The girl that never ages.

[GreasyDogMeat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcBDQr2FAww

 

Absolutely crazy. Its like shes in a time bubble. Time passes around her, but not for her. Scientists apparently can't predict how long she will live, whether she will live longer than average or shorter.

 

Will scientist be able to gain some understanding of the aging process? How to stop it? Will this result in the dystopian future where only the ultra rich live forever and the rest of us bums rebel and riot for a bottle of the anti aging syrum?

[Humodour]

Didn't somebody already post this thread?

 

The key to eternal youth is finding out how to stop the telomeres from running out.

 

Edit: on that note, one method of determining an upper bound on her lifespan is to see if her cells are dividing normally - i.e. whether they are erasing telomeres at the rate of somebody normal who is her physical age. If her cells ARE dividing normally, and I can't see why they wouldn't, then you'd expect a lifespan no longer than, say, 110 years old.

 

It might be better to say this is the girl who never matures than the girl who never ages.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Krezack

[Rosbjerg]

I'm more interested in how she fought off 4-6 life threatening diseases, completely on her own.

[213374U]

Misdiagnosis?

Edited September 5, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I don['t see how you can stop teh body ageing in the sense of entropic decay. I guess the point with telomeres is that you go on renewing yourself. However this raises the spectre of mutation over time. I suspect that people would still look 'older' as in a bit odd, just not aged in the classical sense. Just a theory.

[Humodour]

I don['t see how you can stop teh body ageing in the sense of entropic decay. I guess the point with telomeres is that you go on renewing yourself. However this raises the spectre of mutation over time. I suspect that people would still look 'older' as in a bit odd, just not aged in the classical sense. Just a theory.

 

That's exactly right. Even supposing a hypothetical human with infinitely long telomeres, that being would still die of old age due to mutation build up (the most dramatic form of which is cancer - run-away cell growth). Of course, it may take a lot longer for that person to die of old age... or it might not.

 

I'm not sure but I don't think infinite telomeres would prevent signs of ageing like wrinkles. Telomeres have a deeper purpose - preventing chromosomes from having important information deleted from the end due to transcription errors ('junk' telomeres DNA is deleted instead, until it runs out over many cell divisions). Many signs of old age are environmental - due to physical stress on the body over decades.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I'm more interested in how she fought off 4-6 life threatening diseases, completely on her own.

Its just all around strange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Greenberg

 

"There've been very minimal changes in Brooke's brain ... Various parts of her body, rather than all being at the same stage, seem to be disconnected."

I'm guessing that has to do with the the diseases.

 

"Her bones, although still abnormally short, are around 10 years old, as determined by the maturity of the cells and structures. And despite being a teenager, she still has her baby teeth, which have an estimated developmental age of about eight years."

 

It just goes to show how little is known about the human body. Its especially odd how "At age five, Greenberg had a mass in her brain that caused her to sleep for 14 days. The doctors diagnosed the mass as a brain tumor. However, Greenberg later awoke, and physicians found no tumor present."

 

I hope some interesting discovery about the human aging process, or the various changes our body makes as time goes on can be gained from her. I wonder if they'll ever figure some cure out that will allow her to get back into normal growth...

 

BTW this is actually a pretty old story, so if there already was a thread recently feel free to close it mods. I had just never heard of it before after stumbling onto it on youtube.

[Rosbjerg]

I heard about a rather strange woman when I had biology in high school.. she died at the age of 50, around the beginning of the 20th century and didn't look a day over 20. Apparently her cells kept renewing, but as some of you theorized, if you stop the ageing process, she died of rather serious mutations..

 

Has anyone heard about her or was it just some urban legend? I can't remember anymore..

[Moose]

I don't believe she's not ageing. They injected her with growth hormone (which is a bit barbaric but w/e) and it had zero effect.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Yeah, it just appears she's not growing. It may offer some insight to the aging process though.

[Hiro Protagonist]

The next step in human evolution or Connor McLeod and the Highlander movies are really documentaries.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I heard about a rather strange woman when I had biology in high school.. she died at the age of 50, around the beginning of the 20th century and didn't look a day over 20. Apparently her cells kept renewing, but as some of you theorized, if you stop the ageing process, she died of rather serious mutations..

 

Has anyone heard about her or was it just some urban legend? I can't remember anymore..

 

Maybe nature is trying to do away with the normal human chromosome and something new is happening. Isn't that what evolution is about? Mutation and starting a new species...

[Humodour]

I heard about a rather strange woman when I had biology in high school.. she died at the age of 50, around the beginning of the 20th century and didn't look a day over 20. Apparently her cells kept renewing, but as some of you theorized, if you stop the ageing process, she died of rather serious mutations..

 

Has anyone heard about her or was it just some urban legend? I can't remember anymore..

 

Maybe nature is trying to do away with the normal human chromosome and something new is happening. Isn't that what evolution is about? Mutation and starting a new species...

 

Most new species are evolutionary dead ends.

[Rosbjerg]

Something new is always happening, the "problem" (depending on how you look at it) is that we don't have natural selection. People are currently having babies even with rather serious mutations (like bad eyesight and weak hearts), so the "superior" (again depending on how you look at it) mutations don't really have a chance to compete .. unless they affect social skills in a very positive way (think ultra alpha male/female), in which case they offer their recipient a lot of bonuses when it comes to mating.

 

One thing is happening though, uneducated and generally less intelligent people are having a lot more children than their counterparts.. Without trying to sound like a fascist, our genome is shifting somewhat towards stupid..Hopefully we'll see a natural increase in our culture's desire towards intellect also being attractive instead of just young, pretty and stupid.. But there's always been an ebb and flow in what culture deems attractive, so I'm not overly worried..

[LadyCrimson]

@Rosbjerg

 

Well, I for one don't consider that to be fascist sounding...it's more a pragmatic rationalization. However I'm not sure I'd entirely agree we're shifting toward stupid. I see it more as a possibility rather than already occurring in any "real" sense....yet. I'd have to know more data, percentages vs population ratios and all of that. And of course, what we're measuring as intellect. (edit: since high intellect potential doesn't mean one ends up actually using it in any noticeable/measurable (to society) way)

Edited September 8, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[Humodour]

One thing is happening though, uneducated and generally less intelligent people are having a lot more children than their counterparts.. Without trying to sound like a fascist, our genome is shifting somewhat towards stupid..Hopefully we'll see a natural increase in our culture's desire towards intellect also being attractive instead of just young, pretty and stupid.. But there's always been an ebb and flow in what culture deems attractive, so I'm not overly worried..

 

I've read a few studies which contradict this, not least of all because the definition of intelligence is extremely mercurial and subjective. Still, it is a nice theory for the upper classes to dismissively shake their heads about. "Mark my words, we're becoming an idiocracy!"

Edited September 8, 2009 by Krezack

[Moose]

Strange, I always thought intelligence was considered to be an extremely attractive feature.

[Humodour]

Strange, I always thought intelligence was considered to be an extremely attractive feature.

 

Yep, it generally is. It's more of an illusion that society doesn't appreciate intelligence.

 

And then there's always the stereotypical nerd who moans about how girls don't appreciate intelligence because he can't get any action. His logic is rather suspect there.

[Rosbjerg]

I've read a few studies which contradict this, not least of all because the definition of intelligence is extremely mercurial and subjective. Still, it is a nice theory for the upper classes to dismissively shake their heads about. "Mark my words, we're becoming an idiocracy!"

 

Are these studies available online? I would very much like to read them..

 

But yes, that's generally what I was worried about, being labelled elitist etc.. I do agree however that intelligence is rather subjective. I can't help but think though, that the difference between me and Einstein, Hawkins etc is alot bigger than the difference between me and an ape. And I wonder why this kind of intelligence is so rare and what constitutes it. There doesn't seem to be a pattern of very intelligent parents = extremely intelligent children, which means it's more than genes.. But at the same time we see geniuses arising from rather poor areas, which indicates that genes might be a bigger factor than environment.

 

Still, I often see very intelligent people coming from families that have encouraged creative thinking..

 

I don't know where I'm going with this to be honest, I just think it's an interesting subject. I personally believe that the overall intelligence of humanity would spike dramatically if we had better education systems around the world, because I think it's in the upbringing of kids that these gifts develop, with the help of lucky genes, and well educated parents are usually better equipped at helping intelligent kids develop their skills. At least according to my own experience from working with children from various backgrounds.

[Walsingham]

I decided last week that I'm frankly an elitist. A paternal elitist, but elistist.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Are these studies available online? I would very much like to read them..

 

But yes, that's generally what I was worried about, being labelled elitist etc.. I do agree however that intelligence is rather subjective. I can't help but think though, that the difference between me and Einstein, Hawkins etc is alot bigger than the difference between me and an ape. And I wonder why this kind of intelligence is so rare and what constitutes it. There doesn't seem to be a pattern of very intelligent parents = extremely intelligent children, which means it's more than genes.. But at the same time we see geniuses arising from rather poor areas, which indicates that genes might be a bigger factor than environment.

On Einstein's brain: "A study later found part of Einstein's brain missing and another part 15% larger. In 1999, further analysis by a team at McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario, Canada revealed that his parietal operculum region in the inferior frontal gyrus in the frontal lobe of the brain was vacant. Also absent was part of a bordering region called the lateral sulcus (Sylvian fissure). Researchers at McMaster University speculated that the vacancy may have enabled neurons in this part of his brain to communicate better. "

 

Apparently sometimes less is more.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I decided last week that I'm frankly an elitist. A paternal elitist, but elistist.

 

So you fly around in a space ship that is represented as a bunch of lines and trade commodities at various planets and space stations?

[213374U]

Something new is always happening, the "problem" (depending on how you look at it) is that we don't have natural selection. People are currently having babies even with rather serious mutations (like bad eyesight and weak hearts), so the "superior" (again depending on how you look at it) mutations don't really have a chance to compete .. unless they affect social skills in a very positive way (think ultra alpha male/female), in which case they offer their recipient a lot of bonuses when it comes to mating.

Be careful who you say that around... it's now considered a "right" to have babies.

 

As for the "good" mutations propagating down the line and becoming dominant... I doubt it's significant even when they afford huge advantages, as you comment. Not with condoms. And on the other hand, I used to be a sperm donor. Can you believe it? Little old me. I don't even want to think how many children I must have "fathered" by now. Poor bastards.

[Rosbjerg]

Be careful who you say that around... it's now considered a "right" to have babies.

I think it is a right.. it's not the government's job to determine if you can become a parent, but it is their job to prevent you from staying one, if you can't cope with it and no other relatives can pitch in.

 

As for the "good" mutations propagating down the line and becoming dominant... I doubt it's significant even when they afford huge advantages, as you comment. Not with condoms.

 

Well in the case I brought forward, where the genes give the recipient advanced social skills, I think it's rather reasonable to assume that this would also make it easier to convince someone to carry your child.. or give you the right ingredients if you are female..

[213374U]

I think it is a right.. it's not the government's job to determine if you can become a parent, but it is their job to prevent you from staying one, if you can't cope with it and no other relatives can pitch in.

Heh, that's not what I meant. I was thinking of people with severe genetic diseases and/or reproductive impairments having children by any means possible, and children with life-threatening congenital problems that would otherwise be inviable being kept alive through artificial means. They used to drop "bad" infants down a cliff back in Sparta, and we've gone to the extreme opposite. And don't even get me started on women that become pregnant at 50 thanks to fertility treatments. I meant it has become a "right" in the sense that people seem to have a sense of entitlement with consumption products and welfare policies. Ask any teenager these days, they'd rather DIE than have their phones taken from them.

 

We have, for all intents and purposes, killed natural selection. On an individual level at least.

 

 

Well in the case I brought forward, where the genes give the recipient advanced social skills, I think it's rather reasonable to assume that this would also make it easier to convince someone to carry your child.. or give you the right ingredients if you are female..

Yeah, but why would anyone want to sire a relatively large offspring? I'm not even talking Genghis Khan-level here, but seriously, 10+ children? There aren't any advantages to having that many children today.