| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 15
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
"The 42-year-old English biogerontologist has made his name by claiming that some people alive right now could live for 1,000 years or longer. Maybe much longer. Growing old is not, in his view, an inevitable consequence of the human condition; rather, it is the result of accumulated damage at the cellular and molecular levels that medical advances will soon be able to prevent -- or even reverse -- allowing people to go on living pretty much indefinitely. We'll still have to worry about angry bears and falling pianos, but aging, the biggest killer of all, will cease to be a threat. Death, as we know it, will die."
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i10/10a01401.htm This kind of news always put a smile on my face... Nice to hope that humans will someday live a "little" longer. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Nah, would rather make way for the young folk.
Planet is becoming unsustainable as it is |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Nah, would rather make way for the young folk. Planet is becoming unsustainable as it is Of course, but here is the "conundrum:" What if the ability to prolong maximum lifespan is also "the cure for the degenerative processes associated with aging"? http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:xiWZSdHR...i-aging+gene%22&hl=en [Excerpt] . . . Kenyon recently took it a step further by altering daf-2 as well as hormones controlled by the reproductive system. "Now something almost magical happens, which is that the animals live six times as long as normal," says Kenyon, whose work was recently featured in Discover magazine. "And they stay young and healthy. These long-lived ones are also disease-resistant. And by that I mean, they don't get age-related diseases until they're much older than normal." . . . ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Oct 27, 2005 8:16:23 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If there is no need to die then is there a need for children? Given the choice of living a thousand years, or even for ever, and having my children I would choose the latter - although sometimes . . .
![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If there is no need to die then is there a need for children? Given the choice of living a thousand years, or even for ever, and having my children I would choose the latter - although sometimes . . . ![]() "You're a [braver] man than I, Gunga Din." ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Oct 28, 2005 1:03:45 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Could we still retire at 55? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Could we still retire at 55?Sure, but there's a catch. If the life expectancy is currently age 80. Then a 6x increase would be about 480. This would means that early retirement benefits wouldn't start until age 330. We would, however, have about 150 years to play around. ![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If the life expectancy is currently age 80. Then a 6x increase would be about 480. This isn't (necessarily) good news for those with, um, 'high-maintenance' wives. ![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If the life expectancy is currently age 80. Then a 6x increase would be about 480. This isn't (necessarily) good news for those with, um, 'high-maintenance' wives. ![]() Have you been reading my diary? ![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If the life expectancy is currently age 80. Then a 6x increase would be about 480. This isn't (necessarily) good news for those with, um, 'high-maintenance' wives. ![]() It would be ok as long as your mother-in-law doesn't live with you. |
||
|
|
|