Stem Cell Brain Implants Could 'Slow Aging and Extend Life,' Study Shows (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Scientists have slowed down the aging process by implanting stem cells into the brains of animals, raising hopes for new strategies to combat age-related diseases and extend the human lifespan. Implants of stem cells that make fresh neurons in the brain were found to put the brakes on aging in older mice, keeping them more physically and mentally fit for months, and extending their lives by 10-15% compared to untreated animals. The work, described as a tour de force and a breakthrough by one leading expert, suggests that aging across the body is controlled by stem cells that are found in the hypothalamus region of the brain in youth, but which steadily die off until they are almost completely absent in middle age. Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers. The study has been published in the journal Nature.

Comments

I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

Forgot to add: when it's paid for by someone else (aka "insurance").

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Gravis Zero]

By the time this can be applied to the general population, such issues will be resolved.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

Since the issues of cost in medicine will *never* be solved in a manner which is currently deemed "fair", "equitable" and "moral" while still being fiscally prudent, I'm going to presume that you're being sarcastic.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[interkin3tic]

A lot of those costs are due to things the process could possibly fix. TFS mentions it keeps them physically and mentally fit longer. Care for elderly who are mentally unable to care for themselves is obviously quite a bit more difficult (read: expensive). Someone who can ring the bell when they need help getting to the toilet may be a burden, but it's vastly better than someone who can't.

Same with the physically fit part. If this implant lets your parent walk up and down the stairs, that's much better than if they can't.

Cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes and a lot of other medical conditions are still going to be expensive, sure, but solving for assisted or total care would still dramatically reduce costs.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[skids]

This isn't just life extension it is quality of life extension. And yes it is a great idea. Might even reduce costs by increasing the odds that people will get hit by a truck before they need expensive care.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Existential Wombat]

No. Unless of course it’s mine.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[rtb61]

If they extend life so it reflects an age between say 25 and 45, than simply only those with a permit can breed and those without get snipped if they want their life extended out, dependent upon them never having had children. You get to live longer, if your ego does not demand infinite breeding. Now if they extending life but you remain that invalid age, well, why the fuck bother, who wants to be 150 if your body actually behaves like it is 150 instead of say 35(note the reference).

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[jandersen]

But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?

The point is not to extend the time you hang around being in poor health, but to give people a longer, healthy (and productive) life. There are reasons to believe that one of the key reasons for our species' success was the fact that we started having grandparents about 30K years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/sc... - grandparents not only give those of childbearing age more freedom to gather food etc, they were probably crucial in establishing bonds with other tribes, thus providing an important precondition for a larger society and eventually civilisation. Now-a-days, I think living healthy lives for longer has obvious bebefits - caring for a frail, elderly population is expensive for any society, but taking the frailty out of the equation not only means a great cost saving, it also adds years in which people contribute to society.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

than simply only those with a permit can breed and those without get snipped if they want their life extended out,

If you can't already hear the cries of racism, clear the wax out of your ears.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

Four predictions:

1) This is just going to add more years to the years in which they can get cancer (multiple times) and diabetes.

2) Robotics is already reducing the amount of work that's going to be needed.

3) This will continue to reduce the birth rate in developed countries.

4) Third World countries will continue to grow their populations.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

but to give people a longer, healthy (and productive) life.

Like to be given the injections in your 30s (when people are already slowing down)?

But who thinks about this in their 30s?

taking the frailty out of the equation not only means a great cost saving

This assumes that we'll die as soon as our bodies fall apart, as opposed to being frail and repeatedly breaking down for longer.

it also adds years in which people contribute to society.

Not when there's no need for 1/2 the population, because of AI robots.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[umghhh]

Fortunately there is a cure for almost everything these days including aging. The only thing needed is young blood. Seems like dream come true and there is already a company providing the appropriate service. As always the ones getting service are people with thick wallets. So the only problem there is then is population size.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[umghhh]

We are still missing explanation on why in 20y there will be no questions needed on sustainability of medicine. I suppose two solutions may come handy: technological progress making things cheaper and nuclear (or any other sort) holocaust making human medicine obsolete. The first one is unlikely. Not because technology will stop progressing but because the property rights will not allow to spread of wealth gained from that progress, at least not in the way which would allow to provide medicine to all. There is also this little problem that all natural beings provided with means will expand - procreate till the end of the petri dish is reached. The ones that do not die out. Works for bacteria and for nations and empires.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[umghhh]

Is this sarcasm or you are one of SJW people? Just wonder. The GP did not mention any race even remotely. The problem is of course there will be lots of people that may use it as an argument. Yet I am pretty sure if they can indeed provide 35y till grave edge then it will be done. As Chinese show the 1child policy is enforceable even if corruption allow some to procreate over the allowed limits. The problem is with our preciious old minds living in these young bodies - fewer of us yet the MENA but also the rest of Africa will just procreate on and on. This will cause race war. The young will win I am sure. Then there will be few people in the privileged group who think this aint right and having means to destroy all. I am sure future will offer few exciting events w/ or w/o this implants.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Applehu Akbar]

But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?

If some innovation comes along that extends life, you are perfectly free not to take it. In your case, please take advantage of this option.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[enrique556]

But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?

Exactly what I came to say. There's a point where eternal rest is more enjoyable than continued existence, as many inform older people exclaim. If we legalised euthanasia, and allowed people to choose to die peacefully rather than go through another round of chemotherapy or whatever, there'd be a shit ton of money freed up to spend on people whose quality of life is worth investing in.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Ol Olsoc]

Four predictions:

1) This is just going to add more years to the years in which they can get cancer (multiple times) and diabetes.

2) Robotics is already reducing the amount of work that's going to be needed.

3) This will continue to reduce the birth rate in developed countries.

4) Third World countries will continue to grow their populations.

You've nailed it pretty well. The problem with age extension is that all of the years are added on the wrong end. Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Ol Olsoc]

The point is not to extend the time you hang around being in poor health, but to give people a longer, healthy (and productive) life.

That might not be the point, but it might be the effect. There are certain issues that are difficult to get around, such as the wear and tear on joints that goes beyond typical body repair processes. If we say increase average lifespan to say 200 years, we are going to need some serious work on our skeletons to replace the calcium phosphate and calcium hydroxylapatite they are composed of along with collagen. It just isn't up to the task of human type activity for that long.

grandparents not only give those of childbearing age more freedom to gather food etc, they were probably crucial in establishing bonds with other tribes, thus providing an important precondition for a larger society and eventually civilisation. Now-a-days, I think living healthy lives for longer has obvious bebefits - caring for a frail, elderly population is expensive for any society, but taking the frailty out of the equation not only means a great cost saving, it also adds years in which people contribute to society.

Oh, good heavens. Assuming that you don't believe that humans will somehow become immortal, you would have to agree that we don't live forever. And if we lengthen lifespan, people are still going to age.

In the best case scenario, we'll spend a hundred years at today's 35, then gracefully expire of something something.

Much more likely if we double lifespan, we'll just double the time spent in any phase of life, from childhood to puberty to early adulthood and so on.

But the most likely scenario is that if we double the lifespan of humans, we'll be spending a lot of time at the elderly end of our life phase.

Umm, no thanks.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Ol Olsoc]

Exactly what I came to say. There's a point where eternal rest is more enjoyable than continued existence, as many inform older people exclaim. If we legalised euthanasia, and allowed people to choose to die peacefully rather than go through another round of chemotherapy or whatever, there'd be a shit ton of money freed up to spend on people whose quality of life is worth investing in.

In the last year of her life, my Mother-in Law's medical bills were approaching a million dollars.

Here's a woman who never smoked, didn't drink, and kept pretty fit, only to fall to dementia. Spent the last 10 years of her life in a nursing home, and she wasn't a happy demented.

What a loving and caring society, that would spend millions on keeping a person alive who doesn't even know who she is most of the time.

As a friend noted, "If we did this to a dog, we'd be arrested for cruelty."

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[null etc.]

is extending human life that much of a good idea?

It is, if extending the average lifespan of humans will cause them to have children later in life.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[jellomizer]

Modern western culture has a problem with death.
We see respecting the process of death being antithetical to respecting life. As a culture we have a hard time realizing that everyone will die, including yourself. And the process of death is part of the overall process. So we try to find ways to prolong life, except for way to improve the quality of life, and offer a respectful death.
This isn't going towards an pro-euthanasia debate, but towards work to make life better.

So this research that may slow the aging process doesn't necessarily mean it will create massive increase in life spans, but a better quality of life for the given time we have, without the negative affect of aging.

Besides population control is more effective with birth control vs speeding up the death process.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Gravis Zero]

Never? The AC is right, we are in the economic endgame because of mass automation. However, consider the following:

* The current medical pricing trend is unsustainable.
* Patents on medicine don't last forever and when they expire you get "generics" made by any certified manufacturer at which point they are cheap.
* We've getting to the point technologically where they are soon going to be made on site by a automated chemistry machine that can make any medicine.
* Most importantly: Men and nations will do the right thing once they have exhausted all other options... and we're getting there.

Many things could happen and maybe the US won't be around or the US government will be reformed. What I do know is that all roads lead to a resolution of your concerns.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

Of course, the male sperm count has dropped 50% in the last 40 years, and the existing population is breeding at below sustainment levels.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

What I do know is that all roads lead to a resolution of your concerns.

You've failed to note that one of those resolutions is mandatory euthanasia at a specific age for people who don't have their own money to pay for geriatric care.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Gr8Apes]

Automation is going to force a serious reconciliation on how we deal with people. When most blue-collar and a significant portion of white collar work is done by robots, there literally won't be enough for the population to do.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Gr8Apes]

Different people slow down at different ages. Some start in their 20s, others not until their 80s. (Look at Jack LaLanne, for instance)

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[DarthVain]

Kind of think there needs to be a science fiction book about where people figure out eternal life (or extensions enough to dramatically extend it), and what effect that has on the global economy. Jobs where no one ever really retires, or wealth being hoarded by those longest lived, or the effects to interest rates, etc... could be an interesting premise. If you know if one exists, suggest it to me... Not so much population issues, making the assumption that the birth rate falls as a result to an equilibrium with those people still getting hit with trucks as it were.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[interkin3tic]

Fertility rates in developing countries are already falling.

And it's not exactly an unsolvable problem anyway. Have the government send birth control over there. Women will use it. Want to decrease it further? Have the government work to fund schools for women over there.

Lotta dudes online seem to think the people they don't care much for are just bound and determined to reproduce like bunnies no matter what and are totally befuddled as to why people they do care for are reproducing slightly slower. It's really not hard, nor does it require horrors like raising their standard of living up to ours in all other ways.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[micahraleigh]

I'm glad we have the cynical analysis of Nutrina to singularly decide what everyone should have access to in regard to aging, the cost of medicine (which will never go down), the economy, and what makes a good idea.

Especially for small things like life and death decisions.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[avandesande]

It's easy to freeze semen and eggs and let them sit for a few years. Not very fun though....

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

Since I never asserted that my way is the only way, much less whether or not I actually have a way, as opposed to questions without strongly formed opinions, it's patently obvious that your assertion that I've decided what everyone should have access to is a steaming pile of zealot crap.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Gravis Zero]

Yeah... because I live in reality. You should try it.

Re: I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Ol Olsoc]

Joints, ligaments and bone tissue is living biologically avtive tissue so they can adopt to wear and tear just like skin and muscle.

Perhaps you are young. It doesn't work that way.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[jandersen]

First, thank you for your well reasoned response - there are too few people on /. who even try.

But the most likely scenario is that if we double the lifespan of humans, we'll be spending a lot of time at the elderly end of our life phase.

I think you are too pessimistic. If we compare with some of the few large animals that live longer than us, I think what we see is that they have a longer "middle-age", so they live as healthy adults for a long time. In nature you don't survive long if you are frail and decrepit. And I agree with your sentiment - I don't think anybody would want to endure many decades of doddering senility, but from what I read, there is a lot of research into things like organ replacement (by growing new organs from a person's own stemcells), and they are making progress across the board - things like cartilage to repair worn out joints, new hearts, kidneys, livers, panreases etc - even lung tissue. It is early days still, but the challenges seem to be surmountable, so I am optimistic. The bigger challenge is probably going to be to master our health on a more holistic level, eg. understanding the details in how our immune system work and is regulated, and how we can fine tune it and stop it from occasionally attacking legitimate body cells.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Opportunist]

By the time this can be applied to the general population, I am hopefully dead. I don't want to see that epic fight when 20 billion people battle over resources that would be enough to carry maybe 5.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Opportunist]

Operation A: A 20 year old with a life threatening disease that can be cured in 6 months that lets him be productive another 40 years.

Operation B: A 80 year old with a life threatening disease that can be cured in 6 months that lets him be ... alive (ok, more or less) another 10 years.

You might be able to see the difference here?

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Opportunist]

If that means that we improve from today's "Live to 60, ail to 80 when you finally die" to "live to 80 and die", sign me up.

If it just means "live to 65, ail to 100 when you beg for a mercy killing", please don't do that to me. What have I done to you to deserve this?

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Opportunist]

Birth rates of rich people would grind to a halt, why would I want to raise a heir if I don't plan to die and have to hand my fortune down to someone? I wouldn't raise a heir, I would raise a potential rival, not to mention someone who has a reason to kill me.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Opportunist]

I think part of it is our distance to death. People don't die at home anymore. They die in the hospital, or in a retirement home. Or alone. They don't die at home, in the circle of friends and family as it used to be. It may sound odd and creepy, but it isn't. People die. That's part of life. We try to pretend it isn't, but face it: The only thing certain in your life is that you will die.

Everything else is optional.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Ol Olsoc]

First, thank you for your well reasoned response - there are too few people on /. who even try.

The scary part is they might be trying! But you're welcome

I but from what I read, there is a lot of research into things like organ replacement (by growing new organs from a person's own stemcells)

The business of reducing an organ to it's connective tissue "scaffolding" and regrowing healthy organ tissue on it is pretty compelling. http://www.popsci.com/scientis... This is nothing short of amazing. Imagine if they could take a heart attack victim and using their own cells, grow a new heart. The same with other organs.

The interesting thing is that if it becomes easy and or quick, the process might be expanded to very early stage heart or other organ issues.

My fear of a very healthy person becoming demented still makes me cautious. I'll note that Alzheimer's will eventually deteriorate the brain enough to cause organ failure. But even then the heart of a ten year old in the body of an Alzheimer's patient will probably last a lot longer than their old worn out heart.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[micahraleigh]

Just like the news. Thinly veiled opinions getting pushed in my face all the time. Why are you making the effort to post rhetorical questions if you can't own it? It's like being secretly married to someone. Better off getting married or being a common philanderer.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

I own the question, not the answers, because I'm some dude on /., not a PhD candidate writing a thesis.

Does it help with eye sight also?

[Nyder]

I don't mind getting older, but what I don't like is my eyesight is going to shit.

But it doesn't matter, because by the time this stuff hits the market, I'll either be dead or too poor to afford it anyways.

Re:Does it help with eye sight also?

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Well, I do mind getting older, because it's not just the eyesight. It's everything. Our twenties is our peak, and to deny this is insanity.

Re:Does it help with eye sight also?

[angel'o'sphere]

If your twenties were your peak you live a very unhealthy life.
The peak is somewhere between 35 and 50, not 20. Perhaps a 25 year old sprinter can sprint faster than a 35 year old, but a 35 year old marathon runner runs faster than a 25 year old. And don't let me get into martial arts or sex or other things that take time to develop, e.g. music and other arts.
I'm 50 and don't feel any different then when I was 16.

Re: Does it help with eye sight also?

[F.Ultra]

Varies due to different aspects. I.e explosive strength peaks quite fast in your life while maximum strength and endurance peaks far later. This is why sprinters chang to longer distances when they get older and why i.e power lifters peak later than weight lifters.

Re:Does it help with eye sight also?

[Opportunist]

Neither do I.

But then again, I was already in really bad shape when I was 16...

Great and all but

[n329619]

It is still a risky implant.

One error implant, it could become something pressing on the brain like a tumor, killing the host. On the other hand, it could potentially recover neurons from paralyzed victims and improve elder brain function.

They better conduct more research before doing it on humans. Also they should have life/death agreement for the volunteers as it is still very risky.

Re:Great and all but

[interkin3tic]

They better conduct more research before doing it on humans.

Using... what? They just did mice. Primate studies for medicine are being ended, and chimps live about 60 years, so that would be way too long to study aging in them. Organisms lower than mice are useless for studies of high brain function.

They're hoping to start clinical trials. The early phases start out small and cautious and build up in terms of risk. Phase zero will test "doses" too small to do anything helpful in 10 people. I don't know what that would be with a biologic like stem cells, maybe just a few cells which would be labeled for proliferation in some way. Phase one will test slightly more to find the minimum "dose" that could help. Phase three is testing more.

Injecting an undiffferentiated cell that can turn into cancer is a well known hazard these researchers all are aware of. The gold standard test for pluripotent stem cells is their ability to make tumors when you inject them into mice. They've had decades to come up with solutions to those problems. That the researchers want to proceed with clinical trials suggests they've found a way to deal with that problem. Or they're crazy or want to lose a ton of money I guess.

Anyway, there is always risk involved in developing new medicine. You can't ever completely prove some treatment is safe in humans doing only tests in mice and cells in a dish. You eventually need to try it in humans, it might kill them, but that's why you do mouse studies first and then test it in a small number of willing humans.

Re:Great and all but

[null etc.]

They better conduct more research before doing it on humans.

Hey, that's a good idea. You should run the FDA.

abortion market

[Joe_Dragon]

abortion market can pay out
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/...

Re:abortion market

[Opportunist]

Where's the big deal about this, I ask you. What the fuck is the problem?

Hopefully it won't require an implant

[wisebabo]

Yeah, while I'd willingly try a (deep!) neural implant of (somebody else's) stem cells that might require a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs in order to live substantially longer, maybe there's a better simpler cheaper faster way.

In the fine article (I know I know, who reads the articles?), they mention that at least some of the effects are due to miRNAs released by the stem cells. These circulate in the brain fluid and control gene expression throughout the brain. (For those who aren't thoroughly steeped in genetic expression; miRNA stands for micro-interfering RNA, these are short ~20bp sequences of RNA that by precisely complementing a particular DNA sequence them, can "silence" or interfere with them).

So perhaps a simple cranial injection (ouch!) of miRNAs would be all it takes. In fact, if you make the RNA sequences at home (what, you don't have a DNA/RNA synthesizer?) and a hand drill you could do it yourself! (If you don't have a DNA synthesizer yet, hopefully every school will have one within a decade).

Re:Hopefully it won't require an implant

[skids]

I imagine eventually these will be clones of your own stem cells. Also ISTR studies saying stem cells can migrate from the blood stream to brain, so maybe it would evolve into an injection into an artery feeding the brain.

Assuming it works at all, and it isn't some X-files plot to turn us into alien chimeras.

Re:Hopefully it won't require an implant

[Graydyn Young]

X-files plot to turn us into alien chimeras.

Sign me up!

Extending Life?

[tquasar]

Jiminy Cricket? Is that you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Could?

[aglider]

Sounds like non-scientific marketing piece of news!

Immortal by 2025

[wolfheart111]

Immortal within reason. Or just living such a long life that everything just becomes completly fuckiing boring that you want to die... like being trapped in a cage.

Re:Immortal by 2025

[Scarletdown]

Immortal within reason. Or just living such a long life that everything just becomes completly fuckiing boring that you want to die... like being trapped in a cage.

Full blown immortality would be torture. Can you imagine being alive still when and after the universe goes to heat death or the Big Rip? Even the trillions of years before the end of the universe would be hell when you can't die.

Re:Immortal by 2025

[nospam007]

"Full blown immortality would be torture. Can you imagine being alive still when and after the universe goes to heat death or the Big Rip? Even the trillions of years before the end of the universe would be hell when you can't die."

But at least you'd be able to catch up with your netflix series.

Re:Immortal by 2025

[Gavagai80]

Maybe by 3025, but I wouldn't count on it.

Re:Immortal by 2025

[snookiex]

Now you understand why God is so pissed.

Re:Immortal by 2025

[micahraleigh]

Sounds like something a defendant would say to justify murder during trial.

GUILTY !

Mixing unborn babies into bread?

[abies]

Now imagine new edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion crap, this time challenging rich of the world of injecting unborn babies blood into their brains to extend their geriatric rule over the world....

Don't get me wrong, I'm mostly transhumanist myself, but I shudder to think what religious fanatics, right-wing prolifers and other luddites will make out of such developments in their propaganda.

Pension age is already 67 in the UK

[Laxator2]

I was told that it will become 70 by the time I retire. If the life expectancy increases more, the retirement age will increase accordingly.

Increased life expectancy does not necessarily increase the quality of life. It would be better to pay attention to the quality of life for those in their prime, rather than offering them more years of suffering in old age.

Then you will never see it

[pablo_max]

At least not in the US. Nothing can stand in the way of profits. This includes coming up with "cures" for age related illnesses.
Big pharma and medical are salivating already since the boomers are all starting to get age related issues now.
Call me a cynic if you like, but I really believe those who pull the strings will do everything in their power to ensure treatments like this never make it to the plebs.

Re:No thanks.

[jellomizer]

Unfortunately part of the Aging process is the urge to gravitate towards people who are more like you. Where groups of people who you never gave a second thought about, begin to seem like like they are trouble, and should be afraid of.

The Boomers who were part of the biggest changes in Civil Rights are now becoming key in the reinsurance of racism, is partially because their natural instinct to gravitate towards people like them, makes the other groups seems dangerous.
For the most part this is a positive evolutionary trait. After your genes have been spread to diversify your species pass on your good traits with others who have other good traits. You go back to protect and support the group that you belong to, to insure your family will have the resources to continue.

This genetic instinct is creating racism, and other things that is negative to a wider more global society.

Re: counter argument to life extension

[__aaclcg7560]

And a billion more people will be impersonating hi... I mean me.

No one wants to impersonate you, an anonymous 14-year-old wanker.

Re:counter argument to life extension

[__aaclcg7560]

Have some I Love Spam socks with your whine.

Why not skip to the end result?

[oic0]

They say the cells are releasing small bits of RNA that trigger gene switches. Why not just synthesize that instead of shooting cells into our brains and hoping they do what they are supposed to?

Call me thrilled when they can extend it by a 50%

[mark-t]

I don't mean to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but an additional 10 to 15% for human beings is only going to be another 8 to 12 years.... and I just don't see that as particularly revolutionary, because that's not even a single standard deviation more than the average life expectancy already. If you can push it past 2 or 3 standard deviations beyond the norm.... then you've really got something.

Re:Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

[chuckugly]

Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.

Re:Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

[Ol Olsoc]

Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.

Well good for you. Tell me, would you still say that if you were paralyzed and incontinent, demented and fed through a tube? And on a practical level, blowing through your entire estate in a short time, leaving your family broke?

Fuck that, and the obsession to eke out every last second of a no longer valid life.

If I knew I was going to end up that way, I would without hesitation or regret, happily die at this very moment.

Re:Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

[Opportunist]

I've seen two grandmothers, a grandfather and a great-grandmother get old.

No.

I won't.

I've seen the end.

People who want to "get old" usually never see what it really means. In the end, if you're lucky you get dementia so you don't notice the total loss of any semblance of dignity anymore.

Re:Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

[chuckugly]

Enjoy your choice, I hope I get to enjoy mine.

Re:Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

[chuckugly]

Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.

Well good for you. Tell me, would you still say that if you were paralyzed and incontinent, demented and fed through a tube?.

The article is about a technology to prevent precisely that. I doubt, as the baby boomers age ahead of me, it will be the last of the type.

Re:Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

[Ol Olsoc]

Nailed it in one. If I was in my 70s, I'd go for it for sure. I'll extend my life as long as I can.

Well good for you. Tell me, would you still say that if you were paralyzed and incontinent, demented and fed through a tube?.

The article is about a technology to prevent precisely that. I doubt, as the baby boomers age ahead of me, it will be the last of the type.

We have increased the average age at death. However, this involves a lot of drugs, and there is a reason that nursing homes are a booming industry.

Some folks might think this is an adequate quality of life, certainly the drug companies and the geriaric car industry are all gaga about the situation.

I don't trust them personally, and don't see much reason to trust this very similar thing. Certainly we live in a country where if people's personal wealth could be extracted by havine them spend more time in personal care, and more time on maintenance drugs before dying, it would be considered a positive thing by both industries. Having an in-depth exposure to the death industry in recent years, I'll take my chances dying a natural ( or assisted) death rather than being managed by people I do not trust and who have an incentive of me handing over all of my money to them.

Re:Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?

[chuckugly]

Enjoy your choice. I look forward to exercising mine.