Mokebe890

Mokebe890 t1_ja2jsed wrote

Reply to How Far to the Technological Singularity? by FC4945

Still prefer to be conservative about it and somwhere between 2050 - 2100. Sure we will have astonishing changes happening right now as we speak and probably AGI by 2030 but we really should take that with grain of salt.

−3

Mokebe890 t1_j3qfkuq wrote

Reply to comment by frequenttimetraveler in This biotech startup says mice live longer after genetic reprogramming by ChickenTeriyakiBoy1

Yes but dont underestimate such thing. The point is to show that age reversal is possible and feasible in mammals. If you can show that it works then it basically changes the fact how we look at aging and disease, the point of change in thinking.

Just imagine what will happen when people will finally know that aging is reversable. Then we can work to prevent teratomas, cancer and other downsides of it along the way.

27

Mokebe890 t1_j3lngak wrote

Reply to comment by a4mula in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354

I know that research yet their DNA says otherwise, that they do age. And it is important to note that their mortality dont increase with age unlike most mammals.

I dont really know if this discusson is mostly semantics. By no mean I say we can stop aging, its against physic laws. But I say that we can cure aging in humans, even if that means we need to check in our doctor every year or five for treatment. But if you think I say we can defy laws of physic and stop passage of time in humans then absolutly not.

2

Mokebe890 t1_j3lmm5t wrote

Reply to comment by a4mula in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354

Sure, because its either biological immortality or reproducing, yet more choose to reproduce than to be immortal.

Symptoms that occur because biological capabilities of organisms are close to end not because 75 years passed. Youre not developing age related disease because x time passed but because something altered your biology into a point when organism cant sustain its wellbeing. Add to this degeneration overtime from the first part about producing offsprings and thats more fitting definition.

2

Mokebe890 t1_j3ljr6b wrote

Reply to comment by a4mula in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354

None died of old age.

Old age is status of wear of biological systems in bodies. But it is because of biological organisms being programmed to produce offsprings and then die, just because their bodies are not made to live for X time. It is not passing chronological time, but internal damage that occurs over time.

My point is that aging is a word for disease that occurs over time. Maybe state organism is could be better, but anyway it is point in which organism starts to degredate. So it is condition that is really unwanted for consciouss being and should be treated like any other disease we are treating today.

But if you want me to show you organism that died of old age then none did, as I said.

2

Mokebe890 t1_j3lhgwe wrote

Reply to comment by a4mula in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354

What is so hard to understand? Biological age is wear and tear of organism and chronological is just passing time we measure. You can be chronologicaly 1000 years old but biologicaly at age of 25, just becasue your organism posess such capabilities to heal itself. What passing time have to do with pluripotent cells? Or shortening telomeres you mentioned earlier?

2