Manhattan Beach Project to reverse aging by 2029

By | December 12, 2009, 11:37pm PST

Human life expectancy may see a hockey stick growth curve in the coming years as a result of leaps made in fields such as molecular nanotechnology, gene therapy, robotics, and regenerative medicine.

Seizing the potential for radical longevity, an effort dubbed the “Manhattan Beach Project“, is a focused and targeted “all-out assault on the world’s biggest killer- aging,” according to its founder David Kekich, President/CEO of Maximum Life Foundation.

Sculpture of Methuselah, a 969 year-old man mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Credit: www.answersingenesis.org)

The project was spawned during an international scientific conference nine years ago in Manhattan Beach, California (hence the namesake that only in ambition is similar to the Manhattan Project).

It consists of a group of researchers and entrepreneurs that have for years been collaborating on a scientific road-map to intervene in the human aging process and are disclosing their plan “to start saving up to 100,000 lives lost to aging every day, by 2029.”

In November ‘09, Kekich organized a Longevity Summit that brought together a number of leading scientists, visionaries, and experts on human aging and longevity for a discussion on the state-of-the-art research and the implications of their discoveries. Their goal is to develop a scientific and business strategy to make human life extension a real possibility within the next two decades. Here’s a video of Kekich explaining the project.

Hosted by the Maximum Life Foundation and sponsored by the Life Extension Foundation, also a non-profit organization dedicated to longevity research, the summit opened with futurist Ray Kurzweil, who explained, “We are very close to the tipping point in human longevity. We are about 15 years away from adding more than one year of longevity per year to remaining life expectancy.”

Over the next three days, experts presented their latest research at a series of conference sessions. As H+ (The Manhattan Beach Project to End Aging by 2029 ) and Reason.com (The Methuslelah Manifesto) report, below are conference highlights:

  • Biochemist Stephen Spindler at University of California, Riverside, reported on his research on calorie restriction. Spindler is currently screening a variety of compounds, including pharmaceuticals, to see if they mimic the effects of calorie restriction in mice. He presented early results that show that some compounds to seem to increase mouse life spans.
  • Michael Rose, a biologist at the University of California, Irvine, who’s work is built on the premise that natural selection is the cause of aging, explained how using artificial selection for longevity has produced fruit flies that live four times longer than normal, the human equivalent of being healthy at age 300.
  • William Andrews, head of Sierra Sciences, talked about his company’s project to identify compounds that lengthen telomeres, which have been shown to have an effect in controlling aging in cells and thus control aging in us.
  • Biologist Michael West discussed the use of induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells). IPS cells can be transformed into other types of cells, which can be used to repair damage or rejuvenate tissues and organs.

As these researchers and others begin to understand the actual causes of aging, they now believe they are on the way to figuring out how to stop, and eventually reverse it. While there’s still a long way to go, it doesn’t stop skeptics from viewing the ambitious goal of reversing aging in humans by 2029 as quixotic.

The journey, however, may prove bountiful enough. The project’s site, claims that during the process, “Emerging companies should develop several powerful anti-aging products and services aimed at the commercial market for human treatment or consumption. That means, we should be able to gradually improve the human condition between now and then.”

And as the human condition improves, so will the bank accounts of those who invest in those companies:

“The emerging longevity sector is expected to exceed one trillion dollars. It will spawn a whole new breed of billionaires who will get rich by extending our lives.”

If you’re going to be forever young, you’ll need the money to live that way.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Christopher Jablonski is a freelance technology writer.

Disclosure

Chris Jablonski

Christopher Jablonski has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Chris Jablonski

Christopher Jablonski is a freelance technology writer. Previously, he held research analyst positions in the IT industry and was the manager of marketing editorial at CBS Interactive. He's been contributing to ZDNet since 2003.

Christopher received a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign. With over 12 years in IT, he's an expert on transformational technologies, particularly those influential in B2B.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
57
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Manhattan Beach Project to reverse aging by 2029
WarrenBazil 14th Sep 2010
@JOEL714 Don't think that way, the world is what we make it.
0 Votes
+ -
About age in the Bible
bricar2 14th Dec 2009
My second cousin who is in his seventies, a former preacher and Bible
scholar, once told me that people in those times would mark their age
by the number of moons in a year, which happened to be thirteen. So
when we take these big numbers like Methusaleh's and divide by thirteen
we get: 74.5.

Makes a little more sense now.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: About age in the Bible
LarryPTL 14th Dec 2009
In Genesis 5:6 Seth (third born son of Adam and Eve) was 105 years old when he became a father. If we looked at Bricar2's line of reasoning, Seth would have been only eight years old (105 months) at the time, and obviously only 96 months at the time of conception. Has anyone ever heard of a 7 year old boy fathering a child? Bricar2's source of how time was measured in those days is ludicrous.

If one traces the age of people in the Bible one will see a steady drop in lifespan right after the flood of Noah. The answer is obvious - the hyperbaric chamber that existed before the flood was destroyed when the water canopy (established in by God in Genesis 1:6, and estimated to be 10 meters thick) took 40 days to empty out. Its passing resulted the steady lowering of the atmospheric pressure and significantly reducing the lifespan of human beings. Noah lived 950 years; his three sons about 600 years, his grandsons less than 500, and within a few generations 130 years was the norm.
0 Votes
+ -
Age Confusion
sboverie 14th Dec 2009
Bricar2 did have a good point about age being kept in moons rather than years. The descrepancy about some being fathers at 7 could be explained if the age counting started when the child is transitioned to an adult like is done for Bar Mitztvah (done around 12 years or so). So Seth at 105 months would have been either 8.75 (12 months = year) or a bit over 8 years (13 months = year); add 12 and he would have been 20 when his son was born.

Whether any of this means anything depends on how well we can understand the culture of that time. The customs and general way of seeing the world are very different from our viewpoint now; we have a bias to think in terms of our culture and not of any otherculture now or in the past. I think the change in ages has more to do with changing calendars than any changes to the environment.
0 Votes
+ -
What water canopy?
masonwheeler 14th Dec 2009
Nothing says anything about a water canopy. Genesis 1:6 speaks of an expanse (firmament) dividing waters below (rivers, oceans, etc) from waters above (clouds).

The idea of a water canopy has been thoroughly debunked even by most creationists. If one existed, not only would the atmosphere be so incredibly hyperbaric (high atmospheric pressure) that it would have crushed Adam and Eve and all the plants and animals in the Garden to death, it would also have destroyed the world through global warming, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, several times more potent than CO2.
0 Votes
+ -
If there was no water canopy
LarryPTL 14th Dec 2009
Then how could there be 40 days and nights of rain, and how did the average age of people begin to precipitously drop off after the flood? Only a water canopy can explain both.

And as for everyone 'being crushed': Humans, when properly pressurized, can descend to depths in the ocean that would 'crush' someone if they suddenly encountered those pressures at sea level. The same can be said for any form of life.

If you wish to be credible get your facts straight.
0 Votes
+ -
By fantasy.
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
_crystalsinger_ 14th Dec 2009
I can't believe that people are trying to 'analyse' the bible using 'science'*. Rather a pointless exercise, don't you think?

* Well, pseudo-science.
0 Votes
+ -
Jeewiz
mailboweb@... 15th Dec 2009
Talking about growing up in a book...
0 Votes
+ -
Umm...
smtp4me@... 17th Dec 2009
I don't want to trample on anyone's belief system here, but keep in mind that the bible, or at least parts of it, was written over 2000 years ago, and has been translated, passed down, and interpreted so many times that it probably does not resemble the original. Look at the differences between versions used by modern christians (catholic vs. protestant, etc.)

The bible is a book of %90 beliefs and %10 facts in my humble opinion.
The Bible is the most scrutinized and researched book in history, and has more early manuscripts (9000+) available than any other book. The 2nd most numerous manuscripts available is the Illiad at around 900 copies.

Before you make any assumptions from what non-believers tell you about the Bible, please double check with believers and get their side too. There's two sides to every story and it would be sad if the snow job of the non-believers is always taken over the results of the meticulous research of the believers.

The technique Christians used to preserve the Bible were verified to be accurate when the Dead Sea Scrolls (which is all of the Old Testament except Esther) were discovered. They were written shortly before the time of Jesus, and matched the copies the Christians had of the Old Testment. This is incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that the early Christians were faithful in keeping the written word unchanged for all generations, as they were commanded to in Jude vs 3.

Differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles are attributed to deliberate changes made by the Catholic Church where the Protestant Bible conflicted with their doctrine (and I know I'm going to catch flak for this but the early manuscripts bear out the accuracy of the Protestant Bible).
0 Votes
+ -
UMM...Nothing!
dionesius3@... 28th Apr 2010
Your Opinion of the Bible Means nothing. In fact it means less than nothing.
I may have the opinion that 2+2=5 but that really has no bearing on the actual fact that 2+2=4.
The scriptures can not be proved or disproved by anyone. The only way you can know for certain is to study them and live by what they teach. If it works then you will have your answer.
0 Votes
+ -
Age in the Bible
dionesius3@... 28th Apr 2010
Your Cousin may be a Bible Scholar but So am I.
I am A Pastor, and have two University degrees in Religion.
And the Bible ages recorded in Genesis are in Normal 12 month years NOT phases of the moon.

That is complete nonsense. If the Hebrews had wanted to say the age in phases of the moon they could have easily done so but they did not.
They used the normal terminology for years consistently throughout the old testament.

As to others who claim they believe the Scriptures to be corrupted over the years.

Do a minimum ammount of study on a topic before you spout off.

The Hebrew Scriptures have been proven by over 25,000 funded studies to be 97% accurate over a nearly 3000 year time span.
The dead sea scrolls alone confirmed that Isaiah is 99.99% pure from 500 B.C. to the present day.
The only difference was in the spelling of some names and the transposition of a very few letters.
0 Votes
+ -
Which version of the bible?
Dr_Zinj 28th Apr 2010
Names are changed. Spellings obviously changed. Translations chosen for bias. Granted that the books in hebrew scripture are are 97 to 99% accurate; there is an abundance of other religious writings that aren't included in either the bible or commonly known apocrypha.

The real kicker is that these are all stories from verbal traditions that finally ended up in written form. And verbal history is well known to grow and be modified in the telling. Case in point: does any christian or jew really beleive that Mohammed was visited by an angel sent by God? So why should be be any less skeptical of claims of angelic visitation?
Great news for the megarich that will be able to afford the treatment and the life that follows. Too **** for the rest of us.--as usual.....
0 Votes
+ -
@JOEL714 Don't think that way, the world is what we make it.
15 years puts me a 65. Keep eating and exercising in moderation; keep the weight, cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure down. Get yearly checkups. Avoid radical surgery (you may need that body part, or at least part of it, after all.) Get and stay happy.
0 Votes
+ -
We're born, we age, we die...
smtp4me@... 14th Dec 2009
... get over it already! It's the natural order of things, why mess with it?

Imagine if we could reduce or even stop aging - CAN YOU SAY, OVERPOPULATION!!!

Besides, I like the fact that I have a limited amount of time here - it makes me try harder to enjoy what I've got...
0 Votes
+ -
What would the world do...
JonA_z 14th Dec 2009
without such ageless wisdom to guide us?

Progress beyond the ancient beliefs of primitive superstitious savages,
maybe?

Who or what says it's the "natural order of things"? That's just an
assumption based on past observed phenomena.

If it can be changed, it's not the "natural order" of things.
0 Votes
+ -
True, but...
smtp4me@... 15th Dec 2009
Just because you CAN change something does not mean you SHOULD, and progress beyond ancient beliefs includes the wisdom to know the difference. Progress ALWAYS carries a price tag.

We are the only species on the planet with the capability to alter our longevity though the use of medicine and science. For all others, it is the natural order.

Which would you prefer, longevity of life, or quality of life? Are you willing to trade one for the other?
0 Votes
+ -
Whole picture.
zclayton2 16th Dec 2009
No one is forcing you to make that trade. If you want to decrepitate and age you will have that choice. Part of reversing aging will include brain function. I for one will choose the active mind over the inactive. I will choose the ability to travel over sitting in a rocker in some aged home.

You can choose either one for yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
So...
smtp4me@... 17th Dec 2009
You will have an active mind and be able to travel. Unfortunately where ever you go you will never be alone due to over population, and you will be hungry because there won't be enough food. But me... I'll be dead and won't care.

This is my whole point - there will be MAJOR consequences to reversing or halting the aging process, and it is in our best interest to identify and weigh ALL them before proceeding. To repeat - just becuase you can do something does not automatically mean you should, and we have to responsibility to consider the consequences of our actions on not act in a rash or selfish manner.
0 Votes
+ -
Logic Fallacy: False Dilemma
Dr_Zinj 28th Apr 2010
Longevity and quality of life are not mutually exclusive conditions.

I'll give you one, very valid reason for increasing human life expectancy.

Consequences.

People engage in far too short term thinking and behavior because they don't live long enough to experience the consequences of bad decision making (and conversely enjoy the fruits of good decision making.) If you knew that you'd have to live in an overheated, garbage-strewn cesspool, breath polluted air, gaze on wind-swept rock and sand instead of forest and grasses, eat garbage and carrion because there wasn't enough animals and vegetation, and work as a slave for a few rich and powerful overlords; you just might spend a little more time getting educated on issues before making any choices about them.

Consider this. In every 1st world country (or nearly every one) normal populations are decreasing (immigration is the only thing keeping the rate up.) Balance emigration and immigration and you'll need to increase longevity and years of productivity to offset this decrease.

Does the range of child bearing years also increase, or is that static? Or can we change human reproduction for women to be completely on a voluntary basis? No more periods until and unless they want to become pregnant; sequestering eggs instead of wasting them each month.

What level of population can we sustain based on resources and maximum mental and physical health?

Freedom equals choice. Increase the choices available to a person, and you increase their level of freedom. When you seek to bar someone from having the choice of a longer life; you're seeking to remove their freedom.
0 Votes
+ -
"the natural order of things..."
Cayble 14th Dec 2009
So far the natural order of things, as evidenced by many thousands of years of human existence, is that humans examine that which exists naturally and learn how to alter it in such a way as to reduce suffering and death, at least death at an early age.

The whole notion that what humans are doing is some how unnatural is unfounded. It doesn't mean that what comes natural to humans; that is changing the world around them, is always for the best, it is not. Human behavior can often be the result of short sighted greed and be counter productive to human longevity and well being.

While increasing the human life span by even 25% to even 50% would lead to new challenges that if not handled properly could result in more suffering then relief, there is nothing inherently unnatural about humans altering the way things would otherwise happen in the universe without our intervention.

On some scale, however small, all living creatures alter the universe around them as best they can to make the world a friendlier place for them to exist in. The ones that attempted to alter the world far too much are gone because the world bites back. In the end, thats what counts. Humans are not going to be an exception. Alter the world more then it can properly function to sustain you and the world simply no longer sustains you and eventually your lack of continued existence allows the world to make corrections and allow other life forms a kick at the can so to speak.

In effect, we can do as we please, but we would always be wise to first examine if we can live with the consequences.
0 Votes
+ -
Well said...
smtp4me@... 17th Dec 2009
and I agree, we must always consider the consequences.
0 Votes
+ -
Aging and social security
LarryPTL 14th Dec 2009
Can you image the fits Congress will have trying to re-write the retirement laws? Or how this will impact employment for the young, who will now have to compete with octogenarians for jobs?

The plus side is obvious - as we enter an era where the number of workers per retiree reaches an all time low, extending the human lifespan will increase the workforce and reduce the pool of retirees simultaneously. The impact on retiree spending by the government is going to be extremely beneficial.
0 Votes
+ -
Just as a college education is not so slowly being priced beyond even upper middle class families, so will longevity treatments be available only to the rich. Of course, the next development will need to be some sort of irreversible contraception drug that can be clandestinely administered to the unwashed horde. Can't have all those dirty little plebs using up precious resources.
0 Votes
+ -
Class war? Not in education
Atlantic13 15th Dec 2009
"college education is not so slowly being
priced beyond even upper middle class
families"?

I'm paying $1500 a semester for university with
no help from my parents. I'll graduate with
some debt, but that's not really priced beyond
anyone, since pretty much anyone is eligible
for a student loan. Maybe you're talking about
a selfish country which doesn't prioritize
education, but I can't see any reason why young
people can't go to school - not at $1500 (plus
associated costs) a semester.

Dollar amounts in CAD, which probably explains
why I can actually afford to go to school.
Apparently Princeton costs USD $30,000 a
semester - 20x what I pay. I guess different
cultures have different priorities - some
prioritize helping people and some prioritize
selfishness and greed. Yes our taxes are a bit
higher, but I don't mind. I get a great
opportunity to get an education and two weeks
ago when I thought I broke my hand I went to
the ER, had some X-rays done and walked out. No
insurance bull**** and no credit cards
involved.

I suppose if you're an American you can just
stick to an in-state public school and get
loans or hope a rich uncle dies soon. Or you
could find an international school -
international students at Canadian universities
pay about 75% as much as in-state Americans
students according to the brief searches I did
(16K vs 12K per 2 semesters).

--------------------------------------------

To any other Canadians reading this - thanks
for keeping my education affordable and my
health care free.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, yeah, forgot to add this
Azathoth 14th Dec 2009
We'll know that the treatment has been found when further research is banned and most of the scientists doing the work meet with untimely fatal accidents.
I once read a study (I don't have a link for it) that suggested that if you eliminated age, disease, and complications due to relatively minor injuries, humans would live about 330 years on average. They would end up dying in crashes, serious falls, fires, killed by some one else, etc.

1. I agree that only the rich will benefit from this line of science.

2. The only time in human history where this makes sense is if we are colonizing other planets and we need to keep increasing our population. Otherwise all you are really doing is creating more people to use more resources. It will lead to a war that ends up destroying people.
0 Votes
+ -
Do we really want to end aging?
mheartwood 14th Dec 2009
Humans consume resources. The same is true for all animals. Each time a new human is born, the rate of consumption goes up. When a human dies, the rate of consumption goes down. Simple mathematics.

As we increase the longevity of humans but do little to decrease our reproduction, the number of humans climb. The Earth has finite resources. Eventually we overpopulate (if we haven't done so already). When this happens, we reduce population using our 3 most common techniques: famine, war, and pestilence.

In war, the haves are usually attacked by the have nots. Those who seek to artificially extend their age indefinitely will definitely be haves.

So we're asking for trouble.

Perhaps having a high quality of life over a shorter period is preferable to having a longer life filled with people trying to kill you.
0 Votes
+ -
Forever young? Need money for that? Nah!
adornoe@... 14th Dec 2009
f you?re going to be forever young, you?ll need the money to live that way.

Just live to 65 and retire with Social Security and live to 1000 years collecting from other people's labor.

Who knows? With inflation, a retirement payment from SS at age 65 of about $1600/month might get you 1 million dollars per month at age 900.
One might end up wanting to kill oneself.
0 Votes
+ -
Growth industry
Azathoth 14th Dec 2009
I foresee Divorce Lawyer as being the best career path in the future.
0 Votes
+ -
n/t
0 Votes
+ -
With even our nearest neighboring star being out of the reach of any human being lasting long enough to make it there and back, perhaps with a much longer life span we might start to consider travel out of our planetary system and onwards to others.

Hey, with longer life spans, humans humans could expand their explorations into space, and with us learning how to colonize other planets, in our solar system and elsewhere, we wouldn't have to worry about over-population or running out of resources.
0 Votes
+ -
What would you do on the journey?
zackers 14th Dec 2009
I don't know what humans would do if it took hundreds of years to make an one-way journey to the nearest starts. Maybe you could go into some kind of artificial reality, but when you got to your destination, would you even care to go back into reality, especially if the new solar system is boring?
0 Votes
+ -
Imagine our prison system...
adornoe@... 14th Dec 2009
If life-spans can be extended and it is mandated that everybody will get the benefits of the new research and treatments, what will happen to our prison systems if we end up with people locked up away with lifetime prison sentences and they live to several hundred years of age?
They should start an organization and call it the Howard
Foundation. wink
0 Votes
+ -
A little nod to Robert Heinlein :^)
aardvark77 14th Dec 2009
Time Enough for Love
0 Votes
+ -
Old Hat
eddielim@... 14th Dec 2009
I don't understand why this is different to another
scientist who was the first to discover the gene for
aging. Prof David Sinclair who later founded SIRT on the
stock exchange which later got bought over by Johnson and
Johson was already formulating a compound that would do
this. Incidently, Resveratrol which is a concentrated
substance derived from red wine has been shown to prolong
life in rats and is available if you google it.
0 Votes
+ -
Replys to this article seem to divide between those who are optimistic about the future and those see only doom and gloom. Seems to me either scenario is possible. Which one happens will depend on us, you and me and rest of our fellow human beings.

From my perspective, history, while full of many tragic examples to the contrary, also has many more examples where people pull together in crisis. If this weren't the case, I doubt any of us would even still be here to debate this.

From the positive perspective, I agree that the change in longevity will drive us toward extraterristal exploration. Exploration is a fundimental part of our nature. But, long before that becomes a reality, I believe that we will return to the sea where some believe we came from. We've all heard a million times that 3/5th of the earths' surface is under water. As the population exceeds both the available land space and resources, we will build underwater living spaces and farms on a massive scale. it is inevitable.
0 Votes
+ -
April Fool!
bizcad 14th Dec 2009
A great way to sell out a conference and get plenty of press.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Manhattan Beach Project to reverse aging by 2029
starzbriter2003@... 14th Dec 2009
Sounds like only the new Pharoahs of government and business will get or afford access to this.
Is it natural? No. Even stars in the heavens are born, age, have hissy fits as teens, grow old, fade and die.
0 Votes
+ -
So are you suggesting...
Cayble 14th Dec 2009
...that someone is even speculating we might be able to live as long as a star? Never mind forever, just as old as a star?

Get real. Even living for 1000 years would be so far removed from living as long as a star is so far removed from that as to make the comparison pointless.

The point of the whole aging question, certainly at this point in our history, is not can we live forever, just can we live longer and in reasonably good health. I don't see anyone suggesting that we might be able to live forever. In case you haven't noticed forever is has no end and that would certainly be bizarre.
0 Votes
+ -
You're being a bit too skeptical and gloomy...
adornoe@... Updated - 14th Dec 2009
Sounds like only the new Pharoahs of government and business will get or afford access to this.

First off, no funding for research would be granted by government if the research did not lead to benefits for all instead of just the few, as you suggest.

Secondly, private funding for the research would not be forthcoming if the investors did not see a much larger and wider market from which to derive profits. A few people, or even a few thousand millionaires or billionaires would not be enough to offset the cost of the research, and those rich would not be enough to continue funding the production or further research.

If a large market for a product does not exist to begin with, the research may never even get off the ground. Research and production of medicines and research for medical techniques and equipment, are very expensive propositions.

If a product is going to be so prohibitively expensive that it's out of reach of most people, then chances are that the research, development and production will never even be undertaken.
Great. Talk about the tyranny of the old over the young. The people alive when longevity is first discovered would likely keep control of all the resources. Would Bill Gates or Warren Buffet give all their wealth away to charities if they weren't mortal? Buffet says he has just as much fun and is just as excited by investing today as he ever has been.

If there's no need for children to carry on the species and to have a sense of immortality, think of how fundamentally our society could change. So much of our efforts are in protecting and raising our children.

Then there's a lot of details in how longevity is acquired. The brain is very complex and will probably be one of the last organs to be "immortalized". If someone is suffering from Alzheimer's, do you rejuvenate his or her body? Others have brought up the cost, which at first will be prohibitive. I believe that one day the human body will be fully understood, and our ability to manipulate our bodies to control individual cells will become cheap and commonplace, but that day may be hundreds of years from now. Until then we will face issues of cost and quality-of-life similar to what we are undergoing in the current health care debate.
0 Votes
+ -
WHAT!?!?!? There goes my. . .
fm-usa 14th Dec 2009
RETIREMENT PLANS! ... Who said I wanted to work LOOOOONGER? ... It only means I'll have to pay TAXES longer too! ARRRRRGGGG!!! (Politicians would JUST love that) ... I'll stay with my "stem cell" self reproduction & transfer my brain when my #2 body is 21 years old.
Based on the premise of quality, not quantity, a long
lifetime is subjective. Be it 20 or 200, it's what one
does with the time, don't you think?
0 Votes
+ -
Other creatures here on Earth..
mailboweb@... 15th Dec 2009
Already know how to get older then 100 years.
Some of them over 200, and then again others span over 800 years.
Keeping buzzy doing what.
Today we have 30 year old studends, 40 year old studends that live at home. People still work full time at 70 even 80.
Its all in the mind, but the body needs to go along aswell.
Over population? The 40 year old student isnst a Dad yet, probably around 50, wich sounds like an good age to assist a little offspring.
Looks like it just will pressent us more time to do what we already do now.
Live and take it easy.
Time to do it better and make it better allround.
In the long run it will be a good thing for Man, envirement, the globe and 'all' races.
.
Much to be said

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix