rss
0

Until 1000 Years of Human Life

If we can stop the physical decline with age, a molecular biologist Aubrey de Grey saw that there was no reason why man should not live to 1000 years.

If we can stop the physical decline with age, a molecular biologist Aubrey de Grey saw that there was no reason why man should not live to 1000 years

With a beard and a strong opinion, there is something similar to the prophets in the days of old agreement with Aubrey de Grey. But gerontology expert who studies the aging process said that his belief that he may live to 1000 years of not getting in the belief / faith, but in science. De Grey studied computer science at Cambridge University, but became interested in aging issues more than ten years ago and is a co-founder of the Institute of SENS (Strategies for Engineered negligible senescence) which is a nonprofit organization based in the U.S. as reported by the Guardian.

What is wrong with being old?

Simply put, people get sick when getting older. I often meet people who will suffer from cardiovascular disease or something, and we get those things as a result of a long accumulation of various types of molecular and cellular damage. It is not dangerous at low tingatan but eventually it causes disease and disability in the elderly are most people think it is not fun.

Whether this is the biggest health crises facing the world?

Absolutely yes. If we look at the industry, basically 90% of all deaths caused by aging. Those things are death from causes that affect the elderly and has no effect on the young adult. If we look around the world, the number of deaths that occur every day around 150,000 and about two-thirds of that number due to aging.

Why the world does not recognize this?

People have tried to claim that we can conquer aging for a long time, and they do not achieve success. There is a tendency to think that there is something inevitable about aging. It is somehow beyond our technological capabilities in principle utter nonsense.

Then when people come to terms with this terrible thing will happen to them in the future, they tend to be somewhat reluctant to ask for it back when someone comes up with new ideas.

Are our bodies cease to be proactive in life?

Basically, the body’s own natural anti-aging equipment but not 100% is large, so it allows a small number of different types of molecular and cellular damage occurs and accumulates. The body is trying as hard as possible to fight these things but it can not survive. So we can not do anything significant about aging without the interference of high tech that I would do.

Aging involves a metabolic process, and then decline, and then the pathology, is it true?

Basically, it’s true. Metabolism involves a complex network of biochemical and cell processes are connected and it managed to keep us alive during the process, but there are side effects.

The side effects began even before we were born, the effect is still there in all corners of life and is manifested as an example, the accumulation of various types of waste molecules inside and outside the cell, or simply as cells that die and are not automatically replaced by another cell division. Gradual changes in the level of molecules and cells accumulate and eventually block the metabolism, and there appears pathology.

You have identified seven specific parts of the cell decomposition may be overcome. Can you give an example?

I just mention the dead cells and does not automatically replaced, it is one. The other cells do not die when they should die, some of the specific cell type should be changed and the cells often lose the ability to respond to signals that say that they should die.

The third is the cells divide too much, they may die when they should but divide too much, and it’s called cancer.

We know the causes of cancer for some time but the time to seek healing, is not it?

I certainly do not claim that none of this is easy. Some of them more easily, but I always looked at cancer as the single most difficult aspect of aging that must be corrected.

You talk about enriching the lives of people, but not death that makes our lives worth?

That is nonsense. The fact is people do not want to hurt. I am a practical man. I do not want to hurt and I do not want you sick and that’s what I mean. I do not discuss longevity, I discussed making people stay healthy. The only difference between my work and the whole medical profession is that I think we are in the discovery keep people healthy so that at the age of 90 they are still built in the same physical condition when he was 30, and chances are they do not wake up one morning not more Cleaner than ever at the age of 30 years.

You say you think the first year of life up to 1000 may have been alive. Could that person is you?

It’s possible that people my age 40’s young enough to benefit from this therapy. I give it 30 or 40% chance. But that’s not what motivates me to do this, I do it because I was interested in saving 100,000 lives a day.

Can the world cope with the people who live so long?

It depends on the balance of births and deaths. We did not take long to limit the birth rate after we more or less eliminate the infant mortality of 100 or 150 years ago. I do not see that it is common sense to assume the risk of cessation of the population as a reason to not give people the best health care we can give.

0
Liked it
RSSPost a Comment
comments powered by Disqus
-->