Slashdot Mirror
Tweaked Genes Can Double Worm's Lifespan
jlechem writes ">New Scientist is reporting that U.S. scientists have doubled the life span of nematode worms with no apparent physiological side affects. Before scientists were able to double the worms lifespan but they were unable to reproduce. The breakthrough was achieved by turning certain genes on and off at certain times during the development cycle of the worms. While limited to worms right now, the researchers believe this could eventually lead to longer human lifespans. So what happens to those people who don't want to live forever?"
I would think that the main problem with pushing the lifespan of any animal would be that certain organs begin to fail first, organs like the heart or liver.
Carpe meam simiam!
So what happens to those people who don't want to live forever?
Suicide?
In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
--VonNeumann
If the daf-2 gene has the same effects in fruit flies and mice (and presumably humans), and it controls two separate pathways (reproduction and longevity) in all those organisms, there may be a good reason why the linkage between the two systems is preserved across millions of years of evolution.
Suppose longevity is limited in order to make room in the ecosystem for the next generation, so that older critters (with damaged DNA, or an inability to reproduce) don't crowd out the young?
If only a few young survive, then there may not be enough to perpetuate the species.
Perhaps the two systems are linked because when the link is lost, the species dies out, because there are not enough resources to support both an aged population and a large enough reservoir of young reproductively active critters to ensure against decline?
Is this the whimper that T. S. Eliot wrote about?
Free book: Science Toys You Can Make
"So what happens to those people who don't want to live forever?"
Only the people who want to live forever will pay to have it done.
(id imagine this cant be cheap for a while)
(and besides, 200 years isnt forever).
This
This is exactly the point raised by Asimov in one of his book series.. there was a set of humans that, due to the planets they were living on, had 200 year life spans.. at one point, a group of "normal" humans in a spaceship threatens to ram a group of "supernormals"... the ploy works because the normal humans are only risking a few decades of life, while the supernormals have a century or more at risk, so they back down.... The virtue of life being (relatively) "cheap" makes us more likely to do exciting, interesting things...
I don't know about all of you, but I'd gladly settle to live twice as long for the "sacrafice" of not being able to have children.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Ah, that's why the young people are so cautious, fearing the abrupt end of their long productive life, while the old ones, facing the imminent death, are the adventurous ones.
To be more serious:
Young people are more adventurous, they're less aware that they can die. Death is an "Others People Problem". When people get older, they become more aware that life is quite fragile and suddenly have an eye on their health.
The absence from a death by ageing could make people even more adventurous. The abundance of a thing usually makes one less aware of its value.
Imagine a possible biography of an practicably immortal and compare it to a typical one from today.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Bah!
If it was possible to live a health lifetime that's N times as long as we currently enjoy, *and* if it was possible to have children near the end of that longer life, then you could still have children. Just not at the beginning of your life. Instead near the end. Win win!
Having children is a win?
;-)
Let's see:
* changing messy diapers
* putting up with lip
* hyperactive yelling
* fights
* std's
* drugs
* "come here, come here, come here, here, here, here-here-here!"
* "No, no, no-no-no-no-no-no! NO! NO!"
* "Will you give me that,"
* "I dunno"
* "It wasn't me"
* $200,000 dollars for college
Yes, having kids is a real win win situation. *laughs*
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
normals and supernormals? I don't know if that's what Asimov useed to desribe them, but surely by definition if you are not normal (i.e. what passes for normal) then you are abnormal.P.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
I think that with the introduction of something like this in humans we will have a massive protest from groups on the religious right who see this as a circumvention of God's will. As such, I can see a surge in support of the right to die movement as people try to hold on to "traditional" times of death.
I see this a positive thing as it will hopefully lead to greater control for people over their own lives (and where it ends) by removing some of the stigma associated with ending ones own life in contemporary society.
"Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
This sets me to thinking about a true, built in dividing line that has the potential to divide humanity physiologically into classes of "haves" and "have nots." While the inhabitants of wealthy nations may be able to afford the kind of genetic tailoring necessary to lead to increased life spans those in poorer nations will almost certainly be unable to implement these kinds of measures for their children. THe end result could be an even greater disregard among wealthy nations such as the US for the well-being of the inhabitants of poor nations.
Instead of merely sloughing off undesireable industries to these nations with only cursory safety protocols, these protocols may be seen as unnecessary, as, in comparison to the genetically tailored upper class of the world, the longevity of these "lesser" humans is seen as unimportant as a result of their already "inferior" lifespans. In other words, a decade plus or minus is inconsequential.
Take these words as you wish, but i can see this as a possibility in some kind of future world with this kind of advanced biotech.
"Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
Er hum, Time Enough for Love, by Robert Heinlein? Not real true, but hell, who knows.
One thing that puzzles me. They say they turn the gene on and off at certain points in developement. Is there the possibility that the gene for infertility be passed on or the gene for a normal life span? I see this as a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Someone hates these cans.
I've only ever seen the one kid, but I swear the couple down the road have triplets.
Their names are
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Dealing with overpopulation and fighting over land/resources needs to be addressed first. Putting humankind in space, building up instead of clearing every last forest, etc., needs to be accomplished before we can increase lifespans, thereby increasing world population. I mean, people are still fighting over land today. Look at Isreal and Palestine: that is about land and resources; religion is simply a scapegoat to justify violence, in an ironic sort of way.
if they could find a way to make you live twice as long without doing all the gene manipulation at the fetal stage, you could always store your sperm (assuming you're a guy) in a sperm bank before going for the treatment.
not that i'd want to have kids though.