I have a question that I have often thought about but have trouble finding answers to. In the last few hundred years mankind seems to be able to extend the average life that we are able to live, but there seems to be a problem with our technology to be able to do anything beyond that. — dclements
This sounds more or less the old conventional way of thinking when it comes to "life extension" - proper diet, avoiding high risk activities, getting shots for the flu and other diseases, etc., etc. which may or may not extend a persons life for maybe another 10 to 20 years and has been taught for around the last 100 to 200 years about.Most of the increase in life expectancy over centuries has to do with nutrition and sanitation. I'm sure immunization and anti-biotics have had a big role too. Insect and rodent control also. At the same time, I don't think the maximum age to which people live has changed much. The three score and 10 years specified in the Bible is still fairly accurate.
I think the technology associated with longer life is probably at a whole different level affecting different bodily systems than that required for disease control. — T Clark
And a few hundred years ago people where saying that if man was meant to fly God would have given us wings. Both that argument and yours is really just an appeal to authority - this is the way it is now and it is what we know so why bother to question such things.Are you asking Why life is life?
Because life includes death by definition (implicitly at least). — Alkis Piskas
Again like Alkis Piskas's post, this is just an appeal to authority/antiquity. While there may be issues if the human population getting too big, for the purposes of this thread I'm not bothering to address such an issue because it is an entirely different subject on it's own.I wish technology is not able to solve the nature of passing away. Death is one of the purest conditions of humankind. If we develop worthy plans and projects is precisely for this reason because our time on the earth is limited. When a person passes away, it flourishes a different concept about him: the one you had when this person was alive and the one you have now when is dead. — javi2541997
I have heard about both the supposedly immortal cancer cells that continually grow and are used in medical research and about CRISPR. To be honest, I don't know much about them other than that they exist and may help in solving certain health issues and/or may help provide insights into how to extend human life.A line of research currently being looked at is HeLa Cells.
From Wiki:
HeLa is an immortal cell line used in scientific research. It is the oldest and most commonly used human cell line. The line is derived from cervical cancer cells taken on February 8, 1951,[named after Henrietta Lacks, a 31-year-old African-American mother of five, who died of cancer on October 4, 1951. The cell line was found to be remarkably durable and prolific, which allows it to be used extensively in scientific study.
The cells from Lacks's cancerous cervical tumor were taken without her knowledge or consent, which was common practice in the United States at the time. Cell biologist George Otto Gey found that they could be kept alive, and developed a cell line. Previously, cells cultured from other human cells would only survive for a few days. Cells from Lacks's tumor behaved differently.
The (horrible imo) Elon Musk is making some progress with neuralink.
CRISPR tech is very interesting.
The most interesting claim coming from the scientists involved in current transhuman technologies is that the first person to live to between 135 and 175 years is alive today but many such scientific claims in the past have proved unfounded. — universeness
dclements In a word, entropy 'kills' all complex organisms eventually. And lacking a well-understood theory of the cell (and, therefore, e.g. the human body as a whole system), at best we're only taking shots in the phenomenological dark treating symptoms and not the underlying problems which result in death. That said, here's an old post where I speculate (wantonly) on the topic:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/384334 — 180 Proof
I can't see the connection, but anyway. The "argument" above is almost the same with the classic "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"! :smile: Mine, if you can call it an "argument" too, is not hypothetical. It's factual.if man was meant to fly God would have given us wings. — dclements
Well, you can evade taxes! :smile:the two things in life that seem to be certain is death and taxes — dclements
The only reason you believe death is inevitable is because all of your life you have seen anything that lives eventually dies. Before the invention of the airplane an other technology, people had only seen bird an other animals fly but never human beings so it was easy for them to assume that human being would never fly since they never had before.I can't see the connection, but anyway. The "argument" above is almost the same with the classic "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"! :smile: Mine, if you can call it an "argument" too, is not hypothetical. It's factual. — Alkis Piskas
I only ask that read some of the stuff I just posted (as well as some of what others posted), think abut what we are trying to say, and then post back with what your thoughts are on it the subjects that are brought up.Well, you can evade taxes! :smile:
OK, joking aside, I really don't see what are you trying to find out or establish in your topic ... — Alkis Piskas
Christianity has an explanation: Original sin which God punished by issuing a death sentence to Adam & Eve and their descendants viz. us. :snicker: That kinda squares with the fact that we put extreme criminals (those who've committed heinous crimes) to death.
What doesn't add up is our nociceptive system - why does it exist if not to prevent/avoid crossing the river Styx? Clearly, it isn't working all that well, oui mes amies?
Too, the whole thing reminds me of villainous masterminds killing all his/her subordinate henchman after a certain objective (more life i.e. offspring) is achieved. Jibes with the theory of evolution I'd say. — Agent Smith
OK, I'll take a deep breath, squeeze very hard, and force those hay flicking cells back a year or two. — Bitter Crank
I did read the whole stuff that uou posted. And I responded to that. So we are OK.I only ask that read some of the stuff I just posted (as well as some of what others posted), think abut what we are trying to say, and then post back with what your thoughts are on it the subjects that are brought up. — dclements
Ok, here is a question that would be interesting for someone to provide an answer to:There's a jellyfish that's considered to be biologically immortal because it occasionally reverts to a younger stage and starts over. For the rest of us, it's Hayflick's limit. — Tate
I'm feeling the effects of Hayflick's Limit. — Bitter Crank
If Hayflick's limit is true (or even maybe true) for regular cells in large complex organisms (such as humans), why do the crown cells (to be honest I don't know if they are crown cells, but for some reason I want to call them that) or whatever cells involved creating the used in animal reproduction ARE NOT effected by Hayflick's limit and/or anything else that involves cellular aging. — dclements
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.