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.

 

Scientists Find Genes for Extremely Long Life

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Scientists Find Genes for Extremely Long Life


www.linksalpha.com

Reaching immortality is still in the realm of science fiction. But using clues from our genes, scientists are one step closer to understanding why some of us live to be centenarians while others don't.

Using a specific set of genetic markers, scientists predicted with 77-percent accuracy whether someone would live to a very old age.

The findings do not mean that lifestyle factors, such as healthy diet and exercise, are not important for long life. Indeed, 23 percent of the time the genetic
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   


Could this be the break-through needed in order to extend human life to a level unheard of before? Of course, our level of current technology has allowed us to live longer as a whole on average, but we haven't been able to really push the limits. Could this be it? Think about the implications of this find.

If you were given a chance to live to an average of 120 years or even longer, would you take it? I know that I would. To be able to see my great grand children or even great-great grand children, would be something to behold.

If you think about it, our bodies are only designed to take us to 50 years or so. Naturally, we should only be living until our children are old enough to strike out on their own but due to our leaps in healthy living, technology and other factors, we have been able to push that back to an average of around 70 - 75 years. In the near future, we may just be able to defy nature to a greater extent and push our life spans even further.

Some may not agree with this or think that it's right, but I say, why not.

--airspoon


www.linksalpha.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
i wonder if maybe they got it 100% correct only didn't account for other diseases that just get tossed in the "natural death" explanation.

sounds pretty complicated, hopefully long life would include some type of regeneration. otherwise i think you can count me out. just imagine being forced to stay alive while your body deteriorates.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I don't think you're reading it right. It's said that in most cases centenarians have these genes. That means, if they genetically engineered people to have this gene activated then many more people would reach past 100. I don't think it has anything to do with extending the theoretical lifespan of human beings on the whole. There still seems to be a theoretical limit of 125-190, and this is based on telemores. Interestingly, I've read that things like acting compassionately may actually extend the length of these telemores
I'm not sure about the validity of this, though.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Why does the link send me to a story on Al-queda? What is this trickery!!!!

Here is a different link if anyone else has trouble with the first one.


www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
No....i think its morally repulsive and a detriment to society for each and every human to live as long as science is going to make possible.

Am i saying i want to die? no but i think living to 200 is a little 2 much. who would even WANT to live that long? think about it.....would you want to be a old person with skin that will bruise and bleed at the smallest trauma? what about grey hair. What about the old people smell.

The older you get the more complications of memory and cognitive functions arise.

No....just thinking about the damage such a thing would bring on society as a whole sends shivers up my spine.

People who want to live that long are being kinda greedy IMO.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon

If you think about it, our bodies are only designed to take us to 50 years or so. Naturally, we should only be living until our children are old enough to strike out on their own but due to our leaps in healthy living, technology and other factors, we have been able to push that back to an average of around 70 - 75 years.


I do think that it would be wonderful for people to be able to live 100 years or better if we can give them good quality of life.

However, (and thats always a sign when I say that lol) the myth that we only lived 40-50 years and that science has expanded that into our 70's is a mistake based on a misunderstanding of statistics.

While it is TRUE, that the average person died at 40ish less than a hundred years ago, this does not mean that most adults died at 40ish. When you average people and their age of death, you include infant mortality which was at the turn of the last century and prior, quite high. If you lived to adult hood, you lived almost as long as we do now. Some more reasonable estimates of the actual years added to our life span as adults by modern medicine are between 5-7 years.

Medical science does nothing to change this misperception, as it only adds to their god-like image in the minds of some, but I have made it my personal holy war to get people to stop repeating bad data.

Sorry, continue with the thread now.




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by proudcaptalist
 



Check back in with us when you are in your late 60's early 70's and we will see if you change your tune. Lol.

a) I personally dont think it would cause all that much damage to society, if we restructured a little.

b) You are also assuming that medical science will never find a way to slow physical aging as well as extend life.

c) If we dont slow physical aging, you wont notice the old person smell because your sense of smell will deteriorate, and other people can just spray me with Febreeze if they are bothered. I personally think my dirty Depends will mask the old person odor, but hey, who knows.

d) Elderly people are not useless, they hold tons of information, and are important repositories of culture and wisdom. Well, some of them are.

e) I wouldnt mind living at least to 100, (although my family usually doesnt) because I would have the opportunity to cram even more random knowledge into my brain and who knows what might congeal in there.


Dont be such an ageist. If you are lucky you will smell like mothballs and Depends too someday.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
On one hand it sounds great but it brings a myriad of issues on the other hand. Population issues are the first that come to mind. What would become of retirement age and what would need to be changed throughout the working years to fund living a longer life? Just a few questions that entered my mind.

I often question "how far is too far" in "interfering" with nature. I realize we've already extended our lives by decades by doing so but wonder if there should be some limits. I don't confine this train of thought to only this matter either. There's a lot of questions that go along with the "long life gene" and I'm honestly unsure exactly where I stand with it. Regardless of my opinion, it's an interesting topic.

PS: The link was taking me to a different story.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I was only saying 50 or so, as being the age that our bodies were designed to live until, in evolution terms. Without medicines, hospitals, our over abundance of food or even our relative health standards, 50 is when our bodies start to decline. Through technology such as farming, medicine and health care, we have been able to sustain a life much longer. Think about it, 40 or 50 years of age, is when your body starts to go into a decline, which would make it harder to catch food or fight off predators.

Naturally speaking, we reach sexual maturity at around 12 or 13 which enables us to reproduce and raise our young while our bodies are still "healthy" (in the wild). However, through thousands of years of evolution and technology, we have reached a point where our lives are still relevant past 40 or 50.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I dont think you are understanding the importance of culture to the human species.

Take a couple 13-16 year olds out into the wild, and a couple of 50 year olds who have spent their whole lives living in the wild and turn them loose separately.

Which group do you think is going to survive? It aint the teenagers.

You need less physical strength if you know stuff. How to make traps, what to look for, the signs of the seasons, just random stuff. Humans do not survive on brute strength alone. They survive because we are smart. And if you have a lot of experience, (as an older person) you raise the survival rate of the whole group by sharing your experience with those who are young and healthy enough to make the best use of it.

There is a reason tribes have "elders" they look to, and question about important decisions. Its the way it used to be. They can also free up the younger adults to go hunt and gather by watching the infants and small children. Old people were not just useless tag alongs dragging down groups of people. They were part of our survival strategy that has allowed us to dominate.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Yes, these days an older person would survive over a teenegaer, however look back 100,000 years or so. It took strength and health to survive. Also, the teenagers of today and those of 100k years ago are two completely different species almost. While today a 50 year old would far better than a 16 year old, it's only because our species has evolved in such a manner (due to our technology and learned behaviors).

You have to think, why does the human body start to give out around 40 or 50? It's because nature had only designed us to live long enough to raise our young. However, due to our brains, we are able to live much longer. The fittest and most mentally sharp people would get the food and ward off predators. If you couldn't keep up with pack, pull your own weight or quickly climb a tree when a lion was chasing you down, your chances of survival were less than someone with better abilities.

With this being said, I believe due to our brains and the technology created from our brains, our bodies and even instincts have evolved to reflect our current circumstances. Think about it, there is a reason why our bodies move into decline at a certain age and that is when we used to die off. That is an evolutionary trait that can hopefully be over-come by our technology, at least at a faster pace than ordinary evolutional change.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
People living longer could solve lots of problems in the world, the basic reason why this world is such a rat race is because of the replication issue based on biology/evolution the cell must split in two and replicate it can afford to it has the means and space, but what is the thing with this fast deterioration of the biggest cellular creatures that cant afford to propagate and don't need to in such a short time "humans". I mean think on it why, it makes no sense to propagate so much, having kids and all that we are already reaching the maximum level of containable living. Sure one can always make or get more resources for propagation but why what for, to have more kids and more humans it just leads to more cramped space and problems and its not like were going evolve much more biologically what would we need more legs or arms or a bigger brain. I mean I get why in ages past it was this live, eat, grow, spread, multiply, then die, it was in the interest of the organism to thrive in such an harsh multitudes of environment's. Therefore hairy monkeys in families in caves to tribes to villages to city's, to hairless monkeys in states and countries all a form of survival to thrive in the environment of the day with all the life or death tribulations of the day. One must life do ones duty to let the offspring go on. So it makes no sense were today one lives till about 80 and dies and lets the offspring go on to do the same, in fact its insanity and really bad programing on the part of mother nature or whatever is in the know, even if its just random survival its still not in the interest of being to make more beings.

In the world of today would it not make more sense to expand the lifespans of humans to not deteriorate so fast, say if the average human deteriorated in about 300 years instead of 60, it would solve a lot of problems first things would be more calm since there would be more time to do and experience this world and even to master any skill it would require extreme dedication and a lifetime. To master two skill it would not be possible because you would be dead then the offspring would be have to go on basically from scratch then one would have to set in stone or paper experiences which would become law or worse create systems of thought or memory to guide, or even systems to rule such short lived and hectic creatures to bring some sort of order. If humans would live longer it wouldn't automatically solve the worlds problems, but it would begin to change literally everything from living space to technology's to how we deal with ourself and others to the very nature of thought and being. We haven't reached any level of sustainable life yet, so I guess nature is just doing what it does best, anything it has to, make this thing called life work. These scientists instead of trying to find some gene to turn on, or even to expand the genes or the telemores they should try finding or getting rid of the thing that make the degeneration counter/clock telemores appear in the first place. After all we die because we have in our body and genes a clock that says "ok you reached this age no more regeneration/healing for you time to replicate and move on" Unless there really is a grim reaper, I wonder if he really wears a cool cloak and has a sickle and has a list like Santa Claus that he goes by. I'm just ranting now ok that is all.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon

If you were given a chance to live to an average of 120 years or even longer, would you take it? I know that I would. To be able to see my great grand children or even great-great grand children, would be something to behold.


people in Africa already do live long enough to see their great, great grandchildren. It's just in those countries everyone has babies in their teens. I'm just saying..

but personally I'd only want to live a long time if I could do and put whatever I wanted in my body. And that just wouldnt work.

and I sure as hell wouldnt want to work until I'm 110 or whatever the new retirement age would be. snip that noise



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon

Yes, these days an older person would survive over a teenegaer, however look back 100,000 years or so. It took strength and health to survive. Also, the teenagers of today and those of 100k years ago are two completely different species almost. While today a 50 year old would far better than a 16 year old, it's only because our species has evolved in such a manner (due to our technology and learned behaviors).



You just arent getting WHY our society has evolved that way. Groups with elders, waaaaaaaay back 100,000 years ago, out competed groups without them.

As long as we have been anything we can call human, it is our elders, and our culture transmitted via them, that have enabled the remarkable success of our species. Our technology is not creating elders, our elders have been instrumental in creating technology.

You have the buggy pulling the horse, instead of the right way around. And CLEARLY we are not meant to just be reproducers, or menopause in particular would not have become so dominant in our species. An older group of non-reproductive humans is beneficial to the group, or it would not have become a universal trait in the half of the population that physically has children.

There may be a few differing explanations about particulars about how this functions, but the benefit of menopause it to allow women to live longer. (As risk of death in childbirth increases with age) and this MUST be more beneficial than just having baby after baby or it would not be the norm in our species. There must have been a time when both those who did and did not undergo menopause were both alive together, probably a long time, and one did more poorly than the other. The one that favored the existence of elders won.

Clearly, even 100,000 years ago, having elders was benefiting us. All bodies age and wear out. Ours last remarkably long for mammals, with our metabolism, and this is because the wisdom/culture that accrues in people over the course of their lives, was crucial to our competitive advantage over other species.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I disagree airspoon. If you can't climb a tree fast enough to escpae a predator in the wild it does not mean your life is less relevant or meaningful. Because as Illusionsaregrander has been trying to explain to you, a smart older and wiser person would know to avoid dangerous areas where lions and the like are a threat. In the same way that edible berries or even inedible yams and roots from the ground can be eaten due to knowledge and wisdom about both the process of gathering these foods and their preparation, so that actually our physical prowess becomes the least important factor in our survival.

Only the weakest primitive cultures wasted so much energy in physical exertion, and the strongest invested that energy into their thoughts.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
But to take this thread into another avenue of discussion, perhaps a parallel, interwoven piece of thread as opposed to a tangle...

I believe that compassionate feelings and a genuinely happy existence leads to longer life. I can provide some links with evidence to support this claim, but first i want to address some of the implications, and hopefully spark a discussion from there.

Firstly, is it morally okay to even consider unnaturally evolving our species so that we live longer? I mean think about it, our bodies live to the age they live to for a reason. And even by reading through the posts in this thread, we can clearly see that some individuals have a negative life perspective and the idea of living beyond our natural limitations doesn't appeal to them. I believe that such people hold these beliefs because their experience thus far has been mostly negative, and therefore i don't think it would be possible for their bodies to survive much longer than the average individual, because they wont have had the same emotions and rhythms in their lifestyle as someone who has been surrounded by a compassionate and happy community.

So in my opinion i think it is morally wrong for such a person to be born with an artificially modified genetic code. Because if lets say that person suffers a great deal of traumatic stress during their teens and early childhood, knows very little of compassion, and suffers almost constantly from unbearable anxiety throughout their life, it would only serve the purpose of extending their unpleasant existence if their genes had been altered so they live to say 200. And what would become of their psychology after such a long time living in their subjective nightmare of a reality (in comparison)!? Are we going to have to be burdened by their catatonic physically dependant bodies for the remaining 130 years of their miserable life?

So instead lets ask ourselves, is this a happy and compassionate community? And to the extent that we believe purpose and fulfilment can still be achieved after 200 years of living? I really don't think as a global community anyway that this answer can ever be "yes" given our current political system and existential belief or non belief systems.

And lastly, perhaps when we can truly say yes, this global human community is compassionate and happy, we may even realise how obsolete such genetic modifications are as the experience of a 70 year existence becomes far more fulfilling than a 200 year non-compassionate and fulfilling life.

any thoughts?



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Important issue. I think this is the first time I haven't agreed with you, but perhaps you haven't thought as far into this issue as I have...

The immediate concern is overpopulation. But I'm not completely talking about the issue of overpopulation itself (which is an important aspect), but in particular how the Ruling Elites have to be concerned about the masses all being able to live longer. The elites don't even intend to limit their lifespans to a mere 120, they intend to have indefinite life spans via various Radical Life Extension technologies. More about this in a minute...

But lets step back to the issue of overpopulation itself. I'm a major critic of Malthusian 'carrying capacity' theory... until we begin to factor in extreme life spans. For a time Malthusian theory actually appeared to be right after all, as the global life expectancy rates began to double and more. If we doubled the life spans of everyone again, while the population is still climbing anyways, I argue we really would be faced with such a scenario.

And so would the elites, and about half the population, especially the selfish who want it all for themselves. What happens next is a global agenda of either forced population reduction schemes, or at the very least "Shame Society" stigmatization of having more than one child (which leads to brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins AKA larger more cohesive families).

Therefore we have to mull over the ethics of limiting future lives from being able to exist and enjoy the human/earth experience of life. Who are we to limit the lives who have every right to take part in what we all have, just because we want to live 2X longer? The argument could be taken to an extreme bordering on a twisted sort of genocide. The earth has always been based on the cycle of life. I argue that by breaking the cycle of life we're going against the notion of life, all because we want to live forever, and inherently that's the case. And then of course the ethical issues transfer over into realms such as how we'll be able to live 2X longer, but not everyone else can live 1/4 as long.

Now this brings me back to the elites...

I've been arguing for years now that the elites have every intention of living 'forever', while preventing the masses from taking part. Sadly I don't feel enough people have taken note, or rather I've failed in bringing this concept to enough people.

"We'll become gods..if you don't like it we'll have warfare"

The Global Meltdown is really about keeping you from becoming a "GOD".

To 'live forever', how far would TPTB go?

The Pandoras Box to all sinister technology is being opened with no turning back

Best Case Scenario may still be our Worst Nightmare

Neocommunism to prevent the masses from affording Life Extension technologies

I argue that this economic war to plunder the world to prevent us from participating is already well under way, and hardly anybody even on a site like ATS seems to care in the slightest.

You all better hope I'm wrong. I wish someone could show me where I am.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Let the evil ruling classes live forever I say. Live forever in lonenliness and despair.

As i said above, I'd rather live for 70 happy years full of compassion and love, whereby a second can seem like a whole lifetime anyway due to a less fearful flow of experiences, and therefore a different perspective and experience of time itself. Have you ever kissed someone and felt like that moment could have been worth a whole week, despite only seconds passing?

And leading on from this, what is the true potential of our human experience if everyone, literally even the elites, worked using the resource of love instead of hatred and fear? Because its one thing for an individual to be happy, loving and compassionate, but what of the possibilities of an entire planet with an intelligent species who live in this way.

And you know the thing that pisses me off most is that we are all capable as a species of behaving like this, we've just been bludgeoned into accepting this awful status quo.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Judging from the world, why would we want to live longer.

Ok, cynical side away, this is great. I'd love to live 240.

Of course, I already have long life in my genes. I don't exactly have to worry about life style. I'm one of those freaks of nature from Italy that are immune to 98% of Earth's toxins and problems.

Pretty much the only thing I get sick from is the flu and the only time I have health problems is around smokers.

Besides that, the only thing that will kill me is the inevitable breakdown of my genes.

Good thing my mommy saved my umbilical chord. My genes are preserved there for when micro robots can replace aged mutations with clean genes.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join