Why do we all DIE?

RIP skin cells. What did they ever do to you?

  On 10/6/2016 at 1:15 PM, phling said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 12:19 PM, usagi said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 7:34 AM, Candiru said:

"It's my life and it's now or never. I don't want to live forever. I just wanna live while I'm alive. It's my life." - Kurt Cobain, 1996

 

not only did you misattribute the quote, you got the quote itself wrong.

 

flol

 

''it's my wife!''

-- arthur f. schopenhauer

  On 10/5/2016 at 7:45 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 10/5/2016 at 5:58 PM, caze said:

death is merely an evolutionary adaptation.

 

 

 

right thread this time.

I don't think death is an adaptation, per se...I think that reproduction is evolution's "solution" to mortality...and if there was a low-cost solution to mortality, evolution would've stumbled upon that instead of reproduction

 

I think it's a little bit of both. Death and birth makes it possible for lifeforms to change very quickly through recombination (plus mutation) so they can adapt to changing environments

  On 10/6/2016 at 1:28 PM, xox said:

arthur f. schopenhauer

Arthur Fucking Schopenhauer?

Ficken

gut gut

watmm is long live watmm

2016 Deathwave sweeping over vattern

  On 10/6/2016 at 2:50 PM, Psychotronic said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 1:28 PM, xox said:

arthur f. schopenhauer

Arthur Fucking Schopenhauer?

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 5:49 AM, Brisbot said:

 

    Quote

 

 

 

When people fully understand the inputs and outputs the human lifespan will be extended immensely. Most of use will probably see the time when lifespans at least double from now. Many of us are likely to see some sort of infinite existence. As with all things when you are on the cusp of something you have to be an early adopter to see the first wave of results.

I have the feeling that even if this kinda technology is created, only a few will have access to it.

 

You already have access to things that can significantly increase your lifespan.

Drugs like metformin are theorized to have a huge impact on lifespan. Lots of people are already taking it for this purpose. It may not work as well as people believe it will, or it may work better. I think when you're approaching lifespan from biological inputs then there is a huge requirement on sufficient nutrient intake as well as good lifestyle. Heat shock protein is important in keeping the body young and healthy, but it requires you to engage in regular and intense exercise or visit the sauna regularly. Cold shock is another very effective way that can be utilized by tons of people, but a lot of them are too pussy to do it. If you look on the data for sauna therapy as it relates to lowered instances of all cause mortality you can see this.

  On 10/6/2016 at 10:39 AM, Sally Vingoe said:

I think there are a few very difficult problems that mean life expectancy probably is fixed up to a certain point:

 

Cancer: an unavoidable eventuality in imperfectly replicating cells. (Cancer cells have often solved the problem of shortening telomeres too - unfortunately for us)

 

Brains: neurons in the cns don't really regenerate to any appreciable degree after infancy - I think it's probably an unavoidable part of a design that relies on so much interconnection between cells.

 

 

 

We're all gonna die.

Cancer is not unavoidable. Pre-cancerous cells are definitely unavoidable but can be handled with quarterly fasting to induce autophagy and appropriate diet. Couple that with sufficient nutrient intake and the body will handle cancer using its built in mechanisms. 

There are also ways to hack neurogensis. I don't think that's as big an issue as you think. If you have a good diet that focuses on brain health you'll also age much better.

  On 10/6/2016 at 11:34 AM, caze said:

bio/nanomachines might be able to fix some of them problems in the distant future, but at the end of the day there's no escaping entropy

I wouldn't hold my breath.

  On 10/6/2016 at 11:47 AM, Brisbot said:

Yeah, Even if we were given eternal youth, we'd still die from something eventually.

 

All I want is like 200-300 years. 80 just doesn't seem like long enough.

if you die at 80 years old in modern western society you were doing so many things wrong.

  On 10/6/2016 at 12:14 PM, Blank said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 11:47 AM, Brisbot said:

Yeah, Even if we were given eternal youth, we'd still die from something eventually.

All I want is like 200-300 years. 80 just doesn't seem like long enough.

Naaah, imagine becoming elderly at 80 and then realising for another 120 - 220 that your skin's gonna get saggier and saggier until it drops to the floor at about 180, and that fact that you can't walk properly for that amount of time would SUCK! A hundred years of being super bored and incapable of moving because of your saggy skin flaps tripping you up? No thanks, 80 years sounds good to me.

 

(Unless of course for those 200 - 300 years you retain a healthy fully-functional/familiar body, then yeah I'd definitely go for it!)

 

If you can't walk properly it's because you stopped using your body.

You're telling me people like Tony Horton and Mark Sisson are all of a sudden going to fall apart at 80? Nah, the leading cause of the body breaking down is insufficient nutrients and simply not using it. If you don't use it you lose it. Your body needs you to activate all the muscles and keep them strong and limber, and you bones need it to. If you couple inactivity with nutrient deficiency, which the vast majority of the population experience, you're going to get breakdown. It's not surprising. 

The RDA's in the USA are extremely low. Scientists understand this, and most people don't even meet the low RDA's.  Once you get nutrient deficiency you get triage and you get disease. Osteoporosis is a good example of a disease caused by triage.

  On 10/6/2016 at 1:28 PM, xox said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 1:15 PM, phling said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 12:19 PM, usagi said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 7:34 AM, Candiru said:

"It's my life and it's now or never. I don't want to live forever. I just wanna live while I'm alive. It's my life." - Kurt Cobain, 1996

not only did you misattribute the quote, you got the quote itself wrong.

 

flol

''it's my poodle!''

 

-- arthur f. schopenhauer

Fixed

Turns out we genetically can't live beyond 115: http://www.nature.com/news/human-age-limit-claim-sparks-debate-1.20750

  On 10/6/2016 at 4:41 PM, Joyrex said:

Turns out we genetically can't live beyond 115: http://www.nature.com/news/human-age-limit-claim-sparks-debate-1.20750

This is bullshit, there have been many examples throughout history of people living 600 years + (Noah is a perfect example and is 100% real and scientifically proven)

  On 10/6/2016 at 4:41 PM, Joyrex said:

Turns out we genetically can't live beyond 115: http://www.nature.com/news/human-age-limit-claim-sparks-debate-1.20750

That's a clickbait headline for a study that doesn't do anything but examine lifespans around the world. There are way too many variables at play to make a claim like that with that type of information.

When crispr starts getting applied to humans it will change everything. You start activating everyone's FOXO4 genes and you'll see very interesting results I think.

  On 10/6/2016 at 5:37 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 4:41 PM, Joyrex said:

Turns out we genetically can't live beyond 115: http://www.nature.com/news/human-age-limit-claim-sparks-debate-1.20750

 

That's a clickbait headline for a study that doesn't do anything but examine lifespans around the world. There are way too many variables at play to make a claim like that with that type of information.

 

When crispr starts getting applied to humans it will change everything. You start activating everyone's FOXO4 genes and you'll see very interesting results I think.

 

LOL @ Nature making 'clickbait headlines'

  On 10/6/2016 at 4:41 PM, Joyrex said:

Turns out we genetically can't live beyond 115: http://www.nature.com/news/human-age-limit-claim-sparks-debate-1.20750

Ask the 15 or so old people with the sunken in eyes if they believe that.

    Quote

 

 

LOL @ Nature making 'clickbait headlines'

Is this for real? Man I used to love reading Nature. I'm done.

    Quote

 

When crispr starts getting applied to humans it will change everything. You start activating everyone's FOXO4 genes and you'll see very interesting results I think.

 

Back when I was a biology major I used to know all the hype genes, now all those neuronal connections have been broken.

  On 10/6/2016 at 5:43 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 5:37 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 4:41 PM, Joyrex said:

Turns out we genetically can't live beyond 115: http://www.nature.com/news/human-age-limit-claim-sparks-debate-1.20750

 

That's a clickbait headline for a study that doesn't do anything but examine lifespans around the world. There are way too many variables at play to make a claim like that with that type of information.

 

When crispr starts getting applied to humans it will change everything. You start activating everyone's FOXO4 genes and you'll see very interesting results I think.

 

LOL @ Nature making 'clickbait headlines'

 

lol indeed, 'Human age limit claim sparks debate', ooh, it sparks debate?!? clickclickclick

You won't believe this, Human Age Limit Controversial, causes cancer? This may change your life. Boobs inside!

AdieuErsatzEnnui - I'm really happy that you've done research on the matter.  More importantly, your research shows that you care about life.  Keep spreading the knowledge, man.  Most people are too lazy to do anything with even the simplest of good health advice, but your words might reach some very grateful people who are actually on the path towards perpetual wellness.

  On 10/6/2016 at 5:43 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 5:37 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/6/2016 at 4:41 PM, Joyrex said:

Turns out we genetically can't live beyond 115: http://www.nature.com/news/human-age-limit-claim-sparks-debate-1.20750

 

That's a clickbait headline for a study that doesn't do anything but examine lifespans around the world. There are way too many variables at play to make a claim like that with that type of information.

 

When crispr starts getting applied to humans it will change everything. You start activating everyone's FOXO4 genes and you'll see very interesting results I think.

 

LOL @ Nature making 'clickbait headlines'

 

I consider it clickbait because I don't really think that serious scientists studying the issue consider this to be a debate. Aubrey De Gray said it well at the end of the article "“The result in this paper is absolutely correct, but it says nothing about the potential of future medicine, only the performance of today’s and yesterday’s medicine.”"

  On 10/9/2016 at 11:37 PM, peace 7 said:

AdieuErsatzEnnui - I'm really happy that you've done research on the matter.  More importantly, your research shows that you care about life.  Keep spreading the knowledge, man.  Most people are too lazy to do anything with even the simplest of good health advice, but your words might reach some very grateful people who are actually on the path towards perpetual wellness.

thanks m8

I actually spend a good amount of my time giving people advice which is making me consider that maybe I should try to go to med school or something.

  On 10/6/2016 at 11:34 AM, caze said:

bio/nanomachines might be able to fix some of them problems in the distant future, but at the end of the day there's no escaping entropy