Slashdot Mirror
Aging Reversed In Mice
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that scientists claim to be a step closer to reversing the aging process after experimental treatment developed by researchers at Harvard Medical School turned weak and feeble old mice into healthy animals by regenerating their aged bodies. 'What we saw in these animals was not a slowing down or stabilization of the aging process. We saw a dramatic reversal – and that was unexpected,' says Ronald DePinho, who led the study. The Harvard group focused on a process called telomere shortening where each time a cell divides, the telomeres are snipped shorter, until eventually they stop working and the cell dies or goes into a suspended state called 'senescence.' Researchers bred genetically manipulated mice that lacked an enzyme called telomerase that stops telomeres getting shorter causing the mice to age prematurely and suffer ailments, including a poor sense of smell, smaller brain size, infertility and damaged intestines and spleens. When the mice were given injections to reactivate the enzyme, it repaired the damaged tissues and reversed the signs of aging raising hope among scientists that it may be possible to achieve a similar feat in humans – or at least to slow down the aging process."
For the most part, most of us live long enough. What is necessary is a substantial increase in the quality of our lives, not an increase in the length of it. If this treatment can return youthful vigor to our cells, that is something amazing. So far we've been relegated to using HGH or steroids or exercise and diet to control our aging process. However, the actual cellular aging progresses unhindered.
A treatment that does not require diet and exercise modifications is sorely needed.
I'd like to thank you on behalf of those of us who want to live forever...making room for the immortals if awfully kind of you.
the Dick Cheneys of the world living to 140...
I don't consider this to make people to last forever, but 'unnecessarily long'.
What do you consider a necessary duration? And necessary for what? There is no objective purpose to life - people have to ascribe their own subjective meaning - whatever you think is necessary during your own life is you own subjective value judgement and doesn't apply to anyone else.
we are 'out-breeding' our ability to be able produce enough food ... putting more people on this rock with drastically increased lifespans don't seem to be sch a bright idea to me.
This is a potential problem, but it presumes that technology won't be able to keep up with demand. There is mounting economic pressure (which makes all the difference) to create a renewable infrastructure now. It's only a matter of time. The more people there are, the greater the pressure. People would be able to work for longer, and would be under less pressure to have kids early. There is a large degree of self-correction to the situation, but it's one of those difficult to predict scenarios, becuase it's such a collosal global game-changing event.
Besides, think a bit what it would be like to live forever, it's a nightmare.
I honestly have never understood this attitude. People say it, but never give a reason. Why? You say you love life, so when would that change for you? At what point do you become effectively suicidal? Are you anticipating an afterlife?
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
"we are 'out-breeding' our ability to be able produce enough food"
Says you. I actually work in the field, and we have well more than enough technology, raw seed stock, and modified seed stock, to feed this planet fifty times over for the next twenty generations.
"our main energy source is finite (oil), and our climate seems to be going through changes (i don't care if they're man-made or not),"
These actually pose real problems that we must work upon.
"putting more people on this rock with drastically increased lifespans don't seem to be sch a bright idea to me."
Well, odds are this would only be available to those that could afford it, while the general masses die off. While this leaves a lower population to sustain the planetary population overall, there's also a lower planetary population to handle. Thinking of a worst-case scenario, this would be like giving those hard working and intelligent enough a pass at a super-long life, while eliminating the unwashed masses. That poses another problem, but everything is a problem, and in truth nothing is a total solution.
"Besides, think a bit what it would be like to live forever, it's a nightmare."
I've been dead twice. I think I prefer life, TYVM.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Uh, sorry, but no, you don't. The memory lives on, not the person. If that is important to those who live on is another matter. But please do not confuse the two.
Toutankhamon is not alive. insert dead parrot sketch
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
in reality it would be closer to have your body begin to whither at 40 and die at 70, or have a decent body until your 70 and you can drop dead of cancer at any time after 40.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
You are missing a point by the way, an important point.
People, who are short-lived, do not care about the long term consequences. It's like politicians, who are elected only for a few years and all they try to do is to get reelected, they don't care about actually working that much. Same with non-owners of corporations, who are nevertheless on top of them, like seagull CEOs for example, they come in, make a lot of noise, crap all over the place, collect the severance and leave.
People who live longer than our very limited life-spans, and people who have more active life-styles by being healthier, would probably end up thinking a bit more long-term, which may end up being good for the population in the long run.
I do not buy the argument that the natural order of things is GOOD. I think the natural order is actually pretty bad, considering that evolution basically cares about procreation first of all, doesn't care about your quality of life past certain age-point, so it elects the traits in populations that are better suited for the young people, not for those who are maybe 20 years older than 'the young'. But in today's society being 20 years older than 'the young' also has a positive effect (well, with some). They are experienced, they are very knowledgeable and specialized, they are trained, a lot of resources went to their training, they are still useful, but their health is deteriorating and they do become an increasing burden.
If this particular treatment prolongs the life of people by say 40 years, yet makes them younger in the process, it would end up as a net positive for society, because those resources would be available longer and without the downside of being sicker.
Basically sign me up (I am almost sure I will never see this treatment, but I would like to.)
You can't handle the truth.
I don't want to age. I don't care if my life ends at 80 or 90 or 150, I want those years, every last one of them, to be spent without sitting in a hospice as a drooling vegetable. I'd rather get tired of living than spend most of my life on the sliding slope away from the heights of my youth.
When they come to take me away when I'm 150, I'll say good bye to the cruel world, the cruel bedsheets and even the cruel curtains with some sort of tassels.
And as for the population problem, if I was sure I'd live till eternity, I might not even care too much about the propagation of the species (see, I don't really see why Wowbagger had to date Trillian).
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Although, if people can live forever, I'm changing my opinion on term limits to "pro" I shudder to imagine what it would be like to have Ted Kennedy as eternal senator.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
There are a lot off people with the wealth, means and connections to make it happen when it's possible. So wether it should or not is not really the question it's more how the world is going to be when people will be able to live maybe 500 years or more. Sure the future is very hard to predict but just imagine people could live longer. Maybe they would actually start to learn to think not only of the short term pleasures and goals but as they have more years to live will actually take more care of the environment. Living much longer means a way better view on environmental impacts of short term actions and you have to. You have to live in your own mess a lot longer. Also the wish to have childeren now decreases with live expectancy just imagine people living 500+ years having kids only after 100 years? Perfect! Enough time to plan living space, housing, environmental issue's etc. Sure there are negative impacts aswell but when this anti aging pill comes on the market I'll take it.
I think 100+ years spent in a tin can with other people is something that has such an incredibly high chance of causing extreme psychological issues that I would not agree to send them, volunteers or not. And it raises a whole host of ethical issues as well, such as whether the travelers would have some right to kill one another if they perceived a threat or what to do with some immortal space traveling hero should he try to return to society and be utterly unable to reintegrate, similar to how a lot of ex-felons are when they are released.
Unless we're talking Starship Enterprise-style accommodations here, I would do everything in my power to stop trips like that from ever happening.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'. [552]