3 ms·
Then going to your point, there are many discussions around theoretical upper bounds for human life, even factoring in technology. Studies look at blood cells
by FireBeyond 3y ago
Then going to your point, there are many discussions around theoretical upper bounds for human life, even factoring in technology.
Studies look at blood cells and footsteps and establishing hard limits. One of the more recent ones suggests around 150 (today it's around 120).
> with things that usually kill us omitted, our body's capacity to restore equilibrium to its myriad structural and metabolic systems after disruptions still fades with time. And even if we make it through life with few stressors, this incremental decline sets the maximum life span for humans at somewhere between 120 and 150 years. In the end, if the obvious hazards do not take our lives, this fundamental loss of resilience will do so.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-could-live-up-to-150-years-new-research-suggests/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-could-live...
- feoren 3y agoCtrl+F > "telomere" -- 0 results Weird to not mention telomeres in that article. It sounds like basically what they're talking about. We already know about Telomerase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase We are rapidly developing gene editing, e.g. with CRISPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR Not to mention that we already know about "immortal" organisms that beat this "limit". There's no reason to think that "fundamental limit" is anything more than yet one more problem to solve.