Live Forever?

[Bryn]

I don't think it's outside the realms of possiblity for us to be able to replace to entire human body (apart from the brain) with custom grown organs or machines, within our lifetime.

 

Wot i'd like to know is does the brain age in the same way as the rest of the body? it's not undergoing mitosis so there's no shortening of the telomeres.

I've also seen studies that suggest the brain of a 90 year olds is as good as a 20 years old provided they have the same levels of motivation and presumably the rest of the body is keeping the brain well surpported.

 

so how long would the brain survive if it was the only part we would have to worry about?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The brain has a problem that after your teenage years, it dies faster than it grows. Eventually, it would be entirely dead, and so would you.

[Bryn]

yea but how long are we talking? is it a hundred years? a thousand years? or evan longer. I'd be quite happy with 1000 years, tho i'd like longer tbh.

[-Demosthenes-]

I thoguht that nerve cells couldn't regrow.

[Crash]

well isnt alzimeirs brought on by old age, would other things like this happen? as i see it most people over the age of 80 are getting lesser in the brain to put it nicely

 

i thought our bodys failing were the main reason for death as opposed to our brain???

[Sayonara]

I thoguht that nerve cells couldn't regrow.

Some can be made to - that technology is still being developed.

[Glider]

well isnt alzimeirs brought on by old age, would other things like this happen? as i see it most people over the age of 80 are getting lesser in the brain to put it nicely

 

No. Alzheimer's is a disease. Another term for it is pre-senile dementia. Alzheimer's can aflict people in their 50s and 60s (pre-senile), and occasionally even earlier. Moreover, whilst natural aging processes may have an effect on cognitive function, the neurological and cognitive carnage wrought by Alzheimer's far outweighs anything that occurs naturally (i.e. in the absence of pathology).

 

There is no real reason that people in their 80s can't be as mentally agile as anybody else. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the loss of mental ability, outside of actual pathology, conforms largely to the principle; 'If you don't use it, you lose it'.

[hyperdimension]

according the current research, brain cells only live for about 50-80 years, and it only reproduce until 15 years old, so when you grow old, your brain cell dies out, and so you die.

[Glider]

"Your brain cell dies out, and so you die"?

 

We have many brain cells. Many, many, many. We can also lose a significant number of them before there is any noticable effect at all.

 

The majority of (natural) deaths are attributable to the failure of other organs; the heart and kidneys are common candidates. These are a function of a general systemic failure. The heart becomes less effective, the blood pressure becomes less controlled, the kidneys (which depend on strictly controlled BP, which is why they are significant in its control in the first place) begin to fail, and so-on and so-on, leading to complete systemic collapse.

[Crash]

If our bodys didnt fail,would our minds stay as fit as they have always been?

[Glider]

Pretty much. As I say, excluding disease, there is no reason we can't remain mentally agile into our 80s and 90s. Many people do. Not everybody sinks into dribbling oblivion as they get older. It's like the body, keep it active and fit, and it will serve you well for longer.

[BrainMan]

Despite what used to be thought, it is now known that there are new neurons being generated throughout the lifespan in many areas of the brain- the hippocampus, for example. Nonetheless, the number of neurons decline over time.

[-Demosthenes-]

There was a time when scientist thought that we couldn't grow nerve cells at all, not long ago I remember it. But now we've found that we can?? Can we do it artificially?

[mooeypoo]

I don't think we understand our brain enough to actually build the CORRECT cells...

[Ms. DNA]

Also, how would you add the new cells to the brain? And would you have to guide the development of connections between the nerve cells so they send/receive signals to the right cells?

[YT2095]

Don't call me "cap"!

 

ROFLOL, then don`t call me YT again, you may address me as my full Nick or Sir from now on!

 

now then, have you got ANY idea how silly this could get?

I suggest you chill-out somewhat before EVERYONE starts laughing at you as opposed to just a few

[Glider]

Also, how would you add the new cells to the brain? And would you have to guide the development of connections between the nerve cells so they send/receive signals to the right cells?

Precisely. This is the key. Everything about 'us'; our intelligence, our personality our memories and so-on are much more a function of synaptic connections than sheer numbers of cells. We may be able to replace old or dead cells with new ones, but they would not do what the old ones did. We would have to re-learn and reinforce every synaptic pathway the old cell was a part of (and cortical pyramidal cells, for example, are involved in many).

[-Demosthenes-]

It seems like there should be some way to get the nerve cells to grow inside you head. You know like stimulate the cells or something and it could start growing on it's own?

PS: Can I still call you Cap?

PSS: If YT gets to be called sir, I am now called phoenix

[mooeypoo]

Demonsthenes:

 

I'm the LAST person to tell you soemthing is impossible, so I wont but I will say that if you find a way to make brain cells grow (hell, even without precice control) you'll get really famous, really fast, and you end up being called whatever you want.

 

 

~moo

[BioMan]

Quick one b4 bed:

 

My vote's for extended life is possible. I read an article taling about research on C. habditis, the worm, and they managed to make that live for longer by tweaking genes, as has already been mentioned about the telomeres.

 

Another interesting thing is that sex reduces the lifespan in some species, eg Drosophila, in fact, scientists have bred a male that has sperm so toxic it will instantly kill the female.

 

I believe age is all in the genes because of the evolutionary advantage of dying - but I'll come back to that tomorrow...

[Guest Sci-Fried]

Hi folks,

 

I hope my interpolation here won't adversely affect the crux of this discussion!

 

I'm actually writing a Film screenplay with an aim to explore the concept of "Prolongevity" Vs Evolution from physical, mental, spiritual and philosophical standpoints.

 

I realise that this topic would be best placed in several different topic areas on this forum, but as the subject has already been initiated in this one, I thought I'd just 'jump on the bandwagon'.

 

In a rather large nutshell, the story involves a scenario that was touched on earlier on this thread, the idea that a select few of the leading personalities could be imbued with 'extended lifetimes' (in the same way that currently a 'select few' are earmarked for habitation in underground bunkers in the event of catastrophic events, or perhaps to a lesser degree, the way that certain celebraties have been 'frozen' cryogenically to preserve their genius), in this case (perhaps using 'nano-technology') those selected would be granted this prolonged existence to continue in their pursuits for the betterment of mankind, e.g. scientist could continue their research over hundreds of years, amassing unprecedented experience and knowledge in their field. Similarly, (for better or worse), certain World Leaders could also gain access to the technology, allowing them to potentially extend their duration in office to span several lifetimes, perhaps imbuing them with a seasoning and wisdom and wider perspective that might make the notion of replacing them with a 'Transient' polititian with only a handful of years of experience under his belt seem quite inconcievable.

 

The result would be an interesting perversion of science and technology, where instead of the usual 'evolution' of ideas, where each generation would normally bring new insight and a fresh perspective to enhance or replace existing ideas, in this potential future, the great minds of these 'Prolonged' scientists might simply extend and stretch and elaborate on their own existing ideas to a much greater (though perhaps ultimately futile) extent than would ever occur in our present world (think post-modern turned upon itself, a bit like the 'futuristic' creations of Leonardo Da Vinci and H.G. Wells). The same would occur with architecture, etc.

 

I guess it would be quite a dystopian future!

 

Of course, due to demographic (and perhaps economic and biological) considerations, only these 'elite' few protagonists would recieve the treatment, leaving the common majority of people in the world with their natural lifespans. It might be fair to say that a great rift may develop between those 'Prolonged' people and the 'Transient' masses who's opinions might be treated by the 'Prolonged' with the same respect an adult affords a child, and whose importance and relevance (and human rights) might start to be overlooked, and their potential contributions to science and politics, etc underestimated.

 

Ultimately, it may be that standing still and staying the same in a universe defined by change and movement is ultimately a futile endeavor and that the 'Transient' peoples would eventually 'evolve' and the minds and intelligence of even an average 'Transient' might exceed that of the greatest genius of the 'Prolonged' peoples original generation, even with all the experience and duration of study they would have amassed).

 

Of course, then there are psychological issues of what extended life would do to the human mind (uncharted levels of boredom and depession, even mental exhaustion come to mind - any of which could lead to insanity). Biologically, would a treatment extending longevity over a significant timescale mutate the subject? Would that subject without the need to procreate to continue his bloodline, lose the ability to procreate? How would his brain adapt to facilitate the abundance of memory and the scope of his thoughts based on centuries of experience (theoretically, if it could be regenerated, could a human brain actually continue to store increasing amounts of information indefinitely or would the individual begin to replace old memories, or just go insane?).

 

As you can see, my concept of this are still a big jumble of ideas and questions. But I think it is definitely a though-provoking and relevant subject (especially considering the increasing number of news articles on the subject indicating that such technology is right around the corner). I'll lay off the more spiritual, philosophical and religious aspects of the discussion to avoid getting any further off topic! Does anyone here have any comments or opinions about any of the issues raised in this rather 'prolonged' post?

 

I'd be greatful for any input you see fit to contribute!

 

Cheers!

[BioMan]

Interesting ideas -

 

have you come across the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson? He explores a very similar thing in those books. The ideas in them are fascinating, and the writing's quite good...