How do people die naturally and why aren't they just reanimated?

>>39449064
we could and do to some extent.

the problem is aging/dying cause permanent damage to dna/organs. so reanimating would work but you'd still get alzheimers, dementia, weak ass bones and die of something else soon. if we could fix dna degradation and restore brains to proper form then we'd be in business, but thats 50 years or so away if we're lucky.

>>39449110
Who cares about permanent damage if it's artificially replaced?

Weak bones? Metal rods.
Weak organs? Transplant or, well, artificial again.

Can the brain be fixed like that? Cell implants or some thing.

>>39449064
You'll get alzheimers, strokes, heart attacks, and cancer eventually.

>>39449127
> if we could fix dna degradation and restore brains to proper form then we'd be in business, but thats 50 years or so away if we're lucky.

>>39449064
you can easily life forever. just turn all your cells in non threatening cancer cells.

you die because your cells age. they age because the deteriorate every time they divide. this is not necessary but it is done to prevent cancer.

cancer cells dont age. like ever. cancer is immortal.

>>39449156
they don't deteriorate every time they divide, cancer cells do age, and your cells do not deteriorate or age as a natural defense against cancer (it is literally what causes cancer).

>>39449180
when a cancer cell divides the 2 results are exactly the same as the previous one. normal cells are off worse.

>>39449192
this is insanity. in a vacuum, or a petri dish, perhaps, but in the human body this is a ridiculous thought. cancer cells are susceptible to mutation and degradation just like normal cells. they absolutely do not produce identical cells 100% of the time when dividing.

where are you getting this stuff from?

the body is incredibly complicated, functions on a semi holistic level, and it's not enough to swap parts out for immortality we have to change what the existing parts are made of

cancer is caused by a mutation in a tumor suppressor and/or protoonocogenes

The replicating machinery inside cells isn't perfect and it will eventually fuck up and lead to uncontrolled cell growth, no matter how close they get they'll never be 100% so cancer will get you eventually. I'd be interested to see if gene technology could be used to repair in sometime in the future

>>39449192
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit

>>39449445
most (99.9%) cancer cells mutate so that telomerase is inhibiting Hayfick limit.

>>39449127
>Who cares about permanent damage if it's artificially replaced?
Because artificial replacements a) cause a host of problems, and b) are relatively temporary measures in the first place.

A patient requires immunosuppressants so that the body doesn't attempt to destroy the organ. Artificial organs face degredation over time which has the potential for multiple system issues in and of itself. A metal rod for structural support is far simpler than an artificial heart or lung in terms of function.

And as the other anon said, we're a rather significant distance from reversing brain damage to the extent you're describing

Your whole line of logic reeks of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

>>39449064

> How do people die naturally

'Natural death' is just a blanket term for something failing in an expected way. Your organs age and have common causes for failure. Many times we are 'reanimated' with transplants. But by the time you're considered to be dying 'by natural causes', it's largely a wasted effort. Something else will fail. Your qualify of life is low. Your tolerance to surgery is poor. You'll pick up infections, be coupled to machines, and honestly waste medical resources that is better spent on people with decades left to live. There's only so many organs, drugs, and doctors to go around.

In time we'll incrementally reverse these things, improve quality of life, and find more ways to cheat death. But aging is a complicated process that works across the entire body. There's no magical bullet to beat it.