Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Anti aging thread


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1
spartans2015

spartans2015

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
Fact or myth. Is anti aging real and people will live longer in the future. Will there be a big cure where everyone rich and poor will benefit or is everyone going to die eventually. I started this thread for everyones opinion.

#2
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,063 posts
I think we will see medicines that can extend lifespan by a decade or two, in a decade or two; but it won’t turn back the clock and make you look young again. Metformin might already extend life 5 years, by slowing aging.

More radical methods will probably be needed for serious life-extension. For example, 3D-printed organs might keep you young inside (though, there will be a lot of risk in the surgical procedure). There might be skin replacement methods, too. Major veins and arteries could be replaced with 3D printed versions; and fat and muscle could also be replaced by synthetic versions that match your DNA.

It sounds messy, risky, and complicated, but I could see surgical robots doing it very precisely in a couple decades. You go to a facility for the “treatment”, and a year later you look younger, and are much healthier. First, they put you into a coma, so that you don’t feel pain. Then the robots replace your major organs, veins, arteries, fat, muscle with synthetic versions. Next, they peel away your skin, cartiledge, glands, and hair, and replace it all with perfect versions like people had when the were 20 years old. Lastly, they bring you out of the coma.

All that would be far too complex for human surgeons, but robots will be able to do it... maybe in 30 years. The synthetic organs could be built using 3D printing, as I said; complex ones like the eye might could be grown from stem cells. I’d say in 30 years this will be possible.

I could see median lifespan of people having the procedure exceeding 150 years.

Fixing the brain is a lot more difficult; but if neurons could be gradually replaced over many years, there would be a continuity to the identity. If the brain can be rejuvenated in this way, then perhaps humans can become immortal, by periodically replacing organs and tissue with synthetic versions.

We are lucky that we can replace a part of ourselves, and still maintain our identity. That is the key to immortality.
  • Casey, Yuli Ban, SkyHize and 3 others like this

#3
Future historian

Future historian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

there can be no fact or myth on something unexplored

 

I think It is highly likely that it is possible to fix

 

complexity is another matter however


  • waitingforthe2020s likes this

#4
spartans2015

spartans2015

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

I think we will see medicines that can extend lifespan by a decade or two, in a decade or two; but it won’t turn back the clock and make you look young again. Metformin might already extend life 5 years, by slowing aging.

More radical methods will probably be needed for serious life-extension. For example, 3D-printed organs might keep you young inside (though, there will be a lot of risk in the surgical procedure). There might be skin replacement methods, too. Major veins and arteries could be replaced with 3D printed versions; and fat and muscle could also be replaced by synthetic versions that match your DNA.

It sounds messy, risky, and complicated, but I could see surgical robots doing it very precisely in a couple decades. You go to a facility for the “treatment”, and a year later you look younger, and are much healthier. First, they put you into a coma, so that you don’t feel pain. Then the robots replace your major organs, veins, arteries, fat, muscle with synthetic versions. Next, they peel away your skin, cartiledge, glands, and hair, and replace it all with perfect versions like people had when the were 20 years old. Lastly, they bring you out of the coma.

All that would be far too complex for human surgeons, but robots will be able to do it... maybe in 30 years. The synthetic organs could be built using 3D printing, as I said; complex ones like the eye might could be grown from stem cells. I’d say in 30 years this will be possible.

I could see median lifespan of people having the procedure exceeding 150 years.

Fixing the brain is a lot more difficult; but if neurons could be gradually replaced over many years, there would be a continuity to the identity. If the brain can be rejuvenated in this way, then perhaps humans can become immortal, by periodically replacing organs and tissue with synthetic versions.

We are lucky that we can replace a part of ourselves, and still maintain our identity. That is the key to immortality.

so youre saying it will be cured in our lifetime

#5
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,009 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

A complete reversal of the aging process is going to happen, guaranteed.

 

But the question is, will it happen within our lifetime? To borrow Aubrey Grey's cautious stance on this question - there's a 50% chance of that happening, essentially leaving this to the whims of chance.


  • Erowind likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#6
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

The next question once it becomes possible will politics and society allow it.

 

Looking around me these days there'll likely be a lot of hatred towards it as anything that is new seems to get...Sadly, it might depend on who's in power at the time.



#7
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts

Aww man, I'll definitely look into Metformin when I'm older. There's a nootropic I heard about that extends telomeres but I can't remember the name of it right now. I have a list of drugs/treatments that might extend lifespans but have decided not to pursue any of them until I'm at least 26 in order to let my brain fully develop first. Then again, if Metformin only slows the aging process perhaps younger is better. There's this part of me that just doesn't want to much about with my brain though, would slowing it's growth damage the final product when it's done growing?


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#8
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts

The next question once it becomes possible will politics and society allow it.

 

Looking around me these days there'll likely be a lot of hatred towards it as anything that is new seems to get...Sadly, it might depend on who's in power at the time.

 

The rich will have access immediately. Hell if a person has the money they can buy a submarine and dive into the deepest portion of the Mariana Trench right now.

 

It's the Triton 3600/3 and it's a cool 25 million.

 

http://tritonsubs.co...rvices/all-subs


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#9
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,063 posts

Speaking of 3D printed organs:

https://techcrunch.c...than-you-think/
 

Now, Prellis has published findings indicating that it can manufacture those capillaries at a size and speed that would deliver 3D-printed organs to the market within the next five years.

People have been that optimistic in the past, and been wrong. But give it 30 years, and probably just about any organ can be synthesized and implanted.

Replacing bones, spinal chord, and nerve fibers in the body might be the trickiest. The skull and spinal chord would be especially difficult to replace. But robotics and organ and tissue synthesis in 30 years will be so advanced that these will be in reach. (Maybe the skull can be replaced bit by bit — a little window is cut out, and replaced, and then another window is replaced, and so on.)

Even if one part of the body is too difficult even for robots to replace in 30 years, if they can still replace most organs, lifespan will get pushed well past 120 years. Then 50 years from now, the tech will finally exist to finish the job.


  • Alislaws likes this

#10
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,009 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Artificial intelligence will be the key simply because there is too many complex variables in the aging process for us to understand in its entirety.

 

Even so, it's not enough on its own.

 

It will take a great mind(s) to configure the AI's program to take us to where we need to find the solution. At the very least, it will be a multidisciplinary undertaking.

 

SENS' engineering approach may be sufficient at incrementally increasing our lifespans to the point we'd feel we can live for thousands of years, but that would require periodical interventions, like seeing the dentist twice a year to maintain your teeth's health. It is by no means the "real cure" to aging. We know that by stopping to visit the dentist will invite cavities and worse.

 

What I mean it will take artificial intelligence to help us gain the knowledge and tools to fundamentally alter the human body so that aging becomes the exception to the rule, rather than the norm.  


  • Alislaws likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#11
spartans2015

spartans2015

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
Yes but what are the opinions of aubrey de gray. Will people of today become immortal or is death inevitable

#12
Enter Ataraxia

Enter Ataraxia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Location+0° 2′ 46.2″, 179° 56′ 39.4″ 7.9E2+/-420parsecs

Concerning the prospect of anti-aging and potential immortality, whether it be biological or had through other materials, what do you (the community) believe to be some of the major socioeconomic problems and constraints that may emerge given these technologies. I am currently writing a science fiction essay for my school's magazine on the topic and who greatly appreciate and enjoy some discussion. Most of my thoughts occur during the commute to my internship and, if one is to reflect on current trends, such as access to more technologically advanced devices or resources, it seems that the rich have typically had greater access. If this is extrapolated to live-enhancing or lengthening procedures, I believe that the upper classes will have more ample opportunities to use this technology. What will occur then? I have no idea. Also, there is one interesting idea I was ruminating on: how much life of your (in days, minutes, or seconds) would you give to have a heavily desired object or keep a cherished one you already have. I do not believe I would give much of my life for any object, lest it affords me more life than I lost to get it. Often people do not value the lives they have right now. As my lawnmower or car slowly breaks, so do I, and if I do not maintain myself I surely too will fall apart sooner or later. Thank you for reading this, and I hope you have a nice day.

 

Kind regards,

Trevor Martin


"Utopia is the hope that the scattered fragments of good that we come across from time to time in our lives can be put together, one day, to reveal the shape of a new kind of life. The kind of life that yours should have been." - Bostrom

 


#13
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,009 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Yes but what are the opinions of aubrey de gray. Will people of today become immortal or is death inevitable

 

Aubrey, in his own subtle way, has said whether or not we have people today who will eventually live forever is left up to chance at the moment.

 

After we've moved over the hump of the 21st or even 22nd century, thanks to technological breakthroughs that are just around the corner, the odds will shift in the direction towards actually putting aging under significant medical control to the point it becomes negligible.

 

This is largely the reason I've been recommending that for us who are alive today to have a better chance of living forever is that we cyropreserve ourselves upon our deaths should we actually die before significant anti-aging interventions make their debut. Ironically, it may take death to obtain the best chance to live forever. If you can find the courage to walk through the valley of death to get to the other side, you can be sure you have the chance, however small it may be, to be one of the very few who will get to brag that you are one of the oldest human (or sapient) beings centuries or even millennia later. Not only that, you'd be one of the impossibly few who naturally died and lived to tell the tale.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#14
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationLondon

1. Concerning the prospect of anti-aging and potential immortality, whether it be biological or had through other materials, what do you (the community) believe to be some of the major socioeconomic problems and constraints that may emerge given these technologies. I am currently writing a science fiction essay for my school's magazine on the topic and who greatly appreciate and enjoy some discussion. Most of my thoughts occur during the commute to my internship and, if one is to reflect on current trends, such as access to more technologically advanced devices or resources, it seems that the rich have typically had greater access. If this is extrapolated to live-enhancing or lengthening procedures, 2. I believe that the upper classes will have more ample opportunities to use this technology. What will occur then? I have no idea. Also, there is one interesting idea I was ruminating on: how much life of your (in days, minutes, or seconds) would you give to have a heavily desired object or keep a cherished one you already have. I do not believe I would give much of my life for any object, lest it affords me more life than I lost to get it. Often people do not value the lives they have right now. As my lawnmower or car slowly breaks, so do I, and if I do not maintain myself I surely too will fall apart sooner or later. Thank you for reading this, and I hope you have a nice day.

 

Kind regards,

Trevor Martin

 

2. I think, like with most technology, any sort of anti aging or restoration treatment will initially be accessible only to the wealthy, but will rapidly fall in cost. These treatments will fall in cost far faster than some less desirable technologies. 

  • If you can restore youth and vitality to people, there would be huge demand, also the people receiving these treatments could pay for them the same way you pay for a house, buy your treatment and pay it off over 30 years, then get another one. Rich people might get a new treatment every 5 or 10 years in this scenario. getting the cost down low enough and you could have billions​ of customers, all paying you a big chunk of money every 30 years!
  • A company could prevent itself losing its most experienced employees to retirement by offering rejuvenation, this could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for some employees, so the company might pay to keep them on.
  • There will be huge social pressure to make this available to everyone. Anyone who doesn't want to lose their parents could be willing to resort to violence over this issue. The potential for full scale revolution would be strong if this was kept for a few.
  • Nationalised health services and even insurers will save a lot of money and effort if they can keep people's bodies functioning as though they were young. Elderly people consume far more healthcare spending than people in their 20s (on average). Retirees leaving the workforce is also a huge drain on the national economy, and the first nation to get rid of permanent retirement will gain a huge advantage. 

1.  We would need to totally rethink how our societies work in order to adapt to a world where people have indefinite lifespans. 

  • With no retirement, there would be few vacancies at higher levels in companies, young people might be competing with people who have decades or centuries of experience!
  • People might reject the career as we currently have it. After all a person in their 20s can usually find low paying unskilled work for a while, then spend their time travelling the world. They alternate between doing what they want and temporary employment. Usually people stop doing this because they know they will need to retire someday and they must prepare. If they will never get old, there is much less pressure to prepare for the future. 
  • Populations would begin rising steadily, this would not be such a big problem at first, as many people would put off having children until they were 50 or 60 or maybe even longer, no need to rush things. In the long term though, someone who likes children could have hundreds of them over a thousand year period, so you would need population controls or continuous expansion, at first cities would grow more and more, then later we would need to build colonies and space habitats to continue expanding our population.

One other thing to consider: Stagnation

  • In many ways our societies advance as old people die and young people embrace new ideas. As Max Planck (sort of) said "science advances one funeral at a time" 
  • With no old age, you could see stagnation of society, politicians who have spent centuries building power, and connections etc. could be almost impossible to remove by younger more progressive opponents. Scientists who have won multiple nobel prizes, and are therefore world famous might stick around for centuries speaking out against any new theory that comes along, in case it conflicts with their work. 

  • Enter Ataraxia likes this

#15
ethanscott

ethanscott

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Anti aging is something really interesting, I don't know if that will help people live longer though.



#16
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationLondon

Continuing my thoughts on stagnation: We don't know how much of older people's resistance to new ideas is due to them being physically old. To some extent people hold strongly to ideas they learned when they were young. However some of the reasons for this might change with the advent of full anti-aging or age reversing technology

 

  • Do peoples brains literally become less flexible and open to change as they age, and does this affect assimilation of new ideas?
  • As you get older, you're less likely to be able to react and take advantage of sweeping changes, so in general you will be worse off if the world you have accrued your experience in changes significantly. This would be solved if aging was halted. 
  • As the body ages, we have less energy, more aches and pains and more of our friends and family begin to pass away. It is hardly surprising that our outlooks might become more pessimistic and conservative than when we were in our 20s. Without these factors would we remain more progressive later in life?


#17
Kombaticus

Kombaticus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts

Would an 80-year old man with 20-year old printed organs see rejuvenation of the rest of his body?  Even though his muscles, bones and brain were not replaced, would having everything else be youthful help to rejuvenate the parts that weren't replaced?  I'm also wondering if this would trigger some kind of autoimmune response, as you have cells of various levels of senescence in your body, even if they all have the same DNA.

 

As far as curing aging goes, all I really care about personally is preserving identity.  I think advances in brain mapping will be the ticket to immortality, and that is really just a matter of scaling up technology that we already have.  Identity is rooted in neurology; take a snapshot of every neuron and dendrite and how they connect to all the others, reconstruct it somehow, and you are essentially reborn.

 

Whether or not it would be you is really up for debate though.


"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content." -Conan the Cimmerian


#18
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

  As for the old people= stagnation argument, I think old people today are resistent to new ideas because of a few reasons:

 

1 They know ( or think) they will die soon. Just imagine this is your last day. What would you ask for your last meal? Would you try a new food that you never ate and that might be terrible? Would you ask your favorite food that you allways loved? Most people would choose option 2. 

 

2 Low neuroplasticity ( should be fixed by anti-ageing)

 

3  Old people today are not used to changes partially because they grew up in a world that changed very slowly. 80 years old people today were born in 1938. Childhood at that time was basically the same as in 1900. Wooden toys, children played mostly outside homes, women stayed at home. At that time, teenagers werent exactly known for trying to change the world. Remember, society was mostly stagnated betwen 1800 and 1500, even if most of the population was young . Now, we have this concept of new people = changes  because of people born in the late 1950s and 1960s .   Birth control was more avaiable at that time, women could be more free, they knew the world was changing, so there was no point in preparing themselves to be like their parents. In previous generations, teenagers just prepared themselves to be like their parents. I was born in 1991, and I saw significant changes in the world  within my childhood time.  I didnt have a pc at home until I was 6 years old, if I wanted to watch a movie that wasnt on tv, I had to go out home and buy or rent it. At early 2000 s I could download movies from internet , rented  movies were on dvds, then pendrives, and now netflix. Before 2010 I could only watch movies at home. Laptops existed but had low memory and are too heavy for me( yeah, im short and weak). Now I can watch almost any movie and play many different games on my cellphone.  I grew up on a world of many changes, so that, I will probably accept changes much more easily in the future too. 


  • Alislaws likes this

#19
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,009 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

  As for the old people= stagnation argument, I think old people today are resistent to new ideas because of a few reasons:

 

 

2 Low neuroplasticity ( should be fixed by anti-ageing)

 

 

 

It's the main and only reason, likely the cause of other issues you pointed out.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#20
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

 

  As for the old people= stagnation argument, I think old people today are resistent to new ideas because of a few reasons:

 

 

2 Low neuroplasticity ( should be fixed by anti-ageing)

 

 

 

It's the main and only reason, likely the cause of other issues you pointed out.

 

Nobody can say its the main and only reason if we cant take out the other factors yet.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users