The word technology in biotechnology does not mean bioengineering is as simple as computer technology... So much can go wrong, and you're dealing with real people. We're not talking prosthetic limbs. How do you propose a solution to the shortening of telomeres? Also, living to 1000 years increases your chances of cancer and other diseases.

It's easy to manipulate bacteria, because they are unicellular and perform a truncated number of tasks. Viruses are even less complex. All they do is infiltrate host cells, replicate their genetic information, reassemble, and lyse. It's easy to play around with their genes, or use bacteria to mass produce hormones. They are simple in size, nature, reproduction, etc.

In terms of humans, its much harder. How many people are waiting for organ transplants because they have to be specific matches? If they aren't their bodies turn on the "foreign" invader and you might lost the patient. It's hard enough to keep someone alive for 80 years... 1000??

 

I believe his point about viral engineering pertained specifically to the use of a virus to genetically manipulate a multi-cellular organism (ie, Humans) on a large scale. This prevents the need for germ-cell manipulation (which, typically people are against), and allows direct somatic cell modifications. He was not merely boasting about our abilities to tinker with a virus.

Here is the trick with analogies: it doesn't mean they're exactly the same thing.

 

Right, but when you tinker with a computer, it doesn't become deformed, cancerous, and/or dies... You can also restart a computer. That's where the analogy doesn't make sense. I mean, it's great that we have super computers that can calculate every current event going on in the world, but how is THAT technological advancement analogous to creating a super human...

Wasn't gemusan saying that since we've gotten so far with computers, it shouldn't be hard to get so far with humans?

All I'm trying to say is that the two sciences are extremely different. Sure, theoretically we are moving "forward" in both, but that doesn't mean we should expect the same results for both, or reach the same level of advancement... Based on what gemusan is saying we will probably have robots walking around before we manipulate our bodies to live for 100+ years regularly... Which would be cool, I guess, until they turn on us!

 

Virus in a computer : screen goes blank :: Virus in a human : Bleeding from every orifice

Forgot a letter in programming : "calculate" button doesn't work :: Forgot a base in DNA : Wrong amino acid, wrong protein/no protein, etc. etc.

Power shuts down due to earthquake : Generator turns on :: Power shuts down due to trauma : Funeral procession

Not enough memory : can't play F.E.A.R. :: Not enough serotonin : one crazy bitch

I just think, before we try and live any longer, we should try and live healthier and safer. People don't make it their 40's these days without having to get regular check ups, and often times things go undiagnosed until it's too late. It's like this.. you want a great computer, you gotta have enough power, backup energy, plenty of space, technicians on call 24/7, etc... If you can divert that kind of energy to every single human being, then perhaps we will live to 150 or so... Otherwise, wait 15 million years and perhaps (if we haven't been swallowed by some black hole) evolution will have made our wishes come true.


And seriously, how much RAM do i need to play F.E.A.R... 10 gigs?

 

I never said engineering genes is simple. That's why I used the computer analogy to demonstrate that complexity and difficulty does not make things impossible. The point I tried to make is that scientific progress moves exponentially, not linearly.

Yes if we want to live longer, we should try to live healthier and safer. That's what Dr. de Grey is saying as well. He's not saying he can come up with a magical elixir that'll immediately extend our lifespan to 1000 years. He's saying the development of new life-extending technology will eventually outpace the rate at which human age. So when you're 50, a treatment can turn your body's condition to that of a 40 yr old. Then when you age another 10 years, new treatment is available to make you 10 years younger again.

 

Just saw this video today.

Cliff Note: A scientist genetically engineered a "might mouse" that has similar capabilities as Lance Armstrong. The only thing he did is flip on the switch for an enzyme. The result is a breed of super mouse that is extremely physically fit, lives to 3 yrs old (~120 or so in human years) and can reproduce at 2.5 yr old (~100 or so in human years).

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7502

And before you say, "but a mouse is a lot less complex than a human", consider this: the mouse genome is 2.5 billion DNA bps and human genome is 2.9 billion DNA bps. Both the human genome and mouse genome contain around 30,000 - 40,000 protein coding genes.

The only thing holding us back at this point is morality.

 

Im I the only one who caught this? Man you are sick!!! Stay away from kids!

 

You don't understand. Some chics dig old men. Ashley Olson (21) is seen riding on Lance Armstrong (37)'s bike with one and a quater of a nut missing! See, it PAYS to be old mang!!

 

Right, because 21 = 9.

 

21 = 9? WTF are you smoking?