February 11, 2009 3:54 PM

Could We Live Forever? Or Even Come Close?

By
CBSNews
(CBS)  In a quiet Boston suburb, Esther MacKay has made it to 102 years old - and counting.

Born in 1905, MacKay traveled the world during a long career in the military. Lately she's been honored as the Air Force's longest-living chief master sergeant.

For MacKay, there's no mystery about what's gotten her this far.

"I had three no-no's in my rules growing up," she told CBS News technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg. "One was no smoking. Two was no drinking. Three, no sex. That's it, one, two, three."

Her rules may not be everyone's keys to the good life, but even if you don't follow the Esther MacKay prescription, your prognosis for living a long life is improving.

Consider how life expectancy has increased over the last two centuries. An average man born in 1800 had a life expectancy of 35 years. In 1900, he would have made it all the way to 47. By 1950, average life expectancy was up to 68 years, and now it's up to 78.

The trend is definitely favorable. But how far can we take it?

Although Ponce de Leon never found the legendary fountain of youth, today in labs like the one at the University of California, San Francisco, scientists are trying to stop the clock or at least slow it down.

In San Francisco, Professor Cynthia Kenyon is conducting experiments on microscopic worms. Their usual life span is little more than 13 days, but she has been able to get some to live as long as six times that by altering one specific gene.

"And here is the long-lived mutant when it's also 13 days old," she said, showing Sieberg her handy-work. "But you can see, look at that! It's still living a productive, active life. I would say it might be heading out to play tennis."

Kenyon believes her work shows that the rate of aging is not fixed. Rather, it can be slowed dramatically.

"The important thing for people to understand is that this is new," she said. "Fifteen years ago, and from 15 years ago on back, to when we were cavemen, cavewomen, people thought aging just happened. There's nothing you can do about it. That was it. And then along came these animals where you make a little change and they live twice as long ... Something we never thought can happen, can happen."

At the University of Wisconsin, scientists are using rhesus monkeys for similar purposes. They haven't monkeyed with their genes, but simply cut down on some of their food. For example, two monkeys are the same age, but one has eaten normally and the other is on a restricted-calorie diet and appears to have spent time at a monkey spa.

Calorie restriction research goes back more than 70 years to pioneering experiments on mice at Cornell University. Restricting your food intake does appear to extend life, although no one's totally sure how.

"If we base ideas on calorie restriction, in animals, and even in monkeys, which are relatively close to us, we see that calorie restriction slows down virtually all diseases of aging," researcher on aging at Harvard David Sinclair said.

Eat less, live longer? Easier said than done.

Brian Delaney is the president of the Calorie Restriction Society. He says it's easy to live on a calorie restricted diet, simply figure out what your normal intake of calories would be and then reduce it by 20 to 30 percent - or maybe even a bit more.

"But then you don't want to take it too far because then it's frankly starvation," he said.

Members of Delaney's group generally consume fewer than 2,000 calories a day and some go as low as 1,000 calories. Will they live longer? Is what's good for dessert-deprived monkeys also good for people?

"The CR diet could allow a human being to live to be maybe 135 or 140 years, but we don't know yet because we have not done that long a study in humans," Delaney said.

But of the course the main obstacle is: hunger. For most people, cutting calories is anything but easy.

Which is what's brought Harvard's David Sinclair to his latest project: trying to put the apparent benefits of calorie restriction - in a pill. He's now a director at a company called Sirtris Pharmaceuticals along with Dr. Christophe Westphal.

"We're not telling you 'eat whatever you want and then take our pill,'" Westphal said. "What we're saying is, 'Do the best you can on behavior, but we think we can turn on that same pathway with small molecule drugs.'"

The pill they've developed is based on a naturally-occurring substance called Resveratrol, which is found in red wine. But don't think you're going to guzzle your way to longevity: one pill has the potency of 1,000 glasses of wine.

So far the tablets are doing great things for mice. In a Sirtris video, two mice are the same age. But one mouse been taking Resveratrol and he is thriving. But it's not fair to call Resveratrol an anti-aging drug, Sinclair said.

"I sometimes slip and call it that," he said. "But actually, this is not about slowing down the aging process. It's about treating diseases that are caused by aging. And if we are successful at that, of course people will live longer, healthier lives."

The first disease they're targeting is diabetes. They hope to get Resveratrol on the market in about five years.

"Imagine a future where you're a diabetic, and your doctor prescribes you a drug," Sinclair said. "And the doctor says, 'Well, as a side effect, I have to warn you you're also protected against heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's.' Well, you know, if we can get there, that'd be great. But that's the future that we're aiming for."

But to some people, like inventor Ray Kurzweil, a pill like that is just the first of innovations that he and others think could extend our lives for hundreds - yes hundreds - of years.

"We've gone 20,000 years without significantly changing the software that runs in our body. We have the tools now to do that," he said.

Kurzweil - you may have heard of his keyboards - foresees what he calls "the singularity," when technology and human biology merge. He's banking on the advance of technology continuing to accelerate, yielding devices like nanobots - microscopic robots that would roam your blood stream, curing what ails you.

The only problem for Kurzweil is living long enough to see it all happen. To that end, he carefully watches what he eats and takes 200 supplements throughout the day.

"You can never prove forever, because no matter how long you live, whether it's 100 or 1,000 years, that's not forever," he said. "But we can get to a point where as time goes by, you're really not aging."

But of course, mention life-spans of hundreds of years, and people usually seem to have one question: why would they want to live that long?

"Well, there's two negative thoughts that come up: One is, 'Okay, I'm gonna be a 90-year-old' as we think of them today, 'and that I'm gonna live like that for another 200 years,'" Kurzweil said. "And that's really not what we're trying to achieve. We're trying to stay in good health and really not age, so we can stay 30 or 35. We're not only going to have radical life extension, we're gonna have radical life expansion."

Dr. Thomas Perls at Boston University runs the world's largest study of centenarians. He's learned from subjects like Esther MacKay that long life isn't just a matter of genes. It has a lot to do with lifestyle.

"There is no such thing as a fountain of youth," he said. "There may be a fountain of aging well. And the fountain of aging well has to do with your good health habits, and knowing that things like smoking are truly terrible for you and can knock 20 years off your life expectancy."

And to nudge you in the right direction, Perls has developed an on-line calculator that's a bit of a crystal ball. You punch in your family history, your health and lifestyle choices, and it predicts how long you might live.

Perls, for one, is looking forward to many more healthy, happy years.

"It looks like I'll live to 94," he said. "And given what I know, that means I'm gonna be spending a big chunk of that in good health. I would love to do that."

Visit Dr. Richard Perls' Life Expectancy Calculator at www.livingto100.com.

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 126 Comments
by eidolon_spectre November 30, 2009 6:38 AM EST
If we just disappear, it seems like it would be easier just to die, because it seems like we wouldn't have to feel anything anymore. If we have a soul that lives forever, it would be scary to die, because we don't really know if we will suffer worse dead than alive. If we're alive, whatever problems we might have to face we can solve, but if we're dead... we don't know if we can or not. It's probably in our best interest to try to live as long as possible, because we know we have some control alive. Ironically, if you believe in having a soul, it makes more sense to distrust whatever dogma tells us we should look forward to dying. Would it be in some other life-form's best interest for us to die? I can't see how it would really be in our best interest. The nicest thing would probably be to cease to exist and be completely unaware, because there probably just isn't anything to worry about then. But is that possible? We just can't know. All we know is that we're here and alive now, and we seem to be preprogrammed to want to live on same basic level. Even though to truly die seems like it would be such a relief, it may actually be the most horrible thing imaginable. Maybe just basic magnetic attraction between certain atoms causes pain, even if we don't have souls. I don't know. I just don't want to suffer. I don't want anything to suffer. And it seems like even the simplest living creatures just manage to do very miraculous things if they have enough time and resources. I think we should just try to do our best to live forever and we shouldn't really worry, because whatever problems there are people are smart enough to eventually solve.
Reply to this comment
by eidolon_spectre November 30, 2009 6:38 AM EST
If we just disappear, it seems like it would be easier just to die, because it seems like we wouldn't have to feel anything anymore. If we have a soul that lives forever, it would be scary to die, because we don't really know if we will suffer worse dead than alive. If we're alive, whatever problems we might have to face we can solve, but if we're dead... we don't know if we can or not. It's probably in our best interest to try to live as long as possible, because we know we have some control alive. Ironically, if you believe in having a soul, it makes more sense to distrust whatever dogma tells us we should look forward to dying. Would it be in some other life-form's best interest for us to die? I can't see how it would really be in our best interest. The nicest thing would probably be to cease to exist and be completely unaware, because there probably just isn't anything to worry about then. But is that possible? We just can't know. All we know is that we're here and alive now, and we seem to be preprogrammed to want to live on same basic level. Even though to truly die seems like it would be such a relief, it may actually be the most horrible thing imaginable. Maybe just basic magnetic attraction between certain atoms causes pain, even if we don't have souls. I don't know. I just don't want to suffer. I don't want anything to suffer. And it seems like even the simplest living creatures just manage to do very miraculous things if they have enough time and resources. I think we should just try to do our best to live forever and we shouldn't really worry, because whatever problems there are people are smart enough to eventually solve.
Reply to this comment
by eidolon_spectre November 30, 2009 6:37 AM EST
If we just disappear, it seems like it would be easier just to die, because it seems like we wouldn't have to feel anything anymore. If we have a soul that lives forever, it would be scary to die, because we don't really know if we will suffer worse dead than alive. If we're alive, whatever problems we might have to face we can solve, but if we're dead... we don't know if we can or not. It's probably in our best interest to try to live as long as possible, because we know we have some control alive. Ironically, if you believe in having a soul, it makes more sense to distrust whatever dogma tells us we should look forward to dying. Would it be in some other life-form's best interest for us to die? I can't see how it would really be in our best interest. The nicest thing would probably be to cease to exist and be completely unaware, because there probably just isn't anything to worry about then. But is that possible? We just can't know. All we know is that we're here and alive now, and we seem to be preprogrammed to want to live on same basic level. Even though to truly die seems like it would be such a relief, it may actually be the most horrible thing imaginable. Maybe just basic magnetic attraction between certain atoms causes pain, even if we don't have souls. I don't know. I just don't want to suffer. I don't want anything to suffer. And it seems like even the simplest living creatures just manage to do very miraculous things if they have enough time and resources. I think we should just try to do our best to live forever and we shouldn't really worry, because whatever problems there are people are smart enough to eventually solve.
Reply to this comment
by eidolon_spectre November 30, 2009 6:37 AM EST
If we just disappear, it seems like it would be easier just to die, because it seems like we wouldn't have to feel anything anymore. If we have a soul that lives forever, it would be scary to die, because we don't really know if we will suffer worse dead than alive. If we're alive, whatever problems we might have to face we can solve, but if we're dead... we don't know if we can or not. It's probably in our best interest to try to live as long as possible, because we know we have some control alive. Ironically, if you believe in having a soul, it makes more sense to distrust whatever dogma tells us we should look forward to dying. Would it be in some other life-form's best interest for us to die? I can't see how it would really be in our best interest. The nicest thing would probably be to cease to exist and be completely unaware, because there probably just isn't anything to worry about then. But is that possible? We just can't know. All we know is that we're here and alive now, and we seem to be preprogrammed to want to live on same basic level. Even though to truly die seems like it would be such a relief, it may actually be the most horrible thing imaginable. Maybe just basic magnetic attraction between certain atoms causes pain, even if we don't have souls. I don't know. I just don't want to suffer. I don't want anything to suffer. And it seems like even the simplest living creatures just manage to do very miraculous things if they have enough time and resources. I think we should just try to do our best to live forever and we shouldn't really worry, because whatever problems there are people are smart enough to eventually solve.
Reply to this comment
by einstein1966 November 14, 2007 8:11 AM EST
@singinrick:

"If you''''re taught there is no God, you will act out as such, holding absolutely no accountability for your own actions."
Actually the exact opposite is true. About 15% of Americans identify themselves as Atheist or Agnostic as of 2001. However, only .209 % (about 1/5 of ONE percent) of inmates in US prisons are atheist or agnostic.

"Secular humanism has DESTROYED our once God-fearing nation, the USA."
Opinion...nothing more.

"Our founding fathers would be beside themselves."
History disagrees. Consider this quote from Ben Franklin, one of the greatest thinkers of early America:

"The rapid Progress true Science now makes, occasions my regretting sometimes that I was born so soon. It is impossible to imagine the Height to which may be carried, in a thousand years, the Power of Man over Matter. We may perhaps learn to deprive large Masses of their Gravity, and give them absolute Levity, for the sake of easy Transport. Agriculture may diminish its Labor and double its Produce; all Diseases may by sure means be prevented or cured, not excepting even that of Old Age, and our Lives lengthened at pleasure even beyond the antediluvian Standard. O that moral Science were in as fair a way of Improvement, that Men would cease to be Wolves to one another, and that human Beings would at length learn what they now improperly call Humanity!"

Mr. Franklin obviously agreed that long healthy lives are a desirable thing.
Reply to this comment
by ecuadoriana November 13, 2007 1:05 PM EST
"Our founding fathers would be beside themselves." Posted by singinrick at 05:06 AM : Nov 13, 2007

Why? Were they gods? It was never written into law that everyone in the US has to be a christian, or to believe in god (which encompasses jews, since they actually came before christians).

That is just what you want because you are too insecure to accept that other people can & will think for themselves. No one wants to be the geeky kid standing all alone. There is safety in numbers. So when you see your safety net start to unravel it makes you afraid. Those who are afraid lash out against their real or imagined enemies.

Pushing god & the bible & christianity on people will not lessen the evils in the world. As a matter of fact would you care to ponder the millions of beatings, rapings, & killings done against non believers ever since the beginning of christianity & in the name of christianity? Would you care to ponder how many "men of the cloth" r*ped children all while spouting the words of the "good book"?

So don''t give us your cr*ppy regurgitated lectures on how the world is going to h*ll because everyone is acting like primates & turning away from the bible & christianity. Last I checked apes don''t drive tanks & blow up villages in other countries all in the name of the almighty dollar- or oil barrel.
Reply to this comment
by ecuadoriana November 13, 2007 12:50 PM EST
singinrick:

Blah, blah, blah...

Rather than quoting from the Big Book of Lies why not try thinking for yourself for a change? Quoting what was written by some control freaks a long time ago does not make you an authority on what a liberal is. It just means you continue spouting some one else''s thoughts & lies.
Reply to this comment
by grammawhamma November 13, 2007 5:40 AM EST
How averages work...hmmmm, it must be that some people died very young and some died very old, that is averaging. There are hundreds if not thousands of contributing factors that make up these numbers. Numbers can be manipulated too, to suit someones needs. It''''s all just a bunch of numbers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Spaspy at 04:27 PM : Nov 12, 2007
+ report abuse

You are correct. Any statistics can be manipulated. If we averaged in the deaths of all babies that were aborted our life expectancy statistics would plummet dramatically.
Reply to this comment
by ecuadoriana November 12, 2007 10:22 PM EST
What is the appeal of living forever? First off, I don''t understand why all the god worshipers would want to. I thought their whole belief is based on wanting to get on up there to heaven to hang out with the angels, the saints, & the big guy for eternity. Could it be their secret desire to live forever is based on their doubts about the supposed afterlife, because they know, deep down, that logically all that stuff in the bible is really control tactics used to ensure more money going into the church coffers & that people have been playing & paying into the church''s strangling hands for centuries?

Why would we want to live forever? We can''t feed, clothe, house, employ the billions of people we have right now! Is part of the "living forever plan" systematically sterilising certain people of undesirable traits (the government can choose from so many!) so that only those with perfect traits will be allowed to breed? Then the poor, black, homosexual, women, immigrants, jews, muslims (oh, I suppose I could go on with with our government sanctified bad apples) will be allowed to live forever as slaves?

Will there be applications, financial reports, & DNA samples to submit to be eligible for the live forever plan? Will you be required to be an ivy league graduate or will they allow any poor shmuck to live forever flipping burgers at mickey d''s for minimum wage? Oh, yeah that guy will make a great candidate for the "live forever as a slave to the man plan"!

This whole thing is ridiculous.
Reply to this comment
by ecuadoriana November 12, 2007 10:06 PM EST
What is the appeal of living forever? First off, I don''t understand why all the god worshipers would want to. I thought their whole belief is based on wanting to get on up there to heaven to hang out with the angels, the saints, & the big guy for eternity. Could it be their secret desire to live forever is based on their doubts about the supposed afterlife, because they know, deep down, that logically all that stuff in the bible is really control tactics used to ensure more money going into the church coffers & that people have been playing & paying into the church''s strangling hands for centuries?

Why would we want to live forever? We can''t feed, clothe, house, employ the billions of people we have right now! Is part of the "living forever plan" systematically sterilising certain people of undesirable traits (the government can choose from so many!) so that only those with perfect traits will be allowed to breed? Then the poor, black, homosexual, women, immigrants, jews, muslims (oh, I suppose I could go on with with our government sanctified bad apples) will be allowed to live forever as slaves?

Will there be applications, financial reports, & DNA samples to submit to be eligible for the live forever plan? Will you be required to be an ivy league graduate or will they allow any poor shmuck to live forever flipping burgers at mickey d''s for minimum wage? Oh, yeah that guy will make a great candidate for the "live forever as a slave to the man plan"!

This whole thing is ridiculous.
Reply to this comment
See all 126 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook