Originally Posted by +lieforrenn

Err...yeah. Regeneration is very different from immortality. Bad example. :/

What I meant was, if we could regenerate forever, then we could become immortal.

The thing is, you can't regenerate forever. First of all, regeneration has it's limits. There wouldn't be enough cells to reproduce and replace. Also, it's a slow process. :/

Like I said, two different things. Hard to apply.

Originally Posted by +lieforrenn

The thing is, you can't regenerate forever. First of all, regeneration has it's limits. There wouldn't be enough cells to reproduce and replace. Also, it's a slow process. :/

Like I said, two different things. Hard to apply.

None of my teachers Ive spoken to knew the answer, theyre not exactly stupid.

Ive just been told regeneration is impossible because the cells wear out and these cells can not(easily?) be regenerated. Which by the way, is a theory that most likely is true.

I wouldnt have known this without putting lots of study into it like these people who dropped in the thread did, so I just decided philosophizing about it. I was curious to what others could come up with^-^

I guess the discussion's over now that the question's unexpectedly been answered hehe

hehe, yeah. There's probably another answer out there that nobody
s touched yet, so I don't think I'm 100% right.^ ^

-woosh- peeks in

Originally Posted by D-Yoop

Too simple? Well everything's simple. Untill you get into the details =D

Hahaha, absolutely! That my friend, is the beauty of philosophy.
I also have been exploring interesting ideas lately, and maybe coming up with a few actually new ones. I look forward to more threads from you. ^__^

Originally Posted by D-Yoop

Interesting. Could you explain how it is possible for people to get cancer at young age though? I mean little children.

Cancer occurs when you get mutations in your DNA that, basically, let the cell carry on dividing and force it to go through the cell cycle constantly. Normally, we get cancer in old age as it takes a while for the cells to aquire the series of mutations needed to give a sucessful cancer cell. Most childhood cancers are hereditary. There are a number of ways you can inherit cancers. One way is that you can lack one of the gene that repairs DNA damage so mutations build up much quicker. The other if you already have a mutation in one of the gene that needs to be mutated to give cancer. Say, gene A is a vital gene that needs to be mutated to give a cancer. Say normally people have two working copies of the gene, but some people only have one, it's going to be easier for those people to get cancer as only one copy needs to be removed by mutation. Or, in individuals who don't have any working copies of the gene, that will normally get cancer very early.

Originally Posted by Chexala

Hahaha, absolutely! That my friend, is the beauty of philosophy.
I also have been exploring interesting ideas lately, and maybe coming up with a few actually new ones. I look forward to more threads from you. ^__^

oh boy! Someone's looking forward to my threads! xD

Originally Posted by Yarrian

Cancer occurs when you get mutations in your DNA that, basically, let the cell carry on dividing and force it to go through the cell cycle constantly. Normally, we get cancer in old age as it takes a while for the cells to aquire the series of mutations needed to give a sucessful cancer cell. Most childhood cancers are hereditary. There are a number of ways you can inherit cancers. One way is that you can lack one of the gene that repairs DNA damage so mutations build up much quicker. The other if you already have a mutation in one of the gene that needs to be mutated to give cancer. Say, gene A is a vital gene that needs to be mutated to give a cancer. Say normally people have two working copies of the gene, but some people only have one, it's going to be easier for those people to get cancer as only one copy needs to be removed by mutation. Or, in individuals who don't have any working copies of the gene, that will normally get cancer very early.

hmmn ok. Interesting (:

What about the accelerated aging disease? Do you know more about that?

Originally Posted by D-Yoop

hmmn ok. Interesting (:

What about the accelerated aging disease? Do you know more about that?

Werners syndrome? It's caused by lack of an enzyme called Werners helicase. Without Werners helicase you get build up of something known as extrachromosomal rDNA circles (ERCs). These bind to a protein called Sir2 which, to put it simply, makes you live longer. It's hard to explain in a way that makes sense, this is third year degree level biochemistry we're talking about really. Basically, the less Sir2 you ahve, the shorter you life is, and in people who are really qickly their cells use up the Sir2 really quickly so there's not a lot of it left to slow down ageing.

Edit- I should clarift that just dumping Sir2 into a cell won't prevent it from aging indefinetley. The cell has many pathways to get rid of Sir2.

Originally Posted by Yarrian

Werners syndrome? It's caused by lack of an enzyme called Werners helicase. Without Werners helicase you get build up of something known as extrachromosomal rDNA circles (ERCs). These bind to a protein called Sir2 which, to put it simply, makes you live longer. It's hard to explain in a way that makes sense, this is third year degree level biochemistry we're talking about really. Basically, the less Sir2 you ahve, the shorter you life is, and in people who are really qickly their cells use up the Sir2 really quickly so there's not a lot of it left to slow down ageing.

Edit- I should clarift that just dumping Sir2 into a cell won't prevent it from aging indefinetley. The cell has many pathways to get rid of Sir2.

Hmmn makes sense^-^ But in that case is there no way to regenerate Sir2 proteins? Or use them in a way that makes us live longer?

Originally Posted by D-Yoop

Hmmn makes sense^-^ But in that case is there no way to regenerate Sir2 proteins? Or use them in a way that makes us live longer?

There might be but you're talking very complex genetic engineering, way way beyond our current capacity to even really conceptualise, never mind actually put into paractice, even in non-human models.

THe best way for you as an individual to make yourself live longer is to eat a colorie restricted diet, actually.

Yes, but eventually you'll have to die sooner or later. o-o; Just not as soon.

Originally Posted by +lieforrenn

Yes, but eventually you'll have to die sooner or later. o-o; Just not as soon.

Yes. One of the sad facts of life is that it will inevitably end. Best to just make the most of it while you can.

Originally Posted by Yarrian

There might be but you're talking very complex genetic engineering, way way beyond our current capacity to even really conceptualise, never mind actually put into paractice, even in non-human models.

THe best way for you as an individual to make yourself live longer is to eat a colorie restricted diet, actually.

My parents came home a few days ago. They were in an institute in Sweden. In this institute they serve veganistic dishes. My parents both had a special diet. "Completely disguisting" I heard. My mom's thrown up several times, when she got home after 2 weeks you could see she lost weight.

Why my parents did this? It's been proven their diets cure cancer. All food is cold, all food is fruits and vegetables. Research showed that warm food gives cancer cells the freedom to grow.

Originally Posted by D-Yoop

My parents came home a few days ago. They were in an institute in Sweden. In this institute they serve veganistic dishes. My parents both had a special diet. "Completely disguisting" I heard. My mom's thrown up several times, when she got home after 2 weeks you could see she lost weight.

Why my parents did this? It's been proven their diets cure cancer. All food is cold, all food is fruits and vegetables. Research showed that warm food gives cancer cells the freedom to grow.

I'd never heard that before but I'm be very interested to see the paper (or a website for the institute, I can trackback from there).

Originally Posted by Yarrian

I'd never heard that before but I'm be very interested to see the paper (or a website for the institute, I can trackback from there).

I've found it's site.
http://www.levandefoda.se/english/english.htm
Down at "A Healthy Lifestyle".
Actually I was thinking I would find the same article that had been sent to us. It was more research related.

Originally Posted by D-Yoop

I've found it's site.
http://www.levandefoda.se/english/english.htm
Down at "A Healthy Lifestyle".
Actually I was thinking I would find the same article that had been sent to us. It was more research related.

Ok, the problem now is I can't backtrac from there. They don't seem to have any scientific backing behind their claims at all and they only state that they've had 'some sucess' with cancer, I'd like to know how they define that.

personally i think a balanced diet of all the food groups is needed, not cutting back on any vitermins or minerals that are needed or any animal products. yea even a bit of exersise and leg stretching in the great outdoors wouldnt go a miss!

why? because i think our bodys are built for it and as a species i think the time we have survived is a good indication that it works, but thats just my opinion.... backed up with the fact that every one i know that has cut something out of their life is eather unfit, effected by illnesses more than every one else, or have down effects on their personallity.

i dont see how having cold meals is a good thing, after all it has been the best way we have used for oooh probably since fire was descovered for getting rid of bacteria in food.

and my proof that this works? i have none just common sence and personal opinion but its the same as what that site has!

there was a time when diets that mean your not alowed to eat things that you need didnt exist, i just pray that we return to being like that or its all going to blow up in our faces and we'll find out too late that its a bad idea to denie our bodies whats needed.

Originally Posted by Yarrian

Ok, the problem now is I can't backtrac from there. They don't seem to have any scientific backing behind their claims at all and they only state that they've had 'some sucess' with cancer, I'd like to know how they define that.

Tyeah, and I sadly can not go into that, because I wasnt able to find any more articles online.. D:

Originally Posted by juno rally

personally i think a balanced diet of all the food groups is needed, not cutting back on any vitermins or minerals that are needed or any animal products. yea even a bit of exersise and leg stretching in the great outdoors wouldnt go a miss!

why? because i think our bodys are built for it and as a species i think the time we have survived is a good indication that it works, but thats just my opinion.... backed up with the fact that every one i know that has cut something out of their life is eather unfit, effected by illnesses more than every one else, or have down effects on their personallity.

i dont see how having cold meals is a good thing, after all it has been the best way we have used for oooh probably since fire was descovered for getting rid of bacteria in food.

and my proof that this works? i have none just common sence and personal opinion but its the same as what that site has!

there was a time when diets that mean your not alowed to eat things that you need didnt exist, i just pray that we return to being like that or its all going to blow up in our faces and we'll find out too late that its a bad idea to denie our bodies whats needed.

Cold food seems like a good thing to me really. Afteral all we needed fire for in the past was meat. Which was in times of hunting, and we dont necessarily need to hunt anymore. Nowadays we use heating for the more complicated dishes, including simple things like bread. When we think of how it must have been long long ago, we didnt think of making bread. We took some vegetables, some fruits, you know..? I think that we might heat way too often nowadays.

The site is actually from an institute which has been built due to the shocking results of scientific food research, which I just cant seem to find any articles on-_-
I know the site gives nothing worth of proof though D:
I wonder why.

I see what you mean with "diets that mean your not alowed to eat things that you need", but honestly most of the things we eat arent needed, and there are many things that are bad for us when we take too much of it.

Sugars, salt, fats, proteins etc..

Oh, and due to cooking, veggies loose some of their nutritious vallue, which makes it more healthy to eat them raw, except if it's soup.

Suppose we did become immortal. Wouldn't it follow then that we'd either have to render ourselves sterile to avoid overpopulation, otherwise end up killing each other off anyway in competition for resources?

Well maybe not ALL of us need be sterile. Maybe just like one tenth of the population should remain fertile, just in case some mondo biblical death plague swept over the population and we had to get our numbers back up.

But do the few fertile women really want to be saddled with the responsibility of repopulating the Earth? No, that's not fair... hmmm...

We'd just have to ban sex. Now tell me, is eternal life worth it if you never get to get laid?

Alright maybe I'm being a little fatuous :P

I suppose immortality would be nice to have, but it'd be difficult to deal with. There are alot of elements of human behavior that would have to change; for instance, long term perspective. Which means that people who drive gas guzzling vehicles will actually live through the time period when our climate goes to shit, and the continents are all covered in ocean, like Waterworld. And then everyone else will be going "told you so" for the rest of their eternal existence. They'd probably end up lynching themselves. If they didn't drown first.

And you know many couples are going to have issues with the idea that they can't have a baby. That's one of the traditional joys of marriage is being able to raise your own kids. If we kept on doing that, the world would begin to seem like a very small place. Eventually we'd either have to kill each other off, or migrate into space and form new colonies in order to have enough resources to survive.

Also, what happens after you live 100 years or so? Things might start getting a bit boring. At some point all nuance would probably fade away, and any excitement you ever derived from being alive would go with it. Maybe it would then be ideal if you could choose whether or not you wanted to die and when.

But hey, if we can alter our perspective to fit the immortal lifestyle, I'm for it.

Hm, I would only want to be immortal if those who I love get to come along for the ride, so to speak. Also, I would probably hope for a slowed aging physically or a halting point in physical appearance. xD Picky me. :3

If the entire species was immortal... Hm.
Would we be immortal only as long as we continued to
supply the body with food? Would be still get injuries?
Immortality can seem like a utopia-- by definition, a utopia is an idealistic community whose nature cannot ever truly exist.

Remarking on the vegan diet, their claims are completely false. If anyone bothered learning about cancer cells, they would know that cancerous cells are missing the gene that causes cells to fully mature and stop going through the cell cycle(which involves mitosis, duplication of cells). Therefore, cancer cells continue to multiply until they are killed, which is why chemotherapy is used despite its risks.

Um, I don't know a lot about trees, but I'm pretty sure they eventually petrify? Or is that only the dead ones? Anyway, I don't think there's any known case of an immortal tree. There are diseases for plants, just like people, right? Well, not exactly that way, but they can have insect infestations, fungus... Other trees can block their light and there will be droughts... I guess climate has a lot to do with tree death, huh? And deforestation... X_X

I don't know about immortality. Not aging would be cool, but I wouldn't want to imagine what people would look and feel like if it was typical to live for centuries.

There is no such thing as dying of old age. The problem is that, just like trees, humans become more susceptible to problems when we age. Trees grow too large, or their weight becomes unbalanced and they fall, or they can't transport water through their whole system, or they can't create enough nutrients, or they get diseases. Humans have all the same problems. As we age, we have more trouble supporting ourselves, our veins get clots, we have trouble digesting, and we get diseases easier. As we improve our medical techniques and learn how to eat healthy diets and exercise, our life expectancy increases. As we munch on fast food, our life expectancy decreases. The same is true with trees. If they get good nutrients, they are healthy and live longer. When a human who is over 100 years old dies, we say they died of old age, but no one actually dies of old age. They die of complications. Just like trees.

Originally Posted by D-Yoop

Trees age, so do we. But as far as I know vegetation does not actually die.. Why do we? Why do some people die naturally on early age? Why do some age over 100 years? Is there a reason for this?

I think it pertains to health. Health varies from person to person and some people are much healthier than others. So I think it's all about health matters. Like eating good food, having good medical services and the likes.

According to statistics, Japan has the highest life expectancy for they eat natural, raw food and have a general healthy lifestyle (escape to the mountains, drinking tea, constant, exercise).

But this is not the case for all. The person who lived the longest life is a Russian woman who even smoke and gamble to keep her mind sharp. Now this is surprising for Russians have a lowering life expectancy through the years.

But aside from health matters, people can still die of accidents. So dying is not really in the control of anyone.

Do you think there is a reason for our aging, and do you think that if we find out what it is, we could become immortal?

Maybe. But we are made of organic matter. We decay no matter how much we try to preserve ourselves. We have already conquered the used-to-be high mortality in our hunting-gathering days. We have managed to prolong our lives from 20 years old to 80 years. Immortality might be too high of a goal for if we do have turn to be immortal then we'll all die of unnatural deaths due to intense competition for resources in our highly populated minute planet.

What if we miss something in our live that causes us to grow weak and die? A nutrient maybe? Or maybe there are specific nutrients that make us weak. Trees breath different gasses than humans. Does the air cause aging?

Oxygen is vital in human processes. It does not only help in our respiratory system but also in our blood. The presence of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is the primary reason why the first life forms blossomed.

Again, it is not in the air. We are biodegradable as the food we eat are.

Do you think it has to do with our circulatory system? Trees dont have a heart. I personally think it is our blood that becomes unhealthy and becomes unable to vitalise our body. What do you think?

Trees and humans are both living things but they live differently so they have different needs. The needs of trees can be easily fed by the environment but they can easily die because of human beings who frequently cut them for sources of wood, paper and food.

I think comparing them is somewhat illogical. Blood doesn't become unhealthy. We do. Because of our environment and the natural deterioration of our body.

I don't think people see the big picture. Everything must die.

The whole goal of life is to pass on genes and create superior ones through evolution.

Without death there can be no way for the newer and better mutations to rise. The population would be stagnant.

If we preserved our lives and sterilized ourselves to guard against overpopulation, we would still have to die because viruses and diseases mutate all the time. We are constantly fighting this battle and the only thing keeping them at bay at the moment is newer drugs. But we cannot always produce more powerful drugs. Disease would overtake our species and we would die out.