Metal Guitarist Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Dream Crusher
Joined
·
21,053 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
32,450 Posts
Just what we need, the technology to keep career politicians from dying. :facepalm:
 

·
I MG.org salute you.
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Sounds like a brilliant idea...gain a few more years of low quality life riddled with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. :nuts:

At the very least we can write off retirement knowing you'll outlive your savings eh? :woot:
 

·
It's not lupus.
Joined
·
1,689 Posts
I'd be curious to see what happens to neurological function when you artificially extend life in that manner. Those cells are only able to last so long...
 

·
Party Röcker
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
Just what we need, the technology to keep career politicians from dying. :facepalm:
... I know this is a long shot, but what if the *boiler-room girls* do the driving after those unhinged Chappaquiddick parties?

Sounds like a brilliant idea...gain a few more years of low quality life riddled with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. :nuts:

At the very least we can write off retirement knowing you'll outlive your savings eh? :woot:
... are you serious?

Considering that the aging process being reversed *is* exactly why you'd complain about 'low quality life', and that some of us haven't been gifted with nervous and respiratory systems that can hold back from going haywire after a few decades of moderate use (but might have a better chance due to treatments like this), I don't really see how this is *at all* the kind of breakthrough that whining like yours should really be targeting.

Jeff
 

·
I MG.org salute you.
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
I really don't get what your beef is with my skepticism. The article suggest that even if this did work in humans it is unlikely to reverse aging, but rather slow it down, and cancer risk soars. Sounds like a recipe for success to me. /sarcasm

While it is certainly possibly they could overcome the cancer risk, and hell lets even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they could actually reverse aging in humans, what are the odds the therapy would impact all tissues in the body equally? Would you have good healthy internal organs and synapses while your joints and bones continued to deteriorate into your centurion years? Nothing like being completely lucid while your body falls apart. Ask Stephen Hawking how that's working out for him.

I'm not trying to downplay the research. It is what it is. Maybe something good will come of it some day. I hope it does. My initial post was a tongue in cheek shot at the article title suggesting we were just one step away from the elusive fountain of youth.

Personally I think Freddie Mercury had it right. Who wants to live forever?
 

·
Slow Money
Joined
·
14,612 Posts
I think in the end you will all see that Jesus is the one in control. He will not let these "scientists", inhabited undoubtedly by the devil, to lead the masses away from GOD!
 

·
Party Röcker
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
I really don't get what your beef is with my skepticism. The article suggest that even if this did work in humans it is unlikely to reverse aging, but rather slow it down, and cancer risk soars. Sounds like a recipe for success to me. /sarcasm
If it does slow aging and the cancer risk is balanced, we have an increase in non-'low-quality life'. Your 'skepticism' was completely missing this and seemed more like generic oh-no-it'll-be-harder-to-look-cool-dying-young than anything that took the benefits of this research into account.

While it is certainly possibly they could overcome the cancer risk, and hell lets even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they could actually reverse aging in humans, what are the odds the therapy would impact all tissues in the body equally? Would you have good healthy internal organs and synapses while your joints and bones continued to deteriorate into your centurion years? Nothing like being completely lucid while your body falls apart. Ask Stephen Hawking how that's working out for him.
Nobody is calling it a miracle cure - if it does, in fact, have different effects on different tissues, then of course we won't be pretending that it's a hand on the age dial. However... even if that happens, how is the treatment not an incredibly great thing for people who have issues with some internal organ wanting to phone it in at 40?

I'll put this a little more bluntly... do you wake up every day knowing that this aging process is very likely turn you useless and incoherent before you'd be old enough to have grandchildren? If not, can it.

As far as Hawking... we both know that the world is far richer for his presence, and if the research is going to give one brilliant mind the choice to live longer - even if not as a concert pianist, footballer, and porn star - then how is this not worth it? You may not want to live like Hawking, but try to imagine physics without him and you'll see why more than a few people would rather have someone like him than someone like you.

Jeff
 

·
I MG.org salute you.
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
If it does slow aging and the cancer risk is balanced, we have an increase in non-'low-quality life'. Your 'skepticism' was completely missing this and seemed more like generic oh-no-it'll-be-harder-to-look-cool-dying-young than anything that took the benefits of this research into account.
No, my 'skepticism' was nothing more than what I stated in the previous post. In your attempt to enter into yet another internet dick waving competition with someone who doesn't share your specific position on a subject you are trying to interject your own interpretation between the lines and failing miserably.

Nobody is calling it a miracle cure - if it does, in fact, have different effects on different tissues, then of course we won't be pretending that it's a hand on the age dial.
In fact the title of the article suggested this exact thing. THAT is what I direct my skepticism at. I was no more dismissive of the research than any other comments made in this thread yet apparently you've chosen my post as the one to be place on the JBroll sacrificial altar.

I'll put this a little more bluntly... do you wake up every day knowing that this aging process is very likely turn you useless and incoherent before you'd be old enough to have grandchildren? If not, can it.
Well as long as we're being blunt please recognize that I have every right to hold an opinion that is contrary to yours. Trust me Jeff, I have plenty of experience with the ravages of ageing, both personally and by proxy. I happen to hold the opinion that quality of life is much more important than quantity. It has nothing to do with the bravado of "burning out" rather than "fading away". It's simply the opinion I have formed based on my own life experiences and is no reason for you to be patronizing.

Your point about physics being richer for Hawking's existence is correct but I have little doubt that given the choice he would prefer that he had not been subjected to such a devastating illness. Will this research give someone in the future that choice? If so, then GREAT!

If the research leads to legitimate improvements to the quality of life for individuals GREAT! Its not the research I question. I just think it's ridiculous for the media to sensationalize the suggestion that science has found the elusive fountain of youth. My poke at retirement was barely scratching the surface on the Pandora's box that would be opened if it were true.
 

·
Party Röcker
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
I really can't tell what that first line was supposed to be, and use of the phrase 'low-quality life' makes it very hard to see what else could possibly have been meant. Please clarify if that phrase threw things off completely.

The title was accurate in the effect it described for mice. I don't see where it was implied that the human process would be done so easily. I disagree on being dismissive of the research, especially given comments on 'low-quality life' and running out of savings. There's no sacrificial altar or pissing contest here, I'm just annoyed that comments like that are popping up the *one time this year* we see big, promising advance in medicine that can extend lives without just tacking on a few more of the ugly years as pudding in a retirement home bed.

I'm not saying that you can't hold a different opinion, so be careful if you're going to make comments about 'interjecting your own interpretation ... ' - I'm saying that you may be missing the impact significantly, because this research is going to be improving quality of life for a lot of people who would normally have a poor balance between that and quantity. I agree on the quality-quantity matter, which is why this research is much better news than the stuff pharmaceutical companies keep pumping out (Foreveritrol™, the pill that keeps hearts pumping decades after brain death!) and is exactly the wrong place to be putting your 'skepticism'. Advances like this one are the ones that could slow reverse age-related nervous system degeneration, the ones that will be giving more 'quality life' (and not just a longer shelf life as a vegetable), so I completely fail to see why this is getting remarks like your first one. Many new things do earn such remarks, but this seems like the one out of a thousand that doesn't.

If you're going to talk about being patronizing, again reconsider use of the phrase 'low quality life'.

Finally, this was remarkably less sensationalized than I'd have expected the announcement to be - I don't see anyone else suggesting that we've found the fountain of youth. If a bunch of quacks had gotten their local rag to blather on about how they could make old people young again, we'd have one thing - but I can't see a single part of your post that isn't misplaced.

Jeff
 

·
Boogadee Oogadee
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
You may not want to live like Hawking, but try to imagine physics without him and you'll see why more than a few people would rather have someone like him than someone like you.

Jeff
you probably don't give a shit what i think.... but while i usually find your posts funny, hilarious, smart, etc.... sometimes, like in this case, you being an ass totally distracts from a good discussion....
 

·
Party Röcker
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
Say whatever you can about what about my post (that part specifically shouldn't be taken far out of context, but with the rest of the post it should be clearer) and how I can make it sound less like being an ass (and more like thinking that he's focusing 'skepticism' in exactly the wrong spot) - that's not at all my goal, and I do want to get rid of anything that sounds like being confrontational for confrontation's sake.

Jeff
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top