Is Aging a preventable or curable disease? or is it natural?

mutley18 · 29-07-2013 10:01AM

Increasing our lifespan to say 200 years would just fúck the planet up with overpopulation no?

Turtwig · 29-07-2013 03:10PM

mutley18 wrote: »

Increasing our lifespan to say 200 years would just fúck the planet up with overpopulation no?

The notion that the planet is overpopulated is incredibly naive. Population growth should eventually flatten out. A better way to consider things is to view population as resource consumption per person if you look at that way the U.S is the most over populated place on this planet by miles. We're not doing so grand ourselves either. Cruelly, it's the people in the areas with almost no resource consumption that would suffer the most if resources were to become scarce.

dar100 · 29-07-2013 03:41PM

Worst question I have ever heard

jmayo · 29-07-2013 03:46PM

mutley18 wrote: »

Increasing our lifespan to say 200 years would just fúck the planet up with overpopulation no?

What will the retirement age be ?

Imagine they make you work for 50 years in some god awful job.
Death might be preferable.

RoyalMarine · 29-07-2013 03:47PM

dar100 wrote: »

Worst question I have ever heard

if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that it's actually a pretty decent topic to discuss.

Personally, I would gladly choose to live for ever. Mortality scares the hell out of me

Sarky · 29-07-2013 04:05PM

Engineering problem is right. We have a few inroads into some of the causes of aging (The telomeres at the ends of chromosomes have something to do with it, but they're also involved in preventing/causing cnacer and other things. We're still working on that). There are probably a good few we haven't identified yet. It's still just a change in a body's biochemistry. Give it time, we'll figure out how and why the changes occur, and then we'll be able to slow them down, maybe even stop them indefinitely.

Gotham · 29-07-2013 04:13PM

Aging and death from old age is preventable.

Aging is not a disease. It's a feature.

Creatures have a lifespan to ensure they evolve within a reasonable timespan. Humans that never die of old age will likely stop evolving, although on that note our technological evolution is no different from our biological one and we have exponentially evolved as a species recently. While it's not the be all and end all of evolution, a species evolves best under pressure, and as the ultimate predator, we don't have that much pressure anyway.

ScumLord · 29-07-2013 04:15PM

Sarky wrote: »

Give it time, we'll figure out how and why the changes occur, and then we'll be able to slow them down, maybe even stop them indefinitely.

I think we know why it happens, it's just wear and tear.

I could see us fixing just about every tissue and organ in the body, we can replace most of them easily enough these days. The big problem as I see it is you can't fix the brain, I would wonder if there is a limit on the working window for a brain. If you're constantly making new paths you may start to overwrite parts or simply run out of space. I don't see how you can undo or prevent damage to that particular organ.

Bar maybe replacing parts of it with digital technology so that you have the potential for unlimited space.

The brain is the only organ that matters really, you could have the body of a 18 year old but if you have the mind of a 90 year old that body is next to useless to you.

Sarky · 29-07-2013 04:29PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I think we know why it happens, it's just wear and tear.

More or less, but the specifics of it are still largely unknown. And still based in chemistry, which we have a pretty good handle on. Find the specific causes, and you can work on solving the problem.

I could see us fixing just about every tissue and organ in the body, we can replace most of them easily enough these days. The big problem as I see it is you can't fix the brain, I would wonder if there is a limit on the working window for a brain. If you're constantly making new paths you may start to overwrite parts or simply run out of space. I don't see how you can undo or prevent damage to that particular organ.

Replacing organs is all well and good, but they still age. Dolly the sheep wasn't born young, it still had all the problems a fully grown sheep had due to the biochemistry of the cells it was cloned from. Genes were expressing in adult patterns instead of newly born ones, chromosomes had already been copied and divided god knows how many times instead of a fresh start scenario you get from natural reproduction...

Once we figure out how and why "wear and tear" occurs in biology, we won't really need to replace bits and pieces.

Bar maybe replacing parts of it with digital technology so that you have the potential for unlimited space.

The brain is the only organ that matters really, you could have the body of a 18 year old but if you have the mind of a 90 year old that body is next to useless to you.

True, the brain is the interesting one. We're already getting to grips with the causes of alzheimers, so it's only a matter of time before that becomes treatable or even preventable. I doubt anyone in history has really tested the limits of the brain yet as far as storage capacity goes. Of course, if we can figure out how to reduce or prevent aging, we can start having a look at that.

And even if there is a limit, there have been promising results from hooking microchips up to the brains of mice and such, so cybernetics aren't that far away tbh.

Frank Lee Midere · 29-07-2013 06:08PM

ScumLord wrote: »

The big problem as I see it is you can't fix the brain, I would wonder if there is a limit on the working window for a brain. If you're constantly making new paths you may start to overwrite parts or simply run out of space. I don't see how you can undo or prevent damage to that particular organ.

Yes. The brain is a big issue. We can actually probably solve alzheimers, thats an aging problem. But the brain doesn't really add new cells. And if it did would it be you?

Tha said there are 90 year olds who have no problem with thinking or writing. PD James for instance.

shruikan2553 · 29-07-2013 07:36PM

Technology has taken over as our form of evolution. A lot of issues we've had with our environment have been solved through technology and will continue to do so. We need aging but the problem is it doesn't stop. What is the best way to age? Go to 18 and then start slowing down, stopping when our bodies reach the equivalent of 30? Slow down aging from the ages of 5-15 so that our young brain absorbs information better? The longer we live the more time we have to learn, we could have people spending 40 years in college and coming out at the same level as someone who is at the top of their area now. People will say we shouldn't play god and that we live long enough now but so long as their is information to learn I have reason to live. Accidents and illness will still happen so while our population grows there will be people dying for whatever reason. I doubt most people will have more children than we do now.

Knine · 29-07-2013 07:51PM

Mother Nature is a serial killer

sxt · 30-07-2013 05:11PM

Jernal wrote: »

Aging is a biological process. So it's definitely alterable. Whether we'll ever achieve that is another question. Given how far we've come in health related stuff I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

As for it being natural? What on earth difference does that make to it being curable or not? Most diseases that people die from are natural.

I don't think that it is natural. By saying that diseases are natural , that is saying that any given diseases are inevitable. Rampant death from diseases like smallpox have been iradicated. Vacines and antobiotics have been developed to cure countless diseases. Are man made medical interventions unnatural? Evolution doesn't care whether we die at 90 or live to 200. There is no ethical reason why we shouldn’t try to slow down or reverse aging

ScumLord · 30-07-2013 05:36PM

sxt wrote: »

I don't think that it is natural. By saying that diseases are natural , that is saying that any given diseases are inevitable.

Disease is inevitable, it usually caused by another living organism attacking you. It's as natural as a lion attacking a gizelle.

I think we need to lose this draconian idea of natural and unnatural. Anything that happens is natural. We've allowed our invented moral codes to corrupt our view of the nature and the universe. Everything humans do is by default natural because we are a part of nature. Dinosaurs didn't become unnatural because they started flying.

sxt · 30-07-2013 06:28PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Disease is inevitable, it usually caused by another living organism attacking you. It's as natural as a lion attacking a gizelle.

I think we need to lose this draconian idea of natural and unnatural. Anything that happens is natural. We've allowed our invented moral codes to corrupt our view of the nature and the universe. Everything humans do is by default natural because we are a part of nature. Dinosaurs didn't become unnatural because they started flying.

The concept of disease is a social construct , which changes with time ,it is not a fact of nature

It was once deemed natural for Mothers to die in child birth

Turtwig · 30-07-2013 06:57PM

sxt wrote: »

I don't think that it is natural. By saying that diseases are natural , that is saying that any given diseases are inevitable.

-and they are. Diseases are result of biologically processes. These processes will continue to happen. While still natural it is not necessarily inevitable that diseases will infect a person.

Sarky · 30-07-2013 06:57PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Yes. The brain is a big issue. We can actually probably solve alzheimers, thats an aging problem. But the brain doesn't really add new cells. And if it did would it be you?

Recent research suggests the brain is mad for a bit of cell division, actually. The concept of self is getting a bit insufficient at this stage though. Were you "you" when you were 4 years old and your brain was over a decade away from being developed fully? Course you were. You remember it, you were there. Oh sure, the network of cells in there shifted about and became way more complex, and it changed you, but it's still as "you" as you've ever been.

Tha said there are 90 year olds who have no problem with thinking or writing. PD James for instance.

Keeping the brain exercised does a whole lot of good for staving off old age dementia and "old person" problems. Terry Pratchett has some pretty serious alzheimers at this stage, but he's still a bloody sharp writer and speaker because he reads, writes, and does a whole load of stuff to keep his brain busy.

Fluorescence · 30-07-2013 07:19PM

Modern medicine can only go so far in treating the symptoms of aging. To prevent/cure aging itself you're really talking about fiddling around with our very genetic make-up. Encouraging cells to perfectly replicate themselves every time. Which is entirely within the scope of human achievement, though probably not in my own lifetime (and I'm in my early 20s).

Whether or not drastically altering our longevity is wise or not is an entirely different argument. That's when morality and science start to butt heads in a way that cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

ScumLord · 30-07-2013 07:39PM

sxt wrote: »

The concept of disease is a social construct , which changes with time ,it is not a fact of nature

I see where you're coming from in that we have more recognised diseases now. But the definition of a disease is something that disrupts the operation of the body. That is inevitable and natural, your body is constantly at war at a cellular level.

It was once deemed natural for Mothers to die in child birth

It still is. Child birth is dangerous, it's probably one of the hardest things a body can go through. It's not at all surprising it can often kill people. There are no guarantees in nature.

sxt · 30-07-2013 07:43PM

Fluorescence wrote: »

Whether or not drastically altering our longevity is wise or not is an entirely different argument. That's when morality and science start to butt heads in a way that cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

Prolonging a persons healthy lifespan could only be a good thing,Ethically (less suffering) and economically ( reduction of healthcare costs and a longer and more productive work force)

Fluorescence · 30-07-2013 07:55PM

sxt wrote: »

Prolonging a persons healthy lifespan could only be a good thing,Ethically (less suffering) and economically ( reduction of healthcare costs and a longer and more productive work force)

Ah but the most likely scenario is that increased lifespan will only be available to the ultra-wealthy for a long time. That'll create enormous societal segregation in and of itself. Then you're looking at drastic increases in population where the birth rate will probably remain around the same level but the death rate is reduced massively. The myriad economic issues that would arise from such a deep-rooted cultural shift barely bear thinking about :P And of course there'll always be the zealots who'll happily raze 'em all for daring to play God.

Then again, with increased lifespans comes the possibility for incredible human achievement. Ever wondered what might have happened if Leonardo da Vinci had had a few hundred years to hone his various disciplines? The works Beethoven might have produced given enough lifetimes? Now there lies the most compelling reason to extend human lifespans.

Mind you I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist so all of this is uneducated musings.

sxt · 30-07-2013 09:25PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I see where you're coming from in that we have more recognised diseases now. But the definition of a disease is something that disrupts the operation of the body. That is inevitable and natural, your body is constantly at war at a cellular level.

.

Which will continue to happen , but it is something that can be slowed ,repaired or combated with medical intervention.

sxt · 30-07-2013 10:10PM

Fluorescence wrote: »

Ah but the most likely scenario is that increased lifespan will only be available to the ultra-wealthy for a long time. That'll create enormous societal segregation in and of itself. Then you're looking at drastic increases in population where the birth rate will probably remain around the same level but the death rate is reduced massively..

At first as with all technologies, the elite and rich would have access to the initial therapies.

But,The economic and political pressure to bring these therapies to the masses would be immense ,Unless your living in Saudi Arabia or North korea or some other repressive place

With mass production these therapies would become affordable to everyone . The therapies would be even better that the initial therapies .

The trend for women having children later in life (in industrialised countries) would continue, or there would be limits put on how many children you can have ,at worst the globe will have decades to think of an alternative solutions with whatever emerging technological solutions arise . The world isn't overpopulated ,the problem is overdependance on limited finite resources

There would be a myriad of problems and upheavel , but at the cost of a healthier, more productive race, it would be worth it

Dark Artist · 30-07-2013 10:41PM

I do believe that ageing will eventually be controlled but not in the way it's implied here.

When we reach singularity - the moment when we develop technology advanced enough to improve itself - that's the moment when **** hits the fan. Basically, the robots are coming and we should be scared. I'm not trolling. This is a thing.

We're embracing prosthetic limbs, mechanical body parts and functionality, genetic engineering combined with medical and technological advances. It makes sense, it's what our civilization is becoming already.

If you think this sounds like nonsense, just do a bit of research on the matter, see what exists out there right now and think of what's possible in the next fifty years. Technology and nature are the same thing - just the next step in evolution. I fully believe that technology will bypass us purely for the sole reason that we won't be able to handle our own changing environment for much longer. At that point we will have evolved into biotechnological cyborgs (probably with the ability to not age) or we'll have become extinct. There will be a single, worldwide, connected artificial intelligence that is greater than us, and it may or may not be empathetic towards our survival.

Here's one article that talks about such things: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm

Is Aging a preventable or curable disease? or is it natural?

Comments