Quake3World

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4003063.stm

I had no idea this kind of stuff was so well researched. You guys think it will happen?

I don't know about it being available to my generation but I think we'll be able to do it within the next century.

Extending lifespans has been researched for a while, particularly by manipulating DNA telomeres. I think de Grey has a different approach, but his is much more theoretical.

Personally, I don't think too much about de Grey; he's not well published if I recall.

I had a conversation with MQ about this guy and his theories a while ago... I'll see if I can dig it up again...

EDIT: Found it: http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11319

what a stupid beard.

wa was it de grey?

well, since copying errors creeping in during mitosis is a major part of ageing, it's physically possible i guess

De Grey may not be all that credible, but he's the only guy who really focuses on this area.

At least he brings attention to the field.
Other scientists don't seem to care much about dying for some reason.

It won't be happening soon IMHO. But people who read the bible literally believe that people used to live to 900+ years, so maybe they were actually right...hmmm. I wouldn't be surprised to see average life spans extend to 100 years in the next 30 years or so....

I reckon coupled with that you'll also see a rising suicide rate for the sandwich generation (20-40's) as well as increased rates of child and elder abuse. Living longer is only a good thing if the people still have very high quality of life.

i've allready got the hots for regular grannys. but with this...

just what we need, a buncha 1,000 year old pricks driving around 20-35 mph slower than everyone else, or else holding up a line of 12 people whilest staring like pasty, drooling chimps at the automated checkout screen in the grocery.

...not to mention landfills overflowing with used depends and colostomy bags.

feedback wrote:I reckon coupled with that you'll also see a rising suicide rate for the sandwich generation (20-40's) as well as increased rates of child and elder abuse. Living longer is only a good thing if the people still have very high quality of life.

The process is somewhat self-correcting, if indefinitely long life is universally insurmountably burdensome people will off themselves prematurely to end their misery. Therefore rendering life spans something less than indefinitely long for the vast majority of individuals in this scenario.

------

"life extension for real?"

It's not here yet, so no.

Aubrey's activism is admirable, involuntary death is an obstacle to many a long-term goal. I'm not equipped to critique his theoretical work, but he's gotten some not so insignificant attention from the scientific community. His work apparently isn't outright easily dismissed, but from the scientific criticisms that will/is follow(ing) I suspect something good will come of it either way.

A $20,000 SENS challenge was organized with the aim of debunking SENS over at the MIT TechReview. As I understand it, they've yet to announce the winner(s).

http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/

These are the judges.

Rodney Brooks, PhD, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and chief technical officer of iRobot Corp. IRobot is one of the most successful makers of robots in the world.

Anita Goel, MD and PhD, founder and chief executive of Nanobiosym.

Vikram Kumar, MD, cofounder and chief executive of Dimagi, and a pathologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

Nathan Myhrvold, PhD, cofounder and chief executive of Intellectual Ventures, and former chief technologist at Microsoft.

J. Craig Venter, PhD, founder of the Venter Institute. Venter developed the process called whole-genome shotgun sequencing, which sped up the human genome project.

yes, we need more people :icon14:

i'd only go for this if the words "Time Extended" flash brightly over my vision every time i reach a turning point in my life

We don't have enough room as it is.

I wouldn't want to live to be 1,000 years old anyways.

I would. I think.

I cant spell u wrote:I wouldn't want to live to be 1,000 years old anyways.

Why not?

I just wish people would stop saying we have enough people and the planet is overcrowded already and stuff. Like wars couldn't take care of that.

No, the real problem with immortality is that people would stop doing things. Procrastination ad infinitum, literally.

So...basically you're saying...there'd be a demand for more plumbers?

wars actually don't serve as effective population checks.

Except for the States

Wars are effective in keeping the population in check though.

Not these pussy wars we got nowadays. All that counter insurgency crap... shoot someone here, burn a hut there.... what ever happened to huge tank battles and mindless trench warfare?

No, I meant controlling your own population by making them fear an external enemy a la Orwell.