Live forever - can you afford to?

Geez that was a long-winded article. Has anyone read all of it? I got up to page 6 and gave up.

I hope he's right though. I'd love to live to the age 5000.

Would I be able to afford it? You betcha - compound interest would be extraordinary!
 
Sunstone

Missed that post, must have been something to do with the festive time, alcohol, eating, sleeping and not reading the forum much.

cheers
quoll
 
quoll said:
Sunstone

Missed that post, must have been something to do with the festive time, alcohol, eating, sleeping and not reading the forum much.

cheers
quoll

Dear Quoll,

No problems. ;)

Agree however that it is a great issue to think about and broaden one's mind.

In order to make this a reality:

First conceive XXX years old.
Second believe XXX years old.
Third achieve XXX years old.
Fourth others can then perceive XXX years old.

Age spans ARE getting longer.

Enjoy the journey. :)

Cheers,

Sunstone.
 
Sunstone,

I think this area is in for some massive private funding when they get the 10yr old mouse in the newspapers, as the article mentions there are lots of aging billionaires who would part with a considerable chunk of that to extend their life.

Might cost a bit so the average bloke won't be able to afford it but, might be in the reach of someone with a bit of wealth.

Here's to a long healthy life.
cheers
quoll
 
So you guys wanna live for over 100 years? When I get a chance I'll post some links to assist you on the journey.
 
OK -

* Hormones

Elevate your own natural production of growth hormones by taking 500 mg Acetyl-L-cartinine and 25 mg L-orthinine
For more info: www.longerhealthylife.com

* Antioxidants

Red wine good for you? Kinda - the secret is ingredient is resveratrol, most readily available in capsule form.
For more info: www.longevinex.com

Also look for green tea, dark chocolate (mmm Lindt 70% cocoa).

* Diet

Too big a topic for me to write about here, but I think Weston A Price is a worthwhile place to start:

www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/nutrition_guidelines.html

* The greatest single supplement known to mankind?

In my opinion it is Cod Liver Oil (or fish oil in general):

www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/codliveroil.html
http://ruggedmag.com/index.php?type=Article&i=6&a=4
http://ruggedmag.com/index.php?type=Article&i=7&a=4

I think the above 3 articles are compulsory reading.

* Fat loss

Wanna lose fat? Use High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) for cardio because the more intense your cardio is (as opposed for the longer you run/walk), the more fat you burn.

Use Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) as your weights program. The more muscle you have, the greater your resting metabolic rate is, meaning you lose weight in your sleep.

www.musclemedia.com/training/hiit.asp
www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html

* Further reading:

www.lef.org
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Optimal_Health_and_Longevity/

----

So what do I do?

I do weights 3 times a week (Mon, Wed, Fri) :)
play indoor cricket :)
take 5ml of cod liver oil each day :)
take flaxseed oil :)
drink lots of water :)
drink green tea :)
don't smoke :)
don't take caffeine :)
gonna do a PB in the City to Surf this year :)
positive outlook, not getting stressed easily :)

take protein powder (casein) shakes twice a day
take creatine monohydrate with dextrose after a workout

don't eat enough fruit and veg :(
irregular sleeping patterns :(
not enough cardio (especially swimming) :(
not enough sunlight :(

I'll try to improve on the above 4.

See ya at age 100!

Glebe.

PS It's 3:45am, why am I writing this?
 
Glebe said:
So you guys wanna live for over 100 years? When I get a chance I'll post some links to assist you on the journey.

Dear Glebe,

Thanks for that.

http://www.news-journal.com/featr/content/shared-gen/ap/Feature_Stories/Puerto_Rico_Oldest_Man.html;COXnetJSessionID=BxuGAo0axHq5Ck6uz37XN7dtNupAjOtK29aHr0Ky4jdJ4qnMouHw!-1267898602?urac=n&urvf=11063414466020.5221747411317922

(A mere 113 ++ and living.)

(But other stories)

http://www.methuselah.org/jean.htm

The japanese man Shigechiyo Izumi died on 21. February 1986 at the age of 120.

The french woman Jeanne Calment celebrated her 122 birthday on 21. February 1997 and died on 4. August 1997.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3050017.stm

"Habib Miyan has been drawing pension money since he retired in 1938, and says he is 132. According to his pension book he is a mere 125. If correct, that makes the world's oldest living person 10 years his junior."
(Now he would be closer to 2 years older than the 125 or 132 figures.)


John Jacob Astor lived until he was 84 years old. 1763-1848.
Medical science has come a long way since then and will continue to do so.

I think 100 years is too short a target. ;) Always shoot for the stars.... that way at least you get to the moon.

Cheers,

Sunstone.
 
Dear guys,

A couple of relevant articles.

Cheers,

Sunstone.

Millennium kids face brave new world
Kim Sweetman
22jan05

IT seems just a moment past that the world welcomed the new millennium, but for some it was a lifetime ago.

Jett Day, now 5, was the first baby born in Queensland on January 1, 2000. He arrived five seconds into the new year and was even presented with a certificate to prove it.

His second big day arrives on Monday when he and 54,000 other millennium babies start school for the first time, either in Year One or in the new Prep year.

Households will spend this weekend in a state of half-calm, half-anxiety as their little ones prepare for a whole new world.

Jett and his cohorts are likely to have their entire lives measured by the milestones of the 21st Century. They will reach their 21st birthdays when Australia is predicted to run out of adequate supplies of fresh drinking water.

In their child-bearing years they may witness the first person to set foot on Mars.

By the time they're planning their 50th birthdays scientists fully expect them to be able to take advantage of medical techniques to virtually reverse the ageing process. Jett's generation may have to plan for an old age that will take them past their 120s.

But for now, they just need to get that reading and writing thing sorted.

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,12011609,00.html



Old and single, welcome to 2005
A snapshot of Australian life shows massive changes in society over the past century. But are we better off? Amanda Watt reports
22jan05

OLD, single and childless?

That might have made you a social outcast last century but in 2005 . . . join the club.

A national snapshot of life released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics has revealed a rapidly ageing population – one which has turned its back on the usual early life milestones of marriage and children.

The 2005 Yearbook studies career, health and lifestyle trends over the past century – and changes have been huge.

Increased life expectancy – from 55 in the early 1900s up to 95 by 2051 has caused Australians to take their time when it comes to settling down. Marriage rates are at an all-time low and women are taking longer to have babies, if at all.

The average number of children per female has plummeted to 1.76 compared with four in the early 1900s.

Childless couples are expected to overtake couples with children as the most common family type within five years. Single parents are also on the rise.

And we are working longer and earning more.

More people are in the labour force with more than a third of all workers clocking up regular overtime.

Cancer and heart disease remain the big two killers but the rate of deaths from these has decreased by 10 per cent and 41 per cent respectively over the 10 years to 2002.

We are also less likely to die in a road crash.

Despite the falling fertility rate, the population – currently hovering at around 20 million – is expected to reach 26.4 million by 2050.

Queensland is taking the brunt of the increase.


In 2002-03 the Sunshine State recorded the fastest and largest population growth, with an increase of 2.3 percent.

Brisbane was the fastest growing capital between 1998 and 2003, increasing by an average of 2 per cent every year.

So great is the migration to Queensland that it is expected to overtake Victoria as the second largest state within 50 years, behind NSW.

And we could be turning to wine to deal with the rapid changes – domestic wine sales have increased by almost 30 per cent in the 10 years leading to 2002-03.

ABS information services chief Steve Matheson said whether all those changes meant people were happier could possibly be judged by the statistics on health. "In 2001 we found that for people 15 years and over, 82 per cent reported their health status as good, very good or excellent, which could be seen as a good indicator of the level of happiness," he said.

"If people aren't happy they'll start to get unhealthy or it will start to affect their mental health."

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,12011709,00.html
 
The original link was to an article that claimed that people living now could live to 1,000, not 100 (as previous posters used as benchmarks)

I agree that progressive generations are living longer, growing stronger, and adapting themselves better to their environment, and living to 100 may become relatively commonplace within the next century.

But, exponential as our advancements in science are, can anyone (let alone those with even a rudimentary understanding of molecular biology and gerontology) seriously believe that someone who is currently 30 years old may live to be over 1,000? (Aubrey de Grey himself suggested someone who is 60 already might live to see 1,000 years of age based on his research)

And people think interest free home loans are a pipe dream :rolleyes:

Thanks,

Jamie.
 
Last edited:
I think of the social upheavals that would occur as society adjusted to 1,000 year lifespans.

Simply adjusting birthrates, dealing with ambition and succession and the gap between the ever rich and ever poor would be enormous challenges.

Unless people's brains remain flexible and creative such that the experience of X hundred years can be built on I see few advantages for the species of such long lifespans.

All the advantages are for the individual.

That said, personally I would be quite happy indefinitely provided aging is stopped....however I'm not comfortable with the thought of EVERYONE having the same opportunity.

Honestly, would YOU want everyone in the world to also have the opportunity to live an extremely long life? What if they felt that YOU shouldn't have the opportunity?

Would you feel the same way in 500 years?

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
From what I have read the theory is that we may not be able to prolong life for much longer than 100 years but that it may be possible to to keep our bodies working better during this time - I'm all for that! (not so convinced it's imminent though)
Harpic
 
Jamie said:
The original link was to an article that claimed that people living now could live to 1,000, not 100 (as previous posters used as benchmarks)

I agree that progressive generations are living longer, growing stronger, and adapting themselves better to their environment, and living to 100 may become relatively commonplace within the next century.

But, exponential as our advancements in science are, can anyone (let alone those with even a rudimentary understanding of molecular biology and gerontology) seriously believe that someone who is currently 30 years old may live to be over 1,000? (Aubrey de Grey himself suggested someone who is 60 already might live to see 1,000 years of age based on his research)

And people think interest free home loans are a pipe dream :rolleyes:

Thanks,

Jamie.

Dear Jamie,

I don't deny that 1,000 years is an ambitious target. ;)

However society needs to have people making these types of targets and effectively pushing out comfort zones. If you think you are only going to live to 70......... chances are you will. That's why it's important to have longer and longer targets.

In order to achieve 100 years what should one be aiming for.... 120/130? The other thing is it gets society talking and thinking about this. Someone has to imagine that it is possible first before it can have any chance of working out how to make it possible.

The 100 year examples are discussion points and add to the material to consider.

Your point on IFHL is valid. The balance between being innovative and open minded to crossing over to being overly greedy is a fine line. :(

Harpic -Agree that quality of life is also important. Although the effect of a positive mindset is nothing short of amazing. I have seen it in action. :cool:


Aceyducey,

Interesting point on whether we would want everyone to live for an extended period and what this would have on greed. However I can see that this could speed up some discoveries as the wheel would not have to be reinvented each time research was passed over/lost.

Interesting times ahead.

Cheers,

Sunstone.
 
I think psychologically, if we live longer "time limit" for achievement also increases. For example, if humans lived up to 1000 years, we would probably spend a few hundred years playing around, then maybe when we're 2-300 years old, get off our butts and start making something of our lives.

So for society overall, a higher life span could mean slower progress. Just a theory though, never tried it out ;)
 
Glebe said:
* Antioxidants

Red wine good for you? Kinda - the secret is ingredient is resveratrol, most readily available in capsule form.
For more info: www.longevinex.com

Also look for green tea, dark chocolate (mmm Lindt 70% cocoa).
Glebe

Have you read from Dr Parker on the Antioxidant cocktail?
Couldn't find the link to his website but here's a link to stuff about him and his theory.
http://www.wholehealthmd.com/news/viewarticle/1,1513,23,00.html
The only down side is the price, can't remember the exact price but it seem very expensive to get the suppliments that he suggested, around $50wk.

Just try and eat lots of fruit and veg that's high in antioxidants.

See ya on the other side of 100.
Cheers
quoll
 
You realise that the title question is backwards. Time is our most limited resource, and if we take the implicit assumption in the question that you could have more of it, the question surely must be:

"Live forever - can you afford NOT to?"

Disclaimer - not meant to offend those whose religious beliefs view this vale of tears as a prelude to far nicer things.
 
quiggles said:
"Live forever - can you afford NOT to?"
Quiggles

It might end up being one of those catch22's, if you have the funds to purchase the treatment you can live long enough to get the funds to purchase the treatment.

Which will let you live longer so you can get more funds to purchase more treatment.

Once again the biggest hurdle is the very first one!

Cheers
quoll
 
Back
Top