• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

how close are we to developing immortality/longentivity?

Likely the average global life expectency will drop fairly dramaticlly as things get economiclly and ecologically worse. For the uber-wealthy though lifespans will extend more & more. I don't believe we'll ever master immortality though. Wishful thinking.
 
The human body & brain is more complex than anything we've discovered in the known universe & yet we think we can maintain it forever. It seems just a bit hubristic, IMO. Doubling lifespan, tripling it even but not "forever", eventually entropy will win & we'll die.

Maybe we could make an immortal plant or fungus or something but I'm even skeptical about that. Someone will leave the lab one night & it the morning it'll be dead.
 
Narz,

Here is where I base my assumption that some form of immortality can be achieved.

1) Through Stem Cells, we can clone our necessary organs. This removes death via Organ Decay, heart attack, etc. This is probably achieved by 2020.

2) Gene Therapy, which is close to working right now, can stop cancer. This is probably achieved by 2020.

At that point, our body is akin to a car, swap out the busted parts and keep going. That should easily double / triple LE.

To go further, we'd have to understand more about our brain and how that decays. But if folks are living 3x their normal lives, I imagine technological innovation would dramatically increase.

Look Narz, I don't understand how to BUILD a car, but I know how to change its oil, and maintain its parts so that it lasts for decades. We're not trying to understand why something it, just how its maintained...a much easier problem.
 
A human body is a zillion times more complex than a car.

The whole is more than the sum of it's parts.

I'm open to being wrong & time will tell but I simply would not put my money on this being a realistic goal.

BTW, to jump back to lovett's parallel "Nothing lighter than air can fly", IMO it's a silly one. Birds are heavier than air & they can fly so simply looking to nature proves that one wrong. Looking to nature re : death shows death is the rule with no exceptions.

Likely disease & again are far more complicated than we can imagine.

Clean living (and being ultra-rich) will help with a long life but I don't expect fool proof "immortal" science by 2020 or any other arbitrary date.
 
BTW, to jump back to lovett's parallel "Nothing lighter than air can fly", IMO it's a silly one. Birds are heavier than air & they can fly so simply looking to nature proves that one wrong. Looking to nature re : death shows death is the rule with no exceptions.

Actually, no. Several creatures don't seem to really age. Right of the bat there's bacteria. No type of bacteria experiences death through aging.

Obviously there's a lot of difference between unicellular bacteria and us. But there are interesting examples from the world of the multicellular. Notably Hydra. That's an entire genus in the Animal kingdom that seems to be essentially immortal. We're also not sure whether all Rockfish age, certain types of Jellyfish, even such popular animals as turtles and wales.
 
Well, it's an interesting & worthwhile project, IMO. I'm just skeptical of scientists future promises based on past performance.
 
Our cells age through accumulated DNA damage, and associated damage to repair mechanisms.
These processes are central to life, cancer and death. Fiddling with them might be hard, but we know what to look at, and that's a big step.
Some people still look at mitochondrial dysfunction, where mutations can stack up more quickly, but it seems that mitochondria do not limit age: a look at the number of functional mitochondria in an old person shows very little functional change at a cellular level.
Telomeres, which shorten with each cell cycle, can be lengthened, but apparently their length does not actually correlate with cell senescence or human age. That rather indicates that they're not central to ageing.
A combination of stem cell rejuvenation with DNA protection should allow us to live a very long time, except for neuronal problems.
Neurons are very long-lived cells, and replacement happens slowly. It would be much harder to maintain a brain, especially with slow build-up of problems in many cells at once, as in the diseases mentioned earlier, because we can't just take a load of cells out and then replace them.
Furthermore, if we do manage to rejuvenate brains, I suspect that it will involve some memory loss.
 
I remember seeing an article about neuronal regeneration somewhere, can't remember exactly the details though. So it might be possible to keep the brain healthy too.
 
I'd say that we're quite close to having the potential of living very long lives. Between utilizing telomerase (the protein used by cancer cells in order to repair telomeres and is the supposed source of their immortality) in order to maintain DNA (and theoretically infinite cell division) and the new idea of being able to generate "stem" cells from ordinary skin cells gives us very good possibilities.

However, the use of telomerase is still rather controversial, due to the fact that uncontrolled cell division (which has a possibility of occuring with the use of telomerase, so I hear) is not something that should be taken lightly. Yes, our body cells have limitations on how to control cell division, but on the other hand, cells described as cancerous which use telomerase have uncontrolled cell divison, making them so harmful. This makes the use of telomerase rather skeptical (this is what I was told by my Biology teacher when I asked him a similar question)
 
If I get rich enough, i'm gonna buy new organs as i get older.
 
Back
Top Bottom