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

Quote from Eddy Vedder
"Does anyone know the secret to living forever?
Why the *&$% would you want to live forever?"

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.

Cool same here man.
I hold a B.A,,B.S,M.S,PHD in Quantam-Biophysics and MetaEngineering from Oxford University and Harvard, i managed both degrees in 2 years combined, im also kickboxing champion of the ultraverse (yes i kick alien azz), and i have my own little tv show on fox .
We have so much in common.

Originally posted by siluriancryptic
reply to post by hellzdoms

 

About 4500 years ago , each person lived for about 800-900 years apiece. Imagine how many people would be in that one family after that individual kept on making babies for 900 years. At that time the earth was well populated but most were killed in wars and only the priveliged could live to age 900. The earth was protected by a canopy of mist that blocked out the cosmic rays that shorten life to only 70 years today. The sun's companion star became a nova and wiped out all life on the earth about 4000 years ago-except Noah and his Ark. The protein that produces longevity would barely survive todays blasts of radiation from space that pummle the earth daily today.

Wow.... really? Let's see, 4500 years ago was about 2400 B.C. That roughly correlates to the time of the Israelite's exodus from Egypt and the destruction of Jericho. I don't recall any mention of people living for nearly a century, or any mist canopy for that matter. Where are you getting this information from?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by hellzdoms

 

What they're saying is, the aging process is partially caused by a protein wearing out chromosomes, but if they mess with the protein it screws up cell reproduction.

Did they really need to waste their time to found that out?

If they want to stop aging they need to work on repairing chromosomes and leave the cell reproduction process a lone. i.e. Like repairing a printing plate used for lithography, we need to repair the chromosomes - not switch to a new ink.

On top of that, a way to clear out the old cells is needed.
Else they will simply clogg up the system.
You can find some very nice ideas on the subject, in an episode of Discovery's Curiosity where Adam Savage from Mythbusters, plays the oldest man alive. Very interresting show.

So they found the protein to stop aging but shuts down the immune system. Brilliant!!!!!!!

I think they are still a few more years from figuring it all out. These are just baby steps.

Not only is life extending kinda childish, it's also preventing you from going further with who " You " are. Look around you, nothing get's wasted, nothing, so why would you think all these experiences, thoughts, people you've met and things you have yet to do, just go away? Not a chance, forward is the way to go, I'll embrace death with a hug and a high five.

Originally posted by andy06shake
TPTB will never let them fly with this people! They allready want 9/10 of Earths population disappeared! Imagine 20 billion instead of the 9 we have now, its just not feasible, Earth dont have the room.

I don't know about that, after I saw a thread on here that had calculated how big of a meatball would all people make if they were slaughtered. If I am not mistaken, it is a meatball that has a mile radius. Now, when I think about how many square miles there is on planet Earth, it seems to me that there is plenty room... Then again, it may not work exactly that way with living people.

Originally posted by draco49

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)

I for one don't believe in the phrase " The buck has to stop somewhere" because that is the phrase people use when shifting the full blame onto someone else because they want to avoid responsibility for their actions. Sure the woman is responsible for safeguarding herself against pregnancy, but putting the that responsibility on just one person is irresponsible.

Originally posted by dominicus
So they found the protein to stop aging but shuts down the immune system. Brilliant!!!!!!!

I think they are still a few more years from figuring it all out. These are just baby steps.

That really does work! You take the protein to stop aging... your immune system shuts down... you catch a cold or the flu and die.... Aging stopped... Success!

reply to post by draco49


The pill is effective but terrible. It messes with the hormone levels, then gets passed through the system in the urine, then it is into the water supply. Water treatment plants do not remove this birth control, then everyone who drinks tap water drinks some birth control.

Most pills contain estrogen. I for one, being a male, do not want or need any more estrogen in my system. Our bodies naturally make enough. Putting more in just messes the whole system up.

Condoms, foam and sponges. F**k the pill, IMHO.

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
I for one don't believe in the phrase " The buck has to stop somewhere" because that is the phrase people use when shifting the full blame onto someone else because they want to avoid responsibility for their actions. Sure the woman is responsible for safeguarding herself against pregnancy, but putting the that responsibility on just one person is irresponsible.

Apparently you didn't read my statement that I fully acknowledge that the procreation of a child is a responsibility shared equally between the man and woman. Like so many other people, you seem to be bent on some man-hating neo-feminist agenda, because you are artfully taking parts of my comments out of context to continue some irrational debate with me about choices in birth control.

Originally posted by killbot2012
The pill is effective but terrible. It messes with the hormone levels, then gets passed through the system in the urine, then it is into the water supply. Water treatment plants do not remove this birth control, then everyone who drinks tap water drinks some birth control.

Most pills contain estrogen. I for one, being a male, do not want or need any more estrogen in my system. Our bodies naturally make enough. Putting more in just messes the whole system up.

Condoms, foam and sponges. F**k the pill, IMHO.

If you want to shrink-wrap your penis with an uncomfortable latex sheath, knock yourself out. As for the water, it's already contaminated by decades of toxic dumping and pharmaceutical remnants from toilets. Buy a RO filter and move on with your day.

Aside from the over-population arguments and obvious downsides to the human population living much longer, there ARE a few considerations to something like this:

1. The intelligence quotient of the human population would raise considerably if people lived a lot longer. There would be more time to learn, study and grow wise. There would be more opportunity to receive an education and children born to 150-year-old parents would benefit from greater knowledge. (Hopefully, of course. I know how the young tend to resist all possible wisdom from the ages of 15-20) With more time, more people would realize the follies of man, religion and maybe even greed(more time to expand personal wealth) And most certainly, a greater percentage of people would start thinking for themselves.

2. If some sort of reproductive restrictions/incentives were installed in the earlier years of human life, people would probably start waiting to have families until much later naturally. If one knows they have 100 years to grow and learn and change, over time, people will wait longer to reproduce naturally - perhaps avoiding the population issues. With how we are now - we have about 20 years to fit raising a family in with every other possibility of life and it's in our nature to breed, so most find a way to fit that in there, causing financial stress, lower education and of course, dysfunction.

3. A longer period to reach personal happiness. When I hit 40, I started ticking off the things I'll most likely never attain due to financial constraints, time and energy. Only 2 years later and that list is greatly expanding. There's just so little actual time for people(lower income especially) to accomplish what they would like to and with increasing health issues later in life as we age, our dreams die young. It would be wonderful to know there is a greater period of youthfulness to both enjoy life and achieve.

Originally posted by draco49
So your premise is that, once we burn through Earth's resources, we should move on to another planet to continue the process of consumption and depletion. You are incorrect in saying that every species on Earth has become extinct. Humans and every other creature currently on the Earth have not gone extinct. In fact, the only animals that have become extinct are the ones that aren't around anymore. Your arrogance about Humans and the idea that we should work to ensure that, as a species, we carry on forever is absolutely amazing. We haven't even learned how to co-exist on this planet.

So? Whats your premise? We all commit suicide and give the planet back to the animals? Sorry, i have people i care about.

I dont see how his suggestions are arrogant at all. Why not move out into the universe? Mankind has unlimited potential and i refuse to believe that we MUST all die off here on earth. Do you have any idea how vast the universe is? We could never consume all its resources in billions of years.

Originally posted by draco49
Ahh, you're a Christian. That explains the arrogance.

Only arrogant comments here are yours.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
I for one don't believe in the phrase " The buck has to stop somewhere" because that is the phrase people use when shifting the full blame onto someone else because they want to avoid responsibility for their actions. Sure the woman is responsible for safeguarding herself against pregnancy, but putting the that responsibility on just one person is irresponsible.

Apparently you didn't read my statement that I fully acknowledge that the procreation of a child is a responsibility shared equally between the man and woman. Like so many other people, you seem to be bent on some man-hating neo-feminist agenda, because you are artfully taking parts of my comments out of context to continue some irrational debate with me about choices in birth control.

What part did I take out of context? You keep saying that it is the woman's responsibility and the "buck" stops there with the woman because everything occurs inside of her, and how can I be on some man hating neo-feminist agenda when in fact am a man. I was just saying that it's not all the woman's responsibility. If you really feel that an increased risk of an STD or that the birth control pill maybe defective an not work is worth the risk for the sake of being "comfortable" and you're both okay with that, then that's your decision. If playing it safe is irrational, then I guess I'm irrational.

Originally posted by KeylessChuck
Quote from Eddy Vedder
"Does anyone know the secret to living forever?
Why the *&$% would you want to live forever?"

Originally posted by LightningStrikesHere
i was wondering how the rockefeller , kissenger , and all them controllers of the world are still alive !

You're telling me!!

George H.W. Bush is about 90 I believe and still jumping out of airplanes! What the hell......

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.

No disrespect intended mate, but with extended lifespans, i truly hope that it goes hand in hand with extended IQ's.

Your buying into the overpopulation myth is a prime example of not expanding your knowledge or your perception...and you're not the only one to bring in the 'will we all fit' bit..what? will we all fit on this teeny, tiny little desert dustbowl of a planet, filled with everything three times the amount of the current population would ever need and more you mean?

You're thinking overpopulation, but not with your brain, but with what's been and is being hammered into it by those that are selfish and greedy, and want us to think there is no water, no food, no raw materials...no air even.

Nothing...nothing at all could be further from the truth.

The actual truth is that many, if not most people on our planet are greedy and selfish, and do not want to share, at any cost.

Money is a fabrication, an invention that means nothing, is worth nothing and has no intrinsic value, as say a human life has. But this sinister invention we call finance, has enabled the kind of thinking your post eludes to, a kind of thinking where the rich (all of us typing away on our technology) are convinced we have nothing or are about to run out of everything very soon and that frightens us and makes us selfish...correction, even more selfish than we normally are.

That's no accident.

If the right amount of the worthless, invented financial nothingness we call money is directed in the right areas, using intelligence and not greed and selfishness as a template...there would be at least three times the current population living on Earth with more than enough energy, water, food, and access to everyday mundane municipal resources like medical care, education, and so on.

You and other posters who dread 'overpopulation' have to use your intelligence a little more and see the wood for the trees mate...it's not lack of resources, it's lack of willingness to share and work together and always has been in the financial models of history.

He/she who has the most wins....right? Wrong. We all lose...big time in the end.

With modern genetics and associated research will come not only a markedly greater average lifespan (i'm surprised it's taken this long actually), but a whole slew of other 'upgrades' will ensue, from intelligence and cognitive abilities to physical performance and endurance - a stronger, faster and more resilient body will be available for all...if we're willing to share and do away with the 'performance enhancing drug' namely money.

If not, this discovery in Japan won't mean a thing.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by Rosha
Draco..do go re-read the post of yours I was responding directly to. Not once in it did you mention mutual responsibility in any form.

If you felt this way ( as you claim above) you should have written that instead of the claptrap you did.

I don't need to re-read anything, or justify myself or my opinions to you. I politely responded to your post explaining my position. In later posts after the one you quoted, I explicitly explain that that I believe men and women have equal responsibility in conceiving a child. If you want to create typical female drama and throw out this BS outrage, that's your prerogative.

"typical female drama' ?

not sexist?

right.....


grow up.


Rosha

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

No, it is in the thing that looks like a bruise that is on the fruit of the tree of life.

You could be right