Medicine may soon let people live beyond 120

[Cheese]

So....I guess this would put a big crowbar into the Canadian Pension Plan! I think demanding that all you young guys work to at least 100 is the best way out of that.
Stock up on the Depends youth of today! I hope all this medicine will keep you mobile and your brain functional!

Modern medicine is redefining old age and may soon allow people to live regularly beyond the current upper limit of 120 years, experts said on Wednesday.

Old...but will you be mobile?

[Knut]

Better get it soon then Cheese

Anyways.... they say that.. but there is also the fact that our generation spends more time staring at a computer screen/TV, listening loudly to our ipods and ingesting greasy food than any previous generation. We may live long, but we will be deaf, blind and 400lbs long before 120.

Here's hoping modern science in 50 years has developed implantable eyes, ears and a miracle drug that cleans our bloodstream of cholesterol.

Regardless, I have a choice between living a completely healthy life or just chance it that modern medicine will be able to fix me in the future. For now i will go with the half-ass healthy approach and cover both bases.

[RT14]

I've been saying we'll be living well into our hundreds since I was a kid, and everyone said it was impossible and I was delusional. Haha...to those who doubted.

In fact, I recently saw a 60 minutes epeisode where they interviewed some scientist (although he did look a little...out there) who said we might live well into our THOUSANDS with the advancement of stem cell research. It sounds a little too good to be true, but I see how it's a possibility. Ethics are what come into play at that point though.

To the question of "Will you be mobile?" Each period of your life becomes longer if you live longer. So, if you're living to be 120, you could expect your childhood and teenage years to be extended as well as the other periods of your life. Working until we're 80 wouldn't be out of the question.

[Cowperson]

A doctor told me the other day retiring by 55 means there's a good chance you'll live at least an extra ten years beyond the norm.

So . . . . . retire at 55 and live to 120 means you'd have 65 years of fishing to do.

What would be your quality of life from say, 85 to 120? Would you really want those extra 35 years?

Sometimes old folks simply tire of life, even become bored with it, and just will themselves to death.

Cowperson

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

What would be your quality of life from say, 85 to 120? Would you really want those extra 35 years?

I'm not sure that I would. I have a feeling that I'm going to end up as one of those crazy old men who are frequently seen wearing a bathrobe, shower cap and rubber boots while waving a toilet brush. That kind of crazy just isn't sustainable when you tack on an extra 35 years.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

...and in related news...the Leafs have announced no further lineup changes for the next 100 years....

[AaronSJ]

On the surface, this shouldn't be a huge surprise considering that we've seen remarkable progress in life expectency during the last 200 years - it has more than doubled during that timeframe, after remaining relatively constant (only modest growth) for the last couple thousand years.

But surprisingly, the rate of change of life expectency has slowed down substantially in the last 25 years, especially in North America. In the first half the 20th century, every decade resulted in ~4 more years of expectency (from 49 years in 1900 to 68 years in 1950). But this has slowed down substantially since 1980 (74 years) to our current level of 77 years (U.S. figures - it's almost 80 in Canada).

In fact, recent research has suggested that today's generation of children will be the first in history to NOT live as long as their parents, in large part due to the obesity epidemic. That's a scary thought, and it certainly goes against theory in the article above.

But I do agree that medical technology will continue to allow humans to live longer and longer. The key question will become -- can we afford it?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by fotze

Yet they think smoking costs society more than not smoking. I say taking someone out of the system at 43 is a far cheaper option. I would be curious to see if those stats account for that.

This has been addressed repeatedly and is frequently a myth propagated by smokers. The cost of treating someone for lung/bladder cancer, emphysema...etc far exceeds what a normal person will require over their lifetime and final days. Not to mention that you have to factor in what someone contributes to society (ie. taxes) over a lifetime of productivity (ie. job), and compare that against their overall cost to society. From this perspective, taking someone out, particularily at an early age, is actually a huge loss rather than a gain.
________
Iolite Vaporizer

[NuclearFart]

Sorry, I didnt mean to sound harsh. I was just refering to it being addressed in medical studies, nothing specific to this forum or you.

Yes it is true that smoking is more prevalent amongst lower socioeconomic groups, but they are still contributing none the less, and when taken as a sum of lifetime work (which includes raising kids who themselves will contribute and so forth) they still contribute alot. Homeless people are another story, but they represent an almost negligible minority.

And yah you have to wonder how much one is going to be able to contribute beyond age 80ish...the body might be there, but is the mind?

PS: Maybe it is time to change your outlook on life?
________
Arizona Medical Marijuana

[Knut]

Not to mention those Telomere ######ers in our DNA that degrade themselves. Eventually the tissue will break down and unless we can stop the telomere from self-degradation we will all eventually degrade to nothingness..

http://www.telomere.net/


The other question is that if we screw too much with the Telomere's will our genes still want to replicate themselves?? Where would the pressure be for them to pass themselves on. The Telomere's degradation are probably the reason for advanced sex drive when we are younger... our genes control us and want to pass themselves on... hence why our animal instincts often take the forefront.

Anyways.... it would take a long time for us to evolve that..

rant over.

[Buff]

I wouldn't mind living until I am 120, but as it has been pointed out, what will your quality of life be like? If I could be as active in my 40s as I was in my 20s and everything proporionately goes downhill until I'm 120 then perhaps it wouldn't be too bad. Is that what the medication is proposing it can do?

Bah, really, I can't be bothered to take medication now, I probably couldn't be bothered to take it in the future... I'm likely to die "young".

[Neeper]

I would love to live forever. Honestly, I don't think I would ever get tired of life. There is so much to see and do in the world to keep yourself from being bored. When I try to imagine the world going on without me, it's pretty hard.

I want to be there when we first meet Aliens.
I want to be there when interstellar space travel is possible.
I want to live on Mars one day just for the heck of it.
I want a flying car.
I want to play games on the PS40.
I want to be around when religion is proved as false.
I want to be around to celebrate my great grandkid's wedding.
I want to be around to see Vietnam (and other countries) free of communism.
I want to be around when world peace is achieved (only if religion is proved false)
I want to visit every country in the world and explore the culture.