Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 241193" data-attributes="member: 4720">Some random biology:It's quite a bit more complicated than "death as way to prevent cancer."  It's more like one of the various anti-cancer mechanisms uses apoptosis (programmed cell death).  Stopping that apoptosis would certainly result in more cancer.  It's not clear whether stopping the cancer AND the apoptosis would result in longer life.  Probably not.  Alot of those mechanisms are necessary for proper growth, development, and coordination of a multicellular organism.  If the right cells aren't doing the right things, in the right places, our bodies don't work.  Most of the limits on cell lines in the body are used to keep everything running in the same direction.  Remove those mechanisms, and I think we'd pretty much self-destruct.Gwarthkam had a point in that longevity has nothing to do with our genetic programming.  Reproductive viability is key.  When you no longer contribute to the reproduction of your genes, it's in their best interests to arrange "exit- stage right" for you so you're not a drain on the resources of your offspring.  We could have a 500 page debate on altruism and whether it applies to this situation, but I'm supposed to be working, so I'll drop it.  Whoever brought up free radicals... that stuff was mostly debunked years ago.  Free radicals are much LESS important than people think.As for nanotech, there are a LOT of problems with mortality that would be hard to address.  You may be able to keep the heart, lungs, muscles, viscera, etc. operating indefinitely, but the brain is another matter entirely.  Assuming we can figure out how to reprodice them and keep them alive, how much can those cells be manipulated without changing the fundamental nature of the person?  We don't know.  (I'm a neurobiologist, trust me on that part)Nanotech and stem cells will probably give us extended life in the relatively near future (our kids or grandkids, at best), but you eventually hit the brain ceiling.  I don't think that back-ups of a person's mind will ever be possible.  Even if you ignore the spiritual ramifications, there's a theory that a given system can only understand systems less complicated than itself.  Therefore, we will never truly understand the workings of our own brains.  Therefore we will not be able to replicate them.  Incidentally, following this theory we will also never be able to make computers as complex as our brains.Bottom line: If you want to be immortal, you better write a great book (or other artistic endeavor) or win a Nobel Prize.  Those are pretty much the only options that leave you looking pretty good.  (as opposed to the Hitler-Stalin-O.J.-Jack-the-Ripper-Jerry Springer-Osama-Reality-TV method that seems to be gaining in popularity these days)</blockquote>

Verification