# Scientist claims immortality within reach



## SK-1 (Jul 5, 2015)

A visiting American research scientist says he is close to discovering a 'cure' for ageing, that he could have a drug ready for testing by the end of next year.

Molecular Biologist Dr Bill Andrews told TV ONE's SUNDAY programme that humans shouldn't have to suffer from the ravages of ageing. He says that ageing is a disease that should, and could be cured.

His research centres around Telomeres - small caps at the end of our chromosomes that become shorter every time our cells divide.

When they become critically short, we age and eventually die.

Dr Andrews believes that he can find a small molecule that will trigger the production of Telomerase in the body, which will lengthen the Telomeres and stop, or even reverse the ageing process. If he's successful, he says we could all end up looking and feeling 24 years old again.

Is he onto something here? His detractors in the scientific community claim that he's just the latest in a long line of quacks and charlatans who've claimed to have found the Fountain of Youth or a miracle cure of aging but Dr Bill says the science is on his side.

The 63-year-old American believes that he could live till he's 150.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/scientist-claims-immortality-within-reach-6352840


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 5, 2015)

Too bad scientist research these things in their 60-ies, too close to a massive coronary if you ask me


----------



## Luka KLLP (Jul 5, 2015)

I don't buy it. My father is a biologist who has researched a lot about ageing and he always says that "immortality" is something we can't reach in the near future.

It happens so often that scientists make a big claim like this, and it almost never seems to come true...


----------



## zo0lykas (Jul 5, 2015)

I don't think so, I give 5-10 years and they found the way, maybe not for immortality but for longer life..

but if we look other way, we killing our planet, so we should look other way,not how to safe our ass for extra day, but try safe that what we destroyed already and try recovery that, i mean our planet.

apologise for my English


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 5, 2015)

Briliant.................. live to 150 and spend the last 50 years in bed suffering all the diseases of old age.

No Thanks.


----------



## Dia01 (Jul 5, 2015)

Great, just what the world needs, increased population living longer....


----------



## theonedub (Jul 5, 2015)

Telomeres and telomerase activity in humans is incredibly complex. It's not as simple as activating telomerase and letting it 'have at it' (it being your DNA). What they've got to find is a way to regulate telomerase activity in such a way that does not promote tumors/cancers/etc in humans.

The bristlecone pine is the oldest tree species on Earth and it's longevity is linked to its telomerase activity, but it does not suffer from mutational oddities like humans with upregulated telomerase. Other plants and some animals are the same way. There is some great reading out there on telomeres in peer reviewed journals that interested people should check out.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 5, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Briliant.................. live to 150 and spend the last 50 years in bed suffering all the diseases of old age.
> 
> No Thanks.



If I understand this correctly, it'd basically have you feeling in your 20s at 150.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 5, 2015)

Just what this world does not need. Us living longer


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 5, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> If I understand this correctly, it'd basically have you feeling in your 20s at 150.




if i live to 150 i will have been with the same woman for 130 years.....imagine that !!   

At least she will have plenty of time to understand my foibles, lucky Lady.

@R-T-B 



Spoiler



pleeeeeeeeeeeease remove it, it has started raining here and i am convinced its my fault


----------



## qubit (Jul 5, 2015)

I see that someone is looking for lots of grant money, this time using the ruise of immortality. Snake oil salesman, perhaps?  I can't see it happening personally, although life might well be extended with something like this and perhaps not in decrepitude, either.

Also, it's the worst thing that could happen. Besides humans raping the world ever longer, you can bet your boots that it won't be available to Average Joes like us. No, it will be all the people with money and power that will exclusively get it. All the tinpot dictators around the world are gonna go nuts for it and stay in power forever  - can you imagine how bad this would be if they lived something like 300-500 years? Also, this level power and control will go to the heads of rich and powerful people in the West too and I think would likely erode democracy over time, leading to autocratic governments in the UK, USA, Europe etc, similar to those countries that have tinpot dictators today.

We really will have a two-tier civilisation then in every sense of the word, with all the rich and powerful reaping the rewards that modern technology can give, while us peasants would live in poverty with only the basics to sustain us and almost no human rights. What a crap, dystopian life that would be and I wouldn't want to be around for it.

On the other hand, this idea would make for a great dystopian computer game or movie, wouldn't it?


----------



## Devon68 (Jul 5, 2015)

Not to sound depressing but if I was immortal I would spend the rest of my time trying to find a way to kill my self xD

I rather take my 100 years and move on.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 5, 2015)

It does make me wonder if this is the natural progression of things.  We've already used our intellect to fix and/or make survivable many defects that 1000 years ago would have meant certain death.  Not to mention the act of giving birth had the real chance of the mother dying.  What this concept (not this quack doctor's latest attempt) brings into question is the importance of, or lack thereof, having generations.  Is there a point where not aging ends up beneficial to society over trying anew?  What of genetically engineered embryos?  Earth is undeniably overpopulating (in terms of humans anyway) and these are questions society has to answer within the next century.  The status quo, which has been the status quo forever, will have to be no more as a function of survival.  I wonder what Darwin would make of this conundrum.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It does make me wonder if this is the natural progression of things.  We've already used our intellect to fix and/or make survivable many defects that 1000 years ago would have meant certain death.


Great, then we would have stupid people immortal for ever, no natural selection. (sarcasm intended)


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 5, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> Great, then we would have stupid people immortal for ever, no natural selection.


does that mean there will no longer be any DARWIN Awards made


----------



## AsRock (Jul 5, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Briliant.................. live to 150 and spend the last 50 years in bed suffering all the diseases of old age.
> 
> No Thanks.



Either than or working ya ass of to near death as if some thing like this did happen you can surely guarantee retirement be some thing like 140 yo lol.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 5, 2015)

> does that mean there will no longer be any DARWIN Awards made



No, you can still die, just not from aging.

Judging from the resulting overpopulation we'll probably have A LOT more stupid people (and conflict) and thus the Darwin awards will be as popular as ever.



Caring1 said:


> Great, then we would have stupid people immortal for ever, no natural selection. (sarcasm intended)



Stupid people probably will due from stupidity well before old age anyhow.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It does make me wonder if this is the natural progression of things.  We've already used our intellect to fix and/or make survivable many defects that 1000 years ago would have meant certain death.  Not to mention the act of giving birth had the real chance of the mother dying.  What this concept (not this quack doctor's latest attempt) brings into question is the importance of, or lack thereof, having generations.  Is there a point where not aging ends up beneficial to society over trying anew?  What of genetically engineered embryos?  Earth is undeniably overpopulating (in terms of humans anyway) and these are questions society has to answer within the next century.  The status quo, which has been the status quo forever, will have to be no more as a function of survival.  I wonder what Darwin would make of this conundrum.




We aren't overpopulated, its more that we are too stupid for our own good, fear of things we should be using like nuclear power, fear of not being the best makes us greedy, fear of the unknown makes us resistant to other culture and ready to kill to defend a stupid position, and pride in our geographical dirt. 

Look at the expansive wilderness of the northwest territories, hell, look at the desert southwest, it lacks energy to make it habitable. 


There are about 10 things we could do in our own generation that would allow for the population to quadruple if we wanted, and we could do it and reduce our impact on the earth.

1) Complete nuclear base load.
2) Increase power output by 100% to cheapen clean electric transport from nuclear power.
3) Move people out of prime agricultural area.
4) Use desalination plants to reduce the load on water tables. 
5) Recycling programs in all cities over 10,000
6) Use renewable energy in areas where feasible to help meet peak demands.
7) Double or more the luxury taxes on unneeded items.
8) Mandatory education up to 2 year college level. 
9) Build high speed cross country(s) tunnel trains for cargo and passengers.
10) Basic life services are free.

Current crop production (food) is only limited by the pricing on commodities, and the games played with commodity futures and trade deals to try and keep the prices just high enough for ag to make a little money in good years, which directly effects prices at the store, not the actual production capability of land, which is more effected by water, and the cost of synthetic urea fertilizers (electricity and transportation prices are the direct cost basis for this) and the ground which growers have to use in production. 

So energy is the biggest factor in all of this, the cheaper and more available we make electricity, the cheaper and more readily available everything else is, from food, to housing, to utilities, to vehicles etc...

If we use current generation coal and NG turbines to produce base and peak loads we dump more and more carbon into the atmosphere, if we start building nuclear we produce little carbon and will cheapen base load, which means electric vehicles become easier to develop and deploy, which means more new technologies for educated people to research, build, buy, work on, recycle, and reuse.


Imagine every major road would charge your car on the go, plus a set of batteries on board and a small engine, and you got a bill for the power consumption included with your power bill.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 5, 2015)

Just look at the landscape.  Virtually all of it that is usable has been transformed to satisfy man's needs.  If that isn't proof of overpopulation, I don't know what is.  We survive today through dominance and control, not symbiosis like all other plants and animals on the planet.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Just look at the landscape.  Virtually all of it that is usable has been transformed to satisfy man's needs.  If that isn't proof of overpopulation, I don't know what is.  We survive today through dominance and control, not symbiosis like all other plants and animals on the planet.




Hundreds of thousands of acres are not used and owners are instead paid to NOT grow crops to prevent commodity pricing fallout, and this idea has been sold to the public as a way to prevent erosion and conserve natural resources. If the US wanted we could grow all the crops the world needs, but this would make the economies of other countries fail, and our own economy crash hard.


----------



## William (Jul 5, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> does that mean there will no longer be any DARWIN Awards made


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 5, 2015)

Steevo said:


> Hundreds of thousands of acres are not used and owners are instead paid to NOT grow crops to prevent commodity pricing fallout, and this idea has been sold to the public as a way to prevent erosion and conserve natural resources.


Uh, because that's exactly what it is for.  Many acres of land, literally next door to me, went through that process over half a decade.  There was a flood through here and the water was cutting a clear channel into the land.  They turned all of that land, and the land west of it, into grass/prairie land and it later transferred back to the land owner whom cut in grass so a creek can form.  There may be people that abuse the program but is largely a genuine conservation program to protect and replenish topsoil.


That was just an example, however.  If you want more, look at how the Ogallala aquifer is depleting and California, despite having spent billions over the years on conservation projects, is in a severe drought that won't stop until nature responds.  That's due to agriculture use.  We've been pumping billions of water out of these ancient aquifers to satisfy the need for food and it is slowly but surely coming to an end.  When it depletes, Nebraska and other western states won't be able to produce remotely close to the amount of crops they do today.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Uh, because that's exactly what it is for.  Many acres of land, literally next door to me, went through that process over half a decade.  There was a flood through here and the water was cutting a clear channel into the land.  They turned all of that land, and the land west of it, into grass/prairie land and it later transferred back to the land owner whom cut in a grass so a creek can form.  There may be people that abuse the program the program is largely a genuine conservation program to protect and replenish topsoil.
> 
> 
> That was just an example, however.  If you want more, look at how the Ogallala aquifer is depleting and California, despite having spent billions over the years on conservation projects, is in a severe drought that won't stop until nature responds.  That's due to agriculture use.  We've been pumping billions of water out of these ancient aquifers to satisfy the need for food and it is slowly but surely coming to an end.  When it depletes, Nebraska and other western states won't be able to produce remotely close to the amount of crops they do today.




I am well aware of whats happening, I deal with it and work with NRCS and USDA, and have been asked numerous times to participate in future planning and expansion. 


What needs to happen is what I mentioned, years of being involved with Ag and taking part in multiple projects with far reaching effects has taught me that. Drip tape for many places is already the norm, and its becoming more and more relevant, but even that will not save our Ag industry, but using the ground correctly, no till farming, or min till, and the correct use of dryland fallow or alternate crop rotation to build organic matter in the soil and moisture retention, along with metered water use, and reclamation will fix what we have been doing. But it takes energy. A lot of energy, and for us to stop screwing with the environment.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 6, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> does that mean there will no longer be any DARWIN Awards made


If they die and can be reanimated, then they may qualify for multiple awards.


----------

