It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. Cancer-causing nuclear mutations/epimutations:
These are changes to the nuclear DNA (nDNA), the molecule that contains our genetic information, or to proteins which bind to the nDNA. Certain mutations can lead to cancer, and, according to de Grey, non-cancerous mutations and epimutations do not contribute to aging within a normal lifespan, so cancer is the only endpoint of these types of damage that must be addressed.
2. Mitochondrial mutations:
Mitochondria are components in our cells that are important for energy production. They contain their own genetic material, and mutations to their DNA can affect a cell’s ability to function properly. Indirectly, these mutations may accelerate many aspects of aging.
3. Intracellular junk:
Our cells are constantly breaking down proteins and other molecules that are no longer useful or which can be harmful. Those molecules which can’t be digested simply accumulate as junk inside our cells. Atherosclerosis, macular degeneration and all kinds of neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer's disease) are associated with this problem.
4. Extracellular junk:
Harmful junk protein can also accumulate outside of our cells. The amyloid plaque seen in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients is one example.
5. Cell loss:
Some of the cells in our bodies cannot be replaced, or can only be replaced very slowly - more slowly than they die. This decrease in cell number causes the heart to become weaker with age, and it also causes Parkinson's disease and impairs the immune system.
6. Cell senescence:
This is a phenomenon where the cells are no longer able to divide, but also do not die and let others divide. They may also do other things that they’re not supposed to, like secreting proteins that could be harmful. Immune senescence and type 2 diabetes are caused by this.
7. Extracellular crosslinks:
Cells are held together by special linking proteins. When too many cross-links form between cells in a tissue, the tissue can lose its elasticity and cause problems including arterioscerosis and presbyopia.
Source - en.wikipedia.org...
The engineering (SENS) strategy is not to interfere with metabolism per se, but to repair or obviate the accumulating damage and thereby indefinitely postpone the age at which it reaches pathogenic levels.
This is practical because it avoids both of the problems with the other approaches: it sidesteps our ignorance of metabolism (because it does not attempt to interfere with metabolic processes and their production of side-effects) but also it pre-empts the chaos of pathology (because it repairs the precursors of pathology, rather than addressing the pathology head-on).
Source - www.mfoundation.org...
Originally posted by Kruel
And Nohup, if you didn't have to worry about dying, you might be more inclined to find ways to achieve a more fulfilling existence.
Originally posted by Argos
I want many lifetimes to explore knowledge, the universe, spirituality, evolution i could go on and on and the sacrifice of getting by in the world would be worth that for me but then i am still young, what would i know.
If you see a journey full of pain, anguish, solitude, poverty and loads of other negative aspects then why would you want to live many lifespans.
At the same time though if you can see that lifespan full of expanded knowledge, wealth, advanced communities and lots of positive aspects then you would want to experience that for as long as possible.
Originally posted by TheoOne
I still have a question that nobody has answered, or yet.
By living forever, would it help Earth's population control at all?
Originally posted by Argos
And in terms of the next generation you have too think of the world in different terms. If you had a 1000 years to have kids families would last much longer and a family might have a new addition every hundred years or so. On those terms it could actually solve over population because there isn't any rush.
If i had the choice i might have 3-4 kids in my 1000 year lifespan, where as the conventional method we use today in a thousand years time i might have 100's of kids grand kids so on and so forth.
Originally posted by NGC2736
IMO, it's not the concept of a thousand years, or even ten thousand, that is wrong. It is the concept of "not now, I have plenty of time". It's not the numbered years, but what we do with them. Time has no meaning to actions of the heart, and the heart has no meaning to time.