Scientists Working To Extend Lifespan of Pets (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: Scientists have explored the mysteries of aging in humans for hundreds of years, but now they're beginning to turn their attention to our pets. Why do cats live longer than dogs? Why do small dogs live longer than big ones? The answers could help us prolong the lifespans of our favorite companion animals, as well as shed light on the mysteries of aging in humans.

"The same things that allow us to live longer also apply to our pets," says João Pedro de Magalhães, a biogerontologist at the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom who maintains AnAge, the world's largest database of animal life spans. "I don't think there's a set max. longevity for any species," he says. "The real question is, 'How far can we go?' Maybe a thousand years from now you could have a dog that lives 300 years."

Comments

Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[UnknowingFool]

Every dog person knows it's because cats steal the souls of their owners. I kid! I kid!

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[bugs2squash]

It will be a blessed relief to get into a flame war between dog people and cat people, I'm fed up typing in the same old rants about guns and religions every month.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Cro Magnon]

But, does your dog prefer PC or Mac?

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[ole_timer]

The dog prefers to chew on the more expensive toys - so mac.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You can't bring that up without bringing up the superiority and sleek design of a proper Linux desktop. This is the year of the Linux desktop, and all Macs and PCs will be thrown out.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Flavianoep]

FTFY:

No. You can't bring that up without bringing up the superiority and sleek design of a proper Linux desktop. This is the year of the Linux desktop, and all Macs and PCs will be thrown to the dogs to chew on.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Roger W Moore]

Who cares, both can run emacs!

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[asylumx]

So what you're saying is that in the Dog vs. Cat battle, you choose Ferrets.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[UnknowingFool]

emacs

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[arth1]

i guess it boils down to how hardcore you are. Some like to use mutt to read their mail, while diehards might prefer cat.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Flavianoep]

Can you run Emacs on top of Windows(r)?

Re: Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have longer lives than dogs, but they have nine of them.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[morgauxo]

Exactly, all those old PCs and Macs will get thrown to the dogs! So.. which will they prefer?

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Pseudonymous Powers]

No. You can't bring that up without bringing up the superiority and sleek design of a proper Linux desktop. This is the year of the Linux desktop, and all Macs and PCs will be thrown to the dogs to chew on.

Veterinarians advise against using sleek desktop designs as dog toys. Their seamless interfaces slide too smoothly down the animal's windpipe, choking the animal with an excessively painless user experience. With extremely design-forward frontends, the animal itself might not even notice it until it's too late.

It can be hard to find them nowadays, but if you insist on giving your dog a GUI toy, try Windows 8, Vista, or even 3.0 if possible. Accept no Service Packs!

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs are made for simpletons, so dogs use Macs...

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogs are always Mac-only. No explanation necessary.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, reading your e-mail with cat. That's some high-level insanity right there.

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Roger W Moore]

You can but who said anything about Windows...your signature suggests you may have heard of another OS which can run on a PC (other than emacs that is).

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[arth1]

Holy shit, reading your e-mail with cat. That's some high-level insanity right there.

I think you mean low-level.
I mostly tend to use cat to see what mail various daemons have received, mostly from cron jobs, while being on servers. Many packages install daemons with their own user and cron jobs, but without a shell and without a mail forwarding entry.

But on a heinously high latency line, it also beats trying to fight with a curses-based client; dumping everything to the screen and then use the scrollback buffer makes more sense.

And if I need to make a local reply, hey, I can use cat for that too, appending a message directly to the user mailbox. If remote, there's always "openssl s_client -connect mailserver:587 -starttls smtp". Isn't that what everybody does?

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Locke2005]

Let's stop this before it starts: MY dog uses vi, not emacs, dammit!

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Locke2005]

Weasels: The pet of choice for marketing personnel everywhere!

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

And is its gender identity being suppressed?

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Ol Olsoc]

But, does your dog prefer PC or Mac?

Or systemd?

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[penguinoid]

It will be a blessed relief to get into a flame war between dog people and cat people, I'm fed up typing in the same old rants about guns and religions every month.

"Blessed", you crazy religious nut?

Re:Why do cats live longer than dogs? That's easy

[Bugamn]

Are we talking about the pet or the owner?

Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death. If a child has been through the process of grieving for a pet they will have that experience to help them get through the much more traumatic effects of the death of human family member.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[pushing-robot]

True, but it's rather macabre to wish death on an animal so your children can experience grief.

As TFS points out, "The same things that allow us to live longer also apply to our pets"; hopefully your human family members will live longer along with your pets.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[avandesande]

Didn't pay thousands of dollars and invest countless hours so children could have death experience.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. Dog suicide will become a thing.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Eloking]

When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death. If a child has been through the process of grieving for a pet they will have that experience to help them get through the much more traumatic effects of the death of human family member.

I had to rub my eyes and read again to be sure I didn't read that wrong.

So your point is that pet should die so it can be a good "life lesson" for our kid. Really?

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't about wishing death on a pet. It's about the way life has worked for all of recorded history. Change it and there will be unintended side-effects.

> hopefully your human family members will live longer along with your pets.

That's spin to make it more palatable to mess with these animals in the lab. We stopped medical research on chimpanzees and now these guys are selling this new version.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

> So your point is that pet should die so it can be a good "life lesson" for our kid. Really?

My point is that experimenting on pets so that they will live longer is 100% about making their owners feel good. If that level of utter selfishness is OK, then we ought to consider other selfish motivations for leaving the natural order alone.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not wrong to point out that that is something that happens now with natural-lifespan pets. I'm not completely sure if he's actually saying that pet lifespans should not be extended in order for that to keep happening, or just describing the current state of affairs.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[PvtVoid]

I had to rub my eyes and read again to be sure I didn't read that wrong.

So your point is that pet should die so it can be a good "life lesson" for our kid. Really?

That's not why you buy a pet. But it is part of owning a pet, just as death is a natural part of life. Owning a pet teaches a child about compassion, responsibility, and the cycle of life, including death and grieving. All of these things are valuable lessons for a kid, including the last part. What's a terrible lesson for a kid is to teach them that they can buy their way out of anything unpleasant that might ever happen to them.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[mjr167]

If you want to teach your kids about the cycle of life get fish.

We have Platies and my 5 year old watches the babies get born, most get then eaten by their mom, and the fast ones live. Then they get old, die, and flushed. Lots of great life lessons going on in the fish tank.

Re: Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a terrible lesson if you're a One Percenter. It's actually a realistic attitude. Of course if you're a have-not it's another matter but nobody cares for us. We'll be gone in 60 years or less anyway.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Zontar The Mindless]

Get your kid a tuatara. It'll probably outlive the kid.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of hard to have an emotional connection to a fish.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[arth1]

If a child has been through the process of grieving for a pet they will have that experience to help them get through the much more traumatic effects of the death of human family member

Much more traumatic? I have always cried more over pets than family members.

In part because with family members, barring accidents, you usually have time to prepare yourself. With pets, it can be much quicker.
in part because family members tend to drift apart, and you only end up seeing them a few times a year, while a pet is with you all its life.
But also in part because the pets never said a mean thing to me, which I can't say for any family member.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of hard to have an emotional connection to a fish.

Get a hardy species that lives for a long time with a friendly disposition and you'll likely feel different. I was quite saddened to see my Plecostomus get sick and die, I had kept her for over 5 years.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[arth1]

the natural order

Ah. You're a religious nutjob.
There is no "natural order". Animals are our distant cousins, evolved to fit other niches than us, not some creation we have been designated to "rule over".
We have a symbiotic relationship with some of our distant cousins. They provide safety and comfort for us, and we provide safety, comfort and food for them.
People with companion animals on average live longer and have fewer mental health issues (except the crazy cat lady, of course), so it's a win for all species.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[arth1]

I got one that's close to ten years now. Everything else in the tank has come and gone (sometimes into the plecko, which isn't as purely vegetarian as pet stores say), but he or she (how do you tell?) lives on.

I've heard of trout that has lived to 80.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Eloking]

That's not why you buy a pet. But it is part of owning a pet, just as death is a natural part of life. Owning a pet teaches a child about compassion, responsibility, and the cycle of life, including death and grieving. All of these things are valuable lessons for a kid, including the last part. What's a terrible lesson for a kid is to teach them that they can buy their way out of anything unpleasant that might ever happen to them.

That's a way oversimplified way to analyse this. It's like saying that the death of animal is necessary in a kid education and that buying a life extension pills for a pet will turn the kid delinquent or something.

Any kid could have a good childhood without all those "important" lesson and forcing the dog to die to teach grieving is nothing less than cruel. If that's the reason you buy a pet why don't you go buy a pet pig to your kid, wait that he likes it, shoot it before him and each bacon for diner while you're at it? But hey! It's life lesson and good bacon!

Re: Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Its actually the worst possible lesson for a 1percenter. Eradicating any sense of personal responsibility at a young age is how you raise a sociopath.
Sociopath + Money = Monster

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Falos]

Interesting. This post ALSO happens to include a secondary, incidental purpose. While it had a primary function (to express an observation) it too offers useful, supplemental insight when given a bit of thoughtful reflection - by examining the responses.

>1037830: wish death on an animal
>0143899: get a pet just for the death experience
>0877834: you think pets should die?
>2477430: if the life cycle is the point of a pet

The hypersensitive terminally-offended really came out in full force this year. Victims of chronic victimitis. I'm going to need rock climbing anchors and a pressurized suit to survive all this whoosh.

"He who takes offense when it is not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when it is intended is a greater fool."

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ah. You're a religious nutjob.

Life-long atheist. But you're especially funny because you go on to say exactly what I said with just more words and a misplaced sense of superiority.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[PvtVoid]

forcing the dog to die to teach grieving is nothing less than cruel

Getting a dog that you know is going to die in ten years, give or take, is part of having a dog. What's really cruel is to force extraordinary medical procedures to extend life for a a sentient creature that is incapable of understanding an communicating consent. Dogs understand when it's time for them to die. People frequently don't. When my last dog died, he let me know that it was time by going outside in the middle of the night in five-degree Fahrenheit temperatures, going behind the shed, and refusing to come out. We coaxed him back in, but ended up putting him down a couple of days later, and he died peacefully with his family beside him. He had a good life.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

As the OP I don't see a shred of "victimitis" in those responses. What I do see is a lot of pathos and very little logos. Nobody wants to feel pain, and those responses are people having an emotional reaction to the idea that putting pain off for as long as possible might make life worse in the long run.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[hey!]

Many years ago a friend of mine had a dog that was hit by a car and had it's leg crushed. He put it in a box and took it to the local animal hospital in the super-wealthy town he lived in, accompanied by his son and his son's best friend. That was a mistake. He was expecting the dog to be put down, but the vet instead told him -- with the kids right there -- that the leg could be saved with an experimental microsurgical procedure. Well, that was that; it was either fork over the equivalent of $20,000 in 2015 dollars or be known around the neighborhood as the rich guy who was too cheap to save the family pet's leg.

When he told me this story he shook his head, and then recounted the time when he was growing up on a ranch and his dog was hit by a car. His dad came out, looked at the dog and said, "Too bad, that was a good dog. Go fetch the shotgun."

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

And some people have emotional connections to their tamagotchi. I guess you can project your own feelings onto anything under the right circumstances (which is probably why catfishing is a thing).

Is it on the same level as a dog who sleeps on your bed at night, will defend you to the death, is excited to see you even when he isn't hungry, and can remember you even if he hasn't seen you for years? I don't think so.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd sure think so. But I haven't seen any evidence of it actually working out that way. The only thing that prepares people for human death is human death. That's what kids are supposed to experience while they still have the emotional flexibility to adapt to it.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Talderas]

Dogs already commit suicide but they're picky about where and how they do it. We've only recorded 600 or so dog suicides.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just drop a claim like that on us and walk away.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Hognoxious]

I've heard of trout that has lived to 80

You've met my mother-in-law?

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sometimes you need to swallow your pride and be known as the neighborhood rich guy who wouldn't fork over 20 grand for the bullshit leg operation. Taking a stand against needless bullshit needs to start somewhere.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

More traumatic effects? When my cat died because of kidney failure, it took me a few days to be able to function again and I was depressed for a few weeks. When my father died because of cancer, I felt a bit of nostalgia, but nothing more. The only thing which is worse than losing a pet is losing a child.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[painandgreed]

There is no "natural order". Animals are our distant cousins, evolved to fit other niches than us, not some creation we have been designated to "rule over".

I would say that is debatable with domesticated species.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Wycliffe]

It isn't about wishing death on a pet. It's about the way life has worked for all of recorded history. Change it and there will be unintended side-effects.

> hopefully your human family members will live longer along with your pets.

That's spin to make it more palatable to mess with these animals in the lab. We stopped medical research on chimpanzees and now these guys are selling this new version.

Humane research has helped us end a lot more suffering than it has caused. Even some of the cruel research that Hitler did has saved more lives than it initially cost (I'm talking about just the research portion not his genocide). I'm not saying that causing a death now is ok if it saves 2 lives later but if the research is done humanely and ethically then it should be allowed. In this particular case, the types of experiments that are likely to be done will most likely cause very little if any pain and if the puppies are well cared for and then placed with good homes to live out their lives then how is this any different than someone raising normal puppies to sell.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Yessss a delicious delicious purpose to chinese restaurants.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Eloking]

Getting a dog that you know is going to die in ten years, give or take, is part of having a dog.

Not my point and I got no problem with this. What I said is that if your dog is about to die of age I give you a life expansion so he can be young again but you refuse to give it to him "because it's not nature's way" or "because our girl/son need that life lesson", that, I will find it cruel.

What's really cruel is to force extraordinary medical procedures to extend life for a a sentient creature that is incapable of understanding an communicating consent.

What do you mean "extraordinary medical procedures"? Of course if you plug a life support machine to an agonizing dog it'll would be cruel. But where does that come from?

Dogs understand when it's time for them to die. People frequently don't.

Er ok? Citation needed!

When my last dog died, he let me know that it was time by going outside in the middle of the night in five-degree Fahrenheit temperatures, going behind the shed, and refusing to come out. We coaxed him back in, but ended up putting him down a couple of days later, and he died peacefully with his family beside him.

I love to see people humanizing pets.

"Omg our poor little dog is getting old and he can barely walk. He want to die so It's cruel to let him live and we must euthanize him"

Really, how can you know what he feel? How can you know it's what "he want". I'm tired to hear about people giving human feeling and emotion to pets as a "proof" for anything. "He is sad because of that so I have to do this". "I know he feel that way so I must do that other thing".

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Locke2005]

Pretty sure dogs and humans have been co-evolving for over 30,000 years, so the niche they fill is already specialized to the role of over-eager brown-nosing human sycophants. Yes, I have a dog, and yes, she fits that description perfectly. Bitch not only does everything I tell her, but jumps up, runs, over accelerates, and slides into the wall while doing it. I stop her, but it's frickin' hilarious to watch! Never gets old, watching a canine embarrass itself...

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody asserted that it was the same as a dog, but this thread started with the idea that the death of a pet to which a child has become attached can teach an important life lesson. Agree with that idea or not (I do; see below), a long-lived "friendly" fish species may be the most suitable for that end, and probably better than a dog or cat, where the attachment would likely be far stronger, as your post implies. Think of it like a vaccination: a vaccine introduces dead/weakened viruses (bye-bye Goldie the goldfish) so you can build up an immunity; otherwise, when the real thing (Old Yeller) hits you, you'll be a wreck.

I got that life lesson at 4 years old from a good discussion over a flushed goldfish, and I'm sure that's a large part of why I don't fall completely apart when encountering the death of loved ones. Most of my family is similar, especially on my dad's side. In stark contrast, my wife's family is completely different. When her mom passed, she and her siblings and a few other close family members literally fell into a weeping pile of humanity on the floor at the front of the memorial service. I was completely astonished witnessing that; I had never seen anything like it. Some of them, including my wife, were functionally impaired for the better part of a year, a couple of them for even longer.

Unfortunately, this means that among those marital roles which are allocated exclusively to one or the other of us, "pet euthanizer" is entirely mine. So, there are downsides to being "vaccinated" against such grief. Indeed, that title is nowhere to be found among the "world's greatest husband" coffee mugs on store shelves, won't fit on a license plate, and makes for a terrible bumper sticker.

- T

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit different. You know, as a kid I never really gave a shit if our cat or dog died, also we didn't pretend they were little retarded people in animal bodies.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[phorm]

I'd rather have my dog live alongside me as long as possible. Let the kids have a hampster instead.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Even some of the cruel research that Hitler (...)

Oh my Godwin! This one popped up pretty quickly down the thread. ;)

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

> What I said is that if your dog is about to die of age I give you a life expansion so he can be young again...

You definitely did not say that. And that isn't even what the story is about. The fact that you think that is what you said says your grasp on reality is pretty loose and that's probably connected to why you are so worked up.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but don't over-vaccinate to point that the person becomes a cold psychopath.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

> Humane research has helped us end a lot more suffering than it has caused. Even some of the cruel research that Hitler did has saved more lives than it initially cost.

The calculus of death comes easy to people who humanity-impaired.

BTW, go try to find proof for your claims about Hitler. You'll be surprised to learn its wrong. The overwhelming amount of nazi experiments were too unscientific to provide anything useful and what little they did produce could have been discovered by other means that didn't involve torture.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[HiThere]

Define your terms. How, for instance, do you count running out into traffic?

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[gargleblast]

The real question is, did they leave a note?

Re: Death Serves a Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

3 questions.

Are you a meat eater?

Did you grow up in a family that harvested its own food?

Do you have kids?

The way I grew up growing attached to the animals you raised was normal but understanding they were food was essential. Being somewhat attached to the animals in your care is important because then they aren't things. Understanding that they are being raised in order to feed us is a life lesson that a lot of people never face.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Mal-2]

I have personally watched a dog (noticeably gray from even the considerable distance between us) watch traffic from the side of the road and wait until a large delivery truck came over a hill before stepping out in front of it. It was as clear-cut a suicide as it could possibly be.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[KGIII]

I could be mistaken but I think I've heard of this species before - some Living Fossil from NZ? (I watch an absurd number of documentaries.) I don't think you're supposed to have them as pets unless it has changed. The documentary that I watched mentioned them thinking about letting the capitalists have a shot at it and that they might breed a bunch of 'em and then you could get them as pets. Other than that, they're an endangered species AFAIK. While it might be, theoretically, possible to get one as a "pet" (if nothing has changed) it's probably difficult and the idea that you should teach kids to have an endangered species as a pet to avoid the feeling of loss due to death is, well, kind of crazy.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Ol Olsoc]

> So your point is that pet should die so it can be a good "life lesson" for our kid. Really?

My point is that experimenting on pets so that they will live longer is 100% about making their owners feel good. If that level of utter selfishness is OK, then we ought to consider other selfish motivations for leaving the natural order alone.

This whole thing is silly. From the summary, we'll have three hundred year old pets dying long before their 1000 year old owners. So little will change.

Speaking of little changing, if we were all somehow living a thousand years, we won't actually feel like we're living any longer at all. Its all relative. Whether because of percentages - such as three years to a 6 year old is 50% of his life, and huge, to a 70 year old, 4 percent, If we live a thousand years, the relative times will just become the same thing.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Ol Olsoc]

There is no "natural order". Animals are our distant cousins, evolved to fit other niches than us, not some creation we have been designated to "rule over".

I would say that is debatable with domesticated species.

Domestication is a fine survival strategy. Even food animals get a reproductive advantage.

Domestic Cows and pigs will go extinct if we all went vegan. So is it better to live and reproduce even if you end up dead - and who among us doesn't share that fate - or is it better to have your entire species go extinct, because eating animals is cruel?

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Ol Olsoc]

That's a way oversimplified way to analyse this. It's like saying that the death of animal is necessary in a kid education and that buying a life extension pills for a pet will turn the kid delinquent or something.

Any kid could have a good childhood without all those "important" lesson and forcing the dog to die to teach grieving is nothing less than cruel. If that's the reason you buy a pet why don't you go buy a pet pig to your kid, wait that he likes it, shoot it before him and each bacon for diner while you're at it? But hey! It's life lesson and good bacon!

Here's a desimplified hypothetical. What happens if we find out that dog's lives can be lengthened to a thousand years, but our's only 300? Should we do do it?

And your own suggestion is exactly what happens to many farm kids. When they are young and in organizations like FFA, they raise pigs and sheep and calves from birth, then compete with them. Then the "winners" are bought up by local eateries, and it's all over for little petunia or bossy.

This pisses me off so damn much - it is cruelty to the children involved. Raising an animal from birth, it becomes a loved pet - hell pigs are awesomly affectionate. Instead of sacrificing a loved pet, they'd be better taught to not ever become emotionally involved with a food animal, or at least to separate the two, pet from food.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Ol Olsoc]

But also in part because the pets never said a mean thing to me, which I can't say for any family member.

There's an old test.

Lock your dog in the trunk of your car

Lock your husband/wife in the trunk of your car.

Come back 2 minutes later and let them out.

Which one is happy to see you?

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Ol Olsoc]

Nobody wants to feel pain, and those responses are people having an emotional reaction to the idea that putting pain off for as long as possible might make life worse in the long run.

Unless this imminent life extension is going to allow us all to spend our entire life at the particular part of life we want to, then pass away painlessly do you think taking a hundred years of senility is going to be a fair trade? Or for myself, I hated childhood. I can't imagine spending 300 years a a little kid. If I could spend that thousand years in my 40's that would be something.

The biggest problem with life extension is that it all takes place on the wrong end of life - the oldest end. And even if we were to make it an extension like taking the present phases and extending them linearly with the present states, do you think that people are going to say - This is awesome - I'm living so much longer!"? It's all relative, and after 1 generation, we'll be moaning about why we can't live 2000 year, then 4000 years.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[blackpaw]

Life-long atheist.

Which you completely blew when you referred to meddling with "the natural order"

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Zontar The Mindless]

I was being facetious, of course--you'd have to move to New Zealand and get a special permit or join one of the conservation/restocking efforts there.

Mostly, I've just always thought tuataras were cool (ever since I read about them in an encyclopaedia when I was a kid) because they're not-quite-lizards and they have a vestigial third eye.

I also noted in the Wikipedia article that that there's one (nicknamed "Henry" IIRC) who apparently was able to father offspring at age 111.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[KGIII]

Ah... The facetiousness of your post did not make it through my filter. I was seriously having a "WTF moment" because I've read some strange propositions, not said in jest, over the many years I've been doing this message board thing. It reminded me of a conversation, a recent one, where someone tried to postulate that they had a right to own a Giant Panda.

At any rate, they are quite nifty. They're pretty damned odd and I think that's what's so fascinating about them. I did a quick search while typing this out and I'm unable to find the documentary. This was a long time ago that I saw it and I'm not sure if it was even here in the States where I saw it - it might have been a documentary about endangered species in NZ and I may have actually watched it on NZ television whilst visiting there. It might have had something to do with the kiwi, the bird, as well. I am not sure if that was the same documentary or one that was before or after it? It did have some rather cute young ladies in it but they were tending the birds and wearing clothing.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[geckoFeet]

It's not cruelty to the children. They get used to the idea that the animals they play with will eventually wind up in the freezer. A friend who grew up on a farm, when she was about 4 years old asked her mother, perfectly matter-of-factly, "Mommy, is Holly a meat dog?"

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[Ol Olsoc]

It's not cruelty to the children. They get used to the idea that the animals they play with will eventually wind up in the freezer. A friend who grew up on a farm, when she was about 4 years old asked her mother, perfectly matter-of-factly, "Mommy, is Holly a meat dog?"

Yeah, they just bawl and scream because they want to see theit pets slaughtered. Some of them throw a party.

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[uninformedLuddite]

There is no "natural order".

Really? Fuck there are some stupid smart people out there

Re:Death Serves a Purpose

[RockDoctor]

When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death.

So, only people who keep children can have pets?

"Sometimes, dead is better"

[Anonymous Coward]

-- Stephen King, Pet Sematary

If you want your dogs to live longer

[chispito]

Stop selectively breeding them. Look at bulldogs. They've basically been bred to have the most pronounced defects possible, and suffer comparatively short lives as a consequence.

Re:If you want your dogs to live longer

[jsrjsr]

Selective breeding isn't bad in itself, it's all in what you select for. That and being willing to cull the failures.

Re:If you want your dogs to live longer

[Flavianoep]

The problem lie in inbreeding.

Re:If you want your dogs to live longer

[UnknowingFool]

I wouldn't say selective breeding but inbreeding has been more of the issue. Also I would say that appearances and looks are the major traits that pure-bred owners are selecting today which is different from the past. Many dogs were selected for work traits instead. For example, terriers were bred to be small as they were used to hunt small vermin. They were not meant to be lap dogs which is how most terriers are used today.

Re:If you want your dogs to live longer

[pubwvj]

"Stop selectively breeding them."

Wrong answer.

Instead selectively breed for the right things.

Re:If you want your dogs to live longer

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem lie in inbreeding.

Bingo!

I remember when Dobermans were having breeding issues. Mostly based on "show" criteria, they were inbred. They did save them, although the personalities went seriouslt goofy - I liked that though - a goofy dog is awesome.

Or German Shepherds, who were bred to have that stance that ensured they would have hip dysplasia. Or Rough Collies being turned into brainless ice pick heads. Pugs with terrible health problems, Cocker Spaniels with no immune systems, and the Golden Cancer retriever. In a perfect world, these dogs would be treated for their conditions, and the breeders and puppy mill owners euthanized.

Re:If you want your dogs to live longer

[RockDoctor]

Selective breeding almost always involves inbreeding.

In theory, now, you could compare two examples of $BREED from opposite sides of the world, and with no known common parentage, decide they're a good match, and cross-breed them. But in practice there are likely to be hidden (i.e. not known to the owners) relationships between two of $BREED. And the transport costs from one side of the world to the other are likely to wipe out any profit for professional breeders.

It is far easier to breed amongst your own stock of animals-for-sale. And kill the gimps. Use them for food, why not.

With some knowledge of genetics, a sensible breeder would cooperate with someone aiming for similar characteristics from a different original stock, and intermittently cross-breed between their best lines to regain some "hybrid vigour" without bringing in too many different characteristics. But that still increases the costs, and the customer is mostly not going to care about your ethical breeding strategies.

where it the link...

[kefalonia]

... to troll together straight in the source?!

Re:where it the link...

[frank249]

Here is the link to the article.

Extremely pessimstic

[LetterRip]

I'd be shocked if a 300 year lifespan for dogs (barring accident) weren't possible within 50-100 years or even shorter. 1000 years we should have physiological immortality figured out.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[fropenn]

Not to mention the fact that in 50-100 years we would only know that a dog could have a lifespan of 50-100 years. It would take at least 300 years before we would know a dog could have a 300 year lifespan.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Moof123]

I'd be happy if we could easily deal with old/bad joints, failing eyesight, cancer, etc. Unless we can first properly deal with all the issues that go hand in hand with old age, why would you want you or your pet to live longer? I'd be happier with the assurance of good health for 85 years than assurance of life for 1000.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_ !]

Sure we may have dogs with estimated 300 year lifespan in 45 years, but if we have an apocalyptic war or event that sends us into the dark age we will be only stuck inventing paper or some new crazy religion at 1000 years from now!!!!

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be shocked if a 300 year lifespan for dogs (barring accident) weren't possible within 50-100 years or even shorter. 1000 years we should have physiological immortality figured out.

I, for one, welcome our new canine overlords.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[avandesande]

This are all old age diseases. We would assume that such a therapy would negate them.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say we know that the Sun will turn into a red giant in 5-something billion years, despite the fact that we weren't there to see it. "Know" is flexible like that.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Anonymous Coward]

How come it doesn't take that long to know that, for example, GMO crops won't cause harm to either us or the ecosystem?

(I already know the answer, of course, and it's money.).

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy if we could easily deal with old/bad joints, failing eyesight, cancer, etc. Unless we can first properly deal with all the issues that go hand in hand with old age, why would you want you or your pet to live longer? I'd be happier with the assurance of good health for 85 years than assurance of life for 1000.

That is why I had to put down my oldest ferret. At 9 years old his eyesight was still fine and his fur hadn't even gone grey nor did he get cancer like so many others I've had but his joints suddenly started to deteriorate so badly that soon he couldn't navigate the stairs and eventually couldn't even get into the litter box on his own.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but conditions for life will be non-existent 500My in the future, due to increased solar activity. We have run 90% of the way already. Time is over.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[jittles]

This are all old age diseases. We would assume that such a therapy would negate them.

No. I can assure you that young people can have joint issues too. I developed osteoarthritis in my mid 20's after a sports injury. I have a friend who was set to play professional football until a surgeon botched a knee repair and he's had joint issues since his early 20's. Unless they can repair my joint injury and restore it like new, I may not even want to make it past my 70's.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[avandesande]

Young people can get cancer too but it is extremely rare- not talking about edge cases here.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[jittles]

That makes no sense. Sure a young person could get cancer but it'll either kill you, or you'll go into remission and it doesn't matter if you live to be 1000. I can tell you right now that if you have severe joint damage you can live a long time but you may not want to at all. You may be in so much pain that you wished you were not alive. So yes, if you want people to have a quality life for 1000 years then you need to be able to repair damage to their bodies and not assume that whatever treatment that prolongs their lives by over 10x will also prolong their joints and other areas of the body that tend to wear out over time.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[avandesande]

You aren't making any sense. Joint issues, like cancer are an edge case.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

Almost all old people have joint issues. Those for many start creeping in around 45 and by 80 I would say at least 80% of people have some joint issues.

If you cannot fix joint issues that affect the majority of older people, then prolonging their life is prolonging suffering.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[HiThere]

There is an indication that this may not be possible without extensive interventions...and I'm thinking of a nanobot immune system.

Indications are not, of course, proof. The indication was the number of immune stem cell variations found in a 120+ year old human. It had, IIRC, been reduced to below 10. (I want to say reduced to a single variant, but I don't really remember that.) Now I suppose that you might get around this by banking umbilical cord blood, and using that as a source of immune cell variation, but these new immune cells wouldn't remember the diseases you've already been exposed to and learned to deal with.

So. It's my expectation that to significantly extend the maximum lifespan of a human would require an artificial replacement immune system, and while dogs probably have more basic capabilities in that direction, they would probably need the same replacement to make it much beyond 120.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[KGIII]

Ah my young friend... Might I introduce you to the warm embrace of opiates? The knee is but a trivial bother and, of course, the best route is intravenous - 'tis the route the medical professionals use to administer such and anything less is a waste.

If I lived forever, I'd be too drug-addled to give a shit.

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Ol Olsoc]

This are all old age diseases. We would assume that such a therapy would negate them.

yeah - assume. So you figure that our 1000 year lifespan humans aren't going to age at all? Just happy happy happy then whisked to wherever, not a pain in their 1000 year old lives?

Re:Extremely pessimstic

[Ol Olsoc]

You aren't making any sense. Joint issues, like cancer are an edge case.

Oh, weedhopper, you are not going to like what is probably in your future. Arthritis as an "edge case"? Your extreme ignorance is showing. Those stinky old people do not move slowly because they are lazy. Is half of people over 65 an edge case? http://arthritis.emedtv.com/os...

Whic of course, makes for an interesting question for people Osteoarthritis - which indeed causes a lot of pain, is caused by wear and tear. It is not a disease. I had it in my mid-40's, and it only gets worse with time.

So as we live to a thousand years are we suddenly going to get thousand year capable skeletons? Calcium phosphate is not a material that will last for a thousand years. Or do we just bionicize ourselves, replacing all the parts as they wear, until we are like George Washington's original axe he used to chop down the cherry tree, two new heads, and five new handles.

300 Year Old Dog?

[Jason Levine]

Wow, and I thought cockatoos were bad. My wife's parents had a couple of cockatoos. One died young due to illness, but the other is going strong at around 20. The life expectancy is 60+ years so we might wind up inheriting the bird (if it doesn't go to my wife's brother) and could even wind up passing it down to my kids.

A 300 year old dog? Fido was my great-great-great-granddad's dog, passed down from generation to generation. Someday he'll be my kid's dog also.

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry my dog is a bit racist, he's from a different time.

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> we might wind up inheriting the bird (if it doesn't go to my wife's brother) and could even wind up passing it down to my kids

Or you could have near-chicken for dinner one night and save yourself decades of annoying chirping.

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[Moof123]

We can't find homes for a ton of cats and dogs already, so what happens to all these super long lived animals over their lives?

I know it is horrible, but part of me is looking forward to not having any more dogs in a few years. I love our dog, but it costs a lot for vet visits, boarding, and generally makes it hard to just go do stuff when we have to make sure he gets bathroom breaks, walks, food, etc. I am sure those with teenagers have a bit of the same perspective, you love your kid but can't wait to get them off to college.

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[gstoddart]

And, of course, just how batshit crazy and screwed up is your dog going to be after 300 years?

All those little psycho dogs which have been ruined by their overly anxious 'parents' and the dog is now a neurotic little ball of hate? Someone is going to need to take that dog out long before 300 years.

So damned many pets exhibit behavior only their owners can possibly tolerate or find cute.

Assuming we also have longer life spans, you still have to deal with the issue you describe in case someone dies.

I guess this is for when we live hundreds of years and want to keep our pets. But who the hell knows how messed up a dog or cat will be after that much time?

Imagine that stupid dog which can't ever be trained to stop barking or not pee on the floor living for 300 years.

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, I read that too fast and though you were talking about cockroaches. WTF would you do with a 20 year old cockroach? Can you teach them tricks? Do they get used to you being around? All I know about them is you can embed electrodes and control them like a robot.

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't find homes for a ton of cats and dogs already, so what happens to all these super long lived animals over their lives?

We can't find homes for a bunch of humans (the homeless) already, so what do we think will happen if we humans ended up living longer, in terms of how we treat our money and the less fortunate? Off-topic, mark me down as a troll.

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually long life may yet give them higher intelligence and in my opinion our ape ancestors were probably a bit crazy
Add being highly social and living in complex environment...and who knows

To whoever thinks brain size matter the most, please explain the African grey parrot, or the crow if some more common animal is preferable as an example
The only other thing that I consider important to develop intelligence is a large visual cortex but it has been show by experimentation that dogs while started as a species using the noses like the wolf, they are becoming a lot more visual animals

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[HiThere]

I'm rather sure you are overestimating the intelligence of Alex and his relatives, and of the corvids. Yes, they're quite intelligent for birds, and Alex demonstrated minimal understanding of grammar. This doesn't make them even nearly as smart as a dog.

OTOH, as I've asserted before, intelligence is not a thing, but rather a collections of capabilities. Some of the capabilities include the capability to use other capabilities as tools to accomplish some limited tasks. And I deny the existence of this "general intelligence" thing which IQ tests claim to measure. What they actually measure is a collection of socially approved capabilities. So, for example, the correlation between having a high IQ and being a successful musician or author or politician is, if anything, slightly negative. Those careers require capabilities which are not measured by IQ tests and which appear to vary in a way independent of the capabilities measured by IQ tests. (Yeah, a certain minimal level of the capabilities measured by IQ tests is needed, but that's possessed by almost anyone with a decent social background who doesn't have something physically wrong with them. And more than the minimum isn't that helpful in those professions.)

Re:300 Year Old Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great thing about birds is you just have to leave the door open. If it really loves you, it will come back.

Size of the animal

[Ogive17]

Just like humans, the size is a determining factor. The bigger an animal (or human) is, the more stress it puts on key organs such as the heart. Of course there are other factors.

We have 2 cats.. and I bet they will live to be 20 since they both annoy the shit outta me. One chews wires and the other only wants food and can't cover her shit in the litter box which stinks up half the house.

Re:Size of the animal

[jabuzz]

Want to explain why mice or gerbils or hamsters don't live to be 100 then?

Re:Size of the animal

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the cats... Duh...

Re:Size of the animal

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered why mice lived to be 300 and whales only lived to be 2.

Re:Size of the animal

[Terwin]

Want to explain why mice or gerbils or hamsters don't live to be 100 then?

Metabolism.
Smaller critters often have a very high metabolism and that wears out the heart and other organs quite fast.

A normal cat's heart rate is between 140 and 220 bpm Lifespan ~15 years
Dog: 60-140 beats/min Lifespan: 13y
Gerbil: 260-600 beats/min Lifespan: 2-3y
Mouse: 310-840 beats/min Lifespan: 12-36m
Hamster: 310-480 beats/min Lifespan: 18-36m
Sources:
google(cat, dog),
http://www.peteducation.com/ar... (rodents)

You get a small critter with a slow metabolism and it should live for a very long time as it would have very little wear from either gravity or metabolism.
A good example of this might be the turtle:
Turtle: 25 beats/min Lifespan: 80y
80 years sounds like a pretty good lifespan for a critter with little or no modern health care...

Re:Size of the animal

[Eloking]

Want to explain why mice or gerbils or hamsters don't live to be 100 then?

I think it's a question of metabolism. The smaller the animal, the faster the metabolism. But if you get two animal with the same metabolism but of greatly different size, the smaller one will live longer.

But I may be completely wrong and I, afaik, Chihuahua seems to have a metabolism way more faster than a big lazy dog.

Re:Size of the animal

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the whole answer though. Chinchillas live 20 years. Birds live a long time, and their metabolism is very high in general. But even if it was, that would be nature's answer, which does not mean that humans cannot change that. I know this was not your point, and I am not correcting you. I just wanted to type something this morning . . . as an AC.

Re:Size of the animal

[arth1]

That doesn't explain how big parrots and cockatoos live longer than humans. Their heart rate and metabolism is much higher than most of your examples.

The answer is that depending on your ecological niche, it is not beneficial for the species and thus survival of your genes to live forever. Relocating birds can get away with it much more than animals stuck in a limited habitat.

Re:Size of the animal

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't explain how big parrots and cockatoos live longer than humans. Their heart rate and metabolism is much higher than most of your examples.

Maybe there are some things we do not understand yet. Just saying...

Re:Size of the animal

[wonkey_monkey]

I thought I heard something about how larger animals (or humans) have more cells, so therefore have a greater risk of developing cancer.

I could never quite work out if it made sense or not...

Re:Size of the animal

[Anonymous Coward]

Larger animals also tend to have more biological checks against cancer growth, because they needed them to evolve larger/long-lived bodies. Mice get cancer at crazy high rates... because, evolutionarily, they never needed to not get cancer.

Re:Size of the animal

[Xest]

Or why in contrast blue whales live 80 - 90 years.

Obviously it's not just about size if your average hamster is gone in what, 8 years? I don't know how long they live but a blue whale can live to 90.

I don't even think the metabolism argument holds true universally, I don't think the "wearing out" argument in general is true. I think that some species simply have better regenerative capabilities than others. How long a species lives is driven more by that species' place in the ecosystem and what age span benefits the species more than anything. You need new members of a species to be produced to allow evolution to occur and to ensure genetic diversity to protect against things like disease. That explains why Blue Whales can live so long, because they're so big that they don't face many evolving threats, and so don't themselves need to breed and hence evolve with such frequency as something small like a mouse living in a highly competitive forest environment where there are lots of predators that also co-evolve to constantly adapt their hunting strategies.

Of course that only gives us the answer to what determines life span and why a species has the life span it does, but it doesn't given us the mechanism that limits that life span. I'd wager there is no one single mechanism but a combination of factors that all need to be in sync for maximum lifespan - durable organs, good regenerative capabilities and so on. There's no point having a heart and organs that could take you to 200, if your teeth and jaw joints are so far gone that you can't eat and die far earlier anyway for example. Joints wear, so even if your organs are sorted you need to be able to regenerate those joints and such somehow also.

We could produce dogs that live much longer already by selecting for those that live longer, but instead we keep breeding breeds with defects for looks, or breeds like Alsatians that don't live that long because they're incredibly versatile as anything from guide dogs, to bomb disposal dogs, to assault dogs, to police dogs, to making good pets. We select for utility and looks rather than age with dogs right now.

Re: San Bernardino:Attacker pledged allegiance to

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's not news for nerds?

Re:San Bernardino:Attacker pledged allegiance to I

[Anonymous Coward]

The story Slashdot won't run:

San Bernardino shooting: Attacker pledged allegiance to ISIS, officials say

... as the San Bernardino, California, attack was happening, female shooter Tashfeen Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook ...

At least Muslims here in the US are condemning the San Bernardino attack. The other week when the guy in Colorado shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic Christians were cheering.

joke, sort of

[ole_timer]

One day there's a machine that controls all and the life span is very long. There's also a man and a dog. The man feeds the dog. The dog makes sure the man never, ever touches the machine. Good reason to extend the life span of dogs...

Every loved dog is the best dog...

[cplusplus]

I have a 13 year old larger dog now, and it's hard to see her aging because she's starting to have the typical old age ailments that will eventually get us all. Lots of exercise all her life has helped stave off the aches and pains until recently. I would have paid quite a bit to delay the aging process for her and keep her health. Obligatory Oatmeal reference...

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[bugs2squash]

My (larger) dogs both lived to an old age and I miss them tremendously. I don't miss the vet bills though. If they manage to make a dog live to 100 all the vets will be billionaires.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[Moof123]

My only advice is to euthanize before she gets miserable, while she is still happy. It is better for all if the last days are good ones rather than wait until both she and your family are miserable.

We waited too long with a Labrador when I was growing up, to the point he was out of it and had to be taken into the vet's office on a stretcher. It sucked, and I vowed that my own pets would never go through that. More recently out Lab/Malemute mutt got bone cancer and we did not wait. We got enough good pain meds so he had a good last few days in only moderate pain, and he was still in good spirits sticking his head out the window on the way to the vet. I only wish I could have done the same for previous family dogs, and frankly for some of my deceased human family members as well.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[arth1]

What's interesting, but sad, is that the lifespan of dogs has gone down over the last century.
My 14 year old big lab still has a lot of puppy in her, and still chases squirrels. But she doesn't jump anymore and is turning gray -- both just like her humans. That she's doing so well, I attribute to not giving her dog food. A former dog lived to 21.
My dogs basically eat what I eat, but more protein, less salt and starch, and no onions or unprocessed dairy. But if I'm not willing to eat it out of their bowl, they don't get it either. That dogs can't handle dietary change and must be fed the same every day is a myth. Fish one day, roast the next - no problems whatsoever.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[Nidi62]

That she's doing so well, I attribute to not giving her dog food. A former dog lived to 21. My dogs basically eat what I eat, but more protein, less salt and starch, and no onions or unprocessed dairy. But if I'm not willing to eat it out of their bowl, they don't get it either. That dogs can't handle dietary change and must be fed the same every day is a myth. Fish one day, roast the next - no problems whatsoever.

Growing up I had a chow-lab mix. After about 2 years old she never ate dog food (she would eat dog treats though). She lived off table scraps, hot dogs, chicken, ground beef, and Wendy's doublestacks with cheese plain. She also got at least a little bit of chocolate almost every night. We had to put her down at 16. She had arthritis and possibly a torn acl in one leg, but one weekend it's like her mind just snapped. She just laid there for 2 days straight constantly doing a small little yip. Wouldn't eat or move. When we took her to out vet to put her down even they could tell she wasn't herself (she was normally rather grouchy at the vet and they even had a bite warning on her file). If that hadn't happened it wouldn't have surprised me of she lasted another 2-3 more years.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[arth1]

My (larger) dogs both lived to an old age and I miss them tremendously. I don't miss the vet bills though. If they manage to make a dog live to 100 all the vets will be billionaires.

Doubtful. I am amazed at how little I pay at the vet compared to what doctors treating humans charged.
My dog can get a health exam, pills and complimentary pedicure for $80 in total. Add X-rays, and it might be $80 more.
What's insane is how much humans are charged, especially here in the US. Simply because we can't afford to say no.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you! An Oatmeal link!

There goes an hour or two of productivity...

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[Firethorn]

Sounds like she had a stroke.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had 4 dogs together and i could never own a dog again, my heart simply cannot take it. Watching them die one by one until i was alone broke me.

I would gladly let a dog outlive me, they can get over the loss of a fellow pack member far easier than i can. More than a decade later i still miss all 4 of those silly fluffy sods enough to bring me to tears; at the time i would've gladly taken my own life to prolong theirs.

To me a dog isn't a simple family pet, they are a family member and deserve to live as long as one.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[Nidi62]

Sounds like she had a stroke.

Yeah, we assumed stroke, tumor, or something similar. Either way, we knew there really wasn't much we could do.

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[danomac]

There goes an hour or two of productivity...

...enabling all the scripts to make the site work.

After two I gave up and moved on...

Re:Every loved dog is the best dog...

[HiThere]

It's not simply because we can't afford to say no. The costs started rising when the required paperwork started rising. In all history before the 1950's a doctor's office was usually the doctor, or the doctor and his wife. Sometimes a doctor and a nurse. Now (in the US) there's a staff to handle the paperwork, and a single doctor can't afford to practice. First there was government paperwork, then HMOs started demanding more, and there's government, HMOs, insurance companies, etc.

The stupid thing is that computers, which should have freed us from paperwork, were instead conscripted to drastically increase the amount of paperwork (although now it often never involved paper per se).

Great, another 20+ years of picking up dog poop

[JoeyRox]

But I have to admit it's worth it. Love my dog :)

Now that's a really dumb fucking idea

[PvtVoid]

Put aside the enormous cost that will surely be involved in extending animal lifespans, but think of the animals themselves: no animal should outlive its owner.

Re:Now that's a really dumb fucking idea

[Eloking]

Put aside the enormous cost that will surely be involved in extending animal lifespans, but think of the animals themselves: no animal should outlive its owner.

Ok, I'll go ask dog.

"Dog, do you mind that grandpa died?"
"Woof!"
"I think he doesn't mind".

More seriously thought, we just received the dog of my now deceased grand-father and his mourning was quite faster than ours and I seriously have hard time getting the pertinence of your point. I'm quite sure a dog will live happily and long that he got a good owner and good food. Furthermore, researching life extension on pet is actually a quite good idea to help the research of human life extension so in my books it's win-win (unless you're one of "those" guy thinking that life extension is "bad" and "immoral").

Re:Now that's a really dumb fucking idea

[swv3752]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/th...

Some dogs never get over the death of a beloved owner.

Re:Now that's a really dumb fucking idea

[Eloking]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/th...

Some dogs never get over the death of a beloved owner.

Haaa yahoo news, (one of) my favourite source of integrity news. Any of those "dog stay at owner grave for years" news smell fishy and weird but it's my opinion.

Anyway, being true or not, I don't think a few story like this count as a good argument to prove that "no pet should outlive it's master because it's too cruel". Max here (granpa's dog) look quite happy with us.

Re:San Bernardino:Attacker pledged allegiance to I

[Eloking]

The story Slashdot won't run:

San Bernardino shooting: Attacker pledged allegiance to ISIS, officials say

... as the San Bernardino, California, attack was happening, female shooter Tashfeen Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook ...

At least Muslims here in the US are condemning the San Bernardino attack. The other week when the guy in Colorado shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic Christians were cheering.

Putting aside the fact that the main story is borderline "news for nerds", do you know how Slashdot works? The discussion is still active in the news posted yesterday so why don`t you simply go there and post your update?

Goddamn it

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear if my dog outlives me, I will kill myself

Here's the link to the story

[sciencehabit]

http://news.sciencemag.org/hea...

Don't want - for myself or pets

[iamacat]

Age extension is torture without corresponding lifting of physical and mental limitations. If I live long enough, I will eventually stagnate and not have any really new experiences which make living worthwhile. Eventually I will lose most memories from all but (say) most recent 50 years and earlier versions of me will still effectively die, except without a clear closure or joy of discovery available to a young person.

Give me ability to grow mentally and emotionally beyond my current capacity or let me feel well until around 70-80 and then I am ready to check out. Any self respecting dog would understand.

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Eloking]

Age extension is torture without corresponding lifting of physical and mental limitations. If I live long enough, I will eventually stagnate and not have any really new experiences which make living worthwhile. Eventually I will lose most memories from all but (say) most recent 50 years and earlier versions of me will still effectively die, except without a clear closure or joy of discovery available to a young person.

Give me ability to grow mentally and emotionally beyond my current capacity or let me feel well until around 70-80 and then I am ready to check out. Any self respecting dog would understand.

Well just don't take the pills, but don't try to force your morality on us.

I'm a profound atheist and one of the big consequence is the belief of eternal oblivion after death. I don't know for you, but for me it's the worst possible outcome and I'll do anything to avoid it as long as I can. Even if it mean forgetting all my "important" memory or who I am since, after all, what's the use of memory in oblivion?

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[iamacat]

You are not much of an atheist if you view oblivion as terrifying rather than neutral (worse than being happy, better than being unhappy) or if you believe you have a soul that can survive loss of memories.

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[PvtVoid]

I'm a profound atheist and one of the big consequence is the belief of eternal oblivion after death. I don't know for you, but for me it's the worst possible outcome and I'll do anything to avoid it as long as I can.

Funny point of view for an atheist. You had eternal oblivion before you were born, and somehow that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. As a hardcore atheist myself I know that after I die things will be back as they were before I was born. I don' t remember any hard feelings about those pre-life times. Absolutely neutral.

*I also have a pet theory that our final moments will stretch asymptotically as we fade into unconsciousness, essentially prolonging our lives. It's the only semi-magical thinking I allow myself.

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Eloking]

You are not much of an atheist if you view oblivion as terrifying rather than neutral (worse than being happy, better than being unhappy) or if you believe you have a soul that can survive loss of memories.

Well I'm quite interested to hear what's your definition of an atheist.

If you take oblivion as "neutral", it's your choice and it's also your point of view. You see the life as a balance of good and bad so if your life is more bad than good you rather end your life and that's fine.

My point of view is that any happy moment is a treasure that worth it and I want to get most of them as possible. In consequence, it mean that if I have to life 100 years of sadness to get one more moment of happiness then I'll try to get it. It also mean that I'll do everything to extend my life as long that I have the slightest hope to live another good moment in the future. Again, it's my point of view and I don't see how it make me less atheist than you (which, by definition, doesn't have anything to do with our perception of oblivion afaik).

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Eloking]

I'm a profound atheist and one of the big consequence is the belief of eternal oblivion after death. I don't know for you, but for me it's the worst possible outcome and I'll do anything to avoid it as long as I can.

Funny point of view for an atheist. You had eternal oblivion before you were born, and somehow that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

I don't get what you mean. What does eternal oblivion before birth have to do with this? I was in oblivion before birth so I should embrace it?

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[PvtVoid]

I don't get what you mean. What does eternal oblivion before birth have to do with this? I was in oblivion before birth so I should embrace it?

Well, it wasn't so bad the last time around, was it?

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Eloking]

I don't get what you mean. What does eternal oblivion before birth have to do with this? I was in oblivion before birth so I should embrace it?

Well, it wasn't so bad the last time around, was it?

It wasn't so bad? I didn't existed. I didn't have any happy moment. I didn't learn new stuff. I didn't meet new people. So no, I'm not in a hurry to go back there.

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[PvtVoid]

So no, I'm not in a hurry to go back there.

Well, you will someday. Enjoy.

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Eloking]

So no, I'm not in a hurry to go back there.

Well, you will someday. Enjoy.

How incredibly sweet of you /sarcasm

Nah, that was a resentful comment.

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Anonymous Coward]

...and then I am ready to check out. Any self respecting dog would understand.

Posted by iamacat. Oh sure, Mr. Cat, no hidden agenda there, right?

- T

Re:Don't want - for myself or pets

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you better should. It's coming your way right now.

Re: Don't want - for myself or pets

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting you should mention believing in eternal oblivion. You are correct. Us Theists also believe in eternal oblivion as supported by God's word:
Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 says "There is hope for whoever is among the living, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun."

verse 10 then advises: "Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going."

Most so-called Christian religions have ignored this and created tradition and philosophy that allowed their members to be afraid of ghosts and believe in reincarnation and eternal torment in fire. The life God promises is an offer for every one of us who honestly apply his words in the Bible, including heeding various warnings that wolves would enter among the sheep and corrupt the teaching. But the book has survives as a witness that God does not want anyone to be destroyed.

Revelation 20:14-15 has shown hellfire to be a false doctrine all along. Those who do not do God's will willingly and will not be coerced and will simply cease to live --a prospect already shown to be normal to believers and atheists: "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire."

It is really a shame that most people miss the point of the variable assignment from the second to last sentence :)

Better: selectively breed for health and longevity

[Roger W Moore]

Stop selectively breeding them.

There is no problem with selective breeding per se it just depends on what you selectively breed for. If all you care about is looks i.e. a particular pattern of hair colour and a particular shape of body and you do not care about health and longevity then guess what you will end up with those particular features but reduced health because you did not breed for that characteristic.

However if we selectively bred dogs for a good temperament and robust health and longevity then we might get dogs which are not as good looking but they would be friendly and healthy. The same seems to apply to humans too if you look at the average celebrity.

Re:San Bernardino:Attacker pledged allegiance to I

[Zontar The Mindless]

Slashdot != CNN.

If you want up-to-the-minute news of general interest, read CNN. Or if you prefer (as I do) the BBC, which posted the same story about 30 minutes ago.

Owning such a dog will be expensive

[avandesande]

A lot of the veterinary care we give them is predicated on living ~15 years. If you anticipate that they would live a lot longer expect to treat them like a humans- such as going to the dentist every 6 months, regular checkups etc.

Let's turn our attention to our pets.

[AndyKron]

I guess all the world's problems have been solved now. Let's turn our attention to our pets.

Re:Let's turn our attention to our pets.

[Eloking]

I guess all the world's problems have been solved now. Let's turn our attention to our pets.

I get your point but let put this story in another perspective.

Life extension in pet could be more easily morally accepted by society and a lot of new research funding could become available. And life expansion of pets shouldn't be too different of human life expansion so the two science could be beneficial to each others. And since age is the most common cause of mortality in the world, I'd say it's a good shoot.

Re:Let's turn our attention to our pets.

[avandesande]

I would argue just the opposite- life extension in pets would help us to better understand the ethical implications of life extension without having to commit to them. Maybe they would get some disease that has never been observed before, or there is some part of them that would consistently fail. If their quality of life was poor they could be euthanized without triggering an ethical dilemma, as most pet owners already do this for their pets.

TFA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the only one to notice the link is an article about centuries old beaver dams?

Are they absolutely nuts???

[dasgoober]

We have enough problems with pet over-population as it is!! Strays living for 30 years, even more cats killing birds, dog packs forming ... this is a terrible idea.
Try having them born reversibly sterile, first. Then, owners who want to have pups/kits, can have the sterility reversed.

Re:Are they absolutely nuts???

[Anonymous Coward]

even more cats killing birds

More cats or more bird shit, which one do you prefer?

Re:Are they absolutely nuts???

[UnknowingFool]

Birds exist in an ecosystem for a reason. Yes, they shit everywhere; it helps fertilize soil and spread seeds. Domesticated cats on the other hand are not indigenous to all ecosystems.

Re:Are they absolutely nuts???

[Cro Magnon]

I live in the city. There's far more bird shit than soil. I'm in favor of more cats.

Re:Are they absolutely nuts???

[Locke2005]

Show me a cat big enough to take on city rats and pigeons, and I might be interested.

Re:Are they absolutely nuts???

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar

I for one would be in favor of releasing large numbers of these in places like the financial district in New York.

Re:Are they absolutely nuts???

[Mal-2]

This was already proposed, but the person in charge of implementing it misunderstood the specification and released cougars of another type into the financial district. Many of them did in fact qualify as man-eating as well, but the experiment was still deemed to be a failure.

Life sentence

[fustakrakich]

Extending it only makes it longer.

Imagine

[kilodelta]

If you can extend the pet ages out to 300 years I'm pretty sure we could do the same with humans. 300 years of feeding, watering, walking and having to take the dog everywhere with you. Does that sound good to you? It doesn't to me.

The purpose of a pet is not in its death

[sjbe]

When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death.

That is not the purpose of having a pet. That might happen but that isn't why you get one. You have a pet for the job they bring you while they are alive. Not so that your children can learn to cope with their loss.

Re:The purpose of a pet is not in its death

[Anonymous Coward]

> That is not the purpose of having a pet.

I'm sorry that you had such an emotional reaction to what I wrote. I think if you go back and read it again you'll see that what I actually said was that the death of a pet has a purpose, not that the purpose of a pet is it's death.

Re:The purpose of a pet is not in its death

[wonkey_monkey]

You have a pet for the job they bring you while they are alive.

Pah. I loved my dog to bits but the little guy never got me any work.

I think I have that now.

[fahrbot-bot]

Maybe a thousand years from now you could have a dog that lives 300 years.

I think my dog in Hack is still alive. The game killed me and I haven't checked in on him in *quite* a few years though. Maybe I should; he might be hungry...

Rescue

[PopeRatzo]

There are millions of unwanted pets sitting in shelters. Before you worry about making your poodle live for 300 years, maybe go down there and adopt a couple.

Re:Rescue

[painandgreed]

There are millions of unwanted pets sitting in shelters. Before you worry about making your poodle live for 300 years, maybe go down there and adopt a couple.

Meh. It's just a way to do animal testing for human medicine without raising too many red flags. The first generation of poodle to live to a century or two will be owned by some research lab and probably not allowed to breed much.

Pet shortened lifespan perhaps?

[oldmac31310]

Is there any chance they could spare one of their researchers to work on shortening the lifespan of a pet? Specifically my neighbour's savage pitbull. It shouldn't be too difficult.

Re:Pet shortened lifespan perhaps?

[Locke2005]

There are all sorts of substances you can put in meatloaf and throw over the fence to substantially shorten a pet's life. I recommend antifreeze; ethylene glycol poisoning usually looks like an accident and is hard to trace...

Autodafe.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why do cats live longer than dogs?

Dog out in the rain, snow, storm and boiling hot summer, eating left-over food at best and treated like a biological boxing bag. Cat inside or outside the house as she wishes, but always served gourmet food by the brain-washed owner, who would caress her all day long. Dog is the allegory of man and cat of woman. There was a reason medieval people burned cats at the stake as witches.

Re:Autodafe.

[Locke2005]

There may be some truth to your speculation; I believe always-indoor cats do have a longer expected lifetime than cats that are allowed to roam outdoors.

Great

[Locke2005]

I can just imagine how often a 300 year old dog is going to piss on the carpet. Look, maybe dogs and cats have a 20 year lifespan for a reason?

Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again: With modern medical science, it is obvious that there has never been a better time than today to be a mouse! Other species, you need to wait in line; mice get it first!

Re:Great

[Firethorn]

I can just imagine how often a 300 year old dog is going to piss on the carpet. Look, maybe dogs and cats have a 20 year lifespan for a reason?

The 'simplest' way to start increasing the lifespan of our pets would be to look at the status of the grand/great-grandparents. If they're still alive, that's a plus. If they're still alive and not had any serious medical issues, that's a double-plus(or more). Besides the other requirements(such as having a good personality), this should get you trending on longer lifespans, without crazy medical issues. Inheritable conditions like hip problems should be a disqualifier.

Why bother?

[Locke2005]

It would be a lot easier to just clone Fifi over and over, and replace the annoying little bitch with a perfect replica puppy every ten years...

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Extending lifespan is all well and good, but wake me when we get serious about uplifting them.

This new trick teaches dog old age.

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

A dog that lives 300 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years of cute puppy, 298 years of dog farts. No thanks!

Arrogant blokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, some rich, creepy pedophile dickbag REALLY doesn't want to let go of his pet, so he digs into his pockets and ...

Scientists who work on projects like this are like pigs who need to go fight some real crime.

Gonna put them in wills too?

[Mal-2]

We already have the problem of parrots outliving their owners, and having to be either taken in by someone else as a pre-existing arrangement (which doesn't always work out well), or end up in shelters for decades. Also, one part of the draw for having a pet (other than the above-mentioned parrots) is knowing that if you get a particularly stupid one, or one that isn't very nice to people, or has other major problems that can't be worked out, you're not stuck with it for the rest of your life -- unless you're old, and then the "what if it out lives you?" question arises again.

Now highly trained service animals -- that's another matter entirely. It would be enormously helpful if disabled people with service dogs didn't need a new one every decade or so. But this should be reserved for such edge cases, and that can be done pretty straightforwardly by making it remain expensive. (It will start expensive, whether we want it to be or not.)