Mystery Immortality

[tesseract]

Immortality and living forever are two different things. Immortality is indestructible / impossible to die. Living forever is as it says, but capable of dying, like in a vehicle accident, for example.

 

[bomberfan11]

No point being immortal, when humans will have destroyed themselves in the near future & unfortunately other forms of life as well.

How will humans destroy themselves in the near future?

 

[mantis]

How will humans destroy themselves in the near future?

Through greed & not caring about the consequences of that greed, always just living for now & stuff the future.

 

[Monniehawk]

Immortality and living forever are two different things. Immortality is indestructible / impossible to die. Living forever is as it says, but capable of dying, like in a vehicle accident, for example.

More synonymous than you might think.
Living forever is immortality.
Immortality means not subject to death. Living forever = not subject to death. It is a permanence.
Immortality is subject to more romantic notions related to i.e. fame, enduring memory or perpetual "life after death": the latter I suspect is what you (and Cicero) are alluding to.

 

[Pie eyed]

Immortality and living forever are two different things. Immortality is indestructible / impossible to die. Living forever is as it says, but capable of dying, like in a vehicle accident, for example.

True, but hair splitting.
Even Arnie got melted in the end.
The word immortal is totally pointless as nothing is going survive the sun in the end.

Unless you're speculating about supernatural beings.

 

[Malifice]

This is not completely accurate.

DNA replication is semi conservative, meaning each new double helix has one old and one new strand. The problem is, DNA can only replicate continuously in one direction as the helix unwinds, which happens on the leading strand. The other strand (lagging strand), must be replicated in sections (called Okazaki fragments). Without delving into excessive detail, to synthesize these complimentary fragments there needs to be an RNA primer (not DNA), for the DNA polymerase to attach to (bit that does the synthesizing). Once all the segments are completed, each of the RNA primers are removed and the strand is completed. The thing is (without using the technical terminology), these primers are placed successively heading towards one end of the strand and the fragments are synthesized leading away from that end. This means there would be a lone primer right at the end of the strand, which once removed, could not be replaced by DNA. This would leave one strand incomplete leading to replication errors and therefore DNA mutations
that can (amongst other things) be a causal factor of cancer.

To prevent this we have what is called telomeres. This is a long non coding segment (is not translated into a protein after RNA transcription) at the end of a DNA strand. Successive replications shorten these telomeres due to the process I have just outlined.

Somatic cells which do not contain telomerase, the enzyme that lengthens telomeres, will cease replicating and begin apoptosis (programmed death) once telomeres shorten to a certain degree. So in essence the telomeres do not tell the cell anything, since they cannot communicate, think of it more as an inbuilt self destruct mechanism aimed at preventing DNA replication errors.

You are kind of right about extending the Hayflik limit though. Originally it was thought that if we could trigger telomerase activators in human somatic cells we could extend cell replication, perhaps indefinitely. The problem is, we would not be able to differentiate between healthy cells, those overdue to undergo apoptosis and cancerous cells, nor have we developed a telomerase inhibitor that could be used in a targeted fashion (at least one undergoing clinical trials). Since telomerase has been found to constantly lengthen the telomeres in cancerous cells allowing them to replicate indefinitely this is a huge stumbling block.

In the early 2000's extending the Hayflik limit was viewed as some kind of achievable fountain of youth, but as time goes on, the increasing complexity of the problem becomes more and more apparent. To put it simply, we are a long, long way from getting close to tackling this in any substantive fashion.

How do Lobsters do it?

Theyre Biologically immortal.

Would I actually be transported into my new organic or robot brain? Or would it just be a copy of me while I'm still 'stuck' in my own brain?

Depends on whether its consiousness transfer, or simply a copy.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

How do Lobsters do it?

Theyre Biologically immortal.



Depends on whether its consiousness transfer, or simply a copy.

Firstly, the term biological immortality is misleading. It would be more accurate to say lobsters may experience negligible senescence.

There is a large threshold where, if under ideal conditions cellular aging will be negligible.

Lobsters are believed to retain telomerase expression in all fully differentiated tissue types, though it is not know if this process is indefinite. Worth noting though, studying the mechanisms of lobster telomerase replication may be of negligible value for humans (in terms of providing a blueprint/material for gene alteration), as the telomeric repeat sequences and required primers are different between the two species.

Also worth noting in a general sense, is that there are major differences in the mechanisms of senescence between species and that aging is a multifactorial process (cellular aging is just one of a large array of components). Altering telomerase activity may have variable effects in different species, including the reversal of some cellular aging and impact/lack thereof on rates of different cancers and this also applies to humans. The impact on one species is likely to be different, though perhaps similar in some others.

However, reversing cellular aging in a percentage of cells may have negligible impact on general life expectancy.

 

[PP34]

I don't think I want to live forever.

The world will eventually be overpopulated, full of war and pollution.

 

[Malifice]

I don't think I want to live forever.

The world will eventually be overpopulated, full of war and pollution.

You get to watch the species die.

Which I am persuaded that we will.

 

[XFactor1979]

"Do it as if it will you live forever, live today as if it will be your last"

 

[Malifice]

Death trips me out.

Knowing my luck they'll cure it the day after I die.

 

[raskolnikov]

The scary thing is, if it were to happen, who would control it. We're already over-populating. I'd rather live than die, wouldn't you?

I don't know that I would. Certainly for now I would rather live but I reckon living forever would be tiresome. It's like the end of the movie 'The Green Mile' when Tom Hank's character says that he longs for death but it doesn't come. The older I get the less I worry about death.

 

[Pessimistic]

You get to watch the species die.

Which I am persuaded that we will.

Bookmarked !!!!!!

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The scary thing is, if it were to happen, who would control it. We're already over-populating. I'd rather live than die, wouldn't you?

Would you rather live than breed?

 

[Monniehawk]

Death trips me out.

Knowing my luck they'll cure it the day after I die.

Not scared of death.
At all!


It's the dying bit that seems a tad intimidating.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Immortality will necessitate euthanasia.

I find it difficult to contemplate a human without mortality who would not, in the end, become exhausted of life. Even if our biological form could be preserved, our mental being would surely, slowly slide into various forms of insanity, depression and degradation.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You're assuming that we're not insane already?

 

[Blue and Silver]

You're assuming that we're not insane already?

I assume that we are all mentally deficient. Insanity would refer to the abject refusal of reality even in the light of repeatable evidence. The line is of course quite thin, which is why humans could not be immortal without eventually developing a death wish, or becoming so dangerous to others that perpetual restraint, or more likely death would be required.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Immortality without maintained cognitive function is not immortality.

I expect that a society which could create immortality would likely have social disharmony and mental illness under control.

Insanity would refer to the abject refusal of reality even in the light of repeatable evidence.

All human beings exhibit this behaviour already. Look up cognitive dissonance.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Immortality without maintained cognitive function is not immortality.

I expect that a society which could create immortality would likely have social disharmony and mental illness under control.



All human beings exhibit this behaviour already. Look up cognitive dissonance.

Could immortality not be a catalyst for disharmony? What is the likelyhood that it is provisioned equally?

And since when can mental illness be controlled. Ronald Reagan is suspected to have suffered Alzheimers late in his presidential term, various world leaders and politicans are acknowledged to have suffered a variety of mental ailments. Mental illness happens to us all, it is part of humanity, and thus why immortality is, like everything, limited by how much individuals are willing to bear.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Could immortality not be a catalyst for disharmony?

My experience is that education generally brings with it wisdom and an immortal being would not be placed under the sames pressures which disturb human behaviour in the first place.

What is the likelyhood that it is provisioned equally?

Why would you care? You're immortal aren't you? What can anyone possibly do to you?

 

[Blue and Silver]

My experience is that education generally brings with it wisdom and an immortal being would not be placed under the sames pressures which disturb human behaviour in the first place.




Why would you care? You're immortal aren't you? What can anyone possibly do to you?

Inequality is the real problem here, as any society which creates immortality, will invariably, as all human societies do suffer from it. Some people will most likely be immortal first, what is the lag between the richest and the poorest? is everyone entitled? do newborn have the same right? Will someone have to die for someone new to be born? etc. so forth.

I have known some very well-educated fools and some very poorly educated wise people. The correlation is a fantasy. Some people care not for deep thinking and philosophy, and care only for their immediate world and concerns.

 

[Quokka]

100,000+ years of stimulus, that's a lot of info to store and use for an organism that was designed for a lot less.

Could we do it whilst remaining human? (not that that's particuarly important or even desirable). Immortality or even extending lifetimes into the 1000s of years would obviously be a huge achievment but would it be worth much if you could only remember the last few centuries?

 

[Malifice]

Bookmarked !!!!!!

Both the Femi paradox, and lack of human time travellers suggests species annhilation in the not distant future.

As does common sense.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Both the Femi paradox, and lack of human time travellers suggests species annhilation in the not distant future.

As does common sense.

Well now I feel happy. We're not only alone but doomed.

Although if time travel does prove impossible (or stupidly dangerous) that at least renders one of your arguments null