Joe Hockey apropos of something or another said that a baby born today could live to 150. Bill Shorten called it his "Sarah Palin" moment.

See:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockeys-comments-on-living-to-150-a-sarah-palin-moment-says-bill-shorten-20150119-12tbvn.html

But is Hockey's statement really so absurd?

All our chromosomes have little protective caps on their ends called "telomeres". The telomeres shorten with age exposing the cells to damage as they divide.

For a more detailed explanation see:

http://www.tasciences.com/what-is-a-telomere/

Scientists have long speculated that lengthening telomeres could rejuvenate cells. Recently researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine in California succeeded in doing the experiment in vitro. To quote the Stanford media release:

>>Telomere extension turns back aging clock in cultured human cells, study finds

Researchers delivered a modified RNA that encodes a telomere-extending protein to cultured human cells. Cell proliferation capacity was dramatically increased, yielding large numbers of cells for study.

A new procedure can quickly and efficiently increase the length of human telomeres, the protective caps on the ends of chromosomes that are linked to aging and disease, according to scientists at the Stanford University School of Medicine.>>

See:

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/01/telomere-extension-turns-back-aging-clock-in-cultured-cells.html

For once I'm in agreement with Hockey. I think someone born today really could make it to 150 and, perhaps, beyond. This looks like a promising line of research.

Dear Stephen,

This thread seems in a little need of some lovin' so I am.

I agree it is interesting research although I am always a little cynical about longevity research primarily because I see the big pharma shadow over it.

Much of the increase in life expectancy has been driven by reducing infant mortality rates. If individuals made it past infancy and childhood the chances of them living into their sixties and seventies was relatively high. For instance in medieval Britain the overall life expectancy was 30 but at age 21 it was an extra 43 years to be 64. To me this is where the best 'bang for the buck' lies. But it is understandable that the wealthy would want to extend their life span and that is obviously seen as a profitable line of research.

An interesting aside are the figures for the number of centenarians per 100,000 people. Australia scores relatively high with 18.75 with Japan naturally being the stand out at 42.76. The one that caught my attention though was Thailand at 26.80. What are we missing?

While I had noted the research you have cited the one that really fired my imagination was this;

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-put-worms-mind-lego-robot-body-180953399/?no-ist

Of the many issues it raises around sentience, robotic rights, and what is life, perhaps the question more pertinent to your topic is why must longevity only be considered in terms of our biological or organic form? Perhaps transposing our consciousness to a silicone base such as a computer chip might be the preferred method for immortality in the future.

Hi SteeleRedux

Thanks for the link. Fascinating.

As an avid sci fi fan I've been interested in uploading human or animal brains into chips for years.

Could it happen?

Probably. But I think better ways of enabling us to live healthy long lives will come first. That's just a judgement call on my part and I won't argue the point if you think differently.

However at my age it won't come in time to affect me one way or another.

Dear Steven,

I was discussing the worm story with davidf and recommended he read Ian M Banks' Surface Detail which is a great example of science fiction dealing with this very topic.

You say “However at my age it won't come in time to affect me one way or another.” well I'm not so sure. We have proof of concept now it is a matter of scale and when it involves computing then we all know how dramatically the field advances. The first organism to have its genome fully sequenced was of course the influenza bacteria but within 10 years the entire human genome was delivered.

But even if the technology doesn't quite line up for your 'replication/transposition/transcription' I feel sure the debates which will we will inevitably have around 'artificial' sentience will be flourishing soon.

I have started being a bore at gatherings since this story broke because I have been asking the question of others if a human brain was to be transposed to a computer chip should that entity, especially if it was able to 'evolve' its software (learn) as some machines are doing now, be deserving of rights and protections under our laws? The answers were quite fascinating, those under about 25 say definitely yes but those older are against it, some quite stridently.

An interesting discussion was had with a young intelligent (19yo with 2 degrees and doing his Masters) nephew who is also a 'fundi' Christian. He was happy giving said rights to a transposed human brain but not an artificial intelligence. The first entity was adjudged originally created by God even though it was a copy, the second was a creation of man thus not deserving.

I have been bold enough to declare the Lego Robot a pivotal moment in human history and although relatively unheralded I feel it will have deep significance for the future of our species and the way we view ourselves, but hell I've been wrong before.

Be that as it may it has certainly captured my imagination.

In Thailand most of their food is deep fried chicken and pork, which is surprising for longevity. But a great part of their diet is salad, fish, and rice. The aged folk seem to be in the remote communities where they may live mostly on rice and corn.