Talk:Indefinite lifespan

untitled

The reference to the Law of Entropy is ridiculous. The biological mechanisms of aging are substantially more complex than a simple argument based on physical entropy. Though I'm not inclined to believe it achievable in the near future, from the point of view of a physical scientist, the claim that the stoppage of aging is somehow prohibited by the Second Law is a drastic oversimplification of Biology. There is FAR, FAR more room for exchange of entropy with the environment than such a claim would suggest. Orders of magnitude. Many.

If the 2LT is correct, the environment itself will degrade eventually.1Z 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Entropy cannot prevent realisation of immortality, as the only requirement, in the Thermodynamic sense, to immortality is the convertion of energy into the work that is required to carry out biological repairs to damaged parts, and to return living matter to the state of youth. Why nature has chosen the method of reproduction instead of eternal repair to damages, as a way of preserving life is still a mystery.

Removed wrong interpretation of entropy. 81.157.99.169 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Why nature has chosen the method of reproduction instead of eternal repair to damages," Eh, because without propagation all life would be one single cell, which would still be subject to death by trauma, and then life would not exist anymore. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.44.241.20 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Immortal to Old Age/Everything But Old Age

According to this article, "indefinite lifepsan" means immortality to old age but nothing else. Does anyone know what the term is for being immortal to anything but old age, which would essentially be an opposite form of immortality to indefinite lifespan? Sincerely, DanMat6288 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a standard term. "unkillable" might work, or "invulnerable", though that doesn't get the disease resistance... really, I don't think anyone's needed the concept enough to have a word. -- Mindstalk (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, I foresee a massive cybernetic transformation; Once nanotechnology advances to the point to which indefinite life extension is possible. Not simply anti-aging, but immortality will be achieved. Creatures will be transformed piece by piece with some fully self sustaining titanium infused cells or something to that effect. Kind of like the reverse of bicentennial man, with an iron man style heart, and all your brain neurons systematically integrated with invincible components. Once this point is reached, a new phase will commence. The immortal cyborg race will begin to grow, and advance. With upgraded and improved brains, memory and perception will be redefined. There will be some controversy b/t naturalists and cyborg advocates. and a war between intelligent machines and cyborgs has been talked about by some. I am willing to answer any questions/posts, and take this burden of creating the cyborg nation upon my own shoulders. spread the word. Legalize ADROID TESTING WOOOOO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.210.20 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Graph?

It seems that this page would really benefit from a graph. This discussion: "more than one year of research is required for each additional year of expected life" begs the question, "How much more than one year? What is the current ratio?" Surely there must be data readily available on the historical average human lifespan. -LesPaul75_talk 07:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

--- A) I found the statement re: "more than one year of research is required for each additional year of expected life" to be difficult to interpret. I suppose from context it meant that LE rises less each year than one year under the current state of medical advancement. What it suggested to me when I first read it was that one researcher working for one year (.i.e, one year of research) produced less scientific advancement than was needed to acheive that goal. Interpreted as such it appeared to be a laughably obvious statement. It really ought to be clarified.

B) You can find information regarding historical trends in life expectancy on the Life Expectancy page, but sorry, no graph at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.36.31 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The current ratio (as well as that for the last 100 years) is about 4, i.e. life expectancy increases by one year every four years, in most developed countries. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Was Pope Bob the first to articulate the idea of longevity escape velocity?

The article says that longevity escape velocity was first proposed by David Gobel. However, I have heard Robert Anton Wilson talking about it in 1984. Does this predate Gobel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.162.162 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoever, it sounds silly and clearly specious as stated. A year of additional life span can presumably be given a clear definition, but what the hell is meant by a year of additional research? If it's just clumsy ignorant editing and what is meant is a year of additional life as the result of practical gains in research the text should explain the particulars. If it's a quid pro quo, both the quid and the quo have to make sense. As the user above notes, what's there now is gobbledygook. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lycurgus, if you have trouble comprehending the concept, go to Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging and watch from 07:38 through 12:10. Mind you, Aubrey de Grey actually says in the video, “I decided to give this a little name.” Everything Is Numbers (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

synthetic life extension available now

The article tends to leave the impression that life extension is something for the future. People are improving the actuarial escape velocity now and practicing life extension today. For instance: a simple and very cheap life extension regime would be a very low daily dose of selegiline (deprenyl [1]), a daily dose of transresveratrol[2], potent antioxidants (i.e. cysteine, BHT) and a good quality multivitamin & mineral supplement. There is evidence to suggest (mainly from animal studies) that this stack may add 40% to life expectancy, so (unless you're impossibly conservative) you may not have to wait for nanotechnology to fully develop before life extension becomes practical. While you're at it you could also add in some mind-body work, i.e. Yoga, Tai Chi, meditation, etc. for a more holistic approach. If you start this stack at age 30 (and if the benefits do turn out to be substantive in humans), it could easily add twenty years to a person's life span (i.e. 50 x 1.4 + 30 = age 100 instead of age 80); allowing other treatments, i.e nanomedicine, to evolve in the meantime. HansNZL (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s. a link to the nootropics page would also be relevant for the article, esp. since nootropics tend to show anti-aging effects and there is a great deal of overlap between the two fields. HansNZL (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done: just added it to the "see also" section. HansNZL (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indefinite lifespan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224051228/https://acrobat.com/#d=MAgyT1rkdwono-lQL6thBQ to https://acrobat.com/#d=MAgyT1rkdwono-lQL6thBQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indefinite lifespan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129015832/http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/11/22/cr_diets/index.html to http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/11/22/cr_diets/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible merge

Should this article be merged with Immortality? --Wyn.junior (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)