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

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.

Are you asking Why life is life?
Because life includes death by definition (implicitly at least).

:up: :fire: Agreed.



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.

Long ago, evolution produced time-limiting mechanisms in almost all complex plants and animals, including humans. Death clears the stage for another one of evolution's critical inventions -- progeny. If there were no death, life would have long ago consumed the last resources to support life, and life would have come to an end--extinction, not mere death.

Even within healthy bodies, death is an ongoing process. Cells die, either by wearing out or by following instructions -- programmed death (apoptosis). Cells that don't die as intended become, cancers and end up killing the organism.

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.

Further info on HeLa cells is that they are basically telomeres.

The text below is from https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Telomere:
A telomere is a region of repetitive DNA sequences at the end of a chromosome. Telomeres protect the ends of chromosomes from becoming frayed or tangled. Each time a cell divides, the telomeres become slightly shorter. Eventually, they become so short that the cell can no longer divide successfully, and the cell dies.
Telomere. Along the chromosomes, which are long pieces of DNA...when you look at them as a picture, they look like lines. Well, the hard part is how to protect the ends of this line. Because you could imagine that if you didn't protect them they would become ragged, and maybe there'd be little parts of them that would be lost. So the telomeres are special DNA that sit at the end of the chromosome that have repetitive sequences that are recognized as the end of the chromosome, but they keep the chromosome from becoming frazzled or damaged. And every time the cell divides, the telomeres also divide. But sometimes they can become shorter. And as they become shorter, that's a clock that the cell is counting to know how old it is, and that will limit how many times the cell can divide without losing some of the important DNA on the chromosome. And one of the interesting features that's understood now about telomeres is that in cancer cells, which have a more infinite capacity for self-division, one of the important changes that they make is that they keep their telomeres long, so that molecular clock goes away and those cells can keep dividing, even though they should get to the end of their lifespan. And that's one of the ways in which the cancer cells basically trick the human body into thinking that they should still keep replicating.

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

:death: :flower:

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

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.

However this thread is meant to focus on the "non-conventional" such as perhaps cryonics, gene therapies, cloning and what not, unless there is some kind of "radical" kind of conventional therapies that has a means of extending peoples lives for 30+ years or more such as something that is talked about in I believe is called the Blue Zones which I'm not sure if it fits into either into the conventional or unconventional medicine.

Are you asking Why life is life?
Because life includes death by definition (implicitly at least). — Alkis Piskas

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

While the two things in life that seem to be certain is death and taxes, in reality there is actually nothing in life that is really certain.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 will try to read up on this more, but I think the problem with "entropy" isn't an issue that is just something that affects organic systems but it is something that EFFECTS ALL systems, organic or not.

For example in IT there is the constant problem with even if failure rate with the electronic devices used in computer system is a lot better than it was decades ago, there is still the constant issue of what to do and how to handle such issues such as when a hard drive fails. If you have a home computer and the hard drive stops working you have either the option of replacing the hard drive or buying an entirely new computer, however there is still the issue of how to deal with the potential loss of data that was stored on it. In something like a corporate/business setting it is unacceptable for one to lose their data because of such issues so they have to do things like back up their information, use redundant hard drives (multiple hard drives that have copies of the same information if one goes down), and/or redundant computers in which if one fails another can come online which will handle the work required from the downed computer.

While it is a given that such redundancy is easier to implement through electronics then with organic systems (or at least complex organic systems such as human beings), it at least shows the potential for human beings to be able to at least partially overcome some of the problems with entropy that you talked about.

One of the things I was hoping somebody would bring up is the fact that ANY AND ALL LIFE (complex or not) REQUIRES a means/process to create a line of IMMORTAL CELLS that ARE NOT EFFECTED BY THE AGING PROCESS and/or any and all other means that would damage the DNA in our cells.

How do I know this, just the fact that when a child is born THEIR DNA is (more or less) not NOT EFFECTED BY THE TIME THAT HAS PASSED while their parents spent growing up and becoming old enough to have offspring. Because of this it is a given that there is a line cells used in the process of both creating us when we are just babies and then used again in creating both sperm and eggs cells of our offspring. These line of cells, no matter how long they are used over and over again, DO NOT AND CAN NOT BE EFFECTED BY the AGING PROCESS.

If any species didn't have these line of cells to counter -effect the aging process, they would immediately die out in a generation or too. Because of this I think it is safe to say that all organic beings have some means to create a similar kind of redundancy I talked about in my post to 180 Proof about information redundancy created in IT systems, however the information that is protected is DNA information instead of electronic information.

I don't know "If" knowledge of such cells and their process helps us in any way in prolonging human life, but it shows that least in lives of cells there is a way to keep a certain line of cells as more or less IMMORTAL in at least in a way that we can pass mostly unaltered DNA from one generation to another.

if man was meant to fly God would have given us wings. — dclements

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.

the two things in life that seem to be certain is death and taxes — dclements

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 ...

Biological immortality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

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

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.

When you (or anyone else) base their opinion only on how things are now and/or what is generally assumed by the public at large (while ignoring other possibilities), then they are making an appeal to authority/appeal to antiquity fallacy. If you don't understand this kind of fallacy I suggest you read up on it . While I can lead a horse to water I can't make them (or in this case you) drink

Appeal to tradition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Also as a rule of thumb in philosophy, if you can make a quick answer to any complex issue in less than a minute without hardly thinking at all it is highly likely your position will be based on one or more fallacies. Also when your position isn't really based on any real information (ie. is merely a sentence that states your opinion) it is again likely just based on a fallacy. Only when you get to the point where you can state "this is what I currently know, but my viewpoint can change based on new information presented to me" do you stop making logical fallacies in philosophy since any and all human knowledge is subject to change depending on new information being made available to us.

If you do not understand why this is I suggest you read up on the Doctrine of Anekantavada

Anekantavada/Doctrine of No-One Sidedness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

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

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.

Thanks

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

I think I more or less agree with your statement if it is about that the Abrahamic religions provide an unsatisfactory answer as too why we have to die, however I'm also coming from a standpoint of that all conventional answers as to WHY we have to die (instead of trying to extend life) is pretty moot.

Also I'm kind of assuming that all religious doctrine that claims that the first men such as Adam and his immediate descendants lived longer than modern humans 9because of their closer connection to God perhaps?) isn't true since there does not exist any knowledge at the present to support such claims.

Of course if there was information on how or why such humans lived longer was available we should/would take it into consideration. This is a thread focusing on the science ramifications of man trying to extend his life, not the theological ramifications of extending human life.

Some animals live a very long time, in human terms, like the 500 year old quahog clam found on Cape Cod. But the animal below is thought to be immortal: "Hydra is a group of small invertebrates with soft bodies that look a bit like jellyfish. Like Turritopsis dohrnii, Hydras also have the potential to live forever. Hydras don't show signs of deteriorating with age, Live Science previously reported. These invertebrates are largely made up of stem cells which continually regenerate through duplication or cloning. Hydras don't live forever under natural conditions because of threats like predators and disease, but without these external threats, they could be immortal." https://www.livescience.com/longest-living-animals.html



So, if you want to live forever, be a hydra.

There are also plants that live a long time, like a sea grass off the coast of Australia that is around 100,000 years old.

Presumably, immortal species do not evolve once they become immortal. They just stay the same. So, had you been born an immortal hydra millions of years ago, you'd still be hydra. Or, had you been born into the last common ancestor of apes and humans 20,000,000 years ago, you'd still be the last common ancestor. No philosophic mongering for you, you immortal not yet very bright-ape.

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.

I'm feeling the effects of Hayflick's Limit.

Me too. It's not for sissies.

I'm feeling the effects of Hayflick's Limit. — Bitter Crank

:rofl: You can do it! C'mon!

OK, I'll take a deep breath, squeeze very hard, and force those hay flicking cells back a year or two.

Good people are glorified in society - books, poems, biographies, medals, certificates - but, here's where it gets interesting, also pitied and ridiculed, yes all at the same time, as naïve (read numskull/cretin/idiot/dunce/fool/etc.) and that means either a world of pain or an early grave. At this rate, in a coupla centuries, the only good person would be a dead person; evolution dictates that this is so.

The only explanation for good people still amongst us is memetics, not genetics. No wonder the physical world was deemed evil by gnostics? Please google for more info.

OK, I'll take a deep breath, squeeze very hard, and force those hay flicking cells back a year or two. — Bitter Crank

:up: :party: You da man!

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

I did read the whole stuff that uou posted. And I responded to that. So we are OK.

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

Ok, here is a question that would be interesting for someone to provide an answer to:

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. In one of my previous posts in this thread I pointed out that it is a given that ALL ANIMALS require a process in which the cells involved in reproduction have to go through a process where the DNA is somehow either fix and/or anti-aged in some way that allows the cells in the animals offspring to be more or less "brand new" just as it is with any and all animals that are born healthy/without defect.

Without the means to create an IMMORTAL line of cells, a species would quickly die off and become extinct. If I could remember what and/or where I read about this process I would post it here but for the life of me, I can't recall what it is called.

I'm feeling the effects of Hayflick's Limit. — Bitter Crank

I suggest you either drink more coffee and/or perhaps pop some nicotine gum into your mouth to help you feel more alive. While the process of getting older isn't all that fun, I can tell you that it is nowhere near as bad as the actual process of dying is.

The closest you can get to it without actually being dead is imagine your deep in an underground cave by yourself and you get stuck and can't move. Then while waiting/hoping that someone comes to help you your flashlight goes out. Perhaps for the first minute or two (but likely in much shorter of a time) you are able to keep some of your cool, but then you feel like you are having trouble breathing and your mind start rapidly racing with thoughts of both how to try to escape and what will become of you if you are unable to free yourself. When you are really in a situation where you might die you often A)Unable to move/feel like you are paralyzed B) Unable to see and/or hear what is going on around you C)Feel like you are trapped in your own mind without being able to do anything about your condition.

I'm not saying that it is a given that everyone goes through such experiences when they are close to death, I'm just trying to point out it isn't quiet as peaceful as some people lead you to believe. Also it is worth noting that while you are pronounced "dead" soon after your heart stops beating, the human brain can survive for somewhere around 20-30 minutes once oxygen is no longer being supplied to it. And though it maybe isn't a given that one is conscience all that time, it is very likely isn't exactly a pleasant experience if one is conscience while lingering around in this world just before they pass into the next.

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

Stem cells? I think they're immortal. Cancer cells are too.

I think Bittercrank may have been onto something regarding the ability of a mortal population to adapt to changing conditions?