A cure for aging, and an end to natural death?

[Otherside]

Now THAT seems to be within the realm of something we might be close to.

I'd like to see the clock removed as my ultimate enemy. If I accomplished one thing a year, I would still have an infinite number of accomplishments.

I saw someone die in an ICU unit. I don't know if they were experiencing anything, but externally it didn't look like she was enjoying a blissful journey "into the light".

But I hope it was.

 

[RaBind]

Something to make life a lot longer would be great but avoiding death altogether is not as attractive. I am not even that sure, life would probably get really boring after a while and wouldn't over population be a problem? To be honest adrenaline and the sense of having done something big is the only thing that I can think of is worth living.

If your interested in technology advancements listen to Dr.Michio Kaku, he is very inspiring and can explain really complex thing very easily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=219YybX66MY

 

[Otherside]

I'm pressed for time (ironic) right now, but I'll definitely have a look at that later.

 

[Cognisant]

life would probably get really boring after a while

Books, movies, games, anime, and if you get tired of all that you could try reality.

There's more fascinating stuff happening right now than you can possibly imagine.

 

[RaBind]

Books, movies, games, anime, and if you get tired of all that you could try reality.

There's more fascinating stuff happening right now than you can possibly imagine.

Yeah this is probably true. Hopefully life extension solutions come up before I die.

I don't really like reading (unless it something really interesting, nothing that captures my eye in the library), I have only seen very few movies that are up to my expectations nowadays I blame myself for having too specific taste, I get more and more bored with games every time I play them, my taste in anime is quite specific unfortunately the anime industry doesn't agree with my taste, yeah I am trying to focus on reality at the moment trying to get a website up and running reality is hard and takes a long time to master though...

 

[DragonsAreForever]

No! I will languish interminably if people stopped dying. Death's a business! I cannot be having a cure to mortality. No sir. I like my dead peers thank you very much.

Besides...the burden of an everlasting conscious will be enough to push one into suicide.

 

[Guess]

Even though cure of aging sounds enticing, this is more less what comes to my mind that society would do with that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTzG8eWWm_4

 

[snafupants]

Physiological stress and coronary heart disease are far more potent killers than most of the stuff we worry about. Now, of course, some stress is unavoidable, and some stress is even good for performance, and some stress is associated with our baseless fears, but basically anyone's life would be enhanced, qualitatively and quantitatively, by lowering stress, to be sure. In the scheme of things most of our worries are immaterial; worrying gives a lot of folks a specious sense of control over their own destiny.

 

[Agent Intellect]

One of two things might happen if massively life extending technology is invented:

1. Most people will see it as a bad thing and will voluntarily die at whatever arbitrary age they've decided is more "natural" anyway (in the same arbitrary way the Amish decided the early 1800's was the most "natural" way to live) by not partaking of the technology. In this case, overpopulation will not be as big of a problem for those of us who will adopt such technology. Over time, humans will either destroy themselves or colonize space (the same two outcomes we have without massively life extending technology).

2. Just like with all new technology, once it's available, people won't see it as being unnatural or dehumanizing. They will happily adopt the new technology and five years after accepting it, they will wonder how anyone could have ever lived without it. In this case, we won't have to hear peoples stupid excuses for why massively life extending technology is unnatural or dehumanizing, but will then be subjected to peoples complaints about how unnatural and dehumanizing the technology on the forefront of that time is until they learn to adopt that technology and wonder how they ever lived without it (eg the cycle will continue on as normal, but with people living longer/forever).

 

[The Black Raven]

One of two things might happen if massively life extending technology is invented:

1. Most people will see it as a bad thing and will voluntarily die at whatever arbitrary age they've decided is more "natural" anyway (in the same arbitrary way the Amish decided the early 1800's was the most "natural" way to live) by not partaking of the technology. In this case, overpopulation will not be as big of a problem for those of us who will adopt such technology. Over time, humans will either destroy themselves or colonize space (the same two outcomes we have without massively life extending technology).

I highly suggest reading the Red Mars series, specifically the last book, Blue Mars as it touches on that first point in a fairly realistic manner, and they were only living 250 or so years.

In summary, space doesn't have the infrastructure to support three billion humans. While creating the space infrastructure to do so, whether it be on planets/moons or hollowing out asteroids, or making large scale space stations in empty space, would be an employment program for decades, we would still have problems moving and safely containing that many humans in a livable environment. Problems being that each contained space can only service so many humans.

So, no-- space isn't a solve all solution to overpopulation.

 

[Mello]

Death is temporary.

 

[Jah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTMNfU7zftQ



I thought this thread was about Aubrey de Grey, (the gerontologist brother of Gandalf de Grey)

 

[BridgeOfSighs]

Assuming humans possess the ability to live an infinite number of years, we also assume the earth and other natural resources are infinite as well.

 

[Jah]

not in the special case, but in the general case, yes.


(E.g. not necessarily Oil, but some fuel or other, yes. Not necessarily just flesh, but still "human", yes. (That is of course a topic for debate) )



Buckminster Fuller addressed that point of finite resources, but also made a point out of examples such as Rockefeller turning gasoline into a commodity and a fuel (where it previously had been an undesirable compound due to it's volatility. a by-product )
The only real limit to resources is creativity, as long as we keep track of finite and near-infinite resources. (for sci-fi crowds: zero-point energy; For environmentalists: Solar/Fusion or even liquid fluoride thorium-reactors (Lifters - LFTR) .. )

like any journey; infinite life-span is a step-by-step process... It's not certain anybody will be able, nor willing, to seriously pursue that as a goal. (though as de Gray points out, it is more about incremental increases, which add up to a potentially indefinite life-span, if possible.)

 

[Taniwha]

Why fear the reaper?

 

[Melkor]

Books, movies, games, anime, and if you get tired of all that you could try reality.

There's more fascinating stuff happening right now than you can possibly imagine.

How bizarre. I was listening to a Comedy radio drama as I read that, and at the very moment you said 'You can possibly imagine', the villian said the very same thing. XD

 

[snafupants]

In my heart of hearts I believe that one's lifespan is inscribed into one's body well before one sets out on this earthly path, perhaps the clock is set and calibrated in utero. This is a scientific reality and, hence, a biological truth and certainly not a spiritual myth.

Depending on one's apoptosis cycles' dependability and nature one is destined to live to around sixty four or around eighty eight; and there's little one can do to influence that figure, as long as one lives reasonably. There are, of course, exceptions like heart abnormalities and chromosome breaks and immune system malfunctions, but these apply to the minority and are, therefore, not fodder for a general principle.

Bertrand Russell, who by his own admission smoked his pipe monstrously and often, lived to be ninety seven. My grandmother had awful habits and she lived to be ninety two. Yet there are those who exercise rigorously or subscribe to a macrobiotic diet religiously, and subsequently drop dead at forty two. I feel justified in making a broad claim, see above, because of the high rates cancer and other putatively unexplained and merciless aging phenomena occur and mow down the general population.

Fundamentally I do not believe that radiation causes cancer because a solid constitution and apoptosis cycle can combat radiation that would maim another person. That and radiation is everywhere and, although amped up in recent decades, is nothing new. The core issue is one's constitution, which I feel is set before birth, and is therefore partly attributable to one's parents.

 

[duke of new york]

There is some good scientific literature out there about this. I don't know how much you know about the actual scientific background, but it's been all but settled that aging is coded into our DNA somewhere. If so, it's only a matter of time before we isolate the "aging gene."

It's interesting to note that aging is not a necessary part of life. We tend to think of it as being the natural result of living a long time: your body gets worn down after so many years, but your body is constantly rebuilding itself. Every day your cells are dividing and creating new cells. It seems that after a certain amount of time, our cells arbitrarily stop reproducing efficiently because our genes tell them to. It has nothing to do with the "oldness" of the cells; if you think about it, all your cells have a common ancestor in your parents gametes, and those have a common ancestor in their parents gametes...so your cells have been dividing since the beginning of life. It's only when a zygote is formed with a new combination of genetic material that the aging clock starts over.

I think we will have isolated the genetic cause of aging in the next 50 years, which will be in most of our lifetimes. But it will create a huge ethical debate. Think about how controversial human cloning is; the cloning controversy would be trivial compared to this. Therefore, I don't think it will actually be used on humans for a long time.

I think we are closer to conquering aging than cancer. Keep in mind, even if we were able to stop aging, everyone would still eventually die from cancer, heart disease, car accidents, or something else. I think an interesting question is this: if people knew they were immune to dying of old age, would they be more careful about their health? Paranoid about it, even? Would people be more inclined to stop smoking and eating fast food if it wasn't just shortening their lives, but making an otherwise unnecessary death more likely?

Finally, there are actually some animals that don't have this genetic function, such as some jellyfish. They can actually live forever, if something doesn't eat them. They are living proof that life can exist without death.

 

[snafupants]

There is some good scientific literature out there about this. I don't know how much you know about the actual scientific background, but it's been all but settled that aging is coded into our DNA somewhere. If so, it's only a matter of time before we isolate the "aging gene."

It's interesting to note that aging is not a necessary part of life. We tend to think of it as being the natural result of living a long time: your body gets worn down after so many years, but your body is constantly rebuilding itself. Every day your cells are dividing and creating new cells. It seems that after a certain amount of time, our cells arbitrarily stop reproducing efficiently because our genes tell them to. It has nothing to do with the "oldness" of the cells; if you think about it, all your cells have a common ancestor in your parents gametes, and those have a common ancestor in their parents gametes...so your cells have been dividing since the beginning of life. It's only when a zygote is formed with a new combination of genetic material that the aging clock starts over.

I think we will have isolated the genetic cause of aging in the next 50 years, which will be in most of our lifetimes. But it will create a huge ethical debate. Think about how controversial human cloning is; the cloning controversy would be trivial compared to this. Therefore, I don't think it will actually be used on humans for a long time.

I think we are closer to conquering aging than cancer. Keep in mind, even if we were able to stop aging, everyone would still eventually die from cancer, heart disease, car accidents, or something else. I think an interesting question is this: if people knew they were immune to dying of old age, would they be more careful about their health? Paranoid about it, even? Would people be more inclined to stop smoking and eating fast food if it wasn't just shortening their lives, but making an otherwise unnecessary death more likely?

Finally, there are actually some animals that don't have this genetic function, such as some jellyfish. They can actually live forever, if something doesn't eat them. They are living proof that life can exist without death.

Your first paragraph is just weird. You say "it's been all but settled" and then you throw up your hands and say "somewhere" in our DNA. After that, you double down on vagueness and posit "if so" and then ponder some indefinable future time in which the details will be hashed out.

Science, this generation's god-paradigm, has a nasty habit of claiming an intellectual area conquered before they get their feet wet and actually show a prowess at dependably manipulating that domain. Look where current medicine has gotten us within the scientific framework of pretending to understand brain chemistry. The whole enterprise is flimsy and fledgling at best.

Often science simply desires to adopt an arena of knowledge even before they begin investigation. Too eager to mount their flag so to speak. Take string theory, for example. Already we hear claims about a soon to be realized unified field theory. Every century some cadre of arrogant reductionists comes along making a similar claim. Just a few more years they say. I'm still waiting.

 

[duke of new york]

Your first paragraph is just weird. You say "it's been all but settled" and then you throw up your hands and say "somewhere" in our DNA. After that, you double down on vagueness and posit "if so" and then ponder some indefinable future time in which the details will be hashed out.

Science, this generation's god-paradigm, has a nasty habit of claiming an intellectual area conquered before they get their feet wet and actually show a prowess at dependably manipulating that domain. Look where current medicine has gotten us within the scientific framework of pretending to understand brain chemistry. The whole enterprise is flimsy and fledgling at best.

Often science simply desires to adopt an arena of knowledge even before they begin investigation. Too eager to mount their flag so to speak. Take string theory, for example. Already we hear claims about a soon to be realized unified field theory. Every century some cadre of arrogant reductionists comes along making a similar claim. Just a few more years they say. I'm still waiting.

All I said was that scientists are reasonably certain that aging is genetic, but they don't know what gene causes it. And you don't have a very clear understanding of what "science" is if you describe it as a "god-paradigm" (whatever that is, I assume you mean something like a religion?). "Science" is not some kind of organized church that can have "habits" and claim things "conquered." Researchers develop various different theories and test them, and everything they say is subject to peer review. There is no agenda behind science; it is just the unbiased search for knowledge.

 

[snafupants]

All I said was that scientists are reasonably certain that aging is genetic, but they don't know what gene causes it. And you don't have a very clear understanding of what "science" is if you describe it as a "god-paradigm" (whatever that is, I assume you mean something like a religion?). "Science" is not some kind of organized church that can have "habits" and claim things "conquered." Researchers develop various different theories and test them, and everything they say is subject to peer review. There is no agenda behind science; it is just the unbiased search for knowledge.

That's correct. Science is treated and respected as a religion. Moreover the gatekeepers of science are often society's most unscrupulous and avaricious citizens. You're talking about theory, I'm talking about practice.

Explore how universities patent portions of the human genome then come back and tell me about the inviolability of purported scientists.

Alternatively, tell me what happens when a sponsored study provides results which bode poorly for the company. Are those results typically and objectively chronicled? That answer should be compelling.

If you dislike that, try telling me why medications take an average of eighteen years from start to finish, development to pharmacy, to make their appearance.

Industrialized nations do everything but genuflect to the phenomenological tenets of science. Get testy with someone else.

What? Science completely has habits: the scientific method? And there's a tremendous excitement generated about, say, a possible cure for cancer. You were just crowing in your previous post.

Look science is only as useful as its tools, methods and the adroitness and ethicality of its adherents.

Rereading your post, throwing invective at a concept does not necessarily mean that one is ignorant about that concept. I could have a genuine complaint about how society reacts to a certain modality of attaining putative knowledge.

Put another way, science may not innately be, in your words, some kind of organized church, but it may be treated as such. To the extent that that's true, I oppose the endemic behavior, thanks for playing.

Peer review. Unbiased search for knowledge. Get real. The research is doctored more than a hospital.

 

[duke of new york]

That's correct. Science is treated and respected as a religion. Moreover the gatekeepers of science are often society's most unscrupulous and avaricious citizens. You're talking about theory, I'm talking about practice.

Explore how universities patent portions of the human genome then come back and tell me about the inviolability of purported scientists.

Alternatively, tell me what happens when a sponsored study provides results which bode poorly for the company. Are those results typically and objectively chronicled? That answer should be compelling.

If you dislike that, try telling me why medications take an average of eighteen years from start to finish, development to pharmacy, to make their appearance.

Industrialized nations do everything but genuflect to the phenomenological tenets of science. Get testy with someone else.

What? Science completely has habits: the scientific method? And there's a tremendous excitement generated about, say, a possible cure for cancer. You were just crowing in your previous post.

Look science is only as useful as its tools, methods and the adroitness and ethicality of its adherents.

Rereading your post, throwing invective at a concept does not necessarily mean that one is ignorant about that concept. I could have a genuine complaint about how society reacts to a certain modality of attaining putative knowledge.

Put another way, science may not innately be, in your words, some kind of organized church, but it may be treated as such. To the extent that that's true, I oppose the endemic behavior, thanks for playing.

Peer review. Unbiased search for knowledge. Get real. The research is doctored more than a hospital.

I did not come to this thread to debate about "science" as a concept or the validity of the scientific method. If you have something to say about the topic of the thread, go for it.

Honestly, I joined this forum expecting to be able to have rational discussions without being called out for relying on science. I hope your attitude is not typical of the other members here.

 

[snafupants]

I did not come to this thread to debate about "science" as a concept or the validity of the scientific method. If you have something to say about the topic of the thread, go for it.

Honestly, I joined this forum expecting to be able to have rational discussions without being called out for relying on science. I hope your attitude is not typical of the other members here.

I hope so too because that would be boring to have both of our views informed and circumscribed by the latest issue of Scientific American and so on.

So you did not feel up to any of my questions? You seemed to have bypassed my whole thesis, by the way.

I object to the practice not the theory of science; the practitioner's ethicality is what's dubious rather than the system upon which that ethicality is exercised.

Try one of my questions. You'll have fun. I promise. My questions do not really pertain to science as a concept or the validity of the scientific method, so you should be safe in answering the questions. Try one.

Was that sincerely your conclusion based on what I wrote. Did you get around to reading my first and fourth to last vignette paragraph? The latter may prove especially beneficial for you to ascertain where this is coming from.

 

[duke of new york]

I hope so too because that would be boring to have both of our views informed and circumscribed by the latest issue of Scientific American and so on.

So you did not feel up to any of my questions? You seemed to have bypassed my whole thesis, by the way.

I object to the practice not the theory of science; the practitioner's ethicality is what's dubious rather than the system upon which that ethicality is exercised.

Try one of my questions. You'll have fun. I promise. My questions do not really pertain to science as a concept or the validity of the scientific method, so you should be safe in answering the questions. Try one.

Was that sincerely your conclusion based on what I wrote. Did you get around to reading my first and fourth to last vignette paragraph? The latter may prove especially beneficial for you to ascertain where this is coming from.

Like I said, I feel this pretty far removed from the specific topic of the thread. I didn't want to address your questions in detail, not because they are invalid, but because I think it will derail the thread. It might be more appropriate to start a new thread about the wider issue of ethics and impartiality of the scientific community in general, but since you insist, I'll give you my answers to your questions.

Ahem,

That's correct. Science is treated and respected as a religion. Moreover the gatekeepers of science are often society's most unscrupulous and avaricious citizens. You're talking about theory, I'm talking about practice.

Religions are followed blindly without any evidence for their claims. While many people do follow the popular articles and books and the Michio Kaku shows with blind acceptance, this is not generally how the scientific community works. You're right, I am talking about theory, not practice, because research that is biased or altered for ulterior motives is not really science. Also, your statement that "the gatekeepers of science are often society's most unscrupulous and avaricious citizens" is an unfounded generalization. I do not see why they are any more or less unscrupulous or avaricious as any other human being.

Explore how universities patent portions of the human genome then come back and tell me about the inviolability of purported scientists.

I never said anyone was "inviolable." And while you and I may disapprove of the tangling of science and capitalism, it doesn't make their discoveries wrong. How does patenting portions of the human genome, however unfair or unethical that may be, make the research invalid?

Alternatively, tell me what happens when a sponsored study provides results which bode poorly for the company. Are those results typically and objectively chronicled? That answer should be compelling.

I have not defended studies sponsored by companies with a financial interest in the results, and I will not do so now. This is an example of science with an agenda, which is not really science. However, it still doesn't necessarily make the results wrong, they just deserve extreme skepticism and scrutiny.

If you dislike that, try telling me why medications take an average of eighteen years from start to finish, development to pharmacy, to make their appearance.

Same thing. This is not "science," but business.

Industrialized nations do everything but genuflect to the phenomenological tenets of science. Get testy with someone else.

Are you from the US? Are you familiar with the Bible Belt? I promise you that science is not universally embraced in the industrialized world. And even those that do embrace it, it is still not the same as religion, as I explained before. People who put their faith in religion do so with no or insufficient evidence and generally refuse to entertain alternate ideas. To have a truly scientific worldview is to believe only that which has empirical evidence of being true and being open to any alternative if evidence is found that supports it.

What? Science completely has habits: the scientific method? And there's a tremendous excitement generated about, say, a possible cure for cancer. You were just crowing in your previous post.

Are you saying there is something wrong with the scientific method? So science has a "habit" of requiring testing before an idea can be accepted as true. I do not have any problem with this, and I'm not sure why it's relevant.

Look science is only as useful as its tools, methods and the adroitness and ethicality of its adherents.

I agree.

Rereading your post, throwing invective at a concept does not necessarily mean that one is ignorant about that concept. I could have a genuine complaint about how society reacts to a certain modality of attaining putative knowledge.

It's just that we are talking about two different things. You are attacking supposed ulterior motives and deceptive practices in the scientific community. I am talking about science as a way of looking at the world, as opposed to spiritual or metaphysical worldviews. I don't consider the scientific worldview to be comparable to a religious or faith-based worldview, for reasons I have explained above.

Put another way, science may not innately be, in your words, some kind of organized church, but it may be treated as such. To the extent that that's true, I oppose the endemic behavior, thanks for playing.

OK, but I disagree. A church has centrally held worldview and motives and invents information to serve these. While some pseudo-scientists may do the same thing, the central "tenet" of science is to find the information first, then form conclusions based on the information. It is not created by human beings in the same way a religion is.

Peer review. Unbiased search for knowledge. Get real. The research is doctored more than a hospital.

And in that very same hospital, all of your biased and doctored research is saving lives and helping people live longer. Once again, bad science is out there, but you are overlooking the huge majority of research that is honest and useful.


Looking back at your first post, it seems you were saying the exact same thing as me:

In my heart of hearts I believe that one's lifespan is inscribed into one's body well before one sets out on this earthly path, perhaps the clock is set and calibrated in utero. This is a scientific reality and, hence, a biological truth and certainly not a spiritual myth

So why is it OK for you to take something from your "heart of hearts" and call it a "scientific reality," but when I make the same claim, but base it on scientific studies, you ascribe it to a "god-paradigm?" Say what you will about shortcomings in the world of scientific research, but it is more reliable than anecdotal evidence and pure intuition, which is what you seem to have based your opinion on.

 

[snafupants]

Like I said, I feel this pretty far removed from the specific topic of the thread. I didn't want to address your questions in detail, not because they are invalid, but because I think it will derail the thread. It might be more appropriate to start a new thread about the wider issue of ethics and impartiality of the scientific community in general, but since you insist, I'll give you my answers to your questions.

Ahem,


Religions are followed blindly without any evidence for their claims. While many people do follow the popular articles and books and the Michio Kaku shows with blind acceptance, this is not generally how the scientific community works. You're right, I am talking about theory, not practice, because research that is biased or altered for ulterior motives is not really science. Also, your statement that "the gatekeepers of science are often society's most unscrupulous and avaricious citizens" is an unfounded generalization. I do not see why they are any more or less unscrupulous or avaricious as any other human being.
I never said anyone was "inviolable." And while you and I may disapprove of the tangling of science and capitalism, it doesn't make their discoveries wrong. How does patenting portions of the human genome, however unfair or unethical that may be, make the research invalid?
I have not defended studies sponsored by companies with a financial interest in the results, and I will not do so now. This is an example of science with an agenda, which is not really science. However, it still doesn't necessarily make the results wrong, they just deserve extreme skepticism and scrutiny.
Same thing. This is not "science," but business.
Are you from the US? Are you familiar with the Bible Belt? I promise you that science is not universally embraced in the industrialized world. And even those that do embrace it, it is still not the same as religion, as I explained before. People who put their faith in religion do so with no or insufficient evidence and generally refuse to entertain alternate ideas. To have a truly scientific worldview is to believe only that which has empirical evidence of being true and being open to any alternative if evidence is found that supports it.
Are you saying there is something wrong with the scientific method? So science has a "habit" of requiring testing before an idea can be accepted as true. I do not have any problem with this, and I'm not sure why it's relevant.
I agree.
It's just that we are talking about two different things. You are attacking supposed ulterior motives and deceptive practices in the scientific community. I am talking about science as a way of looking at the world, as opposed to spiritual or metaphysical worldviews. I don't consider the scientific worldview to be comparable to a religious or faith-based worldview, for reasons I have explained above.
OK, but I disagree. A church has centrally held worldview and motives and invents information to serve these. While some pseudo-scientists may do the same thing, the central "tenet" of science is to find the information first, then form conclusions based on the information. It is not created by human beings in the same way a religion is.
And in that very same hospital, all of your biased and doctored research is saving lives and helping people live longer. Once again, bad science is out there, but you are overlooking the huge majority of research that is honest and useful.


Looking back at your first post, it seems you were saying the exact same thing as me:

So why is it OK for you to take something from your "heart of hearts" and call it a "scientific reality," but when I make the same claim, but base it on scientific studies, you ascribe it to a "god-paradigm?" Say what you will about shortcomings in the world of scientific research, but it is more reliable than anecdotal evidence and pure intuition, which is what you seem to have based your opinion on.
[/FONT]

Regarding the end of your post, the cementing of that realization sadly did not begin in my heart of hearts; that phrasing was simply poetic, by the way. In the very next sentence I call this realization a scientific reality, and in no way spiritual. My words at the time went thus: This is a scientific reality and, hence, a biological truth and certainly not a spiritual myth. In the next paragraph vignette I discuss, rather crudely I admit, the issue in empirical scientific terms. So, no, I would not conclude that this knowledge was gleaned by, your words, pure intuition or anecdotal evidence. Moreover, you undercut that argument by admitting that you agree with me; at once you question my means and revel in our shared findings. Quite odd. Amusing but odd.

 

[duke of new york]

Regarding the end of your post, the cementing of that realization sadly did not begin in my heart of hearts; that phrasing was simply poetic, by the way. In the very next sentence I call this realization a scientific reality, and in no way spiritual. My words at the time went thus: This is a scientific reality and, hence, a biological truth and certainly not a spiritual myth. In the next paragraph vignette I discuss, rather crudely I admit, the issue in empirical scientific terms. So, no, I would not conclude that this knowledge was gleaned by, your words, pure intuition or anecdotal evidence. Moreover, you undercut that argument by admitting that you agree with me; at once you question my means and revel in our shared findings. Quite odd. Amusing but odd.

This is exactly what you did. We both made essentially the same point: in your words, that "the clock is set and calibrated in utero." It sounds like you meant something more spiritual than I did, while I was simply talking about genetics, but I was not saying anything significantly different than what you were. That is what kind of confused me when you started thrashing my post.

So, if this statement is a "scientific reality," as you say, what makes it so? I said you based it on intuition and anecdotal evidence because that's all you mentioned in your post after you claimed your point as scientific fact. Once again, I agree with you on the issue at hand--that people's lifespans are inscribed into their bodies--and I never claimed otherwise, so I'm not sure why you find it odd or amusing. You were the one that questioned my means; I only pointed out the fallacies in yours to illustrate your silliness in doing so.

To be honest, I am still not entirely sure what you are arguing with me about. You are not making any clear points about anything, and frankly, you seem to just be trolling me, trying to argue just for the sake of arguing.

 

[snafupants]

This is exactly what you did. We both made essentially the same point: in your words, that "the clock is set and calibrated in utero." It sounds like you meant something more spiritual than I did, while I was simply talking about genetics, but I was not saying anything significantly different than what you were. That is what kind of confused me when you started thrashing my post.

So, if this statement is a "scientific reality," as you say, what makes it so? I said you based it on intuition and anecdotal evidence because that's all you mentioned in your post after you claimed your point as scientific fact. Once again, I agree with you on the issue at hand--that people's lifespans are inscribed into their bodies--and I never claimed otherwise, so I'm not sure why you find it odd or amusing. You were the one that questioned my means; I only pointed out the fallacies in yours to illustrate your silliness in doing so.

To be honest, I am still not entirely sure what you are arguing with me about. You are not making any clear points about anything, and frankly, you seem to just be trolling me, trying to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Well, this will definitely be my last post in this vein. Again, you attempt to mock me by using these nouns like "fallacies" and "silliness" and so on, and paradoxical say that you agree with me on the larger points. Does this equal masochism on your part? There's just a huge irony in your posts. I'm sure you'll feel inclined to indulge one more personal jab in feeble rebuttal, so have at it hoss. I'm through.

 

[duke of new york]

Anyway, now that the troll is back under his bridge, is anybody still interested in the topic? Nobody answered my previous question: do you think people would be more concerned with living a healthy and safe lifestyle if poor health and accidents were the only things that could kill them? Would people be less inclined to "live on the edge?"

I think being able to live forever would make me afraid of death. The fact that it is inevitable forces us to make peace with it.

 

[Jah]

Genetics are only parts of the structure that makes man.


You've an increasing number of empirical data suggesting epi-genetic factors, such as the fathers diet up to the moment of conception, the mother's habits, the actual subject's habits and attitudes.


"Genetics is the gun, but environment pulls the trigger" goes the old adage.


The science is still murky around this, and when it comes to such fuzzy sciences as nutrition and improvement of Health, as opposed to just avoidance of pathology, the data seems increasingly hard to tease apart...


Not to mention the biases introduced by partiality and, ultimately, the people in charge of the purse. (Anything suggesting that we humans are able to distance ourselves from these factors is nothing short of naive. Here's the mantra: "Even I am influenced and Biased in my opinions, all I can do is accept these and advertise them so others are aware of my blind-spots" )


Here's a nice website on the topic:

www.Sens.org



But when will the question of euthanasia enter this discussion ?