s********m
发帖数: 281 | 1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4003063.stm
We will be able to live to 1,000'
By Dr Aubrey de Grey
University of Cambridge
Aubrey de Grey: "The first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already"
Life expectancy is increasing in the developed world. But Cambridge
University geneticist Aubrey de Grey believes it will soon extend
dramatically to 1,000. Here, he explains why.
Ageing is a physical phenomenon happening to our bodies, so at some
point in
the future, as medicine becomes more and more powerful, we will
inevitably
be able to address ageing just as effectively as we address many
diseases
today.
I claim that we are close to that point because of the SENS (Strategies
for
Engineered Negligible Senescence) project to prevent and cure ageing.
It is not just an idea: it's a very detailed plan to repair all the
types of
molecular and cellular damage that happen to us over time.
And each method to do this is either already working in a preliminary
form (
in clinical trials) or is based on technologies that already exist and
just
need to be combined.
THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Nothing in gerontology even comes close to fulfilling the promise of
dramatically extended lifespan
S Jay Olshansky
Read full article
This means that all parts of the project should be fully working in mice
within just 10 years and we might take only another 10 years to get them
all
working in humans.
When we get these therapies, we will no longer all get frail and
decrepit
and dependent as we get older, and eventually succumb to the innumerable
ghastly progressive diseases of old age.
We will still die, of course - from crossing the road carelessly, being
bitten by snakes, catching a new flu variant etcetera - but not in the
drawn
-out way in which most of us die at present.
I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already
So, will this happen in time for some people alive today? Probably.
Since
these therapies repair accumulated damage, they are applicable to people
in
middle age or older who have a fair amount of that damage.
I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already.
It is very complicated, because ageing is. There are seven major types
of
molecular and cellular damage that eventually become bad for us -
including
cells being lost without replacement and mutations in our chromosomes.
Each of these things is potentially fixable by technology that either
already exists or is in active development.
'Youthful not frail'
The length of life will be much more variable than now, when most people
die
at a narrow range of ages (65 to 90 or so), because people won't be
getting
frailer as time passes.
There is no difference between saving lives and extending lives,
because in
both cases we are giving people the chance of more life
The average age will be in the region of a few thousand years. These
numbers
are guesses, of course, but they're guided by the rate at which the
young
die these days.
If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-
violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well
under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you
would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000.
And remember, none of that time would be lived in frailty and debility
and
dependence - you would be youthful, both physically and mentally, right
up
to the day you mis-time the speed of that oncoming lorry.
Should we cure ageing?
Curing ageing will change society in innumerable ways. Some people are
so
scared of this that they think we should accept ageing as it is.
I think that is diabolical - it says we should deny people the right to
life.
The right to choose to live or to die is the most fundamental right
there is
; conversely, the duty to give others that opportunity to the best of
our
ability is the most fundamental duty there is.
There is no difference between saving lives and extending lives, because
in
both cases we are giving people the chance of more life. To say that we
shouldn't cure ageing is ageism, saying that old people are unworthy of
medical care.
Playing God?
People also say we will get terribly bored but I say we will have the
resources to improve everyone's ability to get the most out of life.
People with a good education and the time to use it never get bored
today
and can't imagine ever running out of new things they'd like to do.
And finally some people are worried that it would mean playing God and
going
against nature. But it's unnatural for us to accept the world as we
find it.
Ever since we invented fire and the wheel, we've been demonstrating both
our
ability and our inherent desire to fix things that we don't like about
ourselves and our environment.
We would be going against that most fundamental aspect of what it is to
be
human if we decided that something so horrible as everyone getting frail
and
decrepit and dependent was something we should live with forever.
If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which
God
made us in His image.
Aubrey de Grey leads the SENS pr | k***n
发帖数: 11247 | 2 why not?? there will be more leisure time than now | m****n
发帖数: 2754 | 3 你把这篇文章贴到生物版
千老们会笑倒的
假如人有 200－300岁的寿命，
个个都是得癌症而S
1000岁嘛，...... | g***r
发帖数: 1105 | 4 lol
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: why not?? there will be more leisure time than now
|
|
