When we imagine time, we associate it to the passing of seasons. We say that the sheep are born in spring, the tree's blossom for summer, the tree's shed their leaves for autumn and the birds fly south for winter. But since every moment of passing time, is never the same time that past before, we cannot say that time repeats this process. We associate death being the inexorable, undeniable outcome of passing time. Even though time is an ethereal dimension, we say it has a physical effect on the world. I am going to shed some light on how this is deceiving... Since time doesn't have an effect the physical world. If this is the case, why do the leaves fall in autumn, and the sheep borne in spring? The physical level's have their own forces at work. The decay of a leaf is in fact chemical changes found in the coherency of atoms, and even at the smaller scales, such as electrons and protons. With this in mind, a tree that shed's its leaves, are nothing but a process of particles that change over a duration we ascribe as time. Take the photon particle. To us, it takes time to move from the sun, and around 8.3 seconds later to reach our planet. But the particle of light moves at a speed which makes a boundary between particles that travel faster-than-light (tachyons), and particles of which move slower-than-light (Bradyons). But the photon itself moves through neither space nor time! To us, the photon undeniably takes time to reach us from any point in the universe, but from the perspective of the photon itself, the clock on the wall is infinitely stretched, and not a single frame of time passes. Some scientists will disagree, and say that something ages, only in time. Well, this is true to some respects. But time isn't really associated directly to the physical side to life, but perhaps we should, as it is this physical side that links to all types of ageing. For instance, humans themselves shed billions of cells every day. The death of cells, the ageing of skin, is thought to be related to degenerate electrons being gobbled up by a hungry molecule, called Free Radicals. Whilst this theory has been in the mainstream for quite a while now, it is highly regarded as the true reason to why the human’s age. Alas! No mention of time here; though it is a natural consequence that time must pass for this to happen. Understanding the ageing of skin, can all be put under a cleaver analogy. Just imagine your face on a tape. The tape seems fine; not a blemish in the picture. Then, like all tapes after playing them over and over again, it begins to deteriate. Errors appear on the screen, until eventually, after a long period of time, not very much can be seen on the screen. This is similar with ageing. Our skin continues to make copies of itself, but each copy has a slight ''error'' compared to its previous cousin. Eventually, our entire bodies have copied itself so many times, it looks like nothing of the original product. The Elixir of Life is the next goal of science: Though, it might not be in some form of elixir - it might involve replacing body parts over long periods of time. Though this seems like a thing of sci-fi, more and more scientists are being converted to the idea. I have an ethical problem with this - including the notion that psyche make up also the physical phenomena of body-mind. I ask, ''What would happen to a human who lives in a body that is no longer their original temples? Would it have an effect at all?'' I actually believe that mind does not originally arise from matter - however, despite this, i think it would be a serious danger, as we still don't know the in's and out's of the mind-body problem in quantum physics. We already have heard of body-psyche swaps, in heart transplants and lung transplants... May we consider that psyche would be affected by body transplants? Even though i believe in a pre-era of consciousness, i still believe that matter influences mind; i cannot escape the fundamental coherency of matter at it's microscopic forms. And as some neuroscientists believe, mind arises from every cell in your body. I believe this too; but matter is not the be all and end all of consciousness. If we cannot extend life into infinity, we may very well be able to extend human life to more than 300 years... We might achieve this by tampering with genetics. At the Buck Institute in Novato, California, they have been able to triple the life-expectancy of the 959-celled Nematode Worm. They where able to achieve this after they had successfully been able to locate it's individual genes. This knowledge allowed them to tamper with it's genes and extend it's lifespan! Already, scientists can tamper with human genes and prevent certain types of disease. It turns out that genes define even the perception of time. It wasn't so long ago, that’s scientists where able to locate the gene responsible for the perception of time. It was called the 'Suprachiasmatic Nucleus.' It just shows that the perception of time doesn't come naturally by the mind alone, but is tagged into existence through the physical presence of a gene. If time exists 'out there', then we come to realize that reality is built up on conscious experience. This reminds me what some wise physicist once said, 'There is no reality without the perception of reality.' For this very reason, we cannot think of time normally, when the human perception of awareness is not present. For me, time must happen at infinite speeds. Time is obsolete without mind; it turns out it would not have a descriptive quality about it. However, this does not necessarily mean time is none-existent without mind - it just means that there is no past, present or future, because the mind is the best tool to distinguish these particular features. We might be able to slow the ageing process via other methods. One method being tested, is by reserving energy. Scientists in America are taking chimps, and semi-starving them (something i don't agree in), and by this, they hope to find out conclusive results of them living longer than their normal lifespan. Fanatical groups too perform semi-starvation, hoping that the energy their bodies use up will be minimal. In theory, by reducing the food and water one consumes, the less energy our metabolisms will use up is possible. In fact, a tree in Bristlestone National Park in Death Valley, California is around 4785 years old, and it has been able to stand the test of time, because it has an extremely slow metabolism. Because of its ripe age, it was named 'Methuselah', as in the Biblical character, who lived to the oldest record of 969 years. Essentially, the less energy one uses, the less one needs, and the less one needs, the longer the supply.
Why not just put them into stasis? That way they will last over 200 years but they won't have much fun will they? Whenever you slow humans down that much what kind of lifestyle will they have. Always sitting around watching the grass grow isn't much of a life now is it?
Starving the Chimp is not going to make any difference. This just means the chimps will have less fat, muscle, and energy for survival. The body should equalize out and die at the same age. Or earlier if they are not fed enough.
