Rise of the DINKs (Final Civ Death Stage)

[Cuchulainn]

If ageing was pre-programmed it would be very easy to solve, but it's not. It's not a matter of opinion, there's experiments with millions of (ageing) fruit-flies where you can 10x the average starting lifespan by just postponing the age of reproduction. This means that the genes/epigenetic phenotypes for longevity are chosen and life span will gradually increase, with no upper limit. Ageing is completely malleable in other words.

Actually aging is kind off preprogrammed.

Your DNA strands have a little end cap on them, and as you age, these degrade, allowing the DNA strand to decay.

Think of them like a shoelace, with the little plastic bits on the end keeping it together.

Everyones shoelace unravels at a different pace, but if we could just keep the end cap together it would be great.

But we cant do it for shoelaces let alone DNA yet.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

God made careers for the family, not the family for the careers. Liberals got it backwards once again.

 

[Blade Runner]

Actually aging is kind off preprogrammed.

Your DNA strands have a little end cap on them, and as you age, these degrade, allowing the DNA strand to decay.

Think of them like a shoelace, with the little plastic bits on the end keeping it together.

Everyones shoelace unravels at a different pace, but if we could just keep the end cap together it would be great.
Jo
But we cant do it for shoelaces let alone DNA yet.

Yes, but even telomere length isn't a particularly good predictor. Heart rate is an interesting one. We could go on. I know Johnny objects, but there are many theories as to why programming makes sense also from an ecology point of view. Even a community one.

 

[Cuchulainn]

Yes, but even telomere length isn't a particularly good predictor. Heart rate is an interesting one. We could go on. I know Johnny objects, but there are many theories as to why programming makes sense also from an ecology point of view. Even a community one.

I wouldnt say programmed, I would say everyone has a shelf life and a best before date. Those will be somewhat predetermined by a number of factors such as genetic health and environmental factors while in the womb.

Once born, you can probably only maintain that bodies best before date. Anything unhealthy you do will lower it. I doubt you could extend it very far by being super healthy.

 

[Blade Runner]

I wouldnt say programmed, I would say everyone has a shelf life and a best before date. Those will be somewhat predetermined by a number of factors such as genetic health and environmental factors while in the womb.

Once born, you can probably only maintain that bodies best before date. Anything unhealthy you do will lower it. I doubt you could extend it very far by being super healthy.

Yes, in general, we are in agreement. Unless it's beyond a crazy threshold, I don't even think you can end up lowering all that much, but you will notice that your quality can dramatically lower (reason enough to not do many unhealthy things, or at least risk assess them). I also agree with you that you can't extend it all that long either, but I reserve the right to change this opinion as I do think one of the promising things a group with really good insights has that possibility. Even if that ends up as just improving the quality of the composition of the cells, I would welcome it. Who wants to live much beyond late 80s or 90s anyway? I don't.

 

[Cuchulainn]

Yes, in general, we are in agreement. Unless it's beyond a crazy threshold, I don't even think you can end up lowering all that much, but you will notice that your quality can dramatically lower (reason enough to not do many unhealthy things, or at least risk assess them). I also agree with you that you can't extend it all that long either, but I reserve the right to change this opinion as I do think one of the promising things a group with really good insights has that possibility. Even if that ends up as just improving the quality of the composition of the cells, I would welcome it. Who wants to live much beyond late 80s or 90s anyway? I don't.

That's why I said shelf life and best before date. There is a period when food is at its best (shelf life) and looks good when displayed in a store, then there is a period when it's edible but not fit to see in the store.

I think we can increase and decrease our shelf life by a small but not insignificant amount by things such as our diet, exercise, stress levels etc.

But it will require some science to increase our peak period of health up to the final part of our life span (80s to 90s).

To increase our maximum life span will require some serious science, and who knows what that investment will achieve.

There is no point increasing our life span to live an extra 10-20 years as a senile, wheelchair bound old geezer. I would rather life to 80-90 with the guaranteed vitality of a healthy 30-50 yr old.

 

[Johnnyvee]

No, it is somewhat malleable in non-human species. You keep applying other beings to the same realities as humans, which is weird since we've pointed out how these are not necessarily related. It's like David Sinclair talking about how Blue Whales live hundreds of years so humans can too. Uhh, no.

It's the same mechanism in all ageing species, which are species that have sexual reproduction in general. This is well proven as I said. Humans have the ageing pattern we have since we share a common genetic heritage. But ageing stops in very late life, and we can stop it sooner with an ancestral diet and lifestyle. (paleo) If you claim that "ageing is pre-programmed" and I show you an ageing species where you can easily 2-10x the lifespan (or the other way even) you should concede that this is false I think.

This "paleo" approach has never been done before, as you also need the good parts of modernity/medicine to maintain health. The reason Jeanne Calment's 121 record still stands is really a testament to the dreadful effects of the industrial diet and lifestyle. As the strict paleo folks age this record will be beaten no doubt, even without the ageing reversal drugs that will eventually come along as a result of the combination of -omics and AI under the correct ageing theory umbrella.

 

[Johnnyvee]

Actually aging is kind off preprogrammed.

Your DNA strands have a little end cap on them, and as you age, these degrade, allowing the DNA strand to decay.

Think of them like a shoelace, with the little plastic bits on the end keeping it together.

Everyones shoelace unravels at a different pace, but if we could just keep the end cap together it would be great.

But we cant do it for shoelaces let alone DNA yet.

I don't blame you for thinking that, I belive you got the idea from me in fact, as I wrote a long article on that on the forum way back in the day. (The telomeres/Bill Andrews deal, you might find it in the RVF archive) But it's wrong unfortunately! Had it only been that simple.

 

[Blade Runner]

If you claim that "ageing is pre-programmed" and I show you an ageing species where you can easily 2-10x the lifespan (or the other way even) you should concede that this is false I think.

This is your problem. One cannot extrapolate things from other species and apply them to humans with certainty. Your approach to this topic is far closer to certainty than it is "Let's see what happens" which is why from a scientific point of view, you are incorrect. There are many reasons why this is, such as the theory of large numbers, which has to do with maturation of species, etc.

We are different than every other animal for numerous reasons. Our development is FAR more complex, it's a joke to even have to bring this up.

 

[Johnnyvee]

This is your problem. One cannot extrapolate things from other species and apply them to humans with certainty. Your approach to this topic is far closer to certainty than it is "Let's see what happens" which is why from a scientific point of view, you are incorrect. There are many reasons why this is, such as the theory of large numbers, which has to do with maturation of species, etc.

We are different than every other animal for numerous reasons. Our development is FAR more complex, it's a joke to even have to bring this up.

All ageing species have the same pattern. It's a first principle of biology that applies to all sexually producing species. It's more of a mathematical thing really, like gravity. You can in fact infer that from fruit-fly data and prove it with solid science. Most of science relies on inferences anyway...

We are different in many aspects, but not in others. Ageing, cancer etc. are equivalent in pretty much all species that we share genetic ties with. There are not 1, 7 or 9 causes of ageing in any ageing species. Rather there are 1000's of genes and even more transcripts involved, all interconnected as well. It's more in humans yes, but the basic mechanism is just the same in what is now called the pleiotropic network model. Here's what it looks like in fruit-flies, and you're right that it's much more complex in humans per se...

 

[Blade Runner]

I personally think max living for the human being at this point is 120-130. What I actually desire is a few of the treatments that I see promise in that are more akin to rejuvenation rather than longevity, which I largely see as an idol. I'd rather live as a 50-65 year old with treatments that made me closer in physical function or appearance, to around the 30s, if I could. That is far better than just living until 90 or some such nonsense. I'm a little bit biased, though, since most of the older people I know don't do much or are pretty boring due to their longevity increases being after a time in which life was normal but largely just work based, for them. Also, if you can't get boners into your 60s, there isn't much point anyway (as a funny proxy, I like to say that).

 

[Thomas More]

I personally think max living for the human being at this point is 120-130. What I actually desire is a few of the treatments that I see promise in that are more akin to rejuvenation rather than longevity, which I largely see as an idol. I'd rather live as a 50-65 year old with treatments that made me closer in physical function or appearance, to around the 30s, if I could. That is far better than just living until 90 or some such nonsense. I'm a little bit biased, though, since most of the older people I know don't do much or are pretty boring due to their longevity increases being after a time in which life was normal but largely just work based, for them. Also, if you can't get boners into your 60s, there isn't much point anyway (as a funny proxy, I like to say that).

Age does take its toll in the 50s, and I assume I will see even more of that in my 60s. However, I think with exercise and diet and general healthy living, it is already pretty feasible to maintain a good level of energy into your 60s. In particular, one can definitely still get boners into one's 60s.

I'm not as energetic as I wish I was, but I can see that it's due to my own failures in diet, fitness, and lifestyle. I'm still not that bad off, and I definitely see the benefits when I muster the self-disciple to do better.

I'm really hoping I can stay energetic into my 70s and 80s. I have known people that did so, and of course I have known people that were already a wreck in their late 60s. I am very much in favor of medical science that maximizes one's level of vigor in old age, and I think we will continue to see progress in this area. I really don't expect to see significant increases in actual life span.

 

[Samseau]

The talk of aging is off-topic and fundamentally cope to the point of this thread:

We're gonna die, and we either have children, or we devote our lives to the Church, otherwise our history, culture, and faith dies with us. Simple as that, there is no other way to escape this.