How plausible is radical life extension

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Sure, you might be able to inject newly cloned neurons into your brain to fill in some of the gaps (as they will be shanghaied into your preexisting neural networks,) but the loss of your experiences will eventually mean that you at age 1000 will be a fundamentally different person than you now. Chances are, he won't even remember who you were or anything of the first two or three, or four or five, or six or seven centuries of his life.

Stemcells, yay! But I think that if you had more frequent treatments instead then the gaps would be smaller and overall change to the neural structure smaller, thus keeping you more "intact" and even if you do remember all of the thousand years you've lived you will still be radically different person anyway.

But what's the point of living a thousand years if you can't think back to the wild and wooly days of your youth on occasion? Without that continuity, all you'd be is five or six different people who just happened to, by some freak of nature, share the exact same genes. If one is willing to accept only remembering a couple of centuries of life out of a thousand years, then you'd might as well just have yourself cloned. It would be the exact same result. Five different people, each living a couple of centuries apiece, except they all share the exact same body and genes . . . genetic immortality on the cheap.

[Morilore]

But what's the point of living a thousand years if you can't think back to the wild and wooly days of your youth on occasion? Without that continuity, all you'd be is five or six different people who just happened to, by some freak of nature, share the exact same genes. If one is willing to accept only remembering a couple of centuries of life out of a thousand years, then you'd might as well just have yourself cloned. It would be the exact same result. Five different people, each living a couple of centuries apiece, except they all share the exact same body and genes . . . genetic immortality on the cheap.

The point is not about living a thousand years, it's about not ever dying. If you clone yourself every few centuries, then you still have to face the notion of the cessation of your own life.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

But what's the point of living a thousand years if you can't think back to the wild and wooly days of your youth on occasion? Without that continuity, all you'd be is five or six different people who just happened to, by some freak of nature, share the exact same genes. If one is willing to accept only remembering a couple of centuries of life out of a thousand years, then you'd might as well just have yourself cloned. It would be the exact same result. Five different people, each living a couple of centuries apiece, except they all share the exact same body and genes . . . genetic immortality on the cheap.

The point is not about living a thousand years, it's about not ever dying. If you clone yourself every few centuries, then you still have to face the notion of the cessation of your own life.

And you'd have to worry about the cessation of your own existence in this scheme as well. Of course, you'll slowly fade away as your centuries old brain hacks away all the connections that made up you so it can keep up with the demands of being alive so long, until one day, you read a journal you wrote fifty or a hundred years ago, and it carries the same significance to you as reading about Thomas Jefferson in a history textbook might have for you now.

It may take a little longer, but the end result would be the exact same. You will be dead, and some person who might as well be a stranger will be occupying your body, even if medical technology has enabled your body to exist for thousands of years, the original person who wanted to live to see those thousands of years would've been ultimately 'slain' by the workings of his or her own brain.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You realise clones won't be you anyway? When your brain dies, a clone won't suddenly carry on with your conciousness, no matter how genetically identical. I suggest some read up on Locke's theory of personal identity when discussing this.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

You realise clones won't be you anyway? When your brain dies, a clone won't suddenly carry on with your conciousness, no matter how genetically identical. I suggest some read up on Locke's theory of personal identity when discussing this.

That was my point, actually.

If one is to live for an extremely long time on one brain, then they're going to end up being several entirely different people who just happen to share the same genes and body.

If one is going to accept that sort of immortality, then they'd might as well just have themselves cloned. The end result would be the same (several entirely different people who just happen to be genetically identical,) but it'd be a lot cheaper.

[His Divine Shadow]

You never really answered my idea of smaller, more freuqent treatments, or some form of genetic therapy that makes the brain grow new cells to replace dying ones.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

You never really answered my idea of smaller, more freuqent treatments, or some form of genetic therapy that makes the brain grow new cells to replace dying ones.

Doable. In fact, frequent treatments would be the way to go, as it seems that if you let adult stem cells divide too many times outside the body, they start making telomerase and become cancer cells.

This treatment, however, means you will have an entirely new brain in a couple of centuries, barring the hardwired autonomous function regulating bits. Of course, to have a new brain means giving up all the old connections of the old (since the new nerve cells will only be used to make new connections.) And that means, while you will have a generally faster, more youthful brain, all the brain cells that died, and their interconnects that embody your memories and skills will be irreversibly and irreplacably lost.

It won't quite be like having the thousand year old original brain, where even though virtually everything that was you was overwritten a few times over, you at age 1000 might have the odd experience of having some dim legacy memory from you at fifty come to surface and they wonder "where the fuck did that come from?"

[Guardsman Bass]

It won't quite be like having the thousand year old original brain, where even though virtually everything that was you was overwritten a few times over, you at age 1000 might have the odd experience of having some dim legacy memory from you at fifty come to surface and they wonder "where the fuck did that come from?"

True, but still, it wouldn't be like creating an entirely new consciousness, which would be the case with cloning yourself; this would happen over time, and you would be well aware of losing the memories. It would sort of be like you were aging mentally but not losing capabilities. It would still be somewhat of the same mind.

[Civil War Man]

IMHO, we have long enough lifespans as it is, so we should concentrate more on making sure the life we have is better.

In my experience, if someone is solidly in the "old" category and is not comfortable with the prospect that they have a short time left, then they have some serious issues they need to work out. Most people when they get old become mentally and emotionally prepared for death. There's a story that when Benjamin Franklin was ill and pretty much on his death bed (at an almost unnaturally old age for the time period), some friends expressed the hope that he would get better, to which Franklin basically replied, "I hope not."

It's why Tolkien wrote of death being a gift to humans. When humans get old and tired they can just stop. The elves were given no such luxury.

[His Divine Shadow]

It's why Tolkien wrote of death being a gift to humans. When humans get old and tired they can just stop. The elves were given no such luxury.

They could just off themselves?

I wouldn't mind the hundred or so years we're given as long as we'd stop aging and falling apart at 25 and then just stop when hitting a certain age, ofcourse that would make no scientific sense.

[Civil War Man]

They could just off themselves?

I wouldn't mind the hundred or so years we're given as long as we'd stop aging and falling apart at 25 and then just stop when hitting a certain age, ofcourse that would make no scientific sense.

According to what I read, Tolkien elves, even after being killed, oftentimes don't get to leave, instead basically being either resurrected or reincarnated.

But that's getting a little off-topic. As for scientific sense, the stop aging at 25 thing probably would end up decreasing our lifespan, as I'm guessing it would be indictative of the person not losing the HGH (human growth hormone) in their system. Studies have shown that injecting that stuff into old people may increase their physical prowess somewhat, but it likely shortens their lives.

[Morilore]

And you'd have to worry about the cessation of your own existence in this scheme as well. Of course, you'll slowly fade away as your centuries old brain hacks away all the connections that made up you so it can keep up with the demands of being alive so long, until one day, you read a journal you wrote fifty or a hundred years ago, and it carries the same significance to you as reading about Thomas Jefferson in a history textbook might have for you now.

It may take a little longer, but the end result would be the exact same. You will be dead, and some person who might as well be a stranger will be occupying your body, even if medical technology has enabled your body to exist for thousands of years, the original person who wanted to live to see those thousands of years would've been ultimately 'slain' by the workings of his or her own brain.

What I am now would cease to exist. But I would never actually experience the process of death. The stream of consciousness would be continual, even if earlier segments are lost to me.

According to what I read, Tolkien elves, even after being killed, oftentimes don't get to leave, instead basically being either resurrected or reincarnated.

Elves who are killed get brought to the "Halls of Mandos," where their existence continues. Eventually, most get re-bodied and enter Valinor proper (the country of the gods). Elves will not "die" in the sense of a cessation of consciousness until the world ends.

[Guardsman Bass]

Elves will not "die" in the sense of a cessation of consciousness until the world ends.

This doesn't seem to happen to humans, either; it's just that their spirits get sent beyond the Walls of the World.

On the OP, upon second thinking, I think having your neurons replaced while your old memories fade gradually might be a good thing. I mean, do we really need 2000 year old codgers reminiscing about the good ol'days back guarding the Rhine againsts the Visigoths?

[Morilore]

My crazy Russian friend believes it possible to engineer cells to contain three identical nuclei that check against one another for errors before the cell replicates. If there are errors, the cell would be destroyed. Is this possible/feasible, or is it mastubatory wanking?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

My crazy Russian friend believes it possible to engineer cells to contain three identical nuclei that check against one another for errors before the cell replicates. If there are errors, the cell would be destroyed. Is this possible/feasible, or is it mastubatory wanking?

Ahh, he would build a cell that implements the same error-correction methodology employed on satellites. Where you basically compare the outputs of three identical devices, and you only pass on the output that is the same for two out of three of the devices on the majority circuit.

It's a neat idea in principle, and would only work if you only had dumped in a whole bunch of machinery to compare the proteins being transcribed by three nuclei. (And you would have to ensure that all three nuclei were reacting to the same input. As it is, you could well have two nuclei prompting the formation of one protein for one task, and the third nuclei off doing something else.) That, or you somehow make one nuclei active and wall off the other two until the cell divides. (Of course, if the active nuclei develops a significant error in its copy of the cellular DNA, this change would probably kill the cell before it came time to divide.)

It is nanotechnology wanking, pure and simple. It implies a level of technology and engineering well in advanceof what we're capable of today. it also would involve rewriting enormous segments of our genome to produce cells with three nuclei and the supporting cellular machinery. Essentially, this would be radical life extension through creation of Homo Superior, which would convey no benefit at all for someone who isn't born a genetically engineered superman.

[Lord Zentei]

What about a clone body/brain implant approach? Clone the body, but make sure that the clone is braindead as it grows. Then replace the brains. Requirements: spinal cord regeneration and human cloning.

Perhaps it would be possible to restore telomeres and such in ONE cell (as opposed to all the cells in an adult body); specifically an embryonic stem cell?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What about a clone body/brain implant approach? Clone the body, but make sure that the clone is braindead as it grows. Then replace the brains. Requirements: spinal cord regeneration and human cloning.

Perhaps it would be possible to restore telomeres and such in ONE cell (as opposed to all the cells in an adult body); specifically an embryonic stem cell?

A) Addressed earlier in thread. Extremely traumatic on the brain, has to be repeated every X number of years. Does nothing to address the effects of mounting age on the brain.

B) Research into doing this without creating a cancer cell is ongoing. Won't do anything but ensure each clone doesn't end up dying early due to premature aging. Do it once, take stem cells from your first newborn clone, culture them, and then freeze them. Generate all future clones from this first batch of cells.

[Chmee]

It won't quite be like having the thousand year old original brain, where even though virtually everything that was you was overwritten a few times over, you at age 1000 might have the odd experience of having some dim legacy memory from you at fifty come to surface and they wonder "where the fuck did that come from?"

Trust me, that's going to happen to you ANYWAY, even with only a four-score lifespan ....

[Lord Zentei]

What about a clone body/brain implant approach? Clone the body, but make sure that the clone is braindead as it grows. Then replace the brains. Requirements: spinal cord regeneration and human cloning.

Perhaps it would be possible to restore telomeres and such in ONE cell (as opposed to all the cells in an adult body); specifically an embryonic stem cell?

A) Addressed earlier in thread. Extremely traumatic on the brain, has to be repeated every X number of years. Does nothing to address the effects of mounting age on the brain.

B) Research into doing this without creating a cancer cell is ongoing. Won't do anything but ensure each clone doesn't end up dying early due to premature aging. Do it once, take stem cells from your first newborn clone, culture them, and then freeze them. Generate all future clones from this first batch of cells.

I understood that the point was radical life extension, not immortality. Given a choice between brain trauma and death I'd choose the former.

And in any case, reducing the trauma of the transplant process to acceptable levels seems more to me like a technical hurdle rather than a theoretical one (might be wrong of course).

[wolveraptor]

I understand that the body already has ways of replacing telomeres through an enzyme called telomerase. And it guards against screwed up genes through p53 enzyme. The problem is, if you tinker with the cell enough to make it have a near-endless supply of telomerase, it's just going to keep dividing and be considered cancerous.

I remember reading in a book about how the body had the capability to produce more p53, but didn't, so that it was still somewhat susceptible to mutations. This was supposed to accelerate evolution during times of stress for a species. As usual, flies were the test subjects.

[Justforfun000]

Ok...for a total layman....Explain to me why the body cannot simply renew itself continually wihtout any degenerative effect. I'm seeing that the "anomaly" of cancer suggests immortality is possible....so completely irrespective of how and when the idea of actually controlling such things could ever become possible, what are the real obstacles in preventing aging from being a fatal inevitability?

[Morilore]

Ok...for a total layman....Explain to me why the body cannot simply renew itself continually wihtout any degenerative effect. I'm seeing that the "anomaly" of cancer suggests immortality is possible....so completely irrespective of how and when the idea of actually controlling such things could ever become possible, what are the real obstacles in preventing aging from being a fatal inevitability?

Change or time itself?

I'd think that for any sufficiently complex system, that would be the essence of it.