Fountain of Youth [Archive]

Hasbinbad

11-29-2010, 07:47 PM

This is for real. Telomeres are our bodies cells natural signal to induce cell death, and they have been working on stopping them for years. Well, now that is a reality and they have induced an old mouse to become young. Holy fucking shit.

http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-94421.html
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a184877.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html

quellren

11-29-2010, 07:50 PM

We have enough youth. How about a fountain of 'smart'?
~Author Unknown

J/K.... pretty sick stuff science-wise.

Hasbinbad

11-29-2010, 08:21 PM

~Author Unknown

J/K.... pretty sick stuff science-wise.
Great post, would read again! :D

Sephrana

11-29-2010, 08:23 PM

that's awesome!!! That is part of why Cancer Cells live infinitely. Their telomeres never get shorter..... soooooooo The scientists will have to find a fine balance between increasing longevity and inducing cancer...actually I don't know if extra amounts of telemorase would create cancer but if you have a cell that will never die...the DNA has much more time to mutate.

Interesting. I've always been fascinated with genetics and cell and molecular biology. My degree is in just straight biology but I've had trouble deciding which direction to go with my masters - either a cell & molecular biology type masters or wildlife management.

Thank you for posting this!!

Hasbinbad

11-29-2010, 08:30 PM

Neno

11-29-2010, 11:23 PM

Very interesting articles, thank you for posting them! I wonder what effect this would have on our perceived speed up of time with age.

http://everything2.com/user/Professor%20Pi/writeups/Why%20time%20appears%20to%20speed%20up%20with%20ag e

Cognitive capacities may also be another problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_theory#Proactive_Interference

This assuming if we would actually be able to use this method of of preventing cell death and live for hundreds of years.

Itchybottom

11-30-2010, 03:23 AM

Leonard Hayflick is probably shaking his fist about this.

Might I remind you, resveratrol also worked on mice. Someone in Russia was working on a drug - SKQ1 (http://rt.com/news/ageing-problem-medicine-skulachev/), and started touting similar results (but he is a charlatan, seriously) -- ameliorating chronic degenerative disease isn't going anywhere, any time soon. No telomerase, leading to over-short telomeres is easy to deal with the downstream problems (TERT/cancer) in mice if you engineer them from the ground up. Drug therapy now, gene therapy in future technologies ... but really to take any type of advancement from this type of "breakthrough" aside from over-hype in the press, you're going to have to start engineering humans like we have with the mice. I mean I guess that'd get rid of back hair if we bred humans hairless, which is a plus... but telomerase reverse transcriptase is serious business.

stormlord

11-30-2010, 12:52 PM

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html
When mice are engineered to lack telomerase completely, their telomeres progressively shorten over several generations. These animals age much faster than normal mice — they are barely fertile and suffer from age-related conditions such as osteoporosis, diabetes and neurodegeneration. They also die young. "If you look at all those data together, you walk away with the idea that the loss of telomerase could be a very important instigator of the ageing process," says DePinho.

To find out if these dramatic effects are reversible, DePinho's team engineered mice such that the inactivated telomerase could be switched back on by feeding the mice a chemical called 4-OHT. The researchers allowed the mice to grow to adulthood without the enzyme, then reactivated it for a month. They assessed the health of the mice another month later.Hmm. So they engineered them to produce little to no telomerase which led to progressively shorter telomeres. Then they introduce it when they're the equivalent of an 80 year old human. The problem I see here is that they started out with no telomerase. Did they carry out this experiment with normal mice that had normal quantities of telomerase to see whether they would exhibit the same benefits as the engineered mice?

That was my first thought. My second thought is that it would be hulluva expensive because the pharma industry never passes up an opportunity to make cash. Think how big it would be. No one wants to die. No one wants to see their loved ones grow old and increasingly hold a balance between chronically ill and just coping. They'd have us all over the barrel. Just like travel. We all want and need to travel and since oil is the most common fuel they can call the shots because they own the oil.

My third thought is that there's another way to live forever. Believe in god and in an afterlife. If you're wrong, it won't matter because you'll be too dead to know the difference. It's the most popular fountain of youth.

Another popular way to live forever is to not focus on yourself. Focus on society and civilization and humanity. If you treat those things as your identity and purpose, then your own death is not the death of your identity or your purpose. Until society or civilization or humanity dies, then for these people they will live forever.

I've often wondered what would it be like to copy myself with 100% accuracy. So sitting across from me would be my duplicate. He would be exactly as I was at the moment of the copying process. So I'd be looking, effectively, at me. He would probably be thinking the same things as me. He'd be looking at me and thinking something like: "That guy over there is probably thinking what I'm thinking!" The only difference between us would be that I know I'm the original, but other than that it's a matter of opinion. The question would arise: If one of us had to die at that moment, would it really matter? Because one would still remain...

Is the death of "me" really the death of me? Or is it only the death of an illusion? How do we know that we're really separate in the grand scheme of things anyway? Something leads me to believe we're all the same, just in different clothes. There're nearly 7 billion other people on this planet that have experienced things differently from me. My current philosophy tells me that if I had been them then I would have turned out exactly as they have. This means that I already have lived as them. So there's no need for me to wish I was someone else or wish I could live forever so that I could experience all that life has to offer. I have lived every life on this earth since the beginning of time and will live every life to come. Why do I say this? Because if I had been any other person in any other time or place, I would have lived my life exactly the same way as them. So why worry? Because I will die, but is death really the death of me or am I worrying about an illusion that does not exist?

Can we as people learn to appreciate what others have as opposed to what we have? I doubt life in this universe will ever be equal or fair. So is it possible to see ourselves in others such that the experiences of others can be appreciated by ourselves without prejudice or jealousy? If you're them, they're you, then yes!

A sublime way to explain this is that we're all the same beam of light broken up by a prism into different colors. This gives the illusion of different beams of light when in reality they all originate from a single source.

Itchybottom

11-30-2010, 01:53 PM

My third thought is that there's another way to live forever. Believe in god and in an afterlife. If you're wrong, it won't matter because you'll be too dead to know the difference. It's the most popular fountain of youth.

If every single thought you have is stored in a unified physical structure with similar physical reactions to write and pull information, I sincerely doubt that even if there was to be an afterlife that what makes you the human "you" will remain after wards.

Another popular way to live forever is to not focus on yourself. Focus on society and civilization and humanity. If you treat those things as your identity and purpose, then your own death is not the death of your identity or your purpose. Until society or civilization or humanity dies, then for these people they will live forever.

That is in idea genetic immorality, and much the reason things in nature reproduce. But such immorality conflicts with ego and trivializes a lot of the journey in life.

I've often wondered what would it be like to copy myself with 100% accuracy. So sitting across from me would be my duplicate. He would be exactly as I was at the moment of the copying process. So I'd be looking, effectively, at me. He would probably be thinking the same things as me. He'd be looking at me and thinking something like: "That guy over there is probably thinking what I'm thinking!" The only difference between us would be that I know I'm the original, but other than that it's a matter of opinion. The question would arise: If one of us had to die at that moment, would it really matter? Because one would still remain...

The moment your clone became aware of it's surroundings, your experiences would begin to differ. Even sitting across a room, staring at one another, you would be having different thoughts because your local environment would differ. If either of you died, you'd still be losing the individual experience of that clone -- it would really matter.

Is the death of "me" really the death of me? Or is it only the death of an illusion? How do we know that we're really separate in the grand scheme of things anyway?

You can't will reality away, or start to think of existence as one big group hallucination. The universe and it's properties are infinitely complex, and if it is just an illusion -- it's a damned good one. Because our experiments in physical things, continue to have the same results.

Something leads me to believe we're all the same, just in different clothes. There're nearly 7 billion other people on this planet that have experienced things differently from me. My current philosophy tells me that if I had been them then I would have turned out exactly as they have. This means that I already have lived as them. So there's no need for me to wish I was someone else or wish I could live forever so that I could experience all that life has to offer. I have lived every life on this earth since the beginning of time and will live every life to come. Why do I say this? Because if I had been any other person in any other time or place, I would have lived my life exactly the same way as them. So why worry? Because I will die, but is death really the death of me or am I worrying about an illusion that does not exist?

Theosophy, specifically similar to the akashic records. Mortality makes us ponder the strangest things. Cosmic background radiation all around us, the universe birthing us to become sentient, it's all been deconstructed and reconstructed in the minds of thousands per generation (if not more), and in the end it only boils down to one thing. Eventually, you're going to be brain dead, your life is finite, wishful thinking and hope isn't going to keep that from happening. Everyone can have their own personal belief, and that's great, but that's actually creating the very illusion you're intending to shed.

You should probably read about mind uploading (protein kinase C/C zeta mapping for long term memory structure, and thorough understanding of neurogenesis for mapping real time data) -- through human ingenuity, one day your illusion idea might come to full fruition. There is nothing to suggest that in nature exists such a thing though, other than wishful thinking.

It's been suggested that even hydra (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20398746) age, and eventually die.

stormlord

11-30-2010, 02:24 PM

If every single thought you have is stored in a unified physical structure with similar physical reactions to write and pull information, I sincerely doubt that even if there was to be an afterlife that what makes you the human "you" will remain after wards.

That is in idea genetic immorality, and much the reason things in nature reproduce. But such immorality conflicts with ego and trivializes a lot of the journey in life.

The moment your clone became aware of it's surroundings, your experiences would begin to differ. Even sitting across a room, staring at one another, you would be having different thoughts because your local environment would differ. If either of you died, you'd still be losing the individual experience of that clone -- it would really matter.

You can't will reality away, or start to think of existence as one big group hallucination. The universe and it's properties are infinitely complex, and if it is just an illusion -- it's a damned good one. Because our experiments in physical things, continue to have the same results.

Theosophy, specifically similar to the akashic records. Mortality makes us ponder the strangest things. Cosmic background radiation all around us, the universe birthing us to become sentient, it's all been deconstructed and reconstructed in the minds of thousands per generation (if not more), and in the end it only boils down to one thing. Eventually, you're going to be brain dead, your life is finite, wishful thinking and hope isn't going to keep that from happening. Everyone can have their own personal belief, and that's great, but that's actually creating the very illusion you're intending to shed.

You should probably read about mind uploading (protein kinase C/C zeta mapping for long term memory structure, and thorough understanding of neurogenesis for mapping real time data) -- through human ingenuity, one day your illusion idea might come to full fruition. There is nothing to suggest that in nature exists such a thing though, other than wishful thinking.

It's been suggested that even hydra (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20398746) age, and eventually die.Undeniably, you have some fair points. Yes, we have ego, and this conflicts with the concept that we're not ourselves. Yes, my perfect clone would see me from a different angle and would know that I am the original and this may indeed lead to a very different line of thought, at least at the moment the copy of me becomes aware and we fully separate into different consciousness. You're right that I can't will reality away, but religion and spiritual beliefs exist precisely because this is what they achieve. Sometimes reality is a brutal place to live in. No matter what technology we invent to extend our lives to 100 and 200 and 300 or more years, we cannot bring back to life people that have already passed on. My grandpa is dead. So no longer how long I live I will have to live with the reality that my grandpa is dead and that our modern therapies do nothing for him. So in the presence of this harsh reality I display vulnerability and will reality away by inventing my own philosophy that allows me to somehow cope with a painful reality. I may be wrong about everything, and you may indeed be entirely right, but even if willing away reality is fools gold, it does offer some sanctuary for people who're hurt and unable to cope with reality as it's. For them, it's medicine. Do you want to take it away from them?

It's easy to talk about reality and about rationalizing circumstances, but when you confront it in a very personal setting, it's not so easy. For example, what if you're facing your dad and he's hurt because of a loss, and he turns to his religion to find council. Would you seriously approach him and tell him that he's acting irrationally and that his religion is just him willing away the pain of loss? I ask you this because i've faced many predicaments like this. It's one thing to think that religion is insanity and it's quite another to say this to somebody in tears who will only understand a fraction of what you're saying. It feels pointless to me to fight against the mass ocean of emotions and limits that exist inside people. If religion is his medicine, then I won't interrupt him. I'll only interrupt him when I feel his religion is directly hurting someone in an obvious way.

I attended a funeral yesterday, the second one in a year. The attending pastor drilled into our heads that the deceased has went to a better place and that despite the sadness we feel there will be better times and merry songs to come. The whole point of his sermon was to attempt to relieve our worries and to encourage a sense of closure so that we can both remember the person who died but also carry on with ourt lives and not be destroyed by the grief we feel. It's a way to open a door in a very dark place, a door that offers hope and light. It's a way to see what's around us without feeling crippled by it. I did not believe the actual religious doctrine. I am not a christian, but I fully understand the point of all of it. It's a way to cope. It's a way to love. It's a way to connect and to not feel lonely. How is that bad? I am a human being. I am not going to stand up in the middle of the sermons and proclaim that this religious ceremony is foolish and that the person in the coffin is officially dead and that there's no afterlife and that wasting our time worrying about the dead is not productive because nothing we do can bring them back or give justice to them.

I am not saying that I am right and that you're wrong. I am saying that... what good does it do? It's like winning a race in the special olympics. It means nothing unless you're disabled too. I freely admit that, deep down, I feel that death is the end and there's nothing more and that any meaning in life that exists is temporal and passing. However, I'd love to be proven wrong. That's why I entertain these thoughts. I want to wonder: What if? What if we're not as different as we think we're? What if the moon really is made of cheese?
God saw you were getting tired
And a cure was not to be.
So he put his arms around you
And whispered
'Come to me.'

A golden heart
stopped beating,
Hard working hands now rest.
God broke our hearts to prove to us
He only takes the best.

Somekid123

11-30-2010, 02:55 PM

As cool as this is, and how it can help other extreme health situations, I wouldnt want to see the world never-dying out of natural causes.

Our population is already over expanded no?

Itchybottom

11-30-2010, 02:59 PM

Do you want to take it away from them?

If only it were that simple. Communication would be a lot easier if you could just grab and place ideas impromptu.

For example, what if you're facing your dad and he's hurt because of a loss, and he turns to his religion to find council. Would you seriously approach him and tell him that he's acting irrationally and that his religion is just him willing away the pain of loss? I ask you this because i've faced many predicaments like this. It's one thing to think that religion is insanity and it's quite another to say this to somebody in tears who will only understand a fraction of what you're saying. It feels pointless to me to fight against the mass ocean of emotions and limits that exist inside people. If religion is his medicine, then I won't interrupt him. I'll only interrupt him when I feel his religion is directly hurting someone in an obvious way.

Being raised Buddhist, I have to say I still respect religion of others due to learned behavior. But semantically, I see no difference from religion and the bottom of an alcohol bottle. You're just juxtaposing the pain for something else. We are superb at escapism, that's undeniably an evolved coping mechanism. There is an actual building postulation about some forms of insanity (http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jun/03-the-insanity-virus/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) being nothing more than a retrovirus from ages ago.

So in an answer to your example? I respect the individual's belief, but I'd also like to know the efficacy of that persons choice to rely on a deity and communion versus just simply stabbing themselves in the leg with an epinephrine (or exercising) and trying to think about why they were so sad in the first place.

I am not going to stand up in the middle of the sermons and proclaim that this religious ceremony is foolish and that the person in the coffin is officially dead and that there's no afterlife and that wasting our time worrying about the dead is not productive because nothing we do can bring them back or give justice to them.

There's really nothing to stop you from doing such a thing except learned behavior (kindness to others in some social setting.) We also fear opposition, so it's difficult to be pragmatic about it. Funerals and memorials are like any other celebration, they just bring people together and distract.

Itchybottom

11-30-2010, 03:04 PM

As cool as this is, and how it can help other extreme health situations, I wouldnt want to see the world never-dying out of natural causes.

Our population is already over expanded no?

Insurance companies have already crunched the numbers for us, as far as living forever. I don't have the numbers handy, but I recall something like on average people would still die of mortal injury every 60-120 years (averaged.)

Our population will continue to expand until a point where they are so many viruses and diseases in central locations, that it'll all equal itself out eventually. Don't worry about it, the world will never be too full of one particular animal.

Japan

11-30-2010, 04:24 PM

Hasbinbad

12-01-2010, 12:33 AM

I have to flame you for regurgitating those painful credulous headlines, hasbinbad. If you call yourself a "science nerd" you should really be ashamed of posting these fluff pieces (i don't mean the nature article). Not to mention your own statements in the OP, wow holy shit are you wrong.

I encourage you to educate yourself on how to interpret science in the media. Listen to some Skeptic's Guide; it will change your life (assuming you didn't just troll my dick off)
I've worked directly with enzymes and viruses to alter the genes of organisms in a classroom and laboratory setting. I've studied telomeres, and have a basic grasp of the science involved in how they were recognized and what they do. Do you? I'd guess not. If you did, I doubt that you would take this subject so lightly.

Japan

12-01-2010, 11:16 AM

You guess absolutely wrong. An excellent attempt at argument from authority though, and grats on passing your heat shock lab.

Threepoint

12-01-2010, 06:26 PM

Nerd Fight !!!

Maurk

12-01-2010, 07:34 PM

Thanks for posting this,
almost inspires me to get into microbiology.
I'm still young!
Just totally fucking lost in life.

Hasbinbad

12-01-2010, 08:32 PM

heat shock lab
Phospholuminescent bacteria was more fun.
ELISAssays were a bit more involved.
Biotech A.S. while I waited to get in to the nursing program was totally worth it.
kthxbye

nalkin

12-02-2010, 01:26 AM

What do you guys think about silver sol?

http://www.silversol.org/

Saw it being promoted on the local religious channel that I watch at night.

Sinder

12-02-2010, 02:12 AM

this reminded me of the movie Green Mile. "DePinho succeeded in shocking the enzyme back to life in mice "

fuji

12-02-2010, 02:46 PM

Yes!!!

So grinding all those characters wasn't a waste of my life after all.

nalkin

12-03-2010, 12:11 AM

Hasbinbad, answer my gat dang question.

What do you guys think about silver sol?

http://www.silversol.org/

Saw it being promoted on the local religious channel that I watch at night.

Toehammer

12-03-2010, 01:31 AM

What do you guys think about silver sol?

http://www.silversol.org/

Saw it being promoted on the local religious channel that I watch at night.

Hasbinbad, answer my gat dang question.

Wow, never thought a comment on P1999 would be perfect for me to answer. Don't buy into any colloidal particle drink. Seriously, not nearly enough research has been done in nanotoxicology yet. My coresearcher is heading a project on the nanotoxicology of aqueous silver nanoparticle dispersions, and we work closely together. My expertise (PhD, physics) is in gold nanoparticle synthesis/assembly; I make gold particles anywhere from 1 micron down to 25 atom clusters. I also make silver particles. Drinking colloidal gold probably won't mess you up at all (if it is greater than 10-20nm), but silver is quite risky... and that website you linked says it has NO side effects... this guy begs to differ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa2OpNTX9Ck

Silver is a known antimicrobial... when you increase its surface area/volume ratio (ie non-bulk) to the order of m^2/cm^3, you get some serious reactivity. However, silver particles aggregate really fast, so nobody can really effectively quantify the toxicity/uptake at this moment. Gold you are probably ok with... however drinking gold is still a false panacea... people like to believe that by drinking gold you can absorb some of its lustrous beauty or some crap. It really just comes out in your pee/poo.

There is a reason that chemistry came from alchemy, if youtube was around back then alchemists would still be thriving.

Toehammer

12-03-2010, 01:35 AM

Wow, never thought a comment on P1999 would be perfect for me to answer. Don't buy into any colloidal particle drink. Seriously, not nearly enough research has been done in nanotoxicology yet. My coresearcher is heading a project on the nanotoxicology of aqueous silver nanoparticle dispersions, and we work closely together. My expertise (PhD, physics) is in gold nanoparticle synthesis/assembly; I make gold particles anywhere from 1 micron down to 25 atom clusters. I also make silver particles. Drinking colloidal gold probably won't mess you up at all (if it is greater than 10-20nm), but silver is quite risky... and that website you linked says it has NO side effects... this guy begs to differ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa2OpNTX9Ck

Silver is a known antimicrobial... when you increase its surface area/volume ratio (ie non-bulk) to the order of m^2/cm^3, you get some serious reactivity. However, silver particles aggregate really fast, so nobody can really effectively quantify the toxicity/uptake at this moment. Gold you are probably ok with... however drinking gold is still a false panacea... people like to believe that by drinking gold you can absorb some of its lustrous beauty or some crap. It really just comes out in your pee/poo.

There is a reason that chemistry came from alchemy, if youtube was around back then alchemists would still be thriving.

In fact, I joined P1999 back in July about 3 weeks before my PhD defense... EQ is the panacea! I was up all night, was annoyed/irritated with my presentation and then boom, I googled EQ (hadn't played since '01) and saw this. Instantly I was :D ... EQ cures all!

Sephrana

12-03-2010, 10:04 AM

knowing what i know about science...this makes me giggle but then I pause and think about it and can't decide if i should be more abused or sad: http://www.halexandria.org/dward466.htm