I feel too many people are still considering aging as something inherently mysterious, not amenable to biotechnological interventions.
Fighting specific age-related diseases is a losing battle, as we can see every day - old people are getting horrible diseases which young people almost never get, and when a specific disease is cured, the elderly die of something else - and it's worse than old people suffering a horrible death (as if this wasn't bad enough...). their loved ones are suffering too, of course. and it affects _all_ of us.
However, ending aging itself is both feasible and desirable -
The term "biological aging" denotes not more and not less than tissue damage accumulating as we age. for a long time, it remains below a threshold, but sooner later, some of the damage will cause pathologies.
That's a simple fact more and more people are getting aware of. But still not enough - we will need HUGE investments in relevant technologies: stem cell therapies (there's already a lot of successful work going on in this area), gene therapy (maybe the bottleneck?) and some more... Nano therapy is still in its infancy but has a huge potential...
Of course, these ideas are not mine, but I've just recently read Aubrey de Grey's new book: In a nutshell, he explains that there are not more than seven categories of tissue damage caused by aging and that these damage types are known for at least 20 years... that's not all, of course, on several hundred pages he discusses in detail how to tackle this damage. the good news is: Almost every proposal is based on insights from ongoing research.
The biggest problem I see here is: Most people prefer to remain silent about this topic...
What are your thoughts?...
Last edited by blastermaster; 09-19-2008 at 04:25 PM.
blastermaster I quite agree. We are caught in a transitional time
zone in which new medical research and understanding does not
yet make it into the hands of clinicians who hang on to old limiting
concepts. Unfortunately all too few who need help are able to
accomplish the medical research to enable them to do something
and it (unfortunately) depends on drug company salesmen
convincing doctors to push their (drug company) products to the
exclusion of doctors keeping up to date for themselves. Even the
use of testosterone is still considered questionable by many mainstream
doctors, even after a decade of proven successes. Right, JinL??
I think you need to look at a berry called Acaiberry and see what you think of this. it is the most talked fruit ouyt there right now some peoplve call it a wonder drug hope it will be very useful. Thanks Tess
Last edited by mod-anon; 10-22-2008 at 12:55 PM.
Reason: removed quote
We are all programmed at conception. Genetics dictates how you will end up in life. Unless you get you individual genetics done you have no idea what is in store for you...of course all you have to do is look at your maternal/paternal sides of the family to get some general idea...but then there is the recessive genes that also dictate what will happen to you. Some of us will live a long time without problems and some will not. Maybe some day in the distant future all you will have to do is have a blood test done and they can manufacture some sort of potion that will take care of all the bad things and you will live forever and lookin good...but then what? This earth can't support everyone living forever.
How do you explain the fact that some women, for example, have the gene for breast cancer but never get breast cancer?
From what I have read, "genes are not our destiny". In order for a certain (disease) outcome to materialize, genes have to be triggered by something in the environment. For example, they used to talk about a violence gene. Supposedly, a child with a violence gene would grow up to be violent. But studies proved otherwise. Those with the violence gene who grew up in a loving family turned out not to be violent. And, conversely, those who grew up in an abusive family atmosphere turned out to be violent. So the environment was the all important factor.
Genes can predispose us to be at greater risk for some disease perhaps but genes don't program us like computers. The environment plays a huge role in how we age.
Take a package of flower seeds. They contain the blueprints (genes) for flowers. But the seeds (genes) by themselves can't do anything. They need the environment in order to sprout and grow. Given a good environment (good soil, water and sun), the flowers will thrive. Give them a poor environment (poor soil, lack of water and sun), and they will either not sprout, or they will be seriously stunted if they do sprout.
A facinating book on this subject is "The Biology Of Belief" by Bruce Lipton PhD..(written for the average reader) Another great book is: "The Dependent Gene" (very technicle and not at all easy to read)
Last edited by JohnR41; 10-23-2008 at 08:19 AM.
Reason: Spelling and minor sentence change.
We are all programmed at conception. Genetics dictates how you will end up in life.
This seems to be merely partially correct. All people will get one of the common age-related diseases like stroke, heart attack, Alzheimer's, Parkinson, non-viral cancer etc. sooner or later, unless they die from something else beforehand. This is because cellular damage, caused by everyday's metabolism, accumulates in everyone of us as we age slowly but surely, because evolution didn't find it necessary to install self-repair mechanisms to fix this damage thoroughly - they wouldn't add any benefit to the survival of our species.
Originally Posted by AnnD
This earth can't support everyone living forever.
Again, only partially correct. This earth can't support everyone living forever if we maintain the current birth rate. Decreasing the death rate has to involve decreasing also the birth rate. However, by continuously removing "age damage" from the body, this wouldn't produce hosts of frail old people, but vital old people - they would be chronologically old, but biologically young.
Last edited by blastermaster; 10-23-2008 at 03:55 PM.