guys are we close to immortality?

probably not, caloric reduction is likely still the easiest way to extend your lifespan until we are close though

File: singularity.png (13KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1000x1500px

no

Telomere length is not the only factor in aging.

You'd have to stop your eyes from turning to liquid, protein degradation in your brain, build up of plaque in your blood vessels, and a whole list of other factors.

Not to mention your risk for cancer goes up with age.

>telomemes

stem cells and crispr are much more promising

File: aubrey-de-grey-b01[1].jpg (29KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x300px

>>8968197
what about this guy

>>8968197
>crispr
When will this meme die? Crispr was invented by evil Jewish scientists to stagnate the genetic engineering industry.

>>8968208
i have no idea what this guy has proposed but it seems like he has achieved nothing so far

>>8968210
you're memeing but crispr has made something we were able to do for some time basically dirt cheap

>>8968169
Check out this paper.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173677

We're learning that mortality is more complicated than we thought. Originally the thinking was that a few genetic repairs would allow an individual to live forever. Now we're learning there may be a certain lifespan hard-wired into our DNA.

>>8968217
CRISPR is fine if you're working on cells with a minimal genome but it's nowhere near ready for the organism level.

https://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.html

>>8968227
Sure, obviously, you also have the problem of it not working a huge portion of the time for complex genomes and about 50% of the time for simple ones. If I had Huntingtons though I'd take the chance. Maybe go to some shady chinese research facility.

Also, I'm terribly sorry for the link but I read this a while back from a different source and it sounds promising
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/cancerkilling-crispr-viruses-destroy-command-centers-within/

>>8968185
why is there a regression to nothing on "what will happen" line?

>>8968250

my guess is the assumption someone presses the big red button

>>8968284
there is no red button
and nukes don't erase technology, they just break it if they are close enough

>>8968169

enjoy your cancer

>>8968250

It rightfully assumes we never leave the planet in any significant way and we use up all the resources that enable technological civilization, oil, metals, etc. etc. and we revert back to an agrarian way of life.

>>8968296

Think of everything that it takes to make a computer. You have to mine the materials, (which takes oil and heavy machinery, which themselves require material and factories), transport them, refine and process them. All the components that goes into it. Every single step relies on a web of interconnections with other industries, infrastructure and the like. And on top of all of that you have to have people willing to buy it and support such a system.

Nukes start flying, or even if resources are depleted, the entire thing falls apart.

if im bound to live more then 80years i fear out of sheer boredom i will totally try out the good pedo sex, build a fritzl style austrian cellar and mass murder some stupid children after having gay bukkake orgies.

It will have to be exclusive for the elite or we will face a huge aged population.

>>8968368
wow, some people really need to be lynched

File: 1487203769453.jpg (48KB, 518x525px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 518x525px

>>8968342
Oil can be synthesized
Biofuels can fill the roles that oil did
metals will never run out because the earth is a colossal ball of metal
and if we really needed a metal that we somehow could not get on earth, we could mine in space to get it, we do have the technology, just not the will to do so

>>8968387
just colonize other planets

>>8968169
No, we would have to be static to be immortal. We are dynamic. Unless we could make our consciousness static or at least transferable, we will not achieve immortality.

File: living in space when.jpg (230KB, 800x628px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 800x628px

>>8968470
don't even need planets
would be better of disassembling planets to build habitats

>>8968511
Colonizing an pre-existing planet would not only be a time saver but save us the nigh impossible work of building an entire habitat like the one in your picture. The level of technology to colonize a planet is much lower than the level to build a mega-structure of that size.

File: 1489890306183.jpg (53KB, 460x700px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 460x700px

>>8969150
Building a O'Neil cylinder is not an impossible task, or a difficult one
It's making a long tube, as wide as your material of choice will allow, and spinning it enough to mimic 1g
Steel will let you build one the size of Malta without risking structural failure

It's a feat of engineering, not science, and we are more than capable of pulling it off, given enough materials

science like this is the same as "hurr we transplanted a uterus in a male would you look at that!"

waste of money, time on a useless feature with complete disregard for the natural process of life and the ethical implication, all of this just because a bunch of autists want grant money and a cushy university job

when researching this, do we ask ourselves if we actually need it? are we so arrogant to believe that with a drug or two we can modify consequence-free the mechanism that maintains every cell in the body?
medical science is useless as fuck when you look into it, besides surgery where you hack away at internal organs, we can barely cure anything with drugs that have been researched for decades

>>8968342
That is very naive thinking.
Many materials can be substituted, a lot of technology doesn't need heavy resources, like computers and drugs.
We are never going back to the middle ages.

>>8968511
>and then a buncha zeeks pump zyklon b into your colony and throws it at australia (they tried throwing it at america but they missed???)
>everyone is glad at least it's just australia
>australians are glad they finally got those goddamn emus

>>8968240
>iflscience.com
>Using a pop/sci/ meme page as a source

>>8969150
>Living in a gravity well
How primitive.
Next you'll tell me you still eat carcases to sustain yourself

>>8969425
>naturalistic fallacy

>>8968169
No it's a typo.
We're really close to immorality.

>>8968169
There is a lot of basic research that still has to go on before we're quite there. But, CRISPR seems like a potential tool for human gene editing. There's more to it than that, though, as we'll need stem cell treatments, methods of handling senescent cells that send out harmful signals to surrounding cells, DNA damage, loss of telomeres, accumulation of plaques and other junk floating around in our bodies ... aging itself requires further study, and you still want to cure the myriad forms of cancer and neurodegenerative disorders floating around.

We need more biologists, chemists and physicists and a hell of a lot more hours devoted to the work. I think all of us here are gonna miss the boat by at least a couple hundred years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink

how about going full cyborg

Brainlet Detected

File: contempt.jpg (30KB, 524x336px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 524x336px

>>8969425
go live in a cave

>>8968479
Solid state society. Shitty reference I know.

OP I think so, but I think we're close on the timescale of human civilization. Probably a generation or two after my own. Though practical immortality and theoretical immortality are different since we would have to find new or break old laws of physics to live literally forever (entropy)

>>8968169
telomerase activation means you have a much greater risk to develop cancer, normally a cancer cell can only divide a certain number of times before the telomeres degrade however with telomerase activated they can replicate indefinitely.

>>8970055
they are having a presentation at raadfest 2017

''An emphasis will be placed on showing how telomerase and telomere lengthening not only helps prevent cancer but also increases the body’s ability to fight cancer.''

>>8970079
Not that guy but it's more nuanced than that. It can help, but it can also be a problem; what matters is when and where telomerase is expressed and how well you can control things.

Telomerase expression is necessary for cell immortalization, which is a hallmark of cancer. One method it can achieve this is through scrambling of the genome during Crisis, which actually occurs as a result of losing your telomeres; at this point, your cellular repair machinery actually fails to distinguish a chromosome end from a double strand break, and attempts to repair it, which is really bad because you start fusing chromosomes end-on-end. When you proceed to cell division, sister chromatids are supposed to split evenly, but this end-on-end fusion means chromosomes get pulled apart until they break in random places, get repaired again in random fashion, and the genome gets even more fucked.

Eventually you get expression of growth genes at the wrong place in the wrong time, and telomerase expression means you never stop.

So, telomerase expression as a means to prevent Crisis can be helpful, but if you already have cancer developing inside you (and honestly, we constantly are getting cancer, but the immune system actually recognizes and kills it efficiently until we're older), you risk aiding it. It's solely because telomerase is Not expressed that some pediatric patients actually survive their cancers.

So, telomerase shit is probably good, and I'm definitely interested in learning more, but he's not entirely wrong and we may be a while off from perfecting this approach.

>>8969930
Pretty much this, a perfect cure for ageing is many years away.

That said, stem cell reprogramming has been the most promising technique to restore youthful health to aged tissues in mice. There was also an implication that stem cell reprogramming alleviates ageing symptoms because of the erasion of epigenetic programs that partially cause ageing, although it's unknown how exactly.

This is gonna sound neckbeardy, but I don't feel worthy living forever when geniuses like Mozart, Alexander the Great or Aristotel had to die.

>>8970309
As long as you're not a NEET, you living forever is valuable to the world to some degree

>don't have to spend another 20 years preparing someone new to fill a roll
>all that experience that takes even more time to gain
>no one has to dump resources into you because you you are already self sustaining

>>8970430
I mean if I were to live forever I'd spend majority of time to serve humanity, but now I'm split between that and just having fun.

>>8969972
>Musk

>>8970309
The beauty of living forever is that you have a really long time to learn and grow. We all would. No doubt, we'd all eventually bite it when we randomly get shot, blown up, supernova'd or whatever, but you wouldn't have to feel unworthy forever. You'd have all the time in the world to find a path and leave some meaningful impact.

Relax! - I got what it takes for everybody to become Immortal in less than a month - My Discovery - Death already is a choice - We humans can stop aging, ailing and dying (by wiping out all diseases) and live forever (like our Creators from the planet of Nibiru - The Anunnaki) - I got the key to our Biological Immortality - By staying absolutely healthy all the time - By doing my discovery (just an exercise for a minute a day) - My WVCD - The Weapon of Virus and Cancer Destruction, that cures and prevents any diseases, known on Earth for millions of years, even radiation disease (concerning astronauts' lives on space missions) - I will describe my WVCD to everyone, who sends me a check for one million bucks - Everybody will stay absolutely healthy all the time, living their Endless Lives, for Infinite Health = Immortality.

File: Stop people from dying.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>8970490