Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 12:56:15 UTC No. 16460851

>>16460846
we think it's a combination of accumulated oxidative damage to DNA as well as telomere shortening

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 15:06:52 UTC No. 16460977

>>16460846
Its basically a genetic program being executd. There is no reason to save resources for you, you should invest absolutely everything in the next generation and then die.
Remember the famous mice-sewn-together experiment which fooled the old mouses cells into thinking they were younger, and thus heal the same as a young mouse would.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 15:37:36 UTC No. 16461007

>>16460977
Oh so it's ''hard coded'' pretty much? There is nothing you can do to slow it down significantly?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 16:18:04 UTC No. 16461070

It's so that your kids don't have to compete with you for mates.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:20:25 UTC No. 16461121

>>16460846
Death is evolution and adaptation

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:32:47 UTC No. 16461136

>>16460846
No. It's literally the shortening of telomeres. This has been seriously downplayed because it's the solution to aging, it's simple and the glowniggers that be don't want people to know about it.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:13:59 UTC No. 16461871

>>16461007
Significantly? No, nothing as of yet that's proven to work. If you want to lifespanmaxx then start eating more than you daily value of fiber, focus on foods that reduce oxidative stress, and do low intensity and low impact cardio regularly. Most importantly, build a social base so that you aren't a lonely sack of shit by the time you are 70, otherwise loneliness will kill you.
Finally, devote resources or at least vote against the cucks that make genetic research difficult in western countries, the key to biological immortality is figuring out how to implant the genes that make certain animals, like lobsters, basically ageless.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:54:13 UTC No. 16461891

>>16460846
Hardcoded death. Nature doesn't want people to know its secrets.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:05:37 UTC No. 16461894

Is this supposed to be the science board or the retarded schizo board? (disclaimer for retarded schizos: this question is rhetorical, btw)

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 21:09:22 UTC No. 16464079

>>16461136
>shortening of telomeres
So how do you fix that without being overrun by cancer?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 05:19:07 UTC No. 16465743

>>16464079
Just use CRISPR to add junk DNA to the end of the teleomers, our body tries to do so naturally anyway so why not.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 05:24:34 UTC No. 16465746

>>16461871
Around half of the stuff Bryan Johnson takes may have some plausible positive effect.

Just don't take a fuckton of antioxidant vitamins, supplementing the plant kinds are much safer and better for athletic performance.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:01:21 UTC No. 16466040

>>16460846
death is an advantage of evolution. If we didn't die, then genes would stagnate and nothing would change. We breed, spreading mutation, and then die. In evolution, change is everything. It means the next generation will be better adapted to surviving their environment. if we never died then the same genes would be spread over and over again and nothing would change. Nothing would evolve. Death is needed for NATURAL evolution.

However, we are now at the point where natural evolution is no longer a thing. We can defeat natural barriers with technology, so advantageous mutations are less likely to make any effect. We will now evolve through technology, becoming stronger, healthier, smarter, and living longer. We can now force evolution.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:07:08 UTC No. 16466424

>>16466040
obviously, the next step in evolution is unnatural selection where organisms start selecting their own traits during their lifetime.

>we're already doing it, at least some of us.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 09:05:38 UTC No. 16466953

We age so we can die. Imagine if mice lived for 80 years, imagine 200 generations living together, competing for resources.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 09:10:24 UTC No. 16466957

>>16466040
>natural evolution is no longer a thing
wat
>advantageous mutations are less likely to make any effect
since there's a very stark difference in fertility between people based on their traits you're clearly wrong
>We will now evolve through technology, becoming stronger, healthier, smarter, and living longer. We can now force evolution.
That's not evolution, you're describing how our genetic load is getting worse because we can better survive having fucked up DNA.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:29:40 UTC No. 16467115

>>16466040
>if we never died then
if we never died then it seems we're already perfectly adapted to survive the environment

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:42:13 UTC No. 16467124

>>16461007
>There is nothing you can do to slow it down significantly?
As far as I can tell, DNA doesn't have any write protection mechanisms like digital computers do. So "hardcoded" is not possible, just genetically engineer yourself to repair the damaged telomeres.
Easier said than done, but there's nothing preventing us from doing it, other than the fact that we just don't know exactly how yet.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:47:54 UTC No. 16467131

>>16461136
>it's simple and the glowniggers that be don't want people to know about it
How simple is it, actually? Theoretically, could a random person with enough knowledge produce the required "drug" themselves?
Also, I remember reading something about telomere lengthening being a cancer spawner, sounds like we need to find the cure for cancer before that becomes a true solution to aging. If it worked well with our current technology, I imagine a bunch of geriatric politicians would be getting it already to stay permanently young.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:58:21 UTC No. 16467151

>>16461121
>>16461891
>>16466040
>>16466953
>death
It's a literal disease, the worst one, and the universal number one cause of... well, non-existence. It's utterly stupid, and before any of you say it's "unnatural" to not age, consider the fact that biologically immortal jellyfish exist (Turritopsis dohrnii).

There's no reason why we couldn't have the same biological immortality, maybe that will fix some of our social and technological issues.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:05:41 UTC No. 16467161

>>16467151
>maybe removing the only equalizing factor between humans will make social issues better

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:11:29 UTC No. 16467165

>>16460846
We age so we know we die someday. Embrace God, accept Jesus. Abandon your vanity that youre some uniqually intelligent person.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:14:46 UTC No. 16467167

>>16467165
Go back to /his/

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:35:16 UTC No. 16467178

>>16467161
>and technological issues (you forgot to mention about this one)
Unironically yes, 80 years is too short to do anything meaningful these days, socially and technologically.
Our scientific advancement could soon slow down significantly, because one person can't work more than 50 years on just one revolutionary idea without worrying about dying before their work is complete (and then never being completed at all).
There's too much knowledge, with not enough time to learn it all and make proper use of it. So much so that there's a huge gap between what you learn in school/university, and what the state of the art really is.

Consider this, if Albert Einstein was still alive today, he'd probably have found a unifying theory of quantum gravity already. In fact, he was already working on it before he died, and now we're stuck.
The worst disease in existence, biological death, has already slowed us down significantly.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:38:25 UTC No. 16467182

>>16467165
>Embrace God, accept Jesus
Sir, this is >>>/sci/ence, not >>>/r/christianity. Take your religion, and shove it up your ass.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:14:32 UTC No. 16467218

>>16467131
>If it worked well with our current technology, I imagine a bunch of geriatric politicians would be getting it already to stay permanently young.

Politicians are just unsophisticated peoples' ideas of sophisticated people. Most of them are dumb as shit; they understand antiaging therapy about as well as writing laws and get suckered into thinking some CoQ10 and fish-oil pills are the peak of medical science by some diet huckster.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:27:06 UTC No. 16467231

>>16467151
How many generations of your ancestors would you like to share your life with?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:33:42 UTC No. 16467238

>>16467231
I literally do not care, neither should you. As long as most are technologically literate, I don't see what the issue is.
What exactly is your point, anon, is your family so bad that you would prefer to see them dying rather than doing something useful with their newfound biological immortality?
Because if that's the case, it's literally a you problem, and you cannot ask the entire world to continue dying just because you don't like your family.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:52:56 UTC No. 16467251

>>16467238
See >>16466953:
>Imagine if mice lived for 80 years, imagine 200 generations living together, competing for resources.
You are dumb

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:04:46 UTC No. 16467264

>>16467238
>Replying to myself so I can add more to this
If someone still wants to die of old age that is their choice, but some people would prefer having more time to work on their scientific magnum opus.
It's incredibly stupid that we, as a species, have to go through a minor knowledge reset every few years as the old generation dies without transferring all they've learned to the younger generation. Besides, it's not possible to transfer experience, that's completely and irrecoverably lost when someone dies.

>>16467251
>Imagine if mice
We are not mice, anon. Look, if you wish to die of old age that's your choice, but you don't have the right to tell the entire world they should also keep dying just because you don't like the idea of an 80 year old mouse.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:35:29 UTC No. 16467291

>>16466957
If you can't understand that technology and modern medicine absolutely destroys natural evolution there is no hope for you. And the sample size of the population is far too large for any mutations to spread. Natural evolution requires a sect of the population to be isolated from the general population so that any mutations will have a greater impact. People aren't isolated anymore, we can travel the globe in under 14 hours. Any diseases that might wipe out a certain population will be controlled by modern medicine. The weak don't get filtered out anymore and being strong doesn't offer you any advantages since you're not having to hunt or fight for survival. You won't have a mutation that makes people's legs stronger allowing them to walk further be an advantage because we have cars and bikes. You won't have genes that make more people more intelligent because we have technology to aid less intelligent people and any growth in mutated genes related to intelligence aren't going to spread;

Humans absolutely will not evolve naturally anymore. Any evolution that will take place will be directly based on technology. Cybernetic implants, genetic engineering, AI assistance, medical devices like nanobots to fight diseases like cancer, the flu, and improve organ efficiency, among other things will be the next step of evolution.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:45:30 UTC No. 16467297

>>16467115
Jellyfish can be immortal. Does that make them the top of the foodchain? Are they going into space? They are extremely basic creatures but they stopped evolving.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:59:03 UTC No. 16467308

>>16466953
Your mice argument falls apart when you realize there are billions of religious people who would still choose to die of old age, mostly due to their belief in heaven or something like that.
Even for those who chose biological immortality, a majority would likely ask for voluntary euthanasia eventually because their brains can't handle living for more than 150 years without losing their sanity.
The most probable end result would be just a few people who could go past 150 years without completely losing their shit.

Even then the optional extended lifespan would be greatly beneficial for us as a species. There's no possible logical argument against this, unless if you're a religious nut.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 22:21:22 UTC No. 16467633

>>16467297
>Does that make them the top of the foodchain?
Not necessarily, but it still makes them perfectly adapted to survive in their environment.
You could go as far as to say that they're better at surviving on Earth than we humans are.
>Are they going into space?
What does that have to do with the survival and adaptability of jellyfish?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 23:06:02 UTC No. 16467674

>>16460846
Dunno, but a new hypothesis says that digestive enzymes leak out of the gut and just fuck up everything in the body
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312149

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 07:26:47 UTC No. 16468067

>>16464079
Cancer isn't created from long telomeres. It extends its own telomeres, so cancer then have long ones.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:37:02 UTC No. 16468132

entropy

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 11:12:00 UTC No. 16468146

>>16460846
>Is it just the dna getting damaged overtime?

It's that and then it becomes advantageous that old, degraded people die. Like when you have an old worn down computer, at a point it makes more sense to replace it than keep it going. There may have been very long lived people, but they were a burden for their community and therefore lowered the chances of survival versus another community where old people died sooner.

This is where we're at today, by the way. Due to modern healthcare old people live way too long on average, and have too much power in society, burdening everyone with their degraded poorly functioning brains and skyrocketing maintenance costs. It would be another matter if we could keep healthy and sharp-minded for a really long time, but that's a tall order. We don't just age for the lulz, fundamentally we regenerate to heal accumulated damage, and keeping that regeneration going really long would be a sunk cost fallacy from an evolutionary POV.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:40:55 UTC No. 16468344

>>16468146
some people can contribute to society well into their 80s
imagine the return on investment from investing into longevity today so we could get 200 year old hyper specialists tomorrow

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:40:32 UTC No. 16468393

It's both nature and nurture!

Environment and the DNA both kill us, what sustains us kills us, like dna, splitting cells that rejuvinate kinda and mantain some function all'though lesser over time also kills us, eventually as waste accumulation causes inflammation and damage.

So it's many, many, many things that kill us!

We can prolong biological life manipulating biology, however, we would need ro master biological repair and use nanobots to remove rhe waste!

Eventually even the most perfect cells and dna, even if they live forever without need to divide and thus reducing waste the waste accumulation living in he environment not counting digestion... would kill us!

So we need nanobots and Advanced Intelligence aka AI to work in parallel, so a bio robotic hybrid, because even robotic body as we perceive it, a machine would eventually fail, but both in pair I believe would faie better and compliment eachother.

I believe we already have the data necessary to solve the prolonging of life by alot, we just need AI to process it all and present the solution quicker.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:42:09 UTC No. 16468394

>>16467297
It's probably not immortal but we fail to see it's chain interruption aka where the reproduction begins and ends so to speak and it appears as continues life, but it kay have a longer life!

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:43:35 UTC No. 16468396

>>16461070
Why would we need children!

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 18:26:53 UTC No. 16468488

>>16460846
Because it is evolutionarily advantageous. An organism life span is the result of balancing individual reproductive success versus lineages reproductive success in a dynamic environment. Live too long and you will be pumping out gene combos that are no longer advantageous in an now shifted environment you were once a best fit for. You will be consuming resources that would be better going to your potentially more successful offspring except you are dominating the niche by being their first and hording resources

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:37:42 UTC No. 16468700

>>16467633
>What does that have to do with the survival and adaptability of jellyfish?
It shows that living forever stops evolution entirely. Death is required for genes to be rapidly passed down into generations or else they would stagnate. Death guarantees that genes will change over time.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:20:54 UTC No. 16468735

>>16460846
Because Eve got tricked into eating the wrong fruit and took Adam down with her.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 10:00:03 UTC No. 16469454

>>16468700
>It shows that living forever stops evolution entirely
No, all it shows it that jellyfish are stupid and can't into generic engineering. Which is completely fine for them.
However, this is just as dumb as the mice comparison, we're not jellyfish but if we can genetically engineer ourselves to be biologically immortal, we can also change our genes over time via... you guessed it, generic engineering.

That's right, once a species has perfected the ability of editing their own genes, natural evolution becomes completely irrelevant and too slow for any meaningful changes. It's completely fine for us to replace evolution by natural selection, with evolution by generic engineering.

Garrote at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 10:32:57 UTC No. 16469465

Should I repair my DNA with biokinesis and lengthen my telomeres with biokinesis?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 11:32:33 UTC No. 16469491

>another muh immortality thread
Tick tock.

Time - It dwindles away
There's a clock on the wall
And it seems that it's calling your name
But you can't run away
He'll be right there behind you
Reminding you it's not a game

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:14:49 UTC No. 16469601

>>16469454
I was talking about natural evolution. Death is important for natural evolution. Humans have reached the point where natural evolution will no longer occur because of our population size and technology level (we can make weak people stronger, dumb people smarter, and being stronger or smarter doesn't benefit you that much and even if it did it would get bred out by the massive population)

Technological evolution is something I agree with completely and it's how humans will evolve from this point on. Nano machines will make our organs more efficient, cure diseases, and make us live far longer. Optical implants will help us see better and in different wavelengths. AI can aid our minds in order to make us smarter. Genetic engineering will weed out all known birth illnesses.

But we are still talking like 200 years in the future here. CRISPR is just copy and pasting genes that we have no idea how they actually work. We don't know the coding of DNA at-fucking-all and it's going to be a long time until we do. Let alone the mind.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:39:39 UTC No. 16469624

>>16460977
>There is no reason to save resources for you, you should invest absolutely everything in the next generation and then die.
That doesn't make sense: if an organism successfully reproduces, it should remain reproducing, increasing the number of copies.
The real answer is more likely closer to something like entropy taking a toll on molecular processes, to the point where the energy necessary to keep on repairing said processes is more efficiently spent by a younger organism, and this there isn't as much reproductive pressure on the old organism since there is already a new one doing that function.
What's interesting though, it that some organisms have become so good at that repair task, that they effectively do not die: clonal tree colonies are good example, they love forever, but their organism functions in completely different way that discrete organisms do, they bodies simply grows copies of "body parts", and letting the old ones die. It's the equivalent of a person begin growing a clone of themselves at some location in their body, until that clone would keep on growing and the old attached body would shrivel and die, and so forth.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:09:06 UTC No. 16469644

>>16469624
Having bigger number of "copies" means, they don't each have so much capital to begin with, therefore if you have 2 kids, they can be wealthy as you, if you have 20, they'll be poor when born.

Even if you reach like 300years of lifetime, having more than 2 kids is bullshit, maybe max 3. Also you need to kill some niggers, there's too much of them already.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:49:45 UTC No. 16469687

>>16467297
>>16468700
but they don't live forever since they can still die to other things than age
if they somehow literally never died to *anything* then what reason is there to evolve? They are already perfect

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:27:01 UTC No. 16470158

>>16469644
>capital [...] wealthy [...] poor
Letting capitalism dictate science is a mistake. It's not sustainable long term.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 01:03:12 UTC No. 16470201

>>16469601
>We don't know the coding of DNA at-fucking-all
That's because scientists are still too proud to admit we're not special and will avoid calling it what it is: a quaternary encoding for a biological Turing-equivalent machine.

You have a tape (DNA) where each slot (base pair) represents a quaternary digit. That tape is then used for protein translation, like machine code being translated to microcode in a CPU.
You could reverse engineer this shit, you could build digital DNA emulators that execute the tape through a protein translator to figure out what the end result is. You could emulate a digital copy of a cell and figure out how it works/what it needs.

But no, you fuckers will ignore all the similarities it has with a Turing machine, and keep pretending that we're somehow special so DNA must be impossible to grasp. Like the people who think the Earth is flat, or the ones who thought it was the center of the universe.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:06:03 UTC No. 16470437

>>16460846
Life is a chain reaction of self replicating things. Not necessarily reliably replicating, and that's what we have. Some cell lines replicate fast, errors accumulate and they get removed by the immune system. Other lines don't replicate more than a few times in the entire lifetime, these sustain damage from the environment for which there are no mechanisms to repair, so they self destruct. When a cell line loses the ability to self destruct and manages to evade the immune system it grows indefinitely and loses the ability to function as part of the organism, then you can say it managed to "beat ageing" but now interferes with the organism and its functions that allow the system to survive.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 06:09:05 UTC No. 16470470

>>16460846
DNA needs a fresh body to live in.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 06:24:58 UTC No. 16470475

>>16460846
Oxidative stress (reactive oxygen species [ROSs]) seems to be the proximate cause what causes most age-related conditions, regardless of the underlying cause. The main mechanism for mopping up ROSs is glutathione, the production of which declines, but can be elevated to near youthful levels by supplementation with GlyNAC (glycine plus n-acetyl cysteine together in equal amounts). So that's what I take, as well as collagen for prettier skin and supple joints, and a few other things.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:35:25 UTC No. 16470509

>>16470475
>Ubiquitous side product of constant cellular respiration can be prevented by taking a gram of molecule once a day
Talk about blocking out the sun with a single finger.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:55:21 UTC No. 16470656

>>16460846
Planned obsolescence.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:56:29 UTC No. 16470658

>>16460846
If living things didn't age but still reproduced don't you think the Earth will get pretty crowded pretty fast

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:58:09 UTC No. 16470659

>>16470658
No.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:00:21 UTC No. 16470661

>>16470475
Ros are needs to build muscles. Without muscles you'll fall and die at old age. Thinking anti-oxidants is a silver bullet to eternal youth is a red herring

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:13:00 UTC No. 16471095

>>16470661
Not quite so simple. While high doses of antioxidant vitamins decrease athletic performance and muscle building, polyphenols increase it.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:20:03 UTC No. 16471956

>>16471095
I understand that muscles create ROS while working, but I can't imagine it backwards, can you explain?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:17:49 UTC No. 16472050

>>16467291
>natural evolution
Has been replaced by capitalist evolution, only traits that are passed on by the cattle are those that are beneficial to shareholders.