• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A shot at immortality?

Graham

Graduate Poster
G
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,453
Theoretically . . . ;)

Since we have life support machines, artificial kidney machines, artificial heart and lung machines, etc, etc (note the quite abysmal level of research I've put into this topic!), if you could arrange to be hooked up to each machine as and when the relevant organ failed - could you expect to extend your lifespan significantly?

Obviously, you would still be vulnerable to "instant death" accidents and organ failures. However, careful monitoring and pre-emptive replacement could reduce this risk to a minimum, I think.

The only organ we can't currently substitute for is the brain, correct? Given the rate of advance in science, however, and assuming that you're not philiosophically opposed to the whole idea, if you could replace everything else it seems reasonable to hope that you could live long enough to see prosthetic brains/transfer to computer/something become a reality.

Surely by this method a careful person with sufficient resources could hope to live quite a bit longer than a "normal" person.

I realise that, until the technology becomes appropriately advanced to let you get up and about again you're going to be bed-ridden and probably not having a great deal of fun but surely a few years of that would be a small price to pay for a shot at immortality?

Any thoughts?

Graham
 
Frostbite said:
The brain will die anyway, no?
Click to expand...

So I've been told, though never with an accompanying explanation as to why . . .

Anyone?
 
Diogenes said:
The biggest problem I see, except for a very few individuals, is " Who would pay for it, and why should they ? "
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting that it should be a service available on the NHS or anything! The cost would clearly make it impractical on a large scale.

The only way I could see it actually happening would be:

(a) as part of a research project (it seems to me that there would be some potential for improving life-support technologies in such a project)

(b) as a purely selfish thing on the part of a Bill Gates-type figure. Even a more moderately rich person could probably afford it if they invested with a view to very long-term gains, though.

Graham
 
In Tad Williams Otherland series, the Brotherhood (Bad guys, very rich) try to achieve immortality by copying their conciousness onto a virtual reality program, then commiting suicide. Now, whether this is an actual extention of their lives, or simply a clone is to be debated, but I thought it was probably the closest we can get to immortality in the semi near future.
 
sorgoth said:
In Tad Williams Otherland series, the Brotherhood (Bad guys, very rich) try to achieve immortality by copying their conciousness onto a virtual reality program, then commiting suicide. Now, whether this is an actual extention of their lives, or simply a clone is to be debated, but I thought it was probably the closest we can get to immortality in the semi near future.
Click to expand...


I haven't read the Otherworld books, are they any good? I quite enjoyed the Dragonbone Chair and its sequels, way back when they first came out.

Why was it necessary to commit suicide? Were they concerned that the "original" them would pull the plug or something? How did they convince the "originals" to kill themselves or did they have to kill them - is that suicide or murder?

Anyway, whether it's really, really you anymore if you're transferred to a machine (personally I'd say yes, but . . . :) ) is getting more into the philosophical questions, I think and I'm more interested in the technical posibilities for now.

Graham
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
To supply the shortest route to an answer, rephrase your question to ask:
"Can ANTHYING last forever? "
Click to expand...

Again, "forever" is heading into the realms of the philosophical.

I think my question could be better rephrased as "A shot at prolonging your life for an indefinite period past the point at which you would otherwise die"

Thanks anyway though.

Graham
 
I think a big part of what you're missing is that, in order to be hooked-up to many such machines, you have to be heavily sedated and/or incapacitated. Sure, there are heart-lung machines that can totally bypass your lungs and heart, but the have to crack your chest wide-open and clip all of your major vessels shunting the blood away from your natural pump. Also, the blood is cooled. You can't be conscious when this happens.

Okay, what about just a ventilator? Sure, you can't breathe on your own anymore so they shove a tube into your trachea and let a machine breathe for you. Problem is, now you have an artificial device in your wind-pipe that leaves you vulnerable to infections. No problem, right? Just get a tracheostomy. Well, who's going to get a big battery and push the vent machine around the park while you lug the tube hanging off of your throat gingerly making sure that it doesn't disconnect.

You get my point? Technology is not always the answer. We can prolong quantity of life, but not necessarily quality of life. Every day I see the results of eating terribly, smoking, not exercising, not keeping the blood pressure down, not managing diabetes effectively (etc.)... and people do this for years only coming in and expecting that the doctors will "fix" them when the problem comes up. The key to living longer, healthier, and happier is not to rely on machines to keep us going indefinitely. Sure, I suppose someday that we'll be able to invent a machine that will keep us going indefinitely. Why not? That technology, as you suggest, in many ways already exists. But, at what cost? (And, I'm not talking about dollars.)

Stop smoking, exercise, keep your blood pressure and cholestrol down, and eat healthy. Many of you reading this are in your thirties and forties already (myself included). Do these things now and you will be grateful to yourself in 30-40 more years. While this may be an interesting hypothetical to ponder, don't get into the mindset that you will be able to rely on technology to keep you alive and, more importantly, well. The former may be achievable, but I'm highly skeptical about the latter. There's still no perfect substitute for the parts that Nature gave you.

Okay, I'm off the soapbox now.

-TT
 
Montgomery Burns tried this - doesn't look like much of an existence...

futureburns3.jpg
 
I was also thinking of this, but I am not sure what kills the brain, I thought you could hack someone's head off, then hook up all the major blood thingys to an all in one machine that takes the blood, cleans it, oxygenates it, puts food in it, then pumps it back to the head and brain. That way the person can still see what's happening, even talk if you hook up an air blower to the throat, and you could also hook up sensors to the spine, and so they could control a robot, to clean their teeth and play computer games and read books and what not.

IF you could do this, how long before the brain dies?

And they are already working on stuff that can replace certain parts of the brain so you could maybe keep the brain going a while longer.

Again how long would this brain last?

You see my view is that IF you just wanted the brain to survive, it would be simpler than replacing the whole body, as you don't need to account for digestion and locomotion. Obviously there are so many other factors to take into account, but hypothetically, I thought the brain might last longer than the body, if your liver and kidneys fail, then toxins are released into the blood aren't they? and that helps kill you, but the Brain could be fine in this case, and if there was a way to keep it fed and breathing, it could last a bit longer?
 
Originally posted by ThirdTwin:
I think a big part of what you're missing is that, in order to be hooked-up to many such machines, you have to be heavily sedated and/or incapacitated. Sure, there are heart-lung machines that can totally bypass your lungs and heart, but the have to crack your chest wide-open and clip all of your major vessels shunting the blood away from your natural pump. Also, the blood is cooled. You can't be conscious when this happens.

Okay, what about just a ventilator? Sure, you can't breathe on your own anymore so they shove a tube into your trachea and let a machine breathe for you. Problem is, now you have an artificial device in your wind-pipe that leaves you vulnerable to infections. No problem, right? Just get a tracheostomy. Well, who's going to get a big battery and push the vent machine around the park while you lug the tube hanging off of your throat gingerly making sure that it doesn't disconnect.
Click to expand...

All things considered, exactly how long could you keep someone alive on a life support machine? Indefinitely? Or would it be the case that whatever natural causes would have caused the individual to expire in normal circumstances would eventually take hold?

Anyone know what the record for life support is?
 
ThirdTwin

First of all, I agree entirely with your comments regarding healthy living and "helping yourself". I've recently taken some steps to improve my lifestyle in that regard and would recommend that anyone who can do the same. It's a pain at first but well worth it.

That said, the healthiest lifestyle in the world won't put off death forever. What I want to know is - for how long could you prolong life when all else fails?

I note your comments regarding quantity of life/quality of life. What I am forseeing is that the life-prolonging technology will get better and better as time passes and that, by constantly upgrading your equipment you could gradually bring your quality of life back to an acceptable level and perhaps eventually surpass the level of quality you had before you "died" (for example with some sort of super-powered cyborg body or something equally science-fictionesque).

Having to be sedated would be a problem though, IMO. Can you tell me why this is necessary? Is it simply because of pain or is it for some reason necessary to the process?

BTox

Someone always has to mention The Simpsons! Good episode though.

Squishydave

MY thinking was that you would be best to keep using as many "natural" processes as possible for as long as possible.

I'd be interested in ThirdTwin's comments on your post though.

Graham
 
I don't know what the record for someone being on life support. You hear stories about people being in comas for years, and then miraculously awakening. The difference is, though, that these people (I believe) are not mechanically ventilated or otherwise artificially kept alive.

The longer you keep someone in the ICU with tubes in them, the more likely it is that they will develop a life-threatening infection. This has to do primarily with artificial tubes and devices being inserted into them and the fact that there are any number of nasty, resistant nosocomial infections flitting about a hospital at any given time just waiting to find a nice, opportune host.

They just haven't perfected artificial devices to the point that they can be inserted into people completely worry free. Not only are there mechanical issues (with, for example, pacemakers that fail, replacement heart valves that require constant blood-thinning medication so clots don't form, etc.) with some devices, there is also the fact that you are interupting the integrity of the body as I stated above. The body possesses the amazing ability to heal itself. Mechanical devices do not and eventually need to be replaced. Again, you get the picture.

Now, as far as the brain question goes, brain cells (true neurons - not supportive brain tissue like astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and glial cells) do not divide. Theoretically, they could live indefinitely. Cells that divide and reproduce is essentially where aging occurs. However, without the supportive cells of the brain the neuronal tissue can't function. All of us, as we age, lose some function as a result of this supportive tissue degrading. So, I don't think you could live indefinitely hooked up to a robot (or whatever).

The best bet is to find out and control the aging process within the cellular machinery itself. There has been some work done with understanding telomerases, especially their role in oncogenesis, and this may be the key in the future to stopping (but not reversing) the aging process. But, when you manipulate cells on the molecular level, a whole host of potentially unkown and disastrous things have the potential of occurring. The State of the Art just hasn't gotten that far yet and our understanding of the delicate interplay in the cell still has a long way to go.

As the saying goes, unfortunately life is a terminal condition. Maybe someday we'll be able to prolong it indefinitely (or at least substantially increase the amount of years that humans can live... heck, we've already done that to a large extent), but I would place my money, were I a gambling man, that this will be accomplished using genetic and molecular manipulation and not mechanical technologies. Who knows?

-TT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom