To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Why Do We Die?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Other Sciences > Medicine / Health

fredinjeddah
I know how we die, but I want to know why. Humans have had a longish evolution, and we seem intent on survival, but the body has not evolved to the point where it allows people to live beyond at least 120 years.

Our bodies seem to contain and be able to absorb everything we need to keep our cells from re-generating, and yet there are processes built in to our genes, it would seem, that stop this re-generation from continuing beyond a certain point.

I am also not considering ancient writings that talk about people living for thousands of years, as there is no empirical evidence to support those claims.

I found this link on the subject, and would be interested in why everyone here thinks we die. Is it by design, or purely part of the evolution process.

Guardian Newspaper: We don't have to get sick as we get older.

This article is also very interesting on the subject:

Guardian. Why do we die?

One of the arguments here, is that organisms grow old, because nature does not need them anymore. Once we have procreated, there is less need for older organisms, so they die. Is it fair to say then on this basis, that our evolution and survival has hedged its bets on procreation being the way to continue survival, and not getting old.

If that is the case, can we un-programme ourselves/our bodies to think otherwise? I suppose the difficult question is "is there a benefit to humans for getting very old?". Other than wanting to live longer. If we lived longer, would it benefit the human race in its future survival?

I cannot particularly see a benefit to the broader species as such, but only to myself, but does that mean I am accepting death and therefore I will die at a certain age, or is it all chemical?

I personally have no desire to live forever and am not morbidly thinking about death, I am interested from a scientific point of view as to what contributes to the process.
brucep
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Feb 20 2011, 11:37 AM)
I know how we die, but I want to know why. Humans have had a longish evolution, and we seem intent on survival, but the body has not evolved to the point where it allows people to live beyond at least 120 years.

Our bodies seem to contain and be able to absorb everything we need to keep our cells from re-generating, and yet there are processes built in to our genes,  it would seem, that stop this re-generation from continuing beyond a certain point.

I am also not considering ancient writings that talk about people living for thousands of years, as there is no empirical evidence to support those claims.

I found this link on the subject, and would be interested in why everyone here thinks we die. Is it by design, or purely part of the evolution process.

Guardian Newspaper: We don't have to get sick as we get older.

This article is also very interesting on the subject:

Guardian. Why do we die?

One of the arguments here, is that organisms grow old, because nature does not need them anymore. Once we have procreated, there is less need for older organisms, so they die. Is it fair to say then on this basis, that our evolution and survival has hedged its bets on procreation being the way to continue survival, and not getting old.

If that is the case, can we un-programme ourselves/our bodies to think otherwise? I suppose the difficult question is "is there a benefit to humans for getting very old?". Other than wanting to live longer. If we lived longer, would it benefit the human race in its future survival?

I cannot particularly see a benefit to the broader species as such, but only to myself, but does that mean I am accepting death and therefore I will die at a certain age, or is it all chemical?

I personally have no desire to live forever and am not morbidly thinking about death, I am interested from a scientific point of view as to what contributes to the process.

That theme runs through Robert Heinlein science fiction along with space migration. I listened to a radio interview with Timothy Leary, in the late 70's, on the same subject. He was trying to describe why cells quit regenerating. I can't remember the details. I remember he thought we were close to solving that problem. The space migration was also in the discussion. The IQ of this planet would need to be raised exponentially to overcome the fundamentalist boneheadedness we're stuck with at this point in history. Since that interview the American IQ has dropped significantly. My opinion. Good subject. Hope there is some response.
orestis
There is another thread about this from about a year or two ago. It had good posts.

Tried to find it but couldn't. If anybody else remembers it and wants to try..
rethinker
I think the real challenge would be in a continuous rebuilding and receiving new atoms etc.

Good topic

It seems to be evident throughout the physical world.
If you build a building as we do when we are born, it reaches a point where it is done and begins to brake down.
Even while using new materials at the start of a large project, the materials are already from the past while you place newer materials on top.

We do have some regenerating features and maybe if we researched this process more,we could find a code that we could begin to follow. It would have to be all inclusive.
rpenner
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Feb 20 2011, 11:37 AM)
I know how we die, but I want to know why.

If we lived forever we'd have sex with our great-great-grandchildren, and that's just creepy (a.k.a. less than ideal evolutionarily).
fredinjeddah
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 21 2011, 08:28 PM)
If we lived forever we'd have sex with our great-great-grandchildren, and that's just creepy (a.k.a. less than ideal evolutionarily).

Would you want to sleep with your great great grandchild if you were capable and made it to 400? I doubt it. But I think living forever would be a little dreary after awhile.

It is an interesting theory you propose. It is counter beneficial to mankind if he could live forever, because there would be the possibilty of close genetic material mix if you were accidentaly to get your great great grandchild pregnant.

Of course our current evolutionary design, did not stop us from being able to sleep with 1st cousins which also poses a risk of close genetic material mixing, so I doubt that is the reason we do not live longer or forever.

And why do animals around us, have dramatically different lifespans than us. Birds can outlive a man, and a dogs life is much quicker than ours. Is it diet, genetics, design or just random evolution?
Goofus A Gallant
It would get pretty crowded it we didn't die. We need to make room for the next generation.

But really, everything has a life cycle. Us, plants and the rest of those that inhabit our planet. Even planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and yes - the universe itself. Why should we be any different?
rpenner
After the first 20,000 years or so, are you going to even be able to name all of your 1st cousins? It's hard enough naming all the kings of England and there's only on the order of 1000 years of them.
adoucette
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 21 2011, 07:41 PM)
After the first 20,000 years or so, are you going to even be able to name all of your 1st cousins? It's hard enough naming all the kings of England and there's only on the order of 1000 years of them.

Christmas would be a REAL bitch....

I can just hear it now, "That's it, next year we do Secret Santa"

LOL

Arthur
fredinjeddah
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Feb 21 2011, 10:45 PM)
It would get pretty crowded it we didn't die. We need to make room for the next generation.

But really, everything has a life cycle. Us, plants and the rest of those that inhabit our planet.

I agree, there are cycles everywhere. If one were looking for patterns, that certainly would seem to be one, except there are some exceptions to the cycle amongst earth bound organisms.

I am not really wanting to know if we could live forever, but rather why we humans die within what seems to be a given ammount of time. Scientifically it would seem we should be able to live as long as we feed the body with what it needs, but our cells seem "pre-programmed" to stop generating new healthy cells at a certain point in our lives.

If one looks at the oldest living thing on our planet, which is apparently a creosote bush in the mojave desert, aged at 11 700 years, then why does this plant have such a long life span as opposed to other plants.

Why can some whales live as long as 200 years and other whales not? A jellyfish (turritopsis nutricula) reverts to becoming sexually immature after reproducing and is the one species considered to be biologically immortal.

The "culprit" in all this, seems to be evolution. All species (and even sub-species) have randomly evolved in certain directions. Our environment certainly plays a role in our evolution, but I suspect, that that which governs our life spans, is an ancient part of our evolution, buried deep inside our DNA.

The most recognised theory on cell replication (as far as I can find) is what is termed the "Hayflick limit". In essence, this is what it means:

Wikipedia Haflick limit

QUOTE
This limit has been found to correlate with the length of the telomeres at the end of a strand of DNA. During the process of DNA replication, small segments of DNA at each end of the DNA strand (telomeres) are unable to be copied and are lost after each time DNA is duplicated.[9] The telomeres are a region of DNA which code for no proteins; they are simply a repeated code on the end region of DNA that is lost. Eventually, after many divisions, the telomeres become depleted and the cell commences apoptosis. This is a defense mechanism of a cell to prevent replicating error that would cause mutations in DNA. According to Alexey Olovnikov, once the telomeres are depleted due to the cell dividing many times, the cell will no longer divide and the Hayflick limit has been reached.[10][11] This correlation is only true for normal functioning cells. Cancer cells turn on an enzyme called telomerase which is able to restore telomere length. This gives cancer cells their infinite replicative potential and explains why cancer cells are not restricted to Hayflick's limit because their telomere length is never depleted. [12] A telomerase inhibitor is being proposed as a cancer treatment; this way cancer cells would not have the ability to maintain telomere length and would die like normal body cells.[13] Telomerase activators, on the other hand, might repair or perhaps extend the ends of telomeres, thus extending the Hayflick Limit on healthy cells. This might strengthen the telomeres on cells of the immune system enough to prevent cancerous cells from developing from cells with very short telomeres.


It seems that if we can extend the telomere length we will be able to extend our lives.

This brings me to another question. Is it morally wrong to tamper with our DNA? I do not see anything morally wrong with it, and to me it would be a continuation of our evolution, this time with us directly invloved in the process. Is it wise to do so? Only time can answer that question, I think.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This limit has been found to correlate with the length of the telomeres at the end of a strand of DNA. During the process of DNA replication, small segments of DNA at each end of the DNA strand (telomeres) are unable to be copied and are lost after each time DNA is duplicated.[9] The telomeres are a region of DNA which code for no proteins; they are simply a repeated code on the end region of DNA that is lost. Eventually, after many divisions, the telomeres become depleted and the cell commences apoptosis. This is a defense mechanism of a cell to prevent replicating error that would cause mutations in DNA. According to Alexey Olovnikov, once the telomeres are depleted due to the cell dividing many times, the cell will no longer divide and the Hayflick limit has been reached.[10][11] This correlation is only true for normal functioning cells. Cancer cells turn on an enzyme called telomerase which is able to restore telomere length. This gives cancer cells their infinite replicative potential and explains why cancer cells are not restricted to Hayflick's limit because their telomere length is never depleted. [12] A telomerase inhibitor is being proposed as a cancer treatment; this way cancer cells would not have the ability to maintain telomere length and would die like normal body cells.[13] Telomerase activators, on the other hand, might repair or perhaps extend the ends of telomeres, thus extending the Hayflick Limit on healthy cells. This might strengthen the telomeres on cells of the immune system enough to prevent cancerous cells from developing from cells with very short telomeres.


It seems that if we can extend the telomere length we will be able to extend our lives.

This brings me to another question. Is it morally wrong to tamper with our DNA? I do not see anything morally wrong with it, and to me it would be a continuation of our evolution, this time with us directly invloved in the process. Is it wise to do so? Only time can answer that question, I think.

Even planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and yes - the universe itself. Why should we be any different?
Although this seems true (although I dot think we have the answer yet to the life span of the universe, which may be immortal), nothing ever technically dies, it is transformed into another form. We break down into our base elements once we die, but those elements are never destroyed.

Our biggest hinderance to living forever, is that our planet certainly seems to have a limited life span, as does our sun and galaxy in its current form. Time to start planet hopping!
boit
A very informative post fredinjeddah. I remember reading a sci-fi story titled the eternal man. Unfortunately it lacked the bolts-and-nuts of a good science fiction. This piece was conspicuously missing.
bukh
As GAG rightly state - everything has a life-cycle.

I like to think that everything exist because of repetition - the very concept of existence is being based upon the principle that the constituents of an object re-configure its pattern (scale-wise arranged - and in a way that any constituent is a composite particle in next following scale) - so it is fundamentally about the accuracy by which such repeating re-configurations can be made - what is the grade of sliding from one configuration to the next following. How accurately can the next following be molded on the foregoing serving as its scaffold.

Life-cycle of any object is being defined out from degree of complexity of said object (in the observed scale) and degree of accuracy in each repetition.

So fundamentally I see everything as being of different degrees of complexion (in observed scale) - and some complexions are more stable than others - i.e. stable complexions are being re-configured more accurately and can therefore be re-configured more times (longer period) before they loose their fundamental properties, and stable complexions are generally less complex.

That isotopes are short-lived as compared to their sisters, is not because of higher complexion - but because of less accurate re-configuration.

Human is an integrated part of Universe - made of the same stuff and following same rules. Living stuff (self-replicating by some special mechanisms) is generally more complex than so-called dead stuff - and therefore generally show shorter life-spans.

All objects "die" in the sense that they sooner or later loose their fundamental characteristics, electron is long-lived imaginary particles are short-lived, human is about 100 years-lived. It is an interesting question how and when so-called living organism dies - exactly what is the definition of dead as compared to alive, when is the point of no return being reached - but this is another discussion.

The question about incest as a consequence of immortality, IMO is not well thought, because children's grand-grand-grand---- children will as a rule in the same way get "incested", because earth is too small to prevent this.
NymphaeaAlba
It has been awhile since I’ve watched this video. I believe that Michio Haku asked people if they would drink an elixir (fountain of youth) in this video. I thought about it for a while and wondered how longevity would change the world. I never thought about the odd aspect of incest, as rpenner did, but I was curious about the how the legal system would change.

Immortality and Sentencing Law

I was also curious about the economy, over population, and human behavior. Would we want immortality? How long would we want to live? Would life seem less precious? Would our perception of time itself change? Would we get bored and die from risk taking adventures? Many centenarians when asked, say they “have lived long enough”, but is this only because they feel the pain of aging?

I also found the Medawar Theory interesting. When a multicellular organisms are produced, genetic activators guide cells with gene regulation. However, when we reproduce and pass on our genetic information, we can only pass down a genetic manual with instructions for regulation of gene expression, up to the point of our reproductive age. After this we have no instruction and we begin to age.

Peter Medawar had the idea of longevity selection with use of people with selectively increased longevity. You know, by telling all the short-lived teenagers that they can’t have sex, and allowing only genetic super-centenarians to reproduce. Good luck with that, eh? huh.gif

Peter Medawar

Additional information:
QUOTE
“Cells are the basic building blocks of tissues. All cells experience changes with aging. They become larger and are less able to divide and reproduce. Among other changes, there is an increase in pigments and fatty substances inside the cell (lipids). Many cells lose their ability to function, or they begin to function abnormally.

Because of cell and tissue changes, your organs also change as you age. Aging organs gradually but progressively lose function, and there is a decrease in the maximum functioning capacity. Most people do not notice this loss, because you seldom need to use your organs to their fullest capability.
Some systems begin aging as early as age 30. Other aging processes are not common until much later.

Some have argued that aging has multiple origins and is a mere combination of age-related changes and diseases each timed by independent clocks (Olson, 1987). For instance, some experts have defended that aging derives from the failure of multiple maintenance mechanisms and that there is no basic aging process at all (Holliday, 1995; Peto and Doll, 1997).

Of course that just because aging has a genetic core does not mean that curing it will be easy. Naturally occurring genetic variants in mice can delay aging, but only to a certain point. Therefore, even when we identify the genetic mechanisms behind human aging, curing aging will be a Herculean task.”

“An interesting aspect of research into cellular senescence has shown that the ticks on a cell's internal clock seem predetermined. This is separate from chronological time. Slowing down or stopping the cell divisions does not change the number of times the cell can divide. Cells frozen in liquid nitrogen pick up where they left off and complete the same number of divisions as unfrozen cells, as if they remember the count.”

ARE TELOMERES THE KEY TO AGING AND CANCER?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
“Cells are the basic building blocks of tissues. All cells experience changes with aging. They become larger and are less able to divide and reproduce. Among other changes, there is an increase in pigments and fatty substances inside the cell (lipids). Many cells lose their ability to function, or they begin to function abnormally.

Because of cell and tissue changes, your organs also change as you age. Aging organs gradually but progressively lose function, and there is a decrease in the maximum functioning capacity. Most people do not notice this loss, because you seldom need to use your organs to their fullest capability.
Some systems begin aging as early as age 30. Other aging processes are not common until much later.

Some have argued that aging has multiple origins and is a mere combination of age-related changes and diseases each timed by independent clocks (Olson, 1987). For instance, some experts have defended that aging derives from the failure of multiple maintenance mechanisms and that there is no basic aging process at all (Holliday, 1995; Peto and Doll, 1997).

Of course that just because aging has a genetic core does not mean that curing it will be easy. Naturally occurring genetic variants in mice can delay aging, but only to a certain point. Therefore, even when we identify the genetic mechanisms behind human aging, curing aging will be a Herculean task.”

“An interesting aspect of research into cellular senescence has shown that the ticks on a cell's internal clock seem predetermined. This is separate from chronological time. Slowing down or stopping the cell divisions does not change the number of times the cell can divide. Cells frozen in liquid nitrogen pick up where they left off and complete the same number of divisions as unfrozen cells, as if they remember the count.”

ARE TELOMERES THE KEY TO AGING AND CANCER?
"For successful aging you have to control both, aging in your dividing cells, which hinges on telomere maintenance, but also aging in your non-dividing cells. We thought that telomeres might play a role in the later but that's clearly not the case," says Dillin. "What is probably playing a role in the other half of aging is the insulin signaling pathway, proper mitochondrial function and dietary restriction," he reasons.

Several types of cells in our body, such as mature nerve cells in the brain, oocytes, skeletal and heart muscle cells don't actively divide but stay put just like the cells in adult worms.

"That makes our findings relevant for age-related decline in mental function and neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's," says Karlseder. "Making people live longer is not enough, we want them to grow old healthy," he adds.

"To prevent accelerated aging in an organism, you need to have both proper telomere maintenance and those other genetic pathways intact," says Dillin. "If you wanted to develop a drug to combat aging it wouldn't be enough to target telomeres, you would also have to target these other genetic pathways."
synthsin75
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Feb 23 2011, 12:17 PM)
I also found the Medawar Theory interesting. When a multicellular organisms are produced, genetic activators guide cells with gene regulation. However, when we reproduce and pass on our genetic information, we can only pass down a genetic manual with instructions for regulation of gene expression, up to the point of our reproductive age. After this we have no instruction and we begin to age.

That explanation is one of the most appealing I've heard.

Personally, I think that an organism accumulates trauma, in a very wide definition of the term that can include cellular death. The "will to live", duration potential, or resistance to entropy of an entire organism is finite and ultimately overcome by such trauma. Each building block can resist only so much trauma, so even though the body regenerates these building blocks, its overall resistance is gradually broken down. Its longevity is built up by its degree of complex succession of resistant components.
enord
& how does sleep figure in?
El_Machinae
There're multiple causes of aging, it seems. Different types of cells die for different reasons, in different people. Some cells seem to be hindered by telomere shortening. Some organs cannot regenerate efficiently enough. Sometimes regeneration runs away as cancer. Sometimes biotoxins cannot be overcome.

I see upthread that there's a debate about whether we even should seek immortality. I know that there are social problems associated with a cure for aging, but I don't accept that the 'cure' for these ills is that 'old people must die'. It's a solution, but it's a terrible, terrible solution.

The Immortality Institute is devoted to trying to help speed a cure for aging. Or, more clearly "trying to end the blight of involuntary death". While there're some kooks there, the admins of the website are pretty good.

We need more people who're interested in the cause of aging, and how to mitigate its ill effects.
Capracus
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 1 2011, 06:33 PM)
The Immortality Institute is devoted to trying to help speed a cure for aging.  Or, more clearly "trying to end the blight of involuntary death".  While there're some kooks there, the admins of the website are pretty good.

We need more people who're interested in the cause of aging, and how to mitigate its ill effects.
I see the most promising solution to avoiding the ravages of disease and death being the liberation from the fragile biological vessels we inhabit. If an individual can manage to survive another fifty years, then it may be possible at that time to transfer ones psychological essence to a more durable framework. For those who cannot make the deadline, either an effectively preserved brain, or a usable image of such, might also insure their continued existence. Those technologies may be available much sooner.

From a link provided by The Immortality Institute.

Super Cooling Technology, One Step Closer to Cryopreservation
http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/23/food-...h-organs-next/#
boit
QUOTE (enord+Feb 23 2011, 10:27 PM)
& how does sleep figure in?

It is the twin brother of death. wink.gif
El_Machinae
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 3 2011, 11:44 AM)
I see the most promising solution to avoiding the ravages of disease and death being the liberation from the fragile biological vessels we inhabit. If an individual can manage to survive another fifty years, then it may be possible at that time to transfer ones psychological essence to a more durable framework. For those who cannot make the deadline, either an effectively preserved brain, or a usable image of such, might also insure their continued existence. Those technologies may be available much sooner.

From a link provided by The Immortality Institute.

Super Cooling Technology, One Step Closer to Cryopreservation
http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/23/food-...h-organs-next/#

I've always found the resistance to cryonics weird. There're not very many neuroscientists (any?) who think that crynonics -> resuscitation is a viable route, but I don't know why. It might just be because it's a zany idea.

We freeze and thaw cells quite often, and I realised that I have to rethink what 'dead' is after looking at when a specific cell dies in the process.
rockersmith
The information regarding how we die that you have given above is very nice and also very beneficial for me as well as others who wants to know. I liked and very much impressed by this. I am very much thankful to you for giving me the exact information.
NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 9 2011, 08:39 AM)
I've always found the resistance to cryonics weird.  There're not very many neuroscientists (any?) who think that crynonics -> resuscitation is a viable route, but I don't know why.  It might just be because it's a zany idea.

We freeze and thaw cells quite often, and I realised that I have to rethink what 'dead' is after looking at when a specific cell dies in the process.

I've always found cryonics weird. I ran into the name James Hughes when I was reading about AI. The Institute for ethics and emerging technologies has some very strange articles.

QUOTE
Cryonics is based on a view of dying as a process that can be stopped in the minutes, and perhaps hours, following clinical death. If death is not an event that happens suddenly when the heart stops, this raises philosophical questions about what exactly death is.

Bioethicist James Hughes has written that increasing rights will accrue to cryonics patients as prospects for revival become clearer, noting that recovery of legally dead persons has precedent in the discovery of missing persons.

Philosophical and ethical considerations-Wikipedia

James Hughes-Institute for ethics and emerging technologies

Brain Freeze? Neuroprotectant, yes. Neuropreservation, weird.

There was a show on recently about determining when death actual occurs and it covered therapeutic hypothermia, but I can’t remember the name, anyone else happen to see it?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Cryonics is based on a view of dying as a process that can be stopped in the minutes, and perhaps hours, following clinical death. If death is not an event that happens suddenly when the heart stops, this raises philosophical questions about what exactly death is.

Bioethicist James Hughes has written that increasing rights will accrue to cryonics patients as prospects for revival become clearer, noting that recovery of legally dead persons has precedent in the discovery of missing persons.

Philosophical and ethical considerations-Wikipedia

James Hughes-Institute for ethics and emerging technologies

Brain Freeze? Neuroprotectant, yes. Neuropreservation, weird.

There was a show on recently about determining when death actual occurs and it covered therapeutic hypothermia, but I can’t remember the name, anyone else happen to see it?
Accordingly, most early hypotheses suggested that hypothermia reduces the harmful effects of ischemia by decreasing the body’s need for oxygen. The initial emphasis on cellular metabolism explains why the early studies almost exclusively focused on the application of deep hypothermia, as these researchers believed that the therapeutic effects of hypothermia correlated directly with the extent of temperature decline.

More recent data suggests that even a modest reduction in temperature can function as a neuroprotectant, suggesting the possibility that hypothermia affects pathways that extend beyond a decrease in cellular metabolism.
enord
QUOTE (boit+Mar 5 2011, 01:54 PM)
It is the twin brother of death. wink.gif

ok, what about a blackout from overdrinking?....hangover can be hell
boit
QUOTE (enord+Mar 10 2011, 12:19 AM)
ok, what about a blackout from overdrinking?....hangover can be hell

Drunkardness is the twin brother of insanity. smile.gif
fredinjeddah
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Feb 23 2011, 06:17 PM)
Immortality and Sentencing Law


Fascinating article. One aspect I had not considered (which has interest to me) is the legal aspect.

The article deals with this and asks some very interesting questions.

One would be how we sentence people to crimes should they be able to live forever. Sentence periods would have to re-evaluated as the cost of a life sentence would be forever.

The other one which was interesting , as it asks the question, would killing a being that could live forever, carry a much higher social punishment. In a way it is asking if the fact that we live to a certain age, effects how we value life.

And then, how would you value a life that could continue forever and punish those that take that away.

There seems to be more evidence for the problems that eternal life would create than any positive benefit.

If you enjoy law, read the linked article from NA
Capracus
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 19 2011, 09:03 PM)
There seems to be more evidence for the problems that eternal life would create than any positive benefit.
I don't believe that the path to immortality will be through improvements in our biology, but more likely by abandoning our biology. If at some point we are able to exist in a more durable neural medium, say a digital one, then life becomes where ever the program of you resides. Like digital programs that exist presently, you may experience life as a simulation of anything imaginable, or experience it as a sensation of knowable reality. Another benefit of life as a program would be the advantage of backup copies. As long as a secure copy exists, life goes on, and the issue of taking a life becomes a matter of property damage rather than murder.
fredinjeddah
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 20 2011, 11:26 AM)
I don't believe that the path to immortality will be through improvements in our biology, but more likely by abandoning our biology. If at some point we are able to exist in a more durable neural medium, say a digital one, then life becomes where ever the program of you resides. Like digital programs that exist presently, you may experience life as a simulation of anything imaginable, or experience it as a sensation of knowable reality. Another benefit of life as a program would be the advantage of backup copies. As long as a secure copy exists, life goes on, and the issue of taking a life becomes a matter of property damage rather than murder.

Like the movie "Surrogates", who use avatars to live their lives through. As you say, killing an avatar would be property damage and not murder.

I wonder if humans would relinquish their ability to experience life personally, physically. The digital programming would have to be as good as the real thing at a minimum. If you look at our movies, 3D, interactive goggles etc, humans seem to want to improve on existing reality. I think that kind of programming you are talking about would be extremely complicated to achieve.

I by chance watched "Blade Runner" the movie, last night. It was interesting, because it happens to deal with the creation of artificial life and the consequences thereof (from the writers perspective). It is a good watch, if you like a bit of retro movie watching.

I also happened to watch Gattaca, which also deals with simmilar issues. I love watching old sci-fi movies, a lot of the time, to see if the concepts proposed have subsequently been developed or not, and of course to see what artists thought our clothes and offices would look like in the future.

I can definately see humans going down the genetics route as in Gattaca, in order to live longer and "better". As soon as the concept that we are meddling in gods business by using genetics vanishes, I believe we will start seeing genetic alterations on the scale of Gattaca happening.

This combined with artificial limbs, organs etc is where I think the future lies for humans who want to extend their stay on earth as long as possible.
El_Machinae
I think the path TO immortality will be due to biological upgrading (repairing) while we wait for uploading to be possible. Any biological discoveries are going to make uploading more feasible, but also buy time for people waiting. There're a horrendous number of age-related deaths each day, but (more importantly) there're our loved ones that that might live long enough to be immortal and loved ones who might not. The fact the biotech goes (which is something we can all help with), the more of our loved ones will be saved. Think about an older person you love. It would be nice if they were to become immortal IF you're going to be immortal too.
Dr_Zinj
Biology currently beats mechanics because biology has self repair capability, while our current level of mechanics does not. The aging problem is largely a factor of the complexity of biology multiplied by errors in cellular reproduction, and certain lacking capabilities in tissue repair and regeneration.

Even in the event we eliminate cellular death and prevent that from causing massive cancers; and we enable tissue and organ regeneration and rejuvenation; we'll still be subject to death by violence or accident. The average lifespan would be massively increased.

What happens with our minds though? What happens when we go from only using 10% of our brains from birth to 100 years old, and instead live to 1000? Where do we store those experiences? Do we periodically do brain dumps to purge unnecessary information?

This of course doesn't even answer the questions of how we feed all those people, or who is allowed access to the Methuselah regimen.
boit
Isaac Asimov tackled the feeding problem in one of his articles. We either have to legislate compulsory birth control a la China or hope we lose our reproductive/ procreation capability as we evolve to amoeba like immortality. Cell regeneration may be the downfall of biology. With mechanics, a vehicle is compact cause it doesn't have to carry an oil refinery (analogous to the GIT) with it. If you've read Asimov book there will be a time when humans will have prosthetics to be barely distinguishable from robots (Mark Ten). We shall attain immortality when we cease to be biological dependant species.
enord
life is tricky= get horny/inspired by hormonal smells & orgasmic pleasure so to conceive & then deal with the burden of the offspring & this is normal.....extension of life is abnormal cause it burdens the parent further in order to care for the child+ the parent"s parent
mherders
There are so many people these days that are living longer, but from what I can see it many of them would have much rather moved on a long time ago. As I truly believe in an after life and I am hoping I can become a citizen of the universe. If anyone has every seen a movie called "Defending your Life", you will know exactly what I mean. There has got to be more then this.
El_Machinae
QUOTE (boit+May 8 2011, 11:20 AM)
Isaac Asimov tackled the feeding problem in one of his articles. We either have to legislate compulsory birth control a la China or hope we lose our reproductive/ procreation capability as we evolve to amoeba like immortality. Cell regeneration may be the downfall of biology. With mechanics, a vehicle is compact cause it doesn't have to carry an oil refinery (analogous to the GIT) with it. If you've read Asimov book there will be a time when humans will have prosthetics to be barely distinguishable from robots (Mark Ten). We shall attain immortality when we cease to be biological dependant species.

So, let's do it!
Ewol
Do single celled organisms such as bacteria die of old age?
El_Machinae
How would you tell if it was old age or if it was some type of metabolic damage? A healthy bacteria will normally divide
El_Machinae
Oh, if they replicate, then each generation will have a daughter cell that's less fit than the other. If you continue to trace the 'least fit' daughter lineage, you'll see that it eventually dies out.

I don't know if you could call that aging.
bukh
QUOTE (RealityCheck+May 20 2011, 05:41 AM)
.
Hi El_machinae.




Hmmm. Then the question becomes whether the least fit 'line' dies out due to a succession of detrimental random/environmental mutations accumulated along the 'life' processes OR the 'reproductive' processes of that line.

Meaning that I would look at the 'telomeres' of the LAST (dead or nearly dead) least fit daughter and see whether the telomers are 'intact' or not.

If intact, then the factor would be accumulated 'living' random/environmental mutations.

If however the telomeres are faulty or 'exhausted', then one may conclude that the LINE has indeed 'aged' in the usual sense of an eventual FATAL/DEBILITATING 'reproductive' (division) TRANSCRIPTION ERROR due to the absence of the necessary corrective/repair proteins and/or telomeric failure to protect the chromosomal strands during the latest 'doomed' division.

If you or anyone here has any references to any such studies/results, I would be very much obliged for the info/link(s). smile.gif

Gotta go. Cheers mate!

.

Hi RC

Bacteria chromosomes do not possess telomeres as opposed to chromosomes in higher animals (multicellular) that are being capped with telomeres - serving the function of limiting the number of cell divisions - referred to as the Hayflick limit.

The Hayflick limit can be considered a genetic program which tends to limit the number of times that a cell can divide, as it reduces (so believed) the likelihood of uncontrolled cell growth which can result in cancer.

In order for a multicellular organisms to function optimally it seems like there must be this delicate balance between the need for renewal of the cells on one hand and on the other hand to minimize risk of uncontrolled division. Single cell organism by definition do not have this problem - they can just freely divide and will do fine as long as environment is not being depleted.

Human fibroblast cells for instance have a limit of about 50 generations. After nearly 50 divisions the Hayflick limit is being reached - the telomeres have been used, the fibroblasts cease to be able to divide, as well as take on a different look as well as behavior. The metabolic rates of the fibroblasts tend to slow down; they grow in size besides also accumulating lipofuscin, a pigment that causes age spots. Old fibroblasts take up precious space and deplete the surrounding cells environment. This is also known as cellular and tissue senescence.

As a side comment - I now understand from my daily work with cosmetic laser - why and how treatment of pigmented age spots, - where such old lipofuscin loaded cells are being targeted and selectively destroyed - at the same time change the skin towards a younger look with improvement in general texture and elasticity - and I never thought about this connection until I read a little more about telomeres inspired by this thread.

Aging and dying when it comes to higher animals is fundamentally a consequence of this delicate balance between needed renewal via division of the individual cell balanced against the risk of uncontrolled growth - which is incompatible with life in a multicellular organism. The question why a single cell cannot live eternally has IMO to do with the fact that nature never sit still - nothing can exist unchanged - everything is being re-configured - and reconfiguration cannot be with absolute accuracy. It is not possible to have absolute accuracy and dynamic change at the same time. Dynamic simply requires a kind of free room for change to take place and this at the same time prohibits absolute accuracy - and this implicate that reconfiguration is slightly gliding from one flash expression to the next following which is molded on the foregoing serving as the scaffold.

Simpler structures like rocks change over time - just like everything else - but no one will call this "death" - but refer to it as erosion - or degradation - but when it comes to more complicated structures like a single cell for example it is possible by definition to say whether such an organism fulfill the criteria for being "alive" - to be close enough to the original - that it can replicate - or it has changed so much from the original that it cannot any longer divide - in other words there is a strict criterion to tell if the change has reached a certain threshold. In multicellular organisms it become a bit less well defined when death is obvious -
but still possible to talk meaningful about death. But fundamentally it is about how nature never sit still and how reconfiguration involve gliding from the "original" - and we call it evolution - and we call it the development of Universe -





bukh
QUOTE (RealityCheck+May 21 2011, 10:51 PM)
.
the only way for a bacterial line to 'die out' is for it to be randonly/environmentally affected/mutated into being killed/self-destructed....rather than for it to be terminated by 'programmed' telomere-exhaustion

.

RC

Hi friend - have always been appreciating your view points very much - and this Forum is short of Your rare kind.

I am under the impression that survival or lack of same under some specific conditions is by "programmed" telomere-exhaustion, where the programmer takes a divine disguise - and as you know, God's have never been doing anything good smile.gif

I wish You all the best and hope and trust to see ya round -
angel001
because it's have some guys will come in our wourld
qtrueman
This is a good topic.....
HiT
While you guys were talking about immortality for humans, think of The physical limits and barriers this could provide. This would cause a rise in human morale..thinking that life is a game and you are free to play it with infinite lives the the highest Score ranking possible. How would life and other organisms around it sustain the high demand for Energy if we're slaughtering anything in the wild to maintain a high concentrated level of activity. I'm guessing on this one..but lets say the world was a flat plate of glass. And you were to pile the current world population on it + Add Immortality to the equation and the pressure gets heavier, all of those current living humans would be having offspring, but the still the original and current humans have even more offspring..and those offspring have immortal offspring and so on, And will this glass break and soon a "Limit of Life" Become a reality when everything collapses on itself? its only a guess. But natural resources will be on the back end of this Idea. and what about our other organisms? are we to ignore them while we enjoy a eternity togther in complete solitude? That will be just plain rude...

Hard to type everything thats working in my brain here.
El_Machinae
If every person had ONE offspring (with a partner) then the population would eventually double. We need to figure out how to create a world that can handle an immortal population, though. We need food technologies, ecological technologies, political technologies, etc. No doubt.

There's a million ways to help conquer death. But we do need help. And the sooner, the better.
plantapple
if there is after-life, i would like to be a tree.
Jesuit
QUOTE (plantapple+Aug 24 2011, 08:04 AM)
if there is after-life, i would like to be a tree.

Then there are two things involved. You can either be used to make furniture or tissue paper.. Lol.
Jesuit
On a more serious note, it is because we age (that is the scientific or medical answer) and also 'cause God appointed a specific time for us to tarry the earth. Ignore the second reason if you are an atheist. I am not ready to start an unnecessary long debate here.
Capracus
QUOTE (plantapple+Aug 24 2011, 08:04 AM)
if there is after-life, i would like to be a tree.

That can be arranged.
QUOTE
Be a Tree; the Natural Burial Guide for Turning Yourself into a Forest
http://www.beatree.com/
NymphaeaAlba
Ya, but...
Capracus
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Aug 28 2011, 08:40 PM)
El_Machinae
QUOTE (Jesuit+Aug 27 2011, 10:04 PM)
On a more serious note, it is because we age (that is the scientific or medical answer) and also 'cause God appointed a specific time for us to tarry the earth. Ignore the second reason if you are an atheist. I am not ready to start an unnecessary long debate here.

Well, "forever" is a time. We can shoot for "forever", and then be dissatisfied when heat death finally wins.

NymphaeaAlba
The evolutionary origin of senescence is still a biological puzzle, but there are multi-cellular organisms, which do not experience senescence, like the Turritopsis nutricula (immortal jellyfish). What other multi-cellular organisms are considered immortal?

Since cancer is controlled by the apoptotic mechanisms, how do these multi-cellular organisms avoid it? huh.gif
Raphie Frank
QUOTE (plantapple+Aug 24 2011, 08:04 AM)
if there is after-life, i would like to be a tree.

With a nod to S&G, I'd rather be a forest :-)
Raphie Frank
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Aug 28 2011, 08:40 PM)
Ya, but...

As if human beings were not metaphorically and metaphysically placed in the position of that "ya but" tree time and time again?

???
El_Machinae
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 28 2011, 05:25 PM)
The evolutionary origin of senescence is still a biological puzzle, but there are multi-cellular organisms, which do not experience senescence, like the Turritopsis nutricula (immortal jellyfish).  What other multi-cellular organisms are considered immortal?

Since cancer is controlled by the apoptotic mechanisms, how do these multi-cellular organisms avoid it? huh.gif

Their advantage in immorality is that the whole organism is not that complex, and so pieces can be changed out easily and still be the same organism. It's a bit like Theseus's boat. With us, there is a core to our being (our minds) that we consider important, so any ability to keep changing out our cells will require that those changes allow the maintenance of the greater gestalt.
Robittybob1
I am a Genesis fanatic as you might get to know. One thing in the Good Book it says in Genesis man gets the instruction "Go forth and multiply" .
OK there wasn't any limit to that - "Go forth and multiply till the population reaches 4 billion, then slow down."
So was the instruction an instruction to self destruction, or was there some purpose to having humans in every rubbish dump all over the world!

It has been on my mind for years - "why such an open ended instruction Lord?"
El_Machinae
He also told Abraham that his decendents would number as the stars. That's about 100 billion x 100 billion.

So, it looks like we're going to have to colonise space. We're only going to get a few more billion people here. This means we need sustainable technological development until we're a space-borne species.

Want to follow the commandments and promises in Genesis? Help us maintain the Earth as a viable habitat, and help us progress technologically at the same time. We'll not become space-borne if the Earth becomes a garbage dump. And we're not going to 'keep multiplying' if we don't get to the stars.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 17 2011, 11:36 AM)
So, it looks like we're going to have to colonise space. We're only going to get a few more billion people here. This means we need sustainable technological development until we're a space-borne species.

Want to follow the commandments and promises in Genesis? Help us maintain the Earth as a viable habitat, and help us progress technologically at the same time. We'll not become space-borne if the Earth becomes a garbage dump. And we're not going to 'keep multiplying' if we don't get to the stars.

That would require FTL travel, which doesn't really jive with the known laws of physics. The phrase I've heard that describes this conundrum is "Relativity, FTL, Causality: Pick two." It's possible that we may discover a way to travel FTL in the future, but the trend of scientific discovery has been to refine and define knowledge, not throw it out the window and start over again.
Kino
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 16 2011, 07:00 PM)
I am a Genesis fanatic as you might get to know. One thing in the Good Book it says in Genesis man gets the instruction "Go forth and multiply" .
OK there wasn't any limit to that - "Go forth and multiply till the population reaches 4 billion, then slow down."
So was the instruction an instruction to self destruction, or was there some purpose to having humans in every rubbish dump all over the world!

It has been on my mind for years - "why such an open ended instruction Lord?"

Because the instruction was written by a bunch of semi-nomadic tribesmen who had no understanding of the future impact of medical science and the limitations on the Earth's ability to sustain life?

Much the simplest explanation.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 17 2011, 03:36 PM)
He also told Abraham that his decendents would number as the stars. That's about 100 billion x 100 billion.

So, it looks like we're going to have to colonise space. We're only going to get a few more billion people here. This means we need sustainable technological development until we're a space-borne species.

Want to follow the commandments and promises in Genesis? Help us maintain the Earth as a viable habitat, and help us progress technologically at the same time. We'll not become space-borne if the Earth becomes a garbage dump. And we're not going to 'keep multiplying' if we don't get to the stars.

That's what I read and since first reading this the number of stars has shot up through the roof. But is the number of stars as high as we think because we say we are looking back into the past so surely those stars won't be there any more they will have burnt out by now, or not?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 12:23 PM)
That's what I read and since first reading this the number of stars has shot up through the roof. But is the number of stars as high as we think because we say we are looking back into the past so surely those stars won't be there any more they will have burnt out by now, or not?

Stars die, new stars are born. The number of dying stars won't truly outnumber the number of new stars for many billions of years.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 04:31 PM)
Stars die, new stars are born. The number of dying stars won't truly outnumber the number of new stars for many billions of years.

Stars are born and die OK, so could we ever see the same star material in more than one Star and see both these and standing on it all at the same time?
Like they say some parts of the Earth has been in 2 other supernovae so could we see these at the same time as well as being here?

It is not likely but with the possibility of faster than time travel I'm not sure of anything any more!
El_Machinae
Well, FTL travel still appears to be impossible.

It is a good question, regarding whether the number of stars are falling or increasing. Stars seem to form more quickly than they age (in that, it's faster to condense hydrogen than consume it), but I don't know the total balance.

That said, the number of total stars isn't going to change very much compared to how quickly humans reproduce. It is like counting the number of fruitflies per tree in a forest. The timeframes of fruitfly generations are vastly different from those of trees as to make tree generations unimportant in the calculation.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 01:08 PM)
Stars are born and die OK, so could we ever see the same star material in more than one Star and see both these and standing on it all at the same time?
Like they say some parts of the Earth has been in 2 other supernovae so could we see these at the same time as well as being here?

I'm not sure what you mean by "at the same time."

The material from one exploded star is more often than not re-used in the formation of new stars. The only stars that don't really follow this pattern are Red Dwarf stars, which are practically immortal. These stars could theoretically burn for a trillion years, but the current age of the universe doesn't give us any examples of Red Dwarf stars in advanced age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf
Robittybob1
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 05:31 PM)
I'm not sure what you mean by "at the same time."

The material from one exploded star is more often than not re-used in the formation of new stars. The only stars that don't really follow this pattern are Red Dwarf stars, which are practically immortal. These stars could theoretically burn for a trillion years, but the current age of the universe doesn't give us any examples of Red Dwarf stars in advanced age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

If A turns into B and then into C, could you standing on C see both A, B and C at the same time, because light travels slowly across the Universe but somehow matter has been able to be transported faster than light from A to B to C?
That is what I mean by "at the same time" (same time for the observer, but some of the objects being viewed have long gone.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 01:54 PM)
If A turns into B and then into C, could you standing on C see both A, B and C at the same time, because light travels slowly across the Universe but somehow matter has been able to be transported faster than light from A to B to C?
That is what I mean by "at the same time" (same time for the observer, but some of the objects being viewed have long gone.

I think you're mixing a few things up here.

1. Matter cannot be transported faster than light.

2. It is possible to see A, B and C at the same time, but only through a very complex setup that would allow gravitation lensing to give you light that has travelled 3 different distances. A takes the long road around a distant star/galaxy, B takes a slightly shorter route around another star/galaxy, and C goes direct. I don't think we've found any examples of this happening in a detectable manner.

3. Causality in the universe travels at the speed of light. Something has not actually "happened" for you until you can see it. There is no way to know what is actually happening at these distances in the same way there is no way to know the future.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 06:02 PM)
I think you're mixing a few things up here.

1. Matter cannot be transported faster than light.

2. It is possible to see A, B and C at the same time, but only through a very complex setup that would allow gravitation lensing to give you light that has travelled 3 different distances. A takes the long road around a distant star/galaxy, B takes a slightly shorter route around another star/galaxy, and C goes direct. I don't think we've found any examples of this happening in a detectable manner.

3. Causality in the universe travels at the speed of light. Something has not actually "happened" for you until you can see it. There is no way to know what is actually happening at these distances in the same way there is no way to know the future.

I know my question was very hypothetical as I said If matter could travel somehow faster than light speed. But in reality as far as we know it this hasn't happened.

Seeing the future is another matter.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 02:10 PM)
I know my question was very hypothetical as I said If matter could travel somehow faster than light speed. But in reality as far as we know it this hasn't happened.

Seeing the future is another matter.

Matter travelling faster than light would cause basic principles of causality to break down. FTL and time travel are practically identical.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 06:36 PM)
Matter travelling faster than light would cause basic principles of causality to break down. FTL and time travel are practically identical.

Well this side track is settled then So there are one heck of a lot of stars and if you were going to have descendants as populous as that Human kind might not become extinct for a while.

As to whether we will ever discover FTL travel who knows.
El_Machinae
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think what we can do is count galaxies, in the far distance (and past), and use local galaxies as proxies for how those distant galaxies would be today.

So, for example, if 'first generation' galaxies tended to have 50 billion stars, butl 'modern' galaxies tended to have 200 billion stars, then we can approximate the number of stars today (in far off galaxies and locally) by knowing the total number of distant galaxies.

We tend to count the galaxies that are far off, not the stars. Current estimates of the size of the visible universe use galaxy counts coupled with estimates of their number of stars.

Now, keep in mind that this is the visible universe we're talking about. We don't know the size of the real universe, because we cannot see that far (due to the age of the universe and the speed of light). It's likely much larger than our light bubble, for sure.

If we're going to colonise THAT, then obviously we'll need to crack FTL. At this stage in the game, cracking FTL requires the same formula as becoming inter-stelllar - i.e., sustainable technological development.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 17 2011, 04:43 PM)
If we're going to colonise THAT, then obviously we'll need to crack FTL. At this stage in the game, cracking FTL requires the same formula as becoming inter-stelllar - i.e., sustainable technological development.

If you REALLY want to colonize the universe, there is a way. If you could create a robot/AI that can raise a human being from embryo to adult without major defect, you could send a cache of frozen embryos and "mother robot" on a long-term trip to any planet we deem habitable.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 09:11 PM)
If you REALLY want to colonize the universe, there is a way. If you could create a robot/AI that can raise a human being from embryo to adult without major defect, you could send a cache of frozen embryos and "mother robot" on a long-term trip to any planet we deem habitable.

we might be better to look as if we can all get along, a friendly species, and hope ET turns up with the right technology.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 06:44 PM)
we might be better to look as if we can all get along, a friendly species, and hope ET turns up with the right technology.

If aliens can do it, so can we, but both are unlikely.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 11:08 PM)
If aliens can do it, so can we, but both are unlikely.

You sound a bit like my father ... he used to think no new idea could ever come from NZ. He'd say "if it can be done the Dutch would have done it years ago." Don't underestimate the intelligence of the alien populations.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 17 2011, 07:21 PM)
You sound a bit like my father  ... he used to think no new idea could ever come from NZ.  He'd say "if it can be done the Dutch would have done it years ago."  Don't underestimate the intelligence of the alien populations.

If such technology is possible, it is more probable that we would invent it ourselves than for an alien civilization to notice that the planet Earth (one solar system out of a trillion, trillion) has life on it.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 17 2011, 11:48 PM)
If such technology is possible, it is more probable that we would invent it ourselves than for an alien civilization to notice that the planet Earth (one solar system out of a trillion, trillion) has life on it.

They probably can sense "the Uranium on our breath".
El_Machinae
I agree that we'd want to have a good set of ethics before we meet any ET, because if we're lower-powered than the ET, then convincing them that we're decent folk will be our best bet.

But, there's no reason to think that ET will arrive anytime soon. For this reason, we're also wise if we continue to progress.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 18 2011, 10:19 AM)
I agree that we'd want to have a good set of ethics before we meet any ET, because if we're lower-powered than the ET, then convincing them that we're decent folk will be our best bet.

But, there's no reason to think that ET will arrive anytime soon. For this reason, we're also wise if we continue to progress.

All to our own opinion.
Guest
How long do you think it will take to learn IF it's possible (not to invent the process, but to learn if it's possible at all)?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Guest+Oct 18 2011, 10:20 PM)
How long do you think it will take to learn IF it's possible (not to invent the process, but to learn if it's possible at all)?

There are certain aspects about the physics of the Universe and the Milky Way galaxy that mean we don't have unlimited time to achieve it. So it is not infinite right.
El_Machinae
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 18 2011, 06:27 PM)
All to our own opinion.

I guess. Do you disagree with my reasoning? Or does it just not resonate?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 19 2011, 11:57 AM)
I guess.  Do you disagree with my reasoning?  Or does it just not resonate?

What page are you talking about. You don't really give me enough clues as to what we were discussing sorry.

Found it!
"QUOTE (El_Machinae @ Oct 18 2011, 10:19 AM)
I agree that we'd want to have a good set of ethics before we meet any ET, because if we're lower-powered than the ET, then convincing them that we're decent folk will be our best bet.

But, there's no reason to think that ET will arrive anytime soon. For this reason, we're also wise if we continue to progress.

All to our own opinion. "

Either you have experienced a UFO or not!
El_Machinae
That makes sense. If you believe that we older exist at the whims of UFOs, because they've already arrived, and we'll never be able to compete with them, then working on moral living (and having a reasonable morality) makes sense.

I'm strongly skeptical that UFOs have been to Earth smile.gif Of course, I encourage people to figure out better and better ways of collecting evidence on the topic.

I suspect we'll run into ET life someday, but not yet.
NymphaeaAlba
This sounds promising.

Experiments that hint of longer lives

http://kenyonlab.ucsf.edu/html/lab_overview.html
yani
QUOTE
but I want to know why


We die because perpetual motion machines are impossible.

Friction is their problem.

Constant replication is ours.

Randomness takes it's toll on the minute by minute processes that keep alive this meat and bone thing we live in.

Randomness is a good thing. It made us possible.

Taking a guess here. Anything dynamic dies. Or better yet, changes.

A chunk of iron, born from a supernova, can float in the space between stars or even galaxies and stay the same. But then iron isn't very dynamic unless it has oxygen to dance with.



Robittybob1
QUOTE (yani+Dec 1 2011, 11:28 PM)

We die because perpetual motion machines are impossible.

Friction is their problem.

Constant replication is ours.

Randomness takes it's toll on the minute by minute processes that keep alive this meat and bone thing we live in.

Randomness is a good thing. It made us possible.

Taking a guess here. Anything dynamic dies. Or better yet, changes.

A chunk of iron, born from a supernova, can float in the space between stars or even galaxies and stay the same. But then iron isn't very dynamic unless it has oxygen to dance with.

The Energy you are made of cannot be destroyed only converted. So you will go on. Create Energy that will remain.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.