This could be BIG as far as medical science goes

[anunitu]

This could be BIG as far as medical science goes.

http://gizmodo.com/5937249/scientist...-eternal-youth

This is an amazing medical breakthrough.

"Researchers at Johns Hopkins have discovered an efficient and totally safe method to turn adult blood cells "all the way back to the way [they were] when that person was a 6-day-old embryo." The discovery could be the key to cure the incurable—from heart attacks to severed spinal cord to cancer—and open the door, some day, to eternal youth."

[dedndave]

that's what we need if mankind is to get to another planet

[mywan]

I don't see how possessing another planet is all that desirable for our long term survival, though solar systems with well behaved stars are useful. There is no really great technological hurdle to building solar orbiting cities, complete with spin for gravity (the easy part). The hard part is shielding from solar and other radiation, but certainly doable.

To get some notion of the advantages to this, by comparison of the total living space solar orbiting cities could make available, looking for another planetary surface to live on would be like searching for a one bedroom apartment to move the entire population of Earth into. Actually, that one bedroom apartment would be humongous by comparison, even if we remain in just this one solar system.

------
As far as the medical story, this is indeed a major advancement but the headline is also highly misleading. When the quote states:

"Researchers at Johns Hopkins have discovered an efficient and totally safe method to turn adult blood cells "all the way back to the way [they were] when that person was a 6-day-old embryo." The discovery could be the key to cure the incurable—from heart attacks to severed spinal cord to cancer—and open the door, some day, to eternal youth."

It doesn't actually mean they have turned an old persons blood into the blood of a baby. What they have done turn the blood cells into stem cells, not young blood. In the bigger picture, of what's required for the headlines fountain of youth, it is an extraordinarily tiny piece of the puzzle. Albeit an important one.

Medicine is not a particular interest on mine, but certain experiments show just how much we still have to learn. Put simply, by wiring the circulatory system of a young and old mouse together the old mouse does benefit significantly in terms of healing ability and a range of other measures. However, as soon as this connection is cut the old mouse reverts back to an old mouse healing capacity. Stem cells may be a boon for helping to heal specific ailments, but thus far there is no indication that the benefit has any more long term effect than with the mice. Age continues to progress and is simply not reduced, and researchers still don't have a clue what specific underlying factors dictate these cellular responses. Though they will almost certainly get there one day.

Bottom line is that this will likely be a boon to medicine, perhaps curing many ailments of the elderly, but does not constitute a reversion of age in the sense the news article falsely implied.

[Ghandi]

Not to sound like a party pooper but don't we already have a problem of too large a global population already?

I can see how this will really help matters there...

This desire to live forever always strikes me as odd, instead of people appreciating the time we have, we want more but the more time we have, the worse human behaviour seems to become. I'm not going to call it for other people but I'll be happy to die when it is my time, not before and not after, without medical intervention to extend my life beyond natural means so i am a caricature of a human being who dribbles into his porridge.

The other thing they failed to mention also is that although they may be able to extend (perpetually?) the shell which houses the brain, there is nothing being said about the brain itself so that is still prone to breakdown and failure, something which is already a problem with the extended life gained by modern medicine.

HR,
Ghandi

[mywan]

Not to sound like a party pooper but don't we already have a problem of too large a global population already?

I'm guessing that if you have a choice between reproduction or medical immortality birth rates will drop rather significantly :lol:

Whether we seek medical immortality or not, it is still a likely (eventual) outcome as our knowledge progresses. Though there are certain groups of people trying to hold out for medical immortality I think is a fairly limited group overall.

The other thing they failed to mention also is that although they may be able to extend (perpetually?) the shell which houses the brain, there is nothing being said about the brain itself so that is still prone to breakdown and failure, something which is already a problem with the extended life gained by modern medicine.

Very true. On the other hand it's not really true that we don't grow new nerve cells. Rather, new nerve cells generally only grow in response to use, to support and extend the nerve functions we actually make use of, while atrophying those we don't use. New nerve cells lacking any particular trained response would be useless. In effect draining off our energy obtained from food. Hence, when brain damage occurs that kills off some functionality there is no functional use to grow replacements in response to. As a person ages their capacity to grow new nerve cells, in response to use, is limited in the same way their capacity to heal normal tissue is more limited. Leading to significant mental illnesses as we live longer. So resolving the aging issue for muscle tissues, something not addressed by stem cells in the above story, is likely the same fundamental mechanisms for maintaining a youthful capacity to generate nerve cells in response to use.

Something else not mentioned is telomeres that unravel with age. Not an easy problem to address.

[dedndave]

the problem that i foresee with something like this is availability
only the wealthiest people will be able to live longer
these are the ones that have screwed up the planet, to begin with - lol

[Tedd]

Not to sound like a party pooper but don't we already have a problem of too large a global population already?

I'm guessing that if you have a choice between reproduction or medical immortality birth rates will drop rather significantly :lol:

..for the wealthy.

Whereas the highest birth rates come from the vast majority of the world population that are unable to afford basic health care, nevermind youthful rejuvenation.

The global population wouldn't be such an issue if there were a more equal distribution of resources and technology; but who likes to share?

[anunitu]

A sad note is that I saw something on I think the news,if the rest of the world consumes like we do here in the US(this is in fact happening in those country's), It would take 4 earth planets to provide the resources to feed and provide enough water to sustain that level of consumption.   

[mywan]

If the entire population of earth was moved to Texas there would be about 28.4 square meters (413 square feet) per person. That's actually slightly bigger than my present house (365 square feet). It would take roughly 25 times that to feed the average person, even with the roof utilized. When my grandmother was still alive she subsisted on about a 1000 square foot garden in her back yard. This didn't include the area for milk goats and chickens. Though it was supplemented with store bought flour, corn meal, salt, yeast, died beans and such. She didn't have store bought meals as such.

In spite of these numbers we are, for all practical purposes, essentially at our population limit on earth. Even if we maximize our resource efficiency it only gains us at best a generation or so of growth.

[dedndave]

with a little luck, texas would become a sink hole - lol
and - take a few ex-presidents with

[mywan]

with a little luck, texas would become a sink hole - lol
and - take a few ex-presidents with

We could move the world to Australia and get about 1,100 square meters (12,000 square feet) each. :lol:

[Tedd]

Total area of Texas: 696,241,000 m² (assuming all land is equal and ignoring bodies of water)
Current World population: 7,000,000,000 (we're now a little over this)

696,241,000 / 7,000,000,000 = 0.099463 m²/person  (1.0706 ft²/person)


Australia:  7,617,930,000 / 7bn = 1.088276 m²/prs (11.7141 ft²/prs)
USA: 9,826,675,000 / 7bn = 1.403811 m²/prs (15.1105 ft²/prs)
Africa: 30,221,532,000 / 7bn = 4.317362 m²/prs (46.4717 ft²/prs)

World [land only]: 148,940,000,000 / 7bn = 21.277143 m²/prs (229.0253 ft²/prs)


Of course this all assumes we only build on a single level; clearly it's necessary to build upwards.

[mywan]

Total area of Texas: 696,241,000 m² (assuming all land is equal and ignoring bodies of water)
Current World population: 7,000,000,000 (we're now a little over this)

696,241,000 / 7,000,000,000 = 0.099463 m²/person  (1.0706 ft²/person)

Error here.
268,800 miles² = 696,241,000 km² not 696,241,000 m².
That puts the number off by factor of a thousand. Same for the rest.

[Tedd]

Seriously?

1 mile² = 2.5900 km²

You can work out the rest yourself.


For comparison, consider the surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 km²
You're saying Texas has an area larger than the Earth.

[mywan]

1 mile² = 2.5900 km²

You can work out the rest yourself.

Correct so far, but you then converted km to m by multiplying by 1k which is wrong when dealing with k². Which is what is required when measuring square meters instead of meters. So:
268,800 miles² = 696,189 km² is correct.
696,189 km² = 696,189,000 m² is wrong.
In fact:
696,189 km² = 696,189,000,000 m²
The reason is because Kilo = thousand, but we are dealing with square km (km²) such that k becomes k². Hence area is multiplies by (1000*1000), when you merely multiplied by 1000 instead.

Google calculations:268800 square mile to square meters
Which is: 6.96189e11 m² or 696,189,000,000 m² and not 696,189,000  m².