/sci/ - Science & Math

>tfw too intelligent to get the correct answer

>>9889268
I think that neither of your methods are great, and will suggest my won ideas.
>Eat telomerase
Nice, your protein got denatured and no longer works + even if it did work, would it get absorbed and go to all cells in the body? I doubt it.
>Nanomachines
Seems way too complicated and expensive. Also gives way to mind control/blackmail technology.

Some (likely flawed) ideas of my own
1) Inject viruses with Telomerase (and p53, to prevent cancer) into the bloodstream with body protein identifiers on the surface (To prevent immune system attack, may not work).
2) Induce the body's own trasncription of telomerase (maybe) by inserting a new, less selective promoter in the DNA before telomerase gene. May cause cancers, etc. though.
3) Create a new endosymbiont (like a mitochondria) whose purpose is to repair chromosomal DNA. Maybe use it with crispr/cs9/whatever the fudge, or even just give it a telomerase gene directly.

These would all be enormously complicated and flawed undertakings though, and a lot of testing would be required. I have my doubts that aging would simply cease with more telomerase, but maybe it would, because reproduction does not require old age, and therefore more telomerase was never selected for.

READ "INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE"
The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical” and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial- technological system.

Let's call [math]H[/math] the statement "I am a human." Empirical observation gives us the hypothesis [math]H[/math]. Henceforth, the statement can the be proven by means of the LJ sequent calculus as follows:
[eqn]\frac{\displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle\frac{}{H\ \vdash\ H} \mathrm{(Ax)}}{H,\,\neg H\ \vdash\ H} \mathrm{(WL)}}{H\ \vdash\ \neg H\;\Rightarrow\;H} \mathrm{(\Rightarrow R)}[/eqn]

>>9567150
>[math]IQ^2[/math]
How many digits?

>>9537652
More like
>find a pattern that generalizes empirical data without contradicting it
I FOUND A NEW INTERPOLATION OF FACTUAL INFORMATION GUISE

[math]\int{\frac{1}{\operatorname{arccsc}^{2}x}}dx[/math] bloacks your path!