Themes Might You Live a Great Deal Longer?

1474_291x218

If this collection of provocative speakers proves even partially right, we may all live to a (very) ripe old age.

Futurist Ray Kurzweil foresees body and brain enhancements leading to an extended human tenure on Earth -- and beyond. Surgeon and chemical engineer Alan Russell, meanwhile, asks: "If newts can regenerate a lost limb, why can't we?" And Aubrey de Grey, icon of the life extension movement, gives a challenging talk that may convince you that aging will soon become optional.

Email to a friend »

 

Get TEDTalks Delivered

New talks are released weekly. Subscribe to our newsletter or RSS feeds, and be the first to know ...

Newsletter:  
Podcasts:   Video  |  Audio  |  Hi-Res video
Blogs:         TED Blog  |  TED Prize Blog

Discuss this theme: Might You Live a Great Deal Longer?

  • Fake Steve Ballmer – March 1 2008

    If you have to live without MS products, what would be the point?
    http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

  • Chris Savino – February 17 2008

    Let's try to keep the philosophical argument of science vs. religion (or science WITH religion) off of the TED comment pages. Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey are two of the smartest men around, and what makes them so inspiring is their optimism and competence. We would do well to follow their example.

  • Byron Bell – February 12 2008

    Great, more old people! (this is sarcasm (don't be mistaken)). But Mr. de Grey has a most wondrous beard.

  • Barbara Finney – January 30 2008

    Religion is baloney and it always has been. And it is not right for those with relitiong views to impose them upon others unto forcing them to grow old and die so we in theory can go and meet their god and party in the sky. We might be already so far in medicine and technology had not religious fanatics burned most of the worlds ancient libraries and worked overtime to suppress knowledge.

    Aubrey de Grey has been someone I have admired since I learned of his existence a few years ago. I had never heard of Alan Russel until I found this website, but I now find much to admire in him. Eva Vertes reminds me very strongly of the person I used to be when I was her age and my ideals had not been destroyed. Ray Kurzweil is cool but the idea of machines messing with my mind is still not something I like to well but blood cells that could make me a better athlete seem desirable. I have not listend yet to the other speakers here but I am sure I am going to like what they have to say or at least in part.

  • Duane Leise – December 29 2007

    We need new religious thought that does not stop at the wall of myth - new thinking that brings some rigorous thought to previously undisciplined religious thinking. This new kind of religious thought is necessary to facilitate and work with the new ideas that the rigorous thought of science is producing. Such as what is being discussed in this series of talks.

    I do not believe in organized religion. It is the perfect attractor for people who don't understand.

  • arsen zahray – November 22 2007

    to Carrie Blakley: science and religion will newer work together. because the religion is the exact opposed to science. The science is all about progress and better understanding. the religion is about stagnation and blind belief. no self-respecting scientist will ever work together with stupid crowd that believes practically everything. to religion the answer on all questions is "god". it's not really an answer. science by it's nature destroys religion.
    to Shane Greenup: i agree with you

  • Carrie Blakley – July 1 2007

    To Chris Powers:Before I write this, I ask that you peek at my profile, and please understand that in no way am I intending on placing any offense to your posting. With that being said, on with my response.

    Science and Religion can in fact work together very well. I am living proof of this. If not for the hope and faith of the doctors who delivered me, I might not have been born at all. However, if not for the science and technology that was around at the time, I definately would not have been able to live past 1 day. If not for the belief and kindness of the staff at the hospital I was born at, I may not have been able to receive the care and nurture every new born needs in order to feel emotionally safe and secure. Moreover, it is also because of the knowledge and medical advancements that the machinery was available to help sustain my life while I could not sustain it through my own accord.

    So you see, it's not just claiming that 'God is THE one creator', and it's not anyone person claiming that "science over rides all things at all times", but rather a nice combination of "gutt hopes and feelings" (generally brought on by one's faith and belief system), and "what's new today that can help this person" (available by increased understandings and technologies that are developed through the hands of mankind).As for 'growing in God's likeness', I seriously and most highly doubt that God (regardless of which God it is that people worship) intended for humankind to grow in this most barbaric manner. I'll give you an example:

    Back in the days of Jesus' life, the most common way of punishment for public offenders (known as 'criminals' back then), was to be taken to a public square, stripped down to the loin cloth, tortured (generally this included lashes, flogging, public stoning and/or being 'chained' - ie: beaten with an iron chain), and then dragged off to be either publically decapitated, or hung on a cross until dead. THIS was 'God's will'? To allow one human being to decide the fate of thousands of other human beings just because those thousands of people did not 'conform' to one person's faith or personal belief system?

    THIS was 'acceptable' human behavior, along with human sacrafice, beheadings, stoning pits, ampitheaters where it was considered "entertainment" to watch several starved men who had been beaten until bloody, got to run around for their lives all while trying to fight off a really hungry lion, tiger or other wild animal. THIS is 'ok', but when someone tries to work on medical and technological advancements that hold the potential to treat and/or cure hundreds, thousands and possibly MILLIONS of lives around the world, it's considered 'playing God'?! Does anyone else see something very seriously wrong with this picture?

    Let me see now.... over in Iraq, it's 'common' for people to be kidnapped, condemned, tortured, raped, murdered, blow up, shot down and exploded into uncountable pieces.....but in any other nation, God forbid (pun intended) anyone, ANYONE makes even the slightest attempt to develop medicine and technology that will stop the development of diseases like Parkinson's and Diabetes... and THIS is something that is up for more debate than the US federal spending plan on the War in Iraq? Are these people THAT stupid?

    Hmmm... kill lives... save lives... kill lives... save lives..... yup, I'd prefer to save lives. Or have we forgotten the 10 Commandments, and 'the golden rule'? Ya know... Thou shalt not kill... thou shalt not bear false witness....do unto others....ya know, 'the good stuff'. We apparently also forgot one of the most impotant vows that ALL doctors take when they recite the "hypocratical oath"... "First, last and always, DO NO HARM"... and these are the people that are harassed and told that they are "playing God", when they want to provide humanity with the means by which we can live healthier and more complete lives?

    Wow! In this case, would someone mind telling me where our morals and ethics went to? I must've slept through all that.....

  • Chris Powers – June 26 2007

    I would contend that evolution is neither our designer or master, but that God is both. God, a personal, living, omniscient and soverign God, created humans and everything else in the universe. He gave humans in particular the imprint of His image. Why do you think we strive for more knowledge? why do we create? why do we design? why are we pulled toward the unknown? Because we are image bearers of Him and we carry imperfect versions of His own perfect attributes within us.
    I would say aging will never be escaped, why? because of the Fall, because of Man's choice thousands of years ago to break from the will of God and to embrace his own "soveriengty". Because of this, sin and death entered the world. And so, humans, who were originally intended to live forever, were cursed with aging and ultimate death. So, of course it seems possible to reverse aging, the capability was present at one time, but, as long as we live in a fallen world, our bodies and everything else will continue to decay.
    I find it amazing that there are so many brilliant minds gathered at TED, and yet, the majority of them completely ignore our Creator, and more than that, our Savior. As long as we humans continue throwing off the love God has extended to us, we will only become more self absorbed and lost.

  • Shane Greenup – June 21 2007

    Evolution may be our designer, but it isn't our master. We don't have to consider evolution's purpose before choosing our own path. That sort of thinking is what took us into Eugenics: The idea that we have to actively select the best to make evolution work.

    Besides, Ageing isn't natures way of anything. Ageing is an unfortunate side effect of evolutionary neglect. Ageing didn't evolve for a purpose, and while anyone may be able to create an argument in favour of ageing, it would be an argument that clutches at straws, because in the end dying is not something that any human actually wants. (Because if they did want it, they would be dead already)

  • jeremie laflamme – June 19 2007

    Aging is natures way making evolution work, by forcing death changes come for the next generation. If we go about modifying the rules (I'm not against or for the idea) we need to take in consideration the impacts of changing the cycle.