dupont's little guinea pigs......and were fed MANY things that have since been banned.

Perhaps when we die out, the average age will continue to rise, but we still have many things in our food and medicines that have unknown side effects, so I wonder.

.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Having been involved in research into the human Genome project there are a number of discoveries that have not been released as of yet.

The biggest of these discoveries is that all the methods known to produce extension of life span all have a common link.

That link is the reduction of free radicals, the waste products created by the mitochondrion

Free radicals cause damage to DNA and so can cause mutation - it is this mutation that causes the effects of old age.

Life forms that have long life spans in proportion to their body size all exhibit enhanced ways of destroying free radicals.

Now for the BIG NEWS.....

We have identified a gene that is present in all mammals, when this gene is switched on it produces an Enzyme that will hunt and soak up excess free radicals within the body.

This method does not reduce the amount of free radicals the mitochondrion produces but will seriously reduce the amount that enter our bodies through our food / drink and everyday living.

The effects of this???

Double or even triple Life span....

It has already been tested on mice and shown to work.

Will it work on Humans???

Well if it works for mice then it normally means that it would work for us too so I am willing to bet yes it will work.

Now for the BEST NEWS EVER!!!!

This is something that can happen to all that are alive today. It is possible to create a proto virus that will enter the body and literally switch this gene on.....

now for the mind blowing stuff......

So will this ever happen??

YES!!! and there is nothing the governments of the world or the rich or any body can do about it. why???

Because this proto virus once released could not be contained, it will be transmitted around the world without the need for a conscious effort. a global pandemic of the positive kind.

This is not fantasy, this is potential of an actual true to life discovery. Now is the best time to be alive in the history of the world.

HOWEVER.....

Our society has to change, life has a very different meaning the moment you could live to 160 - 250 years....

One thing is for sure, we would have to have better control over our population and our environment to be able to make a success out of it.

But just think, what if people such as Einstein could have lived just a little longer, what would his discoveries have been?

How much more accelerated our development as a species would be???

That is the exciting part about all this, we could all achieve so much more the moment we live longer.

I hope that puts some spring in your steps and a smile on your faces
just one thing.... PLEASE PLEASE BE CAREFULL it would be an awful shame to die by an accident at this point, take good care of you in this moment and you will have the chance to do all the things you want to.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Neon Haze]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
great post neonhaze. I really hope what you say is true. I personally am one of those people that is afraid of death and I would love to live to be 160 -250. why? I would get to see great great great great great great grand children i otherwise wouldn't. I would be able to do so many things. If this ever becomes possible, there would have to be a 1 or 2 child limit per house, unless the first born was a boy, then that be it. the male can reproduce and carry o the name.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by l0rds0fcha0s
If this ever becomes possible, there would have to be a 1 or 2 child limit per house, unless the first born was a boy, then that be it. the male can reproduce and carry o the name.


Are you kidding? Who's going to be contributing to My Social Security if we all live that long. They better start pumping out the kids and fast.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by l0rds0fcha0s
If this ever becomes possible, there would have to be a 1 or 2 child limit per house, unless the first born was a boy, then that be it. the male can reproduce and carry o the name.


Are you kidding? Who's going to be contributing to My Social Security if we all live that long. They better start pumping out the kids and fast.


You are. Come to think of it, I'm within a decade or so of collecting SS... so ya better get out there and start doing something to support me!

Seriously, many retirees are going back to work in order to be able to have some sort of lifestyle and health care. We'll see better options for older workers (and perhaps a social pattern of working to 50, retiring for a decade, and then going back to work for another 20 years.)



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
the real 'controllers' already have 'indefinite' medicine and are over 500yrs old...if you wanna look for it check this site...
www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com...

By indefinite, they have cracked the aging gene and can live on and on, unless they get blown up etc

LOL



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
biological immortality is a worthy goal. social security was started when the majority of people died off before reaching 65. that is no longer the case and ss, like the rest of our economy is falling fast. if the government sold off all the assets they own illegally (check the constitution for the list) and gave back to every citizen a lump sum of the money they paid in over their life time then people would have a huge chunk of money to invest, save, etc. if they spent it unwisely-tough. if we ever hope to live beyond our current life span we better quit expecting someone else to be responsible for our maintenance. in fact we, as a nation, need to change our attitude on a multitude of topics or we won't be worthy of the gift of extended life span.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
In the eighteenth century, we added a few days every year to human longevity; during the nineteenth century we added a couple of weeks each year; and now we're adding almost a half a year every year. With the revolutions in genomics, proteomics, rational drug design, therapeutic cloning of our own organs and tissues, and related developments in bio-information sciences, we will be adding more than a year every year within ten years



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
to the one who said "we only lived to 40-50 years old a thousand years ago" i offer this reference: the bible. moses wrote (about 3,500 years ago) that "the measure of a mans life is 3 score and 10 (70 years), and if by measure of strength, 4 score" (80 years old). we live as long now as we always have but there have been times in history when, due to plague, environmental hardships, etc. our life spans were reduced overall. i remember being told as a child that the average lifespan of people 100-200 years ago was 40 years old. there was a huge infant mortality rate during the western expansion of this country so that if half the population lived to be 100 and the other half died at birth, the "average" life span would be 50 years old. lies, damned lies and statistics.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join