Scientists Reverse Aging In Human Cell Lines

Eloking writes: Professor Jun-Ichi Hayashi from the University of Tsukuba in Japan has discovered the regulation of two genes involved with the production of glycine are partly responsible for some of the characteristics of aging. With this finding he has been able to "flip the switches on a few genes back to their youthful position, effectively reversing the aging process." The Professor's findings cast doubt on the mitochondrial theory of aging, which proposes that the accumulation of mutations in the mitochondrial DNA are responsible for aging.

Comments

Can I get a milk shake that does this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heavens to Ponce de Leon, eternal youth is on the horizon.

What is responsible for aging?

[fustakrakich]

Time

Re:What is responsible for aging?

[penguinoid]

Time

No, irreparable damage. Note that what is irreparable depends on level of technology.

Examples of potentially irreparable damage: DNA damage, oxidative damage, toxin accumulation, damage to extracellular matrix, scarring, changes in gene activity, and more.

Note: Your cell line has lived for about 3,600,000,000 years. The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs, for example by reproducing cells at sufficient rate that new undamaged material is created faster than damage accumulates.

Re:What is responsible for aging?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs, for example by reproducing cells at sufficient rate that new undamaged material is created faster than damage accumulates.

One might argue that the advent of politicians proves that this strategy is not working optimally.

Re:What is responsible for aging?

[DigiShaman]

Note: Your cell line has lived for about 3,600,000,000 years. The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs

Yeah, no, not so much. It's more like compiling an OS, using it for 90 years (if you're lucky), then collect the best matching code from another computer and recompile into a fresh new drive. Eventually, the two original OSes running on their respective computers will fail from bloat and mismanagement. In effect, defective by design.

Re:What is responsible for aging?

[jd.schmidt]

Still don't forget most cell lines factually don't last that long, the successful ones made it at the cost of overwhelming numbers not making it. So for example when a batch of cells go bad (say cancer), it helps to have a whole other batch of cells, say in another person, to fall back on. This is great research none the less.

Re:What is responsible for aging?

[butchersong]

My teeth are fine now but after 100 years... I would hate to have to wear dentures for eternity.

Re:What is responsible for aging?

[Skapare]

that is only a recent element of damage ... it will be corrected by replacement. now my biggest worry is Facebook.

I used to work there

[Applehu Akbar]

I wrote a PL/I compiler for Tsukuba's IT department. Yes, that was a long time ago. The university stood alone among rice fields at the time; now it's the centerpiece of Tsukuba Science City, which researches a little of everything.

Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that means the current pricks running things will run things forever...yay

Re:Oh man

[epyT-R]

Yup, and they'll deny it treatment to the general public..

Re:Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

10 quid says the next mass extinction is the 1% purposefully "culling" the heard

Re:Oh man

[Paradise Pete]

10 quid says the next mass extinction is the 1% purposefully "culling" the heard

You can't be in the 1% without the other 99.

Re:Oh man

[garyisabusyguy]

Yes, but it gets unnerving when it is the 0.001% vs the 99.999%

Re: Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

When the 99% perishes, the 1% becomes the whole of mankind, just as it should be. At last, plenty of resources for everybody, plenty of living space, and plenty of time fo Earth to recover. The Beautiful People inherit the world, and there is finally a true paradise on this planet. Just not for the long-extinct plebes.

Re:Oh man

[pushing-robot]

If you're reading this you likely are in the top 1% globally. Yes, you could redefine it as the top 0.1%, or 0.01%, or 0.001%, or 0.0001%, but in my experience wherever you go on the curve people have similar vices, virtues, motivations and goals. Richer people get more help and own better toys—that's about it.

Re:Oh man

[fyngyrz]

10 quid says the next mass extinction is the 1% purposefully "culling" the heard

So... if you stay quiet, you should be okay.

Re: Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

And then everyone dies after someone contracts a disease from a dirty telephone.

Re:Oh man

[sjames]

If the 1% in America would quit shitting all over everyone, the global 99% would have a chance to catch up.

Re:Oh man

[buybuydandavis]

Moonraker?

Re:Oh man

[TheRaven64]

Top 10% probably. Take a look at a global rich list calculator. You can live very comfortably in a western country with 9% of the world's population being richer than you. If you're in some parts of central or eastern Europe, or a few parts of south-east Asia then you may be near the bottom of the top 20% and still living very comfortably. The '1%' that people talk about in the USA are well in the top 0.1% globally, but 'the 1%' makes a better soundbite than 'the 0.1%'.

Re:Oh man

[GLMDesigns]

If you're living in the US (or another first world country) and are making more that $50,000 / year then you are already in the 1%.

Re: Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and this group of people will be completely deranged. They would have totally forgotten where they had come from. It will only be a matter of time before this group will fail as well. If that's the way humanity wanted to go, then so be it. The world will keep turning.

Re:Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we know that you are not in the 1% in terms of third grade math knowledge.

The US makes up 5% of the world population. $50,000 is the approximate median income in the US. That's 2.5% of the population right there. And that also requires one to assume that the poorest US resident is richer than the richest non-US resident.

Re: Oh man

[g0bshiTe]

Yeah just incompetent asses left that can't be fucked to wipe their own asses.

Our death will mean theirs.

What good is all their money and power when there are no proles to do their dirty work? It would mean they'd have to do it.

Re:Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

I think $50,000 is the approximate median household income, and household is what, about 3 people? Too lazy to look this up.

Re: Oh man

[blue9steel]

What good is all their money and power when there are no proles to do their dirty work? It would mean they'd have to do it.

Hence the large investments in robotics and AI research.

Re:Oh man

[shaitand]

It also neglects to consider the difference between net and gross. Almost every other country provides healthcare and education while the US has the highest costs for comparable care and generally inferior education. If you subtract healthcare and education costs from what we have left after taxes in the US most Europeans are probably ahead.

Re:Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the rich are different from you and me. They have more money.
-- Ernerst Hemingway

Re: Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

Elysium?

Re:Oh man

[Anonymous Coward]

Age reversal does not cure assassination...

Re: Oh man

[sh00z]

Dr. Noah's bacillus?

epigenetics

[phantomfive]

The scientists compared cells from 80-97 year olds, and kids under age 12. From the article:

As expected, the older cells had reduced cellular respiration, but the older cells did not show more DNA damage than those from children. This discovery led the team to propose that the reduced cellular function is tied to epigenetic regulation,

So it seems like the aging process of reduced cellular respiration comes from gene expression, that is, which genes are active, rather than their inability to perform.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you break this down for me sesame street style? 31 year old alcoholic idiot here...

Re:epigenetics

[phantomfive]

Can you break this down for me sesame street style? 31 year old alcoholic idiot here...

1) Don't drink so much.
2) Not all of our genes are active. For example, if you exercise then certain genes activate (presumably ones that say 'big muscles?').
3) When we get old, our 'aging' genes activate.
4) These scientists found a way to 'deactivate' the aging genes.

I have no idea if that made more sense. I don't think this is the only problem with aging, though; here is a list of known problems.

Re:epigenetics

[TechyImmigrant]

Can you break this down for me sesame street style? 31 year old alcoholic idiot here...

If we lived too long, evolution to adapt to the changing environment would be impacted.
We evolved mechanisms to kill us off in a timely manner so we don't compete with our better adapted children too much.

The processes of evolution aren't for your benefit. They're just things that get selected for for maximum propagation. This is bad. If we find the mechanism and can stop it, there will be some really old farts about, arguing about how their Cherry M keyboards are superior to the direct brain interface.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I got the just of it. And, about the drinking, if you were married to my wife; lemme tell yah...

Anyhow, thanks for getting down on my level. I read a ton, but I don't understand a damn thing. Hah! I'll drink to that....

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Cherry M keyboards are superior to the direct brain interface

And there'd be some young idiots arguing that their inferior direct brain interface is superior to a Cherry M keyboard. See how age brings wisdom?

Re:epigenetics

[phantomfive]

Yeah, I got the just of it.

Glad to hear it.

And, about the drinking, if you were married to my wife; lemme tell yah...

No excuses.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't get selected as such at all. Selection is not a positive process - there's no intent. It's just a side effect.

Re:epigenetics

[TechyImmigrant]

They don't get selected as such at all. Selection is not a positive process - there's no intent. It's just a side effect.

Yes. I wasn't trying to convey intent, quite the opposite.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, so imagine a library with books on all kinds of subjects. You're only interested in say, space rockets. So, you're only reading those books and the rest just sit on the shelf. Now, every cell with a nucleus (red blood cells excluded among others) has the full DNA library. DNA is like the library in that it is a string of genes which are like the books in a library. Think of genes like recipes or instructions- they code for specific proteins. These proteins make things happen in your body. The liver only activates the genes dealing with the liver even though it has the full library. The kidney only activates genes dealing with the kidney and so on.

Epigenetics says that certain external factors can cause specific genes to be activated when conditions are right. Let's say you are grilling out. You walk past the grill and get a face full of smoke from it. Your eyes water because of it. Your eyes wouldn't normally water like this but smoke irritated them and your body's response was to flush your eyes. So, you have an external stimulus that provokes a response. This is much what epigenetics is like. So, you have genes that may never get activated for your entire life. Others are activated every day. Epigenetics says that certain genes need a specific something to happen and then those genes are activated. Along the same thought, epigenetics says active genes could be shut down based on conditions.

From the viewpoint of a biologist, life is about reproduction. You're born, you grow, you enter puberty, you reproduce, you nurture your young, and then, well, not much point in keeping you around as you've filled your function. So, middle age comes and we start to grow old. Women go through menopause as they're no longer viable to reproduce. Men have different things that happen to them. Regardless, they're now getting old. The things the body did to support you as a breeder no longer have a function and stop working. You grow old and die. Depressing, right? But what if we could re-activate things. What if we could tell the body to keep on working as if you're a breeder? Could we somehow use an external chemical to make your cells think you're still a breeder? If so, your body would continue to function as if you were younger than middle age.

Re:epigenetics

[qpqp]

if you were married to my wife

Imagine some more advances like this and you could be married to your wife for so much longer...

Re:epigenetics

[phantomfive]

Why not try an all meat diet? Smarter people than you do: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/...

200mg of liver every day for dinner is not my idea of enjoyable eating. Anyway, have you tried it? Has it worked out for you?

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine some more advances like this and you could be married to your wife for so much longer...

Or married to your granddaughter or grandfather because you don't know who is who anymore.

There are downsides to living "forever"

Re:epigenetics

[TechyImmigrant]

Why not try an all meat diet? Smarter people than you do: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/...

200mg of liver every day for dinner is not my idea of enjoyable eating. Anyway, have you tried it? Has it worked out for you?

That's not my idea of a fun diet. Liver is ok. It's excellent when if it's from a well fed goose. Escargot are awesome. It worked out well. Steaks, eggs, roasts, chicken livers cooked in milk, much bacon. It's not expensive since you don't eat as much. It's energy and nutrient dense. I lost a lot of weight, all blood markers improved dramatically. It's hard to keep it up because it's simply hard to do when you aren't cooking all your own meals. My workplace canteen has no non-carb food offerings. Rice, potatoes and wheat is cheap. So I go back on it hard core when I need to recover the ability to fit into the skinnier jeans. But I'm too lazy to cook and pack a lunch every day, year after year. You need to keep in mind that it's a high fat diet, not a high protein diet. No one can eat a predominantly protein diet. It's not possible. Mostly fat, some meat, no carbs.

Re:epigenetics

[phantomfive]

Interesting, thanks.

Re: epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute is cute. Hot is hot. 100 or 20, I wouldn't care.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Girl children are often pretty. Why can't we marry them.
King Richard married a 7 yr old girl.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew allows it.
AoC in delaware used to be 7.

Re:epigenetics

[delt0r]

Dude if i live forever i won't be making "till death" type contracts!

Re:epigenetics

[delt0r]

We are already post evolution. Now we are getting up to re engineering! And before you start of with the "billions of years of evolution optimal mother nature" crap. Life is clearly *not* designed and could do with a bit of a intelligent designer if you ask me. there is always a better way, and just trying random things is not the best way to find it.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much this, really.

It just goes to show that evolution tended towards a nice niche between longevity to breed and bring up offspring before setting in ageing.
Stable growth.
But evolution can't see the future, y'know, since it is a concept. So it had no idea about the ramifications of our industrialized society.
What I wonder is how our genetics is going to react to our growing numbers, ample food supply, eventual drop in supply due to growing numbers, rising temperatures and more chaotic weather, over the next century.
Other areas will be hit harder, which leads me to believe that fairly soon, we could well even be looking at events that would lead to our speciation.
Not to mention dealing with our dietary income, high fat diets, sugars, veg, etc. We have such hugely varied diets across the world which tend to stick to their niches, the same general ingredients for the past couple centuries. That is also going to have a huge effect on what happens.

I just wonder what the possible end goals are here.
We could end up getting to genetically immortal humans, but who has the right to say who gets it?
The rich? The intelligent? Everyone equally? Ban births? Only allow births if you can pay?
Would we end up in a horrible society where we work for time in a literal time-zoned world, like that bad-but-deep film with Justin Timberlake and that other hot girl?
Who knows, maybe we will splice that mad jellyfishes genes with ours and we can ungrow and regrow.
Or we do it the science-y way and write retroviruses that can rewrite our entire DNA in every cell, accidentally have it evolve in to a bad virus, kill off half the human race, overpopulation solved. Or zombies. Please zombies.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we work towards constructing a giant planet. A giant planet where old people go to.

A giant virtual world, kind of like the Matrix.

They can go there and argue over how zip drives were better than floppy, or how great the BBC computers were.

And for every century of people, we build a new one.

Re:epigenetics

[rednip]

You won't 'live forever', you just won't die of old age.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists claim they may have found a way to prevent wine from going bad. They propose that preventing wine from aging is the goal.
You are smarter than you think. This is just another example of science being so smart it is stupid. Of course, if you are an alcoholic, you probably buy your wine at wallmart, with a "best if used by sticker" so, nothing to see here.

Re:epigenetics

[Richard Kirk]

Yay! LIke! This is just what science reporting ought to be like. This won't get people thinking that 80-year old Japanese people are turning into 12-year-olds like the original article might. Here's my 2p's worth...

4) These scientists found a way to 'deactivate' the aging genes.

This is not necessarily a good thing to do. My mum (which is currently 95) has blood cancer. She disliked chemotherapy, and would have refused a second round if it. However, the aging process also slowed her cancer development to a crawl, so she's still around and no further treatment is likely.

This figures. Evolution may not be fast, but it can seem to be very clever. The genes are probably helping us, though it may not feel like it at the time.

Re:epigenetics

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Even if this doesn't extend life but makes it so that it is good up until the end I would be all for it. Who wants to be shitting themselves unable to walk for the last few years.

Re:epigenetics

[DigiShaman]

All true, but really the decision comes down to a philosophical one.

A: Would you rather take control of your own genetic code, re-edit it, and risk a catastrophic failure for future generations long after advanced civilization has collapsed from war (rebooting society is now impossible, forgettaboutit).

B: Leave it into the hands of %deity% and hope for the best, thereby absolving all current and future responsibility.

It's a pandora's box for sure. Sometimes the best move is not to play with it in the first place. And...sometimes it is!

Re:epigenetics

[delt0r]

Well i for one, intend to live forever. Or die trying :D.

Re:epigenetics

[delt0r]

If you are ageless, with current fatal accident rate and all else being equal (of course it won't be), the average life span would be something like 400 years IIRC. Again assuming your frozen in age with a job and stuff.

My wife doesn't think i will make 60 with the shit i get up to. And tbh i am surprised i made it to 40. It has been touch and go a few times.

But if I did become ageless, i wouldn't assume i going to be dead anytime soon, and well not aging also has other benefits..... Why squander them?

Re:epigenetics

[DigiShaman]

The blood of young virgin women; the kind pent up with sexual frustration. THAT's what keeps a man young! :)

Re:epigenetics

[GLMDesigns]

You can have hard boiled eggs, yogurt, cottage cheese (I like it with chipotle) or hard cheese and apples for lunch. Very simple to bring or to buy near work if you forget or are lazy. (I bring the chipotle to work.)

Re:epigenetics

[Scottingham]

I call that 'Golden Sonic Rules'. You can still die by getting squished or falling in a bit, but mostly you're invincible to the 'small stuff'.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean a force fed goose. The realities of the meat supply are harsh enough. Force feeding geese is cruel.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at figure 1c though. It doesn't seem to make sense. The total mutation rate is ~ 3e-3, while the rare mutation rate is ~2e-4 and the frequent mutation rate is ~7e-1 "single nucleotide variants/bp". Where does that 3e-3 come from? I don't understand what they are calculating here.

Re:epigenetics

[penguinoid]

If we lived too long, evolution to adapt to the changing environment would be impacted.

Too late! In a couple hundred years, we went from walking around and working the fields all day, to idling in cars and elevators and sitting in a chair all day and with access to more food than we could possibly eat, including artificial food. And in a few more years we'll take that mammalian internal development thing, and probably the much older sperm racing thing, and replace them with selected genes developed in an artificial womb. (Which will also mean no more "must fit through mom's pee hole" limits on brain size.)

And while it is possible for natural selection to act quickly, that only works when there is a huge difference in reproductive capability, which we also got rid of with our low death rates and fairly similar birth rates. And natural selection only works quickly when the needed genes already exist. Odds are, we don't have the genes to deal with unlimited quantities of food, processed and artificial food designed to pander to our taste, globalization of disease, sedentary living, artificial entertainment (entertainment which no longer promotes development of physical and social skills, yet like artificial food "tastes" better than wholesome food), and various other current pending adaptations besides the new ones for the next hundred years of tech.

Fortunately, in a few more years we'll be editing our DNA routinely rather than waiting millions of years for evolution to catch up.

Re:epigenetics

[avandesande]

But we have already nullified environmental adaptation with clothing, housing, and agriculture. The future of human evolution is going to be based on intelligence and social adaptation.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

King Richard married a 7 yr old girl.

I think you've confused King Richard with Mohammad.

Re:epigenetics

[Spy Handler]

But we have already nullified environmental adaptation with clothing, housing, and agriculture.

Correct. For the past ~2000 years, rise of trade, urban culture and sophisticated economies meant smart people tended to become more successful (wealthy) and breed more children. For example in the Far East nations, surest way for an ordinary person to raise your social status and income was to be really smart and score high on the social service exam which would lead to a government bureaucrat position. With the newfound wealth you could afford to not only start a family, but also a second family. Having second and third wives/concubines and huge families was socially acceptable and actually expected of someone in high position.

The future of human evolution is going to be based on intelligence and social adaptation.

Incorrect. The forces that led to intelligent people breeding more children have stopped completely and reversed course in the 20th century.

Re:epigenetics

[TechyImmigrant]

Apples are a bit carby, but yes. Be careful with sausages of any form, they often put breadcrumbs in. Kefir is easier that yoghurt because you can grow it at room temperature and use heavy cream instead of milk.

If I'm doing it properly, I'm doing all these things. But I don't do it properly all the time because life gets in the way. Traveling gets in the way also and I travel a lot.

So after loosing a bunch of weight, it's now a maintainence thing. If the pants don't fit, go back on the plant 100%. If they fit, don't be too dogmatic.

Re:epigenetics

[TechyImmigrant]

You mean a force fed goose. The realities of the meat supply are harsh enough. Force feeding geese is cruel.

The best fois gras is from happy free range geese that voluntarily eat grain. I don't eat fois gras from force fed geese.

Re:epigenetics

[Anonymous Coward]

Just trying random things *is* the best way to find it.

Re:epigenetics

[micahraleigh]

Nietchze hated the theory of evolution as much as he did because he feared it promoted a herd ideal.

Looking to evolution to inform etiquette and behavior sounds like some parlor game where people are blowing smoke in each others faces.

Other than embracing mediocrity per se, killing people for being old is, well, too awful to be worth my time considering.

On the other hand I'll be there's an ivy league university out there that would like to extend a chair to you.

Whenever I think of easily misinterpreted science

[Irick]

I'm going to associate it with that cool food art. My life has now improved significantly!
Thank you University of Tsukuba!

I'm glad Google's reseachers didn't discover this

[faway]

Google wants to patent everything, including the means to reverse aging. Don't be evil Google!

Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reversing it twice is bad!

The next illegal drug

[jimmydevice]

If this works, the monied and in-power will make this as illegal as LSD and heroin.

Re:The next illegal drug

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd certainly hope so. You know how easy it is to score LSD and heroin.

Re:The next illegal drug

[Anonymous Coward]

If this works, the monied and in-power will make this as illegal as LSD and heroin.

And do it for the sake of "the children!".

Overly optimistic article

[Anonymous Coward]

It's certainly possible that, as a person gets older, epigenetic regulation of (nuclear encoded) mitochondrial genes can get messed up in a way that impairs mitochondrial function.

But lots of things get messed up as a person gets older. Obviously a person accumulates a lot of damage that never gets repaired - e.g. because the repair mechanisms that would be needed don't even exist. But a person's cells are also on this amazing developmental program that takes a person from a single cell to full adult. While much of this program shuts down once a person reaches adulthood, there are almost certainly parts of this developmental pathway that continue to operate at a low level - slowly causing changes that over time increasingly make a person less healthy.

Bottom line, there ain't no silver bullet on aging. Eventually it will be possible to design a new species that looks and acts human but that has the necessary repair mechanisms and developmental programs to be able to live indefinitely. And humanity may then choose to (voluntarily) go extinct allowing themselves to replaced by this new species. But any such species would be vastly different genetically than modern humans. Living forever is fundamentally and pervasively incompatible with our genetics.

Re:Overly optimistic article

[jimmydevice]

I believe Arther C. Clark said something about AI and untrained labor making intelligent systems. Good luck stopping that.

Re:Overly optimistic article

[Pentium100]

Would it not be possible to repair the genes? If DNA gets messed up, why not keep a backup with multiple copies and (important) checksums to refresh the copies stored in the cells once in a while so it does not become too corrupt? The DNA is a few gigabytes IIRC, easily stored in a small chip.

Now, currently I do not know of a way to actually repair the DNA in cells, but maybe at some time in the future some smart people figure this out...

Re:Overly optimistic article

[sjames]

That's what adult stem cells are for.

Re:Overly optimistic article

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, currently I do not know of a way to actually repair the DNA in cells, but maybe at some time in the future some smart people figure this out...

CRISPR

Not currently practical to do on a whole-body level, but you could take out a few cells, make iPS cells (or use transdifferentiation) and then use those for cell-based therapies.

This approach is still very much a work in progress but definitely coming.

Fine news!

[Tablizer]

Excellent! I want my age 19 wanker back!

Re:Fine news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, don't worry. You never stopped being a 19 year old wanker.

Re:Fine news!

[Tablizer]

+1 Funny, I gotta admit.

Collapse

[sonicmerlin]

Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.

Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.

Re:Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

We have always valued saving people's lives and old people are people too.

If everyone has at most 1 child, then every generation is half the size so that population would stabilize even if no one ever died. Since people do die of other causes than old age, the average could be perhaps be even slightly higher than 2 and population could still stabilize eventually. Yes, retirement would be different, no, that would in no way destabilize economies - it would be a tremendous economic boon not to have to support all those old people who could then take care of themselves.

Re:Collapse

[Gordo_1]

>If everyone has at most 1 child

Yes, that would be incredibly easy to enforce.

Re:Collapse

[phantomfive]

Yes, retirement would be different,

You would probably work for a while, retire for a while, work some more, retire some more, try something different, and keep going until you got hit by a car.

Re:Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

For reference, as we live presently in most of America, I've read that one who was granted clinical immortality would have an expectation lifetime of roughly 500-1000 years or so until the accumulated odds of either a fatal accident or being killed reached 1:1.

By murder alone - 4.7/100K per annum presently in the US yields a mean time-to-murder of 22000 years.

Re:Collapse

[delt0r]

Why does this shit get spewed forth every fucking time. By that logic we should never treat anyone for anything. After all artificially long life spans are clearly evil and will cause the downfall of all that is good. Just like comics, pron, video game, cell phones, self driving cars, robotics, AI... in fact crawl back the your cave while you still can.

Re:Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization.

This one perhaps, but would that be a bad thing?

Re:Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

I've considered things like that before, and you may have a point. Then again, you may not. It's possible that people's behavior and outlook would change. For instance, it's possible that jobs would be vacated all the time. If I don't have to worry about my future retirement and other artificial age-related obstacles people put in your way at work, then (as indicated in another post) the whole work/retire then work/retire, maybe learn more new skills, etc. becomes a distinct possibility. Maybe be well off for a while, maybe not mind being poor for a little while, etc.

One thing is absolutely certain though: this would (and I hope will) change society. We have a lot of rather evil people on this planet who may not agree on all their ends but they do agree on this: they don't want their system to change, and this will change their system. Something to keep a very close eye on.

Re:Collapse

[rednip]

Actually, without any 'enforcement' at all, the average woman in the U.S has a fertility rate of 1.6, which is actually less than the replacement rate need for a stable population even if we eliminate old age. If it wasn't for immigration we'd be losing population. Virtually all 'advanced economies' are the same.

Re:Collapse

[Eloking]

Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.

Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.

Ok I'll take a shot.

Our civilisation (mostly) depend on economy. And what's the biggest thread of economy in devellopped country right now? Population ageing. We get more and more older, health cost rise and rise and the economy crash deeper and deeper. Get my drift?

Idealy, economically speaking, people would work, make money and stay healthy until they die. The basis of our retirement system depend of having more income from the young than expence from the old and, currently, we're clearly not heading in the right direction.

Re:Collapse

[Nidi62]

Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.

Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.

Or it will jumpstart human exploration and settlement of the universe. If a person can comfortably and productively live for centuries then it will be much easier for us to send manned missions to the rest of the planets in our solar system as well as enable us to explore outside our solar system. Who needs ftl travel when you can live 500-1000 years?

Re:Collapse

[Culture20]

"This" civilization would be responsible for maintaining immortality tech. If it falls away, then we're left with a collapse for no good reason.

Re:Collapse

[Sarius64]

It must be difficult to remain such a shallow individual, only seeing gain from the demise of others.

Re:Collapse

[0123456]

Why does this shit get spewed forth every fucking time.

Because the left hate humans, because most humans won't do what they're told just because the left are convinced they know what's best for them. Also, humans typically move further to the right politically as they grow older, so a population whose average age is measured in centuries won't have much time for SJWs.

Re:Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse. All the bigoted assholes won't die as quickly so we'll have to deal with their bullshit longer. Why do you think we tend to progress toward less bigotry and oppression as a society? It's because the assholes eventually die and only the most brainwashed bigots continue to carry the torch. Of course the worst of those sometimes realize how shitty they were in their youth and will take it down a notch from being a supreme douchebag to just being a typical douchebag that uses terms like SJW.

Re:Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

I submit You do not know "the left" as much as You think You do.

Re:Collapse

[butchersong]

I think this may actually be a boon for the species. Think about it, everyone is granted an immortal lifespan. You still have the same percentage of the population that are little more than -I'm looking for a better phrase than "idiot brutes" but lets go with that. They will have a longer lifespan sure but not by much as lifestyle will become the deciding factor in how long you live. You will have those unfortunate souls continuing to die off at alarming rates and the more mature individuals gaining more and more a significant percentage of the voting population. Utopia? Maybe not. Better? Perhaps.

Re:Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm left to the point of loving communism more than capitalism and I am far more supportive of life extension than any one I know. In fact people I know that are for it are left and people against it are right, maybe it is backwards in Australia? Or maybe life isn't as simplistic as you believe...

Re:Collapse

[sonicmerlin]

There's a difference between extending life and living forever.

Re:Collapse

[sonicmerlin]

Only the passion of the young push society to dream and explore.

Hurry up!!!

[linuxguy]

I am 43 and starting to feel the effects of aging. I need this stuff pronto!

Re:Hurry up!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to tell you this, but if you think it's bad now, wait 20 more years.

Re:Hurry up!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderated "Funny" by people much older than you.
Moderated "Ha ha" by people much younger than you.

Re:Hurry up!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

linuxguy:

I am 43 and starting to feel the effects of aging. I need this stuff pronto!

AC:

Hate to tell you this, but if you think it's bad now, wait 20 more years.

As the saying goes, aging is terrible but it beats the alternative.

Re:Hurry up!!!

[cyberchondriac]

I got about 10 years on you, imagine how I feel. Well, at least maybe my son will get to benefit from this, he's an early teenager.

Re:Hurry up!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting old is not for the weak and frail.

Telomeres?

[MrL0G1C]

So what happened to the theory that the shortening of telomeres was responsible for aging?

Re:Telomeres?

[delt0r]

Aging is widely accepted to be multifaceted. telomeres, dna damage, epigenetics, build up of plagues and shit. there is considered to be about 7 major things, and its not really considered an exhaustive list.

Re:Telomeres?

[Anonymous Coward]

They abandonned that as a [downstream] effect not a primary cause.. resolution would require to an [upstream] system

Re:Telomeres?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aging is widely accepted to be multifaceted. telomeres, dna damage, epigenetics, build up of plaques and shit. there is considered to be about 7 major things, and its not really considered an exhaustive list.

FTFY

Not if they think they can get more work out of us

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If this works, the monied and in-power will make this as illegal as LSD and heroin.

Not necessarily.

If the anti-aging drug(s) make people healthier, reducing the drain on the government pensions and enabling the government to push the retirement age out over the horizon, so the people will be working and taxed, they might prefer to have the drugs put into use.

Heck, they'd probably add them to the water.

Achieving immortalty may be the death of us.

[EzInKy]

Humans, like all life on planet earth, depend on evolution to improve the species. The old die, the new survive, and humanity improves. Achieving immortality would be akin to freezing humanity in time.

Re:Achieving immortalty may be the death of us.

[greatpatton]

This in no way immortality. Does it save you from dying of accident? Cure cancer? etc. However this kind of research may help you to live a better life at the old age, stay active and enjoy life.

Re:Achieving immortalty may be the death of us.

[Anonymous Coward]

What nonsense do you speak?

Achieving immortality would create MORE diversity in the human race.

If we had infinite resources - which we may end up over the next century, or increasing resources at the least, with asteroid mining - ignoring our current issues, the gene pool would increase with every generation of births because those further away from the epicentre of immortality will have DNA further from it.
In fact, one major issue would be the possible chance of humans becoming completely incompatible, genetically, to have offspring. Essentially speciation. (more diverse)

Not to mention that eventually, we will figure out how to create viruses to rewrite every cell in our body without the potential to doom the human race to crazy powerful viruses that could destroy us all because it can get around our cell defences better than evolution ever could since we have intelligence behind our design of said virus.
Or we just chop off our heads, connect it to a new body, rewrite the head only, boom, done.
Or just remove the brain, new body, done.
Or we just become machines and be done with genetics.

Re:Achieving immortalty may be the death of us.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution in no way implies improvement. Actually, the math is much less optimistic.

Re:Achieving immortalty may be the death of us.

[Eloking]

Humans, like all life on planet earth, depend on evolution to improve the species. The old die, the new survive, and humanity improves. Achieving immortality would be akin to freezing humanity in time.

Unscientific and irrelevent. Evolution (mostly) happen on offspring and unless you think we'll stop having babies if we achieve immortality then, global warming jokes apart, humanity will not "freeze". Unless you pull a China on us claming "One-child policy" or something which won't happen even if we get stop getting old.

Re:I'm glad Google's reseachers didn't discover th

[delt0r]

I hope it gets patented. Properly. As in it can easily be replicated from the patent. They can sue me afterwards for patent infringement if they like, I'll have time.

Why would anyone want to live forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're the richest man on earth, what's the point?

Re:Why would anyone want to live forever?

[0123456]

Unless you're the richest man on earth, what's the point?

Given an infinite lifespan, everyone would get to be the richest man on Earth for a while. And the poorest.

Re:Why would anyone want to live forever?

[Chewbacon]

First article I read about the so called "on off" aging switch the guy said you wouldn't live forever. He backed this up with statistics and the certainty that something would get you after about 300-400 years: illness, plane crash, murder, etc. it is the aging switch, not the immortality switch in the general sense.

It is not the body

[jjhues7676]

We have seen that with modern medicine we live longer and longer. The body is slowing down in the ageing process but the BRAIN is not. It is not the longevity of life that counts. It is the quality.

Re:Not if they think they can get more work out of

[GLMDesigns]

This is one of the many reasons SS is a stupid concept. There shouldn't "age of retirement" that's set in stone. If we were a rational society we would have raised the "age of retirement" to 68 in the 1970s and 70 in the 1990s and we would now be talking about when to bring it to 72.

Pass!

[AndyKron]

Oh boy! A chance to work 100 years instead on "only" 70, and watch the Earth drown in human flesh!!! Fuck that shit...

Aging is a property of genetic networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an article (not about aging but) about genetic networks and evolution: http://nautil.us/issue/20/crea...

How ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Sounds like someone has found an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. Good luck with that.

Re:epigenetics sesame street style

[Dareth]

5. Ha ha ha Ha ha!

Modern Cavemen

[Dareth]

Cavemen were modern They were fully wireless, and I hear they liked to go clubbing.

Current process works quite nicely

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of permenating existing tissue to reset all the epigenetic switches.. just extract a few cells and throw out the rest.. reset at conception and 'clone' the individual.. differentiate by mixing genes extracted from successful individuals that survived to adulthood. Filter meta-genetic information from one generation to the other through tutalage and temporary 'parenthood'.. throw away the rest.

How to mess this up? Initiate random epigenetic repairs and partial repairs, reduce atoposis, induce mutagenic cancers. Keep impaired individuals around to reproduce in a partially successful manner. Repair damage insitu to individuals which normally would not survive in their environment. Interrupt transfer of meta-genetic information transfer through 'estimated' representations of ideological cultural 'norms'.

Peace and long life.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to go back to Age 25 and stay that age forever.

The human species has been propagating for thousands of years, so clearly, it can work.

Glycin supplement

[manu0601]

Gizmag's paper reports the research is about a Glycine regulating gene, then suggest Glycine supplement may sometime thrive as anti-age treatment.

Is it just me, or did the person that wrote the second part failed to understand what is gene regulation?

Re:Glycin supplement

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a legit question, so I clicked on the link to the research paper. The abstract has this to say:

"Microarray screening revealed that epigenetic downregulation of the nuclear-coded GCAT gene, which is involved in glycine production in mitochondria, is partly responsible for these aging phenotypes. Treatment of elderly fibroblasts with glycine effectively prevented the expression of these aging phenotypes."

So looks like it wasn't just an unwarranted conclusive leap.

Deny this... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "DNS lookup" b.s. from http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

1st: Hosts exceed SLOWER remote DNS lookup (Exploit ridden by Kaminsky redirect flaw & 99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it!) - how?

I avoid DNS putting WHERE I SPEND 95%++ of MY ONLINE TIME @ TOP OF HOSTS via 30 favs!

2nd: AdBlocking gains speed!

BOTH exceed remote DNS lag indexed lookup post query/turnaround on resolution (do the math binary search) over 3++ million records w/ a most efficient blocking format = better load + internal parse & no bloat in hosts cached in LOCAL RAM via 2 kernelmode subsystems (diskcache & ip stack = no usermode context switch overhead like Windows' faulty w/ large hosts files usermode dns cache service) w/ Hosts also as 1st RESOLVER QUERIED by the IP Stack vs. remote DNS for utmost in speed, efficiency + reliability (my program keeps hardcodes current) vs. downed DNS too.

* Hosts = MORE SPEED + EFFICIENCY & ease of maintenance (via http://start64.com/index.php?o...) versus:

1.) Remote DNS & hosts do so w/ less resource use + added on app complexity/room for breakdown & exploit w/ added CPU & power use w/ a local setup DNS (worse if separate system) + complexity of deny rules vs. hosts simple entries

+ vs.

2.) "Almost ALL Ads Blocked": Hosts are far more efficient doing more w/ less vs. AdBlock's BLOAT & regex complexity vs. hosts simple entries. Addons add overheads layered over slower browsers in usermode increasing messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode (run some addons concurrently see what I mean). Addons do more added I/O operations + consume more memory & create CPU overuse + complexity (regex vs. hosts entries) bolted-on in SLOW usemode vs. hosts in PURE kernelmode via a high cpu serviced layer of ops by IP stack. Addons = easily detected by native browser methods + clarityray shuts 'em down (hosts aren't).

APK

P.S.=> + Hosts != bribed (like AdBlock/ABP NOT DOING THE 1 JOB IT HAD by default)... apk