[Deepwater6]

I often visit a 91 yr old relative of mine in a nursing home. She is still of sound mind and except for losing some sight in one eye her quality of life is fairly good. Still, She often complains to me that she has lived too long. All her brothers died years ago as did her only daughter in 1993. She has stated many times that people shouldn't out live their children and that she should have died years ago.

I'd be interested to find out how the rich oil man's family in dd's BBC article would handle this situation. Let's say ten yrs from now he is still alive, but has serious dementia. The family follows his last wishes and gives him the fountian of youth Kool-ade. If he lives another 200 yrs with that mind would he still be OK with that if asked today? If doctors in the far future could re-programme his mind with new characteristics and personality to rid him of the dementia would the family do that? If so who's mind would they use as a model for this new personality? Either way you will never get dear ole gran papy back the way he was, and like you stated earlier dduckwessel without the quality of life staying alive would become more of a chore as opposed to the precious span of time that it is for us now.

[CraigD]

dduckwessel, on 29 November 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...er_script.shtml

From this 2000 article:

NARRATOR: Inside this limousine is a Texan oil millionaire and he wants to live forever, but he’s already nearing the end of his life. Miller Quarles is 85. He has offered a fortune to anyone who can prevent him from dying.

MILLER QUARLES : I’m leading an extremely happy life and that’s one of the reasons I’m willing to spend a lot of money to just to stay this way. I believe that, the cure of old age has got to come, it’ll come very earliest within a year, 5 years probable, 10 years a cinch.

From this 2010 obituary:

QUARLES, Miller W., 95, retired geophysicist, of Austin, formerly of Houston, died Tuesday

Quarles’s belief that he could avoid dying was mistaken, demonstrating that which, for most of us I expect, needed no demonstration: that the opinion of an oil millionaire on the subject of life extension isn’t more authoritative than anyone else's, and less that that of the many physiologists who believe medically induced immortality remains a hard-to-achieve goal.

[dduckwessel]

CraigD, on 01 December 2011 - 01:19 AM, said:

Quarles’s belief that he could avoid dying was mistaken, demonstrating that which, for most of us I expect, needed no demonstration: that the opinion of an oil millionaire on the subject of life extension isn’t more authoritative than anyone else's, and less that that of the many physiologists who believe medically induced immortality remains a hard-to-achieve goal.

Reading the obituary you provided, he died at 95 (which in itself is longer than most but I don't know if he enjoyed quality of life!). Though I think that we are preprogrammed to die I also believe that we can live to be much older and healthier than many presently do. The average life expectancy in Canada is 80.7 (2009 figures - http://www.google.ca...life+expectancy) and the U.S. (Virgin Islands are slightly higher than rest of US) slightly lower than Canada at 78.1 (again using 2009 figures).

I think if we lower our caloric intake and eat only very healthy foods, drink red wine in moderation, exercise moderately and take ta-65 we just might be able to add 20 years (give or take) of quality living to our lives.

[dduckwessel]

arKane, on 18 November 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

If you were Stephen Hawking, wouldn't you care? I care about having "a quality of life". Stephen is making the best of a bad situation, but what happens if his condition reaches a point where he can't communicate with the outside world?

I think you're right, Mr. Hawking has made the best of a bad situation and I'm sure invested lots in the hopes of finding a cure for his condition, which I read is progressive in nature. I personally think that any future cure for a condition such as his must be administered inutero, before the damage becomes irreversible.

I can't help thinking that something like Lorenzo's Oil (http://en.wikipedia....oleukodystrophy) is the key because some of the same symptoms that affected Lorenzo, also affect Mr. Hawking...

[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 01 December 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

I think you're right, Mr. Hawking has made the best of a bad situation and I'm sure invested lots in the hopes of finding a cure for his condition, which I read is progressive in nature. I personally think that any future cure for a condition such as his must be administered inutero, before the damage becomes irreversible.

I can't help thinking that something like Lorenzo's Oil (http://en.wikipedia....oleukodystrophy) is the key because some of the same symptoms that affected Lorenzo, also affect Mr. Hawking...

applying some personal/arbitrary index to the quality of life for anyone other than one's self is not only an exercise in futility, it is unwarrantable. tend to your own knitting.

as to lorenzo's oil it has not been found effective for ALD, let alone in any way shown to extend life.

Lorenzo's Oil @ wiki

wilty petal said:

...
Lorenzo's oil, in combination with a diet low in VLCFA, has been investigated for its possible effects on the progression of ALD. Clinical results have been mixed and the use of Lorenzo's oil has been controversial due to uncertainties regarding its clinical efficacy and the clinical indications for its use.[6]

Hugo Moser played a prominent role in both the treatment of Lorenzo Odone and the scientific evaluation of Lorezo's oil. In 2005, Moser published a controlled study concluding that Lorenzo's oil does not alter the course of the illness in symptomatic patients, but asymptomatic patients had a reduced risk of developing ALD while on the dietary therapy.[7] Moser appraised Lorezo's oil again in a 2007 report.[8]

Moser's findings, that Lorenzo's oil did not help symptomatic ALD patients, are consistent with prior studies published in 2003[9] and 1999.[10][6]

A study by Poulos found that Lorenzo's oil is of limited value in correcting the accumulation of saturated VLCFAs in the brain of patients with ALD.[11] Comparative autopsies showed that treatment enriched erucic acid in plasma and tissues, but not in the brain.[12]

Side Effects
The oil has been shown to cause a lowered platelet count.[13] Erucic acid is considered to be a toxin, and its presence in the food supply is regulated.[14][15]

Current state
In summary, dietary manipulation using Lorenzo's oil has been shown to lower blood levels of very long chain fatty acids, but it is ineffective in symptomatic ALD. However, studies by Dr. Hugo Moser have found evidence that use of the oil by asymptomatic patients may slightly delay the onset of symptoms.[7]

In the U.S., Lorenzo's oil is currently only available to patients taking part in a clinical trial at the Kennedy Krieger Institute.[citation needed] This trial was formerly held under the direction of Dr. Hugo Moser, until Moser's death in 2007. Moser's team, Dr. Gerald Raymond and Ann Moser continue the trial and his work with the leukodystrophies.
...

[sigurdV]

fahrquad, on 26 October 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

There are groups out there like Humanity+ who believe in enhancing the human body and mind by genetic and technologically means, but I disagree with tampering with the natural process of evolution. Some propose tampering with the human form to make people better able to work in specific environments, but ethically speaking we would be creating a slave class.

A slave class? It aint necessarily so...

To alter humans so they can "forever" live in empty space (feeding on the Casimir effect) would set them free to leave the solar system and find "work" elsewhere.

But , as I mentioned earlier , the problem of how to survive the death of our universe remains unsolved...

[sigurdV]

Deepwater6, on 29 November 2011 - 08:55 AM, said:

There is one certainty though, as we move hundreds or even millions of years in the future humans will continue to replace/add our body parts with artificial ones. Anything from a contact lens to a to our heads floating around on a levitating disc.

Nah!

Within the next 200 years or so rich ppl will (like salamanders) be able to grow new bodily parts to replace the old ones (them then being consumed). No operations, no artificial parts.

In the same way the brain will be able to keep alive the same mind "forever".

[Eclogite]

sigurdV, on 11 January 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

But , as I mentioned earlier , the problem of how to survive the death of our universe remains unsolved...

Let there be light?

[sigurdV]

Eclogite, on 27 January 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

Let there be light?

Or Rather: Let this be a joke

Still: The Mystery of Life and Universe is waiting for explanation/illumination.

PS Cant help suspecting they are connected in a Darwinian way...

You heard about the bees and the flowers huh?
Why couldnt the survivors be like bees searching for a new flower?
Then both life and universe has purpose
You do have a better conjecture, dont you?

[arKane]

dduckwessel, on 29 November 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

I would like to think we could live longer but unless there's quality of life, why would anyone want to? Then there's the idea that we're biologically programmed to die, the ceiling being 120 years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...er_script.shtml

Other's believe the fountain of youth can be found in a bottle:
http://www.lieberton...9/rej.2010.1085

If anyone can have a longer quality life, will it be available to all or only a selected few? If people want to live longer they will need to have less children, will they be able to accept that? If the average life span of humans increased to 120 years, does anybody know what kind of disruptions that will cause in our society? What kind of trade offs will we have to make to have longer life spans?

[arKane]

sigurdV, on 11 January 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

But , as I mentioned earlier , the problem of how to survive the death of our universe remains unsolved...

Personally I don't mind the dark, but I think we need to get by the next couple of hundred years and then if we don't have nothing really urgent distracting us, maybe we can worry about it then.

[bravox]

I find those discussions about immmortality humorous. Given human nature, at some point or another every human being will wish to die. You can't avoid it. Even continuous pleasure eventually becomes a bore and a burden.

" The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed "

You may or may not believe that the trumpet will sound, but it is obvious that you can't live forever if your nature is not changed.

[arKane]

bravox, on 07 March 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

I find those discussions about immortality humorous. Given human nature, at some point or another every human being will wish to die. You can't avoid it. Even continuous pleasure eventually becomes a bore and a burden.

" The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed "

You may or may not believe that the trumpet will sound, but it is obvious that you can't live forever if your nature is not changed.

Unless one has lived a very long time, it's probably pointless to argue the question about eventually wanting to die. But IMO, I think knowing we are mortal with an end in sight makes us try and accomplish things we might otherwise put off if we thought we had an unlimited amount of time. For example, procreating and raising kids before you die. So what do we do if we live twice as long or longer?

[bravox]

arKane, on 07 March 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Unless one has lived a very long time, it's probably pointless to argue the question about eventually wanting to die.

I don't want to live forever, so I'm just sharing my point of view. Maybe I have already lived a very long time?

I have come to understand the problem with this world, and it's a problem that no amount of scientific knowledge can solve. Essentially the problem is that there are problems. When we create temporary solutions to current problems, we create even worse problems for the future. The longer you live, the harder your life becomes.

So no one can be happy in this world. Living forever here would be a curse.

[arKane]

bravox, on 07 March 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

I don't want to live forever, so I'm just sharing my point of view. Maybe I have already lived a very long time?

Not to sure I do either, however I don't have a healthy young vigorous body. So my thinking on the subject might be somewhat clouded. (Just saying)

Quote

I have come to understand the problem with this world, and it's a problem that no amount of scientific knowledge can solve. Essentially the problem is that there are problems. When we create temporary solutions to current problems, we create even worse problems for the future. The longer you live, the harder your life becomes.

You could have a point here, but dealing with problems is part of being alive. In our society any problems we have are much better than not having those problems and still be living in caves or trees naked and not knowing how to start a fire.

Quote

So no one can be happy in this world. Living forever here would be a curse.

Let's rephrase a bit. No one can be happy 100% of the time. I like to balance my happy times with those not so happy times. But when the balance goes to mostly unhappy maybe I'll look forward to an ending.