Only those who are totally boring may be totally bored by a radical extension of life span (John Harris, British bioethicist, take-some-second degree, translation) .
Theme of the month: Two European conferences looking for a longer life
8 and 9 October in Brussels' s The conference is held Imminst 2010. Dozens of scientists gathered to exchange ideas, their projects, their concerns and hopes about the scientific methods that will one day, if medical advances do not stop, old age to join the plague and famine in the pantheon of losers nightmares of humanity.
Obviously, this prospect is still some way off even the most optimistic. Currently, specialists are content to wrest, few parcels of longevity to genetic complexity, with all that makes the animal kingdom - including a member of the human species who reads these lines - an ocean of surprises sometimes good but often incomprehensible.
If he had retained a presentations organized by the "Immortality Institute, the Michael Rose is probably the most interesting. He said the mortality due to aging increases with age, but reached a plateau when people reach a certain age. And this applies to both fruit flies than humans. From one point in advancing age, so there is more of worsening health, but a stabilization of the physiological state. According to evolutionary biologist, an objective that could be age at which damage due to age is no longer growing gradually lowered. The theoretical ultimate goal might be that mortality increases more before old age, for example at age 50. Even if concrete results do not come out probably in the short term these studies, it is fascinating to see how scientific knowledge in this area is growing with innovative ideas and experiences.
Ten days after the conference in the capital of Europe, from October 22 to 24, is in Milan a few hundred futurists gathered for an event called "Transvision 2010." The presentations were of variable quality but a simple idea that was largely consensus can be highlighted: the natural limits of human beings are not necessarily moral limits. In other words, the limits of human beings for its speed, intelligence and longevity are not necessarily the limits set by ethics. This is not because man naturally saw 70 years, runs up to 40 per hour and has a storage capacity limited only to live 130 years, running at 80 per hour and have a better memory is immoral . We've long since passed limit "natural" for human life and for those who want to live longer, technological advances are opening up fascinating perspectives at a rate that is accelerating.
It must however be noted that while the articles and information concerning increased longevity are becoming more numerous, the number of citizens who involve themselves in practice to allow a healthy life much more Long is very small. The majority may be right. Maybe in 30 to 50 years, we moved slowly from one life to life with aging aging with negligible without even realizing it. Thus, the leukemia that killed 9 in 10 children no longer causes the death of about 10% of children without that we have noticed this trend.
But it is also possible that advances in science require major investment and that, in the absence of social mobilization, because of the indifference of our fellow citizens, progress in the fight against aging is slow and can not qualify for a long time only a rich minority and low solidarity.
Obviously, this prospect is still some way off even the most optimistic. Currently, specialists are content to wrest, few parcels of longevity to genetic complexity, with all that makes the animal kingdom - including a member of the human species who reads these lines - an ocean of surprises sometimes good but often incomprehensible.
If he had retained a presentations organized by the "Immortality Institute, the Michael Rose is probably the most interesting. He said the mortality due to aging increases with age, but reached a plateau when people reach a certain age. And this applies to both fruit flies than humans. From one point in advancing age, so there is more of worsening health, but a stabilization of the physiological state. According to evolutionary biologist, an objective that could be age at which damage due to age is no longer growing gradually lowered. The theoretical ultimate goal might be that mortality increases more before old age, for example at age 50. Even if concrete results do not come out probably in the short term these studies, it is fascinating to see how scientific knowledge in this area is growing with innovative ideas and experiences.
Ten days after the conference in the capital of Europe, from October 22 to 24, is in Milan a few hundred futurists gathered for an event called "Transvision 2010." The presentations were of variable quality but a simple idea that was largely consensus can be highlighted: the natural limits of human beings are not necessarily moral limits. In other words, the limits of human beings for its speed, intelligence and longevity are not necessarily the limits set by ethics. This is not because man naturally saw 70 years, runs up to 40 per hour and has a storage capacity limited only to live 130 years, running at 80 per hour and have a better memory is immoral . We've long since passed limit "natural" for human life and for those who want to live longer, technological advances are opening up fascinating perspectives at a rate that is accelerating.
It must however be noted that while the articles and information concerning increased longevity are becoming more numerous, the number of citizens who involve themselves in practice to allow a healthy life much more Long is very small. The majority may be right. Maybe in 30 to 50 years, we moved slowly from one life to life with aging aging with negligible without even realizing it. Thus, the leukemia that killed 9 in 10 children no longer causes the death of about 10% of children without that we have noticed this trend.
But it is also possible that advances in science require major investment and that, in the absence of social mobilization, because of the indifference of our fellow citizens, progress in the fight against aging is slow and can not qualify for a long time only a rich minority and low solidarity.
For some good news recent years, visit Gapminder.org
Contrary to what is often claimed and received, both in rich countries than in poor countries, there is evidence that if human progress continue as they are ongoing, those born today will live much longer than those who lived yesterday. This is true in the South where progress is dazzling but the delay is still significant but it is also true in the North, where many of the pessimists believe that the ceiling has been reached and that we are regressing.
The UN statistics beautifully presented on the site Gapminder.org to verify that the optimists are right. This verification can be done by looking at changes in life expectancy has risen again in the OECD countries over two years during the first decade of the 21st century. But this can also be checked again for the OECD countries by noting that infant mortality has also declined significantly during this decade.
Increasing life expectancy is good news. But the decrease in mortality Infant in OECD countries is even better news. It proves that even if pollution problems are real, advances in hygiene, medicine, improvements in economic and legislative and practical efforts to reduce harmful substances are so effective that the risk of dying prematurely from children "rich" countries still fall far floors that would have seemed unthinkable just 20 years ago. For example, the U.S. lags behind Europe, the mortality of children under 5 years increased from 9.1 per 1000 in 1999 to 7.8. Per 1000 in 2009 in Germany, she moved 6.1 to 4.6 per 1000 during the same period. And in Japan it rose from 5.3 to 3.2, reducing infant mortality to a rare event, 100 times more rare than a century ago!
More generally: http://sens.org/ , http://imminst.org/, http://heales.org/ and http://immortalite. org /
To see the conference Michael Rose http://telexlr8.blip.tv/file/4225188/
To view statistics Gapminder: http://www.gapminder.org/
To respond and receive the newsletter: info@heales.org
Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/limbic/902885616/ (Figure excerpted from Gapminder)
The UN statistics beautifully presented on the site Gapminder.org to verify that the optimists are right. This verification can be done by looking at changes in life expectancy has risen again in the OECD countries over two years during the first decade of the 21st century. But this can also be checked again for the OECD countries by noting that infant mortality has also declined significantly during this decade.
Increasing life expectancy is good news. But the decrease in mortality Infant in OECD countries is even better news. It proves that even if pollution problems are real, advances in hygiene, medicine, improvements in economic and legislative and practical efforts to reduce harmful substances are so effective that the risk of dying prematurely from children "rich" countries still fall far floors that would have seemed unthinkable just 20 years ago. For example, the U.S. lags behind Europe, the mortality of children under 5 years increased from 9.1 per 1000 in 1999 to 7.8. Per 1000 in 2009 in Germany, she moved 6.1 to 4.6 per 1000 during the same period. And in Japan it rose from 5.3 to 3.2, reducing infant mortality to a rare event, 100 times more rare than a century ago!
More generally: http://sens.org/ , http://imminst.org/, http://heales.org/ and http://immortalite. org /
To see the conference Michael Rose http://telexlr8.blip.tv/file/4225188/
To view statistics Gapminder: http://www.gapminder.org/
To respond and receive the newsletter: info@heales.org
Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/limbic/902885616/ (Figure excerpted from Gapminder)
