What does it mean to grow old and die from aging?

[thesapien]

I was going to do a poll but then decided it would be better to just get people's open thoughts on the subject.

 

Why do you think we age?

 

In answering, feel free to talk about just humans or any and all organisms.

 

A second question, too: Do you think it would possible for someone to live hundreds of years, or longer (like maybe until something else killed them, like a plane crash)?

[gregathit]

1. Everything wears out so I don't know why humans should be any different.

 

2. I think as our technology and our understanding of biology grows then we will indeed live longer. Just look at the "average" lifespan increase from say the 1400 or 1500's to now. This is mainly due to medical science knocking out illnesses that tended to kill off large chunks of the populace (like the black death).

 

Sorry I can't be more philosophical right now....I am off to forage for lunch....must be a rabbit or deer around here somewhere.....

 

Interesting article on average life expectancy: http://www.news-medical.net/health/Life-Expectancy-What-is-Life-Expectancy.aspx

[deathparade]

As gregathit said everything wears out!

 

and for that second one some people already live over the 100 so but it's because we have more tech in our reach we know more about whats dangerous for the lifespan and are cleaning food from bacteria much more effectively like about 900 years ago where some only lives maybe until 50

[GSBmodders]

I was going to do a poll but then decided it would be better to just get people's open thoughts on the subject.

 

Why do you think we age?

 

In answering' date=' feel free to talk about just humans or any and all organisms.

 

A second question, too: Do you think it would possible for someone to live hundreds of years, or longer (like maybe until something else killed them, like a plane crash)?

[/quote']

 

I do not know if it has ever been proving scientifically but I do believe that a persons life experiences greatly effect there life span , I am not simply talking about grief but a persons trials and tribulations. Unlike the grief of having lost a wife of 50+ years I have noticed that second world war vets seemed to live for a fairly long time. My own grand father who was a vet himself survived a countless number of heart attacks and strokes until cancer finally won out and it took a hell of a long time for that to happen. I think those that have softer lives are more susceptible to these things where a vet or someone who has simply led a harder life is more likely to survive

 

as for longevity I think if not for our dependence on electronics and other man made tools and influences our bodies may have evolved further and our immune systems would be much more resilient

[windpl]

Sad to say but death is imprinted in DNA. Almost like kill switch, without it humans could live much more (in hundreds or even eradicating death from old age with help of cell transplantation/growing). Proof for that are rogue cells (cancer).

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Because nature thought it could kill us off, but now we're just outbreeding it at this point.

 

Until the universe throws a meteor at us.

[thesapien]

Hmmm, the wear and tear was something I didn't question for a long time. It no longer makes sense to me. Inanimate things wear out or erode. Things that we consider alive contradict this rule up until, well, they start dying and becoming inanimate, however, even then parts of them do continue on and grow some more in the form of offspring. Each one of us is proof that there are life processes that can continue for several billion years without wearing out and instead keep growing. Consider, too, that even skin that looks "worn out" and wrinkly isn't that old. The skin on your body fully replaces itself many times over and over again because individual skin cells don't live very long. So why does a human not look worn out while they are maturing, then starts down hill after a certain amount of time?

 

windpl, yes, many biologist and similar scientists have puzzled over this question and ruled out the usual wear and tear view and replaced it with the theory that we are programmed to basically suicide ourselves as thought to be coded in our DNA. However, they are looking at how damaged cells do this. A damaged cell that does not kill itself can turn into harmful cancer cells. But they aren't looking at healthy cells. So it's an after the fact argument. Why should a perfectly healthy cell kill itself? They don't. Something must go wrong first.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Cell replication is not a perfect process, and over time our DNA degrades, making cells far less efficient and hardy than they were when, say, you were five. There's also natural factors like radiation and free radicals that can damage DNA, which can lead to things like cancer along with wear.

 

There are also cells that DON'T get replaced at all, and when they start to fail it snowballs quickly toward death.

[windpl]

Hmmm' date=' the wear and tear was something I didn't question for a long time. It no longer makes sense to me. Inanimate things wear out or erode. Things that we consider alive contradict this rule up until, well, they start dying and becoming inanimate, however, even then parts of them do continue on and grow some more in the form of offspring. Each one of us is proof that there are life processes that can continue for several billion years without wearing out and instead keep growing. Consider, too, that even skin that looks "worn out" and wrinkly isn't that old. The skin on your body fully replaces itself many times over and over again because individual skin cells don't live very long. So why does a human not look worn out while they are maturing, then starts down hill after a certain amount of time?

 

windpl, yes, many biologist and similar scientists have puzzled over this question and ruled out the usual wear and tear view and replaced it with the theory that we are programmed to basically suicide ourselves as thought to be coded in our DNA. However, they are looking at how damaged cells do this. A damaged cell that does not kill itself can turn into harmful cancer cells. But they aren't looking at healthy cells. So it's an after the fact argument. Why should a perfectly healthy cell kill itself? They don't. Something must go wrong first.

[/quote']

 

Cancer cells are harmful exactly because they are multiplying all the time. Excluding that they are perfectly normal cells. So if there were a way to control it grow, they could be used to prolong life.

 

Cell replication is not a perfect process' date=' and over time our DNA degrades, making cells far less efficient and hardy than they were when, say, you were five. There's also natural factors like radiation and free radicals that can damage DNA, which can lead to things like cancer along with wear.

 

There are also cells that DON'T get replaced at all, and when they start to fail it snowballs quickly toward death.

[/quote']

 

Even now DNA can be injected so degradation is not a problem.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

My explanation: god is a dick, wants to lol @ you as you slowly shut down.

[thesapien]

Cell replication is not a perfect process' date=' and over time our DNA degrades, making cells far less efficient and hardy than they were when, say, you were five. There's also natural factors like radiation and free radicals that can damage DNA, which can lead to things like cancer along with wear.

[/quote']

Even now DNA can be injected so degradation is not a problem.

 

We also have the example of turtles which have recently been discovered to not age like us. Their cells and organs can remain as healthy as if they were young. LOL, for these turtles, they basically live until something drastic kills them! Why would their DNA not be degrading? And they aren't the only animals found to be able to overcome aging, just one of the first.

 

About DNA degradation, again, things aren't that simple, which is one reason why there is no scientific consensus that this is the process behind aging. Aside from the example of turtles contradicting that theory, consider, too, DNA degradation is not a problem for species, so why should it be a problem for members of a species? The human genome does not degrade over time. When we mate, we do so after maturing and after many years of exposure to things that would theoretically degrade our DNA, yet this is the DNA used to produce offspring. Then that offspring goes on and does the same.

 

A few years ago, someone thought it would be interesting to check for lifeforms in the cooling water for nuclear reactors, and they found it! Bacteria were thriving off of the radiation and reproducing fine. The theory is that the bacteria developed a way to repair their genetic code faster than it was damaged from the excessive heat, the suspect mechanism being along the lines of "DNA injection" mention by windpl.

 

Oh, and more about injecting DNA, do you know how we do it in the lab? We use viruses. The reason is because this is exactly what viruses do all of the time on their own. But there is something else very interesting about viruses. They seem to be common, essential, and perhaps not distinct lifeforms that are separate from the lifeforms they inhabit. This is all very new research because many viruses are so tiny, smaller than the wavelength of light, and thus very hard to study and mostly impossible to "see". But there is evidence to suggest that we are all swarming with these things we call viruses, strings of floating genetic code without cellular structure, which may be thought of as another system that operates in the body and between bodies.

 

In biology, like physics, there is a field called dark matter that is being researched because, as it turns out, MOST of the genetic information found in us and others animals is a mystery. The human genome has what used to be called "junk DNA" that is no longer thought to be junk after all but attributed to viruses or something like them. Also, if you take a sample of say your saliva, most of the genetic code found there isn't even found in what we think of as the human genome at all, not even in the "junk" part, nor does it match any known lifeform, so it's a complete mystery and unknown, yet makes up maybe most of what is "living"/active in your mouth, thus called dark biological matter. What are all of these viruses and dark matter doing? What are they up to? Are they even "they" and not "us"?

 

Oh, but I digress, or do I? I certainly haven't offered my own theories yet. Right now, I'm just trying to get us thinking about how little we actually know about something so common. I strongly encourage anyone interested to not take my word on any of this research and do your own studying on the topic. The closer you look, the deeper the mystery.

 

There are also cells that DON'T get replaced at all' date=' and when they start to fail it snowballs quickly toward death.

[/quote']

This is good stuff, too. But, I like to say "but".

 

One, it sidestepped my example of aging skin, which is made of cells known to turn-over.

 

Two, I remember a time when it was taught that no neurons could turn-over (reproduce), that was until they were seen doing it, too. So, as always, the textbooks had to be rewritten. There are other species which actually have been seen to regenerate an entire limb after an amputation. This may seem like a crazy question, and I'm not volunteering for it, but has anyone ever really tried to grow back a limb? I guess what I mean by this is that saying we age because some part of us ages (plug culprit cell here) then causes the rest of us to age, is to me like moving the lump in the carpet unless there is further elaboration. Why do the culprit cells fail? Why do we fail to fix the problem?

 

 

In one sense, I'm playing a tricky game of questions. I would even say there is truth to the crude answer that we just wear down because, yes, we do. But in another sense, I'm challenging these answers as meaning aging is necessarily inevitable without exception. To me, that's like looking at everyone failing around you and then presuming you, too, will fail, giving up before even trying. Plus, nature does sometimes use the shotgun method where only one in a billion will sometimes succeed. If sperm were so pessimistic, the one in a billion would never graduate, and none of us would be here.

[Triratna]

Getting old isn't bad when you enjoyed everyday life, I don't mind grew old and dying of an old age.

 

Human can have both "irresponsible Life & Death and Responsible life & Death". Fairly shared to everyone with their own unique conditions. Maturity is the key to life, Someone can mature early at child or never reaches mature at old age.

 

Religions? It's everyone own conscious to choose on.

 

Lastly know yourself, Do not trust strangers, Don't involve in a bad company, stop bad habits, do not hate good advices and don't involve with other person problem. Respect and Love yourself - Don't over analyze everything.

 

Life is Hard. It's a burden to share or for the strongest to handle.

Death is Soft. It's a peaceful rest.

 

There is nothing worse then an inadequate of life and irresponsible death.

[thesapien]

Getting old isn't bad when you enjoyed everyday life' date=' I don't mind grew old and dying of an old age.

 

Life is Hardcore.

Death is Softcore.

[/quote']

 

Mind if I turn that into another offered theory to ponder?

 

It's kind of like getting tired of playing the same game with the same character. "Wherever you go, there you are," said Buckaroo Banzai.

 

Just look at the eyes of someone young and curious and excited, nearly popping out of their sockets. Then look at an elderly person with sunken eyes and weak eye muscles, wrinkles around them, and worsening vision. Is it really a mystery?

[Triratna]

Man, you know better than me.

[Guest GingerTom]

Thesapien said what I believe in: People die ('naturally') when they get tired of it all. Stupid asses!

 

I am constantly searching for knowledge, laughing at and with life, smiling in the face of sourpusses.

 

About 10 years back my cousin was diagnosed with clinical depression, I told him to smile and he'd feel better. He told me I didn't know what I was talking about. About two years ago they did a study: If depressed people simply smile it sends signals to the brain and they feel better. I'm a 'smiling fool'!

 

Laugh, joke, smile--and live longer. Here's another one: In testing twins, a woman of about 108 years put her long life down to enjoying everything. She said her twin sister was always complaining, never laughed, never smiled. Her twin sister died at aprox. 70 years of age of natural causes. Most twins die at the same time of natural causes.

 

Here: How to live beyond 100. (Hope I didn't get all the facts wrong. Forgot the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18613263

 

Not hard to figure out. Smile. Even my wolf avatar is smiling--what more do you people want.

[thesapien]

Tom, yes, good stuff from that article and about smiling.

 

It reminds me of one of the meanings of my username, thespian, because I like to use acting techniques for acting as "being" or becoming the way I want to be with a conscious, deliberate effort, not just with facial control but with my whole body.

 

Did you also watch the second vid from my post/thread:

http://www.loverslab.com/showthread.php?tid=9752

 

BUT, I think the above techniques will only get you so far. Just looking at the lady over 100 in your article, she looks old! That is NOT part of my plan. My goal is to always be working toward better health or fitness or my prime or whatever it is I then deem to be my goal as my understanding of such things improves. This is why I've admitted before that I really am crazy/insane as others would see me in my beliefs about aging. It's also why I have no gurus because I look at other people's gurus and none of them have achieved what I am coming to believe is possible for me. Well, there might actually be people out there who I just don't know could be guru's for me, who are hundreds of years old, walking among us, pretending to be 30. Anyone know of any?

[Guest GingerTom]

@thesapian

 

"who are hundreds of years old, walking among us, pretending to be 30. Anyone know of any?"

 

That's the beauty of the anonymity of the internet--you don't really think we--I mean 'they' are going to tell you that do you?

 

Now I'll look at that video...

[nonusnomeni]

well, my grandpa was die 20 days before 100

smoke 30-40 cigarets every day from 11y

drinking 1-1,5l homemade grape every day

eating 0,5-1kg dried&smoked meat every day

he didn't buried with only 4 of his teeth

he's buried with long dense hair

and he's never feel a smog cuz he's withdrawn from "civilization" 1945

so dear doctors,dear "vegetables", dear nutritionist's finger to ya all

[Guest GingerTom]

well' date=' my grandpa was die 20 days before 100

smoke 30-40 cigarets every day from 11y

drinking 1-1,5l homemade grape every day

eating 0,5-1kg dried&smoked meat every day

he didn't buried with only 4 of his teeth

he's buried with long dense hair

and he's never feel a smog cuz he's withdrawn from "civilization" 1945

so dear doctors,dear "vegetables", dear nutritionist's finger to ya all

[/quote']

 

But if he'd eaten correctly he probably would have lived 20 more days to see 100 years.

[thesapien]

But maybe he was eating correctly for how he'd trained himself.

 

Are humans one of the few mammals who can't produce vitamin C because they have been trained to outsource its production and eat it, or is it the other way around, or is the question worded as a paradox by thesapien to get himself thinking?

[TheGreyOne]

2. I think as our technology and our understanding of biology grows then we will indeed live longer.[...]

 

This opens up a whole other question, if we really should aim for that. As it is right now we are indeed quite successful in prolonging body health, however our mental health isn't prolonged at the same rate and as a result many humans live far longer than in the past but quite a few only 'exist' from some point onward because dementia and the like exact their toll.

[thesapien]

2. I think as our technology and our understanding of biology grows then we will indeed live longer.[...]

 

This opens up a whole other question' date=' if we really should aim for that. As it is right now we are indeed quite successful in prolonging body health, however our mental health isn't prolonged at the same rate and as a result many humans live far longer than in the past but quite a few only 'exist' from some point onward because dementia and the like exact their toll.

[/quote']

 

I agree and disagree.

 

It looks to me like medical advances have not succeeded much at all in prolonging health or fitness in any measurable way. Life expectancy is only higher in regions of the world where violent deaths are lower or food is more accessible or similar such things. Modern medicine does not make people healthier. At it's best, it is like putting a patch on a tire puncture (a lot of fat tires, too!). Consider the statistics that show the correlation between a person's numbers of years left to live and their amount of time spent in a hospital. Years left drastically decreases as doctor visits goes up. Sure, you might say those people would had died sooner, but that's missing my point. A patched tire isn't a better tire. People who live the longest are those who don't require any medical attention until much later in life. The longer they can go without having medical advances used on them, the longer they tend to live.

 

The other reason I question it is because I am not a dualist. I do not believe in a mind and a body. Religious people aren't the only dualist. Atheists all tend to be dualist also because they divide things into mind and body and the distinction leads them to doublespeak. Indeed, dualism is so ingrained in our speech, no matter your claimed beliefs, that it is difficult for me to even explain what I mean. When I say that aging of the mind is not disconnected from aging of the body, I'm already presuming that mind and body are distinct (which I don't because I don't ascribe to either!) Worse, just saying mind already evokes a contrast to a body and vice-versa, so saying I'm not a dualist always raises the false assumption that I must then believe everything is either mind or it's all body. But one must already have a dualistic frame in order to pick one. I'm suggesting the framing is all wrong, a false dichotomy, and a trap.

 

All that said, I don't mean to discount what Greg originally put forth. Well, not entirely. Instead, I'd like to try clarifying what it should entail. Consider the difference between hardware and software. What is the difference? They are both "physical" things. What we call hardware tends to be parts that can't easily be changed. "Surgery" is required. Software is the stuff that can be physically changed without opening the box. Cool analogy with animals? Well, maybe not, because it breaks down once you have computers that are made of nanobots which build themselves, writing their own software and making their own hardware with hardware and software no longer having the surgical distinction. Let's say we still try to make the distinction anyway, since we really have to in order to speak English and talk about improving longevity via medical advances. My point is that improving the hardware, so to speak, won't work without those improvements also acting to improve software. If the mind is still failing... well, so is the body, and vice-versa.

[thesapien]

[video=youtube]

 

For decades, researcher Mina Bissell pursued a revolutionary idea -- that a cancer cell doesn't automatically become a tumor, but rather, depends on surrounding cells (its microenvironment) for cues on how to develop. She shares the two key experiments that proved the prevailing wisdom about cancer growth was wrong.

 

Oh, and if anyone wants to discuss the theory of aging involving telomeres, I have ready some (counter) questions involving telomerases.

[windpl]

2. I think as our technology and our understanding of biology grows then we will indeed live longer.[...]

 

This opens up a whole other question' date=' if we really should aim for that. As it is right now we are indeed quite successful in prolonging body health, however our mental health isn't prolonged at the same rate and as a result many humans live far longer than in the past but quite a few only 'exist' from some point onward because dementia and the like exact their toll.

[/quote']

 

 

I thought that mental capabilities degradation (when ageing) are caused by brain getting old - broken synapses connections.