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."

Comments

Re:Why the fuck do you want to live forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered trying some different shit?

Re:Which means

[Anonymous Coward]

What pension? You're still getting fired one month before retirement. But the good news is, your corporate overlords are getting another 40 years of labor out of you.

Yay! Serious effort to stop aging!

[buybuydandavis]

It's about time. As for all the Death Cultists posting previously about the horrors of remaining alive, bite me.

Re:Yay! Serious effort to stop aging!

[MindPrison]

^ Someone mod this guy UP!

Telomere breakdown, and cell deterioration is one of our biggest issues - solve that, and we're well on our way to a longer healthier life. A think I've thinking about a lot though, is how our food directly affects our aging. More consumption + burning seem to equal faster living and accelerated aging. The slower the heartbeat, the longer some creatures seem to live.

Re:Yay! Serious effort to stop aging!

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Telomere breakdown, and cell deterioration is one of our biggest issues

And if we stopped entropy, cell detioration would not occur. It's about as likely, I'm afraid. Telomeres are a molecular _answer_ to DNA deterioration, preenting the connection of one DNA molecule to another at the end points. And some types of system damage are cumulative, especially since scar tissue accumulates and regrowth of neural tissue has never been mastered.

Target : 12 billion?

[invictusvoyd]

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 ?
Oh wait .. maybe the longetivity is only for the rich .

Re: Target : 12 billion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity has always faced challenges, and there will be many challenges in the future regardless of the development of life extension technologies. One of the most beautiful things about humanity is that we can raise to the challenge; we dream, then develop and then deploy solutions to problems. Aging and death are two of the biggest problems humans face. I say that as the intelligent and resourceful beings that we are, we should not only have a desire to, but in fact a moral obligation to overcome the blind forces of evolution that have dealt humanity the cruelty of aging and death.

Alleviate one issue, cause another

[geekmux]

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.

Re: Alleviate one issue, cause another

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems ridiculous now, but in earlier times, due to increasing population, people were worried that the streets would be clogged up entirely by horse manure, since all these extra people would need horses to transport them around.

The point is, the future is very hard to predict. But there are two things we know for certain:

1: Aging and death and the suffering that these almost always bring are an absolutely horrible fate that any sane person wants to avoid.

2: Humans are very very good at solving problems and just generally remaking their world.

Just the fact that we may be on the threshold of substantially increasing lifespan shows how good we are at solving problems. Not long ago the possibility of extending lifespan would have been viewed as ridiculous, but now we're seeing billions of dollars invested in it - it is a very serious business.

If a problem as big as death and aging are potentially in our grasp to overcome, why would we not think that we may also be able to deal with any problems that may come along with an extended lifespan?

Me? I'm optimistic. I know that within a few generations we've gone from horses, to cars, to planes, to spacecraft. I know that we've gone from word of mouth, to telegraph, to telephone, to television, to internet.

I don't want to be subject to involuntary death and the diseases of aging. I don't want my loved one's to be subject to involuntary death and diseases of aging. In fact, I don't want any decent human being to be subject to these horrors.

We need to stop defending aging and death. When aging and death were completely beyond possibility of cure it may have served us as a helpful and comforting psychological crutch to try to derive some meaning and benefit from these horrors, but now this psychological crutch could hold us back from developing the necessarily technologies to overcome them.

Step bravely forward. Otherwise, you don't just have something to lose, you have EVERYTHING to lose. There are few unintended problems that come along with extended lifespan that could possibly be worse...

Re:Which means

[Anonymous Coward]

If the motivation required to get funding for this research is that it will allow corporations to keep their employees (read: investment in training, knowledge base, experience and whatever) longer, then I don't fucking care: sign me up for that biological immortality, motherfuckers!

It seems absolutely silly to avoid this area of research.

What the hell is point of medicine if not to extend life, anyway? Clearly it would be more cost effective to do something about that "number one risk factor" for all those expensive chronic / terminal diseases. And who wouldn't want to be healthier and live longer?

Sure you get a lot of loudmouths who speak before they think blurbing about Malthusian crises, ancient Greek mythology (psh...) and religious baloney about "God's plan", but if there were a pill that could guarantee you the ability to live to the age of three hundred, you couldn't manufacture them fast enough.

I wish them luck...

[Karmashock]

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.

Re:I wish them luck...

[geekmux]

You minimize the overpopulation issue as if it's a purely organic one.

Think of the resources it will take to feed this.

Now think of the greed and corruption that controls that today.

Good vs. Evil? Seriously?

"Ha! Not a chance in hell.", says the ghost that was #Occupy.

They're gonna need more than luck. They're gonna need something to come out above greed. Compassion.

I suppose we'll see where that compassion lies in the price tag, now won't we.

I wonder if extending celebritards lives will be considered a "good thing" when prioritized far above scientists and engineers in society. After all, we know which scenario is likely to happen, especially when they pay to made it into the next reality show.

Re:I wish them luck...

[Karmashock]

The overpopulation issue isn't a certainty. We've already seen massive declines in population growth in the developed world. You can't accurately estimate what our growth rate will be with immortality. It is entirely possible that our population will stabilize with many people infrequently having children.

Remember, there will still be deaths from one thing or another. We will have wars... which will claim thousands at the least and possibly millions on occasion. That is population that will have to be replaced.

Add in car accidents and various medical issues that this won't fix and you'll have a need to replace population.

it will be much lower then what we need today to counter aging. But it will remain significant. So long as our birth rate doesn't much exceed that rate our population will be stable. If it does exceed it then we'll have a major overcrowding issue.

Overcrowding leads to a scarcity of land, increases in prices, and a lower quality of living. In our society that tends to depress the birth rate.

In fact, in the modern world, there is a very keen link between economic prosperity and the birth rate in the middle class. In the very poor there is no such link since they don't actually share the same economy. Their economy is more about welfare stamps and various free housing policies. Its very difficult to quantity their economic prosperity because they don't actually use money per se. Amongst the rich its a non-issue since we can always assume they have enough to justify further breeding.

In any case, with immortality we can assume there are ways to deal with the overcrowding issue. Most of them will self correct.

And you forget the many benefits of immortality such as a highly skilled labor force that is always in prime working age. That means a much much higher level of industrial output and a much higher level of technological and educational sophistication.

With that sort of thing we might just make spreading beyond the planet practical. Far fetched today... but who can say tomorrow.

In any case, I will not retard our technological sophistication simply to satisfy the baseless worries of Luddites.

Re: Why the fuck do you want to live forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Which means

[BasilBrush]

What the hell is point of medicine if not to extend life, anyway?

Improving quality of life is more important than length of it. There's little point in extending life into the 100s, if those years are spent being unwell.

And who wouldn't want to be healthier and live longer?

Somewhere between 70 and 80 would do me nicely.

Sure you get a lot of loudmouths who speak before they think blurbing about Malthusian crises

It's a perfectly valid concern. This planet is finite, and the day when there's somewhere that would be pleasant to live that's off this planet seems like it's a very long way away.

Room for quadrillions of people in space habitats

[Paul Fernhout]

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.

Re: Which means

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere between 70 and 80 would do me nicely.

Funny how that just happens to be around the average current lifespan at this point in time. I wonder, if you had lived in 1910, would your figure have been only 50 years(the average lifespan at that time)?

Death and the disabilities of aging are so horrible that people attempt to rationalize it away by being "content" with whatever they think they can confidently expect in the way of lifespan. It is "sour grapes" of the highest order. Then, when the possibility of a longer lifespan comes along(thanks to Google or whoever), they find it disrupting and destabilizing to their rationalization, and unfortunately this sometimes lead to just a tighter grasping to the rationalization.

Thanks to science and medicine you may live much longer than 70 to 80 years, I say embrace it.

Re:Which means

[Charliemopps]

What's a pension and where do I get one?

Re:Just shifting the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, but dying is objectively bad. There are zero upsides to it that we can prove beyond any doubt, and there are innumerable downsides which I'm sure everyone can easily imagine for themselves. There is nothing wrong with objective fear, it's not a problem to be solved.

Cause is not so clear

[sinij]

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?

Let me clarify the strawmen you're attacking.

[jeffb (2.718)]

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?

Re:Just shifting the problem

[taiwanjohn]

Fear is not required, just dissatisfaction. I don't get my hair cut because I "fear" having long hair. I don't buy an ergonomic chair because I "fear" lower-back pain, I just prefer not to have it.

You might as well say, the same thing about cancer research, "What we need to cure is: fear of cancer."

Sure, that would also work. But I would prefer to find a cure for cancer instead.

Re:Which means

[EvolutionInAction]

Thank you. I'm always confused by the idiots in threads like this that immediately start talking about how horrible it would be, with an extra forty or fifty years of suffering. That's not how it works! You're suffering and miserable at the end of your life because there's a bunch of stuff killing you.

I generally consider Aubrey de Grey a quack, and hate that he's the face of the longevity movement (I suspect it's just the mind-blowing beard). But there is one thing he said that I really like. To paraphrase, if you ask people if they want an extra forty years of life, a lot will say no. If you ask instead if they want to keep the body of a thirty year old until they're eighty, with the consequence that they live an extra forty years, they almost all say yes.