View Full Version : Scientists "reverse aging process"
Darkrain
10-04-2009, 15:20
A way to reverse ageing has been discovered which allows withered muscle to rebuild itself by turning back a “biological clock”.
The effect has already been demonstrated on human muscle tissue in the laboratory.
Scientists in the US believe the breakthrough could lead to new treatments that rejuvenate and strengthen ageing bodies or combat degenerative diseases.
Their findings also underline the importance of staying active for older people, since this reduced age-related muscle loss.
Professor Irina Conboy, from the University of California at Berkeley, said: “Our study shows that the ability of old human muscle to be maintained and repaired by muscle stem cells can be restored to youthful vigour given the right mix of biochemical signals.”
Previously the same team had shown that molecular “messages” from muscle cells alter with age to affect tissue repair. As people get older, their ability to restore and rebuild lost muscle is weakened.
The US researchers, working with colleagues from the Institute of Sports Medicine and Centre of Healthy Ageing at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, compared muscle tissue samples from around 30 healthy men. Half the volunteers were young 21 to 24-year-olds and half aged between 68 and 74.
At the start of the study, samples of muscle tissue were surgically removed from the participants' thighs. The men then had the leg from which the biopsies were taken immobilised in a cast for two weeks so that their muscles atrophied.
After the casts were removed, the men exercised with weights to rebuild their wasted muscles. The scientists found that during the exercise period the muscles of younger volunteers had four times more regenerative stem cells engaged in tissue repair than those of older participants. Old muscle also showed signs of damaging inflammation and scarring.
Analysis of the samples revealed for the first time a biological pathway involved in muscle repair that relied on an enzyme called mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK). The enzyme, a type of active protein, stimulated a biological “switch” on muscle stem cells called Notch that triggered growth.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-1795887.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-reverse-ageing-process-1795887.html)
Thoughts?
Hopefully this wont lead to people living longer, we can a population crisis as it is.
Will this be able to help people with physical disabilities? I assume so, and that is a good thing. But it will trickle down to the mainstream population, and soon we'll actually have 'anti-aging' creams.
They're gonna figure out how to make us live forever eventually.
If we don't blow ourselves up first.
Hopefully this wont lead to people living longer, we can a population crisis as it is.
Will this be able to help people with physical disabilities? I assume so, and that is a good thing. But it will trickle down to the mainstream population, and soon we'll actually have 'anti-aging' creams.
Yeah, but the cost of any such person going through this treatment will be soaringly high, especially when the process is in its initial stages.
squirrelbo1
10-04-2009, 15:38
well to put this in perspective its not going to make people look younger or live loner etc, it will just enable people who have muscle troubles to walk better. thus improving quality, not quantity of life.
Shouldn't play God. Won't go down well with the big man.
squirrelbo1
10-04-2009, 15:48
Shouldn't play God. Won't go down well with the big man.
actually i have got no problems with it. :snicker
vegan_mekey
10-04-2009, 16:14
Unfortunately, these will get into the hands of the ruling elite and those with degenerative diseases will never have a chance. How beautious mankind is.
Darkrain
10-04-2009, 17:55
If they can actually slow aging down or make you live longer to where people are living over 100+ years of age successfully all the time, I don't think I'd want to live that long in all honestly.
Mael Duin
10-04-2009, 18:24
Hopefully they will never be succesful at this. We already have too many people in this world and many from the people are not getting any food and are just suffering.
Shouldn't play God. Won't go down well with the big man.
And who would the big man be ?
this is nothing short of amazing. count me in if this happens.
-Kwesnoth-
10-04-2009, 18:56
Shouldn't play God. Won't go down well with the big man.
I agree, if God wanted us to live forever then he would have done so.
Mael Duin
10-04-2009, 19:01
I agree, if God wanted us to live forever then he would have done so.
If God wanted us to fly he would have made wings for us.
http://www.abcteach.com/free/a/airplane1rgb.jpg
I agree, if God wanted us to live forever then he would have done so.
If god existed.
vegan_mekey
10-04-2009, 22:50
I don't believe in god. But I still think it's unnatural.
Solid_Squirrel
10-04-2009, 22:53
Congrats on a near derail of the thread everyone :rolleyes:
Chalk another victory to SCIENCE!
I for one can't wait to see what the finished product is like
vegan_mekey
10-04-2009, 23:12
Congrats on a near derail of the thread everyone :rolleyes:
Chalk another victory to SCIENCE!
I wouldn't say derail instead I would say that the thread evolved.
BigYoSpeck
10-04-2009, 23:35
How is it unnatural or against god to use our intelligence to develop ways of improving our lives?
Is the bird building a nest unnatural?
How is it unnatural or against god to use our intelligence to develop ways of improving our lives?
Is the bird building a nest unnatural?
Same way I see it. I wish I could rep you more.
Solid_Squirrel
10-04-2009, 23:57
I wouldn't say derail instead I would say that the thread evolved.
http://intensities.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/fry.jpg
vegan_mekey
10-05-2009, 00:01
How is it unnatural or against god to use our intelligence to develop ways of improving our lives?
Is the bird building a nest unnatural?
"Improving our lives" is subjective. Individually this may improve your life but for the life of humanity as whole, it may be incredibly destructive. There is already an overpopulation which is toppling over at the cost of the environment and the other species which populate this planet. By exponentially increasing the lifespan of humans we therefore may allow reproduction to exceeds it natural time limit, therefore we may have children whenever possible. This itself can not be bore within the life of this homeostatic planet. moreover it would be in detriment to the "life" of society, which already can barely sustain humanity and the lifespan of humans. (Look at the proleferation of problem's facing society).
Furthermore, the bird building its nest is carrying out a biological necessity for the continuation of species. Without it's nest many species of birds would run prey to predators and would eventually become extinct. The human species is no way adopting this new technology as a biological necessity to help sustain the species away from eminent extinction. Humanity as far as we see, would continue to thrive without this. Therefore it serves more superficial means instead of a biological need intended for the continuation for the whole of the species.
BigYoSpeck
10-05-2009, 00:21
"Over population" is a very subjective term. To go "over" on something means to exceed the intended use. Our ecosystem is not a rigid design and so long as life exists on the planet it's working. People always talk about the stress we put on the planet, but while our species population is increasing, you can only look at these "stresses" as being successful progressions.
Advancements such as this may not seem of any essential use to most people, but imagine if the great people in history had been given longer to make their mark. Einstein could have finished his Unified Theory, Gandhi may have been able to actually spread his philosophy of peace and we could still have been watching Father Ted episodes.
Our great success as a species is that we pyramid our advancements. The last dominant species on this planet could do nothing when a rock fell from the sky. But when some kind of disaster befalls us we will in one way or another survive it. And that is because we don't hide in fear from progress.
"Over population" is a very subjective term. To go "over" on something means to exceed the intended use. Our ecosystem is not a rigid design and so long as life exists on the planet it's working. People always talk about the stress we put on the planet, but while our species population is increasing, you can only look at these "stresses" as being successful progressions.
Advancements such as this may not seem of any essential use to most people, but imagine if the great people in history had been given longer to make their mark. Einstein could have finished his Unified Theory, Gandhi may have been able to actually spread his philosophy of peace and we could still have been watching Father Ted episodes.
Our great success as a species is that we pyramid our advancements. The last dominant species on this planet could do nothing when a rock fell from the sky. But when some kind of disaster befalls us we will in one way or another survive it. And that is because we don't hide in fear from progress.
This man speaks the truth. The way he sees things is the way it is, or at least should be.
Intelligent thinking is required for things like this. Going by the old "this is bad, we shouldn't be doing this" will get us nowhere in life.
+rep
vegan_mekey
10-05-2009, 00:44
"Over population" is a very subjective term. To go "over" on something means to exceed the intended use. Our ecosystem is not a rigid design and so long as life exists on the planet it's working. People always talk about the stress we put on the planet, but while our species population is increasing, you can only look at these "stresses" as being successful progressions.
"Over Population." Population over exceeds at the mark of the first stress. The balanced ecosystem prevents this. An imbalanced one, is where the a species reigns over others as opposed to exists alongside. Mass extinction of numerous species comes alongside with the detriment that this one has mangeled the balanced ecosystem. Over population is denoted when the ecosystem cannot sustain itself at homeostasis. The problem is the earth cannot cope with the cancer of the (over) population of humanity. The use of such "technology" is ensuring against any balanced ecosystem. The sucessful progression of one, is the detriment for others, therefore there is no harmony or homeostasis.
Advancements such as this may not seem of any essential use to most people, but imagine if the great people in history had been given longer to make their mark. Einstein could have finished his Unified Theory, Gandhi may have been able to actually spread his philosophy of peace and we could still have been watching Father Ted episodes.
This is similar to the mozart fallacy. Image if the horrible people in history had been given longer to make their mark. Hitler may have finished his application of eugenic theory. Pol Pot may have successfully finished mass genocide. Maybe Kim Jong Il never dies.
Now you may argue that someone may still have went and assinated Hitler, well the same is true with Gandhi (he did not die of old age). The influence of and work of many great and horrible people continues on without them.
Our great success as a species is that we pyramid our advancements. The last dominant species on this planet could do nothing when a rock fell from the sky.
We, as humans, are the only dominant species of this planet ever regarding the intentional destruction of the habitat or "competitors". This is the problem that we don't co-exist, we compete.
But when some kind of disaster befalls us we will in one way or another survive it. And that is because we don't hide in fear from progress.
I hope this concluding remark is intentional set-up to motivational hyperbole. It essentially is meaningless. How do you know that humanity will survive a great disaster? You can't sufficiently and confidently say that it will. How do you know that in itself is not perhaps the great disaster "of our knowledge?" Whats with this talk of progress? Progress of what humanity at the sake of everyone else? Progress becomes nothing more than busy work. We build giant buildings then just blow them up and replace them more buildings in the same places; we call this "progress."
"Over Population." Population over exceeds at the mark of the first stress. The balanced ecosystem prevents this. An imbalanced one, is where the a species reigns over others as opposed to exists alongside. Mass extinction of numerous species comes alongside with the detriment that this one has mangeled the balanced ecosystem. Over population is denoted when the ecosystem cannot sustain itself at homeostasis. The problem is the earth cannot cope with the cancer of the (over) population of humanity. The use of such "technology" is ensuring against any balanced ecosystem. The sucessful progression of one, is the detriment for others, therefore there is no harmony or homeostasis.
How do you know this ? I'm almost positive another species has never dominated over another in your life time.
How do you know its not meant to be ? How do you know it won't balance itself out ?
From what I read, you are just making basic assumptions.
"Improving our lives" is subjective. Individually this may improve your life but for the life of humanity as whole, it may be incredibly destructive. There is already an overpopulation which is toppling over at the cost of the environment and the other species which populate this planet. By exponentially increasing the lifespan of humans we therefore may allow reproduction to exceeds it natural time limit, therefore we may have children whenever possible. This itself can not be bore within the life of this homeostatic planet. moreover it would be in detriment to the "life" of society, which already can barely sustain humanity and the lifespan of humans. (Look at the proleferation of problem's facing society).
Furthermore, the bird building its nest is carrying out a biological necessity for the continuation of species. Without it's nest many species of birds would run prey to predators and would eventually become extinct. The human species is no way adopting this new technology as a biological necessity to help sustain the species away from eminent extinction. Humanity as far as we see, would continue to thrive without this. Therefore it serves more superficial means instead of a biological need intended for the continuation for the whole of the species.
so if somebody you knew was dying or suffering of something related to the breakthrough discovered youd rather them carry on in pain and suffering and die as opposed to making their life better. your a sick sick person
vegan_mekey
10-05-2009, 01:00
so if somebody you knew was dying or suffering of something related to the breakthrough discovered youd rather them carry on in pain and suffering and die as opposed to making their life better. your a sick sick person
Hypothetical situational reference justifications are essentially purposeless.
Where did I say that I'm against this purposeful use of this breakthrough discovery?
Where did I say I am against the use of pain relief?
Where did I say that I wanted people to die?
Its great that you can make assumptions but don't misquote me.
I've been discussing the inappropriate use of advanced technology for people to continue living past their natural life.
The sad fact is, if this progressive technology was released there is an incredibly strong chance that it would not be used "altruistically," for its intended cause. Instead it would be used for its "beneficial" side effect of prolonging life or "reversing ageing" (just like the title and the first paragraph denote). It is in this regard it would be secured only towards those who can afford it and afford to keep it out of the hands of those who that need it. This where the problem lies. It is not being touted as a new beneficial cure for genetic disease, instead it is a way to "reverse ageing." If this just from the insemination of the published studied into the media, then where do you think it will ultimately end up, in whose hands?
Perfect Sin
10-05-2009, 02:17
The reason we die of age to begin with is that our body becomes less and less efficient at removing toxins from the food we eat, the stuff we drink and the air we breathe.
Assuming you had a perfect immune system, and providing you aren't killed by some external means, the average human could live to be 1000.
I can't recommend this movie enough: The Man From Earth
PS3 rocks
10-05-2009, 14:26
I agree, if God wanted us to live forever then he would have done so.
I can argue that If God didn't want us to live forever, he wouldn't have made it possible for us to do so.
If you take into account that most of us probably have about 60 or so years left in life by current standards. Go back 60 years and look at where medical science was, can you even begin to imagine where we would be 60 years from now. I can't see the future but in my opinion it seems plausible that a significantly extended life is within our reach. However, with such power, and the issues that would arise from it, I can only conclude that a third world war is a likely result.
I still think when the dust settles, humanity will have several scares on it's face but will be much better off in the long run.