OpinionWith the current effort in aging and disease treatments, a few centuries from now people will wonder how we managed to live 80 years at most, the last half of them in progressive physical decadence.
      – BorgClown, 2009-04-17 at 20:17:54   (13 comments)

On 2009-04-17 at 20:21:39, BorgClown wrote...
There are several aging institutes doing real science. For example, telomerase has been produced artificially. The practical application would be expanding the Hayflick limit, the maximum number of cell divisions before it dies.
On 2009-04-17 at 20:23:56, BorgClown wrote...
There's also the ussies of random mutations, radiation damage, free radicals and a plethora of causes for aging, so I give it 500 years at most before buying immortality becomes possible, at least for wealthy or valuable people.
On 2009-04-17 at 20:33:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's the 3 Ds - disease, disability and dementia. We only survive longer because of better nutrition and a combination of better hygiene and elimination of the most deadly diseases. But we haven't made any progress in helping people live better lives when they do get old, and there's currently little hope that research will help any time soon, despite what the weird transhumanists might have us believe. Certainly a few centuries of research will make a big difference, but that assumes that civilisation doesn't collapse which isn't certain.
On 2009-04-17 at 20:56:51, Thelevellers wrote...
I think I'll agree, cause even if civilisation does collapse I reckon a lot of tech and knowledge could/would be kept so making it easier to restart. I suppose the few centuries should maybe be upgraded to several... (That's 5-9 for those that don't play Heroes of Might and Magic ;-P)
On 2009-04-17 at 23:08:35, Baslisks wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: I'm a weird transhumanist.
On 2009-04-18 at 02:28:36, BorgClown wrote...
Not all nations will suffer alike. Global warming could ruin the tropics and make Siberia a farming land, for example.
On 2009-04-18 at 08:05:52, Baslisks wrote...
@BorgClown: now is Siberia similar to North Dakota? I mean in the sense that it was a former glacial lake?
On 2009-04-18 at 08:06:20, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Baslisks: I was referring to those who think that they will personally become immortal based on medical advances in their own lifetime, as opposed to those who think that advances will take place in later centuries. True optimists.
On 2009-04-18 at 08:29:56, Baslisks wrote...
Meh, I'll take whatever they can give me. Is it wrong that I half want a horrible accident so I can get a set of prosthetics?
On 2009-04-18 at 13:17:11, Thelevellers wrote...
I think we all think that secretly Bas: http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2009/04/prosthetic_eye_gets_led_upgrade.html nuff said?! I don't siberia is like North Dakota in that sense, too big I think?! Here is a little google map info... http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=siberia&ie=UTF8&ll=85.373767,49.570313&spn=35.259346,316.40625&z=2&iwloc=G
On 2009-04-18 at 13:17:32, Thelevellers wrote...
*I don't THINK siberia...
On 2009-04-18 at 13:20:25, Lee J Haywood wrote...
When I think of Siberia I usually think of the frozen tundra that exists in places, and its ongoing and massive contribution of methane to the atmosphere. But that is just a small part of the region known as Siberia, which is indeed vast. @Thelevellers: Supposedly the weather we get here in the UK is linked to the weather that occurred in Siberia a month or two previously.
On 2009-04-18 at 16:47:56, Baslisks wrote...
Glacial lakes are not really lakes in the sense that they are large flat expanses of awesome dirt for growing things.The midwest used to be a massive glacial lake.