Home › Forum Online Discussion › Philosophy › Can Humans Live for 800 Years? (Good Update on Longevity Research, lists of oldest people alive)
- This topic has 14 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by Michael Winn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 29, 2008 at 10:59 pm #27237Michael WinnKeymaster
note; the lists at end of article of oldest people alive curiously don’t contain the folks the Chinese think are the oldest. But that may just be a language barrier. There is a lot hidden amongst its 1.5 billion people – the formal census of 1.3 billion is probably an undercount. It migt be as high as 1.8 billion….. Of course all the research here is “material” biased, i.e. they don’t allow for intervention from spiritual dimensions in the process. – Michael
WHO WANTS TO LIVE FOR EVER?
A SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH COULD MEAN HUMANS LIVE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS
By Steve Connor
The Independent
Wednesday, January23, 2008http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/who-wants-to-live-for-ever-a-scien
tific-breakthrough-could-mean-humans-live-for-hundreds-of-years-772418.htmlA genetically engineered organism that lives 10 times longer than normal has
been created by scientists in California. It is the greatest extension of
longevity yet achieved by researchers investigating the scientific nature of
ageing.If this work could ever be translated into humans, it would mean that we
might one day see people living for 800 years. But is this ever going to be
a realistic possibility?Valter Longo is one of the small but influential group of specialists in
this area who believes that an 800-year life isn’t just possible, it is
inevitable. It was his work at the University of Southern California that
led to the creation of a strain of yeast fungus that can live for 10 weeks
or more, instead of dying at its usual maximum age of just one week.By deleting two genes within the yeast’s genome and putting it on a
calorie-restricted diet, Longo was able to extend tenfold the lifespan of
the same common yeast cells used by bakers and brewers. The study is
published later this week in the journal Public Library of Science Genetics.There is, of course, a huge difference between yeast cells and people, but
that hasn’t stopped Longo and his colleagues suggesting that the work is
directly relevant to human ageing and longevity. “We’re setting the
foundation for reprogramming healthy life. If we can find out how the
longevity mechanism works, it can be applied to every cell in every living
organism,” Longo says.“We’re very, very far from making a person live to 800 years of age. I don’t
think it’s going to be very complicated to get to 120 and remain healthy,
but at a certain point I think it will be possible to get people to live to
800. I don’t think there is an upper limit to the life of any organism.”For most gerontologists — people who study the science of ageing — such
statements are almost heretical. There is a general view in this field that
there is a maximum human lifespan of not more than about 125 years. Jeanne
Calment, the oldest documented person, died at the age of 122 years and 164
days. According to the orthodox view of ageing, she was one of the few lucky
enough to have reached that maximum, upper limit of human lifespan.The attitude of most mainstream gerontologists towards the idea that people
may one day live for many centuries — or even 1,000 years, as one
scientific maverick has suggested — is best summed up by Robin Holliday, a
distinguished British gerontologist, in his recent book Aging: The Paradox
of Life. “How is it possible to make these claims?” Holliday asks. “The
first requirement is to ignore the huge literature on ageing research… The
second is to ignore the enormous amount of information that has been
obtained by the study of human age-associated disease; in other words, to
ignore the many well-documented textbooks on human pathology. The third is
to propose that in the future, stem-cell technology, and other technologies,
will allow vulnerable parts of the body to be replaced and/or repaired. The
new ‘bionic’ man will therefore escape from ageing,” Holliday says.Like many experts on the science of ageing, Holliday is deeply sceptical
about the idea that the ageing process can somehow be circumvented, allowing
people to extend their lives by decades or even centuries. “The whole
[anti-ageing] movement not only becomes science fiction; it is also
breathtakingly arrogant,” Holliday says. An immense hinterland of
biomedicine suggests that death at a maximum age of about 125 is inevitable,
he says.But that is precisely what Valter Longo is suggesting with his work on the
yeast that can live longer than 10 weeks. “We got a tenfold life-span
extension, which is, I think, the longest that has ever been achieved in any
organism,” he says.By knocking out two genes, known as RAS2 and SCH9, which promote ageing in
yeast and cancer in humans, and putting the microbes on a diet low in
calories, Longo achieved the sort of life extension that should in theory be
impossible. As Anna McCormick, head of genetics and cell biology at the US
National Institute on Aging, remarked: “I would say tenfold is pretty
significant.”Calorie restriction is now a well-established route to extending the lives
of many organisms, from yeast and nematode worms to fruit flies and mice.
But the jury is still out on whether calorie restriction can extend the life
of humans, although a diet rich in calories certainly increases the risk of
obesity, diabetes and other life-shortening conditions.Biologists believe that restricting calories causes many animals to flip
into a state normally reserved for near starvation. Instead of spending
their precious energy reserves on reproduction, they shut down everything
but their basic body maintenance, in preparation for better times ahead when
breeding would stand a better chance of success.This idea fits in with the more general view that animals tend to follow one
of two life strategies — either one of high fecundity and short lifespan,
or one of long lifespan and low reproductive capacity.Mice, for example, divert much of their limited resources to high
reproduction, having several litters of young a year, but they have a short
life of just a couple of years. But bats, which are roughly the same size as
mice, have just one or at most two offspring a year, and can live for 30
years or more.Why one species of animal lives longer than another of comparable size, and
why some animals appear to age faster and die younger, have been the subject
of extensive scrutiny for decades. As bats and mice show, it is possible for
genes to extend lifespan — so the question is: why do they not do it more
often, or even all the time? And the logical extension of this question is:
why do we age at all? Why don’t we live for ever?One of the most convincing answers to this is known as the disposable soma
theory. In short, the idea is that genes can extend an organism’s lifespan,
but only as a trade-off between the costs and benefits of doing so. It is
possible to keep on mending the machinery of the body as it suffers daily
wear and tear, but there comes a point when it is no longer worthwhile and
the costs become too expensive, much like the point when fixing an
increasingly decrepit car gets too much. At this point the body, or “soma”,
becomes disposable. By then, though, from the gene’s point of view, it won’t
matter as long as it has managed to “escape” this broken-down body and
replicated itself inside the younger, fitter bodies of the next generation.Longo says that the disposable soma theory, invented by Professor Tom
Kirkwood of Newcastle University in the late 1970s, is one of the strongest
ideas around to explain the nature of ageing.However, Longo has another theory that is causing a second group of
scientists to tear their hair out. He believes that ageing may not simply be
a side-effect of the wear and tear of life, but is also a genetically
programmed condition designed to rid the population of aged individuals to
make way for younger ones.It is an alluring idea, albeit one thought to have been discredited by the
evolutionary biologists George Williams and John Maynard Smith 40 years ago.
It is a common assumption among non-scientists that ageing and death occur
in order to make way for the next generation, but this suggests that ageing
is a genetic programme honed by natural selection. It also assumes that it
is an altruistic act brought about for the benefit of the future population.Evolutionary biologists know that such an idea is based on “group selection”
and that mathematically this cannot occur because it will always be
undermined by more selfish mutants. Organisms carrying the altruistic genes
for premature ageing and death would, for instance, be susceptible to
selfish-gene cheats that decide to exploit the situation to their own, and
their offspring’s, advantage. They could simply live a bit longer than their
peer group and so make sure they are the ones that exploit the available
resources left behind by their prematurely dead peers.But Longo is convinced that his experiments on manipulating the genes of
yeast show that ageing is not a mere side-effect of life, but a deliberate,
genetically programmed process honed by natural selection. “Basically, it is
the first demonstration, to our knowledge, that ageing is programmed and
altruistic,” Longo says. “The organisms we have studied die long before they
have to in order to provide nutrients for ‘mutants’ generated within their
own population. Thus, billions of organisms die early so that a few
better-adapted individuals can grow.”This raises the possibility that the same process happens in humans, and
that, as a result, many people are dying earlier than they need to.
“Programmed human ageing is just a possibility. We don’t know whether it’s
true yet or not. But if ageing is programmed in yeast, and the [metabolic]
pathway is very similar, then isn’t it possible that humans also die earlier
than they have to?”Valter Longo says that no one has so far proved him to be wrong on his
programmed-death idea. But this may be one heresy too far for the rest of
science.…………..
From the Archives: Jeremy Laurance reports from Japan, the country with more
centenarians than any other.ENDURING TALES: THE WORLD’S OLDEST PEOPLE
Jeanne Calment
Jeanne Calment’s mother, father and brother lived to 86, 93 and 97
respectively. But nobody has eclipsed Jeanne herself, who died in 1997 aged
122 years and 164 days. Born in 1875, she met Vincent van Gogh when she was
14, and attended the 1885 funeral of Victor Hugo.Shigechiyo Izumi
As well as holding the title of the oldest man to have lived, Izumi, from
the Japanese island of Tokunoshima, holds the record for the longest career.
A farmer, he worked from childhood until the age of 105, in a career that
spanned 98 years. In spite of a weakness for sho-chu (a barley whisky) and
taking up smoking at 70, he lived to 120. He died in 1986.Edna Parker
Indiana-born Parker, 114, has outlived all her children, but her family
includes 13 great-great-grandchildren. Now recognised as the world’s oldest
living person, she grew up on a farm. Still walking, she hobbles around her
nursing home, where she enjoys reading and reciting poetry.Charlotte Hughes
Hughes, a retired schoolteacher, is the oldest documented person in the UK.
She married her husband, Noel, at the age of 63. He died aged 105, but
Hughes went on to reach 115, dying in 1993.Florrie Baldwin
Baldwin, born in 1896, lives in a Leeds nursing home. Britain’s oldest
living woman says she remembers meeting Queen Victoria on a royal visit, and
reading about the end of the Boer War. She has outlived her husband,
Clifford, by 35 years.Henry Allingham
Allingham has found fame in recent years as the oldest veteran of the First
World War, one of only a handful still alive. Born in 1896, south
London-born Allingham, 111, is also Europe’s oldest living man, and in the
world is second only to Japan’s Tomoji Tanabe.January 29, 2008 at 11:58 pm #27238StevenModeratorI found the inverse correlation between reproduction and
lifespan interesting. With inner alchemy techniques, maybe
there was some subtle truth to your typo of “3008” . . .. . . if indeed it were a typo, o immortal one from 4008. ๐
S
>>Biologists believe that restricting calories
>>causes many animals to flip into a state
>>normally reserved for near starvation.
>>Instead of spending their precious energy reserves
>>on reproduction, they shut down everything
>>but their basic body maintenance, in preparation
>>for better times ahead when breeding would stand a
>>better chance of success.>>This idea fits in with the more general view that
>>animals tend to follow oneof two life strategies —
>>either one of high fecundity and short lifespan,
>>or one of long lifespan and low reproductive capacity.>>Mice, for example, divert much of their limited
>>resources to high reproduction, having several litters
>>of young a year, but they have a short life of just a
>>couple of years. But bats, which are roughly the same
>>size as mice, have just one or at most two offspring
>>a year, and can live for 30 years or more.January 30, 2008 at 10:56 am #27240DylanParticipant“Thus, billions of organisms die early so that a few
better-adapted individuals can grow.”This raises the possibility that the same process happens in humans, and
that, as a result, many people are dying earlier than they need to.”This sounds unnervingly like justification for one of the agendas of the NWO, global population reduction, especially the “useless eaters”.They promote the Neo- Darwinian view of evolution which includes the Disposable Soma theory. They also back research into life extension technologies, but only intended for the wealthy elite few.
I’m still formulating, but I sense that this issue, Sacrifice is key to the nature of Immortality. Sacrifice, its a loaded word, conjuring images of bloody altars and Aztecs etc but it basically means to make sacred. The Altruistic theory put forward by Longo suggests that ageing is an act of sacrifice for the good of the community(gene pool). This article resonated with me because I have pursued this question for some time now through contemplation on the theme of the Sacrificial King put forward by Frazer, Graves and others. Is it about transformation or scapegoating?
Was it orginally about Transformation but becoming debased into scapegoating where others have to take the blame for the shadow side of the community.How does the Taoist Immortal relate to the sacrificial King? If you have ever read the poem Gawain and the Green Knight you will know what I mean. The Green Knight ( an Athurian embodiment of the Green man)who suffers decapitation but survives,symbolising regeneration comes across to me as very similar to a Taoist immortal, one who has merged with nature and capable of transcending death.
Did the mystery of regeneration (Immortality) become debased into the dead letter ritual of sacrificial scapegoating?
Sorry if my ideas seem off the topic here, but I can’t help seeing the connection between modern science and this ancient tradition,instinct.Dylan
January 30, 2008 at 5:51 pm #27242DogParticipantI to hope that our virtues can katch up with our growing outer Alchemy.
January 31, 2008 at 2:42 am #27244Michael WinnKeymasterI think its an interesting link you are raising. I would view the Sacrifice issue, from Taoist viewpoint, as originating with the Sacrifice of great Stellar “Spirit like Pangu who bound themselves into form/earth, i.e. they sacrificed a greater range/freedom of vibration in the formlessl in order to hold a space in form so that other Beings, like humans,,could evolve.
These are the great sacrfices being made by our true ancestors, and we can only emulate them microcosmically.
so taking on a human life is also a form of sacrifice by our Original spirit, a sacrificial offering to this plane. In this light, dying and death are simply completion of the offering cycle. I don’t think the old and dying are scapegoats, that is earth-centric view point of humans who believe their life is the only one. Rather the aged and dying are moving into liberation and embracing of their shadow side, which from earth is Heaven/formless side.The die-out of a large portion of humanity may not be the conspirac of NWO, but a natural cycle of expansion and contraction of human population…..
mJanuary 31, 2008 at 6:35 am #27246DylanParticipantWould you include war for profit as part of the “natural cycle of expansion and contraction of the human population”? Basically thats the reason along that thousands and thousands are dying not just directly from conflict but also as a result of displacement of populations and disruption of agriculture, lack of nutrition, medical supplies etc etc. I am sure that you Michael, having encountered this kind of artificially induced suffering first hand are aware that this die-out is not entirely natural, unless you include conspiracy for mass murder as also part (the shadowy part) of the natural order.
I’m not saying that death is unnatural but premature death or murder is another matter.“In this light, dying and death are simply completion of the offering cycle.”
How does immortality fit into this picture? Is it a selfish act of holding onto the life force or can it also be an offering, a form of completion?Dylan
February 2, 2008 at 2:57 am #27248Michael WinnKeymasterall good questions. hope you find some good answers here….
>Would you include war for profit as part of the “natural cycle of expansion and contraction of the human population”? Basically thats the reason along that thousands and thousands are dying not just directly from conflict but also as a result of displacement of populations and disruption of agriculture, lack of nutrition, medical supplies etc etc.
yes, its natural part of human free will, still immature, and tends to go to excesses before correcting. eventually it will evolve to less extreme yin-yang cycle. But if we lose all tension/danger we risk slowing down our evolution. High stakes = high rate of change/evolution.
> I am sure that you Michael, having encountered this kind of artificially induced suffering first hand are aware that this die-out is not entirely natural, unless you include conspiracy for mass murder as also part (the shadowy part) of the natural order.
as a former war correspondent, my conclusion is that war is the greatest sickness on the planet. But disease is natural as well, we attempt to transform ourselves under pressure from its demands to awaken our shadow side. This brings completion to the whole. We exist in the physical plane solely to complete something for our greater self that occupies less dense planes (but is always physical, in the sense that primordial space itself is physical).
>I’m not saying that death is unnatural but premature death or murder is another matter.
“In this light, dying and death are simply completion of the offering cycle.”
How does immortality fit into this picture? Is it a selfish act of holding onto the life force or can it also be an offering, a form of completion?Immortality SERVES the life force, its entirely UN-SELFISH in the egotistical sense of selfishness. You crystallize the essence of the life force, not hold onto or freeze the life force. its a higher level of interdimensional communication, and its proliferation amongst humans will lead to to greater acceptance of the macro cycles of life/death/rebirth. It leads to greater completion to the macro cycles of incarnation.
m
February 4, 2008 at 6:30 am #27250DylanParticipantThanks Michael, they were good answers.
I guess our sense of outrage and corresponding will for justice is also part of the natural order.
Regarding Immortality as a form of service, perhaps by continually renewing the life force within ones body, by resonance, one contributes to renewal of the land. Grail legend. No need for the old king to die, as long as he keeps rejuvenating himself. And no need for scapegoating as a desperate, debased attempt to stay in favour with)in control of the universe.
Dylan
February 5, 2008 at 7:51 am #27252spongebobParticipantThere’s no such thing as War for Profit. Wars ALWAYS lose money and weaken economies, even in the victors. If someone or some gov’t engages in “war for profit”, it’s illusory.
For the global elite who are more dedicated to their own wealth than the human condition, war is generally abhorrent for the very reason that it does not make money. What makes money, especially in todays global economy, is commerce. And war disrupts commerce. Thus it is that as trade increases with China and other awakening Asian powers, the likelihood of war diminishes: there’s to much money flowing back and forth.
Fanatics like Kim Jung-Il and certain Islamic terrorists don’t understand this and that is why they value violence. Their interest is not money, improving the life of their people, or resentment over poverty. Their issues are ideological first and foremost.
I’m not sure what Bush and Cheney and their handlers issues are. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not making much money for anyone. If their agenda is to bankrupt the United States to overturn the global status quo, then they may succeed in that.
I say look for a general war between the G-7/8 and “islamistan” in the near future.
February 6, 2008 at 6:38 am #27254DylanParticipantSeventy years ago a highly decorated Marine Corps general, disturbed by his participation in various military interventions, declared that WAR IS A RACKET and that we need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to guarantee everlasting peace to our nation.
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
— Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
WAR IS A RACKET
WAR is a racket. It always has been.It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few ย the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
February 6, 2008 at 9:19 pm #27256Michael WinnKeymasterthorny,
pull your head out of the sand. Governments may go broke, but the profit is made by corporations, as the excellent War is a Racket piece so nicely spells it out.
michaelFebruary 6, 2008 at 11:12 pm #27258spongebobParticipantI agree with it. And I think it’s very close to what Eric Berne describes as a racket.
My point is precisely that GOVERNMENTS go broke, not the power elite, who don’t care about any country including their own. And it is not in any GOVERNMENT’s interest to ever go to war for “profit.” Thus globalization is an opportunity to blur national boundaries while increasing personal wealth.
My other point is that the power elite don’t go to war when it’s more profitable not to. Why antagonize a market of 1.3 billion people? I do say that it could, COULD be someone’s agenda to bankrupt the US (as in gov’t) to upset the world order. They have almost succeeded.
so in summation, there is no war for profit as far as governments are concerned, but yes, of course, someone, private individuals, get rich on the war time economy.
If China’s leaders wanted “war for profit” they’d go after the US’s oil suppliers and have a big war the US over oil. Instead they are developing domestic sources and going into Africa and other Asian sources because it’s cheaper to do it peacefully, and therefore makes more money. It doesn’t exclude the possibility of war to conrol that oil, but the returns are higher on peaceful acquisition and therefore preferable to the big money.
February 7, 2008 at 5:40 am #27260DylanParticipantThe question is what is truly left of any government these days? They have nearly all been hijacked by the military-industrial complex. We, the people. fit the bill.
Its important to remember that these people have always played both sides of the coin, they supply weapons and other equipment (for huge profit) to all sides concerned. They foster destruction of both sides. Then they come in afterwards and make more profit from the repair jobs, the reconstruction of infrastructure, the exploitation of the natural resources etc etc. They have their grubby fingers in the “peaceful” side of economy too, if you can honestly call free trade peaceful or benevolent. This Janus aspect is what makes them so deadly efficient.
Dylan
February 7, 2008 at 7:57 pm #27262spongebobParticipantYeah, it’s like IBM leasing and maintaining proto-computers (i forget the exact name) to the Nazis in order to manage the Final Solution throughout WW II. IBM claims deception by the Nazis, but documents prove their technicians were doing maintenance at the concentration camps.
If researched, you might be surprised to learn what of US military gear is produced in China!
February 9, 2008 at 1:29 pm #27264Michael WinnKeymasterThere won’t be military war between the the Big powers like China and US – the side effects of high tech large scale war today are not economic for either side.
The war instead today IS ECONOMIC. And yes, China and the US have each other by the balls. China needs our markets and our food, we need their deflationary cheap labor to off set our inflationary monetary policy. It’s just a devil’s dance, in which China is slowly growing stronger and the US becomes more vulnerable, i.e less authoritarian and needy of its partners.
Probably good for global family in the long run, may be some damaging economic blowups in the process. All part of the global equalizing process that yin-yang cycles are.
m
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.