How long until ageing is cured?

Just right after the moment you've died.

>>8655353
Dont worry. You will die.

>>8655375
Convince me.

Didn't that one guy get all the telomeres in his blood extended? Wouldn't that method work?

>>8655353
2 days after your death.

Oooh, the irony!

>>8655385
No. His ecm still degrades.

>>8655353
>what is entropy

>>8655420
Feed him collagen then. That solves extracellular matrix degeneration, right?

You can't cure aging. Aging is not one thing, it's several things happening in the body at once. It's just just about cell division and telomeres You would also have to stop Lewy body buildup in the brain, stop your eyes of degenerating and your aqueous humor from solidifying, stop your changing bone density, and so on.

>>8655491
The only real issue is the nervous system, since you could just artificially grow and replace just about any other organ.

>>8655353
>ageing
doesn't exist
maybe aging

It depends on how much gets invested in aging research. Sadly atm it's like 10 dollars and some peanuts.

>>8655353
Aging is not a desease, therefore there is no curing.

File: no_one_can_know.jpg (421KB, 900x1361px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 900x1361px

>>8655353
Immortality of the individual is EXTINCTION to the species. Individuals can NOT mutate to change to external conditions, species MUST mutate to changing external conditions or face extinction.
We have literally evolved to die, after reproducing and aiding the young for a time.
There is ZERO reason to believe our bodies CAN last more than a few hundred years... tendons just were not made to last forever, blood walls get thinner with debris buildup on the walls. Immortality has been ACTIVELY evolved out of us... immortality is a mutation that destroys the species.

File: nkl.jpg (338KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1440x900px

>>8655680
If I die, the universe ends from my perspective and nothing will EVER happen again. Give me ONE (1) good argument why I shouldn't hope to become immortal.

>>8655385
It might help, but it wouldn't solve the problem of cancer risk, which increases significantly with age.

>>8655485
Your body would just digest the collagen. It doesn't know to separate it from food and incorporate it into your tissues; it just digests it into amino acid monomers.

>>8655691
>Give me ONE (1) good argument why I shouldn't hope to become immortal.
Hoping for things you will never get is a waste of time and decreases your quality of life.

File: climate_hoax.jpg (88KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x334px

>>8655691
>universe ends from my perspective

Wrong... if you succeeded in life your children live on... you (your personality and memories) are just a added mutational feature that aids our species in surviving. Accept your mortality and be happy, live each day as if it was your last, for one day it WILL BE.

>>8655353
Aging is not a disease to be cured, it is the way of things.

File: Avatar.Extended.Collectors.Edition.1080p.60FPS - 1.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>8655353
A very long long long time.

>>8655528
Preggos are not sick too but the hospital refers to them as patients.

>>8655719
My sister had her doctor tell her that she couldn't have a natural birth outside the hospital because she and the baby would die, no exceptions.

He's the same doctor that said she could smoke and drink while she was pregnant. She stopped going to that doctor. She gave birth her daughter at home. No complications. No medications. The kid is top of her class in high school now.

Ever since then, I've taken anything anyone has ever said with the largest grain of salt possible.

>>8655362
Underrated

>>8655528
well actually aging (beyond your optimal age) is the accumulation of damage, so in fact there can be a cure or cures for it.

Why would people want to be immortal anyway? Shit would suck.

You'd have to constantly deal with loved ones dying all the time and you'd never forget it, after a while you would become so smart that everything seems trivial and you wouldn't be able to take pleasure in anything.

It would be a nightmare.

>>8655828
>You'd have to constantly deal with loved ones dying all the time and you'd never forget it
Make them immortal too
>after a while you would become so smart to take pleasure in anything.
Most people don't keep getting smarter over time. They plateau and then just live their life

>>8655694
>>8655485
>>8655420
>>8655385

Show me.

>>8655353

Life is a disease with 100% mortality rate and the possible side effect of children.

I hope it stays that way. 7.5 billion people with baby boomers recking the world is way too many people already.

Life is only beautiful when it is fleeting. If we lived forever, we would cherish life even less than we do now.

>>8655828
>You'd have to constantly deal with loved ones dying all the time
shit happens anyway.
> after a while you would become so smart that everything seems trivial
doubt it. if so, and that's what it takes to understand turbulence, I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

>>8655980
>not wanting to know everything about everything

>>8655980
So by that logic, life would be even more beautiful if you only had 5 more years left to live? Why don't you go bombard yourself with radiation you dumb faggot

>>8655695
There's a difference between hoping for and actively trying to achieve something.

File: mono_no_aware.jpg (255KB, 504x337px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 504x337px

>>8655990

Exactly. We would cherish those 5 years much more than we currently do.

>>8655986
> implying that knowledge is a thing
> implying that enjoying the process of learning outweighs the shitty world we live in

>>8655977
Show you ... what?

>>8656021
Show me the process of that subject from the beginning. I might help filling that hole

>>8655998
I don't see why that's relevant. He asked about hoping for immortality, not trying to get it.

>>8655793
Some doctors lie to you to make more money.

It's been cured in mice, so it is as good as cured already.

>>8655719
Called 'patients' because they are receiving care, this doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.
Death =/= disease.
Who would want to be immortal anyway?

>>8655980
*wrecking - other than that, well said.

It's not just about extending lifespan but also healthspan.
Nobody wants to spend ~20 years of their lives in a decrepit state and aging research can help with that.

>>8656118
Not quite, but we're getting there.

>>8655353
The body has not evolved for immortality.

Think of your body like a car that you can not change part on. The oil filter works great for 3 months... it can be pushed for 6 months and still work pretty well, but it will NOT work for 5 years. Your body has evolved to work great for about 60 years... it can be pushed to 120 years, but it will NOT work for 1200 years.
I suppose you could clone yourself and do a brain/head transplant.. but that would mean killing your "twin" every 60 years or so... the very definition of EVIL (human sacrifice to extend your life)

>>8655353
Humans won't do that because that would be insane. Humans would go mad in less than 100 years and destroy entire humanity.

I so hope this happens. Seriously this time and previous 100 years are humanity's best years. Soon we will hit the downhill of having too much information, too much energy and too much AI. Enjoy while you can.

>>8655353
>How long until ageing is cured?
Usually something less than 100 years.

>>8655828
>Why would people want to be immortal anyway? Shit would suck.
i hate this meme
>You'd have to constantly deal with loved ones dying all the time and you'd never forget it
make them immortal too you dumb fuck
>after a while you would become so smart that everything seems trivial and you wouldn't be able to take pleasure in anything.
better than not existing imo. you could always start taking drugs too

>>8655980
>Life is only beautiful when it is fleeting. If we lived forever, we would cherish life even less than we do now.
lol what a dumb nigger

>>8655980
Nothing stops you to die though, if you like it that much.
Just let others make their own choice about what they think it's beautiful.

>We don't know anything about such research, so we will say it's pointless
This is what this thread is really about. If someone showed me a legit way of starting such research, I'd do it.

>>8655353
You can't cure ageing, as you imagine it. Most ageing, disease and cancer is caused by stress and improper diet.

If you're thinking of solving everyone's problems WITH DRUGS, how you going to cure all their emotional and mental disorders?

>>8656784
with drugs lmao

>>8656988

H-how will you cure my heart anon? It is blackened and withered.

>>8655353
An optimistic opinion: 20-40 years?
A pessimistic opinion: 50-60 years.

A edgy opinion: Hurr, durr, death is great. LoL. No one deserves to live, LoL We all gonna die its impossible, LoL.

My personal opinion: Same as Noah to Gilgamesh. Don't worry about. If it happens, it happens and you can cheer about it mate.

>>8655980
>Life is a disease.
Why is /sci/ getting a flood of edgy posters? Why isn't no one discussing biological immortality in jellyfish or other animals, or cells? Why isn't no one talking about the funding that government research branches have gotten recently, Google's Calico, or SENS? Or the increase in bio-engineering students?

Like what happened to the science?

>>8657060
bump for justice

We have to create armour that replaces every organ in your body with something new while you sleep

>>8657074
Why armor? Why not nanobots?

Pretty much every person with a bachelor's in bio or higher I've spoken to thinks that curing aging is well out of reach right now. Pretty much every person I've known to say it's right around the corner has been some sort of outsider to bio or an undergraduate. Make of that what you will.

>>8657078
>nanobots

Fucking idiot. I'm guessing you've never read a nanotechnology paper start to finish.

>>8657106
Give it a few decades for technology to keep advancing and get better.

>>8657074
What you mean skin but faster?

File: 1422495837865.gif (13KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x500px

>you are part of one of the final generations to be born before 1000+ year lifespans
Hopefully the gooks and Pajeets are right about reincarnation

>>8656144
Are you fucking stupid?

File: 1482791520180.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>there are people who don't want immortality

why are you even alive? kill yourself so i can get a better shot please.

What if there were a way to backup your brain on a disk that can be uploaded to a cloned body in the event of your death? What if this device could be implanted in your body so it continually backs up your consciousness. So long your backup doesn't get completely destroyed, you're immortal.

Of course, having your immortal soul saved to a computer disk opens up a can of worms. What if your data was copies and somebody cloned you while you're still alive, with our your knowledge. What if people made some changes to your backed up data. What if your backup was throughly searched by law enforcement upon death for potential crimes you've committed, or the meta data sold for "advertising" purposes.

>>8657168
>You are part of the beginning of generation that is going to have 1000+ year lifespan.
So long as there is something to do and rediscover. It doesn't sound that bad, just take it one step at a time.

>>8657188
Human intelligence and personality doesn't seem to be able to be caught in data like that. Intelligence is steal not well understood.

>>8657155
OK undergrad, just remember to pay your tuition.

>>8657188
Then you have a perfect clone. Subjective experience ends when ones brain ceases function.

File: madmanAubreydeGrey.jpg (366KB, 1405x1405px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1405x1405px

Read "Ending Aging" by based Aubrey de Grey

Wrong, a research was conducted and scientist know that cells have a limited lifetime so in essence cancer is inevedable. Like snakes skins renew our cells die like the plastic part on shoe laces and after thats gone the lace fuzzes it gets fuckd if you know what im talking baout, the same goes for cells i0m not a 100% sure how many times they do it but they turn to cancer. If we find a way to regenerate them like jellyfish do.

>>8657275
Perfect cloning is physically impossible sadly

File: Save_the_planet_kill_yourself.jpg (31KB, 400x271px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x271px

>>8655705
>"Hurry up and die so you can no longer burden our Mother Earth but take solace knowing some ungrateful assholes will reap the benefits of your hard work"

Fuck that shit. If there's technology to reverse aging and all of its negative affects, I will take it and live as long as I want. I may have to accept whatever happens that is beyond human control but I won't accept an edict handed down by some self-appointed douche that I must embrace non-existence for the greater good like we're the fucking Tau from WH40K.

File: aids40.jpg (165KB, 880x536px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 880x536px

>>8655980
>Life is only beautiful when it is fleeting

>>8656144
>Who would want to be immortal anyway?
Are you serious?

>>8657415
Imagine being stuck on a dark, empty, earth for almost forever once the sun goes out.

>>8657049
Realistically we have no solutions for many conditions that result in death or aging.

The news just likes to report like we do, and the extremely rich are so vain and afraid that they pray to the dollar to find a way to save them.

Ultimately we can't make individuals immortal, even if we conquered biology simple statistics mean you're gonna die eventually. Whatever accident is required to end your life will eventually occur over a long enough timespan.

Human life could be extended, but it probably won't see significant extension in our lifetime except for the extremely wealthy.

>>8657427
I'll just go somewhere else dude

>>8655980
>Life is only beautiful when it is fleeting. If we lived forever, we would cherish life even less than we do now.

Actually, you'd cherish live even more than you do now. Death would be a massive tragedy, far beyond what it is now.

Knowing a friend for 10 years and having them die in a vehicle crash wouldn't have the emotional impact had you known that same person for 500 years.

File: if 4chinners didn't age.png (723KB, 952x1495px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 952x1495px

>>8655710
>it is the way of things.
This logic is most retarded.
By that logic even diseases are the way of things and we shouldn't cure them either.

>>8655980
>we lived forever, we would cherish life even less than we do now.
Actually we would value it more since dying is no longer something everyone has to do.

>>8657296
I wouldn't trust anything from someone with such a beard.

Even if we did reduce aging by a large margin, wouldn't brain function still deteriorate? Given enough time, wouldn't we be as good as dead anyway?

So I'm dumb.
Why can't we rip off cancer for this? Aren't some form of cancer functionally immortal?

>>8658235
no cancer is cells that keep dividing

>>8657188
>What if there were a way to backup your brain on a disk
>uploaded

Fuck off.

>>8655380
You aren't a god.

and people 50 years ago thought we would have flying cars by now, but we aren't anywhere near them, just like you think we will be immortal in another 50 years. Technology moves fast, but not that fast

>>8658318
Counterpoint: computers

>>8656171
Your brain would get some kind of cancer before then my dude

File: 68ef844328da7f913239f030e0557ada.jpg (44KB, 550x360px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x360px

>>8658318
Not that Anon.

>People thought we would have flying cars by now.
We had flying cars since the 50s you dumb fuck and we do have flying cars now. They just aren't' mass produced.

Pic related. Also when it comes to the flying car problem numbnuts. Also have a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw

Practicability/Efficiency > Your dumb ass thoughts.

A car on the ground is more efficient, safe, and practical than a car on the ground. It also doesn't require everyone become a trained pilot, places to set up for landings.

Now get the fuck out of here.

>>8658686
Flying is not any harder than driving a car in traffic
The idea that you need to be a "Trained pilot" to fly is fucking nonsense
It's literally just the same as getting lessons driving, taking tests, etc

Now that you have smart phones with GPS and maps and w/e, the major problems with everyone flying is gone.

The only problem is ridiculous regulations & laws preventing personal flying vehicles.

>>8658703
do you really think we need to lower the barrier of entry on giving goatfuckers flying vehicles

>>8655353

Probably too long for you and me, maybe not too long for today's trust fund babies.

>>8658703

The average driver is shit/10, I have no reason to believe that would suddenly improve if their cars could fly

>>8658703
>Flying is not any harder than driving a car in traffic
Don't post here unless you have adequate critical thinking skills.

>>8655353
As science and technology progresses, personal freedom and autonomy decreases, the system gains more and more control over individuals. For technology to get to that point, the system has to evolve to the point where it makes it very likely people will want to rebel against it. Technology also exists at that point to destroy the entire world's population in various ways, some of them fairly accessible. Population will also keep increasing which will increase the odds that intelligent radicalized individuals will appear. The internet will allow them to find each other and work together. I think it will be very unlikely society will ever get to that point. I don't see technology's rise as inevitable. I don't think it will lead to all the world's problems being solved, I think it will collapse at some point.

If you look at history you will see every great society has collapsed. Technology's path has not been a smooth path forward. Just because the magnitude of the progress it has been making has increased massively recently is no reason to believe that the pattern won't hold.

>>8655680
Humans reach peak evolution while AIs take over. Seems about right. Humans are really only proto-lifeforms in the grand scheme of things. Too small to be classified as truly living by future AI standards.

>>8657168
So if our planet were to die, what would we reincarnate as?

>>8657188
We might be able to achieve brain transplants. There are drugs like NSI-189 which cause the brain to grow new cells like crazy. You might be able to extend the life of the brain enough to survive multiple bodies.

File: 96-picture3.jpg (70KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x280px

Unless they can also find a way to completely stop my immune system from destroying my body I'm perfectly fine with dying from old age. At the rate things are progressing I'll probably just end up having to kill my self before the end of my natural life span.

>>8658874
Aliens somewhere in the observable universe or other humans in the unobservable universe.

immortal without invincibility: live your entire life in fear of dying, build a bunker and never leave

immortal with invincibility: spin uncontrobably through space for all eternity eventually

>>8658703
>Flying is not any harder than driving a car in traffic.
I fear humanity has regressed.

>>8658942
I wouldn't do the first one. Dying from something out of your control is just one of those things.

Second one sounds pretty fucking fun if I'm atleast able to twirl around.

>>8657370
>>8655691
I'm with you brother. Most people angrily reject the thought of immortality most likely because we've been conditioned for our entire existence to accept death as an inevitability and thus try to rationalize it in silly ways like the other posters.

>>8655353
It depends on what the future brings. If the new world competition is immortality, humans will live until they're killed. We'd just need another cold war situation.

>>8659097
The future brings many miracles and tragedies. Best to do what is best and hope for the best outcome.

>>8659077
>We've been conditioned for our entire existence to accept death as an inevitability.
Yep.

>>8658868
Technology is a tool, not a society you brainlet.

>>8658893
Sorry to hear that leukemia-kun

I honestly don't understand why people don't want to become immortal honestly. The world is big and interesting, and to experience all of it you need several lifespans.

I want to be immortal /sci/.
I'm 24 now. With a degree in Machine Learning, I hope I can get rich and can afford it when the time come. What is the chance that this technology will be realized in my lifetime /sci/? Or I will just die in vain like all my ancestors did?

>Waahhh! i don't want to die Waahhh!
Ok /sci/tards, let's assume that you became immortal, then what? you probably going to get an existential crisis and kill yourself eventually

>>8655691
you're just slowing the inevitable
immortality =\= not dying

>>8659556
Not until I've created the robot master race that will find a way to simulate me living with my loved ones forever.

>>8659584
>forever
>not knowing about entropy

>>8655828
>implying you couldn't just kill yourself anyway

>>8659558
>immortality =\= not dying

That's exactly what it means, dumb-dumb. If you're immortal, and then you die, then you were never actually immortal.

>>8655353

Why is it that it's generally the young who are obsessed with longevity / immortality? Older folks don't generally care about the certainty of death nearly as much as young people.

File: 346y8743474343.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

I wonder if humans were born immortal anyway, then would we be finding a way to make ourselves mortal instead?

>>8659922
No because we could easily just get a handgun and make ourselves "mortal"

Immortal != invincible

>>8659673
what does it mean to never die through aging but you can be killed by a gun?

>>8655691
You will feel like you're behind in time.

Trends will come and go and you won't be able to keep up/fully embrace them.

You will be complaining the entire time and say "the world was better x years ago"

You will experience wars

You will get tired of working your entire life to not starve (you can't starve to death, you will just feel pain until you eat)

You can't kill yourself if you wanted to

If you venture into space and an accedent happens, you will be stuck there forever and you will never die

>>8659675
Because they've come to terms with it; they've given up.

>>8659967
>reddit spacing
>retarded arguments pulled out of your ass
you have to go back

>>8659922
Full on immortality we wouldn't be searching for a way to make our self mortal. We would be searching for a way to keep ourselves entertained.

>>8659927
To be immortal be definition makes you void of any form of death including a gunshot to the head Anon. If you're immortal a gunshot won't kill you, neither will disease, or anything else.

You might be horribly maimed though, or even just an eyeball, but you will not be dead.

>>8659932
Biological Immortality. You won't die of ageing, but can still die of diseases and accidents.

Which is the current goal of researchers in immortality. They are looking for ways to fight off ageing and letting people become biologically immortal.

Which isn't a bad thing and there is several lifeforms on earth who are biologically immortal. Jellyfish and Lobsters are good examples.

>>8659967
A bunch of (You)s and self-inserting. You are not the the same person as X, and cannot know what X might do faggot.

I wish this thread didn't have a bunch of shitposters and more discussions about actual science into ageing.

Aging IS the cure, you lowlife humanist medfag.

File: 1466625534263.jpg (16KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x250px

>>8660139
>asks a retarded question
>gets a retarded answer
>"i wish people discussed actual science with me"

>>8655705
Memes and genes. Well said.

>Deaths takes everything you love away from you.
>Its wrong to extend your life and the things you love life very a long time to ward off death.

I just don't understand why would you make yourself suffer early and live in the despair than make it later? You should curse mortality.

>>8655353
Yeah, it wont be in your lifetime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

>>8655353
>How long until ageing is cured?

Me, a friend of mine (who always got the worst grade in school) and this other guy are already working on it.

I'm sure it's possible to expand lifespan by creating a black hole out of our sun.
Also I'm almost 100% sure it'd make time travel possible.

I'm worried a bit, though - adding another strain to the DNA might damage the biomatter... hmmm...
Maybe the healing process should replace every cell in the body - and I mean EVERY cell.
That'd result an entirely new body.

Well, I definitely need more time to solve this puzzle.
Time...
Only if we could bypass the problem of time..!

>>8655353

if you wanted to you could chop off your arms and legs and replace them with prosthetics right now. bam, you got limbs that will never age; we're halfway there already!

>>8655385
>>8655694
>>8655825
Aging is much more than damaging the DNA or having increased cancer risk.
>>8655491
>>8655680
These guys pointed out only a few of many many things that composes the process of aging.
>>8656517
Underrated.
>>8657188
What if our brains are not actually computers? What if you needed to actually replicate every physical connection between brain cells, every number of molecules and receptors inside every brain cell in order to replicate the same brain? Because each of these things make a difference.

And I'm not even getting to the point of "if you die and recover your brain backup in other body, that person will not be you, because you would continue to be dead".
>>8657303
"If we find a way to regenerate them like jellyfish do."
But you would probably lose your personallity and memories in the process.
>>8657429
"except for the extremely wealthy"
*and extremely lucky
>>8658091
Yes. e.g. Alzheimer's risk exponentially increases with age. Exponentially. Most cases are not related to family history. Age is the most important factor. And Alzheimer is just one disease. And there is more: brain function already deteriorates as part of normal physiological aging without any disease going on.

>>8655353
Without death, we are not human. Death is a necessity. We will try to exceed our lifetimes in vain and we will succeed in some ways with the advent of technology. But we will end up suffering in some way as it isn't the natural order of being.

Brain in a jar connected to a computer is the only way to achieve immortality

>>8661189
you forgot the dementia and cancer in your brain

>>8658742
>>8658848
>>8658858
>>8659066
4 people who have never tried a flight simulator on their computer or done anything in flying

It's not hard
There are all those anecdotes of first time flyers being talked through a landing

The consequences of bad driving on the freeway are just as severe as bad flying.

>>8655353

>How long until ageing is cured?


I'm going to say 25 years. The "Cure" will probably be more like a vaccine.

And for all you death metal fags, death will still of course exist. People will die of all sorts of shit. Just not "Aging".

>>8661177
Actually, no, ageing is mostly just DNA damage over time. All the problems mentioned you've highlighted are due to issues with cells not being able to keep up. Tissue like cartillage, which doesn't replenlish itself after damage, is probably the biggest issue here. But that's easily solved by becoming a cyborg.
In the end it's a little more nuanced than DNA damage (PTMs, splicing, (retro)transposons, mutagens, glycoyslation, methylation, blablabla), but it all boils down to a defective genome regulation causing us to age.

>>8661237
+ decreasing telomerase activity with age

>>8661243
That's implied in DNA damage dude.
Telomerase is a tricky one, because it's extremely regulated in the somatic cell lines. It's activated in alot of cancers (that's why they're quasi immortal)
Solving the telomerase puzzle is one HUGE step in the right direction, though.

>>8661249

iirc the dna is not damaged much in old people it's the epigenetic folding that is programmed by evolution to kill us so we didn't eat all the resources around us.

>>8661237
No. We lose i.e. pulmonary and renal function by exposing these organs to enviromental factors (toxins, pollution). These losses occur since childhood. They are expected to occur and are irreversible. Biological/chemical waste accumulates in our tissues, including our arteries and brain, which exponentially raises risk of many diseases not cancer-like.

Most kinds of dementia and cardiovascular diseases have nothing to do with DNA not being able to work.

PS: Don't make fun of yourself by saying things like "we don't need kidneys, we have dialysis and transplantation".

>>8661290
Oh yeah, I forgot to account for accumulatory shit from the environment. My bad, not like that shit is going to be solved by mechanical substitutes anyway when life extends.
>Tfw HEPA filters in your lungs.
Also, the inability to cope with heavy metal storage (or other toxins), should be able to be solved with other progresses. I don't believe that these processes are related to ageing, per se, but rather more to a fault of the human condition to cope with our ever polluting selves.
You say it yourself: it's environmental factors, it kind of beats the entire ageing through endogenous means, doesn't it.
Maybe I have shifted the argument to this to make my case a little bit more, but your argument is essentially the same as being in a fatal car accident, only your example takes a long time and takes our faulty (or non adapted) physiology into account.

>>8661257
That seems interesting. I could see that in some way, but I'd need sources for that.

>>8661309
Not only enviromental fators. Your own body produces cholesterol and you can detect cholesterol impregnated on arteries of infants. Your kidneys lose function not only by being exposed to toxins, but by working. Oxigen literally oxidates the lung tissue and there is no way around that because we need oxigen. Don't be that guy who thinks that eating lots of antioxidants like vitamin C will solve that. And the more your kidney loses function, the more rapidly that occurs.

File: yu_gi_oh.jpg (64KB, 640x411px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x411px

>>8661326

Superior artificial organs when?

>>8661326
Come on guy, you're essentially saying that natural systems aren't perfect because oxygen used in oxidative phosporylation causes oxygen radicals as a byproduct because there's no way around that (at the moment) to produce ATP, and you think that isn't what causes damage to tissue that's directly regulated by DNA (either it's DNA, proteins or lipids (idk about sugars), and they are all able to more or less cope with that fact.
Also, you're actually saying "producing cholesterol" as in, you need proteins for that. Well guess what, genius, proteins are produces from DNA transcription.
I'm not going to claim it's all DNA we can handle. Artherosclerosis and auto-immunity are big motherfuckers we still have to deal with.
But the shit we'll have with transgenics (transbiology, transhumanism) very shortly will be awesome.
Also: you keep forgetting about the synthetic organs.

>>8661335
Artificial kidney is for clinical use now thanks to the FDA. So progress on artificial organs and replacements are making progress.

>Become a cyborg who lived over a 100 years.
>Still working on making cat girls real.
>Feels all the good.

>>8655353
I want to die... Someday. Its why I do shit at all. If I wasn't going to die there would always be plenty of time to have infinite goals and put them off forever. Plenty of people say that they've got plenty of time but forget how incredibly untrue it is.

>>8655986
You know nothing to begin with.

>>8661183
I hate you people asserting shit without proving it. Why wouldn't we be human anymore without death?

File: popo_cheers_up.gif (767KB, 244x136px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 244x136px

>>8655362
kek
>>8655421
this nigger gets it

>>8655353
cured? it's not a disease, it's just a natural process, everything, why shouldn't you?

>>8662597
i meant to say everything ages

File: wisdom.jpg (164KB, 514x733px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 514x733px

Let me introduce you to a society built on rationality and honor,

> an infirm or elderly relative was carried to a mountain, or some other remote, desolate place, and left there to die,[1] either by dehydration, starvation, or exposure, as a form of euthanasia. The practice was allegedly most common during times of drought and famine, and was sometimes mandated by feudal officials.

>>8661545

bionics offer an excellent opportunity to bypass evolution. as well as being easier to mass produce than bio at the moment...

Telomerase controlled to not cause cancer
Also young blood transfusion are vogue

>thread starts with "when will we be immortal?" which clearly implies biological immortality as true immortality isn't worth discussing because no one would know how it works
>retards instantly think OP is referring to true immortality

every fucking time

>>8658318
There's a difference between practical future predictions and the impractical ones. Flying cars, impractical. Curing/Slowing aging significantly, very practical.

>>8662687
Its how the threads go.

>>8662819
Top decent post.