-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Age-defying: Master key of lifespan found in brain
- Thread starter Kimawolf
- Start date
- Status
Well when you put it that way and I can choose my penis I'm all for it.
Why? Because we fucking can!
There is a big frigging universe waiting for us, let us evolve ourselves to something that can conquer it!
computers putin'
Member
Are you trying to compare anybody with a bit of cynical outlook on this to a terrorist? or are you co-signing his opinions?
Freezie KO
Banned
The sad thing about medical research is that we'll probably figure out a way for your hard-on to last two hundred years before we figure it out for the rest of you.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
You do realize that evolution does not always improve things, right? There are no selection pressures presently existing that would steer human evolution in the direction of being smarter or stronger. If we want to become some sort of ubermensch we'll have to modify ourselves.
Their loss for choosing not to live longer for whatever reason. It's all part of the natural selection
Evolve, modify, whatever.
Yeah, sure, directed evolution is kinda oxymoronic. Usually people, including me, use to mean species self-modification.
Are you actually joking? You understand the concept of human capital right? Look at the technology we've developed in this world, and tell me that having our best and brightest minds having hundreds of years more experience in addition to working together, is not going to be useful?
CornBurrito
Member
Well it isn't that oxymoronic. Evolution is not exactly natural selection, though natural selection typically causes evolution. Evolution is really just changes in allele frequencies in a population over time.
Oxymoronic in the sense that evolution has no set goal but self-modification does have, and directed evolution is used to mean self-modification.
Certainly next level stuff.
Necromanti
Member
I'd say we are redefining our relationship with our environment to the point that we ourselves establish what constitutes our environment. Mindfuckery of the highest order either way.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I'd argue that this is a part of nature. Our intellect (and the things that result from it) is our specialty/niche, like an eagle's eye or a cheetah's speed.
edit: woah, ^ beaten.
Humans adapt to their environment... but we also adapt our environment to suit our needs.
This makes us succesful as a species.
Next step, the stars. Make sure our species (well, off-shoots of it probably) exists still there is no more universe.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
First I'd have to take into consideration whether or not my life is worth extending.
I would agree I guess, in the long term, but to me it just looks like the "endgame" of our entire existence. Don't confuse that we me saying our purpose as a race is to overcome aging and death, but merely that it's a side effect of what we've been doing since our ancestors discovered that fire keeps you from freezing to death.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Extending the lives of the 1% that contribute at the cost of extending the 99% that consume natural resources and offset the balance in nature, I say no thanks. Thanks to storing information since the time of the egyptians, the knowledge gained by one group is not lost (unless you stored it in the library of Alexandria). If that is your sole argument, I say there is even more benefit to having fresh minds look at the data (see every finding in history).
The human race would stagnate if people lived forever. We need new points of view, and a turnover of the people who hold the reins of power politically and financially.
Also, from what was posted, it looks like the oldest mice in the experiment group lived 1100 days, while the control group did not make it past 900 days. I'd take 20% more life, but it's not exactly biological immortality.
Also, from what was posted, it looks like the oldest mice in the experiment group lived 1100 days, while the control group did not make it past 900 days. I'd take 20% more life, but it's not exactly biological immortality.
So in society there's 1% of people who contribute and 99% who just mill about and eat Krave?
Too much Fox News dude.
Angelus Errare
Banned
No idea what's the clip's point.
I was kinda exaggerating, but i sure as hell wouldn't try to stop people, or discourage them. But that's (killing) bound to happen if any life-extension treatment is not equally accessible.
By the way, if someone is interesting in life extension in fiction:
Kim Stanley Robinsson's Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) explore consequences of life-extension treatment. Of course, that is only a part of the trilogy, but it is interesting reading as a whole, if you like well researched hard scifi.
In the books, first-world countries make it part of general health-care, though in practice people get it through employee benefits. Third-world kinda rebels against others because they have no access to the treatment, and it wasn't bloodless in the first-world either.
Sanky Panky
Banned
I guess the true ratio is closer to the 80/20 rule, but if we are talking about your geniuses that truly have an impact in the course of history, 1% would be a kind estimate.
And I hate fox news and conservatives for that matter.
I see that what I'm saying is very idealistic, but I think immortality could bring a lot of benefit. Especially as the time span will ultimately let everyone get really good at stuff in general.
Could create awkward dynamics at clubs tho when everyone's the same age physically, but obv there's the mental disparity. The 800 year olds would steer well the FUCK away from the 400 year olds because the 400 year olds' cultural fads were weird as fuck. The 500, 600 & 700 year olds would probably hang out and be cool, but then the 1000 year olds and 200 year olds would have this mega weird love for eachother cos their generations both discovered Fijian death metal at the same time. Then the legit 20 year olds would be terrified as fuck cos they're dealing with all this shit early on and are like 'whaaaaat'
rykomatsu
Member
Rate of drugs making it to market hasnt changed drastically in years/decades even with software/hardware improvements.
A solution in a rat is many many many steps and dollars away from approval and the vast majority of development will fail.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
The background of this gif is freaking me out.
Heh i forsee a time when treatments like this are for the rich and well off, and like your avatar, it's the poor that get the "mechanical" treatments.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
I think this all the fucking time. They're going to make us immortal when my body is already used up.
Chuck Norris
Banned
So it's not really keeping you young, it's just making you be old for longer?
If it operates via controlling GnRH production it sounds like that it effectively stops the body's natural maturation process. GnRH causes the production of FSH and LH which in turn cause puberty and maturation.
Edit: on second view it's increasing the GnRH and not decreasing it. I guess that means that it would put the body in a perpetual state of young adulthood (young as in ages 25-49) where the body is at its most vital.
Edit: on second view it's increasing the GnRH and not decreasing it. I guess that means that it would put the body in a perpetual state of young adulthood (young as in ages 25-49) where the body is at its most vital.
SiteSeer
Member
can one paragraph be anymore vague? i feel like if you just blanked out a few choice words, you could have a really great, yet gloomy, ad lib going.
- Status