http://www.rt.com/news/japan-scientists-stop-ageing-461/
QuoteA group of scientists from Osaka University have found that one of the components of the human complement system is directly responsible for ageing, Russia's ITAR-TASS quotes Japanese media on Saturday. The C1q protein, the researchers say, is to blame for human cells getting old.
Part of the immune system, the complement system helps or "complements" the body in clearing away germs. The C1q protein was earlier thought to be merely a building block in the system.
Having established the protein's true role, however, the scientists claim they have also learnt to control it, almost completely blocking cells' ageing process. The discovery, they claim, could easily become a key to everlasting life.
So what do you guys think? Would you go for something like this, or would you wait it out, do you even think our governments will allow this to go public?
There's another group who believe oxygen makes us age, so I don't know friendly black fellow.
It is doubtful this will get legalized due to religious groups interfering with scientific discovery as per usual.
I would personally consider it possibly but I can't see it being a permanent solution for everlasting life. I can imagine it would just prolong our life making it seem to be everlasting until our bodies eventually break down from extended use. That in itself could possibly make for a painful death.
Anything to make lolis legal, eh Japan?
:V
Quote from: DrSword on June 14, 2012, 05:19:02 PM
There's another group who believe oxygen makes us age, so I don't know friendly black fellow.
I remember reading that, seems everyone has conflicting views, though apparently if they have managed to stall the aging process, while not blocking the immune system it could be an interesting step forward.
Also i'm white ;-;
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
It is doubtful this will get legalized due to religious groups interfering with scientific discovery as per usual.
I would personally consider it possibly but I can't see it being a permanent solution for everlasting life. I can imagine it would just prolong our life making it seem to be everlasting until our bodies eventually break down from extended use. That in itself could possibly make for a painful death.
I would be skeptical too, but more for health issues, i don't like new drugs, i'm an asthmatic and was too worried about an injection that meant i didn't have to take my inhaler morning and night again for 10 years.
I think I'd rather age than have a manufactured version of AIDS.
It's like really old people nowadays, they lost all their friends and some even lost their children already!
So give me the "Die and live on in peoples memories!"-option :-\
bullshit. it will just fade into obscurity like tons of the other "breakthroughs".
I want to die someday.
Quote from: Firerain on June 14, 2012, 11:49:53 PM
bullshit. it will just fade into obscurity like tons of the other "breakthroughs".
Quote from: Holkeye on June 15, 2012, 01:43:10 AM
I want to die someday.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts
Quote from: Jules on June 15, 2012, 02:05:02 AM
Quote from: Firerain on June 14, 2012, 11:49:53 PM
bullshit. it will just fade into obscurity like tons of the other "breakthroughs".
Quote from: Holkeye on June 15, 2012, 01:43:10 AM
I want to die someday.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts
Pretty much...I'm fairly positive that even if it didn't fade into obscurity, it will be too expensive for the masses anyway.
I just don't think it will lead to everlasting life, though. We aren't meant to live forever so I'm positive there is a maximum life-span that even this finding will reach.
Quote from: Tezuka on June 14, 2012, 08:02:35 PM
Anything to make lolis legal, eh Japan?
:V
lmao
Quote from: Holkeye on June 15, 2012, 01:43:10 AM
I want to die someday.
Eternal youth and immortality aren't the same thing. You're still perfectly capable of being hit by a bus, falling off a cliff, being lit on fire, ect.
etc.*
No.
She's referring to ectoplasm poisoning, a fairly common (albeit under-reported) cause of death.
Quote from: Miles Edgeworth on June 15, 2012, 05:49:36 AM
Quote from: Holkeye on June 15, 2012, 01:43:10 AM
I want to die someday.
Eternal youth and immortality aren't the same thing. You're still perfectly capable of being hit by a bus, falling off a cliff, being lit on fire, ect.
I want to die of natural causes someday.
Nothing more natural than boolet
there is also a problem what if that is also part of it when we try to alter that type of system maybe we die early... and also maybe there will be complication to our bodies when this is going to work... maybe we may even cause some more problems.. there a reason why people born and die everyday you know... i do believed that there another way to live forever than altering the immune system and also it dangerous... because what if that is also control the immune system...
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
I would personally consider it possibly but I can't see it being a permanent solution for everlasting life.
You phrase this as though morality is a problem. Death is detrimental to the advancement of society, at least in the way it's held together today.
Personally, I don't see the point of immortality. I see inevitable death as something to base our lives on; knowing that at one point I will die gives me motivation to accomplish something in the limited time I have. When you take the death out of life, you take the motivation out of life.
Let's not fool ourself if they discovery avoid your wife or husband or child to die before you, I think anyone will sign "yes".
Also, everyone fear death, it's easy to say to be a part of the cycle but man, i don't think everybody is going to smile when they die.
Quote
I can imagine it would just prolong our life making it seem to be everlasting until our bodies eventually break down from extended use.
I agree with you but not with the part where the body will break down because if you can stop to age when you're twenty or thrity, there is no reason that your body will fall appart by itself. This happen only when you work like a slave and eat like a poor with a meal every 5 days.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 15, 2012, 12:14:01 PM
Let's not fool ourself if they discovery avoid your wife or husband or child to die before you, I think anyone will sign "yes".
Quote from: Miles Edgeworth on June 15, 2012, 05:49:36 AM
Eternal youth and immortality aren't the same thing. You're still perfectly capable of being hit by a bus, falling off a cliff, being lit on fire, ect.
You wouldn't be guaranteed that your wife, husband, or child would not die before you. And I agree with Pacman, knowing this is the only life I have I tend to try and make the most of it. Now if I had more money I could make a little more of it ;] xD
my teacher before make this phrase "if there is no death, there is no life" means that if we bypass death we don't have life... because were leaving life if we became immortal forever...
also, overcrowding. too many people.
Quote from: Pacman on June 15, 2012, 11:55:21 AM
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
I would personally consider it possibly but I can't see it being a permanent solution for everlasting life.
You phrase this as though morality is a problem. Death is detrimental to the advancement of society, at least in the way it's held together today.
Personally, I don't see the point of immortality. I see inevitable death as something to base our lives on; knowing that at one point I will die gives me motivation to accomplish something in the limited time I have. When you take the death out of life, you take the motivation out of life.
How in the hell is that phrased as though its a morality problem?! lmao I literally mean it as I don't see it as a solution to everlasting life XD
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 15, 2012, 12:14:01 PMThis happen only when you work like a slave and eat like a poor with a meal every 5 days.
There are many factors that go into play in your body breaking down. Muscles (and that includes organs) have a shelf-life and though you may stop people from aging or getting old, you have to remember that each of your organs run like a machine and the longer the machine runs, the weaker they become until they eventually quit. It's not a matter of staying healthy or younger for longer but it might help give you a few more years (or maybe a hundred more for that matter)
I still just don't see this given to the masses, though.
Do you want this to be distributed to the masses?
I say it only be given to life sentenced prisoners.
Quote from: D&P3 on June 15, 2012, 04:17:37 PM
Do you want this to be distributed to the masses?
I say it only be given to life sentenced prisoners.
I don't care if its distributed to the masses if it works. I just don't see it being a cheap enough thing to do. It would probably only go to rich people who want to live longer.
A lot of these replies seem the same, if this is real and can be controlled, it will be responsible for your cells/organs/body repairing itself.
So your organs would also be helped by this meaning it would probably help increase these too.
But all this is purely speculation, it could only keep your body alive but your organs may still die, or it could keep everything running.
I hope its not real.
Quote from: Holkeye on June 15, 2012, 06:00:37 PM
I hope its not real.
If it is real, just don't undergo the procedure or whatever it is they do to you if you don't want it.
I hope its not real because nobody should do it.
Quote from: Holkeye on June 15, 2012, 06:58:42 PM
I hope its not real because nobody should do it.
Why not? Why should we agree? I'm just playing devils advocate here cuz I totally want to know all of your thoughts on it outside of a one line statement of how YOU feel people shouldn't do it.
Under a realistic circumstance where only a handful of people would be able to afford this, what are the reasons for why people shouldn't do it?
Because we already live longer than we're supposed to. There are already too many people in the world, and we're nearly too much of a danger to ourselves as it is. With longer lives, and longer youth, we would only become more overconfident. If it were a thing where only certain people could afford it, I can assure you that most of them would be people that should have shorter lives rather than longer ones.
Well i definitely cannot disagree with that.
Quote from: Firerain on June 15, 2012, 01:44:02 PM
also, overcrowding. too many people.
People need to stop making babies and learn to adopt!
Quote from: Esmeralda on June 15, 2012, 09:07:51 PM
Quote from: Firerain on June 15, 2012, 01:44:02 PM
also, overcrowding. too many people.
People need to stop making babies and learn to adopt!
Or perhaps learn what anticonception is?
Quotealmost completely blocking cells' ageing process.
Stoping cells aging doesn't mean that your brain is going to function, there is a differrence beteween a cell and neuron.
The brain will still die.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 15, 2012, 09:18:01 PM
Quotealmost completely blocking cells' ageing process.
Stoping cells aging doesn't mean that your brain is going to function, there is a differrence beteween a cell and neuron.
The brain will still die.
Quote from Wikipedia: "A
neuron is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information by electrical and chemical signalling."
Well, that means that a neuron is a cell, which means that it too has to be regenerated through time and it too can get unregulated cell growth, more commonly known as cancer.
And that being said, I can say: No, the brain won't die as those cells, called neurons, will stop ageing as well...
amycha maybe you should read the rest of that neuron wiki page instead of just the first fucking sentence before talking like you know shit
like seriously, that post was painful to read
This won't ever happen anyway. Some Christians will make up a reason why its evil, and that'll be it. Shit, we can't even get the metric system in the us because of Christian lobbyists.
Quote from: Lethrface on June 15, 2012, 03:52:02 PM
How in the hell is that phrased as though its a morality problem?! lmao I literally mean it as I don't see it as a solution to everlasting life XD
...
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
I would personally consider it possibly but I can't see it being a permanent solution for everlasting life.
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
I can't see it being a permanent solution for everlasting life.
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
permanent solution for everlasting life.
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
solution
In my experience, something has to be either a problem or a solute dissolved in a solvent (and I really don't think you were referring to that). So to me, it sounded like you think mortality is a problem.
This whole idea is rather pointless, and if anything would only do badly for humanity. It just seems like something that we'd be better off without and only stupid people would value, much like the majority of Lethrface's posts. Seriously. Stop saying opinions you don't have.
Quote from: Lethrface on June 14, 2012, 06:10:19 PM
I would personally consider it
Quote from: Holkeye on June 15, 2012, 07:21:18 PM
Blah blah literate educated response blah blah sensible person talk basically telling you not to do that thing you said you might want to
Quote from: Lethrface on June 15, 2012, 07:38:34 PM
Well i definitely cannot disagree with that.
???
Pacman...just no.
This is what I was trying to say without having to go into detail: I would consider it if the option was available. I cannot disagree with holk's stance simply because it makes sense but it wouldn't stop me from considering it. The part I agreed the most with was if it was available to only those who could afford it, they would probably be people who shouldn't do it. I would probably not do it simply because I would rather not live longer than the ones I love who choose not to do it if I can help it. Also, the statement I made goes in hand with the idea that you may stop aging but you cannot stop your body from breaking down and organs from dying off, such as a previous post about being unable to keep the brain from dying.
So yeah. There is the verbose version so you can understand what I was saying.
Quote from: Lethrface on June 16, 2012, 03:17:29 AM
Also, the statement I made goes in hand with the idea that you may stop aging but you cannot stop your body from breaking down and organs from dying off, such as a previous post about being unable to keep the brain from dying.
"Aging" is the process of tissues breaking down and dying off. One could assume that if you could stop aging, you would stop the organs from wearing out as well.
Firerain made a point of the first thought to cross my mind. The world is a limited resources environment. We are already overcrowded on this planet and the problem is getting worse, not better.
Consider this:
Young people who want to start families generally have babies at an earlier age. When those babies become adults and move out, the parents are generally left with a hollow spot in their lives that those children used to fill. Even before the first children reach maturity, parents will often have second and third children, if not greatly beyond. This generally peters off as the parents get older however, because they do not have the energy or health to keep up with young children anymore- also, because childbirth raises serious health complications for older people. Even if that isn't deterrent enough, there's menopause.
Now, supposedly, this discovery would prevent aging (some day, with a lot of work). That would remove all of the fail safes. Unlimited babies forever. You think the problem with population growth is bad now, we'll reproduce like spores without aging to keep us in check. You'll see a global food crisis. For starters.
Another excellent point that Holkeye made was that, if only certain people can get their hands on it, it will probably be all of the wrong people. This is absolutely true. Do you really want Bill O'Reilly to live forever? Truly?
Furthermore, there's a moral conflict. When these problems come to arise, who's to say what the "limit" is on extending one's lifespan? How many extra years is everyone allotted, and who gets to set that rule?
Does aging then become a curable illness? By withholding medication that could cure that illness, are you effectively an accessory to murder?
Now, all that on one hand, there is another side to this, and it's a positive one.
What if Gandhi could live forever, speaking to generations upon generations of human beings as a spiritual leader? Einstein? Feynman? Any one person who dedicates themselves to field of science could then use their mastery of that field to lead humanity on to unbelievable things. What could Albert have done one hundred years after positing the theory of relativity?
The main thing however is that age is a balance. Mankind has overcome many such balances (to varying degrees) with time- disease, environmental disaster, wild animals... It is in the nature of man to challenge that which challenges himself and, through the use of his intellect, defeat it, becoming stronger for having done so. Age is on the hit list! Extending his life span is written into his basest programming. A fox does not tease a bear. A horse will move on to greener pastures. Humanity makes these same decisions on a completely different scale. This is something that is going to happen, be it very soon or in the distant future.
The important thing is that we start setting down guidelines now, so that we can do it with some semblance of control. If we start trying to apply laws to this kind of science after it is discovered, then there is going to be some serious hell to pay.
QuoteYou'll see a global food crisis.
There is already a food crisis in the world, you may just live in a country which isn't part of the world can't afford food.
QuoteConsider this:
Young people who want to start families generally have babies at an earlier age. When those babies become adults and move out, the parents are generally left with a hollow spot in their lives that those children used to fill. Even before the first children reach maturity, parents will often have second and third children, if not greatly beyond. This generally peters off as the parents get older however, because they do not have the energy or health to keep up with young children anymore- also, because childbirth raises serious health complications for older people. Even if that isn't deterrent enough, there's menopause.
Look at the newspaper, the statistic show the contrary, people tend to have babies when they're between 30 and 40 and even beyand that age because they can live much longer and they want to focus their carreer. That's what is happening with any devellpoped country. Poor countries, tend to make more babies because they easely die, the birth rate is highest..
QuoteThis won't ever happen anyway. Some Christians will make up a reason why its evil, and that'll be it. Shit, we can't even get the metric system in the us because of Christian lobbyists.
I hope you're trolling because religion stopped to countrol most of the world gouvenments some decade ago.
QuoteAnother excellent point that Holkeye made was that, if only certain people can get their hands on it, it will probably be all of the wrong people. This is absolutely true. Do you really want Bill O'Reilly to live forever? Truly?
Usually things tend to make public, it took more time but things still make to public. Look at flate screen TV, who really here had one 10 years ago ? When it came out ? Still if they keep it it for the rich that really won't matter, they're already a lot things in the world that rich people can afford and us not.
QuoteDoes aging then become a curable illness? By withholding medication that could cure that illness, are you effectively an accessory to murder?
Look if you like the idea to lose little by little the control of your body because you're getting older that's your choice man. I think most of people will want to stay healthy and young. That's where making babaies really won't matter since you can enjoy life much longer.
QuoteFurthermore, there's a moral conflict. When these problems come to arise, who's to say what the "limit" is on extending one's lifespan? How many extra years is everyone allotted, and who gets to set that rule?
I don't think that's something you can control, life span, it will depend much of your lifestyle just like now.
QuoteThe important thing is that we start setting down guidelines now, so that we can do it with some semblance of control. If we start trying to apply laws to this kind of science after it is discovered, then there is going to be some serious hell to pay.
This is boring, you can talk like that because you doesn't live in a shitty country where you're starving or can't get any meds. This discovery may help most of the people in world with time if it came true.
The only thing we may fear is that we will stop making babies with time just like the elves in the heroic fantasy, because we will live much longer so we won't feel prpobably the urge to make a family. We may become instinct because of that.
Though, let's face it, if this discovery come true, the brain will still die by itself otherwise this discovery could then cure Alzeimer but it doesn't since the scientists didn't said so. They only talked about stopping aging. all this discovrery can do is allowing us to have a healthier body and live a bit longuer. Because if the brain stop to work, the body will just die then or we will become zombies ? XD
Sorry for my english.
Lurn 2 quote. In fact, don't post in this section.
And I'm not trolling. Learn what a lobbyist is.
Quote from: Miles Edgeworth on June 16, 2012, 06:05:49 AM
"Aging" is the process of tissues breaking down and dying off. One could assume that if you could stop aging, you would stop the organs from wearing out as well.
But who is to say that there is no limit to how long the organs can last? I can guarantee you that there are limits to that, just how a well maintained machine can also break down unexpectedly. This is especially the case for any of the organs that are functioning every second of the day. It isn't a physical aging situation, it is just a matter of how hard the organs are being pushed for however long. Nothing in this world is without an expiration date.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 16, 2012, 11:19:54 AM
There is already a food crisis in the world, you may just live in a country which isn't part of the world can't afford food.
By saying that there are parts of the world which can still afford food, you're highlighting that there are places as of yet unaffected. My point is that
all countries, even the U.S. and other rich nations would be experiencing a crisis.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 16, 2012, 11:19:54 AM
Look at the newspaper, the statistic show the contrary, people tend to have babies when they're between 30 and 40 and even beyand that age because they can live much longer and they want to focus their carreer. That's what is happening with any devellpoped country. Poor countries, tend to make more babies because they easely die, the birth rate is highest..
On the one hand, I have heard this phenomenon being discussed, but I personally find it somewhat difficult to believe. If someone had kids when they were thirty, then by the time those children were grown up the parents would be nearly fifty. By the time the next generation was ready to bear children, the original parents would be on their way out, and the second generation of children would essentially have never met their grandparents. Considering that this is still very uncommon, I doubt that these recent statistics reflect the whole truth of the situation.
Furthermore, I can tell you from just my -local- area that there are plenty of people having children before they even reach legal adulthood, so there's that too. Just because people are having"children
that they want to keep later in life doesn't mean they aren't out making babies long before.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 16, 2012, 11:19:54 AM
I hope you're trolling because religion stopped to countrol most of the world gouvenments some decade ago.
Please do try to maintain some semblance of a level of professionalism, if you would. Furthermore, just because a government body isn't classified as a theocracy does not mean that religion has no strong impact on it. Here's a prime example: gay rights controversy.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 16, 2012, 11:19:54 AM
Usually things tend to make public, it took more time but things still make to public. Look at flate screen TV, who really here had one 10 years ago ? When it came out ? Still if they keep it it for the rich that really won't matter, they're already a lot things in the world that rich people can afford and us not.
A line of flat screen televisions and a life extending pharmaceutical are on completely different scales. A flat screen tv is a product marketed to make a profit from the American consumer by upselling them on a
luxury. An anti-aging pill is a promise of power and longevity that can quite literally change the world, assuming the recipient exercises some degree of power or political swing. Considering the issues I discussed with world resources, this only narrows the frame on who might be considered a candidate for the drug.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 16, 2012, 11:19:54 AMLook if you like the idea to lose little by little the control of your body because you're getting older that's your choice man. I think most of people will want to stay healthy and young. That's where making babaies really won't matter since you can enjoy life much longer.
I would like to respectfully submit that you've completely missed the point of this statement.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 16, 2012, 11:19:54 AMFurthermore, there's a moral conflict. When these problems come to arise, who's to say what the "limit" is on extending one's lifespan? How many extra years is everyone allotted, and who gets to set that rule?
It is absolutely something that
will be controlled. It is no different from situations today where individuals are denied life saving medication. South America has a history of government rationing with medical supplies. A similar situation could easily (and probably) arise in the United States or the European Union. A drug of this kind would be almost prohibitively expensive to distribute. Can you imagine the outcry that would arise from the masses if a cure for cancer was discovered- but it was limited to use by only public officials? An identical uproar will surely explode when the problem of aging is solved.
Quote from: Chaos17 on June 16, 2012, 11:19:54 AMThis is boring, you can talk like that because you doesn't live in a shitty country where you're starving or can't get any meds. This discovery may help most of the people in world with time if it came true.
The only thing we may fear is that we will stop making babies with time just like the elves in the heroic fantasy, because we will live much longer so we won't feel prpobably the urge to make a family. We may become instinct because of that.
Though, let's face it, if this discovery come true, the brain will still die by itself otherwise this discovery could then cure Alzeimer but it doesn't since the scientists didn't said so. They only talked about stopping aging. all this discovrery can do is allowing us to have a healthier body and live a bit longuer. Because if the brain stop to work, the body will just die then or we will become zombies ? XD
Well, ad hominem attack aside, I am "talking like this" because these are real problems that need to be addressed. Yes, there are third-world countries that lack a sustainable food supply and a robust medical system. These are
exactly the issues that systematic planning and discussion can help to reduce.
As for the heroic fantasy, that is exactly what it is: a fantasy. People are not about to stop having premarital relations any time soon.
This discovery is perhaps "the key" to battling back aging. It is not a cure. It is a vital step along the way. Anything not accounted for by this particular discovery will be taken into consideration and solved before the release of a final product I am sure- no one is going to give the time of day to a medicine that works only half right.
Also, "poor English" is not an excuse to neglect using a spell checker.
Quote from: Lethrface on June 16, 2012, 11:47:40 AM
Quote from: Miles Edgeworth on June 16, 2012, 06:05:49 AM
"Aging" is the process of tissues breaking down and dying off. One could assume that if you could stop aging, you would stop the organs from wearing out as well.
But who is to say that there is no limit to how long the organs can last? I can guarantee you that there are limits to that, just how a well maintained machine can also break down unexpectedly. This is especially the case for any of the organs that are functioning every second of the day. It isn't a physical aging situation, it is just a matter of how hard the organs are being pushed for however long. Nothing in this world is without an expiration date.
1. Organs are comprised of tissue.
2. Tissues break down.
3. Organs break down because their tissues break down.
4. If tissues did not break down the organs which they comprise would not break down.
5. Live forever.
6. Ignore problems.
7. ??
8. Purgatory?
My organs are made of metal.