Interesting science interview on human mortality.

I read this a couple of days back, and found it impressive. I don't know if it really belongs in this board; just didn't know where else to stick it.

I want to live forever.



[Edited on Oct 19, 2003 by Allister]

Actually it's not. She actually represents a minority in the scientific community which has been getting more press than they deserve as of late because living forever makes a good headline. It's generally accepted that every mechanism of our body has been designed by evolution to give way at roughly the same time. That means that a cure-all sort of drug just isn't going to work because it would have to extend the life of innumerable systems of your body. The thing is that it IS a trade-off. Things are designed to give out after a certain time because it takes energy to keep your body going. Basically, your whole life you're putting more energy into staying alive than you can really afford. At least, that's the very oversimplified explanation that I learned. I'm no expert on the subject, but that's my understanding of it.

Anyway, infinite time has no value.

Well, think about it this way- would you really WANT some people to live forever?

Actually, as far as I am aware it is not "generally accepted that every mechanism of our body has been designed by evolution to give way at roughly the same time." Think of it this way:

1) Start with ageless organisms reproducing sexually.
2) Every organism has some chance of being killed or starving to death, so there will be some average life expectancy even for ageless organisms.
3) Any mutations that have some deleterious effect on the descendants of such ageless organisms towards the end of that life expectancy will not be significantly selected against, since most of the organisms will be dead by then anyway (the later its effects, the less the selection).
4) Any mutations that have some deleterious effect on the descendants of such ageless organisms towards the end of that life expectancy and have a beneficial effect earlier in life will actually be selected for (or selected against less, depending on the intensities and timing).

It is not a matter of you "putting more energy into staying alive than you can really afford", it is a matter of your body only being built to work for as long as you could reasonably be expected to be alive and reproducing in the wild.

I would say that it is probably entirely possible to significantly extend human lifespan with drugs and gene therapy, and especially by genetic engineering (though that would only help our descendants, not us). Making someone effectively immortal on the other hand would require a huge amount of genetic engineering, probably requiring us to invent an entirely new mechanism for the body to repair our DNA with, as well as mechanisms maintain strong bones, grow new teeth, and so on.


[Edited on Oct 19, 2003 by tronvillain]

What is an example of an "ageless organism"?

Dick Clark?

Cancer cells could be looked at as single-cell, ageless organisms.

Ageless maybe... but an organism? I've yet to be convinced of that.

Edited to point out this post was referring to Dick Clark, not cancer cells.

[Edited on Oct 19, 2003 by PitPat]

If the only examples of ageless organisms are things like single cell entities (like a cancer cell), then I'm not sure how that example is inconsistent with The_Real Damien's claim that our bodily systems are designed to give out at the same time. Do cancer cells require internal systems to function in concert for their survival?

Didn't you guys read Jitterbug Perfume? You just have to want to live forever.