Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Oct 31, 2017.
Don't tell my blood boy.
Well only the good die young, so I should make it to 120 or so anyway. Take that science!
Heavier than air flight is scientifically proven to be an impossibility.
You just know he has some good doctor and rituals he follows like in Johnny Mnemonic I did see him in a movie from like this year he really has aged.
*mathematically* I believe that death is inevitable on a long enough timeline, because even within a normal 80 year timeline people die from a lot of shit that isn't age related, and if you extend that lifespan you also increase the opportunities for random other shit to kill you.
But when it comes to ageing specifically, I feel like it's pretty clear that everyone gets about 33% of their lifespan where shit isn't going downhill at the genetic/cellular level, and cancer isnt a huge problem for people in their 20's (generally), so the human body is clearly capable of non-degrading cell replication without getting totally tumourrific.
Figuring out how to arrest or reinstate that level of "clean" cell replication/regeneration is clearly a massive fucking challenge that I don't expect to be resolved in my lifetime, but I don't feel like it's insurmountable
There is a deep sea shark that lives in cold waters that can live 300 - 400 years? Researchers radio carbon dated it's eyes to make this determination. You can do a google search for additional information if you're interested.
Scientists say the reason for this species of Sharks longevity has everything to do with is its cold climate and it's very slow heart rate.
I think each of us here knows how to live a much longer life. Subconsciously we all know the future is far away yet we do not necessarily live our lives to obtain those additional golden years. We do this thru a lack of excessive, over eating, stress, our environment, tobacco/drug and alcohol use, so on and so forth.
If our lives were shorter and for some it is, we stop and or are less likely to engage in these types of behaviors.
Scientist always use math to validate their wisdom but there are so many unknowns in terms of future technological advances. Also, a lot of scientist who've chimed in on life in general over the past 100 - 200 - 300+ years are usually wrong. In general a lot of people have been wrong about what the future holds. Very few get it right.
I think math never lies but math can be stopped, retarded, diverted etc with science.
All cancer really is at the end of the day is uncontrolled cell replication. In theory, programmed cell death gets around this, as most cancers will simply kill themselves off within a few generations. For cancer to propagate, two things need to go wrong: The cell itself needs to become damaged, and pre-programmed cell death needs to be inhibited. This is likely why pre-programmed cell death evolved in the first place, as suppressing cancer is good from an evolution standpoint. Keep in mind, living much past 50 has been a thing for only about 100 years; cancer wasn't a huge problem until we pushed life expectancy WAY to the right.
We can solve cell-death "easily" enough; the problem is you'll die within a few weeks due to multiple cancers (people really don't appreciate how many cells get damaged and die off per day).
Well if your choices are either death from old age or cancer, just cure cancer.
Pretty much clickbait. This has been part of the discussion since the beginning. Nothing new here.
Tom Brady will prove them wrong, what do they know!? Pffffft.
Henrietta Lacks doesn’t agree with this headline.
The lovely thing about science is, this is true, until we discover a way around it
The tricky part is proving and reproducing methods reliably ;D
Yeah, this isn't news. It's been known for what? 20 years? not just conceptually, but the actual mechanism.
Radically extended life will require us to get very, very good at eradicating cancer in living patients.
You should note those are her CANCER cells. Cancer tends to have total disregard for normal cell rules.
I've never seen it. Looks like a ripoff of Neuromancer.
One of my very favorite movies encompasses something of that very theme: "Bicentennial Man" (Robin Williams). Also one of the very rare cases in which the screenwriters add something (romance) to an already good book that didn't even address any of that part of life at all.
On the subject of proofs: IMO author Bill Bryson offers up a sort of "layman's mathematical proof" that there really must be an intelligence behind "life as we know it" in his bestseller "A Short History of Nearly Everything." The first few pages of the chapter "The Rise of Life" (p. 287-292) are worth five minutes of anyone's time in a book store...and even though I THINK he's suggesting life is rather commonplace--perhaps even inevitable--I think he actually points up quite the opposite.
It also isn't clickbait.
Frankly, I'm concerned that you took our comments so seriously.
Also, if you're going to Ireland, make sure to hit Galway. It's gorgeous.
In the simulation of course.
Where's the 2017 John Wick edition?
It's based on a short story from the same author. The short story is good. The movie... while entertaining in some silly ways, really isn't. The Neuromancer trilogy of books is still incredible. I read them every few years or so.
Working in skilled nursing, I have seriously reconsidered the value I place on simply making it to old age. Keep me in my 33 year old body, though, and I think it'd be cool. 900 years, give or take a century. Live forever though, and you only experience one small facet of the universe. I WANT to believe there's more to existence than just inhabiting a tiny speck of a body for a tiny speck of time!
smoke em if ya got em?
Whatever, just get off my lawn!
Need to find the cancer cells that actually keep you alive. Besides if you post enough of your crap on the internet you'll live digitally forever! Also, who's to say the energy and atoms that make up you don't transfer when you die hence living forever.
Pseudo scientific. Well 99% of mainstream media is pseudo scientific, they're not capable of fact checking even high school level stuff.
Age is just a number. Remember if you lived on another planet you'd be a different age number than here on Earth.
Good point. I'm actually 40 units of Earth time measurement based on revolutions around the central star of our solar system. I actually feel better now (at least that's how I perceive how I feel now) than when I was younger. I'm sure part of it is real, and part is perception, but I'm in about the same health, do all the goofy stunts and other wackiness I've always done. I don't think there's some set amount of time for certain things to occur. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that they could be altered, mixed, matched, etc. once we have the advanced forms of the required skills, knowledge, and disciplines.
But your cells would live roughly the same amount of ‘time’ if time could be measured the same way. I remember reading once that our bodies are genetically predetermined for a lifespan and short of an accident or some atypical disease contraction you’d live +- 5 years from what you had in your genetic code. That no matter if you ate perfectly and excersised regularly and never consumed alcohol or smoked vs ate unhealthy and were inactive (within reason) —- that delta didn’t effect your expected lifespan as much as the mainstream advocacy would suggest.
Plus or minus 5 years.
I don't know how accurate that is, but within reason, and barring any extreme health-hazards, I think it sounds fairly reasonable. It's why you get 90+ year olds that have smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 75 years, or people that live in hot desert conditions that don't have skin issues from it, etc. Genetic code whether that's evolved over time, or part of whatever base a particular culture or individual is derived from, probably determines more than the environment alone (even though the environment obviously impacts that evolution)
Now let's all make a visit to Eldon Tyrell, and ask that fucker for longer life!
The Last Hero, fellow Terry Pratchett fan.
Plus or minus 5 years is the difference between 75 and 85. Most people would consider 85 to be pretty old; and imho at least going out at 75 would be too early. So yeah, if one has the ability to increase their life by 12% by toning down the unhealthy stuff and taking care of themselves, that's got to be worth it.
I think there are some of those still busy legislating in congress now......
Also working in nursing, and I'm 61. It's still cool. When you can no longer do all the things like you used to, you'll find NEW things to do, and new ways of doing them. Hawking apparently thinks it's still cool even in the body that he has. The mind is a great thing as long as we can still use it.
I think the best way to accurately report scientific news like this, is to say 'AT THE PRESENT TIME WITH KNOWN SCIENCE', it's impossible to beat aging. We have no idea of what advances will be made that could potentially change that. I, for one, believe that eventually AI will become self aware, and design biologically better organisms than we have now, perhaps cyborg types using the best of both technologies.....or, even something we haven't thought of yet. Remember, once upon a time, it was firmly believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and that we would never break the sound barrier either. And that atomic explosions would set the atmosphere on fire. etc.. And my favorite, 'everything that can be invented has already been invented'.
WE....DON'T....KNOW. It's a guess based on current knowledge. But like so many other things that are supposedly impossible, I'll bet that they will be proven wrong once again. Just not in time to save MY ass.
Where's the math?
We all grow out of a pair of cells. We decay because the various DNA/cell repair processes break down after age 40 or so. Almost all animals die before they reach old age, natural selection rewards those who achieve the optimal split of spending resources on self-maintinence vs reproduction rather than simple longevity.
Maintaining any given cell or system of cells indefinitely should be possible with further advances in viral gene therapy. The problem is that it's going to take decades to figure out the genetic cookbook and what recipes of genes you need to modify for a given condition.
But, you know; when scientists figure out how to make us humans live to be 150, 200, or even 300 years - we'll encounter some jacka$$ like Kim Jong Un that wants to start WW VII, and we all die anyway!
True. Longer life doesn't make us invincible. It would just be one less thing to worry about. There are still plenty of ways to hurt ourselves.
Mathematicians once proved you couldn't sort faster than O(n log). Then someone made an algorithm that sorted in O(n loglog) thinking out of the box.
Just wait till they do that on a spacecraft going faster than light.