Until we learn to properly program our genes.
@ThePandaPool , and here is some thought. If we program our own genes, would it still be natural, considering it is a direct result of our evolved intelligence?
@ThePandaPool , I think it depends on how we modify them. If we artificially modify them in a machine like CRISPR then no, if we find some way to force our body's to naturally evolve at an accelerated rate then maybe?
@random09, is there really a difference between using a tool we made and selective breeding? It is all imposed on ourselves by ourselves.
@ThePandaPool , in my mind natural means it is done using systems that naturally already exist in our body. So for example if we could take someone who is already in their 30s or so and give them something that makes their body naturally evolve then it would be natural. But to remove some dna, modify it in an external system and then re insert it into the body and hope that it will work is more of an artificial evolution, in my mind. I agree our natural evolution has allowed us to develop technology that can accelerate our evolution, which is amazing, but still done outside the body in an artificial machine.
@ThePandaPool , Gattaca, baby, it’s coming
@random09, There was an experiment done on rats a while back that increased their lifespan by waiting until they were basically in old age before letting them mate.
As for artificial manipulation, we literally have sections in our DNA that program apoptosis (cell death) to stop things like cancer. However, every time your cells duplicate, their DNA shortens, until the buffer region is gone and you lose crucial segments, resulting in things like cancer. If we can use gene editing to remove the stop function written for DNA polymerase (which we stop producing like 6 months or years after birth, I forget) we can keep extending our DNA strands by use of DNA code already present in our body, which I'd count as natural evolution, as we aren't adding to the mix, we're just removing the segments of DNA that are programmed to stop maintaining and fixing ourselves, that eventually causes us to die.
@A Flying Panda, that would be a pretty cool idea, I wonder what side effects it would have (if any). I also wonder if it can be done to someone who is older and what the age limit would be for this technology
@random09, Exactly. As with anything new, I wouldn't want to be the first but I'd definitely want to see it be tried. The problem also arises from what you described: Would it effect people who are already aged or does it need to be done inside a zygote (fertilized cell) from the very beginning? All types of ethical & moral hoops to get through but in theory would be easier to manipulate one cell rather than for an entire grown person; which would require you to reengineer a retrovirus like HIV or Herpes, remove its genetic material, and then add in a segment or means of operation that'll produce an enzyme to cut out that stop function in our bodies so it'll propagate more DNA polymerase, which falls more along artificial means than natural, but would be more ethical & viable than say, a 'natural' human version of the rat experiment; where multiple upon multiple generations are prevented from any sexual conduct until they're 50-60, allowed to have children, & those kids doing the same.
@A Flying Panda, There was an article about a 20 something year old woman that needed a liver transplant but the only one available was from an old lady in her 90s. They did the procedure and she is still alive and even had a child after the procedure. Maybe replacing organs that deteriorate can help extend life but then again it's not "natural" or a form of evolution. Just a way to keep things running a bit longer.
@ThePandaPool , I think there’s way to much emphasis put on the ill defined word “natural”. Is an ant hill natural? Is a sky scraper natural? Many would say yes to an ants home but no to humans. It’s fuzzy and I think the wrong leg to put our weight on.
Regarding the rat study a version was also done with flies and they were able to triple the life span from 24 to 72 hours. A comment was made that humans are currently running the same study as we have a larger number of women unwilling to start a family until their careers are better situated. Thereby, they wait until 30’s rather than the 14-25 that was present in our history.
Also, I’m intrigued by our genetic options but extremely wary. Our most successful genetic selection program (the dog) has thousands of years of data and process and our greatest successes include dogs who have trouble breathing (breathing is important) and brilliant dogs who have hip trouble. I trust the process, I just don’t trust the people using it.
@Canis Arktos, the first part of your comment is basically the point I was trying to bring up. Thank you.
@A Flying Panda, a big issue with people reproducing at such an old age is that human eggs deteriorate, and the quality greatly decreases as they get closer to 40. The problems that would arise would outweigh the possible lifespan increase.
@ThePandaPool , seems to be long term telomere degradation which reduces cellular reproduction lifetime. Might be a genetic solution but likely a inhibitor that would bond to the ends could create longer life. Not necessarily true though just a theory I read about.
@ThePandaPool , by that logic, everything is natural
@ThePandaPool , the problem with that comes with the fact that cells can only divide so much only so much junk amino acids to fix errors and bones and cartilage can only last so long and cartilage doesn’t regrow after it’s been worn away so you may live a little longer but odds are you’ll be debilitating pain age cannot be genetically modified away just staved off a little
@ThePandaPool , are we natural? If so, then doesn't that make ANYTHING we do natural?
115 still seems too far away
“Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology”
But he 115... oh
30 years isn’t exactly a long enough time to see a significant increase in life expectancy overall. There have been a lot of groundbreaking advances from 1900-2000 from hygiene to understanding diseases and the human body which contributed to the increased life expectancy we’ve seen. Obviously this isn’t going to continue increasing at that rate and will have times where the line barely moves.
"Man's days will be 120 years" - God. So we can squeeze out another 5
Interesting. The Bible says humans won't live past 120.
Genesis 6:3 there's a cap on it
Ok but with things like CRISPR-CAS9 and other gene manipulating techniques, it could be 100% feasible and possible to make humans biologically immortal. As we learn more and more about how animals like Starfish, Naked Mole Rats and others are able to fight off diseases, cancers and injuries we could get to the point were our life spans could reach the 200's+ Stem Cell research could also make things like alzheimers and dementia a thing of the past allowing people to live and prosper up to the 200's. So.... No this post is outdated.
As for everyone spouting Genesis 6:3? Just... why? Not only is this post outdated but that verse is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The bible has absolutely 0 relevancy in modern medicine and modern scientific discovery.
Came here to post about Genesis 6:3, but literally every comment beat me to it
Eh everything would hurt all the time at that age
Technology in 20 years: "Cute"
Theres documented proof of people living to 200+ in various parts of the worls
@eksat, Citation needed
I recon in the future there will be age slowing drugs.
If we can't increase the lifespan we should focus on increasing healthspan. Make 60 the new 30
30 years is nothing
I’m gonna need y’all to bring that number down… 😅
40, take it or leave it.