Exactly this minus the dumb part. I wouldn't mind having a guitar built the year I was born.A birth year guitar, dumb an idea as it is, is a guitar made the year you were born. So no, a guitar made in any other year is NOT a birth year guitar. You can call a chicken a duck, but it won't quack.
There's no way I would ever spend what it would take to buy a guitar made in my birth year, but, there are tons of reissues out there for affordable money. So... does a reissue really count? I know it's a personal decision, but what is the general consensus of opinion, if there is one?
It takes months to make a guitar, and the date in a serial number only indicates the date the serial number was applied (long before the guitar is finished) so I don't understand why people believe they can get birth year or birth date guitars. It is a completely false belief.
A way of putting this more succinctly is that we are all reissue models of ourselves, but not as faithful to the originals as the Fender reissues are.I say yes, being born in the early 60s. Think about this-- you aren't even made in your birth year, not anymore. Except for some cortex cells your entire body's cells are replaced every 7 to 10 years. Your red blood cells are replaced about every 4 months.
So we're all only 7 to 10 years old. My cells have been replaced somewhere around 6 to 8 times already.
You may ask then why do we age if our old cells are constantly being replaced by young cells? Well, the prevailing theory is the somatic theory of aging-- that our DNA directs making a copy. But like copying a cassette rather than the original recording, seven years later we are making a copy of a copy, and so there are slight errors in DNA replication that accumulate up over time. Some of us age faster than others if we are unlucky enough to have more random mutations, or because we inherited replication error correction systems that are less effective than those of other people. Another factor is programmed senescence. We might have built in clocks in our systems that basically cause us to age. Lots of biotech firms out there chasing the fountain of youth are trying to figure out where those doomsday clocks are and how to shut them off, as well as how to bolster our DNA error-checking-and-repair systems. The latter would also help reduce the development of cancers. Because of the cumulative DNA mutation problem, which not only creates cancer cells but also degrades the systems that detect and destroy cancers, right now anyone who doesn't die first of something else is eventually going to get some kind of cancer, no matter how healthy their lifestyle.
What would be the adaptive value of programmed senescence? How about this-- we have lived as hominids in small, genetically closely related bands for millions of years. If the older ones are sure to die off then maybe that leaves more resources for the younger ones. Keep them around long enough to impart their wisdom, but then make sure they die off one way or the other. Basically a variant of kin selection theory.
With CRISPR you could also imagine having a complete DNA sequence taken of your genome when you're a toddler, before the first full somatic replication, and then using CRISPR targeted repair agents to go in and restore your somatic DNA back to its original sequence on a regular basis. Kind of like running DISKCHK or restoring from a backup on a PC, or re-recording from the original master disc.
This potential fountain of youth is not at all beyond the imagination....I'm guessing maybe another 10 to 100 years of progress in biotechnology will get us there, for better or worse. Probably too late to affect my longevity, but perhaps not too late for my kids or grandkids....
That bully who tormented you in school might not seem to have changed much when he put you down at the 10-year reunion. But he's practically a whole new person.science.howstuffworks.com