Slashdot Mirror
Genome Pioneer, X Prize Founder Tackle Aging
An anonymous reader writes "Hot on the heels of Google's spin-off company Calico, another major contender has emerged in the race to develop technologies for extending healthy human lifespan. Dr Craig Venter, who was first to map the entire human genetic code and the first to engineer a synthetic lifeform, has teamed up with founder of the X-Prize, Dr Peter Diamandis, to create Human Longevity Inc. 'Your age is your No. 1 risk factor for almost every disease,' said Dr. Venter. 'Using the combined power of our core areas of expertise—genomics, informatics, and stem cell therapies, we are tackling one of the greatest medical/scientific and societal challenges — aging and aging related diseases,' said Dr. Venter. 'Between 1910 and 2010 improvements in medicine and sanitation increased the human lifespan by 50 percent from 50 to 75 years.....our goal is to make 100-years-old the new 60,' said Diamandis."
Great! Now life sentences for American prisoners can be even longer! If America doesn't punish losers for existing, who will?
This kind of research always sounds great on paper, but i hate to think what sort of either overpopulation problems result if its easily available or what sort of divisive resentment and classism it would spawn if its cost prohibitive.
So remember, golddiggers, wait until you're at least 50 years too old to have children. You can never have enough precious, precious money.
Have you considered trying some different shit?
You're getting your pension 40 years later. Enjoy!
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
It's about time. As for all the Death Cultists posting previously about the horrors of remaining alive, bite me.
our goal is to make 100-years-old the new 60,' said Diamandis."
And where are we gonna get the water, gas , food etc for all these 12 Billion people ? .. maybe the longetivity is only for the rich .
Oh wait
So, what if we were to create a race of human beings that could remain fairly healthy to age 100 (the "new 60").
What then?
We have serious issues globally today with overcrowding in certain areas. Resources will be stripped that much faster from the planet, from food to precious metals. Don't even get me started on unemployment. Not just one family, but multiple families might have be supported by a single income. Taxes would skyrocket 10% or more to try and pay for welfare programs for all those still living that we have no jobs for.
I'm also assuming they will have solved all those "old people" diseases while creating the 120-year old human too. After all, what good is a ton of people unable to work because their body is good, but their mind left them long ago. Alzheimer's is an absolute nightmare to experience and support second-hand, as anyone supporting a loved one can attest. I cannot imagine living it for decades because my body now says I can.
Let me put it this way. The world could not even handle every tobacco smoker quitting tomorrow, and people no longer dying from that particular population-stripping addiction, much less a significant shift with longevity.
Fantastic research, noble cause, but perhaps pointless and likely dangerous until we solve a shitload of other issues, or get the hell off this rock.
Yeah, we've done a lot to deal with infant death over the last century, and we've avoided big wars and epidemics recently too.
But medicine actually hasn't done that much to increase the life expectancy of an adult.
Never attribute to technology that which is adequately explained as salesmanship.
We're probably all going to die of old age around the same time we would regardless. But this sort of thing might eventually solve the aging problem.
Yes, that might lead to other issues such as over population etc... but its worth it.
Think of what percentage of the population is capable of high levels of education.
Then what percentage of that percentage actually gets it.
Then what percentage of that percentage that does anything useful with the education.
Then what percentage of their lives are left for productive work after they have been educated.
We have men that are useful for maybe 20 years tops after going through about 14 years of education and even during that 20 years there is follow up education to keep them current.
Imagine if they didn't age... if they could be kept productive indefinitely.
Imagine a whole population of polymaths as people learn at their own pace over 100s of years. 20 years as a bar tender. 20 years as a carpenter. 20 years as a fishermen. Life time on life time bleeding into each other.
Its a good thing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You sound suicidal. Many of us greatly enjoy life and do not want it to be involuntarily taken away from us or those we love.
Make the magic pill available only to those that switch exclusively to desktop Linux and stay there.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I can't lead a normal -- ow
And people are dying early now due to the rich-poor divide. So why not fix that now?
http://overpopulationisamyth.c...
Also, such research ignores the low-hanging fruit of better nutrition as I mention here: http://science.slashdot.org/co...
How to get healthier for most people in the Western world: https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
http://www.bluezones.com/
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
https://www.lef.org/magazine/m...
But it is hard to make huge profits from suggesting people live well and clean up their environment and thus prevent and cure disease... There are a lot more profits to keeping people on patented drugs by just treating chronic "conditions" or reducing the pains associated with them.
To be clear, I'm not against anti-aging research or genomics. I'm just saying, we as a society and scientific community are often ignoring the obvious well-proven paths to better health and extended life-span and diminished "frail span" for most people.
Of course, genomics also has a dark side -- the potential for customized plagues that may destroy humanity in the next few decades, like I worry about here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
So, I'd suggest we build healthier and more secure and equitable communities for everyone right now, before the plague potential of genomics fully emerges, in order to have the community spirit needed to deal with the dark side of such innovation.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
This is just shifting the problem.
What we need to cure is: fear of aging.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Start there. Go for it.
My training in genetics was late 70s/ early 80s.
Infinitely fascinating, and as with lotsa things in science, it turned out to be the simplified version.
And now the world has expanded once again, telomeres, epigenetics, etc.
A foot and a half away from me is a copy of "The Joy Of Finding Things Out."
Man, this is a blast.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
If you thought Microsoft and Apple with the personal computer revolution was huge, wait until this giant takes off. Everyone and their dog is gonna want in on life extension and anti-ageing.
And you sound like you're in denial. You WILL die. Soon. Relatively speaking. So don't be a coward who's waiting for some scientific breakthrough to "save" them. You can't escape the grave.
Following your 'logic', solving "shitload of other issues" would cause shitload of other problems. Your argument for ignorance overlooks all the positives of such discovery and instead presents hypothetical drawbacks in opposition.
Yes, you are correct in pointing out that old age problems like Alzheimers will still remain with us and possibly become leading source of death, so how we die will likely change. Did you make the same argument against research into cardiology when leading source of death was heart attacks?
First, you seem to assume that "more people" (ignoring the fact that birth rates are already decreasing) will mean "resources will be stripped that much faster", without creating new jobs or new tax revenue. You also seem to assume that people will reproduce more ("multiple families") as they live longer. That doesn't match what we see happening in the real world today.
Finally, if you "assume they will have solved" age-related diseases, why do you rely on those diseases as your main argument against longevity?
'Your age is your No. 1 risk factor for almost every disease,' said Dr. Venter.
I'm not sure I believe that. It may be true on an individual level for a person with good health insurance in a first world country, but I bet for most people in the world it is the ability to afford and access the kind of advanced medical care that Dr. Venter will be researching. That observation, of course, leads to things like the quote from the article on Facebook meme evolution, "No one should die because they cannot afford health care and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree please post this as your status for the rest of the day." A noble sentiment, to be sure, but is it realistic?
Can we afford to pay for every life extending medical practice for every person? At current prices, I suspect we cannot. Even if we dedicated 100% of GDP to health care, I think we still could not afford every medical treatment that could extend the life of every person on Earth. And that assumes that paying 100% of GDP is sustainable. In practice, of course, doing so would lead to an economic collapse and we would be able to afford even less health care next year, causing more people to die unnecessarily, not fewer.
I suspect that we now have sufficiently advanced medical technology that the most powerful force limiting the ability of medical technology to prevent disease is that the majority of the world populace cannot afford the medical care we have already discovered -- in an absolute "there is not enough GDP, and would be less if we tried" sense.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Aubrey de Grey, a leading figure in life extension, gives a powerful and impressive presentation about the hows and whys of overcoming aging and death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ
Tell that to Beatrix Kiddo.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Also, there really isn't a way to place too much emphasis on the importance of exercise. A friend of mine just turned 70 and when he meets new people they think he's in his early 50's. He's worked construction and general contracting stuff for 40 years and never got too crazy with any substances. Fucker can motor.
Simple solution, make sure you are born on February 29 (Leap Year)
Don't get your kids vaccinated either or you will make them autistic. Use homeopathic remedies instead.
Considering that evolution essentially requires the gene pool to be constantly adapted to ever changing environment and circumstances, you sound even more suicidal on the species level. You will selfishly be hogging the resources, that your newer replacements(children) would need. And replacements there must be, since you yourself may not be best equipped to survive in a warmer planer or a world with more carbon mono-oxide. But there you will be, using artificial methods to hang on. As long as you live, you will be consuming resources, and therefore competing with and risking the survival of the children. That is not to say that your life has no value or that you should kill yourself at the earliest, but once you have raised your kids, once you are past your prime age to be an active contributor in general, it is time to let go. Medicine should be focusing on removing diseases and pain, not curing or postponing natural death. You should be enjoying a healthy life, not necessarily a very long one. If you really do actually love your children and their children that is.
Oh great just what the rest of the world needs greedy fat capitalist religious fanatic merkins that live forever.
And you sound like you're in denial. You WILL die. Soon. Relatively speaking.
Unless of course, the previous poster doesn't die soon.
So don't be a coward who's waiting for some scientific breakthrough to "save" them. You can't escape the grave.
Plenty of people already have. Sure, they're still dying "soon", but they have a better and longer life for it.
The other day a conspiracy nut tried to tell me that Kill Bill wasn't a documentary and that they filmed the whole thing on a sound stage somewhere in Los Angeles.
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
Three counter points:
1. Human evolution is no longer driven by natural selection.
2. More natural is not the same as better.
3. Even with arbitrarily long human life spans, suicide would be an effective mechanism of death.
Good news everyone! It turns out that technologies which extend, augment or otherwise improve human life are already here!
You may have heard of some of them: clean water; urban sanitation; smokeless cooking facilities; free access to healthcare; a guaranteed minimum income; a good, free education. There are more – and you’d be surprised how many of them have been around in one form or another for decades, even centuries! But they’re unevenly distributed at the moment, so the first agenda item for all transhumanists should be looking for ways to get these technologies to everyone on the planet as soon as possible because if they don’t, by their own logic, they are wilfully and consciously permitting millions if not billions of people to suffer totally avoidable misery, poverty, illness and death. Better still, they can start close to home; after all, what better test-case could there be for the even distribution of longevity improvement than the ~17 year lifespan differential between the wealthy and the poor in the United States itself?
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
I am.
Some rich man basically just bought my girlfriend, my father lost his job and I'm forced to work 7 days a week to support my family, my grandmother just died, my job sucks, there's rely nothing to live for anymore. Only thing that's keeping me alive is I don't have the time to plan my suicide yet.
Would you feel guilty if I did?
Be sure to long for eternal youth too.
I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope you find some happiness or at least relief. If you haven't already, I suggest you investigate medical help - there are some antidepressant medications available now that might make you feel better.
I would like to give another option/perspective: the longer a person's lifespan, the more time and chances they will have to improve their lot in life. Death, on the ther hand, means the extinction of all possibility. Humanity has continued to make rapid impressive improvements in the standard of living and general development for well over a century now. Antidepressants are one example of that. Given past and current trends the chances of having a healthy and happy existence will only increase the longer a person lives.
You sound suicidal. Many of us greatly enjoy life and do not want it to be involuntarily taken away from us or those we love.
Most people wouldn't want to work for 100+ years.
It's possible that alternative employment arrangements could be enacted when extended longevity arrives. Retirement savings now are meant for enabling a person to live for the last decade or two of their lives without the need to work. A very similar system could continue to exist with extended lifespan, but instead of retirement followed by death, it could be more like a two decade holiday after which the person returns to work. This might be an entirely agreeable arrangement for most people.
Making the assumption that in the future everything else would stay the same, whilst only lifespan changes, is completely unrealistic and shortsighted - human's adapt and change themselves, their societies and their world. It wasn't too long ago that women were basically banned from working at most jobs - things change.
I suggest you investigate medical help - there are some antidepressant medications available now that might make you feel better.
One needs money for that too. He indicated he is short of money.
No. It is only a proposal which is not enforced.
There are generic off-patent antidepressants that are probably relatively cheap.
wish I had a mod point for this...
Cheap storage VM.
"Dr Craig Venter, who was first to map the entire human genetic code"
No, he really wasn't.