Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    16 Jul '20 21:154 edits
    I really hope this type of research will one day lead to a way to significantly slow down the aging process in the human body and I am sure it is just a question of when, not if.
    But I sadly think it would probably come far to late to have any real chance of helping me and my generation but, obviously, I really hope to be proven completely wrong about that;

    https://phys.org/news/2020-07-paths-aging-insights-healthspan.html
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53125
    16 Jul '20 21:52
    @humy
    The best thing right now is to have chosen the right parents.....
  3. Subscribervenda
    Dave
    S.Yorks.England
    Joined
    18 Apr '10
    Moves
    72211
    17 Jul '20 13:23
    @humy said
    I really hope this type of research will one day lead to a way to significantly slow down the aging process in the human body and I am sure it is just a question of when, not if.
    But I sadly think it would probably come far to late to have any real chance of helping me and my generation but, obviously, I really hope to be proven completely wrong about that;

    https://phys.org/news/2020-07-paths-aging-insights-healthspan.html
    Why would you want to slow down the ageing process?
    There are already too many human beings destroying the planet as it is.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    17 Jul '20 15:122 edits
    @venda said
    Why would you want to slow down the ageing process?
    There are already too many human beings destroying the planet as it is.
    Here's a new plan;
    How about we BOTH slow down the aging process so we live longer AND stop destroying the planet by arranging to live in a sustainable way?
    I really fail to see why the two would be mutually exclusive.
  5. Subscribervenda
    Dave
    S.Yorks.England
    Joined
    18 Apr '10
    Moves
    72211
    18 Jul '20 12:40
    @humy said
    Here's a new plan;
    How about we BOTH slow down the aging process so we live longer AND stop destroying the planet by arranging to live in a sustainable way?
    I really fail to see why the two would be mutually exclusive.
    The problem there is feeding and housing a burgeoning population.
    If we live longer, even with controlling birth rates , where are we going to put everybody?
    Destroy more habitat for other species?
  6. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Australia
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    349890
    18 Jul '20 14:21
    @venda said
    The problem there is feeding and housing a burgeoning population.
    If we live longer, even with controlling birth rates , where are we going to put everybody?
    Destroy more habitat for other species?
    We oldies mostly don't really want to live longer, we just want to stay healthy longer and then exit rapidly and painlessly when we stop enjoying our lives..
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    18 Jul '20 14:21
    @venda said
    The problem there is feeding and housing a burgeoning population.
    Actually it isn't. The all too common idea that there is poverty in the world specifically because there is overpopulation is a myth not supported by the scientific evidence.

    https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-deadly-myth-behind-the-other-modern-myths/

    I think this issue deserves its own separate thread.
  8. Subscribervenda
    Dave
    S.Yorks.England
    Joined
    18 Apr '10
    Moves
    72211
    18 Jul '20 16:06
    @humy said
    Actually it isn't. The all too common idea that there is poverty in the world specifically because there is overpopulation is a myth not supported by the scientific evidence.

    https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-deadly-myth-behind-the-other-modern-myths/

    I think this issue deserves its own separate thread.
    I agree about a separate thread.
    I haven't looked at the websites but I wasn't really talking about poverty.
    There's other ways to iradicate that, such as cooperation between nations or using the land more economically.
    What I was really saying was where will all the extra billions live?
    Humans are alreasy wiping out other species by building in their natural habitat,damming rivers to produce electricity preventing fish migration etc.
    Where does it all end?
  9. Joined
    14 Mar '04
    Moves
    123694
    18 Jul '20 16:25
    @venda said
    I agree about a separate thread.
    I haven't looked at the websites but I wasn't really talking about poverty.
    There's other ways to iradicate that, such as cooperation between nations or using the land more economically.
    What I was really saying was where will all the extra billions live?
    Humans are alreasy wiping out other species by building in their natural habitat,damming rivers to produce electricity preventing fish migration etc.
    Where does it all end?
    For us? When the sun burns itself out is my guess. I think that's predicted to happen in something like 5 billion years from now (sure hope I'm not around when that happens). Man will figure out how to last till then...maybe.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53125
    18 Jul '20 20:53
    @Great-Big-Stees
    Well most of the life forms on Earth have only been around for a half billion years or so. 99% of which went extinct.
    So a few million years and down the drain for that species.
    It will be no different for mankind
    Unless we get the hell off this planet and get out into interstellar space and new planets but even then there will be a time limit for humans.
    Worrying about 5 billion years when we will all be gone in more like 5 MILLION years if that so the end of the sun's life is the least of our worries.
  11. Standard memberbunnyknight
    bunny knight
    planet Earth
    Joined
    12 Dec '13
    Moves
    2917
    18 Jul '20 22:32
    @venda said
    The problem there is feeding and housing a burgeoning population.
    If we live longer, even with controlling birth rates , where are we going to put everybody?
    Destroy more habitat for other species?
    Well let's say we get to live to 1000 years. That means we need to make 1 new baby for every 1 death in order to keep a stable population. So for 7 billion people we need to make 7 billion new babies every 1000 years, which means that every family will have to wait a very long time before saying hello to a newborn. It's doable but it would take some major adjustment to our society.
  12. Subscribervenda
    Dave
    S.Yorks.England
    Joined
    18 Apr '10
    Moves
    72211
    19 Jul '20 12:56
    @bunnyknight said
    Well let's say we get to live to 1000 years. That means we need to make 1 new baby for every 1 death in order to keep a stable population. So for 7 billion people we need to make 7 billion new babies every 1000 years, which means that every family will have to wait a very long time before saying hello to a newborn. It's doable but it would take some major adjustment to our society.
    I think we all know such a scenario is never going to happen.
    Just supposing someone does find a magic formula to slow down the ageing process.
    Do you think the powers that be are going to allow it to become public knowledge?
    Not a chance.It's existence wouild be denied.
    It would be reserved for the rich and priveliged who would pay millions to recieve the innoculation or whatever form it took
    The knowledge would "leak out" eventually of course and there would be a major world war over it.
    Perhaps that would be the ideal way to reduce the over population of humans on the planet
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Jul '20 15:561 edit
    @venda said

    Just supposing someone does find a magic formula to slow down the ageing process.
    Do you think the powers that be are going to allow it to become public knowledge?
    I think, assuming the person or scientists who discovered or worked out its chemical formula (or whatever treatment that has that effect such as gene therapy etc. Actually, I think gene therapy is by far the most likely route) would think like me with vaguely my morality, probably yes but definitely not immediately i.e. before the technology was scaled up to be able to treat EVERYONE who want's it else there would be a risk of causing total chaos that would cause far more harm than good!
    This is because if I discovered such a chemical formula (or whatever) then that's what I would plan to do with it. I confess I would selfishly treat myself first with it (I certainly wouldn't do that if I was young and healthy but I am old with medical complications and could without warning suddenly die any time soon of heart attack or stroke and I am scared of just that) and with the intent of eventually publicly admitting that BUT then, for then afterwards, I would think purely altruisticly by striving to secretly scale up its production so to make enough to treat free of charge everyone who wants it and don't go public with it until it is possible to treat everyone as opposed to a privileged few.
    I personally would insist on it being given FREE of charge else I would think that unethical for several reasons one of them being a charge would deny access to the very poor and that would be extremely wrong.
    It must also be done secretly until everyone can be treated else, well, just think what would happen! Thousands of people coming over to me begging to be the first ones to be treated before its too late for them and with no ability to treat most of them! How to deal with such a situation? Make them draw straws? Or do I personally monstrously choose who lives and who dies! A totally unacceptable situation that must be avoided at all costs hence the reason to initially keep it secrete and ONLY make it public when EVERYONE who wants it can immediately have it!
  14. Subscribervenda
    Dave
    S.Yorks.England
    Joined
    18 Apr '10
    Moves
    72211
    20 Jul '20 11:13
    @humy said
    I think, assuming the person or scientists who discovered or worked out its chemical formula (or whatever treatment that has that effect such as gene therapy etc. Actually, I think gene therapy is by far the most likely route) would think like me with vaguely my morality, probably yes but definitely not immediately i.e. before the technology was scaled up to be able to treat EV ...[text shortened]... nitially keep it secrete and ONLY make it public when EVERYONE who wants it can immediately have it!
    You talk as if we live in a perfect world.
    Where are you going to store all this genetic material?
    As soon as it's known where the magic potion is someone is going to steal it to make money from it.
    Cynical I know but that's the world we live in I'm afraid
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    20 Jul '20 11:414 edits
    @venda said

    Where are you going to store all this genetic material?
    As soon as it's known where the magic potion is someone is going to steal it to make money from it.
    How many times do you hear about life saving treatments being stolen by thieves?
    What proportion of life saving treatments are stolen by thieves each year? 0.1% ? Much less?
    What you suggest would happen certainly isn't usually a big part of the real world.
    + the thief would probably need to know inside information such as where the material is stored and exactly how to use it (else what's the point?) and about the alarm systems and the combination number for the safe and which safe etc. all of which would be kept a closely regarded secret for very obvious reasons unless we are all completely stupid!
    And, as I said before, If it was me, I would keep what I got secrete until everyone can be and then is treated free of change and that would mean at first any would-be thief wouldn't know there was anything to steal from me and then after start giving to all people free that would mean there is no profit in it for the thieve because what kind of complete moron would pay money to a thieve for it when I am offering to them free of charge? They would be paying money and risk going to jail for possession of stolen goods for no reason because they could have just taken it perfectly legally for free!
Back to Top