brokenportal Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Im building a general blue print for a list of jobs. The list of jobs involves every job needing to be done if we were to hypothetically go out and cure every disease, dissorder, affliction and dissabling health condition with in the next 50 years. What I need now is to explain the concept to somebody who knows how to write up the idea in the form of a proffessionally organized and thorough proposal. If I can just get the proposal drawn up like that so I can feel confident in promoting it then I will doing some heavy, heavy marketing and persuading to get people to look at it and get some initial funds pouring into this project so we can accelerate its completion. If the owner of this group is reading this, please let me know if you care if I post links to peices of writing from my forums in msn that go into different details about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Im building a general blue print for a list of jobs. The list of jobs involves every job needing to be done if we were to hypothetically go out and cure every disease' date=' dissorder, affliction and dissabling health condition with in the next 50 years. [/quote'] Only 50 years? Good Luck! There are so many conditions where we are nowhere near understanding their causes, yet alone having cures for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenportal Posted January 7, 2005 Author Share Posted January 7, 2005 That is true, It is a daunting challenge, but look at it. The tip of the ice berg is barely touched. but put the worlds population in the shape of an ice berg and you would see that the number of people being used to cure those diseases, the tip of that ice berg, is barely being touched. Daunting tasks are rendered less so when broken down into smaller projects. One person can do one years worth of work in one year, though one billion people can do one billion years worth of work in one year. God, I get shivers almost every time I write or think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenportal Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 Any other comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakuenso Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 are you crazy? you think we can bypass the millions of years of evolution required by the adaptive natures of the diseases in 50 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenportal Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 No Im not crazy, and yes I do think we can bypass them. We live in the age of exponential technological progress after all. The tools at our disposal are becoming more powerful by the year now. We can already take out genes and replace them to cure diseases, we have nanobots, thousands of which can fit on the head of a pin, exponentiality is on a rampant rise. There are 7 diseases that cause our cells to age. They dont stand a chance. It is only a matter of time now. It is only a matter of people wanting it and helping move it forward faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrburns2012 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Im building a general blue print for a list of jobs. The list of jobs involves every job needing to be done if we were to hypothetically go out and cure every disease, dissorder, affliction and dissabling health condition with in the next 50 years. What I need now is to explain the concept to somebody who knows how to write up the idea in the form of a proffessionally organized and thorough proposal. If I can just get the proposal drawn up like that so I can feel confident in promoting it then I will doing some heavy, heavy marketing and persuading to get people to look at it and get some initial funds pouring into this project so we can accelerate its completion. If the owner of this group is reading this, please let me know if you care if I post links to peices of writing from my forums in msn that go into different details about this. You remind me of this guy Aubrey de Grey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey). He was on a quest just like yours, and even became the subject of the documentary film, "Do You Want to Live Forever?" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972&hl=en Watch it if you want to see where the road might lead you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 We can already take out genes and replace them to cure diseases, we have nanobots, thousands of which can fit on the head of a pin, exponentiality is on a rampant rise. No, we can't replace genes and we don't have nanobots. We're close on each, but both are nowhere near actual implementation. There are 7 diseases that cause our cells to age. They dont stand a chance. It is only a matter of time now. It is only a matter of people wanting it and helping move it forward faster. Wrong. Cells age due to damage accumulated via metabolism - there is no possible way to stop or cure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 First step is to find solvents for all the membrane proteins, that will easily take you until you die so there is little point in mentioning anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenportal Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Ok, we may not be able to cure them with gene replacement, but we have developed working therapies and we're on our way. We already have the nanotechnology and are on our way to nanobots. So your right, but like you say we are on our way. Cells die due to damage accumulated by metabolism. Many of us call them diseases. We can stop or slow it by engineering the removal of the damage that accumulates before it becomes pathogenic. We could also select for genes that cause metabolism to perform at a more optimal rate so it accumulates far less damage. We will still die, but we will have a chance to live on much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 it would seem that between posts #5 and #6 Raising the Dead has been solved/cured, 4+ years Dead in fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenportal Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 My friend linked me to an AI topic here and when I tried to register it said somebody was already using my name. So I put in my password and found I had already signed up here. So I went looking for what I had written before. Interesting perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Cells die due to damage accumulated by metabolism. Many of us call them diseases. We can stop or slow it by engineering the removal of the damage that accumulates before it becomes pathogenic. We could also select for genes that cause metabolism to perform at a more optimal rate so it accumulates far less damage. We will still die, but we will have a chance to live on much longer. Not all diseases are caused by cell damage - most are pathogens like viri and bacteria. Natural cell damage typically leads to one type of disease: cancer. More importantly, the metabolic processes that generate the most intracellular damage are those involved in oxidizing food (carbs, fats, proteins). It *is* possible to scale this back 10-fold, with one small disadvantage - we'd become ectotherms, or 'cold-blooded'. We'd have to completely abandon all latitudes outside of the tropics, and would need to spend a substantially amount of time and effort regulating our body temperature via external means such as basking. Mokle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vgamer1 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 No, we can't replace genes and we don't have nanobots. We're close on each, but both are nowhere near actual implementation. Wrong. Cells age due to damage accumulated via metabolism - there is no possible way to stop or cure it. We can't replace genes yet, but we can modify them. And actually we do have nanobots. They aren't very advanced, but they do exist. Here's an example of nanobots being implemented to treat foot cancer: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2008/apr/03/sciencehealth-researchers-shrink-cancer-treatment-/ The damage that cells undergo as a result of metabolism can be slowed, stopped, and reversed. It's like keeping up a car and replacing the parts when they break down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The damage that cells undergo as a result of metabolism can be slowed, stopped, and reversed. It's like keeping up a car and replacing the parts when they break down. No, it can't. The only way to stop the production of damaging metabolic by-products is death. We can reduce it, but can't stop it, and some damage simply cannot be undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vgamer1 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 No, it can't. The only way to stop the production of damaging metabolic by-products is death. We can reduce it, but can't stop it, and some damage simply cannot be undone. Care to support your claims? People are already slowing the aging process through many means such as supplements, calorie restriction, exercise, etc. The next steps are on their way. Gene therapy and nanotechnology will allow us to actually repair damage to aging cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Care to support your claims? People are already slowing the aging process through many means such as supplements, calorie restriction, exercise, etc.No they're not, they were increasing the ageing process in the first place by not doing those things. I mean calorie restriction, isn't extending their life, being fat was killing them.The next steps are on their way. Gene therapy and nanotechnology will allow us to actually repair damage to aging cells.Eh...not really gene therapy can only be used before someone is born to have any extensive effect and the biological systems aren't even understood well enough to use nanotechnology to fix them, not to mention the technology not even being available for any practical use in vivo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Care to support your claims? Sure. Go read a textbook on cellular metabolism. Hell, read a textbook on organic chemistry. This is sophomore-level stuff. All reactions produce damaging waste. That's why we pee. People are already slowing the aging process through many means such as supplements, calorie restriction, exercise, etc. Slowing, not stopping. Gene therapy and nanotechnology will allow us to actually repair damage to aging cells. Wrong. Some damage is easy to repair, such as when it results in mis-aligned base pairs. But what if it's a bigger mutation, such as a deletion of several base pairs? You cannot detect such a mutation without knowing the original code. That's far too much data for any nanobot to contain, and to fix it by gene therapy would require constant gene therapy for every single bit of DNA in our body. Oh, and let's not forget that there are non-genetic damages too, such as to methylation patterns, nucleosome placement, and associated proteins. It would be like keeping your computer functional by formatting the drive and re-installing everything every 5 minutes. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 People are already slowing the aging process through many means such as supplements, calorie restriction, exercise, etc. No they're not, they were increasing the ageing process in the first place by not doing those things. I mean calorie restriction, isn't extending their life, being fat was killing them. You seem to be mincing words, here, Psycho. What Vgamer1 said about caloric restriction helping to extend lifespan is actually quite true. It's about more than just "not being fat," as the effects extend to organisms even at normal weight. To understand how, one can review some of the following: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=caloric+restriction+lifespan&hl=en&lr= However, just to reinforce the point Mokele has been making, we CAN extend lifespan and SLOW the aging process, but we CANNOT stop it or reverse it. I think that's the point to bear in mind, and the text you quoted from Vgamer1 is well in line with that fact (despite some of the erroneous claims above about stopping or reversing aging). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vgamer1 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Sure. Go read a textbook on cellular metabolism. Hell, read a textbook on organic chemistry. This is sophomore-level stuff. All reactions produce damaging waste. That's why we pee. Slowing, not stopping. Wrong. Some damage is easy to repair, such as when it results in mis-aligned base pairs. But what if it's a bigger mutation, such as a deletion of several base pairs? You cannot detect such a mutation without knowing the original code. That's far too much data for any nanobot to contain, and to fix it by gene therapy would require constant gene therapy for every single bit of DNA in our body. Oh, and let's not forget that there are non-genetic damages too, such as to methylation patterns, nucleosome placement, and associated proteins. It would be like keeping your computer functional by formatting the drive and re-installing everything every 5 minutes. Mokele Honestly, I'm not a biology or chemistry major. It seems that you are more knowledgeable about the technicalities of this stuff. But to out right say that it is impossible to repair damage isn't right. Again, I'm not a biology major, but you said that you need to know the original DNA code in order to repair damage? An entire genome is really not that much information. And it wouldn't have to be stored directly on the nanomachine. For example, the information needed could be transferred wirelessly. Or maybe the info could be stored directly on the nanobot, I'm not sure exactly and I don't know how you can be so sure, since nanotechnology is only in it's infancy. Another possibility is to replace our biological cells with synthetic cells. They already have artificial red blood cells that function in animals and are thousands of times more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 An entire genome is really not that much information. And it wouldn't have to be stored directly on the nanomachine. For example, the information needed could be transferred wirelessly. Or maybe the info could be stored directly on the nanobot, I'm not sure exactly and I don't know how you can be so sure, since nanotechnology is only in it's infancy. Another possibility is to replace our biological cells with synthetic cells. They already have artificial red blood cells that function in animals and are thousands of times more efficient. Those are interesting ideas. One thing I wonder is, which would make the nanomachine more complex and less likely? Would it be storing the actual data, or storing a system complex enough to receive wi-fi? There are some pretty interesting engineering problems to overcome if you pursue this, but I support your point that it's not necessarily impossible. I think Mokele was more trying to correct your broad generalization that we could repair any damage. That's quite a feat, especially when the damage is more significant (he knows much more about this than I do, and I'm willing to accept his assertion that there is some damage which simply can't be undone). So, it's fine to speculate and try to engineer solutions, just ensure you do so with a solid grounding and grasp of the true realities at play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenportal Posted April 18, 2009 Author Share Posted April 18, 2009 Well, Im kind of lost in the "CAN" and "CAN'T"s now. I know Im guilty of it too sometimes. We will find a way, and we are finding a way. It may not be exactly this or that specific path, and we will encounter many bumps along the way and find much maybe unexpected smooth sailing along the way. There are 7 catagories of damage that accumulate till the point of death, that we call aging. There are strategies that are already developed to combat these. There are also a couple other approaches besides the engineering of damage removal. Part of what we do is work to build on to these lists of strategies, through peer review processes. If you guys want to help us brainstorm with that more directly then let me know. I can direct you to the areas where the researchers are doing this. Tomorrow, the Dr. Aubrey deGrey, one of the worlds leading authorities on ending aging science is going to be interviewed. You can watch and interact live via the chat box and will have a chance to skype in. Its tomorrow, sunday April 19th at 5pm cst, 6pm est, here: imminst.org/tv Please comment about it here in this scienceforums topic if you watch it. I could embed it for people to watch straight from here but Im not sure if I can enable html in this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenprogrammin Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) I'm going to just promote my idea... It's all hypothetical. Have you seen "Bodies, the Exhibition"? ://www.bodiestheexhibition.com/ Well... I think there are possibly some improtant components to this art. What if our cytosol was more efficient at nutralizing free radicals? What if we added a chromosome/plasmid into a sperm or egg that promotes development of say a simple hydrocarbon into each of our cells? What if this simple hydrocarbon production was to temporarily increase to higher levels during puberty to the point were cellular metabolism was reduced? What if the hydrocarbon did not cause damage or slow down cellular signaling? What if the solution to any problems could be solved by increasing neural electrical levels (a battery pack... lol)? What if we could customize chromosomes? What if we could promote symbiosis with longer living species? What if ????? I KNOW there are TONNES of holes in these thoughts! I'm trying to be an original thinker... And not bicker over littlle technicalties. Let's look at other possibilities and then we can shoot holes in it!!! Do you all realize how important the mitochondrion was to us as animals? Do you realize how many possibilities there are? What if we just develop a life support system for our central nervous system? The nerve cells are the longest lasting cells...... I don't know if I am off topic or if this even comes close to answering the question. Anyways.... Gud Luck Bro. Peace! Edited November 7, 2009 by greenprogrammin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now