The possibility to live forever, a reality

While i do not believe we can have eternal life i think the possibility of extending the amount of years a human can live is a more reasonable and more realistic option i mean yeah we would love to live forever but i feel that at points it could be a lonley thing and just a never ending nightmare for some people

UQ-Holder is a awesome manga. I would go around and find all the people who is immortal and make one big group of friends out of us and we go around making sure the world is still here, so the same kind of story UQ-holder is. I just follow there lead.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that if even one person can become immortal, they'd eventually want to die like in Code Geass... Suicide is really scary even to those who want to die, and must be worse to feel suicidal for many years and have to suffer from that before death, than to die in a happy/decent mental state. Not saying dying in any way is good, but eh.

Yeah C.C hated the eternal life i mean she was always getting shot and stuff anyone would want that to end and that is why i think it would be a bad idea its interesting i mean given all the time in the world you could do anything and everything so i guess that would not be bad but friends and family would die if you were the only immortal and then think how lonely one would be

but it all depends though, if one person becomes immortal for the benefit of the rest. It would be deemed a reasonable sacrifice by many. Although we are talking about longevity not invulnerability here. Eventually the individual would be "killed" when his/her task has been completed. At least I think it reasonable.

On the topic of this, I think I would like to add another part to it. There is also a russian billionaire out there apparently that started his own company and funding it to pursue immortality via utilizing first a cyborg body, then later trying to dump us into virtual avatars. This right here has been hyped by the media quite a bit as you can see below. http://2045.com/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-tycoon-seeks-human-immortality-artificial-brains-by-2045/ The problems that arise from this kind of method are quite prevalent. The most obvious being the transfer of the actual brain to the artificial body perhaps maybe later on we may be able to create a body that is fully artificial for humans. However to actually transfer a conscious mind the actual brain to a new body is quite the wall, despite what all of those lovely movies with cyborgs in them show. If anything the closest we may get anytime soon is what we have been able to accomplish, just more advanced implants or artificial parts. This a good example though, of the hype of innovations like this in medical science, that arise out of the always prevalent want to make us live longer. As for telomeres The science behind this though is using a simplified version of how aging pretty much works. Lets go over some stuff in regards to it. Firstly the many studies on this research in telomeres is quite inconsistent with the statistics they are presenting. The actual scores they used in the studies had to be artificially expanded and such for the outliers. Not to mention the studies are far to little in terms of statistics to actually draw any significant effects out anytime soon, coupled with the evidence there seems to be a pattern of the studies bending the rules of statistical data gathering as well as selective reporting possibly, All the more signs of a research in a hot zone being inflated as usual, along with possible confirmation bias, As for the telomeres themselves while they can possibly increase our health via studying them and whatnot they can by no means provide such results as anti aging. Besides that here a few other things to look at, Shortening Telomeres are secondary to disease and aging moreover then a cause of it just to be clear, yet most of the studies seem to focus on the idea that they are quite the main cause of it. The next thing is they seem to be focusing on telomeres in a few select cell types, their are trillions of telomeres at the minimum found within the human body, doing any measure on just a select few will for the most part not lead to any clear conclusion on that matter. That's a few problems out of the many if you look at in within this research in telomeres. My advice approach every new "Research" that makes claims such as this with critical thinking, and then looking at the research from different set points and scenarios/viewpoints. A typical problem with research that makes big claims as these usually is the recreation of said experiment outside of the constraints that they originally set up. That's all for now folks. A clue -.-- --- ..- / -- .- -.-- / -... . / .- -... .-.. . / - --- / .- ... ... .. --. -. / - .... .. -. --. ... / .. -. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .-. . .- .-.. .. - -.-- / -... ..- - / -.. --- / - .... . -.-- / -- .- - -.-. .... / ..- .--. / .-- .. - .... / - .... . / .-. . .- .-.. .. - -.-- / .- .-. --- ..- -. -.. / -.-- --- ..- --..--

@Yu I like your post, but there were a few things that are inaccurate. Studies of telomeres are in a few cell types mainly because as Xueli pointed out earlier, telomeres are mostly irrelevant in most cells. There are only so many types of germ cells and stem cells where telomeres are much more important. I would also personally appreciate references for saying that the statistics are inconsistent and artifically expanded. In addition, most studies don't function under the assumption that telomeres are the cause of aging. I would recommend searching pubmed. If you want to read an article that isn't free, ask me and I can probably get it for you. Lastly, it isn't the research that makes these claims, it's the media. On your last point, if the media says that some research is great and awesome, don't take it at face value. You may also be interested in knowing that monkey heads have been transplanted with consciousness maintained, but they were paralyzed and very discombobulated to say the least.

Very well my knowledge of said telomeres should be increased then, Thank you, sorry for the inaccuracies, As for the monkey heads being transpanted with consciousness maintained, I have heard about that actually, Robert White if I believe so correct, however most of them died in the experiment shortly after. But onward to the telomeres, In regard to telomeres being more important in the stemcells and germcells though, are the studies actually focusing on those specific cells moreover? As for references no problem, I will give you one right here, This one was the article a example of it. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2014119a.html To control for interassay variability, eight control DNA samples were included in each run. In each batch, the T/S ratio of each control DNA was divided by the average T/S for the same DNA from 10 runs to get a normalizing factor. This was carried out for all eight samples and the average normalizing factor for all eight samples was used to correct the participant DNA samples to get the final T/S ratio. The T/S ratio for each sample was measured two times. When the duplicate T/S value and the initial value varied by more than 7%, the sample was run a third time and the two closest values were reported. Using this method, the average CV for this study is 2.1%. If you read the article scores of said extreme outliers were artificially brought closer to scores of other participants by applying a less extreme value in order for assumptions to merit the statistical analyses being met. In regards to articles I would highly appreciate that if you could, thank you The media does make the claims especially with hyping it up but that doesn't mean that the people behind the research aren't, Taking it at face value would be to obvious though wouldn't it, its easy to criticize the research for how the media is parading it around so I am all to aware,

I will admit that methods are not my forte, but I read the referenced section of the article. I also read most of citation 41 which is the foundation for the protocol. There appears to be an explanation for why they ran the sample a third time if it varied more than 7%. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/10/e47.full "The average of the standard deviations at the three well positions was 6.9%." It's under the heading "Reproducibility of T/S ratio measurements." The article is rather hard to understand and I'm not up to concentrating fully at the moment so I can't explain the reasoning, but it appears to legitimize their actions. Maybe you can understand this section better? Also here is a short review article discussing research of telomeres as related to stress as opposed to aging: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360757/