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.

 

Secret of ageing found: Japanese scientists pave way to everlasting life

page: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
The people that honestly believe that population is a problem need to step up and be their own solution. See, because, it's okay for people like you to tell us how we need to reduce population as long as we're talking about aborting some other woman's child, sending someone else's kid to war, or even genocide against other people (most of the time against brown people, more recently though, Muslims). But the second you're asked to step up and be a part of your own solution then, well, then it's not the same is it?

The problem is, all you people that are too stupid (and you are morons) to think of something other than genocide, YOU are the problem. Just because you call "murder" "abortion" doesn't mean it isn't murder. I like how people actually agree with your statement of killing off old people and children. And then you say: "So, I think women need to cease and desist on the baby output" because that wouldn't have any negative repercussions! People like you shouldn't be able to walk around on the street. You are sick in the head and belong in a nut home.


Your sweeping generalization of people who feel that overpopulation is a potential problem is disingenuous. You've made broad assumptions and assertions about people that you cannot possibly support. Your fall-back to ad hominem attacks is laughable and portrays you as no different than an angry little child. The problem isn't that we're "stupid" or "morons" (I hold a B.S., a B.A., and a PhD), it's that you don't like what is being said on an emotional level, and lack the ability to convey that sentiment in a constructive, objective manner.




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Prolonging your prison sentence.

2nd line



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FauxRedHead
reply to post by hellzdoms
 


Well, they better hurry up and solve the problem, cause after the nuclear disaster, the people living in Japan aren't going to be around much longer. The ocean life is glowing...their food supply. And they've all been poisoned. I just hope reacter 4 doesn't spill!
I wonder if radiation poisoning effects your looks...


Just use some band-aids and makeup to cover the skin lesions from the radiation sickness, and wear a wig when your hair starts falling out. You should look fine after that!



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
Two things I see wrong with this...
#1. You are supplying 50% of the DNA, so If she gets pregnant then you are 50% responsible. Conception and pregnancy does take place inside the woman's body, but she doesn't do it by herself.
and
#2. Birth Control will not stop you from catching an STD from the woman who got it from her last sexual partner who thought the same way you do.

If you can't control your urges, then it is both the man and woman's responsibility to be safe. Hopefully the woman will have the foresight to say " SORRY! NO GLOVE, NO LOVE!" to protect you both.


I've got no argument with your 2nd point; STDs are a problem and birth control medication does nothing to address that. However, I would say that fidelity and regular testing would drastically reduce the occurrences of STDs.

I also don't have any argument with your 1st point and final conclusion, but I do see it a little differently. While I fully acknowledge that both the man and woman are equally responsible for the act and result of procreation, the proverbial "buck" has to stop somewhere and, in this case, that is with the woman. The choice of birth control, medicinal or artificial prophylactic, is completely up to the people involved. I realize that pharmaceutical birth control is not a viable option for all women and, in a non-monogamous situation, is inappropriate as it doesn't address the risk of STD transmission. However, from a purely subjective viewpoint, I believe that condoms diminish the sexual experience for both parties and reduce intimacy and connection. It's also worth noting that, similar to birth control pills, condoms are not appropriate for all people. Latex allergies can effect both the man and the woman, and natural (lamb skin) condoms don't prevent STD transmission.
edit on 6/11/2012 by draco49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
The people that honestly believe that population is a problem need to step up and be their own solution. See, because, it's okay for people like you to tell us how we need to reduce population as long as we're talking about aborting some other woman's child, sending someone else's kid to war, or even genocide against other people (most of the time against brown people, more recently though, Muslims). But the second you're asked to step up and be a part of your own solution then, well, then it's not the same is it?

The problem is, all you people that are too stupid (and you are morons) to think of something other than genocide, YOU are the problem. Just because you call "murder" "abortion" doesn't mean it isn't murder. I like how people actually agree with your statement of killing off old people and children. And then you say: "So, I think women need to cease and desist on the baby output" because that wouldn't have any negative repercussions! People like you shouldn't be able to walk around on the street. You are sick in the head and belong in a nut home.


Your sweeping generalization of people who feel that overpopulation is a potential problem is disingenuous. You've made broad assumptions and assertions about people that you cannot possibly support. Your fall-back to ad hominem attacks is laughable and portrays you as no different than an angry little child. The problem isn't that we're "stupid" or "morons" (I hold a B.S., a B.A., and a PhD), it's that you don't like what is being said on an emotional level, and lack the ability to convey that sentiment in a constructive, objective manner.


Is that supposed to mean that you're special? You have some paper that says you have an education and I'm supposed to be impressed? I know alot of idiots that have papers too that can't tell their left from their right. Is there really a point to argue with someone that believes that an individual's intelligents is measured by what their paper says?

You're so smart, but you can't think up anything better than genocide. Does it say on your paper there that you're no better than Hitler? Of course this is an emotional response. This is a normal human response when someone wants to kill your entire species. Now if you want to talk about other solutions that don't involve genocide, sure, but it seems like you chose to jump down my throat based solely on the fact that for all that education you still simply can't think outside the box.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
Is that supposed to mean that you're special? You have some paper that says you have an education and I'm supposed to be impressed? I know alot of idiots that have papers too that can't tell their left from their right. Is there really a point to argue with someone that believes that an individual's intelligents is measured by what their paper says?

You're so smart, but you can't think up anything better than genocide. Does it say on your paper there that you're no better than Hitler? Of course this is an emotional response. This is a normal human response when someone wants to kill your entire species. Now if you want to talk about other solutions that don't involve genocide, sure, but it seems like you chose to jump down my throat based solely on the fact that for all that education you still simply can't think outside the box.


Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. I didn't mention my education to impress anyone or make myself out to be special. I mentioned it because, as I said before, you made sweeping assumptions and generalizations that you cannot support, followed by personal attacks regarding the intelligence of people who don't share your point of view.

Your inability to engage in a constructive debate without resorting to personal insults and attacks is indicative of someone who lacks education and self-control. Further, your emotionally-fueled commentary reveals your insecurities, paranoia, and perceived feelings of persecution.

I do not support genocide, and never said anything to indicate that I do. I made a very simple, clinical observation that, if we're going to attack the issue of overpopulation, mortality rate and birth rate need to be reconciled. Your misuse of the word 'genocide' infers that I am a proponent of killing off a race or species. On the contrary, I believe that if we are to survive, as a species, that the practical matter of mortality vs birth rate must be addressed.

Given your expressed paranoia and feelings of perceived persecution, I would suggest that you consult with an appropriate mental-health professional for an evaluation. The way you've interpreted these comments and ensuing reaction is not normal, but can likely be treated so that you may enjoy a happier, more productive life. Good luck.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
Is that supposed to mean that you're special? You have some paper that says you have an education and I'm supposed to be impressed? I know alot of idiots that have papers too that can't tell their left from their right. Is there really a point to argue with someone that believes that an individual's intelligents is measured by what their paper says?

You're so smart, but you can't think up anything better than genocide. Does it say on your paper there that you're no better than Hitler? Of course this is an emotional response. This is a normal human response when someone wants to kill your entire species. Now if you want to talk about other solutions that don't involve genocide, sure, but it seems like you chose to jump down my throat based solely on the fact that for all that education you still simply can't think outside the box.


Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. I didn't mention my education to impress anyone or make myself out to be special. I mentioned it because, as I said before, you made sweeping assumptions and generalizations that you cannot support, followed by personal attacks regarding the intelligence of people who don't share your point of view.

Your inability to engage in a constructive debate without resorting to personal insults and attacks is indicative of someone who lacks education and self-control. Further, your emotionally-fueled commentary reveals your insecurities, paranoia, and perceived feelings of persecution.

I do not support genocide, and never said anything to indicate that I do. I made a very simple, clinical observation that, if we're going to attack the issue of overpopulation, mortality rate and birth rate need to be reconciled. Your misuse of the word 'genocide' infers that I am a proponent of killing off a race or species. On the contrary, I believe that if we are to survive, as a species, that the practical matter of mortality vs birth rate must be addressed.

Given your expressed paranoia and feelings of perceived persecution, I would suggest that you consult with an appropriate mental-health professional for an evaluation. The way you've interpreted these comments and ensuing reaction is not normal, but can likely be treated so that you may enjoy a happier, more productive life. Good luck.


Did you just attempt to diagnose a mental disorder based on an online argument that you chose to initiate based on a comment that wasn't even directed towards you? Did you then state that I was unable to engage in a constructive debate without resorting to personal insults while calling me a little child, uneducated and paranoid?

Edit:

Oh hold on then, you were the person I was quoting. Lovely. So you think that old people need to die off then? Children too because they're "frustrating"? And then all women need to stop giving birth? That was the quote I was responding to. And you say you do not support genocide?
edit on 11-6-2012 by AsRomeBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
Did you just attempt to diagnose a mental disorder based on an online argument that you chose to initiate based on a comment that wasn't even directed towards you? Did you then state that I was unable to engage in a constructive debate without resorting to personal insults while calling me a little child, uneducated and paranoid?


No, I didn't diagnose anything. I suggested, based on your statements and attitude, that you exhibit signs of a personality disorder (and yes, I am qualified to make such observations).

Second, YOU initiated an argument with me when you stated, in response to my earlier post, that I should not be allowed to walk the streets and should be put into a "nut home" (along with other unnecessary personal attacks).

Finally, yes. You've demonstrated your inability to engage in an intellectual conversation and control your emotions. Your apparent loathing of my own education, as well as your grammar and writing style, lead me to the probable conclusion that you're likely not very highly educated. Your need to turn this into a personal battle, and your expressed feeling that my remarks are in some way tantamount to promoting genocide reveal your paranoia. I also never called you a little child (another paranoid, persecutory manifestation); I said that your manner of interaction is indicative of an angry little child. This transmutation of meaning further supports the probability that you suffer from a personality disorder, and should be seen by a professional for evaluation.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I don't think this will be good for the human kind , like cloning and other stuff. But can we really stop this evolution in genetics.. Don't think so.

Well the pension insurances will be benefit from this because they will prolong their insurances until hundred and fifty .. and prisons with criminals that had life sentence will be overcrowded...

I think death is a stage of life to pass over to something else..



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
Hmmmm ... 5 pages of responses and as far as I can tell, not one person has questioned the legitimacy of this article.
There are lots of Google hits regarding this so-called "discovery" and yet when investigated, each one of them cites the same, single source from a Russian tabloid website. Even that originating Russian article fails to identify it's own source and also fails to name any of the Japanese scientists involved.
Checking on the Osaka University website also produces NO mention of this research or peer review or associated papers.

Don't you think that a discovery of such magnitude and importance would immediately qualify for a Nobel ? And yet, we're expected to believe that these Japanese scientists decided to make the world aware of their "fountain of eternal youth" discovery by way of a Russian tabloid website ?

Anyone else detect a rotten odour drifting this way ?


Found this:


Journal

Cell, Volume 149, Issue 6, 1298-1313, 8 June 2012
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
10.1016/j.cell.2012.03.047



Authors

Atsuhiko T. Naito, Tomokazu Sumida, Seitaro Nomura, Mei-Lan Liu, Tomoaki Higo, Akito Nakagawa, Katsuki Okada, Taku Sakai, Akihito Hashimoto, Yurina Hara, Ippei Shimizu, Weidong Zhu, Haruhiro Toko, Akemi Katada, Hiroshi Akazawa, Toru Oka, Jong-Kook Lee, Tohru Minamino, Toshio Nagai, Kenneth Walsh, Akira Kikuchi, Misako Matsumoto, Marina Botto, Ichiro Shiojima, Issei Komuro


Source

Osaka University



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
Oh hold on then, you were the person I was quoting. Lovely. So you think that old people need to die off then? Children too because they're "frustrating"? And then all women need to stop giving birth? That was the quote I was responding to. And you say you do not support genocide?


-sigh- My original post was meant to be a light-hearted commentary, not a master-plan for genocide. Alas, I have no control over how you interpreted it. I know you can't see it, but you are clearly manifesting symptoms of a personality disorder, most likely Paranoid Personality Disorder.

SOURCE

Diagnostic criteria for 301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder (DSM IV - TR)
A. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
(1) suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
(2) is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
(3) is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
(4) reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events
(5) persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
(6) perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
(7) has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner
B. Does not occur exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia, a Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, or another Psychotic Disorder and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.


For your sake, seek help. For my sake, please stop talking to me.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
Did you just attempt to diagnose a mental disorder based on an online argument that you chose to initiate based on a comment that wasn't even directed towards you? Did you then state that I was unable to engage in a constructive debate without resorting to personal insults while calling me a little child, uneducated and paranoid?


No, I didn't diagnose anything. I suggested, based on your statements and attitude, that you exhibit signs of a personality disorder (and yes, I am qualified to make such observations).

Second, YOU initiated an argument with me when you stated, in response to my earlier post, that I should not be allowed to walk the streets and should be put into a "nut home" (along with other unnecessary personal attacks).

Finally, yes. You've demonstrated your inability to engage in an intellectual conversation and control your emotions. Your apparent loathing of my own education, as well as your grammar and writing style, lead me to the probable conclusion that you're likely not very highly educated. Your need to turn this into a personal battle, and your expressed feeling that my remarks are in some way tantamount to promoting genocide reveal your paranoia. I also never called you a little child (another paranoid, persecutory manifestation); I said that your manner of interaction is indicative of an angry little child. This transmutation of meaning further supports the probability that you suffer from a personality disorder, and should be seen by a professional for evaluation.


I didn't know that I was talking to the person that I quoted until about 2 posts ago.

I don't see how using your own quotes that state that you think old people need to die is being paranoid. What you basically said was that we have a population problem and more people need to die than are being born. Did you not? You didn't go into how they need to die, but you did go into who and why. So we're still right back where we started. Instead of looking at other solutions, you just want people to die.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
I kinda think that life-extension science is a bad idea. The planet is already heavily overpopulated, and women keep having babies. On a macro level, we need old people to die off at a faster rate than new babies are created, or women need to stop having so many babies. While both babies and old people are incredibly frustrating, old people can at least communicate and tell good stories. So, I think women need to cease and desist on the baby output. Have all the sex you want, but take the pill; It's a lot less expensive than raising children.


@Draco:
I love how its always women that get the pointy end of the stick..forced to keep risking their health and lives for what passes as 'contraception'...its gross. How about MEN start taking responsibility for their sperm and where they rut and dump it..and start using condoms (absolutely drug free and harmless to health contraception) - every time or..gosh darn it...just stop screwing around so much that so many women are having so many babies! So easy to fob responsibility off to others than take it for yourself.
What it boils down to though, if you really want depopulation so much? Then YOU GO FIRST!
Don't ask others to accept or do what you are not prepared to.


@ the topic..

IMO..a gut dropping 'not for me'...overall I feel its a bad bad idea and the long term social implications are..beyond comprehension. And it's not just the potential abuse of this or the science that worries me its the implications for the aged, sick or disabled etc..human beings who are as entitled to life as anyone but who would be first on the hit list of 'undesirables' should money, politics and people like Draco have their way.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should...for me this is one of those issues.


Rosha



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
What the hell are you two talking about? It certainly isn't anti-aging...




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


Don't bother.

It was "light-hearted commentary" and you probably have a mental disorder for questioning him/her.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
This is a brilliant population documentary, well worth a watch!!

Just to give a very true perspective on human population!!



www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-6-2012 by Oxygenation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by tauristercus
Hmmmm ... 5 pages of responses and as far as I can tell, not one person has questioned the legitimacy of this article.
There are lots of Google hits regarding this so-called "discovery" and yet when investigated, each one of them cites the same, single source from a Russian tabloid website. Even that originating Russian article fails to identify it's own source and also fails to name any of the Japanese scientists involved.
Checking on the Osaka University website also produces NO mention of this research or peer review or associated papers.

Don't you think that a discovery of such magnitude and importance would immediately qualify for a Nobel ? And yet, we're expected to believe that these Japanese scientists decided to make the world aware of their "fountain of eternal youth" discovery by way of a Russian tabloid website ?

Anyone else detect a rotten odour drifting this way ?


Found this:


Journal

Cell, Volume 149, Issue 6, 1298-1313, 8 June 2012
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
10.1016/j.cell.2012.03.047



Authors

Atsuhiko T. Naito, Tomokazu Sumida, Seitaro Nomura, Mei-Lan Liu, Tomoaki Higo, Akito Nakagawa, Katsuki Okada, Taku Sakai, Akihito Hashimoto, Yurina Hara, Ippei Shimizu, Weidong Zhu, Haruhiro Toko, Akemi Katada, Hiroshi Akazawa, Toru Oka, Jong-Kook Lee, Tohru Minamino, Toshio Nagai, Kenneth Walsh, Akira Kikuchi, Misako Matsumoto, Marina Botto, Ichiro Shiojima, Issei Komuro


Source

Osaka University


Thanks for that info.

Unfortunately I can't read Japanese so the Osaka University reference I won't comment on ... could you possibly provide an English translation ?

As for the 1st source that you provided, it's just a summary of their work and even though they do reference C1q, there is absolutely NO indication that it is in anyway the primary agent responsible for ageing, absolutely NO reference to halting the ageing process by somehow inhibiting C1q activity and also, NO reference to any side effects to the immune system by manipulating C1q activity.

The summary does however state that C1q levels increase with age:

Serum C1q concentration is increased with aging ...


Based on the above, their is still NO indication that they are researching C1q deactivation OR any claim that C1q is the primary agent responsible for ageing and that by controlling it's expression that ageing can be greatly reduced or completely suspended.

So once again, the Russian article makes claims for which there is still NO valid substantiation available. If legitimate, surely one would expect the Russian article to have provided sources and references by which their incredible claims could be substantiated. At present, that Russian tabloid website is the ONLY source for these claims of potential immortality and as such, should be treated with the utmost skepticism.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hellzdoms
 


Before that they should worry about the radiations that are coming out of their mess and create something that make them harmless... or at least provide the human body with the protection against it. But i guess their priorities are elsewhere... I doubt their discovery - would it work extending lifespan - will protect them from radiations.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsRomeBurns
reply to post by Rosha
 


Don't bother.

It was "light-hearted commentary" and you probably have a mental disorder for questioning him/her.



Another one??? sheesh






Ro



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rosha
@Draco:
I love how its always women that get the pointy end of the stick..forced to keep risking their health and lives for what passes as 'contraception'...its gross. How about MEN start taking responsibility for their sperm and where they rut and dump it..and start using condoms (absolutely drug free and harmless to health contraception) - every time or..gosh darn it...just stop screwing around so much that so many women are having so many babies! So easy to fob responsibility off to others than take it for yourself.
What it boils down to though, if you really want depopulation so much? Then YOU GO FIRST!
Don't ask others to accept or do what you are not prepared to.


Hi Rosha


This isn't really a man vs woman debate, as far as I'm concerned. Both parties are responsible for preventing pregnancy, regardless of the method they choose. I previously explained that, and also my opinion that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own bodies. For women, that equates to bearing the ultimate responsibility for preventing or allowing pregnancy. After all, it's the woman who needs to carry the child and give birth to it. If the roles were reversed, and men were the ones who were responsible for incubating, carrying to term, and giving birth, my opinion would be the same; that birth control is ultimately the mans responsibility. So please don't mistake me for being sexist, because I am not. I also don't engage in any activity that could lead to pregnancy, so your comments about screwing around and knocking up women left and right really don't apply to me. It is my subjective opinion that condoms diminish the sexual experience for both the man and the woman, and so in a monogamous situation, pharmaceutical birth control is a better option. I'd also like to say that, if there was a pill that men could take to temporarily prohibit the action of sperm, I think you'd be surprised at how many guys would line up for it.

Cheers!



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join