Bet 11
At least one human alive in the year 2000 will still be alive in 2150.
Bet 11
Duration 148 years (02002-02150)
Predictor
Peter Schwartz
Challenger
Melody K. Haller
Stakes $2,000
will go to Chabot Space and Science Center if Schwartz wins,
or Accion International if Haller wins.
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
Today there are several lines of research under way that are treating both the infirmities of aging and the aging process itself, so that we are treating many of the phenomena like loss of memory, loss of vision, sexual performance, and so on with individual therapies, and in the course of that we are essentially extending the quality of life for people at a much higher age. If one then in addition looks at the current work on stem cells as well as on certain phenomon like telomerase, an enxyme in DNA, what we find is we are learning a great deal about how that mechanism is the control mechanism for aging, and it is very likely that over the next 25 years, we will be actually be able to manipulate the production of telomerase in individual cells. In other words, society will see serious and effective medical intervention in the aging process---people undergoing such therapy will keep looking and feeling and acting younger than their calendar age. The prospect to individuals for living seriously longer than the current norm will begin to open up.
The Hayflick limit is the limit of the maximum number of cell replications that a human being (or any species) can engage in. So, how many times do our cells replace themselves? That's the limit of human lifespan. When you can't replace your cells anymore, you die. And Leonard Hayflick calculated that number for a variety of species, and for human beings it was 120. So we have almost no documented instances of people living more than one hundred and twenty years.
Science and medicine will not only be essentially extending people to their normal full life span (i.e. 120), but will extend the human natural life span to beyond that, and a reasonable guess as to how much will be gained over the next century or so is at least 25 or 30 years. In other words, a person born in the year 2000 will still be alive in 2150 There's one other factor. If one simply looks at the historical trend, one finds that over the last century, we have nearly doubled human life span. The average lifespan of human beings (average, not maximum) has gone from about 45 to about 85. With the advances in microbiology and molecular biology, there's no reason to imagine that we won't do at least as much in the next century. In fact, if you double 85, you're at 170... so I'm actually being conservative.
Peter's bet blithely refers to overcoming the Hayflick Limit without even considering the bioethical or social implications of doing so. I suspect that it will be broken, like the atom. But this is one of the fundamental building blocks of evolution--what arrogance and self-importance to think that our existence is so important and valuable that we have the right to mess with evolution, or that we have any clue whatsoever as to the implications of doing so. There's a tremendous outcry about cloning, bypassing sexual reproduction, but no one seems to think there's a problem with cracking the code to immortality. The life span-expiration mechanism came into play in evolution about the same time as the infinitely popular sexual reproduction. Unless done in by inclement circumstances, single cell animals such as yeast don't die; they just divide. Ironically, the arising of limited life spans coincided with and seemingly contributed to the rapid proliferation of life on Earth. My nonscientific, intuitive take on this is that evolutionary adaptation takes place more rapidly when the older generation gets out of the way, especially as organisms increase in complexity. Humans may succeed in overcoming self-limiting life spans but the result is likely to be contra-indicatory to the continued success of humans and other life. Further, from a political and compassionate point of view, I am convinced that such an extension of life span would benefit only the privileged and powerful, as it already does. The desire of the self to continue existing is a nearly irresistible force. But it is one thing to extend life by optimizing the care and circumstances of the organism and quite another to extend it by neutralizing inherent cellular functions. I do not doubt that further advances will be made in prolonging longevity and perhaps Peter will prove correct. Luckily, there's yet another expiration barrier that comes into play at about 200 years of age. I am betting money against his prediction purely because I believe that the further radical prolonging of human (and pet) longevity would not benefit the human species, nor the other species who are also rightful inhabitants of this small planet.
Do you mean by natural means, or by help of some chemical, machine, or any other artificial source that could be invented over the next century and a half?
There has already been a report of a group of two scientists creating an immortal cell, per se. They (Sorry, I haven't done much research into this field) made the "line" that decided how much the cell could reproduce dissapear.. I guess... This might sound strange, because I am pretty ignorant on this topic. But since it has already been done in a cell... what's preventing us from moving to bigger and better things?
The real question here is, though... if we discover the means to ultra-long life, what impact will that have on our environment and the whole ecosystem? Overpopulation will be a huge problem, which would lead to major over-consumtion of resources.. maybe some things are better left untouched.
Cellular immortality and organism immortality are two entirely different fields. The problem of human overpopulation can easily be scaled down to represent a problem of cellular overpopulation. What happens when a person's tongue starts to reproduce cells that haven't been purged from the system? Or a person's eyes? Or skin, or any other body part?
In fairness, immortality was used to refer to "erasing the line", that is, the end point of a cell's ability to reproduce, but cellular lifespans differ greatly from person to person (everyone knows at least one elderly person who, despite malfunctions throughout their body, have sight or hearing or some other ability that is the envy of younger, more "fit" individuals).
The ability to increase lifespan would require genetic engineering on a massive level, and not just person to person, either. Cells within the body experience different lifespans. This means increasing the organism lifespan would require more than just turning off a single portion of the subject's double helix, but individually altering the subject's bone cells, skin cells, muscle cells, etc.
For the record, I'm not saying that a person fulfilling the requirements for the bet is impossible, in fact, with the speed that genetic engineering is progressing (despite some uneducated government restrictions) it is very likely. I just wish to state that freezing the lifeclock isn't as simple as altering a single protein code.
And remember, immortality is best suited for the young; an eighty year old researcher will, with any common sense, not wish to spend the next several centuries locked down in an elderly body. Hopefully, by the time the process is perfected there will still be someone who lived in 2000 and is still willing to have thier lifespan altered.
Final question: Would a person frozen cryogenically be considered "alive" enough to pass the bet?
I don't know if cryogenics would be included. Because of the state of stasis someone would have to be in.. they really couldn't be considered alive..just in suspended animation. Cryogenics seems to be the first step, though. But the bet states that someone that's alive now, will be alive in 2150... So, I guess that if you employed cryogenics on a person, let's say, twenty-five years from now, and that person is thirty years old. And they 'woke up' in 2150. According the the way the bet is worded, that would account for a win. In my opinion, anyways.
Eric
I think people sometimes overlook the fact that there will be unthinkable advances in computers by this time. There is a great book on this subject called "The Age of Spiritual Machines : When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence." I highly recommend it. (edit: To my surprise after I posted this I realized that the author of this book is a member of this site! Ray Kurzweil. If you're reading this Mr. Kurzweil, your book is absolutely phenomenal.) Basically the book shows you a theoretical timeline for computer technology in the 21st century. By the year 2060, one computer chip will have more computing power than every human brain put together (right now they are equivalent to an insect brain). Humans will also begin to use the technology on their own bodies for memory enhancement and increased brain power and so forth.
I feel that computers will play a huge role in the advances of genetics and biology in general.
Needless to say, there's no telling what can be accomplished with computer and biological technologies used together. I'm glad I'm young enough to be able to experience the majority of the 21st century.
Bringing up the subject of advances in computer technology... What if one were to "download" one's brain into a sort of neural sequencing machine... it would be that person in every way... Which is kind of weird.. I don't know if this matters.. just something that popped into my head.
Kurzweil's book discusses that possibility extensively. It brings up questions of what it means to be consious and "alive." If one were indeed able to download their mind into a computer and be everything they were before without an organic body, then they could theoretically live forever.
I think I'll pick up that book.. sounds great. If one was able to download his brain, though, what would stop someone from stealing that information? If you could turn the brain into a digital format, I can only imagine the kinds of trouble someone would have if a person got ahold of their 'digital self'.
You could manipulate it, it would breed a new form of 'hackers' so to speak. People who work in the field of manipulating a 'digital brain'.. And if you were able to 'upload' that back to the human brain... wow. That would create such a weird situation..
Melody should not have been allowed to take this bet. She does not argue against the possibility at all; her entire argument is that she doesn't like the idea. That's her right, and it may be an argument we should hear, but I'd rather see a technical argument against a 150-year life span, if any such argument exists. And if no one comes forward with a technical argument, that is very much worth knowing.
There's a bet (#9) about bio[t]error wiping out a million people in a single event that has been in the arena for months--no one will step up and say it won't happen. That is very important information! And we have lost the chance to gain such information from this bet. If I were Peter, I would not have accepted Melody's bet; I hope that Peter wasn't forced to accept it for lack of a better one.
First, I agree that Melody's response is basically that she doesn't like the premise. No real argument.
Suppose that space travel at speeds approaching light become available in the next 50 years? It could be conceivable that an individual born in 2000 could be selected for a long-term roundtrip, but not age as much as the population due to time dilation. That individual could satisfy the terms of this bet.
Hi folks,
As has been said, Melody does not dispute the point of the bet at all but simply responds with the cliche that she doesn't like the idea (no offense intended, Melody). This in some ways has the effect of removing the point from clear debate, which is a shame inasmuch as a topic (such as this one) is a fundamental issue worthy of discussion.
The site owners may wish to consider the mechanism by which a topic area can be "owned" by a single bet - to the detriment of the debates which makes the site interesting - and craft a way to minimize the problem.
Following any sort of plausible progression of science forward over the coming 150 years it becomes almost inarguable to suggest that there is not an extremely good chance that human lifespan may be a great deal longer. Honestly following the same progression 500 years forward (which is after all not really so far away, either), dramatically extended lifespans approach inevitability - and 150 years old will not be the maximum. Effectively no-one offers any equally plausible argument that lifespans *could* not be so extended over the next several centuries, nor to my knowledge even that anything short of societal collapse could prevent it.
When (not if) this time comes the effects on all issues of human concern will be dramatic, as Melody indicates. Effectively everyone alive today agrees that it would be best if our descendants (and if Peter is right, perhaps our own children) live in a world which includes a healthy ecosystem, safe and functioning societies, space to live happily and productively and a lessening of human suffering.
Therefore, the useful debate is not whether we can extend human lifespan, or even whether we should allow or (somehow) ban any person from discovering how to do so, but what to do when that day comes to avoid or minimize the pitfalls Melody alludes to.
The argument that the advance in human longevity will continue at the rate of the last century is unsupportable. The advances in human longevity of the last century were achieved by curing or preventing the "easy" medical issues (polio, infant mortality, etc). I tend to agree that the next advance in human longevity will be at the microcelluar level, but the risks involved may, in fact decrease human longevity. Additionally, several factors that will affect this are unaccounted for, the largest one being that governments have a huge stake in not promoting an increase in longevity at all. Remember, the increase in the last century was dure largely to curing medical problems that had plaged man for centuries. Other factors, such as global environmental changes, the fact that we will probably endure new epidemics as viruses continue to mutate faster than we can cure them, and the fact that it is entirely possible that we will endure another world war this century (if the author of the bet can use the history of the last century to promote his view - then detractors must be able to use the same theory) all mitigate against a large increase in human longevity
The phraseing of the bet leaves it open to possibility. Cryogenics, FTL travel, use of AI, or other unforeseen technology that may develop over then next 100 years could satisfy the bet. However, I doubt that someone will be kept alive in the traditional sense. That is, without the use of relativity, cryogenics, or similar "cheating" (term loosely used) technologies.
If you look at the history of lifespans of humans, you will find that throughout recorded history, (religious texts excluded) the longest lived person is just shy of 120 years, be it 1800, 1900, or 2000. The average lifespan has increased drastically, but not due to a significant increase in this high end number. Increases in average lifespan have come from drops in infant mortality and childhood mortality, for the most part. More people are living to these extreme ages, but no one is really breaking through that 110-120 year old barrier.
"Suppose that space travel at speeds approaching light become available in the next 50 years?"
...sounds like the subject of a whole nother Long Bet.
I would suggest that humans have long since left stopped participating in
"natural evolution"; so why is giving them infinate life spans a problem
since humans have really stopped "evolving" anyway?
IMHO, it all comes down to what the basic philosphy of medical technology is,
either,
Death is inevitable, therefore medical technology should consentrate on making
sure that people humanely die "on time and under bugdet".
Or,
Death is not enevitable, successfully treating the complex maladies that ARE aging
will result in higher quality of life for all.
The basic problem is the philosphy that "one" generation "gets in the way
of another" is very Eurocentric. European culture has agism very finely
engrained in it. No doubt that the haves do hold on the power and it is
a good idea that they eventually go. But, is death really the only solution?
Is in it a better solution just to make the technology avaible to everyone?
Why it is assumed that is will be expensive and exclusive to the rich and
powerful?
If you elimate health problems, then maybe the other problems will go away .....
Concerning the various methods of "cheating" posters have identified, if I were inclined to take the "No" possition on this topic, I don't think I would object to including cryogenics and relativity as a means of prolonging life. I think we are further away from extending life by either of those means than we are from overcoming our natural aging limits, although I don't claim to know how that might be done.
The act of freezing a person has the effect of mutilating every cell in his body, and any means of overcomming that problem is at least as theoretical as overcomming the Hayflick limit. I think we are also light-years away from achieving speeds that would make relativity come into play in a meaningful way, and one can only imagine the effect approaching the speed of light would have on the human body.
The only "cheating" method that would concern me is the possibilty of downloading human consciousness into a computer, but I don't think that will be possible in the next 150 years, and even if it were, there would be no way to establish whether that person still exists.
It would small comfort to me as an individual to have my life extended in this way, because I don't believe it would still be me. What can be computerized can be duplicated. If 10 duplicates were made, all identical, which one is me? Do I experience them all at once? Or, none at all? None at all is the only answer. They may think they are me, but my thread of consciousness has been cut. Of course, this raises the question of whether I even exist at this moment. I think I'll go bang my head against a wall for a while.
None of the cheats would answer give credence to Schwartz's Argument, i.e. that the cellular reproductive limit is capped at 120 years (apparently the Hayflick cycles are synonymous with years) and that this cap will be extended. It seems to be a cornerstone of his argument in favor, may actually be a clause which the argument will be held to regardless of any flaw in the opinion against the prolonging of life.
on the bet page doesn't say "It won't happen", so much as "It shouldn't happen."
I would be inclined to think it is moderately likely on the following basis.
A. In 2000, what was the age of the oldest person alive?
B. What was the world population when he was born?
C. What was the age of the oldest person alive at the time he was born?
I would guess that A is larger than C by a fair amount and B is quite a bit smaller than the population now.
Logically the larger the population, the greater extremes are included within that population. Add to that the improved medical knowledge and (maximum) standard of health now, to 100+ years ago and you must be getting pretty close to 150 already.
Also, and possibly more to the point, people are better documented now. There are a number of 'claimed' ages that aren't verifiable enough for the Guiness Book of World Records (e.g. some bloke allegedly alive today at 154 years old). Maybe they are all bogus, but what if some of them are 'true but unprovable?'.
By the way, is there anyway to determine accurately how old someone is medically? [Ala 'tree rings' ;-P ]
I think this will definitely happen in my lifetime. The reasons are that the foundation for this is already in place.
With the human genome project, we have a roadmap to the human body. So sequencing was also done on some really old people to investigate the nature of aging. The results were startling. The sequencing found that in many old people, the genes were either damaged or whole chromosomes were missing.
If we can through gene sequencing keep a backup copy of ourselves, then we can over the course of our lives replace our damaged cells with backups to live forever (baring some accident).
I think the really fun part is to speculate on how this would impact human society. Well, here are my speculations:
1. Population would definitely increase, but in a good way. Right now we got too many useless people in the world (ie Third Worlders with no useful skills). With this gene backup method, the people who can afford it will be the middle class and up. Thus a natural/artificial selection will occur where the capable will increase in number while the incapable will live out a natural lifespan.
2. The nature of government and foreign policy will change. Imagine if Saddam Huessein or Kim Il Jong can live forever. In that case, why should the populace suffer under their misrule if you know things aren't going to get better in 1000 years? Right now nations are willing to wait patiently for a dictator to die and then hope that the successor will be better. If the unsufferable fella is going to be around forever, why not go for instant gratification now and attack to remove them?
3. Human population will increase. In theory, each of us can have an infinite number of kids.
4. Women no longer have to worry about the biological clock. This will lead to equal pay in the workplace. Child bearing will be put off in the initial stages of a woman's life but once she makes it, she can have infinite number of kids.
5. We will have to get our acts together and not count on our parents dying so we can get an inheritance. And even if we get one, it will half to be split with lots of sibs.
6. Save some money now :-) Money compounded over infinity will be a large sum :-)
7. Divorce rate will approach 100%. Do you really want to be stuck with the same spouse...forever???
8. Religion becomes irrelavent. If you can't die, why worry about going to Heaven or Hell?
9. Finally, my favorite....the colonization of space will begin. Earth will get too crowded so our young will venture into space to make their mark and look for opportunities. Imagine if some college grad has to compete with someone with 100 years of experience and 10 Ph.D's? Now way...time to go into space to create some opportunities.
I say 'yay' as to the bet outcome, but that's about as far as I get to agree with you.
In fact there are so many mistakes in your 'logic' it's not really worth replying to but I wanted to register my general disagreement, just to warn off the hapless passerby.
Address the points then.
Certainly I am speculating but like I said, it was all in good fun. That's what this site is for, afterall.
I don't want to spend all day on this, so I'll just address some of the more blatent points.
1. People don't get to life 'infinite' lives in this universe. There is a finite length of time remaining during which life of any conceivable sort can be supported.
2. People don't get to have infinite children [See point 1.]
3. While DNA deterioates with age*, there exists no current or speculated method to repair / replace such DNA in situ. Further more such a technique would be far from 'imortality'. Given 'lack of aging', the average life could be estimated by (for example) examining how many people die between the ages of 20 and 30 and applying the same rate to each decade afterwards.
4. A drastic increase in population would be bad whoever gets the 'magic treatment'. And would be _particularly_ bad for the case of the level of 'Western world middle class and above' as it is exactly those people who account for the greatest use of the worlds resources, and subsequent accompanying pollution. It is already 'challenging' as to whether there can be a smooth progression into long term self-sustaining world - given such a change _now_ I suspect that world wide disaster would hit before 2150 is reached.
5. Colonisation off-planet takes time and resources. Given the current world situation I would predict that by 2150 it is likely that a) a fair few people would have got as far as Mars for a _visit_ and b) In orbit stations (plural) might well support a year round population of several dozen to a few hundred. Given an unaging population this might well be _worse_, as there is no way space can be used as a pressure release for increased world population in that time frame.
* See telomere in particular
Thanks for responding...
I can see from your posts that you and I hold very different visions of the future :-) I think I am much more optimistic than you are :-)
My reason for indefinite life is this:
Let's say that technology extends my life by 20 years. Well, I think in the extra 20 years I get, technology would have improved again to extend my life by another 20 years. And then in that extra 20 years I get, technology improves again and so forth. Thus in essence, this repeating process results in infinite life (or something really really long that for argument's sake, is effectively infinite).
Now, since I can keep on living, I assume that technology would solve the problem of reproduction, eventually. Once that is solved, I can effectively have inifinite number of kids, if I so desire.
As for the allocation of resources, I think that is another philosophical argument. I think we both would agree that people who can't afford food and basic medicine will probably not be able to afford any other life extending treatment. For them, life extending treatment is food.
Therefore, only the folks with the ability to afford such treatment will purchase such treatment...duh... And given the world today, this implies the middle to upper class of Western as well as some Asian countries.
As for natural resources, I disagree with you that it is running out. Don't forget, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Everything we have used since the dawn of time is still around in one form or another. What you are referring to is really what we call "non-renewable" resources such as natural gas, coal, and oil. Everything else is "renewable".
Well, hydrocarbons are all in the end, solar energy. The sun gave plants the energy to grow. The plants died and later became our hydrocarbons. So in essence, our real source of energy is the sun. That thing still has a lifespan of 2 billion years left so I disagree with you that we will run out of energy.
Now the debate boils down to "can we improve our technology fast enough to stay ahead of the population curve?", agreed?
Well, I am optimistic that we can. See, if we can give all our brilliant and not so brilliant scientists, researchers, inventors indefinite life, I believe that we will be able to increase the number of capable and experienced people working on keeping us ahead of the resource burn curve, agreed? I think you would also agree that such people will fall into the middle and upper classes that can afford life extending treatment. So by virtue of our greater and increasing number of good capable people, we solve all the problems that you have expressed concerns with.
Thus, the eventual scenario I laid out in my previous posting.
"Let's say that technology extends my life by 20 years. Well, I think in the extra 20 years I get, technology would have improved again to extend my life by another 20 years. And then in that extra 20 years I get, technology improves again and so forth. Thus in essence, this repeating process results in infinite life"
'Technology' has granted maybe 20 years extra life since 1800, maybe by 2200 they will have added another 20 years extra life, quite likely a bit more (say 50 or so).
"Now, since I can keep on living, I assume that technology would solve the problem of reproduction, eventually. that is solved, I can effectively have inifinite number of kids, if I so desire."
Reproduction _is_ the problem. We currently have one (count them) one planet. We will not have a second habitable planet available by 2150. Even if we _did_ have a second habitable planet available by 2150 a) Going by your philosophy it would be fill up in about 20 years b) Except that you couldn't _get_ people to it fast enough.
"Well, hydrocarbons are all in the end, solar energy. The sun gave plants the energy to grow. The plants died and later became our hydrocarbons. So in essence, our real source of energy is the sun. That thing still has a lifespan of 2 billion years left so I disagree with you that we will run out of energy"
Try the following experiment. I provide you with a barrel full of water and a tap that drips once per five minutes. The barrel represents the backlog of stored energy on Earth (e.g. Fossil fuels) the tap represents that being added to the stored energy. For several months (if you don't waste it) you can drink from the barrel, use it to wash, but soon enough you will have an empty barrel and a dripping tap.
Yes, the Sun won't be going out very soon. Yes, fossil fuel is 'renewable' but it is being used at a _much_ greater rate than it is being laid down. Without your 'indefinite life extension treatment for all middle class Westerners' we _may_ be able to smoothly improve energy conservation, re-balance energy production to renewable sources or even use more nuclear power plants [ick.] but it's not exactly a given. With it _and_ with present birth rates there would be no chance at all.
"Now the debate boils down to "can we improve our technology fast enough to stay ahead of the population curve?", agreed?"
No, disagreed. And, no, we couldn't unless each 'anti-aging' injection came with free [reversable] sterilization and government population control.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
"America in the year 2001 faces the
most serious energy shortage since the oil
embargoes of the 1970s."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html
"Between 1999 and 2020, total world energy use is projected to grow from 382 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) to 612 quadrillion Btu (Figure 12 and Table 1)?a 60-percent increase"
Looks like in your quest to disagree with me, you have contradicted your own post above.
Why did you vote "yay" when now by your current linear forecast, technology will only add another 20 years to human life by 2200?
Allow me to poke more holes in your argument that swiss cheese. You are using a linear forecasting method to determine how quickly technology will increase the length of human life. Well, current consensus in the scientific community is that technology grows linearly then suddenly jumps in a quantum leap, then grows linearly again.
The improvement of human lifespan since the 1800's has to do with the improvement on sanitation, vaccines, and antibiotics. Basically, they extended the mean of human life by eliminating what was preventing us from living a full human lifespan.
But in the late 1980's, a quantum jump in medical technology has occured. Through PCR and the human genome project, we are now at the new frontier of redesigning ourselves so we can live much much longer. We are at the dawn of the Age of Building a better human organism.
Thus, by unraveling the mysteries of how we tick, how we grow, and how we die through a clear understanding of genetics, we will be able to eventually give ourselves immortal life, baring any unfortunate mishap.
Assuming this is the case, then my forecast would hold true.
You assumption that all the renewable resources would be consumed by our voracious middle to upper classes again reflect your linear mode of thought. You fail to take into consideration market forces of supply and demand. As hydrocarbons get consumed, the remaining hydrocarbons increase in price. This increase in price accomplishes two things:
1. It places a brake on demand.
2. It makes alternative technologies economically feasible.
One good example is wind power. Currently, hydrocarbon generated power cost 4 cents per kilowatt hour wholesale. Wind power has now fallen to a price of 6 cents per kilowatt hour. Meanwhile, solar currently cost 11 cents per kilowatt hour.
Should hydrocarbons get depleted, its price will rise while demand will fall. Once it hits 6 cents per kilo watt hour, wind becomes economically attractive. Wind farms will spring up everwhere to meet the demand for electricity. The increase in construction of windfarms will result in economies of scale which will bring down the future cost of wind energy to perhaps 4 cents kw/hr or even lower.
Once that happens, the whole world will be running off of cheap, renewable energy that produces no pollution. The same will happen to any other resource you care to bring up. Your doomsday scenario will never arrive.
"Looks like in your quest to disagree with me, you have contradicted your own post above.
Why did you vote "yay" when now by your current linear forecast, technology will only add another 20 years to human life by 2200?"
Maybe you should read my previous post.
You do understand the concept of statistical extremes, don't you? In saying that 20 years (or as much as 50 years) might be added to human life by 2200 I was referring to average life expectancy*.
In voting 'yay' I was saying that at least one person would life over the period 2000 to 2150. This might be achieved by chance, better documentation, increased population [in 2000, compared with in 1850] and increased standard of health [in 2000, compared with in 1850] without any artificial anti-aging treatments being required at all.
* Implicitly for First World countries.
Haller says, by way of claiming that we won't try to extend our lifespan far beyond its natural length, "what arrogance and self-importance to think that our existence is so important and valuable that we have the right to mess with evolution."
Well, you should never understimate human arrogance and self-importance. We have already messed with evolution for thousands of years, by breeding plants and animals to suit our purposes. We have completely changed the course of evolution for human germs, which now must evolve to compete with antibiotics. We will certainly not hesitate to overcome our own lifespan.
"We will certainly not hesitate to overcome our own lifespan."
It's not quite such an obvious point. If there was a 'magic pill' that would give you 50 years more healthy life people would be falling over themselves to buy it.
If, on the other hand, you say 'stop smoking, exercise, choose food carefully and eat little of it and you will probably live 20 years longer' ...
Again if someone was to research 'techniques for extending life' he probably wouldn't have much trouble getting funding. But what if he needed to use large amounts of stem-cells from cloned embryos? Or even needed to do lots of animal experimentation on primates?
Then there's the matter of the actual difficulty of the processes involved, some people seem to think 'immortality is just around the corner'. Personally I think "techniques to artificially increase life expectency 25% or so might be available in the next 50 years or so - and will probably need to be applied in the test tube before birth."
Just wanted to say why I think the NO bet is a real NO bet, even though she admits the idea of a human living to atleast 150 years born in 2000 might be possible.
Society in general is burocratic. Not just in terms of government burocracy, but also private corporate burocracy. And I could argue, the more people we have (and the doubling time for human population keeps getting shorter)the more opinions an individual has to contend with to make their idea a reality. If the society as a whole doesn't see this as an ethical or would have a negative impact on them, it won't happen. So law and public opinion could prevent something from happening even if it is scientifically possible.
But I don't think law or society will stand in the way of this happening, so I'd say this is more an issue of time. We are way too selfish as a species to say no to longer life or possible immortality if it is an option.
Human population doubling time has been increasing rather than decreasing for a while now, since 1976 or so. Most demographers think we are in the midst of humanity's last doubling, stabilizing at around 10 billion in mid 21st century. How that will affect the debate and practice of life extension remains to be seen.
Ok. Then I listened to one demographer and not the majority. I could still argue that doubling time would still decrease if:
1) People that can reproduce do, and have more than 1 child
2) The population continues to increase
3) The average life span of people increases and continues to increase
But I am not a demographer and will now shut up on this. Thanks for the info though.
About human reproduction increasing dramatically given extended lifespans - I don't think that this will happen, and it's been shown not to happen in the past. Across the world, as quality of life and life expectancy has increased, birth rates have not risen as you would expect, but they have decreased; this is attributed to a number of factors, including the presence of social security and so reduction of the need to have many children to support you in your old age.
I doubt that religion will become irrelevant, unless humans have turned invulnerable as well as immortal - people could still die due to accidents or violence.
Switching over 100% to renewable power sources will not eliminate pollution - you still have to build the windfarms and solar plants, all of which requires work and will still create pollution. In any case, windfarms are only suitable in a few locations around the world (e.g. Ireland, UK) and unless you had a constant wind speed - which you never do - they wouldn't be able to output a constant and predictable amount of electricity.
While I don't quite share your unflagging optimism, I will admit that by 2100 we'll be able to replace all body parts with the possible exception of the central nervous system. To be honest, I don't think anyone knows enough about how the brain operates to say confidently what we can and cannot do about extending its lifespan.
It is this type of ambition that drives society in the wrong direction. It is fueled by companies wanting to have the "rights" to this type of research and its discovery and having the financial backing to carry it out.
Life balance is knowing that where one civilization has the capability in this case double their life expectancy or increase their way of life it usually means that another will have its life expectancy cut in half or its way of life affected. As we continue to pursue this type of selfish "trophy", our neighbors continue to suffer through the harshness of their reality.
If given the opportunity to have twice as much time on earth doing something at anytime, people would in turn naturally say, "...it depends what it is?"
75 years of giving, selflessness, humanity, and love would certainly outweigh 150 years of poverty, illness, and living through infant death and plague.
Improving this way of life for all and not just a select few, is the way in which we increase our real "life" expectancy; not feeling like our lives were wasted chasing something that was not important and taking every opportunity to help those in need. Whether this bet holds true or not, it is disturbing to know that we would invest this type of "mental" and "financial"resource. I agree with Melody and I place my bet with "man" and not with "economy". We will soon wake up and smell the coffee.
Well-devised predictions stimulate others. Those who think this bet will be won easily (150 reached well before 02150 and a steadily growing proportion of centenarians in the global population) have a huge field for speculative analysis of related social and cultural changes. What new roles might be created for fit centenarians? Will they be penalised for increased lifetime consumption of global resources? Voting weighted by age cohort?
I will content myself with one prediction: that the person whose 150th birthday resolves this bet will a member of Long Bets who has read this posting before the crucial birthday. That shows my confidence in the longevity and reach of Long Bets and in the sophistication of its information management systems.
All argument aside, I think everyone here is missing the big picture.
No matter what the outcome, I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that neither one of these folks will not be around to collect.
Several people have mentioned that this is anti-evolutionary. I disagree. Only, the definition of evolution must be broadened a bit. If we gain the ability to determine our own lifespans, it will certainly signal (sooner or later) the end of biological evolution. I'm specifying biological evolution here because I think that while evolution has previously been defined only through genetics, it could be better defined.
All our genes really do is pass information from one generation to the next. Through "survival of the fittest" a species as a whole learns what worked and what didn't. But with the advent of written language, we no longer need genes to tell us this. We have history. We have vast libraries of information, one of them being all the info collected through biological evolution (ie the map of our genome). I would define evolution as the gathering of information that facilitates the survival. There's more I could say here, but to get back to the topic . . .
As I said earlier, the elimination of aging would end our biological evolution. It's simply a matter of space. People would have fewer children because (without people dying) there'd be less space available for children and since life would be indefinite there'd be no particular hurry. (One can imagine a society where as someone got bored with life (after several centuries maybe) only then would they choose to have children 20-30 years before they'd end their lives.) But the point is that technological and societal evolution will persist, even without biological evolution. We'll become more efficient in our ability to generate food and other survival necessities and we'll learn how to live with each other more easily.
All I'm saying is that whether this will happen or not, I don't think people should take such a harsh view of the idea. Personally, I believe in the next 200 years we will extend our lifetimes longer than we wish (ie peoplewon't die of old age, they will only choose to die at some point).
...that neither one of those folks will not be around
Are you predicting the winner with this double negative. Shame on your grammar.
They will certainly not be around but perhaps alive to see a shift in the tide; to see a culture start embracing this type of technological advance to one that no longer sees the sense in prolonging the inevitable or slowing down a "natural" process. I believe the exact opposite: By the year 2150, the earth's population will drastically see a decrease in life expectancy, especially if those "priviledged" to afford this type of medical manifestation actually fund it.
As many of the readers may be aware, this bet is virtually identical to the one made by Steven Austad and myself more than 2 1/2 years ago. We are delighted that Long Bets has decided to resurrect it, although it is disappointing to see that arguments on both sides are being made by those not directly involved with any of the fields of science that might influence the outcome. I will address both arguments individually, and then I’ll explain my own answer to this question.
Schwartz’s argument that someone alive in the year 2000 or earlier will be alive in 2150.
1. Schwartz begins by declaring that lines of research are underway that “are treating both the infirmities of aging and the aging process itself...” This is not true. Although there is considerable optimism among many scientists that the time may eventually come when the aging process can be measured and modified, at present, neither is possible. Details about this have been outlined in our Position Statement on Human Aging published online in Scientific American in May of 2002 (authors Olshansky, Carnes, and Hayflick along with 48 other authors/endorsers).
2. Schwartz pins his initial hopes on stem cell research and work on telomeres and telomerase – which I will assume for now are the areas to which he is referring when declaring that aging can be modified. Although the telomerase story is an interesting one and perhaps a piece of the aging puzzle, the link to aging and longevity was grossly exaggerated by those searching for the telomerase gene and the potential financial benefits associated with such a find. The suggestion that immortalizing cells leads to immortal whole animals, or at least the prospect that someone alive today will be alive 150 years from now, is simply ridiculous – there is no scientific evidence even remotely making such a connection.
3. Schwartz suggests that the Hayflick limit defines the limit of the human lifespan. Not even Dr. Hayflick himself would make that argument; and the number 120 for humans has been mentioned by many through the millennia, principally because it originated in the Old Testament – not because there is a shred of scientific evidence to support it.
4. Finally, Schwartz suggests that because life expectancy at birth for humans has risen from 45 to 85 in the last century (in some places – most countries have not gone that high, even for females), the continuation of such a trend will therefore lead to at least another 25-30 years at the tail of the survival distribution, and a “conservative” estimate of a life expectancy of 170 years in the future (two numerical events that cannot coincide by the way). This too is a spurious argument – the majority of the rise in life expectancy in the past century occurred because we saved the young – not because we saved the old or modified aging in any way. The number 25-30 years is made up – there is no rationale provided for it; and simply doubling the life expectancy in the future because it doubled in the past is like saying that humans will eventually be able to run a mile in less than a minute because we’ve dramatically reduced the world record in the past 150 years.
Haller’s argument that no one alive in the year 2000 or earlier will be alive in 2150.
1. The first argument against this event occurring is that we have no right to mess with a program that evolved with the origin of the species. Haller states explicitly that the Hayflick limit will probably be broken after all. This has nothing to do with the question since the Hayflick limit has little to do directly with aging – the same mistaken argument was made by Schwartz.
2. Haller suggests that the lifespan expiration mechanism came into play through evolution at about the same time as sexual reproduction. There is truth to this statement in that the biological mechanisms that contribute to senescence may very well be an inadvertent byproduct of genetic programs for growth, development, and reproduction – but there is no program for aging or death that evolved under the force of evolution. Why? Because selection does not operate in the region of the lifespan where such a program would be expressed. The argument used by Haller that an aging program exists to remove the old to make way for the young was proposed by August Weismann in the late 19th century – it is an argument that has since been discredited.
3. Finally, Haller suggests that Schwartz will lose the bet because the dramatic extension of life will not benefit humanity, and because of some other unspecified barrier of 200 years (I have no idea what Haller is talking about here). Just because such an extension of life would not benefit humanity is irrelevant – the bet is about a single individual at the tail of the survival distribution.
Why will Haller win the bet? First, both Austad and I believe that there will come a time when science understands enough about aging that it will become possible to experimentally extend the lifespan of humans. Austad argues that such advances will occur soon enough to add at least 22 ½ years to the life of someone born in the year 2000 or before who already has the potential to make it to the current world record for human longevity of 122 ½ years. I suggest this is highly unlikely for several reasons. First, even if a method becomes available to modify the rate of aging in humans at some time in the future – let’s say 20 years from now (which I think would be optimistic), such an intervention would then have to make it into the hands of a large number of people who already have the potential to live to extreme old age (i.e., at least to the age of supercentenarians who make it past the age of 110). Since the number of people having achieved this throughout human history is certainly less than the number of letters on this line of text, the probability of such an intervention making into the right hands is extremely remote. Then you have the problem that even if it does make it into the right hands, that person has to avoid an extrinsic cause of death for at least 150 years – not an easy task, as history can attest. Finally, even if an anti-aging intervention becomes available in 20 years, the extremely limited number of people born in the year 2000 or earlier that could benefit from it, would have already accumulated a minimum of 23 years worth of damage to the building blocks of life. It is highly questionable whether such damage could be reversed. Haller will win this bet, but for the wrong reasons.
Now that I think of it, I should double my bet with my good friend Steven Austad – I think we’ll increase our wager to a cool billion.
S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D.
University of Illinois at Chicago
Here's how I see this one:
There is currently no known technology that will allow someone to live for 150 years. It also does not seem to be a natural occurrence.
Therefore, for someone born in 2000 to still be alive in 2150, there will either have to be (A) a new technology or (B) an unnatural occurrence.
Dealing with (B) first, I will put aside the possibility of a supernatural occurrence, as there isn't much of anything useful that can be said about these, vis a vis a wager like this.
As for the chances of an extremely rare, possibly precedent-less occurrence in which a person is born who can somehow simply live for 150 years . . . it's unlikely in the extreme. Given what we know about human lifespans, based on empirical evidence, I would say the chances are so small that we can dismiss the possibility. The odds of, say, a radical mutation occurring in such a way that this bet happens to be satisfied are vanishingly small.
That leaves new technologies. And this is a problem for naysayers, because predicting the future of science and technology has always been intensely problematic, especially when well-established universal laws (like thermodynamics, say) are not directly involved.
I certainly wouldn't say that I think it's necessarily going to happen, but I find it entirely plausible that, for example, nanotechnological medical techniques could be developed within the next century which would allow an effective reversal of the aging process.
Barring that, a very effective alternative support system (alternative to fragile organs which are ravaged by age) seems far from impossible. I personally think the brain itself will not be impossible to fix, augment, and at least partially replace, but one needn't necessarily go that far. Not everyone who has lived past 100 has descended into dementia.
Moreover, new technologies are often largely unpredicted. They surprise us. So, a new technology does not seem implausible at all, to me. It would simply have to arise during the lifetime of someone born in 2000. It seems to me that there's plenty of time for that to happen.
I personally wouldn't bet money on this one either way. I'd say it's too close to call.
There is currently no known technology that will allow someone to live for 150 years.
I think "... will give someone the expectation of a lifetime of 150 years or more."
It also does not seem to be a natural occurrence.
cite? It is certainly not a common occurrence, but is it not within the range of statistical outliers?
For example, if you take the data points
a) Oldest person alive in 2000.
b) Human population at the time that person was born.
c) Average Lifetime, and distribution of lifetime of people born in that year.
then look at
d) Human population in the year 2000.
e) Average life expectancy (obviously estimated) and distribution of same for people born in 2000.
Is it possible to, by statistics, to rule out the hypothesis that someone born in 2000 (or earlier) will be alive in 2150 without newly developed medical procedures.
I realise I've been less than precise above, but I think my proposition should be testable.
(Forgive me for the horrible URL)
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:rwTmBb6VJAoJ:fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200006/16/eng20000616_43177.html+"world%27s+oldest+woman"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Here we have someone who was allegedly 129 at the time of death. Two important points to note being a) This (if true) raises the bar for natural life time limits. b) People living / born in 2000 are presumably much more likely to have proper identification papers (such as birth certificates) than those living / born in 1871.
In otherwords the available 'pool' of potential 'winners' is increased by a greater amount than from population change alone.
I wonder whether the URL given will resolve correctly over the lifetime of this bet
Good question. The original page linked had already gone / moved.
Now, you'd think LongBets would have an 'in' with one of the Internet WayBack machines. Maybe you could get a link with them. ;-)
I think "... will give someone the expectation of a lifetime of 150 years or more."
??? Why would the expectation be more important than the actuality? The bet does say that this person must actually still be alive after a period of 150 years.
It is certainly not a common occurrence, but is it not within the range of statistical outliers?
This is why I said seem. If we assume your follow-up cite is, in fact, legitimate, then the longest documented human lifespan is 129 years. That's still a very long way from 150 years . . . and it would be the only such documented case, despite the fact that documentation is better than ever before and there are more people alive now than ever before.
So, as I said, it doesn't seem like it happens. I realize it's a White Crow case, but there sure don't seem to be any White Crows, and there are a heck of a lot of people interested in them.
I understand the point of your statistical proposition, but, even if we accept 129 as the upper known limit, no, there doesn't seem enough variance at the far end to allow 150 years.
Not without some radical mutation, or something, and since no such mutation is known to have ever occurred in the past . . . it seems (to me) vanishingly unlikely that someone already alive now has that same mutation. And won't die of natural causes somewhere along the way.
Just a brief point:
"but there is no program for aging or death that evolved under the force of evolution. Why? Because selection does not operate in the region of the lifespan where such a program would be expressed."
Evolution can exist on a higher level. A group of animals can evolve. So, a group (herd, pride, whatever) that has the trait that causes older animals to be less viable than younger animals will be more fit than a group that doesn't (the old get out of the way). Thus, even though it doesn't matter for the individual breeder where getting old comes after breeding, it matters for the group as a breeder where both happens all the time.
??? Why would the expectation be more important than the actuality? The bet does say that this person must actually still be alive after a period of 150 years.
There's a difference between "Take this and it will allow you to live for 150 years+" and "Take this and you will have a life expectancy of 150 years+". I interpreted the former as '95% likely to not die (of natural causes) before 150 years old' whereas all you actually need to reach the bet is ~0.5% or less chance /per person/ having the treatment being able to reach that age because you only need one documented case that meets the criteria.
This is why I said seem. If we assume your follow-up cite is, in fact, legitimate, then the longest documented human lifespan is 129 years. That's still a very long way from 150 years . . . and it would be the only such documented case, despite the fact that documentation is better than ever before and there are more people alive now than ever before.
Yeah, but the point is that the 'oldest' cases now depends on the documentation and population 120+ years ago. Just as the 'oldest' cases in 2150 will depend on the documentation and population now.
I understand the point of your statistical proposition, but, even if we accept 129 as the upper known limit, no, there doesn't seem enough variance at the far end to allow 150 years.
So, what is the shape of the 'tail-off'?
Given (roughly) four times the population, what would be the equivalent of the 'not quite official' 129 year old?
Paul Blay: I see what you're saying about medical technologies and life expectancies. I wasn't speaking in such broad terms, but only considering the "one documented case" you mentioned. All that matters is whether or not someone (with documentation) actually lives that long, not what average effect such a treatment had for a typical patient.
Yeah, but the point is that the 'oldest' cases now depends on the documentation and population 120+ years ago.
Point taken. Personally, my feeling is that although records are better now, overall, than at any other known time, the historical record is pretty consistent on this one. With rare exceptions, even legends put 100 years as a very long time for a human to live (in a natural span). I don't think even perfect documentation is likely to change that picture.
So, what is the shape of the 'tail-off'?
Very sharp, I should think. Statistically, with the best currently commonly available medical care, it's quite easy to live to 80 -- but very, very hard to live to 100. i think the drop-off is very sharp indeed.
Given (roughly) four times the population, what would be the equivalent of the 'not quite official' 129 year old?
I suspect it would still be something very like a not-quite-official 129-year-old. If I had to guess (and I suppose I do), I'd say the range on that would be no more than a couple of years upward and probably five or six years downward.
But even if I'm wrong about that, and one human in a few billion does manage to live to 129, I'd be very surprised indeed if one human in even twenty-five billion lives to 150.
I'm fully prepared to be wrong, though. It wouldn't break my heart.
So a human being must live at least 150 years in 2150 and that is not possible. Even today the longest living human is
only around 120 years or less and the life expectancy of the
longest livable human does not keep on increasing infinitely
as time progresses.It will taper at the current maximum of 120 years!
Besides the points mentioned below, another factor missed is how the human beings are created(to last how long like any human manufactured product).We can control all the diseases etc(still new diseases can crop up unknown to us like AIDS, SARS etc); then it is a whole new ball game to find cures for those.Besides, we have not found cures for so many current disesases like cancer, alzheimer's etc. which have been prevalent for centuries. The other main point is we don't create ourselves; we're created by someone and that creation is only to last around 120 years.
That we cannot change with all the research we've now and in the near future(this product is made to last only 120 years)
While it seems perfectly reasonable to think that technology will evolve to radically extend human life sometime in the next few decades, I tend to agree with a previous poster who suggested that for such technology to succeed it would have to be applied to a developing fetus
(or at the very least to a very young child). This would seem to eliminate any person currently alive.
This being said, I also agree with another previous poster who said that the naysaying candidate will probably win, but certainly not on the strength of his argument. He never did say why it could not happen, merely gave several reasons why it should not happen. Moral arguments rarely win out over science in the long run (although religion has upon occasion seriously delayed it).
I believe I will win this bet.
I believe I have inherited a gene that allows people to live significantly longer.
Try reading the book Architects of Emmortality. I read it some.
It says some people will live a long time others won't have the genetics. I bet this will be very true.
One of my ancestors was suzannah bechtol. I dont claim to know the origins of this gene or many genes possibly. Some of these genes could be native american but i seem to have them.
http://www.utahrockhounds.com/wadi/byerly/432.htm
The downfall is that I have to take all the latest antiaging stuff just to keep sane. Controlling this stuff is difficult.
A bit ironic that the same guy responsible for the Pentagon report on rapid climate change and its impact on societies would also suggest this.
There's a bizzare, collective human arrogance that seems to believe that whatever happens we will thrive. So we can have a mini ice age, mass migration and starvation, and still develop longevity technologies?
Read on...
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0202-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/pentagon_climate_change.pdf
Who really wants to live that long? Even if humans surgically and genetically repair themselves to live well beyond the manufacturer's warranty period, we will soon discover that repair shops make mistakes and we'll eventually want to retire our tired chassi. My every fiber hopes that humans concentrate more on quality of life and lifetime productivity rather than finding ways to keep people technically alive. My brain tells me that, despite the medical & pharmeceutical profiteering efforts, a 150 year life span will not occur in the next few centuries, should the human race even exist that long.
in 150 years, your bet will be worth 1/4000th of what
it is now. what's the point of this?
also, who cares if one guy is 150 years old. there are turtles almost 200 years old. no one cares. it's not how old you are, it's what you do. i'm willing to wager that a 150 year old man won't have done much anything different than anyone half his age. he'll just have done it older.
First of all some people ae so stupid, they ask questions like who will collect the money, or it will be worth 1/40000th time what it is now and so on. Well for those please read the long bet rules first.
As for the bet, well, i dont think that any human born in 2000 wull be alive in 2150. Infact i know that no human will be alive in 2150. We would have reached Armageddon by then. This is the last Century we are living in. Within the next hundred years our world will end. I wanted to place a bet on that one but there is no point. You know because when i win i wont be able to donate the winnings anywhere. So no point really. But i am sure of the end of the world before 2150.
Mr. Bhatti, if you are so sure, perhaps you should bet against John Tierney's Featured Prediction. I would love to read your argument. Yes, you'll be out a little bit of money, but it's worth it to get a really well-reasoned opinion read on the web by the English-speaking world's intellectual elite.
Well I notice couple of elite people from the Bar. Hope I may be eligible to join their discussion.
Technologically, the answer of this wager is "yes". Legislation wise - I think, it is highly uncertain at present. Who knows - the political structure of our world may change significantly, over time.
I agree in principle, but (slightly) disagree about the specified timeframe. The prediction could be changed to:
At least one human alive in the year 2012 will still be alive in 2150.
In my opinion a key factor will be a more widespread use of nanotechnology.
unless you're <10 years old, we'll never see the out come of this bet. unless a mass life destroying factor kills most people from the year 2000... interesting.
Just, between the level area in the chi hair tools mountains, evenly increased an orphaned grave, what lies down was once promised that this life was my bride originally “the cheap ugg boots sister-in-law”, then became my lover the chi flat irons girl. long past events like buy ugg boots passing scene, world this world, only my heart like zhi water, what is chi hair straightener invariable has loved that section of sentiments.
Adobe Photoshop
Windows XP
Microsoft Office
Metallic UGG Boots
Mini UGG Boots
ugg boots
Nike SB
Cheap Jordan shoes
Designer handbags and wallets from Gucci
Cheap Gucci Handbag
Gucci Handbag
Gucci Bags
Gucci Wallet
Gucci was founded by Guccio Gucci in Florence, Italy in 1921, and began its life as a family owned leather goods, handbag and saddle store. However, Guccio Gucci had travelled to Europe and London when young, and gained an understanding of Cosmopolitan Culture.Gucci make prestigious luxury products, including bag
Gucci Classics handbag
Gucci Cruise handbag
Gucci Fall Winter handbag
For people who are ready for outing in the summer, sunglasses are always the must-have accessory.
buy prescription sunglasses from glassesshop.com
all men and women like prescription sunglass
choose discount prescription sunglasses with good service
prescription sport sunglasses can protect you when doing sports
Where to buy prescription sunglasses?
Online prescription sunglasses store.
Best services and quality-prescription sunglasses uk
Online prescription sunglass store
Online designer prescription sunglasses
cheap eyeglasses online
cheap prescription glasses
eyeglass frames
glasses
glasses frame
glasses frames
rimless eyeglass frames
eyeglasses for kids
flexible eyeglasses
metal eyeglasses
However these companies still have a monopoly in the telephone marketplace which generates 100 billion dollars annually. Remember that the highest penetration of any communication service in U.S. households is the plain 'ol phone. They could not invest another red cent in indir
full oyun
indir
sikiş izle
any future services and still be fine. Until emergency 911, universal lifeline, owning the "last mile" and quality are not factors they will monopalize. They would have to blow themselves up for you to win this bet.
Yes sir; So its useful post for me and i bookmarked your blog. Thanks..
sikis tube
porno izle
seks filmleri
seks tube
sikis tube
sexi filmler
porno filmler
sikis izle
porno indir
porno izle indir
porno tube
youjizz
sex tube
porno film
indir
web tasarim
ozalit
sesli chat
msn
Media outlets didn't sensationalize the story? In the United States it was on most channels constantly even though there had been less than 20 confirmed deaths or cases, and details were never given whether or not there were other factors involved. This story was as sensationalized as you could get, given the fact that there are more deaths in this country due to our open Southwestern borders on a monthly basis than there was due to he swine flu. And I guess unless you lived on a U.S. border in a border state you would have absolutely no concept of what is actually going on there. And they do quarantine animals in England for over 12 months in order to protect the animal populations there. What a spin. Do you happen to work for the mainstream media?see online :
توبيكات
العاب
يوتيوب
مركز تحميل
المبدعين
jordan shoes air jordan shoes air jordan cheap jordan shoes jordans shoes cheap jordans, cheap air jordans nike air jordan shoes cheap air jordan shoes buy jordan shoes
nike shoes nike air nike air shoes
jordan shoes cheap jordan shoes cheap nike shoes
jordan shoes michael jordan shoes
classic cardy ugg boots classic tall ugg boots classic short ugg boots ultra tall ugg boots tall metallic ugg boots
sundance II ugg boots nightfall ugg boots ultra short ugg boots classic mini ugg boots
ugg classic tall boots ugg classic short boots ugg classic mini boots ugg ultra tall boots ugg ultra short boots ugg classic cardy boots ugg classic tall metallic ugg sundance II boots ugg nightfall boots
tiffany jewellery tiffany silver tiffany tiffany jewelry
jordan shoes nike shoes wholesale jordan shoes wholesale nike shoes
jordan shoes
basketball shoes
thank you very good
mirc
mirc indir
ilahi
mirc inndir
mirc yükle
mırc
türkçe mirc
mirc download
kameralı mirc
kaçak
kaçak script
kelebek
kelebek indir
kelebek script indir
indir
sohbet
chat
cinsel sohbet
cinsel chat
canlı sohbet
canlı chat
chat sex
cet sex
cetsex
canlı sex
çet sex
chat sohbet
sohbet sitesi
chat sitesi
film indir
divx film indir
divx indir
film izle
dizi izle
mp4 film indir
limewire indir
limewire
hello very good nice galery I congratulate
christian louboutin sandal discount
discount christian louboutin sandal
cheap christian louboutin sandal
christian louboutin sandal cheap
christian louboutin sandal on sale
christian louboutin wedding sandal
Nike SB
Nike Dunk
Nike Dunk SB
Nike Dunk Mid,
Nike Dunk Low,
Dunks for Women,
Nike Dunk High,
Custom Dunks,
Mens Air Force 1,
Womens Air Force 1,
Cheap Jordan shoes
Gucci Shoes
Nike Dunk SB
UGG Boots
UGG Amelie sandals
UGG Classic cardy boots
UGG Classic Metallic boots
UGG Classic mini boots
UGG Classic short boots
UGG Classic tall boots
UGG Nightfall boots
UGG Sundance II boots
UGG Ultra Tall boots
Christian Louboutin
Tiffany Rings,
Bose head
Nike SB
Nike Dunk
Nike Dunk SB
Nike Dunk Mid,
Nike Dunk Low,
Dunks for Women,
Nike Dunk High,
Custom Dunks,
Mens Air Force 1,
Womens Air Force 1,
UGG Boots
UGG Amelie sandals
UGG Classic cardy boots
UGG Classic Metallic boots
UGG Classic mini boots
UGG Classic short boots
UGG Classic tall boots
UGG Nightfall boots
UGG Sundance II boots
UGG Ultra Tall boots
Cheap Jordan shoes
Gucci Shoes
Nike Dunk SB
Christian Louboutin
Tiffany Rings,
Bose headphones
Please sign in to comment.