Blood of World's Oldest Woman Hints At Limits of Life

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blood of World's Oldest Woman Hints At Limits of Life

Posted by timothy on Friday April 25, 2014 @02:06AM from the telomere-more-about-this dept.

porkchop_d_clown (39923) writes "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005, she was the oldest woman in the world. [New Scientist reported Wednesday] that, at the end of her life, most of her white blood cells had been produced by just two stem cells — implying the rest of her blood stem cells had already died, and hinting at a possible limit to the human life span."

243 of 333 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Isn't this old news?
1. Re:Old News by Rob+the+Bold · 2014-04-25 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Isn't this old news?
  I see what you did there.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
2. Re:Old News by wonkey_monkey · 2014-04-25 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this old news?
  I see what you did there.
  I see what you did there.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this old news?
  Quite literally. She was the worlds oldest living woman when she passed away almost 10 years ago.
  One would have thought we would have reached into the fridge to study that sample by now...
  And you thought the backlog at the patent office was bad.
4. Re:Old News by maroberts · 2014-04-25 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this old news?
  That would make this an Old Joke :-)
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
5. Re:Old News by doccus · 2014-04-26 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  *Two* stem cells? For her entire body? How do they actually know that. And did they really harvest both of them, and then leave them in the fridge for TEN years? Sheesh...
6. Re:Old News by RockDoctor · 2014-04-26 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  One would have thought we would have reached into the fridge to study that sample by now...
  Considering that the lady was under no obligation to allow her body to be used for any sort of research, precisely what are you complaining about? That she (or her family, the legal owners of the body and of any tissue samples) imposed some restriction on when research could be performed?
  Oh, it's an AC. For the cowardly reason, not the anonymity reason.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
7. Re:Old News by RockDoctor · 2014-04-26 07:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  *Two* stem cells? For her entire body? How do they actually know that.
  They do tell you in the article, but it's not spelled out. They looked at the range of mutations in the leucocytes in her blood and found that they had only two common patterns of mutations. That implies only two remaining blood stem cells.
  
  And did they really harvest both of them, and then leave them in the fridge for TEN years? Sheesh..
  They don't say that they harvested either of them. They say that they looked at blood samples. To have collected the blood stem cells, they'd need to have extracted the marrow from her long bones - femur and/ or ribs most likely. That's a much more intrusive operation, even if the patient is a corpse.
  Neither the donor nor her next of kin were under any obligation to allow samples to be taken. Nor were they under any obligation to allow any additional testing to be performed on samples that were taken for therapeutic reasons. Nor were they under any obligation to allow any publication of data obtained either as a part of her therapies, or any publication of the researches (which they were under no obligation to allow) carried out on her body. So ... you're complaining that it took 10 years to get the research done, or that perhaps they imposed a moratorium on the work before it's publication? That's within their rights. As is privacy.
  Isn't this Slashdot, where people foam at the mouth over governmental intrusion into privacy every 30 attoseconds? And you want to violate the privacy of a dead old woman before her ashes have cooled?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
8. Re: Old News by RockDoctor · 2014-04-28 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  The impression I got from the article was that she was dead before these samples were taken. There was no hint of any therapeutic component to the study.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Bank them by wiredlogic · 2014-04-25 02:09 · Score: 2

If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity it would seem to be a simple task to save up and grow a supply of stem cells when one is younger. The cord blood industry is essentially doing this now.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
1. Re:Bank them by ShanghaiBill · 2014-04-25 02:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity ...
  It is not clear that it is. So far there is ONE data point. Before we start extrapolating, we might want to look at some other old people.
2. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 02:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But they smell funny..
3. Re:Bank them by briancox2 · 2014-04-25 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really? You're trying to solve this "problem"?
  
  My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"
  
  I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
  
  Try working in the healthcare field. You'll see that that is the norm. Older patients often would be fine with letting go. But the family falls apart emotionally and pushes for ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to save them. It's pathetic. And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.
  
  --
  We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
4. Re:Bank them by danbert8 · 2014-04-25 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sadly it doesn't stop with death too. Many more billions are wasted in the funeral racket. In my family my grandmother is a very simple and humble woman, but her darn kids keep insisting on fancy expensive gravestones and caskets in her end of life planning. It's like, you realize we are just going to throw dirt on this right? And she won't be "comfortable" regardless of how many pillows are in there.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
5. Re:Bank them by Dishevel · 2014-04-25 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  But they smell funny..
  So then just look.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
6. Re:Bank them by MightyYar · 2014-04-25 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  I humbly submit that, being in the healthcare field, you are seeing a higher concentration of misery than exists in the population-at-large. Just like an ER doctor in NY would assume that taxi cabs are the single largest cause of death and injury in the world.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
7. Re:Bank them by ultranova · 2014-04-25 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Death is a part of life.
  
  Death is a part of life. That doesn't mean it's good or shouldn't be fought against. Smallpox used to be a part of life too, and I doubt anyone's life is made worse by not having it around anymore.
  
  I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
  
  The idea of longevity research, of course, is to make 100 year old body indistinguishable from a 20 year old body, not merely to "keep the heart beating".
  
  And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.
  
  Really? On what, for example?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
8. Re:Bank them by Chelloveck · 2014-04-25 03:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.
  Nah, science has just identified the thing that needs to be tricked. We just need fresh stem cells. I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.
  
  --
  Chelloveck
  I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
9. Re:Bank them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-04-25 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
  
  False dichotomy. If we manage one day to make 100 year old bodies to be more like today's 60 year old bodies, you'll have a different option.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:Bank them by Soluzar · 2014-04-25 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  It would be interesting to see if your views change on by the 11th month of your 99th year. Assuming you survive that long.
11. Re:Bank them by tmosley · 2014-04-25 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Funny how reactionaries always seem to think of life extension as living a long time as an old person rather than living a long time as a young person.
  
  Such is life in idiocratic paradise.
12. Re:Bank them by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-04-25 03:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.
  There isn't. Our bodies are machines, no more no less, and ultimately science will solve every riddle they pose. Soon, fifty or a hundred years from now, the first immortals will be born. Who knows, perhaps they already have been.
13. Re:Bank them by Valdrax · 2014-04-25 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"
  I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
  That is a view and a choice that I can respect, but why should you cheer the possibility that no one be able to choose any other way? That those who want more life be denied it?
  Like a lot of the elderly people you mention, I think I too would choose death over prolonged suffering, helplessness, and a lack of ability to accomplish much more than running the bills up for my family. But I don't think I would choose death until that was all I had to look forward to, and I would be happy for any medical advancement that pushes that inevitable time back and that preserves health into those latter years.
  And if the generation after me is able to live forever, I will not begrudge them that just because it was too late for me. (Okay, maybe I'll be a tad jealous.) However, I'd oppose any efforts to stop it with what's left of my life.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
14. Re:Bank them by SpankiMonki · 2014-04-25 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.
  I eat Little Debbies for breakfast. Not quite babies, but similarly soft n squishy inside. I'll prolly live forever.
15. Re:Bank them by Kjella · 2014-04-25 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  The idea of longevity research, of course, is to make 100 year old body indistinguishable from a 20 year old body, not merely to "keep the heart beating".
  That may be the long term ideal, practically though there's very little of significance modern medicine will do until you actually have an injury, disease or organ failure. If you take a reasonably healthy 80 year old to the hospital and say "What can you do to make him more like a 20 year old?" they wouldn't replacing aching bones or an aging heart and lungs and kidneys and liver, nor would they do anything about the poor eyesight, hearing or all the other senses that weaken with age. The primary effect of modern medicine is that people rarely die young, today most live to be 70 but few live to see 90, the curve has a quite sharp decline where the average body just expires. Yes we're looking at the people who become 100+ to figure out why, but that's looking at terminal reasons not trying to make the old young again.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
16. Re:Bank them by ag0ny · 2014-04-25 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.
  Won't work. These would have your same ADN.
  You can, however, create clones of yourself and eat one of THOSE babies every day. That should do the trick.
  
  --
  My site
17. Re:Bank them by ag0ny · 2014-04-25 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  *...would NEED TO have your same ADN.
  
  --
  My site
18. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The comfort is actually for those who see her into the ground. They're not comfortable if the dead person doesn't look like a fucking piece of art. They call this "respect". They do it out of "respect" for the dead person. And so that the living left behind don't poke their eyes out for the rest of their lives that "this guy had no respect for this mother; he bought the cheapest plywood casket with a pillow made of hay". And if you don't want to move to a different state/country, you comply.
19. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · 2014-04-25 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  What are are we allowed to live to? 30? Logan's Run for us?
20. Re:Bank them by phorm · 2014-04-25 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  I'd be more concerned about the brain, myself. No good having even a 30-year-old's body at 100 if you've gone back to the brain of a 2-year-old...
21. Re:Bank them by Lumpy · 2014-04-25 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Real respect is dragging grandpa's corpse to several pubs for a last night of drinking with family and friends.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
22. Re:Bank them by Maxo-Texas · 2014-04-25 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of species which live longer than humans.
  Sure- death is part of life but if you could stretch your healthy years out 30 years, wouldn't that be a good thing?
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
23. Re: Bank them by eggstasy · 2014-04-25 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  On making people slightly less miserable for the 99% of their lifespan that's actually worth living. And providing palliative care to people who are dying, so they won't suffer needlessly. Or simply legalizing euthanasia so people can have the freedom to choose to die with dignity.
24. Re:Bank them by Huge_UID · 2014-04-25 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  My knees, neck, and shoulder hurt. I'm 49. Could we please make 100 year old bodies to be more like my 43 year old body from 6 years ago instead of like today's 60 year old bodies? Thanks.
25. Re:Bank them by eggstasy · 2014-04-25 04:56 · Score: 3
  
  There will be no point to having a "youthful" old age if we will still become more conservative as we grow old, and in our misguided attempts to stay relevant, end up preventing the world from changing, just to keep things familiar.
26. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · 2014-04-25 04:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Make your living wills now.
  Get the funeral (or lack of one) that you want.
27. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · 2014-04-25 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Death is a part of life.
  Death is a part of life.
  ...for 93% of us.
  With 7 billion people on the planet, and only 100 billion of us having ever lived, only 93% of us have died.
  As part of the 7%, I'm keeping my hopes high.
28. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · 2014-04-25 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I love babies... ...but I couldn't eat a whole one.
29. Re:Bank them by Princeofcups · 2014-04-25 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.
  Fuck you fuck you fuck you. I'm grabbing every second of consciousness that I can. My grandfather dealt with crippling arthritis, and kept going. I have no plan to cash it in for health reasons. Is it possible to be productive to society with a worn out body? Ask Steven Hawking.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
30. Re:Bank them by cHALiTO · 2014-04-25 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  There can be only one
  
  --
  "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
31. Re:Bank them by lgw · 2014-04-25 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  There's a cremation service in the US that you can sign up for that will be ... aggressive ... in seeing your body cremated according to your wishes, (relatively) cheaply and quickly. Their market is precisely people who want to trump their family on this issue. But I'm blocking on the company name - anyone?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
32. Re:Bank them by IamTheRealMike · 2014-04-25 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's partly because that's how it's worked so far with better nutrition, etc.
  Also it's not just about the body. A 140 year old in the body of a 40 year old would still think like a 140 year old person. I mean, ye gods, just imagine! You'd have people whose formative experiences were a century ago potentially still running companies, political parties, or just drawing pensions forever. It sounds like a recipe for either cultural stagnation or bankruptcy.
  It may be that our society can scale to having people live 2x their current lifespan, but it'd require some serious adjustments. Like pegging pension ages to life expectancy as the very first step.
33. Re:Bank them by Gr8Apes · 2014-04-25 05:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  There's a cremation service in the US that you can sign up for that will be ... aggressive ... in seeing your body cremated according to your wishes, (relatively) cheaply and quickly. Their market is precisely people who want to trump their family on this issue. But I'm blocking on the company name - anyone?
  Soylent.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
34. Re:Bank them by cusco · 2014-04-25 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  My grandfather just celebrated his 95th birthday, and my co-worker said, "I hope I get to be that age some day!" I replied that I surely did **NOT** want to ever arrive at that age, and he looked at me befuddled.
  I asked, "Do you know any 95 year-olds?" No, he didn't. "Think about his life. All his friends are dead. All his brothers and sisters are dead. His kids are in their 70s and due to die soon. He can't drive. He can't walk without a walker. His breakfast is made up of more pills by volume than toast. He can't see well, and his hearing is worse even when he wears his hearing aids. He hasn't been laid in 30 years and never will be again. Pain is a constant and has been for years. He hasn't had a drink of wine in over a decade. He hasn't been able to travel since 1997. What kind of life is that?"
  Mohamed was rather quiet for quite some time after that.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
35. Re:Bank them by JakartaDean · 2014-04-25 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Real respect is dragging grandpa's corpse to several pubs for a last night of drinking with family and friends.
  I know you're joking, but there's nothing I would want more.
  
  --
  The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
36. Re:Bank them by Sarius64 · 2014-04-25 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  More stereotyping. I've two 74-year old friends that think and design software much better than almost all of their contemporaries. I cannot imagine them, nor I for that matter, running out things to do or experience for 10,000 years. This is a vast culture we have on Earth.
37. Re:Bank them by Tyler+Durden · 2014-04-25 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't. Our bodies are machines, no more no less, and ultimately science will solve every riddle they pose.
  Great. And how many complex machines do you know of that are able to run indefinitely without breaking down?
  
  Also, I love how you present your wild speculations as obvious inevitabilities.
  
  --
  Happy people make bad consumers.
38. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You are nothing more than a couple dollars worth of parts and some electrical/chemical interactions.
  The fact that you believe otherwise is cute in the same way that a child believes the tooth fairy is real.
39. Re:Bank them by PCM2 · 2014-04-25 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  I humbly submit that, being in the healthcare field, you are seeing a higher concentration of misery than exists in the population-at-large.
  How so? Unless you get shot or hit by a train, every single person who lives a normal lifespan and dies in America ends up in the hands of the healthcare industry. So in a sense, his sample of the "population at large" approaches 100%.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
40. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  You don't actually have the first clue about consciousness do you?
  somehow, i doubt you do either.
41. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  But they smell funny..
  I'm sure some of the basements from whence Slashdot posts originate have some pretty mean funk as well.
42. Re:Bank them by T.E.D. · 2014-04-25 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  , fifty or a hundred years from now, the first immortals will be born.
  That would, IMHO, be an utter disaster for mankind. Human beings are really good at learning what their world is like when they are children, because they are more or less starting from scratch. What they absolutely suck at is adapting to change after they've figured all that out. We form our opinions and view of the world when we are growing up. We can see then with (relatively) unclouded eyes the way things are, and even reason out the way we think things ought to be. But that becomes relatively set. This is why Max Plank remarked:
  
  A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
  
  It isn't just science either, it's pretty much every realm of human thought. I was born into a society (1967) where it was accepted that black people should be kept away from white people, women were inferior to men in every way and belonged in the home, and "gay" was not a state of being, but a repulsive activity that needed to be suppressed at all costs. Its true that lot of people's minds changed since then, but by and large what happened is that the old folks who felt strongest about society staying that way died . Social conservatism is far more prominent with older people at pretty much every level you check.
  While I'd like to think that all that was wrong with the 70's is gone from me, the fact is its all still lurking down in my head, because that's the world I was born into. The best I can hope for to personally advance society is to raise my own kids without my prejudices, and then when its just me left that remembers the early 70's I can die and all that horrible shit will die with me.
  Anyone trying to "fix" this is an active threat to humanity.
43. Re:Bank them by Galilee · 2014-04-25 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  If this life extension came out today it would already be too late for me to live a long time as a young person. And if it took 20 years for this process to become affordable for me, then I will be well past middle age and my parents will be quite old.
44. Re:Bank them by mangu · 2014-04-25 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating
  
  Hint: by the time science discovers more about the mechanism of aging, it won't be a 100 year old body anymore.
  All of her white blood cells were being produced by just two stem cells. Imagine if they could replicate stem cells indefinitely, her body would become 20 years old forever, not 100.
45. Re:Bank them by nurb432 · 2014-04-25 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.
  Then go jump off a bridge. TODAY.
  Some people do not want some 'hard limit' on our lifespan, so you can take your fatalism and shove it.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
46. Re:Bank them by fahrbot-bot · 2014-04-25 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  Make your living wills now.
  Get the funeral (or lack of one) that you want.
  Technically a "Living Will" only applies while you're alive specifying health care directives should you become incapacitated. It terminates when you do. Your "Will" would be the place to specify your funeral wishes.
  People in the US can setup/register and maintain a Living Will at the U.S. Living Will Registry for a small fee (I think $5) - or free if submitted through a local hospital. You get a registration card for your wallet and the document can be accessed and maintained online.
  My wife had a Living Will when she was dying of a brain tumor specifying her health care wishes (with a DNR) and me as her proxy - to make decisions not specifically documented in her Living Will (generally, the proxy cannot circumvent specific directives). After she died, according to her verbal wishes, I donated her body to the Virginia Anatomical Society (I donated her body to science). A year later her body was cremated by the medical school and her ashes scattered out near the school in Blacksburg VA. (There was no cost to me.) See: Remember Sue...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
47. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · 2014-04-25 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  My condolences on the loss of your wife.
  The story you tell is important to people who might be reading it - they need to understand that now is the time to sit down with your family and loved ones and make your wishes known. After that, get those wishes documented. Nobody is served by a fighting family, squabbling over what to do with someone's husk.
48. Re:Bank them by JimSadler · 2014-04-25 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  A funeral is not always a tragedy. Every now and then i really enjoy seeing a person being sent on the big dirt nap. In some cases I wish I was the one that had killed them. Yeh, I know. Old Adolph was somebodies little boy.
49. Re:Bank them by Lumpy · 2014-04-25 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  http://narrative.ly/american-m...
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
50. Re:Bank them by powerlord · 2014-04-25 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Real respect is dragging grandpa's corpse to several pubs for a last night of drinking with family and friends.
  
  I know you're joking, but there's nothing I would want more.
  You're not the only one.
  My wife and I have already told each other a "proper" funeral is fine if it brings comfort to the family, but then we want a good old fashioned party w/proper drinking.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
51. Re:Bank them by powerlord · 2014-04-25 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of the secret to living to be 120:
  First, live to be 119, then be R-E-A-L-L-Y careful. :)
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
52. Re:Bank them by buybuydandavis · 2014-04-25 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You're trying to solve this "problem"?
  My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"
  I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.
  
  Another Death worshipper.
  Yes, some people are working on that problem. It may come as a shock to you, but some people think being alive is better than being dead.
53. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you, on behalf of first year med students everywhere. I can't really express how absolutely necessary it is to learn via personal interaction with cadaver anatomy.
  I have a computer engineering background, so prior to med school I anticipated that cadaver anatomy was an anachronism that would soon be replaced by computer simulation. Nothing can be further from the truth. Individual anatomy varies so much, and there is no substitute for actual, tactile interaction to reinforce learning anatomy. Other subjects and learning materials may become fully computerized in the future, but I am convinced there will always be a need to learn anatomy by doing.
  I wouldn't be able to help my future patients nearly as well if it weren't for the anatomical gift a family gave to my school. Thank you again, most sincerely.
54. Re:Bank them by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice.
  Uggh...hang on, the Spartans are invading again. It's 2750; you'd think they'd give it a rest.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
55. Re:Bank them by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Now *that's* a disturbing picture.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
56. Re:Bank them by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a dichotomy, and he's being pragmatic. Saying "some point in the future" doesn't help ME if I'm already 80. Optimism doesn't pay the bills.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
57. Re:Bank them by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  And with a worn-out mind? How good is your quality of life with advanced Alzheimer's?
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
58. Re:Bank them by stoploss · 2014-04-25 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  My concern wouldn't be about cultural stagnation due to a dearth of new ideas; rather, it would be the reign of terror caused by compound interest. It's a given that people are born with nothing and those who are alive already own the resources.
  Generational transfer of wealth happens first via loans from the elder generation to the new generation (the youth buy education, houses ,etc) and in time, the new generation inherits the wealth from the older generation as they die. The loop iterates.
  However, given essentially unlimited time due to practical immortality, those who are already alive and are eldest will have the exponential growth of compound interest working for them. They will in effect control the world's wealth unless the economic system is changed to reflect this reality and correct its effects.
59. Re:Bank them by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I would really want to purposely deny the opportunity to anyone, but I think Doctor Who for once nails it on the head with, "900 years is too old." After observing all the foolishness of humans for even half that long, how much optimism do you think you'd still have?
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
60. Re:Bank them by dcollins117 · 2014-04-25 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.
  I apologize if this is a bit offtopic, but it's something I've always wondered. Doesn't it make sense that if you were to eat someones' brain, you'd get smarter?
  It just makes perfect sense (to me).
61. Re:Bank them by MightyYar · 2014-04-25 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  They only see people who are sick. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, he's feeling a bit jaded towards the extremely aged because he's witnessing them in sickness and death and not - for instance - when they are playing with their great-grandchildren or celebrating their 90th birthday.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
62. Re:Bank them by peragrin · 2014-04-25 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  personally I want a cremation. my ashes set at the center of a bon fire(at least 6 feet tall) a couple of solemn words said at the lighting of said fire, and then the party doesn't stop until the whole thing is ashes.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
63. Re:Bank them by quantaman · 2014-04-25 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  I can clearly remember every funeral I've been to. Considering the number of people who attend funerals and the strong significance it holds for many of the people it seems like something that's worth spending a bit of money on.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
64. Re:Bank them by garyebickford · 2014-04-25 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  1) IIRC a recent article showed that, once you get past 80 or so, the death rate per year actually declines. Of course it will still eventually catch up with you.
  2) I read an SF story (back in the late 1960s?) where a method/drug had been found that provided immortality. However, it had to be given within a short time of the onset of puberty or it wouldn't work, and it had the effect of eliminating creativity. So there was a system in place to identify talented people - artists, musicians, etc. early, and give them the option - "do you want to live forever in your body, or live forever in your works?". These kids were identified early, given as much training in their field as possible, then once they were good enough (or not) to make a reasonable choice, they had the option. That would be a hard choice for me even though I don't consider myself particularly special, and I hope for nearly everybody.
  3) Most people who say they want to live forever forget to mention the "in good health" part - that could be a bummer when the Genie asks for your wish. I'd also recommend "reasonable happiness and standard of living." But that might piss off the Genie.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
65. Re:Bank them by garyebickford · 2014-04-25 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  That reminds me of the Far Side cartoon about the polar bears, and the igloo. :D
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
66. Re:Bank them by garyebickford · 2014-04-25 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  You can, however, create clones of yourself and eat one of THOSE babies every day. That should do the trick.
  That raises interesting ethical questions.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
67. Re:Bank them by garyebickford · 2014-04-25 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  It might be easier to work the deal the other way - make yourself stupid and slow, and you'll be too stupid to notice the passing of time.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
68. Re:Bank them by porkchop_d_clown · 2014-04-25 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly - but what are the health consequences of stripping the body of a percentage of your stem cells when you're younger?
  
  --
  Clear, Dark Skies
69. Re:Bank them by thegarbz · 2014-04-25 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? I would consider myself on the bleeding edge. However I have no qualms with the Amish community. Why not let conservatives live their lives, and the rest of us can move on.
  The only real risk is if one of them enters politics in which case I say grab your pitchforks.
70. Re:Bank them by LDAPMAN · 2014-04-25 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  This is the stupidest concern I've ever heard about extended lifespans. Why would transfer of wealth stop? For that matter, how many people actually get any meaningful amount of wealth generationally transferred today? Most wealth transfer has nothing to do with death. Another thought experiment, if large numbers of people have their fortunes grow as a result of compound interest then what do you think will happen to the prices of goods and services? economics is not a zero sum game.
71. Re:Bank them by HiThere · 2014-04-25 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think that experimental evidence shows that if you eat other people's brains you get kuru. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
72. Re:Bank them by HiThere · 2014-04-25 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually a quite plausible and valid concern. Perhaps not what should be the dominant concern, but still a plausible and valid one. It's commonly observed that most people are most idealistic before the age of 30 (approx.) and grow increasingly "pragmatic" from then on. "Pragmatic" is difficult to pin down, as it's not necessarily selfish, though it often is. But it's a narrowing of focus, and a lessening of idealism and a more cynical calculation of the costs. It is also often a strong narrowing of concerns to one's immediate friends and relatives.
  Please note that this is just a statistical abstraction. You can find young individuals who are even more narrowly focused. And you can find elderly individuals who are socially concerned as their prime focus with a wide spectrum of concerns. And, in fact, the early teens are often even more "pragmatic" (in this sense) than are the seniors. The widening of focus seems to happen in the late teens through the mid-twenties.
  OTOH, perhaps this current(?) pattern is because of various social pressures. The people I tend to hear about (tended to hear about) were basically college students, or their close associates. Still, various historical notes (often propaganda to recruit soldiers for war) seem to bear out this observation in a wider context. (That the propaganda was lies doesn't deminish the fact that it was chosen to attract a particular age group.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
73. Re:Bank them by HiThere · 2014-04-25 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  You are assuming that old age is inherently progressive. Some experiments with mice, however, suggest that if you had a transfusion from a younger clone, your entire body would become more youthful. (Genetically standardized strains of mice are sufficiently similar that their blood streams can be joined together without problems. Don't try this with people.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
74. Re:Bank them by tmosley · 2014-04-25 13:06 · Score: 2
  
  How do you think people get money from interest? It doesn't fall from the sky.
  
  As more money is saved by long-lived individuals, the amount of money available for (capital) loans increases, driving down the interest rate (in a free society--one which doesn't have a central bank pretending it knows more about time preference of money than the market).
  
  Lending money at interest is tied to capital creation. Capital creates wealth. It is natural that people should become wealthier as they grow older. Their wealth will drive down prices for EVERYONE (capital investment allows industrialists to drive down costs via economies of scale and R&D).
75. Re:Bank them by tmosley · 2014-04-25 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  NAD+ actually REVERSES aging in mice, turning back the clock of "60 year old" mice to "20 year old" mice within a week.
  
  NAD+ is available from Sigma Aldrich in kilogram quantities for $800/kilo, which would be enough for the entire elderly population of a middling sized city.
  
  The future is bright. Don't miss it. Carpe diem, and buy that shit for yourself.
76. Re: Bank them by Jmc23 · 2014-04-25 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Can't you tell your languages apart? He was clearly writing spanish, spanish speakers usually do!
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
77. Re:Bank them by cusco · 2014-04-25 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Moh is less than half my age and 75% my weight, and can drink me under the table. He's been to Africa twice in the last ten years, Eritrea if I remember correctly.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
78. Re:Bank them by LDAPMAN · 2014-04-25 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it possible that this "narrowing of focus", if it actually exists, is a reaction to the realization of mortality? The discovery that things you felt were important when you were young are actually meaningless...
  In any case, I think your mistaken. Age does not necessarily diminish idealism and openness. I do not fear a world of mature individuals.
79. Re:Bank them by sillybilly · 2014-04-25 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  With immortals, present people with booty on the mind turned immortal, reproducing out of control, the Earth is gonna be jam packed with people like anchovies in a can. If you have to go to the bathroom you will have to fight your way through a crowd, kind of like when you try to get from one end to another at a concert, except the whole world is gonna be like that, full of people. Only stupid people would create a world like that, but the reproduction issue and immortality go hand in hand.
80. Re:Bank them by stoploss · 2014-04-25 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Think it through. Andrew Carnegie had a net worth of approximately $300 billion (in 2007 dollars). At 5% compounded annually for the past 100 years, this would become approximately 30 trillion. Since that is infeasibly large (more than our GDP), some practical limit would be hit before then. However, this was just one person.
  You mistakenly believed I was literally referring to transfer of wealth from one rich mangate to their scion. No, what I meant was more along the lines of the fact that Carnegie's wealth has been dispersed. It's not like the Kennedy dynasty model of literal generational transfer within the family, it's about dispersing accumulated wealth rather than retaining it as a compounding critical mass for "eternity" (or whatever the practical limits on immortality would be).
  People are born with literally nothing. Immortality favors the incumbents. As for your point about the cost of goods and services, in what way do you think the system could compensate for the overwhelming preponderance of wealth being held by the old? Hint: if the cost of eggs rises to $1000/dozen, that is still going to affect the working person more than the elderly magnate living on the snowball effect of compound interest. There is no free market discriminator that would effect this generational wealth transfer. The person making minimum wage is always going to be spending a larger percentage of their earnings on goods and services.
  Some Scandinavian countries attempt to fix this via a wealth tax. I shudder at the thought of encouraging people to spend more money when we already have a negative marginal propensity to save, but perhaps outlooks would become more long-range if people expect to live indefinitely.
81. Re:Bank them by SpankiMonki · 2014-04-25 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, I thought I'd seen all the Far Sides, but not that one. Got a good laugh when I searched. Thanks!
82. Re: Bank them by Rich0 · 2014-04-25 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  On making people slightly less miserable for the 99% of their lifespan that's actually worth living. And providing palliative care to people who are dying, so they won't suffer needlessly. Or simply legalizing euthanasia so people can have the freedom to choose to die with dignity.
  Spending billions to keep 90-year-olds alive for an extra month in a decrepit state using current technology does seem like a waste.
  However, this is about longevity research. I don't consider that a waste at all. Nobody knows what it will yield, but if it does work out it might end up being that people take $100 worth of pills each year and they end up being as fit as a horse at the age of 300. That certainly seems like a worthwhile expenditure.
  Research into healthcare is fundamentally different from the current practice of healthcare. Sure, they intersect in areas like clinical trials or taking samples (as in this article), but nobody spent millions of dollars trying to keep this woman alive just so that they could collect her blood. Instead, for whatever reason she naturally lived a long life and scientists are spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to understand why so that it benefits everybody.
83. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-26 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I want my body ground up, frozen into convenient blocks, then used for chum while my friends drink and fish.
  I just hope nobody snags my junk on their hook, then again I might arrange for a diver...
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
84. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-26 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  For fucks sake use something like the Neptune society.
  Traditional 'death care' employes people specifically to get your family to upgrade the pre-arrangements. They call it 'twisting' the family. These are the most slimy commissioned salespeople you will ever have the misfortune to encounter. They will find the weak/egotistical member(s) of the family and manipulate their emotions. They don't care one lick if they leave the family fighting bitterly for decades if they can make a commish.
  If the initials SCI appear anywhere around any boneyard, don't walk, run away...
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
85. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-26 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Huff lots of paint.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
86. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-26 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  You do have to be particularly dim witted to believe some things past a little real world experience.
  Idealism is _not_ a black and white good thing. Stupid idealism is a bad thing.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
87. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-26 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  That much capital would be constantly searching for someplace to invest. Rates of return would be very low and people with ideas could get funded relatively easily and at a low cost of money.
  Also note: generational money is often squandered. Most money is held by mere millionaires who's grandchildren are more then capable of squandering their inheritance. Just because somebody isn't dying doesn't mean they won't spoil their grandchildren.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
88. Re:Bank them by stoploss · 2014-04-26 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Practically speaking, the money is tantamount to power. They can dictate who gets funding. Same as today, but with the long term effect of compounding on their side.
  Investment rate of return may be lower in this scenario, but that still does not change the fact that after some point the critical mass has been achieved. Since you have an indefinite time horizon, you can invest in the SP500 and you can probably expect a real return of 2% per year after the effects of tax and inflation. That implies a doubling every 36 years.
  The existence of spendthrifts doesnt really address the issue (because not all of the wealthy are so irresponsible), just like the suggestion of very expensive goods and services does not either.
  In terms of power dynamics in politics, we are likely to see geritocracy in the US as our population ages. We *need* to increase the retirement age and reduce the amount of spending on pensions. How is this going to happen when the majority of the population is old and is willing to express their displeasure in the voting booth?
89. Re:Bank them by bhiestand · 2014-04-26 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? I would consider myself on the bleeding edge. However I have no qualms with the Amish community. Why not let conservatives live their lives, and the rest of us can move on.
  The only real risk is if one of them enters politics in which case I say grab your pitchforks.
  That's the point. Older folks vote with a vengeance. American politics are bad now, but imagine if Confederates were still a large voting bloc. If society is to continue to progress, Methuselah can't be allowed to vote.
  
  --
  SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
90. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-26 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they are the only ones with money. Same as today; nobody can dictate who gets funding.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
91. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-26 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  We've already got the untouchable pension being run like a Ponzi scheme problem.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
92. Re:Bank them by RockDoctor · 2014-04-26 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  If the initials SCI appear anywhere around any boneyard, don't walk, run away...
  Why?
  I'm guessing that you've had some horrible run-in with "Service Corporation International, an American funeral service provider" in the past ... which is peculiar. Aren't graveyards public (well, city/ state/ nation) property in your country? They are here. OK, we do have the habit of re-using lairs (grave sites) after a few decades (less if they've been leased by, for example, a family), so you get several coffins stacked one on top of the other.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
93. Re:Bank them by RockDoctor · 2014-04-26 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's an argument for making a funeral memorable. That doesn't necessarily mean making it expensive.
  If I thought about plans for my funeral, it would probably start off with a proper wake (with my corpse in attendance, of course). Then throw my stiff into a shroud with a couple of coins (for dating when discovered), throw it into a hole in the ground and stick a tree on top of it. Nail a plaque to the tree when the tree is big enough if you really want.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
94. Re:Bank them by quantaman · 2014-04-26 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's an argument for making a funeral memorable. That doesn't necessarily mean making it expensive.
  True but one of the ways to make something memorable is to add a bit of money.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
95. Re:Bank them by stoploss · 2014-04-26 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but the point remains that the overwhelming preponderance of the wealth would gravitate toward this incumbent class of "immortal" geriatrics. They aren't going to fund projects without a positive risk vs. reward balance for their investment, which reinforces their position.
96. Re:Bank them by thegarbz · 2014-04-26 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's the point. Older folks vote with a vengeance.
  Garbage. The entire world votes with vengeance. This has nothing to do with old people. It has to do with short attention spans and disproportionate media coverage given to government stuff-ups compared to successes.
97. Re:Bank them by HiThere · 2014-04-26 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  True, but that's not what I was talking about. What I'm talking about is more like getting too tired to care anymore.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
98. Re:Bank them by bhiestand · 2014-04-26 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's the point. Older folks vote with a vengeance.
  Garbage. The entire world votes with vengeance. This has nothing to do with old people. It has to do with short attention spans and disproportionate media coverage given to government stuff-ups compared to successes.
  By "vote with a vengeance" I meant "have a very high turnout rate". And yes, it has everything to do with old people. You think it's a coincidence that older folks tend to be conservative? That many [mis]remember the past with fondness and want to maintain or revert the status quo?
  
  --
  SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
99. Re:Bank them by khchung · 2014-04-26 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  There will be no point to having a "youthful" old age if we will still become more conservative as we grow old, and in our misguided attempts to stay relevant, end up preventing the world from changing, just to keep things familiar.
  So, even before the technology is available, you have already concluded it won't give real improvement to the world, so you think there is no point to this technology, so you would rather have one less change in the world, to kept things familiar to you.
  Oh, what irony. Clearly, you just demonstrated that people don't need to grow exceptionally old before they start to prevent the world from changing in order to keep things familiar.
  
  --
  Oliver.
100. Re:Bank them by RockDoctor · 2014-04-26 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, you've been listening to the advertising people again haven't you? Remember : a swift kick in the nuts to get them onto the floor, then a really thorough kicking when they're down is the only sensible response to meeting such professional liars.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
101. Re:Bank them by thegarbz · 2014-04-26 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's only a problem in a country where it's not mandatory to vote.
102. Re:Bank them by quantaman · 2014-04-26 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, you've been listening to the advertising people again haven't you? Remember : a swift kick in the nuts to get them onto the floor, then a really thorough kicking when they're down is the only sensible response to meeting such professional liars.
  Well that would make for a memorable funeral.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
103. Re:Bank them by RockDoctor · 2014-04-26 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, actually it would. I get planted and the world is improved by kicking a few advertising people to death and burying them in the same hole.
  Actually, no need to kick them to death ; they just need to be sufficiently immobilised to get them into the pit for long enough to shovel the soil in. We could be onto a winner in the funeral planning department here, if we advertise it properly.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
104. Re:Bank them by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-04-26 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  People get ideas from all sorts of places, good and bad.
  They get them from marketing, they get them from institutionalised education, from various propaganda pieces put forth by ideological factions, they get them from legislation, reading the news, and interaction with their peers. Not only do these ideas change over time but the memory of how things used to be is an absolutely vital part of understanding why things are the way they are today. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, remember?
  People aren't tainted because they happen to have lived through unpleasant periods of history (and I know I'm going to have to point out to you that the USA isn't the world), they know what to look out for next time, unlike the young who usually take whatever is spoonfed to them. People don't need to die off for society to change and science to advance, that's completely insane.
  "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light"
  If that really is the case then science as we know it is fundamentally broken and needs a complete overhaul. But of course it's not true, as evidenced by the increasingly breakneck advancements in the sciences.
  "Anyone trying to "fix" this is an active threat to humanity."
  Anyone trying to impede the advancement of science and the betterment of the lives of people because they're unable to take off their grimy and scratched ideological spectacles is a far greater threat. Really, this is just knee jerk reactionism dressed in shabby misanthropic rags.
105. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-27 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  My first employer out of college used SCI as a role model and eventually got itself acquired by SCI. It was decades ago, but nothing has changed for the better. I've met the CEO and President of SCI.
  I saw the scumbags from the inside. I attended the meetings (Har har, nobody comparison shops for funerals, we're raising prices 100% this year). Automated their office activities. Sector copied floppies, then undeleted, looking for information, when I was asked to print a file for an insurance board investigator. etc etc etc.
  I also learned that weasels will capitalize software maintenance (by calling it development) in order to make their cash flow look brilliant and get acquired.
  Never been so glad to put a place behind me. Mortgage banking was a breath of fresh air.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
106. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-27 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  The point is that is such a capital heavy society reward would be relatively difficult to find. Resulting in cheap, readily available, capital.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
107. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-27 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the idealism of the late teens early twenties is 'stupid idealism'. Especially if holding the ideal can possibly get you laid...
  People in the late teens and early twenties are particularly susceptible to social manipulation. People should not act like tweens. Tweens should grow up, turn off the MTV and start thinking for themselves.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
108. Re:Bank them by stoploss · 2014-04-27 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, have you been under a rock since 2008? Simply having huge capital reserves does not imply that it is made available by those who hold the capital. The Fed backstopped all these banks and dialed monetary policy up to 11, and what did the banks do? They sat on it.
  Capital, capital, everywhere and not a dollar to borrow. Hell, most investors were spooked out of equities for a while. They even bought negative interest Treasuries to avoid the risk.
  No matter how you construct the scenario, people are not going to accept a 50% risk losing 100% of their principal for the chance at a 0.01% upside. Ergo, venture capital wouldn't change much because the risk simply does not make sense otherwise.
109. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-27 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  The problem for capital in the scenario is that they will have to accept risk to get greater then inflation rates of return. As you say 'risk less' rates of return don't even match the official inflation numbers.
  The investment banks are looking for good credit risks. But when you've got a world wide currency bubble they're few decent credit risks out there.
  Think about it. Lots of capital. So paying assets are already worth the present value of future revenue (to the extent that can be foreseen). If you want to grow your capital you simply have to risk some of it. Buying a farm is not a realistic way to grow your money (though it might make more sense then putting the money in a bank). The farm already costs the present value of future profits.
  People losing some of their capital when they make bad investments is a feature, not a bug.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
110. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-27 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Feature, not a bug. Nice job redistributing the wealth Mr. Market. Same thing I said when the Money Store crashed, taking billions of DuPont dollars with it.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
111. Re:Bank them by HornWumpus · 2014-04-27 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Also:
  Anybody in America can theoretically open a boneyard. Cities, churches, religions, private individuals, companies, necrophile clubs.
  They have to stay on the state Cemetery Board's good side. Which effectively makes the whole deal incestuous as hell. 'Regulatory capture' has no better case study.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
112. Re:Bank them by stoploss · 2014-04-27 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  ...and we have come full circle. As you say, you have to take greater risks to beat inflation. The urge to do that wasn't really prevalent following the 2008 crash, but the real answer to avoiding the gerito-plutocracy is to prevent them from accumulating a critical mass of wealth.
  Inflation destroys stored wealth. I suggested that policy changes would be required. Wealth tax was one idea, but high inflation accomplishes the same goal. However, high inflation is even more of a blunt tool than wealth tax, and it is fraught with other consequences.
113. Re:Bank them by strikethree · 2014-04-27 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  As someone's .sig around here says: Science advances on death at a time.
  I think they attributed it to Max Planck or someone.
  While nobody wants to die, it is good that everyone does die eventually. I don't want to die!
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
114. Re:Bank them by nobodie · 2014-04-28 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  actually there is a group/tribe/culture in the Andes that ties the dearly departed into their dinner chair and lets them remain there until ..... well, let's just say for a long long time and even carries the chair with them when they go visiting. "Great gramps doesn't talk much, but his jokes are killers!"
  
  --
  Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
115. Re:Bank them by nobodie · 2014-04-28 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  My son died last year and requested that his body be placed in a plain solid wood casket, handmade by members of his community and placed in the ground without any preservation. He wanted to rot and return to the earth. His family (myself included) fully supported both the idea and the action, even though it was a bit of extra work for his wife and the community they live in, everyone felt it was a final reminder of his commitment to the earth and the process of life.... and death.
  
  --
  Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
116. Re:Bank them by RockDoctor · 2014-04-28 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Mortgage banking was a breath of fresh air.
  That is one of the most bone-flayingly polite pieces of excoriating rudeness I've seen for years. You really don't like them, SCI, do you?
  I'll have to remember to talk to Dad about whether he's comparison-shopped for funeral providers before Mum croaks. But yeah, I know what you mean on that score : my best friend died while I was at work last year and in the 4 days before I could get back to shore to help, the widow had been persuaded to sign up for about Â£6000 of various expenses. He'd got good death-in-service benefits from his work, which meant it wasn't a problem. But it really upset her when she realised that she'd been fleeced.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
117. Re:Bank them by UnknownSoldier · 2014-04-28 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  > The fact that you believe
  Show me where I used the word "belief"
  I have personal knowledge having met my higher self. NOTE: Subjective knowledge is always the beginning of objective knowledge.
  Like I said, you don' t have a clue about the 7 different types of consciousness; of which humans are only 1 type;
  Get back to me when you actually learn the difference between the subconsciousness* and normal consciousness.
  * The sub has been incorrectly labeled; should be called super.
118. Re:Bank them by UnknownSoldier · 2014-04-28 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  > I guess you have some insight that supposedly proves that the human brain is not merely an extremely powerful calculating machine
  You'll have that proof after you are dead and you realize that your consciousness is not constrained by time; i.e. it exists before you had a human body, and exists longer after the human body is long gone.
  In the mean-time, learn to meditate, and eventually you'll learn about The Source.
119. Re:Bank them by UnknownSoldier · 2014-04-28 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  You actually would have better luck if you learned to listen and dialogue with your own body, mind, and higher self, instead of pretending someone else has all your answers.
  I'm not so arrogant as to assume to tell you "how" to do this (aka Religion); you need to find what works best for you. If you actively seek enlightenment then eventually you will become aware of the 7 levels of consciousness. Think of it more as a sign saying "Reductionists, Materialists, Thesists, and Atheists are spiritual idiots -- they lack knowledge. You are significantly much, much, much more then your physical body. It would behoove you to find out just how much more."
  Proof: Time, Numbers, and Concepts are meta-physical. All which your mind is able to manipulate. "Know Thyself" is the beginning of Wisdom and Knowledge; again, consciousness is the foundation, not matter.
  Recommended watching: The Primacy of Consciousness - Peter Russell
  * https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
She was 115 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 02:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.
1. Re:She was 115 by Rob+the+Bold · 2014-04-25 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.
  Ya. That first sentence could have been written: "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005 at age 115, she was the oldest woman in the world."
  Typing another 10 characters wouldn't have killed the submitter. And it would've spared many Slashdotters from puzzling through a tedious run-on sentence in the Wikipedia article.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
2. Re:She was 115 by porkchop_d_clown · 2014-04-25 10:26 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sorry, sire. Shall I peel you another grape?
  
  --
  Clear, Dark Skies
3. Re:She was 115 by thegarbz · 2014-04-25 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Typing another 10 characters wouldn't have killed the submitter.
  The submitter's job is to come up with interesting articles. What Slashdot needs to do is employ an editor.
This is good news... by wjcofkc · 2014-04-25 02:13 · Score: 1

Through science, humans excel at overcoming limits. I'm sure the limit to life for a standard human involves a lot more factors, but this gives us one significant wall to smash down.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
1. Re:This is good news... by wjcofkc · 2014-04-25 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  I shall quote myself:
  
  I'm sure the limit to life for a standard human involves a lot more factors, but this gives us one significant wall to smash down.
  Only reading the summary of an article and not the article itself is one thing. Only reading half of a one line post is a new low. Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
2. Re:This is good news... by jeffmflanagan · 2014-04-25 03:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  > Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.
  
  You don't understand that super-longevity would be bad both due to over-population and entrenched interests that will not allow progress, or you don't understand how hard a problem life extension is?
3. Re:This is good news... by CanHasDIY · 2014-04-25 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.
  I can think of a few reasons:
  - living a long time is one thing; living a long time old and infirm is another.
  - if significant numbers of people stop dying, and more people are being born everyday, on a planet with finite resources.. you see the problem.
  - wealth envy
  - other reasons that do not immediately spring to mind
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:This is good news... by wjcofkc · 2014-04-25 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  Over population? Space, the final frontier...with humans genetically and technologically augmented to live off world in varied conditions. I put forward that many would take this to task. It is not often said here that we need to move a lot of the population off world for the species to survive. That has to happen somehow and sometime or we will die.
  
  Also, at the pace that the science of super-longevity is unfolding, it is in parallel to, if not in tandem with, technologies that will allow ourselves to be freed from our biological and most importantly, cognitive limitations. We have reached a point where we can scarcely guess at scientific and technological advancements and achievements a few years in advance. In a matter of decades, it will no longer makes sense to bother guessing at a point we will not be able to see past. All human problems have constructive solutions.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
5. Re:This is good news... by wjcofkc · 2014-04-25 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I address most of that in my replies to other replies to my post in this thread. Rather than quoting myself on all of it, I will simply quote this from my last reply: All human problems have constructive solutions.
  
  If that's not enough then read the all of my replies.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
6. Re:This is good news... by CanHasDIY · 2014-04-25 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  In fairness, you didn't ask for solutions, you just said you didn't understand the pessimism.
  I was trying to help you with that.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:This is good news... by wjcofkc · 2014-04-25 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's fair. Point taken.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
8. Re:This is good news... by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-04-25 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  You don't understand that super-longevity would be bad both due to over-population
  A society wealthy enough to afford "super-longevity" would be wealthy enough that their problem is not overpopulation but UNDERpopulation.
  Even without "super-longevity" we're already looking at a declining world population within the century.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
9. Re:This is good news... by Megol · 2014-04-25 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  And you don't understand that the parts of the world where there is enough wealth to artificially increase life spans is also not overpopulated and in fact in most cases have a shrinking population. In many parts of the world this is already leading to several problems in society including caring for the elderly - improvements in the understanding of the aging diseases which is a requirement for "super-longevity" will also improve this situation.
  People that don't have enough money to get their malaria medication will not have enough money to spend on stem cell therapy. Sad? Yes. But reality.
10. Re:This is good news... by Lumpy · 2014-04-25 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, we are doomed to go instinct any day now, babies are a rare thing.
  http://www.worldometers.info/
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
11. Re:This is good news... by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-04-25 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  We are doomed to have a significant population decline as people become wealthy enough that they don't need umpteen kids to care for them in their declining years.
  And don't forget that if you give a woman a chance at a decent job outside the home, most will take it. And women who work outside the home tend to have fewer children.
  Plus there's the whole safe, easy birth control thing.
  And did you know that the population of the USA is already declining when immigration (legal and otherwise) is excluded? As is most of western Europe?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
12. Re:This is good news... by mrex · 2014-04-25 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Overly pessimistic.
  Yes, population could soar if nobody died. But so could our knowledge and capabilities, as we could stop losing gobs of it through the most experienced among us randomly logging out of life.
13. Re:This is good news... by cusco · 2014-04-25 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us know really old people. It's not much of a life.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
14. Re:This is good news... by Sarius64 · 2014-04-25 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Man, if I got the 25 body back for a long while I could easily spend 50 years just studying natural sciences in the wild. Wealth means shit when you have health.
15. Re:This is good news... by mr_mischief · 2014-04-25 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  If we could live to be 500 then the generation ships have to worry a lot less about inbreeding. ;-)
16. Re:This is good news... by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose if it was a daily dose that kept you youthful, the drug companies would be shitting their pants in delight at being able to sell it to an ever-growing number of people, too.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Quantity of life. by alen · 2014-04-25 02:16 · Score: 1

say the geeks who are always buying computer and electronic parts
but that's not consuming
Not an upper limit by Ambassador+Kosh · 2014-04-25 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative

If you live long enough most of your cells end up dieing or critically damaged by the formation of inclusion bodies caused from misfolded proteins. As far as we can tell the cells are otherwise fine they are just slowly accumulating that damage over time. This is also what alzheimer's is. The problem is that misfolded proteins are kind of contagious to other proteins in the cell and that is what leads to the inclusion bodies.
We are making progress though on being able to clean out the inclusion bodies. Your cells do have the ability to take them apart but somehow they end up not doing it. Give us some time though and we will fix this problem also and clean out these inclusion bodies in all of your cells and then your cells will work much better.
The other issue we need to fix is activating telomerase to extend our telomeres. The basic issue is that natural selection does not really select for anything after reproductive age so humans are filled with a bunch of small defects and we are getting better at repairing the damage. I really look forward to what can be done with CRISPR-CAS9 to repair DNA damage and replaced damaged genes.

--
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
1. Re:Not an upper limit by SuperKendall · 2014-04-25 02:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  One solution would also be to stop people reproducing until after a certain age.
  I look forward to the movie based on this premise, Logan's Booty Run.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
2. Re:Not an upper limit by rasmusbr · 2014-04-25 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, I know an easier way. Saw it on television. You find one of these pale coldish people and have them bite you.
  There is a major side effect, but if you're a true /. person you'll hardly ever notice...
3. Re:Not an upper limit by Opportunist · 2014-04-25 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  People dumb enough to be duped into believing some kind of faith that tells them they're going to be "renewed" being exploded to make room for the rest... I could start to like that concept.
  Give it some time and religion or similar mental defects are eliminated purely by evolution.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Not an upper limit by monkeyFuzz · 2014-04-25 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ever stop to consider the implications of success in the quest for immortality on a planet with finite resources, let alone the social and political consequences of control over who will drink form said fountain of youth? We are already approaching the carrying capacity of the planet within a generation. If anything we could probably use some chlorine in the gene pool and better resource management.
5. Re:Not an upper limit by Zorpheus · 2014-04-25 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  There must be mechanisms that can stop all these age-related degradations. Otherwise oocytes would get older with each generation of humans.
6. Re:Not an upper limit by interkin3tic · 2014-04-25 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  shRNA didn't "pan out" in the sense that it didn't immediately seem effective for therapeutic purposes. As far as research goes, it's extremely useful. In fact, I'd argue it's more useful to research than crispr can be, it's a more versatile tool. Furthermore, research into using shRNA fell out of vogue with the pharmecuticals: that doesn't mean it's dead.
7. Re:Not an upper limit by jellomizer · 2014-04-25 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well they get a mix of DNA to make a new person.
  After the egg gets fertilized, it gains a new unique genetic structure to both the parents. So in essence it is new again.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
8. Re:Not an upper limit by Sarius64 · 2014-04-25 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Lolz need mod points!
9. Re:Not an upper limit by Zorpheus · 2014-04-25 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  But these inclusions of misfolded proteins would agglomerate over the generations. The telomers do not become shorter because of telomerase. There must also be mechanisms to solve the problem of misfolded proteins.
10. Re:Not an upper limit by JerryLove · 2014-04-25 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  So all my cells come from a single cell that was present in my mother at the time of her birth having all come from a single cell present in her mother at the time of her birth, etc, etc.
  Because cells reproduce by binary fission, both "child cells" are the original cell. Therefore, every cell on the planet is as old as the first cell (unless cell genesis occurred more than once).
  Anyone who asserts, therefore, that cells have a finite and resolute reproduction amount or lifespan is clearly wrong. Some individual cells may introduce mechanisms that age them (I'm sure many do); but all existing cells are billions of years old.
11. Re:Not an upper limit by Ambassador+Kosh · 2014-04-25 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  This would work but it would take millions of years. Natural selection is very slow and it is likely the consequences would be a LOT of genetic problems in the mean time. Things like down syndrome are caused by a nondisjunction during chromosome separation. There become more common as eggs age. By making everyone have babies later it would very slowly select against it but the consequences would be severe.
  Lets just go the genetic engineering route. It is much faster and far less brutal.
  
  --
  Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
12. Re:Not an upper limit by Ambassador+Kosh · 2014-04-25 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  They don't build up over generations because they are part of a single cell. When you make a new person you make new cells for them and so this stuff does not spread between generations. I just ends up as a kind of finite cap on how long a single cell can survive because of these problems.
  
  --
  Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
13. Re:Not an upper limit by minogully · 2014-04-25 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  What about in organisms that do asexual reproduction? How do they generate a new genetic structure for their offspring?
14. Re:Not an upper limit by Zorpheus · 2014-04-26 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Cells form by division of other cells, they are not "made".
  Though over many cell divisions these inclusions should get diluted. So I guess this is only an issue for cells that do not grow and divide any more.
Strange conclusion by geogob · 2014-04-25 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find the conclusion that there is an absolute limit to the human life span because at some point the stem cells producing white blood cell all die out quite strange.
A few centuries ago, we could have concluded that there is an absolute limit to human life span because at some point someone can't eat anymore while he lost all his teeth. Any similar logical train of though could lead to the same conclusion.
And now, what if you find out why the cells die and manage to prevent it? Then the next thing that kills us will limit our life span, until we find out how to fix that as well. Absolute limits are difficult to set.
1. Re:Strange conclusion by operagost · 2014-04-25 02:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm going to get ahead of the game and work on that "heat death of the universe" limit.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
2. Re:Strange conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  You'll also note that TFA doesn't imply this at all, it's the submitter's own work. Far from talking about absolute limits, TFA says:
  Tantalisingly, Holstege says the results raise the possibility of rejuvenating ageing bodies with injections of stem cells saved from birth or early life.
3. Re:Strange conclusion by cayce · 2014-04-25 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  After that you just become Galactus.
4. Re:Strange conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  turn the thermostat down and wear socks to bed duh.
5. Re:Strange conclusion by Qzukk · 2014-04-25 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  Multivac is on it.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
6. Re:Strange conclusion by GameboyRMH · 2014-04-25 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  I hope it has sufficient data for a meaningful answer!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
7. Re:Strange conclusion by kumanopuusan · 2014-04-25 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I like your argument and agree with your conclusions, but dentures are millennia old at least. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.u...
  
  --
  Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
8. Re:Strange conclusion by pariah99 · 2014-04-25 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think that we can all agree that, by your logic, we should limit our speculation for human life span down to, say, the eventual heat death of the universe. That should narrow our expectations down quite a bit.
9. Re:Strange conclusion by interkin3tic · 2014-04-25 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  A limit need not be absolutely unbreakable to be a limit like the speed of light in a vacuum. With your example, losing one's teeth WAS a limit on lifespan. It's no longer a limit though because we navigated past it. TFA is saying one of the next limits may be running out of stem cells. No one is saying you can't possibly replenish stem cells.
10. Re:Strange conclusion by wisnoskij · 2014-04-25 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they might of came up with different reasons, but the absolute maximum age has been constant for all of recorded history. The ancient Egyptians might not of known about stem cells but they topped out at a few years over 100 just like the rest of us (though I am sure a more of their hundred year olds were eating paste in the end).
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
11. Re:Strange conclusion by kasperd · 2014-04-25 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to get ahead of the game and work on that "heat death of the universe" limit.
  Yeah, we need to find a workaround for that limitation sooner or later. If we don't, it will be the end of mankind. We do have a few other challenges to work on before that though. It would suck to find a solution to the death of the universe only to have life on Earth wiped out be a meteor before the other solution could be implemented.
  
  --
  
  Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
12. Re:Strange conclusion by Andrio · 2014-04-25 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  If you ask Google Now how to reverse entropy, it has the appropriate response.
  Best easter egg ever.
  
  --
  The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
13. Re:Strange conclusion by DVega · 2014-04-25 04:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A few centuries ago, we could have concluded that there is an absolute limit to human life span because at some point someone can't eat anymore while he lost all his teeth.
  
  Do you know about soup?
  
  --
  MOD THE CHILD UP!
14. Re:Strange conclusion by quantaman · 2014-04-25 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the claim is that it's an absolute limit, but rather evidence towards a fuzzy limit.
  I think the reasoning is thus. We evolved to increase fitness into our mid-twenties, hold it steadily until our mid-thirties, then we start gradually declining. Somewhere around the mid to late sixties we gain the potential to start going downhill really quickly.
  To me that indicates that there's some evolutionary pressure keeping us functional until our mid to late sixties, but anything after that is a kind of happy accident. None of the systems are designed to go on indefinitely, the joints wear out, telomeres run out, arteries harden, nerves die, stem cells die, cancers spread, etc.
  Basically everything is designed to last to 65, for most people a few critical things really break down by 85, but no one really seems to make it much past 115. It just seems that even with every component running at its best there's so many things that can't go any further. The blood cells might be one of those factors, but there could be dozens of others that wear out around the same time and are just as fatal.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
Re:Quantity of life. by fredprado · 2014-04-25 02:28 · Score: 1

You are right. Living in caves and letting mother nature provide for our needs is the best way! Everything else is superfluous and should be put away.

You go ahead I will be right there! Trust me!
Oh, so somebody's an expert? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 02:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Look, if you know what you're talking about, I'm not sure you fit in here....
1. Re:Oh, so somebody's an expert? by Kjella · 2014-04-25 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  He's just here as a Vorlon observer, being a smart ass is part of the job but he needs to work on being more cryptic. Oh and if we actually discover the formula for immortality, duck before the fireworks start.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
2. Re:Oh, so somebody's an expert? by Kinthelt · 2014-04-25 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Knowing is a three-edged sword.
  
  --
  "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
3. Re:Oh, so somebody's an expert? by Dragonslicer · 2014-04-25 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Glad to know that I'm not the only one who is really scared by the Vorlon talking about biological modifications. After all, it worked out so well last time.
Who Wants To Live Forever by IgnitusBoyone · 2014-04-25 02:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Who dares to love forever,
When love must die.
---Queen

--
Momento Mori
1. Re:Who Wants To Live Forever by Opportunist · 2014-04-25 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Me.
  Next question?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Who Wants To Live Forever by PPH · 2014-04-25 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  There can be ony one.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:Who Wants To Live Forever by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-04-25 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  And here I thought I was the only one that liked that song.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
4. Re:Who Wants To Live Forever by mrex · 2014-04-25 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Some are like water, some are like the heat
  Some are a melody and some are the beat
  Sooner or later they all will be gone
  Why don't they stay young?
  ---Alphaville
5. Re:Who Wants To Live Forever by maroberts · 2014-04-25 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Highlander is an excellent movie. Where else could we have a Scots actor playing a Spaniard and a French actor playing a Scotsman?
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
6. Re:Who Wants To Live Forever by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  The poem is never done
  The music never ends
  Not so long as you remember the words
  Not so long as echoes remain
  ---Andromeda script
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
7. Re:Who Wants To Live Forever by Opportunist · 2014-04-25 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Me.
  Next question?
  (I can do that all day)
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Millionaires" - heh by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2014-04-25 02:33 · Score: 2

>> Millionaires will live forever
Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)
1. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-04-25 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  >> Millionaires will live forever
  Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)
  Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years.
2. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by danbert8 · 2014-04-25 03:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Where they hell are you getting 5%API right now in a retirement disbursing account? At retirement you are looking at money markets for most of your assets and you'll be lucky to get 2%. A million isn't enough to retire on for most people anymore. Millionaires aren't the 1%, they are the majority of the middle class.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
3. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2014-04-25 03:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  >> Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years
  Most advisors recommend calculating return at 4% (not that you can get that today in CDs)...and trying to avoid completely eroding the principal in twenty years. By the time you get through that math, you end up with the popular "rule-of-twenty". E.g.,
  http://www.getrichslowly.org/b...
  http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/2...
4. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-04-25 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Where they hell are you getting 5%API right now in a retirement disbursing account? At retirement you are looking at money markets for most of your assets and you'll be lucky to get 2%. A million isn't enough to retire on for most people anymore. Millionaires aren't the 1%, they are the majority of the middle class.
  If you are retired with a million dollars in your retirement account, one would hope it isn't sitting in a money market. Even AAA+ corporate, munis and treasuries will get you around 4% today and are considered safe. In addition, you would keep some of your funds in the stock market, maybe 20%. 5% would probably be low.
5. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by Jason+Levine · 2014-04-25 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wait. Millionaires are the middle class now? *Looks at bank account which is FAR from $1 million* I guess I can't afford to be in the middle class anymore.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
6. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by SydShamino · 2014-04-25 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  At retirement. Sum of assets, likely including home equity which you could (in theory) draw from in retirement via reverse mortgage.
  $250,000 house, fully paid off (you probably bought it for $175,000 30 years prior and paid $375,000 for it over 30 years including interest)
  $500,000 401k after diligently saving since you paid off your college loans around age 30
  $250,000 in IRA, Roth IRA, misc. stocks and bonds, bullion, etc. which you stashed away whenever you could
  If you don't have that and are under 70, you probably shouldn't retire and instead plan for a Walmart greeter career.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
7. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody is a 8%er and doesn't want to admit it....
  you are NOT middle class.
8. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by danbert8 · 2014-04-25 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Logic fail if people with $1,000,000 dollar net worth are in the middle class that does not exclude you from the middle class if you have less than $1,000,000 net worth. Also, middle class has nothing to do with net worth, it's based on standard of living. People can have a negative net worth and still be considered in the middle class and someone whose stocks are worth tens of millions can be living in the middle class as well. I would bet that greater than 50% (i.e. the majority) of retirement aged people who have a middle class lifestyle have a greater than $1,000,000 net worth.
  The way things are going, I fully expect to need $5,000,000 to retire with a middle class lifestyle. The government is printing money pretty darn fast. It can be hard to keep up.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
9. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by vux984 · 2014-04-25 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you are retired with a million dollars in your retirement account, one would hope it isn't sitting in a money market. Even AAA+ corporate, munis and treasuries will get you around 4% today and are considered safe. In addition, you would keep some of your funds in the stock market, maybe 20%. 5% would probably be low.
  And if the stock market takes even a temporary crash, what then? You are suddenly drawing down your capital, and now next year you've got that much less capital earning interest so even if the market recovers you're still short. If it takes 3 or 4 years to recover your down a couple hundred thousand from where you started.
  Meanwhile you are fighting inflation at say 3%.
  Because you are LIVING off the interest, you cannot weather temporary market setbacks like you can during the saving stages of your life. Even a short term drop a genuine concern.
  Retirement planning scenarios have to be CONSERVATIVE. If you do better in retirement great -- enjoy your blackjack, hookers, and blow, but you have to plan for things not going particular well with the economy.
10. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by phantomfive · 2014-04-25 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Even AAA+ corporate, munis and treasuries will get you around 4% today and are considered safe.
  But they aren't safe. Munis are good because you can get them tax free sometimes, but they are not safe.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
11. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-04-26 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  If you are retired with a million dollars in your retirement account, one would hope it isn't sitting in a money market. Even AAA+ corporate, munis and treasuries will get you around 4% today and are considered safe. In addition, you would keep some of your funds in the stock market, maybe 20%. 5% would probably be low.
  And if the stock market takes even a temporary crash, what then? You are suddenly drawing down your capital, and now next year you've got that much less capital earning interest so even if the market recovers you're still short. If it takes 3 or 4 years to recover your down a couple hundred thousand from where you started.
  Meanwhile you are fighting inflation at say 3%.
  Because you are LIVING off the interest, you cannot weather temporary market setbacks like you can during the saving stages of your life. Even a short term drop a genuine concern.
  Retirement planning scenarios have to be CONSERVATIVE. If you do better in retirement great -- enjoy your blackjack, hookers, and blow, but you have to plan for things not going particular well with the economy.
  80% fixed income, 20% equity is conservative. As such, even a 20% decline in the stock market only equates to a 4% drop in your retirement fund. Also, if there is a 20% drop, then would be the time to shift some of the fixed into equity to ride recovery. You are free, however, to put your money in a money market earning 0.7% if you like, but then at the 3% inflation you are worried about, you will be loosing 2% of your value each year which will severely limit how much you can withdrawal and for how long.
  Now officially, I am not suggesting that anybody rely on the above for investment advice. Your situation and results will obviously be different than anybody else and you need to rely on your own investment advisor. The only investment advice I offer is to buy low and sell high.
12. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-04-26 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Even AAA+ corporate, munis and treasuries will get you around 4% today and are considered safe.
  But they aren't safe. Munis are good because you can get them tax free sometimes, but they are not safe.
  Depends on the muni, but technically, you are correct. All investments involve some risk, even US Treasuries. Then again, if the US government went belly up, most other investments would probably be worthless, too.
13. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by vux984 · 2014-04-26 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  80% fixed income, 20% equity is conservative. As such, even a 20% decline in the stock market only equates to a 4% drop in your retirement fund.
  Not disagreeing there. I'm just arguing that basing your retirement on a reliable 5% yield on a conservative portfolio is not sane.
  You are free, however, to put your money in a money market earning 0.7% if you like
  Of course I'm not advocating that. :) I'm advocating a mix similar to what you suggested -- but I'm saying you should plan to be able to live off a 3% yield, not 5%, so you should aim to have enough in the bank at retirement that at 3% your minimum lifestyle goals are still met.
  earning 0.7% if you like, but then at the 3% inflation you are worried about, you will be loosing 2% of your value each year which will severely limit how much you can withdrawal and for how long.
  Sadly even at 5% yield with 3% inflation you are being gradually screwed. With say 1$M in the bank, taking 50k per year out your capital will be preserved, but the buying power of that 50k will steadily decline. Literally... year 1 you have 50k in buying power; year 2 the same 50k withdrawl is only 48.5k in buying power... 10 years down the road that 50k is going to be miles below what you need; so in order to retain your buying pwoer you are doing to be drawing down ever more capital each year, even at 5% yield. You basically need 8% yield to retain 50k "buying power" against 3% inflation without eating into your equity. And that's absurd... so you need a LOT more than a million dollars if you want to have a hope of living a 20 year retirement and leaving anything approaching a million bucks to the kids (Before taxes.)
Re:Quantity of life. by OakDragon · 2014-04-25 02:36 · Score: 1

I always listen when people call me "dullard".

--
Dark Reflection
longevity worth it? by Ogive17 · 2014-04-25 02:36 · Score: 2

I don't know about how anyone else feels but I do not necessarily want long life unless I can maintain my youthfulness. I'm 34 now and still stay active but obviously my body is already on the decline (comparing myself to myself at age 24). I do not expect to stay in peak condition when I'm age 80.. but I also don't want to live 40 more years if I have to rely on someone else to do standard tasks

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
1. Re:longevity worth it? by Xoltri · 2014-04-25 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  You know, it is possible to be in better shape at 34 than you were at 24...
  
  --
  -Xoltri
2. Re:longevity worth it? by jeffmflanagan · 2014-04-25 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  Correct. At 47, I'm in better shape than I was at 27. Avoid sugar and alcohol, keep carbs to a minimum, and get some exercise, and you can feel great even in your 60s. Much of our decline over time is just due to self-destructive behavior. If you're inactive and eat poorly, you're going to have a bad time.
3. Re:longevity worth it? by Ogive17 · 2014-04-25 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  You totally missed the point. Sure, medicine can extend my life, advances have been doing that for centuries.
  
  Just because medicine can keep my body alive an additional 20 years does not mean I would welcome that if my mind is gone or if my joints are all shot or if I have to rely on a mountain of daily pills or therapy to get going. I look at it as a Quality vs Quantity of life.
  
  Of course I want to live a long time and experience many things. I will do what I can to extend this to the point where I can do it independently.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
4. Re:longevity worth it? by Ogive17 · 2014-04-25 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a question of giving up and wanting to curl up in the corner to die. If I can't sustain a reasonable quality of life in those "extra" years aided by modern medicine, I don't think it would be something I would want to do. Living to 100 but having to spend the last 10 years being tended to by a live-in nurse.. I don't see that as worth it. Once I lose my ability to be independent I do not want to artifically extend my life.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
5. Re:longevity worth it? by aicrules · 2014-04-25 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Avoid ... alcohol
  But then longevity isn't worth it!
6. Re:longevity worth it? by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-04-25 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  Today is my 32nd birthday and I'm in better shape than at any other point in my life.
  
  That's more an indication of how out of shape I was in my earlier life than anything else though.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
7. Re:longevity worth it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Say you die when you're 80 and 2 years later they invent a pill that restores your youthfulness, and can prolong it indefinitely. Death is, for all intents and purposes, irreversible. Aging might not be. That chance is enough to make me want to stay alive as long as I possibly can, no matter what condition I'm in.
8. Re:longevity worth it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  My parents do this. Always talking about what food to avoid, what they can and can't eat, and having to plan their food down to the minute lest my mother faint due to starving herself (it's happened a few times). They're living quite long lives. One day I took a timer and figured out they spend 4 hours a day worrying about food. Since they're only conscious 16 hours a day, that's 25% of their life spent DEDICATED just to worrying about what they'll eat.
  Based on what they tell my fat ass, that I'll die at 60, I'm ahead of the game, because this comment is the only worry about food I have today--I have more free time than them dedicated to doing the things I love, and the best part of it is that it's during the prime of my life.
  I'll probably lose some weight in the future, but fuck me if I'm going to try to eke out another 5 years of life by spending 20 years worrying about what I stuff in my craw.
9. Re:longevity worth it? by EmagGeek · 2014-04-25 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  I feel the same way. I am 40 and believe me it is a huge difference from even 35... In the past 5 years I have noticed many changes, not the least of which that my athletic endurance and strength have declined noticeably. It is also much much harder to keep weight off - MUCH harder.
  I've always had good nutrition habits, and I honestly don't know what I could do without getting on drugs to make up for the loss...
  I really don't want to be old, but I am sure attitudes change along with the body, even if they're lagging. My dad is 75 and still has a very active and full life, but just in different ways that he had in his younger years.
  I hate the thought of being dependent upon others just as much as you, though, and honestly I can't understand why we don't accept allowing people to determine when they check out.
  We could be having lavish parties and celebrating our lives with our loved ones and then take a nice, painless trip to the grave. Instead, we have to hide our emotional turmoil from those who love us, and ultimately go somewhere and take our own lives by monumental force, and put our loved ones through their own turmoil, and all because we have a big overbearing government that doesn't want to lose tax revenue.
10. Re:longevity worth it? by Lumpy · 2014-04-25 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  And it's also wrong. a glass of red wine daily has proven benefits.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
11. Re:longevity worth it? by HeckRuler · 2014-04-25 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  huh. What does thinner skin feel like?
Re:So put more stem cells into people. by Opportunist · 2014-04-25 02:38 · Score: 2

I'm not so sure that prolongs your life. If history is any indicator, such things usually led to significantly shortened lifespans. Usually involving mobs with pitchforks.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Quantity of life. by Opportunist · 2014-04-25 02:39 · Score: 1

That's not consuming. That's ... that's ... investing!
At one time in the future, these gadgets will be really rare and expensive.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:People don't need to live forever by aicrules · 2014-04-25 03:25 · Score: 1

I love you.
Very Old News: Genesis 6:3 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-25 03:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Genesis 6:3 says in the New Living Translation:
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."
1. Re:Very Old News: Genesis 6:3 by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Jeanne Calment
  Oops--I accidentally all over the Scriptures. Sorry 'bout that.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
2. Re:Very Old News: Genesis 6:3 by quantaman · 2014-04-25 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Genesis 6:3 says in the New Living Translation:
  Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."
  So we don't get to live forever because God finds us really damn annoying.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
News? by steeleyeball · 2014-04-25 03:43 · Score: 1

How is the failure of the immune system in old age news. Hasn't it been obvious for millenia.
The conclusion is valid by aepervius · 2014-04-25 03:46 · Score: 1

Even a few century ago you could live without teeth so your analogy isn't even good. I have no idea where you got that. I never heard also anybody pretending that. But ever tried to live without any blood white cell whatsoever ? You can't. The environment fungi, bacteria, virus, and even your own bacteria will kill you. Quickly. in short order. Why do you think "bubble baby" need to be utterly separated from their environment baring grafts ? Why do you think people with AIDS dies ? That's not the HIV which kill them but the opportunistic infection which do them in without immune system.

Now the argument is, can we completely remove that problem ? If we cannot then the lifespan of a human is limited, even if we can extend it by slowing that problem down. At this point in time, with the technology we have and the biology as we know it, the conclusion is valid.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Re:Quantity of life. by BiIl_the_Engineer · 2014-04-25 04:21 · Score: 1

Living within your means is different from not having anything that pleases you. It seems many people have been brainwashed into believing they need to buy every shiny new gadget, toy, and car in order to be happy.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
So they know what to work on.... by Lumpy · 2014-04-25 05:12 · Score: 2

It seems that if they can figure out how to reduce or stop the "stem cell exhaustion" then you probably could significantly extend a persons lifespan, problem is you need to do it early in life. the old rich guy will be too late, he will stay old rich guy. But start with a newborn and suddenly things change. if you can even reduce the exhaustion rate by a tiny 20% at birth, you are looking at a 20 year lifespan extension from a 100 year life, not a lot but the benefits would be throughout the life. the no longer healing as well when you hit 35, the feeling not as fast when you hit 40... etc.. Imagine the regenerative abilities you had as a kid, deep nasty cut healed within days, at 45 a deep nasty cut heals in a few weeks. extending the super healing of the body from stopping in the teens to stopping in the late 20's would be remarkable.
And that is if you only find a way to slow the burnout, if you found a way to have stem cells regenerate themselves, I dont think you found immortality, but you would have 70 year olds with the body of 40 year olds but with 30 years more wisdom.
My question is what new diseases will we discover? I am sure there are things lurking that we call harmless, but maybe have a 70 year gestation period....

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:So they know what to work on.... by euroq · 2014-04-28 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  What if the telomere depletion rate is how your body knows when puberty begins? If we start with a newborn, you may see people who don't start puberty until they're 20 years old! Ha!
  
  --
  Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
So, bathing in virgin's blood... by FishOuttaWater · 2014-04-25 05:29 · Score: 1, Funny

not such a bad idea after all?
So is the Master by maroberts · 2014-04-25 07:03 · Score: 1

... a bit of a Tardy-is joke.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Blood donors shortening their lifespans? by al0ha · 2014-04-25 07:44 · Score: 1

Wow, the fact the stem cells that regenerate blood cells wear out is something as a blood donor I'd not considered. According to this article wearing out has nothing to do with age and everything to do with the total amount of use per each stem cell.

I've always donated blood and most recently been donating red cells which takes twice the number of cells as a regular blood donation, but now I wonder if I am shortening my own life span by helping complete strangers who mean nothing to me? I am all for helping humanity, but not really at a profound cost to myself. I'd sure like to see a study of lifespan as it relates to long term blood donors, and until I do I am not sure I will be donating any more blood.

--
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
Re:So put more stem cells into people. by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:31 · Score: 1

Elizabeth_Bathory
She actually got bricked into a house and lived for another 4 years after that. Lived to be 54, which was pretty good for the 1500s, wasn't it? Unless you were thinking of someone else.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Denial is by TangoMargarine · 2014-04-25 09:33 · Score: 1

About $180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream, actually. Just ask Magic Johnson.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:So put more stem cells into people. by cusco · 2014-04-25 10:17 · Score: 1

54 wasn't bad for the time, but in no way unusual. The reason that the life expectancy was so low was the high rate of child mortality dragging the average down. Almost all of the increase in life expectancy over the last century is from the reduction of child mortality rates. Example: My parents-in-law in Peru had 13 children, 5 of whom died before 4 years of age. If my wife and her siblings all live to 80 years of age the average life expectancy of her family is only 50.15 years. Generally if a child managed to live to live through the teenage years they could expect to make it to their 50s.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Not quite right. by porkchop_d_clown · 2014-04-25 10:37 · Score: 1

Your blood doesn't contain stem cells. The stem cells are in your bone marrow. They stay there, creating blood cells for you. Blood cells do not divide or reproduce. (I don't know why...)

--
Clear, Dark Skies
1. Re:Not quite right. by samwichse · 2014-04-26 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but your stem cells must divide additional times to replace the lost blood. Hence, it may be possibly blood donation is shortening our lives.
Only two stem cells by manu0601 · 2014-04-25 13:09 · Score: 1

Only two active stem cells. But perhaps there were more inactive (that is, less sensitive to growth factors) stem cells ready to start working?
*NEED* to retire sooner and create jobRe:Bank them by cboslin · 2014-04-28 07:02 · Score: 1

In terms of power dynamics in politics, we are likely to see geritocracy in the US as our population ages. We *need* to increase the retirement age and reduce the amount of spending on pensions. How is this going to happen when the majority of the population is old and is willing to express their displeasure in the voting booth?

We *need* to do things smarter, differently, better and not be insane!
Totally agree with your first paragraph, as we have seen since 1980, those with money, will always act in their own self interest to the detriment of the rest of society. Yes they control the money, thanks to Citizens United vs FEC they control politics via their aggressive political contributions and yes they most certainly can control who does and who does not get money. What you would expect when 10% have 90% of the wealth in this country.
And lets not get started with the pollution created by those 10%, google Coal Ash in Detriot, Duke Industires in NC and the Nuclear Power industry...hint if you have to re-cask every 50 - 100 years, no way in heck is it ever going to be cheaper.
As weather control scientist have always warned us, 'there will be winners and their will be losers', this thought actually applies to all industries. And those industries have no incentive to police themselves, therefore lack of funding for government agencies that do police them, can only hurt the majority of any population. Oh could I go one, but enough, as many refuse to admit how all these factors are inter-related. Quantitative Methods baby, its all inter-related, you are cheated when they convince you that somehow these many things are not related.
I have to take issue with your last paragraph, quoted above, not with the first statement, we see that today in politics...so the first sentence I agree with you.
Rather I take issue with the next sentence. Current retirement age is already too high, specifically to reduce the likelihood that one collects on their retirement. Think outside the box, if the 10% can prevent you from collecting on your promised/guarranteed retirement long enough, they will find a way to rob you of it...or better yet, let you die off so that they can get at it later once you are gone. Of course if you control your retirement yourself, that is smart and prevents this.
Now don't get me wrong, the idea of retiring on a 'fixed' income is insane. All one has to do is look around and see that it is not working, never has, never will work. To assume that your outcome will be different is insane. Thus you need an income stream, no matter what.
Instead of increasing retirement age, how about teaching kids how to invest correctly, 'sanely' and 'carefully'...just google Jim Cramer and you can learn.
Teach your kids how to be self sufficient, which means capable of generating their own power (electricity and fuel) and maintaining food (aqua-ponics) self sufficiency, so that what meager wealth they are able to save via investments will not be eroded by the 10% via their control over everything, especially food.

A swamp weed, like a cotton-tail type of plant can be grown and processed by an individual at lower than $1.27 per gallon, just need a diseal engine! I know a guy doing it, so yes it can be done!
Solor and wind generated electricity to power an electric vehicle, does not need power from the grid. Just don't attempt to patent anything or sell anything as others have been prevented, just do it. How many of the over 3000 'secretized' energy patents might make one self sufficient? If 10% of them work...
The idea of pushing the retirement age, yet higher, is insane. This is what politicians have been doing since before the 1980s, and its not working. In fact 'austerity' will not work either, except for the 10%, you can not save yourself to profitability. You have to 'grow' to succeed. Grow from a fundamentally sound value base and you have th
Re:Psychic nomads by euroq · 2014-04-28 12:17 · Score: 1

I doubt it was a guess. They would have had hundreds of years of knowledge in oral-tradition form, and many examples. The majority of the population would have:
* Eaten extremely well (as in, same simple things over and over and not overeaten)
* Would not have been exposed to many poisons like modern humanity is
* Exercised all day 6 days a week with some sort of manual labor.
With such a sample set, you'd probably get way more people living to their maximum age than you would today, even if it isn't as observable as it is with modern technology.

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.