Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: EddyNashton on 02/07/2016 07:45:29
-
After everyone was excited and saying how we could live forever. Then they say in the nicest possible way that "Oh guess its not possible, science has failed us". I find that extremely disappointing. Does anyone else find this to be a bit of a cop out after all the hype over it? Do you think perhaps this conclusion is wrong? There is a lot of new stuff saying the limit is 120 and how we should focus on healthy short lives not healthy long ones. I find this disappointing.
-
If everyone could live for ever,
(a) the world would be even more overpopulated,
(b) with an increasingly elderly and dependent population and
(c) there would be no incentive to do anything since tomorrow is going to be just the same as today.
We have eliminated or found means of treating most communicable diseases and minor trauma, so the next phase of human existence is a progression towards a slow, painful, untreatable cause of decay and death. Time to take stock. You can be prosecuted for keeping a cancer-ridden, osteoporotic, arthritic, deranged, incontinent pet or zoo animal alive, so why do we inflict pain and indignity on old humans? And why do we let priests, politicians and philosophers tell us that assisted suicide is a Bad Thing? Time to get rid of these large parasites, just as we do with the small ones that make life miserable.
Live fast, love hard, die young. The only word in a dog's vocabulary is "now!" - and you rarely see an unhappy dog, because he has to sniff/eat/fight/mate with/pee on absolutely everything within 15 years.
-
Scientists confirmed hayflick limit ... I find that extremely disappointing ...
If the Hayflick limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit) could be circumvented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Lengthening) more people would die from cancer : it is responsible for spontaneous regression (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_regression) in some forms of cancer.
-
I thought that didnt apply to stem cells. Which they were trying to use to cure stuff like blindness for example.
-
Scientists confirmed hayflick limit ... I find that extremely disappointing ...
I thought the purpose was to keep people young forever not keep old people sick and old forever. Also even they hit a snag why would they just give up all of a sudden? When have scientists given up this easy?
-
If everyone could live for ever,
(a) the world would be even more overpopulated,
(b) with an increasingly elderly and dependent population and
(c) there would be no incentive to do anything since tomorrow is going to be just the same as today.
We have eliminated or found means of treating most communicable diseases and minor trauma, so the next phase of human existence is a progression towards a slow, painful, untreatable cause of decay and death. Time to take stock. You can be prosecuted for keeping a cancer-ridden, osteoporotic, arthritic, deranged, incontinent pet or zoo animal alive, so why do we inflict pain and indignity on old humans? And why do we let priests, politicians and philosophers tell us that assisted suicide is a Bad Thing? Time to get rid of these large parasites, just as we do with the small ones that make life miserable.
Live fast, love hard, die young. The only word in a dog's vocabulary is "now!" - and you rarely see an unhappy dog, because he has to sniff/eat/fight/mate with/pee on absolutely everything within 15 years.
I think you are being a little pessimistic there.
Hopefully they will come up with things that keep us healthy and able for much longer rather than old farts. Also, I go with the Bruce Forsite attitude; just keep going and look down on those who tell him that "He's 78 you know!" Brucy being a lot older!
-
The Hayflick limit has been proved scientifically in that human cells with divide and reproduce just so many times and then stop, leading to the biological death of a person Due to the sometimes called the DNA "death gene".
It is thought by some if this gene could be switch off humans could live for hundreds of years instead of the average life span of a presently living person of 70 years approx.
Cancer cell do not have this death gene an for all purposes could be considred immortal if constantly fed and nurtured in a safe environment
Alan
-
... Cancer cell do not have this death gene an for all purposes could be considred immortal if constantly fed and nurtured in a safe environment ...
Not all types of cancer cells are immortal. The function of the Hayflick-limit is to limit the impact of a cell which becomes cancerous. A mechanism to limit the number of generations which could arise from one cell (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hayflick_Limit_(1).svg) would not be so widespread if there was no net advantage in it. NB: Cancer incidence increases sharply with age, so having all cells immortal (no Hayflick-limit) would not create an immortal creature.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Zero
-
... Cancer cell do not have this death gene an for all purposes could be considred immortal if constantly fed and nurtured in a safe environment ...
Not all types of cancer cells are immortal. The function of the Hayflick-limit is to limit the impact of a cell which becomes cancerous. A mechanism to limit the number of generations which could arise from one cell[/url] would not be so widespread if there was no net advantage in it. NB: Cancer incidence increases sharply with age, so having all cells immortal (no Hayflick-limit) would not create an immortal creature.
So if you make a person whos cells are all immortal what did you create if not an immortal man?
-
So if you make a person whos cells are all immortal what did you create if not an immortal man?
You've created a person who has a greater chance of dying of cancer than normal human-beings. Copying of DNA during cell-division is not perfect : errors will occur and will accumulate with age, hence the steep increase in incidence of cancer with age.
-
So what about Stem Cells?
-
I thought [the Hayflick limit] didn't apply to stem cells.
Stem cells are able to renew their telomeres - that allows them to divide indefinitely (in theory).
But it also means that DNA copying errors can build up indefinitely, and stem cells could potentially become cancerous.
-
... Cancer cell do not have this death gene an for all purposes could be considred immortal if constantly fed and nurtured in a safe environment ...
Not all types of cancer cells are immortal. The function of the Hayflick-limit is to limit the impact of a cell which becomes cancerous. A mechanism to limit the number of generations which could arise from one cell (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hayflick_Limit_(1).svg) would not be so widespread if there was no net advantage in it. NB: Cancer incidence increases sharply with age, so having all cells immortal (no Hayflick-limit) would not create an immortal creature.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Zero
What you say is true if we live long enough or too long 90% of us will suffer from cancer in one form or the other.
The "immortality of cancer cells only show up in a pitri dish.
Alan