←back to thread

215 points XzetaU8 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
adastra22 ◴[] No.45076538[source]
There is no physical/chemical/biological reason you can’t live indefinitely with the health and vitality of a 25-35 year old. Aging isn’t a law of nature.
replies(14): >>45076585 #>>45076593 #>>45076608 #>>45076634 #>>45076639 #>>45076658 #>>45076692 #>>45076745 #>>45076755 #>>45076774 #>>45076898 #>>45076977 #>>45082241 #>>45088125 #
VincentEvans ◴[] No.45076634[source]
You haven’t quite come to grips with mortality, I think.
replies(4): >>45076899 #>>45076980 #>>45080203 #>>45080451 #
lossolo ◴[] No.45076980[source]
I think OP is not entirely incorrect. Reproductive cells undergo processes like epigenetic reprogramming, which basically strips away many of the chemical marks (like DNA methylation patterns) that accumulate with age. That’s one of the reasons babies don’t start with the cellular age of their parents. Researchers can take adult cells, reprogram them back to an embryonic like state using Yamanaka factors (a set of four genes) effectively erasing their biological age.

I think scientists currently are testing ways to "partially" reprogram cells to make them younger while keeping their function. Early studies in mice have shown some reversal of aging signs.

Seems like an engineering problem more than an absolute limitation.

replies(3): >>45077178 #>>45078007 #>>45082776 #
1. hallole ◴[] No.45078007[source]
Fully agree! I don't think life is much more than a sort of chemical engineering, "designed" with the "purpose" of self-replication. Our engineer, natural selection, didn't have "healthspan" in mind; insofar as we are human-making machines, we're pretty well built. I fail to see any reason that necessarily precludes a retooling of our internal machinery to accomplish our desires, not nature's.