the Aging process

Shrykull · Post by **Shrykull** » 2003-05-11 03:30am

So, do we actually know how to stop it, or slow it? Someone told me that we know what to do, just not how to do it, and if we could, would you undergo the process? I would, but do it quickly because it would probably be banned soon because we're already overpopulated. And people say that it would be bad because you'd see all your loved ones die, well there would be other, perhaps even your loved ones, who would undergo it as well. I don't think I'd want to live forever, but live as long as I wanted to.
And what about say if you could put your consciousness in a machine, it's been argued that the machine really wouldn't be you, only a machine which acts, and sounds like you, like how transporters would supposedly kill a person and create a clone, why is this however, isn't all the material in our body renewed with all new atoms over the course of 7 years, even the neurons, so consciousness does not exist at the atomic level, or perhaps if it could happen so quick, quicker then a thought, near instantaneously.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2003-05-11 03:39am

The fact that you don't have to die and still be able to materialize elsewhere suggests that the one that materialized elsewhere is simply a copy, so you'll never find me stepping through a transporter!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-11 04:00pm

Ageing is Nature's way of keeping genetic diversity and population numbers down, we evolved it.

However, that is not to say we are stuck with it. The process is basically the eventual wear and tear of bodily processes, like any machine, our cells wear out over time (just our body is vastly superior to any machine in terms of wear and tear, the heart for instance is a perfect pump) and this is due to the DNA being replicated in mitosis, or asexual reproduction.

Cells roughly take 80 minutes or so to undergo this process and do it once a day, IIRC, but not all cells replicate e.g. nerves. But everytime the DNA is unravelled and copied, the strands lose the end parts of the code and this is what is seen as the main problem.

There are companies working to make telomerase, an enzyme, that will rebuild our DNA and, if the theory is right, keep our cells from degenerating over time. So far tests have been good and there are such things as immortal cells, cancer is a good example.

Another way to beat age is to take in plenty of anti-oxidants like retinol (Vitamin A) which, as with most fruit and veg based vitamins, helps to absorb free radicals in the body that cause destruction of DNA, proteins and so on.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-11 05:05pm

aging isnt an evolved trait, valdemar. itsj ust a consequence of how our DNA works. we havent evolved a cure for it, naturally. many species have, however. parts of our bodies do have a cure, but not the entire body (our testes and ovaries keep the DNA nice and new). Theres also physical breakdown, which many species, especially bacteria, dont have to worry about.

there are some lizards, tho, that reproduce entirely by asexual means (theyre all females, and just spit out clones of themselves whenever theyre in the mood. tho they do have alot of lesbian lizard sex.) So DNA isn't a problem, as long as theres no migration and the species is well adapted to the environment.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-11 05:53pm

kojikun wrote:aging isnt an evolved trait, valdemar. itsj ust a consequence of how our DNA works. we havent evolved a cure for it, naturally. many species have, however. parts of our bodies do have a cure, but not the entire body (our testes and ovaries keep the DNA nice and new). Theres also physical breakdown, which many species, especially bacteria, dont have to worry about.

there are some lizards, tho, that reproduce entirely by asexual means (theyre all females, and just spit out clones of themselves whenever theyre in the mood. tho they do have alot of lesbian lizard sex.) So DNA isn't a problem, as long as theres no migration and the species is well adapted to the environment.

Actually, it is. Many scientists see ageing as a natural form of population control and since many prokaryotic organisms can live practically indefinitely, it isn't that we haven't evolved to avoid it, it's that we have never needed to since the DNA we have is passed on and we die. That's all there is to it, we don't need to live on longer.

DNA is the problem though, it breaks down over time and scientists have proven this and also corrected it using protein engineering, I'd also point out that asexual reproduction is a stupid concept for any K type species, anything more evolved than a gnat should be using sexual reproduction if it wants to maximise species diversity. The asexual lizards you refer to have also been shown to have evolved from a possible sexual variant of said lizard, evolutionary history shows us that asexual species don't last very long.

There are also many studies showing possible links to ageing genes and the use of the pineal gland to control how long our cellular machinery continues functioning. Werner's syndrome also proves this right.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-11 06:04pm

look at Carp though admiral, they dont die of old age.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-11 06:09pm

NapoleonGH wrote:look at Carp though admiral, they dont die of old age.

Actually, they do die, 100 years is the maximum age for carp and some other freshwater species like catfish can live just as long.

There are tortoises out there that were around when Queen Victoria was on the throne, there are trees that could tell tales about the days of Christ, doesn't mean they live forever, they just have slow or more adapted metabolic pathways that allow for increased age.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-11 06:13pm

carp die of causes, such as being eaten, or disease, or accident, but the last time i read anything on them they dont die of old age, so maybe 100 is the longest recorded age for a carp because they can be eaten and get sick etc, or maybe someone has gotten new data since i learned that Carp dont die of old age.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-11 06:29pm

NapoleonGH wrote:carp die of causes, such as being eaten, or disease, or accident, but the last time i read anything on them they dont die of old age, so maybe 100 is the longest recorded age for a carp because they can be eaten and get sick etc, or maybe someone has gotten new data since i learned that Carp dont die of old age.

From what I see, they do eventually die.

On the other hand, there is a theory that they may have telomerase working in them better than in other animals, that is, they may age but nowhere near as bad as similar organisms.

I'm looking more into this, it interests me, but whether it was implemented through evolution or we simply haven't evolved out of it yet, it is still a problem to us and I don't see us becoming asexual beings anytime soon either. Additionally, immortality will never be released to the public even if it is found. It is funny that we spend every day of our lives thinking about how we can avoid death and stay around that little bit longer, but supposing a wonder drug came out next week that flawlessly gave you an endless life. Do you think the gov't would allow an already overcrowded world to become full of immortals and offspring?

Our reproductive rates in the West are low compared to previous years and developing nations, but that would still hinder us if death didn't occur. Like it or not, death will stay, it is Nature's way of keeping us in check be it age, disease or whatever. We also don't know how long our brains could hold out if we lived forever, the brain as amazing a machine as it is, still has a limit to the amount of data it can hold, going past that limit may lead to dementia or even brain death, who knows?

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-11 07:10pm

i have no problem with everyone else dying, i just dont want to

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-11 07:46pm

NapoleonGH wrote:i have no problem with everyone else dying, i just dont want to

Heh, we all do in the end.

My daddy always taught me that two things are definite in life; death and taxes.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-11 07:54pm

I have no great fear of death, but if they perfected this telomerese thing within 40 or 50 years I won't be terribly dissapointed.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-11 07:56pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote: My daddy always taught me that two things are definite in life; death and taxes.

Hey, i dont know what your talking about i know lots of people who dont pay taxes.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-05-11 09:41pm

NapoleonGH wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote: My daddy always taught me that two things are definite in life; death and taxes.
Hey, i dont know what your talking about i know lots of people who dont pay taxes.

I figure you're stuck with at least one of the two so I pay taxes.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-05-12 08:09am

Well there are several futuristic ideas that I have, first would be to get your DNA digitalized, because that copy won't corrupt with mitosis, thats one thing that also happens when cells divide, some researches have looked at it like one copying a video tape, and then copying that copy and so on.

So imagine having a few million artificial nano-somethings in your body, checking your DNA for possible errors and correcting them if need be.

Add this with the Telomeras enzyme thingy and we got a pretty good life-extending procedure right here.

Said nano-thingies could also possibly deal with free-radicals/beatniks/whatever

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-12 08:18am

Body has "nano-thingies" already called DNA Polymerases that scan over every base pair in the DNA. If it finds an error in the gene sequence then it corrects the coding error with 3'-5' exonuclease activity. Ribozymes, IIRC, also help in such processes but with RNA.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-05-12 08:20am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Body has "nano-thingies" already called DNA Polymerases that scan over every base pair in the DNA. If it finds an error in the gene sequence then it corrects the coding error with 3'-5' exonuclease activity. Ribozymes, IIRC, also help in such processes but with RNA.

But would they work with digital precision?
Can't even such systems falter, don't they do falter anyway?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-12 08:32am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Body has "nano-thingies" already called DNA Polymerases that scan over every base pair in the DNA. If it finds an error in the gene sequence then it corrects the coding error with 3'-5' exonuclease activity. Ribozymes, IIRC, also help in such processes but with RNA.
But would they work with digital precision?
Can't even such systems falter, don't they do falter anyway?

Such systems are molecularly accurate, you can't get anymore accurate, that and they correct numerous errors that often occur in replication. If a mutation gets past these automated systems in the cell during mitosis, then it's a damn unlucky problem that is probably caused by external factors e.g. carcinogens or mutagens eroding several major genes leaving them unrecognisable.

A translocation type mutation can see an entire segment of one chromosome move to another area of the genome. This is obviously far in excess of any self-correction mechanism to control, though if it gets too far out of hand and the cell knows it can't correct a potentially fatal coding-error that may lead to cancer, then it initiates apoptosis or programmed cell death. It commits suicide to protect the rest of the body.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-05-12 08:40am

Well thats what the nanobotic beatniks would be there for

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-12 08:45am

His Divine Shadow wrote:Well thats what the nanobotic beatniks would be there for

Even as a nice advocate of nanotech which is closely tied with my field of interest, to have nanomachines get in the way of enzymes already working on that problem would probably cause more harm than good.

Now, if the nanomachines were there to help extract or kill cancerous cells that may form from outside factors, then they may be useful. We already have nano devices made now by biotech companies that release certain drugs when need be or house little cellular factories for helping the hormone deficient.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-05-12 08:48am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Even as a nice advocate of nanotech which is closely tied with my field of interest, to have nanomachines get in the way of enzymes already working on that problem would probably cause more harm than good.

Well I was speaking about instances where the natural system failed.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2003-05-12 08:50am

What about cell apoptosis and PCD (Programmed Cell Death) which are the bits that stop cells from multiplying forever. The last time I quizzed a biology professor on them it was thought that basically each cell is programmed to be able to undego a certain fixed number of regenerations and then die, which basically means we wear out and age. The downside of stopping it proved to be uncontrolled cell reproduction, or cancer as it's often known. If we could control PCD to the extent that we could up the number of iterations or maybe slow them down a tad then we might considerably increase our lifespan.

As for carp being immortal, that's a new one on me.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-12 08:52am

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote:What about cell apoptosis and PCD (Programmed Cell Death) which are the bits that stop cells from multiplying forever. The last time I quizzed a biology professor on them it was thought that basically each cell is programmed to be able to undego a certain fixed number of regenerations and then die, which basically means we wear out and age. The downside of stopping it proved to be uncontrolled cell reproduction, or cancer as it's often known. If we could control PCD to the extent that we could up the number of iterations or maybe slow them down a tad then we might considerably increase our lifespan.

As for carp being immortal, that's a new one on me.

That would be senescence, the cells that I work with in culture in the labs have a set lifetime of replication. No matter how many nutrients you give and how well the conditions, they will die within a set limit of cell cycles. There are ways around this but I can't go into detail now as I'm off to the lab to hand in my cardiovascular essay.

Be back in a few hours.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-05-13 01:44pm

well... I for one dont beleive that aging is evolved. I see it as more of a genetic disease that most organisms havent evolved out of because it doesnt normally have any effect on reproduction. So long as there is no selective pressure to favor more aging-resistance, there wont be an evolutionary response from either natural or sexual selection. This leaves artificial selection as the means to combating the illness.

That being said, I have no issue with dying -- I DO however have an issue with the debilitation towards death that aging causes. No matter what, anything and everything dies... I would just rather spend whatever time I have in prime shape (no grey hairs, no worrying about my bones going bad etc.)... dying of old age is a nasty way to go.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-13 02:07pm

Well the oldest organisms are ones that a) don't have brains or are as complicated as us b) have very slow metabolisms e.g. tortoises.

Wear and tear affects all, for instance, a shrew will live a shorter life to a cat, not because it has more predators, but because it is far more active. It has been suggested that we all have a limit of around 1 billion heartbeats, since smaller organisms sypically work faster and have higher heartbeats, they live less compared to us, but it still seems a liftime to them much like how a computer would see a minute as a very long time.