120 or 180 Yrs Old? Experts Debate Limit of Aging - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

JStrider · 07-20-2003, 07:18 PM

Quote:

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Fancy living another 100 years or more? Some experts said on Saturday that scientific advances will one day enable humans to last decades beyond what is now seen as the natural limit of the human life span.

"I think we are knocking at the door of immortality," said Michael Zey, a Montclair State University business professor and author of two books on the future. "I think by 2075 we will see it and that's a conservative estimate."

Zey spoke on the sidelines of the annual conference of the World Future Society, a group that ponders how the future will look across many different aspects of society.

In a presentation at the meeting in San Francisco, Donald Louria, a professor at New Jersey Medical School in Newark said advances in manipulating cells and genes as well as nanotechnology make it likely humans will live in the future beyond what has been possible in the past.

"What was science fiction a decade ago is no longer science fiction," he said.

500 YEARS?

"There is a dramatic and intensive push so that people can live from 120 to 180 years," he said. "Some have suggested that there is no limit and that people could live to 200 or 300 or 500 years."

Outside the conference, many scientists who specialize in aging are skeptical of such claims and say the human body is just not designed to last past about 120 years. Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease, they say failure of the brain and other organs will eventually condemn all humans.

"These people spout off as though a large part of the population is going to be able to do something like this. It's just way beyond reality," said Thomas Perls, who leads the New England Centenarian Study, the largest such analysis of the oldest of the old. "It's just pure science fiction."

"We are fast approaching what our bodies are capable of achieving," he said in a telephone interview. "To get even the average person to be 100 or to get them to 180 is like trying to get a space shuttle to Pluto."

STAMPING OUT DISABILITIES

Any dramatic extension of the human life span would depend on altering the onset of disabilities that accompany the aging process by changing one's genetic make up, said Harvey Cohen, director of the Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development at Duke University Medical Center.

"It's certainly unlikely any time in the near future," he said in an interview. "Sure there is a possibility but there is no data currently available to suggest ways that would happen."

Scientists also differ on what kind of life the super aged might live.

"It remains to be seen if you pass the threshold of say 120, you know; could you be healthy enough to have good quality of life?" said Leonard Poon, director of the University of Georgia Gerontology Center. "Currently people who could get to that point are not in good health at all."

Poon, who leads a study of more than 150 centenarians in Georgia, cited the case of Jeanne Louise Calment of France, the oldest person on record who died at age 122 in 1997.

"At 122 she was fairly debilitated. I visited her when she was 119 in France and at that time she was pretty much blind and having very much difficulty hearing," he said.

I think that if a persons life could be extended that long while keeping their quality of life high then it would be cool... but whats the point of living to 120 or 180 or even older if all you can do is sit in a wheel chair deaf and blind...

what do y'all think?

BoCo · 07-20-2003, 07:32 PM

Genesis 6:3

"Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"

Look like those scientists have quite a challenge on their hands.

crow_daw · 07-20-2003, 08:15 PM

I'd like to live that long, but only if you don't live like a 120-year-old for sixty extra years, if that makes any sense.

Mesmerize · 07-20-2003, 08:22 PM

Developing telomerase therapies will help with this, and prevent many of the negative aspects of aging. Cheap, widely available cloned organs will also be a positive step.

H12 · 07-20-2003, 08:28 PM

Dude...thanks but no thanks. I'd like to live another 60 more years on top of my expected lie-span...but only if it's the quality of life I got now, and that won't happen. I mean, think about it...being blind and in a wheel-chair is nobody's dream, then your friends and family will have passed away by afew years. There'd really be no point to living more than ya have to once your friends, family, and senses are gone.

papermachesatan · 07-20-2003, 08:38 PM

Our bodies aren't really all that well desigined for *long* term use.

Lebell · 07-20-2003, 08:46 PM

I have no desire to be Methusela.

Phaenx · 07-20-2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JStrider
I think that if a persons life could be extended that long while keeping their quality of life high then it would be cool... but whats the point of living to 120 or 180 or even older if all you can do is sit in a wheel chair deaf and blind...

what do y'all think?

You stop aging at around 90-95, or so I've read. It's all a matter of flipping that switch when you're about 30. That would be neat.

rogue49 · 07-21-2003, 04:00 AM

Well, if you live to that age, you certainly couldn't retire at 65.

While it would be interesting to say the least.
Just to keep seeing things progress.
You'd have to figure out what to do to keep a living that wouldn't wear you out.

miked10270 · 07-21-2003, 05:04 AM

Hi there,

Everyone run out and get a hold of a copy of "Trouble with Lichen" by John Wyndham. This novel covers the problems of extended life and how it could or could not be lived.

Mike.

Rodney · 07-21-2003, 05:05 AM

Somebody made the point that it's no good living to 180 if the quality of life is so poor that you just sit there. Frankly, improving quality of life for the span that we already do have would be a revolution.

Suppose that science could find a way to keep more people alive up to the current max of about 120 _and_ keep them mentally alert and physically competent most of that time. It would mean things like being able to "start over" at age 65 with a new career, maybe even a new family.

It would mean that you would have time to take on a load of experience and get yourself mentally sorted out (something that takes most people into their 40s or more), and then still have 60 years to do something about it instead of having the old bod start to break down ten or 15 years later. You could end up with a population of extremely competent people.

Of course there would be no retirement as we have it now. Our entire society is based on the idea that most of us will start to slow down in our 60s and get feeble and die in our 70s or 80s.

Actually, there are people like this now. Saw a TV special about a group of people on Okinawa who seem extremely long-lived. Way more than average live past 100, in pretty good shape. They profiled one guy who apparently got the deluxe gene option package; he was 85 years old and still dived in the ocean daily, hunting for shellfish. They showed him in a wetsuit, and he was built like a buff 30-year-old (with extremely beat-up skin, of course).

Troublebot · 07-21-2003, 05:40 AM

My Mom has some pretty serious health problems right now at age 56.

If you told her she was going to live another 64 to 124 years, she'd probably kick you firmly in the nut sack.

gov135 · 07-21-2003, 06:08 AM

I liked this thread.

But... what kind of 'experts' toss out a range of sixty years? I could do that.

Gortexfogg · 07-21-2003, 09:20 AM

It would be a disaster if the average person lived to 120, let alone 500. You wouldn't be able to retire till your 80s or 90s (which means more years of working...).

Not to mention the increased amount of humans living on the earth at one time. We have a population problem as it is. We'd run out of room and possibly food real fast.

micah67 · 07-21-2003, 10:35 AM

The quality of life is a major issue for me, too. Nice to live longer but not if you're feeble.

07-20-2003, 07:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
BoCo Fear the bunny Location: Hanging off the tip of the Right Wing	Genesis 6:3 "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'" Look like those scientists have quite a challenge on their hands. __________________ Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

07-20-2003, 08:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
crow_daw Idolator Location: Vol Country	I'd like to live that long, but only if you don't live like a 120-year-old for sixty extra years, if that makes any sense. __________________ "We each have a star, all we have to do is find it. Once you do, everyone who sees it will be blinded." - Earl Simmons

07-20-2003, 08:28 PM	#5 (permalink)
H12 I'm not about getting creamed, I'm about winning! Location: K-Town, TN	Dude...thanks but no thanks. I'd like to live another 60 more years on top of my expected lie-span...but only if it's the quality of life I got now, and that won't happen. I mean, think about it...being blind and in a wheel-chair is nobody's dream, then your friends and family will have passed away by afew years. There'd really be no point to living more than ya have to once your friends, family, and senses are gone. __________________ "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle

07-20-2003, 08:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I have no desire to be Methusela. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

07-21-2003, 05:40 AM	#12 (permalink)
Troublebot Intently Rocking Location: Davey's	My Mom has some pretty serious health problems right now at age 56. If you told her she was going to live another 64 to 124 years, she'd probably kick you firmly in the nut sack. __________________ Howard Moon: The wind is my only friend. Wind: [whistling] I hate you.

07-20-2003, 08:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mesmerize Upright Location: Michigan	Developing telomerase therapies will help with this, and prevent many of the negative aspects of aging. Cheap, widely available cloned organs will also be a positive step.

07-20-2003, 08:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	Our bodies aren't really all that well desigined for long term use.

07-21-2003, 04:00 AM	#9 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	Well, if you live to that age, you certainly couldn't retire at 65. While it would be interesting to say the least. Just to keep seeing things progress. You'd have to figure out what to do to keep a living that wouldn't wear you out.

07-21-2003, 05:04 AM	#10 (permalink)
miked10270 Banned Location: Scotland	Hi there, Everyone run out and get a hold of a copy of "Trouble with Lichen" by John Wyndham. This novel covers the problems of extended life and how it could or could not be lived. Mike.

07-21-2003, 05:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	Somebody made the point that it's no good living to 180 if the quality of life is so poor that you just sit there. Frankly, improving quality of life for the span that we already do have would be a revolution. Suppose that science could find a way to keep more people alive up to the current max of about 120 _and_ keep them mentally alert and physically competent most of that time. It would mean things like being able to "start over" at age 65 with a new career, maybe even a new family. It would mean that you would have time to take on a load of experience and get yourself mentally sorted out (something that takes most people into their 40s or more), and then still have 60 years to do something about it instead of having the old bod start to break down ten or 15 years later. You could end up with a population of extremely competent people. Of course there would be no retirement as we have it now. Our entire society is based on the idea that most of us will start to slow down in our 60s and get feeble and die in our 70s or 80s. Actually, there are people like this now. Saw a TV special about a group of people on Okinawa who seem extremely long-lived. Way more than average live past 100, in pretty good shape. They profiled one guy who apparently got the deluxe gene option package; he was 85 years old and still dived in the ocean daily, hunting for shellfish. They showed him in a wetsuit, and he was built like a buff 30-year-old (with extremely beat-up skin, of course).

07-21-2003, 06:08 AM	#13 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	I liked this thread. But... what kind of 'experts' toss out a range of sixty years? I could do that.

07-21-2003, 09:20 AM	#14 (permalink)
Gortexfogg I and I Location: Stillwater, OK	It would be a disaster if the average person lived to 120, let alone 500. You wouldn't be able to retire till your 80s or 90s (which means more years of working...). Not to mention the increased amount of humans living on the earth at one time. We have a population problem as it is. We'd run out of room and possibly food real fast.

07-21-2003, 10:35 AM	#15 (permalink)
micah67 Thor Location: 33:08:12N 117:10:23W	The quality of life is a major issue for me, too. Nice to live longer but not if you're feeble. __________________ ~micah